rebuilding?

[OLD FAN MAN 61]

what is rebuilding ? rebuilding a team imo is a farce. the way football is set up players don't stay with the team that drafted them when they become stars they chase the money. gms know this and they try to put together the chess pieces to win a super bowl every season.  there are few lifetime players with one team anymore. gms know this they don't count on this years stars  to be there next year. some stay, a lot don't.  I believe our front office is trying to put together the pieces to win a superbowl every season.  the only season that counts is this one, the future is now, this season. some gms are great at putting the chess pieces together each season. is ours ? I hope he is. thoughts or comments?

[ColtsBTM12 3]

It's about competing to win a SB every given year but it's also about sustained success. It always takes time to develop certain players that you draft, they usually don't hit their prime as rookies. Most of the time the patient approach of drafting/developing players has been more successful than going all in and aggressively pursuing free agents. I think Grigson and Pagano are starting to take the patient approach.

[COLTS449 117]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying man. I agree that you should go all in every year. I believe you should try and fill most/all of your major holes in the offseason. I mean you have both free agency and the draft. I also think the ideal of rebuilding when you have a franchise QB is just ridiculous. Like literally beyond stupid. But.....I think our GM and the rest of the staff excluding Pags are all more than content to wait a year before becoming true SB contenders, and I think that is just dumb to put it simply. We could have been the outright favorites with the right moves this offseason. But instead we don't do anything to improve the defense for next year. We fixed the OL and I LOVE that, but we should have brought in a couple difference makers in free agency. Traded for Chandler Jones and signed Danny Trevathan would have been a dream come true.

[OLD FAN MAN 61]

53 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

I agree with a lot of what you're saying man. I agree that you should go all in every year. I believe you should try and fill most/all of your major holes in the offseason. I mean you have both free agency and the draft. I also think the ideal of rebuilding when you have a franchise QB is just ridiculous. Like literally beyond stupid. But.....I think our GM and the rest of the staff excluding Pags are all more than content to wait a year before becoming true SB contenders, and I think that is just dumb to put it simply. We could have been the outright favorites with the right moves this offseason. But instead we don't do anything to improve the defense for next year. We fixed the OL and I LOVE that, but we should have brought in a couple difference makers in free agency. Traded for Chandler Jones and signed Danny Trevathan would have been a dream come true.

great post, I agree

[Superman 8,502]

1 hour ago, COLTS449 said:

We could have been the outright favorites with the right moves this offseason

 

You keep saying this, and it's absolute nonsense.

[Superman 8,502]

2 hours ago, GOT AN O-LINE said:

 the only season that counts is this one

 

Good heavens...

[crazycolt1 7,030]

2 hours ago, GOT AN O-LINE said:

what is rebuilding ? rebuilding a team imo is a farce. the way football is set up players don't stay with the team that drafted them when they become stars they chase the money. gms know this and they try to put together the chess pieces to win a super bowl every season.  there are few lifetime players with one team anymore. gms know this they don't count on this years stars  to be there next year. some stay, a lot don't.  I believe our front office is trying to put together the pieces to win a superbowl every season.  the only season that counts is this one, the future is now, this season. some gms are great at putting the chess pieces together each season. is ours ? I hope he is. thoughts or comments?

With the rookie contracts and the franchise tag you comment is not 100% true. If you remember the average amount of years for an NFL player is 6.86 years. For every 10-12 year veteran player there are quite a few 4 year players. Injuries play a bigger factor in todays NFL that in the past IMO. With the players playing and working year round is quite different than the old time NFL. Players are much bigger, faster and when an injury does happen it's more serious also. There has been a huge upgrade in treating injuries but players are not sticking around because they have enough money to retire and don't accumulate injuries that cripple them for the rest of their lives. Just my 2 cents I guess.

[jskinnz 1,752]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying man. I agree that you should go all in every year. I believe you should try and fill most/all of your major holes in the offseason. I mean you have both free agency and the draft. I also think the ideal of rebuilding when you have a franchise QB is just ridiculous. Like literally beyond stupid. But.....I think our GM and the rest of the staff excluding Pags are all more than content to wait a year before becoming true SB contenders, and I think that is just dumb to put it simply. We could have been the outright favorites with the right moves this offseason. But instead we don't do anything to improve the defense for next year. We fixed the OL and I LOVE that, but we should have brought in a couple difference makers in free agency. Traded for Chandler Jones and signed Danny Trevathan would have been a dream come true.

Dear God...

The out and out nonsense is strong.

[Chucklez 305]

6 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

I agree with a lot of what you're saying man. I agree that you should go all in every year. I believe you should try and fill most/all of your major holes in the offseason. I mean you have both free agency and the draft. I also think the ideal of rebuilding when you have a franchise QB is just ridiculous. Like literally beyond stupid. But.....I think our GM and the rest of the staff excluding Pags are all more than content to wait a year before becoming true SB contenders, and I think that is just dumb to put it simply. We could have been the outright favorites with the right moves this offseason. But instead we don't do anything to improve the defense for next year. We fixed the OL and I LOVE that, but we should have brought in a couple difference makers in free agency. Traded for Chandler Jones and signed Danny Trevathan would have been a dream come true.

We were outright favorites to win the AFC and go to the Superbowl last year.... how'd that turn out..... No point in throwing money at some FA's if they arent the right fit or too old.

[SteelCityColt 4,445]

There is a serious amount of short sighted thinking being displayed here. I mean how many times has a team going "all in" on one season paid off. The phrase itself suggests that you'd be putting all your eggs into one season dam the future. Given the fickle nature of the game that's almost a suicidal approach. 

 

Look at the flip side.. who are the most successful teams of the last few years, not talking flash in the pan seasons but teams that season on season are making the playoffs. Pats, GB, Seattle (recently), Denver (recently). What do they have in in common?   

 

Well for one, a franchise QB. I'd go as far to say if you don't have that in place you are rebuilding, because until you find one all you can do is maybe tread water and try and build as strong a roster for when you do find one. Now that's not to say you can't have success without one, by say building a strong D and running game but it's not going to be sustainable over a long period of time. 

 

The other thing these teams have got in common is a patient approach to roster building and taking the long view. Even Denver who went "all in" after securing Manning had been slowly building the roster beforehand, same as Seattle before they landed Wilson. 

 

My own personal tastes swing more to GB. You have your franchise QB, you draft well, don't give away picks on trades, don't overpay FAs, sign your own talent and keep a degree of consistency while keeping talent levels on the roster fairly level. 

 

I mean really... some of the suggestions on here, it's like salary cap be dammed, SIGN ALL THE PLAYERS! 

 

[esmort 413]

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

There is a serious amount of short sighted thinking being displayed here. I mean how many times has a team going "all in" on one season paid off. The phrase itself suggests that you'd be putting all your eggs into one season dam the future. Given the fickle nature of the game that's almost a suicidal approach. 

 

Look at the flip side.. who are the most successful teams of the last few years, not talking flash in the pan seasons but teams that season on season are making the playoffs. Pats, GB, Seattle (recently), Denver (recently). What do they have in in common?   

 

Well for one, a franchise QB. I'd go as far to say if you don't have that in place you are rebuilding, because until you find one all you can do is maybe tread water and try and build as strong a roster for when you do find one. Now that's not to say you can't have success without one, by say building a strong D and running game but it's not going to be sustainable over a long period of time. 

 

The other thing these teams have got in common is a patient approach to roster building and taking the long view. Even Denver who went "all in" after securing Manning had been slowly building the roster beforehand, same as Seattle before they landed Wilson. 

 

My own personal tastes swing more to GB. You have your franchise QB, you draft well, don't give away picks on trades, don't overpay FAs, sign your own talent and keep a degree of consistency while keeping talent levels on the roster fairly level. 

 

I mean really... some of the suggestions on here, it's like salary cap be dammed, SIGN ALL THE PLAYERS! 

 

 

I think there is an area of balance in the middle.  All of those teams have been mentioned that are known for building through the draft have brought in FAs (even big name ones) at one time or another.  Grigson just doesn't seem to be able to find that middle area.  He always seems to go to some sort of extreme on one side or the other. 

[SteelCityColt 4,445]

Just now, esmort said:

 

I think there is an area of balance in the middle.  All of those teams have been mentioned that are known for building through the draft have brought in FAs (even big name ones) at one time or another.  Grigson just doesn't seem to be able to find that middle area.  He always seems to go to some sort of extreme on one side or the other. 

 

I think there's a marked difference between bringing in FAs to plug gaps at sensible (ha) money then going "all in" and signing every top FA. I think it's a tad unfair to say Grigson has been extreme with FAs, he's never really splashed on top FAs, more overpaid middling players hoping they develop/improve. Even when he has spent some money it's tended to be on fairly team friendly contracts. 

 

GB, Peppers aside, very much seem to follow the Polian model of signing there own. 

 

 

 

 

 

[COLTS449 117]

I don't think we should have went out and did what the Giants did, but I think one or two little moves could have drastically changed our team for the better. Like I said earlier. If we had traded for Chandler Jones and signed Danny Trevathan wouldn't that have made us 10 times better than we are now?

[Jared Cisneros 3,768]

8 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

I don't think we should have went out and did what the Giants did, but I think one or two little moves could have drastically changed our team for the better. Like I said earlier. If we had traded for Chandler Jones and signed Danny Trevathan wouldn't that have made us 10 times better than we are now?

Pats probably wouldn't trade us Chandler Jones without ripping us off. I agree on Trevethan though.

[myic90 3]

10 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

I don't think we should have went out and did what the Giants did, but I think one or two little moves could have drastically changed our team for the better. Like I said earlier. If we had traded for Chandler Jones and signed Danny Trevathan wouldn't that have made us 10 times better than we are now?

 

It's not that simple. What do you mortgage for those trades you speak of? Remember that Jones is from the pats and Trevathan from denver. Both are inner-conference foes. The price will have to blow them away for them to enable an inner-conference team.

 

Both those players ended up going across to nfc teams in the end.

[OffensivelyPC 1,095]

57 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

I don't think we should have went out and did what the Giants did, but I think one or two little moves could have drastically changed our team for the better. Like I said earlier. If we had traded for Chandler Jones and signed Danny Trevathan wouldn't that have made us 10 times better than we are now?

You say that like the Pats would actually trade with us.  When was the last time they did?  The thing about trades are, you have to have a willing partner.  You don't just say - "Eh, this is what I want and I could have gotten it because that's what the other team got."  Doesn't work like that.

 

That's not even to mention we'd have to pay up big bucks after the end of the season just to retain him.

[SteelCityColt 4,445]

2 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

"Eh, this is what I want and I could have gotten it because that's what the other team got."  Doesn't work like that.

 

It does on Madden.. Come to that why hasn't Grigson recursive traded FAs he's just signed for 0 guaranteed money and late round picks upwards until he owns the entire 1st round. 

[funktacious2 377]

Your opinion of rebuilding being a farce is something I'm going to have to disagree with. Rebuilding is not always necessary to find future success, but bad deals, bad drafts, and injuries can put teams in a vicious cycle. Rebuilding a team is like trying to get out of bad debt and rebuild your credit. Maybe sometimes it's best to get rid of most of your nice things and start over the right way, not making too many risky ventures and setting yourself up for smarter, more sustained success.

[OffensivelyPC 1,095]

13 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

It does on Madden.. Come to that why hasn't Grigson recursive traded FAs he's just signed for 0 guaranteed money and late round picks upwards until he owns the entire 1st round. 

Oy, it looks like your auto-correct has a cold! What I generally like to do on Madden is sign up a cheap free agent, make him 99 for everything and let him go when it's time to re-sign him or trade him for more pics.  My team is flat out AWESOME! lol.

[COLTS449 117]

1 hour ago, OffensivelyPC said:

You say that like the Pats would actually trade with us.  When was the last time they did?  The thing about trades are, you have to have a willing partner.  You don't just say - "Eh, this is what I want and I could have gotten it because that's what the other team got."  Doesn't work like that.

 

That's not even to mention we'd have to pay up big bucks after the end of the season just to retain him.

 

If we had offered up our 2nd and our 2017 3rd plus maybe Thornton too, then they most likely would have done it in a heartbeat considering what they got from Arizona.. LOL. You can basically get anybody to do anything. You just might have to offer up a little more. Arizona gave them Cooper and a 2nd. We had a higher pick in the 2nd so that would have been a big thing right there. With them wanting to trade him I'm sure they would have traded him to us if we offered way more than the other team. That's how it works. Whoever offers more.

[COLTS449 117]

2 hours ago, myic90 said:

 

It's not that simple. What do you mortgage for those trades you speak of? Remember that Jones is from the pats and Trevathan from denver. Both are inner-conference foes. The price will have to blow them away for them to enable an inner-conference team.

 

Both those players ended up going across to nfc teams in the end.

 

Trevathan was a free agent, and see my above post on Jones. If we had offered more than any other team they would have probably traded with us. Its all about who is willing to give more.

[Valpo2004 1,486]

19 hours ago, GOT AN O-LINE said:

what is rebuilding ? rebuilding a team imo is a farce. the way football is set up players don't stay with the team that drafted them when they become stars they chase the money. gms know this and they try to put together the chess pieces to win a super bowl every season.  there are few lifetime players with one team anymore. gms know this they don't count on this years stars  to be there next year. some stay, a lot don't.  I believe our front office is trying to put together the pieces to win a superbowl every season.  the only season that counts is this one, the future is now, this season. some gms are great at putting the chess pieces together each season. is ours ? I hope he is. thoughts or comments?

 

Nonsense. . . Drafted players are on 4 year contracts. . . with a 5th year option if they are first round picks.  Those contracts are cheap contracts too.  On top of that you have the franchise tag to help control their future.

 

Most big time stars stick with the teams that drafted them for most of their prime.  Yes a lot of times they change teams but that doesn't often happen til their 30's. 

 

 

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

 Maybe because I am one, I think the Colts have some of the best fans in the, not only the NFL, but of any major sports league. Every day I come to this board and read posts on all sorts of topics, like this one that has some very deeply thought out ways to run the team.  And I am so thankful, that many of the fans on this forum do not run the franchise.

 

If the Colts implemented ideas like this they would make the Browns look like a successful franchise.

[cbear 371]

6 minutes ago, Coffeedrinker said:

 Maybe because I am one, I think the Colts have some of the best fans in the, not only the NFL, but of any major sports league. Every day I come to this board and read posts on all sorts of topics, like this one that has some very deeply thought out ways to run the team.  And I am so thankful, that many of the fans on this forum do not run the franchise.

 

If the Colts implemented ideas like this they would make the Browns look like a successful franchise.

 

LOL.  My sarcasm meter is usually pretty sensitive, but I must say, I've read your post several times and I'm still not sure.  So I take it as face value and say that I agree wholeheartedly! 

[cbear 371]

I don't think you can go "all in" every season and still have continued long term success unless you are very lucky and hit on some low priced FAs or draft picks.  

[Superman 8,502]

1 hour ago, cbear said:

I don't think you can go "all in" every season and still have continued long term success unless you are very lucky and hit on some low priced FAs or draft picks.  

 

I don't know if people understand it, but nothing is guaranteed in sports. The phrase 'go all in' is taken from gambling, and the implication should be obvious. In case it's not -- if you gamble, you can lose.

 

The people talking about 'going all in, damn the future' are the same people who would be complaining about all the dead weight on the roster and the cap when those big moves that would instantly make the Colts title favorites don't wind up working out.

[COLTS449 117]

19 hours ago, Superman said:

 

You keep saying this, and it's absolute nonsense.

 

Just a yes or no question Supe. You don't believe by trading for Chandler Jones and signing Danny Trevathan we would be a top tier team, and one of the all around favorites to win the Super Bowl?

[Superman 8,502]

1 hour ago, COLTS449 said:

 

Just a yes or no question Supe. You don't believe by trading for Chandler Jones and signing Danny Trevathan we would be a top tier team, and one of the all around favorites to win the Super Bowl?

 

Yes, probably.

 

So trade a 2nd rounder in this year's draft (a draft where we already only had six picks, and knowing that the main issue with this team is that we've missed too many high picks since 2013), and a young OL (probably the 2nd most talented OL on the roster, still under contract for cheap, from a team that's starved for OL talent)... and if you have your way and just absolutely have to have him, throw in a 2017 3rd round pick. And then you get one year of Chandler Jones at $8m?

 

This is the definition of mortgaging the future, and it's not good team building. At least with Vontae, we had him for two years, and at about half of what Jones costs in 2016.

 

Trevathan was a free agent. He signed where he wanted to sign. You don't know that the Colts weren't involved. (Next you're going to tell me 'just offer whatever it takes, he'd make us SB favorites!!!' Again, bad team building.) 

 

Last thing, the Colts were favored to win the SB last season. I'm sure you'll discount that for whatever reason, but that's a you problem. The point is that the "preseason favorite" rarely lives up to that billing.

 

The other point is that if you want to build a team that can contend year after year, you don't "go all in" with risky moves that could hurt your team in future years. 

 

You'll continue to argue that the Colts aren't interested in competing this year because they didn't "go all in" with costly moves this offseason, but I will continue to disagree. Not only do I not agree that the Colts don't care about competing for a SB this year, but I don't agree that the Colts believe they aren't able to compete this year. I believe that they have decided not to sacrifice the future for the sake of the present, and if that means they aren't "preseason favorites," oh well. 

[crazycolt1 7,030]

6 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

 

If we had offered up our 2nd and our 2017 3rd plus maybe Thornton too, then they most likely would have done it in a heartbeat considering what they got from Arizona.. LOL. You can basically get anybody to do anything. You just might have to offer up a little more. Arizona gave them Cooper and a 2nd. We had a higher pick in the 2nd so that would have been a big thing right there. With them wanting to trade him I'm sure they would have traded him to us if we offered way more than the other team. That's how it works. Whoever offers more.

Well heck, might as well throw in a #1 and #3 and pay the roster bonuses for them. Just snap you fingers and get it done.

[RockThatBlue 1,320]

6 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

 

Trevathan was a free agent, and see my above post on Jones. If we had offered more than any other team they would have probably traded with us. Its all about who is willing to give more.

To be fair though, no one knows if the Colts went after Trevathan. Hell we could have sent him an offer and he just simply turned it down. Who knows? 

[southwest1 2,092]

On May 10, 2016 at 8:31 PM, GOT AN O-LINE said:

what is rebuilding ? rebuilding a team imo is a farce. the way football is set up players don't stay with the team that drafted them when they become stars they chase the money. gms know this and they try to put together the chess pieces to win a super bowl every season.  there are few lifetime players with one team anymore. gms know this they don't count on this years stars  to be there next year. some stay, a lot don't.  I believe our front office is trying to put together the pieces to win a superbowl every season.  the only season that counts is this one, the future is now, this season. some gms are great at putting the chess pieces together each season. is ours ? I hope he is. thoughts or comments?

I'm trying to grasp what your overall thesis is here GAOL. That Ryan Grigson isn't bringing in enough talent to win a SB quickly enough? You can't fix every unit deficiency in 1 season. The salary cap won't allow that & with Luck's 2nd contract coming up, there's only so much money to go around. 

 

I was watching Willie McGinest on NFL Total Access tonight & he said that INDY should have addressed the o-line early back in 2012 when Luck first landed there as the heir apparent to Manning, but at least their GM finally got Andrew some much needed protection as in better late than never mantra. I agree with Willie. INDY let Luck go unprotected for too long relying on his arm & WRs to carry our team to victory week in; week out. 

 

Look, I've got my issues with Ryan sure, but I give the man credit when he finally gets some new linemen which reduces the punishment Luck should take this season. Plus, I think Ryan learned from wasting a high round draft pick on the Trent Richardson trade. I have to keep reminding myself that Grigs has never been a GM before. 

 

Most of the elite franchises do this: Pull in & mold talent from the draft by fine-tuning their skills on the practice squad. The Daniel Synder approach to signing big name free agents never really works longterm it just misfires about 85% of the time.  

 

I'm just trying to figure out what your beef is GOAL. That Grigson is developing the team too slowly for Championship Greatness? Just asking for further clarification I guess. 

[southwest1 2,092]

8 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

You say that like the Pats would actually trade with us.  When was the last time they did?  The thing about trades are, you have to have a willing partner.  You don't just say - "Eh, this is what I want and I could have gotten it because that's what the other team got."  Doesn't work like that.

 

That's not even to mention we'd have to pay up big bucks after the end of the season just to retain him.

Exactly OPC, no trading partner is just going hand over an elite pass rusher like Chandler Jones to INDY without a king's ransom in future draft picks. Plus Bill's not gonna weaken the Pats by making a formidable foe even stronger. Just because INDY needs a premier pass rusher doesn't mean he's gonna hand him over for peanuts. The idea is to be a thorn in the side of your AFC rival not play softball with an enemy that makes them stronger with a new trade addition. 

 

Especially after Deflate Gate, there's still a lot of friction & bad blood there. Bill would have never opened negotiations with us over Jones. Not in a million years. Pete Carroll maybe, but Chuck Pagano? Oh Hades no...

 

I was basically addressing Colts449 here regarding Chandler Jones not you personally OPC. I just wanted to make that point clear. Well known free agents rarely drop in Playoff teams laps. 

 

 

[southwest1 2,092]

19 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

I mean really... some of the suggestions on here, it's like salary cap be dammed, SIGN ALL THE PLAYERS! 

Thanks for the classic sarcasm SCC! I needed a good belly roll laugh. 

[OLD FAN MAN 61]

1 hour ago, southwest1 said:

I'm trying to grasp what your overall thesis is here GAOL. That Ryan Grigson isn't bringing in enough talent to win a SB quickly enough? You can't fix every unit deficiency in 1 season. The salary cap won't allow that & with Luck's 2nd contract coming up, there's only so much money to go around. 

 

I was watching Willie McGinest on NFL Total Access tonight & he said that INDY should have addressed the o-line early back in 2012 when Luck first landed there as the heir apparent to Manning, but at least their GM finally got Andrew some much needed protection as in better late than never mantra. I agree with Willie. INDY let Luck go unprotected for too long relying on his arm & WRs to carry our team to victory week in; week out. 

 

Look, I've got my issues with Ryan sure, but I give the man credit when he finally gets some new linemen which reduces the punishment Luck should take this season. Plus, I think Ryan learned from wasting a high round draft pick on the Trent Richardson trade. I have to keep reminding myself that Grigs has never been a GM before. 

 

Most of the elite franchises do this: Pull in & mold talent from the draft by fine-tuning their skills on the practice squad. The Daniel Synder approach to signing big name free agents never really works longterm it just misfires about 85% of the time.  

 

I'm just trying to figure out what your beef is GOAL. That Grigson is developing the team too slowly for Championship Greatness? Just asking for further clarification I guess. 

I don't have a beef with what grigs is doing, I think he is trying to compete every season for the sb. I am just stating that many posters on here are waiting for us to build a perfect team through the draft and waste the present season until we have the pieces together. I like the idea of grigs finding players however he can so we can compete each year. since the 2012 draft some of our picks went bye bye, if we were counting on them for the future , the future went bye bye

[southwest1 2,092]

4 minutes ago, GOT AN O-LINE said:

I don't have a beef with what grigs is doing, I think he is trying to compete every season for the sb. I am just stating that many posters on here are waiting for us to build a perfect team through the draft and waste the present season until we have the pieces together. I like the idea of grigs finding players however he can so we can compete each year. since the 2012 draft some of our picks went bye bye, if we were counting on them for the future , the future went bye bye

Okay. Yeah, ideally a GM wants more success stories when drafting or trading for athletes than flameouts. God knows Grigs has had some colossal team additions like Darius Heyward Bay, Trent Richardson, & LaRon Landry that never panned out, but Vontae Davis, Jarrell Freeman, & TY Hilton had some shinning moments though. 

 

If you're talking about a sense of team urgency to win now mentality, I get that. But, I don't think Pagano is dragging his feet intentionally on purpose. Jimmy would never allow that. I get your frustration GOAL in terms of wanting to advance to a SB faster or at least not squandering our opportunity at the Deflate Gate game. I think both Pags & Grigs know what the expectations are & that Luck's window of opportunity can't be taken for granted. 

 

With all our new coaches this yr, I think the Colts are gonna surprise a lot of teams this season. Thanks for elaborating GOAL. I appreciate it. 

[crazycolt1 7,030]

2 hours ago, southwest1 said:

I'm trying to grasp what your overall thesis is here GAOL. That Ryan Grigson isn't bringing in enough talent to win a SB quickly enough? You can't fix every unit deficiency in 1 season. The salary cap won't allow that & with Luck's 2nd contract coming up, there's only so much money to go around. 

 

I was watching Willie McGinest on NFL Total Access tonight & he said that INDY should have addressed the o-line early back in 2012 when Luck first landed there as the heir apparent to Manning, but at least their GM finally got Andrew some much needed protection as in better late than never mantra. I agree with Willie. INDY let Luck go unprotected for too long relying on his arm & WRs to carry our team to victory week in; week out. 

 

Look, I've got my issues with Ryan sure, but I give the man credit when he finally gets some new linemen which reduces the punishment Luck should take this season. Plus, I think Ryan learned from wasting a high round draft pick on the Trent Richardson trade. I have to keep reminding myself that Grigs has never been a GM before. 

 

Most of the elite franchises do this: Pull in & mold talent from the draft by fine-tuning their skills on the practice squad. The Daniel Synder approach to signing big name free agents never really works longterm it just misfires about 85% of the time.  

 

I'm just trying to figure out what your beef is GOAL. That Grigson is developing the team too slowly for Championship Greatness? Just asking for further clarification I guess. 

Your first mistake was watching Willie McGinest.

[SteelCityColt 4,445]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

Cut for neatness

You'll continue to argue that the Colts aren't interested in competing this year because they didn't "go all in" with costly moves this offseason, but I will continue to disagree. Not only do I not agree that the Colts don't care about competing for a SB this year, but I don't agree that the Colts believe they aren't able to compete this year. I believe that they have decided not to sacrifice the future for the sake of the present, and if that means they aren't "preseason favorites," oh well. 

 

Quoted just because I thought this was a very good considered response. We as fans often forget the several layers of nuance to all these transactions. As you say division/conference rivals might be less open to trading with us, especially the Pats who don't really have reason to love Grigson. That's another thing, it's a people business and part of being a GM is building relationships with people. If Grigson has alienated a few other GMs it's not going to help matters. 

 

As you say too, with FAs, it's not just always about the $$$. 

[OffensivelyPC 1,095]

19 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

 

If we had offered up our 2nd and our 2017 3rd plus maybe Thornton too, then they most likely would have done it in a heartbeat considering what they got from Arizona.. LOL. You can basically get anybody to do anything. You just might have to offer up a little more. Arizona gave them Cooper and a 2nd. We had a higher pick in the 2nd so that would have been a big thing right there. With them wanting to trade him I'm sure they would have traded him to us if we offered way more than the other team. That's how it works. Whoever offers more.

@Superman covered this good enough when discussing "bad team building."  I'll just add the very practical consideration that you are just throwing caution to the wind on.  The ONLY way that trade works si if he comes in and dominates to the point he deserves top 5 money - I'll say again, the ONLY way.  If he doesn't, you're in contract negotiations the following year with a guy who will, without a doubt demand top 5 money.  You pay him, and you have a lot of cap tied up for hte next 4 years at least.  If he's not as productive, that's a lot of unproductive cash you might as well flush down the toilet.  If we don't pay him what he wants, he hits free agency and you've given up 4 years times two players of comprable output for basically 1 year of one player of underperformance.  The latter by the way would also be the more expensive option - a 2nd/3rd round rookie together cost roughly $8mill over the course of 4 years and 1 year of Chandler Jones costs $8mill for 2017 alone.  That's just TERRIBLE management of your roster.  If he was in the 2nd year of his rookie deal, itd' be a different story, but he's not and you don't know what you're going to get.  You can justify giving up a 2nd, but again, pats may not want to give that to us considering we're in their conference/rivals.  And you don't just throw more rookie picks on it "just cause." You could trade all that and it could blow up in your face even worse than any of us are imagining.  

 

I'm all for buildingo ur pass rush, but you've got to do it so that you have a future as well.  Situations like the Giants, Chargers, and formerly the Broncos are different.  They mortgaged their future because they had good pieces in place, but their QB is on the tail end of their career.  Their window is much shorter.  We do it the way you describe, and we affect the future much like missing on Werner and the Trent trade have caused.  Do you really think it's that important to trade so much and gamble on 1 year at the expense of Andrew Luck's prime?

[southwest1 2,092]

12 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Your first mistake was watching Willie McGinest.

I was just watching NFL Network & Willie was on the show as an analyst. I have no control over which personalities are on which night.

 

At least Willie will complement Luck's skill set once in awhile. Unlike ESPN whose pundits constantly dismiss the Colts except Jeff Saturday. 

 

Probably my favorite NFL Network analysts are Solomon Wilcots & Shaun O'Hara. 

[crazycolt1 7,030]

26 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

I was just watching NFL Network & Willie was on the show as an analyst. I have no control over which personalities are on which night.

 

At least Willie will complement Luck's skill set once in awhile. Unlike ESPN whose pundits constantly dismiss the Colts except Jeff Saturday. 

 

Probably my favorite NFL Network analysts are Solomon Wilcots & Shaun O'Hara. 

I know, I was just pulling your chain a little.