The Official 'Trade Brady' Debate Thread - Do Not Start Another One

[scout]

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

See, your post doesn’t really refute mine. I’m talking about the best way to maximize the Pats chances to be the team of the next decade. Saying, “look, these QBs were old, but they were able to lose the Super Bowl!” doesn’t really help your argument. As for the winning old-timers, I already mentioned two of those five. As for the other three who were able to get one, I acknowledged that sometimes the stars can align for a team, whoever the QB is.

Not to mention on three of the five winners the defense was dominant.

[Rob0729]

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

Well, about 300 are pointless posts decrying the thread, like this one. If these stopped--or if the mods deleted them, hint hint--the thread would be much more focused.

The posts decrying the thread are the only ones I can see that are remotely based in reality.

When people start bring up ages of QBs who won Super Bowls 2-3 decades ago trying to prove that Brady cannot win a Super Bowl in his mid to late 30s, you know this thread has gone down a ludicrious path. Players play longer and are far more productive in their 30s today than even 10 years ago. An ACL tear was a career ender just 15 or so years ago. Now players return in less than a year.

[Deus Irae]

Originally Posted by groganbootleg

Wow, so a 31 yr old with a major knee injury is not at risk for having more injuries later on? Thats a bold statement.

Not really, since I never said any such thing.

Originally Posted by groganbootleg

Young was not a HOFer when he took over. Montana was.

Well, since you want to play word games rather than answer the question, neither Montana nor Young were HOFers when the switch was made. Nonetheless, they both ended up in the Hall. So, are you saying that Cassel is destined for first ballot status?

Originally Posted by groganbootleg

Says you.....the thread is to discuss the relative merits of both options, not to come to a final conclusion. I think if you asked BB (and he answered honestly), he would tell you nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

Yes, says me.

[Deus Irae]

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

See, your post doesn’t really refute mine. I’m talking about the best way to maximize the Pats chances to be the team of the next decade. Saying, “look, these QBs were old, but they were able to lose the Super Bowl!” doesn’t really help your argument. As for the winning old-timers, I already mentioned two of those five. As for the other three who were able to get one, I acknowledged that sometimes the stars can align for a team, whoever the QB is.

No, it refutes yours, especially when more than one of the Super Bowls had one older quarterback facing off against another. When 35 faces off against 34, 36 faces off against 34 or 37 faces off against 34, naturally a quarterback over the age of 33 is going to lose.

[aluminum seats]

Originally Posted by scout

Not to mention on three of the five winners the defense was dominant.

That's exactly right....

[aluminum seats]

Originally Posted by Rob0729

The posts decrying the thread are the only ones I can see that are remotely based in reality.

When people start bring up ages of QBs who won Super Bowls 2-3 decades ago trying to prove that Brady cannot win a Super Bowl in his mid to late 30s, you know this thread has gone down a ludicrious path. Players play longer and are far more productive in their 30s today than even 10 years ago. An ACL tear was a career ender just 15 or so years ago. Now players return in less than a year.

Well that explains all the late-thirties QBs winning Super Bowls lately. Oh wait.

[aluminum seats]

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

No, it refutes yours, especially when more than one of the Super Bowls had one older quarterback facing off against another. When 35 faces off against 34, 36 faces off against 34 or 37 faces off against 34, naturally a quarterback over the age of 33 is going to lose.

Sorry, that doesn't help you at all. It doesn't make losing QBs winners, number one. Number two, it raises a good point against you--these older QBs were only able to win when they were playing other old QBs.

[emoney_33]

I just wanted to say that there is and will always only be ONE Tom Brady...

This debate hinges on whether Brady can get healthy enough to play at an elite level, and as fans we will NEVER know the merits of any such argument. Too many posters are forgetting who exactly we are talking about here, and it isn't Joe Schmoe!

There is not a single reason to believe Tom F'ing Brady will not work harder than any other to bring himself back to an elite level, nor is there a single reason to believe he suffered career ending/deterring injury.

Two things would make Cassel a better choice than Brady, neither of which a fan can have any clue to by the time a decision is made.

A) Brady's injury is more severe than anyone thought.

or

B) Brady's personality has changed and he no longer desires to be a great NFL QB.




Seriously guys, we are talking about Tom Brady...

[Deus Irae]

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

Sorry, that doesn't help you at all. It doesn't make losing QBs winners, number one. Number two, it raises a good point against you--these older QBs were only able to win when they were playing other old QBs.

Of course, that means that quarterbacks under 34 are losers, too, and they couldn't even get to the Super Bowl despite playing against all those fossils.

You really might want to re-think your logic train here. 50% of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks have been 30 years of age or older.

[aluminum seats]

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Of course, that means that quarterbacks under 34 are losers, too, and they couldn't even get to the Super Bowl despite playing against all those fossils.

You really might want to re-think your logic train here. 50% of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks have been 30 years of age or older.

Actually, I was having fun with your list of losing Super Bowl QBs as being evidence that that's the way to go to be the team of the next decade.

As to the 50%, we can play with numbers all you like. Such as Brady will be 32, and the winners over that age drops real quick down to 21%. Or that there's been one winning QB over 30 in the last 13 years as players--defenses--get bigger, faster and stronger.