Colts working on Extending Mack

[PeterBowman]

saw that on the IndyStar homepage. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

 

[stitches]

I'm not the biggest fan of giving money to RBs past their rookie contract. RBs almost literally grow on trees. I guess... lets see what he gets. 

[RollerColt]

Good. Marlon is a big part of our offense. He's no edge, but we need him next year. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

I'm not the biggest fan of giving money to RBs past their rookie contract. RBs almost literally grow on trees. I guess... lets see what he gets. 

I am ok with this because he is only 23. If he was like 26 probably wouldn’t be in favor of it.

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

I'm not the biggest fan of giving money to RBs past their rookie contract. RBs almost literally grow on trees. I guess... lets see what he gets. 

 

I'd be shocked if it is anything more than a 4 year $40 mil. ball park deal with $20-25 mil. guaranteed.

[stitches]

Just now, chad72 said:

 

I'd be shocked if it is anything more than a 4 year $40 mil. ball park deal with $20-25 mil. guaranteed.

This would be HORRIBLE deal. Just horrific. 

[chad72]

Just now, stitches said:

This would be HORRIBLE deal. Just horrific. 

 

Don't be surprised if that is the ball park his agent wants.

 

He is not good like a Gurley or Bell to demand $13-15 mil. a year but his agent will probably want him to hit double figures per year.

 

If it were me, I'd give 3 yrs. $25 mil. and $15 mil. guaranteed and call it a day because of his lack of involvement in the passing game.

[CR91]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

This would be HORRIBLE deal. Just horrific. 

 

10 mil a year for a RB that had 1100 total yards and 8 tds is horrible?

[stitches]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

Don't be surprised if that is the ball park his agent wants.

 

He is not good like a Gurley or Bell to demand $13-15 mil. a year but his agent will probably want him to hit double figures per year.

 

If it were me, I'd give 3 yrs. $25 mil. and $15 mil. guaranteed and call it a day because of his lack of involvement in the passing game.

3/18 is the absolute maximum that makes any sense for the team. I really have no idea why any team would give money to RBs when you can literally take a 4th-7th rounder and pay him 600K and he will produce similarly. 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

This would be HORRIBLE deal. Just horrific. 

 

$10mil/yr for a 23 year old RB wouldn't be bad, maybe a tad on the high side, but with the cap increasing every year it'd look like a bargain by the time his contract expires.

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

3/18 is the absolute maximum that makes any sense for the team. I really have no idea why any team would give money to RBs when you can literally take a 4th-7th rounder and pay him 600K and he will produce similarly. 

 

If you don't insist on pass protection and learning OL schemes well enough to hit the holes right, then yeah, you can produce somewhat similarly. Mack is better than you give him credit for, IMO.

[stitches]

Just now, CR91 said:

 

10 mil a year for a RB that 1100 total yards and 9 tds is horrible?

Yes it is horrible, when the biggest factor in RB success is the OLine play and scheme/willingness to run by the coach and they are so damn easily replaceable. Hell, Jonathan Williams who was off-the-street FA was replicating what Mack did and we got him off-the-street. This is happening all the time in the league. Low-drafted RBs or UDFAs or off-the-street RBs are doing great in the league. That money can be used in much better ways. 

[chad72]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yes it is horrible, when the biggest factor in RB success is the OLine play and scheme/willingness to run by the coach and they are so damn easily replaceable. Hell, Jonathan Williams who was off-the-street FA was replicating what Mack did and we got him off-the-street. This is happening all the time in the league. Low-drafted RBs or UDFAs or off-the-street RBs are doing great in the league. That money can be used in much better ways. 

 

Yeah, that 2 game producer that blew an assignment and ended on the bench??? Yes, you can find those easily. You are overstating the late round/UDFA RB performances across the league as "doing great" while understating Mack's impact on the team performance.

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

$10mil/yr for a 23 year old RB wouldn't be bad, maybe a tad on the high side, but with the cap increasing every year it'd look like a bargain by the time his contract expires.

There are 4 RBs in the league being paid over 8M. Zeke, Bell, Gurley and David Johnson. The teams of 3 of those wish they never gave them those contracts and I would argue Dallas shouldn't feel good about giving Zeke 15M either. There is no good 10M contract for a RB. First, they are replaceable, and second they get injured... A TON. 

[richard pallo]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

There are 4 RBs in the league being paid over 8M. Zeke, Bell, Gurley and David Johnson. The teams of 3 of those wish they never gave them those contracts and I would argue Dallas shouldn't feel good about giving Zeke 15M either. There is no good 10M contract for a RB. First, they are replaceable, and second they get injured... A TON. 

And Mack has been injured a lot.  I guess it was just a matter of time when this was going to happen.  I'm not expecting "Oh Wow Numbers. "

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

16 minutes ago, stitches said:

3/18 is the absolute maximum that makes any sense for the team. I really have no idea why any team would give money to RBs when you can literally take a 4th-7th rounder and pay him 600K and he will produce similarly. 

This comes down to taking care of your own. It goes a long way in creating a good environment for your players. Mack isn’t even 24 yet.  I don’t think any running will do. Mack was clearly better then his draft position. He has a good 4 years of greatness left.  Treat your players well and the players will work hard and want to stay.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, that 2 game producer that blew an assignment and ended on the bench??? Yes, you can find those easily. You are overstating the late round/UDFA RB performances across the league as "doing great" while understating Mack's impact on the team performance.

Yes, he blew an assignment and was rightfully benched, but it's not like Mack wasn't screwing up assignments in his first action for this team... hell it's not like he still doesn't miss assignments here and there. I'm not understating Mack's impact. I'm actually one of the people who were defending him the most and were saying we shouldn't be signing Bell or other big pay RBs.... you know why? For the same reason I don't want to sign him to a big contract - because big contract RBs rarely if ever work out and you can get very similar production for 10% of the cost. 

[Four2itus]

14 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

10 mil a year for a RB that had 1100 total yards and 8 tds is horrible?

Today's horrible word.......horrible. 

 

But to answer, no....it is not horrible. 4 yrs, 38.5, 19 gtd. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

There are 4 RBs in the league being paid over 8M. Zeke, Bell, Gurley and David Johnson. The teams of 3 of those wish they never gave them those contracts and I would argue Dallas shouldn't feel good about giving Zeke 15M either. There is no good 10M contract for a RB. First, they are replaceable, and second they get injured... A TON. 

I think we will need to wait and see what he actually gets. He isn’t worth what those guys are getting. He will get a reasonable contract. I don’t expect huge numbers.

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

And Mack has been injured a lot.  I guess it was just a matter of time when this was going to happen.  I'm not expecting "Oh Wow Numbers. "

That's why I said... "I guess... lets see what he gets. " in my first post. I'm just responding to people who think 4/40M is a good contract for Mack. 

[chad72]

7 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Today's horrible word.......horrible. 

 

But to answer, no....it is not horrible. 4 yrs, 38 mil., 19 gtd. 

 

You can always have injury clauses, and a 4th year team option included in there too.

 

Let us say, you give him the above contract, you could have $2 mil. a year as incentives if he plays at least 12 games each year, and the 4th year could be a team option with the guaranteed money all done in the first 3 years. Thus, it becomes a 3 year, $22.5 mil. contract with $6 mil. in incentives, with $19 mil. guaranteed money doled over 3 years, and a 4th year team option that we can exercise if the situation is favorable. Then, it can be a win-win deal, IMO.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

There are 4 RBs in the league being paid over 8M. Zeke, Bell, Gurley and David Johnson. The teams of 3 of those wish they never gave them those contracts and I would argue Dallas shouldn't feel good about giving Zeke 15M either. There is no good 10M contract for a RB. First, they are replaceable, and second they get injured... A TON. 

 

Honest question: what's the worst case scenario of giving Marlon Mack a contract extension? 

[richard pallo]

I wouldn't mind bringing in Jordan Howard to compliment him. He would strengthen the RB group. 

[stitches]

Just now, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Honest question: what's the worst case scenario of giving Marlon Mack a contract extension? 

He gets injured and you have 10M a year for the next few years tied into a sidelined asset? This is not about Marlon Mack to me. As I said before - I've defended him here before and I've said that he's a good back and he can do the job perfectly well for us. This is about the position of RB and the replaceability of RBs and the opportunity cost. For example... I'd much rather get the top DT on the market for 18M and draft a RB in the 4th than get an Autry type for 8M and give Mack 10M. This is not close. There are so many positions I'd rather spend those 10M a year on than a RB. 

[shasta519]

22 minutes ago, stitches said:

3/18 is the absolute maximum that makes any sense for the team. I really have no idea why any team would give money to RBs when you can literally take a 4th-7th rounder and pay him 600K and he will produce similarly. 

 

I think it depends on the RB. Setting aside the top picks like Zeke and Saquon, I am keeping a dynamic RB like Dalvin Cook or Kamara if I land one in the draft...assuming they are healthy.

 

But in the case of Mack...he himself is one of those Day 4 RBs. And he doesn't catch passes (guess I am in the minority on caring about though...but I think it should definitely have an impact on how he's valued).  

 

I like Mack (all Colts fan do)...and I understand the desire for continuity...but if I am being objective....I don't see the value in paying him like a starting 3-down RB...assuming those will be his demands (likely the case). And with his injury history...giving him gtd money a year before his contract runs out is unnecessarily risky.

 

Having a great OL should give you the ability to have a top 5 RB in the NFL...or the ability to take a value approach and plug and play guys. Paying Mack doesn't seem to fit that. But whatever...I will be happy for him.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

10 minutes ago, stitches said:

He gets injured and you have 10M a year for the next few years tied into a sidelined asset? This is not about Marlon Mack to me. As I said before - I've defended him here before and I've said that he's a good back and he can do the job perfectly well for us. This is about the position of RB and the replaceability of RBs and the opportunity cost. For example... I'd much rather get the top DT on the market for 18M and draft a RB in the 4th than get an Autry type for 8M and give Mack 10M. This is not close. There are so many positions I'd rather spend those 10M a year on than a RB. 

 

Worst case scenario is he underperforms & Ballard cuts him. That's it. That's the worst that can happen.

[Thunderbolt]

Not a beast of a RB, but will do extend behind a #1 RB in the draft.

[shasta519]

44 minutes ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

$10mil/yr for a 23 year old RB wouldn't be bad, maybe a tad on the high side, but with the cap increasing every year it'd look like a bargain by the time his contract expires.

 

I would bet that $10M will never look like a bargain...but it might not look terrible.

 

We might be getting ahead of ourselves anyways.  

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

Worst case scenario is he underperforms & Ballard cuts him. That's it. That's the worst that can happen.

That's not as simple as that usually because there are money invested in that player and dead cap and cap holds, etc. Also, again... I'd rather spend that money on about 10 other positions than on RB. 

[stitches]

Just now, shastamasta said:

 

I would bet that $10M will never look like a bargain...but it might not look terrible.

 

We might be getting ahead of ourselves anyways.  

I posted the numbers for the players that are paid over 10M. There are 4 of them and NONE of them look like good deals, and for 3 of them, their teams wish they never gave them those contracts. There is no great 10M+ RB contract. 

[The Peytonator]

Stitches is 100% right. Mack is a good back but backs are so replaceable now that it’s a joke to overpay for one. ‘Taking care of your own’ doesn’t mean ‘spending frivolously at the expense of your team’. When guys like Raheem Mostert, Aaron Jones, and Phillip Lindsay can come in and be bell cows on rookie deals, it practically makes the position obsolete. Wilkins and Williams each would have had the same production as Mack and it’s not like Mack has lit it up in the passing game anyway, the one area that makes all the difference in RB play. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

19 minutes ago, stitches said:

He gets injured and you have 10M a year for the next few years tied into a sidelined asset? This is not about Marlon Mack to me. As I said before - I've defended him here before and I've said that he's a good back and he can do the job perfectly well for us. This is about the position of RB and the replaceability of RBs and the opportunity cost. For example... I'd much rather get the top DT on the market for 18M and draft a RB in the 4th than get an Autry type for 8M and give Mack 10M. This is not close. There are so many positions I'd rather spend those 10M a year on than a RB. 

Any player you sign can get injured. It’s a risk you take when signing any position.  Ballard knows his worth and I don’t expect a gigantic deal.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

He deserves it good! Ballard usually does a fair deal for both the team and the player!

[stitches]

Just now, Chloe6124 said:

Any player you sign can get injured. It’s a risk you take when signing any position. 

Not all positions are the same when it comes to risk of injury. RB is the position that gets punished the most in the league. There is a reason why it's the position with the lowest length of career in the league. 

[runthepost]

55 minutes ago, stitches said:

3/18 is the absolute maximum that makes any sense for the team. I really have no idea why any team would give money to RBs when you can literally take a 4th-7th rounder and pay him 600K and he will produce similarly. 

So what would you do if you had CMC, Barkley and Zeke? Just let them leave and hope to replace their production?

[shasta519]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

I posted the numbers for the players that are paid over 10M. There are 4 of them and NONE of them look like good deals, and for 3 of them, their teams wish they never gave them those contracts. There is no great 10M+ RB contract. 

 

Could you imagine this forum if the Ballard went out and signed Jordan Howard to a $10M/year multi-year contract. That would universally be panned.

 

Obviously Mack knows the system...but as far as RBs go...Howard is only a year older with similarl production (might even argue Howard has been more productive)...has dealt with some injuries...and doen't offer anything in the passing game.

 

If Mack gets more than Drake...then it's just not a good value.

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

Not all positions are the same when it comes to risk of injury. RB is the position that gets punished the most in the league. There is a reason why it's the position with the lowest length of career in the league. 

Which is why it won’t be a gigantic contract. It will be incentive based for games played ect. Ballard and his agent will understand what his true worth is.  It won’t be as big as people think but will be a considerable raise.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

The biggest thing here with Mack is he was a fourth rd pick and has outplayed his value and draft position. If he was a first or second round pick there would probably not be a extension because he would be making more money.

[BProland85]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

I'd be shocked if it is anything more than a 4 year $40 mil. ball park deal with $20-25 mil. guaranteed.

I’d be shocked if it were close to that kind of deal. 10 mil per season seems a bit much for Mack considering his injury issues he’s had. I would hope something closer to 6-7 mil per season.