Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
bmacsmith wrote:
i never understood why Brees was so overlooked by the NFL. he was awesome at Purdue.
Because he's shorter than your average QB. Thats all it really was. Its not like he was an undrafted free agent. he was the first pick of the 2nd round, and was projected as a late first rounder.... Not really overlooked, just had some questions surrounding him.
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
edzeppe wrote:
bmacsmith wrote:
i never understood why Brees was so overlooked by the NFL. he was awesome at Purdue.
Because he's shorter than your average QB. Thats all it really was. Its not like he was an undrafted free agent. he was the first pick of the 2nd round, and was projected as a late first rounder.... Not really overlooked, just had some questions surrounding him.
the only team that undervalued him was SD, which was understandable considering he'd hurt his throwing shoulder the season leading to his free agency.
wikipedo wrote:
After the season, the Chargers offered Brees a 5-year, $50 million contract that paid $2 million in base salary the first year and the rest heavily based on performance incentives. Brees took the incentive-based offer as a sign of no confidence by the Chargers and promptly demanded the type of money a top 5 "franchise" quarterback would receive.
After the Chargers refused to increase their offer, Brees met with other teams. The New Orleans Saints and the Miami Dolphins were interested. New Orleans made an offer that included $10 million in guaranteed money the first year and a $12 million option the second year. Miami was unsure if Brees' shoulder was completely healed and did not offer the money Brees was seeking. The Dolphins ended negotiations and traded for Minnesota Vikings QB Daunte Culpepper instead. Brees signed a 6-year, $60 million deal with the Saints on March 14, 2006.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:05 am Posts: 8045 Location: Arlington Heights, IL Gender: Male
EllisEamos wrote:
wikipedo wrote:
The Dolphins ended negotiations and traded for Minnesota Vikings QB Daunte Culpepper instead. Brees signed a 6-year, $60 million deal with the Saints on March 14, 2006.
Perhaps one of the more curious cases of the decade resides in Denver. Not only did the Broncos have a regular season record that came close to the elite, no team was more constant in winning, evidenced by their #1 ranking in consistency. The Broncos are one of five teams to suffer only one losing season, and they are the only team to never win less than seven games in any year. The reason why they don’t rank higher is obvious—the postseason. Garnering only one playoff win is a strike, as well as being ridiculously close to making the playoffs four more times (in 2002, 2006, 2008, and 2009).
All of this consistency, for better or worse, can almost completely be attributed to one constant factor: Mike Shanahan, the man who led the Broncos to the promised land in the 1990s. While Shanahan made some excellent transactions during his tenure (like trading Clinton Portis for Champ Bailey), he also made some mindblowingly bad ones (like signing Daryl ‘IHOP’ Gardener to a huge contract).
Eventually, owner Pat Bowlen tired of the status quo, and Shanahan was shockingly fired in 2008, replaced by Bill Belichick protégé Josh McDaniels. McDaniels proceeded to shake up the roster greatly (such as trading away Jay Cutler), and big changes were expected by many, both positive and negative. The end result? The exact same scenario that Shanahan found himself in at the end of his tenure. McDaniels will risk the wrath of Broncos Country if, for one, the consistency isn’t broken in the right direction.
i never understood why Brees was so overlooked by the NFL. he was awesome at Purdue.
Because he's shorter than your average QB. Thats all it really was. Its not like he was an undrafted free agent. he was the first pick of the 2nd round, and was projected as a late first rounder.... Not really overlooked, just had some questions surrounding him.
the only team that undervalued him was SD, which was understandable considering he'd hurt his throwing shoulder the season leading to his free agency.
wikipedo wrote:
After the season, the Chargers offered Brees a 5-year, $50 million contract that paid $2 million in base salary the first year and the rest heavily based on performance incentives. Brees took the incentive-based offer as a sign of no confidence by the Chargers and promptly demanded the type of money a top 5 "franchise" quarterback would receive.
After the Chargers refused to increase their offer, Brees met with other teams. The New Orleans Saints and the Miami Dolphins were interested. New Orleans made an offer that included $10 million in guaranteed money the first year and a $12 million option the second year. Miami was unsure if Brees' shoulder was completely healed and did not offer the money Brees was seeking. The Dolphins ended negotiations and traded for Minnesota Vikings QB Daunte Culpepper instead. Brees signed a 6-year, $60 million deal with the Saints on March 14, 2006.
Miami undervalued him twice. God I wanted to draft him so bad.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
the teams remaining and the order i'd guess they fall.
After the Super Bowl: Indy NE
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
Broncos are definitely too high, and this reflects the fear I had that consistency would be too heavily valued. As a Texans fan I know first-hand the meaningless of consistently mediocre or barely above mediocre seasons.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
I just don't think consistency is that big of a deal, certainly not equivalent to playoff appearances or playoff wins. Ask yourself this, would you rather have a team that went 9-7 and missed the playoffs each of 10 years, or a team that went to the CC game 3 times, the superbowl one of those times, and had 4-12 seasons the rest of the decade?
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
Buffalohed wrote:
I just don't think consistency is that big of a deal, certainly not equivalent to playoff appearances or playoff wins. Ask yourself this, would you rather have a team that went 9-7 and missed the playoffs each of 10 years, or a team that went to the CC game 3 times, the superbowl one of those times, and had 4-12 seasons the rest of the decade?
which team are you talking about exactly?
call me biased, but the broncos always played the pats well, and for that i considered them a strong team this decade. and wouldn't you know it, they've come out as a top ten team?!!!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
