What If Minshew is Good Enough…

[Smonroe]

Let’s say (and hope) the Oline returns to form, as well as JT.  Pierce takes the next step and the TEs continue to progress.  None of that is out of the realm of possibilities.  
 

Shane knows what the Stash can and can’t do and runs the offense based on that, with efficiency.

 

Lets say the Colts have a winning record and are in the hunt for the division or a playoff spot.

 

Does our rookie QB sit the entire year?  
 

We kind of know we aren’t ever going far with Mishawaka (I left that autocorrect on purpose).  Do we sacrifice a playoff birth for development of a QB who could take us further in the future?  Or does he ride the bench as long as we’re winning?

 

[Archer]

New QB would have to be better than Mishawaka before he got in there, I guess.

[Peter Nova]

All in favor of a rookie QB sitting the entire year. Mahomes did it and that worked out well. I don't see a scenario either way that the Colts make the playoffs anyways, because the roster simply isn't that good, JMO Stranger things have happened though, so we shall see. 

[Indyfan4life]

59 minutes ago, Peter Nova said:

All in favor of a rookie QB sitting the entire year. Mahomes did it and that worked out well. I don't see a scenario either way that the Colts make the playoffs anyways, because the roster simply isn't that good, JMO Stranger things have happened though, so we shall see. 

We don’t have a starting caliber QB on the roster right now. I can’t imagine sitting our QB in favor of Minshew or Foles, especially if we trade up and land a Young or Stroud. 

[Pelt]

Minshew, I believe, is there to get the vets on the same page, as quickly as possible, with this new system that's been brought in.

 

I think it's important to establish this solid foundation with the whole offensive unit first, before dropping a rookie into that mix.

 

I think starting a rookie immediately, combined with the rest of the offense simultaneously learning a new system, is a recipe for disaster. 

 

If Minshew is winning, then so be it. Keep starting him. If he's struggling, stick with him until you feel the rest of the offense appears to be getting the new scheme and then start putting the rookie out there.

[sb41champs]

Personally - I believe you "ride the hot hand" - but - give the rookie QB as many meaningful game snaps as possible to help in his development.

 

You don't throw a new starter - at as key a position as QB - in to the mix "hoping" that he can perform better than the previous starter.

[jbaron04]

3 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Let’s say (and hope) the Oline returns to form, as well as JT.  Pierce takes the next step and the TEs continue to progress.  None of that is out of the realm of possibilities.  
 

Shane knows what the Stash can and can’t do and runs the offense based on that, with efficiency.

 

Lets say the Colts have a winning record and are in the hunt for the division or a playoff spot.

 

Does our rookie QB sit the entire year?  
 

We kind of know we aren’t ever going far with Mishawaka (I left that autocorrect on purpose).  Do we sacrifice a playoff birth for development of a QB who could take us further in the future?  Or does he ride the bench as long as we’re winning?

 

Did we have a good backup which is needed 

[John Hammonds]

We brought on Minshew because:

• We knew we were going to get rid of Ryan
• We would prefer to get rid of Foles, but can't just yet, because...
• We want to draft a QB at #4, but don't know who is going to fall to that spot, and...
• We already know that Sam is not the answer

That's why we have Minshew.  At best, he's a combination "veteran" and "backup" for whoever we draft this year.  Maybe.

[Smonroe]

2 hours ago, Pelt said:

Minshew, I believe, is there to get the vets on the same page, as quickly as possible, with this new system that's been brought in.

 

I think it's important to establish this solid foundation with the whole offensive unit first, before dropping a rookie into that mix.

 

I think starting a rookie immediately, combined with the rest of the offense simultaneously learning a new system, is a recipe for disaster. 

 

If Minshew is winning, then so be it. Keep starting him. If he's struggling, stick with him until you feel the rest of the offense appears to be getting the new scheme and then start putting the rookie out there.

 

That should be the right answer.   Which means the rookie QB gets Mahomes treatment.

 

My scenario is one that allows an average QB to be somewhat successful (on offense).  The O line has played well in the past.  JT has been a stud when the O line played well.  We don't have proven playmakers at WR, but they should be dependable if not flashy.  And the TEs can potentially be very good.

 

All that, and decent game management from GM may keep us in the hunt.  Which means the rookie doesn't play much.

 

Unless - we get Richardson and there are RPOs that are built for him, which SS would be doing.  Other than that, the rookie is going to have to wow everyone in practice to get real game time experience.

 

It was just a thought exercise prior to the draft.  Some people responding didn't quite get the question, but that's cool.

 

 

[King Colt]

You put your best payers on the field.

[Boondoggle]

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Let’s say (and hope) the Oline returns to form, as well as JT.  Pierce takes the next step and the TEs continue to progress.  None of that is out of the realm of possibilities.  
 

Shane knows what the Stash can and can’t do and runs the offense based on that, with efficiency.

 

Lets say the Colts have a winning record and are in the hunt for the division or a playoff spot.

 

Does our rookie QB sit the entire year?  
 

We kind of know we aren’t ever going far with Mishawaka (I left that autocorrect on purpose).  Do we sacrifice a playoff birth for development of a QB who could take us further in the future?  Or does he ride the bench as long as we’re winning?

 

I think the best option is always to sit the rookie QB for a full year.  For the record.  There are some guys who are more ready than others, and there is something to be said for playing immediately if you can handle it.  But generally if you start a rookie you're gonna lose a lot of games, probably looking at .500 ball or thereabouts as he learns on the job.

 

If the Colts take Richardson then they should definitely sit him the first year.  They could trot him out there and use his run threat to move the chains but that would put unnecessary wear and tear on the QB and maybe shorten what already might be a short career.  If they take Levis he could probably compete with Minshew right out the gate in camp, and if the competition is fair he should lose out to him just based on Minshew's knowledge of the offense alone.  There simply are layers of mastery with this stuff, a lot of things that you're gonna need a little time to master as a new QB when you're facing a challenge from Minshew who has not only been around but also was in this exact scheme last season.

 

So the answer is ideally we have Minshew start most of this season.  Then towards the end of the season hopefully the kid is tearing up your first team defense with the scout team like Mahomes did with KC and you know you're gonna be good.  But I want playoffs if at all possible, and you're probably gonna have your best chance to make the playoffs if Minshew handles the job this year.

[JColts72]

He's average Joe; not your franchise QB. Will be another wasted season.

[GoColts8818]

Minshew is a backup QB/mentor or bridge to a rookie QB.  The Colts know that that’s why his contract is what it is.  He knows it too.  Hoping he will be more is wishful thinking.  

[colts89]

I'd very much would be happy if the rookie sits his first year while the team has decent success. 

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

That should be the right answer.   Which means the rookie QB gets Mahomes treatment.

 

My scenario is one that allows an average QB to be somewhat successful (on offense).  The O line has played well in the past.  JT has been a stud when the O line played well.  We don't have proven playmakers at WR, but they should be dependable if not flashy.  And the TEs can potentially be very good.

 

All that, and decent game management from GM may keep us in the hunt.  Which means the rookie doesn't play much.

 

Unless - we get Richardson and there are RPOs that are built for him, which SS would be doing.  Other than that, the rookie is going to have to wow everyone in practice to get real game time experience.

 

It was just a thought exercise prior to the draft.  Some people responding didn't quite get the question, but that's cool.

 

 

Mahomes got most of his rookie year on the bench, in part, because KC was still a playoff caliber team and they had Alex Smith who was still playing at a high level.  When KC traded Smith I think they got a 2 and a 3. 
 

If the Colts don’t play their rookie QB because Gardner Minshew is playing well and might get the Colts 7-9 wins, then I believe the Colts will have badly mismanaged the 23 season. 
 

There is NOTHING more important than prepping the rookie for 24, even if it means the kid plays only 4-6 games.  Maybe more.  But the rookie has to play some.   He can’t hit 24 cold with zero prep, especially for Gardner Minshew.   
 

FWIW:   Ballard went out of his way to pour a bucket of cold water on the Minshew fan club yesterday.   Apparently that was badly missed by some here.   Minshew is NOT the future.   The rookie is. 

[Patrick Miller]

I hope Minshew gets a legit chance.

[Smonroe]

9 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Mahomes got most of his rookie year on the bench, in part, because KC was still a playoff caliber team and they had Alex Smith who was still playing at a high level.  When KC traded Smith I think they got a 2 and a 3. 
 

If the Colts don’t play their rookie QB because Gardner Minshew is playing well and might get the Colts 7-9 wins, then I believe the Colts will have badly mismanaged the 23 season. 
 

There is NOTHING more important than prepping the rookie for 24, even if it means the kid plays only 4-6 games.  Maybe more.  But the rookie has to play some.   He can’t hit 24 cold with zero prep, especially for Gardner Minshew.   
 

FWIW:   Ballard went out of his way to pour a bucket of cold water on the Minshew fan club yesterday.   Apparently that was badly missed by some here.   Minshew is NOT the future.   The rookie is. 

 

I'm glad you read the scenario and responded.  A few people just read the title and told me what they thought about Minshew, lol!

 

So, you're saying that if the Colts are winning with Minshew playing QB AND in the hunt for a playoff spot, you think they should still play the rookie?  I would agree if it's wrap up time, or for a few plays that are made for his skill set.  But I don't think you give up on a season to give your rookie experience.

 

It's a good discussion, and we'll know the answer soon enough.  The best scenario is if the coaches see enough in the rookie to start him game one.  

 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

I'm glad you read the scenario and responded.  A few people just read the title and told me what they thought about Minshew, lol!

 

So, you're saying that if the Colts are winning with Minshew playing QB AND in the hunt for a playoff spot, you think they should still play the rookie?  I would agree if it's wrap up time, or for a few plays that are made for his skill set.  But I don't think you give up on a season to give your rookie experience.

 

It's a good discussion, and we'll know the answer soon enough.  The best scenario is if the coaches see enough in the rookie to start him game one.  

 

I think the season is completely meaningless if the Colts take their eyes off the prize.    And the prize is to prep the rookie QB in 2023 to be ready for a full season of starting in 2024.    
 

So, if the Colts managed to draft Young, I’d start him 12-13 games.    
 

If it’s Stroud or Levi’s, I’d start them 10-11 games.   
 

If it’s AR, I’d start him 4-8 games.  
 

Theres is nothing as important as getting the rookie ready for the future.   All the other “what ifs…” don’t mean anything to me.   

[Smonroe]

5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think the season is completely meaningless if the Colts take their eyes off the prize.    And the prize is to prep the rookie QB in 2023 to be ready for a full season of starting in 2024.    
 

So, if the Colts managed to draft Young, I’d start him 12-13 games.    
 

If it’s Stroud or Levi’s, I’d start them 10-11 games.   
 

If it’s AR, I’d start him 4-8 games.  
 

Theres is nothing as important as getting the rookie ready for the future.   All the other “what ifs…” don’t mean anything to me.   

 

I get what you're saying.  But I doubt the vets on the team feel that way if they know they could be in the hunt with the vet.  I do agree that Young or Stroud could start right away.  In this exercise, I'm assuming they're gone and we have a guy who's not ready.

 

I posed the question because it's not easy to answer.  I'd love to have a successful season but I also want our rookie to succeed and be the answer.  Obviously, a successful season with the rookie is the ultimate, but is it realistic?  

 

It's sort of like the last game of the season last year (and a few others we lost).  I wanted to win that game while watching it.  But losing meant so much more for our future.  That kinds of sums up how you feel.  Again - it wouldn't be a popular sentiment with the vets.

[Indyfan4life]

If we somehow end up with Stroud or Young, and Minshew starts, I think there will be A LOT of * off people. 

[Dunk]

Minshew has not been brought in here to be  the starter for rest of his career, but wouldn't it be cool if he turned out to be the answer? I really don't think he is, but hey, I can dream.

[Jackie Daytona]

On 4/22/2023 at 3:53 PM, Boondoggle said:

 

If the Colts take Richard Minshew who has not only been around but also was in this exact scheme last season.

 

While I get your point, and Gardner will be more familiar with terminology, concepts and coaching habits and wants of Steichen..... (Cant call him SS right after Reich).... it also is ft as if Steichen has an offense he runs everywhere he is OC.... Regardless of personnel.  

[Chucklez]

I mean, it's pretty obvious no?

 

The question is "if he is good enough?", well then he is good enough and you ride with him. Why take someone who is good enough out of the line up? The only real question is what are you defining as "good enough"?

 

It taking us 9-8 good enough? Is making the playoffs as a wild card good enough, or are we talking showing out as a franchise QB level for good enough?

 

Based on the previous, if we are saying "good enough" is just the level of "good enough" to win some games, but not exactly transcendant and could be upgraded, then it becomes a question of is the young QB we have presumably just drafted going to be better, or will he develop into something better given time and more playing experience? If it is the latter, then you suck up the pain now and play the young QB to get him in an develop him for the future.

 

But if we are defining "good enough" as "good enough to win a superbowl".... then you ride with Minshew.

 

As the OP stated though, this is IF he is "good enough", no one here is saying that he IS good enough, its a "what if".

[Smonroe]

7 hours ago, Chucklez said:

I mean, it's pretty obvious no?

 

The question is "if he is good enough?", well then he is good enough and you ride with him. Why take someone who is good enough out of the line up? The only real question is what are you defining as "good enough"?

 

It taking us 9-8 good enough? Is making the playoffs as a wild card good enough, or are we talking showing out as a franchise QB level for good enough?

 

Based on the previous, if we are saying "good enough" is just the level of "good enough" to win some games, but not exactly transcendant and could be upgraded, then it becomes a question of is the young QB we have presumably just drafted going to be better, or will he develop into something better given time and more playing experience? If it is the latter, then you suck up the pain now and play the young QB to get him in an develop him for the future.

 

But if we are defining "good enough" as "good enough to win a superbowl".... then you ride with Minshew.

 

As the OP stated though, this is IF he is "good enough", no one here is saying that he IS good enough, its a "what if".

 

You get it.  My "Good Enough" meant, as I described earlier, that we're winning enough games with GM to be in the hunt for a playoff spot.  Maybe he's playing field marshal, and not wowing anyone, but doing enough that he's not causing us to lose games. 

 

People can debate if that's possible, but that's my scenario.

 

So, that being the case, I think you have to stick with him.  Unless, of course, the rookie beats him out before the season starts.  

[Myles]

On 4/22/2023 at 10:43 AM, Smonroe said:

Let’s say (and hope) the Oline returns to form, as well as JT.  Pierce takes the next step and the TEs continue to progress.  None of that is out of the realm of possibilities.  
 

Shane knows what the Stash can and can’t do and runs the offense based on that, with efficiency.

 

Lets say the Colts have a winning record and are in the hunt for the division or a playoff spot.

 

Does our rookie QB sit the entire year?  
 

We kind of know we aren’t ever going far with Mishawaka (I left that autocorrect on purpose).  Do we sacrifice a playoff birth for development of a QB who could take us further in the future?  Or does he ride the bench as long as we’re winning?

 

If we are winning, Minshew will keep the starting job.  Teams want to at least make the playoffs.  If they are 7-5, they will not be having a high draft pick anyway so they should go for it.

[Boondoggle]

12 hours ago, Jackie Daytona said:

While I get your point, and Gardner will be more familiar with terminology, concepts and coaching habits and wants of Steichen..... (Cant call him SS right after Reich).... it also is ft as if Steichen has an offense he runs everywhere he is OC.... Regardless of personnel.  

Coaches coach what they know.  Steichen isn't going to reinvent himself or his version of the WCO in his first year as HC.  He's gonna install the exact playbook he had at Philly.  Where you get into shaping it to the personnel is the gameplanning phase as you near game one.  At that point whoever is starting at QB you try to accommodate him by removing the reads he struggles with.

 

I will say that I really like the Steichen hire.  Much more than I figured I would when it was made.  As I watch him go about his business I am thinking he has a shot to be a really good HC, Colts just need to support him and forgive him as he learns some hard lessons early on.  There will be some of that and it may occur in relation to his QB decision making.

[Chucklez]

17 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

You get it.  My "Good Enough" meant, as I described earlier, that we're winning enough games with GM to be in the hunt for a playoff spot.  Maybe he's playing field marshal, and not wowing anyone, but doing enough that he's not causing us to lose games. 

 

People can debate if that's possible, but that's my scenario.

 

So, that being the case, I think you have to stick with him.  Unless, of course, the rookie beats him out before the season starts.  

 

17 hours ago, Myles said:

If we are winning, Minshew will keep the starting job.  Teams want to at least make the playoffs.  If they are 7-5, they will not be having a high draft pick anyway so they should go for it.

 

While I get what you are saying, sometimes just "winning enough to be chasing a playoff spot" isnt enough though, especially when you are looking at the potential future success of the team vs. an average year now and "maybe" making the playoffs, or "maybe" making it to the Divisional round.

Look at what the 9ers did way back when they benched Alex Smith for Kaepernick, they got better and they were doing well enough already with Alex Smith playing. I believe they were 7 - 2 or something like that when they made the switch, and got better. 

I think it's something you have to weigh up obviously with how the rookie looks in practice and if you think they could have a more posititve impact than the incumbent starter who is doing "good enough" to be in the hunt for a playoff spot. If it is a calculated risk that your team could get better, why not try it? Even if you fall just short of the playoffs after being in the hunt that year, you tried giving the rookie with more upside a shot and if they didnt totally flame out, they got valuable experience ahead of the next season when they would most likely be the starter anyways and can start the next season with some experience already.

Just depends really on how ready they think the rookie is, bt if they think they can have a better impact than someone who is doing "good enough", then i say risk it and go for it personally.

[Myles]

5 hours ago, Chucklez said:

 

 

While I get what you are saying, sometimes just "winning enough to be chasing a playoff spot" isnt enough though, especially when you are looking at the potential future success of the team vs. an average year now and "maybe" making the playoffs, or "maybe" making it to the Divisional round.

Look at what the 9ers did way back when they benched Alex Smith for Kaepernick, they got better and they were doing well enough already with Alex Smith playing. I believe they were 7 - 2 or something like that when they made the switch, and got better. 

I think it's something you have to weigh up obviously with how the rookie looks in practice and if you think they could have a more posititve impact than the incumbent starter who is doing "good enough" to be in the hunt for a playoff spot. If it is a calculated risk that your team could get better, why not try it? Even if you fall just short of the playoffs after being in the hunt that year, you tried giving the rookie with more upside a shot and if they didnt totally flame out, they got valuable experience ahead of the next season when they would most likely be the starter anyways and can start the next season with some experience already.

Just depends really on how ready they think the rookie is, bt if they think they can have a better impact than someone who is doing "good enough", then i say risk it and go for it personally.

I understand your thoughts as we;;.   It is just that making the playoffs is too important for the coach, GM and owner.  You ride what is working.