Improved or status Q ?

[threeflight]

3 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Another note on FA. Irsay is not the richest owner in the league. When a player gets guaranteed money it has to go into a escrow.Guys like the GM on the redskins have bottomless pockets.  The redskins were dumb to pay that for Collins. He wanted to play there. They could of gotten him for less.

I am beginning to think this may play more into it than I originally thought.

 

Kind of like the Orioles for so many years.  Not the richest owner so they normally didn't spend much for FA's and let their best players like Machado go.

[crazycolt1]

4 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

How many players do we actually have to worry about paying big increases in money? 

 

Kelly is the next of our draft picks who will get a decent contract and even that's not for a couple of years and his position and performances hardly indicate he's going to break the bank.

 

Any others? All the rest are either already on decent money, signed up for a good number of years or replaceable aren't they?

We have 25 players who's contracts are up at the end of next season. So basically half the team.

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

10 minutes ago, threeflight said:

They are not scary good imo.  They have very few players on the team that I consider elite.

 

They benefited from an easy second half schedule with teams who had poor qbs.  Anytime we played a team with a really good qb?  We lost. 

 

We are a decent team the way we stand.   

Ok, maybe a stretch on my part. Good point on the qbs on that schedule. Some of the defenses we faced were very good though and we were competetive against teams you were referring too. My outlier was KC, I think that was the most mismanaged game plan of the season. Im just staying positive and hoping we arent as far off as some think. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

We were not as bad as we looked against KC. When every part of the game falls apart like that we just ran out of gas  

[ClaytonColt]

14 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

We have 25 players who's contracts are up at the end of next season. So basically half the team.

How many of them are crucial and in line for a significant increase? 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, ClaytonColt said:

How many of them are crucial and in line for a significant increase? 

That remains to be seen. With the roster growing to 90 players after the draft and getting ready for camp I doubt Ballard himself knows.

I made a list last week that named all those players. I don't recall what thread it was in.

[Four2itus]

12 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

We were not as bad as we looked against KC. When every part of the game falls apart like that we just ran out of gas  

I saw that coming last season. 2 rookies on the o-line, Leonard....and the Chiefs had a week of rest. Recipe for just what happened. Overreacting and grabbing FA's as if we need to catch the Chiefs is shortsighted and misinformed thinking in my opinion. 

[Four2itus]

6 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

That remains to be seen. With the roster growing to 90 players after the draft and getting ready for camp I doubt Ballard himself knows.

I made a list last week that named all those players. I don't recall what thread it was in.

...and he would love to have players step up their game to where the number is large. That means the development thing is working. 

[Behle]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/16/nfl-teams-improve-after-signing-top-free-agents/HVtLsCoK0CkbHfCgJCgqcI/story.html

 

This 2015 article sheds some light on spending in free agency. Most of the time teams fare no better than before they acquired the free agent. There are only a couple of exceptions named Manning, Brees, and Peppers. The real impact of the free agent is for the team that can’t re-sign its own pending free agent. 

[Buck Showalter]

What if, with continuity & another season under improved/consistent coaching & gameplanning, the status quo is improved???

[Matabix]

4 hours ago, richard pallo said:

To me Ballard is like the tortoise in the fable.  Plodding along but wining at the end.  He is an opportunist and with that said he still has many resources at his disposal.   9 draft picks so far,  A backup QB who could also be traded and plenty of cap space.  There are many different paths that could open up down the road this upcoming season and he has the resources take advantage of each one.  The noise is over so now it's time for cooler heads, like Ballard, to prevail.  It's still very early so there is plenty of time for Ballard to do his thing and strengthen the team. IMO.

With that said of Brissett, if he isn't traded before training camp you will see alot of Brissett in preseason. Luck maybe series each game except 4th game. Walker maybe last series of the game. 4th game will be all Brissett.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just wait in next few weeks when teams  have to let players go to make room for these high priced FA. There are going to be some good ones to pick up. This is where the value is. 

 

The only position I am concerned about is safety. We have no safeties and Geathers not signed. At this rate we will pick one up early in the draft. I just hope a rookie ends up playing well. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

27 minutes ago, Behle said:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/03/16/nfl-teams-improve-after-signing-top-free-agents/HVtLsCoK0CkbHfCgJCgqcI/story.html

 

This 2015 article sheds some light on spending in free agency. Most of the time teams fare no better than before they acquired the free agent. There are only a couple of exceptions named Manning, Brees, and Peppers. The real impact of the free agent is for the team that can’t re-sign its own pending free agent. 

 

Exactly, I saw it too.  So notable excerpts-

 

"Do NFL teams improve after signing top free agents?

 ...On average, they ended up winning almost exactly the same number of games.

If you include all top-ten free agents, there’s a little upward blip, amounting to something like .1 additional wins, but again that is basically nothing. Even if you look across two years, on the assumption that perhaps it takes some time for new players to have their biggest impact, there are no real gains."

 

How about losing a big name player to free agency?

 

"On average, teams that watched top-ten free agents stride off for new pastures dropped an additional half-game the following year. That’s quite high, given that those very same players seem to have a much smaller impact on their new teams."

 

"A possible explanation is that the free agents really were more valuable to the teams they left behind. That’s because they were getting paid less. Often, the teams that lose top free agents have been underpaying them, but getting their full talent — and value like that is hard to come by."

 

My take, don't do a Baltimore and CJ Mosley.  If a Mosley type player is going to be valuable to you, you extend him well before the contract ends.  You also will probably get a little hometown discount when said and done.  But if you don't do this, and your player gets into the last year of his deal, they won't be bothered by negotiations in season.  At years end, they will 'test the market' and a feeding frenzy will probably drive the price up too high to get him back on the roster.  IMO, you do an extension a little too early rather than a little too late.

[ClaytonColt]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

That remains to be seen. With the roster growing to 90 players after the draft and getting ready for camp I doubt Ballard himself knows.

I made a list last week that named all those players. I don't recall what thread it was in.

Of course things can change over the next 12 months, both positively and negatively. 

 

I'm interested in your opinion though. How many of the players who are out of contract in 2020 are ones who are impacting on our cap decisions right now?

[aaron11]

the 4 year cap period is 2017,18,19, and 20

 

i hope there is a good class of free agents next year when we have to spend this money or lose it to the players association for nothing.  i know they will spend it, but i dont see any good reason to waste a year of lucks prime.  we cant even hold it long enough to pay our most important young players

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

the 4 year cap period is 2017,18,19, and 20

 

i hope there is a good class of free agents next year when we have to spend this money or lose it to the players association for nothing.  i know they will spend it, but i dont see any good reason to waste a year of lucks prime.  we cant even hold it long enough to pay our most important young players

How do you know if will be a wasted year of lucks prime. We were two games away  from the SB. Who is to say this team doesn’t mature enough and the couple additions we get doesn’t get us there in the next season.

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

6 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

Fair question. I don't care to argue with you about what each players value is.

That is pointless. Kelly's 5th year goes to $10m+ after THIS season. 

 And Ballard will roll over as much as possible each season so he can re-sign Luck, Nelson, Leonard, and all the rest of the best of his players we develop. 

You just as well get used to it.

 

Yeah, unless the team never really progresses, and we're stuck in neutral...essentially the current Notre Dame regime under Brian Kelly.

[Four2itus]

23 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

How do you know if will be a wasted year of lucks prime. We were two games away  from the SB. Who is to say this team doesn’t mature enough and the couple additions we get doesn’t get us there in the next season.

And..... Ballard said, "It's never about one guy".

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Paying a safety 84m is not going  to get you to a SB. The only type of FA that Ballard might spend that money on is a elite pass rusher. But they never get to FA because they are rare and teams don’t let them go.

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

1 hour ago, Four2itus said:

I saw that coming last season. 2 rookies on the o-line, Leonard....and the Chiefs had a week of rest. Recipe for just what happened. Overreacting and grabbing FA's as if we need to catch the Chiefs is shortsighted and misinformed thinking in my opinion. 

 

Yeah, they probably need to catch the Chiefs. Their all-world QB is 17 (exaggeration, some ppl can't tell) and gonna be around for a while, and he's pretty good at football. Our QB is essentially 30, and management is in no hurry to give him the weapons necessary to advance any further. We're dead set on resigning the guys that we nail in the draft...well, what if he doesn't nail the draft this year, picking from a more leveraged position? Then who are you resigning? You essentially lose a year or more inside of Andrew's seemingly short window. It's a risky proposition being this conservative, equally risky to being aggressive. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

I'm not sure it's just about overspending the cap space money (though that is likely a decent part).  I think it is also not being able to interview a guy they may not know much about, and they can't make a mistake and bring in a mega dollar guy that topples the locker room apple cart they are trying to build.  I absolutely remember Chris Ballard as saying at one time that the Colts would not sign any FA until he also had an interview, including one with Brian Decker (and his approval).  So that may be as much about our status as anything.

 

As far as these major contracts, I think most (except Trey Flowers deal) have no guaranteed money after two years. So teams can bail if necessary. How convenient, as the CBA lapses in 2 years and there will be a lockout/strike.

[GoColts00]

6 hours ago, pacolts56 said:

Lemme see if I get this straight....

 

Give Luck an extension and SOMEHOW draft Trevor Lawrence?... and THEN trade what would be a 31 year old Andrew Luck for draft picks?

 

Setting aside that trading Luck is a really bad idea.... would you care to elaborate on the scenario that gives us any shot at drafting Trevor Lawrence if he continues on his current trajectory and the Colts continue on theirs?

Yeah, giving Luck an extension early but trading him before the end of that extension. We would probably need to send our round one draft pick in 2021 to another team like the Saints. After Drew Brees retires that team will tank. That would give us a Top-10 pick. Trevor Lawrence has already said that he would be in college for 4 years so he would enter the 2022 NFL draft. We then trade Luck to some team for several first round and second round picks. We then use Rd 1 picks to take T. Lawrence #1 overall and the rest to the team is already built.

[shasta519]

2 hours ago, threeflight said:

I am beginning to think this may play more into it than I originally thought.

 

Kind of like the Orioles for so many years.  Not the richest owner so they normally didn't spend much for FA's and let their best players like Machado go.

 

I think it definitely needs to be asked by the media...but that's not how they operate...they carry water for the Colts more than anything.

 

In three offseasons...the Colts have yet to give out a big signing bonus amd don't give out big contracts with much gtd money. To date...I believe the largest gtd money was $12.5M to Sheard...back in Ballard's first year. Given the salary cap increases...that's pretty crazy.

 

Ballard definitely has a disciplined approach...but there could be more to it. Teams don't intentionally not spend money if they can.

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

2 minutes ago, GoColts00 said:

Yeah, giving luck and extension but trading him before the end of that extension. We would probably need to send our round one draft pick in 2021 to another team like the Saints. After Drew Brees retires that team will tank. Trevor Lawrence has already said that he would be in college for 4 years so he would enter the 2022 NFL draft. We then trade Luck to some team for several first round and second round picks.

 

Trevor Lawrence has played one year in college football and people are acting like he's Joe Montana lol...the kid still has a looong way to go before any team should start tanking for him. 

[GoColts00]

1 minute ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

Trevor Lawrence has played one year in college football and people are acting like he's Joe Montana lol...the kid still has a looong way to go before any team should start tanking for him. 

I never said we should tank for him.

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

1 minute ago, GoColts00 said:

I never said we should tank for him.

 

What makes him any better than say Justin Herbert, who's coming out next year? The thing is, players collegiate games don't always translate to the NFL, it's been that way forever. Remember Ryan Leaf? The only reason anyone does is because of Peyton. There's been too many to list that have flamed out after being touted the next big thing. 

[GoColts00]

1 minute ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

What makes him any better than say Justin Herbert, who's coming out next year? The thing is, players collegiate games don't always translate to the NFL, it's been that way forever. Remember Ryan Leaf? The only reason anyone does is because of Peyton. There's been too many to list that have flamed out after being touted the next big thing. 

Well I have listened to Trevor Lawrence speak to the media and he has a good head on his shoulders. He studies film already just like Manning and Brady. He said that he would be in college for four years and I believe that is coming from his parents. It's my opinion that Trevor Lawrence is already better than Ryan Leaf ever was and I believe he is on par with Peyton Manning in college, maybe better.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Exactly, I saw it too.  So notable excerpts-

 

"Do NFL teams improve after signing top free agents?

 ...On average, they ended up winning almost exactly the same number of games.

If you include all top-ten free agents, there’s a little upward blip, amounting to something like .1 additional wins, but again that is basically nothing. Even if you look across two years, on the assumption that perhaps it takes some time for new players to have their biggest impact, there are no real gains."

 

How about losing a big name player to free agency?

 

"On average, teams that watched top-ten free agents stride off for new pastures dropped an additional half-game the following year. That’s quite high, given that those very same players seem to have a much smaller impact on their new teams."

 

"A possible explanation is that the free agents really were more valuable to the teams they left behind. That’s because they were getting paid less. Often, the teams that lose top free agents have been underpaying them, but getting their full talent — and value like that is hard to come by."

 

My take, don't do a Baltimore and CJ Mosley.  If a Mosley type player is going to be valuable to you, you extend him well before the contract ends.  You also will probably get a little hometown discount when said and done.  But if you don't do this, and your player gets into the last year of his deal, they won't be bothered by negotiations in season.  At years end, they will 'test the market' and a feeding frenzy will probably drive the price up too high to get him back on the roster.  IMO, you do an extension a little too early rather than a little too late.

 

Well that is a Boston Globe article. But NE won a Super Bowl after signing Revis and went to the Super Bowl the year they signed Gilmore.

 

And that data is from 2015...since then both ATL and the LAR were aggressive in FA prior to getting to the Super Bowl.

 

And DEN signed multiple FAs and got to the Super Bowl twice years ago.

 

I would be interested to see exactly which FAs he used to calculate the wins. I highly doubt Ed Reed (an example in the article) qualified at $5M.

 

I think there is definitely a balance to be struck. Established talent has value. I don't think the goal is to win with the most efficient roster...unless your owner is cheap. But given the value of NFL franchises, none of them should be crying poor. The Colts are worth $2.4B...and that's not even top 20 (according to Forbes).

[Peterk2011]

2 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

How many of them are crucial and in line for a significant increase? 

 

Doesn't matter. They are contributing, and if they won't bring one player back, they will need to sign someone. And that player has to be at least as good as the one who has gone, and as cheap as he was to be financially where they were this year.

 

Regarding the cap space, please don't be fooled by the numbers floating around. It is SOOO misleading. The Colts are in great shape cap wise, but please, forget that 100 million, or 70 million or whatever it is. It cannot be converted to contract yearly averages, as I believe many people think. You CAN NOT sign 10 players for 10 millions each from that 100 million, because much of it is a rolled over money. Not "real", recurring cap space. You cannot make multi year deals spending rolled over money, because you won't be able to pay the bill next year. The Colts, at the moment have 74 million cap space on paper, but 49.1 million of it rolled over money. They saved this from not spending in previous years. The "real" cap space is around 25-26 millións. (The total amount of current active contracts is around 162 mills, and the cap is 189 mills. Do the math.)

 

Of course the Colts COULD go over the 189 million cap and spend some of that rolled over money if they wanted to. But that is not recurring money. If they sign a multi year contract having been already OVER the 189 million (lets assume it hypotetically, that they go over it), then they cannot pay the second (third, etc.) year of the contract, because the rollover money will not regenerate. Of course there's a possibility, that they still can pay the player, if, in the next year, the total of the contracts will be less / won't reach the cap, so the extra players salary will fit under it. But that is unlikely in the Colts case, because the Colts current roster is financially extremely well managed. There is virtually no player on the roster, who is under-performing (earning significantly more than his production). Actually, just the opposite, there are a lot of players, who earn less than their production, because the team is young. And still, the Colts are only 26 mills under the "real" cap already.

 

So, next year, if someone becomes a FA and his salary comes off of the table, the Colts will need to replace that player. And because that player's salary was a very team friendly amount, the Colts will have to replace that contract with a similarly cheap, excellent contract, to keep their total spending at the same level where it was a year before. (The cap will go up a bit,  but the prices will inflate as well.) Anything over that, will increase the total spending.

 

What's Ballard been preaching about ever since he signed his contract in Indy? We wants to build a quality roster that is sustainable for the long term. What does it mean? Financially, it means, staying always UNDER the REAL cap. Save the roll over. Save it, and use it wisely occasionally, for moves, which have only ONE YEAR affect. Like extending with Luck and FRONT loading his new contract, so his cap hit will be very modest in his 2nd to Xth years. Or sign an elite veteran for one year, when the team is that one player away from being a strong SB contender. Like what Belichick did by signing Revis for one year, or Talib for one year. What the Colts CANNOT do is to go out and grab a top FA for multi year contracts for crazy, inflated price and pay him from the roll over. That is recipe for failure.

 

So, rather than staring at that 70 ish, think about the 25-28 that the Colts have under the real cap. That's the money Ballard is willing to spend this offseason. Including the draft, which will cost cca 8 mills. So that 25 is rather 17-18 or something like that. 

[Lawrence Owen]

This offseason just started. No need to worry about what hasn't happened, when we still have tons of time.  Kelly and Heag can be extended right now if Ballard wants to.  And next year Hooker, Wilson, Mack, Hairston, and Walker can all be extended if he chooses.  There are places to spend the excess cap spend min to help get to the 89% average.

But Ballard will get guys like he did last year.  Scheme fit guys that are locker room friendly, but not going to break the bank.It's about building something that can be nearly completely refreshed with future drafts, as we loose players, not filling holes for now.  It is a system that is proven to work with teams that draft well.  Ballard does that.  He's not changing his system just because there is excess $$.  It's not being cheap, it's being smart within the system.

[shasta519]

40 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

Yeah, they probably need to catch the Chiefs. Their all-world QB is 17 (exaggeration, some ppl can't tell) and gonna be around for a while, and he's pretty good at football. Our QB is essentially 30, and management is in no hurry to give him the weapons necessary to advance any further. We're dead set on resigning the guys that we nail in the draft...well, what if he doesn't nail the draft this year, picking from a more leveraged position? Then who are you resigning? You essentially lose a year or more inside of Andrew's seemingly short window. It's a risky proposition being this conservative, equally risky to being aggressive. 

 

Yep...the goal is to be able to beat the best teams. That's how you get to the Super Bowl. Plus the Colts need to be able to get home field...this is even a stated goal from Ballard. 

 

Don't need all the FAs...but some outside additions via FA and trades would help. 

[pacolts56]

22 minutes ago, GoColts00 said:

Yeah, giving Luck an extension early but trading him before the end of that extension. We would probably need to send our round one draft pick in 2021 to another team like the Saints. After Drew Brees retires that team will tank. That would give us a Top-10 pick. Trevor Lawrence has already said that he would be in college for 4 years so he would enter the 2022 NFL draft. We then trade Luck to some team for several first round and second round picks. We then use Rd 1 picks to take T. Lawrence #1 overall and the rest to the team is already built.

If Luck is worth that level of draft compensation at only 31 years of age.... why on earth would you trade him? 

[SouthernIndianaNDFan]

3 minutes ago, pacolts56 said:

If Luck is worth that level of draft compensation at only 31 years of age.... why on earth would you trade him? 

 

I'm not a proponent of trading Luck...at all, but to assume just because Brady and Brees are gonna play til they're 73, that everyone fits that mold, is a line of thinking that will have you at the bottom of the league. Luck has already suffered a major injury, and it's the NFL. I think we'll be really Luck-y if he plays elite football into his mid 30's. This is why I'm confused at the lack of urgency from upper management. Why not give him some tools to succeed now, take a shot? You don't have to be the Browns and shoot for the moon, but heck, sign somebody other than Devin Funchess! 

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

Just a little statistic for people that wanted Williams instead of Funchess. Williams has only 300 more career yards then Funchess. Funchess actually has more TD. They are basically the same player. Funchess is two years younger then Williams with much more upside. We will get there with this team. Have some patience. I will laugh if we go to the SB at all of you wanting to overpay for all these FA.

 

They are not basically the same player. Come on. 

 

(And for the record...I didn't really want Williams on a big contract).

[pacolts56]

12 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

 

I'm not a proponent of trading Luck...at all, but to assume just because Brady and Brees are gonna play til they're 73, that everyone fits that mold, is a line of thinking that will have you at the bottom of the league. Luck has already suffered a major injury, and it's the NFL. I think we'll be really Luck-y if he plays elite football into his mid 30's. 

So did Brees.... when he ran off the field after what would be his last play as a Charger... his arm looked like Mr. Potatohead’s arm turned backwards.

 

I’m not assuming anything.... I’m just not understanding that if Luck could command several 1st and 2nd round picks at 31 years of age.... why we’d want to trade him as GoColts was proposing.

 

That is 2 years from now and very likely correlates with the larger part of this roster hitting its prime.

 

Thats not something I would gamble for an unknown commodity.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

10 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

They are not basically the same player. Come on. 

 

(And for the record...I didn't really want Williams on a big contract).

There statistics are almost identical. They came  into the league at the same time. But funchess was only 20. He has more receptions then Williams and more touchdowns. Williams has a little more yards and a slightly higher YPC. But they have almost the same statistics over their four year career. Plus they are the same height.

 

Everyone is just mad because we didn’t sign AB.  If you follow the colts you would of known that wasn’t going to happen.

[#12.]

6 hours ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

In still not sure why some of you wanted to pay some of the players what they got the contracts were ridiculous. Some of them are good but had clear faults gets still made more than most at their positions. I'm very happy Ballard didnt pay Mosley his stupid contract same with Collins and I loved him and wanted him more than anyone. 

 

We were unlucky with Collins, going up against Dan Snyder, who doesn't lose bidding wars.  Didn't help that he idolized Sean Taylor either.

 

I wasn't big on Flowers, but knowing what I know now, I wish we would have paid him.  Gotta try something.

[Hoo-Hoo-Hoo-Hoosiers]

I get the approach, build through the draft and pay your own; however, I cant help but think that Polian used this approach and it resulted in a LOT of really good regular seasons, A fair amount of early exits from the playoffs and only 1 superbowl.  Probably not an apples-to-apples comparison but it’s where my head goes.  I hope to see a little more flexibilty from CB in this and all FA periods than we saw from ‘98-‘11.  I believe Two or three above average signings this year (and every year) would Allow us to sustain and build the momentum that was started last season.

[shasta519]

15 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

There statistics are almost identical. They came  into the league at the same time. But funchess was only 20. He has more receptions then Williams and more touchdowns. Williams has a little more yards and a slightly higher YPC. But they have almost the same statistics over their four year career. Plus they are the same height.

 

Everyone is just mad because we didn’t sign AB.  If you follow the colts you would of known that wasn’t going to happen.

 

What does AB have to do with it?

 

Looking at their yards and TDs oversimplifies they type of players they are and how they would fit the offense.

 

[ClaytonColt]

46 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Doesn't matter. They are contributing, and if they won't bring one player back, they will need to sign someone. And that player has to be at least as good as the one who has gone, and as cheap as he was to be financially where they were this year.

 

Regarding the cap space, please don't be fooled by the numbers floating around. It is SOOO misleading. The Colts are in great shape cap wise, but please, forget that 100 million, or 70 million or whatever it is. It cannot be converted to contract yearly averages, as I believe many people think. You CAN NOT sign 10 players for 10 millions each from that 100 million, because much of it is a rolled over money. Not "real", recurring cap space. You cannot make multi year deals spending rolled over money, because you won't be able to pay the bill next year. The Colts, at the moment have 74 million cap space on paper, but 49.1 million of it rolled over money. They saved this from not spending in previous years. The "real" cap space is around 25-26 millións. (The total amount of current active contracts is around 162 mills, and the cap is 189 mills. Do the math.)

 

Of course the Colts COULD go over the 189 million cap and spend some of that rolled over money if they wanted to. But that is not recurring money. If they sign a multi year contract having been already OVER the 189 million (lets assume it hypotetically, that they go over it), then they cannot pay the second (third, etc.) year of the contract, because the rollover money will not regenerate. Of course there's a possibility, that they still can pay the player, if, in the next year, the total of the contracts will be less / won't reach the cap, so the extra players salary will fit under it. But that is unlikely in the Colts case, because the Colts current roster is financially extremely well managed. There is virtually no player on the roster, who is under-performing (earning significantly more than his production). Actually, just the opposite, there are a lot of players, who earn less than their production, because the team is young. And still, the Colts are only 26 mills under the "real" cap already.

 

So, next year, if someone becomes a FA and his salary comes off of the table, the Colts will need to replace that player. And because that player's salary was a very team friendly amount, the Colts will have to replace that contract with a similarly cheap, excellent contract, to keep their total spending at the same level where it was a year before. (The cap will go up a bit,  but the prices will inflate as well.) Anything over that, will increase the total spending.

 

What's Ballard been preaching about ever since he signed his contract in Indy? We wants to build a quality roster that is sustainable for the long term. What does it mean? Financially, it means, staying always UNDER the REAL cap. Save the roll over. Save it, and use it wisely occasionally, for moves, which have only ONE YEAR affect. Like extending with Luck and FRONT loading his new contract, so his cap hit will be very modest in his 2nd to Xth years. Or sign an elite veteran for one year, when the team is that one player away from being a strong SB contender. Like what Belichick did by signing Revis for one year, or Talib for one year. What the Colts CANNOT do is to go out and grab a top FA for multi year contracts for crazy, inflated price and pay him from the roll over. That is recipe for failure.

 

So, rather than staring at that 70 ish, think about the 25-28 that the Colts have under the real cap. That's the money Ballard is willing to spend this offseason. Including the draft, which will cost cca 8 mills. So that 25 is rather 17-18 or something like that. 

They are contributing but they're mediocre players who won't be eating into the cap space if and when they get renewed.

 

Your point would be excellent if anybody was suggesting that we should sign 10 players for $10m each. However nobody has said that.

 

We could quite feasibly have signed two top class players for a combined $35m and fit well below the salary cap for the duration of their contract.