Colts first UFA WR Devin Funchess

[Racehorse]

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.

So, what would you propose he do? Please be specific, because we need to know where you draw the line on where reckless starts.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by FatDT

I think that is a big part of the problem I see on the internet. Not as much here. There's this idea that the only two options are to either avoid FA like the plague or spend like the Redskins. That doesn't even fit what Ballard has done in FA the two prior years. Ballard has signed some low and mid-level FAs, he doesn't avoid it like many of his supporters pretend. So it's not accurate at all.

I think there are places where Ballard could've been more aggressive. And I don't think this Funchess contract is very good. But when I look at the individuals that are getting paid this year so far I don't really see any players that look like huge misses. There are still some names at DL and DB that could be positive signings.

Basically I think freaking out on either side is dumb, with the hero worship side being a little dumber.

I am a subscriber to the concept of a methodical approach. However, it is not hero worship. It is watching how the teams who sustain success in this era have done it. Look at NE and PITT, who have represented the AFC the most this past decade. SEA, PHI and LA Rams have used a slightly different approach, albeit with a QB on a rookie contract. Maybe NO should have made another splash move to get into the SB as Brees' career comes to a close, but there were no FA referees available. They are all signed by the Pats and franchise tagged when their contracts expire.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

I am a subscriber to the concept of a methodical approach. However, it is not hero worship. It is watching how the teams who sustain success in this era have done it. Look at NE and PITT, who have represented the AFC the most this past decade. SEA, PHI and LA Rams have used a slightly different approach, albeit with a QB on a rookie contract. Maybe NO should have made another splash move to get into the SB as Brees' career comes to a close, but there were no FA referees available. They are all signed by the Pats and franchise tagged when their contracts expire.

NE takes a conservative approach? I don’t see that at all. NE takes risks all the time. Admittedly it’s not always in free agency, but they are far from conservative. Hell, most people would consider Belichick a mediocre drafter. He finds players wherever. And he takes risks doing it. Pitt I’ll give you. It all looks to be crumbling down right now, but they’ve been conservative and had long term success. Why didn’t you mention Thompson’s Packers? They followed the conservative approach and have had an elite QB.

[Oldcolt]

The signing of Desir undercuts the argument that Funchess is only a placeholder. Ballard now has a track record of bringing in people for one year show me contracts and if they produce to pay them I really like our odds, in this environment with these coaches and this qb, of hitting a home run with this guy. Of course it isn't ordained but damn all the pieces are there

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

So, what would you propose he do? Please be specific, because we need to know where you draw the line on where reckless starts.

I specifically wouldn’t have signed Funchess to a 1 year $10-13m contract. If I believed in him as much as VeveJones007 does then I would have even paid him a slightly higher salary this year to “buy” a team option next year. Costs a few million this year when the team obviously will have unused space and would give you another year to evaluate him before committing to him long term. If he wouldn’t bite on that I would have taken that as an indication he’s driven strictly by a huge contract and realized I’m not doing that after one good year so I’d have moved on to a different target. Of course I’d be looking for a long term solution and I don’t believe Ballard was. Ballard was looking for a temporary solution for Cain or a draft pick.

As far as the lack of other signings, meh don’t think I’ve complained to much he hasn’t signed any specific person. I’d point to the AB trade and say he was certainly worth those draft picks and that I’d take the risk of his locker room presence. I don’t think I’d have reworked his deal as much as the raiders did (not a requirement for the trade) but he was certainly under paid.

I’m more open to older vets than Ballard has seemed to be. That’s part of the circle that makes it extremely difficult to sign free agents. They have to be young and seen as under valued “diamonds in the rough” or they are stop gaps holding a spot for a rookie. Young w/ known talent are too expensive. Older with no upside left and they won’t be peaking with the team if 3 years. Or they’ll hold back a 6th round rookie from achieving. So, that severely limits the available free agents. But for me, if the team was waiting for a rookie I would have looked at signing a more veteran free agent WR last year and been fine with 2 years of production.

The same goes for several other positions. I don’t think I’ve yelled and screamed at every big name free agent that’s signed elsewhere, but I know damn well there are available players that can help the team. But you and I had the same arguments last year. I see Ballard on the exact plan I said - a 3-4 year rebuild thru the draft. The funny thing is if Ballard had signed Collins to that contract I’d be willing to bet you’d have been all for it.

[Chromeburn]

It is only day two of free agency. Still have a ways to go and then there is the draft as well. I will say, no one is advocating acting like the Jets or Skins. I like Ballard's strategy for the most part, but building through the draft and using FA is not mutually exclusive. You can use both to build a team and he has had some hits in FA.

What I don't want is to go into the season with another glaring deficiency at a position like WR and pass rush last year. Especially when you have the money and means to address it in order to round out your team.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt last year. Everyone thought we were going to be in a rebuild for awhile. Free agents were scared of Luck's health status, but that is not the case this year. Our window is open and we don't have to mortgage the future to improve the team.

I don't want to sacrifice today for an unknown future. Players get hurt and windows close. I don't want them to throw away opportunities now. If we sit on another pile of money anticipating re-signing players in a couple years, is that really building the most competitive team they can this year?

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

The signing of Desir undercuts the argument that Funchess is only a placeholder. Ballard now has a track record of bringing in people for one year show me contracts and if they produce to pay them I really like our odds, in this environment with these coaches and this qb, of hitting a home run with this guy. Of course it isn't ordained but damn all the pieces are there

Pretty sure Desir has been on the roster the past two years, but yes he was on a one year contract. I wonder if he demanded the one year contract last year like the reports about Funchess or if that’s all he was offered? Either way, I agree that everything should be in place for Funchess to produce. If he can’t do it in this offense he’s not going to do it. But I highly doubt that he and the Colts will hit the sweet spot where they agree on a long term contract next year. But we’ll see. I hope it happens and I’ll happily eat crow if it does.

[Oldcolt]

It could go either way. My day is better if I believe the odds are in our favor for this working out well. So I'll admit I'm looking for reasons to lean that way. Still, I think the reasons are there.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

I will give him the benefit of the doubt last year. Everyone thought we were going to be in a rebuild for awhile.

I’m not sure I agree with this. Other than the questions about Luck’s health the Colts were in a pretty damn good position for a turn around. Just the addition of Luck changed the way the arrow was pointing for the Colts. Add in getting rid of an ineffective coaching staff, a top 3 draft pick, and boat loads of cap space and the Colts were absolutely setup for big turn around. All assuming Lucks health of course. I have and will continue to argue that if Ballard hadn’t been set on a complete rebuild, the turn around could have been even larger. There was no need to start 1-5 and no need to be so short handed at WR in the playoffs last year. IMO those are both results of Ballard’s long term plans. That’s not to say they should have been Super Bowl favorites of course. And I certainly understand that it can be argued that all the young guys got better by playing more. And I understand that argument. But the point being the Colts were in a pretty damn good position last off season.

[VeveJones007]

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.

But a one year deal doesn't negate either direction. I'm arguing for a middle ground--Funchess could be a one year placeholder before a better long-term option is ready in 2020 (e.g. Cain or 2019 draft pick or UFA signing), or he could really thrive and the Colts could re-sign him with their truckload of cap space, or he could be bad and the Colts aren't on the hook past 2019, or he could thrive and the Colts could let him walk for compensation.

You keep arguing for the negative without acknowledging the positives. There's nothing about this deal that prevents a long-term solution at WR2. It just isn't written in stone yet.