2023 Colts and NFL free agency news, rumors, discussions

[Dingus McGirt]

8 minutes ago, DEFENSE said:

we have too many holes with poor talent . we will be in the top 5 for picks in 2024. the colts have the worst roster in football unless ballard wakes up and changes his method we will have another wasted season under ballards command

Bless your heart.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Colts have been posting the combine pressers of the quarterbacks. Have tweeted Richardson and young so far. Seems pretty clear they are taking a QB at 4. Why else would they do that. 

[GRUMPY OLD MAN]

I cant understand why any team would want paris  he has done nothing for the colts

[cdgacoltsfan]

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:

Tom Pelissero explains exactly why I would not pay Lamar Jackson or any other high-priced QB (Kirk Cousins). It is not that Jackson cannot play or even that he will get injured -- that happens to all players in football. 

 

Jackson's demands for a fully guaranteed contract and $40-$50 million a year make signing him a very bad football move. Signing any QB to such a contract does not leave enough salary cap space to sign other players to build a strong team. Add to that the fact that Baltimore placed that tag that would force another team to give up two first round picks if Jackson is signed. So, 1) There would be less money to build a team around him and 2)  less draft capital which is needed to build around him. That is mortgaging the future and the QB won't be happy about not having weapons and OL to protect him. 

 

He and the Ravens have made it almost impossible for Jackson to get signed by another team. It is not collusion; it is just not football smart to sign a player to a guaranteed contract that takes up 20% or more of the salary cap and give up two first round draft picks.  I think he will be forced to return to the Ravens.

 

TL;DR

 

Jackson's strength is his legs ,not his arm. He's had two lower leg injuries. His shelf life is going to be limited. Nobody is going to pay him what he thinks he deserves.

[Yoshinator]

20 minutes ago, DEFENSE said:

I cant understand why any team would want paris  he has done nothing for the colts

They are betting on the fact that his injuries are the reason he has been bad and if he stays healthy he is a good WR. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

They are betting on the fact that his injuries are the reason he has been bad and if he stays healthy he is a good WR. 

must be the reason and they got him cheap

[NFLfan]

15 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Jackson's strength is his legs ,not his arm. He's had two lower leg injuries. His shelf life is going to be limited. Nobody is going to pay him what he thinks he deserves.

 

Are you adding to my point?

 

My point stands even if Jackson had never had any injuries. And I am not just talking about Jackson. Even if that was Patrick Mahomes or Tom Brady in his prime, I would not sign him to the contract he wants for the reasons I noted earlier. 

 

This is football, not golf. Most players will get injured. That should not be used against them. 

 

Note: @buccolts, my reasons are different from yours. I have no problem with Jackson the QB. I only have a problem with the contract. 

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:

@Aaron86 @richard pallo

Did what I write up there make sense? If not, listen to Tom Pelissero in the tweet above. 

 

For me I would love a dynamic QB like Lamar. However, the contract demands make signing him impossible. When we signed Kirk Cousins, it was one of the first fully guaranteed deals. Before we got him, we used to re-sign all our valued players. After he signed, we could no longer do that  We had to cut many of them because his contract made it impossible to keep them. I hated it. My fellow Vikings fans think I dislike him because I want Teddy B back. That is not the case. I don't like the Cousins contract. Whenever we decide to part from him, the dead money will be very high. 

No it doesn't for me.   Mahomes is 28 years old with six accrued years in the league counting 40 mil against the cap on a Super Bowl champion.  The Chiefs seemed to manage their roster and cap pretty well with that amount.  LaMar is 26 years old with five accrued years currently counting 32m against the cap due to the non exclusive tag. That leaves the Ravens with 7m in cap space.  The exclusive tag is 42m.  If they used that tag they would have had to make other moves.  The Ravens also offered LaMar a fully guaranteed three years of about 42m each year as part of a five year contract.  So they were not afraid to fully guarantee three years.  So why didn't he sign?  I expect he wanted more guaranteed money than the franchise tag which I think is realistic given the tag amount and the other issue is the remaining two years non guaranteed which in reality gives them five years of control.  So they already fully guaranteed him money for three years.  They weren't afraid to do that.  That leads me to believe they felt comfortable they could still manage their roster effectively as the Chiefs proved is possible with the best quarterback in the league.  For owners and players money is always the big part of a contract.  Owners love the longer contracts because of the control if offers them.  The tags give them added control.  The owners are going to fight the fully guaranteed contract for as long as they can.  Can't blame them it makes perfect business sense. But a precedent has already been set with a few fully guaranteed contracts.  Players are going to be pushing hard.  The star players will win out first I think.  What makes sense to me is the three year fully guaranteed contract. The player gets another shot at a new contract sooner and the owner has the franchise tags if he wants to use them.  I think if owners and players steer away from the five years contracts somehow they should be able to find a common middle ground when it comes to navigating fully guaranteed contracts.

[NFLfan]

8 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

No it doesn't for me.   Mahomes is 28 years old with six accrued years in the league counting 40 mil against the cap on a Super Bowl champion.  The Chiefs seemed to manage their roster and cap pretty well with that amount.  LaMar is 26 years old with five accrued years currently counting 32m against the cap due to the non exclusive tag. That leaves the Ravens with 7m in cap space.  The exclusive tag is 42m.  If they used that tag they would have had to make other moves.  The Ravens also offered LaMar a fully guaranteed three years of about 42m each year as part of a five year contract.  So they were not afraid to fully guarantee three years.  So why didn't he sign?  I expect he wanted more guaranteed money than the franchise tag which I think is realistic given the tag amount and the other issue is the remaining two years non guaranteed which in reality gives them five years of control.  So they already fully guaranteed him money for three years.  They weren't afraid to do that.  That leads me to believe they felt comfortable they could still manage their roster effectively as the Chiefs proved is possible with the best quarterback in the league.  For owners and players money is always the big part of a contract.  Owners love the longer contracts because of the control if offers them.  The tags give them added control.  The owners are going to fight the fully guaranteed contract for as long as they can.  Can't blame them it makes perfect business sense. But a precedent has already been set with a few fully guaranteed contracts.  Players are going to be pushing hard.  The star players will win out first I think.  What makes sense to me is the three year fully guaranteed contract. The player gets another shot at a new contract sooner and the owner has the franchise tags if he wants to use them.  I think if owners and players steer away from the five years contracts somehow they should be able to find a common middle ground when it comes to navigating fully guaranteed contracts.  

 

Thanks for answering. Would you give a QB (or any player) a fully guaranteed contract that uses up 20 to 25% of your salary cap space and give up 2 first round picks for doing so? After injury? I don't see it.

 

Is Mahomes contract fully guaranteed? 

 

[richard pallo]

Just now, NFLfan said:

 

Would you give a QB (or any player) a fully guaranteed contract that uses up 20 to 25% of your salary cap space and give up 2 first round picks for doing so? After injury? I don't see it.

 

Is Mahomes contract fully guaranteed? 

Mahomes is not fully guaranteed but you were saying a team could not manage a big contract like Mahomes and still manage the cap.  They did it.   I would do it for a quarterback like Lamar who is a top quarterback and only 26 years old.  You have to look at all of the circumstances.  You going to close the door on a player because he has an injury?  Players get hurt all of the time.  It's a long season.  I would take the upside on an already MVP at 26 years old.  First rd picks fail all the time.  I'll take my chances on the proven player. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

23 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

No it doesn't for me.   Mahomes is 28 years old with six accrued years in the league counting 40 mil against the cap on a Super Bowl champion.  The Chiefs seemed to manage their roster and cap pretty well with that amount.  LaMar is 26 years old with five accrued years currently counting 32m against the cap due to the non exclusive tag. That leaves the Ravens with 7m in cap space.  The exclusive tag is 42m.  If they used that tag they would have had to make other moves.  The Ravens also offered LaMar a fully guaranteed three years of about 42m each year as part of a five year contract.  So they were not afraid to fully guarantee three years.  So why didn't he sign?  I expect he wanted more guaranteed money than the franchise tag which I think is realistic given the tag amount and the other issue is the remaining two years non guaranteed which in reality gives them five years of control.  So they already fully guaranteed him money for three years.  They weren't afraid to do that.  That leads me to believe they felt comfortable they could still manage their roster effectively as the Chiefs proved is possible with the best quarterback in the league.  For owners and players money is always the big part of a contract.  Owners love the longer contracts because of the control if offers them.  The tags give them added control.  The owners are going to fight the fully guaranteed contract for as long as they can.  Can't blame them it makes perfect business sense. But a precedent has already been set with a few fully guaranteed contracts.  Players are going to be pushing hard.  The star players will win out first I think.  What makes sense to me is the three year fully guaranteed contract. The player gets another shot at a new contract sooner and the owner has the franchise tags if he wants to use them.  I think if owners and players steer away from the five years contracts somehow they should be able to find a common middle ground when it comes to navigating fully guaranteed contracts.

Good grief ...you can't compare Mahomes to Jackson. That's apples to oranges. Jackson wants a Watson contract. No other organization is as dumb as Cleveland. Jackson will get about half of what he's asking and it won't be fully guaranteed. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

12 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Mahomes is not fully guaranteed but you were saying a team could not manage a big contract like Mahomes and still manage the cap.  They did it.   I would do it for a quarterback like Lamar who is a top quarterback and only 26 years old.  You have to look at all of the circumstances.  You going to close the door on a player because he has an injury?  Players get hurt all of the time.  It's a long season.  I would take the upside on an already MVP at 26 years old.  First rd picks fail all the time.  I'll take my chances on the proven player. 

Injury history is kind of a big deal when you're negotiating multi million dollar contracts 

[NFLfan]

14 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Mahomes is not fully guaranteed but you were saying a team could not manage a big contract like Mahomes and still manage the cap.  They did it.   I would do it for a quarterback like Lamar who is a top quarterback and only 26 years old.  You have to look at all of the circumstances.  You going to close the door on a player because he has an injury?  Players get hurt all of the time.  It's a long season.  I would take the upside on an already MVP at 26 years old.  First rd picks fail all the time.  I'll take my chances on the proven player. 

 

I wrote a "fully guaranteed" contract. Go back and look. A lot of my thoughts are based on my QB having signed a fully guaranteed deal which the team could not wiggle out of. 

 

And what about giving up two first round picks. All of these variables led me to say that it is not smart for any team but the Ravens to sign Lamar. 

[richard pallo]

34 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Good grief ...you can't compare Mahomes to Jackson. That's apples to oranges. Jackson wants a Watson contract. No other organization is as dumb as Cleveland. Jackson will get about half of what he's asking and it won't be fully guaranteed. 

All he has to do is sign the tag and he has 32m fully guaranteed.  So that’s half of what he is asking?  I doubt it.  Cleveland opened the door.  The owners will eventually pay for that.

[cdgacoltsfan]

12 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

All he has to do is sign the tag and he has 32m fully guaranteed.  So that’s half of what he is asking?  I doubt it.  Cleveland opened the door.  The owners will eventually pay for that.

It's way more than half less. The 32m is for one year. He's already turned down 43m for  3 years guaranteed.If my math is correct 129m is more than  2xs 32m. If  wrong, let me know.

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

On 3/17/2023 at 9:55 AM, NFLfan said:

 

I have asked this before and have yet to get an answer that makes sense. What is a Running QB? That is a serious question. Anyone?

 

to me, a running QB is someone who has more leg talent than arm talent… 

 

Mahomes I would consider a high level scrambling QB. But not a running QB. 

[richard pallo]

40 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I wrote a "fully guaranteed" contract. Go back and look. A lot of my thoughts are based on my QB having signed a fully guaranteed deal which the team could not wiggle out of. 

 

And what about giving up two first round picks. All of these variables led me to say that it is not smart for any team but the Ravens to sign Lamar. 

My point was the Chiefs have Mahomes on the books this upcoming year for 40m guaranteed.  The whole contract isn’t guaranteed but this year is.  They are not going to cut him.  They can manage their cap with his big cap hit.  That’s my point.   I have already given my thoughts on the first two picks.  No need to repeat it.  A team can not wiggle out of a guaranteed contract.  That’s why they are fighting it as long as they can.  But the Ravens offered him three years guaranteed.  So it’s not entirely off the table.  They don’t want to pay him more than the tag and they don’t want to guarantee more than three years.  No doubt he wants a number bigger than the tag.  He should.  That’s the starting point.  This is about the Ravens counting on the owners to hold fast on the guaranteed money and the length of the contract.  Which they very well might do.  All it takes is one maverick like Cleveland to mess it up.  

[Colts1324]

Haven’t seen anybody mention Kelly or Moore  the past two days. Their roster bonuses are due tomorrow. 
 

Wouldn’t you think if they were to be traded or released, it would have happened by now? Especially Kelly. 

[Goatface Killah]

2 hours ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

Jackson's strength is his legs ,not his arm. He's had two lower leg injuries. His shelf life is going to be limited. Nobody is going to pay him what he thinks he deserves.

They werent devastating injuries tho. No achillis tears or ACLs.

[Goatface Killah]

Also Lamar came out and told everyone he never asked for a fully guaranteed deal and what the Ravens offered was basically 133 guaranteed. 

 

Im not sure suggesting he wants 200 fully guaranteed is accurate.

[cdgacoltsfan]

Just now, Goatface Killah said:

Also Lamar came out and told everyone he never asked for a fully guaranteed deal and what the Ravens offered was basically 133 guaranteed. 

 

Im not sure suggesting he wants 200 fully guaranteed is accurate.

Even if Ballard offered ( which he won't) , the Ravens are going to match 

[Goatface Killah]

Just now, cdgacoltsfan said:

Even if Ballard offered ( which he won't) , the Ravens are going to match 

Maybe. Idk

 

What if Lamar wants out?

[cdgacoltsfan]

6 minutes ago, Goatface Killah said:

Maybe. Idk

 

What if Lamar wants out?

He wants the most money...no matter who offers it. If the Ravens match...he has no choice.

[NFLfan]

1 hour ago, Indianapolis-Colts-Fan said:

 

to me, a running QB is someone who has more leg talent than arm talent… 

 

 

 

Thanks. I hear you. 

 

However, how do you determine that? It is very subjective. There is no objective way to determine that someone has "more leg talent than arm talent".

 

I wonder if Fran Tarkenton was considered a "running QB". I doubt it. He did scramble though. 

[Goatface Killah]

6 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

He wants the most money...no matter who offers it. If the Ravens match...he has no choice.

And we know what they dont want to pay.

 

Its just a matter of whether or not we are willing to pay it. 

[NFLfan]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

My point was the Chiefs have Mahomes on the books this upcoming year for 40m guaranteed.  The whole contract isn’t guaranteed but this year is.  They are not going to cut him.  They can manage their cap with his big cap hit.  That’s my point.   I have already given my thoughts on the first two picks.  No need to repeat it.  A team can not wiggle out of a guaranteed contract.  That’s why they are fighting it as long as they can.  But the Ravens offered him three years guaranteed.  So it’s not entirely off the table.  They don’t want to pay him more than the tag and they don’t want to guarantee more than three years.  No doubt he wants a number bigger than the tag.  He should.  That’s the starting point.  This is about the Ravens counting on the owners to hold fast on the guaranteed money and the length of the contract.  Which they very well might do.  All it takes is one maverick like Cleveland to mess it up.  

 

Okay. I like Lamar Jackson, but there is no way I want my team to give up the team for him. JMO. Football is a complementary game. I don't want 20% of my cap to go to one player and on top of that, give up two first round draft picks to get him.

 

[richard pallo]

Read a new article on Cardinals Wire an hour ago regarding Kelly and his upcoming bonus tomorrow.  They said if the Cardinals were going to trade for him it would happen today.  If they don’t make a trade the article said they expect the Cardinals to pursue him if he is cut.  He is on their radar apparently.

[NFLfan]

Who are the top free agents still available? 

[NFLfan]

I posted something announcing this yesterday but now it is official. I did not realize he was a free agent. He may thrive in Philly. 

 

 

[Yoshinator]

10 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

Who are the top free agents still available? 

Chauncey Gardner Johnson and Issac Seamulo are two of them. DJ Chark and Mecole Hardman are two quality FA WRs

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

17 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Read a new article on Cardinals Wire an hour ago regarding Kelly and his upcoming bonus tomorrow.  They said if the Cardinals were going to trade for him it would happen today.  If they don’t make a trade the article said they expect the Cardinals to pursue him if he is cut.  He is on their radar apparently.

Interesting. If colts are more worried about dumping his salary then get what you can get. I won’t be bad if they include him in a deal to move to 3 either. Just don’t think it’s necessary.

[throwing BBZ]

4 hours ago, DEFENSE said:

I cant understand why any team would want paris  he has done nothing for the colts

 

 He played well last season.

You are silly. 

[richard pallo]

9 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Interesting. If colts are more worried about dumping his salary then get what you can get. I won’t be bad if they include him in a deal to move to 3 either. Just don’t think it’s necessary.

Hopefully we can get a 5th like we did for Gilmore.  I would be happy with that.  Since we are probably cutting him anyway any trade where he is included to move up to 3 would really be a win.

[Indeee]

37 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Read a new article on Cardinals Wire an hour ago regarding Kelly and his upcoming bonus tomorrow.  They said if the Cardinals were going to trade for him it would happen today.  If they don’t make a trade the article said they expect the Cardinals to pursue him if he is cut.  He is on their radar apparently.

If the Colts would have offered Taylor along with Kelly, we would have already had the 3rd overall pick, but Ballard is a chump. He keeps coveting these non-valued league positions. 

 

The patriots do it right. They used to draft well, get lucky or develop, then sell these fools off for top value. Ballard just can't seem to understand how this business should work.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

2 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Hopefully we can get a 5th like we did for Gilmore.  I would be happy with that.  Since we are probably cutting him anyway any trade where he is included to move up to 3 would really be a win.

Colts might feel he is more valuable then a late pick. Depends on what they are trying to free money up for.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

If Kelly isn’t traded or cut  by end of day he will probably be on the roster this fall. His bonus isn’t that big where teams would be waiting for colts to pay his bonus before trading for him.

[Patrick Miller]

I hope he’s cut bc he’s always hurt and he sucks. Maybe sucks is a strong word but….

[richard pallo]

4 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Colts might feel he is more valuable then a late pick. Depends on what they are trying to free money up for.

Not sure what is going on.  They are in pretty good cap space right now.  Even better if they release Foles and Moe.  They could probably get one of the remaining guards and be okay cap space wise for the draft.  I can’t imagine we will pay him his bonus after offering him in trade.  A cut normally follows when a trade doesn’t occur.  And a pending bonus could be enough to force a decision.  But I guess anything is possible.  

[RollerColt]

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:

 

Okay. I like Lamar Jackson, but there is no way I want my team to give up the team for him. JMO. Football is a complementary game. I don't want 20% of my cap to go to one player and on top of that, give up two first round draft picks to get him.

 

Yep. I agree. If Lamar Jackson was Mahomes, he’d get his money. That’s the difference. The Browns were stupid and offered a ridiculous contract to Watson who couldn’t even beat up the AFC South, including our Luck-less Colts. 
 

Mahomes was injured, played through it and won it all. A guy like that should get a guaranteed contract. 

[NewColtsFan]

18 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

If Kelly isn’t traded or cut  by end of day he will probably be on the roster this fall. His bonus isn’t that big where teams would be waiting for colts to pay his bonus before trading for him.

I saw a post earlier today saying 3/19 is a key deadline for both Kelly and Moore.   
 

But I looked at both Spotrac and Over The Cap and I saw no date listed for either.   So I’m asking….   Is this date confirmed?   And do we know how and by whom?