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.

[Luck4Reich]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

You know better than to internet without coffee!

I really should by now

[VeveJones007]

Two other words I would use, Chaka, are responsible and strategic. I think Ballard is clearly maintaining cap space to front load some extensions in the next two years, making it more likely they can retain as much of their core as possible. For instance, by not spending an extra $40MM on 2019's cap, Ballard could re-invest some of that rollover into extensions for Kelly and Ebron next year.

[Hoopsdoc]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

Two other words I would use, Chaka, are responsible and strategic. I think Ballard is clearly maintaining cap space to front load some extensions in the next two years, making it more likely they can retain as much of their core as possible. For instance, by not spending an extra $40MM on 2019's cap, Ballard could re-invest some of that rollover into extensions for Kelly and Ebron next year.

Will Luck be eligible for an extension the year after next? Or is it longer than that?

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

Will Luck be eligible for an extension the year after next? Or is it longer than that?

I don't think there's any limitations in place after a player reaches his second contract.

[Dam8610]

Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc

Will Luck be eligible for an extension the year after next? Or is it longer than that?

Luck and Leonard both come up after the 2021 season.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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.

I used to believe that the best way to a title was to be really good for as long as possible and things would break your way. But I’ve been both a Colts and a Pacers fan for a long time, so I no longer believe that. Trying so hard to maintain success means shorting yourself now for the ability to sustain the success in future years. I now believe that teams that take this approach rarely reach their potential. It’s almost impossible to. You couple getting worse drafts picks with making decisions not to fill this year’s needs because of the ramifications 3 years from now. 3 years is a fucking eternity in sports. Especially one where the average players career isn’t much longer than that. You are rarely able to put the best version of your team on the field because every year you are making concessions to keep the window open.

I’m sure you will point to NE and say they disprove my belief. They’ve been good for forever and have won multiple titles. I disagree. NE does want I advocate, they just do it so damn well (and cheat and are the luckiest SOBs alive) that they don’t suffer the down years. They take risks on players all the damn time. Besides Brady their core changes faster than most teams. They both maximize the players they have and take risks to fill the holes in their roster. They look to win now pretty much every damn year. And every year we are proclaiming them dead because they are going to loose this or that player. And then they go out and find a way to plug the hole. They change their offensive or defensive philosophy to better match the talent they have. They take a risk on a Randy Moss. Or they surprise everyone and uncharacteristicly spend big money on one of the top CBs on the market. Their biggest concern doesn’t seem to be how are we going to keep the window open, it’s how are we going to win it all this year.

Let’s be clear - I fucking hate NE, but the one thing I will grudgingly admit I admire is that they seem to prioritize winning it all now over being really good for a long time. They peak better than any team in the league. They just do it consistently.

So when I hear all this talk about building for the long haul and when I see Ballard make decisions based more on two years from now than on today what I see is sustained goodness. What the Peyton led Colts achieved was not sustained greatness. It was sustained goodness. Every single Colts fan down to the owner of the team knows that they should have won more than one Super Bowl. They were very, very good for a long time but they weren’t great for a long time. I don’t believe Ballard’s team will achieve sustained greatness because it’s nearly fucking impossible in the modern NFL. And the only team that has done it has taken numerous risks on players and are pretty much never conservative. Oh yeah and they are also lucky as fuck and cheat every chance they get.

So unlike you I don’t see in 6 year windows. I see in 2-3 year windows. I don’t see the need for every position to be filled with 25 yr old recent draft picks. I don’t believe in gifting rookies playing time. I believe in competing now and the following year. With a minor concern for 3 yrs from now. I perfectly understand that that means that the team is going to have a down year every now and then but I also recognize how quickly things can turn around to start the new window - especially with an elite QB.

Basically we are going to agree on very little when it comes to the teams direction because I don’t believe in the vision Ballard has and you subscribe to. I don’t doubt at all that Ballard is and will turn the team around from the Grigson / Pagano era. But I don’t believe his methods (as I see them and hear them now) will lead the Luck era Colts to maximize their potential as measured by the measure I use - Championships. I think there is a high probability that his methods will lead to sustained goodness. Which I admit isn’t bad. Just not what I’d prefer as a fan.

And before some jack ass comments about just signing every available FA or trading all your future draft picks to win now, that is obviously not what the hell I’m talking about so save it.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I used to believe that the best way to a title was to be really good for as long as possible and things would break your way. But I’ve been both a Colts and a Pacers fan for a long time, so I no longer believe that. Trying so hard to maintain success means shorting yourself now for the ability to sustain the success in future years. I now believe that teams that take this approach rarely reach their potential. It’s almost impossible to. You couple getting worse drafts picks with making decisions not to fill this year’s needs because of the ramifications 3 years from now. 3 years is a fucking eternity in sports. Especially one where the average players career isn’t much longer than that. You are rarely able to put the best version of your team on the field because every year you are making concessions to keep the window open.

I’m sure you will point to NE and say they disprove my belief. They’ve been good for forever and have won multiple titles. I disagree. NE does want I advocate, they just do it so damn well (and cheat and are the luckiest SOBs alive) that they don’t suffer the down years. They take risks on players all the damn time. Besides Brady their core changes faster than most teams. They both maximize the players they have and take risks to fill the holes in their roster. They look to win now pretty much every damn year. And every year we are proclaiming them dead because they are going to loose this or that player. And then they go out and find a way to plug the hole. They change their offensive or defensive philosophy to better match the talent they have. They take a risk on a Randy Moss. Or they surprise everyone and uncharacteristicly spend big money on one of the top CBs on the market. Their biggest concern doesn’t seem to be how are we going to keep the window open, it’s how are we going to win it all this year.

Let’s be clear - I fucking hate NE, but the one thing I will grudgingly admit I admire is that they seem to prioritize winning it all now over being really good for a long time. They peak better than any team in the league. They just do it consistently.

So when I hear all this talk about building for the long haul and when I see Ballard make decisions based more on two years from now than on today what I see is sustained goodness. What the Peyton led Colts achieved was not sustained greatness. It was sustained goodness. Every single Colts fan down to the owner of the team knows that they should have won more than one Super Bowl. They were very, very good for a long time but they weren’t great for a long time. I don’t believe Ballard’s team will achieve sustained greatness because it’s nearly fucking impossible in the modern NFL. And the only team that has done it has taken numerous risks on players and are pretty much never conservative. Oh yeah and they are also lucky as fuck and cheat every chance they get.

So unlike you I don’t see in 6 year windows. I see in 2-3 year windows. I don’t see the need for every position to be filled with 25 yr old recent draft picks. I don’t believe in gifting rookies playing time. I believe in competing now and the following year. With a minor concern for 3 yrs from now. I perfectly understand that that means that the team is going to have a down year every now and then but I also recognize how quickly things can turn around to start the new window - especially with an elite QB.

Basically we are going to agree on very little when it comes to the teams direction because I don’t believe in the vision Ballard has and you subscribe to. I don’t doubt at all that Ballard is and will turn the team around from the Grigson / Pagano era. But I don’t believe his methods (as I see them and hear them now) will lead the Luck era Colts to maximize their potential as measured by the measure I use - Championships. I think there is a high probability that his methods will lead to sustained goodness. Which I admit isn’t bad. Just not what I’d prefer as a fan.

And before some jack ass comments about just signing every available FA or trading all your future draft picks to win now, that is obviously not what the hell I’m talking about so save it.

What you aren't conceding is that there's so much in common between NE's strategy and Ballard's. NE has a few key pieces, but they primarily focus on the draft and mid to lower tier free agents.

Look, I'm right there with you on championships (plural) being the goal. But you're being stubborn to a fault here.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by Luck4Reich

I really should by now

Coffee? I don't come here without whiskey. I guess I don't have a high tolerance for dumbshit

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by JAFF

Coffee? I don't come here without whiskey. I guess I don't have a high tolerance for dumbshit

This is the smartest thing I've ever heard on a message board.