![]() |
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
Quote:
The appeal over the tag was won July 3rd and 10 days later Drew and the Saints came to an agreement. The Front Office could have tagged Nicks and offered Drew the contract they ended up giving him and we would have had both. |
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
Quote:
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. |
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
Quote:
His Bucs contract is a monster.. 14m cap hit in 2012. 9m this year and 10m 2015/2016. |
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
Quote:
But do I wish we could afford to spend enough money to get top tier players in FA? Yes. |
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
Quote:
I can appreciate your interpretation of the situation, I really can, and agree that is how it looks. I'll lay it out: 2009 - Drew Brees restructures contract to give Cap Relief 2012 - Drew Brees 2012 cap hit 11.7m from restructure extension. Drew's new contract has a cap hit of 10.4 million once again creating Cap 1.3m Space... Which top tier free agent did we sign? 2013- Drew Brees 2013 cap hit from the restructure extension 13.4m, new contract cap hit 17.4m . We sign the best free agent acquisition of the season Keenan Lewis. So in the year his cap hit goes up for the first time we strike gold. To me that proves we have not been crippled or even hindered. Now, here are a few thinks I would like you to take into consideration. 1. New Orleans does not ever go after top tier free agents.... Sproles, Lewis, Sharper - all gold mines, non considered top tier when we nabbed them. 2. NFL GMs use the Salary Cap just like most people use Credit Cards. They live near maxed-out and only make room when they want to buy something. Mickey Loomis lives between .5 and 3m from the cap, when he wants something he makes some room (E.g. Smith pay cut). If Drew's contract was only 10m a year Smith and a few others wouldn't have been asked to take cuts or restructures and we would still be .5m from the cap. 3. Drew has restructured once already and he will do it again when it is needed. Presently it isn't needed as Loomis will make a cap payment cutting Smith and then buy something else. So in closing, we do not go after top tier FAs even when we have money and Drew's contract hasn't prevented anything as Loomis makes a payment for new toys. If you are really set on someone's contract being limiting to this team get all up in Will Smith azz. The following statement is not directed towards you, I'm just throwing it out there. - where was the cap rage in 2010 when Will Smith was gobbling up 11 million? LOL |
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
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:
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:
Scout.com: 2013 NFL Free Agency CB Rankings Quote:
Scout.com: 2011 NFL Free Agency RB Rankings Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
Quote:
You made my point for me. Loomis has gotten it done Loomis's way with out falter. We go after great talent in the draft, Free Agency, undrafted rookies... We do not go after the "big name" that everyone drools over. Remember last season/ All the yammering about how Drew's contract kept us from getting one particular free agent? People were livid we didn't get that big name Nnamdi.. How did that work out for SF? Nnamdi was cut in November and didn't even finish the season. All that glitters isn't gold. |
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
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. |
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
Quote:
|
Re: Should Drew Play for Less $$ ?
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 04:36 AM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com