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

[BradyFTW!]

Originally Posted by JSn

If Brady isn't healthy, he's untradable.

Exactly! Glad you came around. IMO, it probably even goes beyond being able to pass a physical. No team is going to commit multiple first rounders to Brady until they've seen him play and know for a fact that he's still an elite QB.

[AzPatsFan]

I don't know why this has degenerated into a discussion of trade one, or the other QB.

This team is a Super bowl contender, and maybe a favorite, in both 2008,and 2009. Yet it's 2008 season was ruined, due to inadequate QB depth. In 2009, why should it take a chance on the same thing happening, when it doesn't need to do so?

It is not like they can't afford to carry both until a solution is clear. They clearly can. The CAP room money is there. Period.

I hear all these pseudo-learned people saying you can't allocate $28 million to the QB position? Oh? Why Not? The Clots did when the CAP was a hell of a lot smaller, several years ago. The Patriots can, due to their previous prudent CAP management.

I agree in 2010 it would be more difficult, but not this year. And the questions exist this year, not next. And unlike most years, Cassel is possibly not a FA. He is bound to the Pats for 6 seasons, and has two more to go. Provided, there is no new CBA, as are several other rising stars that would other wise have to be signed in 2010.

I want a Montana/Young solution. The Pats can afford it, and should do it. What's more that is fully in line with Belichick's expressed views regarding depth at ALL positions. And that includes QB.

[scout]

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

People have been harping on the injury factor pretty much from the beginning, and BradyManny, Deus, myself, and others have been listing off dozens of clearly articulated reasons why a trade was impossible for quite a while now. The fact that you're just now realizing that there's a coherent argument against the trade being made shows that you've pretty much been ignoring everyone that didn't agree with yours for the last 500 posts or so (and you wonder why people just throw their hands up and call this thread idiotic).

Very good, now maybe you can clearly articulate a response to my last post.

[scout]

Originally Posted by AzPatsFan

I don't know why this has degenerated into a discussion of trade one, or the other QB.

This team is a Super bowl contender, and maybe a favorite, in both 2008,and 2009. Yet it's 2008 season was ruined, due to inadequate QB depth. In 2009, why should it take a chance on the same thing happening, when it doesn't need to do so?

It is not like they can't afford to carry both until a solution is clear. They clearly can. The CAP room money is there. Period.

I hear all these pseudo-learned people saying you can't allocate $28 million to the QB position? Oh? Why Not? The Clots did when the CAP was a hell of a lot smaller, several years ago. The Patriots can, due to their previous prudent CAP management.

I agree in 2010 it would be more difficult, but not this year. And the questions exist this year, not next. And unlike most years, Cassel is possibly not a FA. He is bound to the Pats for 6 seasons, and has two more to go. Provided, there is no new CBA, as are several other rising stars that would other wise have to be signed in 2010.

I want a Montana/Young solution. The Pats can afford it, and should do it. What's more that is fully in line with Belichick's expressed views regarding depth at ALL positions. And that includes QB.

Being a Super Bowl contender is not enough when you have the amunition (trade) to upgrade your defense, which was not good enough the last few years regardless of how many td's Tom threw.

[BradyFTW!]

Originally Posted by JSn

Because there is more to the team than QB and a healthy Brady (which does not automatically imply "still elite") gets you more in trade fodder, helping THE TEAM. And you end up with a younger, fresher, solid and mobile QB.

I don't understand what is unclear. If Brady isn't healthy, he's untradable. If Brady can safely stand on grass and throw a football in practice, you find out if he's the best option by WATCHING HIM THROW AND MOVE. Seems simple enough.

If you would trade a healthy Brady, on the basis that you think that we can get more value in a trade than Brady brings to the team, then I guess that's just the core point where you disagree with every rational person on this board. Oh well.

Originally Posted by scout

Very good, now maybe you can clearly articulate a response to my last post.

You mean this one?

Originally Posted by scout

How does Brady start? The whole premise of not being able to trade him was that he can not pass a physical. Thus, Cassel is the starter until its determined that Brady is able to play, which nobody knows.
Are you saying that if Brady comes back before the trading deadline, Cassell will be traded?
Or are you saying we will only get compensation for him after the season?

Sure, I'll give it a shot. I've already made most of these points multiple times in this thread, but I guess you haven't read any of them.

If we franchise Cassel, his $14.5M salary hits the books when training camp starts. As a result, it is vitally important that he be traded prior to this point. Beyond that, the best value could be had for him before the draft, so that we can get some picks that will help us this year.

I've also found that a lot of arguments for considering trading Brady hinge on the idea that Cassel may not be almost as good, but he's good *enough*. My response is that he might be, but we have absolutely no evidence that this is the case. If you look at how he did over the course of the year, you'll realize that he benefited in a major way from playing against some of the worst defenses in the league, and that his performances against the good defenses that he played gave no indication that he's capable of playing well enough to win against them.

Against the Jets, Dolphins, Broncos, Raiders, and Cardinals: 17 touchdowns vs. 3 interceptions
Against the Colts, Chargers, and Steelers (perennial playoff teams): 0 touchdowns, 4 interceptions.
And in case you think that I might have been cherrypicking statistics, there were other bad results that I did not include, because I didn't think they were particularly relevant. For example, against the Rams and 49ers, he had 2 TDs and 4 INTs.

So let me reiterate this to put it into perspective: Cassel threw 23 TDs this year, and 17 of them came in 7 games against the Jets, Dolphins, Broncos, Raiders, and Cardinals. These are not good D's. In case someone plans on bringing up how the Cardinals are doing, I'd point out that this was at the absolute lowpoint of their season. They had been getting thrashed on a weekly basis. Cassel benefited from playing against a series of atrociously bad defenses.

He's a good, developing QB, but he isn't a third the player that Brady is, and will almost certainly never be half the player that Brady is. Will he get better? Of course he will. He'll probably get a lot better over the next several years. But right now we have the best QB in the history of the NFL, in the prime of his career, who completed a season in which he set the touchdown record exactly one year ago, and who is coming back from an injury that QBs come back from successfully on a regular basis. Nobody has given anything resembling a valid reason for why you should trade that away in favor of a young, developing QB who had a good season against a series of horrendous defenses.

JSn's reasoning is that Cassel is a good enough QB for us to win a championship with a dominant defense. Not only do a disagree with this assertion, but, even if I did agree with it, I'd have to question how trading Brady would transform our defense into a dominant one. Draft picks are not automatic- there's a substantial risk in going from point A to point B.

On the other hand, Brady is capable of winning the Super Bowl with the offense and defense that we have right now. I think a lot of you have been spoiled by the Belichick era, and think that the Patriots have this unlimited window of opportunity that will never close. Once the dynasty has tapered out, maybe you'll finally appreciate that opportunities like this are incredibly rare. The Patriots are good enough to win multiple Super Bowls right now, largely because they have both the best head coach and the best QB in the history of the NFL, both in the primes of their careers. You don't blow that up for the future.

Is that explanation sufficient for you?

[IcyPatriot]

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

If you would trade a healthy Brady, then you know absolutely nothing about football and what it takes to win in the NFL.

Not to argue but the Giants won a Super Bowl with Hostetler, the Bears with McMahon and we could make a list of a few more.

[BradyFTW!]

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

Not to argue but the Giants won a Super Bowl with Hostetler, the Bears with McMahon and we could make a list of a few more.

The giants also won one with Eli. Not saying that it's impossible; I'm simply saying that, if you look at SB winners over time, a hugely disproportionate number of them have elite QBs. An elite QB elevates your team far, far more than any other player can.

[IcyPatriot]

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

The giants also won one with Eli. Not saying that it's impossible; I'm simply saying that, if you look at SB winners over time, a hugely disproportionate number of them have elite QBs. An elite QB elevates your team far, far more than any other player can.

Sure for the regular season but in the playoffs I think recent years have proven defense 1st and you need an above average offense to counter those amazing defenses. In other words can a team win a SB without a great QB or without a great defense ... and all recent winners have had great defenses but not all recent winners have had great QB's.

[swheeler23]

The Bleacher Report has a good article, "Three reasons not to trade Brady".

[BradyFTW!]

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

Sure for the regular season but in the playoffs I think recent years have proven defense 1st and you need an above average offense to counter those amazing defenses. In other words can a team win a SB without a great QB or without a great defense ... and all recent winners have had great defenses but not all recent winners have had great QB's.

teams that have won without a top-tier QB since 2001: Bucs, Giants
teams that have won without a top-tier defense since 2001: Colts

Looks to me like you can win it all without one, but you absolutely have to have at least one of the two, and are much better off if you have both (obviously).

It's also worth noting that, since the offense-favoring rule changes in 2004, we've had 1 team win without an elite defense and 1 team win without an elite QB. And the team without the elite QB won because he suddenly started playing like one. This year, they went out with a whimper in the playoffs, largely because Eli regressed back to what he really is.

What you have to realize, though, is how big of a role luck plays in determining who actually wins the SB. The Patriots had chance go in their favor many times from 2001 to 2004, and it showed. They were a miracle helmet catch/horrendously blown call from winning in 2007. So, rather than judging entire philosophies based on lucky bounces here and there, I'd rather look at the teams that, year in and year out, are in the running. The ones that are in the playoffs every year, in the conference championship games, going to Super Bowls.

Who fits that description this decade? The Pats, Steelers, and Colts. It's a short list, and I feel very comfortable saying that, in this decade, those three franchises are in a class of their own. All 3 have perennial all pros at QB. All three also have very good defenses. So, basically, you need your QB and your defense to both be, at the very least, very good.

Luckily for the Pats, they already have a great QB and a very good defense. With Brady, they're Super Bowl-caliber right now. With Cassel, they're in the class of the Ravens, Titans, and Giants. Cassel is a good QB, but he's not Brady, Peyton, or Roethlisberger by a long shot.

The Patriots already have a top-tier defense (go ahead and check the rankings). Even if you want to argue that they don't, trading away the best QB in the league so that you'll have a better chance at getting an even better D (but still without any guarantee) is still trading away a necessity that you already have so that you might be able to get another one. It just doesn't add up.