Colts first UFA WR Devin Funchess

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

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’m not sure that I’d characterize the Colts/Ballard’s approach “super conservative” – just smart and efficient. I realize it may look conservative because we haven’t spent gobs of money on free agents, but I think it’s really more about a employing a cold analytical approach to maximize your resources to gain a competitive advantage.

Everyone is allotted the same amount of money to spend and, under the rules, they have to spend it. So the challenge becomes how to accomplish that in order to gain the maximum outcome. Splashy free agent signings with big signing bonuses and guarantees burn through lots of your available resources (cap space), but have generally not provided a benefit which is equal to the cost. This is usually because when you pay big bucks for one of the top free agents, you’re usually buying high and, as I think OldColt put it yesterday, you’re paying for performance that player provided another team.

The top free agents can rarely maintain their peak performance, whether because they become complacent once they get the big bucks, because they end up not fitting into their new team, or simply because their skills simply decline as they get older. I realize that lots of the top free agents continue to play well even after signing a big contract, but it is exceedingly rare that one of these big contracts is considered a “good deal” when looking back after the fact. Maybe Peyton Manning to the Broncos, perhaps? I don’t know, it's too early in the morning right now. In other words, even when they play well, signing top free agents still isn’t the best use of your money – and in many cases, it is an absolutely horrible waste of your cap space. It’s also a big gamble culture-wise, because you’re bringing in a new player who you don’t know all that well, and who will be paid more (and usually much more) than nearly all of his teammates and thus will naturally be a lightning rod for potential disputes. In short, it’s risky and there’s not a lot of upside.

Signing the lesser known and mid-market free agents offers much more upside, since they can outperform their contracts and won’t carry the baggage of a big contract and expectations. You can sign lots of these guys for the cost of one of the big name free agents, and if they don’t work out, it doesn’t impact you nearly as much. When they do work out, however, they can propel you very far forward.

Ultimately, you still have to spend your cap space, and that will necessitate paying some players a lot of money. Given this fact, ideally you’d prefer to spend the big bucks on players that are most likely to provide a return that is close to the cost, which is why Ballard I think is saving the bulk of the money to pay the Colts own free agents – guys who are known quantities in the Colts system, and who won’t be resented by teammates because they are products of the Colts system and are being rewarded for it. This also reinforces to the younger players that the team will take care it's own.

Right now we are accumulating cap space because were are still in the beginning stages of this plan - we're in a "lull" period where we are employing the strategy of signing lesser known and mid-market free agents, but we don't yet have many of our own players to spend money on. So available cap space is growing dramatically. This will change soon, and when the young players are in a position to sign their second contracts, that's when the cap space will disappear. Since Ballard is shooting for a long term, winning organization - rather than to charge at a single SB appearance - he needs to plan ahead so he can maintain this momentum once it starts rolling. Because we can roll unused cap space forward, it make sense to bank some of our abundant cap space now so it can be used when we need it later - hence, we we've got lots of cap space but we won't use it.

All of this hinges upon talent evaluation. If the Colts don’t draft well, this entire plan – as good as I think it is in theory – will collapse.