Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Much has been made about Joe Horn's stats. Okay ... but does that mean Joe Horn is a top 5 receiver. Hell, does that mean he's a top 10 receiver?

Here's some other stats I want to throw out there...

Hines Ward:
2001 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 16 94 1003
2002 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 16 112 1329
2003 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 16 95 1163
2004 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 16 80 1004

Derick Mason:
2001 Tennessee Titans 15 15 73 1128
2002 Tennessee Titans 14 14 79 1012
2003 Tennessee Titans 16 16 95 1303
2004 Tennessee Titans 16 16 96 1168

Tory Holt:
2000 STL 16 15 82 1635
2001 STL 16 15 81 1363
2002 STL 16 12 91 1302
2003 STL 16 15 117 1696
2004 STL 16 16 94 1372

Amani Toomer:
1999 New York Giants 16 16 79 1183
2000 New York Giants 16 14 78 1094
2001 New York Giants 16 14 72 1054
2002 New York Giants 16 16 82 1343
2003 New York Giants 16 16 63 1057

Issac Bruce:
1999 St. Louis Rams 16 16 77 1165
2000 St. Louis Rams 16 16 87 1471
2001 St. Louis Rams 16 16 64 1106
2002 St. Louis Rams 16 16 79 1075
2003 St. Louis Rams 15 15 69 981
2004 St. Louis Rams 16 16 89 1292

Rod Smith
1998 Denver Broncos 16 16 86 1222
1999 Denver Broncos 15 15 79 1020
2000 Denver Broncos 16 16 100 1602
2001 Denver Broncos 15 14 113 1343
2002 Denver Broncos 16 16 89 1027
2003 Denver Broncos 15 15 74 845
2004 Denver Broncos 16 16 79 1144

Okay, that's 6 guys who put up numbers about like Joe Horn. OR BETTER THAN JOE HORN.

And then that still leaves guys like this:

Muhsin Muhammad ?
Randy Moss?
Marvin Harrison?
Terrell Owens?
Chad Johnson?
Steve Smith?
Javon Walker?
Roy Williams?
Donald Driver?

I just can't see giving Joe Horn top 5 money based off his stats.








[Edited on 17/3/2005 by GumboBC]

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Possibility of any of those guys being in a Saints uniform in the next couple of years?

..like it\'s been said before, Horn may not be \"top 5\", or \"top 10\", but he\'s \"#1\" in N.O.... and #1 by faaar.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

As if we don\'t have to hear the WRs crying about \"not getting the ball enough\" now, I can imagine if they were paid in direct correlation with their stats. It\'d be mutiny.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Best WR\'s in the NFL -
1-Randy Moss
2-Terrell Owens
3-Marvin Harrison
t4-Joe Horn
t4-Torry Holt
t4-Chad Johnson
5-Hines Ward

It\'s just that simple.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Who wouldn\'t want to get paid by their stats no matter what position... he deserves the contract Mason got, which is perfectly fair. Now if we are talking Moss and Harrison money, I don\'t agree.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Pay WR\'s based on stats? No.

Pay WR\'s based on the value they bring to the team and available alternatives? Yes.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

So the \"who out there is better\" idea jumps up again for another player on this team. Boy we are screwed. :casstet:

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

You don\'t think that is a factor, Whodi?

It seems to me that it is a major factor in deciding the relative price of a player in FA - supply and demand. If there are many alternatives, the price is lower, right? If there are fewer, the price is higher.

Seems to me that the amound we should be willing to pay for Joe is relative to our chances of replacing his skill set. That sounds rational to me.

I\'m certainly not in the \"pay Joe\" camp. However, I\'m not in the \"cut his sorry azz\" camp either (and I know you\'re not either). That said, you\'re not opposed to paying him, say 3-4 mil for the next 2-3 are you? That isn\'t top 10 money, but it ain\'t too shabby for an older WR who has come through in the cluch on many occasions?

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

yes i think every postion should get paid by performance. That would take care of players that play hard untill they get that contract, (Boo williams) (Fred thomas) etc.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Fred Thomas earned his contract. He deserved it after busting his behind here and performed really well. But after he got his money, he regressed. Hopefully next year we\'ll see the old Fred Thomas who was very solid the year before. If he is back to form and along with Mike, Brown, Craft, Thomas, Smith, Bellamy, Mitchell... we will have one the the strongest secondaries we have ever had. I\'m not saying that it can\'t be improved, but better than recent years.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Not knocking what you said Kool, I am knocking this team for being in this position, cause it\'s true. And since it is true, we are screwed.

Look at it this way, we aren\'t gonna draft a WR in this year\'s draft. we aren\'t gonna draft one in next year\'s prob(and there def won\'t be a Mike Williams). So what happens if Joe retires? We are screwed. What happens if those nagging injuries Joe has EVERY game keeps him out once he gets paid? We are screwed. Joe reminds me of Cuba Gooding in Jerry McGuire. Did everything in his damn power to show he was worth a big deal, which he has. I can\'t knock him on that. But with him making comments about holding out, I can see Joe getting a new contract and those nagging injuries he played through to get the contract keeps him sidelined a week here, two weeks there, so he can get paid every cent for every year he signed for.

All in all, I guess I am not afraid to be without a certain player. I don\'t feel anyone on this team is indispensible no matter who is or isn\'t available. I am not the type to like feeling like I am backed into a corner, and this team has fans backed into a corner on several players. Kinda like we better be happy with what they have cause noone better is out there. I don\'t like that at all and I don\'t feel it should be a factor in pressuring anyone to give into any player\'s demands.

That being said, 3-4 mil is not bad, EXCEPT Joe has said he wants top 5 money, and he is willing to hold out. Kinda like McCardell did in Tampa last year. They had noone beter, drafted Michael Clayton and he was almost rookie of the year. As a matter of fact, his numbers weren\'t too far from Joe\'s, as a rookie. So NOONE on this team can scare me with the noone is better out there mantra. Not Joe, not AB, noone. Hell, what\'s the worse that could happen, we won\'t make the playoffs? We get to draft Matt Leinart? What? They can go blackmail someone else with that bunk.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

i agree Fred and Boo both worked hard for their contracts, but why stop now that they got the money. And i agree we will have a heck of a secondary. And just think how awsome it would be if Fred plays up to par. And for Joe Horn i think why not pay him more, he lead the nfl most of the year, Been to pro bowl 4 of the last 5 yrs, and is the best WR NO has ever had. We cant rely on butter hands stallworth yet. We want great players but dont want to pay them.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

That\'s funny. Think some beer went down the wrong pipe.

I completely understand your concerns. Your points are valid. The difference between you and others is, you\'re not diminishing what Horn has done for this team. But you are concerned about the TEAM first and foremost, and I can\'t blame you.
I like Horn, I haven\'t always, but he\'s grown on me. I\'ve watched him make plays that put him on a level higher than most of his peers. And I hate watching special players leave and go somewhere else.

Here are the current salaries of some of the top receivers in the league.

Randy Moss
2005 $2.75 million
2006 $8.25 million
2007 $9.75 million
2008 $11.25 million

Terrell Owens
2005 $3.25 million
2006 $.77 million
2007 $5.5 million
2008 $6.5 million
2009 $7.5 million
2010 $8.5 million

Marvin Harrison
2005 $1 million
2006 $2 million
2007 $4 million
2008 $7.6 million
2009 $9 million
2010 $10 million
2011 $11.4 million

Torry Holt
2005 $.54 million
2006 $3.85 million
2007 $4.15 million
2008 $5.65 million
2009 $6.65 million

Chad Johnson
2005 $1 million
2006 $2.75 million
2007 $3 million
2008 $3.4 million
2009 $3.6 million

These numbers do not take into account signing bonus or incentives. Even then, would it be that bad? I feel we do owe Horn at least something close. Over the past 5 years, we\'ve only paid Joe a little over $4 million. That\'s bang for the buck. It would make sense for the Saints to restructure now, since he\'s due to make $3.8 million in this year alone. I\'m not saying break the bank, four year contract, maybe? Something around Holt\'s numbers. I hate the back ended contract.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

I\'d like to see half of every contract be based on performance. That way a team isn\'t stuck with a loafer and the player is incented to bust-ass in order to get full value for the contract.

But that will never happen in the No Fun League. The players union will never allow players to have a majority of their salaries based on performance. The original Ricky Williams contract was so unsatisfying that it will never be repeated.

Why are professional athletes exempt from the normal economic realities that the rest of us are? What if a team esentially made it a policy that everyone has meaningful incentives that protected it from the loutish Sullivans of the world or from the regressions that Thomas, B. Williams and T-Sucky.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

You mean, should we evaluate a player based on the results they have actually produced on the field? Are you nuts? Who cares about results - it\'s all about talent!!! That\'s why the most talented team in the NFC South hasn\'t won the division in the last 3 years, but every other team has won once.... (actually, two have made the Super Bowl and one made the NFC Championship).

Nah - we should find the best athletes and give them lots of money (cough tebucky cough sully). Good plan!

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Hey folks ... WhoDat says Joe Horn is a top 5 receiver based on stats. But he doesn\'t think the samething about these guys:

Hines Ward:
2001 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 16 94 1003
2002 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 16 112 1329
2003 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 16 95 1163
2004 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 16 80 1004

Derick Mason:
2001 Tennessee Titans 15 15 73 1128
2002 Tennessee Titans 14 14 79 1012
2003 Tennessee Titans 16 16 95 1303
2004 Tennessee Titans 16 16 96 1168

Tory Holt:
2000 STL 16 15 82 1635
2001 STL 16 15 81 1363
2002 STL 16 12 91 1302
2003 STL 16 15 117 1696
2004 STL 16 16 94 1372

Amani Toomer:
1999 New York Giants 16 16 79 1183
2000 New York Giants 16 14 78 1094
2001 New York Giants 16 14 72 1054
2002 New York Giants 16 16 82 1343
2003 New York Giants 16 16 63 1057

Issac Bruce:
1999 St. Louis Rams 16 16 77 1165
2000 St. Louis Rams 16 16 87 1471
2001 St. Louis Rams 16 16 64 1106
2002 St. Louis Rams 16 16 79 1075
2003 St. Louis Rams 15 15 69 981
2004 St. Louis Rams 16 16 89 1292

Rod Smith
1998 Denver Broncos 16 16 86 1222
1999 Denver Broncos 15 15 79 1020
2000 Denver Broncos 16 16 100 1602
2001 Denver Broncos 15 14 113 1343
2002 Denver Broncos 16 16 89 1027
2003 Denver Broncos 15 15 74 845
2004 Denver Broncos 16 16 79 1144

How can WhoDat not say all those guys are top 5 too. Based on stats, right? Can\'t I make the same arguement for all those guys WhoDat?

What side of you mouth are you speaking from this time?

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

BNB, I appreciate you can see where I am coming from. Lord knows I have tried to get the point across. I am not opposed at all to Horn getting a \"decent\" contract, but he wants a TOP 5 contract and has threatened to hold out. I just can\'t abide by that. JKool said what if we paid him 3-4 mil a year, I said I would love that. But Joe doesn\'t seem to wanna love that. What if he says no? Do we apply the noone else better theory and then pay him 6-8 mil? Hell no. See ya Joe. Thanks for the hard work.

Now, I am like anyone else as a Saints fan, I wanna see players retire here too. But I have also seen, Rickey, Pat, Sam, Vaughn, Roaf, all have to go play elsewhere at the end of their careers. Joe doesn\'t get any more love from me than those guys got. Those were my favorites. By Joe\'s statements, he does not love this team like I do, he loves Joe. And God bless him for it. He is probably on his final contract. But we may not be the ones who can give him what he wants, so it\'s time to look elsewhere. If Joe was the man he says he is, he would be at the front to say, pay me for my play. If I play top 5, my incentives will pay me top 5. But Joe wants top 5 guaranteed, so sorry Joe. Thanks for all you\'ve done. I wish you much success in the future, but we gotta go in another direction.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Two quick points

Do you think the front office would overpay Joe? I don\'t, so I\'m not that concerned about it. They overpaid Brooks, but he was the darling of the coaches. It\'s most likely wishful thinking, but I believe that a compromise will take place, a cap friendly salary, and Joe is paid well. How will that happen? I don\'t know, I can admit when I\'m not very knowledgable about a subject, and cap strategy is definately something that gives me tired head.

Doesn\'t $6-8 million a year sound more like top 3 money, rather than top 5? I would consider Torry Holt top 5, no question, and look at his salary, and he\'s tied up until 2009.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

I consider Holt better than Joe, but that\'s a whole nother discussion. My point wasn\'t the actual salary figure, my point was where do we draw the line when it comes to feelings of noone else better so we gotta do it? 6-8 mil was just doubling what Kool said.

Also, I agree the FO will not overpay Joe, and rightfully so. But when do we know the deal won\'t get done? Before the draft, after, during camp, the pre-season, when? I would prefer we know before the draft so hopefully we can move Joe and get one of the many young studs coming out. But if not, what do we do then? Let him sit like McCardell did for Tampa until he was traded? Then we still don\'t have Joe. Try to trade him in season? We need to know now cause he has no more value than he has right now. But I guess we shall see. I doubt we will know anything before the draft though, and Joe keeps running his mouth.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Sure Billy, YOU could, but then your understanding of statistical information was proven to be pretty poor in the numerous Brooks debates. I thought by now you would have learned, but you never do. You\'re much like Aaron that way.


Since numbers seem to be hard for you, I\'ll lay it out very easily. Here are the stats for all the WRs mentioned in this thread. These are their AVERAGE annual production numbers, ranked by YARDS - which is the way that the NFL officially ranks WRs - for the last FIVE seasons (except C. Johnson, who only has 4 in the NFL).

1. Holt: 93 rec. for 1473.6 yards and 12.75 TDs
2. Harrison: 106.8 rec. for 1408.8 yards and 13 TDs
3. Owens: 89.4 rec. for 1293 yards and 13 TDs
4. Moss: 85 rec. for 1283.2 yards and 12.4 TDs
5. Horn: 87.4 rec. for 1257.8 yards and 9 TDs
6. R. Smith: 91 rec. for 1192.2 yards and 6.8 TDs
7. Bruce: 77.6 rec. for 1185 yards and 6.6 TDs
8. Mason: 81.2 rec. for 1101.2 yards and 6.8 TDs
9. Toomer: 69.2 rec. for 1059 yards and 5 TDs
10. Ward: 85.8 rec. for 1034.2 yards and 6.8 TDs
11. C. Johnson: 70.5 rec. for 1031 yards and 6.25 TDs
12. Coles: 68.4 rec. for 931.2 yards and 4 TDs

Does that make it clear? Horn is 5th by Receptions. 5th by yards. 5th by TDs. Is that enough to qualify him as top 5? Or does he also need to be 5th in the 40 and 5th in a hot dog eating contest?

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

So .. according to you, WhoDat ... Tory Holt is the BEST receiver in the NFL. Gee, thanks for that wonderful information.

And look folks .. Amani Toomer is the 9th best receiver in the NFL. Are you drunk? High? Or just confused? Or all of the above?

You need to give it up, WhoDat. I don\'t give a flip what the STATS say.

Amani Toomer is not in my top 10. And Joe Horn isn\'t in my top 5. And Joe Horn certainly doesn\'t rank one spot behind Randy Moss.

Please stop it.



[Edited on 18/3/2005 by GumboBC]

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Torry Holt is certainly the MOST PRODUCTIVE. What matters more than results Billy? Loyalty? LOL... oh wait, no, talent. Yeah, that\'s proven to be a great recipe for success.

Can you read? I said...

\"Here are the stats for all the WRs mentioned in this thread. \"


Sure Billy - I\'m the crazy one. A 4 time Pro Bowler in 5 years is top 5 = crazy to Billy. One of the most inconsistent QBs in the league with ZERO Pro Bowls in the past 5 years - now that\'s top 5 to Billy. And you question B&B when he says no one takes you seriously....

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

WhoDat --

The thing about stats for WRs is that it doesn\'t take into account what offensive system they are in. Tory Holt is in a pass happy offense and his stats COULD be inflated.

Marvin Harrison\'s stats are down, but they had 2 receivers in INDY that really stepped it up this past year. Does that mean Marvin isn\'t the same receiver? He looked mighty good to me.

So, you can keep throwing \"career\" stats out, or any stats for that matter, and I\'ll keep on thinking Joe Horn is a very good receiver that is in the same company as about 10 or 15 other receivers in the NFL.

[Edited on 18/3/2005 by GumboBC]

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

You\'re damn right.

Holt - has been in a better offense than Horn the last 5 years.
Harrison - has been in a better offense than Horn the last 5 years.
Moss - has been in a better offense than Horn the last 5 years.

Make you think Horn\'s numbers are even more impressive...

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Maybe when they were going to Superbowls. Since Bulger has started, and they have let their line deteriorate, and Faulk has gotten older, our offense has been better. Roughly since 2002-2003.

Definitely, except when Edge blew out his knee, and before Stokley and Wayne decided to jump off the page. As a matter of fact, while Edge was getting better, we had a better offense. Much more balance before lastyear with out running and passing.

That\'s debatable too. Our running game was pretty damn good before last year. As a matter of fact, the only difference the past 5 years(not just last year) between us and these teams is pretty much the play of the QB. Now if we say Joe\'s numbers are impressive cause he has AB throwing him the ball, I won\'t dispute that. ;)

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

OFFENSIVE RANK (Total Offense as compiled by NFL.com)
--------------
2004
2. Indy
4. Minnesota
6. St. Louis
15. New Orleans


http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...r?sort_col_1=4

2003
1. Minnesota
3. Indy
9. St Louis
11. New Orleans

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...r?sort_col_1=4


2002
2. Minnesota
9. Indy
13. St. Louis
19. New Orleans

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...r?sort_col_1=4

2001
1. St Louis
2. Indy
10. New Orleans
12. Minnesota

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NF...r?sort_col_1=4

That\'s as far back as NFL.com reports.


Hey Whodi, there\'s fact, and there\'s fiction. You said that the Saints offense has been better than Indy\'s, Minnesota\'s, and St. Louis\' over the last 5 years. Would you call that fact or fiction?

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

I am going to start off with a question -- how many receivers who had great seasons as the number 2 receiver go to a new team to become the go to guy and then falter. (If you need some examples just look at the guys the Eagles used to pick up from the Redskins). In any case they fail because while putting up huge stats as second receiver when they become the prime guy they get double teamed -- the best defender gets placed on them etc. Face it -- lots of receivers out there with great stats -- how many carry the receiving load. Horn does that in New Orleans -- he usually is the one getting the double teams etc. He puts up fantastic numbers. I will not dispute his value to the team -- his skills as a receiver etc. Does he deserve a rich payday -- yes -- But one must be paid on his value to the team over the length of the new contract. Therefore asking for a 12 million signing bonus (and I am making this up) is something the team should proabably not do because we cannot be saddled with the cap figures past the life of his skills. And I say that in 3 years Joe will be good but will probably become the number 2 receiver on a team. The solution -- give him a large annual salary for a shorter term and get away with the huge guaranteed bonus. Anyway -- thats my all I have to say about that.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Hmm, okay. 2004 Rushing offense. Indy 15 Minny 18 STL 26 NO 27. Passing Indy 1 Minny 2 STL 5 NO 12. But I did say this Not looking good for me though.

2003 Rushing offense Minny 4 NO 11 Indy 19 and STL 30. Passing Indy 1 STL 3 Minny 4 NO 8. See? We can make stats look however we want. We CRUSHED St. Louis in rushign offense, but their passing game put up more yards than ours. Now I don\'t know about you, but I would call a team 11 in rushing offense and 8 in passing offense better than a team 30 in rushing but 3 in passing. Same with a team 19 in rushing but 1 in passing. Seems like we had more balance than Indy too doesn\'t it? There\'s no knocking Minny.

2002 Minny 1 in rushing NO 17 Indy 26 STL 30 again. Passing STL 2 Indy 4 Minny 9 NO 16. Once again outside of Minny, we have balance where the other two are lop-sided to the point of absurdity. Sorry, but I consider a balanced offense better than one that is one dimensional. We may just disagree on that one.

So you call one dimensional offenses(outside Minny) better if you want. As a matter of fact, that impresses me more about Holt and Harrison that their teams could be so one dimensional, and they still dominate. I wonder how much better they are if they are balanced. Oh, Indy showed us that this year. My bad.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Ask yourself this...

Do you pay Horn a big 1 year contract, possibly even having to do it again next year, or should you sign him on a more cap friendly, incentive based, 3 year or more contract?

It\'s a no brainer...

He has earned it..He is our best player on either side of the ball, and without him, we will lose...

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

As opposed to what? Winning? We don\'t do that WITH him.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Name another Saints reciever with playoff experience?..Hell..He was there during our only playoff win..

He has been the ONLY consitent player on this team for the last 5 years....

Let\'s break it down like this...

Horn, Stallworth, Henderson...not a bad trio..not bad at all...better than most..


Stallworth, Henderson,Gardner.....Whoa..what happened...no way we compete...These guys can\'t start for anybody...

Horn is the ONLY real reciever we even have...or have had in the last 5+ years....

They have tried to Draft good recievers, but, just haven\'t quite gotten there...Horn has allowed this team with a cushion...they didn\'t have to run out in FA and pay some third rate punk top 5 money, just to have someone to help out...They didn\'t need any help in the reciever spot...not only did they not have to scramble..They could draft guys, they in turn get injured time and time again, and he still leads this Offense enough to keep us in the top 15 in the League...every year.

People will scream..He could get hurt, then we\'d be screwed...HE\"S BEEN HURT, and PLAYING HURT, and STILL MAKING TOP 5 NUMBERS...

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

AB has playoff experience too. And we know how I feel about him. I don\'t see what Joe\'s playoff experience the one time this team went has to do with anything. IF we don\'t get back to the playoffs, where will that valuable one time experience get us?

Why does everyone assume we would just cut Joe? Surely if Joe is traded, we would try to get SOMETHING in return. You do know he has a year left on his deal right? So no matter what, HE IS OURS. So you Stallworth, Henderson, Gardner theory is already flawed. BUT, if Joe holds out, LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD, how much will you love him then? then we WILL have Stall, Henderson, and Gardner. I can do without that thank you.

I am glad he has worked himself up in value. maybe we can get something good for him. It\'s all about Mike williams for me, pipe dream that it is.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

[quote:ee631bf925]As opposed to what? Winning? We don\'t do that WITH him. {/quote]

I don\'t know why you continue to return to this argument. So Joe Horn is the reason the Saints lose? Is the team better with him or without him? That\'s like saying Archie Manning was a bad QB b/c the Saints didn\'t win with him - he was therefore expendible. Hey, the chargers record has been pretty bad since they drafted Tomlinosn - maybe they should cut him. I mean, it\'s not like they win with him. Surely you can see the blatant disconnect in that logic.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

So now we are comparing Joe Horn to Tomlinson? Lord, I give up. There\'s no helping you dude. Now Joe Horn is on the level of the best RB in the league, and you yourself say Horn isn\'t even the best receiver. Whoo dude, stick to the kids. Maybe you can get that over on them.

The point isn\'t that we lose CAUSE of Joe as you so falsely put it, the point is we lose whether he is here or not so what\'s the difference? 4 out of 5 years in the pro bowl, well no playoffs since 2000. How\'s that grab ya?

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

That wasn\'t a comparison of talent, it was a comparison of environment.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

I didn\'t know LT was an environment. Well the environment LT had his team in the playoffs in his 4th year. How is that even similar? Maybe a better \"environment\" than LT should have been chosen. :o

If we are talking about San D. as the environment, they have been to the playoffs once in the last 4 years. We haven\'t. Maybe a better \"environemnt\" should be chosen on that end too. :o :o

[Edited on 19/3/2005 by saintswhodi]

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

OK, smartass. we know one player does not make a team. Neither LT nor Horn can be held responsible for the losing seasons they\'ve seen with their respective teams. But they\'ve both had a taste of what it is to lose. That was the point that was being made.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Actually, while that is a good point BnB, that\'s not the point that was being made.

Whodi\'s argument is that we didn\'t make the playoffs the last 4 years with Horn (by the way Whodi, Horn got to the playoffs his first in NO), so without him we can\'t really do any worse. No playoffs with is no better than no playoffs without.

To me, that\'s a ridiculous statement. That suggests that if Horn was really a good WR he\'d get his team to the playoffs on his own. Since he didn\'t, he must not be good, and therefore, losing him wouldn\'t hurt the team in the slightest. That is the most ridiculous statement I\'ve ever heard.

Hey, Dat Nguyen didn\'t bring his team to the playoffs last year, why are the COwboys refusing to deal him? He\'s obviously not good - they didn\'t make it with him so what\'s the worst that could happen without him? They don\'t make the playoffs? Uh oh... they should just cut him.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

Wow WHO, do you get out of the NEw Orleans media? The Cowboys were 10-6 with the number one D year before last anchored by who? Yes Dat Nguyen. Got another example I can shoot down? I can do this all day.

Hmm, never said it wouldn\'t hurt, I said it wouldn\'t matter. I can pull out Webster\'s and define \"hurt\" and \"matter\" if you like. 8-8 and not making the playoffs is the same as 4-12 and not making the playoffs is it not? OR I guess 8-8 gets you more respected around the league so overpay for a guy who may help keep us mediocre. Like the Guiness commercials, BRILLIANT!!!!!! I guess we can go kick the Tampa fans in the nuts cause we weren\'t 6-10 or whatever they were. Hey look at us, we are 8-8 and not making the playoffs, but we have a pro bowl receiver so it\'s really you guys who suck. Nice.

As Who already said, that was not the point. The point that was made was poor though. It was this ridiculous statement that I countered. If you follow the NFL, you would know the Chargers were 12-4 last year and in the playoffs. You would also know even with LT, the Chargers have NEVER been considered to have some of the most talent in the league, we have. That\'s why it\'s a poor example, but by all means keep defending it.

Should receivers get paid by thier stats?
 

So, by your logic, we should purge the whole team of any and all talent, and start over because we did not make the playoffs. Sounds like a winner to me....