Do Patriot fans have less loyalty to Tom Brady than Browns fans did to Bernie Kosar

[patsfan13]

If BB really turned down a high first round pick for JG then that is an astoundingly stupid decision that will bite this franchise for years to come. BB is smarter than that. I believe there will be plenty of JG's to be found in next year's draft.

.

Stupidest comment of the year.


Grats, we have a winner

 

[sb1]

yeah, thats the point. Both teams MOVED ON from HOF QBs to go with young unproven QBs that they thought would be great as well.

The Bills moved on from Jim Kelly and went with the younger guy... and they're still looking for a franchise QB today.

The Dolphins moved on from Marino... and ditto.

Etc.

The Young and Rodgers situations are far more unlikely to be replicated than likely.

 

[sb1]

Stupidest comment of the year.


Grats, we have a winner

Truth isn't always the thing that you want to hear.

 

[sb1]

Did we get BB opinion on this?

Rogers when he took over from Favre had the same accomplishments as JG maybe less, Young was largely a failure in the USFL and with Tampa Bay. Neither projected as a HoF Qb when they became starters.

BB knows far more about JG's potential than you or I.

The trajectory of those guys careers has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to JG and the Patriots.

 

[ivanvamp]

uh, yeah...it still is.

SF made the transition in 1991. 91 and 92 are Young's 1st 2 seasons with the reigns.

The transition may have been drawn out, but it was still replacing the GOAT with an unknown

The transition happened out of necessity, because Montana WAS INJURED FOR TWO STRAIGHT SEASONS. They didn't have Montana playing well and they just chose to move on to Young. Montana was UNAVAILABLE. They HAD to go with Young.

And when they finally had a healthy Montana and a healthy Young, and could actually make a choice between them, Young was already established as the best QB in the game. JG....is not.

It's not remotely the same situation.

 

[patsfan13]

Truth isn't always the thing that you want to hear.

You realize that TIY critiquing decisions made by BB sounds moronic.

 

[sb1]

You realize that TIY critiquing decisions made by BB sounds moronic.

There's nothing to critique because I refuse to believe any such offer was made. There is no way a team offered the Pats a first rounder for only one guaranteed year of JG. NFL teams know better than that.

 

[Ring 6]

When Belichick cuts Brady, you are gonna have a hard time with it. Unless of course Brady chooses to retire....but are you going to whine about him retiring while still playing at a level to win a superbowl? Why not just 1 more year?

Thanks so much for putting words in my mouth.
If belichick cuts Brady while he is still playing at the level he is now that will not be in the best interest f the team and I will be pissed.
If Brady retires that is his choice and if he "goes out on top" I will always wonder what he had left.

If people suggest cutting Brady while he is still Brady or hope he retires because there is a risk we end up with a different next QB than JAG (who could in fact be better) I will call that opinion moronic.

Clear?

 

[ivanvamp]

There's nothing to critique because I refuse to believe any such offer was made. There is no way a team offered the Pats a first rounder for only one guaranteed year of JG. NFL teams know better than that.

Only one year under contract, but three years of control, if they chose to use the franchise tag. Garoppolo is under contract for $1.1 million for this year, and let's say they franchised him for two straight seasons at about $22 million each. That means they'd have him for $45 million for three seasons, or $15m per. That's cheap for a franchise QB (which is what they'd think he was if they dealt a first round pick for him). Even if it a little more expensive than that, if they really liked JG, they could have him under control for those three years.

That doesn't take into account the possibility that they could work out a contract extension as part of the trade negotiations.

 

[sb1]

If belichick cuts Brady while he is still playing at the level he is now that will not be in the best interest f the team and I will be pissed.

A move like that would suggest to me there is some truth to the theory that BB wants to "prove" he can win without Brady. Learning BB had an ego like that would be extremely unfortunate.

 

[bormio]

The transition happened out of necessity, because Montana WAS INJURED FOR TWO STRAIGHT SEASONS. They didn't have Montana playing well and they just chose to move on to Young. Montana was UNAVAILABLE. They HAD to go with Young.

And when they finally had a healthy Montana and a healthy Young, and could actually make a choice between them, Young was already established as the best QB in the game. JG....is not.

It's not remotely the same situation.

The end of Montana was readily in sight when SF parted ways - and Young had showed extensively he could play. Made the decision easy. Even Favre has clearly regressed, although he had more left than Montana. Meanwhile, there are analysts who say 2016 Brady was his career best.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes they quote Bellichick you know the man making the decision.

That must certainly is NOT quoting belichick

You keep misusing that quote letting Brady go after 2017 would IMO be a year early as I think he will still be elite in 2018. Still is Bill thinks it's in the best interest of the team to have 8-12 years of Grop instead of one year of Brady I get that line of thinking. All I am saying is it's not stupid or idiotic or the people discussing that option are not complete and utter morons. We have new data, in Grop not being traded, Giselles comments, and schefter's report that suggest that option is being considered.

None of that suggests what you say it does.
I will say it again.
One year early is better than one year late says that if Brady loses it this year you would rather have gotten rid of him after 2015 than keep him for 16 and 17. I disagree with that even if this year is 0-16.
The point is you may well be giving up a SB by moving one year early.
The greatness of Brady says that the "one year early" season plus the one year late season are without question a better choice than not having him for both. It's not even close.

 

[sb1]

Only one year under contract, but three years of control, if they chose to use the franchise tag. Garoppolo is under contract for $1.1 million for this year, and let's say they franchised him for two straight seasons at about $22 million each. That means they'd have him for $45 million for three seasons, or $15m per. That's cheap for a franchise QB (which is what they'd think he was if they dealt a first round pick for him). Even if it a little more expensive than that, if they really liked JG, they could have him under control for those three years.

You're right but that's an awfully risky thing to do for them, they're basically committing their franchise tag one year ahead of time on an unknown. I can't see it.

 

[ivanvamp]

The end of Montana was readily in sight when SF parted ways - and Young had showed extensively he could play. Made the decision easy. Even Favre has clearly regressed, although he had more left than Montana. Meanwhile, there are analysts who say 2016 Brady was his career best.

Well, it turned out that Montana was far from done. He still had enough left in the tank to play pretty well for KC in 1993 and 1994. But coming off two seasons where he virtually didn't play at all due to injury, with Young having established himself as the best QB in football...well...it wasn't a difficult call from a football standpoint.

Apples and oranges compared to the current Brady/JG situation.

 

[ivanvamp]

You're right but that's an awfully risky thing to do for them, they're basically committing their franchise tag one year ahead of time on an unknown. I can't see it.

Yeah I hear you. The point, though, is that it wasn't for just one year of control. They at least had 3 if they really wanted it, and it would have been affordable.

 

[bormio]

Montana with KC was a shell of the SF Montana. I remember Montana vs the Giants in the '91 NFCCG. He could not throw the ball more than 10-12 yards down the field.

 

[Bruins29]

to keep the wagon rolling, you need to move on from players while they still have value, something Bill has done every time here.

Faulk, Bruschi, Brown

 

[Deus Irae]

yeah, thats the point. Both teams MOVED ON from HOF QBs to go with young unproven QBs that they thought would be great as well.

Neither team MOVED ON just because.

The 49ers moved on from a breaking down great, after years of having Young playing games as a replacement for the injured starter, and after already seeing what they had during years of starts. That doesn't apply here.

The Packers got tired of having Favre play the retirement game, year after year. That doesn't apply here, either.

and the Celtics argument is exactly what happened, its not nonsense. Hell, even those in the front office have said as much after the fact.

The Celtics argument is nonsense. It's revisionist history, badly done.

Boston won 56 games in 1990-1991
Boston won 51 games in 1991-1992
Boston won 48 games in 1992-1993

Trading Bird for Chuck Person wasn't putting that team over the top, and only an idiot would think otherwise. What took down the Celtics was a pair of deaths (Bias, Lewis), which left the developmental cupboard bare.

 

[sb1]

Yeah I hear you. The point, though, is that it wasn't for just one year of control. They at least had 3 if they really wanted it, and it would have been affordable.

It would in theory. Extremely risky though unless you're talking about a established QB who is either great or on the verge of greatness. Which JG is not right now. Much better imo to take that first rounder and draft a younger, cheaper and potentially better QB you can control for longer and use the franchise tag elsewhere on your roster where it is needed.

 

[ivanvamp]

Montana with KC was a shell of the SF Montana.

Well definitely a diminished Montana - not the all-time great QB that he was in SF. That's understandable given his age (36) and the fact that he hadn't played in two straight seasons due to injury (just one game played in 1992).

But the average QB rating in 1993 was 74.7. Montana's was 87.4. He was a significantly better than average starting NFL quarterback in 1993, and still better than average in 1994 (average QB rating was 76.7 and Montana's was 83.6).