Why maximizing Brady's run is so important

[Ivan]

I would much rather watch Brady put more rings between himself and everyone else than worry about who is next. #6, #7, and possibly even #8 would put him in a stratosphere no one else will ever approach, and that's what I want to see, because if he does he elevates this franchise to a level no one else is at as well.

 

[Nehalem]

I was curious to read your post after the first line but I don't see how what you wrote shows the numbers don't hold up.

This is not about comparing rings form 1 single elite QB to another non elite QB this is about the odds of an elite QB getting a ring vs a good QB.

The face Brees/Rodgers have the same number of rings as Flacco doesn't matter. The fact that Elite QBs have X number of rings and good QBs have Y and comparing them is the point.

We can always point out a single case "Marino has no rings but Eli has 2 so that proves this doesn't work" but in the end it is about the overall sample vs overall sample but pointing out individual situations.

I could easily point out Aikman has 3 more rings than McNabb/Ryan/Rivers/Romo/Garcia/Stafford/McNair and Gannon combined who never won a thing.

Those doesn't prove the case. It is about the overall likihood. Also anything we could say about things going 1 way we could say the other way. Brady could have easily gone 7-0 (2 less for "good QBs" and 2 more for elite QBs.

Kelly lost a close one to Hostetler. It cuts both ways. Overall the sample is fair on average though imo.

Also this is about what wins championships not what gets you there or to the final 4. We have to go by actual history IMO. In SB51 yes it was a huge improbable come back but it was made possible cause 1 side had a great QB and 1 side had only a good QB who made key mistakes at the end a great QB tends not too.

SB51 is not an argument against this point if anything it is an argument for it.

Brady has 5 rings.
Manning/Roethlisberger/Rodgers/Brees have 6 rings. And Manning's 2nd is really more attributable to the elite Denver defense, and Roethlisberger's 1st is really more attributable to the refs. Pretty much Brady has as many rings as the other 4 elite QBs put together.

So its really more of a Brady vs. everyone else. Than an elite vs. good QB thing.

And as I stated earlier the playoff success of Brees/Rodgers isn't really any different than the merely good QBs you mentioned: Ryan/Flacco/McNabb. Take away the "unearned" rings from Manning/Roethlisberger and really only Brady stands out as superior.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Scariest thought you could have on any of the other 31 teams in the league...

"Tom Brady? System quarterback."

God they better HOPE he's that good... what if they were right the first time?

Matt Cassel, 11-5.

Suck on that, rest of the NFL. Garopollo or however you spell him? Hall of Fame, first ballot... if we let him

 

[Nehalem]

We have heard the "championships are a team accomplishment" for years as a way to discredit Brady, and typically it has been an irrational and over-the-top argument from haters. That said, the argument when used in a rational, objective sense has validity. I don't think it's fair to look at these players only with their W/L record in the playoffs as a fair gauge. Aaron Rodgers has a 99.4 career playoff passer rating, while Drew Brees is at 100.7. Not that passer rating is everything, or that Brady stinks since his is 10 points lower, but it's pretty hard to fault these guys for a lack of Super Bowls considering those numbers that indicate a high level of postseason play.

career playoff passer rating
Matt Ryan: 102.4

The main difference in post season success between Ryan and Brees is that Ryan had to face Brady, and Brees got to face Peyton in the Super Bowl.

 

[farn]

Win. Today, Brady is clearly the QB that gives this team the best shot at winning. If/when JG becomes the player with the best chance of winning, he should play.

Having said that - because I feel Brady will still be the better choice in a year or two from now - I hope BB trades JG & gets lots in return.

But I do not care if Brady is starting it on the team - if the team keeps winning. Because winning should always be the priority. That is, in the end, the greatness of BB. Winning > feelings. Business of winning. If JG were better, great - get him in there. But no one here can legitimately think Brady is not the best option. He most definitely gives NE the best chance. Winning. There is nothing else.

Nostalgia + feelings + loyalty + unicorns < winning.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Win. Today, Brady is clearly the QB that gives this team the best shot at winning. If/when JG becomes the player with the best chance of winning, he should play.

The day may come when TFB does not give us the best chance of winning....

 

[Tony2046]

Win. Today, Brady is clearly the QB that gives this team the best shot at winning. If/when JG becomes the player with the best chance of winning, he should play.

Having said that - because I feel Brady will still be the better choice in a year or two from now - I hope BB trades JG & gets lots in return.

But I do not care if Brady is starting it on the team - if the team keeps winning. Because winning should always be the priority. That is, in the end, the greatness of BB. Winning > feelings. Business of winning. If JG were better, great - get him in there. But no one here can legitimately think Brady is not the best option. He most definitely gives NE the best chance. Winning. There is nothing else.

Nostalgia + feelings + loyalty + unicorns < winning.

Nothing wrong with your post but that isn't me at all. I want to see Brady's last career snap in a Patriots uniform whether that means an 8-8 season or whatever. Winning isn't everything to me.

 

[farn]

Nothing wrong with your post but that isn't me at all. I want to see Brady's last career snap in a Patriots uniform whether that means an 8-8 season or whatever. Winning isn't everything to me.

That's IS fair. You can be the NE fan of your choosing. I'd much rather have anyone else if it meant 12-4 or 10-6 over that .500 record.

Love me some Brady, but only because winning is everything to me. It's a sport, not real life. In sports, for the team I follow, nothing beats winning. Not even Brady. However, it'd be crazy - after last season's amazing performance - for anyone to argue against Brady as the very best option at QB.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

An 8-8 season I can take, if it takes us by surprise. BB seems to not get taken by surprise on such matters though.

I'd love to see TFB play his last snap in a Patriots uniform. But I'm resigned to the likelihood that BB moves on before TFB thinks he sucks.

It is what it is, either way.

Just not 2 or 3 "It's the O-line's fault/it's the defense's fault/etc." seasons, please.

 

[BobDigital]

Brady has 5 rings.
Manning/Roethlisberger/Rodgers/Brees have 6 rings. And Manning's 2nd is really more attributable to the elite Denver defense, and Roethlisberger's 1st is really more attributable to the refs. Pretty much Brady has as many rings as the other 4 elite QBs put together.

So its really more of a Brady vs. everyone else. Than an elite vs. good QB thing.

And as I stated earlier the playoff success of Brees/Rodgers isn't really any different than the merely good QBs you mentioned: Ryan/Flacco/McNabb. Take away the "unearned" rings from Manning/Roethlisberger and really only Brady stands out as superior.

I felt like i already covered this in a past post. We can say could have should have would have either way. The score is what it is and the championships are won by who they are won by.

Also some elite QBs have more rings the others with very few elite QBs not having rings. The point is not flacco has the same amount of rings as Rodgers/Brees/Young. The point is almost all elite QBs get rings and some get multiple.

Simply put.

Great QBs getting rings is the rule (with exceptions)
Good QBs getting rings is the exception (not the rule)

The odds of a Great QB getting a ring are much better than a good QB. In fact IMO it is 7-10 times better. Which is the whole point of this thread.

The fact Flacco has a ring and a load of other good QBs don't is the point. He was good enough that if he got hot and lucky he could win a championship. Great QBs win rings cause they are consistently in the mix and break through eventually.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Brady has 5 rings.
Manning/Roethlisberger/Rodgers/Brees have 6 rings. And Manning's 2nd is really more attributable to the elite Denver defense, and Roethlisberger's 1st is really more attributable to the refs. Pretty much Brady has as many rings as the other 4 elite QBs put together.

So its really more of a Brady vs. everyone else. Than an elite vs. good QB thing.

And as I stated earlier the playoff success of Brees/Rodgers isn't really any different than the merely good QBs you mentioned: Ryan/Flacco/McNabb. Take away the "unearned" rings from Manning/Roethlisberger and really only Brady stands out as superior.

Brady has four Super Bowl MVP awards. He really has played well enough, or at least has come through in crunch time, in every one of the seven Super Bowls.

Manning/Roethlisberger/Rodgers/Brees have a combined three Super Bowl MVPs. Manning's SB MVP was one of the most undeserving media slob feats I have ever seen. He set a record for lowest QB rating to ever win the award while his team had multiple deserving players. Should be 2 SB MVP awards combined.

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

Still hard to believe that brady will be 40 this coming season. Doesn't feel like it. In terms of jimmy i don't know if he will be dealt. It will depend on how he feels about brissett. 40 was kind to favre but he blew it in the playoffs. Brady doesn't have that wear and tear. That OL has to be solid again.

 

[tom444]

The day may come when TFB does not give us the best chance of winning....

"I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.

A day may come when the courage of men fails,

when we forsake our friends

and break all bonds of fellowship,

but it is not this day.

An hour of wolves and shattered shields,

when the age of men comes crashing down,

but it is not this day!

This day we fight!!

By all that you hold dear on this good Earth,

I bid you stand, Men of the West!!!"


God help me, I do love it so.

 

[BobDigital]

People are imo missing the point of this thread or at least the point i tried to make. This is not about Brady exactly. It is about the value of elite QBs, the fact Brady is one and the difference between elite and good as the argument of why we should try to maximize an elite QB while we have him.

The exact same argument holds for Brees and the Saints.

 

[Nehalem]

I felt like i already covered this in a past post. We can say could have should have would have either way. The score is what it is and the championships are won by who they are won by.

Also some elite QBs have more rings the others with very few elite QBs not having rings. The point is not flacco has the same amount of rings as Rodgers/Brees/Young. The point is almost all elite QBs get rings and some get multiple.

Simply put.

Great QBs getting rings is the rule (with exceptions)
Good QBs getting rings is the exception (not the rule)

The odds of a Great QB getting a ring are much better than a good QB. In fact IMO it is 7-10 times better. Which is the whole point of this thread.

The fact Flacco has a ring and a load of other good QBs don't is the point. He was good enough that if he got hot and lucky he could win a championship. Great QBs win rings cause they are consistently in the mix and break through eventually.

And my point is that Great QB getting more rings is skewed by a few Super Great QBs getting multiple rings. And that this is not happenstance. Brady has played in 11/15 conference championships. Brees 2/15. So why are we throwing Brady and Brees in the same bucket?

And I guess my other point is that how do we decide who is a Great QB. Is regular season Brees really that much better than Romo? Romo has a higher QB rating and win%. Matt Ryan has put up 4500 yards for 5 consecutive years. Why are they not counted as elite whereas Brees is.

Really if you look at post season success only P Manning, Roethlisberger, and Brady should really be regarded as elite. Which is pretty incredible considering they have all played against each other for 10+ years in the AFC. Brees and Rodgers have never faced each other in the playoffs; really they have never had to face an elite QB in their conference in the playoffs. Yet they have less playoff success than their AFC elite counterparts. Sad. How many rings would Roethlisberger, Brady, and Manning have if they didn't have to face each other in the AFC?

 

[mosslost]

So we know BB wants the next QB in place. We all do of course. It looks like he is not looking to trade JAG. However I really question that move (depending on how reasonable the asking price is). This is because with a little research we can see the difference between good and great QB play is huge when it comes to winning.

But lets look at great QBs only at first. Of the 51 super bowls won we have HOF QBs (or borderline ones waiting to get in) winning 40. Brady 5, Peyton 2, Brees 1, Rodgers 1 Ben R. 2 (not in yet but likely will be. I added their wins to the HOF group and got 40 of 51).

Even if you question Namath and a few other HOF QBs (I do as well) it is clear that great QBs (HOF level) hold about 75% of the super bowl wins vs the rest of the NFL.

To look at this another way that means QBs that are just very good but not HOF don't tend to win regularly. Looking at good but not great QBs you might have a Russel Wilson or Eli Manning who may win if they got hot and the stars align but history is litered with very good QBs who never won.

Just guys who were active in the past 15 years. McNabb, McNair, Ryan, Rivers, Cousins, Stafford, Romo, Luck, Pennington, Bledsoe, Garcia, Hasselback, Newton, Palmer, Green, Gannon. They never won anything but are QBs your team in general would be happy to have. Considered on the top 10 most years. I am sure I am forgetting a few very good ones just in that time frame.

The point is even if JAG turns out to be a legit Good QBs the odds of a "good" QB never winning is more likely than winning by a large margin. You need to be great to give your team a high likelihood of winning a championship at some point.

However the odds JAG will be that is pretty low not cause of him but just cause it is hard to find HOF QBs. What is comes down to is your odds are much better with a few years of elite play compared to 10-15 years of good play and it is not even close. Maximizing Brady is clearly the answer if you are looking to win the most super bowls you possibly can. Even if Brady only plays 2-3 more years it is still the better option statistically.

The winning could be the cause though (of HOF status) in many cases. Cause and effect.

 

[mosslost]

So we know BB wants the next QB in place. We all do of course. It looks like he is not looking to trade JAG. However I really question that move (depending on how reasonable the asking price is). This is because with a little research we can see the difference between good and great QB play is huge when it comes to winning.

But lets look at great QBs only at first. Of the 51 super bowls won we have HOF QBs (or borderline ones waiting to get in) winning 40. Brady 5, Peyton 2, Brees 1, Rodgers 1 Ben R. 2 (not in yet but likely will be. I added their wins to the HOF group and got 40 of 51).

Even if you question Namath and a few other HOF QBs (I do as well) it is clear that great QBs (HOF level) hold about 75% of the super bowl wins vs the rest of the NFL.

To look at this another way that means QBs that are just very good but not HOF don't tend to win regularly. Looking at good but not great QBs you might have a Russel Wilson or Eli Manning who may win if they got hot and the stars align but history is litered with very good QBs who never won.

Just guys who were active in the past 15 years. McNabb, McNair, Ryan, Rivers, Cousins, Stafford, Romo, Luck, Pennington, Bledsoe, Garcia, Hasselback, Newton, Palmer, Green, Gannon. They never won anything but are QBs your team in general would be happy to have. Considered on the top 10 most years. I am sure I am forgetting a few very good ones just in that time frame.

The point is even if JAG turns out to be a legit Good QBs the odds of a "good" QB never winning is more likely than winning by a large margin. You need to be great to give your team a high likelihood of winning a championship at some point.

However the odds JAG will be that is pretty low not cause of him but just cause it is hard to find HOF QBs. What is comes down to is your odds are much better with a few years of elite play compared to 10-15 years of good play and it is not even close. Maximizing Brady is clearly the answer if you are looking to win the most super bowls you possibly can. Even if Brady only plays 2-3 more years it is still the better option statistically.

remember also, just winning ONE Super Bowl in many cases gets highly lauded.. (Young, Farve, Brees,... these guys are worshipped as QBs)

 

[mosslost]

Bit of a chicken-and-egg question considering how many of those quarterbacks cemented their legacy as great or HOF quarterbacks BY winning Superbowls.

One point to make -- while it would be absurd to simply expect Garoppolo to be the next Steve Young type who picks up the Franchise where Brady leaves it off and just keeps going. completely dismissing the possibility is also unreasonable. At the moment Garoppolo is an X factor. It could break in our favor and he be great, it could break against us and he get hurt and we never see him again. Or anything in between.

The reason to hold onto Brady is that he's less unpredictable than the wild card that is Garoppolo at this time. We've seen him in action and know what he's capable of and what he's capable of is amazing moments, especially when we need him the most.

The reason not to maximize Brady at Garoppolo's expense is we simply do not know how much longer he'll hold this form, Brady is beginning to become a bit of an X factor himself. We have reasonable hopes that he'll keep going for at least a few more years, but a quarterback's journey through the NFL rarely ends in a way that is pretty or enjoyable to all parties. Riding Brady to the bitter end could very well mean a very bitter end indeed, and to more than just Tom Brady's career.

The fact that we don't like to think about the end and have plenty of reason to avoid thinking about it doesn't actually mean we can whistle past the graveyard and ignore the risks involved in keeping Brady beyond the next 2 years. These facts have to be placed in the balance sheet when the decision is made. They can't simply be ignored because we WANT to ignore them.

We know Garoppolo has a very good chance of being an average or better quarterback. We don't know that about Brissett or anyone else we could replace Brady with. We don't know when the journey is actually going to end for Brady -- we know that he hopes, and we hope, that he'll be an excellent quarterback for a little while longer. But mistaking hope for fact is an easy trap for fans and one that leads almost inevitably to heartbreak.

At the end of the day the correct decision may very well be to retain Brady past the next 2 years at Garoppolo's expense. Whatever his body is up to off the field, it hasn't affected Brady's performance on the field yet in a measurable way. The answer to the question could easily be, keep Brady as a Patriot for the intermediate future and keep the carousel of replacements behind him turning until events force the moment to come.

What we can't do, what we can't AFFORD to do if we want to keep the Patriots at a premiere franchise level, is fail to at least analyze and ask the question of when it is in fact time to move on. To twist the common aphorism, failure to decide is a decision to fail.

>>next Steve Young type who picks up the Franchise where Brady leaves it off

I loved Steve Young. But his example is so tired at this point for many reasons. Brady has already basically surpassed the COMBINED careers of Montana and Young in every that matters (including Brady will have more SEASONS as a starter than BOTH of them combined when he is done, even if it's just three more years)

already 5 SBs... he is 2 seasons away from surpassing the ir combined Passing yardage, combined passing TDs he is already there I believe, with fewer picks. He could end up with MORE SB than both combined.

So when we are making analogies for Brady's heir.. he has already accomplished the "Young" role... by himself.. We are really talking about who will be Brady's "Garcia" lol

 

[PatsBoy12]

Scariest thought you could have on any of the other 31 teams in the league...

"Tom Brady? System quarterback."

God they better HOPE he's that good... what if they were right the first time?

Matt Cassel, 11-5.

Suck on that, rest of the NFL. Garopollo or however you spell him? Hall of Fame, first ballot... if we let him

And they better hope BB is planning on walking away with the GOAT as well.

 

[mosslost]

Bit of a chicken-and-egg question considering how many of those quarterbacks cemented their legacy as great or HOF quarterbacks BY winning Superbowls.

One point to make -- while it would be absurd to simply expect Garoppolo to be the next Steve Young type who picks up the Franchise where Brady leaves it off and just keeps going. completely dismissing the possibility is also unreasonable. At the moment Garoppolo is an X factor. It could break in our favor and he be great, it could break against us and he get hurt and we never see him again. Or anything in between.

The reason to hold onto Brady is that he's less unpredictable than the wild card that is Garoppolo at this time. We've seen him in action and know what he's capable of and what he's capable of is amazing moments, especially when we need him the most.

The reason not to maximize Brady at Garoppolo's expense is we simply do not know how much longer he'll hold this form, Brady is beginning to become a bit of an X factor himself. We have reasonable hopes that he'll keep going for at least a few more years, but a quarterback's journey through the NFL rarely ends in a way that is pretty or enjoyable to all parties. Riding Brady to the bitter end could very well mean a very bitter end indeed, and to more than just Tom Brady's career.

The fact that we don't like to think about the end and have plenty of reason to avoid thinking about it doesn't actually mean we can whistle past the graveyard and ignore the risks involved in keeping Brady beyond the next 2 years. These facts have to be placed in the balance sheet when the decision is made. They can't simply be ignored because we WANT to ignore them.

We know Garoppolo has a very good chance of being an average or better quarterback. We don't know that about Brissett or anyone else we could replace Brady with. We don't know when the journey is actually going to end for Brady -- we know that he hopes, and we hope, that he'll be an excellent quarterback for a little while longer. But mistaking hope for fact is an easy trap for fans and one that leads almost inevitably to heartbreak.

At the end of the day the correct decision may very well be to retain Brady past the next 2 years at Garoppolo's expense. Whatever his body is up to off the field, it hasn't affected Brady's performance on the field yet in a measurable way. The answer to the question could easily be, keep Brady as a Patriot for the intermediate future and keep the carousel of replacements behind him turning until events force the moment to come.

What we can't do, what we can't AFFORD to do if we want to keep the Patriots at a premiere franchise level, is fail to at least analyze and ask the question of when it is in fact time to move on. To twist the common aphorism, failure to decide is a decision to fail.

Where would JAG have been drafted do you think if Belichick did not? I am curious. He was second round, and the third overall QB I believe. The real question to me is, is he special or good? They can draft another QB at any point, let him sit for 2 years, and probably get him to be "good" with good organization and coaching. But is JAG special? I wonder if behind the scenes there is that kind of thinking. If he really is just potential "good" then all this anxiety over him is not nearly the big deal everyone makes it out to be. He looked pretty darn good to me though until he got hurt.