Colts select QB Anthony Richardson Florida (merge)

[krunk]

In my humble opinion I think if you weigh both sides you shouldn't come away feeling like he will struggle immensely to get better. I don't feel that worried that he'll have a good transition.  

[Stephen]

3 hours ago, shasta519 said:

I think that’s a wild take. Newton and Lamar were Heisman winners. Fields was completing 70% of his passes. AR is not way beyond where those guys were at that point. 

I think they mean as far as pocket prescence goes

[Superman]

16 hours ago, Nickster said:

but was the draft pick and the six years worth it?  I think so really.  SB appearances are rare.  

 

Worth it? In hindsight, sure. But going in, I would say I'd expect more. They hit a peak, which is good, but I don't think they maximized a special talent. Part of that might be the player not developing, but I think strategically they failed in some ways. And still got an MVP season and SB appearance, so it's not a failure overall, but still disappointing to an extent.

 

Right now, I'm hoping for more than six seasons and a short peak from Richardson. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, stitches said:

Agree with a lot of the rest of the post, disagree with this one. How much further along in his development as a passer was Michael Vick? In 2 years he completed about as many passes as Richardson did in his single year starting and his completion % in the second year was almost identical to Richardson's. And he's much smaller of course. I think this type of athletes are always sought after. The disconnect comes from people thinking those types of athletes come along every few years, when in reality it's more like once every decade(Vick, Cam, Richardson) and when they do, they get drafted high for their potential. 

 

That's fair, I probably overstated it. But Vick played college football in an era where teams were not structuring their offense around non traditional QBs, which undermined his production. Richardson played at a time when he fits perfectly what programs want to do with their offense, and his production was undermined primarily by his own lack of refinement as a passer. 

 

But you're probably right, elite athletes like this probably transcend typical evaluations, even when they have serious question marks.

[Nickster]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Worth it? In hindsight, sure. But going in, I would say I'd expect more. They hit a peak, which is good, but I don't think they maximized a special talent. Part of that might be the player not developing, but I think strategically they failed in some ways. And still got an MVP season and SB appearance, so it's not a failure overall, but still disappointing to an extent.

 

Right now, I'm hoping for more than six seasons and a short peak from Richardson. 

 

Supe I'm not discussing what I would want or what I have wanted in the past.   I mean right now I'd take Mahomes, Burrow, Herbert, and then Hurts I guess.  I don't love that running QB at all.  Kinda like Snoop Dog and garden tools.  Jackson would be way down on my list.  I don't believe in that LJ kinda thing.

What I am saying is that I don't think teams are looking at the 10 year window necessarily.  I think QB might, not will now but might, start to become a position that teams are willing to turn over if the running thing continues to progress.  It might be judged to be prudent to use up guys at QB like is don't at other positions. and then get a new guy.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

Supe I'm not discussing what I would want or what I have wanted in the past.   I mean right now I'd take Mahomes, Burrow, Herbert, and then Hurts I guess.  I don't love that running QB at all.  Kinda like Snoop Dog and garden tools.  Jackson would be way down on my list.  I don't believe in that LJ kinda thing.

What I am saying is that I don't think teams are looking at the 10 year window necessarily.  I think QB might, not will now but might, start to become a position that teams are willing to turn over if the running thing continues to progress.  It might be judged to be prudent to use up guys at QB like is don't at other positions. and then get a new guy.

 

Understood. Do you think a team that has a good QB would typically want to move on from him after 6-8 years for any reason other than health?

[Nickster]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Understood. Do you think a team that has a good QB would typically want to move on from him after 6-8 years for any reason other than health?

No.  Of course not.  You'd want the keep him for 16 or 18.  But I think many teams would take a high level of production for 6-8 knowing that the guy would be likely to break down at the end of it.   The number one pick in the draft is a tiny little guy by NFL standards who weighs 206 with a couple gallons of water in him.  

 

Attitudes are shifting about the QB position is the bulk of the point I'm making.

I think the Jackson contract is borderline insanity, and I'd be absolutely shocked if that works out for BALT very well. 

[throwing BBZ]

47 minutes ago, krunk said:

Peyton Manning said AR needs reps

Phil Simms said AR needs reps

Chris Simms said AR needs reps

Dan Orlovsky said AR needs reps

Kurt Warner said alot of it is he needs more reps

 

Kurt Warner on Richardson weaknesses

 

Peyton and Eli both agree that Anthony Richardson could use some more reps but that just means that what Anthony Richardson is now is not the final product. He has some room to work and the Colts staff will do a great job at developing that in the coming season and years.

Did Peyton really refer to Richardson that he is like Josh Allen? Yes he did because of the playmaking ability that Richardson brings to the field. He can be a physical runner. Peyton says, “He’s like a tight end under center. Imagine Rob Gronkowski lining up under center.”

To close Peyton said Richardson had arm strength, but not arm talent just yet.

https://1075thefan.com/91216/peyton-eli-manning-review-tape-on-new-colts-qb-anthony-richardson/

 

 

This is what these former quarterbacks all said consistently when it came to what will address his issues the most.   The Colts by stressing that he needs to play seem to be of a similar mind set.  Orlovsky went so far as to say he didn't really feel that AR wasn't accurate more so than his issues being a lack of experience and that his WR dropped the ball a ton.   But the stat crunching committee seems to always be more skeptical than the people who played the game.   I don't want to completely dismiss stats but I do think there is an analysis paralysis that gets created and people value those findings more so than the words of the people who spent years playing the position.  

 

I think it's better to take it all into account to have a balanced view point. 

 

 Don't mean to scare you but after reading some of these lengthy diatribes 

the words "analysis paralysis" had come to mind. Well said.

 The biggest mountain to climb off the bat will be greatly improving the blocking from ALL positions. Excellent execution will unleash everything.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

Peyton Manning said AR needs reps

Phil Simms said AR needs reps

Chris Simms said AR needs reps

Dan Orlovsky said AR needs reps

Kurt Warner said alot of it is he needs more reps

 

Kurt Warner on Richardson weaknesses

 

Peyton and Eli both agree that Anthony Richardson could use some more reps but that just means that what Anthony Richardson is now is not the final product. He has some room to work and the Colts staff will do a great job at developing that in the coming season and years.

Did Peyton really refer to Richardson that he is like Josh Allen? Yes he did because of the playmaking ability that Richardson brings to the field. He can be a physical runner. Peyton says, “He’s like a tight end under center. Imagine Rob Gronkowski lining up under center.”

To close Peyton said Richardson had arm strength, but not arm talent just yet.

https://1075thefan.com/91216/peyton-eli-manning-review-tape-on-new-colts-qb-anthony-richardson/

 

 

This is what these former quarterbacks all said consistently when it came to what will address his issues the most.   The Colts by stressing that he needs to play seem to be of a similar mind set.  Orlovsky went so far as to say he didn't really feel that AR wasn't accurate more so than his issues being a lack of experience and that his WR dropped the ball a ton.   But the stat crunching committee seems to always be more skeptical than the people who played the game.   I don't want to completely dismiss stats but I do think there is an analysis paralysis that gets created and people value those findings more so than the words of the people who spent years playing the position.  

 

I think it's better to take it all into account to have a balanced view point. 

 

How often do we see former NFL players blast other football players or say they aren't fixable or that they don't have upside? I don't think that happens very often.

 

To the bolded...I think the reason for the skepticism is that numbers don't usually lie. They aren't a guarantee either...but they do serve as a type of historical pre-req. 

 

Not saying that those who played the game are lying or that there can't be outliers for metrics, but the people who played the game are going to be wrong a lot. I think you could find plenty of examples of bad takes.

 

Like Dan O. and Wentz. He was a huge fan and continued to defend him for much longer than any rational person should have.

 

There were plenty of people saying Matt Ryan still had it before last season as well, including those who played the game. 

 

In just those two recent cases, the stats backed up that those were risky and likely bad moves. And they were right. But at the time, plenty of people were downplaying the red flags.

 

AR isn't Wentz or Ryan, but the same thing is happening here as well. I agree that one should have a balanced viewpoint, but I think the unbalanced side is actually NOT the metrics in this case. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

A few differences:

• Allen was at Wyoming though. Despite AR's WR talent being less than it is for others, he was still playing with 4-star and 5-star recruits. And Pearsall made a lot of tough catches.
• Allen put more NFL throws on tape...especially off-platform. But that's JMO as they both clearly have huge arms.
• Allen's issues were more on deep passes and behind LOS, which were, in theory, easier to fix with mechanic tweaks (behind LOS) or improve with NFL talent (deep passing).
• AR's overall short-area improvement is beyond Allen

Allen is just such a lofty comparison at this point. But it does show that a QB can dramatically improve at the NFL level.

Good post.   But I’d add that it took Allen three years to be what he is today.   
 

**His first year, Allen was at 52 percent.  

**His second year was a nice jump to 59 percent.  But still under 60.  

 

**But It wasn’t until his third year where Allen enjoyed a huge leap to 68 percent.  A leap so big it had never been done before in the history of the NFL by any 3rd year QB.   Not once.   So Josh Allen is in a class all by himself. 

 

I wonder if this fan base will give AR three years?   I hope so.  There are fans here who may not give him three games. 

[krunk]

11 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

How often do we see former NFL players blast other football players or say they aren't fixable or that they don't have upside? I don't think that happens very often.

 

To the bolded...I think the reason for the skepticism is that numbers don't usually lie. They aren't a guarantee either...but they do serve as a type of historical pre-req. 

 

Not saying that those who played the game are lying or that there can't be outliers for metrics, but the people who played the game are going to be wrong a lot. I think you could find plenty of examples of bad takes.

 

Like Dan O. and Wentz. He was a huge fan and continued to defend him for much longer than any rational person should have.

 

There were plenty of people saying Matt Ryan still had it before last season as well, including those who played the game. 

 

In just those two recent cases, the stats backed up that those were risky and likely bad moves. And they were right. But at the time, plenty of people were downplaying the red flags.

 

AR isn't Wentz or Ryan, but the same thing is happening here as well. I agree that one should have a balanced viewpoint, but I think the unbalanced side is actually NOT the metrics in this case. 

I got you but I don't think you have 5 former quarterbacks look at film and give a similar take directly after watching.  I don't think there's that much room for trying to keep the NFL brother hood code if you know what I mean.

 

The stats have to be interpreted by people who don't all have similar or in some cases unbiased readings of the data.  One guy may say the numbers are caused by this or that, and the other guy may say a different thing about the cause.  Which is why i've said you have to take both things into account.  It's pretty clear that's what the Colts did.   If they thought the stats outweighed the advice they were given then maybe we take a different player at 4 I do believe. 

[shasta519]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Understood. Do you think a team that has a good QB would typically want to move on from him after 6-8 years for any reason other than health?

 

Not to jump in, but I think they eventually might. At least those that have a good QB, but not a bonafide top 5 guy. The cost of QBs is getting higher and higher. And planning around that cost for 6-8 years is different than 10-15 years. Not to mention does a team really want to hitch a decade+ to just a good QB?

 

Then you add in the running aspect as well. And I can start to see a path where teams look to maximize that type of QB while they can, instead of paying for the back end of his career (regardless of health).

 

But it's not just the teams, it's also the players driving that shift in mentality. Look at how many have switched teams in recent years. That was once unheard of...now it's normal for there to be offseason talk about some QB (sometimes multiple QBs) being traded. That doesn't mean the teams wants to move on, but with QBs switching teams, it certainly opens up a level of consideration that might not have been there, especially if there is another team willing to heavily compensate that team.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, Nickster said:

No.  Of course not.  You'd want the keep him for 16 or 18.  But I think many teams would take a high level of production for 6-8 knowing that the guy would be likely to break down at the end of it.   The number one pick in the draft is a tiny little guy by NFL standards who weighs 206 with a couple gallons of water in him.  

 

Attitudes are shifting about the QB position is the bulk of the point I'm making.

I think the Jackson contract is borderline insanity, and I'd be absolutely shocked if that works out for BALT very well. 

 

Yeah, I think the other part of it is that it's easier to move on from a QB who isn't top tier, for a variety of reasons. Attitudes are absolutely changing regarding drafting and developing QBs, no doubt about that.

 

But I still think the ideal is that when you draft a guy and get working on him, you hope he'll be around for a decade or longer. And we know that using a QB as a featured runner exposes him to more physical risk. To me, that usage is meant to be a temporary bridge, not a long term strategy. And if, after 4 or 5 years, the QB doesn't look like he's capable of excelling from the pocket, you start getting ready to replace him, and now you're not so much worried about the long term with that player. But with a guy like Josh Allen, who looks capable from the pocket, you start reworking your offense so that he's not taking as much abuse, in hopes you can get a full career out of him.

 

I think the success of the Lamar situation will depend on how effective he can be without being a 1,000 yard rusher, because I don't think he can run like that and stay on the field.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

Not to jump in, but I think they eventually might. At least those that have a good QB, but not a bonafide top 5 guy. The cost of QBs is getting higher and higher. And planning around that cost for 6-8 years is different than 10-15 years. Not to mention does a team really want to hitch a decade+ to just a good QB?

 

Yeah, I kind of just mentioned this also. For anyone who isn't top tier, the conversation is totally different IMO. Lamar is a former MVP, so you know what kind of ceiling he has. Hurts is just scratching the surface, IMO.

 

But if you have Daniel Jones, or even someone as capable as Alex Smith seven years ago, or Jared Goff four years ago, you can't hitch your wagon to that caliber of QB, so you have try to upgrade. Meanwhile, say with Jones, you can let him run and do whatever he wants, because you're not really expecting him to be your franchise guy for the next decade. I agree with that. 

[Nickster]

33 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, I think the other part of it is that it's easier to move on from a QB who isn't top tier, for a variety of reasons. Attitudes are absolutely changing regarding drafting and developing QBs, no doubt about that.

 

But I still think the ideal is that when you draft a guy and get working on him, you hope he'll be around for a decade or longer. And we know that using a QB as a featured runner exposes him to more physical risk. To me, that usage is meant to be a temporary bridge, not a long term strategy. And if, after 4 or 5 years, the QB doesn't look like he's capable of excelling from the pocket, you start getting ready to replace him, and now you're not so much worried about the long term with that player. But with a guy like Josh Allen, who looks capable from the pocket, you start reworking your offense so that he's not taking as much abuse, in hopes you can get a full career out of him.

 

I think the success of the Lamar situation will depend on how effective he can be without being a 1,000 yard rusher, because I don't think he can run like that and stay on the field.

 

Totally agree with just about everything here. 

 

Interesting thing.  In the last 20 years there have been 2 "mobile QBs" or so (the def of mobile is subjective) to win the Big Bowl.  Wilson in 2013 and Mahomes in 2019.  Mahomes was not a mobile QB last playoffs with the injuries.  Both of these guys are pass first guys with few if any designed runs.  

 

There have been 2 what I would call running QBs play in the Big Bowl in last 8 years.  Newton and Hurts.  

 

[Myles]

19 hours ago, Colt.45 said:

 

 

The Colts only job this season is growing the young QB. The playoffs shouldn't even be considered at all. Game by game, week by week, quarter by quarter, snap by snap growth. That's it. 

I disagree.   If the Colts can go 10-7 with Minshew and make the playoffs, I think that is what they should do.  

[richard pallo]

47 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Good post.   But I’d add that it took Allen three years to be what he is today.   
 

**His first year, Allen was at 52 percent.  

**His second year was a nice jump to 59 percent.  But still under 60.  

 

**But It wasn’t until his third year where Allen enjoyed a huge leap to 68 percent.  A leap so big it had never been done before in the history of the NFL by any 3rd year QB.   Not once.   So Josh Allen is in a class all by himself. 

 

I wonder if this fan base will give AR three years?   I hope so.  There are fans here who may not give him three games. 

His third year jump is directly related to the acquisition of Diggs that year.  They traded their 1st for the playmaker and Allen’s numbers took off.

[Colt.45]

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

I disagree.   If the Colts can go 10-7 with Minshew and make the playoffs, I think that is what they should do.  

 

Unless Minshew turns into Patrick Mahomes, there's no chance anyone at the Colts is thinking that's the way. The development of their future QB is priority #1. Everything they've said points to that not winning games, it isnt something fans should consider either. Go into the season expecting to see a 3 or 4 win season. This is all about developing the young guys especially the franchise future Anthony Richardson

[VikingsFanInChennai]

2 minutes ago, Myles said:

I disagree.   If the Colts can go 10-7 with Minshew and make the playoffs, I think that is what they should do.  

I think Colts will start with Mustache and will draft a plan on starting AR depending on how his development goes throughout their timeline, whatever that is or however more that prolongs. 

 

But let's not get ahead of ourselves that Minshew will do well enough, let's hold on that until it happens. If they are doing well with him, team could probably take decisions at that point but ultimately they'd be having AR in for few more snaps in the game if the team is playing that well with the backup. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

4 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Unless Minshew turns into Patrick Mahomes, there's no chance anyone at the Colts is thinking that's the way. The development of their future QB is priority #1. Everything they've said points to that not winning games, it isnt something fans should consider either. Go into the season expecting to see a 3 or 4 win season. This is all about developing the young guys especially the franchise future Anthony Richardson

If you are thinking that ownership , coaches and players are going to treat this season as a dress rehearsal only for ARs development, then I'm afraid you will be sadly disappointed.

[richard pallo]

8 minutes ago, Myles said:

I disagree.   If the Colts can go 10-7 with Minshew and make the playoffs, I think that is what they should do.  

Richardson is going to start like Peyton did.  You learn and improve by playing.  Irsay has already seen it work with Peyton.  He and Shane know that is what has to take place.  I believe they are on the same page on this one.

[Colt.45]

2 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

If you are thinking that ownership , coaches and players are going to treat this season as a dress rehearsal only for ARs development, then I'm afraid you will be sadly disappointed.

 

They're not going to go in NOT trying to win games. That's not what I am saying. What I'm saying is they'd love to win games and make the playoffs but they understand that isnt likely to happen and their young QB will take lumps and needs to grow. Several people (CB and Irsay i believe) have already said the rookie year is hard and even Peyton struggled. 

When you consider all that, why would anyone think the Colts would prefer having Minshew lead them to a 10-7 playoff appearance instead of having a season where AR goes 3-14 but shows steady growth. It's almost as if the whole post-Luck ordeal didnt happen at all.

 

The priority is Anthony Richardson. Sure, the coaches will coach hard, and the players will play hard (no such thing as tanking), and everyone wants to win. Sure. However, lets also remember the big pic. Andrew Luck was the anomaly by far. Rookie QBs dont tend to do what Luck did

[dgambill]

Anyone else have the terrible fear of our horrible artificial turf monster wrecking this kids knee and destroying one of his biggest assets?? It’s like I have this sick feeling in my stomach. I hate our turf.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

27 minutes ago, Myles said:

I disagree.   If the Colts can go 10-7 with Minshew and make the playoffs, I think that is what they should do.  

Highly unlikely that they will go for that. Now, they might start Richardson and he might be so bad that they conclude that it is negative to his progression and sit him for some games, but nobody cares about playoffs unless Richardson plays lights out and get Colts in contention for a wildcard spot - in which case they will clearly play Richardson.

 

Having said all that, I would not be surprised if they mix Minshew and Richardson playtime within each game.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Colt.45 said:

 

They're not going to go in NOT trying to win games. That's not what I am saying. What I'm saying is they'd love to win games and make the playoffs but they understand that isnt likely to happen and their young QB will take lumps and needs to grow. Several people (CB and Irsay i believe) have already said the rookie year is hard and even Peyton struggled. 

When you consider all that, why would anyone think the Colts would prefer having Minshew lead them to a 10-7 playoff appearance instead of having a season where AR goes 3-14 but shows steady growth. It's almost as if the whole post-Luck ordeal didnt happen at all.

 

The priority is Anthony Richardson. Sure, the coaches will coach hard, and the players will play hard (no such thing as tanking), and everyone wants to win. Sure. However, lets also remember the big pic. Andrew Luck was the anomaly by far. Rookie QBs dont tend to do what Luck did

 

Right now, I assume Minshew starts Week 1. Let's say he looks like a Pro Bowl level QB with whom we can make a run at the division, I think that might influence the strategy regarding Richardson. I also think it's unlikely that Minshew plays well enough for this to be the case.

 

Most likely, Minshew will look like the journeyman/backup that he's mostly been throughout his career, and the plan will continue to be to get Richardson reps as much as possible so he can take over sooner than later. Minshew would have to be really, really good for anything to delay the Richardson plan. 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I’m getting the feeling that Irsay have finally gotten to his senses and think long term instead of this win-now-but-not-really mess the Colts have been in ever since Luck quit on the team.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Wonder why Foles is still on the roster?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

46 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

I’m getting the feeling that Irsay have finally gotten to his senses and think long term instead of this win-now-but-not-really mess the Colts have been in ever since Luck quit on the team.

From everything I have read Irsay always wanted to draft and build around a QB. He was trying to give the HC what he wanted and Ballard thought they were closer then they were.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

50 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Right now, I assume Minshew starts Week 1. Let's say he looks like a Pro Bowl level QB with whom we can make a run at the division, I think that might influence the strategy regarding Richardson. I also think it's unlikely that Minshew plays well enough for this to be the case.

 

Most likely, Minshew will look like the journeyman/backup that he's mostly been throughout his career, and the plan will continue to be to get Richardson reps as much as possible so he can take over sooner than later. Minshew would have to be really, really good for anything to delay the Richardson plan. 

Question I wonder is if Minshew plays well and it keeps Richardson on the bench does it stunt his growth. How do you pull Minshew if he is winning? If this does happen it will be important to give Richardson snaps throughout the game.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Question I wonder is if Minshew plays well and it keeps Richardson on the bench does it stunt his growth. How do you pull Minshew if he is winning? If this does happen it will be important to give Richardson snaps throughout the game.

 

Would kind of be a good problem to have. But I don't think we'll have to worry about it, because Minshew isn't that good, IMO.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Beginning to wonder if they are going to try and keep Foles as the 3rd QB to help mentor Richardson. Put Sam on the PS. Maybe waiting to see if a team needs a QB enough to trade a very late pick for him maybe?

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

I think Colts will start with Mustache and will draft a plan on starting AR depending on how his development goes throughout their timeline, whatever that is or however more that prolongs. 

 

But let's not get ahead of ourselves that Minshew will do well enough, let's hold on that until it happens. If they are doing well with him, team could probably take decisions at that point but ultimately they'd be having AR in for few more snaps in the game if the team is playing that well with the backup. 

Im hoping richardson out plays him and starts

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

His third year jump is directly related to the acquisition of Diggs that year.  They traded their 1st for the playmaker and Allen’s numbers took off.

 

I’m sure Diggs plays a big part in Allen’s improvement, but I wouldn’t give him all  the credit.   I suspect that it was year three and the NFL game was slowing down for Allen as it does for most NFL QBs also played a role. 

[ChuggaBeer]

8 hours ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

any information you can share regarding this? 

 

@Restinpeacesweetchloe

Did you get this update?    My guess it was some kind of inside guarantee that it would be Levis.    Just a hunch.  

 

But I am not here to rub her nose in all the things she posted being wrong 

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

His third year jump is directly related to the acquisition of Diggs that year.  They traded their 1st for the playmaker and Allen’s numbers took off.

 

It's not unlike the jump that Hurts made when AJ Brown was acquired. 

 

When the Colts trade for Chase in 2026, it's on.

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, Colt.45 said:

 

They're not going to go in NOT trying to win games. That's not what I am saying. What I'm saying is they'd love to win games and make the playoffs but they understand that isnt likely to happen and their young QB will take lumps and needs to grow. Several people (CB and Irsay i believe) have already said the rookie year is hard and even Peyton struggled. 

When you consider all that, why would anyone think the Colts would prefer having Minshew lead them to a 10-7 playoff appearance instead of having a season where AR goes 3-14 but shows steady growth. It's almost as if the whole post-Luck ordeal didnt happen at all.

 

The priority is Anthony Richardson. Sure, the coaches will coach hard, and the players will play hard (no such thing as tanking), and everyone wants to win. Sure. However, lets also remember the big pic. Andrew Luck was the anomaly by far. Rookie QBs dont tend to do what Luck did

 

If the Colts go 3-14 next season...I am not sure AR is the priority at that point. That's likely a top 1-3 pick.

 

It's a year away, so injuries could happen. But I think Williams and Maye are going to be as coveted of a duo of QBs as any we have seen in recent years. 

[RollerColt]

44 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

If the Colts go 3-14 next season...I am not sure AR is the priority at that point. That's likely a top 1-3 pick.

 

It's a year away, so injuries could happen. But I think Williams and Maye are going to be as coveted of a duo of QBs as any we have seen in recent years. 

Unless they both regress this coming college season... It happens...

[cdgacoltsfan]

1 hour ago, ChuggaBeer said:

Did you get this update?    My guess it was some kind of inside guarantee that it would be Levis.    Just a hunch.  

 

But I am not here to rub her nose in all the things she posted being wrong 

I would like to know what the insider info was?  The people that wanted AR were told they were going to be laughed at when Levis was picked by the Colts so it would be nice to know what that inside info was that couldn't be posted ahead of the draft. Since I was in the AR camp, I lived in fear for weeks afraid of being ridiculed by the Levis backers. I even started buying Wranglers instead of Levis.

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, shasta519 said:

 

If the Colts go 3-14 next season...I am not sure AR is the priority at that point. That's likely a top 1-3 pick.

 

It's a year away, so injuries could happen. But I think Williams and Maye are going to be as coveted of a duo of QBs as any we have seen in recent years. 

We go 3-14 we take marvin harrison jr

[VikingsFanInChennai]

2 hours ago, ChuggaBeer said:

Did you get this update?    My guess it was some kind of inside guarantee that it would be Levis.    Just a hunch.  

 

But I am not here to rub her nose in all the things she posted being wrong 

nope.. could tell it was a wrong rumor or something, but got no reply yet.. am not trying to rub her the wrong way, but when she said she had interesting info that she could only share after the draft, she should share now. 

 

Yeah I thought it was about Levis as she was high on him and he was not selected. Maybe some news like Levis and Steichen playing golf together.