Originally Posted by Luck4Reich (Post 121450)

Had same thought

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121602)

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.

Originally Posted by Luck4Reich (Post 121589)

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 121646)

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 121646)

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.

Originally Posted by Colt Classic (Post 121653)

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 121659)

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. )

Originally Posted by Butter (Post 121661)

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.

Originally Posted by Butter (Post 121661)

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.