Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, w87r said:

The option bonus(is is not a Roster bonus or certain performance bonus) is a little tricky, if it is guaranteed at signing, which in this case and Wentz case it was the team that guaranteed the money is on the hook for it.

 

Option bonus is essentially a signing bonus that goes into effect on a later date, but for cap purposes it's treated just like a signing bonus. So if that option bonus is due before a player is traded, the trading team pays it, and it hits their cap just like a signing bonus would.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 869
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Credit to Colts reddit(user highway8628) for this one, but Zach Wilson kinda looks like Chris Ballard:     So what say you, Colts nation? Does CB go for his long-lost son? 

****Mod Note****   Quite a few post were removed from this thread this morning.   The parties responsible I'm sure are well aware of who they are.   Back and Forth argume

Man I would take this trade with the eagles any day. Imagine getting Wentz and the 6th pick to draft a tackle. Eagles are going to have to pay someone to take Wentz if he is traded.    

Posted Images

So if the colts will add that 21st they could get him. Apparently SF has told Jimmy G agent they like their QB and are not that involved in getting Stafford. Which means we aren’t giving up the 12th pick. This is coming to a end soon. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Seems it’s down go SF, colts, WA. Also appears SF will not add that 12th pick. Let me go get some tweets.

Get Them Video Games GIF by Nickelodeon

Get them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tweezy32 said:

I don’t think we will be getting stafford honestly. Don’t think Ballard pulls the trigger on the trade being to expensive in picks

What's too expensive? I'd pretty much give up this year's one and next year's two (and maybe another future 3rd rounder).

 

Getting a QB is way more important than getting another gadget guy that Ballard thinks might turn a corner. We all know he can swing and miss on middle round guys (as they all do..).

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

So if the colts will add that 21st they could get him. Apparently SF has told Jimmy G agent they like their QB and are not that involved in getting Stafford. Which means we aren’t giving up the 12th pick. This is coming to a end soon. 

 

 

I hope it ends too... with Stafford anywhere but Indy

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Noisiest reporting right now says Colts like Stafford and Fields. 

 

So would you rather give up a 2021 first for Stafford, or trade up and use the 2021 first and 2022 first (most likely) for Fields?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tweezy32 said:

I don’t think we will be getting stafford honestly. Don’t think Ballard pulls the trigger on the trade being to expensive in picks

I totally agree, Ballard is about acquiring drafts picks not trading multiple ones away. As wonderful as it may sound to bring in some of these QB's I just don't see us spending the draft Capitol to make it happen. There is some other option that we are all missing.... I get that it is fun to speculate

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Superman said:

Noisiest reporting right now says Colts like Stafford and Fields. 

 

So would you rather give up a 2021 first for Stafford, or trade up and use the 2021 first and 2022 first (most likely) for Fields?

I’d rather Stafford. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Superman said:

Noisiest reporting right now says Colts like Stafford and Fields. 

 

So would you rather give up a 2021 first for Stafford, or trade up and use the 2021 first and 2022 first (most likely) for Fields?

This shouldn't even be a question imo..

 

Ballard like his picks and won't have to gamble on a rookie. 

 

I hope he's open to using middle round picks to sweeten the deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched a highlight reel for Fields. 2019-2020 season. He looks really good but so many of his throws seem to be guys WIDE open. Would like to know what actual college fans think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Superman said:

 

Is that because you don't like Fields?

Honestly, I don’t know much about Fields other than what I saw of him late this past season.  I just happen to think that Stafford brings a much more ready to win now game to the table, with very elite arm talent.  I think he’d shine on the Colts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am torn. It’s fun thinking about s young QB that you can have a long time. But also realizing this team is ready and a vet gives them the best chance to win a SB. Proven vet or a unproven rookie. Have to go with the proven vet.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

I am torn. It’s fun thinking about s young QB that you can have a long time. But also realizing this team is ready and a vet gives them the best chance to win a SB. Proven vet or a unproven rookie. Have to go with the proven vet.

The way this team is set up now for sure you go get the veteran.  Ballard might have to pay a little more than he was hoping for but it is what it is.  There is a first time for everything.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, the young Franchise QB is a nice thought, but if we could roll with a Stafford for 4 years, another Stafford for the next 4, and another Stafford for the next 4; what's the real difference?  As expensive as guys like Stafford are, your young franchise guy will earn that pay too.

 

Overall, I agree with Frank's offensive philosophy of playing keep away.  You beat KC by giving their O only 8 possessions a game instead of 13.  I don't want a QB running around making splash plays and giving the ball up in 2 minutes by either scoring a TD or a pick.  You win by having a positive scoring difference, not necessarily by scoring a lot of points

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeCurtis said:

Prolly Right but Wentz seems to have similar issues.........

 

We should have a CAPOLOGIST sticky.....  For all of us that dont have the time to understand it

 

:hat:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I am torn. It’s fun thinking about s young QB that you can have a long time. But also realizing this team is ready and a vet gives them the best chance to win a SB. Proven vet or a unproven rookie. Have to go with the proven vet.

Is it though?  I feel like the whole idea that the Colts are "ready" stems from the owner's eternal optimism..... 

 

Yeah were solid..... At all the complimentary areas a SB contender needs.... Non rush Lber, DT, interior OL.... Nickel corner, STs..... But have zero answers and only cap space and late in round picks to address ALL of the most important positions....#1(and really#2) CB, Pass rush, really need two with Houston a FA, LT, WR 1 or 2, and QB......

 

I don't see the "window" others see..... What, are we really worried about wasting the prime of an off ball LBer and an OG?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice to get Stafford and in these next 3-4 years find enough out about Eason where it could be a nice transition. The only issue Eason will be off his rookie contact before Stafford if we extend him. If we don’t then that gives us two years to find enough out about Eason. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, w87r said:

:hat:

My whole point with the Ryan conversation is that the key number in a trade is how much MORE cap hit a team will have if they trade a player, not the total cap hit.  The $49M is the total, not the additional.

 

If I read your comments correctly, in Ryan's case, the additional is only $4M.  Definitely doable for ATL if they are truly jettisoning players and rebuilding.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is lying season so who knows what to believe. They just trying to save face so jimmy G doesn’t get his feelings hurt if he has to come back. SF also said the same thing about Buckner.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Ok, so if ATL keep Ryan its 41, if they trade him its 45.

 

I guess they have two options:

 

In this March/April/June, accept Tyquan Lewis, Khari Willis, and a conditional 3rd round 2021 pick in a trade with the Colts.  Draft Fields and "pay" Ryan 45m to leave.

 

Or keep Ryan and pay him 41m to stay, Keep Fields on the bench, and simply cut Ryan next April/May/or June and get nothing, or try to trade him when he's 37. 

 

As I was saying, I'm not sure how the 50m dead cap hit statement is really relevant.

 

Unless ATL simply can't find the cap space to take on Lewis and Willis cheap contracts and the extra 4m for trading Ryan.

Yeah the $49.9m dead cap is irrelevant because they are not going to release him and lose an additional $9m in the process.Could elect for a post June 1st cut though, which would save them $17.5m cap space in 2021 and leave $23.4m dead cap(be responsible for extra $5.5m of base that is guaranteed) in 2021 and $26.5m dead cap in 2022.

 

Like I said though, the Falcons and any team could agree to the parameters of a post June 1st trade and not execute it till that point. That would free up $23m in cap space for Falcons in 2021 while charging $17.9m in 2021 and $26.5m dead cap in 2022.

 

Same goes with Goff and Wentz as well. Obviously not the same amounts but similar scenarios for Eagles and Rams to clear extra cap space in 2021.

 

I think in any off these deals the teams trading thos QBs would attach compensation to them to save to needed cap space.

 

Examples:(not saying this is what I want jist laying out scenarios)

ATL trades:

Ryan

2022  3rd

 

For 

 

(Whichever team)

2022 4th/ or 5th

 

Same with Goff and Wentz.

 

 

This allows the teams that will acquire the QB know they already have a QB plan in place and go about their offseason with the rest of their plans. Also allows ATL/PHI/LAR know the will be freeing up cap space after June 1st ro finish filling out the roster.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

Is it though?  I feel like the whole idea that the Colts are "ready" stems from the owner's eternal optimism..... 

 

Yeah were solid..... At all the complimentary areas a SB contender needs.... Non rush Lber, DT, interior OL.... Nickel corner, STs..... But have zero answers and only cap space and late in round picks to address ALL of the most important positions....#1(and really#2) CB, Pass rush, really need two with Houston a FA, LT, WR 1 or 2, and QB......

 

I don't see the "window" others see..... What, are we really worried about wasting the prime of an off ball LBer and an OG?

 

 

My conception of thinking they are ready comes from seeing them go 11-5 with a very immobile, though savvy veteran QB, knowing that argument can be made that they should’ve been 13-3, and that they should’ve won the playoff game against the much hyped Bills.  It is that, not Irsay’s optimism and comments, that makes me think this team is a QB and maybe 1 or 2 other players away from being legit SB contenders. 
 

I think that Stafford brings superior arm talent and much valuable pro experience to the table, as compared to the rookie, for a price of draft capital that is less than what it would take to move up and get Fields.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

It would be nice to get Stafford and in these next 3-4 years find enough out about Eason where it could be a nice transition. The only issue Eason will be off his rookie contact before Stafford if we extend him. If we don’t then that gives us two years to find enough out about Eason. 

If we get Stafford I'm expecting Ballard to extend him. Then Eason or someone else gets a chance to impress and maybe be the successor.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shafty138 said:

Is it though?  I feel like the whole idea that the Colts are "ready" stems from the owner's eternal optimism..... 

 

Yeah were solid..... At all the complimentary areas a SB contender needs.... Non rush Lber, DT, interior OL.... Nickel corner, STs..... But have zero answers and only cap space and late in round picks to address ALL of the most important positions....#1(and really#2) CB, Pass rush, really need two with Houston a FA, LT, WR 1 or 2, and QB......

 

I don't see the "window" others see..... What, are we really worried about wasting the prime of an off ball LBer and an OG?

 

Yeah, I think the level of "readiness" is being a little overblown. I do think we're close, but besides QB, we need some other critical positions to really make a go at it. Trading for Stafford still leaves us with enough resources to improve the roster, and probably be tops in the division, but I don't know if that's quite good enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Matt Ryan? What is happening here? If it is Matt Ryan or Eason, just roll with Eason and take the lumps. Ryan is pretty much Rivers 2.0 

I just floated it as an alternative to the first choice of Stafford.  Ryan is Rivers, but he can push downfield a lot better.  And leave us with the most capital to draft more players.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the 49ers thing is going to pan out. Seems wiser to me to keep all your picks and the QB who got you to the Superbowl just a year or so ago. Then if they want someone to replace Garappolo they should use pick #12 to draft a young gunslinger to groom behind Jimmy for a year or two. Or you can stay with Garrapolo and trade #12 down to add even more picks. Why would you give away all those picks and Jimmy G for just 1 vet QB who hasnt even been to the Superbowl. Stafford coming here to indy makes more sense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, krunk said:

I dont think the 49ers thing is going to pan out. Seems wiser to me to keep all your picks and the QB who got you to the Superbowl just a year or so ago. Then if they want someone to replace Garappolo they should use pick #12 to draft a young gunslinger to groom behind Jimmy for a year or two. Or you can stay with Garrapolo and trade #12 down to add even more picks. Why would you give away all those picks and Jimmy G for just 1 vet QB who hasnt even been to the Superbowl. Stafford coming here to indy makes more sense.

Yeah, I don't see the incremental difference between Stafford and Jimmy G being the thing that gets SF to the SB.  Maybe they don't either which is why they are not offering #12.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mr.Debonair said:

Matt Ryan? What is happening here? If it is Matt Ryan or Eason, just roll with Eason and take the lumps. Ryan is pretty much Rivers 2.0 

Nobody is saying to get Matt Ryan, just laying out the numbers if they were to move on.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DougDew said:

Yeah, I don't see the incremental difference between Stafford and Jimmy G being the thing that gets SF to the SB.  Maybe they don't either which is why they are not offering #12.

Yeah if i were them id keep #12 and and all my other picks to improve the team around Jimmy. They might even be able to move down about 3 to 5 picks to aquire more picks and still add a nice future replacement for Jimmy. Thats what id do if i were San Fran instead of blowing all those picks when you already have a decent vet option in place. Id just pick up a solid young gun with #12-#17 pick.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Yeah if i am SF I try and trade up over Stanford.

Why?  Stafford much better than Jimmy 

Just now, The Fish said:

Dudes name makes me hungry... 

The new Kraft "Mac & Jones"

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nadine changed the title to Matthew Stafford (merge)

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

    • Positions that are clear (real and perceived) QB1, X-WR, RB1, APB, RT, RG, C, LG, 3T, NT, CB1 (Rhodes), NB (Moore), WILL, TE1 and TE2.   The rest, have some element of fog (real or perceived) IMO.   Offense QB2 - If Eason is clearly #2, not sure whey we waste a draft pick on another QB. I didn't get it then, and not now lol. Z - Hilton his aging. Pretty clear the plan when drafting Campbell was that he would gradually work outside. Slot - PC is the obvious guy if healthy, but if he is healthy, and they start moving him outside, we still have questions.  LT - Fisher is clear if he returns to form. If not, a lot of fog. TE3 - Granson is a wildcard but assuming they want to use him as a move-slot-TE like they tried to use Burton. Not really a true TE   Defense L and RDE - time share here. There are several rotations I can see here, and likely won't be set early. MIKE - Oke is the clear leader, but there will be a lot of eyes on his run D. A time share here would not shock me. SAM - we don't use it a lot, so who knows. I could even see Oke playing SAM and Franklin handling MIKE on those SAM downs. LB Depth - who knows. Will we ever see Speed emerge? CB2 and CB Detph - RYS vs Carrie vs Tell vs Rogers. Nothing would surprise me. FS - Blackmon needs to take a big step forward in deep coverage. If not, I could see a rotation here. SS - Willis is very solid, but I could see him getting pushed by Shawn Davis.  
    • I think the QB position is a little unique in terms of depth expectation and planning.  And it depends on your expectations of the team.  See below in my response to CR91 for more.   Not sure I understand. How was letting Walker go an "answer".      Couple points here...  Hoyer's loss vs Miami was 99% on Reich. After Hoyer played pretty well vs Pitt (coming in cold) in which he had 3 TDs / 1 INT and completed 65% of passes, Reich chose to 1) not practice Hoyer with the 1s leading up to the Miami game, and 2) chose to throw it all over the school yard (around 40 attempts) vs a team that was horrible vs the run. Just super bad game plan and prep. I agree that a pricey vet QB, or spending much on a backup QB in general is pretty much a waste. That is, unless you are a true SB contender going into the year (and can afford it). I've always felt if your starting QB goes down for the year, might as well accept things and embrace a higher draft pick come next draft. It's extremely rare to go deep with a backup. Even Foles wasn't seen as a high end backup. He was just off a cheap one year deal, and was contemplating retirement. He came back to Philly for a moderate deal, which most thought was even too much. That was purely luck. Just my opinion, but I like riding out Eason and trying to develop him along the way. And trade him (if he's not in contention for starting job) later if you can get picks, or keep him if he's decent and cheap. I, like you, like what the Pats do most years.
    • I don’t think a decision can be made until the preseason when we all see if Eason can play.  There are guys out there like Barkley, who can get you through a game or two in a pinch.  From what I read the Bears will probably keep Foles simply because his contract makes it easy for them   But my point was that it’s interesting that most of of aren’t really concerned about the backup QB even though it’s the position that we have least experience.  
  • Members

    • Moe

      Moe 50

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Wentzszn

      Wentzszn 11,138

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • EastStreet

      EastStreet 10,827

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoColts8818

      GoColts8818 5,222

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Behle

      Behle 49

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jvan1973

      jvan1973 5,742

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • rock8591

      rock8591 565

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • B~Town

      B~Town 216

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • WentzinRome

      WentzinRome 182

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • chad72

      chad72 7,998

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