I missed the game last night but according to reports Pryor failed to solidify a starting job. Which means that Indy might be facing a 2 game veteran as opposed to a one game veteran. That wasn't an earthquake you just felt, it was the Indy secondary shaking in their cleats. Of course, many are arguing that the real purpose of this muddled process is to win the "Clown" sweepstakes. I mean Clowney sweepstakes. We'll pick up Clowney, use the billion dollars of cap space to buy a defensive line, a secondary and an offensive line and win the Super Bowl in 2030.
A reality check is in order. The man who failed to solidify the starting QB position was third on the depth chart last year and pretty much neglected. His miraculous improvement, by leaps and bounds, seemed to coincide with his being moved up the depth chart and garnering more attention. According to his critics, he has improved but he still has issues. Maybe some of those issues could have been addressed during a 4-12 season when the incumbent QB was scheduled to become a trillionaire this year and we knew we didn't have a trillion dollars. Now the obvious response is "this is hindsight" or "Monday morning quarterbacking" but the realities of our QB situation were well known to us last year. TP was an afterthought last year and the beginning of this year. I'm not wedded to any of the QBs right now but his mobility is a little more fun than watching moss gathering at Flynn's feet. However, I'm definitely willing to give Flynn the start in the hopes that he just hates to play football unless its for real. If not, we're in deep shit. Because 2 games does not an ample film review make. And the fact that the decision was based upon our GM's familiarity is not a valid argument should Flynn continue to flame out.What is truly frightening is having 4 QBs on the team and 2 games being the extent of veteran experience. Should we go to the draft for our next QB pick, is Flynn going to be the veteran mentor??? TP????
Please excuse me if I do not share the blind faith others seem to exhibit regarding the current situation. Yes, the cap situation will definitely improve next year. But what does that really mean? That we'll have some good money to throw after bad players??? That we'll be able to buy an entire football team outside the kickers and maybe a couple of linebackers? And does 3-13 or 4-12 really mean another pass for coaching since "we don't really have the talent to compete". As DA, himself, would say, "it is what it is". At some point, all of the reasons that can be used to defend our poor performance have to be evaluated in terms of where we're going, not where we've been. If the cap was the issue, shedding personnel addresses the past, not the future. In order to address the future, you have to come up with bargain replacements. Simply getting rid of guys and replacing them with mediocre or worse players addresses the cap issue, but fails to address the team's future prospect because you'll be spending money again and again to come up from mediocrity. And it provides no indication that you're even capable of transforming the team. I still support Reggie and Dennis Allen, but I'll be the first to admit that it's nothing at this point but blind faith. I have no conclusive evidence based upon the past year that they're capable of making this a great team. I'm assuming that whoever had been made GM would have had to make similar financial decisions regarding the cap situation so I can't point to the trimming of the cap figures as proof he's the man for the job. Most of the cuts were obvious. Had our position improved and we had become a stronger team in light of the cuts, that would have been an indication that he was on the right path. But just like that 3rd string QB, both the GM and the coach have failed to solidify their position. Until they do, fans will continue to ask "what's really going on?".