Colts interested in Kruger (rumor)

[Balzer40]

Well, that's others. Like I said, I watched majority of the Ravens games due to my location. I didn't hear Paul Kruger till late in the year. But if Pagano & Co. Believe he can offer us something better than we have, then go for him. But I'm not for signing someone just for ONE standout year

 

 

 

I don't mind bringing him in, but I have strong reservations on sinking so much money into 1 guy that IMO hasn't really proven himself. Like you said, you didn't hear his name early in the season because he didn't do anything worth talking about until the 2nd half of the season. There are some here acting like this guy is a can't miss FA and he instantly makes us better. He might be a good player to bring in and he may excel or he could be just completely average. I do think he would be better against the run than Freeney, but then again.....I would probably be better against the run than Freeney so that isn't saying much.

[Superman]

I've always held the position as long as players are used in a rotation we wont know what we truely have with them (specifically Hughes in this situation) because its a given when Hughes was brought in it was not always to pass rush therefore with limited and inconsistent snaps that greatly hampers his ability to produce, Im not saying the guy is a diamond in the rough or that he is a bonafide starter but I think  he could start in the Mathis role and be good

 

I think he could start in the Mathis role and be decent. But I'm not willing to forgo improving our OLB situation in the name of giving Jerry Hughes a chance.

[Gavin]

I think he could start in the Mathis role and be decent. But I'm not willing to forgo improving our OLB situation in the name of giving Jerry Hughes a chance.

Dont have to, drafting a OLB in the 1st would be a good idea or perhaps the 3rd

[BrentMc11]

I think he could start in the Mathis role and be decent. But I'm not willing to forgo improving our OLB situation in the name of giving Jerry Hughes a chance.

That is exactly what I was saying above.  You look to improve in every area, and with Freeney more than likely gone we need OLB depth.

 

If Kruger so be it.....draft one...so be it.  I just have a hard time as many have mentioned throwing out huge coin for a guy who has performed exceedingly well 1 year.  What round was Kruger drafted in?  I have not looked.

[IndyColtScout]

There are some football players guys, believe it or not, but they are late bloomers. And those late bloomers, just cause they are late bloomers, doesn't make them less of a football player than what they are.

[Gavin]

That is exactly what I was saying above.  You look to improve in every area, and with Freeney more than likely gone we need OLB depth.

 

If Kruger so be it.....draft one...so be it.  I just have a hard time as many have mentioned throwing out huge coin for a guy who has performed exceedingly well 1 year.  What round was Kruger drafted in?  I have not looked.

2nd round pick 57

[jvan1973]

That is exactly what I was saying above. You look to improve in every area, and with Freeney more than likely gone we need OLB depth.

If Kruger so be it.....draft one...so be it. I just have a hard time as many have mentioned throwing out huge coin for a guy who has performed exceedingly well 1 year. What round was Kruger drafted in? I have not looked.

Second round

[Superman]

I don't mind bringing him in, but I have strong reservations on sinking so much money into 1 guy that IMO hasn't really proven himself. Like you said, you didn't hear his name early in the season because he didn't do anything worth talking about until the 2nd half of the season. There are some here acting like this guy is a can't miss FA and he instantly makes us better. He might be a good player to bring in and he may excel or he could be just completely average. I do think he would be better against the run than Freeney, but then again.....I would probably be better against the run than Freeney so that isn't saying much.

 

I knew who Paul Kruger was. I watched a lot of Ravens games from 2011 after we hired Pagano, and Kruger was a standout as a rotational player. He was always behind Suggs and Jarrett Johnson, so he had limited opportunities to perform, but still had 5.5 sacks in 2011 and made his mark whenever he was on the field. But he probably only got 150 snaps that year.

 

I don't think he is a can't miss free agent, but I'm not worried about him being a one-hit wonder. I'm not super excited about his contract demands, but if we can structure a deal for him in a team-friendly way, then I think he'd be a strong addition to our defense.

[Superman]

Dont have to, drafting a OLB in the 1st would be a good idea or perhaps the 3rd

 

I like Kruger better than anyone in the draft.

[BrentMc11]

Second round

thank you....

[Smonroe]

I don't want my LB's to be nice. Unicorns are 'nice'....

 

If people are not set on Kruger after this season, how can anyone be talking about Hughes as a better option? He was a complete waste of a 1st round pick. His production these last 3 years is what I'd be expecting of 6th or 7th....

 

And referring to his mediocre stats is not doing for me either. I remember one of his sacks being in amongst our Cheerleaders....

 

If we ignore the stats for Luck, then I can do the same for JH.  

I didn't say he was "nice", I said he had a nice season. I'm sure you understand the difference and you were just trying to be glib. We're getting down to semantics, but I disagree about him being a complete waste. He wasn't a high first round pick and he finally contributed. If he's a complete waste, what is Leaf or Russell? He's on the team now, it's time to get over who you would rather have taken.

IMO, Kruger would be an asset. But why is it an either or? Hughes play improved under the new scheme, he may even get better.

Hughes is under contract for under a Mil this year. Who would you suggest to replace him? Keep in mind that his cap hit is almost 2 mil.

[Gavin]

I like Kruger better than anyone in the draft.

I'd take a Brandon Jenkins in the 3rd or Jaime Collins or trade down to the 2nd with the Raiders, Eagles, Lions, Chiefs or Cardinals and take Okafor over Kruger if we are talking about the Freeney role

[throwing BBZ]

What some KNOW!

In the 2010 Draft Pick 13

Eagles - DE Brandon Graham

Yr 1 13 Tackles 3 sacks (what we got from FREENEY this yr for $14Million)

Yr 2 injuries

yr 3 38 tackles 5.5 sacks

2010 Draft Pick 16

Tenn. - DE Derrick Morgan

Yr 1 5 Tackles 1.5 Sacks

Yr 2 30 Tackles 2.5 Sacks

Yr 3 59 Tackles 6.5 Sacks

2010 Draft Pick 31

Colts - OLB/DE Jerry Hughes

Yr 1 6 tackles 0 Sacks

YR 2 15 Tackles 1 Sack

Yr 3 41 Tackles 4 Sacks

NEITHER of Hughes Peers that were Drafted MUCH HIGHER did well their 1st two YEARS.

Were they playing behind a Mathis & Freeney?

Does Hughes fit This scheme better?

Hughes didn`t do well in his first two seasons. But kind of like Kruger after Barret Johnson was let go, Hughes played pretty well in this D when he got lots of Reps. Especially considering there was Little to No Threat coming from the otherside when he was paired with Freeney. With more playing time, and you put a double digit sack man opposite Hughes, he would be a solid threat to be Near 10 sacks next season. JMO

Anthony Spencer had a career HIGH of 6 Sacks in a season his 1st 5 Years playing opposite a decent sack man.

This season he jumped to 11. You think he will get 10 next season? Doubtful!

Have to laugh regarding Kruger stepping up this season and knowledgeable fans not mentioning a solid vet being let go to make room for him.

Kruger has been playing for Years within a very knowledgeable Group. What he has learned in knowledge, work ethic, TEAM, should add some hidden value.

At a soon to be 27, he can still get better and be one of the Def. Leader`s for many years to come.

[braveheartcolt]

I didn't say he was "nice", I said he had a nice season. I'm sure you understand the difference and you were just trying to be glib. We're getting down to semantics, but I disagree about him being a complete waste. He wasn't a high first round pick and he finally contributed. If he's a complete waste, what is Leaf or Russell? He's on the team now, it's time to get over who you would rather have taken.

IMO, Kruger would be an asset. But why is it an either or? Hughes play improved under the new scheme, he may even get better.

Hughes is under contract for under a Mil this year. Who would you suggest to replace him? Keep in mind that his cap hit is almost 2 mil.

The 'nice' comment - i was trying to be funny, not glib. Fail on me.

 

Said he a waste of a 1st rounder. I'm not rating levels of busts. I have no need to get over who I would have taken, as I don't make pre-draft predictions, as I don't see enough college games.

 

I never said it had to be an either or. In my opinion, Hughes may have improved from previous years, but that is not a rousing recommendation, and I've never said we ditch him.

 

You took a lot of liberties with my post sir. Perhaps you got ansty do to my failed 'funny'....

[Superman]

I'd take a Brandon Jenkins in the 3rd or Jaime Collins or trade down to the 2nd with the Raiders, Eagles, Lions, Chiefs or Cardinals and take Okafor over Kruger if we are talking about the Freeney role

 

None of them have 14.5 sacks over the past two seasons in the NFL.

 

Setting aside the money, the draft is much less certain than free agency is.

[Smonroe]

The 'nice' comment - i was trying to be funny, not glib. Fail on me.

 

Said he a waste of a 1st rounder. I'm not rating levels of busts. I have no need to get over who I would have taken, as I don't make pre-draft predictions, as I don't see enough college games.

 

I never said it had to be an either or. In my opinion, Hughes may have improved from previous years, but that is not a rousing recommendation, and I've never said we ditch him.

 

You took a lot of liberties with my post sir. Perhaps you got ansty do to my failed 'funny'....

Didn't mean to take liberties, just to respond. Maybe my tone was too harsh. if so, i apologize.

So, I re-read your post. You think Hughes was a waste, you still don't like him, but you're not saying we should dump him, correct? Is he a starter in this league, or a bench guy? I think the way we rotate in players he's pretty good. Just MHO.

[Larry Horseman]

I'd take a Brandon Jenkins in the 3rd or Jaime Collins or trade down to the 2nd with the Raiders, Eagles, Lions, Chiefs or Cardinals and take Okafor over Kruger if we are talking about the Freeney role

 

I was thinking Mathis would move to the Freeney role and Kruger would play the Mathis role...or maybe they could switch to be more confusing. Didn't Kruger play the Mathis role after Suggs came back?

[Superman]

I was thinking Mathis would move to the Freeney role and Kruger would play the Mathis role...or maybe they could switch to be more confusing. Didn't Kruger play the Mathis role after Suggs came back?

 

You have it right. We're making it more simplistic than it really is, but your on the right track.

 

In reality, Baltimore uses their Rush and Sam linebackers more interchangeably than we did last season. Because Suggs is more versatile than Freeney, they have used Kruger and Johnson before him in the Rush spot more than we used Mathis in the Rush spot, at least when Freeney was on the field. If we paired Kruger and Mathis, it would be more like the Ravens' rotation. And that's a good thing, I think.

[braveheartcolt]

Didn't mean to take liberties, just to respond. Maybe my tone was too harsh. if so, i apologize.

So, I re-read your post. You think Hughes was a waste, you still don't like him, but you're not saying we should dump him, correct? Is he a starter in this league, or a bench guy? I think the way we rotate in players he's pretty good. Just MHO.

No need to apologise at all. I was a tad harsh back...I am happy to keep Jerry as a backup, but I do not think he will ever become a wow factor player, and we need more of those, especially in key positions. I also think he is indisciplined, and is a yellow flag waiting to happen.....on every down.

 

As I've said several times on this subject, I'm still brewing some Polian disdain on this pick as well, which is pretty stupid...buy, hey, it's sport, we are fans, and that's the way we roll! 

[Gavin]

None of them have 14.5 sacks over the past two seasons in the NFL.

 

Setting aside the money, the draft is much less certain than free agency is.

Of course but unfortunately the price can not be set aside, could always draft one of them and sign for example, Kruger or just move Mathis to the Freeney role while signing one of the players mentioned in the draft I mentioned to learn behind Mathis amd slide Hughes into the original 3-4 Mathis role

[Superman]

Of course but unfortunately the price can not be set aside, could always draft one of them and sign for example, Kruger or just move Mathis to the Freeney role while signing one of the players mentioned in the draft I mentioned to learn behind Mathis amd slide Hughes into the original 3-4 Mathis role

 

As you say, it doesn't have to be either/or. We can sign Kruger and draft one of your guys. I'm just saying that I don't think we should forgo signing someone we like -- Kruger or anyone else -- in the name of hoping to draft someone to fill that void. If we identify a need and can fill it in free agency, we should.

 

As for the price, no, it cannot be set aside. But that's a different consideration. If you want to fill a need, you're more likely to do so in free agency than in the draft. Especially once you're outside the first two rounds.

[esmort]

To the bolded, they do not have to spend any particular amount this season. The 89% "requirement" is an average for a four year period from 2013-2016.

And even then, it's not a real requirement. The team just cuts a check to make up for whatever shortage there might be.

I do not have time to reseach it right now, but I thought the 89% was the yearly cap floor requirement, and the 3 year average had to be something like 95%; and that the 3 year average was where they were allowed to cut a check for the difference. I could be wrong I will have to look it up later when not on phone.

[Superman]

I do not have time to reseach it right now, but I thought the 89% was the yearly cap floor requirement, and the 3 year average had to be something like 95%; and that the 3 year average was where they were allowed to cut a check for the difference. I could be wrong I will have to look it up later when not on phone.

 

I looked this up a couple days ago and posted on it. I could very well be mistaken, but my interpretation is that each team has to spend at least 89% of the aggregate cap for each four year period (2013-2016, and 2017-2020). And at the end of the four year period, teams that haven't met that threshold have to pay the difference back to the players they had on the roster over that period.

 

So if the aggregate cap over that four year period is $500m, each team has to have spent at least $445m over that period. If they only spent $425m, they have to pay the difference of $20m back to the players.

 

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/15352-cba-minimum-salary-requirements/

[Balzer40]

I knew who Paul Kruger was. I watched a lot of Ravens games from 2011 after we hired Pagano, and Kruger was a standout as a rotational player. He was always behind Suggs and Jarrett Johnson, so he had limited opportunities to perform, but still had 5.5 sacks in 2011 and made his mark whenever he was on the field. But he probably only got 150 snaps that year.

 

I don't think he is a can't miss free agent, but I'm not worried about him being a one-hit wonder. I'm not super excited about his contract demands, but if we can structure a deal for him in a team-friendly way, then I think he'd be a strong addition to our defense.

 

 

I know some here knew who Kruger was before this season, but I guarantee that many here did not and only realized anything about him after his name had been brought up as a potential FA to replace Freeney. I am not opposed to him coming here at all. I do think he can be a nice pick up. Like I said though, I am leery of the money he wants but thats not up to me obviously. 

[coltsfanatic24]

Kruger doesn't even start Upshaw and Suggs does. He's a good pass rusher but liability vs the run. I think Hughes will thrive next year no need to waste money on Kruger.

[Larry Horseman]

You have it right. We're making it more simplistic than it really is, but your on the right track.

 

In reality, Baltimore uses their Rush and Sam linebackers more interchangeably than we did last season. Because Suggs is more versatile than Freeney, they have used Kruger and Johnson before him in the Rush spot more than we used Mathis in the Rush spot, at least when Freeney was on the field. If we paired Kruger and Mathis, it would be more like the Ravens' rotation. And that's a good thing, I think.

 

Thanks for the much better articulation of what I was thinking. Adding Hughes into the equation as a situation player could provide another layer to this. I have been pretty 50/50 on signing Kruger but the more I think about it, the more it seems it would add a nice flexibility to the defense and enable us to have a better pass rush that leads to more sacks/turnovers/three and out drives (something that is necessary for us to succeed next year).

[Larry Horseman]

I looked this up a couple days ago and posted on it. I could very well be mistaken, but my interpretation is that each team has to spend at least 89% of the aggregate cap for each four year period (2013-2016, and 2017-2020). And at the end of the four year period, teams that haven't met that threshold have to pay the difference back to the players they had on the roster over that period.

 

So if the aggregate cap over that four year period is $500m, each team has to have spent at least $445m over that period. If they only spent $425m, they have to pay the difference of $20m back to the players.

 

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/15352-cba-minimum-salary-requirements/

 

You have it correct. I too posted this in another thread. The problem is the media states the rule incorrectly and thus there is a wide misunderstanding. The CBA is very clear about 89% over a four year period, not 89% per year. Although, I have zero doubt that Jim and the FO will pass that number anyways. We will be somewhere around 92-95% going into the season. The rule is more to avoid there becoming a bunch of Mike Browns.

[Superman]

You have it correct. I too posted this in another thread. The problem is the media states the rule incorrectly and thus there is a wide misunderstanding. The CBA is very clear about 89% over a four year period, not 89% per year. Although, I have zero doubt that Jim and the FO will pass that number anyways. We will be somewhere around 92-95% going into the season. The rule is more to avoid there becoming a bunch of Mike Browns.

 

If we're at or above 89% this year, it will be because we frontload some contracts. As it stands, we're $33m away from that level of spending, and that's a lot of cap space to fill in one offseason. So if we do get to the 92-95% you're mentioning, it will be because we purposely wanted to stack higher cap hits in 2013.

 

And I think that's wise to do.

[Carlos Danger]

hmm 35-40 mil is a lot...  In Grigson I trust!

Is it just me, or is no team going to pay that for Kruger... seems unlikely to me... how many 3-4 teams out there have the money and a big enough need to gamble that much on a relatively unproven OLB? I can see him making 6 mil. a year, maybe, but more than that is very risky IMO... We don't need to pay 9 mil next year for 2 Jerry Hugheses when we can draft another Jerry Hughes in the 4th round... If Kruger pans out, he might make some GM look like a genius, but I can't see him being worth such a large contract, we should offer him 4 years / 25mil. and let him take it or leave it...

[Superman]

Is it just me, or is no team going to pay that for Kruger... seems unlikely to me... how many 3-4 teams out there have the money and a big enough need to gamble that much on a relatively unproven OLB? I can see him making 6 mil. a year, maybe, but more than that is very risky IMO... We don't need to pay 9 mil next year for 2 Jerry Hugheses when we can draft another Jerry Hughes in the 4th round... If Kruger pans out, he might make some GM look like a genius, but I can't see him being worth such a large contract, we should offer him 4 years / 25mil. and let him take it or leave it...

 

I don't agree that Kruger is another Jerry Hughes. I think Kruger is significantly better than Jerry Hughes. Is he worth the money he wants? Maybe not.

[UKColt13]

Good stuff, lets just hope we can keep his contract to a justifiable level.

[Iron Colt]

Kriger and Hughes would be nice with a front loaded conteact.

[MSColtsFan]

The success of most of the Ravens LBs is, in my opinion, based on the strength of Ngata, Jones, and Kemoeatu.  Roll in McPhee, Cody, and Hall, and other than Redding, I'd take all of those guys the Ravens have over the Colts DL.  Suggs is a freak, but to me, the LB play in Baltimore is all about DL play.  I don't dislike Kruger, but I simply don't see him having 9.5 sacks as a member of the Colts unless there is more to fear and protect against up front.  Meaning, I won't be happy to see huge chunks of change go to him unless they address DE and NT too (we all hope Chapman can be the answer at NT).

[braveheartcolt]

If spending a lot of our cap on him prevents us from adding better players, then we need to be cautious. If not, why do we care how much he costs (within reason)....? Will it put an extra 50c. on a hot dog?

[needanoline63]

dont want him on are team, hughes stats almost matches his and he didnt start doing anything til suggs got back from his injury sorry i dont think his stats are as good as they say they are

Jerry Hughes sucks dude

[Kyle]

The success of most of the Ravens LBs is, in my opinion, based on the strength of Ngata, Jones, and Kemoeatu.  Roll in McPhee, Cody, and Hall, and other than Redding, I'd take all of those guys the Ravens have over the Colts DL.  Suggs is a freak, but to me, the LB play in Baltimore is all about DL play.  I don't dislike Kruger, but I simply don't see him having 9.5 sacks as a member of the Colts unless there is more to fear and protect against up front.  Meaning, I won't be happy to see huge chunks of change go to him unless they address DE and NT too (we all hope Chapman can be the answer at NT).

very good point.   9.5 sacks but probably at least 4 or 5 came from the O Line worrying about doubling someone else and he was unblocked...

 

at least Pagano knows the guy better than the other 30 teams who could sign him in FA.  whether we sign him or not, i bet we make the right move

[NewEra]

Hughes is really starting to come on. Will he be that wow guy? Doubt it, but doesn't mean he won't. I really like him. Especially as a back up or special teams play. I'd take Kruger also, but not for some crazy amount he wants.

[ksnider94]

if the colts do sign paul kruger then, then should they drafted his brother? Was wondering what everyone else was thinking and what their opionion on this matter was. 

[Colts20593]

Reed + Kruger

Obvious fits are obvious

[MTC]

I would love that. Mathis and Kruger