I wanted to keep Jimmy over Brady... and LOCKED!!!!!

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) · Dec 23, 2017

Jimmy G seems like a good guy so I’m not going to say that I’d like him to be a complete failure but I’m rooting for him to have an Andy Dalton like ceiling. Just good enough to be a starter but not a threat to carry a team.

That’s the ideal outcome here. This discussion and debate is already tired and it’s only been a month since the trade. No one from either side is ever going to get someone on the other side of the fence to change their minds. If Jimmy G is actually good then this will be an annoying circular debate for a decade that will not add value to anyone’s life.

I’d rather not have to listen to or read about it.

Al Zarilla · Dec 23, 2017

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Jimmy G seems like a good guy so I’m not going to say that I’d like him to be a complete failure but I’m rooting for him to have an Andy Dalton like ceiling. Just good enough to be a starter but not a threat to carry a team.

That’s the ideal outcome here. This discussion and debate is already tired and it’s only been a month since the trade. No one from either side is ever going to get someone on the other side of the fence to change their minds. If Jimmy G is actually good then this will be an annoying circular debate for a decade that will not add value to anyone’s life.

I’d rather not have to listen to or read about it.

That’s a bad attitude, and not even justified by JG going to an AFC competitor. Another point is that the NFL needs more outstanding quarterbacks to be more viewable and interesting. When Rodgers went down, a lot of the star arrraction went out of the game. Why not Jimmy giving us another team that’s great to watch?

Dogman · Dec 23, 2017

Reverend said:
I guess it is fair to say that I cannot falsify the proposition in the thread title...

Carry on.

johnmd20 · Dec 23, 2017

H78 said:
You just don’t like that I called you out yesterday for misreading my post and now you’ve got an axe to grind. Get over it.

Who has the axe to grind again?

Nobody is piling on you. This thread isn't a threat against humanity. It's been fine.

Reverend · Dec 23, 2017

H78 said:
Look I’m not trying to be a dick, but this BS thread is the reason SoSH has a million lurkers and a fraction of the posters.

If you have a minority opinion, people lose their shit over it, even if you never did anything to personally offend or disrespect anyone in stating your opinion (and no, equating all of us to talk show radio callers in that we’re all disconnected fans with opinions is not a personal offense, it’s just asking posters here to take a quick glance in the mirror before judging other people). Your opposing opinion simply isn’t welcomed and the same people will let that fact be known in the most obnoxious ways. Groupthink or bust.

I mean, enjoy and have at. Controlling the narrative is becoming the new norm it seems.

Have you figured out yet that if you hit the edit button on the first post of this thread, then you can edit the title yourself?

This thread is on the third page, so I think, by definition it was worthy of being split out. If you don’t like the tilt of the conversation with respect to you, it is entirely in your power to influence it both by re-titling the thread and making posts that could take it in the direction you prefer.

But you’d have to, like, actually do those things.

Jimbodandy · Dec 23, 2017

H78 said:
Look I’m not trying to be a dick, but this BS thread is the reason SoSH has a million lurkers and a fraction of the posters.

If you have a minority opinion, people lose their shit over it, even if you never did anything to personally offend or disrespect anyone in stating your opinion (and no, equating all of us to talk show radio callers in that we’re all disconnected fans with opinions is not a personal offense, it’s just asking posters here to take a quick glance in the mirror before judging other people). Your opposing opinion simply isn’t welcomed and the same people will let that fact be known in the most obnoxious ways. Groupthink or bust.

I mean, enjoy and have at. Controlling the narrative is becoming the new norm it seems.

I don't know you or have any recollection of your prior posts. I'd doubt that you have any opinion of me either.

Having a contrary opinion is not the foul here. Please feel free to make a case that moving Brady sets them up for a long time. Base it on the salary cap, something meaningful that you see in the numbers that predict some kind of dropoff, anything. I have had my mind completely changed before on this site by some excellent posters with compelling cases. Have at it please.

Just understand--if it's based on some kind on 98.5-quality hot takezz about the Brady/Belichick relationship, or a couple of bad games with the a third string right tackle and Joe Thuney playing like Tom owed him money, then those posts will likely be shat upon. You are correct that some sloppy posting is occasionally disregarded, when the opinion is more aligned with a positive take on the local teams. Shit, I would have been kicked years ago if it weren't. But that doesn't excuse taking firm stands without a foundation.

FWIW, I'd be a lot happier to read that dissenting opinion here than for you to just leave the subforum.

Reverend · Dec 24, 2017

H78 said:
I use SoSH on mobile 90% of the time and I cannot change the title from my phone. I tried, and presumably I can’t because my user didn’t physically start the thread.

It may also be a function of mobile and maybe from a full browser it’s possible, but I wanted to clarify that to you.

Reverend said:
Bump

@H78

Noted.

luckiestman · Dec 24, 2017

H78 said:
Sad that this kind of moderation is kosher. Literally singling our posters you don’t like or agree with. Just the way SoSH was meant to be.

Thin line between a SoSH dopes and Donald Trump these days, I guess.

I don’t know, when I called them frontrunners and they made it a thread topic, I loved it.

I want to personally thank you for the best thread of 2017, it was a late entry but worth the wait. I’m baffled that you don’t want credit for it.

E5 Yaz · Dec 24, 2017

johnmd20 said:
This thread isn't a threat against humanity.

Then we're not trying hard enough. Get with it, people!

tims4wins · Dec 24, 2017

New plan guys: just sign Aaron Rodgers

tims4wins · Dec 24, 2017

Harry Hooper said:
That's an interesting notion. Is there someone among the current crop of NFL QBs who would embrace the opportunity to come as a FA to the Pats as Brady's replacement? Any nominees?

If you're another team, if BB comes calling and wants to trade for your backup QB, does that make you wonder about keeping your #1 in place?

Here's one idea: Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers will be a UFA after the 2019 season. The 2020 season will be his age 37 season. I could see him becoming kind of fed up with GB not being able to field a championship team around him and wanting to really try to win another title or two. So Brady plays two more years, retires after 2019, then the Pats sign Rodgers to play his ages 37-39 or 40 seasons in New England. Boom.

BaseballJones · Dec 24, 2017

tims4wins said:
Here's one idea: Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers will be a UFA after the 2019 season. The 2020 season will be his age 37 season. I could see him becoming kind of fed up with GB not being able to field a championship team around him and wanting to really try to win another title or two. So Brady plays two more years, retires after 2019, then the Pats sign Rodgers to play his ages 37-39 or 40 seasons in New England. Boom.

At a Brady-like discount? Wouldn't that be sweet!

Van Everyman · Dec 24, 2017

Yeah, but what if Tom is still playing at an elite level at 43? What do we do then?!?

Sportsbstn · Dec 24, 2017

Van Everyman said:
Yeah, but what if Tom is still playing at an elite level at 43? What do we do then?!?

Isn’t the answer obvious. We trade him for Jimmy!

TheoShmeo · Dec 24, 2017

I understand the sentiment of the opening post. To be clear, I disagree strongly with it. But the sentiment is understandable and not worthy of derision in my view.

Jimmy LOOKS like a potential elite QB. He COULD be functioning as such for many years, and many years after Tom is gone. I was in the minority and likely still am in that I would have liked Bill to play out the option further. I worry that if Brady goes down this year, they have no shot with Hoyer, whereas with Jimmy, at least winning would have been possible, albeit much less likely. And I also would have liked to see them do the highly unorthodox and franchise him, so as to play out the string for another year

But ultimately, Tom is the greatest of all time, gives the Pats a better chance than Jimmy does to win a few more SBs while Bill is still coaching and I will take that combo over anything Jimmy offers. So while I get what motivated H78, I think he underemphasizes the import of the Brady-JG gap over the next few years, and the real chance that the Pats could win Lombardis during that time. It very well may suck ass to watch Jimmy excel while the Pats might have a JAG five years from now; the real chance to win titles in the immediate future trumps that.

Eddie Jurak · Dec 24, 2017

I’m with H78 on this one - he’s basically advocating the Danny Ainge view. There’s no track record of sustained success for NFL QBs after age 40. I think it is more likely that this is Brady’s last elite year than it is that he has 3 more.

Sentimentality is what brought the Celtics a 20-year drought between championships and it may well do the same for the Pats.

heavyde050 · Dec 24, 2017

Eddie Jurak said:
I’m with H78 on this one - he’s basically advocating the Danny Ainge view. There’s no track record of sustained success for NFL QBs after age 40. I think it is more likely that this is Brady’s last elite year than it is that he has 3 more.

Sentimentality is what brought the Celtics a 20-year drought between championships and it may well do the same for the Pats.

But isn't the real question whether Brady will still be better than Jimmy over the next couple of years, not whether Brady will still be the best QB in the NFL.
I understand people wanting the younger guy and thinking Jimmy will be great (though I only think he will be really good).
What I don't understand is the sentiment that Brady falling off a cliff and being worse than Jimmy sooner rather than later seems to be assigned a 100% probability by some. There is a non-zero chance that Jimmy is only a league-average QB.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

Wait what?

What is the Danny Ainge view exactly? And what sentimentality caused the Celtics a drought? I’d argue Bias and Lewis dying had a lot more to do with a twenty year drought. Among other factors. Did you want them to trade Bird?

The Pats are not going to do this forever. I know everyone wants them to, but they’re not. As much as there’s no precedent for a 40yo qb to play like this, there’s no precedent for this kind of run by a team in the nfl. At the risk of repeating myself, I think people need to come to grips with the fact that this is not going to last another ten years, even if JG had somehow stuck around.

heavyde050 · Dec 24, 2017

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Wait what?

What is the Danny Ainge view exactly? And what sentimentality caused the Celtics a drought? I’d argue Bias and Lewis dying had a lot more to do with a twenty year drought. Among other factors. Did you want them to trade Bird?

The Pats are not going to do this forever. I know everyone wants them to, but they’re not. As much as there’s no precedent for a 40yo qb to play like this, there’s no precedent for this kind of run by a team in the nfl. At the risk of repeating myself, I think people need to come to grips with the fact that this is not going to last another ten years, even if JG had somehow stuck around.

This 100%

Mystic Merlin · Dec 24, 2017

This run is so awesome precisely because it won't last forever and ain't happening again.

Super Nomario · Dec 24, 2017

DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
The Patriots are going to stink at some point. Hopefully, not for long but maybe. Hopefully not soon, but maybe. There will be weeks, months, even years where Sunday is not as exciting as it is now. Brady is more likely to have a Michael Jordan or Brett Favre ending than a storybook ending.

We all know this. JG might have postponed the inevitable or made the landing softer. For a little maybe.

This is a singular, crazy synergy. It will end. It is unsustainable. There has never been anything like it. We won't see it again. Our kid's kids might not see it. Father Time doesn't give a fuck about nothing or nobody. He's undefeated. Jimmy G. might have postponed or softened the inevitable but we can't escape it. Maybe we lost a chance at a Steve Young moment.

The question is whether it's a free fall with a nice bounce, or a measured drop. Jimmy might have improved the chances of the latter. Maybe. That's all, though.

This is where you have to know what your goal is as an organization. If you want to stay competitive for 10 more years and not hit a 5-11 patch, keeping Garoppolo is the best bet, because he's probably going to be good for a while while Brady can't offer the same timeline. If you want to maximize Super Bowls, your best bet is Brady because you can win a Super Bowl with him now (and probably in the next two-three year window) and you don't know if Garoppolo is ever going to get to that level.

Eddie Jurak said:
I’m with H78 on this one - he’s basically advocating the Danny Ainge view. There’s no track record of sustained success for NFL QBs after age 40. I think it is more likely that this is Brady’s last elite year than it is that he has 3 more.

Sentimentality is what brought the Celtics a 20-year drought between championships and it may well do the same for the Pats.

At the point Ainge traded Pierce and KG, the Celtics hadn't won a championship in five seasons and were coming off a 41-40 season. Pierce and KG had clearly declined. The Patriots are coming off a championship season, have as good a chance to win as anybody this year, and Brady is still competing at an MVP level.

Eddie Jurak · Dec 24, 2017

heavyde050 said:
What I don't understand is the sentiment that Brady falling off a cliff and being worse than Jimmy sooner rather than later seems to be assigned a 100% probability by some. There is a non-zero chance that Jimmy is only a league-average QB.

The track record for elite, late career QBs is to lose it quickly. I don’t see much reason to expect Brady to be different in that regard. (If he’s different - as he seems to be - it will be in when he loses it, not in gradual vs sudden decline).

Eddie Jurak · Dec 24, 2017

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Wait what?

What is the Danny Ainge view exactly? And what sentimentality caused the Celtics a drought? I’d argue Bias and Lewis dying had a lot more to do with a twenty year drought. Among other factors. Did you want them to trade Bird?

The Pats are not going to do this forever. I know everyone wants them to, but they’re not. As much as there’s no precedent for a 40yo qb to play like this, there’s no precedent for this kind of run by a team in the nfl. At the risk of repeating myself, I think people need to come to grips with the fact that this is not going to last another ten years, even if JG had somehow stuck around.

Ainge has actually said it outright - Bird and McHale should have been dealt in the late 80s.

Spelunker · Dec 24, 2017

Eddie Jurak said:
Ainge has actually said it outright - Bird and McHale should have been dealt in the late 80s.

Some specific quotes:

Ainge saw the Celtics pass up deals when Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish were aging, and the result was a steady deterioration that saw Boston not make the playoffs or advance beyond the first round from the 1992-93 to 2000-01 seasons.

"First of all, it's a different era," Ainge told The Globe. "I sat with Red (Auerbach) during a Christmas party (in the 1990s). Red was talking to Larry, Kevin, and myself and there was a lot of trade discussion at the time, and Red actually shared some of the trade discussions. And I told Red, what are you doing? Why are you waiting?

"He had a chance to trade Larry (to Indiana) for Chuck Person and Herb Williams and (Steve) Stipanovich and he had a chance to trade Kevin (to Dallas) for Detlef Schrempf and Sam Perkins. I was like, 'Are you kidding?' I mean, I feel that way now. If I were presented with those kind of deals for our aging veterans, it's a done deal to continue the success."

...

"That's how I feel with this. It's obvious. They're obvious things. Of course if we get the opportunity to make a trade that will help our team, we'll do it."

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

Eddie Jurak said:
Ainge has actually said it outright - Bird and McHale should have been dealt in the late 80s.

Not trying to be a wise ass, but you have a link for that?

As to the "track record" argument, there's no track record for any of this - the unprecedented run, the 199th player drafted turning into the GOAT, there records they've set individually and as a team, etc. Just enjoy it. Max it out and then regroup. This city has had the best 20 year run of any city, ever, for it's professional sports teams. Getting greedy and entitled about it is exactly why people dislike us. We've collectively turned into Yankee fans.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

Spelunker said:
Some specific quotes:

Thank you for the link. Does someone want to make the argument that Bird/McHale were in the same performance status at the time of those talks as Brady is now? Or that they'd have preferred they moved them for Chuck Person and Detlef Schrempf?

Spelunker · Dec 24, 2017

Papelbon's Poutine said:
Thank you for the link. Does someone want to make the argument that Bird/McHale were in the same performance status at the time of those talks as Brady is now? Or that they'd have preferred they moved them for Chuck Person and Detlef Schrempf?

I prefer what we did, for sure.

But I don't think it's fair to react like it's beyond the pale to think that there was merit in the idea of trading Brady and keeping Jimmy, and that it's not a reasonable opinion to have or consider. It may be 60-40, it may be 70-30. But it's definitely not 99-1.

To put it another way, the idea that it might be better for the Pats to have traded Brady is not a hot take. Acting like it is probably is. And I agree that Ainge would have explored it (or at least would have considered exploring it).

Super Nomario · Dec 24, 2017

Eddie Jurak said:
Ainge has actually said it outright - Bird and McHale should have been dealt in the late 80s.

Yeah, but he wanted to deal them in 1988 after they'd already suffered major injuries. He didn't want to deal them in 1986 when they were fresh off a championship and a Bird MVP.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

Spelunker said:
I prefer what we did, for sure.

But I don't think it's fair to react like it's beyond the pale to think that there was merit in the idea of trading Brady and keeping Jimmy, and that it's not a reasonable opinion to have or consider. It may be 60-40, it may be 70-30. But it's definitely not 99-1.

To put it another way, the idea that it might be better for the Pats to have traded Brady is not a hot take. Acting like it is probably is. And I agree that Ainge would have explored it (or at least would have considered exploring it).

It’s not beyond be pale, but it’s absolutely a hot take. If JG wasn’t playing well right now, no one would be arguing it. But it’s been 3 games and people wish they traded the face of the franchise who’s the likely MVP. That’s a hot take.

I get that he’s old, but when QBs falling off a cliff are cited, there’s usually some kind of chronic injury involved. Manning as prime example. Acute injuries happen to everyone.

Again, it’s not beyond the pale, but it’s greedy to begin with and it’s foolish to think BB never considered it. (I also take Ainge’s story with a large grain of salt and see no comparison; Bird, McHale, KG and Pierce were all slipping and the Celtics were grasping at being contenders at those points. The Pats are still the favorite and Brady is still the best QB in the league.)

Some players go beyond a small uptick in longer possible success. If the Sox had traded Ortiz after 2013 for some prospects - because that’s precisely what JG still is - this place would have lost its mind.

Eddie Jurak · Dec 24, 2017

I don't wish they had traded Brady mid season. I'm just not sure moving Jimmy in a deadline deal for a second round pick was the right decision, either.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

Eddie Jurak said:
I don't wish they had traded Brady mid season. I'm just not sure moving Jimmy in a deadline deal for a second round pick was the right decision, either.

I’d have preferred they moved him on the off-season and kept Brissett, so I’m not saying they were infallible in their decision. I think BB probably tried to find a way to make both work but it became untenable and unrealistic. I also don’t think the crazy offers we heard about were out there to begin with. The mid season trade and the decision to stick with Brady vs go forward with JG are two different discussions though.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

Holy shit, like an entire one whole drive?

Spelunker · Dec 24, 2017

Papelbon's Poutine said:
It’s not beyond be pale, but it’s absolutely a hot take. If JG wasn’t playing well right now, no one would be arguing it. But it’s been 3 games and people wish they traded the face of the franchise who’s the likely MVP. That’s a hot take.

I get that he’s old, but when QBs falling off a cliff are cited, there’s usually some kind of chronic injury involved. Manning as prime example. Acute injuries happen to everyone.

Again, it’s not beyond the pale, but it’s greedy to begin with and it’s foolish to think BB never considered it. (I also take Ainge’s story with a large grain of salt and see no comparison; Bird, McHale, KG and Pierce were all slipping and the Celtics were grasping at being contenders at those points. The Pats are still the favorite and Brady is still the best QB in the league.)

Some players go beyond a small uptick in longer possible success. If the Sox had traded Ortiz after 2013 for some prospects - because that’s precisely what JG still is - this place would have lost its mind.

It's not a hot take, because the argument isn't about just this season. It's a projection of the next couple of years versus the next say, 10 years, with the unknown being that first number.

Again I would have traded Jimmy. But it's not a hot take, and it's not fair to treat H78 like it's crazy. It's not even close.

Jimbodandy · Dec 24, 2017

The comparison to the the 1988 Celtics makes sense, as far as comparing potential trades of hall of famers.

Where it falls apart is that Bird and McHale were themselves falling apart, and it didn't take a rocket scientist to see that the run was over.

These Pats are coming off a Super Bowl win, and Brady is currently playing at an MVP level. Apples and oranges.

Yes, Brady will turn into a pumpkin, and it will occur overnight. But apparently BFB thinks that Brady's current elite play is more predictive than the sample set of 40yo quarterback results to date.

Eddie Jurak · Dec 24, 2017

Jimbodandy said:
These Pats are coming off a Super Bowl win, and Brady is currently playing at an MVP level.

Not to nitpick, I wouldn't call his past 4-5 weeks "MVP level".

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

Spelunker said:
It's not a hot take, because the argument isn't about just this season. It's a projection of the next couple of years versus the next say, 10 years, with the unknown being that first number.

Again I would have traded Jimmy. But it's not a hot take, and it's not fair to treat H78 like it's crazy. It's not even close.

I'm pretty sure H78 just showed why it's a hot take. His rebuttal is one drive.

The thing that makes it a hot take is that we're dealing with an extremely small sample size in a sport that has had flashes in the pan more often than not. It's position thats not "crazy" by definition, but it's not exactly well grounded. How'd RG3 project after his first season?

Ed Hillel · Dec 24, 2017

They’re both really good, and Jimmy has a legit shot to be a top 5 or 3 QB, but Brady is going to win the MVP and will probably be top 5 the next few years, which was more of a known at the time of the trade than Jimmy. And Edelman/Gronk probably have 2-3 years left, as well. There was no bad decision imo.

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

Eddie Jurak said:
Not to nitpick, I wouldn't call his past 4-5 weeks "MVP level".

He's had the following for QB ratings:

106.9
87.6
59.5
82.4
114.1

Two great games, two average and one clunker. That's the game.

Who's your MVP right now if not him?

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

H78 said:
What you’re implying is not what I’m saying. But carry on with your nonsense.

OK, what are you saying then? If I'm misreading you, just explain it. And what am I implying?

jablo1312 · Dec 24, 2017

Put me in the "I wish they kept Jimmy and Brady for this season, then figured out something for the next 1-2 years, even if it involved trading or releasing Brady and generated a lot of dead cap space" camp

Also in the "I think Kraft forced Belichick's hand here camp". That one is way more of a goofy rumor than anything, but I still think it might (read: might) have happened.

BigSoxFan · Dec 24, 2017

Papelbon's Poutine said:
He's had the following for QB ratings:

106.9
87.6
59.5
82.4
114.1

Two great games, two average and one clunker. That's the game.

Who's your MVP right now if not him?

Gurley, Todd

Papelbon's Poutine · Dec 24, 2017

H78 said:
You’re implying I’m touting Jimmy over Brady because of one drive, otherwise you wouldn’t have said anything.

Which is nonsense.

I’m saying we’ve been talking about Jimmy all week and he just started hot against maybe the best defense in football. That’s it. But you just couldn’t help yourself, as usual.

I’m implying your argument in the big picture is based on a very small sample size and then you’re doubling down in literally almost the smallest sample size one can find.

Which is nonsense.

johnmd20 · Dec 24, 2017

BigSoxFan said:
Gurley, Todd

Gurley sure as hell is making his case these past few weeks. He's been unbelievable.

heavyde050 · Dec 24, 2017

Eddie Jurak said:
Not to nitpick, I wouldn't call his past 4-5 weeks "MVP level".

Jimmy isn't playing at MVP level either.

Bowhemian · Dec 24, 2017

BaseballJones said:
At a Brady-like discount? Wouldn't that be sweet!

Maybe Rodgers would take a discount double check to play for the Pats?

Marciano490 · Dec 24, 2017

johnmd20 said:
Gurley sure as hell is making his case these past few weeks. He's been unbelievable.

True, but running backs never win unless it's an historic season and there's no QB putting up MVP numbers.

I wanted to keep Jimmy over Brady... and LOCKED!!!!!

T&A

Member

Yukon Cornelius

mad dog

for king and country

Fists of Millennial Fury!

Member

for king and country

Son of the Harpy

polka king

PN23's replacement

PN23's replacement

ivanvamp

Member

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

canderson-lite

Member

Homeland Security

Member

Member

Member

canderson-lite

canderson-lite

Member

Homeland Security

Homeland Security

Member

Member

Homeland Security

canderson-lite

Homeland Security

Fists of Millennial Fury!

Homeland Security

Member

Member

canderson-lite

Homeland Security

Fists of Millennial Fury!

Wants to be startin somethin

Homeland Security

Homeland Security

Fists of Millennial Fury!

New Member

Member

Homeland Security

mad dog

Member

Member

Urological Expert