Colts first UFA WR Devin Funchess

[smitty46953]

Tom Pelissero‏Verified account @TomPelissero

The #Colts are signing former #Panthers WR Devin Funchess to a one-year deal, source said.

:cool:

[smitty46953]

Tom Pelissero‏Verified account @TomPelissero

The #Colts are signing former #Panthers WR Devin Funchess to a one-year deal, source said.

:cool:


Chris Mortensen‏Verified account @mortreport

Devin Funchess will sign a 1-year deal worth $13 million with the @Colts, per sources.

:eek:

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

Tom Pelissero‏Verified account @TomPelissero

The #Colts are signing former #Panthers WR Devin Funchess to a one-year deal, source said.

:cool:


Ballard *did* something!!! :D

[Dam8610]

Chris Mortensen‏Verified account @mortreport

Devin Funchess will sign a 1-year deal worth $13 million with the @Colts, per sources.

:eek:

That really feels like Ballard trying to hit the rolling average. Does this mean they're out on Tyrell Williams?

[daedge]

Good move, in my opinion. I mentioned him as someone I wanted the Colts to go after months ago.

Heck of a RZ target who is coming off a pretty average year, but look no further than Cam stinking it up.

[Chaka]

$13M is the maximum value (with incentives). Base value unknown per Pro Football Talk:

https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/1105252590701424640

[jasperhobbs]

I was thinking 13 million is a lot for Funchess but if there are a lot of performance incentives, he might be worth it.

[smitty46953]

$10 per $3 in incentives

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Spike]

https://pantherswire.usatoday.com/2019/03/07/panthers-devin-funchess-free-agency-2019-nfl-draft-d-k-metcalf/

Nice little interview with Rich Eisen.

[VeveJones007]

That really feels like Ballard trying to hit the rolling average. Does this mean they're out on Tyrell Williams?

The more I looked at Williams, the less of a fit he seemed to be at the price it would take. The Colts need a physical short to medium range receiver. Williams is big, but he’s a deep threat and not consistent at beating the jam and making the short contested grab.

Funchess is limited but he fills a need. We should trust Reich to use him well in specific situations like he did with Ebron last year.

[VeveJones007]

I’m actually pissed at myself for not seeing this one beforehand. Funchess is an obvious fit for what Reich wants to do. Expect some more RPOs next year with Funchess running slants. Probably more back shoulder throws against man coverage as well.

Hot take: I think this is going to work out so well that the Colts re-sign Funchess next year to a long-term deal (unless Ballard hits on a similar WR in the mid to late rounds of this draft).

[Dewey 5]

That really feels like Ballard trying to hit the rolling average. Does this mean they're out on Tyrell Williams?

We were probably never in.

[Indiana V2]

Funchess isn't a player I know much about, but for Ballard to sign him the first day of free agency must mean the Colts think highly of him.

[Chaka]

Would have liked to have seen an option year or two tacked on to the end of this deal, so we could keep him if he works out well. He's 6' 4" and 230 lbs, so he's definitely got size, but his production has only been so-so thus far.

[VeveJones007]

Would have liked to have seen an option year or two tacked on to the end of this deal, so we could keep him if he works out well. He's 6' 4" and 230 lbs, so he's definitely got size, but his production has only been so-so thus far.

That might have been Ballard’s preference, but it doesn’t really matter. Colts have the cap room to extend him if they choose to do so. That’s the benefit of not going crazy on a slew of free agents.

[YDFL Commish]

He can't be worse than Grant.

[smitty46953]

He can't be worse than Grant.Hope you didn't jinx him

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[rm1369]

Funchess isn't a player I know much about, but for Ballard to sign him the first day of free agency must mean the Colts think highly of him.

So highly he only rates a one year deal. I disliked the grant signing and I dislike this one. Ballard doesn’t see him as a fix, he sees him as a place holder. If he performs well he’ll be priced out of the colts range with Ballard. And if not he’ll go the way of Grant. Either way the chance of him being on the team for more than a year are slim. Place holder.

[VeveJones007]

So highly he only rates a one year deal. I disliked the grant signing and I dislike this one. Ballard doesn’t see him as a fix, he sees him as a place holder. If he performs well he’ll be priced out of the colts range with Ballard. And if not he’ll go the way of Grant. Either way the chance of him being on the team for more than a year are slim. Place holder.

I have so many questions.

Is Ebron just a placeholder as well since Ballard didn’t give him 4-5 years? Why couldn’t Ballard extend Funchess next year? How does a 6’4” receiver who commanded $10-13MM compare to a 6’0” receiver who commanded $5MM?

[Coltsalr]

He can't be worse than Grant.

This does reek of the whole Donnie Avery/DHB/Hakeem Nicks/Andre Johnson/Ryan Grant inability to find a WR2 alongside Hilton.

[Coltsalr]

He can't be worse than Grant.

Grant in 2017 With WAS: 45 catches, 573 yards, 4 TD

Funchess in 2018 with CAR: 44 catches, 549 yards, 4 TD

:eek:

[YDFL Commish]

This does reek of the whole Donnie Avery/DHB/Hakeem Nicks/Andre Johnson/Ryan Grant inability to find a WR2 alongside Hilton.

Please...just stop! That is what I'm hoping that this doesn't reek of!

[VeveJones007]

Ballard and Reich just got their Alshon Jeffrey. Colts and Orioles, you have my permission to bump this at various points this season.

[Chaka]

So highly he only rates a one year deal. I disliked the grant signing and I dislike this one. Ballard doesn’t see him as a fix, he sees him as a place holder. If he performs well he’ll be priced out of the colts range with Ballard. And if not he’ll go the way of Grant. Either way the chance of him being on the team for more than a year are slim. Place holder.

You're reading all of this based solely on the fact that its a one year deal? How do you know it was the Colts that proposed the deal? Maybe Funchess wanted a year away from the Panthers to show what he's capable of. Your argument on this was better with Grant. This is the first day of possible negotiations, after all, so its not like Funchess was floundering on the free agent market without a destination and had to accept the Colts proposal. I find it hard to believe that Ballard would sign a guy for $10-13M as a placeholder.

[Maniac]

Ballard and Reich just got their Alshon Jeffrey. Colts and Orioles, you have my permission to bump this at various points this season.

Funchess is no Alshon Jeffrey

[omahacolt]

Hope we draft a guy early. This dude isn’t an answer to any question I have

[Discflinger]

You're reading all of this based solely on the fact that its a one year deal? How do you know it was the Colts that proposed the deal? Maybe Funchess wanted a year away from the Panthers to show what he's capable of. Your argument on this was better with Grant. This is the first day of possible negotiations, after all, so its not like Funchess was floundering on the free agent market without a destination and had to accept the Colts proposal. I find it hard to believe that Ballard would sign a guy for $10-13M as a placeholder.

Yes, obviously he wanted to play with Andy.

[Coltsalr]

Hope we draft a guy early. This dude isn’t an answer to any question I have

AJ Brown.

[Chromeburn]

Meh, he is only 24, but he wasn't that great with Carolina. I think Luck is a better thrower than Cam and his numbers should go up some. 10 mill is a little high, but one year. Seems like a stop gap till one of the draft picks develop. I wonder if we will spend two picks on receivers again this year.

[VeveJones007]

Funchess is no Alshon Jeffrey

Funchess will get 60 catches, 800 yards, and 5 TDs next year, which is what Jeffrey has averaged over the last 4 seasons.

[VeveJones007]

http://coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38649

Some people may want to re-read this thread before coming down so hard against this signing...

[rm1369]

I have so many questions.

Is Ebron just a placeholder as well since Ballard didn’t give him 4-5 years? Why couldn’t Ballard extend Funchess next year? How does a 6’4” receiver who commanded $10-13MM compare to a 6’0” receiver who commanded $5MM?

Was Ebron on a one year contract?

Can Ballard extend him? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. If he performs he’ll be out of Ballard’s range. Young players that take one year deals are trying to leverage it into a bigger payday. And we know that Ballard isn’t it to paying top dollar. He’s a place holder for fixing it through the draft.

[VeveJones007]

Is Ebron on a one year contract?

Can Ballard extend him? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. If he performs he’ll be out of Ballard’s range. Young players that take one year deals are trying to leverage it into a bigger payday. And we know that Ballard isn’t in to paying top dollar. He’s a place holder for fixing WR2 thru the draft.

How about my last question, Mr. Ebron’s Signing is “Meh?”

[FatDT]

I don’t want to hear anything anymore about how Ballard doesn’t overpay. This is a weird contract. Funchess has not earned the right to potentially $13 million. I hope he does well. But I won’t be surprised if Deon Cain outplays him for WR2 and this looks like a bad signing by the end of the season.

[Chromeburn]

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/devin-funchess-player-stats

Had 7 drops last season and a 56% catch percentage. My main complaint is he is a bit slow and doesn't separate well. With that size he should muscle some guys for the ball.

Funchess had 7 drops in 79 targets (Ebron 7 in 85) and has a catch percentage 15 points less than Ebron.

[Hoopsdoc]

Theoretically he’s the perfect compliment to Hilton. Speed on one side, big bodied possession guy on the other.

We’ll have to wait and see how it works out but I like this move.

[Oldcolt]

Damn. People are seriously upset because it is only a one year deal? You'd be happier with what 3/39? The guy makes some money, we get a big target (think he and Ebron will pose some redzone match up issues?) and everybody gets flexibility going forward. It's not earth shattering but it is a nice signing. Team should be better for it.

[Coltsalr]

Damn. People are seriously upset because it is only a one year deal? You'd be happier with what 3/39? The guy makes some money, we get a big target (think he and Ebron will pose some redzone match up issues?) and everybody gets flexibility going forward. It's not earth shattering but it is a nice signing. Team should be better for it.

My annoyance is that if Ballard IS going to suddenly start spending that there are uses of $13M that have higher upside than Funchess.

[VeveJones007]

I don’t want to hear anything anymore about how Ballard doesn’t overpay. This is a weird contract. Funchess has not earned the right to potentially $13 million. I hope he does well. But I won’t be surprised if Deon Cain outplays him for WR2 and this looks like a bad signing by the end of the season.

If Deon Cain is the 2nd coming of Jerry Rice like you’ve said, then paying Funchess $13MM and him not winning WR2 isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

[Chromeburn]

If Deon Cain is the 2nd coming of Jerry Rice like you’ve said, then paying Funchess $13MM and him not winning WR2 isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Jerry Rice wishes he was as good as Deon Cain

[VeveJones007]

The nice thing about sports is that we can disagree, watch the games, then find out who was right.

That’s my way of saying that I’ll be back to dunk on several of you in 8 months.

[Discflinger]

Don't become AC Green.

[Coltsalr]

The nice thing about sports is that we can disagree, watch the games, then find out who was right.

That’s my way of saying that I’ll be back to dunk on several of you in 8 months.

I certainly hope so.

[Brylok]

I don't know much about the Panthers, but I looked on one of their boards and they're having a laugh at us. Meh, it's not my money. I will trust in Ballard and Reich.
Apparently they refer to him as "Fun-Fun"...

[Oldcolt]

My annoyance is that if Ballard IS going to suddenly start spending that there are uses of $13M that have higher upside than Funchess.

I would agree with you if it was for more than one year. If he has a great year and it costs us a ton to sign long term or we lose him I'm happy. If he sucks Mr Irsay can eat the 10-13 million easy and it's not like we will have to cut anyone because we overpayed. You overpay in free agency.

[Maniac]

Funchess will get 60 catches, 800 yards, and 5 TDs next year, which is what Jeffrey has averaged over the last 4 seasons.

Only because he's always injured. So your point is that Funchess is as good as an injured version of Jeffery?

[rm1369]

You're reading all of this based solely on the fact that its a one year deal? How do you know it was the Colts that proposed the deal? Maybe Funchess wanted a year away from the Panthers to show what he's capable of. Your argument on this was better with Grant. This is the first day of possible negotiations, after all, so its not like Funchess was floundering on the free agent market without a destination and had to accept the Colts proposal. I find it hard to believe that Ballard would sign a guy for $10-13M as a placeholder.

I absolutely believe Funches wants to prove his worth. That’s kinda my point.

Why wouldn’t he sign a guy to a one year incentive laden contract? He has to spend some money and this allows him to keep all that flexibility for next year. And he can wait on Cain, a rookie, or both.

There is nothing about the signing that says it’s a long term solution. Ballard constantly says he wants to build thru the draft. This fits perfectly with that. Could he be a long term solution? Possibly. But it requires him performing at a level that shows him as viable solution, but not so good that he gets priced out of the Colts range. That’s a pretty narrow window IMO. It’s way more likely that he either doesn’t perform well enough or he performs too well. In which case next year several of you will be asking who can blame Ballard for not giving crazy money to a WR after only one good year when he’s given way to much money by Washington or Oakland or Buffalo or the Jets.

[Coltsalr]

Only because he's always injured. So your point is that Funchess is as good as an injured version of Jeffery?

In all fairness, an injured version of Alshon Jeffery would be our best WR2 since...2013?

[Discflinger]

I don't know much about the Panthers, but I looked on one of their boards and they're having a laugh at us. Meh, it's not my money. I will trust in Ballard and Reich.
Apparently they refer to him as "Fun-Fun"...

Interesting. Fun-Fun fits in the locker room. I think he steps up.

[Maniac]

In all fairness, an injured version of Alshon Jeffery would be our best WR2 since...2013?

Funchess is still not anywhere near Alshon's level when he's healthy, so that comparison is silly.

I'm fine with the signing though. See what desire he has to show off his skills to earn another contract. We aren't committed to him long term if he doesn't work out.

[Chromeburn]

Whatever, it's one year and we have money to burn. If he sucks he is gone with no commitment. If he blows up we look smart and either resign him or he leaves making more money and Luck looks more attractive to other FA WRs.

[FatDT]

Funchess is still not anywhere near Alshon's level when he's healthy, so that comparison is silly.

I'm fine with the signing though. See what desire he has to show off his skills to earn another contract. We aren't committed to him long term if he doesn't work out.

Did we need to pay $13 million to find that out? Who was Ballard bidding against?

[smitty46953]

If he blows up we look smart and either resign him or he leaves making more money and Luck looks more attractive to other FA WRs.

Not to mention a good comp pick :cool:

[Maniac]

Did we need to pay $13 million to find that out? Who was Ballard bidding against?

Someone else said it was $10 million.

Someone described Ballard and his staff as the avengers of scouting. I'll trust them to see what he can bring to the team.

[FatDT]

Someone else said it was $10 million.

Someone described Ballard and his staff as the avengers of scouting. I'll trust them to see what he can bring to the team.

He may play well, I hope he does. But he hasn’t done anything to deserve a shot at making $13 million in one season.

[rm1369]

How about my last question, Mr. Ebron’s Signing is “Meh?”

Ok, ok you got me. I said Ebron was a meh signing. Of course the context is shown where I clarified that the Ebron signing itself was fine but I had issues with Ballard’s overall approach. But regardless you “got” me - I wasn’t sufficiently giddy about the Ebron signing. I’m sure if I look at all of your posts I won’t find an instance of you being more wrong than not being sufficiently happy, correct?

It’s funny you didn’t highlight my comments on the Grant signing. The one that is most applicable to this signing considering it’s the same position. And the exact same hole left by Ballard’s lack of a acquiring a long term solution last year. And one that severely hurt the team in the playoffs.

Understood about Ballard, that’s why I referenced the Hankins contract. That makes sense for a rebuilding team. A one year prove it deal to me does not. I see few scenarios where Grant is on the roster after this year. If he doesn’t excel he’s obviously not resigned. If he does excel he is going to want to cash in and I don’t see the Colts being the highest bidder. Most likely what happens is he is a serviceable player that doesn’t break out but fits a role. And that mirrors this year where he obviously wants a bigger longer term deal than the Colts are willing to commit to him. I don’t see that changing.

I just see this as likely a lose lose scenario for the Colts. I will be extremely surprised if Grant plays at an exact level where both he and the Colts agree on his value next year. The vast majority of one year signings I can think of are always just that - one year signings. And that’s regardless of player performance. I’d have rather they over paid him to buy a couple team option years. And if they tried and he wasn’t open to it then that tells me doesn’t see a future with the team anyway. He’s a one year roster body. He knows it and so do the Colts. No real risk for the Colts, but I don’t really see much reward either. I’ll happily admit I’m wrong if he breaks out and the Colts resign him.

I’m not upset about the signing, I just see it as an extension of the long slow roster building Ballard is planning. Grant is a body to hold a spot for an eventual draft pick. That’s all.

Swap Funches name for Grant’s and I stand by my comments.

As to your question I apparently didn’t address - I’m not complaining about there physical make up. I’d agree that physically Funches fits what I’d prefer opposite TY much more than Grant did. But he was still an underwhelming receiver his previous seasons. And yes I get that your comparison to Ebron is likely related to that. But that’s not my issue. I’ll use the Ebron signing to highlight my issue. Let’s pretend that Ebron signed the one year contract you are perfectly happy with and had the same year he had. Seeing the money being thrown around in free agency are you 100% confident that Ballard would have paid what was necessary to keep Ebron? Would you and Ballard be confident in making Ebron one of the highest, if not the highest, paid TE in the league? After one great season in a contract year following being labeled a bust? I don’t see it for you or for Chaka. I’d bet you both would pass. Hell I probably would too. That’s the issue and that’s why I have an issue with this contract. I’m not getting into Funches abilities as much as I’m saying there is very very little room for him to be the long term solution in Indy. If he’s Grant, he’s gone. If he’s Ebron, he’s gone. That’s the issue. Whether he’s 6’10” and Grant was 5’2” it’s irrelevant to my issue.

[Maniac]

He may play well, I hope he does. But he hasn’t done anything to deserve a shot at making $13 million in one season.

Well he's getting the chance, so let's see what he does with it.

[omahacolt]

He may play well, I hope he does. But he hasn’t done anything to deserve a shot at making $13 million in one season.

I had a feeling we would see some bloated contracts. But it isn’t terrible.

[Dewey 5]

He may play well, I hope he does. But he hasn’t done anything to deserve a shot at making $13 million in one season.

i agree but it's $10 million $13 million max.

[Spike]

Grant in 2017 With WAS: 45 catches, 573 yards, 4 TD

Funchess in 2018 with CAR: 44 catches, 549 yards, 4 TD

:eek:

Luck is better than Cam, I believe his numbers will be better with him. If not, fuck it, it's only one year.

[Dewey 5]

Lusk is better than Cam, I believe his numbers will be better with him. If not, fuck it, it's only one year.

Colin Cowherd
‏
Verified account

@ColinCowherd
3h3 hours ago
More
Colts offense got better. Devin Funchess w Andrew Luck is not inconsistent Devin Funchess w Cam Newton. Everyone gets that, right? #duh

[Spike]

Colin Cowherd
‏
Verified account

@ColinCowherd
3h3 hours ago
More
Colts offense got better. Devin Funchess w Andrew Luck is not inconsistent Devin Funchess w Cam Newton. Everyone gets that, right? #duh

Cowherd loves Luck. Sometimes, he's a smart dude.

[Dam8610]

http://coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38649

Some people may want to re-read this thread before coming down so hard against this signing...

I enjoyed rereading it, other than remembering how annoying headcase was.

I don’t want to hear anything anymore about how Ballard doesn’t overpay. This is a weird contract. Funchess has not earned the right to potentially $13 million. I hope he does well. But I won’t be surprised if Deon Cain outplays him for WR2 and this looks like a bad signing by the end of the season.

As I said before, this really has the feel of slightly overpaying to reach the rolling average. I feel like he wants to hold a good chunk of this cap space open for second contracts for our own.

[Chromeburn]

I enjoyed rereading it, other than remembering how annoying headcase was.



As I said before, this really has the feel of slightly overpaying to reach the rolling average. I feel like he wants to hold a good chunk of this cap space open for second contracts for our own.

This is who we have coming up next year:

Anthony Castonzo
Ryan Kelly
Kenny Moore
Jabaal Sheard
Jack Doyle
Eric Ebron
Jacoby Brissett
oh and Devin Funchess

We won't resign everyone. Kelly needs a healthy year. We won't keep Doyle and Ebron, I think we draft a TE this year. Jace Sternberger maybe, we met with him. Moore probably, and depends on Castonzo and the draft, but he will probably get another contract.

[Dam8610]

This is who we have coming up next year:

Anthony Castonzo
Ryan Kelly
Kenny Moore
Jabaal Sheard
Jack Doyle
Eric Ebron
Jacoby Brissett
oh and Devin Funchess

We won't resign everyone. Kelly needs a healthy year. We won't keep Doyle and Ebron, I think we draft a TE this year. Jace Sternberger maybe, we met with him. Moore probably, and depends on Castonzo and the draft, but he will probably get another contract.

Castanzo and Kelly will require large contracts. If Ebron repeats, he'll require a large contract. Kenny Moore may need a decent sized contract. They may wish to hold on to Brissett, which would probably cost them a decent chunk of cap space. I could see that group needing $50-60 million AAV to retain depending on who you keep. That's a pretty large chunk of cap. Then who's up after 2020? 2021? 2022? I know Luck comes up in 2021, so does Darius Leonard. Especially if Ballard keeps drafting well, the Colts are going to be facing some difficult decisions in the coming years without a free agency spending spree. This is also Day 1 of teams even being allowed to talk to players outside of their organization. There are a lot of good players left out there, and the Colts could still land some of them.

[Chromeburn]

Castanzo and Kelly will require large contracts. If Ebron repeats, he'll require a large contract. Kenny Moore may need a decent sized contract. They may wish to hold on to Brissett, which would probably cost them a decent chunk of cap space. I could see that group needing $50-60 million AAV to retain depending on who you keep. That's a pretty large chunk of cap. Then who's up after 2020? 2021? 2022? I know Luck comes up in 2021, so does Darius Leonard. Especially if Ballard keeps drafting well, the Colts are going to be facing some difficult decisions in the coming years without a free agency spending spree. This is also Day 1 of teams even being allowed to talk to players outside of their organization. There are a lot of good players left out there, and the Colts could still land some of them.

Factor in a cap that just keeps going up. Is it averaging 10 million a year or close to that?

We will draft replacements for some of these guys. We won't pay two TEs big money.

[VeveJones007]

Funchess is still not anywhere near Alshon's level when he's healthy, so that comparison is silly.

I'm fine with the signing though. See what desire he has to show off his skills to earn another contract. We aren't committed to him long term if he doesn't work out.

The production has been remarkably consistent for 4 straight years. At what point do you change your opinion and say “he is what he produces?” 4 years is enough for me. If you can’t stay on the field, I’m not just going to extrapolate your production from when you actually suit up.

[VeveJones007]

Did we need to pay $13 million to find that out? Who was Ballard bidding against?

What does that matter on a one year deal if it has no impact on other moves?

[rcubed]

Hope it works out. Dude had highest WR drop rate in NFL last year. The very problem we have been trying to get away from.

[falloutboy14]

It's high, but you have to bear in mind that the cap grows 5% a year. A safety just got a $14m a year contract. A few years ago, safeties used to max out at $10m. $10m with incentives is equivalent to $8m from 3 years ago, and that's in the realm for WR2 money. If they have a use for the guy and think he'll perform at a level, I got trust in them.

[Racehorse]

Here's my $.02: SCam Newton regressed last year. That makes me question any low stats of the receivers on that team. Drop rates are subjective. If a QB, like sCam, is not quite accurate, the pass may be considered catchable, but is not actually as catchable as a ball thrown by a better WR. Luck is clearly a better WR. I like this move.

[DrSpaceman]

Living in Carolina and having followed Funchess, he is a decent WR.

Just not sure he is worth $13 million a year. And I fear he is going to be another in a long line of mediocre to failed #2 targets for this time in recent years.

[FatDT]

What does that matter on a one year deal if it has no impact on other moves?

I agree it “doesn’t matter” because we still have tons of cap. But that money could have been spent on an actual good player rather than a slow, unproven WR that drops the ball a lot. If the whole point was not spending A money on B players, which is what we keep hearing is Ballard’s plan, then what the hell is this?

[Coltsalr]

What does that matter on a one year deal if it has no impact on other moves?

I wouldn’t accept the premise that it has “no impact on other moves” if this is the guy that Ballard is checking off the list as the guy to address the WR position.

If the Colts are bypassing WR’s in the draft (not to mention more talented WR’s in free agency) because they’re “set” at WR with Funchess in the fold then there’s a fairly sizable opportunity cost to not addressing the position otherwise.

[sherck]

Living in Carolina and having followed Funchess, he is a decent WR.

Just not sure he is worth $13 million a year. And I fear he is going to be another in a long line of mediocre to failed #2 targets for this time in recent years.
Heh, this parallels my thoughts exactly.

I think WR is one of the most experience base positions on an NFL team after QB. Today's modern offenses with their million and one "check me" and "option" varients requires the WR and QB to be able to both read and react to the defensive situation IN THE SAME WAY for success to happen.

That shared read and react takes time to develop and our parade of veteran "one year wonders" at WR has not been able to stay together long enough for that to happen. Either Luck was young and probably the lacking partner (Andre Johnson) or else the WR was probably at fault (Ryan Grant).

Regardless, perhaps Funchess will break our mold and get on the same page as Luck very quickly but most likely he will put up okay numbers and give younger WRs time to develop into that long term answer.

Gotta spend the cap somewhere. The $10m cap hit puts him as the 19th most compensated WR cap hit for 2019 (so far) just under Larry Fitzgerald and Davante Adams and just above Kenny Stills and Nelson Agholor.

Seems a bit high but honestly, if he had only signed for $8m ($11m possible) which most fans here would be more comfortable with, he would be the 26th highest cap hit for WR which is not much of a drop.

Free agents get paid.

Walk Worthy,

[Maniac]

I wouldn’t accept the premise that it has “no impact on other moves” if this is the guy that Ballard is checking off the list as the guy to address the WR position.

If the Colts are bypassing WR’s in the draft (not to mention more talented WR’s in free agency) because they’re “set” at WR with Funchess in the fold then there’s a fairly sizable opportunity cost to not addressing the position otherwise.

A 1 yr deal doesn't show by any means that they think they are set at WR with Funchess. If they are targeting WR in the draft, I highly doubt signing a UFA to a 1 year deal is going to affect that.

[sherck]

I agree it “doesn’t matter” because we still have tons of cap. But that money could have been spent on an actual good player rather than a slow, unproven WR that drops the ball a lot. If the whole point was not spending A money on B players, which is what we keep hearing is Ballard’s plan, then what the hell is this?
My two cents here is:

Different team
Different offense
Different QB
Different expectations

COULD lead to different results.

I did not say WILL lead to different results. I said could.

The same scouting staff that found Nelson and Leonard, and Smith and Mack and Hines (and Cain) identified Funchess as a free agent to sign. Let that sink in for a moment.

Of course, they also drafted Fountain so perhaps they suck at evaluating WRs...but I would let it play out on the field prior to deciding that you already know the outcome with certaintly, Nostradamus.

Walk Worthy,

[Coltsalr]

A 1 yr deal doesn't show by any means that they think they are set at WR with Funchess. If they are targeting WR in the draft, I highly doubt signing a UFA to a 1 year deal is going to affect that.

I still say that this team could’ve been been better off signing either Tate, Humphries or Crowder and there’s some opportunity cost left on the table by not pursuing a guy with higher upside.

That said, if they do draft AJ Brown then I’ll happily shut up.

[Maniac]

I still say that this team could’ve been been better off signing either Tate, Humphries or Crowder and there’s some opportunity cost left on the table by not pursuing a guy with higher upside.

That said, if they do draft AJ Brown then I’ll happily shut up.

Obviously Ballard, Reich, and their scouting staff wanted him, so let's wait and see why.

[DrSpaceman]

Seems its actually a $10 million dollar deal with $3 million in incentives, per ESPN article. Not sure what those incentives are

Makes it a little better at least

[Pez]

I like this signing, 6'4" is perfect across from Hilton. I think Patullo had a rough start this year and got his squad in order around the drop business.

https://twitter.com/TheStable_Pod/status/1052233087004884993

The dollars are high, but I'm guessing that this might have been the only way to get someone like Funchess to sign a 1 year deal this early in FA.

And I fucking hate his name.

[Brylok]

Interesting. Fun-Fun fits in the locker room. I think he steps up.

"They" meaning the Panthers fans, not Ballard and Reich. Just to clarify

[Chaka]

I absolutely believe Funches wants to prove his worth. That’s kinda my point.

Why wouldn’t he sign a guy to a one year incentive laden contract? He has to spend some money and this allows him to keep all that flexibility for next year. And he can wait on Cain, a rookie, or both.

There is nothing about the signing that says it’s a long term solution. Ballard constantly says he wants to build thru the draft. This fits perfectly with that. Could he be a long term solution? Possibly. But it requires him performing at a level that shows him as viable solution, but not so good that he gets priced out of the Colts range. That’s a pretty narrow window IMO. It’s way more likely that he either doesn’t perform well enough or he performs too well. In which case next year several of you will be asking who can blame Ballard for not giving crazy money to a WR after only one good year when he’s given way to much money by Washington or Oakland or Buffalo or the Jets.

Understood, those are some reasonable points, and I’ll admit that I don’t feel I completely understand this signing. On the one hand, I don’t see it as a “placeholder” type signing as you described it, because (1) Funchess was signed on the first negotiating day, so we obviously targeted him, (2) the dollar amount of the contract is high, and (3) he fills a specific position of need (big bodied outside receiver)

On the other hand, it’s also curious because we haven’t committed to him long term, and we didn’t get any option years, so those items support your argument. The lack of option years is notable in particular and unusual for Ballard except, as I’m sure you’ll point out, for Grant last year (and Slauson if I recall). However, neither of those deals was nearly as high profile as this signing, and both of those players were signed deep in the free agent period when the Colts had much more leverage. This might also be the only one-year deal announced yesterday, so it's unusual in that sense as well.

So I can’t quite figure it out. My best guess is that the Colts are suspicious of free agent wide receivers, having been burned by several over the last few years (Grant, Andre Johnson, Kamar Aiken, etc) and thus feel that it would be better to bring someone in for one year to see if they fit before making a long term commitment. If they do, it will end up costing them a bit more, but if it doesn’t work out they don’t get stuck in a large, long term, unproductive contract. However, this one year strategy wouldn’t be appealing to the uppermost tier of free agents who have the leverage to secure a long term guaranteed deal, but might be attractive to a slightly lesser free agent like Funchess who could have the hope of getting a big time deal next year with a productive 2019.

So, while all of this is just a guess of course, it really doesn’t feel like a placeholder-type signing to me. And I’ll admit that it is a little perplexing. Regardless, I’m still excited about this signing following the relative success of last year’s free agent crop. Funchess is a big-bodied 25 year old receiver who is heading into (rather than out of) his prime years, and Ballard has proven to be a strong talent evaluator – both in the draft and free agency. So I think there’s reasonable grounds to expect Funchess to play well and prove to be an asset to our team.

[Oldcolt]

Unlike past seasons I believe Ballard AND Reich/coaching staff made this decision together and already know exactly how they want to use Funchess. Time will tell of course, but given the track record of this administration I believe that they have a plan and a large receiver like Funchess fits that plan.

I also don't think we overpaid or if we did it was not by much. Didn't Moncrief get almost 10 million with a couple more million in incentives? These wr's make a ton of money now a days.

[Butter]

I also don't think we overpaid or if we did it was not by much. Didn't Moncrief get almost 10 million with a couple more million in incentives? These wr's make a ton of money now a days.

you are correct. 1 yr 9.6 with a 4 million signing bonus.

[VeveJones007]

I still say that this team could’ve been been better off signing either Tate, Humphries or Crowder and there’s some opportunity cost left on the table by not pursuing a guy with higher upside.

That said, if they do draft AJ Brown then I’ll happily shut up.

You're just going by name recognition and aren't considering traits. The Colts didn't sign any of those guys because they were looking for a big, strong WR with a large catch radius who can win on in-cutting routes and back shoulder throws. That's what Ballard and Reich want and that's what Funchess offers them.

[Colt Classic]

I still say that this team could’ve been been better off signing either Tate, Humphries or Crowder and there’s some opportunity cost left on the table by not pursuing a guy with higher upside.

That said, if they do draft AJ Brown then I’ll happily shut up.

I'll take odds on that not happening.

[VeveJones007]

Unlike past seasons I believe Ballard AND Reich/coaching staff made this decision together and already know exactly how they want to use Funchess. Time will tell of course, but given the track record of this administration I believe that they have a plan and a large receiver like Funchess fits that plan.

I also don't think we overpaid or if we did it was not by much. Didn't Moncrief get almost 10 million with a couple more million in incentives? These wr's make a ton of money now a days.

If people had watched more of Reich's offenses with the Chargers and Eagles, they would see how badly he wants some bigger receivers.

We already saw how quickly he wants to get the ball out of his QBs hands last year. What happens when teams press your smaller WRs like the Jags and Chiefs did effectively late last year? They shut down your offense. With a guy like Funchess, you give yourself a better opportunity to beat those coverages.

[Coltsalr]

You're just going by name recognition and aren't considering traits. The Colts didn't sign any of those guys because they were looking for a big, strong WR with a large catch radius who can win on in-cutting routes and back shoulder throws. That's what Ballard and Reich want and that's what Funchess offers them.

Actually, particularly with Humphries, I thought that his quick twitch ability to get open quickly would fit well with Reich’s hope or quick release passes.

It’d be nice if Funchess could do what you’re saying, but I’m skeptical to say the least.

[Chromeburn]

I like this signing, 6'4" is perfect across from Hilton. I think Patullo had a rough start this year and got his squad in order around the drop business.

https://twitter.com/TheStable_Pod/status/1052233087004884993

The dollars are high, but I'm guessing that this might have been the only way to get someone like Funchess to sign a 1 year deal this early in FA.

And I fucking hate his name.

That damn video makes me sick.

The money is high, but i agree, was probably the only way he would take the deal.

Just to prepare everyone, Funchess drops the ball too. He isn’t known for his hands.

[FatDT]

The money is high, but i agree, was probably the only way he would take the deal.

I don't understand why someone like Funchess would have any leverage.

It's not a big deal in the grand scheme as long as signings like this don't become a habit. It seems like a bad contract to me. If he sucks, or even if he's OK but not great, then we just paid $10M+ for yet another disappointing/trash WR2. If he plays well, then Ballard has put himself in a bad position to re-sign him.

[Chromeburn]

I don't understand why someone like Funchess would have any leverage.

It's not a big deal in the grand scheme as long as signings like this don't become a habit. It seems like a bad contract to me. If he sucks, or even if he's OK but not great, then we just paid $10M+ for yet another disappointing/trash WR2. If he plays well, then Ballard has put himself in a bad position to re-sign him.

He doesn’t have any leverage, and it is a bad contract. I would say he is worth half that. He is a stopgap till our own draft picks develop. I bet they draft a big WR in the draft now. He could probably get a multi year deal somewhere else for less money if he waited. He should put up better numbers fitting a niche in our offense for certain routes. Unless he absolutely dominates, I doubt we have any intention of resigning him.

We aren’t going to spend much money again. We tried for Amos and Smith and got outbid again. So 10 million is nothing this year.

[FatDT]

We aren’t going to spend much money again. We tried for Amos and Smith and got outbid again. So 10 million is nothing this year.

I agree it is nothing. It just seems really inconsistent with Ballard's approach. I don't see much upside. The floor is a D+/C- and the ceiling is maybe a B- or B.

If Desir goes to another team for a "reasonable" overpay this move will look that much dumber.

[rcubed]

I agree it is nothing. It just seems really inconsistent with Ballard's approach. I don't see much upside. The floor is a D+/C- and the ceiling is maybe a B- or B.

If Desir goes to another team for a "reasonable" overpay this move will look that much dumber.
how does one affect the other?

[Chaka]

He doesn’t have any leverage, and it is a bad contract. I would say he is worth half that. He is a stopgap till our own draft picks develop. I bet they draft a big WR in the draft now. He could probably get a multi year deal somewhere else for less money if he waited. He should put up better numbers fitting a niche in our offense for certain routes. Unless he absolutely dominates, I doubt we have any intention of resigning him.

We aren’t going to spend much money again. We tried for Amos and Smith and got outbid again. So 10 million is nothing this year.

He reached an agreement on the first day, so it's fair to say he was probably overpaid. That said, the truth is that you have no idea how much leverage he had in these negotiations. First, you don't know what other teams might have been pursuing him. Second, he agreed to sign a one-year deal on the first day, so he'll need to be paid for that. Third, he's 25 years old, has elite size, and is a former 2nd round pick who started for a playoff team - most of the other free agent WRs are much older and on the downside of their careers. He's not perfect, but he's got value.

[VeveJones007]

Actually, particularly with Humphries, I thought that his quick twitch ability to get open quickly would fit well with Reich’s hope or quick release passes.

It’d be nice if Funchess could do what you’re saying, but I’m skeptical to say the least.

Based on what?

[Coltsalr]

Based on what?

That I’m skeptical that Funchess’ numbers will elevate? The fact that he’s never done it before.

[Oldcolt]

I totally understand why people would be skeptical. My optimism is not based on Funchess himself. Yes he has great physical attributes. He hasn't turned himself into a player to match those attributes so far. My faith is not in him but in Reich and the coaching staff. They seem to be able to put players in position to due whatever it is that that particular player is best at. They also show patience in working things out. Remember the offensive play calling the first part of last year. It evolved as the team began to come together. Even though they were losing, no panic. I really believe this is a damn good coaching staff and that fuels my optimism about this signing.

[VeveJones007]

I totally understand why people would be skeptical. My optimism is not based on Funchess himself. Yes he has great physical attributes. He hasn't turned himself into a player to match those attributes so far. My faith is not in him but in Reich and the coaching staff. They seem to be able to put players in position to due whatever it is that that particular player is best at. They also show patience in working things out. Remember the offensive play calling the first part of last year. It evolved as the team began to come together. Even though they were losing, no panic. I really believe this is a damn good coaching staff and that fuels my optimism about this signing.

I would put it this way: Funchess has physical abilities that I trust Reich to maximize and use to great effect.

[rm1369]

Understood, those are some reasonable points, and I’ll admit that I don’t feel I completely understand this signing. On the one hand, I don’t see it as a “placeholder” type signing as you described it, because (1) Funchess was signed on the first negotiating day, so we obviously targeted him, (2) the dollar amount of the contract is high, and (3) he fills a specific position of need (big bodied outside receiver)

On the other hand, it’s also curious because we haven’t committed to him long term, and we didn’t get any option years, so those items support your argument. The lack of option years is notable in particular and unusual for Ballard except, as I’m sure you’ll point out, for Grant last year (and Slauson if I recall). However, neither of those deals was nearly as high profile as this signing, and both of those players were signed deep in the free agent period when the Colts had much more leverage. This might also be the only one-year deal announced yesterday, so it's unusual in that sense as well.

So I can’t quite figure it out. My best guess is that the Colts are suspicious of free agent wide receivers, having been burned by several over the last few years (Grant, Andre Johnson, Kamar Aiken, etc) and thus feel that it would be better to bring someone in for one year to see if they fit before making a long term commitment. If they do, it will end up costing them a bit more, but if it doesn’t work out they don’t get stuck in a large, long term, unproductive contract. However, this one year strategy wouldn’t be appealing to the uppermost tier of free agents who have the leverage to secure a long term guaranteed deal, but might be attractive to a slightly lesser free agent like Funchess who could have the hope of getting a big time deal next year with a productive 2019.

So, while all of this is just a guess of course, it really doesn’t feel like a placeholder-type signing to me. And I’ll admit that it is a little perplexing. Regardless, I’m still excited about this signing following the relative success of last year’s free agent crop. Funchess is a big-bodied 25 year old receiver who is heading into (rather than out of) his prime years, and Ballard has proven to be a strong talent evaluator – both in the draft and free agency. So I think there’s reasonable grounds to expect Funchess to play well and prove to be an asset to our team.

If they want to evaluate the fit that’s fine, but they should have required a 2nd year team option. Yes, I get that Funchess may not want that, but if he wouldn’t agree to a 2nd year at $13m that tells me he’s looking to get paid. That’s fine, but it doesn’t bode well for him being retained long term. Yes I admit it’s possible. However seeing the money being thrown around by teams how confident are you that if Ebron was on a one year deal that he would be retained after the season he had? After the things he went thru in Detroit he seems to be appreciate what he has here, but would he turn down being the highest paid TE in the league. It’s certainly possible he’d get that kind of offer. If not highest paid, then certainly top 3. Would Ballard be willing to commit that kind of money to Ebron after one year? I doubt it. The 2nd year on Ebron’s contract is huge right now.

Ballard should have required a 2nd year team option. If they are that high on him then they should have bought the 2nd year with more money this year or a partial gaurentee next year. This is a great deal for Funchess, but is very very likely a one year rental for the Colts.

[FatDT]

how does one affect the other?

Because Funchess has proven nothing and has no roots in the team. Desir proved himself this past year. Overspending on Funchess but letting Desir walk would be a waste of the investment the Colts put into him.

[Oldcolt]

I respectfully disagree. Funchess has not had great success yet. If he gets it here both sides will be motivated to stay put. Ballard will sign him at what the market says his value is, something that cannot reasonably be determined right now. Funchess will sign because A)the Colts will pay him what he is worth and B) He will like being good. If he sucks it is a one year rental.

[Oldcolt]

I agree about Desir. Unless someone way overpays him he should be back with the Colts. If he isn't scratch what I've said about keeping Funchess long term.

[VeveJones007]

Because Funchess has proven nothing and has no roots in the team. Desir proved himself this past year. Overspending on Funchess but letting Desir walk would be a waste of the investment the Colts put into him.

Huh? :confused:

[rcubed]

Because Funchess has proven nothing and has no roots in the team. Desir proved himself this past year. Overspending on Funchess but letting Desir walk would be a waste of the investment the Colts put into him.
I get what you are saying bu twe dont know what happened regarding talks with desir. he is getting older so I can see the team being a bit cautious with a longer term contract. Desir has never had a better opportunity to get a big contract and probably wanted to maximize his most likely obly big contract.

point being, it could be desir driving the desire not to sign until he sees his options. ballard has his number and if desir can get more then all the power to him.

[Luck4Reich]

Not all WRs are successful right away... Reggie Wayne didnt start putting up numbers until his 4th year.. hell I remember a lot of Colts fans were starting to get down on him.

Also Funchess and Wayne's 3rd year numbers were pretty close if I remember correctly stat wise.

[Luck4Reich]

I'm looking forward to see what he can do in Reichs offense with Luck throwing to him.

[Chromeburn]

He reached an agreement on the first day, so it's fair to say he was probably overpaid. That said, the truth is that you have no idea how much leverage he had in these negotiations. First, you don't know what other teams might have been pursuing him. Second, he agreed to sign a one-year deal on the first day, so he'll need to be paid for that. Third, he's 25 years old, has elite size, and is a former 2nd round pick who started for a playoff team - most of the other free agent WRs are much older and on the downside of their careers. He's not perfect, but he's got value.

He's slow, got iffy hands (iffy is a compliment), has trouble separating from CB's in his routes, and his best year was his rookie year. His old team didn't want him, they even deactivated him for their last game despite being healthy. As free agents go, he wasn't rated near the top of any list I can find. Not even in the WR rankings. Did we really need to sign him day one? If you have leverage, you don't sign one year deals. If you have teams competing for your services, you don't sign one year deals. He hasn't lived up to his draft pick. At least Ebron was a top ten pick and has excellent athleticism for his size and position.

If we believed in him why sign him for one year? He is a stop gap.

And he is 24.

[Luck4Reich]

He's slow, got iffy hands (iffy is a compliment), has trouble separating from CB's in his routes, and his best year was his rookie year. His old team didn't want him, they even deactivated him for their last game despite being healthy. As free agents go, he wasn't rated near the top of any list I can find. Not even in the WR rankings. Did we really need to sign him day one? If you have leverage, you don't sign one year deals. If you have teams competing for your services, you don't sign one year deals. He hasn't lived up to his draft pick. At least Ebron was a top ten pick and has excellent athleticism for his size and position.

If we believed in him why sign him for one year? He is a stop gap.

And he is 24.

True he wasnt a top 50 anywhere I saw.

I remain hopeful

[omahacolt]

Obviously Ballard, Reich, and their scouting staff wanted him, so let's wait and see why.

Fuck that

Let’s make predictions and discuss it now. Not next year

[Dam8610]

True he wasnt a top 50 anywhere I saw.

I remain hopeful

Nfl.com had him at 44.

[Luck4Reich]

Nfl.com had him at 44.

I missed that one

[VeveJones007]

Fuck that

Let’s make predictions and discuss it now. Not next year

50 catches, 750 yards, 8 TDs

[Luck4Reich]

50 catches, 750 yards, 8 TDs

2 things...


1. 10 mil doesn't buy much in the NFL
2. I sure hope those numbers dont get him the other 3 mil in incentives.

[Colt Classic]

50 catches, 750 yards, 8 TDs

35 catches, 334 yards, 1 TD

...oh sorry, that's Ryan Grant from last year...make it 4 TD's then.

although 42/715/5 is John Brown from last season at 5 mil...Bills got him.

[Luck4Reich]

35 catches, 334 yards, 1 TD

...oh sorry, that's Ryan Grant from last year...make it 4 TD's then.

If that's all he does someone needs to rip Funchess arms off and beat Ballard to death with them!

[Chaka]

He's slow, got iffy hands (iffy is a compliment), has trouble separating from CB's in his routes, and his best year was his rookie year. His old team didn't want him, they even deactivated him for their last game despite being healthy. As free agents go, he wasn't rated near the top of any list I can find. Not even in the WR rankings. Did we really need to sign him day one? If you have leverage, you don't sign one year deals. If you have teams competing for your services, you don't sign one year deals. He hasn't lived up to his draft pick. At least Ebron was a top ten pick and has excellent athleticism for his size and position.

If we believed in him why sign him for one year? He is a stop gap.

And he is 24.

Thanks, I know he’s currently 24, but he’ll be 25 when the season arrives, which is the most useful way to look at it in my opinion. As far as the rest of your post, my point was that you have no idea what leverage he had. The circumstances suggest he had a decent amount of leverage given the amount they paid for him - unless you believe that Ballard suddenly became a pushover. And you sign a one year deal even if you have other teams in the mix if you get paid enough to do so.

[Chaka]

If they want to evaluate the fit that’s fine, but they should have required a 2nd year team option. Yes, I get that Funchess may not want that, but if he wouldn’t agree to a 2nd year at $13m that tells me he’s looking to get paid. That’s fine, but it doesn’t bode well for him being retained long term. Yes I admit it’s possible. However seeing the money being thrown around by teams how confident are you that if Ebron was on a one year deal that he would be retained after the season he had? After the things he went thru in Detroit he seems to be appreciate what he has here, but would he turn down being the highest paid TE in the league. It’s certainly possible he’d get that kind of offer. If not highest paid, then certainly top 3. Would Ballard be willing to commit that kind of money to Ebron after one year? I doubt it. The 2nd year on Ebron’s contract is huge right now.

Ballard should have required a 2nd year team option. If they are that high on him then they should have bought the 2nd year with more money this year or a partial gaurentee next year. This is a great deal for Funchess, but is very very likely a one year rental for the Colts.

Yep, agreed on the option - I'm surprised there weren't option years attached. That would have made a lot more sense to me. So, while I'm hopeful about this signing, I can't deny that it's puzzling.

As far as your Ebron comparison, I don't think it's really fair. Ballard hasn't really been faced with losing a star player (and yes I'll call Ebron a star - he's high profile, productive and likeable) during his Colts tenure, so we don't know how he'll treat the situation. He's emphasized that he wants to "keep our own" players, and certainly there are less unknowns when you sign one of your own players to an extension rather than bringing in an outside free agent on a big deal. So I think there's reason to think he'd do his best to keep such players around if they are a good fit.

I suppose you could point to Desir, but we don't know what kind of money he was asking for - if it's another Rashaan Melvin situation, it would be hard to fault Ballard in my view.

[VeveJones007]

Yep, agreed on the option - I'm surprised there weren't option years attached. That would have made a lot more sense to me. So, while I'm hopeful about this signing, I can't deny that it's puzzling.

As far as your Ebron comparison, I don't think it's really fair. Ballard hasn't really been faced with losing a star player (and yes I'll call Ebron a star - he's high profile, productive and likeable) during his Colts tenure, so we don't know how he'll treat the situation. He's emphasized that he wants to "keep our own" players, and certainly there are less unknowns when you sign one of your own players to an extension rather than bringing in an outside free agent on a big deal. So I think there's reason to think he'd do his best to keep such players around if they are a good fit.

I suppose you could point to Desir, but we don't know what kind of money he was asking for - if it's another Rashaan Melvin situation, it would be hard to fault Ballard in my view.

Holder said that Funchess had a 2 year deal on the table from another team, but wanted a chance to do well in year 1 and hit the market again after next season. Funchess wasn't going to sign a deal with an option in it.

[rm1369]

Holder said that Funchess had a 2 year deal on the table from another team, but wanted a chance to do well in year 1 and hit the market again after next season. Funchess wasn't going to sign a deal with an option in it.

That tells me Funchess is trying to max out his value. Are you confident if he blows up and Washington, Buffalo, Oakland, etc start throwing money at him that Ballard will pay the necessary premium to keep him after only one year of that production?

[Chaka]

Sure you did. :rolleyes:.

Dude, I hesitate to engage on such a dumb topic, but check out my other posts on free agents and you'll see I refer only to their opening day age. Using their offseason age is pointless and usually only is used to push an agenda - i.e. those who wanted us to sign Antonio Brown or Le'Veon Bell will invariably say they are 30 and 26, when they'll be 31 and 27 on opening day (Bell actually just turned 27 late last month). Tying to cut past all that BS, but thanks for bringing it up.


Nope. If he had leverage he would have gotten a multi-year deal. You have to overpay for 1-year deals. Here is how it went since you need everything spelled out for you.

Ballard: Hi Devin, we want to sign you
Agent: Cool, I want 12 million a year for three years.
Ballard: We were thinking more 8 million for one year
Agent: Uhh for one yeah it would need to be more.
Ballard: Ok, I am reasonable. How about 10 million with incentives.
Agent: 3 million in incentives. Let me talk to my client. (In private to Devin) Colts want to sign you to a one year deal.
Devin: One year?! I want a multi-year deal. What else is out there.
Agent: (crickets) Well... we could try the CFL...
Devin: I'll take it.


Boom negotiation son! We gots ourselves a slow 6'4 receiver with bad hands.

You're joking, right? Is this really how you think these things are negotiated? You have a very simplistic way of looking at things.

[Chromeburn]

Holder said that Funchess had a 2 year deal on the table from another team, but wanted a chance to do well in year 1 and hit the market again after next season. Funchess wasn't going to sign a deal with an option in it.

Wonder who the team and QB was. Probably not much of an option. 1 year with Luck>2 years with average QB

[rm1369]

Yep, agreed on the option - I'm surprised there weren't option years attached. That would have made a lot more sense to me. So, while I'm hopeful about this signing, I can't deny that it's puzzling.

As far as your Ebron comparison, I don't think it's really fair. Ballard hasn't really been faced with losing a star player (and yes I'll call Ebron a star - he's high profile, productive and likeable) during his Colts tenure, so we don't know how he'll treat the situation. He's emphasized that he wants to "keep our own" players, and certainly there are less unknowns when you sign one of your own players to an extension rather than bringing in an outside free agent on a big deal. So I think there's reason to think he'd do his best to keep such players around if they are a good fit.

I suppose you could point to Desir, but we don't know what kind of money he was asking for - if it's another Rashaan Melvin situation, it would be hard to fault Ballard in my view.

I think when it comes time to pay top dollar for players that are proven performers on this roster and were drafted by the Colts he will pay to retain them. I’m not 100% convinced he will pay top dollar to retain a non home grown talent, but that remains to be seen. I am however extremely skeptical that he will pay top dollar to retain a player after only one year of high production. Even if that one years was in a Colts uniform. Does one year of production make someone proven to you? Would you make Ebron the highest paid TE in the league right now? I wouldn’t, but if he was on the market there’s a very real possibility that someone would offer it. Plenty of players have outlier years where everything falls into place. It’s a lot harder to sustain high level play. That 2nd year is huge in making sure the production isn’t a fluke. Personally I expect Ebrons number to drop some this year. If Doyle is back healthy, the WR group is improved, and Hines gets used more in his 2nd year those numbers have to come from some where and Ebrons outlier season is a likely victim.

So as conservative as Ballard is with money I doubt Ballard would have retained Ebron this year if he signed a one year contract and I doubt he re-signs Funchess next year if he has a similar break out. We will see I guess.

[VeveJones007]

That tells me Funchess is trying to max out his value. Are you confident if he blows up and Washington, Buffalo, Oakland, etc start throwing money at him that Ballard will pay the necessary premium to keep him after only one year of that production?

Who knows. I will say that's the glass half empty* view, though. There's also a chance he could enjoy the Colts locker room, winning, playing with Luck, etc., so much that he comes back on a reasonable contract. Or the Colts could tag him. Or the Colts could get a comp pick like the Patriots did with Trent Brown.

There are so many benefits to the one year deal that it's silly to get hung up on there not being an option.

*edit

[Chaka]

I think when it comes time to pay top dollar for players that are proven performers on this roster and were drafted by the Colts he will pay to retain them. I’m not 100% convinced he will pay top dollar to retain a non home grown talent, but that remains to be seen. I am however extremely skeptical that he will pay top dollar to retain a player after only one year of high production. Even if that one years was in a Colts uniform. Does one year of production make someone proven to you? Would you make Ebron the highest paid TE in the league right now? I wouldn’t, but if he was on the market there’s a very real possibility that someone would offer it. Plenty of players have outlier years where everything falls into place. It’s a lot harder to sustain high level play. That 2nd year is huge in making sure the production isn’t a fluke. Personally I expect Ebrons number to drop some this year. If Doyle is back healthy, the WR group is improved, and Hines gets used more in his 2nd year those numbers have to come from some where and Ebrons outlier season is a likely victim.

So as conservative as Ballard is with money I doubt Ballard would have retained Ebron this year if he signed a one year contract and I doubt he re-signs Funchess next year if he has a similar break out. We will see I guess.

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. Now is not the ideal time to negotiate with Ebron on a new contract or extension. I’m just guessing that part of Ballard’s reluctance to sign high priced free agents is his concern that they might not fit (either on the field or culture wise), and that it’s a real gamble to commit to huge dollars to them under those circumstances. These kind of concerns could be put to rest even after a single season in a Colts uniform, so he might feel more comfortable loosening the purse strings a little, though you're certainly correct that questions would remain about the player’s ability to sustain the same level of play. And second year of elite performance would certainly help, so I'm glad we have Ebron under contract for another year and don't have to make a decision on him this year. We won't have the luxury with Funchess.

[VeveJones007]

Wonder who the team and QB was. Probably not much of an option. 1 year with Luck>2 years with average QB

Holder said the total value of the deal was higher, so it was probably something like 2/$18MM from a team like the Bills or Dolphins.

[VeveJones007]

I think when it comes time to pay top dollar for players that are proven performers on this roster and were drafted by the Colts he will pay to retain them. I’m not 100% convinced he will pay top dollar to retain a non home grown talent, but that remains to be seen. I am however extremely skeptical that he will pay top dollar to retain a player after only one year of high production. Even if that one years was in a Colts uniform. Does one year of production make someone proven to you? Would you make Ebron the highest paid TE in the league right now? I wouldn’t, but if he was on the market there’s a very real possibility that someone would offer it. Plenty of players have outlier years where everything falls into place. It’s a lot harder to sustain high level play. That 2nd year is huge in making sure the production isn’t a fluke. Personally I expect Ebrons number to drop some this year. If Doyle is back healthy, the WR group is improved, and Hines gets used more in his 2nd year those numbers have to come from some where and Ebrons outlier season is a likely victim.

So as conservative as Ballard is with money I doubt Ballard would have retained Ebron this year if he signed a one year contract and I doubt he re-signs Funchess next year if he has a similar break out. We will see I guess.

If the market price is too high, then you get a 3rd round comp pick, save the money for true A talent, and find a replacement.

[Chromeburn]

Dude, I hesitate to engage on such a dumb topic, but check out my other posts on free agents and you'll see I refer only to their opening day age. Using their offseason age is pointless and usually only is used to push an agenda - i.e. those who wanted us to sign Antonio Brown or Le'Veon Bell will invariably say they are 30 and 26, when they'll be 31 and 27 on opening day (Bell actually just turned 27 late last month). Tying to cut past all that BS, but thanks for bringing it up.

Uh huh.

You're joking, right? Is this really how you think these things are negotiated? You have a very simplistic way of looking at things.

I think this is literally what they said word for word. This isn't a joke at all.

[Chromeburn]

Holder said the total value of the deal was higher, so it was probably something like 2/$18MM from a team like the Bills or Dolphins.

Tampa Bay? Same division, lost two receivers, know him well. Likely a team with QB issues. Was that from the Athletic?

[Chaka]

Tampa Bay? Same division, lost two receivers, know him well. Likely a team with QB issues. Was that from the Athletic?

Wait a minute...I thought his only options were the Colts or the CFL?

And of course it must have been a team with "QB issues" because otherwise it would further undermine your position.

[VeveJones007]

Tampa Bay? Same division, lost two receivers, know him well. Likely a team with QB issues. Was that from the Athletic?

Yes.

https://theathletic.com/865237/2019/03/12/free-agency-roundup-the-latest-on-the-colts-lack-of-moves/

[VeveJones007]

Uh huh.

I think this is literally what they said word for word. This isn't a joke at all.

Not gonna lie, this was a pretty bad take.

[Chromeburn]

Wait a minute...I thought his only options were the Colts or the CFL?

And of course it must have been a team with "QB issues" because otherwise it would further undermine your position.

Well, lets put on our logic hats for a minute. Which is better: A 2-year deal worth more money, or a 1-year deal worth less money? Take your time.

If the 2-year deal is with an equal or superior quarterback that would be the better deal. Lets say the Saints made the offer. That seems great. However, if it is with a bad team with QB issues, it may end up being the last contract he signs.

[VeveJones007]

Well, lets put on our logic hats for a minute. Which is better: A 2-year deal worth more money, or a 1-year deal worth less money? Take your time.

If the 2-year deal is with an equal or superior quarterback that would be the better deal. Lets say the Saints made the offer. That seems great. However, if it is with a bad team with QB issues, it may end up being the last contract he signs.

Nope, you're not moving the goal posts on this one. You characterized his options as Colts for one year or CFL and doubled-down saying "this isn't a joke at all."

Just say, "I was wrong on this one" and move on. Lacking the humility to admit when you're wrong is a significant character flaw.

[FatDT]

Not gonna lie, this was a pretty bad take.

It was pretty clearly sarcasm.

[Chaka]

It was pretty clearly sarcasm.

Yes, he was being sarcastic, but the underlying premise of what he was saying - that Funchess had no other suitors and that a one year deal means that he had no leverage - is just wrong and naïve.

[Chromeburn]

Nope, you're not moving the goal posts on this one. You characterized his options as Colts for one year or CFL and doubled-down saying "this isn't a joke at all."

Just say, "I was wrong on this one" and move on. Lacking the humility to admit when you're wrong is a significant character flaw.

That was sarcasm, of course it was a joke, who would think that was literally what they said and did. And I admit I am wrong all the time.

But the question was whether Funchess had leverage. If the 2-year contract was superior in money from an equal or superior team, why not take it? You gain leverage from interest and offers. Tyrell Williams has three team interested in him, all pretty good from what I read yesterday and it should result in a decent contract. This doesn't look like Funchess had many options to me and we were the best one. I don't think he had much if any leverage. The 10 million isn't great from our end, but we have so much cap space it really doesn't matter because we aren't going to try and use it this year.

The one thing I did think about was perhaps he gave the 13 with incentives as a gesture of good will. Saying if he does well the Colts will be willing to talk a multi-year deal. But that is pure conjecture.

[rm1369]

If the market price is too high, then you get a 3rd round comp pick, save the money for true A talent, and find a replacement.

My comment that you guys didn’t seem to like is that I see Funchess as a place holder for Cain or a draft pick. Your draft pick argument doesn’t change that. I 100% understand the possible benefits of the one year contract, but I don’t believe Ballard solved the long term WR2 issue with the signing. And I doubt he intended to. That’s what I disagree with. If he had attempted to solve any of the other roster holes with a different signing then I wouldn’t care as much. But it appears he is doing largely what I expected and what he’s said he is going to do - kick the can down the road until he solves it with a draft pick.

I simply don’t like the super conservative approach to team building. I haven’t said it won’t work, I’ve said it’s unnecessarily slow and that I don’t believe you can build a sustained dynasty in the modern NFL that way. Which is what Ballard seems to talk about and what everyone that subscribes to his methods seem to envision. I would much rather the team have a few down years between some higher peaks than I would have the sustained “great” success of the Peyton era Colts. As a fan I’d gladly trade a few 12 win seasons for another title or two. And I firmly believe that was in the teams grasp had they taken a different approach. The Ted Thompson and Rodgers led Packers is another example of that kind of waste IMO.

There are plenty of things that I like about Ballard and I do believe he is building a team for success. But his method is not the only method to do that and I just don’t believe in being as slow and methodical as he is. I see it as wasteful considering the gift he has in Luck and the resources that are available to him.

Now that doesn’t mean I advocate being reckless, which is what everyone who disagrees comes back with.

[FatDT]

Now that doesn’t mean I advocate being reckless, which is what everyone who disagrees comes back with.


I think that is a big part of the problem I see on the internet. Not as much here. There's this idea that the only two options are to either avoid FA like the plague or spend like the Redskins. That doesn't even fit what Ballard has done in FA the two prior years. Ballard has signed some low and mid-level FAs, he doesn't avoid it like many of his supporters pretend. So it's not accurate at all.

I think there are places where Ballard could've been more aggressive. And I don't think this Funchess contract is very good. But when I look at the individuals that are getting paid this year so far I don't really see any players that look like huge misses. There are still some names at DL and DB that could be positive signings.

Basically I think freaking out on either side is dumb, with the hero worship side being a little dumber.

[Racehorse]

Nope, you're not moving the goal posts on this one. You characterized his options as Colts for one year or CFL and doubled-down saying "this isn't a joke at all."

Just say, "I was wrong on this one" and move on. Lacking the humility to admit when you're wrong is a significant character flaw.

**cough** Dam **cough*

[Racehorse]

My comment that you guys didn’t seem to like is that I see Funchess as a place holder for Cain or a draft pick. Your draft pick argument doesn’t change that. I 100% understand the possible benefits of the one year contract, but I don’t believe Ballard solved the long term WR2 issue with the signing. And I doubt he intended to. That’s what I disagree with. If he had attempted to solve any of the other roster holes with a different signing then I wouldn’t care as much. But it appears he is doing largely what I expected and what he’s said he is going to do - kick the can down the road until he solves it with a draft pick.

I simply don’t like the super conservative approach to team building. I haven’t said it won’t work, I’ve said it’s unnecessarily slow and that I don’t believe you can build a sustained dynasty in the modern NFL that way. Which is what Ballard seems to talk about and what everyone that subscribes to his methods seem to envision. I would much rather the team have a few down years between some higher peaks than I would have the sustained “great” success of the Peyton era Colts. As a fan I’d gladly trade a few 12 win seasons for another title or two. And I firmly believe that was in the teams grasp had they taken a different approach. The Ted Thompson and Rodgers led Packers is another example of that kind of waste IMO.

There are plenty of things that I like about Ballard and I do believe he is building a team for success. But his method is not the only method to do that and I just don’t believe in being as slow and methodical as he is. I see it as wasteful considering the gift he has in Luck and the resources that are available to him.

Now that doesn’t mean I advocate being reckless, which is what everyone who disagrees comes back with.
So, what would you propose he do? Please be specific, because we need to know where you draw the line on where reckless starts.

[Racehorse]

I think that is a big part of the problem I see on the internet. Not as much here. There's this idea that the only two options are to either avoid FA like the plague or spend like the Redskins. That doesn't even fit what Ballard has done in FA the two prior years. Ballard has signed some low and mid-level FAs, he doesn't avoid it like many of his supporters pretend. So it's not accurate at all.

I think there are places where Ballard could've been more aggressive. And I don't think this Funchess contract is very good. But when I look at the individuals that are getting paid this year so far I don't really see any players that look like huge misses. There are still some names at DL and DB that could be positive signings.

Basically I think freaking out on either side is dumb, with the hero worship side being a little dumber.

I am a subscriber to the concept of a methodical approach. However, it is not hero worship. It is watching how the teams who sustain success in this era have done it. Look at NE and PITT, who have represented the AFC the most this past decade. SEA, PHI and LA Rams have used a slightly different approach, albeit with a QB on a rookie contract. Maybe NO should have made another splash move to get into the SB as Brees' career comes to a close, but there were no FA referees available. They are all signed by the Pats and franchise tagged when their contracts expire.

[rm1369]

I am a subscriber to the concept of a methodical approach. However, it is not hero worship. It is watching how the teams who sustain success in this era have done it. Look at NE and PITT, who have represented the AFC the most this past decade. SEA, PHI and LA Rams have used a slightly different approach, albeit with a QB on a rookie contract. Maybe NO should have made another splash move to get into the SB as Brees' career comes to a close, but there were no FA referees available. They are all signed by the Pats and franchise tagged when their contracts expire.

NE takes a conservative approach? I don’t see that at all. NE takes risks all the time. Admittedly it’s not always in free agency, but they are far from conservative. Hell, most people would consider Belichick a mediocre drafter. He finds players wherever. And he takes risks doing it. Pitt I’ll give you. It all looks to be crumbling down right now, but they’ve been conservative and had long term success. Why didn’t you mention Thompson’s Packers? They followed the conservative approach and have had an elite QB.

[Oldcolt]

The signing of Desir undercuts the argument that Funchess is only a placeholder. Ballard now has a track record of bringing in people for one year show me contracts and if they produce to pay them I really like our odds, in this environment with these coaches and this qb, of hitting a home run with this guy. Of course it isn't ordained but damn all the pieces are there

[rm1369]

So, what would you propose he do? Please be specific, because we need to know where you draw the line on where reckless starts.

I specifically wouldn’t have signed Funchess to a 1 year $10-13m contract. If I believed in him as much as VeveJones007 does then I would have even paid him a slightly higher salary this year to “buy” a team option next year. Costs a few million this year when the team obviously will have unused space and would give you another year to evaluate him before committing to him long term. If he wouldn’t bite on that I would have taken that as an indication he’s driven strictly by a huge contract and realized I’m not doing that after one good year so I’d have moved on to a different target. Of course I’d be looking for a long term solution and I don’t believe Ballard was. Ballard was looking for a temporary solution for Cain or a draft pick.

As far as the lack of other signings, meh don’t think I’ve complained to much he hasn’t signed any specific person. I’d point to the AB trade and say he was certainly worth those draft picks and that I’d take the risk of his locker room presence. I don’t think I’d have reworked his deal as much as the raiders did (not a requirement for the trade) but he was certainly under paid.

I’m more open to older vets than Ballard has seemed to be. That’s part of the circle that makes it extremely difficult to sign free agents. They have to be young and seen as under valued “diamonds in the rough” or they are stop gaps holding a spot for a rookie. Young w/ known talent are too expensive. Older with no upside left and they won’t be peaking with the team if 3 years. Or they’ll hold back a 6th round rookie from achieving. So, that severely limits the available free agents. But for me, if the team was waiting for a rookie I would have looked at signing a more veteran free agent WR last year and been fine with 2 years of production.

The same goes for several other positions. I don’t think I’ve yelled and screamed at every big name free agent that’s signed elsewhere, but I know damn well there are available players that can help the team. But you and I had the same arguments last year. I see Ballard on the exact plan I said - a 3-4 year rebuild thru the draft. The funny thing is if Ballard had signed Collins to that contract I’d be willing to bet you’d have been all for it.

[Chromeburn]

It is only day two of free agency. Still have a ways to go and then there is the draft as well. I will say, no one is advocating acting like the Jets or Skins. I like Ballard's strategy for the most part, but building through the draft and using FA is not mutually exclusive. You can use both to build a team and he has had some hits in FA.

What I don't want is to go into the season with another glaring deficiency at a position like WR and pass rush last year. Especially when you have the money and means to address it in order to round out your team.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt last year. Everyone thought we were going to be in a rebuild for awhile. Free agents were scared of Luck's health status, but that is not the case this year. Our window is open and we don't have to mortgage the future to improve the team.

I don't want to sacrifice today for an unknown future. Players get hurt and windows close. I don't want them to throw away opportunities now. If we sit on another pile of money anticipating re-signing players in a couple years, is that really building the most competitive team they can this year?

[rm1369]

The signing of Desir undercuts the argument that Funchess is only a placeholder. Ballard now has a track record of bringing in people for one year show me contracts and if they produce to pay them I really like our odds, in this environment with these coaches and this qb, of hitting a home run with this guy. Of course it isn't ordained but damn all the pieces are there

Pretty sure Desir has been on the roster the past two years, but yes he was on a one year contract. I wonder if he demanded the one year contract last year like the reports about Funchess or if that’s all he was offered? Either way, I agree that everything should be in place for Funchess to produce. If he can’t do it in this offense he’s not going to do it. But I highly doubt that he and the Colts will hit the sweet spot where they agree on a long term contract next year. But we’ll see. I hope it happens and I’ll happily eat crow if it does.

[Oldcolt]

It could go either way. My day is better if I believe the odds are in our favor for this working out well. So I'll admit I'm looking for reasons to lean that way. Still, I think the reasons are there.

[rm1369]

I will give him the benefit of the doubt last year. Everyone thought we were going to be in a rebuild for awhile.



I’m not sure I agree with this. Other than the questions about Luck’s health the Colts were in a pretty damn good position for a turn around. Just the addition of Luck changed the way the arrow was pointing for the Colts. Add in getting rid of an ineffective coaching staff, a top 3 draft pick, and boat loads of cap space and the Colts were absolutely setup for big turn around. All assuming Lucks health of course. I have and will continue to argue that if Ballard hadn’t been set on a complete rebuild, the turn around could have been even larger. There was no need to start 1-5 and no need to be so short handed at WR in the playoffs last year. IMO those are both results of Ballard’s long term plans. That’s not to say they should have been Super Bowl favorites of course. And I certainly understand that it can be argued that all the young guys got better by playing more. And I understand that argument. But the point being the Colts were in a pretty damn good position last off season.

[VeveJones007]

My comment that you guys didn’t seem to like is that I see Funchess as a place holder for Cain or a draft pick. Your draft pick argument doesn’t change that. I 100% understand the possible benefits of the one year contract, but I don’t believe Ballard solved the long term WR2 issue with the signing. And I doubt he intended to. That’s what I disagree with. If he had attempted to solve any of the other roster holes with a different signing then I wouldn’t care as much. But it appears he is doing largely what I expected and what he’s said he is going to do - kick the can down the road until he solves it with a draft pick.

I simply don’t like the super conservative approach to team building. I haven’t said it won’t work, I’ve said it’s unnecessarily slow and that I don’t believe you can build a sustained dynasty in the modern NFL that way. Which is what Ballard seems to talk about and what everyone that subscribes to his methods seem to envision. I would much rather the team have a few down years between some higher peaks than I would have the sustained “great” success of the Peyton era Colts. As a fan I’d gladly trade a few 12 win seasons for another title or two. And I firmly believe that was in the teams grasp had they taken a different approach. The Ted Thompson and Rodgers led Packers is another example of that kind of waste IMO.

There are plenty of things that I like about Ballard and I do believe he is building a team for success. But his method is not the only method to do that and I just don’t believe in being as slow and methodical as he is. I see it as wasteful considering the gift he has in Luck and the resources that are available to him.

Now that doesn’t mean I advocate being reckless, which is what everyone who disagrees comes back with.

But a one year deal doesn't negate either direction. I'm arguing for a middle ground--Funchess could be a one year placeholder before a better long-term option is ready in 2020 (e.g. Cain or 2019 draft pick or UFA signing), or he could really thrive and the Colts could re-sign him with their truckload of cap space, or he could be bad and the Colts aren't on the hook past 2019, or he could thrive and the Colts could let him walk for compensation.

You keep arguing for the negative without acknowledging the positives. There's nothing about this deal that prevents a long-term solution at WR2. It just isn't written in stone yet.

[VeveJones007]

That was sarcasm, of course it was a joke, who would think that was literally what they said and did. And I admit I am wrong all the time.

But the question was whether Funchess had leverage. If the 2-year contract was superior in money from an equal or superior team, why not take it? You gain leverage from interest and offers. Tyrell Williams has three team interested in him, all pretty good from what I read yesterday and it should result in a decent contract. This doesn't look like Funchess had many options to me and we were the best one. I don't think he had much if any leverage. The 10 million isn't great from our end, but we have so much cap space it really doesn't matter because we aren't going to try and use it this year.

The one thing I did think about was perhaps he gave the 13 with incentives as a gesture of good will. Saying if he does well the Colts will be willing to talk a multi-year deal. But that is pure conjecture.

Fair enough. Apologies on not picking up the sarcasm.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove with your leverage argument. As long as there are (or at least there is a perception) of multiple bids, a player has leverage. Are you just trying to say that you wish the Colts had gotten a player that more teams were interested in signing?

[VeveJones007]

I am a subscriber to the concept of a methodical approach. However, it is not hero worship. It is watching how the teams who sustain success in this era have done it. Look at NE and PITT, who have represented the AFC the most this past decade. SEA, PHI and LA Rams have used a slightly different approach, albeit with a QB on a rookie contract. Maybe NO should have made another splash move to get into the SB as Brees' career comes to a close, but there were no FA referees available. They are all signed by the Pats and franchise tagged when their contracts expire.

The key for me is acknowledging that there are many different approaches to team building and each can lead to success. Ballard has been very clear about what he wants to do: draft and development. If they do those two things well, they'll be successful. Nothing that happened this week deterred from that reality.

If I were running the show, I would have been more aggressive in free agency. But I'm not freaking out about it because I understand that Ballard's approach can work. It just puts more pressure on hitting in the draft.

[rm1369]

But a one year deal doesn't negate either direction. I'm arguing for a middle ground--Funchess could be a one year placeholder before a better long-term option is ready in 2020 (e.g. Cain or 2019 draft pick or UFA signing), or he could really thrive and the Colts could re-sign him with their truckload of cap space, or he could be bad and the Colts aren't on the hook past 2019, or he could thrive and the Colts could let him walk for compensation.

You keep arguing for the negative without acknowledging the positives. There's nothing about this deal that prevents a long-term solution at WR2. It just isn't written in stone yet.

I’ve acknowledged he could be re-signed. I just see it as very unlikely. And I don’t believe Ebron would be a Colt this coming season if he had signed a one year deal. Although the fact he signed a two year deal to begin with makes me see it as more possible. Funchess rejecting a 2nd year makes it even less likely in my opinion. The deal makes a lot of sense for Funchess. It makes little sense for the Colts. Signing him to a 2 year $26m contract w/ the second year being a team option makes a lot more since to me than his current one year contract. Does he deserve it? Absolutely not, but it’s essentially two one year contracts just a little higher than he’s making now. For Funchess he gets the $3m incentives to give the team the option for next year. He’s done nothing that should make him think he’s worth more than $13m a year. And for the Colts they gaurentee that if he performs they retain him. If he doesn’t perform than it costs you an extra $3m this year that you aren’t going to spend anyway. If Funchess would say no to that then there is very little chance the Colts will be able to retain him anyway. He wants to get paid. The current contract says to me one of the two parties doesn’t see the other working out. But we’ll see.

[VeveJones007]

I’ve acknowledged he could be re-signed. I just see it as very unlikely. And I don’t believe Ebron would be a Colt this coming season if he had signed a one year deal. Although the fact he signed a two year deal to begin with makes me see it as more possible. Funchess rejecting a 2nd year makes it even less likely in my opinion. The deal makes a lot of sense for Funchess. It makes little sense for the Colts. Signing him to a 2 year $26m contract w/ the second year being a team option makes a lot more since to me than his current one year contract. Does he deserve it? Absolutely not, but it’s essentially two one year contracts just a little higher than he’s making now. For Funchess he gets the $3m incentives to give the team the option for next year. He’s done nothing that should make him think he’s worth more than $13m a year. And for the Colts they gaurentee that if he performs they retain him. If he doesn’t perform than it costs you an extra $3m this year that you aren’t going to spend anyway. If Funchess would say no to that then there is very little chance the Colts will be able to retain him anyway. He wants to get paid. The current contract says to me one of the two parties doesn’t see the other working out. But we’ll see.

I just think you're getting too hung up on it. Franchise tag for WRs is $16MM, so he's looking at 2/$26-29MM if the Colts decide to go that route. This route gives both parties flexibility to make those decisions next year depending on how 2019 goes.

[Chromeburn]

Fair enough. Apologies on not picking up the sarcasm.

No big deal, I was actually going to delete the post since it really didn't add anything, but whatever.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove with your leverage argument. As long as there are (or at least there is a perception) of multiple bids, a player has leverage. Are you just trying to say that you wish the Colts had gotten a player that more teams were interested in signing?

I'm not really trying to prove some greater point. If he had leverage doesn't really change what the deal is or who he is. FatDT raised the question of the strategy behind the deal and whether Funcheese had any leverage since the contract seemed high for a one year. I don't think guys that sign one year deals have a lot of ground to stand on. Another offer just in of itself doesn't give someone leverage. It depends who it is from, an offer from the Saints is very different than an offer from the Cardinals. If it was a better offer for 2 years and more money, why didn't he take it?

As for the deal and him, I'm indifferent about it. I'll see how he does, maybe it works out which would be great. But I think Ebron had a little more going for him. Funchess has a lower catch percentage than Ebron and is not a great athlete for the position like Ebron. I remember Michigan fans complaining about him saying he has no hands or heart. He has done little to aleviate those criticisms. Is Funchess a better signing than Tyrell Williams who is faster at the same height? Who also has familiarity with our system and offensive coaches?

Finally, it is a one year deal. Does this really fix the WR 2 position? Is it a stop gap or a prove it deal? Is it a real attempt to shore up the WR core? Why no second year option if we are serious about him? It kind of feels half-hearted to me. It feels like when the jags signed Moncrief last year. We will have to see how the rest of FA and the draft goes.

[JAFF]

Finally, it is a one year deal. Does this really fix the WR 2 position? Is it a stop gap or a prove it deal? Is it a real attempt to shore up the WR core? Why no second year option if we are serious about him? It kind of feels half-hearted to me. It feels like when the jags signed Moncrief last year. We will have to see how the rest of FA and the draft goes.

It's a stop gap, unless he shows something else. It puts a hot flame under Cains butt to get on the field and play well. If Ballards right, he's a genius. If he's wrong, it's beer nuts and they go fishing next FA session.

[VeveJones007]

No big deal, I was actually going to delete the post since it really didn't add anything, but whatever.



I'm not really trying to prove some greater point. If he had leverage doesn't really change what the deal is or who he is. FatDT raised the question of the strategy behind the deal and whether Funcheese had any leverage since the contract seemed high for a one year. I don't think guys that sign one year deals have a lot of ground to stand on. Another offer just in of itself doesn't give someone leverage. It depends who it is from, an offer from the Saints is very different than an offer from the Cardinals. If it was a better offer for 2 years and more money, why didn't he take it?

As for the deal and him, I'm indifferent about it. I'll see how he does, maybe it works out which would be great. But I think Ebron had a little more going for him. Funchess has a lower catch percentage than Ebron and is not a great athlete for the position like Ebron. I remember Michigan fans complaining about him saying he has no hands or heart. He has done little to aleviate those criticisms. Is Funchess a better signing than Tyrell Williams who is faster at the same height? Who also has familiarity with our system and offensive coaches?

Finally, it is a one year deal. Does this really fix the WR 2 position? Is it a stop gap or a prove it deal? Is it a real attempt to shore up the WR core? Why no second year option if we are serious about him? It kind of feels half-hearted to me. It feels like when the jags signed Moncrief last year. We will have to see how the rest of FA and the draft goes.

Yes. Tyrell Williams is just a deep threat who happens to be 6'4". He doesn't offer the Colts what Funchess does: a target who can beat the jam on RPOs and regular slants, as well as back shoulder passes vs man coverage. In short, Tyrell Williams is redundant to Hilton, whereas Funchess gives them something they didn't have.

[VeveJones007]

It's a stop gap, unless he shows something else. It puts a hot flame under Cains butt to get on the field and play well. If Ballards right, he's a genius. If he's wrong, it's beer nuts and they go fishing next FA session.

Or Ballard could be wrong and Deon Cain wins the job and provides great value at WR2. Or the same thing occurs with a rookie next year.

[Racehorse]

NE takes a conservative approach? I don’t see that at all. NE takes risks all the time.Not on top dollar FA players.


Why didn’t you mention Thompson’s Packers? They followed the conservative approach and have had an elite QB.

I mentioned the teams who made the SB most recently

[Puck]

Holder said that Funchess had a 2 year deal on the table from another team, but wanted a chance to do well in year 1 and hit the market again after next season. Funchess wasn't going to sign a deal with an option in it.

Where did you read that from Holder? I cant find it

[VeveJones007]

Yes.

https://theathletic.com/865237/2019/03/12/free-agency-roundup-the-latest-on-the-colts-lack-of-moves/

Where did you read that from Holder? I cant find it

See the link above.

[rm1369]

Not on top dollar FA players.

Stephen Gilmore would probably disagree with that. Regardless, NE finds and brings in talent. I wouldn’t be surprised at any roster move they make. They take plenty of risks on guys. They are not what I’d consider conservative.

I mentioned the teams who made the SB most recently

I understand, but that’s kinda my point. With a top two QB in place for a long time GB should have had more success. They used an approach very similar to Ballard’s. From the list of top teams you mentioned only Pitt fits your argument IMO. And GB is the next closest. A team that I believe has consistently under achieved while using the ultra conservative approach.

[Chromeburn]

See the link above.

How do you like the athletic? I was thinking of getting a subscription.

[VeveJones007]

How do you like the athletic? I was thinking of getting a subscription.

Love it and it’s absolutely worth the fee, IMO. Holder’s articles got better because his deadlines are looser than they were at the Indy Star. And they have good scale now with beat writers around the country to have good content regardless of the team or sport.

[rm1369]

I just think you're getting too hung up on it. Franchise tag for WRs is $16MM, so he's looking at 2/$26-29MM if the Colts decide to go that route. This route gives both parties flexibility to make those decisions next year depending on how 2019 goes.

Franchise tag for WR is $17m for 2019, but sure I guess they can franchise tag him next year. I seriously doubt it happens, but I guess we’ll see.

[Pez]

The signing of Desir undercuts the argument that Funchess is only a placeholder. Ballard now has a track record of bringing in people for one year show me contracts and if they produce to pay them I really like our odds, in this environment with these coaches and this qb, of hitting a home run with this guy. Of course it isn't ordained but damn all the pieces are thereWhat I like about it is that funchess being a placeholder vs a long term solution is, to a large degree, up to Funchess. I think the optics surrounding Ballard's decisions send that message pretty clearly.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Racehorse]

Stephen Gilmore would probably disagree with that. Regardless, NE finds and brings in talent. I wouldn’t be surprised at any roster move they make. They take plenty of risks on guys. They are not what I’d consider conservative.



I understand, but that’s kinda my point. With a top two QB in place for a long time GB should have had more success. They used an approach very similar to Ballard’s. From the list of top teams you mentioned only Pitt fits your argument IMO. And GB is the next closest. A team that I believe has consistently under achieved while using the ultra conservative approach.

Gilmore is one guy. NE almost never wins the off-season. They almost never sign players on Day 1 of free agency. That was my point. GB has struggled because of McCarthy as HC and IIRC, they have had cap issues that have made them cut productive players. More of an apples/oranges thing to me.

Also, you mentioned that you think I would be all over the idea of Collins at the contract WASH gave him. NO, I wouldn't. I wanted to get him, but he is overpaid. We have young guys who we will need to pay in the very near future. Only way I would have accepted those dollars is if most of it were front-loaded to pay out while we have cap room, because when this rookie class is up for contract, we will have fewer cap dollars to spend.

[rm1369]

Gilmore is one guy. NE almost never wins the off-season. They almost never sign players on Day 1 of free agency. That was my point. GB has struggled because of McCarthy as HC and IIRC, they have had cap issues that have made them cut productive players. More of an apples/oranges thing to me.

Also, you mentioned that you think I would be all over the idea of Collins at the contract WASH gave him. NO, I wouldn't. I wanted to get him, but he is overpaid. We have young guys who we will need to pay in the very near future. Only way I would have accepted those dollars is if most of it were front-loaded to pay out while we have cap room, because when this rookie class is up for contract, we will have fewer cap dollars to spend.

I’m not interested in “winning the offseason” and I’m sure neither is NE. I’m interested in improving the team. My point with New England is they do whatever it takes to get better. So while I agree with you that NE isn’t typically big spenders in the off season, they have and will do it. But either way they definitely take risks. Right now the available players that meet what I perceive as the Colts criteria is very, very small. Young, talented, cheap (or at least willing to sign for very short term), with no character concerns. Great goals certainly, but not a lot of guys like that to choose from. Except in the draft, which is what Ballard wants anyway.

On GB I’ll admit I’m not an expert, but my understanding has been that GB hasn’t been in cap hell and had to cut players because of it. They’ve been “financially responsible”. My memory is that a huge criticism of Thompson has been that he’s sat on cap space instead of fixing known holes. And when his drafted solutions didn’t pan out the holes remained while the money sat in the bank. I have a couple friends that are Packer fans and that is definitely their perception and criticism of him. I realize that doesn’t make it reality though.

As far as the comment about signing Collins, I apologize I actually thought I was responding to Chaka. Although I do think that most who 100% back every Ballard decision would have backed him pulling the trigger on Collins. Simply because it’s the decision he made. That’s reason enough.

[Luck4Reich]

I like that Ballard isnt overpaying anyone like these other teams. He is also taking care of our own the right way unlike other teams.

Hopefully that made since, haven't had coffee yet.

[VeveJones007]

I like that Ballard isnt overpaying anyone like these other teams. He is also taking care of our own the right way unlike other teams.

Hopefully that made since, haven't had coffee yet.

You know better than to internet without coffee!

[Chaka]

My comment that you guys didn’t seem to like is that I see Funchess as a place holder for Cain or a draft pick. Your draft pick argument doesn’t change that. I 100% understand the possible benefits of the one year contract, but I don’t believe Ballard solved the long term WR2 issue with the signing. And I doubt he intended to. That’s what I disagree with. If he had attempted to solve any of the other roster holes with a different signing then I wouldn’t care as much. But it appears he is doing largely what I expected and what he’s said he is going to do - kick the can down the road until he solves it with a draft pick.

I simply don’t like the super conservative approach to team building. I haven’t said it won’t work, I’ve said it’s unnecessarily slow and that I don’t believe you can build a sustained dynasty in the modern NFL that way. Which is what Ballard seems to talk about and what everyone that subscribes to his methods seem to envision. I would much rather the team have a few down years between some higher peaks than I would have the sustained “great” success of the Peyton era Colts. As a fan I’d gladly trade a few 12 win seasons for another title or two. And I firmly believe that was in the teams grasp had they taken a different approach. The Ted Thompson and Rodgers led Packers is another example of that kind of waste IMO.

There are plenty of things that I like about Ballard and I do believe he is building a team for success. But his method is not the only method to do that and I just don’t believe in being as slow and methodical as he is. I see it as wasteful considering the gift he has in Luck and the resources that are available to him.

Now that doesn’t mean I advocate being reckless, which is what everyone who disagrees comes back with.

I’m not sure that I’d characterize the Colts/Ballard’s approach “super conservative” – just smart and efficient. I realize it may look conservative because we haven’t spent gobs of money on free agents, but I think it’s really more about a employing a cold analytical approach to maximize your resources to gain a competitive advantage.

Everyone is allotted the same amount of money to spend and, under the rules, they have to spend it. So the challenge becomes how to accomplish that in order to gain the maximum outcome. Splashy free agent signings with big signing bonuses and guarantees burn through lots of your available resources (cap space), but have generally not provided a benefit which is equal to the cost. This is usually because when you pay big bucks for one of the top free agents, you’re usually buying high and, as I think OldColt put it yesterday, you’re paying for performance that player provided another team.

The top free agents can rarely maintain their peak performance, whether because they become complacent once they get the big bucks, because they end up not fitting into their new team, or simply because their skills simply decline as they get older. I realize that lots of the top free agents continue to play well even after signing a big contract, but it is exceedingly rare that one of these big contracts is considered a “good deal” when looking back after the fact. Maybe Peyton Manning to the Broncos, perhaps? I don’t know, it's too early in the morning right now. In other words, even when they play well, signing top free agents still isn’t the best use of your money – and in many cases, it is an absolutely horrible waste of your cap space. It’s also a big gamble culture-wise, because you’re bringing in a new player who you don’t know all that well, and who will be paid more (and usually much more) than nearly all of his teammates and thus will naturally be a lightning rod for potential disputes. In short, it’s risky and there’s not a lot of upside.

Signing the lesser known and mid-market free agents offers much more upside, since they can outperform their contracts and won’t carry the baggage of a big contract and expectations. You can sign lots of these guys for the cost of one of the big name free agents, and if they don’t work out, it doesn’t impact you nearly as much. When they do work out, however, they can propel you very far forward.

Ultimately, you still have to spend your cap space, and that will necessitate paying some players a lot of money. Given this fact, ideally you’d prefer to spend the big bucks on players that are most likely to provide a return that is close to the cost, which is why Ballard I think is saving the bulk of the money to pay the Colts own free agents – guys who are known quantities in the Colts system, and who won’t be resented by teammates because they are products of the Colts system and are being rewarded for it. This also reinforces to the younger players that the team will take care it's own.

Right now we are accumulating cap space because were are still in the beginning stages of this plan - we're in a "lull" period where we are employing the strategy of signing lesser known and mid-market free agents, but we don't yet have many of our own players to spend money on. So available cap space is growing dramatically. This will change soon, and when the young players are in a position to sign their second contracts, that's when the cap space will disappear. Since Ballard is shooting for a long term, winning organization - rather than to charge at a single SB appearance - he needs to plan ahead so he can maintain this momentum once it starts rolling. Because we can roll unused cap space forward, it make sense to bank some of our abundant cap space now so it can be used when we need it later - hence, we we've got lots of cap space but we won't use it.

All of this hinges upon talent evaluation. If the Colts don’t draft well, this entire plan – as good as I think it is in theory – will collapse.

[Luck4Reich]

You know better than to internet without coffee!

I really should by now

[VeveJones007]

Two other words I would use, Chaka, are responsible and strategic. I think Ballard is clearly maintaining cap space to front load some extensions in the next two years, making it more likely they can retain as much of their core as possible. For instance, by not spending an extra $40MM on 2019's cap, Ballard could re-invest some of that rollover into extensions for Kelly and Ebron next year.

[Hoopsdoc]

Two other words I would use, Chaka, are responsible and strategic. I think Ballard is clearly maintaining cap space to front load some extensions in the next two years, making it more likely they can retain as much of their core as possible. For instance, by not spending an extra $40MM on 2019's cap, Ballard could re-invest some of that rollover into extensions for Kelly and Ebron next year.

Will Luck be eligible for an extension the year after next? Or is it longer than that?

[VeveJones007]

Will Luck be eligible for an extension the year after next? Or is it longer than that?

I don't think there's any limitations in place after a player reaches his second contract.

[Dam8610]

Will Luck be eligible for an extension the year after next? Or is it longer than that?

Luck and Leonard both come up after the 2021 season.

[rm1369]

Since Ballard is shooting for a long term, winning organization - rather than to charge at a single SB appearance - he needs to plan ahead so he can maintain this momentum once it starts rolling. Because we can roll unused cap space forward, it make sense to bank some of our abundant cap space now so it can be used when we need it later - hence, we we've got lots of cap space but we won't use it.

I used to believe that the best way to a title was to be really good for as long as possible and things would break your way. But I’ve been both a Colts and a Pacers fan for a long time, so I no longer believe that. Trying so hard to maintain success means shorting yourself now for the ability to sustain the success in future years. I now believe that teams that take this approach rarely reach their potential. It’s almost impossible to. You couple getting worse drafts picks with making decisions not to fill this year’s needs because of the ramifications 3 years from now. 3 years is a fucking eternity in sports. Especially one where the average players career isn’t much longer than that. You are rarely able to put the best version of your team on the field because every year you are making concessions to keep the window open.

I’m sure you will point to NE and say they disprove my belief. They’ve been good for forever and have won multiple titles. I disagree. NE does want I advocate, they just do it so damn well (and cheat and are the luckiest SOBs alive) that they don’t suffer the down years. They take risks on players all the damn time. Besides Brady their core changes faster than most teams. They both maximize the players they have and take risks to fill the holes in their roster. They look to win now pretty much every damn year. And every year we are proclaiming them dead because they are going to loose this or that player. And then they go out and find a way to plug the hole. They change their offensive or defensive philosophy to better match the talent they have. They take a risk on a Randy Moss. Or they surprise everyone and uncharacteristicly spend big money on one of the top CBs on the market. Their biggest concern doesn’t seem to be how are we going to keep the window open, it’s how are we going to win it all this year.

Let’s be clear - I fucking hate NE, but the one thing I will grudgingly admit I admire is that they seem to prioritize winning it all now over being really good for a long time. They peak better than any team in the league. They just do it consistently.

So when I hear all this talk about building for the long haul and when I see Ballard make decisions based more on two years from now than on today what I see is sustained goodness. What the Peyton led Colts achieved was not sustained greatness. It was sustained goodness. Every single Colts fan down to the owner of the team knows that they should have won more than one Super Bowl. They were very, very good for a long time but they weren’t great for a long time. I don’t believe Ballard’s team will achieve sustained greatness because it’s nearly fucking impossible in the modern NFL. And the only team that has done it has taken numerous risks on players and are pretty much never conservative. Oh yeah and they are also lucky as fuck and cheat every chance they get.

So unlike you I don’t see in 6 year windows. I see in 2-3 year windows. I don’t see the need for every position to be filled with 25 yr old recent draft picks. I don’t believe in gifting rookies playing time. I believe in competing now and the following year. With a minor concern for 3 yrs from now. I perfectly understand that that means that the team is going to have a down year every now and then but I also recognize how quickly things can turn around to start the new window - especially with an elite QB.

Basically we are going to agree on very little when it comes to the teams direction because I don’t believe in the vision Ballard has and you subscribe to. I don’t doubt at all that Ballard is and will turn the team around from the Grigson / Pagano era. But I don’t believe his methods (as I see them and hear them now) will lead the Luck era Colts to maximize their potential as measured by the measure I use - Championships. I think there is a high probability that his methods will lead to sustained goodness. Which I admit isn’t bad. Just not what I’d prefer as a fan.

And before some jack ass comments about just signing every available FA or trading all your future draft picks to win now, that is obviously not what the hell I’m talking about so save it.

[VeveJones007]

I used to believe that the best way to a title was to be really good for as long as possible and things would break your way. But I’ve been both a Colts and a Pacers fan for a long time, so I no longer believe that. Trying so hard to maintain success means shorting yourself now for the ability to sustain the success in future years. I now believe that teams that take this approach rarely reach their potential. It’s almost impossible to. You couple getting worse drafts picks with making decisions not to fill this year’s needs because of the ramifications 3 years from now. 3 years is a fucking eternity in sports. Especially one where the average players career isn’t much longer than that. You are rarely able to put the best version of your team on the field because every year you are making concessions to keep the window open.

I’m sure you will point to NE and say they disprove my belief. They’ve been good for forever and have won multiple titles. I disagree. NE does want I advocate, they just do it so damn well (and cheat and are the luckiest SOBs alive) that they don’t suffer the down years. They take risks on players all the damn time. Besides Brady their core changes faster than most teams. They both maximize the players they have and take risks to fill the holes in their roster. They look to win now pretty much every damn year. And every year we are proclaiming them dead because they are going to loose this or that player. And then they go out and find a way to plug the hole. They change their offensive or defensive philosophy to better match the talent they have. They take a risk on a Randy Moss. Or they surprise everyone and uncharacteristicly spend big money on one of the top CBs on the market. Their biggest concern doesn’t seem to be how are we going to keep the window open, it’s how are we going to win it all this year.

Let’s be clear - I fucking hate NE, but the one thing I will grudgingly admit I admire is that they seem to prioritize winning it all now over being really good for a long time. They peak better than any team in the league. They just do it consistently.

So when I hear all this talk about building for the long haul and when I see Ballard make decisions based more on two years from now than on today what I see is sustained goodness. What the Peyton led Colts achieved was not sustained greatness. It was sustained goodness. Every single Colts fan down to the owner of the team knows that they should have won more than one Super Bowl. They were very, very good for a long time but they weren’t great for a long time. I don’t believe Ballard’s team will achieve sustained greatness because it’s nearly fucking impossible in the modern NFL. And the only team that has done it has taken numerous risks on players and are pretty much never conservative. Oh yeah and they are also lucky as fuck and cheat every chance they get.

So unlike you I don’t see in 6 year windows. I see in 2-3 year windows. I don’t see the need for every position to be filled with 25 yr old recent draft picks. I don’t believe in gifting rookies playing time. I believe in competing now and the following year. With a minor concern for 3 yrs from now. I perfectly understand that that means that the team is going to have a down year every now and then but I also recognize how quickly things can turn around to start the new window - especially with an elite QB.

Basically we are going to agree on very little when it comes to the teams direction because I don’t believe in the vision Ballard has and you subscribe to. I don’t doubt at all that Ballard is and will turn the team around from the Grigson / Pagano era. But I don’t believe his methods (as I see them and hear them now) will lead the Luck era Colts to maximize their potential as measured by the measure I use - Championships. I think there is a high probability that his methods will lead to sustained goodness. Which I admit isn’t bad. Just not what I’d prefer as a fan.

And before some jack ass comments about just signing every available FA or trading all your future draft picks to win now, that is obviously not what the hell I’m talking about so save it.

What you aren't conceding is that there's so much in common between NE's strategy and Ballard's. NE has a few key pieces, but they primarily focus on the draft and mid to lower tier free agents.

Look, I'm right there with you on championships (plural) being the goal. But you're being stubborn to a fault here.

[JAFF]

I really should by now

Coffee? I don't come here without whiskey. I guess I don't have a high tolerance for dumbshit

[VeveJones007]

Coffee? I don't come here without whiskey. I guess I don't have a high tolerance for dumbshit

This is the smartest thing I've ever heard on a message board.

[Racehorse]

I’m not interested in “winning the offseason” and I’m sure neither is NE. I’m interested in improving the team. My point with New England is they do whatever it takes to get better. So while I agree with you that NE isn’t typically big spenders in the off season, they have and will do it. But either way they definitely take risks. Right now the available players that meet what I perceive as the Colts criteria is very, very small. Young, talented, cheap (or at least willing to sign for very short term), with no character concerns. Great goals certainly, but not a lot of guys like that to choose from. Except in the draft, which is what Ballard wants anyway.

On GB I’ll admit I’m not an expert, but my understanding has been that GB hasn’t been in cap hell and had to cut players because of it. They’ve been “financially responsible”. My memory is that a huge criticism of Thompson has been that he’s sat on cap space instead of fixing known holes. And when his drafted solutions didn’t pan out the holes remained while the money sat in the bank. I have a couple friends that are Packer fans and that is definitely their perception and criticism of him. I realize that doesn’t make it reality though.

As far as the comment about signing Collins, I apologize I actually thought I was responding to Chaka. Although I do think that most who 100% back every Ballard decision would have backed him pulling the trigger on Collins. Simply because it’s the decision he made. That’s reason enough.I don't follow the cheese heads, either, but I thought they had to part with one of their top WRs due to cap issues after they gave ARodgers a semi of money. I could be wrong on that, however.

[rm1369]

What you aren't conceding is that there's so much in common between NE's strategy and Ballard's. NE has a few key pieces, but they primarily focus on the draft and mid to lower tier free agents.

They go heavy on vets. They don’t gift guys playing time. They mostly figure out how to use the Hankins, Andersons, and Simons on their roster. They take risks on guys with character issues. They aren’t playing for a window 2 years from now. I guess they both love draft picks. That’s hardly unique among teams though.

I assume you are referring to their cap management, but I see more differences than similarities. While they are responsible enough to maintain flexibility they do it in a significantly different way. At least a different way than Chaka envisions Ballard operating. Chaka’s whole post that I replied to is about how Ballard is maintaining flexibility to pay the home grown guys proven in the Colts system. I agree with him that that’s Ballard’s plan. But NE is specifically known for not investing heavily in their home grown talent. They are known for getting a players best years and letting someone else pay them in their decline.

So you are right - I won’t concede that Ballard’s approach has a lot in common with NE’s because it doesn’t. I am 100% certain that if Belichick were running the Colts this year he would be focused on winning a super bowl this year. Do you really believe that’s Ballard’s focus? Or is he focused on stacking drafts and maintaining flexibility for 2-3 years from now? We both know the answer to that question.

[Racehorse]

Let’s be clear - I fucking hate NE, but the one thing I will grudgingly admit I admire is that they seem to prioritize winning it all now over being really good for a long time. They peak better than any team in the league. They just do it consistently.


Here's my take on NE, aside from the cheating stuff. They are very good at getting cheaper players to perform. When they max out, they move on and let WAS or DET or someone overpay. When they do, they add a comp pick. This year, I think they have three or four comp picks, most in the league. This allows them to draft more players and keep payroll in check. I think this is kind of what I see Ballard doing. He drafts as many players as possible by trading down. (Granted, we don't have much history to look at) When players walk, we get more picks. Other teams overpay and never get the car out of second gear.

[Chaka]

I used to believe that the best way to a title was to be really good for as long as possible and things would break your way. But I’ve been both a Colts and a Pacers fan for a long time, so I no longer believe that. Trying so hard to maintain success means shorting yourself now for the ability to sustain the success in future years.

I appreciate the thoughtful response (and without resorting to cheapshots and name calling), and you’re right that we just have a fundamental disagreement. As you can probably tell, I fully subscribe to Ballard’s approach (at least my understanding of it as outlined in my prior post). Since the playing field is relatively level given the salary cap, I think you need to always be focused on maximizing your efficiency to get ahead. Greatness is absolutely sustainable over a long period, particularly when you have the most important piece (QB) already in place like we do. So in my view we don’t need to be a constant fire-reload-fire-reload cycle as I think you’re suggesting. I won’t cite to the Patriots either, because they been caught cheating repeatedly and thus I’ve got no confidence that they deserve their success.

Also, the Manning-led Colts were great, not just good – and certainly as assembled, should have won multiple SBs. But for whatever reason – bad coaching, bad playing, or bad luck – they tended to fall apart in the playoffs. They just weren’t the same team in the playoffs, and I put that squarely on the players and coaches. I don’t think adding a free agent or two would have changed that in any meaningful way. But make no mistake, they were a dominant team - Polian had that team in a position to succeed. And, from a fan’s perspective, they were fun to watch, even in those seasons we didn’t win the SB (now, try to convince me that seasons like 2017 were fun – because I recall thinking during the games that I wasn’t enjoying it at all. Even in the few games we won, it just sucked).

I refuse to believe that overpaying outside free agents is any way to succeed. The more you maximize performance for the cap dollars you have, the better you will be – it’s basic and undeniable. And overpaying free agents runs directly contrary to this principle. It should be a last resort, if anything.

As I said in my last post, at bottom it’s really a question of talent evaluation more than anything else. If you draft well and make smart free agent acquisitions (both in terms of money and talent), you will succeed. If you don’t draft well and overspend wildly in free agency, you will fail. The more you act like the former, the more you will succeed, and the more you act like the latter, the worse off you will be.

[rm1369]

Here's my take on NE, aside from the cheating stuff. They are very good at getting cheaper players to perform. When they max out, they move on and let WAS or DET or someone overpay. When they do, they add a comp pick. This year, I think they have three or four comp picks, most in the league. This allows them to draft more players and keep payroll in check. I think this is kind of what I see Ballard doing. He drafts as many players as possible by trading down. (Granted, we don't have much history to look at) When players walk, we get more picks. Other teams overpay and never get the car out of second gear.

I agree to an extent. I think Ballard will be very conscious of opportunities to add comp picks. However I’m not under the impression he will be anywhere near NE in letting players walk. His comments have all been about prioritizing home grown players. I see Ballard as being much more in the Polian mode than the Belichick mode.

[VeveJones007]

They go heavy on vets. They don’t gift guys playing time. They mostly figure out how to use the Hankins, Andersons, and Simons on their roster. They take risks on guys with character issues. They aren’t playing for a window 2 years from now. I guess they both love draft picks. That’s hardly unique among teams though.

I assume you are referring to their cap management, but I see more differences than similarities. While they are responsible enough to maintain flexibility they do it in a significantly different way. At least a different way than Chaka envisions Ballard operating. Chaka’s whole post that I replied to is about how Ballard is maintaining flexibility to pay the home grown guys proven in the Colts system. I agree with him that that’s Ballard’s plan. But NE is specifically known for not investing heavily in their home grown talent. They are known for getting a players best years and letting someone else pay them in their decline.

So you are right - I won’t concede that Ballard’s approach has a lot in common with NE’s because it doesn’t. I am 100% certain that if Belichick were running the Colts this year he would be focused on winning a super bowl this year. Do you really believe that’s Ballard’s focus? Or is he focused on stacking drafts and maintaining flexibility for 2-3 years from now? We both know the answer to that question.

The Patriots prioritize adding guys through the draft and supplementing with mid and low-tier UFAs, as well as finding cheap trades. Yes, the Patriots have signed more seasoned vets in those scenarios, but they are highly emphasizing the draft like Ballard.

On your last notes, I concede that Ballard wasn't prioritizing winning a Super Bowl in 2018 or 2019. He's trying to maximize the team's chances in 2020-2025. I've already said that I would have done it differently, but I acknowledge that his plan can work just fine. He's just looking at things on a longer timeline.

[VeveJones007]

I appreciate the thoughtful response (and without resorting to cheapshots and name calling), and you’re right that we just have a fundamental disagreement. As you can probably tell, I fully subscribe to Ballard’s approach (at least my understanding of it as outlined in my prior post). Since the playing field is relatively level given the salary cap, I think you need to always be focused on maximizing your efficiency to get ahead. Greatness is absolutely sustainable over a long period, particularly when you have the most important piece (QB) already in place like we do. So in my view we don’t need to be a constant fire-reload-fire-reload cycle as I think you’re suggesting. I won’t cite to the Patriots either, because they been caught cheating repeatedly and thus I’ve got no confidence that they deserve their success.

Also, the Manning-led Colts were great, not just good – and certainly as assembled, should have won multiple SBs. But for whatever reason – bad coaching, bad playing, or bad luck – they tended to fall apart in the playoffs. They just weren’t the same team in the playoffs, and I put that squarely on the players and coaches. I don’t think adding a free agent or two would have changed that in any meaningful way. But make no mistake, they were a dominant team - Polian had that team in a position to succeed. And, from a fan’s perspective, they were fun to watch, even in those seasons we didn’t win the SB (now, try to convince me that seasons like 2017 were fun – because I recall thinking during the games that I wasn’t enjoying it at all. Even in the few games we won, it just sucked).

I refuse to believe that overpaying outside free agents is any way to succeed. The more you maximize performance for the cap dollars you have, the better you will be – it’s basic and undeniable. And overpaying free agents runs directly contrary to this principle. It should be a last resort, if anything.

As I said in my last post, at bottom it’s really a question of talent evaluation more than anything else. If you draft well and make smart free agent acquisitions (both in terms of money and talent), you will succeed. If you don’t draft well and overspend wildly in free agency, you will fail. The more you act like the former, the more you will succeed, and the more you act like the latter, the worse off you will be.

I'll also say this: there is a fundamental difference in how Ballard is constructing this roster compared to Polian. Ballard is emphasizing inside-out, particularly on the line of scrimmage.

For sake of comparison, here's the draft capital (1st & 2nd rounders) Polian/Ballard invested in the lines early in their tenures. Note that this includes Polian's first 7 years compared to Ballard's first 2 years:

OL: 0/2 (Nelson, Smith)
DL: 2 (Freeney/Tripplett)/2 (Lewis/Turay, though I expect this to be 4 in six weeks)

Ballard has also made it an emphasis to add former high draft picks to the DL (Sheard-2nd, Hunt-2nd, Ward-2nd).

[YDFL Commish]

Why did I think that this was Devin Funchess thread?

[Luck4Reich]

Why did I think that this was Devin Funchess thread?

Whatever gave you that idea?:cool:

[rm1369]

I refuse to believe that overpaying outside free agents is any way to succeed. The more you maximize performance for the cap dollars you have, the better you will be – it’s basic and undeniable. And overpaying free agents runs directly contrary to this principle. It should be a last resort, if anything.


You seem to focus on over paying free agents. No where have I advocated for over paying free agents in mass.

[Racehorse]

I agree to an extent. I think Ballard will be very conscious of opportunities to add comp picks. However I’m not under the impression he will be anywhere near NE in letting players walk. His comments have all been about prioritizing home grown players. I see Ballard as being much more in the Polian mode than the Belichick mode.

Polian was better at drafting. Belichick was better at manipulating the roster with spare parts and castoffs in free agency. If Ballard can become a hybrid of the two, minus the cheating, we will have our very own dynasty here.

Note: I am not saying that he will, but that I think his goal is to emulate BB's approach to building a roster, but will be a better drafter.

[Chromeburn]

I'll also say this: there is a fundamental difference in how Ballard is constructing this roster compared to Polian. Ballard is emphasizing inside-out, particularly on the line of scrimmage.

For sake of comparison, here's the draft capital (1st & 2nd rounders) Polian/Ballard invested in the lines early in their tenures. Note that this includes Polian's first 7 years compared to Ballard's first 2 years:

OL: 0/2 (Nelson, Smith)
DL: 2 (Freeney/Tripplett)/2 (Lewis/Turay, though I expect this to be 4 in six weeks)

Ballard has also made it an emphasis to add former high draft picks to the DL (Sheard-2nd, Hunt-2nd, Ward-2nd).

When Polian first got here he went out and got FA's like Bratzke and Cota to shore up the talent differential. He only went solely to the draft after they signed their star players to contracts and did not have as much cap room. That strategy eventually failed because they were not drafting as well. Would Polian have sat on a hundred million in this case especially after getting spanked in the playoffs?

[Chaka]

Chaka’s whole post that I replied to is about how Ballard is maintaining flexibility to pay the home grown guys proven in the Colts system. I agree with him that that’s Ballard’s plan. But NE is specifically known for not investing heavily in their home grown talent. They are known for getting a players best years and letting someone else pay them in their decline.

I really don’t think that’s a completely fair representation of my position. The point is to get the most bang for your buck. First and foremost, you draft well. Second, in the free agent market, you identify undervalued players and sign them. Third, when you have to spend lots of money (which you do under the cap rules), accept that you're probably not going to get good value, so spend the money in a way that’s most efficient and likely to provide a solid return – which ideally means signing your own players who are largely known quantities.

I’ll acknowledge that this might not necessarily be the fastest way to immediate improvement (though last year success might argue against this), but it is probably the most rational way and is a sustainable model for long term success. The alternative - filling holes with expensive free agents – is risky, hasn’t proven to successful in the NFL and is not good for the long term success of the organization. Yes, the Patriots haven’t been great drafters and have signed lots of free agents (but, like the Colts, usually not the top tier ones), but they have a…hmmm, let’s say “unique”… coach and QB, and perhaps that had a little to do with it. I might even limit that to “coach” because the Patriots played well even when Brady was out for a season, and every Patriots coordinator who leave seems to fall flat on his face.

Look, unless you are advocating a balls-out approach every season – spending every penny of cap space to sign free agents and trading every developmental prospect to gain an accomplished asset to win NOW without regard to the future– you are compromising to some degree. Where we draw that line is the difference. I look very long term. I lived through the Manning years, as it appears you did as well, and I enjoyed that period very much even if we didn’t win the SB as much as I though we should. It was just fun. I think we can return to those days, and remain hitting on all cylinders for many years, and hopefully wins lots of SBs. But in a sport where a single bad day during the playoffs will end your season, you have to accept that sometimes you won’t win the SB even though you are the better team and should have.

[VeveJones007]

When Polian first got here he went out and got FA's like Bratzke and Cota to shore up the talent differential. He only went solely to the draft after they signed their star players to contracts and did not have as much cap room. That strategy eventually failed because they were not drafting as well. Would Polian have sat on a hundred million in this case especially after getting spanked in the playoffs?

That’s fair context, but my point was specific to the draft. Until Ugoh (bleh), Polian didn’t invest a single pick in the top 2 rounds to the OL. And one of those early 1st/2nd rounders on the DL was the great Larry Triplett. Ballard clearly deviates from Polian’s approach in that regard.

[rm1369]

I’ll acknowledge that this might not necessarily be the fastest way to immediate improvement (though last year success might argue against this), but it is probably the most rational way and is a sustainable model for long term success. The alternative - filling holes with expensive free agents – is risky, hasn’t proven to successful in the NFL and is not good for the long term success of the organization.

With a true franchise QB in place turn arounds don't take long. Its the single most important factor in winning. We've seen that now twice. If the Colts didn't have Luck I'd be much more on board with Ballard's approach.

You keep talking about the alternative to Ballard's approach being high priced free agents, but the one I seem to value more than you and Ballard is veteran free agents. Not every player needs to be in his mid twenties.


Look, unless you are advocating a balls-out approach every season – spending every penny of cap space to sign free agents and trading every developmental prospect to gain an accomplished asset to win NOW without regard to the future– you are compromising to some degree. Where we draw that line is the difference. I look very long term.

I'm not advocating a balls out approach every season and I agree its a matter of degree. My focus would pretty much always be on this year and next. You obviously look much further out. I prefer a higher risk for what I see as a higher reward.

[rm1369]

When Polian first got here he went out and got FA's like Bratzke and Cota to shore up the talent differential. He only went solely to the draft after they signed their star players to contracts and did not have as much cap room. That strategy eventually failed because they were not drafting as well. Would Polian have sat on a hundred million in this case especially after getting spanked in the playoffs?

This is basically the approach that I would have preferred Ballard have taken last year - shore up the talent level with mid tier veteran free agents and let them compete with the young talent you begin adding through the draft. It was also the approach Grigson took that got the team in an AFCCG much, much sooner than anyone thought. And that was while he completely sucked as a talent evaluator. I know several will say "see Grigson did it and it obviously failed", but it wasn't the method that failed, it was Grigson's execution. If you can't evaluate talent you are going to fail no matter which path you take.

[Discflinger]

That’s fair context, but my point was specific to the draft. Until Ugoh (bleh), Polian didn’t invest a single pick in the top 2 rounds to the OL. And one of those early 1st/2nd rounders on the DL was the great Larry Triplett. Ballard clearly deviates from Polian’s approach in that regard.

It's a different game.

[Luck4Reich]

It's a different game.

The game changes but keeping the trenches restocked year after year has been a constant.

Go back as far as you want and a majority of the SB winning teams had solid DLine and Oline. Add an elite QB and you have the recipe to win it all.

[Chromeburn]

That’s fair context, but my point was specific to the draft. Until Ugoh (bleh), Polian didn’t invest a single pick in the top 2 rounds to the OL. And one of those early 1st/2nd rounders on the DL was the great Larry Triplett. Ballard clearly deviates from Polian’s approach in that regard.

I like Ballard’s attention on the lines. I think Polian’s drafted too many skill players early. But it was also a different time in football. You could find oline later in the draft and that’s what teams did. You still can now. Patriots center was a UDFA and he started day one and never gave up the spot. Back then you could develop linemen. But now, all that practice and development time has been cut back substantially. Players have to do it in the off season. It has really hurt oline play around the league. Polian might have a different strategy today.

[Chromeburn]

This is basically the approach that I would have preferred Ballard have taken last year - shore up the talent level with mid tier veteran free agents and let them compete with the young talent you begin adding through the draft. It was also the approach Grigson took that got the team in an AFCCG much, much sooner than anyone thought. And that was while he completely sucked as a talent evaluator. I know several will say "see Grigson did it and it obviously failed", but it wasn't the method that failed, it was Grigson's execution. If you can't evaluate talent you are going to fail no matter which path you take.

Yeah I know. The problem with Grigson was his drafting and terrible moves not the strategy. He built the team in a strange way. He idolized Johnson’s Dallas line and wanted to construct it with low picks. That is harder to do now because of the practice rule changes. He also had a 3-4 defense and didn’t invest in the linebackers. That is the heart of a 3-4, they are your playmakers. You need a talented Mike and a talented rusher, a good Sam is nice also. But he went bargain bin hunting for the positions. You can’t ignore the position group your strategy is centered on. It was maddening.

Then when his crappy drafts started snowballing he kept going back to the FA bin. But he wanted the old vets and got s bunch of 30+ guys. It’s ok to have some Davy vets, but you need to surround them with some speed and youth. Anyway he sucked.

[Racehorse]

My issue with signing top free agents is two-fold. First, they typically get paid more than they're worth because they are highly sought after. Second, you have fewer years left of them playing well. Couple those two, and it usually doesn't pan out. Occasionally, it does, but it is more like 50/50, with a much higher price tag than a draft pick. Granted, draft picks are often 50/50 and need a learning curve, but the ones you hit on could be around much longer than any free agent.

[Racehorse]

On a side note, I do not want the NFL to become a mercenary league like the NBA is now. That game is hard to watch!

[DrSpaceman]

On a side note, I do not want the NFL to become a mercenary league like the NBA is now. That game is hard to watch!

The players run the league in the NBA

In the NFL the owners still have most of the control.

I agree I like the NFL system better.

[Luck4Reich]

On a side note, I do not want the NFL to become a mercenary league like the NBA is now. That game is hard to watch!

Very very true!

I will say I enjoy watching the Pacers continue to win without a star. They beat Paul George and Westbrook and the Thunder last night.

Plus watching Lebron and the Lakers miss the playoffs is pretty damn funny too.

[Brylok]

On a side note, I do not want the NFL to become a mercenary league like the NBA is now. That game is hard to watch!
I pretty much stopped watching after the Pacers lost to the Lakers in the 2000 finals. Seen a handful of games since. Still no championship for the Pacers... almost 19 years now. Never gonna win one.

[Chaka]

With a true franchise QB in place turn arounds don't take long. Its the single most important factor in winning. We've seen that now twice. If the Colts didn't have Luck I'd be much more on board with Ballard's approach..

That's funny, because I'm kind of the opposite (again). While I absolutely agree that a franchise QB is the key piece, without Luck I'd probably be more in favor of looking shorter term because it doesn't seem to me that teams without a franchise QB really have long, dominant periods. So in those circumstances it might make sense to me to try and make a surge, then to allow the team to reload for a season or two (where they might have a high draft pick to get a QB).

You keep talking about the alternative to Ballard's approach being high priced free agents, but the one I seem to value more than you and Ballard is veteran free agents. Not every player needs to be in his mid twenties.

I really don't disagree with this, nor do I think this is necessarily what the Colts are doing. They did bring in Slauson, for example. I just think that its treacherous to start signing skill position players in their late 20's/early 30's, because those skill sets need to be finely tuned and the stats suggest that they'll be on the downside of their career at that point. Plus you'll probably be paying them based upon performance while they were in their mid-to-late 20's.

I'm not advocating a balls out approach every season and I agree its a matter of degree. My focus would pretty much always be on this year and next. You obviously look much further out. I prefer a higher risk for what I see as a higher reward.

When you have a franchise QB you can have a dynasty. That's what I'm looking for.

[Oldcolt]

I'm not sure that there is any one best way to build a football team. To me, the most important thing is that you have A way, that you understand it and that you do not allow yourself to deviate much,if at all. Ballard/Reich (it is a great thing for this organization that they seem to work as one) have a plan and really seem to know where they want to take this team. So far it has worked about as well as I could have hoped for. One year ago everyone, and I mean everyone, thought we had the least talented team in football. Thru 6 games that seemed to hold (although you could see things, like the offensive line, start to jell if you looked beyond our record), then it started to turn. For the first time in years I find myself being comfortable watching someone who apparently knows what the hell they are doing build this team. I'm really enjoying this build.

[rcubed]

Very very true!

I will say I enjoy watching the Pacers continue to win without a star. They beat Paul George and Westbrook and the Thunder last night.

Plus watching Lebron and the Lakers miss the playoffs is pretty damn funny too.
here in LA the local sports media is in pseudo-meltdown mode over the state of the lakers. kinda funny to listen to.

[Chromeburn]

When you have a franchise QB you can have a dynasty. That's what I'm looking for.

Would you consider the Peyton led Colts a dynasty?

[Chromeburn]

here in LA the local sports media is in pseudo-meltdown mode over the state of the lakers. kinda funny to listen to.

I enjoy it. Entitled fanbase. Sick of all the new Rams fans too. I was walking out of a game this year and some asshat tough guy was pissing on a tree in front of everyone. He saw me giving him a dirty look and tried to start a fight with me.

[Oldcolt]

Back to Funchess for a second. I'm very pleased to see that the 'experts' hate the signing. One guy gave it a D- and another had it as the third worst signing in free agency this year. To me this bodes extremely well for us. I remember D's for Nelson and Leonard being the 'worst" pick in the entire draft. Hoping Funchess reads what a crappy signing he was for us and it motivates him. He is huge, runs nice routes and will make people eat crow (they won't) with the way he is used by our staff here. I repeat, he is a great signing because this staff knows exactly what he brings to the table and knows exactly how they are going to use his skill set. It's no guarantee but it's as close as you can get.

[Chaka]

Would you consider the Peyton led Colts a dynasty?

Of course not, we only won a single SB

[Chromeburn]

Of course not, we only won a single SB

Yup, unfortunately. That team should have been a dynasty.

[FatDT]

Here is a Tweet about Funchess' contract.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoelAErickson/status/1106499654080970752


The details of Devin Funchess’ contract:

$3 million base salary
$7 million roster bonus,
guaranteed

Only the roster bonus is guaranteed.

Possible $3 million in incentives for receptions, receiving yards, TDs, Pro Bowl, All-Pro


Seems to be this is a $7M contract that becomes at least a $10M contract if he isn't cut during the season, with the possibility of becoming up to a $13M contract if he hits some or all of his incentives.

I suppose that is a bit better. But realistically, he's not getting cut. So that money is likely to be earned and it is functionally still a $10 mil contract with $3 mil in incentives.

[Oldcolt]

Here is a Tweet about Funchess' contract.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoelAErickson/status/1106499654080970752



Seems to be this is a $7M contract that becomes at least a $10M contract if he isn't cut during the season, with the possibility of becoming up to a $13M contract if he hits some or all of his incentives.

I suppose that is a bit better. But realistically, he's not getting cut. So that money is likely to be earned and it is functionally still a $10 mil contract with $3 mil in incentives.

We can afford that. May be 2-3 million more than we would have liked but with the amount of cap space we have it's not a huge overpay if an overpay at all

[FatDT]

We can afford that. May be 2-3 million more than we would have liked but with the amount of cap space we have it's not a huge overpay if an overpay at all

Yeah. We can afford a lot of things.

[Luck4Reich]

I enjoy it. Entitled fanbase. Sick of all the new Rams fans too. I was walking out of a game this year and some asshat tough guy was pissing on a tree in front of everyone. He saw me giving him a dirty look and tried to start a fight with me.

Hes used to being pissed on so thought pissing on that tree would make him feel better... it didnt so he became pissed off.:cool:

[VeveJones007]

When Polian first got here he went out and got FA's like Bratzke and Cota to shore up the talent differential. He only went solely to the draft after they signed their star players to contracts and did not have as much cap room. That strategy eventually failed because they were not drafting as well. Would Polian have sat on a hundred million in this case especially after getting spanked in the playoffs?

And after Ballard came on board, he signed Sheard, Hankins, and Simon. Neither went crazy in UFA; they just filled some gaps with short-term fixes.

[VeveJones007]

I'm not sure that there is any one best way to build a football team. To me, the most important thing is that you have A way, that you understand it and that you do not allow yourself to deviate much,if at all. Ballard/Reich (it is a great thing for this organization that they seem to work as one) have a plan and really seem to know where they want to take this team. So far it has worked about as well as I could have hoped for. One year ago everyone, and I mean everyone, thought we had the least talented team in football. Thru 6 games that seemed to hold (although you could see things, like the offensive line, start to jell if you looked beyond our record), then it started to turn. For the first time in years I find myself being comfortable watching someone who apparently knows what the hell they are doing build this team. I'm really enjoying this build.

This is all I’m advocating. I’m not going hard against Ballard because his approach can work. And while I would have been more aggressive, I acknowledge that approach is not full proof. If you do either approach well, you’ll succeed.

[VeveJones007]

Back to Funchess for a second. I'm very pleased to see that the 'experts' hate the signing. One guy gave it a D- and another had it as the third worst signing in free agency this year. To me this bodes extremely well for us. I remember D's for Nelson and Leonard being the 'worst" pick in the entire draft. Hoping Funchess reads what a crappy signing he was for us and it motivates him. He is huge, runs nice routes and will make people eat crow (they won't) with the way he is used by our staff here. I repeat, he is a great signing because this staff knows exactly what he brings to the table and knows exactly how they are going to use his skill set. It's no guarantee but it's as close as you can get.

That's the key point. Under Pagano's regime, this wouldn't have been a good signing. With Reich and Ballard on the same page, they know exactly how they are going to magnify his strengths.

[Luck4Reich]

That's the key point. Under Pagano's regime, this wouldn't have been a good signing. With Reich and Ballard on the same page, they know exactly how they are going to magnify his strengths.

It seems there is good communication between head coach and GM now. Obviously before that wasnt the case at all. The staff as a whole seem more in sync.

And Pagano sucks.

[Racehorse]

Would you consider the Peyton led Colts a dynasty?

If not for some bad luck and a cheating franchise, they easily could have been one.

[Luck4Reich]

If not for some bad luck and a cheating franchise, they easily could have been one.

Robert Kraft pays whores.... you know hes paid the refs.
Here's 75k.... call a good game.. thanks!

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

It seems there is good communication between head coach and GM now. Obviously before that wasnt the case at all. The staff as a whole seem more in sync.

And Pagano sucks.



Seems Frank Reich wanted Funchess per Zak Keefer:

https://twitter.com/zkeefer/status/1110565484133376001


I'm putting this lightly, but Frank Reich is **excited** to get Devin Funchess in his offense. When Chris Ballard asked for his interest in the wide receiver during free agency, Reich basically told him, "Go get him."

[VeveJones007]

Seems Frank Reich wanted Funchess per Zak Keefer:

https://twitter.com/zkeefer/status/1110565484133376001

Rapoport had a quick interview with Ballard on his podcast. Ballard said what he's been saying for a while: with every player they bring in, the Colts have a plan to get them to their ceiling.

Reich knows exactly how he's going to use Funchess and the offense will have an easier picking up tough yards against man coverage this year.

[VeveJones007]

https://www.indystar.com/get-access/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indystar.com%2Fstory%2Fs ports%2Fnfl%2Fcolts%2F2019%2F03%2F26%2Ffrank-reich-chris-ballard-justin-houston-devin-funchess-and-colts-2019-expectations%2F3279861002%2F

Suffice to say, Reich loves what Devin Funchess offers his offense.

[Butter]

Break down of routes Funchess ran and Luck threw in 18.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2wjpDuXQAAnezq.png:large
https://twitter.com/SharpFootball/status/1111303321212600320?s=20

[VeveJones007]

Break down of routes Funchess ran and Luck threw in 18.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2wjpDuXQAAnezq.png:large
https://twitter.com/SharpFootball/status/1111303321212600320?s=20

Saw that, but didn’t want to make too much of those rates when we’re talking about sample sizes of 10 or fewer targets.

[Butter]

Saw that, but didn’t want to make too much of those rates when we’re talking about sample sizes of 10 or fewer targets.

I agree, just found it interesting.

[Chromeburn]

Interesting, out routes are some of the toughest throws to make. Good to have a big receiver to throw it too. Anyone know how he is catching over his shoulder?

[Discflinger]

Why would the receiver be throwing the ball?

[Butter]

Why would the receiver be throwing the ball?

Are you simple? It is matching Funchess routes with the routes Luck threw to.

[smitty46953]

Why would the receiver be throwing the ball?

He is multi-talented ? :cool:

[Discflinger]

Interesting, out routes are some of the toughest throws to make. Good to have a big receiver to throw it too. Anyone know how he is catching over his shoulder?

Apparently you both get confused between "to" and "too", as well. Pfffft...idiots.

[Chromeburn]

Apparently you both get confused between "to" and "too", as well. Pfffft...idiots.

Hahaha

[JAFF]

Apparently you both get confused between "to" and "too", as well. Pfffft...idiots.

How long have you been here?

[Luck4Reich]

How long have you been here?

There is a date in the top right corner.:cool:

[JAFF]

There is a date in the top right corner.:cool:

Rhetorical. :rolleyes:

[Luck4Reich]

Rhetorical. :rolleyes:

That's nice. You failed to see I was just being sarcastic again lol

[JAFF]

That's nice. You failed to see I was just being sarcastic again lol

You didn’t use italics :rolleyes:

[Oldcolt]

You didn’t use italics :rolleyes:

Just for my information do italics really mean sarcasm or are you two just shitting on each other?

[Luck4Reich]

Just for my information do italics really mean sarcasm or are you two just shitting on each other?

I dont think anyone is taking it that serious.

Who knows what his italics mean

[Butter]

Italics sometimes are used to signify sarcasm, though /s I think is more common.

[JAFF]

Just for my information do italics really mean sarcasm or are you two just shitting on each other?

I thought the only way you were excepted around here was being a dick so I was just going with the crowd . It was peer pressure that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it

[JAFF]

I'm just going to stop responding to you lol.

If I'm sarcastic against your previous several post more than likely you have figured out I was again on that one right?
And fuck italics. :p

No I never would’ve suspected it. Was that a right amount of sarcasm?

[Luck4Reich]

So it will be interesting to see how Reich uses Funchess. :cool:

[Discflinger]

Ok, Kristine is kind of annoying, but I have more respect for Funch after watching this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6e8EJv9HtQ

[ukcolt]

Seems like he is a very humble down to earth guy. Hope things work out for him here and he gets the Super Bowl trophy he desires.

[Chromeburn]

Ok, Kristine is kind of annoying, but I have more respect for Funch after watching this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6e8EJv9HtQ

Seems like a nice guy. Hope it works out.