Pats Should Keep Garoppolo Through 2017

[Tunescribe]

I can't believe some of the crap I'm hearing from you guys. Couldn't you wait for at least a BIT of slippage in Tom's play before you cast him out for the first pretty face you see.

I don't think anyone is "casting him out," at least I'm not. But let me ask you this: would you trade one year of "good" Brady for prospectively 10 solid years of good play from his heir apparent? I would be surprised to see Brady playing at a high level past 2018.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Here is my response.

a. HTF do you "pass the torch" when releasing Tom Brady after the 2017 creates a dead cap issue that completely destroys your cap structure. And I'm assuming here that "passing the torch" means Tom Brady is no longer a Patriot in 2018 Again it would cost over 20MM to get rid of Brady and another 20 MM to sign JG long term.

If Miguel comes on the site and explains how that could happen realistically, then I might reconsider my opinion, but right now I can't see it happening, ESPECIALLY when we are going to have to sign at minimum THREE top of the market deals to keep the core of our team together THIS off season, and then sign another half dozen FA's to decent deals if we want to keep our team together. Now based on what Miguel has written I believe we can get most of this accomplished. HOWEVER if Miguel is correct (as he usually is), one year later our cap IS NOT going to be able to absorb a $40+MM hit at the QB position for 2018.

This isn't an issue of JG's talent and potential, nor is it even an issue of Tom Brady or JG (though I have to admit I have no clue as to what people who want to move on from Brady are thinking). It's an issue of contracts and timing..

b. No one is more excited about how well JG looked in those 5+ quarters. I expect him to be good, but not THAT good. HOWEVER this is only 5+ Quarters. Has everyone forgotten how good Tony Eason was before he got beat up and became the gun shy "turtler" that seems to his only legacy. It was a lot longer than just 5 quarters. I can even remember how great Jim Plunket looked for a few years before he too took too many big hits.

That's why I don't understand how you can possible want to "move on" from Tom Brady for a guy (as good as a prospect as he seems) couldn't get through a game and half before he got hurt. And they want to do this BEFORE even Brady shows a scintilla of decline.

c. I do not understand why there seems to be such an urgency to make a decision when there is ANOTHER QB prospect on the roster who might be every bit as good as JG, though we won't know for sure for another 2 years. A prospect whose contract spans the timing that fits the cap and the eventual decline in Brady I'm expecting to see after the 2018 season.

d. I do not understand how people don't see how valuable an asset JG would be after the 2016 season, and how much less an asset he'd be after 2017...if anything at all. So again, I ask a question, why would you waste a premium asset when the alternative seems to be either destroying you cap structure or becoming another one of those top heavy teams thin teams we saw here in the late 90's, and ruin your team building philosophy of building a deep team with lots of depth and a strong middle class.

And I blame you for keeping up past 2am to write this

At 42 Brady if he wants to stay another year or two, he will have to take a pay cut. BB pays for future not past performance, always has and always will. In the next two years Brady may go "Over the Hill". Maybe not. But he will not be a long term solution in 2018, no matter what. He might get big bucks for a year from another club, but after the Favre elderly experience, I doubt it. And both Favre and Montana were younger than Brady when they did it. Unitas is a better example, I think.

Think of the draft pick haul the Packers could have gotten if they dumped Aaron and kept Favre! Same stupid choice.

And how do you plan to keep him? He's a free agent in March 2018 and he's going to be wanting more money than NE can afford to pay.

 

[Gronk]

Let's say your choices after next season were to

1) sign a 1 year deal with the NEP for $10M with the knowledge that you will be a backup for the NEP for 1 year and you know (wink, wink) that you are in line for the starting job at market rates following that year.

2) sign a market rate multiyear deal with the Cleveland Browns at 20M/yr.

#2 seems a no-brainer until you realize that the Browns franchise is so bad that you will be lucky to even play out your 4- or 5-year contract. #1 is really the no-brainer, since inyour 10-year run as starting QB of the NEP you will way more than make up that 10M that you left on the table, in the back end of your career that you would not have had in Cleveland.

Do I want to work a year as a low-paid intern for Google, knowing I will get a full-time job there after that, or do I want to go to work for Ted Wells at a big starting salary?

The same "we don't know what could happen" logic being applied to Brady also can be applied to the 2018 FA market. We don't know for sure who's going to have QB needs. If it's the Browns (or someone else eternally ****ty) shopping for a QB then you're absolutely right that staying in NE might be the smart long-term play if the guaranteed money is within acceptable margins ($20m from NE vs. $30m from CLE, say). But what if the Broncos don't like Siemian or Lynch long-term and decide to get involved? What if Eli Manning or Ben Roethlisberger get busted up or decide to hang it up? Jimmy's from Arlington Heights IL...what if being the Bears QB is actually his dream? All of the sudden the "obviously Jimmy is better off in NE" part of the question is a coin flip - especially if they aren't promising him the starting job immediately.

We'll not extend the debate to Jimmy turning down guaranteed money up front being "smart", as if banking on being a 10-year starter who can make up the money later is a more likely guarantee than a $40-50m check in his account the minute he signs the deal. It's just...not. I'd presume from the little I know about the guy and the fact that he's been brought up in a successful pro atmosphere that it'd be unlikely that he'd sign in some 2-14 ****hole with a new coach he didn't know and an untalented roster. But Josh goes somewhere as HC that JG imagines he can be successful, or some other on the rise team is looking to add a QB...if JG is enough of a talent and competitor to give up guaranteed money to carry Tom's torch, then why wouldn't he be enough of a talent and competitor to think he could take some other team to the next level? AND he gets extra money?

So if NE is that sold on JG that he's got to be their next guy then they'll have to find a way to force Tom out ahead of the 2018 season. I have my own opinions about wanting to see Tom play as long as he can in NE, but even separating from that and trying to objectively critique the situation I don't see 1) Tom being on a substantial decline and/or ready to stop playing after next year, and 2) Kraft & son being okay watching him play anywhere else.

 

[Gronk]

Think of the draft pick haul the Packers could have gotten if they dumped Aaron and kept Favre! Same stupid choice.

Favre had a resurgent 2007 but had looked like **** and had pissed off everyone in the organization for 3 years with his ******** before he "retired", then tried to come late to camp in '08 to a hero welcome and his job, and they they traded him to the Jets instead.

Supposedly they could've gotten Moss for Rodgers ahead of the '07 draft but they believed Favre was going to retire after the next year (can't imagine why...), so they didn't do it. If Brett Favre had still been elite, and had exercised a desire and proven commitment to his own physical condition and preparation in order to play 4-5 more years...is that really the "same stupid choice"? The differences are more striking than the similarities.

 

[AzPatsFan]

At 42 Brady if he wants to stay another year or two, he will have to take a pay cut. BB pays for future not past performance, always has and always will. In the next two years Brady may go "Over the Hill". Maybe not. But he will not be a long term solution in 2018, no matter what. He might get big bucks for a year from another club, but after the Favre elderly experience, I doubt it. And both Favre and Montana were younger than Brady when they did it. Unitas is a better example, I think.

Think of the draft pick haul the Packers could have gotten if they dumped Aaron and kept Favre! Same stupid choice.

The Pats can pay to keep Polo. It will likely be a big guaranteed contract, large signing bonus, low salaries to begin, and escalating in the later years. That makes it a low CAP hit in 2018 and 2019. But Polo pockets big money in 2018, the CAP amortizes the signing bonus over the contract. It is a near duplicate to Bradys current deal. It is spread out over the contract.

Brady will take the paycut, if he want to continue in the NFL for another year or two. Brady will have to sign a contract the allows that. Why do you assume Bradys contract is inviolate? Some see his 2018 and 2019 extension as "Phony Years" to lower his CAP hit for 2015-2017. Bradys pay will be what you expect for an elderly, part time starter/backup.

 

[farn]

Really?

Of course. A whole NFL team for one guy ? No brainer. BB would roll.

 

[Gronk]

Of course. A whole NFL team for one guy ? No brainer. BB would roll.

I mean...they'd have to cut most of them immediately because of the roster rules, but sure.

 

[aluminum seats]

Of course. A whole NFL team for one guy ? No brainer. BB would roll.

But....the Browns...

Actually that reminds me of this for some reason:

 

[Gronk]

I don't think anyone is "casting him out," at least I'm not. But let me ask you this: would you trade one year of "good" Brady for prospectively 10 solid years of good play from his heir apparent? I would be surprised to see Brady playing at a high level past 2018.

Prospectively 10 solid years
Prospectively one year of "good Brady"

I think we can all gain some much needed perspective on the situation by watching the rest of this season play out. Hopefully we can all just enjoy watching the GOAT and the team instead of semi-hate-watching it to determine if we're personally right or wrong about the future of the QB position in NE. That's a BB/RK problem, and Bill's unlikely to give it another thought until March. And I think we're all unlikely to think about it much as soon as this guy...



...hits the field again in 9 days. In full Psycho-Tom-Beast-Mode. Bring it on.

 

[aluminum seats]

Bradys pay will be what you expect for an elderly, part time starter/backup.

Yeah, that sounds wrong...

 

[AzPatsFan]

patfanken,

It's not an either or, as you paint it. I showed how Polos contract can be structured to have a minimal CAP hit it 2018, 2109, while still allowing him to pocket many millions the moment he signs. Bradys present contract is a perfect example. Over time, Brady can become a elderly former starter, part time spot starter and reserve. In any case no immediate decision is required now. What is the cost and value of having a good backup QB, for the Superbowl contending Patriots in 2015, 2017, and 2018? I showed how to do both.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Yeah, that sounds wrong...

Why??? Pay reflects performance. BB ALWAYS says that...

 

[Sciz]

This is getting absurd. How can anybody have watched anything Brady has ever done in the NFL and see a guy that is going to volunteer to take a pay cut so he can sit on the bench?

 

[IllegalContact]

You seem to be of the notion that just because other QBs hit the wall at 40, so will Tom Brady.

Good luck with that. Not a whole heckuva lot of people out there getting rich underestimating Brady.
Wow. The fact that you think Brady's health is even remotely comparable to Manning's health at the same age really shows you don't have a solid grasp of what you're talking about.

The fact that no 40 year old QB has ever won the Super Bowl would suggest that you have your head firmly planted up your own ass.

 

[IllegalContact]

Guess you don't think Manning used HGH.....LOL

Oh ya......guess so

LOL

You got me......you're so vicious

guess you think that's relevant too.....LOL

 

[heavyde050]

I don't think anyone is "casting him out," at least I'm not. But let me ask you this: would you trade one year of "good" Brady for prospectively 10 solid years of good play from his heir apparent? I would be surprised to see Brady playing at a high level past 2018.

I would definitely make that trade if Brady is still good. Good Brady is hands down better than Jimmy G. I mean do people really believe the 6 quarters Jimmy G played this year were better than Brady last year? If so, then I guess I just have a different opinion.
I feel like not enough people are talking about Jacoby B. I mean I could really get down with the situation of him being the heir apparent. He seems just as far along as a rookie as Jimmy G was.
So if the question is two more Super Bowls from Brady, gaining a mid first round choice, and then transitioning to Jacoby B in 2019 - I am all in.
Look at the Denver example. They are playing great with rookie. They let their "heir" apparent go to another team. It looks like that was a great decision.
As a Pats fan, I think Jimmy G is better than Brock O, but is he thought of that way around the league? I mean before Brock showed his true colors so far this year.

 

[Gronk]

This is getting absurd. How can anybody have watched anything Brady has ever done in the NFL and see a guy that is going to volunteer to take a pay cut so he can sit on the bench?

Well, you see, Brady loves the team so much he'd be willing to quell the competitive fire that informs his entire existence and tacitly train his replacement for a fraction of the salary his wife draws for simply being awake (plus whatever he values his own personal pride in role as starting QB at...which is probably, y'know, a little bit). And JG would sign on for considerably less money than he could draw on the open market - and unbeknownst to this thread, other teams have won the Super Bowl in the past 15 years - because he believes in the cause and is willing to sacrifice the generational wealth of his future family in order to restore honor to the Patriot name.

The fact that no 40 year old QB has ever won the Super Bowl would suggest that you have your head firmly planted up your own ass.

Or it suggests that the number of people taking the side of calling Tom Brady "too old to win" are putting themselves in a position to look very wrong, very soon.

 

[IllegalContact]

Or it suggests that the number of people taking the side of calling Tom Brady "too old to win" are putting themselves in a position to look very wrong, very soon.

Or they're just being reasonable with the whole question of age and the ridiculous idea of making 3 year plans based on a 40 year old QB

 

[heavyde050]

The fact that no 40 year old QB has ever won the Super Bowl would suggest that you have your head firmly planted up your own ass.

To be fair - that stat is kind of misleading as Peyton Manning turned 40 about 40 days after the Super Bowl.

 

[aluminum seats]

Oh ya......guess so

LOL

You got me......you're so vicious

guess you think that's relevant too.....LOL

I guess your shtick is being the pissy little guy on the board? Boring.