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 $$$

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 

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.

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 

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.

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 

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.

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 

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.

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.

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 

Who voted that he doesn't deserve to be paid like an elite QB? Lol.

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 

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:

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 

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?

Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
 

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.