Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Leonard, Big Q, Glowinski and Smith Contracts


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

This is the biggest truth. Everyone hand wrings at a market setting contract (for any position), until the next guy comes along blows it out the water. There isn't always a direct correlation between talent and money. Circumstances can have a huge effect. 

 

Would you say Dak Prescott is 'worth' his contract? IIRC didn't it also make him the highest paid player in history (briefly). 

Yes.  The reality is that the usually the most currently signed contract is the most expensive, so looking at it from that vacuum isn't appropriate.  and neither is the vacuum of saying that he is the best at his position so he deserves it, like you could also say about a punter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

smith should of been a probowler the las two seasons . he gave up zero sacks starting 15 games , that is amazing he is a shut down tackle and elite run blocker

What I originally typed was: "Slight update on the DL and (Braden Smith's initials) contract negotiations."   But spell check changed it to: "Slight update on the DL and nonsense c

A good point about outliers. Trying to tie this back together, I think the main contention from those opposed to paying Q/Leonard is not that they're not good, or even great players. More that by the

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes.  The reality is that the usually the most currently signed contract is the most expensive, so looking at it from that vacuum isn't appropriate.  and neither is the vacuum of saying that he is the best at his position so he deserves it, like you could also say about a punter.

 

I do think there is some truth to the idea that in building a 'Superbowl roster', as important as your superstars is getting the bottom end bang for buck guys right. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

This is the biggest truth. Everyone hand wrings at a market setting contract (for any position), until the next guy comes along blows it out the water. There isn't always a direct correlation between talent and money. Circumstances can have a huge effect. 

 

Would you say Dak Prescott is 'worth' his contract? IIRC didn't it also make him the highest paid player in history (briefly). 

 

Dak came in behind Mahomes, but yeah, this is the game. Has been for a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I do think there is some truth to the idea that in building a 'Superbowl roster', as important as your superstars is getting the bottom end bang for buck guys right. 

Ballard has been dealt some weird hands.  His QB retires,  and one of the "elite" players he was in position to draft when he was drafting high was a G.  Decisions and events you sort of have to run with and work with as you go along.

 

He bought Wentz and now Fisher on the cheap.  Having them return to form would be a huge "bang for the buck".  And we're talking about starters at impactful positions.  It will be huge if it happens.

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

 

Dak came in behind Mahomes, but yeah, this is the game. Has been for a long time.

 

Ahh I was trying to remember which was around it was. Thanks. In that case I would imagine there would have been quite the uproar that if Dak had gone first. QB is always going to be a distorted position, money wise, but it is the game for other positions. 

 

I don't doubt some of it is agents wanting to sell on 'I got my client the biggest deal in history', and when you really delve into the details it's nothing of the sort. 

 

NFL contracts always seem like alchemy. 

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

Ballard has been dealt some weird hands.  His QB retires,  and one of the "elite" players he was in position to draft when he was drafting high was a G.  Decisions and events you sort of have to run with and work with as you go along.

 

He bought Wentz and now Fisher on the cheap.  Having them return to form would be a huge "bang for the buck".  And we're talking about starters at impactful positions.  It will be huge if it happens.

 

I don't often agree with you but.. absolutely. 


The two threads of hope I hang onto with Wentz are , is some of his downturn related to injury, and was it also in part what seems to have been an very toxic atmosphere of infighting within the Eagles. People forget just how badly protected he was in 2020, 50+(?) sacks, when IIRC he didn't start 16 games even.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I don't often agree with you but.. absolutely. 


The two threads of hope I hang onto with Wentz are , is some of his downturn related to injury, and was it also in part what seems to have been an very toxic atmosphere of infighting within the Eagles. People forget just how badly protected he was in 2020, 50+(?) sacks, when IIRC he didn't start 16 games even.

In this QB dust up in Philly, the old guard vets on the team like Fletcher Cox and their vet safety said that when Wentz came in, they didn't need him to be a leader or anything else other than to play good QB on the field.  I think the Colts current team is more like that Eagles team in terms of talent and locker room than what the 2020 eagles and locker room was like.  I'm hoping for good things.

 

I always thought that Luck lacked a little bit in that leadership area that held him back from taking that next step.....was called upon to be more than what he felt comfortable being.  I think Wentz might have that same trait.  A good HC can see that and manage through it, IMO.

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

You're looking at it from a GM evaluation point of view.  Roster management is a lot like poker.  There are circumstances beyond your control that have to be managed.  Good luck and timing is a part of that.

 

The best poker player can't overcome being dealt cards where his best hand has Jacks and the opponents consistently have Kings and Aces.

 

Keeping it objective, what team has better odds of winning the SB over a given 5 year contract period, the team that has Nelson or the team that has Trevor Lawrence or Tom Brady?

Of course the answer is Brady or Lawrence.   But that wasn’t Ballard’s choice.  He had his quarterback at the time.   He didn’t need his QB. 
 

You don’t pass on players of Nelson’s caliber. You make it sound like a handicap.   Like we have this weight around our ankle that we have to drag around.   Having Nelson is all good.   There isn’t a, yeah but, to this argument.   Except Moosejaw has been saying “yeah but” for more than a year now, maybe longer. 
 

Please, PLEASE don’t tell me you’re now  going to carry that ball for a while? Please no?   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

You make it sound like a handicap.   Like we have this weight around our ankle that we have to drag around.   Having Nelson is all good.   There isn’t a, yeah but, to this argument.

 

QFT

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

Of course the answer is Brady or Lawrence.   But that wasn’t Ballard’s choice.  He had his quarterback at the time.   He didn’t need his QB. 
 

You don’t pass on players of Nelson’s caliber. You make it sound like a handicap.   Like we have this weight around our ankle that we have to drag around.   Having Nelson is all good.   There isn’t a, yeah but, to this argument.   Except Moosejaw has been saying “yeah but” for more than a year now, maybe longer. 
 

Please, PLEASE don’t tell me you’re now  going to carry that ball for a while? Please no?   

I don't follow other posters around to compile what they say over the course of a year, but IMO in this thread he's making a great point.

 

Its simple.  If every player plays up to there contract level...and not a penny beyond, you want your highest paid players to be in the most important positions,  You don't want to pay lesser important positions the same compensation as more important positions.   If you do that, the only way a team wins is if the other players play better than the level they are being compensated.  We will win the SB if Wentz and Fisher play at PB levels they are NOT getting compensated for, not because our LG and WILL play at the all-pro levels they ARE getting compensated for. 

 

And Paye gets sacks like a $18M per year edge but is getting paid pick 21 compensation.

 

The entire NFL devalues Gs and ILBs for a reason, come draft time and contract time. That's not even debatable. Paying a G top 1 olineman, not just Top G, but top olineman, money will be a handicap when it comes to our SB run and we're bumping up near the cap, and we have to figure out how to pay our PB QB and LT the money they deserve.

 

Maybe Ballard navigates through that.  Maybe during our window, Nelson and Leonard restructure the contracts and push them out a few years.  

 

I think an easier path to the SB would be to have a talent/salary structure where are LT, QB, and edge earned top 5 money and our LG and ILB earned top 10 money.  That is not Ballard's reality.  Its not the cards he was dealt, and didn't have the ability to reshuffle the deck.  (what's he gonna do, trade Nelson, Leonard and three first round picks for Mahomes or Lawrence?  yeah right, KC and JAX would reject that offer flat out).  He will have to navigate through the salary structure he is about to create.   

 

We may win the Sb with Nelson and Leonard being paid their money, but we will win because Ballard filled the important holes he's about to fill, NOT because we specifically have over-talent at LG and WILL.

 

Yes, I will carry that ball for many years.  Its an opinion that will be hard to prove or disprove, but that's what opinions are.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And we'll see what happens.  Ballard and the agents may be on a similar path.....way different places but at least on the same road....and the contracts may come in that reflect G and ILB positions and not blended with LT and OLB/EDGE positions. 

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

I don't follow other posters around to compile what they say over the course of a year, but IMO in this thread he's making a great point.

 

Its simple.  If every player plays up to there contract level...and not a penny beyond, you want your highest paid players to be in the most important positions,  You don't want to pay lesser important positions the same compensation as more important positions.   If you do that, the only way a team wins is if the other players play better than the level they are being compensated.  We will win the SB if Wentz and Fisher play at PB levels they are NOT getting compensated for, not because our LG and WILL play at the all-pro levels they ARE getting compensated for. 

 

And Paye gets sacks like a $18M per year edge but is getting paid pick 21 compensation.

 

The entire NFL devalues Gs and ILBs for a reason, come draft time and contract time. That's not even debatable. Paying a G top 1 olineman, not just Top G, but top olineman, money will be a handicap when it comes to our SB run and we're bumping up near the cap, and we have to figure out how to pay our PB QB and LT the money they deserve.

 

Maybe Ballard navigates through that.  Maybe during our window, Nelson and Leonard restructure the contracts and push them out a few years.  

 

I think an easier path to the SB would be to have a talent/salary structure where are LT, QB, and edge earned top 5 money and our LG and ILB earned top 10 money.  That is not Ballard's reality.  Its not the cards he was dealt, and didn't have the ability to reshuffle the deck.  (what's he gonna do, trade Nelson, Leonard and three first round picks for Mahomes or Lawrence?  yeah right, KC and JAX would reject that offer flat out).  He will have to navigate through the salary structure he is about to create.   

 

We may win the Sb with Nelson and Leonard being paid their money, but we will win because Ballard filled the important holes he's about to fill, NOT because we specifically have over-talent at LG and WILL.

 

Yes, I will carry that ball for many years.  Its an opinion that will be hard to prove or disprove, but that's what opinions are.

 

 

 

 

 Pure Silliness. Because rosters change EVERY year, cap allocation will Always be fluid. You pay your best players Market when you feel it works within your long range plan.
 That we are Developing a number of really valuable players Is the Goal.
And that is why Ballard's great challenge is to keep drafting these types of players year after year. Because if you do a great job drafting and developing, yes NFL free agency means you Will have to do some picking and choosing. 
 But it is OK, because we will have been developing the next man up to fill a number of spots, using FA to fill some, or having a top draft pick needing to be a player in year one.
 The Steelers are a great model for this.
 Having a Q out there dominating his man each week while helping the guy beside him dominate their man at times is such a compeitive advantage. 
 It is laughable that you should Expect to have a more valuable LT. As if there are 32 better tackles than any guard. 
 It is documented that Leonards value is in going forward. Because he is looking to do that he is exploited many times a game in pass coverage.
 That dynamic will hopefully change some if we can get better overall play by our front four than what we have had the last couple years.
 Lewis and Turray really need to step up, and hopefully Kwitty is a fast learner.
 Then Leonard could be a little less aggressive going forward and be a more complete player in the pass D. He could come near EARNING the $$$ he is likely to get.

 The fruits of his plan are just now coming together with building a deep roster and Ballard understands the deal.

 Draft, develop, Adapt Adapt Adapt 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Pure Silliness. Because rosters change EVERY year, cap allocation will Always be fluid. You pay your best players Market when you feel it works within your long range plan.
 That we are Developing a number of really valuable players Is the Goal.
And that is why Ballard's great challenge is to keep drafting these types of players year after year. Because if you do a great job drafting and developing, yes NFL free agency means you Will have to do some picking and choosing. 
 But it is OK, because we will have been developing the next man up to fill a number of spots, using FA to fill some, or having a top draft pick needing to be a player in year one.
 The Steelers are a great model for this.
 Having a Q out there dominating his man each week while helping the guy beside him dominate their man at times is such a compeitive advantage. 
 It is laughable that you should Expect to have a more valuable LT. As if there are 32 better tackles than any guard. 
 It is documented that Leonards value is in going forward. Because he is looking to do that he is exploited many times a game in pass coverage.
 That dynamic will hopefully change some if we can get better overall play by our front four than what we have had the last couple years.
 Lewis and Turray really need to step up, and hopefully Kwitty is a fast learner.
 Then Leonard could be a little less aggressive going forward and be a more complete player in the pass D. He could come near EARNING the $$$ he is likely to get.

 The fruits of his plan are just now coming together with building a deep roster and Ballard understands the deal.

 Draft, develop, Adapt Adapt Adapt 

Its not silliness at all.  Its actually intelligence. 

 

I don't want to say the same thing over and over here.

 

Paying top money to a G and ILB may not be a problem.  It may work out fine.  We may get GREAT performances from vets and draft picks in more premium positions who are only being paid GOOD money.  That direction of the compensation/impact imbalance would be a win, and that could be a plan.  But if the Colts ever become one of those teams that are winning and want to continue winning AND have salary cap problems, looking around the roster to see who we are getting bang for our buck,  a top 3 paid  Gs and ILBs are going to not look so great in comparison to other players. 

 

Who knows, it may not be a problem then either if Ballard can find a tossed away PB caliber QB and LT again down the road.  That could be the way he perpetually navigates a wonky salary structure.

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

Its not silliness at all.  Its actually intelligence. 

 

I don't want to say the same thing over and over here.

 

Paying top money to a G and ILB may not be a problem.  It may work out fine.  We may get GREAT performances from vets and draft picks in more premium positions who are only being paid GOOD money.  That direction of the compensation/impact imbalance would be a win, and that could be a plan.  But if the Colts ever become one of those teams that are winning and want to continue winning AND have salary cap problems, looking around the roster to see who we are getting bang for our buck,  a top 3 paid  Gs and ILBs are going to not look so great in comparison to other players. 

 

Who knows, it may not be a problem then either if Ballard can find a tossed away PB caliber QB and LT again down the road.  That could be the way he perpetually navigates a wonky salary structure.

I have seen so many top drafted QBs ruined because they were on a team without a competent Oline. That includes Andrew Luck although I agree even a great Oline would not have been able to protect him either. I am sure he is a brilliant young man with a Stanford education but his Football IQ about protecting himself was 0.

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

I don't follow other posters around to compile what they say over the course of a year, but IMO in this thread he's making a great point.

 

Its simple.  If every player plays up to there contract level...and not a penny beyond, you want your highest paid players to be in the most important positions,  You don't want to pay lesser important positions the same compensation as more important positions.   If you do that, the only way a team wins is if the other players play better than the level they are being compensated.  We will win the SB if Wentz and Fisher play at PB levels they are NOT getting compensated for, not because our LG and WILL play at the all-pro levels they ARE getting compensated for. 

 

And Paye gets sacks like a $18M per year edge but is getting paid pick 21 compensation.

 

The entire NFL devalues Gs and ILBs for a reason, come draft time and contract time. That's not even debatable. Paying a G top 1 olineman, not just Top G, but top olineman, money will be a handicap when it comes to our SB run and we're bumping up near the cap, and we have to figure out how to pay our PB QB and LT the money they deserve.

 

Maybe Ballard navigates through that.  Maybe during our window, Nelson and Leonard restructure the contracts and push them out a few years.  

 

I think an easier path to the SB would be to have a talent/salary structure where are LT, QB, and edge earned top 5 money and our LG and ILB earned top 10 money.  That is not Ballard's reality.  Its not the cards he was dealt, and didn't have the ability to reshuffle the deck.  (what's he gonna do, trade Nelson, Leonard and three first round picks for Mahomes or Lawrence?  yeah right, KC and JAX would reject that offer flat out).  He will have to navigate through the salary structure he is about to create.   

 

We may win the Sb with Nelson and Leonard being paid their money, but we will win because Ballard filled the important holes he's about to fill, NOT because we specifically have over-talent at LG and WILL.

 

Yes, I will carry that ball for many years.  Its an opinion that will be hard to prove or disprove, but that's what opinions are.

 

 

 


I don’t know why you and Moosejaw think you two have thought of a concept that Chris Ballard has not.  Do you not think CB and his staff have thought of the exact same thing you have and simply disagree? 

 

As I have shared with Moosejaw too many times to count, he takes a basic one size fits all approach to this.   That all 32 teams see everything the same way, and we know that’s not true.   Even if one generally agrees in principle, most would simply respond that you allow for the exception to the rule.  And Quinton Nelson is the exception to the rule.  
 

As for Leonard, again, as I’ve shared too many times to count, Ballard himself has stated more than once, that the WILL is the 2nd most important position on his defense.  So clearly you and Moosejaw disagree.  Take it up with CB, that's his view.  
 

Among the many things I disagree with is your comment about winning the Super Bowl.  If we win,  it WONT be because of either of Nelson or Leonard.  But I’d bet now — today — that if the Colts lose the Super Bowl, you two will blame Ballard for paying them too much and not spending that money on what you think are the more important positions.

 

Heads you win, Tails the other side loses.  Pretty convenient.  But not, IMO, very intellectually honest.   Sorry. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:


I don’t know why you and Moosejaw think you two have thought of a concept that Chris Ballard has not.  Do you not think CB and his staff have thought of the exact same thing you have and simply disagree? 

 

As I have shared with Moosejaw too many times to count, he takes a basic one size fits all approach to this.   That all 32 teams see everything the same way, and we know that’s not true.   Even if one generally agrees in principle, most would simply respond that you allow for the exception to the rule.  And Quinton Nelson is the exception to the rule.  
 

As for Leonard, again, as I’ve shared too many times to count, Ballard himself has stated more than once, that the WILL is the 2nd most important position on his defense.  So clearly you and Moosejaw disagree.  Take it up with CB, that's his view.  
 

Among the many things I disagree with is your comment about winning the Super Bowl.  If we win,  it WONT be because of either of Nelson or Leonard.  But I’d bet now — today — that if the Colts lose the Super Bowl, you two will blame Ballard for paying them too much and not spending that money on what you think are the more important positions.

 

Heads you win, Tails the other side loses.  Pretty convenient.  But not, IMO, very intellectually honest.   Sorry. 

It is because some have 1 track minds or don't think outside of the box. There are outliers to everything and Nelson and Leonard both are. I will give you an example of someone that has a 1 track mind, someone that says Spud Webb wasn't a great dunker because he was only 5'7. All they can picture is Jordan, Wilkins, Carter, Drexler, Howard, etc.. because they are all tall and athletic. Fact is Webb was an outlier and even won the dunk contest in 1986. In competition he was one of the best dunkers of all-time, someone that doesn't think outside of the box wouldn't accept that though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It is because some have 1 track minds or don't think outside of the box. There are outliers to everything and Nelson and Leonard both are. I will give you an example of someone that has a 1 track mind, someone that says Spud Webb wasn't a great dunker because he was only 5'7. All they can picture is Jordan, Wilkins, Carter, Drexler, Howard, etc.. because they are all tall and athletic. Fact is Webb was an outlier and even won the dunk contest in 1986. In competition he was one of the best dunkers of all-time, someone that doesn't think outside of the box wouldn't accept that though. 

 

A good point about outliers. Trying to tie this back together, I think the main contention from those opposed to paying Q/Leonard is not that they're not good, or even great players. More that by the positions they play they are unlikely to be as impactful as individuals compared to say a QB. I mean it's fair point but I think it's been taken to an extreme without any real attempt to set context. 

 

To @NewColtsFan's point as well, each team will value individual and positions very differently. Grossly oversimplifying but if you want to be a power run team then a road grading guard that can pull well is a must, so you might pay 'more' than perceived market value. 

 

Taking another extreme example. You have the best punter in the league, it would be a logical argument that he gets the best contract for a punter. But where do you set the limit as to what's the cut off for that position. $4 Million a year? 5? It will come down to how teams see the game and value a punter, as well as other variables such as the cap etc etc. 

 

I bet most would think that punters aren't 'worth' all that much. But the analysis when you delve into it says something quite different. It's just putting a dollar value on that production that's the tough one!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:


I don’t know why you and Moosejaw think you two have thought of a concept that Chris Ballard has not.  Do you not think CB and his staff have thought of the exact same thing you have and simply disagree? 

 

As I have shared with Moosejaw too many times to count, he takes a basic one size fits all approach to this.   That all 32 teams see everything the same way, and we know that’s not true.   Even if one generally agrees in principle, most would simply respond that you allow for the exception to the rule.  And Quinton Nelson is the exception to the rule.  
 

As for Leonard, again, as I’ve shared too many times to count, Ballard himself has stated more than once, that the WILL is the 2nd most important position on his defense.  So clearly you and Moosejaw disagree.  Take it up with CB, that's his view.  
 

Among the many things I disagree with is your comment about winning the Super Bowl.  If we win,  it WONT be because of either of Nelson or Leonard.  But I’d bet now — today — that if the Colts lose the Super Bowl, you two will blame Ballard for paying them too much and not spending that money on what you think are the more important positions.

 

Heads you win, Tails the other side loses.  Pretty convenient.  But not, IMO, very intellectually honest.   Sorry. 

Look at @SteelCityColt comment.  Its well said. I'm not disagreeing with Ballard.  What I'm saying is that Ballard's destiny of building the team from the inside out was pretty much set when he picked an all pro G at 6.  And his top rangy ILB panned out.

 

He's built a ball control running offense...not a splashy QB centric offense...around his G because that's the cards he was dealt, both with the players available at 6 and his splashy QB retiring.  

 

(what his defense is supposed to look like is a guess since he's stumbled a bit at building it, IMO)

 

That type of offense is a different offense than what the perennially Championship Game or SB bound teams have had.  Green Bay was and still is splashy.  KC/Mahomes.  Colts/PM.  NO/Brees, even ATL Ryan.  NE/Brady, with BB/McDaniel probably having the most ball control offense of theses teams.  And I mean perennial contenders.  Not a few one-offs like a SEA or a BALT that happen to have a big defense and put it together on offense a couple of years.  Or a well rounded TB team that happened to find an elite QB that won't die.  Which is what happened in Denver with PM...built a great D for a few years before it fell apart.

 

None of these successful teams were built from the inside out, at least in the way that Ballard is sort of being forced to do.

 

Which is also why Ballard trading up for a splashy franchise QB was never going to happen.  The building blocks of the team have been set, and will be strengthened with these forthcoming contracts.  The Colts aren't getting that QB.  One might rise from the ashes of Wentz or Eason, but that is hardly a plan to be counted on.

 

That's not a disagreement with Ballard.  What it is, is a simple observation that this approach is going to look different.  It may work out.  No team has really done it before, so it would seem to carry risks. But anybody pounding their fists saying that these high investments in a G and a ILB is definitely the key to winning a SB and should be embraced enthusiastically (not saying that anybody is) I think is looking at the situation with too much homerism, blind-Ballard-love, or love for pancakes.  The evidence is pretty skimpy that its a perennial contender formula. JMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Look at @SteelCityColt comment.  Its well said. I'm not disagreeing with Ballard.  What I'm saying is that Ballard's destiny of building the team from the inside out was pretty much set when he picked an all pro G at 6.  And his top rangy ILB panned out.

 

He's built a ball control running offense...not a splashy QB centric offense...around his G because that's the cards he was dealt, both with the players available at 6 and his splashy QB retiring.  

 

(what his defense is supposed to look like is a guess since he's stumbled a bit at building it, IMO)

 

That type of offense is a different offense than what the perennially Championship Game or SB bound teams have had.  Green Bay was and still is splashy.  KC/Mahomes.  Colts/PM.  NO/Brees, even ATL Ryan.  NE/Brady, with BB/McDaniel probably having the most ball control offense of theses teams.  And I mean perennial contenders.  Not a few one-offs like a SEA or a BALT that happen to have a big defense and put it together on offense a couple of years.  Or a well rounded TB team that happened to find an elite QB that won't die.  Which is what happened in Denver with PM...built a great D for a few years before it fell apart.

 

None of these successful teams were built from the inside out, at least in the way that Ballard is sort of being forced to do.

 

Which is also why Ballard trading up for a splashy franchise QB was never going to happen.  The building blocks of the team have been set, and will be strengthened with these forthcoming contracts.  The Colts aren't getting that QB.  One might spring out of the dust of Wentz or Eason, but that is hardly a plan to be counted on.

 

That's not a disagreement with Ballard.  What it is, is a simple observation that this approach is going to look different.  It may work out.  No team has really done it before, so it would seem to carry risks. But anybody pounding their fists saying that these high investments in a G and a ILB is definitely the key to winning a SB and should be embraced enthusiastically I think is looking at the situation with too much homerism, blind-Ballard-love, or love for pancakes.  The evidence is pretty skimpy that its a perennial contender formula. JMO.

Do you think we can a SB with Nelson and Leonard being our top players if Peyton Manning was QB in his prime? I ask this because in reality it always takes at least good QB play to win a SB, I would say yes to my own question. That is obvious. If Wentz pans out we can win it all with the way Ballard is building the team. I would take Nelson over 3/4 of the starting LT's in this league, he's an outlier.

 

Baltimore built their D around a guy that wasn't a edge rusher for 15 years, they built it around a MLB - Ray Lewis and won 2 SB's that way. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Do you think we can a SB with Nelson and Leonard being our top players if Peyton Manning was QB in his prime? I ask this because in reality it always takes at least good QB play to win a SB, I would say yes to my own question. That is obvious. If Wentz pans out we can win it all with the way Ballard is building the team. I would take Nelson over 3/4 of the starting LT's in this league, he's an outlier.

 

Baltimore built their D around a guy that wasn't a edge rusher for 15 years, they built it around a MLB - Ray Lewis and won 2 SB's that way. 

Yes.  And like I said, that BALT team was an outlier relative to how perennial contenders are normally built.  I have never said that we should not extend the players, but the formula is a bit untested for me to get enthused about it.

 

And Ballard has little choice about how to build the team.  He's not getting an elite QB.  He's going to have to rely on a QB that's very good.  Rivers was $25M and really wasn't good enough, so finding a very good QB for the low-ish cap number you need for this formula to work isn't that easy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more thoughts on the above, although I think we're fast straying into the general idea of team building.  You both (@DougDew & @2006Coltsbestever) seem to agree that you're going to need a certain level of QB play to even be contenders. I don't think many will disagree there. But I think the floor of what you need at QB to make a run is probably not as high you might think.

 

However, to be perennial contenders I think it's more likely you're going to need a very good QB, if not elite. That's a fact of the NFL that IMHO won't change anytime soon. What I do think is changing is the supply of QBs coming through; overall I think the talent pool is wider/deeper than before. Partly I think college programmes and below are getting better at developing QBs, partly I think the NFL as a league is becoming more QB friendly. 

 

Bringing it back to the Colts situation. When Ballard picked Q, he had his elite QB, and as Doug said he played the cards he had, according to his own personal ideals around team building. Luck retiring was a devastating blow to his plans I'm sure, but I think his moves to recover have been by and large sensible.

 

A lot will come down to Wentz now, if we see a certain level of play that gives enough confidence that he could be the guy for the next 10 years, then it's not as much of an issue in paying to put the pieces around him. How well he plays will determine what, and how much investment is required, in the pieces he needs. E.g. he might be a very safe QB who won't lose you games, but can't carry it all on his back. 

 

If his play is outright bad, there might be a temptation to blow it all up and let guys walk (or trade them for capital), and hope you're in a position to roll the dice on your next QB prospect. 

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

Look at @SteelCityColt comment.  Its well said. I'm not disagreeing with Ballard.  What I'm saying is that Ballard's destiny of building the team from the inside out was pretty much set when he picked an all pro G at 6.  And his top rangy ILB panned out.

 

He's built a ball control running offense...not a splashy QB centric offense...around his G because that's the cards he was dealt, both with the players available at 6 and his splashy QB retiring.  

 

(what his defense is supposed to look like is a guess since he's stumbled a bit at building it, IMO)

 

That type of offense is a different offense than what the perennially Championship Game or SB bound teams have had.  Green Bay was and still is splashy.  KC/Mahomes.  Colts/PM.  NO/Brees, even ATL Ryan.  NE/Brady, with BB/McDaniel probably having the most ball control offense of theses teams.  And I mean perennial contenders.  Not a few one-offs like a SEA or a BALT that happen to have a big defense and put it together on offense a couple of years.  Or a well rounded TB team that happened to find an elite QB that won't die.  Which is what happened in Denver with PM...built a great D for a few years before it fell apart.

 

None of these successful teams were built from the inside out, at least in the way that Ballard is sort of being forced to do.

 

Which is also why Ballard trading up for a splashy franchise QB was never going to happen.  The building blocks of the team have been set, and will be strengthened with these forthcoming contracts.  The Colts aren't getting that QB.  One might rise from the ashes of Wentz or Eason, but that is hardly a plan to be counted on.

 

That's not a disagreement with Ballard.  What it is, is a simple observation that this approach is going to look different.  It may work out.  No team has really done it before, so it would seem to carry risks. But anybody pounding their fists saying that these high investments in a G and a ILB is definitely the key to winning a SB and should be embraced enthusiastically (not saying that anybody is) I think is looking at the situation with too much homerism, blind-Ballard-love, or love for pancakes.  The evidence is pretty skimpy that its a perennial contender formula. JMO.

 

  Q has Nothing to do with Forcing Ballards approach. He says it is the basis of how to build a team by having strong lines. MANY a QB and Teams had a poor chance to win at all because of weak o-lines, and d-lines that can't stop the run or pressure the QB. Football 101. 
 Don't anticipate him changing his mind on this. It isn't Original thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

Some more thoughts on the above, although I think we're fast straying into the general idea of team building.  You both (@DougDew & @2006Coltsbestever) seem to agree that you're going to need a certain level of QB play to even be contenders. I don't think many will disagree there. But I think the floor of what you need at QB to make a run is probably not as high you might think.

 

However, to be perennial contenders I think it's more likely you're going to need a very good QB, if not elite. That's a fact of the NFL that IMHO won't change anytime soon. What I do think is changing is the supply of QBs coming through; overall I think the talent pool is wider/deeper than before. Partly I think college programmes and below are getting better at developing QBs, partly I think the NFL as a league is becoming more QB friendly. 

 

Bringing it back to the Colts situation. When Ballard picked Q, he had his elite QB, and as Doug said he played the cards he had, according to his own personal ideals around team building. Luck retiring was a devastating blow to his plans I'm sure, but I think his moves to recover have been by and large sensible.

 

A lot will come down to Wentz now, if we see a certain level of play that gives enough confidence that he could be the guy for the next 10 years, then it's not as much of an issue in paying to put the pieces around him. How well he plays will determine what, and how much investment is required, in the pieces he needs. E.g. he might be a very safe QB who won't lose you games, but can't carry it all on his back. 

 

If his play is outright bad, there might be a temptation to blow it all up and let guys walk (or trade them for capital), and hope you're in a position to roll the dice on your next QB prospect. 

 

 One problem he will have to absorb will be when Irsay again crumbles on letting aged vets go.
 I can't recall the average number but it is lofty. Something like 70-80% of the players on this years opening day roster won't be here 4 years from now.
 So Everything is Always fluid when it comes to the cap and positional expenditures. A lot of worry and chatter about not much.
 Irsay expects a winning team at all times to keep up fan interest in our small market. Some can see that Ballard is building a strong roster to win over the long haul. Some can't.
 And he just dealt with it being blown up right? And most expect us to win the division.

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

Some more thoughts on the above, although I think we're fast straying into the general idea of team building.  You both (@DougDew & @2006Coltsbestever) seem to agree that you're going to need a certain level of QB play to even be contenders. I don't think many will disagree there. But I think the floor of what you need at QB to make a run is probably not as high you might think.

 

However, to be perennial contenders I think it's more likely you're going to need a very good QB, if not elite. That's a fact of the NFL that IMHO won't change anytime soon. What I do think is changing is the supply of QBs coming through; overall I think the talent pool is wider/deeper than before. Partly I think college programmes and below are getting better at developing QBs, partly I think the NFL as a league is becoming more QB friendly. 

 

Bringing it back to the Colts situation. When Ballard picked Q, he had his elite QB, and as Doug said he played the cards he had, according to his own personal ideals around team building. Luck retiring was a devastating blow to his plans I'm sure, but I think his moves to recover have been by and large sensible.

 

A lot will come down to Wentz now, if we see a certain level of play that gives enough confidence that he could be the guy for the next 10 years, then it's not as much of an issue in paying to put the pieces around him. How well he plays will determine what, and how much investment is required, in the pieces he needs. E.g. he might be a very safe QB who won't lose you games, but can't carry it all on his back. 

 

If his play is outright bad, there might be a temptation to blow it all up and let guys walk (or trade them for capital), and hope you're in a position to roll the dice on your next QB prospect. 

Yeah I don't think anyone would disagree that the QB is the most important position in football. We don't necessarily need a great one to win it all but at least good. I thought Rivers was good last season and we actually could've beat the Bills with the team we had, had it not been for a few mistakes. Football is such a team game it takes everyone to contribute and it also takes luck to win it all sometimes. If Wentz is just good and Paye pans out, we can win it all with Leonard and Nelson being huge key cogs. Paye hopefully will add a nice addition to our pass rush.

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

Look at @SteelCityColt comment.  Its well said. I'm not disagreeing with Ballard.  What I'm saying is that Ballard's destiny of building the team from the inside out was pretty much set when he picked an all pro G at 6.  And his top rangy ILB panned out.

 

He's built a ball control running offense...not a splashy QB centric offense...around his G because that's the cards he was dealt, both with the players available at 6 and his splashy QB retiring.  

 

(what his defense is supposed to look like is a guess since he's stumbled a bit at building it, IMO)

 

That type of offense is a different offense than what the perennially Championship Game or SB bound teams have had.  Green Bay was and still is splashy.  KC/Mahomes.  Colts/PM.  NO/Brees, even ATL Ryan.  NE/Brady, with BB/McDaniel probably having the most ball control offense of theses teams.  And I mean perennial contenders.  Not a few one-offs like a SEA or a BALT that happen to have a big defense and put it together on offense a couple of years.  Or a well rounded TB team that happened to find an elite QB that won't die.  Which is what happened in Denver with PM...built a great D for a few years before it fell apart.

 

None of these successful teams were built from the inside out, at least in the way that Ballard is sort of being forced to do.

 

Which is also why Ballard trading up for a splashy franchise QB was never going to happen.  The building blocks of the team have been set, and will be strengthened with these forthcoming contracts.  The Colts aren't getting that QB.  One might rise from the ashes of Wentz or Eason, but that is hardly a plan to be counted on.

 

That's not a disagreement with Ballard.  What it is, is a simple observation that this approach is going to look different.  It may work out.  No team has really done it before, so it would seem to carry risks. But anybody pounding their fists saying that these high investments in a G and a ILB is definitely the key to winning a SB and should be embraced enthusiastically (not saying that anybody is) I think is looking at the situation with too much homerism, blind-Ballard-love, or love for pancakes.  The evidence is pretty skimpy that its a perennial contender formula. JMO.

Agree some of this... Just want to hammer the nail for you on the last point - perennial contender formula requires a top tier QB because of the value that top tier QBs provide(compared to any other position). And this is value that you can rely on consistently and with continuity. THIS is the biggest reason for perennial contenders. There is too much turnover and injuries in the game. Teams change, players graduate from rookie contracts and leave, others get injured, some suffer fall in form as they age. Strengths and weaknesses change, sometimes year to year. Even without changes on the team, coverage is extremely variable and wonky year to year. One of the few things that one can rely on in this game is the performance of a franchise QB. It's incredible how consistent top tier QBs are in the league. Year after year they put up amazing performances and give great value to their teams.

 

Now... when you get your top-tier franchise QB, this does NOT absolve you from the responsibility to build a good team around that player, because in the playoffs you meet other teams with other great QBs and if the rest of your roster is not on par or better you will very likely lose. You still need solid protection for the QB, you still need playmakers. You still need a defense that won't absolutely get blown off the field... But yeah... this is the reason I was a proponent of trading up in the draft from one of the top tier QBs... and repeating that drill until you got your guy. 

 

Now, IMO Wentz has the chance to be that type of player for us, but he's far from a sure thing. I am good with that trade, althugh I thought the price was too steep, but...if he is the guy it won't matter. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2021 at 8:49 AM, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Pure Silliness. Because rosters change EVERY year, cap allocation will Always be fluid. You pay your best players Market when you feel it works within your long range plan.
 That we are Developing a number of really valuable players Is the Goal.
And that is why Ballard's great challenge is to keep drafting these types of players year after year. Because if you do a great job drafting and developing, yes NFL free agency means you Will have to do some picking and choosing. 
 But it is OK, because we will have been developing the next man up to fill a number of spots, using FA to fill some, or having a top draft pick needing to be a player in year one.
 The Steelers are a great model for this.
 Having a Q out there dominating his man each week while helping the guy beside him dominate their man at times is such a compeitive advantage. 
 It is laughable that you should Expect to have a more valuable LT. As if there are 32 better tackles than any guard. 
 It is documented that Leonards value is in going forward. Because he is looking to do that he is exploited many times a game in pass coverage.
 That dynamic will hopefully change some if we can get better overall play by our front four than what we have had the last couple years.
 Lewis and Turray really need to step up, and hopefully Kwitty is a fast learner.
 Then Leonard could be a little less aggressive going forward and be a more complete player in the pass D. He could come near EARNING the $$$ he is likely to get.

 The fruits of his plan are just now coming together with building a deep roster and Ballard understands the deal.

 Draft, develop, Adapt Adapt Adapt 

Rumor is Warner wants 20 million a season and Leonard's agent said don't even talk to unless minimum 18 mill a year. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Rumor is Warner wants 20 million a season and Leonard's agent said don't even talk to unless minimum 18 mill a year. 

If they sign Warner first, Leonard will want more than he gets. Leonard has better credentials to make the most of the two. They should have already signed him to prevent that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

If they sign Warner first, Leonard will want more than he gets. Leonard has better credentials to make the most of the two. They should have already signed him to prevent that.

Warner is better. Best coverage linebacker. That to me is the most important asset for a linebacker in this style of defense.

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

Rumor is Warner wants 20 million a season and Leonard's agent said don't even talk to unless minimum 18 mill a year. 

Would you like to post the link that shows what Leonard’s agent reportedly said?

 

Otherwise, it’s just hyperbole in the rumor mill.    
 

Id add this.   If you follow the Colts, you know that this franchise has a well earned reputation for not leaking.   So if it’s true that Leonard’s agent made that comment, I’d think less of the agent.  That’s not the way to handle your business by talking smack like that. 
 

I look forward to reading that link. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Would you like to post the link that shows what Leonard’s agent reportedly said?

 

Otherwise, it’s just hyperbole in the rumor mill.    
 

Id add this.   If you follow the Colts, you know that this franchise has a well earned reputation for not leaking.   So if it’s true that Leonard’s agent made that comment, I’d think less of the agent.  That’s not the way to handle your business by talking smack like that. 
 

I look forward to reading that link. 

Locked on titans podcast. Writer heard that's what they r asking. Also they shot down Jones trade to the Colts because of upcoming big contracts , which i agree with. It maybe just a rumor but I predicted Leonard would want around 20 mil a year. I maybe wrong, but we shall c.

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

Would you like to post the link that shows what Leonard’s agent reportedly said?

 

Otherwise, it’s just hyperbole in the rumor mill.    
 

Id add this.   If you follow the Colts, you know that this franchise has a well earned reputation for not leaking.   So if it’s true that Leonard’s agent made that comment, I’d think less of the agent.  That’s not the way to handle your business by talking smack like that. 
 

I look forward to reading that link. 

I don't think less of the agent. We all know 99% of the time it is agents releasing info when it comes to the draft and/or free agency. Their job is to get the best deal for their client. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I don't think less of the agent. We all know 99% of the time it is agents releasing info when it comes to the draft and/or free agency. Their job is to get the best deal for their client. 

I don’t have a problem with any agent trying to get his client the best deal possible.  By definition, that’s their job. 
 

My problem would be with an agent of a Colts client talking smack in public.   I don’t find that very smart.  Say what you want behind closed doors.   Don’t leak.   Don’t make yourself job more difficult than it needs to be.   Be respectful.   Show the same respect that the Colts front office does.   It should go both ways. 

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

Warner is better. Best coverage linebacker. That to me is the most important asset for a linebacker in this style of defense.

I repeat, he doesn't have the awards and accolades that Leonard has. If they sign Warner for $20 million, Leonard will want more than that and I think he will get it. If not from the Colts then from someone else.

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

I repeat, he doesn't have the awards and accolades that Leonard has. If they sign Warner for $20 million, Leonard will want more than that and I think he will get it. If not from the Colts then from someone else.

 

The bolded doesn't matter. Those two guys are on equal footing in the league. If Leonard goes first, expect Warner's contract to come in higher, and vice versa.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Thebrashandthebold said:

I repeat, he doesn't have the awards and accolades that Leonard has. If they sign Warner for $20 million, Leonard will want more than that and I think he will get it. If not from the Colts then from someone else.

Leonard will never ever get 20 million or more from another team. I wouldn't b surprised if he ends up being franchised.  Awards r one thing but Watner rated as #1 linebacker in coverage. Leonard was not in top 5

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

Leonard will never ever get 20 million or more from another team. I wouldn't b surprised if he ends up being franchised.  Awards r one thing but Watner rated as #1 linebacker in coverage. Leonard was not in top 5

We will see

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

 

You do know Bobby Wagner will be 31 in June - dude is getting old for a LB, Leonard is only 25. I do like Warner a lot but other than that give me Leonard over everyone else. I guess you love PFF because it supports your narrative that they don't have Leonard top 5. PFF has many flaws, too many to count lmao 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

 

Great stats. However, don't u think 78.1% completion rate is pretty high for a linebacker in this system? He's 215 pounds and should he not be a lot better in coverage?

  • Haha 1
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...