37 replies to this topic

[Joe_the_6_pack]

Finally, someone in the media calling a spade a spade.

Adam Schein @ NFL.com:

"The Saints offered Brees more than the $18.5 million per season Tom Brady and Peyton Manning make. They offered him a $30 million signing bonus. New Orleans offered Brees the second-highest amount of guaranteed money in NFL history in the first three years of his deal. Brees didn't ask for $20 million per season as a response to the New Orleans offer. He countered by demanding $23 million per season."

"Because Brees didn't sign the deal, the Saints couldn't franchise all-pro guard Carl Nicks, who left to go to Tampa. Cornerback Tracy Porter also left. Marques Colston came back, but Robert Meachem, excellent at stretching the field, fled to San Diego."

"Brees also could have been the guy to focus and aid the Saints during the bounty scandal this offseason. But he didn't .... using the bounty scandal to swing the court of public opinion in his corner."



http://www.nfl.com/n...ns-saints-start

Edited by Joe_the_6_pack, 05 October 2012 - 08:02 PM.

[jboyst62]

Holy moly, I cannot believe that this story is on NFL.com.  I cannot say I disagree.  When New Orleans was going through the biggest tragedy of their teams history their defacto leader was whining and complaining about money.

[mead107]

The D is the reason for the bad season. Kind of like the BILLS.

[Joe_the_6_pack]

Yeah Brees performing at a whopping 25 points QB rating below his 2011 level is the D's fault.  

[jboyst62]

When you have Fitzpatrick you expect Fitzpatrick's level of play.  When you have Drew Brees he should be able to perform at an elite level - especially when he believes himself at this level.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Athletes always have and always will make baffling decisions for the sake of their already-full wallet.  

Situation:  You're Drew Brees.  An entire American city adores you.  You play a game for a living.  That city will continue to adore you for playing a game as long as you accept a salary of 18 MILLION DOLLARS per year.  Amidst a scandal, you have the chance to shine as a leader.

Choose your own adventure.  Do you...

a) Take the 18 MILLION DOLLARS

b) Demand more, crippling your team's chances at signing other free agents and sending an already-whirlwind situation into chaos, beginning to turn die hard fans against you in the process.

[NoSaint]

I can't say that it's fair to put nicks, meachem and porter all on his head. I think they planned on letting porter go (drafted several high corners, and had even demoted porter last year), weren't going to touch meachem even if they had cash (drew and Sean never seemed to trust him after taking 2 years to learn the playbook - as a #4 wr, and with sproles and graham bumping him to #6 no way he was getting huge bucks) and though nicks left they got Grubbs to replace him who is very good. Author also neglects the tag on nicks would've been LT money not guard money - a concern with tagging any guard (remember this with levitre coming up - part of why I suspect he gets paid before Byrd).

If the author really got what's going on right now he'd realize that the pressure issues are all on the tackles (nothing to do with nicks) - and go back to missing on Charles brown in particular. Couple that with losing Peyton's scheming and promoting an oline coach that's in over his head as interim-interim- head coach... It's little to nothing to do with nicks there.

And a run defense that is giving up 190 yards per game (well over 200 yards per before the pass heavy packers last week). After 3 weeks it was at about 220 yards per game allowed. That's, as k9 would point out, absolutely demoralizing.

They also are 2 missed kicks from 2-2 potentially

Trading away picks, missing on a bunch of high picks recently, and having picks stripped hasn't helped either.

I won't say his hold out didn't hurt, but ultimately he missed like 3 minicamps and not a day of training camp. The issues aren't centered on him. It would've been nice to have him though, I won't deny.

Frankly, even with drews deal they had the cash to chase any of those 3 (except maybe meachem)

And since I'm on a roll.... His deal more or less lines up with Manning's, which the writer also ignores. Manning's first 3 average over 20 as well, with the same long term average. Which from his comments I don't think he framed well.

Joe really hates him for some reason though

Edited by NoSaint, 05 October 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[JohnnyGold]

at the end of the day, its an extra 5 million in his pocket.

good for him.

[NoSaint]

JohnnyGold, on 05 October 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

at the end of the day, its an extra 5 million in his pocket.

good for him.

Really the core was structure even more than total dollars. He wanted cash up front not buried at the end. Contrary to how the writer framed it.  Lazy description all around but I but it gets a ton of views for being risqué.

jboyst62, on 05 October 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Holy moly, I cannot believe that this story is on NFL.com.  I cannot say I disagree.  When New Orleans was going through the biggest tragedy of their teams history their defacto leader was whining and complaining about money.

Drew was a major thorn during the labor deal and has taken swings at the NFL consistently the last few months. I don't think he's off limits to nfl.com writers these days. Not by any stretch. He's called out goodell repeatedly and pushed the issue on Gregg Williams having been allowed to attend last weeks game by pushing for the saints coaches this week....

[Joe_the_6_pack]

NoSaint, on 05 October 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

Joe really hates him for some reason though

Not a huge fan of hypocrits, that's all.  You can argue who would have stayed or went all you want, but bottom line Brees that held that team hostage for a few extra mill a year in their time of desperate need for a leader, when they had already offered to make him the highest paid player at his position.  I called it before and even you'd have to admit, that this year was going to be a write-off for them. 4 weeks in that should be clearer to everyone now. When he turned down their offer and went public with his manipulations, they should have stuck to their franchise tag. Done deal ... save all that money and for new blood, which they need.  If he refuses to report, his problem and make a lot of "fans" finally wake up to the real Drew Brees.  Thats what a premier franchise like Pats would have done ... gotta respect them for that, and realize its a huge key to their long term success. Instead Saints are stuck eating his huge contract in a year thats a write-off, and it will hamper them in future attempts to rebuild.

Edited by Joe_the_6_pack, 06 October 2012 - 01:25 AM.

[MDH]

Joe_the_6_pack, on 06 October 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

Not a huge fan of hypocrits, that's all.  You can argue who would have stayed or went all you want, but bottom line Brees that held that team hostage for a few extra mill a year in their time of desperate need for a leader, when they had already offered to make him the highest paid player at his position.  I called it before and even you'd have to admit, that this year was going to be a write-off for them. 4 weeks in that should be clearer to everyone now. When he turned down their offer and went public with his manipulations, they should have stuck to their franchise tag. Done deal ... save all that money and for new blood, which they need.  If he refuses to report, his problem and make a lot of "fans" finally wake up to the real Drew Brees.  Thats what a premier franchise like Pats would have done ... gotta respect them for that, and realize its a huge key to their long term success. Instead Saints are stuck eating his huge contract in a year thats a write-off, and it will hamper them in future attempts to rebuild.

Blame the Saints, not Brees.  Teams have to have a value they place on players - is he or isn't he worth it.  If Brees' demands were above their means then they should have let him go and used that cash on other players.  This is the way the market works.  To blame a guy who wants to get paid his market value is ridiculous.  Do you purposely short yourself 30% of your pay to help your company out?  I seriously doubt it.

[first_and_ten]

MDH, on 06 October 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Blame the Saints, not Brees.  Teams have to have a value they place on players - is he or isn't he worth it.  If Brees' demands were above their means then they should have let him go and used that cash on other players.  This is the way the market works.  To blame a guy who wants to get paid his market value is ridiculous.  Do you purposely short yourself 30% of your pay to help your company out?  I seriously doubt it.

I get your point, but football is a team sport. He has every right to get as much as he can but he has to realise at the same time, there is a salary cap and his salary would have an effect on the quality of the team. He chose to hold out for more money, knowing it would mean less talent around him. I'm not sure Tom Brady makes the same choice. Was it selfish? Probably , but many of us would do the same in his position.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

MDH, on 06 October 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Blame the Saints, not Brees.  Teams have to have a value they place on players - is he or isn't he worth it.  If Brees' demands were above their means then they should have let him go and used that cash on other players.  This is the way the market works.  To blame a guy who wants to get paid his market value is ridiculous.  Do you purposely short yourself 30% of your pay to help your company out?  I seriously doubt it.

first_and_ten, on 06 October 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I get your point, but football is a team sport. He has every right to get as much as he can but he has to realise at the same time, there is a salary cap and his salary would have an effect on the quality of the team. He chose to hold out for more money, knowing it would mean less talent around him. I'm not sure Tom Brady makes the same choice. Was it selfish? Probably , but many of us would do the same in his position.

These are both valid points and this is a good topic.

I would say about Brees and his compensation that there's certainly a grey area as to what is fair compensation for him. Certainly Brady was known to take a "below market" deal two contracts ago so as not to handcuff the Cheatriots*** from the salary cap/team building standpoint.

In Brees' mind maybe he did the right thing because the ultimate justification for many people is simple: get the most that you can possibly get. In our country, this is pretty accepted and permissible behavior. We're a capitalistic system.

I think the criticisms of Brees come from when you view his actions from something less than pure capitalism. It's kind of like saying "just because something is legal doesn't make it right" except in this case, it becomes "just because he got this deal for himself doesn't make it a good deal for the team."

QBs are very important as we all know and I don't think this issue is clear cut but it is very interesting. Like the replacement officials issue, I think a lot of opinions are based partly on our socioeconomic perspectives.

Also I don't want to pile on Brees but there are some features to his personal life that have always bothered me. Brees has written an inspirational/self-help book and speaks publicly. He is known for his charitable work and his civic-mindedness. I believe NoSaint, who is closer to the Saints than most anyone here vouches for his character.

So it's very odd to me that he and his Mom had a falling out after he refused to hire her as his agent and that later on, he had to sue her to stop her from using his likeness in her law firm advertisements. Later on she committed suicide. This is not to blame Brees for these things but it is incongruent to me that a person who is so charitable and has so many vouchers for his character could have such an unfortunate relationship with his Mom.

Anyways for the record, like Joe, I was not a fan of how Brees conducted himself through his contract impasse.

[NoSaint]

Joe_the_6_pack, on 06 October 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

Not a huge fan of hypocrits, that's all.  You can argue who would have stayed or went all you want, but bottom line Brees that held that team hostage for a few extra mill a year in their time of desperate need for a leader, when they had already offered to make him the highest paid player at his position.  I called it before and even you'd have to admit, that this year was going to be a write-off for them. 4 weeks in that should be clearer to everyone now. When he turned down their offer and went public with his manipulations, they should have stuck to their franchise tag. Done deal ... save all that money and for new blood, which they need.  If he refuses to report, his problem and make a lot of "fans" finally wake up to the real Drew Brees.  Thats what a premier franchise like Pats would have done ... gotta respect them for that, and realize its a huge key to their long term success. Instead Saints are stuck eating his huge contract in a year thats a write-off, and it will hamper them in future attempts to rebuild.

My point was you'll grab anyone for a sound bite to fit your predetermined story line. Regardless of if they've shown any depth of knowledge or understanding about the situation. The quotes in the OP are trash.

Lets not forget you we're also the one starting threads about how drew wasn't very good this offseason.

Did ugly negotiations suck? Definitely. Saints could've bumped his salary last year and made the whole thing go way smoother but they didn't. The real mistake came in summer of 2011 not drew in 2012. It wasn't his fault a scandal came out.

Did it cost them anybody they wanted? They still went out and got Curtis lofton, Broderick bunkley, Ben Grubbs - all among the best options out there. They weren't paying starter dollars to their nickel corner or #4 receiver. They werent giving the richest guard contract in nfl history to the second best guard on the team. To have that be the thrust of the argument and then in the same breathe dismiss it as unimportant is nonsense.

By the way - meachem stretched the field for San Diego with a big 3 first downs and zero tds a month in. Bravo to nfl.com on this one.

Edited by NoSaint, 06 October 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[Numark]

jboyst62, on 05 October 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Holy moly, I cannot believe that this story is on NFL.com.  I cannot say I disagree.  When New Orleans was going through the biggest tragedy of their teams history their defacto leader was whining and complaining about money.

What tragedy?

[Ramius]

Drew Brees was a huge jackass all offseason and a completely selfish prick when it came to the contract negotiations. His reputation definitely took a hit after all of his douchebaggery. He became extremely unlikeable.

However, he's not at fault for the 0-4 start. That's on the defense.

[Joe_the_6_pack]

NoSaint, on 06 October 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

My point was you'll grab anyone for a sound bite to fit your predetermined story line. Regardless of if they've shown any depth of knowledge or understanding about the situation. The quotes in the OP are trash.

Lets not forget you we're also the one starting threads about how drew wasn't very good this offseason.

Did ugly negotiations suck? Definitely. Saints could've bumped his salary last year and made the whole thing go way smoother but they didn't. The real mistake came in summer of 2011 not drew in 2012. It wasn't his fault a scandal came out.

Did it cost them anybody they wanted? They still went out and got Curtis lofton, Broderick bunkley, Ben Grubbs - all among the best options out there. They weren't paying starter dollars to their nickel corner or #4 receiver. To have that be the thrust of the argument and then in the same breathe dismiss it as unimportant is nonsense.

By the way - meachem stretched the field for San Diego with a big 3 first downs and zero tds a month in. Bravo to nfl.com on this one.

Idk recall my exact words but I don't think it was ever "he's not very good". That would be Ryan fitzapllpatrick. But I dont think he belongs in the upper echelon with Brady, Manning and Rodgers either ... a handful of guys behind them. Who are still damn good. What i did say is that his success had a lot do to with coach payton too whom I think is brilliant on offense. Look at breeds from San Diego to saints and you see a much more complete qb IMO. All of which adds to my contention what an ungrateful greed monger he is, acting like he rode into town and did it all singelhandly.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Joe_the_6_pack, on 06 October 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Idk recall my exact words but I don't think it was ever "he's not very good". That would be Ryan fitzapllpatrick. But I dont think he belongs in the upper echelon with Brady, Manning and Rodgers either ... a handful of guys behind them. Who are still damn good. What i did say is that his success had a lot do to with coach payton too whom I think is brilliant on offense. Look at breeds from San Diego to saints and you see a much more complete qb IMO. All of which adds to my contention what an ungrateful greed monger he is, acting like he rode into town and did it all singelhandly.

I agree that Brees was a bit too selfish in this last negotiation but I think you discount his skills too much.

He is possibly not as good as Brady, Manning or Rodgers but in 2005 I watched Brees dismantle a pretty good Bills defense (Schobel, Crowell and McGee in their primes, Fletcher, Spikes, Clements, Milloy, Greer, Sam Adams, etc) with perfect pass after perfect pass defeating tight coverage down the field. The final score was 48-10 and Brees was flawless.

From 2004-2006, Brees was outstanding as a Charger. I think you can make the argument that Brees has done more for Sean Payton than visa-versa.

[Beerball]

Numark, on 06 October 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

What tragedy?

All the strippers left town early so they could get hooked up for the political conventions.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Beerball, on 06 October 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

All the strippers left town early so they could get hooked up for the political conventions.

Oh the humanity…