Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TomDiggs

  1. I’d love to have Stafford personally, but his cost starts at a first rounder and is likely higher. 

    Some people want to compare the situation to Alex Smith a few years back. Smith got KC a 3rd and a starting slot corner. 

    stafford is slightly younger and more talented and Detroit doesn’t have an heir waiting like KC did w Mahomes. 





    realistically we will have to give up more than we did for Buckner for a franchise qb


    with the limited supply of decent starters available and quite a few teams looking for a starter (Indy, Chicago, NE, Wash, SF, possibly LAR, NYJ, Den) stafford is going to have a bit of a bidding war. Best bet is to make your best offer early and try to get him before the bidding ramps up



    • Like 2
  2. I've enjoyed reading through the back and forth in this thread and feel there's merits on many topics on both sides.


    A few of my thoughts that are purely my opinion but are rooted in experience in some cases:


    1) I never understand the logic of "fixing" one position by moving guys who are studs at their position around in hopes that they can be good elsewhere. For a game or two I get it (like when AC goes out and Nelson slides over). But right now we have a Center , LG and RT who are all top-5 at their position. Keep them there and fix the other areas.


    2) I played OL in college and semi-pro ball. I started as a LG, was moved to LT and then my last couple years played Center. I personally found Center to be by far the most challenging. I got moved to RT for one game in an all-star game when there was another Center who was older and only played C. RT was a new world when going up against All-Star talent and that wasn't even close to NFL ball. So I would not be trying to shift Smith around when he was going to be a RG and settled into a stellar RT. Then if he doesn't succeed at LT and we drafted someone to play RT, we now have two RTs and no LT. Just does not make a ton of sense.


    3) There are players out there who can be good LTs who don't have elite measureables but just plain get it. I badly wanted Orlando Brown Jr. He played like a beast in college. He looked the part. His measureables were atrocious and he fell to the third round. Bmore stole him. He is now an All-Pro caliber RT and played LT when Ronnie Stanley was out. Some guys can do that and they just look the part despite their measureables. Some guys don't measure well and it is a precursor for failure. identifying which it is is the key and why personnel guys have such a challenging job.


    4) I think we can possibly piece-part together the offense if we get a good LT and a placeholder QB. I think we can piece-part it with a better QB and an average LT....we probably cannot piece-part it with a avg or below LT and and avg or below  QB......so something has to give and we are going to need to make some moves to probably get a QB worth anything. If we aren't willing to make that move up in the draft or out of the first in a trade, then we need to sign an avg or above LT and go bargain hunting at QB for a year. That just wastes another year of our best financial years of some of our studs (Nelson, Leonard, Smith, etc).


    I am actually excited for this off-season because there are a lot of directions we can go in in terms of building up the team. The future is bright, but this is a pretty critical off-season.


    The teams in the AFC with the brightest future have addressed their QB with young rising players (Chiefs, Bills, Ravens). If we are not going to go young and try to win with a QB on his rookie contract (i.e. Eagles superbowl on Wentz rookie deal, Rams Superbowl w Goff, Chiefs w Mahomes, etc) then we are just on borrowed time.







    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  3. 31 minutes ago, Mackrel829 said:

    I remember seeing some kind of article or graphic a while back showing all of the repercussions of the Nelson/Darnold draft day trade. It showed everything that the Colts got in return up to that point so it included all future picks and players that came from that original trade. 


    Does anyone know what I'm referring to? I can't seem to find it again.


    I don't have a graphic of it but i believe the finally net result was that the Jets got 1.03 (Darnold) and the Colts turned their resulting picks from the trade into:


    OG Quenton Nelson

    OT Braden Smith

    DE Kemoko Turay

    RB Jordan Wilkins 

    CB Rock Ya-Sin


    This includes their trade down w the Eagles from 49 to 52 that netted them Turay and Wilkins in that instance.



    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  4. 3 hours ago, WoolMagnet said:

    I’m frustrated.  We (almost) played the “perfect” game.  The game plan was great... time of possession, field position, scheme, good mix of run/pass, etc.  Moved the ball well.

    But 2 of 5 in the red zone (40%) and 1 of 2 goal to go?  Buffalo was 100% in both.

      I think Reich had the team ready, and gad a great game plan.  However, with all his stats on when to go for 4th downs or 2 points, i think he fails to factor in the “momentum effect.”  
    Coming away with nothing after long sustained drives affects the team and boosts the opponents AND the fans.  Working the score back to seven, only to go tor 2 failing which made the fap 8 points affects the psyche of the team and gives a boost to the opponent.  We saw it many times this year where we were we were moving, got a lil “cute”, and momentum shifted.
      I love Franks aggressive nature , but repeatedly thru the season i felt he got a little cute and greedy in the red zone.  Perhaps this added to our poor red zone efficiency.

    Take the points, Frank.  Especially on the road.


    (This isnt a “replace Frank” thread, just my opinion on an observation. 


    This times 100!


    Could not agree more.


    I understand based on film they thought they would have a walk in with that pitch on third and goal.


    But Taylor was playing well and has been feeling it. If you are going to go for it on fourth down anyhow you run the ball up the gut or off tackle behind a very good run blocking RT in Braden Smith and you do that two times. If you don't get it you are likely at the 1 instead of the 5 and who knows what happens on that drive where Buffalo takes over.


    I really have gotten sick of the JB short yardage package situation simply because everytime he comes in a team knows it is a sneak or a run. Don't tip your hand. We moved the ball great between the 20s and then overthought things inside the 20. Hopefully that is something that improves in future years.


    I also agree that it would not hurt to have a little mobility at QB simply to be able to move the pocket and do some other things offensively.


    But this isn't much on Rivers this game other than that 4th down missed throw to Pittman and I can't fault him too much for one error in a tough spot.

    • Like 1
  5. Hindsight is obviously 20:20, but the other thing about going for it on 4th down there at the end of the first half is that the logic is likely "Hey if we don't succeed they would need to march 95 yards in 2 minutes instead of giving them the ball back only up 13-7 with 2 mins and likely 75 yards or less to go".


    From that logic it can be argued that it makes sense.


    However, when you factor in that the Bills were still able to go down and get a TD there, that is basically a 10-14 point swing in a 2 minute period in a game that ended up being a one score game.


    I totally understand the logic and analytics as to why we went for it, but that decision alone was the true killer.


    That 10 point swing combined with knowing that the Bills were getting the ball to start the second half was tough.


    I understand there are not a lot of moral victories when you're playing to win championships, but our team lost to arguably the hottest team in the league with one of the best offenses on the road in a game where they were allowed to have fans for the first time and were amped up. And we had a chance to tie or win at the end.


    This looks a lot closer than we looked when getting beaten by KC 31-13 two years back.


    The Bills are a damn good team that is championship caliber and we arguably outplayed them.


    We have some work to do this off-season but the future still looks bright.

    • Like 3
  6. Congrats to Dan on winning the 'Ship in the Joe's league.


    My squad picked the wrong week to fail to show up in the big game. That's what happens when you rely on a bunch of hated Titans and they die against GB lol


    At least next year will likely mean a move up to the Elite league and another chance to interact w more of the community members.


    Kudos to all the Joes league participants for a fun year.



    • Like 1
  7. 3 hours ago, stitches said:


    Hooker is the player who has created the most turnovers on this team and he's missed about a season worth of games due to injururies.


    I agree here. Serious injury concerns are one of the reasons I would understand for not tying him up for long term contract... but here we're not talking about long-term contract. We are talking about a relatively cheap single year option. 



    Those are really small samples and get skewed by one weird game(the Chiefs game for example) with injuries to opposing key offensive players. Those stats also don't answer the counter-factual.  


    I'll play along and address a few for arguments sake. Though I do not explicitly disagree with some of the points made:


    1) Hooker 100% has not created the most turnovers. That would be ignoring the fact that Leonard has equalled his number of INTs in 2 seasons and that Leonard has also caused 6 fumbles all in one year less of time. Kenny Moore has also generated one less int and two more forced fumbles in the same time frame. Pierre Desir had the same stats as Moore.  All I am getting at is that I think they envisioned Hooker doing a lot more than he has. And to your point, if I say that the Colts signed player X to sack the QB and player X sacked a QB 4 times a year and that led the team, that does not mean that because he did the best at it that he accomplished what the Colts envisioned for him. I simply am saying I do not think Hooker has not created turnovers well enough. Which was my original point.


    2) I mentioned this in reply to Shasta's comment, but i still think this isn't about long term contracts here. It is about "do i want to tie up $7M in Hooker if he has been hurt every single year at some point for all 3 years and if he is hurt to end this season i may be on the hook for that $7M for 2021" I think the Colts said No to that and what it will cost them is that if Hooker plays lights out, they have to tag him and spend an extra $4M or so for that extra year. If he doesn't play well he is gone just like he would have been w the option anyhow. And if he gets hurt we dodged the $7M bullet.


    3) All I am getting at here is that you can make stats say whatever narrative you want. One narrative is that we faired well in games he has missed over the last two years. Is that a small sample size? Absolutely. Is it also true? Yes it is. Want to know another small sample size similarly? The Colts are 1-9 in games without TY Hilton since he was drafted. That is 10 games out of a possible 128. Yet that small sample size is clearly enough to show the impact his absence has. My point is that small sample size or not, Hooker's absence the past two years has not been a huge deal.


    At the end of the day all I am saying is that I was both surprised and also OK with the Colts not exercising the option.


    We did not lose any flexibility. We simply lost somewhere on the order of $4M for 2021 if he plays well and we are stuck tagging him.


    As others have stated there is a very good chance he is gone now anyhow.


    With how we value our lines, maybe we are realizing that investing heavy $ at Safety in general is not wise. So maybe Hooker was never going to get a big extension and we are simply saying we don't anticipate contributing even $7M to the safety position going forward. If so, I am OK w that.



    • Like 1
  8. 2 hours ago, shastamasta said:


    Declining the option AND then extending him one year later does not track.



    I just don't think it's likely at all that they give Hooker a big extension.



    So if they aren't willing to risk losing $6.7M...why would they risk losing 3-4x that amount (of gtd money) in a big extension?




    I think your focus here is on long term extension which is 100% NOT what my focus was.


    My focus as i stated was on "tagging" him.


    I would rather not have the potential to be on the hook for $7M in 2021 if he gets hurt (which has has at some point every year) and would rather he have to prove it and if he does in fact prove it then we lose out on roughly $4M. Period.


    We would have to tag him to keep him that extra year (or trade him or whatever the heck we do w that 5th year) instead of the $7M fifth year option.


    To me this becomes "tag him and possibly guarantee him $7M if he is hurt or not tag him and if he proves he was what we originally thought he was then we lose $4M to keep him that additional year compared to if we exercised the option"


    That is all i was getting at.

  9. I see this decision as being a lot simpler than most of our fans are reading into:


    1) Hooker was drafted for his ability to create turnovers. He has not done that well enough or consistently. Not worth rewarding him in any way when he hasn't.


    2) Hooker has missed a good amount of games. Rewarding a guy that misses over 1/4 of your games is not a practice you want to make a habit of. Especially when as another poster mentioned, the locker room is taking note of who gets paid and what they've done.


    3) It has been mentioned, but that $6.7M is guaranteed for injury only.  With his injury history the question probably became "is it a bigger risk to pay him $7M next year when he might be injured and we are on the hook for that or is it a bigger risk that he actually plays well and we have to pay an extra $4M above (~$11M) that to tag him if he proves worth it?'



    I will say, we have what, $58.2M invested in QBs right now? Next year that is going to go waaaaaay down. Even with all the upcoming extensions for guys we deem worthy and even with needing to lock in a QB, we will have money to pay Hooker if he is worth it. I am all for making him prove he is worth it and having to dish out extra if he proves it. At least if he doesn't prove it (which he so far has not) we will not be on the hook for $7M for him, especially if he does end up hurt and that would be guaranteed.


    I will also say that Hooker missed three games last year against the Raiders, Chiefs and Texans. We went 2-1 and averaged 63% completion percentage and about 273 yards per game with a 4-2 TD to Int ratio in his absence. That is not bad at all considering the QBs and offenses faced.


    And in trying to ignore his lost rookie year, he has missed 5 games the last two years and we are 4-1 in games he missed.


    So I do not see the sky as falling if he walks. May be better to invest that money elsewhere regardless, unless he ends up creating 5+ turnovers this year and looks like a true difference-maker.


    Just my 2 cents.



  10. I'll say this, I would not have minded Love down at 34. I did not want to have to give up any extra assets to move up with how deep this draft is.


    Heck Ballard has shot pretty straight from day one here and he keeps harping on wanting more picks. So moving a 4th rounder or so to move up did not seem likely.


    That all being said, almost everyone in the world knew the sweet spot for Jordan Love if he fell past NE/NO was going to be pick 27. Seattle had traded their first rounder every damn year since 2012. People knew Sea was a prime spot at 27 for anyone (Colts or any team interested in Love) to move up and select Love.


    So GB jumped over Seattle's pick to take him.


    I don't believe we ever would have given up more assets to go up and get Love.


    And even national media guys I believe are simply connecting dots....Colts need a project QB that can start after 2020. Colts pick high in round 2. Dodds is a former Seattle guy and may have some connections with Seattle. Seattle always moves their pick. Etc Etc


    I doubt anyone local or national knew if the Colts were truly trying to trade up. I could be wrong, but that is my take.


    I would love to see us trade back from 34 to the mid second round and recoup at least a 4th if not a late 3rd to do so. There is so much talent out there right now.



    • Like 1
  11. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/deforest-buckner-18955/


    The contract breakdown shown above. Actually like the move more now.


    As others may have mentioned before, this was basically a 4 yr $84M deal tacked on to the $12.4M franchise tag. So it became a 5 year $96.4M deal.


    When you look at the front-loading, Buckner gets $23.4M from us this year and then basically another $17M next year. After that, there is no dead cap hit if he did not make the roster.


    This guy is so talented, I doubt that ever happens. But basically after next year he will be on a year to year contract from 2022 to 2024.


    He basically gets $39.4M guaranteed this week with it being split between this year and next.


    Creative and smart cap management as I would have expected. Makes it look like an even better deal and not the "5 year $21M per year" offer that the media was trumping up.


    • Like 2
  12. I actually find the idea fascinating to be honest.


    I remember when Luck retired and articles came out saying that Luck and the Colts front office came to a "compromise" or "settlement" (two words I often saw used and found weird. I found it weird since the "compromise" or "settlement" was basically the Colts letting him keep everything and not demanding money back. The real compromise/settlement as far as I read was that the Colts reserved his rights if he came back and that was the agreement.


    So it sets it up that if he ever did decide to return, the Colts either take him back or sell to the highest bidder.


    My opinion (as many others) is that he is never coming back. But playing along with your hypothetical scenario, he would fetch way more than a 2nd rounder in my opinion.


    The longer he is away from the game, the less he will fetch coming back. But if he came back next year and had only missed one game and was still only 31 years old next year with all of his talent, there is zero doubt in my mind that he commands at least a 1st rounder and maybe even multiple picks. 


    I'll be honest, it is a good problem to have but one I hope we don't ever have to decide on or deal with. I hope for his sake that he made what is a good decision for him and his family and he stays retired. And if he does not, it would put some interesting pressure on our front office to see what they would do.


    Still a fun topic to think of and hypothetically run through scenarios with.

    • Like 2
  13. 5 minutes ago, chad72 said:


    My opposition fell on deaf ears, this is how my team ended up (1 QB, 2 RBs, 2 WR/TE, 2 WR/RB/TE, DEF was the agreed format for half PPR league, can play up to 4 RBs):


    In an ESPN, half PPR draft, my team looks like this:


    QB: Wentz, Jimmy G (last round)

    RBs: Chris Carson, Mark Ingram, Austin Ekeler, Duke Johnson, Dion Lewis

    WRs/TEs: Michael Thomas, JuJu Smith Schuster, Evan Engram, Emmanuel Sanders, Geronimo Allison

    DEF: Ravens, Chargers



    Looking pretty good man. Ekeler and Johnson are going to surpise folks and being able to trot out Thomas and JuJu for your two WRs is beastly.



    • Like 1
  14. 3 hours ago, chad72 said:

    I have a league where they are constructing the roster as 2 RBs, 2 WRs/TEs, 2 FLEX (WR/RB) and I told them it would be a bad idea if someone drafted 4 starting RBs and played them all year long leading to slim pickings for the others.


    It is a 0.5 PPR league. What do you guys think about that? Is it a good thing or bad thing?


    That can be rough. I also don’t particularly enjoy a league where TE is optional simply because when there isn’t a mandatory starting TE required, then the TE position loses a ton of value. 


    So in the end this will will be a horse race to hoard RBs and WRs with RBs taking the main focus if you can start 4. 


    If your opposition falls on deaf ears just plan accordingly and load up. 

    • Like 1
  15. While I highly doubt Luck comes back, and I hope for his own health and well being that he does not, I am super curious to see how it gets handled if he does.


    If he decides in 2021 that he wants to come back and the Colts then still hold his rights (as I know they would), does his contract simply pick up in 2021 w what he would have made in 2019?


    Does it pick up in the 2021 year of his contract?


    Or do they just hold his rights and have to negotiate a completely new deal?


    Not sure that I know much of a precedent for that scenario to know how it would go.


    I doubt we ever find that out, but crazier stuff has happened.



  16. Look, I will miss Luck. So will our team and our fans.


    But at the end of the day I feel for him as a person.


    In a league where teams cut guys for multiple reasons and guys get hurt and cut, I would never begrudge this man for walking away when he said "enough is enough" with the injuries.


    Truth be told, if I were newly married and about to be a new dad and had millions of dollars and I kept getting hurt and was miserable going to work every day and I could afford to walk away, I would. And that is all this guy is doing here.


    It sucks for fans. But he is also walking away from potentially a lot of money. And he thanked almost everyone under the sun and broke down a lot. This isn't some quick decision.


    I can only imagine the mental torment he's been going through along w the physical.


    And quite frankly if he is not in it mentally, he is smart to get out now before he gets even more hurt physically.


    We have been spoiled with Manning and Luck. Now we get to see what it is like to build around lesser talent at the position.


    It can be done and done well. Teams ramp up and win around QBs on their rookie contracts. So we will have to see how this shakes out going forward.



    • Like 7
  17. This has always, always been the likely case.


    McCoy refused a pay cut off of his $13M figure.


    That always meant his starting point was going to be around that number because that is where he valued himself in refusing the cut.


    I also think most teams (and maybe us as well) were always going to want to come in around $8-$10M.


    So it also does not surprise me to hear the $11M figure cited since it is probably to hopefully help bring that number up from contenders that are probably offering in the 8-10 range.


    We basically paid Hankins $10.5M for one year when he was here.


    I always thought that left a slightly bitter taste in management's mouth and it was unlikely we would approach that $10M a year figure in these McCoy discussions.


    If the reports are true then the Colts interest was exactly what many figured:


    We called and asked "hey what are you looking for?"


    We heard the number and said "oh ok thanks" and we moved on.


    Now if he comes down, then maybe we play. But if he comes down then he probably falls right in the range of what the Browns/Ravens etc are also offering. And since he visited those teams, had good visits, they showed a good amount of interest beyond a simple phone call, etc then he likely goes to one of them.


    I wish McCoy well and hope he gets as close to that $13M as he can. But it sure seems like he will not get anywhere close w the Colts and it has always been unlikely that he would anyhow.





  18. 3 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:


     doubt that... if he sees his #, he pulls out the pen. Not call other GM's and say 'can you beat this?'


    The only reason I doubt this logic is that there was a good report out of Cleveland from a reliable reporter that he has one offer of $11M for one year but it’s from a team that isn’t as much of a contender and as such he’s considering other teams and seeing what they’re willing to give. Same source says the offer in Cleveland would be under $10M


    so he isn’t just seeing his number and signing. If that were true he’d have signed for that $11M on the dotted line as soon as he got it (unless he’s looking for more than $11M which would be rough). He’s smartly shopping around. Trying to find the best mix of team (contender if we believe him wanting to go to a contender) and money


    so it’ll come down to which “good” team makes him the best offer 


    as such I can see his agent shopping him and playing off the offers. Hell a good agent should do that


    so again, we may already be out or we may be right in the thick of things behind the scenes 


    he does have ties to a coach on the ravens as well. And has allegedly had them on his short list too. So that Tuesday visit next week will be a key one. 


    Im not optimistic for us but I’m still hopeful that we at least engaged w his agent and have an idea of where things are at continuously 

    • Like 1
  19. I never ever worry about cap space for teams at this point. They can restructure or make any moves they want to fit a guy under the cap. Especially in a multi year deal. 


    So so really just about anyone can truly “afford” McCoy. 


    The Ravens have issues but are a historically well coached and great defensive team. Makes sense for defenders to want to go there. 


    I still want McCoy. But unless there’s rumors of a visit to Indy then I’m not getting any hopes up


    for all we know we reached out to his agent and kicked the tires. We though we’d offer $7-$9M. We heard $10+ and we said good luck and he started to take his visits. 


    Im not saying that’s how it went down. But that could easily be the case and we could already be out. 


    Or or we could be waiting to see what he gets offered and swoop in later to match or beat it. Who knows. 


    I just always thought ought it was an unlikely marriage w the colts once so many teams got involved or expressed interest. 

    • Like 2
  20. 44 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

    I still wonder if we ever talked to Suh. 9.25 for one year seems really reasonable. I would given him that in a heartbeat. I'd happily give McCoy 10-12 a year for 2 years. 


    Either one of these guys could have been, or could be signed with little to no impact to our fiscal situation. 

    Agreed! That said Cleveland has like $30M or soo too I believe. 


    so I can easily see them making an offer that we need to beat. And I just don’t think it’s in Ballard’s dna yet to do that. And definitely not for a 31 yr old 3-tech where he seems to have a lot of faith in Autry/Lewis/Ward. I would do it but that’s why I’m not leading this team lol. 

    • Like 1
  21. I would love to get McCoy.


    I just think that our fans need to prepare as if it is not gonna happen.


    Not because we do not want him or he is not a fit or anything like that.


    Mainly because he is going to have a lot of suitors.


    At the end of the day, the Colts will have to win a bidding war for him if they want him. There will likely be even more.


    Typically we do not go that bidding war route. We will make an offer and if it's good enough and he takes it then cool.


    But my guess is he will shop offers around.


    He did not want to take a pay cut from his $13M figured before he got cut. So I feel like $10-$13M is probably the sweet spot.


    I'd offer it for one year, but someone might be willing to go multiple years or more for one year.


    So we have to hope that our offer is better than others or at least as good.


    We have the cap room to do it. Question is will we?


    I am happy w how we stand without him. I'd be even happier with him. I am just not confident that we get it done. I hope I am wrong.





  • Create New...