Gerald McCoy

[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.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JAFF

They want them light. Look at the young QBs in the NFL right now, you need to be able to catch them. How many teams line up with a full back and run power football? How many teams play more in shotgun/pistol/throw formation?

Big fat guys can't push the pocket. This is the Dungy D and they are going to line up in a gap and go. With the guys they had last year, they had both DT's in the A gaps. Makes 3 guys defend 2. Sure can't trap block with the C if they do that.

I get what you are saying. But the NFL offenses are not as they were 5 years ago.

That is great and all until you need to stop short-yardage runs or a team just runs the fuck over you. As Defenses get lighter a smart team will come out and power run all over them.

[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.

[Luck4Reich]

I guess it just concerns me that if Autry or Hunt go down or both? Ouch.
Neither have been a constant in their career. Either or both could regress.
McCoy was an upgrade and created nice depth at the same time. It was a kiss by Ballard. I love what he is done so far and hopefully this time next tear we are talking about how he made the right choice. Hopefully.

[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.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by Butter

That is great and all until you need to stop short-yardage runs or a team just runs the fuck over you. As Defenses get lighter a smart team will come out and power run all over them.

Which is why the Colts have a big freaking O line, control the ball with play action and option pass offense. They get to the lead and now their FAST defense can go get the QB.

The D you want is what Pagano ran.

[Chromeburn]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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.

I advocate running the team like a football team trying to win games, not a business, not as a fan. That means fielding the most complete team you can to increase your chances of getting to a Super Bowl.

Running it as a business would mean you maximize profit while minimizing expenses. The point is to win Super Bowls, not increase your profit margin no matter what. I’m in favor of maximizing their chances year in and year out. You want to make a money ball argument about signing free agents? Go ahead. But you get all squirrely every time we sign someone and then we get the same posts. A long lecture on what Ballard’s vision is, as if everyone on here doesn’t already know it, then some hand wringing about him spending too much money and potentially wasting all the cap space. Ballard isn’t going to waste it, and he is also going to sign free agents. He inquirers about the top free agents every year, and we are in on some till a team blows the offer out of the water. Then we back off because the costs outweigh the benefits.

Ballard is trying to identify guys that are potentially going to break out in their second contract. Some guys are late bloomers, especially linemen. Guys that might be buried on depth charts and need reps to improve. Also vets can provide a boost, but you need to go by a case by case basis. Free agency is not a fix all, and it isn’t fools gold either. We got good production out of Hunt, Autry, and other signings. You can build teams in multiple ways. You want to build through the draft? Great, you need to hit on picks. You want to build through FA? Great you need to hit on your signings. It comes down to evaluating personnel and making the right decisions whatever your methodology.

Preemptive, not proactive. Ballard is proactive. But the last couple years everyone on here has complained about obvious holes on the roster. Everyone can see them. They are not addressed till after they are exposed. It’s happened twice so far. Ever teams has holes, you try to cover them the best you can. I would like to see more effort in that area.

I think you are the one who needs to work on the reading comprehension. I understand what Colt classic is saying in that statement, I don’t think you do though. That’s the problem.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JAFF

Which is why the Colts have a big freaking O line, control the ball with play action and option pass offense. They get to the lead and now their FAST defense can go get the QB.

The D you want is what Pagano ran.

The Ol will not stop the other team and relying on the offense to always have the lead is something we witnessed in the Manning years, it doesn;t always work especially in the playoffs. You really have a simple view of things if you think there is nothing in between what we had with Pagano and Dungy.