Curran: Brady 'almost certainly' gone before 2017

RayClay said:

I merely answered your question.

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

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

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

Yeah, you were jabbing at my post, no need to play dumb. You have said the same thing multiple times in this thread; I did not give a reaction so you quoted my post to force the issue. What I said is that if the team lost 5 more games than it did in 2012 in 2013 they would have went 7-9, I did not say Brady is +5 or -5, it was an example not a formula.

I will ask you the same question I asked O, how many games do you think the 2013 Patriots would have won without Brady as the QB?

Click to expand...

Belichick is a great coach, he does many things very well but he has achieved nothing in head coaching career without Tom Brady, and frankly there is nothing to suggest he would, last season the Patriots would have went 3-13 without Brady out there, maybe 4-12 at best.

Click to expand...

RayClay said:

The 2013 team did have Brady at quarterback. i don't form ridiculous hypotheses based on assumptions in a team game. towards the end of the season. Blount was the most effective player on offense and I don't think he is a world beater.



This is ******** and you posted it.

...and it's "have gone", not "have went" for Pete's sake.

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

It always amuses me how you refuse to ever answer questions because you do not do X. Yet you feel so compelled to go around and take issue with what others post yet you never put yourself at risk for the same type of scrutiny, do you no what they call that?

Thanks for the grammar lesson; you really put me in my place with that correction.

Click to expand...

Oswlek said:

If we are just looking at the 2013 roster as is and the season playing out the same, then I'd say 6-10. NE wasn't that good last year due to injuries and inexperience so the margin for error wasn't very high. Combine that with a QB that I think is terrible (Mallett) and it isn't a good result.

Now, if you instead assume better health and an OK QB (think Alex Smith), then NE was probably a 10-6 team.

Click to expand...

RayClay said:

I answered the question. trying to eliminate one guy from a season worth of games with two teams with 45 man rosters is ridiculous.

What if Abraham Lincoln had been an acrobat? Could he have dodged the bullet?

Everyone could stand to improve when they keep making embarrassing mistakes. if you want to continue with that, go ahead.

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

Outside of having maybe other 2-3 QBs in the NFL I do not think the Patriots would have won the following games:

Week 1 @ Buffalo
Week 4 @ Atlanta
Week 6 vs. New Orleans
Week 12 vs. Denver
Week 13 @ Houston
Week 14 vs. Cleveland

I do not think a QB like Alex Smith would have been able to pull out win. I could be wrong, but Brady worked a lot of magic in 2013.

Click to expand...

UK_Pat37 said:

I don't see a drop off happening in the next two seasons however if, and it's unlikely right now but could happen, Garoppolo starts to really push Brady, Belichick might opt to make a decision sooner rather than later....and I wouldn't be astounded if it happened.

If he wanted to make that call, I don't see Kraft tthrowing his toys out of the pram...unless we crash and burn.

Click to expand...

Oswlek said:

You are assuming that these games would have played out exactly the same if Wilfork, Gronk, Kelly, Mayo and Vollmer stayed healthy. I already accounted for that in my earlier post.

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

The players could have also played worse and there could have been more injuries, so it could go either way.

Click to expand...

Oswlek said:

This is spin. Obviously a team losing more than a quarter of their starters, including half a dozen pro-bowl caliber players is going to play worse. And you can't have it both ways. You can't use how the games played out as evidence of one thing and then use a theoretical version to rebut my point. It is a logical fallacy.

The funny thing is, I agree with much of what you are saying, B6. Brady was far better than people think last year. Rather than drop off, he was as good as he ever ways and the team needed every last bit of it. I fully expect Tom to have a rebound that surprises anyone who thinks it was the beginning of a decline. I also have no expectation that Gops will ever be as good as Tom was last year or any year after 2002.

All I have that you don't is confidence that Bill will still keep the team in contention ever after Brady retires.

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

Brady has played way below market value.

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

I envision BB applying the same logic and reato the situation as he did in 2001.


What is market value?

Click to expand...

Zeus said:

The pure won/lost record doesn't come close to telling the story. BB took over in Cleveland in 1991 at age 39. The 1990 Browns were 3-13 and 27/28 in PF/PA, arguably the worst team in the league (there were 28 teams in 1990). By 1994, in BB's fourth year they were 11-5 and 11/1 in PF/PA. Improvement is NOT coaching failure. And let's not forget that the Browns were 1-8 after Carpetbagger Modell announced the move to Baltimore.

I have long believed that 2000 (5-11) was one of BB's finest seasons, because he was willing to take the hit in order to clean up an ill-conceived roster of overpaid underachievers. This set the stage for the 2001 championship run which had far more to do with BB's coaching prowess than the play of an effective but inexperienced and limited QB.



In Brady's first 7 seasons as starter (2001-2007), the team averaged 12.3 wins per season. In his last five (2009- 2013), they averaged 12.2. The drop off in 2008 to 11 wins was in large measure due to Brady's absence but was also highly predictable reversion to the mean. And why did the team drop to 10 wins in 2009 after Brady's return?



Strongly disagree. There was a 4 win pick up in 2003, a 6 win pick up between 2005 and 2007, and a 4 win pick up in 2010. Same QB, so something else was going on. Something called Rebuilding on the Fly.

The truth is that BB is a better coach because of Brady and Brady is a better player because of BB. I don't think either of them would argue that point.

The contention that BB is otherwise a lousy coach is the kind of in depth analysis that is perpetrated by intellectually lazy commenters on Florio's website and it just doesn't stand up to any meaningful scrutiny.

Maybe I'll write about this in more detail later. Thanks for the idea.

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

Contracts | Over the Cap

Click to expand...

Brady6 said:

I am exaggerating the significance of Brady and diminishing the significance of Belichick intentionally because I felt Brady’s influence was being gazed over by to many.

Click to expand...

robertweathers said:

There were some years that TB was paid market value based on the prior year's performance and some years he wasn't. You could easily make the argument that he was overpaid in 2002.

Click to expand...