Originally Posted by JAFF (Post 121761)

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.

Originally Posted by JAFF (Post 121822)

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

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 121800)

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. 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.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121828)

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.”

Originally Posted by omahacolt (Post 121827)

Yes it does. Shut up

Originally Posted by JAFF (Post 121836)

No it doesnt shut your pie hole

Originally Posted by Colt Classic (Post 121844)

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

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121602)

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.

Originally Posted by IndyNorm (Post 121857)

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.

Originally Posted by Colt Classic (Post 121858)

$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-age...napolis-colts/

Originally Posted by Discflinger (Post 121834)

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

Originally Posted by Luck4Reich (Post 121837)

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.

Originally Posted by JAFF (Post 121863)

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

Use your imagination

Originally Posted by JAFF (Post 121864)

Shit happens.

Originally Posted by smitty46953 (Post 121865)

Sorry for your luck :(

Originally Posted by JAFF (Post 121871)

My luck is tall and blonde

Originally Posted by Colt Classic (Post 121873)

Yeah, what's his name?

Originally Posted by IndyNorm (Post 121857)

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.

Originally Posted by Colt Classic (Post 121858)

$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-age...napolis-colts/

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 121835)

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 121835)

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 121835)

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 121835)

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.

Originally Posted by Chromeburn (Post 121835)

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

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121879)

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.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121879)

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.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121881)

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.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121881)

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

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121881)

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...

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121881)

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

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121881)

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.

Originally Posted by IndyNorm (Post 121893)

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.

Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88 (Post 121895)

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.

Originally Posted by rm1369 (Post 121896)

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.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121909)

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.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121909)

The entire casino industry is founded on a similar principle.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121909)

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.

Originally Posted by rcubed (Post 121913)

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by GoBigBlue88 (Post 121895)

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.

Originally Posted by Racehorse (Post 121915)

Opposite extreme from Omaha

Originally Posted by Butter (Post 121919)

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.

Originally Posted by Butter (Post 121919)

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.

Originally Posted by Chaka (Post 121907)

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.

Originally Posted by AlwaysSunnyinIndy (Post 121922)

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.