| Chaka |
03-18-2020 10:34 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brylok
(Post 156747)
I'm not ripping your post or anything, Chaka. Just stating my opinion.
|
I understand your viewpoint, but I don’t know that the Brissett extension was consistent with Ballard’s general philosophy that you get the best out of your players through healthy competition and rewarding those who have performed. Up to the point of the extension, the Colts had certainly talked Brissett up a lot, but he hadn’t really proven himself on the field yet. He had a year to go before free agency, and as a third round pick he hadn’t earned the really big $$ yet, so he would have had a natural incentive to max out his performance. By giving him an extension and paying him a lot of money, you reduce that incentive. As far the need to boost his confidence, well, I hope that wasn't the case because if so it should have been a flaming red flag to the Colts.
Now, there’s no question the Luck retirement threw everything into disarray, and forced the Colts to scramble and make decisions they wouldn’t have made otherwise. Signing Brissett to a one-year extension was one of them, and if he had performed well this last season it would have been considered brilliant. Sort of a balance between capping their costs if Brissett plays well vs. limiting their downside if he doesn’t. So going back in time to the Luck retirement, I get the strategy and don’t fault the Colts or Ballard all that much – it was a difficult situation for sure, and at least they didn’t do a long term deal.
I guess my ultimate point is that even though the decision did not turn out as well as the Colts had hoped, I give credit to Ballard to recognize this fact and to be willing to move on even if it paints his decision on the Brissett extension in a bad light. If Brissett is not the guy for the job, then stubbornly forcing the issue would only destroy another season.
|