Give Brady Whatever He Wants

[lancerman]

"We'll be 8-8 without Brady!".

Maybe so. What do you think they'll be with Brady? Throwing to stone hands Sanu the sloth, slow as molasses in wintertime Harry and a 34 year old Edelman coming off two surgeries?

Yeah, throwing with his bum elbow. At 43. This is comical. Due to multiple bad draft and fa decisions (a second for Sanu one of worst fleecings ever and a first for Harry one of the stupidest overdrafts ever), this team is hopeless.

And no, they're not a fa or two away. Far from it. And the FAs they get probably wouldn't be able to learn genius Josh's offense. You know the draw play out of a shotgun or the triple fake pirouette screen pass. That henius offense. Remember 10 wr screens a game? At least that's gone. Or maybe they can overdraft some large slow slugs. Who needs those 5'10" guys with a burst who can always get open (and run a 4.3). NE wants slugs!

Fly away Brady! Fly away from this trainwreck whole you still have some life in that elbow!

1. If everything is equal, they are always better with Brady.

2. If they marginally retool the offense, Brady with a bad offense is probably equal or better.

3. If they load the offense, it 100% depends on the QB. If you really can't find an average QB, then it doesn't matter how good the offense is. If you can find above mid range, yeah you have a shot, but the QB still might lose you an important game or not get you over the hump (again see a Dalton or Romo type, hell even Rivers.

When your best case scenario without Brady could still be bad because QB is such a major variable, you have to consider where you want to place your bets. Do you want to place your bets that we can be a little healthier next year and find a piece in the draft or free agency that will contribute with Sanu learns the system and Harry develops? Or do you want to bet that we can find someone at the position the whole league struggles to find someone in.

 

[mgteich]

You seem to believe that we cannot succeed without a top 4 quarterback. That is illogical on its face. Lots of teams are successful without a top 4 quarterback. Perhaps, this depends on what a successful team would be for you.
=====
From where I sit, at least since 1994, a successful team has been defined as one that is competitive and has a reasonable chance of winning the division or being a wildcard.
=======
But let's play. If we sign a 2nd tier QB, not one of the top ones, we could have the same cap hit as we would have if we re-signed Brady. That is just a matter of deferring an extra $6.75M into the future. Of course, we would be likely to carry 3 quarterbacks after drafting one.

In the next 3 years, our defense would continue to be among the best. We certainly COULD BE competitive. And yes, belichick would have a game plan for developing a QB. I gave one: draft a quarterback each year, and keep a veteran on the squad, until 2 youngsters are able to replace the veteran (or until we find a veteran that we want too keep).
=====
MY BOTTOM LINE
is that Brady is better than the alternatives that we might sign.

I think the issue is that there's a lot of fans on here that think Brady's going to leave and we might go through a mini rebuild and have a lesser version of what we have. When the reality is, it's more likely we regress to the mean and spend a long time looking for a QB.

You said "the dynasty didn't continue to roll". They won 12 games and made the playoffs and were 1 win away from a bye. Without Brady we are talking about how good of a chance we have to win the division.

Really until we know for a fact Brady is just done, he is going to be the best answer for the franchise going forward even if it turns into a tough cap situation. That's just realistic. The offense had issues this year that went beyond Brady. The issue is, fixing them and having a mid level QB, is still worse than a subpar offense and Brady. Either you think he still hasn't or he doesn't.

I do think alot of this board does overestimate what the next guy can realistically be expected of. Andy Dalton is a perfectly above average QB, but alot of Patriots fans would lose their mind putting up with his performances for a year or two. This is a league where there's only ever 4 or so elite QB's who are conistent year in and year out. Everyone else is spotty and erratic or below what you want at a conistent level.

 

[rochrist]

Really until we know for a fact Brady is just done, he is going to be the best answer for the franchise going forward even if it turns into a tough cap situation. That's just realistic. The offense had issues this year that went beyond Brady. The issue is, fixing them and having a mid level QB, is still worse than a subpar offense and Brady. Either you think he still hasn't or he doesn't.

The problem with that is that there are a boatload of people who could see Brady have to come out with a walker and claim 'He just needs more weaponz!'

 

[rochrist]

You seem to believe that we cannot succeed without a top 4 quarterback. That is illogical on its face. Lots of teams are successful without a top 4 quarterback. Perhaps, this depends on what a successful team would be for you.
=====
From where I sit, at least since 1994, a successful team has been defined as one that is competitive and has a reasonable chance of winning the division or being a wildcard.
=======
But let's play. If we sign a 2nd tier QB, not one of the top ones, we could have the same cap hit as we would have if we re-signed Brady. That is just a matter of deferring an extra $6.75M into the future. Of course, we would be likely to carry 3 quarterbacks after drafting one.

In the next 3 years, our defense would continue to be among the best. We certainly COULD BE competitive. And yes, belichick would have a game plan for developing a QB. I gave one: draft a quarterback each year, and keep a veteran on the squad, until 2 youngsters are able to replace the veteran (or until we find a veteran that we want too keep).
=====
MY BOTTOM LINE
is that Brady is better than the alternatives that we might sign.

For that matter, Brady wasn't a top 4 QB when they won their first SB.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I hold Kraft more responsible for this than any of them. It's his job to get people in the organization to transcend ego in situations like this.

BLEDSOE'S RECORD DEAL: 10 YEARS, $103 MILLION

 

[lancerman]

You seem to believe that we cannot succeed without a top 4 quarterback. That is illogical on its face. Lots of teams are successful without a top 4 quarterback. Perhaps, this depends on what a successful team would be for you.
=====
From where I sit, at least since 1994, a successful team has been defined as one that is competitive and has a reasonable chance of winning the division or being a wildcard.
=======
But let's play. If we sign a 2nd tier QB, not one of the top ones, we could have the same cap hit as we would have if we re-signed Brady. That is just a matter of deferring an extra $6.75M into the future. Of course, we would be likely to carry 3 quarterbacks after drafting one.

In the next 3 years, our defense would continue to be among the best. We certainly COULD BE competitive. And yes, belichick would have a game plan for developing a QB. I gave one: draft a quarterback each year, and keep a veteran on the squad, until 2 youngsters are able to replace the veteran (or until we find a veteran that we want too keep).
=====
MY BOTTOM LINE
is that Brady is better than the alternatives that we might sign.

Here are the last 10 SB champions

2009: Drew Brees (top 4 QB)
2010: Aaron Rodgers (top 4 QB)
2011: Eli Manning (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2012: Joe Flacco (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2013: Russell Wilson (had a historically great defense)
2014: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)
2015: Peyton Manning (former top 4 QB, but had a historically great defense)
2016: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)
2017: Nick Foles (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2018: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)

So there are 4 models

1. Have a top 4 QB
2. Have a QB who just randomly goes off and plays at a super elite level in a playoff stretch and defies the odds
3. Have a historical defense.

The more sustainable outlet is number 1. The second is very flukey. The 3rd is something that lasts one to two seasons and then you can't really maintain a defense of that caliber.

But that's really besides the point. The bigger point is about the situation. Is there a guarantee we even get a top 10 QB? And if we don't, can win without one? And beyond that is, the chance of that worth not just trying to go with Brady for two years and enduring some cap pains?

To me Brady is the best option right now until it's definitive he can't go.

The problem with that is that there are a boatload of people who could see Brady have to come out with a walker and claim 'He just needs more weaponz!'

While there is some truth to that, I think like Peyton, there will be a point of "this is not acceptable play anymore" and a plurality will agree on it and Brady himself will not want to play anymore once he hits that. It's premature right now when we have him playing and hitting the same stats as 2013 when he had personnel issues, and we know for a fact this year was particularly bad on that front. So it's not really worth the move right now because it's just as likely we end up with a bottom 1o QB who gives us no chance vs a top 10 who gives us a chance with the right circumstance so banking on Brady still being able to get it done with the right grouping makes more sense. If there was a true heir apparent waiting in the wings or a guy we realistically could get in the draft that's one thing. But we don't have that. So it's betting on Brady or a mystery box to save some cap space. I'm going to choose Brady there.

 

[Bradyking12]

BLEDSOE'S RECORD DEAL: 10 YEARS, $103 MILLION

Notice they don't do 10 year deals anymore?

 

[mgteich]

Here are the last 10 SB champions

2009: Drew Brees (top 4 QB)
2010: Aaron Rodgers (top 4 QB)
2011: Eli Manning (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2012: Joe Flacco (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2013: Russell Wilson (had a historically great defense)
2014: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)
2015: Peyton Manning (former top 4 QB, but had a historically great defense)
2016: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)
2017: Nick Foles (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2018: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)

Sorry, I didn't see that you were a newbie. Obviously, SB winners in the last 10 years have required a top 4 quarterback more often than not.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Notice they don't do 10 year deals anymore?

The ten year deals weren't really ten year deals once you looked at the fine print.

 

[Ring 6]

Here are the last 10 SB champions

2009: Drew Brees (top 4 QB)
2010: Aaron Rodgers (top 4 QB)
2011: Eli Manning (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2012: Joe Flacco (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2013: Russell Wilson (had a historically great defense)
2014: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)
2015: Peyton Manning (former top 4 QB, but had a historically great defense)
2016: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)
2017: Nick Foles (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2018: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)

So there are 4 models

1. Have a top 4 QB
2. Have a QB who just randomly goes off and plays at a super elite level in a playoff stretch and defies the odds
3. Have a historical defense.

The more sustainable outlet is number 1. The second is very flukey. The 3rd is something that lasts one to two seasons and then you can't really maintain a defense of that caliber.

But that's really besides the point. The bigger point is about the situation. Is there a guarantee we even get a top 10 QB? And if we don't, can win without one? And beyond that is, the chance of that worth not just trying to go with Brady for two years and enduring some cap pains?

To me Brady is the best option right now until it's definitive he can't go.



While there is some truth to that, I think like Peyton, there will be a point of "this is not acceptable play anymore" and a plurality will agree on it and Brady himself will not want to play anymore once he hits that. It's premature right now when we have him playing and hitting the same stats as 2013 when he had personnel issues, and we know for a fact this year was particularly bad on that front. So it's not really worth the move right now because it's just as likely we end up with a bottom 1o QB who gives us no chance vs a top 10 who gives us a chance with the right circumstance so banking on Brady still being able to get it done with the right grouping makes more sense. If there was a true heir apparent waiting in the wings or a guy we realistically could get in the draft that's one thing. But we don't have that. So it's betting on Brady or a mystery box to save some cap space. I'm going to choose Brady there.

3 of the last 8 Sb qbs did not have a top 5 post season of all time

 

[lancerman]

3 of the last 8 Sb qbs did not have a top 5 post season of all time

From a purely statistical driven by inflation and era perspective they did. Eli, Flacco, and Foles certainly were the best in the post season those seasons regardless, you were getting elite play for that stretch

 

[lancerman]

Sorry, I didn't see that you were a newbie. Obviously, SB winners in the last 10 years have required a top 4 quarterback more often than not.

There’s a point where the league is too different that it’s not really relevant to go that far back

 

[203Pat]

Jerry Thornton posted something about Brady’s family suite at Gillette getting “cleared out”. Apparently they moved to Greenwich officially as well.

 

[goheels22002]

You seem to believe that we cannot succeed without a top 4 quarterback. That is illogical on its face. Lots of teams are successful without a top 4 quarterback. Perhaps, this depends on what a successful team would be for you.
=====
From where I sit, at least since 1994, a successful team has been defined as one that is competitive and has a reasonable chance of winning the division or being a wildcard.
=======
But let's play. If we sign a 2nd tier QB, not one of the top ones, we could have the same cap hit as we would have if we re-signed Brady. That is just a matter of deferring an extra $6.75M into the future. Of course, we would be likely to carry 3 quarterbacks after drafting one.

In the next 3 years, our defense would continue to be among the best. We certainly COULD BE competitive. And yes, belichick would have a game plan for developing a QB. I gave one: draft a quarterback each year, and keep a veteran on the squad, until 2 youngsters are able to replace the veteran (or until we find a veteran that we want too keep).
=====
MY BOTTOM LINE
is that Brady is better than the alternatives that we might sign.

I think the Patriots have to stay disciplined with the salary cap. They have needs at several positions, and some big decisions to make with other veterans.

They need to set their price for the QB position group just like they do for every other position. Once they set that figure, they will sit down with Don Yee and go over their options. If they can keep Stidham, add another QB, and pay Brady for the next two years, they should go for it.

My feeling is that this is a Hightower situation where they let Brady explore the market, and agree on what's best for everybody. Brady cannot go to a team with a proven starter or a bad offensive line. He can't go to a team with no chance of winning. He needs a Joe Montana situation where he can win immediately.

The only teams that fit the bill are Indianapolis, Pittsburgh (if Roethlisberger retires), Las Vegas, LA Chargers, New Orleans (if Brees retires). The Colts, Raiders and Chargers have the cap space to do this. How much of that money are they willing to commit to a 43-year-old QB?

 

[mgteich]

.

The only teams that fit the bill are Indianapolis, Pittsburgh (if Roethlisberger retires), Las Vegas, LA Chargers, New Orleans (if Brees retires). The Colts, Raiders and Chargers have the cap space to do this. How much of that money are they willing to commit to a 43-year-old QB?

I think that several teams with cap money will be willing to give Brady 2/$60M with $40M guaranteed. NTW, I would add Tampa Bay to the list. Also note that teams like Indy with lots of cap room can add an OL or two as well as Brady.

 

[Ladypatsfan]

Here are the last 10 SB champions

2009: Drew Brees (top 4 QB)
2010: Aaron Rodgers (top 4 QB)
2011: Eli Manning (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2012: Joe Flacco (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2013: Russell Wilson (had a historically great defense)
2014: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)
2015: Peyton Manning (former top 4 QB, but had a historically great defense)
2016: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)
2017: Nick Foles (had a top 5 all time statistical playoff run for a QB)
2018: Tom Brady (top 4 QB)

So there are 4 models

1. Have a top 4 QB
2. Have a QB who just randomly goes off and plays at a super elite level in a playoff stretch and defies the odds
3. Have a historical defense.

The more sustainable outlet is number 1. The second is very flukey. The 3rd is something that lasts one to two seasons and then you can't really maintain a defense of that caliber.

But that's really besides the point. The bigger point is about the situation. Is there a guarantee we even get a top 10 QB? And if we don't, can win without one? And beyond that is, the chance of that worth not just trying to go with Brady for two years and enduring some cap pains?

To me Brady is the best option right now until it's definitive he can't go.



While there is some truth to that, I think like Peyton, there will be a point of "this is not acceptable play anymore" and a plurality will agree on it and Brady himself will not want to play anymore once he hits that. It's premature right now when we have him playing and hitting the same stats as 2013 when he had personnel issues, and we know for a fact this year was particularly bad on that front. So it's not really worth the move right now because it's just as likely we end up with a bottom 1o QB who gives us no chance vs a top 10 who gives us a chance with the right circumstance so banking on Brady still being able to get it done with the right grouping makes more sense. If there was a true heir apparent waiting in the wings or a guy we realistically could get in the draft that's one thing. But we don't have that. So it's betting on Brady or a mystery box to save some cap space. I'm going to choose Brady there.

They drafted Stidham last year. I think they drafted him for the future. I love Brady, don't want him to leave. But I know who the head coach is, I watched Ty Law leave and Mcgnest 2 of my favorite players left.
BB is done with Brady. He hasn't said it but I know how he thinks. All of us do. We have all seen how he operates. BB is not going to invest in a 43 year old QB. I have accepted it. Nothing else to do, except sit back and watch how he puts the team together for the 2020 season.

 

[Ring 6]

From a purely statistical driven by inflation and era perspective they did. Eli, Flacco, and Foles certainly were the best in the post season those seasons regardless, you were getting elite play for that stretch

No they were the greatest overachievers. They were not statistically 3 of the best 5 ESPECIALLY when you adjust for era.

 

[TB_Helmet]

This thread is interesting since it has 40 positive ratings and only 21 negative ratings, but the top rating is 'disagree' so that shows on the front page, which makes it look like people are overwhelmingly opposed to the OP. Most posts don't get this many ratings so it's essentially a poll (which is another reason for my idea to allow polls as posts mid-thread!)

 

[LJRomanoff]

From your friend Bart Scott:

Bart Scott Discusses QB Matthew Stafford Being Traded

"He also expressed that he feels the Stafford era has gone on for too long in Detroit and that Patricia and Co. may consider trading Stafford to the New England Patriots this offseason."

 

[mgteich]

I suspect that many free agent QB's want to play for the patriots. I suspect that many teams have QB's that they want to trade to the patriots.

If Brady goes, I would think that there would be many options, almost all including having Stidham and a draftee in camp.

From your friend Bart Scott:

Bart Scott Discusses QB Matthew Stafford Being Traded

"He also expressed that he feels the Stafford era has gone on for too long in Detroit and that Patricia and Co. may consider trading Stafford to the New England Patriots this offseason."