Tom Brady and the 4 Year Plan

[TruthSeeker]

I agree that Brady wasn't at his best in the first half, but to not put some of the blame on the receivers for dropping catchable passes seems wrong. They didn't come down with any contested balls in the first half.
To be fair, they came down with almost all of them in the second half, especially the ones that mattered.
Placing all the blame on Brady is reaching.

I agree.

Brady uncharacteristicly missed some significant throws (most notably to Edelman when he broke free on the right side), but also had to deal with significant pressure early on. As mentioned, there were 6 balls officially categorized as drops, almost all of them before the comeback. I agree with you the Brady was below average during this time but he wasn't terrible or awful.

During the comeback, Brady was very good to great and his receivers stepped up as well (most notably Edelman's circus catch). Significantly, the pressures from the rush plummeted during the game (I think it was over 70% in the first quarter and around 13% in the 4th quarter and overtime). Brady threw a number of big-time strikes, the biggest being the 3rd and about 11 from their own 8 or so with about 3 minutes remaining. Huge pressure in his face, critical game moment, significant yardage needed and a double-covered wide receiver just making his break. Brady made a perfect, strong-armed pass for the first down.

The body of work earned the game MVP. Most importantly, as usual, Brady was at his best when in the most pressurized situations.

I'd characterize the game as showing Brady at more extremes than usual. He was significantly worse than usual on the first half of the throws in the game and more brilliant than usual on the remaining throws. Personally, I can't take more out of this than Brady continues to be the most clutch QB in the NFL and that he (like all QBs) is much better when he's not pressured. To attempt to correlate this performance with his age (where you'd expect his better performance to be when he was fresher and for him to tail off significantly over the course of the game) seems unfounded and, as my lawyer would say, contra-indicated.

 

[sb1]

I actually disagree with this. Let's say for a moment that the Patriots did cut ties with Brady. There's always a handful of teams on the playoff bubble that feel like they're a quarterback away, and perhaps another 1 or 2 where a great quarterback would put them on the playoff bubble. This year the Texans would have been an example. And I don't think anything Houston's done to its quarterback position is going to be a longterm fix either, they might easily be back on the market over the next few years, and might be joined by others.


Now if you've got a young team, or a veteran team right on the verge of relevance, and this Tom Brady fellow let it be generally known that he was looking for a team to play for, please tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't be interested. Even knowing that he's not going to be in vintage Brady form, the depth of knowledge that man has, his professionalism, his passion for the game -- there's a ton he could teach a team while he frontlined the franchise for 2 years and bought them time to develop the quarterback behind him.

I think that if Brady hit the market in 2 years, even if he does wear down in the meantime I think you might expect somewhere between 2 and 6 teams to be scouting him either for the last few gasps of Brady magic he might still have in the tank, or for the human-training-wheels effect and his ability to compete just about as well as anyone, even at his age, while passing on a vast wealth of experience to the roster around him while the guy they think is their future develops behind him..

Im talking about getting Brady the QB not Brady the coach.

So if I was a young and building team and a 42 year old QB came calling? Nope wouldn't be interested. You don't build your team around a 42 year old even if he is Tom Brady. You'd sell lots of tickets but he is not the type of guy that will take your team to the promised land. Period. Again... 42 and the decline has assumed to be noticeable.

If I was a win now team? Nope. In 2018-9 there will be better options. If they cut him TODAY Denver might have interest. So would Houston. So would SF. I'm sure more would as well. But we're talking in two years when the decline has likely started. So... no. Not the answer.

He'd be a great ticket draw for sure, no doubt about it. It won't matter though. I expect he will leave on his and only his terms.

Speaking of Denver perhaps they could be talked into letting Siemian go in a trade. Personally I think he likely will be a better QB than JG and wouldn't cost as much.

 

[Soliel]

Can anyone explain the difference between a system qb and a regular one? Ive not grasped that yet

 

[sb1]

Can anyone explain the difference between a system qb and a regular one? Ive not grasped that yet

To me -
System QB = a guy where the system makes him look better than he really is. The system drives the offense much more than he does. If the system breaks down, so does the system QB. Change the game plan and the system QB would have a lot of trouble adjusting.

They are interchangeable. That means if you put another QB in the place of the system QB, the offense would probably do just as well. Put a system QB in another offensive system and he would have a lot of trouble adjusting.

System QBs are never asked to go out there and sling it and win games, never asked to improvise outside of the system, never asked to deviate from "the script", and is always asked to stick with the system. That's because they are not good enough to do otherwise. The system protects them.

What a system QB is not: A guy who excels at the short passing game, or guys who have all time great coaches. Like Brady, Montana, etc. These guys are incorrectly called this label but it does not meet the criteria above. They're just all time great QBs.

 

[Simpelton]

Im talking about getting Brady the QB not Brady the coach.

So am I. But the biggest asset Brady the player has that close to the end of his career is the massive treasure trove of experience he can impart on the team around him, and especially on a young backup quarterback like Jacoby Brissett, Jimmy Garoppolo, or whoever a team that signed him after we cut him put behind him. Not that he wouldn't win someone some football games, but that almost comes second to trying to have that younger stud pick up Brady's habits and thinking process by having them practice together so regularly.

Heck that's arguably what the Patriots themselves did with Garoppolo.

I could easily see a franchise sinking a very large payday into having Brady on staff to work as a kind of player coach, especially if they had a developable guy behind him that they intended to turn the franchise over to. Putting the guy you intend to make your franchise quarterback for the next 15 years if possible, behind a veteran to help them develop, is not a new idea. And if you have Tom Brady on the market to be that veteran, you absolutely ring up his agent to see if there's any interest. Because the attractiveness of having your guy learn from the best there ever was is not to be underestimated.

So when you throw a team like the Texans into the mix, which need to develop a quarterback and have been scraping by with "the best guy we can get right now," if they're still having trouble in 2 years despite an otherwise good roster, are you really trying to tell me they wouldn't kick the tires on bringing in Brady, drafting a quarterback in the second round, and riding Brady into the sunset while the prospect learns as much as he possibly can behind him, knowing the job's his in 2-3 years?

You really think that wouldn't be a perfectly viable plan for any bubble team with quarterbacking issues? Because I just disagree. And that means there would be market for even a declining Tom Brady as long as he was interested, if we do move in in 2019 while he feels he has a year or two in the tank. If we had Garoppolo we wouldn't need to squeeze the last drops out of Tom Brady's tank, but another franchise that's more desperate could easily see that as the best working plan they had.

 

[Soliel]

Thanks sb1.. I always wondered what people were talking about on that.

They used to say that about dan fouts. I argued over at pft with folks who hate brady and say the same about him even now so i ended the fight by saying that if he is, i hope the pats always use system qbs

 

[sb1]

Thanks sb1.. I always wondered what people were talking about on that.

They used to say that about dan fouts. I argued over at pft with folks who hate brady and say the same about him even now so i ended the fight by saying that if he is, i hope the pats always use system qbs

Exactly. Good answer.

The thing to remember about PFT comments is that 95% of the anti Brady and anti Patriots talk is from posters - probably a few with multiple names - who don't believe a word of what they're saying, they're just trying to troll Patriots fans. It's not really a place where I'd expect to find intelligent discourse.

 

[sb1]

So am I. But the biggest asset Brady the player has that close to the end of his career is the massive treasure trove of experience he can impart on the team around him, and especially on a young backup quarterback like Jacoby Brissett, Jimmy Garoppolo, or whoever a team that signed him after we cut him put behind him. Not that he wouldn't win someone some football games, but that almost comes second to trying to have that younger stud pick up Brady's habits and thinking process by having them practice together so regularly.

Heck that's arguably what the Patriots themselves did with Garoppolo.

I could easily see a franchise sinking a very large payday into having Brady on staff to work as a kind of player coach, especially if they had a developable guy behind him that they intended to turn the franchise over to. Putting the guy you intend to make your franchise quarterback for the next 15 years if possible, behind a veteran to help them develop, is not a new idea. And if you have Tom Brady on the market to be that veteran, you absolutely ring up his agent to see if there's any interest. Because the attractiveness of having your guy learn from the best there ever was is not to be underestimated.

So when you throw a team like the Texans into the mix, which need to develop a quarterback and have been scraping by with "the best guy we can get right now," if they're still having trouble in 2 years despite an otherwise good roster, are you really trying to tell me they wouldn't kick the tires on bringing in Brady, drafting a quarterback in the second round, and riding Brady into the sunset while the prospect learns as much as he possibly can behind him, knowing the job's his in 2-3 years?

You really think that wouldn't be a perfectly viable plan for any bubble team with quarterbacking issues? Because I just disagree. And that means there would be market for even a declining Tom Brady as long as he was interested, if we do move in in 2019 while he feels he has a year or two in the tank. If we had Garoppolo we wouldn't need to squeeze the last drops out of Tom Brady's tank, but another franchise that's more desperate could easily see that as the best working plan they had.

You're talking about Brady now coming off a historic Super Bowl performance not Brady 2 years from now when the decline might be a lot more noticeable.

I can't see the market outside of the Pats for him at all but we can agree to disagree. No team is trading anything of value for a 42 year old QB, period. The Pats will also be less inclined to let the GOAT who has always given the Patriots a very team friendly contract walk away that easily as well.

 

[Simpelton]

No I agree nobody is trading for Brady, I thought the discussion was, if Brady was cut, would therebe teams interested on letting him finish his career with them and I think it's absolutely obvious that there would. He makes the players around him and there is no possible better mentor for the quarterback prospect he'd be short-timing ahead of wherever he went, just like he is here

 

[deroc5050]

We have no idea what Brady will be like at age 42 but just from his comments about playing til he is 45 and then after that re-assessing the situation.. That comment tells me he is pretty confident that he has plenty of gas left in the tank. I just think he may have a change of heart before he turns 45 regardless if he can still chuck it or not. Thats 5 years away.. that is an eternity in the NFL. If Brady gives us 2 more great seasons and 1 more Super Bowl that would be all I could ask for as a fan. I already got more than I asked for.

 

[Simpelton]

Apparently Ivan disagrees that Tom Brady would have great value to other teams if he was on the market. god what a Brady hater

 

[heavyde050]

Apparently Ivan disagrees that Tom Brady would have great value to other teams if he was on the market. god what a Brady hater

Honest question - which player (Brady or Jimmy) has more trade value to help the team (the Pats) over the next three or so years?

 

[Huckleberry1]

Apparently Ivan disagrees that Tom Brady would have great value to other teams if he was on the market. god what a Brady hater

He won't be on the market. Nice try though.

It's really going suck for you when Brady hoists Lombardi #6 next February:

 

[Huckleberry1]

Honest question - which player (Brady or Jimmy) has more trade value to help the team (the Pats) over the next three or so years?

Brady, teams would give up their first in a heartbeat to get him.

 

[heavyde050]

Brady, teams would give up their first in a heartbeat to get him.

Sorry, my question wasn't worded well.

Over the next three to five years:
Would it be better for the Pats to keep Brady and trade Jimmy for draft capital?
or
Would it be better for the Pats to keep Jimmy and trade Brady for draft capital?

I fall in the camp of keep Brady and trade Jimmy as I think that really helps the team increase its odds of winning one or two more Lombardi trophies.

I was just interested in others' opinions.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Sorry, my question wasn't worded well.

Over the next three to five years:
Would it be better for the Pats to keep Brady and trade Jimmy for draft capital?
or
Would it be better for the Pats to keep Jimmy and trade Brady for draft capital?

I fall in the camp of keep Brady and trade Jimmy as I think that really helps the team increase its odds of winning one or two more Lombardi trophies.

I was just interested in others' opinions.

Well, you definitely asked the right person because I can give you the most unbiased opinion in this forum. Most teams would trade for Brady in a heartbeat because they would see it as an immediate opportunity to win the Super Bowl, especially with the Patriots out of the running after the Stadium was razed and ownership and Belichick forced into hiding in the South Pacific. Knowing this however the Patriots won't trade Brady and Garrapolo will be dealt if a team makes the right offer. Depending upon where he ends up and if he can hold up physically Garrapolo could turn into a really good QB. Overall I think he could be successful in most settings, especially since he won't end up with the Jets or Bills.

 

[Simpelton]

Sorry, my question wasn't worded well.

Over the next three to five years:
Would it be better for the Pats to keep Brady and trade Jimmy for draft capital?
or
Would it be better for the Pats to keep Jimmy and trade Brady for draft capital?

I fall in the camp of keep Brady and trade Jimmy as I think that really helps the team increase its odds of winning one or two more Lombardi trophies.

I was just interested in others' opinions.

Here's my counter-question: are the New England Patriots going to exist beyond the next 3 years?

Because to hear some of you go on you'd think they weren't. And if they are shouldn't we consider doing some planning for the lomg-term needs of the franchise? Such as figuring out who steps into the biggest shoes in the history of American football?

 

[heavyde050]

Here's my counter-question: are the New England Patriots going to exist beyond the next 3 years?

Because to hear some of you go on you'd think they weren't. And if they are shouldn't we consider doing some planning for the lomg-term needs of the franchise? Such as figuring out who steps into the biggest shoes in the history of American football?

They are definitely going to exist. But I think the constant trips to the SB and AFC Championship games may slow down a little, but I hope not too much.
I think what I am confused on is some people talk like Jimmy will win another 5 SB and he is already better than Brady.
Others point out that Jimmy could be used to really help the short term nature of the Pats and not hurt the long term too bad.
The correct answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[Simpelton]

I am just going to say it I'd rather miss out on the last 2 years of Brady goodness and hand the ball to Garoppolo than even risk winding up in Houston Texans style quarterback carousel that keeps us from ever getting anywhere even with an otherwise very strong team.

 

[Huckleberry1]

It's The week after the KC game in 2014 all over again.