Superman

That's an awesome story, good for you! But why does Peyton have a green jacket??

Williams Maye Daniels McCarthy

To the bolded, yeah, probably. That's my opinion, it's probably biased by my own thinking on the value of the WR position and how good players can be acquired and developed, but I think there's something to it. I also think there's something to Ballard's insistence since 2017 that he values OL/DL, he values trading back, and he thinks there are good players throughout the draft. I also think going back to the Polian/Dungy days, there's been a team building philosophy -- not specific to the Colts, but definitely something the Colts adhered to back then and have returned to since 2018 -- that emphasizes zone based corners. And part of the reason for that is because zone corners are less expensive and easier to draft. I think the draft value for zone based corner prospects tends to be Day 2 and beyond, which influences Ballard's draft decisions, and speaks to why he's drafted three corners in the second round. And that's directly to the point I was making in the post you quote -- zone based corners are typically found beyond the first round, the Colts run a zone based defense, and I think they probably won't draft a corner on Day 1. Meanwhile, he's made four first round picks: two trench players, one QB, and one safety. Some might say the safety is an outlier -- it was his first year, still with a different defensive philosophy. That might be true, but I think safety is considered more important in this defense than corner. I'm not necessarily advocating for this approach. I would love a WR at #15, depending on who it is. I just don't expect it.

Hey, knock yourself out. Just wondering...

Don't you ever get tired of trying to convince yourself that Ballard is going to make a big move? You seem to talk yourself into this at every opportunity, and it never happens. Everything we know about Ballard tells us there is a practical, unexciting reason for this. I'm happy to be proven wrong, by the way. A big splash would be fun, but I think it's very unlikely.

The PS rules have changed every offseason lately, I haven't exactly kept up with them. He'd still be eligible for the PS, but there are still rules about how many times a player can be added to the PS during the season. More importantly, I think Thomas has played enough and is good enough that he probably wouldn't clear waivers. And if we've added enough competition at safety that Thomas is a cutdown loss, I'm okay with that. He's fine as a backup and special teamer, but those are the guys who are going to be at risk on cutdown day.

Which is why the Colts draft corners in the second round.

We talked about the 2023 QBs endlessly, but now that the draft is almost here, I wanted to see what people think of the QBs in this year's draft. So here's a poll. Who do you see as the top QB this year? I won't include Michael Penix or Bo Nix, but there is an "other" box if you really feel the need to represent for another guy. If there was a way to include an elimination poll so we could actually rank them, I'd do that. I've tried to do polls on the honor system in the past, and it didn't go well, so just limiting it to your top option. All votes are public. Feel free to give your rankings in a post. In alphabetical order according to last name, the candidates, with profiles from The 33rd Team: Jayden Daniels Drake Maye JJ McCarthy Caleb Williams

The roster spots are already kind of tight. There will be churn, but we're at 76 players right now (right? after Dabo is exempted), and we have 7 draft picks. Add in UDFAs -- I just went back for the last couple years, in 2021 we only signed 5, but we've signed as many as 22 in the past, and it's usually 10-15 -- and there's not a lot of room. But if we're going to make room after the draft, we're probably looking at guys like Brooks and Tutsie at the safety position, and Thomas makes it to camp.

I'm not a McAfee guy, definitely not a Belichick guy, but I think I have to watch this. It might be the best draft show ever.

Sure, this makes it easier to handle a veteran signing after the draft, so if you still want one of the safeties or something, you're not getting squeezed. I've always thought that was on the table though, and when the time came, they'd make it work. I figured something would happen with Buckner eventually, but this is more than I expected. And that's probably just a 'might as well' kind of thing. I just don't think there's something big in the works. Not that I would know, it's just my opinion.

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.