There are certain conversations NFL teams don’t want to have, but are forced into anyway. The Colts’ situation with Michael Pittman Jr. is one of them. Pittman is a good player, a respected leader, and someone who has done everything asked of him since arriving in Indianapolis. This isn’t about questioning his toughness or professionalism. It’s about timing, money, and where the franchise is headed. As the Colts approach the 2026 offseason, Pittman’s contract has quietly become one of the most consequential
levers they can pull — and ignoring it may be more damaging than making an uncomfortable decision.
When Pittman signed his extension, it made sense. He was the clear No. 1 receiver, the offense lacked proven pass-catching depth, and stability mattered. But contracts don’t exist in a vacuum. By 2026, Pittman’s cap number balloons into territory that demands justification, not sentiment. Cutting or trading him would free up roughly $24 million in cap space. That’s not marginal flexibility — that’s the difference between reshaping a roster and being boxed into tough compromises elsewhere. The structure of the deal gives the Colts an exit, and exits exist for a reason.
That money matters even more when you zoom out and look at the Colts’ broader cap picture. While Indianapolis isn’t in immediate cap hell, their flexibility is far more fragile than it appears. Quarterback uncertainty still looms. Several veterans are aging into more expensive phases of their careers. Extensions for younger players are coming and they are not optional. The idea that the Colts can simply keep every high-priced piece together ignores how quickly cap space evaporates once you start accounting for future years instead of just the next one. Pittman’s contract sits right at the intersection of affordability and opportunity cost.
Alec Pierce is the pressure point that makes this conversation unavoidable. Pierce is entering the phase of his career where second contracts happen, and based on the market and his trajectory, something in the range of four years and $80 million is a realistic projection. At roughly $20 million per year, Pierce won’t be cheap — but he’s younger, ascending, and stylistically better aligned with where the offense is going. He stretches the field, dictates coverage, and creates space for others. Paying Pierce is a forward-looking investment. Paying Pittman at his current number is a backward-looking one.
Trying to justify both contracts at once is where the math breaks down. This isn’t a pass-heavy offense built around two high-volume receivers. It’s a system that values efficiency, spacing, and flexibility. Allocating top-of-market money to two receivers only works if both are consistently tilting defenses. Right now, only one of them is.
That becomes even clearer when you look at Pittman’s recent production. Over the last seven games, he’s totaled 26 catches for 212 yards and one touchdown. That’s barely over 30 yards per game, on nearly 40 targets, with fewer than six yards per target. Those aren’t empty snaps — he’s still involved — but they’re low-impact ones. Meanwhile, Josh Downs has become the most reliable chain-mover in the offense, and Pierce has emerged as the primary vertical threat. Over this stretch, Pittman hasn’t been the engine or the finisher. He’s been, at best, the third-most impactful wide receiver on the team, and fourth if you include Tyler Warren in the receiving picture.
That doesn’t mean Pittman suddenly forgot how to play football. It does mean the offense has evolved in a way that doesn’t maximize his strengths. He’s not a burner and he’s not consistently creating explosive plays after the catch; he’s no longer dominating at the catch point the way he once did. When opportunity remains but production declines, teams have to ask whether the role still justifies the cost. In this case, it’s hard to argue that it does.
This is where the trade conversation becomes just as important as the cut discussion. Cutting Pittman saves $24 million, but it turns a valuable asset into nothing. Trading him accomplishes the same cap relief while recouping draft capital, even if the return isn’t glamorous. A mid-round pick still matters for a team that may need to inject youth cheaply and efficiently. Pittman’s skill set has value around the league — particularly for contenders looking for a physical possession receiver or teams with young quarterbacks who need a reliable target. The Colts don’t need to dump him; they just need to be willing to listen and probably settle for something cheap.
Whether they do says a lot about the franchise’s direction. Keeping Pittman suggests a commitment to continuity and a belief that this core is still close. Moving on — via trade or cut — suggests flexibility, discipline, and a willingness to recalibrate. That decision becomes even more meaningful if Chris Ballard’s job security comes into question. A general manager fighting to survive may prefer stability. A new general manager, unburdened by past decisions, would almost certainly view Pittman’s contract as one of the easiest ways to reset the books and reshape the roster.
This doesn’t have to signal a full teardown. It can just as easily be the start of a retool — reallocating resources toward younger players, cleaner cap sheets, and a more coherent offensive identity. The Colts don’t have to move on from Michael Pittman Jr. But choosing not to comes with a real cost, one that shows up not just on the balance sheet, but in who they’re able to keep, who they’re able to add, and how flexible they remain when the next decision arrives.
Pittman is a good player. His contract is not disastrous. But football decisions aren’t made in isolation, and timing matters as much as talent. Freeing up $24 million could fund Alec Pierce’s future, create room at quarterback, or give a new front office the flexibility it needs to reshape the roster. The Colts aren’t obligated to pull the lever — but the longer they wait, the more expensive standing still becomes.
In the end, this isn’t about disrespecting a player who has given the franchise everything. It’s about recognizing when a contract no longer aligns with the direction of the team. And this offseason, whether the Colts cut, trade, or keep Michael Pittman Jr. may tell us more about where they’re headed than any press conference ever could.
