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

[AzPatsFan]

Originally Posted by scout

Actually, the Colts defense was playing good ball at the right time. Their defense handled the teams in the playoffs, although they were really bad during the regular season.
When the Patriots won in 2001, it was their defense which carried them.
The Steelers last Super Bowl was also won because of their defense. They won despite Big Ben in that game. This year, he is winning games for them, but they would not be there without that defense. Defense wins championships.
Everybody remembers the big three from the Dallas Cowboy's dynasty. I followed them closely back then, as I lived in Dallas. They had a great defense which is why they were so successful.
No one talks about the greatest offense ever in a Super Bowl. I'm not sure who that would be, tho, you could claim the Bears defense as the greatest with maybe Baltimore coming in second.
The Patriots will probably not win another Super Bowl unless they make some significant changes with their defense. How do you call them a top tier defense with those red zone numbers?

I think those red zone numbers were very good. Not superb yet, but well on the way. Yielding only 40 red zone opportunities to opponents was excellent; and shows in their 8th league ranking in points allowed. A couple of the Superbowl winning editions did not do as well. And this Defense doesn't need much more talent and it gets it this year, It already has much of what it needs except experience.

[BradyFTW!]

Originally Posted by PATRIOT64

Agreed with 1,000% - Homers don't see reality

Our defense has had virtually NO SERIOUS pass rusher since Willie Mac left

Rosevelt Colvin and Adalius Thomas say hi

Our secondary when guys got injured used to be filled in with guys from the streets that contributed enough to keep the offenses in check - Nowadays this secondary has way too many has beens and also-rans to make it a formidable one

Good point, but what you're failing to account for is that that was before Polian threw his hissyfit and the league decided to make it easier to pass. Not saying that that makes it okay, but I doubt that the timing is a coincidence, and CBs across the league haven't looked as good since. Belichick is in the process of addressing this, though.

Our BIGGEST concern to fill some holes this offseason has to start and probably end with some nice aquisitions to the backfieLd,Which of course is the cornerback position - even Hobbs is not a certified lock on his side IMO.

I expect some FA action and at least 2 picks on draft day to be in the cornerback area and for a good look at a pass rushing specialist,otherwise this team will never win another SB Title in the near future - Brady or no Brady

Going to go ahead and strongly disagree here. The draft picks that you're talking about happened last year. Wheatley showed a lot of promise before his injury, and Wilhite was starting by the end of the year. The Pats will definitely bring in some new guys to compete, through draft and/or FA, but, assuming some progress from Wilhite and Wheatley, I'm not sure that that's a major need right now. OLB and another starting safety opposite Meriweather should be the priorities, as well as an ILB to ease the load on Bruschi (which could end up being Vrabel).

As far as how good the defense really is, once again- a lot of you people are so spoiled that you've lost perspective completely. With a healthy Brady, the Pats probably would have won the SB this year. Seriously, who was going to beat them? The Cardinals? Steelers? Ravens?

They're one elite playmaker away from being a dominant defense, and, as of now, are very good at everything except takeaways. Granted, that's a very important aspect, and it needs to be addressed in the form of a better pass rush and an upgrade at safety, but the Pats are a very good defense as is. Anyone who points to the fact that we lost in an AFCCG and a Super Bowl is ignoring the fact that it was good enough to get us to an AFCCG and a Super Bowl. Once you're there, **** can happen, and that doesn't mean that you have to blow up your entire team and start over.

The really funny thing, I guess, is that of all the people on this thread saying that we need to overhaul everything, do you feel the same way if Tyree doesn't make a miracle, 1-in-1000 catch off of his helmet? That's the kind of margin that decides Super Bowls, but it shouldn't decide how to build a team and when to blow it up. That kind of small-picture, knee-jerk, completely irrational reaction is exactly why we have dumb threads full of dumb ideas, with this one being exhibit 1A.

[AzPatsFan]

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

Rosevelt Colvin and Adalius Thomas say hi



Good point, but what you're failing to account for is that that was before Polian threw his hissyfit and the league decided to make it easier to pass. Not saying that that makes it okay, but I doubt that the timing is a coincidence, and CBs across the league haven't looked as good since. Belichick is in the process of addressing this, though.



Going to go ahead and strongly disagree here. The draft picks that you're talking about happened last year. Wheatley showed a lot of promise before his injury, and Wilhite was starting by the end of the year. The Pats will definitely bring in some new guys to compete, through draft and/or FA, but, assuming some progress from Wilhite and Wheatley, I'm not sure that that's a major need right now. OLB and another starting safety opposite Meriweather should be the priorities, as well as an ILB to ease the load on Bruschi (which could end up being Vrabel).

As far as how good the defense really is, once again- a lot of you people are so spoiled that you've lost perspective completely. With a healthy Brady, the Pats probably would have won the SB this year. Seriously, who was going to beat them? The Cardinals? Steelers? Ravens?

They're one elite play-maker away from being a dominant defense, and, as of now, are very good at everything except takeaways. Granted, that's a very important aspect, and it needs to be addressed in the form of a better pass rush and an upgrade at safety, but the Pats are a very good defense as is. Anyone who points to the fact that we lost in an AFCCG and a Super Bowl is ignoring the fact that it was good enough to get us to an AFCCG and a Super Bowl. Once you're there, **** can happen, and that doesn't mean that you have to blow up your entire team and start over.

Well said. I would only add that the same situation may already be there at OLB, as well. Vrabel and AD, (and maybe Rosey), are not in their antique dotage, yet. Devolving all the pass rush onto a perhaps injured Vrabel and expecting lots is is not fair. Pierre and Shawn and Vince have hardly been tested, yet. They may be the budding equivalents of Wheatley and Willhite.
Like them already on the roster, just ready to bloom.

There is no question that there are openings at ILB, and Safety though. Certainly for depth and perhaps better starters are needed; but even there there is no glaring holes. Despite the anti-Sanders feelings by some. The few who object happen to be the NE coaches; they just keep putting Sanders in the game. Many here, do not recognize the need for an ILB blitzer, but I do.

This Defense is coming on like Gangbusters. It was arriving at the end of the season, despite the poor pass rush, (injuries?), and all the newcomers.

[BradyFTW!]

Originally Posted by AzPatsFan

Well said. I would only add that the same situation may already be there at OLB, as well. Vrabel and AD, (and maybe Rosey), are not in their antique dotage, yet. Devolving all the pass rush onto a perhaps injured Vrabel and expecting lots is is not fair. Pierre and Shawn and Vince have hardly been tested, yet. They may be the budding equivalents of Wheatley and Willhite.
Like them already on the roster, just ready to bloom.

There is no question that there are openings at ILB, and Safety though. Certainly for depth and perhaps better starters are needed; but even there there is no glaring holes. Despite the anti-Sanders feelings by some. The few who object happen to be the NE coaches; they just keep putting Sanders in the game. Many here, do not recognize the need for an ILB blitzer, but I do.

This Defense is coming on like Gangbusters. It was arriving at the end of the season, despite the poor pass rush, (injuries?), and all the newcomers.

Good points, definitely. There are quite a few young OLBs on the roster, and Crable in particular might be able to step in in a big way soon. I'd love him as the #3 safety, though. If anything, this playoffs has made it extremely apparent that having range and playmaking ability at safety can really make a defense. Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Arizona are all excellent in that regard.

All in all, though, I definitely agree with you. a blitzing ILB could be huge for us, and is part of the reason why I'd like to see more depth at OLB so that Vrabel and/or Adalius could situationally move inside and create that threat.

[scout]

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

Rosevelt Colvin and Adalius Thomas say hi


As far as how good the defense really is, once again- a lot of you people are so spoiled that you've lost perspective completely. With a healthy Brady, the Pats probably would have won the SB this year. Seriously, who was going to beat them? The Cardinals? Steelers? Ravens?

.

How was the Patriots red zone defense this year? I'm sure the weather helped them out in the last two games, but overall, it was pretty bad. You do not win playoff games with a bad defense in the red zone, no matter who you have at qb.

[BradyFTW!]

Originally Posted by scout

How was the Patriots red zone defense this year? I'm sure the weather helped them out in the last two games, but overall, it was pretty bad. You do not win playoff games with a bad defense in the red zone, no matter who you have at qb.

Certainly wasn't good, but it could be improved with better health and an acquisition or two. And, if Brady hadn't been injured, they could have and probably would have won the SB with that defense.

And FYI, in 2006 the Colts won the SB with the worst red zone defense in the league.

[scout]

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

Certainly wasn't good, but it could be improved with better health and an acquisition or two. And, if Brady hadn't been injured, they could have and probably would have won the SB with that defense.

And FYI, in 2006 the Colts won the SB with the worst red zone defense in the league.

I'm not sure where your getting an acquisition or two. Obviously, the Pats would have been considerably better with Thomas and a corner which were on IR, but that wasn't happening either. The Pats, were also pretty bad on 3rd down.
The Colts defense was pathetic in 2006. Everyone ran on them, ran over them, ran thru them. Then they jelled for a few games and nobody could run on them. I don't know the data, but I would think that their red zone defense was pretty good during those same games.
Now, if you want to think, that the Pats red zone and 3rd down defense would also jell at the appropriate time, then thats for you to dream.

[BradyFTW!]

Originally Posted by scout

I'm not sure where your getting an acquisition or two. Obviously, the Pats would have been considerably better with Thomas and a corner which were on IR, but that wasn't happening either. The Pats, were also pretty bad on 3rd down.
The Colts defense was pathetic in 2006. Everyone ran on them, ran over them, ran thru them. Then they jelled for a few games and nobody could run on them. I don't know the data, but I would think that their red zone defense was pretty good during those same games.
Now, if you want to think, that the Pats red zone and 3rd down defense would also jell at the appropriate time, then thats for you to dream.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that your assertion, which is that you can't win the Super Bowl without an excellent regular season red zone defense (the Pats finished 19th in the league) isn't exactly true, since the Colts did exactly that in 2006 (32nd in the league).

As you yourself noted in the original post, it becomes easier to play defense later in the season and in the playoffs, for a number of reasons. There's more game film to watch, the weather isn't as good, and the guys who have been taking hits all year are a little more beat up than the guys who have been giving them.

There's precedent for well-coached defenses to come together at the end of the season, put a bad regular season behind them, and step it up in a big way. Just look at the Cardinals this year, or the Colts in 2006. That's why I'm saying that you can't claim that the Pats' D wasn't good enough to win the SB... with Brady at QB (hence my objection to the thought of trading him).

Everyone was going nuts for the Ravens last week, right up until they lost. What can we learn from them? That you can have an absolutely amazing defense, but unless your offense is awfully good you're not winning a SB. You can point to the 2001 Ravens if you want, but the opposite of them would be the 2006 Colts. You simply need to be very good on both sides of the ball, and trading Brady is guaranteed to put your offense back further than whatever you get in return can put your defense forward.

[scout]

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

Everyone was going nuts for the Ravens last week, right up until they lost. What can we learn from them? That you can have an absolutely amazing defense, but unless your offense is awfully good you're not winning a SB. You can point to the 2001 Ravens if you want, but the opposite of them would be the 2006 Colts. You simply need to be very good on both sides of the ball, and trading Brady is guaranteed to put your offense back further than whatever you get in return can put your defense forward.

Your kidding right?
The Ravens were playing a rookie qb against the best defense in the league.
Or in other words, if the Ravens had any offense they would have been in the game. They didn't need a Manning or a Brady, just someone with some experience.

[BradyFTW!]

Originally Posted by scout

Your kidding right?
The Ravens were playing a rookie qb against the best defense in the league.
Or in other words, if the Ravens had any offense they would have been in the game. They didn't need a Manning or a Brady, just someone with some experience.

Right, and because we have the best QB in the league, we don't need a Ravens-level defense. Hence why we made it to the SB with last year's defense, or how the Colts won the 2006 SB with their defense, or how the Cardinals might very well win this SB with their defense. We just need a *good* defense.

What I was pointing out with the Ravens comparison is that this board is so overwhelmed by fickleness and knee-jerk reactions that it's made real, reasonable discussions rare. We can't have our offense and the Ravens' defense. The Patriots cannot be the absolute best in the league at every aspect of the game. With Brady, this is the best team in the league, and it stands to improve substantially in the draft. Hence the idea of trading Brady being so irrational that it almost seems like rational people should be offended.