Grigson Strategy Is Solid

[dw49]

Signing these kind of players to cap friendly deals works for me. Figure they work for two years. So now what you have is next year you need cap room for Luck , Hilton , Castonzo and a TE. You sign them to long term deals with the first year of their deals maybe being a little light in cap hits. By the second year (2017) of their new deals , you release Gore , Cole , Cherlius (if still here) Reitz , Jackson (maybe next year) . Mathis will be 35..With all that cap relief , you pile that year with money for the aforementioned players. All works very nicely and the key is what the key always seems to be now... a great QB , good drafting and smart cap management. 

 

So IMO , there is solid thinking and planning by this stategy. Players like Lupati , who are young and good , take future commitment to the cap. So not only do you overpay but you limit your flexibility 2-3 years down the line. Great example of this is the Cherlius signing. If we cut him now , 2 years after signing him , we get hit with a 8.7 dead money cap hit. 

[Dark Superman]

The future sounds promising.

[chad72]

Signing these kind of players to cap friendly deals works for me. Figure they work for two years. So now what you have is next year you need cap room for Luck , Hilton , Castonzo and a TE. You sign them to long term deals with the first year of their deals maybe being a little light in cap hits. By the second year (2017) of their new deals , you release Gore , Cole , Cherlius (if still here) Reitz , Jackson (maybe next year) . Mathis will be 35..With all that cap relief , you pile that year with money for the aforementioned players. All works very nicely and the key is what the key always seems to be now... a great QB , good drafting and smart cap management. 

 

So IMO , there is solid thinking and planning by this stategy. Players like Lupati , who are young and good , take future commitment to the cap. So not do you overpay but you limit your flexibility 2-3 years down the line. Great example of this is the Cherlius signing. If we cut him now , 2 years after signing him , we get hit with a 8.7 dead money cap hit. 

 

Yes, I totally agree.

 

Instead of losing both TEs and possibly Castanzo or T.Y. by shelling out big money to big FAs now, we will re-sign young players in their prime, which will be OUR OWN. We will also maintain continuity on offense instead of worrying about drafting and coaching up a whole bunch of replacements. Till we get to that 2 yr. time frame from now, the vets can hold the fort because they can adapt faster to a new offense and will reduce the burden on the offensive rookies plus be able to help the young ones with their experience too.

[Jake stone]

Finally someone who knows what their talkin bout

[el duderino]

that´s a bingo!

[Superman]

The fiscal objective of these moves is obvious.

 

What might be questioned is whether these moves make us a better football in 2015. I think they can, but I understand the concern, given the age of the players that have been added so far.

[Smurphy1]

Cherilus will be gone by this time next year. His cap hit goes way up and the dead money drops enough to where cutting him isn't a big deal. We will be searching for his replacement this year and/or next year.

[COLTS449]

After we sign Knighton, then his strategy will be fine. We have to fix the D-Line if we want to be significantly better than last year. Signing Knighton would give us a stud DT who's in his prime. Then we need to turn around and draft defense in the first 3 rounds of the draft.

[mad dog curtis]

great post  they are running the colts like a business will stay afloat  for a long time im glad we are not the saints they will have to cut the water boy  before they are done

[PeterBowman]

we'll see how the playlers perform, but his financial strategy has been VERY solid and will help prevent the Colts from being in cap hell once the youngsters' contracts come due.

[Luck_Is_Skilled]

The future sounds promising.

 

[lollygagger8]

Signing these kind of players to cap friendly deals works for me. Figure they work for two years. So now what you have is next year you need cap room for Luck , Hilton , Castonzo and a TE. You sign them to long term deals with the first year of their deals maybe being a little light in cap hits. By the second year (2017) of their new deals , you release Gore , Cole , Cherlius (if still here) Reitz , Jackson (maybe next year) . Mathis will be 35..With all that cap relief , you pile that year with money for the aforementioned players. All works very nicely and the key is what the key always seems to be now... a great QB , good drafting and smart cap management. 

 

So IMO , there is solid thinking and planning by this stategy. Players like Lupati , who are young and good , take future commitment to the cap. So not only do you overpay but you limit your flexibility 2-3 years down the line. Great example of this is the Cherlius signing. If we cut him now , 2 years after signing him , we get hit with a 8.7 dead money cap hit. 

 

 

 

So everyone should put down the burning stakes and quit calling for Grigson's head? 

[Dark Superman]

After we sign Knighton, then his strategy will be fine. We have to fix the D-Line if we want to be significantly better than last year. Signing Knighton would give us a stud DT who's in his prime. Then we need to turn around and draft defense in the first 3 rounds of the draft.

Not sure if we're getting Knighton.

[AntonMcG]

The fiscal objective of these moves is obvious.

 

What might be questioned is whether these moves make us a better football in 2015. I think they can, but I understand the concern, given the age of the players that have been added so far.

 

The crux is that you don't get away with these sort of deals with younger players. The tactic necessitates experienced contributors on the tail-end of their career. Either that, or risky, injury-prone players. 

[#BringBobBack]

so glad somebody understands or attempts to have an intelligent thought as opposed to OVERPAID! burn them all!!!

[dw49]

The crux is that you don't get away with these sort of deals with younger players. The tactic necessitates experienced contributors on the tail-end of their career. Either that, or risky, injury-prone players. 

 

 

That was similar to how I was going to answer that post. SM understands the deal very well and I don't think he's saying he doesn't like it. But my point is similar to yours. There are only a couple .. maybe 3 ways to "skin this cat." They have certain advantages but they also have certain risks. I'm of the belief that what Grigson is doing is solid for both improving the team and at the same time laying the groundwork to keep our better players.

[dw49]

great post  they are running the colts like a business will stay afloat  for a long time im glad we are not the saints they will have to cut the water boy  before they are done

 

Or the Ravens ? 

[Superman]

The crux is that you don't get away with these sort of deals with younger players. The tactic necessitates experienced contributors on the tail-end of their career. Either that, or risky, injury-prone players. 

 

That was similar to how I was going to answer that post. SM understands the deal very well and I don't think he's saying he doesn't like it. But my point is similar to yours. There are only a couple .. maybe 3 ways to "skin this cat." They have certain advantages but they also have certain risks. I'm of the belief that what Grigson is doing is solid for both improving the team and at the same time laying the groundwork to keep our better players.

 

I'm on board.

 

Here's my point: The offseason -- including free agency -- is about making the team better. Yes, that has to be done within the parameters of the team's cap situation, but the objective is not to add players on cap friendly deals. The objective is to make the team better.

 

It can be argued that longer, more expensive contracts for younger playmakers would do more to improve the team. So it's not just a question of whether the cap is in good shape. We still need to see a better product on the field, otherwise, who cares what the cap looks like? 

 

Grigson's strategy is fiscally sound. I dig it, and I like the players. But we can talk about alternative approaches that probably would have more impact on the field. Yes, they'd be more expensive, but presumably, the team would be better.

[amfootball]

Signing these kind of players to cap friendly deals works for me. Figure they work for two years. So now what you have is next year you need cap room for Luck , Hilton , Castonzo and a TE. You sign them to long term deals with the first year of their deals maybe being a little light in cap hits. By the second year (2017) of their new deals , you release Gore , Cole , Cherlius (if still here) Reitz , Jackson (maybe next year) . Mathis will be 35..With all that cap relief , you pile that year with money for the aforementioned players. All works very nicely and the key is what the key always seems to be now... a great QB , good drafting and smart cap management. 

 

So IMO , there is solid thinking and planning by this stategy. Players like Lupati , who are young and good , take future commitment to the cap. So not only do you overpay but you limit your flexibility 2-3 years down the line. Great example of this is the Cherlius signing. If we cut him now , 2 years after signing him , we get hit with a 8.7 dead money cap hit. 

Question for you - do you believe your team is better in 2015 than it was in 2014?

[pgt_rob]

Question for you - do you believe your team is better in 2015 than it was in 2014?

 

Defense took a step back without Robert Mathis. Colts had to be creative and blitz without a main pass rusher. Jonathon Newsome stepped up big towards the end of the season with 6.5 sacks though. He hardly played much the first half of the year because he's a rookie. Hometown boy from Ball State University showed up big though. Offense was probably a little better but Trent once again proved he cannot run the football. Our O-Line struggled with injuries big time and was a huge downfall once again. So I dunno, some areas improved, some not so much but that's how football goes. The team that can last through injuries seems to be ones that go far.

[dw49]

I'm on board.

 

Here's my point: The offseason -- including free agency -- is about making the team better. Yes, that has to be done within the parameters of the team's cap situation, but the objective is not to add players on cap friendly deals. The objective is to make the team better.

 

It can be argued that longer, more expensive contracts for younger playmakers would do more to improve the team. So it's not just a question of whether the cap is in good shape. We still need to see a better product on the field, otherwise, who cares what the cap looks like? 

 

Grigson's strategy is fiscally sound. I dig it, and I like the players. But we can talk about alternative approaches that probably would have more impact on the field. Yes, they'd be more expensive, but presumably, the team would be better.

 

Problem is the contracts you need to deal with next year. Not apples to apples but a little similar... Why didn't NE find a way to fit Revis in ? Makes them a better team this year and next. Answer .. they have Chandler Jones , Hightower and Jamie Collins coming up soon. So does it make sense to sign Mike Lupati and not worry about your own guys next year ? Dunno. 

 

Let me ask this question. Who would those that think Cole is too old to help the pass rush rather have signed instead ? I think Cole is a nice answer and fills the void nicely. He is solid vs the run too. We could have signed one of those Raven guys that have been burning teams butts for years but I like the Cole option better,

[dw49]

Question for you - do you believe your team is better in 2015 than it was in 2014?

 

Yes I do and when we are done , I think it will be a whole lot better. We still have a couple of guys left to sign. 

[amfootball]

Yes I do and when we are done , I think it will be a whole lot better. We still have a couple of guys left to sign. 

One of our reporters here said Indy is just putting whip cream on poop. I thought that was a pretty funny line. He thinks you guys need to beef up your Dline and Oline and not be adding aging skill guys. Kind of feels like Grigson is not really addressing your key issues. Not yet anyways ... but still a ways to go.

[azcolt]

Grigson chose Luck, as would have any of a million Colts fans. Score one in Grigson's good luck column. The Colts have been playing in one of the worst divisions in NFL history for the past three years. Another point in the good luck column.

Beyond good luck, Grigson has made two huge moves: trading for #21 and #34. One is an all-star, the other a complete bust. Beyond those three spots, Grigson has brought in a ton of new guys to fill the other 50 roster spots and as a team we are about where we were before he arrived: a mediocre roster with a superstar qb. So what's so great about his strategy? The results are no better than his fired predecessor.

[dw49]

One of our reporters here said Indy is just putting whip cream on poop. I thought that was a pretty funny line. He thinks you guys need to beef up your Dline and Oline and not be adding aging skill guys. Kind of feels like Grigson is not really addressing your key issues. Not yet anyways ... but still a ways to go.

 

Time will tell but LOL that your reporter's team's fate pretty much rests with an "aging skill guy."

[amfootball]

Time will tell but LOL that your reporter's team's fate pretty much rests with a "aging skill guy."

Yes, we are all in with #12. At least he is not costing us much and he has great hair.

[Dustin]

Langford contract is bleh, but I agree. 

[Colts_Fan12]

The fiscal objective of these moves is obvious.

What might be questioned is whether these moves make us a better football in 2015. I think they can, but I understand the concern, given the age of the players that have been added so far.

come on Supe you told me there was anything wrong with the ages lol

But seriously even with them being old they should help us if they can stay healthy. In truth tho I really did want atleast 1 young FA signed like Searcy or Fairley. Maybe Grigs has a trade in mind who knows with him

[Superman]

One of our reporters here said Indy is just putting whip cream on poop. I thought that was a pretty funny line. He thinks you guys need to beef up your Dline and Oline and not be adding aging skill guys. Kind of feels like Grigson is not really addressing your key issues. Not yet anyways ... but still a ways to go.

 

Who cares what a NE reporter says?

[Superman]

Langford contract is bleh, but I agree. 

 

My guess was 4/16. I'll wait on structure, but I bet it's light on signing bonus, making it a year to year deal. It's less than RJF.

[corgi]

One of our reporters here said Indy is just putting whip cream on poop. I thought that was a pretty funny line. He thinks you guys need to beef up your Dline and Oline and not be adding aging skill guys. Kind of feels like Grigson is not really addressing your key issues. Not yet anyways ... but still a ways to go.

I wouldn't expect anything else from one of "your" reporters.

[Superman]

come on Supe you told me there was anything wrong with the ages lol

But seriously even with them being old they should help us if they can stay healthy. In truth tho I really did want atleast 1 young FA signed like Searcy or Fairley. Maybe Grigs has a trade in mind who knows with him

 

I said I understand the concern, given their age. I didn't say they're too old to contribute.

[Dustin]

My guess was 4/16. I'll wait on structure, but I bet it's light on signing bonus, making it a year to year deal. It's less than RJF.

 

RJF was better so I would hope it was less. 

[dw49]

Who cares what a NE reporter says?

 

 

This could end up to be the biggest thread hijack in forum history. But I guess I'm the one that first brought up Brady

[dw49]

My guess was 4/16. I'll wait on structure, but I bet it's light on signing bonus, making it a year to year deal. It's less than RJF.

 

 

Not a bad deal at all. He is a nice 3-4 player that was stuck in a 4-3. Maybe the detractors would like this signing better ? I understand it's just a rotoworld reporter but here ya go... Typical FA spending....

 

 

 

Raiders land Curtis Lofton for 3 yrs, $18 mil

Raiders agreed to terms with MLB Curtis Lofton, formerly of the Saints, on a three-year contract worth $18 million.

Lofton is a below-average run defender with next to no pass-coverage skills, so we'll assume the Raiders targeted him for leadership purposes. He was the defensive signal-caller in New Orleans last season and should handle the same responsibilities in Oakland. Miles Burris will back him up at middle linebacker. If nothing else, Lofton should be an asset in IDP leagues.

Source: Michael C. Wright on Twitter

Mar 11 - 10:44 A

[Colts_Fan12]

I said I understand the concern, given their age. I didn't say they're too old to contribute.

I feel the same I just hope our injury bug leaves them alone

[amfootball]

Who cares what a NE reporter says?

I don't normally put too much stock in any media guys but I thought his take was pretty spot on.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Agree Grigson's has IMO done a good job on paper already this off season. If he can get Johnson & and a additional Dl and produce a solid draft I would be extremely happy!

[Superman]

Problem is the contracts you need to deal with next year. Not apples to apples but a little similar... Why didn't NE find a way to fit Revis in ? Makes them a better team this year and next. Answer .. they have Chandler Jones , Hightower and Jamie Collins coming up soon. So does it make sense to sign Mike Lupati and not worry about your own guys next year ? Dunno. 

 

Let me ask this question. Who would those that think Cole is too old to help the pass rush rather have signed instead ? I think Cole is a nice answer and fills the void nicely. He is solid vs the run too. We could have signed one of those Raven guys that have been burning teams butts for years but I like the Cole option better,

 

I don't know if you've done any detailed projections for our cap, but I have. I think we could have grabbed a highly rated playmaker or two and still be fine to sign our own guys. We're in a much different year to year situation than the Pats right now, in that we don't have dead money from previously released or restructured guys, we don't have injured playmakers (Mayo, etc.), and we have a cheap, young core for another year at least. Kendall Langford could have been Terrance Knighton. We could have grabbed Searcy. Etc.

 

I'm fine with Trent Cole. I think his contract is a little more than I expected, but I think he'll be worth it. McPhee got the same yearly average. Greg Hardy is out there, but probably not a Colts target. 

 

Again, I'm not griping about the strategy. I'm just saying that the roster needed to be upgraded. The cap situation is a concurrent factor, but not the only one. To me, the first consideration is whether the team is better.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

I don't know if you've done any detailed projections for our cap, but I have. I think we could have grabbed a highly rated playmaker or two and still be fine to sign our own guys. We're in a much different year to year situation than the Pats right now, in that we don't have dead money from previously released or restructured guys, we don't have injured playmakers (Mayo, etc.), and we have a cheap, young core for another year at least. Kendall Langford could have been Terrance Knighton. We could have grabbed Searcy. Etc.

 

I'm fine with Trent Cole. I think his contract is a little more than I expected, but I think he'll be worth it. McPhee got the same yearly average. Greg Hardy is out there, but probably not a Colts target. 

 

Again, I'm not griping about the strategy. I'm just saying that the roster needed to be upgraded. The cap situation is a concurrent factor, but not the only one. To me, the first consideration is whether the team is better.

I like Cole I agree the price is a little high but pass rushers don't grow on trees & hes a solid player thus the price.