Colts cap work 2016

[Superman]

Based on Spotrac and OTC. Sometimes the info doesn't matchup, so some of my own calculations and judgments are used. For instance, the sites conflict on the Frank Gore contract, with Spotrac having more detail, so I'm using Spotrac's info on that.

 

The salary cap for 2015 was $143.3m. That's in keeping with the cap increase of the previous two years of over 7.5%. So I'm projecting a cap of $154m in 2016.

 

As of the end of 2015, the Colts have a cap figure of $143.4m. because of 2014 rollover, they had an adjusted salary cap of ~$152.4m. So that leaves a $9m surplus that can be rolled over to 2016. 

 

The Colts have ~$131.7m committed to the 2016 cap. The Colts adjusted cap after rollover would be ~$163m. That leaves the Colts with over $31m in cap space before any roster moves are made (releases, extensions, re-signings, etc.) The Colts have ~$81m committed in 2017.

 

Colts 2016 cap breakdown: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/cap/

Colts 2016 free agents: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/indianapolis-colts/

NFL 2016 free agents (you can sort by name, cap hit, position, team, etc.): http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/

 

Likely veteran releases include Andre Johnson (- $5m), Trent Cole (- $6.125m), Arthur Jones (- $2.3m), maybe Bjoern Werner (- $1.5m). Another possible but less likely release is D'Qwell Jackson (- $5.25m). Irsay says he wants the team to get younger, and he suggested some veteran releases are on the way. Those five moves would free up an additional $20.2m, giving the Colts over $51m in cap space. 

 

We need ~$10m for draft picks. Restricted free agents include Doyle, Herron, Akeem Davis, Okine and Trey Williams, whose tenders equal just under $5m. 

 

Biggest agenda item is re-signing Luck, who has a cap hit of $16.155m. Irsay says he hopes to get that deal done this offseason, and Luck says he would like to do so as well. The trick is actually getting it done. If not, I assume they'd cut off talks by the end of camp, and then Luck would be franchise tagged in 2017.

 

Notable free agents that should even remotely be considered for new contracts are Freeman, Fleener, Allen, Vinatieri, Winn, Anderson and Lowery. None of these guys are bank breakers, but a couple of them might want more than we should give them, and Allen in particular might want to walk due to his usage. Freeman could be allowed to walk, since he's 30 at the start of the season and this is his only shot at a pay day. Lowery could walk. I think we could keep all but Allen without adding more than $15m in 2016 (or swap Allen for Fleener for the same money, basically). 

 

That would leave us $21m under the cap, without any free agent signings. The Colts are in good cap position moving forward, but they definitely need to be prudent in managing costs and handing out new contracts. Not a lot of room for a big spending spree. Doesn't rule out hooking a big fish or two, if the contracts are done right.

[MPStack]

3 hours ago, Jules said:

Cardinals all the way.

 

What could have been!

[Patagonia Chris]

Definitely enough cap room to upgrade the roster and sign some good players. Of course, you're still going to have the subset of fans who are angry because we didn't sign the best player on the market and cap ourselves out.

[Superman]

7 hours ago, MPStack said:

What could have been!

 

Objection, your honor. Relevance?

[Superman]

4 hours ago, Pagano's Realtor said:

Definitely enough cap room to upgrade the roster and sign some good players. Of course, you're still going to have the subset of fans who are angry because we didn't sign the best player on the market and cap ourselves out.

 

Malik Jackson and Muhammad Wilkerson are worth spending some big money on. I don't think there are any others that I think are worth $10m/year or more.

[COLTS449]

Ok tell me this Supe. Could we sign say. Bruce Irvin, Sean Smith, and Kelschi Osemele in free agency? I think that would be a really good offseason. Then we could get another pass rusher in the 1st round and our starting Center in the 2nd.

[crazycolt1]

7 hours ago, MPStack said:

What could have been!

Well my aunt could have been my uncle had she had a set. Old, but still true.

[Superman]

34 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

Ok tell me this Supe. Could we sign say. Bruce Irvin, Sean Smith, and Kelschi Osemele in free agency? I think that would be a really good offseason. Then we could get another pass rusher in the 1st round and our starting Center in the 2nd.

 

Give me some contract info. How much and how many years do you think Irvin, Smith and Osemele get each? 

[COLTS449]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Give me some contract info. How much and how many years do you think Irvin, Smith and Osemele get each? 

 

Well off the top of my head I'll say.....

 

Sean Smith - 4 years,  28 million

 

Kelechi Osemele - 4 years, 24 million

 

Bruce Irvin - 4 years, 28 million

 

Would you say these are pretty close?

[The Peytonator]

21 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

 

Well off the top of my head I'll say.....

 

Sean Smith - 4 years,  28 million

 

Kelechi Osemele - 4 years, 24 million

 

Bruce Irvin - 4 years, 28 million

 

Would you say these are pretty close?

 

 

I'd say Smith gets about what Vontae got, Osemele gets close to what Iupati got, Irvin gets a little less I'm less sure about that. I also think he goes to Atlanta so it becomes moot anyway.

[COLTS449]

59 minutes ago, The Peytonator said:

 

 

I'd say Smith gets about what Vontae got, Osemele gets close to what Iupati got, Irvin gets a little less I'm less sure about that. I also think he goes to Atlanta so it becomes moot anyway.

 

Yeah I know he would want to go to Atlanta and he's also from Georgia so it makes sense. Probably our next best options are Tamba Hali on a 2 year 15 million deal or if the Broncos cut Ware (which is very possible) him on a similar 2 year deal. Ware would probably want something like 2 years 16 million. The thing is, both of those guys are older yeah. But they're both still very, very productive. We could get one of them and draft a guy like Leonard Floyd or Noah Spence in the 1st round.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

 

Well off the top of my head I'll say.....

 

Sean Smith - 4 years,  28 million

 

Kelechi Osemele - 4 years, 24 million

 

Bruce Irvin - 4 years, 28 million

 

Would you say these are pretty close?

 

I think you're a touch short on Smith and Osemele. (And by the way, my prediction is the Ravens move Osemele to tackle and keep him.) Irvin seems about right.

 

However, I think you could get those three on contracts in that range, and they'd have combined cap hits of about $16-18m in 2016, with gradual increases moving forward. You could keep those numbers lower, but the Colts like balanced contracts, not backloaded. 

[COLTS449]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think you're a touch short on Smith and Osemele. (And by the way, my prediction is the Ravens move Osemele to tackle and keep him.) Irvin seems about right.

 

However, I think you could get those three on contracts in that range, and they'd have combined cap hits of about $16-18m in 2016, with gradual increases moving forward. You could keep those numbers lower, but the Colts like balanced contracts, not backloaded. 

 

You think Smith will get closer to 4 and 32? or maybe 35 like Vontae. But I have a feeling we'll get Casey Hayward, and I'd be ok with that. Hayward will get a little less. Probably around 4 years, 20 mill.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

 

You think Smith will get closer to 4 and 32? or maybe 35 like Vontae. But I have a feeling we'll get Casey Hayward, and I'd be ok with that. Hayward will get a little less. Probably around 4 years, 20 mill.

 

I'm thinking Smith gets something like $8-9m/year. 

 

Hayward is one of the Packers most important free agents. I think they'd be able to keep him for that money. He'll probably require closer to $7m/year to leave.

 

All JMO.

[ztboiler]

1 hour ago, COLTS449 said:

 

Yeah I know he would want to go to Atlanta and he's also from Georgia so it makes sense. Probably our next best options are Tamba Hali on a 2 year 15 million deal or if the Broncos cut Ware (which is very possible) him on a similar 2 year deal. Ware would probably want something like 2 years 16 million. The thing is, both of those guys are older yeah. But they're both still very, very productive. We could get one of them and draft a guy like Leonard Floyd or Noah Spence in the 1st round.

Hali's trajectory of performance and age makes him feel a lot like Trent Cole 2.0 to me....I don't see that matching up with any direction we all hear us going.

[ztboiler]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

We need ~$10m for draft picks. Restricted free agents include Doyle, Herron, Akeem Davis, Okine and Trey Williams, whose tenders equal just under $5m. 

 

That would leave us $21m under the cap, without any free agent signings. The Colts are in good cap position moving forward, but they definitely need to be prudent in managing costs and handing out new contracts. Not a lot of room for a big spending spree. Doesn't rule out hooking a big fish or two, if the contracts are done right.

Great work here.  Thanks for thinking it all through.  Nice primer to get us started on off-season projections that are workable.  Since we've kept the same staff, we can probably project similar thinking in terms of contract structures and cap management tactics.

 

I'm curious about $10M for draft picks.  I know you know the numbers, but I'll restate anyway...The cap hit for #18 will be about $1.75M or so.  The second rounder is about $1M. They basically vanish toward minimum contracts.  Considering that each rookie replaces a minimum contract in the top 51, their incremental cap hit is about $500K less than their stated cap hit.  All told, that adds up to a max cap delta cost of about $2.5M for the rookies.

 

It could be that I don't know something about how the rookies are really accounted for...that's why I ask.

 

I would like to see us continue to keep the cap usage level and push the $9M surplus forward as insulation for dead money absorption... or to be used in a year where we are truly pushing for a title and need to retain some homegrown talent to do it.  It is poor cap management principle to use the rollover on signing outside free agents.  Technically, we could say we are using it to absorb the hit from Cherilus in 2016, but it makes more sense to retain the surplus since the 2012 class didn't require as much to re-sign as it once looked like it would...and we'll need it as Luck's career matures along with the roster.

[The Peytonator]

2 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

 

Yeah I know he would want to go to Atlanta and he's also from Georgia so it makes sense. Probably our next best options are Tamba Hali on a 2 year 15 million deal or if the Broncos cut Ware (which is very possible) him on a similar 2 year deal. Ware would probably want something like 2 years 16 million. The thing is, both of those guys are older yeah. But they're both still very, very productive. We could get one of them and draft a guy like Leonard Floyd or Noah Spence in the 1st round.

 

 

Hali and Ware are still productive, but I don't want to see another offseason of signing players that are 5 years past their prime. We need to get younger, especially at the positions that rely more on athleticism. It's possible Irvin could be had, but I've got my hopes set on Olivier Vernon. I know he's been in a 4-3, but it's been shown that good edge players can be interchangeable to scheme. Miami will have a hard time keeping him as they're already at the cap limit for 2016, and Suh's taking up like $30M. 

[NewColtsFan]

 

Great work as always, Superman!

 

But one sentence jumped out at me....    I clearly didn't understand your meaning....

 

Here's the line.....    I think we could keep all but Allen without adding more than $15m in 2016 (or swap Allen for Fleener for the same money, basically). 

 

My response is.....    huh?      Allen for Fleener for same money?     Huh?     These two are not going to get the roughly the same contract from anyone in 2016.     What am I not understanding here?  (Plenty, I'm sure!)

 

[COLTS449]

1 hour ago, The Peytonator said:

 

 

Hali and Ware are still productive, but I don't want to see another offseason of signing players that are 5 years past their prime. We need to get younger, especially at the positions that rely more on athleticism. It's possible Irvin could be had, but I've got my hopes set on Olivier Vernon. I know he's been in a 4-3, but it's been shown that good edge players can be interchangeable to scheme. Miami will have a hard time keeping him as they're already at the cap limit for 2016, and Suh's taking up like $30M. 

 

Vernon's too inconsistent for me. He's either really good. Or really average.

[COLTS449]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I'm thinking Smith gets something like $8-9m/year. 

 

Hayward is one of the Packers most important free agents. I think they'd be able to keep him for that money. He'll probably require closer to $7m/year to leave.

 

All JMO.

 

You don't think with Shields, Randall, and Rollins they're more likely to let him leave. I thought with the depth they have at CB they may not want to give Hayward a big contract.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, ztboiler said:

Great work here.  Thanks for thinking it all through.  Nice primer to get us started on off-season projections that are workable.  Since we've kept the same staff, we can probably project similar thinking in terms of contract structures and cap management tactics.

 

I'm curious about $10M for draft picks.  I know you know the numbers, but I'll restate anyway...The cap hit for #18 will be about $1.75M or so.  The second rounder is about $1M. They basically vanish toward minimum contracts.  Considering that each rookie replaces a minimum contract in the top 51, their incremental cap hit is about $500K less than their stated cap hit.  All told, that adds up to a max cap delta cost of about $2.5M for the rookies.

 

It could be that I don't know something about how the rookies are really accounted for...that's why I ask.

 

I would like to see us continue to keep the cap usage level and push the $9M surplus forward as insulation for dead money absorption... or to be used in a year where we are truly pushing for a title and need to retain some homegrown talent to do it.  It is poor cap management principle to use the rollover on signing outside free agents.  Technically, we could say we are using it to absorb the hit from Cherilus in 2016, but it makes more sense to retain the surplus since the 2012 class didn't require as much to re-sign as it once looked like it would...and we'll need it as Luck's career matures along with the roster.

 

The projection for draft picks is probably too high. But I'll point out that I'm not thinking about top 51, I'm thinking about total expenditures. The Colts don't really need to worry about top 51 calculations unless they are going to offer some non-guaranteed deals for players who might not make it through camp. Not just UDFAs and the like, but a Greg Hardy type of contract.

 

As for the rollover surplus, I agree with your overall thinking. My idea is potentially using that surplus to frontload Luck's contract. Then you're getting some cap savings in future years, when the cap is higher, and you can probably put that cap to better use then than you can now. Or not; the one contract that I'm fine with backloading is Luck's, since he's not going anywhere and we don't have to worry about dead money.

 

I will nitpick at the bolded. That rollover is money the team could have spent in the past. It doesn't have to be earmarked for anything, IMO. Doesn't mean you should go throwing it out the window, but I don't see any reason to operate as if that extra cap space shouldn't be touched. To me, the more important principle is to make sure you keep some cap flexibility for in-season acquisitions. That's not dependent on rollover cap; you should do that whether you're rolling cap forward or not.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Great work as always, Superman!

 

But one sentence jumped out at me....    I clearly didn't understand your meaning....

 

Here's the line.....    I think we could keep all but Allen without adding more than $15m in 2016 (or swap Allen for Fleener for the same money, basically). 

 

My response is.....    huh?      Allen for Fleener for same money?     Huh?     These two are not going to get the roughly the same contract from anyone in 2016.     What am I not understanding here?  (Plenty, I'm sure!)

 

 

My projections for our own free agents are rough numbers. As you know, some are more willing to pay Allen than Fleener, and vice versa. So my point is, whichever one you want to keep, the numbers can basically be the same. If keeping one over the other saves more, that's fine, too.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

 

You don't think with Shields, Randall, and Rollins they're more likely to let him leave. I thought with the depth they have at CB they may not want to give Hayward a big contract.

 

That's possible. I could still see them offering him more than $5m/year. But even if they just let him walk, he'll get offers. I think his market value is higher than what you're thinking.

[12isthenew18]

10m for six picks? That's a joke right

[Colts_Fan12]

What would it take to get Eric Berry out of KC

[ztboiler]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The projection for draft picks is probably too high. But I'll point out that I'm not thinking about top 51, I'm thinking about total expenditures. The Colts don't really need to worry about top 51 calculations unless they are going to offer some non-guaranteed deals for players who might not make it through camp. Not just UDFAs and the like, but a Greg Hardy type of contract.

 

As for the rollover surplus, I agree with your overall thinking. My idea is potentially using that surplus to frontload Luck's contract. Then you're getting some cap savings in future years, when the cap is higher, and you can probably put that cap to better use then than you can now. Or not; the one contract that I'm fine with backloading is Luck's, since he's not going anywhere and we don't have to worry about dead money.

 

I will nitpick at the bolded. That rollover is money the team could have spent in the past. It doesn't have to be earmarked for anything, IMO. Doesn't mean you should go throwing it out the window, but I don't see any reason to operate as if that extra cap space shouldn't be touched. To me, the more important principle is to make sure you keep some cap flexibility for in-season acquisitions. That's not dependent on rollover cap; you should do that whether you're rolling cap forward or not.

To the bolded, this indicates to me that I might have a gap in my understanding of the fine print....please elaborate on why the top 51 matters sometimes and not others.

 

To your nitpick, that's fair.  I should differentiate that its my philosophical preference to not go beyond the value of the current cap year by using rollover dollars to sign outside free agents.  History says that signing those players will incur dead cap in the future at a higher risk ratio than signing your own...keep the surplus to bring balance to the force in the future.

 

It's an admirable thing to leave yourself future cap flexibility...it's even more admirable to minimize dead cap in doing so.

[coltsfanej]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Objection, your honor. Relevance?

Sustained!

[Superman]

On 1/10/2016 at 9:51 PM, ztboiler said:

To the bolded, this indicates to me that I might have a gap in my understanding of the fine print....please elaborate on why the top 51 matters sometimes and not others.

 

My understanding of the reason for the top 51 rule is so teams that are tight on cap space can field a 90 man roster prior to Week 1 of the regular season. Since the Colts aren't tight on cap, I don't think we need to worry about top 51 calculations.

 

Just to be clear, as far as I know, the top 51 rule applies to every team. I'm just talking about whether it's relevant or not.

[ztboiler]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

My understanding of the reason for the top 51 rule is so teams that are tight on cap space can field a 90 man roster prior to Week 1 of the regular season. Since the Colts aren't tight on cap, I don't think we need to worry about top 51 calculations.

 

Just to be clear, as far as I know, the top 51 rule applies to every team. I'm just talking about whether it's relevant or not.

I didn't realize that top 51 applied only to the off season...I thought there might be something I didn't understand....thank you for clarifying.

[Valpo2004]

On 1/10/2016 at 10:52 PM, 12isthenew18 said:

10m for six picks? That's a joke right

 

I'm in agreement, 10 M seems overly high.

 

I looked at the 2015 NFL draft and it had KC drafting where we are.  I went ahead and added up the cap hits from their draft picks from rounds 1 - 4 and the cap hits where 4.6M  Given that add in 2 more late round picks and honestly 6M should easily cover all our draft picks.  

 

 

[Superman]

Offense

 

Defense https://i.imgsafe.org/4ae356f.png

 

Special teams / dead cap

 

[loudnproudcolt]

On 1/10/2016 at 10:43 PM, Superman said:

 

That's possible. I could still see them offering him more than $5m/year. But even if they just let him walk, he'll get offers. I think his market value is higher than what you're thinking.

Sup, really good numbers overall. With the releases you mentioned, the number I had heading into the season was right around 50M in cap space. I still don't quite get the 10M for draft picks though. I had us at about 27M after retaining our players and signing Luck.

 

A couple of thoughts. On FA's, I would like a few quality over any quantity. Osemele is going to be where Lupati was last year, but I believe he would be worth it. I believe due to Flacco's contract and cap space they will let him leave. Draft our center of the future, Kelly from Alabama, and I think the line would be really looking up.

I don't think Heyward is going for anything less than 7M/yr. but he would be worth it. I don't see G.B letting him go, since GB does not go for FA's, and try to retain their draft choices. Operates very much like Polian did.

If we cannot get Heyward, I would love to have Weddle, but he may get more than I want to pay. I believe though is age is a plus. Wisdom at safety is a good thing, and he has a lot of good years left. Besides Weddle I don't want anyone who is older. I want to get younger. HALI is a no. Too old!  I also would not mind if our new DC would like to bring along Upshaw also!

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, loudnproudcolt said:

I still don't quite get the 10M for draft picks though.

 

I probably overshot the draft pick cap hold. For our draft position, we probably need about $5m to sign our guys.

 

However, if you add up the potential cap hits for all the rookies that spent time on our active roster or injured reserve last year, you'll looking at more like $7m. I just rounded up. Projecting $10m also leaves room to trade up in the first, or trade back into the first or second round. 

 

Grigson left about $15m buffer going into 2015, and used about $5m of it for in-season signings and trades. I think he'll be leaving at least $10m buffer room this year.

 

On your other points, I've mentioned that I don't think Osemele leaves Baltimore. I think they make some other cap moves and then move him to tackle and pay him decently for a tackle, but high for a guard. If he does leave, obviously I want him. On the charts I posted above, you can see that we currently have 10.5% of the projected cap allocated to linemen. Signing Osemele for $7-8m/year would bring that up to about 15%, which I can live with. But if Mack hits free agency, I'm fine with signing him. Either way, we should come out of free agency with a new interior guy. I haven't watched Kelly from Alabama yet, but I'm okay with a rookie center in between two vets at guard.

 

Not interested in Weddle, but at the right price I'd be fine with it. Just older than what I think we need. Heyward would be great at corner, and I like Josh Robinson from Minnesota as a 3rd/4th guy.

 

I'm not impressed by Upshaw, either. Small deal, fine, but I wouldn't spend any serious money on him.

[DougDew]

So we basically have cap space of $21million before signing Luck, who counts $16.5million already.  Budgeting a re-signed cap hit of $20million for Luck, that would really leave $17.5million this offseason for (new to the team) free agents not named Freeman, Fleener (Allen), Vinatieri, Winn, Anderson or Lowery.

 

And less than that if we keep a reasonable buffer....or almost exactly that if out rookie cap hit is in the 6-7 million range

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

So we basically have cap space of $21million before signing Luck, who counts $16.5million already.  Budgeting a re-signed cap hit of $20million for Luck, that would really leave $17.5million this offseason for (new to the team) free agents not named Freeman, Fleener (Allen), Vinatieri, Winn, Anderson or Lowery.

 

And less than that if we keep a reasonable buffer....or almost exactly that if out rookie cap hit is in the 6-7 million range

 

If you follow the Cam Newton model for Luck, then his cap hit will go down when he does a new contract, not up. Cam went from $15m to $12m. Then obviously, the cap hits will increase in later years, projected to account for about 13% of the cap each year. 

 

Before you get to that, you figure the Colts will part ways with most of the underperforming veterans -- Johnson, Cole, Jones, maybe Jackson. That's another $20m. I think the Colts should have $40m+ before you get to free agency.

[DougDew]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If you follow the Cam Newton model for Luck, then his cap hit will go down when he does a new contract, not up. Cam went from $15m to $12m. Then obviously, the cap hits will increase in later years, projected to account for about 13% of the cap each year. 

 

Before you get to that, you figure the Colts will part ways with most of the underperforming veterans -- Johnson, Cole, Jones, maybe Jackson. That's another $20m. I think the Colts should have $40m+ before you get to free agency.

Ok, reducing Luck's cap hit should allow about $25 million to add new players in FA and provide a buffer...$40 million including resigning our own like Fleener, etc...if I'm reading your original post correctly.

[throwing BBZ]

On 1/9/2016 at 6:30 PM, The Peytonator said:

 

 

Hali and Ware are still productive, but I don't want to see another offseason of signing players that are 5 years past their prime. We need to get younger, especially at the positions that rely more on athleticism. It's possible Irvin could be had, but I've got my hopes set on Olivier Vernon. I know he's been in a 4-3, but it's been shown that good edge players can be interchangeable to scheme. Miami will have a hard time keeping him as they're already at the cap limit for 2016, and Suh's taking up like $30M. 

 

 Vernon plays at 275 lbs.  I would expect he would be very limited  in space. 
 Zero passes defended in 4 years kinda says that. So.... i doubt he gets ANY consideration.

[The Peytonator]

46 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Vernon plays at 275 lbs.  I would expect he would be very limited  in space. 
 Zero passes defended in 4 years kinda says that. So.... i doubt he gets ANY consideration.

 

 

McPhee plays at 285 and he's a top 5 3-4 OLB. The reason Vernon has zero passes defended is because he is an exclusive pass rusher, and that is what I'd want him to do here. That was probably our biggest weakness on defense. For the three snaps a game that he wouldn't be coming forward I'm sure he'd be serviceable. 

[Superman]

Just now, The Peytonator said:

 

 

McPhee plays at 285 and he's a top 5 3-4 OLB. The reason Vernon has zero passes defended is because he is an exclusive pass rusher, and that is what I'd want him to do here. That was probably our biggest weakness on defense. For the three snaps a game that he wouldn't be coming forward I'm sure he'd be serviceable. 

 

Yeah, for a rush backer, he'd be fine. I'm not sure he's that great of a pass rusher, but the McPhee comparison makes sense.

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, The Peytonator said:

 

 

McPhee plays at 285 and he's a top 5 3-4 OLB. The reason Vernon has zero passes defended is because he is an exclusive pass rusher, and that is what I'd want him to do here. That was probably our biggest weakness on defense. For the three snaps a game that he wouldn't be coming forward I'm sure he'd be serviceable. 

 

I think McPhee is very good, and I'm sorry we didn't pursue him (either at all, or hard enough) last off-season.

 

But I don't think he's even close to top-5.    Otherwise, he wouldn't have gone to NE for what he did....

 

If my memory is working I think he signed for 2/16   something like that?    

 

That's way, WAY too small a contract for someone who you think is top-5.

 

He's very good,  but I don't think he's THAT good....