shasta519
-
Posts
8,345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by shasta519
-
-
3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I think Q is playing good this season. Why would you want him gone. Our O.Line has been a bright point all season.
Q has played ok, but certainly not to the level that he is paid.
And I don't want him gone in a vacuum. Should also clarify...it can't even be done after this season anyways because of the dead cap hit. But after next season, there is an out. And if he's not playing at a PB or AP level, I would like to see the Colts take it.
I was more speaking to Colts loyalty to their guys still being a big thing. I find it refreshing that they are willing to make moves like this.
-
45 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:
Too much is credit given to these internet grades. Just from watching, one could see, Leonard's play was no better than any of our LBs who have played this season.
My guess is Olubi will not be the replacement for Leonard, at least not right away, he has been used as the backup to Franklin at MLB position.
Now that Leonard has been cut, we'll all find out soon enough, how he stacked up in comparison to our other players.
I was surprised they cut him, but I'm looking forward to seeing how the defense now performs without him.
All season I felt Leonard was not getting it done, and believed our other LBs, would never get a chance to show if they could do better, due to Shaq's reputation, contract and the Colts blind loyalty.
That will almost certainly be the narrative that will be spun...that the LB room doesn't need him because there's other young talent that needs to play. In reality, Franklin will be 28 next year and Speed will be 29. I think this move is more about financials.
-
36 minutes ago, DougDew said:
That's something the Colt/Ballard have tried to sell as an attraction. I think its a hard thing to sell. Maybe those days are over now with SS advising Ballard.
I would love to see them stop doing that. Hell, release Q after this season too. Pay $25M AAV for a LG who is maybe top 10 at the position is wild.
Off-topic to your post, but I didn't want to dig around 12 pages of comments. I seem to recall a lot of discussions we had about Leonard's body type and how that could impact his career. Got a lot of flack for it too. But I think this could be it for him.
-
1
-
-
I knew there was no way that both Leonard and Q would be on this team in 2024. Surprised they waived him in-season...hoping maybe somebody will scoop up the rest of his base salary I guess.
-
16 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
Doug….. a question for you. I was here as a member back in the Grigson years. What were the constraints from the salary cap back then? I don’t recall them. I remember Grigson tried to blame Luck’s upcoming second contract as a reason he couldn’t afford to sign better free agents. But aside from that I don’t recall any salary cap constraints. Can you refresh my memory please?
Thanks.
Grigson had $38M in dead cap space from releasing Manning and having to purge the Polian-era bad contracts of Hayden, Addai, Clark, Bullitt and Brackett. The salary cap at the time was only $120M, so that was nearly 1/3.
On top of that, Grigson also inherited the final year of Freeney's contract. And at the time, his $19M cap hit was the largest in the NFL (across all positions). And Freeney was a poor fit for Pagano's scheme, so might as well add that to the dead cap...and nearly half of the cap was gone.
Regarding the comments about Luck's contract, all Grigson said was:
QuoteWhen you pay Andrew (Luck) what we did, it's going to take some time to build on the other side of the ball."
It was little more than expectation-setting because we had seen a lot of FA spending from 2013-15, especially on defense. But now there weren't going to be quick fixes anymore via FA...it was going to be about the draft and player development.
But naturally, the local media painted it as Grigson blaming Luck's contract for the performance of the defense. And while Grigson deserved (some) criticism for the defense, that's not what he was doing. He was just being honest and setting expectations.
It's especially silly...because when Ballard talks about delayed gratification or says there are no quick fixes (like he did this frickin' offseason), he is praised. But when Grigson does it, he is misconstrued and vilified.
Just Exhibit 140A on the double standard that exists between the two GMs.
-
2 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:
Why is Ballard being questioned when we are 3-3.
Why not? A 3-3 record doesn't prevent a GM from being questioned.
Ballard's Colts were 3-2-1 in 2022...finished 1-10-1 to go 4-12-1.
Ballard's Colts were 9-6 in 2021...finished 0-2 to choke and miss the playoffs.
Ballard's Colts were 5-2 in 2019...finished 2-7 to go 7-9.
2020 is seeming to be an outlier.
And while Ballard's Colts are 3-3 right now, I wouldn't be surprised if this year goes south in a similar way to those previous seasons, which would make it 4/5 seasons marked by some type of collapse.
Many would say poor QB play is the constant. And while that it is true, the real common denominator is Ballard.
That said, I don't think anything is happening to Ballard for at least two more years.
-
4
-
-
On 10/18/2023 at 1:01 PM, Superman said:
I don't want to relitigate Ryan Grigson, but I think this is revisionist, at best. Grigson was criticized because he built a bad roster under mostly favorable conditions. His plan was to build around an awesome QB that he lucked into, and after his first year, almost every button Grigson pushed was a mistake. Especially the high stakes decisions. Reasonable people would have been forgiving over questionable decisions like Satele, Toler, etc., if he had hit on more draft picks, or made better FA signings. He was bad at both.
After several years, I looked at Grigson's body of work and came to the conclusion that he was not a good GM, and that conclusion has only been reinforced with more time. You're defending Grigson to this day.
But you were immediately critical of Ballard, and that has not changed. You took a victory lap on the Malik Hooker pick, even though his career was undermined by injury. You say Ballard building the OL hasn't gotten the team closer to winning a SB, but you don't see the irony in that stance when Grigson failed to build the OL around a franchise QB, which Ballard has not had the benefit of having (partly because of Grigson's failure). You're assigning blame to Ballard because you think he didn't properly account for injury potential with Richardson. Ballard has had mostly unfavorable conditions, since Day 1.
And while I like Ballard and think he has good qualities, I'm saying I think he needs to put some numbers on the board. Not sure where anyone is praising Ballard.
Keeping this specific to Ballard, I sort of disagree with the bolded. I do agree that Ballard had some unfavorable conditions, including a bad roster. But most new GMs do as well. But beyond that, I actually think the conditions have been pretty favorable:
-
Luck was injured, but he was here. And few GMs ever get to inherit a franchise QB, even an injured one.
- Luck did come back in 2018, which is still Ballard's most successful season.
- Luck retiring was clearly unfavorable, but it really just created a normal scenario for most GMs who have to address QB, instead of some extraordinarily unfavorable condition. And it bought Ballard a very long leash.
-
Luck being hurt and missing 2017 was actually favorable, as it not only gave Ballard a rebuilding year, instead of immediate pressure to succeed...and it led to a top 3 pick in a QB-heavy 2018 draft. To his credit, Ballard was able to take advantage of that situation and turn it into the #6 pick and (3) R2 picks. But that was a massive advantage to accelerate the rebuild.
- If Ballard didn't have Luck on the roster, QBs like Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen could be punchlines around here...and Ballard could be Director of Football Operations for another team. Instead, he was able to build his reputation on that draft and has been able to hold onto it for several years, despite the mediocre results of this team (and more recent drafts).
- Ballard inherited a good cap situation. It was his decision to not spend it for the first few years, but cap space was not an issue when he took over.
- Ballard has a very patient boss, as we have seen.
All in all, I think Ballard has had it pretty good. And it's allowed him to likely be in this job for a decade without much success. Some of the stuff is out of his control, but a lot of the issues with this team and roster are self-inflicted by the braintrust. JMO.
-
1
-
Luck was injured, but he was here. And few GMs ever get to inherit a franchise QB, even an injured one.
-
6 hours ago, AwesomeAustin said:
I don’t even know if he is the future of the Colts. He played ok, flashed some great moments but struggled in others. Who knows if he will stay healthy once he recovers. Probably should but there has been enough to at least ask the question. I will say if the Colts season bottoms out and we are in a position to draft another QB high, we need to at least take a look at them and decide for ourselves who will be better long term.
AR played some great quarters in the few games he was out there. Saw enough of the good Im behind the team if they choose to build around him. He still has a long way to go with his arm and decision making. Should be fun watching him develop.
That's the thing. He certainly had flashes, but we knew he would do that. What we also saw was inconsistency from drive to drive, quarter to quarter, half to half.
Week 1: Played in the 1H against JAC and then his passing cratered in the 2H
Week 2: Two TD drives to start and then two 3-and-outs...leaves game
Week 4: Bad 1H and great 2H in a comeback effort
Week 5: Good start...but then the injury
In the games he was knocked out, he was playing well. So that's what people remember. In the LAR game, he played well in the 2H, so that's what people remember. We never really got to see him adjust or see other teams adjust. And it's not like the Colts offense was lighting it up with him on the field.
So while there are things to be excited about, some of the advanced stats paint a different picture. And I just don't see how a small sample size of games has convinced 99% of the fanbase that is indeed the future. Not to mention that he still has to recover and get back to 100% from a shoulder surgery.
If the Colts' season tanks and they find themselves in position, they have to consider a QB. But that likely won't happen.
What could happen though, is that they draft a project QB on Day 2...somebody with a similar playing style. That will provide insurance and continuity to the offense. Plus, then they won't have to pay Minshew a bunch of money (which he should absolutely be asking for since he's playing 85% of the season).
-
3
-
-
29 minutes ago, 1959Colts said:
Glad to see they avoided Rhodes "holding in"
Maybe they were further down the Rhodes with him than JT.
-
Some of these players played more on the year...
- Vick Ballard
- Boom Herron
- Ahmad Bradshaw (if you add up the games he played for IND, it's probably close to a season)
- Erik Walden (and his 10 sack season)
- Donnie Avery (still the most productive WR not named TY, Reggie or MPJ I think)
- Julian Blackmon (strong start to rookie campaign, but not since)
- Rodney Thomas (this is a guess)
- Eric Ebron (monster year with Luck, then just stunk the following year)
- Chris Reed (great filling in for Q, but then left to MIN)
-
So is he going to play? When I hear wording like "available to play" it doesn't exactly make it sound it like he's a full go. I wonder if the plan will be to use him in certain packages for a while and then ramp it up from there.
-
21 hours ago, lester said:
The Colts have been transparent. They are not hiding their agenda: they want to see how an elite running back (specifically, Jonathon Taylor) fits into the new scheme, with a new coach, after his recovery from injury, etc. etc. etc.
Jonathon Taylor is accustomed to 15 to 20 carries per game (average 15 in 2020, 20 in 2021, and 17 in 2022). How is it great for the Colts (or JT for that matter) if his role with Shane Steichen is only 7 to 10 carries a game in the new offense? You don't extend him (or anyone this year) until you know how they fit.
A contract is not just more money. It is also a lengthy commitment where they team carries that player into the future (with an opportunity cost of not having that roster spot for someone else). The Colts understand that a player like JT might not be the best fit in the kind of offense they are crafting. If they extend him now, BEFORE seeing the offense emerge, they are committing to him. That would be a mistake. They know this (and I think JT knows this too).
Remember, Jonathon Taylor is a very smart human. Observers are scratching their heads trying to figure out why he is behaving the way he is. My opinion, JT is doing everything, anything he can think of to engineer a trade precisely because he understands exactly what kind of role he will have in Indy going forward. He knows the tape he makes this year will be bad for his business. Not as a bad player, mind you; I'm not disparaging Jonathon Taylor's ability as a running back. I'm merely stating that he knows that he needs to land on a team that fits his desired role; before he creates a measly 700 or 800 yards during this contract year.
Agree. I understand why JT is doing what he is doing. It's because of the bolded above. He knows what the Colts know...and it's that his role will likely be diminished, which will likely diminish his production and impact his contract value. He won't be able to produce to the level he has shown in the past to secure the contract he wants, especially paired with his injury-plagued 2022 season.
I roll my eyes because the Colts already know this, which is partly why they aren't going to pay him as a top 5 or maybe even top 10 RB. The "wait and see how he does" approach is really just to identify how low his value will be, not an opportunity for him to ball out and get the big contract he wants.
I still think a trade is the best move going forward for JT. And it does seem like JT is trying to engineer that move. But I also think it's the best course for the Colts as well. Next year's draft class is pretty deep with Day 2 RBs. If they can get back a couple Day 2 picks, they can find a viable replacement that will better fit the reduced role in Steichen's scheme.
-
2 hours ago, NFLfan said:
Jared, you seem to be describing Kirk Cousins. Luck was so much better. I remember in 2016 when everyone but Superman here thought the Vikings were going to destroy the Colts. I recall someone saying that Luck may not even make it through the game because the Colts OL was so bad that year. Luck played brilliantly with the likes of Danielle Hunter and Everson Griffen chasing him. The Vikings defense was very highly rated that year. Luck destroyed them.
I would have loved Luck as my QB.
Edit:
@Jared Cisneros @2006Coltsbestever I edited the post but I was not able to change it to show who I quoted.
I remember that game. It was a blowout. Really wish they had won the week before against HOU.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:
I think our defense is going to be better than you think, I might be wrong wouldn't be the first time, but they played hard last tyear and kept us in many games.
Regarding the division, that 1-4-1 is deceiving. We just blew 2 games against the Texans, 1 by missing a FG so it ends in a tie, then the Texans beat us on a prayer/short hailmary
. We really should have been 3-3. Also I think the Titans will not be as good either this year.
I mean...technically, JAC blew the game they lost against IND cause they gave up a late TD on 3rd and 10.
But NFL games often tend to be close. I just think, for at least this upcoming season, we can't count on the AFCS for a few wins like we could in the past.-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, chad72 said:
How do we know the Colts didn't put any kind of offer that JT and his agent refused and are now realizing they weren't going to get that much more?
If the Colts had made an offer, I think it would have been reported. But who knows.
-
19 hours ago, Superman said:
I never expected the Colts to still have Hines by the time JT's new contract kicked in. And I've pushed back on the narrative surrounding Hines' contract from the beginning, so it doesn't get any traction with me. But sure, I can imagine it being a talking point, even if I think it's totally irrelevant.
I guess for me, knowing that things haven't gone well in recent seasons, the owner has been testy lately (and not for no reason), we have a new HC, a new offense, and a new QB, it's kind of obvious why they aren't jumping at handing out extensions right now. And while I understand JT wanting a new contract, I don't understand him taking it personally that the Colts aren't ready to do so just yet. And I really don't understand why the narrative would be pushed that this is unfair to JT. Especially when you throw in the injury consideration.
It's not JT's fault that the RB market is in bad shape, but the Colts are under no obligation to pretend that the landscape hasn't changed. If just one of these three variables were present -- new direction, RB market, injury -- it would be defensible for the Colts to be hesitant to offer a new contract. No one is making a big deal about Pittman's contract status; no doubt he expected to be paid going into Year 4, right? But in JT's case, all three of these conditions are present at the same time.
Aside from trading JT in March -- which was probably not an option if he wasn't passing a physical -- I don't know what else the Colts were supposed to have done.
Hines contract ran through 2022-24. So Hines would have to have been cut before JT's new contract kicked in. I don't see Ballard doing that. And that's sort of a technicality because Ballard would likely put money into JT's 4th season. So really there would have been a two-year overlap from 2023 and 2024.
I am not sure what you mean by the narrative about Hines' contract. Many questioned the contract when it was signed. So if Hines was still here, I don't see how it wouldn't be relevant (to at least some) that another RB on the team would be getting paid more to provide a fraction of the production.
But I do agree that the Colts aren't obligated to pay him, especially $16M AAV. I actually think trading him is the right course of action because I don't think they want to pay him. But this thread was partly about who is to blame for the situation.
The Colts are the ones who have switched course and drawn this line in the sand. They are responding to the RB market, but they are also responding to last season's collapse, which they created. None of the current conditions are on JT, unless he's hiding an injury. He's just reacting to their changes and adjusting his strategy to get paid, like other players are.
Also, the Colts won't offer a new commitment right now to JT or anybody else, yet will continue to honor their commitments to several underperforming players (Moore, Kelly, MAC)? Maybe JT's situation is just collateral damage from Ballard handing out bad contracts. But that's not on JT either.
The moping around practice is on him. But the idea that he should just "suit up and honor his contract" because the team switched course is a bit of a double standard. If anything, I blame the current RB market and the CBA.
But between the team and JT, I don't think it's nearly as one-sided as the poll would suggest.
The injury situation makes this much murkier for me as well. We clearly aren't getting all of the facts. I think both sides are putting out information to make the other look worse. I guess it's part of the business though.
As for MPJ... while he is also eligible for an extension, JT has a much better track record. IF MPJ had that track record or close to it, I think the conversation/situation would be very different, like it was when Deebo, AJB, Diontae Johnson, DK and McLaurin were entering the final years of their rookie deals. But that's JMO.
-
Just now, w87r said:
I think the Hines deal is very relevant. At least in JT mind.
Remember having this conversation a year or 2 back.
That Taylor had to be looking at the contract that a clearly inferior back got from the team and was just counting down to his pay day.
Oh it's definitely relevant in JT's mind. That was his teammate in the RB room. I just meant it's not as relevant because it was two years ago and it wasn't a contract on the level that JT is asking for.
I remember having this conversation as well. At the time, I thought that deal would all but ensure they would have to pay JT big money and pay him early.
-
15 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:
4. Why diminish our long term prospects wasting valuable cap space on a RB?
This is the philosophy going forward. He isn't wanted or needed beyond what he would consider for menial money. There is no offer coming.
Ballard's job is to exact as much for him as he thinks he can.
And I am good with that. If they don't want to give him the contract, that's fine. I get the arguments for that.
It's the "just wait out this season and we will pay you then" that makes me roll my eyes.
I just hope they are able to trade him and get back legit draft capital.
-
11 minutes ago, iuswingman said:
The contract stipulates that teams can cut players...so yes they are honoring the contract.
Nice try
Just because Colts did it with other players means nothing.
And the rookie contract stipulates that, after 3 years, the player can seek an extension. So they are also honoring the conditions.
It's weird that you think it's fine for a team to cut players (and their salaries), but it's bad form for a player to want to be given an extension when he's eligible.
And paying other teammates early might mean nothing to you, but it means something to JT.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Superman said:
I think if JT wanted three years, $18m, the Colts would do that in the blink of an eye. I don't know if the Hines deal is relevant. And the precedent that was set is the Colts will negotiate extensions before contracts expire, not necessarily that they'll agree to an extension the minute a player is eligible. Nelson played out Year 4 of his contract, and clearly was not thrilled about it, but he got a new deal on the eve of Year 5.
Now, there are extenuating circumstances, and the Colts not jumping to extend JT is defensible. I get JT not liking it, and your point about his usage is legitimate as well. But I don't think the Colts are pulling the rug out from under him at all.
I'd love to hear some specifics from someone who doesn't appear to be being fed info from JT's agent. We don't know that he received any valid contract offers; in fact, the Dolphins were supposed to be the team most motivated to get him, but the GM says there were no trade offers exchanged, which would probably mean there were no contract discussions. During the week when JT had permission to talk to other teams, there were rumors that he just wanted out of Indy and would even take a lesser contract offer to facilitate a trade. Lots of noise... I'm not sure any of it was substantial. Looking back, it seems like a campaign to make the Colts look unreasonable.
The Hines deal isn't really relevant. Different times and different players and different commitment. But Hines is still an example of how this team has approached keeping players.
But mostly, if Hines were still in IND, I think far more people would be on JT's side in this...because it would be unfair for JT to not only have to play out his rookie deal (Hines didn't), but also make less than the guy behind him on the depth chart when he is eligible for an extension. I think that would be a big talking point.
I am not sure if we have gotten any real facts so far. But this is far from done I would expect it to lever up as we get to mid Oct.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, iuswingman said:
Rookie contracts are all the same length. Of course, players that do well WANT to get to the next contract sooner.
He is still on contract though. He should suck it up and honor it.
We will just have to agree to disagree about him honoring his contract. Teams don't honor contracts. They cut players all the time.
This is an understood part of the CBA. Players are eligible to get extensions after year 3 (or year 2 for UDFAs). Him asking for a new deal is not any different than when other good players do it.
And considering that many of JT's teammates didn't have to suck it up and honor their deals, I can see where he is coming from.
-
7 minutes ago, iuswingman said:
I could agree with much of that if JT wasn't still on contract. He has another year to go on his current rookie contract.
And I see nothing wrong with the Colts being smarter about how they are handing out contracts. Stinks for JT sure but again he is still on contract.
JT should have played out his contract (like PIttman is doing) and gotten paid or traded next offseason.
I have no respect for how JT handled it. He is still on contract.
But several of his teammates were still on their respective rookie contracts when they got big extensions. JT is not getting that treatment for reasons out of his control (unless he is actually hiding an injury).
You can't compare his situation to MPJ. The franchise tag for MPJ will pay him 2x what it will pay JT. And WRs have much longer careers than RBs. And the market has exploded in recent years. MPJ knows he will get paid by somebody, even if it's not the Colts.
And more importantly, MPJ wasn't an All Pro like JT. He hasn't been a top 5 player at his position like JT. He doesn't have the track record to be chirping about a new contract.
I just think it's an unfair comparison. And I actually wouldn't be surprised to see MPJ get an in-season extension at some point.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, iuswingman said:
I bet it might be a little different if Taylor was at the end of his current contract. He is fighting for more money when he is still on contract. That isn't going to earn him much support, especially when complaining about making such an awful $4 million per year. Most people don't pity millionaires.
But he's a RB. He won't have the same earning potential as other positions and could be out of the league by his late 20s even. He's likely only getting one shot at a huge contract. And he's going to be worth more at age 24 than he is age 25 or even age 26 (if he gets tagged). Plus, injuries are a major risk to that earning potential as well.
Look at what happened to his own teammate, Marlon Mack. Tore his Achilles in Week 1 of the last year of his rookie deal. The Colts threw him a bone last year, but Mack will makee a fraction of what he would have made if he got an extension early OR got to hit FA.
And Mack isn't on JT's level. The difference in earning potential for JT in that scenario would be tens of millions.
-
1 hour ago, stitches said:
1. Who is MOST to blame for this contract standoff?
I think Taylor and Kawa have absolutely picked to worst possible strategy to get paid. My stance is still that the best chance he had to get paid was from the Colts and now he's almost certainly eliminated that option for himself. I think the Colts have overall a reasonable stance and have handled this thing MUCH better than Taylor and his agent.
2. Will Taylor play any games for the Colts this season?
I think so. I think he will play some games and then fake another injury and hope we don't franchise tag him next off-season. Doubt this goes his way either.
3. Has local Indy media covered this standoff effectively?
No... but that's not anything new. I think there were questions that had to be asked early during this whole ordeal that were not asked. And now I think they keep trying to both-sides this thing when the two sides are really not on the same footing. With that said - the national media has been even worse and more toxic.
4. Should the Colts re-sign Taylor, trade him, or tag him?
I thought the Colts should trade him before this whole thing and I still think they should trade him. But that's not to say they should just gift him to whoever gives you a bag of chips for him. If we get 2nd and 3d IMO we should trade him.
5. How has this contract standoff influenced your opinion of Colts' management?
I don't think it really has changed my opinion much. Ballard has been professional and solid overall. Steichen has refused to comment, which I would have done too in his place. Irsay is... Irsay... his heart is in the right place and AGAIN... technically he's right about what he said. BUT with that said... he lacks some self-control and self-awareness and doesn't know when him saying the truth out loud is not in his or the team's best interest. This should have been just the next contract dispute alongside Bosa, Chris Jones, Brian Burns, etc... and instead it has turned into a public %show...
6. How has this contract standoff influenced your opinion of Taylor?
This seemed totally out of character for Taylor so I would be lying if I said this didn't influence my opinion of him in a negative way, but I don't feel super strongly about it. Some people online have a lot of venom for Taylor right now and I can't muster that. I'm disappointed in how he's handled it, but not to the point to wish any ill on him.
He wants to get paid, I can understand that... it's just... he really did make bad choice after bad choice this summer starting from saying how he is good playing on his contract just 3 months ago to hiring that disaster of an agent, to... liking childish tweets, etc...
Oh well... I think Irsay is ultimately right. Some day Jonathan Taylor won't be a Colt anymore and quite honestly... I don't think this will make or break this franchise. We have much more important things going on on this roster than whether Jonathan Taylor plays or not... (and I think it's wild that journalists and analysts don't seem to get that... the scarcity of money for RBs have not yet driven the point... lets hope in a few years they will learn - RBs are very fun to watch but also they are the most replaceable and one of the least important positions for winning). We will survive!
1. The Colts haven't even made him an offer though.
2. I think he gets traded by the TDL if he's healthy. There will be injuries around the NFL, which will provide them with some leverage. And obviously, there shouldn't be questions around his health like there were a week or two ago. If the Colts come out slow, they are likely fading in the AFCS race, which makes JT a bit of a luxury.
3. Agree. But like you said, this is nothing new.
4. I was hoping they would have traded him, but that seemed more like a dog and pony show all along.
5. My stance on the FO and mgt. hasn't changed either. They are allowed to change their approach. And they did allow him to "test the market." But maybe at least acknowledge that this is a shift though. That's where the media comes in. Maybe I missed it, but did anybody ask them about this?
I don't think the "situation just sucks" is a valid explanation from the GM. But that's more on the media than the GM.
6. My stance on JT hasn't really changed either. From all accounts, he is very intelligent. Unless he is hiding an injury, I think he's playing the only hand he can if he truly wants out to get out of IND and/or get paid. If we step back a bit, he's not the first player to request a trade out of IND in the last calendar year either. Those were different situations, obviously, but JT is allowed to look after #1 too.
. We really should have been 3-3. Also I think the Titans will not be as good either this year.
He wants to get paid, I can understand that... it's just... he really did make bad choice after bad choice this summer starting from saying how he is good playing on his contract just 3 months ago to hiring that disaster of an agent, to... liking childish tweets, etc...
NFL.com ranks Kenny Moore….
in Colts Football
Posted
I will own it. He was dog poo for two years. He didn't even have trade value.
And while I get the NFL is all about what you have done for met lately, this is largely based on Moore getting a couple of gimme picks against an overloaded rookie on arguably the worst offense in the NFL. That somehow has vaunted him back to being the best slot CB in the NFL. Talk about recency bias.
I think if the Colts extend him, they are fools. Letting some other team pay him if he is really the best slot CB in the NFL.