Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Superman

Moderators
  • Content Count

    37,562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    483

Everything posted by Superman

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. He's under contract, he can't go anywhere.
  8. It's reasonable to assume that they all demand and/or sign for $13m+/year, right?
  9. 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?
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. What calculation are you using where Elliott doesn't make $15m/year?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.)
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...