The 3-year transition Brady/Garoppollo theory - is there any merit?

[Bradyking12]

This forum is gonna be funny when Brady retires and post

 

[Gronk]

That's what I firmly believe is wrong. Sure, in a vacuum you can wait until Brady is no longer the best QB on the team before you change, but things don't operate in a vacuum.

Leave JG out of it. For some reason people are too spun up to even consider him rationally one way or the other. So this is about Unspecified Potential Replacement (UPR).

To me it all comes down to timing. In an ideal world you have UPR on the roster and all the contracts are aligned so that when Brady hangs it up or is clearly slipping you can just hand things over to UPR. But the world is seldom so ideal, even if when one is taking affirmative steps to make everything line up like that.

Unless you have that perfect timing, if the coach believes UPR is the guy then at some point he has to move on even if Brady is still the better QB because 10 or more years of UPR is better for the team than (say) two more years of still-better-than-UPR Brady followed by zero years of UPR (for example he's gone because his contract is over and he's not willing to be a backup anymore).

I don't disagree with that as a theory. But you still slipped into the "10 or more years of UPR" fallacy that has infused a lot of the JG talk. Theres no guarantee JG (or your UPR) would make it thru a 3 or 4 year contract, much less 10. In that slightly altered version of your proposed reality, you'd have been better off chasing SBs with the last 2 years of Brady since you ended up still searching for the next guy anyway.
So you're not trading 2 years of the better player for 10 years of great play...you're trading it for an imagined future.

Things will be different when TB is gone. Personally I think there are zero permutations of that future where NE continues to win 12 games and be a SB contender every year until the end of time, or whatever people are selling. I'm OK with that. This is special. Even if they were allowed to literally clone Tom Brady, that Tom Brady would still fail to live up to what the real guy has done. I hope they're still good post-TB, of course. I just dont happen to believe that this particular part (picking the QB) is as binary a choice as it is generally laid out to be. I.e. if they find a way to keep Jimmy = guaranteed long term QB and team routinely competes. If they don't = everything will suck. I cannot believe that BB would view the situation that way either.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I don't disagree with that as a theory. But you still slipped into the "10 or more years of UPR" fallacy that has infused a lot of the JG talk.

I said "if the coach believes UPR is the guy". Presumably the coach only believes he is "the guy" if the coach believes he's gonna get in the ballpark of 10 years out of him. At least for me, I'm not thinking anyone's "the guy" if I think there's a decent chance of him flaming out in 4 years.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That's what I firmly believe is wrong. Sure, in a vacuum you can wait until Brady is no longer the best QB on the team before you change, but things don't operate in a vacuum.

Leave JG out of it. For some reason people are too spun up to even consider him rationally one way or the other. So this is about Unspecified Potential Replacement (UPR).

To me it all comes down to timing. In an ideal world you have UPR on the roster and all the contracts are aligned so that when Brady hangs it up or is clearly slipping you can just hand things over to UPR. But the world is seldom so ideal, even if when one is taking affirmative steps to make everything line up like that.

Unless you have that perfect timing, if the coach believes UPR is the guy then at some point he has to move on even if Brady is still the better QB because 10 years of UPR is better for the team than (say) two more years of still-better-than-UPR Brady followed by zero years of UPR (for example he's gone because his contract is over and he's not willing to be a backup anymore).

When you think about it big picture, though, it would be pretty darn close to ideal. The Patriots have drafted a bunch of QBs, none of them being close to even resembling Brady. Cassell, Mallett, Hoyer, O'Connell. I remember they showed the Patriots draft room and they were really excited about Garopollo, like they had just pulled off a huge steal. That being said, I believe Garoppollo is going to be the best quarterback of all the ones they drafted...his six quarters alone was easily the most impressive QB play we have seen from a backup. Way above anyone else. So, talking about ideal timing. It's not like Tom Brady is 30 and therefore, nice pick, but he's going to be packing. Tom Brady is 40, AND the Patriots could control Garoppollo for two-three more years with franchise tags, or sign him to a big contract. In other words, it's looking more and more like they drafted him at just the right time. They may be 1-2 years early in moving on from Brady, not 10 years too early. The pick may have come at just about the right time...so I think if you are looking at the big picture, we are actually quite close to your "ideal world" where everything aligns. We will see.

 

[Simpelton]

I don't disagree with that as a theory. But you still slipped into the "10 or more years of UPR" fallacy that has infused a lot of the JG talk. Theres no guarantee JG (or your UPR) would make it thru a 3 or 4 year contract, much less 10.

That's more of a fallacy than the one you're highlighting. The fact of the matter is there's no guarantee Brady takes the second snap of the preseason either. You have to play the law of averages. And the law of averages is quite bluntly is more in favor of Garoppolo (or any other 25 year old UPR) playing 10 years than it is in favor of Brady playing 5.

The fact of the matter is that both transitioning to Garoppolo and NOT transitioning to Garoppolo are calculated risks and are the right decision depending on your objectives and priorities.

If your priority is indefinite contender status, you have to move to Garoppolo by 2019 because that's the use-him-or-lose him point, so unless another replacement presents himself that's an even better candidate as a young starting QB you've got a hard limit on your hands.

If your priority is some kind of perverse Brady fellatio you can go ahead and ignore the needs of the franchise in favor of the needs of the player and ride Brady back to ground floor level. I don't subscribe to that but I can see that a few of you guys are into that kind of thing. but make no mistake, with no other truly viable replacement, if you move Garoppolo right now that is the decision you're making, or at least the consequence you're risking. It's entirely possible that we move Garoppolo and NO quarterback emerges behind him capable of replacing any part of Brady's production within the next 4 years. That's what you risk if you can't move past the present and take a good hard look at future needs for this franchise.

Look around you. How many teams have perennially solid quarterbacking. Far less than half, wouldn't you say?

Would it be accurate that a significant percentage of teams have made and continue to make the playoffs despite rather than because of their quarterbacks?

On a related note, consider the sheer quantity and quality of value pieces that have already been dangled or leaked for Garoppolo -- a guy who's played 6 quarters of NFL football. Rather suggests a seller's market, wouldn't you say? And seller's markets exist when demand outstrips supply.

Right now we have supply. In 4-5 years, if we have refused to transition when we had the chance to switch to a quality replacement, we risk being in a situation where all we have is demand.

I doubt a vast upswell of quarterbacking talent will magically drench the rosters of the National Football League in the meantime, so it should be taken as a truism that good quarterbacking is so hard to find that decisions around keeping, replacing, and trading quarterbacks are franchise defining in nature and need to be handled with delicacy and skill, not nostalgia and hero-worship. No decision should be made lightly, and even fewer should be made with only the short term in mind.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That's more of a fallacy than the one you're highlighting. The fact of the matter is there's no guarantee Brady takes the second snap of the preseason either. You have to play the law of averages. And the law of averages is quite bluntly is more in favor of Garoppolo (or any other 25 year old UPR) playing 10 years than it is in favor of Brady playing 5.

The fact of the matter is that both transitioning to Garoppolo and NOT transitioning to Garoppolo are calculated risks and are the right decision depending on your objectives and priorities.

If your priority is indefinite contender status, you have to move to Garoppolo by 2019 because that's the use-him-or-lose him point, so unless another replacement presents himself that's an even better candidate as a young starting QB you've got a hard limit on your hands.

If your priority is some kind of perverse Brady fellatio you can go ahead and ignore the needs of the franchise in favor of the needs of the player and ride Brady back to ground floor level. I don't subscribe to that but I can see that a few of you guys are into that kind of thing. but make no mistake, with no other truly viable replacement, if you move Garoppolo right now that is the decision you're making, or at least the consequence you're risking. It's entirely possible that we move Garoppolo and NO quarterback emerges behind him capable of replacing any part of Brady's production within the next 4 years. That's what you risk if you can't move past the present and take a good hard look at future needs for this franchise.

Look around you. How many teams have perennially solid quarterbacking. Far less than half, wouldn't you say?

Would it be accurate that a significant percentage of teams have made and continue to make the playoffs despite rather than because of their quarterbacks?

On a related note, consider the sheer quantity and quality of value pieces that have already been dangled or leaked for Garoppolo -- a guy who's played 6 quarters of NFL football. Rather suggests a seller's market, wouldn't you say? And seller's markets exist when demand outstrips supply.

Right now we have supply. In 4-5 years, if we have refused to transition when we had the chance to switch to a quality replacement, we risk being in a situation where all we have is demand.

I doubt a vast upswell of quarterbacking talent will magically drench the rosters of the National Football League in the meantime, so it should be taken as a truism that good quarterbacking is so hard to find that decisions around keeping, replacing, and trading quarterbacks are franchise defining in nature and need to be handled with delicacy and skill, not nostalgia and hero-worship. No decision should be made lightly, and even fewer should be made with only the short term in mind.

Couldn't have written a more perfect explanation than this. Patriots mission statement is to contend for a championship every year. If the Patriots believe Garoppollo is a good enough quarterback to get them to that level, I don't see how they can let him go. it would be pretty difficult to make a "we can't possibly let this guy go" argument for a 42-year old quarterback, even if he is the greatest of all-time. I'm sure Tom Brady himself understands this line of thinking...strange that many of his fans can't fathom it. Peyton Manning understood why it was a no-brainer for the Colts to move on from him and shook hands with the team management. It wasn't personal. They believed they had a tremendous quarterback in Luck for the next 10-20 years while Manning had a just a few more. It turned out they underestimated Manning, who still had a 55 TD season left in him along with three great years, and perhaps they even overestimated Luck. But it was STILL the right move even despite that! Colts are set at QB for a long time. Don't confuse Grigson's incompetence and Elway's bold risks that paid off as evidence that the Colts should have kept Manning.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Let that last point set in (separate post needed).

The Colts were off on their projection of Manning. They thought he would "fall of a cliff" much sooner than he did and did not see him putting up more MVP caliber production for four more seasons.

It appears the Colts were also off on their projection of Luck. They projected him as an all-time great quarterback, and he does not appear to be capable of that, and maybe not even MVP-level.

Despite the projections being far from accurate, with Manning having more time left and being better than they projected, and Luck not being a sure-fire Hall of Fame QB, there is probably not a GM in the NFL who would do things differently, even in hindsight if they knew how each player would perform.

Already anticipating the objection that Garopollo is not as good as Luck (that's not a foregone conclusion) and that Brady is far better than Manning (forgetting that Manning's "fall offf years" were quite phenomenal). Regardless, you are missing the entire point: if both quarterbacks are capable of winning championships and are obvious "franchise QBs" you take the guy who is 15 years younger and will likely have 4-5X more chances to win titles.

 

[Soliel]

I dislike thinking about it but really i see Brady either retiring or leaving after two seasons. If he wins two rings in a row or even one, wow...imagine one ring for the middle finger of his left hand..lol...its inevitable so keeping jg is a good idea but there is going to be depression worse than Reagan leaving office. I hope he works as a qb coach because the guy truly loves the game.



Ice...i think you are right... Two or three years sounds right. I dont like it but it still seems rrasonable.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I dislike thinking about it but really i see Brady either retiring or leaving after two seasons. If he wins two rings in a row or even one, wow...imagine one ring for the middle finger of his left hand..lol...its inevitable so keeping jg is a good idea but there is going to be depression worse than Reagan leaving office. I hope he works as a qb coach because the guy truly loves the game.



Ice...i think you are right... Two or three years sounds right. I dont like it but it still seems rrasonable.

Just so you know, I am not grinning happily about this theory. Tom Brady is easily my favorite athlete of all-time...so you might say I don't like it either. I just think it is very logical. Let's remember, too, that in this is the case, they'd be moving on from Brady when he 42 years old. 42! It's not like they are shipping him out at age 35 because of some up and coming hotshot with a big arm. Brady has been blessed with a lot of years playing for the best franchise in the NFL, and likewise the Patriots are lucky to have the greatest to play the game. I think Garoppollo is the guy they've been wanting for several years though. I don't think they would replace Brady even at age 42, if Brian Hoyer or Matt Cassell was the plan moving forward. It's just circumstances. Brady won't play here forever. The Patriots might not be able to afford to let JG walk, no matter the sentimental cost.

 

[Soliel]

I agree. Its coming at some point and the three year theory you have is probably onthe money. Honestly i feel like it will come down after one or two years.

 

[Ivan]

That's more of a fallacy than the one you're highlighting. The fact of the matter is there's no guarantee Brady takes the second snap of the preseason either. You have to play the law of averages. And the law of averages is quite bluntly is more in favor of Garoppolo (or any other 25 year old UPR) playing 10 years than it is in favor of Brady playing 5.

The fact of the matter is that both transitioning to Garoppolo and NOT transitioning to Garoppolo are calculated risks and are the right decision depending on your objectives and priorities.

If your priority is indefinite contender status, you have to move to Garoppolo by 2019 because that's the use-him-or-lose him point, so unless another replacement presents himself that's an even better candidate as a young starting QB you've got a hard limit on your hands.

If your priority is some kind of perverse Brady fellatio you can go ahead and ignore the needs of the franchise in favor of the needs of the player and ride Brady back to ground floor level. I don't subscribe to that but I can see that a few of you guys are into that kind of thing. but make no mistake, with no other truly viable replacement, if you move Garoppolo right now that is the decision you're making, or at least the consequence you're risking. It's entirely possible that we move Garoppolo and NO quarterback emerges behind him capable of replacing any part of Brady's production within the next 4 years. That's what you risk if you can't move past the present and take a good hard look at future needs for this franchise.

Look around you. How many teams have perennially solid quarterbacking. Far less than half, wouldn't you say?

Would it be accurate that a significant percentage of teams have made and continue to make the playoffs despite rather than because of their quarterbacks?

On a related note, consider the sheer quantity and quality of value pieces that have already been dangled or leaked for Garoppolo -- a guy who's played 6 quarters of NFL football. Rather suggests a seller's market, wouldn't you say? And seller's markets exist when demand outstrips supply.

Right now we have supply. In 4-5 years, if we have refused to transition when we had the chance to switch to a quality replacement, we risk being in a situation where all we have is demand.

I doubt a vast upswell of quarterbacking talent will magically drench the rosters of the National Football League in the meantime, so it should be taken as a truism that good quarterbacking is so hard to find that decisions around keeping, replacing, and trading quarterbacks are franchise defining in nature and need to be handled with delicacy and skill, not nostalgia and hero-worship. No decision should be made lightly, and even fewer should be made with only the short term in mind.

What a complete load of bullsh.t. Garrapolo was asked to fill in for four games and couldn't make it through two. Brady then returned and played like the best player in football for 15 and he's the one you want to get rid of. The best response to this bullsh.t is the one Belichick gave when you guys threw this garbage out in 2014. He sneered at Giardi, that said it all. You don't get rid of the best player in football for a guy who couldn't make it through a month.

The complete lack of respect for Brady among the Garrapolo asslickers is appalling.

 

[Ivan]

Couldn't have written a more perfect explanation than this. Patriots mission statement is to contend for a championship every year. If the Patriots believe Garoppollo is a good enough quarterback to get them to that level, I don't see how they can let him go. it would be pretty difficult to make a "we can't possibly let this guy go" argument for a 42-year old quarterback, even if he is the greatest of all-time. I'm sure Tom Brady himself understands this line of thinking...strange that many of his fans can't fathom it. Peyton Manning understood why it was a no-brainer for the Colts to move on from him and shook hands with the team management. It wasn't personal. They believed they had a tremendous quarterback in Luck for the next 10-20 years while Manning had a just a few more. It turned out they underestimated Manning, who still had a 55 TD season left in him along with three great years, and perhaps they even overestimated Luck. But it was STILL the right move even despite that! Colts are set at QB for a long time. Don't confuse Grigson's incompetence and Elway's bold risks that paid off as evidence that the Colts should have kept Manning.

Steve Young, Aaron Rodgers, and Andrew Luck have two Lombardi's between the three of them. Tom Brady has that many since he turned 37 and you people wanted to get rid of him then. Brady is the one who has stated that he wants to play 4-5 more years and he has demonstrated he's completely up to that task by playing better each of the last 4 seasons and winning 2 Super Bowls the last 3 seasons. He's taken the Patriots to the AFCCG the last six seasons and you want to replace him with a QB who couldn't last 6 quarters. Poster's like Simpleton are talking about how Brady has earned the right to play the first snap of the preseason and nothing more, while AZpatsfan is actually trying to say Brady sucked in the Super Bowl, even though he led them to the greatest comeback in history and was the MVP of that game. Meanwhile the others pining for Jimmy Garrapolo say they are just talking about having a transition plan in place, when in fact what they have argued for repeatedly is replacing Brady after 2017, because there is absolutely no way in hell Belichick is paying the guy holding the clipboard 25 million dollars. Despite everything Brady has accomplished both during his career and the past 3 seasons the same people who wanted him gone in 2014 are insisting they are right and pretending in their roles of Mini-Bill the GM that Belichick wants to move on because the QB who won the Super Bowl won't play as well as the one who couldn't make it through two games in September. So by winning 2 of the past 3 Super Bowls Tom Brady has won the right to play the first snap of the pre season next year, but by not making it through two games in September Jimmy Garrapolo has won the right to be their QB for the next 10-15 seasons? Simply unbelievable.

 

[Simpelton]

Yes yes, Ivan, no one doubts you love Tom Brady, you don't need to fall over yourself to prove it yet again, this has nothing to do with Tom Brady being the better quarterback. We know he's going to be better than just about anyone we could replace him with for a very long time. That's not what this is about.

What this is about is judging whether keeping Brady as quarterback or the next 5 years is worth sacrificing a replacement that every franchise that has weighed in on the subject considers an excellent replacement. There does come a point in time when the cost-benefit analysis favors moving on to the replacement even if the older player is getting the job done.

And when siding with the older quarterback costs you the replacement, and when there isn't a backup quarterback we've had since Drew Bledsoe left that was a better bet to start games in Tom Brady's absence than the current heir apparent, sometimes the roster crunch forces you to make some tough decisions.

And in an environment like that, taking the decision that hopefully renders the quarterback position a nonproblem indefinitely is probably the objectively correct decision, even if it means you miss out on the last few seasons of one of history's greatest football players.

It's a tough call, but the people that do their thinking with their brain can at least see the merits of both sides of the argument. As much as I love me some Jacoby Brissett, he's not as viable an option as Garoppolo and he's got too far to go developmentally to be a guy we can be comfortable leaning on to replace Brady 4-5 years down the road. Garoppolo may turn out to be the best replacement we're going to find no matter how long we keep looking. Throwing him away objectively reduces our chances of being contenders in 2027, and I'm not as keen to handwave that kind of decision as the Brady immortalists seem to be. If keeping Garoppolo means missing out on a small handful of elite years from TB12, in all honesty, it's probably worth it from a long term planning standpoint.

This is the reason that the Manning/Luck situation was brought up. The decision was made to deliberately change the direction of the Colts franchise from Peyton Manning to the next guy even though Manning was getting it done at an MVP level. And it was the right decision. The Colts have their issues but quarterback isn't one of them, and Manning, despite having a great run in Denver, is now out of the league. If the Colts had not made this decision, and Luck had gone to another team, they would have had an even harder task climbing back to legitimacy right now.

Also, you're reading way too much into one injury situation. That was bad luck for Garoppolo, but it really doesn't mean very much -- not nothing but not very much. No serious franchise is evaluating Garoppolo based solely on his live playing time, that would be ridiculous so no intelligent GM is doing that.

 

[sb1]

I am not nearly as high on JG's level of play as a lot here are at least in those 6 quarters and I'm not close to sold that JG is the guy that will replace the GOAT at all, never mind playing at a level that warrants Brady being shown the door. Need to see a LOT more. I still believe there is a good chance that better options will be found in the QB 2018 draft class and then unlike JG you will have him as a rookie and let him step in when the time comes.

With that said we aren't naive enough to really believe BB and the team aren't starting to think about the post GOAT era. It's not that far off. Perhaps BB will show this by doing something he doesn't usually do- letting Brady rest in games that are out of reach and give JG a real look in those situations. And by look I mean run the offense not just 3 token handoffs and punt or 3 kneeldowns.

 

[sb1]

This is the reason that the Manning/Luck situation was brought up. The decision was made to deliberately change the direction of the Colts franchise from Peyton Manning to the next guy even though Manning was getting it done at an MVP level. And it was the right decision. The Colts have their issues but quarterback isn't one of them, and Manning, despite having a great run in Denver, is now out of the league. If the Colts had not made this decision, and Luck had gone to another team, they would have had an even harder task climbing back to legitimacy right now.

It's not quite true that Manning was getting it done at an MVP level, at least not in his final year as a Colts. He and the Colts didn't have a particularly good season - his passer rating was the lowest in 11 years- and they were bounced one and done. I wouldn't have been surprised if they missed the playoffs entirely in 11 with Manning. He certainly wasnt MVP of a historic SB win. And when he decided not to return in 2011 that made the decision much easier.

Also, you're reading way too much into one injury situation. That was bad luck for Garoppolo,

It could be luck...or we could be looking at our own Rob Johnson, another guy from back in the day with tons of talent who played great in a few quarters when teams didn't have tape on him but who got sacked and hurt a lot because of his style of play. JG does get sacked a lot. We don't know, that's the point. You can hasten Brady's exit if you see a future superstar like a Young or Rodgers in the making. Nothing about JGs play to date has shown any such thing.

 

[carmelo15]

What would a potential Jimmy Garoppolo extension look like?

Have you guys seen this really interesting if Jimmy G is out franchise qb. It's a 5 year 75 million extension 7.5 mill in signing bonus, 21 mill option bonus after the 2019 season

 

[Ivan]

Yes yes, Ivan, no one doubts you love Tom Brady, you don't need to fall over yourself to prove it yet again, this has nothing to do with Tom Brady being the better quarterback. We know he's going to be better than just about anyone we could replace him with for a very long time. That's not what this is about.

What this is about is judging whether keeping Brady as quarterback or the next 5 years is worth sacrificing a replacement that every franchise that has weighed in on the subject considers an excellent replacement. There does come a point in time when the cost-benefit analysis favors moving on to the replacement even if the older player is getting the job done.

And when siding with the older quarterback costs you the replacement, and when there isn't a backup quarterback we've had since Drew Bledsoe left that was a better bet to start games in Tom Brady's absence than the current heir apparent, sometimes the roster crunch forces you to make some tough decisions.

And in an environment like that, taking the decision that hopefully renders the quarterback position a nonproblem indefinitely is probably the objectively correct decision, even if it means you miss out on the last few seasons of one of history's greatest football players.

It's a tough call, but the people that do their thinking with their brain can at least see the merits of both sides of the argument. As much as I love me some Jacoby Brissett, he's not as viable an option as Garoppolo and he's got too far to go developmentally to be a guy we can be comfortable leaning on to replace Brady 4-5 years down the road. Garoppolo may turn out to be the best replacement we're going to find no matter how long we keep looking. Throwing him away objectively reduces our chances of being contenders in 2027, and I'm not as keen to handwave that kind of decision as the Brady immortalists seem to be. If keeping Garoppolo means missing out on a small handful of elite years from TB12, in all honesty, it's probably worth it from a long term planning standpoint.

This is the reason that the Manning/Luck situation was brought up. The decision was made to deliberately change the direction of the Colts franchise from Peyton Manning to the next guy even though Manning was getting it done at an MVP level. And it was the right decision. The Colts have their issues but quarterback isn't one of them, and Manning, despite having a great run in Denver, is now out of the league. If the Colts had not made this decision, and Luck had gone to another team, they would have had an even harder task climbing back to legitimacy right now.

Also, you're reading way too much into one injury situation. That was bad luck for Garoppolo, but it really doesn't mean very much -- not nothing but not very much. No serious franchise is evaluating Garoppolo based solely on his live playing time, that would be ridiculous so no intelligent GM is doing that.

I'm the one using the actual facts, you are The one relying solely upon your infatuation with a back up who couldn't make it through the only four games he has ever been counted on to play. And the truth of the matter is that the same people made the exact same argument in 2014, they were wrong then and refuse to admit it. I was right in the middle of those arguments and had the exact same names (Brady Fanboy, Homer etc etc) thrown at me then that are being thrown at me now. But what has happened since then? The Patriots won 2 more Super Bowls, Brady won 2 more Super Bowl MVP's, and without question the league MVP for those 3 seasons as a whole has been.......Tom Brady. In fact if you look at this season In its entirety including playoffs Brady was the MVP. If you look st the last two seasons as a whole Brady is the MVP. If you look at the last 3 seasons as a whole Brady is the MVP, and on and on and on, in fact the only player in football who has played at such a high level over the last 10 seasons is Aaron Rodgers, and despite being considerably younger even he hasn't maintained that level of play.

Every fact is on my side yet Brady's detractors continue to insist it's they who are right, simply because of Kellerman's Cliff. So you can keep talking sh.t about Brady having earned the right to play the first snap of the preseason and I'll keep reminding you and all of the other douches who keep crapping on him that Brady is still the best player in football and that the only thing you have to counter that is your imaginations.

Brady wins 2 of the last 3 Super Bowls and you claim that gives him the right to start the first snap of the preseason, Jimmy Garrapolo can't make it through the 4 games he was asked to do the job and that gives him the right to be their franchise QB for the next 10-15 seasons, what a load of crap.

 

[Ivan]

Let's see if Ian is willing to re open the threads from weeks 4-5-6-7 of 2014 and re-live what many here were saying about Brady then? I guarantee I was making the same arguments in those threads and getting called the exact same names for it. The truth of the matter is that Brady's detractors were 100% wrong then and they are making the exact same arguments now and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the actual reality, which is that you don't get rid of the best player in football while they are playing like the best player in football. And while Bradys detractors continue to bleat about Kellerman's Cliff the oddsmakers had the Patriots as heavy favorites before they made the moves they made to bolster the team in free agency and trades, so they have no such reservations about how good Tom Brady is.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'm the one using the actual facts, you are The one relying solely upon your infatuation with a back up who couldn't make it through the only four games he has ever been counted on to play. And the truth of the matter is that the same people made the exact same argument in 2014, they were wrong then and refuse to admit it. I was right in the middle of those arguments had the exact same names Brady Fanboy, Homer etc etc) thrown at me then that are being thrown at me now. But what has happened since then? The Patriots won 2 more Super Bowls, Brady won 2 more Super Bowl MVP's, and without question the league MVP for those 3 seasons as a whole has been.......Tom Brady. In fact if you look at this season In its entirety including playoffs Brady was the MVP. If you look st the last two seasons as a whole Brady is the MVP. If you look at the last 3 seasons as a whole Brady is the MVP, and on and on and on, in fact the only player in football who has played at such a high level over the last 10 seasons is Aaron Rodgers, and despite being considerably younger even he hasn't maintained that level of play.

Every fact is on my side yet Brady's detractors continue to insist it's they who are right, simply because of Kellerman's Cliff. So you can keep talking sh.t about Brady having earned the right to play the first snap of the preseason and I'll keep reminding you and all of the other douches who keep crapping on him that Brady is still the best player in football and that the only thing you have to counter that is your imaginations.

Brady wins 2 of the last 3 Super Bowls and you claim that gives him the right to start the first snap of the preseason, Jimmy Garrapolo can't make it through the 4 games he was asked to do the job and that gives him the right to be their franchise QB for the next 10-15 seasons, what a load of crap.

I am just curious, who on earth was suggesting any type of transition in 2014?

I don't think you are understanding, once again, that we are Brady fanboys, not Jimmy fanboys. And we are not suggesting they transition from Brady to JG; we are speculating that may be the Patriots thinking, considering that, if you believe Schefter, which I do, JG is untouchable in trade talks, there is historical precedent for similar moves like this that are almost always considered the right move in hindsight, Brady will be FORTY-TWO in 2019, and despite that JG only played for six quarters, multiple teams saw enough to want to trade a boat load of draft picks for him, while the Patriots know a lot more about him than just six quarters and won't trade him even for what appears to be a very high price.

To ignore there is a plausible succession plan, and considering the contract situation with TB and JG, you are being blind to a plausible idea and accusing people of hating/doubting Brady despite that only a couple of people have said stupid things like SB51 shows he is declining. Brady's play is not declining. He may not decline in two years. They still might choose to move forward with Garappollo. You should try to understand the reasoning behind it instead of being so close-minded. Most everyone is acknowledging there at least plausible arguments both ways...not such a clear black and white decision.

 

[Ivan]

Let's get Ian to open those threads.