Colts interested in Kruger (rumor)

[Mameluc]

I like Kruger better than anyone in the draft.

the thing is kruger is not the main cog...bringing him her would mean he gets the pass rusher spot...will he be as successfull now that suggs is not the main cog getting the attention?

and if the draft doesnt have a sngle pass rusher with more potential than what Kruger offers this draft sucks...not because kruger is bad, but normally there are plenty pass rushers to take on the first round

[Superman]

the thing is kruger is not the main cog...bringing him her would mean he gets the pass rusher spot...will he be as successfull now that suggs is not the main cog getting the attention?

and if the draft doesnt have a sngle pass rusher with more potential than what Kruger offers this draft sucks...not because kruger is bad, but normally there are plenty pass rushers to take on the first round

 

About the draft, we pick 24th. I think the best couple pass rushers will be long gone. But my point wasn't that I don't like the potential of anyone in the draft. My point is that Kruger has proven that he can perform in the NFL. Anyone you draft is a relative unknown.

 

As for Kruger's role here, the Ravens have had more flexibility than we had last season. Suggs has more versatility in that defense than Freeney, as he's more comfortable rushing from different sides and angles, and he's far more comfortable in coverage. So the Ravens have used Kruger as both the Rush backer and the Sam backer over the past couple of years, and they've interchanged him with Suggs in both spots as well.

 

That's all technical type stuff. The bottom line is that if you replace Freeney with Kruger, you're changing the dynamic between your two starting OLBs, because Kruger/Mathis provides you with more flexibility than Freeney/Mathis does. I would expect us to move Mathis to the Rush spot predominantly, and have Kruger at the Sam spot.

[Carlos Danger]

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.

I think so as well, but I was trying to point out that the potential for him to play like Hughes exists... I am wondering what Jerry would look like with the Ravens D around him... I like Kruger, but I don't think he is going to make the $$$ he wants and I have serious doubts that he has the ability to live up to a contract like that... I'd like to address that need in the draft, if possible. I also like (although he is 29, a bit too old) Anthony Spencer better at OLB than Kruger. He has a better resume and is a Purdue guy... (bias toward my Alma Mater) He may not get many sacks, but is great against the run, good in coverage,  All that having been said... Pagano knows Kruger and probably has a pretty good idea what he is worth. I don't mind overpaying for the right guys in lieu of the coming cap increase, but if we are paying for OLBs I'd like to get a 3 down guy as opposed to a pure rush LB, preferably a rookie contract to boot.

 

edit: your last post actually successfully refuted some of the things I said in this one.. I hadn't realized that Kruger had played SAM, but I still don't know how well he performed. I actually think that Mathis looked pretty decent in coverage in the second half of the season, but neither he, nor Kruger (and especially Freeney) are particularly good against the run if you look at their tackle numbers...

I don't know... Its not it would cripple the team if we signed Kruger and he turned out to be less than outstanding... He doesn't look like junk or anything, I'm just wary of how sudden his success came and how dependent and OLB's sack numbers are on having great players around him... 

[krunk]

I wouldn't be opposed to us making a move for Kruger if a sensible contract could be hammered out.

[Superman]

I think so as well, but I was trying to point out that the potential for him to play like Hughes exists... I am wondering what Jerry would look like with the Ravens D around him... I like Kruger, but I don't think he is going to make the $$$ he wants and I have serious doubts that he has the ability to live up to a contract like that... I'd like to address that need in the draft, if possible. I also like (although he is 29, a bit too old) Anthony Spencer better at OLB than Kruger. He has a better resume and is a Purdue guy... (bias toward my Alma Mater) He may not get many sacks, but is great against the run, good in coverage,  All that having been said... Pagano knows Kruger and probably has a pretty good idea what he is worth. I don't mind overpaying for the right guys in lieu of the coming cap increase, but if we are paying for OLBs I'd like to get a 3 down guy as opposed to a pure rush LB, preferably a rookie contract to boot.

 

edit: your last post actually successfully refuted some of the things I said in this one.. I hadn't realized that Kruger had played SAM, but I still don't know how well he performed. I actually think that Mathis looked pretty decent in coverage in the second half of the season, but neither he, nor Kruger (and especially Freeney) are particularly good against the run if you look at their tackle numbers...

I don't know... Its not it would cripple the team if we signed Kruger and he turned out to be less than outstanding... He doesn't look like junk or anything, I'm just wary of how sudden his success came and how dependent and OLB's sack numbers are on having great players around him... 

 

Just watch the playoff game against the Ravens, if you can. Kruger is all over the place, rushing from either side of the field, two-point stance, three-point stance, dropping into coverage from either side and from the middle, man and zone coverage. He's been as much a Sam as a Rush this season, and I think Mathis can play either spot as well.

 

I think he's tremendous against the run, by the way. His tackle numbers may not speak to that, but the film certainly does.

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

I see nothing in the article to justify this title.

It was the exact same title of the tweet I got from the colts.

This is the link that was given.

[bavanlan]

It was the exact same title of the tweet I got from the colts.

This is the link that was given.

 

Link to the tweet?

 

I've searched the Colts twitter timeline back until December of last year and don't see it.  In fact, since the timestamp on the link, the Colts twitter account has only posted two tweets that weren't this.

 

https://twitter.com/nflcolts

[Mameluc]

About the draft, we pick 24th. I think the best couple pass rushers will be long gone. But my point wasn't that I don't like the potential of anyone in the draft. My point is that Kruger has proven that he can perform in the NFL. Anyone you draft is a relative unknown.

As for Kruger's role here, the Ravens have had more flexibility than we had last season. Suggs has more versatility in that defense than Freeney, as he's more comfortable rushing from different sides and angles, and he's far more comfortable in coverage. So the Ravens have used Kruger as both the Rush backer and the Sam backer over the past couple of years, and they've interchanged him with Suggs in both spots as well.

That's all technical type stuff. The bottom line is that if you replace Freeney with Kruger, you're changing the dynamic between your two starting OLBs, because Kruger/Mathis provides you with more flexibility than Freeney/Mathis does. I would expect us to move Mathis to the Rush spot predominantly, and have Kruger at the Sam spot.

i would expect that too, to switch mathis to rush spot, and i do understand that he would bring more flexibility which is the main reason i like the idea of having him. but im just not sold on him...

i also didnt like that it seemed, and this is just perception i dont have the numbers to back it up, that upshaw played more than him. i saw kruger rotate in on 3rd down but i saw more of Upshaw(in the SB)

[Superman]

i would expect that too, to switch mathis to rush spot, and i do understand that he would bring more flexibility which is the main reason i like the idea of having him. but im just not sold on him...

i also didnt like that it seemed, and this is just perception i dont have the numbers to back it up, that upshaw played more than him. i saw kruger rotate in on 3rd down but i saw more of Upshaw(in the SB)

 

I haven't rewatched the Super Bowl, so I don't know whether Upshaw played more. I do know that Kruger had their only sack in the game, so if he did that in fewer snaps, that might be relevant. I also believe Upshaw plays the Rush spot more than the Sam spot. And since Suggs came back, Kruger hasn't been starting. But he has been playing, and quite a bit. He's certainly been a big impact on the pass rush.

 

Personally, I'm sold on him as contributor. I'm not sold on him as a star level player, and he reportedly wants star level money. He'd be a great fit, and I think he'd make our defensive front better. I just don't know that I'd want to give him $8m/year. In any event, even if we did give him that kind of money, I don't think it would choke our cap moving forward. We could easily structure the deal in a way that gives the team cap flexibility moving forward.

[Balzer40]

I haven't rewatched the Super Bowl, so I don't know whether Upshaw played more. I do know that Kruger had their only sack in the game, so if he did that in fewer snaps, that might be relevant. I also believe Upshaw plays the Rush spot more than the Sam spot. And since Suggs came back, Kruger hasn't been starting. But he has been playing, and quite a bit. He's certainly been a big impact on the pass rush.

 

Personally, I'm sold on him as contributor. I'm not sold on him as a star level player, and he reportedly wants star level money. He'd be a great fit, and I think he'd make our defensive front better. I just don't know that I'd want to give him $8m/year. In any event, even if we did give him that kind of money, I don't think it would choke our cap moving forward. We could easily structure the deal in a way that gives the team cap flexibility moving forward.

 

 

 

I have to admit the idea of signing Kruger is growing on me a bit. I agree and have said numerous times that I'm highly skeptical of giving him 8 mil per season or even 6 mil per season to be honest. I would still rather have Anthony Spencer too, but Kruger would be a nice addition if we could convince him and his agent that he isn't worth star level money. I know, fat chance.....right!!!

[BrentMc11]

I have to admit the idea of signing Kruger is growing on me a bit. I agree and have said numerous times that I'm highly skeptical of giving him 8 mil per season or even 6 mil per season to be honest. I would still rather have Anthony Spencer too, but Kruger would be a nice addition if we could convince him and his agent that he isn't worth star level money. I know, fat chance.....right!!!

I am also on the fence on Spencer and Kruger....I still look at price, but Kruger is younger.

 

What they BOTH give us is the disguise option that is needed to baffle NFL offenses....."are the Colts in a 4-3 or a 3-4."  Kruger already knows the Raven defense.......Price?

 

Spencer also has the Boiler relation.....as well as knowing Jimmy Raye our new VP.....can it be any more exciting?  

 

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

[Balzer40]

I am also on the fence on Spencer and Kruger....I still look at price, but Kruger is younger.

 

What they BOTH give us is the disguise option that is needed to baffle NFL offenses....."are the Colts in a 4-3 or a 3-4."  Kruger already knows the Raven defense.......Price?

 

Spencer also has the Boiler relation.....as well as knowing Jimmy Raye our new VP.....can it be any more exciting?  

 

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

 

 

 

Those are some good points Brent. Kruger is indeed 3 yrs. younger and knows the defensive scheme already. Those are important points that won't be overlooked by Grigson and Pagano. I guess what it boils down too, is if Grigson thinks Kruger can live up a hefty contract then I'm completely comfortable with having him in a Colts uniform.

[BrentMc11]

Those are some good points Brent. Kruger is indeed 3 yrs. younger and knows the defensive scheme already. Those are important points that won't be overlooked by Grigson and Pagano. I guess what it boils down too, is if Grigson thinks Kruger can live up a hefty contract then I'm completely comfortable with having him in a Colts uniform.

Totally in agreement Balzer.....I want one of the 2...we need one of the two...and maybe even a draftee to mold...

[Superman]

I have to admit the idea of signing Kruger is growing on me a bit. I agree and have said numerous times that I'm highly skeptical of giving him 8 mil per season or even 6 mil per season to be honest. I would still rather have Anthony Spencer too, but Kruger would be a nice addition if we could convince him and his agent that he isn't worth star level money. I know, fat chance.....right!!!

 

For our defense, all things being equal, I'd rather have Kruger than Spencer. Nothing wrong with Spencer, but he's older, has injury history, and isn't as good in coverage. I'd rather give Kruger the $8m/year than Spencer at this point.

 

As for the contract, let's look at some details of a potential five years, $40m agreement. Let's say it includes $10m in upfront bonuses ($4m signing bonus, $6m roster bonus in 2013), and a fully guaranteed first year salary of $2.5m. That's $12.5m in cash in Year 1. Let's also say the second year salary is $7.5m, and $5m of that becomes fully guaranteed as of February 10, 2014. That's $17.5m in essential guarantees. Here's what it looks like on a year-by-year basis:

 

Year 1: $1m signing bonus + $6m roster bonus + $2.5m base salary = cap hit $9.5m in 2013

Year 2: $1m signing bonus + $7.5m base salary = cap hit $8.5m in 2014

Year 3: $1m signing bonus + $6.5m base salary = cap hit $7.5m in 2015

Year 4: $1m signing bonus + $7m base salary = cap hit $8m in 2016

Year 5: $1m signing bonus + $5.5m base salary = cap hit $6.5m in 2017

 

If we wanted to release him after Year 1 before his $5m guarantee kicks in, we would wind up with a dead cap hit of $4m in 2014. If we wanted to release him after Year 2, we'd wind up with a dead cap hit of $3m in 2015. Team friendly contract, front loaded with cash and guarantees. If it doesn't work out after two years, we would have paid him $18m. Not favorable, but it's not the kind of contract that you can't work into your cap or sustain an early termination.

 

Maybe that's still too much for a player with his resume. But it won't kill us.

[Balzer40]

For our defense, all things being equal, I'd rather have Kruger than Spencer. Nothing wrong with Spencer, but he's older, has injury history, and isn't as good in coverage. I'd rather give Kruger the $8m/year than Spencer at this point.

 

As for the contract, let's look at some details of a potential five years, $40m agreement. Let's say it includes $10m in upfront bonuses ($4m signing bonus, $6m roster bonus in 2013), and a fully guaranteed first year salary of $2.5m. That's $12.5m in cash in Year 1. Let's also say the second year salary is $7.5m, and $5m of that becomes fully guaranteed as of February 10, 2014. That's $17.5m in essential guarantees. Here's what it looks like on a year-by-year basis:

 

Year 1: $1m signing bonus + $6m roster bonus + $2.5m base salary = cap hit $9.5m in 2013

Year 2: $1m signing bonus + $7.5m base salary = cap hit $8.5m in 2014

Year 3: $1m signing bonus + $6.5m base salary = cap hit $7.5m in 2015

Year 4: $1m signing bonus + $7m base salary = cap hit $8m in 2016

Year 5: $1m signing bonus + $5.5m base salary = cap hit $6.5m in 2017

 

If we wanted to release him after Year 1 before his $5m guarantee kicks in, we would wind up with a dead cap hit of $4m in 2014. If we wanted to release him after Year 2, we'd wind up with a dead cap hit of $3m in 2015. Team friendly contract, front loaded with cash and guarantees. If it doesn't work out after two years, we would have paid him $18m. Not favorable, but it's not the kind of contract that you can't work into your cap or sustain an early termination.

 

Maybe that's still too much for a player with his resume. But it won't kill us.

 

 

 

That's a good breakdown superman and the more it gets talked about, the more I like it. I do like Spencer but as it's been pointed out Kruger is 3 yrs. younger and that's a big plus for him. The hypothetical contract you came up with don't look nearly as bad as just thinking 40 million over 5 yrs. and the cap hit wouldn't hamstring us that much. Let's just hurry up and get march 12th here so we can get this and other deals done already.

[Jason_]

That's a good breakdown superman and the more it gets talked about, the more I like it. I do like Spencer but as it's been pointed out Kruger is 3 yrs. younger and that's a big plus for him. The hypothetical contract you came up with don't look nearly as bad as just thinking 40 million over 5 yrs. and the cap hit wouldn't hamstring us that much. Let's just hurry up and get march 12th here so we can get this and other deals done already.

 

couldn't agree more....I can't wait till March 12th lol

[Carlos Danger]

Just watch the playoff game against the Ravens, if you can. Kruger is all over the place, rushing from either side of the field, two-point stance, three-point stance, dropping into coverage from either side and from the middle, man and zone coverage. He's been as much a Sam as a Rush this season, and I think Mathis can play either spot as well.

 

I think he's tremendous against the run, by the way. His tackle numbers may not speak to that, but the film certainly does.

based on what I've seen you write since I've been here, I am inclined to take your word for it... The hypothetical contract breakdown was helpful as well... I am mostly basing my opinion on his stats (which is a flawed way to evaluate)... I can see with my eyes that he is very mobile and gets off blocks well.. I will have to rewatch the playoff game, as painful as it is... if he really can stand up against the run it could be sweet to have two versatile OLBs that can rush the passer and it would be a definite upgrade over Freeney (in this system, at least) If Chapman plays like many think he will, our linebacking core will look like studs all year...

p.s.... this is why I like this particular forum... I can get into a debate that actually teaches me something and I don't have to get cussed out for the lesson.. I am still wary of Kruger, but I'll look at some tape before I decide that he is a one year wonder, for sure...

[Superman]

That's a good breakdown superman and the more it gets talked about, the more I like it. I do like Spencer but as it's been pointed out Kruger is 3 yrs. younger and that's a big plus for him. The hypothetical contract you came up with don't look nearly as bad as just thinking 40 million over 5 yrs. and the cap hit wouldn't hamstring us that much. Let's just hurry up and get march 12th here so we can get this and other deals done already.

 

You also have Mathis for the next three years at $10.75m, $8.75m, and $10.75m. Still, combined, that's about what Freeney's cap hit was in 2012.

[ConBro]

Pagano, Redding, McKinney, Zbikowski, and maybe Kruger and alot of you want Reed also???

 

" Here come your 2013 Indianapolis Ravens " 

You mean our 2013 Indianford Cravens

[NewEra]

couldn't agree more....I can't wait till March 12th lol

Is it training camp time yet or what ?!? Heh, this will be a long and exciting off season

[NewEra]

The good thing about Kruger is while he did really turn it on this last year he is still very young and coming off his rookie contract. He has continued to get better every year and I still don't think he's come close to his peak or what he is capable of

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

Link to the tweet?

I've searched the Colts twitter timeline back until December of last year and don't see it. In fact, since the timestamp on the link, the Colts twitter account has only posted two tweets that weren't this.

https://twitter.com/nflcolts

Just looked... It was the "colts update" twitter account. Sorry about that.

[Freenyfan102]

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.  

 

 

 

How else is he sopposed to Get any experiance what so ever behind Freeny and Mathis..........................................Please take the glasses off he had no chioce but to be a back up.

[Bubba]

Excellent player......if he comes in at the right price I think he definitely would fit right in to our system.

[Superman]

based on what I've seen you write since I've been here, I am inclined to take your word for it... The hypothetical contract breakdown was helpful as well... I am mostly basing my opinion on his stats (which is a flawed way to evaluate)... I can see with my eyes that he is very mobile and gets off blocks well.. I will have to rewatch the playoff game, as painful as it is... if he really can stand up against the run it could be sweet to have two versatile OLBs that can rush the passer and it would be a definite upgrade over Freeney (in this system, at least) If Chapman plays like many think he will, our linebacking core will look like studs all year...

p.s.... this is why I like this particular forum... I can get into a debate that actually teaches me something and I don't have to get cussed out for the lesson.. I am still wary of Kruger, but I'll look at some tape before I decide that he is a one year wonder, for sure...

 

I'm wary of Kruger's price tag, even on the proposed contract I laid out above. But I think he has the ability that we want out of an OLB in Pagano's system. All things equal, replace Freeney with him and our defensive front is significantly better. Add in some help on the line, throw in a safety and another corner, and I think we have a top half defense, maybe better.

 

Even if we signed Kruger, I would still hope we could draft a highly rated pass rushing prospect to develop and for depth, and then, worse case scenario, we're two deep at Sam and Rush. 

[Jules]

Jules is interested in Kruger very much.

 

Jules is interested in just about any FA from Baltimore not named Joe Flacco.

[UKCOLT17]

Have people even looked at krugers stats for first 3 years not muc better than jerry Hughes he has s great year when knows it's contract time I prefer to give jerry chance that waste money on Kruger or draft he's not worth is we need s pure mostly rush olb but that's me

[NewColtsFan]

For our defense, all things being equal, I'd rather have Kruger than Spencer. Nothing wrong with Spencer, but he's older, has injury history, and isn't as good in coverage. I'd rather give Kruger the $8m/year than Spencer at this point.

 

As for the contract, let's look at some details of a potential five years, $40m agreement. Let's say it includes $10m in upfront bonuses ($4m signing bonus, $6m roster bonus in 2013), and a fully guaranteed first year salary of $2.5m. That's $12.5m in cash in Year 1. Let's also say the second year salary is $7.5m, and $5m of that becomes fully guaranteed as of February 10, 2014. That's $17.5m in essential guarantees. Here's what it looks like on a year-by-year basis:

 

Year 1: $1m signing bonus + $6m roster bonus + $2.5m base salary = cap hit $9.5m in 2013

Year 2: $1m signing bonus + $7.5m base salary = cap hit $8.5m in 2014

Year 3: $1m signing bonus + $6.5m base salary = cap hit $7.5m in 2015

Year 4: $1m signing bonus + $7m base salary = cap hit $8m in 2016

Year 5: $1m signing bonus + $5.5m base salary = cap hit $6.5m in 2017

 

If we wanted to release him after Year 1 before his $5m guarantee kicks in, we would wind up with a dead cap hit of $4m in 2014. If we wanted to release him after Year 2, we'd wind up with a dead cap hit of $3m in 2015. Team friendly contract, front loaded with cash and guarantees. If it doesn't work out after two years, we would have paid him $18m. Not favorable, but it's not the kind of contract that you can't work into your cap or sustain an early termination.

 

Maybe that's still too much for a player with his resume. But it won't kill us.

 

I think you have spoon-fed this to me in past posts....   but, I'm old and feeble...  and it's not sticking in my old and feeble brain...

 

Have cap rules changed over the years?   I always thought that what the cap hit was year for year would be the potential dead cap charge year for year.   So while the base salary money isn't guaranteed in years 3, 4 and 5,  I thought the cap hit would still be large and damaging...   in your scenario,  $7.5 in '15, $8.0 in '16 and $6.5 in '17???

 

I don't see how you computed the cap hit charges for the out years that you did?

 

What's the downside for a team structuring a deal this way?   It's almost an incentive to cut a pricey player and disincentive for the player to agree to such a deal.    Have the rules changed over the years.    This feels very different than it once was....

 

Either that, or I'm living in a parallel universe with different rules.      Wait.   Wait a moment,  I just looked outside a window and saw a pig flying and hell freezing over!!    I think I ***am*** living in a parallel universe!     

 

Help me out, Superman.....    help your poor old pitiful friend out with these dead cap charges....   this stuff is just not sticking in my gray matter...          

[Superman]

Have cap rules changed over the years?   I always thought that what the cap hit was year for year would be the potential dead cap charge year for year.   So while the base salary money isn't guaranteed in years 3, 4 and 5,  I thought the cap hit would still be large and damaging...   in your scenario,  $7.5 in '15, $8.0 in '16 and $6.5 in '17???

 

I don't see how you computed the cap hit charges for the out years that you did?

 

What's the downside for a team structuring a deal this way?   It's almost an incentive to cut a pricey player and disincentive for the player to agree to such a deal.    Have the rules changed over the years.    This feels very different than it once was....

 

The cap hit is essentially: amortized signing bonus (total signing bonus divided by length of contract) + miscellaneous bonus* (roster bonus, workout bonus, likely-to-be-earned incentives, etc.) + base salary. So if a five year contract has a $5m signing bonus, you amortize that equally over the five years = $1m amortized bonus hitting the cap in each year of the contract. 

 

The dead cap charge for a typical contract is the remainder of the signing bonus and guaranteed money that hasn't been counted against the cap yet. So if you terminate the above contract after Year 1, you still have four years worth of signing bonus that haven't hit the cap; that's all accelerated into the current year's cap, or if designated as a post June 1 release, it's split between the current year and the following year. So that contract would result in a $4m dead cap hit in Year 2. Or if designated as a post June 1 release, it would be $1m in Year 2, and $3m in Year 3.

 

But if you terminate it after the $5m guarantee on February 10, 2014 (random date right after the Super Bowl), then the dead cap hit in Year 2 is $9m, or, designated as a post June 1 release, $6m in Year 2 and $3m in Year 3.

 

(I did make a mistake in my breakdown that just caught my eye. It seems I always do. It should have been a $5m signing bonus, not $4m. That throws all the math off, but not by much. Increase the upfront cash and essential guarantees by $1m, and reduce the base salary in each year by $200k, and that makes up for it.)

 

There are several potential downsides to this type of deal, both for the team and the player. For the team, if the player doesn't live up to the contract, you've given out $18.5m in cash and don't have much to show for it. Or, if the player is outperforming the contract in Year 3 or Year 5, he might hold out. Such is the nature of free agency and player compensation. 

 

For the player, he knows that the full value of the contract isn't guaranteed, which is why players put such a premium on guaranteed money. It's unlikely that such a contract would be terminated after one season, so he's essentially getting $9.25m for the next two seasons, which exceeds the average value of the contract. Teams and players agree to contracts like this all the time.

 

*Miscellaneous bonuses only hit the cap in the year they apply to. So if you want to include a roster bonus in Year 3, that bonus isn't amortized over the life of the contract. It's exclusive to Year 3. This is different from an option bonus. If you include an option bonus in any year, it is amortized evenly over the remaining life of the contract, and in the event of early termination, it is accelerated just like a signing bonus would be.

[FUNSMS]

I think you have spoon-fed this to me in past posts....   but, I'm old and feeble...  and it's not sticking in my old and feeble brain...

 

Have cap rules changed over the years?   I always thought that what the cap hit was year for year would be the potential dead cap charge year for year.   So while the base salary money isn't guaranteed in years 3, 4 and 5,  I thought the cap hit would still be large and damaging...   in your scenario,  $7.5 in '15, $8.0 in '16 and $6.5 in '17???

 

I don't see how you computed the cap hit charges for the out years that you did?

 

What's the downside for a team structuring a deal this way?   It's almost an incentive to cut a pricey player and disincentive for the player to agree to such a deal.    Have the rules changed over the years.    This feels very different than it once was....

 

Either that, or I'm living in a parallel universe with different rules.      Wait.   Wait a moment,  I just looked outside a window and saw a pig flying and hell freezing over!!    I think I ***am*** living in a parallel universe!     

 

Help me out, Superman.....    help your poor old pitiful friend out with these dead cap charges....   this stuff is just not sticking in my gray matter...          

if get kruger he could could help us on the edge and then we would have hughes mathis and then we he comes we wo uld be just that mutch better in 3-4 scheme

[braveheartcolt]

Have people even looked at krugers stats for first 3 years not muc better than jerry Hughes he has s great year when knows it's contract time I prefer to give jerry chance that waste money on Kruger or draft he's not worth is we need s pure mostly rush olb but that's me

Problem is, Kruger has at least shown some top of the range play, contract year or not. Hughes has not, and I do not think for a minute he will in his contract year....

[Carlos Danger]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000137611/article/paul-kruger-wants-to-remain-with-baltimore-ravens

I'm thinking that Kruger is willing to take much less money than his previous statements suggest. I understand that it doesn't matter whether or not he wants to stay in Baltimore (Its not really his decision). However, if he is really trying to work something out with them, he has to be aware of their cap situation and the fact that they can not afford him at the price he has talked about. His apparent willingness to come to an agreement with them seems to suggest that he is willing to take significantly less money in order work with a winning organization with good facilities ect... He will definitely make more in FA and I doubt that his agent is going to care as much about continuity ect. as Kruger seems to... Most players heading to FA express their desire to stay with their old team, mostly because their old team gets first crack at resigning them, so this might not mean a thing. But, between this and what seems like a general malaise surrounding the FA market so far this offseason, I think that we might just be able to work out a deal that makes sense...

After rewatching some games I like what Kruger does more than I did, but I still think Spencer is quite a bit better. Kruger is younger and probably further along than Spencer was 4 or 5 years ago, but for similar contracts I'd rather have Spencer. Kruger is not a bad consolation prize, though and could conceivably become a premier OLB in the league..

[theanarchist]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000137611/article/paul-kruger-wants-to-remain-with-baltimore-ravens

I'm thinking that Kruger is willing to take much less money than his previous statements suggest. I understand that it doesn't matter whether or not he wants to stay in Baltimore (Its not really his decision). However, if he is really trying to work something out with them, he has to be aware of their cap situation and the fact that they can not afford him at the price he has talked about. His apparent willingness to come to an agreement with them seems to suggest that he is willing to take significantly less money in order work with a winning organization with good facilities ect... He will definitely make more in FA and I doubt that his agent is going to care as much about continuity ect. as Kruger seems to... Most players heading to FA express their desire to stay with their old team, mostly because their old team gets first crack at resigning them, so this might not mean a thing. But, between this and what seems like a general malaise surrounding the FA market so far this offseason, I think that we might just be able to work out a deal that makes sense...

After rewatching some games I like what Kruger does more than I did, but I still think Spencer is quite a bit better. Kruger is younger and probably further along than Spencer was 4 or 5 years ago, but for similar contracts I'd rather have Spencer. Kruger is not a bad consolation prize, though and could conceivably become a premier OLB in the league..

He says he wants to stay but in the next paragraph acknowledges that its "a story book ending" with the Super Bowl win. Kruger would like here in Indy. Same scheme. Familiar coach. Contender. What's not to like? If I were a betting man I would plunk down a pretty good chunck of change that Kruger is a Colt come March

[UKCOLT17]

Problem is, Kruger has at least shown some top of the range play, contract year or not. Hughes has not, and I do not think for a minute he will in his contract year....

how do you know u he had 4 sacks when he got his chances we already got someone that does what Kruger does we don't need that type of olb we need one that rushes mostly I prefer to keep Mathis doing what he does Kruger Is not worth what he wants and I for one pray the colts don't get him

[theanarchist]

how do you know u he had 4 sacks when he got his chances we already got someone that does what Kruger does we don't need that type of olb we need one that rushes mostly I prefer to keep Mathis doing what he does Kruger Is not worth what he wants and I for one pray the colts don't get him

no one knows for sure what Kruger is going to demand. But I'll say this, What I saw from Kruger was big time plays in big time games. I haven't seen Jerry Hughes do much and what I have seen out of him I'm not impressed with. Kruger would be a great addition to this team and I'm standing by that. Should he be paid what Mathis go last year? No I don't think so but he's worth some $ and we have money to spend. I certainly don't think he would be a total waste. He came up big for Baltimore during the stretch run and we don't have a lot of players that can do that on this roster.

[Balzer40]

how do you know u he had 4 sacks when he got his chances we already got someone that does what Kruger does we don't need that type of olb we need one that rushes mostly I prefer to keep Mathis doing what he does Kruger Is not worth what he wants and I for one pray the colts don't get him

 

 

 

Actually we do need an OLBer like Kruger. I'm not sold on the idea of paying him what he's seeking but if we can give him a good enough offer he may take it. Freeney is going to be gone and IMO we can move Mathis to the rush spot and play Kruger in Mathis' spot.

[theanarchist]

Actually we do need an OLBer like Kruger. I'm not sold on the idea of paying him what he's seeking but if we can give him a good enough offer he may take it. Freeney is going to be gone and IMO we can move Mathis to the rush spot and play Kruger in Mathis' spot.

The great thing about Kruger and Mathis is that they both could play either spot in my opinion. Great flexibility.

[BrentMc11]

The great thing about Kruger and Mathis is that they both could play either spot in my opinion. Great flexibility.

I agree with you and Balzer.  I think I would keep Mathis where he is comfortable, and have Kruger in the 'Freeney role.'  Mathis has had a few injuries the last few years (back is nagging)  If Hughes is going to be a 'player' for us...I say again it is that left side.....where he will help the most in relief. (I know I keep saying it )

[Kenny]

Pagano, Redding, McKinney, Zbikowski, and maybe Kruger and alot of you want Reed also???

 

" Here come your 2013 Indianapolis Ravens " 

 

Straight off the Mayflower lol I jest I jest.

[Freenyfan102]

I just look at the state on both Hughes and Kruger pretty much the same even......I think Huges as more upside though so let keep hughes and build something else up in hte draft kruger does not need 40 mil forget that.