True on both counts. But the first is also going to be true if they ever trade up regardless of the year. The second sucks but a QB is simply more valuable.

When I say it doesn’t matter I only mean that chances are slim that they’ll win a SB if they don’t find a franchise QB regardless of how strong the rest of the roster is. I definitely agree that a strong roster helps a QB. I’m not disputing that at all.

The options suck, Ballard has basically said that himself. I’m fine pushing it another year if he doesn’t like the current options. Same as I said last year. But I’d like to see a plan beyond seeing what happens. Like where I previously suggested pushing draft capital in to the next year.

Just going to throw my own worthless opinion in here.

I acknowledge the importance of having a franchise QB to the success of the team, but I got so sick and tired of Peyton having to cover for an average to below average O-line (sorry, but truth), a crappy run defense, and for the most part, a below average secondary that I'm happy to see the team go the other route for several years and build an incredibly strong, and hopefully deep, team in all the other areas while they tinker, and hope, and use their strong scouting team to find a good to great QB to maybe do only slightly better than game manage.

Probably not the way to a Super Bowl win, but you never know. Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, and Joe Flacco have all won in the last few decades, so it's not impossible. And yeah, they all had incredible defenses, but that's my point. There is another route.

And Peyton was an all-timer, one of the five best, if not the best, ever. And he won one ring in Indy. What are the odds that we get anyone even close to as good as he was? And if we do, at what cost to the rest of the roster?

So, yeah, I'm on the Sam Darnold, or Carson Wentz, or Ryan Fitzpatrick, or even, if necessary, Jameis Winston bandwagon. Use that first rounder to grab the best OT or DE available. Shore up the back end of the defense with some more solid draft picks (the track record shows we can depend on at least two or three new starters from this draft). Roll with the average guy who they might be able to coach up.

I think even with QB being the "most important position in sports", there are other routes to the top.

Also interesting to me Ballard said he values the players opinion, so if they had their choice wonder who they would tell Ballard to go after? Or do they still believe in Jacoby?

Assuming they don't get Wentz or one of the other top QB's.... If they can get JB on a contract like Washington got Heinicke on at 8.75 for 2 years or even 10 for two would be a no brainer to me Sign him and get the BPA in the draft at 21 hopefully a defensive player IMO since I don't see any of the worthy QB's falling to 21 range. In FA go after pass rush and corner. AJ Bouye and Richard Sherman are both available to go alongside Rhodes

Unless of course they do not see anything in Eason that tells them he is more than a backup.

IMHO if Brissett is the QB next year, the Colts would be taking 2 giant steps backwards.

Not saying as the starter, saying that they feel comfortable with Eason. JB may start the season and turn over to Eason

I think TheMugwump is channeling Ballard. This is essentially what he has been preaching, you need a good QB, not a great one, if you want to win the Super Bowl. I don't think Jacoby is a good QB over a year. For a game or two, yes-but over a year he gets to exposed.

I am also on the "average" QB train for the Colts in 2021.

I don't want us to trade away draft capital on players whom leadership does not believe has superstar potential (i.e. Buckner).

Ballard and staff are just too good at identifying players who become cornerstones of the franchise with those quality 1st/2nd/3rd/4th round picks. Those draft choices are just too valuable to not be in Ballard's hands.

So, IMO, I would rather use our quality draft picks to strengthen the team at almost any position besides: RB, Safety, Interior D-Line, Interior O-Line and special teams.

Then, I would rather use "big" free agency money to retain our studs (Xavier Rhodes, Anthony Walker, Autry/Muhammad most important IMO) and invest in positions with new veteran free agents like:

LT (Williams, Okung, Villanueva)
WR (Hilton, Robinson, Watkins, Perriman)
DE (Leonard Williams, Clowney, Ngakoue, Griffen, Houston, Okaor)
CB (Patrick Peterson, Mike Hilton, Michael Davis, Troy Hill)

Then, our QB would probably end up being one of: Trubisky, Fitzpatrick, Dalton or Newton none of whom will be big money (probably each for $10m or less per year for 2 years).

The only exception that I would make to trading away a draft pick or two for a QB would be if the Raiders make Derek Carr available. I would not overpay for him but he is a guy whom i think would come much, much cheaper than Stafford or Watson but can propel a team to the Superbowl with sane coaching and team leadership around him (which the Raiders do not have).

I think guys often overlook the amount of turnover on NFL rosters. Here is a part of a post I made on a discussion on roster building a year or two ago:

This can be an argument for why a rookie QB doesn’t make sense as well I suppose. But to me it just highlights how fleeting the build an “entire roster” idea some are suggesting is. It simply can not stay together in the modern NFL. The only consistent way to win big is with a top level QB. To find one you usually have to either be bad, willing to pay (draft picks), or ridiculously lucky. We know Ballard doesn’t plan on the first one. I’m hoping they aren’t going with the last option. Would be a shame to waste a lot of the talent he has accumulated.