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

Deus Irae said:

It made plenty of sense to have Brady out there at that point. People disagreeing with the obvious logical arguments doesn't miraculously change that.

Click to expand...

The gentleman I responded to didn't make a logical argument, he made an appeal to authority.

Players are only human.

Some nimrod from the team getting blown out could take a run at Brady's knees.

And for those saying "players play blah blah blah", there's a reason why Gronk was taken out.

JayNM said:

I will not be surprised if the Pats are receiving some calls for Pollo. I mean, he's young and showed a lot of promise. More importantly tough, Brady looks like he is a f***ing Spanish Conquistador, discovered the fountain of youth and it's just showing off.

I am a big supporter of Grop, but I don't think he is irreplaceable, meaning he does have a price and I'd let go of him for it. Only question remaining is if he's as valuable for somebody else as he is for the Pats. I would only accept a first round pick-value of him (not in 2016 too, thanks to Goddell), but don't if another team would be willing to roll the dice for that price

Click to expand...

The Patriots could still make a trade and acquire a 1st round pick, but they would be forced to pick at the lower of the selections. In other words, if they end up with the 28th pick and trade someone (obviously not Garappolo), for the 22nd pick, they'd be forced to use the lower of the selections.

Goodell took away their first round pick, but he can't take away their right to make a trade. What he did do, was prevent the 2007 situation (when the Pats picked at #7 in 2008 due to a trade) from re-occurring.

Either way, there are only a very small amount of players on the team who would warrant a 1st round pick in the NFL. They are likely Brady and Gronk. It certainly isn't going to include Jimmy Garappolo.

mgteich said:

We all breathed a sigh of relief when Brady got up after being sacked while playing with a 30 point lead.

Click to expand...

As a fan with a meaningless opinion, I have no problem with Brady playing with a 30 point lead, depending on what quarter the game is in, etc. I don't expect them to sit Brady every time we get a bigger lead.

What I could justify however, was pulling him when there is a significant lead AND only about ten minutes remaining in the game. It would seem as though Belichick disagrees though, since he likes to use that time to work on things and iron out problems via a glorified scrimmage.

At the end of the day, I can see both sides, and the only thing we can do is trust the coach. That said, I see your point, and personally, I would have allowed Garoppolo to take the last two series once we got around the 50:00 minute mark of the game.

Snake Eyes said:

The gentleman I responded to didn't make a logical argument, he made an appeal to authority.

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant to your claim. Keeping Brady out there makes sense. Whether you, or I, agree with the logic in this particular instance doesn't change that.

And the post you were quoting was responding to an mgteich post that was pretty ridiculous by being ridiculous in turn. I mean

You must all play fantasy football. Are there really other explanations for Brady playing late in the 4th when the team is up by 3 scores.

Click to expand...

is a ridiculous question to ask after what had happened just the week before. The poster who responded probably gave it a kinder answer than it deserved.

It's all a risk/reward calculation, and we have little visibility into how the Patriots add it up. Are they trying to get Brady extra reps with the 2nd string? Ultra-cautious about an unlikely comeback? Minimizing turnover chances? Afraid that a less experienced QB will get other players hurt? It's all total speculation.

Things we do know:

- There IS such a thing as "garbage time" when BB & co. feel it's not worth risking Brady's health. (See, for reference, last year's final game against Buffalo.)

- The 1st quarter of a game is obviously not comparable to the end of a blowout because of the whole "reward" side of the risk/reward calculation. The risk of playing Brady may be equivalent at both points, but the expected reward is vastly different.

- When it's Peyton Manning whose backup never gets in the game, we make fun of his ego.

supafly said:

The Patriots could still make a trade and acquire a 1st round pick, but they would be forced to pick at the lower of the selections. In other words, if they end up with the 28th pick and trade someone (obviously not Garappolo), for the 22nd pick, they'd be forced to use the lower of the selections.

Goodell took away their first round pick, but he can't take away their right to make a trade. What he did do, was prevent the 2007 situation (when the Pats picked at #7 in 2008 due to a trade) from re-occurring.

Either way, there are only a very small amount of players on the team who would warrant a 1st round pick in the NFL. They are likely Brady and Gronk. It certainly isn't going to include Jimmy Garappolo.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but if a team is asking for a QB, chances are they're bad or desperate (or both). So, again, it is just a guess, but we would be basically trading him for a our first round pick, which is usually a late pick, so I don't see like being a great deal, since even if Grop pans out, he'll probably need a year or two to get accustomed with the system, so betting on the chance of getting a higher pick in 2017 is worth it.

But you are right, we probably wouldn't get something back that rightfully correlates with the security brought by Grop as a Back-Up QB.

Armchair Quarterback said:

We'll just have to trust in Beli and McDan to know when to pull Brad.

Click to expand...

Polo, the Italian Stallion, appears to be a pretty good young QB. What is even better, is that his skill set matches the Brady skill set. Both possess a fast release, and very good accuracy in the short- intermediate and seams routes.

Therefore the coaches don't need a separate set of plays to utilize his skills. As he gains more experience, I think BB will be less hesitant at inserting him for mop-up duties.

But he is still only in the beginning of his Sophomore campaign, and he probably won't be fully ready until the end of his second and the beginning of his third campaign.

Mg has been taking his depressants daily from the sound of it.

I don't think Belichick looks at this as running up scores or being oblivious to the potential for injury, I think he dear this as a way to teach that season's team the importance of finishing their job, playing sixty minutes if that's what is called for. He knows at some point NB they BC will be forced to do just that, play every second for your life, will come up when it probably matters most and he wants them to be ready because they have always treated every game as just that, sixty minutes plus.

I get the concern for stars, but when you start trying to cover them in bubble wrap it sets a tone of weakness imo. If a guy is banged up let him watch and give the next guy up a chance, but if they are good to go let them play. The Patriots get the best of every team they play for sixty plus every week so they need to be ready when it actually calls for sixty plus. Great teams keep the foot on the gas.

The premise of this thread sounds "Felgeresque"...

Deus Irae said:

That's irrelevant to your claim. Keeping Brady out there makes sense. Whether you, or I, agree with the logic in this particular instance doesn't change that.

And the post you were quoting was responding to an mgteich post that was pretty ridiculous by being ridiculous in turn. I mean

is a ridiculous question to ask after what had happened just the week before. The poster who responded probably gave it a kinder answer than it deserved.

Click to expand...

Of course, it's logical because you say it is. My post is ridiculous because you say it is.
Who needs an argument to actually support your case? Not you!

BelichickFan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, as I said, I have never had a problem with him being out there late in the 4th with a lead. What concerns me is some sore loser deciding to go low and end his season and our chance of repeating in the process. That's what is constantly in the back of my head when he's out there. I'm hardly alone in that regard too. Rodney expressed the same concerns in an interview earlier this week.

QuantumMechanic said:

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!

Click to expand...

One doesn't have to be cold hearted. Just a very sore loser that has gradually lost his cool over the course of a heated game. Again, I understand the thought process behind trying to convince yourself that this won't happen. It's very subconscious, as I mentioned before. I'll go ahead and link what Rodney, a guy that played the game and was ranked as the dirtiest player in it by a class of his peers, said this time...

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-england-patriots-tom-brady-rodney-harrison-smart-092915

I think two things factor into these decisions that I haven't seen brought up (unless I missed them):

1) BB is a big believer in a consistent message. You see it in his team building approach, where for the most part he will not overpay for a player, even if that leaves him weak in an area. He doesn't want the long term mentality of the team to change for the sake of one decision.

2) Brady is viewed (possibly by himself as well) as an extension of the coaching staff, so when a mantra is set by BB, Brady wants to be a living example of it.

So even if it makes some logical sense to not risk Brady for little reward in garbage time, Belichick preaches 60 minute football and Brady wants to show that no one is above that message.

It is not just lessening the chance of Brady getting hurt playing when the game is in hand but also Garoppolo developing. While I most certainly defer to BB's over my own opinions, I see value in playing the BU Qb along with the added benefit of eliminating the possibility of a freak injury.

In BB I trust.
It's almost as hard to figure out what Brady is really thinking as it is to read Belichick's mind, but I'm going on the assumption that they share a common objective: winning games and hoisting the Lombardi in SF in February. Part of that assumption is that, even if Brady is "on a mission" and wants to stay in games beyond the point where BB determines he is no longer needed to secure the W, then BB is going to pull him.

Sicilian said:

I think two things factor into these decisions that I haven't seen brought up (unless I missed them):

1) BB is a big believer in a consistent message. You see it in his team building approach, where for the most part he will not overpay for a player, even if that leaves him weak in an area. He doesn't want the long term mentality of the team to change for the sake of one decision.

2) Brady is viewed (possibly by himself as well) as an extension of the coaching staff, so when a mantra is set by BB, Brady wants to be a living example of it.

So even if it makes some logical sense to not risk Brady for little reward in garbage time, Belichick preaches 60 minute football and Brady wants to show that no one is above that message.

Click to expand...

Two thoughts:

One, I've always thought of "60 minute football" as "all the football it takes to win the game," which, as we were reminded in the SB can often be all 60 minutes.

Two, I don't think the rule applies in the same way to essential skill players. Yes, BB wants 90% of the team playing every play as though the game were on the line, even when it is well in hand. But, it's not violating the "60 minute" principle" to pull a skill player when the game is effectively over.

mgteich said:

We all breathed a sigh of relief when Brady got up after being sacked while playing with a 30 point lead.

Click to expand...

While on that single play I was not too worried I found little benefit for him being out there on that drive. I think the whole process should have been one score earlier.

I think once you hit 37-10 late in the 3rd you pull Gronk/Edelman/Lewis if you want to see what you have in 2nd tier guys. If you score there (which i think you would) then you pull Brady and let Garo finish it and have him try to get you 50.

I think he probably just figured he'll put the backups in the last 5 or ten minutes when they start a new drive. He would have had to pull Brady in the middle of the drive.

BB is apparently doing what everyone else does. Tyrod Taylor only sat out the last snap (kneel down) for the 44-10 MIA blowout. Of course in Buffaloville that's totally different cuz reasons.