Superman

Approximately $6m for #5, $3m for #15.

If you're doing Buckner's contract right now, this is the only shot to backload it. After this, you can't restructure his contract for 12 months. And for a team that doesn't like to backload contracts, it stands to reason that they would identify Buckner's contract as the candidate for this kind of structure. The only other restructure candidates -- Nelson, Smith, Kelly -- either have multiple years remaining, or have questionable futures. Buckner is THE target for a cap friendly restructure, so this was the time to do it. The only other times Ballard has done this was in 2021, the one year in which the cap was reduced because of a sudden shock to the world economy. And even then, those were one year contracts, they only used one void year, and a small amount of prorated bonus.

If I had to bet I'd say there's nothing in the works right now. And I think it's unlikely that they make a big enough move that we look back at this say 'that's why they made all that cap space.' I could be wrong. I think the reason they did this is because Buckner's contract was the most likely target to be reworked to create cap space, and once they do it, they can't restructure for 12 months. So if you have one shot at it, just maximize the opportunity. Just in case something comes up later. That way if an opportunity presents itself later on, you don't have to consider backloading someone else's contract, which is something the team already doesn't like doing. And in general, while this kind of backloading shouldn't be considered a go-to cap management technique, doing this with one or two foundational players here and there isn't a big problem. It's when you start stacking up these backloaded contracts, especially for less reliable players, that you create problems in the future.

It's hard to believe that TY was on that 2021 team. I don't really have any memory of him still being there... Actually, he had that crazy TD against the Raiders. I guess I've blocked those last two weeks out of my mind.

This is a really interesting contract for the Colts. I don't know if they necessarily have plans to use the extra cap space this season, maybe they wanted to create the cap space just in case, which is fine since they can roll it over. Two void years is interesting. Like GC8818 said, Ballard has only done that with the Fisher contract in 2021, and that was a much smaller amount, and only one year. In 2021, the Colts needed that extra cap space with the cap shrinking after Covid, and by the end of the season, they only had $2.7m in unused cap to rollover to 2022. They didn't need to backload Buckner's contract to this extent. I think this is a significant deviation in cap management. They also haven't increased his 2024 cash outlay, it's still $20.25m. They are guaranteeing him an additional $23m in 2025, plus injury guarantees into 2026, so it's favorable for Buckner. But I feel like his market could be higher than $23m/year; Christian Wilkins and Justin Madubuike just signed for significantly more. It seems very team friendly, to me.

Yeah, I never knew that was part of player visits. https://healthcare.utah.edu/integrative-health/services/fitness/testing/bod-pod Looks like it's a more convenient way to measure body fat percentage, rather than putting them in a saline tank.

There's a lot of analysis to be done here, IMO. I don't know all the answers, but some questions that should be addressed are what's the difference between the success rate of a first round pick and that of a second/third round pick, historically? How do you value that difference? I think I've seen stats that say first rounders are starters at a higher rate than other rounds, but is that influenced by the bias of the team that drafted the player in the first round? (Probably.) It's probably fair to say that the players taken in the first round are more likely to be difference makers than the players taken later, but I think there are position groups where the difference is negligible, and I think WR is one of them. And then, if you get into a climate where everyone is selling in the first round, then the value probably flips at some point. Also, I don't necessarily think of the draft as a crap shoot. Yes, it's arbitrary, but I think some front offices are good at drafting, and some are bad at drafting; but the difference isn't as wide as general perception would indicate. And there are lots of dependent variables -- coaching, health, etc. -- that influence the outcome of each pick. I do think more picks is the way to go to maximize value. But to build the best roster? That's a different arm of the discussion. Like you said later on, we've been trading down, and we don't have a great roster. You also make a good point about the rookie contract vs trading for an established player, and that's not to be ignored. But my point is that if you're going to base your appetite for risk on your level of conviction in the player, I'd rather take the big swing on the established player than on a draft prospect, despite the difference in contract status. The ideal mix is to target a second or third year WR so you can at least get some of the rookie contract. Ballard reportedly asked for Jaylen Waddle and Christian Watson last year.

Yeah, it was a really good article. One takeaway from me was that it should be obvious why the Browns were (are?) a mess for so long. They weren't aligned, didn't adhere to any principles, indications are they had competing priorities, etc. The Manziel anecdote and the conclusion off of it are pretty telling.

I have macro, philosophical pushback, which is basically covered in this article: "The draft is an absolute petri dish for every cognitive bias underneath the sun." "Teams massively overestimate their abilities to delineate between stars and flops, and because of that they overvalue the 'right to choose' in the draft." "'I firmly do not believe you trade a high pick, which is going to be a difference-maker, in order to pick up two picks,' he (Polian) said. "But that's the issue, one former NFL executive pointed out. That logic assumes the player you're initially picking will actually become a difference-maker." "'The problem for everyone in sports is that nobody wants to admit how random and arbitrary it is,' the former NFL executive said. 'Admitting that it's arbitrary takes away from your specific abilities.'" So my pushback is that talking yourself into a specific player is inherently risky. Ask the Panthers. Doesn't mean you can't be right, but I think if you analyze the results of trade-ups for prospects, there's no consistent success. You can tell me all day long that MHJ and Nabers are the best prospects of the last five years -- and I don't necessarily disagree -- but the truth is that no one really knows what they'll become in the NFL. And the way we talk about our favorite prospects doesn't accurately reflect that reality. We're all guilty at times of talking about these guys like they're locks, but history tells us that anyone can bust, at any spot in the draft. My more specific pushback is that I think the way this year's draft is expected to go at the top will result in the Colts still having a great menu of options available at #15, and they can still get a prospect they really like who has playmaker potential without trading up. Especially if you're eyeing a WR. So as much as I would love to have one of the top three receivers, I don't see the value in moving up this year. (And I'll admit a personal bias: I love Brian Thomas Jr, and think we'd be in great shape if we drafted him at #15.) Edit: To the point of trying to support the QB with offensive playmakers, I'd rather see us trade #15 for an established player than to use #15 plus two more highly valuable picks to draft a question mark. He's probably not the right fit, but you can probably get Aiyuk for that pick. Or go crazy and give up the package you're suggesting we use for MHJ to trade for CeeDee Lamb. I'm all for supporting the QB, but if we're going to sacrifice major draft capital, go after a proven player.

@cjwhiskers Coincidentally, just came across this piece on The Athletic talking about trading back as the best strategy. Hits on some of the points we were discussing. https://theathletic.com/5416007/2024/04/16/nfl-drafting-methods-insight-massey-thaler/?source=user_shared_articleNFLteamsknowthebestwaytodraft,sowhyaren’ttheydoingit?

Who is Brent Stockstill? Where did that hire come from? He was a QB, and has been an offensive assistant at a D2 school. Why is he a defensive assistant? This isn't consequential, and I'm not being critical. I'm intrigued and want to know more.

I had the trade up discussion earlier in this thread, I think. To me, the board will fall in a way where we get a great prospect at #15. I wouldn't hate moving up for one of the top three WRs, but MHJ being a lineage player wouldn't be a big part of my evaluation.

Rigo only got a one year deal. Edit: Actually looks like you're right, he got a three year deal. Spotrac says one, but OTC says three, and that's what was reported at the time.

They technically kept five, but Woods was already hurt, and they put him on IR right after final cuts. The rule was just changed for the 2024 season, but prior to this year, if you wanted a chance to bring a player off of IR, they had to be on the active roster after roster cuts. So they kept Woods, then put him on IR in hopes he could return, which didn't happen. So in practice, we had 4 TEs at the start of the regular season. Two Fs, two Ys. Edit: By the way, when I said I don't know if we need the body, I was talking specifically about final roster composition, not off-season. There's plenty of room for extra TEs during camp. But if Woods and Ogletree look good, it's a different story.

Granson is the one with more than double everyone else's production, so I'm fine with his $3.3m. Mo hardly catches passes and makes double. And Mo, Woods, and Ogletree are the Y guys, while Granson and Mallory are the Fs, so Mo's position is where the bloat would be. Whether it's value, roster mechanics, cap strategy, player potential, whatever, all signs point to Mo. I don't dislike him, I'm not hoping he's gone, he isn't holding the team back, it's not preventing us from adding anyone else, and it's not my money. I just think it's obvious who the odd man out would be.

I don't know. If you want the most leverage, I guess you'd wait until the dead of summer, when rosters are pretty much settled and everyone has spent all their free agency money. If you see it as black and white -- we'd like to keep the player at this amount, otherwise we'd rather move on -- then I guess it doesn't matter when you do it. In this specific situation, I think it would be best to do it before the off-season program starts, but if the Colts are wondering about Woods and Ogletree, then it makes sense to wait. What would have been best for the player would have been moving on at the start of the league year.

I agree that first rounders get overvalued at times. But I think part of that is people/teams viewing first rounders as if they are surefire playmakers on your roster, when in reality even teams that do a good job in the draft miss on first rounders all the time. And that's why the bolded doesn't seem like best practice either. You can talk yourself into any player. I think trading up in the first round is very risky. I'm not totally against it, but generally speaking, the best way to maximize your drafting is to maximize your total picks, not to concentrate all your draft capital into one selection. If your confidence in that one player is misplaced, you've now sunk two firsts and a second into a mistake. I don't strictly stick to the traditional points chart, and neither do teams, but I want to use the points just to illustrate my point. Pick #4 is worth 1,800 points. We have #15 which is worth 1,050 points, so of course you have to make up the 750 point difference. So you propose trading #15, plus the 2025 first (approx 1,000 points, potentially more or less depending on where you land next year), and the 2024 second (440 points), to get to #4. That's almost 2,500 points in draft value, in return for a pick worth 1,800 points. My point is that you're concentrating a lot of value into one high draft pick, on the basis of your high level of conviction in one prospect, so you really need to be right, otherwise it's very costly. I personally wouldn't do this unless it was for a QB that I felt really strong about.

Agreed. I think they need to open up some room for in-season buffer, just based on where the numbers are likely to stand after the cuts. We could probably project the final 53 at about $250m, plus another $3-4m for practice squad, so now we're about $7m under the cap. I assume they'll sign a vet or two after the draft, but even if they don't, that's running kind of thin for in-season moves. Even just for injury replacements. I feel like the target number is $10m, at least. And once they do Buckner's new contract, they can't restructure him again for 12 months. Since he's the most likely candidate for a cap reduction, it makes sense to reduce his number right now. The other likely move to free up cap space, is Mo, but now that the off-season program is starting, they're running the risk of him getting hurt on the job, and then you can't do anything with his contract. That's if they're even considering moving on from him in the first place. My expectation is Buckner's cap number comes down to $17m or so, adding $5-6m in cap space for 2024.

I don't see why we need the body. But again, I have a muted opinion of Mo, at least compared to the staff apparently.

I meant Woods, not Mallory, you're right. But the math is basically the same. And another consideration is that Woods and Ogletree both have concerns right now, so it makes sense to not rush any decision on Mo. If both of those guys are available and look good by the end of camp, we'll see what happens with Mo. There are some draft prospects, it's not super exciting, but I'm not worried about finding Mo's replacement. I think we have capable replacements already on the roster. Ogletree in particular seemed to be on his way to replacing Mo in the second half last year, and if you look at Woods' snaps in 2022 there's a similar usage.

Yeah, yall just don't hold your breath. Can't have all our Colts fanbase passing out while waiting for us to draft MHJ...

I think a lot of fans would would cut Mo a long time ago if it were up to them, so no doubt the team likes him more than the fans do. But I still wonder just how much the team actually values him. He played 38% of offensive snaps last year. His highest usage games by percentage were Raiders (61%), Pats (60%), and Texans 2nd (53%), all games in which Ogletree was unavailable. He was targeted 22 times last year -- Granson had 50, Mallory had 26, Ogletree had 21. So he's not a huge part of anything the offense is doing. Even if he's the best blocking TE we have -- and I don't think he's a great blocker, but that's JMO -- is he five times better than Ogletree or Mallory? Because he's making five times more money than either of them. I think if Ogletree comes back, Mo is on the bubble. And maybe would have been released already if not for the Ogletree uncertainty. Again, JMO.

Yup. A simple way to summarize my earlier point is that the Colts keeping their own is not a departure. The Colts allowing so many of their own to hit free agency is the real departure, and that's not likely to be the new pattern. And like you said earlier, the Colts sign free agents after the draft every year, so we'll probably see some veteran free agents added. I don't know how many, we already have 76 players under contract per Spotrac, then we'll draft 8-10, plus 10+ UDFAs. Most teams are in the low to mid 70s, the Eagles have 77, while teams that got gutted have fewer (Chargers are the lowest with 57; Ravens have 61). We'll see some roster churn, but there aren't a lot of spots right now.

Keep the dream alive, but I feel compelled to state that this is Big 10 media day, and the Big 10 championship game always takes place at LOS, so that's probably what MHJ was talking about.

I think it's pretty much required. Once you get past the cut downs and we're counting the 53 man roster + practice squad, I think there's a chance that we're at $5-10m in remaining cap space. If it's less than $10m, they probably want more buffer for in-season moves. DeFo's contract is the most practical target for creating more cap space in 2024, so I'd be surprised if this doesn't reduce his cap hit by $5m or so.