Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    37,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    482

Everything posted by Superman

  1. John Simon, Jonathan Hankins and Jeff Locke are a good testament to the idea that the Colts aren't going to keep highly paid veterans if they don't see the fit, value or production they want. So if they sign Mack to a four year deal, and through two years his production isn't justifying that contract, I don't think they'd just keep him, especially if they start needing the cap space. So I still don't see Mack costing the team another player. I don't want them to start spending tomorrow's money today -- which is what those "win now" teams have been doing. I'm just saying that cap space is not a finite resource, like draft picks. Only 256 picks every year, while you can manage your cap space in a number of ways. I'd probably do $10m for a high third, not a fourth. Especially if I'm getting back a player who might help me. I wanted to do something like this for Case Keenum or Ryan Tannehill last year; Tannehill would have been the best QB on our roster.
  2. Injury guarantees are a point of negotiation. You can't cut a vested veteran if he gets hurt at any time. I assume a deal for Mack wouldn't include heavy injury guarantees. Maybe two years. In the Colts present situation, we're not losing out on anyone if we sign Mack for $10m/year. Not even in the near future. It's not an opportunity cost situation, IMO. You can sign a top of market 3T and Edge (if they are available) and keep Mack at $10m/year. Or whatever other player configuration you come up with. This is strictly about whether you can replace his production and have someone play his role on the team the way he does. I think you can, to a reasonable degree, but there is value in keeping a young veteran that you've developed, since there's no learning curve to worry about. I think you're somewhat boiling down RB value to only production, and there are other factors that speak to value. And even though you don't need to have a great RB or be a great running team to win, I'm not interested in shoving good players out the door. I'm all about identifying value and trying to maximize it. Like I said, I'm okay with using Mack heavily in 2020 and then letting him walk. I'll take the comp pick in 2022. But I'm not drawing a line in the sand over a couple million a year. If they're considering re-signing him, then obviously they're willing to pay him market value rather than let him walk. It's a different strategy with its own pros and cons. I'm not against it. If it's somewhere around $10m/year, I get it. And there's a lot of difference between cap space and draft picks. I value draft picks, especially in the top 100, much higher than cap space, because you can manipulate the cap a lot easier than you can acquire top 100 draft picks. And we have an abundance of cap space and future flexibility, while we're locked into a limited amount of draft picks, with limited ability to add more. As a matter of fact, the better the team gets, the less draft capital we have, automatically. If I had to choose between $10m in cap space and a second rounder, I'd take the second rounder, for sure.
  3. The ages I used are the ages those players were when they got paid. Bell was older and had way more usage; Johnson was older. Gurley's injury history was more serious and more extensive than Mack's is. Elliott has way more usage. I don't know how you can dismiss the flexibility argument. Someone asked about the worst case scenario. If you do the contract right, worst case scenario is he falls apart and you move on after a year. Even if they hang on for two years, the Colts aren't going to be hamstrung by a second contract for Mack. The worst case scenario isn't all that bad. And when you talk about opportunity cost, we need to talk about what the team might miss out on by keeping Mack for a couple million more than you think they should pay him. I don't think they miss out on anything in this scenario. You obviously don't want a first round RB -- neither do I -- so it's not like they're going to pass on the next Saquon to keep Mack. They should keep adding mid to late round backs and keep developing the guys they have on the roster already. Opportunity cost is strictly about money, and the Colts have a lot of cap flexibility. I agree that you can find more value. I don't necessarily agree that you can just go grab a player as good as Mack. Someone mentioned protection. Every young back takes some time to learn the protections, so you'll take a step back for a period of time if he's replaced. And while you can probably still get the same overall production for less money, there is still some value in keeping young veterans on reasonable contracts. The team knows him, he knows the offense, and he's still young enough that he could better, which is an argument for doing a new deal before 2020 while you can still squeeze some prime out of him. I just don't think it's strictly about the math. There's no question you can replace his production for less money. But that's not the only consideration. And if the Colts just rode him hard in 2020 and let him walk in FA, I would understand that approach, and probably be fine with it.
  4. I'm not interested in paying a RB a huge contract, but I'm also not super interested in just letting a good player walk if a contract can make sense for both sides. I'm all about positional value and I think RBs are highly replaceable, but that doesn't mean you always have to go cheap or just cycle through players. First, as with any contract, I would want to see the guarantees and the structure before reaching any conclusion. Four years, $40m might be a big commitment, or it might be a year to year commitment. Depends on the details. Second, Mack isn't Gurley (serious knee injury history), Bell (27 years old, very high usage, one year out of the league), or David Johnson (27 years old). He's closer in age to Elliott at the time of his contract, but not as good (obviously), and I think we can assume he won't be getting $15m/year. Johnson's yearly average was 7.3% of the cap; Gurley's was 7.9%; Elliott's was 7.9%. Mack is going into his age 24 season. Some nagging injuries, nothing serious. He hasn't been a super high usage back so far. He's probably entering his prime as a back, and could have another year or two as a good producer. If the Colts signed him for four years, $40m, his yearly average would be about 5% of the cap. If the structure offers the typical flexibility that Ballard's deals have, the Colts would be able to revisit the contract yearly. So worst case scenario, Mack doesn't perform well, and the Colts move on. It doesn't have to be a doomsday situation. Or we could let him walk, draft another RB and hope we can reasonably replace what Mack does with a committee, for about 30% of the cost. I don't mind paying Mack at this stage of his career, based on his history and usage, at $10m/year.
  5. Have you watched anything other than highlights? Have you watched any games from 2018 and compared his play with his games from 2019? I'm not calling him the next great NFL QB. I'm just defending him against this faux analysis.
  6. Ballard has now had several opportunities to endorse JB as the starting QB for next week. He's shied away from doing so every time. His 'I thought Luck was going to be the starter, so I'm not sure' line is a cop out, it's his way of wriggling off the hook. Also, the way Ballard, Reich and Sirianni all have talked about what they value in a QB is interesting. It reminds me of what Commodus said to his father in Gladiator: None of my virtues were on your list. It's like hearing your significant other describe what they find attractive and realizing that they're describing someone other than you.
  7. People around the Internet keep saying this. The problem is it's not true.
  8. The Niners have been building that roster for more than three years.
  9. Nope. The point is to compensate teams for losing players to other teams in free agency. One team gains in free agency, another loses. The picks offer a small bit of equalization. Doesn't seem like it applies to players retiring early.
  10. I would love to have that problem. Way better than rolling with JB, he doesn't do better, and we don't have the next guy on the roster. My response is the 2017 Chiefs. They draft Mahomes, Alex Smith has an incredible season -- from a dink and dunker who won't throw down the field to statistically the most efficient downfield passer in the league -- then they trade Smith for a solid return. They had a great handle on what Alex Smith was, and a solid idea what Mahomes could be (and what he has become is probably beyond their greatest expectations). Even if JB has a strong season, the objective for the Colts would be to get the young QB ready to play as soon as possible. So if JB does well, either you let him walk and wait a year for the comp pick, or you transition tag him and look for a trade partner.
  11. Understood. But this has become a talking point, and it's going to keep getting repeated. I'm just pointing out that a) the Titans aren't proving that you don't need good QBing to succeed in the playoffs, and b) their QB has actually been pretty good this season. Btw, I think Tannehill's Titans will meet the same end as Luck's 2014 Colts -- blown out by a better team in the AFCCG. My preferred strategy is to add the next guy, while JB starts the 2020 season. But in the meantime, the rest of the roster needs continued improvement. We have a lot of work to do across the board, not just at QB. But definitely at QB, though.
  12. The bolded isn't a great team building philosophy. It's not unreasonable to suggest that JB can get better. But that's not what the team should rest their hopes on, at least not entirely. When the DL gets worked over, we acknowledge it and ask for better players on the DL, same at other positions. This doesn't mean that the young players at those positions can't get better, but there are multiple factors to team building. One is the improvement of young players, another is acquiring better players. When you have a player who is struggling due to obvious limitations, it doesn't make sense to hide behind "hey, he could get better, right?" Especially at the most important position in team sports. What if JB is like 98% of 27 year old NFL QBs who don't suddenly become quicker, more accurate, better playmakers and better decision makers? There's a lot of extremism on this topic. I don't think JB is trash who should be cut; I think that's nonsense. But I think that he's pretty far away from being a franchise level QB, and it would be a mistake for the Colts to expect him to make a gigantic leap from what he is now to what we need him to be. I don't really care what Pat McAfee or other talking heads have to say about this. I've watched every snap of JB's pro career. I've watched the All 22 from the 2019 season. I've studied the numbers. I know what JB's strengths and deficiencies are, and I know how they were affected by his supporting cast. I know how rare it is for a QB with his profile to become a playmaking, franchise QB. I know what successful teams typically (almost always) need out of the QB position to make the playoffs and win in the playoffs. End of the day, we need better QBing to be a good team, and it's statistically improbable that we get the kind of QBing we need from JB. I'm all for improving the team around him and working him to help him get better, but there needs to be a plan to transition to a better QB in the near future. It would be professional malpractice for the Colts to count on JB becoming what we need to get to where we want to be.
  13. If your team is playing so well as a whole that you can win playoff games on the road with your QB throwing 15 passes, then the QB becomes an auxiliary factor. That's a major outlier. (Not to mention the fact that no RB has ever had back to back games in the playoffs like Derrick Henry just had, so let's not make the mistake of thinking you can rely on this type of performance on the ground.) Usually, to win playoff games, you need the QB to make plays. Also, Tannehill was the league's most efficient passer in the second half of the season. He was 70% completions, 120 passer rating, 17 TDs and 4 picks, adjusted yards/attempt over 10, and he was good in the 4th quarter all season long. The Titans are playing ground-and-pound football because it's working, not because they don't have a QB who can make plays.
  14. The Colts showed interest in him in 2018.
  15. The question was whether they would go 7-9, not 13-3.
  16. The Colts actually did the upstanding thing by him, (and Eberflus and DeGuglielmo, while we're at it). If he was done wrongly by anyone, it's McDaniels.
  17. Adebo in the second would make me happy. This is a strong mock. Big swing on Hargrave, but at that yearly average it's conceivable. He's probably the second best interior lineman scheduled to be a free agent, and I don't think Chris Jones gets free. (As an aside, I was impressed by Arik Armstead this weekend. He still might be a contract year warrior, but he actually looked like the guy everyone thought he would be when he was drafted.) The double dip at TE seems unlikely, as does a big FA signing at that position. I haven't watched most of these guys from your draft, but your final roster seems intriguing.
  18. The Saints went 5-0 without Brees, so yeah. But that's not what typically happens when your star QB isn't available.
  19. I was critical of a handful of things Reich did. But I also think he had one hand tied behind his back all season. So I don't give him a pass, I don't think he needs one.
  20. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic Anyone -- doesn't matter who they are, anyone! -- claiming that receiver weren't getting separation is absolutely, 100% wrong.
  21. He has been graciously paid. I agree with that. Most of what CBFL states is true. I just want to point out that Luck was also paid a $12m roster bonus in 2019 (half in March, half in September I think), which the Colts could have argued for. They did not. As of this point, the Colts are not paying Luck anything more, and have taken the L on whatever prorated bonus that they could have tried to recover from him. That's a stand-up move, but evidently it also allows them to retain his rights into perpetuity (according to certain reports; I haven't seen anything officially official that confirms this). In 2020, there's an accounting for the last portion of Luck's initial signing bonus, so the Colts have a $6.4m cap penalty. After that, the book is closed on Luck's contract, assuming he never plays again.
  22. That's correct. A lot of the time the amount initially reported as "guaranteed" is not actually guaranteed at signing. Some of the guarantees are deferred. So based on the notes on the Spotrac page for Hoyer, his 2020 roster bonus and base salary are not guaranteed until March 2020.
×
×
  • Create New...