Jim Caldwell feeling a little better about Bob(zilla) Sanders

by Brad Wells on Aug 26, 2009 7:39 AM EDT in Colts News

Jim Caldwell spoke to the press yesterday about the status of injured safety Bob Sanders:

"He’s down in Alabama. He’s checking in with Dr. (James) Andrews. He’s doing well. Dr. Andrews has looked at him and really feels he’s on target and coming along. He’ll be there for a couple days and when he comes back, he’ll continue on with the process he’s going through here in terms of his rehab. He’s making progress. He’s moving forward. He feels good about where he is. Dr. Andrews feels good about where he is. That means I should feel good about where he is."

I share PhilB's belief that Bob will not play in the season opener against the Jaguars. Melvin Bullitt is a high quality safety (who could start for most teams, including the Jags!). Bullitt can hold the fort until the monster known as Bobzilla returns.

The key element for Bob is he must play most of this season healthy. If he goes down again and misses a majority of the regular season, I don't think the Colts will keep him around for much longer. In December 2007, the Colts signed Bob to a five-year, $37.5 million dollar deal with $20 million guaranteed. I believe Bob makes more than Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu, and right now both those guys are better than Bob because they can stay on the field. And players who only play four or five games a year should not, and cannot, count over $7 million against your cap. Just to give you some perspective, if Melvin Bullitt plays much of the season at strong safety again this year, this means that we are getting production from someone who counts only $400K against the cap while $7 million is sitting in the training room.

I am a huge Bob Sanders fan. Huge! But, this season is, in some ways, make or break for Bob. His reputation is that of an injury prone player. If he wants to shed that rep and convince both the league and us Colts fans that he can stay healthy, it starts now.

Bob in the training room is starting to get more familiar than Bob blasting some running back at the line of scrimmage.

Tweet Comment 42 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good Bob is coming along...

but as I’ve said before…I agree…he needs to play a full season, otherwise he costs too much for a guy that sits so much. Here is to a health season, sans the first game.

"If me and King Kong went into an alley, only one of us would come out. And it wouldn't be the monkey."
"I don't really trust a sane person."
"I never met a man I didn't want to fight." The one and only Lyle Alzado

by TRDean on Aug 26, 2009 8:19 AM EDT reply actions

right on the money BBS

I love Bob too. but im done with him if he cant play most of the season and make an impact. If he doesnt play 75% of games this year……..he better play badass in some playoff games and help us win another super bowl or i say he should hit the bricks or take a major paycut.

im a Colts fan first……a fan of individual players second.

by MARVININDY on Aug 26, 2009 8:27 AM EDT reply actions

I know I keep pointing this out...

There will be no cap next year. The cap may never come back.

Next year Sanders will count about $4 million against the cap. Much of that money is a sunk cost, already spent.

There’s just no reason to bring up Sanders’ cap numbers. They don’t matter anymore.

The Colts can’t cut him. It doesn’t make financial sense.

18to88.com

by deshawn zombie on Aug 26, 2009 8:46 AM EDT reply actions

The cap created parity.

There’s no way that the cap doesn’t return. Goodell’s smart enough to know what made the league interesting to watch in the first place. You’re of course right that Sanders will never be cut while there is no cap, but the term “uncapped year” is being used for a reason – there’s no way the NFL brass is going to allow it to last longer than a year.

by LTTelamon on Aug 26, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions

It's not up to them.

The players union has sworn that they will never let the cap come back once it’s gone.

The league can’t decide unilaterally to have a cap. They have to collectively bargain that, and there are simply no guarantees they can pull it off without a serious work stoppage.

18to88.com

by deshawn zombie on Aug 26, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions

what about

all the “poison pills” that go into effect with an uncapped year? will that deter the players union from operating without a cap?

by MARVININDY on Aug 26, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions

First of all, the poison pill has already been swallowed. 2010 will be uncapped. The odds of a total CBA renegotiation taking place between now and February 2010 are nill. The union will have to live with guys like MJax and Bethea not being UFAs (that’s the poison pill for the players). They aren’t exactly rushing up to the table to get a deal done, so they are clearly willing to take the FA hit in order to kill the cap they’ve hated for so long.

Beyond 2010, the players wouldn’t mind playing under the existing and soon to be expired CBA. They’ll report to work. The owners will be forced to lock them out, and we’ll have work stoppage.

The key is that the owners can’t do this until 2011. There’s no great impetus for either side to negotiate until the offseason at least. When they do, we’ll know how bad it can get. The players association has long threatened to never go back to a capped system if the owners let it lapse.

We’ll see if they really mean it or not.

18to88.com

by deshawn zombie on Aug 26, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions

correction:

they have until March to renegotiate.

18to88.com

by deshawn zombie on Aug 26, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions

i dont know all the ins and outs

i do know that there is a maximum and a minimum for the cap. if they operate without a salary cap teams can spend 30 million dollars on players instead of the league wide minimum they have now.

i dont know the exact numbers, but i thought i heard/read before that the minimum was a percentage of the max.

most of the players in the league make money on the lower end of the spectrum. no cap hurts the majority of players, and helps the minority who merit being paid 10+ mil a year.

by MARVININDY on Aug 26, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Right, but

…you think the players don’t know how badly they could hurt their livelihood with a strike or forced lockout?

I’m well aware the cap has to be bargained. Maybe I’m naive in thinking that the players realize how badly a stoppage could cripple the league. But I’m fairly confident that they like receiving a paycheck, and they can’t do that if the owners end up having to lock them out. The NFL will sell the union the rookie salary scale (because the current union has no incentive to protect incoming rookies), all the veterans will make slightly more than they do now, and the cap might be raised slightly, but I’m pretty sure the cap isn’t going anywhere. There’s too much to be lost on both sides. I’ll even go ahead and predict how it’ll go down. There’ll be scattered quotes from leadership of both sides about firm bargaining positions, we’ll countdown to some magic deadline, the parties will talk for the entire week before it, they’ll extend it twice, then come to an agreement based on the terms I mention above.

The union hates the cap, I’m sure. I’m not sure they hate it enough to turn down a little more money being thrown their way, combined with the negative publicity. And there’s simply too much money on the line for Goodell and Co. to not make sure that it happens this way.

by LTTelamon on Aug 26, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions

All I know is what they've said.

The late Gene Upshaw, the union’s executive director, said before his unexpected death last August that if the cap went away, there would not be another. Smith has agreed with his predecessor’s stand.

“If we move to an uncapped scenario, we will not go back,” Smith said during a conference call with reporters in March, days after being elected as executive director.

18to88.com

by deshawn zombie on Aug 26, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

That's fair.

And if Upshaw were still around, I’d even buy that he was planning to stick to his guns on that. But on the other hand… what do you expect them to say, really? They have to take that sort of extreme position or they have little leverage and little room to bargain. In order to get anything at all, they have to be seeking something outlandish at the start.

I don’t mean to contradict you directly – everything you’ve said makes sense. At the same time, though, you’ve got to admit that the sensible thing for all sides to do is make some sort of deal, cap included… and with the amount of money in play, it seems hard to imagine any other resolution.

by LTTelamon on Aug 26, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

+1

saying “we wont go back to the cap if we go to uncapped seasons” is a leverage move. its the same reason why the Union im a part of goes to a “strike vote” before we begin negotiations.

that way you go into the talks with a paper that says “X amount of people voted unanimous that we will strike without a contract”

by MARVININDY on Aug 26, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Part of negotiation...

Is brandishing the “Big Stick” and seeing how much more it will get you.

"Flying blind on a rocket cycle?" -Vultan, from the movie "Flash Gordon", for no particular reason...

by peytonsurdaddy on Aug 26, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions

But

they aren’t going to keep paying him forever if he hardly ever plays.

"I'm looking for Ray Finkle....and a clean pair of shorts."

by AceOfSpades on Aug 26, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Well sure...

but the point is that he’ll play this year and next year.

What’s the point of arguing that the Colts should cut him or keep him in 2011? That’s so far away that there’s no way of telling what they should do.

It’s not a very interesting debate because nothing can happen on it until far far in the future, and even then there’s no way of knowing what kind of cap if any will exist by then.

Unless Sanders’ is permanently incapacitated to the point he has to retire, he’ll be on the Colts next year.

18to88.com

by deshawn zombie on Aug 26, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions

He is the BEST

defensive player in the game……….when he plays. If he can’t play atleast 12, and realistically he won’t, then we should part ways. Bullit looked awesome last year.

by indyboys on Aug 26, 2009 9:26 AM EDT reply actions

But why?

Why should we part ways? We’d only save just over a million bucks.

Isn’t it worth a million bucks or so to have Sanders for even 4 or 5 games, especially if those are in the playoffs?

18to88.com

by deshawn zombie on Aug 26, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions

if you are right

about the cap numbers. im totally down with keeping Bobby around for a million bucks or so

by MARVININDY on Aug 26, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions

sigh

people can’t seem to understand that it would cost more to cut him than to keep him. in that sense he is “worth” keeping even if he never plays a snap.

by jaredtaskin on Aug 26, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions

sigh

what are the numbers for cutting him?

by MARVININDY on Aug 26, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions

sigh

I think he may have been talking to himself. lol

"Flying blind on a rocket cycle?" -Vultan, from the movie "Flash Gordon", for no particular reason...

by peytonsurdaddy on Aug 26, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

=)~

maybe

by MARVININDY on Aug 26, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

The problem with the question is...

We don’t know what set of rules we’ll be operating under. to recap my post on this:

under pre 2009 rules: it saves roughly $1.4 million
under 2009 rules: it COSTS the team $1.3 million
with no cap at all: it saves the team $2.27 million real dollars, but there is no cap, so that’s not relevant to anyone but Jim Irsay who has to pay it.

Under any of the three scenarios, Bob Sanders is not expensive to keep.

If you want to say it was a mistake to resign him…fine.

Arguing he should be cut, however, makes little sense.

18to88.com

by deshawn zombie on Aug 26, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions

from a personal standpoint

i never mentioned cutting him for the 2009 season. But if we go through this season and he doesnt have an impact in either a majority of regular season games, or a playoff run………then i will be tired of seeing his name on the injured list.

DZ you are right about the numbers. its a pretty small cap hit to keep him either way, so you might as well keep him. at least until the numbers merit a different answer

by MARVININDY on Aug 27, 2009 5:22 AM EDT up reply actions

I believe

those numbers are for the 2010 season. We save little to nothing by cutting him next offseason.

"It's the greatest job in the world until Peyton comes off the field and you think his thumb might be broken and there's three minutes left in the AFC Championship Game and you're down by three to New England and you haven't taken a snap all year. Yeah, it's a great job until that point." - Jim Sorgi

by gizzardfanny on Aug 27, 2009 5:37 AM EDT up reply actions

Correct

Those are 2010 numbers. The 2009 refers to the rules involved in calculating his cap hit. We don’t know what rules will be in effect, so I listed them under various scenarios.

He’s slated for a big salary bump in 2011, but that’s too far away to be worth talking about now.

18to88.com

by deshawn zombie on Aug 27, 2009 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions

I'd actually...

like to see the Colts rotate Bullitt and Sanders and Bethea on the field. Give each of them different looks and mix it up on the field. This keeps Sanders on a play limit for a while, while also offering chances to get all 3 guys on the field as well. I think it’s the smartest thing to do, when you can get 3 of your best DB’s in the game actively…

by DevilsReject on Aug 26, 2009 9:48 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs

TRADE

I recently retired, have been a loyal Colts fan since 1958, they are one of my hobbies now as I have time to travel to a few games each year or watch on satellite. I enjoy this site and hope to contribute during coarse of the season.
Altho, Sanders has always been one of my favorite players, I believe his days with Colts are numbered. The stockpiling of defensive lineman plus a def coordinator known for ability to stopping the run, will ease the necessity of having an “eraser” in the secondary.
Sanders value to Colts now will be more related to defending passes, then stopping runs. Coyers defense will add more pressure to QBs, no doubt create more 3rd and outs,,however I can guarantee more deep routes will be utilized. Sanders being only 5ft 9 (at most) depends a lot on his incredible vertical jump, with his knee problems that has to be affected. I just cannot see him a major force anymore, actually of Coyers defense plays as planned he shouldnt be one.
Is there any Colts fan out there that wouldnt trade Sanders right now for a pro bowl quality offensive tackle?

by oldnjcoltsfan on Aug 26, 2009 11:19 AM EDT reply actions

Retirement

Congrats on your recent retirement. Hopefully, you can now kick back and enjoy the Colts even more!

SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.

by Brad Wells on Aug 26, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions

No team

will trade for an injured Sanders and his cap hit.

by gizzardfanny on Aug 27, 2009 5:38 AM EDT up reply actions

Isn't it amazing

Manning can miss one snap in his career due to injury but one of our tough guys has to take 1/2 to 2/3 of the season off.

by All4Indiana on Aug 26, 2009 11:45 AM EDT reply actions

not fair

manning isn’t diving into opposing running backs every other play.

by jaredtaskin on Aug 26, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions

not sure i'm correct

but didn’t Polamalu have quite a few injuries, but to prevent the injuries the Steelers made changes to the defensive scheme to keep him out the box. I know we all love to see Bob come up and hit a running back 5 yards back, but would you agree that keeping him out of the box could prevent some of these injuries.

THIS_IS_HIM

by J-ROC on Aug 26, 2009 12:02 PM EDT reply actions

I'm not sure...

…that a player like Sanders could play at the same level under those limitations. Moreover, if we don’t use him in the box, aren’t we basically taking away the very thing he excels most at?

by LTTelamon on Aug 26, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions

I wouldn't say so.

I’d like to see him hit TEs, slot receivers, and other RBs who grab the ball in the flats just as much as watching Sanders come down into the box and lay the wood on the RB.

by the_iowa_hawkeye on Aug 26, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions

I think you are correct

I also think that by beefing up the LBs and DTs that is exactly what Polian et al have done. Sanders shouldn have to act like the fourth LB and should, therefore, stay healthy. Also, he seems to play a near full season every other year. So we are due for a full season this year.

by the_iowa_hawkeye on Aug 26, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions

I hope so

on both accounts.

"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007

by peytonsthebest on Aug 26, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions

I love Bob but...

Bob has been one of my favorite players to watch, but durability is just too much of a concern. I think it would be beneficial to trade him for an OT like someone pointed out, or as high a draft pick as we can get. Eric Berry would be a very nice pickup :P. I see him going in the top 10 though if he continues to play at the level he is.

by bluecru on Aug 26, 2009 12:54 PM EDT reply actions