Also, he insisted after he left that Denver wasn't playing him in the right position (RDE I believe), which isn't exactly true.  He was rotated like everyone else on the line and played both ends depending on the package.  He wasn't any more effective on one side than the other.

He is a unique player who could turn it around, and if the Colts are winning, maybe that is just what he needs.

If you can do all that for him (don't require power, don't require speed, don't ask him to play where he is needed, and win for him) than this is a pickup that could serve you well until Freeney gets healthy.

Otherwise, look out.  You don't need Rice's drama anymore than we did...

I agree that "problem players" are all almost universally on bad teams.  But it is still their choice to be a problem.  The players have agents, a union, and their own common sense to help them make the proper decisions about when and where they play, and what kind of risks they are willing to take, with their mouths or with their contracts.  If you are on a bad team there are perfectly good remedies and situations, and to Simeon's credit he actually created a better remedy than already existed by forfeiting part of his guaranteed signing bonus, after Denver signed some new young DEs.

But what does it say about a "problem player" who has no driving force within them to be independently good, regardless of what others are doing?  In football I would say that it is a strong indicator that they have deeper concerns then their job (which may or may not be ok), and at worst it would indicate that they are second-handed psychologies.  I would classify TO as a second-hand life, living more through how he is perceived than who he thinks he is.  But he can change.  Moss can change.  They may already have.  The test isn't when they are succeeding, but when the pressure is back on.

I don't know what to make of Rice.  But I do know it will be real easy to find out.  If he can produce and be effective for IND, than he isn't a liar.  You need to listen closely if he talks about his injury and his performance (or lack thereof).  And then watch.

I stand by my assessment that the Colts do not want to be the best friend of Rice, but merely a (hopefully temporary) employer.  He says he was humbled by going to waivers.  I don't believe him.  He said he was humbled by being cut by TB too, and eventually he got over it, if he was ever humbled at all.

Plus it is potentially huge that he is returning to play under his former coach.  While I don't believe Dungy would take a flyer on an attitude problem (unfortunately I don't have the same kind of faith in Shanahan), and I don't believe Rice is even remotely close to a T.O. caliber problem, his comments about being humbled disturbed me.  It is essentially the same thing he said when he came to Denver but he worded it much differently.  He worded it in the perfect way for Dungy to tune into it.  And he is familiar with Dungy.  I wonder if he isn't saying exactly what he thinks Dungy wants to hear.

And I just don't know about it being worth the risk.  He had little impact, good or bad here in Denver, but left a trail of "What ifs?"  What if we had someone else playing who may have been productive?  What if he had a negative effect on our multitude of young players?  What if his comments to the media were having a negative effect on how the team was getting along?  At best, we wasted a little money and time.  At worst we may have wasted money and time we desperately needed to get off to a good start this year.

With 2 losses back to back, and the second one coming in the midst of a great game by Manning, the Colts are not in a position to absorb the psychological strain that is a worst-case-for-Rice-scenario.