That Guy
-
Posts
1,550 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by That Guy
-
-
I agree, never understood the love for Mudd at all. The Colts were routinely good pass blocking but have been terrible for a long time in run blocking. If Mudd was such a magician with O-lines, why on earth was Philly's so bad this yr.? Mudd=overrated!
Didn't LeSean McCoy blow through the league this year? Where did you get the idea Philly was bad at their O-line?
Their pass protection broke down a lot due to the style of play of their quarterbacks and their tendency to use DeSean Jackson in ridiculously long passing plays.
Philly had a good O-line this year.
-
It's funny how people can complain about us drafted "undersized" offensive linemen, and then say how much they miss Howard Mudd. He was the reason we drafted smaller offensive linemen. I don't really miss him. He's an older guy, and eventually he's going to get out of the coaching game. I would rather we go with a younger and new line coach. I actually like Metzelaars, based on this season.
Do you happen to know why Mudd left?
And I think people have been complaining that (with the exception of last year) we have been starting undrafted players along our line (Saturday - undrafted, Joe Reitz - undrafted, Jeff Linkenbach - undrafted) or players in wrong positions (Ryan Diem - round four guard who spent much of his career at tackle, Mike Pollack - round two center who has been playing guard).
-
Wow, Poe is an absolute giant.
I know! Remind anyone else of Terrence Cody? Does Mount Poe have a better ring to it?
-
What are the chances he could lure Wade Phillips away from the Texans to be our defensive coordinator (I don't necessarily want him as a head coach)?
How have the Cowboys been doing business recently? A lot of their lack of success could, in my opinion, be blamed on poor coaching, but how has their front office been doing things?
I think Jerry Jones has been running loose...
-
Any chance Ryan Grigso would be able to talk Howard Mudd into coming back to us? I miss him. Did he leave due to disagreements with the Polians?
-
We certainly won't have any trouble bringing in pass rushers...
The Giants have been OVERLOADED!
Tuck, Paul-Pierre, Kiwanuka, and Umenyiora!
-
Why are people saying things like, "I'd rather see Manning walk than risk his health..."?
You do realize that the fusion took, right? This means that he is now LESS likely to suffer the same nerve damage than he did before. That's what happens once the callous forms: it gets stronger.
It's like taking a chain and welding two of the links together. The chain becomes stronger, but mobility and flexibility are decreased. There is also the issue of the nerves. The bones may have fused properly, but nerves do not regenerate quickly. Just because his fusion took, does not mean his neck is stronger, and it certainly does not take all of the risk out of football.
-
If he's traded, that team will no longer be a contender. It's best picks and players would suddenly belong to the Colts, and Manning would be working with another cesspool.
Manning's value has plunged. We could not demand much for him. Other teams could get Manning at a premium. Manning will need at least another year to build his VALUE back up to where it used to be, and by then he will be 37. I doubt we could get a team's "best picks and players" for him.
-
Instead of just dropping every cornerstone on the team, we just drop those who can't stay healthy. Resign Wayne, Garcon and Mathis, who are playing at a high level. Keep Manning if healthy. Cut Bracket, Addai,Gonzo, and Bullitt. Saturday might retire. Does that free up enough money for you?
I don't think its necessary to completely start over. Teams can slowly revamp while keeping its vets. Those vets will help teach the younger players until they are vets themselves.
This is where I think continuity is important.
We have the young cornerstones in place to build a good team, and we are in position to get another KEY cornerstone, but I think the veterans would not like to be a part of our team if they see us as rebuilding. My whole point was that dumping Manning would give us more freedom to rebuild, but it would also agrevate the veterans.
I doubt Wayne would want to stay with the team if Peyton were traded or released.
Saturday would be more likely to retire if Peyton were not on the team.
Mathis and Garcon would ask for more money to play for a rebuilding team.
I know we want to keep our cornerstones, but at what cost? Many of our cornerstones are overpaid, and many of our free agents are going to demand to be overpaid. That makes it harder for us to focus on gathering young talent and rebuilding.
-
You're welcome
Yeah that would be accurate, but at that point say bye 87, 98, you likely have to cut 93 to try to create room to field a team with the limited cap space available.
Personally I doubt that the 49ers would be willing to trade WIllis and a 2 for Manning with the questions that are out there, I was just using him as an example because I knew he had a lot of bonus dollars remaining on his contract.
I don't know if there is a windfall to be found in trading a 36 year old qb with 3 neck surgeries and I'm sure that any team that would offer a trade with acceptable compensation would go over him during his physical to make sure there was not much of a chance of it backfiring outside of a new injury.
If a true rebuild mode is what the team wants, then they might be better off, just not picking up the option, having him account for 10.6, let the other guys above walk, dump Freeney, and try to bring in Free agents, and hope the new guy hits on some draft picks. There are ways to do it, but it is not a simple task.
I agree. I would not pick up the option on Manning (that is still SO hard to say). At this point, his VALUE is not as high as the money we are paying him. I also think a restructuring of Freeney and Brackett needs to be done, and I would only resign Mathis and Wayne if they agreed to sign for cheap. I think we either keep the veterans we have, or lose the veterans we have. Close to an all-or-nothing / package deal. If we keep Peyton and the veterans, we will be playing for the short-run.
If I had to look for a trade, I would still look to Cleveland (doesn't it always seem to be Cleveland?) to try to go after players like Joe Thomas, Phillip Taylor (or Ahtyba Rubin), Alex Mack, or Joe Haden. They have a surprising amount of young talent but need a QB. Maybe one or two of them plus a 2013 pick (I have trouble estimating the value Cleveland would hold for Peyton, so this may seem unrealistic).
Bottom line: I vote for an unpopular overhaul.
-
You let me dominate the line of scrimmage on offense and defense, you can have any quarterback you can think of, and I will like my chances.
This seems to be exactly the way the Vikings have been making decisions. Look at their lines over the past few years (especially on defense). They still haven't been great teams. The best they did was when they had great(-ish) quarterback play from Favre.
-
Because it is an undrafed free agent which is not a Colts player?
Therefore it belongs in the draft section and not Colts football?
He was drafted by the Redskins... In 2007...
Would this maybe fit better in the NFL General section? Where do Free agency questions go?
-
Trading players in the NFL is rare due to the dead cap space that the contracts generate.
In a way it is like sunk cost, but to an extent it's opposite, since it's "future cap dollars" accelerating into a current year as opposed to "old money"
Both sides can receive cap penalties, so it’s not like the Colts are the only being punished. It’s just a matter of both teams having the room to take on such salary cap losses, or simply have enough cap room to field a team while having the dead cap room on the books.
Since many people here think San Francisco would be a possible destination for a Manning trade, let’s hypothetically say we traded Manning to San Fran for Patrick Willis and a 2nd round draft pick.
Since we would have to pay Manning the 28 million to trade him under his current contract terms, we would get a dead salary cap hit for 38.4 million out of the approximate 121 million 2012 salary cap.
San Francisco would take on an accelerated dead space cap hit of 18,650,000 for the unamortized cap dollars accelerating due to the trading of Willis. SF would be responsible for Manning’s future base salaries and the Colts would be responsible for Willis’ future base salaries.
For a player to realistically be traded in the NFL, they need to have minimal amounts of unamortized cap dollars remaining or towards the end of the contract.
Willis has base salaries of:
2012 (1.9), 2013 (2.4), 2014(5.3), 2015(7.1) 2016(7.9), 2017(4), so the Colts would be responsible for that while the 49ers would be responsible for Manning’s upcoming base salaries 2012(7.4), 2013(8.4), 2014(9.4), 2015(10.4).
The actual dollars would be extreme as well.
28 million option bonus for Manning to play elsewhere? Or 35.4 million for Manning to play here.
Approximately 15 million for Luck
Any combination of Wayne, Mathis, or Garcon will want cash money in the form of a signing bonus, as will any other free agent the new GM might be willing to bring in.
More on Manning
Manning signed a 5 year deal with a 20 million dollar signing bonus. Thus 4 million is allocated to each year for salary cap purposes. 2011, 12,13,14,15. 2011, is over so that 4 million is off the books. As protective salary cap measure, we took a future credit in 2011, of his option bonus(28milion/5) or 5.6 million in the 2011 salary cap. So if he is released, meaning option isn't picked up. that 16 million remaining accelerates into the 2012 cap, and we receive the credit of the 5.6, creating a dead cap space hit of 10.4 million in the 2012 cap.
If we pay him the option bonus, the remainder of the those 4 years at 5.6 million gets added to the books, with the remainder of those 4 years of 4 million.
So if he were to play in 2012, and then we decided to trade him/release him, 12 million from the first signing bonus, and 16.8 from the option bonus would accelerate into the cap for a total of 28.8 for the 2013 cap.
If we traded/released him after 2013, then it is 8 from the first signing bonus and 11.2 from the option bonus or a total of 19.2 in dead cap space accelerated into the 2014 cap.
If we traded/released him after 2014, then it is 4 from the first signing bonus and 5.6 from the option bonus or a total of 9.6 in dead cap space accelerated into the 2015 cap.
This is why if he receives the option bonus he's more than likely Colt for 3 of the 4 years of his contract because it is not prudent to have so much dead cap space.
Thanks! I THINK I have a much better understanind now! Please correct me if I am wrong.
The bonuses from the contract were allocated amongst the years of the contract, and the dead cap is the lumped together unamortized cap from the bonuses.
If we traded Peyton for (using your example) Willis and a second; we would, in 2012, be responsible for 38.4 million of Manning and 1.9 million of Willis cap space (total 40.3 million). We would have NO cap from Manning counting against us in 2013 if we traded him in 2012.
If we were to trade Manning, it would ultimately kill our 2012 season due to cap ramifications. HOWEVER, if we were to trade Manning, it would already be an admission that we ARE REBUILDING. We would kill one season, but be free to rebuild fo the next few seasons.
I propose we take the cap hit to trade Manning, but look to get young players and perhaps 2013 draft picks. We would keep our young core of talent (ie. Bethea, Collie, Castozo, Ijalana, Powers, Nevis, Angerer etc...) and retool for a 2013 season. In the 2012 draft, we go after Luck and whatever needs fall into place. We allow 2012 to be a growing experience for our young players, and look to go after free agents in 2013. I would be willing to sit through another year of bad play, if I knew we had a young core of players who were growing. We need to start rebuilding, and we need to see where Peyton fits into that picture. If we trade him for one or two young talented players and a 2013 first, I would jump on that!
Manning is going to be a HUGE cap hit against us no matter what, in 2012. That is why I called Manning a "sunk cost."
We could still trade him. It would just be us admitting we need to rebuild our entire team. I think we NEED to rebuild our entire team.
Thank you for your patience with me, and for taking the time to explain and type all of your post!
-
I'm currently watching JC- 'THE THING' on baidu.I'm starting to think that the thing(luck supporters)got to you too~.I don't think that's something the real 'THAT GUY' would say!
I'll quote 'MAC' from the movie:"I know that i'm human(manning supporter),and i'm guessing some of you must still be human too,because if all of you were those THINGS(luck supporters),then you would just attack me right now.Those THINGS(luck supporters)just wanna hide until draft day and blend in,but once we get our new 'GM' we're gonna' find out who's the 'THING' once and for all.
Ha!
If you look at my post history, you'll see I've actually followed a pro-Luck agenda. I wouldn't mind a trade down, but Luck is a solid choice, in my opinion.
-
Odds say differently.If you do the math,then the choice is easy.You must follow all the calculations and various angles.The safe thing to do is trade down and collect other top tier future draft selections.The odds of luck busting out are greater than that scenario,which i just mentioned.WE MUST TAKE THE PICKS!
It's the law of averages you're looking for. It's why investors always tell you to diversify. It's the "safe" way to go.
But if you look at the risk behind Luck and compare it to the perceived reward, he is the safest SINGLE PICK in a while.
-
I don't think he's going anywhere Doogan. I always tend to lean more toward the positive than the negative. Maybe that makes me a little naive than is normal, but that's ok. Nothing wrong with thinking the world is not that bad.
He's recovering, getting better, and his rehab seems to be progressing well.
As I've said may times on here Peyton's my man!
If Manning is gone, we will be without the greatest quarterback our Indy team has known.
If Manning in NOT gone, he will be our starter as soon as he is cleared to play.
My loyalties to the Colts, and my loyalties to Manning will never change. Only my expectations going forward will change.
I may also be naive (I fixed your spelling in your quote to help you look super-smart!
), but I think we can do well going forward with both Manning AND Luck. Make Luck the highest paid backup QB; because in my opinion, he will be THE BEST BACKUP QB EVER! Pair that with Peyton, and we have a position locked down for the next decade!We just need to figure out how to work the salary cap.
-
in case nobody paid any attention to the replies after the article, scroll down and read the gm requirements they are funnnnnny!
nice job!
Ha!
Nice job oldcolt77!
-
You know it's common forum practice world wide to take the initiative and search for information your looking for before creating a post asking for it. I'm not sure why that wouldn't apply here.
I'm glad were good now though, because your post to me was just as condesending.
It's also common practice to display your sources, in case other people have different sources. I do not follow Twitter, so I did not have the same sources as you. I asked to see a source so I could clear up some confusion on my end.
Thank you for your source!
-
No. I'm not mad. I just got under my skin the way you replied to That Guy. Really no call for it imo.
But we're good. No problem with you at all.
Don't worry... I'm Greek (we love a good argument... or a riot...), and if it gets heated, I don't take offense. He was being sarcastic, as we all do sometimes.
No worries!
-
To each there own.
I agree. That is why I asked for your sources. If you had good sources, I would have altered my opinion.
I received:
One twitter posting
One snide remark
I take neither of them seriously.
-
What makes something credible? Obviously our opinions idffer on credible, and the statment makes logical sense.
Credibility is being able to quote sources. He cannot release his sources (even if it is for anonymity purposes). That makes Twitter not the best source in my eyes. How do we know his two sources aren't his imaginary friends?
The ESPN article listed their sources at the end.
"Information from ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen, ESPN's Ed Werder and The Associated Press contributed to this report."
That helps it's credibility.
-
google is your friend... do you want me to hold your hand while we cross the street too?
Twitter?
I can google up sources too, but that doesn't make them credible.
ESPN says he was fired because:
"In the end, it was the Polians' inability to find a suitable backup for Manning that doomed the Colts." in
that doesn't make it true.
I still don't trust twitter as the best of sources.
... And I wouldn't want to trouble a nice middle school boy scout like yourself, helping me across the street...
Please cut the attitude when someone asks for your help.
-
It's been confirmed by multiple sources but you can believe what you want.
No offense, but saying it has been confirmed by multiple sources, without providing a link to a source or mentioning a source, seems a little fishy.
Could you please provide a source, so I can verify this. It would help clear up some confusion on my part.
Thanks!
-
We fired Bill Polian because he wouldn't stay if we fired Chris............
Firing isn't the only way to restructure a company. Jim Irsay could have reorganized the front office to give Chris less authority without getting rid of either of them. He chose to get rid of them.
Colts To Interview Eagles' Ryan Grigson For Gm Job
in Colts Football
Posted
Week one (Rams) they averaged almost eight yards per rush and only gave up two sacks...
Week two (Falcons) they averaged almost five yards per rush and gave up zero sacks...
Week three (Giants) they averaged almost five yards per rush and gave up only two sacks...
That is stellar in my opinion!
I would take that any week!