If our defense was ranked anywheres from 15-20th in the league we wouldn't be having these conversations right now.

Drew didn't play well in some games...
Jimmy Graham dropped alot of passes...
Defense stunk week in and week out.
Don't even begin to mention the shutout vs Tampa. You don't get credit for beating a bunch of bums....
That what good teams are suppsoed to do to bad teams....Beat the like red headed step children

No one has answered this question: If QB contract is going to be the end to this team how is Denver managing to have the number 4 offense and the number 2 defense?

Payton manning 2013 Cap hit - $20m
Denver Broncos - 2013 Cap Hits

Drew Brees 2013 Cap hit $17.4m
Drew Brees Contract, Salaries, and Transactions

Peytons contract cap hits
Peyton Manning Contract, Salaries, and Transactions
2012 -18M
2013 - 20m
2014 - 20m
2015 - 19m
2016 - 19m

Drews contract cap hits
Drew Brees Contract, Salaries, and Transactions
2012 -10.4M
2013 - 17.4m
2014 - 18.4m
2015 - 26m
2016 - 27m

2015/2016 is when the caps go up... Drews contract is more cap friendly that Peytons.... But no one is in the news screaming about that...

Drews contract is not the problem for the Saints, its the contracts of the other players that are not playing up to their contract that is the problem. See Loomis about this.


Here... Everyone complaining about Brees cap hit in 2013? He is 8th in the league for 2013, 5th for 2014... in 2015 he eclipses everyone else but the cap will raise that year and we still do not have Rogers new contract nor do we have Flaccos.

2013 NFL Top Cap Hit Salaries

I have already addressed this. Those teams had better cap situations than the Saints. They can afford it for now. What happens when Von Miller's pay day comes? They'll have to replace Champ Bailey soon, and guys like Demaryius Thomas and Eric Decker are eventually going to get paid. Lot's of things happen down the road. The Saints were already screwed and still forked over that mega deal. And we STILL have Jimmy Graham to worry about.

This is absurdly inaccurate. A free agent, as Drew was last off season, is not restricted in any way. He set the terms and would not settle for less. That is not negotiating. Only in theory could the Saints have let him shop elsewhere. They absolutely HAD to re-sign, for reasons I plainly explained. Reasons which trump your argument that an athlete is like any other employee. There aren't many exceptional athletes. And we aren't in a position to draft high enough for another QB, much less be guaranteed that he'd work out.

Your comment about players not actually receiving a raise? Don't play the technicality game with me. I say that general terms. You know exactly what I'm talking about. He made 60 million in his previous contract. If the Saints valued him the same, they would have offered the same amount. But I believe the initial offer was around 97 million. Only in technical terms is that not a 37 million dollar raise. I get annoyed with meaningless nit picking. It's 37 million more than he got the last time, no matter the terms.

As for the "set for life" comment, you're argument against it only applies to the most undeserving of people. Yes, there have been some who seemed set, and promptly blew it. That's their problem. If Drew is that stupid (I don't think he is) then what's another couple million, right? I guess he'll just fart that away, too? No one deserves more money for the possibility that they might blow it. If he manages his money even half good, he is absolutely set. We're not even factoring in his endorsement deals, which bring in untold more millions.

I don't consider Drew to be a horrible, greedy person. I just think he and many others have lost perspective. Showing a little humility and caring about your teammates does not mean you don't care about your own family. He has done his part in taking care of his family. But this is not how it goes anymore, and I know it. This isn't news to me. The only reason I'm still talking about it at all is for those who claimed it wouldn't hurt the team last year.

Correct. Our situation is on Loomis.

What I wrote is completely accurate, they way you are interpreting it is not. When a contract is over there are no more legal, business, or moral oblations on the part of either party.

An athlete is a specialized occupation... In this regard other specialized employees are the same... A chemist, engineer, lawyer, Doctor... etc... No one has to employ them for any price. There are plenty... PLENTY of people that are not professional athletes that are so damned good at what they do they can achieve pay higher than their peers on the open market.

I didn't nit pick.... Its the reality of the business and legal situation, which is exactly what i said. Now, if Drew had shopped the market as leverage then you may have an arguement that he tried to leverage outside influences... Did the Saints tell him they wouldn't pay his asking price forcing him to shop the market? Nope... This is on Loomis.

Did Peyton Manning get a pay raise to go to Denver? No, he ended up with an increased pay.... As far as for Drew having the Saints over a barrel, the Colts fared well with a new rookie QB, as well as the Seahawks. Dont tell me about draft position.. you can move up to get what you need.

"Undeserving" is a subjective statement and only matters in regard to opinion. Endorsement deals are moot and outside the scope of his contract with the Saints or NFL.

Looking at someones financial situation and determining that they have "enough", or should take an action that is related to having more than others is liberal in approach.... it is the equivalent to saying someone with 500k in salary should pay a higher tax% than someone with 25k in salary just because they have enough... You may take offense or not. It is what it is. Drew earned the ability to negotiate the highest pay in the NFL, and he was successful. Had he not, he would be playing for less money or another team.

I know it is difficult as a fan to separate passion for a team from the business aspect of the NFL... The NFL was not founded by fans that wanted a league for their teams. It was founded by businessmen wanting to make a profit. Just like the AFL, and CFL were founded to do the same thing off of the model the NFL built.

You're repeating yourself, and my point remains exactly the same. I understand the technicality between a pay raise and an increased Salary. Let me say Again... Offering him more money the second time around, means they valued him at a greater price than before. Which is not in any way different than a raise. Is it a raise in legal terms? No. I don't need a lesson in legality. I'm making a simple comparison that is not hard to understand. When you say that Drew shouldn't lessen the income in his house, you are insinuating that he already has a set pay, and is taking a pay CUT. So guess what? That is legally incorrect. See where I'm going with this? But I'm not concerned about legal matters. They offered him the highest paid contract and he turned it down for even more.

The argument about Drew not shopping the Market is not a strong one. I have said many times, the Saints had to keep him. Drew knew this, and used it as leverage to play market value. Yes, most players do that. But most players aren't in the neighborhood of 100 million, either.

In other words, don't pretend that just because he didn't openly shop other teams, that he wasn't playing the field. You don't think his agent was feeling out other teams to get a sense of his value? You're extremely naive if you don't think so.

As for your examples of the Colts and the Seahawks, please. The Colts had the number one pick! do we? No. The Seahawks got lucky on a 3rd rounder. What part of "no guarantee they work out" do you not get? sure, those guys had decent years. What about Tim Couch, David Carr, Jamarcus Russell, Matt Leinart, Alex Smith (took him 6 years to be serviceable), Blaine Gabbert, Mark Sanchez, and on I could go. Peyton Manning was 36, coming off neck surgery. That's why the Colts felt they had to rebuild. It just so happened they also had the number one pick. We are in no such position.

You think we can trade up? With what? You're making a ton of assumptions all in the name of defending a contract. I can't make my points any more clear, so if you only care about legalities, instead of the common sense factors, as if it makes a difference, then this has been a pointless conversation.

Repeating my self? Your contradicting your self... In order for there to be a "pay raise" there has to be a "set pay", you just stated he had no "set pay". Quit spinning to suit your story.. One minute correct terms are moot then in the same paragraph you want to use correct terminology.

You keep leveraging '100 million" as if it matters, it doesn't. "Highest paid" denotes a desired status, full market value denotes exactly that and what others make in regards to Drew is moot.

However... Ill play your game.

Drews market value was x, accepting anything less whether is was more than he was previous making is not a sound business practice and is taking money away from his home... Accepting anything other than the FULL pay
raise is absurd.

Drew is Starbucks coffee... Everyone complains about the price. Many people will pay it, and do.

If my employer offers me a 20% raise and I hold out and actually get a 30% raise am I greedy?

The issue is not Drew making more money that he brings in to the NFLs or Benson's coffers.

Drew also stood up for the position he held as the player rep in the NFLPA.. To accept a lower contract lowered what other QBs would make. Did you see what Tom Brady accepted yesterday? While good for the Patriots it was bad for every other QB looking for a new contract. NFL contracts set the market value for each position. Brady's contract gave leverage to the Ravens against Flacco.


And for the last time.. NO the Saints did not HAVE to keep him. They WANTED to keep him. Need and want are entirely two different terms.

Keep spinning, I am done here.