Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Superman

  1. 1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

    At least publicly speaking,   Ballard has talked himself into a bit of a corner. 

    On the one hand Ballard says he blames himself for nit doing a better job of building a better, deeper roster that could withstand injuries....




    But you can’t count in rookies to step in and deliver the results you have to have when a starter gets hurt.  So that would seem to imply more free agents. 

    But on the other hand, Ballard insists over and over that you can’t buy a locker room.   And here you are saying don’t expect Ballard to buy more free agents.  

    If this better, deeper roster that Ballard wants in the short-term can’t be achieved by the draft or free agency, then where are these players coming from?   Something has to give...



    I feel like Ballard will always shoulder the blame, just because he "gets it." The reason the Colts had to play unproven journeymen in 2019 is because they got hit with a rash of injuries at specific positions. Lots of injuries at corner and WR, and then we had to go get Inman and play guys like Boddy-Calhoun at corner.


    And while he's always said you can't buy a locker room, he's now saying he feels like the locker room is "ready" to bring in high profile guys. So he's sort of turning the page, IMO.


    Also, he could technically bring in a "big name free agent" in 2020 just by signing a veteran QB like Rivers. Wouldn't that qualify? A trade for SB MVP Nick Foles would check that box as well. 


    As for the roster composition, I think the team is still at least one draft/rookie season away from really having depth, and still has some holes at specific starting positions right now -- DT, maybe CB, TE, etc. If they're taking a build through the draft approach, there are no shortcuts. You only get a great roster with good depth with the passage of time.


    Last thing, I'm not predicting anything about what Ballard does in the offseason. This is going to be a unique year for the Colts, and anything could happen. My protest has primarily been 'let's not fool ourselves into thinking the Colts MUST spend big in 2020, because it's not true.' Not necessarily saying they won't, or will, just that they don't have to.

    • Like 1

  2. 2 hours ago, shastamasta said:


    I am not sure about Luck and keeping his rights...I think their motivations could have just been altruistic if anything. Other than Megatron...I don't really recall any NFL team trying to get that money back. The aesthetics are poor...and Irsay has shown a propensity to take care of his franchise players. 


    On the JB decision...I already know we disagree on whether is was a good call...but I do agree that stuffing cash into the 2019 books was not the main driver.


    Yeah, altruism is more likely than trying to hit the spending floor. I haven't seen anything that confirms -- to my satisfaction -- that recouping the bonus money would affect his contract rights, but that's been going around since September so I don't know... I certainly haven't found it in the CBA.


    As for JB, I don't think I felt it was a good call. Just that I understood their motivation. I always felt the money was a touch high -- before they did it, I gave a projection of what they might give him in an extension, and they came in about $12m higher than I thought -- but I thought the goal was obvious. It wasn't a commitment to JB as the QB of the future, just a protection for the team in case he wound up being really good. 


    He didn't. I think the next steps are pretty obvious. Make sure that the QB of the future is on the roster this offseason, whether that's a veteran acquisition or a drafted rookie. Easier said than done, but that's Ballard's job.


    I'm a Ballard fan, but he must get this right.

    • Like 3

  3. 1 minute ago, shastamasta said:

    Even OTC in that article speculates about the Colts making move with the threshold in mind. I have argued this for a while. I think it was one of the reasons they gave Rigo and Moore their big deals last offseason. 



    I agree that they gave some advance extensions with the spending requirement in mind. I think Ballard even mentioned that as a way to get to the threshold without being big spenders in FA.


    But I don't think it was a significant factor to the Luck or JB contract decisions. IF the reports are true that recouping Luck's bonus would result in the team losing rights to his contract, then that's all the explanation we need there.


    And I think they wanted to lock JB up for another year, so they bought out his FA just in case he had a great 2019. 

  4. 13 minutes ago, csmopar said:

    Either way, I do think if there has ever been a season for Ballard to loosen the purse strings, this is likely to be it. 


    The comment he made yesterday is certainly eyebrow raising. Different tone than previous offseasons.


    And it looks like the CBA is somewhat close, or at least they have a good idea what the revenue split and framework will be, and there's no reason to expect big changes to the fundamentals of the agreement. So any of the big things that might have given Ballard reason to be especially prudent might not have much bearing this year.

    • Like 1

  5. 4 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

    You may be right, but I certainly hope you’re wrong.   Because if you’re right, there will not be much money left to sign many (any?) free agents.  

    We've all been expecting a class bigger than the standard two very good players, one on offense, one in defense.  Where did all the money go?  


    Stitches already responded, so just to echo, we have plenty more cap space. 


    I'm only responding to the mistaken idea that the Colts MUST spend money in free agency because of the minimum spend requirement. I've been saying it for a while now, and now it's here, so I'm saying it again. Take care not to talk yourself into the idea that Ballard is going to spend big in free agency out of necessity.


    IF he spends more money than we're used to seeing this offseason, it won't be because he has to hit the minimum. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  6. 17 minutes ago, stitches said:

    They have to spend about 43M in order to hit the 89% mark. 






    I had it at $55m in November, then they re-signed Doyle, Pascal Alie-Cox and McLaughlin, and added some futures contracts. That probably reconciles the $12m difference.


    I disagree with OTC's conclusions about the Colts needing to spend. By the time they tender their RFAs and re-sign the guys they want to keep, accounting for the draft class, we'll be at the 89%. Or at least very close.

    • Like 1

  7. 5 hours ago, Introspect said:

    Some laugh but he was a good enough player for a consistent Super Bowl contender. But not for the Colts?  Guess New England is clueless with no Super Bowl appearances in 10 years... Oops or is it our beloved franchise?  Just find it odd that people think the guy is trash...


    My comment was a joke.


    But Dorsett wasn't a critical factor for the Patriots at any point over the last three years, particularly in the playoffs. I have no beef with Dorsett, but he doesn't qualify as a big name free agent. Which was the joke.

    • Like 2

  8. 14 minutes ago, stitches said:

    It's definitely possible he's done, but IMO even last year with that horrible pass protection he still played better than Jacoby. Overall I think he will give us better play EVEN IF he's taken a down turn at the end of his career and his best days are not coming back. But that's kind of the point for me... I'm not getting him with the idea of him being anything more than a bridge QB. If he can give us 1 year of better than Jacoby play and some mentorship of our young QB, I would be good with that. 


    I kind of feel like they will be able to get better offer than that. I think the league thinks better of him than of Alex Smith at the time and he's younger than him too.. 


    No question he's better than JB. But I'm not sure that translates into more wins, so his primary value is as a bridge to a young QB. I'd be fine with adding him, I just don't view him as someone that significantly raises the floor or ceiling for the team in 2020.

  9. @stitches


    The thing with Rivers is you'd be counting on a 38-39 year old QB returning to where he was at 36-37 years old, which might have been his last stand as a high level QB. You're putting him on a team with not as many offensive weapons, and asking a volume passer to perform efficiently, when he's always been only moderately efficient.


    Basically, we need Rivers to be the best version of himself, at the end of his career, on a new team for the first time. I'm not that optimistic that he'd perform at the level we'd need in 2020. I think it's far more likely that he's done at this point.


    What he has going for him is that he's familiar with the staff and the offense (or at least 75% of it), and he is a high level mental QB with good ability to process and adjust before and during the play. 


    Also, I think a trade comp for Stafford would be similar to what the Chiefs got for Alex Smith two years ago. That was a third + a young vet corner. For the Colts, that would be a third + Malik Hooker (not saying I would or would not trade Hooker for this kind of package, just referencing the cost). I don't think it would require a first rounder, but I could be wrong.

    • Like 2

  10. 5 minutes ago, The Fish said:

    You don't know that and Ballard has left a big question mark on this subject by saying it's an open subject.


    He's had multiple opportunities to say "yeah, JB will be our QB in 2020," and he's declined to make anything resembling a definitive statement. In fact, he's kind of gone out of his way to say 'I'm NOT making a definitive statement.' 


    If that's your idea of an endorsement... yikes. 

    • Like 3

  11. 5 minutes ago, stitches said:

    He was among my favorite options too. I voted Rivers not because I think he's the best QB, but because ultimately I feel like he's the best short-term realistic option that can be bridge toward a drafted QB and I think I'm all in on the "draft and develop a QB" bandwagon.


    But if we can get Stafford and we are not worried by his injuries, I'd be happy with it. 


    That's fair, but if you trade for Stafford and draft a QB, if Stafford isn't outrageously good you still transition to the young guy by 2021, most likely. He's still under contract for 2022, so you can trade him and recoup some of what you gave up for him. And if he's great, he'll be 34 and you can realistically go in on a Stafford-centric team for another three years.


    With Rivers, it's a one year situation, at most, especially if you draft a QB, because you're not going to hold back from getting your young guy on the field because Rivers has a good six weeks in 2020.


    But, Rivers is a FA, and you'd have to trade for Stafford. In my calculus, I didn't account for the cost of acquiring the player, just went with who I thought would be best as our QB in 2020. But still, that extra season of contractual control + his age makes Stafford way more attractive for me, and I haven't even mentioned how much better of a passer I think he is at this point in their careers.

    • Like 3

  12. 12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

    Irsay's comment today about Mack doesn't mean there weren't talks at some point this off-season.    I take his comments to mean there are no current talks on-going.


    But it's not hard to accept that there might've been some level of talks just to gage interest.


    So, we might've asked Mack what he's looking for.    Mack says 5/45.    We might've said, 3/21.   Or maybe 4/30 or 4/32.     And the talks might've stopped there.     Perhaps too far a gap to try and close.    


    Maybe both sides hope that Mack establishes his true value this year.   Either to the Colts,  or another NFL team.



    Yeah, I wanted to mention this earlier but the thought got lost among a sea of other thoughts. This 'talking about a contract' could have been as simple as the Colts saying to Mack's reps "hey, what about extending before 2020?" The agent says "sure, we want four years, $40m, $25m guaranteed," and the Colts say "no thanks, let's play out 2020 and see what happens," or even "let's see if a new CBA happens before September." 


    It never sounded like a deal was imminent, but based on what Irsay said, if there were any conversations, they would have been extremely preliminary, and didn't gain any real traction.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  13. On 2/18/2020 at 1:44 PM, stitches said:

    Welcome to the "RB hate club" :td:


    Yeah... I really like Mack but IMO the trends and the value in the modern NFL suggest that the giving big money for second contract RBs is not a good investment in huge majority of cases. 


    Ballard likes taking care of his guys and I can see him giving Mack a good extension, though... 


    Some of the big dominoes started falling with Brees and Rivers staying and leaving respectively. I wonder when we are goin to hear about AC and possible Mack extension...


    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.

  14. 18 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

    Another issue that would prevent a development league is techniques.  Coaches teach their players their techniques, so, again if it were a development league, a player spends time on an NFL practice squad and learns that team's techniques for their position, then goes to the XFL at the end of the season and learns the XFL coach's techniques and then tries to go back to the NFL.  I see a lot fringe players taking a step back at that point.


    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.

  15. 1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

    I agree on a lot of what you have to say. IMO, the RB market right now is of extremes in the top 15 (contract wise). Knowing though what has happened to a lot of guys who got big dollars and didn't perform or simply fell apart, I don't think either side (team or RBs) assume anything is a home run sure thing situation unless they are top of the heap. And Mack isn't at the top. He's done good behind a great OL, but isn't top 10 in yards from scrimmage.


    Personally, I'd offer something modest, higher on guarantees. Even at 4x7 for example, that's life changing money if structured to the advantage of the RB. If that doesn't work, then I'd ride out 2020 and get one more year of high value. I think we'll see some market correction for sure, but I also think we'll see rooks continue to somewhat dominate production, which will continue to make the $/production ratio look crazy.


    And I'm OK if we do what some teams do, which is draft 2nd to 5th round RB every 3-4 years. But I also wouldn't lose sleep if they offered what you suggest, with protections to the team. Honestly nothing is going to concern me right now given our cap situation. And I do like Mack, and would love to have him back.


    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.

    • Like 3

  16. 4 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

    Isn't there something that a team owns the rights to a player for a set period of time after they retire?


    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.

    • Like 1

  17. 17 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

    I would say that is more lip service, because when the announcers talk about players, tey talk about what teams if any they were on, how they don't get a chance to improve on the practice and how the XFL gives them game experience to really improve their game.


    I don't think it will happen for two main reasons: 1)  The NFL is not going to want to share their pie, so to speak.  If the XFL were to have an arrangement with the NFL, the XFL would probably cost more money than they would contribute.  2) Over the years the NFL system has proven pretty good at weeding ut the players that really just don't have what it takes to contribute in the NFL.  There are not a lot of players that slip through the cracks and would have been great if only they got the chance.


    But all that being said, I've watched 3 XFL games so far and it's not bad football. It's not great and I probably won't follow a team or anything but being sick one weekend and still recovering the follow weekend, it was something to do.  Saw some big time hits, the XP system allows for some drama at the end of games and saw players that fought hard to pick up first downs or TDs.


    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.

  18. 54 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

    Contracts aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Players don't want to honor a  contract, they  renegotiate or quit.


    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. 

  19. 10 minutes ago, shastamasta said:


    McKinnon actually made it to FA...where he was rumored to have at least 5 teams bidding on him...so I am sure that inflated his value somewhat. And that deal has been a complete bust...so using McKinnon's contract as a negotiating tactic...probably won't have the desired effect.


    On the flip side...you have Tevin Coleman...who was a bit older...but coming off somewhat similar production...and he got $5M/year.


    Or Jordan Howard...who is not as dynamic...but has been similarly productive as Mack (and is only a year older). He's also had some injury issues and isn't much of a threat in the passing game. Even if he hadn't gotten hurt...he was likely looking at something similar to Coleman.


    And then there's Kenyan Drake...who spent 3/4 of the last two seasons in MIA (including half of last season on a really bad MIA team with a terrible OL). Despite this...he had almost identical production to Mack (similar yards/scrimmage, similar yards/carry, similar # of TDs, similar AV, similar PFF grades) over the past two years.


    But Drake is more of a playmaker in the passing game...with a much higher yards/touch...and he is also coming off a monster 2nd half with ARI (essentially a breakout). And looking at contract speculation for him...$7.5M/year is the highest amount listed. 


    Yes...he's two years older than Mack right now...but you also aren't paying for Mack's FA years yet.


    Those media guys might be completely off on Drake...but assuming they are not...then I do think it's reasonable to speculate on Mack getting an extension for something like $7-8M/year...especially since it's a year early and he can get a raise next season...before the extension starts. 


    If not...then let him play out his deal and address it next offseason. I think him getting more than Drake is questionable enough...but giving him a $10M+/year extension right now is way out there. 


    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.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...