Cutting Our Stars?

[vinatierifan4]

I don't really get how people say "We should cut Peyton" We should cut "freeney" or not resign mathis and wayne. I don't get that. They say its because its tough on the salary cap. But how are you gonna be good if you don't have good players to spend money on?

Sure there is young talent in the draft, but is there really a guy that your positive is going to be better than Freeney for example? I mean you have to take young talent I understand that, but in order to be good now you have to keep your stars and have them teach the young guys. But yeah im all for drafting Andrew Luck so don't think im against luck. Thank you for your time!

[Kenny]

I haven't seen ,any people say cut Freeney or Mathis(At least anyone with a backup plan to them being gone ) and Irsay has said they will be here in the 2012 season. Wayne has stated that he could see himself back here and I'm optimistic on it as well. If Manning is healthy, he is a colt bottom line,

[UndecidedFrog]

I don't really get how people say "We should cut Peyton" We should cut "freeney" or not resign mathis and wayne. I don't get that. They say its because its tough on the salary cap. But how are you gonna be good if you don't have good players to spend money on?

Sure there is young talent in the draft, but is there really a guy that your positive is going to be better than Freeney for example? I mean you have to take young talent I understand that, but in order to be good now you have to keep your stars and have them teach the young guys. But yeah im all for drafting Andrew Luck so don't think im against luck. Thank you for your time!

I find it easier to understand, when I realize that stars do not play forever. They age, and often, their production lessens as they age.

A good team manages the pipeline of young players with proven veterans. The coaches coach up the players to be the best they can be and produce for the team.

A good team will prune the team of some aging players because of a number of factors that include projection of performance, salary, cap hits, and overall team needs.

A good team will draft rookies for very much the same reasons.

A good team will also use the FA market to fill a need as they can afford to do so.

A good team will manage their salary cap appropriately, and make the necessary trade-off decisions between expensive aging stars and inexpensive raw rookies, and every conceivable place in between.

A good team will have enough depth in key positions to populate with several players of differing ages and potentials.

[GoColts8818]

$$$$$$$

That's the main reason. We have some major issues with the cap so people are trying to come up with ways to free up cap space but here's the thing you don't free up cap space buy cutting guys like Curtis Painter. There are a group of players that can be but lose to free up money that group includes Manning, Freeney, Clark, Brackett, Bullitt, and Addai. You also have to make call on guys contracts like Wayne, Mathis, Saturday (if he doesn't retire and make the decision for us) and Garcon. People are trying to figure out who should go and who should stay.

With that said we can't and shouldn't cut everyone. I also don't think anyone is calling for us to cut all those players. I think people are discussing which ones make sense to release and which ones don't and people have different opinions on the subject.

Clearly I don't think we are going to let all those players go. I don't think we are going to bring them all back either though. Also clearly in a perfect world of course we wouldn't have to let go of our favorite players. However the NFL salary cap makes this not a perfect world. This is a side of the NFL that frankly Colts fans have been lucky enough to avoid. About the only real fan favoirtes we haven't see play their whole career as Colts are Edge and Sanders and a lot of fans think Sanders had worn out his welcome becuase of injuries when we made that move. Other Colts fan favorites Harrison and Glenn retired as Colts. Heck even Tony Dungy retired as a Colt rather than being fired or moving on to coach another team. Polian did a great job hanging on to our other fan favorites over the years. Now age and money have finally caught up to the Colts though.

[Wyld1]

You produce you get paid, you don't..........not much of a choice? The same goes for aging players, why would you pay more than their production going forward is worth?

[betheafan41]

I don't really get how people say "We should cut Peyton" We should cut "freeney" or not resign mathis and wayne. I don't get that. They say its because its tough on the salary cap. But how are you gonna be good if you don't have good players to spend money on?

Sure there is young talent in the draft, but is there really a guy that your positive is going to be better than Freeney for example? I mean you have to take young talent I understand that, but in order to be good now you have to keep your stars and have them teach the young guys. But yeah im all for drafting Andrew Luck so don't think im against luck. Thank you for your time!

the reason people are saying peyton and i wont lie im one of them but ill explain my reason in a minute.....the reason some are saying cut peyton is because of a few factors.....

1) hes 36

2) he is coming off of 3 neck surgeries and his nerves have not regenerated and theres no telling when it will happen

3) pickin up 28 million dollars on a 36 year old QB who has had 3 neck surgeries and nerves have not regenerated in his THROWING arm is a big risk if you do not know when they will regenerate, could be next week could be december, no one knows for sure and its a big risk....but as you said your all for drafting luck, and this could just be writers tryin to cause a stir and i dont know if he has said this in an interview or not but he would like to start right away, but then he also said he would not mind learning from manning.

but other then that, i think wayne would be a good resign because he can help compliment luck if manning dont return to the colts. but i say keep mathis and freeney no doubt

[Jules]

Money and age.

And Wayne will be an interesting one. I am not sure he comes back.

[21isSuperman]

The issue with Freeney is his cap hit. Manning's situation has been discussed ad nauseum. Mathis and Wayne are FAs and might price themselves right out of Indy (I think that'll happen with Wayne). I don't think people necessarily want to get rid of the stars, but we have to do what makes the most sense for the team. Is it the best choice to keep all the aging stars on a rebuilding team? Wouldn't it be better for both parties to trade them/let them go in free agency and get draft/comp picks or young players back in exchange? We get to build a strong foundation and they get a chance to get money and join a contending team. Not saying that's what we should do, just playing Devil's advocate

[The Peytonator]

Freeney's issue is his cap hit. I love the guy, but paying 20 mil for someone that does nothing against the run is just too steep. The only time he is of any value is on 3rd and long. I also think you can find people with that skill set elsewhere, without paying 20 mil. If I'm not mistaken, John Chick did pretty well as a situational pass rusher for the Jags....and he was a roster casualty of ours. I'll admit too, I still haven't given up on Hughes. He has had zero chances here. His job title is 'Situational Pass Rusher' and when you have two Pro Bowlers in front of you with the same job title, you will not have an opportunity to work. I know it's not popular here to stick up for Hughes, but in the few shots he's had, he has gotten pressure and even a sack or two if I recall.

[Pancake Block]

The issue with Freeney is his cap hit. Manning's situation has been discussed ad nauseum. Mathis and Wayne are FAs and might price themselves right out of Indy (I think that'll happen with Wayne). I don't think people necessarily want to get rid of the stars, but we have to do what makes the most sense for the team. Is it the best choice to keep all the aging stars on a rebuilding team? Wouldn't it be better for both parties to trade them/let them go in free agency and get draft/comp picks or young players back in exchange? We get to build a strong foundation and they get a chance to get money and join a contending team. Not saying that's what we should do, just playing Devil's advocate

Also remember that some of these guys may not fit into the new systems the team is installing. That may be the deciding factor on whether they are still wearing Colt blue next year.

[21isSuperman]

Also remember that some of these guys may not fit into the new systems the team is installing. That may be the deciding factor on whether they are still wearing Colt blue next year.

I'm sure Freeney would; he is so talented, you could probably put him on any defense in the league and he would make the defense better. Personally, I feel like Mathis would be a good 3-4 OLB, though that's just 100% speculation and gut feeling on my part

[BmoreColt]

This may sound radical and I have not really heard anyone mention this as a possibility, but if Manning is healthy and the Colts indeed select Luck, could anyone else fathom the idea of trading or cutting Freeney and not resigning Mathis? That will give the Colts somewhere around 35-40 million to resign players, pursue free agents, and sign rookies. That's all before reworking Manning, Clarke, Addai. The idea is to keep the offense the same, but create more balance on defense. Pagano can focus on the D,Manusky on developing the players, Arians to develop Luck, and Manning to run the offense.

[CashMoney]

This may sound radical and I have not really heard anyone mention this as a possibility, but if Manning is healthy and the Colts indeed select Luck, could anyone else fathom the idea of trading or cutting Freeney and not resigning Mathis? That will give the Colts somewhere around 35-40 million to resign players, pursue free agents, and sign rookies. That's all before reworking Manning, Clarke, Addai. The idea is to keep the offense the same, but create more balance on defense. Pagano can focus on the D,Manusky on developing the players, Arians to develop Luck, and Manning to run the offense.

We would have absolutely no pass rush. I think we need at least one on the team. The census says that Mathis would transition better for the 3-4 but who knows..

[BmoreColt]

We would have absolutely no pass rush. I think we need at least one on the team. The census says that Mathis would transition better for the 3-4 but who knows..

Sometimes it's all about scheme to get pressure home. There would be draft picks, Free agency, and some of our own who could be 3-4 OLB. Hughes, Wheeler, Hickman from the CFL..

[Bryan Bolesta]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-free-agency/09000d5d826d9921/Wheel-of-Peyton?module=HP11_content_stream

they didnt even have the colts up there....why i hate them

[Smitto]

Money is not the main reason at all, its age.. if freeney Wayne Mathis and peyton were 27 or something we all would be sounding different.

[UndecidedFrog]

Money is not the main reason at all, its age.. if freeney Wayne Mathis and peyton were 27 or something we all would be sounding different.

I would say money, in terms of fitting within the salary cap, is a major reason.

[Smitto]

I would say money, in terms of fitting within the salary cap, is a major reason.

You can always negotiate, and put money in different places... not many productive 34yr old WRs out there

[Coffeedrinker]

I don't really get how people say "We should cut Peyton" We should cut "freeney" or not resign mathis and wayne. I don't get that. They say its because its tough on the salary cap. But how are you gonna be good if you don't have good players to spend money on?

Sure there is young talent in the draft, but is there really a guy that your positive is going to be better than Freeney for example? I mean you have to take young talent I understand that, but in order to be good now you have to keep your stars and have them teach the young guys. But yeah im all for drafting Andrew Luck so don't think im against luck. Thank you for your time!

**Disclosure: I am not one who thinks the Colts should get rid of their stars like Manning, Freeney, et al.**

But it's just a philosophical idea which, especially in the NFL has some merit. In the NFL a team can go from worst to best in a season or two and rebuild about half their roster in that time frame. Manning for example if he is not given the roster bonus and this because a free agent that is 28 mil cash and 17 mil (if I remember correctly) cap space. That is 3 or 4 2nd tier free agents worth of cash and cap space (examples of my "tier" designations Top Tier - Manning/Brees, 2nd Tier - Nicks, 3rd tier Landry). Trading Freeney would also free up cap space and be worth two 2nd tier players in a trade or multiple draft picks. So their is two players who, if not with the Colts in 2012 could be 6-8 younger veteran players or draft picks.

Again that is not my philosophy but I do understand it. I just don't believe the Colts were as bad as their record indicated last year. I think if, for example, Murphy was the D coordinator they would have won 4-6 games. Then if they had got even slightly below average QB play for the entire season they were a 6-9 win team. Doesn't mean there was no room for improvement but not worst team in the league talent wise.

[MB-ColtsFan]

We would have absolutely no pass rush. I think we need at least one on the team. The census says that Mathis would transition better for the 3-4 but who knows..

Agree to some extent. If we play 3-4 then one of them would be good. If we stay a majority 4-3 i just don't see us having any pass rush either as opposing teams would just double whichever DE stays.

As much as i would love to have a cover corner for round 2 i think we need a true NT more. Pray that Hughes could be that DE that will be able to play both 4-3 and 3-4 to replace either D-Free or Mathis.

[braveheartcolt]

Agree to some extent. If we play 3-4 then one of them would be good. If we stay a majority 4-3 i just don't see us having any pass rush either as opposing teams would just double whichever DE stays.

As much as i would love to have a cover corner for round 2 i think we need a true NT more. Pray that Hughes could be that DE that will be able to play both 4-3 and 3-4 to replace either D-Free or Mathis.

Mother Theresa couldn't turn Hughes into a decent replacement for Freeney and Mathis even if she used her secret Turbo Prayer Booster.....

[schwamm]

I would say money, in terms of fitting within the salary cap, is a major reason.

I would actually say it is not just money, age, or talent, but a blend of factors that are summed up as a cost/benefit or value equation.

Imagine you are the GM, and have player A on your roster. He is the best in the league at his position but getting to a point where history shows players decline. Hypothetically, let's say keeping him costs $20MM/year. Now let's imagine there are options (through the draft or FA) to pick up someone with 80% of player A's skill, with youth and significant signs of ability to improve, but at a fraction of player A's salary.

And let's say freeing up that cap space affords you an opportunity to improve other areas of your team by a margin greater than the dropoff caused by showing player A the door. In this senario, the team almost has to pull the trigger.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, if you, as GM, feel that player A's potential contribution is invaluable to the team (for his play, for his leadership, for his work ethic, for ticket sales, whatever), and replacing him would create a net downgrade to the team, you almost have to keep him.

Money is definitely a big part of the equation, but in my opinion, only insofar as it affects a player's value.

I prefer to look at it less as the team cutting stars as management pruning to keep the whole "tree" healthy. Do it poorly, and it struggles to grow. Do it right, and it grows like crazy.

[schwamm]

I would also imagine that the cost/benefit analysis is seldom just for the next season, but is something that weighs the short and long term.

[UndecidedFrog]

I would also imagine that the cost/benefit analysis is seldom just for the next season, but is something that weighs the short and long term.

Absolutely. Long term/short term, money, age, projected performance, next best alternatives are all factors that should, and to my knowledge, are considered in player personnel decisions.

[Freenyfan102]

I say we cut Gary Barcket since his replacement is alot better then him

[cmgww]

Cutting our stars? That sounds violent and we don't need any more guys on IR..... :rolleyes:

[Freenyfan102]

well heck we are just jumping the gun for next season since the LB for the packers can play broken our guys cant take a boo boo

[UndecidedFrog]

Cutting our stars? That sounds violent and we don't need any more guys on IR..... :rolleyes:

We would still have to pay them if we put them on IR.

Releasing them would relieve the team of that obligation.

[GoColts8818]

We would still have to pay them if we put them on IR.

Releasing them would relieve the team of that obligation.

He was making a joke...useing the literal meaning of the word cutting.

[GoColts8818]

I say we cut Gary Barcket since his replacement is alot better then him

A lot of things here.

1. Angerer is not alot better than Gary. They play two very different ways. Gary is a cover-2 linebacker who is very good at pass coverage who lacks in run support at times. Angerer is very good at run support and just tackling in general. He lacks in pass skill coverage. If you notice when Gary went down people started dumping the ball into the hole in the defense where Angerer was suppsoed to be. Clearly if you are going to focus on run stopping and look at Angerer's tackles it's easy to say he's a a lot better than Gary. However if you look at Gary's pass coverage skills you can quickly make a case that Brackett was pretty good at what the Colts asked him to do. I do think the fact that Angerer is the younger player and with the direction the defense looks to be going in that Angerer will be a better fit but I don't think Angerer is a "a lot" better than Gary. I think both are good at what they are asked to do.

2. Now you can make very a strong case since we are moving away from the cover-2 (I am not sure 100% what defense we will be running next year but I know it wont be a cover-2) that makes Gary more expendable and you would be right. However, keep in mind if we go to a 3-4 you still need two inside linebackers. You could play both Angerer and Brackett at the sametime if you wanted but that does leave Conner out in the cold a bit. I am not sure if Conner could do the inside linebacker job in a 3-4 defense but you can make a very strong case he needs a look in the defense next year. He has become the forgotten man since the talk of the changing of the defense.

3. If we are going ot cut Gary clearly you can make a case that it would be done just becuase he doesn't fit our system anymore. However if you are looking at doing this to save money then cutting Gary doesn't make a lot of sense. We only save about a million dollars by cutting him.

Gary is going to be one of the more interesting players to watch this off-season. There are cases to be made both ways on what to do with him in terms of keeping or cutting him.

[UndecidedFrog]

He was making a joke...useing the literal meaning of the word cutting.

Oh... :ashamed:

Isn't cutting what teenagers do to themselves when they have low self-esteem?

[BleedingBlue]

The defense plays better with Bracket on the field because hes a natural leader. Angerer fits better in the new scheme that I am assuming we will have on D next year.

To the OP, I'm sure Irsay wants his cake and to eat it too. In otherwords, I'm sure he'll do his best to keep as many around as possible. That goes for the players too.

What makes the colts so special is that they aren'ta bunch of guys brought in from around the league and told to gel. They've been gelling for a decade. They're more like a family than most teams. I'm sure the players will also take cuts if they have to.

[JoKeR]

Oh... :ashamed:

Isn't cutting what teenagers do to themselves when they have low self-esteem?

Crazy wives like to cut also, ask Nick Harper ;)

[Jaric]

I liken salary cap management much like financial investing.

Is it great to have 2 or 3 really well perfoming stocks? Yeah. Is it a good ideal to dump all you money into the 2 or 3 stocks? Not so much. One of those goes belly up and you're SOL (See 2007 playoff game or the entire 2011 season)

However, if that money is spread out amung several different investments (like a mutual fund) the risk of losing one player decreases because you've even spread out your investments.

[UndecidedFrog]

I liken salary cap management much like financial investing.

Is it great to have 2 or 3 really well perfoming stocks? Yeah. Is it a good ideal to dump all you money into the 2 or 3 stocks? Not so much. One of those goes belly up and you're SOL (See 2007 playoff game or the entire 2011 season)

However, if that money is spread out amung several different investments (like a mutual fund) the risk of losing one player decreases because you've even spread out your investments.

Reviewing asset allocation and market beta, you will arrive at the optimum balance of risk/reward with a properly diversified portfolio.

Cash, equity, bonds, real estate, and other assets with value-accretion potential should all be considered.

[Coffeedrinker]

I liken salary cap management much like financial investing.

Is it great to have 2 or 3 really well perfoming stocks? Yeah. Is it a good ideal to dump all you money into the 2 or 3 stocks? Not so much. One of those goes belly up and you're SOL (See 2007 playoff game or the entire 2011 season)

However, if that money is spread out amung several different investments (like a mutual fund) the risk of losing one player decreases because you've even spread out your investments.

One that is a horrible analogy because the CAP is not like investing at all for several reasons. Two a mutual fund never performs as well as a well managed stock portfolio. So if you want the team to sign players like a mutual fund then be prepared for a wide range of records from 6-10 to 10-6.

[Jaric]

One that is a horrible analogy because the CAP is not like investing at all for several reasons. Two a mutual fund never performs as well as a well managed stock portfolio. So if you want the team to sign players like a mutual fund then be prepared for a wide range of records from 6-10 to 10-6.

Perhaps I was a bit liberal with the terminology.

The basic point was that like in investing, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[Coffeedrinker]

Perhaps I was a bit liberal with the terminology.

The basic point was that like in investing, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Now that is something to which I agree.

[WoolMagnet]

I say we cut Gary Barcket since his replacement is alot better then him

Woof Woof

[WoolMagnet]

Crazy wives like to cut also, ask Nick Harper ;)

Some like to cut the "cheese' too.