shasta519
-
Posts
8,615 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by shasta519
-
-
16 hours ago, LockeDown said:
I read an article recently that Rosen isn’t liked in NFL locker rooms either/ I think it said he separates himself . I thought about picking him up too but I’m thinking he won’t make it now.
Sounds like Bo Callahan. We all know how that worked out.
-
19 hours ago, MPStack said:
I agree Lamar should win. And I doubt he plays like this season very long. Exciting guy, but he’s going to get hurt eventually.Maybe...but I watched almost all of his college career at U of L...the dude just doesn’t get hit. Pretty incredible that he has been able to keep that up against bigger, faster players.
-
7 minutes ago, ar7 said:
Thank you!
The Jets spent the most money in free agency and were number two the year before. Spending the money in free agency is not as obvious answer as so many make it out to be.
Also, look at the Rams. They have been aggressive in trades and free agency over the last few years. They had a great run last year. However, they now face a massive challenge in rebuilding their roster. They have so many needs but so little cap space (currently projected around $25 million for 2020) and no 1st round pick in 2020 or 2021 to use.
Some envy what the Raiders (Antonio Brown, Tyrell Williams), Cowboys (Amari Cooper), and Browns (Odell Beckham) have done over the last year. Despite getting a big time wide receiver all three of these teams have a similar record to the Colts. The Raiders just threw away a 3rd and 5th round pick for Brown...just totally wasted draft resources. So glad Ballard didn't go that direction last offseason.
But they all ended up with the same results as the Colts. I think it’s fair to hope the Colts could make better use of impact talent.
-
31 minutes ago, BProland85 said:
Chris Jones perhaps? Fills a huge need and is a player Ballard knows from KC.
If KC lets him go...go for broke.
I also like Kendall Fuller as well. I wish they would have gone after Marcus Peters when he was available.
-
2 hours ago, Superman said:
Let's say you can get Nick Foles for a moderate draft pick. Is that a reasonable approach?
For me...yes. But I am a Foles fan.
People keep saying that it’s similar to the Osweiler situation where HOU had to include a 2nd round pick. It’s not...Osweiler was a never was who had a horrific season before being traded. Foles has had success and is coming off an injury-plagued season on a team that looks like it gave up. I don’t think JAC is giving up a pick...but I do think Foles would be cheap to acquire.
I am fuzzy on the overall contract details...but from what I understand...the acquiring team would only pay his base salary...~$15M and then it’s non-gtd base salaries going forward.
So if you traded JB...and save $9M...you are only paying $6M more to have Foles next year. Release Hoyer and that cuts it down to $3M.
For $3M more in cap space...you can have Foles + rookie...instead of JB + Hoyer. And who knows...the pick they get back for JB is likely better than the one they gave up. I would take that setup.
(JB also has a roster bonus...and IF that can be traded...then I think the Colts actually save money in this scenario...which makes it a no-brainer).
It seems like a drastic move...to scrap the entire QB room...but it might be best (for everyone involved)...to have a fresh start.
And while Foles might seem like old hat to some (given the Reich connection)...I think it would invigorate some of the fans...and obviously he has a pretty good recent track record of being a positive influence in the QB room...so he would fill that mentor role as well.
I have always wonder what this team would have looked like if Luck had retired in Feb...maybe Foles is already a Colt.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Superman said:
Good breakdown.
I think there's an expectation that spending more money means the team will be better on the field. Seems logical, but when you think about, it's easy to spend more money. It's not quite so easy to make your team better, so there's a disconnect somewhere; the two do not go hand in hand.
And we can point to countless examples of players getting big FA contracts, but never performing. It's more common that big ticket FAs underperform, than live up to their contracts. If you're willing to accept that kind of return in FA, then that's one thing. Teams get more value from drafting and developing well, then paying their own, while using free agency judiciously.
It's critical to remember that cash spend vs cap spend is just accounting. You can move cap spending around, manipulate cap numbers, restructure contracts, frontload, backload, whatever. But once money is spent (including fully guaranteed money to be spent in future years), it's gone. Once cash goes it, it must hit the cap. And with cap rollover, it allows teams to manage their cap space with more freedom, rather than just year by year. So while it's true that a team might have more available cap space, that doesn't mean it's necessarily wise to spend that cap space right now.
If your team building strategy is to draft and develop well, then pay your own, and you have some immediate success with that strategy, it makes sense to withhold some cap space in the present to accommodate re-signing your highly performing draft picks. Once Nelson and Leonard hit All Pro, they basically locked in top of the market contracts (barring significant fall-off in performance, or injury). The Colts will be better equipped to absorb those contracts in the next CBA, assuming rollover is still a thing (and it likely will be). Same for other drafted players whose contracts come due.
And up until August, the team was likely planning on a $35m/year (or more) extension for Luck, probably in 2021. So their projection was probably to absorb some big extensions within a relatively short period of time, using their excess cap space. Account for prorated bonuses, and the cash would likely exceed the cap by tens of millions in 2020 and 2021.
My main point is that you should spend on the right players, and by saving cap space for future years when your guys come up, you're laying a strong foundation. And that was an acceptable strategy, IMO, when we had a franchise-level QB. I think we need more help in 2020 than we thought we would, though, and since I think a high draft pick needs to go toward a QB, it makes sense that we allocate more resources to the rest of the roster in free agency. But that doesn't mean you spend just to spend. I still want the right guys, at the right positions, for the right price, because I think that leads to continued success.
I agree...and I do think cap space is mostly accounting. However, when used effectively/creatively, it can be quite the asset.
I don't know what the correlation to spending and winning/losing...as I am sure it shifts based on circumstance (like it will for the Colts when Nelson and Leonard need new deals). But I would assume teams that leave that much money on the table aren't typically competing for Super Bowls. NE for example...always seems to be near the cap. With a good FO and cap guy...I don't think it's much of an issue.
Luck could have played a role...however...wasn't he under contract through 2021? So when Ballard took over in 2017, they had cost control of their franchise QB for five more years. I understand having foresight...but I don't think Luck's contract would have had that much impact on earlier dealings. (Had Luck not retired, his contract is probably looking mighty nice over the next three years...but I digress.)
And the lack of spending...which was most prevalent in 2017 and 2018 (when the Colts were last in the league by a good margin in spending)...began before Leonard or Nelson were drafted. And then the much higher spending this past year...was mostly driven by extensions (one of which was very early) and spending $20M in cash on JB because Luck retired. Take away Moore and JB...and the Colts probably need to spend $90M+ in cash to satisfy the threshold.
Again, I understand the desire for future flexibility...and I know impact talent typically comes via the draft. There is nothing wrong with that. But the sheer lack of spending overall makes it hard not to wonder if there is more to it than just how Ballard operates.
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
I mean, he'll have $100m in cap space, so he can pretty much do whatever he wants.
But I feel like people talk themselves into this 'the Colts are going to spend' narrative every offseason. There's this misunderstanding of the minimum spend rule, and it's going to be even bigger this year because people think the Colts MUST spend big in 2020, and it's not true. So come the second week of March, people are going to be calling for Ballard's head just like they have the last two years, because he never goes crazy. I don't see that changing this year.
Another factor, we don't know what the new CBA will look like. So Ballard, normally a cautious and shrewd spender, will likely be just a cautious in 2020 so that he doesn't put himself in a bad situation. Remember, the cap went down in the first year of the last CBA, and didn't really start going up for three years. I doubt that happens this time, but no one knows yet.
He won't spend all of it. I assume he will at least put aside $40M or so...which seems to be his MO.
But if he does spend $60M...even with AC getting $15M of that...it could be a fun March. That amount of cap space would have been the equivalent of signing 2 Houstons and 2 Funchesses.
I have hoped the plan is use draft assets on a QB...but they certainly have the flexibility to go get a proven QB if they want.
They can also flex some of that cap space muscle to trade for some proven talent...either under contract or nearing FA. I think we are going to see even more trades this offseason...as teams are wary of the new CBA..combined with the incoming change in rookie wages (or at the very least...length of cost control). Could be fun offseason...and hopefully the Colts can take advantage.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
The Colts only need to spend about $40m more than they're already committed to in 2020 -- in cash -- to meet the minimum spend requirement.
Warning: Lots of math below.
Looking at "Total Cash Spending" on OTC by year...and comparing it to the Salary Cap...
(Note: I assumed a $10M increase for next year's cap space.) The cash spend threshold target would be 89% of $730,600,000...which is $650,234,000. So they would need to spend ~$54M more in cash this offseason to reach it.
That won't be difficult to do...Kelly and AC's extensions will both have considerable amounts of cash gtd at signing...that will likely cover that.
But the overall cap space spent is a bit frustrating...and will likely garner more attention than it has. Cash spent is almost always higher than cap spent...and in the case of the Colts...their cash spent to cap spent has indexed about 110 on average the past three years (meaning on average they have spent 10% more in cash vs. cap). If those holds true, then at 89% in cash spend, they spent 81% of the available cap. Here are their cap spends:
Right now...over the four-year period...the Colts have currently used ~$550M in cap space of that $730M figure...and have saved ~$180M. So even if the Colts spent all ~$100M of their available cap space this offseason (including rollover) to get to $650M...they would still only be at 89% for the 4-year period...and would have left ~$80M of the available $730M cap space on the table.
We know they won't spend all of their cap space like that. If I had to guess, I will esimate they spend $60M in extra cap space this offseason...which might even be generous. So if they do that...they will have spent $610M of the $730M...or 83.4%. And in that scenario, they would have left $120M on the table.
I get that there was rebuilding to be done when Ballard took over...and "some" lean spending made sense...but to only use 83% of one of your biggest asset should raise some questions as to why...especially if the Colts don't turn it around next season. Irsay is a great owner and loves the Colts...but he has also put a lot of money back into his pocket during the Ballard era thus far.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, Superman said:
I'm thinking he's double-counting the rollover. After the Doyle extension, I have it at under $100m.
That would almost perfectly account for the gap between what OTC says.
I do think they will have a little bit more to play with...as I could see a scenario where Hunt is released (saving $4M)...Hoyer (saving $3M)...and possibly even Desir (saving $6.85M).
-
36 minutes ago, DougDew said:
Of course its my opinion. Its a discussion forum.
If all we did is post stats and links and highlight plays, it would be a collection of spoon-fed narrow facts for nonobservant types.
Good punt returner. As a 4th/5th receiver PR/KR on the roster who catches the ball near the LOS, (not a down field receiver) he has value as long as there is some open space in front of him. He's fast.
As a #2 RB who catches passes on routes like a #2RB, he doesn't have a stiff arm, can't make a move and keep his balance for the next move, and tends to be brought down fairly easily. Listing him as a RB takes up a spot for a real #2 RB, or #3 backup.
Not sure if there are any stats or links to quote for those observations.
There are stats that back this up.
https://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/nyheim-hines/
- #51 in juke rate (14.3%)
- #42 in big run rate (2.3%)
- #72 in yards created
- Faces a light front 70.5% of the time (3rd highest % in the NFL)...but only has a 3.6 YPC average.
-
15 minutes ago, LockeDown said:
Hilton returned Pints his first year and even he never had a game like this so I think you are probably just thinking Carolina just didn’t care.
TY did have a monster game returning against BUF his rookie year...but not quite on this level.
-
15 hours ago, Dasteez said:
Bro, Hines is basically a Sproles clone. He is a RB. He is a PR. He can be moved around to get favorable match ups - I.e moving to the slot or Jet sweeps. Dude has got burners as the 2 punt returns for TD put on display.
Most if not all would probably agree this guy isn’t a 3 down back. He is fast and elusive enough to garner more playing time and creativity than what we’ve seen over the course of 2019 however.
If anything I think his lack of playing time is more a testament to what the Colts think they have in Mack as an all around back - just think if you put both those guys on the field at the same time, you’re bound to catch the defense out of place.
To be fair to the coaching staff....Hines is not even close to the level of a Sproles. Yes...he’s fast...but he doesn’t consistently create big plays (on offense) and isn’t much of a true threat like a Sproles was. A gadget player that gives you sub 4 yds/carry and ~7 yds/catch just isn’t really efficient or effective. And since he offers very little as a RB...it doesn’t help to have him out there very often.
He did have a great game as a PR...I hope he has found his niche.
-
Kelly will likely stay with the Colts. However, he missed 13
/32 games (between last season the season before)...so since Ballard got here...Kelly has missed 30% of the games.
That will possibly be taken into consideration. I think a 4-year deal (buying out his option year) for $44M should suffice. He gets paid like a top C...but Colts don’t break the bank.
-
Still one of the funniest gifs I have ever seen. The guy in the blue shirt stopped a sure TD.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
I think this post AND the one I responded to are both the posts of a fan who is angry and disappointed and frustrated.
Im sorry to see this from such a good poster. I can think if at least 10 posters who THIS I would expect from. You’re not one of them. Those people don't know football. You do.
I am not angry or frustrated. Put it this way...if Reich or Ballard believed they stand to gain anything from playing Kelly...why aren't they doing it?
-
11 minutes ago, aaron11 said:
winston will be a free agent in the off season, but some writers think he will be franchise tagged
If JB can get a franchise tag...so can Winston. But it's the prudent move...because he might have some trade value...depending on how the FA market and draft falls. He's only 25...and can obviously sling it. If a team believed they could curtail the INTs...he should be seen as a top half QB you could win with.
-
35 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
How do you explain the great season he had as a rookie with Luck then. The kid had a fantastic year.
It wasn’t a fantastic rookie year though...his yards/carry and yards/catch weren’t great. His yardage totals were volume-based.
-
9 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:
I don’t get why they are running with him so much. It’s known that’s not his strength and you have other backs on the roster who are better at it. Sometimes I think this coaching staff just likes the challenge of trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
They have to run with him to keep the defense honest...which is another downside to Hines...because he’s just not a good RB.
-
1 hour ago, DougDew said:
Hines is not elusive enough and does not stay on his feet well enough (balance) to be the guy for that role. And, he doesn't seem to be as fast as advertised. Its criminal that he is even on the roster.
Mack is both more elusive and harder to tackle and should be in the role of Hines, which should be to get the ball in space, and more plays should be called for that role. A more powerful RB who can also occasionally catch should take over Mack's current role.
All JMO.
BTW, Hines doesn't stink because of JB. He's always stunk.
Agree re: Hines. He’s just not that good...at least compared to other similar players. He doesn’t consistently rip off chunk plays and doesn’t have big playmaking ability...which sort of defeats the point of having a player like Hines.
I wish Mack was a good pass catcher...but multiple coaching staffs have just mostly refused to utilize him this way.
-
I would take Winston over JB...it would at least be entertaining. But I would prefer neither.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:
Or we could just lose the next two games and get Herbert. #bustinforJustin
Gross dude
-
29 minutes ago, DougDew said:
I typically get accused of committing heresy by defending Grigson about comments like this but please look at my first post.
Grigson barely had a roster when Polian left. He had AC, Wayne, Freeny, Mathis, and Bethea; but he didn't even have a center. No TE as Clark and Tamme left. Hayden was gone and so was Marlin Jackson and Sanders. Brackett was waived which left almost no LBers. Grigson had to sign Satele, Mike McCue (Magoo) and slow RT Winston Justice just to field an o line. Irsay mandated a change to a 34, so RG went and got Cory Redding, the old NT, and scrounged up a few LBs and DBs. He signed Ahmad Bradshaw and Donnie Avery. He hired Arians. Grigson didn't have the opportunity to fleece anybody by trading his high first rounder because he had no QB on the roster at the time of the draft. The only time he had any pick higher than 24 he picked a quality player.
That's a completely different situation and approach than what Ballard faced. Any comparison is simply fraught with errors, IMO.
Agree...impossible to compare. Ballard inherited an (albeit injured) franchise QB...which allowed him to have the luxury of leveraging that pick into multiple draft picks...and then to use the top pick on a non-QB position. Grigs obviously didn't have that luxury. Imagine a scenario wher Grigs is able to make that move that STL did...trading back from #2 to #6 and getting #39...plus a 2013 1st rounder and a 2014 2nd rounder. And then because of the lack of LBs...Grigs take Kuechly. And then drafts an OL player like Mitchell Schwartz or Cordy Glenn with that extra 2nd rounder. Not to get too much into hypotheticals...but obviously...it would have been an advantageous position to be in...especially for a GM that just inherited a talent-starved roster.
-
5 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:
Every draft pick made by Ballard is in the league and contributing on the Colts or elsewhere.
He hasn't chased a lot of free agents, but the ones he's signed to decent money have all played up to or exceeded our expectations from John Simon, Jabaal Sheard, Al Woods, to Justin Houston.
Found gems and/or solid contributors in Desir, Moore, Muhammad and Glowinski in the scrap heap.
Had the gumption to draft Leonard in the 2nd when everyone else thought he was a 5th rounder.
Fleeced the Jets in a trade that netted us Nelson et al....
The ONLY creditable thing Grigson did was draft T.Y. Hilton and Ryan Kelly.....Luck was a no brainer.
The TY pick was pretty credible though. I would say that's on the same level as getting Leonard...maybe even more impactful.
Grigs also re-signed Reggie and Mathis...which were catalysts (in addition to Luck of course) for the immediate success of those early Luck teams. And Grigs traded for Vontae as well...which is the type of move I would love to see Ballard do to upgrade the overall proven talent at a position.
But I agree...definitely not enough overall. I think Grigs ultimate demise (beyond apparently having terrible people skills) was that he just wasn't a very good talent evaluator overall...and when he missed...he missed big. Change around a couple of those early draft picks...and maybe he outlasts Pagano and even gets to handpick a new HC.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
What the.... ?Huh?
What does this even mean?
Ballard and Reich have nothing to gain? Finding a good player at the most important position in the game?
Nothing to gain? Even if Kelly succeeds?
Would you like to try to explain? I’m completely lost....
Sure. But let me say...I am fully onboard with putting Kelly out there...I want to see what he looks like in actual NFL regular season action. But I am a fan...so I am trying to look at it through the lens of Ballard and Reich.
What it means on the on-field?
- Not a ton. It's a two game sample...at the end of a (somewhat) lost season...against two teams vying for top 10 picks. So even if he plays well...the sample size is incredibly low and and not incredibly meaningful (Josh Freeman won a game back in 20).
What it means off the field?
- It undermines and (possibly) embarasses JB...something I am sure they don't want to do.
- It shows that their faith and confidence in JB might have been misguided...and they are basically admitting some level of failure for that...especially if Kelly plays well.
- It potentially creates a QB controversy (and distraction) heading into the offseason.
Overall...it's a net negative. They will let JB ride it out...and try to end on a high note.
-
1
-
Marlon Mack also wants to stay here long term
in Colts Football
Posted
I like Mack...but how much do you pay a good RB that doesn't make plays in the passing game?
Mack sees other RBs getting $13-15M/year...he's probably going to want at least $10M/year. Are you cool giving Mack a 4/$40M deal?
I don't know...I do want Mack to stick around...but that's a pretty expensive way to fill the role of early-down RB who doesn't catch passes.