Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Report: Colts in talks for Alex Mack (mega-merge)


Recommended Posts

All this hype for Alex Mack! Do we really know he's that great?

Has anyone here actually watched Mack play?

Even if some did watch Cleveland a few times... When watching a game, who pays attention to what the center is doing?

 

A lot of what makes Mack so valuable is what he does before the snap, with reads and line adjustments. Furthermore while many centers rate much higher in one aspect of blocking than the other, Mack grades very highly in both run and pass blocking. And he's very adept at pulling an leading sweeps. He's never missed a snap in his career, and he's looked as good as he has between below-average guards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 960
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All this hype for Alex Mack! Do we really know he's that great?

Has anyone here actually watched Mack play?

Even if some did watch Cleveland a few times... When watching a game, who pays attention to what the center is doing?

I do but I was a G/C and OL Coach

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this hype for Alex Mack! Do we really know he's that great?

Has anyone here actually watched Mack play?

Even if some did watch Cleveland a few times... When watching a game, who pays attention to what the center is doing?

 

To be fair ( because I've had to watch NFL redzone on a couple of occasions during this season- stupid sky sports) whenever the colts weren't on, I looked for potential FA's. So on occasions, I would look out for Mack when the Browns were shown and there is a reason he is a pro bowl player. He literally stands the opposing D lineman up in pass protection ( even the likes of Haloti Ngata) but he is very good in the run game as well, he does open up holes for the RB and whoever starts at RB for us will greatly benefit as well as Luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this hype for Alex Mack! Do we really know he's that great?

Has anyone here actually watched Mack play?

Even if some did watch Cleveland a few times... When watching a game, who pays attention to what the center is doing?

 

There was actually a funny post on Grantland last week about that. Your team gets a guy you've never heard of and it's the best signing in the world. You get a huge name FA (aside from Revis) and you know they have already climbed the mountain to become the guy you've heard of so chances are they are probably older or injured at that point and it's just "eh".

Link to post
Share on other sites

He would be really, really valuable.

 

But...

 

Let's not get overboard on signing him. The O-line can be fixed without. We're actually in a good position having 2 really good T's. Let's not blow it on the inside, which is cheaper and per position less important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He would be really, really valuable.

 

But...

 

Let's not get overboard on signing him. The O-line can be fixed without. We're actually in a good position having 2 really good T's. Let's not blow it on the inside, which is cheaper and per position less important.

 

As it pertains to the run game, it's not less important. Can't run the ball if you suck at center and guard. And we need to be able to run the ball better to have a more well-rounded offense. We have affordable guards, and there are more above average guards available on a yearly basis than centers, which is the position on the line that requires the most chemistry with the QB. I'd be fine paying a premium for a center.

 

Not overboard, like you say. I've warmed up to $10m/year, begrudgingly, but that won't land Mack. So I'm off the idea. I'd rather sign another good player -- Goodwin and Montgomery were both really good in the run game last year -- and continue developing Holmes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it pertains to the run game, it's not less important. Can't run the ball if you suck at center and guard. And we need to be able to run the ball better to have a more well-rounded offense. We have affordable guards, and there are more above average guards available on a yearly basis than centers, which is the position on the line that requires the most chemistry with the QB. I'd be fine paying a premium for a center.

 

Not overboard, like you say. I've warmed up to $10m/year, begrudgingly, but that won't land Mack. So I'm off the idea. I'd rather sign another good player -- Goodwin and Montgomery were both really good in the run game last year -- and continue developing Holmes. 

You are right. I never claimed we can run the ball while sucking at center and guard.

 

But with our fortunate situation of having two really good T's (which aren't easy to find), I hope they'll take advantage of it building this well-rounded offensive line... And as you say, I can't see us landing Mack anymore. I'm hoping, though...

 

About Goodwin and Montgomery, I agree they could help us. But I have zero clue about Holmes. Is he any good?

 

Another thing - why do the Browns still have this huge amount of cap space left. What are they seeking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, Mack would be worth the 10M a year due to what he would mean to our line, and how he would be the anchor for the next 6-8 years. Plus even though the LT's in FA did not break the bank and move the numbers up, next year, when the salary cap jumps again to 140M or more, elite LT's will be making around 11-12, and the best Center in the league next year would be worth 10M, we would just be establishing what the market will be next year. Ahead of our time. I have worked the numbers out, and it would leave us with around 7 million going into the year, and we don't need to worry about our draft since we have no number ones. In 2015 we would still have over 30M, if we cut Toler and Waldon which would not surpise me, but we still have plenty of money to sign Castanzo, T.Y. , Allen, Fleener. We will need to wait on Brazil, but paying Mack would not hinder us in signing our own guys next year, and still have a little left over for FA.

 

:facepalm:

 

NO Center is worth 10 mil per.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. I never claimed we can run the ball while sucking at center and guard.

 

But with our fortunate situation of having two really good T's (which aren't easy to find), I hope they'll take advantage of it building this well-rounded offensive line... And as you say, I can't see us landing Mack anymore. I'm hoping, though...

 

About Goodwin and Montgomery, I agree they could help us. But I have zero clue about Holmes. Is he any good?

 

Another thing - why do the Browns still have this huge amount of cap space left. What are they seeking?

 

No one knows about Holmes. He was a finesse blocker at USC, and has been injured the past two years. He might be really good, but no one has seen him play center in the pros. I'd take one of the older vets and let them all duke it out in camp. If Holmes loses, he can be a reserve. If one of the vets loses, they can rotate between backing up center and guard, where we still have question marks.

 

I think the Browns have done okay in free agency. I don't necessarily like their moves, but they've addressed their needs, aside from QB. That's their missing piece. They can afford to reserve their cap space to match any offer for Mack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another thing - why do the Browns still have this huge amount of cap space left. What are they seeking?

 

The Browns had $24.5 mil in carry-over from last season. They're holding back a good chunk of their cap because of Mack, obviously, and to do extensions with guys like Haden, Cameron, Gordon, etc. But they don't need to hurry to do those extensions, they can afford to wait until the Mack situation plays out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Browns had $24.5 mil in carry-over from last season. They're holding back a good chunk of their cap because of Mack, obviously, and to do extensions with guys like Haden, Cameron, Gordon, etc. But they don't need to hurry to do those extensions, they can afford to wait until the Mack situation plays out.

 

What's the Browns' biggest need right now? Aside from QB, of course...

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the Browns' biggest need right now? Aside from QB, of course...

Assuming they finalize with Moats, #2 Wr, #2 CB, and another OG. But I expect them to address those needs in the draft. 7 picks in the first 4 rounds can take care of a lot of needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming they finalize with Moats, #2 Wr, #2 CB, and another OG. But I expect them to address those needs in the draft. 7 picks in the first 4 rounds can take care of a lot of needs.

Maybe they will get a shot at Dennard guy was a stud for my Spartans be a great pick
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it absolutely has a more than probable chance to happen, First of all the threat of overspending is already handcuffing the Browns on when and how they are able to spend and retain players.  I think Demoff is at this moment putting a deal together for Grigs and other GMs that while the Browns can match it financially, Its structure and or language will attempt to cripple them in a combination of other ways. So by NO means is the Alex Mack possibility over for us or other teams.. not even close!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it absolutely has a more than probable chance to happen, First of all the threat of overspending is already handcuffing the Browns on when and how they are able to spend and retain players.  I think Demoff is at this moment putting a deal together for Grigs and other GMs that while the Browns can match it financially, Its structure and or language will attempt to cripple them in a combination of other ways. So by NO means is the Alex Mack possibility over for us or other teams.. not even close!

 

The Browns have as much cap flexibility as anyone else. Not sure what "threat of overspending" you're referring to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Browns have as much cap flexibility as anyone else. Not sure what "threat of overspending" you're referring to.

 

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for the contract to be a 1-year deal; I just don't see us outbidding the Browns at this point.

 

I could see the Colts signing Mack to a 1-year deal that matches the transition tag number, but removes the team's ability to use either tag next year (Revis had this in his contract with the Jets and I've heard the one with Pats).  The Browns could match, but couldn't restrict his movement next year.

 

The alternative option would be a first in the NFL, but I haven't found anything in the CBA to prohibit it (and I've looked).  In baseball (with guaranteed contracts), you have a mutual option that both player and the team must be willing to exercise for additional years.  They are almost never exercised in baseball and to my knowledge have never been used in the NFL (the team has the leverage with non-guaranteed contracts).  The Colts and Mack could negotiate a year 1 guaranteed salary identical to the transition amount and have a mutual option for year 2+ in an amount consistent with the current valuation of the player.  Similar to the 1 year deal, it lets Mack walk freely after one year if he wants to leave Cleveland (or wherever he's at).

 

The biggest question of all is whether Mack truly wants to leave or if his agent is just pushing to get him paid.  If he does agree to what would basically be a 1-year deal with the Browns, I think the Colts can make the argument that the Browns would be better off trading him for a low pick than they would be keeping him for a year and still being terrible except for maybe losing a game or two less (and hurting their draft position).  It could the the logical conclusion, if the contract is right, that the Colts send a pick over to the Browns so they don't fight it.  That may be a way for all sides to win.  Mack gets out, Cleveland gets to start the rebuild, at we get Mack without the threat of waiting a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for the contract to be a 1-year deal; I just don't see us outbidding the Browns at this point.

 

I could see the Colts signing Mack to a 1-year deal that matches the transition tag number, but removes the team's ability to use either tag next year (Revis had this in his contract with the Jets and I've heard the one with Pats).  The Browns could match, but couldn't restrict his movement next year.

 

The alternative option would be a first in the NFL, but I haven't found anything in the CBA to prohibit it (and I've looked).  In baseball (with guaranteed contracts), you have a mutual option that both player and the team must be willing to exercise for additional years.  They are almost never exercised in baseball and to my knowledge have never been used in the NFL (the team has the leverage with non-guaranteed contracts).  The Colts and Mack could negotiate a year 1 guaranteed salary identical to the transition amount and have a mutual option for year 2+ in an amount consistent with the current valuation of the player.  Similar to the 1 year deal, it lets Mack walk freely after one year if he wants to leave Cleveland (or wherever he's at).

 

The biggest question of all is whether Mack truly wants to leave or if his agent is just pushing to get him paid.  If he does agree to what would basically be a 1-year deal with the Browns, I think the Colts can make the argument that the Browns would be better off trading him for a low pick than they would be keeping him for a year and still being terrible except for maybe losing a game or two less (and hurting their draft position).  It could the the logical conclusion, if the contract is right, that the Colts send a pick over to the Browns so they don't fight it.  That may be a way for all sides to win.  Mack gets out, Cleveland gets to start the rebuild, at we get Mack without the threat of waiting a year.

 

So, one year, with a no-tag kicker, at what price?

 

It's still risky for us, as Mack could walk to the highest bidder after the year is up. Even if we had a wink-wink agreement with him for an extension, in the event the Browns don't match.

 

Also, the Browns can still match, and it would make sense for them to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense for the contract to be a 1-year deal; I just don't see us outbidding the Browns at this point.

 

I could see the Colts signing Mack to a 1-year deal that matches the transition tag number, but removes the team's ability to use either tag next year (Revis had this in his contract with the Jets and I've heard the one with Pats).  The Browns could match, but couldn't restrict his movement next year.

 

The alternative option would be a first in the NFL, but I haven't found anything in the CBA to prohibit it (and I've looked).  In baseball (with guaranteed contracts), you have a mutual option that both player and the team must be willing to exercise for additional years.  They are almost never exercised in baseball and to my knowledge have never been used in the NFL (the team has the leverage with non-guaranteed contracts).  The Colts and Mack could negotiate a year 1 guaranteed salary identical to the transition amount and have a mutual option for year 2+ in an amount consistent with the current valuation of the player.  Similar to the 1 year deal, it lets Mack walk freely after one year if he wants to leave Cleveland (or wherever he's at).

 

The biggest question of all is whether Mack truly wants to leave or if his agent is just pushing to get him paid.  If he does agree to what would basically be a 1-year deal with the Browns, I think the Colts can make the argument that the Browns would be better off trading him for a low pick than they would be keeping him for a year and still being terrible except for maybe losing a game or two less (and hurting their draft position).  It could the the logical conclusion, if the contract is right, that the Colts send a pick over to the Browns so they don't fight it.  That may be a way for all sides to win.  Mack gets out, Cleveland gets to start the rebuild, at we get Mack without the threat of waiting a year.

 

 

So, one year, with a no-tag kicker, at what price?

 

It's still risky for us, as Mack could walk to the highest bidder after the year is up. Even if we had a wink-wink agreement with him for an extension, in the event the Browns don't match.

 

Also, the Browns can still match, and it would make sense for them to do so.

 

Reading the CBA Article 10 (which makes references to Article 9), any offer sheet that is presented to the Browns will only contain the principal terms of the agreement, and that's all they have to match. Option clauses are a seperate addendum (article 5 sec 1), furthermore the only options that appear to allowed anyway are team options on rookie contracts (optional 5th year).

 

As for those suggesting offering the Browns something to not match the offer sheet, it is not allowed (art 9 sec 2). Mack would first have to sign a contract with the Browns, then and only then would the Colts be able to trade something for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the CBA Article 10 (which makes references to Article 9), any offer sheet that is presented to the Browns will only contain the principal terms of the agreement, and that's all they have to match. Option clauses are a seperate addendum (article 5 sec 1), furthermore the only options that appear to allowed anyway are team options on rookie contracts (optional 5th year).

 

As for those suggesting offering the Browns something to not match the offer sheet, it is not allowed (art 9 sec 2). Mack would first have to sign a contract with the Browns, then and only then would the Colts be able to trade something for him.

 

I thought option clauses were included. Guess not...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the CBA Article 10 (which makes references to Article 9), any offer sheet that is presented to the Browns will only contain the principal terms of the agreement, and that's all they have to match. Option clauses are a seperate addendum (article 5 sec 1), furthermore the only options that appear to allowed anyway are team options on rookie contracts (optional 5th year).

 

As for those suggesting offering the Browns something to not match the offer sheet, it is not allowed (art 9 sec 2). Mack would first have to sign a contract with the Browns, then and only then would the Colts be able to trade something for him.

 

 

I thought option clauses were included. Guess not...

 

I'd argue they would fall into Art 9 (3)(e)(ii.)

 

"Any modifications of and additions to the terms contained in the NFL Player Contract requested by the Restricted Free Agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non-compensation terms (including guarantees, no-cut, and no-trade provi­sions) of the Restricted Free Agent's employment as a football player (which shall be evidenced either by a copy of the NFL Player Contract, marked to show changes, or by a written brief summary contained in or attached to the Offer Sheet)."

 

All Article 5 says is that options aren't a part of the standard NFL contract in the appendix, not that they can't be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Taking NE and Brady out of this because I think what they did was unique.   My observation is that the teams with the elite QB have more success BEFORE that QB gets paid his contract than after he gets paid.   SB teams have won, IMO, because they have gotten elite play from some players at the same time not compensating those players for the elite play.  They produce more than what the team pays them that season.   SEA was better when Russell Wilson was playing near elite QB before his contract. PITT was better when Ben was younger not being paid. I know injuries played a part, but the early Grigson Luck years were much better for the Colts than the $125M years. KC rode an elite Mahomes on a rookie contract to domination over recent seasons. BUFF is enjoying Allen's low pay day relative to his talent and play.  What will happen to them when he gets paid?   (and another version of that formula, even though Denver paid PM, they got a huge boost from an elite Von Miller playing an impactful position on a cheap rookie contract)   OTOH.   NO has been paying Brees and hasn't quite gotten there consistently. ATL pays Ryan and got their once. PITT has been playing Ben but they have not been an elite team with him at that pay scale. I suspect that Lamar will never earn top tier QB money, yet BALT will be right there with all of those teams.   We made our bed when we picked a G at 6, and will pay him elite Olineman money.  I don't see where we are going to be putting the ball in our QBs hands every play and ask him to win the game when we are paying a G to also run block at an elite level.  We will probably always be more of a running team than the average playoff team because of our investment in our G.  Taking the ball out of our QBs hands means that we will not also never truly need that top guy.   And we will win with Wentz if he outplays what has been invested in him.  If he plays like a 3rd rounder and future 1st (just for starting, IOW, because he happens to be the best QB on the roster) then we probably wont go deep into the playoffs. He will always be compensated less than top tier simply because he will be getting old.   Maybe we should have taken Fields and hoped he gave us elite play on the cheap before we'd have to decide between him and Nelson.   
    • I know what a strange baseball season so far. The Cubs have a good team overall, we are like all the other good teams in the NL basically. We have our ups and downs but that is baseball with a 162 game season. The only team in the NL right now that can say they have played great are the Giants at 45-25. Looking at all the good teams in the NL, they are all 8 games above .500 with the exception of the Dodgers who are 42-27. Cubs are 39-31, Padres 40-32, and Mets 35-27. So the other teams fans feel our misery when a loss happens as well. We really need to just start playing more consistent. It needs to start tomorrow with the Marlins who we are much better than.   If someone told me before the season started that we would be in 1st place in the NL Central through 70 games on June 19th, I would take it. That is the extreme positive way to look at this.
    • Who wouldve guessed that the only win for NL Central tonight would be the Pirates beating the Indians 
    • Brewers just lost to the Rockies again , we are still in 1st place in the NL Central. Cards lost as well and the Reds are down 5-2 to the Padres.
    • It was that comebacker. That seemed to effect his play after. Hopefully he's alright and returns back to before 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...