T.Y. Hilton seeking a whopping 14m per year. Per B/R

[ColtsLegacy]

Again my premise was name teams that weren't career killing dumpsters that can afford him. But if he wants to go to oakland so be it. Have a great 2 year flare then burn out.

I also disagree with the idea that TY would crash and burn if he did end up with a team like the Jags or Raiders. Would he be as productive? Unlikely. But he'd still be an excellent WR and even bad QBs can connect with excellent WRs.

Look at Mike Evans in Tampa last year. Some of the worst QB play I've seen in a long time, yet Evans still managed over 1k yards and 12 TDs.

And for that matter Vincent Jackson, who I think is quite overrated, has had 3 straight seasons easily over 1k+ yards and 8, 7, 2 TDs respectively since joining the Bucs.

Eric Decker had nearly 1k yards and 5 TDs with whatever they consider a QB in NYJ, plus no other receiving threats to speak of, and Decker is no where near the WR TYH is.

Desean Jackson, very similar player though TY is better at this point, had 1,169 yards and 6 TDs with the mess in Washington.

[IndyTrav]

When you're talking about a player's contract, you look at his production from before he did the contract. That's how his market was determined. The subsequent years don't matter. 

 

And you're making all these arbitrary adjustments and considerations for guys like Golden Tate and James Jones, and that's also not how it works. Production is the major consideration, not opportunities. No player has ever won a negotiation by saying "I'd have more yards if you threw me the ball more." Receivers especially get opportunities because of how well they play their position.

 

And even then, if you compare Hilton's last two years to any two years from Tate and Jones, he blows them out of the water. You can use their best two seasons, consecutive or not. Matter of fact, the only way you can compare them to Hilton if you combine the two best seasons between them, and they don't compare to Hilton's last two years (Hilton outgains them by 313 yards, has one fewer reception, and 6 fewer TDs; and that's only if I use James Jones' 14 TD 2012 season, which is clearly an anomaly). Hilton is far and away better than both of them. They are not comparables.

 

I love how you left out 2 of the 4 distinctions between Decker and Hilton: #2 receiver (Hilton was the Colts #1 receiver all of 2014 and most of 2013); vertical threat, as yards/catch demonstrate. And while Luck has set records as a young QB, those aren't all time records, and so the distinction between Decker's QB and Hilton's QB remains. And it's debatable, but in light of the foregoing, Hilton isn't considered a product of his environment. Yes, he plays with a good QB, but that doesn't diminish his talent and ability anymore than Antonio Brown is diminished by playing with Ben Roethlisberger.

 

I don't know why people think Hilton's height means he isn't viewed as a #1 option. Two inches doesn't differentiate him from Maclin, Wallace, etc.. He's been the primary receiver for Luck for the better part of two seasons, and has produced in that role. He's the same size as Antonio Brown, who if he were on the market right now would get Dez/DT money for sure. When Desean Jackson was more productive, and in a suppressed cap environment, he made $9.7m/year, and he's the same size as Hilton.

 

Vincent Jackson can be as tall as he wants, but that doesn't make him better than anyone that we're discussing, including Hilton. Similar production is the only reason Jackson belongs in the discussion, and while I don't like his game, I have to grant him that; still, you can't negotiate with Hilton by saying 'you have similar numbers to Vincent Jackson, but he's 7 inches taller than you so you can't demand his salary.' Nah. Jackson's deal was $11m/year, and was also in a suppressed cap environment three years ago. The market dictated $11m/year for Vincent Jackson and $12m/year for Mike Wallace, but it's not set for Hilton? Makes no sense.

 

Nice burn about the coaching staff... Why would they not expect their best receiver to do more than 65 catches? In his fourth season, Hilton's production is going to regress back to near what he did in his rookie year? That spills the bounds of logic. All these weapons that the team has don't mean that the best weapon isn't going to produce at a high level. 

 

I'd prefer Hilton produce well in 2015 and help the team win games, not that he has an unimpressive first 6 weeks and then gets hurt so we can get him at a discount. Not sure what kind of angle that is... anyone who gets hurt has their market affected. But Jeremy Maclin got $11m/year one season removed from a significant leg injury, on one year's worth of high level production. It's more likely that Hilton would take the one year deal and then get to free agency again than sign a long term deal for less than what his talent says he's worth.

 

Thats 100% foolish to think that teams do not look at players production after signing a contract. You don't think every single team took notice of the chasm between Wallaces pay grade, and production? You dont think every single GM in the league isn't saying to themselves "Well,Im not gonna make that mistake"..

 

Again foolish, to say opportunity doesn't translate into contract negotiations. Your favorite card seems to be "...well Antonio Brown..." well how did Antonio get his nice contract extension after not having blow you away #s his first 2 years? Oh, maybe because a team thought they had a nice player and knew what he was capable of when given a heavier workload?

 

And of course Hilton "blows them out of the water" because he was given the chance too. I know it seems incredible to think that a guy who has 300 footballs thrown his way can outproduce a guy who has 100 thrown his way. Fascinating concept. Again, failed to be acknowledged by you, but Tate was finally given an opportunity equal to TYs for the most part (lesser QB, best WR in league playing opposite) this past season, and he and TY put up near identical numbers....Funny how that worked....

 

Theres that phrase again used to justify Hilton. "Vertical Threat"...You know what Decker was? "A scoring machine." Who somehow managed to score 8TDs with Tim Tebow as a starting QB. Which is 1 more than TYs highest season.....Decker was a #2 to TYs #1, I guess thats why Deckers last 2 years in Den, and TYs best 2 years in Indy are separated by a total of 12 targets....

 

I didn't realize his height kept him from being a #1 option? I thought we were discussing players who are comparable in nearly every way, and some of the differences were anywhere between 2"-8"...Because again its foolish to think that a GM doesn't look at two production comparable WR, and favor the one with size.....Again, theres your Brown card. Love pulling that one out. Maybe TY would get Dez/DT $ if he led the league in Rec/Yds and was 2nd in rec/yds like Brown has been the past 2 years....Size aint got nothing to do with it for Brown, because not to many people are in his league....TY is playing in the muddy middle, so you better believe his size matters..... 

 

Again, you go on and on about "market'....There is no market. Bad teams and bad GMs sign these contracts.There was no market for Vjax at $11mill, it was 2-3 inept teams. Same for Wallace....If you want to call that a market, you go right on ahead. Perhaps thats why the Bucs are and have been cellar dwellers for the last 3years, because they 'set the market' for Pretty Darn Good/Not Great WRs....

 

That spills the bounds of logic? Let me clear it up for you. Are the Colts going to lead the league in Pass Attempts again? Probably not, due to an upgradedish OL, RB, and the fact our schedule looks like we will be in garbage time with 10min left in the 4th qt in about 10 games. 

Will the addition of Andre Johnson, a healthy Dwayne Allen, Frank Gore, Dorsett, an improving Moncrief, and possibly Carter eat into what is already probably going to be a lesser amount of attempts. Probably yes.....Do you know what the top 29 WR in the NFL in yards had in common last season? All of them but 4 had over 120 targets, the ones who missed the cut, had 119, 115, 117, and 95 targets....TY was at 131 last year, I think its a fairly safe guess that his targets are going to go down, as will his yardage and TDs...And of those 29 TY is right in the middle of catch %, and some of those guys had some pretty awful guys chucking the ball to them.... 

 

I think everyone wants TY to perform well this season. Him breaking his leg isn't an angle. Its a possibility. 

[Narcosys]

I also disagree with this theory that TY would crash and burn if he did end up with a team like the Jags or Raiders. Would he be as productive? Unlikely. But he'd still be an excellent WR and even bad QBs can connect with excellent WRs.

Look at Mike Evans in Tampa last year. Some of the worst QB play I've seen in a long time, yet Evans still managed over 1k yards and 12 TDs.

And for that matter Vincent Jackson, who I think is quite overrated, has had 3 straight seasons easily over 1k+ yards and 8, 7, 2 TDs respectively since joining the Bucs.

Eric Decker had nearly 1k yards and 5 TDs with whatever they consider a QB in NYJ, plus no other receiving threats to speak of, and Decker is no where near the WR TYH is.

Desean Jackson, very similar player though TY is better at this point, had 1,169 yards and 6 TDs with the mess in Washington.

He would be getting signed for his productivity as of late. If his production drops, he won't be as attractive to other teams for his next contract. Would he want to risk it?

Evans and V Jackson spread the field for one another. Helps them out. I don't think the redskins QB play was horrible.

Eric Decker went to the Jets and his production suffered for it. He will be less appealing to others in the future. Unless it's a team like he had with the broncos.

[ColtsLegacy]

He would be getting signed for his productivity as of late. If his production drops, he won't be as attractive to other teams for his next contract. Would he want to risk it?

Evans and V Jackson spread the field for one another. Helps them out. I don't think the redskins QB play was horrible.

Eric Decker went to the Jets and his production suffered for it. He will be less appealing to others in the future. Unless it's a team like he had with the broncos.

All good points I can agree with. It just seemed you were implying TY would be out of the league in a few years if he went to one of those terrible teams and that I don't agree with. I think he'd still be productive, just with less opportunities.

Although, Redskins QB play was really quite bad.

[Narcosys]

All good points I can agree with. It just seemed you were implying TY would be out of the league in a few years if he went to one of those terrible teams and that I don't agree with. I think he'd still be productive, just to a lesser degree as would be expected.

Although, Redskins QB play was really quite bad.

I tend to exaggerate a little.

[Superman]

Thats 100% foolish to think that teams do not look at players production after signing a contract. You don't think every single team took notice of the chasm between Wallaces pay grade, and production? You dont think every single GM in the league isn't saying to themselves "Well,Im not gonna make that mistake"..

 

No, what a player does after his contract isn't a reflection of the market that dictated his contract, and this is a very simple concept. His market is dictated, far more than anything else, by what he did prior to his contract. And that's why Golden Tate got $6.2m/year, and not the $10-12m/year that his 2014 production would likely command.

 

Again foolish, to say opportunity doesn't translate into contract negotiations. Your favorite card seems to be "...well Antonio Brown..." well how did Antonio get his nice contract extension after not having blow you away #s his first 2 years? Oh, maybe because a team thought they had a nice player and knew what he was capable of when given a heavier workload?

 

Brown's contract was mostly a reflection of his previous production, with the Steelers paying a premium to get him to agree to a long term deal so that the scales would balance over time. That's why they did it with two years remaining on his contract. Yes, partly a reflection of what they projected for him in the future, but he had no standing without a productive 2011.

 

And of course Hilton "blows them out of the water" because he was given the chance too. I know it seems incredible to think that a guy who has 300 footballs thrown his way can outproduce a guy who has 100 thrown his way. Fascinating concept. Again, failed to be acknowledged by you, but Tate was finally given an opportunity equal to TYs for the most part (lesser QB, best WR in league playing opposite) this past season, and he and TY put up near identical numbers....Funny how that worked....

 

The Tate point is not failed to be acknowledged. It's irrelevant because it comes after he signed his deal. You don't take a guy who just signed and then had a big year and try to apply that big year to the market. A 1,300 yard receiver isn't a $6.2m/year guy just because Golden Tate outperformed his deal in Year 1. That's not how it works. He is disqualified from being a comp to Hilton, not because Hilton is better than him (which he is), but because his stats prior to his contract don't compare to Hilton's stats.

 

And yes, better players get more opportunities. Which is a simple explanation for why Hilton has received more opportunities than Golden Tate, particularly prior to 2014.

 

Theres that phrase again used to justify Hilton. "Vertical Threat"...You know what Decker was? "A scoring machine." Who somehow managed to score 8TDs with Tim Tebow as a starting QB. Which is 1 more than TYs highest season.....Decker was a #2 to TYs #1, I guess thats why Deckers last 2 years in Den, and TYs best 2 years in Indy are separated by a total of 12 targets....

 

He was the #2 receiver in a pass happy offense that broke records. You don't have to defend Decker to me; I always liked him. But in the 2014 free agency, he did not have the standing that Hilton has now.

 

 didn't realize his height kept him from being a #1 option? I thought we were discussing players who are comparable in nearly every way, and some of the differences were anywhere between 2"-8"...Because again its foolish to think that a GM doesn't look at two production comparable WR, and favor the one with size.....Again, theres your Brown card. Love pulling that one out. Maybe TY would get Dez/DT $ if he led the league in Rec/Yds and was 2nd in rec/yds like Brown has been the past 2 years....Size aint got nothing to do with it for Brown, because not to many people are in his league....TY is playing in the muddy middle, so you better believe his size matters.....

 

GMs don't disqualify receivers from being #1 options because of their height, and there are plenty of examples, including Antonio Brown. Sorry you hate hearing about him, but he's the most obvious example right now of a #1 receiver who should never have to hear anyone talk about how he's only 5'10". It doesn't matter. He produces.

 

To the bolded, nice strawman. I've never suggested that Hilton would get Dez/DT money, or that he deserves what Antonio Brown would get. But he's certainly not in whatever you're calling "the muddy middle." He's one of the best young receivers in the league.

 

Again, you go on and on about "market'....There is no market. Bad teams and bad GMs sign these contracts.There was no market for Vjax at $11mill, it was 2-3 inept teams. Same for Wallace....If you want to call that a market, you go right on ahead. Perhaps thats why the Bucs are and have been cellar dwellers for the last 3years, because they 'set the market' for Pretty Darn Good/Not Great WRs....

 

??? There's clearly a market. Doesn't matter who's offering the contracts. Time and again in the NFL, it's been proven that young players who reach free agency go wherever the money is, with few exceptions. So if you let the guy reach free agency, you'll see the market. Acting like the fact that only 2-3 teams offered Vincent Jackson big money means there was no market for him is ridiculous. That's precisely what "market" means -- what someone is willing to pay you.

 

LOL at the idea that the Bucs are bad because of what they paid Vincent Jackson. Come on...

That spills the bounds of logic? Let me clear it up for you. Are the Colts going to lead the league in Pass Attempts again? Probably not, due to an upgradedish OL, RB, and the fact our schedule looks like we will be in garbage time with 10min left in the 4th qt in about 10 games.

Will the addition of Andre Johnson, a healthy Dwayne Allen, Frank Gore, Dorsett, an improving Moncrief, and possibly Carter eat into what is already probably going to be a lesser amount of attempts. Probably yes.....Do you know what the top 29 WR in the NFL in yards had in common last season? All of them but 4 had over 120 targets, the ones who missed the cut, had 119, 115, 117, and 95 targets....TY was at 131 last year, I think its a fairly safe guess that his targets are going to go down, as will his yardage and TDs...And of those 29 TY is right in the middle of catch %, and some of those guys had some pretty awful guys chucking the ball to them....

 

Even accepting your premise as fact -- which I don't -- that doesn't mean you can arbitrarily slice Hilton's production by 25%. The idea of an ideally balanced passing attack where everyone gets a proportionate slice is mostly a fantasy. Every offense has a lead weapon, and ours is Hilton. Sorry to hammer you with my Antonio Brown trump card again, but he had 1,700 yards for an offense with a good rushing attack, another 80+ reception receiver, and two 50+ reception receivers. Hilton's production isn't likely to be curtailed by this idea of a better, well-rounded offense. Hilton is also likely to continue spending time in our high usage slot position. Even if his usage goes down somewhat, his efficiency would likely increase, which means applying his 2014 percentages doesn't work.

 

And it's not just Brown. Demaryius Thomas played alongside Sanders and JT, and still had 184 targets. Jordy Nelson, Andre Johnson, Vincent Jackson, Jeremy Maclin all had strong #2s behind them, and all had 140+ targets. Unless Hilton is hurt, it's illogical to assume that he'll only get 105 targets next season. 

 

I think everyone wants TY to perform well this season. Him breaking his leg isn't an angle. Its a possibility.

 

One that probably doesn't impact negotiations right now. The Colts aren't going to hold off on Hilton's contract because they want to see if he falls off in 2015, injury or otherwise. They might hold off because he's priced himself out of their ideal range, and that's another story.

 

Edit: And then I'm outta here, because this post is just waaaay too long.

[Defjamz26]

14 mil? Tbh I wouldn't sign sign him for more than $11 million a year. He's good but he's not Antonio Brown good. His skill set is limited due to his height. If you're going to give a WR $14 million a year, he better be able to high point the ball and get physical with DBs. That's not Hilton's game.

If your going to be under 6 ft and get paid you have to be Antonio Brown good.

[Superman]

14 mil? Tbh I wouldn't sign sign him for more than $11 million a year. He's good but he's not Antonio Brown good. His skill set is limited due to his height. If you're going to give a WR $14 million a year, he better be able to high point the ball and get physical with DBs. That's not Hilton's game.

If your going to be under 6 ft and get paid you have to be Antonio Brown good.

 

Why are people so obsessed with a receiver being 6' tall? It's all about production.

[BleedBlu8792]

14 mil? Tbh I wouldn't sign sign him for more than $11 million a year. He's good but he's not Antonio Brown good. His skill set is limited due to his height. If you're going to give a WR $14 million a year, he better be able to high point the ball and get physical with DBs. That's not Hilton's game.

If your going to be under 6 ft and get paid you have to be Antonio Brown good.

 

??? Antonio had 47 more receptions, along with being targeted 50+ more times, than TY had and only produced 350 more yards... Give Ty another 20 catches or so and he's probably right at where Antonio is in yardage. The comparison is easily, and equally, there...

[Defjamz26]

Why are people so obsessed with a receiver being 6' tall? It's all about production.

Yeah but there are certain things bigger receivers can do that smaller ones can't, like high point a ball or make a catch with 2 defenders on him. I'm not saying they're is anything wrong with guys like Brown or Hilton but you have much more flexibility with a guy like AJ Green or Julio Jones. Size gives them extra physicality for the position.

I'd you're going to throw a trade into the end zone for example, you'd probably just throw it up and let AJ go up and get it. Hinton isn't that type of player. You're not always going to be able to beat people with speed, quickness, and precise route running. Sometimes you need to get physical and fight for it.

I agree with your statement Superman because Brown is 5'10 and the best WR in the league but guys like Green and Jones are more versatile because of their size. Remember 2012 and the 2013 seasons? People complained because our receiving corps had no size. And everyone was estatic when we got Moncrief, and even more when we signed AJ.

[mvbighead]

I agree with your overall point, but #4 is definitely the most important.

 

Eh, I'd put it between 1 and 4.  I see your point, but on the same side, if a GM sucks at managing cap space, he'll likely run out of money when it comes time to sign his good players in their prime.

 

Grigson signed a number of FA deals early in his career but almost all of them were in the middle ground side. He didn't sign a Suh type deal and have it backfire in his face.  Had he made a splash on one big guy in FA, and then killed his space, we could have dismantle a number of pieces to re-sign luck/hilton/castonzo.  But as he didn't, it sounds as if they're trying to make progress on signing those three.  Proper cap management allows a team to build year after year after year.  Poor management (IE - Saints) could see you dismantling your entire roster so that you can keep good players going forward.

[mvbighead]

Yeah but there are certain things bigger receivers can do that smaller ones can't, like high point a ball or make a catch with 2 defenders on him. I'm not saying they're is anything wrong with guys like Brown or Hilton but you have much more flexibility with a guy like AJ Green or Julio Jones. Size gives them extra physicality for the position.

I'd you're going to throw a trade into the end zone for example, you'd probably just throw it up and let AJ go up and get it. Hinton isn't that type of player. You're not always going to be able to beat people with speed, quickness, and precise route running. Sometimes you need to get physical and fight for it.

I agree with your statement Superman because Brown is 5'10 and the best WR in the league but guys like Green and Jones are more versatile because of their size. Remember 2012 and the 2013 seasons? People complained because our receiving corps had no size. And everyone was estatic when we got Moncrief, and even more when we signed AJ.

 

Meh, size is completely overrated in terms of receivers.  Is anyone going to throw Hilton a jump ball against a 6-1 corner?  Not likely.  Is anyone going to throw a deep ball to Brandon Marshall and expect him to outrun a speedy corner?  Not likely.

 

You can make points about Green/Jones/Johnson, but each of those guys was ultimately a top 10 pick (pretty sure Green was, I know the other two are).  Odds are not good that either of them hit FA in their prime.  So when we have a 5-9 receiver that can blow by the defense over and over again, I'd absolutely make it a point to re-sign him.

 

But as far as flexibility... I don't buy a big receiver being a better option than a small one.  All it simply takes is to have multiple types of options on your team to exploit a defense's weakness.  We have a plethora.

 

And as far as people being excited... that's what the masses do.  Oooooooh, big receiver... yay!  Doesn't mean anything if they can't produce.

[ColtStronger]

Thing is, there are very few multiple SB teams available to list that are working in the modern era.  The game has changed a LOT over the years.

 

My thing is, Montana and Rice won a few, right?  I wouldn't suggest that Luck is Montana nor than Rice is Hilton, but you have to see the point that you need talent all over.  The pay scale will be up, so despite 12-14 seeming like a lot of money, it won't be in time.  Heck, we shelled out a large chunk to Freeney back in his day but it was a pittance compared to the deals pass rushers are getting today.

 

All in all, what separates the good from the bad, in my opinion, are:

 

1. Teams signing good contracts, period.
2. From step 1, a good contract is one where a player can be cut with minimal penalty going forward.
3. From step 1, a good contract is one that balances yearly cost and projects cap space going forward to ensure availability of space to re-sign key players
4. Drafting well.  This is key as the draft provides you with 7+ players on extremely low contracts for 4 years (or 5).  If you consistently draft well, you'll have solid depth and quality starters.
5. Signing FA to fill voids that cannot be met in the draft.

All of those things are key.  The most important being item 1.  If the team signs Hilton to a 5 year deal with a 14 mill average that they can walk away from in year 3 with minimal penalty, why not?  If Hilton's performance drops, they have an out.  If it doesn't, they're paying him market value.  So long as they have the means to move on from highly paid average players, they should sign the deals so long as it leaves them the room to keep their star players.

 

The biggest thing Polian avoided was FA.  He did this in poor fashion, IMO.  Instead of signing team friendly deals, he occasionally made a splash on guys.  One such guy was Corey Simon, and that deal was a colossal mistake for all but year 1.  Cherilus was a good signing at the time, but eventually the value faded.  We have some penalty as a result, but not one that hurt us in the way the Simon deal did.

 

As long as a GM drafts well and signs contracts well, he should have a good team through decades.  It's GMs like that of the Saints who sign mega deals with a TE and then ship them off the following season that hurt their team.

 

EDIT:  And my comment against the Saints GM isn't to say that Graham was a bad signing.  It was simply to say that if you sign a deal like that, you make sure it fits your plans for at least the duration required to mimize the cap impact in the future.  IE - Get past the bonus/guaranteed money so there is a net gain by removing the player from your roster.  Pretty sure their cap room suffered significantly due to that deal.

Excellent analysis!  I do agree with all of your points... You do have to run the front office efficiently in order to maximize success as a franchise progresses.  However, most GM's aren't great at all of the areas you mentioned.  They all have their share of mistakes, missing on draft picks, signing players to too much guaranteed money with that player not panning out etc.  They must make up for it by finding diamonds in the rough, hitting on the majority of their 1st few selections and value picks, and occasionally making a blockbuster trade turning out you their favor etc. 

 

As you first stated things change tremendously between era's, which boggles my mind how people try to make comparisons.  If a GM can do all of these things well, and make a team balanced, that's when you see very special teams perform.  I really hate Robert Kraft, Bill Belichek, Tom Brady, along with the Steelers and Cowboys organizationbut that's why they have had continued success.  They don't stack talent on one side of the ball and expect to win.  That's what I want the Colts to get away from.  It seems that they think Luck is Superman, and all they need is a great offense and average defense to win.  The prolific offense will balance out the scale, and pickup slack where the defense leaves off.  That's not a winning formula, IMHO!

[mvbighead]

That's what I want the Colts to get away from.  It seems that they think Luck is Superman, and all they need is a great offense and average defense to win.

 

I wouldn't agree with this so much.  They've simply drafted and signed better players on offense. but they have made serious efforts on the defensive side.  Most of it simply hasn't panned out.

[Superman]

Yeah but there are certain things bigger receivers can do that smaller ones can't, like high point a ball or make a catch with 2 defenders on him. I'm not saying they're is anything wrong with guys like Brown or Hilton but you have much more flexibility with a guy like AJ Green or Julio Jones. Size gives them extra physicality for the position.

I'd you're going to throw a trade into the end zone for example, you'd probably just throw it up and let AJ go up and get it. Hinton isn't that type of player. You're not always going to be able to beat people with speed, quickness, and precise route running. Sometimes you need to get physical and fight for it.

I agree with your statement Superman because Brown is 5'10 and the best WR in the league but guys like Green and Jones are more versatile because of their size. Remember 2012 and the 2013 seasons? People complained because our receiving corps had no size. And everyone was estatic when we got Moncrief, and even more when we signed AJ.

 

I don't need Hilton to be that kind of player. I just need him to produce, which he does. He had more TDs than Green and Jones last year, so their red zone ability doesn't really make them more productive than him, although the potential is obvious. And to be fair, AJ Green was hurt a lot last season. 

 

And trust me, I'm not trying to put Hilton on the level of Green, Jones, DT, Dez, CJ, etc. Not even Antonio Brown, who I think is great. My point is just that he doesn't need to be 6' to be a great receiver, so why do people always go back to that? We're not talking about his draft stock and how his size impacts his potential. We know what he's capable of in the pros, and we have every reason to think he'll continue getting better. His size isn't really a factor, IMO.

[Superman]

Eh, I'd put it between 1 and 4.  I see your point, but on the same side, if a GM sucks at managing cap space, he'll likely run out of money when it comes time to sign his good players in their prime.

 

Grigson signed a number of FA deals early in his career but almost all of them were in the middle ground side. He didn't sign a Suh type deal and have it backfire in his face.  Had he made a splash on one big guy in FA, and then killed his space, we could have dismantle a number of pieces to re-sign luck/hilton/castonzo.  But as he didn't, it sounds as if they're trying to make progress on signing those three.  Proper cap management allows a team to build year after year after year.  Poor management (IE - Saints) could see you dismantling your entire roster so that you can keep good players going forward.

 

It's not that hard to manage cap space. I know most people don't take the time to understand it, but the way contracts work isn't that complicated. There are some arcane rules that pop up and impact your cap or your contracts from time to time, but that's why you have cap/compliance guys who stay on top of that stuff. Managing cap space is primarily about discipline.

 

You make good points about what we've done vs what the Saints did. They pushed all in because they thought they had a window where they could compete for a SB, and that didn't work out for them for various reasons. Discipline means you don't pay two guards $16m/year combined. But when you have a good QB, it's not hard to reconfigure your roster, even if that means you get rid of a couple good players.

 

On the other hand, if you don't draft well, there's no issue with cap space because you have no one to pay. Ever wonder why the bottom dwellers always seem to have cap space? Because they suck at drafting.

[ColtStronger]

I wouldn't agree with this so much.  They've simply drafted and signed better players on offense. but they have made serious efforts on the defensive side.  Most of it simply hasn't panned out.

Like you said they have made efforts, but it has worked the way they wanted it too.  That still doesn't change the fact that they're average at best on defense, and they still chose to take a WR at #1 instead of a defensive player.  I understand they might not have wanted any of those guys available, and the fact they did draft a bunch of defensive talent, but hoping they work out as well is still another shot in the dark.  I do think Anderson, Smith, and the Geathers will be good, but nothing is guaranteed.  I think they should've made a bigger splash in FA on the defensive side.  That should be their #1 priority because they've gotten dominated several games on defense last year, and that's where they have positions lacking talent!

[mvbighead]

It's not that hard to manage cap space. I know most people don't take the time to understand it, but the way contracts work isn't that complicated. There are some arcane rules that pop up and impact your cap or your contracts from time to time, but that's why you have cap/compliance guys who stay on top of that stuff. Managing cap space is primarily about discipline.

 

You make good points about what we've done vs what the Saints did. They pushed all in because they thought they had a window where they could compete for a SB, and that didn't work out for them for various reasons. Discipline means you don't pay two guards $16m/year combined. But when you have a good QB, it's not hard to reconfigure your roster, even if that means you get rid of a couple good players.

 

On the other hand, if you don't draft well, there's no issue with cap space because you have no one to pay. Ever wonder why the bottom dwellers always seem to have cap space? Because they suck at drafting.

 

Bottom dwellers also make major plays at FAs they shouldn't.  Haynesworth/Redskins comes to mind.

 

I know the Colts have usually drafted well under Polian/Grigson.  They usually re-sign their draftees (though that remains to be seen with Grigson, but there is no reason to believe he won't).  I just know that a number of teams attempt to make splashes in FA and many times it bites them where it hurts.

 

All in all, doing both drafting and signing good deals are paramount to building a good team.  I also feel that certain teams overspend in certain positions.  I'd be hard pressed to say the Lions should not have signed Calvin Johnson, but the deal he signed just is hard to swallow.  That seems like WAAY too much for a WR, regardless of talent level.  Not signing it was a bad deal, but it is just too much wrapped up in that position.  I'd much rather have the Colts' situation rather than the Lions in terms of WR.  May just be me, but QB money shouldn't be tied up in pretty much any other position.  Pass rusher maybe, but not others.

[Superman]

Bottom dwellers also make major plays at FAs they shouldn't.  Haynesworth/Redskins comes to mind.

 

I know the Colts have usually drafted well under Polian/Grigson.  They usually re-sign their draftees (though that remains to be seen with Grigson, but there is no reason to believe he won't).  I just know that a number of teams attempt to make splashes in FA and many times it bites them where it hurts.

 

All in all, doing both drafting and signing good deals are paramount to building a good team.  I also feel that certain teams overspend in certain positions.  I'd be hard pressed to say the Lions should not have signed Calvin Johnson, but the deal he signed just is hard to swallow.  That seems like WAAY too much for a WR, regardless of talent level.  Not signing it was a bad deal, but it is just too much wrapped up in that position.  I'd much rather have the Colts' situation rather than the Lions in terms of WR.  May just be me, but QB money shouldn't be tied up in pretty much any other position.  Pass rusher maybe, but not others.

 

Agreed. I'm not saying the way the cap is managed and free agent acquisitions aren't important aspects. I'm just saying that -- IMO -- consistently drafting well is more important than anything else. 

 

The CJ contract is ridiculous, and it was when it was first done. It was a function of his rookie contract having been restructured to an absurd cap hit, making it impossible for them to tag him. So they just gave him what they needed to at the time.

[mvbighead]

Agreed. I'm not saying the way the cap is managed and free agent acquisitions aren't important aspects. I'm just saying that -- IMO -- consistently drafting well is more important than anything else. 

 

The CJ contract is ridiculous, and it was when it was first done. It was a function of his rookie contract having been restructured to an absurd cap hit, making it impossible for them to tag him. So they just gave him what they needed to at the time.

 

I just figured they're pretty much 1a/1b.  You have to have the money when you need it to sign the players you need to keep. You also need to be willing to let them go if they want too much.  Drafting well won't do much good when you have to let your stars walk because you can't afford them.

 

For me, the CJ is absolutely nuts.  As much of a jerk as Suh can be on the field, his presence on D was profound.  Had they not had that ridiculous deal on CJ, Suh would likely still be a Lion, and that team would have continued to improve.  However, it would seem the GM made a good decision to stop at a certain point so as to have cap room going forward.  And he replaced Suh with Ngata which should negate a good chunk of the impact that the loss of Suh would have done.  Certainly not a 1 for 1, but it made sense.

 

As for CJ's deal, it would have been great had they been able to work something into that deal to bring the overall numbers down. But a deal that large and long for a skill position where performance begins to deteriorate with age at a certain point, it's really no wonder why most of the larger deals are never fully played out.

[IndyTrav]

No, what a player does after his contract isn't a reflection of the market that dictated his contract, and this is a very simple concept. His market is dictated, far more than anything else, by what he did prior to his contract. And that's why Golden Tate got $6.2m/year, and not the $10-12m/year that his 2014 production would likely command.

 

You are misinterpreting what i am saying. This year teams will look back on say Mike Wallaces/Vjax contracts, and come to the conclusion, that paying a nice player but not great player isn't worth it, and are now going to look for the Golden Tates of the world. The guy who won't cost a lot, has some talent, but hasn't been given the opportunity....There will always be the one team that is bidding against itself, making stupid purchases, but that doesn't accurately reflect the majority of the NFL. 

 

 

 

 

And yes, better players get more opportunities. Which is a simple explanation for why Hilton has received more opportunities than Golden Tate, particularly prior to 2014.

 

Thats not true at all. As a general rule of thumb, sure but not thats not always the case. We can list hundreds of players who have withered away on a bench, only to be given a chance to succeed and flourish...Some times its draft position, favoritism, coaching ineptness, or plain ignorance. 

 

 

 

GMs don't disqualify receivers from being #1 options because of their height, and there are plenty of examples, including Antonio Brown. Sorry you hate hearing about him, but he's the most obvious example right now of a #1 receiver who should never have to hear anyone talk about how he's only 5'10". It doesn't matter. He produces.

 

Again, you are continually nailing down a point that no one is arguing. Height has nothing to do with talented players. What we are discussing is IDENTICAL players or close to. And if 2 guys are both 85/1200/6 guys with good hands and speed, then GMs are likely to take the guy who is 2"-6" taller. Just because your short doesn't mean you cant be great. Ive never seen anyone make that argument, just because your short doesn't mean you cant be a #1. 

 

To the bolded, nice strawman. I've never suggested that Hilton would get Dez/DT money, or that he deserves what Antonio Bown would get. But he's certainly not in whatever you're calling "the muddy middle." He's one of the best young receivers in the league.

 

Lol at the "strawman"... your comment was "If Antonio Brown was a FA he'd get Dez/DT $"...yea he would because hes led the league in nearly every receiving category for 2 seasons....Anyone, TY included, would get Dez/DT money if they led the league in nearly every WR category......

 

And yes, TY is 100% in the muddy middle. He is 100% one of the better young WR in the league. Lets name a few. Watkins, Benjamin, Evans, Beckham Jr, Cobb, Maclin, Hopkins, Mathews, Sanders, Cooks, Allen, Tate, Wallace, Jackson, Floyd, Landry, Johnson....Theres 17 guys. He may be a bit better than a few of those guys. Probably not as valuable as a few others....And this is without even getting into the 6-7 big dogs at WR....So yea, he's right near the muddy middle IMO. 

 

 

 

[Dustin]

 

 

And yes, TY is 100% in the muddy middle. He is 100% one of the better young WR in the league. Lets name a few. Watkins, Benjamin, Evans, Beckham Jr, Cobb, Maclin, Hopkins, Mathews, Sanders, Cooks, Allen, Tate, Wallace, Jackson, Floyd, Landry, Johnson....Theres 17 guys. He may be a bit better than a few of those guys. Probably not as valuable as a few others....And this is without even getting into the 6-7 big dogs at WR....So yea, he's right near the muddy middle IMO. 

 

 

 

 

The bolded he is objectively better than. Anybody who disagrees is just being an edgy contrarian. 

[IndyTrav]

The bolded he is objectively better than. Anybody who disagrees is just being an edgy contrarian. 

 

I dont think its contrarian at all. TY is great, I'd probably pick him over several of those guys. But I dont think Bills fans are picking TY over Watkins. Hopkins I think may be something special when finally given the opportunity, matter of fact his #s are near identical to TYs first 2 yrs, less TDs, worse QB play. Cooks was well on his way until his injury. Benjamin finished his rookie year with 1,000yds and 9tds, Keenan Allens first 2 years are near identical as well...There is a pretty easy 'objective' argument for at least 6 of those guys, maybe 8... 

[Chucklez]

The bolded he is objectively better than. Anybody who disagrees is just being an edgy contrarian. 

I'd even add Evans to the bolded....

Beckham Jr I still think is too early to tell. He could come out this year after there is a years worth of film on him and not be anywhere near as effective... The sophomore receiver slump is real. TY did well to not fall into it.

Cobb i think is the real deal along with TY though.

[Dustin]

I dont think its contrarian at all. TY is great, I'd probably pick him over several of those guys. But I dont think Bills fans are picking TY over Watkins. Hopkins I think may be something special when finally given the opportunity, matter of fact his #s are near identical to TYs first 2 yrs, less TDs, worse QB play. Cooks was well on his way until his injury. Benjamin finished his rookie year with 1,000yds and 9tds, Keenan Allens first 2 years are near identical as well...There is a pretty easy 'objective' argument for at least 6 of those guys, maybe 8...

Who Bills fans would rather have is irrelevant.

[aaron11]

somebody has to actually offer him that before he can leave town.  what team needs him badly enough to pay that?

[Kyle]

I would rather spend that $12 mil a year on AJ Green in FA after the season.

[JColts72]

14mil! will not be as Colt player then. Have to load up for Andre's cash haul. if Wilson is getting 21 mil, what will Andrew get? perhaps 25? 

[Valpo2004]

14mil! will not be as Colt player then. Have to load up for Andre's cash haul. if Wilson is getting 21 mil, what will Andrew get? perhaps 25? 

 

I doubt Andrew gets 25. . . That's a full 3 million more then Aaron Rodgers.  

 

He will set the bar, but I don't think he's going to get up to 25 Mil.  I'm thinking he will be more like 23 mil. 

[Superman]

I would rather spend that $12 mil a year on AJ Green in FA after the season.

 

AJ Green won't reach free agency, and if he did, he would cost more than $12m/year.

[jvan1973]

I would rather spend that $12 mil a year on AJ Green in FA after the season.

AJ is gonna get A LOT more than that

[LordHelpOurColts]

As I stated in a previous thread, WR's are a dime a dozen.

[Gavin]

As I stated in a previous thread, WR's are a dime a dozen.

DHB would disagree with you....and even I don't need to bring out the DHB card to prove that. The entire Seahawks wide receiving corpse would disagree with you

[CanuckColt]

If Grigs/Irsay sign Hilton for anything above 12M they need their heads examined.

....just cannot let Rosenhaus do a number on the Colts.

 

Have a nice career in Washington, TY.

[CanuckColt]

As I stated in a previous thread, WR's are a dime a dozen.

You are soooooo correct...but fans become emotionally attached to players and come to regard them as much better than they really are....especially receivers.

We should trade T.Y. for all we can get and solidify the roster for multiple Super Bowl wins.

[Gavin]

You are soooooo correct...but fans become emotionally attached to players and come to regard them as much better than they really are....especially receivers.

We should trade T.Y. for all we can get and solidify the roster for multiple Super Bowl wins.

Yep because we would win with 3-4-5 DHB's catching the ball  ....Its really not hard to poke a hole in this faulty logic

[CanuckColt]

Yep because we would win with 3-4-5 DHB's catching the ball  ....Its really not hard to poke a hole in this faulty logic

Yeah, yeah...not. 

I hope Grigson/Irsay at least consider a T.Y. trade that could benefit the Colts (draft picks, no players).

We have plenty of receiving talent out there for this year.

 

Think 'outside the box' for a change...improve the team overall.

[Gavin]

Yeah, yeah...not. 

I hope Grigson/Irsay at least consider a T.Y. trade that could benefit the Colts (draft picks, no players).

We have plenty of receiving talent out there for this year.

 

Think 'outside the box' for a change...improve the team overall.

Im perfectly capable of thinking outside the box

[jabbanobadda]

We(yeah I said we, wanna sue me?) are looking pretty good at WR RIGHT NOW but injuries can happen (had a little scare today with Dorsett). But at the same time...how about Duron Carter? Future HOF'er I've been told! I wonder if Carters big day today was just a good day or the start of something special.

[Lawrence Owen]

"Hilton is also a big piece of the puzzle for resigning Andrew Luck; Luck may not be so willing to deal with the Colts if he sees them shipping off his weapons."

"It looks like a deal between Hilton and the Colts might be done by Labor Day but he will most likely have to take less money in the short term to stay with the Colts.   "

 

http://www.sportsworldreport.com/articles/57291/20150805/nfl-football.htm

 

Short article, But hit on a few things others didn't think about.