Brissett signs 2 year $30 million extension

[Workhorse]

$20 million guaranteed. Wow.

[Luck4Reich]

$20 million guaranteed. Wow.

Wow indeed.

Nice first post... Workhorse.. I believe that name goes way back? From another message board.

[VeveJones007]

$20 million guaranteed. Wow.

Smart move for all involved.

[Hoopsdoc]

Depending on the cap hit and potential dead cap money, it certainly is for the Colts.

I’m not sure if it is for Jacoby.

[JAFF]

Depending on the cap hit and potential dead cap money, it certainly is for the Colts.

I’m not sure if it is for Jacoby.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2852109-jacoby-brissett-colts-reportedly-close-on-new-contract-after-luck-retirement
(https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2852109-jacoby-brissett-colts-reportedly-close-on-new-contract-after-luck-retirement)

The quote below is from the article

f anything, Indianapolis comes away as the winner from this move. Brissett's average salary will rank 19th among quarterbacks, and many of the players below him are QBs still on their rookie contracts.

In the event Brissett isn't ultimately the long-term successor to Luck, going in a different direction after the 2019 or 2020 seasons shouldn't be too difficult for the Colts.

Brissett might have cost himself some money down the road by agreeing to terms now, but the door will be open for him in two years to either get a hefty raise via the franchise tag or a longer, more lucrative extension.

I'm suprised he took the lower money. But he works out, the Colts caught a huge break

[ChoppedWood]

Depending on the cap hit and potential dead cap money, it certainly is for the Colts.

I’m not sure if it is for Jacoby.

Yeah I gotta believe this is a "we're going to make sure you feel like you are taken care of this year and we'll pay you well for your services now, but understand, it's on you, carry us to the promised land and we'll tear this up in Feb and start over and this will look like peanuts, but if you don't, this is all you're getting from us" type deal...

[JAFF]

Depending on the cap hit and potential dead cap money, it certainly is for the Colts.

I’m not sure if it is for Jacoby.

If he plays well, and he doesn't sign an extention, they could be forced to put the franchise tag on him. Thats $15 million a year, all on that years cap.

[VeveJones007]

If he plays well, and he doesn't sign an extention, they could be forced to put the franchise tag on him. Thats $15 million a year, all on that years cap.

Closer to $18MM. Maybe $20MM next year.

For perspective, Mike Glennon got 3/$45MM from the Bears two years ago, then the Bears drafted Trubisky. Colts could take a similar path. This extension doesn’t prohibit any direction they decide to take.

[VeveJones007]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2852109-jacoby-brissett-colts-reportedly-close-on-new-contract-after-luck-retirement
(https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2852109-jacoby-brissett-colts-reportedly-close-on-new-contract-after-luck-retirement)

The quote below is from the article



I'm suprised he took the lower money. But he works out, the Colts caught a huge break

Holder says it’s a new two year deal ($30MM for 2019-2020). Makes a lot more sense for Brissett now.

[Workhorse]

Wow indeed.

Nice first post... Workhorse.. I believe that name goes way back? From another message board.

Ya, I’m the same workhorse from the first coltfreaks message board from years and years ago. It took a while for someone to approve me getting back in when the message board moved. 😳

[Lawrence Owen]

Considering I feel Brissett is a Prescott type player, And Dak wants $40 frieken mil now...I'd say this is a bargain.
Granted many will point out Brissett hasn't 'earned' starting $ yet..but the fact is, he is the starter, and should be getting more that what he was being paid.
Next year, Luck's contract will be basically void, (i think about 6.5 mil of signing bonus is paid, and that's it) So It's not like Indy is losing $$ in this deal in any way. They'll still have more cap space next year than this year..lol.

[Butter]

Clearly they believe in him and Reich calling him a top 20 QB was not him just BSing. With the CAP space we have I am good with this, not sure he can really be a franchise QB, but I will trust Reich and Ballard on this.

[DrSpaceman]

Surprises me they didn't just give him the year to play it out and then see if he deserves an extension

But then when you sign your back up $4 million a year and 9 guaranteed, that could easily have become an issue as the year went on

[Colt Classic]

Clearly they believe in him and Reich calling him a top 20 QB was not him just BSing. With the CAP space we have I am good with this, not sure he can really be a franchise QB, but I will trust Reich and Ballard on this.

They backed themselves into this corner where they had to pay him top 20 money to confirm the earlier statement.

[JAFF]

Irsay and Ballard are not messing around. They just spent a bunch of money to solidify the QB position.

They said this wasnt a lost season. Nice to see no half measures

[Chromeburn]

Irsay and Ballard are not messing around. They just spent a bunch of money to solidify the QB position.

They said this wasnt a lost season. Nice to see no half measures

Can’t be, too many other position groups are lined up? If we try for a rookie, by the time he comes around several of our top guys will be declining. Have to go all out.

Heh I say that and we have like 60 million in the bank.

I can see us grabbing a QB like a Jordan Love in next draft and let him develop under Brisset.

[JAFF]

From PPF

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/09/02/jacoby-brissett-basically-gets-the-franchise-tag-early/

[smitty46953]

$20 million guaranteed. Wow.

Welcome back you old Horse … :cool:

[Chaka]

A bit rich for my blood. I would have just assumed wait to see how he does before talking extension with him, given his limited track record (he threw only 4 passes all last year). However, listening to some of your comments I can see the rationale for doing it now I guess. That said, as we sit here today, I would have pegged his value on a new two-year contract at about $8-10 million per, particularly since we already had him locked in at $2-3 million this year.

But the Colts certainly know him better than I do, and I guess I could look at it as a positive that they like him enough to pay him that much (there’s also the lingering issue that we don’t know all the contract details yet, specifically what the $20 million is guaranteed against).

[Butter]

specifically what the $20 million is guaranteed against).

Pretty sure it is guaranteed against not getting paid it.

[Racehorse]

Ya, I’m the same workhorse from the first coltfreaks message board from years and years ago. It took a while for someone to approve me getting back in when the message board moved. 😳
Always nice to have another horse around.

[Chaka]

Pretty sure it is guaranteed against not getting paid it.

Perhaps, but guarantees in NFL contracts aren't always what they appear to be. Colin Kaepernick famously had $61M in guaranteed money in his 2014 contract with the 49ers, but ultimately received much less because much of the money was "guaranteed" against injury only. Not saying that's what happened here, but only that we won't know the full extent of the Colts commitment until we see all of the details.

[VeveJones007]

A bit rich for my blood. I would have just assumed wait to see how he does before talking extension with him, given his limited track record (he threw only 4 passes all last year). However, listening to some of your comments I can see the rationale for doing it now I guess. That said, as we sit here today, I would have pegged his value on a new two-year contract at about $8-10 million per, particularly since we already had him locked in at $2-3 million this year.

But the Colts certainly know him better than I do, and I guess I could look at it as a positive that they like him enough to pay him that much (there’s also the lingering issue that we don’t know all the contract details yet, specifically what the $20 million is guaranteed against).

-Bridgewater got $7.5MM from the Saints to back up Brees
-Foles got $22MM/year from the Jags to start
-Mike Glennon got $15MM/year from the Bears before they drafted Trubisky

$15MM is the going rate for a low end starter.

[Oldcolt]

To me it is a great move because of the circumstances this team finds itself in. Whatever you think about Luck retiring, it had to be at some level a gut punch to this team. By giving Jacoby this contract (which they can easily afford) they get rid of a possible distraction if Brissett does as well as they think he will (ie. the starting qb making less than a ton of guys on the team including his backup), they put a stamp on the Luck era being over, and they 'put their money where their mouth was' thus doing everything in their power to put the focus on this season and winning it all. It sends a message that this regime knows how to take care of it's players (Jacoby has shown that he is all about the team the way he handled Luck's absence and Luck coming back-I'm assuming the Colts rewarded him for that among other things), should be of help in upping the emotional state of the team and seems to me at least to be a move of a front office that doesn't panic and know what in the hell they are doing.

One last thing about Ballard. Brissett for Dorsett is beginning to have the look of a pretty good trade isn't it?

[Chaka]

-Bridgewater got $7.5MM from the Saints to back up Brees
-Foles got $22MM/year from the Jags to start
-Mike Glennon got $15MM/year from the Bears before they drafted Trubisky

$15MM is the going rate for a low end starter.

That might be the case, but we ripped up a one-year $2M-3M deal and apparently replaced it with a two-year $30M deal. That was my point.

If we just added another year at the low end starter rate you mentioned of $15M I probably wouldn't complain too much.

[rcubed]

That might be the case, but we ripped up a one-year $2M-3M deal and apparently replaced it with a two-year $30M deal. That was my point.

If we just added another year at the low end starter rate you mentioned of $15M I probably wouldn't complain too much.

Its two years. He would be playing for us this year regardless unless he completely shits the bed. So he gets a big raise this year (I think its $20M this year) which is no biggie to our cap space. If he plays well then its worth it.

We are not locked in long term. If he is playing at a high level then we get him relativley cheap next year. If not or if they see him as a stop gap, then draft someone and the new QB plays behind brisset for a year.

[VeveJones007]

That might be the case, but we ripped up a one-year $2M-3M deal and apparently replaced it with a two-year $30M deal. That was my point.

If we just added another year at the low end starter rate you mentioned of $15M I probably wouldn't complain too much.

None of that matters. What is the downside? They used up a drop of the ocean of cap space they have available to them in 2020?

[Chaka]

None of that matters. What is the downside? They used up a drop of the ocean of cap space they have available to them in 2020?

The downside is that we spend $30M on someone who flames out. I don’t know about you, but I consider $30M to be a lot of money, even in the context of today's NFL.

Look, I know there's this celebratory attitude around here and in the media that they’ve signed Brissett to this deal, but I don’t really get it. What has Brissett done so far to make you think that he’s deserving of a $30M contract? I mean, if you read what everyone was saying here during the preseason, Brissett is not a very good QB. Really - take a minute and go back and read the commentary about Brissett PRIOR to Luck’s retirement, and tell me why we should be excited to see the team commit so much to him. I'll help you get started, here are a couple gems I found with just a quick search:

Here's GBB on Brissett:

2. This isn't a new opinion for me for those who know me, but: Jacoby Brissett isn't very good. That is not basing off one preseason game. That's basing off a world in which people insist he has 2nd round trade value. He doesn't. He's slow to get the ball out and not accurate enough to be a full-time starting QB. Great guy, great arm and one of the better QB2s in the league. BUT that reinforces the gap between QB1s and QB2s, let alone between Luck and Brissett.

And here's omahacolt's recent comment:

He isn’t very good. 4000 yards and 22 tds would be good. Great really. We need to find a new qb

I have nothing against Brissett and I want him to succeed like the everyone else here, but I'm just not ready to join the backslapping party yet. I certainly can't anoint him the next Dak Prescott, as some of you have suggested, based upon what he's shown so far. Prescott had 22TD-8INTs and a 96.7 QB rating last year! Bottom line, Brissett needs to show more on the field before I can get excited about him being our QB.

The one thing he has going for him is that he seems to have the confidence of the Colts management, so blind faith in management might justify the excitement, but little else.

[Luck4Reich]

He not only has the confidence of the Colts management but the players as well. There wasnt anyone available at this point. I think Ballard did the right thing.

I dont think Brissett is that good either. Can he play good enough to rally a team that has the talent and a team that will rally around him? I hope so and I think so.

[Hoopsdoc]

The downside is that we spend $30M on someone who flames out. I don’t know about you, but I consider $30M to be a lot of money, even in the context of today's NFL.

Look, I know there's this celebratory attitude around here and in the media that they’ve signed Brissett to this deal, but I don’t really get it. What has Brissett done so far to make you think that he’s deserving of a $30M contract? I mean, if you read what everyone was saying here during the preseason, Brissett is not a very good QB. Really - take a minute and go back and read the commentary about Brissett PRIOR to Luck’s retirement, and tell me why we should be excited to see the team commit so much to him. I'll help you get started, here are a couple gems I found with just a quick search:

Here's GBB on Brissett:



And here's omahacolt's recent comment:



I have nothing against Brissett and I want him to succeed like the everyone else here, but I'm just not ready to join the backslapping party yet. I certainly can't anoint him the next Dak Prescott, as some of you have suggested, based upon what he's shown so far. Prescott had 22TD-8INTs and a 96.7 QB rating last year! Bottom line, Brissett needs to show more on the field before I can get excited about him being our QB.

The one thing he has going for him is that he seems to have the confidence of the Colts management, so blind faith in management might justify the excitement, but little else.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m certainly not anointing him. Even if the team only believes he’s a stop gap until they find someone else, they’ll need him at least one more year. So signing him now removes that worry, plus they’re using cap space that was going unused anyway.

From the teams perspective, it’s a no brainer.

[VeveJones007]

The downside is that we spend $30M on someone who flames out. I don’t know about you, but I consider $30M to be a lot of money, even in the context of today's NFL.

Look, I know there's this celebratory attitude around here and in the media that they’ve signed Brissett to this deal, but I don’t really get it. What has Brissett done so far to make you think that he’s deserving of a $30M contract? I mean, if you read what everyone was saying here during the preseason, Brissett is not a very good QB. Really - take a minute and go back and read the commentary about Brissett PRIOR to Luck’s retirement, and tell me why we should be excited to see the team commit so much to him. I'll help you get started, here are a couple gems I found with just a quick search:

Here's GBB on Brissett:



And here's omahacolt's recent comment:



I have nothing against Brissett and I want him to succeed like the everyone else here, but I'm just not ready to join the backslapping party yet. I certainly can't anoint him the next Dak Prescott, as some of you have suggested, based upon what he's shown so far. Prescott had 22TD-8INTs and a 96.7 QB rating last year! Bottom line, Brissett needs to show more on the field before I can get excited about him being our QB.

The one thing he has going for him is that he seems to have the confidence of the Colts management, so blind faith in management might justify the excitement, but little else.

There’s a difference between critiquing the deal and how excited one is about him being the starter. You’re letting the latter cloud your rationality on the former.

[Colts And Orioles]

o


Perhaps a small portion of this move was to ignite some kind of perception equals reality adage ........ pay him like a good quarterback, make him feel like he's a good quarterback, and perhaps it will contribute toward him playing like a good quarterback.

Obviously that wouldn't work with somebody like Curtis Painter or Scott Tolzien, but with somebody who has already shown that he has above-average ability/potential at the NFL level like Brissett has, it may have an impact (however nominal.)


o

[rcubed]

Look, I know there's this celebratory attitude around here and in the media that they’ve signed Brissett to this deal, but I don’t really get it.



I dont see anyone (or many) here celebrating it. But for our current situation it makes some sense to have brissett for two years. He knows the system. He will get us through this year and hopefully help the transition next year to a long term solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pez]

Maybe over simplifying, but you cant bring in Hoyer and pay him 4 million a year and they pay brissett 2 million to start ahead of him.

Such a move would undermine the Ballard culture that he is thus far maintaining in a very consistent way.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Chaka]

I dont see anyone (or many) here celebrating it. But for our current situation it makes some sense to have brissett for two years. He knows the system. He will get us through this year and hopefully help the transition next year to a long term solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Call it what you will, but there’s lots of positivity over the terms of this one year extension, and I’m simply questioning why this is. Understand that I am not questioning the idea of tacking on another year to his deal, just the cost ($30M) that it took to do this. I’m just asking what Brissett has done to merit this kind of contract. I don’t think it’s enough to say it’s a low end starter price, because it isn’t – we are theoretically giving him $27M-28M for one additional year.

[Maniac]

Call it what you will, but there’s lots of positivity over the terms of this one year extension, and I’m simply questioning why this is. Understand that I am not questioning the idea of tacking on another year to his deal, just the cost ($30M) that it took to do this. I’m just asking what Brissett has done to merit this kind of contract. I don’t think it’s enough to say it’s a low end starter price, because it isn’t – we are theoretically giving him $27M-28M for one additional year.

I think it's more of a vote of confidence from the team to him, basically saying "We believe in you to lead this team." If he's happy and doesn't have to worry about money, then he can focus fully on his job.

[rm1369]

Call it what you will, but there’s lots of positivity over the terms of this one year extension, and I’m simply questioning why this is. Understand that I am not questioning the idea of tacking on another year to his deal, just the cost ($30M) that it took to do this. I’m just asking what Brissett has done to merit this kind of contract. I don’t think it’s enough to say it’s a low end starter price, because it isn’t – we are theoretically giving him $27M-28M for one additional year.

I posted in another thread that it was likely the Colts would be forced to franchise Brissett next year. They were in a bad spot. Brissett is unproven, but also a young player with upside that they obviously like. Even a decent year would have forced the Colts to make a huge investment to keep him. QB money is simply insane. And they’d have to make that investment after 1 year basically. Instead they have given him a 2 year deal basically worth the equivalent of this years salary and the franchise tag next year. Why not just wait? Because of the escalator clause in the franchise tag. It gets significantly more expensive each time you are forced to use it. They now have him locked up for three years (next two plus one franchise year) at a cost they can manage to decide what they have and how to move forward. And they did it in a way that built goodwill with the player and maintained their long term flexibility. To me you are looking at this wrong - this deal likely saved the Colts money long term. The only way it is bad is if Brissett completely fails. Even if he is mediocre it still works out for them IMO. It was a good move by Ballard who was placed in a bad situation.

[Hoopsdoc]

Call it what you will, but there’s lots of positivity over the terms of this one year extension, and I’m simply questioning why this is. Understand that I am not questioning the idea of tacking on another year to his deal, just the cost ($30M) that it took to do this. I’m just asking what Brissett has done to merit this kind of contract. I don’t think it’s enough to say it’s a low end starter price, because it isn’t – we are theoretically giving him $27M-28M for one additional year.

I mean, I agree that Brissett hasn’t done anything to merit this type of money, but that’s not really why he’s getting it.

It’s more about not paying the backup more than the starter, and solidifying the spot for at least next year.

[VeveJones007]

I dont see anyone (or many) here celebrating it. But for our current situation it makes some sense to have brissett for two years. He knows the system. He will get us through this year and hopefully help the transition next year to a long term solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wait, you're saying that the majority of Colts fans are being rational in this situation?? /s

[DrSpaceman]

I posted in another thread that it was likely the Colts would be forced to franchise Brissett next year. They were in a bad spot. Brissett is unproven, but also a young player with upside that they obviously like. Even a decent year would have forced the Colts to make a huge investment to keep him. QB money is simply insane. And they’d have to make that investment after 1 year basically. Instead they have given him a 2 year deal basically worth the equivalent of this years salary and the franchise tag next year. Why not just wait? Because of the escalator clause in the franchise tag. It gets significantly more expensive each time you are forced to use it. They now have him locked up for three years (next two plus one franchise year) at a cost they can manage to decide what they have and how to move forward. And they did it in a way that built goodwill with the player and maintained their long term flexibility. To me you are looking at this wrong - this deal likely saved the Colts money long term. The only way it is bad is if Brissett completely fails. Even if he is mediocre it still works out for them IMO. It was a good move by Ballard who was placed in a bad situation.

It really only bought them a year.

Now a decision has to be made in two years instead of one long term.

I don't have a problem with that they did, but I don't see it saving them any money on the long term. Whether it be next year or the year after, you have to eventually decide is he deserves to be paid like a typical starter in the league, which is way more than $15 million a year, more likely $30 million a year now for a decent one.

If they franchise him in the 3rd year its hard telling how much money that will be when that comes up. That may not be a realistic option. Its an average of the top 5 player salaries at the position over the past 5 years. Its is $25 million a year right now for a QB and is most assuredly going up in the next few years, probably to at least $30 million. Plus he could choose to sit out, create another bad situation for the team at QB if their is a prolonged negotiation. The last thing this team needs is more unknowns at QB due to a salary dispute. So the idea they can just franchise tag him for a year is questionable at best

[VeveJones007]

It really only bought them a year.

Now a decision has to be made in two years instead of one long term.

I don't have a problem with that they did, but I don't see it saving them any money on the long term. Whether it be next year or the year after, you have to eventually decide is he deserves to be paid like a typical starter in the league, which is way more than $15 million a year, more likely $30 million a year now for a decent one.

If they franchise him in the 3rd year its hard telling how much money that will be when that comes up. That may not be a realistic option. Its an average of the top 5 player salaries at the position over the past 5 years. Its is $25 million a year right now for a QB and is most assuredly going up in the next few years, probably to at least $30 million. Plus he could choose to sit out, create another bad situation for the team at QB if their is a prolonged negotiation. The last thing this team needs is more unknowns at QB due to a salary dispute. So the idea they can just franchise tag him for a year is questionable at best

Counterpoint: Unless Brissett lights it up this year, they're likely to draft a QB next draft. Then Brissett is just a placeholder for 2020 and they don't have to plan for a tag in 2021.

If Brissett plays well, then he's your answer and you're looking to lock him up for 2022 and beyond.

[Chaka]

Counterpoint: Unless Brissett lights it up this year, they're likely to draft a QB next draft. Then Brissett is just a placeholder for 2020 and they don't have to plan for a tag in 2021.

If Brissett plays well, then he's your answer and you're looking to lock him up for 2022 and beyond.

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.

[rm1369]

It really only bought them a year.

Now a decision has to be made in two years instead of one long term.

I don't have a problem with that they did, but I don't see it saving them any money on the long term. Whether it be next year or the year after, you have to eventually decide is he deserves to be paid like a typical starter in the league, which is way more than $15 million a year, more likely $30 million a year now for a decent one.

If they franchise him in the 3rd year its hard telling how much money that will be when that comes up. That may not be a realistic option. Its an average of the top 5 player salaries at the position over the past 5 years. Its is $25 million a year right now for a QB and is most assuredly going up in the next few years, probably to at least $30 million. Plus he could choose to sit out, create another bad situation for the team at QB if their is a prolonged negotiation. The last thing this team needs is more unknowns at QB due to a salary dispute. So the idea they can just franchise tag him for a year is questionable at best

Certainly you’d prefer to never franchise him. I’m not advocating that they do. But let’s be clear - if Brissett is even a mid tier QB you can’t let him walk for nothing. So the franchise tag isn’t a GOOD option, but it’s a realistic one. Especially if he asked for stupid, long term money after one decent season. The Colts now have two years to try to make a decision and avoid using it. I don’t doubt they would then use it if necessary though. You don’t just let promising young QBs walk for nothing and it’s dangerous to throw huge long term money at such an unknown. The 3rd option is the franchise tag. The Colts pushed that bad option down the road one year to when they hopefully have a better understanding of what they have in Brissett. But I don’t doubt at all that the franchise tag factored into the decision and it’s why they were ok giving him such a big raise - it’s what they were likely paying next year anyway.

[Chaka]

I posted in another thread that it was likely the Colts would be forced to franchise Brissett next year. They were in a bad spot. Brissett is unproven, but also a young player with upside that they obviously like. Even a decent year would have forced the Colts to make a huge investment to keep him. QB money is simply insane. And they’d have to make that investment after 1 year basically. Instead they have given him a 2 year deal basically worth the equivalent of this years salary and the franchise tag next year. Why not just wait? Because of the escalator clause in the franchise tag. It gets significantly more expensive each time you are forced to use it. They now have him locked up for three years (next two plus one franchise year) at a cost they can manage to decide what they have and how to move forward. And they did it in a way that built goodwill with the player and maintained their long term flexibility. To me you are looking at this wrong - this deal likely saved the Colts money long term. The only way it is bad is if Brissett completely fails. Even if he is mediocre it still works out for them IMO. It was a good move by Ballard who was placed in a bad situation.

Yes, the Colts obviously like him, and that's the one thing that helps me understand this deal. Not sure I agree with your franchise tag rationale, as Spaceman pointed out, the QB franchise tag is only $25m. It will go up by next year, but probably not significantly above the $28 million we paid to Brissett under this deal. Yes, I suppose it's a "free" franchise tag in a sense, so we wouldn't start the escalations for the following year, but was the cost worth it?

I'm a big Ballard fan, no question, but deals like this aren't my thing. To me, you reward performance, which is kinda what I thought Ballard was all about. So I would have been perfectly fine with letting Brissett prove himself, and then paying him a lot if he did - even more than the $28M if necessary. Outside of the draft, I'm not as much of a fan of paying a guy top dollar before he's done anything to merit it.

[rm1369]

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.

[rm1369]

Yes, the Colts obviously like him, and that's the one thing that helps me understand this deal. Not sure I agree with your franchise tag rationale, as Spaceman pointed out, the QB franchise tag is only $25m. It will go up by next year, but probably not significantly above the $28 million we paid to Brissett under this deal. Yes, I suppose it's a "free" franchise tag in a sense, so we wouldn't start the escalations for the following year, but was the cost worth it?

I'm a big Ballard fan, no question, but deals like this aren't my thing. To me, you reward performance, which is kinda what I thought Ballard was all about. So I would have been perfectly fine with letting Brissett prove himself, and then paying him a lot if he did - even more than the $28M if necessary. Outside of the draft, I'm not as much of a fan of paying a guy top dollar before he's done anything to merit it.

The deal he signed will come really close to equaling next years tag plus what he was owed this year. That’s one reason I’m fairly certain the tag entered into the equation. They have gained another year to evaluate him without using the tag and then still have the tag available as a worse case scenario. 1 year of tag is realistic, 2 is not IMO. They maintained flexibility with this deal.

I understand paying for performance but is one year of performance enough? Remember that’s my issue with the Funchess signing. Guys have a good year and they are going to want to capitalize on it. And as you have repeatedly said - teams overpay in free agency. One year of performance is better than none, but is it enough to lock a guy up for 3-5 years with big guarantees? For me it’s not. Especially not at QB.

[DrSpaceman]

Certainly you’d prefer to never franchise him. I’m not advocating that they do. But let’s be clear - if Brissett is even a mid tier QB you can’t let him walk for nothing. So the franchise tag isn’t a GOOD option, but it’s a realistic one. Especially if he asked for stupid, long term money after one decent season. The Colts now have two years to try to make a decision and avoid using it. I don’t doubt they would then use it if necessary though. You don’t just let promising young QBs walk for nothing and it’s dangerous to throw huge long term money at such an unknown. The 3rd option is the franchise tag. The Colts pushed that bad option down the road one year to when they hopefully have a better understanding of what they have in Brissett. But I don’t doubt at all that the franchise tag factored into the decision and it’s why they were ok giving him such a big raise - it’s what they were likely paying next year anyway.

I don't dispute all that

And I also don't argue with the deal or that it was done

But in the end, it really just gives you an extra year, two instead of one, to determine if you want to give him big money or a long term contract

And I don't think one extra year is going to make a difference in that decision. I think we will now by the end of this year if he is the long term answer or not. The OL and the rest of the offense is pretty solid, as is the coaching, so his performance will pretty easy to pick out as worthy or not

[VeveJones007]

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.

You're reading waaaaayyyyy too much into the length of the contracts. There's nothing to prevent the Colts from moving on from Brissett or Hoyer next season, just as there was nothing to prevent Ballard from releasing John Simon prior to last season. There would be a cap hit, but it would hardly make a dent in the cap space.

As far as the strategy, it's pretty simple:

1) Brissett proves to be the guy and you stick with him.
2) You aren't sure about Brissett, so you draft a QB. Having that extra WAS 2nd round pick could help in trading up. You could even keep Brissett and/or Hoyer on the roster next year to help the rookie or start the season if they aren't sure the rookie is ready to jump right in and play.

[rcubed]

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?

You just cut if necessary and take the cap hit which we are in good position for currently. Also, I would assume the new QB in question here would be drafted and not a FA. So you have brisset there to have the cost controlled rookie learn under for a year or partial year. I dont see either hoyer or brissett contract as being that limiting to what they can do.

[rm1369]

And I don't think one extra year is going to make a difference in that decision. I think we will now by the end of this year if he is the long term answer or not. The OL and the rest of the offense is pretty solid, as is the coaching, so his performance will pretty easy to pick out as worthy or not

Yeah this is where we disagree. I think the extra year will be huge in making that determination. Or at least it should be. Brissett is still young. He isn’t a finished product. If he struggles the first half of the season and then has a pretty good second half how much is he worth? Did he just get hot? Or did he improve? If he improved, will it continue? Teams make mistakes all the time on QBs by being desperate and projecting short term success into a long term career. With the money QBs command you can’t afford to be wrong.

[Dam8610]

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.

That depends entirely on how the season goes. If it's 2017 redux, Brissett can be cut with almost no dead money and the Colts will have a top 5 pick, which they'll almost assuredly use on a QB and have Hoyer in place as the placeholder starter. If it's a division title, deep playoff run type of season, Brissett becomes the franchise guy at least for now. What I'm hoping doesn't happen is that Brissett has a middling season, the Colts don't have the draft capital for a QB, and so they decide to stick with Brissett, even though he's clearly not the answer.

[DrSpaceman]

Yeah this is where we disagree. I think the extra year will be huge in making that determination. Or at least it should be. Brissett is still young. He isn’t a finished product. If he struggles the first half of the season and then has a pretty good second half how much is he worth? Did he just get hot? Or did he improve? If he improved, will it continue? Teams make mistakes all the time on QBs by being desperate and projecting short term success into a long term career. With the money QBs command you can’t afford to be wrong.

You're right, we aren't going to agree here.

If he was a rookie or playing his first season I might agree. But he has already had one season as a starter, though in a different shitty system, and was with the team last year under Reich. This is his 4th year in the league, second year starting. If he can't prove he is worth the money this year, I doubt anything he would do next year would change my mind.

Plus Reich and Ballard have proven to be excellent at their jobs. I think they will know by season's end if he is the future of the franchise or not.

[rm1369]

You're right, we aren't going to agree here.

If he was a rookie or playing his first season I might agree. But he has already had one season as a starter, though in a different shitty system, and was with the team last year under Reich. This is his 4th year in the league, second year starting. If he can't prove he is worth the money this year, I doubt anything he would do next year would change my mind.

Plus Reich and Ballard have proven to be excellent at their jobs. I think they will know by season's end if he is the future of the franchise or not.

It’s not just if he is who they should move forward with, it’s also how much he is worth when moving forward.

We’ll see. I hope it’s clear cut after this season, but I expect him to be up and down a lot. And I expect his numbers to end up middle of the road.

[VeveJones007]

Yeah this is where we disagree. I think the extra year will be huge in making that determination. Or at least it should be. Brissett is still young. He isn’t a finished product. If he struggles the first half of the season and then has a pretty good second half how much is he worth? Did he just get hot? Or did he improve? If he improved, will it continue? Teams make mistakes all the time on QBs by being desperate and projecting short term success into a long term career. With the money QBs command you can’t afford to be wrong.

Yep. Tannehill, Flacco, Garoppolo, Carr, Dalton...there are a ton of QBs that teams overpaid based on very limited info. The Colts now have 32-48 games to make a sound determination on Brissett OR an extra 16 games in 2020 to ease in a rookie QB with Brissett under contract at a reasonable figure.

[VeveJones007]

You're right, we aren't going to agree here.

If he was a rookie or playing his first season I might agree. But he has already had one season as a starter, though in a different shitty system, and was with the team last year under Reich. This is his 4th year in the league, second year starting. If he can't prove he is worth the money this year, I doubt anything he would do next year would change my mind.

Plus Reich and Ballard have proven to be excellent at their jobs. I think they will know by season's end if he is the future of the franchise or not.

Then cut bait after 2019. What is that cap hit going to prevent you from doing in 2020? They aren't backed into a corner, yet you act like they are.

[VeveJones007]

That depends entirely on how the season goes. If it's 2017 redux, Brissett can be cut with almost no dead money and the Colts will have a top 5 pick, which they'll almost assuredly use on a QB and have Hoyer in place as the placeholder starter. If it's a division title, deep playoff run type of season, Brissett becomes the franchise guy at least for now. What I'm hoping doesn't happen is that Brissett has a middling season, the Colts don't have the draft capital for a QB, and so they decide to stick with Brissett, even though he's clearly not the answer.

I'm hoping against that as well, but Chaka and Spaceman are acting like Brissett has to be the starter in 2020 based on the contract he just signed. That simply isn't the case. The team will have the flexibility to go whichever route they want in 2020. I hope it isn't to settle for mediocrity at QB, but they can choose any route.

[rcubed]

What I'm hoping doesn't happen is that Brissett has a middling season, the Colts don't have the draft capital for a QB

unfortunately I would guess this is the most likely outcome.

[Chaka]

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.

[Chaka]

The deal he signed will come really close to equaling next years tag plus what he was owed this year. That’s one reason I’m fairly certain the tag entered into the equation. They have gained another year to evaluate him without using the tag and then still have the tag available as a worse case scenario. 1 year of tag is realistic, 2 is not IMO. They maintained flexibility with this deal.

I understand paying for performance but is one year of performance enough? Remember that’s my issue with the Funchess signing. Guys have a good year and they are going to want to capitalize on it. And as you have repeatedly said - teams overpay in free agency. One year of performance is better than none, but is it enough to lock a guy up for 3-5 years with big guarantees? For me it’s not. Especially not at QB.

And I agreed with you on the Funchess signing – at least the part about the length of the contract. It was a bit out of character for Ballard, and while I had no objection to the player or price, I didn’t like that our upside would be limited to one year. Part of that is also that few of us, up to that point, had spent a lot of time watching Funchess so we had to trust in Ballard's talent evaluation.

I don’t see the Brissett situation as analogous, however. First, we've seen Brissett in action, both in 2017 (admittedly in a different system with different, lesser players) and in lots of preseason action since then. I've seen very few glowing reviews of his skills or performance, however.

Second, I don’t think our out-of-pocket costs would be much different under a wait-and-see approach (franchise tender scenario) than under the contract he just signed. He’d still end up with around $30 million for the next two years. And I disagree that a second franchise tender is untenable. It’s actually the third franchise tender which is nearly impossible except in the most extreme circumstances (as a practical matter, only a QB, and only someone like Peyton Manning, for instance). I recall posting the details here last season, but I ran a quick search to refresh my memory and the second year a 20% bump in pay, so it's expensive but workable. The third year is the GREATER of (1) another 44% bump in pay or (2) the average salary of the top 5 players regardless of position. So, applying these rules to the real world, if Brissett got $30 million the first franchise year, he’d get $36 million the second year, and a whopping $52 million the third year – all fully guaranteed.

[Chaka]

You're reading waaaaayyyyy too much into the length of the contracts. There's nothing to prevent the Colts from moving on from Brissett or Hoyer next season, just as there was nothing to prevent Ballard from releasing John Simon prior to last season. There would be a cap hit, but it would hardly make a dent in the cap space.

As far as the strategy, it's pretty simple:

1) Brissett proves to be the guy and you stick with him.
2) You aren't sure about Brissett, so you draft a QB. Having that extra WAS 2nd round pick could help in trading up. You could even keep Brissett and/or Hoyer on the roster next year to help the rookie or start the season if they aren't sure the rookie is ready to jump right in and play.

I just think signing guys to big contracts with the idea that you can just cut them and absorb their cap hit if they don't perform is a good way of burning through all of your available cap space and getting little in return.

[Chaka]

That depends entirely on how the season goes. If it's 2017 redux, Brissett can be cut with almost no dead money and the Colts will have a top 5 pick, which they'll almost assuredly use on a QB and have Hoyer in place as the placeholder starter. If it's a division title, deep playoff run type of season, Brissett becomes the franchise guy at least for now. What I'm hoping doesn't happen is that Brissett has a middling season, the Colts don't have the draft capital for a QB, and so they decide to stick with Brissett, even though he's clearly not the answer.

Do you have the contract details? If not, I don't know how you can say this. I saw a tweet earlier that said Brissett's cap hit this year would be something like $8.5 million. If that's the case, and the guy has a full $20 million guaranteed on the contract, the remaining $11.5M (plus whatever non-guaranteed salary he was already paid) will come home to roost when he's cut.

[Chaka]

You're right, we aren't going to agree here.

If he was a rookie or playing his first season I might agree. But he has already had one season as a starter, though in a different shitty system, and was with the team last year under Reich. This is his 4th year in the league, second year starting. If he can't prove he is worth the money this year, I doubt anything he would do next year would change my mind.

Plus Reich and Ballard have proven to be excellent at their jobs. I think they will know by season's end if he is the future of the franchise or not.

I gotta agree with Spaceman here.

[YDFL Commish]

unfortunately I would guess this is the most likely outcome.

I agree. I have never though of Brissett as any more than a QB2. Though his preseason performance along with Ballard, Reich and Sirianni's glowing adulation have me optimistic that he can be much more than that.

[rm1369]

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.

[YDFL Commish]

I just think signing guys to big contracts with the idea that you can just cut them and absorb their cap hit if they don't perform is a good way of burning through all of your available cap space and getting little in return.

Ballard has never been and may never be in danger of burning through cap space, because of the way he structures the contracts.

[VeveJones007]

And I agreed with you on the Funchess signing – at least the part about the length of the contract. It was a bit out of character for Ballard, and while I had no objection to the player or price, I didn’t like that our upside would be limited to one year. Part of that is also that few of us, up to that point, had spent a lot of time watching Funchess so we had to trust in Ballard's talent evaluation.

I don’t see the Brissett situation as analogous, however. First, we've seen Brissett in action, both in 2017 (admittedly in a different system with different, lesser players) and in lots of preseason action since then. I've seen very few glowing reviews of his skills or performance, however.

Second, I don’t think our out-of-pocket costs would be much different under a wait-and-see approach (franchise tender scenario) than under the contract he just signed. He’d still end up with around $30 million for the next two years. And I disagree that a second franchise tender is untenable. It’s actually the third franchise tender which is nearly impossible except in the most extreme circumstances (as a practical matter, only a QB, and only someone like Peyton Manning, for instance). I recall posting the details here last season, but I ran a quick search to refresh my memory and the second year a 20% bump in pay, so it's expensive but workable. The third year is the GREATER of (1) another 44% bump in pay or (2) the average salary of the top 5 players regardless of position. So, applying these rules to the real world, if Brissett got $30 million the first franchise year, he’d get $36 million the second year, and a whopping $52 million the third year – all fully guaranteed.

This Brissett deal decreases that long-term risk. Instead of a 2nd and 3rd tag being in 2021-2022, they would now be in 2022-2023.

You also decrease the risk of Brissett having a good year, warranting a massive extension, and having that hanging over the franchise. Look at what happened with the Ravens and Flacco after their Super Bowl.

[VeveJones007]

I just think signing guys to big contracts with the idea that you can just cut them and absorb their cap hit if they don't perform is a good way of burning through all of your available cap space and getting little in return.

Yes, that would be an issue if they signed Brissett to a massive contract. You’re acting like he signed for what Jared Goff just got.

[Chaka]

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.

[Chaka]

This Brissett deal decreases that long-term risk. Instead of a 2nd and 3rd tag being in 2021-2022, they would now be in 2022-2023.

You also decrease the risk of Brissett having a good year, warranting a massive extension, and having that hanging over the franchise. Look at what happened with the Ravens and Flacco after their Super Bowl.

Yes, but don't forget that by paying him now, before he's proven anything, you also remove the benefit of having a guy in his "contract year" and trying to put his best foot forward for possible free agency.

[Chaka]

Yes, that would be an issue if they signed Brissett to a massive contract. You’re acting like he signed for what Jared Goff just got.

Well, Brissett got $28 million for one additional year. Looks like Goff got $134 for 4 additional years, or an average of $33.5 million per. Not all that different on a per year basis, actually.

[VeveJones007]

Well, Brissett got $28 million for one additional year. Looks like Goff got $134 for 4 additional years, or an average of $33.5 million per. Not all that different on a per year basis, actually.

smh

I'm done here

[rm1369]

Yes, but don't forget that by paying him now, before he's proven anything, you also remove the benefit of having a guy in his "contract year" and trying to put his best foot forward for possible free agency.

Are you serious?

[Oldcolt]

I do not get why this is an issue. This will not hamper the team at all. We still have 51 million in cap space. It hurts no one. It is chump change to Irsay so it doesn't hurt him. It is really nice for Jacoby Brissett. Good for him. He seems like a nice guy and has been loyal to this organization. I'm pretty sure it engenders good will among players both on the team and in the NFL as a whole. I just don't see the downside. I think this team is fiscally very responsible and is in as good a position as any team to be successful long term.

[nate505]

Do you have the contract details? If not, I don't know how you can say this. I saw a tweet earlier that said Brissett's cap hit this year would be something like $8.5 million. If that's the case, and the guy has a full $20 million guaranteed on the contract, the remaining $11.5M (plus whatever non-guaranteed salary he was already paid) will come home to roost when he's cut.

Not that I'm a cap expert, far from it actually, but considering the Colts seem to be under the cap every year, why is it a big deal if he's getting this money? Is this going to somehow ruin any flexibility they have in the free agent market (something they never seem to use)? Will it prevent the Colts from signing one of their own players next season?

[Chaka]

Are you serious?

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?

[Chaka]

I do not get why this is an issue. This will not hamper the team at all. We still have 51 million in cap space. It hurts no one. It is chump change to Irsay so it doesn't hurt him. It is really nice for Jacoby Brissett. Good for him. He seems like a nice guy and has been loyal to this organization. I'm pretty sure it engenders good will among players both on the team and in the NFL as a whole. I just don't see the downside. I think this team is fiscally very responsible and is in as good a position as any team to be successful long term.

Look, I have nothing against Brissett. I like the guy actually, and I certainly want him to succeed. Everything you say is pretty much true - it is unlikely to hurt us significantly (from a financial standpoint at least) if he doesn't work out, and he seems like a nice guy, and it may create some goodwill. But so would the same contract for $8-10M per year. I'm just saying I think, under the circumstances and with what we know as we sit here TODAY, it seems like an overpay. He may play well this season, or even great (I'm hoping he does), but it won't change this fact.

[Chaka]

Not that I'm a cap expert, far from it actually, but considering the Colts seem to be under the cap every year, why is it a big deal if he's getting this money? Is this going to somehow ruin any flexibility they have in the free agent market (something they never seem to use)? Will it prevent the Colts from signing one of their own players next season?


it's only a question of financial management. Yes, this one contract probably won't ruin our flexibility going forward. But I'm just trying to be vigilant against signs of overspending or waste. I am definitely 100% against the "well, we've got lots of cap space so let's not worry about it" mentality. It's kinda the like the idea that if you add up all the money some people fritter away every day on small, so-called insignificant purchases like cigarettes and Starbucks coffee, it ends up being a staggering amount over time. There is a lot of truth to that.

[smitty46953]

smh

I'm done here

Love the sarcasm !!! :cool:

[rcubed]

Well, Brissett got $28 million for one additional year. Looks like Goff got $134 for 4 additional years, or an average of $33.5 million per. Not all that different on a per year basis, actually.



People question the goff contract also. We are tied to brissett for this and most likely next season. If he was signed 4-5 years at that rate I would be much less happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAFF]

Its all monopoly money

[rm1369]

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]

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. :cool:

[Chaka]

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. :cool:

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]

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]

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.

[Colt Classic]

Holy crap, we all see both points of view clearly. Let this shit marinate for a few weeks and revisit it then.

[rm1369]

Holy crap, we all see both points of view clearly. Let this shit marinate for a few weeks and revisit it then.

Shit is boring with no games. Hyped for them to start but not much else to talk about until they do

[Colts And Orioles]

o


Perhaps a small portion of this move was to ignite some kind of perception equals reality adage ........ pay him like a good quarterback, make him feel like he's a good quarterback, and perhaps it will contribute toward him playing like a good quarterback.

Obviously that wouldn't work with somebody like Curtis Painter or Scott Tolzien, but with somebody who has already shown that he has above-average ability/potential at the NFL level like Brissett has, it may have an impact (however nominal.)


o
o


(ALMOST 7 MONTHS LATER)


What the fuck do I know about running a football team, anyway ??? (outside of always starting a team with an offensive line and liking Jimmy Johnson's philosophy of going with smaller, more athletic players on defense, not much.)

The Colts still have one year left on Brissett's contract (2020), and they have acquired veteran Philip Rivers to take the reins of starting quarterback for said season.


o

[Kray007]

After watching Jacoby Brissett for 16 games, one thing seems clear. Even before the injury, he wasn't someone who could get into a shootout with another elite QB and come out on top.

He's tough, he has a great arm, and no one can question his leadership skills.

But, as far as every other skill needed play the position is concerned, his skillset ranges from average to mediocre...or worse.

He does a poor job reading defenses, his accuracy is mediocre, he lacks touch and finesse. Despite having a great arm, he's afraid of forcing the ball downfield; and simple timing patterns seem beyond his ability to master.

[Chromeburn]

After watching Jacoby Brissett for 16 games, one thing seems clear. Even before the injury, he wasn't someone who could get into a shootout with another elite QB and come out on top.

He's tough, he has a great arm, and no one can question his leadership skills.

But, as far as every other skill needed play the position is concerned, his skillset ranges from average to mediocre...or worse.

He does a poor job reading defenses, his accuracy is mediocre, he lacks touch and finesse. Despite having a great arm, he's afraid of forcing the ball downfield; and simple timing patterns seem beyond his ability to master.

Kinda like Tim Tebow. Great in every way except putting the ball into receivers hands.

[JAFF]

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.

I'll apologize to everyone up front, but I need to ask, why do you care how much money Irsay spends? Next year, if BOTH Brissett and Rivers are gone, the cap will be different. And if I were to bet, I think that's what is going to happen.

Ballard has been stocking up on money and cheap players and now he's spending it. No body goes to the Super Bowl because they have more cap space.