biloxi-indian

Oak,

Thanks for the clarification. So, if Brees had not signed a contract in 2012, the Saints could have applied the "exclusive franchise tag" for the third and final time (this year...2013) if they chose to do so and had a long-term contract not been agreed to and signed.

This position is further supported by the "linky" thing you provided;

"Drew Brees scored a win in his ongoing battle for a new contract Tuesday, when system arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled in the New Orleans Saints quarterback's favor on a franchise-tag grievance filed by the NFL Players Association and heard last week in Philadelphia.

Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint. Language on the matter in the new collective bargaining agreement was vague, saying "any club" using the tag a third time on a player would have to tender that player at 144 percent of his previous year's salary, but not specifying if it had to be the same club tagging the player each time."

However, this quote "Brees argued that the next franchise tag he's assigned should count as his third since he was tagged in 2005 as a San Diego Charger and this offseason as a Saint." is confusing as Brees grievance appears to be about a possibility of being exclusive franchise tagged in 2013 and not specifically being exclusive franchise tagged in 2012.

So Brees grievance was about having the exclusive franchise tag applied in 2013?

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over, over, and over again...and expecting a different outcome!