The Official 'Trade Brady' Debate Thread - Do Not Start Another One

[AzPatsFan]

I'm not sure where your getting an acquisition or two. Obviously, the Pats would have been considerably better with Thomas and a corner which were on IR, but that wasn't happening either. The Pats, were also pretty bad on 3rd down.
The Colts defense was pathetic in 2006. Everyone ran on them, ran over them, ran thru them. Then they jelled for a few games and nobody could run on them. I don't know the data, but I would think that their red zone defense was pretty good during those same games.
Now, if you want to think, that the Pats red zone and 3rd down defense would also jell at the appropriate time, then thats for you to dream.

No, it ALREADY has gelled. Check the scores of the last four games. As for bad weather, you must be one of them AGW Cassandras. Last time I looked, it gets cold and windy, and snowy, EVERY year in December and January. This year was no different.

Would a few better players help? Well, what would you do with 11 draft choices, including 5 in the first three rounds? Draft scouts for Nick Caserio?

Fact is of all the Teams in the playoffs no one had a better mix of Offense and Defense, at 4th and 10th.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, it ALREADY has gelled. Check the scores of the last four games. As for bad weather, you must be one of them AGW Cassandras. Last time I looked, it gets cold and windy, and snowy, EVERY year in December and January. This year was no different.

Would a few better players help? Well, what would you do with 11 draft choices, including 5 in the first three rounds? Draft scouts for Nick Caserio?

Fact is of all the Teams in the playoffs no one had a better mix of Offense and Defense, at 4th and 10th.

But statistics don't matter! Statistics lie! Anyone who bases any aspect of their opinion on statistics is a fantasy geek who doesn't know what real football is!

/sarcasm

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yes, and almost every single one of those accomplishments was a team effort.


Do you really think the 50 TDs last year was because of Tom Brady, and not Randy Moss?

That's not at all what I think. Every accomplishment of every player is a team effort. The point is, you can go ahead and pick your metric, and, whatever it is, Brady belongs in the discussion, at the very least. You want statistics? He has them. You want Super Bowls? He has them. You want intangibles? Listen to his teammates sometime. Listen to Fernando Bryant, who played with him for all of one preseason, say he's in a league of his own.

All I did was ask a simple question, and you haven't answered it. Who's better? Until someone can definitely answer that (Montana and LT aren't bad choices, but you can make a strong case for Brady against either of them), my assertion that Brady's the best of all time isn't outrageous at all. When did it become homerism to acknowledge that we have a historically good QB, and that we should enjoy that rather than arbitrarily decide that he should be traded? In 10 years, most of you people will probably be off the bandwagon anyways, but if you're still around by then, maybe you'll finally appreciate that Brady isn't the kind of guy that you trade under anything short of the most extreme of circumstances (and these circumstances aren't extreme at all- Brady is recovering fine and Cassel is a good, not great QB).

 

[scout]

That's not at all what I think. Every accomplishment of every player is a team effort. The point is, you can go ahead and pick your metric, and, whatever it is, Brady belongs in the discussion, at the very least. You want statistics? He has them. You want Super Bowls? He has them. You want intangibles? Listen to his teammates sometime. Listen to Fernando Bryant, who played with him for all of one preseason, say he's in a league of his own.

All I did was ask a simple question, and you haven't answered it. Who's better? Until someone can definitely answer that (Montana and LT aren't bad choices, but you can make a strong case for Brady against either of them), my assertion that Brady's the best of all time isn't outrageous at all. When did it become homerism to acknowledge that we have a historically good QB, and that we should enjoy that rather than arbitrarily decide that he should be traded? In 10 years, most of you people will probably be off the bandwagon anyways, but if you're still around by then, maybe you'll finally appreciate that Brady isn't the kind of guy that you trade under anything short of the most extreme of circumstances (and these circumstances aren't extreme at all- Brady is recovering fine and Cassel is a good, not great QB).

Because I differ with your opinion, do not conclude that I am a bandwagon fan.
My reasons for keeping our options open is because I have witness some great Boston teams over the decades. After those teams (Bird/Celtics, Orr/Bruins) won their titles I always had the feeling it wasn't enough, they should have won more. Larry even stated that same sentiment. Heck, if the Patriots do not win another title, numerous people right here will be saying the same thing.
You do not know how Brady's recovery is going based on what you in print.
I don't think anyone is calling Cassel great after his first season.
Hey, you have your opinion, and thats fine. Can we just agree to disagree without throwing barbs.

 

[Miguel]

I stand corrected. I should have said 28%, not $ 28 million on the CAP. What was the CAP in 2003? I don't recall, but it was well under $75 million; and probably more like $50 or $60 million. I do remember people saying the Clots were over 30% of the CAP in QBs. Don't forget to add in Sorgi's or whoever's pittance too.

Here are the cap limits.

2008 $116,134,000
2007 $109,134,000
2006 $102,000,000
2005 $85,500,000
2004 $80,582,000
2003 $75,007,000

Here are the Colts' adjusted cap numbers
2008 $123,230,115
2007 $111,317,326
2006 $102,560,000
2004 $78,313,449

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Here are the cap limits.

2008 $116,134,000
2007 $109,134,000
2006 $102,000,000
2005 $85,500,000
2004 $80,582,000
2003 $75,007,000

Here are the Colts' adjusted cap numbers
2008 $123,230,115
2007 $111,317,326
2006 $102,560,000
2004 $78,313,449

So, just to check, doesn't that mean the Colts have a bit of piper-paying to do in 2009?

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

Brady or Cassel?

Who cares.

If the Pats don't fix their pass defense for 2009 it won't matter.

 

[ScottieC]

Brady or Cassel?

Who cares.

If the Pats don't fix their pass defense for 2009 it won't matter.

Sooooooo, Asante Samuel was the reason for 16-0 and a trip to the Super Bowl?

Ok.

 

[TruthSeeker]

1000! Lets end it!

Nah, we're just getting started. It's not even February!

 

[BradyFTW!]

Because I differ with your opinion, do not conclude that I am a bandwagon fan.
My reasons for keeping our options open is because I have witness some great Boston teams over the decades. After those teams (Bird/Celtics, Orr/Bruins) won their titles I always had the feeling it wasn't enough, they should have won more. Larry even stated that same sentiment. Heck, if the Patriots do not win another title, numerous people right here will be saying the same thing.
You do not know how Brady's recovery is going based on what you in print.
I don't think anyone is calling Cassel great after his first season.
Hey, you have your opinion, and thats fine. Can we just agree to disagree without throwing barbs.

Barbs? Would you like me to go back and count the number of times you've called me some variation of an out-of-touch, irrational homer just because I don't buy your brilliant theory that replacing Brady with Cassel and some defensive draft picks will make the Pats better? It's at 4 or 5, at least. To be totally honest, I think that the reasonable side of the debate has been pretty restrained as far as taking you seriously enough to even hear out your side of the issue.

The point that you just made pretty well encapsulates everything that's wrong with the pro-trade crowd, though. You guys think that trading Brady will extend the dynasty. The fact that the Celtics "should have won more" is pretty much irrelevant. Len Bias died, McHale and Bird broke down, and it was what it was. If anything, that shows you how difficult it is to sustain a dynasty past the careers of its most important players. Even if the Celtics had 'sold high' on Bird and McHale, it's still a long shot that the returns would have been sufficient to keep them in championship contention.

In fact, in some ways we're making the same point: you have to win as many championships as you can while you can. In what I'm sure you'd regard as a stunning role reversal, though, I'm taking the pragmatic outlook on this. Our best chance to win as many Super Bowls as possible is to ride out the fact that we have the greatest QB in history (one of the greatest WRs in history, too), and an exceptionally strong cast of players around him. I'd rather have an excellent chance to see the Pats win 1-2 more in the next 5 years than have an extremely slim chance to see them continue the dynasty for 3 more championships over the course of a whole extra decade. A lot of things can happen year in and year out to screw up even the best-formed plans; you have to take what you can while it's there ot be taken.

 

[scout]

Barbs? Would you like me to go back and count the number of times you've called me some variation of an out-of-touch, irrational homer just because I don't buy your brilliant theory that replacing Brady with Cassel and some defensive draft picks will make the Pats better? .

ABSOLUTELY!
I stopped reading your post right there.
Please, go back to my posts and find where I called you out.
I might have been a little defensive after a bashing, but never have I called anyone out.
So, "go back and count the number of times".............

 

[BradyFTW!]

ABSOLUTELY!
I stopped reading your post right there.
Please, go back to my posts and find where I called you out.
I might have been a little defensive after a bashing, but never have I called anyone out.
So, "go back and count the number of times".............

Sure, I just scanned back a couple of pages, and I may have overlooked some, but I came up with these quips that you had in response to my posts:

Now, if you want to think, that the Pats red zone and 3rd down defense would also jell at the appropriate time, then thats for you to dream.
===
Your kidding right?
===
Somehow, you have transformed the Patriots defense into a very good one to help your argument that there is no options of trading Brady.
===
Its fitting of you to escalate Tom Brady to the greatest player in the history of the NFL.
===
While your at it, don't buy any funds with Madoff.

Each statement explicitly states that I'm either making stuff up or have no idea what I'm talking about. Not a big deal or anything--pretty much comes with the territory of posting on message boards--but it does make it all the more hypocritical and ridiculous when you get indignant and pitch a fit because other people do the same thing.

 

[Steamer86]

You don't trade Bird, you don't trade Brady......

 

[scout]

You don't trade Bird, you don't trade Brady......

Why would you trade Bird when you have the best starting five in the league?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Jeez guys- now that Brady's back and doing well in OTAs, just IMAGINE how much we could get for him in a trade...

 

[Reaper]

Ha! Never gonna Happen!

 

[Dirk3601215]

my brain hurts reading this thread.

 

[jmt57]

Jeez guys- now that Brady's back and doing well in OTAs, just IMAGINE how much we could get for him in a trade...

The fans of other teams are all correct; Brady's just a system QB!
Trade Brady, plug in Hoyer, and use that cap money to get Julius Peppers!

 

[Bartmac36]

AAAAHHHH...just happened to stumble across this old thing...one year later and I bet there are still some negative thinkers out there who would want to trade him right about now...THIS SEASON IS STILL OURS FOR THE TAKING...with Brady too...

 

[fourthandmiles]

Note to self: Check the dates of all threads before reading.

I always get a page or two into these old threads wondering where things are going and wondering what rock people have been under. Then I get really confused and look at the date.