There probably won't be a real answer to this until BB selects another QB. What if he trades up with the 2nd round pick and gets the next Watson in the first round.
I wanted to keep Jimmy over Brady... and LOCKED!!!!!
- Thread starter H78
- Start date
- Status
Manning was MVP in 2013, and in 2015 he was one of the worst starting QBs in the NFL, then retired. Rich Gannon won the MVP in 2002, retired two years later. Elway was still great in 1998, retired the following year. Marino was still a good QB for a playoff team in 1998, injured and ineffective the following year, then retired.
It never seems to go the way Brady is hoping. He absolutely works harder than anyone and takes care of himself on a different level than anyone else, so maybe and hopefully Brady is the guy who can pull off playing at an elite level into his mid-40s.
I'm kind of just playing Devil's Advocate, because H78 got piled on unfairly early in this thread. I do agree that the Belichickian move would have been to move on from Brady after this year and transition to Jimmy G, who absolutely looks like the real deal. Instead, it looks like we're riding Brady into the sunset, which is awesome in its own way and could give us a legendary, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid final showdown between Brady and the rest of the NFL over the next 18 months.
Tom takes a slight discount, but the extent is wildly exaggerated. It's closer to a 5-10% edge. He's paid in the top half of quarterbacks and has the highest career earnings of anyone.
Brady's made $835k a start over his career; by comparison, Rodgers and Big Ben are at $917k and $865k respectively.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentfrank/2017/01/20/how-tom-bradys-career-earnings-compare-to-other-quarterbacks-playing-this-sunday/#47d361c16020
Aren't those numbers for Ben and Rodgers also skewed by the fact they were first round picks? I assume they got fatter deals their first 4-5 years playing.
Not to jump back, but I just have to point out that several people have made a comment somewhere along the lines of, “Jimmy only played ‘X’ amount of snaps/games/quarters/etc, so how do you know he’s going to really be consistently good?”
I think that’s a somewhat short-sighted point because no one is going to get enough snaps in a NEP uniform to prove anything prior to Brady’s retirement. In fact, JG’s one and a half games may be the most you’ll ever see at this point from another quarterback.
That leads me to believe that the people making those comments believe:
1) An established starting QB is all that’s sufficient to replace Brady when he’s done (outside of the Aaron Rodgers jokes, I’d love to see who else people have in mind).
2) They’ll be comfortable seeing the Patriots start a completely unknown rookie or backup quarterback (that will almost assuredly have fewer professional snaps in the NE system than JG) the game immediately following Brady’s last.
To summarize: it’s unrealistic to think that any QB replacing Brady will have shown more than JG had shown during his tenure in New England. The only viable alternative to placate such an argument would be to sign a big-name, free agent QB, whom would still have less proven success in NE’s system than JG.
If Jimmy didn’t show you enough, it’s because you don’t have reasonable expectations when it comes to what constitutes “enough.”
I think that’s a somewhat short-sighted point because no one is going to get enough snaps in a NEP uniform to prove anything prior to Brady’s retirement. In fact, JG’s one and a half games may be the most you’ll ever see at this point from another quarterback.
That leads me to believe that the people making those comments believe:
1) An established starting QB is all that’s sufficient to replace Brady when he’s done (outside of the Aaron Rodgers jokes, I’d love to see who else people have in mind).
2) They’ll be comfortable seeing the Patriots start a completely unknown rookie or backup quarterback (that will almost assuredly have fewer professional snaps in the NE system than JG) the game immediately following Brady’s last.
To summarize: it’s unrealistic to think that any QB replacing Brady will have shown more than JG had shown during his tenure in New England. The only viable alternative to placate such an argument would be to sign a big-name, free agent QB, whom would still have less proven success in NE’s system than JG.
If Jimmy didn’t show you enough, it’s because you don’t have reasonable expectations when it comes to what constitutes “enough.”
This is a very fair (and good) point. I think Jimmy by far was the best backup Brady has had (if we don't count Bledsoe).
If BB thought he was going to have to trade Jimmy, he probably should have held onto Jacoby.
I wish Jimmy would have had two more years until FA as that would have matched up almost perfectly with Brady's contract (he is signed through 2019, correct)?
Edit - but wishing doesn't get me anywhere. I just need to believe BB did what he thought was best for the franchise in both the short and long term.
Manning at 38 in 2014 (post MVP year) completed 66% of his passes, threw for 4,700 yards, TD-INT ratop of 39-15. Manning at 39, his last year, started only 9 games, completed only 60%, 2,200 yards, TD-INT ratio of 9-17.
Favre at 40 threw for 4,200 yards and career best 33-7 TD:INT ratio. Favre at 41 threw for only 2,500 years and 11-19 TD-INT ratio.
If he plays long enough, Brady's got a last year like that coming his way. The benefit to his training, etc, may be that he pushes that year out futher than has been seen in the league before.
Manning really isn't a good comparison. When Brady breaks his neck and can't feel his fingers, then we can use Manning's career path.
As for Favre and others, I think what's most apt is to look at what makes Brady good and what will be lost with age.
I look at a guy like Bernard Hopkins, who was a champion boxer at 50, and while he might never have had the physical skills of Mayweather, he was able to stay at a high level longer because when his speed and power faded, his footwork and ring smarts and study habits were able to proceed unchained.
Favre could move and had otherwordly arm strength. Those physical skills diminish. Brady never had quick feet, he just learned how to move. He has a good arm, but he was a great QB for a long time with a fairly inaccurate deep ball.
As for Favre and others, I think what's most apt is to look at what makes Brady good and what will be lost with age.
I look at a guy like Bernard Hopkins, who was a champion boxer at 50, and while he might never have had the physical skills of Mayweather, he was able to stay at a high level longer because when his speed and power faded, his footwork and ring smarts and study habits were able to proceed unchained.
Favre could move and had otherwordly arm strength. Those physical skills diminish. Brady never had quick feet, he just learned how to move. He has a good arm, but he was a great QB for a long time with a fairly inaccurate deep ball.
Should I now post the much much more extensive list of young quarterbacks that played well for a year or two, and then got hurt or just plain sucked for the rest of their career? If we're going to make the argument that Brady is absolutely going to go the way of 2-3 other quarterbacks that have ever played this long, why wouldn't the same argument be held over Jimmy G's head, when there are literally dozens, if not hundreds of examples, of guys who did what he's done and some for even longer, and yet, never really amounted to anything?
When Tom Brady starts making decisions like Brett Favre, then yeah, I agree, he should hang it up. Brett Favre's retirement didn't come because his body broke down, it came because he threw the ball to the other team over and over and over again. Brett Favre's age 40 season was a complete outlier. From age 36-39, he had one season (out of four) where he threw more touchdowns than interceptions. When he was 36, he threw 22 touchdowns and 29 interceptions. When Brady was 36, he threw 25 touchdowns and 11 interceptions (and that was BY FAR Brady's worst season since like 2006). Since Brady turned 37, he's thrown 127 td's and 26 picks. Favre threw 101 touchdowns and 62 interceptions in that same time frame.
So if they are on the same trajectory, and Brady hasn't even started the downward spiral that Favre started around age 36, that means we have at least 5 more years of Brady before he hits the wall that Favre hit at the very end? I mean, if Brady is destined to follow suit, that's how I'd look at it, as opposed to just looking at the age.
These all are fair points.
I'll add that with regard to young QBs one cannot reasonably have it both ways. Which is to say one cannot reasonably argue that JG has a very significant chance of busting out while expressing confidence in the Pats' ability to identify and develop a top-level starter beginning with the 2018 draft. Risk is risk.
If one had to form a list of potential top level starters drafted by the Pats post Brady, the list would not extend far beyond JG. Maybe you put a ? next to Jacoby B's name to allow for further development. But that is it.
I'll add that with regard to young QBs one cannot reasonably have it both ways. Which is to say one cannot reasonably argue that JG has a very significant chance of busting out while expressing confidence in the Pats' ability to identify and develop a top-level starter beginning with the 2018 draft. Risk is risk.
If one had to form a list of potential top level starters drafted by the Pats post Brady, the list would not extend far beyond JG. Maybe you put a ? next to Jacoby B's name to allow for further development. But that is it.
But that's all a double edged sword, because once you take them out of the Patriots system and coaching structure, their development is significantly altered. So I'm not sure you can really ever answer the hypothetical.
Well, what is your alternative? I'm not saying that because Farve was done at 41, so will Brady be. I just don't think there's going to be a gradual decline. He's continue to ve very good, until he isn't, and then he'll be out of the league. I don't think that will happen at 41, but 42 seems possible, and if he makes it further than that, then from now to then will go down as every bit as impressive as everything else he's done in the league.
The difference is this: if Brady has an MVP caliber season at or after age 41, he'll be the first guy in the 100+ year history of the NFL who ever did that or even came close to doing it. Heck, if he has a good but not MVP caliber season he'll be the first QB in league history who ever did that at 41. It is literally unprecedented. Garoppolo's odds of NFL success are obviously much higher than that.
My opinion, Brady will still be the better of the two in 2018, and perhaps 2019, but not after that.
That is my opinion also. Brady will be better in 2017 (he already is), 2018, and probably 2019. The biggest issue was the decision had to be made at the end of 2017 at the latest (or it at least seems that way).
It is still entirely possible, that while Jimmy G will most certainly be better than Brady in 2022, but the odds of Jimmy G leading a team to a SB win as the starter are not super high. It is tough to win a SB.
I am just super excited for next year with the 49ers when they can call Jimmy G a 3x SB champion QB.
You keep talking about the age precedent, and it makes sense. But as much faith as you have in father time being undefeated, I have the faith that 100+ year history of the NFL should largely be disregarded as far as the aging paradigm goes. If I showed you a future where Brady has a top-3 2018, a top-5 2019, a top-10 2020, and a top-15 2021, would you believe it? Because it's possible. How QBs (or anyone in any sport, frankly) aged in the 1980's is practically worthless for the sake of this conversation, let alone how they aged 100 years ago.
You're right that Brady's successor might not show more than Garoppolo did, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether we've seen enough of Garoppolo to judge him and his future. We have not. I'm bullish on Jimmy G, but there are significant error bars here.
And "consistently good" is not the bar. Matt Stafford is consistently good, which has gotten Detroit nowhere. Garoppolo is going to be paid like he's great; if he's not elite, his team won't win Super Bowls without a great D. If your goal isn't to win Super Bowls (and maybe yours isn't), your standards are probably different.
Sure. That's only one variable in this decision of course. There's a real possibility (a likelihood, if we're being honest) that the dynasty dies with Brady whether they held on to Garoppolo or not. The next guy they get will probably not be as good as Jimmy G. On the other hand, he will be cheaper, at least for a few seasons, so he might not need to be as good.
You have to go Bayesian with this stuff. The chances of any given quarterback being really good at 41 are incredibly small. The odds of a guy who was playing MVP level at ages 38, 39, 40 (which is a big difference from Favre, because before his bounce-back year with Minnesota he was largely crappy for several seasons) continuing to play at MVP level at 41, 42, 43 is totally different. Eventually Father Time will get Brady but who the hell knows when.
Is there a College Qb coming out 2018? Coach has his eye on? More so then Jimmy G? Willing to put another 3 years into?
Waiting on TB12 to do the large fade.
Tis feels like an episode of house hunters!
Alright the USC dude...never join a club that wants you as a member.
Waiting on TB12 to do the large fade.
Tis feels like an episode of house hunters!
Alright the USC dude...never join a club that wants you as a member.
A lot of the risk with Brady is that he’ll have a big injury and won’t come back or will never be the same if he does come back. You’re perpetually one snap away from the Brady era being over. That’s a very different kind of scenario than with a prime years QB, who you can assume will come back eventually after injury and likely as good as beforehand.
From a totally rational and non-emotional standpoint, I think the smarter move would have been transitioning to Jimmy for 2019. But I don’t really want to be a fan who is only guided by cold calculation, so I have no problem with the team handling it the way they did. Tom Brady is a living legend and I’ll never complain about getting to watch him play a few more seasons. I do suspect it will end badly and with the Patriots in a shitty QB situation but oh well.
From a totally rational and non-emotional standpoint, I think the smarter move would have been transitioning to Jimmy for 2019. But I don’t really want to be a fan who is only guided by cold calculation, so I have no problem with the team handling it the way they did. Tom Brady is a living legend and I’ll never complain about getting to watch him play a few more seasons. I do suspect it will end badly and with the Patriots in a shitty QB situation but oh well.
You never know. Peyton right now may be healthier than Luck. Since leaving, he's won more games, got more TD passes...
Yes, also, in what world do people still believe Jimmy would've said, Yeah, cool, I'll carry the clipboard for ANOTHER two years. This is a factor I think we sort of just shrug at when it is a huge piece of the puzzle. He wants to play.
I'm pretty sure the scenario people on the other side are discussing is giving Jimmy the reigns and getting as big a haul as possible for Brady. It seems to me that everyone (or at least most people) understand the challenges of keeping both quarterbacks beyond this season.
Brady will be 42 in 2019. I'd say it's a really bold prediction that he'll be better than Jimmy G at that point. We'd be really lucky to make it through 2018 still feeling like we have a better QB than the 49ers.
Am I crazy? This feels obvious.
Tom seemed to have Young/Rodgers nightmares. Last year he tajked of the value of having seen every coverage--maybe he was selling BIll. Today to John Dennis he once again said, "If Montana and Favfe could be traded, anyone can".
Yeah, but how do you accomplish this? I think the only realistic way is to trade Tom Brady and take the 40ish million hit on the cap next season between Jimmy’s franchise salary and Brady’s dead money, but I don’t know a reasonable way to aim the move at 2019.
Who bleeping cares what George Blanda says, unless you are counting on Brady having a second career as a backup QB/placekicker?
Correct, but I am thinking that. The odds of any given quarterback playing MVP level at 41, 42, and 43 are essentially zero. If that ('odds of any given quarterback') was my thinking my position would not be "I think the Pats made the wrong decision here", it would be "What a stupid fuckup the Pats just made". I look at this as analogous to lifespan. You expect a healthy 85-year old to see 86, but the odds of that are still considerably worse than those of a healthy 45-year old seeing 46. And no one is immortal.
Good point on the relevance of history, but I still highly doubt the possibility you suggest here (gradual decline). I think the odds still favor a sudden decline (or retirement pre-sudden decline). If he's still paying in 2021, then he was most likely still a top 5 guy in 2020. Top 15 is a middle of the pack guy - not sure Brady has the temperament to be one of those for any length of time.
Better a year too early than a year too late. If this is the goal, you move a year early in 2018.
Brady’s recent dip has some forgetting how great he has been this season. His #1, #3 and #4 receivers have either missed the entire season or a big chunk of it. Gronk has been out 2 games, the running backs have been banged up and the offensive line has dealt with numerous injuries and played horrible early in the season. The defense has been awful at times, pretty much playing without any starting linebackers and their corners have been a bust for much of the season. Cooks is new to the offense this year. Still though the Patriots are likely to be 13-3 and favorites to win the Super Bowl. Every team the patriots play treat the game like their super bowl.
Give Brady some health around him, hopefully for the playoffs and there is no reason he should fall off anytime soon.
Give Brady some health around him, hopefully for the playoffs and there is no reason he should fall off anytime soon.
I guess, but essentially punting on 2018 by wrapping up so much dead cap money seems like a pretty big deal. There’s a good shot no team over the next decade for Jimmy would have been better assembled to win than what Tom will have next year post-trade. This is a team that might well win three superbowls in four years and be getting some talent back, with an extra high pick in the draft. They should be able to afford to keep some key FA like Solder and Lewis that they otherwise could not with a Brady trade.
You may be right on 2019, but unfortunately for the scenario of Jimmy staying on the Pats, he definitely isn't better now and the gap was seemingly wide enough that BB decided to trade him as the decision needed to be made in 2017.
Trade Brady and take the hit this offseason while signing Jimmy long term in a way that minimizes 2019 salary. Or franchise Jimmy for the 2019 TB farewell tour then trade/cut Brady and sign Jimmy long term for 2020.
I’m not saying I wish they had done this but I think the idea they couldn’t is wrong. There were ways to make the transition and make the money work (that would have negatively impacted team competitiveness in 2019 of course due to the cap hit but that’s the price you’re paying for hopefully solving your QB situation for the following 8-10 years) but they didn’t want to trade the greatest football player of all time. And I can’t blame them for that.
This would involve paying 50 million in guaranteed money to a backup QB over two years and then having him hit free agency anyway, unless you’re willing to pay him something insane like 35 million for one season. In sum, it would be 85 million guaranteed for one season’s worth of QB play for guy going on 29 who had 6 quarters of NFL experience. And it would be committing close to 100 million dollars to QBs in 2018 and 2019. That’s not a realistic option.
The only one I think possible would have been to trade Brady this offseason, I guess maybe for like a 3rd to San Fran or something. Then you eat 40 million at the QB slot for 2018 and hope the losses you’ve incurred at the front end lead to titles over the next decade after you’ve turned over the roster again. So it’s probably punting on a season the Pats would otherwise have been SB favorites and then hoping the roster can be flipped since Gronk, Edelman, Amendola, Solder, Hightower, McCourty, etc. are getting up there in age.
While I think that was a legitimate option, I think keeping Brady was probably the better of the two and it was certainly at least close enough that Bill didn’t need to factor in sentimentality when making it. (I’m not saying you said that, but it’s been suggested quite a bit).
I don’t think in any way it’s obvious that we’ll be lucky Brady is better next season, though I definitely do think it could be the case. He’s been better than Brady the first month, but Brady has a longer track record obviously and was ungodly good the first 10 games or so.
Additionally, and this important, if Brady outplays Jimmy or the two are even close, then clearly keeping Brady for those two years provides more value to the team because of the money they “save” keeping Brady as opposed to Jimmy (probably about 10-12% extra cap space and a better draft pick). Obviously, the longer you go out, the better relative value, but then I go back to this team being build to win as constituted now and the need for a rebuild past 2019 or 2020.
Last edited:
Jimmy has beaten Chicago, Houston, Tennessee, and Jacksonville. The first two teams are godawful, Ten is about as mediocre as mediocre gets, and Jacksonville is obviously a good team but he did get some support from the Niners defense. There is also basically no pressure on him to win right now since the Niners are out of the playoffs. I think a little discounting of this nice month is in order.
I like Jimmy and think he’s going to have a nice NFL career and he appears to have a Romo-esque talent. In his defense, he also has had crap to work with at the skill positions. With all that said, there is no way I’d want to give him the keys to the car in 2018 over Brady. Like 0% unless Brady suffers a major injury.
We have never seen Jimmy start a playoff game and there’s a huge difference between beating Houston in December and Pittsburgh in January. He certainly could be capable of it but I’m not ready to take that risk. I’m hopeful that the defense will start to rise as Brady starts to decline.
I like Jimmy and think he’s going to have a nice NFL career and he appears to have a Romo-esque talent. In his defense, he also has had crap to work with at the skill positions. With all that said, there is no way I’d want to give him the keys to the car in 2018 over Brady. Like 0% unless Brady suffers a major injury.
We have never seen Jimmy start a playoff game and there’s a huge difference between beating Houston in December and Pittsburgh in January. He certainly could be capable of it but I’m not ready to take that risk. I’m hopeful that the defense will start to rise as Brady starts to decline.
This is the the less likely option versus the other I mentioned (trading Brady after 2018) which is why I put it second. But I think you're overstating it - the price for 2019 is a bit cheaper than that assuming they use the non-exclusive tag and you only go forward with this option if you all parties understand the plan, in which case its probably doable to work out a long term deal with Garoppolo in the offseason. They couldn't extend Jimmy in the last few months but one assumes that those negotiations didn't involve a clear date in which he was becoming the unquestioned starter (I can't say that for sure but I'm pretty confident that BB wasn't making that kind of promise, given how it all worked out).
Ultimately, it just comes down to how bullish one is on Brady at age 41 and beyond versus your evaluation of Garoppolo. I'm happy to keep Tom Brady because he's one of my favorite athletes of all time and I'm willing to take a hit to my perception of "franchise equity" over time just to extend the ride. But I do think it was a somewhat irrational move from a cold, unemotional standpoint. Chances are very good that TB either suffers a major injury (after which he'll almost certainly either retire or never be the same guy) or markedly declines in the next couple years due to age and chances are very very good that when this happens the next guy is going to be significantly worse than Jimmy Garoppolo.
Saw a mock draft where the Jets grab Josh Allen from Wyoming one pick before the Pats in round 2.
If Allen is on the board in late round 1, he could be good. I haven't done a lot of research into the QBs in the upcoming draft so I could be way off.
Sorry, there was a typo in there. I think it might have been viable to franchise-then-extend Jimmy in the 2018 offseason if he was given a guarantee that he would be the starter in 2019 after one more year of TB. But they also had the option of moving Brady in the 2018 offseason and just making JG the starter in 2018.
The cap situation will suck for 2018 and negatively impact team competitiveness but that's just part of the deal: You're paying short term costs to theoretically improve long term competitiveness.
Once again, though, I'm not complaining about how it was handled. I'm happy to keep rooting for Tom Brady, who along with Pedro is one of my two favorite athletes of all time. I just think that the idea that they didn't have a choice is wrong.
Yeah, I was assuming the "Big 4.5" of Rosen, Darnold, Allen, and Mayfield/Jackson would be gone before we thought of taking one, but maybe not.
This is complete crap. Jimmy took over a winless team mis-season after having been traded, that looked lost and won 4 games. I don't care who they beat, that damn impressive. Level of competition is completely irrelevant. SF was not favored in any of those games.
Agree with most of this, but they were not winless. CJ beat the Giants and the 49ers were two bad calls away from possibly beating the Rams and the Redskins.
The 49ers are not a great team, but the defense has some pieces and Kyle calls a good game when his guys execute.
He has looked very good. But in my opinion I have not seen enough to warrant getting rid of the GOAT, which is the point of this thread.
I'm trying to figure out how it would even be possible to keep JG and Brady in 2018, never mind 2019. The assumption I am making is that the Pats tried to talk to Garappolo and his agent about signing a contract extension that would allow the Pats to remain under the cap in 2018, and that Jimmy refused (which is perfectly understandable).
That means that once the new league year starts, Garappolo would be free to seek employment elsewhere unless the Patriots used their franchise tag on JG. Currently, the Pats are projected by Spotrac to have $14.6M of cap space in 2018. That number will likely be reduced due to the bonuses earned by players (Gronk the main one), so we're probably looking at roughly $10M in space available once the league year starts. The Pats would have to then free up about $12M just to offer the franchise tag to JG, or run the risk of him taking the first contract that comes his way and losing him for nothing. Teams are not allowed to exceed the cap at any point even during the offseason. How to do this?
a.) Cut Brady, saving $8M. Then cut another $4M from the rest of the roster (doable, but potentially painful). The only "uncuttable" players due to salary cap constraints are Gilmore, Hightower, Marcus Cannon, Van Noy (no hit, but no savings either), Harmon (same), and Hoyer (minor cap hit if cut/traded).
b.) Trade Brady. Problem is that the Pats would be under the gun, and teams would know it, and so the return for trading the GOAT would be a lot less than many here would be happy with. And there's still the problem of finding the other $4M.
c.) Restructure Brady. That's unlikely to happen if the Pats are signalling that JG is going to be their preferred starting QB in 2019. It's not like the team can really tell TB12 to restructure or face getting cut; well, they could, but Brady's response would probably be "go ahead and cut me" if that was the case.
d.) Cut $12M from the non-Brady part of the roster. The biggest hits salary cap wise, along with their savings if cut (source: Spotrac and Miguel's page);
McCourty: $11.9M (~$4M savings if cut)
Cooks: $8.5M ($8.5M)
Bennett (IR): $6.5M ($6.5M)
Gronk: $11M ($7M)
Edelman (IR): $5.2M ($3.2M)
Allen: $5M ($5M)
Ghost: $5M ($3.5M)
Hogan: $3.5M ($3.5M)
Club Option:
Allen Branch: $4.7M (either $3.7M or 4.7M)
Again, potentially doable. Cutting Cooks, Allen, and Bennett get you there with some room to spare. But consider that each cut player needs to be replaced (e.g., Cooks. Contrary to Volin's tweets and bleats, Cooks has 1003 yards and 16.7 ypc this season). And there needs to be room for rookies and injury replacements in season. Also, there are UFA/RFA's to consider:
UFA's:
Amendola
Slater
Hawkins
Burkhead
Dion Lewis
Bolden
Solder
Fleming
Waddle
Marquis Flowers
James Harrison (hah!)
Butler
Bademosi
Ebner (IR)
RFA's of note:
Geneo Grissom
It sounds tempting just to say "take the hit on the field in 2018" and then extend Garappolo to a more cap friendly contract. Except "taking the hit" is not guaranteed to be a single season phenomenon. Roster rebuilds can be long, painful, and messy; it's not something we've had to experience as fans of this team. The rest of the AFC East has been trying unsuccessfully to rebuild their rosters for the past few seasons. Yes, maybe Garappolo is the guy upon which to base the rebuild. But perhaps not.
If keeping Brady around for 2018 and 2019 likely postpones the inevitable rebuild for a couple of seasons, I say you take that bet, and hope to find the next TB12 replacement in the next draft or two.
That means that once the new league year starts, Garappolo would be free to seek employment elsewhere unless the Patriots used their franchise tag on JG. Currently, the Pats are projected by Spotrac to have $14.6M of cap space in 2018. That number will likely be reduced due to the bonuses earned by players (Gronk the main one), so we're probably looking at roughly $10M in space available once the league year starts. The Pats would have to then free up about $12M just to offer the franchise tag to JG, or run the risk of him taking the first contract that comes his way and losing him for nothing. Teams are not allowed to exceed the cap at any point even during the offseason. How to do this?
a.) Cut Brady, saving $8M. Then cut another $4M from the rest of the roster (doable, but potentially painful). The only "uncuttable" players due to salary cap constraints are Gilmore, Hightower, Marcus Cannon, Van Noy (no hit, but no savings either), Harmon (same), and Hoyer (minor cap hit if cut/traded).
b.) Trade Brady. Problem is that the Pats would be under the gun, and teams would know it, and so the return for trading the GOAT would be a lot less than many here would be happy with. And there's still the problem of finding the other $4M.
c.) Restructure Brady. That's unlikely to happen if the Pats are signalling that JG is going to be their preferred starting QB in 2019. It's not like the team can really tell TB12 to restructure or face getting cut; well, they could, but Brady's response would probably be "go ahead and cut me" if that was the case.
d.) Cut $12M from the non-Brady part of the roster. The biggest hits salary cap wise, along with their savings if cut (source: Spotrac and Miguel's page);
McCourty: $11.9M (~$4M savings if cut)
Cooks: $8.5M ($8.5M)
Bennett (IR): $6.5M ($6.5M)
Gronk: $11M ($7M)
Edelman (IR): $5.2M ($3.2M)
Allen: $5M ($5M)
Ghost: $5M ($3.5M)
Hogan: $3.5M ($3.5M)
Club Option:
Allen Branch: $4.7M (either $3.7M or 4.7M)
Again, potentially doable. Cutting Cooks, Allen, and Bennett get you there with some room to spare. But consider that each cut player needs to be replaced (e.g., Cooks. Contrary to Volin's tweets and bleats, Cooks has 1003 yards and 16.7 ypc this season). And there needs to be room for rookies and injury replacements in season. Also, there are UFA/RFA's to consider:
UFA's:
Amendola
Slater
Hawkins
Burkhead
Dion Lewis
Bolden
Solder
Fleming
Waddle
Marquis Flowers
James Harrison (hah!)
Butler
Bademosi
Ebner (IR)
RFA's of note:
Geneo Grissom
It sounds tempting just to say "take the hit on the field in 2018" and then extend Garappolo to a more cap friendly contract. Except "taking the hit" is not guaranteed to be a single season phenomenon. Roster rebuilds can be long, painful, and messy; it's not something we've had to experience as fans of this team. The rest of the AFC East has been trying unsuccessfully to rebuild their rosters for the past few seasons. Yes, maybe Garappolo is the guy upon which to base the rebuild. But perhaps not.
If keeping Brady around for 2018 and 2019 likely postpones the inevitable rebuild for a couple of seasons, I say you take that bet, and hope to find the next TB12 replacement in the next draft or two.
Gonna suck for you fellas when the Pats win the Super Bowl this year, then Brady retires and you trade two firsts for Eli Manning.
Which is fine, but there is no need to try and discredit what Jimmy has done to make that argument. He's had a very impressive 4 games given the circumstances he was put in.
Its not nearly as tight as you portray. The odds of either Allen or Bennett being on the team on their current deals next year seem very low: Maybe they'd keep Marty if they were bullish on his post-surgery health but cutting him at that cap figure certainly isn't a big loss. So there's 11.5M. That plus maybe some other minor move (Alan Branch looks like a very likely cut for example) allows you to offer the tag to Jimmy. And at that point you look to sign him long term, which allows you to reduce the 2018 cap number significantly from the ~22M non-exclusive tag. If you trade or cut Brady you eat 14M in dead money, which sucks, but you open up 8M to play with. All in all its not a great cap situation for 2018 but its not impossible and its just a question of how you prioritize that short term hit to competitiveness due to cap constraints versus the potential long term boost to competitiveness from having JG as your signal caller for the next decade or so.
The idea that the cap forced the Patriots' hands in this situation just doesn't wash. They had a choice and they chose the GOAT, which was perfectly understandable although perhaps unwise.
I probably wasn’t clear enough with my original post. I’m only discounting (slightly) with respect to a decision vis-a-vis Brady. At face value, he’s done everything the Niners could have hoped for or more.
With respect to Jimmy vs. Brady, I’m not going to place a ton of value on wins against poor opponents since those would be wins for the Pats with either QB over the next 2 years. The most recent win against the Jags is a real feather in Jimmy’s cap. He went right up against the best defense in the league with a poor supporting cast and lit them up. That’s a very real data point in Jimmy’s favor.
I think what it comes down to is that, barring injury, I have a strong level of confidence in Brady being elite or near elite for the next 2 years so the burden of proof for Jimmy to make it worthwhile to ditch Brady is incredibly high for me. To his credit, he’s basically done everything he could have done with the opportunities he’s received.
That must be it. By trading JG, Belichick is tearing it all down on his way out.
- Status