Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

I'm well aware of that. I simply use it as an opportunity to try to discuss the issues in a realistic fashion instead of just accepting the blather of "The Saints are doing it wrong. Do better."

Hold people accountable for real answers and the tripe will diminish.

SFIAH

Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

But for some people (:dunce: in particular) this is "being stupid" because there's a chance that future production doesn't match past performance. So, I'm still looking for an answer of how to proceed and not "be stupid".

SFIAH

Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

I think there is another reasonable perspective. When you decide to pay top dollar to a player at a given position, you essentially commit to trying to build around that position as one of your key areas of strength for years to come, which comes at the expense of having money to invest in other positions. If you are a hapless franchise in a 10 year playoff drought maybe beggars can't be choosers and you take what you can get because any elite player could help you make the playoffs. But if you are looking for a ring, I think you have to consider where your dollars are best spent and be willing to make hard choices and let some stars walk.

For various reasons, I don't think the wide receiver position is the best position to make a top dollar investment in. Most of the best receivers in the salary cap era never earned a ring: Randy Moss, Terrelle Owens, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Chad Ochocinco, Larry Fitzgerald, Julio Jones, etc. Certainly good receivers got rings but often the absolute top tier receivers were relegated to perennial contenders with exciting offenses that couldn't make the leap. There are various reasons this could be. When an average or developing QB has a superstar WR they may often become dependent on targeting that receiver too much and becoming a one dimensional offense or passing game. This may work great against worse teams in the regular season, but top defenses in the playoffs may find a coverage scheme to shut this down and then bam, the whole offense disappears. Also a young QB developing with a superstar receiver may actually be hindered not helped. Instead of learning to spread the ball all around, they may get the best results just relying on the #1 whenever anything breaks down or gets complicated, so instead of their skills as a QB progressing over the years to make more reads and tighter throws, their skills may regress. But even with regressed skills and lack of ability to read defenses, use al their receivers, and make tight throws, they may rack up big stats with that star receiver. Then you end up signing a mediocre QB to a top 5-10 QB contract, and suddenly their star receiver starts to age and lose a step, and everything falls apart. I think its best for a young QB to develop in a diverse offense without a superstar wide receiver. This is how Brady developed. This is how Brees developed with Colston being a very good receiver but not megatron. This is how Peyton Manning developed with a young draft pick wide receiver in Marvin Harrison who blossomed over time but was not an immediate extreme top outlet. Then as that QB matures, perhaps you can have a superstar receiver.

Back when Michael Thomas was on his rookie deal, I thought we should trade him when Brees retired for these reasons. He was super elite, and that has not been a good formula for developing a young QB or winning a ring. Had we done so, we would be better off. We did trade away Jimmy Graham and were better off. Colston was more of a good #1 receiver but not a record breaker all pro. If Olave turns into a Colston type and does not need an extreme contract, maybe we can keep him. But overall I think if his value gets too high, the smart thing is to trade Olave not to give him the same contract Jefferson and Chase will get.

In general I think our money is better invested in the defense and in the offensive line. Corners also often lose a step as they age so like New England, I would be careful to be on the hook for big long term money to a corner into their 30's, though the first contract after the rookie deal can work out. A big challenge for us is that just when we struck it rich with great draft picks, we struck it rich as some particular positions where long term investment is a big risk. So we ended up sinking big money into WR and RB which is a thing that smarter franchises like New England and Pittburgh who have won multiple rings over the years have hesitated to do.

Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

Bako,

I appreciate you taking the time to write out a well thought out post on the subject. It actually makes sense to manage it based on the maturity of the rest of the offense. Maybe that's why the Chiefs decided to trade Tyreek Hill instead of signing him to the mint.

SFIAH

Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

Point well taken for a WR. We cut bait (and were able to) with one other speedy WR after a large contract. Not so easy with MT.

Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

Breaking NEWs.... THOMAS aint playing the rest of the season..and has not played the last 3 seasons... for MILLIONs....

AWESOME Contract:dunce: AND has a thug Defending him to boot:dunce:

SAINTs Truth!!! :rofl:

Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

Hasn’t played in three seasons? Who was that the kicked Atlanta’s butts first game of the season?

Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

Meh... whatever.... i bet you all were wishing he were out there last night. Kicked the falcons butt ... as if.:dunce:

Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

It’s called being truthful. You should give it a try. Anyway the Saints lost last night so you should be happy.

Re: Michael Thomas to IR
 

Actually... neither happy or disappointed. Just accept reality. Truth is, Thomas has not done squat for the Saints in the last 3 seasons. :dunce: