Big Q

[bleed blue4life]

Man I am getting tired of reading all these threads on trading Q for more weapons. How did that work out in the Manning era? One superbowl with Marvin,Reg. Dallas and Stokes and Edge. I will tell u why we kept losing to Ne. It was in the trenches both sides of the ball. The games are won there period. please keep the best lineman in the nfl .Luck would still be playing if he had this line in front of him .ok rant over

[Moosejawcolt]

Just now, bleed blue 4 life said:

Man I am getting tired of reading all these threads on trading Q for more weapons. How did that work out in the Manning era? One superbowl with Marvin,Reg. Dallas and Stokes and Edge. I will tell u why we kept losing to Ne. It was in the trenches both sides of the ball. The games are won there period. please keep the best lineman in the nfl .Luck would still be playing if he had this line in front of him .ok rant over

Okay . Let's keep him . Say the  Colts agree to sign him for 20 million a year. Do u  think  u r getting your value back? How much impact is Nelson having on the games in terms of wins and losses?

[SOMDColtsfan]

As a welder/fabricator nobody ever puts values on the welds until they break. You get what you pay for. Our O line was broken when Luck was QB. It's easy to put less value on an O line when its actually good. But disaster awaits when its bad >Luck 

[jvan1973]

He will be re-signed regardless of what some want

[GoColts8818]

People can post what they want.  Ballard has already told you what he’s going to do.  He’s going to extend him to play guard.  People may not like it but that’s what is going to happen.

[DeepseaColt]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Okay . Let's keep him . Say the  Colts agree to sign him for 20 million a year. Do u  think  u r getting your value back? How much impact is Nelson having on the games in terms of wins and losses?

I'd say you're absolutely getting your value back. He's the leader of the O-line and completely changed their play the second he was drafted. 

[Bravo]

I absolutely love Q and the way he plays. He upgraded the entire O-line.

 

BUT

 

20mil a year is a huge number for a guard, and Q seems to be having a lot of back and ankle issues. When he was out, there wasn’t a huge loss in production either (not $20mil worth anyway).

 

It all just depends on what they could get in a trade I guess, IMO Every position besides a HOF QB is expendable if the other team is willing to give up enough.

[NannyMcafee]

The Colts won't be trading any of our big players. And there aren't a lot of "threads" on trading Q. 

 

The Colts will be drafting our next starting QB unless Wentz turns some major heads. There aren't a lot of good reasons to trade our players right now. Not for the QBs available, and its not worth it to trade them for a pick at this moment. Maybe next year they will consider it to move up in the 2023 draft for our QB. 

 

I just dont see Wentz pulling it all together in one off-season in year 7. He shouldn't be making the decisions he's making at this point in his career and im pretty confident he will show that again in 2022. 

 

If the Colts risk trading for a QB, they could set this team back a lot more than we currently are. 

[BProland85]

8 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

People can post what they want.  Ballard has already told you what he’s going to do.  He’s going to extend him to play guard.  People may not like it but that’s what is going to happen.

I agree. I just hope it’s not for near 20 mil per season. Guards shouldn’t be paid that much imo. 

[MikeCurtis]

 

Respectfully...... 

 

First off, I love Q

 

But our shopping list is LONG

 

The hard cold reality is.......

 

1) No Viable LT

2) No DE of merit

3) No dependable, dynamic WR2 AND WR3 

4) No dependable, dynamic TE on the roster

5) No long term answer at QB

6) No one wants to talk about it... but we do NOT have good a FS on this roster (I think we have 2 SS)

 

BTW, while we are being honest..... Pittman would be WR3 or WR4 on the Bengals (Think about it) 

 

If you can find a way to keep Q AND get the MINIMUM needed things, than I am all for it........

 

When you pay a Left Guard at star QB, star LT,  and star DE levels..... you will have an accounting  problem

 

Thats a reality

 

IMHO

 

[colts89]

We will be keeping Q so long as Ballard is the GM or a trade offer too big to ignore for a OG comes.

 

Ballard signs guys he drafted who perform and are still young. Nelson is that guy to a T. The cap isn't and shouldn't be an issue with HOF level players. I'm plenty sure restructuring and cap increases would make him being the highest payed guard in the NFL just fine.

[LiveAndLetAddai]

This is so polarizing...I understand not wanting to pay a guard LT money, though I understand why he needs to be kept.  I am glad I don't have to make that call.

[Moosejawcolt]

3 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

People can post what they want.  Ballard has already told you what he’s going to do.  He’s going to extend him to play guard.  People may not like it but that’s what is going to happen.

And that is why Ballard is average. The team  he assembled  based on character got their ... handed to them in the last  2 games.  To me the last thing he should have been promising is to sign any player.

[AKB]

Colts have already said many times publicly that Q will be resigned and is a Colt.  Yet these threads keep popping up?  I'm confused,  the only thing to talk about is how much money he will be paid.  

 

Also, he isn't getting paid "LT money", he will get paid best LG of his generation type money. 

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

Colts have already said many times publicly that Q will be resigned and is a Colt.  Yet these threads keep popping up?  I'm confused,  the only thing to talk about is how much money he will be paid.  

 

Also, he isn't getting paid "LT money", he will get paid best LG of his generation type money. 

 

The bolded is kind of word salad. Highest paid G right now is 16M. If he gets 20M or more like many predict, that puts in top 3 or 4 LT pay.... So sure, he's setting the market at G and being paid as a G, but he's making top 5 LT pay.... 

 

I don't really have any issue with it if we also have a stud rook LT on the cheap for 4 years... But if we're setting the market on total OL pay (and we likely will with Qs extension), then it's fair to question the strategy... Just really depends on what we do at LT. 

[AKB]

It's not word salad, its factual.  People are comparing him to a LT yet he doesn't play LT. He Plays LG.  He also happens to be the best LG anyone has seen in a very long time.  The same Guard that only gives up one sack a year, if they get lucky.  

 

Ballard and the Colts are not doing anything wrong by paying a player his value.  Q shouldn't be shorted simply because the LT position exists.  Word salad? hardly. 

 

Best LG of his generation should be paid as such. 

[Four2itus]

43 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

The bolded is kind of word salad. Highest paid G right now is 16M. If he gets 20M or more like many predict, that puts in top 3 or 4 LT pay.... So sure, he's setting the market at G and being paid as a G, but he's making top 5 LT pay....

For one year? Until the increased S-cap changes the market?

[EastStreet]

12 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

For one year? Until the increased S-cap changes the market?

 

 

If you're talking about G pay... Gong for 16M to 20M or more is a huge jump, bigger than any "set the market" jump I can recall on the OL. And to jump into top 4 LT pay, is pretty unique.

[AKB]

52 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

 

If you're talking about G pay... Gong for 16M to 20M or more is a huge jump, bigger than any "set the market" jump I can recall on the OL. And to jump into top 4 LT pay, is pretty unique.

unique pay for a unique player

[Moosejawcolt]

9 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

 

Respectfully...... 

 

First off, I love Q

 

But our shopping list is LONG

 

The hard cold reality is.......

 

1) No Viable LT

2) No DE of merit

3) No dependable, dynamic WR2 AND WR3 

4) No dependable, dynamic TE on the roster

5) No long term answer at QB

6) No one wants to talk about it... but we do NOT have good a FS on this roster (I think we have 2 SS)

 

BTW, while we are being honest..... Pittman would be WR3 or WR4 on the Bengals (Think about it) 

 

If you can find a way to keep Q AND get the MINIMUM needed things, than I am all for it........

 

When you pay a Left Guard at star QB, star LT,  and star DE levels..... you will have an accounting  problem

 

Thats a reality

 

IMHO

 

Agreed. That's why after the loss Ballard was stubborn almost in your  face about keeping Nelson.  I am not a huge fan of Ballard and as time passes less and less. This team cannot sign a guard to a 20 million  dollar contract . It's a ludicrous idea with the amount  of needs the Colts have. Hell,  I doubt many smart teams would. That was the concern when u draft a guard at  #6. Sure, he will give u 5 solid  years of all pro production. However  there will be a time of recooning and that is soon. Would I Jamar  Chase what he will want in 4 years? Sure I will.

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

unique pay for a unique player

But a highly questionable strategy in terms of building and OL, and in general, team roster $ allotment. 

[WoolMagnet]

14 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Okay . Let's keep him . Say the  Colts agree to sign him for 20 million a year. Do u  think  u r getting your value back? How much impact is Nelson having on the games in terms of wins and losses?

I battle with that high a price for a guard but also would hate to lose him.  But the LG play didnt seem to suffer the few games he missed.

  I’m cool with whatever there because i cant sort it out in my mind.

  I guess if we would be paying 10M for an average LG, the 20 doesnt sound so bad.

  LT is my concern.

Oh, and QB, TE, WR... well, you get the picture.

[CheezyColt]

22 hours ago, SOMDColtsfan said:

As a welder/fabricator nobody ever puts values on the welds until they break. You get what you pay for. Our O line was broken when Luck was QB. It's easy to put less value on an O line when its actually good. But disaster awaits when its bad >Luck 

I will forever and always be an advocate of spending big on the OL based on the disaster that was the Colts' bungling of Andrew Luck's career.  Not even an option in my mind.  Build a strong OL and go from there.  Pay Q.

[joeb]

I just looked up the top salaries of left guards. Two guards Joel Bitonio (browns) and Joe Thuney (chiefs) both make 16 mil. after that it goes to 11.5. Andrus Peat (saints). So my point is if we wrap up Q at 17 for 5yrs.+ that would be a good deal. In 5 years from now it will probably look like a great deal.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

 

If you're talking about G pay... Gong for 16M to 20M or more is a huge jump, bigger than any "set the market" jump I can recall on the OL. And to jump into top 4 LT pay, is pretty unique.

 

Where does the $20m figure come from? Isn't this just an imagined number?

 

When Q's contract is done, I'm assuming it will functionally be something like $15-17m/year on the cap.

[joeb]

I just looked up the top salaries of left guards. Two guards Joel Bitonio (browns) and Joe Thuney (chiefs) both make 16 mil. after that it goes to 11.5. Andrus Peat (saints). So my point is if we wrap up Q at 17 for 5yrs.+ that would be a good deal. In 5 years from now it will probably look like a great deal.

[Solid84]

13 hours ago, AustinnKaine said:

unique pay for a unique player

Having Nelson over another good/great guard isn’t going to be the difference that gets us in the playoffs let alone the SB. 
 

A guard is just not worth that kind of money, unique or not. 

[EastStreet]

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Where does the $20m figure come from? Isn't this just an imagined number?

 

When Q's contract is done, I'm assuming it will functionally be something like $15-17m/year on the cap.

I mean, aren't all speculative extension #s imagined? The $20M number has been tossed around a lot. My personal evaluation would be 17Mish. But 20M would not surprise me at all. His 2021 likely hurts the chances of 20M. 

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I mean, aren't all speculative extension #s imagined? The $20M number has been tossed around a lot. My personal evaluation would be 17Mish. But 20M would not surprise me at all. His 2021 likely hurts the chances of 20M. 

 

Yeah that's my point. People have just said $20m so many times that it's now the number, and in reality it was probably never a realistic projection. 

 

More importantly, whatever the new money average is reported as, I only really care about the way it hits the cap. And that most definitely won't be $20m/year.

[EastStreet]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

Yeah that's my point. People have just said $20m so many times that it's now the number, and in reality it was probably never a realistic projection. 

 

More importantly, whatever the new money average is reported as, I only really care about the way it hits the cap. And that most definitely won't be $20m/year.

I don't think the 20M thrown around is really all that outlandish though. Many in the media have labeled him the best OL in the league regardless of position. Now that talk ceased this year due to injury, but it's not like it wasn't throw around. Plenty in the media used the 20M figure. 

 

I really don't care so long as the OL is good overall (top 10), but at the same time, I don't want the Colts to have the #1 overall paid OL. But being the highest paid overall OL is a distinct possibility once we sign a LT and extend Q.

[DaColts85]

I believe 17 is a better number. He is very good but there would be no reason to give him 3.5 mil per year more than the tops now in Thuney. You go with a 5 year contract at 17/ year with a good singing bonus to help overall cap hits. Then as the cap goes up his contract won’t even be a huge factor. 

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah that's my point. People have just said $20m so many times that it's now the number, and in reality it was probably never a realistic projection. 

 

More importantly, whatever the new money average is reported as, I only really care about the way it hits the cap. And that most definitely won't be $20m/year.

New money average is the important one. I still don't get why people care about money already guaranteed when talking about new contracts. And yes, I actually expect it to be about 20M a year in new money. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

New money average is the important one. I still don't get why people care about money already guaranteed when talking about new contracts. And yes, I actually expect it to be about 20M a year in new money. 

 

Because the only thing that matters is how it hits the cap.

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Because the only thing that matters is how it hits the cap.

That's because you are spreading it over one(or two) more year. If you didn't you could push forward that cap space for the next year and the impact on the cap will be the same. The new money is the important number, it's the number that impacts the available cap space.

[FuedinHatfield]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Where does the $20m figure come from? Isn't this just an imagined number?

 

When Q's contract is done, I'm assuming it will functionally be something like $15-17m/year on the cap.

So you're fine paying a guard what Devante Adams made last season at a impact position?

[FuedinHatfield]

So let's get this straight. I have a highly versatile lineman. Who is going to command a high payday. Arguably the best lineman in the league. But we can't notice a production drop when he isn't playing because the position he plays is low to medium impact and our backup got almost the same production. Heck I would have never noticed if I didn't read the injury report. We have a hole at LT. But let's not ask him to slide over. Even though he knows the position and was only moved to guard at ND because of Mcglinchy. Makes perfect sense.

[Superman]

15 hours ago, stitches said:

That's because you are spreading it over one(or two) more year. If you didn't you could push forward that cap space for the next year and the impact on the cap will be the same. The new money is the important number, it's the number that impacts the available cap space.

 

How it's spread affects how it hits the cap. New money can be allocated a lot of different ways. What matters is how it affects cap space.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, FuedinHatfield said:

So you're fine paying a guard what Devante Adams made last season at a impact position?

 

2 hours ago, FuedinHatfield said:

So let's get this straight. I have a highly versatile lineman. Who is going to command a high payday. Arguably the best lineman in the league. But we can't notice a production drop when he isn't playing because the position he plays is low to medium impact and our backup got almost the same production. Heck I would have never noticed if I didn't read the injury report. We have a hole at LT. But let's not ask him to slide over. Even though he knows the position and was only moved to guard at ND because of Mcglinchy. Makes perfect sense.

 

If you think the OL would be the same without Nelson, then I can't have a discussion with you.

[Four2itus]

It's gonna be 18.85/year. Heard it here. I'm so brilliant, I should put this % on social media.

 

 

 

............oh wait. I don't have internet on my phone. Nevermind. 

[stitches]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How it's spread affects how it hits the cap. New money can be allocated a lot of different ways. What matters is how it affects cap space.

it adds(or subtracts) the new money... money that didn't exist before to our capspace. If it adds it to the current year, then that's money you cannot carry over to next season, which you could carry if that contract didn't exist(or if you didn't put any of the new money on the current year's contract). That's why the new money is the important one. It affects your cap space no matter how you structure it. 

 

Example... 

Q has 14M cap hit next season. We can give him 100M for 5 years(20M a year new money) but put it over 6 years(this coming year + 5 more). Lets say before we give him the contract we have 40M capspace for this year. Lets say we decide to put 6M out of the 100M contract on his contract for this year(i.e. it becomes 20M hit for this year). This way we will have 34M capspace. And we have to spread the remaining 94M over 5 years(a bit under 19M per year for the next 5). 

 

In case 1 where we didn't have that contract(or had it, but put all the money on the following 5 years) we can carry over 40M to next season. 

In case 2, where we give him the contract and put 6M of it on this current year, we can carry over only 34M to next season. That's 6M less you will have next season and 6M less(or rather 5 if you compare it to a version of the contract that doesn't put anything on the current year) you can carry over to the following season too. 

 

The new money matters. Whether you put part of it on the current season or not. The effect on the capspace is very similar. 

 

In essence whether you structure it so that Q's contract is 6x19 or 14+5x20, it's the same thing and it affects your capspace in very comparable ways.

 

I don't know... are we talking past eachother or is there an actual disgreement? I cannot tell. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point...