No 2 QB Dilema

[dw49]

So far it appears that the around 50% that disliked the 2 year $8,000,000 deal appear to have a case. I believe I was one that probably voiced the most displeasure at this. I then and still do have a hard time understanding why a brilliant , mature QB like Luck would need a veteran QB holding the clipboard. First of all there are coaches all over the place to help him with whatever Hasslebeck can provide him with. Secondly , I'm just a not fan of spending valuable cap room on 38 year old QB's that are fading fast. I did not believe that Hasslebeck had the skills to effectively QB this team if Luck went down. Hated it then ... hate it now.

 

Now for the little kicker. I'm not at camp but read every bit of twitter I can get. All of what I've been able to gleen from the QB situation is that Harnish has by far outplayed M.H. up to this point. Hasslebeck is pretty much an inaccurate , immobile target. If true this pretty much means that we have to waste a roster spot on our 3rd string QB. IMO.. this is not good . Roster spots are just so valuable in todays NFL. You see teams putting good players on IR when it's very possible they could come back. Same with the PUP.  I'm sure the Colts would like to cut Harnish and sign to the practice squad , but if he shines in pre season , it would be really stupid to risk losing your best back up in order to keep a guy that maybe can't play anymore .

 

Maybe I'm crazy with this but I've always been impressed with Harnish and he could very easily turn into a terrific NFL back up. He has a nice arm , smarts and is very mobile. So why not ? 

 

 

[GoColts8818]

Let's see what they do in a game and keep in mind Hasslebeck is going to be playing against other teams back ups and in some cases starters while Harnish is going to playing against people for the most part that are going to be out of football in a month. 

 

I remember Painter's rookie year when people killed Sorgi and talked about how awful he was and how Painter was out doing him and I kid you not a handful of posters saying he looked so good against other team's third stringers that he could be Manning's replacement one day and meant it. 

 

I think the Colts like Hasslebeck because they kinda view him as another coach in the lockerroom for Luck and Harnish too.  I expect us to keep all three if we can and heaven forbid if something happens to Luck then we'll have a decision to make if Matt doesn't play well.

[CR91]

hasslebeck is nothing more then a teacher and the most we can hope for harnish to be is trade bait. who knows, it could be our defense is really coming along

[HtownColt]

There's no dilemma

[Jason_]

There's no dilemma

 

Well, not with anyone other than the OP. lol

 

Apparently Grigson, Pagano & Co don't have a hard time understanding why Luck could use a veteran QB to be a mentor.

[John Dee]

2011   Kerry Collins, Curtis Painter, and Dan O...................

 

 

WOW......  why even ask?

So far it appears that the around 50% that disliked the 2 year $8,000,000 deal appear to have a case. I believe I was one that probably voiced the most displeasure at this. I then and still do have a hard time understanding why a brilliant , mature QB like Luck would need a veteran QB holding the clipboard. First of all there are coaches all over the place to help him with whatever Hasslebeck can provide him with. Secondly , I'm just a not fan of spending valuable cap room on 38 year old QB's that are fading fast. I did not believe that Hasslebeck had the skills to effectively QB this team if Luck went down. Hated it then ... hate it now.

 

Now for the little kicker. I'm not at camp but read every bit of twitter I can get. All of what I've been able to gleen from the QB situation is that Harnish has by far outplayed M.H. up to this point. Hasslebeck is pretty much an inaccurate , immobile target. If true this pretty much means that we have to waste a roster spot on our 3rd string QB. IMO.. this is not good . Roster spots are just so valuable in todays NFL. You see teams putting good players on IR when it's very possible they could come back. Same with the PUP.  I'm sure the Colts would like to cut Harnish and sign to the practice squad , but if he shines in pre season , it would be really stupid to risk losing your best back up in order to keep a guy that maybe can't play anymore .

 

Maybe I'm crazy with this but I've always been impressed with Harnish and he could very easily turn into a terrific NFL back up. He has a nice arm , smarts and is very mobile. So why not ? 

[dw49]

Let's see what they do in a game and keep in mind Hasslebeck is going to be playing against other teams back ups and in some cases starters while Harnish is going to playing against people for the most part that are going to be out of football in a month. 

 

I remember Painter's rookie year when people killed Sorgi and talked about how awful he was and how Painter was out doing him and I kid you not a handful of posters saying he looked so good against other team's third stringers that he could be Manning's replacement one day and meant it. 

 

I think the Colts like Hasslebeck because they kinda view him as another coach in the lockerroom for Luck and Harnish too.  I expect us to keep all three if we can and heaven forbid if something happens to Luck then we'll have a decision to make if Matt doesn't play well.

 

 

I never had such a view on Painter , and although I can remember a lot of Colt football , I can't remember how Painter looked in his rookie year. All of what you say has merit , but Hasslebeck needs to be far better than Harnish to warrant that kind of cap room. I don't think Luck needs a 4.5 million $ clip board guy to help him out. Hire another coach for 250K that has Hasslebeck credentials. Now Irsay can pocket the 4 mill or spend it on a player that can contribute

 

There's no dilemma

[dw49]

Well, not with anyone other than the OP. lol

 

Apparently Grigson, Pagano & Co don't have a hard time understanding why Luck could use a veteran QB to be a mentor

 

 

 

LOL... what a screwball reply that is. There are plenty of young QB's in the league and not every GM brings on a veteran QB for the tune of 4.5 mill to "mentor him. For heavens sake , just hire another Qb coach that is a veteren QB for a few 100K. If Chandler Harnish is a better QB than Hasslebeck , which some observers believe to be true , this is a bad signing. Anyone that cannot see that is ... uh I won't say. 

 

So for the time being... how about you when you get done lol ing the OP of this thread start giving me the names of 38 year old QB's making 4.5 mill that are 3rd stringers. Cause that's pretty much what you are saying.

[dw49]

2011   Kerry Collins, Curtis Painter, and Dan O...................

 

 

WOW......  why even ask

 

 

Wow ... do you have a hard time reading ? If Harnish is > than Hasslebeck , what does that have to do with 2011 ?

[rittdk01]

your crazy Hasselbeck has looked better than Harnish. Hasselbeck is the best backup in the NFL and will be really valuable to Luck. Not that Harnish has looked bad but hes definately third string.

[Jason_]

LOL... what a screwball reply that is. There are plenty of young QB's in the league and not every GM brings on a veteran QB for the tune of 4.5 mill to "mentor him. For heavens sake , just hire another Qb coach that is a veteren QB for a few 100K. If Chandler Harnish is a better QB than Hasslebeck , which some observers believe to be true , this is a bad signing. Anyone that cannot see that is ... uh I won't say. 

 

So for the time being... how about you when you get done lol ing the OP of this thread start giving me the names of 38 year old QB's making 4.5 mill that are 3rd stringers. Cause that's pretty much what you are saying.

 

That's a really big if.  Yo're talking about a guy who was one pick away from going undrafted against a guy who has played in a superbowl.  I don't really care what 31 other teams do with their backup QB situation and I'm not going to throw a hissy because the Colts decided to invest in what they deem to be a quality backup QB for whatever reason they choose to do so at the price they choose to spend to do so.  Hasselbeck's contract isn't the one contract that's going to keep us from signing the one missing player that we need to get to the playoffs.  

 

But as has already been said, why don't we see what they do come game time and not just in the first couple of weeks of training camp?

[HtownColt]

Wow ... do you have a hard time reading ? If Harnish is > than Hasslebeck , what does that have to do with 2011 ?

Where is this Harnish > Hassleback stuff coming from( that one Stampede Blue writer?). Hassleback led a team to a superbowl, Harnish never touched the field in a regular season game.

Matt Moore has a 2yr/8mil contract

Kyle orton has a 3yr/10.5mil contract

Matt Cassel has a 2yr/7.4mil contract from Vikings.

All As backups, there are probably more just dont feel like looking it up

[NewColtsFan]

Wow.....

 

Sure didn't see this thread coming.....

 

If Luck is hurt for a few weeks to a few months,  the Colts stand a better chance of winning with Hasselbeck than they do with Harnish.    I don't know why this isn't obvious,  but apparently,  it's not.

 

When Luck comes off the field it'll be nice for him to have a veteran who has seen everything and faced everything to answer all of Andrew's questions and concerns.    Harnish isn't going to do that.   All he's seen is whatever he saw in mid-level college and one year as 3rd string last year.

 

If Matt Haselbeck never plays a down for the Colts in two years,  he'll still be worth every dime we pay him.

 

Of course,  everyone sees the same thing differently,   so,  your mileage may vary.....

[dw49]

Where is this Harnish > Hassleback stuff coming from( that one Stampede Blue writer?). Hassleback led a team to a superbowl, Harnish never touched the field in a regular season game.

Matt Moore has a 2yr/8mil contract

Kyle orton has a 3yr/10.5mil contract

Matt Cassel has a 2yr/7.4mil contract from Vikings.

All As backups, there are probably more just dont feel like looking it up

 

 

I did read other places that Harnish has looked good where as M.H. has not. If this is not the case and Hasslebeck can still do it at his advanced age , then not a bad signing. We shall see.

 

As far as the guys you listed , they aren't really guys that could end up as 3rd stringers . Also many here are saying that I don't understand why he's worth the money just to tutor Luck. Maybe I don't but I guess either do the Redskins or Seahawks and I think Luck might be even a little brighter than their 2nd year guys. The Matt Moore deal looks to me like it was structured to last this year only. 

[BOTT]

Did the signing of Hassleback prevent the Colts from signing who they wanted? Then who cares?

[dw49]

Wow.....

 

Sure didn't see this thread coming.....

 

If Luck is hurt for a few weeks to a few months,  the Colts stand a better chance of winning with Hasselbeck than they do with Harnish.    I don't know why this isn't obvious,  but apparently,  it's not.

 

When Luck comes off the field it'll be nice for him to have a veteran who has seen everything and faced everything to answer all of Andrew's questions and concerns.    Harnish isn't going to do that.   All he's seen is whatever he saw in mid-level college and one year as 3rd string last year.

 

If Matt Haselbeck never plays a down for the Colts in two years,  he'll still be worth every dime we pay him.

 

Of course,  everyone sees the same thing differently,   so,  your mileage may vary.....

 

 

Don't you at least have to see how each guy plays in the rest of training camp and pre season to determine what you say is obvious ? When you get bored , take a look at how many NFL QB's hit the wall at 36 , 37 .. 38. This guy is 38 , according to you it's obvious he's better than Harnish ? 

 

 

Where is RG3's 4.5 mill help ? Cousins ? Can Matt Moore really provide that much to Tannyhill in the dozen or so games he's started ? Russell Wilson has some minimum salary guy and a stiff backing him up.

 

 

I guess every situation is relevant but I wonder when Tom Brady would have seen the field with that kind of mentality ? By no means is Harnish another Brady , but his draft position shouldn't have anything to do with assessing his skills to Hasslebecks.

[dw49]

Did the signing of Hassleback prevent the Colts from signing who they wanted? Then who cares?

 

 

 

Dunno... do you ?

[BOTT]

Dunno... do you ?

From the looks of it, it didn't hinder them one bit.

[GoColts8818]

I never had such a view on Painter , and although I can remember a lot of Colt football , I can't remember how Painter looked in his rookie year. All of what you say has merit , but Hasslebeck needs to be far better than Harnish to warrant that kind of cap room. I don't think Luck needs a 4.5 million $ clip board guy to help him out. Hire another coach for 250K that has Hasslebeck credentials. Now Irsay can pocket the 4 mill or spend it on a player that can contribute

You just became Bill Polian's favorite poster because that was his attitude towards the back up QB position for years till we needed one and then everyone called him an * for not having one and pointed out how that was one of his major flaws as GM.

 

Fans can't have it both ways they can't sit and here and say hey we don't really need to have a good back up (which is going to cost money) and then kill the GM for not having one when you need him. 

 

I was here for those view on Painter, I am not kidding you those things were said.  Needless to say they quickly went away once Painter moved up to back up QB and had to start playing against other teams back ups and was no longer playing against other teams players who were going to be out of football in the month.  Who you play against in the pre-season matters as much as how you play in the pre-season.  Playing well against other teams third and fourth stringers who will be out of football in a month is not the same as playing against other teams back ups just as playing against other teams back ups is not the same as playing against other teams starters.  Just a general word of caution I like remind people of as we head into the pre-season.  Just because player X (it doesn't have to be a QB) tears it up against other teams scrubs doesn't mean he's automatically better than someone higher on the depth chart. 

 

Also I am not sure I believe Harnish is better than Hasslebeck.  From the sounds of it Hasslebeck has been doing fine as QB out there.  His issue is that he keeps getting sacked, that's an issue with the o-line more than him IMO. 

[dw49]

From the looks of it, no

 

 

How you can come to that conclusion would mean you are very bright and have inside info or it means you are just writting baseless silly stuff. 

 

Did you know you can do other  things with cap money ? For instance you could take that guaranteed money you gave to a QB pushing 40 and put it towards extending a guy like Davis . His contract is up next year and if he has a great year it will cost probably around an extra 15 mill over 4 years to resign him.

[GoColts8818]

Dunno... do you ?

If you believe Irsay they got everyone they set out to get this off-season so that would be a no.

[BOTT]

How you can come to that conclusion would mean you are very bright and have inside info or it means you are just writting baseless silly stuff.

Did you know you can do other things with cap money ? For instance you could take that guaranteed money you gave to a QB pushing 40 and put it towards extending a guy like Davis . His contract is up next year and if he has a great year it will cost probably around an extra 15 mill over 4 years to resign him.

No, it's just simple observation.

And the colts have plenty of money to sign Davis next year, despite the evilness of Hassleback's contract.

It seems you are just looking for something to complain about.

[dw49]

You just became Bill Polian's favorite poster because that was his attitude towards the back up QB position for years till we needed one and then everyone called him an * for not having one and pointed out how that was one of his major flaws as GM.

 

Fans can't have it both ways they can't sit and here and say hey we don't really need to have a good back up (which is going to cost money) and then kill the GM for not having one when you need him. 

 

I was here for those view on Painter, I am not kidding you those things were said.  Needless to say they quickly went away once Painter moved up to back up QB and had to start playing against other teams back ups and was no longer playing against other teams players who were going to be out of football in the month.  Who you play against in the pre-season matters as much as how you play in the pre-season.  Playing well against other teams third and fourth stringers who will be out of football in a month is not the same as playing against other teams back ups just as playing against other teams back ups is not the same as playing against other teams starters.  Just a general word of caution I like remind people of as we head into the pre-season.  Just because player X (it doesn't have to be a QB) tears it up against other teams scrubs doesn't mean he's automatically better than someone higher on the depth chart. 

 

Also I am not sure I believe Harnish is better than Hasslebeck.  From the sounds of it Hasslebeck has been doing fine as QB out there.  His issue is that he keeps getting sacked, that's an issue with the o-line more than him IMO. 

 

 

If Hasslebeck is still a good QB at 38 -39 years old , I'm wrong and it's a good signing. I'm saying this is a really bad deal if he's about done and Harnish is actually good. It would then mean risk losing Harnish by putting him on the PS or it means having a 4.5 mill back up and carrying 3 QB's on the roster. Please read that again as it's all I'm saying. You people are all going off on different tangents. 

 

One more thing... If Harnish is better than Hasslebeck , he is not worth 8 mill over two years to "tutor" Luck. That's just not the case and I don't see where teams have spent that kind of money and important cap space for their rookies. 

[GoColts8818]

How you can come to that conclusion would mean you are very bright and have inside info or it means you are just writting baseless silly stuff. 

 

Did you know you can do other  things with cap money ? For instance you could take that guaranteed money you gave to a QB pushing 40 and put it towards extending a guy like Davis . His contract is up next year and if he has a great year it will cost probably around an extra 15 mill over 4 years to resign him.

Per Superman who posted in different thread:

 

 

As of right now, we have approximately $83m on the books for 2014. Assuming the cap stays at $123m (which it probably won't, it will probably go up modestly, just like it did this year), that's $40m in cap space.

 

However, that $83m figure doesn't include Laron Landry's 2014 salary (I still haven't seen the salary details), nor does it include Bjoern Werner's 2014 cap hit (hasn't been signed yet). Figure on Landry's cap hit taking up another $5m, and Werner's taking up another $3m, and now we're at around $91m committed to 2014. We might also reach a long term deal with McAfee, which would increase that total figure. I'm calling it somewhere around $30m in cap space to start 2014.

 

Last thing to remember, we have guys who will be free agents at the end of 2013, some of whom we'll want to resign. We might even reach terms with some of those players before the season ends. So we're probably not going to have $30m in cap space by the time free agency opens.

we will have about 30 million for free agency next year and that was after Hasslebeck was signed.  If we don't re-sign Davis it's not going to be because of Hasslebeck's contract.

[dw49]

No, it just simple observation.

And the colts have plenty of money to sign Davis next year, despite the evilness of Hasslebacks contract.

It seems you are just looking for something to complain about

 

 

Silly .. 

[GoColts8818]

If Hasslebeck is still a good QB at 38 -39 years old , I'm wrong and it's a good signing. I'm saying this is a really bad deal if he's about done and Harnish is actually good. It would then mean risk losing Harnish by putting him on the PS or it means having a 4.5 mill back up and carrying 3 QB's on the roster. Please read that again as it's all I'm saying. You people are all going off on different tangents. 

 

One more thing... If Harnish is better than Hasslebeck , he is not worth 8 mill over two years to "tutor" Luck. That's just not the case and I don't see where teams have spent that kind of money and important cap space for their rookies. 

If we cut Harnish, we might not we kept three at the start of last year just to protect Harnish we could do the samething again this year.  Also we've only seen Harnish vs. other teams third stringers the last guy we entrusted with the back up spot after only seeing him against other team's third stringers was Painter and we all saw how that turned out when he had to play.  I am sure if the Colts thought Harnish could handle the back up job they wouldn't have signed Hasslebeck in the first place. 

[BOTT]

Silly ..

I anxiously await your next topic.

Sarcasm

[dw49]

Per Superman who posted in different thread:

 

 

we will have about 30 million for free agency next year and that was after Hasslebeck was signed.  If we don't re-sign Davis it's not going to be because of Hasslebeck's contract.

 

 

 

You are great at twisting and putting words into peoples mouths. What I said is that if we signed every free agent we wanted , we could have used the money in another way. The example I used was extending Davis. We also could have rolled it forward. I never said this was going to prevent resigning V Davis. Did I ? I mean please tell me if I did. What I said was if he has a great year it will cost a lot more. Before you take off on something crazy on that .. the reason is a extension is a win -win as the player would increase his next year's salary and it's a bird in the hand type deal. Plus the CB market was really down in 2013. But anyway... I never said this would "prevent" anything in particular. But what you and some others are trying to say is it's OK to just blow 8 mill on a guy that cant play. 

 

Furthermore when I'm not sure that we'll have 30 Million to sign free agents next year. The cap is a complicated issue and these contracts were structured in a unique way. I know we have some deals we can just walk away from after a year and not suffer any huge cap hits. That's obviously very good but and we certainly are not in any cap hell looking forward , but I'm not certain that the Superman post guarantees that we have 30 mill to spend on free agents next year.

[dw49]

I anxiously await your next topic.

Sarcasm

 

 

Oh ...such a terrific dry sense of humor. You sure got me there. 

[BOTT]

Oh ...such a terrific dry sense of humor. You sure got me there.

Silly.....

[dw49]

If we cut Harnish, we might not we kept three at the start of last year just to protect Harnish we could do the samething again this year.  Also we've only seen Harnish vs. other teams third stringers the last guy we entrusted with the back up spot after only seeing him against other team's third stringers was Painter and we all saw how that turned out when he had to play.  I am sure if the Colts thought Harnish could handle the back up job they wouldn't have signed Hasslebeck in the first place. 

 

 

 

 

I mean gosh guy , your a good poster and a smart guy. But Jesus , don't give me the "  I am sure if the Colts thought Harnish could handle the back up job they wouldn't have signed Hasslebeck in the first place. ' kind of stuff. Teams make personal mistakes all the time and of coarse if they thought that , they wouldn't have signed MH. I'm saying I think they made a mistake. I might be right ..I might be wrong. Could we let it play out and see ? 

 

If NE knew that Tom Brady was better than Drew Bledsoe before the season started , wouldn't they have tried to trade Bledsoe ?

[dw49]

Silly....

 

 

 

Your really boring me now. 

[GoColts8818]

You are great at twisting and putting words into peoples mouths. What I said is that if we signed every free agent we wanted , we could have used the money in another way. The example I used was extending Davis. We also could have rolled it forward. I never said this was going to prevent resigning V Davis. Did I ? I mean please tell me if I did. What I said was if he has a great year it will cost a lot more. Before you take off on something crazy on that .. the reason is a extension is a win -win as the player would increase his next year's salary and it's a bird in the hand type deal. Plus the CB market was really down in 2013. But anyway... I never said this would "prevent" anything in particular. But what you and some others are trying to say is it's OK to just blow 8 mill on a guy that cant play. 

 

Furthermore when I'm not sure that we'll have 30 Million to sign free agents next year. The cap is a complicated issue and these contracts were structured in a unique way. I know we have some deals we can just walk away from after a year and not suffer any huge cap hits. That's obviously very good but and we certainly are not in any cap heck looking forward , but I'm not certain that the Superman post guarantees that we have 30 mill to spend on free agents next year.

When you say we could have used that money to extend Davis rather than signing Hasslebeck it seems to suggest that you are concerned about us having money to be able to keep Davis.  The Colts still have money if they wanted to extend Davis right now they probably could.  I don't think they elected not to do it because they signed Hasslebeck.  I think they haven't done it because they don't want to do it right now.  Remember they didn't even extend McAfee who is playing under the tag this year which seemed like a no brainer thing to do. 

 

I posted Superman's post to address how much money we would have going forward, even with Hasslebeck's contract on the books we are in very good shape with the cap.  Also there is no promise Matt is going to be here next year, when he was signed a lot of people pointed out even though it was a two year deal odds are he would only see one year of the contract.  If you doubt his math work that's up to you but he has proven at least to me to be as good at understanding the cap as anyone not named Bavlin has on this forum. 

 

You seem to be pushing your own agenda in this thread that you don't like the signing of Hasslebeck.  That's cool you are entitled to that opinion, several others seem to disagree with you on it.  Again, if the Colts were comfortable with Harnish going forward as the back I doubt they would have signed Hasslebeck.  I don't think they did it because they thought he could use an extra 4.5 million.  Clearly they expect to get something out of him.  Again, value QBs never seem to have value to the fans till you need one.  Again, for years people complained about Polian not having a true back up for Peyton Manning to the point that people said he failed in his job for not having one.  Now we have one and people are complaining because we spent money on one.  Which is it?  Do people want a legit back up QB (which yes you are going to have to pay for) do they want one on the cheap?  People can't have it both ways.

[BOTT]

[

[dw49]

When you say we could have used that money to extend Davis rather than signing Hasslebeck it seems to suggest that you are concerned about us having money to be able to keep Davis.  The Colts still have money if they wanted to extend Davis right now they probably could.  I don't think they elected not to do it because they signed Hasslebeck.  I think they haven't done it because they don't want to do it right now.  Remember they didn't even extend McAfee who is playing under the tag this year which seemed like a no brainer thing to do. 

 

I posted Superman's post to address how much money we would have going forward, even with Hasslebeck's contract on the books we are in very good shape with the cap.  Also there is no promise Matt is going to be here next year, when he was signed a lot of people pointed out even though it was a two year deal odds are he would only see one year of the contract.  If you doubt his math work that's up to you but he has proven at least to me to be as good at understanding the cap as anyone not named Bavlin has on this forum. 

 

You seem to be pushing your own agenda in this thread that you don't like the signing of Hasslebeck.  That's cool you are entitled to that opinion, several others seem to disagree with you on it.  Again, if the Colts were comfortable with Harnish going forward as the back I doubt they would have signed Hasslebeck.  I don't think they did it because they thought he could use an extra 4.5 million.  Clearly they expect to get something out of him.  Again, value QBs never seem to have value to the fans till you need one.  Again, for years people complained about Polian not having a true back up for Peyton Manning to the point that people said he failed in his job for not having one.  Now we have one and people are complaining because we spent money on one.  Which is it?  Do people want a legit back up QB (which yes you are going to have to pay for) do they want one on the cheap?  People can't have it both ways.

 

 

Have no idea of what you mean by pushing my own agenda. What I've said , for the umpth time , is it's a bad signing if he is at the end of his line. That's all ... I've been reading some reports that may indicate this might be true. I've qualified everything I put forward that this would only be a problem if the reports turn out to be correct. I was one of the people that didn't like the signing to begin with , there were others that agreed when he signed. 

 

As far as the Davis issue , Blood in the cracks stated that we signed every free agent we wanted. Evidently he has some inside info to state this .. or he said was "obvious".. something like that. So , BTW .. Ive already explained this to you , I informed him that there were other ways to use cap money even if we didn't have another free agent player we might have wanted to sign. I just don't understand why you and Blood in the cracks would infer that I'm saying this prevented us from extending Davis ? How in the heck would I know if the Colts wanted to extend him. Other words ... a hypothetical. So hopefully we are square on that one.

[Robert Johnson]

If,God forbid,Luck went down,i'd feel much better seeing Hasselbeck then Harnish run the show.38 or not.Sorry,just not getting worked up over this

[GoColts8818]

Have no idea of what you mean by pushing my own agenda. What I've said , for the umpth time , is it's a bad signing if he is at the end of his line. That's all ... I've been reading some reports that may indicate this might be true. I've qualified everything I put forward that this would only be a problem if the reports turn out to be correct. I was one of the people that didn't like the signing to begin with , there were others that agreed when he signed. 

 

As far as the Davis issue , Blood in the cracks stated that we signed every free agent we wanted. Evidently he has some inside info to state this .. or he said was "obvious".. something like that. So , BTW .. Ive already explained this to you , I informed him that there were other ways to use cap money even if we didn't have another free agent player we might have wanted to sign. I just don't understand why you and Blood in the cracks would infer that I'm saying this prevented us from extending Davis ? How in the heck would I know if the Colts wanted to extend him. Other words ... a hypothetical. So hopefully we are square on that one.

Jim Irsay has said multiple times this off-season we got every free agent we went after.  I told you that earlier in this thread.  Is the owner of the team a good enough source for you? It's not like he's been hiding it he's said it in interviews and said it on twitter.  If you don't believe him show me something that says we didn't get a player we went after.  Other wise I see no reason to doubt or at least have some kinda proof to doubt him with.

 

Clearly the Colts disagree with you on what they should have used the extra money on.  Just because you think there were other ways they could have used that money doesn't mean the Colts felt it was the best use for it.  Also, if the Colts wanted to they could probably still extend Davis's contract right now if they wanted too, honestly extending him would probably lower his cap figure for this season.  So I don't think Hasslebeck's contract played any kind of role in that making it moot when it comes to this discussion so why even bring him up?

 

Again the Colts clearly viewed the back up QB position as a need, based on what happened after Peyton Manning went down I can't say I blame them.  They have already tried the late round cheap back up result and it didn't pay off (for what it's worth Painter was a sixth round pick vs. Harnish being the last pick in the draft).  Add to that fact that he can also help teach the younger QBs and that's an added bonus.  If the Colts thought Harnish was the answer they would have never signed Hasslebeck in the first place.  They see these guys a lot more than we do maybe we should just trust our GM of the year and runner up for Coach of the Year? 

[crazycolt1]

When you say we could have used that money to extend Davis rather than signing Hasslebeck it seems to suggest that you are concerned about us having money to be able to keep Davis.  The Colts still have money if they wanted to extend Davis right now they probably could.  I don't think they elected not to do it because they signed Hasslebeck.  I think they haven't done it because they don't want to do it right now.  Remember they didn't even extend McAfee who is playing under the tag this year which seemed like a no brainer thing to do. 

 

I posted Superman's post to address how much money we would have going forward, even with Hasslebeck's contract on the books we are in very good shape with the cap.  Also there is no promise Matt is going to be here next year, when he was signed a lot of people pointed out even though it was a two year deal odds are he would only see one year of the contract.  If you doubt his math work that's up to you but he has proven at least to me to be as good at understanding the cap as anyone not named Bavlin has on this forum. 

 

You seem to be pushing your own agenda in this thread that you don't like the signing of Hasslebeck.  That's cool you are entitled to that opinion, several others seem to disagree with you on it.  Again, if the Colts were comfortable with Harnish going forward as the back I doubt they would have signed Hasslebeck.  I don't think they did it because they thought he could use an extra 4.5 million.  Clearly they expect to get something out of him.  Again, value QBs never seem to have value to the fans till you need one.  Again, for years people complained about Polian not having a true back up for Peyton Manning to the point that people said he failed in his job for not having one.  Now we have one and people are complaining because we spent money on one.  Which is it?  Do people want a legit back up QB (which yes you are going to have to pay for) do they want one on the cheap?  People can't have it both ways.

 

Have no idea of what you mean by pushing my own agenda. What I've said , for the umpth time , is it's a bad signing if he is at the end of his line. That's all ... I've been reading some reports that may indicate this might be true. I've qualified everything I put forward that this would only be a problem if the reports turn out to be correct. I was one of the people that didn't like the signing to begin with , there were others that agreed when he signed. 

 

As far as the Davis issue , Blood in the cracks stated that we signed every free agent we wanted. Evidently he has some inside info to state this .. or he said was "obvious".. something like that. So , BTW .. Ive already explained this to you , I informed him that there were other ways to use cap money even if we didn't have another free agent player we might have wanted to sign. I just don't understand why you and Blood in the cracks would infer that I'm saying this prevented us from extending Davis ? How in the heck would I know if the Colts wanted to extend him. Other words ... a hypothetical. So hopefully we are square on that one.

After reading your comments it does seem you have an agenda that involves Harnish. You stated you thought he was better than Hass. That opinion is not shared by any other poster I have read. If you did not like the Colts signing Hass thats no problem. But bringing all this other clutter into the pictures has zero to do with that. You insulting other posters will get you nothing in return. The Colts have seen what happens when a decent QB is not on the roster when the starter goes down. If you think by throwing that responsibility on Harnish is the answer thats on you. Grigson and the rest of the coaching staff feels different. It's choices like Painter and Collins that put the final nail in Polians coffin in Indy. I don't think the Colts even want to test those waters again.

[GoColts8818]

After reading your comments it does seem you have an agenda that involves Harnish. You stated you thought he was better than Hass. That opinion is not shared by any other poster I have read. If you did not like the Colts signing Hass thats no problem. But bringing all this other clutter into the pictures has zero to do with that. You insulting other posters will get you nothing in return. The Colts have seen what happens when a decent QB is not on the roster when the starter goes down. If you think by throwing that responsibility on Harnish is the answer thats on you. Grigson and the rest of the coaching staff feels different. It's choices like Painter and Collins that put the final nail in Polians coffin in Indy. I don't think the Colts even want to test those waters again.

I've always thought Irsay kinda made a private vale after the 2011 season that he would never lose because of that reason again.  They might lose for other reasons but I think felt like they would never get caught without a proven back up again, it's why they were so quick to trade for Stanton last year when it became clear he was on the market and why they were so quick to sign Hasslebeck this off-season. 

[BOTT]

Have no idea of what you mean by pushing my own agenda. What I've said , for the umpth time , is it's a bad signing if he is at the end of his line. That's all ... I've been reading some reports that may indicate this might be true. I've qualified everything I put forward that this would only be a problem if the reports turn out to be correct. I was one of the people that didn't like the signing to begin with , there were others that agreed when he signed. 

 

As far as the Davis issue , Blood in the cracks stated that we signed every free agent we wanted. Evidently he has some inside info to state this .. or he said was "obvious".. something like that. So , BTW .. Ive already explained this to you , I informed him that there were other ways to use cap money even if we didn't have another free agent player we might have wanted to sign. I just don't understand why you and Blood in the cracks would infer that I'm saying this prevented us from extending Davis ? How in the heck would I know if the Colts wanted to extend him. Other words ... a hypothetical. So hopefully we are square on that one.

Oh man, u called me blood in the cracks! The zingers to end all zingers!

Go ahead, keep attempting your defend your ridiculous argument.....which is basically "I TOLD YOU SO"