Colts Best at Free Agency in 2018 per Spotrac
 

According to Spotrac, the Colts were the most effective team at getting value out of free agency during this last offseason:

https://www.spotrac.com/research/nfl...eam-808/#TEAMS

Per Spotrac:
Here's an article from Colts.com which provides a bit more detail:

https://www.colts.com/news/spotrac-c...ee-agent-class

I'm not sure how Spotrac calculated its numbers for this analysis, but I generally agree that the Colts free agency pickups this last offseason have been largely successful (with the notable exception of Howard and, because of injury, Slauson). I'd personally bump Ebron up to an "excellent" signing, and lower Slauson due to his injury though he seemed to be reasonably effective before getting hurt.

I guess the counterargument is that the Colts didn't sign any ultra high end free agents, and it's easier to get value out of lower tier free agents than the big guys, but it's nice to see that the Colts are spending their money effectively.

Slauson played what? 4 games? Dumb article

Well, to be fair, there’s only been 8 games so far. The article was written on Nov 2 and says at the outset that it’s a mid-season analysis, so there’s nothing wrong with analyzing a player’s performance within that limited context. If you take issue with their conclusions, that’s entirely different, but you didn’t say how you might disagree.

Either way, I thought it would be a good starting point for a discussion on the subject, since there’s was so much complaining about the Colts free agency approach last offseason. Spotrac basically gives all of the Colts free agency signings (with the exception of Howard) an “average” or “excellent” rating. I personally think they’ve underestimated Ebron (who should be excellent), and perhaps overestimated Autry (maybe average) and Slauson (incomplete due to injury).

Incidentally, here’s their assessment of the performance of the other free agents some Colts fans were hoping the we would sign:

Andrew Norwell (below average)
Justin Pugh (below average)
Dontari Poe (below average)
Allen Robinson (below average)
Dante Moncrief (below average)
Anthony Hitchens (below average)
Ndamukong Suh (average)
Nate Solder (below average)
Rashaan Melvin (average)

Maybe I missed a few, as I'm only going off memory, but not a lot of great performers (relative to their contracts) in that group.

While pattng yourself on the back, you forgot to list John Brown, an affordable WR who graded out as being good value, but that doesn't serve the purpose of this horn tooting thread.
Looking over the list, most greens are bargain basement low risk contracts. It's hard to be hurt by lower cost, lower term contracts. Also hard to get impact players at the dollar store. Finally, the Saints apparently get high marks for re-upping on Drew Brees. Nice article.

Apparently, you have not met Omaha before today

Whatever, dude. I forgot to mention John Brown? Well so did you, apparently, as I see no prior posts where you recommended signing him during the free agency period or any other time until now. In fact, I ran a search here and I saw only two references to him as a possible free agent target during the offseason - both by Dam. I'm sorry if I forgot those two posts when I came up with the list off the top of my head. You know who else I forgot? Ryan Jensen (below average) and Dion Lewis (average) - both of whom were mentioned in many more posts than John Brown.

And I guess you must be a JAX or TEN fan (or worse yet, a Pats fan) if think citing an article praising the Colts free agent signings is "patting yourself on the back" or "horn tooting." I didn't sign the free agents, the Colts did - aren't you a Colts fan too?

Am I happy that people are writing articles about how effective the Colts have been in free agency? Of course. I posted the article in hopes that others would weigh in and say whether they agreed or not, and to see if these authors had missed anything. Instead, you ignore the Colts analysis altogether and try to attack the article by complaining that Drew Brees is included in the list - a guy who, if I recall correctly, reached agreement to resign with the Saints during the "legal tampering" period (the same period where people like Kirk Cousins and Case Keenum signed). So what?

So he only counts if a few people on here were clamoring for him to be signed? Whatever to you, dude. He was out there and available but the Colts didn't even kick the tires on him. The Colts don't need our permission. You asked in another thread for examples of who should've been targeted--there's one. Again, the article is skewed toward giving high marks for a low cost signing so of course the Colts will be at or near the top of such a ranking.

Chaka when he finds an article praising something Ballard did:

https://i.imgur.com/lyUrTUM.gif

Jesus people. We are all over Chana’s ass cause he found an article that says the Colts did a good job at something? Because the final decision (I assume we evaluate and make decisions involving coaches scouts financial guys etc) is Ballard’s? We spent very little money and got good return so far. We made what are apparently good decisions. What is not to like?

Amen!

However, we could have done more, which would make some happy at the time of the signing, but then possibly suffer from buyer's remorse when the signing blew up.

Something about high dollar free agents not working out well for the new teams. Maybe they became complacent by finally signing the big contract. Maybe they fit the old scheme better. Maybe they played well beside someone who masked their deficiencies. I don't know, but often they do not pan out. The lower contract guys have to try to earn more in their next contract, so maybe they work a little harder?

I don't follow contracts much, but top FA players who have worked out for their new teams seem rare. Brees and Manning worked out well. Freeney had some good years elsewhere, but for less money. Randy Moss worked out well for the Cheats. Incognito worked out, too. I can't think of any others. Maybe someone else can.

I am glad he brought up the article. I just think it is a dumb article

The more you pay for any player, the less likely that player is to be a "value". J.J. Watt, for example, is not a "bargain" as one of the highest paid players in the NFL. But he is still productive and worth his contract.

Sadly, for FA mega deals that have worked out, at least recently, the Jaguars are a good example. A good chunk of their defense was either traded for and extended or signed as UFAs (Calais Campbell, Malik Jackson, Marcell Dareus, A.J. Bouye, Tashaun Gipson, Barry Church), and that defense was dominant last year.

That said, I think the best way to approach free agency in a typical year is essentially how Ballard approached it this year. Identify guys that your scouts like that have for one reason or another not worked out with their original team and are potential "buy low" candidates (Ebron) and otherwise plug holes with stopgaps (Slauson, Grant, Autry). As Chaka mentioned, I liked John Brown as a buy low type of player, and since this wasn't a typical year for the Colts in terms of cap space, I thought/hoped they could attract some of the bigger names.

You missed the point of my post – please go back and read it again. I was listing the free agents that I recalled Colts fans hoping we would sign. No doubt there were others that, in retrospect, would have been good for us– but it’s not like I was trying to say the Colts signed the only free agents that could help.

With regard to your statement that it’s easier to find good value in “bargain basement low risk contracts”, I agree with you. Isn’t that basically the conclusion to be drawn from the article (assuming you agree with the author’s analysis)? You get a lot more bang for your buck at the lower end of the spectrum.

While I’m fairly certain you’ll respond by saying something like, “but you can’t get impact players that way”, I don’t really agree and it probably depends on what you mean by “impact players”. The truth is, as last season’s free agency class will readily demonstrate, it’s tough to get All-Pro players in free agency even when you spend through the nose to do so. Very few of the high end free agents have played up to their contracts, and in most cases I’m guessing the teams that signed them aren’t pleased with their investments. However, you certainly can get people who make a positive “impact” on the team via a low or mid-tier signing like Eric Ebron. That’s exactly what I take from the article. Do you agree with it? If not, why not?

Crude but funny nevertheless. Jim Henson is rolling over in his grave.

Call me a homer if it makes you feel better, but I’m not saying anything unrealistic and it all has plenty of factual support. I assume that’s why you respond in this way, rather than addressing the facts and information I’ve presented.

That’s an excellent observation Racehorse, and I think there’s a lot of truth to it. My guess is that there are a variety of reasons high-end free agents so rarely live up to their contracts: (1) they are often changing schemes and football players are not plug-and-play types whose skills translate exactly to a new team, (2) the player was overrated coming into free agency, which is why they weren’t signed by their former team – who was in the best position to gauge their talent level - to begin with, and (3) if they were driven to excel by the hope of financial gain, this drive is now extinguished by their large contract.

I don't disagree that Ballard has made some good signings. I just notice that you like talking at length about them, and Ballard in general, more than most.

Maybe, but it does have the redeeming value of talking nice about the Colts. That alone elevates it above dumb in my opinion

Old people...

You rang? How can I help? :cool:

I try to provide analysis rather than just a bald opinion, in an effort to invite further meaningful discussion. You don't seem to want to go there. Perhaps it's the effect of having Donald Trump as our president, but people like you seem to want everything to be condensed into a Twitter-sized snippets. To be meaningful, sometimes you need to dig a little deeper.

I assume you're retired because you have time to go deeper with EVERYTHING.

I have too much shit to do in my life to spend an hour crafting football prose on a message board.

Also, fuck Donald Trump the weak fake wannabe president*. You brought him up not me.

Huh?

GET OFF MY LAWN!

Young wippersnapper.





Walk Worthy,

I’m far from retired and it doesn’t take me an hour to draft a three paragraph message board post. And yes I brought up Trump, so what? You share his aversion to in-depth analysis of issues. And, as with Trump, I think we’re all poorer for it.

Look, if you don’t like my posts, then you don’t have to read them. It’s that simple. But why you feel you have to try and bully and shame people into conforming to your preferred one-sentence posts is beyond me.

Hell, I like your posts !!! :cool:

You're taking this too seriously.

Admittedly it kind of sounds that way as I read the posts again today, but it wasn’t my intent. Just to emphasize my confusion about why you seem so bent out of shape by my posts.

I am just glad SOMEONE is posting. This place can be as quiet as a cemetery some days.

Most people here don’t take shit too seriously or personal in my experience. Well a couple people do.