smittywerb
-
Posts
3,015 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by smittywerb
-
-
19 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
People dwell on money way too much in here. You pay to get better. I want a division a Title.
you pay to get better, but you also save where you can to keep acquiring talent. Why grab a vet wide receiver for +$20million when you have the opportunity to draft one to start for MUCH less.One thing we don’t want to do is blow our cap because we have a QB on a rookie deal. Kind of have to let the draft supplement FA. I agree, spend money on needs to get better, but if there are better or comparable options in the draft, I’d rather draft someone and use the money to address another need. Having $40 million tied up in 2 receivers will limit what we can do. We’d HAVE to hit in the draft.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:
I predicted $22million per, we got him for $23.3million per year at face value. I’m extremely happy with this. Think this is a fair value for what he provides and where the cap is going. Good job colts!
-
4
-
-
4 hours ago, chad72 said:
Word is no one is willing to give a 2nd rounder for Justin Fields
The best I feel is a top of Round 3 pick for him when it’s all said and done.
the best time to trade fields was when he had that great game on Thursday night. They could’ve easily got a second then. Now, everyone knows they’re trading him so they’re trying to drive the price down.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, runthepost said:
His budget has led us to 1 playoff win in 7 years
Yup, if we want difference makers in free agency, we’ll have to pay for them. Not saying to be free agency champions, but if there’s a young stud that has proven he’s one of the best and consistent, go get him. -
57 minutes ago, Hawkeyecolt said:
With the list of safeties available I doubt Simmons gets $15-17 million at his age. I doubt McKinney does too.
Agreed on Simmons, was just bringing him up to show what his talent level gets him. And he was getting $15million/yr in Denver.
But McKinney will definitely get more than what he was making with the Giants (which was $17million/yr). He’s 24, he was top 5 coverage and top 10 in tackling.
i do believe what @throwing BBZ said regarding Ballard, that we won’t go for a McKinney due to his probable asking price, but personally I think it’s worth it. We won’t have any big contracts to pay after this year and we won’t have to pay AR big money for a while. I’d say spend that money now. Just my opinion.
-
1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:
I'll go with Ballard's budget for a safety at $8.5 M per.
Welp, depends on what type of talent you want back there. The Justin Simmons and Xavier McKinneys of the NFL make $15-$17million. $8.5million will probably get you something good.
After seeing our FS play last year and how we got beat deep, I’d pay the $15million-$20million. I don’t think people understand how important FS is to the scheme that we’re running. If we want blitz and get more aggressive, the safety play has to be excellent. The corner has to be good also, but the safeties and pass rush are the bread and butter of this defense we play.
-
2
-
-
Simmons/McKinney and Blackmon in the back??? Yeah, no one’s throwing deep.
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:
IDK if Sneed is the same level of player as Buckner was when he was traded, Buckner was the 2nd or 3rd best DT in the game.
and mind you, the player we would’ve most likely taken (Kinlaw) has done nothing. I remember people were so upset we did that and didn’t draft Kinlaw.-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Hoose said:
I don’t see the Colts going FA for a CB. Free Safety and pass rush should be the focus. Get the right players and the D is immediately upgraded. Look to Day 2 of the draft for a new CB.
If we get Cooper Dejean or Nate Wiggins, I’d be a VERY happy colts fan. -
I’d say pass.
1. He’s 27. Not old, but not young either. If we want sustained success at corner we need at least 5 years. Plus he’s had injuries and he’s not getting younger. If we were in win now mode, sure. But right now, we got maybe 2 years of building before that.
2. Expensive. He’s going to want at least $20mill per year and seeing as we’re most likely going to be giving Pittman that, we can’t afford to have 2 players eat up a third of our cap space this year. Add in whatever draft compensation and we’re missing out on drafting possibly some good players.
3. Cheaper alternatives in the draft. We have the ability to draft either Arnold or Quinyon. And if we don’t get them, there are other players like Nate Wiggins and cooper dejean. They’ll be able to grow with AR and the team hopefully hit their stride in 2-3 years. Won’t cost us $20million
4. Other needs. I personally believe FS is bigger need and we’re going to have to pay for one. The FS FA market is STACKED with good talent. I see us spending anywhere from $15-$20million for one of these FA safeties depending on who we get. Hopefully McKinney.
-
22 hours ago, stitches said:
Here's an interesting thought exercise... imagine Pittman was not on the Colts and was FA on the market. How much would you be willing to pay him if we didn't have emotions invested in him?
$19million-$22million. -
10 hours ago, w87r said:
There is no offer sheet, in literal sense.
The team Pittman is trying to go to, will have discussions with Pittman's agent and probably him about what a new contract might look like, if a trade can be worked out(something less than (2) 1st).
They will just be talks though and not an official offer sheet. Just parameters of a deal.
So that's where it will come down to what Pittman wants to do, stay or go, and how accommodating Ballard will be in making it happen. Colts hold all the cards.at the end of the day.
Say he goes and talks to the Chiefs. They come to an informal agreement on parameters of a new deal.
Pittman goes to Ballard and says he appreciates his time in Indy but would like to go to KC and has parameters of a deal worked out.
Ballard and KC GM(Veach?) get on the phone and work out a deal.
Say KC offers #32 and 2025 3rd
Both sides agree(hypothetically)
Pittman signs 1yr franchise tender we offered him him(not to be confused with an offer sheet from new team). Has to in order to be traded.
Then the trade goes through.
Once trade is official, Pittman and KC announce his new extension.
Ultimately we control whether we move him and for how much.
This is how we can lose him for less than (2) 1st.
Well that sucks! lol NFL should make it a mandatory 2 first round picks. Oh well, can’t force a player to stay and if he doesn’t want to stay then he’ll ultimately leave. Best to not let him leave for nothing.
what I hope doesn’t happen is what if MPJ doesn’t get what he’s looking for from other teams and still decide to not resign out of spite. Idk, that’s where my mind goes lol
appreciate you and @GoColts8818 breaking this down for me!
-
2
-
-
30 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:
No because once tagged the team who tagged them has to agree to a trade. If they don’t the player is stuck facing either sitting it out and not getting paid or signing and making a boat load of money.
Ok so what’s a situation where we lose him and don’t get 2 first round picks? -
18 minutes ago, w87r said:
They don't really get around it.
They actually have to sign the 1yr non exclusive tag before they are able to be traded.
Then after trade, they will sign a new deal with new team, that $21.8m will be figured in new deal.
As far as offer sheets, the only real "official offer sheets" that get signed are on RFA Tenders.
ok I follow, so a way we won’t get 2 first round picks is if Pittman doesn’t sign the offer and leave. So in that case, it’s best to work something out with the other team at least if he doesn’t sign the offer sheet.
idk, still sounds like a workaround to me. the player can just refuse to resign and leave in any situation.
-
4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:
What others are talking about is you can trade him without him signing a new offer while he’s on the tag. That can be for anything you deem acceptable to make a trade. That’s what the Chiefs are reportedly doing with Sneed so they don’t lose him for nothing.
this doesn’t really apply to the Colts as they want to keep Pittman and aren’t looking to trade him so they have incentive to take less than two first round picks. Even then I don’t think it’s going to come close to that.
So all players have to do to get around the non exclusive tag is just wait it out? Or “don’t sign an offer sheet” and just come back to the colts with what a team offered?Then what’s the point of it?
-
19 minutes ago, Superman said:
At this point, it would be malpractice on the Colts part if they don't make clear to Pittman's agent what they would expect back in a trade. You don't let him go negotiate a contract with a team that he wants to go to, and try to work out the trade compensation later.
Agreed. No way would I not want anything less than 2 first round picks.only way I would think a team would have to do some outside negotiation is if the player makes it clear he doesn’t want to resign and is leaving the following year. But then I’m sure that would be some type of coercion or violation if that player went to the team he got the offer from.
-
1 hour ago, PRnum1 said:
@w87r has said it doesn't have to be 2 1st round picks.
This is just disinformation at this point.
I believe this boards resident capologist
If what I’ve googled is correct, then it is indeed 2 first round picks from the new team.”Non-exclusive franchise tag: The most commonly used tag. When most refer to the "franchise tag," they generally talk about the non-exclusive version. This is a one-year tender of the average of the top five salaries at the player's position over the last five years, or 120 percent of his previous salary, whichever is greater. The tagged player can negotiate with other teams, but his current team has the right to match any offer or receive two first-round draft picks as compensation if he signs with another club.”
And that’s coming from nfl.com
https://www.nfl.com/news/2024-nfl-franchise-tag-tracker-latest-tag-news-on-deadline-day
-
Thinking about this some more, I’m glad it happened. It’s a win-win.
1. If someone wants to pay Pittman what he wants, and they truly believe he’s a WR1, then they should have no problem paying him and giving up 2 1sts. That’s what it’s going to take to get a WR1 in this league, if not more.
2. If someone offers him a contract, He gets to see what his value is. And if it’s not what he thought it was going to be, then he’ll most likely resign anyway.
no need to freak out people. I think colts fans (maybe all fans) sometimes put so much value on their players that they’re scared to lose them. Look at the chiefs, they traded probably the best receiver and kept moving. The Vikings traded diggs and found Jefferson. It happens. We’ll be ok.
-
Meh, he said he wanted to test the market. Let him go see what his market is. I think he’s going to be humbled.
-
2
-
-
If ogletree stays, I hope we cut cox lol
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, dw49 said:
I agree.
Looking at other WRs contracts, I personally believe he lies in the $19-$21 million range. But with the cap increasing, the position being a premium one, and the need/want for us to retain him, I’d say throw on an extra million or two to prevent him feeling lowballed.
I honestly think he’d be happy with $22million, but of course he has to maximize his potential contract and I don’t blame him. What I don’t want to happen is he wants way more than that and instead of resigning, he leaves.
-
11 hours ago, Myles said:
Yes and No. It did end as a dumb trade, but he got current market price for a 9 time pro bowl QB with what seemed to be years left.
TBH, I didn’t like the trade. Too many red flags in Seattle. His arm was shot. Pete lost faith in him. Tried to change it up to fit him and Russel wasn’t with it. Pete gets Geno the following year and he leads them to the playoffs.it was a panic move. Broncos had to get someone after not getting Rodgers. The Broncos GM should’ve been fired. That roster is not good. People give Ballard crap but then I look at teams like Broncos and it makes me appreciate we have him lol
-
1
-
-
I predicted Pittman will get $22mill/yr. With Evans contract, $22mill looks like it could be the number. Maybe $23mill. I’m sticking to it.
-
9 hours ago, Zoltan said:
I don’t think so on the double dipping, because if we draft one our WR group will look like: Pittman, Downs, Pierce, Draftee, Dulin. That would be a solid group and I don’t think we keep more than 5 WRs but I could be wrong.
Possible also. I’m just going off what Ballard says and his tendencies. Like last year, he loved the depth of the CB position and we ended up drafting 3 in an already deep CB room. Granted, losing Rodgers also opened up that opportunity. So I see us doing the same with his recent remarks regarding the depth of this class. Idk, I just can’t see us walking away with one pass catcher when playmakers are desperately needed on the offense. I can see us getting one WR if we can get Bowers. But if we can’t get Bowers, definitely see us going with 2 WRs, with the second WR being selected in the 4-7 rounds.
Ballard also likes building depth for competition. I think only Pittman and Downs and maybe Dulin due to his ST talents are safe. Ballard didn’t give Pierce the best feedback in his EOTY presser. So I could see us doing something similar this year. Drafting 2 WRs, with one most likely being apart of the 5 and the other either moving to the PS or maybe even being cut or going to the PS.
Update: Colts signing Michael Pittman Jr to three year contract
in Colts Football
Posted
We do, but we’re not there yet. My biggest complaint is that Ballard doesn’t attack FA aggressively, but I also think that doesn’t we have to spend the most money every free agency. When we’re a couple pieces away and have the talent, then I’d say go into win now mode. This team is not in win now mode, we don’t even know if ar can stay healthy for a full season yet.
maybe we agree and don’t even know it. Like I think we need to spend money on a FS and elite every down de. I just think spending $20mill on a vet wr when the draft class is STACKED would be spending money unnecessarily.