Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
coltsfeva

Reich asked Ballard to pursue Funchess

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Blew some money? That’s laughable. People here wanted us to throw millions at Le’Veon, Collins, and Moseley. But paying 10-13 million for Funchess would be blowing money?

Why make that comment to me to try and discredit MY comment?  Please show me where I ever said to bring in Bell or anyone else?  I certainly didn't want to throw money at any used RB, and I asked the question about Collins and Mosely simply from their playing ability, I even stated we should never have paid them what they got.  I was simply finding something interesting to discuss AFTER the fact when it came up on 1070 the fan's coverage.   So lots of dumb things are said here every day, but don't tag me on someone else's dumb comment to try and make a point to attack something I said.  I think if Funchess comes here and sucks, we blew the money.  Most people were surprised he commanded that much.  I think we got an answer why from Ballard who said "that's the start of FA for you" in an interview addressing the size of his deal based on his drops and performance.  Reich had a massive desire for him, so Ballard spent a lot to get him, possibly even more that he alone would have paid.  It is a nice sign to see a GM actually try to give the coach what the coach is looking for compared to our previous GM, so even he gave a nod to the idea that was a costly 1 year deal for a WR off a really bad year of drops.  So what is your beef? Argue my point, don't talk about someone else's nonsense and try to paint me with it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JPFolks said:

So then... why bring it up in the first place? I was crediting you because had you not brought it up, it wouldn't have seemed like a bad idea? Now you're saying I shouldn't have thought much of your comment in the first place?  Confused? 

 

I think you're mistaking me with somebody else.

 

You originally quoted LockeDown and responded to him. I was commenting on my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Why make that comment to me to try and discredit MY comment?  Please show me where I ever said to bring in Bell or anyone else?  I certainly didn't want to throw money at any used RB, and I asked the question about Collins and Mosely simply from their playing ability, I even stated we should never have paid them what they got.  I was simply finding something interesting to discuss AFTER the fact when it came up on 1070 the fan's coverage.   So lots of dumb things are said here every day, but don't tag me on someone else's dumb comment to try and make a point to attack something I said.  I think if Funchess comes here and sucks, we blew the money.  Most people were surprised he commanded that much.  I think we got an answer why from Ballard who said "that's the start of FA for you" in an interview addressing the size of his deal based on his drops and performance.  Reich had a massive desire for him, so Ballard spent a lot to get him, possibly even more that he alone would have paid.  It is a nice sign to see a GM actually try to give the coach what the coach is looking for compared to our previous GM, so even he gave a nod to the idea that was a costly 1 year deal for a WR off a really bad year of drops.  So what is your beef? Argue my point, don't talk about someone else's nonsense and try to paint me with it.  

I never intended to make it seem like I was targeting you. My apologies. My real issue was with your comment that the Colts blowing money on Funchess. $10 million (because it’s $3 million In incentives ) is not a lot of money with the amount of cap space we had. Now I’d understand if we were tight against the cap and he chose to spend the little money we had on Funchess, but that’s not the case. Even if Funchess is a bust it doesn’t effect us in the long run. It’s not like we’re not going to be able to re-sign guys because we payed him. If we blew money on Funchess then you might as well say we blew money on TJ Green and Phillip Dorsett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 9:09 PM, JPFolks said:

But the concern, first raised by Superman I believe, is still that he has a one year deal.  

 

If he sucks, we blew some money, but he'll follow Grant out the door.  

If he's so-so, he might come back, probably not, but he's not getting a deal anywhere else of note. 

If he's great, his price just got jacked and he's 25, meaning we will way overpay for him now to keep him (plus likely a lot of years) or he'll walk.  Sure, we'll get a draft pick presumably (it still is confusing to me) but we will have "fixed him" for our short term (one season) gain, but lose financially/contractually or see him go play for a competitor.  Not a great result.  It seems to me they had to flat refuse a 2 year deal for a reasonable price, so I wouldn't expect him to give us a discount as he risks his own future on a prove it deal.   

 

So if Frank loved the guy, that sounds great to me.  But Superman pointed out the major downside. 

 

 I really enjoy, respect your and Sups posts. I am hearing 2 guys just wanting to B____ about something.   :rantoff:

 The guys trying to WIN are doing their thing.

 And we ponder the possibilities and the why's.

 Let's hope Andrew throws a lot of really accurate, with touch passes, and our catchers do a great job realing them in. So we couchies can be happier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

I never intended to make it seem like I was targeting you. My apologies. My real issue was with your comment that the Colts blowing money on Funchess. $10 million (because it’s $3 million In incentives ) is not a lot of money with the amount of cap space we had. Now I’d understand if we were tight against the cap and he chose to spend the little money we had on Funchess, but that’s not the case. Even if Funchess is a bust it doesn’t effect us in the long run. It’s not like we’re not going to be able to re-sign guys because we payed him. If we blew money on Funchess then you might as well say we blew money on TJ Green and Phillip Dorsett.

 

I think the Funchess situation got polarized pretty quickly. There are some on the fringes who think it was a terrible signing, Funchess sucks, Ballard hates the fans, etc., etc. There are some on the other extreme who will show up with fiery fists to defend Ballard against even minor dissent.

 

The majority of people who were critical of the Funchess deal thought the Colts overpaid for him, or didn't like his fit for what they want from the offense, or a combination of both. I'm in this group, and I can say that my posted thoughts on the Funchess deal were twisted, blown out of proportion, and otherwise radicalized. And ironically, this was done by people on both extremes of the discussion.

 

To your point, if we had signed Funchess for $6m instead of $10m, there'd be no complaint about it. And that difference of $4m isn't a big deal, it's not costing us any players, and it's not affecting the team's ability to win or construct the roster the way they want. So end of the day, it's not worth caring about, as a fan. I didn't think it fit with what Ballard said about not paying B-level players A-level money, but it's not a devastating mistake, even if it doesn't work out during the season.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's funny on this forum how the want for a certain type of receiver changed over the off season. After the end of the season, the want was for a big bodied reciever that was a good at route running and decent hands. Except for the good hands part, that's Funchess. To me that's what we needed. That's all Inman was and it worked out for him.

 

Then when we all started looking at players available in the draft and free agency it all started to change. The early looks were to N'keal Harry and Kelvin Harmon, which are in that mold stated above. Everyone became enamored with names like Tyrell William's in FA and Marquis Brown and Paris Cambell who are more like TY with speed (not height). The script totally changed for what was perceived as the need to make the team better. Just an observation that I found funny.

 

The contract is the only thing that is questionable to me, but tbh it's not going to break us in any way. The worst things that could happen is the colts wasted a couple million on someone who didnt work or he plays well and signs elsewhere. Neither are that big of a deal tbh.

 

Defences are going to have their hands full with us. Having to cover Funchess, Hilton, Ebron, Doyel, and our RBs out the back is alot to handle. Going to be fun to watch

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard seems to have has his own money value on players.

It comes to no surprise it is different than the fan base.

Saying a player is over paid before that players has even put on a Colts uniform is pre mature.

Ballard is always preaching about players that fit in so how about giving it a chance before being so negative?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Blew some money? That’s laughable. People here wanted us to throw millions at Le’Veon, Collins, and Moseley. But paying 10-13 million for Funchess would be blowing money?

 

The difference is that Bell, Collins and/or Mosely would have been locked up for multiple years instead of just one.  Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 7:09 PM, JPFolks said:

But the concern, first raised by Superman I believe, is still that he has a one year deal.  

 

If he sucks, we blew some money, but he'll follow Grant out the door.  

If he's so-so, he might come back, probably not, but he's not getting a deal anywhere else of note. 

If he's great, his price just got jacked and he's 25, meaning we will way overpay for him now to keep him (plus likely a lot of years) or he'll walk.  Sure, we'll get a draft pick presumably (it still is confusing to me) but we will have "fixed him" for our short term (one season) gain, but lose financially/contractually or see him go play for a competitor.  Not a great result.  It seems to me they had to flat refuse a 2 year deal for a reasonable price, so I wouldn't expect him to give us a discount as he risks his own future on a prove it deal.   

 

So if Frank loved the guy, that sounds great to me.  But Superman pointed out the major downside. 

 

I really don't see this as a bad thing.  @Superman noted in a previous post in this thread that nobody would be complaining if it was a 1 year $6 mil deal instead of a $10 mil deal.  We have so much cap space that it doesn't really matter that we spent the additional $4 mil or so.

 

We have a lot of cap space going forward.  If Funchess is fitting in well with this team, I imagine Ballard will be working on extending him during the season rather than waiting for him to hit the open FA waters.

 

There is a lot to like about this team right now.  Luck is healthy, and there are a lot of players (especially WRs) who would really like to play with him as their QB (that is why Gore and A. Johnson came to Indy late in their careers -- specifically to play with #12).  Our o-line and D seem like they're improving to the point where we will be contenders for quite a while now (barring injury or other unexpected set backs).  

 

With Brady likely retiring sometime in the next couple of years, it seems as though the AFC should be ready for a new king.  Just looking at the way teams are set up, age factors (Brady, Rivers, Roethlisberger...), etc... it seems to me as though there isn't really another team in the AFC with as much potential to become the team to win multiple SBs in the foreseeable future.

 

Of course there are some teams that look as though they may be up-and-coming (Cleveland, Houston has a good young QB and very good D, etc.).  That said, if Funchess is in this league to win a Super Bowl (and make money), one would think if he's fitting in well with Indy that he could still make quite a fortune here and put himself into a very good position to be playing in SBs.  I can't speak for him, but if I am making over $10 mil/year anyway, I would gladly sacrifice a couple million to play with a legitimate contender than go to a team with nowhere near this potential and with a worse QB.

 

On 3/28/2019 at 7:20 AM, DougDew said:

But its always that way.  I believe that the HC has tremendous input into the roster and what players are added.  

 

Bowen's article reaffirms my assumption.  It a team, and sometimes HCs push for certain players and the GM says "ok, I'll get that guy for you".

 

Its not a top down command and control thing by the GM.

 

As far as P &G, nobody knows who wanted Werner, DJoun Smith, Morrison, or TJ Green more than the other guy, but I have my suspicions.

 

I like this a lot.  It seems like Reich and Ballard have a very good working relationship and they are both bought into painting the same masterpiece with similar goals in mind.

 

It seems like Pagano and Grigs had the opposite relationship (you're right, nobody knows who really had the power in bringing in individual players like Werner, etc.).  However, it was made pretty clear by players that Grigs was controlling who Pagano put on the field (e.g., Trent Richardson was playing even though he was terrible for us because Grigs forced that hand on Pagano).  This leads me to believe that Grigs was probably not all that accommodating to Pagano, but rather Pagano may have been forced to adjust to what Grigs forced on him.

 

On 3/28/2019 at 12:09 PM, Superman said:

Got this from Reddit:

 

 

This makes me feel good.

 

That is a cool chart.  Most interesting to me is how successful Luck is on 'broken plays.' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

I never intended to make it seem like I was targeting you. My apologies. My real issue was with your comment that the Colts blowing money on Funchess. $10 million (because it’s $3 million In incentives ) is not a lot of money with the amount of cap space we had. Now I’d understand if we were tight against the cap and he chose to spend the little money we had on Funchess, but that’s not the case. Even if Funchess is a bust it doesn’t effect us in the long run. It’s not like we’re not going to be able to re-sign guys because we payed him. If we blew money on Funchess then you might as well say we blew money on TJ Green and Phillip Dorsett.

No.. I disgree 100% with your comment here.  Our Cap room has ZERO to do with whether we are overspending on a player.  The player has value, irregardless as to whether we have cap space or not.  You don't waste money just because you have cap space.  Can you imagine the disastrous contracts that would result? Plus, Ballard answers to his boss, Jim Irsay, who is paying those prices out of his pocket.  Do you really think for a single moment that he's going to say "heck, we have lots of cap space, go ahead and blow my money on someone not worth it, it's just money!"  Seriously man, you need to take a step back from your argument and re-evaluate.  Funchess is worth what his market value is, nothing more nor less and the market doesn't care about anyone else's cap space.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 I really enjoy, respect your and Sups posts. I am hearing 2 guys just wanting to B____ about something.   :rantoff:

 The guys trying to WIN are doing their thing.

 And we ponder the possibilities and the why's.

 Let's hope Andrew throws a lot of really accurate, with touch passes, and our catchers do a great job realing them in. So we couchies can be happier.

I would expect all fans want that.  Not all fans come to discuss stuff during the offseason.  If we're not putting our opinions on how things are being done or not done, what are we even doing here? You've been around a long time.. why are you here if not to agree, disagree, suggest, refute and chatter on about the all things Colts?  I think all is fair game if you aren't making personal attacks and simply bantering the topic du jour.  It hadn't occurred to me initially that we should have gotten a second year option attached to the deal.  It may be because Funchess refused, it may be for a reason we don't collectively know/understand.  But isn't the point to discuss what is going on and offer our opinions?  It isn't like only a tiny number of people questioned both the player and the price including many veteran analysts all over the NFL universe.  So it isn't 2 people complaining about anything.  We're discussing ramification and alternatives.  Fanboys simply shake their heads in sync with any actions their team makes, and trolls simply viciously attack both the actions and the people involved in everything.  I don't think either of us qualify as either of those things.  Half the time we don't even agree with each other, but when he's right, he's right.  I enjoy the debate because if you are unwilling to talk to people who see things differently than you do, you live in an echo chamber bubble and learn nothing.  We see that playing out all around us in the real world.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That we should have gotten a second year option just amuses me that is all.
Actually we should have gotten 3 more years of option then. I consider that with EVERY deal.
That Ballard was satisfied enough with our commitment and how that could turn out for all, has to be enough for this fan. 
 I have faith in CB and Frank's experience to have enough trust to just look forward to seeing how it turns out. They earned it from Shocking the FB World by their deeds last season. IMO. The plan these Professionals and their staffs are working from appears solid. Then i keep remembering those early season quick throws to Hines just past the RT that got immediately creamed and wonder who thought of that and why did they think it would work.  
 I do enjoy, and look forward to intelligent, FB knowledgeable, and the humorous discussion of all things Colts. And wade through the rest.
 Funchess was the one WR i DID Not want us to sign based on a limited look. And i look forward to getting shown that i was misguided as to his potential in Frank's system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JPFolks said:

No.. I disgree 100% with your comment here.  Our Cap room has ZERO to do with whether we are overspending on a player.  The player has value, irregardless as to whether we have cap space or not.  You don't waste money just because you have cap space.  Can you imagine the disastrous contracts that would result? Plus, Ballard answers to his boss, Jim Irsay, who is paying those prices out of his pocket.  Do you really think for a single moment that he's going to say "heck, we have lots of cap space, go ahead and blow my money on someone not worth it, it's just money!"  Seriously man, you need to take a step back from your argument and re-evaluate.  Funchess is worth what his market value is, nothing more nor less and the market doesn't care about anyone else's cap space.  

Cap room has everything to do with whether or not you over-spend on a player. Think about it. If there was no salary cap, it wouldn’t really matter how much you pay a player. When a team has a tight salary cap, it matters because what you pay other players becomes money that you won’t have to sign other players or re-sign your own FAs. Money is only wasted when  money spent on a unsuccessful player prevented you from signing or re-signing a better player. Funchess won’t prevent the Colts from doing anything. Quenton Nelson, Darius Leonard, Ryan Kelly, etc... will still all get paid when the time comes. Funchess didn’t get some massive contract. He got market value, if not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, J@son said:

 

The difference is that Bell, Collins and/or Mosely would have been locked up for multiple years instead of just one.  Big difference.

It’s not a big difference in the long run. We still have a bunch of guys on rookie deals, 100$+ million in cap space, and Vets on cheap 2-3 year deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reich figured out how to use Ebron.  My guess is he has a plan for how to use Funchess.

 

I personally want to also remind everyone that I think Funchess's stats were held back by Cam.

 

Is it just me or is Cam like the only franchise QB that consistently throws for less than 4000 yards in a season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

Is it just me or is Cam like the only franchise QB that consistently throws for less than 4000 yards in a season?

Those 58 career rushing TDs certainly help his case of being a franchise QB. It's also an NFL record for QB rushing TDs with Steve Young being a distant second with 43.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a pure passer has never been Cam Newton's strongsuit, so it'll be interesting to see how well DF performs with a far better passing Quarterback. This offensive scheme also seems to favor DF's skillset more, and Reich wanted him for a reason, and last I checked he was indeed an offensive guru...so I'll concede to him, until I have reason not to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Those 58 career rushing TDs certainly help his case of being a franchise QB. It's also an NFL record for QB rushing TDs with Steve Young being a distant second with 43.

 

Oh I am not saying he isn't a franchise QB.  I am saying that because he takes the ball himself so much, the yard totals of his receivers are depressed as well.

 

No other franchise QB runs the ball that much.  Therefore he is the only one that can get away with throwing for less than 4000 yards a season consistently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

Being a pure passer has never been Cam Newton's strongsuit, so it'll be interesting to see how well DF performs with a far better passing Quarterback. This offensive scheme also seems to favor DF's skillset more, and Reich wanted him for a reason, and last I checked he was indeed an offensive guru...so I'll concede to him, until I have reason not to. 

 

No one bats a thousand, but Ballard and Reich seem to know what they are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong, and I'm CERTAINLY no expert in these matters, but I only see upside here.  He's a big, physical, young WR that is a perfect compliment to T.Y.  He's only got a 1 year deal, even though they are giving him plenty of money.  So if he's not good, we can let him walk without him impacting our cap hit next year when we have many in-house guys to re-sign.  If he's good, then he will be worthy of joining that group anyway.  And it appears Ballard is making sure we have the funds to accomplish that.  So I see no problem with taking a shot at this for a year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SouthernIndianaNDFan said:

Being a pure passer has never been Cam Newton's strongsuit, so it'll be interesting to see how well DF performs with a far better passing Quarterback. This offensive scheme also seems to favor DF's skillset more, and Reich wanted him for a reason, and last I checked he was indeed an offensive guru...so I'll concede to him, until I have reason not to. 

Cam isn't a pure passer and when he does throw the ball it's much more likely to go to his RB or TE then to a WR.  No QB in the league throws the ball less to WR's.  I think it's a good move for him and us. We get a guy who can be a WR1 if need be but won't have those weekly expectations and DF gets a much better QB in a more friendly scheme.

 

I agree Ballard and Reich know what they are doing. How does DF do blocking? He has the size to help in the run game too. I think this will end up being a pretty good signing. We add another RB to help Mack and with the young receivers we have returning this offense should really get cooking in year 2. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, akcolt said:

Cam isn't a pure passer and when he does throw the ball it's much more likely to go to his RB or TE then to a WR.  No QB in the league throws the ball less to WR's.  I think it's a good move for him and us. We get a guy who can be a WR1 if need be but won't have those weekly expectations and DF gets a much better QB in a more friendly scheme.

 

I agree Ballard and Reich know what they are doing. How does DF do blocking? He has the size to help in the run game too. I think this will end up being a pretty good signing. We add another RB to help Mack and with the young receivers we have returning this offense should really get cooking in year 2. 

 

Here is the question though.  

 

Does Cam throw to his TE or RB because that's just his game or does he throw to them because that's were the most talented skill players on his team are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Here is the question though.  

 

Does Cam throw to his TE or RB because that's just his game or does he throw to them because that's were the most talented skill players on his team are.  

I don't follow Carolina enough to really answer that but they have spent some resources on WR's. I can think of off the top of my head Benjamin and Moore were 1st round picks DF a 2nd Samuel 2nd. Then in FA I remember them paying a lot for guys like Torrey Smith and Ted Ginn. 

 

I think that would illustrate that someone would like to get WR's more involved. The only WR to lead the Panthers in receiving with Cam under C was Steve Smith his first 2 years in the league. 

 

Either I think it's safe to say that DF will be working with a better QB who gets the ball to his WR's. The scheme is going to fit his skill set better and there will be less pressure on him. That should be a good deal hopefully for both parties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Here is the question though.  

 

Does Cam throw to his TE or RB because that's just his game or does he throw to them because that's were the most talented skill players on his team are.  

 

I think it's a combination of talent and scheme.

 

One thought is that Gettleman originally targeted big less dynamic WRs with large catch radii (like Funchess and Benjamin) to help mask Cam's propensity to throw high and overthrow WRs. And a guy like Ginn who could take advantage of Cam's arm on deep balls.

 

That wasn't really working...so they started targeting dynamic guys that could get YAC...like CMac and Samuel.

 

CMac changed the offense...as he would any offense...but the approach to the WRs changed as well at that point. Gettleman was then fired and they brought back Hurny...who then drafted DJ Moore in the 1st round.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 3:30 PM, CurBeatElite said:

That is a cool chart.  Most interesting to me is how successful Luck is on 'broken plays.' 

 

Luck kills it on the scramble drill. I know protecting him is paramount...and I prefer a huge pocket for him to work with...but those plays are fun to watch...and typically are huge plays if they connect. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 12:14 PM, Defjamz26 said:

Cap room has everything to do with whether or not you over-spend on a player. Think about it. If there was no salary cap, it wouldn’t really matter how much you pay a player. When a team has a tight salary cap, it matters because what you pay other players becomes money that you won’t have to sign other players or re-sign your own FAs. Money is only wasted when  money spent on a unsuccessful player prevented you from signing or re-signing a better player. Funchess won’t prevent the Colts from doing anything. Quenton Nelson, Darius Leonard, Ryan Kelly, etc... will still all get paid when the time comes. Funchess didn’t get some massive contract. He got market value, if not less.

You made my point.  He got paid market value for signing a WR that early in FA.  Not more nor less based on our cap room.  The cap room didn't figure in anything beyond whether we can afford to sign a player at market value.  We don't pay more than market value because we can waste cap space.  We would NEVER waste cap space, no matter how much we have with this bunch of serious minded business people.  We'll have to disagree on this one.  Life will go on.  

 

Frank really wanted him.  Ballard indicated his price was up due to the timing of the signing during silly season, not because we had cap space to blow.  But he was determined to give our coach what he asked for.  That's a great sign that times are very different from the last regime.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 7:47 PM, JPFolks said:

No.. I disgree 100% with your comment here.  Our Cap room has ZERO to do with whether we are overspending on a player.  The player has value, irregardless as to whether we have cap space or not.  You don't waste money just because you have cap space.

 

giphy.gif

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 8:09 PM, JPFolks said:

But the concern, first raised by Superman I believe, is still that he has a one year deal.  

 

If he sucks, we blew some money, but he'll follow Grant out the door.  

If he's so-so, he might come back, probably not, but he's not getting a deal anywhere else of note. 

If he's great, his price just got jacked and he's 25, meaning we will way overpay for him now to keep him (plus likely a lot of years) or he'll walk.  Sure, we'll get a draft pick presumably (it still is confusing to me) but we will have "fixed him" for our short term (one season) gain, but lose financially/contractually or see him go play for a competitor.  Not a great result.  It seems to me they had to flat refuse a 2 year deal for a reasonable price, so I wouldn't expect him to give us a discount as he risks his own future on a prove it deal.   

 

So if Frank loved the guy, that sounds great to me.  But Superman pointed out the major downside. 

That just isn't a major downside.

If he plays 'great', we may get to the conference title game or the SuperBowl

If he 'sucks' we didn't blow anything.  We're supposed to acquire talent each year and there's no guarantee how anyone plays.

 If he leaves, our financial obligations are clear for 2020...and we get a 3rd round choice. We basically purchased a future 3rd round (what you get for a starting player who played well) draft choice for $10-12 mil.

If he plays 'great' then we would not be overpaying him.

We would be paying market value for a potentially 'great' player.

 

There is no downside. None at all.

 

Edited by oldunclemark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There sure has been a lot of attention given to the Funchess signing.

On the negative side could it be the negative fallout from not trading for Brown like so many wanted?  I say that because a few of the ones who think Funchess was a bad signing are the ones who complained about not getting Brown.

I personally don't see why it's that big of a deal on signing him for one year. If he plays good he will want another contract if he thinks the Colts have a good chance of making a super bowl. We already know that Ballard will have a figure in mind and will not get into a bidding war.

It is said that Frank wanted him so Ballard signed him. OK, that is a good sign our GM and head coach are working together.

I don't pay that much attention to what a players numbers are before they join the Colts. They don't have to have big or huge numbers to contribute to Colts wins. Football is a team game. Last season showed the Colts play as a team.

Luck had 4,593 YDs , 39 TDs and used 13 different WRs and RBs.

We also rushed for 1,718 YDs with 13 TDs.

That's pretty damn good for a team that was suppose to go 3-13 by most so called gurus and even the Colts fan base averaged 8-8 with no playoffs.

Regardless Funchess was not signed to be the savior of our team and was not paid like one. He was brought here to fit in and contribute to wins.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

That just isn't a major downside.

If he plays 'great', we may get to the conference title game or the SuperBowl

If he 'sucks' we didn't blow anything.  We're supposed to acquire talent each year and there's no guarantee how anyone plays.

 If he leaves, our financial obligations are clear for 2020...and we get a 3rd round choice. We basically purchased a future 3rd round (what you get for a starting player who played well) draft choice for $10-12 mil.

If he plays 'great' then we would not be overpaying him.

We would be paying market value for a potentially 'great' player.

 

There is no downside. None at all.

 

If he sucks and becomes a low level FA picked up for (relatively speaking) pennies on the dollar, I don't think it results in a 3rd round pick automatically does it?  Please educate me as I honestly have never fully understood what rates as a 3rd round (I didn't even realize you could get that high of a pick in a case like this) or a 7th round compensatory pick? Frankly, I am not even sure I agree with giving compensatory picks to a team unable to sign their own people for whatever reason it may be.  Why does everyone who runs their team more effectively pushed down all those picks in each proceeding round because another team couldn't or didn't choose to resign someone?  Maybe you are the guy to finally explain it clearly and precisely to those of us who don't quite get how it works.  (The "why" is a whole additional topic I don't expect you to explain).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JPFolks said:

If he sucks and becomes a low level FA picked up for (relatively speaking) pennies on the dollar, I don't think it results in a 3rd round pick automatically does it?  Please educate me as I honestly have never fully understood what rates as a 3rd round (I didn't even realize you could get that high of a pick in a case like this) or a 7th round compensatory pick? Frankly, I am not even sure I agree with giving compensatory picks to a team unable to sign their own people for whatever reason it may be.  Why does everyone who runs their team more effectively pushed down all those picks in each proceeding round because another team couldn't or didn't choose to resign someone?  Maybe you are the guy to finally explain it clearly and precisely to those of us who don't quite get how it works.  (The "why" is a whole additional topic I don't expect you to explain).  

The actual formula for the comp picks have never been released to the public, but people have figured out a general understanding to be able to somewhat accurately figure it out. 

That being said, the comp pick we would get is based on his contract with his next team, along with a few minor adjustments due to playing time, postseason honors, etc. In order for us to get a 3rd round comp pick for him, his next contract would assumedly have to exceed 10m/yr before incentives, and he would have to have a decent impact on his next team. So while us giving him 10M this year could have an effect on his future asking price, it doesnt necessarily guarantee anything. If he has a terrible year we wont get a 3rd.

 

That also doesnt take into account us signing another solid player next yr and cancelling out his departure. Basically no matter how well he does, we dont have any assurances that we will get anything for losing him. 

 

If you want a full run down on how the comp pick system works, this link explains everything that has been figured out about the formula. 

https://overthecap.com/the-basics-and-methodology-of-projecting-the-nfls-compensatory-draft-picks/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...