It's a five year deal.  No other details yet.

Brackett's signing is good news for 2010.  This solidifies his legacy as one of the great Colts ever, and ensures the Colts won't be employing any radical defensive changes next year.  Had they let Brackett walk, it might have signaled a philosophy shift, but Brackett's abilities are perfectly tailored for the Tampa-2.

It's wonderful news and we can all let out a big sigh of relief.

Any of the other Colts who have been tendered (Bethea, CJ, Bullitt, Muir, and Mookie), are important, but a bunch of second round draft picks wouldn't be half bad either!  Brackett was the one guy who couldn't be replaced and wouldn't bring compensation.

So rest easy Colts fans!  Free agency just ended for your team...unless someone signs Matt Stover !

UPDATE:  Same link as before, it looks like it's a 5 year, $33 million deal with $12 million as a signing bonus.  That's in the ball park of where I would have guessed.

You have one of our readers, Matt, to thank both for this post and for the title.  He wanted a primer on free agency, so I'm obliging him.  After all, there isn't a lot else to talk about.

First, let's start with something easy:

Unrestricted Free Agents (UFA)

An unrestricted free agent is a player whose contract has expired and has accumulated at least 6 years of service time.  Normally, that is four years of service time, but the rules have changed thanks to the infamous uncapped year.  The Colts have two of these players: Gary Brackett and Matt Stover.  The Colts are forbidden from signing UFAs from other teams thanks to the "Final Four" rule.  In other words, this category is not of much concern to the Colts.  However, if a team has a player they want to keep who is a UFA, there are options.

Tagging

A team has the option of "tagging" a potential UFA with one of two tags.  The Franchise Tag and the Transition Tag guarantee that a team cannot lose the UFA.  The team agrees to pay the player a hefty sum for one year of service.  If the player signs the offer, the team has a limited time to work out a new deal with the player which is more advantageous for both sides.  During that time, the player is not under contract and does not have to participate in team activities.  The Colts "franchised" Dwight Freeney recently, but worked out a new deal with him before the deadline.

The team can chose to allow the player to negotiate with other teams during this time if they choose. If the player can work out a better deal with a different club, a trade can be arranged.  The Colts chose NOT to franchise Gary Brackett.  Why?  They would have had to agree to pay him in excess of $9 million next year.  He's simply not worth nearly that much money.  Come tomorrow, Gary Brackett's contract will be up, and he'll be free to sign with any team he wishes.  If he does, two things will happen for the Colts:  first, they'll gain the right to sign a UFA under the "Final Four" rules. Secondly, they'll likely get a compensatory pick in 2011.

Compensatory Picks

Compensatory picks are given out by the league each year.  They are 'extra' picks that do not come from another team.  The NFL has a secret formula that awards extra picks to teams based on how many free agents they lose and how many they sign.  They are awarded the year AFTER the players leave.  The Colts would receive any compensatory picks this year based on who left in 2009. These picks cannot be traded. If Gary Brackett signs a major deal with another team, and the Colts don't sign anyone comparable, the Colts can expect a 3rd or 4th round compensatory pick to be awarded by the NFL in 2011.  Again, that will be an EXTRA pick not given by another team.

Restricted Rights Free Agents (RFAs)

There is a second kind of free agent.  Players whose contracts have expired but have been in the league less than 6 years are RFAs.  This means that the team they belong to can decide how to handle contract negotiations with the player. Please note:  TAGGING DOES NOT APPLY TO RFAs. The team has two options:

Tender

If a team wants to keep a player, it can 'tender' them a contract. The tender guarantees the player a certain salary level and grants the team the "right of first refusal".  The restricted free agent can sign with any team he likes, but with two conditions.  The original team has the right to match any offer from another club.  If the Colts in this case decide NOT to match the offer, the new team has to surrender a draft pick for the player.  TENDERING DOES NOT APPLY TO UFAs

Here is the list for what 'level' a player can be tendered at:

2010 RFA Tender Values: Players with five accrued seasons

Compensation to original team	RFA Tender Value
Right of first refusal	$1,226,000
ROFR & pick in round player was drafted	$1,226,000 or 110 percent prior salary
ROFR & second-round choice	$1,809,000 or 110 percent prior salary
ROFR & first-round choice	$2,621,000 or 110 percent prior salary
ROFR & first-, third-round choices	$3,268,000 or 110 percent prior salary

The Colts have tendered Bethea at first round choice level.  Anyone who wants Bethea has to pay him a tidy sum of money (so much that the Colts won't just match it) AND surrender their 2010 first round pick in order to get him.  These picks are NOT compensatory picks. They are essentially a 'trade' for the right to sign the player. A hefty tender (first or second round pick) makes it extremely unlikely that anyone else will take Bethea or Bullitt. However, if a team is so in love with either that they offer them a nice deal, the Colts will gladly let them walk and take the great draft picks in return.  The Colts have until Friday to 'tender' all their RFAs.  The link above has a full list of all the Indianapolis RFAs.

Non Tender

If the team does not want to pay the player the salary level listed above, they can chose not to tender a contract.  At that point, the player becomes an Unrestricted Free Agent.  Marlin Jackson and Tim Jennings have not been tendered by the Colts.  The Colts can still resign the players, but they have no right of first refusal.  A team will non-tender a RFA if they believe that they are worth less than the tender amount and are likely to not be resigned.  The Colts do get 'compensatory' credit for players lost in this way.

Released

Raheem Brock has asked for his release.  He's due to make a lot of money next year, so the question is why?  Simply put, he knows the Colts will release him eventually because he isn't worth the money he's slated to make.  He wants to be released early on so that he can have a good chance to score a new deal with another team. If the team waits to release him until later in the process, his options for a new team will be limited.

CHFF has a similar list up today

A Dallas blog looks at various metrics for dealing with injuries, and no matter which one you use, Indy is near the top.

We harp on injuries all the time, but it's not just whining.  It's a real thing.

Using FO's Adjusted Games Lost, over the past three years, Indy ranks 2nd in average games lost. Indy is 39-9 (.813) in that span.

The rest of the top 8?

Saint Louis, Cincy, Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland, Seattle, Washington.

Not a lot of winning seasons in there.  Those teams are a combined 115-221 (.342) with just four winning seasons and three playoff apperances out of 21 possible seasons.

Using Rick Gosslin's numbers, the Colts are 7th over the past five seasons.  The other teams in the top 8?  Houston, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Detriot, San Fransisco and Saint Louis.  Indy has made the playoffs 5 times in that span. The other 7 teams have four combined playoff apperances.

And that's why Peyton Manning keeps winning MVP awards.

The offseason sucks.  I'm forced to watch prime time television.  It's torture.  Here's a list of what I'm watching these days and how they vaguely relate to football:

Lost-Lost is the Peyton Manning of shows right now.  It's way too nerdy and cerebral for some people. There are plenty of folks who think there's no way for it to pay off the hype, but for my money it's the most fun I have watching TV all week.  I love that it is intricate, detailed, and impossible to predict.  Let's not forget a healthy fascination with numbers.

Smallville-The Gary Brackett of my TV week.  Smallville started the year after the X-Files left, and has given me going on 20 years of uninterrupted Freak of the Weeks.  Smallville has reignited my fondness for comic books. At this point, I spend every season wondering if it is going to be the last and looking for signs of decay, but it holds up extremely well.  When it finally does fall apart, I'll be devastated, and unsure how it can possibly be replaced.

How I Met Your Mother-Joseph Addai.  I'm a huge fan of this show.  It resonates with me in a way that Friends never did, because these people are my age.  They talk like my friends talk.  They love Star Wars.  Unfortunately, the show is only just now becoming appreciated, and I don't think it has that many more good seasons in it.  By the end of next year, it'll be time for it to go...just when everyone discovers how good it is.

30 Rock-Like Reggie Wayne, 30 Rock is right in its prime.  Consistently one of the funniest shows on television, it takes a certain kind of sophistication to really enjoy it.  I don't know that 30 Rock will ever make the top of the comedy heap, but has been funny for a while now.

The Office-Dwight Freeney has been stellar to this point, but he's right at that age where the end comes fast.  The Office was a giant, and could absolutely continue to be great for another 3 or 4 years without shocking me.  Still, my gut tells me the best has come and gone.  I'm sad about that.

Scrubs-My Adam Vinatieri show.  I've been loyal to Scrubs since the first episode, and there was a time when it was legitimately a great show.  That time has long passed.  Now I never know when it'll be on.  When it is on, it's actually not that bad, but I strongly suspect the end is nigh.

Fringe-I just started watching Fringe (aka: The X-Files 2: Blonder and Bustier!) a few weeks ago, but am now up to date. It's the Austin Collie of shows.  I'm not actually a huge fan, and it's a bit too derivative for me, but I have to admit that I find myself entertained, mostly because I love the genre. There are some highlight moments (Dunham flying through the windshield to start season 2 is one of the best TV scenes of the year), but I'm not sure it is accomplishing anything that special.  It could probably be adequately replaced by a half dozen other shows with similar skills.

24-Bob Sanders is Jack Bauer.  Or at least they based Jack Bauer on Bob Sanders.  24 is great when it's right, but it gets banged up a lot and doesn't always finish the season strong.  I'm watching this show on Argentine TV, by the way so I'm only two episodes into the season. No spoilers please.

House-House is my borderline show.  I don't find it that interesting, but it does entertain at times.  It's sort of like Melvin Bullitt. It isn't perfect, but it has a lot of really strong components.  I think I'd miss it if it was gone, and it fills in nicely when there's nothing else on TV.

Saturday Night Live-Take a guess.  Yeah, Jeff Saturday.  It's been around forever.  It's not going anywhere.  It's just part of the fabric of television at this point.

Clone Wars-Long stretches of not much followed by a few explosive moments that remind me why I love the franchise.  Much like Robert Mathis.  The scene a few weeks ago where the terrorist asked, "Which of you will be a cold blooded killer?" only to have Anakin come up from behind him and stab him in the back with his light saber was incredible.  And yes, I watch it with my 5 and 3 year olds.  Sue me.  In truth they prefer Teen Titans and Ben 10: Alien Force.  The best of all the cartoons of that ilk is Spectacular Spiderman, by the way.  Yes, I am 33.  Sigh.

Heroes-I gave up on this show mid way through the season, and I'm not coming back.  When they randomly made Claire a lesbian, they proved they have no idea how to make their characters interesting.  I'm not into lame ratings game.  This show has been a mess for awhile, and my loyalty for past contributions has run out.  Do you hear me Raheem Brock?

By the way, this year I also tried Mad Men. My wife and I HATED it.  I get why it's so acclaimed.  I understand the artistic value, but there is not one character in the show who is sympathetic or appealing at all.  We lasted six episodes into season one and quit.

We also watched the seldom mentioned Doll House, which was great.  The hidden finale to Season One was one of the best Sci Fi episodes ever done.

Much is being made right now out of Jeff Saturday's comments about the offensive line.

The whole hullabaloo started when Polian made disparaging comments about the line's play in the Super Bowl, despite some evidence that they had a decent enough game.

While I totally understand Saturday's desire not to see his brethren be made the scape goats for losing the Super Bowl (especially when Caldwell and Hank Baskett are so readily available), I think people are missing the point behind what Polian said originally.

The only play the line can clearly be faulted for was the 3rd and 1 debacle at the end of the first half.  Granted that was a huge, game changing play but the O line was only half responsible for it.  The real blame falls on Caldwell for making his first massive tactical error of the day.  Some wackos acted like Polian was trying to protect Manning by blaming the line.  He wasn't.  Manning needs no cover.  He played great.  By blaming the offensive line, Bill Polian was covering Jim Caldwell's butt essentially saying, "it was a good call to run, but the players didn't execute".  The Colts have handled this entire offseason by placing a deflector shield around Caldwell.  He didn't answer questions after the game.  He hasn't talked about his massive brain cramp in sending in Stover yet.  He hasn't had to answer for anything he screwed up that last night.  That tells me that he must have taken the loss pretty hard.  Maybe he blames himself, I don't know.  I certainly blame him.

Moreover, I took Polian's comments about both the offensive line and the special teams as a signal that change is coming to those units.  Was it fair to say the O-line cost Indy the Super Bowl?  No, absolutely not. Is it fair to say the O-line is mediocre at best and was one of the weakest units the team has had for the past two seasons?  Without a doubt.  Other than Saturday and Lilja, the Colts have no linemen that could be considered even slightly above average.  Every statistical analysis shows that quarterbacks are more responsible for sacks than linemen.  So given the fact that the Colts line is awful at run blocking, I'd say it's safe to say it's a problem area.

Anyone analyzing the Colts right now would put offensive line and special teams as the two biggest priorties for improvement heading into 2010.  That makes it unsurprising that Polian would single those units out.  It is unfair, but he's preparing the ground emotionally for changes to come.  The Colts can't do anything about the real reason they lost the Super Bowl.  They aren't going to fire Caldwell for being too conservative, and obviously Reggie Wayne and Pierre Garcon are safe.  What they can do is fix the special teams (which were a massive problem: bad return, missed FG, failure to recover onside kick), and the offensive line.

Essentially Polian was throwing players under the bus who aren't going to be playing (or at least starting) for the Colts next year.  It's unfair in the specific sense and sort of heartless, but it keeps him from having to kill his coach or his star wideout or a young good player like Garcon.  By blaming the O line, Polian gets his scape goat AND when the Colts open up 2010 with a new left tackle or a new right guard he can say, "we fixed the problem!".

And he'll be right.  The offensive line IS a problem.

Just not in the final game.

Apparently Bob Sanders is a bad man.

Well, we all know he's a baaaaad man, but a small time journalist apparently things he's a bad guy too.

His crime?

He doesn't like to talk about his injuries or money.

Yes, in a world full off philandering 'roid takers, wife beaters, and drunk drivers, Bob Sanders is to be villified because he doesn't want to talk about how much money he gave to an Eerie, PA school.

I'm not going launch into the stupidity of this article, as it was already effectively done on a great blog by an Eerie native.

Maybe I'm not in the media world so I don't understand the politics of it fully, but to write a piece making it sound like Bob Sanders owes us, the local people of Erie, answers to the questions you want answered is ridiculous.

Bob Sanders doesn't owe me anything.

I think too many people these days feel that all athletes should act a certain way towards the media.  People act like it's an injustice to society if an athlete doesn't want to answer questions or accept an interview.  Media members really think that they are partly responsible for helping an athlete get to where they're at and they should be owed something for it.  Do people ever just think that some athletes don't want the attention and others just want their private life to be private?

Bob Sanders was back in Erie, PA for Bob Sanders weekend.  During the weekend he provided money to start computer labs at two schools.  A reporter from the Erie Times-News asked for the amount donated and Bob got upset because he either didn't want to answer it or he didn't have the figure on hand.  Now Bob's a bad guy.

I think Bob Sanders doesn't want his charitable efforts to become publicized.  He gives money away and provides goodwill because of his character, not because it makes him look good to society.

Here's a little information that was never publicized about Bob.  A couple years ago a relative of mine was injured severely in a car accident.  He had brain damage and was in a coma for a long period of time.  Till this day he is still unable to walk, unable to speak normally, and he still has permanent brain damage.  Bob learned about his situation and found out that he's the favorite player of my relative.  When Bob was home in Erie he went and visited him, brought him a jersey, and spent a little of his time with him.  A year later he flew him and his entire family in a private flight out to Indianapolis for a game.  Was this publicized in the Erie Times-News? No.  Probably because Bob didn't want it publicized.

Just because an athlete acts like they're controlling the media and not providing all the answers that a columnist wants doesn't mean they're a bad person, it could just mean that they want to focus on who's receiving the goodwill, not who's providing it.

Well said.

The NFL is considering new overtime rules.

New, stupid overtime rules.

According to the article, the NFL is considering making OT over when one team reaches 6 points.  The rule would also go into effect in the next playoffs.

The main complaint with the current system is that it is "unfair" because the team that wins the coin toss wins about 60% of the time right now.  Personally, I think the real problem is that people don't know what the word "fair" means.

The current system is designed to END the football game with one team winning.  Before the toss, both teams have an equal shot at winning.  Therefore, it is fair.  The toss is designed to give one team an advantage.  That's the point of tossing the coin.  The advantage is distributed in an impartial and fair way.   The complaint is that the toss is random, lucky.  I submit that in a game using an oblong ball every game is decided by random, lucky events.  The Super Bowl was influenced by an onside kick where the ball bounced around like crazy, and the team that fell on it wasn't awarded it.  Oh no!  Luck was involved.  Let's all rend our garments and wail!  Just about every team that wins an overtime game benefited from multiple 'lucky' plays.  Until we accept that in any close game, random chance affects the outcome as much as skill and design, we'll never understand football.

Some say the goal should be to 'minimize' luck.  Though I'm not sure why that's important at all, I believe the new system will cause more problems than the old one.

First, the idea of implementing an entirely new overtime system for the playoffs is insane.  If the system works well enough to decide playoff games, it should be used all season.  Why start the postseason with an untried system that coaches aren't used to?  It's a recipe for disaster.  It creates a whole new level of strategy, but doesn't give coaches the chance to see how it works out.

Second, the solution doesn't solve the "problem" with the current system.  The Colts lost to the Chargers in 2008 in OT on a touchdown after the Chargers won the toss.  Now, they would have played everything out differently if they had known that a TD was worth more than a FG in OT, but still, under this new rule, that game would still have ended with Indy never seeing the ball.

Third, the new rule will result in longer games and more ties.  Either the NFL creates two OT rules (one for the regular season and one for the postseason), or they will adopt this rule for all games.  I've already said that it makes no sense to have to very different rules governing OT, but the only thing worse would be more ties.  The current system puts a premium on going for it deep in the other team's territory (huzzah!), by creating a system where field goals don't mean as much as they used to.  The odds are high for a lot of empty trips.  It also means that many games will still be decided by three points, but only after the entire 15 minute period is played.  The NFLPA does not want longer games.  Longer games mean more injuries. The point of OT is to resolve the game quickly.

And that's at the heart of the issue.  The labor strife.  The NFL is trying to create issues that they can "give back" to the players without actually sacrificing anything.  By creating a potentially longer OT scenario, the owners can negotiate it away as a concession in the labor negotiations, and it won't hurt them one bit.

For the record, the Colts have played seven OT games in the Manning era.  They are 3-4.  I can't determine who won the toss in the 1998 loss to the Saints, but in the other six games they won the toss three times and lost the toss three times.  They lost to the Panthers (2003 )and Chargers (2008 playoffs) without ever seeing the ball. They beat the Broncos (2002) and Chargers (2004) after winning the toss.  They beat the Bucs (2003) after losing the toss, and lost to the Dolphins (2000 playoffs) after winning the toss and missing a potential game winning field goal.  Three of the games ended on touchdowns (1998 Saints, 2000 Dolphins Playoffs, 2008 Chargers Playoffs).  Indy lost all three games.

UPDATE:  Finally, after serching all day, I've found a clarification on the OT policy.  It is NOT first team to 6, as Rich Eisen reported.  Instead it's a mishmash.  It's only sudden death if the first score is a touchdown or safety (I assume).  If the first score is a field goal, the other team gets a chance to match that field goal.  This eliminates one of my complaints, while creating another.  There won't necessarily be more ties because the game ends after the first possession by the other team (unless they tie the game).  Personally, I find it weird that the NFL would create a policy that discriminates against one particular method of scoring.  In addition, it creates a possible advantage for the team who has the ball second. If the first team scores a field goal, the second team will get to run their drive knowing that they have to go for every possible fourth down.  I assume the counter to that is the advantage of possibly winning the game with a touchdown drive outweighs the advantage gained by getting to see what the other team does.  Personally, I think this won't really solve the problem.  The team that wins the flip will probably still win the game pretty regularly, only this time they'll win it on a touch down instead of a field goal.  It doesn't really address the perceived 'injustice', it just makes it seem like the team that won earned it more.  Yeah, I'm still not a fan.

With the draft coming up in two months, the Colts have to think about restocking at several key positions.  Fortunately, Indy has one of the youngest teams in the league.  The Colts had only 11 players on the 2009 roster that will enter the 2010 season past age 30.  Let's take a look at how much longer the Colts can count on these vets:

Matt Stover, Adam Vinatieri-These are the two oldest Colts on the roster, and we saw the problem with depending on old kickers.  Stover didn't have the leg to make a 51 yard field goal in the Super Bowl.  He was only on the roster because Vinatieri battled injury.  Let's see...loss of length...injuries...check and check.  Time for a new kicker...a younger kicker.

Jeff Saturday-Saturday was the toughest decision on the roster last year, but this season showed why the Colts were right to resign him.  He had a great 2009, and was by far the most dependable lineman.  The Colts ran the ball effectively up the middle thanks to his play.  He'll be 35 next season, and under contract for two more seasons.  Centers can play for a long time, so center doesn't have to be a 'restock' priority this year.

Peyton Manning-Manning will be 34 next year.  He can be expected to have at least four if not five or six more good seasons.  As we've said before, Peyton Manning's replacement is in high school right now, not in the 2010 draft.  I think of Manning's replacement like some kind of apocalyptic devil child.  I wake up in a cold sweat screaming at night, "HE'S DRAWING NIGH!".  Please note that I do NOT recommend going around stabbing high school freshmen with a blade blessed by a blind priest.

Justin Snow-Oh no!  Where will we get another long snapper?  Moving along...

Reggie Wayne-Wayne will turn 32 late in the 2010 season.  On one hand, the Colts are stone cold stocked with wideouts.  On the other hand, injuries happen.  Here's the good news for Wayne.  Of the wideouts most similar to him, most were productive until age 34.  Wayne's contract runs through the 2011 season.  At the end of that year, he'll be 34.  Because it takes a while to develop a good wideout, the Colts have to ask themselves if Wayne's replacement is currently on the roster.  If Gonzo or Garcon can become Reggie Wayne, then there is no need to take another wideout.  However, if the team is looking for something more/different from his replacement, now is the time to draft him.

Raheem Brock-Brock will be a Classic Colt.  He's a hustle player. He's versatile. He's a leader.  He's making too much money and is too old.  The Colts need a new back up passer rusher.  Two seasons have been lost now thanks to injuries to Dwight Freeney.  The Colts simply have to do better than Brock.  Age has caught up to him.  He'll be 32 to start the year, and it would be for the best if someone can beat him out.  The Colts can save $3.8 million by cutting him.

Dallas Clark-Clark turns 31 this year, and is coming off his best season as a pro.  The shelf life on tight ends isn't great.  Clark is under contract through 2013, but four more highly productive years are unlikely.  The Colts need to find a second tight end anyway, and it is probably time to start looking for a replacement for Clark.  He could be good for several more seasons, but I wouldn't count on it.

Ryan Diem-Diem had an up and down season.  The Colts did not run effectively to the outside right (or left).  Diem turns 31 this year, not too old at all for a right tackle.  Still, production rather than age is the reason to look for new tackles.

Dwight Freeney-Freeney has been dominant each of the past two seasons, and other than Manning, he is the most important Colt.  He turned 30 last week.  Most of the elite pass rushers not named Bruce Smith or Reggie White were done by their early 30s.  What we don't know is who Dwight Freeney is.  If he's an all time, Hall of Fame DE, it'll be because he plays another 6 or 7 strong seasons. If he has a more typical career, the end will come quickly.  Judging by the way the Colts structured his contract, my guess is that they think he doesn't have a lot of life left in him.  His base salary jumps $3 million each of the next three seasons, and screams "RENEGOTIATION!".  Though I hope I'm wrong, I think Freeney could have a hard time living up to his 2011 number, let alone his 2012 number.  Now, he could totally turn out to be in the class of guy who posts double digit sacks into his late 30s, but I'm guessing he's not.  The Colts MUST find a new pass rushing DE now.  The clock is ticking on Freeney.

Gary Brackett-He is a key leader on the team.  He has a unique skill set.  He is about to turn 30.  Brackett is this year's Jeff Saturday.  The Colts need him now, but a long term deal doesn't make a ton of sense. The franchise tag would have been a massive overpay.  Brackett's value is in coverage, if he loses even a half step, he'll go from important cog to major liability in a hurry.  He's the right guy at the right number, but the Colts will have to be hunting up a new middle linebacker sooner or later.

What does Joe Addai have to do to get some love from Colts fans?

Just weeks after an outstanding effort in the Super Bowl, and coming off a gritty 'do whatever was asked of him' kind of season, some people already want to kick Joe to the curb in favor of Darren Sproles.

The first and most obvious problem with the scenario posted in the article is the following premise:

If the issue is too much money wrapped up in running backs, I would have no problem seeing Joseph Addai cut in favor of making room for Sproles

Again, the next time any one suggests cutting a popular Colt, they really need to check the salary cap page first.  Addai is only slated to make $2.2 million next year, and about $958 K of that is guaranteed bonus money.  Cutting Addai would save the Colts only about $1.3 million, and mean the team would be paying $900 K for a player that wouldn't be playing for them.  Even if the Colts wanted to bring Sproles on, they wouldn't save nearly enough by cutting Addai to do so. Moreover, there is no salary cap, which means the Colts would have to make such a move strictly to save money, which has never been the way the team has been run.

Beyond that, the concept of cutting Addai to bring on Sproles hinges on two ideas:

1.  Brown is ready to take on the role of lead back

2.  Brown and Sproles as a running back duo is better than Addai and Brown when Sproles special teams abilities are factored in.

Let's deal with each:

1.  Brown is a long way from showing he can handle the job as the #1 running back.

The argument seems to be:  the Colts took him in the first round, so he should be ready to be the #1 back.  To me, the only thing on his resume that commends Brown as a #1 back is his draft status.  Draft status becomes irrelevant the day after the draft.  Brown had a poor rookie year by any standard.  He struggled with injuries.  He struggled with pass protection.  He struggled to run the ball.  There's not much left for him to struggle with.  He might still prove to be a great NFL back, but I saw no reason to anoint him as capable of being the lead back next year.

2. Even with special teams abilities are factored in, there is no way that Sproles and Brown are better than Addai and Brown, mostly because Sproles isn't a good running back.

For this equation to work, Sproles the RB + Sproles the returner has to be better than Addai the RB + Colts returners.  One thing is clear:  Sproles the RB is worse than Addai the RB.  If you just want to go with conventional stats, Addai had more carries, more yards, more touchdowns, a better YPC, and more catches than Sproles.  Sproles had more yards receiving and one more receiving TD.  Most alarmingly, Sproles only rushed for 340 yards last year on 93 carries.  Were the Colts to elect to go with this plan, they would have two running backs who COMBINED for just 181 carries last year, or 40 fewer than Addai by himself (who was hardly overworked).

Advanced stats aren't kind to Sproles either.  Addai's DVOA was 7.7%.  Sproles was -15.3%.  That means were the Colts to try this experiment, they would be dumping the 14th most efficient back in football in favor of running a tandem package of two guys who finished 12 and 15% WORSE than an average NFL back.

Still, to be fair, the point was that you have to factor in Sproles influence on the return game in order to gauge his true impact.  Last year, with Sproles returning kicks, the Chargers had a DVOA of 0.0% in the kick return game and -0.7% in the punt return game.  In other words, they were dead average in both areas.  Granted the Colts were below average in both, but clearly Sproles is not the kind of game changing return man who merits cutting a productive back in order to sign him.

Do I favor signing Sproules? Absolutely.  We need a kick returner, and he fits the bill.  Even an average returner is better than what we had this year.

Bringing in a guy with 199 career carries to replace Joe Addai, however would be suicide.  It would instantly make the Colts worse in the run game.  That doesn't even scratch the surface of the injury risk to player who is running back kicks AND trying to be the #2 back in what will hopefully be a true two back offense.

Joe Addai doesn't need me to defend him any more.  There is no way he'd get cut to make room for Sproles.  There's no statistical justification for the move, and it would be disaster for the team.

Note:  I would have mentioned this earlier, but at first I read that Sproles had been cut.  Because he's an unrestricted free agent, the Colts cannot sign unrestricted free agents unless they are cut by another team.  That makes the whole point moot.

That might be the worst pun I've ever tried in an article title, but it's the offseason.  Take what you can get.

I've updated the article about Bill Polian and the Hall of Fame with stats running through the 2009 season.  The most impressive stat about Polian is that in 21 years, his teams have been to 5 Super Bowls and he's had only 5 losing teams.  In other words, with Polian running the show, a team is as likely to make the Super Bowl as it is have a losing year.

In light of last week's article about how the Colts would finish with an average quarterback, a reader asked a fair question:  "If the Colts are so average without Manning, why does Polian get praised so much?".  Let me address that here.

1.  The Colts started out the year with more talent than they finished it. Indy lost a starting corner, a staring linebacker, their star safety, their kicker, and their number two receiver.  They also battled a myriad of other injuries throughout the year losing the second most games in football to injury.  So when we say that Manning had to carry the team, that wasn't entirely by design.  Now, if someone wants to criticize the GM for injuries, that's shaky ground.  Although in the case of the Colts, they've been among the league leaders in injuries for several years, and some of that has been due to Bob Sanders who was an injury risk from draft day on.  The bottom line is that had the Colts not had such a wave of injuries, the 'average quarterback' article wouldn't have been so necessary.  Indy's starting 22 is awesome and loaded with talent.  We just don't get to see that starting 22 very often.

2.  Polian drafted Manning.  He chose to build his team for maximum success.  No one can argue that the Colts have been extremely successful with this system.  Polian gets credit because his team DOESN'T have a David Garrard or Matt Cassel at QB.  The selection of Manning was far from a no brainer, and Polian was criticized by many for taking Manning.  Because of that, it's only fair to praise him for his choice. Does Manning make everyone around him look better, including the GM?  Sure.  That's why you draft guys like Manning.  They make you look like a genius.  Polian would be the first to admit that.

3.  Polian's weak spot is also the Colts'.  Indy's weakest unit is the offensive line.  Anyone who watched the team knows the Colts O line struggled despite good protection numbers.  Polian has freely admitted that he struggles as a talent evaluator to judge O-linemen.  Indy has drafted two linemen in the second round in three years, and five linemen in the last three years.  None of them have become starters for a team with a notably poor line.  It is entirely fair to criticize Polian for this, but he largely gets a pass for drafting a quarterback who can succeed with a dicey line.

4.  Polian built the entire team.  There is no one on the Colts' roster who wasn't put there by Polian.  That's a rare thing in the NFL.  More than that, almost every player was drafted by Polian.  Even on successful teams, there are often players that are hold overs from old regimes.  Polian has been in Indy 12 years.  Everyone on the Colts is one of his players.

5.  The bottom line is winning.  A GM isn't judged by how much talent his team has, but whether or not they win.  The Colts win every year, never missing the playoffs (in large part thanks to Manning), so the GM gets credit.  Polian built the team.  The team wins.  EVERY YEAR.  Regardless of what flaws it might have or how it would do without Manning, the fact is that Manning IS on this team, so Polian rightfully deserves credit.

The Colts have been rolling the dice for years by not having a backup quarterback.  Seemingly every guy on the roster gets hurt EXCEPT for Manning.  If he were to go down with an injury, and Polian tried to win games with Sorgi or Painter, he'd get crushed because everyone would see how thin the Colts are.

The Colts are the anti-Patriots.  New England runs a 'plug and play' system. The system matters more than the players.  Take away their best player?  No problem, they still win 11 games.  The Colts have built their system entirely around Manning.  Take him away, and they have nothing.  It is debatable which is the better method.  The Pats had more success in the past before teams had figured out the system.  Now, the system is a decade old and showing signs of cracks as the league has adjusted.  The Pats 'draft accumen' has taken hits in recent years, but it may just be because the schemes which once were so dominant no longer are.  They aren't really any worse at picking players than before, they just aren't as good at using them. Meanwhile, the Colts' method will continue to be successful as long as Manning stays upright. If he declines, however, the house of cards will tumble, and Polian will have to pick up the pieces.

Ultimately, when you go to 5 Super Bowls in 21 years and have just 5 losing seasons, you earn the right to do things however you see fit.

As long as he keeps winning, people will keep praising him.  As they should.

He's the best GM in the game.  Hands down.