Fairley's complication to his known problem were unforseen. In the past all of NFL, Lions, Rams, and Saints medical had him cleared to play. The current complication is new.

As for the one year contract, that's what the guy had last year. A one year prove it. And he proved valuable. And not only for the Saints, but to the rest of the league.

Of course the Saints could have said "one year: take it or leave it." for 2017. Fairly and his representation would have laughed and immediately shopped his wares to the rest of the league. The Saints had no real leverage to make another one year deal with Fairley.

Of course the replacement costs have to be considered. You offer Fairley a one year take it or leave it. He leaves due to very understandable lack of security and frankly a plain disrespect for his talent and contribution from the previous year. Now what? Who comes in on a one year contract anywhere near the same level of production? Is that guy still available? We can sign him now, yes?

And so here we are. It's not always just a bad decision. Sometimes it's just bad luck. But understand that the Saints are not a monopoly and just underpay and undervalue football players because they are the Saints. There are 31 other teams with just as much (or more) money than the Saints. Those teams can recognize and appropriately value talent too. So proposing lowball "take it or leave it" offers isn't the solution to the problem.

SFIAH

I agree on all points. Law of averages though, we get burnt on long term defensive deals A LOT. A rational mind would see the problem and address it which is do not sign journeymen to anything longer than a year. If they want to jump then let them jump. Someone else will emerge looking for a 1 year deal to prove themselves. After they prove themselves DO NOT PAY IT. Move on. If that reasoning was applied we would be in much much better shape.

We signed Tony Mcdaniel if that counts?

We signed Tony Mcdaniel if that counts?

We signed Tony Mcdaniel if that counts?

Yeah it counts but I think he's more of a space filler at this point rather than a starting DT. Going from a solid starter line to a rotational one is bad for us. We need 4 solid players up front that can stay healthy and quality backups that can step in at anytime. Tony the Tiger could be that guy. We'll see but I still say WHO DAT!

Agreed, let's hope Fairley is cleared to play. Apparently Onyemata has been making some noise recently too.

Yeah I thought Onyemata started to get netter as the year went on last season.

Fairley's complication to his known problem were unforseen. In the past all of NFL, Lions, Rams, and Saints medical had him cleared to play. The current complication is new.

As for the one year contract, that's what the guy had last year. A one year prove it. And he proved valuable. And not only for the Saints, but to the rest of the league.

Of course the Saints could have said "one year: take it or leave it." for 2017. Fairly and his representation would have laughed and immediately shopped his wares to the rest of the league. The Saints had no real leverage to make another one year deal with Fairley.

Of course the replacement costs have to be considered. You offer Fairley a one year take it or leave it. He leaves due to very understandable lack of security and frankly a plain disrespect for his talent and contribution from the previous year. Now what? Who comes in on a one year contract anywhere near the same level of production? Is that guy still available? We can sign him now, yes?

And so here we are. It's not always just a bad decision. Sometimes it's just bad luck. But understand that the Saints are not a monopoly and just underpay and undervalue football players because they are the Saints. There are 31 other teams with just as much (or more) money than the Saints. Those teams can recognize and appropriately value talent too. So proposing lowball "take it or leave it" offers isn't the solution to the problem.

SFIAH

I agree on all points. Law of averages though, we get burnt on long term defensive deals A LOT. A rational mind would see the problem and address it which is do not sign journeymen to anything longer than a year. If they want to jump then let them jump. Someone else will emerge looking for a 1 year deal to prove themselves. After they prove themselves DO NOT PAY IT. Move on. If that reasoning was applied we would be in much much better shape.

I see two problems with your approach:

1. The instability of having to replace players in positions year after year because of "one and done" contracts. It really doesn't build coheasive units .

2. Reputation. When your organization gets a reputation for never signing anyone after a prove it contract, then players will no longer sign with that organization.

If you give someone a prove it contract and they prove productive, the organization should have enough evaluation data to determine if that player is worthy of a long term contract.

Honestly I think the really poor free agent contracts are the blind signings without a prove it period. Examples such as Browning, Byrd, and possibly Fleener are all players that didn't have to prove anything to get the big money. Which is likely why they didn't meet expectations.

Fairley isn't a journeyman. He's a first round pick that came from the SEC that can be very productive when he lives up to his talent level. And he did so last year.

I think that the only solution for some of the folks here is to staff the roster only with draftees and undrafted free agents. When they hit their 4-5 mark, even when they are productive, let them go elsewhere and draft someone else. That's the only way to get a player in a 4-5 year time frame without comitting a signficant amount of cash for their services. Once a player is a free agent, and they have past production, nothing comes cheap.

SFIAH