This years FAs

[Matthew Gilbert]

29 minutes ago, HarryTheCat said:

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. 

I'd like to keep Glow but he is likely to get paid MORE than market value. I don't know if the Colts really want to break the bank  for Glow. You can pretty much guarantee that the Colts will be drafting an OT in the first three rounds of the draft this year. Castonzo is an UFA after the 2019 season and will need replaced.  Best case would be if they hit on that draft pick, the rookie would play RT in 2019 while Braden Smith kicked inside to his natural position at RG. Worst case the rookie isn't ready and they sign a veteran to bridge the gap. It does make a lot of since to bring Glow back long term but only if it makes since dollars wise.

[TomDiggs]

2 hours ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

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.

 

I know you touched on this later in this thread in your post but you hit the nail on the head when saying he will be overpaid. Free agency is always an overpay. If we had bet on Glow and re-signed him before he played this well for us or even extended him in-season when he showed glimpses of his good play, maybe we could have got him at or below market. Not now.

 

Unless we use some kind of tag on him, we would likely be competing for his services. Our best chance is to try to extend him before he can field offers from other teams.

 

If I were a betting man, I would say that $4-$5M a year number you referenced is way way too low.

 

He graded out as a top-10 OG and even if he is simply paid as a top-20 OG then he should fetch Zach Fulton type money.

 

I think he is going to fall around $7-$8M per year on a contract. We can surely afford it and he fits the profile of a guy Ballard said we would reward for his play. That said, he would almost certainly become our 2nd highest paid lineman behind AC and it would set the tone and the rate for when we have to extend Kelly in 2 years time (assuming we pick up his 5th yr option).

 

I will be very curious to see who we reward and how much we reward them.

 

The only guys I would feel bad if we lost amongst our UFAs are Glowinski, Desir and Vinatieri.

 

Vinatieri simply because he can still play at a high level and kicker is such a crapshoot.

 

Otherwise, my opinion is that just about every other Colt, beyond those three above, that is an UFA has either underperformed, can be replaced with many comparable players on the market, or is on the wrong side of 30.

 

It will be a very fun off-season to watch.

[braveheartcolt]

Unless Glowinski is exceptionally demanding in his price, I think we will keep him. Just armchair guesswork.

[John Waylon]

Call me crazy here, but I would tag Glowinski. I’m always weary of these guys who come out of nowhere and playing really well for a string of games and then get huge deals based on that. I’ve got a feeling that he may try to test the market, and some dipstick GM will throw 10 million a season at him. Unless he’s willing to sign a team friendly deal I’m just not convinced we should lock him up for big money over a long stretch yet. Sellers remorse is better to cope with than buyers regret. 

 

Easiest way to get all our cards on the table? Tag him. Gives him a nice payday, and a chance to prove he is worth a significant deal over the long term, and we’ve got the money to do it. 

 

..

 

I honestly wouldn’t be opposed to replacing Geathers if we get the chance. 

 

..

 

Desir depends on what he thinks he’s worth. He’s a serviceable corner, but I don’t know if he is worth top 15 money. Maybe not even top 20. 

 

..

 

Bring Vinny back. He’s still really good. He dealt with some injuries this year, keep his load light next year and let him continue to be a positive influence on our team. 

 

.. 

 

Inman depends on how all the other chips fall. I’d be looking hard at WRs in the draft/FA to see who we can get. Cain is returning next year and he has a huge head start on the 3rd spot. The thing about our WRs this year is we really didn’t use many 4 WR sets. So if we have Hilton, Cain, Rookie/FA there really isn’t much room at the inn for Inman. We need a #2. Inman really isn’t. But it depends on how the draft and FA class looks. Not a lot of great options there this year, honestly. 

 

.. 

 

For me, Hunt would depend on what else I was able to do along the D-Line in the draft and FA.

 

..

 

Love Al Woods, always have. But it’s probably time to cut bait and thank him for his service. 

[WoolMagnet]

9 hours 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. 

Someone needs to remind him how cold and miserable Buffalo is and how WARM the dome is.

[DougDew]

Regarding Glowinski's internal value, one way to look at it is how much do you value Braden Smith at RT?  

 

Arguably Smith is projected to have a higher ceiling at RG than Glow, so if you could find a "true" RT in FA or the draft and slide Smith to RG, then you'd be improving BOTH positions on the right side with one move.

 

That would mean you value Glowinski in terms of backup money only.

 

If you think you can't find that RT, or want to spend that capital on other positions, then you'd probably have to give Glow a longer term deal and settle on the notion the right side of the line is what it is going forward.

 

I think i prefer finding a RT and improving both positions with one move, but taking capital away from other positions certainly is a bummer.

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Regarding Glowinski's internal value, one way to look at it is how much do you value Braden Smith at RT?  

 

Arguably Smith is projected to have a higher ceiling at RG than Glow, so if you could find a "true" RT in FA or the draft and slide Smith to RG, then you'd be improving BOTH positions on the right side with one move.

 

That would mean you value Glowinski in terms of backup money only.

 

If you think you can't find that RT, or want to spend that capital on other positions, then you'd probably have to give Glow a longer term deal and settle on the notion the right side of the line is what it is going forward.

 

I think i prefer finding a RT and improving both positions with one move, but taking capital away from other positions certainly is a bummer.

Glowinski has earned his money and his position. Rated 10th in the league proves it.

[throwing BBZ]

12 hours 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. 

 

 I just checked. He finished as the 17th rated guard.

 If you checked earlier in his season he was up around 4-6 after 4-5 starts. His grade was 78.*. He finished at 69.
 I look at that and wonder who was the competition he was facing to earn those grades, and why the fall off. 
 I certainly like him compared to what horror we have delt with the last few years.
 Moving Smith to guard and going after a a little more athletic  RT FA or prospect has to be headed for a serious discussion.

 And there are very good G prospects in this draft. It isn't a gamble when you are good at your job.

[throwing BBZ]

16 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Glowinski has earned his money and his position. Rated 10th in the league proves it.

 

type his name followed by pff. 

search

click on 1st link

scroll down to see his final grade

get it right forum members deserve better than this

[NewEra]

I think glow deserves a decent contract. I don't think he deserves top tier guard money. 

 

[DougDew]

45 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Glowinski has earned his money and his position. Rated 10th in the league proves it.

If that's true, I'm not saying he won't get his money.  I might be the one to pay him that money if I choose not to invest in a "better" RG in Smith and a better RT than Smith.  If I did choose to make the investment in Smith at G and a new RT, the money Glow has earned will be paid by his new team because I couldn't value him as a starter on my team.   

[throwing BBZ]

7 hours ago, John Waylon said:

Call me crazy here, but I would tag Glowinski. I’m always weary of these guys who come out of nowhere and playing really well for a string of games and then get huge deals based on that. I’ve got a feeling that he may try to test the market, and some dipstick GM will throw 10 million a season at him. Unless he’s willing to sign a team friendly deal I’m just not convinced we should lock him up for big money over a long stretch yet. Sellers remorse is better to cope with than buyers regret. 

 

Easiest way to get all our cards on the table? Tag him. Gives him a nice payday, and a chance to prove he is worth a significant deal over the long term, and we’ve got the money to do it. 

 

..

 

I honestly wouldn’t be opposed to replacing Geathers if we get the chance. 

 

..

 

Desir depends on what he thinks he’s worth. He’s a serviceable corner, but I don’t know if he is worth top 15 money. Maybe not even top 20. 

 

..

 

Bring Vinny back. He’s still really good. He dealt with some injuries this year, keep his load light next year and let him continue to be a positive influence on our team. 

 

.. 

 

Inman depends on how all the other chips fall. I’d be looking hard at WRs in the draft/FA to see who we can get. Cain is returning next year and he has a huge head start on the 3rd spot. The thing about our WRs this year is we really didn’t use many 4 WR sets. So if we have Hilton, Cain, Rookie/FA there really isn’t much room at the inn for Inman. We need a #2. Inman really isn’t. But it depends on how the draft and FA class looks. Not a lot of great options there this year, honestly. 

 

.. 

 

For me, Hunt would depend on what else I was able to do along the D-Line in the draft and FA.

 

..

 

Love Al Woods, always have. But it’s probably time to cut bait and thank him for his service. 

 

According to my research you suggest paying Glow about $14.5 M next season.

cough cough
The transition tag # is about $12.5M, where we could match an offer or let him go with no compensation.

[Matthew Gilbert]

7 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

If we had bet on Glow and re-signed him before he played this well for us or even extended him in-season when he showed glimpses of his good play, maybe we could have got him at or below market. Not now.

Kind of makes you wonder. Did the Colts offer him something during the season? If so, did Glow turn it down and bet on himself? 

[ClaytonColt]

8 hours ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

I'd like to keep Glow but he is likely to get paid MORE than market value

Isn't that a bit of a misnomer. Surely the offer he eventually signs defines what his market value is?

 

In general I do feel that we as fans focus on paying players what we feel is too much. If you're going to attract players who are free agents then you have to offer them something that the other 31 teams wouldn't.  If you are to get them over the line you have to pay them towards the top end of their perceived worth. 

 

In terms of the question I would keep; Glowinski, Hunt, Inman, Mitchell and all the RFA with the exception of Travis

 

I'd then keep Desir, Geathers and Slauson but only of their expectations were realistic.

 

Te rest of them can go. Including Vinatieri. 

[Matthew Gilbert]

2 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

Isn't that a bit of a misnomer. Surely the offer he eventually signs defines what his market value is.

I think you know what I mean. It's true that whatever salary he signs for will be his "market value" 

[lollygagger8]

8 hours ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

I'd like to keep Glow but he is likely to get paid MORE than market value. I don't know if the Colts really want to break the bank  for Glow. You can pretty much guarantee that the Colts will be drafting an OT in the first three rounds of the draft this year. Castonzo is an UFA after the 2019 season and will need replaced.  Best case would be if they hit on that draft pick, the rookie would play RT in 2019 while Braden Smith kicked inside to his natural position at RG. Worst case the rookie isn't ready and they sign a veteran to bridge the gap. It does make a lot of since to bring Glow back long term but only if it makes since dollars wise.

 

Who else you going to put at Guard then because I think you leave Braden Smith at starting RT. He's done great there. Would you overpay someone else who doesn't have the camaraderie with the team and start all over again? Slauson is the only other answer, and he might not play anymore. 

Why replace Castonzo? He's really not as bad as people make him out to be, and Nelson has made him better. 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

Just two years ago we would have been super happy just having a player like Glowinski. Finding good offensive linemen and keeping them is a luxury in the NFL. Every team in the NFL wants and needs offensive linemen. When you have them, you keep them.

[richard pallo]

FWIW.  Starting RT  Juwan James of the Dolphins is scheduled to be a FA this year.  He was a 1st. rd pick who almost did not get his 5th. year option picked up.  They were thinking of moving him last year.  I don't know how his season was last year but if we picked him up in FA we could move him to RT and Smith back to RG.  That would give us Four 1st. rounders on the line and a 2nd.  Again, I have no idea how he performed last year. 

[MacDee1975]

I would keep:

 

Desir

Geathers

Glowinski

Hunt

Inman

Farley

 

That's about it.  The rest can go somewhere else or retire.

[Matthew Gilbert]

2 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Who else you going to put at Guard then because I think you leave Braden Smith at starting RT. He's done great there. Would you overpay someone else who doesn't have the camaraderie with the team and start all over again? Slauson is the only other answer, and he might not play anymore. 

All of that was answered in my original comment.

 

2 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

Why replace Castonzo? He's really not as bad as people make him out to be, and Nelson has made him better. 

I don't think he's a bad player at all. But he's not young and his next contract will be very hefty. I would be more than ok with the Colts extending AC and Glow(we know they have the cap room) but I'm not sure that it happens.

[DougDew]

10 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

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).

 

As far as the safeties, I view Hooker to play a slightly different role than the others, Geathers, Farley, Mitchell, and Wilcox, whom I consider to all be more traditional cover 2 zone safeties.  I don't measure Hooker's value in terms of tackle statistics as much as others because I think his value is in terms of single high safety.

 

I might keep all 5 safeties with the idea that my preferred defense would have Hooker start, but if (or when) he couldn't play, I would have 4 safeties with which to play cover 2.  The backup guys could play ST or Geathers/ Mitchell could play a LB-ish role in a nickel.

 

Looking at Wilcox's history, it looks like he racks up tackles, but teams always seem to replace him the next year with a more high profile guy, so Wilcox must lack something in the pure passing game.

[Old Colt]

12 hours 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. 

Slauson for Oline coach!

[John Waylon]

1 hour ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

According to my research you suggest paying Glow about $14.5 M next season.

cough cough
The transition tag # is about $12.5M, where we could match an offer or let him go with no compensation.

 

Outright tag him. We have the money, and we’ve learned that good linemen aren’t easy to come by. If he keeps his level of play up in 2019 move forward with a longer term deal. If it doesn’t pan out it’s a humorous “remember that time we wasted that money on that dude for one season? Good thing we had all that extra space to spend!” rather than “boy, we matched that offer and got hung with a bad deal” or “boy, we should have matched that offer because we let a good player go.”

 

We’ve got the ability to take a lot of the guesswork out of the equation by just tagging him outright. 

[csmopar]

11 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

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

yep.  Out of that estimated 120 mil we have, my guess is we use 20- 30 mil to resign our guys, assuming they all resign. figure 10 mil for the new draftees, that gives us some 80 mil to play with.  Again, these numbers are a sheer guess. 

[coltsfanej]

2 hours ago, Old Colt said:

Slauson for Oline coach!

That works for me 

[GoColts00]

10 hours ago, John Waylon said:

Call me crazy here, but I would tag Glowinski. I’m always weary of these guys who come out of nowhere and playing really well for a string of games and then get huge deals based on that. I’ve got a feeling that he may try to test the market, and some dipstick GM will throw 10 million a season at him. Unless he’s willing to sign a team friendly deal I’m just not convinced we should lock him up for big money over a long stretch yet. Sellers remorse is better to cope with than buyers regret. 

 

Easiest way to get all our cards on the table? Tag him. Gives him a nice payday, and a chance to prove he is worth a significant deal over the long term, and we’ve got the money to do it. 

 

..

 

I honestly wouldn’t be opposed to replacing Geathers if we get the chance. 

 

..

 

Desir depends on what he thinks he’s worth. He’s a serviceable corner, but I don’t know if he is worth top 15 money. Maybe not even top 20. 

 

..

 

Bring Vinny back. He’s still really good. He dealt with some injuries this year, keep his load light next year and let him continue to be a positive influence on our team. 

 

.. 

 

Inman depends on how all the other chips fall. I’d be looking hard at WRs in the draft/FA to see who we can get. Cain is returning next year and he has a huge head start on the 3rd spot. The thing about our WRs this year is we really didn’t use many 4 WR sets. So if we have Hilton, Cain, Rookie/FA there really isn’t much room at the inn for Inman. We need a #2. Inman really isn’t. But it depends on how the draft and FA class looks. Not a lot of great options there this year, honestly. 

 

.. 

 

For me, Hunt would depend on what else I was able to do along the D-Line in the draft and FA.

 

..

 

Love Al Woods, always have. But it’s probably time to cut bait and thank him for his service. 

I agree with everything you wrote except for Inman. I think he's better than u give him credit. Hilton-Cain-Inman would be a good WR group IMO. I wouldn't mind picking up Andy Isabella, UMass. Next year's draft will have the WR that I want the Colts to go after... LeViska Shenault Jr.

[IndyD4U]

I bring back these guys:

Desir
Geathers
Glowinski
Hunt 
Inman
Wilcox
Woods
Boehm
Farley
Rhodes

 

And this isn't going to be popular, but I make a "Peyton Manning" type decision and let Vinny go. The record is his, hang them up and draft a kicker

[Superman]

2 hours ago, John Waylon said:

 

Outright tag him. We have the money, and we’ve learned that good linemen aren’t easy to come by. If he keeps his level of play up in 2019 move forward with a longer term deal. If it doesn’t pan out it’s a humorous “remember that time we wasted that money on that dude for one season? Good thing we had all that extra space to spend!” rather than “boy, we matched that offer and got hung with a bad deal” or “boy, we should have matched that offer because we let a good player go.”

 

We’ve got the ability to take a lot of the guesswork out of the equation by just tagging him outright. 

 

Make Mark Glowinski the highest paid guard in the history of the NFL? No thanks.

 

2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Just two years ago we would have been super happy just having a player like Glowinski. Finding good offensive linemen and keeping them is a luxury in the NFL. Every team in the NFL wants and needs offensive linemen. When you have them, you keep them.

 

We can do better than Glowinski. Don't let good be the enemy of great.

[crazycolt1]

34 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

We can do better than Glowinski. Don't let good be the enemy of great.

The don't grow good offensive linemen on trees either. 

How many different offensive lineups  have we had on this team in the last 5 years?

 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

The don't grow good offensive linemen on trees either. 

How many different offensive lineups  have we had on this team in the last 5 years?

 

I get it, and I'm not necessarily trying to push Glowinski out the door. But I think he's a replacement level player who had a solid season, and in our thirst for good line play -- with good reason, our line has been awful for a long time -- he's being overrated. JMO.

 

And think about it. We drafted two pretty good OL last year, both of whom were expected to play guard, and I still think Smith's best position is at guard. 

 

To me, the right play is to upgrade RT and move Smith to guard, and if Glowinski wants to re-sign for a modest deal and duke it out for a starting spot, great. The wrong play is to treat Glowinski like he's a stalwart RG and can't be improved upon.

 

[shasta519]

17 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 

 

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.

 

So you would bring back the entire S group? I am probably bringing one back...at most 2 (if Mitchell is willing to come back on the vet min).

[shasta519]

14 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

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.

 

I think this applies to the whole S group TBH. Maybe not as late as summer for Geathers...but I would definitely sit back and see what happens with Geathers. Same with Farley and Mitchell...who I doubt will have serious suitors. If some team offers any of them them a nice contract...that's cool. But most likely that won't happen...outside of maybe Geathers. 

[crazycolt1]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I get it, and I'm not necessarily trying to push Glowinski out the door. But I think he's a replacement level player who had a solid season, and in our thirst for good line play -- with good reason, our line has been awful for a long time -- he's being overrated. JMO.

 

And think about it. We drafted two pretty good OL last year, both of whom were expected to play guard, and I still think Smith's best position is at guard. 

 

To me, the right play is to upgrade RT and move Smith to guard, and if Glowinski wants to re-sign for a modest deal and duke it out for a starting spot, great. The wrong play is to treat Glowinski like he's a stalwart RG and can't be improved upon.

 

No where did I say not to keep pursuing better offensive linemen. That goes for every position on the team.

Ballard has stated he will use every means to get better players within his vision for the team.

My opinion is when you have a good player you do everything you can to keep them.(especially linemen)

No where did I say break the bank for him either and IMO Ballard wouldn't do that anyway.

 

[shasta519]

12 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

 

I know you touched on this later in this thread in your post but you hit the nail on the head when saying he will be overpaid. Free agency is always an overpay. If we had bet on Glow and re-signed him before he played this well for us or even extended him in-season when he showed glimpses of his good play, maybe we could have got him at or below market. Not now.

 

Unless we use some kind of tag on him, we would likely be competing for his services. Our best chance is to try to extend him before he can field offers from other teams.

 

If I were a betting man, I would say that $4-$5M a year number you referenced is way way too low.

 

He graded out as a top-10 OG and even if he is simply paid as a top-20 OG then he should fetch Zach Fulton type money.

 

I think he is going to fall around $7-$8M per year on a contract. We can surely afford it and he fits the profile of a guy Ballard said we would reward for his play. That said, he would almost certainly become our 2nd highest paid lineman behind AC and it would set the tone and the rate for when we have to extend Kelly in 2 years time (assuming we pick up his 5th yr option).

 

I will be very curious to see who we reward and how much we reward them.

 

The only guys I would feel bad if we lost amongst our UFAs are Glowinski, Desir and Vinatieri.

 

Vinatieri simply because he can still play at a high level and kicker is such a crapshoot.

 

Otherwise, my opinion is that just about every other Colt, beyond those three above, that is an UFA has either underperformed, can be replaced with many comparable players on the market, or is on the wrong side of 30.

 

It will be a very fun off-season to watch.

 

Agree. Though I think Inman enters the category as players that I don't want to lose. Only because this team has a lot of questions at WR...and Inman seems like an answer to at least one of them...and likely much cheaper than other options.

 

It is going to be a fun offseason for sure. Personally, I only want to re-sign a few guys. I don't see any point in paying a bunch of the same players more money. Ballard can practice what he preaches by re-signing Desir and Glow.

 

And even more importantly, those other players take up valuable roster spots that could otherwise be upgraded (or used for a cheap player that is developing). 

 

The expectations have shifted. I this offseason is about getting IND to a level where they can get to the Super Bowl the next few seasons (starting next season). They have to maximize the window. That doesn't mean Ballard has to be super aggressive or anything (that's not his style)...but he should be looking to upgrade at least a few positions.

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 I just checked. He finished as the 17th rated guard.

 If you checked earlier in his season he was up around 4-6 after 4-5 starts. His grade was 78.*. He finished at 69.
 I look at that and wonder who was the competition he was facing to earn those grades, and why the fall off. 
 I certainly like him compared to what horror we have delt with the last few years.
 Moving Smith to guard and going after a a little more athletic  RT FA or prospect has to be headed for a serious discussion.

 And there are very good G prospects in this draft. It isn't a gamble when you are good at your job.

 

This is what I want to do. Find a better RT and move Smith back to RG. Ideally, you could re-sign Glow as well...and have a healthy competition for both spots...not to mention having legit insurance at each position (since Smith can play both).

 

The question becomes what will it take to find that RT (it will likely take away from another position if it's the draft)...and will Glow accept the Colts offer that only guarantees him a chance to compete for a starting spot? I would have no problem paying Glow $5M, even if he ended up as a backup. But he probably gets more than that.

 

Another route could be to have Smith play RT next season while a rookie develops for a year or two. In that scenario, Glow is back as the starter during that time and then they figure out the depth chart down the road. But I think moving Smith back to RG should probably be done sooner than later.

[DougDew]

26 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

So you would bring back the entire S group? I am probably bringing one back...at most 2 (if Mitchell is willing to come back on the vet min).

Its hard for me to know what other options at safety will present themselves between now and next September.  Only a real GM has those types of resources available to make that estimate.

 

I guess I'm saying that if I had to open next season with Geathers, Mitchell, Wilcox, and Farley in one group and Hooker as the guy I start and play more SH with, I'd be okay with that. At this point, I don't think I'd be looking at the FA period and the draft to upgrade that position considering I think all 4 tackle pretty well and cover well enough to play the traditional SS role.  I have more pressing positions to worry about upgrading.

 

So I'm approaching the question today with the understanding that I would offer each one of them a contract.  My mind might change if/when I know more about the draft, or if Landon Collins becomes available.  As I said, I don't think any of these players change how I would approach the draft.

 

 

[lollygagger8]

4 hours ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

All of that was answered in my original comment.

 

 

Disagree 

[shasta519]

5 hours ago, DougDew said:

Regarding Glowinski's internal value, one way to look at it is how much do you value Braden Smith at RT?  

 

Arguably Smith is projected to have a higher ceiling at RG than Glow, so if you could find a "true" RT in FA or the draft and slide Smith to RG, then you'd be improving BOTH positions on the right side with one move.

 

That would mean you value Glowinski in terms of backup money only.

 

If you think you can't find that RT, or want to spend that capital on other positions, then you'd probably have to give Glow a longer term deal and settle on the notion the right side of the line is what it is going forward.

 

I think i prefer finding a RT and improving both positions with one move, but taking capital away from other positions certainly is a bummer.

 

This is where I am at now. I think investing in RT and moving Smith back to RG is the better move long-term. In theory, it would improve both positions.

 

But who is to say Smith beats out Glow? I would think that would be a healthy competition. Whether Glow would want that competition and how much the Colts would be willing to pay him to compete make it tricky. But having a legit G like Glow as a backup G is a good problem to have.

 

I said this below, but I see some merit in bringing back Glow, keeping Smith at RT and drafting a RT to develop for a year or two. This team hasn't been shy about playing rookies on the OL...but in this scenario it wouldn't have to. Then, next season, they could address the logjam if necessary. Even if Glow was expensive, his contract could be constructed in a way that nearly all of the gtd money is paid in the first two years.

 

I think Ballard has a similar philosophy to the OL as he does DL. You need 7-8 guys that can play at a good-high level...but instead of keeping guys fresh it's more because of inevitable injuries (especially playing on that artificial turf). Not to mention they do like to throw the occasional jumbo package out there.

 

They found what seems like a good OL player in Glow. Those aren't easy to find (as we have learned from the Grigs era). So if Glow likes it enough in IND...they should probably retain him in some capacity...unless his contract offers just get crazy.

[Colt Overseas]

I would prefer paying extra for Darryl Williams over Mark Glowinski if he hit the FA.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Colt Overseas said:

I would prefer paying extra for Rob Havenstein over Mark Glowinski if he hit the FA.

 

He re-signed before the season started, signed through 2022.