Colts re-sign Dwayne Allen, four years $29.4m [Merge]

[ColtsLegacy]

19 minutes ago, JColts72 said:

I expect Cody to have better numbers at season's end as Sean knows how to use TE in their passing game.

 

Better numbers do not make you a better TE. Hell, in Payton's system Fleener won't even be a TE, just a big WR.

 

They're gonna be disappointed when they realize Coby can't catch a jump ball/fade.

 

 

[ColtsLegacy]

53 minutes ago, Booker23 said:

Fleener is a Saint...thanks Grigs

 

Oh no! He's the next Jimmy Graham! Good job, Grigs. You let go of Jimmy Graham!

[tvturner]

56 minutes ago, ColtsLegacy said:

 

Oh no! He's the next Jimmy Graham! Good job, Grigs. You let go of Jimmy Graham!

Never said that.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, JColts72 said:

I expect Cody to have better numbers at season's end as Sean knows how to use TE in their passing game.

You don't know much about our OC huh? 

[bababooey]

FWIW Barnwell gave us a B for the Allen signing and the saints a D+ for the fleener signing 

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14932572/grading-big-free-agent-deals-nfl?ex_cid=espntw

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, bababooey said:

FWIW Barnwell gave us a B for the Allen signing and the saints a D+ for the fleener signing 

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14932572/grading-big-free-agent-deals-nfl?ex_cid=espntw

I think the grade reflects the fact that he doesn't think the Saints needed Fleener, nor did they have the cap space to spend on the luxury.  Its a bad signing FOR THE SAINTS, because they expect to use him as Jimmy graham when he isn't and they don't need it.  And he rates the Allen deal a B because of the more noncommittal structure of the contract.  He describes Allen as " a plus blocker and a competent receiver"...hardly words of high praise.

[bababooey]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think the grade reflects the fact that he doesn't think the Saints needed Fleener, nor did they have the cap space to spend on the luxury.  Its a bad signing FOR THE SAINTS, because they expect to use him as Jimmy graham when he isn't and they don't need it.  And he rates the Allen deal a B because of the more noncommittal structure of the contract.  He describes Allen as " a plus blocker and a competent receiver"...hardly words of high praise.

Well when healthy that combination of blocking and receiving he is very close to the top of that list and should get much more burn now with Fleener gone.

[ColtsLegacy]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think the grade reflects the fact that he doesn't think the Saints needed Fleener, nor did they have the cap space to spend on the luxury.  Its a bad signing FOR THE SAINTS, because they expect to use him as Jimmy graham when he isn't and they don't need it.  And he rates the Allen deal a B because of the more noncommittal structure of the contract.  He describes Allen as " a plus blocker and a competent receiver"...hardly words of high praise.

 

"(Saints) went after a less impressive receiving tight end. Fleener isn't close to Graham's equal as a field-stretching receiver"

 

Praise.

 

Also the full quote that you cherry picked on DA: "When healthy, he has been a plus blocker and a competent receiver, and the list of tight ends in the NFL who are average-or-better at both those things really doesn't go very long."

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, ColtsLegacy said:

 

"(Saints) went after a less impressive receiving tight end. Fleener isn't close to Graham's equal as a field-stretching receiver"

 

Praise.

 

Also the full quote that you cherry picked on DA: "When healthy, he has been a plus blocker and a competent receiver, and the list of tight ends in the NFL who are average-or-better at both those things really doesn't go very long."

"A less impressive receiving TE" was comparing Fleener to Graham...not Allen.  Fleener isn't as good as Graham, that's obvious. 

 

And he says "better at BOTH blocking and receiving"  a short list for NFL TEs who are better at BOTH.  Right.  Some TEs are better at receiving, some are better at blocking, few are better at both.  Allen is a good all around TE who we paid 7 mill per year for. 

 

So when TY, Moncrief, and Dorsett are on the field, he'll be mainly pass blocking or running 7 yard crossing routes.  And during the two WR set, Doyle will be the other TE and both will be either run blocking or running 7 yard crossing routes equally as swiftly.

[ColtsLegacy]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

"A less impressive receiving TE" was comparing Fleener to Graham...not Allen.  Fleener isn't as good as Graham, that's obvious. 

 

And he says "better at BOTH blocking and receiving"  a short list for NFL TEs who are better at BOTH.  Right.  Some TEs are better at receiving, some are better at blocking, few are better at both.  Allen is a good all around TE who we paid 7 mill per year for. 

 

So when TY, Moncrief, and Dorsett are on the field, he'll be mainly pass blocking or running 7 yard crossing routes.  And during the two WR set, Doyle will be the other TE and both will be either run blocking or running 7 yard crossing routes equally as swiftly.

 

Repeating dumb comments do not make them accurate.

[Superman]

That Ladarius Green contract make me wonder [more] about this Dwayne Allen contract.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, ColtsLegacy said:

 

Repeating dumb comments do not make them accurate.

Yes.  Exactly how many drops has Allen had, or are you still going to repeat the comment that he is a better receiver than Fleener?

[Superman]

9 hours ago, Gavin said:

I think it was a case of lack of options at TE which Allen knew so Grigson and company were pinned down to frontload the deal. Obviously Allen can produce and big if we made more  of a point to get him the ball and coaches know that and so does Allen. I think versatility won out. I thought they could re-sign both once but I think Fleener priced himself out.

 

I also wonder if Grigson will be going for TE's now with a more well rounded skillset then Fleener. That's what I think I'd do

 

Fleener basically got the same money. I'd rather have Allen.

[ColtsLegacy]

Just now, DougDew said:

Yes.  Exactly how many drops has Allen had, or are you still going to repeat the comment that he is a better receiver than Fleener?

 

You tell me. You've watched every SINGLE game he's played. And drops or no, he's a better receiver than Fleener.

[Superman]

8 hours ago, Vinatieri4 said:

 

Wow! How do we keep having so much cap space? Seems like even with Luck's contract we are going to be in great shape. 

 

It's a symptom of poor drafting. We've had few players worthy of re-signing.

 

Since the 2010 draft, players on our roster that we drafted or acquired using draft picks are scarce. 2010: Hughes got traded, and everyone else from that class is out of the league or on the fringe. 2011: AC got re-signed, everyone else was out of the league in 2015. 2012: Good class, we're keeping Luck, Fleener walked, Allen got re-signed, Hilton is re-signed, no one else is still on the roster. 2013: Just cut Werner, traded for and re-signed Davis, Thornton and Holmes are free agents after 2016, but neither of them look worthy of significant contracts, and the rest of that class is gone.

 

You can go all the way back to 2007, and it's more of the same. The Colts haven't produced very good drafts for several years now, so we haven't had a lot of players to retain. The players we've signed in free agency have been B-level guys on B-level contracts, and the team has shaken free of many of them.

 

It's a good thing to have cap space, but it would be better to have players worthy of that cap space.

[2006Coltsbestever]

6 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Fleener basically got the same money. I'd rather have Allen.

We haven't done much but re-signing Allen was the right move IMO - he is better than Fleener, re-signing Vinny was an excellent move as well. I am more concerned about the Draft anyway, that is where we need to nail things. I really didn't expect us to do much today so not sure why some people are disappointed with today.

[Superman]

8 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Just thinking out loud here.  Is there any possibility that they're front-loading his contract so there will be more cap space after we give Luck his extension?  Luck is making $16 mil this year, I believe.  But in 2017, that could balloon to $22-25 mil.  With much more money having to be invested at the QB position, is it possible that they're front-loading this to have more wiggle room in the future?

 

Meh; if my ideal would be a $5-6m cap hit in 2016, the difference of $3-4m isn't really changing the structure of Luck's deal, and it's probably not changing the spending strategy in 2017.

 

That might be the reason they did it this way, but I'm still not really impressed with the structure. I don't think it's necessary.

[Superman]

7 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

To the bolded, I get that is a problem.  But I don't think it's a fair criticism.  Whether it's a $4.85 million cap hit (In an alternate universe, assume the same deal, but the roster bonus is simply added to the signing bonus, which I assume would make this deal more appealing to you given your last paragraph) or a $9 million cap hit, if he's out, we're still ultimately not making good use of our resources.  We could sign Luck to a monster deal and he could go down for practically the entire season again, basically causing the season to be a lost year all on his own - which would never be the case if we lost Allen by the way.  In Luck's case, we'd have 15/20 million in a cap hit for a player we didn't even use and it would fall under the same criticism of your second paragraph.

 

To me, a guy with an injury history, if you're going to basically guarantee half the contract in 2 years , does it not at least make sense to load most of it up in Year 1 so that you have flexibility moving forward if you decide to move on?  That's what I think this contract addresses.  If we had lesser gurantee in year 1 and spread the difference out over years 2-4, we're living with this longer than necessary should it end up being a bad decision to re-sign Dwayne.  At least with the current deal, if it ends up being a bad decision, we've got an out with much lower cap hits in 2017 and 2018 if we cut him.  I dunno, I just think this deal makes more sense given the concerns with Allen.  Maybe the money is too high in general, but I think it just reflects the reality that the cap is increasing so much over the next few years as you've said.  We could argue all day over how much Dwayne should be paid, but I think at the end of the day this deal is is probably close to market value, without regard to structure.  With regard to structure, I think it makes sense given the injury concerns.

 

I think we're talking past each other. Let me put it this way:

 

If we were going to guarantee Allen $17m in the first two years, then it doesn't matter whether the bulk of the cap hit came in Year 1 or Year 2, because he's going to be on the roster in both years. That being the case, there's no benefit to loading up the first year with a heavy cap hit in the name of saving cap in future seasons. Cap space today is just as valuable as cap space tomorrow, and I'd even argue it's more valuable, because the cap is going up in future years. That's why a balanced, graduated structure would make more sense.

 

As for the injury considerations, it's not really a what-if. If Allen is healthy and plays well, I still don't like the structure, but oh well, it's not a big deal. Obviously the optimistic viewpoint is that he has a great year, but if he languishes on the training table all year, then not only did we pay him $11.5m for one season (assume he doesn't hit his $500k incentive), but the choice becomes a) cut a player after giving him $11.5m for one season, or b) keep a player for another $5m when he wasn't really able to earn the first $11.5m. Neither of those is attractive, and that choice is only set up by the frontloaded structure to begin with.

 

If they had given him a $4m SB and a $4m base in Year 1, his 2016 cap hit would be $5m. If you wanted to get him to $17m in the first two years, then they could have done a $5m roster bonus in Year 2 with a $4m guaranteed base, and then you would be paying him $8m in Year 1 and $9m in Year 2, but only if he proved his value in Year 1. You wouldn't be stuck between two bad choices if he doesn't have a good season, and you could always rework that Year 2 roster bonus and spread it out.

 

Given the injury concerns, I think it would make more sense to defer the big cap number, not to set up an either/or in the future. I said earlier that there's more to a team-friendly contract that just 'we can cut him with minimal dead money, that means it's team-friendly!' If you pay a guy $11.5m for one season and he doesn't live up to it, that's not team-friendly. 

 

I'll just be an optimist about it and look forward to a great season from DA. I'm over the yearly average and don't like the structure, but if he plays like a #1 TE and stays on the field, then it doesn't matter.

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

We haven't done much but re-signing Allen was the right move IMO - he is better than Fleener, re-signing Vinny was an excellent move as well. I am more concerned about the Draft anyway, that is where we need to nail things. I really didn't expect us to do much today so not sure why some people are disappointed with today.

 

Some people are nuts. Allen over Fleener for the same money is an easy decision, IMO. AV is still an excellent kicker. I don't know what's going to happen with Freeman, but if he gets what I think he's going to get from Atlanta, then I'm good with letting him walk, too. 

 

I would have loved to see the Colts snag a big ticket defensive guy or a really good OL, but there are still plenty of good players left, and A LOT of money got thrown around today. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Some people are nuts. Allen over Fleener for the same money is an easy decision, IMO. AV is still an excellent kicker. I don't know what's going to happen with Freeman, but if he gets what I think he's going to get from Atlanta, then I'm good with letting him walk, too. 

 

I would have loved to see the Colts snag a big ticket defensive guy or a really good OL, but there are still plenty of good players left, and A LOT of money got thrown around today. 

Yes, the OLine and needing Pass Rushers are huge needs obviously. I would like to see us land at least 1 OLineman that is decent but we still do have the Draft. This Draft coming up may be one of the biggest in franchise history. If we can Draft just 2 or 3 players that make solid impacts/turn out to be Good to Great players than we will be fine. I see where Mack went to Atlanta, I would've loved to have him but I really didn't think we would go for him. He is 30 as well so we need to get younger anyway.

[JPFolks]

10 hours ago, AustinnKaine said:

Lol he said Elliot can block...

Yes I did.  He graded out at 100% in pass blocking last year.  I have previously posted that link.  Find me an o-lineman who can rush the ball, catch the ball and block at a 100% grade and sure, sign him.  Meanwhile, Elliot does it all.  It's all on film against pro-level talent at many other programs over multiple years.  Why not study up a bit before making a dumb and untrue comment like that? 

[NFLfan]

36 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

We haven't done much but re-signing Allen was the right move IMO - he is better than Fleener, re-signing Vinny was an excellent move as well. I am more concerned about the Draft anyway, that is where we need to nail things. I really didn't expect us to do much today so not sure why some people are disappointed with today.

 

Don't despair.  Winners of the free agency period never win the Super Bowl. I like signing my own free agents. Some of the FA signings today have been ridiculous. I don't want my team spending tons of money on one player.

 

On a Vikings site,  someone posted that last offseason 531 players changed teams via free agency but only 4 of those players made the Pro Bowl (Revis, Tyrod Taylor, Incognito, and Iupati). So, don't worry. The Colts will be fine. There are still good players available. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Don't despair.  Winners of the free agency period never win the Super Bowl. I like signing my own free agents. Some of the FA signings today have been ridiculous. I don't want my team spending tons of money on one player.

 

On a Vikings site,  someone posted that last offseason 531 players changed teams via free agency but only 4 of those players made the Pro Bowl (Revis, Tyrod Taylor, Incognito, and Iupati). So, don't worry. The Colts will be fine. There are still good players available. 

Can you believe Brock got 18 Mill? That is freakin hilarious. Hoyer is so bad though that the Texans were desperate.

[NFLfan]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Can you believe Brock got 18 Mill? That is freakin hilarious. Hoyer is so bad though that the Texans were desperate.

That is crazy. The GM will be gone next year if this fails. $18 million per year for 7 or so career starts is absurd,  but what do I know. Many on the Vikings site were comparing this to when Matt Flynn signed his contract with Seattle. This signing is potentially worse than the Flynn signing. I think Elway made the right decision.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, NFLfan said:

That is crazy. The GM will be gone next year if this fails. $18 million per year for 7 or so career starts is absurd,  but what do I know. Many on the Vikings site were comparing this to when Matt Flynn signed his contract with Seattle. This signing is potentially worse than the Flynn signing. I think Elway made the right decision.

That tells me a lot when someone like Elway who is smart, been around a long time, and great at building teams just let him go so easily. He didn't think Brock was worth keeping and Brock has been on that team for 3 seasons and even played some this past season.

[SteelCityColt]

11 hours ago, Jason_S said:

 

Honestly I don't think it's really fair to try to say which is the superior receiver because they're different types of receivers.  Allen is better at some things...Fleener is better at some things.  I'll definitely concede that Allen is better than Fleener in more areas than Fleener is better than Allen.  

 

That's probably the most balanced assessment based on what we've seen and to be fair to Allen through injury and having to be the 6th man on the line. For me, as you say, they're different, Fleener if very much more like WR but for all his size and speed was never dominant. With the development of Moncfrief I think we're more looking for TE who can go over the middle and make those tough catches where you're gonna get banged. Fleener couldn't do it, Allen can. 

[SteelCityColt]

10 hours ago, Freeupfreeney said:

I'm tried of people saying that Fleener cant block. I watched all his tapes coming out of the draft, and not only did he Block better than Dwayne, he block better than some Undrafted guards when at UCLA.

 

And he did a darn good Job in the NFL blocking. (Ask youself, how many time did you say "Dammit Fleener whiffed on that block""

 

 

Who were you watching at UCLA?

 

In answer to your second question at least twice, but I will give you he wasn't as bad as he's made out to be. 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

If you want to dumb it down a bit: Allen can do pretty much all that Fleener can, but Fleener can't do all that Allen can do. And the team needs blocking help more than WR help, so it is what it is. 

[iLoveMyBoys]

SMH and you guys call yourself colts fans. Dwayne Allen got what he deserved and you will see that next year without Coby Fleener in the fold. I guess everyone just somehow forgot he won the John Mackey award in college as the nations best TE even over Fleener who had Luck tossing him the ball.

 

I mean the guy is a multi dimensional tough hard nosed football player that is a red zone threat and a chain mover. Just look at his rookie season where he clearly outshined Coby Goldilocks Fleener. And please dont bring up him being injury prone because he wasnt injury prone in college and its sad that injuries are the only point you try to make against him. I also forgot to mention that Dwayne Allen lines up in the backfield and can play some fullback if needed just to throw that out there.

 

Fleener was clearly let go because of those reasons and the fact that he was a One Trick Pony with DHB hands. Oh did I forget to mention that he couldn't shake his 1st defender or block which the NFL is on the verge of eliminating chop blocks which makes him a 2 down player. Must I go on? But I'll just drink my tea like everyone else and ignore his deficiencies.

 

Dwayne Allen will play with a chip on his shoulder this year to prove all naysayers wrong. You talk about Luck holding on too ball for too long is because Fleener couldnt run underneath routes which Allen excels at and has great hands to match.

 

You guys just watch! Im calling it now Breakout Season. 

 

P.S. Jim Irsay and the whole colts organization was happy to re-sign Allen not just Grigson even Chudzinski wanted him more sorry they didnt say or feel the same way about Goldilocks.

[will426]

3 minutes ago, IVORYsDAD said:

SMH and you guys call yourself colts fans. Dwayne Allen got what he deserved and you will see that next year without Coby Fleener in the fold. I guess everyone just somehow forgot he won the John Mackey award in college as the nations best TE even over Fleener who had Luck tossing him the ball.

 

I mean the guy is a multi dimensional tough hard nosed football player that is a red zone threat and a chain mover. Just look at his rookie season where he clearly outshined Coby Goldilocks Fleener. And please dont bring up him being injury prone because he wasnt injury prone in college and its sad that injuries are the only point you try to make against him. I also forgot to mention that Dwayne Allen lines up in the backfield and can play some fullback if needed just to throw that out there.

 

Fleener was clearly let go because of those reasons and the fact that he was a One Trick Pony with DHB hands. Oh did I forget to mention that he couldn't shake his 1st defender or block which the NFL is on the verge of eliminating chop blocks which makes him a 2 down player. Must I go on? But I'll just drink my tea like everyone else and ignore his deficiencies.

 

Dwayne Allen will play with a chip on his shoulder this year to prove all naysayers wrong. You talk about Luck holding on too ball for too long is because Fleener couldnt run underneath routes which Allen excels at and has great hands to match.

 

You guys just watch! Im calling it now Breakout Season. 

 

P.S. Jim Irsay and the whole colts organization was happy to re-sign Allen not just Grigson even Chudzinski wanted him more sorry they didnt say or feel the same way about Goldilocks.

I'm with ya on that Allen will benefit from not having fleener here and fleener should have a decent season as well only because it's Bree's who's throwing the ball and he loves tightends lol I also choose Allen over fleener because he's a threat in more than 1 area and in the redzone he's more superior than fleener surprisingly 

[iLoveMyBoys]

1 minute ago, will426 said:

I'm with ya on that Allen will benefit from not having fleener here and fleener should have a decent season as well only because it's Bree's who's throwing the ball and he loves tightends lol I also choose Allen over fleener because he's a threat in more than 1 area and in the redzone he's more superior than fleener surprisingly 

The truth of the matter is that Allen was the superior player in college and still is the superior player now nothing has changed but Dwayne Allens OCs

 

 

[DougDew]

This thread is hilarious.  As expected it deteriorates into Allen vs Fleener...why?...because of race.  Yup...it always has.  And the fault lies with the Allen lovers.  Allen lovers just have blinders on, and always have to compare him to Fleener and make false assumption that Fleener is weak and drops passes. 

 

Allen is who he is, his stats are what they are, because of him and him alone.  Fleener was targeted more not because he's Fleener, but because he was the better receiving target in the Colts offense.

 

Fleener's value to the Saints has nothing to do with Allen's value to the Colts.  NEITHER is worth $7 mill per year.  I wish they were both gone because neither is a complete TE, and one has always been hurt anyway.  If Allen sticks to his pattern of being a diva baby riding the bench, we're starting Doyle beginning week 5 anyway, so there is no point in signing Allen.

 

[ColtsLegacy]

57 minutes ago, DougDew said:

This thread is hilarious.  As expected it deteriorates into Allen vs Fleener...why?...because of race.  Yup...it always has.  And the fault lies with the Allen lovers.  Allen lovers just have blinders on, and always have to compare him to Fleener and make false assumption that Fleener is weak and drops passes. 

 

Allen is who he is, his stats are what they are, because of him and him alone.  Fleener was targeted more not because he's Fleener, but because he was the better receiving target in the Colts offense.

 

Fleener's value to the Saints has nothing to do with Allen's value to the Colts.  NEITHER is worth $7 mill per year.  I wish they were both gone because neither is a complete TE, and one has always been hurt anyway.  If Allen sticks to his pattern of being a diva baby riding the bench, we're starting Doyle beginning week 5 anyway, so there is no point in signing Allen.

 

 

Good god. Truly terrible. Look in the mirror if you want to see someone prejudice.

 

Your conception of DA is not even close to reality. It's a complete joke.

[OffensivelyPC]

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think we're talking past each other. Let me put it this way:

 

If we were going to guarantee Allen $17m in the first two years, then it doesn't matter whether the bulk of the cap hit came in Year 1 or Year 2, because he's going to be on the roster in both years. That being the case, there's no benefit to loading up the first year with a heavy cap hit in the name of saving cap in future seasons. Cap space today is just as valuable as cap space tomorrow, and I'd even argue it's more valuable, because the cap is going up in future years. That's why a balanced, graduated structure would make more sense.

 

As for the injury considerations, it's not really a what-if. If Allen is healthy and plays well, I still don't like the structure, but oh well, it's not a big deal. Obviously the optimistic viewpoint is that he has a great year, but if he languishes on the training table all year, then not only did we pay him $11.5m for one season (assume he doesn't hit his $500k incentive), but the choice becomes a) cut a player after giving him $11.5m for one season, or b) keep a player for another $5m when he wasn't really able to earn the first $11.5m. Neither of those is attractive, and that choice is only set up by the frontloaded structure to begin with.

 

If they had given him a $4m SB and a $4m base in Year 1, his 2016 cap hit would be $5m. If you wanted to get him to $17m in the first two years, then they could have done a $5m roster bonus in Year 2 with a $4m guaranteed base, and then you would be paying him $8m in Year 1 and $9m in Year 2, but only if he proved his value in Year 1. You wouldn't be stuck between two bad choices if he doesn't have a good season, and you could always rework that Year 2 roster bonus and spread it out.

 

Given the injury concerns, I think it would make more sense to defer the big cap number, not to set up an either/or in the future. I said earlier that there's more to a team-friendly contract that just 'we can cut him with minimal dead money, that means it's team-friendly!' If you pay a guy $11.5m for one season and he doesn't live up to it, that's not team-friendly. 

 

I'll just be an optimist about it and look forward to a great season from DA. I'm over the yearly average and don't like the structure, but if he plays like a #1 TE and stays on the field, then it doesn't matter.

Fair enough.  Like you said, at the end of the day, if he plays like a #1 TE and stays on the field, it doesn't matter.  Hopefully that's the case.  

[wig]

23 hours ago, Dustin said:

As of now we're going to have $75M in cap space next season with nobody of note except for Luck to re-sign lel

 

Best case scenario is we get comp picks this year, w/ a ton of cap next year to re-sign Luck and go all in on Von, hoping he tests the market.  

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

This thread is hilarious.  As expected it deteriorates into Allen vs Fleener...why?...because of race.  Yup...it always has.  And the fault lies with the Allen lovers.  Allen lovers just have blinders on, and always have to compare him to Fleener and make false assumption that Fleener is weak and drops passes. 

Wouldn't it be the other way around?  I thought if people preferred a white guy, it was racist.  Not the other way around.  Only white people can be racist.  Kind of like the Oscars.

[SteelCityColt]

Can I politely request that we don't let this get derailed into a race debate please. 

[Vinatieri4]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It's a symptom of poor drafting. We've had few players worthy of re-signing.

 

Since the 2010 draft, players on our roster that we drafted or acquired using draft picks are scarce. 2010: Hughes got traded, and everyone else from that class is out of the league or on the fringe. 2011: AC got re-signed, everyone else was out of the league in 2015. 2012: Good class, we're keeping Luck, Fleener walked, Allen got re-signed, Hilton is re-signed, no one else is still on the roster. 2013: Just cut Werner, traded for and re-signed Davis, Thornton and Holmes are free agents after 2016, but neither of them look worthy of significant contracts, and the rest of that class is gone.

 

You can go all the way back to 2007, and it's more of the same. The Colts haven't produced very good drafts for several years now, so we haven't had a lot of players to retain. The players we've signed in free agency have been B-level guys on B-level contracts, and the team has shaken free of many of them.

 

It's a good thing to have cap space, but it would be better to have players worthy of that cap space.

 

 

Wow, thats a better explanation than I could of given.  Haha!

[OffensivelyPC]

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

Can I politely request that we don't let this get derailed into a race debate please. 

Ah, I was just hoping that I could prod him a little more.  He didn't bite.  Plus, I don't think he was being all that serious.  I thought his post was a joke anyway, a funny one at that.

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, ColtsLegacy said:

 

Good god. Truly terrible. Look in the mirror if you want to see someone prejudice.

 

Your conception of DA is not even close to reality. It's a complete joke.

Fleener was drafted in the second and DA the third in the same draft.  Why?  Because the Colts wanted a two TE offense and wanted TEs that were different from each other to accomplish two different goals.  If they wanted a one-TE offense, they would have drafted either DA or Coby in the early rounds and a backup in the later rounds or signed a vet FA.

 

This forum has consistently compared the two with each other, which is wrong.  people consistently support one and not the other, as if DA and Fleener were competing with each other for the same position and the same kind of playing time.  They don't.  The only reason Fleener played DAs role over the years is because DA was hurt, forcing Fleener to downshift into playing a role he is not suited for.

 

I'd rather have DA on the team over Fleener because I prefer Dorsett as the 3rd receiver rather than Coby split into the slot.  DA is more of the short yardage possession TE...which is what he was drafted to do and why he lasted until the third.....its not as valuable of a role as the seam splitting TE that Fleener was supposed to do...but didn't do as much as he should have since he had to fulfill DA's role frequently over the years.

 

Doyle is the same kind of TE as DA.  Both play H back occasionally. If you want to compare two players to each other, compare them.

 

Dopes should stop injecting Fleener into a DA thread, which they do because of the OUTWARD appearances of the two, and fail to even make a thought about what roles they play.

 

Its not my prejudices, its others'.  I've never compared Fleener and DA unless someone makes stupid comments, and those comments are usually directed towards Fleener for some reason.....