Daniel Jones' 7–1 start increasingly looks like an outlier. The numbers behind Jonathan Taylor's dominance, Jones' regression, Anthony Richardson's unfinished development and the costs of Shane Steichen's win-now gamble suggest Indianapolis needs a new plan at quarterback.
Indianapolis hired Shane Steichen in 2023 in part because of his work with Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts.
Weeks later, the Colts selected Anthony Richardson fourth overall—a gifted, extraordinarily inexperienced passer whose long-term development was central to the franchise's future.
Three years later, Richardson has started only 15 regular-season games. Joe Flacco replaced him in 2024. Daniel Jones won the 2025 competition, led the team to a spectacular start, tore his Achilles late that season, and returned on a two-year, $88 million contract.
Now the Colts are 2–3, and Jones is playing closer to the bottom of the league than the middle.
This is not an argument that Richardson has already established himself as an NFL-quality passer. In 2024 he completed only 47.7% of his throws, made expensive decisions and missed routine completions.
It is an argument about the decision Indianapolis actually made: sacrificing a young quarterback's development to obtain a supposedly steadier veteran who has not consistently delivered the very advantages used to justify that choice.
The statistical record makes that decision increasingly difficult to defend. Jones' last 10 Colts appearances look remarkably like his Giants career. Taylor was an enormous part of the original 7–1 surge.
And the mistakes that supposedly disqualified Richardson have surfaced in Jones' own play—even while the veteran is paid substantially more and operates behind a stronger line than several younger quarterbacks being criticized around the league.
The conclusion: Steichen and general manager Chris Ballard should not treat the opening eight games of 2025 as proof their quarterback plan worked.
If Indianapolis continues struggling, retaining Jones as the unquestioned starter will place Steichen's decision-making—and ultimately his job security—under scrutiny.
Shane Steichen deserves way more smoke. You don’t get to bench Anthony Richardson for Daniel Jones, sell it as the win-now move, then have a scared, low-upside offense that still stalls in the red zone and loses games. That was your bet. If Jones fails, Steichen failed too. https://t.co/gG0Hrl9ENT
— FootBasket™.com (@FootBasket) October 12, 2026
The Colts should give Richardson a meaningful chance to finish his evaluation before deciding he is not part of 2027.
The 7–1 Daniel Jones: Remarkable Production, but an Eight-Game Sample
Jones' first eight Indianapolis starts were excellent. Official NFL game logs show 173 completions on 243 attempts (71.2%), 2,062 passing yards, 13 passing touchdowns and three interceptions.
He averaged 8.49 passing yards per attempt and posted a 109.5 passer rating. He also scored four rushing touchdowns. The Colts went 7–1.
Then the performance changed. Over his next five appearances in 2025 and five starts to open 2026, Jones' efficiency, scoring and ball security deteriorated sharply.
| Metric | First 8 Colts games (2025) | Next 10 Colts games (2025–26) |
|---|---|---|
| Team record | 7–1 | 3–7 |
| Passing yards | 2,062 | 2,060 |
| Passing yards per appearance | 257.8 | 206.0 |
| Completion rate | 71.2% | 61.8% |
| Passing yards/attempt | 8.49 | 6.50 |
| Passing touchdowns | 13 | 9 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 4 | 2 |
| Total touchdowns credited to QB | 17 | 11 |
| Interceptions | 3 | 9 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 6 |
| Actual turnovers | 3 | 15 |
| Turnovers/appearance | 0.38 | 1.50 |
| Passer rating | 109.5 | 78.3 |
Sources: Jones' 2025 NFL game log and 2026 game log. “Next 10” includes the abbreviated December 2025 Jacksonville appearance, when Jones suffered his Achilles injury; figures per appearance should not be interpreted as full-game rates.
His passing yards per appearance fell 20%. Yards per attempt declined approximately 23%. His touchdown production fell from 1.63 to 0.90 passing scores per appearance, and his turnover rate almost quadrupled. Jones' first eight games were exceptional; the next 10 were not.
Critics should not erase the first eight games. Supporters should not erase the next 10. The question is which is more predictive of what happens next.
Regression to the Mean: His Last 10 Games Mirror His Giants Career
Jones spent six seasons with the Giants before arriving in Indianapolis. Across 70 New York regular-season appearances from 2019 through 2024, his established passing profile looked like this. Compare it with the 10 Colts games following the 7–1 start:
| Measure | Giants career (2019–24) | Last 10 Colts appearances |
|---|---|---|
| Passing yards/game | 208.3 | 206.0 |
| Completion percentage | 64.1% | 61.8% |
| Yards/attempt | 6.51 | 6.50 |
| Passing TD/game | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Turnovers/game | Approximately 1.04 | 1.50 |
| Passer rating | Approximately 84.3 | 78.3 |
The yardage comparison is almost identical: 208.3 versus 206.0 passing yards per appearance. The yards-per-attempt difference is one-hundredth of a yard. The recent turnovers are worse.
This is what statistical regression toward an established baseline looks like. It cannot prove Jones will never improve.
It does suggest that Indianapolis' original eight-game surge was a less reliable indicator of lasting transformation than his broader career. The NFL's career data documents the longer sample; one spectacular half-season should not outweigh it.
PFF has independently described the same pattern: in its 2026 Colts preview, the publication noted that Jones was its 10th-highest-graded quarterback through Week 8 of 2025 but fell to 32nd from Week 9 onward.
That is a stronger underlying case for regression than win-loss record alone.
Weak Opponents Helped Build the 7–1 Start
Five of Indianapolis' opening seven victories came over teams that finished 2025 with losing records. Four came against teams that finished 3–14, including Tennessee twice. Those facts are contextual—not a claim that Jones played poorly in each victory.
| Opponent | Result | Opponent's final 2025 record |
|---|---|---|
| Miami Dolphins | W 33–8 | 7–10 |
| Denver Broncos | W 29–28 | 14–3 |
| Tennessee Titans | W 41–20 | 3–14 |
| Las Vegas Raiders | W 40–6 | 3–14 |
| Arizona Cardinals | W 31–27 | 3–14 |
| Los Angeles Chargers | W 38–24 | 11–6 |
| Tennessee Titans | W 38–14 | 3–14 |
The wins over Denver and Los Angeles were meaningful; Jones deserves credit for them. The lone loss came against a 12–5 Rams team.
But the full record shows why the opening eight opponents were not an ideal basis for declaring a long-term franchise quarterback found.
Final records are not opponent-adjusted defensive EPA, and a rigorous model would also incorporate injuries, schedule timing and game scripts. The competition nonetheless belongs in the analysis (see the Colts' official 2025 schedule).
Jonathan Taylor's 14 Touchdowns: The Other Explanation for 7–1
Any account of Jones' breakout that minimizes Jonathan Taylor is incomplete. In the same first eight games, Taylor generated 850 rushing yards on 143 carries (5.94 per carry), 206 receiving yards, 1,056 scrimmage yards and 14 touchdowns—12 rushing and two receiving. That's 132 scrimmage yards and 1.75 touchdowns per game. The figures are calculable from Taylor's official 2025 logs.
Jones accounted for 17 combined passing and rushing touchdowns during those eight games. Taylor scored 14.
Taylor matched or exceeded Jones' touchdown total in four games and produced four separate three-touchdown performances. Taylor's total touchdowns alone surpassed Jones' total passing touchdowns.
| Week | Opponent | Taylor touchdowns | Jones passing + rushing touchdowns |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Miami | 0 | 3 |
| 2 | Denver | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | Tennessee | 3 | 1 |
| 4 | Los Angeles Rams | 0 | 1 |
| 5 | Las Vegas | 3 | 2 |
| 6 | Arizona | 1 | 3 |
| 7 | Los Angeles Chargers | 3 | 2 |
| 8 | Tennessee | 3 | 3 |
| Eight-game total | 14 | 17 |
Taylor's two receiving touchdowns also count as Jones passing touchdowns; the totals overlap and must not be added together as though they were separate team scores.
Even with that qualification, the point is significant: a running back was generating nearly as many credited touchdowns as the quarterback. In the four Taylor three-touchdown games, the running back had 12 touchdowns to Jones' eight; Indianapolis won all four.
A rushing threat this productive forces linebackers and safeties into difficult run-pass choices, sustains favorable down-and-distance, opens play-action opportunities and can reduce the quarterback's burden.
Taylor did not complete Jones' passes for him. But Jones was operating within an unusually favorable offensive ecosystem, not dragging an unproductive attack to seven wins by himself.
Jones' 7–1 stretch was legitimate. So was Taylor's role as the offense's primary scoring force. The second point deserves at least as much attention as the first.
Pittsburgh Marked the Turning Point—and Atlanta Showed Who Could Still Win the Game
On November 2, 2025, Pittsburgh limited Taylor to 45 rushing yards on 14 attempts and no touchdowns. Jones threw for 342 yards but also three interceptions and two lost fumbles. Indianapolis lost 27–20.
The defeat does not establish that every subsequent opponent copied an identical defensive game plan, but it exposed how quickly the offense could unravel when Taylor was contained and Jones had to solve sustained difficult passing situations.
One week later against Atlanta in Berlin, Taylor was unstoppable: 244 rushing yards, 42 receiving yards and three rushing touchdowns, including the overtime winner.
The Colts won 31–25. Jones contributed 255 passing yards and one passing touchdown but also an interception. The Colts' own recap documents Taylor's record-setting performance.
That was Indianapolis' only victory in Jones' five post-7-1 appearances before his Achilles tear. It came on the day Taylor delivered 286 scrimmage yards and three scores. The running back's contribution was not a footnote; it was the headline.
Taylor Is Still Producing More Touchdowns Than Jones in 2026
Through five games this season, Taylor has 398 rushing yards, 106 receiving yards and six rushing touchdowns. Jones has 1,021 passing yards, 25 rushing yards, three passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown. Taylor has six touchdowns to Jones' four, according to the 2026 Taylor log and 2026 Jones log.
| 2026 through Week 5 | Taylor | Jones |
|---|---|---|
| Offensive yards credited to player* | 504 scrimmage | 1,046 pass + rush |
| Total touchdowns | 6 | 4 |
| Lost fumbles | 1 | 3 |
| Interceptions | — | 4 |
| Actual turnovers | 1 | 7 |
Yardage categories and opportunities are fundamentally different for running backs and quarterbacks; this is a scoring-contribution comparison, not a claim that 504 running back scrimmage yards exceed 1,046 quarterback passing-plus-rushing yards in value.
Across the exact 10 games used for the Jones regression sample, Taylor gained 904 rushing yards and 204 receiving yards—1,108 yards from scrimmage, with 10 touchdowns. Jones generated 2,060 passing yards, 103 rushing yards and 11 total touchdowns, but also committed 15 turnovers.
Taylor lost two fumbles over those same dates. Jones had more passing volume; Taylor was an equally important source of scoring.
That is not an argument to compare their turnover risk one-for-one across different positions. It is a reason to challenge the idea that Jones has been Indianapolis' most reliable offensive engine.
Indeed, Taylor's total touchdowns also surpassed Jones' passing touchdowns in this 10-game sample size, too.
Pairing Taylor with Richardson could introduce a second legitimate rushing threat. Zone reads, quarterback keepers and red-zone designed runs alter defensive responsibilities. Less stacking the box like against DJ, who is now a checkdown statue.
Richardson's 499 rushing yards and six rushing touchdowns in 2024 cannot be dismissed as incidental. His accuracy problems could also invite crowded boxes, so this is a tactical possibility rather than a guarantee.
Crucially, Indianapolis has not given Richardson a sustained starting sample alongside both Taylor and promising tight end Tyler Warren.
Jones' 2026 Numbers Are Not Merely Below Expectations. They Are Near the Bottom of the League
Jones' 2026 statistics explain why the quarterback discussion has intensified:
| Metric | Through five games |
|---|---|
| Colts record | 2–3 |
| Completions/attempts | 108/176 |
| Completion rate | 61.4% |
| Passing yards | 1,021 |
| Passing yards per game | 204.2 |
| Yards/attempt | 5.8 |
| Passing TD–INT | 3–4 |
| Rushing yards / touchdowns | 25 / 1 |
| Fumbles (lost) | 4 (3) |
| Actual turnovers | 7 |
| Passer rating | 73.6 |
CBS Sports' October 14 Week 6 quarterback power rankings placed Jones 29th out of 32 starting quarterbacks, citing his 5.8 yards per attempt and –0.17 expected points added per dropback, both third-worst in the league at that point.
Those are efficiency metrics that look beyond the scoreboard and are especially troubling for a quarterback chosen to raise the offense's floor. PFF's October 17 player evaluation tells a similar story:
| PFF measure | Jones through Week 5 |
|---|---|
| Overall offensive grade | 57.4, 28th of 34 qualified QBs |
| Passing grade | 56.2, 29th of 34 |
| Big-time throws | 4 |
| Turnover-worthy plays | 9 |
| Average depth of target | 7.7 yards |
| Average time to throw | 2.70 seconds |
Nine turnover-worthy plays in five games are especially problematic for the supposedly lower-risk veteran.
PFF's definitions are proprietary, and a turnover-worthy play does not necessarily become an actual interception or lost fumble. The number nonetheless reinforces the official total of seven turnovers. Jones has only three passing touchdowns.
The combination of shorter average targets, poor yards per attempt, low touchdown volume and substantial turnover risk is a difficult basis for claiming Jones offers the best chance to win.
A straight-line 17-game projection—not a predictive model—puts Jones at approximately 3,471 passing yards, 10 passing touchdowns, 14 interceptions, 14 total fumbles and 10 lost fumbles, or about 24 turnovers.
Injury, opponent mix, game plans and ordinary statistical variability could change those figures dramatically.
But a $44-million-per-year quarterback (with $50 million specifically guaranteed this season) tracking toward 10 passing touchdowns is not providing a credible win-now payoff.
Daniel Jones is averaging 5.8 yards per pass attempt. A 2026 Chevy Tahoe is 5.9 yards long. For $44 million a year, the Colts got a QB who can't even throw the length of a damn SUV on average. 😭 Shane Steichen really benched Anthony Richardson for this. #ForTheShoe https://t.co/uwl4JCnGal
— FootBasket™.com (@FootBasket) October 16, 2026
Washington: The Win That Should Not Be Mistaken for a Good Quarterback Game
Indianapolis beat Washington 30–13 in Week 4. Jones completed 19 of 34 passes for 143 yards, no passing touchdowns, one interception and a 53.9 passer rating. He lost a fumble but also scored a rushing touchdown.
Taylor ran for 95 yards and scored twice. The defense limited Washington to 13 points.
The defensive matchup makes Jones' performance harder to excuse. Through Week 5, official NFL defensive passing statistics show Washington had allowed 14 passing touchdowns, tied for the most in the league, along with a 103.9 opponent passer rating.
Yet Jones produced zero passing touchdowns against that defense.
Washington had to play inexperienced third-string replacement quarterback Athan Kaliakmanis, who completed 15 of 33 passes for 186 yards, one touchdown and one interception, producing a 60.9 rating. He was put in after backup Marcus Mariota got injured, who also was outplaying Jones.
Jones completed a greater percentage of passes and scored on the ground; Kaliakmanis had more passing yards, a passing touchdown and the higher passing rating.
| Week 4 quarterback | Jones | Kaliakmanis |
|---|---|---|
| Completions/attempts | 19/34 | 15/33 |
| Passing yards | 143 | 186 |
| Passing TD | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Rushing TD | 1 | 0 |
| Passer rating | 53.9 | 60.9 |
| Team result | W 30–13 | L 13–30 |
This is not proof the rookie was categorically better in every respect. It is proof that a convincing team victory does not automatically imply strong quarterback passing.
If Richardson is accused of being carried by defense and rushing production when he wins, that same standard must apply to Jones.
Looney tunes ahhhh fumble for Daniel Jones https://t.co/aJcOuiLPA9
— Barstool Sports (@barstoolsports) October 4, 2026
Daniel Jones İNTERCEPTİON! https://t.co/YGCrqHdhRe
— Repordino (@Repordino) October 4, 2026
Even Cam Ward Has Protected the Ball Better in a Weaker Offensive Setting
Tennessee arrives in Indianapolis 0–5 at the time of this writing, and second-year quarterback Cam Ward has not played well. People are already trying to call him a bust.
Yet, his season still offers an instructive comparison with Jones:
| Through Week 5 of 2026 | Ward, Titans | Jones, Colts |
|---|---|---|
| Team record | 0–5 | 2–3 |
| Completion percentage | 63.2% | 61.4% |
| Passing yards | 896 | 1,021 |
| Yards/attempt | 5.8 | 5.8 |
| Passing TD–INT | 3–3 | 3–4 |
| Rushing TD | 2 | 1 |
| Total TD | 5 | 4 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 3 |
| Total turnovers | 3 | 7 |
| Passer rating | 77.2 | 73.6 |
The NFL's Ward statistics show fewer than half as many turnovers as Jones, despite Ward playing on a winless team.
This does not establish that Ward has already become the superior quarterback. Tennessee's offense has serious shortcomings, and Ward has been inaccurate and inefficient himself.
The supporting-cast context adds weight: PFF's October 14 offensive-line rankings placed Indianapolis fifth and Tennessee 23rd. Jones has Quenton Nelson and Bernhard Raimann anchoring his protection. Ward plays behind a substantially lower-ranked line.
For running back help, Colts' Taylor has 398 rushing yards and six rushing touchdowns through five games; Tennessee's Tony Pollard has 273 yards and one rushing score.
Ward has also worked with a less productive receiving environment. He is dealt with more pressure and his receivers and pass-catchers have a higher drop rate than Jones.
Tennessee's decision to give Ward continued developmental opportunities after drafting him first overall is not proof it will pay off. It is a coherent plan.
Indianapolis' choice to abandon development and pay for immediate "stability" demands better performance than Jones is currently producing.
Daniel Jones has one of the best offensive guards of all time in Quenton Nelson You just said with a straight face that Ward has a better oline than Jones, when this happened last Sunday: https://t.co/cQBlMpLK6h
— FootBasket™.com (@FootBasket) October 14, 2026
Does Jones' Achilles Injury Excuse the Regression? History Says Otherwise
Jones suffered a fibula injury late in 2025 before tearing his Achilles in December. Recovery is a legitimate factor: footwork, lower-body mechanics, acceleration and confidence can all suffer after major injuries.
The critical chronology, however, is that the slide began in Pittsburgh in Week 9, before the Achilles tear. Contemporary film analysis identified a steep decline against pressure during the second half of 2025.
However, these two post-Achilles veteran seasons show why recovery should be treated as context rather than a blanket exemption:
| First full/primary season after Achilles injury | Aaron Rodgers, Jets 2024 | Kirk Cousins, Falcons 2024 | Jones, 2026 17-game pace |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starts | 17 | 14 | 17 assumed |
| Passing yards | 3,897 | 3,508 | 3,471 |
| Passing touchdowns | 28 | 18 | 10 |
| Interceptions | 11 | 16 | 14 |
| Passer rating | 90.5 | 88.6 | 73.6 if unchanged |
Rodgers' career numbers and Cousins' career numbers confirm that neither had an ideal season by his own standards.
Cousins threw too many interceptions and was benched. Yet even in only 14 starts, Cousins threw 18 touchdowns; he also had a 509-yard, four-TD game against Tampa Bay. Rodgers threw 28 touchdown passes for a Jets team that went 5–12.
The injuries are not medically identical, and neither season predicts Jones' recovery. The fair takeaway is narrower: Indianapolis knew Jones was recovering when it committed $88 million, and health-related limitations cannot by themselves prove he should remain the starter indefinitely.
Richardson, too, deserves context for the major shoulder surgery that disrupted his rookie-year-to-Year-2 development.
Primetime & Strong Opponents: Experience Is Not the Same as Reliability
Jones entered the September 2026 Sunday-night game against Kansas City with a 1–15 record in regular-season primetime starts; Indianapolis' 33–30 defeat made it 1–16.
A primetime record is a team statistic influenced by schedule difficulty, roster quality and defense, not a quarterback-only rating. Yet an extreme pattern of losses is relevant when Indianapolis is investing in a veteran specifically to win important games.
Jones has also struggled repeatedly against stronger opponents across his career. For his Colts career, six of his eight wins last season was against teams with losing records. In his 10 Colts wins overall, eight of them are against teams with losing records.
But the narrower, defensible point is that a 3–7 record since the 7–1 start, a historically poor primetime record and bottom-tier 2026 efficiency do not establish a quarterback who raises the team's ceiling against good defenses.
Sam Darnold Faces Scrutiny Despite Having Accomplished Much More—and Costing Less
Seattle's Sam Darnold provides an unusually sharp contrast in expectations.
Darnold went from an inconsistent former Jets draft pick to throwing 4,319 yards and 35 TDs for Minnesota in 2024, then 4,048 yards and 25 TDs for Seattle in 2025. He helped the Seahawks win Super Bowl LX following a 14–3 regular season.
His three-year, $100.5 million deal averages $33.5 million annually, compared with Jones' $44 million.
| Comparison | Darnold | Jones |
|---|---|---|
| Current contract AAV | $33.5M | $44M |
| Career-best passing yards in a season | 4,319 | 3,205 |
| Career-best passing TDs in a season | 35 | 24 |
| Super Bowl wins as starting QB | 1 | 0 |
| 2026 passing TD–INT through Oct. 17 | 7–7 | 3–4 |
| 2026 yards/attempt | 6.9 | 5.8 |
| 2026 passer rating | 77.4 | 73.6 |
The NFL career records for Darnold and Jones document the production difference. Darnold suffered a glute injury early this season, and Seattle confirmed Drew Lock started in his absence.
When Darnold committed two interceptions in Seattle's October 15 overtime loss to Denver, some Seahawks commentators openly raised the possibility of benching him.
Field Gulls discussed that possibility. Head coach Mike Macdonald expressly rejected a quarterback change, stressing continued faith in Darnold.
It would be impossible to prove that all Seattle fans are more demanding than all Colts fans.
The verified comparison is stronger than that sweeping claim: a quarterback with a recent championship, back-to-back 4,000-yard seasons and a lower annual salary is facing intense accountability for mistakes.
Indianapolis should have no lower standard for Jones merely because of its own sunk costs and memories of 7–1.
Richardson's 2024 Numbers Were Bad. They Also Reveal Something Passer Rating Misses
No serious analysis should conceal Richardson's 2024 passing: 126 completions on 264 attempts (47.7%), 1,814 yards, eight passing touchdowns, 12 interceptions and a 61.6 passer rating. Those figures were poor. He routinely missed attainable throws and too frequently put possessions at risk.
But Richardson also ran for 499 yards and six scores. His full contribution was 2,313 passing-plus-rushing yards and 14 total touchdowns in 11 starts, with Indianapolis going 6–5. See his official 2024 NFL totals.
| Category | Richardson, 2024 | Jones, last 10 Colts games |
|---|---|---|
| Games/starts | 11 | 10, one injury-shortened |
| Team record in starts | 6–5 | 3–7 |
| Passing yards | 1,814 | 2,060 |
| Rushing yards | 499 | 103 |
| Total offensive yards | 2,313 | 2,163 |
| Passing TD | 8 | 9 |
| Rushing TD | 6 | 2 |
| Total TD | 14 | 11 |
| Interceptions | 12 | 9 |
| Fumbles | 9 | 11 |
| Lost fumbles | 3 | 6 |
| Actual turnovers | 15 | 15 |
| Interceptions + all fumbles | 21 | 20 |
These are two different sample sizes, with Jones losing substantial playing time in the last game of 2025.
Still, the central contradiction is real: the low-accuracy young quarterback in his second season produced more total yards and touchdowns across the compared appearances with the same 15 actual turnovers as the veteran.
Jones threw more efficiently; Richardson ran far more effectively. Neither set of advantages should be hidden.
Interceptions plus every fumble total 21 for Richardson and 20 for Jones. That separate category describes ball-security events, not giveaways; only fumbles lost count as turnovers.
With either measure, the idea of Jones as automatically safe and Richardson as uniquely reckless is difficult to sustain.
The double standard between Anthony Richardson and Daniel Jones is ridiculous AR makes mistakes? “Bust. Bench him.” Jones makes the same mistakes? “Needs more time. Better weapons and defense.” One’s a young project. Other is an 8-year veteran making $88 million #ForTheShoe https://t.co/AxwpkV8Yiy
— FootBasket™.com (@FootBasket) October 15, 2026
Jones Has Produced Both a Worse Passing Low and a Worse Turnover Disaster
A quarterback's worst game should not define his career. But applying the same standard matters if fans continue to focus only on AR's career lows.
Jones' 2023 season opener against Dallas ended in a 40–0 Giants defeat. He completed 15 of 28 passes for 104 yards, no TDs, two interceptions and a 32.4 passer rating; he was sacked seven times and rushed for 43 yards.
Richardson's lowest-rated passing game, Indianapolis' December 2024 loss to Denver, produced 17-of-38 passing, 172 yards, no passing TDs, two interceptions and a 36.3 rating. Richardson also rushed for 46 yards and the Colts' only touchdown.
| Worst-rated passing game | Jones vs. DAL (2023) | Richardson vs. DEN (2024) |
|---|---|---|
| Passing | 15/28, 104 yards | 17/38, 172 yards |
| Passing TD–INT | 0–2 | 0–2 |
| Passer rating | 32.4 | 36.3 |
| Rushing yards | 43 | 46 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Total offensive yards | 147 | 218 |
| Final | L 0–40 | L 13–31 |
Richardson's throwing that day was very poor, but a passer-rating-only description omits the 46 rushing yards and touchdown. The 2024 Richardson game log documents the Denver outing.
The more damaging Jones example came on November 2, 2025: three interceptions, three fumbles, two lost fumbles—five actual turnovers in Pittsburgh.
Richardson's largest single-game turnover count is three: three interceptions and no fumbles lost against Green Bay in September 2024. Both threw three picks; Jones lost two additional possessions on fumbles. Richardson's final INT in the Packers game was a Hail Mary throw as well.
| Most-turnover game | Jones at PIT, 2025 | Richardson at GB, 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| Passing yards | 342 | 204 |
| Passing TD–INT | 1–3 | 1–3 |
| Total fumbles | 3 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 2 | 0 |
| Actual turnovers | 5 | 3 |
| Rushing yards | 4 | 37 |
| Total TD | 2 | 1 |
| Passer rating | 63.9 | 41.8 |
Richardson's three-interception game came in his sixth NFL start. Jones' five-turnover game came during his seventh NFL season.
The distinction does not make Richardson's game acceptable, but the idea that a veteran's worst miscues should be forgiven while a young quarterback's equivalent mistakes permanently disqualify him is an indefensible double standard.
The 8–7 Record "Myth": Richardson Helped Build the Three Wins He Did Not Finish
A frequent objection to Richardson's 8–7 record as a starter is that he left three eventual victories early because of injury. That is factually true. It is also incomplete. In each contest, Indianapolis led when Richardson exited:
| Game | Richardson passing | Rushing | Score/lead when he exited | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 at Houston | 6/10, 56 yards, 0 INT | 35 yards, 2 TD | Colts up 14–7 | W 31–20 |
| 2023 vs. Tennessee | 9/12, 98 yards, 0 INT | 5 yards | Colts up 10–6 | W 23–16 |
| 2024 vs. Pittsburgh | 3/4, 71 yards, 0 INT | 24 yards | Colts up 7–0 | W 27–24 |
Combined: 18 completions in 26 attempts (69.2%), 225 passing yards, 64 rushing yards, 289 offensive yards, two TD and no interceptions in appearances that ended early. That stat line alone is considered a great individual game, by the way.
Gardner Minshew and Joe Flacco helped preserve those wins; Jonathan Taylor, the defense and special teams also mattered.
Richardson did not finish them, but they were certainly not all victories achieved without him. Even in the drives Minshew or Flacco scored, AR set up the scoring drive on the possessions he got injured.
Richardson finished five wins and started three additional victories he helped establish. Treating his record simply as “5–7” removes meaningful positive contributions; treating 8–7 as proof he alone generated eight wins would be equally misleading.
The appropriate interpretation is a young quarterback with an 8–7 starting record and a small, injury-interrupted sample.
His First Four Games: Seven Touchdowns, Two Turnovers and Less Than Four Full Games
Richardson's 2023 rookie season offers important context for his uneven second year.
In four starts—three of which he exited before the finish—he completed 50 of 84 attempts (59.5%) for 577 yards, three passing TD and one interception, while adding 136 rushing yards and four rushing TDs. He accounted for seven touchdowns against two actual turnovers.
The official NFL game log confirms the production. Compare the first four starts of several other prominent quarterbacks drafted since 2020:
| Quarterback (first four starts) | Passing yards | Rushing yards | Combined yards | Total TD | Interceptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Richardson | 577 | 136 | 713 | 7 | 1 |
| Bryce Young | 750 | 65 | 815 | 5 | 4 |
| Bo Nix | 660 | 110 | 770 | 3 | 4 |
| Caleb Williams | 787 | 79 | 866 | 3 | 4 |
These are early-career, cross-team comparisons—not controlled experiments. Richardson's lower yardage reflects substantially shorter appearances.
His touchdown output nonetheless exceeded those players' first four starts while he threw fewer interceptions. Since then, Young and Nix have had the repeated reps Richardson largely lost.
Richardson's first five appearances with meaningful playing time (the four 2023 starts plus the 2024 opener against Houston) resulted in 789 passing yards, five passing TD, two interceptions, 192 rushing yards, five rushing TD and one lost fumble—10 total touchdowns and three actual turnovers.
AR’s throw to Dulin was a DOT. Gets overshadowed by the Pierce TD bomb, but this play was fire 🔥🔥 #ForTheShoe https://t.co/rVbhowdzJi
— FootBasket™.com (@FootBasket) October 17, 2026
Jones through five starts of 2026: 1,021 passing yards, three passing TD, four interceptions, 25 rushing yards, one rushing TD and three lost fumbles—four total touchdowns and seven actual turnovers.
The samples differ enormously in career stage, schedule and actual snaps, but the touchdown/turnover comparison undercuts the notion that Richardson never demonstrated an NFL-useful ceiling.
The Shoulder Surgery & Steichen's aDOT Deep Passing Scheme Made Year 2 for AR Especially Difficult
Richardson underwent surgery on his throwing shoulder after an AC-joint injury cut short his 2023 rookie season. He resumed throwing during the 2024 offseason and was managed for soreness during minicamp.
Colts reporting on his rehabilitation explains why it was not an ordinary first-to-second-year offseason. Richardson was barely 22, had played four NFL games and had spent months recovering from surgery on the shoulder he needed to use to learn NFL passing mechanics.
This context does not absolve his 2024 inaccuracy. It makes the developmental timeline more important. Steichen also leaned into difficult vertical passing.
In the 2024 opener against Houston, Richardson's 17.3-yard average depth of target reflected unusually aggressive downfield usage. Deeper throws are naturally completed less often, while very short throws often inflate raw completion percentage.
Raw completion rate alone is therefore not a sufficient comparison between Richardson's attack and Jones' shorter passing profile.
A more developmentally calibrated offense could have mixed deep shots with designed quarterback movement, play action, quick-game routes, and defined intermediate reads. That would not guarantee transformation.
It would be a more coherent test of whether the franchise's physically gifted fourth-overall pick could learn to operate efficiently. Steichen owns the design of that test as well as its results.
The Texans Tap-Out Became Bigger Than the Football Play Itself
Richardson's brief departure from the October 27, 2024 game against Houston remains one of the signature controversies attached to his name.
He took himself out after an exhausting scramble involving a much larger defender and said he was tired. A quarterback should ordinarily remain available. Richardson made a poor judgment and deserved coaching criticism.
The context is frequently stripped away. The following play was third-and-goal from the Houston 23—not a routine third-and-short. Flacco briefly replaced Richardson; the Colts settled for a field goal.
Former Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores also publicly emphasized the physical challenge of battling a roughly 300-pound defender, adding perspective to the fatigue discussion.
"Did you watch the play? The guy throws a 300-pounder off him, he runs around. I thought it was an incredible play. I got tired watching him. I think he's a very, very talented young player."
"I think Anthony, he’s a young player still trying to find his way to a degree. Still makes a lot of plays. I know there’s been a lot of talk about the play where he came out... Even when not every throw is perfect for him, he still has that explosive play ability."
That is someone I would not mind replacing Shane as the next head coach, either. And besides, Richardson returned and finished the game.
His early 69-yard touchdown pass to Josh Downs happened before the tap-out, not afterward. More important to the post-incident chronology, Richardson engineered a late 11-play, 70-yard touchdown drive and delivered a critical throw to Downs that set up Taylor's one-yard scoring run.
The Colts' contemporaneous account documents that fourth-quarter sequence and also records center Ryan Kelly acknowledging Richardson's effort despite criticizing the decision to exit.
| Richardson at Houston, Oct. 27, 2024 | Production |
|---|---|
| Passing | 10/32, 175 yards |
| Passing TD / INT | 1 / 1 |
| Rushing | 45 yards |
| Total passing + rushing yards | 220 |
| Lost fumbles | 1 |
| Final | L 20–23 |
Richardson was inaccurate, and his turnover before halftime was costly. Indianapolis nevertheless remained within a field goal of a 6–2 Houston opponent late, with Richardson still making meaningful plays. Neither the poor passing nor the second-half drive should be erased.
Steichen later described the tap-out as a teaching moment and said it was not the sole reason for benching Richardson. He did not abandon all public support for the player.
But a head coach can hold a young quarterback accountable while also more vigorously reminding the public of the physical circumstances, the player's return and the long-term developmental commitment.
The controversy became larger than one judgment error; the organization's handling deserves criticism even without suggesting the coach should have fabricated an injury.
AR had highest drop % a qb could deal with in 2024 by the way https://t.co/R6y3Ysb2jH
— FootBasket™.com (@FootBasket) October 13, 2026
The Flacco Benching Was the First Win-Now Gamble That Failed
The Houston loss left Indianapolis 4–4. Steichen then benched Richardson for Joe Flacco, arguing that the veteran gave the club its best chance to win. The next two starts told a different story: Minnesota beat Indianapolis 21–13; Buffalo won 30–20. The Colts fell to 4–6.
| Flacco immediately after the benching | At Minnesota | vs. Buffalo | Two-game combined |
|---|---|---|---|
| Record | L | L | 0–2 |
| Completions/attempts | 16/27 | 26/35 | 42/62 |
| Completion % | 59.3% | 74.3% | 67.7% |
| Passing yards | 179 | 272 | 451 |
| Passing TD | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Lost fumbles | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Actual turnovers | 2 | 4 | 6 |
Official Flacco game logs confirm six turnovers across his first two starts after Richardson's benching. Flacco completed more passes than Richardson had, but Indianapolis lost both games and the veteran's errors directly contradicted the promise of increased stability.
The full-season numbers require fairness. Flacco was a substantially better conventional passer than Richardson during 2024: 65.3% completions, 1,761 passing yards, 12 passing touchdowns, seven interceptions and a 90.5 rating over eight appearances (six starts).
Richardson's passing completion rate was only 47.7%, with eight passing TDs, 12 interceptions and a 61.6 rating over 11 starts.
| 2024 Colts quarterbacks | Richardson | Flacco |
|---|---|---|
| Starts / starting record | 11 / 6–5 | 6 / 2–4 |
| Completion percentage | 47.7% | 65.3% |
| Passing yards | 1,814 | 1,761 |
| Passing TD–INT | 8–12 | 12–7 |
| Rushing yards | 499 | 26 |
| Rushing TD | 6 | 0 |
| Passing + rushing yards | 2,313 | 1,787 |
| Total TD | 14 | 12 |
| Passer rating | 61.6 | 90.5 |
The lesson is not that Flacco was objectively worse in every respect. He was clearly more efficient as a passer.
It is that better traditional passing statistics did not produce the superior win-loss result Steichen had promised, while Richardson offered substantial offensive value as a runner and remained the player with long-term upside.
When Richardson returned after the two-loss Flacco detour, the Colts went 3–2 in his next five starts. His completion percentage improved from approximately 44.4% before the benching to 51.1% after returning.
Interceptions and lost fumbles fell from nine actual turnovers in the earlier six-start sample to six in the later five starts; rushing touchdowns increased from one to five.
He accounted for nine total touchdowns in five starts after returning, including clutch drives against the Jets and Patriots.
Against New York, he produced 272 passing yards and two rushing scores in a 28–27 comeback win. Against New England, he accounted for three touchdowns in a 25–24 victory and helped convert the decisive late two-point play.
His 2024 game log documents both. The improvement was uneven, not conclusive. But it was precisely the kind of evidence a team should use to continue the developmental experiment—not end it.
The 2025 Competition Was Closer Than the Eventual Decision Suggested
The public preseason totals do not show Jones decisively beating Richardson as a passer:
| 2025 preseason | Richardson | Jones |
|---|---|---|
| Completions/attempts | 8/14 | 17/32 |
| Completion percentage | 57.1% | 53.1% |
| Passing yards | 94 | 245 |
| Yards/attempt | 6.7 | 7.7 |
| Passing TD / INT | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
Jones attempted substantially more passes and gained more yards; Richardson completed a higher percentage. Neither threw a touchdown or interception.
Preseason samples do not replicate full-speed starting defenses or the practices the coaches observe, so these numbers cannot prove the competition was fixed. But they do not establish an overwhelming production advantage for Jones.
NFL's report announcing the decision described the coaching staff's emphasis on command, communication and reliable operation of the scheme.
The more troubling question is why that presumed advantage has not translated into consistently reliable play in 2026.
Jones' nine PFF turnover-worthy plays, seven actual turnovers and poor efficiency suggest that the veteran's supposed higher floor is not currently materializing.
Daniel Jones is not making ANY of these throws #fortheshoe https://t.co/78ji347XJe
— FootBasket™.com (@FootBasket) October 16, 2026
AR5 doesn’t play scared in the 4th quarter like the current Colts’ starter #fortheshoe https://t.co/QGihxy7Wxn
— FootBasket™.com (@FootBasket) October 16, 2026
Richardson's Preseason Passing Has Improved Every Year
While Richardson has not received a meaningful regular-season starting chance since 2024, his preseason completion rates have increased in each subsequent year:
| Preseason | Comp/att | Comp % | Pass yards | Pass TD–INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 10/18 | 55.6% | 111 | 1–1 |
| 2025 | 8/14 | 57.1% | 94 | 0–0 |
| 2026 | 21/33 | 63.6% | 249 | 0–1 |
The NFL's 2026 preseason logs separate the games:
| 2026 preseason game | Passing | Passing yards | Rush yards / TD | Interceptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New England (started) | 11/14 | 145 | 53 / 1 | 1 |
| Atlanta (relief) | 3/9 | 24 | 15 / 0 | 0 |
| Detroit (started) | 7/10 | 80 | 0 / 0 | 0 |
| Total | 21/33 | 249 | 68 / 1 | 1 |
In his two starts, Richardson completed 18 of 24 passes (75%) for 225 yards. That is a positive sign, not proof he has become a 75% NFL passer.
His relief stint against Atlanta still counts; excluding it to inflate his performance would be selective. He also threw a pick and lost a fumble against New England. Competition quality, small samples and simplified preseason defenses remain real limitations.
But when Indianapolis originally drafted him for traits rather than polish, a multiyear progression in preseason completion percentage should create curiosity—not be discarded because the veteran already has the job.
Anthony Richardson had a 75% completion percentage in the two games he started (18-of-24, 225 passing yards) of the 2026 NFL preseason. #ForTheShoe https://t.co/1z9Wcgnsnl
— FootBasket™.com (@FootBasket) October 17, 2026
Josh Allen vs. Anthony Richardson: College Accuracy & Their First 15 NFL Starts
Josh Allen is not a promise that Richardson will become a superstar. He is evidence that some unusually gifted but inaccurate young quarterbacks need extensive on-field development before reaching their ceiling.
Allen completed 56.0% of his passes at Wyoming in 2016 and 56.3% in 2017, playing primarily Mountain West competition.
Against major programs, the concerns were visible: 16/32, 189 yards and five interceptions against Nebraska in 2016; 23/40, 174 yards and two interceptions against Iowa in 2017; and 9/24, 64 yards and an interception against Oregon in 2017.
Those games were part of the reason evaluators questioned his projected NFL accuracy. Allen nevertheless became Buffalo's seventh overall selection in 2018.
Richardson completed 53.8% at Florida in 2022, throwing for 2,549 yards, 17 touchdowns and nine interceptions while rushing for 654 yards and nine touchdowns.
He played an SEC-heavy schedule and flashed high-end ability against quality programs, including 453 passing yards against Tennessee, 271 against Georgia, and 201 with two touchdowns and no interceptions at Texas A&M.
His low completion rate remains a red flag, but he demonstrated production against major-conference competition that Allen faced less frequently at Wyoming. Florida's official 2022 statistics document the season.
The NFL comparison is more arresting. Both players' teams went 8–7 in their first 15 starts. Their total offensive production was not identical, but the touchdown and turnover differences were much narrower than conventional Richardson criticism implies.
| First 15 NFL starts | Josh Allen | Anthony Richardson |
|---|---|---|
| Starting record | 8–7 | 8–7 |
| Completion percentage | 55.5% | 50.6% |
| Passing yards | 2,903 | 2,391 |
| Rushing yards | 736 | 635 |
| Total passing + rushing yards | 3,639 | 3,026 |
| Passing TD | 13 | 11 |
| Rushing TD | 11 | 10 |
| Total TD | 24 | 21 |
| Interceptions | 18 | 13 |
| Lost fumbles | 4 | 4 |
| Actual turnovers | 22 | 17 |
The Allen comparison uses his first 11 starts in 2018 plus the first four of 2019, excluding his Week 1 2018 relief appearance. Richardson's sample includes all four 2023 starts and all 11 in 2024, excluding his two non-starting 2025 appearances.
These figures can be reconstructed from Allen's 2018 and 2019 logs and Richardson's career totals.
Richardson did not finish several of his starts due to injury. Allen also left portions of games, including the 2018 Houston contest with an elbow injury and his September 2019 start against New England following a concussion.
Neither man's first 15 starts represent 15 guaranteed full games; a fair comparison should not suggest otherwise.
Allen finished his rookie season with a 52.8% completion rate, improved to 58.8% in 2019, then surged to 69.2%, 4,544 passing yards and 37 passing touchdowns in 2020.
Buffalo developed the quarterback and improved its offensive support. Allen's improvement was exceptional, not automatic.
Richardson may never approach it. But a quarterback with 21 total touchdowns and 17 turnovers across just 15 starts has not exhausted a sensible developmental runway.
Bryce Young: The Value of Staying the Course
Carolina's Bryce Young supplies another example without requiring Richardson to mirror Allen.
Young threw 11 touchdowns and 10 interceptions as a rookie with a 73.7 passer rating, was temporarily benched in 2024, returned to the lineup, and then improved in subsequent years.
Through four appearances in 2026, he had 1,268 passing yards, nine passing TD, two interceptions and a 100.0 rating. The NFL's Young statistics document the climb.
| Bryce Young | Completion % | Passing yards | TD–INT | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 59.8% | 2,877 | 11–10 | 73.7 |
| 2024 | 60.9% | 2,403 | 15–9 | 82.2 |
| 2025 | 63.6% | 3,011 | 23–11 | 87.8 |
| 2026 (four appearances) | 62.4% | 1,268 | 9–2 | 100.0 |
Young entered the league with a far more developed traditional passing background, and his progression is not a direct projection for Richardson.
The larger point is institutional: Carolina kept investigating whether its investment could develop, whereas Indianapolis has twice pivoted toward short-term veterans before Richardson even completed a normal season's worth of starts.
Richardson's Contract Advantage Makes the Strategy Harder to Defend
Richardson's original four-year rookie contract was worth roughly $33.99 million total, or approximately $8.5 million per year.
Jones' March 2026 agreement is two years, $88 million ($44 million AAV), with roughly $50 million in first-year cash, additional incentives, and guaranteed 2027 obligations. NFL's contract report and Over the Cap's breakdown provide the structure.
| Contract | Richardson original rookie deal | Jones 2026 deal |
|---|---|---|
| Length | Four years | Two years |
| Total | ~$33.99M | $88M base |
| Average annual value | ~$8.5M | $44M |
| 2027 status | Fifth-year option declined | Under contract, with guarantees |
Jones earns more than five times Richardson's original annual average. His supporters can correctly point out that $44 million is below the very top of the veteran QB market.
But a middle-tier salary cannot justify bottom-tier performance. CBS' 29th-place ranking and PFF's 29th-ranked passing grade are not middle-tier output.
Jones' deal is not necessarily costless to exit in 2027. His contract includes guaranteed compensation and important vesting dates; cutting him would require salary-cap and dead-money analysis rather than the assumption that his second year simply vanishes.
Conversely, money already committed is not an argument for continuing to play a quarterback if the team's expected future performance is better with another option.
The Colts declined Richardson's 2027 fifth-year option, reported at approximately $22.5 million. If he plays well in another audition, he could command a much larger contract in free agency.
Miami's 2026 three-year, $67.5 million Malik Willis agreement provides a relevant but imperfect comparable for a young quarterback receiving a new opportunity.
A shorter incentive-based prove-it deal might be sensible if Richardson shows progress but not certainty; a breakout could push his demands toward Jones money or beyond.
However, Indianapolis cannot assume Richardson would eagerly re-sign with a club that benched him, declined his option, never fully prepared him or gave him supportive environment, and essnetially threw him under the bus.
The Sauce Gardner Trade Removes an Easy 2027 QB Escape Route
Ballard traded Indianapolis' 2026 and 2027 first-round draft choices plus Adonai Mitchell to the Jets for All-Pro cornerback Sauce Gardner in November 2025. The Colts' official trade announcement confirms the details.
Gardner is a tremendous defensive talent; acquiring him was not inherently unreasonable. But the deal substantially restricts Indianapolis' flexibility in the 2027 quarterback draft.
It would be possible to trade other assets or pursue veterans, but the team no longer controls its own first-round pick. The 2027 class may include attractive quarterbacks; there is no guarantee an affordable elite option will be available without a first-round selection.
That reality increases the importance of Richardson's evaluation. If he earns a new short-term deal, Indianapolis could avoid paying another premium for a stopgap while retaining a route to reassess the position in 2028.
If he fails, the franchise at least makes that decision on additional meaningful evidence rather than an incomplete developmental sample.
Steichen and Ballard Own the Process—Not Just the Outcome
Steichen was hired partly because he helped develop Hurts in Philadelphia. His task in Indianapolis was not simply to identify which quarterback could complete the most passes in August.
It was to design a system, teach a raw player and develop a sustainable offensive identity around the franchise's long-term investment.
The first veteran pivot came after Indianapolis fell to 4–4 in 2024. Flacco lost his next two starts and committed six turnovers. Richardson returned and produced clutch victories, though still inconsistently.
The second pivot came in 2025, when Jones was chosen as the win-now starter despite a close public preseason comparison.
Jones began brilliantly, regressed sharply, suffered an Achilles injury and received a major new contract anyway. Five games into 2026, the Colts again have below-average quarterback play and an uncertain season.
This is not evidence that Steichen has secretly sabotaged Richardson or that every criticism of the young quarterback is unfair. It is evidence of a repeated decision-making framework whose promised short-term advantage has not consistently appeared.
Ballard owns the contracts and draft-capital choices. Steichen owns the offensive plan and starting-quarterback decisions. Both should be evaluated on what those choices have delivered.
If the Colts continue around seven or eight wins with Jones, the strategic mistake will not be limited to a disappointing passing season.
The franchise will have spent money and removed draft flexibility while still lacking a completed evaluation of the prospect it selected fourth overall. A new coach could inherit that uncertainty; Steichen risks being judged for creating it.
Start Richardson: A Real Evaluation Is Worth More Than Another Year of the Same Answer
Jones could rebound. One good performance would not erase the preceding 10 games, just as the poor 10-game sample cannot erase his excellent start. He has a legitimate injury-recovery explanation and has demonstrated high-level stretches.
The burden now falls on Steichen to determine whether those stretches are repeatable and sufficiently valuable to justify the opportunity cost of keeping Richardson sidelined.
Richardson's problems remain substantial: accuracy, footwork, decision-making, durability and consistency. Nothing in his early-career comparison with Allen or Young guarantees progress.
Yet he is still 24, has only 15 starts and has shown game-changing rushing production, late-game scoring and improving preseason completion rates. Most important, the veteran selected to replace him has not delivered the reliable advantage that justified ending the experiment.
With Tennessee coming to Indianapolis on October 18, the Colts enter an important division game at 2–3. A win would not settle the quarterback question if the same underlying inefficiency persists.
A loss would magnify scrutiny of the entire regime. The correct response should not be to make a permanent quarterback decision based on one afternoon. It should be to evaluate the body of work and the franchise's future.
Jones' first eight Colts games may be the outlier. His last 10 look strikingly like his Giants career. Taylor was an elite scoring engine throughout the breakout, and Richardson's passing-plus-rushing output and ball security are far more competitive in context than the common narrative allows.
The Colts drafted Richardson to find out whether his extraordinary tools could become sustainable NFL quarterback play. Steichen was hired to help answer that question.
Indianapolis has paid too much for the alternative, surrendered too much draft flexibility and received too little consistent performance to leave the question unanswered.
Shane Steichen chose Daniel Jones because he wanted to win now.
If the veteran continues producing at this level, Steichen should be judged for the decision—and the Colts should start Anthony Richardson before another season of development is lost.
