luv_pony_express

Well, we're not getting a 1st round pick. Not for a 1 year rental who is holding out for an above-market extension -- especially given his uncertain health situation. But I also think there's a non-zero chance he doesn't play this year if we don't trade him. If that's the case, then we may as well get what we can for him. And I'm thinking that a decent IOL would be as helpful as anything for us. Our O-Line depth is scary bad right now...and the last thing anybody wants to see is our new rookie QB running for his life all year.

I can't imagine that any GM would allow himself to be put behind the 8-ball like that. But who knows? Where's Grigson working these days?

Yeah, we have to remember that his contract does not have a no-trade clause. Last I checked, there were only a small handful of players who do. Like...less than 10.

I have to wonder what would happen if Taylor were unable (unwilling?) to pass a physical for the Colts, but was able (willing?) to pass a physical for some other team interested in him.

Yeah, I agree. Because, whatever they may say publicly about what they're looking for, the Colts are ultimately going to have to agree to any trade. So it may as well start with their assent up front, too. If the team is willing to meet Indy's needs, then they can meet with JT and hammer that out with him (so long as that doesn't alter what the Colts would be getting, of course).

Heh...well, OK. But, if Breer's info is an accurate indication of where JT's trade value is -- and, to his credit, he did speak to quite a few league execs -- then a Miami exec who would trade both a 3rd round pick and a receiver who made 75 catches for 1300 yards last season probably wouldn't be a Miami exec very much longer.

His character? I've been critical of JT in all this. I'm critical of any player who wants to renegotiate a contract before it's come due. I think people should do what they're obligated to do -- period, end of story. The time to negotiate an extension is when you've fulfilled your prior obligations. And, yes, I agree that he's demanding a contract that is simply above his market value. He's mad at the Colts for it. But it's not Ballard or Irsay's fault that the market value of RBs has fallen as it has. I think JT has been given bad advice and I think he's making a mistake in following that bad advice. I do not think there is any way this will work out the way he wants it to -- whether he stays in Indy or goes elsewhere. That said, while there's plenty of reason to question his judgment, there is no reason to question his character. Whatever comes of this, from what we know of him, Jonathan Taylor has the same stellar character he had before all this.

Albert Breer asked several league execs about Taylor's trade value (just so everybody can be realistic about this). Here's what he found... Based on that, there is no way on earth we're getting Waddle and a 3rd.

Us...and 31 other teams. It would be nice if we could have that much control over who we drafted, without having to have the #1 (or even #2) pick to have that control. But I'd much rather we had later draft picks -- I'd hope we all would. That said, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that we'll be drafting high enough next year that we could get him. But I wouldn't stake too much emotional capital on it.

Lamar was seeking a contract that was somewhere near the realm of possibility for him. On the high end of market, but close to realistic. And (importantly) in a bull market for top-tier QBs. JT couldn’t get what he’s demanding from any team. It’s a bear market for RBs - not just him, not just the Colts. He thinks his issue is with Irsay and Ballard. But his problem is really with the market.

I’m thinking a 3rd rounder is the ceiling here. No way on earth we get a 1st for a one year rental. But who knows? Just a sad deal on all this. Hate to see it.

There’s a huge difference between one team resisting a certain price point for a position and all 32 teams doing it. There’s just not much players can do about the latter case - which is what we’re seeing here.

But the contracts (and CBA) very much allow for this. Teams releasing players is not a breach of contract or any kind of ex post facto adjustment. Doing so does not relieve the team from its contractual obligations. So that’s not an apt comparison. If it were, I’d agree with you. It’s entirely fair to say that both sides need to honor the contracts they sign.

Well, I own a contracting firm and I can assure you that this virtually never happens in my world. And I'm not only talking about single project contracts, but also things like defined-term Master Service Agreements and the like. When you sign one of these, you are binding yourself to them for the duration of the term. Now, they pretty much always contain some kinds of defined and limited provisions for changes. Both parties anticipate these and agree on how they're to be dealt with. And, of course, it is hardly uncommon for lawyers to play a game of contract tennis before contracts are executed. But if I went to any of the entities that we're contracted with -- which includes a number of labor unions -- midway during the life of a contract and informed them I wanted to renegotiate it, I'd get laughed out of the room. People have tried this and they'll try all kinds of tactics to avoid a breach lawsuit, too. In cases where our performance is bonded, I'm then literally gambling with my own personal assets since these bonds are pretty universally attached to personal guarantee. So let's just say that I strongly disagree with you that this is just typical business. Not in my experience.

Well, having taken part in negotiating several CBAs myself, one thing I know is that rarely does either side get something they want without giving up something the other side wants. Obviously, the NFLPA is not just going to willingly give up this right without compensation. And maybe their demands to do so will be seen as worse than the status quo for the owners. And it’s not something only impacting players on rookie contracts.

I feel like this is something that should be dealt with in the CBA. The NFLPA would never stand for teams doing the same thing the other way - nor should they. Both parties to a contract should be held fully accountable to the terms of the contracts they enter into. Of course, the NFLPA would probably insist on adjusting some parameters of the 4-year contract provision for drafted rookies - maybe increase the guarantee scale or something like that. But these “renegotiate with seasons left on my contract” stuff is infuriating and, IMO, not good for the game.

No kidding. Maybe a couple of 3–4 rounders or something like that.

Hull also made a heckuva tackle on the 1Q pick. Looked almost like a linebacker.

I mean…were there some off-target throws that he needs to get on target? Yes. The pass thrown behind Granson comes to mind. And he was high a couple times (which seems to be his miss). MP2 came down with one of them. But, all in all for a first appearance against a real NFL defense, I was pleased. And my tolerance level for miscues is going to be higher for him than it would be for a veteran. Almost all QBs who start as rookies make them in abundance.

I don't think it's "macho talk." I think it's just a recognition of the reality that is today's NFL. Most of the best teams don't have star RBs. Virtually all of the best teams have star QBs. And the limitations of the salary cap mean that, in order to compete for championships, teams have to not only find (and pay) that elusive star QB, they also have to invest their (limited) resources in putting the offensive pieces around him that he'll need to best capitalize on his talents. And the consensus -- if not unanimous -- belief is that RBs fall lower on that list than do OL, WRs, and TEs. I would agree with you if some teams in recent years had been in the competition with a run-centric offense (like, say, the Henry-era Titans). But the ground game has obviously become the supporting act on offenses -- and the impact delta between a star back and a merely good back is not as big as the star backs want it to be when it comes contract time.

Yeah, Bryce is the most seasoned of the group and probably has the skillset to adapt to a legit starter-quality QB before the others do. If I'm only judging by what I saw in the Texans game last night, I'd say that Mills should be starting over Stroud. He was clearly sharper -- which should come as no surprise at this point.

Exactly. And on a number of his snaps, Houston's pass protection looked about as good as ours did last season -- which is to say defenders were to him almost instantly. The pocket held up pretty well on his INT. It looks like he just telegraphed the pass and Mills read his eyes and jumped the lane. Anyway, anybody making too much of a QB's first appearance in live NFL play needs to dial it back. They almost all struggle for a while.

Man, I don’t know about that. There were a couple times he got hit that looked like they could’ve led to injury. That would’ve scared the heck out of me if I was DeMeco Ryans.