Ballard made a blunder

[Flash7]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ballard did not approach this year like it was a SB year.  This was a year to see what Lewis Et Al could do, and signing Autry would have cut into the opportunity to watch those younger players.

 

It doesn't matter if Autry made the team better.  Having the best possible team this year was not the goal.  Many here don't get that.

 

Besides, since we are near the cap, we would not have afforded him unless one of the other financial moves were not made this year.  Which player that we have now should not be here or should not have extended, Fisher, Reed, Leonard or Hines come to mind.

 

No blunder.  Autry was a strategic let-go, and probably a good one.

This is year #5 for Ballard. If he did not approach this year with winning the SB as the main goal, then that's a major problem! Much bigger problem than letting Autry go. Nobody wants that from their GM.

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Flash7 said:

This is year #5 for Ballard. If he did not approach this year with winning the SB as the main goal, then that's a major problem! Much bigger problem than letting Autry go. Nobody wants that from their GM.

At the beginning of the offseason, he had no QB, no LT, and our aging #1 WR he did not want back.  And the best Corner last year wasn't really a high priority signing.  I can't see how anybody in their right mind would expect the Colts to go to the SB this year, especially somebody like a GM who is around the team every day.  A GM can't fill that many holes in one offseason. 

[Flash7]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

At the beginning of the offseason, he had no QB, no LT, and our aging #1 WR he did not want back.  And the best Corner last year wasn't really a high priority signing.  I can't see how anybody in their right mind would expect the Colts to go to the SB this year, especially somebody like a GM who is around the team every day.  A GM can't fill that many holes in one offseason. 

He did get a QB. He did get a LT. He did get the #1 WR back. None of those had anything to do with the DL.

 

Ballard couldn't have been too shocked to begin the offseason with no QB. He chose Rivers, an aging, ready to retire QB. Not surprising that he would retire.

 

Was Ballard caught off guard when Castonzo retired? Nope. No one was because he had said as much. Ballard is not a victim here. All of these struggles, as you suggest, were foreseen.

[DougDew]

21 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

He did get a QB. He did get a LT. He did get the #1 WR back. None of those had anything to do with the DL.

He did not know how Wentz would do, Fisher would do, and thought TY would not do well.  Its not a strategy where you sign Autry for 2 years thinking that he is the missing piece to a SB run.   That's what you do if you are TEN, and how a player chooses which team to sign with.

 

Drafts take about 3 to 5 years to play out.  Ballard's blunder (the Colts blunder) was wasting capital on marginal productive positions.  Pick 18 on a C, 15 on a FS (when you need CBs and a SS), , 6 on a G, 36 on an ILB, and 37 on another RG/RT.

 

That's why we are a 500 team 3 to 5 years later.

 

But we'll see where it goes from here now that we have 2 offensive weapons (finally, pick 36 and 41), a decent QB for a few years (formerly a #2 overall pick), and 2 promising young dlinemen (one of them being pick 21).  And maybe the LT can stick (formerly pick #1 overall)

[Flash7]

12 minutes ago, DougDew said:

[1] He did not know how Wentz would do, Fisher would do, and thought TY would not do well.  Its not a strategy where you sign Autry for 2 years thinking that he is the missing piece to a SB run.   That's what you do if you are TEN, and how a player chooses which team to sign with.

 

[2] Drafts take about 3 to 5 years to play out.  Ballard's blunder (the Colts blunder) was wasting capital on marginal productive positions.  Pick 18 on a C, 15 on a FS (when you need CBS and a SS), , 6 on a G, 36 on an ILB, and 37 on another RG/RT.

 

That's why we are a 500 team 3 to 5 years later.

 

[3] But we'll see where it goes from here now that we have 2 offensive weapons, a decent QB for a few years, and 2 promising young dlinemen (one of them being pick 21).

Corresponding responses to the numbered above:

 

[1] He did not know how Wentz would do, however, he is the GM and the final decision rests on his shoulders. He had signed Rivers the year prior when Rivers was coming off a bad year and he didn't know how he would play, yet he attempted to put together the best roster he could. And let's not forget that we were looking for another QB this offseason because Ballard had signed an aging, ready to retire Phillip Rivers. The decision to sign Fisher was also his. He wanted to sign a LT coming off of injury over signing another healthy LT who had become available (forgot his name, but he's cheaper than Fisher and is outplaying Fisher). If he thought TY would not do well, then he should not have re-signed him.

 

[2] Some draft picks take about 3-5 years to play out. Some play out within the first year. I think it depends on the position and the player. I agree on the Colts wasting capital on marginal productive positions.

 

[3] We had so many opportunities to go in many different directions in Ballard's early days. We had among the league's most cap space and fairly decent draft position. But here we are now, with no cap space and a below average roster, with a 4-5 currently losing record. The future once looked bright, filled with opportunities to sign impactful FA's (not Ballard's style, but there was hope). Now our only hope is the draft and for this upcoming year, we'll not have our first round pick. We'll see where this goes...

 

[throwing BBZ]

27 minutes ago, DougDew said:

He did not know how Wentz would do, Fisher would do, and thought TY would not do well.  Its not a strategy where you sign Autry for 2 years thinking that he is the missing piece to a SB run.   That's what you do if you are TEN, and how a player chooses which team to sign with.

 

Drafts take about 3 to 5 years to play out.  Ballard's blunder (the Colts blunder) was wasting capital on marginal productive positions.  Pick 18 on a C, 15 on a FS (when you need CBs and a SS), , 6 on a G, 36 on an ILB, and 37 on another RG/RT.

 

That's why we are a 500 team 3 to 5 years later.

 

But we'll see where it goes from here now that we have 2 offensive weapons (finally, pick 36 and 41), a decent QB for a few years (formerly a #2 overall pick), and 2 promising young dlinemen (one of them being pick 21).  And maybe the LT can stick (formerly pick #1 overall)

 

  Pick 15 for a great safety wasn't wrong. Ballard once said Hooker was #1 on his board. I have no idea other than that injury why Hooker wasn't much better. They (Chuck) were thinking he had some Ed Reed Jr. in him.
 Rock lacks the 4.45 or better speed we need, but he is as fast or faster than what Richard Sherman was. I think the light could still come on for him as a quality CB, but it will take Kwity and Dayo putting consistent big heat on QB's to allow EB to let him tighten up his coverage.
 I'm sure hoping we see some of it this season, the last 3 games is my target for a real uptick from our pass rush unit.
 Rhodes is strugglin a bit, he needs a better rush too, and our safety situation is ugh! ugh! ugh! 

[DougDew]

40 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

Corresponding responses to the numbered above:

 

[1] He did not know how Wentz would do, however, he is the GM and the final decision rests on his shoulders. He had signed Rivers the year prior when Rivers was coming off a bad year and he didn't know how he would play, yet he attempted to put together the best roster he could. And let's not forget that we were looking for another QB this offseason because Ballard had signed an aging, ready to retire Phillip Rivers. The decision to sign Fisher was also his. He wanted to sign a LT coming off of injury over signing another healthy LT who had become available (forgot his name, but he's cheaper than Fisher and is outplaying Fisher). If he thought TY would not do well, then he should not have re-signed him.

 

[2] Some draft picks take about 3-5 years to play out. Some play out within the first year. I think it depends on the position and the player. I agree on the Colts wasting capital on marginal productive positions.

 

[3] We had so many opportunities to go in many different directions in Ballard's early days. We had among the league's most cap space and fairly decent draft position. But here we are now, with no cap space and a below average roster, with a 4-5 currently losing record. The future once looked bright, filled with opportunities to sign impactful FA's (not Ballard's style, but there was hope). Now our only hope is the draft and for this upcoming year, we'll not have our first round pick. We'll see where this goes...

 

I was just looking at the big picture.  All of the players mentioned were picked higher than pick 42.  In the 2020 and 2021 draft did Ballard address the edge-ier positions, where as before he addressed the middle of the field positions (yet we still have no great MIKE or safeties).  3 to 5 years ago he (the colts including Kelly) did not.  As the younger players get into the later years of their rookie deals, the team should have a better record, IMO.  That's not this year.

 

I simply don't see where signing or not signing Autry has much to do with overall success.  He's having a good year with TEN and Jeffrey Simmons though.

[Flash7]

Just now, DougDew said:

I was just looking at the big picture.  All of the players mentioned were picked higher than pick 42.  In the 2020 and 2021 draft did Ballard address the edge-ier positions, where as before he addressed the middle of the field positions (yet we still have no great MIKE or safeties).

 

I simply don't see where signing or not signing Autry has much to do with overall success.  He's having a good year with TEN and Jeffrey Simmons though.

It has created a hole where it didn't need to be. To build a team, you have to stack talent. We let talent walk without replacing it adequately.

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

It has created a hole where it didn't need to be. To build a team, you have to stack talent. We let talent walk without replacing it adequately.

Again, since we are against the cap now, who is here that shouldn't be?  We have Dayo and Lewis to play Autry's position.  Would we have found a successful replacement for Hines?

 

I'm just asking who should not be here instead of Autry?

[Flash7]

37 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Again, since we are against the cap now, who is here that shouldn't be?  We have Dayo and Lewis to play Autry's position.  Would we have found a successful replacement for Hines?

 

I'm just asking who should not be here instead of Autry?

T.Y. is on a 1-year 8 million dollar contract. That's a good starting point. Sam Tevi is on a $2.5M contract, I believe. Everyone saw that was not going to work out. There are plenty of other candidates that could have been cut or not re-signed. I'm sure that's why Ballard was willing to offer Autry a contract, but it just wasn't enough.

[MPStack]

In regards to trading for Wentz and the picks involved, the FO was sold on C. Wentz, being the QB moving forward. You don’t give up that much draft capital, for any other reason. Some of the conversations being tossed  around, like he’s being evaluated to determine if he’s the future are ridiculous. So far so good IMO. 

[chad72]

56 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Again, since we are against the cap now, who is here that shouldn't be?  We have Dayo and Lewis to play Autry's position.  Would we have found a successful replacement for Hines?

 

I'm just asking who should not be here instead of Autry?

 

I think yes, given the plentiful scat backs in the draft and the quick ROI on the RB position, compared to a dearth of 3 down backs. Even if we had Hines signed, they could have re-worked Jack Doyle and DeForest Buckner contracts (note this was prior to them doling out Leonard and Smith their contracts, Buckner might have agreed because it was for a fellow DL), and made room for Autry. To me, losing Autry alone was not the biggest issue. Losing both Autry and Justin Houston was a double whammy with them pinning all their hopes on the improvement on 3rd year (Banogu) and 4th year players (Lewis, Turay) to take a big leap. That was a bit misplaced (despite Lewis' improvement), at least having one of Autry or Houston would have allowed us to have a Plan B, preferably Autry since the DE position was what they were stocking more and more.

[DougDew]

31 minutes ago, Flash7 said:

T.Y. is on a 1-year 8 million dollar contract. That's a good starting point. Sam Tevi is on a $2.5M contract, I believe. Everyone saw that was not going to work out. There are plenty of other candidates that could have been cut or not re-signed. I'm sure that's why Ballard was willing to offer Autry a contract, but it just wasn't enough.

In hindsight, I'd rather have Autry than TY.  But, at the time, we did not have a #1 WR, and that is more important than a rotational dlineman, IMO.

[Superman]

40 minutes ago, chad72 said:

I think yes, given the plentiful scat backs in the draft

 

Like who?

[Zoltan]

13 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Giving up a ton of cushion (scheme) also makes it hard as it begs for dink/dunk passing.

 

And can't ignore scheme when looking at the 3 front 7 players that we let go. 

All three are doing better in their new homes. 

 

And speaking of Autry, TN's D was pretty bad to mediocre last year. And they didn't do much in the offseason to their DBs (Farley is on IR and was one of their biggest additions). However you look at it, Autry has had a great year, and opened up things a ton for Landry. They spent on Dupree, but he hasn't done much. So safe to say Autry's addition is the single biggest impact to the Titan's defense.

 

And just from a stats perspective.... Autry is.. 

#11 in pressures

#12 in QB knock downs

 

And he's come up huge in big moments. In the last 3ish games.... 

1. Put Mahomes out of the game
2. He was doubled teamed and still abused Kelly and was one of the guys getting ready to sack Carson when he threw the INT on the goal line.
3. 2 sacks of Stafford last night 

TDN just did a story calling Autry the unsung hero of the Titans.... 

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/denico-autry-tennessee-titans-defense

 

I would say the biggest addition for the Titan's was Jim Schwartz, wherever he goes he's a kingmaker for Defensive lines

[chad72]

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Like who?

 

Michael Carter was an all purpose back who could have been had for us at the end of Round 3 if we really wanted him. The way we use Hines as an APB, Carter is a better fit. Hines would be better in space with his faster speed if we ran more routes for him vs LBs and safeties but unfortunately that is not the way we use him. Plus, if Frank wanted to run Carter down the gut, he'd give us more than Hines, IMO.

 

Kenneth Gainwell with his 4.42 40 yard dash and college productivity would have been another candidate for us, he had 3rd down back written all over him.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Michael Carter was an all purpose back who could have been had for us at the end of Round 3 if we really wanted him. The way we use Hines as an APB, Carter is a better fit. Hines would be better in space with his faster speed if we ran more routes for him vs LBs and safeties but unfortunately that is not the way we use him. Plus, if Frank wanted to run Carter down the gut, he'd give us more than Hines, IMO.

 

Kenneth Gainwell with his 4.42 40 yard dash and college productivity would have been another candidate for us. 

 

I think "plentiful scat backs" is an overstatement. There are prospects in every draft. Just like Lewis, Turay and Banogu were prospects, who aren't working out. The Colts failed to acquire a player like Hines for a long time. He's in his prime, his cap hit in 2021 is $2.7m, and his average cap hit will be $5m/year. This is a good retention.

 

Keeping Hines didn't cost us Autry. The Colts tried to keep Autry, reportedly made a comparable offer to the one he accepted from the Titans. People are acting like the Colts shunned him so they could overpay Hines. That's not what happened.

[RollerColt]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think "plentiful scat backs" is an overstatement. There are prospects in every draft. Just like Lewis, Turay and Banogu were prospects, who aren't working out. The Colts failed to acquire a player like Hines for a long time. He's in his prime, his cap hit in 2021 is $2.7m, and his average cap hit will be $5m/year. This is a good retention.

 

Keeping Hines didn't cost us Autry. The Colts tried to keep Autry, reportedly made a comparable offer to the one he accepted from the Titans. People are acting like the Colts shunned him so they could overpay Hines. That's not what happened.

The narrative comes from this piece of news:

 

https://horseshoeheroes.com/2021/03/22/colts-denico-autry-comments-on-free-agency-departure/

 

He called out the Colts and marked the games against us this year as very personal. I guess he was wanting more than our matching offer? 

[shasta519]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

He did not know how Wentz would do, Fisher would do, and thought TY would not do well.  Its not a strategy where you sign Autry for 2 years thinking that he is the missing piece to a SB run.   That's what you do if you are TEN, and how a player chooses which team to sign with.

 

Drafts take about 3 to 5 years to play out.  Ballard's blunder (the Colts blunder) was wasting capital on marginal productive positions.  Pick 18 on a C, 15 on a FS (when you need CBs and a SS), , 6 on a G, 36 on an ILB, and 37 on another RG/RT.

 

That's why we are a 500 team 3 to 5 years later.

 

But we'll see where it goes from here now that we have 2 offensive weapons (finally, pick 36 and 41), a decent QB for a few years (formerly a #2 overall pick), and 2 promising young dlinemen (one of them being pick 21).  And maybe the LT can stick (formerly pick #1 overall)

 

My thoughts. The entire offseason really seemed to be about (a) paying some key guys, (b) making moves get younger and cheaper at certain positions and (c) create opportunities for development. Lateral in some ways (when you look at the position addressed), but definitely future-minded.

 

The approach makes sense, especially for a GM that just got a 5-year extension. 

 

However, what seems counter-intuitive to this plan is the big trade for a vet QB, when they could have used this developmental year on a QB.

 

Not only that, the Colts traded big draft capital AND cap space to get that QB. Same with DeFo. And the opportunity cost for paying premiums for DeFo and Wentz is not having young talent (QB or otherwise) on cheap rookie deals, and the huge cap space flexibility that comes with it (that would allow them to supplement other areas of the team).

 

They are sacrificing future value for now, but then they are using at least one of those prime years (that they paid a premium for) on roster development. Seems like parallel circular paths.

 

But to compound it, the other players that were supplying surplus value to this roster (Q, Leonard, Smith, etc.) are now on big second contracts.

 

So looking forward, where does that value come from now? Who is going to drastically outperform their cost and lift this team to the next level?

 

I don't think the Colts are in trouble or anything, but I fear they are on a path towards being a .500 team for a few years. It will really depend on a few key players.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

The narrative comes from this piece of news:

 

https://horseshoeheroes.com/2021/03/22/colts-denico-autry-comments-on-free-agency-departure/

 

He called out the Colts and marked the games against us this year as very personal. I guess he was wanting more than our matching offer? 

 

The narrative can be what it is, but it was reported that the primary difference in the offers was the amount of guaranteed money in Year 2. Without knowing all the details, there's not much else to say about it.

 

That's very different from 'Ballard was too cheap to keep Autry, but kept Hines.' First, Hines should have been kept. Second, they tried to keep Autry. 

 

Of course none of this matters if the point is just to be mad at somebody.

[chad72]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think "plentiful scat backs" is an overstatement. There are prospects in every draft. Just like Lewis, Turay and Banogu were prospects, who aren't working out. The Colts failed to acquire a player like Hines for a long time. He's in his prime, his cap hit in 2021 is $2.7m, and his average cap hit will be $5m/year. This is a good retention.

 

Keeping Hines didn't cost us Autry. The Colts tried to keep Autry, reportedly made a comparable offer to the one he accepted from the Titans. People are acting like the Colts shunned him so they could overpay Hines. That's not what happened.

 

Fair enough. I just don't think Hines is as irreplaceable as some make it sound either. 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Fair enough. I just don't think Hines is as irreplaceable as some make it sound either. 

 

Yeah but we go from 'he's not irreplaceable' to 'it was stupid to pay him instead of Autry,' and that's not right either. As always, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

[shasta519]

45 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Michael Carter was an all purpose back who could have been had for us at the end of Round 3 if we really wanted him. The way we use Hines as an APB, Carter is a better fit. Hines would be better in space with his faster speed if we ran more routes for him vs LBs and safeties but unfortunately that is not the way we use him. Plus, if Frank wanted to run Carter down the gut, he'd give us more than Hines, IMO.

 

Kenneth Gainwell with his 4.42 40 yard dash and college productivity would have been another candidate for us, he had 3rd down back written all over him.

 

I don't have any issue with him re-signing Hines. but I think they clearly paid a handsome amount for player that is pretty replaceable.

 

I still remember the good ol' days when everybody would say "RBs can be found anywhere in the draft." I never agreed with that, but you can definitely find a guy like Hines pretty easily. Between the draft and FA, there are likely replacement RBs available each offseason.

 

Also, what RB hasn't looked good behind this OL? Find a RB that can catch and give them Hines touches...and I bet you would see very similar results. But it's a moot point.

 

That said, I don't think it had anything to do with Autry. But the original position in this thread was 'what contract would you take away' to keep Autry. Hines is a pretty easy answer.

[ADnum1]

2 hours ago, Flash7 said:

It has created a hole where it didn't need to be. To build a team, you have to stack talent. We let talent walk without replacing it adequately.

I've seen the Chargers do this many times.

 

They have a great D-Line for example and let them walk to save money and go cheaper and younger.

 

He let go of Autry and Houston and tried to replace with Paye and Dayo.

 

Thats not to say that Paye and Dayo can't be great players one day, but sometimes when you replace Vets with Rookies it can take a few years before the rookies get up to speed.

[NewColtsFan]

52 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

My thoughts. The entire offseason really seemed to be about (a) paying some key guys, (b) making moves get younger and cheaper at certain positions and (c) create opportunities for development. Lateral in some ways (when you look at the position addressed), but definitely future-minded.

 

The approach makes sense, especially for a GM that just got a 5-year extension. 

 

However, what seems counter-intuitive to this plan is the big trade for a vet QB, when they could have used this developmental year on a QB.

 

Not only that, the Colts traded big draft capital AND cap space to get that QB. Same with DeFo. And the opportunity cost for paying premiums for DeFo and Wentz is not having young talent (QB or otherwise) on cheap rookie deals, and the huge cap space flexibility that comes with it (that would allow them to supplement other areas of the team).

 

They are sacrificing future value for now, but then they are using at least one of those prime years (that they paid a premium for) on roster development. Seems like parallel circular paths.

 

But to compound it, the other players that were supplying surplus value to this roster (Q, Leonard, Smith, etc.) are now on big second contracts.

 

So looking forward, where does that value come from now? Who is going to drastically outperform their cost and lift this team to the next level?

 

I don't think the Colts are in trouble or anything, but I fear they are on a path towards being a .500 team for a few years. It will really depend on a few key players.

Big draft capital?    We traded big draft capital?     A 1 and a 3 for a starting high caliber quarterback is now big draft capital?

 

Who was the high caliber quarterback that some team traded up for who went for a 1 and a 3?     Or, put another way, who was the top-12 QB that teams moved up for that didn’t cost roughly two 1’s and two Day 2 picks at a minimum?    Is there one?    I’m not aware of him.    
 

To me,  paying 4-5 high draft picks is Big Draft Capital.   Not a 1 and a 3.   That’s a bargain if Wentz turns out to be what we hope he is.   

[RollerColt]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The narrative can be what it is, but it was reported that the primary difference in the offers was the amount of guaranteed money in Year 2. Without knowing all the details, there's not much else to say about it.

 

That's very different from 'Ballard was too cheap to keep Autry, but kept Hines.' First, Hines should have been kept. Second, they tried to keep Autry. 

 

Of course none of this matters if the point is just to be mad at somebody.

Yeah I'm not saying I agree with it, the narrative that is. It's just what started the fire of the whole "Ballard dissed Autry" notion. 

 

My response had nothing to do with the Hines stuff. I should have clarified that. 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Big draft capital?    We traded big draft capital?     A 1 and a 3 for a starting high caliber quarterback is now big draft capital?

 

Who was the high caliber quarterback that some team traded up for who went for a 1 and a 3!     Or, put another way, who was the top-12 QB that teams moved up for that didn’t cost roughly two 1’s and two Day 2 picks at a minimum?    Is there one?    I’m not aware of him.    
 

To me,  paying 4-5 high draft picks is Big Draft Capital.   Not a 1 and a 3.   That’s a bargain if Wentz turns out to be what we hope he is.   

 

I don't understand how anyone can take issue with the decision to trade for a QB this year. Especially if the alternative offered is a developmental year for a mid round prospect.

 

And realistically, Wentz looks fine. We can criticize some elements of his play, but he looks like the kind of QB you can win with, a player you can commit to, and even build around. But even if he looked bad, the plan to acquire a good QB isn't a problem.

[shasta519]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Big draft capital?    We traded big draft capital?     A 1 and a 3 for a starting high caliber quarterback is now big draft capital?

 

Who was the high caliber quarterback that some team traded up for who went for a 1 and a 3!     Or, put another way, who was the top-12 QB that teams moved up for that didn’t cost roughly two 1’s and two Day 2 picks at a minimum?    Is there one?    I’m not aware of him.    
 

To me,  paying 4-5 high draft picks is Big Draft Capital.   Not a 1 and a 3.   That’s a bargain if Wentz turns out to be what we hope he is.   

 

Top 15 picks overall are certainly big draft capital. A top 15 pick + a 3rd round pick is equivalent to a late 1st round and an early 2nd round pick. 

 

What you trade them for doesn't really change what they are. But it's fine to make moves like that. It's just when you are doing that AND paying/taking their contracts, you are paying an added premium that has opportunity cost for the rest of the roster. In the case of a QB, you might keep a couple of picks, but you also lose that rookie deal cap space (which has a much more immediate impact on a roster). 

 

Trading up is a premium cost as well, but only in draft capital. They are just different approaches.

 

But when you do trade draft capital AND pay for the contract, that is more of a win-now move. Except as DD said, this appears to have been a developmental year, which means they aren't maximizing this season for Wentz (or DeFo).

 

And I think it conflicts with the approach this offseason to go with rookies to replace key vets. Not so much about the particulars of the Wentz deal as much as the approach. Time will tell on both.  

 

  

[AKB]

We aren't going to be able to keep everyone. We only have 1m cap space as it is rn? If that.. Look how restricted we have been in getting secondary help.

[AKB]

59 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Big draft capital?    We traded big draft capital?     A 1 and a 3 for a starting high caliber quarterback is now big draft capital?

 

Who was the high caliber quarterback that some team traded up for who went for a 1 and a 3?     Or, put another way, who was the top-12 QB that teams moved up for that didn’t cost roughly two 1’s and two Day 2 picks at a minimum?    Is there one?    I’m not aware of him.    
 

To me,  paying 4-5 high draft picks is Big Draft Capital.   Not a 1 and a 3.   That’s a bargain if Wentz turns out to be what we hope he is.   

Turn out to be? He has been everything Reich said he would. Luck started 1-5 too right? So technically Wentz has done better thus far if you just want to look at it as 2 talented qbs coming back from injury in Reichs system. Also it is possible to argue Luck had the better team. Wentz is fine. If you erase 2 throws he is basically perfect. Even Tom brady threw a pick 6 to lose a game. It happens. 

[coming on strong]

There is gonna be some real decisions coming up soon with Lewis turray and aqm this off season we are gonna need depth behind paye and dayo . Ballard needs to spend money because we have no 1st rounder . We need depth at safety new corners and depth at pass rush . Plus ty is gonna be gone so we need a number 2 option . 

[stitches]

 

51 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Top 15 picks overall are certainly big draft capital. A top 15 pick + a 3rd round pick is equivalent to a late 1st round and an early 2nd round pick. 

 

What you trade them for doesn't really change what they are. But it's fine to make moves like that. It's just when you are doing that AND paying/taking their contracts, you are paying an added premium that has opportunity cost for the rest of the roster. In the case of a QB, you might keep a couple of picks, but you also lose that rookie deal cap space (which has a much more immediate impact on a roster). 

 

Trading up is a premium cost as well, but only in draft capital. They are just different approaches.

 

But when you do trade draft capital AND pay for the contract, that is more of a win-now move. Except as DD said, this appears to have been a developmental year, which means they aren't maximizing this season for Wentz (or DeFo).

 

And I think it conflicts with the approach this offseason to go with rookies to replace key vets. Not so much about the particulars of the Wentz deal as much as the approach. Time will tell on both.  

 

  

Yep, the price of trading for Wentz is not just the picks you pay but also the contract you give him(the money you cannot spend elsewhere). The way I like to put in perspective is like this - the difference in pay between Wentz and a rookie QB is about 18-19M for 4 years. The Texans paid a 2nd round pick to dump 17M contract of Osweiller. So that would be 1st, 3d and 4 second round picks value... or thereabout. In essence we paid for Wentz about what the 49ers paid to go get Lance. 

[shasta519]

48 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't understand how anyone can take issue with the decision to trade for a QB this year. Especially if the alternative offered is a developmental year for a mid round prospect.

 

And realistically, Wentz looks fine. We can criticize some elements of his play, but he looks like the kind of QB you can win with, a player you can commit to, and even build around. But even if he looked bad, the plan to acquire a good QB isn't a problem.

 

Mid-round prospect? Nobody offered that as an alternative. 

 

I am not "taking issue" with trading for a QB this year. It had to be done...either trade UP in the draft or trade for a vet. 

 

The plan should always be to acquire a good QB, but there are different ways to go about it. And we should be able to argue the merits of one approach vs. the other, both for the immediate and the future of this team.

 

As for Wentz, I can't imagine he's a bad move, largely because the Colts needed a capable QB. But that doesn't mean it's the best move. Alex Smith was a profitable move as well for KC...and even the Cutler trade wasn't a disaster because CHI needed a good QB.

 

Assuming you were referring to my comment, it seems like you mischaracterized just about everything I said.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Yep, the price of trading for Wentz is not just the picks you pay but also the contract you give him(the money you cannot spend elsewhere). The way I like to put in perspective is like this - the difference in pay between Wentz and a rookie QB is about 18-19M for 4 years. The Texans paid a 2nd round pick to dump 17M contract of Osweiller. So that would be 1st, 3d and 4 second round picks value... or thereabout. In essence we paid for Wentz about what the 49ers paid to go get Lance. 

 

How do you come up with 1st, 3rd, and 4 second round picks value? You're not counting four years worth of the difference value, and calling that four second round picks, are you? 

 

Wentz's guaranteed money is up after 2022, so even if I agreed with this approach, it would realistically only be two second round picks.

 

And I don't agree with the approach. The Osweiler trade was and continues to be an outlier. The closest thing is the Goff/Stafford trade in which you can argue the Rams threw in an extra first to shed Goff's contract, but the foundation of that trade was Stafford, so it's not an equal comparison. The idea that you can trade a $17m contract for a second round pick isn't a reliable assumption, nor is it a baseline for value.

 

The Niners gave up three firsts and a third. That's much more than a 1st, 3rd, and multiple 4ths. 

 

Most importantly, Wentz is better than Trey Lance right now. Much better. He's better than all five first round QBs in 2021. (Ironically, the best rookie QB is Mac Jones so far. Maybe not ironically, plenty of people felt he'd be good right away.) 

 

This argument is pretty wild to me.

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Mid-round prospect? Nobody offered that as an alternative. 

 

I am not "taking issue" with trading for a QB this year. It had to be done...either trade UP in the draft or trade for a vet. 

 

The plan should always be to acquire a good QB, but there are different ways to go about it. And we should be able to argue the merits of one approach vs. the other, both for the immediate and the future of this team.

 

As for Wentz, I can't imagine he's a bad move, largely because the Colts needed a capable QB. But that doesn't mean it's the best move. Alex Smith was a profitable move as well for KC...and even the Cutler trade wasn't a disaster because CHI needed a good QB.

 

Assuming you were referring to my comment, it seems like you mischaracterized just about everything I said.

 

Didn't you suggest just going with Eason? Like multiple times during the offseason? Weren't you pretty much opposed to the Wentz trade? 

 

If I'm misremembering that, or attributing someone else's posting to you, my fault. But I'm pretty sure that was you.

 

And if it wasn't, several people did. And several people have offered going with a mid round QB prospect as an alternative, so the bolded is not accurate. 

 

We can absolutely argue the merits of different methods of acquiring a good QB. Pretty much all of them require considerable resource outlay. So go the Niners route and trade up for a guy you like, or trade for a vet, or get lucky with a guy who falls to you at some point in the draft, or tank for the first pick. What else is there?

 

We traded for a vet. It's reasonable value. Our guy has actually been pretty good.

[sb41champs]

You have to balance your roster - across the board - both in talent - and - in $$$.

 

We have two newcomers to the defensive line - give them a chance to prove their worth in talent.

 

[DougDew]

2 hours ago, shasta519 said:

 

My thoughts. The entire offseason really seemed to be about (a) paying some key guys, (b) making moves get younger and cheaper at certain positions and (c) create opportunities for development. Lateral in some ways (when you look at the position addressed), but definitely future-minded.

 

The approach makes sense, especially for a GM that just got a 5-year extension. 

 

However, what seems counter-intuitive to this plan is the big trade for a vet QB, when they could have used this developmental year on a QB.

 

Not only that, the Colts traded big draft capital AND cap space to get that QB. Same with DeFo. And the opportunity cost for paying premiums for DeFo and Wentz is not having young talent (QB or otherwise) on cheap rookie deals, and the huge cap space flexibility that comes with it (that would allow them to supplement other areas of the team).

 

They are sacrificing future value for now, but then they are using at least one of those prime years (that they paid a premium for) on roster development. Seems like parallel circular paths.

 

But to compound it, the other players that were supplying surplus value to this roster (Q, Leonard, Smith, etc.) are now on big second contracts.

 

So looking forward, where does that value come from now? Who is going to drastically outperform their cost and lift this team to the next level?

 

I don't think the Colts are in trouble or anything, but I fear they are on a path towards being a .500 team for a few years. It will really depend on a few key players.

Rivers, Manning, and Brady played into their late 30s and 40s.  Ben too.

 

Wentz can play beyond his 4 year deal.  He's got the kind of arm that will probably last, even if its at 85-90% strength from where it is now.  No reason why Wentz can't be the QB for the next 8 years.

[stitches]

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How do you come up with 1st, 3rd, and 4 second round picks value? You're not counting four years worth of the difference value, and calling that four second round picks, are you? 

 

Wentz's guaranteed money is up after 2022, so even if I agreed with this approach, it would realistically only be two second round picks.

And then you would have to go and get another QB either through the draft or FA/trade(more draft picks and more money) to fill your QB position for those extra two years. Of course, I oversimplified it to make a point. In essence you are giving me the case where Wentz doesn't work out, in which case the trade is an abject disaster no matter what pick value you decide to attach to his contract. I feel like my assumption is the more generous and more preferable one. 

 

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

And I don't agree with the approach. The Osweiler trade was and continues to be an outlier. The closest thing is the Goff/Stafford trade in which you can argue the Rams threw in an extra first to shed Goff's contract, but the foundation of that trade was Stafford, so it's not an equal comparison. The idea that you can trade a $17m contract for a second round pick isn't a reliable assumption, nor is it a baseline for value.

Well, we don't really know for sure... but we don't have many trades of the sort in the NFL and I'm using what I have as a baseline.  

 

32 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Niners gave up three firsts and a third. That's much more than a 1st, 3rd, and multiple 4ths. 

 

Most importantly, Wentz is better than Trey Lance right now. Much better. He's better than all five first round QBs in 2021. (Ironically, the best rookie QB is Mac Jones so far. Maybe not ironically, plenty of people felt he'd be good right away.) 

 

This argument is pretty wild to me.

It's not really that much more. 2 seconds are at about pick no. 20 value by Jimmy Johnson and about pick no. 10 by AV chart. It's not EXACT but it's close enough for me. Also, the trade I'm looking at for Lance was #12(about the same we will give up for Wentz) + 3d compensatory pick(worse than ours) + 2 future 1st round picks. I'm not seeing multiple 4ths. But even if there are, those are negligible when you put them next to 3 1sts + 3d. 

[shasta519]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Yep, the price of trading for Wentz is not just the picks you pay but also the contract you give him(the money you cannot spend elsewhere). The way I like to put in perspective is like this - the difference in pay between Wentz and a rookie QB is about 18-19M for 4 years. The Texans paid a 2nd round pick to dump 17M contract of Osweiller. So that would be 1st, 3d and 4 second round picks value... or thereabout. In essence we paid for Wentz about what the 49ers paid to go get Lance. 

 

Yep. And it's $18-19M for 4 years IF Wentz stays at his current AAV. He will get an extension before long. But if he earns it, nobody will mind that extra cost.

 

Each approach has its own cost/benefit analysis. I prefer the QB on a rookie deal because of the immediate impact of available cap space and the age/upside. You get that QB before and during his prime. Like 1/3 of the NFL has a QB who has or currently is providing huge value on rookie deals. Getting that offensive continuity for years and years to come is a key to success.

 

But I can certainly see the other side. Less risk and immediate value with a known baseline level of performance. Possibly even some upside left with the Reich connection. Not to mention keeping a few draft picks. I can see how people view Wentz as the missing piece to a SB team, but he isn't without red flags. 

 

But I only brought it up because someone else brought up that this was a developmental season, which changes the calculus a bit.  You lose a bit of "known" value from a vet in that case, as well a year of their prime. You also had a year that you could have let a QB develop.

 

And during the Ballard era, I feel like I have read countless comments about how the Colts should approach to FA and trades when they weren't ready to compete. QB is different because you have to have a good one, but trading for a vet is still a win-now move when you go that route vs. the draft.

 

If the Colts had traded for Stafford and were sitting at 4-5, I think people might see it differently, but maybe not.

 

Regardless, Wentz is the guy going forward. He has played well and the offense has scored at a similar clip as it was last season. So we will see how the rest of this season (and beyond) unfolds. 

 

 

[DougDew]

Some things have been twisted, at least restated to mean something different than what was said.

 

Given the unknowns with Wentz, Fisher, and the need to see more of Turay, Lewis, Ben, and also probably planning to draft a rookie edge player, and, with contract extensions needed, it makes sense to me that Ballard would not chase Autry. 

 

Its just not a superbowl year, which is when you go after the "aging vets" to get over the hump.  That's just not the situation with the Colts this year, and it was kind of obvious last spring given the number of moving pieces needing to be settled.