Who did we take? Billy Thomas or Dallas Turner?Passing on Earl Thomas was awful.
Passing on Earl Thomas was awful.
I wouldn't say he sucked. He was not great but was not awful. The 2002 team clearly was not the same without him and his injury cost them a playoff spot.No...Fiedler sucked!
I see nothing wrong with tossing around what ifs. It think we're all(or should be) mature enough to realize it won't change anything.
It's part of the whole sports debate, the great ifs.
How about: What if Theismann doesn't knock that ball out of Bokamper's hand?
What if we don't get stuffed for a safety vs the Chargers in the 1994 Divisional playoff round?
What if Buffalo doesn't come back from 35-3 to beat Houston in 1992?
What if Kellen Winslow doesn't get his paw on that FG attempt?
I see nothing wrong with tossing around what ifs. It think we're all(or should be) mature enough to realize it won't change anything.
It's part of the whole sports debate, the great ifs.
How about: What if Theismann doesn't knock that ball out of Bokamper's hand?
What if we don't get stuffed for a safety vs the Chargers in the 1994 Divisional playoff round?
What if Buffalo doesn't come back from 35-3 to beat Houston in 1992?
What if Kellen Winslow doesn't get his paw on that FG attempt?
Stop it already. Yes Culpepper had some better stats at the time than Brees. And NO no one actually knew what Brees would eventually become. However, Bree’s was the CLEAR choice at the time and was the #1 choice for the fins. EVERYONE knew this! Culpepper was not viewed as a long term franchise QB, more one who had some athletic ability and threw the ball well deep. Other than those, the consensus of the NFL was he didn’t have much else to offer. Brees was well regarded as a long term starter and possibly a franchise type QB. The only thing was the injury.
This is revisionist nonsense. If Brees was such an obvious clear choice, why did the Saints wait until after Miami acquired Culpepper to get Brees. It seems as though the Saints settled for Brees and it paid off for them. The whole thing was serendipity for the Saints. If Brees was such an obvious front runner, he would have been signed immediately upon hitting Free Agency. Free Agency began March 11, 2006. Brees signed March 14.
In all fairness, I didn't follow it super closely at the time as I had more important matters to care for (my wife was going through a very difficult pregnancy at the time). But I did follow it.
The part I was claiming nonsense on was that Brees was the "clear" frontrunner. I should not have use dthe word "nonsense", and for that I am sorry. I do feel part of your argument was revisionist in nature. To say that Brees was the clear frontrunner was not the consensus around the NFL. There was much debate regarding the shoulder injury vs knee injury. True, Saban preferred Brees but Brees's contract demands at the time scared off Miami somewhat. I still feel if he had moved off his initial contract demands, Miami may have still taken a chance on him. The physical coupled with his contract demands doomed him. I know it was our team doctor that failed him (they agve him a 25% chance of recovery), but if had so clearly been the choice, it wouldn't have mattered. Players signing with other teams after failed physicals isn't unique. It's jut the Brees situation is higher profile than most of these transactions.
I wouldn't say he sucked. He was not great but was not awful. The 2002 team clearly was not the same without him and his injury cost them a playoff spot.
I agree, we probably don't beat Cincinnati the following week.Regarding the Winslow play, the Dolpins still would not have gone to the Super Bowl that year. I don't see any way they would have survived the Freezer Bowl in Cincinnati a week later (Cincy was 1/2 game better than Miami for home field in that game).
I agree, we probably don't beat Cincinnati the following week.
But I sure would like to have seen the attempt.