Gerald McCoy

[YDFL Commish]

Any interest in Gerald McCoy, who the Bucs are reportedly shopping?

My feeling is, that if we don't come out of the draft with one of the top DT's, I would entertain trading a 5th and Hassan Ridgeway for him.

McCoy is the ideal UT for Eberflus system, I just don't know how much he has left in the tank?

[Chromeburn]

He is definetly not what he used to be. Probably better than Ridgeway though. I do see them double dipping on DT in this draft. A later pick on a Khalen Saunders or Rennel Wren along with s top three pick will likely cover the position.

[Dam8610]

He is definetly not what he used to be. Probably better than Ridgeway though. I do see them double dipping on DT in this draft. A later pick on a Khalen Saunders or Rennel Wren along with s top three pick will likely cover the position.

With the premium this system places on length for DL, I doubt Saunders is a target. Plus I don't think Eberflus wants any DL over 300 pounds, and Saunders main selling point is his athleticism at 320. It's the same reason I doubt Dexter Lawrence is a target, and I think the Colts likely value Tillery higher and Wilkins lower than the general scouting community.

[VeveJones007]

With the premium this system places on length for DL, I doubt Saunders is a target. Plus I don't think Eberflus wants any DL over 300 pounds, and Saunders main selling point is his athleticism at 320. It's the same reason I doubt Dexter Lawrence is a target, and I think the Colts likely value Tillery higher and Wilkins lower than the general scouting community.

I wonder if they have a hard and fast minimum on arm length or if it’s total wingspan.

[JAFF]

I wonder if they have a hard and fast minimum on arm length or if it’s total wingspan.

Can he make plays? I think that is about the only metric worth using

[Dam8610]

Can he make plays? I think that is about the only metric worth using

You use the metrics to determine what natural advantages a given player has that would make making plays easier for them, then you compare that to the tape. More data is better in any predictive analysis exercise.

[YDFL Commish]

You use the metrics to determine what natural advantages a given player has that would make making plays easier for them, then you compare that to the tape. More data is better in any predictive analysis exercise.

I get that, when you're projecting draft prospect who has yet to play against NFL competition.

In McCoy's case, he has already established himself as an NFL player who wins his matchups. So throwing his body type into the equation is a wasted exercise. All that needs to be evaluated is his tape, his health and his desire.

[smitty46953]

Any interest in Gerald McCoy, who the Bucs are reportedly shopping?

My feeling is, that if we don't come out of the draft with one of the top DT's, I would entertain trading a 5th and Hassan Ridgeway for him.

McCoy is the ideal UT for Eberflus system, I just don't know how much he has left in the tank?

McCoy's release would save the Bucs $13 million against the cap this year. If anything wait to see if Bucs release him. I don't see Ballard sending a pick and a player for the 31 year old McCoy who is under contract through 2021;
2019: $13 million
2020: $10 million (+ $2.5 million / Roster Bonus)
2021: $10,432,253 (+ $2.5 million / Roster Bonus)
:cool:

[Coltsalr]

From what I understand, he’s not as good as he was but he’s still got juice left and he’s more Justin Houston than Trent Cole (yes, I’m aware he’s not an edge).

That said, I’d rather just go with Suh, but Ballard might place an emphasis on “fits the culture” and McCoy’s experience in the Tampa 2.

[FatDT]

For a low pick maybe. But if Ballard is at all interested I expect he’d wait for McCoy to be released.

[YDFL Commish]

McCoy's release would save the Bucs $13 million against the cap this year. If anything wait to see if Bucs release him. I don't see Ballard sending a pick and a player for the 31 year old McCoy who is under contract through 2021;
2019: $13 million
2020: $10 million (+ $2.5 million / Roster Bonus)
2021: $10,432,253 (+ $2.5 million / Roster Bonus)
:cool:

Based on that contract, I agree. Wait and see if he's released.

[JAFF]

You use the metrics to determine what natural advantages a given player has that would make making plays easier for them, then you compare that to the tape. More data is better in any predictive analysis exercise.

It is the eye test. Did he make a play? Tackle, sack, pressure?

Don't be a dumb@ss. The player either makes plays or he doesn't

[omahacolt]

You use the metrics to determine what natural advantages a given player has that would make making plays easier for them, then you compare that to the tape. More data is better in any predictive analysis exercise.

Shut up

[omahacolt]

For a low pick maybe. But if Ballard is at all interested I expect he’d wait for McCoy to be released.

Yep. This is the only way it makes sense to kick the tires

[Chromeburn]

With the premium this system places on length for DL, I doubt Saunders is a target. Plus I don't think Eberflus wants any DL over 300 pounds, and Saunders main selling point is his athleticism at 320. It's the same reason I doubt Dexter Lawrence is a target, and I think the Colts likely value Tillery higher and Wilkins lower than the general scouting community.

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him. Players can lose weight and he was very disruptive at the senior bowl. Ballard likes his athletes and senior bowl performers. Also I dismissed a lot of mocks that had us taking Lawrence, but we are currently down a NT and Lawrence isn’t your typical NT plodder. He has a higher RAS score than Tillery and is only a few hundredths behind Q Williams. He might be a three down player, I wonder what he would look like if he lost some weight. It is not often a guy that size, who can move so well, comes along. Tillery and Wren also have high scores, I could see those two getting picked with their length in mind.

[FatDT]

If Dexter Lawrence is the next Haloti Ngata, then yeah let's draft him. If he's the next Snacks Harrison, he'll be valuable but I don't want to spend a 1st on him.

[Dam8610]

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him. Players can lose weight and he was very disruptive at the senior bowl. Ballard likes his athletes and senior bowl performers. Also I dismissed a lot of mocks that had us taking Lawrence, but we are currently down a NT and Lawrence isn’t your typical NT plodder. He has a higher RAS score than Tillery and is only a few hundredths behind Q Williams. He might be a three down player, I wonder what he would look like if he lost some weight. It is not often a guy that size, who can move so well, comes along. Tillery and Wren also have high scores, I could see those two getting picked with their length in mind.

Lawrence got popped for PEDs and would have to lose about 40 pounds to be in line with what the Colts want is a DL. He may have the requisite length, though. Saunders has very short arms as I recall.

[Chromeburn]

If Dexter Lawrence is the next Haloti Ngata, then yeah let's draft him. If he's the next Snacks Harrison, he'll be valuable but I don't want to spend a 1st on him.

I was pretty shocked to see his score. Not many people that size that has that athletiscm.

[JAFF]

Lawrence got popped for PEDs and would have to lose about 40 pounds to be in line with what the Colts want is a DL. He may have the requisite length, though. Saunders has very short arms as I recall.

Short arms? What he can't do push ups? He can't reach his wanker? WTF does it mean to have short arms???

[Puck]

Short arms? What he can't do push ups? He can't reach his wanker? WTF does it mean to have short arms???

Jaff. Seriously. You do understand the difference here right? Maybe I missed the sarcasm and if I did I apologize.

But all of this stuff makes a difference on the NFL level. This is notFriday night HS football

Measurable safe a REAL THING JSYK

[JAFF]

Jaff. Seriously. You do understand the difference here right? Maybe I missed the sarcasm and if I did I apologize.

But all of this stuff makes a difference on the NFL level. This is notFriday night HS football

Measurable safe a REAL THING JSYK

Do you know what a T rex can't do?

1. reach his wallet
2. scratch his nose
3. wipe his bum
4. play Nintendo, apparently he can't hit the buttons and fire at the same time.

Did the guy make plays? Freeney was too short and too light to play DE. Leonard didnt play in a big time conference, taken too high. Manning wasn't the athelete Leaf was.

DID THE GUY MAKE PLAYS?

[Puck]

Do you know what a T rex can't do?

1. reach his wallet
2. scratch his nose
3. wipe his bum
4. play Nintendo, apparently he can't hit the buttons and fire at the same time.

Did the guy make plays? Freeney was too short and too light to play DE. Leonard didnt play in a big time conference, taken too high. Manning wasn't the athelete Leaf was.

DID THE GUY MAKE PLAYS?

Ryan Leaf made plays

[Dam8610]

Short arms? What he can't do push ups? He can't reach his wanker? WTF does it mean to have short arms???

Length is helpful for a DL because it allows them to get their hands on the OL first, which disrupts the OL's technique, which makes it easier to win any rep. Length also can help with establishing leverage, which, again, helps to win any rep. A player with shorter arms will be at a disadvantage in those situations, because OL will be able to lock on to them easier, and breaking free of blocks will be more difficult. If you watch tape of players who have length, examples of these scenarios come up all the time. One of Tillery's sacks against Stanford, for example, happened almost entirely because he was able to lock his right arm on the guard's shoulder, completely knock him off balance and not allow him to establish a block, and that allowed him to walk the guard right back to the QB. Using the eye test to see if someone can make plays is good. Understanding how they made those plays and determining if their skillset is such that it will translate to being able to make similar plays at the next higher level of competition is better.

[JAFF]

Did mathis have really long arms?

[Chaka]

Do you know what a T rex can't do?

1. reach his wallet
2. scratch his nose
3. wipe his bum
4. play Nintendo, apparently he can't hit the buttons and fire at the same time.

Did the guy make plays? Freeney was too short and too light to play DE. Leonard didnt play in a big time conference, taken too high. Manning wasn't the athelete Leaf was.

DID THE GUY MAKE PLAYS?

Lots of guys make plays at the college level, but that doesn't always translate to the pros. I'm pretty sure you know this. The idea is that ideal measurables give the player a better chance at succeeding in the NFL, which increases the chance that using a draft pick on that player will turn out well. Does it always? Of course not, and some people buck the trend and play at outstanding levels despite imperfect measurables. However, all of that is in the future, and right now teams are just trying to lay their bets down on the players most likely to succeed.

[Dam8610]

Did mathis have really long arms?

Yes, he did. 34.5", which is very long for a DL of his height.

[Chromeburn]

Did mathis have really long arms?

Darius Leonard does.

[JAFF]

Same people who said russell wilson and drew brees were too short. That ricky williams was better than the Edge.

Its not just the outside, its whats inside. Mathis had it. Leonard and Luck have it. Pete Metzalaars and Andre Reed had it. Jeff Saturday absolutely had it.

Thats what Ballard is looking for, and its not on a tape measure. Its talent and the character to maximize their opportunity and all that other nonsense is for the gm wannabes

[JAFF]

If you honestly think measurables don't factor in to a team's evaluation of a player, then you must not watch any of the pre-draft process. These players get measured at every stop along the way: Senior Bowl, Shrine Game, Combine, Pro Day, etc. If measurables didn't matter to GMs, why would that happen?



It's a factor that can help a pass rusher for the reasons I mentioned earlier. It's not the end all be all number, nothing is, but it's a factor that can be a positive or negative for a player in the evaluation process.

No I think internet wanna be GMs take themselves too seiously

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

McCoy's release would save the Bucs $13 million against the cap this year. If anything wait to see if Bucs release him. I don't see Ballard sending a pick and a player for the 31 year old McCoy who is under contract through 2021;
2019: $13 million
2020: $10 million (+ $2.5 million / Roster Bonus)
2021: $10,432,253 (+ $2.5 million / Roster Bonus)
:cool:


Reportedly Tampa Bay has now informed McCoy that they will release him.

https://twitter.com/NFLSTROUD/status/1130605004455403520

[Maniac]

Reportedly Tampa Bay has now informed McCoy that they will release him.

https://twitter.com/NFLSTROUD/status/1130605004455403520

Let's see if Ballard goes after him. Supposedly the Browns were also interested.

[apballin]

Field Yates says our d-line coach was an assistant for Bucs in 2014

[TheMugwump]

Ah yes...the thread with the great arm-length debate of 2019. Good times.

And yeah, I hope they find a way to get McCoy to Indy. He would be a nice piece on that line, and with all of the youth there, probably the proverbial 'veteran presence'.

[ukcolt]

I agree this feels like a perfect marriage. We have the cap space to pay him whatever he wants, be it on a 1 or 2 year deal, and he fills a need for a veteran presence on the defensive line. Plus McCoy will not have to learn a new defense. Hopefully this signing happens.

I do then wonder who we might then release when final cut down happens. Could possibly be Grover Stewart.

There are currently 11 guys who saw playing time along the defensive line for the Colts last year plus McCoy. Ballard has mentioned wanting a rotation of 8 guys, might end up being 9 outside possibility of 10. I think Green, Muhammad and Phillips would be the guys struggling the most at this early stage. I would be surprised if there isn't at least one injury during the course of the pre season which will whittle the numbers down a little.

Houston, Sheard, Turay, Lewis, Green, Autry, Hunt, Stewart, McCoy, Ward, Muhammad, Phillips

A nice position to be in though.

[JMichael557]

It seems that if you want McCoy you would cut Hunt. Is that a good trade?

[Chromeburn]

It seems that if you want McCoy you would cut Hunt. Is that a good trade?

Huh, Hunt would be about the last guy you would cut. A guy at the end of the depth chart would go first.

[Chaka]

Colts reportedly interested in McCoy...

https://fox59.com/2019/05/22/colts-have-interest-in-gerald-mccoy/

Holder's a fan:

https://twitter.com/HolderStephen/status/1131202027734863873

[Racehorse]

Colts reportedly interested in McCoy...

https://fox59.com/2019/05/22/colts-have-interest-in-gerald-mccoy/

Holder's a fan:

https://twitter.com/HolderStephen/status/1131202027734863873

For some reason, it says the top link does not work in my region.

[smitty46953]

For some reason, it says the top link does not work in my region.

here ya go; :cool:



INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – Gerald McCoy is available and the Indianapolis Colts will at least kick the tires.
That’s where it stands as McCoy, a six-time Pro Bowl defensive tackle, looks to find a new home after being released this week by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Colts continue their search to upgrade the roster.
A source with knowledge of the situation confirmed the Colts have a level of interest in the 6′ 4″, 300-pound McCoy. They either have had or will have internal discussions regarding whether to actively pursue him.
General Manager Chris Ballard always has emphasized the importance of fielding strong offensive and defensive lines. That was evident in the latter instance in March when the Colts signed Justin Houston, whose 78.5 sacks rank 9th among active players, to a two-year, $23 million contract.
The defensive line currently features a slew of solid players: Houston, Jabaal Sheard, Denico Autry, Margus Hunt, Kemoko Turay, Tyquan Lewis, Jihad Ward and Grover Stewart. Gerri Green was selected in the sixth round of the April draft.
Recently, Ballard imagined a Colts’ pass rush strengthened by a swarm of ends.
“In a perfect world,’’ he said, “you’d put four defensive ends on the field. Absolutely, on rush downs. You want speed that can get off the ball and get after the quarterback.’’
McCoy, 31, isn’t an end. He’s one of the NFL’s more accomplished three-technique tackles, and has been a steady interior pass-rush presence. He had 54.5 sacks in 123 career games, all starts, with the Bucs and generated at least 5 in seven straight seasons. Along with his six Pro Bowl selections, he was selected All-Pro in 2013 when he posted a career-best 9.5 sacks.
McCoy also is considered someone who would bring high character and represent another leader and solid locker room presence.
If there is a sticking point to signing McCoy, it undoubtedly will be his cost.
Veterans generally sign modest one-year contracts at this point of the offseason, but McCoy isn’t a normal veteran free agent. The more teams that show an interest, the higher the cost.
But in that regard, money shouldn’t necessarily be an issue. The Colts have nearly $58 million in cap space, the most in the league.
McCoy’s relocation might be influenced by a team’s readiness to compete for a playoff spot, but he’ll also be swayed by finances. Tampa Bay released him when he refused to take a pay cut from his $13 million salary.

https://fox59.com/2019/05/22/colts-have-interest-in-gerald-mccoy/

[Luck4Reich]

Makes sense.... Do something Chris!!!!!!!:cool:

[Pez]

Sure looks like we should go after this guy. Offer him 2 year $20M with incentives and see if he counters.

I really wanted to see a DT in the draft.

[Colt Classic]

So Chappie said on JMV's show today that the Colts have interest, he'd be best or 2nd best on the D-Line next to Houston, and of course the money's there, yet he doesn't think the Colts will go "that high" on a one year contract. He didn't say a number specifically.

What the hell does it matter what his number is for one year?! Are they afraid of angering one of the "good enough" guys who assume they're starting as of this moment? Even if you go stupid high at 13, 14 mil--what's it matter on a one year deal?! Yes, of course, he has to want to come here, but if they're balking at some number it's settling for an ok lineup when the opportunity is there to improve it. Even if the season crashes and burns--is anyone laying the blame at a one year contract? Maybe if he scores the winning touchdown for the other team in the final game, sure, beyond that? Please.

[Luck4Reich]

So Chappie said on JMV's show today that the Colts have interest, he'd be best or 2nd best on the D-Line next to Houston, and of course the money's there, yet he doesn't think the Colts will go "that high" on a one year contract. He didn't say a number specifically.

What the hell does it matter what his number is for one year?! Are they afraid of angering one of the "good enough" guys who assume they're starting as of this moment? Even if you go stupid high at 13, 14 mil--what's it matter on a one year deal?! Yes, of course, he has to want to come here, but if they're balking at some number it's settling for an ok lineup when the opportunity is there to improve it. Even if the season crashes and burns--is anyone laying the blame at a one year contract? Maybe if he scores the winning touchdown for the other team in the final game, sure, beyond that? Please.

Especially if he leaves 40+ million in the bank... yeah why not get him in here on a one year?

[Luck4Reich]

McCoy says he wants to join a winner....... So wtf is he visiting the Browns for? Who haven't won shit in a very long time. Yeah they are a hyped team but have not proved anything.

These guys kill me... they say they want to win but Money talks lol.

[JAFF]

McCoy says he wants to join a winner....... So wtf is he visiting the Browns for? Who haven't won shit in a very long time. Yeah they are a hyped team but have not proved anything.

These guys kill me... they say they want to win but Money talks lol.

I’d want to talk to the HC, DC, and GM, before talking money. Face to face, but thats just me

[apballin]

Guys on the Browns started recruiting him immediately, if it’s that simple for him just go to New England like all the other ring chasing vets

[JAFF]

Guys on the Browns started recruiting him immediately, if it’s that simple for him just go to New England like all the other ring chasing vets

Money is still important, lets be realistic. Its his body thats paying for this, and hes good enough to command top dollar

[smitty46953]

McCoy says he wants to join a winner....... So wtf is he visiting the Browns for? Who haven't won shit in a very long time. Yeah they are a hyped team but have not proved anything.

These guys kill me... they say they want to win but Money talks lol.

McCoy left Cleveland without a deal, perhaps he considered that they haven't done shit as well ??? :cool:

[Luck4Reich]

McCoy left Cleveland without a deal, perhaps he considered that they haven't done shit as well ??? :cool:

Guess he didnt buy into their hype. :cool:

[Pez]

He is headed to baltimore next, I cant find any press that says he is even going To be talking to Indy. There si rumore press that he has rec'd 11M offers, but is being patient as he wants to go anywhere they can win.

Such an obvious good idea, Ballard will likely bail and then show me in 12 months why my ideas were so stupid.

[Oldcolt]

I’m certainly no expert on this technique stuff but have read he is a 3 technique. We supposedly need a 1 technique. I think I understand that one plays center/guard gap and three plays guard/tackle gap, For those that know, exactly how interchangeable are they? Would that make him less desirable and therefore not worth as much money to Ballard? Thanks in advance

[JAFF]

He is headed to baltimore next, I cant find any press that says he is even going To be talking to Indy. There si rumore press that he has rec'd 11M offers, but is being patient as he wants to go anywhere they can win.

Such an obvious good idea, Ballard will likely bail and then show me in 12 months why my ideas were so stupid.

I’m for having the conversation, but I cant blame Ballard if he passes. We may have all the cap numbers, but ballard has a long term plan. It takes discipline to see it through and not step out side the plan.

I see this and I’m reminded of Booger McFarland. I dont know how close the Colts are, they wont surprise anyone this year. This is the guy who can get some big stops on some of those tough road games this coming year.

[YDFL Commish]

I’m certainly no expert on this technique stuff but have read he is a 3 technique. We supposedly need a 1 technique. I think I understand that one plays center/guard gap and three plays guard/tackle gap, For those that know, exactly how interchangeable are they? Would that make him less desirable and therefore not worth as much money to Ballard? Thanks in advance

I don't think that McCoy being a 3-tech makes him less desirable to the Colts and Ballard. But, it would create somewhat of a logjam of sorts at that spot with Autry and Lewis ling up there now.

I think that Eberflus could find a meaningful way to get all 3 of them snaps though, especially on 3rd down.

[Oldcolt]

So my point is that he is probably with more to some team that has no options at the 3 technique. How much money do we want to invest in that position?

[TheMugwump]

So my point is that he is probably with more to some team that has no options at the 3 technique. How much money do we want to invest in that position?

12.75 million.

Not a dime more.

Man, it's dead in here in the off-season. Did JAFF and omaha finally get a room so they could bang it out?

[JAFF]

Nope, he's not worth the effort.

[Luck4Reich]

Nope, he's not worth the effort.

Your admitting to making an effort?:eek:

[JAFF]

Your admitting to making an effort?:eek:

No hes not worth an effort.

Better

[omahacolt]

Nope, he's not worth the effort.

Gay

[falloutboy14]

For those that know, exactly how interchangeable are they? Would that make him less desirable and therefore not worth as much money to Ballard? Thanks in advance

It's a power vs quickness thing. 3-tech is Ina 1-on-1 situation, with room to maneuver. 1-tech is asking for a double-team and in the center of line.

So one of the things that was odd about our defense last year, as I recall, is that we played a lot of games with 2 1-techs at the same time. That's both DTs on either side of the center. I didn't have the time to really look at why, but my hunch is Eberflus can tinker the system to work with whatever talent he has available.

All of our DTs played 1-tech last year even though most (Autry, Hunt, Lewis and others) aren't suited for it. Grover Stewart and Al Woods are the two that were obvious 1-techs. They're going lighter on D-line like the old Dungy days.

[Colt Classic]

It's a power vs quickness thing. 3-tech is Ina 1-on-1 situation, with room to maneuver. 1-tech is asking for a double-team and in the center of line.

So one of the things that was odd about our defense last year, as I recall, is that we played a lot of games with 2 1-techs at the same time. That's both DTs on either side of the center. I didn't have the time to really look at why, but my hunch is Eberflus can tinker the system to work with whatever talent he has available.

All of our DTs played 1-tech last year even though most (Autry, Hunt, Lewis and others) aren't suited for it. Grover Stewart and Al Woods are the two that were obvious 1-techs. They're going lighter on D-line like the old Dungy days.

Which makes it puzzling to be quivering over a mil or two above what the team would like to pay, assuming he's that much of an upgrade over what is on the roster. The stated goal was to improve the lines, so pay up or shut up.

[JAFF]

It's a power vs quickness thing. 3-tech is Ina 1-on-1 situation, with room to maneuver. 1-tech is asking for a double-team and in the center of line.

So one of the things that was odd about our defense last year, as I recall, is that we played a lot of games with 2 1-techs at the same time. That's both DTs on either side of the center. I didn't have the time to really look at why, but my hunch is Eberflus can tinker the system to work with whatever talent he has available.

All of our DTs played 1-tech last year even though most (Autry, Hunt, Lewis and others) aren't suited for it. Grover Stewart and Al Woods are the two that were obvious 1-techs. They're going lighter on D-line like the old Dungy days.

I'm not sure it matters in this D. They don't play with Paganos D, which was three guys being blocking sponges and taking on double teams. Every guy has a gap, lineman and linebackers and out side contain may be achieved with the corners. They don't have a guy who's goal is to take on blockers. You get in a gap and you go, mess up the blocking angles. BTW, if you got a really talented guy, it doesn't matter about technique. JJ Watt is a problem what ever your scheme is.

When they put both DT's in the A gaps they were penetrating and screwing up teams blocking schemes. Dungys D in Tampa worked so well because he had a great player at each level. Sapp on the line, Brooks at W LB and Lynch at safety. You get a McFarland, you have two guys pushing the pocket back into the QB's face. It was designed to beat the West Coast O. Mess up the QB's footwook.

What the Colts did last year was to fill both A gaps and get the QB off his spot with out great talent. Put a McCoy in the A gap, he may create a double team without any scheming. Now you have a one on one with the other DT or a lane if you really want to blitz.

[Luck4Reich]

He is saying he is going to go where he can win
He views the Bengals as a team on the rise.:confused:

He is going to visit the Ravens( at least they have won a SB)

But the Browns and Bengals ? If winning is what is most important it's hard to take him serious when he is considering the Browns and Bengals as options. 2 teams that never even sniff the playoffs much less a SB.

[Oldcolt]

I am not in for McCoy. While I'm excited about this team, there are way to many question marks with the young players we have. That is what makes this so exciting for me, the idea of watching players develop. The veterans we have on the line are enough for me. Unless the guy is the 'final piece' I want to see what the young guys can do. I also think that it helps with attitude for the young players to see that they are not going to be automatically replaced by older vets. Now if we sign him I am sure that, as a fan, my tune will change. This is one place where being consistent is not a worry

[YDFL Commish]

Put a McCoy in the A gap, he may create a double team without any scheming. Now you have a one on one with the other DT or a lane if you really want to blitz.

But can he, and how often did teams double team him last season? Imo, this is the key to whether or not McCoy is worth 12-13 million.

Because at that figure he has to bring something to the table that Autry and Lewis do not. I'm not sure that is the case?

[Coltsalr]

But can he, and how often did teams double team him last season? Imo, this is the key to whether or not McCoy is worth 12-13 million.

Because at that figure he has to bring something to the table that Autry and Lewis do not. I'm not sure that is the case?

In fairness, by that logic, does Funchess offer us anything $10-13M that Inman at $1.4M wouldn't have?

Ballard has shown the willingness to burn cap space in that area, so I think it would make sense that he'd be willing to ditch his austere approach at the DT spot for McCoy v. Lewis/Autry.

[YDFL Commish]

In fairness, by that logic, does Funchess offer us anything $10-13M that Inman at $1.4M wouldn't have?

Ballard has shown the willingness to burn cap space in that area, so I think it would make sense that he'd be willing to ditch his austere approach at the DT spot for McCoy v. Lewis/Autry.

Well, I'm predicting 10+ TD's for Funchess. We were never going to get that out of Inman. Also Funchess is 5 years younger, so there is upside there.

I have no problem with Ballard burning the cap space, even if it's for 2 years. But again, McCoy has got to be a clear upgrade over what we already have to convince Ballard to do that.

[Coltsalr]

Well, I'm predicting 10+ TD's for Funchess. We were never going to get that out of Inman. Also Funchess is 5 years younger, so there is upside there.

I have no problem with Ballard burning the cap space, even if it's for 2 years. But again, McCoy has got to be a clear upgrade over what we already have to convince Ballard to do that.

You're quite a bit more bullish on Funchess than I am. Hey, I hope you're right and I'm wrong! I can't claim to have studied him in particular with the Panthers, more that I'm aware of Panthers' fans hatred of him and in Carolina games I've watched he's certainly never stood out.

And apparently more bearish on McCoy than I am (or are you just more optimistic about Autry/Lewis?)

[Chromeburn]

He is saying he is going to go where he can win
He views the Bengals as a team on the rise.:confused:

He is going to visit the Ravens( at least they have won a SB)

But the Browns and Bengals ? If winning is what is most important it's hard to take him serious when he is considering the Browns and Bengals as options. 2 teams that never even sniff the playoffs much less a SB.

Well he has been on the bucs forever so his standards are not high. Everybody likes the browns, they are winning the media. But they will have to clip that buzz soon, they haven’t won anything and are gonna get big heads.

[Chromeburn]

I'm not sure it matters in this D. They don't play with Paganos D, which was three guys being blocking sponges and taking on double teams. Every guy has a gap, lineman and linebackers and out side contain may be achieved with the corners. They don't have a guy who's goal is to take on blockers. You get in a gap and you go, mess up the blocking angles. BTW, if you got a really talented guy, it doesn't matter about technique. JJ Watt is a problem what ever your scheme is.

When they put both DT's in the A gaps they were penetrating and screwing up teams blocking schemes. Dungys D in Tampa worked so well because he had a great player at each level. Sapp on the line, Brooks at W LB and Lynch at safety. You get a McFarland, you have two guys pushing the pocket back into the QB's face. It was designed to beat the West Coast O. Mess up the QB's footwook.

What the Colts did last year was to fill both A gaps and get the QB off his spot with out great talent. Put a McCoy in the A gap, he may create a double team without any scheming. Now you have a one on one with the other DT or a lane if you really want to blitz.

I think we are lacking a little beef up front. So I’m wondering if we line up say against Seattle or New England. Can we hold up against a game plan that wants to run all day long. I know the titans and jaguars are looking at us that way. That is how I see NE attacking us. It’s how they are built currently with two young backs. I know everyone is worried about pass rush, but I am kind worried about our lack of size. Can we hang in December in the cold against a team determined to run through the 4th quarter?

[YDFL Commish]

And apparently more bearish on McCoy than I am (or are you just more optimistic about Autry/Lewis?)

I wouldn't say that I'm more bearish on McCoy. I just have not seen enough of his recent play to determine what value he has. So strictly basing it on his stats, the production is not there. If someone can say that they've watched a lot of his play and that he was often commanding double teams, then I will defer to that opinion.

[Chromeburn]

I wouldn't say that I'm more bearish on McCoy. I just have not seen enough of his recent play to determine what value he has. So strictly basing it on his stats, the production is not there. If someone can say that they've watched a lot of his play and that he was often commanding double teams, then I will defer to that opinion.

I catch some bucs games occasionally. He is not the player he was, but I do think he could be effective in a rotation andmifht even play better than he has in recent years.

[Butter]

I think we are lacking a little beef up front. So I’m wondering if we line up say against Seattle or New England. Can we hold up against a game plan that wants to run all day long. I know the titans and jaguars are looking at us that way. That is how I see NE attacking us. It’s how they are built currently with two young backs. I know everyone is worried about pass rush, but I am kind worried about our lack of size. Can we hang in December in the cold against a team determined to run through the 4th quarter?

Me too, I am very concerned with how light the D is getting.

[Colt Classic]

Me too, I am very concerned with how light the D is getting.

Eric Foster and Keyunta Dawson think we're getting light too. :D

[JAFF]

Me too, I am very concerned with how light the D is getting.


www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2019/05/15/indianapolis-colts-ben-banogu-chris-ballard-bobby-okereke-khari-willis-patrick-mahomes/3671800002/"]http://https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2019/05/15/indianapolis-colts-ben-banogu-chris-ballard-bobby-okereke-khari-willis-patrick-mahomes/3671800002/

Heres what Ballard is thinking

[Coltsalr]

I wouldn't say that I'm more bearish on McCoy. I just have not seen enough of his recent play to determine what value he has. So strictly basing it on his stats, the production is not there. If someone can say that they've watched a lot of his play and that he was often commanding double teams, then I will defer to that opinion.

Not sure where you fall on the scale of Omaha-to-Sherck in terms of PFF, but FWIW, PFF has him as still solidly above average and as the #28 DT:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/gerald-mccoy/5528

For reference, Autry was an above average DT but the #60 DT:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/denico-autry/8982

[YDFL Commish]

Not sure where you fall on the scale of Omaha-to-Sherck in terms of PFF, but FWIW, PFF has him as still solidly above average and as the #28 DT:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/gerald-mccoy/5528

For reference, Autry was an above average DT but the #60 DT:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/denico-autry/8982

I'm somewhere in between those two concerning PFF's value. Some of their stats can't be disputed, while others just seem like fluff and don't really tell you how good a player is.

I do wonder if PFF or some other site tracks how often a DL is double teamed. I believe that is valuable information and can explain why a players stats may not be what they should be.

That being said, I was happy to see in that article, that McCoy has had some success playing NT for the Bucs, that certainly adds to his value.

[Racehorse]

http://https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2019/05/15/indianapolis-colts-ben-banogu-chris-ballard-bobby-okereke-khari-willis-patrick-mahomes/3671800002/

Heres what Ballard is thinking

The link won't work for me for some reason

[JAFF]

The link won't work for me for some reason

I mess up the link, im on a tablet. If you go back, I cleared the problem but I cant relink it. If you copy and past it in the url box it should work

[Discflinger]

Won't pay for Indystar. Cut and paste? Please?

[JAFF]

Won't pay for Indystar. Cut and paste? Please?

Clear your history. Insert link

[rcubed]

Clear your history. Insert link



I think you need to remove the cookies to reset the free time period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chromeburn]

I hope we put in a real effort for McCoy. I think he could push us into being a serious contender. He would be the best interior lineman we have had since Booger. I have to believe the Saints and pats are in the mix too if he wants to go to a contender. But I think he would for best with us and in a system he would be somewhat familiar with.

[Coltsalr]

I hope we put in a real effort for McCoy. I think he could push us into being a serious contender. He would be the best interior lineman we have had since Booger. I have to believe the Saints and pats are in the mix too if he wants to go to a contender. But I think he would for best with us and in a system he would be somewhat familiar with.

He’s visited Cleveland, Baltimore, and Carolina with no rumblings of any other visits, so it would seem it’s down to those three.

[TheMugwump]

He’s visited Cleveland, Baltimore, and Carolina with no rumblings of any other visits, so it would seem it’s down to those three.

There is certainly a team or two that are waiting in the weeds and have contacted his agent with "Let us know your best offer and we'll match or beat it. No visit necessary."

At least according to NFL radio. They say there are still upwards of 10 teams in play.

[Coltsalr]

There is certainly a team or two that are waiting in the weeds and have contacted his agent with "Let us know your best offer and we'll match or beat it. No visit necessary."

At least according to NFL radio. They say there are still upwards of 10 teams in play.

Good to know, thanks.

Doesn’t really sound like Ballard’s MO to just sign a guy sight unseen but a man can dream!

[JAFF]

Good to know, thanks.

Doesn’t really sound like Ballard’s MO to just sign a guy sight unseen but a man can dream!

Game tape will tell ballard what he needs to know. The only reason he would come to indy would be to sign a contract

[Chromeburn]

He’s visited Cleveland, Baltimore, and Carolina with no rumblings of any other visits, so it would seem it’s down to those three.

NFL radio said tens teams were recruiting him on Friday. Not sure if he is considering the others or not. I think we seem like a very good fit. Got the money, we should be a playoff team, got the right scheme.

[YDFL Commish]

NFL radio said tens teams were recruiting him on Friday. Not sure if he is considering the others or not. I think we seem like a very good fit. Got the money, we should be a playoff team, got the right scheme.

He's a Panther.

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

He's a Panther.


Reportedly a 1 year - $8MM deal. The contract also includes some incentive clauses; it could potentially max out at $10.25MM if those are met.

https://twitter.com/NFLSTROUD/status/1135667727195103233

[Maniac]

Unless McCoy just didn't want to come to Indy, I think Ballard screwed up on this one.

[TheMugwump]

Those numbers are SO much lower than expected. I think Carolina got themselves a good deal there, but I don't think McCoy is getting a ring in a Panthers uniform.

[Luck4Reich]

Unless McCoy just didn't want to come to Indy, I think Ballard screwed up on this one.

Had same thought

[Colt Classic]

Had same thought

I'll wait for Chaka to give the opposing point of view on this.

[IndyNorm]

Unless McCoy just didn't want to come to Indy, I think Ballard screwed up on this one.

Yep. Certainly seems like a big miss, especially when considering the relatively low contract $$.

[Oldcolt]

People paid to evaluate this stuff in real time say he’s with 8 million a year. While he may have made this defense better (may have) he wasn’t going to be the stud difference maker everyone wants. Expected non move by Ballard

[Chromeburn]

I think we missed an opportunity here. I wonder if he wanted a one year and we wanted a multi-year. He knows the division and probably wants to stay in it. But yeah, not winning a SB in Carolina next year.

[rm1369]

Some reports are saying he liked the idea of staying in the NFC South and that playing the Bucs twice a year was a bonus. Same reports also mention him considering Baltimore and Cleveland, but nothing on the Colts. My guess is they were out of it for awhile. Hard to criticize Ballard too much for not getting any specific player. Can’t say I’m a huge fan of sitting on this much cap space though. McCoy is the kind of player I think Ballard should bring in more of to mix with all the youth.

[Puck]

He’s a 3 tech which was our strongest position with the front 4 last yr Not sure anyone wanted to sign another DT to take snaps from the up and coming new guys.

We don’t need another 3 tech. We need a NT

[Colt Classic]

He’s a 3 tech which was our strongest position with the front 4 last yr Not sure anyone wanted to sign another DT to take snaps from the up and coming new guys.

We don’t need another 3 tech. We need a NT

Ok cool, name an available NT that would make an impact. If one isn't available for this coming season, why not take BPA here and make it work for a year? Based on last year, exact position isn't of utmost importance between the two DT positions, so BPA and divide the snaps situationally isn't some wild suggestion.

Unless this season isn't worth going all-in on...fine, take the 9-7 or 10-6 with maybe a playoff win and on to 2020. But when Luck gets to the twilight of his career, I don't want to hear the spin of how they tried their best to field the best team year in and year out, yet came up empty. What they did was ensure the "good enoughs" were always happy and knew their spot on the depth chart was secure.

[Chaka]

I'll wait for Chaka to give the opposing point of view on this.

You are correct - I would have been against this move. Signing guys on the downside of their careers to high dollar contracts isn't a good use of your resources. These kind of signings are always popular when they are made because you are getting some name recognition and a history of high profile performance, but you need to look at the facts: this is a 31-year old guy on the downside of his career who was just cut by the only team he's ever known. Nothing against the guy personally, but if it was my money being spent, this isn't where I'd want to put it.

And, tellingly, after purportedly having a dozen or more teams vying for his services, he was only able to secure a one-year deal with a $4 million signing bonus.

[Colt Classic]

By "resources" you must mean snaps that could go to others. You can't possibly be saying anything related to cap space.

[Chaka]

By "resources" you must mean snaps that could go to others. You can't possibly be saying anything related to cap space.

Why, because we currently have lots of cap space remaining? You are thinking short term.

[Luck4Reich]

I dont understand how the cap works and will not claim to. What I want explained is what good does let's say 40 million in cap sitting there during the season do us if we come up short at winning (playoffs, AFC title game, SB )?

If this happens and this team yet again fails to get more pressure on QBs... and we will face better this year.

If the up and coming guys dont progress and the Colts are a bottom half team at pressuring the QB. Let's say McCoy gets 8 or 9 sacks for the Panthers.

Would it have hurt to sign him to a one year? Saying he isnt a fit when he is an upgrade makes no sense to me.

Again I dont claim to understand the cap and certainly the positions as much as others here.

[Racehorse]

I dont understand how the cap works and will not claim to. What I want explained is what good does let's say 40 million in cap sitting there during the season do us if we come up short at winning (playoffs, AFC title game, SB )?

If this happens and this team yet again fails to get more pressure on QBs... and we will face better this year.

If the up and coming guys dont progress and the Colts are a bottom half team at pressuring the QB. Let's say McCoy gets 8 or 9 sacks for the Panthers.

Would it have hurt to sign him to a one year? Saying he isnt a fit when he is an upgrade makes no sense to me.

Again I dont claim to understand the cap and certainly the positions as much as others here.

It isn't a zero sum game. If McCoy brought the 8 sacks here, we wouldn't have a net gain of eight sacks. The snaps he would get would take them from someone else who may have gotten some of those same sacks on the same plays. maybe we get a net gain of two sacks, but maybe we get none. It is mere speculation to think he adds eight sacks to our total.

[Luck4Reich]

It isn't a zero sum game. If McCoy brought the 8 sacks here, we wouldn't have a net gain of eight sacks. The snaps he would get would take them from someone else who may have gotten some of those same sacks on the same plays. maybe we get a net gain of two sacks, but maybe we get none. It is mere speculation to think he adds eight sacks to our total.

Not saying it's a zero sum game lmao. So you dont think he is an upgrade to what we have... got it.

I dont claim to know which I said.

[Racehorse]

Not saying it's a zero sum game lmao. So you dont think he is an upgrade to what we have... got it.

I dont claim to know which I said.

Never said that. You seem to be a guy who wants to put words in other people's mouths. That is Damesque, so you might want to be careful. I said you can't just look at what he produces in Carolina this year and say it was a mistake unless he is an All-Pro and our guys are like swiss cheese.

[Luck4Reich]

I think our young guys take a big leap honestly

[Racehorse]

I think our young guys take a big leap honestly

So do I. I think we will see them improve enough that we won't regret passing on McCoy. Now if we were talking about a NT...

[Chaka]

I dont understand how the cap works and will not claim to. What I want explained is what good does let's say 40 million in cap sitting there during the season do us if we come up short at winning (playoffs, AFC title game, SB )?

If this happens and this team yet again fails to get more pressure on QBs... and we will face better this year.

If the up and coming guys dont progress and the Colts are a bottom half team at pressuring the QB. Let's say McCoy gets 8 or 9 sacks for the Panthers.

Would it have hurt to sign him to a one year? Saying he isnt a fit when he is an upgrade makes no sense to me.

Again I dont claim to understand the cap and certainly the positions as much as others here.

Simply put, the cap is the maximum a team can spend on players in a given year. However, the NFL’s cap has several features that allows teams to manipulate it to fit their needs and strategy. One of those features pertinent to this discussion is the ability to roll unused cap space forward into future years. This feature is absolutely central to Ballard’s strategy.

Ballard’s master plan, as he’s stated repeatedly, is to build a core of homegrown players that can serve as the long-term nucleus of a Colt dynasty. This strategy relies upon drafting well, and then keeping the players that you’ve drafted into second and even third contracts.

Ballard appears to have drafted well, and seems to have several of his planned core players already in place (Luck, Nelson, Kelly, Leonard, etc.). With the exception of Luck, most of these guys are on their rookie contracts, and are thus being paid well under their market value. To keep this core together long term, Ballard knows that he will eventually need to pay these guys full market value when their rookie contracts expire. However, the cap provides an upper limit of how many of these guys you can pay in a given season, which for many teams would mean they’ll have to let a few of these guys go.

Ballard doesn’t want to do that, so rather than blowing his available cap space now on older luxury players like McCoy, Suh, etc., he’s conserving his cap space to push it forward so he’ll have extra money available to pay the Nelsons and Leonards of the world when they can become free agents. This will allow him to keep the core together and to outspend other teams in later years when that cap space will be desperately needed. It also serves the duel purpose of fostering a competitive atmosphere among the existing younger players, who know that if they perform they can earn a starting spot because they aren’t blocked by one-year veteran rentals.

This is a long term plan, and it takes courage to implement because the strategy creates irritation among the fan base, as it seems to have done here, because it seems frustrating to leave giant chunks of cap space unspent and to miss but on the opportunity to “upgrade” with big name veteran free agents. But as history has shown, those type of upgrades are expensive and rarely play to the level expected (recall that Ballard has repeatedly called free agency “fool’s gold”).

So, to answer your question (at last!), it's not only a question of signing McCoy vs. playing the incumbent, but rather a question of signing McCoy now at the risk of not having all the funds necessary to keep one of the Colts free agents in 2021 or 2022.

[smitty46953]

Had same thought

Me too !!! :cool:

[Racehorse]

Simply put, the cap is the maximum a team can spend on players in a given year. However, the NFL’s cap has several features that allows teams to manipulate it to fit their needs and strategy. One of those features pertinent to this discussion is the ability to roll unused cap space forward into future years. This feature is absolutely central to Ballard’s strategy.

Ballard’s master plan, as he’s stated repeatedly, is to build a core of homegrown players that can serve as the long-term nucleus of a Colt dynasty. This strategy relies upon drafting well, and then keeping the players that you’ve drafted into second and even third contracts.

Ballard appears to have drafted well, and seems to have several of his planned core players already in place (Luck, Nelson, Kelly, Leonard, etc.). With the exception of Luck, most of these guys are on their rookie contracts, and are thus being paid well under their market value. To keep this core together long term, Ballard knows that he will eventually need to pay these guys full market value when their rookie contracts expire. However, the cap provides an upper limit of how many of these guys you can pay in a given season, which for many teams would mean they’ll have to let a few of these guys go.

Ballard doesn’t want to do that, so rather than blowing his available cap space now on older luxury players like McCoy, Suh, etc., he’s conserving his cap space to push it forward so he’ll have extra money available to pay the Nelsons and Leonards of the world when they can become free agents. This will allow him to keep the core together and to outspend other teams in later years when that cap space will be desperately needed. It also serves the duel purpose of fostering a competitive atmosphere among the existing younger players, who know that if they perform they can earn a starting spot because they aren’t blocked by one-year veteran rentals.

This is a long term plan, and it takes courage to implement because the strategy creates irritation among the fan base, as it seems to have done here, because it seems frustrating to leave giant chunks of cap space unspent and to miss but on the opportunity to “upgrade” with big name veteran free agents. But as history has shown, those type of upgrades are expensive and rarely play to the level expected (recall that Ballard has repeatedly called free agency “fool’s gold”).

So, to answer your question (at last!), it's not only a question of signing McCoy vs. playing the incumbent, but rather a question of signing McCoy now at the risk of not having all the funds necessary to keep one of the Colts free agents in 2021 or 2022.

To add to this, by carrying cap dollars into successive years, Ballard is essentially making our cap higher in the future than what it will actually be. So, when our core gets to their second or third contract and the cap is, say, $200M, we will have an effective cap of $240M. This gives us a competitive advantage down the road, if we spend the dollars well when that time comes.

[Chromeburn]

I dont understand how the cap works and will not claim to. What I want explained is what good does let's say 40 million in cap sitting there during the season do us if we come up short at winning (playoffs, AFC title game, SB )?

If this happens and this team yet again fails to get more pressure on QBs... and we will face better this year.

If the up and coming guys dont progress and the Colts are a bottom half team at pressuring the QB. Let's say McCoy gets 8 or 9 sacks for the Panthers.

Would it have hurt to sign him to a one year? Saying he isnt a fit when he is an upgrade makes no sense to me.

Again I dont claim to understand the cap and certainly the positions as much as others here.

Well over the cap states we will have 71 million next year in space, carrying over 57 million from this year and the cap going up (like it has done every year.)

If you think McCoy would cost an even 10 million, that would give us 61 million next year to sign our FA. Assuming we don’t replace some with draft picks. I think people just assume we will resign everyone, thats not going to happen and it is unrealistic. Beside we still have like 3 years till Leonards class is due, that is 3 potential years of SB runs. If 61 million isn’t enough to sign our upcoming 2020 FA and draft picks, well we might be overspending on our own guys.

I don’t think it’s money, it’s a question of can McCoy push you over the edge to be a SB contender. I think yes because he is better than any DT we have. He is certainly better and bigger than the bottom of our roster. And the whole NT UT doesn’t really fit because we are playing a hybrid scheme. I could see Autry and McCoy playing next to each other with similar responsibilities. I can see Stewart and the German playing next to each other on some snaps. We run a rotation and he is one of the best in the league at what we ask the DTs to do. If you think Jihad Ward is enough to get you a SB then ok, we don’t need him. I think he would have been a relatively cheap addition to a group where we have a lot of average guys.

[Luck4Reich]

Well over the cap states we will have 71 million next year in space, carrying over 57 million from this year and the cap going up (like it has done every year.)

If you think McCoy would cost an even 10 million, that would give us 61 million next year to sign our FA. Assuming we don’t replace some with draft picks. If 61 million isn’t enough to sign upcoming FA and draft picks, well we might be overspending on our own guys.

I don’t think it’s money, it’s a question of can McCoy push you over the edge to be a SB contender. I think yes because he is better than any DT we have. He is certainly better and bigger than the bottom of our roster. And the whole NT UT doesn’t really fit because we are playing a hybrid scheme. I could see Autry and McCoy playing next to each other with similar responsibilities. I can see Stewart and the German playing next to each other on some snaps. We run a rotation and he is one of the best in the league at what we ask the DTs to do. If you think Jihad Ward is enough to get you a SB then ok, we don’t need him. I think he would have been a relatively cheap addition to a group where we have a lot of average guys.

This makes sense to me. I think he would have been a great addition.

[Colt Classic]

Well over the cap states we will have 71 million next year in space, carrying over 57 million from this year and the cap going up (like it has done every year.)

If you think McCoy would cost an even 10 million, that would give us 61 million next year to sign our FA. Assuming we don’t replace some with draft picks. If 61 million isn’t enough to sign upcoming FA and draft picks, well we might be overspending on our own guys.

I don’t think it’s money, it’s a question of can McCoy push you over the edge to be a SB contender. I think yes because he is better than any DT we have. He is certainly better and bigger than the bottom of our roster. And the whole NT UT doesn’t really fit because we are playing a hybrid scheme. I could see Autry and McCoy playing next to each other with similar responsibilities. I can see Stewart and the German playing next to each other on some snaps. We run a rotation and he is one of the best in the league at what we ask the DTs to do. If you think Jihad Ward is enough to get you a SB then ok, we don’t need him. I think he would have been a relatively cheap addition to a group where we have a lot of average guys.

The only correct answer to Chaka's circular argument is to just assume that who is currently on the roster is the best now and in the future. Anyone else on the market is at best a coin flip that likely adds nothing to the team. McCoy was going to get a one year contract which MEANS NOTHING to anything related to the future cap space. You could pay the man 30 million dollars and still be flush with cap space that all comes back next year since his contract would be finished, but since it takes snaps from the good enough gang and might upset one of them to the point of not re-signing here when their contract is up, the whole idea of bringing McCoy in is, in Chaka's world, a foolish notion.

When you have as much cap space as the Colts have AND you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it. Fine, McCoy didn't even have us as a legitimate option, but to summarily dismiss the idea that he could help the team? Unacceptable.

Finally, Chaka's zero-sum argument is acceptable as long as he can also go along with the idea that an 8-sack season from Houston doesn't make it a good signing if he is a complete non-factor in a playoff loss where the opposing QB had all day in the pocket.

[Chromeburn]

The only correct answer to Chaka's circular argument is to just assume that who is currently on the roster is the best now and in the future. Anyone else on the market is at best a coin flip that likely adds nothing to the team. McCoy was going to get a one year contract which MEANS NOTHING to anything related to the future cap space. You could pay the man 30 million dollars and still be flush with cap space that all comes back next year since his contract would be finished, but since it takes snaps from the good enough gang and might upset one of them to the point of not re-signing here when their contract is up, the whole idea of bringing McCoy in is, in Chaka's world, a foolish notion.

When you have as much cap space as the Colts have AND you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it. Fine, McCoy didn't even have us as a legitimate option, but to summarily dismiss the idea that he could help the team? Unacceptable.

Finally, Chaka's zero-sum argument is acceptable as long as he can also go along with the idea that an 8-sack season from Houston doesn't make it a good signing if he is a complete non-factor in a playoff loss where the opposing QB had all day in the pocket.

Lots of things in football are coin flips. Draft picks, FA signings, signing guys to second or third contracts, players staying healthy.

If we can justify giving Funchess 10 million who has done nothing in the league. I don't see a problem with paying McCoy who is older but has a much better resume, and we just paid Houston who is also a great aging vet.

Problem is we won't really know till the end of the season where hindsight is perfect. I think we might be a little light on the d-line and I think teams will go after it. We did pretty well last year, doesn't gurantee we will be as good or better this year. And we got spanked in the playoffs, everyone is still riding high from the season and the positive press, but there was a huge talent gap in that game.

I also don't really like leaving money on the table when it could benefit the team this year and their chances this year. Especially when a deal like a one year contract would not impact future resignings at all.

Here is the 90 man roster at d-line. I highlighted the guys I think we are definitely keeping. McCoy would do well on this roster.

Kemoko Turay (DE)
Gerri Green (DE)
Justin Houston (DE)
Jegs Jegede (DE)
Al-Quadin Muhammad (DE)
Carroll Phillips (DE)
Jabaal Sheard (DE)

Denico Autry (DT/DE)
Tyquan Lewis (DT/DE)

Sterling Shippy (DT)
Grover Stewart (DT)
Jihad Ward (DT)
Margus Hunt (DT)
Jordan Thompson (DT)
Johnny Robinson (DT)

[Butter]

I also don't really like leaving money on the table when it could benefit the team this year and their chances this year. Especially when a deal like a one year contract would not impact future resignings at all. )

I hope Ballard knows what he is doing with the IDL, I hate how light it is getting and I think McCoy is better than our current 3-techs, but the money is not being left on the table and it can affect future contracts since it rolls forward. It isn't use it or lose it.

[Racehorse]

the money is not being left on the table and it can affect future contracts since it rolls forward. It isn't use it or lose it.

That was my point. I think some missed it.

[Colt Classic]

I hope Ballard knows what he is doing with the IDL, I hate how light it is getting and I think McCoy is better than our current 3-techs, but the money is not being left on the table and it can affect future contracts since it rolls forward. It isn't use it or lose it.

It also isn't save it to pat one's self on the back in the name of a long-term plan when you're only talking about a one year contract.

[Pez]

Agree there is no nt that fits the bill, but we were 10 and 6 last year. You seem to suggest that McCoy is the difference between 10 and 6 and a wc win vs 12 and 4 and an afccg berth.

We've made improvements on defense. I was really high on going after McCoy, but to suggest that not signing him is akin to willingly not fielding the best team possible is selling this regime very short. With that logic we should have signed obj.

Ballard is better than grigson, mate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Chromeburn]

I hope Ballard knows what he is doing with the IDL, I hate how light it is getting and I think McCoy is better than our current 3-techs, but the money is not being left on the table and it can affect future contracts since it rolls forward. It isn't use it or lose it.

Generally I think Ballard is doing a great job. But if I had a criticism of him, it’s that he is reactive not preemptive when it comes to roster deficiencies. Year one, doesn’t do enough to fix the oline even though everyone knew it was a problem. Year two, doesn’t do enough for the pass rush even though everyone knew it was an issue. Is year three the interior dline?

True it does roll over. But are they just going to roll it over every year? Will they constantly be 40 50 60 million under the cap? I like signing our own guys but, does that mean we have to have 50 million in unused cap every year? Leonard’s class is still three years away. Teams that have talent rookie QBs try to max their window till that big contract comes. We have two all-pro rookies, a McCoy signing is not going to break the bank.

[YDFL Commish]

At the end of the day, I have to believe that Ballard did not believe that McCoy was just not going to improve the defense enough to make the commitment.

I doubt that $$$ even played into it. Strictly a football decision. We can all debate whether or not we believe that McCoy would have improved the Colts defense...and sure that's fun to do.

[Racehorse]

At the end of the day, I have to believe that Ballard did not believe that McCoy was just not going to improve the defense enough to make the commitment.

I doubt that $$$ even played into it. Strictly a football decision. We can all debate whether or not we believe that McCoy would have improved the Colts defense...and sure that's fun to do.

/thread

[Butter]

It also isn't save it to pat one's self on the back in the name of a long-term plan when you're only talking about a one year contract.

That makes no sense

[Dam8610]

Generally I think Ballard is doing a great job. But if I had a criticism of him, it’s that he is reactive not preemptive when it comes to roster deficiencies. Year one, doesn’t do enough to fix the oline even though everyone knew it was a problem. Year two, doesn’t do enough for the pass rush even though everyone knew it was an issue. Is year three the interior dline?

True it does roll over. But are they just going to roll it over every year? Will they constantly be 40 50 60 million under the cap? I like signing our own guys but, does that mean we have to have 50 million in unused cap every year? Leonard’s class is still three years away. Teams that have talent rookie QBs try to max their window till that big contract comes. We have two all-pro rookies, a McCoy signing is not going to break the bank.

Clearly the answer is to just draft two all pro rookies every year. Problem solved.

[Chromeburn]

Clearly the answer is to just draft two all pro rookies every year. Problem solved.

Well obviously.

[JAFF]

I hope Ballard knows what he is doing with the IDL, I hate how light it is getting and I think McCoy is better than our current 3-techs, but the money is not being left on the table and it can affect future contracts since it rolls forward. It isn't use it or lose it.

They want them light. Look at the young QBs in the NFL right now, you need to be able to catch them. How many teams line up with a full back and run power football? How many teams play more in shotgun/pistol/throw formation?

Big fat guys can't push the pocket. This is the Dungy D and they are going to line up in a gap and go. With the guys they had last year, they had both DT's in the A gaps. Makes 3 guys defend 2. Sure can't trap block with the C if they do that.

I get what you are saying. But the NFL offenses are not as they were 5 years ago.

[Oldcolt]

If you rooted for the Colts during the Dungy era it's hard not to be concerned about a small team. This team seems different in that the players don't seem 'small' just light. They have length and are solid muscular men. Speed and quickness are their main trait. I think Jaff got it right, it's a different NFL offense this defense will be called upon to stop. Hope we get it right.

[Chaka]

The only correct answer to Chaka's circular argument is to just assume that who is currently on the roster is the best now and in the future. Anyone else on the market is at best a coin flip that likely adds nothing to the team. McCoy was going to get a one year contract which MEANS NOTHING to anything related to the future cap space. You could pay the man 30 million dollars and still be flush with cap space that all comes back next year since his contract would be finished, but since it takes snaps from the good enough gang and might upset one of them to the point of not re-signing here when their contract is up, the whole idea of bringing McCoy in is, in Chaka's world, a foolish notion.

When you have as much cap space as the Colts have AND you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it. Fine, McCoy didn't even have us as a legitimate option, but to summarily dismiss the idea that he could help the team? Unacceptable.

Finally, Chaka's zero-sum argument is acceptable as long as he can also go along with the idea that an 8-sack season from Houston doesn't make it a good signing if he is a complete non-factor in a playoff loss where the opposing QB had all day in the pocket.

Dude, I’m honestly having a difficult time following what you’re saying. What is “circular” about what I’ve said? In no way does Ballard’s approach mean that you don’t sign any outside free agents or that they can’t improve your team. It’s only that you rarely find VALUE in the high end or big name free agents when you consider their contract price. That money would be better spent signing your own players who: (1) you are more familiar with, (2) have proven themselves in your schemes, and (3) provide team continuity, identity and character.

Do you ever consider the fact that the best players rarely reach free agency? They are resigned by their teams. The vast majority of the free agents are players that their former teams didn’t want at the price they’d command on the open market (i.e. the same price you’d have the Colts pay). And yes, I know that every team is different, and because a player doesn’t fit with his original team doesn’t mean he won’t fit with the Colts, but what I’ve said is true of a overwhelming majority of free agents.

And I think that its far more likely that a free agent will underperform rather than overperform. That likelihood is compounded when you are signing a guy who’s already on the downside of his career, like McCoy. Add to that the uncertainty that is created when you ask a player to move to an entirely new team/scheme - an uncertainty that doesn’t exist, by the way, when you sign your own free agents. In short, spending money on your own players isn’t exciting, but it will likely yield far better returns than spending money on outside free agents. If you maximize value, the wins will come.

All of this boils down to the fact that everyone’s typically happy when the free agent is signed, but usually will end up feeling buyer’s remorse. Given this, I’ve liked Ballard’s free agent approach – mining the middle and lower tier free agents for value, and with a much smaller downside.

[Discflinger]

Image post FAIL. It looked so easy. If you like Dilbert, you would have appreciated it.

[Chaka]

Generally I think Ballard is doing a great job. But if I had a criticism of him, it’s that he is reactive not preemptive when it comes to roster deficiencies. Year one, doesn’t do enough to fix the oline even though everyone knew it was a problem. Year two, doesn’t do enough for the pass rush even though everyone knew it was an issue. Is year three the interior dline?

True it does roll over. But are they just going to roll it over every year? Will they constantly be 40 50 60 million under the cap? I like signing our own guys but, does that mean we have to have 50 million in unused cap every year? Leonard’s class is still three years away. Teams that have talent rookie QBs try to max their window till that big contract comes. We have two all-pro rookies, a McCoy signing is not going to break the bank.

I don’t think that’s fair at all. When Ballard took over we were deficient in many areas – so to now single out the OL in year one to argue he didn’t do enough is silly. And to say that he didn’t address the pass rush in year two is also unfair – he drafted Turay and Lewis as part of his overall plan to build a long term sustainable team. To complain that he didn’t bring in a bunch of one year rentals or high priced free agents ignores the overall plan he has laid out repeatedly. And the plan is working by the way – we are far ahead of where almost everyone thought we’d be at this time.

As far as cap management, of course we won’t be $40M-$60M under the cap every year – that’s not the plan at all. It’s a temporary condition that will disappear in a couple of years when the Colts have to start issuing second contracts. Then you’ll be plenty thankful for the extra cap space Ballard has conserved.

The goal is to maximize team performance over the long term. Those of you who simply say we should blow out our cap space every year in pursuit of a championship THAT YEAR aren’t listening to what Ballard has been saying. That’s one approach, sure, but it’s a short term one that runs counter to the long term plans the guy has been outlining since he got to Indy. You can’t have it both ways.

[Chromeburn]

I don’t think that’s fair at all. When Ballard took over we were deficient in many areas – so to now single out the OL in year one to argue he didn’t do enough is silly. And to say that he didn’t address the pass rush in year two is also unfair – he drafted Turay and Lewis as part of his overall plan to build a long term sustainable team. To complain that he didn’t bring in a bunch of one year rentals or high priced free agents ignores the overall plan he has laid out repeatedly. And the plan is working by the way – we are far ahead of where almost everyone thought we’d be at this time.

As far as cap management, of course we won’t be $40M-$60M under the cap every year – that’s not the plan at all. It’s a temporary condition that will disappear in a couple of years when the Colts have to start issuing second contracts. Then you’ll be plenty thankful for the extra cap space Ballard has conserved.

The goal is to maximize team performance over the long term. Those of you who simply say we should blow out our cap space every year in pursuit of a championship THAT YEAR aren’t listening to what Ballard has been saying. That’s one approach, sure, but it’s a short term one that runs counter to the long term plans the guy has been outlining since he got to Indy. You can’t have it both ways.

But I never said that. No one on here has ever said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s. As usual you take what I say and blow it out of proportion. Because there is only two avenues with you. Either save it all and have tons of money under the cap (the only method you endorse) or avenue two which is spend it all on high priced free agents who won’t possibly work out because it’s fools gold.

Oh and Ballard criticized himself saying he didn’t do enough to fix the oline year one.

[Chaka]

But I never said that. No one on here has ever said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s. As usual you take what I say and blow it out of proportion. Because there is only two avenues with you. Either save it all and have tons of money under the cap (the only method you endorse) or avenue two which is spend it all on high priced free agents who won’t possibly work out because it’s fools gold.

Oh and Ballard criticized himself saying he didn’t do enough to fix the oline year one.

I just advocate being smart – investing the cap space in players that are likely to bring the greatest return, and avoiding investments that have historically not provided much value in comparison to their cost (i.e. big name free agents). In other words, I advocate running the team like a business, not like a fan, and with the eye towards long term, sustainable success. We should play the angles, using our money to our greatest advantage in the context of the NFL salary cap rules. Being smart and efficient will, over time, give us a huge advantage over the teams that aren't.

Do I think this means we have to “save it all and have tons of money under the cap”? Of course not. I just mentioned in a few posts above that I agreed that we should sign free agents, but that I think our focus is best placed on mid-tier or lower tier guy because they give us the best chance to get a good return on the investment.

I simply don’t think signing older, outside free agents to large contracts is a good investment. For that reason I was uneasy with the Houston signing. He was an expensive player who is on the downside of his career, but I’m hopeful that it has a better-than-normal chance to succeed because the guy isn’t a total outsider – Ballard worked with him while in KC so presumably he has some insight. I also didn’t complain about the Funchess signing – the guy is 25 with upside, so the $10 million didn’t bother me - in fact, the only thing that troubled me was that it was a one-year deal without options.

As far as the OL is concerned, I didn’t argue that the OL was fine following Ballard’s first year or that it couldn’t be improved, but only that your conclusion that he was reactive rather than proactive was unfair because it was founded solely upon the OL alone, without consideration of the giant strides he made elsewhere. You cherry-picked one issue to support your predetermined conclusion, while ignoring all of the evidence that contradicted your theory.

And as to the idea that “no one on here has said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s”, maybe you should read or think about some of the posts more closely. Yes, people don’t use those exact words, but the argument that Luck’s presence should mean that we should not hold back on free agent spending is essentially saying the same thing or something very close. It’s true you didn’t say that in your post (nor did I exactly, for that matter), but I’ve seen some version of that argument advocated many times on here in the past – most recently Colts Classic a few posts above, when he said that when “you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it” and so we should have signed McCoy, which is what I was thinking of when I typed my post.

[Butter]

They want them light. Look at the young QBs in the NFL right now, you need to be able to catch them. How many teams line up with a full back and run power football? How many teams play more in shotgun/pistol/throw formation?

Big fat guys can't push the pocket. This is the Dungy D and they are going to line up in a gap and go. With the guys they had last year, they had both DT's in the A gaps. Makes 3 guys defend 2. Sure can't trap block with the C if they do that.

I get what you are saying. But the NFL offenses are not as they were 5 years ago.

That is great and all until you need to stop short-yardage runs or a team just runs the fuck over you. As Defenses get lighter a smart team will come out and power run all over them.

[Colt Classic]

And as to the idea that “no one on here has said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s”, maybe you should read or think about some of the posts more closely. Yes, people don’t use those exact words, but the argument that Luck’s presence should mean that we should not hold back on free agent spending is essentially saying the same thing or something very close. It’s true you didn’t say that in your post (nor did I exactly, for that matter), but I’ve seen some version of that argument advocated many times on here in the past – most recently Colts Classic a few posts above, when he said that when “you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it” and so we should have signed McCoy, which is what I was thinking of when I typed my post.

Signing McCoy wouldn't have come close to blowing all of the cap space. I'm not even that upset that he went to Carolina. My main complaint is that the Colts weren't even in the running. They are saying, "No thanks, we're good enough" which is foolish. It costs zero dollars to be in the running and be a serious buyer--even if they don't land the player, maybe they cause a rival to overpay.

[Luck4Reich]

I guess it just concerns me that if Autry or Hunt go down or both? Ouch.
Neither have been a constant in their career. Either or both could regress.
McCoy was an upgrade and created nice depth at the same time. It was a kiss by Ballard. I love what he is done so far and hopefully this time next tear we are talking about how he made the right choice. Hopefully.

[Racehorse]

Signing McCoy wouldn't have come close to blowing all of the cap space. I'm not even that upset that he went to Carolina. My main complaint is that the Colts weren't even in the running. They are saying, "No thanks, we're good enough" which is foolish. It costs zero dollars to be in the running and be a serious buyer--even if they don't land the player, maybe they cause a rival to overpay.

You don't know that. It is possible McCoy wasn't interested in a visit.

[JAFF]

That is great and all until you need to stop short-yardage runs or a team just runs the fuck over you. As Defenses get lighter a smart team will come out and power run all over them.

Which is why the Colts have a big freaking O line, control the ball with play action and option pass offense. They get to the lead and now their FAST defense can go get the QB.

The D you want is what Pagano ran.

[Chromeburn]

I just advocate being smart – investing the cap space in players that are likely to bring the greatest return, and avoiding investments that have historically not provided much value in comparison to their cost (i.e. big name free agents). In other words, I advocate running the team like a business, not like a fan, and with the eye towards long term, sustainable success. We should play the angles, using our money to our greatest advantage in the context of the NFL salary cap rules. Being smart and efficient will, over time, give us a huge advantage over the teams that aren't.

Do I think this means we have to “save it all and have tons of money under the cap”? Of course not. I just mentioned in a few posts above that I agreed that we should sign free agents, but that I think our focus is best placed on mid-tier or lower tier guy because they give us the best chance to get a good return on the investment.

I simply don’t think signing older, outside free agents to large contracts is a good investment. For that reason I was uneasy with the Houston signing. He was an expensive player who is on the downside of his career, but I’m hopeful that it has a better-than-normal chance to succeed because the guy isn’t a total outsider – Ballard worked with him while in KC so presumably he has some insight. I also didn’t complain about the Funchess signing – the guy is 25 with upside, so the $10 million didn’t bother me - in fact, the only thing that troubled me was that it was a one-year deal without options.

As far as the OL is concerned, I didn’t argue that the OL was fine following Ballard’s first year or that it couldn’t be improved, but only that your conclusion that he was reactive rather than proactive was unfair because it was founded solely upon the OL alone, without consideration of the giant strides he made elsewhere. You cherry-picked one issue to support your predetermined conclusion, while ignoring all of the evidence that contradicted your theory.

And as to the idea that “no one on here has said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s”, maybe you should read or think about some of the posts more closely. Yes, people don’t use those exact words, but the argument that Luck’s presence should mean that we should not hold back on free agent spending is essentially saying the same thing or something very close. It’s true you didn’t say that in your post (nor did I exactly, for that matter), but I’ve seen some version of that argument advocated many times on here in the past – most recently Colts Classic a few posts above, when he said that when “you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it” and so we should have signed McCoy, which is what I was thinking of when I typed my post.

I advocate running the team like a football team trying to win games, not a business, not as a fan. That means fielding the most complete team you can to increase your chances of getting to a Super Bowl.

Running it as a business would mean you maximize profit while minimizing expenses. The point is to win Super Bowls, not increase your profit margin no matter what. I’m in favor of maximizing their chances year in and year out. You want to make a money ball argument about signing free agents? Go ahead. But you get all squirrely every time we sign someone and then we get the same posts. A long lecture on what Ballard’s vision is, as if everyone on here doesn’t already know it, then some hand wringing about him spending too much money and potentially wasting all the cap space. Ballard isn’t going to waste it, and he is also going to sign free agents. He inquirers about the top free agents every year, and we are in on some till a team blows the offer out of the water. Then we back off because the costs outweigh the benefits.

Ballard is trying to identify guys that are potentially going to break out in their second contract. Some guys are late bloomers, especially linemen. Guys that might be buried on depth charts and need reps to improve. Also vets can provide a boost, but you need to go by a case by case basis. Free agency is not a fix all, and it isn’t fools gold either. We got good production out of Hunt, Autry, and other signings. You can build teams in multiple ways. You want to build through the draft? Great, you need to hit on picks. You want to build through FA? Great you need to hit on your signings. It comes down to evaluating personnel and making the right decisions whatever your methodology.

Preemptive, not proactive. Ballard is proactive. But the last couple years everyone on here has complained about obvious holes on the roster. Everyone can see them. They are not addressed till after they are exposed. It’s happened twice so far. Ever teams has holes, you try to cover them the best you can. I would like to see more effort in that area.

I think you are the one who needs to work on the reading comprehension. I understand what Colt classic is saying in that statement, I don’t think you do though. That’s the problem.

[Butter]

Which is why the Colts have a big freaking O line, control the ball with play action and option pass offense. They get to the lead and now their FAST defense can go get the QB.

The D you want is what Pagano ran.

The Ol will not stop the other team and relying on the offense to always have the lead is something we witnessed in the Manning years, it doesn;t always work especially in the playoffs. You really have a simple view of things if you think there is nothing in between what we had with Pagano and Dungy.

[JAFF]

The Ol will not stop the other team and relying on the offense to always have the lead is something we witnessed in the Manning years, it doesn;t always work especially in the playoffs. You really have a simple view of things if you think there is nothing in between what we had with Pagano and Dungy.

Nothing always works all the time. That's life. How did this team lose to Jax 6-0 last year? WTF. The offense stunk that day.

The NFL has morphed into a league with athletic QB's and play fast up and down the field. A large, slow D can't compete with speed. Speed never goes into a slump. A large slow D can't catch Pat Mahomes. And moving him off his spot doesn't seem to bother him, that guy can throw from any positon. So you need to go HIT him. And he's not the last of fast mobile QB's, he is the future. And does anyone have a power run system in the NFL other than Dallas?

Yeah, I'm keeping it simple, because I'm not a GM. I don't pretend to be one on the internet. And the Dungy D works because it is simple. Players don't have time to make decisions, so you give them less thinking and more doing. Defense is reacting, and then you get to the ball, all 11 guys. That's how you can play young guys with less experience.

And I believe if Ballard can draft a 310 lb DT who can run like Warren Sapp, he will take him. But those guys are rare. You he's not going to sign a guy 2 gap blocking sponge because that doesn't fit this D. They don't need Tony Sarigusa. They are looking for John Randle.

[Colt Classic]

Nothing always works all the time. That's life. How did this team lose to Jax 6-0 last year? WTF. The offense stunk that day.

The NFL has morphed into a league with athletic QB's and play fast up and down the field. A large, slow D can't compete with speed. Speed never goes into a slump. A large slow D can't catch Pat Mahomes. And moving him off his spot doesn't seem to bother him, that guy can throw from any positon. So you need to go HIT him. And he's not the last of fast mobile QB's, he is the future. And does anyone have a power run system in the NFL other than Dallas?

Yeah, I'm keeping it simple, because I'm not a GM. I don't pretend to be one on the internet. And the Dungy D works because it is simple. Players don't have time to make decisions, so you give them less thinking and more doing. Defense is reacting, and then you get to the ball, all 11 guys. That's how you can play young guys with less experience.

And I believe if Ballard can draft a 310 lb DT who can run like Warren Sapp, he will take him. But those guys are rare. You he's not going to sign a guy 2 gap blocking sponge because that doesn't fit this D. They don't need Tony Sarigusa. They are looking for John Randle.

Speed most certainly does go into a slump--any playoff game ever played on a bad field would completely neutralize a bunch of lighter, faster players. That isn't as common with field turf and such but it always seems like there's one or two key games where the field conditions take away any speed advantage. I don't think world-class speed was going to solve KC in January.

Also, I think the people in this thread have a good grasp of the idea that Ted Washington and Tony Siragusa-type giants at DT are dinosaurs as far as this defense goes.

[Chaka]

I advocate running the team like a football team trying to win games, not a business, not as a fan. That means fielding the most complete team you can to increase your chances of getting to a Super Bowl.

Running it as a business would mean you maximize profit while minimizing expenses. The point is to win Super Bowls, not increase your profit margin no matter what. I’m in favor of maximizing their chances year in and year out. You want to make a money ball argument about signing free agents? Go ahead. But you get all squirrely every time we sign someone and then we get the same posts. A long lecture on what Ballard’s vision is, as if everyone on here doesn’t already know it, then some hand wringing about him spending too much money and potentially wasting all the cap space. Ballard isn’t going to waste it, and he is also going to sign free agents. He inquirers about the top free agents every year, and we are in on some till a team blows the offer out of the water. Then we back off because the costs outweigh the benefits.

Ballard is trying to identify guys that are potentially going to break out in their second contract. Some guys are late bloomers, especially linemen. Guys that might be buried on depth charts and need reps to improve. Also vets can provide a boost, but you need to go by a case by case basis. Free agency is not a fix all, and it isn’t fools gold either. We got good production out of Hunt, Autry, and other signings. You can build teams in multiple ways. You want to build through the draft? Great, you need to hit on picks. You want to build through FA? Great you need to hit on your signings. It comes down to evaluating personnel and making the right decisions whatever your methodology.

Preemptive, not proactive. Ballard is proactive. But the last couple years everyone on here has complained about obvious holes on the roster. Everyone can see them. They are not addressed till after they are exposed. It’s happened twice so far. Ever teams has holes, you try to cover them the best you can. I would like to see more effort in that area.

I think you are the one who needs to work on the reading comprehension. I understand what Colt classic is saying in that statement, I don’t think you do though. That’s the problem.

I’ll stop “lecturing” people about sound management of team resources when people stop trying to justify the signing of an over-the-hill player based upon the amount of cap space that we have. It’s a lame justification. And the only “hand wringing” I see is the anxiety that so many here have expressed over the large amount of cap space the Colts are sitting on.

Looking through all of the garbage in your last post, it doesn’t appear we even disagree very much in principle. Of course you need to draft well, and of course you need to make good free agent signings. That’s really all I’ve been saying all along. Where we disagree is how that strategy is implemented. It is indeed a cost benefit analysis, just as you’ve said, and I just don’t think the costs of signing the type of older players you’ve been advocating (like McCoy) are likely to provide a equivalent or greater benefit. Time will tell, I guess, and it certainly isn't impossible, but as we sit here today I just don’t think history suggests that’s a good move.

But I never said we shouldn’t sign free agents – that’s a ridiculous distortion – and with perhaps the exception of the Houston signing, I’ve only spoken up when people here start criticizing the team’s failure to sign a ultra high end free agent or an expensive castoff from another team. I praised the 2018 free agent class we signed, which led to a fair amount of criticism and similar comments last off season (perhaps even from you – but I’m not going to hunt down those comments right now), and had no problem with the Funchess signing except for the length of contract/lack of options stuff I mentioned. I’m not a big fan of the Houston signing – primarily for the costs and guarantees involved. That’s it.

P.S. So now Ballard is both reactive AND proactive - do I have that right? (sorry, couldn't resist)

[Luck4Reich]

How is McCoy over the Hill? Isnt he the same age as Houston?

[Chromeburn]

How is McCoy over the Hill? Isnt he the same age as Houston?

He’s not, we just didn’t sign him so he’s over the hill.

[Luck4Reich]

He’s not, we just didn’t sign him so he’s over the hill.

Now I get it. :cool:

[Racehorse]

Come on, man. I am okay with us not signing him, but the dude is not over the hill. He may be at the start of a decline, but he has a couple of productive years left.

[Chaka]

He’s not, we just didn’t sign him so he’s over the hill.

Out of everything I said, THAT's what you choose to focus on? My use of the phrase "over the hill"? That's really weak. I guess when you have nothing else to say, you're left with nitpicking terminology.

For what it's worth, in the context of an NFL player, I view "over the hill" as simply being past the player's prime - or in other words, on the downside of his career. By this definition, BOTH McCoy and Houston are over the hill in my view. You might have a different personal definition, but I'm pretty sure mine is reasonable. And I honestly can't believe this is what the discussion has devolved into.

[JAFF]

He’s not, we just didn’t sign him so he’s over the hill.

He is the hill.

[JAFF]

Speed most certainly does go into a slump--any playoff game ever played on a bad field would completely neutralize a bunch of lighter, faster players. That isn't as common with field turf and such but it always seems like there's one or two key games where the field conditions take away any speed advantage. I don't think world-class speed was going to solve KC in January.

Also, I think the people in this thread have a good grasp of the idea that Ted Washington and Tony Siragusa-type giants at DT are dinosaurs as far as this defense goes.

So fat slow guys do better on muddy fields than fast guys?? Same conditions. The law of inertia will tell you a smaller guy stops faster than a big guy moving the same speed. A bad field is a bad field for everybody.

[Chromeburn]

I’ll stop “lecturing” people about sound management of team resources when people stop trying to justify the signing of an over-the-hill player based upon the amount of cap space that we have. It’s a lame justification. And the only “hand wringing” I see is the anxiety that so many here have expressed over the large amount of cap space the Colts are sitting on.

Looking through all of the garbage in your last post, it doesn’t appear we even disagree very much in principle. Of course you need to draft well, and of course you need to make good free agent signings. That’s really all I’ve been saying all along. Where we disagree is how that strategy is implemented. It is indeed a cost benefit analysis, just as you’ve said, and I just don’t think the costs of signing the type of older players you’ve been advocating (like McCoy) are likely to provide a equivalent or greater benefit. Time will tell, I guess, and it certainly isn't impossible, but as we sit here today I just don’t think history suggests that’s a good move.

But I never said we shouldn’t sign free agents – that’s a ridiculous distortion – and with perhaps the exception of the Houston signing, I’ve only spoken up when people here start criticizing the team’s failure to sign a ultra high end free agent or an expensive castoff from another team. I praised the 2018 free agent class we signed, which led to a fair amount of criticism and similar comments last off season (perhaps even from you – but I’m not going to hunt down those comments right now), and had no problem with the Funchess signing except for the length of contract/lack of options stuff I mentioned. I’m not a big fan of the Houston signing – primarily for the costs and guarantees involved. That’s it.

P.S. So now Ballard is both reactive AND proactive - do I have that right? (sorry, couldn't resist)

The fact that we have available cap space was only one factor in signing McCoy, not the only factor. If you read through the thread you would know that, but I think you ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to establish. We actually don't disagree on very much, however you misinterpret things quite a bit and it is exhausting.

Maybe some appreaciate the lectures, I already have an MBA and I don't think your 'run it like a business' model is applicable to building a winning football team. The problem is I just don't think you know a whole lot about football. The fact that the only problem you have with the Funchess signing is that it is one year contract reinforces that notion. If you don't know much about football it is hard to tell what is a good decision and a bad decision concerning personnel. So you fall back on a trope of arguing against over-paying for free agents and big names. "Oh no stupid fans, they don't know what they are talking about. They just want to sign big name players past their prime. I better tell them how you are suppossed to run a football team." Well that isn't really the case here. Considering we have a ton of cap space, makes it more a football fit argument than a cap argument concerning McCoy. If you want to argue that spending money on McCoy will keep us from resigning our own guys, fine do that. Look at the free agents for next year (https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2020/all/indianapolis-colts/). Some of these guys we will resign, more I think we will replaced through the draft. But just saying "oh no spending ten million now will keep us from resigning guys" is a blanket statement that doesn't hold any weight because it is conjecture.

As for the proactive thing. I know you think you are making a joke, but you do know premptive and proactive have two different meanings? You remind me of Biff Tannen who thinks he is being witty when he tells someone to make like a tree and get outa here. Ballard is only proactive once a glaring hole is exposed on the field. The past couple years we have entered the season with obvious holes. OL year one, year two pass rush and WR, year three looks like interior d-line to me as it stands. I would like to see him address these issues more before it is exposed on the field, hence he is reactive to roster issues after the fact, then he becomes proactive. That is not the same as preemptive. This comes into the reading comprehension, I really think you have a hard time figuring out what people are trying to say on here. I have to explain things to an obsurd detail. I noticed it the last time we got into it and you doing it with other posters as well.

[Chromeburn]

He is the hill.

King of the hill?

https://media.giphy.com/media/4XOfvSkkxchHy/giphy.gif

[smitty46953]

So fat slow guys do better on muddy fields than fast guys?? Same conditions. The law of inertia will tell you a smaller guy stops faster than a big guy moving the same speed. A bad field is a bad field for everybody.

I was 6'3" 295# when I played, personally loved muddy slick fields due to better traction. Science or not but as a slow fat guy I felt I had an advantage. Just my $0.02 … :cool:

[JAFF]

I was 6'3" 295# when I played, personally loved muddy slick fields due to better traction. Science or not but as a slow fat guy I felt I had an advantage. Just my $0.02 … :cool:

If you couldn't catch a RB on a dry field you weren't going to catch him on a muddy one. It's easier for a man who weighs less to change directions than a larger man because the force of inertia is greater with more mass. So it's harder to make quick turns for a semi truck, easier for a civic.

The only way I ever had an advantage on a muddy field was putting in the longest cleats that was in the equipment box.

Howie Long got caught in a winter game on a frozen field wearing baseball spikes. A for effort, A for being a douchebag.

[Chromeburn]

Nothing always works all the time. That's life. How did this team lose to Jax 6-0 last year? WTF. The offense stunk that day.

The NFL has morphed into a league with athletic QB's and play fast up and down the field. A large, slow D can't compete with speed. Speed never goes into a slump. A large slow D can't catch Pat Mahomes. And moving him off his spot doesn't seem to bother him, that guy can throw from any positon. So you need to go HIT him. And he's not the last of fast mobile QB's, he is the future. And does anyone have a power run system in the NFL other than Dallas?

Yeah, I'm keeping it simple, because I'm not a GM. I don't pretend to be one on the internet. And the Dungy D works because it is simple. Players don't have time to make decisions, so you give them less thinking and more doing. Defense is reacting, and then you get to the ball, all 11 guys. That's how you can play young guys with less experience.

And I believe if Ballard can draft a 310 lb DT who can run like Warren Sapp, he will take him. But those guys are rare. You he's not going to sign a guy 2 gap blocking sponge because that doesn't fit this D. They don't need Tony Sarigusa. They are looking for John Randle.

Here is my take on it. You are obsolutely right that the league is curving towards a spread system with fast mobile QB's (fast mobile QB's are really nothing new). The speed we have gained is definitely necessary and will be an asset next year.

The problem is we have two power run teams in our division and several more in the conference. We will have to go through these teams to get to the superbowl. To defend the run in this system it is all about maintaining your lane and distance (gap integrity or whatever you want to call it) while moving up the field. Dungy preached it relentlessly, we rarely practiced it. Those defenses often got pushed around a lot. MJD is still running on them.

Maintaining your lane is easier in the 1st quarter than it is in the 4th, in the cold, on the road, in the playoffs. Colts fans have seen this before. The pats went run heavy at the end of last year to counter all these light fast defenses and to protect Brady's aging arm. They use a fullback. The question is will we be able to hold up against the pats, in NE, on their turf, in the playoffs when they will want to run all day long?

I don't know if they can, so I would like to strengthen the dline with some size. I hoped they would have addressed it in the draft, but it didn't happen. I don't think we need a Siragusa, and I don't think he would fit. But a big DT (in relation to our own guys) that fits our style of D did just become a FA, hence this thread.

[JAFF]

Here is my take on it. You are obsolutely right that the league is curving towards a spread system with fast mobile QB's (fast mobile QB's are really nothing new). The speed we have gained is definitely necessary and will be an asset next year.

The problem is we have two power run teams in our division and several more in the conference. We will have to go through these teams to get to the superbowl. To defend the run in this system it is all about maintaining your lane and distance (gap integrity or whatever you want to call it) while moving up the field. Dungy preached it relentlessly, we rarely practiced it. Those defenses often got pushed around a lot. MJD is still running on them.

Maintaining your lane is easier in the 1st quarter than it is in the 4th, in the cold, on the road, in the playoffs. Colts fans have seen this before. The pats went run heavy at the end of last year to counter all these light fast defenses and to protect Brady's aging arm. They use a fullback. The question is will we be able to hold up against the pats, in NE, on their turf, in the playoffs when they will want to run all day long?

I don't know if they can, so I would like to strengthen the dline with some size. I hoped they would have addressed it in the draft, but it didn't happen. I don't think we need a Siragusa, and I don't think he would fit. But a big DT (in relation to our own guys) that fits our style of D did just become a FA, hence this thread.

to paraphrase Bob Kravitz, "something finally stop the Jags running game, the endzone".

I understand all that. 8 games a year is on the turf at LOS. Jacksonville is usually nice weather and Tenn gets cold, but not sloppy and Texans play inside. So that'a 11 games out of 16 in decent weather. If you go to the schedule, the Colts will play LA in Sept, KC in Oct, Tampa Bay and New Orleans away late in the year, but I would not expect snow in the Super dome.

You design your team for what you usually see and do. The Colts are the most northern team in the AFC south. The weather is better when we are on the road.

KC in Oct is a crap shoot. So is the Pittsburg game. Remember when Pittsburg played a game on MNF after the state football playoffs in their stadium. They resodded the field and it had old testimate rain and on one punt the ball stuck in the ground. Anyone on the field had feet the size of manhole covers.

You build your team for home. You adjust your play calls for away. Not for nothing, if the Colts are away in shitty weather and they don't run behind Nelson and Costanzo all night the coaching staff should be fired.

[smitty46953]

If you couldn't catch a RB on a dry field you weren't going to catch him on a muddy one. It's easier for a man who weighs less to change directions than a larger man because the force of inertia is greater with more mass. So it's harder to make quick turns for a semi truck, easier for a civic.

The only way I ever had an advantage on a muddy field was putting in the longest cleats that was in the equipment box.

Howie Long got caught in a winter game on a frozen field wearing baseball spikes. A for effort, A for being a douchebag.

I guess I was a "Mudder" cause those little SOB's ran like they were slipping in shit. I even got A's in physics … :rolleyes:

[Colt Classic]

So fat slow guys do better on muddy fields than fast guys?? Same conditions. The law of inertia will tell you a smaller guy stops faster than a big guy moving the same speed. A bad field is a bad field for everybody.

What I was saying is that a speed advantage throughout the year is rendered useless most often in games that are most important such as late in the season or in the playoffs. That's why we're always hoping and praying to get the one seed to avoid a road game in Pittsburgh, New England or some other sloppy track.

[JAFF]

What I was saying is that a speed advantage throughout the year is rendered useless most often in games that are most important such as late in the season or in the playoffs. That's why we're always hoping and praying to get the one seed to avoid a road game in Pittsburgh, New England or some other sloppy track.

Playing away is playing away, doesn't matter the field

[omahacolt]

Nothing always works all the time. That's life. How did this team lose to Jax 6-0 last year? WTF. The offense stunk that day.

The NFL has morphed into a league with athletic QB's and play fast up and down the field. A large, slow D can't compete with speed. Speed never goes into a slump. A large slow D can't catch Pat Mahomes. And moving him off his spot doesn't seem to bother him, that guy can throw from any positon. So you need to go HIT him. And he's not the last of fast mobile QB's, he is the future. And does anyone have a power run system in the NFL other than Dallas?

Yeah, I'm keeping it simple, because I'm not a GM. I don't pretend to be one on the internet. And the Dungy D works because it is simple. Players don't have time to make decisions, so you give them less thinking and more doing. Defense is reacting, and then you get to the ball, all 11 guys. That's how you can play young guys with less experience.

And I believe if Ballard can draft a 310 lb DT who can run like Warren Sapp, he will take him. But those guys are rare. You he's not going to sign a guy 2 gap blocking sponge because that doesn't fit this D. They don't need Tony Sarigusa. They are looking for John Randle.
We don’t run a dungy defense. How would you know what player fits this defense when you don’t have a clue as to what we do?

[omahacolt]

Nothing always works all the time. That's life. How did this team lose to Jax 6-0 last year? WTF. The offense stunk that day.

The NFL has morphed into a league with athletic QB's and play fast up and down the field. A large, slow D can't compete with speed. Speed never goes into a slump. A large slow D can't catch Pat Mahomes. And moving him off his spot doesn't seem to bother him, that guy can throw from any positon. So you need to go HIT him. And he's not the last of fast mobile QB's, he is the future. And does anyone have a power run system in the NFL other than Dallas?

Yeah, I'm keeping it simple, because I'm not a GM. I don't pretend to be one on the internet. And the Dungy D works because it is simple. Players don't have time to make decisions, so you give them less thinking and more doing. Defense is reacting, and then you get to the ball, all 11 guys. That's how you can play young guys with less experience.

And I believe if Ballard can draft a 310 lb DT who can run like Warren Sapp, he will take him. But those guys are rare. You he's not going to sign a guy 2 gap blocking sponge because that doesn't fit this D. They don't need Tony Sarigusa. They are looking for John Randle.

Playing away is playing away, doesn't matter the field
Yes it does. Shut up

[Chaka]

The fact that we have available cap space was only one factor in signing McCoy, not the only factor. If you read through the thread you would know that, but I think you ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to establish. We actually don't disagree on very much, however you misinterpret things quite a bit and it is exhausting.

Maybe some appreaciate the lectures, I already have an MBA and I don't think your 'run it like a business' model is applicable to building a winning football team. The problem is I just don't think you know a whole lot about football. The fact that the only problem you have with the Funchess signing is that it is one year contract reinforces that notion. If you don't know much about football it is hard to tell what is a good decision and a bad decision concerning personnel. So you fall back on a trope of arguing against over-paying for free agents and big names. "Oh no stupid fans, they don't know what they are talking about. They just want to sign big name players past their prime. I better tell them how you are suppossed to run a football team." Well that isn't really the case here. Considering we have a ton of cap space, makes it more a football fit argument than a cap argument concerning McCoy. If you want to argue that spending money on McCoy will keep us from resigning our own guys, fine do that. Look at the free agents for next year (https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2020/all/indianapolis-colts/). Some of these guys we will resign, more I think we will replaced through the draft. But just saying "oh no spending ten million now will keep us from resigning guys" is a blanket statement that doesn't hold any weight because it is conjecture.

As for the proactive thing. I know you think you are making a joke, but you do know premptive and proactive have two different meanings? You remind me of Biff Tannen who thinks he is being witty when he tells someone to make like a tree and get outa here. Ballard is only proactive once a glaring hole is exposed on the field. The past couple years we have entered the season with obvious holes. OL year one, year two pass rush and WR, year three looks like interior d-line to me as it stands. I would like to see him address these issues more before it is exposed on the field, hence he is reactive to roster issues after the fact, then he becomes proactive. That is not the same as preemptive. This comes into the reading comprehension, I really think you have a hard time figuring out what people are trying to say on here. I have to explain things to an obsurd detail. I noticed it the last time we got into it and you doing it with other posters as well.

Let me make this simple, and cut through all of the meaningless fluff you’ve included in your response:

1. Cap space as an excuse for FA signings – My reference was broader than just the thread about McCoy, just like your comment that I was responding to. I’m sure there are other reasons to sign/not-sign him, many of which are legitimately debatable, but I was taking issue with just one stated reason: the repeated justification that we should sign players (McCoy, Houston, Collins, etc.) because of our cap space. That one just doesn't hold water, and compels me to try and explain why.

2. Funchess – So you’re saying I should have more criticisms of this signing? Why? Explain yourself please, because sometimes it seems like you’re shooting from the hip. And you’re a moving target – you first say that I’m against signing free agents, so when I point out that I didn’t criticize a number of the Colts free agent signings, including the decision to spend $10M on Funchess, your argument morphs into the argument that I don’t know much about football. Talk about exhausting.

3. Funchess #2 - I don’t hold myself out as an expert in player evaluation. I've been clear on that. But signing an experienced 25-year old large bodied wide receiver with upside doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me, and this is where I put my trust in Ballard. My only criticism is the one-year deal aspect –if Ballard thinks he's an answer, we didn’t position ourselves to take advantage of the signing if he works out well next year. Ideally, that would be done with option years, just like we did with Glowinski.

4. Your MBA – I don’t care. Your arguments should stand on their own without needing to use your background as a crutch, so how about you back up your position with facts or logic instead? If my approach doesn’t comport with your business training, how about you explain why, instead of just telling me that your opinion is better because you have an MBA? You have no idea what my background is. And since you seem to believe that running a football team isn’t anything like running a business, what relevance does your MBA have anyway? Tell me, please.

5. Proactive vs. Reactive – I was making the point that you’re being ridiculous. That’s all. Proactive is the opposite of reactive. Yet you first criticized Ballard for being “reactive”, and only a few posts later said he’s “proactive." I really don’t like to call people out on their grammar or spelling because I have typos too, and more importantly it’s usually a cheap shot when you can basically tell what they mean – but you just openly contradict yourself without shame. The irony is that, in explaining why Ballard is “proactive," you demonstrate that you don’t even know what that word means (he becomes proactive “once a glaring hole is exposed on the field”? Really?). So I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist given the tone of your prior post. To be honest, I wish I hadn’t said it now because those type of comments inevitably distract from the main conversation. But suffice it to say that there’s just no consistency in what you say. And don’t get me started on “preemptive.”

[Discflinger]

Can we please just close this thread? Oh, who am I kidding? It's the offseason. Flame on.

[Chromeburn]

Let me make this simple, and cut through all of the meaningless fluff you’ve included in your response:

1. Cap space as an excuse for FA signings – My reference was broader than just the thread about McCoy, just like your comment that I was responding to. I’m sure there are other reasons to sign/not-sign him, many of which are legitimately debatable, but I was taking issue with just one stated reason: the repeated justification that we should sign players (McCoy, Houston, Collins, etc.) because of our cap space. That one just doesn't hold water, and compels me to try and explain why.

2. Funchess – So you’re saying I should have more criticisms of this signing? Why? Explain yourself please, because sometimes it seems like you’re shooting from the hip. And you’re a moving target – you first say that I’m against signing free agents, so when I point out that I didn’t criticize a number of the Colts free agent signings, including the decision to spend $10M on Funchess, your argument morphs into the argument that I don’t know much about football. Talk about exhausting.

3. Funchess #2 - I don’t hold myself out as an expert in player evaluation. I've been clear on that. But signing an experienced 25-year old large bodied wide receiver with upside doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me, and this is where I put my trust in Ballard. My only criticism is the one-year deal aspect –if Ballard thinks he's an answer, we didn’t position ourselves to take advantage of the signing if he works out well next year. Ideally, that would be done with option years, just like we did with Glowinski.

4. Your MBA – I don’t care. Your arguments should stand on their own without needing to use your background as a crutch, so how about you back up your position with facts or logic instead? If my approach doesn’t comport with your business training, how about you explain why, instead of just telling me that your opinion is better because you have an MBA? You have no idea what my background is. And since you seem to believe that running a football team isn’t anything like running a business, what relevance does your MBA have anyway? Tell me, please.

5. Proactive vs. Reactive – I was making the point that you’re being ridiculous. That’s all. Proactive is the opposite of reactive. Yet you first criticized Ballard for being “reactive”, and only a few posts later said he’s “proactive." I really don’t like to call people out on their grammar or spelling because I have typos too, and more importantly it’s usually a cheap shot when you can basically tell what they mean – but you just openly contradict yourself without shame. The irony is that, in explaining why Ballard is “proactive," you demonstrate that you don’t even know what that word means (he becomes proactive “once a glaring hole is exposed on the field”? Really?). So I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist given the tone of your prior post. To be honest, I wish I hadn’t said it now because those type of comments inevitably distract from the main conversation. But suffice it to say that there’s just no consistency in what you say. And don’t get me started on “preemptive.”

Sheesh...

1. I know, the cap is the only thing you talk about, because you can’t talk about anything else. Wait... here it comes... another explanation of Ballard’s vision.

2. Funchess has some red flags. I would go over them, but they have been hashed out in the Funchess thread and they involve talk about football not the cap so...

3. Yeah ok, see above.

4. It was a joke, I was saying you can spare me your lectures on sound management. Wow pushed a button there. This kind of comes back to the ‘understanding what people are posting thing’. Keeping it simple. Building a winning team and running a business don’t really align because they have two different objectives ultimately. You build a roster to win games, but that takes investment in players. A business wants to make as much profit as possible while spending as little as possible. If the team adopted those goals we would be like one of those perennial losing baseball teams who spend no money on the roster and are just there to make as much money as possible while keeping costs low.

5. I’m usually on my phone and my big fingers make mistakes. I should probably proof, but its a sports board. I will simplify it. Ballard waits longer than I like to fix obvious issues. Once he does decide to fix it he gets after it yo. I just wish he would get after it sooner, like before the season started. Otherwise I think he’s doing a bang up job.

You really like Ballard, are you guys related? Now I’m going out, no more responses for you.

[JAFF]

Yes it does. Shut up

No it doesnt shut your pie hole

[Luck4Reich]

I like Ballard a lot. Nothing wrong with pointing out where we think he has made mistakes. Yes we are further along than anyone expected. He needs to realize that and fix the holes or upgrade where he can. Leaving 40-50 million on the table causes concern for some of us.

Again understand that he has a vision and trying to build.. but what if we go the next 8-10 years with Luck and no SB?

Are you ok then that he didnt do more with the money left on the table? Just a question.

Luck will not get younger and there is always a chance that ANY QB can be on a career ending play.

[Colt Classic]

No it doesnt shut your pie hole

It's nice to see Edith and Archie back together again.

[JAFF]

It's nice to see Edith and Archie back together again.

Thanks meathead

[IndyNorm]

Ballard doesn’t want to do that, so rather than blowing his available cap space now on older luxury players like McCoy, Suh, etc., he’s conserving his cap space to push it forward so he’ll have extra money available to pay the Nelsons and Leonards of the world when they can become free agents. This will allow him to keep the core together and to outspend other teams in later years when that cap space will be desperately needed. It also serves the duel purpose of fostering a competitive atmosphere among the existing younger players, who know that if they perform they can earn a starting spot because they aren’t blocked by one-year veteran rentals.



This is why people on here are disagreeing with you. You seem to think that signing 1-2 higher tier FAs to short term, reasonable contracts with kill us cap-wise which just isn't the case. After the supposedly cap killing Houston signing we're at $55M under the cap which is $14M more than any other team, and if we had signed McCoy to a similar deal as Carolina we would still be $6M more under than any other team.

You also never take into account (maybe you're unaware) that per the CBA NFL teams have to spend a certain percentage of the salary cap within a given period of time. Did some googling on the details of this and the short version is that teams have to spend at least 89% of their base salary cap between '17-'20 in total cash on players. To be compliant with this the Colts have to spend an additional ~$64M between now and the end of the '20 season, so we can't just simply horde cap space until '21 or '22 as you suggest.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the current CBA ends after the 2020 season, so the rules on rolling cap space YoY could change. If I was in the NFLPA I would certainly push for that in an attempt to increase current player salaries.

[Colt Classic]

This is why people on here are disagreeing with you. You seem to think that signing 1-2 higher tier FAs to short term, reasonable contracts with kill us cap-wise which just isn't the case. After the supposedly cap killing Houston signing we're at $55M under the cap which is $14M more than any other team, and if we had signed McCoy to a similar deal as Carolina we would still be $6M more under than any other team.

You also never take into account (maybe you're unaware) that per the CBA NFL teams have to spend a certain percentage of the salary cap within a given period of time. Did some googling on the details of this and the short version is that teams have to spend at least 89% of their base salary cap between '17-'20 in total cash on players. To be compliant with this the Colts have to spend an additional ~$64M between now and the end of the '20 season, so we can't just simply horde cap space until '21 or '22 as you suggest.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the current CBA ends after the 2020 season, so the rules on rolling cap space YoY could change.

$64 million?! That makes it even more absurd. To add to your facts, here are next years free agents that the Colts will have. Castonzo, and...hmm. Not a lot of need for hording nickels and dimes for the immediate future. Ebron...Doyle will be over the hill according to Chaka, so he may be shown the door.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2020/all/indianapolis-colts/

[IndyNorm]

$64 million?! That makes it even more absurd. To add to your facts, here are next years free agents that the Colts will have. Castonzo, and...hmm. Not a lot of need for hording nickels and dimes for the immediate future. Ebron...Doyle will be over the hill according to Chaka, so he may be shown the door.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2020/all/indianapolis-colts/

To clarify a bit: it's the actual total cash paid out and not the cap hit. The biggest difference being the full amount of any bonuses go towards the minimum spend on the year the bonus is paid out instead of being averaged out over the life of a contract.

For example: After the season we sign AC to a 4 yr $40M extension that includes a $20M signing bonus and $5M/year salary. $25M would go towards the minimum spend threshold in '20 whereas his cap hit for '20 would be $10M.

At any rate Ballard has a lot of spending to do in the next year and a half.

[Discflinger]

And he will do it obviously on the ones who mean the most to this team.

[JAFF]

Can we please just close this thread? Oh, who am I kidding? It's the offseason. Flame on.

There is a reason some are here. Mostly they cant get _________

Use your imagination

[JAFF]

I like Ballard a lot. Nothing wrong with pointing out where we think he has made mistakes. Yes we are further along than anyone expected. He needs to realize that and fix the holes or upgrade where he can. Leaving 40-50 million on the table causes concern for some of us.

Again understand that he has a vision and trying to build.. but what if we go the next 8-10 years with Luck and no SB?

Are you ok then that he didnt do more with the money left on the table? Just a question.

Luck will not get younger and there is always a chance that ANY QB can be on a career ending play.

Shit happens. What if we didnt win WW2. As long as the Patriots cheat, there are no guarantees except that they cheat (and sleep with their cousins)

[smitty46953]

There is a reason some are here. Mostly they cant get _________

Use your imagination

Sorry for your luck :(

[Discflinger]

Luck is the reason we all still troll.

[Luck4Reich]

Shit happens.

Indeed. You're here.:cool:

[JAFF]

Sorry for your luck :(

My luck is tall and blonde

[Colt Classic]

My luck is tall and blonde

Yeah, what's his name?

[JAFF]

Yeah, what's his name?

Your mom

Sorry. I had an omaha moment. L

[Chaka]

This is why people on here are disagreeing with you. You seem to think that signing 1-2 higher tier FAs to short term, reasonable contracts with kill us cap-wise which just isn't the case. After the supposedly cap killing Houston signing we're at $55M under the cap which is $14M more than any other team, and if we had signed McCoy to a similar deal as Carolina we would still be $6M more under than any other team.

You also never take into account (maybe you're unaware) that per the CBA NFL teams have to spend a certain percentage of the salary cap within a given period of time. Did some googling on the details of this and the short version is that teams have to spend at least 89% of their base salary cap between '17-'20 in total cash on players. To be compliant with this the Colts have to spend an additional ~$64M between now and the end of the '20 season, so we can't just simply horde cap space until '21 or '22 as you suggest.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the current CBA ends after the 2020 season, so the rules on rolling cap space YoY could change. If I was in the NFLPA I would certainly push for that in an attempt to increase current player salaries.

I totally understand what you are saying Norm, and I am well aware of the rules regarding minimum cap spending (I've even discussed it in prior posts if I'm not mistaken). I'm not sure you're fully understanding my position - I never said that signing a McCoy or Houston will kill us cap wise, or that McCoy or Houston would weaken our team in any way, or that they won't improve us somewhat. It's just that I don't think that's the best use of our money. As a general principle, I think we should strive to put our available money to the highest use possible. If we have better ways to spend our money (for example, in house free agents), we should do that instead of spending it on players who won't bring back a great return.

This isn't to say that no players over 30 should be signed - that's way too simplistic. It's just that the stats show that once a player hits a certain age, their performance declines. That age is different for different positions. Yet they tend to get paid well for a few years later based upon reputation and name recognition. Add to that the inherent uncertainty in a player switching teams/systems, and it just doesn't seem like a good bet to me. For example, setting aside his personal issues, Le'veon Bell is past his "best by" date so I was against signing him to a multi-year contract. Houston is the same. Those guys undoubtedly have value, but I thought they were both overpaid.

I much preferred signings like Matt Slauson, who was an older player with value but signed at a reasonable price. He didn't work out so well, I guess, but I like the strategy better.

Further, this analysis is primarily confined to outside free agents. I am not as concerned about signing older in-house free agents because (1) we know them and their condition so well, (2) they are not switching systems, and (3) it creates continuity and a team identity.

As far as the minimum spending requirements, it doesn’t concern me too much. There are ways to meet that minimum that don't require us to spend tons on outside free agents immediately. As you mentioned in your later post, you can resign players like Ryan Kelly or Costanzo and give them large up front signing bonuses. Or perhaps you could convert some of Luck’s salary into a signing bonus, and perhaps add a year or two to his contract while you're doing it. My guess is that the NFLPA would be perfectly fine with that since they are looking out for all players, not just those who are free agents.

As far as possible changes to the CBA, you make a fair point but it’s anyone’s guess how that will play out. Negotiations will be ongoing long before the current CBA expires, so I have to think that the owners/GMs will have a good idea of the likelihood of any changes before then.

I’ll concede this to those complaining about us carrying so much open cap space: if Ballard lets the Colts get fined or penalized for not using the cap minimum, then I’ll agree that your criticisms are valid. I just don’t think that’s what will happen though.

[Chaka]

$64 million?! That makes it even more absurd. To add to your facts, here are next years free agents that the Colts will have. Castonzo, and...hmm. Not a lot of need for hording nickels and dimes for the immediate future. Ebron...Doyle will be over the hill according to Chaka, so he may be shown the door.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2020/all/indianapolis-colts/

See above post.

[Chaka]

Sheesh...

1. I know, the cap is the only thing you talk about, because you can’t talk about anything else. Wait... here it comes... another explanation of Ballard’s vision.

I can talk about a lot of things, but I don't pretend to be who I'm not. So I don't hold myself out as an expert on player evaluation or on field X's and O's.


2. Funchess has some red flags. I would go over them, but they have been hashed out in the Funchess thread and they involve talk about football not the cap so...

3. Yeah ok, see above.

So nothing...that's what I thought.


4. It was a joke, I was saying you can spare me your lectures on sound management. Wow pushed a button there. This kind of comes back to the ‘understanding what people are posting thing’. Keeping it simple. Building a winning team and running a business don’t really align because they have two different objectives ultimately. You build a roster to win games, but that takes investment in players. A business wants to make as much profit as possible while spending as little as possible. If the team adopted those goals we would be like one of those perennial losing baseball teams who spend no money on the roster and are just there to make as much money as possible while keeping costs low.

A joke? Really? Your comedy needs some work. And the irony of you saying I need to "understand what people are posting" while you somehow read my "run it like a business" analogy to mean that I'm saying the Colts should try to make more money...


5. I’m usually on my phone and my big fingers make mistakes. I should probably proof, but its a sports board. I will simplify it. Ballard waits longer than I like to fix obvious issues. Once he does decide to fix it he gets after it yo. I just wish he would get after it sooner, like before the season started. Otherwise I think he’s doing a bang up job.

You're fingers are to blame for your repeated incorrect use of terms, and then your arguments with me about that? ok...


You really like Ballard, are you guys related? Now I’m going out, no more responses for you.

Ok by me. And yes, I like Ballard a lot, but he's not above criticism. His management of team resources appeals to me, as I've set forth in countless prior posts, long before the success we had last year.

[Oldcolt]

Bottom line for me is Ballard/Reich are doing a better job in rebuilding this team than I could have hoped for. Perfect? Obviously nobody is, but this is the best combination of gm/coach that this team has ever had. That's a lot to say after one year but right now I'll stick to it.

[IndyNorm]

I totally understand what you are saying Norm, and I am well aware of the rules regarding minimum cap spending (I've even discussed it in prior posts if I'm not mistaken). I'm not sure you're fully understanding my position - I never said that signing a McCoy or Houston will kill us cap wise, or that McCoy or Houston would weaken our team in any way, or that they won't improve us somewhat. It's just that I don't think that's the best use of our money. As a general principle, I think we should strive to put our available money to the highest use possible. If we have better ways to spend our money (for example, in house free agents), we should do that instead of spending it on players who won't bring back a great return.

This isn't to say that no players over 30 should be signed - that's way too simplistic. It's just that the stats show that once a player hits a certain age, their performance declines. That age is different for different positions. Yet they tend to get paid well for a few years later based upon reputation and name recognition. Add to that the inherent uncertainty in a player switching teams/systems, and it just doesn't seem like a good bet to me. For example, setting aside his personal issues, Le'veon Bell is past his "best by" date so I was against signing him to a multi-year contract. Houston is the same. Those guys undoubtedly have value, but I thought they were both overpaid.

I much preferred signings like Matt Slauson, who was an older player with value but signed at a reasonable price. He didn't work out so well, I guess, but I like the strategy better.

Further, this analysis is primarily confined to outside free agents. I am not as concerned about signing older in-house free agents because (1) we know them and their condition so well, (2) they are not switching systems, and (3) it creates continuity and a team identity.

As far as the minimum spending requirements, it doesn’t concern me too much. There are ways to meet that minimum that don't require us to spend tons on outside free agents immediately. As you mentioned in your later post, you can resign players like Ryan Kelly or Costanzo and give them large up front signing bonuses. Or perhaps you could convert some of Luck’s salary into a signing bonus, and perhaps add a year or two to his contract while you're doing it. My guess is that the NFLPA would be perfectly fine with that since they are looking out for all players, not just those who are free agents.

As far as possible changes to the CBA, you make a fair point but it’s anyone’s guess how that will play out. Negotiations will be ongoing long before the current CBA expires, so I have to think that the owners/GMs will have a good idea of the likelihood of any changes before then.

I’ll concede this to those complaining about us carrying so much open cap space: if Ballard lets the Colts get fined or penalized for not using the cap minimum, then I’ll agree that your criticisms are valid. I just don’t think that’s what will happen though.

I get what you're saying, and if we were in a position where that salary cap space was needed to re-sign our own in the next season or 2 then that would be a different story. Same goes for if Ballard decided to go all Grigson and blow through all of our cap space. But since neither of those are the case there isn't anything wrong with bringing in productive vets at short term, reasonable contracts to improve the team.

Also since you brought up overpaying, I'm surprised you're so on board with the Funchess signing. His production has been below average at best, and in a contract year he led the league in drop rate and was benched. Seems like we could have gotten him much closer to a min contract rather than the $10M we paid him.

[GoBigBlue88]

My only thing: if this team is going to have boatloads of cap space and not sign new FAs, at least use it to advance cap hits on current players or front your extensions.

[rm1369]

I’ll concede this to those complaining about us carrying so much open cap space: if Ballard lets the Colts get fined or penalized for not using the cap minimum, then I’ll agree that your criticisms are valid. I just don’t think that’s what will happen though.

I’m not at all concerned about them getting fined or penalized for that. I’m concerned that they will consistently make the “smart” business decision over the “best” football decision. As a fan I only care about the salary cap and players salaries to the degree it affects the teams ability to win. Certainly being irresponsible with contracts can have that effect, but so can going to far the other way. IMO Ballard is at least flirting with being to far that way. And you are well past that point.

[Chromeburn]

I can talk about a lot of things, but I don't pretend to be who I'm not. So I don't hold myself out as an expert on player evaluation or on field X's and O's.

Doesn't stop you from pontificating about the cap and drawing bad analogies.

So nothing...that's what I thought.

Umm what, I just told you where to find it? It's not my job to educate you. Fine, he's the most perfect FA WR signing since Ryan Grant. You nailed it.

A joke? Really? Your comedy needs some work. And the irony of you saying I need to "understand what people are posting" while you somehow read my "run it like a business" analogy to mean that I'm saying the Colts should try to make more money...

I am so sad to hear that, I willl cancel my stand-up career now. That is true, it was silly of me to interpret your thorough description of 'run it like a business' for an organization that prioritizes profit. I mean there are all those businesses out there that don't care about profit, the majority really.

You're fingers are to blame for your repeated incorrect use of terms, and then your arguments with me about that? ok...

Well I was more talking about typos/mispellings which you mentioned, but I can see where you would extrapolate that large fingers are responsible for grammar issues. That happens all the time to people. Incidentally, I didn't do anything wrong. It would only be contradictory if I said Ballard was both at the same time, which I did not. Yet you seem determined to say I did even though I have explained it three times.

Ok by me. And yes, I like Ballard a lot, but he's not above criticism. His management of team resources appeals to me, as I've set forth in countless prior posts, long before the success we had last year.

And here I just thought it was because of his dick lodged into your anal cavity.

[Chaka]

I get what you're saying, and if we were in a position where that salary cap space was needed to re-sign our own in the next season or 2 then that would be a different story. Same goes for if Ballard decided to go all Grigson and blow through all of our cap space. But since neither of those are the case there isn't anything wrong with bringing in productive vets at short term, reasonable contracts to improve the team.

Also since you brought up overpaying, I'm surprised you're so on board with the Funchess signing. His production has been below average at best, and in a contract year he led the league in drop rate and was benched. Seems like we could have gotten him much closer to a min contract rather than the $10M we paid him.

I absolutely agree that there’s nothing wrong with bringing in vets to supplement the home grown players. But I guess it comes down to our personal definitions of “short term, reasonable contracts” then. I thought Houston’s two-year, largely guaranteed deal was a little rich for a guy who (1) is past his prime, (2) is changing teams after being cut by the team that knows him best, (3) is changing positions, and (4) has had some injury problems in recent years. That said, I am excited to have him, and truly I hope he plays well and outperforms his contract. I just think the chances aren’t that great that he will. I’m hoping that Ballard’s familiarity with him from his time in KC will reduce some of the risks.

On Funchess, I like the strategy of signing guys heading into their prime, and if the team’s talent evaluators think this guy has a chance to break out I’m onboard with the risk at $7-$10 million for one year. Reminds me a little of the Ebron signing - another guy who came in with a bad hands rep, and who's signing was widely panned at the time. The one year deal tells me that the team isn’t quite so confident Funchess will perform well. That's fine, but I don’t like that our upside on the deal is limited to this year. Again, the ideal solution would have been an option year or two.

[Chaka]

My only thing: if this team is going to have boatloads of cap space and not sign new FAs, at least use it to advance cap hits on current players or front your extensions.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, but what's the rush?

[Chaka]

I’m not at all concerned about them getting fined or penalized for that. I’m concerned that they will consistently make the “smart” business decision over the “best” football decision. As a fan I only care about the salary cap and players salaries to the degree it affects the teams ability to win. Certainly being irresponsible with contracts can have that effect, but so can going to far the other way. IMO Ballard is at least flirting with being to far that way. And you are well past that point.

Assuming by “business decision” you are referring to a decision to maximize return towards a long term goal (multiple Super Bowls, long term dominance), then I personally don’t see a giant difference between the two. In my view, if you constantly and effectively play the angles and percentages, you’ll inevitably emerge on top. The entire casino industry is founded on a similar principle.

Ultimately, the whole thing relies upon drafting well. I just expect that in a few years we will have a LOT of people who will need and deserve to be paid. If I’m wrong about that, then yes I guess it would have been better to have spent our money on free agents. But, to me, free agency is more of a last resort.

[rm1369]

Assuming by “business decision” you are referring to a decision to maximize return towards a long term goal (multiple Super Bowls, long term dominance), then I personally don’t see a giant difference between the two. In my view, if you constantly and effectively play the angles and percentages, you’ll inevitably emerge on top.

No, by “business decision” I’m referring to prioritizing getting the best return for dollar spent over the end product on the field. You don’t get extra points in playoff games because you have a really efficient roster and a ton of unused cap space. What actually happens is your weakness at WR and your lack of a pass rush get exposed. The NFL is highly competitive and the margins for error are so thin that always prioritizing the future is going to almost always have you coming up short.

The entire casino industry is founded on a similar principle.

This is an asinine argument. The casino industry is built on proven mathematical statistics. I can point you to the house’s statistical advantage for any table game in the casino. In the long term the math will always win out. Please show me where any such thing exists for NFL roster building. I know 32 teams who would love to have that knowledge. And don’t even bring up “Moneyball” BS or I’ll point out the differences between its applicability to baseball and football and the fact it’s storied inventor never won a title with it.

Ultimately, the whole thing relies upon drafting well. I just expect that in a few years we will have a LOT of people who will need and deserve to be paid. If I’m wrong about that, then yes I guess it would have been better to have spent our money on free agents. But, to me, free agency is more of a last resort.

To me the biggest thing you (and Ballard) are wrong about is the idea that Ballard is going to draft so well that he is going to create a long term dynasty that wins multiple championships over the long term. To me it’s simply a fools errand. The NFL rules are setup to specifically stop that. From free agency, to the salary cap, to the draft, to even the small variation in scheduling, the NFL is setup to bring teams back to the pack. The only modern day “dynasty” has been NE and they don’t operate at all how you advocate. Ballard will have to prove himself to be head and shoulders better at the draft than any GM in NFL history for it to work. Otherwise I see the limit as being the Polian Colts and Ted Thompson Packers. That isn’t all bad certainly. But I think most would agree that those teams should have more than one title each.

[rcubed]

I want to know chaka’s average word count per post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Racehorse]

I want to know chaka’s average word count per post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Opposite extreme from Omaha

[Butter]

My only thing: if this team is going to have boatloads of cap space and not sign new FAs, at least use it to advance cap hits on current players or front your extensions.

I think we will see that next off season, especially Luck and his will go a long way towards rasing the cash floor. Castanzo also needs extended.

[omahacolt]

Opposite extreme from Omaha

Yep

[omahacolt]

I think we will see that next off season, especially Luck and his will go a long way towards rasing the cash floor. Castanzo also needs extended.

Doesn’t help much this year. Just a waste really

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

I think we will see that next off season, especially Luck and his will go a long way towards rasing the cash floor. Castanzo also needs extended.


I think Ballard will have discussions with several of the agents before the start of this season. He already extended Sanchez.

I would be surprised if he didn't extend one of the TE's on the roster.

The only TE's under contract beyond this season are Billy Brown (who was signed last December and carried on the practice squad) and undrafted free agent rookie Hale Hentges.

I know that there are some potential issues with extending each of the TE's that have received the majority of playing time but I would expect that one of Ebron, Doyle or Alie-Cox to be extended before the season starts.

[IndyNorm]

I absolutely agree that there’s nothing wrong with bringing in vets to supplement the home grown players. But I guess it comes down to our personal definitions of “short term, reasonable contracts” then. I thought Houston’s two-year, largely guaranteed deal was a little rich for a guy who (1) is past his prime, (2) is changing teams after being cut by the team that knows him best, (3) is changing positions, and (4) has had some injury problems in recent years. That said, I am excited to have him, and truly I hope he plays well and outperforms his contract. I just think the chances aren’t that great that he will. I’m hoping that Ballard’s familiarity with him from his time in KC will reduce some of the risks.

On Funchess, I like the strategy of signing guys heading into their prime, and if the team’s talent evaluators think this guy has a chance to break out I’m onboard with the risk at $7-$10 million for one year. Reminds me a little of the Ebron signing - another guy who came in with a bad hands rep, and who's signing was widely panned at the time. The one year deal tells me that the team isn’t quite so confident Funchess will perform well. That's fine, but I don’t like that our upside on the deal is limited to this year. Again, the ideal solution would have been an option year or two.

Houston did get a nice chuck of upfront money, but what makes his deal reasonable IMO is that his 2nd year only has $1M guaranteed. So if he doesn't produce in year 1 we can release him with no long term implications.

With Funchess I don't disagree with bringing him in, but we definitely overpaid for a 1 year rental. Especially on a player with below average production who really regressed this last year. If we had signed him to a similar contract to Ebron's then that would have made a lot more sense.

[IndyNorm]

I think Ballard will have discussions with several of the agents before the start of this season. He already extended Sanchez.

I would be surprised if he didn't extend one of the TE's on the roster.

The only TE's under contract beyond this season are Billy Brown (who was signed last December and carried on the practice squad) and undrafted free agent rookie Hale Hentges.

I know that there are some potential issues with extending each of the TE's that have received the majority of playing time but I would expect that one of Ebron, Doyle or Alie-Cox to be extended before the season starts.

Good point on the TEs, although Alie-Cox will be an ERFA so in all likelihood he'll be back at least 1 if not 2 years. Also, I think Ebron will not want to extend at this point b/c if he repeats his '18 season he will command a big contract on the open market.

[Chromeburn]

I think Ballard will have discussions with several of the agents before the start of this season. He already extended Sanchez.

I would be surprised if he didn't extend one of the TE's on the roster.

The only TE's under contract beyond this season are Billy Brown (who was signed last December and carried on the practice squad) and undrafted free agent rookie Hale Hentges.

I know that there are some potential issues with extending each of the TE's that have received the majority of playing time but I would expect that one of Ebron, Doyle or Alie-Cox to be extended before the season starts.


Moe Allie Cox has been tearing it up in OTA's apparently.

[AlwaysSunnyinIndy]

Good point on the TEs, although Alie-Cox will be an ERFA so in all likelihood he'll be back at least 1 if not 2 years.


Nice catch. I was in a hurry writing my earlier post and just quickly scanned the roster looking at the end date of the current contracts. So it is not quite as dire, but it would be nice to extend Ebron or Doyle considering how much Reich likes to incorporate the position in the offense.


Moe Allie Cox has been tearing it up in OTA's apparently.

Yeah, I read that, too. He will at least get some extra practice with the first unit while Ebron and Doyle recover / rehab from their surgeries.

[Chaka]

No, by “business decision” I’m referring to prioritizing getting the best return for dollar spent over the end product on the field. You don’t get extra points in playoff games because you have a really efficient roster and a ton of unused cap space. What actually happens is your weakness at WR and your lack of a pass rush get exposed. The NFL is highly competitive and the margins for error are so thin that always prioritizing the future is going to almost always have you coming up short.



This is an asinine argument. The casino industry is built on proven mathematical statistics. I can point you to the house’s statistical advantage for any table game in the casino. In the long term the math will always win out. Please show me where any such thing exists for NFL roster building. I know 32 teams who would love to have that knowledge. And don’t even bring up “Moneyball” BS or I’ll point out the differences between its applicability to baseball and football and the fact it’s storied inventor never won a title with it.



To me the biggest thing you (and Ballard) are wrong about is the idea that Ballard is going to draft so well that he is going to create a long term dynasty that wins multiple championships over the long term. To me it’s simply a fools errand. The NFL rules are setup to specifically stop that. From free agency, to the salary cap, to the draft, to even the small variation in scheduling, the NFL is setup to bring teams back to the pack. The only modern day “dynasty” has been NE and they don’t operate at all how you advocate. Ballard will have to prove himself to be head and shoulders better at the draft than any GM in NFL history for it to work. Otherwise I see the limit as being the Polian Colts and Ted Thompson Packers. That isn’t all bad certainly. But I think most would agree that those teams should have more than one title each.

So I guess it’s just business as usual then? Don’t try to innovate or try any different approaches? We’ll just draft and play our games, and if we get lucky win a few games and maybe a Super Bowl because it’s pointless to try and do anything differently. Everything’s already been tried, the margins are too thin, and you can’t out think anyone?

That’s ridiculous. There’s plenty of room for innovating everywhere, the NFL included. You’ve already been proven wrong after you argued last year that Ballard’s approach would lead us into 2-3 years of obscurity. So we had a few holes or weaknesses – what team doesn’t, particularly coming from where we did the year before? I notice you didn’t bring up the OL or the DBs – areas that I’m guessing (but can't recall specifically as I sit here) you were critical of last offseason.

Regarding my casino analogy and the “Moneyball BS”, it’s obvious you don’t fully grasp those examples. Because “mathematical statistics” were involved in those examples, you think the underlying principles don’t have any application here. The more important lesson is that a seemingly slight advantage can make a big difference, and can be all that is needed to turn a loser into a winner. And if you maintain that slight advantage over a long period of time, you will continue to win for a long time as well.

As for the purported hopelessness of trying to become a long term winner in the NFL, despite your suggestion otherwise teams have been doing that since the outset of the league. But you don’t do that by acting like every other team – you need to find inefficiencies and exploit them. That’s what the Colts are trying to do. I don't recall if you were one of the many who were critical of Ballard's 2018 draft, but so far he's proving your current theory wrong there as well.

[Chaka]

Opposite extreme from Omaha

You've got that right. I don't have his gift of brevity, sorry.

[Chaka]

Houston did get a nice chuck of upfront money, but what makes his deal reasonable IMO is that his 2nd year only has $1M guaranteed. So if he doesn't produce in year 1 we can release him with no long term implications.

With Funchess I don't disagree with bringing him in, but we definitely overpaid for a 1 year rental. Especially on a player with below average production who really regressed this last year. If we had signed him to a similar contract to Ebron's then that would have made a lot more sense.

Those are all fair and reasonable points. I’m still not sure about Houston’s guarantees, however. According to Spotrac, he’s guaranteed $18.5M over two years, with a total contract of $23M. Included within this are the so-called “roster bonuses” of $13M for 2019 and $1M for 2020.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/justin-houston-7789/

Dam had it out with me a month or two ago about these bonuses (specifically the $1M bonus in 2020) and whether it is actually guaranteed, but other than the fact that it’s labeled “roster bonus” I don’t see anywhere to suggest that this isn’t fully guaranteed. I realize the term "roster bonus" implies otherwise, but according to Spotrac, his contract would have a dead cap value of $18.5 million if we cut him, so that appears to include both the 2020 roster bonus and the $3.5 million of the 2020 contract.

Ultimately, we'd have to see the actual contract to resolve this dispute, but until then I'll go with Spotrac.

[Colt Classic]

It doesn't make sense to extend Doyle either since he's going to be over the hill.

More seriously along with that--any injury/concussion this season would make extending him possibly not in line value-wise with what the extension would be, based on his age.

[JAFF]

It doesn't make sense to extend Doyle either since he's going to be over the hill.

More seriously along with that--any injury/concussion this season would make extending him possibly not in line value-wise with what the extension would be, based on his age.

29 is now the new 60?

[Chromeburn]

It doesn't make sense to extend Doyle either since he's going to be over the hill.

More seriously along with that--any injury/concussion this season would make extending him possibly not in line value-wise with what the extension would be, based on his age.

Not if Ballard signs him again. Then it will be ok because he knows him.

Doyle is the more important TE IMO, and the more difficult to replace. He does a lot of the little things that make the offense go. Kind of like a Rodman on the Bulls, just more likable. However, with his injury history resigning him would be a pretty big risk. I can see a draft pick replacement for him, also depending on how Cox’s blocking looks by the end of the season.

[Chromeburn]

No, by “business decision” I’m referring to prioritizing getting the best return for dollar spent over the end product on the field. You don’t get extra points in playoff games because you have a really efficient roster and a ton of unused cap space. What actually happens is your weakness at WR and your lack of a pass rush get exposed. The NFL is highly competitive and the margins for error are so thin that always prioritizing the future is going to almost always have you coming up short.

This is an asinine argument. The casino industry is built on proven mathematical statistics. I can point you to the house’s statistical advantage for any table game in the casino. In the long term the math will always win out. Please show me where any such thing exists for NFL roster building. I know 32 teams who would love to have that knowledge. And don’t even bring up “Moneyball” BS or I’ll point out the differences between its applicability to baseball and football and the fact it’s storied inventor never won a title with it.

To me the biggest thing you (and Ballard) are wrong about is the idea that Ballard is going to draft so well that he is going to create a long term dynasty that wins multiple championships over the long term. To me it’s simply a fools errand. The NFL rules are setup to specifically stop that. From free agency, to the salary cap, to the draft, to even the small variation in scheduling, the NFL is setup to bring teams back to the pack. The only modern day “dynasty” has been NE and they don’t operate at all how you advocate. Ballard will have to prove himself to be head and shoulders better at the draft than any GM in NFL history for it to work. Otherwise I see the limit as being the Polian Colts and Ted Thompson Packers. That isn’t all bad certainly. But I think most would agree that those teams should have more than one title each.

You see RM, you obviously can’t grasp what he is trying to say or process the difficult concepts he extols. You should re-read his posts in order to understand them. Once you do understand you will obviously agree with him because he is right.

[Butter]

Doesn’t help much this year. Just a waste really

Considering I am referring to cap space and the cash floor it has nothing to do with this year since the space rolls over and nothing is lost if spent next season.

[omahacolt]

Considering I am referring to cap space and the cash floor it has nothing to do with this year since the space rolls over and nothing is lost if spent next season.

Except maybe some games. Or a championship

[YDFL Commish]

Houston did get a nice chuck of upfront money, but what makes his deal reasonable IMO is that his 2nd year only has $1M guaranteed. So if he doesn't produce in year 1 we can release him with no long term implications.

With Funchess I don't disagree with bringing him in, but we definitely overpaid for a 1 year rental. Especially on a player with below average production who really regressed this last year. If we had signed him to a similar contract to Ebron's then that would have made a lot more sense.

Funchess had an overrated QB with a bum shoulder throwing to him. I'm predicting 60+ catches and 10+ TD's.

[Oldcolt]

Except maybe some games. Or a championship

I understand your point, except that I was not upset with any of our non-signings. Who exactly should we have signed to get that championship? I would like to point out that although we didn't spend much money in free agency last year I would say that we had maybe the best free agent haul of anyone. My guess is that we do very well, production wise, this year also In veteran pick ups (pretty much free) of guys like Glowinski/Moore (I know not last year) Ballard has found excellent players on the cheap consistantly. To me that means more than spending the most money. He knows what he is doing.

[JAFF]

I understand your point, except that I was not upset with any of our non-signings. Who exactly should we have signed to get that championship? I would like to point out that although we didn't spend much money in free agency last year I would say that we had maybe the best free agent haul of anyone. My guess is that we do very well, production wise, this year also In veteran pick ups (pretty much free) of guys like Glowinski/Moore (I know not last year) Ballard has found excellent players on the cheap consistantly. To me that means more than spending the most money. He knows what he is doing.

And, the Colts kept some guys who played well, like Desir. They spent money on the punter, on Glowinski. Sometimes it's not who you bring in, but who you keep.

[rm1369]

Don’t try to innovate or try any different approaches? .........That’s ridiculous. There’s plenty of room for innovating everywhere, the NFL included.

I have absolutely no idea wtf you are ranting about.

You’ve already been proven wrong after you argued last year that Ballard’s approach would lead us into 2-3 years of obscurity. So we had a few holes or weaknesses – what team doesn’t, particularly coming from where we did the year before? I notice you didn’t bring up the OL or the DBs – areas that I’m guessing (but can't recall specifically as I sit here) you were critical of last offseason.

My argument has been Ballard’s approach was a 3-4 yr rebuild until they were pushing for a title and I didn’t (still don’t) believe that time line is necessary with a franchise QB, loads of cap space, and the #3 pick in the draft. I typed more but deleted it. Post is to long.

As far as the OL and DBs, I didn’t complain about the OL going into last year. I didn’t like the value of Nelson at 6 but I never said the line wouldn’t be improved/ good. I was not impressed with the roster at LB, DB, WR, or DL last year. Considering the moves this offseason it seems Ballard wasn’t that impressed either. And yes I still believe the DL would be in better shape with Haskins.


Regarding my casino analogy and the “Moneyball BS”, it’s obvious you don’t fully grasp those examples. Because “mathematical statistics” were involved in those examples, you think the underlying principles don’t have any application here.

I grasp them and I have no issue with their use as part of a larger scheme. I have an issue with their use as THE underlying principle driving team building. To my knowledge Moneyball has provided a better return on investment as far as wins goes, but it has not won a title. And the big exception I take to your BS “that’s what the casino industry is built on” comment is that you state it as if NFL roster building has the same defined, unbreakable statistics behind it that the casino industry does. They don’t. Not even fucking close.

As for the purported hopelessness of trying to become a long term winner in the NFL, despite your suggestion otherwise teams have been doing that since the outset of the league.

I don’t think you read what you respond to. I think you are so quick to get your reply out you take no time to comprehend what anyone is saying.

A long term winner? Yes I believe Ballard will build it. I’ve said that multiple times over the last 2 years. And in the answer you replied to I referenced the Polian Colts as being what I believe the best case scenario is. I’d say that’s a long term winner and achievable. It’s the dynasty part of your rants that I believe is not achievable. At least not in the way you suggest it.

But you don’t do that by acting like every other team – you need to find inefficiencies and exploit them. That’s what the Colts are trying to do.

I’m not really sure how hoarding $50m+ in cap space is exploiting other teams weaknesses. I’ll take your word for it though. I do know what it looks like to see an opponent exploit the Colts weaknesses on the field. I just hope the Colts cap-space exploitation generates more points in the playoffs than their opponents on the field exploitation.

[Chromeburn]

Funchess had an overrated QB with a bum shoulder throwing to him. I'm predicting 60+ catches and 10+ TD's.

Cam isn't that bad. Those numbers would supercede Funchess' best season ever. I hope the guy does well and he isn't another Aiken or Grant. But man, I don't like his stats. He hovers around the 55% catch rate the last two years, which is much lower than Ebron. His 4 year average is 50% (although rookie years are not always fair to include). He got outplayed by a rookie last year in DJ Moore, who reminds me a lot of Cambell. Got benched at the end of the year. Then his fight the other day.

He could be an asset in goal line, with two TE's and Hilton. That would give us a lot of height in the redzone for Luck to find. His TD numbers could be pretty good. People want to compare him to the Ebron signing but I see Ebron as having better numbers and a former QB who throws a notoriously hard ball that is not the easierst to catch. I see him more like Philly's Alshon Jeffrey. Alshon has had up and down hands with numbers in the range you mention. You can see why Reich pushed for him. Jeffrey got roasted for his drop at New Orleans which ended their season. It is not easy to suddenly build chemistry with your QB in one off-season, that takes time and reps.

Still I think he is a stop gap with the suddenly in vogue one year contract. I think they are hoping one of the draft picks will step up by next season. They may talk resigning if he does really well, especially if the draft picks underperform. I don't see ten million in value though. Is he that much better than Inman?

[Chromeburn]

I understand your point, except that I was not upset with any of our non-signings. Who exactly should we have signed to get that championship? I would like to point out that although we didn't spend much money in free agency last year I would say that we had maybe the best free agent haul of anyone. My guess is that we do very well, production wise, this year also In veteran pick ups (pretty much free) of guys like Glowinski/Moore (I know not last year) Ballard has found excellent players on the cheap consistantly. To me that means more than spending the most money. He knows what he is doing.

John Simon made a key play in the Superbowl, think NE is glad they picked him up? You can't predict who would give you a championship. That's why you try to round your roster out the best you can. McCoy was a free agent that fit exactly what we like to run on D. We don't have a lot of high end talent on the line. McCoy hasn't had less than 5 sacks the last seven seasons. I don't blame him for going to the Panthers, that line is absolutely stacked now, then you have Kuechly roaming behind them. But our line is not a strength, and I find that odd considering how much Ballard preaches about the lines. Looks like we are moving forward with what we have. But we had an opportunity, motive, and means. I hope we won't regret it.

[IndyNorm]

Those are all fair and reasonable points. I’m still not sure about Houston’s guarantees, however. According to Spotrac, he’s guaranteed $18.5M over two years, with a total contract of $23M. Included within this are the so-called “roster bonuses” of $13M for 2019 and $1M for 2020.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/justin-houston-7789/

Dam had it out with me a month or two ago about these bonuses (specifically the $1M bonus in 2020) and whether it is actually guaranteed, but other than the fact that it’s labeled “roster bonus” I don’t see anywhere to suggest that this isn’t fully guaranteed. I realize the term "roster bonus" implies otherwise, but according to Spotrac, his contract would have a dead cap value of $18.5 million if we cut him, so that appears to include both the 2020 roster bonus and the $3.5 million of the 2020 contract.

Ultimately, we'd have to see the actual contract to resolve this dispute, but until then I'll go with Spotrac.

I was going off Over the Cap's numbers on his contract, which shows only $1M guaranteed next year.

https://overthecap.com/player/justin-houston/517/

If he is indeed guaranteed $4.5M next year it's not as reasonable as I thought, but still not bad since it won't hurt us long term if we release him prior to '20.

[Chaka]

I have absolutely no idea wtf you are ranting about.

Really? You honestly have no idea what I was referring to? My so-called “rant” is in response to your statement that the NFL rules are set up specifically stop teams from long term dominance, ranging “from free agency, to the salary cap, to the draft, to even the small variation in scheduling”, and that it's a “fool’s errand’ to try to resist these forces. And please don’t try to tell me you were only talking about the draft, because that just wouldn’t make any sense from the language you used.

While I’d agree that the purpose behind some parts of the rules you’ve referred is just as you say it is (to encourage competitiveness), it’s absurd to suggest that you can’t (or shouldn’t try to) beat those rules by innovating around them.


My argument has been Ballard’s approach was a 3-4 yr rebuild until they were pushing for a title and I didn’t (still don’t) believe that time line is necessary with a franchise QB, loads of cap space, and the #3 pick in the draft. I typed more but deleted it. Post is to long.

As far as the OL and DBs, I didn’t complain about the OL going into last year. I didn’t like the value of Nelson at 6 but I never said the line wouldn’t be improved/ good. I was not impressed with the roster at LB, DB, WR, or DL last year. Considering the moves this offseason it seems Ballard wasn’t that impressed either. And yes I still believe the DL would be in better shape with Haskins.

Whatever dude. I’ll take you at your word. And if you’re implying that my posts are too long (and I assume you are), then I’d invite you please stop reading them.

I grasp them and I have no issue with their use as part of a larger scheme. I have an issue with their use as THE underlying principle driving team building. To my knowledge Moneyball has provided a better return on investment as far as wins goes, but it has not won a title. And the big exception I take to your BS “that’s what the casino industry is built on” comment is that you state it as if NFL roster building has the same defined, unbreakable statistics behind it that the casino industry does. They don’t. Not even fucking close.

And enough with the moving target stuff. You and that Chromeburn dude are the same – I answer your argument, and then you act indignant and pretend that your argument was something else all along. To recap: You criticized my analogy to the casino industry since it apparently confused you, so I spoon fed it to you so you would understand better, and now you say that you really understood it the whole time and that your problem is with the application of those principles in the NFL. You also injected Moneyball into the discussion.

As to this latter issue, you are looking at the “Moneyball” example far too narrowly. While it’s true the A’s didn’t win the World Series, you ignore the more important and far more telling fact that now virtually every team has adjusted its practices in response and adopted some form of increased statistical analysis to try and take away/reduce the edge the A’s had identified and exploited. That’s all the proof you need.


I don’t think you read what you respond to. I think you are so quick to get your reply out you take no time to comprehend what anyone is saying.

A long term winner? Yes I believe Ballard will build it. I’ve said that multiple times over the last 2 years. And in the answer you replied to I referenced the Polian Colts as being what I believe the best case scenario is. I’d say that’s a long term winner and achievable. It’s the dynasty part of your rants that I believe is not achievable. At least not in the way you suggest it.

Oh, I get it now. I must have misread your original post. So you’re saying the rules you’ve referred to are set up to allow a team to enjoy a long period of winning like the Manning-led Colts, but to discourage multiple Super Bowl dynasties? Wait a minute...how exactly do all these rules you’re referring to encourage one, but prevent the other again?

The Manning-led Colts could (and perhaps should) have have won multiple Super Bowls – it wasn’t the salary cap that prevented them from doing so.


I’m not really sure how hoarding $50m+ in cap space is exploiting other teams weaknesses. I’ll take your word for it though. I do know what it looks like to see an opponent exploit the Colts weaknesses on the field. I just hope the Colts cap-space exploitation generates more points in the playoffs than their opponents on the field exploitation.

Now it’s my turn – WTF are you talking about here? I’m talking about inefficiencies in the system and rules, not on field weaknesses. Perhaps you are so quick to get your reply out you take no time to comprehend what anyone is saying. Either that, or you’re just being a garden variety asshole.

[rm1369]

Jesus fucking Christ man it’s like arguing with my 6 yr old. You make whatever fucking argument you want to make regardless of what anyone has said.


Here is my statement on analytics, “Moneyball”, and your comment about the foundation of the Casino industry:



I grasp them and I have no issue with their use as part of a larger scheme. I have an issue with their use as THE underlying principle driving team building. To my knowledge Moneyball has provided a better return on investment as far as wins goes, but it has not won a title. And the big exception I take to your BS “that’s what the casino industry is built on” comment is that you state it as if NFL roster building has the same defined, unbreakable statistics behind it that the casino industry does. They don’t. Not even fucking close.



To anyone with even a little fucking reading comprehension it should be clear that I don’t have an issue with the use of analytics as PART of a roster building / management philosophy, I have an issue with it being THE deciding factor in every decision. In the context of this whole conversation it means I have an issue with the focus being on getting a bargain instead improving the product on the field. But we’ll come back to that. Before you start ranting off in some other direction let’s look at your response to that quote:




And enough with the moving target stuff. You and that Chromeburn dude are the same – I answer your argument, and then you act indignant and pretend that your argument was something else all along. To recap: You criticized my analogy to the casino industry since it apparently confused you, so I spoon fed it to you so you would understand better, and now you say that you really understood it the whole time and that your problem is with the application of those principles in the NFL. You also injected Moneyball into the discussion.

As to this latter issue, you are looking at the “Moneyball” example far too narrowly. While it’s true the A’s didn’t win the World Series, you ignore the more important and far more telling fact that now virtually every team has adjusted its practices in response and adopted some form of increased statistical analysis to try and take away/reduce the edge the A’s had identified and exploited. That’s all the proof you need.


So to begin with I was too stupid to understand your analogy because I believe it’s ridiculous? Ok. Then you boil it down to everyone uses analytics so my point is obviously wrong. Wtf man? Take a god damn reading comprehension class. Seriously.


Here is your analogy:

In my view, if you constantly and effectively play the angles and percentages, you’ll inevitably emerge on top. The entire casino industry is founded on a similar principle.


So, as I stated, I had an issue with the analogy because I see no comparison between the guaranteed long term return the casino sees and the “better guess” return that analytics provides in football. Especially in the context you provide them. Not to mention the casinos advantage is driven and realized by time. They don’t need to win at any specific point. They will get their return eventually. Winning a Super Bowl is not in anyway similar. The Polian led Colts won more games in whatever long period than any other team and they won one Super Bowl. I loved those teams, but to me they were ultimately a disappointment from what they should have been. Being really good for the long term does not itself lead to Super Bowl wins.

Being cumulatively 3% or 6% better than any other team for the next decade should not be the goal (as it is for the casino). Being the best team team in a given year should be the goal. Yes you want to have as many of those opportunities to be the best team as you can, but there is always going to be a trade off between this year and the future. You have a finite amount or resources. Dedicating those resources to the future comes at a cost to the present. It is a balancing act all teams deal with.

And that is the point of the whole fucking argument. I take exception to the constant pushing of resources to the future at the expense of the present. In my view the league is so damn competitive that you have to pick smaller windows to make your push to be the best. You have to sacrifice some tomorrow for today or it will be extremely difficult to be the best in any given year where other teams are doing just that. You don’t counter that argument in anyway, you tell me I’m to fucking stupid to see the dynasty that Ballard is so obviously building.

You don’t at all care to understand or counter someone’s argument. You simply make up what you think or want their argument to be and argue against that. If someone points out that’s not their point you accuse them of moving the goal posts. Or you simply tell them they are to stupid to understand yours.

Oh, and no me saying I deleted part of my post because it was to long wasn’t a dig at you. Surprisingly it meant exactly what it said - I typed more out about that topic (the 3-4 yr rebuild) and deleted it because I thought it was to long. I’m not surprised you read into it something that wasn’t there. You do with every post that isn’t sucking Ballard’s dick or acknowledging the obvious coming dynasty.

I’m done with this conversation. Feel free to continue arguing with yourself. You’ve essentially been doing that for several posts now anyway.

[Oldcolt]

John Simon made a key play in the Superbowl, think NE is glad they picked him up? You can't predict who would give you a championship. That's why you try to round your roster out the best you can. McCoy was a free agent that fit exactly what we like to run on D. We don't have a lot of high end talent on the line. McCoy hasn't had less than 5 sacks the last seven seasons. I don't blame him for going to the Panthers, that line is absolutely stacked now, then you have Kuechly roaming behind them. But our line is not a strength, and I find that odd considering how much Ballard preaches about the lines. Looks like we are moving forward with what we have. But we had an opportunity, motive, and means. I hope we won't regret it.

You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

[Chromeburn]

And enough with the moving target stuff. You and that Chromeburn dude are the same – I answer your argument, and then you act indignant and pretend that your argument was something else all along.

Whatever dude. I’ll take you at your word. And if you’re implying that my posts are too long (and I assume you are), then I’d invite you please stop reading them.

You're projecting. This is actually what you do. Often ignoring counterpoints altogether to regurgitate your own, or incorrectly interpreting my point which I would repeatedly have to correct. This is why people get frustrated because the arguments do not progress and simply go over the same points again and again. People understand your position the first time, just some disagree. I used to think what you were doing was intentional and you were more interested in being right and 'winning' the argument, or perhaps you were trolling. We've had trolls here who were more interested in just wasting people's time than anything. However, now I think you just don't correctly process what you read or perhaps you internalize everything. You are not an idiot, do you have a reading disability?

Case in point: The second line quoted. RM was just saying his own post was getting too long. You incorrectly inferred he was criticizing you when he was just attempting to keep his own post concise.

[Racehorse]

You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Good post. Not overly emotional and stated your opinion succinctly. Some could learn from your style.

Also, you made valid points. It comes down to philosophy. You (and I) like Ballard's philosophy because it has a vision. Others do not like the vision he has, but prefer to add more expensive pieces. If we were one piece away from being SB champs, then we should spend what it takes. However, most who think we need Suh, McCoy, et. al. are the same ones who say we have a severe lack of talent on the roster.

mods, can we close this thread and make those guys above get a room?

[Chromeburn]

You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

So you are saying: big name FA's cannot work because we tried it once and it failed, and McCoy is declining and would not contribute? Let me ask you this, do you think we are still in a rebuild? If so, when do you think this rebuild ends?

I like Ballard, I think he is the best GM we have and since Polian. I wouldn't trade him for another GM in the league. And yes, last year we needed more than Simon. Although Simon would have been an upgrade on the strong side over two rookies who may not even make the team this year. I believe everyone was fine with playing the young guys because everyone thought last year was a rebuilding year. Turns out we were a little wrong about that and actually had a shot. Let me give you this scenario. What if they kept Simon though, acquired another pass rusher and brought in Inman earlier? We might be looking at a few more wins, remember we had some really close games. Two more wins and we win the division and we are hosting NE and maybe KC too. We could be looking at a very different outcome.

Also, lets be clear. I am advocating filing potential holes in the roster so we do not have glaring weaknesses that will come back to haunt us during the season. We entered last season with holes at WR and pass rush. More picks, Houston and Funchess, have helped cover those problems this year. I'm ok with Houston, I'm iffy on Funchess. But there is enough redundancy around Funchess that if he doesn't work we should still be ok.

I believe signing FA's can work because I have see it work. The Rams did it effectively last year. The pats do it all the time. There are plenty of examples of FA's working. You can use multiple methods for filling the roster. Just because Grigson signed some slow older guys a couple seasons ago doesn't mean it can't work. Grigson also had horrible drafts, does that mean we shouldn't utilize the draft anymore? Of course not. It's who you acquire, not how you acquire.

Our system could use a big 3-tech. I think they almost want two 3-tech techniques at both DT spots. Remember we are not running a Dungy Tampa-2. It is based on that system yes, but it is more influenced by Dallas' style and then Eberflus puts his own spin on it. So saying that we need a NT over a 3-tech isn't exactly right because we could have resigned Al Woods and we did not. I don't really see a lot evidence that McCoy is declining, he has been pretty consistent for awhile. This is a pretty subjective part of the argument. I think he would have benefitted from a rotation meaning he wouldn't wear down during the season. Guys can play into their 30's and he just turned 31. Signing McCoy would not hurt our cap, it would mean we still have a lot of money carried over for next year. As I said, McCoy fits very well into this scheme and has great character. The fit seems to make a lot of sense.

Last year at this time I believe people thought the oline would be better with the talent influx. They were worried about the pass rush which did not seem fixed by throwing rookies at it. Also people were worried about the wide receivers thinking they lacked talent. I remember reading some worried about the lack of proven talent at CB. But Hairston had a good rookie year and Wilson showed promise. It wasn't just fans worried though, these items were repeated in the press as well.

I am excited too, I just hope we are not trading the present for a future that may never come.

[Oldcolt]

So you are saying: big name FA's cannot work because we tried it once and it failed, and McCoy is declining and would not contribute? Let me ask you this, do you think we are still in a rebuild? If so, when do you think this rebuild ends?

I like Ballard, I think he is the best GM we have and since Polian. I wouldn't trade him for another GM in the league. And yes, last year we needed more than Simon. Although Simon would have been an upgrade on the strong side over two rookies who may not even make the team this year. I believe everyone was fine with playing the young guys because everyone thought last year was a rebuilding year. Turns out we were a little wrong about that and actually had a shot. Let me give you this scenario. What if they kept Simon though, acquired another pass rusher and brought in Inman earlier? We might be looking at a few more wins, remember we had some really close games. Two more wins and we win the division and we are hosting NE and maybe KC too. We could be looking at a very different outcome.

Also, lets be clear. I am advocating filing potential holes in the roster so we do not have glaring weaknesses that will come back to haunt us during the season. We entered last season with holes at WR and pass rush. More picks, Houston and Funchess, have helped cover those problems this year. I'm ok with Houston, I'm iffy on Funchess. But there is enough redundancy around Funchess that if he doesn't work we should still be ok.

I believe signing FA's can work because I have see it work. The Rams did it effectively last year. The pats do it all the time. There are plenty of examples of FA's working. You can use multiple methods for filling the roster. Just because Grigson signed some slow older guys a couple seasons ago doesn't mean it can't work. Grigson also had horrible drafts, does that mean we shouldn't utilize the draft anymore? Of course not. It's who you acquire, not how you acquire.

Our system could use a big 3-tech. I think they almost want two 3-tech techniques at both DT spots. Remember we are not running a Dungy Tampa-2. It is based on that system yes, but it is more influenced by Dallas' style and then Eberflus puts his own spin on it. So saying that we need a NT over a 3-tech isn't exactly right because we could have resigned Al Woods and we did not. I don't really see a lot evidence that McCoy is declining, he has been pretty consistent for awhile. This is a pretty subjective part of the argument. I think he would have benefitted from a rotation meaning he wouldn't wear down during the season. Guys can play into their 30's and he just turned 31. Signing McCoy would not hurt our cap, it would mean we still have a lot of money carried over for next year. As I said, McCoy fits very well into this scheme and has great character. The fit seems to make a lot of sense.

Last year at this time I believe people thought the oline would be better with the talent influx. They were worried about the pass rush which did not seem fixed by throwing rookies at it. Also people were worried about the wide receivers thinking they lacked talent. I remember reading some worried about the lack of proven talent at CB. But Hairston had a good rookie year and Wilson showed promise. It wasn't just fans worried though, these items were repeated in the press as well.

I am excited too, I just hope we are not trading the present for a future that may never come.


First let me say that this is not black and white. We are essentially arguing about degrees, ie. we both agree we need free agents we just seem to disagree on the amount. I don't think we are in a re-build per say but we are definitely building. By that I mean part of the team is ready to compete and part we are not certain about. I'm not saying that people should have known how good or bad we were going to be, just that most of us don't really know. McCoy was and is a close call. I would just rather see the guys we have at 3 technique get the snaps to see what they can do.

Agreed about the Rams. There is not one way to do things (I'm old enough to remember a guy named George Allen) but I believe to be successful you need a way. Get a philosophy and stick to it. And it helps if you can draft a little better than the next guy.

[Chaka]

You're projecting. This is actually what you do. Often ignoring counterpoints altogether to regurgitate your own, or incorrectly interpreting my point which I would repeatedly have to correct. This is why people get frustrated because the arguments do not progress and simply go over the same points again and again. People understand your position the first time, just some disagree. I used to think what you were doing was intentional and you were more interested in being right and 'winning' the argument, or perhaps you were trolling. We've had trolls here who were more interested in just wasting people's time than anything. However, now I think you just don't correctly process what you read or perhaps you internalize everything. You are not an idiot, do you have a reading disability?

Case in point: The second line quoted. RM was just saying his own post was getting too long. You incorrectly inferred he was criticizing you when he was just attempting to keep his own post concise.

Alright dude – in an effort to prevent this discussion from going even further off the rails, and despite my doubts, I’ll take your post seriously and tell you how it looks from this side. Despite your assertions to the contrary, it seems like you guys are having a hard time following what I’m saying. I don’t say that to be insulting or degrading, but it’s just how it appears to me.

I know you say that “people understand your position the first time,” that I just make the same points over and over, but your comments repeatedly reflect a basic lack of understanding of many aspects of what I’m saying. A few quick examples come to mind: (1) your concern that we will be perpetually $50M million under the cap, (2) your belief that I’m against signing any free agents, (3) RM’s belief that hoarding cap space is a strategy designed to expose other team’s weaknesses. Either you guys are just being difficult, or you aren’t understanding what I’m saying, so don’t blame me if I respond by providing further explanation.

Also, I’ve tried to provide several analogies as I’ve gone alone, but in your zeal to prove me wrong you’ve taken a ridiculously literal view of them. In describing the Colts’ approach under Ballard as businesslike, it was in the context of paragraphs of surrounding explanation, none of which mentioned money or profit - so to me, there simply is no reasonable way that you can conclude that I meant that the Colts should be going for profit, rather than excellence on the field. Yet, that’s exactly what you suggested. Similarly, RM has criticized as “asinine” my reference to the casino industry in describing the value that an edge can provide. This is because the NFL doesn’t have predefined statistical advantages like a casino. That may be true, but can you really not get what I’m saying there? Or does it look more like just an attempt to make a pointless distinction without any meaningful difference? To me, these kind of comments suggest that you guys are the ones who just want to “win” the argument at any cost.

And more fundamentally, when think through some of the things you guys have been saying, they simply don’t make sense or they would lead to absurd larger conclusions. RM says it is a “fool’s errand” to think that the Colts can outdraft their opponents and thereby create an engine leading the Colts to a dynasty. Does anyone really believe this, RM included? Are you saying success in the draft is totally random? Plenty of teams have proven they are demonstrably better at drafting than their opponents, and the Colts current regime is off to a pretty good start on this point. Combine it with the kind of excellent cap management I’m talking about and, to me, you have the makings of a huge advantage and, by extension, the possibility of a dynasty.

RM also says the NFL rules are designed to prevent any team from becoming too dominant, creating an atmosphere so competitive that “you have to pick smaller windows to make your push to be the best.” Honestly, when I think about this statement, I don’t even know what it means. Is he saying the only viable strategy is a “pop and drop” approach where you go all out for a season or two, and then have to recharge for a while before making a charge forward again? That’s silly - lots of teams have shown you can be dominant for long periods of time, even in the context of our current rules. We need look no further than our own Manning-led Colts. They only won one SB, but there’s no reason they couldn’t have won several others despite the current rules.

Then there’s the contradictions. I’ve covered your reactive vs. proactive stuff so I won’t belabor the point. But then there’s RM saying referring to the “Moneyball BS” in one sentence, and then later saying it’s actually an effective component of a winning strategy. And RM’s theory that the current rules somehow allow long term success, but prevent dynasties. Many others. Enough said.

Lastly, my suspicion that RM was taking a crack at my post length. I'll take RM at his word, and point out that I did admit that I was implying that from his post. But I guess that one’s on me, as I’ve become accustomed to seeing such comments here about my posts.

[JAFF]

Agreed about the Rams. There is not one way to do things (I'm old enough to remember a guy named George Allen) but I believe to be successful you need a way. Get a philosophy and stick to it. And it helps if you can draft a little better than the next guy.

And I would like to add, put money into what you value. There's no cap on coaches, scouts and player developement execs. The Eagles lose one of their front office guys to the Jets, they have someone who they have trained to step in. You want to develop and grow from the draft, you will need a bunch of them who know what the team is looking for on both sides of the ball. You are training your front office people to be GM's. Same for the coaching staff. You want guys who want to be head coaches.

[Racehorse]

Since this thread is about McCoy...

1. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy is not a good player.
2. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy would not improve our front seven.
3. I don't think anyone would be upset if we had signed McCoy.

That said, the issues are as follows:

1. Do we think McCoy would be the piece that wins us the SB? I don't think he is.
2. Will we be contenders without McCoy? Possibly, but the NFL is hard to predict. I think we will have about the same record without McCoy that we would have had with him, but that is just me.
3. Will we need to spend the cap dollars on someone anyway? This is where the water gets murky. Maybe Sherck can tell us where we are as it relates to the cap floor, but I think we are right at it and can get close with tweaking current contracts. As to the penalty for not hitting the floor, it is merely paying the difference to the players association. Maybe we have to pay $5M, but that is just a guess and we may actually be at the average now. Ballard knows, but I cannot recall him explaining it besides being cryptic about it.
4. Will our younger DLine guys develop? One can hope, but we cannot tell now, and signing McCoy would delay that development. This is why I am okay with missing out on him, despite thinking he would be a good fit initially.
5. I know I am missing a key issue, so fill it in here, lol.

[rm1369]

Chaka,

Let me ask this - what is your definition of a dynasty? You seem to think I’m being inconsistent with suggesting it is possible to be very good for a long time (Polian Colts), but a fools errand to believe you can build a dynasty using your method in the modern NFL. I don’t see those two things as inconsistent at all and honestly I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. Perhaps we simply have a different view of what a dynasty is.

With a franchise QB and sound management I believe you can be and should be one of the top teams in the league year in year out. Is that a dynasty? To me it’s not. To me a dynasty is multiple Championships (3 or more) in some short period (6-7 years?). And I don’t believe that is a worthy goal for any team to plan around. To me the time frame is to long for how quickly things change. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t be aware of the long term. I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t be planning to always be a winner. I’m simply saying you shouldn’t always be prioritizing tomorrow over today as I believe that plan requires.

As you are so quick to point out with any potential signing, there is a cost to every move. You are great about pointing out what it could cost the team 3-4 years from now, but you never express a concern about the cost to the team now of not making a move. As a fan, I don’t want my teams goal to be really good over a lot of seasons. I want their goal to be to win titles. Where you see being really good for a long time leading to those multiple titles, I see the sacrifices necessary to maintain that high level of performance coming at the cost of being the best in a given year. Hence my comment about peaking in smaller windows. I’m not sure why you would find the idea of that ridiculous. It’s simply about the prioritization of resources.

Maybe I’m jaded by the Polian Colts because I subscribed to the slow steady approach and thought the Colts would win more titles by virtue of being really good for a long time and catching some breaks. I kept waiting for NE to crumple because they constantly had turn over, constantly took chances on players. But with a franchise QB and great coaching they find a way to be the best. That to me is a better, more realistic model. It’s the one I’d prefer my team to follow. Without Luck in place I’d probably agree with your approach. But I’m willing to take a down year or two for some ramped up shots at a title. And with Luck in place the reload can happen very quickly. Look at last year for example. Could the Colts have won a title with a competent WR2 and a better pass rush? Maybe, but probably not. The turn around sure as hell happened quickly though. Of course everything is a matter of degree. I’m not suggesting they should go all in this year, every year. But I don’t believe they will build a dynasty by always pushing resources until tomorrow at the expense of today.

And if Ballard can draft better than any GM in NFL history, then it almost doesn’t matter what philosophy they follow - they’ll be successful. But I wouldn’t bet on it. That’s not a knock on Ballard, it’s simple a realistic view of what can be expected of him. If you are all about the statistics then do some research on the success of GMs drafting over the long term. Any evaluation I have ever seen (with enough sample size) shows guys falling back to the pack. Especially as they start drafting in the 20s and 30s instead in the top 10 and there is more competition at spots on the team.

[Maniac]

4. Will our younger DLine guys develop? One can hope, but we cannot tell now, and signing McCoy would delay that development. This is why I am okay with missing out on him, despite thinking he would be a good fit initially.


People keep arguing that it will delay the development of the younger guys but I think that's complete bs. There is a rotation. There is plenty of playing time and practice time for everyone. Depth is not a bad thing. If the young guys can't develop, it won't be because of one more decent player on this team. it will be because they simply aren't good enough, and then you'll be glad to have that experienced player on the roster.

You can't assume every draft pick is going to develop and work out. We know what McCoy offered, and it would have been nice to have that depth and some more interior pass rush. Doesn't matter much now. We'll see if it was the right move or a mistake in time.

[Chromeburn]

First let me say that this is not black and white. We are essentially arguing about degrees, ie. we both agree we need free agents we just seem to disagree on the amount. I don't think we are in a re-build per say but we are definitely building. By that I mean part of the team is ready to compete and part we are not certain about. I'm not saying that people should have known how good or bad we were going to be, just that most of us don't really know. McCoy was and is a close call. I would just rather see the guys we have at 3 technique get the snaps to see what they can do.

Agreed about the Rams. There is not one way to do things (I'm old enough to remember a guy named George Allen) but I believe to be successful you need a way. Get a philosophy and stick to it. And it helps if you can draft a little better than the next guy.

Yup, it's all opinion. Time will eventually reveal what the right calls were. I don't mind a philosophy as long as it's flexible, but I believe in adaptation. I believe adaptation is the key to survival because things constantly change. Drafting better of course helps, but no team can maintain that forever. The pats stay in front because they use multiple methods for talent acquisition and they have not been a great drafting team over the last five years. One thing I do like is Ballard throws numbers at roster issues. He doesn't draft just one guy high to fill a need, he drafts four then sees who emerges. Because the odds are one pick will not solve a problem like pass rush. You have to keep taking guys till you get it right, then add a vet to bolster the position and provide a little instruction.

I think the rebuild stopped once we became a playoff team. You obviously never stop trying to add talent around your franchise QB. But once that talent gap narrows with the other playoff teams it comes down to X's and O's. Part of the problem when you have a QB of Luck's calibre, they cover a lot of flaws. Manning did the same thing and that team collapsed when he got injured. I still think we are light on the dline. We will have to see if any of these low cost FA's are able to fill the back end of the DT roster.

[rm1369]

Since this thread is about McCoy...

1. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy is not a good player.
2. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy would not improve our front seven.
3. I don't think anyone would be upset if we had signed McCoy.

That said, the issues are as follows:

1. Do we think McCoy would be the piece that wins us the SB? I don't think he is.
2. Will we be contenders without McCoy? Possibly, but the NFL is hard to predict. I think we will have about the same record without McCoy that we would have had with him, but that is just me.
3. Will we need to spend the cap dollars on someone anyway? This is where the water gets murky. Maybe Sherck can tell us where we are as it relates to the cap floor, but I think we are right at it and can get close with tweaking current contracts. As to the penalty for not hitting the floor, it is merely paying the difference to the players association. Maybe we have to pay $5M, but that is just a guess and we may actually be at the average now. Ballard knows, but I cannot recall him explaining it besides being cryptic about it.
4. Will our younger DLine guys develop? One can hope, but we cannot tell now, and signing McCoy would delay that development. This is why I am okay with missing out on him, despite thinking he would be a good fit initially.
5. I know I am missing a key issue, so fill it in here, lol.

1. I don’t think McCoy himself puts the Colts over the top, but the same thing is said for almost every single player available to the Colts. Looking at it in isolation it’s easy to justify. But what’s the point of signing Houston then? He didn’t put the team over the top. He addresses a need and makes the team better. I’d argue McCoy would have done the same. Couple those two with doing a little more in free agency overall (not breaking the bank) and yes I believe the Colts could have been a potential SB team. With some luck maybe they are anyway, in which case McCoy would be an even bigger missed opportunity.

2. I’d agree he wouldn’t significantly change their record, but I’d rather have McCoy on the roster when it comes playoff time. That to me is when he’d likely pay dividends.

3. The cap floor is irrelevant to me. Ballard will handle it.

4. Everyone assumes a vet will delay player development. I don’t necessarily believe that - especially on the DL where guys rotate more. There McCoy replaces the worst option. He may take a starting role over someone, but they’d still get snaps. Plus I see value in competition and learning tips and tricks from guys that have seen it and done it. I know many on here don’t seem to agree though.

5. My only other thought is that it likely comes down to where you believe the team is. When will a realistic title window open? I’ve taken a lot of flak from Chaka and a few others for saying Ballard’s method will be a 3-4 year rebuild and that it could have been done quicker. If you think the window is open now then I can’t understand how you would justify passing on McCoy. If you don’t think they are quite there yet fine, passing on McCoy is understandable. But don’t tell me it’s not a 3-4 yr rebuild and say the window isn’t open yet.

[Racehorse]

1. I don’t think McCoy himself puts the Colts over the top, but the same thing is said for almost every single player available to the Colts. Looking at it in isolation it’s easy to justify. But what’s the point of signing Houston then? He didn’t put the team over the top. He addresses a need and makes the team better. I’d argue McCoy would have done the same. Couple those two with doing a little more in free agency overall (not breaking the bank) and yes I believe the Colts could have been a potential SB team. With some luck maybe they are anyway, in which case McCoy would be an even bigger missed opportunity.

2. I’d agree he wouldn’t significantly change their record, but I’d rather have McCoy on the roster when it comes playoff time. That to me is when he’d likely pay dividends.

3. The cap floor is irrelevant to me. Ballard will handle it.

4. Everyone assumes a vet will delay player development. I don’t necessarily believe that - especially on the DL where guys rotate more. There McCoy replaces the worst option. He may take a starting role over someone, but they’d still get snaps. Plus I see value in competition and learning tips and tricks from guys that have seen it and done it. I know many on here don’t seem to agree though.

5. My only other thought is that it likely comes down to where you believe the team is. When will a realistic title window open? I’ve taken a lot of flak from Chaka and a few others for saying Ballard’s method will be a 3-4 year rebuild and that it could have been done quicker. If you think the window is open now then I can’t understand how you would justify passing on McCoy. If you don’t think they are quite there yet fine, passing on McCoy is understandable. But don’t tell me it’s not a 3-4 yr rebuild and say the window isn’t open yet.

All fair points. I am not sure when our window opens and what adding one more player would do to the window. I think we are close, but not close enough to beat the top three or four teams in the league in January. The fan in me wants to think this is a SB contender, but until I see them lace them up on Sundays, I really have no idea. I mean, I keep thinking Brady is going to drop off a cliff, but somehow they keep doing what they do. Now I think a lot of it is the offensive game plan that people don't seem to be able to stop (i.e. edeldick on third and long every drive in the fourth quarter), but he will eventually not be able to sustain even that simple formula for much longer (surely???). Well, that and the cheating. I still think they are doing things with communication headsets that are skirting the rules, but no proof is there.

Then you have NO, LA Rams and KC. I think we close the gap on KC simply because they lost a lot of talent on offense and their defense is nothing to write home about. I also think Brees will retire soon and NO will be garbage. I hope I am wrong and that our window is this year, even without McCoy.

[FatDT]

A thread full of chaka talking too much and irritating the shit out of people. I'm shocked.

[Chaka]

Chaka,

Let me ask this - what is your definition of a dynasty? You seem to think I’m being inconsistent with suggesting it is possible to be very good for a long time (Polian Colts), but a fools errand to believe you can build a dynasty using your method in the modern NFL. I don’t see those two things as inconsistent at all and honestly I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. Perhaps we simply have a different view of what a dynasty is.

With a franchise QB and sound management I believe you can be and should be one of the top teams in the league year in year out. Is that a dynasty? To me it’s not. To me a dynasty is multiple Championships (3 or more) in some short period (6-7 years?). And I don’t believe that is a worthy goal for any team to plan around. To me the time frame is to long for how quickly things change. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t be aware of the long term. I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t be planning to always be a winner. I’m simply saying you shouldn’t always be prioritizing tomorrow over today as I believe that plan requires.

As you are so quick to point out with any potential signing, there is a cost to every move. You are great about pointing out what it could cost the team 3-4 years from now, but you never express a concern about the cost to the team now of not making a move. As a fan, I don’t want my teams goal to be really good over a lot of seasons. I want their goal to be to win titles. Where you see being really good for a long time leading to those multiple titles, I see the sacrifices necessary to maintain that high level of performance coming at the cost of being the best in a given year. Hence my comment about peaking in smaller windows. I’m not sure why you would find the idea of that ridiculous. It’s simply about the prioritization of resources.

Maybe I’m jaded by the Polian Colts because I subscribed to the slow steady approach and thought the Colts would win more titles by virtue of being really good for a long time and catching some breaks. I kept waiting for NE to crumple because they constantly had turn over, constantly took chances on players. But with a franchise QB and great coaching they find a way to be the best. That to me is a better, more realistic model. It’s the one I’d prefer my team to follow. Without Luck in place I’d probably agree with your approach. But I’m willing to take a down year or two for some ramped up shots at a title. And with Luck in place the reload can happen very quickly. Look at last year for example. Could the Colts have won a title with a competent WR2 and a better pass rush? Maybe, but probably not. The turn around sure as hell happened quickly though. Of course everything is a matter of degree. I’m not suggesting they should go all in this year, every year. But I don’t believe they will build a dynasty by always pushing resources until tomorrow at the expense of today.

And if Ballard can draft better than any GM in NFL history, then it almost doesn’t matter what philosophy they follow - they’ll be successful. But I wouldn’t bet on it. That’s not a knock on Ballard, it’s simple a realistic view of what can be expected of him. If you are all about the statistics then do some research on the success of GMs drafting over the long term. Any evaluation I have ever seen (with enough sample size) shows guys falling back to the pack. Especially as they start drafting in the 20s and 30s instead in the top 10 and there is more competition at spots on the team.

Let me say at the outset that I recognize and appreciate the tone of your response here. As to the substance of your post, I understand the points you are making and I agree that they are perfectly valid. At the core, however, we just have a fundamentally different viewpoint on (1) what is achievable, and (2) how best to accomplish these achievements.

To answer your initial question, your definition of “dynasty” sounds reasonable enough to me – I don’t have a specific number of years or championships in mind , but certainly it involves multiple championships in a relatively short period of time, preferably a few in a row, and ideally with group of core players staying with the team throughout the run. Ultimately, I don’t know that there’s a perfect formula of championships and years that spells "dynasty", because for me it’s more of a “I’ll know it when I see it” kind of thing. To be honest, I kind of dislike the term “dynasty”, but it serves as convenient shorthand for what I think the Colts should be striving for – memorable long term dominance and multiple championships.

Where we disagree is the idea of whether it’s achievable today. I think it absolutely is, and its exactly what we should be striving for. Why have any lower goal? And the beauty of it is that if there is any team in the league poised to do it, it’s the Colts. We have an elite QB who, barring catastrophic injury, should have a good 10 years or more left in the league. We have some quality home-grown veterans, young stars popping up all over the team, a great coach, an outstanding GM, an owner who seems willing to stay hands-off, and tons of available cap space to work with. Yes, we have some holes, but fewer and fewer as time goes on, and lots of quality young player vying to fill those holes. I see a special situation brewing, and I don’t want the Colts to risk undermining that for a short term run of a year or two. I think it could be much better than that, and I think careful management of the salary cap can serve as the fuel to propel us towards that destination. I guess that’s what all of this comes down to.

Yes, the Polian/Manning Colts didn’t achieve quite as much as most of us thought they should have. And I understand the feeling that we missed a great opportunity and you don't want to repeat it. I don’t know what went wrong, but somebody underperformed their duties, because we had all the pieces in place. Even so, those were still some great years to be Colts fan. And maybe it’s too early to say, but I don’t see the current team/coaching makeup being as likely to underperform in those situations.

[Chaka]

A thread full of chaka talking too much and irritating the shit out of people. I'm shocked.

Dude, I don't know what your obsession is with me, but I'm going to put this out there right now: I'm straight.

[Luck4Reich]

Didnt our old site have an ignore option? Of course everyone would quote the person and you see their post anyway. :cool:

[Dam8610]

Anyone looking to follow the New England model will need to forget about their ethics and embrace cheating. That's their entire model.

[smitty46953]

Dude, I don't know what your obsession is with me, but I'm going to put this out there right now: I'm straight.

Has to be your profile pic that stirs him up :eek:

[rm1369]

Anyone looking to follow the New England model will need to forget about their ethics and embrace cheating. That's their entire model.

I assume this is directed at me. I hate NE as any NFL fan should. Especially a Colts fan. And I definitely believe their legacy is tainted. However, I don’t agree that all of their success is driven by cheating. They excel at two things that I believe are worthy of some degree of emulation - flexibility and focus. Flexibility in both scheme and roster building and focus on winning it all each season. Those two things let them strike the best balance in the league between planning for the future and winning it all now, IMO. They don’t mortgage the future to win now, but they also don’t let planning for their 3rd title stop them from winning one this year. We can agree to disagree on whether or not that is a “model” worth following.

[Dam8610]

I assume this is directed at me. I hate NE as any NFL fan should. Especially a Colts fan. And I definitely believe their legacy is tainted. However, I don’t agree that all of their success is driven by cheating. They excel at two things that I believe are worthy of some degree of emulation - flexibility and focus. Flexibility in both scheme and roster building and focus on winning it all each season. Those two things let them strike the best balance in the league between planning for the future and winning it all now, IMO. They don’t mortgage the future to win now, but they also don’t let planning for their 3rd title stop them from winning one this year. We can agree to disagree on whether or not that is a “model” worth following.

It wasn't, but since you replied, the "flexibility" in their schemes is a direct result of their cheating. Knowing the opponent's playcall can make your scheme look very flexible. Regarding roster building, I don't see how anyone could not look at what Ballard is doing as a very good balance between winning now and winning in the future. If he wasn't trying to win now, Justin Houston would not be a Colt. If he wasn't trying to win in the future by sustaining a talented roster, he'd have gone on a spending spree the day free agency opened.

[rm1369]

It wasn't, but since you replied, the "flexibility" in their schemes is a direct result of their cheating. Knowing the opponent's playcall can make your scheme look very flexible. Regarding roster building, I don't see how anyone could not look at what Ballard is doing as a very good balance between winning now and winning in the future. If he wasn't trying to win now, Justin Houston would not be a Colt. If he wasn't trying to win in the future by sustaining a talented roster, he'd have gone on a spending spree the day free agency opened.

Sitting on $55m in cap space as an expected solid playoff team is not a good balance to me. This thread in particular is about McCoy who it doesn’t appear the Colts were even really in the running for. And if I remember correctly you have been big on Suh. Would Suh (also not in the running for) or McCoy not have helped this D? Both of those guys signed one year contracts so let’s not pretend the only options available to Ballard is what he has done or completely mortgaging the future on ridiculous contracts like those given to Flowers and Collins. If you are happy with Ballard’s balance then great. But it’s certainly not crazy to believe he’s putting to much into the future at the expense of today.

[Dam8610]

Sitting on $55m in cap space as an expected solid playoff team is not a good balance to me. This thread in particular is about McCoy who it doesn’t appear the Colts were even really in the running for. And if I remember correctly you have been big on Suh. Would Suh (also not in the running for) or McCoy not have helped this D? Both of those guys signed one year contracts so let’s not pretend the only options available to Ballard is what he has done or completely mortgaging the future on ridiculous contracts like those given to Flowers and Collins. If you are happy with Ballard’s balance then great. But it’s certainly not crazy to believe he’s putting to much into the future at the expense of today.

I honestly believe Ballard is as big on culture, locker room, and making sure a player is a good fit with the team as he says he is. Some GMs pay lip service to those concepts as they go out and blow huge chunks of cap on mercenaries that have the opposite effect. Ballard seems to evaluate each player on the basis of how he'll fit the team both on and off the field. I don't necessarily always agree with his decisions, and I do think McCoy could have potentially helped the team on a 1 year deal, but I can also see the argument against it from a football perspective (he's 31 and his numbers have been on the decline), I have no idea how his off the field fit factored into the decision, and it's possible that Eberflus is telling Ballard that he doesn't want any 300+ pound DL and he feels his scheme works best without them. I also think Montez Sweat would've been a better use of the 26th overall pick than trading down 20 spots and only getting a 2019 2 for the trouble, but Ballard has made enough smart moves thus far to get the benefit of the doubt from me.

[rm1369]

I honestly believe Ballard is as big on culture, locker room, and making sure a player is a good fit with the team as he says he is. Some GMs pay lip service to those concepts as they go out and blow huge chunks of cap on mercenaries that have the opposite effect. Ballard seems to evaluate each player on the basis of how he'll fit the team both on and off the field. I don't necessarily always agree with his decisions, and I do think McCoy could have potentially helped the team on a 1 year deal, but I can also see the argument against it from a football perspective (he's 31 and his numbers have been on the decline), I have no idea how his off the field fit factored into the decision, and it's possible that Eberflus is telling Ballard that he doesn't want any 300+ pound DL and he feels his scheme works best without them. I also think Montez Sweat would've been a better use of the 26th overall pick than trading down 20 spots and only getting a 2019 2 for the trouble, but Ballard has made enough smart moves thus far to get the benefit of the doubt from me.

I don’t see one year contracts for Suh or McCoy as huge chunks of cap space considering the current space available. As far as scheme and locker room fit, that plays directly into the flexibility I’ve mentioned about NE. They take measured risks all the time. You can wave it all away as a product of cheating if you want, but there is a long ass list of over the hill vets, scrub cast offs, and talented malcontents they have taken chances on. And a large number of them have paid off. Those that didn’t were cut and the consequences were minimal. Ballard’s method is certainly safer. We’ll see if it provides the desired results long term.

And let’s be clear - I’m not asking for Ballard to be fired or anything like that. Overall I’m very happy with him as GM. That just doesn’t mean I agree with everything he does by default. If the, in my view, extreme focus on the future continues for several years and they are always good and not great then I’ll start having a real problem.

[Chromeburn]

All fair points. I am not sure when our window opens and what adding one more player would do to the window. I think we are close, but not close enough to beat the top three or four teams in the league in January. The fan in me wants to think this is a SB contender, but until I see them lace them up on Sundays, I really have no idea. I mean, I keep thinking Brady is going to drop off a cliff, but somehow they keep doing what they do. Now I think a lot of it is the offensive game plan that people don't seem to be able to stop (i.e. edeldick on third and long every drive in the fourth quarter), but he will eventually not be able to sustain even that simple formula for much longer (surely???). Well, that and the cheating. I still think they are doing things with communication headsets that are skirting the rules, but no proof is there.

Then you have NO, LA Rams and KC. I think we close the gap on KC simply because they lost a lot of talent on offense and their defense is nothing to write home about. I also think Brees will retire soon and NO will be garbage. I hope I am wrong and that our window is this year, even without McCoy.

https://youtu.be/76-I8AizMgA

I think our window opened last season. I think we are there and I am not the only one who thinks this. A lot of media is on board, placing the Colts regularly in the top five. But that is just fluff, more importantly I think the Colts think they are there. The link above is a good listen, around the 7 min mark they start getting into expectations. No one with the Colts will say anything on the record about it, but there is a buzz around the team and they think they are contenders this year.

Before the draft I offered the question, what position drafted would start for this team. I think I got SAM LB the most which isn't really a starting position now since Nickle is the base package, not the 4-3. This is a deep team. They don't necessarily have star power at certain positions, but they do have a lot speed and redundancy that helps negate the lack of some star power.

I know everybody is kinda riding a high from last season because they exceeded expectations. But you have to move on from that if you keep the majority of the team together and you make the divisional round.

[Racehorse]

https://youtu.be/76-I8AizMgA

I think our window opened last season. I think we are there and I am not the only one who thinks this. A lot of media is on board, placing the Colts regularly in the top five. But that is just fluff, more importantly I think the Colts think they are there. The link above is a good listen, around the 7 min mark they start getting into expectations. No one with the Colts will say anything on the record about it, but there is a buzz around the team and they think they are contenders this year.

Before the draft I offered the question, what position drafted would start for this team. I think I got SAM LB the most which isn't really a starting position now since Nickle is the base package, not the 4-3. This is a deep team. They don't necessarily have star power at certain positions, but they do have a lot speed and redundancy that helps negate the lack of some star power.

I know everybody is kinda riding a high from last season because they exceeded expectations. But you have to move on from that if you keep the majority of the team together and you make the divisional round.
My skepticism comes from the fact that a lot of the hype seems to be coming from people close to the team, i.e. people who may have an agenda to try to sell more tickets. I hope we are that close, but I have felt that way before only to suffer quite a letdown.

[Oldcolt]

Although I may not sound like it, I am also skeptical. It's very hard to pick which team will get over the hump and become capable of winning Super Bowls. To many projections, for us, on young men continuing to improve. Gotta keep them from believing the hype (Which is one of the things NE is great at). Believe after you do it. Having said that, I'm really looking forward to watching some guy make that jump (I am sure some will). One of the sweetest things is watching a player on your team become a believable stud (ie Desir shutting down Hopkins was just one such unbelievable/sweet moment for me).