Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Should colts try to sign Gary Brackett again


Recommended Posts

Waste of a roster spot. Gave us some good years, but nothing irreplaceable. Although speaking in football years he is only 32 so if he is healthy and finds the right team I think he would be a quality backup but not a starter on most teams anymore in my opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't he'll get the nod over Pat Angerer and Kavell Conner... plus he'll need to learn a whole new defense whereas Angerer and Conner are currently in the middle of learning this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

He isn't healthy, and is injury prone. He could be a great reinforcement, if he was healthy.

Well, he was cleared to play. I don't think his health is that big of a concern, whereas his age and unfamiliarity with the new defense are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would his base salary be based on his experience (minimum)? Will we even have the cap space for that? I think they are probably going to leave a little padding in the cap for training cap cuts, injuries, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he's willing to give coaching a look, I think an assistant job could be merited (depending on how he interviews and such) and would also be a decent fan service. But only if he is qualified.

As a player, I think he's nearing the end. A stop-gap ILB is not needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So who plays if Angerer or Conner goes down? I'm not saying I know anything at all about his injury status or contract status but if he would come back for the minimum he was very servicable...especially in pass coverage. He is far from a great MLB but we don't have much depth in my opinion at that spot and he is a smart vet that could help our young defense. I mean it wouldn't be out of the question for us to have some injuries this year. I am suspecting that based on him being cut was more to do with his contract than his ability to play. Still no one has picked him up yet all our FA were slow to get looked at. I think he has something left in the tank. I think he would make a great vet backup for somebody. Very professional guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So who plays if Angerer or Conner goes down? I'm not saying I know anything at all about his injury status or contract status but if he would come back for the minimum he was very servicable...especially in pass coverage. He is far from a great MLB but we don't have much depth in my opinion at that spot and he is a smart vet that could help our young defense. I mean it wouldn't be out of the question for us to have some injuries this year. I am suspecting that based on him being cut was more to do with his contract than his ability to play. Still no one has picked him up yet all our FA were slow to get looked at. I think he has something left in the tank. I think he would make a great vet backup for somebody. Very professional guy.

Freeman if he makes the team could be very good
Link to post
Share on other sites

no-meme-rage-face.jpg

Wish I could like this a million times lol... brackett was never a good LB, he was "good" at zone coverage and that's it. Sadly for him he would get man handled in the 3-4 because he's to weak compared to other 3-4 LBs.... really nice guy though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he's willing to give coaching a look, I think an assistant job could be merited (depending on how he interviews and such) and would also be a decent fan service. But only if he is qualified.

As a player, I think he's nearing the end. A stop-gap ILB is not needed.

I agree entirely. Maybe sign him to a position like David Thornton to help players reach out to the community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't bring brackett back too old and hurt but to say no because he doesn't fit a 3-4 is pretty asinine

I think its asinine to say its asinine for saying he don't fit in a 3-4 system. There is a clear and obvious difference in playing LBer in a Tampa 2 and a 3-4. Brackett does not fit in a 3-4 system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish I could like this a million times lol... brackett was never a good LB, he was "good" at zone coverage and that's it. Sadly for him he would get man handled in the 3-4 because he's to weak compared to other 3-4 LBs.... really nice guy though.

I disagree. If you can find the full game film of our playoff game against the Jets in 2009, watch it. I distinctly remember one play where Brackett took on an O-lineman, shed him, and made a great tackle on the RB. I don't think he's weak. I think he was a good LB, but never a great one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its asinine to say its asinine for saying he don't fit in a 3-4 system. There is a clear and obvious difference in playing LBer in a Tampa 2 and a 3-4. Brackett does not fit in a 3-4 system.

So your saying that Freeney and Mathis who are the same age can change and play the OLB but Gary can't play MLB...the same position...just in a new scheme. If he is still hurt or he has fallen off I totally get it but lets be real. He was getting like 5 million a season so he was cut. He was a very solid MLB in the 4-3...very intelligent..calling all the plays and getting everyone lined up. Very good in pass coverage..solid tackler but because the scheme changed he couldn't play as a 3-4 MLB? I don't believe that one bit. A good MLB is a good MLB to me. I think he got cut because we saw Pat step up and play good enough for far far far cheaper to replace him. If he wanted to come back for much less he has been nothing but a positive for our franchise. A great person and a good teammate.

He got cut because of his contract, a younger player played well to take his position, but to think he would not be a servicable back up LB at a minimum type salary I think is being too harsh. Just my opinion. If healthy he still had enough skills and a great teammate to be a very solid contributor to a team. 3-4 or 4-3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. If you can find the full game film of our playoff game against the Jets in 2009, watch it. I distinctly remember one play where Brackett took on an O-lineman, shed him, and made a great tackle on the RB. I don't think he's weak. I think he was a good LB, but never a great one.

Agree as i said above Gary had great moments but was just ok at LB.Good leader great guy but we do not need to re-sign an aging injury prone LBER when were going younger,
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its asinine to say its asinine for saying he don't fit in a 3-4 system. There is a clear and obvious difference in playing LBer in a Tampa 2 and a 3-4. Brackett does not fit in a 3-4 system.

It's just different assignments how does he not fit

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... from what I understand, the two interior LB's in a 3-4 will need to fight through more direct blocks from O-linemen and full backs because there are only 3 down linemen in front of them. Strength is more important than speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... from what I understand, the two interior LB's in a 3-4 will need to fight through more direct blocks from O-linemen and full backs because there are only 3 down linemen in front of them. Strength is more important than speed.

Not really a 3-4 is designed for the LB to run more freely and make plays. The key is to have a NT that command double teams and at least one of the DE that can demand a double team as well which allows the LB to move more freely

Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying that Freeney and Mathis who are the same age can change and play the OLB but Gary can't play MLB...the same position...just in a new scheme. If he is still hurt or he has fallen off I totally get it but lets be real. He was getting like 5 million a season so he was cut. He was a very solid MLB in the 4-3...very intelligent..calling all the plays and getting everyone lined up. Very good in pass coverage..solid tackler but because the scheme changed he couldn't play as a 3-4 MLB? I don't believe that one bit. A good MLB is a good MLB to me. I think he got cut because we saw Pat step up and play good enough for far far far cheaper to replace him. If he wanted to come back for much less he has been nothing but a positive for our franchise. A great person and a good teammate.

He got cut because of his contract, a younger player played well to take his position, but to think he would not be a servicable back up LB at a minimum type salary I think is being too harsh. Just my opinion. If healthy he still had enough skills and a great teammate to be a very solid contributor to a team. 3-4 or 4-3.

No thats not what im saying at all. Freeney and mathis have the size to play LBer in a 3-4 defense. Whether they're any good or not is yet to be determined. Brackett is a small undersized Tampa 2 LBer that don't fit a 3-4 system. Like it or not, thats just the way it is. There is a reason why nobody has even sniffed in his direction since he was cut. If he was so good, at the age of 32, he would be getting calls and its obvious he is not. A 3-4 defense is more of a smashmouth defense that was designed to stop the run more efficiently and the LBers have to be bigger and stronger to fight their way thru blocks. Brackett would get absolutely manhandled playing in a 3-4. People can argue all they want, but thats just the way it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No thats not what im saying at all. Freeney and mathis have the size to play LBer in a 3-4 defense. Whether they're any good or not is yet to be determined. Brackett is a small undersized Tampa 2 LBer that don't fit a 3-4 system. Like it or not, thats just the way it is. There is a reason why nobody has even sniffed in his direction since he was cut. If he was so good, at the age of 32, he would be getting calls and its obvious he is not. A 3-4 defense is more of a smashmouth defense that was designed to stop the run more efficiently and the LBers have to be bigger and stronger to fight their way thru blocks. Brackett would get absolutely manhandled playing in a 3-4. People can argue all they want, but thats just the way it is.

Angerer is listed as the same weight and only 1 inch taller then Brackett, and Connor is also 6' but 242lb, thats what they are all listed on the NFL.com site anyway, if you ask me it had everything to do with the production we got from Angerer combined with Bracketts injury made him dispensible, nothing to do with what Brackett can play in,
Link to post
Share on other sites

Angerer is listed as the same weight and only 1 inch taller then Brackett, and Connor is also 6' but 242lb, thats what they are all listed on the NFL.com site anyway, if you ask me it had everything to do with the production we got from Angerer combined with Bracketts injury made him dispensible, nothing to do with what Brackett can play in,

Gary Brackett was due a $5 million base salary and had a $7.4m cap hit in 2012, and had cap hits of $9m in 2013 and 2014. By releasing him, we pay him nothing more, keep pretty much the same cap hit in 2012, but are completely free of his contract after 2012. His contract was the single biggest reason he wasn't retained.

Beyond that, he wasn't able to pass his physical after the season, and had only played in 13 games the past two seasons. Even without Angerer's production, which undoubtedly made this easier, it would have been necessary to do something about that contract. I believe it was the team's intention to address the contract around this time anyways, given the backloaded base salaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Actually we can if we cut Doyle. Saves 4.5 mil
    • No way have the cap room to spend on him. 
    • OK......   You've conflated two issues in this post, and moved the goal-line in the process.   Your headline says "Why does Ballard love 1-year deals"...     and you list a large bunch of players who have received one-year deals.   But you've also lumped in with them, a bunch of players who are NOT one 1-year deals.    They are on the last year of their rookie contract.    Their 4-year rookie contract.    That's entirely DIFFERENT.   You listed, Hines, Wilkins, Smith, Turay, Lewis,  Adams and Franklin.   That's 7 players who are on the last year of their 4-year rookie contract.   You even included Glowinski, who is on the last year of his 3-year deal that Ballard signed him to.    8 players.   And they've all been lumped in with guys who got 1-year deals.   The reasons for all the 1-year deals are several.    One, 1-year deals keep motivation high.   Two,  1-year deals can be done with players at a young age because you have contractual leverage, like with Pascal and MAC and Odoms.    Three,  one year deals during this current strange Covid time is because the salary cap has gone down,  no one is quite sure how much it will go up next year?   So, better to do a one-year deal and then figure things out in a year or so when we all have a better idea on what the 22 cap will be and even the 23 cap.    Four,  things are going to get complicated, financially speaking, when we sign guys like Q, Darius and Braden to their Big Deals.   Plus, by then we might be talking about extending Wentz.   All that will be a big factor on our long-term approach to the team.    
    • I think that ship has sailed.
    • That is what I mean by executing when it counts. We have a good team now but not like we had from 2003-2009 days. We make 2 or 3 mistakes now against a team that is good-great, it costs us dearly.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...