Chris Ballard Draft Combine Press Conference (Discussion)

[NewColtsFan]

43 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It’s not a win though to have all 3 go 123 and take Anderson. When your a team without a QB that is a big loss.

If you acknowledge that the 23 Colts are very likely NOT going to be a playoff team then getting the best player in the draft is not a bad consolation prize.   Because even if the Colts get on of the top 3 QBs the 23 Colts still aren’t going to be a winning team this year.   
 

There IS a scenario that could play out that’s much worse than not getting one of the top QBs.   And that is trading up to get him, and he turns out not to be that good.  THAT is a HUGE loss.    

[ad24rouse]

3 hours ago, superrep1967 said:

He's been annoying me for a while now with all his negativity about this team. I know when you have a terrible year the negativity comes out. He doesn't have any basis for the negativity but he keeps bringing it.  I personally think Ballard has had some bad luck with the QB situation in his tenure with Luck retiring unexpectedly. I think with the right coach which I believe we now have and the right QB you'll see dramatic improvement with this team. But right now we got to hear all the negativity until then and it's a long process 

I'm not a JMV apologist, but saying he doesn't have any basis for negativity is completely false. There are a lot of reasons to be negative about the team over the last year-plus (beginning with the last two games of the 21-22 season).

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

27 minutes ago, ad24rouse said:

I'm not a JMV apologist, but saying he doesn't have any basis for negativity is completely false. There are a lot of reasons to be negative about the team over the last year-plus (beginning with the last two games of the 21-22 season).

It’s time for him to move on though. Why does the negativity from last season have to drag on to this new season where there are a lot of exciting things happening.

[ad24rouse]

9 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It’s time for him to move on though. Why does the negativity from last season have to drag on to this new season where there are a lot of exciting things happening.

I don't think he's overly negative to be honest. That's Dakich. JMV is pretty fair in my opinion.

That said, I think the vibe will change once we get closer to the draft.

[Colts1324]

Some of y’all don’t know how to read people lol Ballard basically told us “We are drafting a QB.” 

[superrep1967]

1 hour ago, ad24rouse said:

I'm not a JMV apologist, but saying he doesn't have any basis for negativity is completely false. There are a lot of reasons to be negative about the team over the last year-plus (beginning with the last two games of the 21-22 season).

That’s what people like you are going to do until we get things changed around.  But we’re on the right and that’s positive. 

[Jackie Daytona]

5 hours ago, richard pallo said:

But that will mean at least two quarterbacks will have been drafted lowering the value of the 4th pick.  Bears could still trade the 1st and three quarterbacks are gone.  The 4th becomes less valuable.  For me the biggest potential haul for the Cardinals is to trade back further.

Sure, but it also means missing on the top defensive players trading back further, so maybe it isn't seen as a "haul" at that point 

[Jackie Daytona]

2 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

With the way colts have filled their staff it’s pretty clear it will be a quarterback either at 4 or a move up.

Ok.....so using this logic, what offensive hires would have made it "pretty clear" that they would take a DL in the first round?  Or Any other position..... How does any OC, QB coach, OL coach, or RB coach indicate anything about who will be drafted where?  Would an OC with a great history developing running backs mean we pass on the top QB? Lol  all those hires have a history developing offensive players..... They're offensive coaches, but so would any offe so e coach hired.

[John Hammonds]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

If you acknowledge that the 23 Colts are very likely NOT going to be a playoff team then getting the best player in the draft is not a bad consolation prize.   Because even if the Colts get on of the top 3 QBs the 23 Colts still aren’t going to be a winning team this year.   
 

There IS a scenario that could play out that’s much worse than not getting one of the top QBs.   And that is trading up to get him, and he turns out not to be that good.  THAT is a HUGE loss.    

Preach it, brother.

The worst thing that could happen is that we get in a bidding war for the #1 pick, pay an ungodly price to get it, take a quarterback, and have that guy turn out to be a bust.

 

[Yoshinator]

I honestly don't think Ballard wants to trade up. He values draft capital too much. He'll probably pick at 3 or 4 tbh, depending on if he feels his QB will be there or if the Bears pick at 1. I see us going Stroud, Young, Levis, Richardson in that order as our preference if I had to guess.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Jared Cisneros said:

I honestly don't think Ballard wants to trade up. He values draft capital too much. He'll probably pick at 3 or 4 tbh, depending on if he feels his QB will be there or if the Bears pick at 1. I see us going Stroud, Young, Levis, Richardson in that order as our preference if I had to guess.

I am not sure who the Texans want or who we really want. We should end up with Young or Stroud, if we don't something is wrong. I would be ok with either of those QB's.

[richard pallo]

I have heard Poles say a number of times on tv that he would trade the pick before FA if the trade involved a player to be acquired. That would help them navigate FA better from a player and cap standpoint.  I think if Ballard wants to move up they are going to want Buckner as part of the trade.  The Colts would probably rather have them take Moore but Buckner is the big fish.  Giving up Buckner would probably allow the Colts to keep this year’s second or next year’s first.  It certainly wouldn’t cost them as many picks to move up.  Poles said this morning they will get together right after the combine to make their final decision on what to do with the pick.  So a trade could happen quickly if a team offers a player they would like.  The fact that Poles always mentions the possibility of a player being involved makes me think a trade has a very good chance of happening before FA.  JMO.

[richard pallo]

Never mind 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I have heard Poles say a number of times on tv that he would trade the pick before FA if the trade involved a player to be acquired. That would help them navigate FA better from a player and cap standpoint.  I think if Ballard wants to move up they are going to want Buckner as part of the trade.  The Colts would probably rather have them take Moore but Buckner is the big fish.  Giving up Buckner would probably allow the Colts to keep this year’s second or next year’s first.  It certainly wouldn’t cost them as many picks to move up.  Poles said this morning they will get together right after the combine to make their final decision on what to do with the pick.  So a trade could happen quickly if a team offers a player they would like.  The fact that Poles always mentions the possibility of a player being involved makes me think a trade has a very good chance of happening before FA.  JMO.

This could become even more real if bears wanted carter and are now out on him.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

50 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

This could become even more real if bears wanted carter and are now out on him.

That incident is not a sure red flag yet, I think…

[Nickster]

22 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Wide receivers learning new quarterbacks is not hard.   That is not a consideration if they draft AR and decide to sit him for a year, or most if a year, to learn.   The receivers will be fine.   Honestly.   
 

A quarterback us like a fine wine….  You do not want to rush them before they’re ready.    Honestly. 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this bolded statement, but there are many more teams that put QBs in the right away than used to be.   I was 12 when Marino burst on the NFL scene by having an excellent rookie season, but he didn't start until week 6 from what I just looked up.  I remember the football guys saying how rare a good Rookie QB was.  From then until Manning in 1998, I don't think there were many if any rookie QBs that started out of the gate.  Since Ryan or so in 08 it has been fairly common for Rooks to start Day 1.

 

You could do a study on this and make pretty valid deductions by simply looking at the success rates of all QBs when they began starting.  You'd have to figure out a way to account for different eras in what determines a successful QB.  But then you could sorto of norm the success rate among Day Oners and Day one whatever Plussers and then I think there would be pretty good evidence to see if the traditional fine wine thing is accurate.  It wouldn't be a double blind trial, but I think you could reasonably look at the trend there.

 

There is another school of thought on QBs that they fail because they ain't good enough and succeed because they are good enough regardless of when they start.  I don't know the accuracy of this line of thinking either.  I'll call this the steak off the hanging beef cow theory.  Just butcher yourself up a steak off the bleeding corpse, throw it on the grill and eat it theory.  Fresh baby. 

 

You could never directly prove whether your fine wine theory or the hanging beef theory is accurate because you can't gauge what didn't happen.  You can't prove a QB would have been good if he'd have been held back for a while and you can't prove that a guy that started right away benefited from this because you can't prove what didn't happen as in what he would have done had he started later. 

 

 

I'd like to see a study done like that.  Was there a higher "success rate of QBs" in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s than the late 2000s, 10s and 20s?  If so that lends credence to the Fine Wine Theory, if not then it is probably an unfounded idea.

[Nickster]

19 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah. Josh Allen, Jordan Love all had less than stellar last year at college, so we have plenty of examples of QBs not docked for a bad last year while being drafted in Round 1.

 

The most I see Ballard moving up right now is to No. 3, personally.

Marino is a classic example.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Thinking back on Ballards presser yesterday something jumps out. Might not  mean nothing and i am reaching. He said we will get the best player in the draft. Then was asked why he said that. He said we are at 4 and I like where we are.  Reading between the lines that could be hinting at trading to one.

[philba101]

19 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It’s not a win though to have all 3 go 123 and take Anderson. When your a team without a QB that is a big loss.

Yes, and since the draft is in late April most FA QB's (like Garoppolo) will already be snatched up by teams in need of a QB. Coming away from this draft without a QB would be a disaster IMO.

[Moosejawcolt]

On 3/1/2023 at 2:19 PM, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Ballard stresses accuracy and says quarterbacks come in all shapes on sizes and seeing more athletes at that position. 

I actually feel sorry for Ballard. He has thexnumber 4 pick and I really don't think he cares for any of the media top 4 guys. I think he would love to pick a DE at 4 and slide back into  the 1st round  and grab Hooker lol.

[crazycolt1]

10 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I actually feel sorry for Ballard. He has thexnumber 4 pick and I really don't think he cares for any of the media top 4 guys. I think he would love to pick a DE at 4 and slide back into  the 1st round  and grab Hooker lol.

I could see that scenario.  If Hooker hadn't suffered an injury he would have been considered one of the top couple of QBs in the draft. 

[jimmy g]

On 3/2/2023 at 2:39 PM, Nickster said:

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this bolded statement, but there are many more teams that put QBs in the right away than used to be.   I was 12 when Marino burst on the NFL scene by having an excellent rookie season, but he didn't start until week 6 from what I just looked up.  I remember the football guys saying how rare a good Rookie QB was.  From then until Manning in 1998, I don't think there were many if any rookie QBs that started out of the gate.  Since Ryan or so in 08 it has been fairly common for Rooks to start Day 1.

 

You could do a study on this and make pretty valid deductions by simply looking at the success rates of all QBs when they began starting.  You'd have to figure out a way to account for different eras in what determines a successful QB.  But then you could sorto of norm the success rate among Day Oners and Day one whatever Plussers and then I think there would be pretty good evidence to see if the traditional fine wine thing is accurate.  It wouldn't be a double blind trial, but I think you could reasonably look at the trend there.

 

There is another school of thought on QBs that they fail because they ain't good enough and succeed because they are good enough regardless of when they start.  I don't know the accuracy of this line of thinking either.  I'll call this the steak off the hanging beef cow theory.  Just butcher yourself up a steak off the bleeding corpse, throw it on the grill and eat it theory.  Fresh baby. 

 

You could never directly prove whether your fine wine theory or the hanging beef theory is accurate because you can't gauge what didn't happen.  You can't prove a QB would have been good if he'd have been held back for a while and you can't prove that a guy that started right away benefited from this because you can't prove what didn't happen as in what he would have done had he started later. 

 

 

I'd like to see a study done like that.  Was there a higher "success rate of QBs" in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s than the late 2000s, 10s and 20s?  If so that lends credence to the Fine Wine Theory, if not then it is probably an unfounded idea.

When I was young, NFL QBs normally weren’t expected to be good until they had been on the team for 3-4 yrs.  Unitas was more the exception than the rule…

[NewColtsFan]

On 3/2/2023 at 11:39 AM, Nickster said:

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this bolded statement, but there are many more teams that put QBs in the right away than used to be.   I was 12 when Marino burst on the NFL scene by having an excellent rookie season, but he didn't start until week 6 from what I just looked up.  I remember the football guys saying how rare a good Rookie QB was.  From then until Manning in 1998, I don't think there were many if any rookie QBs that started out of the gate.  Since Ryan or so in 08 it has been fairly common for Rooks to start Day 1.

 

You could do a study on this and make pretty valid deductions by simply looking at the success rates of all QBs when they began starting.  You'd have to figure out a way to account for different eras in what determines a successful QB.  But then you could sorto of norm the success rate among Day Oners and Day one whatever Plussers and then I think there would be pretty good evidence to see if the traditional fine wine thing is accurate.  It wouldn't be a double blind trial, but I think you could reasonably look at the trend there.

 

There is another school of thought on QBs that they fail because they ain't good enough and succeed because they are good enough regardless of when they start.  I don't know the accuracy of this line of thinking either.  I'll call this the steak off the hanging beef cow theory.  Just butcher yourself up a steak off the bleeding corpse, throw it on the grill and eat it theory.  Fresh baby. 

 

You could never directly prove whether your fine wine theory or the hanging beef theory is accurate because you can't gauge what didn't happen.  You can't prove a QB would have been good if he'd have been held back for a while and you can't prove that a guy that started right away benefited from this because you can't prove what didn't happen as in what he would have done had he started later. 

 

 

I'd like to see a study done like that.  Was there a higher "success rate of QBs" in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s than the late 2000s, 10s and 20s?  If so that lends credence to the Fine Wine Theory, if not then it is probably an unfounded idea.

The reason why teams are playing rookie quarterbacks sooner than ever is largely due to the CBA put in place about 12 years ago.   Teams are now almost forced to make a judgement on their QB draft pick after 3-4 years.   That’s the window for deciding on picking up the 5th year option.   
Teams have almost choice about making a decision on a young player who is not ready, but might be ready if teams could  be a little more patient.   
 

In stories I’ve read, teams aren’t happy about this, but this what collective bargaining has brought.   It’s unfortunate, but this is the world everyone is living in. 

[Nickster]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

The reason why teams are playing rookie quarterbacks sooner than ever is largely due to the CBA put in place about 12 years ago.   Teams are now almost forced to make a judgement on their QB draft pick after 3-4 years.   That’s the window for deciding on picking up the 5th year option.   
Teams have almost choice about making a decision on a young player who is not ready, but might be ready if teams could  be a little more patient.   
 

In stories I’ve read, teams aren’t happy about this, but this what collective bargaining has brought.   It’s unfortunate, but this is the world everyone is living in. 

That all could be true but I’m really interested in what the data says as to whether there is an actual link between sitting a QB or not.

 

A lot of conventional wisdom seems to have merit but a good deal of conventional wisdom seems to often turn out to be unfounded.

 

I wonder if there is an actual correlation between delaying playing QBs and higher overall success rates or not.  I personally don’t have a feeling either way, but I am curious as to what the data reveals.

 

Here is a pretty good article that addresses the results of starting or sitting a qb.  It doesn’t compare it to the previous era like I’m suggesting but it does ask questions I think we are pondering.

 

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/9/30/22700483/rookie-quarterback-first-start-development-timeline

The conclusion of this article is that the debate is inconclusive.

 

[Myles]

1 hour ago, Nickster said:

That all could be true but I’m really interested in what the data says as to whether there is an actual link between sitting a QB or not.

 

A lot of conventional wisdom seems to have merit but a good deal of conventional wisdom seems to often turn out to be unfounded.

 

I wonder if there is an actual correlation between delaying playing QBs and higher overall success rates or not.  I personally don’t have a feeling either way, but I am curious as to what the data reveals.

 

Here is a pretty good article that addresses the results of starting or sitting a qb.  It doesn’t compare it to the previous era like I’m suggesting but it does ask questions I think we are pondering.

 

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/9/30/22700483/rookie-quarterback-first-start-development-timeline

The conclusion of this article is that the debate is inconclusive.

 

I don't know that there is a way to tell.   We know they usually have poor rookie seasons.   Rodgers and Brady are good examples of QB's who sat a couple years.  Manning is a good example of a QB who did not, but of course his rookie season was bad. 

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I don't know that there is a way to tell.   We know they usually have poor rookie seasons.   Rodgers and Brady are good examples of QB's who sat a couple years.  Manning is a good example of a QB who did not, but of course his rookie season was bad. 

Yeah anecdotally there are inconclusive results and I don’t know if you read my earlier post but I think if you analyzed general success rates of QBs from say 1980 to 2005 and then from 2005 to now you’d have a pretty good idea if there is a difference in success rate.  And then since almost no QBs started right away in the first set of years you could probably make some reasoned inferences as to whether early starts make a difference either way in general.  You couldn’t ever have a certainty .

 

But here are a couple of factors.  In the earlier era, most college systems were primitive compared to pro systems and to say most is a bit misleading.  It would be closer to the truth to say all or almost all.  Today there are several college systems out there that essentially run pro offenses.  So it was almost impossible for guys to come in to a month long training camp and start running a pro offense.   Plus today you have hudl and all kinds of services to where you can study in great depth.  But this is countered somewhat by the fact that route running and coverages and blocking schemes and stunt/blitz packages are more complex today than they were in the 80s and early 90s. 
 

Another factor is protections for QBs in today’s game.  It was pretty much open season in the earlier era.

 

so I don’t think you could say with certainty.  BUT I DO think you could get an idea just by looking at the overall success rates of drafted qbs from the earlier era and comparing that to this later era when qbs start earlier and make a reasonable deduction.

 

You know anecdotally Rodgers, Brady, and a Mahomes all sat and are HOFers, but you can’t ever say if they would have been worse had they started as rookies because it didn’t happen.  Then you have Manning, Wilson, and Burrow who started Day 1 and you could never say whether they would have been better by sitting. 
 

 

[Stephen]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

I don't know that there is a way to tell.   We know they usually have poor rookie seasons.   Rodgers and Brady are good examples of QB's who sat a couple years.  Manning is a good example of a QB who did not, but of course his rookie season was bad. 

Andrew luck, rg3,ryan tannehill,russel wilson show rookie qbs can have some success if starting.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 hours ago, Myles said:

I don't know that there is a way to tell.   We know they usually have poor rookie seasons.   Rodgers and Brady are good examples of QB's who sat a couple years.  Manning is a good example of a QB who did not, but of course his rookie season was bad. 

Steelers thought it was a good idea to sit picket. It got then no where and once they started Pickett they went 9-8. I don’t think it does any good any good to sit the rookie suck for 5 games then put the rookie in. That’s five games of valuable experience the rookie misses.

[Myles]

30 minutes ago, Nickster said:

Yeah anecdotally there are inconclusive results and I don’t know if you read my earlier post but I think if you analyzed general success rates of QBs from say 1980 to 2005 and then from 2005 to now you’d have a pretty good idea if there is a difference in success rate.  And then since almost no QBs started right away in the first set of years you could probably make some reasoned inferences as to whether early starts make a difference either way in general.  You couldn’t ever have a certainty .

 

But here are a couple of factors.  In the earlier era, most college systems were primitive compared to pro systems and to say most is a bit misleading.  It would be closer to the truth to say all or almost all.  Today there are several college systems out there that essentially run pro offenses.  So it was almost impossible for guys to come in to a month long training camp and start running a pro offense.   Plus today you have hudl and all kinds of services to where you can study in great depth.  But this is countered somewhat by the fact that route running and coverages and blocking schemes and stunt/blitz packages are more complex today than they were in the 80s and early 90s. 
 

Another factor is protections for QBs in today’s game.  It was pretty much open season in the earlier era.

 

so I don’t think you could say with certainty.  BUT I DO think you could get an idea just by looking at the overall success rates of drafted qbs from the earlier era and comparing that to this later era when qbs start earlier and make a reasonable deduction.

 

You know anecdotally Rodgers, Brady, and a Mahomes all sat and are HOFers, but you can’t ever say if they would have been worse had they started as rookies because it didn’t happen.  Then you have Manning, Wilson, and Burrow who started Day 1 and you could never say whether they would have been better by sitting. 
 

 

There are just too many factors.   Typically it is the better QB's who are put into a starter role their rookie season.  Borrow, Luck, Manning, Herbert ect..   The QB's thought to not be great QB's will typically sit a year.   So the date will be skewed either way.  Love in Green Bay didn't start his rookie season, so depending how his career goes he will either support the "sit your QB his rookie season" or the "start your QB their rookie season".   We have drafted 2 QB's in recent years were not the opening game starter.  

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Steelers thought it was a good idea to sit picket. It got then no where and once they started Pickett they went 9-8. I don’t think it does any good any good to sit the rookie suck for 5 games then put the rookie in. That’s five games of valuable experience the rookie misses.

I don't mind them sitting him if they feel they have a better QB on the roster.   

With the Colts, it is unlikely that there will be a better option on the roster.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

38 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't mind them sitting him if they feel they have a better QB on the roster.   

With the Colts, it is unlikely that there will be a better option on the roster.

Yep. If this was a winning team with a vet you probably sit them a year. As long as the QB is mature just go for it in colts situation. I think all four seem like they can handle it.

[Nickster]

47 minutes ago, Myles said:

There are just too many factors.   Typically it is the better QB's who are put into a starter role their rookie season.  Borrow, Luck, Manning, Herbert ect..   The QB's thought to not be great QB's will typically sit a year.   So the date will be skewed either way.  Love in Green Bay didn't start his rookie season, so depending how his career goes he will either support the "sit your QB his rookie season" or the "start your QB their rookie season".   We have drafted 2 QB's in recent years were not the opening game starter.  

Prescott is a really interesting case.  He started right away as a later pick.  So did Wilson.

 

Like I said i don’t really have a good feel for what generally is the best way to go.

[NewColtsFan]

9 hours ago, Nickster said:

That all could be true but I’m really interested in what the data says as to whether there is an actual link between sitting a QB or not.

 

A lot of conventional wisdom seems to have merit but a good deal of conventional wisdom seems to often turn out to be unfounded.

 

I wonder if there is an actual correlation between delaying playing QBs and higher overall success rates or not.  I personally don’t have a feeling either way, but I am curious as to what the data reveals.

 

Here is a pretty good article that addresses the results of starting or sitting a qb.  It doesn’t compare it to the previous era like I’m suggesting but it does ask questions I think we are pondering.

 

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/9/30/22700483/rookie-quarterback-first-start-development-timeline

The conclusion of this article is that the debate is inconclusive.

 

Thanks for the article.   Interesting read.  
 

Appreciate it.  

[AKB]

Would people be upset with another bridge QB if we also drafted one in the first round? 

[Solid84]

2 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

Would people be upset with another bridge QB if we also drafted one in the first round? 

I think it's required if we draft AR.

[AKB]

Just now, Solid84 said:

I think it's required if we draft AR.

i think the only scenario where i'm alright with a vet QB starting is if we also take a guy in rounds 1-2. 

 

i honestly wouldn't care if we took one of the more developmental guys. 

[TimetobringDfence!]

21 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I actually feel sorry for Ballard. He has thexnumber 4 pick and I really don't think he cares for any of the media top 4 guys. I think he would love to pick a DE at 4 and slide back into  the 1st round  and grab Hooker lol.

I would be good with a OT or DL first then take a QB...

[ShuteAt168]

On 3/2/2023 at 2:30 PM, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Thinking back on Ballards presser yesterday something jumps out. Might not  mean nothing and i am reaching. He said we will get the best player in the draft. Then was asked why he said that. He said we are at 4 and I like where we are.  Reading between the lines that could be hinting at trading to one.

I think it’s just Ballard-speak. “Look, we got the best guy in the draft for the Indianapolis Colts, I assure you of that. You guys know me, I only say it if it’s true — this guy is a horseshoe guy.” 

[jbaron04]

On 3/2/2023 at 7:31 AM, John Hammonds said:

Preach it, brother.

The worst thing that could happen is that we get in a bidding war for the #1 pick, pay an ungodly price to get it, take a quarterback, and have that guy turn out to be a bust.

 

After watching combine and stuff im

comfortable staying at 4 and seeing what the draft gods have in store 

[lester]

14 hours ago, jbaron04 said:

After watching combine and stuff im

comfortable staying at 4 and seeing what the draft gods have in store 

 

This.

 

I want the Colts to have the best QB.

 

But the idea of betting extra draft picks on any one of these QB choices is a foolish, foolish notion. 

 

We are at #4 - and there are 4 QBs that 'would work'. Take any one of them and save our draft capital to improve the team (and/or replace the busted QB if he is a dud).

 

Don't. Spend. Extra. Picks. on. Young. (or Stroud).