Thoughts on Freeney

[HtownColt]

That's not accurate.

He was given a $30 million signing bonus when he agreed to the contract. That's cash up front. For cap purposes, that signing bonus is split up and applied evenly over the life of the contract (six years, $30 million = $5 million a year).

His base salary for 2012 is $14 million. You add that to the prorated bonus of $5 million, and he has a cap hit as of right now of $19 million. If we were to release or trade him, we'd still have the prorated bonus as a cap penalty, so the dead cap hit would be $5 million. If we extended him, we'd still have the same dead cap hit of $5 million, on top of whatever the parameters of his new contract would be.

Freeney played for $750k in the first two years of his contract because he had just received a $30 million signing bonus, not because he expected to be paid a non-guaranteed base salary five years later.

So I'm guessing ESPN and this other site are inaccurate as well. I doubt it

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2944823

http://m.paywizard.org/vipcheck-root/vips/dwight-freeney

[Gavin]

So I'm guessing ESPN and this other site are inaccurate as well. I doubt it

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2944823

http://m.paywizard.o.../dwight-freeney

It looks like what he said and what ESPN said are both the same thing

[HtownColt]

12.5 sacks, 5 forced fumbles #BookIt

[Gavin]

12 sacks, 4 forced fumbles #BookIt

could happen

[HtownColt]

could happen

No could I'm Booking It lol

[Gavin]

No could I'm Booking It lol

He might have to in his final year of the deal

[Superman]

So I'm guessing ESPN and this other site are inaccurate as well. I doubt it

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2944823

http://m.paywizard.o.../dwight-freeney

Like Gavin said, I don't see how I'm saying anything different from what those sites are saying.

Check this excerpt out from the ESPN article:

That's a whopping $25 million-plus in the final two seasons of the contract, money that Freeney might never see. But it's offset by the fact Freeney will bank an amazing $37.72 million in the first three years of the contract, the measure by which most long-term deals are now assessed.

So, even with minimal base salaries in 2007 and 2008, the first three years still paid him a bunch of money, because of the signing bonus (technically, signing bonus + option bonus). He agreed to the structure of the contract with a backloaded 2011 and 2012 because he got so much money up front, not because he expected to still be under contract. I'm sure Freeney and his agent understand that most players don't play out an entire six year contract in the NFL.

[dw49]

That's not accurate.

He was given a $30 million signing bonus when he agreed to the contract. That's cash up front. For cap purposes, that signing bonus is split up and applied evenly over the life of the contract (six years, $30 million = $5 million a year).

His base salary for 2012 is $14 million. You add that to the prorated bonus of $5 million, and he has a cap hit as of right now of $19 million. If we were to release or trade him, we'd still have the prorated bonus as a cap penalty, so the dead cap hit would be $5 million. If we extended him, we'd still have the same dead cap hit of $5 million, on top of whatever the parameters of his new contract would be.

Freeney played for $750k in the first two years of his contract because he had just received a $30 million signing bonus, not because he expected to be paid a non-guaranteed base salary five years later.

That's correct. The nature of the game is to get the players their money and push the cap hit to future years. To take it s step further , Freeney coud have never expected to play the final year of his contract out at this number unless he had 15-16 scaks in 2011. It's just a bunch of crazy circumstances that led to this.

[dw49]

Go back and read the conversation between me and Gavin and you will find out why I said that because he doesnt think Freeney earned some of his salary this year from previous years leading up to this year

K..I understand your point but I with the other side on this one. Most contracts are written this way. The players get big money up front and teams are afforded cap relief by spreading the bonus out over the years. But I guess a matter of opinion...you think Freeney has a bit coming and we think he's been properly compensated.

[Warhorse]

In the NFL, game changers come along very seldom. Dfree is one of those players. And he has played at that level for many years. In addition, he came back from an injury that should have ended his game changing ability. It did didn't. He is a huge asset to the team by his contributions both on and off the field, and how he conducts himself in preparation for his craft. His current salary and cost cutting cap savings are such that he is worth being paid to finish out the last year of his deal. It is my opinion that the deal will stay as it is until it is fulfilled.

Most likely scenario: He plays this year, has a good year, but not stellar, and he is offered a ridiculous amount of money next season to wreak havoc as a 4/3 DE somewhere else and he takes it.

Next most likely scenario: He has a stellar year as a 3/4 hybrid end and resigns with the Colts and finishes his career here.

Least likely scenario: He is involved in any trade, of any kind, at any time.

Of course, as always, JMO.

[FightLikeSin]

For 14 mil you're going to get a proven starter or 2.

ok. I would consider Freeney to be an elite pass rusher. Does 1 or 2 solid players outweigh the benefit of an elite player? For me the answer is no. We aren't going to get trade value out of him, so It's best to just extend his contract and let him play.

[CopenhagenColt]

@ Gavin

By focusiing on what his salary for the upcoming season is, you're missing an important point.

The contract is to be viewed as a whole. The total amount of the contract, is for the entire length of the contract, and not X in year 1, Y in year 2 and so forth. The contract has been financially structured the way it is, in order to deal with cap-space as well as securing his loyalty to the club. Now that he's coming to the end of his contract, he'll earn some of the money that he didn't earlier in the contract, so only focusing on the 14 million he's set to earn this year is not the right way to go about it.

[oldunclemark]

But the team can clearly save money by trading him so the only way this works out is if we are a lot better than expected..

..have leads in games so he can get sacks...and pressure

..and he is a factor in a potential playofff push...

Otherwise..we have 3 choices..

pay him a lot while we lose..and get nothing at the end of the year

trade him, get a draft choice and save some money..

..or release him before the season ..let him go where he wants and save a lot of money

[dgambill]

Unless Freeney is willing to restructure his deal it is a mute point. He isn't going to get traded at his current salary. No one is going to take on that kind of money and there is little we would be offered in return. I was all for trading him early in the offseason when teams had cap space. Now they have used it up and there are few that could afford him. I really thought there were teams like Cincy and Chicago that play a 4-3 and could benefit from a player of his caliber. Both are in divisions where you need pass rushers and defensive play makers. Buffalo was the perfect fit until they had to shell out almost 100 million dollars for Williams.

He is still an elite pass rusher and at this point we simply ride out his contract. Cutting him doesn't help us. Unless we see a spark in Hughes or our other OLBs there is no way we can be competitive without him with what is out there in FA. At this point unless the season starts off poor and we get a trade offer I don't see us trading him. We have passed the point of no return on this trade talk with him.

I think he will have a fine season. Probably the same as last year which yes isn't worth the 14 million but we need stars to put fans butts in the seats and cutting him or trading him for nothing isn't going to put fans in the seats. We made this decision a long time ago and they are sticking to it.

[oldunclemark]

Unless Freeney is willing to restructure his deal it is a mute point. He isn't going to get traded at his current salary. No one is going to take on that kind of money and there is little we would be offered in return. I was all for trading him early in the offseason when teams had cap space. Now they have used it up and there are few that could afford him. I really thought there were teams like Cincy and Chicago that play a 4-3 and could benefit from a player of his caliber. Both are in divisions where you need pass rushers and defensive play makers. Buffalo was the perfect fit until they had to shell out almost 100 million dollars for Williams.

He is still an elite pass rusher and at this point we simply ride out his contract. Cutting him doesn't help us. Unless we see a spark in Hughes or our other OLBs there is no way we can be competitive without him with what is out there in FA. At this point unless the season starts off poor and we get a trade offer I don't see us trading him. We have passed the point of no return on this trade talk with him.

I think he will have a fine season. Probably the same as last year which yes isn't worth the 14 million but we need stars to put fans butts in the seats and cutting him or trading him for nothing isn't going to put fans in the seats. We made this decision a long time ago and they are sticking to it.

Somebody like the Bears or the NYGs would lust for him if they have an injury.

Nobody sticks to anything in management very long...

If we get an offer of a No.1 or No. 2 choice...we'll wish Dwight well in his new city..

Cutting him helps us pay for Mr Irsay's new SUV

[Gavin]

@ Gavin

By focusiing on what his salary for the upcoming season is, you're missing an important point.

The contract is to be viewed as a whole. The total amount of the contract, is for the entire length of the contract, and not X in year 1, Y in year 2 and so forth. The contract has been financially structured the way it is, in order to deal with cap-space as well as securing his loyalty to the club. Now that he's coming to the end of his contract, he'll earn some of the money that he didn't earlier in the contract, so only focusing on the 14 million he's set to earn this year is not the right way to go about it.

Of course its the right way to go about it, he earned every penny of the money he earned previously in the earlier stages of the contract, now he has to go out and earn and justify 14 million dollars, I have no question about his loyalty, I have a question whether he can come out and earn that 14 million dollars and if he comes out and gets 8.5 sacks again in my opinion doesn't add up to 14 million dollars, Im looking for double digits because with the secondary the way it is thats what its going to take for this defense to work this year

[inviolable]

I love Freeney, but I just don't see him making that kinda money in Indy after this year. Now if he's willing to take a bit of a pay cut i'm all for keeping him if he is a productive backer. I'm willing to give Fugger and Hughes a try though if he doesn't want to play that role.

[CopenhagenColt]

@ Gavin

Of course it's not the right way to look at it. A large part of the money he's going to make this year, is essentially, money that he should have earned earlier, but due to cap-issues, and other things, was postponed to the coming season.

You can't just break it into X in year 1, Y in year 2 and so on. The contract is obviously to be viewed as a whole, not individual years.

[Gavin]

@ Gavin

Of course it's not the right way to look at it. A large part of the money he's going to make this year, is essentially, money that he should have earned earlier, but due to cap-issues, and other things, was postponed to the coming season.

You can't just break it into X in year 1, Y in year 2 and so on. The contract is obviously to be viewed as a whole, not individual years.

Ok then answer me this, why dont GM and owners just pay players the whole amount of the contract then up front? I can tell you why, they haven't earned it yet, the money broken down year by year is a means of saying, go out and EARN this amount of money....such as 14 million dollars

[TKnight24]

We shouldn't Cut him. Let him Retire a Colt. Him & Mathis. And anyone else see the possibility of Freeney & Mathis' #'s being Reried when they leave? I think 98 & 93 will be Retired along with 18. IMO

[CopenhagenColt]

Ok then answer me this, why dont GM and owners just pay players the whole amount of the contract then up front?

Because it would make no sense. Like it would make no sense in having the entire amount be payed by the end of the contract.

[Gavin]

Because it would make no sense. Like it would make no sense in having the entire amount be payed by the end of the contract.

I know, and I am failing to see the entire point your trying to make

[CopenhagenColt]

The point I'm making should be clear as crystal. You're focusing on the money to be paid for 1/6th of the contract period, not on the entire contract, like I am.

Look at the money he was paid in the early part of the contract, and it'll be clear that a significant part of the total money in the deal was postponed until later.

[Gavin]

The point I'm making should be clear as crystal. You're focusing on the money to be paid for 1/6th of the contract period, not on the entire contract, like I am.

Look at the money he was paid in the early part of the contract, and it'll be clear that a significant part of the total money in the deal was postponed until later.

I know that, but thats nothing different then any other player in the NFL, some have back loaded contracts, some are front loaded, some are spread out evenly, and yes I am focusing on what he is making this year because he hasn't made it yet

[funktacious2]

ok. I would consider Freeney to be an elite pass rusher. Does 1 or 2 solid players outweigh the benefit of an elite player? For me the answer is no. We aren't going to get trade value out of him, so It's best to just extend his contract and let him play.

For what it's worth, I didn't say I want to get rid of Freeney. My comment was strictly about you saying 14 million will only get us Cassius Vaughn and Justin King type players. So if Freeney, despite the elite talent I do agree he has, doesn't prove his worth in the new system we could cut him and pick up a player valued as high a Larry Fitzgerald or Champ Bailey. Those are just two examples of 2 elite players who make less annually than Freeney will make.

I have faith in Freeney after all the good he has done for us, but the fact that we didn't extend his contract (potentially saving us like 10million in cap space) tells me the FO may not be completely sold on Freeney being the long term answer at the OLB position.

[GoColts8818]

Unless there are players the colts want this off-season that are going to be better than Freeney as a whole that they can spend that 14 mil on now there isn't much of a point to moving the number now.

I don't think they got a trade offer they liked when they could have used the money and I don't think they really want to extend him till they know if he can work in the new defense or not. They are in position that they can afford to just pay him his contract this year and still have the most caps pace next season so that looks like what they are going to do. I think they would rather over pay him in one year while starting rebuilding than commit to three or four years and then have to cut him because he didn't work in a 3/4.

If he does work they can always extend him during the season or franchise tag him: powers and collie will be our other two main free agents next year and neither is worth the tag.

[Superman]

Unless Freeney is willing to restructure his deal it is a mute point. He isn't going to get traded at his current salary. No one is going to take on that kind of money and there is little we would be offered in return. I was all for trading him early in the offseason when teams had cap space. Now they have used it up and there are few that could afford him. I really thought there were teams like Cincy and Chicago that play a 4-3 and could benefit from a player of his caliber. Both are in divisions where you need pass rushers and defensive play makers. Buffalo was the perfect fit until they had to shell out almost 100 million dollars for Williams.

He is still an elite pass rusher and at this point we simply ride out his contract. Cutting him doesn't help us. Unless we see a spark in Hughes or our other OLBs there is no way we can be competitive without him with what is out there in FA. At this point unless the season starts off poor and we get a trade offer I don't see us trading him. We have passed the point of no return on this trade talk with him.

I think he will have a fine season. Probably the same as last year which yes isn't worth the 14 million but we need stars to put fans butts in the seats and cutting him or trading him for nothing isn't going to put fans in the seats. We made this decision a long time ago and they are sticking to it.

In all of that, you never mention the possibility of extending his contract. I think that's the most sensible thing to do at this point.

Consider these parameters:

Four years, $42 million, starting in 2012, with a $16 million signing bonus.

Here's how you could structure it: Rather than pay his $14 million base salary over the course of the season, convert that salary into a signing bonus + an extra $2 million. The signing bonus gets divided evenly over the course of the contract, equaling a $4 million bonus hit from 2012-2015.

2012: Base salary of $1 million + prorated bonus of $4 million + dead cap hit from old bonus of $5 million = cap hit of $10 million (total compensation in 2012 = $16 million signing bonus + $1 million base salary = $17 million)

2013: June 1 roster bonus of $2 million + base salary of $7.5 million + prorated bonus of $4 million = cap hit of $13.5 million

2014: June 1 roster bonus of $2 million + base salary of $7.5 million + prorated bonus of $4 million = cap hit of $13.5 million

2015: Base salary of $6 million + prorated bonus of $4 million = cap hit of $10 million

Has the benefit for the team of lowering his 2012 cap hit by $9 million (which we could either roll over to 2013 or use now), and keeps us from paying him $14 million for one season and then offering him a double digit signing bonus next season. And the cash outlay for this season would be $3 million more than if we kept him on his current contract, which is worth it for spreading the risk out over four years. If he's not a good fit, we could offer him in a trade after the season is over, or simply release him before June 1, and will have paid essentially the same as we're going to pay for 2012 anyways.

Has the benefit for Freeney of having his 2012 salary fully guaranteed in the form of a signing bonus, which he receives up front + $2 million. Gives him a contract that allows him to stay in Indy for the foreseeable future, which is what he has suggested he wants to do. It also provides him with some guaranteed money before the start of the season for the next two years, plus a healthy base salary that, if ever were necessary, we could convert into a bonus to create cap space in either year.

I think this is the more preferable option. I think the numbers are fair (maybe a tad low, but that can be compensated for in a number of ways), and it provides us with a significant measure of flexibility moving forward, and frees up money this season and next.

[FightLikeSin]

For what it's worth, I didn't say I want to get rid of Freeney. My comment was strictly about you saying 14 million will only get us Cassius Vaughn and Justin King type players.

No, I didn't say that. I said ...

If they take that $14 mil and spend it on the Justin King's and Cassius Vaughns' of the world...not money well spent in my opinion.

...Meaning if the Colts cut Freeney and brought in a handful of scrubs at different positions, I'll consider it a bad move. If the Colts take the money and spend it on 1 or 2 guys that are elite players or close to it, that might not be so bad.

The point is, quality not quantity.

I'd like to see Matt Roth, Bryant McFadden or Rocky McIntosh in Blue and White, but I don't think we need to get rid of Freeney to do that.

[dw49]

The point I'm making should be clear as crystal. You're focusing on the money to be paid for 1/6th of the contract period, not on the entire contract, like I am.

Look at the money he was paid in the early part of the contract, and it'll be clear that a significant part of the total money in the deal was postponed until later.

Sorry but that's not how the NFL works. In most cases DF probably would have been extended or cut. Or traded if he liked the team and the new deal they were offering. No teams pay over value in the last year of a contract because they feel they "owe" the player money. This is why GUARANTEED money is the issue , not the total amount of the contract. The Colts didn't force this basic fact for the reasons I listed in post # 66. These points are just my opinion. But they are far more the probable reason DF is with the team collecting a base of 14 million

[Creekside]

So much of these discussions about Freeney are based on his non-eye-popping performance of last year. If he'd had 14 sacks instead of 8...or whatever it was....probably no one would question keeping him on the team at almost any price. I believe last year was very much a fluke because opponents got early leads and ran the ball...more rushes against the Colts than any other defense....also, opponents were throwing to wide open receivers because of poor DB play....If the Colts can score points and force opponents into more passing situations, and the defensive backfield can cover the pass at least reasonably well, I'm optimistic that Freeny will be impressive again

[ColtsPRIDE11]

Lots of good discussion on this thread, but I think everyone is missing one key thing. The assumption is being made that we will be solely a 3-4 D and nothing else. That's not what Pagano said. He said that we'd play 3-4 some, 4-3 some, and a hybrid of sorts at other times. Recently Dwight and Cory Redding said as much. See their quotes below:

“That definitely is a benefit to this type of scheme. It’s the element of surprise. Who’s coming, who’s not? Where’s he going to be? It’s going to be a lot different than I have (played),” said Freeney. “Sometimes I will be in the stance. Sometimes I will stand up. Sometimes I’m going to drop when I’ve been in the stance. Sometimes I’m going to be up (standing) and I’m going to drop. Other times I will rush. It’s going to be different, trying to keep everyone off (balance).” --Dwight Freeney

“I can’t even tell you what percentage of time we played the 3-4 as opposed to the 4-3. We may line up in the 4-3 and at the end of the day, it’ll be a 3-4 look. We might be in a 3-4, and by the time the ball is snapped, we might have moved into a 4-3,” said Redding. “The beautiful thing about this defense is its flexibility. … In Baltimore, we brought everything but the kitchen sink. Everything, though, starts with the ability to stop the run. You can’t do anything in this defense if you don’t stop the run. Whenever we play somebody, the first goal during the week is going to be, ‘Stop the run.’ Because once we get them into a passing situation, make them one-dimensional, the crowd better get ready because we’re coming.” --Cory Redding

To me, it's worth giving one of the best OLB in the league (and possibly ever) a chance. I expect DF to be better than ever, and we're gonna see Robert Mathis like we ain't ever seen him before. (Of course that is just my opinion.)

[Superman]

Lots of good discussion on this thread, but I think everyone is missing one key thing. The assumption is being made that we will be solely a 3-4 D and nothing else. That's not what Pagano said. He said that we'd play 3-4 some, 4-3 some, and a hybrid of sorts at other times. Recently Dwight and Cory Redding said as much. See their quotes below:

“That definitely is a benefit to this type of scheme. It’s the element of surprise. Who’s coming, who’s not? Where’s he going to be? It’s going to be a lot different than I have (played),” said Freeney. “Sometimes I will be in the stance. Sometimes I will stand up. Sometimes I’m going to drop when I’ve been in the stance. Sometimes I’m going to be up (standing) and I’m going to drop. Other times I will rush. It’s going to be different, trying to keep everyone off (balance).” --Dwight Freeney

“I can’t even tell you what percentage of time we played the 3-4 as opposed to the 4-3. We may line up in the 4-3 and at the end of the day, it’ll be a 3-4 look. We might be in a 3-4, and by the time the ball is snapped, we might have moved into a 4-3,” said Redding. “The beautiful thing about this defense is its flexibility. … In Baltimore, we brought everything but the kitchen sink. Everything, though, starts with the ability to stop the run. You can’t do anything in this defense if you don’t stop the run. Whenever we play somebody, the first goal during the week is going to be, ‘Stop the run.’ Because once we get them into a passing situation, make them one-dimensional, the crowd better get ready because we’re coming.” --Cory Redding

To me, it's worth giving one of the best OLB in the league (and possibly ever) a chance. I expect DF to be better than ever, and we're gonna see Robert Mathis like we ain't ever seen him before. (Of course that is just my opinion.)

I've been preaching this for several months now, and I'm certain we'll use Freeney as an end a good chunk of the time. However, I've charted two Ravens games so far, and in those two games, Suggs was standing up about 65% of the time. I've watched several other Ravens games, and that trend will probably hold throughout.

My concern with Freeney isn't really about his ability. It's about the fact that he'll have run support responsibilities a greater percentage of the time, and I wonder how that will affect his impact on the game overall.

[dgambill]

Lots of good discussion on this thread, but I think everyone is missing one key thing. The assumption is being made that we will be solely a 3-4 D and nothing else. That's not what Pagano said. He said that we'd play 3-4 some, 4-3 some, and a hybrid of sorts at other times. Recently Dwight and Cory Redding said as much. See their quotes below:

“That definitely is a benefit to this type of scheme. It’s the element of surprise. Who’s coming, who’s not? Where’s he going to be? It’s going to be a lot different than I have (played),” said Freeney. “Sometimes I will be in the stance. Sometimes I will stand up. Sometimes I’m going to drop when I’ve been in the stance. Sometimes I’m going to be up (standing) and I’m going to drop. Other times I will rush. It’s going to be different, trying to keep everyone off (balance).” --Dwight Freeney

“I can’t even tell you what percentage of time we played the 3-4 as opposed to the 4-3. We may line up in the 4-3 and at the end of the day, it’ll be a 3-4 look. We might be in a 3-4, and by the time the ball is snapped, we might have moved into a 4-3,” said Redding. “The beautiful thing about this defense is its flexibility. … In Baltimore, we brought everything but the kitchen sink. Everything, though, starts with the ability to stop the run. You can’t do anything in this defense if you don’t stop the run. Whenever we play somebody, the first goal during the week is going to be, ‘Stop the run.’ Because once we get them into a passing situation, make them one-dimensional, the crowd better get ready because we’re coming.” --Cory Redding

To me, it's worth giving one of the best OLB in the league (and possibly ever) a chance. I expect DF to be better than ever, and we're gonna see Robert Mathis like we ain't ever seen him before. (Of course that is just my opinion.)

This is why I expect us to end up playing in what looks like a 4-3 set most of the time. The difference will be possibly Mathis or Freeney standing up as opposed to down. Where we are now we just have to move forward with what we have. There is no trade market for a guy with a 1 year 14 million dollar contract that isnt looking to extend. I like the thought of bringing different people and giving different looks...the part I worry about is like Sups said...him playing the run game and his other responsibilities he has never had in the passing game and run game. Can he be as effective. Hopefully we see a better pass rush and push from our DTs this year and a little better coverage in the secondary. The problem is we see Mathis and Freeney get pressure but the QB simply steps up in the pocket and delivers a strike.....wonder what would happen if we ever start pushing blockers back into the qb and force them to slide in the pocket.....TOWARDS Mathis and Freeney.

The defense should look different....better is yet to be determined....our secondary could prove everyone right and not to be able stick to anyone...and Freeney and Mathis could look lost in the new scheme...we just have to see. We have some potential but potential doesn't win games. A lot of things have to come together and a lot of people have to play well for us to really be competitive...we don't have much room for error....we don't have 18 back there covering up our holes.

[ColtsPRIDE11]

I've been preaching this for several months now, and I'm certain we'll use Freeney as an end a good chunk of the time. However, I've charted two Ravens games so far, and in those two games, Suggs was standing up about 65% of the time. I've watched several other Ravens games, and that trend will probably hold throughout.

My concern with Freeney isn't really about his ability. It's about the fact that he'll have run support responsibilities a greater percentage of the time, and I wonder how that will affect his impact on the game overall.

The defense should look different....better is yet to be determined....our secondary could prove everyone right and not to be able stick to anyone...and Freeney and Mathis could look lost in the new scheme...we just have to see. We have some potential but potential doesn't win games. A lot of things have to come together and a lot of people have to play well for us to really be competitive...we don't have much room for error....we don't have 18 back there covering up our holes.

You both are quite right. This will definitely be different for Freeney, but I see it as only making him more effective. Don't get me wrong I love Dwight and I think he is a beast, but he has missed many tackles and big plays over the years because his main focus has been to get after the QB--which is effective some of the time AND gives us fans the sacks that we love to see. That said, how many yards have we given up on the run over the last 10 years? Too many to count. If our coaches had utilized him to his full ability would that yardage loss be different? Probably.

Dwight is talented, smart, a student of the game, and he knows how to keep his body in shape for play. He can learn this and seeing as how he seems to have "bought in" to the new D scheme, I expect to see him even more effective than we've ever seen him before.

Of course you are both right in still being skeptical seeing as how he (and Mathis) have yet to play in our new D. But again, I predict good things in our future. And I will go out on a limb that Mathis might even over shadow Dwight *gasp* yes, I said it.

And thank goodness for Freeney and Mathis that they finally have a D coach and HC that can allow them to excel even more.

Bottom line, we are going to finally have a D in Indy, which is something I have been longing for for years!

[dgambill]

You both are quite right. This will definitely be different for Freeney, but I see it as only making him more effective. Don't get me wrong I love Dwight and I think he is a beast, but he has missed many tackles and big plays over the years because his main focus has been to get after the QB--which is effective some of the time AND gives us fans the sacks that we love to see. That said, how many yards have we given up on the run over the last 10 years? Too many to count. If our coaches had utilized him to his full ability would that yardage loss be different? Probably.

Dwight is talented, smart, a student of the game, and he knows how to keep his body in shape for play. He can learn this and seeing as how he seems to have "bought in" to the new D scheme, I expect to see him even more effective than we've ever seen him before.

Of course you are both right in still being skeptical seeing as how he (and Mathis) have yet to play in our new D. But again, I predict good things in our future. And I will go out on a limb that Mathis might even over shadow Dwight *gasp* yes, I said it.

And thank goodness for Freeney and Mathis that they finally have a D coach and HC that can allow them to excel even more.

Bottom line, we are going to finally have a D in Indy, which is something I have been longing for for years!

Oh I actually look for Mathis to do quite well in this new role. I think he should be very productive in his new role. I think Freeney is hit or miss. I've seen Mathis stand up and do stunts and he seems to remain very productive in getting tackles even though he is just as much a pass rusher as Dwight. I am not too worried about those guys. I think they will be ok. The biggest thing for them to adjust is if they can think and play at the same time. Meaning they used to put their head down and rush every down. Now they may be asked to read formations or play some other roles...will it slow them down....we just have to see. As far as their skills....speed, strength, techniques...they are still very very good.

[Superman]

Oh I actually look for Mathis to do quite well in this new role. I think he should be very productive in his new role. I think Freeney is hit or miss. I've seen Mathis stand up and do stunts and he seems to remain very productive in getting tackles even though he is just as much a pass rusher as Dwight. I am not too worried about those guys. I think they will be ok. The biggest thing for them to adjust is if they can think and play at the same time. Meaning they used to put their head down and rush every down. Now they may be asked to read formations or play some other roles...will it slow them down....we just have to see. As far as their skills....speed, strength, techniques...they are still very very good.

It WILL slow them down. Suggs plays much slower than Freeney and Mathis 60% of the time.

[IndyTrav]

At what age do people feel a def player begins to breakdown? One who's play is based on speed, who's had leg/foot problems in the past?

I'm still not sure if I'm sold on Dwight being able to do 3-4 and be a truly significant playmaker/difference maker.

Sups breakdown threads have me worried they are going to exploit him to no end.

[bavanlan]

The point I'm making should be clear as crystal. You're focusing on the money to be paid for 1/6th of the contract period, not on the entire contract, like I am.

Look at the money he was paid in the early part of the contract, and it'll be clear that a significant part of the total money in the deal was postponed until later.

The mere fact that a player can be cut to avoid paying parts of the contract undercuts your entire argument. Any money "postponed until later" would have been required to be guaranteed by Freeney's agent, otherwise his agent committed the most grievous of malpractice.

No team is going to say "lets pay him another $14M to get $3M of ability." It's no different than owning a house with an adjustable mortgage during the housing crisis; if the value of your house is plummeting and the cost of your house is going up, you're going to sell before you owe more than your house is worth, it doesn't matter the value you were getting the first 3-5 years.

(and no, Freeney won't appreciate in value over the next 10-15 years).

No one in the industry takes your perspective. No one.

[Superman]

At what age do people feel a def player begins to breakdown? One who's play is based on speed, who's had leg/foot problems in the past?

I'm still not sure if I'm sold on Dwight being able to do 3-4 and be a truly significant playmaker/difference maker.

Sups breakdown threads have me worried they are going to exploit him to no end.

I would look at his play to determine when he's starting to slow down. I don't think his past injuries are really that much of a consideration unless they are affecting his play. There are a ton of players who have dealt with sprained ankles and other leg injuries, and came back just fine. At this point, two-plus years later, it's not really relevant anymore.

Now, he will slow down at some point. I don't know when, but it's not a long way off. However, based on how he played last year, and what I'm seeing from the Ravens games, I don't question whether he can be a significant difference maker; I'm sure he can. I just don't expect him to be quite as versatile as Suggs is with the Ravens, particularly in coverage. Offenses can't exploit him if we don't put him in impossible situations, and I think our coaches are smart enough to recognize that. At least I hope so.

[CopenhagenColt]

The mere fact that a player can be cut to avoid paying parts of the contract undercuts your entire argument. Any money "postponed until later" would have been required to be guaranteed by Freeney's agent, otherwise his agent committed the most grievous of malpractice.

No team is going to say "lets pay him another $14M to get $3M of ability." It's no different than owning a house with an adjustable mortgage during the housing crisis; if the value of your house is plummeting and the cost of your house is going up, you're going to sell before you owe more than your house is worth, it doesn't matter the value you were getting the first 3-5 years.

(and no, Freeney won't appreciate in value over the next 10-15 years).

No one in the industry takes your perspective. No one.