Curran: Brady 'almost certainly' gone before 2017

Patradomous said:

Team: Thanks for playing...cya.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine Brady will have trouble spending all that money with his Jet set wife.

Patradomous said:

Team: Thanks for playing...cya.

Click to expand...

Here's my impression of Brady hearing the team trying to sell him on being traded to either Cleveland or Detroit.

Uh, thanks. They are both lovely cities, but could you give me the rest of my multi million dollar guaranteed payout in a cashier's check? Giselle has our private jet waiting, we're going to Rio.

Thanks guys, it's been real,

Tom

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

You know I think that the implication that Belichick could continue to succeed without Brady essentially slights Brady in the same way that you feel I am slighting Belichick. I think that posters are OK with that slight of Brady because the likelihood is that Belichick will be here longer than Brady so they are OK with diminishing Brady’s significance because it makes them more hopeful for the future. I think that is wrong, I think to believe that having the best player in the game at the most important position for over a decade puts you in the position to succeed, so believing that Belichick will continue to have the level of success he has had with Brady with another QB is baseless, in fact history would suggest that he will not.

Click to expand...

I didn't think I was slighting Brady at all; I was only talking about Belichick up to this point if I recall correctly.

I also did not say that Belichick would have the same success without Brady that he has had, IIRC. I agree that it is not realistic to think he would do as well without Brady. I also believe that it is not realistic to believe the team would typically go 4-12 rather than the standard 12-4 with Belichick, but without Brady.

While Brady is one of the best NFL quarterbacks of all time, and he plays the most important position in the game, it is also true that NFL football is the ultimate team sport.

Brady6 said:

If you want to talk about what Belichick did in Cleveland, OK, I agree, he did a lot to improve that team, he is a great coach, but his record is still a historical indication of what his record would be without Brady.

Click to expand...

Here, we agree to disagree. To me that is basing the hypothetical strictly on the final won-loss record during those five years - without considering the circumstances - while at the same time disregarding what he has accomplished as head coach over the last thirteen years.

To me it is not a mutually exclusive case of either/or. In my opinion Belichick would still be a very good coach without Brady, and likewise Brady would still be a very good quarterback without Belichick - though neither would be as good alone as they have been with each other. I don't follow the logic that one of the two would necessarily have to crumble if without the other.

Brady6 said:

My speaking to it is not an attempt to diminish the success of the Patriots it is an attempt to open the eyes of the posters on this board who are either ignorant or arrogant enough to think that Jimmy Garopollo with below average size and a below average arm from a small school is going to win 12 games a year and go to 5 super bowls in 12 seasons while winning 3 of them because Bill Belichick is the coach.

Click to expand...

That is a whole separate conversation that I haven't even considered, much less delved into. I simply disagreed with the hypothesis that the Patriots would be no more than a four or five win team with Bill Belichick as head coach, but without Tom Brady at quarterback.

jmt57 said:

I didn't think I was slighting Brady at all; I was only talking about Belichick up to this point if I recall correctly.

I also did not say that Belichick would have the same success without Brady that he has had, IIRC.



Here, we agree to disagree. To me that is basing the hypothetical strictly on the final won-loss record during those five years - without considering the circumstances - while at the same time disregarding what he has accomplished as head coach over the last thirteen years.

To me it is not a mutually exclusive case of either/or. In my opinion Belichick would still be a very good coach without Brady, and likewise Brady would still be a very good quarterback without Belichick - though neither would be as good alone as they have been with each other. I don't follow the logic that one of the two would necessarily have to crumble if without the other.




That is a whole separate conversation that I haven't even considered, much less delved into. I simply disagreed with the hypothesis that the Patriots would be no more than a four or five win team with Bill Belichick as head coach, but without Tom Brady at quarterback.

Click to expand...

You raised a lot of valid and good points. I exaggerated Belichick without Brady in my argument intentionally because I felt the flip side of the Belichick/Brady dynamic was being overlooked. I felt one was being given to much credit and the other was being given to little. So I flipped it to even the playing field. The reality is that all we really know is Belichick and Brady are excellent together. What they can do individually is debatable, I'm sure we all would like to believe they can exist independently and be as successful but I think that is very optimistic from both points of view.

I respect your opinion and respect you as a poster so I will certainly consider what you have said and factor it into my thinking as this process unfolds over the next several years.

Mogamedogz said:

Never thought I'd type this in my life...but I think you're overrating Brady here. Everyone gets old. Garropolo looks like the best QB we've had on this roster (other than TFB) since Drew.

Brady at 50% of what he is right now, will in all likelihood not be a better option than Jimmy. I love him too.. I get it. It's hard to accept. But time waits for no man. Especially in the NFL.

Click to expand...

Wow, you really put a lot of stock into less than 80 preseason passes, I have to assume Brain Tyms is the best WR we have had since Moss and Jonas Gray is the best RB we have had since Curtis Martin. I am as excited as anyone about the promise Garopollo showed in the preseason but to suggest he is no better option than Brady right now is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen written on this board. Garopollo was incapable of leading this team to a victory in game 4 of the preseason, he led the Patriots to 13 points and if not for some BS penalties it would have been even less. This preseason the 2 games started by Brady = victories, the 2 games started by others = loses. QBs like Colt McCoy, TY Yates, Josh Johnson and other JAG backups had great preseason performances, better than anything Garopollo did, are they no better options than Brady too?

Oswlek said:

When Bill can lead a team with a QB who hadn't started since high school to an 11-5 record, it seems pretty obvious to anyone without an agenda that he is the most important person. The only person more important than Bill is Bob Kraft.

Other than that your post confuses me because it doesn't really address anything I said. Did you just quote mine as a catch-all for the entire conversation?

Click to expand...

Cassel had played QB in the preseason and at practice for years, he knew the system and had enough talent to be drafted despite being a backup in college, so do not exaggerate this portrayal that Cassel picked up a football for the first time in 9 years in week 1 of 2008, because that is a load of crap. Cassell was throwing to one of the greatest outside receivers of all time and the greatest slot receiver of all time, he had a terrific season and as he proved in 2010 he is capable of being a very good QB without Belichick parting the red sea on the sidelines. In addition only 3 of the wins came against a team with a winning record. For me it is not so clear that Belichick is the most important piece, not even close to clear, as far as agenda goes that is paranoid and baseless, if anyone has an agenda it is you and that is to allow yourself to believe that the team will continue to dominate even without Brady.

Brady6 said:

Cassel had played QB in the preseason and at practice for years, he knew the system and had enough talent to be drafted despite being a backup in college, so do not exaggerate this portrayal that Cassel picked up a football for the first time in 9 years in week 1 of 2008, because that is a load of crap. Cassell was throwing to one of the greatest outside receivers of all time and the greatest slot receiver of all time, he had a terrific season and as he proved in 2010 he is capable of being a very good QB without Belichick parting the red sea on the sidelines. In addition only 3 of the wins came against a team with a winning record. For me it is not so clear that Belichick is the most important piece, not even close to clear, as far as agenda goes that is paranoid and baseless, if anyone has an agenda it is you and that is to allow yourself to believe that the team will continue to dominate even without Brady.

Click to expand...

None of this is very compelling, B6.

Practicing and playing are totally different things. Trying to claim otherwise is misinformation of the highest kind.

Yes, Matt had a nice 2010, but the rest of his non-Patriot tenure has demonstrated that he isn't that good of a quarterback.

The schedule is not all that important either. Teams play crappy opposition all the time without racking up 11 wins. The majority of those didn't go the entire season with their backup QB.

Yes, Moss was amazing in 2007 and extremely good in 2008... but who acquired him again? This point actually supports my statement (as I had already mentioned in my first post).

Sorry, B6. You are off base on this one. At the very least you haven't come up with a solid argument as of yet.

Oh, you might want to check out "paranoid" in the dictionary. In the words of the great Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

If you want to talk about what Belichick did in Cleveland, OK, I agree, he did a lot to improve that team, he is a great coach, but his record is still a historical indication of what his record would be without Brady.

Hmmm.... scanning through, this is where we fundamentally disagree. Bill's record without Brady isn't predictive for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that both jobs involved turning around truly terrible teams. Not counting the Cassel year, Bill's first six non-Brady years involved two seasons of purging crap as well as another when the owner swept the rug out from under him. Neither of which is going to be boon to the W-L record.

2008 is a different animal - and far more predictive of NE's post-Brady life - because it involved a complete roster that just changed at QB. Instead of having a team so paper thin that NE didn't even carry 53 players (like they did in 2000, even with 4 QBs), it was a squad he was ready to go to battle with, just with a question at QB. Unless you think Bill is going to have to turn over the entire roster once Tom leaves, not just the QB, then Bill's pre-Brady record is largely meaningless.

The funny thing is, 2001 is even further evidence in Bill's favor. Tom wasn't remotely TFB back then, and Bill still steered them to 11-5 and some surprising playoff success. That's really the model. Gops doesn't need to be 2007 Brady for the Patriots to continue to be a good team, 2001 Brady can get the job done as well.

Oswlek said:

None of this is very compelling, B6.

Practicing and playing are totally different things. Trying to claim otherwise is misinformation of the highest kind.

Yes, Matt had a nice 2010, but the rest of his non-Patriot tenure has demonstrated that he isn't that good of a quarterback.

The schedule is not all that important either. Teams play crappy opposition all the time without racking up 11 wins. The majority of those didn't go the entire season with their backup QB.

Yes, Moss was amazing in 2007 and extremely good in 2008... but who acquired him again? This point actually supports my statement (as I had already mentioned in my first post).

Sorry, B6. You are off base on this one. At the very least you haven't come up with a solid argument as of yet.

Oh, you might want to check out "paranoid" in the dictionary. In the words of the great Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

Click to expand...

Like I said before I am comfortable letting the future determine the accuracy of my argument here. I believe that Belichick and Brady are at the very least equally as important to the success of the franchise, and I do not think the transition to a new QB will be as smooth sailing as many like to believe. I also do not think Garopollo is the second coming as many do, he has a gun slinger mentality and that might play well in preseason against mediocre competition but in the regular season against top tier defensive talent he will be exposed more times than not. I think Garopollo is an interesting prospect who was fun to watch in the preseason, but I also thought that about Mallett back in 2011, as did many who said the same things they are saying about Garopollo today about Mallett then.

For the record I never said Belichick would not have success, I said he would not be successful without Brady, it is likely that he could finish second in the division and miss the playoffs with another QB like he did in 2008, he could make the playoffs without Brady, I have no doubt, but he would not win 12 games a year on average, go to 5 Super Bowls, win 3 and regularly appear in the AFCCG. I will say this I would have a lot more confidence in Belichick post Brady if we had won a SB in the last 10 years with the GOAT QB, not being able to do it in a decade with Brady makes it difficult for me to believe we could do it with another QB.

Not one single person has said that NE would have had or will have as much success without Brady. From the posts I've been quoting, you've seem to have indicated a far greater fall from grace than 12-4 to 10-6.

Not one person has said Gops is the second coming as well, just that he looks like an intriguing prospect and that it is very possible that he is part of NE's succession plan.

You are trying to claim victory when the scenario that everyone else is describing happens.

FWIW, my initial foray into this thread was primarily because the comment of yours I quoted was littered with factual errors and misconceptions. If I missed the main point because of them, then I apologize.

Brady6 said:

Cassel had played QB in the preseason and at practice for years, he knew the system and had enough talent to be drafted despite being a backup in college, so do not exaggerate this portrayal that Cassel picked up a football for the first time in 9 years in week 1 of 2008, because that is a load of crap. Cassell was throwing to one of the greatest outside receivers of all time and the greatest slot receiver of all time, he had a terrific season and as he proved in 2010 he is capable of being a very good QB without Belichick parting the red sea on the sidelines. In addition only 3 of the wins came against a team with a winning record. For me it is not so clear that Belichick is the most important piece, not even close to clear, as far as agenda goes that is paranoid and baseless, if anyone has an agenda it is you and that is to allow yourself to believe that the team will continue to dominate even without Brady.

Click to expand...

However, using your formula, Cassel had 16 regular season wins in 2008.

RayClay said:

However, using your formula, Cassel had 16 regular season wins in 2008.

Click to expand...

Can you explain how that works?

Brady6 said:

Can you explain how that works?

Click to expand...

Belichick gets 5 games for not having Brady, just like he loses five games in seasons he has Brady. Add the five games to Cassel's 11 win season and he won 16 games.

RayClay said:

Belichick gets 5 games for not having Brady, just like he loses five games in seasons he has Brady. Add the five games to Cassel's 11 win season and he won 16 games.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no that does not make sense. Who said anything about him losing 5 games for having Brady?

Oswlek said:

Not one single person has said that NE would have had or will have as much success without Brady. From the posts I've been quoting, you've seem to have indicated a far greater fall from grace than 12-4 to 10-6.

Not one person has said Gops is the second coming as well, just that he looks like an intriguing prospect and that it is very possible that he is part of NE's succession plan.

FWIW, my initial foray into this thread was primarily because the comment of yours I quoted was littered with factual errors and misconceptions. If I missed the main point because of them, then I apologize.

Click to expand...

You should go back and read more than just my posts, there are posters suggesting today we would be no worse with Garopollo than we are with Brady.

Let me ask you a question in 2013 how many games do you think the Patriots would have won without Brady as the QB? Take a look at the game log and let me know - http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2013.htm

Brady6 said:

Yeah, no that does not make sense. Who said anything about him losing 5 games for having Brady?

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

If you shave 5 wins off are records over the past 5 years we would have went –

2013 – 7-9
2012 – 7-9
2011 – 8-8
2010 – 9-7
2009 – 5-11

Click to expand...

*our* *have gone*

ctpatsfan77 said:

Last I checked, BB works for Kraft, not the other way around, and Kraft needs to sign off on all trades.

Click to expand...

If it worked like that, BB wouldn't be here.

Belichick made the call to go with Brady ahead of Bledsoe and Kraft pays him to make that decision. If he had messed it up he might not have been in the job for much longer!

If Bill doesn't want a player, or Bill wants to replace a starter, he'll do as he pleases.

RayClay said:

*our* *have gone*

Click to expand...

I am not really interested in engaging in pointless banter, if you do not understand the logic I was trying to convey I apologize, but what you think is wrong.

Brady6 said:

I am not really interested in engaging in pointless banter, if you do not understand the logic I was trying to convey I apologize, but what you think is wrong.

Click to expand...

I merely answered your question.

Who said anything about him losing 5 games for having Brady?

Click to expand...

UK_Pat37 said:

If it worked like that, BB wouldn't be here.

Belichick made the call to go with Brady ahead of Bledsoe and Kraft pays him to make that decision. If he had messed it up he might not have been in the job for much longer!

If Bill doesn't want a player, or Bill wants to replace a starter, he'll do as he pleases.

Click to expand...

He allowed Belichick to choose the QB that won 11 of 14 games as starter over the QB who had gone 5-11 the prior year and started 0-2 that season. I am sure if Brady goes 5-11 and then 0-2 was injured and Garopollo went 11-3 they would make a similar move. Do you envision that happening?