Greg Bedard on Brady vs Garopollo

[Zeus]

As long as Belichick is in charge, this will get settled on the field. When the time comes that another player emerges as the player that BB believes will give the team the better chance to win, Brady will then be replaced. This is as it should be.

Garappolo is an intrguing prospect. His mechanics, footwork and (especially) release give him the opportunity to be a pretty good player. What remains to be seen is field vision and decision-making, especially against elite competition in the big games.

The more JG improves, the more he will press Brady and the harder Brady will compete. And, of course, health and longevity are guaranteed to no one, no matter how much avocado ice cream you eat. It's critical for the Patriots to have a viable developmental QB when the starter is 38 years old. Things would be a lot worse if JG were showing signs of being the next Kevin O'Connell.

Having said all of that, the fan in me wants to see Brady continue as the game's premiere QB for years to come.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Would you give up a super bowl title in 2018 to resign Garoppolo over Brady?

If Brady gives us one more super bowl before 2017, then I won't mind waiting another 4 years for Jimmy to do the same - assuming Jimmy grows into 'elite' status

 

[manxman2601]

Would you give up a super bowl title in 2018 to resign Garoppolo over Brady?

If I believed Brady wouldn't be able to repeat it and I believed Garoppolo could take us to future SBs, then probably yes.

Thankfully that's not an issue for the next three years.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

If I believed Brady wouldn't be able to repeat it and I believed Garoppolo could take us to future SBs, then probably yes.

I don't think Brady will retire until he at least plays in another Super Bowl.... and I'm sure he wants another ring for the thumb

 

[manxman2601]

I don't think Brady will retire until he at least plays in another Super Bowl.... and I'm sure he wants another ring for the thumb

I'm 100% sure he does want another ring. I also think he's as good as anyone in the NFL at giving his team the best chance of winning Nother ring (well apart from BB maybe).

 

[Ring 6]

Multiple 10-6 years is better than multiple 6-10 years.

I will take one SB win surrounded by 9 losing seasons over 10 straight 10-6 and no SBs

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I will take one SB win surrounded by 9 losing seasons over 10 straight 10-6 and no SBs

This is such a stawman, it's absurd

 

[manxman2601]

I will take one SB win surrounded by 9 losing seasons over 10 straight 10-6 and no SBs

It's a meaningless conundrum though isn't it? But if we want to play with these hypotheticals, would you rather one guaranteed SB in 2018 and then ten losing seasons or ten winning seasons and the possibility of getting to the SB in each and every season

 

[Ring 6]

It's a meaningless conundrum though isn't it? But if we want to play with these hypotheticals, would you rather one guaranteed SB in 2018 and then ten losing seasons or ten winning seasons and the possibility of getting to the SB in each and every season

The example doesn't work that way, because of course if you win one of those SBs it makes the second scenario better.
My point is I would rather win the SB and suck every other year in the time frame than be 'competitive' but never win the SB. Good regular seasons do not compensate for lack of championships to me.

But it isn't a choice, which some people are trying to call it.
There are no set up circumstances where a team sets out to win SBs but otherwise suck in exchange of being competitive and never winning them.

Would you rather be the Giants for the last 10 years or the Eagles?
No question in my mind.

 

[Ring 6]

This is such a stawman, it's absurd

I don't think you understand what a strawman is.

 

[manxman2601]

The example doesn't work that way, because of course if you win one of those SBs it makes the second scenario better.
My point is I would rather win the SB and suck every other year in the time frame than be 'competitive' but never win the SB. Good regular seasons do not compensate for lack of championships to me.

But it isn't a choice, which some people are trying to call it.
There are no set up circumstances where a team sets out to win SBs but otherwise suck in exchange of being competitive and never winning them.

Would you rather be the Giants for the last 10 years or the Eagles?
No question in my mind.

Of course the Giants as things stand now. But if the Giants were about to get ten years of Assorted Fitzpatricks and Josh McNowns whilst the Eagles were having ten years of Chip Kelly and a healthy Sam Bradford, then I'd probably take the Eagles. I'd rather have hope every year than have to survive on past glories. I might take a different view if we hadn't already won four however.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I don't think you understand what a strawman is.

Whatever you call it, it's an absurd argument to make, because you're putting forth the extremes as if they're the only options we have

And no, I don't want us to become the Giants for the next decade...I want to remain the New England Patriots as long as possible and always assume we'll be contending in the playoffs to reach a title - year in, year out

 

[Zeus]

What decisions or choices did the Giants ahve to make to bring about this outcome? What should the Eagles have done differently?

 

[Marinlik]

Also do you really think we cannot draft another QB prospect that would be younger, cheaper and under contract between now and 2017?

And that's better than what Garoppolo looks to be? I wouldn't bet on it. It's really hard to find even a good QB, and Garoppolo looks like someone that can be a good QB.

 

[Brady6]

And that's better than what Garoppolo looks to be? I wouldn't bet on it. It's really hard to find even a good QB, and Garoppolo looks like someone that can be a good QB.

What is Garoppolo doing better this season than last?

 

[VrabelJr]

Did I fall asleep in a time machine instead of my bed?

 

[Brady6]

If I believed Brady wouldn't be able to repeat it and I believed Garoppolo could take us to future SBs, then probably yes.

Thankfully that's not an issue for the next three years.

Kirk Cousins has made a career out of looking like a promising QB in preseason games and games that do not matter. It takes a lot more than promise to be an elite starting QB. Go to any practice, watch any game in college or the pros, Garoppolo is inconsistent to the core. His mechanics are not consistent, his decision making is not great, and he tends to hold the football far to long. There is a difference between being able to escape 3rd and 4th string DL and escaping the JJ Watts of the NFL.

I think Garoppolo is a project, who has promise, posters are making it into way more even having this type of discussion. Let's start small like having a goal for him to be the best backup QB in the NFL. Then maybe once we get past that we can talk about him being the guy who follows Tom Brady.

 

[wolverinejoe80]

he is the thing about QBing in the nfl. anybody can look good. matt flynn looked good in stretches. cassel looked good in stretches. henne looked good in stretches.

but can a young QB put together a good 2-3 seasons? 1 bad season we are going to a shopping for a new QB. look at EJ manuel.

getting that next guy is extremely critical. we could either be like green bay. or we could be like perennial middle pack just because we don't have an elite QB.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course the Giants as things stand now. But if the Giants were about to get ten years of Assorted Fitzpatricks and Josh McNowns whilst the Eagles were having ten years of Chip Kelly and a healthy Sam Bradford, then I'd probably take the Eagles. I'd rather have hope every year than have to survive on past glories. I might take a different view if we hadn't already won four however.

The question isn't do you want a team that is competitive or one that isn't, it about in 10 years would you rather have had 9 poor years and a Championship or 10 better regular seasons but no Championship. I understand there can be different answers to that question, but I have no doubt what mine is.

 

[manxman2601]

Kirk Cousins has made a career out of looking like a promising QB in preseason games and games that do not matter. It takes a lot more than promise to be an elite starting QB. Go to any practice, watch any game in college or the pros, Garoppolo is inconsistent to the core. His mechanics are not consistent, his decision making is not great, and he tends to hold the football far to long. There is a difference between being able to escape 3rd and 4th string DL and escaping the JJ Watts of the NFL.

I think Garoppolo is a project, who has promise, posters are making it into way more even having this type of discussion. Let's start small like having a goal for him to be the best backup QB in the NFL. Then maybe once we get past that we can talk about him being the guy who follows Tom Brady.

I watch him and think he's already better than some starters in the NFL. If you don't then that's up to you. I would take him over RGIII, Josh McNown, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Brian Hoyer, Ryan Mallett, Johnny Manziel, Geno Smith. I'd probably put him in the Nick Foles range right now and think his upside is Romo/Flacco. That's what I see when I watch him.

And why are you continuing with this "elite QB" straw man. For the hundredth time, no-one is suggesting he's elite.