Colts vs Panthers post game reaction

[kymd82222]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

That’s all a drop in the bucket to the NFL revenue.  That’s coming from the TV networks paying for broadcast rights.  Do they pay it because fans watch?  Yes they do, but at the same time fans aren’t negotiating those deals.  So I am not giving the fans credit for that.  Again, during the 2020 season when most teams didn’t have fans at games the NFL still turned a profit.  
 

As for the salary cap fans don’t have to manage it.  Ballard does, and frankly he’s been very good at it.  Fans like to think they have more influence and control than they really do.  

Yeah, but I feel like you know what I'm saying.  TV networks wouldn't pay out the wazoo for broadcast rights if NFL had no fans.  They pay it because companies also pay out the wazoo to have their ads run on the TV networks, knowing that millions and millions of people are watching.  As an extreme example, if literally no one watched, TV networks wouldn't pay for broadcast rights because they wouldn't make any money, as companies wouldn't pay to have their ads run.  Obviously that's an extreme example.  My point is that salaries and how much money teams make is based on the popularity of the NFL, driven by the fans.  It's the reason people who play water polo don't make money - there aren't fans to pay the bills.  

[GoColts8818]

6 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Respectfully, I disagree.  Yes there’s a salary cap, but can you name even one player the Colts wanted to sign, but could not because of Salary cap constraints?  I am not aware of any player the Colts have wanted keep or waned to acquire, whom they could not because of salary cap constraints.  To me, all this salary cap concern falls under don’t sweat the small stuff and don’t sweat what you can’t control.  

And the key here is that the COLTS wanted to sign, not who fans wanted them to sign.  

[rockywoj]

2 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Denico Autry or Justin Houston? Maybe Mark Glowinski? Generally we've built through the draft, and we're just now getting to that point where it's going to be tough to pay our players. We'll see if it affects us now that our players are starting to get paid.

Disagree.  They could’ve signed any of them.  I think they viewed those guys as stop gap and wanted to move on with the younger guys.  Doesn’t mean mistakes weren’t made, but for the contracts those guys signed elsewhere, Colts could have EASILY signed them within the constraints of the salary cap.  Simply, they just thought those guys weren’t worth it.

[kymd82222]

1 minute ago, rockywoj said:

Yup.

 

I’m like, I don’t give a crap what our good players are re-signed for.  If they’re good, then pay them accordingly per market rates.  As long as the team is not missing out in ability to sign players due to salary cap constraints, then to me to lose sleep over such things, it’s just, ummm, let’s say, unproductive stress.

I think that's the issue.  There isn't another guard or LB in the NFL making what Shaq and Nelson make.  They are getting way more than market value.   I do understand your point of view, I do.  I just don't see things quite the way that you do.  Anyway, nice to get the win today.  

[Moosejawcolt]

16 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

It amuses me when some people are sooo concerned about what certain players are paid, when it’s not coming out of their wallet.  Colts have not been prevented from acquiring players at more impact positions because of what they pay in the trenches.  Fact.  In other words, “Don’t worry about the money, Greg.”  

Of course, it matters what a  player is paid. What could this team of done with the money paid to Nelson, Leonard and now Taylor? Had Ballard waited on all three, I bet he would have saved millions that could have been allocated to pick up some players in free agency. So yea, in fact, money matters. He manages the cap because he has no premium players to resign.  PS. We have experts behind closed doors who actually manage the cap. If this team was a perennial play off team that managed the cap, I woule be impressed. How hard is to manage the cap of a team that is usually below 500????

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Of course u do. U need a damn good qb to win these days. He had it twice in his 7 years. He is the GM and it was his job to fill in the blanks with regards to getting another one when he lost Luck and Rivers. Everyone blames Reich for talking Ballard into getting Wentz and maybe not getting one in the draft. From all we know it may have happened but we will probably know. At the end of the day, however, Ballard is responsible for running the show. Decisions he has made up to this point have led us to where we are today. If he lead others sway him in making decisions,  it doesn't matter in the end. He was picked by Irsay because he believed he had what it takes to make personnel decisions  and  evaluate talent.  First he wanted to McDaniels and then he hired Frank. Then the hiring of Flus and Bradley have not worked out. Look it up. I so wanted Schwartz but oh no not on Ballard's watch. There have numerous misteps almost to many to note. I have worked with numerous  bosses and they cannot go to their manager when it goes off the rails and say "well, I listened to my workers when I shouldn't have".  How do u think that type of deflecting works with a manager? It starts and stops with Ballard. He is the constructor of this team.

I will give you this to keep it fair and not to pile on you a bunch. I don't like our defensive scheme either, never have since the Flus days and I wanted Schwartz as well. The other stuff you ramble on about sometimes though has me doing this 

[Moosejawcolt]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I will give you this to keep it fair and not to pile on you a bunch. I don't like our defensive scheme either, never have since the Flus days and I wanted Schwartz as well. The other stuff you ramble on about sometimes though has me doing this 

Lol....thanks . I am actually OCD and ADHD....not lying and probably not a big surprised lol. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

We need to give a shout-out to Blake Freeland. Played five games I think and has at least looked serviceable. Very nice depth at the tackle spot. 

[Yoshinator]

1 minute ago, rockywoj said:

Disagree.  They could’ve signed any of them.  I think they viewed those guys as stop gap and wanted to move on with the younger guys.  Doesn’t mean mistakes weren’t made, but for the contracts those guys signed elsewhere, Colts could have EASILY signed them within the constraints of the salary cap.  Simply, they just thought those guys weren’t worth it.

Maybe. It it's more due to the fact that the team was a bottom-of-the-barrel team when Ballard took over, and because of his specific build-through-the-draft strategy, it's taken a lot of time to get a solid team on the 53 combined with players that take up the whole salary cap. As I said, now will be the start of if we can pay our players and we may have to pick and choose who to keep and who not too. I would argue that we may have wanted players in FA we couldn't afford, but I can't provide examples because we don't have that inside information.

[GoColts8818]

9 minutes ago, kymd82222 said:

Yeah, but I feel like you know what I'm saying.  TV networks wouldn't pay out the wazoo for broadcast rights if NFL had no fans.  They pay it because companies also pay out the wazoo to have their ads run on the TV networks, knowing that millions and millions of people are watching.  As an extreme example, if literally no one watched, TV networks wouldn't pay for broadcast rights because they wouldn't make any money, as companies wouldn't pay to have their ads run.  Obviously that's an extreme example.  My point is that salaries and how much money teams make is based on the popularity of the NFL, driven by the fans.  It's the reason people who play water polo don't make money - there aren't fans to pay the bills.  

It’s no longer your money once you turn it over to someone else.  In the case of tv networks you aren’t even giving them money directly.  Advertisers are and not everyone is paying advertisers.  For example two of the biggest advertisers during football games are car companies and beer.  Well I don’t drink and I haven’t bought a car in years and never because I saw one advertised during a football game.  Even if I did say you bought a Budweiser because of a football game well you gave your money to Budweiser, not the the TV network, and not the pro sports team.  So it’s a bit of a reach to act like you are bank rolling NFL players.
 

Frankly Owners are that were rich long before they bought a pro sports team.  Example.  The Simons who own the Pacers made their money off malls and more or less bought the Pacers just to keep the team in Indy and admitted they took a loss on the Pacers for several years but yet have never thought about selling the team.   

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

13 minutes ago, kymd82222 said:

It was a rough game overall, but to me, supporting the team through the bad times makes the good times even sweeter.  Plus, this year hasn't even been awful, especially compared to last year.  

I have watched every game for almost 20 years up until this season. It isn’t just that the colts have been hard to watch in recent years. It’s what the NFL has become over that span. 

[Dobbinblitz]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

We need to give a shout-out to Blake Freeland. Played five games I think and has at least looked serviceable. Very nice depth at the tackle spot. 

Yes, -Burns did not wreak havoc across from Freeland like many expected.

[husker61]

3 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Disagree.  They could’ve signed any of them.  I think they viewed those guys as stop gap and wanted to move on with the younger guys.  Doesn’t mean mistakes weren’t made, but for the contracts those guys signed elsewhere, Colts could have EASILY signed them within the constraints of the salary cap.  Simply, they just thought those guys weren’t worth it.

but would those players been worth it if there was a unlimited salary cap? Maybe. The cap does come into all decisions made by every team, it has to. The cap is why Washington traded both starting defensive ends.

[kymd82222]

3 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Of course, it matters what a  player is paid. What could this team of done with the money paid to Nelson, Leonard and now Taylor? Had Ballard waited on all three, I bet he would have saved millions that could have been allocated to pick up some players in free agency. So yea, in fact, money matters. He manages the cap because he has no premium players to resign.  PS. We have experts behind closed doors who actually manage the cap. If this team was a perennial play off team that managed the cap, I woule be impressed. How hard is to manage the cap of a team that is usually below 500????

I completely agree with you.  I'm surprised that people disagree with this sentiment, I really am.  Maybe people are piling on you because this discussion is in the post game reaction thread, and most of us are just happy about already matching our win total from last year.  

[rockywoj]

4 minutes ago, kymd82222 said:

I think that's the issue.  There isn't another guard or LB in the NFL making what Shaq and Nelson make.  They are getting way more than market value.   I do understand your point of view, I do.  I just don't see things quite the way that you do.  Anyway, nice to get the win today.  

Pretty sure they are not the highest paid LB or OL guys, but their contracts are not out of whack outliers.   Yet even if they were, I don’t care because I am not aware of any single player the team WANTED, but could not sign because they could not afford it.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Lol....thanks . I am actually OCD and ADHD....not lying and probably not a big surprised lol. 

Sometimes you and Doug drive me nuts but it is what it is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Something I am trying to learn to deal with in here  . I always try to see both sides to everything at least.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[richard pallo]

2 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

We need to give a shout-out to Blake Freeland. Played five games I think and has at least looked serviceable. Very nice depth at the tackle spot. 

He was on the field and played the game.  He was serviceable.

[Zoltan]

Next week is gonna be a hard game, I think how the Patriots are currently built will make it hard to win. Stevenson is gonna get some yards and the Patriots defense will force Minshew to win the game by taking away the run like the Panthers did in the second half. I really hope Downs is back because the passing game is noticeably worse when he isn’t playing. 

[kymd82222]

1 minute ago, Indianapolis-Colts-Fan said:

I have watched every game for almost 20 years up until this season. It isn’t just that the colts have been hard to watch in recent years. It’s what the NFL has become over that span. 

Oh, I wasn't bashing you or acting like I'm some "Super fan" or something.  Sorry if I came across that way.  I definitely understand where you're coming from.  

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

We need to give a shout-out to Blake Freeland. Played five games I think and has at least looked serviceable. Very nice depth at the tackle spot. 

Personally. As a critical person by nature with things I’m confronted with. I’m  surprised at the level of criticism over the young players.  They make mistakes.  They give up plays.  
 

Freeland was getting roasted for giving up pressure and sacks to Myles Garrett.  I don’t get it.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[ShuteAt168]

It sure looks like the Panthers blew two huge decisions in hiring Reich and drafting Young. (Yes, I know it’s early, just saying.) Young made zero “wow, that’s why he was No. 1” plays, but and  it’s beyond puzzling why they thought Reich was the right guy. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, DougDew said:

Personally. As a critical person by nature with things I’m confronted with. I’m  surprised at the level of criticism over the young players.  They make mistakes.  They give up plays.  
 

Freeland was getting roasted for giving up pressure and sacks to Myles Garrett.  I don’t get it.  

He has had to deal with some of the best pass rushers in the game. He got thrown in the fire.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, husker61 said:

but would those players been worth it if there was a unlimited salary cap? Maybe. The cap does come into all decisions made by every team, it has to. The cap is why Washington traded both starting defensive ends.

When budgeting, anything spent on one things takes away the ability to spend it on something else.  Wasting money on players sets a team back over time.   

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, ShuteAt168 said:

It sure looks like the Panthers blew two huge decisions in hiring Reich and drafting Young. (Yes, I know it’s early, just saying.) Young made zero “wow, that’s why he was No. 1” plays, but and  it’s beyond puzzling why they thought Reich was the right guy. 

It is early but not looking good. Frank may get let go at the end of the season. They have no choice to stick with Young.

[kymd82222]

3 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Pretty sure they are not the highest paid LB or OL guys, but their contracts are not out of whack outliers.   Yet even if they were, I don’t care because I am not aware of any single player the team WANTED, but could not sign because they could not afford it.

I'm not sure about Leonard.  If he isn't #1, he's probably #2.  Nelson was the highest paid guard in the NFL until the Falcons paid a guard .5 million more than what Nelson makes.  The Falcons.  Again, great teams do not pay Guards that much money.  Poorly managed teams do, sure, like the Falcons.  There's a huge difference in paying a GUARD that much money rather than an LT -The most valuable player on the line.  

[jskinnz]

30 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Football has a salary cap. It's not basketball or baseball where you can go over the luxury tax but spend as much as you want as long as you are willing to pay the penalties. when we pay a player a one or more positions, it prevents us from paying players at other positions. It wouldn't matter as much if we were paying players at premium positions, but we aren't, so that's where a lot of the backlash comes from.

Do you think he does not know that the NFL has a salary cap?

[husker61]

6 minutes ago, Indianapolis-Colts-Fan said:

I have watched every game for almost 20 years up until this season. It isn’t just that the colts have been hard to watch in recent years. It’s what the NFL has become over that span. 

I don’t have a problem watching the nfl. The nba is a lot harder to watch with all the soft crybabies. Stick to watching the ncaa!

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

He has had to deal with some of the best pass rushers in the game. He got thrown in the fire.

I really haven't had much to say about him. I have never even commented on him other than to say he was/is good depth. If anyone gives him hell over being outplayed by Garrett, that is just dumb. Garrett is a beast. 

[ShuteAt168]

22 minutes ago, rockywoj said:

Respectfully, I disagree.  Yes there’s a salary cap, but can you name even one player the Colts wanted to sign, but could not because of Salary cap constraints?  I am not aware of any player the Colts have wanted keep or wanted to acquire, whom they could not because of salary cap constraints.  To me, all this salary cap concern falls under don’t sweat the small stuff and don’t sweat what you can’t control.  

How would we know, though? There could have been any number of moves Ballard didn’t make or couldn’t make because of salaries he is paying. Not being snarky to you just think it’s an unknowable. 

[kymd82222]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

When budgeting, anything spent on one things takes away the ability to spend it on something else.  Wasting money on players sets a team back over time.   

Exactly.  I can't believe that people are arguing that overpaying players doesn't effect the future of the team, when the league has a salary cap.  

[kymd82222]

1 minute ago, jskinnz said:

Do you think he does not know that the NFL has a salary cap?

Are you talking about rockywoj? 

[Moosejawcolt]

10 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Sometimes you and Doug drive me nuts but it is what it is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Something I am trying to learn to deal with in here  . I always try to see both sides to everything at least.

No worries. I have worked as a child protection and financial aid, so I have a very thick skin. So let me ask u. Just say the Colts finish below 500. What changes would u make going forward?

[GoColts8818]

2 minutes ago, kymd82222 said:

I'm not sure about Leonard.  If he isn't #1, he's probably #2.  Nelson was the highest paid guard in the NFL until the Falcons paid a guard .5 million more than what Nelson makes.  The Falcons.  Again, great teams do not pay Guards that much money.  Poorly managed teams do, sure, like the Falcons.  There's a huge difference in paying a GUARD that much money rather than an LT -The most valuable player on the line.  

The Cowboys did with Martin.  Also most teams don’t have a hall of fame level guard like Nelson either.  I think it’s worth noting that Ballard didn’t pay Glow.  He let him walk.  Maybe Nelson was the exception because he’s a special player and not your average guard.

[GoColts8818]

3 minutes ago, kymd82222 said:

Exactly.  I can't believe that people are arguing that overpaying players doesn't effect the future of the team, when the league has a salary cap.  

I don’t think anyone is saying over paying players doesn’t impact the future of the team.  People objected to fans being upset about contracts like they have to pay them or manage the salary cap.  I also think most people feel the contracts handed out by Ballard have been market value because if Ballard hadn’t paid them that someone else would have.  This isn’t the Jags why over paying for Christian Kirk where it reset the whole market for the position situation.  

[kymd82222]

3 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

The Cowboys did with Martin.  Also most teams don’t have a hall of fame level guard like Nelson either.  I think it’s worth noting that Ballard didn’t pay Glow.  He let him walk.  Maybe Nelson was the exception because he’s a special player and not your average guard.

Genuine question - what kind of job do you think Ballard has done so far? I think he's done a poor job and I think maybe you think he's done a pretty good job and we're just going to go in circles.  May just have to agree to disagree.  

[GoColts8818]

5 minutes ago, kymd82222 said:

Genuine question - what kind of job do you think Ballard has done so far? I think he's done a poor job and I think maybe you think he's done a pretty good job and we're just going to go in circles.  May just have to agree to disagree.  

I think he’s done a good job when you account for the struggles he’s had at the QB position.  Do I think he’s perfect?  No I don’t.  Do I think some fans way under sell the impact of Luck retiring had on this Franchise?  Yes I do.  I will say when Ballard has had a good QB this team has been in the playoffs and even won a playoff game and were the hot young team on the rise until Luck retired out of no where.  When he’s had backup level QBs, and Wentz he’s still put together a competitive football team outside of his first year here when he inherited Grigson’s roster and last year.  This team has talent.  They have just been really snake bit at the QB position.  Could they use more talent?  Yes, but so could every team in the NFL.
 

I will say with picking Richardson the Colts have to turn the page on the Luck excuse and if Richardson isn’t the guy then yeah Ballard is going to have to go.  If he is the guy though look out the Colts could be really dangerous really fast.  

[Indianapolis-Colts-Fan]

23 minutes ago, kymd82222 said:

Oh, I wasn't bashing you or acting like I'm some "Super fan" or something.  Sorry if I came across that way.  I definitely understand where you're coming from.  

All good man. I hate to say the only draw is when the colts are exciting, but maybe I’m just losing interest in the game these days. It gets harder when you see teams each week have calls go against them that determine the outcome of games or watch refs be one sided throughout a game. 

[Moosejawcolt]

13 minutes ago, kymd82222 said:

I'm not sure about Leonard.  If he isn't #1, he's probably #2.  Nelson was the highest paid guard in the NFL until the Falcons paid a guard .5 million more than what Nelson makes.  The Falcons.  Again, great teams do not pay Guards that much money.  Poorly managed teams do, sure, like the Falcons.  There's a huge difference in paying a GUARD that much money rather than an LT -The most valuable player on the line.  

It's really not bout paying the money with Nelson. If he was that elite guard that we saw in the first 3 years, then what the hell. The major issue I had was this. He was coming off an off year. He was 2nd team all pro but was not near the same player he was in his first 3 years. Ballard should have waited and not signed him until the end of the season. Nelson was going to get paid big money if he another dominate year but I doubt his yearly contract would have went up past the 20 million he eventually made. Ballard signed him early, and Nelson is a good guard but no near elite.  Could I imagine what his value would have been after last year? He was signed for 20 mill but he wouldn't have deserved half that after last season. Great teams and great GMs don't make these mistakes. I really bailed on Ballard after JT. Let him play out the season. JT had no leverage. Moss was balling. I understood trying to protect Richardson and once again, I felt they jumped the gun. Do u think thr GM for the Eagles or Reid make these mistakes? They routinely let guys go.