shasta519

April 3

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I don't see the difference if both the 25 year old and 22 year old play at a high level when they are 25. One is immediate, the other takes three years. From there, the age factor relative to performance/health issues going forward is the same. The only difference is that you now have to spend boku cap on the 22/25 year old to retain him while you have the 25 year old on a rookie deal for 4 years.

IMO, you take a player in round 3 because you expect him to take several years to get up to speed. Not because you know that he's a good player now, but he's older.

There's a rather large difference between paying a large contract to a 26 year-old and a 29 year-old. Not to mention the 5th year option gives you cost control over another year. Do you want a guy who is in his prime or a guy who could be 30?

22 year-olds don't automatically take 2-3 years to develop. And 25 year-old doesn't always make the transition. So it's just a bet either way. And if a team had to bet on one of these happening, teams seem to be taking the younger player early.

Raimann was never really a R1 pick anyways...he was a mid-R2 prospect (who actually fell a round). So this is sort of all a hypothetical based on a player that hasn't really existed, at least in recent NFL history. But based on what we have seen, when given the chance, teams are going younger. We can't see their draft boards of course, but it's pretty logical to assume that a team has passed on a player in R1 due to age or another player's age was the deciding factor, just by how the draft has fallen.

April 3

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I can't disagree too much. My main point is that we did not have to wait for Raimann to develop. He has achieved the play status of a 22 year old taken three years ago in the third round and has developed. I strongly believe that if any OT needing team would have known Raimann would have been as good as he has been this early, they would not have waited until round 3 based simply upon the age metric. Especially a OT that can last to age 35. With other positions maybe, but OTs can have longevity.

But there's always a chance he's maxed out as he's already in his prime. And when his rookie deal ends, he's going to need a big contract for his age 29-32 seasons, which provides a bit more risk for age-based regression or injuries.

That same 22 year-old might take 2-3 years to develop, but he also is more likely to have a chance at getting to a higher level when he gets there. And when it comes time to extend him, he's going to be playing those age 26-29 seasons, typically seen as prime seasons, so less assumed risk.

I am not arguing whether this the right way to do it, I am just trying to get into the minds of a GM. And this way of thinking makes some sense to me when it comes to R1 picks. Of course, it all assumes you get the pick right in either case.

The actual shrewd thing to do would be to draft an older prospect, get those prime mid 20s seasons on a cheap rookie deal and then let him walk in FA if you can. But R1 picks are usually seen as franchise players, so this is much tougher to do.

April 3

18 hours ago, w87r said:

Just saw a mock with a trade back to #19 and taking Dejean.

#15 for #19, #83

Perfect points on value chart.

3 weeks from Thursday, will be here before we know it.

Yeah. I see Dejean as the perfect type of trade-back option. If Ballard doesn't see much difference between the players available at #15 and can take advantage of a team looking to move up a few spots and get an extra pick.

April 3

17 hours ago, DougDew said:

Age matters, but only if the player turns out to be any good. Gotta get that part right first,

I can't believe that teams would pass on a LT they thought was a top 15 player, because they are worried about whether or not the 4 year contract he signs at the end of his rookie contract would be his last contract. Passing on a player you think is a top 15 player because he might be out of the NFL 7 to 8 years from now seems like a weird priority to me. In fact, I'd be surprised that any successful GM would even consider it.

The COVID year changed things a bit, but even with it, there's less than a dozen players at Raimann's age taken in R1 in the past 15 years...out of like 430+ non-QB R1 picks.

Many are interior OL players, with a few DL players, a TE and a CB thrown in. Many of them also turned 24 well after the draft (not 25 like Raimann). Some hit, but many did not. So it's not like the floor is higher either.

But none were OTs. It just doesn't really happen for some reason, especially at technical positions like OT, WR and CB.

Good GMs project development and upside. Older players don't really offer it as much. I think it's really that simple. You can draft an older prospect you think is already pretty good or you can draft a younger prospect you think can be great. And teams are going to the choose the younger player. Besides, if they were truly already great players, they likely aren't still in college at age 24.

To the larger point, I don't think Raimann's success changes how teams view R1 picks.

April 3

5 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

We’ll see what they do. Blackmon has played FS in the past although I agree he was much better at SS last year. Again, I can’t explain exactly everything Ballard is doing here because I don’t understand it all myself.

I think moving Blackmon to SS was pretty clear. My guess is Cross is the plan if they don't sign a FS. But I think they really should.

April 2

9 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Confirmed by Chap.

Wasn’t a fan of re-signing Blackmon all off-season because of his injury history and I don’t trust players that have significant career years in contract years but it’s a one year deal and the Colts needed a vet safety. So Blackmon gets a chance to prove he’s worth the contract he wants and the Colts get a vet safety. We’ll see how it goes.

Contract year off a move from FS (position he was drafted to play) to SS (position this team also has Cross with R3 capital), in a season where they played a soft schedule on offenses. Plus, add in the injury this year to the prior injuries.

Them not prioritizing Blackmon is not a big surprise. And it didn't looks like other teams didn't either.

Sucks for Blackmon that so many Ss got released too. And a lot of those guys aren't even signed either.

Hopefully they sign a FS too.

April 2

6 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Blackmon is going into year five. He is your vet safety.

He's not a FS though. That was the spot that Ballard specifically mentioned. They still need a FS. Ideally, they could sign a vet FS and draft one to develop.

April 2

16 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

🤔

😂

😢

Yep. There are still very much emojis to use, but you do have to reply to the comment, so that's good for engagement.

April 2

58 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Please no.

Right? I would love to get Dejean in R2, but at #15? I don't think he's as good as Kyle Hamilton, but I do think he can be a good S/nickel player.

April 2

33 minutes ago, DougDew said:

For certain positions in those 6-7, I think it would be best to trade down to get that difference maker (corner in a zone based defense for example). Yes, we could get a difference making corner at 15, but why pick him there if he can be picked at 25.

But for WR#1 or EDGE, or the next Travis Kelce, pick 15 is probably too low. It is most years, and this year is probably no different, unless there is another WR that has it all like MHJ and Nabers. Seems like all others have some flaws. Again, do you settle for Leggette or Odunze at 15 over Nabers at 8 because of the player you would draft at 46?

The fact that its a deep WR class is not relevant, IMO. I don't care how many Pittman's or AP's there are. I just care about the talent at the very top, because that's what the Colts need. And this year, we are within striking distance. Same with EDGE and the next Kelce.

We're talking prospects, in the way that they are evaluated, Sure, guys bust. And some do better. The fact that Puca becomes a star is not relevant...his success does not change how you approach the next draft. If another WR has the exact same metrics this year as Puca did coming out of college, that WR is still not going to get drafted before round 3. The next OT with Raimann's college draft profile probably would not get drafted in round 1. I doubt that Puca or Raimann's success changes how evaluators think about prospects all that much.

Raimann was a 25 year-old rookie.

IMO, even with OL players tending to have longer careers than other positions, that type of prospect will likely never get drafted in R1 because teams place so much value on age when drafting early, due to the assumed upside with technical and physical development and being further away from age-based regression.

The Colts were actually bottom 5 in average age drafting from RDs 1-3 from 2018-2022...and their average age was still just 22.3.

April 2

17 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think they will view him as a corner and he would be our new punt returner as well. If he has a great workout on April 8th as I’m expecting I can see him as our pick at 15. If Bowers is at 15 or the top ER then I think they would get the nod but I don’t see that happening. I don’t see WR either because I think the top three will be gone and I don’t see Ballard giving up on Pierce so soon without seeing him really play with AR. So no receiver in round 1. So for me today April 2nd my guess at pick 15 is Cooper Dejean.

I think he's a R2 pick because he ends up at S, but we will just have to see. We also haven't seen Ballard draft a CB in R1 either. So even if he projects Dejean as a CB, it might not be that early. This is a fun draft cause it really could be a lot of different players he is targeting.

April 2

31 minutes ago, stitches said:

I wasn't thinking about releasing him. I think he has value on his contract, He's one of the best RTs in the league. But still ... he has contract for this year and next. After that ... if we are preparing to pay our LT(Raimann) and our QB(if AR pans out), we might need to make some sacrifices with some top of the roster players. Or we might trade Braden Smith if we get a good offer...

Yep! That's IMO the most likely scenario. If I had to bet right now on any position or trade back, I'd bet Ballard is going to trade back.

I think the most likely is neither CB, nor WR at 15. IMO the most likely is still trading back...

I don't think they release him necessarily, but they save $16M in cap prior to next season. If there is an OT ready to take over, it might make sense to explore it (if he gets hurt again) or maybe a trade (if he doesn't). I don't see Ballard giving him a 3rd contract if they plan to pay Raimann, so OT is probably coming via the draft this year or next.

April 2

51 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think they will be there. He strikes me as a Ballard type of pick. High Ras score I’m assuming after he tests. Supposedly very athletic. Can play multiple positions at a high level. Would be our kick returner too day one. He took Malik Hooker at 15 so I could see him taking Cooper there as well. I could see him moving up into the middle of the 1st round after his workout.

He took Hooker all the way back in 2017. The S position has really become devalued since then. It would depend on how they project Dejean. If it's as a S long-term, then I bet he's more of a trade-back or R2 player on their board than a mid-R1 pick.

April 2

1 minute ago, stitches said:

How sure are we Ballard wouldn't draft an OT at 15 if he really likes one of them? I kind of cannot exclude the possibility of any of this happening. I think people are still preoccupied with the idea of drafting for need, when Ballard has shown in the past that if he sees value he will draft at positions we don't have big immediate needs at. For example, lets assume Fuaga is there and Ballard thinks he will be amazing OT... while we are paying big bucks for Braden Smith. Maybe he decides he wants to prepare a move away from Smith in the next year or two... and in the meantime he strengthens the line as a whole by adding another high level talent who can play both RT and possibly RG...

I could see it. Smith's contract and injury situation might make him a release candidate. And this would give the OT one year to develop before taking over.

But I also could see Ballard taking advantage of a OT-needy team moving back a bit and getting some Day 2 capital.

April 2

37 minutes ago, Superman said:

Specifically at OT, there's a chance Latham and Fuaga are there. And at DT, Murphy and Newton. I think there are people on this site who would throw up if we picked an edge, but out of Turner, Verse, Latu, and Robinson, 2-3 of them should still be in play.

This is so true. But it's actually the smart play if one of Turner or Verse falls. Turner is a pipe dream though. With Paye and Dayo only having one year until they need new deals, they will likely need a replacement for one of them. I don't see Ballard keeping both and that R1 ER can make a situational impact this year (which is probably the most we can hope of a pick at #15 that isn't a CB or Bowers, who probably isn't there).

Murphy would also make a lot of sense because we don't know if they are going to pay DeFo the monster contract he will demand after this year. But they did just sign multiple DTs in FA, so the immediate impact wouldn't be there.

April 2

7 minutes ago, wig said:

Overhyping does happen for sure. But we're talking about 3 guys that have averaged over 1300 yards for two seasons against big time competition. They are DUDES. I think the gap between 3 and 4 is about the same as 4 and 15. And I want a difference maker in this draft. One of those 3, Bowers or Mitchell

Agree. Not even sure if these WRs are being overhyped. MHJ has been seen as a generational WR for two years. Nabers might actually be better...and Odunze is a beast. We could see WR go 4-6 for the first time in history, but they would probably all go top 5 if there weren't 3 QBs locked in at 1-3.

I think if a team could trade up and get one, they won't miss that draft capital at all. But I also don't think we see any team eyeing one of them is trading back to take their chances on the second tier. It would have to be a stupid haul (like a team trading up for a QB would pay) and Ballard likely doesn't entertain it, so it's sort of moot.

If the big 3 WRs, Bowers, Turner and Verse are all gone, Ballard likely trades back. This would be a great draft to need an OT, but the Colts don't really need one, so I could see Ballard parlaying one that falls into an extra pick or two.

April 2

59 minutes ago, Superman said:

So is there a case to be made that there's a player worth moving up from #15 in this year's draft?

Without parsing this to death, I mostly agree with the bolded. But how I see it, the top 14 picks will include at least 3 QBs, at least 3 WRs, probably 2 edge/DEs, probably 2 DTs, 2 OTs, and probably the top TE.

So you can get the 4th best WR at #15, vs going up to #7 for probably the 2nd or 3rd best WR. Is there a bright line of separation there? Third best edge, third best OT... maybe Bowers falls...

I think you can let the draft fall however it falls, and you'll still be able to choose between 5-7 "elite" prospects at multiple positions with #15. Which is why trading up to get an elite prospect is not compelling to me, this year.

And moving from 3# to #6 is a completely different situation. You're still firmly in "elite prospect" territory.

I think there's a pretty big gap between the 4th best WR and the 2nd/3rd best. That trio of MHJ, Nabers and Odunze are likely top 5 picks in any draft. So to be able to move up from #15 to #7 and get one of them is probably worth it. The problem is I don't think anybody is trading back for the same reasons. Where's the value in moving down to #15?

March 27

4 hours ago, w87r said:

It wasn't reported a week ago that it was the Colts that had highest offer.

It was reported that he went back home to the Texans, for less than his highest offer.

Only correlation with the Colts, is, they were rumored at the time to be 1 of the 2/3 teams in on it.

So it was speculation at that point, that the Colts had the highest offer, which I guess it still is, but Holder has to have some Intel to suggest what he did.

You would think he would be even more careful, after the Destin debacle.

As far as the guaranteed vs AAV discussion.

Hunter was guaranteed $48m by the Texans for 2yrs.

For the Colts to beat that guaranteed money on a longer deal, is tough to do, especially on the hypothetical that was listed

3yrs $60m - ($20m AAV), we would of had to guarantee $50m of that, to top Texans. With a 3rd year worth only $10m? Sounds good for Colts, but I'm sure that wouldn't fly with Hunter and his agent.

That doesn't seem logical. And I know it was just some random numbers.

Could it of been a 3yr $70m($23.3m AAV) deal with $50m guaranteed? Potentially makes a little more sense, than the $60m over 3years.

At least he would still of had $20m for the 3rd year. But even here, that is $23.3m AAV, so if we did that(who knows?), why does it seem unlikely to of had a $25m AAV on the table($1.7m AAV), which was $500,000 a year more than Texans offer.

And I guess technically, $500,000 more a year is more, when $373,625 comes out in State tax.

Leaves Colts offer about $250k more than the Texans.

Who knows? I just posted the article because it seems to confirm we were in the battle for him. Definitely didn't do it to go back and forth about State taxes/going home/ what more $$ meant. Lol

I didn’t mean to imply that you were confirming that they offered more. I just get skeptical when somebody like Holder says it without any details. Especially since I haven’t seen any other Colts media/content creator say the same.

And I could be wrong, but if they had actually offered more gtd money, I bet Holder would have gladly specified that as well.

So if they just offered him a larger total contract value, it’s not really worth noteworthy, because we don’t know the details. But the way Holder positioned it was that the Colts were aggressive and offered him a better deal. I think many of his readers will interpret it that way…and it seems to be the angle he was going for.

March 27

On 3/25/2024 at 4:56 PM, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Because maybe he wasn’t wrong. Maybe Titian’s in at last minute. Even the athletic Dianna Russini said she was about to send out a tweet it was done

People need to understand that things happen. There is no reason to be so angry or mad. Even Stephen holder was wrong about Jonathan Taylor. This kind of info should just be taken for what it is. Sometimes things fall through. It is what it is. Destin had been pretty accurate on a lot of stuff. Fans want to take every interested in a player tweet to mean it’s happening. Posts like yours is why a couple have stopped giving info. Fans like to take them the wrong way.

I am not mad nor angry. And Destin is an adult. If he never reported what he reported, he’s not getting this feedback. He knows he took a risk.

Honestly, I don’t even have a problem with being wrong. I didn’t trust him or Captain Colt. I am referring to his carefully-worded mea culpa.

March 27

3 minutes ago, w87r said:

I don't even know where talk of a narrative is even coming from?

Everyone has already seen the reports that he took less to go home, a week or more ago.

I'm not disputing that in the slightest, I was just posting the article that states the Colts offered him more money, which essentially confirmed that we were actually in on him. Was sole purpose of the post, to show we were actually in on him.

No narrative in the slightest. Not saying he went to Texans because of no state tax, not saying he didn't want to go home.

The state tax talk, was just about how, even if we offered more money, it doesn't mean much, because it would of been closer to the same number with some additional taxes taken out if we had slightly higher AAV.

Home games, if he signed with Colts would only of cost him around $747,250 over 2 years (17 home games x $43,956 per game(3.05% Indiana state tax)

That's not that much of a difference($373,625 a year), didn't even matter because he wanted to go home. Still nothing to brush aside though.

Didn't matter here, because he wanted to go home.

Who reported that IND offered more a week or more ago?

I can’t find mention of it until the Holder article…and other articles just link to Holder’s article.

I have no doubt they were in on him, but Holder is implying they made him a better offer. That’s what I am skeptical about.

March 27

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'm not necessarily co-signing all of this, but I do find it hard to believe that Ballard was offering Hunter better than the $24m/year that he got from the Texans.

The guaranteed money seems like it's more doable, to be honest. It's a two year deal for a highly esteemed free agent. If you do a four year deal for the same player, you're effectively guaranteeing the first two years, so I don't know if there's really a difference.

The Texans were likely willing to go higher on the yearly average because they'll use cap tricks like backloaded structure and void years to mitigate the Year 1 cap hit, and the Colts won't.

Anyway, multiple things can be true in this situation. Hunter might have preferred to play in Texas, the Colts might have been offering more overall money, the Texans might have been offering the highest yearly average... None of the reporting is necessarily contradictory, but we're also not getting full details.

Right. I think it’s just that Hunter wanted to play in HOU. He wanted to be there and they look primed to be a contender, so it makes sense.

Here we have a “team source” saying they offered more with no real details. So I am naturally skeptical when that happens…about it being a higher AAV or gtd money.

March 27

11 hours ago, Superman said:

"More money" could mean three years, $60m. I honestly doubt Ballard was offering better than $25m/year.

Haha. I plagiarized this exact post without even knowing it.

But I agree…”more money” doesn’t mean better deal, which Holder knows he is implying. There isn’t really any precedent for Ballard doing this type of deal.

Not to mention it contradicts the “Ballard has limitations with gtd money” that I saw when the Sneed deal fell through.

Just feels like spin from Holder, given the criticism of Ballard not spending in FA. He’s been doing it a lot this offseason. He’s also pushing the homegrown narrative and talking about how they gave out $200M this offseason.

March 27

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

I don't know that everyone is forming their own narrative. It was reported that Hunter wanted to be in Texas.

Yeah…I feel Iike most had accepted this.

March 27

14 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Each player’s circumstance is different. Rodgers had no problem going to the Jets in a high state tax state. Players want the money and they also want to win and hopefully get a Super Bowl when they’re playing. A lot of factors play in to their decision.

Oh I agree. I think the “no state income tax” can get a bit overblown. It’s a factor…but just one of many.

Rodgers is a bit different because he’s a QB and has amassed a small fortune in a long career.

But for most players, it’s probably the gtd money and trajectory to the playoffs (if they can get both), which often is dependent on that team’s QB.

March 27

31 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

He will still pay state taxes in every other state he plays in that does have state tax. So 8 games at home and 2 in Tennessee and Jacksonville will have no state tax, the other 7 games will be taxed

Good point. I do wonder how much of a factor this is for FAs, once they account for the difference in cost of living. Just strictly from a financial standpoint. For example, NSH is probably at least 7% more expensive than IND.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Events

Blogs

Posts posted by shasta519