Colts Franchise Tag Freeney

[Rob0729]

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

Tell me how they could have kept Freeney and Mathis without a CBA. The only reason they could afford to sign Mathis to a long term deal last year was because of the new CBA. Otherwise, he would have played under a one year RFA tender.

Going into this offseason both Mathis and Freeney would be two of the top five free agents. The Colts can franchise only one and the other one would get the most free agent attention and money out of anyone other than Nate Clements. How in the world could the Colts keep both? They couldn't under the old CBA. And if somehow they did, they would be heading for Cap Armageddon the proportions of what the Titans had a few years back because they would have two of the top paid DEs (if not the two top paid), the top paid QB, and two of the top paid WRs. You can't have that many top paid WRs.

I ask you. How could the Colts have kept both Mathis and Freeney under the old CBA? I have told you how it is impossible. Tell me how it is possible without using one would take a hometown discount or something.

 

[Miguel]

Tell me how they could have kept Freeney and
Mathis without a CBA.

You said earlier that "Everyone knew the CBA would be extended". So why should I spend any time on the supposition that the CBA was not extended??

 

[Miguel]

How could the Colts have kept both Mathis and Freeney under the old CBA? I have told you how it is impossible.

You have given me your opinion that it was impossible. I am under no obligation to accept your premise. Your opinion is not fact.

Tell me how it is possible without using one would take a hometown discount or something.

That would involve going back and researching all of the cap moves the Colts made in 2006 and seeing if reversering some of them would allow what you think could not happen happen. I do not have the time nor energy to do so.

 

[Rob0729]

You said earlier that "Everyone knew the CBA would be extended". So why should I spend any time on the supposition that the CBA was not extended??

Because you said you disagreed with my statement that they couldn't have kept Freeney and Mathis without an new CBA. If you disagree with the premise, you must have some idea how they could do it.

I think even with the more modest increases that were expected in March of 2004 when Manning signed his contract, they would have lost Freeney or Mathis this offseason.

 

[Rob0729]

You have given me your opinion that it was impossible. I am under no obligation to accept your premise. Your opinion is not fact.



That would involve going back and researching all of the cap moves the Colts made in 2006 and seeing if reversering some of them would allow what you think could not happen happen. I do not have the time nor energy to do so.

My opinion may or may not be fact, but is is a very qualified opinion. I can look at the cap space that the Colts would have had if there was no extension, what Mathis got as a deal last year, and his value vs. available free agents and form a pretty qualified opinion on this. It is pretty obvious to anyone even people who don't study the cap like you that the Colts could never have given Mathis the deal they gave him without a cap increase from a new CBA. It is pretty obvious to anyone who know even a little about free agency that if Mathis was a free agent this year he would beone of the two or three top free agents.

I don't know how you could go back and find any possible solution other than them letting other RFAs and players go that they retained last year. They were pretty much over the cap before the CBA and would have had to make cuts and restructures just to get tenders for RFA and sign their rookies.

I know you go out of your way to defend the Colts and their cap, but in this particular hypothetical it would be near impossible for them not to lose. It is ok to say that under certain scenario's their cap strategy would fail. So would the Pats.

In fact, last offseason it kinda did for the Pats since they were shut out of the market with tons of money.

 

[Miguel]

Because you said you disagreed with my statement that they couldn't have kept Freeney and Mathis without an new CBA. If you disagree with the premise, you must have some idea how they could do it.

I should have been clearer "By this" - you said that "You seem to think that they could have kept all the same players they did without an extension."

That's not true. It could be true that the Colts would not have been able to keep all of the players if the CBA was not extended. But as you said, everyone in 2004 was expecting that the CBA would be extended. My point has been that once the CBA was extended the Colts gained the ability to convert the roster bonuses of Harrison and Manning. Do I think that Polian thought that the 2006 cap would be $102 million?? No. Why???
1.) Because I know for a fact that they used the LTBE move on one player and I suspect that they used it on another - Proehl. And they may have it used it on others.
2.) They enter the playoffs around $460K under the cap.
3.) The NFL and the NFLPA was so surprised by the cap increase that they actually made the limit smaller than what it should have been and diverted the money into benefits.

 

[Miguel]

My opinion may or may not be fact, but is is a very qualified opinion. I can look at the cap space that the Colts would have had if there was no extension, what Mathis got as a deal last year, and his value vs. available free agents and form a pretty qualified opinion on this. It is pretty obvious to anyone even people who don't study the cap like you that the Colts could never have given Mathis the deal they gave him without a cap increase from a new CBA.

You admit that everyone thought that the CBA would be extended but seem to be arguing that the cap limit that would have been $94.5 million without the extension would not have increased with an extended CBA. Why would be the NFLPA's incentive to agree to such a deal??

 

[Rob0729]

You admit that everyone thought that the CBA would be extended but seem to be arguing that the cap limit that would have been $94.5 million without the extension would not have increased with an extended CBA. Why would be the NFLPA's incentive to agree to such a deal??

The NFLPA wouldn't have had as much leverage if not for the NBC deal and the NFL starting to broadcast their own games. Those added a huge amount of revenue for the league and made it more difficult to not get a deal done because there was so much money at stake.

Also, one thing you are forgetting or not aware of is something happened last offseason that no one was expecting - Gene Upshaw actually grew a backbone. Usually in CBA negotiations, Upshaw usually backs down on a lot of issues. That is why there are no guaranteed contracts. That is why a team can cut a player and not pay him the remainder of his contract the second he starts to decline in talent.

Personally, I think the league expected to roll over Upshaw and throw him some bones and increase the cap by a decent amount. I don't think they ever thought Upshaw would walk out of negotiations and claim that a new CBA would not happen. I also think the league got scared and became reactionary like they tend to do and started to give huge concessions that they were not originally prepared to give because of fear of an uncapped year.

I am not a huge fan of Ralph Wilson, but he was right that the league agreed to a deal that few if anyone knew what they were agreeing to.

 

[Rob0729]

I should have been clearer "By this" - you said that "You seem to think that they could have kept all the same players they did without an extension."

That's not true. It could be true that the Colts would not have been able to keep all of the players if the CBA was not extended. But as you said, everyone in 2004 was expecting that the CBA would be extended. My point has been that once the CBA was extended the Colts gained the ability to convert the roster bonuses of Harrison and Manning. Do I think that Polian thought that the 2006 cap would be $102 million?? No. Why???
1.) Because I know for a fact that they used the LTBE move on one player and I suspect that they used it on another - Proehl. And they may have it used it on others.
2.) They enter the playoffs around $460K under the cap.
3.) The NFL and the NFLPA was so surprised by the cap increase that they actually made the limit smaller than what it should have been and diverted the money into benefits.

It sounds like we agree more than we disagree on these issues. I have said that the new CBA allowed them to avoid cap problems at least for the next year or two. My point is that Polian didn't know how the cap would be expanded back when he resigned Manning and Harrison and without the huge jump in the cap, it probably would have cost them.

 

[solman]

Tell me how they could have kept Freeney and Mathis without a CBA. The only reason they could afford to sign Mathis to a long term deal last year was because of the new CBA. Otherwise, he would have played under a one year RFA tender.

Without a CBA, 2007 is an uncapped year. They probably could have found a way through 2006, at which point they wouldn't have cared about 2007.

 

[solman]

I just wish that I had bet this board that the Colts would win a Super Bowl despite Manning's contract. I would have had many takers and I would have cleaned up

1. Taking an even money bet on the Colts winning the super bowl either before the season or before the playoffs was a suckers bet. The fact that it happened to pay off this time doesn't change that.

2. I'm sure most of the board understood that the Colt's were a contender but...

3. Betting on the Colts would have meant betting against the Pats.

 

[coltsfan]

Moving the conversation to the playing field, does anybody else think this is a God-awful move by the Colts front office? Does anybody think that Freeney's skills are so valuable to the defense that devoting so much to your cap is justified?

It seems to me that they'd be better off letting Freeney hit the market, sign, promote, or draft a lower-profile pass rush specialist, use the money you save to improve the linebackers and DBs, and take the 3rd round comp pick next year?

I mean, we're talking an upfiled pass rusher with one move here. The franchise tag was dumb, and signing him to a big-money long term deal would be dumber.

Disagree. I am only slightly worried b/c this was his worst year since his rookie year, but I am attributing that to injuries. Still, he went from being one of the five best defensive players in football to merely one of the top 25-30. I expect him to return to being one of the top 5 after a healthy offseason.

One move? Speed, spin, duck under, bull, that's four right there.

He gets a bad rap for his run defense. He can play the run extremely well, but he just isn't asked to do it. Before this season, you almost never saw teams run to the left against the Colts b/c he can take guys on at the line b/c he's so strong (also b/c the rest of the run defense was so weak, that there's no reason to attack him!)

You can't replace Freeney. Look, slightly above average starting DEs like Justin Smith and Charles Grant got the franchise tag. They aren't difference makers. If Freeney returns to prior form, he has a chance to go down as one of the best pass rushers in NFL history. He has been by far the best player on the Colts' defense since he was drafted. You have to keep him.

The cover 2 is built around the pass rush, and he is a guy that most teams double team. Teams have to keep a back or tight end in, and that limits your passing game. The Colts almost never get tested deep b/c of their pass rush, and that is huge.

 

[Rob0729]

Without a CBA, 2007 is an uncapped year. They probably could have found a way through 2006, at which point they wouldn't have cared about 2007.

I thought 2008 was the uncapped year. If 2007 is then I admit I am wrong because Mathis and Freeney would still be bound to the team because the RFA term became 6 years making Mathis still a RFA and Freeney (depending on his contract terminology) would become a RFA too if he voided his last two years of his contract. I thought they had two years left on the CBA, but they decided that if wasn't done before that season the NFLPA would take their chances.

Granted in an uncapped year, Indy loses big time. They are a small market team and higher revenue teams like the Redskins would pick apart their and other small market team's rosters because they could create ridiculous contracts that the Colts could never match.

 

[Miguel]

1. Taking an even money bet on the Colts winning the super bowl either before the season or before the playoffs was a suckers bet. The fact that it happened to pay off this time doesn't change that.

2. I'm sure most of the board understood that the Colt's were a contender but...

3. Betting on the Colts would have meant betting against the Pats.

I would have made the bet in 2004 or in 2005. Manning signed his deal in 2004. The bet would have covered all the years of his contract. Would it have been reasonable to think that the Pats would not win the Super Bowl each and every year??I think so.

 

[Miguel]

I thought 2008 was the uncapped year. If 2007 is then I admit I am wrong because Mathis and Freeney would still be bound to the team because the RFA term became 6 years making Mathis still a RFA and Freeney (depending on his contract terminology) would become a RFA too if he voided his last two years of his contract.

Solman is correct. 2007 would have been the uncapped year.

 

[Rob0729]

Solman is correct. 2007 would have been the uncapped year.

Then I admit I am wrong on that. Sorry.

I will stick to my guns though that Polian didn't have the forthsight to know the cap would go up exponentially when he resigned Manning and Harrison. He was concerned in keeping the core of his team together and probably didn't know how he would deal with the cap ramifications several years down the road.

 

[solman]

Polian agrees that the Colts are screwed: A theory

So Polian put the exclusive tag on Freeney instead of the standard non-exclusive tag.

That presumptively costs him around $1M in cap space.

I agree with Polian that it is plausible that another team will offer two number one draft picks plus a good financial package for Freeney.

What surprises me is that Polian thinks that getting two picks for Freeney is a bad thing.

Polian is basically saying: Freeney's services in 2007 are worth more than $9.5M plus TWO first round draft picks.

I think that this is a borderline insane assessment, yet I also think that Polian is a smart guy.

How can we reconcile the two?


MAYBE Polian agrees that the Colts are facing imminent death by salary cap.

The two #1 picks might be in the 2008 and 2009 drafts.

If Polian has already reached the conclusion that the Colts window of competitiveness is about to close, then those future draft picks will do him little good.

 

[Miguel]

I will stick to my guns though that Polian didn't have the forthsight to know the cap would go up exponentially when he resigned Manning and Harrison.

Here's my biggest problem with that argument.

2007 $109,000,000 $7,000,000 6.86%
2006 $102,000,000 $16,500,000 19.30%
2005 $85,500,000 $4,918,000 6.10%
2004 $80,582,000 $5,575,000 7.43%
2003 $75,007,000 $3,907,000 5.50%
2002 $71,100,000 $3,700,000 5.49%
2001 $67,400,000 $5,228,000 8.41%
2000 $62,172,000 $3,819,000 6.54%
1999 $58,353,000 $5,965,000 11.39%
1998 $52,388,000 $10,938,000 26.39%
1997 $41,450,000 $673,000 1.65%
1996 $40,777,000 $3,677,000 9.91%
1995 $37,100,000 $2,500,000 7.23%
1994 $34,600,000

Before 2006 1998 was the year of the largest increase in the cap.

What happened in 1998. The NFL signed a 8-year TV deal.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/020898/1c1freea.html
I happen to think that it is reasonable for those in the NFL to think in 2004 with a new TV deal that there would be another large increase in 2006 as there was in 1998. History repeated itself.

So what if no one in the NFL probably thought in 2004 that the cap would get to 102 million in 2006. IMO, it would have been reasonable to think that it would get to the high 90s and all those who said that the Colts were lucky that the cap went to $102 million have yet to show that the Colts would have entered cap hell if the cap was in the high 90s.

 

[dryheat44]

Disagree. I am only slightly worried b/c this was his worst year since his rookie year, but I am attributing that to injuries. Still, he went from being one of the five best defensive players in football to merely one of the top 25-30. I expect him to return to being one of the top 5 after a healthy offseason.

One move? Speed, spin, duck under, bull, that's four right there.

He gets a bad rap for his run defense. He can play the run extremely well, but he just isn't asked to do it. Before this season, you almost never saw teams run to the left against the Colts b/c he can take guys on at the line b/c he's so strong (also b/c the rest of the run defense was so weak, that there's no reason to attack him!)

You can't replace Freeney. Look, slightly above average starting DEs like Justin Smith and Charles Grant got the franchise tag. They aren't difference makers. If Freeney returns to prior form, he has a chance to go down as one of the best pass rushers in NFL history. He has been by far the best player on the Colts' defense since he was drafted. You have to keep him.

The cover 2 is built around the pass rush, and he is a guy that most teams double team. Teams have to keep a back or tight end in, and that limits your passing game. The Colts almost never get tested deep b/c of their pass rush, and that is huge.

Thanks for responding. But I beg to differ on the skills of Freeney. He's never done a bull rush in his life. Speed isn't a move, although he's fast. Freeney, on every play, takes two quick steps to the outside, then either continues upfield to try to get around the outside, or spins back to the inside. I didn't even see him doubled much this year, because, IMO, offensive tackles figured out they could ride him upfield and guard against the spin.

Freeney isn't good against the run. He's not as bad as most people make him out to be, but he can't be considered anything better than average. He makes his share of tackles in the backfield on his way to the quarterback, and he's quick enough to chase runners down, but on the line he's meat.

Freeney needs to keep evolving his game in order to maintain success. His numbers should be improving since the Colts got Mathis on the other end, but they haven't been. I don't think we can chalk up his on-field decline entirely, or even mainly, to injury. I really think opposing offenses have figured out how to make him a non-factor.

All that being said, the Colts are the Champs, so obviously they have a system that works. However, it seems to be a case of being happy to stand pat instead of improve. IMO, using Freeney's money to sign a rock-solid linebacker and a legit starting corner would be the way to go. Heck, you can sign Tully Banta-Cain and stick him on the edge and he can give you 80% of Freeney for 20% of the cost.

 

[everlong]

Re: Polian agrees that the Colts are screwed: A theory

So Polian put the exclusive tag on Freeney instead of the standard non-exclusive tag.

That presumptively costs him around $1M in cap space.

I agree with Polian that it is plausible that another team will offer two number one draft picks plus a good financial package for Freeney.

What surprises me is that Polian thinks that getting two picks for Freeney is a bad thing.

Polian is basically saying: Freeney's services in 2007 are worth more than $9.5M plus TWO first round draft picks.

I think that this is a borderline insane assessment, yet I also think that Polian is a smart guy.

How can we reconcile the two?


MAYBE Polian agrees that the Colts are facing imminent death by salary cap.

The two #1 picks might be in the 2008 and 2009 drafts.

If Polian has already reached the conclusion that the Colts window of competitiveness is about to close, then those future draft picks will do him little good.

I pretty much agree. The only reason I can add for him doing the exclusive is that he took a calculated risk that by not letting Freeney talk to others he would avoid a poison pill offer driving up Freeney's total price on a long term deal. The problem with that is teams are going to bid up on those hitting the market very quickly at the opening of FA so I don't see it paying off especially since Freeney wants to be the highest paid. Also it really won't stop his agent from feeling out teams for what they would pay for him

If I was the Colts and somebody wanted to give me two #1's for him I'd have his bags packed for him.