Superman

I'm not disputing about his running style, though. He's not Reggie Bush, we agree there. Maybe I don't agree with you about his skill set, specifically as a receiver, but that's a whole different conversation. (I don't think this OL ever ran the stretch play very well; I also don't think you need that type of play to have an effective rushing attack, and 2021 is Exhibit A.) What I'm questioning is his effectiveness. You said he's not effective going sideways, and my argument is I think every back drops in effectiveness when they get turned perpendicular by the defense, not based on the design of the play. The gameplan for Derrick Henry is to turn him sideways and gang tackle. I don't think that JT's drop off is more significant than most other backs, but I thought you were saying you have charting that says otherwise. Maybe you were talking about his stuff rate? I think that's an OL stat more than a RB stat; when you have a RB getting a ton of yards after contact, especially behind the LOS, that's another story. I think JT's YAC is pretty good, but probably skewed by a few long runs. But to move the conversation forward, based on the bolded, is that level of uniqueness worthy of a second contract? I don't think any team should be committing huge money to the RB position, so I'm not talking about Christian McCaffrey money. But if we did three more years at $13m/year, would you think that JT's HOF+ ability at the 2nd level and beyond is worth it?

I don't think Tannehill can be counted on for much, and even if he does what he's done the last two years, that's not great. And I think Henry has to fall off soon, don't know when, but it's coming. They're definitely competing for the division, I don't think the Jags are super dangerous, but I think they're better than the Titans. And yeah, we're not in the mix, neither are the Texans. I'm fine with that. Like you say, we have a lot to look forward to, but it's a developmental year for sure. DB is definitely going to be a position to watch. I felt that way before Rodgers got caught, now even more so. I kind of don't mind just rolling with the young guys we have this season, but unless someone really excels, it's probably a position of need next year.

I still think the primary question is about whether Richardson is ready. If not, start Sam. And I'm not eager to see that happen, I think Ehlinger is very limited, and would hold back the rest of the offense if he had to play for a significant stretch of time. But I'd rather have him out there than rush Richardson onto the field. And that's if Richardson is just not ready to handle NFL action. If it looks like he is, then I don't care if it's Ehlinger, Minshew, or any other stopgap guy. Richardson should be running the offense as soon as it looks like he's ready to do so. If that's Week 1, Week 15, or next season. But I don't want them to place artificial barriers on him, nor do I want them to put him in the starting lineup out of desperation.

I'm using OTC's projection. I think $13m is a little aggressive, especially now that Mixon, Cook and Elliott are no longer top five, but the non-exclusive tag calculation is convoluted. But I don't think the non-exclusive tag in 2024 will be the same as it is this season; part of the methodology is based on the previous year's tag amount and the current year's salary cap, so it's likely to increase at least some. It might wind up being somewhere between $11-13m/year. https://overthecap.com/franchise-transition-and-rfa-tenders

Any more grim than Dalvin Cook's prospects? Cook is a year older, but a better and more productive player, more available... I think Mixon looked at the fact that Cook and Elliott have been free agents for months, with no bites, and decided he'd rather lock in the lower compensation right now than risk being a free agent. I guess we could argue that Mixon is on a lower tier than Barkley, Jacobs, Taylor, Cook, and so his market might not be representative of theirs. But Cook is still out there, with no offers. I don't think the market is great for any of them. I don't think the 'they don't want to re-sign him' narrative is accurate. I think 'they don't want to re-sign him at current top of market price' is more like it. If he would do $40m through 2026, basically $13m/year in new money, but spread out over four years, I think that would be fine for the team. That would basically put him at #3 on the RB list, behind McCaffrey and Kamara, but effective average would be $10m/year. Or they could tag him at $13m in 2024, and see what happens after that. I think that's the way it's probably headed, and that's assuming he has a great season. Just from a roster/cap management standpoint, the most cost-effective approach is to tag and trade him after this season. But I don't think the Colts will do that. No team seems to be fully committed to any RB strategy right now. I think the Giants and Raiders are kind of waiting to see what happens. The Colts aren't actually on the clock with Taylor. The Cowboys are probably not going to commit anything to Pollard.

That raises a question, though. What's the difference between kicking it short, and kicking it through the end zone? You kick it through the end zone, the play is over. If you kick it short, maybe the returner muffs it, maybe he still tries to return it and you stop him inside the 15... also maybe you blow your coverage and give up a big return. I think we'll still see some returners trying to make plays on shorter kicks. If so, placement is still going to be relevant. Specific to the Colts, I haven't heard anything meaningful about Sanchez's return. If he's 100% and still on his game, then I'd like to see him handle directional kickoffs. It might net some positive results for us in field position. But if everyone is fair catching everything, then it's irrelevant.

Agreed. I've been speculating a lot about what I think they should do, but all that matters is how it actually goes. Jalen Hurts started four games as a rookie. He started getting just a few snaps early in the season, until December he barely had 30 total snaps. Then they picked it up at the end of the season. But Steichen wasn't there yet. Also, Hurts was a more developed passer than Richardson is, IMO. So I'm not sure to what extent the comparison even matters. What I would love to see, assuming Minshew starts Week 1, is for us to have a specific plan for getting Richardson on the field right away. I think it's easy to have a short yardage QB run package, but I want them to give him some passing opportunities also. And if he struggles, you keep working on it and putting him out there to get the reps he needs. If he's performing well, you keep expanding his role, and eventually he's the starter. I don't think there needs to be a timeline for that, and it doesn't need to be forced, but it should be something they're actively driving toward from the very beginning. It would be awesome to see Richardson dominate in camp and preseason games, and start right away. But I think that's unlikely to happen. I'm fine with a deliberate plan of development for him.

I'm not offended. Want to ask a comparative question, though. Do you think Alex Smith lost his desire to play after his leg injury? He got a big payday from Washington, got hurt, took a long time to get back on the field, and then retired shortly after.

What RB is good going sideways? Might seem like a snarky question, but it's not meant to be. I'm assuming the charts you're looking at would say that every RB has better production going toward the LOS, right? Is the separation between JT and other backs significant? Same thing for the quality of the blocking. The Colts OL was outstanding in the run game in 2021, but JT maximized what they gave him. The OL was downright bad in 2022, especially at the beginning of the season, including in the run game. Then JT was hurt the rest of the year. I think it's premature to say that he can't produce unless the run blocking is spectacular; I think it's fair to say that any back would have struggled behind our OL last season. On the surface, I would describe JT as a one-cut, downhill runner. He's like a faster Arian Foster. I'd describe Derrick Henry the same way, so it's not meant to be a criticism; Henry is in another world when it comes to destroying would-be tacklers, though. I think we might disagree when talking about JT's ability to make defenders miss, to break tackles, change direction quickly, etc. And I don't think JT has been given a real chance to perform as a receiver, but I don't think he's physically deficient in that area. You've always felt JT is limited, though. I'm interested in what charts and numbers you're working from.

Define "market value" though. That's the question, because the market is going through a significant correction right now. Mixon just took a reduced salary -- and from what I've read, it's not a cap magic restructure, it's an actual pay cut. I think Barkley and Jacobs fail to get new contracts by today's deadline, which means they play the season on the tag, and they'll probably hold out at least part of training camp. So there's probably no new RB contract on the way to establish the current market value. In fact, there was reporting recently that Barkley and Jacobs were hoping for Taylor's contract to get done so they could use it as a new starting point. So I just don't think there is a market right now. Teams are burning and churning RBs on rookie contracts, not re-signing them to new deals.

Meh. I don't think this affects the Colts much. In theory, it makes the Titans tougher to beat this season, but we're probably not competing for the division this season anyway. So it doesn't really disrupt our timeline, even if it makes the Titans better. And then there's the question about how much it actually helps the Titans. I think they have some significant roster issues, especially at QB. And the engine that makes their offense go is a nearly 30 year old RB who will exceed 2,000 career carries this season. Eventually, Derrick Henry won't be able to produce at a high level; there's already some efficiency slippage.

Sanders only played in 50 total games... At least he won a DPOY, and a SB.

Sayers went in 50 years ago. It doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison. Some recent inductees with shorter primes would be Kurt Warner (two time league MVP, SB MVP, three SB appearances, 12 year career), and Edgerrin James (All Pro, Rookie of the Year, 4th in MVP voting, 11 year career). I think comparing Luck's career and achievements with those guys shows a significant difference. Another comparison would be Patrick Willis. He was maybe the best linebacker in the NFL for several seasons in a row. He played 8 seasons, received some accolades, was well respected around the league, and retired abruptly at 29 years old. He's been HOF eligible four years in a row, and has not been inducted. He probably won't be inducted, despite having been an outstanding player. That's likely how it will be for Luck. Everyone acknowledges how good he was, but he has no meaningful accomplishments, he only played a few years, and he retired before he even really demonstrated how good he could be. I don't think he ever received a single MVP vote. There's just no way he'll be a HOFer.

I have no ill will toward Andrew Luck. There's no way he's a HOFer.

I especially don't think the roster was bad in 2019 and 2020. The timeline that Ballard was working on was obliterated by Luck's retirement. And then, rather than resetting around a young QB, they tried to patchwork their roster together and transition to some of the younger players, many of whom didn't develop as hoped. And we didn't have a transcendent QB to raise the floor, so some of the average position groups started to look even worse. Ballard deserves plenty of blame IMO, but I think the 'this is a six year build' narrative requires ignoring a pretty significant development along the way.

It happens several times a year, it's not surprising. The Chiefs were the better, more talented team, but they didn't play great and made some mistakes. The Colts played a strong game, and made some plays. And it still took an unforced penalty against the Chiefs for us to win. I'm always happy to see my team win, but I didn't walk away from that game thinking the season was going to take a strong, positive turn.

I definitely don't like it. Maybe that's a sticking point in the contract...

If he can't stay on the field this season, it makes no sense to keep him. And that's too bad, because when he's healthy he's an incredible playmaker. Shoot, he made a ton of plays in 2021 on one ankle. But at a certain point, you have to turn the page. I hope he gets back to normal this season. But it's concerning that he's still limited at this point, with no timetable.

I've been nervous about him since early last offseason. Kind of writing him off at this point...

The bolded gets at the crux of the matter. The league has to do what's right for business. The questions about morality and equal punishment are much more of a grey area, because you can put 10 thoughtful, fair people in a room to discuss morality and equal punishment and they probably won't agree across the board. That means that among the hundreds of millions of NFL fans, there won't be agreement. So it's kind of a waste of energy for the league to try to capitulate to everyone else's ideas regarding morality and equality punishment. I'm personally not ever going to look to an organization like the NFL to be the arbiter of what's moral and fair. I have my own values and standards, and I don't put public figures or organizations on a pedestal, or view them as role models. So when the NFL handles an issue in a way that I don't agree with, it's pretty easy for me to say 'I disagree, but it is what it is.' That said, I do think some of the criticism misses the main point. So when I say stuff like 'the NFL punishes gambling this way because it impacts the competitive integrity of the league,' it's just an acknowledgment. I'm not saying gambling should be punished more severely than domestic violence. I'm just saying I understand it. Good discussion.

I'm not really concerned with the legality of it. That much is black and white -- players can't used banned or illegal substances, it's a violation of the policy, and they're subject to whatever punishment that comes with. Don't break the rules and you won't get punished. My stance is more about the general perception of and response to PEDs, particularly in the sports world. And that perception and response seems to be the driving force behind the policies, rather than a more nuanced consideration about all performance enhancers.

I think a lot of people have a version of that story. But I think a version of that story also happens every day in law school, business school, med school, etc., except college students don't get suspended for using PEDs to improve their scholastic performance. I just think the sports PED discussion is really sanctimonious and overly rigid, especially compared to other competitive pursuits. So much so that there hasn't been any reconsideration of PEDs in the last 20 years. It's just 'no, PEDs are cheating, end of story.' I think it's a disservice, overall.

Waaay off topic, but I think the sports world's stance on PEDs is poorly considered and overly rigid.

@jvan1973 Just to nail it down: That includes the janitor, parking attendant, the pretzel guy, everybody. Certainly the VP of Marketing. And most certainly the players. You guys are making me take sides with Nickster...

We can have our own opinions, but I think it's important to respect the facts. What player who has been penalized for violating the gambling policy has received a more severe punishment than Michael Vick? Vick was suspended indefinitely by the NFL in August 2007. He was reinstated prior to the 2009 season, but was not eligible to play until Week 3. So his suspension lasted more than two seasons. Isaiah Rodgers is suspended indefinitely, and can apply for reinstatement before the 2024 season. The precedent we've already seen with Calvin Ridley is that the league will consider reinstating him at that time, provided he's not engaging in prohibited activity during his suspension. So far, no player suspended for gambling has missed more than one season. So it's not factual -- at this point -- to say that players suspended for gambling are being suspended longer than a person who killed dogs. In fact, Vick's suspension was more than twice as long as any player's gambling suspension, so far. However we feel about morals, legality, business, integrity, etc., I think the baseline facts need to be acknowledged. You might feel the gambling policy is too strict or severe, or you might really dislike the way the NFL handled other punishments, and that would be a fair conversation to have either way, even if we don't agree at the end of the day. But I think that conversation needs to be based on established fact. And then, we still should acknowledge that the NFL is going to take very seriously anything that threatens the competitive integrity of the league. From a moral perspective, I think what Vick did was much worse than gambling, but gambling is a much greater threat to the NFL from a legal perspective. You're talking about the league's antitrust exemption, business partnerships, etc. Fraud and corruption could literally destroy the NFL. That's just the reality, and it's not based on whether anyone dislikes gambling more than they dislike dogfighting.