NFL executives offer their take on the Patriots and the trade possibilities for Jimmy Garoppolo

[patfanken]

You are still looking at the physical side of the game. I strongly believe that, at least at the QB position, the mental side is where your evaluation has to start. Brady has proven that the physical side can be developed over time. So I'm not as bothered by his slower release or mechanics/footwork. I will be if in 2 years things haven't improved, but that's why the mental side is so important. So let me ask you a couple of questions.

Why do you believe that over the next 2 years Jacoby Brissett WON'T be able to improve in the areas you mentioned? What has he shown in the brief time we've gotten to see him that would make you believe that he won't improve?

I would contend that EVERYTHING we've seen of this kid tells us that he not only wants to improve, he has the will and work ethic to do just that. Plus he's in the best situation possible to make that happen. What I don't know is if all that work and effort will translate into an NFL QB. He could end up being either an Rothlessberger clone (good comparison, btw), or Ryan Mallett's little brother Or something in between. I'm willing to guess, it will be a LOT closer to Ben than Ryan.

 

[Danger Zone]

Totally fair question, and I'll answer with something that really isn't fair, because if it's not subjective, it's based on so many little things that it might as well be subjective--like the Malcolm Gladwell Blink idea.

When I look at QBs, unlike most other positions, there's simply a sense I get watching them play. It's not based on nothing--you look at mechanics, arm strength, physical measurables--but there is something else that comes into play that I can't quite put my finger on, that I don't see in Brissett. If I intellectually try to force it--maybe I see a bit of Ben R in him, and that guy's won Super Bowls--I can fool myself a little, but that's what it feels like, trying to convince myself. Just don't see it with this guy. For what it's worth, very much didn't see it/feel it with Mallett, Hoyer, and most of these other guys. JG I think may have it. Possibly, anyway.

See? Totally unfair and perfectly valid to rip this post to shreds. But there it is.

Other's here are much better at football analysis than I am (and perhaps you).

What most of the board experts don't get though is that despite their superior knowledge, the knowledge gap between them and me is minute compared to the knowledge gap between them and the actual professionals.

Anyway my point is, don't knock yourself. You're opinion is as valid (and as equally ignorant) as anyone here...

EDIT: And by no means do I mean to diminish anyone's knowledge. I greatly respect and admire and look forward to the insights of many posters here FOR their level of knowledge. I am just firmly of the opinion that there is simply a huge knowledge gap between the NFL professionals and the college semi-professionals and then another huge knowledge gap (for the most part) between the college guys and the media experts and finally yet another knowledge gap between the media experts and the football enthusiasts.

 

[Rob0729]

The Patriots won that game against the Chiefs, 17-10.

My bad.

 

[Rob0729]

Like dues said they beat KC but lost to all 5 playoff teams they played san Diego, Jets, Miami, Ravens? and Pitt absolutely curb stomped them. I remember the last one cuz it's the only game I want to that year. I am sure with Brady they win at least one of those and they are in. Now a fair number of those losses were earlier in the year and by the end of the season they looked like they could make some noise in the playoffs. However they showed some serious weaknesses against quality competition and it is fair to ask how much of that was the drop from Brady IMO

Either way, an 11-5 record gets you into the playoffs. To say they didn't get into the playoffs because they couldn't beat quality competition is disingenuous. It could be true that they couldn't beat quality competition, but they didn't get into the playoffs because a fluke that 11 wins couldn't get them in.

 

[Rob0729]

Thoughtful post and I agree with a lot of it, but I'm pretty sure Brissett is not the quarterback of the future for the Pats.

How do you know. Brissett came into the league with tons of raw, but promising skills. Everyone said he has the potential of being a very good starting QB, but he will need a few years of grooming before he would show it. We won't be able to judge Brissett for a few years.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

answer this question yall:

Brady at current level for 4 years after this one, OR
GAR at a top 10 starting QB level for 10 years?

the only unknown in the first 1 is can he last that long, or can he last longer?
the unkonwns in the 2nd one are can GAR be a top 10 QB consistently? year after year w/ film on him? will he want to stay in NE? will he want top QB money and hinder our roster? will he be able to handle injuries? can he handle weak weapons/receivers round him? is he a good leader? is he clutch?

to me, there are just too many unknowns in the 2nd scenario, I love Gar, but gimme Brady until the end, be it bitter or be it sweet

you simply do not get rid of the GOAT for an unknown, you. just. dont.

Are you nuts? Top 10 quarterbacking for another decade would be great to have. That's something many NFL teams are happy to build around...

 

[Deus Irae]

My bad.

No worries. That 2008 season is one that we really needed a playoff game in order to be able to fairly evaluate. There's no question that the team was playing much better at the end than at the beginning, and they destroyed a playoff team (Cardinals) that went toe to toe with the Steelers in the SB.

Was that team mostly smoke and mirrors, or was it a legitimate powerhouse that missed out on greatness because of tiebreakers? We'll never know.

 

[FourierSeries]

We have no idea if it is the wise move or not based on 6 quarters. I do know his trade value may not be any higher than it is now. So from that standpoint it is the wisest move if the Pats' brain trust thinks his ceiling is lower than you and others think.

If the Pats think he can be a top 5 QB in the League, he is virtually untouchable. If they think he can be in the top third, you listen to trade offers and jump at a sweatheart deal. Anything less, you trade him as long as there is a first round pick compensation.

But even then, the Patriots are guessing. It may be an educated guess, but it is still a guess.

What if the Pats pass up a top ten pick next year and a second rounder and the guy ends up being a flash in the pan and never becomes more than an average QB or worse? That scenario is very possible. It is just as possible as him becoming a top 5 QB and leading this team until 2030 or beyond. We just don't know.

Personally, if the trade offer is really good, I would rather gamble on the picks than Garoppolo. But none of us know what Belichick and his staff knows about the guy.

What if the Pats get a top 10 pick and he ends up being a bust? It's not out of the realm of possibility. Bill usually does his best work in the later rounds. With Jimmy, we've actually seen him play at the NFL level. We've seen him run the full Patriots offense and run it very efficiently. We've seen his ability to read coverages. We've seen his high football IQ and his composure in the pocket.

You can come up with numerous possible scenarios, but finding a QB who can be trusted to run the full offense - an offense that is widely recognized as being very complex and difficult to learn - and to be very effective at doing so, will be far more difficult than you think.

 

[Rob0729]

Well all predictions of future events are "probabilities, likelihoods, and guesstimates". I had hoped I made that clear in my post. Maybe if I make a direct comparison it would help. Brett Farve is another elite QB who had a spectacular season at the age of 40 directing a new offense on a new team. His next year at 41 wasn't nearly as good. But any comparisons on the way Brady prepares for a season and Farve aren't even close. So if Brett Farve can excell at 40, I have to be believe it's likely Brady can do as well at 42. And remember, even at the end, scrambling was a big part of Farve's game, it has never been part of Brady's.

Bottom Line, Farve was a physically gifted QB who excelled into his 40. Brady, who takes, way better care of his body, and is on a better team, where he has intimate knowledge of the system, is likely to perform better, and longer. Farve is just an example that a QB CAN play well at 40. Brady is just an example of WHY paying into his 40's is not only possible but likely, (as long as his iron will is there)

Favre relied on his cannon of an arm because he was a gun slinger. Brady is much more of a short to intermediate passer which means he should last longer.

I have said for a while that we will see QBs playing into their mid to late 40s at a high level with the next 10-15 years. The rules protect the QBs and medicine and training regiments are advancing. Brady could be the first. I bet the guy who does is already in the League.

 

[pazrul72]

Either way, an 11-5 record gets you into the playoffs. To say they didn't get into the playoffs because they couldn't beat quality competition is disingenuous. It could be true that they couldn't beat quality competition, but they didn't get into the playoffs because a fluke that 11 wins couldn't get them in.

Except the "fluke" was they lost to 5 AFC teams that all made the playoffs. They win any one of those and lose to some **** NFC team instead and they are in. 2008 was one of my favorite teams to watch because all of the pressure/expectations were gone but at the end of the day they were not one of the best teams and did not deserve to be in the playoffs. With Brady I believe they win one more and are in

 

[Rob0729]

What if the Pats get a top 10 pick and he ends up being a bust? It's not out of the realm of possibility. Bill usually does his best work in the later rounds. With Jimmy, we've actually seen him play at the NFL level. We've seen him run the full Patriots offense and run it very efficiently. We've seen his ability to read coverages. We've seen his high football IQ and his composure in the pocket.

You can come up with numerous possible scenarios, but finding a QB who can be trusted to run the full offense - an offense that is widely recognized as being very complex and difficult to learn - and to be very effective at doing so, will be far more difficult than you think.

We don't know how Belichick does in the early part of the first round because he doesn't draft there. But the one time he did, he traded down and arguably took the best defensive player in that draft in Mayo.

My guess if Belichick got a high first, he would trade back and make it multiple picks to fill multiple areas.

 

[PatriotsReign]

answer this question yall:

Brady at current level for 4 years after this one, OR
GAR at a top 10 starting QB level for 10 years?

the only unknown in the first 1 is can he last that long, or can he last longer?
the unkonwns in the 2nd one are can GAR be a top 10 QB consistently? year after year w/ film on him? will he want to stay in NE? will he want top QB money and hinder our roster? will he be able to handle injuries? can he handle weak weapons/receivers round him? is he a good leader? is he clutch?

to me, there are just too many unknowns in the 2nd scenario, I love Gar, but gimme Brady until the end, be it bitter or be it sweet

you simply do not get rid of the GOAT for an unknown, you. just. dont.

I'm fine with holding onto him until he's not Tom Brady. Even if it means missing the playoffs for a year or two

We owe him that much

 

[Rob0729]

Except the "fluke" was they lost to 5 AFC teams that all made the playoffs. They win any one of those and lose to some **** NFC team instead and they are in. 2008 was one of my favorite teams to watch because all of the pressure/expectations were gone but at the end of the day they were not one of the best teams and did not deserve to be in the playoffs. With Brady I believe they win one more and are in

They win 11 games any other year except for 2008 during the Belichick and not only do they get into the playoffs, but most years that was enough to get the AFC East.

Sure with Brady, they would have won probably 2-3 more games. It doesn't change the fact that people unfairly downgrade that year because the Pats didn't get into the playoffs because a fluke occurrence.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

No worries. That 2008 season is one that we really needed a playoff game in order to be able to fairly evaluate. There's no question that the team was playing much better at the end than at the beginning, and they destroyed a playoff team (Cardinals) that went toe to toe with the Steelers in the SB.

Was that team mostly smoke and mirrors, or was it a legitimate powerhouse that missed out on greatness because of tiebreakers? We'll never know.

Regarding the Cardinals' game, facts are facts, and at the end of the day the Patriots did completely destroy a playoff team that went toe to toe with the Steelers in the SB.

That said:
- It was a home game in Week 16 in a major snowstorm
- Arizona plays in the south in a dome, and came up in a cross country flight
- Arizona had clinched their division title but was eliminated from contention for a bye at that point.

There was a lot of insinuation after the game from various sources that the Cardinals basically took the field, couldn't deal with the storm, saw that the Patriots could, and basically just gave up at that point.

Again, the Patriots beat them up pretty good, and they did what they needed to and no one can take that away from them. But I think the smoke and mirror question you pose even applies to this particular game itself; what if it was just cold instead of snowing? I was very fearful of this game at the time, thinking their WRs would destroy the Pats' secondary. Curious if that would have happened under different circumstances.

 

[sb1]

They only lost 5 games and one of them was the game Brady went down down against KC and Cassel had to go in with no preparation.

And in NFL history, only two teams have ever missed the playoffs with a 11-5 record and one of them are the 2008 Patriots. So yes, it was absolutely a fluke they didn't get into the playoffs.

They beat KC. Their first loss was Miami (the wildcat game). They went 1-4 against the AFC playoff field. And blown out 3 times.

That is true about 11-5 but to be honest they didn't deserve to get in simply because they weren't good enough to beat good teams that year. A lot of that decline of course can be attributed to the massive downgrade at QB from Brady to Cassell.

 

[aluminum seats]

Anyway my point is, don't knock yourself. You're opinion is as valid (and as equally ignorant) as anyone here...

Thanks buddy. Don't misunderstand, though, I’m really pretty full of myself. Just recognizing that that particular post is just an opinion that I’m basing on a general sense/feeling so might therefore be annoying to anyone wanting to engage on the point.

 

[IllegalContact]

Brady at current level for 4 years after this one

are you guaranteeing this? or are you assuming this and the reality turns into garoppolo playing at an all pro level somewhere else when Brady's shoulder breaks down?

 

[aluminum seats]

How do you know. Brissett came into the league with tons of raw, but promising skills. Everyone said he has the potential of being a very good starting QB, but he will need a few years of grooming before he would show it. We won't be able to judge Brissett for a few years.

Responded up above.

 

[pazrul72]

They win 11 games any other year except for 2008 during the Belichick and not only do they get into the playoffs, but most years that was enough to get the AFC East.

Sure with Brady, they would have won probably 2-3 more games. It doesn't change the fact that people unfairly downgrade that year because the Pats didn't get into the playoffs because a fluke occurrence.

I get what your saying. You tell me preseason Team A is gonna be 11-5 I would expect they likely win their division and are at least a wild card if they are in the same division with the best team in football.

Now let's look at that specific team that specific year. 5 important games against AFC playoff contenders. If they had won 2 out of 5 I would agree with you totally fluky and **** it just wasn't our year. They went 0 for 5. Zero zip nada that's not a fluke it's a strong indication that they were above average but incapable of beating the better teams in the league and did not deserve to be in the playoffs.

 

[sb1]

Like dues said they beat KC but lost to all 5 playoff teams they played san Diego, Jets, Miami, Ravens? and Pitt absolutely curb stomped them. I

Colts in Indy.