Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I was just thinking the same thing while watching the pre-game show on Brees.I think any team would be better with Brees except for the Pats and Colts..... maybe.
There was no way they could afford to keep Turner, but they could have signed Brees. They choose not to. It is just interesting to speculate about.
Have you missed the other umpteen times this has been discussed over the years since Brees went to the Saints? You say they couldn't afford to keep Turner, but ignore the issues they would have had keeping Brees.Brees was coming off a serious injury and they already had Rivers, who they felt was a great young QB. They couldn't move Rivers due to the cap hit, and keeping both would have tied up a lot more cap money at the QB position, as well as possibly creating dissension (similar concerns to those discussed ad nauseam with Favre and Rodgers recently).Meanwhile, Rivers has performed well since he took over. Not as well as Brees, but Rivers has not been asked to carry the offense like Brees has in New Orleans, so it's apples and oranges to compare them.twistd said:
I forgot about Miami. I think Brees and Miami were in discussions before he went to New Orleans. Did Miami back out, or was it that New Orleans stepped in at the last minute with a better offer? They were planning to get rid of Brees because he didn't show much until after they had drafted Rivers.
Then apparently you haven't watched them play much. Brees is a lot better than Rivers. Rivers is very inconsistent. He may get better, but right now Brees is much better. Brees is doing what he is doing this year without Shockey and Colston. That is impressive.
No QB ever has Shockey because he is always hurt
Miami chose Culpepper over Brees.
This is the main reason Nick Saban saw the writing on the wall and quit when he sniffed any other decent employment opportunity. 
That is an excellent point.
Well, think what you like, but I have seen Rivers play QB, and he just isn't nearly as good as Brees. Put Rivers on the Saints, and let him throw 600 times. You then have a Saints team that never wins 8 games. They would have never made the playoffs. They would be an after thought just like they used to be. Brees is a major reason why the Saints have had the success they have had. Rivers couldn't do what Brees has done with this team.
Well, the first thing is that Rivers has had a defense. Brees hasn't. The last few years the Chargers have arguably been the most talented team in the league. If not the top team, at least amongst the top five talentwise. LT has been the best back in the league. Behind him they have had Turner and now Sproles. Gates has been one of the top TEs in the league. The offensive line has been one of the best. Their wide receiving corp has left something to be desired, but the rest of the team has been exceptional. The Saints have not been nearly as talented. Brees had to play last year with practically no running game. If you watch Rivers he has a lot of games where he is terribly inaccurate. The Chargers don't ask Rivers to carry the team, but I don't think he can. I think Rivers is a very average QB. That isn't a bad thing, in Chicago we would be thrilled with average. Which may be what Orton is becoming. The Chargers are struggling some this year. LT isn't as effective. Now they need more out of Rivers and sometimes they get it and sometimes they don't. I still believe that the Chargers would have won more, and they would be better now if they had held on to Brees.
At the time the Chargers drafted Rivers, Brees was coming off his second season as San Diego's starting QB. In 2002, the first of those seasons, he led the team to an 8-8 record and put up a 76.9 QB rating. Not bad for a first year starter. But then he followed that up with a 67.5 QB rating and a 2-9 record... and 41 year old Flutie was 2-3 in the 5 games Brees missed due to injury. The Chargers were justified in thinking they needed to draft another QB.If Rivers hadn't held out as a rookie in 2004, it is very possible he would have beaten Brees out and who knows how things would have transpired... but to his credit, Brees seized that opportunity and put up 2 very good back to back seasons.In Brees's two good seasons in San Diego, his composite QB rating was 96.1, and he was 20-11 as a starter. Rivers' composite QB rating since taking over as starting QB is 89.3, and he is 27-10 as a starter. (These are regular season only numbers.) So Brees was more efficient than Rivers has been, but that is comparing years 3 & 4 for Brees to Rivers first 2+ years starting, so the difference in QB rating is not surprising. And Rivers put up a gutty performance in the playoffs last year, leading the team to the AFC Championship game. Brees never won a playoff game in San Diego. I don't see a big gap there, as if Brees would have led the Chargers to a Super Bowl victory.
Then why didn't San Diego ask Brees to carry the offense when he was there? They didn't - they asked him to carry the same load they have asked Rivers to carry.ETA: And if they had traded Rivers, they would have taken a massive cap hit, on the order of $9M or so IIRC.
It makes sense that Brees is better right now. He has a lot more experience. Rivers has played 37 regular season games. If you judged Brees on his first 37 games, apparently you would think much less of him.Rivers' first 37 games as Chargers starting QB: 645/1058 (61.0%), 7723 passing yards (7.3 ypa), 54 TDs, 28 interceptions, 89.3 QB rating, 27-10 recordBrees' first 37 games as Chargers starting QB: 703/1158 (60.7%), 7472 passing yards (6.4 ypa), 47 TDs, 34 interceptions, 80.9 QB rating, 17-20 record
