Marlon Mack Contract Situation: Stats, Poll, & Discussion

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, AwesomeAustin said:

I should have explained better.  Ebron was still a part time player that received 6mil a year.  He did have one good year that was a lot bc of Luck. He was signed bc we expected Luck to be our QB. If Ballard will pay a part time player that much I can see him exceeding that for a player like Mack. The front office knows more than me so I will trust their judgement.  However, I’m ok with either direction they choose to go

 

Got it. I thought you were making a different point.

 

What's interesting is that, when Ballard decides he wants a guy, he's willing to pay market rate. He's not throwing money around, but he's not necessarily cheap once he engages.

[shasta519]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The Colts have the most leverage. But all Mack has to do is say no, and then it's up to the Colts to make a decision. I think we can all conclude that we're not tagging him after 2020, right? So either the Colts offer Mack what he thinks his value is, or he waits them out and hits the market. 

 

I don't think it's remotely reasonable to expect Mack to sign a year early for a below market deal. Jerick McKinnon has never been especially productive, but two years ago he signed for $7.5m/year. Now, we're gonna get Mack for $7m?

 

McKinnon actually made it to FA...where he was rumored to have at least 5 teams bidding on him...so I am sure that inflated his value somewhat. And that deal has been a complete bust...so using McKinnon's contract as a negotiating tactic...probably won't have the desired effect.

 

On the flip side...you have Tevin Coleman...who was a bit older...but coming off somewhat similar production...and he got $5M/year.

 

Or Jordan Howard...who is not as dynamic...but has been similarly productive as Mack (and is only a year older). He's also had some injury issues and isn't much of a threat in the passing game. Even if he hadn't gotten hurt...he was likely looking at something similar to Coleman.

 

And then there's Kenyan Drake...who spent 3/4 of the last two seasons in MIA (including half of last season on a really bad MIA team with a terrible OL). Despite this...he had almost identical production to Mack (similar yards/scrimmage, similar yards/carry, similar # of TDs, similar AV, similar PFF grades) over the past two years.

 

But Drake is more of a playmaker in the passing game...with a much higher yards/touch...and he is also coming off a monster 2nd half with ARI (essentially a breakout). And looking at contract speculation for him...$7.5M/year is the highest amount listed. 

 

Yes...he's two years older than Mack right now...but you also aren't paying for Mack's FA years yet.

 

Those media guys might be completely off on Drake...but assuming they are not...then I do think it's reasonable to speculate on Mack getting an extension for something like $7-8M/year...especially since it's a year early and he can get a raise next season...before the extension starts. 

 

If not...then let him play out his deal and address it next offseason. I think him getting more than Drake is questionable enough...but giving him a $10M+/year extension right now is way out there. 

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

McKinnon actually made it to FA...where he was rumored to have at least 5 teams bidding on him...so I am sure that inflated his value somewhat. And that deal has been a complete bust...so using McKinnon's contract as a negotiating tactic...probably won't have the desired effect.

 

On the flip side...you have Tevin Coleman...who was a bit older...but coming off somewhat similar production...and he got $5M/year.

 

Or Jordan Howard...who is not as dynamic...but has been similarly productive as Mack (and is only a year older). He's also had some injury issues and isn't much of a threat in the passing game. Even if he hadn't gotten hurt...he was likely looking at something similar to Coleman.

 

And then there's Kenyan Drake...who spent 3/4 of the last two seasons in MIA (including half of last season on a really bad MIA team with a terrible OL). Despite this...he had almost identical production to Mack (similar yards/scrimmage, similar yards/carry, similar # of TDs, similar AV, similar PFF grades) over the past two years.

 

But Drake is more of a playmaker in the passing game...with a much higher yards/touch...and he is also coming off a monster 2nd half with ARI (essentially a breakout). And looking at contract speculation for him...$7.5M/year is the highest amount listed. 

 

Yes...he's two years older than Mack right now...but you also aren't paying for Mack's FA years yet.

 

Those media guys might be completely off on Drake...but assuming they are not...then I do think it's reasonable to speculate on Mack getting an extension for something like $7-8M/year...especially since it's a year early and he can get a raise next season...before the extension starts. 

 

If not...then let him play out his deal and address it next offseason. I think him getting more than Drake is questionable enough...but giving him a $10M+/year extension right now is way out there. 

 

When a player signs a contract, he influences the market. Doesn't really matter why McKinnon got $7.5m/year, just that he did. That's how agents negotiate. When you compare his usage and production to Mack, and add in the fact that his contract was two years ago, it's kind of an easy argument for Mack's agent to make.

 

I also think Drake at $7.5m/year is unrealistic, but I guess we'll see.

[USFfan]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

he had a couple of tipped passes go for 6 the other way, and he also had a high drop % when they were throwing to him

 

thats why the stopped throwing to him 

I only remember the one against the Jets and yeah it was a bad play by Mack what was the other one?

 

He had 1 drop this year and like 3 last year. 2017 he only had 1.

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Let's assume all four of these guys sign this year for $13m/year, somewhere in that range. Add in Fournette and Mixon, and let's assume that David Johnson and Devonta Freeman get released. Now your top RB market is set at that range, with eight or nine guys up there: Elliott, Gurley, Bell, McCaffrey, Cook, Henry, Kamara, Fournette, Mixon. (And maybe those guys don't sign this year, but realistically, they'll all get new contracts from their teams in the next year or so, so that's our top nine-ish.)

 

Once you get rid of Johnson and Freeman -- and add in McKinnon at $7.5m, who will likely be released at some point over the next few weeks -- you have no middle class of veteran RBs. Duke Johnson is next, at $5.2m/year, with Ingram and a few other guys coming up behind him. We'll see what happens with Melvin Gordon, Kenyan Drake, James Conner, and whoever else is in that grouping. Maybe they form a middle class, but I think Mack has a better market claim than that group of guys. 

 

My opinion, if the Colts want to re-sign Mack this year, it has to be a legit second tier contract, which is something around $9-10m/year, three or four years. Just being realistic. There's a lot they can do with a structure on that kind of deal -- bonus, rolling guarantees, etc. -- to protect the team in the event Mack falls apart in the next two years. Especially if you do it this year, because you can spread out the bonus and mitigate the risk a little more, and he's still young even for a RB and hasn't been a high usage player so far.

 

If you're out on that range of contract for Mack, then I think you're out on Mack. That's fine. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect anything less. If you play out 2020, maybe his market changes and you can get him at the bargain rate of $6m/year. But IMO, this is the year. If you don't extend him now, then you might as well just ride him heavy in 2020 and then let him walk next year. And I'm fine with that, because I'm not super excited about throwing money at a veteran RB. 

 

But for me, it's one or the other. I don't think he's going to sign a bargain extension when he can reasonably expect to be a FA next year at 25, maybe coming off a second straight 1,000 yard season. If I were him, either I get my $10m/year, or I wait to see what happens in free agency next year. I'm not signing for $6-7m/year this offseason.

I agree on a lot of what you have to say. IMO, the RB market right now is of extremes in the top 15 (contract wise). Knowing though what has happened to a lot of guys who got big dollars and didn't perform or simply fell apart, I don't think either side (team or RBs) assume anything is a home run sure thing situation unless they are top of the heap. And Mack isn't at the top. He's done good behind a great OL, but isn't top 10 in yards from scrimmage.

 

Personally, I'd offer something modest, higher on guarantees. Even at 4x7 for example, that's life changing money if structured to the advantage of the RB. If that doesn't work, then I'd ride out 2020 and get one more year of high value. I think we'll see some market correction for sure, but I also think we'll see rooks continue to somewhat dominate production, which will continue to make the $/production ratio look crazy.

 

And I'm OK if we do what some teams do, which is draft 2nd to 5th round RB every 3-4 years. But I also wouldn't lose sleep if they offered what you suggest, with protections to the team. Honestly nothing is going to concern me right now given our cap situation. And I do like Mack, and would love to have him back.

[aaron11]

36 minutes ago, USFfan said:

I only remember the one against the Jets and yeah it was a bad play by Mack what was the other one?

 

He had 1 drop this year and like 3 last year. 2017 he only had 1.

drops are not always counted the same by different places

 

the other tip was against the titans 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

I agree on a lot of what you have to say. IMO, the RB market right now is of extremes in the top 15 (contract wise). Knowing though what has happened to a lot of guys who got big dollars and didn't perform or simply fell apart, I don't think either side (team or RBs) assume anything is a home run sure thing situation unless they are top of the heap. And Mack isn't at the top. He's done good behind a great OL, but isn't top 10 in yards from scrimmage.

 

Personally, I'd offer something modest, higher on guarantees. Even at 4x7 for example, that's life changing money if structured to the advantage of the RB. If that doesn't work, then I'd ride out 2020 and get one more year of high value. I think we'll see some market correction for sure, but I also think we'll see rooks continue to somewhat dominate production, which will continue to make the $/production ratio look crazy.

 

And I'm OK if we do what some teams do, which is draft 2nd to 5th round RB every 3-4 years. But I also wouldn't lose sleep if they offered what you suggest, with protections to the team. Honestly nothing is going to concern me right now given our cap situation. And I do like Mack, and would love to have him back.

 

The more I think it through, the more I'm in favor of letting him walk after 2020. I was never against that, it's probably always been my preference. But when reports surfaced that they were talking about an extension, I just thought through the market and figured it would be somewhere in the range I've been stating. I could be wrong, just seems like the landscape.

 

But if they just let him walk, then replace him, they could have a RB stable of four backs at one third the cost. Hines and Wilkins are going into Year 3, they got some great production out of other replacement level backs, it's not like Mack is a superstar... I'm fine with letting him walk, just from a value/strategy standpoint.

 

But IF they want to keep him, I assume it's going to be well into that second tier.

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

The more I think it through, the more I'm in favor of letting him walk after 2020. I was never against that, it's probably always been my preference. But when reports surfaced that they were talking about an extension, I just thought through the market and figured it would be somewhere in the range I've been stating. I could be wrong, just seems like the landscape.

 

But if they just let him walk, then replace him, they could have a RB stable of four backs at one third the cost. Hines and Wilkins are going into Year 3, they got some great production out of other replacement level backs, it's not like Mack is a superstar... I'm fine with letting him walk, just from a value/strategy standpoint.

 

But IF they want to keep him, I assume it's going to be well into that second tier.

Purely my opinion, but I think Ballard is simply trying to get a team friendly deal in the "now", and is probably very OK with riding out 2020 too. Could be wrong though. Given our cap situation, they may have factored him into the equation and think they can afford things if they are covered in certain aspects of the deal. 

 

I do think however that the team has most of the leverage.

-He's not top 10 in yards from scrimmage, and is somewhat an under the radar guy

-He might be seen by some as single threaded (lacks pass game production)

-He's in a contract year, so needs to perform well regardless

-He'd get a substantial raise a year early

-An extension now would provide insurance to an extent from injury in 2020

-He's got a great OL, and will roll the dice effectively in the FA market next year

-I'm simply not convinced a lot of teams will be willing to back a truck up for him regardless.

[USFfan]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

drops are not always counted the same by different places

 

the other tip was against the titans 

The pick 6 against the Titans Mack wasn't even on the field. It was just a bad throw by Luck.

 

 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

The more I think it through, the more I'm in favor of letting him walk after 2020. I was never against that, it's probably always been my preference. But when reports surfaced that they were talking about an extension, I just thought through the market and figured it would be somewhere in the range I've been stating. I could be wrong, just seems like the landscape.

 

But if they just let him walk, then replace him, they could have a RB stable of four backs at one third the cost. Hines and Wilkins are going into Year 3, they got some great production out of other replacement level backs, it's not like Mack is a superstar... I'm fine with letting him walk, just from a value/strategy standpoint.

 

But IF they want to keep him, I assume it's going to be well into that second tier.

Welcome to the "RB hate club" 

 

Yeah... I really like Mack but IMO the trends and the value in the modern NFL suggest that the giving big money for second contract RBs is not a good investment in huge majority of cases. 

 

Ballard likes taking care of his guys and I can see him giving Mack a good extension, though... 

 

Some of the big dominoes started falling with Brees and Rivers staying and leaving respectively. I wonder when we are goin to hear about AC and possible Mack extension...

[EastStreet]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

Welcome to the "RB hate club" 

 

Yeah... I really like Mack but IMO the trends and the value in the modern NFL suggest that the giving big money for second contract RBs is not a good investment in huge majority of cases. 

 

Ballard likes taking care of his guys and I can see him giving Mack a good extension, though... 

 

Some of the big dominoes started falling with Brees and Rivers staying and leaving respectively. I wonder when we are goin to hear about AC and possible Mack extension...

I think AC news will be in March. Mack's news could be tomorrow or never.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

I think AC news will be in March. Mack's news could be tomorrow or never.

I wonder if one impacts the other. Whether they are waiting on AC before they do the Mack extension...

[EastStreet]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

I wonder if one impacts the other. Whether they are waiting on AC before they do the Mack extension...

I kinda doubt it, but you never know. $ isn't the issue.

 

If I'm AC or Mack, what would impact my decision is the QB situation. High time to throw stats make an OL's job a lot harder on one side (passing), and ineffective passing translates to Ds keying on the run, and in turn harder on both the OL (on the other side) and RBs. If Funch is weighing an offer, he's probably asking questions about QB too.

[hoosierhawk]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Let's assume all four of these guys sign this year for $13m/year, somewhere in that range. Add in Fournette and Mixon, and let's assume that David Johnson and Devonta Freeman get released. Now your top RB market is set at that range, with eight or nine guys up there: Elliott, Gurley, Bell, McCaffrey, Cook, Henry, Kamara, Fournette, Mixon. (And maybe those guys don't sign this year, but realistically, they'll all get new contracts from their teams in the next year or so, so that's our top nine-ish.)

 

Once you get rid of Johnson and Freeman -- and add in McKinnon at $7.5m, who will likely be released at some point over the next few weeks -- you have no middle class of veteran RBs. Duke Johnson is next, at $5.2m/year, with Ingram and a few other guys coming up behind him. We'll see what happens with Melvin Gordon, Kenyan Drake, James Conner, and whoever else is in that grouping. Maybe they form a middle class, but I think Mack has a better market claim than that group of guys. 

 

My opinion, if the Colts want to re-sign Mack this year, it has to be a legit second tier contract, which is something around $9-10m/year, three or four years. Just being realistic. There's a lot they can do with a structure on that kind of deal -- bonus, rolling guarantees, etc. -- to protect the team in the event Mack falls apart in the next two years. Especially if you do it this year, because you can spread out the bonus and mitigate the risk a little more, and he's still young even for a RB and hasn't been a high usage player so far.

 

If you're out on that range of contract for Mack, then I think you're out on Mack. That's fine. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect anything less. If you play out 2020, maybe his market changes and you can get him at the bargain rate of $6m/year. But IMO, this is the year. If you don't extend him now, then you might as well just ride him heavy in 2020 and then let him walk next year. And I'm fine with that, because I'm not super excited about throwing money at a veteran RB. 

 

But for me, it's one or the other. I don't think he's going to sign a bargain extension when he can reasonably expect to be a FA next year at 25, maybe coming off a second straight 1,000 yard season. If I were him, either I get my $10m/year, or I wait to see what happens in free agency next year. I'm not signing for $6-7m/year this offseason.

I agree with your salary parameters for Mack and I also agree that that is more money than I would offer. I think you ride with him next year and see if you want or can resign him to a reasonable offer.If not, a whole bunch of guys including inexpensive rookies could put up good numbers behind this OL 

[TimetobringDfence!]

I know Ballard is about paying our own. But RB is one posisition that isn't wise to heavily invest in. 4.5 mil tops, with our line we will be fine. New England has done it successfully for years.

[TimetobringDfence!]

Our money needs to go to real posistions of need. Cornerback and Dline help.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

7 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

Our money needs to go to real posistions of need. Cornerback and Dline help.

Paying Mack’s isn’t going to stop us from signing any one in FA.

[TimetobringDfence!]

Yeah But we need to stay ahead of the cap/curve. We got to pay Leonard and Nelson. If AC stays we need ti pay him and if he leaves replace him. It would be awesome if we could sign Jones from KC or a top talent CB. But its nice to always have cap space.

[chad72]

5 hours ago, aaron11 said:

drops are not always counted the same by different places

 

the other tip was against the titans 

It was against the Jets

[Dogg63]

12 hours ago, chad72 said:

It was against the Jets

Sure was, how could I have forgotten??

 

'Andrew Luck didn’t have much luck when his short pass deflected off the hands of Colts running back Marlon Mack and safety Jamal Adams before making a soft landing in the hands of cornerback Morris Claiborne. The Jets had a 17-yard pick-6 . . . 12 seconds into Sunday’s game.

 

“It gave us a boost,” Claiborne said of his first NFL interception return for a touchdown and the fastest score by the defense in franchise history.'

 

https://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/jets-colts-1.21960309

[aaron11]

13 hours ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

I know Ballard is about paying our own. But RB is one posisition that isn't wise to heavily invest in. 4.5 mil tops, with our line we will be fine. New England has done it successfully for years.

they did take one in the first round recently 

[aaron11]

16 hours ago, USFfan said:

The pick 6 against the Titans Mack wasn't even on the field. It was just a bad throw by Luck.

 

 

i was talking about this one, but yeah my memory was a little off.  not technically a drop or pick six, but it was a bad fumble/catch and lead to a TD right after 

 

 

 

[TimetobringDfence!]

43 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

they did take one in the first round recently 

Yes and a first round RB is cheap lol.i guarantee NE didnt over pay him on first contract and let him walk when it came to resigning or got a good deal.

[USFfan]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

i was talking about this one, but yeah my memory was a little off.  not technically a drop or pick six, but it was a bad fumble/catch and lead to a TD right after 

 

 

 

Right. So that NYJ game was a bad drop but that doesnt mean he cant catch because of one play. I dont know why they decided not to throw to him in space. They did it a handful of times his rookie year and he was dynamic. 

 

I wish they would give him opportunities in the passing game, getting him in space and designed screens. 

 

See his rookie highlights:

 

 

[aaron11]

1 hour ago, USFfan said:

Right. So that NYJ game was a bad drop but that doesnt mean he cant catch because of one play. I dont know why they decided not to throw to him in space. They did it a handful of times his rookie year and he was dynamic. 

 

I wish they would give him opportunities in the passing game, getting him in space and designed screens. 

 

See his rookie highlights:

 

 

i think catching is something you can improve on and maybe mack could stand to put some extra practice time into it.  would help the team a lot and probably his contract too

 

then again there have been some great running backs that always struggled with it like AP 

[USFfan]

16 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i think catching is something you can improve on and maybe mack could stand to put some extra practice time into it.  would help the team a lot and probably his contract too

 

then again there have been some great running backs that always struggled with it like AP 

I dont think he struggles with it. He just doesn't get the opportunity. Obviously there is always room for improvement but he is not a liability in the passing game.

 

If you watch those rookie highlights you see they had designed pass plays for him in space and it was very successful. 

[shasta519]

56 minutes ago, USFfan said:

I dont think he struggles with it. He just doesn't get the opportunity. Obviously there is always room for improvement but he is not a liability in the passing game.

 

If you watch those rookie highlights you see they had designed pass plays for him in space and it was very successful. 

 

SSS...but his catch rate was pretty low the first two years. Definitely improved last season though.

[USFfan]

39 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

SSS...but his catch rate was pretty low the first two years. Definitely improved last season though.

 

What does sss mean? Also, catch rate is not a reliable stat. Targets count even if the qb throws it away or at the feet of a receiver. 

[EastStreet]

2 hours ago, USFfan said:

I dont think he struggles with it. He just doesn't get the opportunity. Obviously there is always room for improvement but he is not a liability in the passing game.

 

If you watch those rookie highlights you see they had designed pass plays for him in space and it was very successful. 

If you look at RB catch rates, most are mid 70s to mid 80s %. Mack's first two years were low/mid 60s, so not very good at all. He got more targets his rookie year, as he wasn't the primary every down back. His targets declined the next year when he took over as RB1, and even more last year.

 

His catch rate did go up last year to the low 80s, which is good, but his targets were very low, so really not a great gauge. I also think his lack of targets are partly just strategy in the grand scheme of things. IMO, they ran him a lot (rushing attempts), and were perhaps trying not to run him to death by giving him another 5 touches per game in the passing game. And I think they simply like Hines' ability to catch better. 

 

Had we had a better QB, I think we'd have seen more diverse use of Mack though. But we didn't, and simply tried to be more ground and pound.

[EastStreet]

16 minutes ago, USFfan said:

 

What does sss mean? Also, catch rate is not a reliable stat. Targets count even if the qb throws it away or at the feet of a receiver. 

All players have to deal with those conditions, and throw aways typically aren't factored into catch rates, especially in advanced stats.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, USFfan said:

 

What does sss mean? Also, catch rate is not a reliable stat. Targets count even if the qb throws it away or at the feet of a receiver. 

 

SSS = Small Sample Size

[USFfan]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

SSS = Small Sample Size

 

Ah I gotcha. Thanks

[USFfan]

5 hours ago, EastStreet said:

If you look at RB catch rates, most are mid 70s to mid 80s %. Mack's first two years were low/mid 60s, so not very good at all. He got more targets his rookie year, as he wasn't the primary every down back. His targets declined the next year when he took over as RB1, and even more last year.

 

His catch rate did go up last year to the low 80s, which is good, but his targets were very low, so really not a great gauge. I also think his lack of targets are partly just strategy in the grand scheme of things. IMO, they ran him a lot (rushing attempts), and were perhaps trying not to run him to death by giving him another 5 touches per game in the passing game. And I think they simply like Hines' ability to catch better. 

 

Had we had a better QB, I think we'd have seen more diverse use of Mack though. But we didn't, and simply tried to be more ground and pound.

Good points

[EastStreet]

10 minutes ago, USFfan said:

Good points

Now that he has settled into the roll of RB1, I do think they might up the targets, especially if we upgrade at QB.

[Superman]

On 2/18/2020 at 1:44 PM, stitches said:

Welcome to the "RB hate club" 

 

Yeah... I really like Mack but IMO the trends and the value in the modern NFL suggest that the giving big money for second contract RBs is not a good investment in huge majority of cases. 

 

Ballard likes taking care of his guys and I can see him giving Mack a good extension, though... 

 

Some of the big dominoes started falling with Brees and Rivers staying and leaving respectively. I wonder when we are goin to hear about AC and possible Mack extension...

 

Definitely not hate. Just strategy.

 

I wouldn't even call a second contract for Mack an investment. I wouldn't expect the team to ever feel like they came out ahead on the deal. It's essentially paying for a luxury.

[EastStreet]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

Definitely not hate. Just strategy.

 

I wouldn't even call a second contract for Mack an investment. I wouldn't expect the team to ever feel like they came out ahead on the deal. It's essentially paying for a luxury.

Agreed with the bolded.

 

Honest question. What would you personally be willing to pay Mack in a 3 year deal (not coming out ahead, not "market", but good value for both sides)

[EastStreet]

sounds like they are riding out 2020. 

 

Good choice IMO. Hope he's back in 2021, but no need to pay now, or pay big.

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

Irsay's comment today about Mack doesn't mean there weren't talks at some point this off-season.    I take his comments to mean there are no current talks on-going.

 

But it's not hard to accept that there might've been some level of talks just to gage interest.

 

So, we might've asked Mack what he's looking for.    Mack says 5/45.    We might've said, 3/21.   Or maybe 4/30 or 4/32.     And the talks might've stopped there.     Perhaps too far a gap to try and close.    

 

Maybe both sides hope that Mack establishes his true value this year.   Either to the Colts,  or another NFL team.

 

[Superman]

12 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Irsay's comment today about Mack doesn't mean there weren't talks at some point this off-season.    I take his comments to mean there are no current talks on-going.

 

But it's not hard to accept that there might've been some level of talks just to gage interest.

 

So, we might've asked Mack what he's looking for.    Mack says 5/45.    We might've said, 3/21.   Or maybe 4/30 or 4/32.     And the talks might've stopped there.     Perhaps too far a gap to try and close.    

 

Maybe both sides hope that Mack establishes his true value this year.   Either to the Colts,  or another NFL team.

 

 

Yeah, I wanted to mention this earlier but the thought got lost among a sea of other thoughts. This 'talking about a contract' could have been as simple as the Colts saying to Mack's reps "hey, what about extending before 2020?" The agent says "sure, we want four years, $40m, $25m guaranteed," and the Colts say "no thanks, let's play out 2020 and see what happens," or even "let's see if a new CBA happens before September." 

 

It never sounded like a deal was imminent, but based on what Irsay said, if there were any conversations, they would have been extremely preliminary, and didn't gain any real traction.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I didn’t think a contract was close either. The article said talks would really start at the combine. Not sure Irsay would of even said yes they are talking.  So he might of been telling the truth that talks hadn’t started. I am glad to hear he does get a nice pay raise this year. That takes some of the money issue for him off the table.