shasta519
-
Posts
8,345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by shasta519
-
-
40 minutes ago, chad72 said:
Vikings got Dallas Turner.
Both Love and Rodgers went in the mid to late 20s, so GB could maximize their first rounder value, move back into the first round for the QB that is dropping. So to me, it is not the same.
The downside of using No.8 is if Cousins plays well for 3 years (say), and they haven't made the SB but have made an NFCCG and divisional round (say), they have put Penix in a bad situation and still have nothing to show for such a high value No.8 pick. Penix could get disgruntled like Jordan Love did with Rodgers around asking for a trade and the Falcons have nothing to show for but a stubbornness to not trade Penix Jr. at that point. If Penix Jr. plays after 3 years and is average, they have the same dilemma again 2 years later. So what value did that No.8 pick truly give them?
From what I am hearing, Falcons were the only team that highly interested in Penix Jr., and by picking him at No.8 with players like Odunze, Bowers, best pass rushers like Latu and Turner available, they have put both Cousins and Penix Jr. on a collision course with a potential bad situation 3 years down the road. Raheem Morris' twisted logic was "we might not pick that high next year", and if that were the case, moving back into Round 1 around the 20s giving up a future 1st rounder would put money where his mouth is, trusting their first rounder would be a playoff team type 1st rounder, like the Texans with their Will Anderson trade deal.
Plus, knowing their situation they got themselves into, even if they try to get Cousins traded 2 years later after JUST making a wild card playoff game or divisional round game, other teams will say "fat chance, we ain't bailing you out of a situation you created yourself".
They couldn't have known they were the only ones interested in Penix though. I had heard that LV was also interested, but there's always rumors at this time.
No guarantee there will be a QB they like as much as Penix next year, or the following year. Looking at the premium picks it required to get QB 4-6 in this draft, it could be a really steep price to move from the mid 20s to get a QB too.
I guess if they think they can be a playoff team with Cousins for 2-3 years, then there is some logic to making sure you get the guy when you can. Plus, Penix is a bit of a developmental prospect, so Cousins buys time for him to develop, while also allowing them to compete/contend. It's dual paths.
I don't know if I see a collision course with Cousins. He's a really good QB and he will be the starter for at least the next two years (first two seasons are both gtd), but prob 3 years. I am sure that is understood in the locker room. After that, they re-evaluate and there's a chance they are able to make a smooth transition. Plus the young skill position players will be in their primes and in a better position to support a young QB.
It's an interesting approach. No idea if it will work ahd might be overkill. But it's far better than running out Desmond Ridder and Marcus Mariota. I just don't see passing on Latu, Odunze, Murphy, etc. as some move that will drastically alter the franchise three years from now.
-
22 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:
Its not stacked when you consider that their Oline is not good. They went skill and ignored the trenches for the last few years
ATL has a top 5 OL with Matthews (2014 R1), Bergeron (2023 R2), Dalman (2021 R4), Lindstrom (2019 R1) and McGary (2019 R1).
They have invested in the OL, they just haven't had to do it a whole lot because they have hit.
Sort of similar to the Colts OL. In fact, they might have an even better OL than the Colts, at least right now.
Then they have Pitts at TE1, London at WR1 and Bijan at RB1. Plus, they added Mooney and Rondale Moore to round out their WR depth. Assuming Pitts is finally healthy (more than a full year removed from the PCL/MCL surgery), ATL is stacked with weapons and on the OL. Add Cousins' passing to that and they have top 5 offense potential.
After the Penix pick, their next 5 picks were all front 7 players on defense too. The Penix pick might end up being a bust, but it likely won't matter for 3 years.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, DougDew said:
ATL did not get Turner. They eventually trade up in the second for an obscure 3T DT.
I read that The GM and HC wanted Latu, but the owner stepped in for Penix because he wanted a succession plan. Read into that what you want. Also, I guess since ATL seemed to want to trade up to 10 for Latu, its seems somebody wanted him pretty highly.
That's why there are also thoughts...don't get excited...that Ballard got a bit lucky with latu being there at 15. Basically, the GMs had the 1st round pegged pretty well, then in swoops Blanc and reshuffles the playing deck for everyone. LVR was mad too, because they wanted Penix at 13. So if things would have gone to script....who knows who Ballard would have picked since Latu probably would not have been there.
Correct. Guess I got confused MIN (McCarthy and Turner) with ATL.
Ballard did get lucky with Latu being there, regardless. No defensive players went off the board until pick #15. Doubt that has ever happened
-
3 minutes ago, DougDew said:
Do you mean meddling? Sure, I mean its reported that Arthur Blank screwed his GM by wanting Penix. Tough break for the new GM, and it makes it harder for Blanc to evaluate him I'd think. I hope the new guy doesn't get blamed for stuff that was out of his control.
Is that how it went down? It was a curious move because they just paid Cousins a bag. But this approach worked pretty well for GB.
ATL's offense is pretty stacked and putting in a proven QB like Cousins will allow them to maximize and evaluate those pieces immediately. Meanwhile, Penix develops in the background. And they bought themselves 3 years to find out.
Plus, they did get Turner as well, who I think was their #1 target.
-
11 hours ago, stitches said:
After the way Gus Bradley talked about Paye last week I fully expected them to exercise the option. I guess the question is - if he was a free agent next year would you give him 13m? I think it's probably a good decision when you look at the market this year and projecting some inflation for next year. Example - Dorance Armstrong got 11m average. Marcus Davenport got 13M average last year. IMO with the increases in salary cap, this one looks reasonable.
But those are FA deals. They are sort of bidding against themselves right now. I am more curious why it took so long. I figured they would wait until after the draft anyways, but they really waited til the 11th hour.
-
Just now, RollerColt said:
Am I understanding you correctly that you feel all GMs are not really that valuable?
That essentially anyone can do the job?
Sorry to jump in, but I find this a very interesting topic. I don't think that anyone can do the job, but I do believe there are far more than 32 who can. Several FOs are full of bright men/women with extensive knowledge of football and a strong grasp of the fundamentals of roster building/scouting/analytics. With a good support structure is put in place, I think many could make the jump.
Look at KC for example...Dorsey's FO alone makes up 3 of those 32 jobs. While I am not Ballard's biggest fan, he is clearly capable of the doing the job. As is Veach...and even Poles. Another, Brandt Tillis, is the second-in-command in CAR I believe. That's just one FO.
So that's partly why I disagree with the idea that there would be a huge downside to losing Ballard. Not to say there aren't bad GMs, but the odds of finding a good one aren't that low because the pool is so large.
Contrast that to coaching, where I don't believe there are even close to 32 good HCs at a given time.
-
On 5/1/2024 at 5:33 PM, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:
Player pressers today. How in the world is speed almost 29 already? LB could become a real need soon with both speed and Franklin approaching 30.
Speed was 24 when he was drafted and it took him a few years to develop.
Flowers is going to be 27 and is only in his 3rd season.
COVID played a role because of the extra year, but Ballard seems to gravitate toward older prospects. I would be interested to see how he compares to other GMs. I bet he way's up there. His 2022
Not meant to be a Ballard grievance, just an observation.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Yoshinator said:
The only similarities that Ballard and Veach have is that they were both on KC at the time Mahomes was drafted (Veach is the GM now obviously), and they both build well through the draft. Other than that, they are different in every other way as GMs.
You are correct, Ballard is more like Dorsey. Ballard is actually best friends with Dorsey. They had a thing in the draft where Dorsey always prank called Ballard during the draft. Was kinda funny.
If AR hits, then we will have gotten there as a playoff team the slow way. However, with Ballard, it will have taken a lot onger than it ever should have. People can blame Lucks retirement, Reich, or whatever, but GMs generally don't start with a franchise QB when they take over a team. IMO, Ballard was a scout who had no idea how to be a GM when he took over, and when Luck retired, it completely exposed him. He finally figured it out 7 years in his tenure. Might be too little, too late.
The job Ballard was hired to do changed when Luck retired. The problem was that the philosophy didn’t adjust with it. And I am not even sure it has. The AR pick was opportunitistic more than anything. It can’t after a failed “chips in” season. And they are still mostly just doing the same things…using the draft and building around their own. But if AR is good, maybe we will see other moves.-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, OhioColt said:
Earlier in the offseason I mentioned the Colts would be wise to extend Buckner this year and lock him down where he hopefully can retire a Colt.
With the news heating back up around Brandon Aiyuk requesting a trade again and the success we have found with other former 49er's (Buckner, Ebukam) if the updated cap space wouldn't be a tempting topic to add Aiyuk. I would propose a trade back swap our Round 1 picks. Biggest issue with extending Aiyuk is we have a lot of talented players who will be free agents in 2025. Paye would get rookie contract extended. Other player trade option wouldn't mind is acquiring Edge Maxx Crosby.
Very happy to have both Buckner-Stewart for a few more years creating a dynamic defensive unit. Now just need to build around them.
Aiyuk is going to cost quite a bit more than that. He’s a top 10 WR. -
On 4/16/2024 at 9:32 PM, Yoshinator said:
The difference with Mahomes and AR to me is the timeline of the GMs on both teams. Brett Veach was only on the Chiefs for a year at this point before he started building around Mahomes. Ballard is the GM of the Colts for 8 years now and he isn't doing it. With Veach, you can argue it's because he was waiting for Mahomes to get better and he was relatively new as a GM. With Ballard, it's just how he is.
The rosters are similar from that time, yes. I agree. I just think we are fooling ourselves by saying he's going to spend over and over and it never happens. We just come up with a new reason. I'm guilty of it too. I'm actually fine with the offseason besides Sneed. That was inexcusable not getting him IMO, but everything else is ok. We just have to do well in the draft. I think we will take a WR on day 2 or in a trade down (Xavier Worthy maybe). The draft is Ballards bread and butter, so I always know he'll do his best there to help the team.
Right. KC was also a perennial playoff team prior to Mahomes taking over. The Colts are a fringe playoff team at best, until we see if AR can lift the roster.And to your point, Veach took over the summer before Mahomes’ rookie year. Hard to compare how KC’s FO approach with Dorsey at GM (for several years) vs. when Veach took over. It seems like Ballard has been more like Dorsey and Veach might just operate differently from both of them.
If Ballard wanted to follow the Veach KC model, he sure waited a long time to do it once Luck retired.
-
3
-
-
On 4/16/2024 at 8:15 PM, richard pallo said:
You could make that argument that he has been aggressive and overpaid when it came to acquiring Wentz and Ryan. Draft picks and money. Two quarterbacks no less. The most important position on the team. So I don’t think you can say he’s not aggressive. He took big swings on those two and missed. But he also traded a 1st rd pick for Buckner paid him and hit a home run with that swing. I think you could say he has taken aggressive swings. I do think having a franchise quarterback leading your team makes it easier to justify taking one. I think he thinks he has that guy now. So I’m expecting a few more aggressive moves going forward. I think they will be calculated and well thought out. And he and Shane will be in lock step when they happen.
DeFo was an aggressive move.But I wouldn’t classify Wentz or Ryan as aggressive moves. Getting Stafford would have been an aggressive move at QB. Wentz was cheaper and PHI was looking to dump him. They didn’t even budge from their initial offer to PHI
And Ryan sort of fell in their laps after they dumped Wentz.-
2
-
-
23 hours ago, jvan1973 said:
22.75 is before the extension
Now it's $8.5M. Gotta say...never saw that coming.
-
1 hour ago, PRnum1 said:
To your point Paye has been improving as well.
He quietly got 8.5 sacks last season.
So maybe Ballard sticks with Paye and get ER depth in the later rounds ?
The thing with Paye is that Ballard has to make a decision on his 5th year option right after the draft. It's only projected to be $13.4M, but the draft could really influence that.
Dayo is also set to be a FA. He hasn't really proven he can be a starter yet. And even as a part-time player, he will cost some money to bring back.
I think something has to give with the ER positions, so a R1 ER is very likely if the board falls that way.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Solid84 said:
Colts doing homework.
With the DeFo news, I think we can probably assume DT is not an early round option.
-
7 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:
So you would take Bowers over the top corner and/or edge or do you mean if they were equal value? Bowers looks good on tape but his size scares me a little for a team that is intent on running the ball. I think we have a lot of flash TE's on this roster already that need some time to develop with Richardson. You look at the TE room and I do some talent there but need time. I look at the corner and edge room and I go meh!!
There are levels to the TE debate. One one hand, the market value of the position hurts the value of an early R1 TE. With the rookie wage scale, they come into the NFL already making good money for the position, so there's no real surplus value. On the other hand, the TEs that you would want to build around don't make it to FA, so the market value doesn't matter as much. So getting one when you can is important.
But then you also see that there are great TEs taken past R1 as well.
Plus, then you have to consider the scheme. Committing a big contract to a RB seems to suggest that this team will be running the ball quite often. How often would they take advantage of Bowers? We saw this unfold in ATL. They spent early R1 draft capital on a TE and a WR...and then ran the ball all the time. So those picks have largely not been maximized.
It seems like the Bowers debate is fully dependent on him falling to #15. Then we can see how he ranks over other prospects available.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:
I agree with the concept, but until Richardson is a complete proven entity, I would not give up next year's 1st
under any conditions
Dallas Turner MIGHT be that guy to trade up for........ But he might just fall to us at 15
He would be a PR specialist until he added some NFL muscle
I don't see any scenario where they are giving up next year's R1 pick. It would be an opportunistic trade up that they can likely spread over this draft and next draft.
The MOST we have seen Ballard additionally give up in trade-ups is a mid-late R5 pick. Tyquan, JT, Cross.
For him to give up even a Day 2 pick would be out of character. So it would have to be quite the opportunity.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, cjwhiskers said:
Deficiencies on D? Give me a break. This defense is more than good enough in an offensive league to win games. Defense was not the Colts problem last year.
The issue seems to be that you think the NFL still cares about defense and low scoring games. Offense need playmakers and the defense just needs to hang on.
Getting a stud offensive play maker would easily move this teams needle far more than adding a stud defensive player.
The most important position on this team is quarterback, agree? What do you do to help the most important position out? Surround him with talent at play making positions.
Anyone who doesn’t look at the transformation of Jalen Hurts getting AJ Brown or Josh Allen getting Diggs or Burrow having Chase as a good comparison for AR needs to remember what’s important in todays NFL, scoring points.
How does one come to this conclusion? They played a bottom 5 schedule and a slew of really bad QB...and still ended up #28 in ppg (for the second year in a row). Realistically, we could be talking about a defense that has a chance to be the worst in the NFL, barring significant development or improvement.
I am good with getting a playmaker like one of the big 3 WRs, but the defense needs serious help. Plus, the core of this team will be 30 or older in no time. So they not only need improvement, but replacements as well.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, w87r said:
My projection for the Buckner extension cap hit:
Current Cap Hit $22.75m
Extension:(2yrs $46m)
2024 - $17.75m(saves $5m this season)
2025 - $25.5m
2026 - $25.5m
New cap space afterwards:
Spotrac - $17.1m
OtC - $16.5m
***Not official, just my projections
Spotrac has DeFo at $22.75M for this year. But I don't remember what his previous cap hit was prior to the extension.
-
I think MAC's value is that he can block. Ballard mentioned something about how hard it is to find TEs that can block. So perhaps he doesn't feel they really have anybody else that they trust at this point.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, csmopar said:
It is and it sets the field for a potentially more active FA next year IF AR15 pans out
Think it depends on what they do with guys like Dayo, Kelly, Blackmon, Granson, backup QB, P, etc.
Spotrac is projecting another jump to $276M. So if that holds, they should have $53M in cap space right now. That could go pretty fast.
Am curious to see what they do with Paye and his 5th year option.
My guess would be that if next year goes well, we will see one really big move ala 2020. Seemed like that was the initial approach this offseason.
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
I don't think this is that big of a deal. There are some circumstances that make it seem like a different approach, but really it's not.
First, the Colts have always made an effort to sign their own. They just usually sign them before they reach free agency. Using Spotrac's list, those players -- Nelson, Leonard, Smith, Moore, Grover, Speed, Franklin, JT, etc. -- don't factor into to the breakdown of how much a team has spent in free agency, because they sign before their contracts expire. It doesn't even include Pittman because they tagged him.
Second, the Colts re-signed several free agent players to third contracts -- Grover, Moore, Rigo Sanchez, Lewis (4th, but that's because of injuries), etc. Most of them were players developed by the Colts, who had previously signed extensions before their rookie contracts expired.
I think it's as simple as the Colts having a lot of their core hitting free agency at the same time, and rather than extending them before they expired like they have historically, they let most of them play out their contracts in 2023.
And that's kind of what they signaled they would do last offseason. Everyone was asking about JT and Pittman, and Ballard indicated that they wanted to see how the team would respond to the ugly 2022 season, with a new coaching staff, etc. But besides JT and Pittman, there was Moore, Grover, Lewis, Blackmon, Rigo, Pinter, etc., all players with considerable roles on the team that were expiring as well.
If there's any change in approach, it's not keeping their own. It's allowing their own to hit free agency in the first place. And judging from the Buckner extension today, I'd say the standard will still be to re-sign their own players before letting them hit the market, and 2023 was an aberration due the circumstances.
Agree. I think part of that is circumstantial with the bad 2022 season and new HC, like you said. But also, just the sheer amount of guys that need deals within a short amount of time.
-
1 hour ago, BProland85 said:
See I actually heard from an ESPN reporter who covers the Titans that the Colts didn’t offer a contract to Autry. It was Turron Davenport who reported that.
I don't know what "strong push" means here, but I would assume numbers were exchanged. If I recall, it came down to the contract structure. Looks like that came from Holder:
What probably impacted what seems like a small detail is that the Colts had multiple guys to re-sign to big deals, like Q, Shaq and Smith at the time. But it seems like they at least wanted to and tried to bring him back.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, stitches said:
Yeah, that is somewhat notable, but it's probably largely coincidental and product of who was up for new contract this year and the state of the roster and payroll. I guess we will see in future year if there really is any change in approach... either way huge majority of those deals are for non-key players.
It's mostly coincidental and a byproduct of his approach of developing a homegrown team.
But it also tracks with Ballard has evangelized and done since he got here. For it to be a reversal, that would suggest that he hasn't focused on re-signing his own. And we all know that is not true.
I know "we like our guys" is a meme now, but it's been a thing for quite some time.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, richard pallo said:
You’re wrong but that’s okay. The numbers this year speak for themselves.
The numbers don't mean anything without context. It's now year 8, so there are going to be more players with expiring rookie deals AND players with expiring 2nd contracts hitting FA at the same time, so more FAs to sign. Next year's FA class would have had 6-7 FAs starters prior to the Franklin and DeFo deals. That's just how it goes.
The money spent on Kenny (first deal), Kelly, Grover (first deal), Shaq, Smith and Q, etc. is not accounted for in those numbers. In 2021, they signed $180M worth of contracts on Smith and Shaq alone...almost what they spent on all the guys they brought back this year.
But it shows $15M on their own FAs in 2021. That's just misleading. And those numbers are what this narrative seems to be based on. While money spent on outside FAs can only count as money spent in FA (aside from a trade).
More players set to hit FA, the more difficult is is to extend them all early (like he has done prior with just about every single long-term extensions he has signed) too.
Ballard has re-signed how own during his whole tenure here. It's why they had so many homegrown guys on 2nd contracts to begin with.
But it's largely the same approach. It just got ratcheted up by circumstances of having the 2020 draft class and multiple guys on 2nd deals hitting FA at once. A similar thing was set to happen next year. "Turncoating" would have been letting multiple guys go and looking elsewhere in FA for replacements.
-
2
-
Kwity? Yes or No on the Option. ** Update pg 2. Option Exercised**
in Colts Football
Posted
It was def not a no-brainer for them...or they likely do it much earlier. It almost has to be the end of Dayo in Indy because now they have Latu, Paye, Lewis and Ebukam under contract through 2025.