New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   Should Drew Play for Less $$ ? (https://blackandgold.com/saints/64146-should-drew-play-less.html)

TheOak 02-05-2014 02:30 PM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 577142)
The only issue I remember is if Brees had signed earlier, we would have franchised Nicks and he would still be a Saint. But since negotiations dragged on, we couldn't franchise Nicks and we ended up losing him.

Brees contact didn't hurt us, but the negotiation process involved in his deal sure did.

Drew was Franchise tagged remember, he just didnt sign it because of the whole ordeal behind what the tag was worth? We can only FT 1 player and a whole lot of what caused things to drag out was not the negotiation but the entire argument between the league and the NFLPA over what that tag value was.. The whole was it is first or second tag issue.

The appeal over the tag was won July 3rd and 10 days later Drew and the Saints came to an agreement.

The Front Office could have tagged Nicks and offered Drew the contract they ended up giving him and we would have had both.

Danno 02-05-2014 02:36 PM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 577143)
Drew was Franchise tagged remember, he just didnt sign it because of the whole ordeal behind what the tag was worth? We can only FT 1 player and a whole lot of what caused things to drag out was not the negotiation but the entire argument between the league and the NFLPA over what that tag value was.. The whole was it is first or second tag issue.

The appeal over the tag was won July 3rd and 10 days later Drew and the Saints came to an agreement.

The Front Office could have tagged Nicks and offered Drew the contract they ended up giving him and we would have had both.

My point was that we'd planned to franchise Nicks. We couldn't risk losing Brees so obviously we franchised Brees instead of Nicks, thereby allowing Nicks to go to Tampa.

Had we worked out a deal with Brees before the franchise deadline, which we tried to do, then we could have franchised Nicks.

Brees' contract didn't cost us Nicks, but the timing of it certainly did.

TheOak 02-05-2014 02:47 PM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno (Post 577145)
My point was that we'd planned to franchise Nicks. We couldn't risk losing Brees so obviously we franchised Brees instead of Nicks, thereby allowing Nicks to go to Tampa.

Had we worked out a deal with Brees before the franchise deadline, which we tried to do, then we could have franchised Nicks.

Brees' contract didn't cost us Nicks, but the timing of it certainly did.

I have a question for you concerning Nicks... Why was his contract up in 2012 anyway? In 2011 we only signed him to 1 year????? Must have been a reason... He was All Pro in 2010 so in 2011 we sign him to 1 year>?

His Bucs contract is a monster.. 14m cap hit in 2012. 9m this year and 10m 2015/2016.

Rugby Saint II 02-05-2014 03:03 PM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 577140)
Who were the casualties of Drews contract? We have hashed this out on these boards time and time again. Bushrod wasn't a Brees casualty he was over paid by Chicago, and is no where near a 7m/year LT..

Nicks signed with Tampa Bay on March 14th of 2012
Drew and the Saints didn't come to an agreement until July 13th of 2012.
Drews contract was cap relief until 2013.

There is no plausible evidence that Drews contract has weakened this team in even the sliest way.

So who? How?

It's not who we lost......it's who we can't sign to become a Saint because it's cost prohibitive. This is where my issue lies. Does he earn his money? Oh hell yes!
But do I wish we could afford to spend enough money to get top tier players in FA? Yes.

TheOak 02-05-2014 04:17 PM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rugby Saint II (Post 577149)
It's not who we lost......it's who we can't sign to become a Saint because it's cost prohibitive. This is where my issue lies. Does he earn his money? Oh hell yes!
But do I wish we could afford to spend enough money to get top tier players in FA? Yes.


I can appreciate your interpretation of the situation, I really can, and agree that is how it looks.

I'll lay it out:
2009 - Drew Brees restructures contract to give Cap Relief

2012 - Drew Brees 2012 cap hit 11.7m from restructure extension. Drew's new contract has a cap hit of 10.4 million once again creating Cap 1.3m Space... Which top tier free agent did we sign?

2013- Drew Brees 2013 cap hit from the restructure extension 13.4m, new contract cap hit 17.4m . We sign the best free agent acquisition of the season Keenan Lewis.

So in the year his cap hit goes up for the first time we strike gold.

To me that proves we have not been crippled or even hindered.

Now, here are a few thinks I would like you to take into consideration.

1. New Orleans does not ever go after top tier free agents.... Sproles, Lewis, Sharper - all gold mines, non considered top tier when we nabbed them.

2. NFL GMs use the Salary Cap just like most people use Credit Cards. They live near maxed-out and only make room when they want to buy something. Mickey Loomis lives between .5 and 3m from the cap, when he wants something he makes some room (E.g. Smith pay cut). If Drew's contract was only 10m a year Smith and a few others wouldn't have been asked to take cuts or restructures and we would still be .5m from the cap.

3. Drew has restructured once already and he will do it again when it is needed. Presently it isn't needed as Loomis will make a cap payment cutting Smith and then buy something else.

So in closing, we do not go after top tier FAs even when we have money and Drew's contract hasn't prevented anything as Loomis makes a payment for new toys.

If you are really set on someone's contract being limiting to this team get all up in Will Smith azz.


The following statement is not directed towards you, I'm just throwing it out there.

- where was the cap rage in 2010 when Will Smith was gobbling up 11 million? LOL

Utah_Saint 02-05-2014 09:56 PM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
In no way would I give up Drew for the cap space, but that's just me. I think the team is built around him and he carries it well. The Saints have been one of the best teams in the league since he's been here and I don't think that's going to change much over the length of his contract.

That being said..I can understand the people that feel Drew's contract puts the team in a bind when looking for available talent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 577158)
2012 - Drew Brees 2012 cap hit 11.7m from restructure extension. Drew's new contract has a cap hit of 10.4 million once again creating Cap 1.3m Space... Which top tier free agent did we sign?

In 2012

The Saints signed Curtis Lofton, he was considered the top FA available at his position.
Scout.com: 2012 NFL Free Agency MLB Rankings

Also, Ben Grubbs was the only other 5 star rated OG.
Scout.com: 2012 NFL Free Agency OG Rankings

Quote:

2013- Drew Brees 2013 cap hit from the restructure extension 13.4m, new contract cap hit 17.4m . We sign the best free agent acquisition of the season Keenan Lewis.
At the time (thank goodness for seeing what he could be) Keenan Lewis was not considered a major free agent. He was ranked as the 6th best available free agent corner.
Scout.com: 2013 NFL Free Agency CB Rankings

Quote:

1. New Orleans does not ever go after top tier free agents.... Sproles, Lewis, Sharper - all gold mines, non considered top tier when we nabbed them.
Sproles was considered top tier. Scout.com graded him as a 5 star running back. And considered him the #1 unrestricted free agent running back. The only free agents that graded out higher, were restricted and retained by their teams.
Scout.com: 2011 NFL Free Agency RB Rankings

Quote:

2. NFL GMs use the Salary Cap just like most people use Credit Cards. They live near maxed-out and only make room when they want to buy something. Mickey Loomis lives between .5 and 3m from the cap, when he wants something he makes some room (E.g. Smith pay cut). If Drew's contract was only 10m a year Smith and a few others wouldn't have been asked to take cuts or restructures and we would still be .5m from the cap.
That's a legitimate statement but the opposite would then also be true. If Loomis had more money to play with, he'd go for higher priced free agents and stay within .5m of the cap.

Quote:

Drew has restructured once already and he will do it again when it is needed. Presently it isn't needed as Loomis will make a cap payment cutting Smith and then buy something else.
It's going to take more than Will's salary just to retain the players we have. We will have cap casualties or players we would have kept if we had more money to spend. Because of the cap situation we will not be able to pursue some of the players that could address some of the teams needs e.g. Vonte Davis, Rodgers-Cromartie, Alex Mack, Brandon Spikes etc...

Quote:

So in closing, we do not go after top tier FAs even when we have money and Drew's contract hasn't prevented anything as Loomis makes a payment for new toys.

It's not just Drew's contract though. There are a few contracts that are higher than average for the position. With salary caps, it's all a balancing game. You have to balance studs, very good players and journeymen. The more studs you have the fewer very good players you'll be able to afford and the more journeyman you end up with.

I gotta believe we do go after the best FA available that we can afford and if we can afford top tier free agents we go after them.

Last season there was less money to play with so there weren't any really big name signings. Most of us were really impressed with what Loomis was able to do. I expect him to impress again this year but this season will be even tighter.

Quote:

If you are really set on someone's contract being limiting to this team get all up in Will Smith azz.
Truer words have never been spoken.

TheOak 02-06-2014 06:49 AM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Utah_Saint (Post 577191)
In no way would I give up Drew for the cap space, but that's just me. I think the team is built around him and he carries it well. The Saints have been one of the best teams in the league since he's been here and I don't think that's going to change much over the length of his contract.

That being said..I can understand the people that feel Drew's contract puts the team in a bind when looking for available talent.



In 2012

The Saints signed Curtis Lofton, he was considered the top FA available at his position.
Scout.com: 2012 NFL Free Agency MLB Rankings

Also, Ben Grubbs was the only other 5 star rated OG.
Scout.com: 2012 NFL Free Agency OG Rankings



At the time (thank goodness for seeing what he could be) Keenan Lewis was not considered a major free agent. He was ranked as the 6th best available free agent corner.
Scout.com: 2013 NFL Free Agency CB Rankings



Sproles was considered top tier. Scout.com graded him as a 5 star running back. And considered him the #1 unrestricted free agent running back. The only free agents that graded out higher, were restricted and retained by their teams.
Scout.com: 2011 NFL Free Agency RB Rankings



That's a legitimate statement but the opposite would then also be true. If Loomis had more money to play with, he'd go for higher priced free agents and stay within .5m of the cap.



It's going to take more than Will's salary just to retain the players we have. We will have cap casualties or players we would have kept if we had more money to spend. Because of the cap situation we will not be able to pursue some of the players that could address some of the teams needs e.g. Vonte Davis, Rodgers-Cromartie, Alex Mack, Brandon Spikes etc...




It's not just Drew's contract though. There are a few contracts that are higher than average for the position. With salary caps, it's all a balancing game. You have to balance studs, very good players and journeymen. The more studs you have the fewer very good players you'll be able to afford and the more journeyman you end up with.

I gotta believe we do go after the best FA available that we can afford and if we can afford top tier free agents we go after them.

Last season there was less money to play with so there weren't any really big name signings. Most of us were really impressed with what Loomis was able to do. I expect him to impress again this year but this season will be even tighter.



Truer words have never been spoken.


You made my point for me. Loomis has gotten it done Loomis's way with out falter. We go after great talent in the draft, Free Agency, undrafted rookies... We do not go after the "big name" that everyone drools over.

Remember last season/ All the yammering about how Drew's contract kept us from getting one particular free agent? People were livid we didn't get that big name Nnamdi.. How did that work out for SF? Nnamdi was cut in November and didn't even finish the season.

All that glitters isn't gold.

xan 02-06-2014 09:27 AM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
I'm on the record for having a super bowl winning team not a payroll dysfunctional team. Evidence is mounting on the devastating impact of over rewarding a QB.

You put decent talent around a decent QB, they win. Hell, he doesn't even need to be decent. Coaching makes more difference than the marginal skills of a qb.

TheOak 02-06-2014 09:46 AM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by xan (Post 577229)
I'm on the record for having a super bowl winning team not a payroll dysfunctional team. Evidence is mounting on the devastating impact of over rewarding a QB.

You put decent talent around a decent QB, they win. Hell, he doesn't even need to be decent. Coaching makes more difference than the marginal skills of a qb.

Houston Texans.

saintfan 02-06-2014 07:34 PM

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Anybody whining about Drew's contract need only think back to virtually every QB we had prior to him to gain some perspective on his value.

I'm sorry. There a very few reasons why we have been successful. Tom Benson. Mickey Loomis. Sean Payton. Drew Brees.

We can argue all day about the skills of this player or that player, and I'm not diminishing any other individual, but we're NOT a Super Bowl winning team and a yearly playoff contender without those men.

They've earned their salaries.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com