Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

What to do with Art Jones?


Recommended Posts

With Art Jones being Injury prone the past couple years, and his contract giving up over 3 mil in dead cap next year if let go - http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/arthur-jones/ - the  conundrum of what to do with him is expanding day to day.

 

However, I believe keeping him would be most prudent for the team as a whole.  But some would disagree, especially in the capacity I have in mind.

 

I say keep him,...as a primary back-up.  With Langford and Anderson proving they are solid starters on the DE/DT spots,..and Parry shoring up the NT, Jones would then make for perhaps one of the best depth/rotation players in the NFL.  This would also lessen the amount of snaps he has, and in doing so, supposedly lessen the chance of injury. Possibly having him for an entire year for once.

Also, since Anderson's injury is so significant, there is no guarantee he would even be ready at the start of the season himself.  Yes having both Anderson AND Jones on the sideline week 1 does not sound like the best overall usage of personnel, but the reward after both are fully healed could  pay dividends. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Lawrence Owen said:

With Art Jones being Injury prone the past couple years, and his contract giving up over 3 mil in dead cap next year if let go - http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/arthur-jones/ - the  conundrum of what to do with him is expanding day to day.

 

However, I believe keeping him would be most prudent for the team as a whole.  But some would disagree, especially in the capacity I have in mind.

 

I say keep him,...as a primary back-up.  With Langford and Anderson proving they are solid starters on the DE/DT spots,..and Parry shoring up the NT, Jones would then make for perhaps one of the best depth/rotation players in the NFL.  This would also lessen the amount of snaps he has, and in doing so, supposedly lessen the chance of injury. Possibly having him for an entire year for once.

Also, since Anderson's injury is so significant, there is no guarantee he would even be ready at the start of the season himself.  Yes having both Anderson AND Jones on the sideline week 1 does not sound like the best overall usage of personnel, but the reward after both are fully healed could  pay dividends. 

He wasn`t signed to be a backup. If he can stay on the field, he should start. I`m totally in favr of bringing him back, however not confident he can stay on the field. The Anderson injury makes his chances of returning much better IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRustonRifle#7 said:

If healthy, Jones is a valuable player on this team. He knows the Hybrid 3/4-4/3 and has the ability to play all the defensive line positions in both the 3/4 and 4/3 alignment. Plus his dead money outweighs his cap savings this year.

 

His dead money is spent regardless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lawrence Owen said:

With Art Jones being Injury prone the past couple years, and his contract giving up over 3 mil in dead cap next year if let go - http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/arthur-jones/ - the  conundrum of what to do with him is expanding day to day.

 

However, I believe keeping him would be most prudent for the team as a whole.  But some would disagree, especially in the capacity I have in mind.

 

I say keep him,...as a primary back-up.  With Langford and Anderson proving they are solid starters on the DE/DT spots,..and Parry shoring up the NT, Jones would then make for perhaps one of the best depth/rotation players in the NFL.  This would also lessen the amount of snaps he has, and in doing so, supposedly lessen the chance of injury. Possibly having him for an entire year for once.

Also, since Anderson's injury is so significant, there is no guarantee he would even be ready at the start of the season himself.  Yes having both Anderson AND Jones on the sideline week 1 does not sound like the best overall usage of personnel, but the reward after both are fully healed could  pay dividends. 

Keep him and if he plays well enough, start him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

I think we should give him a chance at NT. Parry was solid, but a little over rated on the board, and a healthy Art Jones is just a much better player than him. That also improves our depth.

 

Releasing him is just stupid. 

Think you are right about Parry but also expect a big improvement from him next year after a off season of strength training at the NFL level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they should keep him as the primary backup since he has the ability to play all positions on the DL. 

 

I do think however that Indy needs to come out of the draft with another quality DT since the class is so deep this year. I love Sheldon Rankins as an option round 2-3. And Vernon Butler is a great option round 4. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wig said:

The question you have to ask yourself is who is better that you can get for 2mm.

 

That's way too simplified. The better question would be "what is a better way to spend $2M than using it on a player who's played 9 games in 2 years?"

 

Here's one of many answers: Put it toward re-signing Jerrell Freeman

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GoatBeard said:

I think we should give him a chance at NT. Parry was solid, but a little over rated on the board, and a healthy Art Jones is just a much better player than him. That also improves our depth.

 

Releasing him is just stupid. 

 

No doubt he would beat out Parry.
Parry is actually not bad all in all.
But for those who Watched, the Tenn. Center, by himself, badly abused Parry twice to start the game.
  Yes just 2 plays, but he has been shoved around some when teams want to run up the middle.
 I think he is pretty darn good though tracking the ball and sliding down the line and then successfully crashing the line at the right time to stack up the O-Line. I am sure DQ likes him for this. :thmup:
When can and need to be even better than Parry. And TY McGill might be able to beat him out because he shows some nasty rush ability. And QB`s suffer Big time when they have pressure up the middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

I agree they should keep him as the primary backup since he has the ability to play all positions on the DL. 

 

I do think however that Indy needs to come out of the draft with another quality DT since the class is so deep this year. I love Sheldon Rankins as an option round 2-3. And Vernon Butler is a great option round 4. 

 

 A cow will jump the moon before what you suggest happens. JMO of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dustin said:

 

That's way too simplified. The better question would be "what is a better way to spend $2M than using it on a player who's played 9 games in 2 years?"

 

Here's one of many answers: Put it toward re-signing Jerrell Freeman

 

 

Freeman will get signed regardless. 

 

If you let Jones go, you have to replace him. I'll ask again, who will you get for 2mm?  

 

His injuries haven't been anything that should hurt him longterm. You can't find his potential impact for his cost. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anderson's injury alone is enough reason to keep jones. its not likes hes bad, he just cant stay healthy. hopefully this is the year he can and him and langford can be dominant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, wig said:

 

Freeman will get signed regardless. 

 

If you let Jones go, you have to replace him. I'll ask again, who will you get for 2mm?  

 

His injuries haven't been anything that should hurt him longterm. You can't find his potential impact for his cost. 

Out of "likes" here is a traditional one! :thmup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wig said:

The question you have to ask yourself is who is better that you can get for 2mm.

Still not quite right.  You can't look at the Cap Hit - that only matters on Grigson's speadsheet to reconcile with league.  

 

Jones has an incremental cost of $4.5M to keep him this year.  He will be retained or cut purely on the basis of his projected production compared to what Grigs/Pags believe that they can get for $4.5M.

 

For those that call Jones injury prone - please look at the preseason play with the Rams that destroyed his ankle - it is the most bizarre, nonsensical chop block I've ever seen.  It's possible that Jones is never right again in the future - that's a medical decision and performance decision - but bad luck is not the same thing as being injury prone.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Still not quite right.  You can't look at the Cap Hit - that only matters on Grigson's speadsheet to reconcile with league.  

 

Jones has an incremental cost of $4.5M to keep him this year.  He will be retained or cut purely on the basis of his projected production compared to what Grigs/Pags believe that they can get for $4.5M.

 

For those that call Jones injury prone - please look at the preseason play with the Rams that destroyed his ankle - it is the most bizarre, nonsensical chop block I've ever seen.  It's possible that Jones is never right again in the future - that's a medical decision and performance decision - but bad luck is not the same thing as being injury prone.  

 

You are the one that's off. Dead money is. . . dead.  It's spent regardless. You have to subtract the dead money from the cap hit.  In this case, it's 2.3mm.  So your decision comes down to keeping him for 2.3mm, or finding someone to replace him with that money.  

 

And personally, I don't see who he can be replaced with at that amount - if he checks out medically - for that amount. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

No doubt he would beat out Parry.
Parry is actually not bad all in all.
But for those who Watched, the Tenn. Center, by himself, badly abused Parry twice to start the game.
  Yes just 2 plays, but he has been shoved around some when teams want to run up the middle.
 I think he is pretty darn good though tracking the ball and sliding down the line and then successfully crashing the line at the right time to stack up the O-Line. I am sure DQ likes him for this. :thmup:
When can and need to be even better than Parry. And TY McGill might be able to beat him out because he shows some nasty rush ability. And QB`s suffer Big time when they have pressure up the middle.

 

Absolutely, I like Parry a lot, don't get me wrong. I just want to see him on the 2nd unit to bolster the depth a little. 

 

As for Dustin's point about saving the 2 million and putting it towards signing Freeman.....I get that and I like Freeman, but he probably won't come cheap. I just really like Art and wouldn't mind seeing Sio Moore get a chance to start next year. He's younger, a little bigger, just as quick and hopefully Monachino can use his expertise to develop him to get the most out of all that physical ability. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, wig said:

 

You are the one that's off. Dead money is. . . dead.  It's spent regardless. You have to subtract the dead money from the cap hit.  In this case, it's 2.3mm.  So your decision comes down to keeping him for 2.3mm, or finding someone to replace him with that money.  

 

And personally, I don't see who he can be replaced with at that amount - if he checks out medically - for that amount. 

Nope.  Not talking about dead money.  New money is all that matters, because like you said dead is dead.

 

New money is 4.5 million. That is the only number that matters unless you are in a difficult cap situation and we are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Nope.  Not talking about dead money.  New money is all that matters, because like you said dead is dead.

 

New money is 4.5 million. That is the only number that matters unless you are in a difficult cap situation and we are not.

 

You're flat out wrong even if you are correct about new money being all that matters. New money is the difference between dead money and cap hit. But, if you can't understand that, there is no reason to continue. 

 

The only thing that matters is the cap. The actual money exchanged is meaningless. It's not like the GM is keeping track of a P&L, he's trying to field the best team within the cap. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ztboiler said:

Nope.  Not talking about dead money.  New money is all that matters, because like you said dead is dead.

 

New money is 4.5 million. That is the only number that matters unless you are in a difficult cap situation and we are not.

 

100%. People have to stop worrying about dead money and cap savings. It's not the issue.

 

There are two questions. One is football, the other is fiscal:

1) Can Arthur Jones rebound and play at a reasonably high level again, coming even close to production that would warrant a place in the Colts defensive line rotation?

2) Can his potential production justify his pay, and is it worth the risk of him not being healthy again?

 

If the answer to either of those questions is negative or doubtful, then you have to do something about it. First option is the easiest and cleanest, which is to release him; if you're not even a little optimistic that he can play at a high level and stay healthy, then this makes the most sense. (Also, releasing him creates an acceleration of paid bonus, but a post-June 1 designation would create an additional $2.2m of cap space in 2016.) 

 

Second option is to restructure his base salary with incentives. That only makes sense if you're optimistic about his potential contributions. Both Pagano and Monachino are intimately familiar with Jones, and I would assume both hope he can get back and play well, and are willing to give him a chance. Jones' vet minimum salary is about $1m, and then they could add per game bonuses of ~$219K which would allow Jones to make back his initial salary if he's healthy. 

 

They'll address this once the medical stuff is figured out, I think. If he doesn't get a clean bill of health, nothing else matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wig said:

 

You're flat out wrong even if you are correct about new money being all that matters. New money is the difference between dead money and cap hit. But, if you can't understand that, there is no reason to continue. 

 

The only thing that matters is the cap. The actual money exchanged is meaningless. It's not like the GM is keeping track of a P&L, he's trying to field the best team within the cap. 

Last attempt.  Here goes.

 

Actual money exchanged is what determines your financial health as a team.  Cap is a year to year manipulation to comply and compete. 

 

It's operations vs. Accounting.  Accountants don't run the company....at least not very well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wig said:

 

You're flat out wrong even if you are correct about new money being all that matters. New money is the difference between dead money and cap hit. But, if you can't understand that, there is no reason to continue. 

 

The only thing that matters is the cap. The actual money exchanged is meaningless. It's not like the GM is keeping track of a P&L, he's trying to field the best team within the cap. 

 

That's entirely inaccurate. The bolded is particularly wrong. The Colts have the luxury of not having to make decisions based on cap constraints.

 

The cap is based only on actual money exchanged. To say that the money exchanged is meaningless ignores what the cap is intented to keep track of. Until the Colts pay Jones' 2016 salary, it doesn't exist. What does exist is the money he's already been paid, which will hit the cap now or later, but it will hit the cap. The error you're making is that you're looking at the cap one year at a time, and you should be looking at the cap as a year-over-year issue. With cap rollover, this is even more important. What you don't spend today impacts what you can spend tomorrow. You can't get all wrapped up in cap manipulation and lose sight of the factors that make up the cap to begin with.

 

This is why teams who are good with the cap try to keep cash and cap in line with one another. 

 

Long and short, don't throw good money after bad. Can't do anything about Jones' dead money (which is money he's already been paid, and will hit the cap). But you can choose not to pay him more money, which helps your year-over-year accounting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

100%. People have to stop worrying about dead money and cap savings. It's not the issue.

 

There are two questions. One is football, the other is fiscal:

1) Can Arthur Jones rebound and play at a reasonably high level again, coming even close to production that would warrant a play in the Colts defensive line rotation?

2) Can his potential production justify his pay, and is it worth the risk of him not being healthy again?

 

If the answer to either of those questions is negative or doubtful, then you have to do something about it. First option is the easiest and cleanest, which is to release him; if you're not even a little optimistic that he can play at a high level and stay healthy, then this makes the most sense. (Also, releasing him creates an acceleration of paid bonus, but a post-June 1 designation would create an additional $2.2m of cap space in 2016.) 

 

Second option is to restructure his base salary with incentives. That only makes sense if your optimistic about his potential contributions. Both Pagano and Monachino are intimately familiar with Jones, and I would assume both hope he can get back and play well, and are willing to give him a chance. Jones' vet minimum salary is about $1m, and then they could add per game bonuses of ~$219K which would allow Jones to make back his initial salary if he's healthy. 

 

They'll address this once the medical stuff is figured out, I think. If he doesn't get a clean bill of health, nothing else matters.

 

I couldn't disagree more, that dead money and cap savings don't matter. Obviously restructuring is the best case scenario but I won't even talk about that without knowing if he is willing or not.

 

If his dead money and cap hit are the same, think about what you're suggesting. I'd be curious what your careers are in with your line of thinking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wig said:

 

I couldn't disagree more, that dead money and cap savings don't matter. Obviously restructuring is the best case scenario but I won't even talk about that without knowing if he is willing or not.

 

If his dead money and cap hit are the same, think about what you're suggesting. I'd be curious what your careers are in with your line of thinking. 

 

You can't change dead money. It's already there and isn't going anywhere. It's not part of the equation, bottom line.

 

Also, nice touch with the condescension. It's ironic, considering how wrong you are.

 

Assume his dead money and cap hit are the same. Your assumption is that you might as well keep the player because you don't save anything on the cap by getting rid of him. That assumption is faulty because you are only considering this year's cap. Obviously, future cap matters as well, and by paying him additional salary, you're adding more money to the cap. In essence, throwing good money after bad.

 

If you want to manipulate the dead money to make your 2016 cap look better, you do a post-June 1 release, and then you save an additional $2.2m on the 2016 cap. But that additional $2.2m gets pushed to 2017. This is a provision to help teams that are cap-strapped. The Colts could do that with Jones, but it's not really necessary, and it doesn't really make a substantial difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most important thing to remember is just because you are releasing a player and technically "saving money", everytime you do that and there is some dead money involved, you are effectively lowering the salary cap on your team.

 

You still have to field a full roster and fit it under the cap. So I am skeptical every time that it is actually gonna help the team in any way.

 

What are the odds that the money saved is really even gonna pay off? 

 

If you are gonna release Art Jones to bring in some low level free agent who will probably not make any kind of impact, that doesn't make any sense to me. 

 

If you are clearing space to acquire Bruce Irvin or Olivier Vernon to bolster your biggest weakness, I can understand that. 

 

If you want to keep a key free agent like Freeman, I can understand that as well.

 

I guess I feel like with the nature of the sport and how violent it is......I would much rather give Art Jones another year than take the chance at spending it on someone else, who might not fit or stay healthy themselves. At least we know Art fits the defense and is familiar with the team. And we don't have to lower the overall cap on the team to keep him. 

 

That dead money will kill you, I would compare it to financing your debts. That is never a smart thing to do and you can get in this vicious cycle of borrowing from the future for today and next thing you know, you gotta blow everything up just to get back to square one.

 

We are gonna be releasing a lot of guys this off season I have a feeling, so that worries me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What i look at is this:

3.3 mil is gone,..period whether he plays for us or not.

Is he going to be worth the other 2.3 mil this year? Or can we get some one of his skills for 2.3 mil?

If Art ends up healthy,, and can play, then no-one of his caliber can be got for that price.

He may be a late May decision by the brass,...to wait and see, like they did with Gos last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd try to restructure his contract a bit to save a little on the cap and bring him back. If he's healthy and plays like he did a couple years ago our D-Line could be nasty. Anderson-Parry-Langford starting, with Jones, McGill, Winn, and either Kerr or Okine rotating. I like Okine. I hope he makes it next year. But Art Jones is a force against the run when he's healthy. He could be a really valuable piece to our D.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

I think the most important thing to remember is just because you are releasing a player and technically "saving money", everytime you do that and there is some dead money involved, you are effectively lowering the salary cap on your team.

 

You still have to field a full roster and fit it under the cap. So I am skeptical every time that it is actually gonna help the team in any way.

 

What are the odds that the money saved is really even gonna pay off? 

 

If you are gonna release Art Jones to bring in some low level free agent who will probably not make any kind of impact, that doesn't make any sense to me. 

 

If you are clearing space to acquire Bruce Irvin or Olivier Vernon to bolster your biggest weakness, I can understand that. 

 

If you want to keep a key free agent like Freeman, I can understand that as well.

 

I guess I feel like with the nature of the sport and how violent it is......I would much rather give Art Jones another year than take the chance at spending it on someone else, who might not fit or stay healthy themselves. At least we know Art fits the defense and is familiar with the team. And we don't have to lower the overall cap on the team to keep him. 

 

That dead money will kill you, I would compare it to financing your debts. That is never a smart thing to do and you can get in this vicious cycle of borrowing from the future for today and next thing you know, you gotta blow everything up just to get back to square one.

 

We are gonna be releasing a lot of guys this off season I have a feeling, so that worries me.

 

Vernon isn't consistent enough for my liking. He's like really, really dominant. Or really average IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

That dead money will kill you, I would compare it to financing your debts. That is never a smart thing to do and you can get in this vicious cycle of borrowing from the future for today and next thing you know, you gotta blow everything up just to get back to square one.

Ahh....herein lies the first fundamental to cap understanding.  The opposite is true. 

 

Dead money exists to pay off your debts, current or past, it does not incur new debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Taking NE and Brady out of this because I think what they did was unique.   My observation is that the teams with the elite QB have more success BEFORE that QB gets paid his contract than after he gets paid.   SB teams have won, IMO, because they have gotten elite play from some players at the same time not compensating those players for the elite play.  They produce more than what the team pays them that season.   SEA was better when Russell Wilson was playing near elite QB before his contract. PITT was better when Ben was younger not being paid. I know injuries played a part, but the early Grigson Luck years were much better for the Colts than the $125M years. KC rode an elite Mahomes on a rookie contract to domination over recent seasons. BUFF is enjoying Allen's low pay day relative to his talent and play.  What will happen to them when he gets paid?   (and another version of that formula, even though Denver paid PM, they got a huge boost from an elite Von Miller playing an impactful position on a cheap rookie contract)   We made our bed when we picked a G at 6, and will pay him elite Olineman money.  I don't see where we are going to be putting the ball in our QBs hands every play and ask him to win the game when we are paying a G to also run block at an elite level.  We will probably always be more of a running team than the average playoff team because of our investment in our G.  Taking the ball out of our QBs hands means that we will not also be able to afford that top guy.   And we will win with Wentz if he outplays what has been invested in him.  If he plays like a 3rd rounder and future 1st (just for starting, IOW, because he happens to be the best QB on the roster) then we probably wont go deep into the playoffs.   Maybe we should have taken Fields and hoped he gave us elite play on the cheap before we'd have to decide between him and Nelson.   
    • I know what a strange baseball season so far. The Cubs have a good team overall, we are like all the other good teams in the NL basically. We have our ups and downs but that is baseball with a 162 game season. The only team in the NL right now that can say they have played great are the Giants at 45-25. Looking at all the good teams in the NL, they are all 8 games above .500 with the exception of the Dodgers who are 42-27. Cubs are 39-31, Padres 40-32, and Mets 35-27. So the other teams fans feel our misery when a loss happens as well. We really need to just start playing more consistent. It needs to start tomorrow with the Marlins who we are much better than.   If someone told me before the season started that we would be in 1st place in the NL Central through 70 games on June 19th, I would take it. That is the extreme positive way to look at this.
    • Who wouldve guessed that the only win for NL Central tonight would be the Pirates beating the Indians 
    • Brewers just lost to the Rockies again , we are still in 1st place in the NL Central. Cards lost as well and the Reds are down 5-2 to the Padres.
    • It was that comebacker. That seemed to effect his play after. Hopefully he's alright and returns back to before 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...