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

[Deus Irae]

Originally Posted by fester

I immediately concede that Brady is a much better QB than Cassel

That's really the end of the story, unless you think that will change in the next year or two. As for why I would say that, let me ask you the question that explains my comment after I respond to your next quote.

Originally Posted by fester

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.

Joe Montana trade:

Montana
David Whitmore
3rd round pick the following year

for

18th pick overall

Not exactly the world's largest bounty. Now, taking that into account....

What comparative deals do you think would be available for an injured Brady vs. a healthy Matt Cassel, and how would the difference make trading away the vastly superior player worth it?

[scout]

Originally Posted by fester

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.

Great post! I only wish the keep Brady posts would offer up something equal so we could weigh the options.

[Deus Irae]

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.

Elway won twice when he was 37 and 38.
Brad Johnson won at age 34.

3 of the past 13 (your number set) Super Bowls have been won by quarterbacks 34 years of age or older. You keep helping the other side, so thanks again!

[emoney_33]

Originally Posted by scout

Great post! I only wish the keep Brady posts would offer up something equal so we could weigh the options.

Let's say someone on the "trade Brady" side comes up with a deal that gives the Patriots more value than keeping Brady, balanced with the future in mind. The discussion would then turn into would that other team actually do this trade. Now it just turns into a huge hypothetical discussion of what other teams are willing to trade for Brady.

It is incredibly unlikely that another team will offer enough in value to the Patriots that it would be worth it to trade Brady after this season. The post you referred to is an extremely vague hypothetical that isn't going to entice much valuable discussion.

Why do people enjoy these wild hypothetical discussions? If the Patriots find a deal they feel is worth it and it happens, then let's beat that horse bloody. But discussing extremely unlikely events and hypothetical situations isn't very appealing to me.

[aluminum seats]

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Elway won twice when he was 37 and 38.
Brad Johnson won at age 34.

3 of the past 13 (your number set) Super Bowls have been won by quarterbacks 34 years of age or older. You keep helping the other side, so thanks again!

Typo, I'll edit to 2--that's 2 quarterbacks of the last 13. Even at 3, it's a low 20s percentage.

Again, the broader point is that winning Super Bowls is overwhelming a young man's game. From Cold Hard Football Facts:

"The Cold, Hard Football Facts are this: quarterbacks with 10 or more years of experience rarely win Super Bowls. You are much more likely to have a winning QB with six or fewer years of experience than you are to see a winner with 10 or more years of experience.

Since Super Bowl V, 34 games have been played and 20 different quarterbacks have taken home the trophy as the starter. More than half of the winners had 6 or fewer years of experience. Here is the breakdown:

Won first Super Bowl as a rookie through 3rd year of NFL experience (20%):
Roger Staubach
Joe Montana
Kurt Warner
Tom Brady

4th through 6th year of NFL experience (35%):
Bob Griese
Terry Bradshaw
Jim McMahon
Jeff Hostetler
Mark Rypien
Troy Aikman
Brett Favre

7th through 9th year of NFL experience (30%):
Ken Stabler
Joe Theismann
Phil Simms
Doug Williams
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson

10 years or more of NFL experience (15%):
Jim Plunkett
Steve Young
John Elway

[Deus Irae]

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

Typo, I'll edit to 2--that's 2 quarterbacks of the last 13. Even at 3, it's a low 20s percentage.

Again, the broader point is that winning Super Bowls is overwhelming a young man's game. From Cold Hard Football Facts:

"The Cold, Hard Football Facts are this: quarterbacks with 10 or more years of experience rarely win Super Bowls. You are much more likely to have a winning QB with six or fewer years of experience than you are to see a winner with 10 or more years of experience.

Since Super Bowl V, 34 games have been played and 20 different quarterbacks have taken home the trophy as the starter. More than half of the winners had 6 or fewer years of experience. Here is the breakdown:

Won first Super Bowl as a rookie through 3rd year of NFL experience (20%):
Roger Staubach
Joe Montana
Kurt Warner
Tom Brady

4th through 6th year of NFL experience (35%):
Bob Griese
Terry Bradshaw
Jim McMahon
Jeff Hostetler
Mark Rypien
Troy Aikman
Brett Favre

7th through 9th year of NFL experience (30%):
Ken Stabler
Joe Theismann
Phil Simms
Doug Williams
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson

10 years or more of NFL experience (15%):
Jim Plunkett
Steve Young
John Elway

The "broader point" is that CHFF is misleading with the data, and you're falling for it because it fits your agenda. Again, when one 30+ year old QB beats another, you and CHFF just ignore that. When Brady lost, at 30 years old, to the younger Manning, was that because he was too old even though he was the league MVP and had set the single season touchdown pass record? When Gannon lost, at 37, to the 34 year old Johnson, had he aged dramatically in the approximately four weeks since the end of the same season when he'd won the league MVP title?

[unoriginal]

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

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.

Mark Brunell was drafted in the 5th round and traded for a 3rd and 5th after two years and two half games of playing time.

Matt Hasselbeck was drafted in the 6th round, and traded with a 1st and 7th pick for a higher 1st and a 3rd.

Ty Detmer and Doug Pederson weren't traded for picks, but they were developed in Green Bay and signed free agent contracts as potential starters elsewhere. I'm not sure if they earned Green Bay comp picks or not.

Green Bay developed young players behind Brett Favre as both cheap backups and trade bait. I think the Pats coaching staff + Tom Brady would be even better at doing this then the Packers staff + Brett Favre, for obvious reasons. It's really more of a school of thought in New England than a school of athleticism.

Tom Brady represents both a QB with many good years ahead of him, and a vet that can tutor younger QBs (like he has Cassel). Cassel can't be that guy just yet because he's still trying to be LIKE Tom Brady.

That's why I think they'll keep Brady and move Cassel, even if some team offers a great package for Tom. He makes the guys down the depth chart better.

[emoney_33]

Originally Posted by aluminum seats

Typo, I'll edit to 2--that's 2 quarterbacks of the last 13. Even at 3, it's a low 20s percentage.

Again, the broader point is that winning Super Bowls is overwhelming a young man's game. From Cold Hard Football Facts:

"The Cold, Hard Football Facts are this: quarterbacks with 10 or more years of experience rarely win Super Bowls. You are much more likely to have a winning QB with six or fewer years of experience than you are to see a winner with 10 or more years of experience.

Since Super Bowl V, 34 games have been played and 20 different quarterbacks have taken home the trophy as the starter. More than half of the winners had 6 or fewer years of experience. Here is the breakdown:

Won first Super Bowl as a rookie through 3rd year of NFL experience (20%):
Roger Staubach
Joe Montana
Kurt Warner
Tom Brady

4th through 6th year of NFL experience (35%):
Bob Griese
Terry Bradshaw
Jim McMahon
Jeff Hostetler
Mark Rypien
Troy Aikman
Brett Favre

7th through 9th year of NFL experience (30%):
Ken Stabler
Joe Theismann
Phil Simms
Doug Williams
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson

10 years or more of NFL experience (15%):
Jim Plunkett
Steve Young
John Elway

Do these % of "old" QBs who win the SB coincide with % of "old" QBs who are playing?

Intuitively it would seem that there would be a low % of 10+ year experience QBs who are playing in the NFL every year.

As well as what Deus is pointing out, the FACTS could be stating that there aren't many starting QBs with 10+ years experience period, which would not be indicative of a starting QBs ability to win...

EDIT: Also the sample size of SB winning QBs is already pretty damn tiny.

[aluminum seats]

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

The "broader point" is that CHFF is misleading with the data, and you're falling for it because it fits your agenda. Again, when one 30+ year old QB beats another, you and CHFF just ignore that. When Brady lost, at 30 years old, to the younger Manning, was that because he was too old even though he was the league MVP and had set the single season touchdown pass record? When Gannon lost, at 37, to the 34 year old Johnson, had he aged dramatically in the approximately four weeks since the end of the same season when he'd won the league MVP title?

Actually, the CHFF data isn't ignoring anything.....just laying out the winners relative to their years of experience.

In the 2 examples you site, the winners those years had dominant defenses.....which, as many have posted in this thread, can win championships--another reason to consider the draft bounty of trading Brady.

[scout]

Originally Posted by emoney_33

Let's say someone on the "trade Brady" side comes up with a deal that gives the Patriots more value than keeping Brady, balanced with the future in mind. The discussion would then turn into would that other team actually do this trade. Now it just turns into a huge hypothetical discussion of what other teams are willing to trade for Brady.

It is incredibly unlikely that another team will offer enough in value to the Patriots that it would be worth it to trade Brady after this season. The post you referred to is an extremely vague hypothetical that isn't going to entice much valuable discussion.

Why do people enjoy these wild hypothetical discussions? If the Patriots find a deal they feel is worth it and it happens, then let's beat that horse bloody. But discussing extremely unlikely events and hypothetical situations isn't very appealing to me.

Your first statement: that is actually what I'm open to discuss. Icy, stated that he didn't think a team would offer too much for Brady. Quite frankly, that goes against what most keep/Brady members are saying. I don't have a problem with putting a trade value on Brady.
"Why do people enjoy these wild hypothetical discussions? Do you come here often?
If you don't find it appealing then don't post.
I guess my stance is I am cold hearted and don't look at the past for future goals. I don't see the Patriots winning more then one championship with Brady. However, with the right trade I could see Cassel and a dominant defense winning multiple championships.