Pats not trading Garoppolo - Schefter

[Huckleberry1]

Because he only has so much time left (whether because of decline or because he decides to call it a day and go out on top).

Tell me which you would prefer (again, I'm leaving contracts aside so we don't get all tied up in "well, that's not possible under the current contracts anyways" distractions, as this is a hypothetical discussion):

• Three great years of Brady and then "what the hell do we do for a QB???" for years.
• Two great years of Brady and then move on to a solid starter for 5-10 years.

I know what what I'd want and it's not the first one. And at some point those two choices (or choices very like them) are what Belichick will be facing.

Now sure, we'd all like "6 great years of Brady and then move on to someone we've drafted and groomed by then" but we'd all like unicorns and ponies and winning Powerball tickets, too.

Once again you are just assuming Garrapolo will be s very good QB, those of us who disagree believe there's no such guarantee, whereas we know exactly what we are getting with a Brady, and that's greatness year in and year out.

 

[Tunescribe]

Where the fK would the comment "jets fan" even fit in this discussion dumbo?

Because Jets fans wouldn't know good quarterback play if it bit them in the ass.

He did not look comfortable in the pocket, even the commentators pointed that out. His pocket presence is not good, it could be because he doesn't have many starts.

Did you miss the Miami and Arizona games last year? His pocket presence was superb. You have no clue.

 

[Angelpats]

Because he only has so much time left (whether because of decline or because he decides to call it a day and go out on top).

Tell me which you would prefer (again, I'm leaving contracts aside so we don't get all tied up in "well, that's not possible under the current contracts anyways" distractions, as this is a hypothetical discussion):

• Three great years of Brady and then "what the hell do we do for a QB???" for years.
• Two great years of Brady and then move on to a solid starter for 5-10 years.

Between those choices, two years and a solid starter... I think you are misinterpreting what I and some others are saying. We don't think Brady is going to play 6 years or ten years. I think he plays until he knows he can't perform at competitive level. Those are his words not his dads and it looks like we have a solid backup next year and Brissett wasn't too bad considering being a roookie with no first team reps. No one wants to see Brady throwing lame ducks and losing games, especially himself. We always have a solid backup, cassel, hoyer , JG and maybe Brissett. Just enjoy the ride and believe Tom when he says he will hang it up when he can't play well anymore.

 

[Uptown]

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Just enjoy the ride and believe Tom when he says he will hang it up when he can't play well anymore.

And what if that happens one or two years after Brady's presence forces NE to cut/trade/let walk away a viable replacement? That's the thing the "ride Brady until he wants to leave" types don't seem to get.

 

[sb1]

And it's not just only 6 quarters of experience. Garoppolo also took what - 7 sacks? One hit led to his injury. That's a little disconcerting if I'm thinking of trading one of the top picks of a deep draft this year at other positions.

Not happening, IMO.

 

[The Gr8est]

And it's not just only 6 quarters of experience. Garoppolo also took what - 7 sacks? One hit led to his injury. That's a little disconcerting if I'm thinking of trading one of the top picks of a deep draft this year at other positions.

Not happening, IMO.

So are you suggesting that Brady would not have been injured by the hit that injured Jimmy?

If not, are you suggesting it is because Brady is tougher, or just is better at falling to avoid injury?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

So are you suggesting that Brady would not have been injured by the hit?

He's more pliable.



I think he does anticipate hits very well, to be serious.

 

[The Gr8est]

He's more pliable.



I think he does anticipate hits very well, to be serious.

So we are expecting Jimmy to learn from this going forward and bend/twist, or whatever so that his shoulder doesn't take the brunt of the hit in the future?

 

[varjao]

Once again you are just assuming Garrapolo will be s very good QB, those of us who disagree believe there's no such guarantee.

The evidence is compelling, if not overwhelming, that JimmyG is a very good QB. That said I'm in favor of trading him, when the GOAT retires so will I.

 

[sb1]

So are you suggesting that Brady would not have been injured by the hit that injured Jimmy?

If not, are you suggesting it is because Brady is tougher, or just is better at falling to avoid injury?

I'm just suggesting that 7 sacks is not a small number in just under 6 quarters of football experience. More sacks = more chance of getting hurt.

Edit: My bad I read the chart wrong- it's 8 sacks in 94 pass attempts. That's not so great either. If JG gets sacked a lot that's not a compliment.

 

[XLIX]

If the Patriots think JG is truly their franchise qb of the future, they should sign him to a long-term contract. Currently the Pats are paying their qb's $10M less than most other teams with quality qb's. Somehow they should be able to simultaneously restructure TFB and extend JG in a way that doesn't break the bank in any one year. For instance pay TFB for 5 years at $20M, $20M, $10M, $5M, $5M and JG for 5 years at $5M, $5M, $15M, $20M, $20M. Go ahead and guarantee 100% of the money and give no-trades to both. That seems to provide a smooth transition from TFB to JG over the next 5 years without breaking the bank. I don't know the cap implications of doing this, but some of you may be able to tweak this idea to ensure that is cap friendly.

Why in the world would Garoppolo agree to a deal which gives him $25M over the first 3 years to be a backup????

 

[XLIX]

And what if that happens one or two years after Brady's presence forces NE to cut/trade/let walk away a viable replacement? That's the thing the "ride Brady until he wants to leave" types don't seem to get.

And the thing the "Keep Garoppolo at all costs" people don't seem to get is that this is a Championship caliber team and you hurt your odds of winning Super Bowls in the immediate future if you let Brady go for an unproven younger guy.

 

[Ring 6]

Because he only has so much time left (whether because of decline or because he decides to call it a day and go out on top).

Tell me which you would prefer (again, I'm leaving contracts aside so we don't get all tied up in "well, that's not possible under the current contracts anyways" distractions, as this is a hypothetical discussion):

• Three great years of Brady and then "what the hell do we do for a QB???" for years.
• Two great years of Brady and then move on to a solid starter for 5-10 years.

I know what what I'd want and it's not the first one. And at some point those two choices (or choices very like them) are what Belichick will be facing.

Now sure, we'd all like "6 great years of Brady and then move on to someone we've drafted and groomed by then" but we'd all like unicorns and ponies and winning Powerball tickets, too.

But you can't have 2 years of Brady then JG after.

JG is "someone we drafted and groomed" not tom Brady jr.

At this point not trading Jimmy g means either you lose him next year for nothing or you cut Brady next year.

 

[Ring 6]

I said months ago 2018 would be a huge year for Brady/Jimmy and the direction the team goes. If they decide to keep Jimmy this off-season, I'd imagine Brady might have given an indication he only wants to play through the remainder of his current deal (2019). This allows NE to push to resign Jimmy for a discount in 2018 & 2019 with big pay increase in 2020+ when he becomes the starter. All this depends on both scenarios falling into place and Jimmy accepting to remain the backup for 3 more years. Great opportunity for him to remain on a competitive team while still making bank and know he will eventually be the lead dog.

Why would JG stay here as a back up when other teams want him as a starter? He's forced now because he is under contract. In 12 months he won't be.

 

[Ring 6]

Brady isn't going anywhere. Kraft will veto anything to the contrary.

Since he fought so hard for Brady not getting screwed by goodell

 

[Angelpats]

And what if that happens one or two years after Brady's presence forces NE to cut/trade/let walk away a viable replacement? That's the thing the "ride Brady until he wants to leave" types don't seem to get.

BB will cut Brady when his backup is better than him and when he costs too much which comes all the way back to when you said we shouldn't even keep him even though he is better than his backup. That makes no sense when taking into account he doesn't ask for top QB money. "Us" types believe in Brady and BB. We will always have a viable backup, never during this regime have we not one. Cassell, Hoyer, Mallet, JG, Brissett, they could all win use games, Brady wins us Superbowls. You guys listen to the patriot and Brady hating mediots too much. Think Brady will stink it up over night. It will be a gradual thing that will allow us time to further develop a backup. I remember after the KC game a few years ago all the mediots wanted to bench Brady and "you" guys fell for it. We won the Super Bowl that year. Third quarter this years Super Bowl, some of you guys likely wanted him benched too. "You" guys probably still think he deflated footballs. "Us" guys have faith in the man. "Us" guys think he can still bring us home another Super Bowl before he hangs it up and when he does we will have a viable QB waiting, as always. Don't drink all the JG juice the mediots are giving you, he had years in our system with whole training camp with 1st team. He looked real good. I think Brisset will be just as good.

 

[XLIX]

The majority of the "Keep Garoppolo" people just aren't living in reality. They all seem to think:

1) Garoppolo will be perfectly happen sacrificing millions and millions of dollars to remain a backup for several more years, or...

2) They agree with Max Kellerman and Brady "falling off the cliff" is coming imminently, or...

3) Brady will be perfectly happy to ride off into the sunset after next year, despite the fact that he has stated time and time again he wants to keep playing for several more years

There is zero evidence whatsoever to believe any of those things are even remotely realistic.

 

[Ring 6]

And what if that happens one or two years after Brady's presence forces NE to cut/trade/let walk away a viable replacement? That's the thing the "ride Brady until he wants to leave" types don't seem to get.

Everyone gets it.
What you don't get is that you don't ruin a SB caliber team by giving away the GOAT in order to hand in to a kid who has played 6 quarters.
SB rings don't come easy and if they leave with Brady that needs to happen at the latest date possible.

 

[Ring 6]

The decision of how long to keep the GOAT is not based upon the contract status of the unproven backup.

The decision of who replaced the GOAT is based upon when the GOAT is through.

People have this entirely backwards.