JG trade story: Patriots tried

[Rusty Coupe]

Ironic that JG got traded to the 49ers

 

[heavyde050]

But they aren't equal. Yes, Brady is much better than JG is and probably ever will be. But JG will play for another 10-15 years. Brady almost certainly has less than 5 years. It's not a black and white choice.

Jimmy turns 26 tomorrow. Can we stop with the 10-15 year stuff. 15 years puts him older than Brady is now. And most QBs aren't that effective at 36 (10 years) either.
Basically the Pats like the next three years of Brady versus the realistic prime of about 5 to 7 years of Jimmy G.
It is not 10-15 years. The logic/reasoning does not work. Get rid of 40 year old Brady b/c he is old, but Jimmy G will be a stud at 40...okay.

Edit - I wish Jimmy the best in San Francisco. He got two SB rings as Brady's backup. It is tough luck for the Pats that his timeline didn't match up well with Brady still playing like an MVP.

 

[Bill Lee]

It is tough luck for the Pats that his timeline didn't match up well with Brady still playing like an MVP.

I get what you're saying, but talk about an embarrassment of riches. Meanwhile in NJ, they've got McKown half a year into a 2 year deal, Hackenburg and Petty. We get to decide on keeping JG or getting a high 2nd rounder. I like our kind of "tough luck".

 

[BradyFTW!]

But they aren't equal. Yes, Brady is much better than JG is and probably ever will be. But JG will play for another 10-15 years. Brady almost certainly has less than 5 years. It's not a black and white choice.

Back in 2008, a sizable contingent on this forum wanted the Pats to trade Brady and roll with Cassel, because based on what they'd seen over the course of 15 games they were convinced Cassel would be a very good QB for a decade at least, while Brady, being 30, had another few years at most before his inevitable decline started.

The point: we don't know how much longer Brady has, but we know the level he's on and we know that he's demonstrated no signs at all of slowing down. We also know that he's making Mike Glennon money, so when he starts to lose it he can lose quite a bit before there's any question at all as to whether he's worth his contract. With Garoppolo, you're going to have to pay top tier money to a guy that has not yet shown in-game that he's top tier, and then hope he can continually justify that pay over the next 5 years. There was always going to be some team desperate enough to do that, but there was no reason for it to be us while we already have our guy.

Projecting out 5 years is tricky enough, to state that he's going to be around 10-15 years from now is kinda crazy. Nobody can know that. There is not a single player in the league that you can project 15 years into the future, there is absolutely no way to know that Garoppolo will still be in the league and worth starting at 35-40 based on a body of work that includes two starts and one significant injury. We've been spoiled by Brady, but be careful to never mistake his career arc for anything normal or at all replicable.

Food for thought: how good would Garoppolo have to become to justify trading Brady to keep him? If he spent the next 10 years mirroring Matt Ryan's career arc, would it be worth giving up Brady's remaining years? I think that's a pretty clear no. How about Carson Palmer? Again, a pretty clear no. Matt Stafford? I'm going to go with a no yet again, and a no on Eli Manning while we're at it. All of these guys have been considered very good quarterbacks during their careers, and to make getting rid of Brady worthwhile you'd be banking on Garoppolo being better than all of them. It's only when you get up into the Rivers/Roethlisberger tier that I'd say sure, the prospect of 10+ years with that level of QB play is worth moving on from Brady, and even then I wouldn't feel great about the tradeoff. Which is a long way of saying that he would basically have to become a top-5 quarterback for the bulk of his career.

 

[patchick]

I and many others kept saying that no amount of money would convince Jimmy to stay on the bench. The man practically radiated joy when he finally got to take the field as a starting quarterback.

 

[Bill Lee]

I and many others kept saying that no amount of money would convince Jimmy to stay on the bench. The man practically radiated joy when he finally got to take the field as a starting quarterback.

Agreed, and seeing the guy behind him on the depth chart, Brisette, get his chance must have really made him want to play even more. Money wasn't a factor since he was going to get paid no matter what. The only question was whether or not he was going to play.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Food for thought: how good would Garoppolo have to become to justify trading Brady to keep him? If he spent the next 10 years mirroring Matt Ryan's career arc, would it be worth giving up Brady's remaining years? I think that's a pretty clear no. How about Carson Palmer? Again, a pretty clear no. Matt Stafford? I'm going to go with a no yet again, and a no on Eli Manning while we're at it.

That entirely depends on what "Brady's remaining years" are. If "Brady's remaining years" are 1-3, then all your "no"s become near-clear "yes"s.

 

[BradyFTW!]

That entirely depends on what "Brady's remaining years" are. If "Brady's remaining years" are 1-3, then all your "no"s become near-clear "yes"s.

I would take 3 years of Brady over the full career arcs of Matt Ryan, Carson Palmer, Matt Stafford or Eli Manning, and wouldn't hesitate in doing so.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I would take 3 years of Brady over the full career arcs of Matt Ryan, Carson Palmer, Matt Stafford or Eli Manning, and wouldn't hesitate in doing so.

What about 1 year? 2 years?

And don't start with the "Brady says he wants to play until 45" thing. He can say that, but we'll see what actually happens, both within and outside of Brady's control. (And for the record I'd love for Brady to play at a high level for 5 years, and said that even when JG was still with the team.)

 

[Ring 6]

That entirely depends on what "Brady's remaining years" are. If "Brady's remaining years" are 1-3, then all your "no"s become near-clear "yes"s.

As the poll of NFL players showed, common belief is that Brady will win more ADDITIONAL SBs than any QB in the NFL.
I would take 2017-2019 of Brady, plus whoever comes next, over Jimmys entire career without a second thought.

 

[Ring 6]

What about 1 year? 2 years?

And don't start with the "Brady says he wants to play until 45" thing. He can say that, but we'll see what actually happens, both within and outside of Brady's control. (And for the record I'd love for Brady to play at a high level for 5 years, and said that even when JG was still with the team.)

You cant act today on what you do not know about the future. There is no reason to believe Brady will not at least play through 2019, and his play has not deteriorated at all.
It is more certain that Brady will be a top NFL QB in 2019 than that Jimmy G will. Brady just has to deal with age, Jimmy G actually has to become a good QB.

 

[Ring 6]

What about 1 year? 2 years?

And don't start with the "Brady says he wants to play until 45" thing. He can say that, but we'll see what actually happens, both within and outside of Brady's control. (And for the record I'd love for Brady to play at a high level for 5 years, and said that even when JG was still with the team.)

Its also not Brady then play with no QB.
There is no certainty that Jimmy will be any better than the next heir apparent.

 

[Bradyking12]

Brady has a higher chance of winning more Super Bowls between now and the next couple years than JG does in his entire career on top of Brady already having 5, the only way you keep JG over Brady is if he's the next Brady/Manning/Montana top 3 QB which wasn't the case otherwise Bill would have kept him by any means even if it meant trading Brady

 

[TennisBallHead]

Brady is already throwing ducks halfway through the season, he's not going to play for three more years. Terrible move.

 

[RobertWeathers]

What about 1 year? 2 years?

And don't start with the "Brady says he wants to play until 45" thing. He can say that, but we'll see what actually happens, both within and outside of Brady's control. (And for the record I'd love for Brady to play at a high level for 5 years, and said that even when JG was still with the team.)

Based on what we have seen these last 8 games, Tom is still playing at an elite level.

They need to ride him as long as he is not showing signs of deterioration in his play.

If that was happening I'd be the first to trade him for value but it simply isn't happening.

Besides, BB will draft a QB in the spring and the cycle starts all over again.

 

[zydecochris]

Both could be true.

Last spring they weren't interested in trading him. They were hoping to talk him into a succession plan. They found having him as insurance for both (a) Brady getting injured and (b) Brady falling off in skill level was something worth having for the first half of 2018.

Now they know that JG would not go along with being TB12's backup going forward, and could not make him do so without using the franchise tag which would be a no-win scenario, and of course TB12 is having another MVP level season.

This. I think it is clear that the Patriots were hoping to talk JG into a succession plan and insurance (as you say) for a Brady injury or skill level decrease. From JG's point of view last Spring (as well as the Patriots), both were real possibilities. An arguable list of veteran franchise QBs at the beginning of the year would be something like: 1.Tannehill, 2.Rodgers, 3.Palmer, 4. Luck, 5.Roethlisberger, 6.Flacco, 7.Manning, 8.Rivers, Carr, Brees, Ryan, Newton, Stafford, Wilson, Brady. Of those 15 QBs, the first four are on IR or about to be, and the next four have dropped off a cliff in performance, totaling over half of them between injury and performance drop-off. It was not at all unreasonable to think something similar might have happened to Brady.

Instead, Brady has been pummeled this year but he continues to bounce up from the hits like he hardly notices them, and he shows absolutely zero decrease in performance, heck, he might be the MVP again this year. I'm sure that it was becoming clear to JG that Brady was not likely to be going anywhere for a while.

And, to make it worse, it had to irk JG that Brissett, arguably a much inferior player, was starting for the Colts.

Those two factors, Brady's continued excellence (and seeming invulnerability to hits) and Brissett immediately starting for the Colts, I think pretty much ended the chance that the Patriots could talk JG into staying as the heir apparent.

In a way it is unfortunate timing. However, who knows, maybe Brady will still be playing at a high level in his mid 40's.

 

[long distance]

“It’s definitely not something that we wanted to walk away from,” Belichick said. “I thought we rode it out as long as we could.”

 

[ctpatsfan77]

So many good things in life don’t happen for one reason - bad timing.

And, in this case, a lack of carbonite.

 

[brdmaverick]

He had waited long enough. Players inferior to him and younger than him were getting their shot - even Brissett. No problem with him wanting to play.

10000% agree

Why should we expect Jimmy to be happy about going into year five as a backup again when Brady himself already won 3 Super Bowls by that point in his career.

I like Jimmy and wish it could have worked out, but the timing was not right and this is what is best for both worlds. It would have been nice if they reached this conclusion in the offseason to potentially get more.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What about 1 year? 2 years?

And don't start with the "Brady says he wants to play until 45" thing. He can say that, but we'll see what actually happens, both within and outside of Brady's control. (And for the record I'd love for Brady to play at a high level for 5 years, and said that even when JG was still with the team.)

What about his performance to date has suggested to you that he's going to fall off a cliff in the next 1-2 years? I know people like to say that the end comes suddenly with QBs, but that's not really true. Brett Favre was notoriously inconsistent from age 36 onward, he was just as bad at 36 as at 40. Manning was dealing with an injury that forced him to rework all of his mechanics and inevitably led into another injury that he couldn't recover from. Warren Moon had a pronounced decline at age 40, then rebounded at 41 and fell off the cliff again at 42.

Brady, meanwhile, has without exception been an elite QB for every snap he's played over the last decade-plus. There has been no sign of decline. So until there's a real, tangible sign of decline, I don't see any point at all in hand-wringing over the theoretical possibility that this time next year he might be a **** quarterback.

My stance on this has been pretty consistent throughout: I'm going to wait to see some real, meaningful indication of decline, and only after that happens will I think it's reasonable to start putting a timeline on the remainder of Brady's career. People have been projecting the inevitable decline for 5+ years now, and they get it wrong every year. They'll get it right eventually, but they'll have been wrong 10 times before they were right. It's like Ron Paul predicting economic collapse every two years, or people who say the Spurs got old every offseason (I made a nice chunk of basically free money over the years betting the over on the Spurs win total every season). If you're wrong 10 times before you're right, then you weren't right at all.

The day we can definitively say Brady is in decline, then I'll be fine with this "1-2 years of Brady vs. 10 years of the other guy" talk, but since that hasn't happened yet I just don't see the point. It's highly likely that Brady has more years left in his career as a top-3 QB than Matt Ryan, Eli Manning, Phil Rivers and Carson Palmer had combined over their full careers, and again, projecting Garoppolo as a Matt Ryan / Phil Rivers caliber QB is pretty optimistic.

And **** it, even if Brady does decline over the next 1-2 years, that'll give Belichick/McDaniels plenty of time to draft and develop his replacement.