If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   'The questions is not if, but when did the Saints fall out of love with Drew Brees?'   (espn.go.com) divider line 108
    More: Interesting, Drew Brees, Saints, Mickey Loomis, Mark Brunell, Lance Moore, Deuce McAllister, first team, scout team  
•       •       •

1667 clicks; posted to Sports » on 21 May 2012 at 10:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-21 01:27:26 PM

Harv72b: meanmutton: I would eagerly trade Andrew Luck for Drew Brees. It wouldn't even take a tiny smidge of a thought. Drew Brees is what you're hoping that Andrew Luck becomes at some point. Griffin? Tannehill? Weeden? I'd wonder if someone was trying to sell me a bridge.

This is basically akin to saying that you would have traded Peyton Manning for Troy Aikman in 1998. You don't draft a rookie QB early if you aren't confident that he will become a star in the NFL for at least a decade to come (okay, except maybe if you're the Browns); trading them away at this point gives you a sure thing for a few years vs. potentially another Manning for 15 years, and at a much lower price for the first 5.


Did Aikman have the concussion issues then or not? Also, Aikman hadn't even been a Pro Bowler for a few seasons in 1998. Aikman won more than his share of Super Bowls but I wouldn't say that Aikman in the late 90s is the same as Brees now (threadjack alert).

Either way, it's also basically akin to saying that I would have traded Ryan Leaf for Troy Aikman in 1998. The point is -- One of them you do know, one of them you don't. I'd rather take the guarantee over the question mark.
 
2012-05-21 01:30:37 PM

JohnBigBootay: AdmirableSnackbar: Well I haven't done the research in the matter

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5479/splits?year=avg

His indoor/outdoor splits are actually quite good over the last three years.


For the last three years, there doesn't seem to be enough of a sample size to determine how he does in the elements. But his career stats make it look as if his numbers seem to dip when it gets colder. And hell, he's played only 4 career games in precipitation and his numbers suck (although that's a terrible sample size). But his numbers in windy and cold conditions show a dropoff, so you'd have to believe that in Baltimore you wouldn't get the same QB as you would in New Orleans.
 
2012-05-21 01:31:43 PM

Harv72b: Babwa Wawa: I just disagree. Sure the timing makes things more difficult for the Saints than it was for the Colts. But even at this stage of the season, at least half the teams in the league would seriously mortgage their future pick-wise and clean house cap-wise so they could sign him long term.

I'll make it easier on you: name me 8 teams (one fourth vs. the half you mentioned) that you could seriously see giving up two first-round picks (or their equivalent) right now for Brees.

/Disagreeing is what makes the non-porn part of the internet go. :)


Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Washington.
 
2012-05-21 01:32:53 PM

digistil: Babwa Wawa: Harv72b: In all honesty, barring a serious injury to a contending team's QB I don't think they could even get Carson Palmer value for him atm. The teams which really need a QB just drafted one (and that QB will be way cheaper), plus then the team who traded for him would have to deal with the contract issues

I just disagree. Sure the timing makes things more difficult for the Saints than it was for the Colts. But even at this stage of the season, at least half the teams in the league would seriously mortgage their future pick-wise and clean house cap-wise so they could sign him long term.

meanmutton: digistil: Harv72b: I'll take "When they discovered they'd have to pay a historic guaranteed figure for a long-term contract with a 33 year-old quarterback" for $1,000, Alex.

Agreed. I bet no team would pay him Brady/Manning money. He's older and not as good.

There's about 25 teams that would do that.

Seriously, NFL teams, do you think that it's a coincidence that the teams with the best quarterbacks are the teams which win the most?

Sorry, I thought the "he's older" really gave away that I was not at all serious.


My righteous indignation caused me to skip that part. :)
 
2012-05-21 01:35:30 PM

meanmutton: Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Washington.


For various reasons, no to at least those teams.

You've got to be out of your goddamn mind if you think Washington just gave away what they did to get RGIII and then they're going to throw away two more first-rounders for a year of Brees with a team that's not going to contend for anything.
 
2012-05-21 01:38:53 PM

JohnBigBootay: The saints, while certainly concerned about age, years, and guaranteed dollars, are not idiots. I'm pretty sure they consider him an elite qb. Doesn't mean they have to throw a bank vault at him without taking some time over the matter. This is all just posturing. The chances of brees being traded are some nonzero number... but I doubt that number is higher than 1.


I don't know that Brees is worth the guaranteed money he's asking for - it's reasonable for the Saints not to want that long term guaranteed money hanging over their heads with all the other shiat hanging over their heads. So imagine a situation where they start the season with the franchise tag on Brees, but Brees continues to refuse to sign the tender.

Brees would have literally no reason to play - there's very little chance of a championship this year. If he has his finances in order, Brees could easily sit out the season and save his body rather than risk injury playing for franchise money. In this scenario, the Saints get nothing.

This is why the Saints are well-advised to either sign the dude or trade him now.
 
2012-05-21 01:39:18 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Washington.

For various reasons, no to at least those teams.

You've got to be out of your goddamn mind if you think Washington just gave away what they did to get RGIII and then they're going to throw away two more first-rounders for a year of Brees with a team that's not going to contend for anything.


I'd put Tampa Bay back on that list. I don't think anyone is expecting Freeman to be the franchise QB anymore
 
2012-05-21 01:41:28 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Washington.

For various reasons, no to at least those teams.

You've got to be out of your goddamn mind if you think Washington just gave away what they did to get RGIII and then they're going to throw away two more first-rounders for a year of Brees with a team that's not going to contend for anything.


I'd cross of Buffalo, Oakland, and St. Louis, too. Buffalo and St. Louis because of what they have invested in their starting QBs and they couldn't afford to pay for Brees as well, and Oakland because they don't have any draft picks for the next 5 years or so.
 
2012-05-21 01:43:36 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Washington.

For various reasons, no to at least those teams.

You've got to be out of your goddamn mind if you think Washington just gave away what they did to get RGIII and then they're going to throw away two more first-rounders for a year of Brees with a team that's not going to contend for anything.


I'm assuming that as part of the trade, Brees is signing a contract longer than the 1 year tender. Or are you suggesting that he's only going to be this good for one more year? Because if so, that's odd. I figure he has at least 4 more good years in him.

As far as "not going to contend for anything" - three years after picking up Matt Stafford, the Lions went from 0-16 to a legitimate playoff team. When you have a QB that can throw 5,000 yards and 40+ TDs, you're a team that's going to contend for stuff.
 
2012-05-21 01:45:37 PM

mynamebackwards: Easy now. The Panthers only won 6 games last year, and let's take a look at those wins:

Jags
Skins
Colts
Bucs X2
Texans (with 3rd string QB, no Andre Johnson, no Mario Williams, no Wade Phillips)

I think it's a little early for division title talk.


Well, of those 10 loses, most of them they had a lead in the 4Q.

A maturing Cam and an actual starting defense gives me optimism.

/the fact that they're still the Panthers tempers my optimism
 
2012-05-21 01:45:57 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Washington.

For various reasons, no to at least those teams.


Why Chicago? Jay Cutler is good, no doubt, but he's not Drew Brees. Plus, he's not THAT much younger than Brees.

Honestly, Minnesota seems like the easiest slam-dunk to me.
 
2012-05-21 01:49:48 PM

redmid17: I'd put Tampa Bay back on that list. I don't think anyone is expecting Freeman to be the franchise QB anymore


That was the last one I thought about not crossing off - I ultimately did it because I think they're positioning themselves for a run in a couple of years and I think they'd rather wait and see if Freeman pans out in this third year.

meanmutton: Why Chicago? Jay Cutler is good, no doubt, but he's not Drew Brees.


Because you don't give up two first-rounders for a mild upgrade at QB.

meanmutton: As far as "not going to contend for anything" - three years after picking up Matt Stafford, the Lions went from 0-16 to a legitimate playoff team.


Oh, we're going to say Stafford was the big reason for that, not the defensive front getting scary? If it were just a case of signing Brees, I'd agree. But first-round picks are where you build your franchise into a contender.
 
2012-05-21 01:51:55 PM
I love idle speculation as much as the next guy. But Drew Brees is not being traded.
 
2012-05-21 01:52:04 PM

IAmRight: For various reasons, no to at least those teams.


Yeah, Washington's not going for it, but 49ers? Why wouldn't they be interested in him? It wasn't that they couldn't afford Manning, it's that they didn't think he was worth it (or too risky) - as I said above - everybody can afford him, if they're willing to clean house. Seahawks should also be on the list. One could also take issue with a number of the other teams you struck.

A team that wanted to go after Manning had to be in a pretty special position of being able to win a championship now AND enough space to sign him. If you need to clear cap space, you sacrifice that ability to win. Brees has 3 years on Manning, so a team can afford to clear some big names the roster to sign him and still get competitive while Brees is still an elite QB.

Regardless, though, I think we agree that the number of teams from whom the Saints could get significant value for Brees is quite large.
 
2012-05-21 01:52:54 PM

meanmutton: Harv72b: Babwa Wawa: I just disagree. Sure the timing makes things more difficult for the Saints than it was for the Colts. But even at this stage of the season, at least half the teams in the league would seriously mortgage their future pick-wise and clean house cap-wise so they could sign him long term.

I'll make it easier on you: name me 8 teams (one fourth vs. the half you mentioned) that you could seriously see giving up two first-round picks (or their equivalent) right now for Brees.

/Disagreeing is what makes the non-porn part of the internet go. :)

Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Washington.


Buffalo wouldn't trade for Brees. No way they could afford both him and Mario Williams.

Chicago wouldn't trade for him because Cutler has never been what was holding back their offense.

Cincinnati wouldn't trade for him because they have a 2nd year QB who just had a monster rookie season.

Miami wouldn't trade for him because there's no reason to go grab an elite QB who excels at utilizing multiple targets when they have no targets.

Seattle wouldn't trade for him because they already have 3 QBs.

Oakland wouldn't trade for him because they've already given up a ridiculous amount of draft picks for the QB they have now.

I shouldn't even have to explain why Washington wouldn't trade for him.
 
2012-05-21 01:59:22 PM

Zombie Neurosurgeon: Buffalo wouldn't trade for Brees. No way they could afford both him and Mario Williams.

Chicago wouldn't trade for him because Cutler has never been what was holding back their offense.

Cincinnati wouldn't trade for him because they have a 2nd year QB who just had a monster rookie season.

Miami wouldn't trade for him because there's no reason to go grab an elite QB who excels at utilizing multiple targets when they have no targets.

Seattle wouldn't trade for him because they already have 3 QBs.

Oakland wouldn't trade for him because they've already given up a ridiculous amount of draft picks for the QB they have now.

I shouldn't even have to explain why Washington wouldn't trade for him.


Chicago would trade for him because Cutler's not a leader. Miami would do it because they can't attract free agent WRs with their current QB ineptitude. good point about Buffalo, but trading williams so you can afford Brees and multiple WR targets is not an insane strategy. Seattle has three unproven QBs, so they'd be interested.

Oakland and Washington, I agree with you there, and it's the same reason St Louis wouldn't trade for him.

Even if I grant you all these, that's still 1/3rd of the league that would give a left nut for 4-5 years of Brees.
 
2012-05-21 02:01:35 PM
Schaub could use a backup with more experience than Yates. Go for it, Rick Smith!
 
2012-05-21 02:03:49 PM
Dafuq are you talking about subby?

ftfa:

Look, we love Drew Brees, every fan of the New Orleans Saints loves Drew Brees. So do I," Loomis continued. "No one wants to get him signed more than I do. ... But we also want to have the best team we can have on the field. ... We've just got to get it right."
 
2012-05-21 02:06:36 PM

Kurmudgeon: digistil: He's older and not as good.

I remember San Diego thinking the same thing.


Exactly. Everyone keeps throwing reasons at me why Drew Brees isn't all that great (he's no Philip Rivers! He's too small! He can't make all the throws anymore! Limited mobility!). And I keep pointing out that the guy passes for tons of yardage... and wins farking ballgames with his leadership.
 
2012-05-21 02:07:39 PM

D-Liver: Dafuq are you talking about subby?

ftfa:

Look, we love Drew Brees, every fan of the New Orleans Saints loves Drew Brees. So do I," Loomis continued. "No one wants to get him signed more than I do. ... But we also want to have the best team we can have on the field. ... We've just got to get it right."


Cole cites three sources saying that Saints GM Mickey Loomis corrected others calling Brees "great" during a conversation about Brees' contract negotations this week at the NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis.
 
2012-05-21 02:21:46 PM

Babwa Wawa: Chicago would trade for him because Cutler's not a leader. Miami would do it because they can't attract free agent WRs with their current QB ineptitude. good point about Buffalo, but trading williams so you can afford Brees and multiple WR targets is not an insane strategy. Seattle has three unproven QBs, so they'd be interested.


Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this one. There is just way too much wrong with it. Only the Seattle part makes sense - they'd be interested. They probably wouldn't make the trade based on the moves they made this offseason, but they'd be interested. Everything else is pure garbage.
 
2012-05-21 02:25:39 PM

Mr_Fabulous: Exactly.


People rail on San Diego for that but they ought to let it go. Brees' medical future was a huge question mark at the time so they turned it over to the heir apparent. Worked out great for both sides. Fact is Brees has been better in NO than he ever was in SD and Rivers had several fantastic years himself. SD not getting it done in the meantime has zero to do with the chargers not winning the big one.
 
2012-05-21 02:26:09 PM
Mickey, you're a great GM, love what you've done elsewhere, but on this, come on.

teddykgb.jpg
 
2012-05-21 02:27:28 PM

JohnBigBootay: Mr_Fabulous: Exactly.

People rail on San Diego for that but they ought to let it go. Brees' medical future was a huge question mark at the time so they turned it over to the heir apparent. Worked out great for both sides. Fact is Brees has been better in NO than he ever was in SD and Rivers had several fantastic years himself. SD not getting it done in the meantime has zero to do with the chargers not winning the big one.


God knows I've busted on SD enough for it, but yes, it's not really their fault. The guy's shoulder was turned inside out.
 
2012-05-21 02:31:10 PM

Mr_Fabulous: Exactly. Everyone keeps throwing reasons at me why Drew Brees isn't all that great (he's no Philip Rivers! He's too small! He can't make all the throws anymore! Limited mobility!). And I keep pointing out that the guy passes for tons of yardage... and wins farking ballgames with his leadership.


Brees's current ability is not what's under discussion, except in the minds of those who aren't paying attention.

The assumption is Brees wants a multi-year contract with possibly $10+ million guaranteed each year. The discussion is whether or not Brees at 38 years old is going to be worth $10 million guaranteed. That's what the Saints are asking, and that's what us bystanders are asking.

No one here is arguing against Brees being one of the top 3 QBs in the league. We're questioning if he will still be worth all of that cap space in 4 or 5 years.
 
2012-05-21 02:44:30 PM

robsul82: God knows I've busted on SD enough for it, but yes, it's not really their fault.


I don't think there's any 'fault' about it. It was a business decision. They were deciding the future disposition of two assets. The fact that the older truck kept running longer than the depreciation schedule said it would does not mean it was wrong to sell it. The guy who bought it got a good deal - good for him. Could have gone the other way.
 
2012-05-21 02:49:18 PM

JohnBigBootay: robsul82: God knows I've busted on SD enough for it, but yes, it's not really their fault.

I don't think there's any 'fault' about it. It was a business decision. They were deciding the future disposition of two assets. The fact that the older truck kept running longer than the depreciation schedule said it would does not mean it was wrong to sell it. The guy who bought it got a good deal - good for him. Could have gone the other way.


Yep, true.
 
2012-05-21 02:50:24 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this one. There is just way too much wrong with it. Only the Seattle part makes sense - they'd be interested. They probably wouldn't make the trade based on the moves they made this offseason, but they'd be interested. Everything else is pure garbage.


So why? It's not guaranteed that the Bears would be interested, but the fact is that Brees would bring some much needed leadership.

Miami and Buffalo wouldn't be interested in guy who can turn a stable of average WRs into pro bowlers? If you're Buffalo's GM, would you really sneeze at the prospect of trading Williams so you can afford someone like Brees? When was the last time a team won the championship with so much tied up into a single wide out anyway?

Regardless, you've got a lot of teams aside from these who would be interested in Brees right now. If the Saints don't think he's worth what he's asking, they should trade him - better that than having him sit out the season and get nothing.
 
2012-05-21 02:55:58 PM
i63.photobucket.com

I dig it...probably isn't street legal, though.
 
2012-05-21 02:59:43 PM

JohnBigBootay: I love idle speculation as much as the next guy. But Drew Brees is not being traded.


But, without idle speculation, these threads are about 20 posts long, and there is no room for the 'shopped Brees jerseys in every flavor of team with a current crappy QB.

And then where would Fark be?
 
2012-05-21 03:00:28 PM

Babwa Wawa: First of all, any team that was in the hunt for Manning would be in the hunt for Brees. Two picks for a 36 year old QB with an unresolved neck injury who didn't play last season is not the same as two picks for a 33 year old QB with 5500 yards, a 71% completion percentage, a 110 QB rating and 46 TDs last year, and who's missed two games in the last 7 years.

I really don't agree with the idea that the current cap space would prevent interest in someone like Brees. Teams can still cut, trade, and restructure to make room at this point. He's elite, he's three years younger than Manning. He's got no less than 4 years of elite QB status left - that's a fricking eternity in the NFL. It's nutty to think that teams wouldn't be willing to clean house for him.

Here's who I think would be interested. It's 11 teams, not 16, so I'll grant you it's not half the teams. But it's a real number.

Cardinals
Titans
Dolphins
Chiefs
Ravens
Bears
Jags
Vikings
Jets (cuz they're the Jets)
Seahawks
49ers

Again, if the Saints really believe that he's not an elite QB, they should trade him and get some value, especially if they think this year's going to suck for them.


For sake of clarity, the 2 first round picks thing was based on the Carson Palmer deal, not Peyton.

Cardinals - Good call, I totally forgot about them.
Titans - Already have the veteran (Matt Hasselbeck) and an untried young QB who they picked 8th overall last year (Jake Locker). I think a big part of their interest in Peyton was simply because he's a hometown guy.
Dolphins - They need him desperately, but nothing about that ownership has shown me that they'd be willing to pay the money to get him. Plus they're much more than a QB away from serious contention. I'll grant you a maybe on them.
Chiefs - Already mentioned them above; they were the only team I thought of who might make sense in a deal for Brees (plus Arizona).
Ravens - Half this thread is me pointing out why they wouldn't be interested & couldn't afford him anyway. :p
Bears - Cutler was having a hell of a season until the swiss-cheese line finally caught up with him, and they've already brought in Jason Campbell (same story) to provide depth. Either way, this team has far more pressing needs than at QB.
Jags - Another team that would benefit from getting a guy like Brees, but I don't see them willing to give up two first rounders for him; Jacksonville also needs more than just a QB to be a serious contender, and Gabbert didn't do all that bad considering their other offensive shortcomings.
Vikings - Way too many missing pieces, already have their alleged QB of the future (Ponder). All that said, they do have a history of making weird QB signings so I'll grant you this one, too.
Jets - Neither I, nor anyone, can argue with them being the Jets. :p
Seahawks - Just brought in Matt Flynn & still have Tarvaris in case Flynn turns into Cassel 2.0.
49ers - Not sure where they stand in relation to the cap, but I'll grant you that this is another team which might be interested...but I doubt Harbaugh would be two first-round picks interested.

And that's the key--to give up that kind of value to get a guy like Brees, a team has to pretty much feel that they are only that one piece away from being a serious championship contender and have the cap space to spare and be willing to mortgage the next few years to make a title run right now and be goofy enough to give up 2 first rounders in the first place. Nobody's arguing that Brees isn't a great QB or that he wouldn't be an upgrade at the position for almost every team in the league...at least, I'm not. It's just a question of whether that upgrade would be worth that much to a particular team/gm. The Palmer deal went through because the Raiders were in their first serious playoff race in years, wanted to win one for Al, and didn't really have an experienced trades guy around to talk some sense into them. Palmer also came with a much lower price tag against the cap than Brees would. I don't deny that Drew has trade value if the Saints wanted to go that way, I just don't think that he has tremendous trade value at this moment in time. Now, if Ben Roethlisberger decides to go biking without a helmet again & breaks his skull next week, then that might change (bad example, though, as the Steelers are generally a pretty conservative team when it comes to trading).
 
2012-05-21 03:05:12 PM

Babwa Wawa: Regardless, you've got a lot of teams aside from these who would be interested in Brees right now. If the Saints don't think he's worth what he's asking, they should trade him


Of course teams would be interested if he was available. But I still think you;re on crack to be so focused on this trade thing.

#1 - Brees, while 'worth' a lot by any calculation... he's worth a lot less unsigned

#2 - If they sign him, well, then #1 no longer matters

#3 - They don't want to trade him and he doesn't want to be traded.

It's business as usual mega-deal posturing. It's sort of crazy in saint land right now so I won't guarantee he'll suit up for game one.... but I almost would. A fine rainy-day time-wasting topic but I hope you don't think there's some serious chance that the trade thing is actually in the set of things that have a decent chance of happening. If the saints were thinking like that and I doubt they ever were - the time would have been before the draft. It would have been crazy then, now it would just be stupid crazy.
 
2012-05-21 03:08:20 PM

Babwa Wawa: AdmirableSnackbar: Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this one. There is just way too much wrong with it. Only the Seattle part makes sense - they'd be interested. They probably wouldn't make the trade based on the moves they made this offseason, but they'd be interested. Everything else is pure garbage.

So why? It's not guaranteed that the Bears would be interested, but the fact is that Brees would bring some much needed leadership.

Miami and Buffalo wouldn't be interested in guy who can turn a stable of average WRs into pro bowlers? If you're Buffalo's GM, would you really sneeze at the prospect of trading Williams so you can afford someone like Brees? When was the last time a team won the championship with so much tied up into a single wide out anyway?

Regardless, you've got a lot of teams aside from these who would be interested in Brees right now. If the Saints don't think he's worth what he's asking, they should trade him - better that than having him sit out the season and get nothing.


You completely fail to take into account salary cap management, among other considerations. The Bears would be interested in the concept of Brees but at the same time they would have to weigh their salary cap plus how much of a tangible impact Brees would have over Cutler. As someone said earlier in the thread, Cutler has been far from the reason that the Bears have fallen flat recently. How would Brees improve their OL and receiving corps to the point of competence or prevent injuries on defense?

Buffalo just paid Williams and Fitzpatrick a ton of money, trading for Brees would mean that three players would eat up their cap room. They can't trade either Williams or Fitzpatrick now or else their cap would be completely hosed. They are stuck with what they've got, Brees isn't an option for the Bills.

Miami is rebuilding and you don't rebuild with a QB as old as Brees is right now. They'd sell more tickets but ultimately it would only delay the inevitable since they wouldn't win anything with Brees in the next 3-4 years. But your point about Miami was that Brees would draw free agent WRs to the Dolphins, which is silly. It's silly because for the most part impact WRs don't make it to free agency, they are locked up long-term or traded. So while the Dolphins might be interested, they certainly wouldn't be interested for the reason you gave.
 
2012-05-21 03:18:50 PM

IAmRight: meanmutton: Arizona, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Miami, Minnesota, Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Washington.

For various reasons, no to at least those teams.

You've got to be out of your goddamn mind if you think Washington just gave away what they did to get RGIII and then they're going to throw away two more first-rounders for a year of Brees with a team that's not going to contend for anything.


Are you DARING Snyder to do it? Dude is dumb enough to take you up.
 
2012-05-21 03:19:02 PM

JohnBigBootay: But I still think you;re on crack to be so focused on this trade thing.


I really don't think it's likely he will be traded. But if they end up in a situation where he refuses to play without a long term contract, and they can't justify the contract he wants, then they really do have to trade him.

Perhaps they were (or are) thinking he'll play under the franchise contract. Then again, perhaps they're wrong. Yes, it would have been better to do this before the draft. It's not like there aren't still a good number of teams with needs at QB and the means to acquire one if offered.

Harv72b: And that's the key--to give up that kind of value to get a guy like Brees, a team has to pretty much feel that they are only that one piece away from being a serious championship contender and have the cap space to spare and be willing to mortgage the next few years to make a title run right now and be goofy enough to give up 2 first rounders in the first place.


I really do disagree - that's the calculus for trading for Manning. Manning's got a 2-3 years left. In order to get any value from the trade, you have to be able to make an immediate run.

Brees has 4-5 left or more. You can do a lot of shifting around to recover what you gave up from your trade in that time.

I think that's what the Raiders were thinking with Palmer. The guy was 31 when they traded for him, so they didn't have to win in 2011 in order to get value from the trade.
 
2012-05-21 03:22:48 PM
The deal will come down to the wire after much sabre rattling, but in the end will happen before camp. Might be 11th hour but it'll happen.
 
2012-05-21 03:41:40 PM

Harv72b: Babwa Wawa: First of all, any team that was in the hunt for Manning would be in the hunt for Brees. Two picks for a 36 year old QB with an unresolved neck injury who didn't play last season is not the same as two picks for a 33 year old QB with 5500 yards, a 71% completion percentage, a 110 QB rating and 46 TDs last year, and who's missed two games in the last 7 years.


For sake of clarity, the 2 first round picks thing was based on the Carson Palmer deal, not Peyton.

Cardinals - Good call, I totally forgot about them.
Titans - Already have the veteran (Matt Hasselbeck) and an untried young QB who they picked 8th overall last year (Jake Locker). I think a big part of their interest in Peyton was simply because he's a hometown guy.
Dolphins - They need him desperately, but nothing about that ownership has shown me that they'd be willing to pay the money to get him. Plus they're much more than a QB away from serious contention. I'll grant you a maybe on them.
Chiefs - Already mentioned them above; they were the only team I thought of who might make sense in a deal for Brees (plus Arizona).
Ravens - Half this thread is me pointing out why they wouldn't be interested & c ...


Of all the teams mentioned, it sounds like only the Cards & the Niners make real-world sense. Both were in the mix for Peyton, but both would have to do a bit of scrambling to provide Brees with the kind of money he's seeking. Reports I've read said that the Saints offered $18M/year, but Brees wanted a deal worth an average of $23M/year for the first 3 years (to match the contract Manning got from the Colts). Of course, that contract went up in smoke when the Colts cut Manning, and his deal with the Broncos is worth an average of $19.2M/year.

As a long-time & long-suffering Saints fan I don't want to see Brees go, but I also don't want to see the Saints slide into the kind of middlingly mediocre team that's good enough to make it to the playoffs but not good enough to win it all because so much of their cap space is locked up in a couple of aging veterans. I think Brees, in the long-run, would lose the PR war over this one, especially if they start hammering him on the $18vs23M figure.
 
2012-05-21 03:53:59 PM

Babwa Wawa: I really don't think it's likely he will be traded. But if they end up in a situation where he refuses to play without a long term contract, and they can't justify the contract he wants, then they really do have to trade him.


Fun exercise but at the end of the day I think he'll sign. He doesn't want to miss a year and it would be the keystone cops for him to start over with a new team that doesn't even have him on their radar at this late date. He's a smart guy and hasn't blown his money. Fact is, despite his obvious talents there is a ton of young qb talent right now and a ton more entering the league this year. He wants to get paid but at this point I'd say the qb market has softened a bit and he'll wise up and say, 'this ain't what I was looking for but I could still never spend it all, let's play ball.'
 
2012-05-21 04:01:59 PM

Jubeebee: Harv72b: I'll take "When they discovered they'd have to pay a historic guaranteed figure for a long-term contract with a 33 year-old quarterback" for $1,000, Alex.

Also, they aren't going to be competing this year anyway
, so he'll be 34 by the time they can make another run. He'll probably be an above-average QB until he retires, but I can understand their reluctance to lock him up long term.


Why, because their coach is suspended? They're not taking this season off because Payton is out I assure you. They'll be fine.
 
2012-05-21 04:08:17 PM

El Brujo: Why, because their coach is suspended? They're not taking this season off because Payton is out I assure you. They'll be fine.


I don't know about 'fine', but I won't be surprised if they compete for a division crown again. Then again I won't be surprised if they don't. They do have a solid core and a great qb but fact is there's close to 50% playoff turnover every year. All the turmoil around them, a missing coach, a new qb, lots of defensive turnover and a possible holdout makes them as good a candidate as anyone to be part of that 50%. I'm not predicting that will happen, just won't be surprised if it does. Happens to other teams all the time absent the saints special circumstances this year.
 
2012-05-21 04:12:02 PM

El Brujo: Jubeebee: Harv72b: I'll take "When they discovered they'd have to pay a historic guaranteed figure for a long-term contract with a 33 year-old quarterback" for $1,000, Alex.

Also, they aren't going to be competing this year anyway, so he'll be 34 by the time they can make another run. He'll probably be an above-average QB until he retires, but I can understand their reluctance to lock him up long term.

Why, because their coach is suspended? They're not taking this season off because Payton is out I assure you. They'll be fine.


They do play in the NFC South
 
2012-05-21 04:27:21 PM
As a Broncos fan, I'd be more than happy to trade Manning for Brees, if you guys don't want him.
 
2012-05-21 04:30:49 PM

Babwa Wawa: I really do disagree - that's the calculus for trading for Manning. Manning's got a 2-3 years left. In order to get any value from the trade, you have to be able to make an immediate run.

Brees has 4-5 left or more. You can do a lot of shifting around to recover what you gave up from your trade in that time.

I think that's what the Raiders were thinking with Palmer. The guy was 31 when they traded for him, so they didn't have to win in 2011 in order to get value from the trade.


The Raiders weren't thinking when they got Palmer. :p

I guess it's just a difference of opinion, then. If a team wants a long-term QB solution, they draft him. If they want a mid-term QB solution, they sign him in free agency. If they need an immediate, short-term solution, that's when they trade for him, or at least that's what I've seen over the past couple decades (exceptions to every rule, obviously). Two first-rounders for Brees makes a lot more sense than two for Palmer, but it still doesn't make much sense for most teams.

As others have pointed out, it's a moot argument anyway as there's literally no way that Brees is getting traded this year. The only questions are what he signs for & how long it takes for him to sign.
 
2012-05-21 04:32:33 PM
Incidentally, one other crazy scenario for the crazy Brees trade scenario: Dallas.

/More realistic than a lot of the teams mentioned already.
 
2012-05-21 04:52:33 PM

Harv72b: Incidentally, one other crazy scenario for the crazy Brees trade scenario: Dallas.

/More realistic than a lot of the teams mentioned already.


I'd go with Philly. They have a coach who's going to be fired if he can't win it all this year, a QB who is a liability, and a defense that will give up points to a competent offense.
 
2012-05-21 05:38:09 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: I'd go with Philly. They have a coach who's going to be fired if he can't win it all this year, a QB who is a liability, and a defense that will give up points to a competent offense.


Actually, I've got it: Denver.

First they acquire Brees, then they trade all their remaining draft picks for the next 10 years + an autographed Elway football for Rodgers, and then John Elway finally has his dream team.
 
2012-05-21 06:13:21 PM

Harv72b: Actually, I've got it: Denver.

First they acquire Brees, then they trade all their remaining draft picks for the next 10 years + an autographed Elway football for Rodgers, and then John Elway finally has his dream team.


for some reason I'm envisioning shotgun T formations and a playbook filled with 14 variations of Twin Option Triple Flea Flickers while Elway looks down from his box, whispering to himself, "..glorious"
 
2012-05-21 06:16:46 PM

The Bestest: Harv72b: Actually, I've got it: Denver.

First they acquire Brees, then they trade all their remaining draft picks for the next 10 years + an autographed Elway football for Rodgers, and then John Elway finally has his dream team.

for some reason I'm envisioning shotgun T formations and a playbook filled with 14 variations of Twin Option Triple Flea Flickers while Elway looks down from his box, whispering to himself, "..glorious"


"Finally, a QB who will GO FOR IT, damn it!"

/that was his comment before the first playoff game, right, Tebow needs to "go for it" or some other crap, lol
 
2012-05-21 08:23:21 PM
I saw a few people mentioning Brees could sit out a year, but from the VJax & McNeil drama in SD I thought a free agent had to sign a tender and show up for at part of the season to get credit for the season. Did the new CBA change something?
 
2012-05-21 08:32:34 PM

davidphogan: I saw a few people mentioning Brees could sit out a year, but from the VJax & McNeil drama in SD I thought a free agent had to sign a tender and show up for at part of the season to get credit for the season. Did the new CBA change something?


He could sit out, but I think he'd be giving up the $16M or so.

/not an expert.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report