Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

colts_100nascar17fan

2014 free agency breaking news

48 posts in this topic

I think it depends on the player.  A lot of players sign on the first day of free agency.  I have a hard time thinking they are looking for the biggest money deal.

 

It doesn't take long for agents and GMs to talk about money. I've read several articles in the past couple years that have painted a picture of agents telling GMs what range they're looking for, and the GM either responding with an offer or deciding they're not interested. There's not usually a lot of negotiation. You reach a deal in principle, then you work out the details. And it makes sense, given all the player movement during free agency.

 

And now, with the free agency warm-up period, teams and agents have a chance to talk before signings begin. So it really doesn't take long for deals to get done.

 

For the most part, a player is going to go for the money. If the money is equal or really close, he'll probably choose the team that's closest to contention, but some players would rather play in warm weather, or closer to their family, and so would turn down the Steelers or Ravens and go to the Dolphins or Bucs, for the same money. Some players want to start, and so turn down a team that's ready to contend to go to a worse team that's going to feature them in their gameplan (especially receivers). But mostly, it's about the money. That's why Mario Williams went to Buffalo. It's why Pierre Garcon went to Washington (our offer wasn't that far off, either). It's the general rule.

 

In most cases, they don't go from team to team looking for the best offer, but I'm certain the marquee free agents field offers from multiple teams, and then weigh their options with their agents. And the overriding factor, nine times out of ten, is money. And it doesn't take long for that process to play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mostly right about players not taking less money, though I believe it does happen from time to time.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying about Indy not being more of a contender than Oakland. No one knows what the future holds, but when surveying the NFL landscape, I can't understand anyone not agreeing that the Colts are much further ahead than the Raiders are.

 

As a Colts fan I agree with you.  The Colts are further along.  As someone who studies the NFL, I don't think the gap is that great.  Both teams, IMO are just a couple of players away from being very good teams.  And once the season starts, if you are a good team, often times the difference between being a contender or a hopeful is a few fortunate bounces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Colts fan I agree with you.  The Colts are further along.  As someone who studies the NFL, I don't think the gap is that great.  Both teams, IMO are just a couple of players away from being very good teams.  And once the season starts, if you are a good team, often times the difference between being a contender or a hopeful is a few fortunate bounces.

 

That's fair. I think the Colts clearly have a better situation at QB, and have a recent track record of success with their new regime. The Raiders are building the trenches, and have some promising guys all over the roster. But side by side, being objective, it's the Colts. A bad bounce here, an injury there, and the situations could be reversed. As a free agent making a decision in the offseason, I can't see someone making a decision on the basis of which team is closer to contention, and choosing the Raiders.

 

JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair. I think the Colts clearly have a better situation at QB, and have a recent track record of success with their new regime. The Raiders are building the trenches, and have some promising guys all over the roster. But side by side, being objective, it's the Colts. A bad bounce here, an injury there, and the situations could be reversed. As a free agent making a decision in the offseason, I can't see someone making a decision on the basis of which team is closer to contention, and choosing the Raiders.

 

JMO

That is what I am trying to say about the Colts and the Raiders... I don't see a free agent, making the decision based on being a contender) choosing either the Colts or the Raiders in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I am trying to say about the Colts and the Raiders... I don't see a free agent, making the decision based on being a contender) choosing either the Colts or the Raiders in 2014.

 

That might be fair. If a free agent wants to play for a contender, why wouldn't he choose the Saints or Seahawks or Broncos or Pats? If that's his primary motivation, the Colts probably aren't on his top five.

 

I thought you were saying that if a free agent was choosing between the Raiders and the Colts on the basis of who is closer to a Super Bowl, he wouldn't necessarily default to the Colts. I think he would, at this point. But that's a different story entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about Oakland & there FA money I care about finishing this year, then to the FA laboratory next year!??

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    •   I think Dawkins would be fine with pick 46 in the 2nd round.     But with pick 15 in the 1st?!?       No!     Oh, heck no!!     He's a very strong candidate to be a very solid guard,  but pick 15?     And instead of Lamp at 15 who was still available?      No!    No!    No!    
    •   Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here,  but what does this mean?     I'm cutting and pasting......     PFF Offensive Line Rankings- Colts Ranked 25th Overall- The most interesting bit of information from this was that they felt Castonzo had a really strong year, and that our original starting 5 were far superior to ANY combination we used when we had to account for injuries.   If that implies that our OL toward the beginning of the season graded out better than our OL the last 7 games of the season did when the C/RG/RT was Kelly, Haeg and Clark,  then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call nonsense on that viewpoint.    The OL was much better down the stretch...    and the stats including both far fewer sacks of Andrew Luck and a solid running game for Gore backs that up.   So,  what am I not understanding?     Have I misunderstood something?    Can someone throw me a bone here?   What's going on?     Clearly, I'm not understanding their meaning....    
    • I think we steal Foster at 15 if he's there. The kid was a top 5 talent and the best prospect at ILB since Kuechly just a few weeks ago. There's been a lot that's if things happen but the tape has not changed.    I think we go Reddick and maybe even Harris at 15. Conley is solid but not special. 
    •   You dont think that Haeg or Good could fix those issues?
    •   I don't doubt that all of those things are true.    But I think some NFL staffs are going to see most of those issues as very correctable.     They can be coached up.   But here's what can't be coached up.    Nearly 6'4" and 220+ pounds.    4.4 speed and about 43 inches in the vertical and nearly 11 feet in the broad jump.     And I think he did well at the various shuttles.    Those numbers are freaky.    They're likely the best at the combine.     So,  while I think most teams will likely agree with your assessment,   I think some teams (less than 8 or 25%)  will see first round physical qualities and see a late 1st round pick....   somewhere between 25-32...   Odds are he gets picked in the first half of the 2nd round...   somewhere before 50.     I just wouldn't be shocked if somehow he sneaks in to the late 1st....  
  • Welcome New Members

  • Members

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.