EastStreet
-
Posts
26,341 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
258
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by EastStreet
-
-
1 minute ago, dw49 said:
I think it's simply if a player is on the active roster for 6 games in a calendar year , it counts as a year of service . If not it doesn't matter if he was bagging groceries . on IR or on PS.
Pretty sure IR counts from what I googled a bit ago.
-
44 minutes ago, dw49 said:
Yes I misspoke . It's not "appear" but instead "active . And no the PS does not count.
does his injury settlement have any impact from 2017. it was really strange. he got injured, was waived, then the colts gave him some kind of settlement, then signed him back to the practice squad. so many twists and turns with Mo. i still can't believe he hadn't played FB since HS.
-
34 minutes ago, dw49 said:
He gets zero "credit" for 2017 as he didn't appear in 6 regular season games. So as far as him "getting to unrestricted FA " he needs 3 more years. In 2020 , the Colts make him an offer and he has to sign it. 2021 , he's a restricted FA. That would mean the Colts get a draft pick if someone signs him to a contract larger than our qualifying offer. We do have the right to match that offer.
I don't think they have to "appear", just be on the roster. Not sure if that's the 53, or if it includes the PS.
-
15 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
Some of that’s is true. Luck though has a history of loving TE going back to college.
I am not worried about doyle being resonable. He is from Indy and isn’t going to want to start over at his age with a new team. Plus Ebron is already making like 7 m. His pay increase won’t be that much. His will be more of added years.
I'd love to have all three back, just don't see it happening. I don't want to be the team paying the most for TE, and that would likely be the case if all three are back. I agree Doyle wants to stay. If he has a good year however, he's not going to want to take less than he's already making. Ebron is likely to get a raise. They are high on Cox and would likely try and lock him up to 3 with a decent raise. That all translates to spending more on TE than anyone else.
-
8 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
TE are not. QB or DE. The pay scale is not as high as those two positions. Would you guys rather start over at TE and set our SB chances back. TE are very important in Reichs scheme. There is no reason they can’t keep all three.
You don't need to start over. And bringing back only 2 for instance, is not starting over. And yes, we use TEs a lot, but Ebron's high usage last year likely had a lot to do with the mediocrity of WR. And still we used 2 TE sets only 26ish% of the time IIRC. And now we have a TE-lite Funch.
-
7 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
I don’t think he is a guy you give a early extension to. The guys who are going to get them early are guys who have clearly played above their contact like Moore.
I think the situation at TE with all 3 expiring may warrant an early one for Cox. They've been high on him, and he'll be the easiest to lock in. And that by itself will relieve pressure (and add leverage possibly) to negotiations with Ebron and/or Doyle. I only think we bring 2 back unless Doyle is very reasonable.
-
Walker is indeed very underappreciated. He was injured off and on all of 2017 and even to start 2018. He was in a first year defense due to Eberflus coming in and changing things. So more or less, he was in the same position as the rookies to start 2018, but hobbled through preseason.
Even with all that, he was second on the team in tackles. He'll be better in year 2 of the D. Things will slow down even more for him, and the upgrades around him will help. His tackle/snap ration was very good.
And like was said above, folks thinking Okereke will jump in and win MLB need to pump the brakes. Not going to happen. Okereke might come in on obvious passing downs, but that's about it. Walker is much better vs the run than Okereke, and is "less bad" against the pass, than Okereke is "less bad" bad against the run. All of Okereke's time in OTAs and minicamp have been spent at WILL anyway with Leonard out. We needed a serious depth upgrade at LB in general, and that's what the draft was about.
Walker should have a very nice year.
-
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:
UNdrafted free agents can get extensions after two years. Just like Moore. Cox has been cut and brought back so many times not sure if that changes anything.
I agree. That's why I said I hope they extend him first.
-
8 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:
Take out the one game last season where he had a bunch of drops and his drop% was lower than T Y's for the rest of the season. That is a Stat.
If we could take out the KC game last year, we'd still be in the playoffs... Can't ignore...
This isn't one game, or one season. His drop issue goes back to his college days where he had 20 or more combined drops in his last 3 seasons at scUM. Did he have great passers like Luck, no. I'm hoping he improves as much as anyone, but I can't ignore his history. It's not just one game.
-
10 hours ago, dw49 said:
Cox has only 1 year of service , so the Colts have 3 more years of control. Can't even think about extending him until 2020 as NFL rules state teams can only extend players with 2 or more years service.
Cox has been in the league since 2017 when he first signed with the Colts. He was an UDFA who hadn't played organized football since HS. So technically he'll have been in the league 3 years after 2019. Not sure what label of FA he'd be under, but ERFA should expire after his 3rd year.
-
13 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:
Positional spending is only matters if you do some crazy overspending somewhere. Like when the Jaguars signed Malik Jackson, Dareus and Campbell to record contracts in a very short term. That's an overspending at DL, when they also had Ngakogue, an 2018 first round pick (and now ANOTHER top10 pick in 2019). That was luxury. And short term thinking, because by most part, that is the reason why they are in soooo tight situation regarding the calary cap. (And it's not over, they will have a tough 2020 year coming.)
However, the Colt's positional spending structure merely just reflects at which positions they have more veterans and less rookies and vice versa. There are no "luxury" signings, there are no highly paid underarchievers there. Actually, the Colts is one of the best teams in that regard in the league.
The positional spending will naturally and dynamically change over time, as veterans leave/retire and new guys arrive. There's nothing wrong with that.
That was my point (bolded) in terms of the original post on TE positional spending. We don't have a good mix. We have our 3 best TEs all with expiring contracts at the same time.
Goal is to have balance as much as possible. We'll always have peaks, but right now we have a lot of extremes on the bell curve.
-
15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
Starting with the first section of the bold. I have no idea how you concluded that either having good finance guys doesn't matter, or they weren't very good? Those are some bizarre and strange dots you're attempting (badly) to connect. The problem during the Grigson years was mostly Grigson. After the first season of salary cap Hell, (which was not caused by Grigson) we didn't have salary cap issues again. The probem was simply that we had the wrong guy drafting players and signing free agents. I have no idea why you tried to make it a finance issue. There's no there, there. The issue was Grigson, not the finance guys.
As to the second section of bold... whether it's "ideal" or not, does not matter. Because Ballard is aware and clearly he's not concerned to the level you are. He's the man who signed off on all of it. If it was a serious problem, he wouldn't have let it happen. And the line about having two TE'S paid in the top-15 is bogus, and you know it. Why? Because as Ballard has noted many times in the last 15 months, we used Ebron much more like a WR than we did as a TE. Plus, it doesn't matter because even after all the math and the mental gymanastics about it, it STILL doesn't matter because we have more money than any other team in football. Having our 2019 $$$ structured the way we have hasn't impacted us one bit. Nothing is different than if we didn't have this issue that bothers you so much. We can still do what we want to do.
As to the third and final section with bold... are you somehow under the impression that what concerns you is news to Chris Ballard? If you walked into the facility today and told him this, and explained it to him as you did to me, would this be a surprise to him? You think he's not 10 steps ahead of you? He knows where every last nickle and dime are going. He knows who is coming up for new deals and when he's going to give them. And he's OK with it. We know this because he set it up this way.
Is everything 100% perfect? Of course not. Nothing is, especially in sports where things change all the time and sometimes without warning. Stuff happens. But since we've got this money, and project to have money in the future, I see no reason to worry. Remember, in an early off-season meeting with the media, when asked about the 89% rule, Ballard response was that he wasn't the least bit worried or concerned, and that they check on the salary cap every.... single... day.
I hope you realize that part of the reason you're so impassioned about this issue now, is because you know what Ballard has done this week disproves your point over on the Free Agent page where you insisted that the reason we didn't sign Gerald McCoy was we didn't have the money. I argued we had the money and chose not to spend it. You tried to argue that everyone knows we help at IDL, and all the websites say so. I reminded you that Ballard doesn't care what outside viewpoints think of what we do. By the way, I'm basically with you. I want more DL help too. And I'm expecting it next free agency and the next draft. But the bigger point remains. Money isn't why we didn't sign GM. We had the money. We just decided not to spend it. And Ballard's actions back that up.
I never said we didn't have the money. I said we were on track to have a lot of carry over again this year, we are positioned to have the most space next year, and we do have the money. And if we have the money, and we don't spend it on what was considered to be our biggest need (by all of your favs on NFL.com and ESPN), then we're on a budget of some sort. And we'll never know if we are, or aren't........
Your argument about having good finance guys was so not the point. And of course it's the GM making the decisions from input (scouts, financial analysts, and many more). The point is, having good financial guys has no major impact to the topic. It was something that you pulled out of your backside.
You state as fact that money was of no concern with GM. Neither of us can state that as fact. It's an opinion.
As far as ranking positional spending.... Of course Ballard knows. That's his job. As far as how it's structured, I guarantee that Ballard is aware, and makes decisions with it mind. Not solely based on it, but it is a factor.
-
15 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:
Nice try?
I've got news for you.... you lost the argument. The "nice try" belongs to you.
I'm aware of the Funchess drops problem. I'm also aware of the stats you're using. I do not dispute any of them. But you're always missing my point and twisting my meaning. It's a common thing you do.
I simply noted that your viewpoint was not the only view. That there were other stats you were't aware of. And they paint an entirely different picture. I agree, it doesn't mean Funchess doesn't have a hands problem. Where we disagree, is that the Colts stats paint a picture that shows if you use Funchess correctly and wisely, his problem goes way, way down. That he's a much better receiver doing the specific things that the Colts actually want him to be doing. So, if we use Funchess correctly, in theory, we should have a much better receiver than you complained about the week we signed him. Either Carolina didn't have those stats so their stats gave an incomplete picture, or they had the stats and still didn't know how to get the best out of DF.
When we signed DF, Reich said he's not afraid of a receiver with a drops problem as long as he brings other qualities to the table. It worked out with Ebron. A year after the signing, I know Ebron had a good amount of drops with the Colts. He also had 13 touchdowns. How do you think Ebron is viewed now? Do you think Detroit is happy they didn't hold on to him? Or that they didn't know how to get the best out of him? Almost no one talks about his drops with the Colts. But people seem astonished at all his touchdowns. We hope to do the same with Funchess. Hopefully it works out again.
I'm not driving some false narrative. I'm showing you that the picture you painted was incomplete. And the bigger pictue is less kind to your point of view.
Without a full picture, stats can lie. You just don't want to admit it.
The only picture I painted is that he has a drop problem. Stats aren't lying about that.
The fact that he's better at some routes than others doesn't change the fact that he's got a drop problem.
Do you disagree with any of the above? You can't.
In terms of Ebron. Ebron has a drop problem as well. Per Fox he tied for 3rd last year, and IIRC highest among TEs. I love Ebron, and it's awesome he scored 13 TDs, but he still has a drop problem. Stats aren't lying. And yes, Indy used him differently, moving a lot of his targets to the RZ which paid off. And that's fantastic. But he still has a drop issue. He could score 30 TDs, but he would still have a drop problem. People care less when guys are scoring, but it doesn't change the facts.
So tell me specifically, how are stats lying?
-
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:
I understand that what we're paying out is an interesting topic to talk about.... I often join in these conversations....
But what I don't get is all the worry... was it too much... why did we do it so soon when we didn't have to.... what about the salary cap.... what about the 89 percent rule and on and on....
We have one of the top finance staffs in the NFL. And have had one for a long time. We had it under Polian. We had it under Grigson. And we still have it with Ballard. In all that time, we had one year of salary cap Hell. One. And then we were free.
I don't lose a minute's sleep about having enough money to do our business as Ballard and Irsay see fit. The fact that we pulled the trigger early on for all three signings this week is yet the latest indicator of how well we are financially run.
Look, I'm the guy who pointed out that we often sign top players (other than Luck) to smaller than average signing bonuses. But I think that's as much a sign over what is the best way to do our business. If the money isn't paid out up front, then there guarantees in salary and bonuses along the way. Our guys get paid. We have the money.
Having a good finance team is not the issue, and certainly doesn't mean success. Running financial projections is one of many parts to building a roster. We had good finance guys during the Grigson years, yet our Defense and OL needed a major rebuild. So either having good finance guys doesn't matter, or if it does, they were not good.....
It's more about getting the right mix of guys/contracts to sustain team performance. Each position group should have a healthy balance of rookies/FAs/resigns and a healthy balance of staggered expiration dates.
I'll use TE (since the topic is fresh) as an example. We have our 3 top guys all expiring at the end of the year. Anyway you look at it, it's not ideal. We also have two guys getting paid in the top 15, and spent the most of any team last year.
In 2019, from a positional spending perspective, we're top 5 in QB (3rd), TE(3rd), WR (2nd), and just missed the cut at LB (6th) and STs (7th). We're bottom 5 in RB (32nd), and DL (28th). OL is 22nd, DB 21st (doesn't include Moore's new contract). Not the best balance in terms of pure spending. And just wait till the 2018 draft class's contracts are re-ups.
-
1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:
Oh, really?
Let's see..... do you remember posting a small mountain of stats that said Devin Funchess had terrible hands. And stats that talked about being in lower percentiles of all sorts of receiving categories? Do you remember that? Sound familiar?
Then, the Colts let out with stats of their own. Stats that they had that the rest of us didn't. That showed that when used in certain ways, certain positions, running certain patterns (the ones that Luck likes throwing) that Funchess was actually a very good receiver.
You made all sorts of arguments that your stats were pretty much conclusive. That Ballard had made a mistake. And maybe you'll be proven right. But maybe the Ballard/Reich team will follow-up their success with Ebron with a good season from Funchess. Maybe their stats were better than yours. I'm sure you won't think of that as lying. But others might....
lol....
The stats that the Colts pub'd where stats showing that he was successful at a few routes that Luck was also very successful at.
Those stats do not mean he doesn't have a drop problem. You can use stats to drive a narrative, and that's what you're doing now. And it's an incorrect narrative. If you're top 10 in drops, and you have a history of drops going back to your college days, you have a drop problem.... The analysts at NFL.com that you are so fond of have written several pieces on it, including his combine profile.
In terms of their stats vs my stats... none of the stats are my stats. I pub'd basic and advanced stats from trusted sources. None of what the Colts pub'd countered the purity of his drop #s. They simply pointed out he was better at certain routes.... That may mean he performs better with Luck (on those routes), but it also clearly means he's not a complete WR and the Colts may limit him to those routes.
Nice try.
-
1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:
Cox won’t be that expensive to keep. There is no reason we cant keep all three.
Do you like being the team that spends the most in the league on TE?
Cox could have a big year, and his stock could rise.
Doyle and Ebron, even if their production declines, have an "expectation" now...
Like I mentioned above, they seem very high on Cox this year. I'd get him extended cheap and let things play out with the other two.
And don't take me as a TE hater.... I love TE use. It would be different it we used a 2 TE set more, but we only used it last year around 26% of the time IIRC. If we're not going to run 2TE sets at least 50+% of the time, I think it's silly to be the top TE spender.
-
43 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:
I don’t mean to give you a hard time.... but stats lie all the time. Honestly, not kidding. All the time.
With the invention of Next Gen Stats, there is now a mountain of information. Lots for teams read the same info/stats ours staff does and come to different conclusions. Analyzing tons of information is hard.
Then you factor in that the hear stats are being used to help you analyze human beings and things really get complicated. Age? Character? Health? Personality? Type of system they came from? All sorts of various factors and this gives you a better understanding of why some teams are often toward the bottom of the league, while other teams are more typically toward the top no matter what.
Facts can help. And facts can also hurt if they’re not used properly.
Stats don't lie. People can interpret stats the wrong way, but stats themselves don't lie. Stats are simply data which is subject to human judgement.
And... if stats could lie, they'd lie a lot less than people....
-
1 hour ago, shastamasta said:
I don't want that crown either...unless a peak Kittle or Kelce (or maybe Ertz) is the one wearing it.
I honestly am surprised (possibly even a bit disappointed just because I would love to see who he picks) that Ballard, who came from an organization that got a franchse-altering TE out of the draft...has yet to draft a single TE across three drafts.
So you have a GM who served under the guy who picked one of the top 3 TEs in the NFL...and a HC who coordinated an offense with another one of the top 3 TEs in the NFL...and not a single TE draft pick. You wouldn't think that would be the case.
Ebron was a great pick-up though...so it has worked out so far. But they have no one under contract after this season...so I have to think they turn to the draft..instead of continuing to hand vet contracts.
I do wonder if Noah Fant would have changed that...had he been available. A younger, more athletic Eric Ebron who has a shot at being a solid blocker in the NFL...I think they just might have pulled the trigger. If Hock was there...definitely.
Doyle prior to 2018, was coming off a Pro-Bowl year (2017) and had just been given a 3 year extension (Mar17) , so honestly with that, and signing Ebron to a 2 year deal in Mar of 2018, I'm not surprised at all they didn't look toward the draft. We had so many needs on D and OL, I think they were content with Doyle and happy to get a short term deal with Ebron.
They seem pretty high on Cox now too. It will be really interesting to see how TE works out this year, and contracts next. Honestly I'd prefer to give Ebron a bump at the end of the season, get Cox extended on a reasonable deal, and let the chips fall with Doyle depending on his health and production this season.
Ultimately I think we still need a boss iDL early in the draft next year. After that, it's anyone's guess. I can't really think of single, big hole except iDL. Edge maybe next, but adding Houston and Banogu should raise the level of play. LB is fine in terms of starter, so maybe a depth pick in the mid rounds. CB and S seems fine unless there are injuries. OL is fine if AC stays healthy. QB is fine if Luck stays healthy and Kelly works out. WR has a lot of potential but I could see us trying to pick up a steal in rounds 2-5 if Cain struggles and Funch isn't back. RB seems good. We do need to start thinking about a replacement for Vinny.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, shastamasta said:
I agree. Doing it early too is a bit risky as well.
But I think it's fairly obvious that part of this is an effort to stuff cash spend into this offseason and next to get to the 89% cash spend threshold by 2020.
Moore's cash spend was only going to $4.5M-$5.5M over the next two seasons...now it could be as high as $18M...depending on how that $18M gtd at signing breaks down.
Same with Rigo...he was only going to count ~$3.5M...now it's $5M over the next two seasons.
Kelly is the most likely candiate now. His cash spend over the next seasons is ~$12.1M. A new contract could more than double that, depending on how it is structured.
yup, yup, and yup.
Kelly's cap hit in 2019 is 3.3M and his 5th year option would be 10.4M. Would love to see them move as much as they can into this year.
-
21 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
The thing about Ebron is his will be more about adding years. He will get a little raise but nothing like what Moore got. He is already making around 7m. So he could get a raise to about 10 with a couple more years. They were talking today about how much he gets so excited when the other players have made big plays in mini camp. Great leader. I am with you it won’t surprise me if he had to wait. It wouldn’t surprise me either if he got one.
AC had been very healthy his entire career. That one is a no brainer. That spot is so important for Luck.
I agree AC has been healthy for the most part, but bodies get worn down, and don't always heal as good once you hit 30ish. The way his injury lingered last year just scares me. If he can stay healthy this year, I'd be more than happy with a 3ish year extension. If not, might be time to look at the draft. Like you said, it's a very important position.
Whatever happens with TE production this year, I hope Ebron is back. Indy paid more for TEs last year than any other team (we got cap relief with Doyle I believe due to injury). I really don't care to have that crown lol. I don't think we'll see all three (Ebron, Doyle, and Cox) back next year. If I could only pick two, it would be Ebron and Cox. If we were to extend all three, I think we'd definitely be most TE spend again.
-
10 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
Stats don’t lie.
We will see about more extensions. AC, Kelly, and Ebron could be possibilities.
I'd like to see them wait on AC and Ebron. Need to make sure AC can stay healthy at his age. I think Ebron's production will drop this year due to added weapons. Smarter to wait instead of doing something while his stock is so high. I could see them trying to lock Cox in if they can get a reasonable deal done. I have a feeling we'll see a lot more of him this year.
I think Ballard (or Reich) had already mentioned that they'd like to get Kelly's done this year.
-
His hands must not be pretty bad for OSU to move a guy of that size from WR to DE without giving him a look at TE.
Interesting project. ND has had great luck with kids from Nigeria. A lot of late starters when it comes to FB. Was a captain of the team for both FB and Track in HS. Sounds like a good kid. His name means "son of God".
-
I love Moore, and glad he's locked in, but I think the contract is a little too much.
Nothing I'm going to lose sleep over.
Guessing they're working on other extensions as well. Thought Kelly's would be the first.
-
12 hours ago, krunk said:
I agree he's built like a Will and I don't have a problem with saying that may be his best fit. However he's got length on his frame to add weight. He's currently 238 so he'd only need about 7 more lbs to be about the same size as Jaylon Smith if they chose to keep him in the middle. I don't think Stanford plugs him right in the middle of a 3-4 defense if they didn't think he could hold up against the run. Yeah college is a lower level, but the size of the linemen isn't a whole lot different from college to pro. I think he could handle it if they asked him to.
It's really the way his frame is built. His base (bottom half) is just too slight. I posted some comparison photos of Walker and Okereke and there's a obvious difference. Okereke would have to spend considerable time and effort to see gains. Stanford has a great S&C program, so it just may be that it's been hard for him to improve those areas.
As far as his time at Stanford, he was absolutely their biggest ILB and was simply their best option. He was actually recruited as an OLB. Stanford's class in 14 was a decent LB class, which included Okereke as one of the two 4 star LBs. After that (through 18), they only had one other 4 star LB, and he was an OLB. Point being, their LB recruiting wasn't that great while Okereke was there, and he was simply the best they had to choose from. Not saying he sucks, just IMO he would have been better as an OLB for them if they had the luxury of another ILB option.
Mo Alie-Cox - ESPN's offseason standout
in Colts Football
Posted
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26943229/the-surprise-offseason-standout-all-32-teams
Not that there's a lot guys do, or can do during the offseason before training camp, but it's nice to hear him getting mentioned. He's come a long way in two years given he didn't play football in college at all.