Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CR91

Colts sign Devin Funchess (Merge)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

Reich is excited about DF.

 

 

 

I said earlier in the thread, during the frenzy, I think I underrated his route running ability. It sounds like that's one of the primary reasons the staff was so attracted to him.

Share this post


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

 

I said earlier in the thread, during the frenzy, I think I underrated his route running ability. It sounds like that's one of the primary reasons the staff was so attracted to him.

 

All of which makes the thing that bugs me the most stand out even more. Not my first choice of FA, and not at that price, but what do I know compared to the FO? But if they're so enamored with him, then why the 1 year deal. I know the rumour is that Funchess was the side asking for it, but it really doesn't look like it can work out in the Colts favour unless he is really bad, and even then as you pointed out, it's still taken money away from spending elsewhere. 

 

Basically, if this had been an Ebron type pick up with an Ebron type contract I feel a lot different about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

All of which makes the thing that bugs me the most stand out even more. Not my first choice of FA, and not at that price, but what do I know compared to the FO? But if they're so enamored with him, then why the 1 year deal. I know the rumour is that Funchess was the side asking for it, but it really doesn't look like it can work out in the Colts favour unless he is really bad, and even then as you pointed out, it's still taken money away from spending elsewhere. 

 

Basically, if this had been an Ebron type pick up with an Ebron type contract I feel a lot different about it. 

Maybe funchess wanted the one year. He didn’t have  the best season. He is betting on himself that he will have a very good season with the colts and therefore will get a better multiyeat deal then if he would of signed a multi year this year.  Let’s bechonest if he has a great season and the colts resign him he won’t cost any more then what Tyrell Williams got. Reich is trying to build his offense like what they had in Phili. So funchess makes perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

Maybe funchess wanted the one year. He didn’t have  the best season. He is betting on himself that he will have a very good season with the colts and therefore will get a better multiyeat deal then if he would of signed a multi year this year. 

 

I did say the rumour is that the player was the one asking for a one year contract ...

 

Share this post


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

 

All of which makes the thing that bugs me the most stand out even more. Not my first choice of FA, and not at that price, but what do I know compared to the FO? But if they're so enamored with him, then why the 1 year deal. I know the rumour is that Funchess was the side asking for it, but it really doesn't look like it can work out in the Colts favour unless he is really bad, and even then as you pointed out, it's still taken money away from spending elsewhere. 

 

Basically, if this had been an Ebron type pick up with an Ebron type contract I feel a lot different about it. 

 

I agree. I still don't like the contract, either the value or the structure. But I'm willing to admit that the player might be better than I originally gave him credit for. And I sincerely hope that he is.

 

1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

Maybe funchess wanted the one year. He didn’t have  the best season. He is betting on himself that he will have a very good season with the colts and therefore will get a better multiyeat deal then if he would of signed a multi year this year. 

 

The negotiation is two-sided. The Colts could have made a two year deal worth Funchess' while, and still given themselves more control. Just because Funchess preferred a one year deal doesn't mean there were no other options.

Share this post


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

 

I agree. I still don't like the contract, either the value or the structure. But I'm willing to admit that the player might be better than I originally gave him credit for. And I sincerely hope that he is.

 

 

The negotiation is two-sided. The Colts could have made a two year deal worth Funchess' while, and still given themselves more control. Just because Funchess preferred a one year deal doesn't mean there were no other options.

 

Exactly, it just seems... illogical. 

 

Reich wants him and obviously has plan for how to use him, excellent. 

 

But if it works out, you're either having to probably overpay to keep him, or you've got to replace what could now be an integral piece of your offense. One that has limited snaps that could have potentially gone towards developing another player who is under a longer term contract. A lot of posters are saying we should go WR early in the draft, do you really want to invest that draft capital and lessen their snaps/targets in favour of a player who might walk on you at the end of the season?

 

If it was a cheaper one year deal I could understand more, but the price tag moves it away from "prove it" IMO.

 

 

Share this post


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

Exactly, it just seems... illogical. 

 

Reich wants him and obviously has plan for how to use him, excellent. 

 

But if it works out, you're either having to probably overpay to keep him, or you've got to replace what could now be an integral piece of your offense. One that has limited snaps that could have potentially gone towards developing another player who is under a longer term contract.

 

Agreed. If you like him enough to give him one year, $10-13m, why not two years, $22m-ish? It's hard for me to believe he had any offers on the table that would have competed with this. 

 

Quote

A lot of posters are saying we should go WR early in the draft, do you really want to invest that draft capital and lessen their snaps/targets in favour of a player who might walk on you at the end of the season?

 

I think we have plenty of snaps to give up at WR, so that part doesn't necessarily bother me. Outside of TY, we had no one on the roster that demands snaps. Cain is a projection, and everyone else is either a JAG or someone with no meaningful tape/production in the NFL. I think the position is wide open, even with Funchess added to the mix. 

 

Quote

If it was a cheaper one year deal I could understand more, but the price tag moves it away from "prove it" IMO.

 

Yeah, that's a misnomer anymore. Every one year deal isn't a "prove it" deal. I don't think this deal qualifies, either.

 

Alshon's one year, $14m deal was a "prove it" deal because it was about whether he could get and stay healthy, not whether he was a good, productive player. That was already proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Your almost always going to overpay a one year deal. Chances are if he plays well and we resign him he will get about what Williams got. About 11 or 12 million a year at about 3 years. To say that the one year sets a precedent is silly.  Saying he could demand 22m a year is also silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Exactly, it just seems... illogical. 

 

Reich wants him and obviously has plan for how to use him, excellent. 

 

But if it works out, you're either having to probably overpay to keep him, or you've got to replace what could now be an integral piece of your offense. One that has limited snaps that could have potentially gone towards developing another player who is under a longer term contract. A lot of posters are saying we should go WR early in the draft, do you really want to invest that draft capital and lessen their snaps/targets in favour of a player who might walk on you at the end of the season?

 

If it was a cheaper one year deal I could understand more, but the price tag moves it away from "prove it" IMO.

 

 

If they plan on going receiver early, maybe, like the Geathers contract, it's just one year of insurance - one year of insurance to cover the draft pick and Cain.  Ballard recently said he still believes Cain has #2 talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

LOL. Your almost always going to overpay a one year deal. Chances are if he plays well and we resign him he will get about what Williams got. About 11 or 12 million a year at about 3 years. To say that the one year sets a precedent is silly.  Saying he could demand 22m a year is also silly. 

 

You're not paying attention, or not understanding. And you're continually "explaining" to me the very basic nature of a one year deal, which is unnecessary.

 

Who said a one year deal sets a precedent? And who said anything about $22m a year??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're not paying attention, or not understanding. And you're continually "explaining" to me the very basic nature of a one year deal, which is unnecessary.

 

Who said a one year deal sets a precedent? And who said anything about $22m a year??

Ok so I misunderstood the post. We have a lot of young receivers. The one year deal is good for both sides.  The kid wants to be here. It’s obvious by his tweets. Seems like he is a hard worker.  Let’s let this play out. We may have found the dog that we needed.  The kid is 24 with already four nfl seasons. I would see how this works out rather then trying to draft another receiver who needs to be developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

The one year deal is good for both sides.

 

I disagree. There's little upside for the Colts, and a ton of upside for Funchess. It's not the end of the world, but that's my opinion.

 

Quote

Let’s let this play out.

 

Obviously my intention.

 

Quote

 

I would see how this works out rather then trying to draft another receiver who needs to be developed.

 

 

Disagreed, partly because I don't like any of our other receivers besides Cain, and I don't think it would be smart to rely on him. Especially in 2019. 

 

The other reason is because this draft is kind of loaded with receivers that have traits I value. I'll be disappointed if we don't wind up with one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I disagree. There's little upside for the Colts, and a ton of upside for Funchess. It's not the end of the world, but that's my opinion.

 

 

Obviously my intention.

 

 

Disagreed, partly because I don't like any of our other receivers besides Cain, and I don't think it would be smart to rely on him. Especially in 2019. 

 

The other reason is because this draft is kind of loaded with receivers that have traits I value. I'll be disappointed if we don't wind up with one.

I think you and I are in lock step in our thoughts on Fuchess, and the state of WR in general. 

 

On the topic of upside to the DF deal, the only thing I can realistically think, is that Ballard only wants one year, and plans to draft and develop. More or less a one year band-aid to develop a new drafted WR and/or see how Cain rebounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if we drafted a receiver we would be able to count on him?  I am taking my chances on a 24 yo with 4 years of nfl experience over a rookie in the draft anyday. Now that doesn’t mean we don’t draft one to develop. But expecting a rookie we draft this year to come in and play and make a impact right away I don’t think is going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...almost seems one of the only ways it really benefits the Colts long term is if Funchess just sort of has an okay/decent season. That way he *might* not command an overpay. But even then, would we wanna bring him back if he only performs decently? Who knows. That might sound like a selfish fan opinion, but it is what it is.

If he does ball out and Ballard gives him a big deal to stay, which I kinda doubt would happen, then I'd almost wonder what it means for TY when his deal comes up. I don't see Ballard tying up a ton of money at WR. Which is a whole other convo but still.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think ballard would not resign funchess if he has a great year and makes a difference for this team I don’t know what else to say.  It’s not like he is 30 yo.  No we would not have to overpay to keep him.  He is not AB. He would get the going rate. It would mean nothing for TY except maybe a little more money and a little extension. You can’t complain we need a number two then complain about what we would have to pay to is we keep him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

If you think ballard would not resign funchess if he has a great year and makes a difference for this team I don’t know what else to say.  It’s not like he is 30 yo.  No we would not have to overpay to keep him.  He is not AB. He would get the going rate. 


I don't think that's something you can predict though. It's possible, and it'd be awesome if he does really well and for some reason doesn't have a big market, but doesn't seem likely if he has a really good year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also you can tell by his tweets he is excited to be a colt and is very blessed to be here.

Share this post


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

 

I did say the rumour is that the player was the one asking for a one year contract ...

 

I heard that too.

and after listening to Ballard's podcast from the owners meetings, it may have been a selling point of ours too, ie ... Luck. Maybe we used Ebron as an example.  Maybe we sold him on thevpotential of a BIG payday after 1 year with Luck , and opposite Hilton to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

And if we drafted a receiver we would be able to count on him?  I am taking my chances on a 24 yo with 4 years of nfl experience over a rookie in the draft anyday. Now that doesn’t mean we don’t draft one to develop. But expecting a rookie we draft this year to come in and play and make a impact right away I don’t think is going to happen.

 

9KsHmZG.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

If you think ballard would not resign funchess if he has a great year and makes a difference for this team I don’t know what else to say.  It’s not like he is 30 yo.  No we would not have to overpay to keep him.  He is not AB. He would get the going rate. 

Or get a life ng term deal done before the end of the season if it pans out.  We'll have the $.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

And if we drafted a receiver we would be able to count on him?  I am taking my chances on a 24 yo with 4 years of nfl experience over a rookie in the draft anyday. Now that doesn’t mean we don’t draft one to develop. But expecting a rookie we draft this year to come in and play and make a impact right away I don’t think is going to happen.

 

Funchess only had 500ish yards last year. That's more than Grant, but less than a lot of rookie WRs in 2018.

 

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/rookie-review-how-the-wide-receiver-class-fared-in-year-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard pretty much confirmed on the rapp sheet podcast that if they can get DF to reach his ceiling he will re sign him. He said absolutely when asked. He also said the coaches know exactly how they will be using him.

 

Newton had a bad shoulder. I don’t think looking at his statistics last year is really fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

Ballard pretty much confirmed on the rapp sheet podcast that if they can get DF to reach his ceiling he will re sign him. He said absolutely when asked. He also said the coaches know exactly how they will be using him.

 

Newton had a bad shoulder. I don’t think looking at his statistics last year is really fair. 

 

did Ballard happen to define his "ceiling"?

his pay puts him in the top 10-15 WRs. That's 1200-1300 yards territory. 

Share this post


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

 

did Ballard happen to define his "ceiling"?

his pay puts him in the top 10-15 WRs. That's 1200-1300 yards territory. 

I dont have a issue with the pay on a one year deal. No he did not define his ceiling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still would of rather had Cole Beasley, Golden Tate over DF. He’s basically an under size tight end playing reciever but he does give us a big body reciever finally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

If you think ballard would not resign funchess if he has a great year and makes a difference for this team I don’t know what else to say.  It’s not like he is 30 yo.  No we would not have to overpay to keep him.  He is not AB. He would get the going rate. It would mean nothing for TY except maybe a little more money and a little extension. You can’t complain we need a number two then complain about what we would have to pay to is we keep him.

 

tenor.gif

 

Go back and read what @Superman and I are saying. It's not an argument about whether the Colts can or will resign him if he performs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Superman said:

Yeah, that's a misnomer anymore. Every one year deal isn't a "prove it" deal. I don't think this deal qualifies, either.

 

Alshon's one year, $14m deal was a "prove it" deal because it was about whether he could get and stay healthy, not whether he was a good, productive player. That was already proven.

 

Sorry, I'm not probably really thinking of  him "proving" himself, more about if he performs and walks do you at the least get good value for his production.

 

An example to me at the other end of the scale would be Donnie Avery. One year deal, decent enough production (including some clutch catches IIRC) for what he got paid, but not enough that we wanted to match the contract he got. However you could argue we get decent value out for that one year deal.

 

What production would you need to see from Funchess to be happy letting him walk and be happy with paying him that amount for his time I guess is a better way to phrase what I'm getting at. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just curious of what the team sees Funch over Inman for that

price point. Butter finger receivers shouldn't get 10 to 13 mil a year

IMO.

 

Ebron and Funch dropping easy passes is going to make my

head explode. Wishing for the best.

Share this post


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

 

Sorry, I'm not probably really thinking of  him "proving" himself, more about if he performs and walks do you at the least get good value for his production.

 

An example to me at the other end of the scale would be Donnie Avery. One year deal, decent enough production (including some clutch catches IIRC) for what he got paid, but not enough that we wanted to match the contract he got. However you could argue we get decent value out for that one year deal.

 

What production would you need to see from Funchess to be happy letting him walk and be happy with paying him that amount for his time I guess is a better way to phrase what I'm getting at. 

 

I think it's possible to get good value for his production, but it would require more than 1,000 yards, or a lot of TDs. Or both. If he winds up with something in that range -- 1,000 yards, 8 TDs -- and another team gives him five years, $65m, great for him. I'm probably happy with what he gave us, and okay letting him walk. (I'd be happier if we had him under contract for another year, though, which is what we've both been getting at.)

 

Even then, I don't see how the market this offseason supports the contract we gave him. It's splitting hairs, but that's what I'm trying to figure out. Why that value, why that structure, based on what other receivers got, and the other contracts recently done.

 

Donnie Avery was a great "buy low" situation for the Colts. I think he got a vet minimum deal, but his production in 2012 as our #3 receiver was better than any #3 receiver we've had since -- DHB, Nicks, Andre Johnson, whoever, and they were all paid significantly more than we paid Avery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is worried he will walk because ballard won’t sign him to s good enough contract. Why do people not give a player the benefit of just maybe he wants to stay here.  Yes I doubt Ballard would give him five years. But maybe three and if he knows he can win here maybe he will want to stay. Five years is still no guarantee you won’t get cut. The colts could front load a 3 year deal and make it very appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think it's possible to get good value for his production, but it would require more than 1,000 yards, or a lot of TDs. Or both. If he winds up with something in that range -- 1,000 yards, 8 TDs -- and another team gives him five years, $65m, great for him. I'm probably happy with what he gave us, and okay letting him walk. (I'd be happier if we had him under contract for another year, though, which is what we've both been getting at.)

 

Even then, I don't see how the market this offseason supports the contract we gave him. It's splitting hairs, but that's what I'm trying to figure out. Why that value, why that structure, based on what other receivers got, and the other contracts recently done.

 

Donnie Avery was a great "buy low" situation for the Colts. I think he got a vet minimum deal, but his production in 2012 as our #3 receiver was better than any #3 receiver we've had since -- DHB, Nicks, Andre Johnson, whoever, and they were all paid significantly more than we paid Avery. 

He may get 15 tds with Luck tossing him the ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Stephen said:

He may get 15 tds with Luck tossing him the ball

 

I hope he does, but I wouldn't bet on it. Luck has had a lot of receivers to throw to, and most of them have underperformed. I'm a big fan of what Reich is doing offensively, but I'll buy in on a #2 receiver when I see it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Sound  like Reich might use DF a lot in the slot.

 

 

 

been saying this since he signed. i think his best position for us is in the slot. 

IMO, more upside there than #2WR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

More from Reich.

 

 

 

 

Lol, maybe Reich shouldn't get too excited about Funchess since he's probably only going to be here 1 season. haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

watching Funch on Fair Game right now. On for the next 20+ minutes if you want to catch it. It will replay at 12:30am tonight if you missed it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • And I feel like he and Braden Smith work well together on the right side with stunts. They seem to communicate well and play well off each other which is huge for an OL.    Unless there is an obvious upgrade available in the 4/5th round range in the 2020 draft, I'd say we should be good at starting RG. We should still add better depth on the OL though, especially at OT. 
    • Glow is struggling a bit with the new coach's philosophy and technique.  He still seems good in a phone booth but when he has to move first to engage is where he seems to be struggling to get proper position on the defender.   A couple of examples.  I think it was against the Raiders the DT lined up on Glow's right shoulder, the play called for Glow to get to the defenders left shoulder but Glow over extended himself and did not stay square to the LOS.  The result was the DT, looped towards Glow's left shoulder and got in the backfield nearly untouched.   Another issue that Glow is having to deal with is teams are not lining someone over Nelson very often, so they shift towards the offensive right side so Kelly got not help with Glow as much as he did last year.   Lastly, a lot of the technique in this blocking scheme requires excellent balance and playing with the ball of the foot and heel being in contact with the ground at the same time.  And Glow seems to be thinking a lot about his body position and foot placement, so his mirroring ability and hand placement are suffering.
    • NA is worth a 4th, honestly WR is not a need. We'll have Funch back in a few weeks, and Campbell perhaps sooner. JB just had his best throwing game of the year, and TY didn't even get 100 yards.   The only thing I'd trade for right now is DT, DE, S, and maybe OL depth.
    • Lots of guys play bad against Watt. Glow and smith have only given up 3 sacks. The other three have given up zero. The other four were coverage sacks. I bet when we play the Texans again there will be some help containing WATT.
    • Glow isnt a worldbeater, but he does his job
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...