How Many Quarterbacks Have To Go Down Before Polo Gets More Reps?

Zuma said:

Weighing the benefits and drawbacks I can think of a couple off the top of my head...

Benefit - less chance of injury to Tom Brady
Drawback - less chance of Tom Brady being AFC Offensive Player of the Week

Click to expand...

Isn't he just as likely to get injured in the 1st quarter as he is in the 4th?

Didn't he knee injury in 2008 come on the first snap in the first quarter?

So should we give Garoppolo snaps in the first quarter too? I'm just trying to follow the reasoning here.

TommyD4207 said:

Isn't he just as likely to get injured in the 1st quarter as he is in the 4th?

Didn't he knee injury in 2008 come on the first snap in the first quarter?

So should we give Garoppolo snaps in the first quarter too? I'm just trying to follow the reasoning here.

Click to expand...

Clearly he has more chance to get hurt the more he plays and can't be taken out until the lead is substantial.

I am in favor of playing because :

1) FTL (F*ck The League)
2) He goes some time with some backups, that will help if starting skill guys get hurt.

BelichickFan said:

I know this isn't what the thread is about but I can't help but wonder if Houston would offer something good for JG. O'Brien hasn't come close to fixing that position and he could add Hoyer to a deal. Of course it would cost him, in no way am I looking to dump JG.

Click to expand...

I don't know if Tom can play 7 or 8 more years like he believes he does, but even if JG never sees the field in our uniform I still believe he has the most value to a team with a 38 year old starting under center than he does to most other teams.

Tom only looks to be getting better on the field, but this is the NFL, that can change at any point, and JG has shown more in his 1.3 seasons here than either Hoyer or Mallet did.

strngplyr said:

I don't know if Tom can play 7 or 8 more years like he believes he does, but even if JG never sees the field in our uniform I still believe he has the most value to a team with a 38 year old starting under center than he does to most other teams.

Click to expand...

I think he would have the most value to a team with no viable starting QB like Houston.

Not looking to move him. But to recoup "The Theft" I would for a #2 this year, #1 next year and Hoyer. NOT saying Houston would do that but they're going nowhere with what they have.

TommyD4207 said:

Apparently so.

If the thought of a 6'4" 225lb. man getting gently pushed to the ground frightens you to the point of breathlessness - maybe football's not for you.

Click to expand...

Didn't realize Brady is 225. I'm glad to see he is maintaining his girlish figure.

TommyD4207 said:

Isn't he just as likely to get injured in the 1st quarter as he is in the 4th?

Didn't he knee injury in 2008 come on the first snap in the first quarter?

So should we give Garoppolo snaps in the first quarter too? I'm just trying to follow the reasoning here.

Click to expand...

1st quarter? No. I posted the following and you responded to it. ...

It's ok to give Jimmy G more then 2 snaps in the 4th if were up by 30. Really it is...I checked.

Click to expand...

I agree, as much as I love running up the score can't leave Brady out there susceptible to hits.

Zuma said:

Weighing the benefits and drawbacks I can think of a couple off the top of my head...

Benefit - less chance of injury to Tom Brady
Drawback - less chance of Tom Brady being AFC Offensive Player of the Week

Click to expand...

The drawback is that offensive players get less game reps with Brady, and Brady gets less reps with them.

You guys can fantasize about being smarter than dumb old BB all you want, but I take him as sincere when he says he makes decisions that help this football team. And I take him at his word when he says the team's goal is the Super Bowl. If BB's goal is to help this football team win the Super Bowl, I imagine the reason BB leaves Brady in is that he believes Brady remaining in will better help the Pats win the Super Bowl than Garoppolo taking those snaps.

When I try to imagine why that is, I think the brains in Foxborough calculate that the risk of Brady getting hurt is less than the chance of Garoppollo leading the Pats to a Super Bowl win off an extra 80 snaps, while the chances of the Pats winning the Super Bowl improve much more if offensive position players log more snaps with Brady in lieu of padded practices.

unoriginal said:

You guys can fantasize about being smarter than dumb old BB all you want...

Click to expand...

Agreed...in BB we trust.

unoriginal said:

The drawback is that offensive players get less game reps with Brady, and Brady gets less reps with them.

You guys can fantasize about being smarter than dumb old BB all you want, but I take him as sincere when he says he makes decisions that help this football team. And I take him at his word when he says the team's goal is the Super Bowl. If BB's goal is to help this football team win the Super Bowl, I imagine the reason BB leaves Brady in is that he believes Brady remaining in will better help the Pats win the Super Bowl than Garoppolo taking those snaps.

When I try to imagine why that is, I think the brains in Foxborough calculate that the risk of Brady getting hurt is less than the chance of Garoppollo leading the Pats to a Super Bowl win off an extra 80 snaps, while the chances of the Pats winning the Super Bowl improve much more if offensive position players log more snaps with Brady in lieu of padded practices.

Click to expand...

I debated between "winner" and "useful" on this, settled on winner.

TommyD4207 said:

Isn't he just as likely to get injured in the 1st quarter as he is in the 4th?

Didn't he knee injury in 2008 come on the first snap in the first quarter?

So should we give Garoppolo snaps in the first quarter too? I'm just trying to follow the reasoning here.

Click to expand...

The reasoning is clear. Pull Brady during garbage time. There is a difference of risking injury during the game and risking it during garbage time.

Tony2046 said:

The reasoning is clear. Pull Brady during garbage time. There is a difference of risking injury during the game and risking it during garbage time.

Click to expand...

What's the difference?

His 2008 injury (Now SEVEN years ago, and people are still obsessing over it) happened in the first play of the first quarter.

So shouldn't you sit him in the first quarter? That's where he's statistically most at risk for injury, right?

Or maybe the beginning of the 2nd quarter, when the Steelers rolled up on his ankle in 2001 (now 14 years ago)? Shouldn't you sit him then?

TommyD4207 said:

What's the difference?

His 2008 injury (Now SEVEN years ago, and people are still obsessing over it) happened in the first play of the first quarter.

So shouldn't you sit him in the first quarter? That's where he's statistically most at risk for injury, right?

Click to expand...

There is a difference between the 1st Qtr when he is in there to win a game and put points on the board than the end of the game when the opposing team has no chance of winning. I also include JE, Gronk etc....along with Brady.

Garbage time.

I'm sure you understand that reasoning even if do not agree with it.

Tony2046 said:

There is a difference between the 1st Qtr when he is in there to win a game and put points on the board than the end of the game when the opposing team has no chance of winning. I also include JE, Gronk etc....along with Brady.

Garbage time.

I'm sure you understand that reasoning even if do not agree with it.

Click to expand...

I don't recall Brady ever being injured in garbage time. He's played a long time.

TommyD4207 said:

I don't recall Brady ever being injured in garbage time. He's played a long time.

Click to expand...

I understand that but the argument was why risk it when the win is in the bag?

So if these evil players are so evil they will try to take Brady's knee out, why are "we" only worried about that happening during the tail end of a blowout? Shouldn't "we" be just as worried of it happening at any point in the game? Hell, shouldn't "we" be even more worried early in the game? If someone's enough of a coldhearted malicious ***** as to take him out, why wait until your team has hopelessly lost. Do it while it's still a game so you have a better chance of winning the damned game!

Tony2046 said:

I understand that but the argument was why risk it when the win is in the bag?

Click to expand...

If the win is in the bag, why are you more worried about injury?

TommyD4207 said:

If the win is in the bag, why are you more worried about injury?

Click to expand...

Because it's not ping pong. It's football. If you're on the field you're at a higher risk of injury than if you are sitting on the bench waiting for the game to end.

Relevant: When Gronkowski broke his arm blocking during a PAT, there were a lot of angry fans (including my boss). BB's reaction: "What should I do, put someone else in to block because if he gets injured, he isn't as important"? Team first; that's the way he thinks.

fan345 said:

Relevant: When Gronkowski broke his arm blocking during a PAT, there were a lot of angry fans (including my boss). BB's reaction: "What should I do, put someone else in to block because if he gets injured, he isn't as important"? Team first; that's the way he thinks.

Click to expand...

This, all day.