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

[Deus Irae]

Back to the "we're already the team of next decade" nonsense, and to those who say "look at all the qb's playing into their late thirties!" The idea is to maximize the chance at sustained excellence. If you look again at the teams of the decades--the Steelers in the 70s, the 49ers in the 80s, the Cowboys in the 90s--look at the ages of the QBs.....

Terry Bradshaw won his last Super Bowl at 31, Joe Montana at 33, Troy Aikman at 29. Next year Brady will be 32. The idea that the championships were rolling in late in their 30s is simply untrue. Occasionally things will come together and a QB will win one later--Plunkett did, Elway did (when the Denver team won because of defense and Terrell Davis, not Elway) but for championship contention year after year, you're not going to see it with a guy in his mid-thirties.

Bart Starr was 34
Elway was 38
Staubach was 35
Plunkett was 36
Johnson was 34

And those were just the winners. If you add in the players who got there but lost in the Super Bowl, you get

Morrall at 34
Tarkenton at 36
Morton at 34
Staubach at 36
Theismann at 34
Gannon at 37

That's a lot of quarterbacks getting to, and winning, the Super Bowl after 33 years of age.

 

[groganbootleg]

Get your facts straight. They went back in to clean out the infection. He did not have a second ACL surgery.

Did they cut him again? That would be 2 (TWO) surgeries then.....those are the facts. If the first one was neat and clean they wouldn't have had to go back in again. The point is he is far from a simple cleaning out procedure. This is going to take some time and its not out of the question that he never comes back the same.

 

[ScottieC]

Did they cut him again? That would be 2 (TWO) surgeries then.....those are the facts. If the first one was neat and clean they wouldn't have had to go back in again. The point is he is far from a simple cleaning out procedure. This is going to take some time and its not out of the question that he never comes back the same.

This is nuts.

Brady had ONE surgery, that's it - ONE.

He had another PROCEDURE - NOT a surgery - this procedure was done to clean the knee out and sterilize the affected area. This procedure was done using a needle and flushed the knee. The knee was NEVER opened for a second time.

We are now 11 Weeks out of the initial surgery and 8-9 weeks out of the flush when the infection was diagnosed.

 

[scout]

Bart Starr was 34
Elway was 38
Staubach was 35
Plunkett was 36
Johnson was 34

And those were just the winners. If you add in the players who got there but lost in the Super Bowl, you get

Morrall at 34
Tarkenton at 36
Morton at 34
Staubach at 36
Theismann at 34
Gannon at 37

That's a lot of quarterbacks getting to, and winning, the Super Bowl after 33 years of age.

Out of 42 Super bowls 5 QB's were past their prime and won. Johnson was one and done and was there because of the Bucs defense. Philadelphia scored 10 against Oakland, Miami scored 3 points against Dallas's defense. Kansas scored 10 against Green Bay. Now Elway did have a good game, but he sure looked like he was on his last legs.
My point, defense wins championships.

 

[groganbootleg]

In other words, the answer is "no"

Wow, so a 31 yr old with a major knee injury is not at risk for having more injuries later on? Thats a bold statement.

Ok, you really think that Cassel is a first ballot hall of famer? I ask, because that's what Steve Young is.

Young was not a HOFer when he took over. Montana was.

But it is a slam dunk. Brady's not getting traded.

Says you.....the thread is to discuss the relative merits of both options, not to come to a final conclusion. I think if you asked BB (and he answered honestly), he would tell you nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

 

[aluminum seats]

Bart Starr was 34
Elway was 38
Staubach was 35
Plunkett was 36
Johnson was 34

And those were just the winners. If you add in the players who got there but lost in the Super Bowl, you get

Morrall at 34
Tarkenton at 36
Morton at 34
Staubach at 36
Theismann at 34
Gannon at 37

That's a lot of quarterbacks getting to, and winning, the Super Bowl after 33 years of age.

See, your post doesn’t really refute mine. I’m talking about the best way to maximize the Pats chances to be the team of the next decade. Saying, “look, these QBs were old, but they were able to lose the Super Bowl!” doesn’t really help your argument. As for the winning old-timers, I already mentioned two of those five. As for the other three who were able to get one, I acknowledged that sometimes the stars can align for a team, whoever the QB is.

 

[aluminum seats]

Well maybe if Joe stayed with the 49ers he would have won again there is no way of knowing.
Troy had a serious concussion problem that TB does not have thankfully.

But Joe didn't stay, because SF wanted to move on. Troy had concussions. Brady has major knee surgery, etc. This stuff happens when you get older.

 

[ScottieC]

Says you.....the thread is to discuss the relative merits of both options, not to come to a final conclusion. I think if you asked BB (and he answered honestly), he would tell you nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

In all fairness, If you asked Bill if the Sun would rise in the east tomorrow, he would defer to tomorrow so he could give you a more definitive answer, nothing with Bill is out of the realm of possibility...until it's reality and then he still won't comment.

 

[Deus Irae]

Out of 42 Super bowls 5 QB's were past their prime and won. Johnson was one and done and was there because of the Bucs defense. Philadelphia scored 10 against Oakland, Miami scored 3 points against Dallas's defense. Kansas scored 10 against Green Bay. Now Elway did have a good game, but he sure looked like he was on his last legs.
My point, defense wins championships.

No, players and teams win championships, both on offense and on defense. For that matter, Desmond Howard showed it also happens on special teams. Generally speaking (not always), the teams who make the Super Bowl are pretty good on both offense and defense.

However, just for example, the past 2 Super Bowl winners have been ranked higher offensively than defensively.

 

[scout]

See, your post doesn’t really refute mine. I’m talking about the best way to maximize the Pats chances to be the team of the next decade. Saying, “look, these QBs were old, but they were able to lose the Super Bowl!” doesn’t really help your argument. As for the winning old-timers, I already mentioned two of those five. As for the other three who were able to get one, I acknowledged that sometimes the stars can align for a team, whoever the QB is.

Not to mention on three of the five winners the defense was dominant.

 

[Rob0729]

Well, about 300 are pointless posts decrying the thread, like this one. If these stopped--or if the mods deleted them, hint hint--the thread would be much more focused.

The posts decrying the thread are the only ones I can see that are remotely based in reality.

When people start bring up ages of QBs who won Super Bowls 2-3 decades ago trying to prove that Brady cannot win a Super Bowl in his mid to late 30s, you know this thread has gone down a ludicrious path. Players play longer and are far more productive in their 30s today than even 10 years ago. An ACL tear was a career ender just 15 or so years ago. Now players return in less than a year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Wow, so a 31 yr old with a major knee injury is not at risk for having more injuries later on? Thats a bold statement.

Not really, since I never said any such thing.

Young was not a HOFer when he took over. Montana was.

Well, since you want to play word games rather than answer the question, neither Montana nor Young were HOFers when the switch was made. Nonetheless, they both ended up in the Hall. So, are you saying that Cassel is destined for first ballot status?

Says you.....the thread is to discuss the relative merits of both options, not to come to a final conclusion. I think if you asked BB (and he answered honestly), he would tell you nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

Yes, says me.

 

[Deus Irae]

See, your post doesn’t really refute mine. I’m talking about the best way to maximize the Pats chances to be the team of the next decade. Saying, “look, these QBs were old, but they were able to lose the Super Bowl!” doesn’t really help your argument. As for the winning old-timers, I already mentioned two of those five. As for the other three who were able to get one, I acknowledged that sometimes the stars can align for a team, whoever the QB is.

No, it refutes yours, especially when more than one of the Super Bowls had one older quarterback facing off against another. When 35 faces off against 34, 36 faces off against 34 or 37 faces off against 34, naturally a quarterback over the age of 33 is going to lose.

 

[aluminum seats]

Not to mention on three of the five winners the defense was dominant.

That's exactly right....

 

[aluminum seats]

The posts decrying the thread are the only ones I can see that are remotely based in reality.

When people start bring up ages of QBs who won Super Bowls 2-3 decades ago trying to prove that Brady cannot win a Super Bowl in his mid to late 30s, you know this thread has gone down a ludicrious path. Players play longer and are far more productive in their 30s today than even 10 years ago. An ACL tear was a career ender just 15 or so years ago. Now players return in less than a year.

Well that explains all the late-thirties QBs winning Super Bowls lately. Oh wait.

 

[aluminum seats]

No, it refutes yours, especially when more than one of the Super Bowls had one older quarterback facing off against another. When 35 faces off against 34, 36 faces off against 34 or 37 faces off against 34, naturally a quarterback over the age of 33 is going to lose.

Sorry, that doesn't help you at all. It doesn't make losing QBs winners, number one. Number two, it raises a good point against you--these older QBs were only able to win when they were playing other old QBs.

 

[emoney_33]

I just wanted to say that there is and will always only be ONE Tom Brady...

This debate hinges on whether Brady can get healthy enough to play at an elite level, and as fans we will NEVER know the merits of any such argument. Too many posters are forgetting who exactly we are talking about here, and it isn't Joe Schmoe!

There is not a single reason to believe Tom F'ing Brady will not work harder than any other to bring himself back to an elite level, nor is there a single reason to believe he suffered career ending/deterring injury.

Two things would make Cassel a better choice than Brady, neither of which a fan can have any clue to by the time a decision is made.

A) Brady's injury is more severe than anyone thought.

or

B) Brady's personality has changed and he no longer desires to be a great NFL QB.




Seriously guys, we are talking about Tom Brady...

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry, that doesn't help you at all. It doesn't make losing QBs winners, number one. Number two, it raises a good point against you--these older QBs were only able to win when they were playing other old QBs.

Of course, that means that quarterbacks under 34 are losers, too, and they couldn't even get to the Super Bowl despite playing against all those fossils.

You really might want to re-think your logic train here. 50% of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks have been 30 years of age or older.

 

[aluminum seats]

Of course, that means that quarterbacks under 34 are losers, too, and they couldn't even get to the Super Bowl despite playing against all those fossils.

You really might want to re-think your logic train here. 50% of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks have been 30 years of age or older.

Actually, I was having fun with your list of losing Super Bowl QBs as being evidence that that's the way to go to be the team of the next decade.

As to the 50%, we can play with numbers all you like. Such as Brady will be 32, and the winners over that age drops real quick down to 21%. Or that there's been one winning QB over 30 in the last 13 years as players--defenses--get bigger, faster and stronger.

 

[mesoslo]

If the colts are williing to trade manning, then the patriots will also be willing to trade Brady.
But I dont see any of those things happening anytime soon.