Colts: What if Indy signed Cam Newton instead of Philip Rivers?

How much better off would the Colts be if they signed Cam Newton instead of Philip Rivers this offseason?

It was surmised after Week 1 that the Colts made the wrong decision in choosing to sign quarterback Philip Rivers to a one-year contract over other potential stopgap options. His turnovers ultimately cost Indianapolis a chance at defeating Jacksonville, but that conversation was firmly placed on the back burner amid the team’s three-game winning streak.

However, it has made a triumphant and (unfortunately) necessary return in the wake of Rivers’ disastrous performance against Cleveland on Sunday, in which he threw a pair of interceptions, committed a boneheaded safety after being called for intentional grounding in the end zone, and bobbled a snap on a pivotal third down late in the game when the Colts desperately needed a touchdown.

These decisions gifted the Browns nine points on a silver platter — one of the telegraphed INTs was returned for a touchdown — and that unsurprisingly proved to be the losing margin.

Since it’s become clear to everybody (except head coach Frank Reich) that Indy has a QB problem, now seems like the perfect time to come down on general manger Chris Ballard for signing Rivers instead of Cam Newton, who’s silenced all of his critics through the first month of the season.

Let’s compare their statistics for a second, shall we?

• Newton: 62-of-91 (68.1%) for 714 yards, 2 TDs, 2 INTs and an 89.7 QBR
• Rivers: 109-of-154 (70.1%) for 1,227 yards, 4 TDs, 5 INTs and an 89.4 QBR

On paper, those numbers are pretty close, but Newton holds the clear edge because of his production in the running game. For the season, the three-time Pro Bowler has taken 34 carries for 149 yards. His four touchdowns have reminded everybody that he’s STILL one of the most lethal goal line weapons in the entire NFL.

The stats become all the more glaring when you take the respective supporting casts of the Colts and Patriots into consideration. Rivers has been wildly erratic despite working behind a stout offensive line and with a plethora of dynamic playmakers. Injuries obviously haven’t helped his  situation, but we would argue that he still has more weapons than Newton, whose wide receiving corps is arguably the weakest in the league and has fans clamoring for GM Bill Belichick to pull off a blockbuster trade before the deadline.

Folks, Rivers has THREE starting-caliber tight ends to throw to. Newton, meanwhile, has zero, as Patriots tight ends have combined to log three receptions for 44 yards through three games.

If the Colts had signed Newton over Rivers, they’d probably be undefeated and widely considered to be a legitimate threat to come out of the AFC in the playoffs. Outside of a few bad decisions, the former MVP has quite literally been to the Patriots what Rivers was supposed to be for Indianapolis — a game manager who is more than capable of winning a shootout and making the big throws in clutch situations when necessary.

To think that Newton is making over $20 million less than Rivers in 2020 is nothing short of laughable, and Ballard deserves to feel the wrath of Colts fans for choosing to sign a washed-up veteran (and give him $25 mil) over a superstar who is still very much in the prime of his career.

Colts made the wrong decision signing Philip Rivers

Five games into the season, it's clear that the Colts made the wrong decision signing Philip Rivers. He has done nothing but hurt the team.