ESPN Got It Right About Colts' Worst Offseason Move

The Indianapolis Colts have by no means had a flashy offseason, but it's certainly been a productive one -- at least at the start.

Longtime general manager Chris Ballard and Co. entered free agency with two priorities at the top of their list: retaining quarterback Daniel Jones and wide receiver Alec Pierce.

They did just that, but it took some manipulation to get the job done.

Since both Pierce and Jones were entering the open market, the Colts were essentially forced to use their tag option to ensure that at least one of them would return for the 2026-27 season.

As we know now, the Colts used the forgotten transition tag on quarterback Daniel Jones and struck a 2-year, $88 million deal with him after the fact, as well as kicked off free agency by signing Alec Pierce to a 4-year, $114 million deal ($60 million guaranteed).

These two were more or less a package deal, and such paydays meant that the Colts had to part ways with longtime wide receiver Michael Pittman Jr., who was entering the final year of his contract.

The door has been opened for Alec Pierce to become the Colts' next WR1, while keeping quarterback stability in the equation by retaining Daniel Jones, but could Indianapolis have done better business?

ESPN's Seth Walder recently graded each of the 32 NFL teams' offseasons and included both his favorite and least favorite moves, with the latter suggesting that the Colts could have theoretically retained both Pierce and Jones in a much more frugal fashion, and I'm inclined to agree.

Transition-Tagging Jones Over Franchise-Tagging Pierce Deemed Worst Move of Offseason

Indianapolis Colts quarterback Daniel Jones (17) stands on the field Wednesday, May 27, 2026, during practice at the Indiana Farm Bureau Football Center in Indianapolis. | USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect

It was a tough decision because the Colts needed to retain quarterback Daniel Jones as their current regime entered a make-or-break season, but with Jones coming off an Achilles tear -- an injury that is often regarded as the toughest to return to form from -- it never made sense that there'd be competitors for his services on the open market.

"This would have been a scarier path, but I struggle to see which team would have been nearly as excited as the Colts to give Jones real money coming off an Achilles injury. And because Jones was recovering from the injury, the Colts almost certainly wanted to make sure they would retain his rights for 2027, considering there were no guarantees about his 2026 availability at the time," Walder wrote.

"Ultimately, the Colts got a two-year deal done with Jones. I consider it a mutually beneficial agreement that essentially becomes either a one-year, $50 million deal or two-year, $88 million deal -- with the team in position to choose. That gives the Colts upside if Jones is healthy and productive like he was last season and also limits the downside if he's not. I wonder if they would have been able to get a cheaper two-year deal had they not tagged Jones first, however. And tagging Jones forced them to pay up for Pierce."

As Walder mentions, the Colts got a solid deal done with Jones that was middle-of-the-market money, as well as gave them an out following the 2026-27 season if it all blows up in their faces, but the transition tag aspect of it all seems to have been a waste of time.

Hindsight's 20/20, but as Walder suggests, it never felt like the Colts would have any competitors for Jones's services on the open market. Surely other teams were intrigued as his resurgence before the injury, but couple his injury history with the fact he was coming off an Achilles tear meant there'd be virtually no market for him outside of Indianapolis.

"Instead of a one-year, $27.3 million franchise tag deal for the receiver, Indianapolis gave him a contract that pays him $60 million over the next two years, fully guaranteed. That looks worse now because of Pierce's ankle surgery that came after the signing. Still, even without knowing that at the time, the Colts likely would have been better off making Pierce -- coming off a breakout 2025 campaign -- prove it again before guaranteeing him multiple years."

Instead of keeping Jones at bay, the Colts could have franchise-tagged Alec Pierce for a one-year, prove-it deal instead of giving him the massive extension that they did.

Pierce has no doubt evolved into a legitimate wide receiver in the NFL, as opposed to just being a deep-ball specialist that folks had often reduced him to. He is fresh off his first 1,000-yard season and showed off some new-and-improved route-running chops along the way, but there's not enough on his resume just yet to be confident that he's destined for stardom as his contract suggests.

Bottom Line

CB Colt — Feb 24, 2026; Indianapolis, IN, USA; Indianapolis Colts general manager Chris Ballard speaks at the NFL Scouting Combine at the Indiana Convention Center. Mandatory Credit: Kirby Lee-Imagn Images | IMAGN IMAGES via Reuters Connect

Ultimately, this is a fine 'worst move' to have for an entire offseason. The Colts haven't had a flashy offseason, and have parted ways with numerous productive players while bringing in more prove-it options than they have established players, but they've done enough to suggest they'll at least field the same level of roster as they had a season ago.

Yes, it would've been ideal to have Pierce prove it once more while netting the same quarterback contract in a season that will determine whether or not the Colts blow it up the following year, but at least the franchise has a legitimate, ascending pass-catching option for the future, even if said contract turns out to be a slight overpay.

Pierce's upward trajectory suggests that contract (14th-highest among NFL wide receivers) will only age like fine wine, but there's still a chance that it comes back to bite the Colts -- and a future regime's at that.

Sign Up For the Colts Daily Digest - OnSI’s Indianapolis Colts Newsletter

Add us as a preferred source on Google