Quote:
Originally Posted by albany ed
I don't see Rivers coming back unless he signs a very low deal. He won't be better next year than he was this year and this year proved he's not going to lead the team to a SB.
|
That’s where we disagree I suppose. I honestly don’t understand your comment that Rivers proved he could not lead us to a SB. The guy played pretty well overall. Certainly, you can point out many mistakes he made during the year and a few rough patches, but he was above average and good enough for our purposes. His play did not deteriorate over the course of the year, despite an ongoing toe problem, and I thought he played more than well enough for us to win on Saturday.
The idea that some are suggesting that should get rid of Rivers and Brissett, and find a rookie QB to play instead, seems pretty out there to me. There is no way that the Colts are going to start a rookie QB with this roster. This is a developmentally mature, improving team. They won't place an inexperienced QB at the helm. We will have a veteran QB leading the Colts next season, and to me everything points to Rivers. He’s already in our system, he played well and we won. The coaches seem to like him, and Rivers himself seems to really want to return too. A trade is the only thing that could derail this in my view.
As far as salary, I really don’t know what he’s done that would merit a reduction there. He played fairly poorly in 2019 yet we paid him $25M to come here anyway. He played much better this year. Yes, he’s a year older, but he showed no signs of slowing down and several other high profile QBs have shown that they can remain strong and effective into their early 40s. And the reality is that $25M is the going rate for a good starting QB, probably even more. Thus, to me, a salary increase is more likely than a salary reduction, though if the cap is going down I suppose that will work against him. I think it will be a one year deal, though, possibly with an option year (or a second year with little or no cap consequences if we cut him, which would effectively be the same thing)