I still wake up in the middle of the night screaming why Earl Morrall, why. I see it clear as day, Jimmy Orr, uncovered, standing all alone at the Jets 5 yard line, no defender within 20 yards, waving his arms, frantically trying to get your attention..and you, you throw into double coverage and see the ball picked off for what seems to be the umpteeth time in a game you should have won by 20.

You drove a dagger into my dreams.

o


Yes, but Chopped Wood made that post 2 days ago ...... that's in the past ...... it's no longer Tuesday anymore, it's Thursday. He wants to talk about NOW, THE PRESNT, not the past. How many times does he have to keep repeating himself ???

o

I threw up after that shithole of a game. First devastation as a sports fan, Colts had the so much better team

Great, both franchises suck, both have been atrocious at making good decisions for decades. Yep, not disputing it.

Right now, both of them are in a position to potentially land franchise changing players and COULD in a couple years be contesting for a playoff run. Note the word COULD.

I know what's in the back of your head- the 7-1 start, the 8-2 after 10, then the injury and then the downfall. We're not that far away, we can be a winner, we can get Dimes back and we can make a big run. Sure, sure, ok!

On the season, we had 2 significant wins, Denver and SD. Other than that, we beat dogshit, and we lost to EVERY other "good" team we played. Oh don't start, don't start- we were "close" in several of those games- don't start, doesn't matter- at the end of the season, we LOST those games.

In every fucking article / engagement since the season ended, the team reps have made reference to a couple of very impactful moments. One, the most frequently mentioned, the inability to stop Seattle from going down the field in SECONDS to win the game. The other, the inability to get a 1st down against KC to ice the game. Yep, two critical failures that definitely could be attributed to the failure to make the playoffs. Both of those, are representative of a coach that has REPEATEDLY demonstrated to us that he struggles enormously against good football teams. But yeah, sure, next year, sure that will all change! Sure, because yeah man, it just will!

Next year, we will have a QB dragging his leg around, our all-world DT will be using toothpicks to keep his head from falling down, and our all world RB who was healthy ALL damn year, will remain that way even though he is now in the yellow zone of 27 years of age, and his fall off at the end of the year is not in any way an indicator that his play is starting to dip. Oh, and our ALL world OG, who again was essentially healthy all year, who will be 30 years old, will stay that way again and his play will not in any way dip from what it also did late in the year.

Yep, all negative indicators, they are meaningless, because we are the Colts by God and we have bad ass Ballard and Super Star Shane guiding us, and their past results do not indicate future performance!

The greatest likelihood is next year is a 6-7 win team. We again are stuck in shitty draft order. All the brass are sent packing. We probably SUCK terribly in 27 as we shed the old guys and go full youth as we chase a real QB.

So, backing up, yes, give me either the Browns or Jets positions---- right now, with a chance to get a couple young stars in the fold and at least attempting to re-build right now, vs what I expect to be a Blah year next year, a terrible year thereafter, and probably 2 more really shitty years as we fully rebuild. So yep, I would rather be them right now than where we are at this very moment. At least they have HOPES of getting things going north vs what I believe is almost certainly an escalator down for the next 3-5 years.

I don't get it, there are some of you who have this weird aversion to accept that what we have seen from the GM for 9 years and the HC for 2, is not at all who they really are. I believe Denny Green man.

Okay, this post isn’t intended to defend Steichen or Ballard or anyone or anything about the organization.

It’s a simple question sparked by the inability of the team to win against Seattle. The Seahawks get the ball with 42 seconds left and 31 seconds later, kick a winning FG.

For most the hundred year history of the league, that would have been inexplicable, considered an epic fail, a two or three time in a season occurrence.

But, has the ground shifted under our feet? Are we living in a new age, crafted by the dynamic kickoff and the league’s incessant drive to extract every last ounce of excitement from the game? How does that combine with the new rules for kicking balls that seem to be driving an explosion of what seems possible on FG attempts?

A few years ago, you would have seen teams blast a kickoff into the end zone. The result, 1st and 10 at the 20. 60 yard field goals were unheard of, anything from 50 out was a prayer. So, you had to move 50 yards in your 40 seconds.

Nowadays, teams are getting starting field position at the 35 or 40. In order to put yourself in position for a 60 plus yard FG, you might have to only move the ball 10 or 15 yards.

In those circumstances, 42 seconds is an eternity.

We saw this play out as early as week 2, when the Giants played Dallas. The Giants take the lead with 19 seconds left, Dallas moves 18 yards and Aubrey kicks a 64 yarder to send it into OT.

I think that it’s changing the way coaches use timeouts at the end of halves. We’ve gone from trying to bleed the clock on D to calling timeouts, trying to conserve every last second. Teams are getting a couple of extra plays, an extra half minute of time to score all because coaches are trying to jockey themselves into a position where they get the ball back with 30 or 40 seconds left.

I think that the result is that the importance of special teams play has just escalated. You need a kick return game that gets you to the 40. You need to stop runners from crossing the 25. You need a kicker who’s money from 60.

Where do you think the cap space to sign a top DE is going to come from? We currently have $34M in cap space, so will probably need to restructure/cut some guys just to bring back Jones, Pierce, Cross, and anyone else we want to keep.

Getting the ball at the 35 is insane! Complete 1 or 2 medium range passes, and you're in this generation's FG range.

The NFL as a league is so stupid.

See if this helps. They can spread this out for 5 years. Maybe Sherck can better explain it. If I am reading this correctly they can pay the player up front and it will only count against the cap so much per yr.

That has been an issue in the past with liquid money from Jim. The girls have sold off a shit ton of Jim's stuff so they could be flush with cash to make thia hapen

From Grok

NFL signing bonuses are included in the team's salary cap, but they are not charged in full immediately. Instead, they are prorated (spread evenly) over the life of the contract, up to a maximum of five years.For example:A $20 million signing bonus on a four-year contract adds $5 million to the cap each year.
On a five-year (or longer) contract, it adds $4 million per year (or less if spread over five).

This proration rule comes from the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and allows teams to manage cap space by spreading the impact, while the player typically receives the full bonus upfront. If the player is cut or traded early, the remaining prorated amount accelerates as dead money on the cap (potentially spread over two years with a post-June 1 designation).This system is widely used for restructures—converting base salary into signing bonuses to create immediate cap relief—and remains in effect as of 2025-2026 under the current CBA. Unlike roster bonuses (which often hit the cap in full in the year earned), signing bonuses benefit from this spreading mechanism.

NFL signing bonuses are typically paid to the player up front—often as a lump sum shortly after signing the contract (within days or weeks), or at minimum in installments with the bulk received quickly.This is a key reason signing bonuses are attractive to players: they get a large amount of guaranteed money immediately, while the team spreads (prorates) the salary cap impact over the contract's length (up to 5 years).In most cases, the full bonus is paid immediately or very soon after signing.
Contracts can include deferred payments or installments (e.g., part paid on signing, the rest within the first year or by the next March), but the CBA ensures significant portions are paid promptly—at least half within 12 months, with the rest by the following March 31 unless otherwise specified.
Rare exceptions exist (like some rookie deals with minor deferrals), but the standard practice is upfront payment to provide player security.

This upfront cash flow is why teams often convert base salary into signing bonuses during restructures—the player gets the money right away, creating immediate cap relief for the team.

I'm no Sherck, but I do know enough to be dangerous. I'm assuming it would take at least a similar type of contract as the one the Texans signed Hunter to which included a $36.8M signing bonus spread over 5 years w/ a year 1 cap hit of $20M.

I'm sure we'll have to pay Jones more than what we paid him this year ($15M cap hit), Pierce will likely get at least MPJ money ($18M cap hit in year 1), and Cross will be looking to get paid as well.

Obviously there's ways to create cap space and lower the initial cap hit from a signing, but I don't see us being able to re-sign our own and bring in a top flight DE without making some really tough cuts.

But isn't one form of a bonus or guarantee something that CIG wil have to have in cash to make the payment? Meaning She pays it ahead of time and that amount is spread out of 4-5 years

I completely agree, the new rules clearly foster the ability to score at the end of games. I can't remember the exact stat, but I heard it earlier this week, something like 73% of the games this year were one score games. Yes, it is all part of the Roger Goodell plan to manufacture more intrigue- I hate the man for living but he is a master marketing machine.

All that said, we lost that game against Seattle because Lou played like a scared little whimp allowing them to just gobble up yards with zero resistance in the most critical point in our season to that point, which is of course why I fucking pray some idiot GM hires him (they won't because they aren't stupid).

Spotrac has the number at $52 Million, which is substantially more than Over The Cap’s 34. Part of that is the fact that Spotrac is counting only the top 41 players. Another part is that they peg the cap in 2026 at a higher number. Another curiosity is that, just a day ago, Over The Cap was saying the Colts had $45 Million in cap space. I’m not sure what changed in 24 hours.

My guess is that the number will end up just a bit over $40 Million, and you’re right that we need to carve out a chunk of cap space.

So, how to do it?

Right now, there are four players on the roster…Buckner, Nelson, Pittman, and Taylor…who count a combined $95 Million against the cap. Inking them to new contracts, each with first year cap hits of $12 Million, would free up $47 Million and give you a certain amount of roster certainty.

There are another three players…Zaire Franklin, Grover Stewart, and Kenny Moore….who count $35 Million. Arguably, they are each past their prime, and cutting them would open up another $29 Million. A less harsh option would be to request that they sign new deals for less money.

If Charvarius Ward retires, we get $25 Million in cap relief if we want to take him to arbitration and wrench back the prorated $13 Million of his signing bonus. Personally, I think that that would send a bad message to the locker room, that if you suffer a catastrophic injury, the team will try to extort money from you.

Alternatively, there are a dozen players on the roster who earn a combined $144 Million in salary and bonuses. If you convert that money to bonuses and extend it over the maximum 5 years allowed by the CBA, you can free up well over $100 Million.

Pierce will get upwards of 20 million per year. If not here, then somewhere else.

Personally, I’d be fine with letting Pittman go and making Pierce our number one receiver.

I still think Pierce will leave unless we overpay him. He'd thrive with a team like the Patriots and Drake Maye. Or any contender with a real franchise QB. Other than developing under Reggie Wayne, he's just wasting his time here. Just my opinion.

We have $$$. Restructure some contracts. Cut some dudes (Zaire) and we're in business. At this point though, it looks like weak FA class.

I don't know if there is a way to get a transcript of today's show, but on 1025 The Game, in Nashville, they were discussing which WC team should be the model for the Titans to follow. One said Jax and another said NE. When it was Derrick Mason's turn, he said he would not look to one of them, but to Indianapolis. I guess a former NFL WR turned radio host is clueless, too.
Here is a link to the show. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2665590155
They were talking about it around the 2:30 mark, if my memory is right.

Interesting. Not sure why Spotrac would only include the top 41, but obviously including the top 51 is going to more accurate with the additional 10 players probably counting ~$10M towards the cap. Also, the total cap liabilities on OTC is $7M more than the top 51, which probably covers things like the rookie pool, etc. Maybe that wasn't being accounted for when you looked earlier on.

Good analysis other than the suggestion to go after the prorated portion of Ward's signing bonus. Although most of the players we would look to extend are 30+, so not sure what the appetite is to extend them. Also, pushing cap hits into the future is something Ballard has avoided doing in the past, so he'll have to step out of his comfort zone there.

Hmm. Considering we've won a whopping 1 playoff game in the past 10 years one would think that he would have found a much more successful franchise to model the Tits after.

Did he explain why he would model it after the Colts? Exactly what would he do that the Colts have done and why, since we are not a playoff team.

He did. I do not remember the exact details, but he mentioned the team was mostly home-grown (drafted) talent, with really good talent in a lot of areas (OL, WR, JT, etc) with some of them elite, or almost elite at their position. He said the roster is only missing a solid QB, and when DJ was performing well, we had it, and were a dominating team. I will listen to it again to see if I misrepresented him.

Listen to the podcast. It makes more sense that I can explain it. Start at the 2:25 mark.

When your boss asks you if you sill have your shimmer, have your Juju, and implies that you’re reaching the end of your tether, you find that your comfort zone is a lot bigger than it used to be.

If you’re just starting out and the future stretches out in front of you, conserving future cap space is a priority. After 9 years, it’s something the next guy has to deal with.

In theory I agree. In practice I am not so sure. Are you old enough to remember George Allen and the Redskins? More than one way to skin a cat. We all judge it by the same thing, does it produce wins. Ballards way hasn't been able to seal the deal, yet.

I remember the old Redskins, but did not pay much attention to them at that time. It was always the Cowboys and Steelers in the spotlight then, as it was hard to follow teams outside of what the networks showed every week.

Evan these Patriots have rebuilt. They've replaced the best NFL head coach of all time. The best NFL QB of all time. Taken years off and are now winning playoff games
I'll always love the Colts. They're my home team, but they're finished. I'll just watch because it's important to have an NFL team here locally. They aren't going to win anything though
And I love pro football. The Colts aren't going to win anything significant again though.

Same with the Pacers. They're never going to win a championship, but it's good that they're still in the city.

Why do you think the Pacers will never win anything? They took it to 7 games last year.

Brylok, Never is a long time. I agree that we will probably never win anything with this current leadership group and it's depressing as hell. Others on this board disagree so lets hope you and I are full of shit (my wife would back up anyone here who believes that)

o


The White Sox went 88 years without winning a World Series ...... and then, they won the World Series.

Never is indeed a very long time.

o

That tells you the scouting is still there. That's the real foundation of every franchise.
Just think how bad this franchise could've been if they took Leaf and Williams over Manning and James.
You have to feel for those Cowboy fans who are over 60 when that organization had great scouting and doesn't even come close after the Aikman era.
We are in the dark ages of being a Colts fan. Some of us who followed the team back to the Baltimore days been through that.

There is a "new" owner that doesn't have the experience of hiring and firing yet. Firing is easy, hiring is not.

We're also always comparing them to the field every year. You bring up the Patriots this year. But last year I was reading about how the Vikings were a model franchise we should be emulating. Same with the Commanders.

You're not reading that this year because nobody is writing it. This year it's the Patriots and Bears and Broncos who have the league figured out. We'll see who it is next year.

---

And looking at the field vs your team, you see a SB winner every single year and it's not you. Something about that must make people think there's more than a 3% (1/32) of winning.

Because the Bills never won, the 49ers never won, the Jackson Ravens never won, the Burrow Bengals never won, Campbell Lions never won, LaFluer Packers never won.

It's been pointed out lately that the Colts have won a playoff game more recently than the Steelers. Point being... the Super Bowl is zero-sum. Keep some perspective.

Even better the Cubs went 108 years, which I very much enjoy giving Cubs fans shit about by making the statement that if a professional sports team doesn't win a championship in a 100 year span that it should be dissolved :D.

To me it isn't about winning the Super Bowl once or even multiple times like Jim always wanted. I don't need a dynasty to be satisfied (would be nice though). Having a realistic chance to not just make the playoffs but, if you get hot, to make a run gives me personally something to be invested in. You take the chance and most of the time you lose. It's a bummer but fun anyway because it's just a game and there is always next year. I have not felt this way about our team since Luck was here. It is to damn long.

o


I always use the White Sox as an example because of the fact that Cubs fans and Red Sox fans are a bunch of whiny, narcissistic, self-pitying crybabies.

The White Sox actually went longer without winning it all (88 years) than the Red Sox did (86 years), but all you ever heard about was the droughts of the Red Sox and the Cubs because of their constant, narcissistic whining ...... White Sox fans, in my rat's ass of an opinion, were not nearly as nauseating in dealing with their 88-year drought as were Red Sox fans and Cubs fans.

o

Well said

Puck, you have convinced me that this a probable scenerio and I am comfortable with it. I still have a couple of reservations about it however. First most new owners have no football or very little football experience yet manage to usually fire both the GM and the coach and start new. Secondly these women were not blindsided by this. They had years many where they were specifically groomed to take over from their father. Making these kind of decisions should have been near the top of their teaching. Then there is the fact that Jim's death wasn't something out of the blue. It doesn't make the emotional difficulty any easier but should have made the transition in running the club easier. Finally I am concerned that Carlie is so involved with the club on a day to day basis that she isn't seeing the whole picture clearly (Ballard may be a very close friend for instance, making objectivity difficult). Now I am not saying any of this is true (either scenario) only that both are possible. It will become clear as time passes which is true.

Can't argue with any of that. I think maybe she saw the beginning of the season and thought if I don't give this one more chance I could be making a huge mistake.

Ballard's contract expires after 2026 correct? Not sure when SS does. For the record I am indifferent on Ballard. I think he has made some very good draft picks. And he has also missed some. As all GM's do. (most recently seeing that he took Evan Hull one spot before the Rams took Puka OUCH).

I am a Shane fan though. I think he has proven that with a competent QB he can win.

You are right She was groomed. And maybe I didn't put enough credence into that. But maybe she really thinks they are close when healthy.

As far as her being so involved in the club, that is an interesting take. She sees everything like CB and SS as well as the coaches do And everything looks great on paper from that view. But taking a step back like us as fans see things differently. One thing though is that you don't see the outside NFL community outside of the local media, thinking either is on the hot seat.

I wonder if she needs a President of FB ops? Like Matt Ryan signed for the Falcons

Who knows. Good points. We shall see

No argument from me about Cubs or Sawx fans. Especially Cubs fans since I run into way more of them living in the Midwest, hence the joke I always make about teams should be dissolved if they can't win a championship within a 100 year span :D.

Although I would be remiss if I didn't bring up that the White Sox would likely have not had a larger gap than the Red Sox if they hadn't thrown the 1919 World Series.

o


As a Black Sox expert, the first thing that needs to be said about that entire situation is that there are many things about the entire affair that nobody will ever know for sure (including myself.)

That said, both Shoeless Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver very likely played to win. In fact, Jackson set what was then a World Series record with 12 hits, batted .375 for the series, hit the only home run of the series for either team, and did not make an error on defense. Similarly, Weaver batted .324, did not make an error on defense, and by all accounts played his best to win (not easy to do, knowing that 6 of your teammates are intentionally throwing games.)

Weaver never took a dime, repeatedly asked for a separate trial from his teammates to prove his innocence (of which he was denied), and appealed to the MLB commissioners (Kenesaw Landis, Happy Chandler, and Ford Frick) every year until his death in 1956 to have himself reinstated (all of his appeal were denied.)

Jackson was given $5,000 in an envelope by his best friend and teammate (Lefty Williams) ........ money that he never asked for, and that he did not want. In fact, he even tried to give the money to the team owner (Charlie Comiskey) and report the entire scandal to him but he was intercepted by Harry Grabiner (Comiskey's secretary), who told Jackson that Comiskey had nothing to say to him (even though he had offered a $10,000 reward for anyone giving him any information on the fix.) At that point, Jackson decided that he simply wasn't going to play in the series because of the fix that he knew that his teammates were complicit in. His manager (Kid Gleason) screamed at Jackson that he would play ....... Gleason's statement was not a prediction or a request, it was a threat. The uneducated, illiterate Jackson buckled under the pressure of his manager and owner, and played all 8 games of the series to the best of his ability, but (like teammate Buck Weaver) was not comfortable in doing so.

As stated before, there are still many aspects of the entire affair that people do not know, and will never find out. However, based on the numerous books, articles, and films that I have read and seen, and the people that I have spoken with (I actually called a man named Gardner Stern on the telephone just before he died in 1996 who lived in Chicago his entire life, and who was 16 years-old at the time of the fix, and I spoke extensively with him about it), Jackson and Weaver both played to win, in spite of the pressure of the situation that was on them.



************************************


Me and Gardner Stern


In regard to Gardner Stern, this man ......


A. ) Saw the first game ever at THE ORIGINAL Comiskey Park in April of 1910, when he was 6 and-a-half years old.

B. ) Had his heart broken when it was found out that his beloved White Sox had thrown the 1919 World Series (he in fact went to one of those World Series games against the Reds.)



As I said earlier, his name was Gardner Stern. He was born in 1904, was a life-long White Sox fan, and was a guest in Ken Burns' baseball documentary.

I simply called information for Chicago, Illinois (in 1996), asked for his phone number, and he was nice enough to talk to me for about 20 minutes about the entire Black Sox scandal, plus his lifelong fandom of the White Sox ...... he died just a few months after our conversation.

o

C&O That is amazing and very cool. What made you call the man? Do you do this for a living or is it a hobby of yours? Ive always found the scandal to be infuriating. One more example of the rich and powerful screwing over the players. We did get Landis who cleaned up baseball but seemed like a total ass.