Restored
-
Posts
2,874 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Restored
-
-
Just focus on knocking the pain down and hopefully he will be ready in 3 weeks.
-
1
-
-
In trying to be optimistic, if the team has narrowed it down to the ankle area, they have 3 1/2 weeks to knock the pain down to a point where Andrew can practice and play. Hopefully that is enough time.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:
lol dang, its weird seeing my son being an infant again.. my hair seems a little longer.. just weird seeing my wife and children 2 years younger.. I swear I was gonna celebrate 2 years at my job, but they just scheduled my new hire orientation?
wth is going on? Someone help!!
Did you mean to post this to Facebook?
-
So basically, Luck can play through the injury and will have it linger throughout the year.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:
That’s just a little more than 2 weeks away, & while I expect him to practice & play, it’s hard to imagine how this’ll be 100% healed by then.
I’m not expecting 100% healed either but he he definitely should be able to play. Hopefully it’s something that can improve over the season or atleast not get worse.
-
9 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:
So maybe it’s a different issue.
What does that even mean?!
-
-
-
1 minute ago, cjrulli said:
I think everyone is just a bit overly worried. The last we heard from Reich is that he is strengthening the muscle and actively working out. We also have heard numerous times that he is throwing consistently behind the scenes and working with Tom House.
Just yesterday it was reported that someone who watched one of those private throwing sessions said Luck was throwing the heck out of the ball.
Is there an injury, yes. Is the injury going to prevent from starting week 1, no.
This is what I'm inclined to believe as well.
-
2
-
-
I'm concerned but not overly worried. If he isn't ready to practice the week of the Chargers game, then I'll start hitting the panic button.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:
Not good cause the offense ha a rough day against the bills too either the Bills are gonna be really good this year or we are really gonna suck one way or the other.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
-
1
-
-
On 7/15/2019 at 11:23 AM, indyagent17 said:
Thank God for the '06 season. It is very sad thinking we should have won the '05 '06 and '10 season.
I think they might have had a shot against New England in 2007 as well. Yes, the Patriots were undefeated I get that. But by the time the playoffs rolled around, New England was not nearly the juggernaut they were in the regular season. They eeked our 21 points against the Chargers defense and Phillip Rivers with a torn ACL led them inside the 20 a number of times.
Had the Colts not lost to the Chargers in that divisional game, they might’ve been the ones to knock off the undefeated Patriots and not the Giants..
-
2
-
-
Cue the Russell Wilson fans losing their minds over Luck being rated higher.
-
Great article breaking down just how well Ballard has managed the cap for the Colts and how it has set them up for success both now and in the future.
-
17 hours ago, sreeb2deeni said:
No disrespect to Mr. Hogan, but one door closed means another one opened.
Do you promote from within the Colts or do you post this job and hire the best from outside?
I’d put an ad out on Craigslist.
-
Ballard said this about the new QB:
“Look, we want guys that represent the horseshoe and the robot can flat out play. When we watched the film, we were just blown away. There was about 5 other robots on our list to target and it just worked out perfectly.”
-
7 hours ago, Superman said:
Wrong thread for this, so sorry to derail, but let me respond.
The reason you can't have a hard cap in the NBA is because you have fully guaranteed contracts. It wouldn't work (also the reason people need to stop clamoring for fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL; they're bad for NBA and MLB, and would be worse for the NFL).
Another reason: This is how the NBA owners want it. Small market owners (not all, but most) want to be subsidized by the revenue sharing from big market teams, and they are okay with those big market teams going into the luxury tax and repeater tax because it increases the profits for the smaller market teams. Then, every few years or so, a small market team that has drafted a star or two can make a big run for a couple years, then tear it back down in the name of fiscal responsibility, even though they've been well in the black for multiple consecutive seasons.
And this is not new. The cap is relatively new in the NBA (30 years or so); before that, it was the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, Sixers, and basically anyone else was just regular season fodder. You think there's no parity now, it's 50 times better than it used to be. And the fact that the Bucks and Raptors were in the ECF while the Knicks and Lakers can't get in the playoffs for many years speaks volumes to parity. It also illustrates what an NBA team in a small market has to do to contend -- draft well, embrace change, empower your star players on the court, and add well rounded players to complement them. And the Pacers would have been in the mix if not for a freak injury to their best player.
End of the day, I just took exception to the initial post because I don't get why there's something wrong with other people liking something that you don't enjoy. The NBA is incredibly popular right now; they must be doing something right, and the perceived lack of parity must not be as off-putting to NBA fans in general as it is to you.
I would agree with this pretty much to the t (big NBA/Pacers fan myself). Only thing that I would add is that because of how the NBA/NCAA has worked out the eligibility of collegiate players (one and done), it has become even tougher for small market teams to nail their draft picks. A good portion of the players that come out of college aren't fully developed players yet and a number of them spend years on the bench or in the G-League.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Superman said:
I agree, assuming Dak is tapped out and won't get any better. But that's a premature determination at this point, IMO. It's conceivable that Dak will get better. It's also possible that problem is Jason Garrett, not Dak.
Maybe he could, maybe he won’t. And sure, it could be Jason Garrett (which I’m more apt to believe at this point) but regardless of the root cause, Dak still is the one who gets ultimately judged.
-
22 minutes ago, Superman said:
There are high end sports cars that don't actually warrant a $150K price tag. They charge it because people pay it.
There is a market inefficiency when it comes to paying above average QBs like they're franchise level players. But the only way to take advantage of that inefficiency is to replace your above average QB. That's not as difficult as it was in the mid 2000s, but it's still much easier said than done, especially in a league that isn't very forgiving of coaching staffs and execs who aren't successful at replacing QBs. So most teams would rather overpay a QB like Dak than try to replace him, knowing there's a significant chance that the replacement doesn't work out.
And when you look at the QB numbers and try to figure out a reasonable market value for a guy like Dak, you'll probably come up with something in the $22-25m/year range, right? Let's assume he gets $30m/year. That's about $8m/year above his projected range, represents about 4% of the 2019 salary cap. If you average it out over the next five years or so, it's about 2-3% of the projected cap.
So a team would have to commit to trying to exploit a market inefficiency by relying on an unknown replacement QB, and at the same time deal with the optics of getting rid of an above average QB rather than paying him, to save 2-3% of their total cap money. I agree that the opportunity exists, but I don't think it's worth it to pursue that opportunity -- if you believe in your above average QB.
If it's my team and we believe in our young QB (and Dak is only going into Year 4, it's not like he's a finished product), I'm probably taking the L on the QB contract, recognizing that my margin for error with the rest of the roster is reduced, and focusing on drafting well year after year.
I completely get what you’re saying and that’s part of my overall point in that teams will inevitably decide to overpay on a contract for a QB that likely doesn’t warrant it. But because the league is at point where QB’s are overvalued and get paid more than they should, the team does it anyway because the alternative isn’t a guarantee and there’s very little margin for error if they miss.
As such, teams like the Cowboys have to be more efficient at drafting than some other teams because the QB they have isn’t good enough to cover up the holes in the roster.
-
On 6/8/2019 at 8:18 AM, ColtsBlueFL said:
It's called "Market Value". for the QB position, it's often not 'just' tied to 'talent, or numbers'. You'll see, with the points below.
The Eagles just extended Wentz (as Superman mentioned, and pushed Luck out of the top 10) , but a little early. In the case of a QB, it is almost always easier on the owners pocket book to do it earlier than later. Wentz, injury riddled QB, got a four-year extension worth $128 million, with $107.9 million of it guaranteed and $66 million guaranteed at signing. You either pay your QB, or you start over and try with another new one. Eagles are in, they paid Carson and let Foles go.
It's market value! Considering Wentz was still under contract for 2019 and 2020, his total contract is actually a six-year deal worth $154.7 million which would pay him an average annual salary of $25.8 million. That would make Wentz the 7th-highest paid QB per AAV, behind Matt Ryan’s $30 million, Kirk Cousins’ $28 million, and Jimmy Garoppolo’s $27.5 million. If the Eagles did this next year it would cost them even more. (After Goff and Dak set the new market).
The question is not Dak upsetting the market, it is whether the Cowboys want to pay at market and keep him as their QB {2 division titles and beat the Eagles twice last year}, or not and wade back into the "we are Between Troy Aikman and Tony Romo" QB swimming pool again...
And it is even more possible both Goff and Dak end up with a larger contract than Wentz now, IMO. The thing I look at is not necessarily total pay of the QB, but guaranteed money, and the cap space percentage used, each year. The cap is unforgiving and all monies are accounted for in the end, but if the % is reasonable, then GM's can still afford stars on the team.
I heard Polian say his goals in the cap era was to be able afford and pay up to 10 elite/upper tier guys long term. (an example he used was Manning, Harrison, James, Wayne, Freeney, Mathis, Glenn, Clark, Saturday, and Brackett). Yes we can argue maybe he should have let Bracket go and draft/pay a game wrecker DT (Corey Simon was supposed to be that guy when taken in FA, and it was a disaster, souring Polian on all elite FA's thereafter). But these were all home grown, long term Colts mainstays. Irsay understood this as well as any owner. I see Ballard/Irsay going back to that model in a sense, but with Ballard flavoring.
I get that it’s market value for QB’s but my whole point has been that the league has placed too much of premium on that position which has led to QB’s like Dak getting paid more than they really should be based on their performance. The market value for QB’s is extremely overvalued but that’s been a natural progression since the 2000’s. Now, the cap is increasing at rate that teams can likely keep affording to pay these QB’s, but let’s not pretend like every QB that gets paid a relatively high salary actually warrants it. The proof will be in teams like the Cowboys who will pay their QB a huge salary and struggle to put together a team around them, especially when said QB isn’t good enough to cover up the holes on the roster.
-
On 5/30/2019 at 3:11 AM, superrep1967 said:
That was my favorite talk from a man that I admire. What a great man and vision I'm behind him 100 % if your a Colts fan and you can't get behind Ballard's vision then your not a true fan. I've loved this team for 35 yrs and love this team even more now. GO Colts!!
Absolutely. I love the direction the team is going with him at the helm.
-
http://catholicbusinessexchange.org/project/chris-ballard/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Very interesting speech from Ballard at the Catholic Business Exchange. He touched on some personal aspects of both his life and faith that was very insightful.
Some football-related takeaways:
-Ballard was noticeably upset that the league didn’t give the Colts a home prime time game this year and vowed that the team will force its way into one this year by playing well.
-He spoke on his vision and philiosphy for the fan base and wants us to be likened to Green Bay in terms of fan excitement and engagement.
-He also took some questions at the end that shed light on thoughts about the salary cap and players with questionable character.
-
2
-
-
31 minutes ago, Smonroe said:
In theory, Houston should have a tougher schedule than us. In my mind, it's about equal. They get NE and Baltimore while we have Miami and Pittsburgh. I think the Steelers are potentially better than the Ravens. But NE is going to be a lot better than the Dolphins.
What really stinks is that the Jags have the easiest schedule and maybe a better team than Houston.
I agree, the SD game is kind of key. Even if we win the division, that game could decide on HFA in the playoffs.
I think the Chargers game, though it is early in the season, will be a decent barometer for how the Colts fair against some of the upper echelon teams in the league.
The time has come for the Colts to step up and prove they can be the team that no one wants to face each week.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Buck Showalter said:
If you want to be the class of the conference, you've got to be the class of your division first...
Im excited about the direction of the team too, but I'm not setting unrealistic or premature exoectations
This isn’t always true. There have been teams that have advanced beyond their division winners in the postseason. I’m not saying the Colts will win the Super Bowl, but being division champions and maybe getting a first round bye isn’t too unrealistic as it stands today.
Irsay’s comments on Luck
in Colts Football
Posted
The only problem I’ve been seeing though is that they kept calling it a high ankle sprain in that article and I don’t believe Ballard confirmed that to be exactly what it was.