Food for Thought: Will the Colts' spending really help?

[NewColtsFan]

A story from Paul Kuharsky on his ESPN.com South Blog...

 

He's following up on an earlier story written by John Clayton showing that the vast majority of teams that spend $100+ MIllion in an off-season rarely see positive results. 

 

To be clear, Kuharsky is NOT saying our spending won't pay off.   He's not saying it won't pay off for Tennessee or Miami, who also spent more than $100 Mill this off-season....

 

He's just saying that all that spending is no guarantee....   things happen during the course of the year that you can't predict....

 

It's an interesting read....   as I said in the header:   It's Food for Thought.....

 

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/51422/will-100-million-boost-the-colts-and-titans

[SilentHill]

A story from Paul Kuharsky on his ESPN.com South Blog...

 

He's following up on an earlier story written by John Clayton showing that the vast majority of teams that spend $100+ MIllion in an off-season rarely see positive results. 

 

To be clear, Kuharsky is NOT saying our spending won't pay off.   He's not saying it won't pay off for Tennessee or Miami, who also spent more than $100 Mill this off-season....

 

He's just saying that all that spending is no guarantee....   things happen during the course of the year that you can't predict....

 

It's an interesting read....   as I said in the header:   It's Food for Thought.....

 

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/51422/will-100-million-boost-the-colts-and-titans

 

Normally I'd agree, but the teams that usually fall into the problem of having to spend 100M+ are bad teams with major holes to fill.

 

We are a good team that needs a little improvement, and we just happened to have a ton of $ to spend.

[TKnight24]

Well, I know Laron Landry will pay off because we haven't had a good SS since Bob Sanders. And NOOO people, Melvin Bullitt was NOT the answer at safety

 

Landry brings 3 key factors already and he hasn't played a single down for us yet

 

1. Bethea can FINALLY play FS like a FS is supposed to, in the secondary roaming...not up in the box like a 5th LB (since we already run 4 LB's)

 

2. There's a dangerous force in the backfield that will knock your head off if the opportunity presents itself. That can do a lot on the opposing team's mental state as they can be scared/timid to go to that area in which Laron operates.

 

3. He's not only good at tackling & coverage, he's a good blitzer as well. There's nothing better than a safety that can be a wild-card so to speak by being able to blitz effectively.

 

Greg Manusky has a lot of toys to play with this season on the defense. I can't wait to see what he & the positional coaches do with everyone

[Mouthfire]

I think who you sign, is just about as important as how much you signed them for. For Grigson, he seemed to have targeted young, hungry players rather than older veterans just looking for a paycheck (ie Fat Albert Haynesworth).

Only time will really tell, but I like our chances.

[TKnight24]

I think who you sign, is just about as important as how much you signed them for. For Grigson, he seemed to have targeted young, hungry players rather than older veterans just looking for a paycheck (ie Fat Albert Haynesworth).

Only time will really tell, but I like our chances.

"Fat Albert Haynesworth"

That's the funniest thing I've read all day

[Valpo2004]

It doesn't have to bring us more wins.  I'd be happy with the same number of wins but the wins being larger in the games we do win and us being more competitive in the games we lost.

 

Through a lot of Luck . . . in more ways then 1 we where able to get 11 wins.  But the teams at the top of the NFL such as the Patriots for the most part creamed us.  We're trying to build a team that can compete on that level.  I don't think we are there yet, but we are a heck of a lot closer.

 

We may not get more wins.  The schedule is different and every team we play is different.  But are we a better team then we where last year.  On paper yes.  

[NewColtsFan]

It doesn't have to bring us more wins.  I'd be happy with the same number of wins but the wins being larger in the games we do win and us being more competitive in the games we lost.

 

Through a lot of Luck . . . in more ways then 1 we where able to get 11 wins.  But the teams at the top of the NFL such as the Patriots for the most part creamed us.  We're trying to build a team that can compete on that level.  I don't think we are there yet, but we are a heck of a lot closer.

 

We may not get more wins.  The schedule is different and every team we play is different.  But are we a better team then we where last year.  On paper yes.  

 

 

Very nice post....   well said....

 

Hope a lot of Colts' fans come by and read your post....   and then read it again!

 

Well done!      

[Superman]

It doesn't have to bring us more wins.  I'd be happy with the same number of wins but the wins being larger in the games we do win and us being more competitive in the games we lost.

 

Through a lot of Luck . . . in more ways then 1 we where able to get 11 wins.  But the teams at the top of the NFL such as the Patriots for the most part creamed us.  We're trying to build a team that can compete on that level.  I don't think we are there yet, but we are a heck of a lot closer.

 

We may not get more wins.  The schedule is different and every team we play is different.  But are we a better team then we where last year.  On paper yes.  

 

Yup. I read this article earlier and it struck me as misguided and misinformed. Then again, it's based on a John Clayton piece, and I'm not usually a big fan of Clayton's analysis. In this case, it's way off.

 

For instance, the Colts didn't sign a bunch of players because they want to improve on their win total. Sure, that would be nice, but it's hard to beat 11 wins. If we go 12-4 and win the division, people can technically say "they committed $100m and only improved by one win," but that would be dumb. Another example, the Saints committed over $100m in new contracts last offseason, and got worse. But a) most of that new commitment was to Drew Brees, so it skews the number dramatically, and b) there were other mitigating factors. The money they committed had nothing to do with it.

 

Something else, who cares that they "committed" however much money in one offseason? It's not all spent, and it's unlikely that it all will be spent. We signed six guys to multi year deals, and the odds are that a couple of them don't play out those contracts entirely (just the way it goes). 

 

Like you say, the improvement is going to come in performance, not bottom line results. We committed nearly $50m to our offensive line because we can't let the quarterback get sacked/pressured more than any other quarterback in the league, and we can't be the 23rd worst rushing team in the league. We committed $40m to the secondary because we can't give up 7.4 yards/attempt again. We committed $40m to the defensive front because we can't give up 5.1 yards/attempt and 14 touchdowns again, and we need more than 32 sacks. 

 

Hopefully, those areas will be improved, but it won't show up in the win totals. It will show up in not being blown out 59-24 by the Patriots, or not getting beat by teams like the Jets, not giving up last second hail mary touchdowns to Blaine Gabbert and Cecil Shorts.

 

But I bet John Clayton comes back next year and says "the Colts committed X in new contracts, but their win totals didn't show the improvement." Gotta love this kind of surface analysis, right?

[LUCKy]

I think the numbers are off too.  The saints spent the 100 mil and ended up minus 6 because of the whole scandal there.  That throws it way off.  That and we spent the money wisely, by not paying it all out to one to two players.  Plus, a lot of those teams were historically bad in the front office at the time of spending that 100 mil.  

 

All that said, we could be better and win less just because we over achieved last year.  So I think that might get misread to support Clayton's argument even though it should not be associated with it.

[The Fish]

So, Grigson spent 34 mill  on multiple contracts, where does the 100 million come in? I must be missing something.

The media....

[LUCKy]

So, Grigson spent 34 mill of on multiple contracts, where does the 100 million come in? I must be missing something.

The media....

Over 100 million for all contracts added up from one offseason I believe...

[The Fish]

Over 100 million for all contracts added up from one offseason I believe...

Ok, that makes (a little more) sense. 

 

It'll pay off, because the only reason this team won last year was because of Luck. More talent really was needed. 

Win small and lose big. Last season was fun/werid, but going forward, The Colts need to compete for titles with 12 under center. 

[LUCKy]

Ok, that makes (a little more) sense. 

 

It'll pay off, because the only reason this team won last year was because of Luck. More talent really was needed. 

Win small and lose big. Last season was fun/werid, but going forward, The Colts need to compete for titles with 12 under center. 

That's true and we can get out of a lot of the contracts down the road. So we could have ended up spending under 100 mil.

[Superman]

So, Grigson spent 34 mill  on multiple contracts, where does the 100 million come in? I must be missing something.

The media....

 

Cherilus - $34.5

Landry - $24

RJF - $22

Walden - $16

Toler - $15

Thomas - $14

Hasselbeck - $7.25

DHB - $3

Bradshaw - $2

Franklin $1.1

 

I think that's all of our free agent additions (excluding tags and tenders for McAfee and a couple RFAs, plus Moala, also excluding draft picks). A total of $138.85m committed. I think Clayton's figures include retentions, so if you add McAfee and the RFAs in, you're probably around $145m.

 

Plot twist: These numbers don't matter.

[NewColtsFan]

Yup. I read this article earlier and it struck me as misguided and misinformed. Then again, it's based on a John Clayton piece, and I'm not usually a big fan of Clayton's analysis. In this case, it's way off.

 

For instance, the Colts didn't sign a bunch of players because they want to improve on their win total. Sure, that would be nice, but it's hard to beat 11 wins. If we go 12-4 and win the division, people can technically say "they committed $100m and only improved by one win," but that would be dumb. Another example, the Saints committed over $100m in new contracts last offseason, and got worse. But a) most of that new commitment was to Drew Brees, so it skews the number dramatically, and b) there were other mitigating factors. The money they committed had nothing to do with it.

 

Something else, who cares that they "committed" however much money in one offseason? It's not all spent, and it's unlikely that it all will be spent. We signed six guys to multi year deals, and the odds are that a couple of them don't play out those contracts entirely (just the way it goes). 

 

Like you say, the improvement is going to come in performance, not bottom line results. We committed nearly $50m to our offensive line because we can't let the quarterback get sacked/pressured more than any other quarterback in the league, and we can't be the 23rd worst rushing team in the league. We committed $40m to the secondary because we can't give up 7.4 yards/attempt again. We committed $40m to the defensive front because we can't give up 5.1 yards/attempt and 14 touchdowns again, and we need more than 32 sacks. 

 

Hopefully, those areas will be improved, but it won't show up in the win totals. It will show up in not being blown out 59-24 by the Patriots, or not getting beat by teams like the Jets, not giving up last second hail mary touchdowns to Blaine Gabbert and Cecil Shorts.

 

But I bet John Clayton comes back next year and says "the Colts committed X in new contracts, but their win totals didn't show the improvement." Gotta love this kind of surface analysis, right?

 

Is the analysis superficial?    Sure.

 

Each team has it's own circumstances that make it unique.   This is not a pure apples to apples comparison....  it never has been.

 

But, in Big Picture terms,  this is a broad look at teams in somewhat similar circumstances.   Teams spent large amounts of money trying to either get better,  or to at least stay about the same in terms of their record (see Colts '12 & '13).

 

The odds are that all of that money spent won't add up to a better record, especially in our case.   It might for Tennessee and Miami because their records weren't so good.   

 

I think you and I both think we could go 10-6 this year.   So, Clayton could come back and ask was all the money we spent really necessary?    I think anyone who seriously follows the Colts realize the answer will be an absolute and overwhelming,  YES!!

 

Without making them the end-all and be-all of analysis, I think the stats are interesting to consider and are good food for off-season thought.    I wasn't trying to suggest too much by showing them....    they are what they are...

 

Hope that clarifies.....

[Superman]

Is the analysis superficial?    Sure.

 

Each team has it's own circumstances that make it unique.   This is not a pure apples to apples comparison....  it never has been.

 

But, in Big Picture terms,  this is a broad look at teams in somewhat similar circumstances.   Teams spent large amounts of money trying to either get better,  or to at least stay about the same in terms of their record (see Colts '12 & '13).

 

The odds are that all of that money spent won't add up to a better record, especially in our case.   It might for Tennessee and Miami because their records weren't so good.   

 

I think you and I both think we could go 10-6 this year.   So, Clayton could come back and ask was all the money we spent really necessary?    I think anyone who seriously follows the Colts realize the answer will be an absolute and overwhelming,  YES!!

 

Without making them the end-all and be-all of analysis, I think the stats are interesting to consider and are good food for off-season thought.    I wasn't trying to suggest too much by showing them....    they are what they are...

 

Hope that clarifies.....

 

No need to clarify. I know you weren't necessarily endorsing the angle. I thought about posting this earlier, but decided I'd just be doing so to debunk it, and decided not to.

 

But like you say, we're not looking for improvement in record (that would be great, but it's unlikely). And with improvement in record being the primary basis for Clayton's analysis, it makes this entire process kind of pointless. His thoughts are, at best, incomplete. It's an interesting list to compile, and it definitely shows that spending money doesn't guarantee success, but I think we all know that. 

[BPM_Colt]

It doesn't have to bring us more wins.  I'd be happy with the same number of wins but the wins being larger in the games we do win and us being more competitive in the games we lost.

 

Through a lot of Luck . . . in more ways then 1 we where able to get 11 wins.  But the teams at the top of the NFL such as the Patriots for the most part creamed us.  We're trying to build a team that can compete on that level.  I don't think we are there yet, but we are a heck of a lot closer.

 

We may not get more wins.  The schedule is different and every team we play is different.  But are we a better team then we where last year.  On paper yes.  

Well said.. Couldn't agree more. I want to see us competing every game and truly have a chance when it comes playoff time. We are a lot better coming into this year than we were last year. Filled many holes and I believe the experience of last years rookies will be huge

[southwest1]

Yup. I read this article earlier and it struck me as misguided and misinformed. Then again, it's based on a John Clayton piece, and I'm not usually a big fan of Clayton's analysis. In this case, it's way off.

 

For instance, the Colts didn't sign a bunch of players because they want to improve on their win total. Sure, that would be nice, but it's hard to beat 11 wins. If we go 12-4 and win the division, people can technically say "they committed $100m and only improved by one win," but that would be dumb. Another example, the Saints committed over $100m in new contracts last offseason, and got worse. But a) most of that new commitment was to Drew Brees, so it skews the number dramatically, and b) there were other mitigating factors. The money they committed had nothing to do with it.

 

Something else, who cares that they "committed" however much money in one offseason? It's not all spent, and it's unlikely that it all will be spent. We signed six guys to multi year deals, and the odds are that a couple of them don't play out those contracts entirely (just the way it goes). 

 

Like you say, the improvement is going to come in performance, not bottom line results. We committed nearly $50m to our offensive line because we can't let the quarterback get sacked/pressured more than any other quarterback in the league, and we can't be the 23rd worst rushing team in the league. We committed $40m to the secondary because we can't give up 7.4 yards/attempt again. We committed $40m to the defensive front because we can't give up 5.1 yards/attempt and 14 touchdowns again, and we need more than 32 sacks. 

 

Hopefully, those areas will be improved, but it won't show up in the win totals. It will show up in not being blown out 59-24 by the Patriots, or not getting beat by teams like the Jets, not giving up last second hail mary touchdowns to Blaine Gabbert and Cecil Shorts.

 

But I bet John Clayton comes back next year and says "the Colts committed X in new contracts, but their win totals didn't show the improvement." Gotta love this kind of surface analysis, right?

Excellent point Superman. Even though SW1 was horrible at Math in high school & college, very few players finish out their entire contracts. They are either cut from the roster or their contract gets restructured meaning that the owner wants some of the major coin back.

 

So, like you say Superman, $100 million in contracts is not really a hard concrete number for the Indianapolis Colts either. Nothing profound in that statement I realize, but still it is a valid point across all 32 team balance sheets in this league. Okay, since decimal points & accounting are not my strong suit, SW1 will shut up now.  I know when I've been outnumbered & financially outgunned. 

[Franklin County]

How we cant be a better team this year, leaves me

[John Dee]

Most teams that "DIVE" into free agency big are going after the "BIG" fish....   Indy signed maybe two "names"  and that was G Cherilus and L Landry....  the rest are pretty much depth/potential starters.     

 

Indy did not break the bank for any ONE player.    THAT is what kills teams that play the FA game, spending big guaranteed dough on a guy or two that flops.    The big money that they did spend went on NEED positions, and to VERY GOOD players.

 

Indy is playing small ball and doing it masterfully.  

 

Last season training camp's big question was "will everyone stay healthy?"

 

This season the big TC questions are ....    Who will start at certain positrons...  Competition / depth is a VERY good thing.

 

Indy had ZERO last year.

[Superman]

 

Indy is playing small ball and doing it masterfully.  

 

Yup, not relying on the home run to score. String together a few singles, and even if you have a strike out in there somewhere, you'll still get on the board.

 

The only signing that would really hurt if it doesn't work out is Cherilus. He got a pretty big signing bonus, and he has the knee injury history. But I really don't think there's any significant risk with the rest of our signings.

[deedub75]

How we cant be a better team this year, leaves me

 

We have so many areas of improvement from last year and I think they've been addressed.  Hopefully, this year we don't get blown out as often and that should improve the negative point differential.  Also, maybe we can run away with a few games instead of having all of the nail biters in the 4th quarter. 

[TKnight24]

Most teams that "DIVE" into free agency big are going after the "BIG" fish.... Indy signed maybe two "names" and that was G Cherilus and L Landry.... the rest are pretty much depth/potential starters.

Indy did not break the bank for any ONE player. THAT is what kills teams that play the FA game, spending big guaranteed dough on a guy or two that flops. The big money that they did spend went on NEED positions, and to VERY GOOD players.

Indy is playing small ball and doing it masterfully.

Last season training camp's big question was "will everyone stay healthy?"

This season the big TC questions are .... Who will start at certain positrons... Competition / depth is a VERY good thing.

Indy had ZERO last year.

The Miami Dolphins will find that out sooner than later. Throwing all your money to one or two players isn't too smart

[Derakynn]

Having gone 11-5 last year, I don't think any analyst who looks at these sort of pointless stats will be satisfied unless the Colts win the Superbowl. If we even matched last years record, it would be a victory. Seasons don't translate over. If we hadn't spent that money and stayed the same except for the draft, our team would be essentially nearly the same. Last year's team would have no way to compete  against Marshawn Lynch/Seahawks Defense, Frank Gore and the SF defense, and would have struggled mightily with Steven Jackson and that hefty STL defense. This year we can. Winning 11 games against the schedule this year would be statistically better than last year. It doesn't matter what some analyst says, because most of them use selective stats and information to justify their uneducated opinions. The only time the schedule matters to them is if it aids them in their argument, otherwise it is nowhere to be found. 

[crazycolt1]

According to the NFL collective bargaining agreement each team must spend 109.47 million dollars on players. No less that 89% of the cap. So the question as to any team spending over 100 million dollars is yes for all teams. 

[deedub75]

According to the NFL collective bargaining agreement each team must spend 109.47 million dollars on players. No less that 89% of the cap. So the question as to any team spending over 100 million dollars is yes for all teams. 

 

We're talking about total dollar amount of contracts given out during this free agency period and not the total amount of cap space each team must spend under the new collective bargaining agreement.  Those are two totally different figures.  Teams have to average 89% of the cap over the next 4 years of the CBA.  They don't have to spend 89% every year.  The Colts have committed around $145M in player contracts this offseason. 

[IndianaJones]

I'm only worried about giving that right tackle so much money.I'm concerned with selecting 'G.C.' as our long term answer to the right tackle spot.I didn't see that big of a difference between justice and he(only salary hits).

[Crunked]

A story from Paul Kuharsky on his ESPN.com South Blog...

 

He's following up on an earlier story written by John Clayton showing that the vast majority of teams that spend $100+ MIllion in an off-season rarely see positive results. 

 

To be clear, Kuharsky is NOT saying our spending won't pay off.   He's not saying it won't pay off for Tennessee or Miami, who also spent more than $100 Mill this off-season....

 

He's just saying that all that spending is no guarantee....   things happen during the course of the year that you can't predict....

 

It's an interesting read....   as I said in the header:   It's Food for Thought.....

 

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcsouth/post/_/id/51422/will-100-million-boost-the-colts-and-titans

I was going to post this very topic.

It is food for thought, and if we are being honest a cause for concern. However the caveat I would add is that some of that data is skewed in that, each team was in a different place overall before, during, and after the free agent spree. The Eagles come to mind as the most recent attempt at building an instant champ.....some are on there (Saints) purely because Drew Brees' contract tipped the scale, and all the other scandal negatively effected the team. I am not sure there are many on there that were (record wise) good that then went on to sign virtually a whole new roster individually on the cheap to get better....sounds goofy to even type that.....so I think each situation is unique and the results shown are not a consistently accurate reflection.......but the bottom line for me is, MOST free agents are available for a reason......and its rarely that the team didn't have the money to keep them, so it will be interesting to see how the dynamic progresses as we near the season.

[crazycolt1]

We're talking about total dollar amount of contracts given out during this free agency period and not the total amount of cap space each team must spend under the new collective bargaining agreement.  Those are two totally different figures.  Teams have to average 89% of the cap over the next 4 years of the CBA.  They don't have to spend 89% every year.  The Colts have committed around $145M in player contracts this of

 

I was going to post this very topic.

It is food for thought, and if we are being honest a cause for concern. However the caveat I would add is that some of that data is skewed in that, each team was in a different place overall before, during, and after the free agent spree. The Eagles come to mind as the most recent attempt at building an instant champ.....some are on there (Saints) purely because Drew Brees' contract tipped the scale, and all the other scandal negatively effected the team. I am not sure there are many on there that were (record wise) good that then went on to sign virtually a whole new roster individually on the cheap to get better....sounds goofy to even type that.....so I think each situation is unique and the results shown are not a consistently accurate reflection.......but the bottom line for me is, MOST free agents are available for a reason......and its rarely that the team didn't have the money to keep them, so it will be interesting to see how the dynamic progresses as we near the season.

I think you are spot on with your comment. Each team is different in their needs and can't be lumped into the same category. There was a reason that Grigson was claimed the GM of the year with bringing the amount of players in last season especially being very strapped with a huge amount of dead cap space money. I haven't counted how many new players that that have been brought in so far this year but it could be close to the amount of last year. I think as far as free agents and players brought in the Colts seem to be way ahead of other teams who were in a rebuilding stage. I can't recall any team going through what the Colts have done and still be in contention for a division title. 

[Superman]

I'm only worried about giving that right tackle so much money.I'm concerned with selecting 'G.C.' as our long term answer to the right tackle spot.I didn't see that big of a difference between justice and he(only salary hits).

 

What do you mean? Cherilus hasn't played for us yet...

[Superman]

I was going to post this very topic.

It is food for thought, and if we are being honest a cause for concern. However the caveat I would add is that some of that data is skewed in that, each team was in a different place overall before, during, and after the free agent spree. The Eagles come to mind as the most recent attempt at building an instant champ.....some are on there (Saints) purely because Drew Brees' contract tipped the scale, and all the other scandal negatively effected the team. I am not sure there are many on there that were (record wise) good that then went on to sign virtually a whole new roster individually on the cheap to get better....sounds goofy to even type that.....so I think each situation is unique and the results shown are not a consistently accurate reflection.......but the bottom line for me is, MOST free agents are available for a reason......and its rarely that the team didn't have the money to keep them, so it will be interesting to see how the dynamic progresses as we near the season.

 

I don't understand the reasoning behind the bolded part. Good players are available in free agency every year, and despite the negative connotations that are often associated with signing veteran free agents, MOST free agents perform well on their new teams. The players that scare people off are the big money, high profile guys, and they tend to be more hit and miss. 

[mvbighead]

Excellent point Superman. Even though SW1 was horrible at Math in high school & college, very few players finish out their entire contracts. They are either cut from the roster or their contract gets restructured meaning that the owner wants some of the major coin back.

 

So, like you say Superman, $100 million in contracts is not really a hard concrete number for the Indianapolis Colts either. Nothing profound in that statement I realize, but still it is a valid point across all 32 team balance sheets in this league. Okay, since decimal points & accounting are not my strong suit, SW1 will shut up now.  I know when I've been outnumbered & financially outgunned. 

 

Restructured is not about the owner getting coin back, renegotiated is the word you are looking for.  Restructured generally means that they move the money around to make it more cap friendly in the current year, or simply to take advantage of space they have now.  Renegotiated means there is no way we're paying you X because you're simply not worth it, so either take Y or hit the road.

 

Long story short, the team has to spend money on free agents.  Many of the deals that were signed are easy to walk away from.  Zbikowski is a prime example of how that works.  The same is true of most of the deals this year.  If we find out that RJF is a dud, I'd guess he gets a year or two and then gets the axe.

 

As for whether the spending helps, I can't see how it won't.  They really it spread it around, and while I am sure not every new FA will be a contributor, I'd guess half or so should be, and possibly more.  It makes us more competitive by filling roster spots with talented veterans ala Gosder Cherilus instead of re-using weak Link(enbach)s.

 

On the hole, we may not see an improvement in W/L, but as has been suggested, that's going to be hard to do regardless.  The prime thing is, on paper, we have a more talented roster.  They actually had money to spend on players whereas last season we were strapped with blunders from the former GM.  Whether they'll make blockbuster impacts or simply stabilize and improve our weak points remains to be seen, but I suspect Landry, Cherilus, and RJF will all have a decent level of impact, and I figure Walden/Sidburry should improve our defensive rotation and depth.  We once had maybe three pass rushers (Freeney, Mathis, Hughes), and now have potentially four or five (Mathis, Werner, Walden, Sidburry, and?).

[lollygagger8]

I just hope in when last year's rookie class get ready for new contracts, we don't end up losing a bunch. 

[superrep1967]

Well, I know Laron Landry will pay off because we haven't had a good SS since Bob Sanders. And NOOO people, Melvin Bullitt was NOT the answer at safety

 

Landry brings 3 key factors already and he hasn't played a single down for us yet

 

1. Bethea can FINALLY play FS like a FS is supposed to, in the secondary roaming...not up in the box like a 5th LB (since we already run 4 LB's)

 

2. There's a dangerous force in the backfield that will knock your head off if the opportunity presents itself. That can do a lot on the opposing team's mental state as they can be scared/timid to go to that area in which Laron operates.

 

3. He's not only good at tackling & coverage, he's a good blitzer as well. There's nothing better than a safety that can be a wild-card so to speak by being able to blitz effectively.

 

Greg Manusky has a lot of toys to play with this season on the defense. I can't wait to see what he & the positional coaches do with everyone

I know this defense this season can be dominate! But injuries will tell a lot

[Crunked]

I don't understand the reasoning behind the bolded part. Good players are available in free agency every year, and despite the negative connotations that are often associated with signing veteran free agents, MOST free agents perform well on their new teams. The players that scare people off are the big money, high profile guys, and they tend to be more hit and miss. 

Superman, there are many reasons why someone is a free agent.....Some known reasons, and just as often, unknown reasons. Examples might be, personality clash with one or more teammates or coaches, low football IQ. Skill set doesn't match current system. Work ethic problems, off field distractions which the team feels is detrimental to development of the player. little nagging injury or series of which may lead team physicians to surmise more and larger future problems etc..... my point was that a team can scout talent, its a known quantity based on previous performance via film study. In some cases they might have inside info to locker room presence, or injury, or work ethic.....but just as often not. Tom Brady has been on the injury report for 10 years now LOL or something equally ridiculous but you get the point little nagging injuries are supposed to be reported, but if the player misses no time in practice or games, its technically not an injury and technically doesn't have to be reported..........there is no "Show me the car fax" in the NFL. You get a players body of work, a physicians write up and whatever scuttle butt or peripheral information you might be lucky enough to acquire and thats it......so what a long winded way to say "Most F.A.'s are available for a reason"

[rittdk01]

the teams spending like that normally have problems at QB (Eagles) the Colts obviously do not. won that many games and made the playoffs with a bunch of 2nd and 3rd styring secondary and o line lst yr. Imagine how they do with Starting talent at those positions this yr.

[Superman]

Superman, there are many reasons why someone is a free agent.....Some known reasons, and just as often, unknown reasons. Examples might be, personality clash with one or more teammates or coaches, low football IQ. Skill set doesn't match current system. Work ethic problems, off field distractions which the team feels is detrimental to development of the player. little nagging injury or series of which may lead team physicians to surmise more and larger future problems etc..... my point was that a team can scout talent, its a known quantity based on previous performance via film study. In some cases they might have inside info to locker room presence, or injury, or work ethic.....but just as often not. Tom Brady has been on the injury report for 10 years now LOL or something equally ridiculous but you get the point little nagging injuries are supposed to be reported, but if the player misses no time in practice or games, its technically not an injury and technically doesn't have to be reported..........there is no "Show me the car fax" in the NFL. You get a players body of work, a physicians write up and whatever scuttle butt or peripheral information you might be lucky enough to acquire and thats it......so what a long winded way to say "Most F.A.'s are available for a reason"

That comment has a negative connotation, as if they are damaged goods somehow. It's like a "buyer beware" disclaimer.

Some free agents do have issues of one kind or another. Some of those can be resolved with a change of circumstance, while others can't. But the idea that there's something wrong because the current team hasn't resigned the player is not accurate. Contrary to what you asserted, the primary reason a player isn't retained by the original team is money, and that's a function of the salary cap. There are other reasons as well, but money is the #1.

Just as an example of why I disagree with that kind of blanket skepticism, take Phillip Wheeler. He was an unheralded rotational linebacker with the Colts, and we made no effort to resign him. Your idea suggests that there's some underlying reason why. In this case, it wasn't about money, because he signed for minimal money with the Raiders. We let him walk because we didn't see him as a valuable piece to our roster, and I think we were wrong. He would have fit in nicely, especially with injuries to Freeney and Mathis throughout the year. He went to Oakland and had a fantastic season, and earned himself a nice contract from the Dolphins.

The Raiders let him walk because they couldn't fit him into their plans financially, not because there's something wrong with him. If he doesn't work out in Miami, it's not because something is wrong with him, necessarily. It will probably be due to a scheme fit issue, or an injury that pops up. However, with the money they gave him, it's more likely that he plays decent football for a couple seasons, and then they decide they don't want to keep paying him $5m/year.

I don't think we made any signings that are going to be a problem, money-wise. Cherilus is boom or bust, but that's mostly about injury.

Anyways, just a long-winded way of saying that I don't think a player's free agency is necessarily an indictment of the player somehow. In most cases, it's a function of the ssalary cap.

[Crunked]

That comment has a negative connotation, as if they are damaged goods somehow. It's like a "buyer beware" disclaimer.

Some free agents do have issues of one kind or another. Some of those can be resolved with a change of circumstance, while others can't. But the idea that there's something wrong because the current team hasn't resigned the player is not accurate. Contrary to what you asserted, the primary reason a player isn't retained by the original team is money, and that's a function of the salary cap. There are other reasons as well, but money is the #1.

Just as an example of why I disagree with that kind of blanket skepticism, take Phillip Wheeler. He was an unheralded rotational linebacker with the Colts, and we made no effort to resign him. Your idea suggests that there's some underlying reason why. In this case, it wasn't about money, because he signed for minimal money with the Raiders. We let him walk because we didn't see him as a valuable piece to our roster, and I think we were wrong. He would have fit in nicely, especially with injuries to Freeney and Mathis throughout the year. He went to Oakland and had a fantastic season, and earned himself a nice contract from the Dolphins.

The Raiders let him walk because they couldn't fit him into their plans financially, not because there's something wrong with him. If he doesn't work out in Miami, it's not because something is wrong with him, necessarily. It will probably be due to a scheme fit issue, or an injury that pops up. However, with the money they gave him, it's more likely that he plays decent football for a couple seasons, and then they decide they don't want to keep paying him $5m/year.

I don't think we made any signings that are going to be a problem, money-wise. Cherilus is boom or bust, but that's mostly about injury.

Anyways, just a long-winded way of saying that I don't think a player's free agency is necessarily an indictment of the player somehow. In most cases, it's a function of the ssalary cap.

I believe there are some positive free agents.....I simply stated the negative to illustrate the point, that there are more reasons than salary that a player is available....and on the issue of the word that started all of this (MOST) I will agree to disagree with you....there is a percentage of salary cap free agents, the greater majority are free for other reasons.......

[throwing BBZ]

Normally I'd agree, but the teams that usually fall into the problem of having to spend 100M+ are bad teams with major holes to fill.

 

We are a good team that needs a little improvement, and we just happened to have a ton of $ to spend.

 

hahahaha!

We, had one decent o-lineman, one good d-lineman, one decent rb, 2 decent db`s, a couple decent LB`s, a one good pass rusher, and 3-4 good receivers, and a QB that made a bunch of big 4th quarter passes against BAD Teams.

 

 A 4-5 win roster that is going to have 8 plus new starters. Sorry you missed it.

[SilentHill]

hahahaha!

We, had one decent o-lineman, one good d-lineman, one decent rb, 2 decent db`s, a couple decent LB`s, a one good pass rusher, and 3-4 good receivers, and a QB that made a bunch of big 4th quarter passes against BAD Teams.

 

 A 4-5 win roster that is going to have 8 plus new starters. Sorry you missed it.

 

I'm sorry our record would indicate that we were an 11 win team, regardless of your opinion of the players.