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

[QuantumMechanic]

Own what? An IF statement?

How about I stick with the IS statement which is Brady is still playing at an elite level.

You are missing the point that @aluminum seats is not talking about Brady vs. JG. He's not talking about JG at all. He's talking about a philosophical position on the nature of fandom and rooting for laundry vs rooting for meat.

If God, the Devil, or whatever came up to him and said "I'm giving you two choices about the upcoming future of the Patriots -- pick one. Your first choice is that Brady gets to retire in NE but then NE will suck for 10 or more years. Your second choice is that Brady finishes his career with another team, but NE will remain competitive. Those are your only choices. Choose.", he's saying that he'd take the second choice. And he and I are both saying that if you are primarily a fan of the Patriots that's the choice you should be making.

 

[Deus Irae]

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:

Well, no. The point is, inherently, trying to get accuracy. That's why you bring in the math.

You demonstrate your understanding of this when you end your post with

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.

For the record, Brady's career to date has yielded a, roughly, 50% shot (47%) at a SB appearance (7 SB appearances in 15 seasons as a starter), and a 33% shot at winning a SB, as long as he's actually playing (in other words, outside of 2008).

• Elway, the closest elite QB to matching Brady's appearance numbers, and having won, (5 in 16) comes in a distant second at 31% to make the SB and 13% to win
  
• Montana, the guy who many considered the G.O.A.T. before Brady, (4 in 13) is at 31% to make and win
  
• Bradshaw (4 in 13) is also at 31% to make and win
  
• Kelly is the closest in the "never won, but" category, with 4 appearances in 10 11 years, which is 36%.

And, you can't just plug in an assigned value for JAG and then reasonably claim that he gives you a better % chance of winning the SB in the next 10 years. You have nothing upon which to base the assigned value.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are missing the point that @aluminum seats is not talking about Brady vs. JG. He's not talking about JG at all. He's talking about a philosophical position on the nature of fandom and rooting for laundry vs rooting for meat.

If God, the Devil, or whatever came up to him and said "I'm giving you two choices about the upcoming future of the Patriots -- pick one. Your first choice is that Brady gets to retire in NE but then NE will suck for 10 or more years. Your second choice is that Brady finishes his career with another team, but NE will remain competitive. Those are your only choices. Choose.", he's saying that he'd take the second choice. And he and I are both saying that if you are primarily a fan of the Patriots that's the choice you should be making.

You'd both be asserting a bad answer over an incomplete hypothetical. Without knowing how well the Patriots play under Brady until he retires, you can't possibly assign a fair value for comparison. You also make assumptions within assumptions when you choose the meaning/weight of "value".

"Is 10 years of 'competitive' better than x number of years at, or near, the top, including y number of SB appearances and z number of SB wins?" is both a more accurate way to frame the hypothetical and a demonstration of a perfectly legitimate alternative for any fan of the Patriots.

 

[NE-VT]

And he and I are both saying that if you are primarily a fan of the Patriots that's the choice you should be making.

I am with you up until this part. I am not sure there is a ultimate right or wrong way to be a fan. If someone would rather give up a few potential future SBs to see if Brady can become the mega-GOAT, well then good for them I guess. If some wants Brady to be traded so they could see what Belichick could do with a slightly worse QB, then good for them as well.

Well, no. The point is, inherently, trying to get accuracy. That's why you bring in the math.

You demonstrate your understanding of this when you end your post with

Well, you are right that math is accurate in the sense that it is logically accurate and necessarily true. I could have been more clear in my language, forgive me. At times I write too quickly and don't proof read sufficiently).

I meant the point of the hypothetical was not to provide a predictively accuracy (our best guess). Rather the point was to be thought provoking on the nature of the choice.

I was simply trying to provided an oversimplified model for how JG could be worse every year in his entire career that current Brady, yet still give us a better shot at winning another SB. People were bashing the idea that switching to JG could even possibly make getting another SB more likely. Yet, it is would be the correct switch from a long term winning perspective for some hypothetical win % estimates. We could have to provide the model with updated year by year winning percentages and test out different hypotheticals.

For the record, Brady's career to date has yielded a, roughly, 50% shot (47%) at a SB appearance (7 SB appearances in 15 seasons as a starter), and a 33% shot at winning a SB, as long as he's actually playing (in other words, outside of 2008).

Yes the 25% was an spit-balled slight-regression Brady estimate, and I pulled out of a hat. Expecting him to keep up 33% is much to ask, even of the GOAT. Perhaps, that was wrong, we could have kept 33%. JG could be way under 10%. Our next QB in the keep Brady plan could have better than .0000000001%, and he might come in after year 3. I was hoping we might discuss the idea of considering potential future projections on these terms, if people were comfortable enough with the math conceptually.

You'd both be asserting a bad answer over an incomplete hypothetical. Without knowing how well the Patriots play under Brady until he retires, you can't possibly assign a fair value for comparison.

The best you can do is take a guess at it based on evidence. We will all have different guesses. Perhaps this would be a better guess:

Brady's next four years < 1/3 , 1/4, 1/8, 1/32 (retire) >. Followed by 6 years of average odds <1/32, 1/32, .... 1/32>.

Even harder than providing an estimate for Brady's next 10 would be Jimmy's.

<1/16 , 1/15 , 1/10 , 1/9 , 1/11 , 1/9, 1/10 , 1/12 , 1/16 , 1/32 >

 

[goheels22002]

I am with you up until this part. I am not sure there is a ultimate right or wrong way to be a fan. If someone would rather give up a few potential future SBs to see if Brady can become the mega-GOAT, well then good for them I guess. If some wants Brady to be traded so they could see what Belichick could do with a slightly worse QB, then good for them as well.



Well, you are right that math is accurate in the sense that it is logically accurate and necessarily true. I could have been more clear in my language, forgive me. At times I write too quickly and don't proof read sufficiently).

I meant the point of the hypothetical was not to provide a predictively accuracy (our best guess). Rather the point was to be thought provoking on the nature of the choice.

I was simply trying to provided an oversimplified model for how JG could be worse every year in his entire career that current Brady, yet still give us a better shot at winning another SB. People were bashing the idea that switching to JG could even possibly make getting another SB more likely. Yet, it is would be the correct switch from a long term winning perspective for some hypothetical win % estimates. We could have to provide the model with updated year by year winning percentages and test out different hypotheticals.

Yes the 25% was an spit-balled slight-regression Brady estimate, and I pulled out of a hat. Expecting him to keep up 33% is much to ask, even of the GOAT. Perhaps, that was wrong, we could have kept 33%. JG could be way under 10%. Our next QB in the keep Brady plan could have better than .0000000001%, and he might come in after year 3. I was hoping we might discuss the idea of considering potential future projections on these terms, if people were comfortable enough with the math conceptually.

The best you can do is take a guess at it based on evidence. We will all have different guesses. Perhaps this would be a better guess:

Brady's next four years < 1/3 , 1/4, 1/8, 1/32 (retire) >. Followed by 6 years of average odds <1/32, 1/32, .... 1/32>.

Even harder than providing an estimate for Brady's next 10 would be Jimmy's.

<1/16 , 1/15 , 1/10 , 1/9 , 1/11 , 1/9, 1/10 , 1/12 , 1/16 , 1/32 >

We have a big party at my house, pretty much every year. We get Tennessee's BBQ, various craft beers, and tell everybody to bring a dessert of some sort. We call it the Tom Brady Invitational party. Funny, but it always happens on the day of the AFC Conference Championship game. Making it to the conference championship game is a small but necessary factor in winning Super Bowls.

Brady has played in 11 of 14 possible AFC Conference Championship games (not including 2008). Jimmy Garoppolo? Zero.

 

[Tony2046]

You are missing the point that @aluminum seats is not talking about Brady vs. JG. He's not talking about JG at all. He's talking about a philosophical position on the nature of fandom and rooting for laundry vs rooting for meat.

If God, the Devil, or whatever came up to him and said "I'm giving you two choices about the upcoming future of the Patriots -- pick one. Your first choice is that Brady gets to retire in NE but then NE will suck for 10 or more years. Your second choice is that Brady finishes his career with another team, but NE will remain competitive. Those are your only choices. Choose.", he's saying that he'd take the second choice. And he and I are both saying that if you are primarily a fan of the Patriots that's the choice you should be making.

What?? A hypothetical based wishful thinking is not something that requires a choice to be made.

But ok. I'll play the hypothetical game:

If Brady played 5 more years and won 2 more super bowls would you trade that for 10 years of 10-6 and 1 super bowl with JG?

 

[Clonamery]

What?? A hypothetical based wishful thinking is not something that requires a choice to be made.

But ok. I'll play the hypothetical game:

If Brady played 5 more years and won 2 more super bowls would you trade that for 10 years of 10-6 and 1 super bowl with JG?

Is that ass-uming that Bill Belichick is still head of things and HC? Because that little part of ass-uming is the most important ass-uming part.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

What?? A hypothetical based wishful thinking is not something that requires a choice to be made.

But ok. I'll play the hypothetical game:

If Brady played 5 more years and won 2 more super bowls would you trade that for 10 years of 10-6 and 1 super bowl with JG?

Yes I would. I've said that all along. I'd love for Brady to play 5 more years at a high level. I just don't expect it. And I certainly don't view it as a certainty.

But I wouldn't trade 2 years of Brady for 10 years of suckage.

That's all I've ever said to the "Brady to the bitter end!" crowd. There is some point where even if Brady is still better than his replacement, if the replacement is good enough you have to move on because Brady will have so few games left.

Let's say you have Brady and a backup that will get you to 9-7/10-6 on average (i.e. not as good as Brady). But if you lose that backup you'll be going 5-11/6-10 (or worse) for quite some time.

I think most would agree that 5 years of Brady is worth losing the backup. But what about 3 years? What about 2 years? What about 1 year? At an extreme I can't imagine anyone would seriously say that 1 game of Brady is worth losing the backup. So somewhere between 1 game and 5 years there's a line. That's all I'm saying -- that there is a line. My disagreement has always been with the "team has to keep Brady as long as he's better than his replacement, no matter what" people who refuse to acknowledge there's a line.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yes I would. I've said that all along. I'd love for Brady to play 5 more years at a high level. I just don't expect it. And I certainly don't view it as a certainty.

But I wouldn't trade 2 years of Brady for 10 years of suckage.

That's all I've ever said to the "Brady to the bitter end!" crowd. There is some point where even if Brady is still better than his replacement, if the replacement is good enough you have to move on because Brady will have so few games left.

Let's say you have Brady and a backup that will get you to 9-7/10-6 on average (i.e. not as good as Brady). But if you lose that backup you'll be going 5-11/6-10 (or worse) for quite some time.

I think most would agree that 5 years of Brady is worth losing the backup. But what about 3 years? What about 2 years? What about 1 year? At an extreme I can't imagine anyone would seriously say that 1 game of Brady is worth losing the backup. So somewhere between 1 game and 5 years there's a line. That's all I'm saying -- that there is a line. My disagreement has always been with the "team has to keep Brady as long as he's better than his replacement, no matter what" people who refuse to acknowledge there's a line.

Yes, almost by definition

Where my problem lies is the unstated assumption that this real or hypothetical backup is good enough to win playoff games against elite competition. And my unstated assumption is that we don't have for example a great defense that allows a Trent Dilfer successor to win a SB.

 

[Tony2046]

Yes I would. I've said that all along. I'd love for Brady to play 5 more years at a high level. I just don't expect it. And I certainly don't view it as a certainty.

But I wouldn't trade 2 years of Brady for 10 years of suckage.

That's all I've ever said to the "Brady to the bitter end!" crowd. There is some point where even if Brady is still better than his replacement, if the replacement is good enough you have to move on because Brady will have so few games left.

Let's say you have Brady and a backup that will get you to 9-7/10-6 on average (i.e. not as good as Brady). But if you lose that backup you'll be going 5-11/6-10 (or worse) for quite some time.

I think most would agree that 5 years of Brady is worth losing the backup. But what about 3 years? What about 2 years? What about 1 year? At an extreme I can't imagine anyone would seriously say that 1 game of Brady is worth losing the backup. So somewhere between 1 game and 5 years there's a line. That's all I'm saying -- that there is a line. My disagreement has always been with the "team has to keep Brady as long as he's better than his replacement, no matter what" people who refuse to acknowledge there's a line.

Like the post. It's a reasonable take. Hypothetically of course.

Btw: My hypothetical basically projected Brady's performance based on his last 3 years and assumed JG's 10 year performance would reflect that of "The Great Aaron Rodgers".

Btw #2: This team didn't suck prior to Brady and BB. The Bledsoe teams were also good teams. Not historically GOAT great but nonetheless good. I don't know what to expect after Brady and BB are gone but I don't expect suckage rather something that mirrors those late 90's teams.

I wished JG was drafted this year but can't wait to see who the next drafted QB will be.

Last Btw: JB has been getting better and just got his first win after switching offensive schemes etc... Point being the last two QB's the Pats have drafted have been decent.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Bisquick is ruining the Clots chance for the top draft pick despite a pathetic supporting cast.
BB is muttering, "Good job, Grasshopper. Good Job!!!"

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I agree with aluminum seats' decision on his hypothetical, but that hypothetical assumes we *know* the outcome in advance (i.e. 15 years of suckitude). I'm not going to make the leap that trading Jimmy G was bad because I *think* it will lead to suckitude after Brady is gone. While such a future is indeed possible, it's hardly guaranteed.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Tony2046]

I don't think JG would win us multiple. BB won't be here eventually and then we will be like any other team.

I think team's success also depends on what kind of FO and ownership it has and right now the Pats have the best in both. So I don't think it will be like any other team.

 

[NE-VT]

I think team's success also depends on what kind of FO and ownership it has and right now the Pats have the best in both. So I don't think it will be like any other team.

My hope is that the team building and strategic principles that BB uses will continue being employed after he retires. In so far as we can keep that legacy going, we will not be just another team.

 

[fnordcircle]

No. He’s saying that if he were offered a choice of Brady retiring in NE but then the team sucking for years vs. Brady not ending his career in NE but the team continuing to be competitive, he’d take the latter. Which is the choice a Patriots fan should make.

Now, if you’re actually primarily a Brady fan rather than a Patriots fan, that’s fine. But own it.

This presumes that fandom for a team can only be expressed through a desire for more wins.

Maybe I'm still a fan of the team overall and because of that I'd value seeing my team's greatest player retire with the team rather than see us setup with a better chance of success down the road. Because after so much success my hopes and goals have shifted to have more to do with legacy now than piling up more wins. It's a luxury I have as a fan. I think back to Montana in a Chiefs uniform and I cringe inside.

Honestly, if I felt like I was a Brady fan first I'd own it, no problem. And I don't think I'd get an ounce of grief over it. It's because I'm a Pats fan that I want to see our greatest player retire having only ever worn our laundry, because it puts the perfect final touches on a run no fan has ever been lucky enough to experience.

 

[Clonamery]

...It's because I'm a Pats fan that I want to see our greatest player retire having only ever worn our laundry, because it puts the perfect final touches on a run no fan has ever been lucky enough to experience.

Agree.

That’s all I have to say about that.

 

[Deus Irae]

The best you can do is take a guess at it based on evidence. We will all have different guesses. Perhaps this would be a better guess:

Brady's next four years < 1/3 , 1/4, 1/8, 1/32 (retire) >. Followed by 6 years of average odds <1/32, 1/32, .... 1/32>.

Even harder than providing an estimate for Brady's next 10 would be Jimmy's.

<1/16 , 1/15 , 1/10 , 1/9 , 1/11 , 1/9, 1/10 , 1/12 , 1/16 , 1/32 >

If you wanted to establish a generic baseline for JAG as JAG, it would be a matter of defining his group, and then making him just 1 of it.

Is he just one of all QBs ever to make an NFL team?
Is he one of all QBs to be a #2?
Is he one of all QBs to have won an NFL game?
etc...

I know that the 1/32 per year was spit balled by someone, but that's not really accurate (and you made adjustments, so this comes as no surprise to you ), because we're not talking pure randomness here. Some teams have a better chance than others. Cleveland, for example, did not have a 1/32 shot of winning the SB this year. Some teams simply have better odds than others.

The point is that, once you figure out JAG's group, he's just a 1 of in that group, and his percentage chance of winning is going to be very low. There have been 51 SBs, and the trio of Brady/Montana/Bradshaw have won 13 of them (26%), and making that a quartet (Aikman has 3 wins) gets you to just about 1/3 (16/51 a/k/a 31%)of all SB wins. If you add up all the QBs with multiple SB wins (12 players), you get 29 SB wins (57%), and you get a SB victory rate of 29 (repeaters) to 22 (one offs). Since the dawn of the Super Bowl, only 34 individual QBs (not counting the bench sitters, obviously), out of all the NFL QBs in that time, have won it.

So you can really start to see how long the odds are going to be for JAG, as a random QB, to win a SB.

 

[NE-VT]

This presumes that fandom for a team can only be expressed through a desire for more wins.

Maybe I'm still a fan of the team overall and because of that I'd value seeing my team's greatest player retire with the team rather than see us setup with a better chance of success down the road. Because after so much success my hopes and goals have shifted to have more to do with legacy now than piling up more wins. It's a luxury I have as a fan. I think back to Montana in a Chiefs uniform and I cringe inside.

Honestly, if I felt like I was a Brady fan first I'd own it, no problem. And I don't think I'd get an ounce of grief over it. It's because I'm a Pats fan that I want to see our greatest player retire having only ever worn our laundry, because it puts the perfect final touches on a run no fan has ever been lucky enough to experience.

I have different team preferences and I believe yours are equally admirable. Posts like this are extremely helpful getting us to understand the things we love about our team.

To me, this is the beauty of the hypothetical that @aluminum seats and @QuantumMechanic proposed. It got us to reflect on which things are central to our fandom.

 

[fnordcircle]

I have different team preferences and I believe your are equally admirable. Posts like this are extremely helpful getting us to understand the things we love about our team.

To me, this is the beauty of the hypothetical that @aluminum seats and @QuantumMechanic proposed. It got us to reflect on which things are central to our fandom.

Sure and in the end I don't actually think people who would rather have kept JimmyG are actual pieces of ****, that was just hyperbole.

There's no way to say this without sounding pretentious. Well, more pretentious than normal.

After so much success I've started thinking in terms of era more than seasons. And this era, after 7 trips and 5 trophies, for me it would be best ended with Tom going out a Patriot for life. That's what I think I'll enjoy thinking about most when I'm as old as Joker or Pissah.

 

[Ivan]

This presumes that fandom for a team can only be expressed through a desire for more wins.

Maybe I'm still a fan of the team overall and because of that I'd value seeing my team's greatest player retire with the team rather than see us setup with a better chance of success down the road. Because after so much success my hopes and goals have shifted to have more to do with legacy now than piling up more wins. It's a luxury I have as a fan. I think back to Montana in a Chiefs uniform and I cringe inside.

Honestly, if I felt like I was a Brady fan first I'd own it, no problem. And I don't think I'd get an ounce of grief over it. It's because I'm a Pats fan that I want to see our greatest player retire having only ever worn our laundry, because it puts the perfect final touches on a run no fan has ever been lucky enough to experience.

Right on the money. People are acting like it’s simply about the number of Lombardi’s they acquire over the period of Brady and successor, and overlooking the value of doing it with Brady and Belichick, which just keeps elevating their stature when it comes to legacy and greatness. And imo they lack appreciation for what Brady has done for everyone who loves the Patriots

No one wants them to suck post Brady, but if you come out of 20 year run with 7 Lombardi’s and claim the mantle of greatest team ever then you have accomplished far more than Brady 5 and Garrapolo 2 accomplishes.

The Patriots are in a once in a lifetime situation with the GOAT coach/GM, and GOAT QB, and everything they accomplish from here on out lifts that legacy and bar for greatness higher and higher. I get wanting a good succession plan in every facet of their organization, and in all honesty I’ll be more intrigued with how they manage the post GOAT’s Era than I am how they manage now, when winning is taken as a given.

I just want to enjoy the rest of the Belichick/Brady Era and see how high they can set the bars, then I’ll focus on how they manage the transition.