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

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....

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.

Completely Disagree.

A few points.

First, Nicks was an All-Pro Guard who had not missed a game as a Saint; so as one of the two best guards in the league he is the top of the food chain so he was going to get a max contract...

Second, Nicks was an unrestricted free agent at the same time Brees was; Brees Camp made it clear he was seeking a max contract - so something had to give

Source: Report: Carl Nicks “expected to leave” New Orleans in free agency | ProFootballTalk

Third, Loomis' failed logic then went out and signed Grubbs, who has grossely underwhelmed, at the number he sought to sign Nicks probably thinking he wouldn't affect the level of that unit and still get his numbers he wanted - fail.

Source: New Orleans Saints replace Carl Nicks with OG Ben Grubbs - ESPN

Concession: the Nicks signing was a completely bust for the Bucs as Nicks contracted a staph infection while there which the Bucs ended up agreeing to a settlement - but that's on the Bucs for not maintaining a healthy environment for the invested athletes they've got under contract.

Source: Third Tampa Bay Buccaneers player tests positive for MRSA staph infection - ESPN

So to say that Brees contract has nothing to do with the decline in the roster quality, whether maintaining an elite unit or being able to improve it is naive, even foolhardy...

I need to step away from this board for a while because people are just getting absolutely ridiculous with all this crap. I'm embarrassed for some of you, I really am.

You are neglecting to mention that Nicks already had the bad foot before he even left. He got the MSRA as result a foot surgery, which was needed because he had a history of chronic injury history there. That was no secret. There were also rumors that he was not the best guy in the locker room even then - not totally farfetched considering we got him in the fourth round of the draft on similar concerns.

That's totally wrong, why would Tampa have agreed to an injury settlement regarding the MRSA and injury?!?

Read post and sources.

And in so far as rumors, cite sources. Because what I've read, that's totally wrong.

Source: Saints to face former teammate Carl Nicks - FOX 8 WVUE New Orleans News, Weather, Sports, Social

Now Nicks had a bad rap out of college and that's why he fell to the fifth, but he got right with the Saints.

Source: Wikipedia - Carl Nicks