Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc
Or, you could frame it as we resigned two of the guys who helped lead us to an 8-9 record and no playoffs while letting their supporting cast get significantly worse.
That’s a more accurate representation.
|
The entire Colts universe just shit their pants for a month at the thought of Alec Pierce being lost to free agency. Are we going to act like he's a mediocre cog now?
And Daniel Jones did not lead us to 8-9. We were 8-2 before the leg break and just about every advanced metric had him at least top-5, if not leading.
---
As far as the supporting cast - I agree, we lost some guys that I hated to see go. Particularly Pittman, Cross, Smith, and even Paye (run D will be missed).
But saying "let" implies something that isn't there. Keep in mind, this is the GM and FO that constantly gets mocked for the "we like our guys" mantra. Not like don't try to keep them. It's a zero-sum game and QB/WR are two of the big-3 paid positions.
Not directed at you, but I do find it amusing to read a lot of guys who like to mock the "we like our guys", but are now complaining when we have to let our guys go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldcolt
I thought the idea of free agency was to improve your team. I am not sure how assuring you bring back the exact same players improve your team. I am glad (sort of , not thrilled about Jones but it is the best we can do) we signed who we wanted to but doing that isn't improving your team, it is making sure it doest get worse.
|
I think the natural thinking makes it feel counterintuitive to consider them "additions"... but neither Jones nor Pierce were on the team after the season ended. That's your starting point.
Without that starting point, all of the subtractions and comparatively smaller signings are out of context. Then it looks like you just let a bunch of starters walk out the door for no reason other than to sign a bunch of smaller contract guys. That's not the case.