J. Taylor Contract

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours ago, ShuteAt168 said:

I doubt Irsay has ever said Indy is not a top destination location for free agents. I searched it. In fact, a story in the Star indicated the exact opposite. The media was giving attention to the fact that CB was sitting on cash and not signing free agents. Irsay said this, “You know when free agency hit, we had the lines in the water on several other guys and we didn’t get them. We could’ve got them, but Chris is very disciplined in his belief on how you build a team and it was great to see him stick by his discipline.”

 

This is when Irsay would have said “Ya know, free agents don’t like Indianapolis or the people or the color blue or horseshoes.” Instead, he says “We could’ve got them.” Money was the only factor. 
 

Honestly, you think Irsay would say Indy is not a top destination for free agents and not say why or no one would ask him to elaborate? No harm no foul, you just remembered this wrong. I’m out. 

I’ll take another crack at this….  
 

I’ve never said top free agents won’t come to Indy, I’ve said they’ll come, but the Colts have to overpay to get them.  
 

Look at the quote you found from Irsay.  That they bid on top free agents, then dropped out at a certain point.   I think that matches up with what I’ve been saying.   The Colts have to pay more than they think is reasonable for top talent.  
 

And I don’t think Irsay needs to say Indy isn’t a desired location for free agents over and over.   No need to rub it in the fans faces each time.   Easier to say they’ve bid on players and got out at a certain price.   Doubt all you want, believe what you will, but this still matches up to what I’ve said.  

[DougDew]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Ok….  I’m more confused than ever.   No where have I ever said that Irsay was told anything by agents.   Those are your words, not mine.   
 

All I’ve ever said is that top free agents won’t sign with Indy unless the Colts overpay.   That’s it.   
 

I think you’re reading way too much into way too little. 

I thought you said that the reason Irsay thinks that FAs won't come to Indy unless he overpays is because that's what he was told.....not that its his direct thoughts.  I assume if he was told that, it came from the people who talk to owners about free agent contracts.  That group would include agents.

 

I'm confused now.  Are you saying that Irsay publicly said that he has a hard time attracting FAs to Indy because of Indy's "geography and culture"......and those are his own words, thoughts, and assumptions and NOT something he has been told by others?

 

Apologies if I misread what you were saying.

[NFLfan]

14 hours ago, husker61 said:

Just because a football team doesn’t spend a lot of money on free agents, doesn’t have anything to do with being a small market team. The patriots are in a huge market and don’t spend big money on free agents, they actually let players walk or trade them instead of having to pay most of them. Most nfl teams don’t do it because it rarely works, Washington and Dallas did it and it didn’t work and now they have changed. 

 

I always believed that. In fact, I don't value signing free agents from other teams to huge contracts. I have always thought that doing so was a losing strategy. However, the Rams of a couple of years ago proved that wrong.

 

I disagree that most teams don't do it (give big bucks to free agents). I think too many teams like to sign high-priced free agents. When legal tampering period starts, all these teams are vying to sign the top free agents. I prefer the Ballard approach of signing his own players before they reach free agency and not signing other teams' top free agents.

[jvan1973]

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

I’ll take another crack at this….  
 

I’ve never said top free agents won’t come to Indy, I’ve said they’ll come, but the Colts have to overpay to get them.  
 

Look at the quote you found from Irsay.  That they bid on top free agents, then dropped out at a certain point.   I think that matches up with what I’ve been saying.   The Colts have to pay more than they think is reasonable for top talent.  
 

And I don’t think Irsay needs to say Indy isn’t a desired location for free agents over and over.   No need to rub it in the fans faces each time.   Easier to say they’ve bid on players and got out at a certain price.   Doubt all you want, believe what you will, but this still matches up to what I’ve said.  

Every team has to over pay for top tier free agents.   This isn't new.   Irsay has never said the town of Indianapolis is a reason big name free agents don't want to come here.    I think the biggest free agent during the Manning era was Vinatieri.   I think Irsay's philosophy is to build through the draft and supplement with free agency.   That's how most good teams are built.   I think you're an excellent member here.   I agree with a lot of your takes, but this one is wrong imo.  Also the take that Irsay doesn't have the money to bring in top tier talent.   I think that's a bad take as well.   Most of your others I agree with

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:

 

I always believed that. In fact, I don't value signing free agents from other teams to huge contracts. I have always thought that doing so was a losing strategy. However, the Rams of a couple of years ago proved that wrong.

 

I disagree that most teams don't do it (give big bucks to free agents). I think too many teams like to sign high-priced free agents. When legal tampering period starts, all these teams are vying to sign the top free agents. I prefer the Ballard approach of signing his own players before they reach free agency and not signing other teams' top free agents.

It's a fine line. I am ok with signing 1 or 2 key Free Agents as long as they are in the prime and real productive to bolster the teams chance of winning. Especially at WR or Edge. It's when a FO pays big money to a guy that is 30 or older and is on his last leg is where I wouldn't do it unless it is a great QB. Rivers for example. This upcoming off season, I am all for signing Pittman, he has had a good year and is young so I pretty much agree with your take, in signing your own. I also agreed with signing Taylor to a 3 year deal. The deal Taylor got doesn't hurt the team and we will get him in his prime years. 

[RollerColt]

1 hour ago, NFLfan said:

However, the Rams of a couple of years ago proved that wrong.

Yeah. I'll counter by saying they proved it works but only as a 1 time solution. Since then, they've struggled with injuries and keeping that roster in tact. Going all in on FA historically has backfired for most teams. It's just not really that sustainable. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, RollerColt said:

Yeah. I'll counter by saying they proved it works but only as a 1 time solution. Since then, they've struggled with injuries and keeping that roster in tact. Going all in on FA historically has backfired for most teams. It's just not really that sustainable. 

Kind of depends on what the franchise wants. Also as a fan, would you rather be very good, borderline great for 10 years in a row as in 12-5 every year but never win a SB? or be average for 10 years in a row like 9-8/8-9, but go all in for that 1 year out of the 10 and win a SB? I would take the latter because winning a SB is priceless and in the other years at least you had a team that didn't entirely stink either and won some games.

[RollerColt]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Kind of depends on what the franchise wants. Also as a fan, would you rather be very good, borderline great for 10 years in a row as in 12-5 every year but never win a SB? or be average for 10 years in a row like 9-8/8-9, but go all in for that 1 year out of the 10 and win a SB? I would take the latter because winning a SB is priceless and in the other years at least you had a team that didn't entirely stink either and won some games.

I think it also depends on the status of the team itself too. Looking back, the Rams did build a championship caliber team prior to that season. They were just missing the key ingredient: Stafford.  

 

It worked for the Rams by getting a franchise QB in Stafford and pairing him with Donald. Include Kupp and of course McVay and you've checked off all the boxes of the necessary ingredients to win a championship. 

 

QB, DE, WR, LT and an innovative head coach. 

 

Now mind you, even with all of that, they nearly lost to the Bengals who built through the draft.

 

So perhaps both strategies are correct in achieving the end goal. Or even a healthy mix of the two. 

[DougDew]

51 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Kind of depends on what the franchise wants. Also as a fan, would you rather be very good, borderline great for 10 years in a row as in 12-5 every year but never win a SB? or be average for 10 years in a row like 9-8/8-9, but go all in for that 1 year out of the 10 and win a SB? I would take the latter because winning a SB is priceless and in the other years at least you had a team that didn't entirely stink either and won some games.

I'd probably prefer the 12-5 every year.  A big part of enjoying the season is the possibility that you can win the SB, not necessarily actually winning it.  Things have to go right too.

 

I had much more fun and interest in the Colts during the Manning years precisely because we were in contention nearly every year, despite only two appearances.  The Ballard years have been a big dud for me, because there has never been a year where I thought the Colts would be anything but mediocre.  

 

Even if we would happen to win this year, it would ring hollow because the team is sort of backing in by playing the easiest schedule in the NFL, and by the NFL itself sort of dumbing down the playoff standards by accepting three wild cards...IOW, allowing mediocre teams into the playoffs who may then catch fire for a month.  And the 18 week 17 game schedule has also turned the season into a competition of durability.  Any team can win if the opponents best players are out that game because of injuries incurred during a long season. 

 

There are some fundamental changes happening that can create more reasons to place an asterisk by any playoff win than what there was before, so I think having a sustained winning record over many years speaks to a higher quality and more enjoyable brand of football to me.

[ShuteAt168]

For discussion purposes, since this thread includes the value of RBs, the latest Athletic mock has zero backs in the first round. It has the Colts taking OT Guyton from Oklahoma. 

[NFLfan]

3 hours ago, RollerColt said:

Yeah. I'll counter by saying they proved it works but only as a 1 time solution. Since then, they've struggled with injuries and keeping that roster in tact. Going all in on FA historically has backfired for most teams. It's just not really that sustainable. 

 

Oh, I agree, but many believe it is Super Bowl or nothing. Many want Pro Bowlers at every position. They want a "Dream Team" and seek to build that through free agency. I rooted against the Rams that year because I did not want their strategy to work.

 

As I wrote before, I am not a fan of free agency. My preference is drafting well, developing your own players, and add enforcements here and there to complement the team.

[Superman]

4 hours ago, RollerColt said:

Yeah. I'll counter by saying they proved it works but only as a 1 time solution. Since then, they've struggled with injuries and keeping that roster in tact. Going all in on FA historically has backfired for most teams. It's just not really that sustainable. 

 

I mean, define "works." You can use aggressive methods to put together a roster, and be a good team. No one is guaranteed a SB, but that doesn't mean the team isn't good. Several teams have spent big for a couple years and gone deep into the playoffs. Success is relative.

 

What we definitely know is that going all in the way the Rams did is not sustainable. But who cares when you win a SB? 

[RollerColt]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

What we definitely know is that going all in the way the Rams did is not sustainable. But who cares when you win a SB? 

And that's truly what it boils down to. 

 

They won the ring. The Bengals didn't. 

 

It's very hard to win it all, we all know this. And like I said in another post, the Rams already had a strong foundation before they went "all in" for free agency. They did get to the Super Bowl a few years prior after all...

 

The more I think about it, it's a similar situation to the Broncos losing in 2013, and then going after defensive players to get another shot. 

 

Now here's where I find things get interesting when talking about sustainability:

 

The Bears have 1 ring to brag about and should be happy, right? No. The fans are *. Chiefs fans up until Mahomes were thirsty for another. Eagles fans want another. Cowboys, Steelers and 49ers fans are hungry for another. 

 

Over time, even having 1 championship doesn't seem to be... enough... for the common everyday football fan. 

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

And that's truly what it boils down to. 

 

They won the ring. The Bengals didn't. 

 

It's very hard to win it all, we all know this. And like I said in another post, the Rams already had a strong foundation before they went "all in" for free agency. They did get to the Super Bowl a few years prior after all...

 

The more I think about it, it's a similar situation to the Broncos losing in 2013, and then going after defensive players to get another shot. 

 

Now here's where I find things get interesting when talking about sustainability:

 

The Bears have 1 ring to brag about and should be happy, right? No. The fans are *. Chiefs fans up until Mahomes were thirsty for another. Eagles fans want another. Cowboys, Steelers and 49ers fans are hungry for another. 

 

Over time, even having 1 championship doesn't seem to be... enough... for the common everyday football fan. 

 

The Broncos are actually a good example. They weren't as aggressive with contract structure, but they added a lot of big name free agents to become relevant, starting with Manning. They had also drafted some good players along the way.

 

And yeah, over time, fans want more than one SB. But the Bears aren't comparable, it's been nearly 40 years since they won, and they've been mostly forgettable the entire time. They literally have never had a good QB. And once you have a good team and appear to have a window, you have to try to make it happen because that window doesn't stay open for long. 

[DougDew]

42 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

And that's truly what it boils down to. 

 

They won the ring. The Bengals didn't. 

 

It's very hard to win it all, we all know this. And like I said in another post, the Rams already had a strong foundation before they went "all in" for free agency. They did get to the Super Bowl a few years prior after all...

 

The more I think about it, it's a similar situation to the Broncos losing in 2013, and then going after defensive players to get another shot. 

 

Now here's where I find things get interesting when talking about sustainability:

 

The Bears have 1 ring to brag about and should be happy, right? No. The fans are *. Chiefs fans up until Mahomes were thirsty for another. Eagles fans want another. Cowboys, Steelers and 49ers fans are hungry for another. 

 

Over time, even having 1 championship doesn't seem to be... enough... for the common everyday football fan. 

Is winning the SB key to enjoying your favorite FB team?  Look at the KC fans, they have the enthusiasm to get behind their team every season because of how their team is built and performs the season before, but they haven't won many more SBs than the Rams have.

 

Rams fans watched their team stink, then watched their team spend a lot to win in a window that's unsustainable, now back to the doldrums of mediocrity.  Was that SB all that good for them now?

[RollerColt]

Just now, DougDew said:

Is winning the SB key to enjoying your favorite FB team?  Look at the KC fans, they have the enthusiasm to get behind their team every season because of how their team is built and performs the season before, but they haven't won many more SBs than the Rams have.

 

Rams fans watch their team stink, then pay a lot to win in a window that's unsustainable, now back to the doldrums of mediocrity.  Was that SB all that good for them now?

That's another thing to think about honestly. It all depends on the individual. 

 

If you view football as a form of entertainment, you'll want years of stability as it's more enjoyable to watch the team win. If you care about records and championships, it's Super Bowl or bust.

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

That's another thing to think about honestly. It all depends on the individual. 

 

If you view football as a form of entertainment, you'll want years of stability as it's more enjoyable to watch the team win. If you care about records and championships, it's Super Bowl or bust.

Oh its definitely entertainment for me.  I've got no money, family, friends, fantasy points, ego, or bragging rights tied up in my favorite FB team.

[ShuteAt168]

The Manning years were a blast, waking up every Sunday knowing we were most likely going to win. Making two Super Bowls and winning one was more than satisfying for me. I don’t understand thinking one ring was a disappointment but each his own. 

[RollerColt]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

The Broncos are actually a good example. They weren't as aggressive with contract structure, but they added a lot of big name free agents to become relevant, starting with Manning. They had also drafted some good players along the way.

 

And yeah, over time, fans want more than one SB. But the Bears aren't comparable, it's been nearly 40 years since they won, and they've been mostly forgettable the entire time. They literally have never had a good QB. And once you have a good team and appear to have a window, you have to try to make it happen because that window doesn't stay open for long. 

Nothing is ever guaranteed either. The Bengals could’ve won that game and then the narrative would’ve been how the Rams blew it by going too aggressive in FA. 
 

You know what my problem with the Rams is? I’m jealous. I wanted Stafford… and had we got him, everything would’ve looked different. 
 

Hell Reich would probably still be here.

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

Nothing is ever guaranteed either. The Bengals could’ve won that game and then the narrative would’ve been how the Rams blew it by going too aggressive in FA. 
 

You know what my problem with the Rams is? I’m jealous. I wanted Stafford… and had we got him, everything would’ve looked different. 
 

Hell Reich would probably still be here.

 

Yeah, and you know what's most interesting to me? The Rams cash spending in 2021 ($192m) was less than their cash spending in 2020 ($215m), when they lost the division round. And it was far less than their cash spending in 2022 ($284m), when they won five games and had a QB carousel because Stafford's arm was about to fall off.

 

But the narrative is that they outspent everyone to win a SB, and that's really only half true. 

 

I'd have taken Stafford instead of Wentz, but Stafford cost significantly more than Wentz. Two first rounders, a third rounder, and a cost-controlled playoff level QB (probably worth another first rounder at the time; and he'd be worth a couple firsts right now). His contract was also coming up, and the Rams wound up paying him 20% more than Wentz's annual average. He's also older; the plan was for Wentz to be our guy for several years.

 

I think the 2021 Colts probably make the playoffs with Stafford instead of Wentz, but after that, it's about the same. I don't think Ballard really pushes hard in other areas, and he would have had less draft capital to even try. Stafford started falling apart pretty quickly, he got a fat new contract, and he at least would have cost us our 2023 first rounder, which means even if we had a bad season in 2022, we're still not in position to draft Richardson this year. Maybe Levis... And maybe Reich is still with the Colts -- probably, in fact -- but I'm not sure that's a good thing. Especially not with Steichen looking like he's bringing our offense into the modern era.

[NewColtsFan]

On 11/29/2023 at 6:07 AM, jvan1973 said:

Every team has to over pay for top tier free agents.   This isn't new.   Irsay has never said the town of Indianapolis is a reason big name free agents don't want to come here.    I think the biggest free agent during the Manning era was Vinatieri.   I think Irsay's philosophy is to build through the draft and supplement with free agency.   That's how most good teams are built.   I think you're an excellent member here.   I agree with a lot of your takes, but this one is wrong imo.  Also the take that Irsay doesn't have the money to bring in top tier talent.   I think that's a bad take as well.   Most of your others I agree with

Appreciate the post.  
 

I’ll have a more detailed post about how the Colts do their business in the weeks to come….  Perhaps after the season ends, we’ll see how it plays out. 
 

 

[NewColtsFan]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:07 PM, Superman said:

 

First, I don't have any concern about you and I having a disagreement, because we have respect for each other. Even if we see things completely differently, I know that your comments are not intended to be rude or condescending, and I hope that you understand the same about my comments to you. So I don't think there's any need for an apology, even if we see this completely opposite of each other.

 

To the point, I think you're talking about a number of different things here, and I'd like to make sure we're on the same page. 

 

My main question for you is whether Ballard or Irsay have ever stated that the team would have to overpay for free agents specifically because players don't view Indianapolis as a desirable destination. I know that they've both said that free agency comes with overspending. I don't remember either of them linking that specifically to the destination. So is that something that you believe they've said? Or is it mostly your interpretation of what they've said?

 

I think that's important to know. If it's your interpretation, then we can just acknowledge that we interpret this differently. If they've actually said this, then maybe I need to reconsider my understanding of their strategy.

 

Also, I understand that you believe the Colts operate as a small market team. I don't necessarily disagree with that. But I don't equate conservative free agent spending to small market strategy; I think it's just a deliberate team building philosophy.

 

And to be clear, I'm not even arguing that Irsay or Ballard would be incorrect to say that Indy isn't a popular free agent destination. Maybe it's not; I don't think we've really seen that theory tested. But my question is whether that's actually what's been said, or if it's just the conclusion you've reached.

Ok….  First, I owe you another apology, I thought I’d have written this response several days ago.   Things got a little crazy here this week.   So sorry.   
 

Second, what surprises me on this exchange, and not just you and me but other posters too is that I’m not writing anything new here.   I’ve been writing these views for several years and have never received so much push back.   Why now?   I don’t know, but I respect the views of those pushing back so I’m willing to concede that I could be wrong.   
 

But with a number of issues we’re talking about I’m just not sure we’re ever going to truly know for certain or whether we’re all going by our best guesses here.  
 

To be clear..,   I’ve never said big time talent won’t come to Indy.  I’ve said the only way we’re going to get them is to over pay.   And I believe both Irsay and Ballard have said so.    That appears to be a key issue as a number of people seem to have taken exception to that. 
 

The other day @ShuteAt168 found a quote on a Google search.   It was Irsay from a few years back saying the Colts had gone after some top tier talent, but dropped out when the price got too expensive.   I remember that Irsay quote.  But I don’t think it disproves my viewpoints.  
 

Are we conflating some key issues here?   Are we mashing up our roster building philosophy with the limitations of a small market team?   Yes, I think we might be doing some of that. 
 

Im 100 percent not insisting I’m right.  I’ve received too much pushback to stand my ground on this.  But I’ve done a little homework on how the Colts have been doing their business during the Ballard years.  I think I’ve uncovered some interesting info that I look forward to sharing.  Not sure exactly when is the right time.   I think I’d prefer to wait until the season is over and Ballard has had his year ender.   But we’ll see. 
 

Spoiler alert:  I’m going to send you another post tonight.  This one about Zack Moss and the discussion we were having.  I hope you’ll find it interesting, even if we don’t agree. 
 

 

[NewColtsFan]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:42 PM, Superman said:

 

I don't think the Colts ever intended to have two highly paid RBs on the roster. I expected them to do something about the Hines contract before JT's new contract was due; maybe they didn't intend to move him at the deadline, but bringing back Moss was a convenient swap at a convenient time. So this belief of mine heavily informs my thinking when it comes to how they'll handle Moss moving forward.

 

My thinking is also informed by my opinion that RB production is replaceable. I don't think it's hard to find RB2 level players. And I don't think Moss has any special traits that make me think 'we have to keep him around, he can play a crucial role in our offense.' He's not a speedster, not a scatback type of athlete, he's just a junior version of what we already have in Taylor.

 

If you want to have a 1-2 punch with Taylor and another back, that can be done without spending $7m/year on a backup who gets 8-10 touches a game. That's a luxury you can afford when your lead back is on a rookie contract, but not a luxury I'd pursue when we have JT at $14m/year.

 

I also think the Colts think highly of Evan Hull, and see him as a potential RB2. And if there's one thing I think Steichen has proven, it's that he can scheme production in the run game, even with a mid-level player like Zach Moss. 

You make an interesting argument here.   I don’t get the impression that you think of him as a JAG.   Only that you don’t think he’s got special qualities that make him worth retaining.  
 

Ok…. 
 

But I’d like to offer you a different perspective for consideration.   And I’m not trying to be cute or clever with this.  Remember back in 2019, Ballard would say of Brissett that he had one elite quality:  Leadership.   Well, in that same spirit, I’d like to say Zack Moss has one elite quality:   Attitude.   And what I mean by that, to me Zack Moss appears to play every play like it might be his last as a pro.  He doesn’t just run hard, he runs violently and angry.   And this is not a new view of Moss for me.   I was selling Zack Moss to posters here this summer who were talking about who might be the Colts RB2 this season.  Some favored Deon Jackson, some thought the Colts might still sign a veteran free agent before camp started.  I was selling Moss.   I told posters to look up his 22 season on YouTube and they might like what they see. 
 

I like the idea of having a very high level RB2 when Taylor can’t go for whatever reason.  Ultimately, you may be right.  The Colts might let Moss walk and go with Evan Hull.   I think we’ll find out by the end of February.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Ian Rap reported this morning Taylor will miss 3 to 5 weeks. We will see.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Ian Rap reported this morning Taylor will miss 3 to 5 weeks. We will see.

Nobody really knows, we have Moss luckily, so I am not that worried about it. 5 weeks seems a little extreme for his type of injury. I have done Research on his type injury and 3 weeks is the norm just for a normal guy. He has the best technology and medicine available; I doubt he misses 5 weeks.

[Solid84]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:42 AM, Superman said:

 

I don't think the Colts ever intended to have two highly paid RBs on the roster. I expected them to do something about the Hines contract before JT's new contract was due; maybe they didn't intend to move him at the deadline, but bringing back Moss was a convenient swap at a convenient time. So this belief of mine heavily informs my thinking when it comes to how they'll handle Moss moving forward.

 

My thinking is also informed by my opinion that RB production is replaceable. I don't think it's hard to find RB2 level players. And I don't think Moss has any special traits that make me think 'we have to keep him around, he can play a crucial role in our offense.' He's not a speedster, not a scatback type of athlete, he's just a junior version of what we already have in Taylor.

 

If you want to have a 1-2 punch with Taylor and another back, that can be done without spending $7m/year on a backup who gets 8-10 touches a game. That's a luxury you can afford when your lead back is on a rookie contract, but not a luxury I'd pursue when we have JT at $14m/year.

 

I also think the Colts think highly of Evan Hull, and see him as a potential RB2. And if there's one thing I think Steichen has proven, it's that he can scheme production in the run game, even with a mid-level player like Zach Moss. 

I think the Colts intend to use Hull as RB2 and let Moss walk unless they can sign him at a seriously team-friendly deal.
 

That said, I do think Moss has something over JT. He has better vision and takes better angles than JT. A part of me wanted to trade JT and keep Moss after this off season and that was only validated when Moss had such a good early season. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

53 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Nobody really knows, we have Moss luckily, so I am not that worried about it. 5 weeks seems a little extreme for his type of injury. I have done Research on his type injury and 3 weeks is the norm just for a normal guy. He has the best technology and medicine available; I doubt he misses 5 weeks.

Apparently it was a UCL tear. Here is more info.

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Apparently it was a UCL tear. Here is more info.

 

 

I didn't realize it was a tear. Maybe he will be out a month. I think Moss is very good though. We need to hope nothing happens to him.

[ADnum1]

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Ian Rap reported this morning Taylor will miss 3 to 5 weeks. We will see.

Could be. I think it's his right hand.

 

He needs to stay out until he's a 100% otherwise defenses will rip at the ball trying to cause fumbles

[Superman]

18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Second, what surprises me on this exchange, and not just you and me but other posters too is that I’m not writing anything new here.   I’ve been writing these views for several years and have never received so much push back.   Why now?   I don’t know, but I respect the views of those pushing back so I’m willing to concede that I could be wrong.   

 

Thanks. I've seen you mention this before, and it's always been a slight eyebrow raiser for me. I don't mean to pile on while everyone is questioning you on this, I think it just kind of snowballed. 

 

Quote

 

To be clear..,   I’ve never said big time talent won’t come to Indy.  I’ve said the only way we’re going to get them is to over pay.   And I believe both Irsay and Ballard have said so.    That appears to be a key issue as a number of people seem to have taken exception to that. 
 

The other day @ShuteAt168 found a quote on a Google search.   It was Irsay from a few years back saying the Colts had gone after some top tier talent, but dropped out when the price got too expensive.   I remember that Irsay quote.  But I don’t think it disproves my viewpoints.  
 

Are we conflating some key issues here?   Are we mashing up our roster building philosophy with the limitations of a small market team?   Yes, I think we might be doing some of that. 

 

 

To the bolded, that's fair. If you happen to come across that direct quote, I'd appreciate if you could post it. Short of that, I think we're probably conflating multiple issues, like you say. And it's a small detail, but it does stand out. 

 

I also saw what Shute posted. It doesn't necessarily disprove your statement, but there's still that missing component of either Irsay or Ballard actually saying 'small markets like Indy have to overpay to get FAs.' That's very different from 'FA contract values are inflated,' which is not something I would second guess.

 

I'll look forward to picking this up in the offseason. Thanks for the discussion.

[Superman]

18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

You make an interesting argument here.   I don’t get the impression that you think of him as a JAG.   Only that you don’t think he’s got special qualities that make him worth retaining.  
 

Ok…. 
 

But I’d like to offer you a different perspective for consideration.   And I’m not trying to be cute or clever with this.  Remember back in 2019, Ballard would say of Brissett that he had one elite quality:  Leadership.   Well, in that same spirit, I’d like to say Zack Moss has one elite quality:   Attitude.   And what I mean by that, to me Zack Moss appears to play every play like it might be his last as a pro.  He doesn’t just run hard, he runs violently and angry.   And this is not a new view of Moss for me.   I was selling Zack Moss to posters here this summer who were talking about who might be the Colts RB2 this season.  Some favored Deon Jackson, some thought the Colts might still sign a veteran free agent before camp started.  I was selling Moss.   I told posters to look up his 22 season on YouTube and they might like what they see. 
 

I like the idea of having a very high level RB2 when Taylor can’t go for whatever reason.  Ultimately, you may be right.  The Colts might let Moss walk and go with Evan Hull.   I think we’ll find out by the end of February.  

 

Yeah, JAG is pejorative in nature. Moss' performance this season has been admirable, maybe even praiseworthy. But I definitely think RB production is mostly replaceable, and to me, using cap space on a backup RB doesn't make sense unless that player brings something special to the table. And even if he does, having a $14m/year RB1 dampens my appetite for paying a second RB a veteran level contract. (And this is speculation on my part, but if Moss truly brought something special to the table, we probably wouldn't have re-signed JT.)

 

I have no problem with valuing Moss as a member of the team, either because of something he does on the field or because of his attitude off the field. My question is whether that value would translate to contract value, for this team, at this point. And for me, that value is much lower than the range that you and other posters were projecting. Liking Moss at RB2 is obvious, but there are a lot of RBs picked on Day 3 of the draft who are producing at an acceptable level. I think we can be more efficient with our cap space than spending $20m/year on RBs.

[Superman]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:05 PM, NewColtsFan said:

Thanks for the good 411 on the Covid money.   

 

Old bump, but this came out a couple of days ago and I meant to share it with you. Slight correction to what I wrote previously. The Covid money is mostly paid out already. The league and NFLPA will determine how to reconcile whatever small portion remains, but it will not result in a reduced salary cap moving forward.

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/salary-cap-expected-to-exceed-240-million-for-2024-season
 

Quote

 

But people familiar with the matter say surging revenue and diminishing aftershocks of the 2020 pandemic are on track to yield significant cap growth over the next several years, with a 2024 cap likely to land north of $240 million and additional revenue rolling into future caps.

 

As one source put it: "Business is booming, and everyone is finally out of the COVID debt."

 

...

 

Sources say several factors are driving the probable increase in the next several years. There are still some COVID-delayed benefits left to pay out at the NFLPA's discretion, but this is the first year it's not in large chunks. Revenue this year is exceeding projections. And the NFL expects new revenue streams next year. If it chooses, the union can effectively defer some dollars that would go toward the 2024 cap into 2025 and 2026 to even out the growth, avoiding a situation where the cap has a massive spike this year and then goes flat.

 

...

 

An agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA called for the union to pay out player benefits -- such as performance-based pay, Pro Bowl pay and tuition assistance -- that were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic to help buoy the salary cap sometime after 2023. Those have now mostly been paid off.

 

[throwing BBZ]

On 11/29/2023 at 1:54 PM, NFLfan said:

 

Oh, I agree, but many believe it is Super Bowl or nothing. Many want Pro Bowlers at every position. They want a "Dream Team" and seek to build that through free agency. I rooted against the Rams that year because I did not want their strategy to work.

 

As I wrote before, I am not a fan of free agency. My preference is drafting well, developing your own players, and add enforcements here and there to complement the team.

 

 Yip.

 I expect us to sign a very high end LB or S.

[dw49]

13 hours ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 Yip.

 I expect us to sign a very high end LB or S.

 

Lot's of cap room but we have Stuart , Moore , Blackmon , Stuart , Pittman and can include Minshew and Lewis. Probably will cut MAC and save 6 mill but there is no replacement for any of those FA's that have a decent replacement on the roster now. Colts really are thin at almost very position.