Brissett signs 2 year $30 million extension

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by DrSpaceman

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]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

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]

Originally Posted by DrSpaceman

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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]

Originally Posted by rm1369

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]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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]

Originally Posted by Chaka

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]

Originally Posted by DrSpaceman

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.