|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 29, 2017 10:04:54 GMT -5
Why bother trying to read minds? That's where we're at now. Some of us are anyways. Others of us are simply saying there are a bunch of different ways this can play out including Brady someday wearing another teams uniform. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2017 10:09:17 GMT -5
Why bother trying to read minds? That's where we're at now. Some of us are anyways. Others of us are simply saying there are a bunch of different ways this can play out including Brady someday wearing another teams uniform. There's a problem communicating here. Some people are saying what they think will happen and others take that as them saying what will happen and playing devil's advocate. People are free to believe what they want. I believe strongly (based on my own opinions) that Brady will finish his career in NE and play very well for 3-4 more years. Don't bother arguing with these guesses. I guess aliens could abduct him also. |
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 10:12:49 GMT -5
I guess aliens could abduct him also. How do we know he's not one? |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2017 10:16:41 GMT -5
You're kidding right? Yes we do. Winning games and Superbowls, while being the greatest QB every. That's what drives Brady. We know this because he has said just that. I have never seen a quote from Brady that resembles anything you just wrote. What I have seen in paraphrase is "football is fun - i love everything about it - the preparation - practice - working out - hanging with the guys - competing" Find me a quote that resembles anything close to what you just wrote. I'm not saying it doesn't exist I've just never seen it. You usually don't just make stuff like this up so you have me curious now. There's only one stat that matters and that's wins. Surprised you would question that. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2017 10:21:29 GMT -5
You ask Tom do you think you get traded. He thinks, well Bill trades everybody, so maybe. Thing is Kraft has to sign off on it. Do you think Kraft would trade Brady while he's playing well? Not a chance, it won't happen. Brady like all great QBs will retire when he majorly starts to decline. It's just what great QBs do. Now your just coming at me with irrelevant things. Even if I agree with your specific scenario of "trading Brady while he's still playing well" that scenario is irrelevant in what I'm saying. This isn't specific scenario based. Not to mention playing well is subjective. Please stop acting like I'm saying Brady won't end his career here. How am I acting like you're saying Brady won't end his career here in what I said? |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 29, 2017 10:21:34 GMT -5
I have never seen a quote from Brady that resembles anything you just wrote. What I have seen in paraphrase is "football is fun - i love everything about it - the preparation - practice - working out - hanging with the guys - competing" Find me a quote that resembles anything close to what you just wrote. I'm not saying it doesn't exist I've just never seen it. You usually don't just make stuff like this up so you have me curious now. There's only one stat that matters and that's wins. Surprised you would question that. That's not at all what you said. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2017 10:24:13 GMT -5
I guess aliens could abduct him also. How do we know he's not one? Good point. He might just go home. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2017 10:24:46 GMT -5
By the way all those reasons you gave are your reasons not his. They are just things you think should or could happen. You don't know Brady or what makes him tick. You're kidding right? Yes we do. Winning games and Superbowls, while being the greatest QB every. That's what drives Brady. We know this because he has said just that. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 29, 2017 10:25:12 GMT -5
There is a difference between believing in a likely outcome and not considering others as possible.
I believed the Patriots were going to beat the Giants in the 2007 Super Bowl.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2017 10:26:46 GMT -5
If that's not remotely close, than you just want to argue just to argue. That's only one article.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 29, 2017 10:36:44 GMT -5
If that's not remotely close, than you just want to argue just to argue. That's only one article. That article talks about vertical jumps and running straight and Brady is talking about how those stats don't matter. You don't do those in games the only stat (in game) that matters is wins. You're post was that "being the greats QB ever" is what drives him. I've never ever once seen him infer anything like that. We know Brady does everything he possibly can to win. The reason he's successful is because he loves doing all the things that go into it. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2017 10:48:42 GMT -5
If that's not remotely close, than you just want to argue just to argue. That's only one article. That article talks about vertical jumps and running straight and Brady is talking about how those stats don't matter. You don't do those in games the only stat (in game) that matters is wins. You're post was that "being the greats QB ever" is what drives him. I've never ever once seen him infer anything like that. We know Brady does everything he possibly can to win. The reason he's successful is because he loves doing all the things that go into it. Wow! I said winning games and Superbowls and then being the greatest QB every. Winning drives him, being the best drives him. Tom clearly says the only stats that matter are wins. You just want to argue and think your always right. Man you try and spin everything! I'm done! Edit: The paragraph says; The same reasoning explains why Brady pays so little attention to stats "There's one stat that matters" he says " and that's wins". Word for word. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 29, 2017 10:54:19 GMT -5
I'm the only one here not trying to draw a conclusion on what's going to happen. You're spinning things off in other directions. I do envy the fact you can see the future and know Brady has 3 years left, healthy, with a very slow decline then he will walk away just before he falls too far because his wife wants him to not be playing anymore. I wish I could see the future like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2017 11:07:57 GMT -5
I'm the only one here not trying to draw a conclusion on what's going to happen. You're spinning things off in other directions. I do envy the fact you can see the future and know Brady has 3 years left, healthy, with a very slow decline then he will walk away just before he falls too far because his wife wants him to not be playing anymore. I wish I could see the future like that. The only thing I said that was predicting the future, was that a 40 year old QB doesn't get traded or play for another team. Not a wild prediction at all. The rest is my opinion. I clearly never said he plays 3 more years, that's a lie. I said I think he plays 3-5 years. Never once said he would be healthy for next 3 years that's another lie. Where did I say that? |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 29, 2017 11:47:19 GMT -5
So you acknowledge that Brady's play COULD drop significantly at some point either due to decline or injury (beit one year or 5 years from now) and it's possible there is a different outcome than him retiring as a Patriot.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 29, 2017 11:56:44 GMT -5
How do you define the word 'is'?
|
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 12:08:45 GMT -5
If you're so worried about Garoppolo's health issues, how do you THEN trust in a 40 years old QB to actually stay healthy for three years? I wouldn't have that much faith that Brady is any more likely to stay healthier than Garoppolo, and at least Garoppolo is much younger.
At that point, it should at least be understandable -why- Belichick may not want to trade Garoppolo for anything other than what would be a huge overpay, and why rjp313jr (and myself) would be skeptical over keeping Brady for more years beyond next year.
Why give away Garoppolo if you think he'd drop off? Why not just -let- Brady go after the next year and keep Garoppolo for another -10- years? In that scenario it'd be "Brady for 3 years, optimistically" versus "Brady for 1 year, Garoppolo for many more years than that".
The team already won a super bowl, they're young, and they can keep going around Garoppolo for more years than going 'all-in' on a declining Brady. Why isn't that a better option for the -team-? Forget the fans, forget the history, what is a better option?
At some point, the Packers moved on from Favre to Rodgers. Favre roamed the NFL for three more years while the Packers kept going with Rodgers. Why isn't that a viable option for the Patriots?
|
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 12:09:38 GMT -5
How do you define the word 'is'? To be all zen: Is... is. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2017 12:41:20 GMT -5
So you acknowledge that Brady's play COULD drop significantly at some point either due to decline or injury (beit one year or 5 years from now) and it's possible there is a different outcome than him retiring as a Patriot. Any player could get injured. Sure at some point he could have a major drop off due to injury like Manning. I don't see him playing years after he has a major decline though. I just can't picture Brady wanting to continue playing if he can't come close to playing at a high level. I see him retiring like Farve and Manning. Heck like most great modern day QBs do. I don't think Brady plays for any team other than Patriots. Brady wants to play forever, who wouldn't when you're playing at a near all pro level. In my opinion that changes if he suffers a major decline. I don't see him in the future declining to a Manning level and still wanting to continue playing for years. That's what you're trying to argue is that he might or will do that, thus forcing the Patriots hand. In my opinion that's crazy. What great QB in recent memory did anything like that at an advanced age? Player's like Manning and Montana moved onto new teams in there mid 30s, not 41 or older. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2017 13:01:46 GMT -5
If you're so worried about Garoppolo's health issues, how do you THEN trust in a 40 years old QB to actually stay healthy for three years? I wouldn't have that much faith that Brady is any more likely to stay healthier than Garoppolo, and at least Garoppolo is much younger. At that point, it should at least be understandable -why- Belichick may not want to trade Garoppolo for anything other than what would be a huge overpay, and why rjp313jr (and myself) would be skeptical over keeping Brady for more years beyond next year. Why give away Garoppolo if you think he'd drop off? Why not just -let- Brady go after the next year and keep Garoppolo for another -10- years? In that scenario it'd be "Brady for 3 years, optimistically" versus "Brady for 1 year, Garoppolo for many more years than that". The team already won a super bowl, they're young, and they can keep going around Garoppolo for more years than going 'all-in' on a declining Brady. Why isn't that a better option for the -team-? Forget the fans, forget the history, what is a better option? At some point, the Packers moved on from Favre to Rodgers. Favre roamed the NFL for three more years while the Packers kept going with Rodgers. Why isn't that a viable option for the Patriots? Jimmy playing 1.5 games and suffering an injury that keeps him out of many games has to be a red flag. It was either a fluke injury or maybe he's not that durable. We have no clue. First who knows if Brady is fully healthy for 3 years. We do know that Brady has been one of the most durable QBs for almost 20 years though. You keep Brady because he gives you best chance at winning a title. In my opinion the #12 pick and 3 second round picks is a huge overpay. Unless you think he's the next Rodgers. I don't I see more of a Tony Romo QB. Do you think he's the next Rodgers? As of now Brady hasn't declined though. Do you know when that will happen? For me the Best option is to ride out Brady. Again is Jimmy the next Rodgers? Packers replaced a great QB with a better one. Are you certain that Jimmy is a great QB or just a good one? |
|
|
|
Post by digit on Mar 29, 2017 13:30:57 GMT -5
The Packers didn't -know- for certain that Rodgers was 'a better QB' till they gave him the chance. They just felt they could not handle the 'year by year may or may not play' uncertainity, and went for the surer long-term bet with Rodgers.
And while yes, Brady -is- the better QB now, you can't say with the same certainity that he -will- be a better QB than Garoppolo a year from now, which is pretty much the point rjp313jr is trying to make. Anyone who can say that he -is- the better QB for the -future-... well, he probably -would- be very rich playing the stock market.
Also, Garoppolo's injury 'kept him out of many games'? He backed up game 4, which meant he was at least considered viable enough to play then, which means basically he missed one game. They elected to go with who they thought was healthier. To say 'many games' is alarmist just so you can justify the 'red flag'.
I will say, 'do you know when that will happen?' is basically sidestepping the question at hand: which is -more- probable, Garoppolo being a good QB for a long time, or Brady being a good QB for the same duration?
I don't see why the former is 'less likely' than the latter. The former seems like a better bet than the latter, simply because there haven't been that many QBs who has played like Brady has in their 40s, while there -are- examples of good backup QBs who became great when given the starting jobs.
And to be frank, it doesn't matter whether it's yours or mine that matters. It's Bill Belichick's, and if he's holding on to Garoppolo that strongly, then it's probably a good bet -he- thinks Garoppolo is a QB worth keeping. The only question after that is, does he believe strongly that Garoppolo is the future, or does he believe that it's better to have a strong backup QB over those picks? In either case... if he believes in Garoppolo, then yeah, -he- may not value those picks one single bit as much as having Garoppolo on his roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 29, 2017 14:00:37 GMT -5
The key to success in the NFL is the Quarterback so mitigating the risk there is of great importance.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 29, 2017 14:28:04 GMT -5
By the way Sean Payton just said the Saints won't sign Butler to an offer sheet and give up the 11th pick so perhaps we can put that discussion to bed.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 29, 2017 20:39:10 GMT -5
The Packers had a very good idea. Also as good as Farve was, he was never Brady.
I'm willing to bet on Brady for the next 3 years. You can think that's foolish at his age, but I learned a long time ago to never bet against Brady. Just look at his last game. At no point did I ever think it was truly over, because we have Brady. Not just a good QB, but the best clutch QB ever.
Again for me if it's 3 years of Brady versus 1 year of Brady and 10 years of Jimmy, I chose the 3 years of Brady. Just look at how much Luck has won. Bill is going to leave shortly after Brady does. So it's not like you get 10 years of Bill and Jimmy. You going to really force out Brady after next year if he's playing well? Just so you can play Jimmy?
Jimmy was a default backup, because they weren't going to bring in another QB with Brady coming back. All week long the talk was that Edleman could see playing time if they needed a QB. In my opinion it was all about having the Bills have to prepare for two QBs. Brissett had a thumb that was so messed up he needed season ending surgery after the game and yet Jimmy didn't play. So we don't truly know how many games Jimmy would have missed if Brady didn't come back. If I remember right it was all about how much pain Jimmy could play through and you wouldn't know that unless he played. Not a major worry, but it is a red flag.
It's not about who's going to be good for longer for me, it's who gives you the best chance at winning the most titles. You seem to be ok moving on from Brady next year, so we can have Jimmy for 10 years. If you don't know when Brady declines you could be costing us a title or two. I don't want to become the Colts. Sure they got a good QB for years, but they went from having a good chance at a title every year to not really having much of a chance.
You are 100% correct that only Bill's opinion matters. If the Browns offer #12 and 2-3 second rounders and Bill declines, it means one of two things. Bill thinks Jimmy is better than a Romo or they worry Brady walks away if he wins another title next year. If Bill thinks that highly of Jimmy then try and sign him long-term. No need to move on from Brady if he's still playing at a high level. You could always franchise Jimmy for two years, which gives Brady 3 years. It would be tough under cap, but if he's that good it's worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Mar 30, 2017 7:41:49 GMT -5
Not to mention Garoppolo could be even more injury prone than Brady despite age.
|
|
