View Single Post
  #64  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:34 PM
rm1369 rm1369 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,104
Thanks: 299
Thanked 739 Times in 412 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post:
VeveJones007 (09-04-2019)