QB Controversy!

It will be interesting to see if Brady can defy the odds one more time. In the history of the NFL, two QBs have played well as a full-time starter past age 38: Brett Favre at 40 and Warren Moon at 41. We'll see what Manning does at 39.

Also worth noting:

-Manning was replaced at 36
-Favre was replaced at 38
-Montana was replaced at 36

All three had success on their next team. Brady won't be replaced until he turns 39 at the earliest (2016) and maybe 40 (2017).

Brett Favre is one of the greatest iron men in sports history (and he had a young Peterson to rely on), and Moon entered the NFL late. While I think Brady will play well this year and probably next, I'm skeptical at 40+. The history of the game doesn't add up. Every position has a range where
most players decline. RB 30-31, WR 33-34, etc. QB is 36-39. Brady & Manning have already defied most of those years. Brees remains to be seen.

farn said:

Anyone who thinks NFL players are immortal might be hard to follow as well.

Click to expand...

Players do not condition themselves today as they did in prior decades. And Brady's regimen demonstrates he is fanatical about his conditioning, constantly evolving his workouts as he ages.

Running backs get hit every time they carry the ball, and should typically be hitting someone on the occasion they are not carrying the ball. The age 30 wall is probably more of reality for them due to the nature of the position. QBs who are not eating turf on every pass play don't take that type of damage. Brady is not a running QB, so it really isn't all that big deal if he loses a step in speed. However, last year he appeared quicker than he was earlier in his career, so somehow he improved rather than declined in that regard.

Nobody is claiming he is immortal, but media and fans looking to take that next step now might consider Brady could go past 40, because this isn't the gridiron of 1975 and the Terry Bradshaw era. I hope Brady stays great for the next 5 or 6 years and is wearing a Patriots uniform then. When he is done, I will welcome the next starting QB. I am just not looking forward to that day, because Brady truly is a once in a lifetime QB. When he is gone, you will know it when you watch whoever replaces Brady, and what that player can and, more importantly, cannot do. The end of the road for Brady is not as defined as planners seem to believe.

I agree with that post. Brady can continue to thrive for several more seasons. He could also last only two or three. Who knows ? I know I was wrong about Brady 2015. It's not that I thought he's go from awesome to awful - it's more "if he is going to go to above average, let's see how much we can get for him while he's still good". Wrong. And I'll be hesitant to make same assessment next time his accuracy seems iffy (as it had been in the first 1/4 of last season).

Love me some Brady - but I'd love the transition to the next QB to be smooth. But odds are that it won't, as there have been very few back-back HoF QBs succeed one another.

Tom Brady is not only the best quarterback in the league, not to mention the greatest quarterback of all time, but he is also the funnest and most exciting quarterback to watch. No other teams, not even the Green Bay Packers (actually… especially the Green Bay Packers), get to experience the Tom Brady comeback magic that we do. In 2013 he lead the league in comeback victories, some of them, like against Cleveland, being quite miraculous.

Baltimore and Seattle in the Superbowl were the most recent examples, and they were during the intensity of postseason games.

And he doesn't just limp back into games when the Patriots are behind. He starts breathing ****ing fire.

I really don't know how to put this other than the following: Anyone who is right now trying to rationalize getting rid of Brady for an unknown nobody just strikes me as kind of an ass.

Patriot football will NEVER be as fun as it has been with Tom Brady ever again after he's gone, because there has never been another quarterback like him, so it's hard to imagine there ever will be again, especially in a Patriot uniform.

PATS16N0 said:

I really don't know how to put this other than the following: Anyone who is right now trying to rationalize getting rid of Brady for an unknown nobody just strikes me as kind of an ass.

Click to expand...

I hate this guy too.

Deus Irae said:

Even at this 'later' stage of Tom Brady's career, it's a safe bet that 31 teams in the NFL would rather have Tom Brady than their own QB when it's money time. Team #32 already has him.

Click to expand...

Agree in general, but when you get to specifics there are 3 or 4 teams that wouldn't. Of course, as of 2014, they are wrong. Probably 2015 too.

PatsFanInVa said:

Agree in general, but when you get to specifics there are 3 or 4 teams that wouldn't. Of course, as of 2014, they are wrong. Probably 2015 too.

Click to expand...

There's not a single coach who wouldn't take Brady. Not one. And that includes the likes of John Harbaugh, who pubicly claims he's got his guy in Flacco.

Coaches want to win. Nobody wins more than Brady.

Deus Irae said:

There's not a single coach who wouldn't take Brady. Not one. And that includes the likes of John Harbaugh, who pubicly claims he's got his guy in Flacco.

Coaches want to win. Nobody wins more than Brady.

Click to expand...

Slipping over the line into homer telepathy here Deus. Baltimore would take Flacco, GB would take Rodgers. Not sure if Denver still can't see that the window is closing on Manning. Other Manning in NY? Crap most of the time, but biggest "Patriot-killer" in the game. So there are a few who'd take their guy.

PatsFanInVa said:

I hate this guy too.

Click to expand...

It's not a straw man. Your ilk have been discussing `moving on` from Brady since early last season. The Felgers of the world have put this narrative into the heads of certain kinds of people and then it's been echoed. Meanwhile, the QB you're talking about replacing just won a 3rd Superbowl MVP in a game plenty of people thought we were toast in, multiple times, through out the course of the second half.

Why don't you just let Tommy play and shut up about replacing him or his "inevitable decline" until you actually see it? What if he continues to play at an elite level for the next four years?

Are the rest of us going to have to hear about his "inevitable decline" the entire time? Can you stop for a moment and think about how annoying that will be?

We're going to have to replace Malcom Brown eventually, too. You know, because he's not `immortal`.
Until he's done, i'm not that worried about it.

PatsFanInVa said:

Slipping over the line into homer telepathy here Deus. Baltimore would take Flacco, GB would take Rodgers. Not sure if Denver still can't see that the window is closing on Manning. Other Manning in NY? Crap most of the time, but biggest "Patriot-killer" in the game. So there are a few who'd take their guy.

Click to expand...

Not a single NFL head coach would take his QB over Brady, come money time. Not one. It's simple wins and losses. Brady's reached the SB 6 times and won 4, as well as getting to the AFCCG even more often than that. Any coach who wouldn't prefer him would be too stupid to be allowed to coach. And, of course, the irony of you talking to me about telepathy is that you're attempting the same thing from the other side.

PATS16N0 said:

It's not a straw man. Your ilk

Click to expand...

Stop right there. you want to talk to me, talk to me. You want to talk about an "ilk" talk to the jpg above. That said:

...have been discussing `moving on` from Brady since early last season.

Click to expand...

One day it will come. I do not think that's within his current contract unless he sucks in '16 (b/c the cap savings make way more sense in '17.) I still do not put pre-2017 at a high likelihood.

The Felgers of the world have put this narrative into the heads of certain kinds of people and then it's been echoed.

Click to expand...

I don't get Felger where I live. I understand he and a lot of the Boston sports media are perversely always looking for something bad to say about the Pats. Not my problem.

Meanwhile, the QB you're talking about replacing just won a 3rd Superbowl MVP in a game plenty of people thought we were toast in, multiple times, through out the course of the second half.

Click to expand...

And the next time it's 2014, that will be a very important consideration in this calculus.

Why don't you just let Tommy play and shut up about replacing him or his "inevitable decline" until you actually see it?

Click to expand...

We can get in a stat war or we can post a bunch of YouTubes or whatevah. I don't see him being 10 feet tall and made of steel. His physical peak, if he is of the species homo sapiens, is not likely to still be in front of him. He had a rocky start in '14. I detailed previously the tools he used to recover from that rocky start.

I also have no problem with giving him props for the MVP and the win in SB49. The two are not mutually exclusive.

What if he continues to play at an elite level for the next four years?

Click to expand...

That would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Are the rest of us going to have to hear about his "inevitable decline" the entire time? Can you stop for a moment and think about how annoying that will be?

Click to expand...

First of all, I've never been one to beat the drum on the "inevitable decline." I have certainly commented on it in rational terms from time to time -- and yes, he had me worried in the KC game. I came out of it pretty quickly, and once we were "on to Cincinnati," I was on to how he turned it around. Any of my thoughts on that subject are as suspect as anybody else's here, but in terms of this personal "wah you make me sad" response, you're not even going after the crowd you believe yourself to be going after.

We're going to have to replace Malcom Brown eventually, too. You know, because he's not `immortal`.
Until he's done, i'm not that worried about it.

Click to expand...

Planning to stick around after Brady retires then? Good man

Deus Irae said:

... And, of course, the irony of you talking to me about telepathy is that you're attempting the same thing from the other side.

Click to expand...

So it's a purely speculative argument regardless of the side one takes. We can continue down that road if you want. If I'm Coughlin and you ask me, there's a Giants-Pats SB, which QB do I want...? I think I know the answer. I think Pitt. would ask how many SBs has he won in the last 10 year. And so on. We are Pats fans so we are glad to embrace the legacy accomplishments. But remember, we also place making it to the SB rather than going 1 and done higher... whereas in SF it's a "no brainer" that Montana's the greatest ever, b/c he never lost a SB.

Apply the numbers as we quote them to each other, and you're injecting into the thoughts of the 31 other HCs the work of 2001-2004... Hell, how many of them were even HCs in 2001?

What is impressive, from their POV, is that yes, he won SB49; and that he always gets the team into the playoffs, usually to the AFCCG. That is freaking amazing whoever you are.

But 31 other teams that would swap their guy for Brady? Since we really aren't telepaths, there's no right answer, but since we're on a message board, you're just plain wrong.

And might I add,

PatsFanInVa said:

So it's a purely speculative argument regardless of the side one takes. We can continue down that road if you want. If I'm Coughlin and you ask me, there's a Giants-Pats SB, which QB do I want...? I think I know the answer. I think Pitt. would ask how many SBs has he won in the last 10 year. And so on. We are Pats fans so we are glad to embrace the legacy accomplishments. But remember, we also place making it to the SB rather than going 1 and done higher... whereas in SF it's a "no brainer" that Montana's the greatest ever, b/c he never lost a SB.

Apply the numbers as we quote them to each other, and you're injecting into the thoughts of the 31 other HCs the work of 2001-2004... Hell, how many of them were even HCs in 2001?

What is impressive, from their POV, is that yes, he won SB49; and that he always gets the team into the playoffs, usually to the AFCCG. That is freaking amazing whoever you are.

But 31 other teams that would swap their guy for Brady? Since we really aren't telepaths, there's no right answer, but since we're on a message board, you're just plain wrong.

Click to expand...

Using Coughlin/Eli against the Patriots is an example of a specific matchup, not a general "Money time" decision.

The fact that you actually tried to use Eli as an example, when he can't even get his team to the playoffs most years, should have told you how far off the rails you were going with this. Flacco or Wilson would at least make sense if you wanted to argue the point, but Eli?

Come on.

PatsFanInVa said:

I don't get Felger where I live. I understand he and a lot of the Boston sports media are perversely always looking for something bad to say about the Pats. Not my problem.

Click to expand...

A minor point, but just an fyi, you appear to have an Internet connection, so you can certainly "get" that douche where you live

As for this debate, I think it's ridiculous to discuss something that clearly has zero chance (barring the catastrophic) of happening in '15.

Deus Irae said:

Not a single NFL head coach would take his QB over Brady, come money time. Not one. It's simple wins and losses. Brady's reached the SB 6 times and won 4, as well as getting to the AFCCG even more often than that. Any coach who wouldn't prefer him would be too stupid to be allowed to coach. And, of course, the irony of you talking to me about telepathy is that you're attempting the same thing from the other side.

Click to expand...

If Butler doesn't make the interception in the last SuperBowl does your statement still stand? You could argue that happened because of great coaching, freak talent, divine intervention, or just a 200 to 1 odds beater -- but it had _nothing_ to do with Brady. But without that, the entire tone about Brady on these boards and in the NFL and in his legacy is a lot different. Just sayin'

metrowest said:

If Butler doesn't make the interception in the last SuperBowl does your statement still stand? You could argue that happened because of great coaching, freak talent, divine intervention, or just a 200 to 1 odds beater -- but it had _nothing_ to do with Brady. But without that, the entire tone about Brady on these boards and in the NFL and in his legacy is a lot different. Just sayin'

Click to expand...

Yeah, he'd only have 3 SB wins in 6 SB appearances, to go along with all those times he reached the AFCCG. And, if you want to play "What if?", we can get into the helmet catch, the phantom PI for face guarding, and Manningham's sideline catch.

Are people all still drunk from last night, or something?

metrowest said:

If Butler doesn't make the interception in the last SuperBowl does your statement still stand? You could argue that happened because of great coaching, freak talent, divine intervention, or just a 200 to 1 odds beater -- but it had _nothing_ to do with Brady. But without that, the entire tone about Brady on these boards and in the NFL and in his legacy is a lot different. Just sayin'

Click to expand...

No. Divine intervention is what got them down to the goal line in the first place.

I love how everybody (primarily Patriot haters) like to ignore the fact that the Seahawks were finished way back on their own side of the field until yet another circus sideshow freak catch gave them a miracle hope.



Ignore this then parrot the narrative that Butler stole their Superbowl.

If any miracle was stealing anybody's Superbowl win, it was this lucky ******** almost stealing ours. Butler just righted the wrong.

You live in a fantasy land where this BS didn't take place and Butler `stole` a Seattle Superbowl ring with a fluke play. Try thinking for yourself instead of being a Brady hating, media parroting, mindless ****ing drone.

metrowest said:

If Butler doesn't make the interception in the last SuperBowl does your statement still stand? You could argue that happened because of great coaching, freak talent, divine intervention, or just a 200 to 1 odds beater -- but it had _nothing_ to do with Brady. But without that, the entire tone about Brady on these boards and in the NFL and in his legacy is a lot different. Just sayin'

Click to expand...

Also, we don't care what other jealous fan bases think. You're all the Kings of the ****ing offseason. This is when you run all your mouths about how bad the Patriots and Brady are, yet when actual football starts, there's no team or QB in the NFL that scares and worries you more. Just sayin'.

Other fan bases = hypocrites and liars, and Lords of the ****ing OFFSEASON.

Deus Irae said:

Using Coughlin/Eli against the Patriots is an example of a specific matchup, not a general "Money time" decision.

The fact that you actually tried to use Eli as an example, when he can't even get his team to the playoffs most years, should have told you how far off the rails you were going with this. Flacco or Wilson would at least make sense if you wanted to argue the point, but Eli?

Come on.

Click to expand...

So your original contention is "when it's money time." Did you mean when it's game 9 of the season and the game is really close or something? Do I mis-read you as meaning "On the biggest stage"?

Using Eli as an example is precisely on-point.

For your original contention, you are now down from "31 other teams would love to have Brady" to "30 other teams would love to have Brady, and it really should be 31, but that's a fluke."

We can do this all day. It's just not true that every other team wants Brady. MOST other teams would give their eye teeth for him. There are a few who are okay with their guy.

I'm not even saying they're right to think that. I just think "it is more probable than not" that their internal logic is "We like our guy," in a few teams around this league.