IMO, Real Reason Brees asked for SP to attend game: Team needed SP in the bldg! | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
STEVED00
North Carolina St. Fan
Metairie, LA
Member since May 2007
11330 posts
 Online 

IMO, Real Reason Brees asked for SP to attend game: Team needed SP in the bldg!



I really believe the main reason Brees asked for SP to be there is bc he felt the TEAM needed him there! Sure he used the record as the actual reason given to Goodell, but part of me really believes that Drew really doesn't care that much about the record.

Drew knew that the team needed a shot in the arm and the record gave him the excuse he needed!







Back to top
Share:
thedice20
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since May 1926
Member since Aug 2008
7550 posts

re: IMO, Real Reason Brees asked for SP to attend game: Team needed SP in the bldg!








Back to top
  Replies (0)
bigpetedatiga
LSU Fan
Alexandria, LA
Member since Aug 2009
5149 posts

re: IMO, Real Reason Brees asked for SP to attend game: Team needed SP in the bldg!


Seems legit





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Servedinafghanistan
New Orleans Saints Fan
Shalimar, Fl
Member since Feb 2005
6602 posts

re: IMO, Real Reason Brees asked for SP to attend game: Team needed SP in the bldg!


Good logic.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Breesus
New Orleans Saints Fan
House of the Rising Sun
Member since Jan 2010
28635 posts

re: IMO, Real Reason Brees asked for SP to attend game: Team needed SP in the bldg!


quote:

Drew really doesn't care that much about the record.


Id bet my life he cares about that record






Back to top
  Replies (0)
wish i was tebow
Arizona Fan
The Golf Board
Member since Feb 2009
42931 posts

re: IMO, Real Reason Brees asked for SP to attend game: Team needed SP in the bldg!


I completely disagree with everything you said





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Sid in Lakeshore
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2008
22962 posts

re: IMO, Real Reason Brees asked for SP to attend game: Team needed SP in the bldg!


quote:

STEVED00


Terry Bradshaw? Is that you?






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top