Colts interested in Kruger (rumor)

[dw49]

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.

 

 

 

 

Knock out deal for the Colts if his agent would go for something like that. They normally look for something with more "commitment" going forward than a team going on the hook for what is basically a 4 million $ signing bonus. Let's just suppose that this contract was offered to a player that had a possibility of being franchised. Why in the world would he just not take the franchise tag for say 9 million and move on the following year ? Not to say that giving a player a 50 Mill contract with a 5 million $ signing bonus is impossible ... I've just never seen one.  

[Superman]

Knock out deal for the Colts if his agent would go for something like that. They normally look for something with more "commitment" going forward than a team going on the hook for what is basically a 4 million $ signing bonus. Let's just suppose that this contract was offered to a player that had a possibility of being franchised. Why in the world would he just not take the franchise tag for say 9 million and move on the following year ? Not to say that giving a player a 50 Mill contract with a 5 million $ signing bonus is impossible ... I've just never seen one.  

 

There's a Year 1 roster bonus, and for all intents and purposes, it's the same as a signing bonus. Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks both agreed to similar contracts with the Bucs last offseason, but with essentially no signing bonus. They had heavy salary guarantees in Years 2 and 3, and the Bucs eventually restructured both contracts to convert those guaranteed salaries into bonus money, and then those bonuses were prorated over the remaining life of the contract. But Jackson's contract was five years, $55.6m, with no signing bonus.

 

I'm not sure the question of why the player wouldn't rather play on the one year tag is relevant in this case. We can't tag Kruger; he's not our free agent. And it's unlikely that Baltimore will tag him, not unless they agree to terms with Flacco before free agency starts. 

 

But if we were weighing the merits of this potential contract as opposed to the franchise tag, it comes down to the $13.5m cash in Year 1 (I said $12.5m earlier, but I made a mistake; the signing bonus should be $5m, and to make up for it you can reduce the yearly salaries by $200k a piece), and the $7.5m in cash in Year 2. Only $2.5m of that isn't guaranteed, but it's still likely to be paid, and would be reported as guaranteed money. That's $21m over two years.

 

The franchise tag for Kruger is probably between $9.5m and $11m, depending on whether he's designated as a linebacker or a defensive lineman (the Ravens had this dispute with Suggs a few years ago, and lost). Let's call it $11m in 2013. Then if he were tagged again in 2014, it would be 120% of that, $13.2m. That's $24.2m over two years. But there's the risk of injury and non-performance in 2013, so it would make sense for him to lock up the $21m over two years rather than rolling the dice in the name of $3.2m more.

[HtownColt]

Going off this playoff run, Kruger was used just a situational pass rusher. Courtney Upshaw was in the majority of the time on 1st and 2nd down opposite Suggs. I'll much rather have Anthony Spencer over Kruger because Spencer is a every down player and is just as effective against the run as he is a pass rusher.

[dw49]

There's a Year 1 roster bonus, and for all intents and purposes, it's the same as a signing bonus. Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks both agreed to similar contracts with the Bucs last offseason, but with essentially no signing bonus. They had heavy salary guarantees in Years 2 and 3, and the Bucs eventually restructured both contracts to convert those guaranteed salaries into bonus money, and then those bonuses were prorated over the remaining life of the contract. But Jackson's contract was five years, $55.6m, with no signing bonus.

 

I'm not sure the question of why the player wouldn't rather play on the one year tag is relevant in this case. We can't tag Kruger; he's not our free agent. And it's unlikely that Baltimore will tag him, not unless they agree to terms with Flacco before free agency starts. 

 

But if we were weighing the merits of this potential contract as opposed to the franchise tag, it comes down to the $13.5m cash in Year 1 (I said $12.5m earlier, but I made a mistake; the signing bonus should be $5m, and to make up for it you can reduce the yearly salaries by $200k a piece), and the $7.5m in cash in Year 2. Only $2.5m of that isn't guaranteed, but it's still likely to be paid, and would be reported as guaranteed money. That's $21m over two years.

 

The franchise tag for Kruger is probably between $9.5m and $11m, depending on whether he's designated as a linebacker or a defensive lineman (the Ravens had this dispute with Suggs a few years ago, and lost). Let's call it $11m in 2013. Then if he were tagged again in 2014, it would be 120% of that, $13.2m. That's $24.2m over two years. But there's the risk of injury and non-performance in 2013, so it would make sense for him to lock up the $21m over two years rather than rolling the dice in the name of $3.2m more.

 

 

 

Of coarse we can't franchise Kruger. The point I was trying to make is that seemingly most all players that are worth around their franchise price appear to disdain getting tagged. If a player , it doesn't have to be Kruger , would get around 9-10 million with the tag , why would he want to sign something like what you have ? IMO , he would be better served to play a year under the franchse tag and then go out and try to find something better. But not saying that what you have is impossible , just saying that it appears to me that you are giving the player around 2 mill more in year 1 that he's looking for his contract to average and I don't think this is what a young player with a lot of leverage woud be looking for. 

 

As far as those Buc contracts , there isn't a lot of difference in those guaranteed years 2 and 3 or a signing bonus. We would have to just compare the guaranteed money of each to get an idea of how it compares.  Looks like jackson's deal ended up to be a "restructured bonus" which equats to a 12.5 mill signing bonus and 26 mill guaranteed. 

[dw49]

Than again Jackson signed for than a 5 year 40 mill deal. So maybe if 5 years at 40Mill signs Kruger , what you have is not that far off. I woud think it would take a bit bigger signing bonus . I also have a feeling that 5years at 40 mill is a little light. I would guess he gets a smething closer to 10 than 8. Hope you are right as I like the guy too.

[Superman]

Of coarse we can't franchise Kruger. The point I was trying to make is that seemingly most all players that are worth around their franchise price appear to disdain getting tagged. If a player , it doesn't have to be Kruger , would get around 9-10 million with the tag , why would he want to sign something like what you have ? IMO , he would be better served to play a year under the franchse tag and then go out and try to find something better. But not saying that what you have is impossible , just saying that it appears to me that you are giving the player around 2 mill more in year 1 that he's looking for his contract to average and I don't think this is what a young player with a lot of leverage woud be looking for. 

 

As far as those Buc contracts , there isn't a lot of difference in those guaranteed years 2 and 3 or a signing bonus. We would have to just compare the guaranteed money of each to get an idea of how it compares.  Looks like jackson's deal ended up to be a "restructured bonus" which equats to a 12.5 mill signing bonus and 26 mill guaranteed. 

 

About the tag, one year salary isn't always pertinent to the annual salary. A lot of the time it's more about the long term security. Ray Rice and Matt Forte wanted multi-year deals, and the average on their deals wound up being $8m, while the tag was $7.7m. Right about the same money. Manning's annual value wound up being far less than the tag. Robert Mathis tag was $10.6m, and his contract average is $9m/year. If Kruger's reported asking price is five years, $40m, I don't know if the tag value is relevant. If he's asking for $8m/year, and you're offering him a two year guarantee of $21m, I think you're scratching his itch.

 

If you're saying his upfront cash would need to be increased, that might be true. I don't know. It's certainly possible to do that in this case. But I was trying to take upfront cash and overall guarantees into consideration, which is why there's a Year 2 salary guarantee. You could change that $5m guarantee into a Year 2 roster bonus, but the total cash is the same through the first two years, and the way it hits the cap is the same as well.

 

For Nicks and Jackson, the Bucs essentially guaranteed their first three years base salary. I think that's a point for negotiation, but again, not impossible to do. I was referencing them because they essentially received no signing bonus, and the team did that so they could maximize flexibility moving forward. Whenever a restructure is done -- which they've already done for both -- you're not piling new bonus on top of old bonus, so you're getting maximum cap relief moving forward. I think that's very prudent.

 

Do you have a specific counter that you think Kruger and his agent would present? Would you think they'd want more bonus upfront, more guaranteed money? I'm using the overall numbers that have been presented, but the numbers within those numbers are where the structure takes shape.

[dw49]

About the tag, one year salary isn't always pertinent to the annual salary. A lot of the time it's more about the long term security. Ray Rice and Matt Forte wanted multi-year deals, and the average on their deals wound up being $8m, while the tag was $7.7m. Right about the same money. Manning's annual value wound up being far less than the tag. Robert Mathis tag was $10.6m, and his contract average is $9m/year. If Kruger's reported asking price is five years, $40m, I don't know if the tag value is relevant. If he's asking for $8m/year, and you're offering him a two year guarantee of $21m, I think you're scratching his itch.

 

If you're saying his upfront cash would need to be increased, that might be true. I don't know. It's certainly possible to do that in this case. But I was trying to take upfront cash and overall guarantees into consideration, which is why there's a Year 2 salary guarantee. You could change that $5m guarantee into a Year 2 roster bonus, but the total cash is the same through the first two years, and the way it hits the cap is the same as well.

 

For Nicks and Jackson, the Bucs essentially guaranteed their first three years base salary. I think that's a point for negotiation, but again, not impossible to do. I was referencing them because they essentially received no signing bonus, and the team did that so they could maximize flexibility moving forward. Whenever a restructure is done -- which they've already done for both -- you're not piling new bonus on top of old bonus, so you're getting maximum cap relief moving forward. I think that's very prudent.

 

Do you have a specific counter that you think Kruger and his agent would present? Would you think they'd want more bonus upfront, more guaranteed money? I'm using the overall numbers that have been presented, but the numbers within those numbers are where the structure takes shape.

 

 

Yes , the deal can average less than the tag price. The RB's took that amount of $ and it's a good deal as teams will quickly cut Rb's whe they slip a hair and their cost is 8 mill or so. So that's where the guaranteed money comes in. Fact is TE and RB has far less leverage than some of the other possitions.

 

 

I would think Kruger's camp would counter with something around 45-50 mill with a 10 mill signing bonus and around 25 mill guaranteed.

Did you see what Nicks ended up getting in just a bit over a year after the restructure made a 12.5 signing bonus ? Ended up to be 24 million. Crazy.... 

[Superman]

Yes , the deal can average less than the tag price. The RB's took that amount of $ and it's a good deal as teams will quickly cut Rb's whe they slip a hair and their cost is 8 mill or so. So that's where the guaranteed money comes in. Fact is TE and RB has far less leverage than some of the other possitions.

 

 

I would think Kruger's camp would counter with something around 45-50 mill with a 10 mill signing bonus and around 25 mill guaranteed.

Did you see what Nicks ended up getting in just a bit over a year after the restructure made a 12.5 signing bonus ? Ended up to be 24 million. Crazy.... 

 

The second half of that $24m for Nicks in Year 1 came out of his guaranteed base salary for Year 2. That's why the Bucs waited until December to restructure it. His Year 2 base salary went down from $12m to $715k. So the money in the first two years is still basically the same. The delivery time and method is all that's different. And even though it's beneficial for the team, it's also beneficial for the player. He got his money in a lump sum, instead of over the course of the next twelve months.

 

I agree with you on the running backs. But Mathis' yearly average is less than the tag would have been. Happens all the time. Mathis got a $15m signing bonus though. Add to that a Year 2 roster bonus of $3m, and base salaries in Years 1 and 2 totaling $6m, and his two year compensation is $24m. It's about 33% higher than the yearly average. The Kruger proposal above includes $21m in the first two years, which is also about 33% higher than the yearly average.

 

Speaking about Kruger's deal, the reported asking price is five years, $40m. I wouldn't expect his side to counter higher than that. But still, the upfront structure is the sticking point for the team. We're already close on the framework. You're saying $45-50m with $25m guaranteed, and I'm saying $40m with $21m guaranteed. I think that's something that negotiation can settle.

 

As for the bonus money, you're suggesting a $10m signing bonus. The proposal essentially gives Kruger an $11m signing bonus, but $6m of that is in the form of a roster bonus. IT can be paid at the same time. Do you think the agent would object to that delivery method? I don't see why they would, and the Nicks and Jackson contracts are strong precedents in that regard.

[Freenyfan102]

Think about this.........This guy just go hot during the playoff......Where was he the rest of the season.................and the last 3 years.......

[Dustin]

Think about this.........This guy just go hot during the playoff......Where was he the rest of the season.................and the last 3 years.......

 

He had 9 sacks this year and 5.5 last year.

[Freenyfan102]

He had 9 sacks this year and 5.5 last year.

 

Still not a reason for the colts to pick him  up. We have pressing need else were LB core is not one of them.......Ol and Corner and were we need to go to this year

[Dustin]

Still not a reason for the colts to pick him  up. We have pressing need else were LB core is not one of them.......Ol and Corner and were we need to go to this year

 

OLB is most definitely an area of need. We can't generate a pass rush.

[Superman]

Think about this.........This guy just go hot during the playoff......Where was he the rest of the season.................and the last 3 years.......

 

 

Still not a reason for the colts to pick him  up. We have pressing need else were LB core is not one of them.......Ol and Corner and were we need to go to this year

 

I find myself wondering a couple things:

 

a) Have you sat down and watched Kruger player over the last two or three months?

b) Have you taken stock of our OLB/DE rotation once Freeney is off the roster?

 

I agree that we need help at line and corner. I don't know how that has any bearing on any other needs on the roster. I'd like to see management take a serious look at every position and do whatever is reasonable to make the team better. I certainly don't think they should put a check mark by the OLB position, as if we're set there and can't be any better.

 

I should also note that I'm not on a crusade for Kruger. I do think he's a good player and would fit our needs, and I'm not as turned off by the idea of a $40m contract as others are. But I don't think the success of our offseason hinges on whether or not we find a way to sign him. I think he'd be a good fit, and I think we can handle his contract demands.

[dw49]

The second half of that $24m for Nicks in Year 1 came out of his guaranteed base salary for Year 2. That's why the Bucs waited until December to restructure it. His Year 2 base salary went down from $12m to $715k. So the money in the first two years is still basically the same. The delivery time and method is all that's different. And even though it's beneficial for the team, it's also beneficial for the player. He got his money in a lump sum, instead of over the course of the next twelve months.

 

I agree with you on the running backs. But Mathis' yearly average is less than the tag would have been. Happens all the time. Mathis got a $15m signing bonus though. Add to that a Year 2 roster bonus of $3m, and base salaries in Years 1 and 2 totaling $6m, and his two year compensation is $24m. It's about 33% higher than the yearly average. The Kruger proposal above includes $21m in the first two years, which is also about 33% higher than the yearly average.

 

Speaking about Kruger's deal, the reported asking price is five years, $40m. I wouldn't expect his side to counter higher than that. But still, the upfront structure is the sticking point for the team. We're already close on the framework. You're saying $45-50m with $25m guaranteed, and I'm saying $40m with $21m guaranteed. I think that's something that negotiation can settle.

 

As for the bonus money, you're suggesting a $10m signing bonus. The proposal essentially gives Kruger an $11m signing bonus, but $6m of that is in the form of a roster bonus. IT can be paid at the same time. Do you think the agent would object to that delivery method? I don't see why they would, and the Nicks and Jackson contracts are strong precedents in that regard.

 

 

If they are asking 40 mill over 5 years then of coarse they woud not counter higher. I never saw the link where you are getting this from. I read that it was speculated and the "talk" was he was looking for 5 years at 8 to 10 million. I'm very surprised that his agent came out and set the bar at the low end.. Seems like they would take a shot that 1 team out of the 31 out there might go a little higher. Anyway , if the agent says 8 mill. , then that probably means he feels his market value is below that as any agent would never be so stupid to say something that wasn't above what his client shoud receive. That al considered , I would say offer him 6-7 and that should do it. 

 

The roster bonus if its in the 1st or second year is the same as a signing bonus as long as it's guaranteed. Just gives the team the option of taking it all that year or turning it into a signing bonus and spreading it out. Agent should have no problem with that as long as it's early in the deal and guaranteed.

[Superman]

If they are asking 40 mill over 5 years then of coarse they woud not counter higher. I never saw the link where you are getting this from. I read that it was speculated and the "talk" was he was looking for 5 years at 8 to 10 million. I'm very surprised that his agent came out and set the bar at the low end.. Seems like they would take a shot that 1 team out of the 31 out there might go a little higher. Anyway , if the agent says 8 mill. , then that probably means he feels his market value is below that as any agent would never be so stupid to say something that wasn't above what his client shoud receive. That al considered , I would say offer him 6-7 and that should do it.

The roster bonus if its in the 1st or second year is the same as a signing bonus as long as it's guaranteed. Just gives the team the option of taking it all that year or turning it into a signing bonus and spreading it out. Agent should have no problem with that as long as it's early in the deal and guaranteed.

You prompted me to investigate the reported asking price. I came up with this, but I suppose that's not really an authoritative report: https://mobile.twitter.com/mzenitz/status/288390034921488384

I was just kind of working with that figure because I that's what the major objection is on this board. I wanted to outline a potential proposal and see what others thought, especially anyone who feels he's not worth the money or that it would hurt the team moving forward. I don't think it would hurt the team if we structured it similar to that. As to whether he's worth it, I guess that's the big question. But based on the response here and other places, I wouldn't think he'd be justified in trying to get more, and I don't think he would get more. JMO. I could be way off base there.

Along those lines, I was reading an article about another player and the way his agent handled the contract negotiations. I think it was Chris Canty. Anyways, the teams that were interested basically called the agent and asked "what's the entry fee?" And the agent let them know what they were looking for. I got the impression that when you're a valuable free agent, teams ask what you want, and if they are willing to come close, then you can negotiate the finer points. I don't think his agent would have much to say to us if we countered with five years, $30m. That's assuming the asking price is eight years, $40m, of course.

The roster bonus as proposed above is paid right away. It's fully guaranteed. If the player wants more guaranteed, there are ways to trigger more money without going overboard in upfront cash. If you guarantee $5m salary in Year 2 and include an option bonus of $5m in Year 2 instead of a roster bonus, then you're essentially guaranteeing an extra $10m in Year 2. I wouldn't expect the guaranteed figures to get in the way too much, not if the team is already willing to do $40m.

[Jason_]

Think about this.........This guy just go hot during the playoff......Where was he the rest of the season.................and the last 3 years.......

 

Riding the depth chart behind Terrell Suggs and Jarrett Johnson.

[dw49]

You prompted me to investigate the reported asking price. I came up with this, but I suppose that's not really an authoritative report: https://mobile.twitter.com/mzenitz/status/288390034921488384

I was just kind of working with that figure because I that's what the major objection is on this board. I wanted to outline a potential proposal and see what others thought, especially anyone who feels he's not worth the money or that it would hurt the team moving forward. I don't think it would hurt the team if we structured it similar to that. As to whether he's worth it, I guess that's the big question. But based on the response here and other places, I wouldn't think he'd be justified in trying to get more, and I don't think he would get more. JMO. I could be way off base there.

Along those lines, I was reading an article about another player and the way his agent handled the contract negotiations. I think it was Chris Canty. Anyways, the teams that were interested basically called the agent and asked "what's the entry fee?" And the agent let them know what they were looking for. I got the impression that when you're a valuable free agent, teams ask what you want, and if they are willing to come close, then you can negotiate the finer points. I don't think his agent would have much to say to us if we countered with five years, $30m. That's assuming the asking price is eight years, $40m, of course.

The roster bonus as proposed above is paid right away. It's fully guaranteed. If the player wants more guaranteed, there are ways to trigger more money without going overboard in upfront cash. If you guarantee $5m salary in Year 2 and include an option bonus of $5m in Year 2 instead of a roster bonus, then you're essentially guaranteeing an extra $10m in Year 2. I wouldn't expect the guaranteed figures to get in the way too much, not if the team is already willing to do $40m.

 

 

 

Got ya and I think all you have is reasonable. IMO , 40 million for 5 years is not going to be enough . I realize you posted that for this board , so I'm not sure that you do either. In any event , no offense to the board but here are the "given things" around here. Most highly undervalue what players will get , are worth , demand... etc.. in a new contract. Most will overvalue what a player will bring in a trade and don't realize that contracts usually make a player untradable. 

 

Anyway , I think at first glance , I thought there was not nearly enough guaranteed money to sign Kruger in what you had. At second glance , the major reason was because I'm thinking he's going to warrent something closer to averaging 10 rather than 8 mill. If 40 mill for 8 years does it, you probably would only have to tweak your deal a bit as it's a deal that's made for Kruger to collect the whole 40 mill. 

[Kyle]

Still not a reason for the colts to pick him  up. We have pressing need else were LB core is not one of them.......Ol and Corner and were we need to go to this year

you do realize we can sign more than one FA and draft a few players right?

[Superman]

Got ya and I think all you have is reasonable. IMO , 40 million for 5 years is not going to be enough . I realize you posted that for this board , so I'm not sure that you do either. In any event , no offense to the board but here are the "given things" around here. Most highly undervalue what players will get , are worth , demand... etc.. in a new contract. Most will overvalue what a player will bring in a trade and don't realize that contracts usually make a player untradable. 

 

Anyway , I think at first glance , I thought there was not nearly enough guaranteed money to sign Kruger in what you had. At second glance , the major reason was because I'm thinking he's going to warrent something closer to averaging 10 rather than 8 mill. If 40 mill for 8 years does it, you probably would only have to tweak your deal a bit as it's a deal that's made for Kruger to collect the whole 40 mill. 

 

I believe the $40m figure was first reported before the playoffs. That's before Kruger's strong postseason, and before the Super Bowl victory. I suppose that number could be higher now, so $45-50m might be the target now. In which case, I agree that the guaranteed money would have to be higher. I'd also be more hesitant about that kind of contract.

[JoKeR]

I find myself wondering a couple things:

a) Have you sat down and watched Kruger player over the last two or three months?

b) Have you taken stock of our OLB/DE rotation once Freeney is off the roster?

I agree that we need help at line and corner. I don't know how that has any bearing on any other needs on the roster. I'd like to see management take a serious look at every position and do whatever is reasonable to make the team better. I certainly don't think they should put a check mark by the OLB position, as if we're set there and can't be any better.

I should also note that I'm not on a crusade for Kruger. I do think he's a good player and would fit our needs, and I'm not as turned off by the idea of a $40m contract as others are. But I don't think the success of our offseason hinges on whether or not we find a way to sign him. I think he'd be a good fit, and I think we can handle his contract demands.

I'm not sure how much of a difference he'd make here, he's a good player but I don't think he's great. The price and quality don't match. I'd exhaust every possibility out there before signing him. I think a lot of Colts fans tend to sensationalize other team's players, even if they had 1 good year. Maybe if they can get him cheaper I'd agree with it, I'm not sure. He could be a small flash in the pan or good from here out.

[#12]

Chuck should know whether he is worth the bread or not.  If the Colts do or do not go after him, either way, you would have to trust Chuck's decision on the matter. 

[dw49]

I'm not sure how much of a difference he'd make here, he's a good player but I don't think he's great. The price and quality don't match. I'd exhaust every possibility out there before signing him. I think a lot of Colts fans tend to sensationalize other team's players, even if they had 1 good year. Maybe if they can get him cheaper I'd agree with it, I'm not sure. He could be a small flash in the pan or good from here out.

 

That's the nature of these type guys (most) in free agency. You are going to over pay. Would you be happier with more of a "sure thing" and spend 8 million on Levitre ? Might be a better piece for the puzzle. You have to step out a bit and take a chance as the cap number to spend is 45 million. Can't just sign a few low end "bargain" type guys. Another thought might be to lock up Davis first and foremost. He is the type CB that should excell in thistype defense. Why not extend him now when you have a little leverage rather than chance paying 11-12 mill per year in 2014. I'm sure he would love to collect around 15 mill in 2013 rather than the 1 mill he is owed. 

[dw49]

Chuck should know whether he is worth the bread or not.  If the Colts do or do not go after him, either way, you would have to trust Chuck's decision on the matter. 

 

My thinking exactly. I'm good if they go after him and good if they don't. What better situation could a team be in regarding Kruger ? He probably wuld love to play for Pagano and who knows better than Chuck how good Kruger really is ?

[Superman]

I'm not sure how much of a difference he'd make here, he's a good player but I don't think he's great. The price and quality don't match. I'd exhaust every possibility out there before signing him. I think a lot of Colts fans tend to sensationalize other team's players, even if they had 1 good year. Maybe if they can get him cheaper I'd agree with it, I'm not sure. He could be a small flash in the pan or good from here out.

 

Would you be willing to guarantee $18.5m over the first two years to add him and his contributions? I think he'd be a good addition, but I wouldn't expect him to equate to a drastic upgrade for our defense. We still need help at nose tackle, we need a safety and another corner, and we need depth at defensive end. But signing a quality pass rusher for $8m/year isn't a bad deal, I don't think.

 

If I'm comparing Kruger to Anthony Spencer, I think for our defense, I'd lean toward Kruger. He's more versatile, and he's younger. Spencer is better against the run, and might be more potent as a pass rusher. I think the money would favor Kruger also. I think he's the best fit for our team this offseason at this position. The only question that remains for me is whether the contract would be palatable.

[BrentMc11]

Would you be willing to guarantee $18.5m over the first two years to add him and his contributions? I think he'd be a good addition, but I wouldn't expect him to equate to a drastic upgrade for our defense. We still need help at nose tackle, we need a safety and another corner, and we need depth at defensive end. But signing a quality pass rusher for $8m/year isn't a bad deal, I don't think.

 

If I'm comparing Kruger to Anthony Spencer, I think for our defense, I'd lean toward Kruger. He's more versatile, and he's younger. Spencer is better against the run, and might be more potent as a pass rusher. I think the money would favor Kruger also. I think he's the best fit for our team this offseason at this position. The only question that remains for me is whether the contract would be palatable.

You keep this up....I am going to be signing Kruger myself  Bottom line...we need OLB help....after the departure of D-Free.

 

Liking Kruger more and more...and yes as we have said...Chuck KNOWS.....Kruger!!    

[JoKeR]

Chuck should know whether he is worth the bread or not. If the Colts do or do not go after him, either way, you would have to trust Chuck's decision on the matter.

I'm not sold on the idea rightnow but if he was signed, I would be sold. I trust Grigson and Pagano's judgement, they know a lot more than I do.

[cbear]

Not really a surprise. Although this article doesnt prove they are "interested" just yet. It just shows that the Colts would be a great fit.

 

You're right.  It's not even a rumor.

[dw49]

I believe the $40m figure was first reported before the playoffs. That's before Kruger's strong postseason, and before the Super Bowl victory. I suppose that number could be higher now, so $45-50m might be the target now. In which case, I agree that the guaranteed money would have to be higher. I'd also be more hesitant about that kind of contract.

 

This was meant for you and not Joker.... You said.....

 

"I believe the $40m figure was first reported before the playoffs. That's before Kruger's strong postseason, and before the Super Bowl victory. I suppose that number could be higher now, so $45-50m might be the target now. In which case, I agree that the guaranteed money would have to be higher. I'd also be more hesitant about that kind of contract."

 

 

My response was.....

 

 

That's the nature of these type guys (most) in free agency. You are going to over pay. Would you be happier with more of a "sure thing" and spend 8 million on Levitre ? Might be a better piece for the puzzle. You have to step out a bit and take a chance as the cap number to spend is 45 million. Can't just sign a few low end "bargain" type guys. Another thought might be to lock up Davis first and foremost. He is the type CB that should excell in thistype defense. Why not extend him now when you have a little leverage rather than chance paying 11-12 mill per year in 2014. I'm sure he would love to collect around 15 mill in 2013 rather than the 1 mill he is owed. 

[Superman]

That's the nature of these type guys (most) in free agency. You are going to over pay. Would you be happier with more of a "sure thing" and spend 8 million on Levitre ? Might be a better piece for the puzzle. You have to step out a bit and take a chance as the cap number to spend is 45 million. Can't just sign a few low end "bargain" type guys. Another thought might be to lock up Davis first and foremost. He is the type CB that should excell in thistype defense. Why not extend him now when you have a little leverage rather than chance paying 11-12 mill per year in 2014. I'm sure he would love to collect around 15 mill in 2013 rather than the 1 mill he is owed. 

 

I liked that post. Didn't know it was for me, but I agree with it. Free agency can easily lend itself to a bit of overspending. I was kind of putting Kruger in that category at $40m. I'd consider $50m prohibitive. As I learn more about how teams manage the cap, I understand that no contract is static; the parameters can always be adjusted, so long as it's not a fully guaranteed contract. So even if you go out on a limb to do $40-45m for Kruger, you can wiggle out of it before long. Maybe it costs you upfront, but you're not committed to a bad contract for five years.

 

Obviously, it's better to hit than to miss, though. And I think Levitre would probably be a home run at $8m/year. I haven't researched his potential asking price so far, but given what other top level guards have gotten over the past couple of years, I think that would be a fair deal for both teams. I think I'd choose Levitre at five years, $40m over Kruger. That's if the choice really has to be made, and given our cap situation now and moving forward, it's probably not an either/or proposition.

 

As for your comments about Davis, I do think it would be prudent to work out a deal for him now rather than wait for him to hit free agency. Or maybe sometime after the draft you work on his extension. I don't know what he'd want, but if you can get him now for $7-8m/year, you're better off than if he hits free agency and wants $10-12m/year. And as you stated, given his current contract status, he'd be a prime candidate for a home team bargain. It would come down to the numbers for me, but the idea is sound and prudent.

[dw49]

I liked that post. Didn't know it was for me, but I agree with it. Free agency can easily lend itself to a bit of overspending. I was kind of putting Kruger in that category at $40m. I'd consider $50m prohibitive. As I learn more about how teams manage the cap, I understand that no contract is static; the parameters can always be adjusted, so long as it's not a fully guaranteed contract. So even if you go out on a limb to do $40-45m for Kruger, you can wiggle out of it before long. Maybe it costs you upfront, but you're not committed to a bad contract for five years.

 

Obviously, it's better to hit than to miss, though. And I think Levitre would probably be a home run at $8m/year. I haven't researched his potential asking price so far, but given what other top level guards have gotten over the past couple of years, I think that would be a fair deal for both teams. I think I'd choose Levitre at five years, $40m over Kruger. That's if the choice really has to be made, and given our cap situation now and moving forward, it's probably not an either/or proposition.

 

As for your comments about Davis, I do think it would be prudent to work out a deal for him now rather than wait for him to hit free agency. Or maybe sometime after the draft you work on his extension. I don't know what he'd want, but if you can get him now for $7-8m/year, you're better off than if he hits free agency and wants $10-12m/year. And as you stated, given his current contract status, he'd be a prime candidate for a home team bargain. It would come down to the numbers for me, but the idea is sound and prudent.

 

 

Davis is a future star. Once he reaches that "consensus " level , he will not get called for those cinchy penalties that the other top CB's get away with. Plus he is great in the run game also. Easily see him getting in the 12 mill neighborhood with a great 2013.

[JoKeR]

Would you be willing to guarantee $18.5m over the first two years to add him and his contributions? I think he'd be a good addition, but I wouldn't expect him to equate to a drastic upgrade for our defense. We still need help at nose tackle, we need a safety and another corner, and we need depth at defensive end. But signing a quality pass rusher for $8m/year isn't a bad deal, I don't think.

 

If I'm comparing Kruger to Anthony Spencer, I think for our defense, I'd lean toward Kruger. He's more versatile, and he's younger. Spencer is better against the run, and might be more potent as a pass rusher. I think the money would favor Kruger also. I think he's the best fit for our team this offseason at this position. The only question that remains for me is whether the contract would be palatable.

When you said " more versatile " did you mean he can drop into coverage? Actually I'd rather who's a better pass rusher/ run stopper. I'd rather have OLBs in coverage maybe only 10% of the time. 3-4 OLBs weakness will always be coverage, so I'd rather they don't drop into coverage.

[Superman]

When you said " more versatile " did you mean he can drop into coverage? Actually I'd rather who's a better pass rusher/ run stopper. I'd rather have OLBs in coverage maybe only 10% of the time. 3-4 OLBs weakness will always be coverage, so I'd rather they don't drop into coverage.

 

Your ideal isn't necessarily in concert with Pagano's scheme, though. Our Sam linebacker is going to drop into coverage a good 25% of the time, and our Rush linebacker is going to drop into coverage about 10-15% of the time. If that's part of the role, wouldn't you prefer someone who can do a reasonably good job of it? If we paired Mathis and Kruger, I would expect our Sam/Rush configuration to be more dynamic than it was with Freeney, and maybe even more than the Ravens' is with Suggs. So maybe you'll have two guys who both only drop into coverage about 10-15% of the snaps, but it's even less predictable.

 

I think Kruger is a really good pass rusher, and I think he's good against the run. He's tenacious and quick. But Spencer has more of a Freeney/Mathis ability to beat single blockers (he really showed that this past season), and he's recognized as better against the run. Kruger is no slouch there, but I think Spencer spends more time in the box. Even if I agreed that Spencer was a better fit, given our needs,  I still think the age and the money will favor Kruger.

 

If we wound up with Spencer, though, I'd expect him to primarily be the Rush backer, and we'd keep Mathis at Sam. And that would work just fine. Like we all said earlier, it's very important that we improve at defensive line, safety and corner, and then our pass rush will be better even without adding a high level guy in free agency. But if we're making a wish list, I think I have Kruger ahead of Spencer, all things considered.

[JoKeR]

Your ideal isn't necessarily in concert with Pagano's scheme, though. Our Sam linebacker is going to drop into coverage a good 25% of the time, and our Rush linebacker is going to drop into coverage about 10-15% of the time. If that's part of the role, wouldn't you prefer someone who can do a reasonably good job of it? If we paired Mathis and Kruger, I would expect our Sam/Rush configuration to be more dynamic than it was with Freeney, and maybe even more than the Ravens' is with Suggs. So maybe you'll have two guys who both only drop into coverage about 10-15% of the snaps, but it's even less predictable.

 

I think Kruger is a really good pass rusher, and I think he's good against the run. He's tenacious and quick. But Spencer has more of a Freeney/Mathis ability to beat single blockers (he really showed that this past season), and he's recognized as better against the run. Kruger is no slouch there, but I think Spencer spends more time in the box. Even if I agreed that Spencer was a better fit, given our needs,  I still think the age and the money will favor Kruger.

 

If we wound up with Spencer, though, I'd expect him to primarily be the Rush backer, and we'd keep Mathis at Sam. And that would work just fine. Like we all said earlier, it's very important that we improve at defensive line, safety and corner, and then our pass rush will be better even without adding a high level guy in free agency. But if we're making a wish list, I think I have Kruger ahead of Spencer, all things considered.

I don't like Spencer's age, replacing an older player with a slightly younger player isn't an ideal situation. I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't really really care if 1 rusher has slightly better coverage skills than another, at the end of the day neither are a threat in coverage. I'd have to pick Kruger over Spencer because of age alone but I'm still skeptical because Kruger overall history says he's average, but lately he's been really good. If we draft a OLB he could end up as another Jerry Hughes, someone who doesn't make any difference early in his career.

Is there any other possibilities of a FA rusher? Anyone who could be better than Kruger?

[Superman]

I don't like Spencer's age, replacing an older player with a slightly younger player isn't an ideal situation. I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't really really care if 1 rusher has slightly better coverage skills than another, at the end of the day neither are a threat in coverage. I'd have to pick Kruger over Spencer because of age alone but I'm still skeptical because Kruger overall history says he's average, but lately he's been really good. If we draft a OLB he could end up as another Jerry Hughes, someone who doesn't make any difference early in his career.

Is there any other possibilities of a FA rusher? Anyone who could be better than Kruger?

 

Spencer just turned 29. Freeney turns 33 next week. Slightly younger in real years, but significantly younger in football years. I wouldn't want to do a five year deal for Spencer, based on his age, but I'm not terribly concerned with his age. Still, I'd rather have the 27 year old Kruger.

 

As for coverage, if part of the job is dropping back, I do think that ability is moderately relevant. Not the sole decision point, but it should be taken under consideration.

 

Comparing him to Hughes is relevant. He was strictly a reserve in his first two years, and was more in the rotation in his third year. Like Hughes, that's when he became statistically relevant. Unlike Hughes, he was a late second rounder, not a late first rounder, so there wasn't as much expected, nor was there anywhere near as much criticism. Kruger was also a factor on special teams, whereas Hughes never did much there either. Hughes also was used to play a position that he isn't suited for in his first two seasons.

 

When Kruger got his chance (it took Jarrett Johnson leaving and Suggs being hurt), he played reasonably well, but he only became productive when Suggs came back and the Ravens started moving Kruger freely between Sam and Rush. It helps playing with other talented players up front, but he really owned his role and established himself, and he was only playing 30-40 snaps a game. I'm more convinced that Kruger can be a fixture in our defense -- maybe not the catalyst, but a significant contributor -- than I am that Hughes can do what Kruger did last season.

 

The other free agent options are Shaun Phillips (31, older than Spencer, but a potent rusher and familiar with our scheme), Cliff Avril (he'll be 27, he's more 4-3 end than stand-up rusher, and he turned down $10m/year last offseason, reportedly looking for closer to $12m/year), Connor Barwin (he's 26, more of a bargain, good year in 2011, less impact in 2012).

 

I'd take Phillips and Barwin, but there's still questions to address in both cases. I wouldn't give Avril a big contract, especially not to come play a position he's never played.

 

Another guy to think about is Matt Shaughnessy from the Raiders. He's 26, and he's more of an end, but I think he could play the Rush spot. He's added size in the NFL, but was more of a motor guy in college. He can come from either side, and he played a little coverage in college.