Superman

I'd include Trey Lance, he didn't work out but he's a very good athlete. His career has been marred by injuries so far, but with how little he played in college and how raw he was, it's an interesting comp. There's probably also a survivorship bias here. I bet there are some athletic QB prospects that don't readily come to mind because they flamed out so fast. I feel good about Richardson because I believe Steichen's plan for him will be well considered and executed, but he's a very high variance prospect.

And for two seasons, HOF OL Kevin Mawae was assistant OL coach. Before that, he was an offensive assistant at Arizona State, and before that he spent a year as the Bears assistant OL coach. I get the feeling Reggie wouldn't have agreed to be assistant WR coach, and probably let the team know. Similar to how they were trying to get Jeff Saturday to join the staff as an assistant, but he wasn't interested at the time.

I think 40% is aggressive, just based on how little we've seen so far and how far away he is. But I agree, he's a boom or bust type prospect.

I'm a huge Reggie Wayne fan. I don't think he's anywhere close to a promotion, and I'm not sure why it's exciting that he's supposed to have more input this season. I wasn't even that excited that he was hired, I would have rather had him working under a more experienced guy for a couple years, and it's not like the WRs were outstanding last year. I hope he's great and is here for a long time, even working his way up the ranks. And I hope the WRs have great production under his oversight. But there's a lot we don't know about his ability to coach in the NFL so far.

Proves two things to me. First, Irsay does have some level of self-awareness. I wasn't sure after he was talking about sausages, quartiles, and building rockets. Second, Irsay obviously reads his mentions on Twitter.

I'm not as anti-Irsay on this as you are. After all, I think Irsay has done plenty to honor Peyton, and he would probably make room for him in the organization if Peyton wanted an official role (JMO). But I agree that there's some kind of rivalry somewhere, and obviously some resentment going both ways. It's not shocking that this would be the case, but it is disappointing, as a Colts/Manning fan. It's also not uncommon when a legendary player leaves before he's ready. I also don't think it's necessarily coming from a selfish place on the part of ownership; they probably worry about losing part of their fanbase if/when a great player leaves or retires. And along the way, I don't know that Irsay has intentionally taken digs at Manning, but a lot of his comments have come across as less than grateful for Manning's legacy and what it did for the Colts' standing. And it's just kind of the circumstance that it's easier for Manning to be closely involved with the Broncos. He decided to set up shop in Denver, and they weren't able to immediately replace him with a highly touted prospect so they don't need to worry about him casting too big of a shadow over the organization.

For as long as he's been around, he's still kind of young. I also think he got fired a couple times, so he's had some stops and starts.

Not really. First, it's not egregious to have Emmitt Smith ahead of Barry Sanders, and many do. (I personally favor Sanders as a player, but it's not hard to admit that Smith had a better career.) But more importantly, in 2005, Brady had three SB wins, and Manning hadn't even been to one. I had Manning ahead of Brady at that point. It's not just about SB wins, it's about total overall production and legacy. Unlike in 2005, Brady now has more yards, more completions, more TD passes, and a higher passer rating than Peyton Manning. He has an incredible (and maybe untouchable) record in the postseason. He was part of the greatest comeback in SB history. And of course, 3 MVPs, 2 Offensive POYs, 7 SB wins, 5 SB MVPs... And a lot of that damage came in his 40s, when he was still a top five QB, so his longevity becomes a factor in the discussion as well. Objectively speaking, it's just not really a debate anymore. When you rank QBs, Brady has to come before Manning, as much as I don't want to say it. By the way, I really hate that you're making me do this. Like I said, Irsay should have just said that he's purposely excluding Colts from his list, and then he would have been able to avoid the criticism. But the more realistic criticism is Elway over Manning. Brady over Manning is established fact at this point.

Yeah that's because you're hopelessly optimistic. What was your win/loss prediction for 2022 again??

Okay so if you had to predict the likelihood that Richardson reaches top 10-12 status for NFL QBs within the next four years, what percentage chance are you giving him? I ask because you're persistent with the somber outlook for him. I say that as a person who has been very upfront about how big of a climb I think he has, and you seem even more concerned than I've ever been about his prospects.

Another reason the formula for the non-exclusive tag is different, and both more/less complicated at the same time. I agree with you on most of the rest, regarding the market and trends. But it's hard to see a self correction happening when there hasn't been a big RB contract in 2-3 years. The only data we have is a couple of franchise tags, but maybe that's all we need to see to know what the market thinks.

I think this is a somewhat unique data point. If you're a RB or agent representing one, you look at the highest paid RBs of all time, and 2-3 of those contracts are null, or will be soon. It's not strange that a contract gets terminated or restructured, but it is unique that a top of market contract isn't replaced by another one of similar value. Ezekiel Elliott signed four years ago, Kamara and Cook signed three years ago; taking those contracts off the board craters the average. We don't even remember Le'Veon Bell or Todd Gurley at this point. It really highlights the trends at play here. RBs rarely get big second contracts, they certainly don't see the end of those second contracts, and teams aren't paying premium money for this position overall. And it's not as simple as 'RB isn't important,' and it's certainly not true that RBs aren't good. They're among the very best athletes on any given roster, pound for pound speed is elite, they get more touches than any other non-QB, they play a huge part in helping teams win games. RB is still important. The question is whether it's cost effective to pay premium money for a RB, even one with premium production, if a slightly above average RB can be acquired for 1/8th the cost, and give you 70-80% of the production. And that's before we even talk about the rapid and often drastic decline with RBs. Le'Veon Bell was released one month into his second season with the Jets. Todd Gurley lasted two seasons on his second contract, and he signed an early extension. A big second contract for a RB is basically a money sink.

The reason the amount was less by $13m is because Lamar got the non-exclusive tag, so the amount was $32m, not $45m. The exclusive tag amount would have been subject to change, but I don't think any top five QB contracts were adjusted between December and March.

The exclusive tag is based on specific contracts at the top of the market, but the non-exclusive is a more complicated formula. And outside of a handful of exceptions, teams use the non-exclusive tag. Coincidentally, one of the non-QBs to get the exclusive tag was Le'Veon Bell. Best source is the CBA itself, other reporting tends to be incomplete or inaccurate. As for JT, if he wanted four years, $40m, I might do that right now, $20m guaranteed, and it would expire after 2026. That would be team friendly, and would allow us to push out some of the cap hits. But I think the market for a top RB, mathematically speaking, is going to be higher than that, just based on the tag amounts and existing contracts.

Statistically speaking, I'm not sure it's even true that a 2nd round player is better than one 3rd round player. It's probably a wash. Edit: This year, the Colts wound up drafting in the middle of the 2nd round, plus ultimately picking up an extra 4th (which turned into Adetomiwa Adebawore) and an extra 5th (which turned into a lower 5th and an extra 6th, used on Daniel Scott and Titus Leo, respectively). So trading down nine spots in two separate trades netted us three additional players, and they still got a 2nd round prospect that everyone really liked.

He can already say whatever he wants. It doesn't really matter. A hundred people could post their top five lists, and you'd probably get 100 different lists. Anyone can have their opinions, it's totally subjective, and ultimately irrelevant. Also, I say this as a huge Manning fan, and a long time Brady/Patriot hater: I don't think there's an objective argument for anyone other than Brady being the best QB of all time. Manning is absolutely my favorite, and I think he was a better player at his peak than Brady ever was, but Brady's overall career and resume make this a dead argument. It's really been that way since SB51, and Brady has another two SB wins and an MVP since then. I don't agree with the Elway thing, though. In fact, I'd probably put Marino ahead of Elway.

Are you being sarcastic?

The non-exclusive tag is what we'd most likely use on Taylor, and it's complicated. Essentially it's an aggregate result of previous years' tags vs previous years' salary caps. Everyone talks about the exclusive tag amount, but that tag is rarely used. OTC has a projection for next year's tag amounts, and they predict the RB tag will be $13.7m. (My understanding is that this formula makes the tag amounts less subject to some of the possibilities you present in this previous post -- if Kamara's contract goes away, if Cook gets released or renegotiates, if other players restructure, etc.) The $13.7m figure for non-exclusive RB tag in 2024 seems aggressive, but I'm not going to do that math. For the sake of the argument, if we use that figure, and then 120% in 2025 ($16.44m), we're looking at a total of $30.14m over two years. If Taylor has a strong 2023, then I think that makes his contract negotiation starting point $15m/year. If he's excellent in 2023, then he's probably looking to set the new mark at $19m/year. Just thinking from the angle of a typical player agent. I think either of those figures is a non starter for the Colts (even if OTC is aggressive, we're still looking at $12-13m/year, and that's still too high for a RB, right?) Just strategically speaking, the only way to keep him is if he takes a reasonable but below market deal, or you just tag him for up to two years, knowing you're willing to let him walk by 2026. And I say this as someone who loves basically everything about JT and how he plays, but you can't make a major commitment to a RB in today's NFL. I don't know if the Colts agree, but it seems well established.

Yup, as it should be.

Overall, I don't care. I saw the list when Irsay first posted it, and my first thought was 'wow, he left Peyton off, that's gonna be interesting.' But it doesn't really matter to me. But I do agree there's some distance between Irsay/Colts and Manning, and there might be some beef. It could also just be the result of Irsay's desire to have a contender without Manning, which along with other circumstances has led to Manning being more involved with the Broncos than with the Colts in recent years. He even did the Broncos schedule release video. All of this isn't a big deal IMO, but it doesn't help bridge whatever gap there is between the Colts and Manning. If Irsay was really worried about perception, he probably wouldn't have shared this list. Or he could have just said 'this is purposely non Colts.' But Irsay isn't a guy who worries about perception, for better or worse. And I guess, even though Irsay doesn't worry about this stuff, it is disappointing to the fans on some level that the greatest Colts player of all time isn't closely connected with the organization anymore. And it's probably fair to say that Irsay, as the chairman of the franchise, should be making it his goal to bring Manning more into the fold, not doing things that could further alienate him. In that way, I guess I'd agree that this is a miss on Irsay's part.

I think Ballard and Reich were well aligned on a lot of things, but it seems pretty clear that they had some separation on how to handle the QB position. There's no concrete evidence, but it's my working theory that Reich's influence over the QB decisions ultimately cost him his standing in Irsay's eyes, and eventually cost him his job. This is based on the comments and actions of all three guys over the last year and a half. I don't think Ballard held back from drafting a QB because he didn't want to entrust the development to Reich. At the presser, it was mostly Irsay talking, and I think there's more than one reason for that. But I always thought Ballard was against firing Reich at that point of the season, and probably also against making Saturday the interim HC. That was Irsay inserting himself, and that's when I really started questioning Ballard's standing. But through the coaching search, free agency, and the draft process, all indications are that Irsay has stepped back into his usual role, and it's been Ballard's show, with Steichen heavily involved. I guess you're saying Irsay jumped in because he knew Ballard would have a hard time deciding to fire Reich, and I can see that. I think Ballard was asked at that presser whether he thought Reich should be fired, and his answer was 'not at this time,' and that's heavily paraphrased btw. Even if that's the case, Irsay said Ballard was his guy, and repeated it multiple times in the following weeks, and since the end of the season it's seemed like standard business for the Colts. So while fans and media were speculating about Ballard's standing, it seems Irsay was sincere, and Ballard was never in trouble. We agree, the team was basically dying, and Irsay had had enough of Reich.

Does your definition of 'on the hot seat' mean some fans/media think he should be fired? To me, being on the hot seat means the decision maker(s) above you have started thinking about firing you. So when I say I don't think Ballard was/is on the hot seat, I mean I don't think Irsay is dissatisfied with Ballard, I don't think he was on the way to being fired, and I don't think he is on the way to being fired. If you're asking whether we think there are fans/media that are dissatisfied with Ballard, that's another story, but it's not what I thought the question meant. Edit: By the way, that's not meant to be a vote of confidence by me, nor a seal of approval. Basically I'm saying that I don't think Ballard's job was in danger, and I don't think it's in danger now, even if there were/are people who are dissatisfied with him.

I think we'll do something for depth at OL, I think they worked out a couple players last week. But I don't know if it will be meaningful. I'm not worried about Leonard's desire, at all. He's been seriously injured ever since he got his new contract, trying to play through these injuries, while medical staff has been figuring out how to help him. I think it's overly cynical to attribute his issues to him being complacent because he got paid. He dragged himself around on one leg all of 2021, and was still our best defensive playmaker at probably 50% physical capacity. The only thing I'm worried about is him deciding to retire because his injury can't be overcome, but a big part of that worry is influenced by the Luck situation. Richardson, I think 50/50 is fair. I lean toward the "no" side for Week 1 because I think it would be better to work him in judiciously, and there's no rush. But I absolutely expect him to get reps in games right away, just not as the starter. And if he looks great in camp or preseason, then sure, start him in Week 1. But that remains to be seen.