Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

What to do with Art Jones?


Lawrence Owen

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, krunk said:

 

Oh I didn't know that. I know he was set to be a FA next season I think. Seems like if we chose to let go of Art Jones for someone else in FA it will probably be another Kendall Langford type. Don't think we will shell out Mike Daniels or Wilkerson money. If he's healthy hopefully we keep him and draft a quality DL high

I expect to keep him if he's healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dgambill said:

Unless Arthur has a full recovery/or reworks his deal I'm afraid we will never get to see what a healthy Arthur Jones could have looked like on our defense.

 

In thinking about it, we could restructure him with games played incentives whether he's ready or not. Probably should. His incentives wouldn't count against the cap unless he earns them, since he didn't play at all in 2015. If he takes a month to get ready, fine, but he earns no incentives for the games he doesn't play. If he goes on IR in Week 6, fine, but he earns no further incentives.

 

But I would only offer this close to camp, and only if he comes in at a reasonable weight and looking like he's going to be ready to play.

 

If we have to move on, that's okay. I would plan on upgrading the DL in March and April anyways. Jones should be a luxury by August.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2016 at 5:52 AM, 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. 

I don't he is a better player. Langford, Anderson, and Parry is the best defensive line the Colts have had in years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ProblChld32 said:

I say we keep him, I like Art Jones when healthy he is extremely Disruptive, but with the emergence of Anderson and Langford playing the way they have, this might not work out in his favor.

Art Jones would be a great rotational player with the line the Colts have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

In thinking about it, we could restructure him with games played incentives whether he's ready or not. Probably should. His incentives wouldn't count against the cap unless he earns them, since he didn't play at all in 2015. If he takes a month to get ready, fine, but he earns no incentives for the games he doesn't play. If he goes on IR in Week 6, fine, but he earns no further incentives.

 

But I would only offer this close to camp, and only if he comes in at a reasonable weight and looking like he's going to be ready to play.

 

If we have to move on, that's okay. I would plan on upgrading the DL in March and April anyways. Jones should be a luxury by August.

I agree. I don't think Arthur is going to find a situation that could pay him as much as what he could stand to make with us if we do an incentive laden deal. (that is if we believe he is healthy enough to warrant a deal) He has played minimal in the last two years. I can't imagine he do better than the deal you guys lined out. No matter where he goes he is going to have to take a "prove it" contract. At least here if he does prove it he gets paid THIS year through the incentives as opposed to another contract to play for. I'm not sure his agent and him and our staff will go this route but it would make sense. I do think we will look for more depth on defense. We will look at OL in the draft...maybe a TE  or RB....the rest will definitely be focused on defense defense defense. We have 6 picks (Minus the Moore trade) without knowing about compensatory ones. I could easily see us go 4 or 5 picks on defense. We need to get younger. Arthur was envisioned as being a corner stone of this defense but his health just hasn't afforded that....and if he can't be healthy again those savings can be used along with savings from others we might move on from to find a replacement or upgrade other areas. It isn't just can we upgrade over him for $2 million like some said...its can he perform up to his contract going forward and if not we find someone with the money saved from him and others to get someone that we believe WILL perform to their contract. I hope he can get healthy...and we can restructure..I'd love to see what we can do with a nice rotation there on the DL...we got thin later in the year but early on we had some nice production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

Art Jones is coming back, it would be dumb to cut him. He's only costing roughly $2M (since we'd waste roughly $3M letting him go) 

 

There's nobody we could fine for $2M that plays at his level when he's healthy. 

 

 

Problems being...can he be healthy and can he be what he used to be...and we saw Langford who costs us almost half as much as Art does and he gave us a TON of production. There are options out there...and we will have cap savings from other areas so we can replace him if he isn't deserving of what we are going to pay him. What if I said that $2 million we could save would be the difference in upgrading our RG/RT...or new Corner? We already replaced his play with guys last year...now granted we will still don't have a dominant DL but as a unit they were improving. Arthur wasn't a part of that and if he isn't the Arthur that deserves the 5-6 million in the coming years we would should ask him to restructure or find his replacement. We can use that money elsewhere or in finding paying for a guy that should warrant that 5-6 million. It really comes down to health and outlook....like some have said that is the main factor in keeping him. Can he live up to what he is owed moving forward. If he can get back to that condition then I say of course keep him...if not (and very possibly after two devastating ankle injuries) then we are over paying for the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Problems being...can he be healthy and can he be what he used to be...and we saw Langford who costs us almost half as much as Art does and he gave us a TON of production. There are options out there...and we will have cap savings from other areas so we can replace him if he isn't deserving of what we are going to pay him. What if I said that $2 million we could save would be the difference in upgrading our RG/RT...or new Corner? We already replaced his play with guys last year...now granted we will still don't have a dominant DL but as a unit they were improving. Arthur wasn't a part of that and if he isn't the Arthur that deserves the 5-6 million in the coming years we would should ask him to restructure or find his replacement. We can use that money elsewhere or in finding paying for a guy that should warrant that 5-6 million. It really comes down to health and outlook....like some have said that is the main factor in keeping him. Can he live up to what he is owed moving forward. If he can get back to that condition then I say of course keep him...if not (and very possibly after two devastating ankle injuries) then we are over paying for the guy.

 

With the cap increasing seemingly endlessly, $2M isn't going to make/break the team. He's a good player when he's healthy, and now that we finally have some other good players on the D line, he won't have to play as much and it'll keep his wear and tear down.

 

His last injury was a pretty freak occurrence. 

 

Regardless, eating $3M (and getting nothing in return) to save $2M doesn't make fiscal sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2016 at 9:20 PM, Superman said:

 

You're not paying an additional $2.3m. You're paying an additional $4.5m. 

 

Also, just to expound further, you are looking at the cap one year at a time. That's a mistake. Assume the cap in 2016 is $150m, and the cap in 2017 is $160m. Between the two years, you have $310m in total cap (and keep in mind, what you don't spend today, you can spend tomorrow). Releasing Jones requires you to account for $3.3m in previously paid bonus money in 2016 and 2017 (you can either take the whole hit in 2016, or you can do $1.1m in 2016 and $2.2m in 2017). That's 1% of your total cap in those two years.

 

If you keep Jones in 2016, you have to account for his $4.5m salary in 2016 plus at least $2.2m in previously paid bonus money (assuming he's not released prior to 2017). That's 2.1% of your total cap, and you still haven't accounted for the remaining $1.1m in previously paid bonus money.

 

That's not a drastic savings, it's not going to change your team to have an extra 1% of available cap. But that's not the point. The point, again, is you don't keep paying a player just because you aren't gaining a bunch of cap space right now. The cap is not just accounted for one year at a time. You don't spend money today just because you don't want to account for the money you already spent yet. The primary question is whether the player is worth the money you would be spending. If not, cut your losses.

 

I must say, I rather enjoy when you explain the thought process behind cap management.  It is a great read into economics over the aspect of time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

Regardless, eating $3M (and getting nothing in return) to save $2M doesn't make fiscal sense. 

 

pzv5j7l.jpg

 

We ate that $3.3m the day we signed him. It's gone, not coming back. The question is whether you want to spend another $4.5m on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2016 at 11:33 AM, krunk said:

I don't think Art Jones is our best lineman. Langford is better and he proved it this year with 7 sacks and he was very solid against the run. Plus he has a history of being healthy. I don't think we could count on Jones for 7 sacks even if 100% healthy. If he is better than Henry it ain't by much. If we keep him I do believe he would start in 2016, but mainly because Henry is rehabbing. I think they would start Henry over him if healthy. Sorry but Henry is a force against the run when healthy. Art is pretty solid but I think Henry could be dominant. I do think we should bring him back though. Also I think we need to draft another Henry Anderson/Eddie Goldman type player high. That will give us further cushion against another Art Jones injury.

 

Impossible to compare Langford or Anderson to Jones as we haven't seen them on the field together.  When Jones was in the lineup, opposing offenses ran for 3.7 ypc against us, compared to 4.7 ypc when he was out of the lineup.  This speaks to the fact that Jones was a very significant contributor to our DL and overall D.

 

Jones commanded double teams on a DL that was pretty bad (RJF, Chapman, Hughes, Kerr, and Redding). 

 

Jones also has the ability to play any position across the DL. 

 

Jones proved he was a force against the run -- you "think Henry could be dominant"  -- you may be right, and Anderson played well, but given the sample size of the both of them, you really can't compare other than to say Art was very solid against the run and Anderson looked good as well.

 

I'm more worried about Anderson coming back from a reconstructive knee surgery than I am about Jones coming back from a sprained ankle.  You're probably right that it'd be good to draft another DL, but that should be for cushion against another Anderson and/or Jones injury -- pretty unfair of you to single Jones out when Anderson is more likely to be unhealthy than Jones at the start of next season...

 

On 1/10/2016 at 2:23 PM, Dustin said:

 

He's not even close to our best d-lineman. Even in the 9ish games he played for us he was completely underwhelming. 

 

Who was better than him when he was healthy (he was healthy for 3 games -- hard to count the 6 he was playing through obvious pain)?  RJF? No. Chapman? No. Hughes? No. Kerr? No.  Redding? You could try to make an argument, but IMO no..

 

With Art in the line-up (healthy or not), the Colts were giving up a full yard less per carry against the run than they were without him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

Impossible to compare Langford or Anderson to Jones as we haven't seen them on the field together.  When Jones was in the lineup, opposing offenses ran for 3.7 ypc against us, compared to 4.7 ypc when he was out of the lineup.  This speaks to the fact that Jones was a very significant contributor to our DL and overall D.

 

Jones commanded double teams on a DL that was pretty bad (RJF, Chapman, Hughes, Kerr, and Redding). 

 

Jones also has the ability to play any position across the DL. 

 

Jones proved he was a force against the run -- you "think Henry could be dominant"  -- you may be right, and Anderson played well, but given the sample size of the both of them, you really can't compare other than to say Art was very solid against the run and Anderson looked good as well.

 

I'm more worried about Anderson coming back from a reconstructive knee surgery than I am about Jones coming back from a sprained ankle.  You're probably right that it'd be good to draft another DL, but that should be for cushion against another Anderson and/or Jones injury -- pretty unfair of you to single Jones out when Anderson is more likely to be unhealthy than Jones at the start of next season...

 

 

Who was better than him when he was healthy (he was healthy for 3 games -- hard to count the 6 he was playing through obvious pain)?  RJF? No. Chapman? No. Hughes? No. Kerr? No.  Redding? You could try to make an argument, but IMO no..

 

With Art in the line-up (healthy or not), the Colts were giving up a full yard less per carry against the run than they were without him.

 

 

How exactly did I single him out when I said we should keep the guy?  Second of all the commment was made by whomever I quoted that Jones is our best lineman which is not the case anymore.  He was our best lineman on that team with RJF, Redding, Hughes and Chapman.  He is not our best lineman now with Anderson, Parry, and Langford and no I don't think it's impossible to compare.  Please tell me without looking silly that you really believe Art Jones would have gotten 7 sacks while being as solid as Langford was against the run?  Art Jones when 100% healthy has never been close to 7 sacks in his career and he played with some pretty solid players in Baltimore.  There's no data that exists to make anyone believe Art Jones would get that. 

 

I like him as a run stuffer, but he doesn't effect the passing game in the same way Langford did.  That's been proven over Jones career.  The most he's ever had was 4.5..  Secondly if you were reading closely you would have seen me say I expected Art Jones to start in 2016 and that's mainly because Henry is rehabbing.  Finally I think Anderson has shown to be equally disruptive against the run, and I just don't think you take a young player who is blossoming and switch him to a back up, you should leave him on the field.  Anderson is the long term piece here not Jones.  Jones could be gone off the team in 2 years or less. 

 

Being that this is an ACL Henry is coming back from there is probably a good chance knowing Pagano that they will leave Jones as the starter even if Henry is ready to play because they will want to ease him back into the game. Obviously I'm not going to cry about that because they are both good.  However if I had to choose between the two at 100% healthy I'm going with Henry and develop my long term piece because he's shown to be that good.  He's not a Montori Hughes or some other JAG.  That's especially true if you(and it's a strong likelihood) draft a quality defensive lineman in the upcoming draft.  There's enough cushion where you can afford to use Art Jones as a high level back up.   Our backups play a decent amt as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

pzv5j7l.jpg

 

We ate that $3.3m the day we signed him. It's gone, not coming back. The question is whether you want to spend another $4.5m on him.

YEAR   AGE BASE SALARY SIGNING BONUS WORKOUT BONUS CAP HIT DEAD CAP
2014 Contract details by year 27 $4,500,000 $1,100,000 - $5,600,000 $10,000,000
2015 Contract details by year 28 $6,000,000 $1,100,000 - $7,100,000 $4,400,000
2016 Contract details by year 29 $4,500,000 $1,100,000 - $5,600,000 $3,300,000
2017 Contract details by year 30 $6,250,000 $1,100,000 - $7,350,000 $2,200,000
2018 Contract details by year 31 $6,250,000 $1,100,000 - $7,350,000 $1,100,000

 

 

 

Apprently I'm reading this wrong then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:
YEAR   AGE BASE SALARY SIGNING BONUS WORKOUT BONUS CAP HIT DEAD CAP
2014 Contract details by year 27 $4,500,000 $1,100,000 - $5,600,000 $10,000,000
2015 Contract details by year 28 $6,000,000 $1,100,000 - $7,100,000 $4,400,000
2016 Contract details by year 29 $4,500,000 $1,100,000 - $5,600,000 $3,300,000
2017 Contract details by year 30 $6,250,000 $1,100,000 - $7,350,000 $2,200,000
2018 Contract details by year 31 $6,250,000 $1,100,000 - $7,350,000 $1,100,000

 

 

 

Apprently I'm reading this wrong then. 

Cmon man

Do we or do we not save 4.5M cash in 2015 if we cut him.

Will or will not that 4.5M in cash hit the cap?

Is any other money being spent for him to play in 2015?

Does any other number matter then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:
YEAR   AGE BASE SALARY SIGNING BONUS WORKOUT BONUS CAP HIT DEAD CAP
2014 Contract details by year 27 $4,500,000 $1,100,000 - $5,600,000 $10,000,000
2015 Contract details by year 28 $6,000,000 $1,100,000 - $7,100,000 $4,400,000
2016 Contract details by year 29 $4,500,000 $1,100,000 - $5,600,000 $3,300,000
2017 Contract details by year 30 $6,250,000 $1,100,000 - $7,350,000 $2,200,000
2018 Contract details by year 31 $6,250,000 $1,100,000 - $7,350,000 $1,100,000

Apprently I'm reading this wrong then. 

 

Probably just interpreting it wrong. Dead cap is money already paid that hasn't been accounted for yet. The actual savings is the base salary that isn't paid if you release the player prior to Week 1. 

 

If we release Jones prior to June 1 (with no post-June 1 designation), his "dead cap" hit is $3.3m. That's just an accounting of money already paid. If we release Jones after June 1, his "dead cap" hit is $1.1m in 2016, and $2.2m in 2017. Either way, we will have paid him no more than the $16m he's already been paid.

 

If we keep him in 2016 with no restructure, we will have paid him $20.5m.

 

It costs the Colts NOTHING to release him, because that "dead cap" money has already been paid. It costs them an additional $4.5m to keep him in 2016.

 

The question is whether he's worthy of that additional $4.5m in 2016. The issue of "dead cap" isn't part of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, krunk said:

 

 

How exactly did I single him out when I said we should keep the guy?  Second of all the commment was made by whomever I quoted that Jones is our best lineman which is not the case anymore.  He was our best lineman on that team with RJF, Redding, Hughes and Chapman.  He is not our best lineman now with Anderson, Parry, and Langford and no I don't think it's impossible to compare.  Please tell me without looking silly that you really believe Art Jones would have gotten 7 sacks while being as solid as Langford was against the run?  Art Jones when 100% healthy has never been close to 7 sacks in his career and he played with some pretty solid players in Baltimore.  There's no data that exists to make anyone believe Art Jones would get that. 

 

I like him as a run stuffer, but he doesn't effect the passing game in the same way Langford did.  That's been proven over Jones career.  The most he's ever had was 4.5..  Secondly if you were reading closely you would have seen me say I expected Art Jones to start in 2016 and that's mainly because Henry is rehabbing.  Finally I think Anderson has shown to be equally disruptive against the run, and I just don't think you take a young player who is blossoming and switch him to a back up, you should leave him on the field.  Anderson is the long term piece here not Jones.  Jones could be gone off the team in 2 years or less. 

 

Being that this is an ACL Henry is coming back from there is probably a good chance knowing Pagano that they will leave Jones as the starter even if Henry is ready to play because they will want to ease him back into the game. Obviously I'm not going to cry about that because they are both good.  However if I had to choose between the two at 100% healthy I'm going with Henry and develop my long term piece because he's shown to be that good.  He's not a Montori Hughes or some other JAG.  That's especially true if you(and it's a strong likelihood) draft a quality defensive lineman in the upcoming draft.  There's enough cushion where you can afford to use Art Jones as a high level back up.   Our backups play a decent amt as it is.

 

 Very doubtful we draft a high quality D-Lineman in the next draft.
 I do like Langford overall, but he and Art are apple to oranges TYPE of players.
Parry did ok but i don`t see him Ever being a SB caliber NT. He hangs in tuff most of the time, but can be moved in the running game by a good line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Very doubtful we draft a high quality D-Lineman in the next draft.
 I do like Langford overall, but he and Art are apple to oranges TYPE of players.
Parry did ok but i don`t see him Ever being a SB caliber NT. He hangs in tuff most of the time, but can be moved in the running game by a good line.

 

And why do you doubt that? 

 

As for the Art vs Kendall thing the bottom line is production.  I like both of them, but Kendall impacts the game more.  I don't think Art is currently our best lineman

 

Parry is a pretty good player.  You don't need beasts at every single position, just solid players.  Kelly Gregg is sombody Parry could definitely be as good as. That's all you need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, krunk said:

 

 

How exactly did I single him out when I said we should keep the guy?  Second of all the commment was made by whomever I quoted that Jones is our best lineman which is not the case anymore.  He was our best lineman on that team with RJF, Redding, Hughes and Chapman.  He is not our best lineman now with Anderson, Parry, and Langford and no I don't think it's impossible to compare.  Please tell me without looking silly that you really believe Art Jones would have gotten 7 sacks while being as solid as Langford was against the run?  Art Jones when 100% healthy has never been close to 7 sacks in his career and he played with some pretty solid players in Baltimore.  There's no data that exists to make anyone believe Art Jones would get that. 

 

I like him as a run stuffer, but he doesn't effect the passing game in the same way Langford did.  That's been proven over Jones career.  The most he's ever had was 4.5..  Secondly if you were reading closely you would have seen me say I expected Art Jones to start in 2016 and that's mainly because Henry is rehabbing.  Finally I think Anderson has shown to be equally disruptive against the run, and I just don't think you take a young player who is blossoming and switch him to a back up, you should leave him on the field.  Anderson is the long term piece here not Jones.  Jones could be gone off the team in 2 years or less. 

 

Being that this is an ACL Henry is coming back from there is probably a good chance knowing Pagano that they will leave Jones as the starter even if Henry is ready to play because they will want to ease him back into the game. Obviously I'm not going to cry about that because they are both good.  However if I had to choose between the two at 100% healthy I'm going with Henry and develop my long term piece because he's shown to be that good.  He's not a Montori Hughes or some other JAG.  That's especially true if you(and it's a strong likelihood) draft a quality defensive lineman in the upcoming draft.  There's enough cushion where you can afford to use Art Jones as a high level back up.   Our backups play a decent amt as it is.

 

You singled Art out by saying " That will give us further cushion against another Art Jones injury."  Ankle and knee injuries are no joke, especially to the big men of this league.  Art has suffered two ankle injuries in the 2 years here (the first one of which, he was rushed back onto the field too early, IMO), while Anderson suffered a serious knee injury in one year on the team (like Art, Henry has played 9 games for us).  My point is, neither Art or Anderson has proven to be able to stay healthy for a full season since they've been here -- I agree with you that we should probably pick up another DL, but not simply 'against another Art Jones injury' -- also because we have no idea that Anderson will bounce back or if he can stay healthy assuming he comes back to form.

 

As for already assuming Langford, Parry and Anderson are already better than Art, there is no way to do that.  The 3 of them played in a system which was greatly modified from the system Art was in, and the three of them are probably all superior talents to Chapman/Hughes/RJF (meaning that Langford/Parry/Anderson have more support from each other than Jones ever had).  Art's primary role in the scheme he was in was to stop the run, and there is no arguing that he excelled at that based on the fact the defense gave up a full yard less per carry with him in the lineup.  

 

Art is the most versatile DL on the roster when he is healthy.  Prior to this year, Langford never had more than 5 sacks in a season (and he had the luxury by playing on a loaded St. Louis d-line).  Take into account, Anderson in his 9 games had 1 sack, compared to Art's 1.5.  Although a different scheme, Anderson was used much like Jones for the most part (i.e., to stop the run, not to rush the passer), while Langford was in more of a pass-rushing role.  

 

I don't think it's arguable that a healthy A. Jones is the most versatile player we have on our DL, and think his track record shows he is a major force against the run.  However, I agree with you, it will be good to get another talented player or 2 on the DL.  I also hope Jones and Anderson come back healthy, and that they and others can stay healthy.  Our DL will be best (and healthiest come playoffs) if we have the talent to use a heavy rotation without dropping off in level of play.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 2:20 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Shouldn't "beast" be saved for players who are on the "All-Pro" level and not just your good everyday solid players.      

 

Shouldn't "beast" be saved for the best of the best?

 

Tell me who's better than parry in that position on that team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VaAllDay757 said:

Tell me who's better than parry in that position on that team?

 

Well....   Art Jones,  but he was hurt.

 

But why does that even matter.      Being the best on the team doesn't mean much on a team that's not very good.     And we weren't that good.      We weren't a good run defense,  in fact we were poor.    And we weren't a good pass defense.      I think our overall defense is rated in the 20's.

 

All I'm saying is that Parry was a nice above average rookie.  

 

But as I said in the post you responded to,   I always thought the word "Beast" should be saved for Best of the Best.       That way, it's not cheapened.     I think it's used way, WAY too much on this website,  and mostly for guys are are not beasts....

 

Just my opinion.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Probably just interpreting it wrong. Dead cap is money already paid that hasn't been accounted for yet. The actual savings is the base salary that isn't paid if you release the player prior to Week 1. 

 

If we release Jones prior to June 1 (with no post-June 1 designation), his "dead cap" hit is $3.3m. That's just an accounting of money already paid. If we release Jones after June 1, his "dead cap" hit is $1.1m in 2016, and $2.2m in 2017. Either way, we will have paid him no more than the $16m he's already been paid.

 

If we keep him in 2016 with no restructure, we will have paid him $20.5m.

 

It costs the Colts NOTHING to release him, because that "dead cap" money has already been paid. It costs them an additional $4.5m to keep him in 2016.

 

The question is whether he's worthy of that additional $4.5m in 2016. The issue of "dead cap" isn't part of the equation.

 

Well....   unless I misunderstand you,   it's 3.3 Million LESS that we have to spend in 2016.    The Dead Cap Money Hit.     

 

So, to me the math is would I rather pay Jones 4.5 million more -- his '16 salary -- or release him and then I still have to replace him,   but I have 3.3. Million less to spend on his replacement and anyone else for that matter.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Well....   unless I misunderstand you,   it's 3.3 Million LESS that we have to spend in 2016.    The Dead Cap Money Hit.     

 

So, to me the math is would I rather pay Jones 4.5 million more -- his '16 salary -- or release him and then I still have to replace him,   but I have 3.3. Million less to spend on his replacement and anyone else for that matter.

 

Not at all. If you release Art Jones, it either creates $2.3m in cap space in 2016 and $7.35m in 2017, or it creates $4.5m in cap space in 2016 and $5.15m in 2017. In no way does it cost more cap space in 2016 to release Art Jones than it does to keep him.

 

His replacement, and how to pay for said replacement, is another issue. The team might believe that they already have his replacement. They may be eyeing a significant upgrade. How you fill any void left by releasing Jones (which is an interesting proposition, considering he's only played 9 games in two seasons) is separate, IMO. First, you have to decide whether Jones should be kept or not, based first on his physical condition and second on the likelihood that he can play at a level that justifies his pay and his roster spot.

 

Also, I should say that while it probably seems like I'm promoting releasing Jones, that's not my intention. True, I do think they should either release him or rework his contract (which rarely happens in this situation). But the reason I've been so adamant in this thread is because I think many are misunderstanding the cap mechanics at play, not because I'm so eager to get rid of Jones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Not at all. If you release Art Jones, it either creates $2.3m in cap space in 2016 and $7.35m in 2017, or it creates $4.5m in cap space in 2016 and $5.15m in 2017. In no way does it cost more cap space in 2016 to release Art Jones than it does to keep him.

 

His replacement, and how to pay for said replacement, is another issue. The team might believe that they already have his replacement. They may be eyeing a significant upgrade. How you fill any void left by releasing Jones (which is an interesting proposition, considering he's only played 9 games in two seasons) is separate, IMO. First, you have to decide whether Jones should be kept or not, based first on his physical condition and second on the likelihood that he can play at a level that justifies his pay and his roster spot.

 

Also, I should say that while it probably seems like I'm promoting releasing Jones, that's not my intention. True, I do think they should either release him or rework his contract (which rarely happens in this situation). But the reason I've been so adamant in this thread is because I think many are misunderstanding the cap mechanics at play, not because I'm so eager to get rid of Jones. 

 

OK.....

 

I always thought I knew, or understood the term "Dead Cap Money"....  and the Spotrac chart in this thread,  says the Colts take a 3.3 Million Dead Cap Hit if we cut Jones this year.       Doesn't that mean we have 3.3. Million less to spend on salaries?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Not at all. If you release Art Jones, it either creates $2.3m in cap space in 2016 and $7.35m in 2017, or it creates $4.5m in cap space in 2016 and $5.15m in 2017. In no way does it cost more cap space in 2016 to release Art Jones than it does to keep him.

 

His replacement, and how to pay for said replacement, is another issue. The team might believe that they already have his replacement. They may be eyeing a significant upgrade. How you fill any void left by releasing Jones (which is an interesting proposition, considering he's only played 9 games in two seasons) is separate, IMO. First, you have to decide whether Jones should be kept or not, based first on his physical condition and second on the likelihood that he can play at a level that justifies his pay and his roster spot.

 

Also, I should say that while it probably seems like I'm promoting releasing Jones, that's not my intention. True, I do think they should either release him or rework his contract (which rarely happens in this situation). But the reason I've been so adamant in this thread is because I think many are misunderstanding the cap mechanics at play, not because I'm so eager to get rid of Jones. 

 

If we cut Art, it will result in a dead cap hit of 3.3 million and a cap savings of 2.3 million, overall, a 1 million dollar loss. That's how I understand it?

 

He's due 5.6 million if we keep him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, krunk said:

 

And why do you doubt that? 

 

As for the Art vs Kendall thing the bottom line is production.  I like both of them, but Kendall impacts the game more.  I don't think Art is currently our best lineman

 

Parry is a pretty good player.  You don't need beasts at every single position, just solid players.  Kelly Gregg is sombody Parry could definitely be as good as. That's all you need.

 

"Kendall impacts the game more (than Art Jones)" -- this is a very hard statement to defend.  Art Jones, when in the lineup, helped lead the defense to averaging under 4 yards per carry, when without him, they were giving up almost 5 yards per carry against the run. 

 

Statistically, sure Langford had more sacks than Jones, but he was playing (1) in a different scheme and (2) in a different role within that scheme.  Jones, like Anderson, was mainly in there to eat blockers, stop the run and open space for our LBs to make plays.  Langford, IMO, doesn't do this as well as Jones. 

 

It is also important to note, with Jones in for 9 games in 2014, our defense (as a whole) was 9th in the league with 41 sacks.  Without Jones this year, and with an arguably improved LB corps and DL, we were tied for 22nd with 35 sacks.  Although Langford may have had more sacks as an individual, our system is (in large part) set up for the DL to eat blockers and allow the LBs to make plays (tackles on RBs, sacks on QBs).

 

It is too tough to compare Langford to Jones as far as who is a bigger 'impact' player, but I don't think there is argument that Jones in more versatile when healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

OK.....

 

I always thought I knew, or understood the term "Dead Cap Money"....  and the Spotrac chart in this thread,  says the Colts take a 3.3 Million Dead Cap Hit if we cut Jones this year.       Doesn't that mean we have 3.3. Million less to spend on salaries?

 

 

9 minutes ago, SilentHill said:

 

If we cut Art, it will result in a dead cap hit of 3.3 million and a cap savings of 2.3 million, overall, a 1 million dollar loss. That's how I understand it?

 

He's due 5.6 million if we keep him.

 

The chart shows his "cap hit" if we keep him, and his "dead cap" hit if we don't keep him. Keep him, and his 2016 cap hit is $5.6m. Release him and his dead cap hit is $3.3m (the regular cap hit goes away, replaced by the dead cap hit). So releasing him saves $2.3m in cap space. (You don't have to pay his $4.5m salary, though, so that's what you save in real money.)

 

An aside: There's another option when releasing him, and that's a post-June 1 release. If that's done, his dead cap hit in 2016 is only $1.1m, and then another $2.2m in 2017 (the remainder). 

 

NCF: If we release Jones and take a $3.3m dead cap hit, that's still less than keeping him with a $5.6m cap hit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ColtsFanMikeC said:

 

"Kendall impacts the game more (than Art Jones)" -- this is a very hard statement to defend.  Art Jones, when in the lineup, helped lead the defense to averaging under 4 yards per carry, when without him, they were giving up almost 5 yards per carry against the run. 

 

Statistically, sure Langford had more sacks than Jones, but he was playing (1) in a different scheme and (2) in a different role within that scheme.  Jones, like Anderson, was mainly in there to eat blockers, stop the run and open space for our LBs to make plays.  Langford, IMO, doesn't do this as well as Jones. 

 

It is also important to note, with Jones in for 9 games in 2014, our defense (as a whole) was 9th in the league with 41 sacks.  Without Jones this year, and with an arguably improved LB corps and DL, we were tied for 22nd with 35 sacks.  Although Langford may have had more sacks as an individual, our system is (in large part) set up for the DL to eat blockers and allow the LBs to make plays (tackles on RBs, sacks on QBs).

 

It is too tough to compare Langford to Jones as far as who is a bigger 'impact' player, but I don't think there is argument that Jones in more versatile when healthy.

 

I'm not going to hang on too long here, but Art Jones plays the same position as Sheldon Richardson does for the Jets. They are both 3 techniques.  He is supposed to be getting to the quarterback and penetrating on running plays the way Richardson does.  Langford plays the same role as Muhammad Wilkerson.  The 5 tech does more run stuffing and block holding which speaks even more towards why I think Langford is the better player.  He faces more double teams than Jones.

 

"His position is one of the less glamorous in football. As a 5-technique defensive end in the Jets' 3-4 scheme, Wilkerson's primary responsibility is to stuff the run. Instead of charging hard into the backfield, he must hold his own at the line of scrimmage. Instead of being responsible for one gap, and having free reign to destroy that gap as he pleases, he is in charge of two gaps and must be able to make a play in either one."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2574403-time-to-recognize-muhammad-wilkerson-as-an-elite-3-4-defensive-end

 

 

 

The 3-technique lines up between the guard and tackle and will shade over either side of the guard's shoulder. Most of the time the 3-technique will get a one-on-one matchup with the guard. Usually their job is to win that matchup and shoot the gap and get into the backfield. While the 1-technique needs to be large and strong, the 3-technique is usually lighter and quicker because their game is based off of speed. It's much harder to find the 3-technique because of the athleticism that is required to play the position.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013/2/17/3998628/nfl-draft-2013-ranking-the-1-technique-and-3-technique-4-3-defensive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Probably just interpreting it wrong. Dead cap is money already paid that hasn't been accounted for yet. The actual savings is the base salary that isn't paid if you release the player prior to Week 1. 

 

If we release Jones prior to June 1 (with no post-June 1 designation), his "dead cap" hit is $3.3m. That's just an accounting of money already paid. If we release Jones after June 1, his "dead cap" hit is $1.1m in 2016, and $2.2m in 2017. Either way, we will have paid him no more than the $16m he's already been paid.

 

If we keep him in 2016 with no restructure, we will have paid him $20.5m.

 

It costs the Colts NOTHING to release him, because that "dead cap" money has already been paid. It costs them an additional $4.5m to keep him in 2016.

 

The question is whether he's worthy of that additional $4.5m in 2016. The issue of "dead cap" isn't part of the equation.

 

I know it gets old explaining cap number to dummies like me. I thought the dead money had to go against cap if the contract gets cancelled. I forget about that June date changing that number. I don't remember my protractor and compass when it comes to this. So thank you Sir. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, krunk said:

 

I'm not going to hang on too long here, but Art Jones plays the same position as Sheldon Richardson does for the Jets. They are both 3 techniques.  He is supposed to be getting to the quarterback and penetrating on running plays the way Richardson does.  Langford plays the same role as Muhammad Wilkerson.  The 5 tech does more run stuffing and block holding which speaks even more towards why I think Langford is the better player.  He faces more double teams than Jones.

 

"His position is one of the less glamorous in football. As a 5-technique defensive end in the Jets' 3-4 scheme, Wilkerson's primary responsibility is to stuff the run. Instead of charging hard into the backfield, he must hold his own at the line of scrimmage. Instead of being responsible for one gap, and having free reign to destroy that gap as he pleases, he is in charge of two gaps and must be able to make a play in either one."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2574403-time-to-recognize-muhammad-wilkerson-as-an-elite-3-4-defensive-end

 

 

 

The 3-technique lines up between the guard and tackle and will shade over either side of the guard's shoulder. Most of the time the 3-technique will get a one-on-one matchup with the guard. Usually their job is to win that matchup and shoot the gap and get into the backfield. While the 1-technique needs to be large and strong, the 3-technique is usually lighter and quicker because their game is based off of speed. It's much harder to find the 3-technique because of the athleticism that is required to play the position.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013/2/17/3998628/nfl-draft-2013-ranking-the-1-technique-and-3-technique-4-3-defensive

 

 

 

"....in the Jets' 3-4 scheme." 

 

I hope you realize that we changed our 3-4 scheme within the Colts' organization between 2014 and 2015.

 

I'm done with this argument, and won't waste time thinking about how an argument about how players are used in different schemes within our own organization can't be compared can be justified by how other players play ".....in the Jets' 3-4 scheme".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, lollygagger8 said:

 

I know it gets old explaining cap number to dummies like me. I thought the dead money had to go against cap if the contract gets cancelled. I forget about that June date changing that number. I don't remember my protractor and compass when it comes to this. So thank you Sir. 

 

LOL.  I've read all of this and I still don't quite get it.  But SM knows his numbers, so I'll just take his word for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's not my money, so I'm not going to look at that 4.5 million base salary.  If it does truly only save us 2 million in cap space (I think that is correct), then that's a risk worth taking.  I do not recall him being this injury prone in Baltimore.  Maybe his bad luck as run out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say : 'Keep Art as a back-up, he's paid $$ to contribute to the best of his ability" this is what i mean.

Art being a so-called back-up would still have him on the field as much as the starters.  He knows all 3 positions and can rest them all if needed.  Moving up and down the line, giving breathers for Anderson, Parry, and Langford, until he himself needs one.  THAT IMO is getting your moneys worth.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...