Brissett signs 2 year $30 million extension

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

How are we going to draft or sign a QB of any significance when we already have lots of guaranteed money tied up in Brissett and Hoyer? How many QBs can we afford to carry on the active roster? Or do we just cut them? And all of this ignores Kelly, who many were ready to designate the heir apparent to Luck only a few days ago.

Just trying to understand how everyone sees the overall strategy here. To me, the Brissett and Hoyer signings suggest (at least until we see the actual contract terms) that we won't be looking to draft a QB next year - or at least not one that will be carried on the active roster.

I think they believe in Brissett and want to give him a chance to prove he is worth it. They did that at the cost of franchising him next year without the ill will and uncertainty it would cause. The other option was to get into a bidding war for him. If you think they over paid now you would have hated that scenario. At least they only are on the hook for him for one additional year if he fails. This lets them make a more informed decision down the road.

Hoyer was signed to be a steady vet and sounding board. No matter what happens the Colts future at QB is likely young and inexperienced - Brissett, Kelly, a rookie. One of the best things teams can do for a young QB is provide them a steady, good influence as a mentor. That’s what they paid Hoyer for. That and to fill in any gaps with at least competent (not Curtis Painter) level QB play.

The Colts were in a bad situation. The franchise QB retired unexpectedly 2 weeks before the start of the season. Ballard had no good options. He took the best one he had.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I think they believe in Brissett and want to give him a chance to prove he is worth it. They did that at the cost of franchising him next year without the ill will and uncertainty it would cause. The other option was to get into a bidding war for him. If you think they over paid now you would have hated that scenario. At least they only are on the hook for him for one additional year if he fails. This lets them make a more informed decision down the road.

Hoyer was signed to be a steady vet and sounding board. No matter what happens the Colts future at QB is likely young and inexperienced - Brissett, Kelly, a rookie. One of the best things teams can do for a young QB is provide them a steady, good influence as a mentor. That’s what they paid Hoyer for. That and to fill in any gaps with at least competent (not Curtis Painter) level QB play.

The Colts were in a bad situation. The franchise QB retired unexpectedly 2 weeks before the start of the season. Ballard had no good options. He took the best one he had.

Yes, no doubt Colts were put in a tough position by the Luck retirement, and I can see how “any port in a storm” might be attractive so you try to lock down your newly promoted backup for an extra year. The strategy didn’t trouble me as much as what we paid, and we absolutely did have another option – to let him prove himself this year and to pay him the market rate after next season. Whether it was better or not is certainly debatable, but I prefer that scenario because (and for once I’ll get to use this rationale) we have plenty of cap space to work with, and I haven’t seen or read a whole lot which suggested that Brissett was all that promising a prospect (sure, the Colts’ brass has been pumping up the guy for a year or two, but I assumed a big chunk of that was to churn the trade waters). If the guy turned out to be the second coming of Peyton Manning, then we could easily pay him.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

Yes, no doubt Colts were put in a tough position by the Luck retirement, and I can see how “any port in a storm” might be attractive so you try to lock down your newly promoted backup for an extra year. The strategy didn’t trouble me as much as what we paid, and we absolutely did have another option – to let him prove himself this year and to pay him the market rate after next season. Whether it was better or not is certainly debatable, but I prefer that scenario because (and for once I’ll get to use this rationale) we have plenty of cap space to work with, and I haven’t seen or read a whole lot which suggested that Brissett was all that promising a prospect (sure, the Colts’ brass has been pumping up the guy for a year or two, but I assumed a big chunk of that was to churn the trade waters). If the guy turned out to be the second coming of Peyton Manning, then we could easily pay him.

Let’s look at it based on the likely scenarios:

1) Brissett is great. Top 10 QB. Then the team has a bargain for 2020 and time to lock him up without resorting to the franchise tag immediately. Or they can make him prove he’s the real deal and franchise him the next season if necessary. Win for the team.

2) Brissett is a mid to low level starter. Game manager. The team has him locked up for one more year at about the appropriate price. They can cut him, trade him, or keep him for the next year while deciding how to move forward at the position. The team has some flexibility and some stability. Slight win for the team.

3) Brissett sucks. The team loses in that it spent money it didn’t need to, but the long term cap hit is minimal. Slight loss for the team.

The worst the team ends up with is some dead cap money for one year. The other scenarios are a win for them. Now play those same scenarios out without the extension. 1 and 2 get worse for the team IMO. The team is only better off if Brissett is really bad. And the worst case outcome for the team is much worse without an extension. Locking up Brissett to a market value deal after one decent season is the worst case scenario to me. Brissett would be paid on a projection of what he COULD become. It happens all the time with younger QBs. Doing that would have real long term consequences to the team. Way beyond the consequences of the extension he just signed.

I’m very surprised that you are ok with paying him market value after one season. That’s a risky proposition to me - unless he just sucks.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Let’s look at it based on the likely scenarios:

1) Brissett is great. Top 10 QB. Then the team has a bargain for 2020 and time to lock him up without resorting to the franchise tag immediately. Or they can make him prove he’s the real deal and franchise him the next season if necessary. Win for the team.

2) Brissett is a mid to low level starter. Game manager. The team has him locked up for one more year at about the appropriate price. They can cut him, trade him, or keep him for the next year while deciding how to move forward at the position. The team has some flexibility and some stability. Slight win for the team.

3) Brissett sucks. The team loses in that it spent money it didn’t need to, but the long term cap hit is minimal. Slight loss for the team.

The worst the team ends up with is some dead cap money for one year. The other scenarios are a win for them. Now play those same scenarios out without the extension. 1 and 2 get worse for the team IMO. The team is only better off if Brissett is really bad. And the worst case outcome for the team is much worse without an extension. Locking up Brissett to a market value deal after one decent season is the worst case scenario to me. Brissett would be paid on a projection of what he COULD become. It happens all the time with younger QBs. Doing that would have real long term consequences to the team. Way beyond the consequences of the extension he just signed.

I’m very surprised that you are ok with paying him market value after one season. That’s a risky proposition to me - unless he just sucks.

Here’s my problem with that analysis – it could apply to any fourth year QB. Why not argue just as passionately that we provide the same contract to Paxton Lynch then? Or how about Brett Hundley or Nathan Peterman? (I just looked up a bunch of backup QBs who all about the same age and scheduled to be free agents next year). Maybe we should lock one of them down with a big contract before they hit the market too.

All I’m trying to highlight by such a ridiculous idea is that the key difference is in the likelihood of each of the three outcomes you’ve identified, and back to my original point that Brissett hasn’t shown very much so far, so I don’t understand why we’re paying him like he has.

As far as paying him market value after one season, I largely agree with you on outside free agents. With an inside free agent who’s already been here for two years (and started one of those seasons), I lean more towards agreeing with Spaceman that one year should be enough to know what we’ve got with him.