Brissett signs 2 year $30 million extension

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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]

Originally Posted by rcubed

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]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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]

Originally Posted by rcubed

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]

Originally Posted by rm1369

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