Originally Posted by lee909 (Post 635842)

No point in planning on a good QB hitting FA it just about never happens

Originally Posted by ScottF (Post 635832)

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

Originally Posted by Jack Vegas (Post 635854)

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.

Originally Posted by halloween 65 (Post 635875)

Before I would extend Brees I would fix the line and if that is the problem then go from there with possibly extending. At least this way you get an answer and at least have a great O-line for Brees or another qb.

Originally Posted by 44Champs (Post 635877)

Sounds good but can we do that without restructuring brees's contract? That's the $100 millon question.

Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL (Post 635885)

It's a little frustrating to continue to see comments about Brees' contract amount. Take a look here:

Quarterback Contracts and Salaries | Over The Cap

Brees' contract isn't the top QB contract in any category. The guy played for the Saints for 6 years on a contract he probably outplayed in the first year and definitely after the SB year without complaint. In 2012 $100 was the going rate for top tier QBs and is actually a bargain now. Then the current contract was a 3 year cap friendly soft start.

So Brees isn't obligated to restructure. The Saints can of course cut him and free up $12 million in cap ($14 million in dead money as opposed to $26 million in cap). Note that according to the details of his contract:

Drew Brees Contract, Salary Cap Details & Breakdowns | Spotrac

Half of the $18 million salary becomes guaranteed. Likely this is on the 3rd

SFIAH

Originally Posted by ScottF (Post 635865)

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

Originally Posted by Jack Vegas (Post 635897)

You still haven't explained how Brees' contract is solely responsible for the decline of the offensive line, which was your original supposition.

It's especially stupid when you consider the fact (and this is an ACTUAL FACT, not some bull**** uninformed opinion like the half-witted ones you've been spouting) that 2 of our top 7 contracts and 3 of the top 11 ARE OFFENSIVE LINEMEN.

Here's your sign....

Originally Posted by Jack Vegas (Post 635854)

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

- 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.