Will we cut Kolb poll

[john h]

I can see the logic within the cap mess and lack of QBs available which could keep Kolb as a Cardinal but with the mention of Stanton as coming aboard and a slew of other possibilities (including drafting one), I just do not see how any new coaching staff would want to keep any of these QBs other than Hoyer as a third stringer personally. So, be it restructure his contract or not...do we keep Kolb

I think it is only a couple of weeks that we will owe Kolb a couple of million dollars so our answer to the Kolb questions should be answered before we pay out the money. They are or may be be negotiating with him now if they plan on keeping him. I sure hope they do not but think they will likely keep him at a new lower rate. I read today he might go back to Philadelphia if he is released. I especially like that. If they cut him you almost can count on drafting a QB at #1 or #2. If they keep him they may wait until even later and he would likely end up as starter but likely would never finish the season in good health IMHO.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I dunno. $10M per season is pretty much the going rate for veteran starting quarterbacks on their second contract or more.

By "play well," I don't mean the Kevin Kolb we've seen for two seasons. I mean the Kevin Kolb we were expecting to get when we traded for him. If Kolb's 2013 looks like this:

14 games
62.3% completions
27 TDs
14 INTs
3217 yards

the Cards 2013 could be 8-8 or 9-7 and we wouldn't be in the position to draft a Franchise quarterback anyway. If Kolb played like that (and there are a few people here who may think he's still capable of that--desertdawg and AZ's Finest and maybe TJ), while there would still be some Kolb haters here, I think we'd happily pay the $10M to see if he could replicate on those numbers and build on them.

Keep in mind that we paid Derek Anderson like $6-8M for his season here.

If Kolb puts up those #'s, not even Phraz would be against keeping him around.

Unfortunately the odds of him putting up those numbers, let alone remaining healthy for an entire seem exceedingly slim, as the FO has apparently determined.

 

[DemsMyBoys]

At the risk of exposing my ignorance - again:

Have the coaches and FO seen him throw lately?

 

[GatorAZ]

It's too risky releasing him. What if we miss out on our QB in the draft? I think we pick up his bonus as insurance then cut him if we draft a QB in the top 38. If not we re-structure before the season.

 

[kerouac9]

At the risk of exposing my ignorance - again:

Have the coaches and FO seen him throw lately?

Players can't work with coaches until April.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Players can't work with coaches until April.

I know that is in the new CBA but that's a bad deal for teams with new staffs. I know new staffs are allowed a 2 week head start come April, but they should be able to work out, meet, and assess their new team prior to the start of free agency.

 

[Totally_Red]

I know that is in the new CBA but that's a bad deal for teams with new staffs. I know new staffs are allowed a 2 week head start come April, but they should be able to work out, meet, and assess their new team prior to the start of free agency.

From the sound of it, veteran players shot themselves in the foot with the new agreement. Rookies get unlimited time to work with coaches while veterans are severely limited until training camp.

B.A. learned last year that he could win with young players. I think it's safe to say there will be fewer grizzled veterans on the roster this year than when Whis was in charge. The new CBA hurts the marginal veterans and helps the rookies IMO.

 

[Mulli]

From the sound of it, veteran players shot themselves in the foot with the new agreement. Rookies get unlimited time to work with coaches while veterans are severely limited until training camp.

B.A. learned last year that he could win with young players. I think it's safe to say there will be fewer grizzled veterans on the roster this year than when Whis was in charge. The new CBA hurts the marginal veterans and helps the rookies IMO.

So it was a good time to fire the guys who would bring in and play MARGINAL veterans.

 

[kerouac9]

From the sound of it, veteran players shot themselves in the foot with the new agreement. Rookies get unlimited time to work with coaches while veterans are severely limited until training camp.

B.A. learned last year that he could win with young players. I think it's safe to say there will be fewer grizzled veterans on the roster this year than when Whis was in charge. The new CBA hurts the marginal veterans and helps the rookies IMO.

The new CBA hurts all the players, but particularly the "middle class" of players, who would play on contracts worth $3-5M per year. There's just no space on rosters for these guys.

I believe that the 2012 Colts over-performed expectations, and weren't nearly as good as their final record. If Arians thinks that he can succeed here with the same program that he and Pagano installed in Indy, he'll be gone in two years.

As for vets v. rookies under the new CBA? I guess the rookies are slightly better off in terms of reps, but I'm not sure that matters as a long-run concern. Most players are veterans far longer than they're rookies. It's good for the team as an evaluative measure, just because you can shuffle off rookies who probably aren't going to develop because you have enough tape on them to find out if they will.

 

[Totally_Red]

The new CBA hurts all the players, but particularly the "middle class" of players, who would play on contracts worth $3-5M per year. There's just no space on rosters for these guys.

I believe that the 2012 Colts over-performed expectations, and weren't nearly as good as their final record. If Arians thinks that he can succeed here with the same program that he and Pagano installed in Indy, he'll be gone in two years.

As for vets v. rookies under the new CBA? I guess the rookies are slightly better off in terms of reps, but I'm not sure that matters as a long-run concern. Most players are veterans far longer than they're rookies. It's good for the team as an evaluative measure, just because you can shuffle off rookies who probably aren't going to develop because you have enough tape on them to find out if they will.

No question the Colts over-achieved, but Arians has to get some of the credit for that IMO. It'll be a lot tougher road in the NFC West. I just hope he doesn't really believe that he doesn't need upgrades in the offensive line.

 

[john h]

There are $3M reasons on March 17---and $9.5M more to follow if the $3M is paid.

Good point. I think most want him cut as I do but unfortunately I also think the Cards will keep him. This based on some recent comments made by our owner. I put it at 60/40 we keep him. Be great to hear all the staff with their inputs to the decision maker.