No 2 QB Dilema

[dw49]

Agreed on the most points.

I'm not sure the Broncos spent the most money this offseason. But they certainly are making moves to win right now. Their backup QB is in his second year, Brock Osweiler. Thing is, they're hitching their wagon to Manning. That team is constructed differently, has a differently structured payroll, and has a different window of opportunity. Same goes for the Giants, Saints, etc.

Closest similarity is the Niners, but that's because they have their franchise QB on a rookie contract like us. But they already have a proven defense and run game, unlike the Colts. They also have a more veteran coaching staff that has been able to have success with a different, more limited quarterback.

Back to Hasselbeck, I think his ability to help Luck is just a bonus. In my mind, the major objective was having a proven backup, just in case.

 

 

Agreed on the most points.

I'm not sure the Broncos spent the most money this offseason. But they certainly are making moves to win right now. Their backup QB is in his second year, Brock Osweiler. Thing is, they're hitching their wagon to Manning. That team is constructed differently, has a differently structured payroll, and has a different window of opportunity. Same goes for the Giants, Saints, etc.

Closest similarity is the Niners, but that's because they have their franchise QB on a rookie contract like us. But they already have a proven defense and run game, unlike the Colts. They also have a more veteran coaching staff that has been able to have success with a different, more limited quarterback.

Back to Hasselbeck, I think his ability to help Luck is just a bonus. In my mind, the major objective was having a proven backup, just in case.

 

 

No the Broncos didn't spend the most money as I'm sure they couldn't. Although I'm not that familiar with their cap , I would bet that they have mortgaged their future a bit for the 2-3 run with Manning. Other than losing Dumervil , they signed some pretty big names and somehow have to renew even more key contracts going forward . Pretty sure they will have to start pushing money out to make this run during Manning's short window. 

 

You do mention that Denver is going with 2nd year guy Brock Oswieler this year. What you may have missed is their was only 1 QB backing up Manning at the start of last year... 2012. That would be rookie Brock Oswieler.

 

That said , I'm by no means saying I'm right and your wrong. What I'm saying is it's not a given that smart GM's spend 4.5 mill in cap room for a back up QB. As we've discovered ... you and I .. different teams place different values on this position. 

 

I've shown that the other 2nd year QBs are not being tutored by old veterans, I've shown that most of the better teams have in fact stinky back up QB's. 

 

Really there is no right answer to this , its just an issue of money spent and how that would correlate to the odds of that paying off. IMO , for this move to pay off in full , you would need Luck to miss 2-3 games and if Hasslebeck was good enough to win some or most , then you made a great investment. If he misses most of the season , probably the team fails anyway. Then as you say , there is a portion of that salary that has worth In A.L's development.

 

I guess you have questions like this , would you rather have Levitre or Thomas and Hasslebech ? I don't know if that's aples to apples but you get the picture.

 

In any event , I think it's beat to death and I very much appreciate you coming in and discussing without the twisting and distorting of my argument as some did. I admire your patience in how you often deal with some that can't understand the points you put forward.

[esmort]

No the Broncos didn't spend the most money as I'm sure they couldn't. Although I'm not that familiar with their cap , I would bet that they have mortgaged their future a bit for the 2-3 run with Manning. Other than losing Dumervil , they signed some pretty big names and somehow have to renew even more key contracts going forward . Pretty sure they will have to start pushing money out to make this run during Manning's short window. 

 

You do mention that Denver is going with 2nd year guy Brock Oswieler this year. What you may have missed is their was only 1 QB backing up Manning at the start of last year... 2012. That would be rookie Brock Oswieler.

 

That said , I'm by no means saying I'm right and your wrong. What I'm saying is it's not a given that smart GM's spend 4.5 mill in cap room for a back up QB. As we've discovered ... you and I .. different teams place different values on this position. 

 

I've shown that the other 2nd year QBs are not being tutored by old veterans, I've shown that most of the better teams have in fact stinky back up QB's. 

 

Really there is no right answer to this , its just an issue of money spent and how that would correlate to the odds of that paying off. IMO , for this move to pay off in full , you would need Luck to miss 2-3 games and if Hasslebeck was good enough to win some or most , then you made a great investment. If he misses most of the season , probably the team fails anyway. Then as you say , there is a portion of that salary that has worth In A.L's development.

 

I guess you have questions like this , would you rather have Levitre or Thomas and Hasslebech ? I don't know if that's aples to apples but you get the picture.

 

In any event , I think it's beat to death and I very much appreciate you coming in and discussing without the twisting and distorting of my argument as some did. I admire your patience in how you often deal with some that can't understand the points you put forward.

 

I may be misunderstanding ... but do you really think Hasselbeck's salary prevented us from signing someone we wanted?  I don't think we made any FA concessions based on Hasselbeck's salary.

 

As far as the bolded goes that applies to any insurance policy ... for your auto insurance to pay off you have to be in a wreck.

 

I also think that Hasselbecks mentoring factor to both Luck (and Harnish) played into his salary, and that it will pay dividends in the future.  The fact that other teams with rookie QBs chose not to go that route doesn't not diminish its value.  I have read several articles where Luck has made reference to how much help Hasselbeck has been; both knowledge wise and in the film room. If Luck comes away only learning a couple of things from Hasselbeck that he might not have realized on his own, than the $3.5 million was money well invested.

[John Waylon]

Hasselbeck was the best backup option available, and he's amassed a career as a quality QB. 

 

Have we already forgotten what happens when you don't have a decent backup QB?

[dw49]

I may be misunderstanding ... but do you really think Hasselbeck's salary prevented us from signing someone we wanted?  I don't think we made any FA concessions based on Hasselbeck's salary.

 

As far as the bolded goes that applies to any insurance policy ... for your auto insurance to pay off you have to be in a wreck.

 

I also think that Hasselbecks mentoring factor to both Luck (and Harnish) played into his salary, and that it will pay dividends in the future.  The fact that other teams with rookie QBs chose not to go that route doesn't not diminish its value.  I have read several articles where Luck has made reference to how much help Hasselbeck has been; both knowledge wise and in the film room. If Luck comes away only learning a couple of things from Hasselbeck that he might not have realized on his own, than the $3.5 million was money well invested.

 

 

 

I have no idea of how the Colts would have utilized the cap money spent on Hasslebeck. Maybe woulds have been used to sign another player. Maybe pushed forward into 2014 and utilized on a player next year. Maybe used this year to have extend a player like V Davis . I don't know if you are misunderstanding or not. I have never said specifically what the Colts would have done with that money , cause I have no way of knowing. What I would think is that Grigson had a plan and had targeted certain guys to sign to complete that plan. I also would assume that he laid a budget to the plan. Now if you don't sign an expensive back up QB , I would think the plan might change a bit and maybe a different player or two might be targeted. Or possible as I said , the money could have been pushed forward to next year and we signed the same free agents other than MH.

 

Everything else you have is opinion and unlike how I've been received on mine , I respect yours and see the merit in it. Also I understand the insurance thing very well. But sometimes it's not always a no brainer. I have two properties in Mobile AL that due to Farmers Ins Co being the only major company left there , they got away with raising the wind and hail on rental properties from around $1200 per year to over 3k. I chose 3 years ago not to insure for basically being hit by a hurricane. So far I have saved around $9,000. If the odds stay with e , it's a no brainer to use that money else where .Did the same with a vacant property in Sarasota . The cheapest insurance I could buy was $5500 for the 6 months it would be vacant while renovations were being done. The normal rate was about $1500. They hate insuring unoccupied properties. There too I just self insured and crossed my fingers for 6 months and naturally saved $5500. I think it's the same in the NFL with a back up QB. Dallas agrees with you , Miinn also has an expensive back up , but they have a questionable No 1. Anyway as we kind of discovered some teams do and some teams don't. As far as his value to Luck , sure that's worth something but how much ? Not every team with a good young guy have invested this kind of money in a mentor , so that's a matter of opinion too. 

[Superman]

In any event , I think it's beat to death and I very much appreciate you coming in and discussing without the twisting and distorting of my argument as some did. I admire your patience in how you often deal with some that can't understand the points you put forward.

It's funny how an argument doesn't always have to be a bad thing.

Just to comment on the Broncos, they actually have more cap space right now than the Colts do. But they have way more money committed to their quarterbacks.

Going back to last year, they actually had Caleb Hanie on the roster all year. I don't know how the depth chart worked, but it wasn't just Osweiler. I don't know how many they'll keep this year, but Osweiler is clearly QB2. There's two rookies behind him.

Still, the difference is that Manning is an established veteran, someone that QB2 ought to benefit from. If Manning couldn't go, Osweiler would have a vet to help him out. In Harnish's case, he'd be a second year backup with no experience, and he wouldn't have the benefit of sitting behind an accomplished veteran for a year, like Osweiler does now.

In all, I just think the team, and certain posters here, appreciate the tangible and intangible benefits of Hasselbeck more than you do. And that's fine. I actually think Harnish is talented enough to serve as QB2, and I hope he gets QB2 reps in preseason, for his continued development and our ability to evaluate him. But I'd be really nervous if he had to start for a month. I'm much more comfortable with Hasselbeck, in case of emergency.

I definitely appreciate your point of view. Thanks for allowing me to bend your ear (eye).

[dw49]

Hasselbeck was the best backup option available, and he's amassed a career as a quality QB. 

 

Have we already forgotten what happens when you don't have a decent backup QB?

 

 

John , you had a terrible roster in 2011 and a better back up probably would have meant maybe 4 wins instead of 2. So I really don't see what lesson was learned.

 

I will concede that this team right now is far stronger than the one Polian left Grigson.  If Luck missed a few games and Hasslebeck is as good as you guys claim , then this will turn out to be a smart sign. If the reports that I read were true and he's not nearly as good as Harnish , then this is a very bad signing. That's what my thread was about. If what I read is really not the case and MH is indeed a very good back up , then this signing has a chance to pay off. But if year 38 has turned many QB's into guys that just can't play anymore.

[dw49]

It's funny how an argument doesn't always have to be a bad thing.

Just to comment on the Broncos, they actually have more cap space right now than the Colts do. But they have way more money committed to their quarterbacks.

Going back to last year, they actually had Caleb Hanie on the roster all year. I don't know how the depth chart worked, but it wasn't just Osweiler. I don't know how many they'll keep this year, but Osweiler is clearly QB2. There's two rookies behind him.

Still, the difference is that Manning is an established veteran, someone that QB2 ought to benefit from. If Manning couldn't go, Osweiler would have a vet to help him out. In Harnish's case, he'd be a second year backup with no experience, and he wouldn't have the benefit of sitting behind an accomplished veteran for a year, like Osweiler does now.

In all, I just think the team, and certain posters here, appreciate the tangible and intangible benefits of Hasselbeck more than you do. And that's fine. I actually think Harnish is talented enough to serve as QB2, and I hope he gets QB2 reps in preseason, for his continued development and our ability to evaluate him. But I'd be really nervous if he had to start for a month. I'm much more comfortable with Hasselbeck, in case of emergency.

I definitely appreciate your point of view. Thanks for allowing me to bend your ear (eye).

 

 

Not that it's a big deal but Denver actually cut that guy to get to 53 and must have brought him back for insurance later. I'm not going to waste my time or bore you with proof that he was probably not activated and was the emergency QB. The rookie was for sure the No 2 . But as you say , every team is different ... different dynamics , different strengths and for sure different management.

 

 

 

To make room on the 53-man roster for defensive tackle Sealver Siliga, the Denver Broncosreleased backup quarterback Caleb Hanie, the team announced Saturday.

Brooks: New team, old concepts

How can Denver make Peyton Manning feel comfy in his new offense? Bucky Brooks expects three familiar schemes. More ...

The biggest ramification of Hanie's release is that the move elevates 2012 second-round draft pick Brock Osweiler to the No. 2 spot on the depth chart behind Peyton Manning for Sunday night's regular-season opener against thePittsburgh Steelers.

[John Waylon]

John , you had a terrible roster in 2011 and a better back up probably would have meant maybe 4 wins instead of 2. So I really don't see what lesson was learned.

 

 

I don't buy that at all. We had Reggie, Garcon, and Collie at recever, Dallas Clark was here, Saturday, Freeney, Mathis, and Bethea. Not to mention Angerer and Conner had Pro-Bowl worthy seasons that year after being thrust into a starting role. 

 

The fact that we had a rotation of kerry collins, curts painter, and dan orlovsky at QB is where the problems started and the crap just ran downhill from there. 

[dw49]

I don't buy that at all. We had Reggie, Garcon, and Collie at recever, Dallas Clark was here, Saturday, Freeney, Mathis, and Bethea. Not to mention Angerer and Conner had Pro-Bowl worthy seasons that year after being thrust into a starting role. 

 

The fact that we had a rotation of kerry collins, curts painter, and dan orlovsky at QB is where the problems started and the crap just ran downhill from there. 

 

 

 

I guess different people have different views . Saturday was about done and Clarke close to it. Freeney and Mathis good for sure , Beathea over rated IMO. Angerer had a lot of tackles but certainly not an elite LB. Must be a typo or are you really saying Conner was pro bowl material ? But if you look at that roster going into 2011 , it looks like this....pretty pathetic IMO. I guess Irsay agreed also as he just dumped like crazy.

 

But I respect your opinion ...

 

 

 

 

 

QB Peyton Manning* 34 12 16 450 for 679, 4,700 yards, 33 td, 17 int, & 18 rushes for 18 yards and 0 td Indianapolis Colts / 1st / 1st pick / 1998 RB Donald Brown 23 1 8 129 rushes for 497 yards, 2 td, & 20 catches for 205 yards and 0 td Indianapolis Colts / 1st / 27th pick / 2009 WR Pierre Garcon 24 2 14 67 catches for 784 yards, 6 td, & 2 rushes for 6 yards and 0 td Indianapolis Colts / 6th / 205th pick / 2008 WR Reggie Wayne*+ 32 9 16 111 catches for 1,355 yards, 6 td Indianapolis Colts / 1st / 30th pick / 2001 TE Brody Eldridge 23 Rook 8 5 catches for 39 yards, 0 td Indianapolis Colts / 5th / 162nd pick / 2010 TE Jacob Tamme 25 2 8 67 catches for 631 yards, 4 td Indianapolis Colts / 4th / 127th pick / 2008 LT Charlie Johnson 26 4 15   Indianapolis Colts / 6th / 199th pick / 2006 C Jeff Saturday* 35 11 16 1 fumble recovered   RG Mike Pollak 25 2 13   Indianapolis Colts / 2nd / 59th pick / 2008 RT Ryan Diem 31 9 16   Indianapolis Colts / 4th / 118th pick / 2001   Defensive Starters         LDE Robert Mathis* 29 7 16 11.0 sacks, 0 interceptions, 1 fumble recovered Indianapolis Colts / 5th / 138th pick / 2003 LDT Fili Moala 25 1 16 0.0 sacks, 0 interceptions, 1 fumble recovered Indianapolis Colts / 2nd / 56th pick / 2009 RDT Daniel Muir 27 3 14     RDE Dwight Freeney* 30 8 16 10.0 sacks, 0 interceptions, 0 fumbles recovered Indianapolis Colts / 1st / 11th pick / 2002 LLB Pat Angerer 23 Rook 11 1.0 sacks, 0 interceptions, 0 fumbles recovered Indianapolis Colts / 2nd / 63rd pick / 2010 MLB Gary Brackett 30 7 12 0.5 sacks, 0 interceptions, 0 fumbles recovered   RLB Kavell Conner 23 Rook 9 0.0 sacks, 0 interceptions, 1 fumble recovered Indianapolis Colts / 7th / 240th pick / 2010 LCB Kelvin Hayden 27 5 11 0.0 sacks, 2 interceptions, 0 fumbles recovered Indianapolis Colts / 2nd / 60th pick / 2005 RCB Jerraud Powers 23 1 10 0.0 sacks, 2 interceptions, 1 fumble recovered Indianapolis Colts / 3rd / 92nd pick / 2009 SS Aaron Francisco 27 5 12 0.0 sacks, 2 interceptions, 0 fumbles recovered   FS Antoine Bethea

[Superman]

That roster was depleted in several areas, due to mismanagement and poor drafting. But undeniably, the two biggest factors were the quarterbacking and the coaching. That roster was practically the same as the 2010 roster, maybe a little better and/or deeper in certain areas. But the big difference was obviously losing Manning, and the coaching staff's inability to make adjustments along the way.

I guess you could argue that the 2010 roster was a 2-4 win roster with substandard quarterbacking, though. And what's so incredible about that is that if Manning hadn't had one of the worst months of his career that season, we might have gone 13-3 and had a first round bye again. That team was incredibly dependent on Manning being great practically every week. He made up for so many deficiencies.

[dw49]

That roster was depleted in several areas, due to mismanagement and poor drafting. But undeniably, the two biggest factors were the quarterbacking and the coaching. That roster was practically the same as the 2010 roster, maybe a little better and/or deeper in certain areas. But the big difference was obviously losing Manning, and the coaching staff's inability to make adjustments along the way.

I guess you could argue that the 2010 roster was a 2-4 win roster with substandard quarterbacking, though. And what's so incredible about that is that if Manning hadn't had one of the worst months of his career that season, we might have gone 13-3 and had a first round bye again. That team was incredibly dependent on Manning being great practically every week. He made up for so many deficiencies.

 

 

If you think back to that 2010 team and look closely , you'll see that it finished out with 4 close wins against some pretty weak teams. Tenn twice , Oakland and Jacksonville. I agree that if Manning played great all season long , I guess the record could have been better but with a different bounce or two in the last 4 games , it could have been 8-8. The coaching ( Polian's Puppets) was running a Peyton Manning offense with Painter behind center. Dear Lord...

 

But as you say , Manning was and probably still is incredible. Unbelievable that he could survive and even overcome a bad defense with that joke for an offensive line. Problem was it's just a different game when January rolls along.

[GoColts8818]

That roster was depleted in several areas, due to mismanagement and poor drafting. But undeniably, the two biggest factors were the quarterbacking and the coaching. That roster was practically the same as the 2010 roster, maybe a little better and/or deeper in certain areas. But the big difference was obviously losing Manning, and the coaching staff's inability to make adjustments along the way.

I guess you could argue that the 2010 roster was a 2-4 win roster with substandard quarterbacking, though. And what's so incredible about that is that if Manning hadn't had one of the worst months of his career that season, we might have gone 13-3 and had a first round bye again. That team was incredibly dependent on Manning being great practically every week. He made up for so many deficiencies.

I think a third factor was age.  Honestly the 2010 roster was a lot like the 2009 roster as well.  Our players just simply got old by 2011.  2010 was a real warning sign that most of us (including Polian) ignored.  The age factor can be traced back to poor drafting as can the big contracts in some cases.  Had the Colts drafted better they wouldn't have had to spend the big bucks to keep players who probably didn't deserve as much as they got because they would have had someone behind them who could play.  Like when it came time for Nick Harper and Jason David to get "paid" the Colts were able to let them walk because they had Jackson and Hayden behind him ready to start.  When it came time to pay Hayden they really had no choice but to keep him because they had nothing at the cornerback spot behind him.  Even at the running back spot, had Brown preformed better the Colts could have let Addai walk when his contract was up like they were able to let Edge walk and find Addai in the draft knowing they had Rhodes behind him on the roster and then they were able to let Rhodes walk because they had Addai.  I know I am simplifying a lot of moves in there but I think people kinda see the point I am getting at. 

[Superman]

I think a third factor was age.  Honestly the 2010 roster was a lot like the 2009 roster as well.  Our players just simply got old by 2011.  2010 was a real warning sign that most of us (including Polian) ignored.  The age factor can be traced back to poor drafting as can the big contracts in some cases.  Had the Colts drafted better they wouldn't have had to spend the big bucks to keep players who probably didn't deserve as much as they got because they would have had someone behind them who could play.  Like when it came time for Nick Harper and Jason David to get "paid" the Colts were able to let them walk because they had Jackson and Hayden behind him ready to start.  When it came time to pay Hayden they really had no choice but to keep him because they had nothing at the cornerback spot behind him.  Even at the running back spot, had Brown preformed better the Colts could have let Addai walk when his contract was up like they were able to let Edge walk and find Addai in the draft knowing they had Rhodes behind him on the roster and then they were able to let Rhodes walk because they had Addai.  I know I am simplifying a lot of moves in there but I think people kinda see the point I am getting at.

Agreed. Drafting Laurinitis instead of Donald Brown would have meant letting Brackett walk. Etc. Better drafting makes it easier to let aging veterans go. Ironically, we're still carrying a dead cap hit for Brackett.

Not trying to sideline GM, just pointing out why we descended into the depths so rapidly.

[GoColts8818]

Agreed. Drafting Laurinitis instead of Donald Brown would have meant letting Brackett walk. Etc. Better drafting makes it easier to let aging veterans go. Ironically, we're still carrying a dead cap hit for Brackett.

Not trying to sideline GM, just pointing out why we descended into the depths so rapidly.

One thing is in common here, rather it was bad contracts, bad drafting, having to keep older players because you didn't have the younger players to replace them with it all points back to one thing poor GM decisions towards the end by the Polians which is why they lost their jobs unlike when they fired Mora when the talent was there and Mora just wasn't getting as much as he should out of it. 

 

Don't get me wrong, Caldwell might not have been the best option for Head Coach but if I had to point to one area over the other to blame for the downfall I would point more towards the GM.  If you use the old the GM Buys the food for the Head Coach to cook with what Caldwell had to cook with was not very good to start with.  With that said, and has been covered many times, Caldwell had his own faults. 

[rittdk01]

John , you had a terrible roster in 2011 and a better back up probably would have meant maybe 4 wins instead of 2. So I really don't see what lesson was learned.

 

I will concede that this team right now is far stronger than the one Polian left Grigson.  If Luck missed a few games and Hasslebeck is as good as you guys claim , then this will turn out to be a smart sign. If the reports that I read were true and he's not nearly as good as Harnish , then this is a very bad signing. That's what my thread was about. If what I read is really not the case and MH is indeed a very good back up , then this signing has a chance to pay off. But if year 38 has turned many QB's into guys that just can't play anymore.

It was the same team as 2010 besides the QB.  Stop arguing the same things over and over.  Everyone and their brother knows the Colts were unprepared with a crap backup to Manning. 

 

U keep talking about these "reports" of Harnish outplaying Hasselbeck.  So far u are the only person I could find who shares that opinion.  I personally went to 6 practices and have seen Hasselbeck look better than Harnish.  I don't claim to be an expert but it was obvious to me who was 2nd and 3rd string.

[dw49]

It was the same team as 2010 besides the QB.  Stop arguing the same things over and over.  Everyone and their brother knows the Colts were unprepared with a crap backup to Manning. 

 

U keep talking about these "reports" of Harnish outplaying Hasselbeck.  So far u are the only person I could find who shares that opinion.  I personally went to 6 practices and have seen Hasselbeck look better than Harnish.  I don't claim to be an expert but it was obvious to me who was 2nd and 3rd string.

 

 

The 2010 was not very good when you take Manning off it. Does that help you out a bit ? 

[Gavin]

I dont see a dilemma/argumen/debate/whatever....Hasselbeck wasn't brought in just to be a clipboard holder, If Luck somehow gets injured then Hasselbeck will be the guy

[Dustin]

Bump.

[GoColts8818]

Harnish is struggling with the Bills third stringers, Hasslebeck looked good vs. the Bills back ups and some starters, round one of the pre-season in almost knock out fashion goes to Hasslebeck.  I really don't think this is the contest some want it to be. I think Hasslebeck is the back up, Harnish is just trying to prove he should be on this roster and through one game it's not looking good.  He has three more chances to change peoples minds. 

[Jay Kirk]

No delima at all its Hass. hands down

[rittdk01]

the "dilema" has been answered ; ) Guess the "reports" were off the mark.

[dw49]

yep he looked pretty stinky. no problem cutting him. 

[stat2883]

Yeah...Luck will do nicely backing up Hasselbeck

As a general rule of thumb, you don't typically want 3 young QBs to develop. If you have two young guys as 1 & 2, you'd most likely want that third guy to be a veteran in the worst case that 1 and 2 go down. A good veteran doesn't require the same amount of attention from the coaches and can be trusted to handle what he needs to handle to prepare for game day.

God forbid if Luck goes down, there are plenty of worse options out there than Hasselbeck as your backup.

[Hans Moleman]

Harnish is what he is, and that's a #3 guy. 

 

It's up to him to convince the coaches we need to carry 3 QB's on the active roster.

[HtownColt]

@Coltsfanwilson: Chandler Harnish: 14/33, 109 yards, 1 INT. He was bad today. Very unimpressed.

[coltsfanatic24]

Harnish played like he wouldn't start on a SEC team, one of the worst performances i've seen from a 3rd string QB. He looks like a poor mans Ponder which is one of the  QB's you never wanna be compared to. I don't think he makes the roster we'll be just fine with Luck and Hasselbeck as the QB's.

[Malakai432]

Dancing Monkey!!!!!~~~~~~~

 

BAM!

 

 

Ohhh yeah!

[CanuckColt]

There's no dilemma

Not anymore.

Harnish is clearly 4th string and our next pickup is 3rd string.

[Warhorse]

In any event , I think it's beat to death and I very much appreciate you coming in and discussing without the twisting and distorting of my argument as some did. I admire your patience in how you often deal with some that can't understand the points you put forward.

 

I would like to pass on some food for thought. I just read through this entire thread. For what it is worth, I will share with you how your thread came across to me. When someone starts a thread, it is quote common for the question or statement in the thread title to not really be what the poster wanted. That can manifest itself in a myriad of forms.

 

It sure seemed to me that you made a very good declaration of your opinion on the acquisition of Matt H. to the Colts. It appeared that you were inviting the forum members to weigh on on this subject. But your first page of responses came across like you were carrying a very big stick and wanted to argue with anyone who disagreed with your opinion. I admit, I could be quite wrong about this, but that was genuinely how it came across to me. You did mellow out later on, and had some good discourse with some members, which is what I thought you wanted by your original post.

 

It is alright to have powerful opinions about a subject, and invite people to knock you off your perch...so to say...if they can convince you. Again I could be wrong, but it would be my opinion that members were not trying to twist or distort your argument, but that they may have been a bit responsive to the big stick you were carrying without a warning.

 

How my opinion is helpful, not harmful.

[dw49]

I would like to pass on some food for thought. I just read through this entire thread. For what it is worth, I will share with you how your thread came across to me. When someone starts a thread, it is quote common for the question or statement in the thread title to not really be what the poster wanted. That can manifest itself in a myriad of forms.

 

It sure seemed to me that you made a very good declaration of your opinion on the acquisition of Matt H. to the Colts. It appeared that you were inviting the forum members to weigh on on this subject. But your first page of responses came across like you were carrying a very big stick and wanted to argue with anyone who disagreed with your opinion. I admit, I could be quite wrong about this, but that was genuinely how it came across to me. You did mellow out later on, and had some good discourse with some members, which is what I thought you wanted by your original post.

 

It is alright to have powerful opinions about a subject, and invite people to knock you off your perch...so to say...if they can convince you. Again I could be wrong, but it would be my opinion that members were not trying to twist or distort your argument, but that they may have been a bit responsive to the big stick you were carrying without a warning.

 

How my opinion is helpful, not harmful.

 

 

I guess it's in how you try to "knock some one  off their perch." I don't feel like re reading the whole thread but I just read the first two posts that I replied to and I found what I thought was offensive stuff then and still do now when I review.

 

Here's the 1st from Jason...

 

 

Posted 04 August 2013 - 08:02 PM

HtownColt, on 04 Aug 2013 - 9:00 PM, said:

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.

 

 

Maybe you like the lol stuff. I don't.

 

 

The next.....

 

 

 

Posted 04 August 2013 - 08:18 PM

John Dee, on 04 Aug 2013 - 9:05 PM, said:

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

 

 

WOW......  why even ask

 

 

 

IMO.. just kind of not the way I answer a topic when I post. I try not to LOL people or "wow" them. That's all but I appreciate your comments and decision to keep this going. I also did post that I appeared to be wrong on this after watching today's game. No doubt that this is no problem as Harnish is no 3 and can be cut and added to the practice squad without being in danger of losing something of importance. 

[bayone]

No delima at all its Hass. hands down

 

 

 

Not anymore.

Harnish is clearly 4th string and our next pickup is 3rd string.

 

 

Harnish played like he wouldn't start on a SEC team, one of the worst performances i've seen from a 3rd string QB. He looks like a poor mans Ponder which is one of the  QB's you never wanna be compared to. I don't think he makes the roster we'll be just fine with Luck and Hasselbeck as the QB's.

 

Hassleback was clearly better than Harnish  to me yesterday though Harnish started well, he made many mistakes to often for to long on to many drives

[SteelCityColt]

Harnish seemed to be pressured most plays which didn't help but his throwing was not great. Disappointing really as I'd hoped after a year development he would be showing more by now. Still let's see how he does in the other P/S games. 

[atapcl]

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.

I like Harnish but he had a lot of balls batted down in the game and he did not read the CB blitz a couple times. Hasselbeck seemed to me to manage the game better.

[Gavin]

There is no dilemma, Hasselbeck wasn't brought in to be a 3rd string backup to Mr. Irrelavant, He will be the #2 QB and the coaches did not bring Hasselbeck in to be 3rd string...Harnish is not ready....It also shows at TC

[fbfanatic]

Thing is that Hasselbeck and Harnish are in totally different places as far as pressure to perform and were in totally different situations with field position, personnel around them, etc. 

 

We will never know how Hasselbeck or even Luck would have reacted with similar circumstances and supporting casts.  Playing from behind... in bad field position... with heavy pressure and no protection leads to bad performances for most QBs.  I'm sure there will be other pre-season opportunities to see whether the play we saw is the exception or the norm.  One thing for sure is the coaches did not want to see the first two QBs taking those hits...so that is a positive! 

[Case]

Grigson better hope Irsay isn't reading these forums. So many people on here that clearly would make a better GM.

[throwing BBZ]

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.

 

Davis for $15M for 4 years. hahaha!

And there ya go. splains where your QB viewpoint is coming from.

 

IMO Harnish played himself off the team Sunday. We will see.

[Jason_]

I also did post that I appeared to be wrong on this after watching today's game. No doubt that this is no problem as Harnish is no 3 and can be cut and added to the practice squad without being in danger of losing something of importance. 

 

 

 

So, here's the thing, maybe next time wait until you've actually seen the players in live action before questioning why they were signed.  Before watching either of them play in our offense, you blasted the signing of Hasselbeck calling him a waste of money and a waste of a roster spot.  

 

 

 

 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 .

 

Again, you would have known the answers to both of these questions (is Harnish going to shine in pre-season and can Matt still play?) if you'd have waited until AFTER watching them play in live, preseason action.  

 

Now, if over the next 3 games, Hasselbeck greatly regresses and Harnish improves dramatically then we can have a legitimate discussion about the backup QB spot.  

[dw49]

So, here's the thing, maybe next time wait until you've actually seen the players in live action before questioning why they were signed.  Before watching either of them play in our offense, you blasted the signing of Hasselbeck calling him a waste of money and a waste of a roster spot.  

 

 

 

 

Again, you would have known the answers to both of these questions (is Harnish going to shine in pre-season and can Matt still play?) if you'd have waited until AFTER watching them play in live, preseason action.  

 

Now, if over the next 3 games, Hasselbeck greatly regresses and Harnish improves dramatically then we can have a legitimate discussion about the backup QB spot.  

 

 

 

So I guess what your saying is we should never discuss , never say we are pleased or displeased with a signing untilr it has played out ? Man... there are a lot of wasted , bad threads in this forum I guess. I have no problem admitting that a good aprt of my premise was wrong. We will not have to waste a roster spot on keeping Harnish. That was my biggest concern and I also didn't like spending over 8 million on a 38 year old back up QB .

[dw49]

Davis for $15M for 4 years. hahaha!

And there ya go. splains where your QB viewpoint is coming from.

 

IMO Harnish played himself off the team Sunday. We will see.

 

 

Davis for $15M for 4 years. hahaha!

And there ya go. splains where your QB viewpoint is coming from.

 

IMO Harnish played himself off the team Sunday. We will see.

 

 

 

Gosh .. it's just amazing that Superman is the one poster that has enough intelligence to know what my issues were and have a clue as to what I was talking about. I guess it's what happens when you begin to discuss things like salary cap , contracts .. etc with people that don't have a clue.

 

Anyway what you have above is pretty silly stuff. What I said is .......

 

" 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."

 

 

Now read that over a few times and think about what you wrote. I'm sure you will have no idea of what I'm talking about but I'm not going to explain.