Moe Allie Cox has been tearing it up in OTA's apparently.

Nice catch. I was in a hurry writing my earlier post and just quickly scanned the roster looking at the end date of the current contracts. So it is not quite as dire, but it would be nice to extend Ebron or Doyle considering how much Reich likes to incorporate the position in the offense.


Yeah, I read that, too. He will at least get some extra practice with the first unit while Ebron and Doyle recover / rehab from their surgeries.

So I guess it’s just business as usual then? Don’t try to innovate or try any different approaches? We’ll just draft and play our games, and if we get lucky win a few games and maybe a Super Bowl because it’s pointless to try and do anything differently. Everything’s already been tried, the margins are too thin, and you can’t out think anyone?

That’s ridiculous. There’s plenty of room for innovating everywhere, the NFL included. You’ve already been proven wrong after you argued last year that Ballard’s approach would lead us into 2-3 years of obscurity. So we had a few holes or weaknesses – what team doesn’t, particularly coming from where we did the year before? I notice you didn’t bring up the OL or the DBs – areas that I’m guessing (but can't recall specifically as I sit here) you were critical of last offseason.

Regarding my casino analogy and the “Moneyball BS”, it’s obvious you don’t fully grasp those examples. Because “mathematical statistics” were involved in those examples, you think the underlying principles don’t have any application here. The more important lesson is that a seemingly slight advantage can make a big difference, and can be all that is needed to turn a loser into a winner. And if you maintain that slight advantage over a long period of time, you will continue to win for a long time as well.

As for the purported hopelessness of trying to become a long term winner in the NFL, despite your suggestion otherwise teams have been doing that since the outset of the league. But you don’t do that by acting like every other team – you need to find inefficiencies and exploit them. That’s what the Colts are trying to do. I don't recall if you were one of the many who were critical of Ballard's 2018 draft, but so far he's proving your current theory wrong there as well.

You've got that right. I don't have his gift of brevity, sorry.

Those are all fair and reasonable points. I’m still not sure about Houston’s guarantees, however. According to Spotrac, he’s guaranteed $18.5M over two years, with a total contract of $23M. Included within this are the so-called “roster bonuses” of $13M for 2019 and $1M for 2020.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianap...-houston-7789/

Dam had it out with me a month or two ago about these bonuses (specifically the $1M bonus in 2020) and whether it is actually guaranteed, but other than the fact that it’s labeled “roster bonus” I don’t see anywhere to suggest that this isn’t fully guaranteed. I realize the term "roster bonus" implies otherwise, but according to Spotrac, his contract would have a dead cap value of $18.5 million if we cut him, so that appears to include both the 2020 roster bonus and the $3.5 million of the 2020 contract.

Ultimately, we'd have to see the actual contract to resolve this dispute, but until then I'll go with Spotrac.

It doesn't make sense to extend Doyle either since he's going to be over the hill.

More seriously along with that--any injury/concussion this season would make extending him possibly not in line value-wise with what the extension would be, based on his age.

29 is now the new 60?

Not if Ballard signs him again. Then it will be ok because he knows him.

Doyle is the more important TE IMO, and the more difficult to replace. He does a lot of the little things that make the offense go. Kind of like a Rodman on the Bulls, just more likable. However, with his injury history resigning him would be a pretty big risk. I can see a draft pick replacement for him, also depending on how Cox’s blocking looks by the end of the season.

You see RM, you obviously can’t grasp what he is trying to say or process the difficult concepts he extols. You should re-read his posts in order to understand them. Once you do understand you will obviously agree with him because he is right.

Considering I am referring to cap space and the cash floor it has nothing to do with this year since the space rolls over and nothing is lost if spent next season.

Except maybe some games. Or a championship

Funchess had an overrated QB with a bum shoulder throwing to him. I'm predicting 60+ catches and 10+ TD's.

I understand your point, except that I was not upset with any of our non-signings. Who exactly should we have signed to get that championship? I would like to point out that although we didn't spend much money in free agency last year I would say that we had maybe the best free agent haul of anyone. My guess is that we do very well, production wise, this year also In veteran pick ups (pretty much free) of guys like Glowinski/Moore (I know not last year) Ballard has found excellent players on the cheap consistantly. To me that means more than spending the most money. He knows what he is doing.

And, the Colts kept some guys who played well, like Desir. They spent money on the punter, on Glowinski. Sometimes it's not who you bring in, but who you keep.

I have absolutely no idea wtf you are ranting about.

My argument has been Ballard’s approach was a 3-4 yr rebuild until they were pushing for a title and I didn’t (still don’t) believe that time line is necessary with a franchise QB, loads of cap space, and the #3 pick in the draft. I typed more but deleted it. Post is to long.

As far as the OL and DBs, I didn’t complain about the OL going into last year. I didn’t like the value of Nelson at 6 but I never said the line wouldn’t be improved/ good. I was not impressed with the roster at LB, DB, WR, or DL last year. Considering the moves this offseason it seems Ballard wasn’t that impressed either. And yes I still believe the DL would be in better shape with Haskins.


I grasp them and I have no issue with their use as part of a larger scheme. I have an issue with their use as THE underlying principle driving team building. To my knowledge Moneyball has provided a better return on investment as far as wins goes, but it has not won a title. And the big exception I take to your BS “that’s what the casino industry is built on” comment is that you state it as if NFL roster building has the same defined, unbreakable statistics behind it that the casino industry does. They don’t. Not even fucking close.

I don’t think you read what you respond to. I think you are so quick to get your reply out you take no time to comprehend what anyone is saying.

A long term winner? Yes I believe Ballard will build it. I’ve said that multiple times over the last 2 years. And in the answer you replied to I referenced the Polian Colts as being what I believe the best case scenario is. I’d say that’s a long term winner and achievable. It’s the dynasty part of your rants that I believe is not achievable. At least not in the way you suggest it.

I’m not really sure how hoarding $50m+ in cap space is exploiting other teams weaknesses. I’ll take your word for it though. I do know what it looks like to see an opponent exploit the Colts weaknesses on the field. I just hope the Colts cap-space exploitation generates more points in the playoffs than their opponents on the field exploitation.

Cam isn't that bad. Those numbers would supercede Funchess' best season ever. I hope the guy does well and he isn't another Aiken or Grant. But man, I don't like his stats. He hovers around the 55% catch rate the last two years, which is much lower than Ebron. His 4 year average is 50% (although rookie years are not always fair to include). He got outplayed by a rookie last year in DJ Moore, who reminds me a lot of Cambell. Got benched at the end of the year. Then his fight the other day.

He could be an asset in goal line, with two TE's and Hilton. That would give us a lot of height in the redzone for Luck to find. His TD numbers could be pretty good. People want to compare him to the Ebron signing but I see Ebron as having better numbers and a former QB who throws a notoriously hard ball that is not the easierst to catch. I see him more like Philly's Alshon Jeffrey. Alshon has had up and down hands with numbers in the range you mention. You can see why Reich pushed for him. Jeffrey got roasted for his drop at New Orleans which ended their season. It is not easy to suddenly build chemistry with your QB in one off-season, that takes time and reps.

Still I think he is a stop gap with the suddenly in vogue one year contract. I think they are hoping one of the draft picks will step up by next season. They may talk resigning if he does really well, especially if the draft picks underperform. I don't see ten million in value though. Is he that much better than Inman?

John Simon made a key play in the Superbowl, think NE is glad they picked him up? You can't predict who would give you a championship. That's why you try to round your roster out the best you can. McCoy was a free agent that fit exactly what we like to run on D. We don't have a lot of high end talent on the line. McCoy hasn't had less than 5 sacks the last seven seasons. I don't blame him for going to the Panthers, that line is absolutely stacked now, then you have Kuechly roaming behind them. But our line is not a strength, and I find that odd considering how much Ballard preaches about the lines. Looks like we are moving forward with what we have. But we had an opportunity, motive, and means. I hope we won't regret it.

I was going off Over the Cap's numbers on his contract, which shows only $1M guaranteed next year.

https://overthecap.com/player/justin-houston/517/

If he is indeed guaranteed $4.5M next year it's not as reasonable as I thought, but still not bad since it won't hurt us long term if we release him prior to '20.

Really? You honestly have no idea what I was referring to? My so-called “rant” is in response to your statement that the NFL rules are set up specifically stop teams from long term dominance, ranging “from free agency, to the salary cap, to the draft, to even the small variation in scheduling”, and that it's a “fool’s errand’ to try to resist these forces. And please don’t try to tell me you were only talking about the draft, because that just wouldn’t make any sense from the language you used.

While I’d agree that the purpose behind some parts of the rules you’ve referred is just as you say it is (to encourage competitiveness), it’s absurd to suggest that you can’t (or shouldn’t try to) beat those rules by innovating around them.


Whatever dude. I’ll take you at your word. And if you’re implying that my posts are too long (and I assume you are), then I’d invite you please stop reading them.

And enough with the moving target stuff. You and that Chromeburn dude are the same – I answer your argument, and then you act indignant and pretend that your argument was something else all along. To recap: You criticized my analogy to the casino industry since it apparently confused you, so I spoon fed it to you so you would understand better, and now you say that you really understood it the whole time and that your problem is with the application of those principles in the NFL. You also injected Moneyball into the discussion.

As to this latter issue, you are looking at the “Moneyball” example far too narrowly. While it’s true the A’s didn’t win the World Series, you ignore the more important and far more telling fact that now virtually every team has adjusted its practices in response and adopted some form of increased statistical analysis to try and take away/reduce the edge the A’s had identified and exploited. That’s all the proof you need.


Oh, I get it now. I must have misread your original post. So you’re saying the rules you’ve referred to are set up to allow a team to enjoy a long period of winning like the Manning-led Colts, but to discourage multiple Super Bowl dynasties? Wait a minute...how exactly do all these rules you’re referring to encourage one, but prevent the other again?

The Manning-led Colts could (and perhaps should) have have won multiple Super Bowls – it wasn’t the salary cap that prevented them from doing so.


Now it’s my turn – WTF are you talking about here? I’m talking about inefficiencies in the system and rules, not on field weaknesses. Perhaps you are so quick to get your reply out you take no time to comprehend what anyone is saying. Either that, or you’re just being a garden variety asshole.

Jesus fucking Christ man it’s like arguing with my 6 yr old. You make whatever fucking argument you want to make regardless of what anyone has said.


Here is my statement on analytics, “Moneyball”, and your comment about the foundation of the Casino industry:

To anyone with even a little fucking reading comprehension it should be clear that I don’t have an issue with the use of analytics as PART of a roster building / management philosophy, I have an issue with it being THE deciding factor in every decision. In the context of this whole conversation it means I have an issue with the focus being on getting a bargain instead improving the product on the field. But we’ll come back to that. Before you start ranting off in some other direction let’s look at your response to that quote:


So to begin with I was too stupid to understand your analogy because I believe it’s ridiculous? Ok. Then you boil it down to everyone uses analytics so my point is obviously wrong. Wtf man? Take a god damn reading comprehension class. Seriously.


Here is your analogy:


So, as I stated, I had an issue with the analogy because I see no comparison between the guaranteed long term return the casino sees and the “better guess” return that analytics provides in football. Especially in the context you provide them. Not to mention the casinos advantage is driven and realized by time. They don’t need to win at any specific point. They will get their return eventually. Winning a Super Bowl is not in anyway similar. The Polian led Colts won more games in whatever long period than any other team and they won one Super Bowl. I loved those teams, but to me they were ultimately a disappointment from what they should have been. Being really good for the long term does not itself lead to Super Bowl wins.

Being cumulatively 3% or 6% better than any other team for the next decade should not be the goal (as it is for the casino). Being the best team team in a given year should be the goal. Yes you want to have as many of those opportunities to be the best team as you can, but there is always going to be a trade off between this year and the future. You have a finite amount or resources. Dedicating those resources to the future comes at a cost to the present. It is a balancing act all teams deal with.

And that is the point of the whole fucking argument. I take exception to the constant pushing of resources to the future at the expense of the present. In my view the league is so damn competitive that you have to pick smaller windows to make your push to be the best. You have to sacrifice some tomorrow for today or it will be extremely difficult to be the best in any given year where other teams are doing just that. You don’t counter that argument in anyway, you tell me I’m to fucking stupid to see the dynasty that Ballard is so obviously building.

You don’t at all care to understand or counter someone’s argument. You simply make up what you think or want their argument to be and argue against that. If someone points out that’s not their point you accuse them of moving the goal posts. Or you simply tell them they are to stupid to understand yours.

Oh, and no me saying I deleted part of my post because it was to long wasn’t a dig at you. Surprisingly it meant exactly what it said - I typed more out about that topic (the 3-4 yr rebuild) and deleted it because I thought it was to long. I’m not surprised you read into it something that wasn’t there. You do with every post that isn’t sucking Ballard’s dick or acknowledging the obvious coming dynasty.

I’m done with this conversation. Feel free to continue arguing with yourself. You’ve essentially been doing that for several posts now anyway.

You have some good points which is why this isn't a slam dunk and is fun to think about when there is nothing else football going on. I just disagree and think that Ballards is a better way forward. We were not a John Simon away from beating KC and i would rather have the young guys play. McCoy is on the way down as a player, plays the wrong defensive tackle spot and with so many team needing defensive line help ended up signing for 8 million. We have tried the fans tried and true way of signing big time free agents and ended up being shit. While it may be fun to bitch about 'lost' opportunities I personally could not be happier with how the build is going. Ballard spends money wisely (Houston and Funches were not especially cheap). We are going to be happy some day that we have it to, for instance, keep this offensive line together. Finally nobody has any idea whatsoever how good this defensive line is. I read this space all the time and I cannot remember one person saying how good our cornerbacks were (just the opposite) or that we had a top 5 offensive line (which we most definitely do have) last year at this time. These guys are mostly young, we are committed to youth with a huge emphasis by coaches on technique. These guys were drafted for high character, ie they are coachable and work hard. Somebody will make a jump. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

You're projecting. This is actually what you do. Often ignoring counterpoints altogether to regurgitate your own, or incorrectly interpreting my point which I would repeatedly have to correct. This is why people get frustrated because the arguments do not progress and simply go over the same points again and again. People understand your position the first time, just some disagree. I used to think what you were doing was intentional and you were more interested in being right and 'winning' the argument, or perhaps you were trolling. We've had trolls here who were more interested in just wasting people's time than anything. However, now I think you just don't correctly process what you read or perhaps you internalize everything. You are not an idiot, do you have a reading disability?

Case in point: The second line quoted. RM was just saying his own post was getting too long. You incorrectly inferred he was criticizing you when he was just attempting to keep his own post concise.

Good post. Not overly emotional and stated your opinion succinctly. Some could learn from your style.

Also, you made valid points. It comes down to philosophy. You (and I) like Ballard's philosophy because it has a vision. Others do not like the vision he has, but prefer to add more expensive pieces. If we were one piece away from being SB champs, then we should spend what it takes. However, most who think we need Suh, McCoy, et. al. are the same ones who say we have a severe lack of talent on the roster.

mods, can we close this thread and make those guys above get a room?

So you are saying: big name FA's cannot work because we tried it once and it failed, and McCoy is declining and would not contribute? Let me ask you this, do you think we are still in a rebuild? If so, when do you think this rebuild ends?

I like Ballard, I think he is the best GM we have and since Polian. I wouldn't trade him for another GM in the league. And yes, last year we needed more than Simon. Although Simon would have been an upgrade on the strong side over two rookies who may not even make the team this year. I believe everyone was fine with playing the young guys because everyone thought last year was a rebuilding year. Turns out we were a little wrong about that and actually had a shot. Let me give you this scenario. What if they kept Simon though, acquired another pass rusher and brought in Inman earlier? We might be looking at a few more wins, remember we had some really close games. Two more wins and we win the division and we are hosting NE and maybe KC too. We could be looking at a very different outcome.

Also, lets be clear. I am advocating filing potential holes in the roster so we do not have glaring weaknesses that will come back to haunt us during the season. We entered last season with holes at WR and pass rush. More picks, Houston and Funchess, have helped cover those problems this year. I'm ok with Houston, I'm iffy on Funchess. But there is enough redundancy around Funchess that if he doesn't work we should still be ok.

I believe signing FA's can work because I have see it work. The Rams did it effectively last year. The pats do it all the time. There are plenty of examples of FA's working. You can use multiple methods for filling the roster. Just because Grigson signed some slow older guys a couple seasons ago doesn't mean it can't work. Grigson also had horrible drafts, does that mean we shouldn't utilize the draft anymore? Of course not. It's who you acquire, not how you acquire.

Our system could use a big 3-tech. I think they almost want two 3-tech techniques at both DT spots. Remember we are not running a Dungy Tampa-2. It is based on that system yes, but it is more influenced by Dallas' style and then Eberflus puts his own spin on it. So saying that we need a NT over a 3-tech isn't exactly right because we could have resigned Al Woods and we did not. I don't really see a lot evidence that McCoy is declining, he has been pretty consistent for awhile. This is a pretty subjective part of the argument. I think he would have benefitted from a rotation meaning he wouldn't wear down during the season. Guys can play into their 30's and he just turned 31. Signing McCoy would not hurt our cap, it would mean we still have a lot of money carried over for next year. As I said, McCoy fits very well into this scheme and has great character. The fit seems to make a lot of sense.

Last year at this time I believe people thought the oline would be better with the talent influx. They were worried about the pass rush which did not seem fixed by throwing rookies at it. Also people were worried about the wide receivers thinking they lacked talent. I remember reading some worried about the lack of proven talent at CB. But Hairston had a good rookie year and Wilson showed promise. It wasn't just fans worried though, these items were repeated in the press as well.

I am excited too, I just hope we are not trading the present for a future that may never come.

First let me say that this is not black and white. We are essentially arguing about degrees, ie. we both agree we need free agents we just seem to disagree on the amount. I don't think we are in a re-build per say but we are definitely building. By that I mean part of the team is ready to compete and part we are not certain about. I'm not saying that people should have known how good or bad we were going to be, just that most of us don't really know. McCoy was and is a close call. I would just rather see the guys we have at 3 technique get the snaps to see what they can do.

Agreed about the Rams. There is not one way to do things (I'm old enough to remember a guy named George Allen) but I believe to be successful you need a way. Get a philosophy and stick to it. And it helps if you can draft a little better than the next guy.

Alright dude – in an effort to prevent this discussion from going even further off the rails, and despite my doubts, I’ll take your post seriously and tell you how it looks from this side. Despite your assertions to the contrary, it seems like you guys are having a hard time following what I’m saying. I don’t say that to be insulting or degrading, but it’s just how it appears to me.

I know you say that “people understand your position the first time,” that I just make the same points over and over, but your comments repeatedly reflect a basic lack of understanding of many aspects of what I’m saying. A few quick examples come to mind: (1) your concern that we will be perpetually $50M million under the cap, (2) your belief that I’m against signing any free agents, (3) RM’s belief that hoarding cap space is a strategy designed to expose other team’s weaknesses. Either you guys are just being difficult, or you aren’t understanding what I’m saying, so don’t blame me if I respond by providing further explanation.

Also, I’ve tried to provide several analogies as I’ve gone alone, but in your zeal to prove me wrong you’ve taken a ridiculously literal view of them. In describing the Colts’ approach under Ballard as businesslike, it was in the context of paragraphs of surrounding explanation, none of which mentioned money or profit - so to me, there simply is no reasonable way that you can conclude that I meant that the Colts should be going for profit, rather than excellence on the field. Yet, that’s exactly what you suggested. Similarly, RM has criticized as “asinine” my reference to the casino industry in describing the value that an edge can provide. This is because the NFL doesn’t have predefined statistical advantages like a casino. That may be true, but can you really not get what I’m saying there? Or does it look more like just an attempt to make a pointless distinction without any meaningful difference? To me, these kind of comments suggest that you guys are the ones who just want to “win” the argument at any cost.

And more fundamentally, when think through some of the things you guys have been saying, they simply don’t make sense or they would lead to absurd larger conclusions. RM says it is a “fool’s errand” to think that the Colts can outdraft their opponents and thereby create an engine leading the Colts to a dynasty. Does anyone really believe this, RM included? Are you saying success in the draft is totally random? Plenty of teams have proven they are demonstrably better at drafting than their opponents, and the Colts current regime is off to a pretty good start on this point. Combine it with the kind of excellent cap management I’m talking about and, to me, you have the makings of a huge advantage and, by extension, the possibility of a dynasty.

RM also says the NFL rules are designed to prevent any team from becoming too dominant, creating an atmosphere so competitive that “you have to pick smaller windows to make your push to be the best.” Honestly, when I think about this statement, I don’t even know what it means. Is he saying the only viable strategy is a “pop and drop” approach where you go all out for a season or two, and then have to recharge for a while before making a charge forward again? That’s silly - lots of teams have shown you can be dominant for long periods of time, even in the context of our current rules. We need look no further than our own Manning-led Colts. They only won one SB, but there’s no reason they couldn’t have won several others despite the current rules.

Then there’s the contradictions. I’ve covered your reactive vs. proactive stuff so I won’t belabor the point. But then there’s RM saying referring to the “Moneyball BS” in one sentence, and then later saying it’s actually an effective component of a winning strategy. And RM’s theory that the current rules somehow allow long term success, but prevent dynasties. Many others. Enough said.

Lastly, my suspicion that RM was taking a crack at my post length. I'll take RM at his word, and point out that I did admit that I was implying that from his post. But I guess that one’s on me, as I’ve become accustomed to seeing such comments here about my posts.

And I would like to add, put money into what you value. There's no cap on coaches, scouts and player developement execs. The Eagles lose one of their front office guys to the Jets, they have someone who they have trained to step in. You want to develop and grow from the draft, you will need a bunch of them who know what the team is looking for on both sides of the ball. You are training your front office people to be GM's. Same for the coaching staff. You want guys who want to be head coaches.

Since this thread is about McCoy...

1. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy is not a good player.
2. I don't think anyone is saying that McCoy would not improve our front seven.
3. I don't think anyone would be upset if we had signed McCoy.

That said, the issues are as follows:

1. Do we think McCoy would be the piece that wins us the SB? I don't think he is.
2. Will we be contenders without McCoy? Possibly, but the NFL is hard to predict. I think we will have about the same record without McCoy that we would have had with him, but that is just me.
3. Will we need to spend the cap dollars on someone anyway? This is where the water gets murky. Maybe Sherck can tell us where we are as it relates to the cap floor, but I think we are right at it and can get close with tweaking current contracts. As to the penalty for not hitting the floor, it is merely paying the difference to the players association. Maybe we have to pay $5M, but that is just a guess and we may actually be at the average now. Ballard knows, but I cannot recall him explaining it besides being cryptic about it.
4. Will our younger DLine guys develop? One can hope, but we cannot tell now, and signing McCoy would delay that development. This is why I am okay with missing out on him, despite thinking he would be a good fit initially.
5. I know I am missing a key issue, so fill it in here, lol.

Chaka,

Let me ask this - what is your definition of a dynasty? You seem to think I’m being inconsistent with suggesting it is possible to be very good for a long time (Polian Colts), but a fools errand to believe you can build a dynasty using your method in the modern NFL. I don’t see those two things as inconsistent at all and honestly I don’t see what’s so hard to understand. Perhaps we simply have a different view of what a dynasty is.

With a franchise QB and sound management I believe you can be and should be one of the top teams in the league year in year out. Is that a dynasty? To me it’s not. To me a dynasty is multiple Championships (3 or more) in some short period (6-7 years?). And I don’t believe that is a worthy goal for any team to plan around. To me the time frame is to long for how quickly things change. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t be aware of the long term. I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t be planning to always be a winner. I’m simply saying you shouldn’t always be prioritizing tomorrow over today as I believe that plan requires.

As you are so quick to point out with any potential signing, there is a cost to every move. You are great about pointing out what it could cost the team 3-4 years from now, but you never express a concern about the cost to the team now of not making a move. As a fan, I don’t want my teams goal to be really good over a lot of seasons. I want their goal to be to win titles. Where you see being really good for a long time leading to those multiple titles, I see the sacrifices necessary to maintain that high level of performance coming at the cost of being the best in a given year. Hence my comment about peaking in smaller windows. I’m not sure why you would find the idea of that ridiculous. It’s simply about the prioritization of resources.

Maybe I’m jaded by the Polian Colts because I subscribed to the slow steady approach and thought the Colts would win more titles by virtue of being really good for a long time and catching some breaks. I kept waiting for NE to crumple because they constantly had turn over, constantly took chances on players. But with a franchise QB and great coaching they find a way to be the best. That to me is a better, more realistic model. It’s the one I’d prefer my team to follow. Without Luck in place I’d probably agree with your approach. But I’m willing to take a down year or two for some ramped up shots at a title. And with Luck in place the reload can happen very quickly. Look at last year for example. Could the Colts have won a title with a competent WR2 and a better pass rush? Maybe, but probably not. The turn around sure as hell happened quickly though. Of course everything is a matter of degree. I’m not suggesting they should go all in this year, every year. But I don’t believe they will build a dynasty by always pushing resources until tomorrow at the expense of today.

And if Ballard can draft better than any GM in NFL history, then it almost doesn’t matter what philosophy they follow - they’ll be successful. But I wouldn’t bet on it. That’s not a knock on Ballard, it’s simple a realistic view of what can be expected of him. If you are all about the statistics then do some research on the success of GMs drafting over the long term. Any evaluation I have ever seen (with enough sample size) shows guys falling back to the pack. Especially as they start drafting in the 20s and 30s instead in the top 10 and there is more competition at spots on the team.

People keep arguing that it will delay the development of the younger guys but I think that's complete bs. There is a rotation. There is plenty of playing time and practice time for everyone. Depth is not a bad thing. If the young guys can't develop, it won't be because of one more decent player on this team. it will be because they simply aren't good enough, and then you'll be glad to have that experienced player on the roster.

You can't assume every draft pick is going to develop and work out. We know what McCoy offered, and it would have been nice to have that depth and some more interior pass rush. Doesn't matter much now. We'll see if it was the right move or a mistake in time.

Yup, it's all opinion. Time will eventually reveal what the right calls were. I don't mind a philosophy as long as it's flexible, but I believe in adaptation. I believe adaptation is the key to survival because things constantly change. Drafting better of course helps, but no team can maintain that forever. The pats stay in front because they use multiple methods for talent acquisition and they have not been a great drafting team over the last five years. One thing I do like is Ballard throws numbers at roster issues. He doesn't draft just one guy high to fill a need, he drafts four then sees who emerges. Because the odds are one pick will not solve a problem like pass rush. You have to keep taking guys till you get it right, then add a vet to bolster the position and provide a little instruction.

I think the rebuild stopped once we became a playoff team. You obviously never stop trying to add talent around your franchise QB. But once that talent gap narrows with the other playoff teams it comes down to X's and O's. Part of the problem when you have a QB of Luck's calibre, they cover a lot of flaws. Manning did the same thing and that team collapsed when he got injured. I still think we are light on the dline. We will have to see if any of these low cost FA's are able to fill the back end of the DT roster.

1. I don’t think McCoy himself puts the Colts over the top, but the same thing is said for almost every single player available to the Colts. Looking at it in isolation it’s easy to justify. But what’s the point of signing Houston then? He didn’t put the team over the top. He addresses a need and makes the team better. I’d argue McCoy would have done the same. Couple those two with doing a little more in free agency overall (not breaking the bank) and yes I believe the Colts could have been a potential SB team. With some luck maybe they are anyway, in which case McCoy would be an even bigger missed opportunity.

2. I’d agree he wouldn’t significantly change their record, but I’d rather have McCoy on the roster when it comes playoff time. That to me is when he’d likely pay dividends.

3. The cap floor is irrelevant to me. Ballard will handle it.

4. Everyone assumes a vet will delay player development. I don’t necessarily believe that - especially on the DL where guys rotate more. There McCoy replaces the worst option. He may take a starting role over someone, but they’d still get snaps. Plus I see value in competition and learning tips and tricks from guys that have seen it and done it. I know many on here don’t seem to agree though.

5. My only other thought is that it likely comes down to where you believe the team is. When will a realistic title window open? I’ve taken a lot of flak from Chaka and a few others for saying Ballard’s method will be a 3-4 year rebuild and that it could have been done quicker. If you think the window is open now then I can’t understand how you would justify passing on McCoy. If you don’t think they are quite there yet fine, passing on McCoy is understandable. But don’t tell me it’s not a 3-4 yr rebuild and say the window isn’t open yet.

All fair points. I am not sure when our window opens and what adding one more player would do to the window. I think we are close, but not close enough to beat the top three or four teams in the league in January. The fan in me wants to think this is a SB contender, but until I see them lace them up on Sundays, I really have no idea. I mean, I keep thinking Brady is going to drop off a cliff, but somehow they keep doing what they do. Now I think a lot of it is the offensive game plan that people don't seem to be able to stop (i.e. edeldick on third and long every drive in the fourth quarter), but he will eventually not be able to sustain even that simple formula for much longer (surely???). Well, that and the cheating. I still think they are doing things with communication headsets that are skirting the rules, but no proof is there.

Then you have NO, LA Rams and KC. I think we close the gap on KC simply because they lost a lot of talent on offense and their defense is nothing to write home about. I also think Brees will retire soon and NO will be garbage. I hope I am wrong and that our window is this year, even without McCoy.

A thread full of chaka talking too much and irritating the shit out of people. I'm shocked.

Let me say at the outset that I recognize and appreciate the tone of your response here. As to the substance of your post, I understand the points you are making and I agree that they are perfectly valid. At the core, however, we just have a fundamentally different viewpoint on (1) what is achievable, and (2) how best to accomplish these achievements.

To answer your initial question, your definition of “dynasty” sounds reasonable enough to me – I don’t have a specific number of years or championships in mind , but certainly it involves multiple championships in a relatively short period of time, preferably a few in a row, and ideally with group of core players staying with the team throughout the run. Ultimately, I don’t know that there’s a perfect formula of championships and years that spells "dynasty", because for me it’s more of a “I’ll know it when I see it” kind of thing. To be honest, I kind of dislike the term “dynasty”, but it serves as convenient shorthand for what I think the Colts should be striving for – memorable long term dominance and multiple championships.

Where we disagree is the idea of whether it’s achievable today. I think it absolutely is, and its exactly what we should be striving for. Why have any lower goal? And the beauty of it is that if there is any team in the league poised to do it, it’s the Colts. We have an elite QB who, barring catastrophic injury, should have a good 10 years or more left in the league. We have some quality home-grown veterans, young stars popping up all over the team, a great coach, an outstanding GM, an owner who seems willing to stay hands-off, and tons of available cap space to work with. Yes, we have some holes, but fewer and fewer as time goes on, and lots of quality young player vying to fill those holes. I see a special situation brewing, and I don’t want the Colts to risk undermining that for a short term run of a year or two. I think it could be much better than that, and I think careful management of the salary cap can serve as the fuel to propel us towards that destination. I guess that’s what all of this comes down to.

Yes, the Polian/Manning Colts didn’t achieve quite as much as most of us thought they should have. And I understand the feeling that we missed a great opportunity and you don't want to repeat it. I don’t know what went wrong, but somebody underperformed their duties, because we had all the pieces in place. Even so, those were still some great years to be Colts fan. And maybe it’s too early to say, but I don’t see the current team/coaching makeup being as likely to underperform in those situations.

Dude, I don't know what your obsession is with me, but I'm going to put this out there right now: I'm straight.

Didnt our old site have an ignore option? Of course everyone would quote the person and you see their post anyway. :cool:

Anyone looking to follow the New England model will need to forget about their ethics and embrace cheating. That's their entire model.

Has to be your profile pic that stirs him up :eek:

I assume this is directed at me. I hate NE as any NFL fan should. Especially a Colts fan. And I definitely believe their legacy is tainted. However, I don’t agree that all of their success is driven by cheating. They excel at two things that I believe are worthy of some degree of emulation - flexibility and focus. Flexibility in both scheme and roster building and focus on winning it all each season. Those two things let them strike the best balance in the league between planning for the future and winning it all now, IMO. They don’t mortgage the future to win now, but they also don’t let planning for their 3rd title stop them from winning one this year. We can agree to disagree on whether or not that is a “model” worth following.