New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

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 02-03-2014 10:34 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by exile (Post 576799)
I would lease it to them and charge $1 per $10 saved perpetually.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t0ubnDcyYGw/0.jpg
They want to own it. No other options on the table.
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/02/04/4yryqege.jpg

TheOak 02-03-2014 10:48 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by exile (Post 576799)
I would lease it to them and charge $1 per $10 saved perpetually.
Just for you I will play along but the rules change in accordance with your option.

Your patent expires in 4 years. I will lease it from you exclusively for 4 years, and each month I will send you a statement from my company telling you how much we saved. My reason for wanting to buy was solely based off of gaining an advantage for 4 years and with out the exclusivity the value of your widget drops exponentially.

Estimated revenue for your company for this exclusive agreement over the next 4 years (length of your patent) 40 million. Estimated cash in my pocket over the next for years due to this deal 360million.

Sign right here_________________________.

http://www.winbeta.org/sites/default...illgates_0.jpg

exile 02-03-2014 10:51 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 576802)
Just for you I will play along but the rules change in accordance with your option.

Your patent expires in 4 years. I will lease it from you exclusively for 4 years, and each month I will send you a statement from my company telling you how much we saved. My reason for wanting to buy was solely based off of gaining an advantage for 4 years and with out the exclusivity the value of your widget drops exponentially.

Estimated revenue for your company for this exclusive agreement over the next 4 years (length of your patent) 40 million.

Sign right here_________________________.
Thanks anyway. But I'm going to keep it on my mantle and live a simple life instead.

TheOak 02-03-2014 10:59 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by exile (Post 576803)
Thanks anyway. But I'm going to keep it on my mantle and live a simple life instead.
Your wife is going to be pissed and your daughter will be none too happy either.

CheramieIII 02-03-2014 11:06 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
How many times have we been to the playoffs, won some and actually won the Superbowl. I think he's earned it.

TheOak 02-03-2014 12:36 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
DRATS! A vote made me come back again thinking there was a reply.



I do love the "Yes,if he cared about the team he'd play for less than he's worth" crowd.


Go home and tell your wife the team at work is more important than the team at home . LOL

Danno 02-03-2014 01:44 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Crap! A vote made me come back again thinking there was a reply.

Utah_Saint 02-03-2014 01:46 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno (Post 576836)
Crap! A vote made me come back again thinking there was a reply.
We space em out just to trick you.

The Dude 02-03-2014 04:05 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
He earned it. They knew they were going to one day have to pay him as soon as they saw what he did in 2006. Would you give up part of your salary so some guy further down the chain can get a raise? He doesn't owe us or the team anything but 100% effort

Boutte 02-03-2014 06:14 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 576822)
DRATS! A vote made me come back again thinking there was a reply.



I do love the "Yes,if he cared about the team he'd play for less than he's worth" crowd.


Go home and tell your wife the team at work is more important than the team at home . LOL
I'd say these people would make great employees but than you have wonder about their intelligence and/or judgement..

Danno 02-03-2014 06:39 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Dammit, another vote without a reply. Annoying!!!

saintfan 02-03-2014 07:10 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
The man played his way into his contract. He "should" play for less if he "wants" to play for less, and not for any other reason, and people who bash him for his contract need to slow their roll, in my opinion. I know if I'm in his shoes I squeeze every drop I can.

Danno 02-03-2014 07:11 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
nm

saintfan 02-03-2014 07:21 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...Ou4osPQjSfBjVA

ScottF 02-03-2014 08:35 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamessr (Post 576706)
I say he's earned it like Manning, Brady, Rogers(when he has to sign)
He's totally up there with his peers
I thought his contract was going to cripple us but look at New England...
they seem to make it work. I'd even be willing to say they have far less talent than us
peers yes, but Brady's deal is different:

Tom Brady's new deal guarantees him up to $57 million from Patriots

maybe it's the millionaire wife

TheOak 02-04-2014 05:41 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boutte (Post 576875)
I'd say these people would make great employees but than you have wonder about their intelligence and/or judgement..

Last year I would have agreed with you, this year I am working on finesse. :)

Experience in life teaches a person that getting it right is more important than getting it their way.

TheOak 02-04-2014 05:43 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottF (Post 576908)
peers yes, but Brady's deal is different:



Tom Brady's new deal guarantees him up to $57 million from Patriots



maybe it's the millionaire wife

100% agreement. His nest egg sleeps next to him.

ScottF 02-04-2014 10:34 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 576933)
100% agreement. His nest egg sleeps next to him.
Not sure what Brittany is worth...
maybe if Benson puts a few Jimmy Johns in the dome Drew can sacrifice a buck or two

bepardini 02-04-2014 12:57 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
I am a brazilian fan of the Saints, and as a brazilian I also have a soccer team which I am a fan in my city, it is named Mineiro.

Here we have a few famous players such as Ronaldinho and he is a guy that sacrificed a salary of 12millions dollars for playing in our team and making "only" 3,5milllions. Just like him I can mention a few other players that did the same for playing in our team and the reason for that is because they love the fans, the city and there are things which are just priceless. Brees is a guy that gave so much for New Orleans, not just the Saints, but lets not forget he also got a lot from the fans.

There is no doubt he deserves making this kind of Money due to his game, but, if he wants to get a better shot for winning the superbowl and giving the city of New Orleans this gift, he must take a paycut. I couldnt disagree more on the idea that taking a 7 millions paycut when you already make 20 millions is a big deal.

Does he deserve the Money? Yes. Does he really need to get payed this high? No.

Rugby Saint II 02-04-2014 02:53 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Boutte your poll is a little lop sided. Should he have signed for less and not crippled the team? Maybe. But, he can not take a pay cut now.....too much going on with his contract to even touch it until next year.

Audiotom 02-04-2014 05:39 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
with all his endorsements Brees can take a pay cut

personally I'd take a cut with the money specifically going to star line reinforcements and getting Jimmy Graham signed

we haven't been the same since level headed Drew went for the $$$

Boutte 02-04-2014 05:43 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugby Saint II (Post 577005)
Boutte your poll is a little lop sided. Should he have signed for less and not crippled the team? Maybe. But, he can not take a pay cut now.....too much going on with his contract to even touch it until next year.
Good poit.

Let's not forget though that he played for a lot less than his market value for 5 years. He never mentioned it, never asked for a new contract. Let's see what happens in the future. He's only played under this contract for two years.

Danno 02-04-2014 06:43 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boutte (Post 577028)
Good poit.

Let's not forget though that he played for a lot less than his market value for 5 years. He never mentioned it, never asked for a new contract. Let's see what happens in the future. He's only played under this contract for two years.
Don't know about a lot less for 5 years. He signed a 6 year 60 million contract in 2006 when no other offers were on the table. His 1st 2 years earned him about 12 million each, which was about the value of the franchise tag.

I'd say he was significantly underpaid for only about 3 of those 6 years.

Boutte 02-04-2014 11:03 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno (Post 577037)
Don't know about a lot less for 5 years. He signed a 6 year 60 million contract in 2006 when no other offers were on the table. His 1st 2 years earned him about 12 million each, which was about the value of the franchise tag.

I'd say he was significantly underpaid for only about 3 of those 6 years.
Even so he could have suffered a career ending injury at any time. I just don't see how anybody can begrudge the guy, or any other player, maximizing their income while they can. Brees could reinjure his shoulder in practice and never play again. If you think that's farfetched ask LeCharles Bentley.

When Brees injured his shoulder going all out in a meaningless game for a team that didn't even want him anymore how many people stepped up and offered him any help. He was a young player with a bright future that only one team was willing to offer a decent contract. He took one for the Chargers. How much money did that cost him? He'd have to be stupid to take a penny less than he could get.

These guys pay a heavy price for the money they make. Most have handle at least some level of pain for the rest of their lives. Many are crippled or dependent on pain meds.

And it's real easy to tell somebody to give up millions of dollars because of some silly altruistic idea of taking one for the team. Neither the team nor the League is going to take one for the player if they get their brains scrambled and wind up out of the League after a couple of years suffering from brain damage. If you want to blame somebody blame the owners for not putting more money in the salary cap.

Some of you are living in Fairytale Land.

TheOak 02-05-2014 07:37 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugby Saint II (Post 577005)
Boutte your poll is a little lop sided. Should he have signed for less and not crippled the team? Maybe. But, he can not take a pay cut now.....too much going on with his contract to even touch it until next year.
Seriously? "crippled"

There is absolutely zero evidence that the team has been crippled in the last 7 years, or that Drew's contract has had any effect on this team thus far.

Danno 02-05-2014 07:38 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
This only works one way, more money up front in the form of a bonus spread out over a longer period.

Its not Drew's fault Loomis paid too much for other players.

jnormand 02-05-2014 10:50 AM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Who voted that he doesn't deserve to be paid like an elite QB? Lol.

Rugby Saint II 02-05-2014 01:57 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOak (Post 577075)
Seriously? "crippled"

There is absolutely zero evidence that the team has been crippled in the last 7 years, or that Drew's contract has had any effect on this team thus far.
You're right. Crippled is a little harsh. How about hog tied, hobbled, banged up or in a bad need of crutches?
The long and short of it is Drew's contract weakened the team tremendously. I love the man, but crippled isn't far off. :bng:

TheOak 02-05-2014 02:06 PM
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugby Saint II (Post 577138)
You're right. Crippled is a little harsh. How about hog tied, hobbled, banged up or in a bad need of crutches?
The long and short of it is Drew's contract weakened the team tremendously. I love the man, but crippled isn't far off. :bng:
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?

Danno 02-05-2014 02:21 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?
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.

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 06:32 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com