Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    36,629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    470

Everything posted by Superman

  1. I did some rough math with incomplete information, which is perfect for posting on a message board... The NFL gets at least $6B/year in TV revenue, split between 32 teams is about $187m/year, per team. Over a 17 week regular season, that's about $11m each week. Based on the Packers financials, they make about $7m in revenue per home game. Take away one preseason game at $7m (which is probably high; I get the feeling teams don't usually sell out in preseason, which means parking, concessions and memorabilia also take a hit), but add two weeks to the regular season, and each team comes out ahead. And my proposal is you go to a 19 week regular season, with three bye weeks. So that extra revenue is only coming from being on TV for two extra weeks, not from tickets, concessions, etc. That also means you're not taking on additional overhead; you're actually reducing your overhead, because you're getting rid of a fully staffed preseason event, and not adding any regular season events. I think my proposal is a net gain for each team, solely on the basis of dominating TV for two extra weeks in the regular season. I also think my proposal is better for the players and the quality of the game. If each team has three byes, you can schedule TNF only after a bye week -- which takes care of the low quality TNF games and probably improves ratings, increasing future profitability.
  2. It's time for the 19 week, 16 game regular season.
  3. @ColtsBlueFL By the way, I think whatever the accrual deadline is, that's the only real deadline in this situation. I would expect him to show up for Week 1, but as far as the money goes, as long as he accrues a season, he'll make back whatever he loses in a protracted holdout.
  4. There's a key paragraph in that article (which, overall, I found to be confusing, not clarifying, but that's just me). That's my understanding. He can sit out until Week 10, and it doesn't affect his FA status. And I think the reason it doesn't matter in Zeke's case is because the Cowboys have already exercised the fifth year option for 2020, which is effectively guaranteed. If they were to rescind that option, they would not hold RFA rights over him, as long as he accrues a season in 2019. (This is how Aaron Donald's situation played out; Zeke is still a year away from where Donald was when he got his new contract.) There would be a different calculus for a player not drafted in the first round, because then there's no fifth year option. But I still believe that as long as said player reports before Week 10, he would accrue a season and not be a RFA after Year 4.
  5. Nothing wrong with discussing hypotheticals. My objection was to calling this a "rumor," because it's not.
  6. If it were an option to pay Zeke $13.5m for one year and not give up draft picks for the right to do so, I'd be first in line. That would be the equivalent of the Funchess signing. That's obviously not an option, so why are we comparing the two? This is the problem with lumping people in, or even equating one situation with another. For instance, I would have no problem adding Bobby Wagner. Adding Clowney would be intriguing. I wanted nothing to do with AB, and want nothing to do with Melvin Gordon, and for very different reasons. Everyone wanted Mack. Most didn't think it was a realistic opportunity for the Colts, and most balked at the idea of giving up two first rounders for him. This is not an issue of people being against adding talented players. That's a drastic misrepresentation, almost offensive, and it is being used to attack the fandom of people with different opinions on player acquisition. I'm pretty over it, personally. What it is is an understanding that swinging for the fences comes at a cost, which is something that's routinely ignored when a big name player comes available. It's dismissed in the name of said player being 'a generational talent' or 'a surefire HOFer' or a player who will 'automatically make the Colts a SB team,' and all of those designations are nonsense to begin with.
  7. Nah, what happened is you said something that has zero basis in fact and reality and it got called out.
  8. I think he has to play six games to have an accrued season.
  9. Kamara isn't eligible for an extension until after this season, so holding out or complaining would be entirely pointless.
  10. Or, can get on the open market, which he'll likely never see.
  11. Is this an implication that if you didn't want to pay picks and a huge contract for Mack, that you aren't a real fan?
  12. Correlation, not causation. The Colts didn't fail to win more SBs because of Manning's pay. The Colts more probably made the playoffs all those years in a row because of Manning's play, as he helped make up for a lot of roster deficiencies. Either way, however you want to construct your team, you need good QB play. Good QBs are not as rare as it was 10-15 years ago, but I still don't think teams are eager or willing to move off of a capable QB, because QB play is important, and capable QBs don't grow on trees. As it relates to the RB discussion, it's much easier to find a capable RB. And RBs need to be replaced more frequently, due to the physical impact of the position. So the comparison doesn't even get off the ground, for these and other reasons. And you don't have to be goo goo eyed to recognize that Luck is more important to the Colts than any RB would be.
  13. That's an entirely different discussion. If you think you can replace your QB in a cost effective way, that's fine. But the question was whether I'd be okay with paying Luck, who is a franchise QB.
  14. Yes, there's a difference. Rumors are based in reality, whether they wind up happening or not. And I'm plenty relaxed, thanks. It's still not worthy of discussion.
  15. 1) Yes. 2) No. One important variable: Andrew Luck is a franchise QB.
  16. Maybe you're thinking of tagged players? The deadline for negotiating a new contract for a player on the franchise tag is July 15. Other than that, I'm not sure what deadline you might be thinking of. And of course, Zeke isn't tagged. To the OP, this isn't a rumor. This is a half-baked idea coming from a corner of the Internet. It's not worthy of discussion, and everything we know about the Colts and Chris Ballard should tell us that there's next to zero chance of it happening. And that's a legitimate stance to take. Paying any RB $14m/year with $40-50m guaranteed -- which is what Elliott reportedly wants -- is outrageous. Trading significant draft capital for the privilege of giving that player said outrageous contract would be a huge mistake.
  17. I think Jones' "Zeke who?" comment was disrespectful. I don't care what context you put it in, if you bring me up to someone that knows me and has a relationship with me, and they respond that way, I'm going to have a problem with it. That said, I agree with his "I've earned the right to joke with Zeke" comment. This guy stood up to the other 31 owners in the league and tried to hold the commissioner's contract extension hostage because of what was perceived to be an unfair four game suspension. He's been in Elliott's corner and had his back in a very real way, despite multiple missteps on Elliott's part. While I don't like what he said or the implications it has to the ongoing contract negotiations, I do think he's earned the benefit of the doubt in this situation. And like I mentioned in another thread about Jaylon Smith's contract, the Cowboys are willing to extend players early when it makes sense for them, and they apparently have a reasonable offer on the table for Elliott, so it's not like they're stonewalling him.
  18. He can't sign a new contract until after his third season, which is where we are right now. That rule was designed to reduce the amount of holdouts from players on their rookie deals; I'd say it's worked. To the bolded, I'm responding generally based on the typical fan response whenever a player asks for more money before his contract expires. That response is overwhelmingly judgmental and negative, as if the player is wrong to ask for a new contract. And I disagree with that stance; not that I support players who ask for a new contract, but I don't think people recognize the factors at play in this kind of situation, or how they relate to typical business practices.
  19. It's actually gonna be seven years, $69.5m, according to this:
  20. Smith is getting 60-70% of what Bobby Wagner got. If Zeke was willing to take 60-70% of what Gurley got, he'd have a new contract already.
  21. Isn't that a personal decision? If a player decides not to practice and play, at the risk of not being paid, why does that decision need to be judged?
  22. Do you recognize that people and businesses renegotiate contracts all the time?
  23. Five years, $64m, $35.5m guaranteed (initial reports). At $12.8m/year, he would be the fifth highest paid off-ball LB in the NFL. Still well behind Bobby Wagner and CJ Mosley (at $18m/year and $17m/year, respectively). Once the details come out, this will probably look like a six year, $66m contract, overall. He has just three years service, and couldn't even play in Year 1. The Cowboys also paid La'el Collins after just two years, which is what he wanted once he dropped out of the first round. It's an interesting dynamic with the Cowboys. They'll play hardball, but they'll also pay players several years early when they think it makes sense.
  24. I'm still undecided. I also did a very brief search for tailgating yesterday, and didn't find anything. Please share!
  25. That's possible. But I think his workout on Saturday was planned and staged for the purpose of telling people that he expects to be able to play in Week 1. He chose to do a a workout featuring lateral movement, at nearly full speed, in view of the NFL Network cameras for a game that was being broadcast in a solo TV slot. This is a few days after the GM said 'he needs to be able to move laterally,' and two days after Peyton Manning said 'I feel good about him playing.' Luck and the Colts had to know that this would get a ton of attention, and be scrutinized to the nth degree. I think he and they were sending a message. Without saying anything outright, so they can stick to their 'we don't know when he'll be ready' message, they were saying 'we expect him to play Week 1.' That's just my read on it. Reich said he'd give an update tomorrow (I think?), so we'll see if there's any update.
×
×
  • Create New...