Superman

I watched him yesterday. I don't see it. Maybe I'll post my thoughts in another thread...

Josh Rosen says he's "entitled" to consideration.

Wilson is probably cooked, and they didn't commit serious money to him. Then they traded Pickett. So yeah, they're probably wanting to draft a QB. Maybe even in the first round. I don't think Mo is all that good as a blocker.

Same. I'd even consider viewing him as a one year rental, and being ready to trade him again in 2025 or 2026. Play it like the Rams do.

Deets on Pittman's contract: https://overthecap.com/player/michael-pittman-jr/8774 Looks like it's $68m over three years, first year cap hit is $18m.

Calvin Ridley was injured most of 2021, and then suspended all of 2022. And still had basically the same amount of yards and TDs, on fewer catches.

You brought up Partridge. Maybe I misunderstood your reason for bringing him up, but it was not my assertion that he was influencing Ballard's resource allocation. I thought that was the point you were making, but I think we're on the same page there now. About the shovel and the rake, my concern is that we have a $20 gift card at Home Depot, and the shovel costs $20, but you brought me the rake because it was only $16. I can use the rake, but it's not going to replace the shovel, and now I don't have enough left on the gift card to get the shovel. I'm not trying to have it both ways, and I'm not worried about the order of operation. My thinking is that, after committing these resources, we've limited our ability to improve the pass rush. There are different ways to make it work. I just think it would have been better to use those resources on different players at different positions. I also think that's a pretty simple position to take.

WOW! One of my favorite players of all time. I know he kicked this around a couple years ago, so it's not totally out of the blue, but it's still a surprise. He'll be missed. Not by QBs...

I liked him, he was quick and shifty, had some YAC potential, he even made contested catches in college. That was before I was really locked in on how much the Colts love RAS candidates. Everyone we drafted that year was a 9.25 or higher, and several of our UDFAs were RAS standouts. Moore is a 7.49. Since he got drafted, he had the dreaded hamstring issues, and mostly has been a non factor for the Chiefs, despite them being starved for WR production in 2023. He did have some catches in the playoffs in 2022, including in the SB. He didn't play in the playoffs this year. I don't know what the story is, but he's obviously not caught on there. And I haven't watched him carefully -- hard to do so when he's nailed to the bench -- so I can't really give an opinion. I wouldn't mind giving a late conditional pick for him, just based on how I felt about him in 2022.

Yes, it's one for one. Assuming they're all qualifying players, if you lose a premier free agent but sign a mid level free agent, those signings cancel out and you do not get a comp pick. A team will only get comp picks if they lose more qualifying free agents than they acquire. Then, if the team has a net loss, the tiers of players lost vs acquired factors into the comp picks the team receives. So if you lose a premier free agent and a mid level free agent, but you sign a mid level free agent, the mid levels cancel each other out, and you would get a high level comp pick. If you sign a premier free agent, the premiers cancel each other out, and you get a lower level comp pick. (Qualifying free agents with more than 10 years in the league cannot return a comp pick higher than a 5th rounder, unless it's a QB.) Hope that makes sense. Check out the table OTC does every year, it can help to visualize the way the picks are assigned.

What a fall... This dude was asking for $20m/year recently. Super talented, but his performance has been up and down throughout his career. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10097445-buccaneers-rumors-devin-white-wanted-20m-per-season-in-contract-talks-with-tb

The reason I mentioned Burns was pretty obvious. The Panthers win/loss record doesn't devalue the individual players on the team. Using the team record to knock Luvu was strange. I don't expect you to see every post I make. But maybe don't attribute viewpoints to me that I have not promoted. Just saw your other post. Whether the Colts should have replaced either Franklin or Speed with Luvu is not my question. I'm asking whether there's something about Luvu's game that makes him a poor fit for our defense. If you think he's a better fit at Will than Mike, wouldn't it be fair to say that he actually would fit the Colts defense? I think he can play Will or Mike in Bradley's defense, and probably would be a better fit at Mike.

You should have just answered my question on Luvu, rather than changing the topic. At no point have I wanted to sign Brian Burns. I just pointed out yesterday that I think he's overrated, and now, overpaid. The bolded is patently false, and totally misdirected. https://forums.colts.com/topic/76749-colts-fa-news-merge/page/11/#comment-2630880 https://forums.colts.com/topic/76749-colts-fa-news-merge/page/12/#comment-2630900 So... why isn't Luvu a good fit for the Colts defense again?

I missed this before now. I think Autry was highly replaceable, and the plan was for our young guys to replace him. Turay and Banogu weren't good enough, but moving on from a 30+ edge rusher who wasn't anything special should not be so firmly planted into the hearts and minds of Colts fans for this long.

I don't understand this argument. A lot of the other stuff in this post wasn't relevant either -- for example, he was not on a winning team, but then you talk about how it's all about the QB, so why is that being held against a LBer? And no one said that about Brian Burns... I'm not out here banging the table for Frankie Luvu, but why doesn't he fit our scheme? He's an off ball LB, he played Will for the Panthers last year, had more than 400 coverage snaps, and was above average in coverage. He signed with the Commanders, whose HC Dan Quinn came up in the same defensive world as our DC Gus Bradley. There's no reason he can't play Franklin's position in our defense. He's not a Ballard prototype in terms of athleticism and body measurements, and that probably means he wasn't under consideration. But saying he's not a scheme fit isn't accurate.

Just to help explain my thinking, the OP has not been back to the thread since posting it. He farted in a crowded room and walked out. And that's his pattern. He's repeated this 'you guys are crazy for thinking Richardson can be good' multiple times, and never engages with any of the replies. He also has posted similar opinions in previous years on other QBs, including his version of calling out people who see it differently. And an element of good faith posting is simply acknowledging when you've been wrong, but he's never done that either. This is trollish posting behavior, IMO. And the response to this thread is an acknowledgment of this pattern of behavior.

How controversial? Want to go with the 'we should have traded for Russell Wilson' angle?

Yeah, and that would help the other players on offense also.

Plus the prorated $2.5m in 2025... But I'm not picking at the Davis signing in a vacuum.

Kendall Fuller: 16 games played, 1,020 defensive snaps, 627 coverage snaps, 73 targets, 49 catches allowed (67.1%), 10.0 yards/catch, 6 TDs allowed, 2 INTs, 5 PBUs, passer rating allowed 101.9, 2 penalties, 1 penalty accepted, 5.1% missed tackle rate. L'Jarius Sneed: 17 games played, 989 defensive snaps, 600 coverage snaps, 81 targets, 42 catches allowed (51.9%), 9.7 yards/catch, 0 TDs allowed, 2 INTs, 10 PBUs, passer rating allowed 55.9, 17 penalties, 6 penalties accepted, 13.3% missed tackle rate. I think Sneed had a great year, and then was lights out in the playoffs. I don't think it's just recency bias, and I think he's much better than average. Maybe a little overhyped, but not to a significant degree.

I don't see how this is relevant, because the criticism is not 'we should be signing top value free agents.' But I wanted to respond to this part because the Colts have almost never used the QB to draw free agents. Outside of 2015 when Andre Johnson and Frank Gore wanted to come here -- and they weren't high value guys, they were older vets chasing a ring, and we see how that worked out -- what free agents decided to come to the Colts because of the QB? And in general, the first consideration for any free agent-- especially a top tier guy -- is money. The second consideration can be a variety of things, depending on the player, but it's almost always a very distant second to the money. Even the state tax thing is overblown, IMO. You would think every big free agent would land in Florida or Texas if that was a major consideration. Robert Hunt had no problem going from the Dolphins to the Panthers, and it's because they offered him $20m/year. Indiana has lower state tax than North Carolina, I think the Colts would have been strongly considered if they made a similar offer. Sheldon Rankins went from Houston (no state tax) to Cincy (higher state tax than Indy), another small market franchise. I think sometimes these factors are on a list that is important to certain players. But I don't think it's important enough to be a significant part of the conversation. If a small market team in a state with income tax makes a competitive offer, they have a strong chance of landing a good player. And if that player decides he'd rather be in LA or NY or Miami or Vegas or Dallas, then you just move on. But I think in general, the Colts are not entering those discussions to begin with, because they are not and never have been interested in the top tier of free agency. And for the most part, I agree with that approach. It's a tool, but good teams aren't built through free agency.

Are you just playing devil's advocate here? The OP has a history. You could check it out if you wanted. There's been plenty of genuine discourse about Richardson since he was drafted. That's not what this thread is about.

I guess you missed the whole point, then. I think the Colts main shortcomings on defense are related to pass rush and pass coverage. And the reason I'm not enthused about adding Davis is because he does not help in either of those areas. I say 'I don't like the signing because he doesn't help the pass rush.' You say 'why would he help the pass rush, he's 325 pounds?' .... That's the point. I think we need to improve the pass rush and pass defense, and we spent $84m on three defensive front players that don't move the needle in those areas. This argument is overstated, IMO. We went 4-2 in those six weeks without Stewart, and then we 2-3 in the final five after he came back. Yes, he helps the run defense, and yes run defense is important. But I don't think we need to spend $39m on a NT to be good against the run. There are a lot of options between Grover Stewart and Taven Bryan. It's not 'either spend $39m on Stewart, or be stuck with Bryan.' So if my problem with the Davis signing is resource allocation, and Partridge has no impact on resource allocation, then why did you bring him up in the first place? Do you think I don't like the Davis signing because I think Davis is a bad player? It feels like you're trying to help me understand that the new DL coach will help get the most out of him, and that makes me think you don't understand my point at all. If I need a shovel and you bring me a rake, it doesn't matter how good the rake is. Shovel = pass defense. Rake = run defense. Maybe this is the disconnect. I hope Partridge is the best DL coach of all time. I'm more reserved in my optimism than you are. And no matter how good he is, we still need better pass rush talent. No one is turning a middling group of linemen into a fearsome pass rush unit without a serious talent upgrade, not even the Rock Star. And I think our resources should have been focused in a different direction entirely. I think we should have been thinking about upgrading from Franklin, not trying to retain him. That might be an unpopular opinion; I stand by it. Then you've completely missed my point, and I honestly don't understand how, because I think I've been very clear this week, and my entire time on this site. I don't care about when the Colts make FA moves, nor am I placated by moves that don't line up with the direction in which I think the team should be moving. I have not flipped sides, and I think that calling my criticism "complaining" is a gross mischaracterization, and somewhat disingenuous. I should not be lumped in with people whose sole mission on this site is to attack the front office; I deserve more credit than that. And I don't think that people need to freak out when I disagree with what the team has done. My thinking on team decisions -- whether I agree or not -- is always genuine and sincere. My criticism is simple: I think the Colts have a deficiency at pass rush, and pass coverage, and to improve in those areas, we need to add better pass rushers, and players who are better in coverage. Committing resources to players who are not good pass rushers and not good in coverage is not what I think the Colts should have done this offseason. I would have been just fine if the Colts didn't sign anyone in the first wave of free agency. At least the $84m we committed to players that don't help us defend the pass better would still be available for other areas of the roster. Maybe, but I don't think so. What's changed is that we now have the HC and QB (presumably), and the runway should be clear for us to build a roster that can compete deep into the playoffs. I had a sliver of hope that Ballard and Co. would at least slightly adjust the roster building strategy, stop committing as much to positions/roles that I don't think are high value, and start addressing more directly positions/roles that I think can raise the ceiling for this team. Outside of that difference in viewpoint, I don't think I have Ballard fatigue. I like Ballard. I just disagree with his value on these players/roles as it relates to where the roster is right now. And I fully acknowledge that there are plenty of remaining opportunities to improve the pass rush and pass coverage this offseason. I'm not going crazy, I'm not calling Ballard a fool, I don't think he should be fired (yet). I just don't think paying these particular players was the right decision. Long reply, that shouldn't be a surprise. Hopefully I've clarified my viewpoint. If not, I don't know what else I can say about it.

Yeah, I wonder if they would have preferred a more mobile backup as their first option. Even someone who can move as much as Minshew, compared to Flacco who, even in his prime, moved like cold guacamole. But the Browns made it work last year, going from Watson, to Walker, to DTR, to Flacco. The Colts kind of made it work with Minshew. And if you want a QB who can keep the offense moving for a couple weeks when needed, he's good enough. If he has to play longer than that, you're probably in trouble. What he really brings is professionalism, pedigree, and a good example for the rest of the offense, and Richardson specifically. In the film room, in meetings, weekly preparation, etc., his example -- not necessarily one on one mentoring and coaching, that's not his job -- can benefit Richardson tremendously. He wasn't really on my radar, and I hope everything above the $4.5m guaranteed is playing time incentives, but I think it's a good addition all the way around. Even if it's not the absolute ideal from a physical standpoint.

I don't think this is going to happen. I think it's all smoke and mirrors, somebody trying to drive up the Chiefs price, and maybe Sneed's price as well, by using the Colts as the team waiting in the wings to swoop in and make the the deal happen. That's not like Ballard, or the Colts. They move in silence, and stuff like this usually doesn't come out until it's crossing the finish line. It's also not like Ballard to spend big money on a corner, particularly with Gus Bradley running the defense. But if -- IF -- Ballard pulls this off, or something similar, I'll soften some of my criticism from the last couple days. I will still question the decision to spend money on run stoppers in the defensive front, and I think it's hard to cover the middle of the field with Franklin playing 1,000 snaps, but I will appreciate the decision to attack the secondary aggressively. If they also come away with an upgrade at safety, I'll be even more appreciative.