Saints at a crossroads (1 Viewer)

[Zack Lee]

Goff actually proves my point. The Rams overpaid him after they made the Super Bowl. Plus they overpaid Gurley and now they're a salary cap disaster for years to come.

we could be landing the next best thing though. A guy like Hill won’t be on a rookie contract but he also doesn’t have the skins on the wall to demand the elite money. Yet some say he could be an elite QB on that less than elite contract.

 

[No2DC]

The giants did it with Eli twice and he was drafted before the current rook wage scale. They had multiple vets on those teams. Even though we had young guys on the 09 team, most of those guys were around when we were in our early window.

 

[Saint Spud]

The giants did it with Eli twice and he was drafted before the current rook wage scale. They had multiple vets on those teams. Even though we had young guys on the 09 team, most of those guys were around when we were in our early window.

I'd say the game has changed a little bit in the last nine years.

And, as I pointed out, most of our core players on that '09 team were still on rookie deals. We didn't win another one after that.

 

[No2DC]

I'd say the game has changed a little bit in the last nine years.

And, as I pointed out, most of our core players on that '09 team were still on rookie deals. We didn't win another one after that.

The financial structure hasn't changed as it relates to your point because there was a cap. Are you suggesting we didn't win another ring because we lost players? Who did we lose because of money after 09 that was part of the core? Most of those guys just got older.

 

[dtc]

I'd say the game has changed a little bit in the last nine years.

And, as I pointed out, most of our core players on that '09 team were still on rookie deals. We didn't win another one after that.

Most of our core guys were not on rookie deals and the rookie 1st round deals were much richer.

Grant, Brees, Sharper, Greer, Smith, Henderson, Shockey, Fujita, Shanle, Evans, Goodwin, McCray, and sure as hell Vilma were not on rookie deals. Brees was already on his 10th year.

There's no magic with rookie contracts. The whole thing is a very well engineered system of caps and contracts intended to produce parity and level competition. Only the Patriots have consistently overcome it and they've cheated.

 

[Saint Spud]

Most of our core guys were not on rookie deals and the rookie 1st round deals were much richer.

Grant, Brees, Sharper, Greer, Smith, Henderson, Shockey, Fujita, Shanle, Evans, Goodwin, McCray, and sure as hell Vilma were not on rookie deals. Brees was already on his 10th year.

There's no magic with rookie contracts. The whole thing is a very well engineered system of caps and contracts intended to produce parity and level competition. Only the Patriots have consistently overcome it and they've cheated.

Yes, the first round deals were much richer.

Colston, Thomas, Nicks, Evans, Bushrod, Strief, Porter and Henderson weren't on first-round deals. It's a major difference.

Colston got a "new deal" in '08. The signing bonus? A whopping $5 million! LOL.

Things have changed a lot.

 

[Saint Spud]

The financial structure hasn't changed as it relates to your point because there was a cap. Are you suggesting we didn't win another ring because we lost players? Who did we lose because of money after 09 that was part of the core? Most of those guys just got older.

It's not just losing players. It's watching the margin for error shrink to where you can't replace injured players.

Also, the focus on 2009 is a bit beside the point, even though I answered the original question. The game has changed so much and the evidence over the past decade is overwhelming.

 

[Mississippi Saints Fan]

What has left me hopeful is that we've hit the last 3 drafts out of the park, and that's with bottom-round picks. I don't think we will have a problem as it relates to the roster in general. We've honestly set ourselves up for success these past few years. Sure, there will be players we can't afford to keep, but that's nearly every team. As long as we keep the "right" players, and as long as we continue drafting well and being smart in FA, the loss of certain players can be mitigated.

The main question mark of our future is at QB, and I believe it will come down to a competition between Taysom, a draft pick, and a vet FA. I trust Payton to choose the right guy.

 

[No2DC]

It's not just losing players. It's watching the margin for error shrink to where you can't replace injured players.

Also, the focus on 2009 is a bit beside the point, even though I answered the original question. The game has changed so much and the evidence over the past decade is overwhelming.

I agree with your injured player comment but I don't think we didn't get another ring because of losing players. Keep in mind that we've had the most important asset over the past 10 years. I don't really see the correlation your are referring to. The Steelers are another team that stayed in the hunt over the same period, as you're talking about a 5-year window.

 

[Saint Spud]

I agree with your injured player comment but I don't think we didn't get another ring because of losing players. Keep in mind that we've had the most important asset over the past 10 years. I don't really see the correlation your are referring to. The Steelers are another team that stayed in the hunt over the same period, as you're talking about a 5-year window.

We had that same "asset" in 2014-2016. How'd that work out?

We've been able to thrive the last three years because of really, really good players on rookie deals. Those players are no longer going to be on rookie deals very soon.

 

[dtc]

Yes, the first round deals were much richer.

Colston, Thomas, Nicks, Evans, Bushrod, Strief, Porter and Henderson weren't on first-round deals. It's a major difference.

Colston got a "new deal" in '08. The signing bonus? A whopping $5 million! LOL.

Things have changed a lot.

The cap was 120m 10 years ago. Yes, the dollars changed, but that doesn't mean that having a rookie contract QB is some magic bullet and it certainly didn't then. We had Reggie Bush with one of the highest contracts of the day on that team.

We had Shockey, Grant, Will Smith, Sedrick Ellis, and Vilma who were all first rounders. Jenkins and Meachem too and those are just the ones I can rattle off. I think Chris McAllister and maybe even McKenzie played that year.

 

[Saint Spud]

The cap was 120m 10 years ago. Yes, the dollars changed, but that doesn't mean that having a rookie contract QB is some magic bullet and it certainly didn't then. We had Reggie Bush with one of the highest contracts of the day on that team.

We had Shockey, Grant, Will Smith, Sedrick Ellis, and Vilma who were all first rounders. Jenkins and Meachem too and those are just the ones I can rattle off. I think Chris McAllister and maybe even McKenzie played that year.

Again, the game has changed a lot. The evidence looking at the past 8 years is pretty overwhelming.

That's an eternity in the NFL.

 

[dtc]

It's not just losing players. It's watching the margin for error shrink to where you can't replace injured players.

Also, the focus on 2009 is a bit beside the point, even though I answered the original question. The game has changed so much and the evidence over the past decade is overwhelming.

You're reaching. The game hasn't changed at all except the cap has grown and rookie contracts reduced so there's less risk when you miss.

It's all a balancing act and it's absurdly naive to assert that you need a rookie contract QB to win anymore.

What you need to win is the best team and some good luck. Some of that luck involves hitting on draft picks and finding diamonds outside of the big money contracts. Pierre Thomas made more of an impact than most on that team, but Brees was still, at the time, a very highly paid vet. So were Ely and Tom Brady, Joe Flacco and Peyton Manning.

 

[Saint Spud]

You're reaching. The game hasn't changed at all except the cap has grown and rookie contracts reduced so there's less risk when you miss.

You really don't think "the game hasn't changed at all" over the past eight years?

And, yes, the rookie contracts were reduced. That's a big part of my point here.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Rookies succeed at a much, much higher level in their first year than they did in 2011 or whenever. Regardless of position. Peyton Manning started as a rookie and threw more interceptions than touchdowns. Nowadays most pedestrian QBs and even some garbage guys like Mitch Trubisky do much better than that. If any rookie QB came in and put up Peyton's stats from his rookie year today, they'd be unanimously considered an insta-bust.

The gap between high-level college football and the NFL has shrunk significantly. At every position, too, not just QB. The schemes in college are more advanced and the NFL is actually stealing more college concepts than vice-versa.

So regardless of how you feel about salary cap/Brees/Taysom/whatever, the game has definitely changed. Rookies contribute much earlier and more significantly than they used to.

I don't believe that the only way to win is to have a QB on a rookie deal. But I also don't believe that the only way to win is to have a top flight veteran QB (as it was 10-15 years ago). In today's NFL you can do it either way.

The problem is that next year and beyond, we will have neither a top flight veteran QB or a good QB on a cheap deal. And thus the rebuild begins. So enjoy 2020 ya'll, because it could be ugly for a bit after that.

Also - just a random anecdotal thought. The Spurs were "past their window" in 2010. They won a title in 2014. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. We still have a shot to win one next year, even if it's fairly small.