Is the salary cap room severely overrated?

[DougDew]

Grigson fully understood the quality of players he was signing.  GMs who don't are the ones who have a lot of dead cap hit.  You can argue that he didn't get good players, but he knows they weren't that good, which is why the contracts were structured the way they were...easily cuttable.

 

And Cherilous and Landry were both very good players their first year...as was Toler.  Injuries and attitude compromised their abilities.  Yes, they were injury prone going into the contract, but I doubt their were many other options at the positions of need at the time.  There may have been some young  unproven CBs, but RT and S was thin the year Cherilous and Landry were signed.

 

I think Sebastian Vollmer was the next best option at RT.

[Myles]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

 

Simply say he signed the wrong free agents.    Good argument.

 

Simply say he drafted the wrong players.         Good argument.

 

 

 

But trying to say that he hasn't done a good job with the salary cap is pure nonsense.    

 

 

 

You are missing it.   Bad drafts directly affected the amount of cap space the team has.   You don't pay poor players big money.   Had he hit with several of his picks, when their rookie contracts come up, you have to pay them more to keep them.   It's actually a nice problem to have. 

Me, I'd rather have good players and little salary cap room than having poor players and lots of room.  

[dw49]

7 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I'll make this as basic as I can, so I don't somehow insult you.

 

Grigson has been the GM for 5 years.    The first year was expected to get out of the contracts he inherited.

 

The next 4 years are all on him,  and he's been flawless with the contracts.    The Colts have remained out of salary cap trouble every year and most years we have money to spend.

 

Other teams all over the NFL are constantly in and out of salary cap Hell.     It can't be as simple as you're trying to make it.

 

To the argument you're making that the roster is so bad that it's not hard not be in salary cap Hell,  I think that's a gross over-simplification.

 

All of the contracts since Grigson came on,  including those for Luck, Castanzo, Hilton,  Cherilus,  Landry, Langford,  Mathis,  Wayne,  Allen, Davis,   you name it.....   every one of them, have been structured so that the Colts are never in a bad place when it comes to the cap.

 

If that makes me dense ---- so be it.

 

But I think a number of other teams around the NFL would LOVE to be as dense as that.

 

 

 

There was considerable cap hit for Landry. There was a very large cap hit for Cherlius. Why don't you look that up instead of just spouting off inaccurate statements. You have no idea of how the Cherlius contract was really structured. Your just talking with no knowledge. It was in fact indeed structured to "push salary down the road." His second year base salary in a deal that was 35 mill over 5 years was only 1 mill. That's why the Cots took around a $9,000,000 hit including almost 6 mill in 2016 . When you sign expensive players , you get whacked if they are cut within a couple of years. This is true with the majority of all big contracts. If we had cut Davis after 2 years .. or Hilton .. the cap would have been slaughtered . Castonzo looked to be a huge mistake for about a year and a half . Thank God he recovered and finished the season strong. People were calling to cut him. Well thats great but his cap hit after 2 years would be around 9 mill. cap hit after playing 3 years of that contract would STILL be 6 million. Big contracts carry big guaranteed money and when a player fails , your cap gets whacked. Cherlius was a good example of this an not an example of managing the cap as you suggest.

 

It would be ridiculous to spend "future money " on guys like Wayne and Mathis considering all the cap room Indy had when they signed these players . That's what you don't get and I'm not going to waste anymore time explaining to you. Teams get into trouble when they are up against the cap and want to sign a player or two that they think can "put them over the top." So they structure the deal where the player has like a 600K first year salary and they give him an extra 10 mill in a guaranteed roster or signing bonus. I get that .. it's kindergarten stuff. What I'm saying is when you sign crappy or older free agents and you have 40 mill or so in cap room , why would you structure it to blow the cap apart if those old washed up or marginal guys fail ? That's what I mean when I say that it's no big deal that Indy is not in cap trouble as we speak. Most teams with comparable rosters have ample room . Grigson has been Ok in not blowing the cap apart by signing more free agents than we could afford in the last 4 years. It in my opinion is just no big deal as it would have been reckless if we were in a bad situation .

 

Have you even looked at all 32 teams' cap room for 2017 ? There are probably 25 teams with ample cap room. It (the cap) has gone up by leaps and bounds . Teams that have managed the cap are the ones with room and great rosters. Look at Seattle and you'll find some actual "bargains" in there , same with NE. Denver had some great deals that led to a SB last year. Talib , Ware and Sanders were bargains. That's managing a cap . If you want to give Grigsn kudos for signing guys in the twilight of their careers and paying them in the first 2 years of the deals , go ahead and be silly. Of coarse when you sign guys like Wayne , Jackson , Johnson , Mathis and Cole , you wouldn't backload the deals with guaranteed money. That would be even more *ic than it was signing some of those washed up guys. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tikyle]

14 hours ago, Majin Vegeta said:

Damn, the Titans are in suuch great shape.

 

.....until they have to pay Mariotta and those young O-lineman.

 

If you can't get any game changers having all that cap space is a mute point unless you build a very depth rich team.

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

You are missing it.   Bad drafts directly affected the amount of cap space the team has.   You don't pay poor players big money.   Had he hit with several of his picks, when their rookie contracts come up, you have to pay them more to keep them.   It's actually a nice problem to have. 

Me, I'd rather have good players and little salary cap room than having poor players and lots of room.  

 

Now,  you're missing it.

 

If that's all there was too it,  then no bad team would ever be in a salary cap problem.

 

But some are.....   the salary cap is far more difficult than people here want to believe.

 

It was a problem at the end of Polian's reign.    That's why 2012 unfolded as it did.

 

But it hasn't been a problem so far for Grigson.      Not one bad contract.     Bad decisions,  but no bad contracts.

 

 

[Andrew Luck fan club]

1 hour ago, tikyle said:

 

.....until they have to pay Mariotta and those young O-lineman.

 

If you can't get any game changers having all that cap space is a mute point unless you build a very depth rich team.

? They have the 5th overall pick in this draft and another in the 1st, they will get a game changer. They've come a long way. 

[NewColtsFan]

2 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

There was considerable cap hit for Landry. There was a very large cap hit for Cherlius. Why don't you look that up instead of just spouting off inaccurate statements. You have no idea of how the Cherlius contract was really structured. Your just talking with no knowledge. It was in fact indeed structured to "push salary down the road." His second year base salary in a deal that was 35 mill over 5 years was only 1 mill. That's why the Cots took around a $9,000,000 hit including almost 6 mill in 2016 . When you sign expensive players , you get whacked if they are cut within a couple of years. This is true with the majority of all big contracts. If we had cut Davis after 2 years .. or Hilton .. the cap would have been slaughtered . Castonzo looked to be a huge mistake for about a year and a half . Thank God he recovered and finished the season strong. People were calling to cut him. Well thats great but his cap hit after 2 years would be around 9 mill. cap hit after playing 3 years of that contract would STILL be 6 million. Big contracts carry big guaranteed money and when a player fails , your cap gets whacked. Cherlius was a good example of this an not an example of managing the cap as you suggest.

 

It would be ridiculous to spend "future money " on guys like Wayne and Mathis considering all the cap room Indy had when they signed these players . That's what you don't get and I'm not going to waste anymore time explaining to you. Teams get into trouble when they are up against the cap and want to sign a player or two that they think can "put them over the top." So they structure the deal where the player has like a 600K first year salary and they give him an extra 10 mill in a guaranteed roster or signing bonus. I get that .. it's kindergarten stuff. What I'm saying is when you sign crappy or older free agents and you have 40 mill or so in cap room , why would you structure it to blow the cap apart if those old washed up or marginal guys fail ? That's what I mean when I say that it's no big deal that Indy is not in cap trouble as we speak. Most teams with comparable rosters have ample room . Grigson has been Ok in not blowing the cap apart by signing more free agents than we could afford in the last 4 years. It in my opinion is just no big deal as it would have been reckless if we were in a bad situation .

 

Have you even looked at all 32 teams' cap room for 2017 ? There are probably 25 teams with ample cap room. It (the cap) has gone up by leaps and bounds . Teams that have managed the cap are the ones with room and great rosters. Look at Seattle and you'll find some actual "bargains" in there , same with NE. Denver had some great deals that led to a SB last year. Talib , Ware and Sanders were bargains. That's managing a cap . If you want to give Grigsn kudos for signing guys in the twilight of their careers and paying them in the first 2 years of the deals , go ahead and be silly. Of coarse when you sign guys like Wayne , Jackson , Johnson , Mathis and Cole , you wouldn't backload the deals with guaranteed money. That would be even more *ic than it was signing some of those washed up guys. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are you under the impression that you know things I don't?

 

We're all getting the info from the same sources,  Spotrac and Overthecap.   

 

Hello?!?

 

When you can explain why teams like New Orleans have been in salary cap Hell for roughly a half a decade, then, please, get back to me.

 

As for Landry, and Cherilus?     Did we cut them or not?     Yes.

 

Were we able to sign other players after that?     Yes.      Now, that's called managing the cap!    Hello?!?

 

The only year we didn't do much on the free agency market was last year.     After Luck and because we wanted to grab an extra 4 when we lost Fleener.      We were also hoping for another pick,  likely a 6 for Lowery,  but the math didn't go our way.      There are only 32 compensatory picks, and we only got 1 and not 2.

 

But otherwise,  we've been able to out and sign players.    

 

So once again, the person who continues to make the bad argument is YOU and not me.

 

Deal with it.

 

Oh,  one last thing.   I assumed you were a Grigson-hater because there's simply no way for me, or anyone really to know the views of all the posters here on Irsay, or Pagano, or Grigson.    And since your argument is such complete nonsense,  I assumed that only a Grigson-hater would continue to push it as hard as you have. And,  what a surprise,   you're back pushing it more.

 

But you say you're not a hater of his......     OK....   fine.     But that's why I made that assumption.    Sorry I guessed wrong.

 

But I'm not guessing about the cap.      We're just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it there....

[Valpo2004]

Having a lot of cap space might not translate to wins but being stuck with very little cap space every year hasn't shown to do well either.  

 

I'm not unhappy with Grigson's cap management.  I'm unhappy with the players he's signed not playing up to expectations.  But that's not the same as cap management.  

 

And let's remember that his big signings havn't exactly worked out for the better either.  That's more of an issue of scouting players then cap management.  

 

Signing big name players to big contracts doesn't always lead to success either.

[tikyle]

27 minutes ago, Majin Vegeta said:

? They have the 5th overall pick in this draft and another in the 1st, they will get a game changer. They've come a long way. 

 

We will see.  We've seen a lot of people blow top 5 picks.  It's the NFL.  But I was referring to them having all that cap space.  If they can't get a game changer to Tennessee then having that space doesn't mean much.

[ztboiler]

Grigson's contracts haven't been perfect, but his structures are sound and his fiscal policy is excellent.

 

We have some excess cap this coming year, as others have pointed out, largely due to the 2013 draft washout.  We also didnt re-sign our 2nd from 2012. Moving forward, we project to have 2 second contract players minimum from 14, 15 and 16 classes so that will start to look more typical in terms of cap consumption.

 

2013 deserves the criticism it gets for Grigson, but it shouldn't be overlooked that Grigson didn't mortgage the future when we were not ready to win a Superbowl.  Though he didn't accumulate enough talent, he operated with good principles....and the organic talent level is beginning to recover from the drought of 2013.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

 

But it hasn't been a problem so far for Grigson.      Not one bad contract.     Bad decisions,  but no bad contracts.

 

 

I agree, no bad contracts.   But that has been directly influenced by the drafting of poor players.  

If he had drafted a few good/great players instead of Werner, Thornton, Holmes, Hughes, Williams and Cunningham, the cap space would not be as good as it is.  

[Superman]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

I think Sebastian Vollmer was the next best option at RT.

 

Andre Smith, actually. He got three years, $18m after about a month of free agency. We gave Cherilus five years, $34.5m.

 

Of course, the issue with Smith was character, not talent.  

[dgambill]

12 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

 

Free agency is no doubt a crap shoot . The Broncos did very well signing Ware and Talib. The Giants this year did great signing their 2 expensive guys on defense. The Colts were burnt to a crisp with their 2 biggest signings... Cherlius and Landry. My point is that generally you won't blow up your future cap by signing the type guys Grigson signed. We had a ton of cap room after the first year of Grigson. He signed a bevy of players and pretty much stuck out. This happens and I don't blame Grigson a whole lot as for every Taleb there is a Byrd.The stategy was as you outlined very accurately . I'm just solely focusing on the argument that I have to give Grigson due credit for keeping us out of "cap hell." One more time I'll say for a certain poster on this board,not you as we about 98% agree, it would be a true "butchering" if we were in cap hell with this roster.

I think what we are trying to give him credit for is NOT going out and giving into temptation and signing big name free agents to crazy contracts that would put our team in cap hell. For example...Superman was very accurate a few years ago you almost couldn't find a person that wasn't YELLING at the top of their lungs we should sign Darius Byrd, and Levitre, and Paul Kruger our team would have been still paying for these guys that are terrible. It would have made it difficult and maybe impossible to keep guys like TY who we would maybe had to choose between him and Luck. Fact is Grigson struck out a lot in free agency but he set up those contracts so that if they did fail the money that would be dead wouldn't be so significant. He has signed some big name free agents. Cherilus was the #1 tackle that year available....Landry was top safety. He signed Gore, Cole, and AJ a couple years ago...and that has not worked out as expected (Gore has been) but it didn't stop us from keeping our guys and having flexibility in the future for new guys. I'm very happy with how we have structured the contracts...keeping our ability to move forward if they don't work out. I do wish we would have signed some better free agents. Gore, DQ, Adams, and Walden are really the only ones besides our own guys we can say have done well. The worry in going in deep is you end up with a guy like Arthur Jones or Gosdner that just flush down the toilet because they are hurt and your stuck with them on your roster for a few years before you can afford to flush that money. I'd honestly say 90% of the big name free agents people want on this board and kick and scream about have NOT worked out for the teams that have taken them as expected. Denver has been very fortunate. Ware, Talib, and Ward have been able to stay on the field and really help that team a lot and that was NOT a certainty as they all had question marks on health and character. But I'd also say they've had some incredible player development. I mean to have a guy off their practice squad like Marshall be able to step in and take starting mlb role for Trevathan and have guys like S. Ray, S Barrett, CJ Anderson, Wolfe and Jackson step up on that DL. They got Sanders cheap...I mean they had to sacrifice...let guys like Decker and Trevathan and Bailey and Julius Thomas and Morano go and last year Jackson that hurt their run defense immensely. You have to make tough choices....but they have run things very well I'd say and got the most out of their cap space. Those young guys though have saved them. You can't fill out a roster from FA alone. Hopefully Grigson can find 2 or 3 guys like Denver has that can supplement our roster...and then the draft and development will have to take care of the rest.

[throwing BBZ]

12 hours ago, Malakai432 said:

 

I'm no genius but should we be worried that the Titans and Jags have so much carry over???  It seems like they could vastly improve if used right.  I guess the key phrase would be "if used right."  That really worries me though but I'm not sure if I should be lol.  

 

 Well, their defense vastly improved this season, so now they are in a great position to improve the offense.
 No, i wouldn`t be concerned with them drafting 4th each rd and having a zillion $ to spend! lol

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, tikyle said:

 

We will see.  We've seen a lot of people blow top 5 picks.  It's the NFL.  But I was referring to them having all that cap space.  If they can't get a game changer to Tennessee then having that space doesn't mean much.

Which is why they moved out of the 1st pick last year.....grabbed a bunch more picks to increase their odds of success. It's also why they are actively saying they are willing to trade again this year. They have as good a chance as anyone to come away with a very very nice draft this year. It isn't just the 5th they got this year..but the extra 3rd rd pick too....wouldn't be surprised to see them trade out of the 5th pick to only move up as well in the 2nd....they need corners and wrs and late 1st through late 2nd there should be a lot of great players there for them. If they supplement their draft with a nice free agency like they had last year by getting Murray basically for nothing and Orakpo....I think they will go out and find a corner and lb and wr in free agency to start for them and then also draft as well. The one thing I think they desperately need to look into is a quality back up for Marcus. He hasn't finished a season healthy yet and if they are a playoff contender they can't afford to lose grown or go into it with Cassell. I'd expect they take a close look at a guy like Tyrod Taylor or maybe a Fitzpatrick or a seasoned vet. They should be ready to take that next step.

[dgambill]

13 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

No, I understand....I guess I'm suggesting that the color graph here, while fun, is very misleading........

The unspoken suggestion is that these teams have money to spend...if their expenses remain the same

But, unless they cut players,  most don't..

 

For example.(and I know you know this) ....Denver has what...7 mil in cap space in the graph here?

Well, all things being equal,,they've spent it

They just resigned Emmanual Sanders to a $33 mil..3 year deal...that kicks in in 2017

 

the Colts..with Andrew's contract kicking in..are the best example

Sorry mark I think what Supe posted was just money that teams didn't spend last year that they get to role over and use this year on top of the salary cap if they so choose to do. Meaning if the cap is say 160 million (just random) then we can spend up to 166 million. Yes the colors are just team colors and have no baring of anything special. I think it is safe to say this chart doesn't really mean much as far as how much cap space teams have in total...just what they get to carry over..I imagine most sites have this factored in already when determining cap space.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

I agree, no bad contracts.   But that has been directly influenced by the drafting of poor players.  

If he had drafted a few good/great players instead of Werner, Thornton, Holmes, Hughes, Williams and Cunningham, the cap space would not be as good as it is.  

 

The cap SPACE wouldn't be as good,  but it's still doubtful that we'd be in Salary Cap Hell.

 

We might not be able to play the free agent market as much as we do,  but the contracts would still have the flexibility to get out of them with minimum damage.

 

[NewColtsFan]

6 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

You really are delusional .

 

Right.      Sure.     Whatever you say.

 

I appreciate you're willingness to discuss this.....

 

I hope you put me on your AVOID list.     I won't miss this kind of interaction.

 

 

[Malakai432]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Well, their defense vastly improved this season, so now they are in a great position to improve the offense.
 No, i wouldn`t be concerned with them drafting 4th each rd and having a zillion $ to spend! lol

 

No  right???

 

 

 

[Myles]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The cap SPACE wouldn't be as good,  but it's still doubtful that we'd be in Salary Cap Hell.

 

We might not be able to play the free agent market as much as we do,  but the contracts would still have the flexibility to get out of them with minimum damage.

 

Well at least we have some agreement.   Poor draft day decisions has helped Grigson be in a good spot the the salary cap.     We have know way of knowing how good a shape we'd be in if he had to pay those players for their second contract if they were good.   What if he had drafted Bell instead of Werner?   Or Hopkins.   Or Ogletree? 

[dw49]

6 minutes ago, Myles said:

Well at least we have some agreement.   Poor draft day decisions has helped Grigson be in a good spot the the salary cap.     We have know way of knowing how good a shape we'd be in if he had to pay those players for their second contract if they were good.   What if he had drafted Bell instead of Werner?   Or Hopkins.   Or Ogletree? 

 

When team drafts well , that will separate the GM's that know how to manage the cap from those that are just ordinary. Actually I should probably say "team" and not GM's as every team has their cap people other than the GM.

 

Anyway .. when a team drafts well they have to negotiate prudent contracts , they have to let some good players go and they also will extend players before their contract years. You have seen none of the above from the Colts  and it's not been an issue as we have not had to let too many decent players go. I would say that we have not really overpaid to keep any of our guys ... other than Allen. None of the contracts IMO (Hilton , Luck , Davis and Castonzo) were bargains or "over pays." Pretty much all at market value for when they signed.. which is OK. 

 

In summary , it's been disappointing to have had a franchise QB play 4 years on his rookie deal and have such a dismal roster . The upside is maybe the 2016 draft will turn out to be stellar. It does look promising.. so that's maybe a start. 

 

Oh... and the Werner thing. CB was a glaring need and Xavier Rhodes went with the very next pick...

[oldunclemark]

16 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

Are the best example of.....   WHAT?

 

The Colts, having recently signed Andrew Luck to the biggest contract in football,  have roughly 50 million to spend and that will likely go up once we clear the contracts from the roster that we no longer want...

 

Financially speaking,  the Colts are a very well run and managed franchise....

 

So,  I'm sorry,   but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

 

Can you elaborate?

 

Nobody said the Colts aren't a well run francise. I'm not talking about them.

.......I'm talking abut that color graph being misleading......

////Its not a comment on the Broncos or the Colts or anybody

 

Last year's surplus cash may have already been allocated...is what I'm saying

[DougDew]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Andre Smith, actually. He got three years, $18m after about a month of free agency. We gave Cherilus five years, $34.5m.

 

Of course, the issue with Smith was character, not talent.  

I remember Cherilous was one of the better options at the time.  Maybe not the best option, but he was considered a good player.

 

We needed to replace Winston Justice.  The options were a guy with questionable knee, a guy with questionable character, and a guy with questionable talent.  But people insist on blaming Grigson for not finding someone better.

[Superman]

52 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I remember Cherilous was one of the better options at the time.  Maybe not the best option, but he was considered a good player.

 

We needed to replace Winston Justice.  The options were a guy with questionable knee, a guy with questionable character, and a guy with questionable talent.  But people insist on blaming Grigson for not finding someone better.

 

I don't blame Grigson for signing Cherilus. I get the appeal. I don't even take issue with the value of the contract, as I find all the complaining about a $6.9m/year contract to be misplaced. But the structure of the contract was poor, and I said so from the beginning. They guaranteed $15m to a player with a chronic, degenerative knee condition. Predictably, he was gone after two years. 

[Superman]

Mod note: Just removed a bunch of off topic back and forth from this thread. Please avoid derailing the thread with personal arguments. Thanks. 

[dw49]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I don't blame Grigson for signing Cherilus. I get the appeal. I don't even take issue with the value of the contract, as I find all the complaining about a $6.9m/year contract to be misplaced. But the structure of the contract was poor, and I said so from the beginning. They guaranteed $15m to a player with a chronic, degenerative knee condition. Predictably, he was gone after two years. 

 

Yes as I pointed out , they even pushed this one "down the road" with that 1 mill base salary in year 2. That's why they had to take such a whack this year. FA is just such a crap shoot that you can't even blame our management for what appears to be a lot of bad signings. You have all these teams with tons of cap room ( increasing cap every year) bidding on players that another team decides to let go. That's a little of an over-statement but you get the idea. 

[Myles]

14 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

When team drafts well , that will separate the GM's that know how to manage the cap from those that are just ordinary. Actually I should probably say "team" and not GM's as every team has their cap people other than the GM.

 

Anyway .. when a team drafts well they have to negotiate prudent contracts , they have to let some good players go and they also will extend players before their contract years. You have seen none of the above from the Colts  and it's not been an issue as we have not had to let too many decent players go. I would say that we have not really overpaid to keep any of our guys ... other than Allen. None of the contracts IMO (Hilton , Luck , Davis and Castonzo) were bargains or "over pays." Pretty much all at market value for when they signed.. which is OK. 

 

In summary , it's been disappointing to have had a franchise QB play 4 years on his rookie deal and have such a dismal roster . The upside is maybe the 2016 draft will turn out to be stellar. It does look promising.. so that's maybe a start. 

 

Oh... and the Werner thing. CB was a glaring need and Xavier Rhodes went with the very next pick...

I think the glaring fact is that the Colts can sign all their current free agents to decent contracts and still be in good shape with the salary cap.    That is a horrible light shined on Grigson because of the lack of talent he has drafted.  

[Superman]

16 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

Yes as I pointed out , they even pushed this one "down the road" with that 1 mill base salary in year 2. That's why they had to take such a whack this year. FA is just such a crap shoot that you can't even blame our management for what appears to be a lot of bad signings. You have all these teams with tons of cap room ( increasing cap every year) bidding on players that another team decides to let go. That's a little of an over-statement but you get the idea. 

 

I still don't understand what they were trying to do with the Cherilus contract. That low Year 2 base salary triggered a further bonus proration of the Year 1 salary. It's the same net, didn't change the money being paid, just changed when it hit the cap, but I think they goofed. And I don't quite understand why they were shooting for such a low Year 2 base salary, rather than just evening out the first two years. 

 

To the bolded, the reason I've never been up in arms about the way those 2013 signings went is because I never viewed those moves as "team building." The roster was pretty bare in 2012, and there was limited cap space (they should have cut Freeney, but whatever). They intended to plug holes with good players, but they obviously weren't looking to sign star level players that would be the foundation of the roster. In an offseason where a lot of average-ish players signed for $8m+/year, the Colts biggest contract -- Cherilus -- was $6.9m/year. They stayed away from the big, expensive guys. And they drafted players that they thought would solidify the trenches -- Werner, Thornton, Holmes, Hughes -- and even a safety in Boyett. Basically doubled up on the positions that they signed in free agency. The bigger problem, and the reason we have cap space now, is that they whiffed on all of those drafted players. I put part of that on scouting, Werner especially, but a lot of those players got in their own way.

 

At the same time, they hypothetically could have signed Talib or Grimes instead of Toler, for close to the same money in 2013. They could have had Dumervil or Avril for a little more than Walden. Of course, we can play the what if game for every move, but the point is that there were other moderately valued free agents that played better than the guys we signed, and they still wouldn't have broke the bank. 

[NannyMcafee]

Can't pay your guys without cap space. So I'd say it's not over rated. 

[dw49]

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I still don't understand what they were trying to do with the Cherilus contract. That low Year 2 base salary triggered a further bonus proration of the Year 1 salary. It's the same net, didn't change the money being paid, just changed when it hit the cap, but I think they goofed. And I don't quite understand why they were shooting for such a low Year 2 base salary, rather than just evening out the first two years. 

 

To the bolded, the reason I've never been up in arms about the way those 2013 signings went is because I never viewed those moves as "team building." The roster was pretty bare in 2012, and there was limited cap space (they should have cut Freeney, but whatever). They intended to plug holes with good players, but they obviously weren't looking to sign star level players that would be the foundation of the roster. In an offseason where a lot of average-ish players signed for $8m+/year, the Colts biggest contract -- Cherilus -- was $6.9m/year. They stayed away from the big, expensive guys. And they drafted players that they thought would solidify the trenches -- Werner, Thornton, Holmes, Hughes -- and even a safety in Boyett. Basically doubled up on the positions that they signed in free agency. The bigger problem, and the reason we have cap space now, is that they whiffed on all of those drafted players. I put part of that on scouting, Werner especially, but a lot of those players got in their own way.

 

At the same time, they hypothetically could have signed Talib or Grimes instead of Toler, for close to the same money in 2013. They could have had Dumervil or Avril for a little more than Walden. Of course, we can play the what if game for every move, but the point is that there were other moderately valued free agents that played better than the guys we signed, and they still wouldn't have broke the bank. 

 

Agree with all you have . And if you're saying today's roster falls on more shoulders than just Grigson's , I agree too. It's scouting (like you said) , team philosophy ( a bit on Irsay here) and Pagano was suppose to be the defensive genius ? And yeah... that Cherlius contract is hard to understand why that 2nd year base.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, dw49 said:

team philosophy ( a bit on Irsay here)

 

They got out over their skis a bit, thinking they were closer than they really were. Did it again in 2015 with the old guys.

 

But what really hurt the roster is poor drafting, especially in 2013.

[dw49]

Yep 2013 was a beauty. 2014 and 2105 were really better than I thought after just revisiting them . Lots of players that were affected by injuries from those 2 years. Anderson , Montcrief , Geaters and Mewhort. Maybe 2016 will be the year we start our accent. I'm hoping we sign a couple of "higher tier" RA's instead of doing 4-5 of the lessor type players . No science to that just a feeling...