Quick thoughts on Dolphins-Colts

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by omahacolt

16) the colts are good enough to make the playoffs. without sitting on 60 plus million, we might be a contender this year. wasting years with Luck is retarded.

Easy to say this, but a lot harder to prove. Can't we just be happy that the Colts are much better than most here expected this year? Free agency may have helped, but may have hurt too. No way to really say how signing "a cornerback" or "a wide receiver" would have impacted the games played this year. Who did you have in mind?

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by kitekrazy

Why didn't their defense see that. Good catch by Luck though. Maybe he can throw to himself when the other guys get the dropsies.

Minkah thought it was a run play and bit on going to the RB/QB. This left Luck (almost) wide open.

[sherck]

Free agency is not a magical button to push to get an instant upgrade at a position.

Signing Norwell might have helped solve our problems at OG....but instead we ended up solving that issue with two much lower priced free agents (Slauson and Glowinski) whom, quite honestly, were having much better years than Norwell did before Slauson and Norwell headed to IR.

While I too did want another "splash' free agent or three this off season, I will put some faith in Ballard. So far, he has built a team that is exceeding my expectations for the season.

Let's see what he does in 2019 free agency. If we still end the off-season with $40m + left in the bank, I will be a bit peeved at that point.

Walk Worthy,

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Easy to say this, but a lot harder to prove. Can't we just be happy that the Colts are much better than most here expected this year? Free agency may have helped, but may have hurt too. No way to really say how signing "a cornerback" or "a wide receiver" would have impacted the games played this year. Who did you have in mind?

I will add that much of those dollars will likely be pushed into future years to pay for upcoming FA players from our own team, which is wise. In reality, it will give us a shot at keeping a very good team intact for a small window of sustained excellence.

However, we will likely add a piece or two this offseason to try to put us over the top next year.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by sherck

Free agency is not a magical button to push to get an instant upgrade at a position.

Signing Norwell might have helped solve our problems at OG....but instead we ended up solving that issue with two much lower priced free agents (Slauson and Glowinski) whom, quite honestly, were having much better years than Norwell did before Slauson and Norwell headed to IR.

While I too did want another "splash' free agent or three this off season, I will put some faith in Ballard. So far, he has built a team that is exceeding my expectations for the season.

Let's see what he does in 2019 free agency. If we still end the off-season with $40m + left in the bank, I will be a bit peeved at that point.

Walk Worthy,

I agree with almost everything you said, except that I think you may be disappointed on your last point - I'm guessing we'll still have a sizable amount of cap room after the offseason.

From what I've read, and as Racehorse alluded to, Ballard is planning on keeping the cap room available to sign our own free agents. Since we don't have any major free agents scheduled to hit the market this offseason, I think we're in for another offseason like the last one - a few mid-market guys, and an outside chance at a larger signing - but likely conservative overall.

Maybe he'll make an effort to resign Kelly to a longer term deal, since if I'm not mistaken he'll be a free agent in 2020. The injury history worries me a little, but he's certainly played well enough to earn a second contract.

[omahacolt]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Easy to say this, but a lot harder to prove. Can't we just be happy that the Colts are much better than most here expected this year? Free agency may have helped, but may have hurt too. No way to really say how signing "a cornerback" or "a wide receiver" would have impacted the games played this year. Who did you have in mind?

Of course you can’t prove it. Not at this point. Pretty easy to see that Inman was a vast improvement. Mike Mitchell? Yep. Great add.

Maybe I am wrong but I can’t imagine we would be worse off by adding better talent. Usually that works out.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by omahacolt

Of course you can’t prove it. Not at this point. Pretty easy to see that Inman was a vast improvement. Mike Mitchell? Yep. Great add.

Maybe I am wrong but I can’t imagine we would be worse off by adding better talent. Usually that works out.

Haha - funny. Of course adding better players usually improves a team. My point is this: most of the free agents people here were pining for have underperformed, so adding them may not have helped at all. Imagine if we had signed Norwall - how would that have played out for us? Would we have drafted Nelson? How would Norwall's underperformance (if we assume he'd perform similar to how he performed in JAX) have affected our offensive line performance, and by extension, our entire offensive production? Yes, we'd have less cap space available, but would we have been better off?

Theorizing about adding "good' players is tempting, but ultimately foolhardy because there's no way to know how it would have played out, how the player's involvement would have affected the overall team performance, player development, and team chemistry.

I'm just saying that I'm happy with how things have turned out. If the team was 1-10 at this point and the draft picks had flamed out, then I guess I'd be ok with this type of criticism. But given what's happened this year, and the dramatic change in team perception, I'll disagree with it.

[Luck4Reich]

Originally Posted by kitekrazy

Why didn't their defense see that. Good catch by Luck though. Maybe he can throw to himself when the other guys get the dropsies.

Didnt Steve Young do this one time? Threw the ball and it was tipped. He ran up and caught his own pass. I may be thinking of someone else.

[Pez]

I think Ballard is cautious in this regard and is very cognizant of dollar valuye as well as cultural value.

Look at some guy like Glowinski. Solid lineman, 26 years old his role and does his job. Our staff has managed to get more from him than his last season in Seattle, and he signed a 1 year deal for minimum. There is value in signing him again in 2019.

[omahacolt]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Haha - funny. Of course adding better players usually improves a team. My point is this: most of the free agents people here were pining for have underperformed, so adding them may not have helped at all. Imagine if we had signed Norwall - how would that have played out for us? Would we have drafted Nelson? How would Norwall's underperformance (if we assume he'd perform similar to how he performed in JAX) have affected our offensive line performance, and by extension, our entire offensive production? Yes, we'd have less cap space available, but would we have been better off?

Theorizing about adding "good' players is tempting, but ultimately foolhardy because there's no way to know how it would have played out, how the player's involvement would have affected the overall team performance, player development, and team chemistry.

I'm just saying that I'm happy with how things have turned out. If the team was 1-10 at this point and the draft picks had flamed out, then I guess I'd be ok with this type of criticism. But given what's happened this year, and the dramatic change in team perception, I'll disagree with it.

Nobody gives a shit if you are “ok” with the criticism.

Some free agents are misses. Like Howard. Some are good. Like Inman and Mitchell. Like glowinski. Being on the outside of the playoffs with 60 million in the bank is valid criticism. Whether you like it or not.

Worst case, a healthy Luck is going to get you 8 wins. Every time. Give that man as much talent around him as you can. Anything else is dumb