Yes, and a 2 year deal would almost certainly include an "on paper" 3rd year if only to spread out a cap hit.It will be at least 2 due to the current contract and bonus structure. Why would a 3rd year be bad for the team.
SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Yes, and a 2 year deal would almost certainly include an "on paper" 3rd year if only to spread out a cap hit.It will be at least 2 due to the current contract and bonus structure. Why would a 3rd year be bad for the team.
One reason is that it seem lineman tend to be able to step in as rookies and start and be effective more so than other positions.Seems to me it'd be easier to draft a replacement at guard than it would be to draft a tackle and move the existing tackle to guard.
By the end I thought Wynn looked really good at LT. To the extent there are questions about his ability I don't think they come anywhere near meriting a change of position. Not to mention spending a first round pick when the team has so many other pressing needs.
I certainly wouldn't spend a first round pick at tackle unless there was some blue chip stud that somehow fell to us. I am hoping that Cajuste or Frojholt are ready to step in next year if (when) Thuney leaves and we draft a tackle in the mid rounds. We need a swing tackle and potentially a replacement for Cannon as he has been banged up and not great when he is out there.Seems to me it'd be easier to draft a replacement at guard than it would be to draft a tackle and move the existing tackle to guard.
By the end I thought Wynn looked really good at LT. To the extent there are questions about his ability I don't think they come anywhere near meriting a change of position. Not to mention spending a first round pick when the team has so many other pressing needs.
The odds of Stidham being Steve Young -- or the Pats picking up a franchise QB within the next 2 years -- are incredibly slim to the point that ditching Brady in hopes of hitting on that slim chance would be stupid. Especially when Brady is an anomaly at his age, still with top 10 QB ability and not to mention G.O.A.T. pedigree and experience.If you had Steve Young waiting in the wings would you feel the same?
I certainly wouldn't spend a first round pick at tackle unless there was some blue chip stud that somehow fell to us. I am hoping that Cajuste or Frojholt are ready to step in next year if (when) Thuney leaves and we draft a tackle in the mid rounds. We need a swing tackle and potentially a replacement for Cannon as he has been banged up and not great when he is out there.
Want to know what's even more stupid? Overpaying a declining 43-year-old franchise QB and compromising your roster in the process while fearing that a capable replacement can't be found or developed.The odds of Stidham being Steve Young -- or the Pats picking up a franchise QB within the next 2 years -- are incredibly slim to the point that ditching Brady in hopes of hitting on that slim chance would be stupid. Especially when Brady is an anomaly at his age, still with top 10 QB ability and not to mention G.O.A.T. pedigree and experience.
It's harder than people remember to find a franchise QB.
So if TB wants $40m a year you would do that?Tom Brady is a special player and a special person. He's not some RB that you move "a year early rather than a year late." He's the legend of all legends of Boston sports, maybe American sports. If I have to wait an extra 2 years to get to the post-Brady rebuild in order to honor Tom Brady and make sure he retires here, so be it as far as I'm concerned.
Sign him to a two or three year deal immediately so we can focus on the real task at hand, which is quickly revamping this offense. I think we need to use the entire draft on offense. Draft a franchise OT in the first round and kick Wynn inside to guard. Then take a few stabs at TE/WR.
2 years ... I do it.So if TB wants $40m a year you would do that?
Think about it...
I'm too cheap. $25m-$27m is as high as I go as they also need to upgrade WR and TE.2 years ... I do it.
However someone will offer him $80-$86 million for 3 years ... a premonition.
Per year?I'm too cheap. $25m-$27m is as high as I go as they also need to upgrade WR and TE.
Oh I was saying 1y @ $25m.Per year?
For 2 years I go $40 tops.
Pointing to the fact that he's 43, as if he's just like any other QB in history, is stupid. He's clearly proven to be an anomaly and his age isn't entirely relevant. He's still a top 10 QB in the league. The odds of them finding a superior starter for the next 2 years are slim.Want to know what's even more stupid? Overpaying a declining 43-year-old franchise QB and compromising your roster in the process while fearing that a capable replacement can't be found or developed.
Too much ... I am cheaper than you.Oh I was saying 1y @ $25m.
I'm too cheap. $25m-$27m is as high as I go as they also need to upgrade WR and TE.
Brady is absolutely 100% still a top tier QB. He might not be the same guy he was 4-5 years ago but yes he's still top 10-12. One sub par year when everything that could go wrong doesn't change that. And It's not like we did everything possible to make sure that side of the ball was stacked.Is Brady still a "top tier, efficient QB"? I think BB does not think so. He will be impossible to replace..and its extremely difficult to find those top tier QB's...just look at the jets for example. But at some point the process of trying to find a younger durable top tier QB has to start again.
These teams had hopeless QB situations and are now in good spots because they started the process of looking and took their shot
1) 49ers- Jimmy G
2) Cowboys-Dak Prescott
3) Chiefs Patrick Mahomes
4) Ravens-LJ
5)Houston- Watson
6) Titans-Tannehill
7) Eagles- Wentz
8) Giants- Jones
9) Seahawks- Russell Wilson
You could be Bran The Builder. Without a QB you're stagnant at best.Pick your poison then, because the 2020 Patriots are shaping up to be an either/or proposition: top-tier (yet aging) Brady with questionable supporting cast, or (QB name here) with stronger supporting cast. This team might not be capable of a deep playoff run either way in 2020, in which case building toward the future is even more advisable. Ample roster turnover is in the offing.
So maybe he plays like 40 or 41 at age 43? His performance is sliding and a top-shelf supporting cast will be needed for him to succeed in 2020 -- this isn't the same TFB that we took for granted making chicken salad out of chicken bleep. But even then I support keeping him if what he's paid doesn't mitigate available cash for important free-agent signings. I just don't think it's worth backing up the Brinx truck for him unless the roster is strong enough to anticipate a deep playoff run and prospects for that are very uncertain at this point.Pointing to the fact that he's 43, as if he's just like any other QB in history, is stupid. He's clearly proven to be an anomaly and his age isn't entirely relevant. He's still a top 10 QB in the league. The odds of them finding a superior starter for the next 2 years are slim.
Brady is absolutely 100% still a top tier QB. He might not be the same guy he was 4-5 years ago but yes he's still top 10-12. One sub par year when everything that could go wrong doesn't change that. And It's not like we did everything possible to make sure that side of the ball was stacked.
Also look at those teams you mentioned. How long did it take them to get where they are now?? How long were the 49ers irrelevant?
Getting rid of Brady, still one of the best to do it, isn't getting us closer to another ring. It's literally the opposite of what those teams wanted & tried doing in terms of acquiring a franchise QB.
Again you're going absolutely nowhere without a QB in the league. Save for a "lightening in the bottle" type season you're irrelevant. And if you do catch fire one year we've all seen how quickly those flames burn out. Its not sustainable.
You could be Bran The Builder. Without a QB you're stagnant at best.