Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    37,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    482

Everything posted by Superman

  1. Grigson was obviously bad, but Shipley remains one of the most overrated Colts of the last decade.
  2. Definitely not hate. Just strategy. I wouldn't even call a second contract for Mack an investment. I wouldn't expect the team to ever feel like they came out ahead on the deal. It's essentially paying for a luxury.
  3. That's a fair point. I think "fringe players" are the guys you mentioned earlier, who probably just aren't good enough. Other guys -- the college RT who you want to convert to guard, but isn't good enough to dress on Sundays -- would probably benefit. But if you're learning Joe Philbin's OL techniques in the XFL, then get "called up" to play on Howard Mudd's line, it could be very problematic. Add that to the list of concerns. I'm thinking more along the lines of guys who are probably close -- good enough to be on your 53 man roster, but the first guy to be cut if you need a roster spot, probably never dresses as a rookie, etc. -- and just need time against grown men in a pro-style system. You want him to get live reps from a three point stance, or you want a back to get reps iin pass pro. And of course, QBs who never play... If Chad Kelly took over for Matt McGloin next week, and had a great showing, it would answer some questions with our QB room, right? I just think player development is lacking, but as we're talking, it's obvious what kind of hurdles there are when it comes to cooperating with another league entirely. I think the AAFL would have been very open to coordinating schemes, techniques, etc., even assigning certain teams to specific NFL franchises, and eventually operating as a D-league. I think the XFL has a different approach.
  4. The more I think it through, the more I'm in favor of letting him walk after 2020. I was never against that, it's probably always been my preference. But when reports surfaced that they were talking about an extension, I just thought through the market and figured it would be somewhere in the range I've been stating. I could be wrong, just seems like the landscape. But if they just let him walk, then replace him, they could have a RB stable of four backs at one third the cost. Hines and Wilkins are going into Year 3, they got some great production out of other replacement level backs, it's not like Mack is a superstar... I'm fine with letting him walk, just from a value/strategy standpoint. But IF they want to keep him, I assume it's going to be well into that second tier.
  5. That set period of time is forever, as far as I understand. Some have stated that if the team recoups bonus money, their rights to the player expire when his contract would have normally expired. (So, if the Colts had recouped Luck's unamortized bonus, their rights to him would expire after his contract was up in 2021.) I haven't seen that in writing, don't know if it's true.
  6. I haven't watched any. Just been busy, and I have zero investment in it. If I were sitting around with nothing to do, I'd watch. I watched a few games of the AAFL. I get that announcers make that link, but at the end of the day the XFL would have to agree to specific arrangements to allow the NFL to loan out their developmental players for a set period of time. And I imagine the NFL would want the XFL to provide coverage for player injuries, workers comp, they'd be tied into the NFL's concussion protocol and pension plan, etc. A lot of ramifications that are major points of negotiation. And of course, money. And I don't think the NFL roster management rules lend themselves to development of young players. The PS rules, waivers, roster size limits, injury list protocol, UDFA rules, etc., make it difficult for a team to keep and develop a young player for a couple seasons, which then results in talented players bouncing around the league for a couple years and never catching on. Or players like Philip Walker being waived and re-signed every other week. The NFL could fix some of this on it's own, but if you added in the ability to give young players some real competition in the winter/spring -- with specific conditions, so if they played after Week 10 in the NFL they aren't eligible to play in the XFL, etc. -- you might have something.
  7. False. The CBA expressly prohibits a player under contract with an NFL team from playing in another professional football league. If Kelly quit and tried to sign with an XFL team, he'd be sued, as would the XFL if they actually allowed him to sign.
  8. When a player signs a contract, he influences the market. Doesn't really matter why McKinnon got $7.5m/year, just that he did. That's how agents negotiate. When you compare his usage and production to Mack, and add in the fact that his contract was two years ago, it's kind of an easy argument for Mack's agent to make. I also think Drake at $7.5m/year is unrealistic, but I guess we'll see.
  9. It's a CBA issue, and if you ask Bill Polian, this is what they were hoping to get done with the AAFL to make it a viable league. If the XFL can survive this season, and then engage the NFL as they're working on the next CBA and get a framework in place, it would be a major development. But if you ask the people running the XFL, they want to be competition, not a minor league. Maybe that's just lip service.
  10. Got it. I thought you were making a different point. What's interesting is that, when Ballard decides he wants a guy, he's willing to pay market rate. He's not throwing money around, but he's not necessarily cheap once he engages.
  11. Let's assume all four of these guys sign this year for $13m/year, somewhere in that range. Add in Fournette and Mixon, and let's assume that David Johnson and Devonta Freeman get released. Now your top RB market is set at that range, with eight or nine guys up there: Elliott, Gurley, Bell, McCaffrey, Cook, Henry, Kamara, Fournette, Mixon. (And maybe those guys don't sign this year, but realistically, they'll all get new contracts from their teams in the next year or so, so that's our top nine-ish.) Once you get rid of Johnson and Freeman -- and add in McKinnon at $7.5m, who will likely be released at some point over the next few weeks -- you have no middle class of veteran RBs. Duke Johnson is next, at $5.2m/year, with Ingram and a few other guys coming up behind him. We'll see what happens with Melvin Gordon, Kenyan Drake, James Conner, and whoever else is in that grouping. Maybe they form a middle class, but I think Mack has a better market claim than that group of guys. My opinion, if the Colts want to re-sign Mack this year, it has to be a legit second tier contract, which is something around $9-10m/year, three or four years. Just being realistic. There's a lot they can do with a structure on that kind of deal -- bonus, rolling guarantees, etc. -- to protect the team in the event Mack falls apart in the next two years. Especially if you do it this year, because you can spread out the bonus and mitigate the risk a little more, and he's still young even for a RB and hasn't been a high usage player so far. If you're out on that range of contract for Mack, then I think you're out on Mack. That's fine. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect anything less. If you play out 2020, maybe his market changes and you can get him at the bargain rate of $6m/year. But IMO, this is the year. If you don't extend him now, then you might as well just ride him heavy in 2020 and then let him walk next year. And I'm fine with that, because I'm not super excited about throwing money at a veteran RB. But for me, it's one or the other. I don't think he's going to sign a bargain extension when he can reasonably expect to be a FA next year at 25, maybe coming off a second straight 1,000 yard season. If I were him, either I get my $10m/year, or I wait to see what happens in free agency next year. I'm not signing for $6-7m/year this offseason.
  12. Ebron had 14 TDs last year, and made something like 60% of what the highest paid TEs in the league made. He was definitely not overpaid. He also plays an entirely different position. I guess I'm just missing the connection?
  13. He's under contract, he can't go anywhere.
  14. It's reasonable to assume that they all demand and/or sign for $13m+/year, right?
  15. The Colts have the most leverage. But all Mack has to do is say no, and then it's up to the Colts to make a decision. I think we can all conclude that we're not tagging him after 2020, right? So either the Colts offer Mack what he thinks his value is, or he waits them out and hits the market. I don't think it's remotely reasonable to expect Mack to sign a year early for a below market deal. Jerick McKinnon has never been especially productive, but two years ago he signed for $7.5m/year. Now, we're gonna get Mack for $7m?
  16. Let's say McCaffrey, Kamara, Cook and Henry all sign long term deals this off-season. What range do you expect them to sign for?
  17. You said TG. Either way, that's the top of the market. Gurley is close. Bell and Johnson are within shouting distance; Johnson's contract is two years old, and Bell was 27 when he signed, not 24 like Mack. All kind of irrelevant to the point. There's no reasonable option for paying Mack $6-7m a year is what I'm saying. It's a false choice. If that's your number then you're deciding to let him walk.
  18. Carlos Hyde is a 30 year old journeyman at a position where most players don't reach 30 with any free agent value. He's not a comp.
  19. What calculation are you using where Elliott doesn't make $15m/year?
  20. You wouldn't do six or seven because he wouldn't accept it. Why talk about terms that have no reasonable chance of being agreed to? The top tier backs make $15m+/year. Mack at $9-10m is clearly second tier, at two-thirds the cost of the top tier backs. If you won't go that high then the only other option is to let him walk in free agency.
  21. Meh. I'd like to keep Mack but I don't think he's going to sign early on a team friendly deal. I'd be okay re-signing him now for three years, $9m/year (because that's the market, he's not signing for $5m/year and we all know it). I'm also okay with letting him walk after 2020.
  22. This is obviously fake. Brady isn't a free agent until the new league year starts, if the Colts flew him in for a visit now it would be tampering, and they would deserve whatever punishment the NFL hits them with.
  23. It would have been crazy to move on from either of them after 2014, but starting in 2015, everything went bad. That was also the year Luck got hurt.
  24. Same year they beat Denver, Seattle and San Fran, three of the four conference finalists that year. Kind of handled the Niners, by the way. You mentioned wildly inconsistent, that year they were dramatically inconsistent. Also young, new offense, basically a new coach, and a lot of injuries (Vick Ballard, Reggie Wayne, etc.)
  25. No, but I think we saw his ceiling, and it wasn't much higher than occasional playoff contention. He was highly respected by the players and everyone he worked with, and did some good things motivationally, but his game management was problematic. And some of his philosophical preferences weren't ideal, IMO -- specifically his choice in offensive coordinators. He's not as bad as he's made out to be here, but it was definitely time for him to go.
×
×
  • Create New...