PDA

View Full Version : Harrison re-signs with Colts


Sure-Oz
12-08-2004, 05:03 PM
ESPNews reports Indianapolis Colts WR Marvin Harrison has agreed to a seven-year, $66 million deal that includes a $22 million signing bonus.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1942016

Spicy McHaggis
12-08-2004, 05:05 PM
Okay so now that 75% of their cap is in 2 players, what are the Colts going to do for Defense?

Saulbadguy
12-08-2004, 05:05 PM
So..how in the hell are they going to sign Edgerrin James?

And..if they sign Edge, how in the hell are they going to sign defensive help?

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:07 PM
..and sign Martin Grammatica to handle kickoff duties. There, take that ENDelt. :)

http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/200667-3716-094.html

ENDelt260
12-08-2004, 05:08 PM
Goddam you suck, tk13.

BigChiefFan
12-08-2004, 05:10 PM
Isn't that a small market team? How can they afford those bonuses to Harrison and Manning, but we are tapped out.

Rausch
12-08-2004, 05:10 PM
****!

Rain Man
12-08-2004, 05:10 PM
A $22 million signing bonus? That's insane. He's going to be 15 percent of their salary cap all by himself, for years.

Rausch
12-08-2004, 05:11 PM
A $22 million signing bonus? That's insane. He's going to be 15 percent of their salary cap all by himself, for years.

And you're looking at 4-5 years of productivity...

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:12 PM
Isn't that a small market team? How can they afford those bonuses to Harrison and Manning, but we are tapped out.
You don't see them going out and signing any FA's do you? They were less active in the offseason than the Chiefs were.... they're just re-signing their own guys like Carl has....

Sure-Oz
12-08-2004, 05:12 PM
I don't see how they will re-sign Stokley and James now. They have no money for defense, but their offense is so damn good they may not need it. Of course their D isn't as bad as ours, atleast they have somewhat of a pass rush.

Rausch
12-08-2004, 05:13 PM
You don't see them going out and signing any FA's do you? They were less active in the offseason than the Chiefs were.... they're just re-signing their own guys like Carl has....

That's not going to help them get past the Steelers or Patriots...

Saulbadguy
12-08-2004, 05:13 PM
I don't see how they will re-sign Stokley and James now. They have no money for defense, but their offense is so damn good they may not need it. Of course their D isn't as bad as ours, atleast they have somewhat of a pass rush.
Statistically, I belive their defense is worse than ours.

ENDelt260
12-08-2004, 05:13 PM
..and sign Martin Grammatica to handle kickoff duties. There, take that ENDelt. :)

http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/200667-3716-094.html
You post editing bastard.

HolmeZz
12-08-2004, 05:14 PM
Not only do they have a majority of their cap rapped up in 2 players, but giving a 32 year old receiver a huge 7 year contract is inexplicable.

Dr. Facebook Fever
12-08-2004, 05:14 PM
A 7 year deal? Isn't Harrison getting old?

2bikemike
12-08-2004, 05:15 PM
You can bet that the contract is back loaded toward the end of the 7 years. He will get his 22 mil up front which will be about 3.14 mil over the life of the contract.

His salaries for the 7 years will go up incrementally each year. Probably starting in the first year with 1 mil or less. For a cap hit of around 4 mil. the first year.

He will not play for 7 more years. His salary for the the last years will be a rediculous 10 mil or something. He will retire before that so they will just keep counting the 3.14 mil (From signing bonus)until the contract runs out.

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:15 PM
That's not going to help them get past the Steelers or Patriots...
We'll see, I think it might.... depends on how the officials call it and whether or not the Pats secondary gets healthy...

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:19 PM
You'd have to read the article for all the details, but it isn't a straight-up 22 million bonus. There is 22 million in guaranteed money, but supposedly there's only 6 million in true "signing bonus" and the other 16 million is set up in roster bonuses that they can use to manipulate cap relief (and allow them to re-sign Edgerrin James and Stokley)....

jAZ
12-08-2004, 05:19 PM
While I'm suprised that Indy resigned him and how much they guaranteed, we never really had any hope anyway...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1942016

Wednesday, December 8, 2004
Star receiver agrees to 7-year deal

------------------------------------------------------------------
By John Clayton
ESPN.com

The Indianapolis Colts on Wednesday achieved their second contract milestone of the season by reaching agreement on a seven-year, $67 million extension with wide receiver Marvin Harrison.

Harrison, who was scheduled to enter free agency after this season, is guaranteed $22 million between now and 2006. He received a $6 million signing bonus.

Earlier this year, the Colts locked up quarterback Peyton Manning with a seven-year, $98 million deal that included a $34 million signing bonus.

Harrison, 32, is considered one of the best receivers in the league and is the focal point of the Colts' powerful offense. He draws consistent double coverage and allows Reggie Wayne and Brandon Stokley to excel against single coverage.

The structure of Harrison's contract will allow enough flexibility for the Colts to try to find a way to keep running back Edgerrin James. There is a $7 million roster bonus that can be converted into a signing bonus in order to lower Harrison's cap number in 2005 to around only $3.2 million.

There also is a $10 million flexible roster bonus that can be converted into signing bonus to help the salary cap in 2006.

Senior writer John Clayton covers the NFL for ESPN.com.

BigChiefFan
12-08-2004, 05:20 PM
You don't see them going out and signing any FA's do you? They were less active in the offseason than the Chiefs were.... they're just re-signing their own guys like Carl has....
The point is look at the contracts these two guys signed compared to Holmes. Hell, Doesn't Carl have to get permission from Lamar for any bonus of $10 million and more? I also believe Holmes signed the largest signing bonus in the history of the Chiefs, but they say we are tapped out. I'm just trying to put the pieces together and figure this out.

ENDelt260
12-08-2004, 05:20 PM
You suck even worse than tk13, jAZ.

jAZ
12-08-2004, 05:21 PM
You suck even worse than tk13, jAZ.
I scanned the front page, but I guess I was looking for "Marvin" not "Harrison"...

But yeah, you are probably right.

:sulk:

ENDelt260
12-08-2004, 05:22 PM
I scanned the front page, but I guess I was looking for "Marvin" not "Harrison"...

But yeah, you are probably right.

:sulk:
Well, gosh... now I feel bad.

Here, have a candy.

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:23 PM
You suck even worse than tk13, jAZ.
I don't know what you're talking about, I posted an innocent article about our dear friend Jason Baker and you go all John Ashcroft on me.... :)

jAZ
12-08-2004, 05:24 PM
Here, have a candy.
I'll take this one please!

http://80music.about.com/library/artist/images/candy-o.jpg

BigChiefFan
12-08-2004, 05:24 PM
Not only do they have a majority of their cap rapped up in 2 players, but giving a 32 year old receiver a huge 7 year contract is inexplicable.
Kind of like giving Kennison a 6 year deal? I'd rather have Harrison by far.

stevieray
12-08-2004, 05:24 PM
Looking at these contracts makes it hard to endorse this sport.

This is just stupid money.

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:30 PM
The point is look at the contracts these two guys signed compared to Holmes. Hell, Doesn't Carl have to get permission from Lamar for any bonus of $10 million and more? I also believe Holmes signed the largest signing bonus in the history of the Chiefs, but they say we are tapped out. I'm just trying to put the pieces together and figure this out.
Well, Jim Irsay supposedly did reach into his own pockets to cover the Manning signing bonus, which is a horrible business move. I posted an article a while back where other owners anonymously criticized him for that. Still, the Colts are tying a lot of money up in a couple guys, over the last couple years the Chiefs have paid Trent, Priest, Gonzalez... given decent money to Morton, and I'd guess spend a lot more money across the offensive line compared to the Colts, plus re-signing the whole defense. Plus, the Colts have taken what the Chiefs are trying to do on defense to an extreme, filling up with a bunch of young guys and draft picks. A couple years ago they let their best defender (Mike Peterson) walk... last year they let a starting DE, LB, and CB walk and just replaced them with draft picks and other young guys they're trying to develop. Then instead of paying big money and keeping their draft picks, they repeatedly traded down in the draft so that their first pick was mid-late 2nd round, to go with 3 third rounders. Really I don't think they different from philosophy from Carl all that much... but they make it work so everybody just happens to "ignore" it.

BigChiefFan
12-08-2004, 05:32 PM
Here's Priest's contract details...

Contract Details
Holmes signed a free agent contract with the Chiefs in 2001 worth roughly $10 million over five years. In September 2003, he signed a four year extension worth $5 million per year with a $10 million signing bonus.

Yea -we're tapped out. Sure, uh huh. Yep. You betcha.

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:37 PM
Here's Priest's contract details...

Contract Details
Holmes signed a free agent contract with the Chiefs in 2001 worth roughly $10 million over five years. In September 2003, he signed a four year extension worth $5 million per year with a $10 million signing bonus.

Yea -we're tapped out. Sure, uh huh. Yep. You betcha.
You aren't looking at the big picture... NOBODY pays their two star players that much money, they spread it around more. You consider that we re-signed Woods, Wesley, Bartee, Hicks, and Browning.... that's probably 15-16 some odd million in signing bonus money alone.... the Colts didn't spend anything close to that, instead they let their defensive FA's walk and rebuild from within with guys like Joseph Jefferson and Bob Sanders and Cato June and Robert Mathis....

BigChiefFan
12-08-2004, 05:38 PM
Well, Jim Irsay supposedly did reach into his own pockets to cover the Manning signing bonus, which is a horrible business move. I posted an article a while back where other owners anonymously criticized him for that. Still, the Colts are tying a lot of money up in a couple guys, over the last couple years the Chiefs have paid Trent, Priest, Gonzalez... given decent money to Morton, and I'd guess spend a lot more money across the offensive line compared to the Colts, plus re-signing the whole defense. Plus, the Colts have taken what the Chiefs are trying to do on defense to an extreme, filling up with a bunch of young guys and draft picks. A couple years ago they let their best defender (Mike Peterson) walk... last year they let a starting DE, LB, and CB walk and just replaced them with draft picks and other young guys they're trying to develop. Then instead of paying big money and keeping their draft picks, they repeatedly traded down in the draft so that their first pick was mid-late 2nd round, to go with 3 third rounders. Really I don't think they different from philosophy from Carl all that much... but they make it work so everybody just happens to "ignore" it. I understand that and I appreciate you taking the time with your insightful post, I'm just not buying that we were/are tapped out. Other teams make it happen and we just make excuses and call the fans out. Is it just me or does it seem like excuses coming from our FO, when you look at some of these contracts players are getting? I'm not saying we should go out and be careless, but it is becoming more evident by the day, that we are only going to do so much in regards to spending money and we wonder why we never land any quality top tier FAs. Money talks and the biggest bonus in the history of our team, for a most likely HOFer in Holmes, is only $10 million. That's peanuts compared to these others players.

Rausch
12-08-2004, 05:38 PM
You aren't looking at the big picture... NOBODY pays their two star players that much money, they spread it around more. You consider that we re-signed Woods, Wesley, Bartee, Hicks, and Browning.... that's probably 15-16 some odd million in signing bonus money alone.... the Colts didn't spend anything close to that, instead they let their defensive FA's walk and rebuild from within with guys like Joseph Jefferson and Bob Sanders and Cato June and Robert Mathis....

And their defense is terrible...

The next time the Colts and Pats play it might very well be the highest scoring playoff game in NFL history...

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:45 PM
I understand that and I appreciate you taking the time with your insightful post, I'm just not buying that we were/are tapped out. Other teams make it happen and we just make excuses and call the fans out. Is it just me or does it seem like excuses coming from our FO, when you look at some of these contracts players are getting? I'm not saying we should go out and be careless, but it is becoming more evident by the day, that we are only going to do so much in regards to spending money and we wonder why we never land any quality top tier FAs. Money talks and the biggest bonus in the history of our team, for a most likely HOFer in Holmes, is only $10 million. That's peanuts compared to these others players.
I never feel like you even read what I write when we have these discussions. The Chiefs did "make it happen" like the Colts are, the Chiefs re-signed all of their players. Now the actual philosophy involved here, re-signing your guys, that is something that can be considered a very questionable move, but if you're using the Colts as an example of a team "making it happen", then that's a horrible example because the Chiefs have done a better job with the Colts philosophy than the Colts have because we've been able to re-sign our own guys. I think the argument has to be a philosophy argument, not a financial one....

The Bad Guy
12-08-2004, 05:46 PM
You don't see them going out and signing any FA's do you? They were less active in the offseason than the Chiefs were.... they're just re-signing their own guys like Carl has....

The difference is their players are all-world and ours are all-practice squad.

HolmeZz
12-08-2004, 05:47 PM
Kind of like giving Kennison a 6 year deal? I'd rather have Harrison by far.

You missed the word HUGE.

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:49 PM
And their defense is terrible...

The next time the Colts and Pats play it might very well be the highest scoring playoff game in NFL history...
I normally agree with Gunther that stopping the run is key, and it is I guess, but the Colts do have themselves in a 1999 Rams type situation, because if they can get leads and force teams to throw the ball they've got a couple really good speed rushers in Freeney and Mathis to get after the QB. I think most people on this board would kill to have a guy at each DE who is going to get 13-15 sacks....

BigChiefFan
12-08-2004, 05:52 PM
I never feel like you even read what I write when we have these discussions. The Chiefs did "make it happen" like the Colts are, the Chiefs re-signed all of their players. Now the actual philosophy involved here, re-signing your guys, that is something that can be considered a very questionable move, but if you're using the Colts as an example of a team "making it happen", then that's a horrible example because the Chiefs have done a better job with the Colts philosophy than the Colts have because we've been able to re-sign our own guys. I think the argument has to be a philosophy argument, not a financial one....I do read your stuff. I really do. I just have a one-track mind. :p

tk13
12-08-2004, 05:55 PM
The difference is their players are all-world and ours are all-practice squad.
I can't argue with that. That was kinda my point, people are too quick to jump on "money money money we aren't spending enough", when in reality I think philosophy and execution of that philosophy are bigger problems.... that kinda got me labeled as a "homer" this offseason I guess, but I still do not think that Carl's philosophy this offseason was a bad philosophy, there's more than one way to skin a cat, but you have to execute and get it done and you have to draft well, and from looking at this season we apparently haven't done that well enough.

Calcountry
12-08-2004, 05:57 PM
ESPNews reports Indianapolis Colts WR Marvin Harrison has agreed to a seven-year, $66 million deal that includes a $22 million signing bonus.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1942016
I hate the Colts.

Sure-Oz
12-08-2004, 05:57 PM
Simple philosophy this offseason, sign a few key defensive fa's if possible and grab defense in the 1st round. Bring in a possible WR that could threaten to be #1 in our group of WR's.

Calcountry
12-08-2004, 05:58 PM
A $22 million signing bonus? That's insane. He's going to be 15 percent of their salary cap all by himself, for years.
Is their a C.O.L.A. for the Salary cap??

BigChiefFan
12-08-2004, 05:58 PM
I can't argue with that. That was kinda my point, people are too quick to jump on "money money money we aren't spending enough", when in reality I think philosophy and execution of that philosophy are bigger problems.... that kinda got me labeled as a "homer" this offseason I guess, but I still do not think that Carl's philosophy this offseason was a bad philosophy, there's more than one way to skin a cat, but you have to execute and get it done and you have to draft well, and from looking at this season we apparently haven't done that well enough.
I think you have some of the most fair and balanced posts on the board. You're far from being a homer.

Calcountry
12-08-2004, 05:58 PM
That's not going to help them get past the Steelers or Patriots...
Steelers all the way this year. It would be appropriate for a former Dynasty to dethrone the current one.

Calcountry
12-08-2004, 05:59 PM
You suck even worse than tk13, jAZ.
But do you suck your cereal, that is the question?

tk13
12-08-2004, 06:00 PM
I think you have some of the most fair and balanced posts on the board. You're fair from being a homer.
Well gochiefs put me second on his "homer" list, I had to defend myself. :)

Rausch
12-08-2004, 06:03 PM
I think most people on this board would kill to have a guy at each DE who is going to get 13-15 sacks....

I think Allen is developing into that type of guy, but he needs to beef up and still keep his speed off the edge...

Hicks looks done. We really do need a true PR threat on that side...

Sure-Oz
12-08-2004, 06:06 PM
Dalton could use some help around him, we need a push up the middle bad. Our CB's are getting exposed way to often cause of NO pass rush.

tk13
12-08-2004, 06:11 PM
I think Allen is developing into that type of guy, but he needs to beef up and still keep his speed off the edge...

Hicks looks done. We really do need a true PR threat on that side...
Yeah, Allen is turning into a force.... I want to see him up against the Titans Monday, I think he could do some damage. I watched that Colts/Titans game this weekend and after the Colts got a lead and Tennessee started airing it out, the Colts d-line just assaulted Volek... they had 6-7 sacks I think and numerous pressures. I really don't think they're very good but if they get big leads and force you to abandon the run it works much more to their advantage....

Deberg_1990
12-08-2004, 06:15 PM
Dalton could use some help around him, we need a push up the middle bad. Our CB's are getting exposed way to often cause of NO pass rush.

Sims was supposed to be our force up the middle. Although he is decent at times, it doesnt look like he is ever going to develop int a consistant pass rusing threat. Maybe Siavii can be the answer?

Rausch
12-08-2004, 06:15 PM
Yeah, Allen is turning into a force.... I want to see him up against the Titans Monday, I think he could do some damage. I watched that Colts/Titans game this weekend and after the Colts got a lead and Tennessee started airing it out, the Colts d-line just assaulted Volek... they had 6-7 sacks I think and numerous pressures. I really don't think they're very good but if they get big leads and force you to abandon the run it works much more to their advantage....

I think both the Pats and Steelers can ground it out and keep the TOP in their favor, not allowing Manning and co. to air it out and grab a big lead.

Cochise
12-08-2004, 06:16 PM
Damnit Carl! :cuss:

tk13
12-08-2004, 06:17 PM
I think both the Pats and Steelers can ground it out and keep the TOP in their favor, not allowing Manning and co. to air it out and grab a big lead.
Coin toss baby, it's all in the coin toss.... :)

Deberg_1990
12-08-2004, 06:18 PM
How did we ever beat the Colts?? Amazing? I guess basically we got a few lucky stops on them in the 1st half, plus we are about the only team in the league who can match them TD for TD when it becomes a shootout.

philfree
12-08-2004, 06:22 PM
Hicks looks done. We really do need a true PR threat on that side...

I don't think Hicks is so terrible on 1st & 2nd down but on 3rd down we don't get enough pass rush from the LDE spot. The way the game is being played in the secondary where everything is PI the best way to beat the pass is to pressure and sack the QB.

PhilFree :arrow:

Rausch
12-08-2004, 06:31 PM
How did we ever beat the Colts?? Amazing? I guess basically we got a few lucky stops on them in the 1st half, plus we are about the only team in the league who can match them TD for TD when it becomes a shootout.

We blitzed Manning, early and often, and it rattled him. Which everyone promised wouldn't happen.

Hit him early and often and he becomes erratic...

The Bad Guy
12-08-2004, 06:47 PM
I can't argue with that. That was kinda my point, people are too quick to jump on "money money money we aren't spending enough", when in reality I think philosophy and execution of that philosophy are bigger problems.... that kinda got me labeled as a "homer" this offseason I guess, but I still do not think that Carl's philosophy this offseason was a bad philosophy, there's more than one way to skin a cat, but you have to execute and get it done and you have to draft well, and from looking at this season we apparently haven't done that well enough.

I think the philosophy he had was bad for several reasons.

1) The players he signed were players that had 1 good season in their career. Woods, Hicks, Browning all were one-year wonders that couldn't excel in any scheme now because they are void of talent.

2) The team has a small window of opportunity. If you are 2 games away from the SB, you go out and get players to make you better. You don't re-sign the stiffs you have.

3)This defense has sucked for 4 straight years. It wasn't like 2003 was the exception, it's been the rule with this defense. Poor tackling, poor coverage technique, shitty pass rushing skills, and overall just bad talent.

4) You're right -- Carl can't draft to save his ass. But this is even more reason to spend money on proven players in FA, and not sign the same scabs that ruined a perfect 2003 season. It's like giving the dog a milkbone for pissing on the rug.

It's unbelievable that our player personnel and scouting department still have jobs. They suck at what they do.

BigChiefFan
12-08-2004, 07:34 PM
It's like giving the dog a milkbone for pissing on the rug.


Classic!!!! :thumb: ROFL

tk13
12-08-2004, 08:07 PM
I think the philosophy he had was bad for several reasons.

1) The players he signed were players that had 1 good season in their career. Woods, Hicks, Browning all were one-year wonders that couldn't excel in any scheme now because they are void of talent.

2) The team has a small window of opportunity. If you are 2 games away from the SB, you go out and get players to make you better. You don't re-sign the stiffs you have.

3)This defense has sucked for 4 straight years. It wasn't like 2003 was the exception, it's been the rule with this defense. Poor tackling, poor coverage technique, shitty pass rushing skills, and overall just bad talent.

4) You're right -- Carl can't draft to save his ass. But this is even more reason to spend money on proven players in FA, and not sign the same scabs that ruined a perfect 2003 season. It's like giving the dog a milkbone for pissing on the rug.

It's unbelievable that our player personnel and scouting department still have jobs. They suck at what they do.


I didn't have a problem re-signing Woods and Wesley, or even Bartee... no one could've predicted the way the safeties have collapsed, and I don't think anybody really had a problem re-signing either one of them. Woods made the Pro Bowl and most seemed to think Wesley should have. And while Bartee's not an all-pro he's playing better than at any time in his career, Gunther may salvage something out of him yet... and if he doesn't we'll probably cut him after next year without taking a huge cap hit. I was ambivalent about Hicks, Browning I really had no interest in re-signing.... but we've phased him out anyway with Allen, Dalton, and Siavii.

As for point number 4, Carl doesn't have a sterling record in FA either. Look at his last FA splurge... Holliday, Barber, and McCleon. Barber had a good year last year, this year he didn't seem to be anything special. Holliday has been a bust, and McCleon might have been the team MVP for the first half of last year... then started slipping and has never recovered. We've gotten nothing out of it.... it seems like Carl's recent FA defensive history is cluttered with crap like Carlton Gray and Cris Dishman and McGlockton, not much better. He at least seemed to have more success through the draft (DT, Donnie Edwards, Dale Carter..).

Deberg_1990
12-08-2004, 08:13 PM
We blitzed Manning, early and often, and it rattled him. Which everyone promised wouldn't happen.

Hit him early and often and he becomes erratic...

Well, we did hit him in the 1st half. But then he got HOT in the 2nd half so that throws that theory out. But we didnt get as much pressure on him in the 2nd half of that game as well. Plus like i mentioned, we are one of the few teams who can get in a scoring match with Indy and match them TD for TD.

Logical
12-08-2004, 08:18 PM
You aren't looking at the big picture... NOBODY pays their two star players that much money, they spread it around more. You consider that we re-signed Woods, Wesley, Bartee, Hicks, and Browning.... that's probably 15-16 some odd million in signing bonus money alone.... the Colts didn't spend anything close to that, instead they let their defensive FA's walk and rebuild from within with guys like Joseph Jefferson and Bob Sanders and Cato June and Robert Mathis....

The sad thing is that Indy lately has been playing better defense than the Chiefs and they are wasting no money on it. We on the other hand appeared to be locked in with several bad players which we wasted money to keep.

tk13
12-08-2004, 08:30 PM
The sad thing is that Indy lately has been playing better defense than the Chiefs and they are wasting no money on it. We on the other hand appeared to be locked in with several bad players which we wasted money to keep.
That might be true. They are playing much better on defense, but I'm not sure if that's a mirage or not. I don't think they can really defend the run that well, the only real strength they have on defense is that their D-line can rush the QB. The trick is that when they get up on somebody by 20-30 points all they have to worry about is defending the pass and they can tee off.... that's what I was hoping the Chiefs could do, but it hasn't happened. The 99 Rams won a Super Bowl that way... lead the league against the run, but part of it was that they faced the fewest rushing attempts in the league because their offense was so explosive they always had a lead. If it wasn't for that Rams team I probably wouldn't think the Colts had a shot this year, but I think the Colts offense is better than that Rams team.... their D isn't quite as good but maybe it doesn't have to be.

Deberg_1990
12-08-2004, 08:46 PM
That might be true. They are playing much better on defense, but I'm not sure if that's a mirage or not. I don't think they can really defend the run that well, the only real strength they have on defense is that their D-line can rush the QB. The trick is that when they get up on somebody by 20-30 points all they have to worry about is defending the pass and they can tee off.... that's what I was hoping the Chiefs could do, but it hasn't happened. The 99 Rams won a Super Bowl that way... lead the league against the run, but part of it was that they faced the fewest rushing attempts in the league because their offense was so explosive they always had a lead. If it wasn't for that Rams team I probably wouldn't think the Colts had a shot this year, but I think the Colts offense is better than that Rams team.... their D isn't quite as good but maybe it doesn't have to be.

BINGO! Good analysis of that Rams team. Thats exactly how they won. They also had an extremely weak schedule and division that year. I am almost sure that Vermeil thought he could win this same way here in KC this year and last.

philfree
12-08-2004, 08:56 PM
The $22mil reference is misleading.

Harrison, who was scheduled to enter free agency after this season, is guaranteed $22 million between now and 2006 and received a $6 million signing bonus. He is making $5.56 million this season.


PhilFree :arrow:

Logical
12-08-2004, 09:12 PM
That might be true. They are playing much better on defense, but I'm not sure if that's a mirage or not. I don't think they can really defend the run that well, the only real strength they have on defense is that their D-line can rush the QB. The trick is that when they get up on somebody by 20-30 points all they have to worry about is defending the pass and they can tee off.... that's what I was hoping the Chiefs could do, but it hasn't happened. The 99 Rams won a Super Bowl that way... lead the league against the run, but part of it was that they faced the fewest rushing attempts in the league because their offense was so explosive they always had a lead. If it wasn't for that Rams team I probably wouldn't think the Colts had a shot this year, but I think the Colts offense is better than that Rams team.... their D isn't quite as good but maybe it doesn't have to be.
I somewhat agree with this post. Main exception is I have never felt our offense was quite the caliber of Indy's or the Rams, we just do not compare to either receiver wise. For that reason I have never felt we had a chance this year.

Dave Lane
12-08-2004, 09:13 PM
A $22 million signing bonus? That's insane. He's going to be 15 percent of their salary cap all by himself, for years.

Not even close. $22 million divided by 7 years is just over $3 milliion per year. I imagine year 1-2 he will earn a salary of $500k (or the league minimum) then years 3-7 will ramp up big time. Net result $3.5 million cap hit year 1-2 then slow ramp later last year or two will be hugely back loaded like $20 million a year he will never see. No bad overall unless he retires or is cut then the $22 mill comes home to roost!

Dave

philfree
12-08-2004, 09:25 PM
I somewhat agree with this post. Main exception is I have never felt our offense was quite the caliber of Indy's or the Rams, we just do not compare to either receiver wise.

They don't(or didn't) run the ball as well as us though. The Rams D was better in '99 then the Colts D this year. Honestly with as bad as our D has been this year it's still the turnover ratio and penalties that have been the biggest difference from last year to this.


PhilFree :arrow:

Deberg_1990
12-08-2004, 09:28 PM
I somewhat agree with this post. Main exception is I have never felt our offense was quite the caliber of Indy's or the Rams, we just do not compare to either receiver wise. For that reason I have never felt we had a chance this year.

Basically Priest Holmes production in the red zone makes up for our less than average wide recievers.

Logical
12-08-2004, 09:28 PM
They don't(or didn't) run the ball as well as us though. The Rams D was better in '99 then the Colts D this year. Honestly with as bad as our D has been this year it's still the turnover ratio and penalties that have been the biggest difference from last year to this.


PhilFree :arrow:

Maybe but I do not think that is the complete issue. Though we are moving the ball pretty well, we are having more trouble scoring in the red zone this year. Especially the first few games up until we played Atlanta.

philfree
12-08-2004, 09:31 PM
Basically Priest Holmes production in the red zone makes up for our less than average wide recievers.

Gonzo is supposed to be part of that equation too but as long as he's allowed to be mugged on every play...............


PhilFree :arrow:

Logical
12-08-2004, 09:33 PM
Basically Priest Holmes production in the red zone makes up for our less than average wide recievers.

That did not seem to be holding true prior to the Atlanta game, then of course we have not had him now for several games. Our best year (last year) we did not come close to the total points the Rams scored in 99 and I have a feeling that Indy will surpass that this year.

Also we do not score nearly as quickly as the Rams and Indy so we do not go up by margins that make teams revert to pass only like they do. JMHO

Logical
12-08-2004, 09:34 PM
Gonzo is supposed to be part of that equation too but as long as he's allowed to be mugged on every play...............


PhilFree :arrow:

I agree with you on that, I really do not get how the league toughened up the defensive interference rule only for WRs not for TEs.

philfree
12-08-2004, 09:36 PM
Maybe but I do not think that is the complete issue. Though we are moving the ball pretty well, we are having more trouble scoring in the red zone this year. Especially the first few games up until we played Atlanta.

True but I think there are reasons for the red zone performance being not as good. Injuries to our WRs and a change at RT being two of those reasons. I think Al's play calling hurt us some too.


PhilFree :arrow:

tk13
12-08-2004, 09:38 PM
Basically Priest Holmes production in the red zone makes up for our less than average wide recievers.
That's true, but having good WR's does help, especially with penalties. It may just be me, but when I'm watching them play, if the Colts get a holding call and end up in 1st and 20, it's kinda like "so what?". That's just one or two plays for them that are no big deal. I mean really the Chiefs' offense can do that too but not quite as efficiently because the Colts can spread you out with 3 different WR's and 2 good TE's....

Logical
12-08-2004, 09:40 PM
True but I think there are reasons for the red zone performance being not as good. Injuries to our WRs and a change at RT being two of those reasons. I think Al's play calling hurt us some too.


PhilFree :arrow:

Hey Phil, just curious how come your quotes never have the author in them? Do you purposely delete them?

Inspector
12-08-2004, 10:13 PM
Well, if the Colts run into any money problems maybe they can get a few pointers from the Bronco's.

I hear they do real well in that area.

philfree
12-08-2004, 10:22 PM
Hey Phil, just curious how come your quotes never have the author in them? Do you purposely delete them?


I don't know :shrug: I just copy and paste them in the quote box. Maybe it's a settings thing or something.

PhilFree :arrow:

Rausch
12-08-2004, 10:27 PM
Well, if the Colts run into any money problems maybe they can get a few pointers from the Bronco's.

I hear they do real well in that area.

Win now, pay later...

OldTownChief
12-08-2004, 10:35 PM
I don't know :shrug: I just copy and paste them in the quote box. Maybe it's a settings thing or something.

PhilFree :arrow:

If you hit the quote button, you don't have to copy and paste.

philfree
12-08-2004, 10:37 PM
If you hit the quote button, you don't have to copy and paste.

OOOOHhhhh :) You mean like this :thumb: It only took me 4 years and damned near 7000 posts to learn that :rolleyes:

PhilFree :arrow: