Colts reportedly sign Matt Hasselbeck (update)

[Gavin]

You're a good sport, Gavin. But you must realize that you open yourself up to this kind of stuff, don't you?

Agreed, Occasionally I do, I do make an occasional head scratching post, But Im on point my fair share to

[GoColts8818]

From Stampede Blue

 

"Let's just say that he (Hasselbeck) is due to make $4 million this year anyway. With Luck making only $1,394,909 and Chandler Harnish making only $480,000, the Colts would still be paying only $5,874,909 to all three of their quarterbacks combined."

Great point!  Especially if you factor in that if they still had Manning they would be paying what three times that a lone for one player?  Not to say Manning isn't worth that but it's good to remind people that even with Hasselbeck's contract the Colts are still paying far less than what most teams do for a star QB. 

[Jules]

With Manning people used to say we never had a good backup QB. Hey if we did we still might have gone 16-0 without Peyton in 2009 with a capable veteran holding onto a lead.

 

Then Manning gets hurt in 2011 and people said "Polian never had a good backup plan behind Manning."

 

And a lot of people argued "A good backup QB costs money" so we never spent the money.

 

Now the new regime is spending money on a good backup QB. A QB who has SB experience and can lend some veteran insight for Andrew and also be a good team guy all around. And probably play if we need him too.

 

Now people think we spent too much money and don't need him?

 

 

I give up. I don't think a lot of people will ever be happy. It's like we often have to find something to gripe about.

[GoColts8818]

With Manning people used to say we never had a good backup QB. Hey if we did we still might have gone 16-0 without Peyton in 2009 with a capable veteran holding onto a lead.

 

Then Manning gets hurt in 2011 and people said "Polian never had a good backup plan behind Manning."

 

And a lot of people argued "A good backup QB costs money" so we never spent the money.

 

Now the new regime is spending money on a good backup QB. A QB who has SB experience and can lend some veteran insight for Andrew and also be a good team guy all around. And probably play if we need him too.

 

Now people think we spent too much money and don't need him?

 

 

I give up. I don't think a lot of people will ever be happy. It's like we often have to find something to gripe about.

Yep they want a good back up but they want to pay them what we paid Sorgi or Painter.  If you do that guess what you get Sorgi or Painter. 

[Superman]

Great point!  Especially if you factor in that if they still had Manning they would be paying what three times that a lone for one player?  Not to say Manning isn't worth that but it's good to remind people that even with Hasselbeck's contract the Colts are still paying far less than what most teams do for a star QB. 

 

Also lost in the shuffle is the possibility -- however remote -- that Harnish beats Hasselbeck out for the QB2 job. I haven't seen the details on Hasselbeck's deal, so I don't know what's guaranteed or what the signing bonus us, but it's possible that we don't carry Hasselbeck for the season anyways.

 

So, if you're anticipating the precipitous decline that Weatherman ColtsBlueFL says is going to hit Hasselbeck because he turns 38 this season, then maybe he gets released after camp anyways.

[ColtsBlueFL]

1) How was Jeff Garcia similar to Matt Hasselbeck? What, they both balded early??? They were completely different kinds of players...

For real?  They both WCO type QB whos numbers mirror each other, but Garcia usually better- and 4 probowls vs. 3!

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HassMa00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GarcJe00.htm

 

2) Ideally, Hasselbeck never plays a meaningful down for us, making his presumed decline irrelevant.

 

Which makes spending that money on MH rather than adding 15-mill on it and getting Vasquez, or any other similar type of deal that was out there.

 

3) If he does get pressed into service, isn't is disingenuous for you to use his numbers from the last five years? He wasn't a backup for three of those, dealt with some injuries and played with a pretty sorry team for his last three years in Seattle. (Despite that team being pretty bad, they made the playoffs in 2010 with Hasselbeck as the starter, and he threw 7 touchdowns and one interception in two games, winning one.) As a backup and part-time starter the last two years, his numbers were better across the board than they were his last three years in Seattle, and the team went 11-10 with him as the starter. Isn't that split relevant?

Orton and Campbell were part time starters and backups too!  fully relevant comparison.They all had better times earlier in their careers, but what about the last 5-6?  Now you are defensive and deflecting. And at their age, historical data says they are not in nearly the skills descent Hasselbeck is likely in.  

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/05/age-of-decline-qb/

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/05/age-of-decline-qb/

4) Kyle Orton isn't a free agent. And he signed for $3.5m/year as a backup.

 

 

5) Jason Campbell doesn't have the intangibles Hasselbeck has, and isn't as ideal a fit for our team. And his deal as a backup was $3.5m for one year. Both he and Orton support this approximately $4m/year market for a veteran backup quarterback. And neither is as good as Hasselbeck.

 

I don't think Hasselbeck now is any better than either. And I would prefer not to have any of them but another Guard, or pass rush OLB / DE etc.

 

I have put forth evidence to support my case.  I have valid reasons to think/feel as I do.  But it is what it is, and I can't wait to see how much guaranteed money and cap hit MH is this year, and even next.

[Balzer40]

Agreed, Occasionally I do, I do make an occasional head scratching post, But Im on point my fair share to

 

 

 

I'm not trying to hate on you Gavin, but I just wish you weren't so overly critical of everything the Colts have done. There are definite positives to what they have done, but you seem to find the negatives in everything they have done.

[dw49]

It's hard to place a value on a backup quarterback, given the fact that, ideally, he never plays a down in a meaningful game. But over a couple seasons now, going rate on a veteran backup is right around what we're paying for Hasselbeck. If someone wants to bemoan that state of affairs, that's one thing. But suggesting Grigson is just throwing money around is entirely another.

 

Also, comparing his value to a troubled corner (Talib's value, if based purely on his play, is way above $5m/year), any pass rusher in this year's free agency (admittedly weird, but when Avril signs for $6.5m/year, you know something is different with the market), or a safety (one of the lowest valued starter positions in the league), is kind of missing the mark. All things being equal, I'd rather have Talib or Bennett, sure, especially for almost the same money. But those players are not quarterbacks.

 

 

 

First of all it's hard to say what the right market is for Hassleback. Maybe it's 4 mill per , maybe it's not. You would think it's certainly the top as he signed pretty quickly , but who knows. Let me say this to what you have above. I don't think every GM in the league would consider this one a "no brainer" considering our current roster. What we do know is the Grigson likes it and Irsay doesn't hate it. We also know you that you and many others like it , while I and others don't like it. Probably nothinh in this world is going to change your mind or my mind as there really is nothing to prove anybody wrong here. 

[Gavin]

I'm not trying to hate on you Gavin, but I just wish you weren't so overly critical of everything the Colts have done. There are definite positives to what they have done, but you seem to find the negatives in everything they have done.

I think a large part of it is just my fandom salivating at the slightest chance I'd ever have to be a GM (Which is basically no chance obviously)

[GoColts8818]

For real?  They both WCO type QB whos numbers mirror each other, but Garcia usually better- and 4 probowls vs. 3!

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HassMa00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GarcJe00.htm

 

 

Which makes spending that money on MH rather than adding 15-mill on it and getting Vasquez, or any other similar type of deal that was out there.

 

Orton and Campbell were part time starters and backups too!  fully relevant comparison.They all had better times earlier in their careers, but what about the last 5-6?  Now you are defensive and deflecting. And at their age, historical data says they are not in nearly the skills descent Hasselbeck is likely in.  

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/05/age-of-decline-qb/

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/05/age-of-decline-qb/

 

I don't think Hasselbeck now is any better than either. And I would prefer not to have any of them but another Guard, or pass rush OLB / DE etc.

 

I have put forth evidence to support my case.  I have valid reasons to think/feel as I do.  But it is what it is, and I can't wait to see how much guaranteed money and cap hit MH is this year, and even next.

and that's the key part of this for you.  You clearly don't like Hasselbeck and that's fine.  You don't have to like him and I am being honest there.  I've seen the Colts sign players before I didn't happen to like (I hated the idea of giving Bob Sanders a second contract for example) but I could always look for the logic as to why they did it. 

 

I think most people would disagree with the idea that Campbell or Orton are better than Hasselbeck.  How many playoff games has either won?  I know Orton got the Bears to the playoffs his rookie year but that's about it.  Hasselbeck has gotten teams to the playoffs several times and has been to a Super Bowl.  Frankly that knowledge probably means more to the Colts than his skills mean because I think they really hope they never see his skill in any kind of meaningful situation.  Also, Hasselbeck is known for having zero issue training younger QBs and helping them along.  I am not sure if that's the case with Orton and Campbell.  I also don't know if they would have any interest in coming to Indianapolis they would probably be more interested in going some place where they will have a shot at playing.  Look at Hasselbeck is almost another QB coach that's part of what makes him so attractive to a team like the Colts that has a young QB with frankly young coaches and players for the most part around him.  Add into that he can still play and could probably come in and win a game two for you if you needed him too and that's why the Colts went out and got him. 

[Balzer40]

I think a large part of it is just my fandom salivating at the slightest chance I'd ever have to be a GM (Which is basically no chance obviously)

 

 

 

I get it. I've dreamed of being a GM too, but be happy with what we got man. I think we've made vast improvements and I'm looking forward to what were going to look like on the field next season.

[ColtsBlueFL]

You state your opinion as fact Gavin and that is what is rubbing people the wrong way. When I post my opinion, I say it's my opinion. You haven't said a good word about anybody we've signed, you've stated that we've overpaid for every one of them. When we've signed a player you, either, say its a bad signing, dumb signing, way over paid, so on and so on. Basically, if they done something you don't agree with(which has been everything so far) you say they're wrong. You're the one that also said that Grigson was essentially fooled into signing Hasselbeck, and like it or not, That is ignorant.

 

Wow!   :mod:   Who just wrote this to me?

 

"Ok, there are ways to make your point, but this isn't it. There isn't a NFL GM/Exec in the league that would say that Orton and Campbell are better than Hasselbeck."

 

That is you speaking for all GM's as fact, when you do not know this for absolute certainty, and it is your opinion.  And if you do know this is true for certainty, I ask you back it with some evidence.  Should be easy, right? Just saying...

 

I just posted QB's that are younger, and have better numbers over smiliar time frame/period and situations.

[The Fish]

Do we get Elizabeth also?

[Balzer40]

Wow!   :mod:   Who just wrote this to me?

 

"Ok, there are ways to make your point, but this isn't it. There isn't a NFL GM/Exec in the league that would say that Orton and Campbell are better than Hasselbeck."

 

That is you speaking for all GM's as fact, when you do not know this for absolute certainty, and it is your opinion.  And if you do know this is true for certainty, I ask you back it with some evidence.  Should be easy, right? Just saying...

 

I just posted QB's that are younger, and have better numbers over smiliar time frame/period and situations.

 

 

That is a fact. Hasselbeck has been considered a very good QB in this game for a long time, Campbell and Orton will never be in Hasselbecks league. Yes he's older now but still has better skill than either one of the guys you listed.

[Qwiz]

Do we get Elizabeth also?

Well somebody has to collect the trash

[ColtsBlueFL]

With Manning people used to say we never had a good backup QB. Hey if we did we still might have gone 16-0 without Peyton in 2009 with a capable veteran holding onto a lead.

 

Then Manning gets hurt in 2011 and people said "Polian never had a good backup plan behind Manning."

 

And a lot of people argued "A good backup QB costs money" so we never spent the money.

 

Now the new regime is spending money on a good backup QB. A QB who has SB experience and can lend some veteran insight for Andrew and also be a good team guy all around. And probably play if we need him too.

 

Now people think we spent too much money and don't need him?

 

 

I give up. I don't think a lot of people will ever be happy. It's like we often have to find something to gripe about.

I was happy with Sorgi.  and Peyton was young, like Luck is now.  As Peyton got hit (Washington Redskins 2006) and got older, We had ?? backups.  When Painter blew our NY Jet game and perfect season and we kept him next season, now I was stirred up.  And Colts knew it was bad because they pulled K. Collins out of retirement to start over that backup we should not have still had.  If we get strong O line, i'm fine with Chandler as a growing backup.  Luck is young, can take a hit better now than later.  And we should be better at protection with upgrades and change in O scheme.  At least that is what was said here when Arians left.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Yep they want a good back up but they want to pay them what we paid Sorgi or Painter.  If you do that guess what you get Sorgi or Painter. 

 

Sorgi was decent.  Fragile (unfortunately) but quite decent.

[The Fish]

Well somebody has to collect the trash

 

 

Poor Elizabeth. Always getting a bad rap. 

 

I'm done pretending like I've ever seen The View now.

[ColtsBlueFL]

That is a fact. Hasselbeck has been considered a very good QB in this game for a long time, Campbell and Orton will never be in Hasselbecks league. Yes he's older now but still has better skill than either one of the guys you listed.

 

OK, I posted numbers that say you could be wrong.  There might be some GM's that younger QB's with higher numbers. Now where's your proof that your assertion is correct?  They are all employed, so they all have value.  And Supermasn says every team/GM sees differently and values differently.  I don't thionk you can pull that one off.  But good try.

[Balzer40]

OK, I posted numbers that say you could be wrong.  There might be some GM's that younger QB's with higher numbers. Now where's your proof that your assertion is correct?  They are all employed, so they all have value.  And Supermasn says every team/GM sees differently and values differently.  I don't thionk you can pull that one off.  But good try.

 

 

 You can't honestly believe that any GM in the league is going to say that 2 career backups are better QB's than a 3 time pro bowl QB. If it's going to make you happy here ya go, IMO any GM would take Hasselbeck over Orton and Campbell as their backup QB, even at this point in their career's. I say it's a fact, you can believe otherwise if you choose to. It's pretty obvious to me.

[Superman]

First of all it's hard to say what the right market is for Hassleback. Maybe it's 4 mill per , maybe it's not. You would think it's certainly the top as he signed pretty quickly , but who knows. Let me say this to what you have above. I don't think every GM in the league would consider this one a "no brainer" considering our current roster. What we do know is the Grigson likes it and Irsay doesn't hate it. We also know you that you and many others like it , while I and others don't like it. Probably nothinh in this world is going to change your mind or my mind as there really is nothing to prove anybody wrong here. 

 

No, I'm not in love with the money. But I believe the market is at least close. And I don't believe that this move has the potential to hurt the team moving forward.

 

This is not about "In Grigson We Trust." I just think there's some hyper-criticism going on, and much of it is devoid of perspective.

[Coffeedrinker]

I am going to go one record and say I don't think this was a good move.  And I fully know that I could very well be proven wrong.

 

When I look at a QB the three most important stats, IMO, are yards per attempt, yards per completion and 3rd or 4th down conversions for FD or TD.

 

For yards per attempt you want a Qb to be above 6.8.  Good Qbs are in the low 7s and great QBs are usually around 8.

For yards per completion the QB should be above 10.5

For 3rd/4th down conversion above 38% is good.

 

Last year Hasselbacks YPA was 6.2 (very poor)

His YPC was a 9.9 (very poor)

and his 3rd/4th down conversion was 47.1% (very good, Manning led the league with 49.07%).

 

Like with Manning all those years, hopefully we won't find out if Hasselback is a good back up or not.  But also as we learned with Manning, a good back-up QB could be important.

[BleedingBlue]

If you dont see how Hasselback is the best choice - for us - as a back up in the NFL, then you know nothing about football.

He doesn't even have to take a snap to make us a super bowl contender not just now, but in the distant future after he is retired.

[jskinnz]

 

Also lost in the shuffle is the possibility -- however remote -- that Harnish beats Hasselbeck out for the QB2 job. I haven't seen the details on Hasselbeck's deal, so I don't know what's guaranteed or what the signing bonus us, but it's possible that we don't carry Hasselbeck for the season anyways.

 

So, if you're anticipating the precipitous decline that Weatherman ColtsBlueFL says is going to hit Hasselbeck because he turns 38 this season, then maybe he gets released after camp anyways.

 

I would counter this argument, and I know you said it was remote, with the idea that his true value will never be felt on the field. It will be in the lockerroom and in the film room. That is what I think many, who just simply see dollar signs, have missed with this signing.

[Superman]

For real?  They both WCO type QB whos numbers mirror each other, but Garcia usually better- and 4 probowls vs. 3!

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HassMa00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GarcJe00.htm

 

Similarities with numbers and Pro Bowls has nothing to do with the kind of player each is/was.

 

Jeff Garcia was known for freelancing, for breaking early and running, he relied more on his athleticism, and he was never very good at reading a defense and going through his progressions. He got a late start, hit a nice peak for three or four years, and then started getting shuffled around the league by his early to mid 30s. He was actually shipped out of San Francisco by one of the higher profile WCO coaches in the league.

 

Hasselbeck has always been known for being a pocket guy, someone who does a good job of making adjustments, who can grasp a playbook and read a defense. He was a backup for a couple years, but once he got with Holmgren, he made steady progress until he was a solid starter, and stayed at that level for several seasons.

 

And, by the way, Jeff Garcia at 38 was not a bad backup quarterback. As a matter of fact, he was probably the best guy the Bucs had, and it always struck me as strange that Gruden wouldn't play him more than he did. I'm not bashing Garcia. I just don't think he and Hasselbeck were similar players, mostly because Garcia liked to wing it, and Hasselbeck has always been a more steady, by the book kind of guy with limited athleticism.

 

Which makes spending that money on MH rather than adding 15-mill on it and getting Vasquez, or any other similar type of deal that was out there.

 

Surely us Colts fans can appreciate the value of having a decent backup quarterback.

 

Beyond that, this isn't a Vasquez or Hasselbeck kind of deal, and for you to try to frame it that way is unfair. The team didn't want Vasquez for his price tag, and that ship sailed a week ago, before Hasselbeck was on the market. Totally unrelated.

 

And more than that, if we wanted to sign any player for the kind of money Vasquez got, we still have the cap room and the fluidity to do so, even if Hasselbeck's deal hits for $4m this season. There is no either/or related to this deal.

 

Orton and Campbell were part time starters and backups too!  fully relevant comparison.They all had better times earlier in their careers, but what about the last 5-6?  Now you are defensive and deflecting. And at their age, historical data says they are not in nearly the skills descent Hasselbeck is likely in.  

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/05/age-of-decline-qb/

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/05/age-of-decline-qb/

 

Same money for Orton and Campbell, except one's not available, and the other doesn't have the intangibles.

 

I don't know what's defensive or deflecting about me pointing out that Hasselbeck's numbers as a backup over the last two years are noticeably different from his numbers as a full time starter the previous three years. I think it's highly relevant, especially considering that he's the backup for the Colts, not the starter.

 

I don't think Hasselbeck now is any better than either. And I would prefer not to have any of them but another Guard, or pass rush OLB / DE etc.

 

That's a difference of opinion, but it's not really important. What it comes down to is that we value the backup quarterback differently at this stage. That's okay. But you seem to have a problem specifically with Hasselbeck. Like I said, Orton isn't available (he's a very good backup), and Campbell I don't have rated as high (JMO). Regardless of the money, I think Hasselbeck is a very good backup.

 

 

I have put forth evidence to support my case.  I have valid reasons to think/feel as I do.  But it is what it is, and I can't wait to see how much guaranteed money and cap hit MH is this year, and even next.

 

I'm eager to see those details as well.

 

And just to clarify, I'm not unconditionally in love with this idea. I just think that Hasselbeck is a very good backup, and I think the market supports his price tag. If the question is about his value to our team, that's a different story. But some have decided, without looking very carefully, that $4m/year is too much for a backup quarterback, and that's not what the market says. Others have decided that we don't need a veteran backup quarterback, and I think that's arguable as well. But my viewpoint isn't one of blind deference to Grigson in this or any regard. I just see where they're coming from.

[Superman]

  

I would counter this argument, and I know you said it was remote, with the idea that his true value will never be felt on the field. It will be in the lockerroom and in the film room. That is what I think many, who just simply see dollar signs, have missed with this signing.

 

I agree.

[ColtsBlueFL]

and that's the key part of this for you.  You clearly don't like Hasselbeck and that's fine. 

 

Whjere do you draw this conclusion?  I do not know the man.  I do know he played decent ball in the mid 200's in Seattle.  I have been looking at this from a production numbers, investment, and potential return on investment outlook. no emotion, Blue Kool Aid. or blind faith involved.  Nothing personal.

You don't have to like him and I am being honest there.  I've seen the Colts sign players before I didn't happen to like (I hated the idea of giving Bob Sanders a second contract for example) but I could always look for the logic as to why they did it. 

 

I think most people would disagree with the idea that Campbell or Orton are better than Hasselbeck. 

In their prime times, I'd agree.  At this point in time, I do not, and the numbers back that up.  I think given identical playing situations, Hasselbeck at this age isn't any better than either, or Matt Moore for that matter. So I do disagree and I have quantitative analysis to support my view, not just 'eye test' opinion.

 

How many playoff games has either won?  I know Orton got the Bears to the playoffs his rookie year but that's about it.  Hasselbeck has gotten teams to the playoffs several times and has been to a Super Bowl.  Frankly that knowledge probably means more to the Colts than his skills mean because I think they really hope they never see his skill in any kind of meaningful situation.  Also, Hasselbeck is known for having zero issue training younger QBs and helping them along.  I am not sure if that's the case with Orton and Campbell.  I also don't know if they would have any interest in coming to Indianapolis they would probably be more interested in going some place where they will have a shot at playing.  Look at Hasselbeck is almost another QB coach that's part of what makes him so attractive to a team like the Colts that has a young QB with frankly young coaches and players for the most part around him.  Add into that he can still play and could probably come in and win a game two for you if you needed him too and that's why the Colts went out and got him. 

 

4 Million/yr is a lot of money for a position already filled by a coach, and a player nobody wants to see the field.  Does everybody here have a desire for Luck to get knocked out?  Last years O line and O scheme was the perfect storm for that, and he survived.  As Luck ages and his skills increase while his mobility decreases and ability to shake off the hits increases, the backup becomes more valuable.  IMO, not today, and not Hasselbeck.  OLB / DE  , S , Guard would be better investment.  More depth. We will have injuries outside the QB position.  shore up those and protect the QB.  That's all I'm saying.

[ColtsBlueFL]

If you dont see how Hasselback is the best choice - for us - as a back up in the NFL, then you know nothing about football.

He doesn't even have to take a snap to make us a super bowl contender not just now, but in the distant future after he is retired.

 

Yes, I found the blue lenses.  Yes, yes, even after he passes on.  Unchained Dynasties...

[colts_100nascar17fan]

2 yrs 8 mil of which 5 mil is in 1st year,that was a bit steep for a 38yr old backup imo.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Similarities with numbers and Pro Bowls has nothing to do with the kind of player each is/was.

 

Jeff Garcia was known for freelancing, for breaking early and running, he relied more on his athleticism, and he was never very good at reading a defense and going through his progressions. He got a late start, hit a nice peak for three or four years, and then started getting shuffled around the league by his early to mid 30s. He was actually shipped out of San Francisco by one of the higher profile WCO coaches in the league.

 

Hasselbeck has always been known for being a pocket guy, someone who does a good job of making adjustments, who can grasp a playbook and read a defense. He was a backup for a couple years, but once he got with Holmgren, he made steady progress until he was a solid starter, and stayed at that level for several seasons.

 

And they had similar production in similar systems from different styles.

 

And, by the way, Jeff Garcia at 38 was not a bad backup quarterback. As a matter of fact, he was probably the best guy the Bucs had, and it always struck me as strange that Gruden wouldn't play him more than he did. I'm not bashing Garcia. I just don't think he and Hasselbeck were similar players, mostly because Garcia liked to wing it, and Hasselbeck has always been a more steady, by the book kind of guy with limited athleticism.

They were similar in production.  Gruden is a QB guy and wouldn't play a 4 time pro bowler.  Funny thing, if all goes well, Hasselbecks numbers will match Garcia's at the same age of 38... goose eggs.  But I am beginning to think some want Luck to go down to prove how valuable a move this was.  I just wish we'd invested elsewhere.

Surely us Colts fans can appreciate the value of having a decent backup quarterback.

When his skills are high and he's aging and losing mobility.  Luck is young, strong, and raw.  Harnisch is fine IMO.  Ask me in 5 years.

Beyond that, this isn't a Vasquez or Hasselbeck kind of deal, and for you to try to frame it that way is unfair. The team didn't want Vasquez for his price tag, and that ship sailed a week ago, before Hasselbeck was on the market. Totally unrelated.

 

No no no, you can't do that. I have every right to say they missed the boat by not investing in this area of need and reaping potentially vast returns and investing it where there is less/little need and potentially no return on investment.  Just because they didn't do that and saved up for this doesn't mean I think they went wrong on both accounts. I get to hold that view and air it out. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.   ;)

And more than that, if we wanted to sign any player for the kind of money Vasquez got, we still have the cap room and the fluidity to do so, even if Hasselbeck's deal hits for $4m this season. There is no either/or related to this deal.

 

It has to affect some deal, one that could have been or should have been, because it eats up a roster spot (unless we P.S. Harnisch, where he may be taken by another team this time), payroll, and cap space. Period.

 

Same money for Orton and Campbell, except one's not available, and the other doesn't have the intangibles.

Says you.  They are both younger and more mobile.  They both tasted excellence and hard times.  Campbell was once 6-2 and being touted as elite before Redskins went on a losing streak, This blurb is from msn.foxsports.com-

 

"Jason Campbell, a five-year starter with the Redskins, had the Raiders on top of the AFC West with a 4-2 record last year before a broken clavicle ended his season. He’s led a Redskins team to the playoffs, has been “the guy” countless times before and has won his fair share of big games. This was an under-the-radar signing, made the same day the Bears acquired Brandon Marshall, but a wise one."

 

So, why weren't the Colts looking at b/u QB much earlier in FA, was nobody available? They were fine with Harnisch until Hasselbeck was cut? Why make spur of the moment offer to a aging vet that was just recently cut?  This makes me wonder.

I don't know what's defensive or deflecting about me pointing out that Hasselbeck's numbers as a backup over the last two years are noticeably different from his numbers as a full time starter the previous three years. I think it's highly relevant, especially considering that he's the backup for the Colts, not the starter.

 

Because the only time he was ever a backup was last year in 2012.  Always a starter before then. and he was 2W - 3L with  7 TD's and  5 INT and a 6.2 y/a. not too stellar.

 

His last decent year as anything since 2007 was 2011 in TN.  9-7 W-L. Yet TD's to INT's was still 18 TD's to 14 INT's.  So look at this again and tell me once more all about this stellar QB-

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HassMa00.htm

 

That's a difference of opinion, but it's not really important. What it comes down to is that we value the backup quarterback differently at this stage. That's okay. But you seem to have a problem specifically with Hasselbeck. Like I said, Orton isn't available (he's a very good backup), and Campbell I don't have rated as high (JMO). Regardless of the money, I think Hasselbeck is a very good backup.

 

I like others too- TJ Yates. Matt Moore, Tavaris Jackson, etc...  We never made any noise about or move to get someone like them, younger and fairly capable.  Just jumped on the first high priced vet to open up.  Just seems impulsive.  and what will be ouir return on this investment?  How can it be measured for success?

I'm eager to see those details as well.

 

And just to clarify, I'm not unconditionally in love with this idea. I just think that Hasselbeck is a very good backup, and I think the market supports his price tag. If the question is about his value to our team, that's a different story. But some have decided, without looking very carefully, that $4m/year is too much for a backup quarterback, and that's not what the market says. Others have decided that we don't need a veteran backup quarterback, and I think that's arguable as well. But my viewpoint isn't one of blind deference to Grigson in this or any regard. I just see where they're coming from.

From every angle I come from, that is the basis of my displeasure.  Low values to team, potentially poor return on investment.  And if he gets front loaded guaranteed contract of huge dollars (and cap hit), it lowers the ability of us to get return on further investments at other positions this year.  That's all.  I'd save the cash for injuries during the year or further ad positional depth and get them coached up in preparation for stepping in, not frantically looking for someone that fits under the cap and then fast coach them in to play.

[husker61]

2 yrs 8 mil of which 5 mil is in 1st year,that was a bit steep for a 38yr old backup imo.

 

so it is even worse than originally posted. i will say again it isn't something i would have done.

 

the colts have a big, strong, young, qb with no chronic injury history. there is absolutely no need for a high payed back up. you bring in high payed qb's when your starter is injury prone/coming off an injury or you aren't sold on your starter. that 5 million could be better used to improve the team. if you put an old unmoble qb in luck's place last year, he wouldn't have made it through the year. he could be ok on a team with a top o-line, but that's not the case here. for people saying he will teach luck how to be a better qb, one of lucks biggest assets is his how he prepares. that isn't needed.

[ColtsBlueFL]

so it is even worse than originally posted. i will say again it isn't something i would have done.

 

the colts have a big, strong, young, qb with no chronic injury history. there is absolutely no need for a high payed back up. you bring in high payed qb's when your starter is injury prone/coming off an injury or you aren't sold on your starter. that 5 million could be better used to improve the team. if you put an old unmoble qb in luck's place last year, he wouldn't have made it through the year. he could be ok on a team with a top o-line, but that's not the case here. for people saying he will teach luck how to be a better qb, one of lucks biggest assets is his how he prepares. that isn't needed.

 

"You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"

 

 

[Superman]

And they had similar production in similar systems from different styles.

 

They were similar in production.  Gruden is a QB guy and wouldn't play a 4 time pro bowler.  Funny thing, if all goes well, Hasselbecks numbers will match Garcia's at the same age of 38... goose eggs.  But I am beginning to think some want Luck to go down to prove how valuable a move this was.  I just wish we'd invested elsewhere.

When his skills are high and he's aging and losing mobility.  Luck is young, strong, and raw.  Harnisch is fine IMO.  Ask me in 5 years.

 

No no no, you can't do that. I have every right to say they missed the boat by not investing in this area of need and reaping potentially vast returns and investing it where there is less/little need and potentially no return on investment.  Just because they didn't do that and saved up for this doesn't mean I think they went wrong on both accounts. I get to hold that view and air it out. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.   ;)

 

It has to affect some deal, one that could have been or should have been, because it eats up a roster spot (unless we P.S. Harnisch, where he may be taken by another team this time), payroll, and cap space. Period.

 

Says you.  They are both younger and more mobile.  They both tasted excellence and hard times.  Campbell was once 6-2 and being touted as elite before Redskins went on a losing streak, This blurb is from msn.foxsports.com-

 

"Jason Campbell, a five-year starter with the Redskins, had the Raiders on top of the AFC West with a 4-2 record last year before a broken clavicle ended his season. He’s led a Redskins team to the playoffs, has been “the guy” countless times before and has won his fair share of big games. This was an under-the-radar signing, made the same day the Bears acquired Brandon Marshall, but a wise one."

 

So, why weren't the Colts looking at b/u QB much earlier in FA, was nobody available? They were fine with Harnisch until Hasselbeck was cut? Why make spur of the moment offer to a aging vet that was just recently cut?  This makes me wonder.

 

Because the only time he was ever a backup was last year in 2012.  Always a starter before then. and he was 2W - 3L with  7 TD's and  5 INT and a 6.2 y/a. not too stellar.

 

His last decent year as anything since 2007 was 2011 in TN.  9-7 W-L. Yet TD's to INT's was still 18 TD's to 14 INT's.  So look at this again and tell me once more all about this stellar QB-

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HassMa00.htm

 

 

I like others too- TJ Yates. Matt Moore, Tavaris Jackson, etc...  We never made any noise about or move to get someone like them, younger and fairly capable.  Just jumped on the first high priced vet to open up.  Just seems impulsive.  and what will be ouir return on this investment?  How can it be measured for success?

From every angle I come from, that is the basis of my displeasure.  Low values to team, potentially poor return on investment.  And if he gets front loaded guaranteed contract of huge dollars (and cap hit), it lowers the ability of us to get return on further investments at other positions this year.  That's all.  I'd save the cash for injuries during the year or further ad positional depth and get them coached up in preparation for stepping in, not frantically looking for someone that fits under the cap and then fast coach them in to play.

 

To the bold, I hope you realize that I don't belong in that category. Like I've said all along, if all goes according to plan, we never see a backup quarterback take a meaningful snap.

 

As for how we both view Hasselbeck, Orton, Campbell, and others, that's just a difference of opinion. I've said several times already that I think Hasselbeck is better than all of them, but it doesn't really matter. The market for a veteran backup isn't drastically different from what we're paying Hasselbeck.

 

As an aside, I don't know why we're talking about Orton, Yates, Moore or Jackson. None of them are available, and as such, weren't options for our team.

 

To the second bolded portion, that's a good question. Not one I'm very concerned with, but it's legitimate. Have to wonder whether the team had backup quarterback on its list of needs prior to yesterday afternoon. But even if they didn't, I think we'd all agree that Hasselbeck is an upgrade over Harnish at this point.

 

Bottom line is that you and I disagree on the value of a veteran backup for our team at this juncture. I'm good with that. I'm not through the moon over this signing. I've been defensive of it because I think it's been framed wrongly, and I think some of the criticism of it is off base. But I do think we're paying more for a backup quarterback than we have to, even though I like the backup quarterback. However, I don't think this signing is costing us in other areas. It didn't cost us Vasquez, and I doubt that Grigson decided to put Hasselbeck ahead of any player still available on a whim. If he was working on other things, he would have earmarked cap space for those potential additions, and likely wouldn't sacrifice them even for Hasselbeck.

 

I guess I trust that he has a vision for how he wants to build his team, and I'm content to see how it all comes together. A few others either don't believe that he has a vision, that he's just willy-nilly slapping pieces together without regard for need or the cap, or that his vision is all wrong and he's messing everything up. I'm not giving him carte blanche. I just think we'll be better able to judge his abilities and his philosophy once we start seeing some results, rather than freaking out over every little move because we think he overpaid.

[BOTT]

Poor Elizabeth. Always getting a bad rap. 

 

I'm done pretending like I've ever seen The View now.

Sadly, Mrs Hasselbeck is considered the smart one on that dreadful show.

[husker61]

"You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"

 

 

 

you have the wrong thread. all those posts were in threads about all the other free agents the colts signed.

 

 

 

that or you are just clueless.

[ColtsBlueFL]

To the bold, I hope you realize that I don't belong in that category. Like I've said all along, if all goes according to plan, we never see a backup quarterback take a meaningful snap.

 

As for how we both view Hasselbeck, Orton, Campbell, and others, that's just a difference of opinion. I've said several times already that I think Hasselbeck is better than all of them, but it doesn't really matter. The market for a veteran backup isn't drastically different from what we're paying Hasselbeck.

 

As an aside, I don't know why we're talking about Orton, Yates, Moore or Jackson. None of them are available, and as such, weren't options for our team.

 

To the second bolded portion, that's a good question. Not one I'm very concerned with, but it's legitimate. Have to wonder whether the team had backup quarterback on its list of needs prior to yesterday afternoon. But even if they didn't, I think we'd all agree that Hasselbeck is an upgrade over Harnish at this point.

 

Bottom line is that you and I disagree on the value of a veteran backup for our team at this juncture. I'm good with that. I'm not through the moon over this signing. I've been defensive of it because I think it's been framed wrongly, and I think some of the criticism of it is off base. But I do think we're paying more for a backup quarterback than we have to, even though I like the backup quarterback. However, I don't think this signing is costing us in other areas. It didn't cost us Vasquez, and I doubt that Grigson decided to put Hasselbeck ahead of any player still available on a whim. If he was working on other things, he would have earmarked cap space for those potential additions, and likely wouldn't sacrifice them even for Hasselbeck.

 

I guess I trust that he has a vision for how he wants to build his team, and I'm content to see how it all comes together. A few others either don't believe that he has a vision, that he's just willy-nilly slapping pieces together without regard for need or the cap, or that his vision is all wrong and he's messing everything up. I'm not giving him carte blanche. I just think we'll be better able to judge his abilities and his philosophy once we start seeing some results, rather than freaking out over every little move because we think he overpaid.

 

I do think he has a vision, but it just feels run by seat of the pants at some times.  He also seems to be hedging his bets by front loading the contracts.  That way if it all goes bad in 2 years he can blow it all up and and start from scratch with a minimal cap hit.  But at some point, the young kids he hit on in the draft(s) will command a big FA salary too.  I'm fairly ok with the other signings, just hope a good many play to/above their payday.  But we do disagree on Hasselbeck's abilites now, and his value to the team in comparison to the 8 million dollars he commands.

[ColtsBlueFL]

you have the wrong thread. all those posts were in threads about all the other free agents the colts signed.

 

 

 

that or you are just clueless.

I tried to like your post I quoted here-

 

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/16660-colts-reportedly-sign-matt-hasselbeck-update/page-7#entry446870

 

and that is what greeted me in a pop up when I tried. So I gave you a thumbs up instead.

 

Sorry for any confusion.

[Superman]

Sadly, Mrs Hasselbeck is considered the smart one on that dreadful show.

 

I've been ignoring this whole train of thought, but someone should point out that Elizabeth Hasselbeck is married to Tim, not Matt.

[808COLTS808]

As long as Hasselbeck doesnt give us a kerry collins if we should ever need him to play Im alright with this signing.   hasselbeck brings alot of veteran expirience that hell be able to share with Luck that neither of out backups could last season...  In that role alone his exprience and mentorship could be invaluable to Lucks devleopmet as a qb.  3 pro bowls a NfC championship and a superbowl, some great post season knowledge for luck to soak up and use...  plus hes framiliar with the system so 

[808COLTS808]

im seeing alot of positives and they outweigh the negatives.