2023 Colts and NFL free agency news, rumors, discussions

[NewColtsFan]

34 minutes ago, Indeee said:

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.

Not sure you realize that you’re stating as FACT that an offer of Taylor and Kelly would be accepted to move up.   I don’t think there’s anyway to know.  
 

And you keep thinking that this is entirely a Ballard decision alone.   Steichen, Irsay and others are all involved in this.  

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

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? 

 

No.   The Mahomes contract is NOT fully guaranteed.   Not even close.   I don’t think it’s even 50 percent guaranteed.   
 

I’ll try to get some numbers and add them here.   

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

16 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

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? 
 

Keefer mentioned the date this morning. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

26 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

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.  

Kelly’s bonus is only 1 million. So colts might be ok paying it and trading him later. Moored is only 500k.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Ryan Kelly attitude has turned me off the last couple of years. Kenny Moore got a big head once he made the pro bowl. 

[Indeee]

11 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Not sure you realize that you’re stating as FACT that an offer of Taylor and Kelly would be accepted to move up.   I don’t think there’s anyway to know.  
 

And you keep thinking that this is entirely a Ballard decision alone.   Steichen, Irsay and others are all involved in this.  

I know I am, but I'm looking at a team void of offensive talent with a new Defensive minded HC. Letting Robbie go, about to trade or release Nuk, and only having Rondale Moore and an aging Ertz left, I'm thinking the brain trust would be bonkers not to accept that only if to appease the fanbase while giving some juice to a depleted offense. That's how I look at things most times. It may not be conventional but it's why I have a problem with Ballard outside of the Buckner trade. In that moment if the Colts stay put, they most likely grab Kinlaw, but knowing the niners had cap issues, I'm almost certain Ballard made the offer as an even trade. We got Buckner and the contract the niners couldn't afford and the niners take his replacement in Kinlaw which they did. It was 100% correct for us as it looks like Kinlaw complete bust and Imo the best move Ballard ever made. He just doesn't make enough moves like that for my liking. What I suggested is most definitely a move he should make based on reasons I gave and if he had to throw in a defensive player too, then do it. 

[throwing BBZ]

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:

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. 

 

 

 

 Greedy isn't good enough in run support, and with his 15% missed tackle rate, i can see why we passed.

 All the remaining CB's available are flawed enough that CB may wait for trade opportunities prior to camp. 

[NewColtsFan]

Ok… 

 

I checked both Spotrac and Over The Cap for the Mahomes contract.   The details are almost identical.  
 

10 years.    $450 million

$10 mill signing bonus. 
Guaranteed at signing:  $63.1m

Total Guaranteed:    $141.5m

 

So the total guaranteed for Pat Mahomes, the best QB in football,  is not quite 1/3 of the contract.  

NOTE:   I’ve made an important correction.  The last line on the contract details should NOW read: Total GUARANTEED:

 

Now corrected. 
 

 

[NFLfan]

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Ok… 

 

I checked both Spotrac and Over The Cap for the Mahomes contract.   The details are almost identical.  
 

10 years.    $450 million

$10 mill signing bonus. 
Guaranteed at signing:  $63.1m

Total Signings:    $141.5m

 

So the total guaranteed for Pat Mahomes, the best QB in football,  is not quite 1/3 of the contract.  
 

 

Thank you. Only $10 Million signing bonus! 

[NFLfan]

56 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

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. 

 

That Watson contract is ridiculous. How could he have so much leverage in negotiations, given the allegations against him and no certainty that he would in fact play. SMH.

 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

5 hours 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. 

 

There are lot more factors, I think, which can allow a QB to have fully guaranteed contract. 

 

Can the QB play at MVP Level? Not fair to expect every year of say a 5 year deal, but if he could play at that level for 2 years and it works out for the team to reach conference championship or SB, that would be okay. Remaining 3 years would be accounting for injury for QB, injury across the team, team having to build a strong roster if they don't have, team not being able to have strong overall roster due to cap space, draft failures, players' form, reloading talent, etc., 

 

Does the team already have a strong roster and just needs to sign the QB to the roster? For that, they may need to release a couple of quality players but an elite QB can overcome such weaknesses. 

 

Does the team need high draft capital to build a strong roster if they were to give up draft picks to trade for the QB. Teams like Texans will need draft capital in future to build the roster so they can't give up draft picks to get a QB and also rebuild the roster around him successfully. Teams like Broncos, Steelers and Ravens can do. It also helps if the head coach is highly successful and proven, that he knows what he could do within the limitations. A lot of Young head coaches will find it difficult to field a strong contender with great game plans to account for the weaknesses in the roster. Coaches like Reid, Harbaugh, Vrabel can handle such situations and navigate the problems in the roster, but not all teams and coaches can replicate that formula. 

 

Does the QB allow flexibility later in future to sign a multi year contract without fully guaranteed deal? For example, a fully guaranteed contract makes sense for a QB coming out of rookie deal but not for a QB over age 30. It could ensure the young QB achieve a huge guaranteed payday after the rookie contract but after that, teams also need flexibility to negotiate a better restructure in subsequent deals to make space for the team. If the QB, his agent and team come to an agreement that they could have a more traditional contract after the fully guaranteed deal ends or if needed they could restructure the contract after 3 years out of 5 year deal to extend and restructure, that'd give the team flexibility to move around the cap space or at least kick the can down the road. Or have 3 year fully guaranteed contract followed by void years to push the cap to later years, just like how Vikings and Cousins do.

 

I'm sure cap experts and cap management guys in NFL teams will come up with lot more innovations if QBs start getting fully guaranteed deals as normal practice going forward. 

 

So overall, fully guaranteed deals, if continuously have to be given one deal after the other, that will restrict the team from being great with the current salary cap structure. But, some teams and coaches can navigate that situation with right QBs. 

 

If all QBs start demanding fully guaranteed deals and continuously after that, that will be concern for sure. It's not going to be helpful if that becomes the norm, but it could work out in right situations and really elite QBs when they're in their prime. 

 

When Vikings with Speilman and Zimmer gave 3 year fully guaranteed contract for Cousins after he got released from Washington and hyped him as if they're bringing in an elite QB, all the QBs including college prospects and their agents saw a precedent was set. With the QB market price expanding since then  from 30 million to 40+ million in 5 years, and QBs beginning to expect fully guaranteed deals, their expectations only get worse. 

[NewColtsFan]

This feels like a good time to tell this Pat Mahomes story…..

I’ve got Sirius XM radio in my car, and I recently heard this story and more in connection with the ongoing Alexander situation….

 

The day the Mahomes contract was announced a few years ago it was denounced by basically all agents.   Way, WAY too team friendly.  

**Only a $10 mill signing bonus?!?
**Only $61 mill guaranteed at signing?!? 

**Only $141.5 total guaranteed?!?

**Lots of early outs. 

 

This story came from Pat Kirwin, himself a former high level NFL Exec.  He’s a co-host on Moving the Chains afternoon show.  3-6 eastern time. 
 

Agents were saying they would NEVER sign their client to such a team friendly deal.   And that if they did, they’d expect to be fired soon enough.

 

Bottom line….  The deal was done this way because Mahomes has bought into the team concept to a very high level.  He’s expecting the flexibility that is built in to his contract will give his team the best chance to remain competitive for the long haul.  The team will still be able to plow money back into the franchise to stay very competitive. 
 

What Cleveland did with Watson has made business far FAR more difficult for the other 31 teams.   
 

Also…. Kirwin has shared that part of the reason teams are NOT making offers on Alexander is that they think Baltimore will match most any offer and keep Lamar.  And that making an offer only helps Baltimore dealing with Lamar.   “Why should we help them?” is the thought teams have.   Let Baltimore struggle to deal with Lamar and his mom and his NFLPA reps.   He’s needed a real agent for the last two years and has only badly hurt himself with how he’s handled his contract for several years.

 

[NFLfan]

9 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

 

There are lot more factors, I think, which can allow a QB to have fully guaranteed contract. 

 

Can the QB play at MVP Level? Not fair to expect every year of say a 5 year deal, but if he could play at that level for 2 years and it works out for the team to reach conference championship or SB, that would be okay. Remaining 3 years would be accounting for injury for QB, injury across the team, team having to build a strong roster if they don't have, team not being able to have strong overall roster due to cap space, draft failures, players' form, reloading talent, etc., 

 

Does the team already have a strong roster and just needs to sign the QB to the roster? For that, they may need to release a couple of quality players but an elite QB can overcome such weaknesses. 

 

Does the team need high draft capital to build a strong roster if they were to give up draft picks to trade for the QB. Teams like Texans will need draft capital in future to build the roster so they can't give up draft picks to get a QB and also rebuild the roster around him successfully. Teams like Broncos, Steelers and Ravens can do. It also helps if the head coach is highly successful and proven, that he knows what he could do within the limitations. A lot of Young head coaches will find it difficult to field a strong contender with great game plans to account for the weaknesses in the roster. Coaches like Reid, Harbaugh, Vrabel can handle such situations and navigate the problems in the roster, but not all teams and coaches can replicate that formula. 

 

Does the QB allow flexibility later in future to sign a multi year contract without fully guaranteed deal? For example, a fully guaranteed contract makes sense for a QB coming out of rookie deal but not for a QB over age 30. It could ensure the young QB achieve a huge guaranteed payday after the rookie contract but after that, teams also need flexibility to negotiate a better restructure in subsequent deals to make space for the team. If the QB, his agent and team come to an agreement that they could have a more traditional contract after the fully guaranteed deal ends or if needed they could restructure the contract after 3 years out of 5 year deal to extend and restructure, that'd give the team flexibility to move around the cap space or at least kick the can down the road. Or have 3 year fully guaranteed contract followed by void years to push the cap to later years, just like how Vikings and Cousins do.

 

I'm sure cap experts and cap management guys in NFL teams will come up with lot more innovations if QBs start getting fully guaranteed deals as normal practice going forward. 

 

So overall, fully guaranteed deals, if continuously have to be given one deal after the other, that will restrict the team from being great with the current salary cap structure. But, some teams and coaches can navigate that situation with right QBs. 

 

If all QBs start demanding fully guaranteed deals and continuously after that, that will be concern for sure. It's not going to be helpful if that becomes the norm, but it could work out in right situations and really elite QBs when they're in their prime. 

 

When Vikings with Speilman and Zimmer gave 3 year fully guaranteed contract for Cousins after he got released from Washington and hyped him as if they're bringing in an elite QB, all the QBs including college prospects and their agents saw a precedent was set. With the QB market price expanding since then  from 30 million to 40+ million in 5 years, and QBs beginning to expect fully guaranteed deals, their expectations only get worse. 

 

I hear what you are saying. Some QBs may deserve a guaranteed contract but given the injuries in football, one hit can end a career. I would hate to be locked into such a contract. I like flexibility. I do not want my team to be locked into a contract and have no way to maneuver, like what we had with Cousins. I'm thankful that our new GM found a way to make cap space this year without extending Cousins. 

 

Yeah, I am one of the few staunch supporters of Rick Spielman but I will never excuse him for that Cousins contract. That was the start of our downfall. 

 

 I will always be a fan of Rick despite the signing of Cousins. I never wanted us to part with him. I think he should get another shot at a GM job.  

[RollerColt]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

This feels like a good time to tell this Pat Mahomes story…..

I’ve got Sirius XM radio in my car, and I recently heard this story and more in connection with the ongoing Alexander situation….

 

The day the Mahomes contract was announced a few years ago it was denounced by basically all agents.   Way, WAY too team friendly.  

**Only a $10 mill signing bonus?!?
**Only $61 mill guaranteed at signing?!? 

**Only $141.5 total guaranteed?!?

**Lots of early outs. 

 

This story came from Pat Kirwin, himself a former high level NFL Exec.  He’s a co-host on Moving the Chains afternoon show.  3-6 eastern time. 
 

Agents were saying they would NEVER sign their client to such a team friendly deal.   And that if they did, they’d expect to be fired soon enough.

 

Bottom line….  The deal was done this way because Mahomes has bought into the team concept to a very high level.  He’s expecting the flexibility that is built in to his contract will give his team the best chance to remain competitive for the long haul.  The team will still be able to plow money back into the franchise to stay very competitive. 
 

What Cleveland did with Watson has made business far FAR more difficult for the other 31 teams.   
 

Also…. Kirwin has shared that part of the reason teams are NOT making offers on Alexander is that they think Baltimore will match most any offer and keep Lamar.  And that making an offer only helps Baltimore dealing with Lamar.   “Why should we help them?” is the thought teams have.   Let Baltimore struggle to deal with Lamar and his mom and his NFLPA reps.   He’s needed a real agent for the last two years and has only badly hurt himself with how he’s handled his contract for several years.

 

Perhaps Mahomes has realized all that money won’t go with him to the grave many years from now. Legacy lasts a lot longer than money. And winning rings sure helps with being remembered. Will anyone remember Watson and his contract 20-30 years from now if he doesn’t win a ring? 

[NewColtsFan]

2 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Perhaps Mahomes has realized all that money won’t go with him to the grave many years from now. Legacy lasts a lot longer than money. And winning rings sure helps with being remembered. Will anyone remember Watson and his contract 20-30 years from now if he doesn’t win a ring? 

Yup.   I think the Watson deal will be remembered for a very long time.  But for all the wrong reasons.   
 

And it should be noted that Brady often re-did his deal to free up cap space to help the Patriots.    How’d that workout for him?!? 

[RollerColt]

57 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Yup.   I think the Watson deal will be remembered for a very long time.  But for all the wrong reasons.   
 

And it should be noted that Brady often re-did his deal to free up cap space to help the Patriots.    How’d that workout for him?!? 

Exactly. And I think even post divorce he’s still doing pretty darn well for himself without those mega contracts. 

[Dingus McGirt]

3 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Kelly’s bonus is only 1 million. So colts might be ok paying it and trading him later. Moored is only 500k.

“Only”

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

5 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

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. 

 

seems it’s all up to personal interpretation. I’d say a QB with over 500 rushing yards would be a rushing QB. 
 

Mahomes never rushes for more than 400 yards a season in any of his seasons. 
 

Lamar Jackson as a comparison never has rushed for less that 695 yards, and as  many as 1200 yards in a season. 
 

but one could simply call Lamar a scrambling QB as well. 
 

I think your question is relevant and worth asking. 

[Aaron86]

9 hours 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. 

Sorry I'm just getting back to you.  @NFLfan

 

I do agree with you on the contract that Lamar is asking for. But I fear this is what contracts are going to start to look like with a player of Lamars caliber. Especially with teams like the Browns just throwing money at players to out bid everybody. But if the Colts have a plan that makes it work going forward then I would get behind it. But they have to take everything into consideration and I'm sure they would.

 

I would love to have him on our team but with his injury history there is no way we should do more then a 3-4 year deal and he turned that down already.

 

If I were the Colts I would offer a 4 year deal with some kind of injury clause with a certain percentage of games played per season his contract becomes fully guaranteed and if he misses a certain percentage of games per season then it is no longer guaranteed fully for that season and he can try to earn his guarantees back the next season. If they can do something like that.

 

QB's are demanding more and more money from teams. So it's either do it now or wait to see if a draft pick pans out. But like I said it is the direction we are headed.

 

If a team could quit using him as RB1 then he may stay healthy for a season. Lamar has a good chance at becoming great with the right team. But he needs to figure out what he wants and move forward.

 

If I was Baltimore I would have done cut or traded him. He seems like he doesn't want to play there anymore for some reason or another. 

Why force a player to stay if his heart isn't there.

[Happy2BeHere]

That Watson deal has got to go down and probably will go down as the history of the worst contract in the league. 

[NFLfan]

28 minutes ago, Indianapolis-Colts-Fan said:

 

seems it’s all up to personal interpretation. I’d say a QB with over 500 rushing yards would be a rushing QB. 
 

Mahomes never rushes for more than 400 yards a season in any of his seasons. 
 

Lamar Jackson as a comparison never has rushed for less that 695 yards, and as  many as 1200 yards in a season. 
 

but one could simply call Lamar a scrambling QB as well. 
 

I think your question is relevant and worth asking. 

 

Thanks. In the beginning, some people called Mahomes a "running QB" too. They said he would get hurt and would not succeed. Once he started winning and he looked so dynamic, that seemed to change. 

 

I will never call a QB a "running QB" regardless of how they play -- not Lamar Jackson, Taysom Hill, Mariota, Vick, Josh Allen, Hurts. (I mention them because they throw and they run.)

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, Aaron86 said:

Sorry I'm just getting back to you.  @NFLfan

 

I do agree with you on the contract that Lamar is asking for. But I fear this is what contracts are going to start to look like with a player of Lamars caliber. Especially with teams like the Browns just throwing money at players to out bid everybody. But if the Colts have a plan that makes it work going forward then I would get behind it. But they have to take everything into consideration and I'm sure they would.

 

I would love to have him on our team but with his injury history there is no way we should do more then a 3-4 year deal and he turned that down already.

 

If I were the Colts I would offer a 4 year deal with some kind of injury clause with a certain percentage of games played per season his contract becomes fully guaranteed and if he misses a certain percentage of games per season then it is no longer guaranteed fully for that season and he can try to earn his guarantees back the next season. If they can do something like that.

 

QB's are demanding more and more money from teams. So it's either do it now or wait to see if a draft pick pans out. But like I said it is the direction we are headed.

 

If a team could quit using him as RB1 then he may stay healthy for a season. Lamar has a good chance at becoming great with the right team. But he needs to figure out what he wants and move forward.

 

If I was Baltimore I would have done cut or traded him. He seems like he doesn't want to play there anymore for some reason or another. 

Why force a player to stay if his heart isn't there.

The deal that the Browns gave Watson was totally ridiculous. The ripple effect is going to hurt a lot of teams financially.  

[NFLfan]

11 minutes ago, Aaron86 said:

Sorry I'm just getting back to you.  @NFLfan

 

I do agree with you on the contract that Lamar is asking for. But I fear this is what contracts are going to start to look like with a player of Lamars caliber. Especially with teams like the Browns just throwing money at players to out bid everybody. But if the Colts have a plan that makes it work going forward then I would get behind it. But they have to take everything into consideration and I'm sure they would.

 

I would love to have him on our team but with his injury history there is no way we should do more then a 3-4 year deal and he turned that down already.

 

If I were the Colts I would offer a 4 year deal with some kind of injury clause with a certain percentage of games played per season his contract becomes fully guaranteed and if he misses a certain percentage of games per season then it is no longer guaranteed fully for that season and he can try to earn his guarantees back the next season. If they can do something like that.

 

QB's are demanding more and more money from teams. So it's either do it now or wait to see if a draft pick pans out. But like I said it is the direction we are headed.

 

If a team could quit using him as RB1 then he may stay healthy for a season. Lamar has a good chance at becoming great with the right team. But he needs to figure out what he wants and move forward.

 

If I was Baltimore I would have done cut or traded him. He seems like he doesn't want to play there anymore for some reason or another. 

Why force a player to stay if his heart isn't there.

 

Thanks. Cutting him would not be a good move. The Ravens would get nothing for him. The reason why signing him is a problem for most teams outside of the Ravens is because the team that signs him has to give up two first round draft picks. Had the Ravens not tagged him and allowed him to leave in free agency, the Ravens could have received a 3rd round comp pick. If they cut him, the Ravens get nothing. 

 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens with him. The Ravens may have to sign and trade him. 

[Happy2BeHere]

Actually one of the worst contracts in the history of the league that stands out in my mind was when Albert hanynesworth signed with the Redskins in free agency after Tennessee. That dude was a game changer and game wrecker on the titans and once he got that big contract he sucked.

 

EDIT: I decided to look that deal up and ironically it is #1 on bleacher reports worst contracts lol. 7 years $100 million with incentives to take it up to $115 million.

 

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/594440-albert-haynesworth-and-the-25-worst-contracts-in-nfl-history.amp.html

 

[richard pallo]

4 hours ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Kelly’s bonus is only 1 million. So colts might be ok paying it and trading him later. Moored is only 500k.

Sure looks like they are getting their bonuses.  Kelly openly being shopped and still getting his bonus.  I suppose that could be a condition for a trade to happen.  You pay the bonus then we complete the trade.   1 million is a lot of money.  Getting the Colts to pay it makes sense if the intent is to trade for him. 

[TomDiggs]

I admit this one hurts a bit as many Colts fans were holding out hope he would land here.

 

 

 

[Patrick Miller]

1 minute ago, TomDiggs said:

I admit this one hurts a bit as many Colts fans were holding out hope he would land here.

 

 

 

Yeah that sucks.

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

I admit this one hurts a bit as many Colts fans were holding out hope he would land here.

 

 

 

Decided to check one more time here before going to bed and this news appears.  Definitely sucks.  Had hopes for sure.  Let’s see what tomorrow brings I guess.

[crazycolt1]

https://youtube.com/shorts/ZJqjObBaL-A?feature=share

[Patrick Miller]

I hope we aren’t rolling with swill Fries again.

[Aaron86]

49 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Thanks. Cutting him would not be a good move. The Ravens would get nothing for him. The reason why signing him is a problem for most teams outside of the Ravens is because the team that signs him has to give up two first round draft picks. Had the Ravens not tagged him and allowed him to leave in free agency, the Ravens could have received a 3rd round comp pick. If they cut him, the Ravens get nothing. 

 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens with him. The Ravens may have to sign and trade him. 

I would have released him. Before I ever signed him. I think it was a gamble they took. But they should have just let him go. I wonder how all this may effect a them as a team if their leader is not all in.

[Yoshinator]

Very disappointing not to get Seumalo.  I'm pretty upset. Figured we had a decent chance at him with the combination of the need at RG, the connection with Steichen on the Eagles, and us having enough cap space to sign him. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Ballard has yet to address the worst part of the team from last year. Kind of disappointing. He usually corrects when something goes bad. We have no depth on the Oline and no starting RG. We need a corner and WR in the draft too. We can not trout this Oline out there with a rookie QB.

[TomDiggs]

11 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Very disappointing not to get Seumalo.  I'm pretty upset. Figured we had a decent chance at him with the combination of the need at RG, the connection with Steichen on the Eagles, and us having enough cap space to sign him. 

I think a bunch of us both wanted him and liked our chances

 

I will admit, I always thought the chances of landing him resided on our ability to trade or at least cut Kelly prior. There was no way we were going to add a 4th OL at over $10M a year if that is what it would take to get him. And all indications were he would be worth that kind of money. 

 

Will be curious to see if Pitt got him at a discount w it being later in the FA wave 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

I think a bunch of us both wanted him and liked our chances

 

I will admit, I always thought the chances of landing him resided on our ability to trade or at least cut Kelly prior. There was no way we were going to add a 4th OL at over $10M a year if that is what it would take to get him. And all indications were he would be worth that kind of money. 

 

Will be curious to see if Pitt got him at a discount w it being later in the FA wave 

So why didn’t we cut Kelly. I don’t want him starting again. His attitude has been terrible and he doesn’t seem to want to play more. One of the local reporters said they heard  Ballard did not want to make to many changes on Oline until he got Steichen in there with a fresh set of eye. That is him and his usual to slow yo react until it’s to late. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Is Chris Reed a FA? Lol

[TomDiggs]

Just now, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

So why didn’t we cut Kelly. I don’t want him starting again. His attitude has been terrible and he doesn’t seem to want to play more. One of the local reporters said they heard  Ballard did not want to make to many changes on Oline until he got Steichen in there with a fresh set of eye. That is him and his usual to slow yo react until it’s to late. 

 

I have watched Kelly play over the past few years and agreed his regression has been stark.

 

I also wonder if he could actually be re-invigorated in a newer scheme under Sparano and company. He used to be stellar when we got him out in space. Sparano's blocking schemes have had a good amount of Center pulling and movement and blocking out in space. 

 

Now that could re-invigorate Kelly and bring back the Pro-Bowl form, or it could highlight even more how far he has regressed and be a total disaster. 

 

My gut feeling was always we would try to trade him and if it did not work then we would begrudgingly release him.

 

Tomorrow (Sunday) could be the day. 

 

But he could just as easily be here for this coming season.

 

I would love to find a way to land John Michael Schmitz in the draft. But that is probably a fantasy at this point. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

10 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

 

I have watched Kelly play over the past few years and agreed his regression has been stark.

 

I also wonder if he could actually be re-invigorated in a newer scheme under Sparano and company. He used to be stellar when we got him out in space. Sparano's blocking schemes have had a good amount of Center pulling and movement and blocking out in space. 

 

Now that could re-invigorate Kelly and bring back the Pro-Bowl form, or it could highlight even more how far he has regressed and be a total disaster. 

 

My gut feeling was always we would try to trade him and if it did not work then we would begrudgingly release him.

 

Tomorrow (Sunday) could be the day. 

 

But he could just as easily be here for this coming season.

 

I would love to find a way to land John Michael Schmitz in the draft. But that is probably a fantasy at this point. 

From what I heard Reich had a too complicated blocking scheme. Too many combinations. The Oline did get better with Saturday. Maybe Steichen can simplify things get more out of what we have. Ballard hasn’t made any moves so that needs to happen. Wonder how Kelly would play knowing he was on the trade block.

[GoColts8818]

I have a feeling a mid level vet or Fries will compete with a mid round rookie for the starting RG job.

[VikingsFanInChennai]

4 hours ago, NFLfan said:

 

I hear what you are saying. Some QBs may deserve a guaranteed contract but given the injuries in football, one hit can end a career. I would hate to be locked into such a contract. I like flexibility. I do not want my team to be locked into a contract and have no way to maneuver, like what we had with Cousins. I'm thankful that our new GM found a way to make cap space this year without extending Cousins. 

 

Yeah, I am one of the few staunch supporters of Rick Spielman but I will never excuse him for that Cousins contract. That was the start of our downfall. 

 

 I will always be a fan of Rick despite the signing of Cousins. I never wanted us to part with him. I think he should get another shot at a GM job.  

Fully guaranteed deals like that only could  apply to elite QBs who have played MVP level in recent years. 

 

Who do we have right now? Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Rodgers, Stafford, Hurts, Jackson who have all played at that level. among the list, Rodgers, Stafford and Jackson have been injured or going through lack of high level play in some years. 

 

So, we're talking about around 5 or 6 QBs at a time, that too all these QBs are not demanding fully guaranteed contracts. Mahomes has got 10 year deal for 450 million or so, that allows the team to move cap hit around. Rodgers, Stafford and Allen have traditional contracts. Allen though will have a minimum of 45 million cap hit and maximum of 57 million cap hit, starting next year and after that a year of 41 million cap number. 40+ million is little less than 20% of cap space, 50+ million is more than 25% of cap space. Does that look any better than fully guaranteed deal? It's justifiable for an elite QB coming out of rookie contract, earning for the first time a huge deal, with a minimal chance of seeing similar deal again in his life. 

 

So, whatever way you do, you are looking at 40+ million cap number and all you can do is keep extending the player if he continues to play at high level and if the QB falls off from that level, you take the hit for few more years and see if he regains form or if the setback is only temporary in which case you'd be tied up with him in similar cap hit for 5 more years. 

 

I think you're worrying too much about the cap hit, I think Jackson situation has been highlighted now because Ravens didn't give similar number in their negotiations to what Mahomes and Allen got. Only recently Ravens have upped their side of bargain to around 44 million fully guaranteed deal, for only 3 years. Ravens understandably is an organization who can do with or without Jackson, so they'll try all the ways to get him to the middle ground. Jackson will try his way either with Ravens or with another team in a later year. If it had been another lesser team other than Steelers, they'd have given a 10 year contract to Jackson as Mahomes got and he'd have got to a common ground earlier, with him getting more than what Ravens would. If he doesn't win SB or doesn't take them deep in playoffs, or gets injured for most of the years, team would've to take their loss. It can happen to anyone, Stafford wins a SB, is injured all of next year. If he had not won, that trade would've been a failure for all the multiple first round draft picks given, but that's the risk in it. 

 

To sum up, QB contracts have gone up. Elite QBs in particular will entail 45+ million cap. It's very rare you get a QB who can win games on his own, and there are about 10 such QBs at any time if we're being generous. when a team gets such an elite QB, they've gotta give. 

 

I don't like that QB contracts have gone up over 40+ million average, but when we look at other position groups Elite Guards, Tackles, EDGE rushers, RBs and CBs demand closer to 20 million cap hit. 

 

I think salary cap should go little higher as well, the rate at which cap increases doesn't match the price for contracts than they'd been few years ago, I think the reason is that contract prices have  exploded recently. It looks a lot more lopsided for many position groups and especially QBs, all top positions could cost less too but elite QBs are very few in my opinion. That may also be because of a flurry of young QBs who have panned out better than expected recently in quick succession - Prescott, Mahomes, Watson, Allen, Burrow, Hurts. If Herbert and Lawrence take their play to same level as those guys, it will only keep it higher. 

 

There's a limit to how much QB contracts could go higher, and I think it will level out soon around the current price tag.