Improved or status Q ?

[NewColtsFan]

17 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

There's no point having interest if you fundamentally won't pay the going rate. Prices are crazy and it isn't going to change going forward.

 

Nobody wants bad long term contracts on the books but to me you don't measure the success of a contract on whether you saved a million or two. The success of a contract is surely whether you got a high level of play from the player involved and success during that period.

 

The going rate doesn't necessarily mean money well spent.  

 

As Ballard himself has noted all three years he's been here...   teams that "win March" typically don't do well in September, October,  November and December.     And that's not an opinion.   It's a statistical fact.    I think some poster linked an article to back that up in this thread.    This is not a new view.    

 

Ballard can take a slow and go approach because he's got the backing of his boss,  Jim Irsay.   It may drive some fans crazy,   but this is his approach and he's had success.    I suspect a year from now Ballard will be somewhat more aggressive toward FA.    But I'd never expect him to win some crazy bidding war.

 

[crazycolt1]

35 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

There's no point having interest if you fundamentally won't pay the going rate. Prices are crazy and it isn't going to change going forward.

 

Nobody wants bad long term contracts on the books but to me you don't measure the success of a contract on whether you saved a million or two. The success of a contract is surely whether you got a high level of play from the player involved and success during that period.

Ballard's going rate is not what other GMs are. 

Over and over Ballard has said what he will do, won't do and his approach on what he is doing.

We can all agree or disagree but in the end it will not effect Ballard one bit.

 

[WoolMagnet]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

 so smoking a little weed is a locker room problem now? he had a 3 game suspension 4 years ago, no big deal

Seriously?

I have no problem if he "smokes a little weed" unless i am his coach, gm, owner, and teammates.  A VERY large investment is made in these guys.  If i'm bringing a guy in , "smoking a little weed" and getting suspended is a pretty big deal, past or not.  And if you think he didnt "party" a little in the last year, you are being naive or argumentative.  

  I want guys in MY locker room who can exhibit some self-control and wait until retirement (not far away) , when you will have a boatload of cash to smoke all the weed you want.  And then, you wont hurt your team.  Selfish.  Its not the weed, per say, its the poor d cosion making and immaturity.  I dont think he's a bad guy because of it, just short-sighted and all about self. We dont need any of that around here.  

  Just my opinions.

[threeflight]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Ballard's going rate is not what other GMs are. 

Over and over Ballard has said what he will do, won't do and his approach on what he is doing.

We can all agree or disagree but in the end it will not effect Ballard one bit.

 

I totally agree with this.

 

That is EXACTLY what Ballard says.

 

That doesn't make him right.

 

I could say as my mantra that I am going to kill xxx's first born....and again just because I say it, a 1000 or a millions times, with conviction, doesn't make it right.

 

I am a big believer that people these days are so used to being hoodwinked and F'd over and just out and out scammed, that if someone like Ballard comes along, who seems so sincere and righteous, that no matter what he says...people will believe it.

 

And again....that doesn't make him right.

[WoolMagnet]

33 minutes ago, threeflight said:

I totally agree with this.

 

That is EXACTLY what Ballard says.

 

That doesn't make him right.

 

I could say as my mantra that I am going to kill xxx's first born....and again just because I say it, a 1000 or a millions times, with conviction, doesn't make it right.

 

I am a big believer that people these days are so used to being hoodwinked and F'd over and just out and out scammed, that if someone like Ballard comes along, who seems so sincere and righteous, that no matter what he says...people will believe it.

 

And again....that doesn't make him right.

Glass half-full or empty.

you say it doesnt make him right, i say it doesnt make him wrong.  We are saying EXACTLY the same thing really, just a diffrrent perspective.

  Beyond that, our young guys (you know the ones surprising everyone like our 2 rookie all-pros?  Well, soon they, and Kelly, and Ebron, etc will be FA.  I'd like to be able to keep these guys, preferably by extensions before they are FA.  With Ballards approach, we can do this.  If i'm spending on long-term contracts, i prefer them on players i've been around daily and know as well as my own kids. I know their strengths and weaknesses and their fit.  Continuity and true team-thinking is critical.  

  The more you look at both sides of the "FA spending spree" and analyze past outcomes, the more it seems almost common sense.

 

  

[Peterk2011]

10 hours ago, ClaytonColt said:

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. 

 

Kelly, Castonzo, Ebron, Doyle, Sheard are not mediocre players. They WILL be eating into the cap space, if renewed. These 5 alone will cost probably 15 to 20 millions MORE if resigned or replaced. Especially, if replaced, considering the sky rocketing FA prices. Kelly will cost 10 more alone. Castonzo won't be cheaper, even at 32, Ebron will probably be more expensive to keep, Sheard played like a 12-14 mills edge rusher so far, not a 7-8 that he gets, etc.

 

And there will be mediocre players like Haeg, Clark, Farley, etc. who the Colts might decide to keep, and will cost 2-3-4 each to retain. Not to mention Funches, who, if will stay, will mean he was good and will probably get more than his 7+3+3 now.

 

My point is, that the Colts are now more or less have the roster from top to bottom who they like. It's not a finished product - it will never be -, but Ballard will probably keep resigning more and more of his own players. Last year, he barely signed any one except Vinatieri. This year, he brought back Desir, Glowinski, Hunt, Vinatieri, and tendered Boehm, Farley, Chester Rogers. These 7 players costed cca. a combined 25 million more than their previous salary. And these are all more or less fit in your "mediocre" category. Next year, there will be better and more important players to resign. Numbers add up quickly.

 

(I'm not arguing that Ballard has the leverage to sign 2 top class free agents for combined 35. He does. I was trying to say, that that is probably the farthest he will go ever, and he will very carefully select who he will spend that money on. If he thinks the player's price is over his value, or if he thinks the player is not 100% fit, he'll pass on.)

[threeflight]

10 minutes ago, WoolMagnet said:

Glass half-full or empty.

you say it doesnt make him right, i say it doesnt make him wrong.  We are saying EXACTLY the same thing really, just a diffrrent perspective.

  Beyond excited hat, our young guys (you know the ones surprising everyone like our 2 rookie all-pros?  Well, soon they, and Kelly, and Ebron, etc will be FA.  I'd like to be able to keep these guys, preferably by extensions before they are FA.  With Ballards approach, we can do this.  If i'm spending on long-term contracts, i prefer them on players i've been around daily and know as well as my own kids. I know their strengths and weaknesses and their fit.  Continuity and true team-thinking is critical.  

  The more you look at both sides of the "FA spending spree" and analyze past outcomes, the more it seems almost common sense.

 

  

Just understand that I am a big fan of Bill Polian and the job he did as GM, along with guys like Teddy M. and Tony D and even Jim M as coach.

 

I am not all about spending money willy nilly.

 

But when I see an opp to spend a little cash, not a ton but enough, to really say "we feel as good as anyone about winning the SB"?  Compared to we just hope to get in the playoffs?  

 

And then we don't do it?

 

I think it is a huge opp lost.

 

That is why I get the holier than thou "awww shucks" vibe from CB.  He doesn't come across as a showman....but he is.

 

One never knows what will happen in 2 years as far as who we have as a team.

 

I do have reasonable guess as to what our team will be this year.

[NewColtsFan]

14 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

Kelly, Castonzo, Ebron, Doyle, Sheard are not mediocre players. They WILL be eating into the cap space, if renewed. These 5 alone will cost probably 15 to 20 millions MORE if resigned or replaced. Especially, if replaced, considering the sky rocketing FA prices. Kelly will cost 10 more alone. Castonzo won't be cheaper, even at 32, Ebron will probably be more expensive to keep, Sheard played like a 12-14 mills edge rusher so far, not a 7-8 that he gets, etc.

 

And there will be mediocre players like Haeg, Clark, Farley, etc. who the Colts might decide to keep, and will cost 2-3-4 each to retain. Not to mention Funches, who, if will stay, will mean he was good and will probably get more than his 7+3+3 now.

 

My point is, that the Colts are now more or less have the roster from top to bottom who they like. It's not a finished product - it will never be -, but Ballard will probably keep resigning more and more of his own players. Last year, he barely signed any one except Vinatieri. This year, he brought back Desir, Glowinski, Hunt, Vinatieri, and tendered Boehm, Farley, Chester Rogers. These 7 players costed cca. a combined 25 million more than their previous salary. And these are all more or less fit in your "mediocre" category. Next year, there will be better and more important players to resign. Numbers add up quickly.

 

(I'm not arguing that Ballard has the leverage to sign 2 top class free agents for combined 35. He does. I was trying to say, that that is probably the farthest he will go ever, and he will very carefully select who he will spend that money on. If he thinks the player's price is over his value, or if he thinks the player is not 100% fit, he'll pass on.)

 

Mediocre?

 

No.   Not even.

 

I don’t know where this stuff comes from?

 

[Peterk2011]

11 hours 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, and when Lawrence decides to declare for the draft, there will be one draft pick, that will be untradeable. The 1/1. Whoever will have that pick, will keep that pick. Just like in 2011 when Luck declared. Even Grigson, who made plenty of ***** decision, would've never traded the 1/1 away regardless of who and how much would've offered.

 

So, if Luck will be healthy and with the Colts, and the Colts will still have Ballard - who is not a complete * -, forget about that 1/1. They will never get it. Neither for Luck, nor for offering 10 first round picks or whatever. It won't happen.

[NewColtsFan]

54 minutes ago, threeflight said:

I totally agree with this.

 

That is EXACTLY what Ballard says.

 

That doesn't make him right.

 

I could say as my mantra that I am going to kill xxx's first born....and again just because I say it, a 1000 or a millions times, with conviction, doesn't make it right.

 

I am a big believer that people these days are so used to being hoodwinked and F'd over and just out and out scammed, that if someone like Ballard comes along, who seems so sincere and righteous, that no matter what he says...people will believe it.

 

And again....that doesn't make him right.

 

You know what makes him right?

 

Taking a team with a question mark on Andrew Luck and a bunch of nobody’s and going 10-6 and winning a playoff game in their first year under a new coach.

 

That’s what makes him right.

 

People hoodwinked?   Like you’re smarter than they are?   They believe in 10-6.    You clearly don’t.   You’re out to prove that you’re smarter than everyone else.  

 

Well...    you’re still wrong.   And at least it’s out in the open for all to see.

 

[ClaytonColt]

10 minutes ago, Peterk2011 said:

Kelly, Castonzo, Ebron, Doyle, Sheard are not mediocre players. They WILL be eating into the cap space, if renewed. These 5 alone will cost probably 15 to 20 millions MORE if resigned or replaced. Especially, if replaced, considering the sky rocketing FA prices. Kelly will cost 10 more alone. Castonzo won't be cheaper, even at 32, Ebron will probably be more expensive to keep, Sheard played like a 12-14 mills edge rusher so far, not a 7-8 that he gets, etc.

Appreciated all of your response but just found this bit interesting.

 

I completely agree with your analysis of those 5 being $20m more expensive as a group next year. I personally doubt Sheard gets resigned though and certainly not at $14m for a pretty solid 31 year old 6 sack guy. I hope that Turay, Lewis and whoever else we draft this year have made Sheard expendable at that time and cost.

 

So we extend the other 4 and lose Sheard. Considering the overall salary cap probably goes up by $8-$10m again we're likely to be in an even better situation rather than worse if the status quo is kept.

 

Completely agree that Ballard is going to be selective. I'm just hoping that he's not being overly tight when it comes to the right guys. I have doubts based on how it's played out for the 2 years so far but the results he got out of Ebron and Autry definitely wins him the benefit of the doubt. Just hope he can repeat it.

[Peterk2011]

1 minute ago, ClaytonColt said:

Appreciated all of your response but just found this bit interesting.

 

I completely agree with your analysis of those 5 being $20m more expensive as a group next year. I personally doubt Sheard gets resigned though and certainly not at $14m for a pretty solid 31 year old 6 sack guy. I hope that Turay, Lewis and whoever else we draft this year have made Sheard expendable at that time and cost.

 

So we extend the other 4 and lose Sheard. Considering the overall salary cap probably goes up by $8-$10m again we're likely to be in an even better situation rather than worse if the status quo is kept.

 

Completely agree that Ballard is going to be selective. I'm just hoping that he's not being overly tight when it comes to the right guys. I have doubts based on how it's played out for the 2 years so far but the results he got out of Ebron and Autry definitely wins him the benefit of the doubt. Just hope he can repeat it.

 

I agree with you. The plan is probably let Sheard go and have Lewis (or someone drafted this year) step in his role. Of course it depend on how Lewis and Turay will develop. And, Ballard is very high on Sheard. He mentioned him plenty of times as a cornerstone in the locker room as well. So I don't rule out that he'll bring him back for another short term deal. (I believe he is better than a "6 sack guy". His sack numbers never were in the 10+ range, but neither Flowerses. Or, in most of his carreer Calais Cambell's neither. Interestingly, Campbell's sack numbers increased over time, and his best came at age 30+. So as a rusher, a 31 years old guy is not necessary old. They still can play at high level, if healthy. And Sheard is healthy.)

 

However, I can see he'll let Doyle go. Maybe even Kelly, if he thinks Boehm is ready to take over the starting role.

 

As a thumb rule, his plan is obviously to keep developing successors and eventually replace aging guys.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, threeflight said:

I totally agree with this.

 

That is EXACTLY what Ballard says.

 

That doesn't make him right.

 

I could say as my mantra that I am going to kill xxx's first born....and again just because I say it, a 1000 or a millions times, with conviction, doesn't make it right.

 

I am a big believer that people these days are so used to being hoodwinked and F'd over and just out and out scammed, that if someone like Ballard comes along, who seems so sincere and righteous, that no matter what he says...people will believe it.

 

And again....that doesn't make him right.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

1 hour ago, WoolMagnet said:

Glass half-full or empty.

you say it doesnt make him right, i say it doesnt make him wrong.  We are saying EXACTLY the same thing really, just a diffrrent perspective.

  Beyond that, our young guys (you know the ones surprising everyone like our 2 rookie all-pros?  Well, soon they, and Kelly, and Ebron, etc will be FA.  I'd like to be able to keep these guys, preferably by extensions before they are FA.  With Ballards approach, we can do this.  If i'm spending on long-term contracts, i prefer them on players i've been around daily and know as well as my own kids. I know their strengths and weaknesses and their fit.  Continuity and true team-thinking is critical.  

  The more you look at both sides of the "FA spending spree" and analyze past outcomes, the more it seems almost common sense.

 

  

 

Soon? Soon?

 

I thought 1st rounders & 2nd rounders had 4 & 3 year rookie contracts, or is it 5 & 4 ? 

 

Nelson & Leonard are atleast 3 & 2 years away from them hitting FA. Lol.

[WoolMagnet]

2 hours ago, threeflight said:

Just understand that I am a big fan of Bill Polian and the job he did as GM, along with guys like Teddy M. and Tony D and even Jim M as coach.

 

I am not all about spending money willy nilly.

 

But when I see an opp to spend a little cash, not a ton but enough, to really say "we feel as good as anyone about winning the SB"?  Compared to we just hope to get in the playoffs?  

 

And then we don't do it?

 

I think it is a huge opp lost.

 

That is why I get the holier than thou "awww shucks" vibe from CB.  He doesn't come across as a showman....but he is.

 

One never knows what will happen in 2 years as far as who we have as a team.

 

I do have reasonable guess as to what our team will be this year.

I agree with you 100% mostly.  But i have really bought more into this approach the more i like it.

  I am ALL for spending all our cap money if that is what is best for the LONGEVITY of the team.  We have repeatedly seen teams "1 player away" go all in.  Heck you could argue we did it the Gore, Johnson year.  I really cant remember that working out for a team....like ever.  And we  arent even 3 or 4 players away really.  We've seen it here time and again.  Paid too much, player didnt live up to contract, he's let go and we gave dead space.

  I really like Ballard doing 1 year deals to plug holes while he signs his own and builds thru the draft.  If we can just be patient thru this and next draft, i think the REAL fun will start in the 2020 season.  I fully expect MOST of these "day 1 , big name FAs" will underperform expectations.  Its gard enough to stay at that level remaing comfortable with the same team.

  We all gave opinions, and right or wrong isn't static, but rather a gray atea of endless variables and possibilities in this case.

  I would love for someone to look into the last 10 years or so of 1st day, big name signees and the level of productivity afterward vs previous team, and whether they lasted entite contract.

 

 

[WoolMagnet]

54 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Soon? Soon?

 

I thought 1st rounders & 2nd rounders had 4 & 3 year rookie contracts, or is it 5 & 4 ? 

 

Nelson & Leonard are atleast 3 & 2 years away from them hitting FA. Lol.

I am fully aware.  I think you understand my point, just trying to be "smart".

My point is to pay and keep our young, improving players who will stack up every year as FAs if you are (as Ballard is) building from the draft:  This is why teams lose their best players in FA. Usually.  Because they paid too much to overpriced, underperforming FAs.  If you are properly Drafting and building from within (primarily), the cap is sufficient to sign draft picks, re-sign and/or extend contracts of your 4 or 6!developed players you wanna keep, and fill gaps with FAs that make sense financially.  Will it work?  Who knows, but it makes alot more sense than putting your team in that kind of risk, imo.

 

  

[GoColts00]

4 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

If, and when Lawrence decides to declare for the draft, there will be one draft pick, that will be untradeable. The 1/1. Whoever will have that pick, will keep that pick. Just like in 2011 when Luck declared. Even Grigson, who made plenty of ***** decision, would've never traded the 1/1 away regardless of who and how much would've offered.

 

So, if Luck will be healthy and with the Colts, and the Colts will still have Ballard - who is not a complete * -, forget about that 1/1. They will never get it. Neither for Luck, nor for offering 10 first round picks or whatever. It won't happen.

Idk if any pick is untradeable, but that 1/1 will be close to it. Ballard is a great GM who runs this business as a business and doesn't let emotions get in the way. My idea of trying to acquire Trevor and subsequently trade Andrew is Not popular. It's just my idea for the betterment of this business without emotions getting involved. I like Andrew. He's a great QB and a quirky, somewhat goofy nerd. I enjoy that about him also. 

Trying to get Trevor would take some serious planning. Whether Ballard would want to go that route...idk. 

[Yoshinator]

What's going to determine if Ballard's "approach" is smart, is if he can hit on later picks in rounds of the draft consistently. He did it wonderfully with the 3rd pick, now he has the 26th pick and we'll be picking in the 20's regularly. Can't wait to see Ballard's approach. This draft will play a big part in determining if we can trust his ''building through the draft" mantra going forward, as picking late should be the new norm from now on.

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 3/16/2019 at 12:06 PM, DougDew said:

I'm not criticizing Funchess.  I've never watched him much.  I'm going with what others have observed and saying that there is no reason he will change just because the Colts coaching staff will now coach him to not catch with his body.  I'm sure he's been coached to not do that his entire career, and yet he does (if what others say are true).

 

He doesn't always use his body. 

 

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2019/3/12/18260983/film-room-what-does-new-colts-receiver-devin-funchess-bring-to-the-team

 

It's just that the drops seem to come when he does, that I've seen.

 

13 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think Ballard had in an interest in some of the top names...

 

We were linked to Collins, Pr. Smith, and Ty Williams.     All big names who got 8-figure contracts.

 

But when the prices soared,  Ballard stepped out.     That's his way.

 

There was a LOT of money to spend in FA by most of the teams.   Prices got crazy.    That's when Ballard's discipline takes over.    He's only willing to go so far.

 

 I think that is fairly accurate.

 

Quote

Ballard does not want a bad long-term contract on the books.     You can make a case that we overpaid for Funchess.    But at least it's only 1-year.    Little damage done.

 

 

10 million for him can't be graded until seasons end.  If he earns the extra 3 million incentives, then he was worth all 13 million as far as Colts F.O. goes.

 

10 hours ago, threeflight said:

{snip}

That doesn't make him right.

 

You go by what a person produces, not just says.  Until they prove otherwise, I'll give benefit of the doubt.

 

Quote

I could say as my mantra that I am going to kill xxx's first born....and again just because I say it, a 1000 or a millions times, with conviction, doesn't make it right.

 

Ridiculous comp.  But even then, what Ballard says is followed up/through by what he does.  And so far it seems in complete lockstep with each other.  You follow through with what your example says, not only would it not be right, there would be consequences.  If Ballard follows through with his plan and ownership decides it's not right, there will be consequences.  But Ballard and Irsay are in close and frequent contact. And Polian believes in the duo-

 

https://www.indianasportscoverage.com/former-colts-hall-of-fame-gm-bill-polian-believes-in-chris-ballard-jim-irsay-dynamic/

 

Quote

I am a big believer that people these days are so used to being hoodwinked and F'd over and just out and out scammed, that if someone like Ballard comes along, who seems so sincere and righteous, that no matter what he says...people will believe it.

 

Until proven otherwise, why not?

 

Quote

And again....that doesn't make him right.

 

Time tells the truth.  Until then, you can have an opinion. But you didn't earn the job, so you can't overrule and make a different decision.  And you don't own the team, so don't have the authority to fire him.  Time will show whether CB is right or not.  Not peoples knee jerk reactions.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

16 hours ago, shastamasta said:

Not that it has anything to do with Ballard...but BB is in fact an egomaniac though. So if they did...they wouldn't be wrong.

 

You definitely have to have a good-sized ego to run an NFL football team.  We're talking about managing very big personalities, both the players and the owners.  But calling Belichick or Ballard an "ego maniac"?

 

And as far as "he thinks he is smarter than he actually is", does Belichick think he is smarter than he actually is like @threeflight suggests about Ballard?  Does anyone think they are dumber than they actually are? 

 

I'm starting to get the feeling that some people just come on this forum to vent their negativity concerning the Colts because it seems like they only have negative things to say.  I don't understand it.  This is a game that I try to ENJOY in my free time.  If things don't go my way, it's not worth getting upset about and bellyaching on the internet about it... 

[crazycolt1]

24 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

You definitely have to have a good-sized ego to run an NFL football team.  We're talking about managing very big personalities, both the players and the owners.  But calling Belichick or Ballard an "ego maniac"?

 

And as far as "he thinks he is smarter than he actually is", does Belichick think he is smarter than he actually is like @threeflight suggests about Ballard?  Does anyone think they are dumber than they actually are? 

 

I'm starting to get the feeling that some people just come on this forum to vent their negativity concerning the Colts because it seems like they only have negative things to say.  I don't understand it.  This is a game that I try to ENJOY in my free time.  If things don't go my way, it's not worth getting upset about and bellyaching on the internet about it... 

If you notice it's pretty much always the same posters who find negative in everything the Colts do. It's like being a fan opens the door for them to nit pick and find the negative in anything they can think of. (even some make up things to whine about)

 

[needanoline63]

We improved a bit with funchess but that’s it

[Steamboat_Shaun]

On 3/16/2019 at 11:21 PM, ClaytonColt said:

There's no point having interest if you fundamentally won't pay the going rate. Prices are crazy and it isn't going to change going forward.

 

Nobody wants bad long term contracts on the books but to me you don't measure the success of a contract on whether you saved a million or two. The success of a contract is surely whether you got a high level of play from the player involved and success during that period.

 

$84mil for a box safety that has coverage issues isn't "the going rate." There's zero chance that Landon Collins lives up to that contract, & I'll be surprised if the Redskins win a single playoff game over the duration of that deal.

[ClaytonColt]

29 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

$84mil for a box safety that has coverage issues isn't "the going rate." There's zero chance that Landon Collins lives up to that contract, & I'll be surprised if the Redskins win a single playoff game over the duration of that deal.

Surely whatever the market pays for him is the going rate by definition?

 

It's not really an $84m contract either, that's just the headline figure. He's likely to be cut after the 3rd or 4th years regardless of how he plays.  Washington aren't really committing to giving him that full amount. 

 

I'd be surprised if the Redskins win a playoff game as well. I doubt any safety would make that much difference when you have Colt McCoy as a quarterback. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

14 minutes ago, ClaytonColt said:

Surely whatever the market pays for him is the going rate by definition?

 

It's not really an $84m contract either, that's just the headline figure. He's likely to be cut after the 3rd or 4th years regardless of how he plays.  Washington aren't really committing to giving him that full amount. 

 

I'd be surprised if the Redskins win a playoff game as well. I doubt any safety would make that much difference when you have Colt McCoy as a quarterback. 

 

I never view what the Redskins are willing to shell out for free agents to be the "going rate" considering that they almost overpay for someone & put themselves in salary cap hell pretty much every single year. Market value for a good strong safety would be more in line with what Adrian Amos got from Green Bay.

[ClaytonColt]

7 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

I never view what the Redskins are willing to shell out for free agents to be the "going rate" considering that they almost overpay for someone & put themselves in salary cap hell pretty much every single year. Market value for a good strong safety would be more in line with what Adrian Amos got from Green Bay.

I don't mind Amos but I'm not sure Amos and Collins are comparable in terms of ability. Collins has twice as many tackles, twice as many sacks, more than twice as many interceptions, nearly twice as many passes broken up, Pro Bowls, All Pros award, etc, etc.

 

To say that Amos should set Collins contract or should be the benchmark is madness.

 

Kam Chancellor at $12m a year is probably a better starting point for Collins' market. 

[gspdx]

On 3/17/2019 at 1:15 AM, threeflight said:

I think it is a huge opp lost.

 

That is why I get the holier than thou "awww shucks" vibe from CB.  He doesn't come across as a showman....but he is.

 

Any decision has an opportunity cost.  Spending money on an FA - which will not guarantee any success - limits other opportunities.  It goes both ways.  Your opinion is the opportunity lost in this scenario is the bigger loss.  Fair enough - your opinion.  I disagree.  My opinion.

 

Your vibe from CB is also just your opinion.  I am assuming neither of us know him personally so we don't have any idea.  Again, my opinion is different than yours.  

 

And as far as CB being right or wrong - as long as his boss says he is right then he is.  What we think about him being right or wrong is meaningless.