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


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

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

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

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

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

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

*edit

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

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

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

Uh huh.

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

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

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

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

Yes.

https://theathletic.com/865237/2019/...lack-of-moves/

Not gonna lie, this was a pretty bad take.

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

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

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

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

It was pretty clearly sarcasm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**cough** Dam **cough*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough. Apologies on not picking up the sarcasm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not on top dollar FA players.


I mentioned the teams who made the SB most recently

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