The 3-year transition Brady/Garoppollo theory - is there any merit?

[Huckleberry1]

As an opinion yes. As the opinion of one fan, yes. I haven't presumed to speak for the organization and assign 5 years as a rigid transition point as some here have done.

It was Brady who set 4-5 years as his timeline, those citing it here are doing so based upon the facts in evidence, e.g... getting better each of the last 4 seasons, going 14-1 with 28 TD's and only 2 interceptions last season, as well as leading the greatest comeback in history and another Lombardi/SB MVP just 5 weeks ago. We also cite his fanatical devotion to taking care of himself like no other QB before him and the results in terms of performance and durability. In short we believe in Brady because he has earned and the results prove that.

On the other hand his detractors cannot point to one fact regarding Brady's performances or durability to support their position that the Patriots should transition to Jimmy Garrapolo, and that's what this entire discussion is about, not the strawman about contingency planning, which everyone agrees on.

 

[Ring 6]

This will be my last post with you, since you sound like a parrot...same response as last time. I already addressed that this isn't a plan, it's a theory, admittedly based on speculation just like everyone else's guess about what the Patriots will do in the future. Go re-read my last post to you and original post. I clearly acknowledge that point multiple times. It makes you seem ignorant that you are attacking me for speculating, when I disclaim multiple times that I am speculating. We are all speculating, using shreds of evidence to infer the team's most likely line of thinking.

You are "speculating" then arguing against the flaws. I know it's a nice safe way to say you were only speculating when you turn out to be wrong.
As I said they will not cut tom Brady after this year and will not pay the tag number for a backup.

Why do you consider what you think "speculation" and what i think "attacking"?
If it is speculation why are you so upset at being disagreed with?
It should be your last response to me because you have no substance in your responses.

 

[Oswlek]

Just a few thoughts for clarification purposes.

1) Calling an argument "speculation" doesn't insulate it from criticism.

2) I don't have an enormous problem with the conclusion. I'm as optimistic about Jimmy as anyone and would be thrilled if he could be Brady's successor. I just don't think the argument does a particularly good job of getting there. If this were a formal debate, I might be inclined to bust out phrases like, "confirmation bias", but we'll keep it simple for now. ?

 

[Simpelton]

I don't know why you guys are demanding hard evidence for a speculative theory though. It's a ridiculous standard given the material discussed and the nature of the conversation. Ice_Ice_Brady says that it looks like the Patriots are working on a transition plan, and his evidence is the fact that they didn't trade Garoppolo at the first opportunity and that a franchise in this position, with a hale but 40 year old starting quarterback, where a franchise should be putting together a transition plan, and that's all the evidence required for such a speculation to be a valid topic of conversation.

Ice_Ice_Brady then takes a stab at guessing (while making clear that he's guessing) what that plan is, which anyone would do, and which he did not hold forth as the God's one revealed truth in the first place, so all the posturing against his argument is ridiculous and unnecessary. One can disagree with every single word Ice_Ice_Brady said without aggressively counterattacking a mere theory as if it was some kind of major assault on the character of Tom Brady.

I don't see what people's problems with that might be other than that the conclusion he reached is one they simply don't like. Hiding behind absurd evidentiary standards to avoid thinking about an unpleasant thing is understandable, but silly.

 

[Simpelton]

It was Brady who set 4-5 years as his timeline, those citing it here are doing so based upon the facts in evidence, e.g... getting better each of the last 4 seasons, going 14-1 with 28 TD's and only 2 interceptions last season, as well as leading the greatest comeback in history and another Lombardi/SB MVP just 5 weeks ago. We also cite his fanatical devotion to taking care of himself like no other QB before him and the results in terms of performance and durability. In short we believe in Brady because he has earned and the results prove that.

Brady has absolutely earned the right to start the first game next year. This is Bill Belichick's Patriots we're talking about. It is impossible for one to earn more than tomorrow's start based on past performance and you know that damn well, Ivan.

If Belichick continues to think that Brady is the best bet to win the next football game, Brady will start. If he doesn't, Brady will not start. Belichick does not let anyone rest on their laurels, and Brady is the last athlete in the game to want anyone to give him anything based on past performance. He will work his ass off to be the best quarterback he can be, and if Garoppolo beats him for the starting job at some point in the next 3 years it's because he won the competition fairly.

I will point out though that I think it very possible that Garoppolo will be given chances to win the competition in each of the next 3 years, and if he's still here 3 years from now, it's because BB and Garoppolo both think he's going to win the job.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Brady has absolutely earned the right to start the first game next year. This is Bill Belichick's Patriots we're talking about. It is impossible for one to earn more than tomorrow's start based on past performance and you know that damn well, Ivan.

If Belichick continues to think that Brady is the best bet to win the next football game, Brady will start. If he doesn't, Brady will not start. Belichick does not let anyone rest on their laurels, and Brady is the last athlete in the game to want anyone to give him anything based on past performance. He will work his ass off to be the best quarterback he can be, and if Garoppolo beats him for the starting job at some point in the next 3 years it's because he won the competition fairly.

I will point out though that I think it very possible that Garoppolo will be given chances to win the competition in each of the next 3 years, and if he's still here 3 years from now, it's because BB and Garoppolo both think he's going to win the job.

Wow, that's incredibly gracious of you. Are you going to allow Brady to play the 2nd game or will you wait to see how he performs week one? I'm sure Belichick views Brady as a week to week proposition as you do. Given the durability Garrapolo showed in his five quarters it's no wonder you and Bill are ready to turn the page on Brady, who has always been hit or miss on availability.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know why you guys are demanding hard evidence for a speculative theory though. It's a ridiculous standard given the material discussed and the nature of the conversation. Ice_Ice_Brady says that it looks like the Patriots are working on a transition plan, and his evidence is the fact that they didn't trade Garoppolo at the first opportunity and that a franchise in this position, with a hale but 40 year old starting quarterback, where a franchise should be putting together a transition plan, and that's all the evidence required for such a speculation to be a valid topic of conversation.

Ice_Ice_Brady then takes a stab at guessing (while making clear that he's guessing) what that plan is, which anyone would do, and which he did not hold forth as the God's one revealed truth in the first place, so all the posturing against his argument is ridiculous and unnecessary. One can disagree with every single word Ice_Ice_Brady said without aggressively counterattacking a mere theory as if it was some kind of major assault on the character of Tom Brady.

I don't see what people's problems with that might be other than that the conclusion he reached is one they simply don't like. Hiding behind absurd evidentiary standards to avoid thinking about an unpleasant thing is understandable, but silly.

There is no problem at all other than the OP giving an opinion then crying when it is disagreed with.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Just a few thoughts for clarification purposes.

1) Calling an argument "speculation" doesn't insulate it from criticism.

2) I don't have an enormous problem with the conclusion. I'm as optimistic about Jimmy as anyone and would be thrilled if he could be Brady's successor. I just don't think the argument does a particularly good job of getting there. If this were a formal debate, I might be inclined to bust out phrases like, "confirmation bias", but we'll keep it simple for now. ?

I'm back.

I've already acknowledged that the theory/speculation is open to criticism. In fact, I outright responded that the idea of going "all-in" for 2017-18 with these recent roster moves is probably an overreach in reading too much into the quarterback situation. What exactly would you like me to do beyond that, besides acknowledging it is probably a weak point?

It seems, though, that since that point was weak, you seem to think that my entire post is therefore a bunch of bunk that just happens to posit a conclusion after tripping over my feet to get there. I think that the Schefter report was an important information, I think the comments by Brady's father have some value, and I certainly think that an understanding of contracts, cap hits, etc. certainly would lend credence to the idea that this transition may be in the works, or at least a plan that has been very seriously considered. Had the Patriots not done the Cooks and Gilmore deals, I don't really think the transition idea is invalidated, and I think a lot of other breadcrumbs lead to a possibility that is a very plausible plan for them.

The main point of my argument, which I've tried to reiterate multiple times is this: stop focusing on Tom Brady's window. This doesn't have to do with whether or not Tom Brady can play an an elite level for 3-5 years. This has to do with the Patriots evaluation of Jimmy Garoppollo, a player who is 15 years younger, and it's best to throw away the notion that the Patriots can just "draft a replacement". I suspect they highly value Garoppollo and think he could lead the franchise post-Brady. All other points may very well be "confirmation bias" - some may have validity, some not. Would you rather see yet another post with the opening thread being two lines, something like: I think Jimmy G. is their guy and Belichick will throw Brady out like a bag of trash! Those are the types of threads we typically get. Just trying to build a case, and as I'm sure is true with almost every time someone makes an argument, there may be some points of reference that are ambiguous that could very well not mean what I thought they meant.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Lots of good comments here. Plus some comments expressing a lot of certainty about what is unknowable, like what Belichick is thinking, how Garoppolo is feeling or how Brady will play at age 40 and beyond.

As far as I know, this is all that we actually know.

Brady has said that he will play until he "sucks." We can speculate that "sucks" means he will stop playing when he is no longer an elite QB (indisputably among the top three to five in the League) or that "sucks" means that he won't stop playing as long as he is "better than most other QB's" (top 10--15 in the League). But, anyone who says they know what he means, doesn't know that.

Belichick has said many times that he would rather trade/cut a player a "year too early rather than a year too late." Anyone who says they know for sure whether he will or will not apply that in the case of Brady, doesn't know that.

Brady's father, who often says things that people think reflect what Brady is really feeling but can't say himself, has said that this "will end badly." Anyone who says they know for sure whether Brady does or does not anticipate a bad ending for himself in New England, doesn't know that.

The stated objective of the Patriots as an organization is to "field a team that can win the Division and be competitive in the Playoffs every year."

Brady's Dead Money cap hit over the next three seasons is $27, $14 and $7 million dollars (Miguel's UNOFFICIAL 2017 Patriots Salary Cap Information Page).

It would cost around $25 million to franchise Garoppolo in 2018.

Any contract can be restructured, as long as a team stays within the Salary Cap.

There are a lot of scenarios that could follow from what we know. I honestly have no idea what's going to happen.

 

[Oswlek]

It seems, though, that since that point was weak, you seem to think that my entire post is therefore a bunch of bunk that just happens to posit a conclusion after tripping over my feet to get there.

Not at all, the criticism is that through the lens of Shefter's reports - which are useful data - you can interpret any behavior by Bill as "evidence" that JG is sticking around. That's why it is confirmation bias.

To illustrate, aside from a QB transaction, what move could Bill have made (or still make) that would indicate a different outcome?

The main point of my argument, which I've tried to reiterate multiple times is this: stop focusing on Tom Brady's window. This doesn't have to do with whether or not Tom Brady can play an an elite level for 3-5 years.

If your main point is that we should ignore one of the most complicating factors in this decision.... something that may be more important than their evaluation of Jimmy.... now I'm even more confused.

 

[Oswlek]

I don't know why you guys are demanding hard evidence for a speculative theory though.

If you think I've been "demanding hard evidence" you might want to read my comments again.

 

[BobDigital]

Even if it is just for 1 year paying JAG and Brady makes no sense to me. You will hamstring yourself. Either go with Brady or JAG in 2018. Pick one.

Sometimes you just need to make a choice. I have mine own opinions of what I want them to do (If Brady looks good in 2017 ride it out) but I would understand going to JAG. The only thing I am not okay with is keeping both.

 

[dafoe2016]

All the conjecture is pointless because we have no idea how Bill views Jimmy. If Bill honestly believes that Garoppollo can be a top ten QB for another ten years than I think Brady is gone at the end of next year. That's just how Bill works. Tom might be an exception in the sense that Bill might afford him the opportunity to pick his next team by cutting him rather than trading him, but that's as far as that would go. If Bill thinks Jimmy can be our next franchise QB he is not going to keep a 40 year old QB and trade a kid he really likes. That's not how he operates.

Take off the fan glasses. The man is cold as ice. He is, in all likelihood about to throw away our best CB because of a pissing match over salary. He doesn't care what anybody thinks of him. If anything, it's almost like he gets off on spitefully rubbing people the wrong way.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

For everyone who thinks my theory is crazy, Mike Florio has a similar take today: As one high level employee of an AFC team recently told PFT, there’s a persistent belief within league circles that the Patriots truly want to keep Garoppolo.

Belief persists that Patriots plan to keep Garoppolo beyond 2017

Beyond that, the crux of my theory regarded franchising Garoppollo in 2018 to ensure he sticks around while Brady finishes. Here is the exact quote (takes bow):

The Patriots, if they truly believe Garoppolo is capable of carrying the mantle, have every reason to keep him around until they know how it plays out for Brady. Some think that will include using the franchise tag in 2018 — not as a precursor to a trade but as a device for ensuring that, if Brady makes it through 2017 and returns for 2018, the Patriots can preserve the ability to have Garropolo available.

 

[Oswlek]

Ice, no one ever contested anything . written in that last paragraph. The problem with your argument is not the conclusion, it's that you rely primarily on confirmation bias to get there.

 

[patsinthesnow]

For everyone who thinks my theory is crazy, Mike Florio has a similar take today: As one high level employee of an AFC team recently told PFT, there’s a persistent belief within league circles that the Patriots truly want to keep Garoppolo.

Belief persists that Patriots plan to keep Garoppolo beyond 2017

Beyond that, the crux of my theory regarded franchising Garoppollo in 2018 to ensure he sticks around while Brady finishes. Here is the exact quote (takes bow):

The Patriots, if they truly believe Garoppolo is capable of carrying the mantle, have every reason to keep him around until they know how it plays out for Brady. Some think that will include using the franchise tag in 2018 — not as a precursor to a trade but as a device for ensuring that, if Brady makes it through 2017 and returns for 2018, the Patriots can preserve the ability to have Garropolo available.

I've done a complete 180 on this topic since learning BB had apparently rejected big offers for the Browns for him as well as our current cap situation. If BB won't trade a backup QB for the 12th overall pick, he believes he's the future IMO.

2017: Brady age 40, Jimmy final year
2018: Brady age 41, Jimmy franchised

BB hoping a 6th ring would incentivize Brady to ride off into the sunset in 2017 & 2018? Zolak mentioned how Brady could retire after a 6th ring.

Not sure what the plan would be if Brady is playing at an elite level at the end of 2018 and still wants to play.

EDIT: Reread your theory. So a potential Favre or Manning team breakup?

 

[Simpelton]

Wow, that's incredibly gracious of you. Are you going to allow Brady to play the 2nd game or will you wait to see how he performs week one?

We'll see. He has the inside track that's all that can be known for now

I am positive that Belichick has absolutely no intention whatsoever to hold onto Garoppolo if he doesn't at least hold out at least some possibility that he might need him to start games.

You are quite correct that Garoppolo has no business being content to rot on the sidelines. He will be here to steal Brady's job on any way he can, and if Belichick wasn't at least theoretically comfortable with that idea he will trade Garoppolo as soon as the right deal comes along -- and given that to my memory the Cassell trade happen pretty quickly, my personal sense of things is that if that sort of deal was in the works it would have happened by now.

 

[deroc5050]

I'm back.

I've already acknowledged that the theory/speculation is open to criticism. In fact, I outright responded that the idea of going "all-in" for 2017-18 with these recent roster moves is probably an overreach in reading too much into the quarterback situation. What exactly would you like me to do beyond that, besides acknowledging it is probably a weak point?

It seems, though, that since that point was weak, you seem to think that my entire post is therefore a bunch of bunk that just happens to posit a conclusion after tripping over my feet to get there. I think that the Schefter report was an important information, I think the comments by Brady's father have some value, and I certainly think that an understanding of contracts, cap hits, etc. certainly would lend credence to the idea that this transition may be in the works, or at least a plan that has been very seriously considered. Had the Patriots not done the Cooks and Gilmore deals, I don't really think the transition idea is invalidated, and I think a lot of other breadcrumbs lead to a possibility that is a very plausible plan for them.

The main point of my argument, which I've tried to reiterate multiple times is this: stop focusing on Tom Brady's window. This doesn't have to do with whether or not Tom Brady can play an an elite level for 3-5 years. This has to do with the Patriots evaluation of Jimmy Garoppollo, a player who is 15 years younger, and it's best to throw away the notion that the Patriots can just "draft a replacement". I suspect they highly value Garoppollo and think he could lead the franchise post-Brady. All other points may very well be "confirmation bias" - some may have validity, some not. Would you rather see yet another post with the opening thread being two lines, something like: I think Jimmy G. is their guy and Belichick will throw Brady out like a bag of trash! Those are the types of threads we typically get. Just trying to build a case, and as I'm sure is true with almost every time someone makes an argument, there may be some points of reference that are ambiguous that could very well not mean what I thought they meant.

Well if they don't trade JG this off season assuming that they were offered the #12 pick in the draft and maybe more.. then I would be shocked if the Pats just let JG walk just for a 3rd round comp. Lets face it 99% of the time when the starting QB goes down the season is over, but Brady has never missed a game besides 2008 season. So passing up a huge draft haul when your going to lose him next year anyway doesn't make sense. It does clearly give them a huge advantage if Brady goes down this season thats the only benefit. And its highly unlikely thats going to happen.

So with that said if they keep JG this off season.. I think they are moving forward with JG at some point.

They could franchise JG next year and then trade him but if he is worth all those draft picks to you and your starting HOF QB will be 41 years old.. are you really going to trade the young one away?

If they don't trade him then I am convinced they are keeping him for the long term.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Ice, no one ever contested anything . written in that last paragraph. The problem with your argument is not the conclusion, it's that you rely primarily on confirmation bias to get there.

This horse is beaten. Acknowledged...may have been way off about the recent moves being an all-in for Brady. Much of the rest of the post is essentially what Florio's article suggests. Doesn't matter...imperfect post, perhaps. Glad that we are all in this discussion now and realizing that the team MAY very well be strongly considering a future with Jimmy G.

 

[patsfan13]

IF JG is traded this year it will be right before or during the draft when the PAts have max leverage to make a deal.

The 'leaks' are part of the negotiation, nothing more nothing less. We don't know what BB thinks of JG or JB.

THe speculating by uninformed fans is funny.