Jump to content
CR91

Colts sign Rock Ya-Sin and Parris Campbell

Recommended Posts

It's always interesting when a guy in the second round holds out a bit even after the first pick was signed

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

It's always interesting when a guy in the second round holds out a bit even after the first pick was signed

What do you imagine that he could be holding out for?  The money is locked in right as are the number of years? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

What do you imagine that he could be holding out for?  The money is locked in right as are the number of years? 

Off set language?   How the bonus is paid out?    

 

Those are the only two that come to mind...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rookie contracts are standard. What has to be negotiated is the incentives. I don’t think he is holding out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I like it. Get Okereke signed and we can focus on OTA's. Can't wait to see what the rookies can do!

Okereke can still participate in OTAs even if he doesn't sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, indyagent17 said:

It's always interesting when a guy in the second round holds out a bit even after the first pick was signed

 

It's a Grand Canyon sized leap to call this a holdout. 

Share this post


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

Could be back at Stanford finishing classes as well.....?

 

I do remember when we drafted Luck he was a little late, as I think Stanford gets out of classes a couple weeks after most schools.

Share this post


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

What do you imagine that he could be holding out for?  The money is locked in right as are the number of years? 

 

It's a little early to peg him as "holding out".  It could be as simple as they havn't gotten together with him about it yet.  

 

Honestly I wouldn't consider him holding out unless the Colts say the negotiations are problematic or they havn't signed him by July.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

What do you imagine that he could be holding out for?  The money is locked in right as are the number of years? 

 

Off set language is pretty much the only reason these days that contracts have the slightest bit of negotiation over.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

What do you imagine that he could be holding out for?  The money is locked in right as are the number of years? 

Like others have said it's not really a hold out. He's participating in OTA's right now it seems. 

 

And like @NewColtsFan said the main reasons for delays of contract signings for the rookies is the off-set language in their contracts usually. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so thanks to all who responded, but what offset language is really at issue? Is it the same thing the Chargers DE held out for, or is it a variety of things? It seems like a high 1st rounder has power to hold out over "offset" language, but do these guys have any real power? If not, what is the deal? If they DO have power, would the Colts simply say no and the guy sits out over it? Does anyone actually KNOW the reason?  When Bosa held out, they announced the details of why, has anyone heard any point of contention with either of these guys? Or is it just a "guess" that it is "offset language?"

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.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • we are in a division that likes to run too.   the titans and texans ranked 7th and 8th in rushing yards, while the colts and jaguars were 19th and 20th.  that was down year for the jaguars, the previous year they were top 5
    • People love to prognosticate. My crystal ball broke so I don't have any insight into the future, but Ballard is using particular criteria (data) that has shown to be better predictors than merely guessing. Let's watch to see whether his approach to dealing with the unknown is better than other teams. I think we will be surprised.
    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
  • Members

    • IndySouthsider

      IndySouthsider 232

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jal8908

      jal8908 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • twfish

      twfish 1,516

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • tdblue17

      tdblue17 3

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • rob220

      rob220 0

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • aaron11

      aaron11 2,014

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • lincolndefan

      lincolndefan 2

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • brently76

      brently76 17

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...