Brissett signs 2 year $30 million extension

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I am, as a counterpoint to Vevejones' comments about the benefits of paying the guy before he's proven much. If you're going to make a comment like that, I think you've got to look at what you lose as well to see if it balances out. I'm sure you'll say that you might not want to sign a guy long term if he only performs when he's about to get paid, which is true, but the opposite can also be true - if you fill a guy's pockets with money before he's had to prove anything, isn't there the chance that he'll lose some motivation?

Out of all the stuff I worry about with him, not being motivated because he got a short term contract isn’t one of them. I don’t think what you are suggesting will happen, but the bigger issue is that what you are saying the team possibly lost out on (an unusually motivated, therefore good Jacoby) is exactly what the hell I don’t want. You think this contract hurts the team? Shit, let Jacoby play great, sign a big contract, then loose motivation and coast. That would effect the team magnitudes more than this contract and for many years. If you believe what you wrote then it’s a reason the extension was a good move, not a bad one! The reality is the extension puts more pressure on Jacoby to be good and show improvement. He is facing a huge payday and the team just said - we believe you, but prove it.

This contract was about the long term - the exact thing you’ve been telling me Ballard was building for. I told you before that a major reason I didn’t completely like Ballard’s frugalness was because of the presence of Luck. He’s gone now. So now it makes a lot more sense to me to take a longer term approach because I don’t believe Jacoby is yet capable of winning a SB. Ballard took the steps necessary to make sure he makes the right long term decision on Jacoby. He’s being smart and cautious with it. For the life of me, I can’t understand how you of all people are now saying “yeah, but what about this year”.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Out of all the stuff I worry about with him, not being motivated because he got a short term contract isn’t one of them. I don’t think what you are suggesting will happen, but the bigger issue is that what you are saying the team possibly lost out on (an unusually motivated, therefore good Jacoby) is exactly what the hell I don’t want. You think this contract hurts the team? Shit, let Jacoby play great, sign a big contract, then loose motivation and coast. That would effect the team magnitudes more than this contract and for many years. If you believe what you wrote then it’s a reason the extension was a good move, not a bad one! The reality is the extension puts more pressure on Jacoby to be good and show improvement. He is facing a huge payday and the team just said - we believe you, but prove it.

This contract was about the long term - the exact thing you’ve been telling me Ballard was building for. I told you before that a major reason I didn’t completely like Ballard’s frugalness was because of the presence of Luck. He’s gone now. So now it makes a lot more sense to me to take a longer term approach because I don’t believe Jacoby is yet capable of winning a SB. Ballard took the steps necessary to make sure he makes the right long term decision on Jacoby. He’s being smart and cautious with it. For the life of me, I can’t understand how you of all people are now saying “yeah, but what about this year”.

You make many good points, and I’ll say at the outset that appreciate the direct response to my comments and questions rather than a response like “I’m done talking about this”. And I’ll admit my response to vervjones was somewhat rash, as I did it quickly but was trying to point out that you’ve got to weigh the costs and benefits of the two approaches. Long term, sustained excellence is the goal, absolutely, but that doesn’t mean every contract has to be long term. In my view, when you are dealing with an unproven player, you have two choices.

Choice one is you let the guy play for this year under his original contract, see if he does well, and extend him if you feel it’s a good idea. Benefits of this approach include the fact that you get much more intel on the guy, you have a lower financial commitment , the guy has every motivation in the world to work hard and play his best, and you aren’t committed if he doesn’t work out. Negatives are that if he plays well, it will be expensive to resign him, and you may have to use the franchise tag if he negotiates too hard. He may also feel the team isn’t behind him because they haven’t extended him (though I really don’t think this is reasonable because no unproven player should feel entitled to an extension).

Choice two is you sign him to an extension before he proves himself. Benefits of this approach are all the things that Oldcolt said a few posts above. You’ve locked him in at a below-market price (questionable here, but ok), reward a player you like, create some goodwill and a feeling of stability. Negatives are that if the guy doesn’t work out or underperforms, you burn cap space and due to the financial commitment may feel compelled to keep playing the guy longer than you would otherwise, and you run the risk that the guy may lose motivation after receiving a big payday. (Feel free to added to the positives and negatives of each, as I probably missed a few.)

What’s the best long term strategy for success? It depends on the player and the situation – there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. In this case, particularly with a position as important as QB, I prefer option one. As everyone is quick to point out, we have lots of cap space, so we don’t need to roll the dice and take on the risk that he won’t be the right guy. We can afford to let him play for a year to determine whether he’s what we’re looking for. If we have to pay more at the end, it’s not a terrible thing. I think one of the misconceptions people have of me here is that I’m all about saving money, but that’s really not it – I just want to manage our money better than everyone else so it effectively becomes a competitive advantage. Making a large financial commitment to an unproven player at a position as important as QB doesn’t make a lot of sense to me – particularly given that he hasn’t inspired a great deal of excitement in his prior trial runs.

Now, I 'm not saying Ballard was reckless here. He seems to be straddling the line between the approaches with the Brissett contract. He didn’t sign him to a long extension, so he’s not locked in to Brissett for too long, and he nevertheless rewarded a player he likes, provided some stability and goodwill. All good things. And I admitted elsewhere that I could understand and agree with this rationale, but I just thought he paid too much given the circumstances.

[smitty46953]

Heck, they let Luck keep almost $25 million not to play. They did what they felt was right with Brissett. No need keep crying it's done deal.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by smitty46953

Heck, they let Luck keep almost $25 million not to play. They did what they felt was right with Brissett. No need keep crying it's done deal.

Nobody is crying about it. I just find it interesting to examine front office decisions within the confines of the NFL’s salary cap, that’s all. I have a personal view of how those decisions should be made, which seems to be in conflict with many people’s view here, so it naturally leads the some extended discussions on the subject. People seem to get bent out of shape about this for some reason that I don’t understand.

[rm1369]

Not surprisingly you and I tend to see this from completely different perspectives. You see the move as a risk and I see it as one done to mitigate risk. My biggest fear is that Brissett has a year that is up and down. One that clearly shows promise, but also shows obvious areas that need improvement. I also believe that is the most likely outcome. I doubt he plays well enough to “earn” the huge extension this year as you say you’d prefer. For most positions I may agree with you on waiting, but not for QB. I think you are completely underestimating what some teams would throw at him if he has even a decent season. And the position that would put Ballard and the team in.

I also don’t agree with your concern that they will stick with Jacoby too long based on this one year extension. Admittedly that’s largely because I don’t believe he will play consistently bad enough that a viable better option will be available. I also don’t see Ballard letting it stand in his way if a better option were available. He’s moved on from several players that could have helped this team because they didn’t fit in his mind in some way. Why would Brissett be any different? I think you are severely over rating the affects of this contract. It has nearly zero long term ramifications should they decide to move on.

Lastly, I think the contract sends exactly the right message to players in the locker room and around the league. I know you see it as being the opposite. Let me ask you this - why are players almost always upset about being franchise tagged? The pay is great, right? It’s because there is little security in the one year contract. The players want stability and guarantees that stretch over several years. Jacoby didn’t get that. He got an extra year to prove what he can do for this team. Let’s not forget he is now the starting QB on a potential playoff team. And he’s still young. He stood to “earn” a $100m+ contract next offseason. This contract wasn’t charity. It was business. But one that recognized what both sides stood to gain and what both sides stood to lose. That to me sets the right tone in the locker room.

[Chaka]

Yes, we definitely see this differently on many of the things you’ve identified. But I’m sure you’d agree that QB is a position that we need to get right. The salary numbers for the top QBs are staggering, but they are well worth it, so I don’t mind paying a guy after I have a bit more certainty that he’s up to the task. But giving Brissett another $28 million for one more year now, before he’s proven much of anything, is absolutely a risky move. I don’t see how you can deny that.

So, to attempt an (probably poor) analogy, we’ve just put a 16-year old who barely has his boater’s license and had questionable scores on his licensing tests at the wheel of our very expensive, fully decked-out yacht. Maybe he’ll grow into the job, be great and all will be well. I certainly hope so. But if he starts steering the boat into the dock, crashing into other boats or running it aground (sorry I’m not a boater so I don’t know what else bad yachtsmen can do), I don’t want there to be any hesitation to pull him out of the captain’s chair. I while I agree with you that Ballard has been pretty decisive with prior players, I’m not sure those situations were analogous. Correct me if I’m wrong, but guys like Hankins didn’t have large guarantees left in their contracts.

At this point, I’m not expecting Brissett to be anything more than average, if that. Prior to Luck’s retirement, people here were pretty critical of his skills, arguing that he isn’t very accurate and is slow to get the ball out. These shortcomings will severely limit his upside unless he can improve. If he does, we’ll all be happy. I just have memories of sitting in front of the TV in 2017 and watching the Colts games towards the end of the season, and thinking for the first time that "I'm really not enjoying this." I realize this is a different team, but I'm plagued by those memories nonetheless.

As far as the message it sends, I think my approach reinforces what I thought was one of Ballard’s guiding principles – if our guys perform, they will be taken care of. The difference between this and a franchise tender scenario is obviously that a player who is going to be franchised has usually excelled first, so has a reasonable expectation of receiving a big contract. Not many franchise tags are placed on backup players. And I do realize and agree that we’re in a highly unusual situation here, with Luck’s retirement.

[YDFL Commish]

DAMN! I'll bet there wasn't nearly this much discussion negotiating the fuck'n deal?

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

DAMN! I'll bet there wasn't nearly this much discussion negotiating the fuck'n deal?

its chaka.

[Oldcolt]

I understand that you think it is risky. What exactly is being risked? Worst case is he totally sucks and we cut him. How does this contract make this team less competitive than if the same thing happened and we lose 'only' $2million?

-season hasn't started and I'm sick of talking about our last qb. will take it (the discussion)

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by Oldcolt

I understand that you think it is risky. What exactly is being risked? Worst case is he totally sucks and we cut him. How does this contract make this team less competitive than if the same thing happened and we lose 'only' $2million?

-season hasn't started and I'm sick of talking about our last qb. will take it (the discussion)

Well, this whole discussion (and my initial comments) centered upon the contract amount. I've said that I understood and accepted the strategy of locking him down for one more year, but I just didn't want to sink too much money into him because he hasn't proven anything yet. I also worry that a large commitment will make it harder to remove him quickly if he's not up to the task. That's all.