ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/index.php)
-   Indianapolis Colts Discussion (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Colts first UFA WR Devin Funchess (http://www.coltfreaks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69149)

Dam8610 03-12-2019 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoLuck4Chuck (Post 112746)
True he wasnt a top 50 anywhere I saw.

I remain hopeful

Nfl.com had him at 44.

Luck4Reich 03-12-2019 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dam8610 (Post 112749)
Nfl.com had him at 44.

I missed that one

VeveJones007 03-12-2019 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by omahacolt (Post 112747)
Fuck that

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

50 catches, 750 yards, 8 TDs

Luck4Reich 03-12-2019 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 112798)
50 catches, 750 yards, 8 TDs

2 things...


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

Colt Classic 03-12-2019 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 112798)
50 catches, 750 yards, 8 TDs

35 catches, 334 yards, 1 TD

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

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

Luck4Reich 03-12-2019 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colt Classic (Post 112809)
35 catches, 334 yards, 1 TD

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

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

Chaka 03-12-2019 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 112740)
He's slow, got iffy hands (iffy is a compliment), has trouble separating from CB's in his routes, and his best year was his rookie year. His old team didn't want him, they even deactivated him for their last game despite being healthy. As free agents go, he wasn't rated near the top of any list I can find. Not even in the WR rankings. Did we really need to sign him day one? If you have leverage, you don't sign one year deals. If you have teams competing for your services, you don't sign one year deals. He hasn't lived up to his draft pick. At least Ebron was a top ten pick and has excellent athleticism for his size and position.

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

And he is 24.

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

Chaka 03-13-2019 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 112687)
If they want to evaluate the fit that’s fine, but they should have required a 2nd year team option. Yes, I get that Funchess may not want that, but if he wouldn’t agree to a 2nd year at $13m that tells me he’s looking to get paid. That’s fine, but it doesn’t bode well for him being retained long term. Yes I admit it’s possible. However seeing the money being thrown around by teams how confident are you that if Ebron was on a one year deal that he would be retained after the season he had? After the things he went thru in Detroit he seems to be appreciate what he has here, but would he turn down being the highest paid TE in the league. It’s certainly possible he’d get that kind of offer. If not highest paid, then certainly top 3. Would Ballard be willing to commit that kind of money to Ebron after one year? I doubt it. The 2nd year on Ebron’s contract is huge right now.

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

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

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

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

VeveJones007 03-13-2019 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 112868)
Yep, agreed on the option - I'm surprised there weren't option years attached. That would have made a lot more sense to me. So, while I'm hopeful about this signing, I can't deny that it's puzzling.

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

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

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

rm1369 03-13-2019 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeveJones007 (Post 112875)
Holder said that Funchess had a 2 year deal on the table from another team, but wanted a chance to do well in year 1 and hit the market again after next season. Funchess wasn't going to sign a deal with an option in it.

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.