csmopar

This years FAs

Recommended Posts

FS JJ Wilcox had six tackles in the Chiefs game, so I'd keep him just out of principle.

 

Also on defense: Hunt, Desir, Geathers, Mitchell, Farley, and Woods

 

Offense: Glowinski and Inman

 

ST: Rhodes, Vinny, and Milton 

 

None of these players would change any of my draft plans.  My only concern about being able to retain any of them at a good price is Glowinski.  I wouldn't get into much of a bidding war to keep him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

FS JJ Wilcox had six tackles in the Chiefs game, so I'd keep him just out of principle.

 

Also on defense: Hunt, Desir, Geathers, Mitchell, Farley, and Woods

 

Offense: Glowinski and Inman

 

ST: Rhodes, Vinny, and Milton 

 

None of these players would change any of my draft plans.  My only concern about being able to retain any of them at a good price is Glowinski.  I wouldn't get into much of a bidding war to keep him.

Glowinski needs to be resigned at a contract he has earned. He has been a very good player for us and is needed to keep our trenches strong. As far as a bidding war Ballard really don't do that. He has his own numbers and  makes an offer and if it's not taken he moves on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DougDew said:

FS JJ Wilcox had six tackles in the Chiefs game, so I'd keep him just out of principle.

 

Also on defense: Hunt, Desir, Geathers, Mitchell, Farley, and Woods

 

Offense: Glowinski and Inman

 

ST: Rhodes, Vinny, and Milton 

 

None of these players would change any of my draft plans.  My only concern about being able to retain any of them at a good price is Glowinski.  I wouldn't get into much of a bidding war to keep him.

 

Bidding wars come after you don't resign a player ... no ?   If you resign him there are no "bidding wars." That would happen only if you fail to resign him and then try to resign him after he's declared a FA. Hopefully Ballard's idea of his worth is not far off what he and his agent are looking for.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Glowinski needs to be resigned at a contract he has earned. He has been a very good player for us and is needed to keep our trenches strong. As far as a bidding war Ballard really don't do that. He has his own numbers and  makes an offer and if it's not taken he moves on.

 

Correct... I would not have posted if I read your post in it's entirety .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Glowinski needs to be resigned at a contract he has earned. He has been a very good player for us and is needed to keep our trenches strong. As far as a bidding war Ballard really don't do that. He has his own numbers and  makes an offer and if it's not taken he moves on.

I don't see how the Colts could easily replace Glowinski. They would either have to pay an expensive FA or gamble on an unproven draft pick. While PFF isn't necessarily the last word in player evaluations, being ranked by them as the 10th-best guard in the NFL, he might just be the best guard available in FA. If the Colts don't pay him, some other team will, and I'd rather see him make his money in Indy. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh.  Do we have to talk about Ballard in every thread? 

 

The OP asked who would I keep if I was the GM, and I made a list.  

 

Regarding Glow, if he walked at my original offer come the new league year, I'd entertain looking at raising my initial offer.  I suppose I would do that with them all,  but Glow I'd probably be willing overpay a bit depending upon what else was out there and in the draft.  We have the cap space. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sigh.  Do we have to talk about Ballard in every thread? 

 

The OP asked who we would keep, and I made a list?  

 

Regarding Glow, if he walked at my original offer come the new league year, I'd entertain looking at raising my initial offer.  I suppose I would do that with them all,  but Glow I'd probably be willing overpay a bit depending upon what else was out there and in the draft.  We have the cap space.

Maybe because he's the one that makes the contract offers and his known philosophy regarding FA's gives us an idea of how he will handle Glow's contract? Ballard will be brought up all the time. Get used to it. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Sigh.  Do we have to talk about Ballard in every thread? 

 

The OP asked who we would keep, and I made a list?  

 

Regarding Glow, if he walked at my original offer come the new league year, I'd entertain looking at raising my initial offer.  I suppose I would do that with them all,  but Glow I'd probably be willing overpay a bit depending upon what else was out there and in the draft.  We have the cap space.

Sigh....

What ever player is drafted, resigned or enters the building Ballard is the man to talk to and he is the one who signs any player. He is the man who talks to the players agents.

Is that hard to comprehend why Ballard's name comes up?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HarryTheCat said:

I don't see how the Colts could easily replace Glowinski. They would either have to pay an expensive FA or gamble on an unproven draft pick. While PFF isn't necessarily the last word in player evaluations, being ranked by them as the 10th-best guard in the NFL, he might just be the best guard available in FA. If the Colts don't pay him, some other team will, and I'd rather see him make his money in Indy. 

In Western NY Glowinski is already being mentioned as a main FA target for the Bills to help shore up the interior of their OL.   Heard it on the radio this afternoon.   I have to believe he will be on other teams FA want lists.  It looks like the Colts are going to have to pay him if they want to keep him.  He is young too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I was simply adhering to the premise of the thread.  Jeez.

No you were complaining about people talking about Ballard again.  That was the first line of your post which will only help derail the thread further.

 

If you are just talking about the premise of the thread do that.  You don’t have to complain about what others are talking about.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

No you were complaining about people talking about Ballard again.  That was the first line of your post which will only help derail the thread further.

 

If you are just talking about the premise of the thread do that.  You don’t have to complain about what others are talking about.  

I wasn't complaining "about people".  Its obvious I was complaining about the only two people in the thread who turned my quote into a different conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I wasn't complaining "about people".  Its obvious I was complaining about the only two people in the thread who turned my quote into a different conversation. 

Here we go again---------------:thinking:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

In Western NY Glowinski is already being mentioned as a main FA target for the Bills to help shore up the interior of their OL.   Heard it on the radio this afternoon.   I have to believe he will be on other teams FA want lists.  It looks like the Colts are going to have to pay him if they want to keep him.  He is young too. 

 

I would hope he takes a slightly lesser deal here for a playoff competitor over Buffalo. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Ballard- we’ll pay players that earn second contracts. We shall see because I could see glow and Desir getting interest from other teams. But both imo have earned a pay bump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

 

I would hope he takes a slightly lesser deal here for a playoff competitor over Buffalo. 

I don't know about a lesser deal but Ballard should re sign him at a contract he has earned.

Preferably before March and he becomes a free agent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Desir

Geathers 

Glowinski 

Hunt 

Inman

Mitchell 

Wilcox

Vinny

Woods

Boehm

Farley 

Maybe Slauson too. I know a few guys are getting old and production will drop but I think a team this young has to have a few old timers around to help with leadership. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, coltsfanej said:

Desir

Geathers 

Glowinski 

Hunt 

Inman

Mitchell 

Wilcox

Vinny

Woods

Boehm

Farley 

Maybe Slauson too. I know a few guys are getting old and production will drop but I think a team this young has to have a few old timers around to help with leadership. 

There is an opening for a offensive assistant so maybe Ballard gives Slauson a chance?

Just a thought?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fat Clemenza said:

Sigh. Do we have to make snarky posts and then self-righteously defend ourselves in every thread?

 

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

No you were complaining about people talking about Ballard again.  That was the first line of your post which will only help derail the thread further.

 

If you are just talking about the premise of the thread do that.  You don’t have to complain about what others are talking about.  

 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I was simply adhering to the premise of the thread.  Jeez.

 

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Sigh....

What ever player is drafted, resigned or enters the building Ballard is the man to talk to and he is the one who signs any player. He is the man who talks to the players agents.

Is that hard to comprehend why Ballard's name comes up?

 

1 hour ago, Calmack said:

Maybe because he's the one that makes the contract offers and his known philosophy regarding FA's gives us an idea of how he will handle Glow's contract? Ballard will be brought up all the time. Get used to it. 

 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Sigh.  Do we have to talk about Ballard in every thread? 

 

The OP asked who would I keep if I was the GM, and I made a list.  

 

Regarding Glow, if he walked at my original offer come the new league year, I'd entertain looking at raising my initial offer.  I suppose I would do that with them all,  but Glow I'd probably be willing overpay a bit depending upon what else was out there and in the draft.  We have the cap space. 

I don’t usually agree with Dougdew but I did ask what you would do if YOU were the GM, not what Ballard would do.

 

So as much as I don’t want to say it, DougDew isn’t necessarily wrong here...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

There is an opening for a offensive assistant so maybe Ballard gives Slauson a chance?

Just a thought?

if he's ready to hang em up I like that idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players in Glowinski's position usually get paid.  The O-line was probably the most high profile, talked about group on this team, and Glowinski's the free agent member of that group.  Someone will overpay.  Wouldn't doubt if we don't match.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, csmopar said:

 

I don’t usually agree with Dougdew but I did ask what you would do if YOU were the GM, not what Ballard would do.

 

So as much as I don’t want to say it, DougDew isn’t necessarily wrong here...

I try not to get into 'what if' scenarios because of the amount of fans who envision themselves as such. I don't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, boo2202 said:

Per Ballard- we’ll pay players that earn second contracts. We shall see because I could see glow and Desir getting interest from other teams. But both imo have earned a pay bump.

Glow had a great season and is probably the most attractive FA guard on the market. He's still young and he's going to draw a lot of interest. I don't think he'll get "Norwell money" offers, but something in the neighborhood of 4 years/$40 million might be what it takes to keep him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

In Western NY Glowinski is already being mentioned as a main FA target for the Bills to help shore up the interior of their OL.   Heard it on the radio this afternoon.   I have to believe he will be on other teams FA want lists.  It looks like the Colts are going to have to pay him if they want to keep him.  He is young too. 

I have no doubt that Glow will have suitors but what kind of salary is he going to command? $4+ mill? $5+ mill? A team with issues on their interior line might offer him a pretty penny. I want to resign him but I know I'm spending big if I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, #12. said:

Players in Glowinski's position usually get paid.  The O-line was probably the most high profile, talked about group on this team, and Glowinski's the free agent member of that group.  Someone will overpay.  

I think that's probably the most accurate way to look at it.  I'd think you'd have to consider that likelihood and hoped it wasn't beyond what you're willing to pay for him.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Would anybody keep JJ Wilcox?  I don't know enough about him.

 

After free agency and then the draft, you take a look at your roster and where the holes are.  If you think safety is still a hole, you might bring him back.  But he is nothing that you have to do anything with until the summer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Would anybody keep JJ Wilcox?  I don't know enough about him.

 

That was the only player from your original list I was a little iffy about, just because of the # of tackles you used as a reason.  I think the # of tackles was a sign that our defense was getting worked over by KC and forcing the safeties to make numerous tackles, not necessarily an indicator that Wilcox is that good of a safety.

 

Wilcox would be a good depth signing at safety along with Mitchell, which is probably needed due to our better safeties not being able to stay healthy (Hooker, Geathers, Farley).

 

But overall, I like your list:

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

FS JJ Wilcox had six tackles in the Chiefs game, so I'd keep him just out of principle.

Also on defense: Hunt, Desir, Geathers, Mitchell, Farley, and Woods

Offense: Glowinski and Inman

ST: Rhodes, Vinny, and Milton

 

:scoregood:

 

Plus, resigning those guys will use up some of that $100+ million everyone thinks we should spend on certain other high-priced FAs.  :thmup:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Would anybody keep JJ Wilcox?  I don't know enough about him.

His parents probably would. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

There is an opening for a offensive assistant so maybe Ballard gives Slauson a chance?

Just a thought?

Love this idea!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HectorRoberts said:

Love this idea!

 

I thought of this after remembering how Frank said he has been a huge factor in guiding our young offensive line. Ballard seems to want a coach who is a teacher more than a motivator.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do like Glowinski but I believe he is going to get some big time money from a desperate team looking to make a splash in fA. As good as I think he is I believe he could be replaced for a much more economically friendly price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HectorRoberts said:

I really do like Glowinski but I believe he is going to get some big time money from a desperate team looking to make a splash in fA. As good as I think he is I believe he could be replaced for a much more economically friendly price.

I am not too sure about replacing him at a friendlier price. He was rated 10th in the league so he is worth paying an average of 10th in the league. You replace him for a cheaper  player it is likely the talent level would drop off.

Ballard has said he would bring in his own players and pay them if they earned it.

We will see if that is true I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, HectorRoberts said:

I really do like Glowinski but I believe he is going to get some big time money from a desperate team looking to make a splash in fA. As good as I think he is I believe he could be replaced for a much more economically friendly price.

Think about it.  We've been trying to fix RG, along with a few other spots on the OL, for the last four or five years and so finally we decided to draft Smith for the spot and all of a sudden we find Glowinski and move Smith to RT and both spots are solved.  And now, heaven forbid, we don't want to sign one of our own because we want to go cheap and start over again.  And he's young no less.  Now that sends a message to our other players and potential FA's.  Honestly, you just can't make this stuff up.  When are we going to start paying players when they perform for us?   Is never the answer?  All I can do is shake my head. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HectorRoberts said:

I really do like Glowinski but I believe he is going to get some big time money from a desperate team looking to make a splash in fA. As good as I think he is I believe he could be replaced for a much more economically friendly price.

So, who would you pick from the free agent market to replace Glowinski? And what is he going to cost? Or do you spend a valuable draft pick on another guard when there are so many other needs to be filled? Nope. I think you re-sign Glowinski at market price and solidify the O-line for the next three to four years. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.