I totally agree, and I was simply talking about this 49ers game when I was placing blame on Brees - not about the season as a whole.

And I agree that replacing Brees with another QB, even one that was above average, would in all likelihood result in more losses and with less overall scoring, and I'm in no way saying that Brees should be replaced!

But - just to play the devil's advocate - if you were to replace Brees with an average QB: a lot of other things would also change along with that if we are not talking about a scenario where Brees wound up on the IR and had to be replaced by Daniel. For example, $20M could land a couple of studs on the defense and/or an excellent pair of OTs, who could create a dominant run game and/or really good pass protection for the average QB taking over for Brees. So, it's really hard to just imagine a scenario where Brees was replaced by another QB, but the rest of the team remained the same - especially the offensive game-plan.

Resource allocation is a definite factor, but looking at the last dozen Superbowl winners its apparent the one denominator is a franchise QB.

Defense no longer wins championships in our current pass happy league. Recent rule changes have seen to that.

I think 20 million for a franchise QB is necessary. Its what we do with the other 100 million that'll decide if we win another one or not.