Drew deserved the contract he got. He played in New Orleans for below market value for the entire first contract. At any time, the Saints could have torn up that deal and given him more money in those years to keep low the money they had to pay him in the future. They chose to milk the value of the depressed deal he had to sign when he left SD and then hope for goodwill when Drew signed his next contract. When looking at the big cap hits for 2015-16, one must remember that the deal only averaged out at 20/year which is the going rate for top QBs. Drew helped the Saints cap in the first three years of the deal by structuring it in a way to allow them to be able to sign a player like Grubbs or give Graham his money.

Wait, What Market?!? Herb, we got a fact check on Aisle Nine...

It was Miami, San Diego and New Orleans - that was it. And New Orleans offered the most money, guaranteed money...

Fact, it was a three team market and San Diego had Rivers, the Great Nick Sanboni and Dolphins lowballed and Loomis got rick-rolled by Condon...

Source: The full story on why Brees isn't a Dolphin | Miami Dolphins In Depth

Difference in ignorance vs stupid is choosing to believe some bio written by Brees' pressers that he wanted to help save New Orleans after Katrina out of some noblesse oblige...

So if anything, Brees could have returned the faith, as well as some salary cap, roster awareness, and signed for a little less to get Nicks et al done...

Choosing not to drink the Kool-aid, or not taking the blue pill or sucking off some tail-pipe fumes make you no less a fan...

Brees is here because we offered the most guaranteed money...

Agreed that Brees came to NO because the Saints offered the most guaranteed money, but it was clear by the second year of that deal that Brees was outplaying it. At that time, the Saints had the choice of either enjoying the benefits of having a QB playing very well on a deal that was less than what other QBs at that level were being paid, or giving him a new deal which would up his current level of pay, yet buy some future years at a cost lower than they might pay. The Saints and Brees chose to ride out the former deal, so when Brees negotiated he asked for and received the going rate for elite QBs, which has since been surpassed by non-elite QBs. He even did so in a way that gave the Saints greater flexibility in the first three years.

This dilemma isn't unique. The Seahawks are going to face it with Wilson. He's been cheap on his rookie deal. They have let him play that out, but will have to pay market value to keep him if they choose. They benefited from the low cost rookie deal, but it won't be Russell's fault if he asks for and receives the going rate.

Everyone wants to put this on the players while the owners rake in money. The salary cap is there because the owners want it there. They want protection from themselves. They want to be able to look at us fans and say, "sorry, but we want to keep our teams together or sign better players, but the cap prohibits how much we can." Well. who put the cap in place? Surely not the players. The cap exists because owners put it there. And the owners surely don't pay players who play better than their contracts unless they have to.

So, to fault Brees over the contract he signed and expect him to fix the mess is ludicrous. Why not ask Galette to give back some money? OR tell Byrd that he was hurt all last season so he should give it back? Or tell Grubbs to? Because they won't do it and shouldn't have to.

First, your missing the point. No one expwcrs brees to take less money, it would be nice if he did but its not expected. If brees wants another title then making a cap friendly extension is something he should do.

Secondly, while the owners put the cap in place it isn't there to "protect them from themselves". The cap is around to protect the league from the union and more importantly to even the playing field. Some owners couldn't afford to be competitive without a cap, and without a cap we would have a few teams buying every player and creating dynasties.

He is a top five QB and would be top three with a better line. Drew has earned every dime he's been paid. He could have demanded more money.

and that's the paradox-- he could have demanded more money, and the line would be worse.
You can't have both

You are directly relating Brees' contract to the decline of the offensive line. I say that is completely wrongheaded.

- Stinchcomb - Retired due to injury problems, what are you gonna do about that. It's not like Strief has been a big disappointment as his replacement. Stinchcomb retired before 2011 season, a year before Brees' deal. Completely irrelevant statement

- Nicks - Left because Tampa gave him a contact way over market value. He's barely played since then and didn't make their offensive line any better when he did. You cannot say with any reasonable thought that the Saints made a bad decision in letting him go. Nicks was an ALL-PRO in his last year here, as in one of the top 2 guards in the NFL. Yes, he was going to command a lot of money, but only $2 million more than Grubbs, who makes still $7.2 million a year. There's no way of knowing what would have happened to Nicks if he had stayed

- Goodwin - We had him on the cheap. It possibly was a mistake to let him go, but by the last year of his three-year deal with the Niners he was washed up, as he has been this season with the Saints. We just would've been complaining about him in 2013 instead of 2014. DLP was a fine replacement for a while, then regressed. Brees' contract had nothing to do with the decline in his performance. Exactly. We get bargain-basement centers and let Goodwin (in his prime) go because we couldn't afford him. What could a center who makes $2-3 million a year do for us?

- Evans - Chronic injuries have diminished him as a player. Again, I fail to see how Brees' contract is responsible for that. never said it was

- Bushrod - Was above average for us, but never a great pass blocker. Went to the Bears and is barely average for them. Is this the kind of guy Brees should take less money in order to keep? And we ended up replacing him with Armstead, who is already a better player than Bushrod ever was and has potential to be an elite tackle. making the Pro Bowl 2 years in a row is only above average? I wish we had an "above average" line now.



Frankly, I think if we had Lelito playing center instead of Goodwin this year, and had Armstead not gotten hurt, we are probably talking about our playoff matchup with the Cardinals right now. It's easy to ***** and moan about everything under the sun, but how about using your common sense and understanding it's not as simple as all that.

Thanks for the very condescending reply. Here are some 'common sense' facts for you