AR15 thru 2 games thus far:

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

Hard to say whether it was a pick made out of desperation. That's a plausible line of thinking though.

 

However, I think the pick was borne more out of a refusal to trade an absurd number of assets to move up. i.e. they knew they wouldn't get Stroud or Young so AR grew to diamond in their eyes. I basically question their process, and always have because I think Chris Ballard makes some really poor judgement calls IMHO.

 

AR isnt a traditional top 5 pick because everyone could see his rawness. A player picked that early should be a blue chipper ready to contribute from day 1 not a developmental pick...**BUT** if you're ever going to make that gamble, you do it on a guy who breaks the mold in everywhere, a guy whose upside could change the game so yeah, AR is a developmental 4th pick but his upside means it's fine to wait..., fans don't like waiting.

 

Why should it be characterized as desperate? The conventional pick -- and the one people around the league expected for several weeks -- was Will Levis. It's not like the Colts didn't have another option at #4.

 

What the Panthers did was desperate. And even then, what really matters isn't whether you sell the farm or not, it's whether you get the pick right and the guy is actually what you hoped he would be. Same for the Bears; they appear to have played it well, but they'll be judged on whether or not Caleb Williams is a franchise QB. The Texans look smart because Stroud looks good, bottom line. 

 

I agree that it was a gamble, but that's the draft in general, and especially when it comes to QBs. And like you said, when the guy you're gambling on is a physical outlier (to the positive, not the negative, like Bryce Young), it's defensible. 

[throwing BBZ]

16 hours ago, DougDew said:

I agree, but I think Ballard felt like he had to swing for the fences a bit.  I called it a desperation pick at the time, but it made sense to be desperate at that time given the string of QB failures.

 

If it works out, great, and it probably will.  But it was still a desperation pick, IMO.

 

 Irsay says the QB pick has to go through him. 

[DougDew]

31 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

Hard to say whether it was a pick made out of desperation. That's a plausible line of thinking though.

 

However, I think the pick was borne more out of a refusal to trade an absurd number of assets to move up. i.e. they knew they wouldn't get Stroud or Young so AR grew to diamond in their eyes. I basically question their process, and always have because I think Chris Ballard makes some really poor judgement calls IMHO.

 

AR isnt a traditional top 5 pick because everyone could see his rawness. A player picked that early should be a blue chipper ready to contribute from day 1 not a developmental pick...**BUT** if you're ever going to make that gamble, you do it on a guy who breaks the mold in every way, a guy whose upside could change the game so yeah, AR is a developmental 4th pick but his upside means it's fine to wait..., fans don't like waiting.

What potential trade are you talking about.  If we would have traded from 4 to 1, instead of CAR going from 9 to 1, we would have taken the best prospect on their board.  And the cost would have been cheap relative to CAR because we were only coming up from 4 and not 9.  Its likely Ballard thought AR was the best prospect and thought nobody else would take him at 4 (In fact, he was very dejected when he heard there was a trade up to 3, so he was figuring that a team was trading up to get AR.  Nope)

 

Desperation is a descriptive word.  Disagree if you want with that word, but I think taking a developmental QB with a low passing floor and a high ceiling at 4 is something other than well-measured, IMO.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Gus Bradley just echoed Holders comments. He said when you have a young QB the defense more times then not is going to have to stand up and help him. Glad to hear this from Gus today.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Look how good colts have been on 1st down.

 

[RollerColt]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Look how good colts have been on 1st down.

 

Jayden Daniels isn’t getting much attention, but he’s been secretly pretty good his first two career games. 
 

Sunday he focused more on pocket passing and was really efficient and accurate. I think Washington might have a good one. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Richardson and Mitchell are going to eventually hit.

 

 

[Superman]

44 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Desperation is a descriptive word.  Disagree if you want with that word, but I think taking a developmental QB with a low passing floor and a high ceiling at 4 is something other than well-measured, IMO.

 

I think there are some mistaken ideas about Richardson's ability as a passer to begin with, so I take issue with the "low passing floor" assumption. But setting that aside...

 

The floor is irrelevant. We've seen countless QB prospects with a supposedly high floor who don't have success in the NFL. If you're drafting a QB at the top of the first round, all that matters is whether or not the guy can become a franchise QB. Acknowledge his issues, be honest about your projection of him, but at the end of the day, QBs don't work in the NFL because they have high floors. 

[DougDew]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think there are some mistaken ideas about Richardson's ability as a passer to begin with, so I take issue with the "low passing floor" assumption. But setting that aside...

 

The floor is irrelevant. We've seen countless QB prospects with a supposedly high floor who don't have success in the NFL. If you're drafting a QB at the top of the first round, all that matters is whether or not the guy can become a franchise QB. Acknowledge his issues, be honest about your projection of him, but at the end of the day, QBs don't work in the NFL because they have high floors. 

AR was not great at "quarterbacking" in college, but had glimpses of a high ceiling.  By all accounts, he was always going to take more time to transition to an NFL QB.   I think not having anybody on the roster that could play forced Ballard into having his developmental guy be his starter,   He could not afford to lose this particular potential franchise guy where a less "desperate" situation would allow him to pick a Will Levis in the second or a Jacob Eason in the eth...both of whom also had all of the physical tools but lacked some critical element that needs developing.

 

Cowherd has been making a point that all of these young QBs that are being forced to start, not Stroud, are all playing really badly.  Ideally, you have a vet starter while the young guy sits, but it seems the FOs need these guys to hit right away.  I would call that desperate, but maybe that's too strong of a word.

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, DougDew said:

AR was not great at "quarterbacking" in college, but had glimpses of a high ceiling.  By all accounts, he was always going to take more time to transition to an NFL QB.   I think not having anybody on the roster that could play forced Ballard into having his developmental guy be his starter,   He could not afford to lose this particular potential franchise guy where a less "desperate" situation would allow him to pick a Will Levis in the second or a Jacob Eason in the eth...both of whom also had all of the physical tools but lacked some critical element that needs developing.

 

Cowherd has been making a point that all of these young QBs that are being forced to start, not Stroud, are all playing really badly.  Ideally, you have a vet starter while the young guy sits, but it seems the FOs need these guys to hit right away.  I would call that desperate, but maybe that's too strong of a word.

 

Jacob Eason is a good example, one that I think you're not fully acknowledging. "High floor," taken later in the draft, sat behind a veteran, never became a starting QB. 

 

I fully agree that a lot of these young QBs are rushed, in general I believe it would be best for most of them to sit behind a veteran for at least a while. And I think part of the rush is the CBA -- Jordan Love is the 2nd highest paid player in NFL history, and he has one year of starting experience, which is absolutely nuts, but that's a function of the marketplace which has responded to the CBA. Another part is pressure by coaches and execs to get results. Demeco Ryans acknowledged that the Texans turnaround basically comes down to one factor -- they have a QB. You can't know that you have a QB or benefit from having acquired him until he proves it, so everyone wants to get him on the field as soon as possible. All of that leads to an environment that's probably not the best for developing a potential franchise QB. But most QBs don't develop into franchise guys anyways, not even the highly drafted guys.

 

Still, I fully believe that young players, QBs in particular, have to play to develop and reach their potential. Again, Jordan Love is the test case. He sat for three years, and still struggled through the first half of his season as a starter. It wasn't until he had half a season of reps and experience that the light seemed to come on for him. They have to play; until they do, they can't get really get better, and you can't know what you're working with.

 

Apply this to Richardson. The things that held him back from being good at "quarterbacking" in college are not things that will improve on the bench. He needs to adjust to NFL game speed, he needs to improve his mechanics when he's under pressure, etc. And things that you might worry about with a rookie QB -- can he function in an offense, can he protect himself, etc. -- were not questions with him, despite the narrative. I would have been fine with him not starting right away, but I also would have understood that the only way for him to actually develop would have been to play, and as such, I still would have wanted him to have a specific role in the offseason from the very beginning, and not just as a runner. 

 

Also, while I don't agree that playing Richardson right away is 'desperate,' I think that's a different conversation from whether drafting him at #4 was 'desperate,' or whatever word you want to use. They drafted him for his potential, they're playing him so he can reach that potential.

[DougDew]

41 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Jacob Eason is a good example, one that I think you're not fully acknowledging. "High floor," taken later in the draft, sat behind a veteran, never became a starting QB. 

 

I fully agree that a lot of these young QBs are rushed, in general I believe it would be best for most of them to sit behind a veteran for at least a while. And I think part of the rush is the CBA -- Jordan Love is the 2nd highest paid player in NFL history, and he has one year of starting experience, which is absolutely nuts, but that's a function of the marketplace which has responded to the CBA. Another part is pressure by coaches and execs to get results. Demeco Ryans acknowledged that the Texans turnaround basically comes down to one factor -- they have a QB. You can't know that you have a QB or benefit from having acquired him until he proves it, so everyone wants to get him on the field as soon as possible. All of that leads to an environment that's probably not the best for developing a potential franchise QB. But most QBs don't develop into franchise guys anyways, not even the highly drafted guys.

 

Still, I fully believe that young players, QBs in particular, have to play to develop and reach their potential. Again, Jordan Love is the test case. He sat for three years, and still struggled through the first half of his season as a starter. It wasn't until he had half a season of reps and experience that the light seemed to come on for him. They have to play; until they do, they can't get really get better, and you can't know what you're working with.

 

Apply this to Richardson. The things that held him back from being good at "quarterbacking" in college are not things that will improve on the bench. He needs to adjust to NFL game speed, he needs to improve his mechanics when he's under pressure, etc. And things that you might worry about with a rookie QB -- can he function in an offense, can he protect himself, etc. -- were not questions with him, despite the narrative. I would have been fine with him not starting right away, but I also would have understood that the only way for him to actually develop would have been to play, and as such, I still would have wanted him to have a specific role in the offseason from the very beginning, and not just as a runner. 

 

Also, while I don't agree that playing Richardson right away is 'desperate,' I think that's a different conversation from whether drafting him at #4 was 'desperate,' or whatever word you want to use. They drafted him for his potential, they're playing him so he can reach that potential.

Let me ask you a question.  This forum has thrown out the phrase "swing for the fences" when describing Ballard's approach, or lack of, to finding a QB.  Play along with the phrase please.

 

Given your perception of Ballard's employment status with the Colts then, and how you feel about that obviously impacts your answer, would you say that picking AR at 4, with his talent and his warts, felt like 

 

A second inning "routine" swing for the fences where the batter looks for the right pitch?

 

Or  bottom of the 8th two runs down swing for the fences where the batter might expand his strike zone? 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

This is great on how Steichen has to do better.

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/locked-on-colts-daily-podcast-on-the-indianapolis-colts/id1151621306?i=1000669750155

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Let me ask you a question.  This forum has thrown out the phrase "swing for the fences" when describing Ballard's approach, or lack of, to finding a QB.  Play along with the phrase please.

 

Given your perception of Ballard's employment status with the Colts then, and how you feel about that obviously impacts your answer, would you say that picking AR at 4, with his talent and his warts, felt like 

 

A second inning "routine" swing for the fences where the batter looks for the right pitch?

 

Or  bottom of the 8th two runs down swing for the fences where the batter might expand his strike zone? 

 

I reject the premise. I understand you want me to play along, but I can't; it's flawed and completely misses the point. 

 

And to the bolded, I probably have a less than popular perspective about Ballard's employment status with the Colts in 2023. It's my belief that Ballard wanted to draft a QB going back to 2020, but the state of the roster and the leanings of the HC and owner led to pursuing veteran options instead. So when Reich is gone and they've tried the veteran route with no long term success, Ballard looked vindicated, and I don't think his job was ever in danger. I think he now had full clearance to do what he wanted to do all along, and the idea that he felt desperate to hit a home run is probably a misconception. A lot of that is conjecture on my part, but it's what I believe.

 

So now, the Colts have the #4 pick, and a HC who just helped develop a raw and athletic QB into a guy who started in a SB and almost won. They hired offensive assistants who had experience with athletic QBs. They had a good OL (presumably), and a good RB. And then Ballard said 'I think we'll get the best player in the draft,' and doubled down on that afterward. (There's always potential for coachspeak, but I think he meant it. At time time, if he had to choose between trading up for Stroud, or staying at #4 and picking Richardson, I think he would have stayed at #4 and been thrilled about it). You called picking Richardson 'not well measured,' and I don't think that's accurate at all. I think they found themselves in position to do just what they wanted with that pick.

 

And I think it's too early to try to litigate the results of their decision. Richardson is one of the most raw QB prospects ever, and he's started six games. We understand the risk, and we know it's going to take more than a third of a season to get a definitive answer either way. 

[JColts72]

Perhaps Ballard, Shane and Jim over-hyped AR so much and just had to take him at 4 thinking will be the next Jalen. Lots of talk taking Levis at 4 then too. Man did Panthers screw themselves not taking CJ.

[DougDew]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I reject the premise. I understand you want me to play along, but I can't; it's flawed and completely misses the point. 

 

And to the bolded, I probably have a less than popular perspective about Ballard's employment status with the Colts in 2023. It's my belief that Ballard wanted to draft a QB going back to 2020, but the state of the roster and the leanings of the HC and owner led to pursuing veteran options instead. So when Reich is gone and they've tried the veteran route with no long term success, Ballard looked vindicated, and I don't think his job was ever in danger. I think he now had full clearance to do what he wanted to do all along, and the idea that he felt desperate to hit a home run is probably a misconception. A lot of that is conjecture on my part, but it's what I believe.

 

So now, the Colts have the #4 pick, and a HC who just helped develop a raw and athletic QB into a guy who started in a SB and almost won. They hired offensive assistants who had experience with athletic QBs. They had a good OL (presumably), and a good RB. And then Ballard said 'I think we'll get the best player in the draft,' and doubled down on that afterward. (There's always potential for coachspeak, but I think he meant it. At time time, if he had to choose between trading up for Stroud, or staying at #4 and picking Richardson, I think he would have stayed at #4 and been thrilled about it). You called picking Richardson 'not well measured,' and I don't think that's accurate at all. I think they found themselves in position to do just what they wanted with that pick.

 

And I think it's too early to try to litigate the results of their decision. Richardson is one of the most raw QB prospects ever, and he's started six games. We understand the risk, and we know it's going to take more than a third of a season to get a definitive answer either way. 

Pick 4 is a hard swing, IMO.  Employment status aside, was AR a confident pitch to swing hard at with 4, or was there less pitch selectivity out of need to try and hit a home run after so many years of issues?

 

And I'd say in general, the NFL is showing much less pitch selectivity in an effort to have the next Mahomes or Allen, so if you don't pick at 4, somebody else would probably desperately trade up to 8 and pick him.  

 

I think you may be giving NFL FOs a little too much credit for being more well-measured in their process than they are.  It looks to me that the teams that need the next Mahomes seem to see the prospective' positives a little more strongly and see the negatives less risky.  I'll bet their "analytical" QB evaluation looks a bit differently than the teams drafting in the 20s with solid QBs on the roster, to the extent those teams put in the same effort. 

[jvan1973]

4 hours ago, indyagent17 said:

1. Any comparisons with Manning are just silly at this point. Manning is on another planet compared to AR

2. Steichen is starting to tick me off with his bullheadedness. He likes to answer questions with distain and double down

3. EVERYONE knew he was wildly inaccurate at Florida but we overlooked that because of his size, speed, big arm and running ability.

 

We are pretty stuck with Ballard's recent decisions with draft picks and not going after talent in free agency. No help for the defensive backfield and that affecting the whole defense.  Its going to be a long season but with the lack of talent or effort by some players on defense AR is going to win games on his own and he is ready for that. This looks to be a season where if nothing changes we will not make the playoffs again! That is the reason Ballard should go if it all goes south   

If you can't see the potential with AR then you are just a hater.  I never expected the Colts to make the playoffs this season.   We basically have a rookie qb.   Watching him progress and get better is what this season has always been.   

[Colt.45]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

What potential trade are you talking about.  If we would have traded from 4 to 1, instead of CAR going from 9 to 1, we would have taken the best prospect on their board.  And the cost would have been cheap relative to CAR because we were only coming up from 4 and not 9.  Its likely Ballard thought AR was the best prospect and thought nobody else would take him at 4 (In fact, he was very dejected when he heard there was a trade up to 3, so he was figuring that a team was trading up to get AR.  Nope)

 

Desperation is a descriptive word.  Disagree if you want with that word, but I think taking a developmental QB with a low passing floor and a high ceiling at 4 is something other than well-measured, IMO.

 

Or, taking a developmental QB with a never-before-seen physical base was a risk the GM considered worth taking. 

I wouldn't call that thinking desperate. 

 

What seems apparent is they targeted AR, they expected him to drop to them, the only time they showed panic was when there was a trade-up during that draft, they were prepared for a multiyear growth plan. None of that seems desperate.

 

I can see how you'd think that but I doubt that's been the case here. The thing is they bet on a traits guy rather than a ready-to-start QB. I cannot knock it at all.

[indyagent17]

23 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

If you can't see the potential with AR then you are just a hater.  I never expected the Colts to make the playoffs this season.   We basically have a rookie qb.   Watching him progress and get better is what this season has always been.   

Anybody that knows me know that I am not a hater I  bleed blue. I see potential but he not good enough yet to carry this team on his back

[jvan1973]

16 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

Anybody that knows me know that I am not a hater I  bleed blue. I see potential but he not good enough yet to carry this team on his back

What young QB is?  There aren't many Andrew Lucks out there.   If you bleed blue, then you know the Colts immediate future is tied to AR.  

[jvan1973]

44 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Or, taking a developmental QB with a never-before-seen physical base was a risk the GM considered worth taking. 

I wouldn't call that thinking desperate. 

 

What seems apparent is they targeted AR, they expected him to drop to them, the only time they showed panic was when there was a trade-up during that draft, they were prepared for a multiyear growth plan. None of that seems desperate.

 

I can see how you'd think that but I doubt that's been the case here. The thing is they bet on a traits guy rather than a ready-to-start QB. I cannot knock it at all.

Doug dreams up scenarios and he will never cave.   You're best bet is to pick up a hammer and hit yourself in the head

[lester]

51 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

The thing is they bet on a traits guy rather than a ready-to-start QB. I cannot knock it at all.

What many posters fail to admit is this: there is NO such thing as ready-to-start during the draft. You just don’t know what you’re gonna get. 

 

Case in point: how did the #1 overall pick, the most ‘ready to start” QB in the draft; how is he working out in Carolina?

 

The draft is a crap shoot: you never know what you’re gonna get. The traits guy isn’t any more of a risk than the other guys…

[Colt.45]

21 minutes ago, lester said:

What many posters fail to admit is this: there is NO such thing as ready-to-start during the draft. You just don’t know what you’re gonna get. 

 

Case in point: how did the #1 overall pick, the most ‘ready to start” QB in the draft; how is he working out in Carolina?

 

The draft is a crap shoot: you never know what you’re gonna get. The traits guy isn’t any more of a risk than the other guys…

 

 

Exactly right. Peyton was the most ready-to-start QB I've ever seen. Luck was close. Aikman was close.
We all have the gift of the past to see how it went for those guys. There're no guarantees in drafting otherwise every single team would have GREAT stories and few bad ones. 

Reality doesn't function like that.

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Pick 4 is a hard swing, IMO.  Employment status aside, was AR a confident pitch to swing hard at with 4, or was there less pitch selectivity out of need to try and hit a home run after so many years of issues?

 

And I'd say in general, the NFL is showing much less pitch selectivity in an effort to have the next Mahomes or Allen, so if you don't pick at 4, somebody else would probably desperately trade up to 8 and pick him.  

 

I think you may be giving NFL FOs a little too much credit for being more well-measured in their process than they are.  It looks to me that the teams that need the next Mahomes seem to see the prospective' positives a little more strongly and see the negatives less risky.  I'll bet their "analytical" QB evaluation looks a bit differently than the teams drafting in the 20s with solid QBs on the roster, to the extent those teams put in the same effort. 

 

It feels like you're taking multiple and competing positions. One the one hand, #4 is a hard swing and desperate, on the other hand, they should have traded up to #1 and taken Stroud. 

 

No matter what, taking a QB in the top ten is a serious risk, and you need to hit a home run (or at least a bases clearing double). I don't know why you're so obsessed with this idea that all teams are trying to do is clone Mahomes... every team wants a franchise QB, period.

 

Teams in the 20s don't generally spend a first rounder on a QB, and when they do, they get mocked. It's really the Packers in that category alone, and it seems to have worked for them. And what do you know, they drafted a guy who actually was compared to Mahomes -- high level traits, raw, not a lot of experience. 

 

I don't understand your angle on this. The Colts appear to have seriously considered their options at QB in 2023, and they put together a plan that they thought would give them a good chance to have success with the guy they intended to pick. I don't know how you see that as anything but 'well-measured.' They could have stayed at #4 and taken the safer, more conventional guy in Will Levis. Or they really could have swung for the fences, traded up to #1, and then we'd have no question about who they really felt was the best prospect. Either way, unless you think they were just sitting there on draft day with their fingers crossed, hoping that Stroud would fall to #4, it seems pretty obvious that they thought their strategy out carefully, planned for it, and are trying to see it through.

 

And again, at this point, it doesn't make much sense to talk about the results of their plan, not when we have so little to talk about. Even if the plan doesn't work, I don't think it will be accurate to suggest it wasn't well-measured. 

[RollerColt]

39 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

 

Exactly right. Peyton was the most ready-to-start QB I've ever seen. Luck was close. Aikman was close.
We all have the gift of the past to see how it went for those guys. There're no guarantees in drafting otherwise every single team would have GREAT stories and few bad ones. 

Reality doesn't function like that.

 

 

 

 

And Aikman lost every one of his games his rookie year. He completed 52% of his passes, threw 9 TDs against 18 picks. 

[Colt.45]

13 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

And Aikman lost every one of his games his rookie year. He completed 52% of his passes, threw 9 TDs against 18 picks. 

Exactly. Aikman, Peyton, Luck. They all had their welcome-to-the-pros rookie season, and learned what they needed to do to evolve and be successful. Folks need to understand what it means to have a rookie QB, it appears most have forgotten

[RollerColt]

28 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

Exactly. Aikman, Peyton, Luck. They all had their welcome-to-the-pros rookie season, and learned what they needed to do to evolve and be successful. Folks need to understand what it means to have a rookie QB, it appears most have forgotten

It’s almost as if most on here have never played football at any level. 
 

Key point: it’s hard… 

[chad72]

28 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

Exactly. Aikman, Peyton, Luck. They all had their welcome-to-the-pros rookie season, and learned what they needed to do to evolve and be successful. Folks need to understand what it means to have a rookie QB, it appears most have forgotten

 

Yeah, not everyone is Mahomes, Burrow or Stroud to come in and light it up right away.

 

If you are giving Josh Allen 3 years, by the same token, give AR 3 years. Same thing with Alec Pierce. If we gave Reggie Wayne 3 years, we have to give AP 3 years to show us what he can do.

 

I do think that by Year 3, if they can't win games and possibly the division with their playmaking, it is fair to question the QB's abilities. 

[csmopar]

53 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

And Aikman lost every one of his games his rookie year. He completed 52% of his passes, threw 9 TDs against 18 picks. 

And Peyton was even worse his rookie year

[csmopar]

8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, not everyone is Mahomes, Burrow or Stroud to come in and light it up right away.

 

If you are giving Josh Allen 3 years, by the same token, give AR 3 years. Same thing with Alec Pierce. If we gave Reggie Wayne 3 years, we have to give AP 3 years to show us what he can do.

 

I do think that by Year 3, if they can't win games and possibly the division with their playmaking, it is fair to question the QB's abilities. 

I think what you’re wanting to see is improvement by year 3. Peyton and company started putting it together consistently in year 5/6

[Colt.45]

8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, not everyone is Mahomes, Burrow or Stroud to come in and light it up right away.

 

If you are giving Josh Allen 3 years, by the same token, give AR 3 years. Same thing with Alec Pierce. If we gave Reggie Wayne 3 years, we have to give AP 3 years to show us what he can do.

 

I do think that by Year 3, if they can't win games and possibly the division with their playmaking, it is fair to question the QB's abilities. 

Yup, by year 3, you oughta know in most cases.

With QB,  by year 2, you're showing the skeleton of what you'll be. Unfortunately, this isn't year 2 for AR though it is.

[RollerColt]

9 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, not everyone is Mahomes, Burrow or Stroud to come in and light it up right away.

 

If you are giving Josh Allen 3 years, by the same token, give AR 3 years. Same thing with Alec Pierce. If we gave Reggie Wayne 3 years, we have to give AP 3 years to show us what he can do.

 

I do think that by Year 3, if they can't win games and possibly the division with their playmaking, it is fair to question the QB's abilities. 

Even Burrow was getting killed his first games. 
 

He went 2-6-1 before getting injured and knocked out of the season. 

[Colt.45]

Just now, csmopar said:

I think what you’re wanting to see is improvement by year 3. Peyton and company started putting it together consistently in year 5/6

 

Nah, by year 2 Peyton was a beast. Year 1 was rough but by year 2, it was clear he was a franchise QB. I think it was 2003 (5 years on) before he (#18) truly matured and started to 'take what the defense gave him' and really hit that HoF level but by year 2, it was clear the pick was a good one. That's what we all want to see with Anthony 

[csmopar]

50 minutes ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Nah, by year 2 Peyton was a beast. Year 1 was rough but by year 2, it was clear he was a franchise QB. I think it was 2003 (5 years on) before he (#18) truly matured and started to 'take what the defense gave him' and really hit that HoF level but by year 2, it was clear the pick was a good one. That's what we all want to see with Anthony 

That’s exactly my point…,

[indyagent17]

3 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

What young QB is?  There aren't many Andrew Lucks out there.   If you bleed blue, then you know the Colts immediate future is tied to AR.  

Sure, let’s see what f it works out

[throwing BBZ]

18 hours ago, RollerColt said:

I wrote this in another thread:

 

Peyton Manning went 3-13. Stafford 2-8. Elway 4-7. Montana went 2-14. Aikman 0-11. Eli Manning was 2-7 (48.2% completion). 

 

 Rookies don't have 5 career starts, two full summer camps, and a whole season of classroom work. 

 Hopefully our offense will hit a better stride soon. 

 And yes I think after AR has 25 starts we can have an honest idea what his ceiling might be. 

 And I picture Kelly, Fries, and Smith being replaced next season. lol

[4daUColts]

IF Richardson is a bust we should bring in a proven qb. Baker and carr went to other teams on good deals and thier both doing good. I still wish we got stafford when we had the chance. I kinda expected more from ss, our team is getting no space. Id rather see anyone 10 yds behind the line of scrimmage in space than anything else ive seen. 

[4daUColts]

Or ar can drop back 10 yards evertime he throws if that helps open the field too. 

[RollerColt]

14 minutes ago, 4daUColts said:

IF Richardson is a bust we should bring in a proven qb. Baker and carr went to other teams on good deals and thier both doing good. I still wish we got stafford when we had the chance. I kinda expected more from ss, our team is getting no space. Id rather see anyone 10 yds behind the line of scrimmage in space than anything else ive seen. 

One thing I can absolutely guarantee will never happen again in this lifetime is the Colts going with a vet as a long term solution. 

 

We did that from 2019-2022 and it failed. Irsay will not be standing for that. 

[DougDew]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It feels like you're taking multiple and competing positions. One the one hand, #4 is a hard swing and desperate, on the other hand, they should have traded up to #1 and taken Stroud. 

 

No matter what, taking a QB in the top ten is a serious risk, and you need to hit a home run (or at least a bases clearing double). I don't know why you're so obsessed with this idea that all teams are trying to do is clone Mahomes... every team wants a franchise QB, period.

 

Teams in the 20s don't generally spend a first rounder on a QB, and when they do, they get mocked. It's really the Packers in that category alone, and it seems to have worked for them. And what do you know, they drafted a guy who actually was compared to Mahomes -- high level traits, raw, not a lot of experience. 

 

I don't understand your angle on this. The Colts appear to have seriously considered their options at QB in 2023, and they put together a plan that they thought would give them a good chance to have success with the guy they intended to pick. I don't know how you see that as anything but 'well-measured.' They could have stayed at #4 and taken the safer, more conventional guy in Will Levis. Or they really could have swung for the fences, traded up to #1, and then we'd have no question about who they really felt was the best prospect. Either way, unless you think they were just sitting there on draft day with their fingers crossed, hoping that Stroud would fall to #4, it seems pretty obvious that they thought their strategy out carefully, planned for it, and are trying to see it through.

 

And again, at this point, it doesn't make much sense to talk about the results of their plan, not when we have so little to talk about. Even if the plan doesn't work, I don't think it will be accurate to suggest it wasn't well-measured. 

Well, I thought Stroud was clearly superior to AR as a pro prospect (I'm not a modern-day mobility snob), so I see no desperation in trading up to 1 to get him.   I didn't advocate trading up to 1, so I'm not blaming Ballard, but I can understand if others want to make that argument though.

 

I'm not going to die on a hill over the word desperation pick to describe AR.  I'll describe it as expanding tolerances for what level of college competence you expect a player to come into the NFL with...and you expand them now because you failed at finding a QB for the past 5 years.

 

And this stuff about high ceiling is a bit of a false reason.  Lots of kids walking the streets right now have higher ceilings....if a team took the time to teach a kid everything and take the risk he never reaches his ceiling.  The difference is that the guys picked in the top 5 should come out of college equipped with a certain mastery level of skills and plenty of experience, or its not much different than taking a great athlete, because he has a great athletic ceiling, and begin by teaching him the basics of how to throw a ball.

[throwing BBZ]

11 hours ago, Colt.45 said:

 

Nah, by year 2 Peyton was a beast. Year 1 was rough but by year 2, it was clear he was a franchise QB. I think it was 2003 (5 years on) before he (#18) truly matured and started to 'take what the defense gave him' and really hit that HoF level but by year 2, it was clear the pick was a good one. That's what we all want to see with Anthony 

 

 My hopes are high but...

There is such a thing as a pedigree. You know like growing up at NFL practices, becoming a HS prodigy as a Sophomore, all those college starts. Peyton was replaced for the 2nd half in his Last college game for performance haha, by Tee Martin.

 And wouldn't most agree that at some point in Mannings 2nd year we understood he was a Great pick with a exceptionally high ceiling, flutter balls not withstanding?

 I believe the jury was still out on Josh Allen after one full season of starting whether he was a good pick, a true "franchise" QB.

 AR is so raw, I expect that is where he will be by seasons end. We will still have worry that he can put it all together to be Good. That Greatness will seem far off.

 Will AR ever be calm under pressure, be able to read defenses and get us into the right play? Throw accurately, with touch, and on time? 

 The touch thing looks to be a monumental challenge, it's such a change.