Conflicting reports on who was repsonsible for the decision to trade Jimmy (Kraft or Belichick???)

[NE-VT]

I've been looking for any downside. I've looked when someone brought up the "Fluttering" ******** and I've looked when someone brought up some "Athletic processing" stupidity. But Brady has been throwing passes 60 in air yards down field and still has a high completion rate.

Unlike talking about "Fluttering" & "Athletic processing", I gave a concrete description of what I noticed and attempted to give video evidence. I think it is a bit unfair to group me with comments like that. That poster could not even define "Athletic processing". I might be wrong, but I am telling you an impression I have from watching & re-watching the film. This is not a hot-take.

I also tried to address the length of target explanation, in response to @luuked mentioning it:

First, I completely agree with your point that the deep passing game involves lower percentage throws. This is one source of the inconsistency. I also agree that the loss 0f Edelman has hurt our short passing game. Both of these make it seem worse on Brady's side, but on not on him.

But, Brady has also been less surgical in his short & intermediate throws IMO. He has missed Dola and White in the slot on short typically high percentage plays. Brady has thrown behind or too high to Hogan on some intermediate crossing routes, including the pass where Hogan took the shot in the ribs. I can provide particular examples if need be. (The harder question is if he is doing it a higher rate than years past. It seems like yes, to me and that NFL film analyst from the article. To try to find evidence to compare the rates of these misses across multiple seasons would be a time consuming project.)

@ALP : "i dont think you can really draw conclusions on the source of the accuracy/timing issues". I responded:

We can identify factors and notice how they all might interact. We gain Cooks and lose Edelman, so there is a need to add more vertical elements to our passing game to adapt to the strengths of our players. Brady takes more hits waiting for down field routes to develop (and o-line play) and might have an impact in his consistency. We miss a few more early down throws for short yardage, putting us in third and long more often. All of these sources of accuracy/timing issues are intertwined IMO. They all compound on each other.

Despite all of that, he is still has extremely impressive production and is playing as a top 5 QB. I don't want to overstate the issues I have noticed:

Passer Rating
1. Alex Smith • KAN 120.5
2. Tom Brady • NWE 106.9
3. Kirk Cousins • WAS 106.4
4. Drew Brees • NOR 103.3
5. Aaron Rodgers • GNB 103.2

2017 NFL Leaders and Leaderboards | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Re-watch Thread NE @ NYJ

 

[Tony2046]

Unlike talking about "Fluttering" & "Athletic processing", I gave a concrete description for what I noticed and attempted to give video evidence. I think it is a bit unfair to group me with comments like that. That poster could not even define "Athletic processing". I might be wrong, but I am telling you an impression I have from watching & re-watching the film. This is not a hot-take.

I also tried to address the length of target explanation, in response to @luuked mentioning it:

First, I completely agree with your point that the deep passing game involves lower percentage throws. This is one source of the inconsistency. I also agree that the loss 0f Edelman has hurt our short passing game. Both of these make it seem worse on Brady's side, but on not on him.

But, Brady has also been less surgical in his short & intermediate throws IMO. He has missed Dola and White in the slot on short typically high percentage plays. Brady has thrown behind or too high to Hogan on some intermediate crossing routes, including the pass where Hogan took the shot in the ribs. I can provide particular examples if need be. (The harder question is if he is doing it a higher rate than years past. It seems like yes, to me and that NFL film analyst from the article. To try to find evidence to compare the rates of these misses across multiple seasons would be a time consuming project.)

@ALP : "i dont think you can really draw conclusions on the source of the accuracy/timing issues". I responded:

We can identify factors and notice how they all might interact. We gain Cooks and lose Edelman, so there is a need to add more vertical elements to our passing game to adapt to the strengths of our players. Brady takes more hits waiting for down field routes to develop (and o-line play) and might have an impact in his consistency. We miss a few more early down throws for short yardage, putting us in third and long more often. All of these sources of accuracy/timing issues are intertwined IMO. They all compound on each other.

Despite all of that, he is still has extremely impressive production and is playing as a top 5 QB. I don't want to overstate the issues I have noticed:

Passer Rating
1. Alex Smith • KAN 120.5
2. Tom Brady • NWE 106.9
3. Kirk Cousins • WAS 106.4
4. Drew Brees • NOR 103.3
5. Aaron Rodgers • GNB 103.2

2017 NFL Leaders and Leaderboards | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Re-watch Thread NE @ NYJ

I apologize NE VT. I would never group you into the hawt take group. I have too much respect for you and your analysis.

What I meant was that since the hawt take crowd has brought up Fluttering and Athletic Processing I have been watching closely. But I haven't seen anything.

Everything looks the same to me. I've re watched games over the last three years and although he does have ups and downs he looks the same overall if not better.

This year is a bit different because he's taking more shots down field, he doesn't have Edelman and the running game seems to be something they are working on. But overall he looks really good to me.

 

[NE-VT]

I apologize NE VT. I would never group you into the hawt take group. I have too much respect for you and your analysis.

Thanks, I appreciate it! I also have much respect for your analysis!

What I meant was that since the hawt take crowd has brought up Fluttering and Athletic Processing I have been watching closely. But I haven't seen anything.

Everything looks the same to me. I've re watched games over the last three years and although he does have ups and downs he looks the same overall if not better.

I will keep this in mind for sure. It sounds like you have done more than me. I have not recently re-watched games from the 2014-2016 seasons/playoff runs. I think I need to catch up with you on this front!

My impression from watching over this entire time period was that Brady was improving in some respects and declining in others, even over 2014-2016. I believe that our offense is really good at playing off of his strengths, and hiding his weaknesses, even as those change over time. Of course, the Brady's strengths are overwhelming strong and numerous.

This year is a bit different because he's taking more shots down field, he doesn't have Edelman and the running game seems to be something they are working on. But overall he looks really good to me.

I completely agree with this. It is why I wanted to include this bit of my commentary:

We can identify factors and notice how they all might interact. We gain Cooks and lose Edelman, so there is a need to add more vertical elements to our passing game to adapt to the strengths of our players. Brady takes more hits waiting for down field routes to develop (and o-line play) and might have an impact in his consistency. We miss a few more early down throws for short yardage, putting us in third and long more often. All of these sources of accuracy/timing issues are intertwined IMO. They all compound on each other.

Now it is way too difficult to parse out how much of any decline in production is due to the above factors, and how much is due to a slight physical decline. A further change that I did not mention is a potential shift in game-plan strategy: we might be sacrificing some offensive explosiveness for increased time of possession, to help out our defense. Yet despite all of that, I think we should at least be willing to consider the following:

Brady might have slipped from A+ to A.

 

[DarrylS]

The influence of sportstalk mediots like Felger on the minds of fans is never more obvious..

Maybe I am old school, but do not see the downside of trading Jimmy G right now.. the Patriots did the right thing, too many hang on to the myth that he was worth so much more than the Patriots got, without any evidence. OTOH the Patriots had a very capable backup for #12 for the first 8 games of the season, and brought in a "new" "old" back up who is familiar with the system at great value.

In any organization it is realistic for the owner and GM to confer and discuss what is the best way to proceed.. meanwhile on the airwaves they discuss "tone of voice", "inflection", "timing" and "hidden meanings" into comments which only create some sort of contrived controversy to drive their ratings....

 

[aluminum seats]

Hypotheticals?

Winning multiple Super Bowls?

So you think JG is the next Joe Montana? Based off of 1 and 1/2 games?

And getting rid of the best player in the game today for a guy who couldn’t make it through 2 games when he was needed to play 4 is clearly what’s best for any team.

Thats just logic.

That’s clearly wrong.

The best move any franchise can make is to get rid of the best player in the game for a completely unproven commodity. The only way you get better is by choosing the unknown over the known, everyone knows that.

That makes sense. It’s just like the Jet fan who desperately wanted them to draft Christian Hackenberg so they would win multiple Super Bowl’s. All you have to do is look at how well that’s worked out for them.

Own what? An IF statement?
.

You guys don't seem to understand what this particular conversation is.

 

[aluminum seats]

Hypothetically speaking I would take Brady playing terribly over Jimmy Six Quarters going undefeated the next 15 years.

But that’s just speaking hypothetically.

I stand corrected. This post actually is on point.

 

[Ivan]

You guys don't seem to understand what this particular conversation is.

Sure we do, it’s about how amazing Jimmy Garrapolo is, and how trading him means they are going to suck forever.

We have been having this discussion since the Patriots lost to the Chiefs in 2014 and the trade Brady people have clearly been right all along. They could have had 3 more Lombardi’s if Garrapolo was the quarterback, but only have two because of the pink hats, like Belichick, who couldn’t see superstardom right in front of the bench.

But don’t worry, it’s clear now that even trading Garrapolo won’t end the discussion about how incredible he is, as his worshippers are never going to shut up about it..

 

[Ivan]

I stand corrected. This post actually is on point.

You see, we get it.

 

[Ivan]

Could someone please change the thread title to “Patriots Forego Unbeaten Future To Satisfy Brady Supporters.”

 

[NE-VT]

@Ivan I think you are missing his point. He was making a hypothetical to test our preferences about the QB situation. "Sure we do, it’s about how amazing Jimmy Garrapolo is, and how trading him means they are going to suck forever." is not what he is getting at.

You guys don't seem to understand what this particular conversation is.

I think I understand what you were trying to get at, so let me give it a shot:

Suppose we know for a fact that Brady would play for 2 more years, and would have a 25% chance to win the super bowl each year he played. Yet after that we would have a .00001 % (will treat as 0%) chance. Furthermore, suppose we knew that JG had a 10% chance to win each year for the next 10. If our only goal was to win at least one more super-bowl, we should go with JG. Of course, there might be other factors, such as player loyalty, desire for an even super-duper-GOAT, etc.

Belichick studied economics, I am sure he does cost-benefit analysis of this sort.

Here is the probabilities based on our hypothetical. These can be adjusted of course based on the liklihood of each player, and number of years.

P_no_bowl(x) = Probability of no super bowl wins with QB x.

P_no_bowl(Brady) = (1 - .25)^2 * (1 - .000000001)^8 = .563

P_no_bowl(JG) = (1 - .1)^10 = .349

Now, we can find the probability of at least one SB win by subtracting the above from 1.

P_1+_bowl(Brady) = 1 - .563 = 0.437
P_1+_bowl(JG) = 1 - .349 = 0.651

So even if JG is way less likely to win the super bowl per year (10% vs. 25%), it would be better off for the team to go with Jimmy. Of course, this was all based on that hypothetical, but we could adjust the numbers.

 

[aluminum seats]

@Ivan I think you are missing his point. He was making a hypothetical to test our preferences about the QB situation. "Sure we do, it’s about how amazing Jimmy Garrapolo is, and how trading him means they are going to suck forever." is not what he is getting at.



I think I understand what you were trying to get at, so let me give it a shot:

Suppose we know for a fact that Brady would play for 2 more years, and would have a 25% chance to win the super bowl each year he played. Yet after that we would have a .00001 % (will treat as 0%) chance. Furthermore, suppose we knew that JG had a 10% chance to win each year for the next 10. If our only goal was to win at least one more super-bowl, we should go with JG. Of course, there might be other factors, such as player loyalty, desire for an even super-duper-GOAT, etc.

Belichick studied economics, I am sure he does cost-benefit analysis of this sort.

Here is the probabilities based on our hypothetical. These can be adjusted of course based on the liklihood of each player, and number of years.

P_no_bowl(x) = Probability of 0 super bowl wins with QB x.

P_no_bowl(Brady) = (1 - .25)^2 * (1 - .000000001)^8 = .563

P_no_bowl(JG) = (1 - .1)^10 = .349

Now, we can find the probability of at least one SB win by subtracting the above from 1.

P_1+_bowl(Brady) = 1 - .563 = 0.437
P_1+_bowl(JG) = 1 - .349 = 0.651

So even if JG is way less likely to win the super bowl per year (10% vs. 25%), it would be better off for the team to go with Jimmy. Of course, this was all based on that hypothetical, but we could adjust the numbers.

I was told there would be no math...

This is good. My point was honestly even more theoretical, in that I was positing a pure hypothetical to get to the loyalty to a player vs. team dynamic.

(Your post is interesting, btw.)

 

[NE-VT]

I was told there would be no math...

This is good. My point was honestly even more theoretical, in that I was positing a pure hypothetical to get to the loyalty to a player vs. team dynamic.

(Your post is interesting, btw.)

Yeah totally, sorry if that got too mathy. I was trying to get at the same thing you were.

I was trying to illustrate how considering hypotheticals like the one you described is actually a useful tool. We could adjust the parameter values I chose over a reasonable range and see if Brady or JG would be better in each one. The main point is this:

For at least some potential reasonable values, JG gives us a better chance to win over the next 10 years. Yet people might still want Brady anyway: hence the loyalty to a player vs. team dynamic.

I think some people were freaked out by the hypothetical, so I was trying to help justify its usage .

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Assigning #s that are really subjective to a mathematical formula produces nothing except a delusional sense of accuracy.

I was at the CAR game. Brady had an uncharacteristically poor day compared to his norm. Not terrible but below his norm. His career is full of seasons where he has a couple really poor games and a couple so-so performances, so it is ridiculous to look at a game or two and suddenly assess that he is in decline.

JAGgers need to ask themselves what momentous event occurred to Brady that has made his performance suddenly decline (sic) since the greatest Super Bowl performance ever, just a few months ago.

 

[NE-VT]

Assigning #s that are really subjective to a mathematical formula produces nothing except a delusional sense of accuracy.

Did you miss this?

"We could adjust the parameter values I chose over a reasonable range and see if Brady or JG would be better in each one."

The point is not trying to get accuracy. It is about considering various estimates of the future. The formula is not made up, it reflects a fundamental truth:

Probability of winning a Super bowl is a function of (the probability of winning it this year), (and winning it the year after that), (and winning it and 3 years), ..., and (winning it in 10 years). I made some simplifications (always 25% for Brady, always 10% for JG), but we could relax those. We don't need to make any simplifications.

P_no_bowl(Brady) = (1 - .25) * (1 - .23) ....

When you are trying to make a choice between two options to maximize something (like profit, or super bowls, or healthy children in society, etc.) you need to make calculations of this sort. This is about trying to make the most logical choice to maximize getting another ring. We can plug in and test range of numbers. (Brady's chance in year 1, JG's chance in year 2, Brady's chance in year 2, etc.). Once we specify the chances the rest is just arithmetic and probability rules

 

[sean10mm]

Also the 80s Celtics didn't become the 90s Celtics because their future stars kept literally DYING. If Len Bias and then Reggie Lewis don't die nobody is talking about how the team aged out.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

no i did not miss this. point stands

 

[chasa]

P_no_bowl(Brady) = (1 - .25) * (1 - .23) ....

Your math is flawed, regardless of who the quarterback is each would have a 1 in 32 shot at the superbowl

assigning arbritary numbers shows favoritism when it's just not realistic, this isn't poker, this is football. each team at the start of a season could win it all.

we all assumed the jets would be 0-infinity right now, but they have played well enough.

the jags are a yearly laughing stock, and yet they are kicking the asses of a lot of "good" teams.

football isn't an analyitics game, go back to baseball.

 

[NE-VT]

I think there was some confusion in your post @chasa . Perhaps I should not have brought up a mathematical argument at all, but I am going to give this one go. I suspect that the issue with my post was not a lack mathematical understanding, but instead a product of skim reading or pre-established conclusions.

Your math is flawed, regardless of who the quarterback is each would have a 1 in 32 shot at the superbowl

Vegas disagrees. Would you have taken a straight up bet that Browns were as likely to win this year as the Patriots? Suppose, you could pick 2 out of 32 teams to win the Superbowl, and if one of your 2 were a winner you get 100k. You are telling me that your choice would be irrelevant, because 1/32 for each? You could pick Patriots & Browns, or Patriots & Packers, with no preference?

Want to come over for poker some time?

If you actually thought it was always 1/32 it would not matter who we could put behind center. Throw @chasa behind center, because we always have even odds to win.

Or did people expect the Patriots to be better? Perhaps some teams are more likely to have a shot than others in a given year.

assigning arbritary numbers shows favoritism

I agree that I assigned them arbitrary, and we could reassign them again. In fact that was done intentionally. If you are hung up on those particular numbers perhaps go back and reread it in context.

each team at the start of a season could win it all.

we all assumed the jets would be 0-infinity right now, but they have played well enough.

the jags are a yearly laughing stock, and yet they are kicking the asses of a lot of "good" teams.

So we both agree that people had different estimates for different teams. The point of this hypothetical was not about predicting the future. It was about maximizing your chances given a reasonable range of values for success.

football isn't an analyitics game

I would wager money that Belichick disagrees with you, especially with GM decisions. Have you read Patriot Reign? BB conceived of the issue of maximizing chances of football success given a salary cap as an economics problem.

Amazon product ASIN 0060757957

go back to baseball.

Go back to the drawing board

Analytics in baseball is about considering various statistics in games. I am not talking about TD:INT ratios, Yards per attempt, passer rating, etc. I am making a point out about the estimated likelihood to win. This is not money ball, à la Theo Epstein. This is smart cap management and football planning, à la Belichick.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

@Ivan I think you are missing his point. He was making a hypothetical to test our preferences about the QB situation. "Sure we do, it’s about how amazing Jimmy Garrapolo is, and how trading him means they are going to suck forever." is not what he is getting at.



I think I understand what you were trying to get at, so let me give it a shot:

Suppose we know for a fact that Brady would play for 2 more years, and would have a 25% chance to win the super bowl each year he played. Yet after that we would have a .00001 % (will treat as 0%) chance. Furthermore, suppose we knew that JG had a 10% chance to win each year for the next 10. If our only goal was to win at least one more super-bowl, we should go with JG. Of course, there might be other factors, such as player loyalty, desire for an even super-duper-GOAT, etc.

Belichick studied economics, I am sure he does cost-benefit analysis of this sort.

Here is the probabilities based on our hypothetical. These can be adjusted of course based on the liklihood of each player, and number of years.

P_no_bowl(x) = Probability of no super bowl wins with QB x.

P_no_bowl(Brady) = (1 - .25)^2 * (1 - .000000001)^8 = .563

P_no_bowl(JG) = (1 - .1)^10 = .349

Now, we can find the probability of at least one SB win by subtracting the above from 1.

P_1+_bowl(Brady) = 1 - .563 = 0.437
P_1+_bowl(JG) = 1 - .349 = 0.651

So even if JG is way less likely to win the super bowl per year (10% vs. 25%), it would be better off for the team to go with Jimmy. Of course, this was all based on that hypothetical, but we could adjust the numbers.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

An 11 page thread based on pure speculation, seasoned with a Golf Reporter talking about a scoop that "fell into my lap" (maybe it was ice cream) along with another mediot's reproduction of an entire conversation that he could never have heard, unless John Lynch was sitting in a "one party consent" state when he made the call and Glazer or someone heard a tape of the phone call .

So, since we're all just guessing, here's my guess.

Belichick has reasonably (not completely) consistently followed "one year too early rather than one year too late" rule when it comes to jettisoning players. Had he come to that conclusion regarding Brady? That it was his judgment, based on decades of observing NFL players at all levels, that Brady would have to be sacrificed for the future of the team?

Answer: "Who--The--****--Knows?" None of us can possibly know that. We're all entitled to our opinions about Brady (he still looks great to me), but none of us can know what BB was thinking. But, one thing we can know for sure? BB will never tell. Even his memoir will likely be a lie.

We also can't know what Kraft was thinking, but here I'm willing to join in on the speculation and hazard a guess...without the benefit of any facts or knowledge.

Bob Kraft bought (more or less forcing Orthwein to sell) the Patriots for $172 million in 1994 plus the $22 or so he paid for the Stadium lease. The team's now worth around between $3 and $4 billion. Kraft bought a team in the bottom rung of NFL teams. He is a savvy enough guy that we know he didn't buy it to fail. The team was doing "OK," but still in the lower echelons of the League. Got to a SB. New Stadium on the way. Problems on the sidelines with a disloyal Parcells and a novice Pete Carroll.

Then, along come Bill Belichick and Tom Brady (and Mo Lewis). The rest is history. The team's success for the next nearly 20 years exceeds any reasonable or even wild-ass expectations that Kraft might have had.

However, in the middle of all that, Kraft makes a serious error of judgment, kowtowing to Goodell and "The 32" and abandoning, instead of supporting, "the guy who brung him" to such success.

It makes me sick to my stomach to watch that idiot Jerruh standing by a creepy guy, who appears actually to have done something pretty bad, while "our Bob" turned his back on a class act who was being railroaded.

So, I could see Kraft putting his foot down now and saying that, no matter what, Tom Brady will end his career as a Patriot. Making the judgment that Brady has brought him more than he ever dreamed he would have out of owning this team and that he knows he turned his back on him when he needed him most.