Gerald McCoy

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Butter

I hope Ballard knows what he is doing with the IDL, I hate how light it is getting and I think McCoy is better than our current 3-techs, but the money is not being left on the table and it can affect future contracts since it rolls forward. It isn't use it or lose it.

Generally I think Ballard is doing a great job. But if I had a criticism of him, it’s that he is reactive not preemptive when it comes to roster deficiencies. Year one, doesn’t do enough to fix the oline even though everyone knew it was a problem. Year two, doesn’t do enough for the pass rush even though everyone knew it was an issue. Is year three the interior dline?

True it does roll over. But are they just going to roll it over every year? Will they constantly be 40 50 60 million under the cap? I like signing our own guys but, does that mean we have to have 50 million in unused cap every year? Leonard’s class is still three years away. Teams that have talent rookie QBs try to max their window till that big contract comes. We have two all-pro rookies, a McCoy signing is not going to break the bank.

[YDFL Commish]

At the end of the day, I have to believe that Ballard did not believe that McCoy was just not going to improve the defense enough to make the commitment.

I doubt that $$$ even played into it. Strictly a football decision. We can all debate whether or not we believe that McCoy would have improved the Colts defense...and sure that's fun to do.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

At the end of the day, I have to believe that Ballard did not believe that McCoy was just not going to improve the defense enough to make the commitment.

I doubt that $$$ even played into it. Strictly a football decision. We can all debate whether or not we believe that McCoy would have improved the Colts defense...and sure that's fun to do.

/thread

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

Generally I think Ballard is doing a great job. But if I had a criticism of him, it’s that he is reactive not preemptive when it comes to roster deficiencies. Year one, doesn’t do enough to fix the oline even though everyone knew it was a problem. Year two, doesn’t do enough for the pass rush even though everyone knew it was an issue. Is year three the interior dline?

True it does roll over. But are they just going to roll it over every year? Will they constantly be 40 50 60 million under the cap? I like signing our own guys but, does that mean we have to have 50 million in unused cap every year? Leonard’s class is still three years away. Teams that have talent rookie QBs try to max their window till that big contract comes. We have two all-pro rookies, a McCoy signing is not going to break the bank.

Clearly the answer is to just draft two all pro rookies every year. Problem solved.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Dam8610

Clearly the answer is to just draft two all pro rookies every year. Problem solved.

Well obviously.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

Generally I think Ballard is doing a great job. But if I had a criticism of him, it’s that he is reactive not preemptive when it comes to roster deficiencies. Year one, doesn’t do enough to fix the oline even though everyone knew it was a problem. Year two, doesn’t do enough for the pass rush even though everyone knew it was an issue. Is year three the interior dline?

True it does roll over. But are they just going to roll it over every year? Will they constantly be 40 50 60 million under the cap? I like signing our own guys but, does that mean we have to have 50 million in unused cap every year? Leonard’s class is still three years away. Teams that have talent rookie QBs try to max their window till that big contract comes. We have two all-pro rookies, a McCoy signing is not going to break the bank.

I don’t think that’s fair at all. When Ballard took over we were deficient in many areas – so to now single out the OL in year one to argue he didn’t do enough is silly. And to say that he didn’t address the pass rush in year two is also unfair – he drafted Turay and Lewis as part of his overall plan to build a long term sustainable team. To complain that he didn’t bring in a bunch of one year rentals or high priced free agents ignores the overall plan he has laid out repeatedly. And the plan is working by the way – we are far ahead of where almost everyone thought we’d be at this time.

As far as cap management, of course we won’t be $40M-$60M under the cap every year – that’s not the plan at all. It’s a temporary condition that will disappear in a couple of years when the Colts have to start issuing second contracts. Then you’ll be plenty thankful for the extra cap space Ballard has conserved.

The goal is to maximize team performance over the long term. Those of you who simply say we should blow out our cap space every year in pursuit of a championship THAT YEAR aren’t listening to what Ballard has been saying. That’s one approach, sure, but it’s a short term one that runs counter to the long term plans the guy has been outlining since he got to Indy. You can’t have it both ways.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I don’t think that’s fair at all. When Ballard took over we were deficient in many areas – so to now single out the OL in year one to argue he didn’t do enough is silly. And to say that he didn’t address the pass rush in year two is also unfair – he drafted Turay and Lewis as part of his overall plan to build a long term sustainable team. To complain that he didn’t bring in a bunch of one year rentals or high priced free agents ignores the overall plan he has laid out repeatedly. And the plan is working by the way – we are far ahead of where almost everyone thought we’d be at this time.

As far as cap management, of course we won’t be $40M-$60M under the cap every year – that’s not the plan at all. It’s a temporary condition that will disappear in a couple of years when the Colts have to start issuing second contracts. Then you’ll be plenty thankful for the extra cap space Ballard has conserved.

The goal is to maximize team performance over the long term. Those of you who simply say we should blow out our cap space every year in pursuit of a championship THAT YEAR aren’t listening to what Ballard has been saying. That’s one approach, sure, but it’s a short term one that runs counter to the long term plans the guy has been outlining since he got to Indy. You can’t have it both ways.

But I never said that. No one on here has ever said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s. As usual you take what I say and blow it out of proportion. Because there is only two avenues with you. Either save it all and have tons of money under the cap (the only method you endorse) or avenue two which is spend it all on high priced free agents who won’t possibly work out because it’s fools gold.

Oh and Ballard criticized himself saying he didn’t do enough to fix the oline year one.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

But I never said that. No one on here has ever said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s. As usual you take what I say and blow it out of proportion. Because there is only two avenues with you. Either save it all and have tons of money under the cap (the only method you endorse) or avenue two which is spend it all on high priced free agents who won’t possibly work out because it’s fools gold.

Oh and Ballard criticized himself saying he didn’t do enough to fix the oline year one.

I just advocate being smart – investing the cap space in players that are likely to bring the greatest return, and avoiding investments that have historically not provided much value in comparison to their cost (i.e. big name free agents). In other words, I advocate running the team like a business, not like a fan, and with the eye towards long term, sustainable success. We should play the angles, using our money to our greatest advantage in the context of the NFL salary cap rules. Being smart and efficient will, over time, give us a huge advantage over the teams that aren't.

Do I think this means we have to “save it all and have tons of money under the cap”? Of course not. I just mentioned in a few posts above that I agreed that we should sign free agents, but that I think our focus is best placed on mid-tier or lower tier guy because they give us the best chance to get a good return on the investment.

I simply don’t think signing older, outside free agents to large contracts is a good investment. For that reason I was uneasy with the Houston signing. He was an expensive player who is on the downside of his career, but I’m hopeful that it has a better-than-normal chance to succeed because the guy isn’t a total outsider – Ballard worked with him while in KC so presumably he has some insight. I also didn’t complain about the Funchess signing – the guy is 25 with upside, so the $10 million didn’t bother me - in fact, the only thing that troubled me was that it was a one-year deal without options.

As far as the OL is concerned, I didn’t argue that the OL was fine following Ballard’s first year or that it couldn’t be improved, but only that your conclusion that he was reactive rather than proactive was unfair because it was founded solely upon the OL alone, without consideration of the giant strides he made elsewhere. You cherry-picked one issue to support your predetermined conclusion, while ignoring all of the evidence that contradicted your theory.

And as to the idea that “no one on here has said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s”, maybe you should read or think about some of the posts more closely. Yes, people don’t use those exact words, but the argument that Luck’s presence should mean that we should not hold back on free agent spending is essentially saying the same thing or something very close. It’s true you didn’t say that in your post (nor did I exactly, for that matter), but I’ve seen some version of that argument advocated many times on here in the past – most recently Colts Classic a few posts above, when he said that when “you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it” and so we should have signed McCoy, which is what I was thinking of when I typed my post.

[Colt Classic]

Originally Posted by Chaka

And as to the idea that “no one on here has said we should blow all our cap space on FA’s”, maybe you should read or think about some of the posts more closely. Yes, people don’t use those exact words, but the argument that Luck’s presence should mean that we should not hold back on free agent spending is essentially saying the same thing or something very close. It’s true you didn’t say that in your post (nor did I exactly, for that matter), but I’ve seen some version of that argument advocated many times on here in the past – most recently Colts Classic a few posts above, when he said that when “you have Andrew Luck, every year should be a year in which you are going for it” and so we should have signed McCoy, which is what I was thinking of when I typed my post.

Signing McCoy wouldn't have come close to blowing all of the cap space. I'm not even that upset that he went to Carolina. My main complaint is that the Colts weren't even in the running. They are saying, "No thanks, we're good enough" which is foolish. It costs zero dollars to be in the running and be a serious buyer--even if they don't land the player, maybe they cause a rival to overpay.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Colt Classic

Signing McCoy wouldn't have come close to blowing all of the cap space. I'm not even that upset that he went to Carolina. My main complaint is that the Colts weren't even in the running. They are saying, "No thanks, we're good enough" which is foolish. It costs zero dollars to be in the running and be a serious buyer--even if they don't land the player, maybe they cause a rival to overpay.

You don't know that. It is possible McCoy wasn't interested in a visit.