The Official 'Trade Brady' Debate Thread - Do Not Start Another One - Page 49 - New England Patriots Forums

mesoslo · 12-23-2008, 05:38 PM

If the colts are williing to trade manning, then the patriots will also be willing to trade Brady.
But I dont see any of those things happening anytime soon.

groganbootleg · 12-23-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottieC

This is nuts.

Brady had ONE surgery, that's it - ONE.

He had another PROCEDURE - NOT a surgery - this procedure was done to clean the knee out and sterilize the affected area. This procedure was done using a needle and flushed the knee. The knee was NEVER opened for a second time.

We are now 11 Weeks out of the initial surgery and 8-9 weeks out of the flush when the infection was diagnosed.

ESPN - Tom Brady has more surgery, return to New England Patriots unknown - Brady has more knee surgery

Quote:

Brady recently acknowledged on his Web site that doctors went in "to clean and to test the wound" on Oct. 15 because of the infection. The New England Patriots quarterback has had two more similar procedures since then.

Report: Brady has additional surgery on left knee Procedure.....surgery.....all sounds kind of serious to me.

groganbootleg · 12-23-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

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?

Not really, since I never said any such thing. (See I can do that too)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Yes, says me.

and I'll take that for what its worth

Deus Irae · 12-23-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by groganbootleg

Not really, since I never said any such thing. (See I can do that too)

I know you didn't. I asked you a question and you dodged it. That's why I asked the question, which you dodged once again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by groganbootleg

and I'll take that for what its worth

You're dodging questions 10 posts into your being here. I really don't care how you take it.

unoriginal · 12-23-2008, 06:16 PM

Folks fighting the good fight in here. They're not going to trade Brady like the 49ers moved over on Montana. Brady is younger than Montana, and QBs last longer because medical science has improved. He's got the same wear on him as much younger QBs like Carson Palmer and Philip Rivers.

In any event, Brady is a top-shelf mind at QB, and a keystone of the franchise. There will be much, much, much more value in tagging and trading Cassel and continuing to bring mid-round QBs like O'Connel to understudy to Brady, then in trading Brady and bringing in a vet to back up Cassel.

It should be clear to most fans here that the Pats are establishing a QB pipeline, like what the Green Bay Packers had when Brett Favre and Mike Holmgren were in their prime.

groganbootleg · 12-23-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

I know you didn't. I asked you a question and you dodged it. That's why I asked the question, which you dodged once again.

You asked if I thought Cassel was a 1st ballot HOFer. Its a stupid question. Was Young a 1st ballot HOFer when he took over for Montana? Of course not. The situations are actually very similar. Montana was a multiple SB winning QB and Young was a QB with a ton of potential who had been studying at his feet for years. Montana - pocket passer, Young - younger more mobile. same applies here.
So, to answer your question...no, not yet, but he could be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

You're dodging questions 10 posts into your being here. I really don't care how you take it.

Now that really hurts. Your using your thread count to justify your answers....nice. I'm sure everyone's impressed

aluminum seats · 12-23-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unoriginal

Folks fighting the good fight in here. They're not going to trade Brady like the 49ers moved over on Montana. Brady is younger than Montana, and QBs last longer because medical science has improved. He's got the same wear on him as much younger QBs like Carson Palmer and Philip Rivers.

In any event, Brady is a top-shelf mind at QB, and a keystone of the franchise. There will be much, much, much more value in tagging and trading Cassel and continuing to bring mid-round QBs like O'Connel to understudy to Brady, then in trading Brady and bringing in a vet to back up Cassel.

It should be clear to most fans here that the Pats are establishing a QB pipeline, like what the Green Bay Packers had when Brett Favre and Mike Holmgren were in their prime.

I'm not sure what this part means, in that this "pipeline" hasn't apparently ever helped the Packers. I do understand the idea of continuing to nurture young QBs, which all organizations do, and the Pats are better than most organizations at everything they do.

Deus Irae · 12-23-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by groganbootleg

Now that really hurts. Your using your thread count to justify your answers....nice. I'm sure everyone's impressed

I wasn't referring to my post count, but to yours. If you're dodging questions just 10 posts into your tenure, why bother continuing on with you? It's about getting off on the right foot, not about post volume.

fester · 12-23-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

I'm an economist/analyst for a living...the economic risk/reward for trading Brady leans HEAVILY toward the RISK side of the ledger.

Are you a fantasy football guy? My guess says YES! NO NFL team in their right mind would trade one of the best QB's in NFL history to upgrade their roster....which may or may not end in an upgrade.

Use some common sense. Name that team that traded Joe Montana, Roger Staubach, Bart Star, Johnny Unitas, Peyton Manning, Troy Aikman, Dan Marino or Steve Young. I'm waiting. I know this...each of these teams had personnel people a LOT smarter than YOU!

They did NOT trade these men....EVER.

Thanks for making unwarranted assumptions about my background. I'm also an economist/policy analyst and I think that is fairly clear in my language of implied opportunity cost here. I've also never played fantasy football.

I immediately concede that Brady is a much better QB than Cassel HOWEVER, I am asking if there is any price that would make it worthwhile for the Patriots to intentionally downgrade their QB position while dramatically increasing the probability of improving multiple other positions... There is an argument that the question is NO, there is no such deal possible. However the NO answer is not as self-evident as you claim it to be.

Now let's play some counterfactuals here --- would the Cowboys have been a better team if they traded Aikmen in 1999 or 2002 rather than see him decline? Would the Dolphins have been a better team if they traded away Marino in 1995 or 1996 than watching him limp through 1999 as a shell of himself after serious foot injuries?

In both of these counterfactuals, there are viable scenarios where the answer is "YES, Team X could be a better team over the intermediate to long term (which is part of the question I raised) if they traded away their star quarterback" The question then is what assets were returned to the 'Boys or the 'Phins ( 2 first rounders and a Pro Bowl starter versus 3 UDFA and a 2033 7th round pick) to determine whether or not such a counterfactual would make sense.

***emoney_33*** · 12-23-2008, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

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.

There's only ONE TOM BRADY damnit