Brady 2nd most indispensable player

Much of the rest of this list makes no sense to me:

AOL.com Article - The NFL's 9 most indispensable players

Um, was the writer drunk?

lurker1965 said:

Um, was the writer drunk?

Click to expand...

I suspect something stronger.

Reefer madness!

I agree with pretty much every player on the list. Could you make an argument that a handful of other players should be on the list or the ordering was wrong? Certainly, but every player on that list missing time would hurt their team more than any other player on said team.

I just think it's such a QB centric league that the top 15 or so should be QBS. Denver's most impotant player isn't Payton? Brees and NO? Rodgers?

crew1954 said:

I just think it's such a QB centric league that the top 15 or so should be QBS. Denver's most impotant player isn't Payton? Brees and NO? Rodgers?

Click to expand...

there is no denver player on that list, Breese is on the list and the Packers made the playoffs with Rodgers missing time. He (Rodgers) is listed as one of those who just missed the cut as did Peyton. I completely agree with the premise that the Denver offense is so stacked that a mediocre QB (the Josh McCown, Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton etc.) type QB's could have taken Denver to a Superbowl. We all know that if you put any of the above on the Patriots sans Brady and we may not even win the AFCE last year.

TriplecHamp said:

there is no denver player on that list, Breese is on the list and the Packers made the playoffs with Rodgers missing time. He (Rodgers) is listed as one of those who just missed the cut as did Peyton. I completely agree with the premise that the Denver offense is so stacked that a mediocre QB (the Josh McCown, Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton etc.) type QB's could have taken Denver to a Superbowl. We all know that if you put any of the above on the Patriots sans Brady and we may not even win the AFCE last year.

Click to expand...

But the replacement is never a mediocre QB from another team, it is the back-up on that team.. As for the Packers their reason for success was not decent replacement play for Rodgers, it was pathetic replacement play for Cutler. If when Cutler is out they get even bad QB play as opposed to horrible in Chicago The Packers, who had to re-sign Flynn after their own pathetic QBs failed, would have been eliminated.

If any random team loses the QB to injury that is usually a disaster. (Usually, Bledsoe backed up by Brady does happen, but once every 14 years is not a good rate to bank on. )

lurker1965 said:

But the replacement is never a mediocre QB from another team, it is the back-up on that team.. As for the Packers their reason for success was not decent replacement play for Rodgers, it was pathetic replacement play for Cutler. If when Cutler is out they get even bad QB play as opposed to horrible in Chicago The Packers, who had to re-sign Flynn after their own pathetic QBs failed, would have been eliminated.

If any random team loses the QB to injury that is usually a disaster. (Usually, Bledsoe backed up by Brady does happen, but once every 14 years is not a good rate to bank on. )

Click to expand...

McCown was horrible? lol there was a sizeable contingent of Bears fans who never wanted to see Cutler again after the way McCown played. He earned himself a starting job down in Tampa. I agree with you on your point about backups being the contingency plan in regards to most indispensable players. I guess to that point, my only argument would be, Im not so sure even Brock Osweiler wouldn't be able to take that Broncos team to the playoffs. Tim Tebow did it prior to Manning with less on the offensive side of the ball but the defense played lights out.

AOL.com is still a thing?

Nothing against St. Tom, but doesn't 11-5 with the back-up QB playing the whole season make the case that the team can succeed without him?

tasmlab said:

Nothing against St. Tom, but doesn't 11-5 with the back-up QB playing the whole season make the case that the team can succeed without him?

Click to expand...

Are you a Colts fan or a Bronco fan? Because only Colt fans and Bronco fans are usually daft enough to make this ignorant argument.

The 2007 Patriots schedule was brutal, and they saw just about every DOMINANT defense in the league that season. They went undefeated through the regular season and shattered every offensive record imaginable in STYLE.

Then Matt Cassell stepped in, played our gravy 2008 schedule against MUCH weaker divisions and we missed the play offs and basically looked like crap all season.

tasmlab said:

Nothing against St. Tom, but doesn't 11-5 with the back-up QB playing the whole season make the case that the team can succeed without him?

Click to expand...

Interesting question, actually. With Belichick making the most of what he's got and the 2014 defense, the Patriots are a .500 team or slightly better without Brady.

The 2008 team had Welker (111 receptions), Randy Moss (over 1,000 yards receiving) and Mr. Safety Valve Kevin Faulk (58 receptions) to make Matt Cassell look competent, and a better OL (Matt Light, Dan Koppen, Logan Mankins, Stephen Neal, Russ Hochstein). The '08 defense was comparable to this one, I think. (It's nice to look at the 2014 defense and see speed, talent and veteran leadership at all three levels for a change.)

The 2014 offense is entirely unproven without Brady, though. There's no bell-cow running back who will definitely pick up the slack, and this receiving corps is only as good as Tom Brady makes it. A healthy Gronkowski for a full season would make the Pats dangerous. The receivers had a chance to be much better last year, but the injuries slowed them down and the growing pains were painfully evident.

Is Edelman really that good without Brady? Can Mallett manage games without making too many mistakes? Is Garoppolo ready to step in? We really have no idea. My gut tells me that the 2014 Patriots are a 9-7 team among a bunch of other 9-7 teams in the AFC East without Tom Brady.

goheels22002 said:

Interesting question, actually. With Belichick making the most of what he's got and the 2014 defense, the Patriots are a .500 team or slightly better without Brady.
[...]
The 2014 offense is entirely unproven without Brady, though. There's no bell-cow running back who will definitely pick up the slack, and this receiving corps is only as good as Tom Brady makes it. A healthy Gronkowski for a full season would make the Pats dangerous. The receivers had a chance to be much better last year, but the injuries slowed them down and the growing pains were painfully evident.

Is Edelman really that good without Brady? Can Mallett manage games without making too many mistakes? Is Garoppolo ready to step in? We really have no idea. My gut tells me that the 2014 Patriots are a 9-7 team among a bunch of other 9-7 teams in the AFC East without Tom Brady.

Click to expand...

I disagree. One thing I'll give you, if Garoppolo has to step in we're already screwed, because either the O line or our luck sucks too badly to overcome. Other than that, we don't know, but while you assume the worst and question Mallett and Edelman I see evidence that each of them will do their job, that's the Patriot Way, and it will be enough to surpass Cassell's performance after Brady went down in the season opener. We don't need a bell-cow RB, that's not the way Belichick structures this offense. Running back by committee will be just fine. Last year Bolden averaged 4.9 ypc, Vereen 4.7 and Ridley 4.3, and this year White might add to the mix. Who needs a bell-cow? It's production not stats that matters.

Plus the defense this year will give more margin for error, so the offense without Brady would not have to win games despite a porous D. Without Brady the AFCE would not be the lock that it looks like at the moment, but I still think the Pats are enough better than the other division teams to win it outright, without going to a tie breaker.

n6249c said:

I disagree. One thing I'll give you, if Garoppolo has to step in we're already screwed, because either the O line or our luck sucks too badly to overcome. Other than that, we don't know, but while you assume the worst and question Mallett and Edelman I see evidence that each of them will do their job, that's the Patriot Way, and it will be enough to surpass Cassell's performance after Brady went down in the season opener. We don't need a bell-cow RB, that's not the way Belichick structures this offense. Running back by committee will be just fine. Last year Bolden averaged 4.9 ypc, Vereen 4.7 and Ridley 4.3, and this year White might add to the mix. Who needs a bell-cow? It's production not stats that matters.

Plus the defense this year will give more margin for error, so the offense without Brady would not have to win games despite a porous D. Without Brady the AFCE would not be the lock that it looks like at the moment, but I still think the Pats are enough better than the other division teams to win it outright, without going to a tie breaker.

Click to expand...

Good post. Your disagreement is fundamentally based on the unknown. Confidence in Mallett is unsupported. He might be capable of managing an NFL team, or not. Edelman has proven he can be a top flight receiver with Brady. A lesser QB may not give him what he needs. It's unknown if he's John Stallworth or Lynn Swan who helped Terry Bradshaw be the winner he was.

As for the running backs, this is not a team that can replace 1,000 yards of passing production with a back like Adrian Peterson. Without Brady, defenses will load up in the box and dare Mallett or Garoppollo to beat them.

I certainly don't think that. Here is my list of the most indispensable players from the Patriots (this is done with taken impact into account as well as ability above replacement on the roster).

#1 Brady - Duh
#2 Gronk - This was very close. When i look at it i just think we have no depth at TE. That swung it.
#3 Revis - Will be what makes the D elite.
#4 Jones - Without a pass rush you are toast.
#5 McCourty - Behind him we have Harmon/Wilson. That will not win a championship if we need to start them.
#6 Mayo - Field general on the D. Calls the plays and is always in the right spot.
#7 Ninkovich - Obviously not the 7th best player on the team but his backup is a huge question mark as things stand.
#8 Easiey - This one is a bit hard to explain and will ruffle feathers. However here is my reasoning. Siliga proved he can handle runs up the middle and should improve. This takes away the need for Wilfork to an extant. Also Kelly can stop the run as well. However Easley is the only true pass rush force from the DT position. No other player on our roster can have the potential impact he can (yes i am basing this off what i think he will do). However pass rush up the middle will be critical to beat Denver and this guy will play a key roll if healthy.
#9 Mankins - Dude is a complete beast when he is on. He helps solidify the inside of the OL which has serious question makes. The only reason he is not higher is he is not a blind side protector and the fact he can only do so much as even if he is great if the other G is beat it is all for naught.
#10 Solder - Maybe he should be higher. However Vollmer is an All-pro tackle that we can move over here if need be (however he also has issues playing all 16 games. So that makes Solder more valuable). Also if worse comes to worse Mankins proved he can handle LT duties. But this guy is a big part of the O and both contingencies are obviously not good.

tasmlab said:

Nothing against St. Tom, but doesn't 11-5 with the back-up QB playing the whole season make the case that the team can succeed without him?

Click to expand...

As soon as I read, "Nothing against St. Tom, but..." I knew I was, for sure, about to read something against St. Tom. I was correct.