Colts fielding a cheap team this year...

[cstjohn17]

1) Is Peyton Manning still their QB?
2) Does their GM do a good job of drafting \ acquiring talent?

As long as #1 is in place they are a threat, who cares if they can balance a checkbook.

 

[solman]

I said "They have probably signed the fewest number of UFAs over the past several years and especially big-name free agents" which means that the Colts have signed free-agents.

Your post, IMO, is just a repeat of what was said by DaBruinz in this thread.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...howthread.php?t=33371&page=4&highlight=double

If the Colts were in cap hell in 2006, then every fan of every team should hope that their team faces cap hell.

I generally use only use the phrase "cap hell" when responding to other who use it. In my opinion, the term is a mistake, since it suggests that a team's salary cap situation is either good or bad.

I think that a better term would be "salary cap health".

The healthier a team's salary cap situation is, the more they can afford to spend. Even a team with an unhealthy salary cap situation, like the Colts, is able to spend money on new players. But that additional money comes at an even higher cost to salary cap health in future seasons.

Put another way, the more unhealthy a team's salary cap situation is, the more costly each additional dollar spent on players will be.


I would compute a team's salary cap health as D-S where:

S = the amount of money that the team has spent on players which has not been counted against the cap as of the start of the season and

D = the discount represented by the players' future contractual obligations relative to the value of that player on the free agent market. This should take into account both future risk of injury and diminished performance, future changes to the free agent market, option value and, probably, a time discount.

S can be precisely calculated.

D is a dollar value that can be argued endlessly.

For example:

Player X signs a 5 year contract with a signing bonus of $5M and annual salaries of $1M.

At the beginning of year two S is $4M. This money has already been spent and WILL be subtracted from the team's salary cap over the next four seasons, no matter what they do.

If that player's fair market value in years 2,3,4 and 5 is $2M in each year, then D=$4M and D-S = 0. This player has a neutral impact on the team's salary cap health.

If player X's fair market value in year 2 is $2M, and there is a 50% chance he will become a star worth $6M/year during years 3-5, and a 50% chance he will sustain a career ending injury, then D is $8.5M [=(2-1)+0.5*3*(6-1)], and D-S = $4.5M, so this player is expected to contribute $4.5M to the team's salary cap health over the duration of his contract [as of the start of year 2].

Manning, Harrison and Freeney are players with big S, and clearly smaller D. I'm not saying that they aren't great players, but they aren't playing for enough of a discount to avoid having a substantial negative impact on the level of talent that the Colts can field.

I believe that the Freeney contract is a perfect example of a team making highly undesirable decisions because they are in poor salary cap health. If Freeney is going to earn his new contract, he will have to be one of the best DEs in the NFL every year for the next six years. If he does this, the Colts will more or less break even on his contract. If he doesn't do this, or he gets injured, the salary cap consequences will be massively negative.

Why did the Colt's agree to this gamble? Win and you're OK, lose and you're screwed?

I'm convinced it is because the Freeney deal buys them large amounts of cap space during years 1-3, and they needed this cap space to deal with Peyton and Harrison. By my reckoning, the Colts paid an expected penalty of around $20M long term cap dollars in exchange for this short term cap relief.

[For those who would point out that continuing cap increases are likely to make $12M a reasonable wage for a good tackle six years from now, I say that even if this is true, the annual risk of injury exceeds (by a substantial margin) the annual salary cap increase.]

 

[solman]

1) Is Peyton Manning still their QB?
2) Does their GM do a good job of drafting \ acquiring talent?

As long as #1 is in place they are a threat, who cares if they can balance a checkbook.

If you still believe this at the end of the 2007 season; If you are happy with the consequences of losing so many key 2006 starters by the conclusion of the Superbowl; bump this thread and send me a PM. I'll publicly apologize for being an idiot.

I have predicted no more than one total playoff win for the Colts during 2007-2009 and no more than one total during 2008-2010. The mechanism that will ensure this result is the massive loss of talent that has already begun.

Indy has won their last AFC championship this decade.

 

[workhorse]

I said 2007 actually, not 2006, but your sentiment is well taken. The cap-strapped 2001 Patriots won a superbowl, and so did the cap-challenged 2006 Colts. This does not mean the first step to a superbowl is to get into cap trouble, though.

I don't know what definition Dabruinz has for cap hell, and don't care. Keeping track on my own is tough enough, though I still agree with solman's (if you disagree with his and mine, just what is your definition?), and I believe that the Colts did not keep players this offseason (2007) they would have liked to keep but couldn't because of the cap.

You believe that they didn't want any of the players that they lost and lost them all by choice, not because of cap issues.

That's okay. Fans look at their teams and other teams from different viewpoints.

I guess we will have to look at 2007 and losing guys like Rhodes in retrospect, rather than in foresight.

Which players do you think they wanted to keep but couldn't because of their cap situation? They had Jackson and Hayden, their #1 and #2 draft picks from 2005, waiting in the wings to replace Harper and David. They drafted Kieaho to rotate into the the starting line up as they continue their pattern of letting a free agent linebacker walk. The only choice that you could come close to saying was a money issue was Rhodes. But they didn't even make him an offer. The Colts management is obviously confident in Addai's ability of handle the load. Using an undrafted free agent as a back up at running back is not unheard of with the Colts. The last time it happend was Edge's backup, his name was Dominic Rhodes. The Colts had money under the cap before they cut Simon and Glenn retired, so they could have resigned players if they elected to do so.

While you may not agree with the Colts' style of letting players leave via free agency and you may feel that the Colts are in cap trouble, in this case the two are not linked.

 

[Vern]

People I think confuse cap management with appraoch to team building. Both the Colts and Pats managed the cap the same way - very well!

Where they diverge is in how they spend it. The Pats tend to have more B+ players or "middle class" types (or a bell curve of talent) whereas the Colts tend to have a few more top A players, at the expense of a thinner middle class (a skewed bell curve if you will). For example, if you ranked players on scale from 1 to 10, then you might have these six player teams for each by those rankings:

Colts
10
9
7
4
4
3

Pats
10
6
6
6
5
4

I believe Bert Breer actually had some numbers that backed that. Fewer guys than anyone in the top 50, but more than almost anyone in the top 200 or something like that.

Also, their different approaches to talent pretty much ideally match their different schemes. The Colts Tampa-2 can really leverage undervalued "scrubs" who are fast. If you can find speed you can use them and be ok. Then on offense you need top skill position players etc. The Pats 3-4 "two gap" requires EVERYONE on the field to be aware of the scheme and their role in it (far more than in other systems). Brady spreads the ball around so no top skill guy is as important has having 4 or 5 all at once - none of which have to be the best in the game, just good.

I think the use of the term "middle class" is sometimes confused with cap impact, when the cap is largely a bookeeping number unrelated to the cap hits of players at any given time. For example, in the table above, both the Colts and Pats total points added up to the same "talent cap." There really is never any excuse for a Titans or 49er style cap hell situation in the NFL any more. No one seriously believes in the "boom and bust" style of cap management any more.

 

[Miguel]

I think that a better term would be "salary cap health".

Your formula is too complicated for me.

I like the term "cap hell" because it has been easy for me to tell when a team is in cap hell. See the 2005 Titans where it was safe to say throughout the 2005 offseason that the Titans would not field a playoff contending team.

This is just my opinion but I do not think that a team in cap hell should enjoy being in cap hell. IMO, a team can not win a Super Bowl or be widely considered to be one of the teams in the league when it is in cap hell.

 

[Miguel]

I'll publicly apologize for being an idiot.

[humor intended]
Man, oh, man, you are really tough on yourself.

FYI -

It is OK to be wrong.
[/humor]

 

[solman]

Your formula is too complicated for me.

I like the term "cap hell" because it has been easy for me to tell when a team is in cap hell. See the 2005 Titans where it was safe to say throughout the 2005 offseason that the Titans would not field a playoff contending team.

This is just my opinion but I do not think that a team in cap hell should enjoy being in cap hell. IMO, a team can not win a Super Bowl or be widely considered to be one of the teams in the league when it is in cap hell.

Cap hell or poor salary cap health, whatever our terminology, Indy has it, and they won't be in another Superbowl before 2011 at the very earliest.

As for the 2005 Titans, they could have easily manufactured another $20M in cap space provided:

1. They were willing to enter into a six year commitment with players representing 15%+ of their cap hit and

2. They were willing to take an even bigger hit into the long term in exchange for a short term advantage.

The 2005 Titans were willing to do neither. The Colts are, and have.

I don't know how I get drawn into these long discussions. The Colts on the field performance over the next four years will make my point for me.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

People I think confuse cap management with appraoch to team building. Both the Colts and Pats managed the cap the same way - very well!

Where they diverge is in how they spend it. The Pats tend to have more B+ players or "middle class" types (or a bell curve of talent) whereas the Colts tend to have a few more top A players, at the expense of a thinner middle class (a skewed bell curve if you will). For example, if you ranked players on scale from 1 to 10, then you might have these six player teams for each by those rankings:

Colts
10
9
7
4
4
3

Pats
10
6
6
6
5
4

I've actually posted the numbers along with the curves that visually represented them. The curves are converging. Our 2001-2004 curves are basically very flat and gentle, with a single outlier every year, and one or two second-tier guys in terms of cap bucks. It exploded thereafter. Currently, for the Pats (scale = 1 million:1, current cap dollars; rounded to the nearest 100K, or, to put it in perspective, your salary, if you're doing fairly well):

7.8
7.4
6.7
6.4
4.8
4.1
3.4
3.3
3.0
2.8

(Source, Miguel's page. As always, Miguel bears no responsibility for what we will generously call my analysis of cap matters.)

This supports your conclusion to an extent, in other words, if you plot this out on a curve, you don't get a right angle when you add in the rest of the team, you get a curve. Of course, Brady is down from 14M to 7 in exchange for the Moss pickup, so his disproportionate salary will only be more so in the future.

Let's look at the Colts (from May 07 - so much may have changed -- after all, in May 07 Brady was a 14M proposition):

9.2
8.4
8.4
7.1
6.7
5.9
5.8
5.5
4.6
4.1

In the May numbers, the Colts have a break point at the 14th player (Vinatieri, for all you vengeance theorists.) He makes about 2.2M, and the next guy down makes 1.4. There's an 800k gulf, and then you get basically JAGs and rooks.

(http://www.ianwhetstone.com/football/INDCap.xls); sort by "2007 cap"

To get to a guy making 1.4M on the Pats you go to #21 rather than #14. Between 1.4M and 2.2M, the Pats have 4 extra guys. So yes, the clustering of dollars in Indy is still very different (assuming the numbers from May are close to how they ended in Indy. Someone correct me if this is just plain apples and oranges.)

I love the idea of that (relatively) gentle curve, but I think the upper reaches of it are still going to be "up there" in the minds of half the starting team now, as opposed to in 2001-2002, when lots of people were actually on their first NFL million or two.

If this has a deleterious effect, so be it; it is the nature of the league. I think we did not have this when we were a young team. Now we have more of it because we are getting old, end of story.

The Colts have it because they never cultivated the Pats' "gentle curve" to promote depth. And so far they've done well with that approach.

I do agree that the Colts' "reign" looks likely to end this year.

I also agree that it has not yet done so, and we should wait til the corpse is cold before cutting up the will.

PFnV

 

[He Ban Me]

Cap hell or poor salary cap health, whatever our terminology, Indy has it, and they won't be in another Superbowl before 2011 at the very earliest.

As for the 2005 Titans, they could have easily manufactured another $20M in cap space provided:

1. They were willing to enter into a six year commitment with players representing 15%+ of their cap hit and

2. They were willing to take an even bigger hit into the long term in exchange for a short term advantage.

The 2005 Titans were willing to do neither. The Colts are, and have.

I don't know how I get drawn into these long discussions. The Colts on the field performance over the next four years will make my point for me.

Because it is so hard to keep up with the Patriot Naysayers, could you create a moniker called "Patriot Naysayer", that way, it will be easier for me to find the threads I need to bump when you are proven wrong.

 

[spacecrime]

The only choice that you could come close to saying was a money issue was Rhodes. But they didn't even make him an offer. The Colts management is obviously confident in Addai's ability of handle the load. Using an undrafted free agent as a back up at running back is not unheard of with the Colts.

That's the difference between Colts fans and Pats fans. If we kept only Maroney, and let Faulk go, and did not sign a proven vet, so that all we had was Maroney and an UDFA RB, we would be concerned. You guys aren't. But we have suffered injuries year after year, and know how suddenly they happen, and have seen the lack of a viable RB hurt us at the end of a season (like last year). Have a year like we had in 2004 and you too would be concerned about putting all your eggs in Addai.

Similarly, while we have had rookies perform well in teh backfield (Samuel and WIlson come to mind, and Randall Gay), we are not comfortable RELYING on rookies and UDFAs to perform like day one draft picks. You have done very well drafting. It is good to have late round picks and UDFAs perform well. It is dangerous to rely on them.

I understand you have to do so, and that's cool. But to me it is an awful gamble.

While you may not agree with the Colts' style of letting players leave via free agency and you may feel that the Colts are in cap trouble, in this case the two are not linked.

All teams let players go into free agency. My point was that some times teams decide to do so, and sometimes they have to do so because they don't have the money to sign them.

I disagree that there is not a link between the ability to sign players and amount of cap space available. All good teams spend to the cap. We have a chicken and egg situation. While you say it is okay to have a lot of contracts coming due because we don't sign free agents, the egg side is that you can't sign free agents because you have so many contracts coming due.

From where we (you and I) sit, it could be either the chicken or the egg. Sticking your head in the sand and while chanting, "it's the chicken, it's the chicken, it's not the egg," sound suspiciously like whistling in the dark.

Personally, I think the proof that you are in cap trouble lies in Rhodes. The Colts would NEVER have left themselves without his services if they could have paid a not unreasonable price. Yes, you can say that Rhodes was undrafted, but that does not mean the next undrafted RB will be another Rhodes. It's nicve when it happens, but no one RELIES on it happening unless they cannot afford otherwise. And that, sir, is cap trouble.

But we shall see. I do believe that you were unable to sign some needed players. You and Miguel do not. We will see how it all shakes out, starting in two days.

 

[He Ban Me]

That's the difference between Colts fans and Pats fans. If we kept only Maroney, and let Faulk go, and did not sign a proven vet, so that all we had was Maroney and an UDFA RB, we would be concerned. You guys aren't. But we have suffered injuries year after year, and know how suddenly they happen, and have seen the lack of a viable RB hurt us at the end of a season (like last year). Have a year like we had in 2004 and you too would be concerned about putting all your eggs in Addai.

Similarly, while we have had rookies perform well in teh backfield (Samuel and WIlson come to mind, and Randall Gay), we are not comfortable RELYING on rookies and UDFAs to perform like day one draft picks. You have done very well drafting. It is good to have late round picks and UDFAs perform well. It is dangerous to rely on them.

I understand you have to do so, and that's cool. But to me it is an awful gamble.

All teams let players go into free agency. My point was that some times teams decide to do so, and sometimes they have to do so because they don't have the money to sign them.

I disagree that there is not a link between the ability to sign players and amount of cap space available. All good teams spend to the cap. We have a chicken and egg situation. While you say it is okay to have a lot of contracts coming due because we don't sign free agents, the egg side is that you can't sign free agents because you have so many contracts coming due.

From where we (you and I) sit, it could be either the chicken or the egg. Sticking your head in the sand and while chanting, "it's the chicken, it's the chicken, it's not the egg," sound suspiciously like whistling in the dark.

Personally, I think the proof that you are in cap trouble lies in Rhodes. The Colts would NEVER have left themselves without his services if they could have paid a not unreasonable price. Yes, you can say that Rhodes was undrafted, but that does not mean the next undrafted RB will be another Rhodes. It's nicve when it happens, but no one RELIES on it happening unless they cannot afford otherwise. And that, sir, is cap trouble.

But we shall see. I do believe that you were unable to sign some needed players. You and Miguel do not. We will see how it all shakes out, starting in two days.

If we would have kept Rhodes and signed him to the contract the Raiders signed him to, you'd say we were idiots and paid too much.

 

[spacecrime]

Because it is so hard to keep up with the Patriot Naysayers, could you create a moniker called "Patriot Naysayer", that way, it will be easier for me to find the threads I need to bump when you are proven wrong.

As soon as you provide us with a way to contact you in the second half of the season, after you have slunk away with your tail between your legs. Yeah, yeah, all trolls say, "don't worry, I'll be here," but as soon as things go south for them, their true colors show. So give us your screen name on a Colts site where we can continue the discussion (unless you have no conviction in what you are saying here).

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

Having lived in New Orleans for 15 years, I preferred Manning to get his ring FIRST over the Saints(the Mannings are probably the most respected members of the community-after years in the NFL, he was due).

Now that he has his ring, I'll be rooting for the Saints on Thurs.

 

[He Ban Me]

As soon as you provide us with a way to contact you in the second half of the season, after you have slunk away with your tail between your legs. Yeah, yeah, all trolls say, "don't worry, I'll be here," but as soon as things go south for them, their true colors show. So give us your screen name on a Colts site where we can continue the discussion (unless you have no conviction in what you are saying here).

It's not too hard too figure out. Although, in my time on these MB's, the beloved Colts have not lost to the Pats. When the boys whipped us last season, I commended them on their effort, and was gracious in defeat. Of course, I don't visit their sites, they came to ours. I can just imagine a Cowboys MB, probably much worse than here. I come here because you are the Awesomes, and I like to get Awesome points of view. Hey, all I wanted was someone to create a "Naysayer" account.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

It's not too hard too figure out. Although, in my time on these MB's, the beloved Colts have not lost to the Pats. When the boys whipped us last season, I commended them on their effort, and was gracious in defeat. Of course, I don't visit their sites, they came to ours. I can just imagine a Cowboys MB, probably much worse than here. I come here because you are the Awesomes, and I like to get Awesome points of view. Hey, all I wanted was someone to create a "Naysayer" account.

Being a long-time Dallas/New Orleans fan-I really have to say Colts fans are probably the nicest ones around. When they played Dallas last year, they showed alot of CLASS on the CMB(which was a nice break from all those persistent Eagles trolls).

And now they're doing the same on the SMB.

 

[Jimke]

When we Pats fans look at the Colts roster, we notice high priced players

like Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Dwight Freeney, and Reggie Wayne.

What we forget is that the Colts do a good job of drafting and also

sign some of the better undrafted college players. These players help

balance off the high salaries.

 

[Miguel]

As for the 2005 Titans, they could have easily manufactured another $20M in cap space provided:

1. They were willing to enter into a six year commitment with players representing 15%+ of their cap hit and

2. They were willing to take an even bigger hit into the long term in exchange for a short term advantage.

It is your opinion that the 2005 Titans could have easily manufactured another $20M in cap space. On what facts is your opinion based on??

Because according to the USAToday database very few 2005 Titans had a large salary.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/foot....aspx?year=2005&team=31&order=BaseSalary+desc

Please explain how and with what players the Titans could have easily manufactured another $20M in cap space because it appears to me that you either made up the claim or have your facts wrong.

 

[Miguel]

Personally, I think the proof that you are in cap trouble lies in Rhodes. The Colts would NEVER have left themselves without his services if they could have paid a not unreasonable price. Yes, you can say that Rhodes was undrafted, but that does not mean the next undrafted RB will be another Rhodes. It's nicve when it happens, but no one RELIES on it happening unless they cannot afford otherwise.

According to John Clayton the Colts entered free agency $5.9 million under the cap but they could not afford Dominic Rhodes who had $2 million cap number for the Raiders before his suspension. Oh, please.

How do you know that it was the cap, and not his upcoming suspension, that caused the Colts not to show any interest in Rhodes??

 

[spacecrime]

How do you know that it was the cap, and not his upcoming suspension, that caused the Colts not to show any interest in Rhodes??

I don't, any more than you know it was not money related. You asked me to name just one player who I thought was let go because of money. I told you: Domenic Rhodes.

I see your answer to this discussion is, "Prove it wasn't money." Well, of course it cannot be proved. No one can prove the reason why anyone else did anything. Even if they say, "This is why I did what I did ," your response can always be, "Prove they weren't lying."

If your attitude is, "My opinions are to be taken as the way it is. You must prove me wrong," then what is the point of talking? You continue to say that the Colts didn't sign a quality backup RB because it is against their philosophy, not because of money issues, and I must prove otherwise or your answer is the right one, in the face of common sense.

When a team lets players go because their production is dropping, or because they want more $$$ than their production indicates they will be worth, it is smart business. When they have a player who has shown he fits their system, and is better than the man behind him (i.e., which player was on the field against the Pats in crunch time last AFCCG?), and isn't looking to break the bank, and they let that player go, then I would have to say that there is a good chance the team's personel decisions are being adversely affected by the cap.

As I said, perhaps it wasn't money. Perhaps the Colts decided that they didn't want a quality backup RB, or even a JAG, and will rely on an UDFA if Addai gets hurt in any way. But answer me this:

If the Patriots let Faulk and Evans walk, and didn't sign Sammy Morris, and said they will use an UDFA to back up Maroney, would you say this was a smart thing to do?

I've asked this question twice, and you didn't answer either time, so I guess I don't expect you to answer honestly, but I have a good idea how you'd react if the Pats went into the season with only Maroney and Quinton Smith as our running backs.