I'm really torn on this one.
I'm reluctant to second guess what the Patriots staff and Garoppolo say; if it's a lie, they get a lot of credit for keeping their story straight...somebody there probably should run for president.
Most importantly JG had too much to gain by playing...another good game could have meant millions to him and a so-so game would have been given an "injured" asterisk. By asking not to play, he'd enable people (see this Board) to question his toughness, which would take money out of his pocket.
So, I'm buying that it was a Team decision that he not play and that Garoppolo is telling the truth when he says he wanted to play and was disappointed at the decision. I've read the arguments against that and, to save other posters the time, I disagree with them.
But, I will agree that it is fair to ask whether Brissett gave them a better chance of winning than a sub-par Gaaroppolo. I don't think he did.
Which leads me to wonder that the "real truth" might be that BB and McDaniels decided that (even though Garoppolo could have started) at 3--0 without Brady they were playing with house money and were better off not risking further injury to Garoppolo against a Ryan Defense, if he has to take over at some point in the season.
On that scenario, they decided to put the game on the shoulders of Blount and the D.
The D, in general, did its job (one TD, none after the first quarter, but it is fair to say that they couldn't get off the field and allowed the Bills to run the clock).
But the offense couldn't stay on the field, Rex took away the run, Special Teams made multiple errors, Goskowski missed a 49 yarder (on a day when AV made 49 and 53 yarders on a wet field in London, clocking his 32nd and 33rd consecutive FG's, albeit in a losing cause) and the plan went south.