Rumor: Some Patriots Players Have Doubts About Cam Newton

[Ring 6]

So you're basically fine with trading as close as you can get to a sure thing (Brady taking the team to the playoffs) for hopes that maybe in 2-3 years a new guy can do the same thing. Let's say in theory Stidham was the guy of the future. He looked good in camp and practice last season and had a year to absorb whatever he could from Brady and the coaches. Then at least I could see kicking Brady to the curb. I would still have hated it but at least I could understand the fact that we had the guy Bill felt it was time to make the move. In reality we had no one. Stidham apparently is not even close to starting QB material so Bill went bargain hunting for a guy who put together a horrific season. That I do not understand.

Brady and whomever vs Henry, Smith, Agholor, Van Noy, Brown, Judon, and no answer at QB is easy. I would take Brady in a heartbeat. Let's say Brady retires in 2 years. How many of these guys are still realistically going to be here in 2 years?

You can have a good/great roster all day but if you don't have a QB then what? You're not competing for championships. The Colts roster outside of QB is pretty damn good and they haven't had a QB since Luck retired and they aren't true super bowl contenders. The Chiefs were always hanging around as a solid team but never a super bowl team until Mahomes. Hell look at the Bucs. They were a middling joke of a team year in year out until Brady showed up. It is the quarterback that makes the team. You can always supplement around him and may have some lean years but if you have a QB your are in a significantly better spot to compete for a ring than the Indianapolis Colts' of the world.

Let me put it another way.
The choices were
1) keep Brady at 43 with a crumbling team around him that needs to be rebuilt but there are no resources to do so and hope you can squeak out a playoff spot, and a one and done and rebuilt around a 44 year old
2) recognize that a best hope of one and done isn’t winning and have the balls to bite the bullet and take the money you would have paid Brady to not win with a scrub team around him, and upgrade half the roster so the team exclusive of the QB is competitive.

I’m sure we weren’t winning by stretching out Brady’s years for sentimental reasons. Moving on gives us a shot.
You saw what that future would have been in the second half of 2019. Id trade that for the resources needed to rebuild a weak roster every time.

 

[203Pat]

Let me put it another way.
The choices were
1) keep Brady at 43 with a crumbling team around him that needs to be rebuilt but there are no resources to do so and hope you can squeak out a playoff spot, and a one and done and rebuilt around a 44 year old
2) recognize that a best hope of one and done isn’t winning and have the balls to bite the bullet and take the money you would have paid Brady to not win with a scrub team around him, and upgrade half the roster so the team exclusive of the QB is competitive.

I’m sure we weren’t winning by stretching out Brady’s years for sentimental reasons. Moving on gives us a shot.
You saw what that future would have been in the second half of 2019. Id trade that for the resources needed to rebuild a weak roster every time.

We can agree to disagree I guess but to me it sounds like you're willing to trade the engine in your Ferrari so you can upgrade the wheels and get a new paint job.

 

[zydecochris]

I wasn't even really trying to go there. I was just responding to the notion that there's some iron clad rule that having rings = fewest errors. Belichick's a great HC, but he's been a much better HC when he's had Brady there to cover for his ass when he makes mistakes. That's not bashing BB. That's just acknowledging the obvious. Reid's a great HC, but he's a better HC when he's coaching Mahomes than when he's coaching some other QB. Again, that's not knocking Andy Reid, but is acknowledging the obvious. Tony Dungy couldn't win in Tampa Bay, despite having a great team, but he managed to win in Indianapolis, because had Peyton Manning. And Barry Switzer's almost universally considered to be a joke of an NFL head coach, but he won a title while coaching Troy Aikman and the boys.

You and I have discussed this before (it isn't really an argument), I agree that TB is the GOAT and deserves a great deal of credit, perhaps the lion's share, for the Pats success in recent years.

However, I would respectfully argue that the organization is a critical factor also. I think your examples actually indirectly prove the point. BB is considered by most to the the greatest living HC (certainly over time), and Reid is considered to be the greatest living developer of QB's (McNabb, Kolb, Vick, heck, even Matt Moore). So you are 100% right, BB was a better HC with Brady and Reid is a better HC with Mahomes, no contest. However, although I think TB and Mahomes would have been very good QBs in inferior organizations anyway, I would argue they would have never developed to heights (and confidence) of the QB craft that they did under BB and Reid if they had gone to a lousy organization.

I think your example of Troy Aikman also indirectly supports the point of the importance of development under a top organization, he was developed under Terry Donahue at UCLA and then Jimmy Johnson with the Cowboys. By the time Barry Switzer came along, Aikman was a finished product, so he won with an inferior coach.

I guess I would ask: how many of the greatest QBs to play the game were developed in a crappy organization? None really come to mind to me.

However, I do fully acknowledge, and agree with your point that once a great QB is developed in a top notch organization, that great QB can make a very competent HC (or even a so-so HC...cough..Bruce Arians..cough) look like a genius.

​

 

[Ring 6]

Every report out there has said Brady was looking for an extension back in 2017 after Jimmy was traded. I have no idea what the contract extension would have looked like back then but it was clear that Bill did not want to extend him to age 45 despite Brady stating that was his goal when he was in his late 30s and despite winning Super Bowls at ages 37, 39 and 41. Bill wanted to go year to year and was going to sign Brady in 2020 for less than he was making in 2019. Brady wanted a multiyear commitment understandably, and when he did not get it, he asked for the FT to be removed which Kraft and Bill happily did as they were never going to franchise him anyway.

I never said Tampa was underpaying him. I said he was a FA so they gave him a 2 year deal, guaranteed. The Patriots chose not to match despite Brady meeting in person with Kraft at his house. But had they extended him back in 17 or 18, there is a good chance it would have been for less money that what Tampa paid him. He wanted to finish his career here and always worked with Bill to ensure the team was in a good position to compete with its money/cap.

Brady went to krafts house to tell him he was gone no matter what not to ask them to match
Brady wanted out. I get it. It’s obvious that he wanted to be the center of attention rather than acting like a drone for the sake of the team. He earned that right.
Going year to year is what you do when you have about the oldest guy ever to play the position. Drew Brees was fine with that.
In any event I am talking about the real decision that was facing them last year, not a hindsight version of how they could have done something different 3 years earlier.

It was ending some day abs in hindsight I think it ended at the best time for the patriots, emotions aside

 

[Ring 6]

We can agree to disagree I guess but to me it sounds like you're willing to trade the engine in your Ferrari so you can upgrade the wheels and get a new paint job.

No. I’m willing to trade the Ferrari with the engine that is nearing its end, with no tires, windows or heat, so I have money to but something that runs.

 

[Patsgofor4]

Let’s see what’s going on in this thread….oh

 

[fnordcircle]

It's crazy how many of you have firsthand information regarding the negotiations between the Patriots and Brady.

Turns out this place was filled with Patriots execs and TB12 agents! Who knew?!

 

[Deus Irae]

I guess I would ask: how many of the greatest QBs to play the game were developed in a crappy organization? None really come to mind to me.

You're setting up a can't lose scenario. I could point to a player like Steve Young, and you could just respond with something like "But it wasn't until he got to San Francisco....". I could point to Manning and the Colts, or Fouts and the Chargers, for example, and you could respond with something like "Well, that organization wasn't THAT bad". And there's not really a way to quantify/analyze either the word "crappy" or the word "developed" to a certainty. "Developed" is a loaded, pliable word in this context.


But the reality is that elite QBs have come up from a variety of paths, including starting and "developing" while on crappy teams.

 

[Deus Irae]

I completely agree. However, who players and coaches were surrounded by always seems to be brought up in discussion and matter more than it should when evaluating their legacy.

It's brought up because it should be brought up. In a team sport, the quality and fit of teammates is important, often vitally so. If you can't see that, this is not a discussion for you.

It’s the whole “Michael never won without Scottie” argument, as if it diminishes Jordan’s legacy that the Bulls went out and found a really talented player to play alongside him. The only way to judge a player or coach, in my opinion, is through the eye test. My eye test tells me Brady and Manning are the greatest QBs of my lifetime and Belichick and Parcells are the greatest coaches.

"Michael never won without Scottie" is, without question, a valid argument. And I don't know what you consider to be your lifetime, so I'll leave the coaching/QB thing out of it.

 

[Penn State Patriot]

"Michael never won without Scottie" is, without question, a valid argument. And I don't know what you consider to be your lifetime, so I'll leave the coaching/QB thing out of it.

It’s really not a valid argument. It’s a fact, but also a very lazy and incomplete argument. What player or team would not want the equivalent of a Scottie Pippen on their roster? I wonder if Brady regrets having all-pro wideouts in Tampa, or a top 3 defense in each of first three Super Bowl wins. Those are all facts too, so why don’t we knock Brady’s legacy down a few pegs because he didn’t carry the boulder up the mountain by himself.

 

[Deus Irae]

It’s really not a valid argument.

Yes, it's a valid argument. If you can't understand and accept that, you've no business entering discussions of this sort, because supporting talent matters.

It’s a fact, but also a very lazy and incomplete argument. What player or team would not want the equivalent of a Scottie Pippen on their roster? I wonder if Brady regrets having all-pro wideouts in Tampa, or a top 3 defense in each of first three Super Bowl wins.

The player's desire isn't the issue. The player's ability to win with certain levels of supporting casts is the issue.

Those are all facts too, so why don’t we knock Brady’s legacy down a few pegs because he didn’t carry the boulder up the mountain by himself.

Brady took talent to within about a minute of an undefeated season in 2007, even while being badly hobbled. He also took a terrible defense to within about a minute of the 2011 title. He put up 500+ yards in a Super Bowl where his own coach torpedoed the team's chance to win, and he took a team that had been 7-9 and won the Super Bowl while defeating 3 former SB MVPs in the process.

So I'm not sure why you're making such Godawful arguments, but that's what you're doing.

 

[amfootball]

It was ending some day abs in hindsight I think it ended at the best time for the patriots, emotions aside

It was perfect for Brady, he got his 7th ring in year one with his new team and is favored to win again this year. It has been a disaster for us.

 

[Ring 6]

It was perfect for Brady, he got his 7th ring in year one with his new team and is favored to win again this year. It has been a disaster for us.

I don’t know how it was a disaster. Do you think we were winning a super bowl last year? Of course not. We would have been rebuilding this year with a 44 year old qb and 50 million less cap space.
I understand that it is difficult emotionally, and it is difficult if 10-6 and a one and done is a good year in your mind.
We all have different criteria.

 

[Ring 6]

You're setting up a can't lose scenario. I could point to a player like Steve Young, and you could just respond with something like "But it wasn't until he got to San Francisco....". I could point to Manning and the Colts, or Fouts and the Chargers, for example, and you could respond with something like "Well, that organization wasn't THAT bad". And there's not really a way to quantify/analyze either the word "crappy" or the word "developed" to a certainty. "Developed" is a loaded, pliable word in this context.


But the reality is that elite QBs have come up from a variety of paths, including starting and "developing" while on crappy teams.

Young is a great example. He floundered until he went to play for Walsh and his staff.
Fours was coached by coryell arguably the best offensive mind of the era. Manning had Tom Moore.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don’t know how it was a disaster. Do you think we were winning a super bowl last year? Of course not. We would have been rebuilding this year with a 44 year old qb and 50 million less cap space.
I understand that it is difficult emotionally, and it is difficult if 10-6 and a one and done is a good year in your mind.
We all have different criteria.

They would have had a tough time getting to 10-6 w/ Tom last year.

 

[Penn State Patriot]

Yes, it's a valid argument. If you can't understand and accept that, you've no business entering discussions of this sort.




The player's desire isn't the issue. The players ability to win with certain levels of supporting casts is the issue.



Brady took talent to within about a minute of an undefeated season in 2007, even while being badly hobbled. He also took a terrible defense to within about a minute of the 2011 title. He put up 500+ yards in a Super Bowl where his own coach torpedoed the team's chance to win, and he took a team that had been 7-9 and won the Super Bowl while defeating 3 former SB MVPs in the process.

So I'm not sure why you're making such Godawful arguments, but that's what you're doing.

I really have no idea where you’re going with any of this, so this will be my last post on this discussion.

My entire point was that a player or coach’s ability to be successful should not be diminished/altered/second guessed because the organization chose to make decisions that help the TEAM be successful. I do not hold Michael Jordan down because the Bulls decided to get players like Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen, and Bill Cartwright to help their team be more successful. It doesn’t make him any less of a player. If you’re saying it does, then you’re right: I really don’t understand it.

The same analogy applies to the Patriots. I don’t hold Brady or Belichick down because he drafted Gronkowski, traded for Moss, etc. Everything you said about Brady is true, but once again is incomplete. If you want to cherry pick, Brady’s play actually hurt the Patriots in the 2011 AFC title game, they were extremely fortunate to make the Super Bowl in spite of him. In 2007 the Pats also had a top 4 defense and the team clearly regressed as the season wore on.

 

[moosekill]

We can agree to disagree I guess but to me it sounds like you're willing to trade the engine in your Ferrari so you can upgrade the wheels and get a new paint job.

What a stupid analogy.
Football is probably the sport where the team is absolutely the most important part.
You can have the best engine in the world but if you have a flat tire you aint going anywhere.

 

[moosekill]

They would have had a tough time getting to 10-6 w/ Tom last year.

In the end it depends what you want. Many here wanted to watch Tom retire as a Patriot. That is fine. However, don't for a second thing we would have won the superbowl last year or this year.

So if your goal was to watch Tom retire a Patriot, and the Patriots to maybe make the playoffs and be one and done then you should be upset. However, that would have just pushed the rebuilding time down a year or two and then we probably would have gone through a down year or two, like last year.

If your goal is to see the Patriots succeed long term, and rebuild quickly, sadly , it was probably best to have Tom move on.

If your goal was to see Tom win another superbowl or two, then it was probably best to have Tom move on.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Brady took talent to within about a minute of an undefeated season in 2007, even while being badly hobbled. He also took a terrible defense to within about a minute of the 2011 title. He put up 500+ yards in a Super Bowl where his own coach torpedoed the team's chance to win, and he took a team that had been 7-9 and won the Super Bowl while defeating 3 former SB MVPs in the process.

So I'm not sure why you're making such Godawful arguments, but that's what you're doing.

Winner for this. And you're only scratching the surface.

 

[RobertWeathers]

In the end it depends what you want. Many here wanted to watch Tom retire as a Patriot. That is fine. However, don't for a second thing we would have won the superbowl last year or this year.

So if your goal was to watch Tom retire a Patriot, and the Patriots to maybe make the playoffs and be one and done then you should be upset. However, that would have just pushed the rebuilding time down a year or two and then we probably would have gone through a down year or two, like last year.

If your goal is to see the Patriots succeed long term, and rebuild quickly, sadly , it was probably best to have Tom move on.

If your goal was to see Tom win another superbowl or two, then it was probably best to have Tom move on.

The board is well aware of my preference.