2017 Jimmy G: The Dilemma

Do we keep JG as the successor?

  • Yes, Lifes unsure and Brady might actually be mortal and JG is showing too much promise

    Votes: 90 34.9%
  • We keep him for the life of his contract, If it works out it works out.

    Votes: 55 21.3%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 1" asset this off season

    Votes: 72 27.9%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 2" asset this off season

    Votes: 7 2.7%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 3" asset this off season

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 1+" asset this off season

    Votes: 27 10.5%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 2+" asset this off season

    Votes: 7 2.7%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 3+" asset this off season

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    258

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
12,040
Edit: besides backing up Brady for much-more-than-backup money, what are the other scenarios, InstaFace, that a healthy Garoppolo isn't a starter in 2018? Someone will pay him to start, I think.
1) He discovers that his best market offer, having been a backup for 4 years, is to continue being a (better-paid) backup somewhere else with an aging veteran in front of him who he might see as an injury risk, like in NO, SD or (pukes a little) NYG.
2) He gets signed as 1 of 2 QB hopefuls to compete for the job, and doesn't decisively win the competition
3) He ends up with a shittily-run team like the 49ers or Browns and is never given the kind of surrounding talent necessary to make a pro bowl

On BBTL, I've got one of the higher opinions of JG's talents, but he's never going to arrive at a new franchise with the same level of heraldry as a new top-drafted QB, and won't be given the same amount of privilege to start soon and won't be given the same amount of rope. Everywhere but Foxborough, the GM and HC have too much ego wrapped up in their top picks - it would be admitting too much failure - to not give them immediate starting roles.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Some bodies tried to reinflate this balloon this afternoon, but Schefter stomped all over it. "Not happening." Maybe they were just trolling Schefter.

Reporting on this, PFT mentions a recent Tom Curran interview in which he said it would take multiple first round picks to change BB's mind.

If that is accurate and was communicated to interested teams, it explains all the quiet in recent weeks.

It's Butler or bust for 1st or 2nd round action.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
6,715
San Francisco
Some bodies tried to reinflate this balloon this afternoon, but Schefter stomped all over it. "Not happening." Maybe they were just trolling Schefter.

Reporting on this, PFT mentions a recent Tom Curran interview in which he said it would take multiple first round picks to change BB's mind.

If that is accurate and was communicated to interested teams, it explains all the quiet in recent weeks.

It's Butler or bust for 1st or 2nd round action.
I really hope not trading Jimmy doesn't come back to hurt the Pats.
The team is stacked enough that it probably shouldn't, but a great edge rusher would have helped.
My definition of hurt the Pats is:
Brady doesn't win another SB before he retires, JG takes over and never leads the Pats back to the SB.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
34,495
I really hope not trading Jimmy doesn't come back to hurt the Pats.
The team is stacked enough that it probably shouldn't, but a great edge rusher would have helped.
My definition of hurt the Pats is:
Brady doesn't win another SB before he retires, JG takes over and never leads the Pats back to the SB.
Making the SB is really, really hard. Jimmy G not making it wouldn't be an indictment on him or Belichick's decision here. Brady could be gone in 1-2 years. We think we have a very good replacement in Jimmy. You don't trade that away unless you get blown away with an offer.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
6,715
San Francisco
Making the SB is really, really hard. Jimmy G not making it wouldn't be an indictment on him or Belichick's decision here. Brady could be gone in 1-2 years. We think we have a very good replacement in Jimmy. You don't trade that away unless you get blown away with an offer.
I get that. I also am 99% sure it will all work out as most of BB's decisions turn out pretty well.
The Pats have a really good chance to win the SB this coming year. I am just saying that it will be hard to swallow watching Jimmy G contribute zero to the 2017 squad (at least on game day) if the Pats come up a little short.
It wouldn't have been as big of a deal if the league didn't continually steal picks from the Pats.
It really won't matter either way as I hope the Pats can win even without a pick in the top two rounds.
I only brought up the SB as a benchmark as most of the stuff I read on the various message boards has JG in the Hall of Fame.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,018
Oregon
I really hope not trading Jimmy doesn't come back to hurt the Pats.
This is the great unknown. In many ways, it's exactly like trading prospects in baseball ... with one huge exception.

In baseball, you have some idea of what you're getting back. Even in Larry Anderson, the Red Sox knew what they were getting back. Trading JG for picks, though, there's just no guarantee that what they get will be any good -- or even who they are at the time of a trade.

I mean, we're in the house money portion of Brady's career. There's very likely no quarterback playing in the NFL today that will take his team to seven Super Bowls. Being upset if Brady doesn't go to another Super Bowl is like being upset Kate Upton will never grow another boob.

So, to me, it really comes down to maximizing JG's value. Let's say, for the sake of debate, there are three outcomes for his career -- Above Average QB, Average QB and Below Average QB. Let's further stipulate that the Patriots options are Trade JG and Keep JG. Where does this leave us?

Keep JG
AAQB -- Benefits NE
AveQB -- Neutral, but with slight edge to Benefits NE (surrounding team allows an average QB perform above projections)
BAQB -- Doesn't benefit NE

Trade JG
AAQB -- Benefits trading partner ... unless return creates eventual equal or greater value
AveQB -- Neutral ... Benefit could go either way, dependent on eventual value of return
BAQB -- Benefits NE ... amount of edge dependent on value of return

Now, that's really simplistic; and there are traps in whatever approach they take. But the benefits are in the Patriots's favor by keeping him -- because of that unknown or what they get in return. If you could be certain that a) Brady won't get injured or decline rapidly, b) they'll hit the jackpot somewhere within the return, and c) Brissett and a new addition would solidify the backup QB role ... then, go ahead, trade him.

But that's a lot to bet on, even when you're playing with house money.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
6,715
San Francisco
This is the great unknown. In many ways, it's exactly like trading prospects in baseball ... with one huge exception.

In baseball, you have some idea of what you're getting back. Even in Larry Anderson, the Red Sox knew what they were getting back. Trading JG for picks, though, there's just no guarantee that what they get will be any good -- or even who they are at the time of a trade.

I mean, we're in the house money portion of Brady's career. There's very likely no quarterback playing in the NFL today that will take his team to seven Super Bowls. Being upset if Brady doesn't go to another Super Bowl is like being upset Kate Upton will never grow another boob.

So, to me, it really comes down to maximizing JG's value. Let's say, for the sake of debate, there are three outcomes for his career -- Above Average QB, Average QB and Below Average QB. Let's further stipulate that the Patriots options are Trade JG and Keep JG. Where does this leave us?

Keep JG
AAQB -- Benefits NE
AveQB -- Neutral, but with slight edge to Benefits NE (surrounding team allows an average QB perform above projections)
BAQB -- Doesn't benefit NE

Trade JG
AAQB -- Benefits trading partner ... unless return creates eventual equal or greater value
AveQB -- Neutral ... Benefit could go either way, dependent on eventual value of return
BAQB -- Benefits NE ... amount of edge dependent on value of return

Now, that's really simplistic; and there are traps in whatever approach they take. But the benefits are in the Patriots's favor by keeping him -- because of that unknown or what they get in return. If you could be certain that a) Brady won't get injured or decline rapidly, b) they'll hit the jackpot somewhere within the return, and c) Brissett and a new addition would solidify the backup QB role ... then, go ahead, trade him.

But that's a lot to bet on, even when you're playing with house money.
Good post.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
28,651
AZ
Good breakdown Yaz.

That said, if we break the decision down into this year only, it's possible that Bill values the optionality of keeping JG for the 2017 season over the obviously substantial potential trade haul.
Who knows what's really going on, but this is my best guess of what seems to be happening. I think Belichick has decided he likes him, he's going to keep him, the picks don't mean much to him, and 2018 will be what it is.

Pats are going to carry over, what? $15 million in cap space? They need to commit $8 million to Cooks for 2018 in a few days. Brady is due to put $8 million more on the cap next year. Some money comes off the books, but coming up with another $25 million is far from a sure thing even if they wanted to franchise Jimmy G.

It seems unfathomable that Belichick would view a year of a backup QB as worth as much as he seems to, especially since no matter how great Jimmy is the idea he could take over and win a Super Bowl seems low.

But I think that's where we are. Between this and the Cooks trade, it appears that Belichick may have simply decided the draft is overrated. It seems like hubris. Four years of control of a good player seems an important winning component but maybe Bill sees something everyone else misses. Maybe he has decided the right undrafted free agents are the future. I dunno. But that seems to be the signal he's sending. Screw the draft.

The only other thing I wonder is whether maybe there's some sort of arrangement with Cleveland -- call us after pick 11. Maybe there's a guy they really want but only want that guy and don't want that point getting around. That might be enough of a plan to keep quiet and misdirect Schefter.

Or maybe they know that Jimmy's value to Cleveland has the potential to be at it's highest after pick 11. If Cleveland takes Garrett at 1, they may not get a QB at 12 and might up the ante, and the Pats are just playing chicken.

But I don't believe any of this. I think Bill simply wants Jimmy for 2017 more than he wants to trade him. EOS.
 
Feb 29, 2008
378
Here's where I'm at:

Let's assign the Pats a grade from 1 to 100, where 1 means you're probably going to lose every game, 50 means you're average, 100 means you're going to be a heavy favorite to win the Super Bowl.

With a healthy Brady, I'll give the 2017 Pats a 90. Your number can be a bit higher, or a bit lower, it doesn't matter. But they're a very, very good team.

Now we trade Jimmy for a high first rounder. Give the guy a 50/50 shot of making a significant contribution this year, and, what, the Pats get up to 91? 92? Maybe?

Now let's assume Brady gets hurt and cannot play in the playoffs. With Jimmy, the Pats odds go down, but not by more than 10-15 points, right? Give the pats a 75-80 and they're still a very strong team. But where would they be with Brissett? 50? Lower? The difference between him and Jimmy right now is major.

So that's where we're at. Simulate 2017 a bunch of times, and Brady gets hurt in lots of them. Are the odds 1 in 4? 1 in 5? Lower? Higher? There's no way of knowing because he's such a unique player. But that's the biggest reason to keep him - because in the versions of 2017 where Brady does go down, they're still a potential Super Bowl team with Jimmy. They're probably not without him. That sort of bet-hedging is probably worth giving up a first rounder, right?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,175
I really hope not trading Jimmy doesn't come back to hurt the Pats.
The team is stacked enough that it probably shouldn't, but a great edge rusher would have helped.
My definition of hurt the Pats is:
Brady doesn't win another SB before he retires, JG takes over and never leads the Pats back to the SB.
But unless you know what we'd get back and what he'd do in NE this is a rather hard line to take.

is it really "hurting the Pats" if JG takes over whenever, is a very good QB, and the team doesn't win? That means we should have dealt him instead?
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Here's where I'm at:

Let's assign the Pats a grade from 1 to 100, where 1 means you're probably going to lose every game, 50 means you're average, 100 means you're going to be a heavy favorite to win the Super Bowl.

With a healthy Brady, I'll give the 2017 Pats a 90. Your number can be a bit higher, or a bit lower, it doesn't matter. But they're a very, very good team.

Now we trade Jimmy for a high first rounder. Give the guy a 50/50 shot of making a significant contribution this year, and, what, the Pats get up to 91? 92? Maybe?

Now let's assume Brady gets hurt and cannot play in the playoffs. With Jimmy, the Pats odds go down, but not by more than 10-15 points, right? Give the pats a 75-80 and they're still a very strong team. But where would they be with Brissett? 50? Lower? The difference between him and Jimmy right now is major.
If Brisset is what he looked like last year (which I doubt - I'm sure he's improved - he had basically no practice) - I think 50 is really generous. He showed some little flashes, but generally he was bad.I think you have to count on him improving significantly (which isn't out of the picture) to get to that point.

With Garrapalo, they're still the easy favorite to win the division, and probably a superbowl threat.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,175
How was he "bad"? If you're basing it on SSS stats then you're wrong.

His completion % was 61.8%, around the same as Wentz/Tyrod Taylor. He's YPA was 7.27, which is like Aaron Rodgers, he didn't turn the ball over, and added 83 yards on the ground.

So, I know rate stats and the like are meaningless in samples this small, but where are you looking to say "generally bad", because it's not the numbers.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,018
Oregon
Brissett played the Bills game with a throwing hand that already needed surgery. Basing his perfectiveness off that performance is silly
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
6,715
San Francisco
But unless you know what we'd get back and what he'd do in NE this is a rather hard line to take.

is it really "hurting the Pats" if JG takes over whenever, is a very good QB, and the team doesn't win? That means we should have dealt him instead?
This is the exact scenario I think will happen and I am okay with it: Jimmy G taking over and the Pats becoming a normal NFL team again.
I hope I am wrong, but I think Jimmy will never approach the success of Brady and that is fine.
When Brady is done, the Pats may end up a wildcard.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,387
Portsmouth, NH
Good breakdown Yaz.



Who knows what's really going on, but this is my best guess of what seems to be happening. I think Belichick has decided he likes him, he's going to keep him, the picks don't mean much to him, and 2018 will be what it is.

Pats are going to carry over, what? $15 million in cap space? They need to commit $8 million to Cooks for 2018 in a few days. Brady is due to put $8 million more on the cap next year. Some money comes off the books, but coming up with another $25 million is far from a sure thing even if they wanted to franchise Jimmy G.

It seems unfathomable that Belichick would view a year of a backup QB as worth as much as he seems to, especially since no matter how great Jimmy is the idea he could take over and win a Super Bowl seems low.

But I think that's where we are. Between this and the Cooks trade, it appears that Belichick may have simply decided the draft is overrated. It seems like hubris. Four years of control of a good player seems an important winning component but maybe Bill sees something everyone else misses. Maybe he has decided the right undrafted free agents are the future. I dunno. But that seems to be the signal he's sending. Screw the draft.

The only other thing I wonder is whether maybe there's some sort of arrangement with Cleveland -- call us after pick 11. Maybe there's a guy they really want but only want that guy and don't want that point getting around. That might be enough of a plan to keep quiet and misdirect Schefter.

Or maybe they know that Jimmy's value to Cleveland has the potential to be at it's highest after pick 11. If Cleveland takes Garrett at 1, they may not get a QB at 12 and might up the ante, and the Pats are just playing chicken.

But I don't believe any of this. I think Bill simply wants Jimmy for 2017 more than he wants to trade him. EOS.
I don't see that there's any 'this' until the season starts and the trade deadline passes with Jimmy G (or Butler for that matter) still on the roster. The media types can tweet all they like, but I find it likely that they're fishing just as much as we are. No one they have access to has any idea what they're going to do because the only people who know are BB, Kraft and Caserio.

As to 'screw the draft' I don't see how he's saying that at all. He traded the last pick in the first round for a 23 (soon to be 24) yo stud receiver that has three years of track record under his belt and two years of control, that fits the scheme perfectly. I don't see that as saying the draft is overrated as opposed to saying the certainty is worth it for him. There may be some nuance in there between our positions, but I definitely don't think he has now decided draft picks are fungible. I think he saw value and took it. We know he spots specific players - players that have played well against them, hat they've had trouble scheming against or that they e practiced with - and goes after them. Much like its accurate to include Welker in any draft evaluation for 2007, Cooks should be counted in this one.

We're all going round and round, but we won't know anything until draft night or even until the deadline. BB is not one to try to read the tea leaves with in this type of thing.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Yeah, I dont think he's saying screw the draft. I do see reasons why this draft may be less valuable than others the Pats (Got value for his 1st round pick by getting a player probably better than almost anyone available at 32. League cap keeps escalating and cap situation is good, so cheap players somewhat less valuable. Very good roster so hard for a new player to contribute. Not a good thing, but '13 1st and '14 draft kind of sucked so no big contracts coming up next offseason and next offseason really only has Flowers). I do think BB sees general value in moving lower picks for veteran players, particularly once the season once he has a better handle on team needs. To date, all theyve really done is trade their 1st round pick for Cooks. Trading down eight slots with their second pick doesnt really mean much If they trade Butler for 42 and 76 or something like that they arent much lower on draft capital than in a typical season.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Polian this morning had really informative back-to-back segments on Mike & Mike.

His take on Cleveland's wish list was interesting. That list is Garrett with the #1, #1 and then Trubisky, with the assumption that Cleveland will have to trade up.

Putting himself in the position of a trade partner, Polian said that the comp necessary to get Wentz is the price. And that if he were running a team in the AFC, certainly, there would be no discounts off that price. Polian added that he does not care that this QB draft class is very weak, nor does he particularly care who Cleveland might draft or where in the top 11. Cleveland is targeting the #1 QB to be taken in the draft - this is the price. Period.

That is a reasonable negotiating position, and if that's the position that teams are taking, Cleveland is going to have a heavy lift.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,315
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
What it all comes down to for me is that Bill knows what he's got in JG and he knows the value a strong QB has to a team. This isn't just a backup, this is a guy that for parts of 2 years got first team reps for extended periods of time to prepare as the starter. 7 weeks last year, some the year before. The variables are too many to sift through, and I know this sounds sloppy, but I think the 2 sides will find a way to make it work and JG is our guy for long after Brady hangs them up.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
6,715
San Francisco
What it all comes down to for me is that Bill knows what he's got in JG and he knows the value a strong QB has to a team. This isn't just a backup, this is a guy that for parts of 2 years got first team reps for extended periods of time to prepare as the starter. 7 weeks last year, some the year before. The variables are too many to sift through, and I know this sounds sloppy, but I think the 2 sides will find a way to make it work and JG is our guy for long after Brady hangs them up.
This is definitely what it is shaping up to look like.
BB appears to see Jimmy as the guy after Brady.
Though if Brady does play three more years - Jimmy G will probably only start for the Pats for around 5 years or so (2020 - 29 years old first year starting).
Unless the Pats end up being lucky enough to have two QBs stay dominant into their late thirties.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Making the SB is really, really hard. Jimmy G not making it wouldn't be an indictment on him or Belichick's decision here. Brady could be gone in 1-2 years. We think we have a very good replacement in Jimmy. You don't trade that away unless you get blown away with an offer.
Never thought this was primarily about 2017 injury insurance - though given how stacked they are, it gives you additional pause. Always thought it was about long term sustained excellence and avoiding a QB wilderness that could last a decade or more.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
There is a way to make Jimmy G the long-term QB option. It involves Tom Brady not being on the team in 2018. This idea that Jimmy G is going to hang out in the wings until 2020 or w/e strikes me as heavy wishcasting.

If they are looking to keep Jimmy G in a world where the Mike Glennon contract exists, they should offer $35MM guaranteed today rather than dick around and wait until after the season.,
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Or after the 2018 season. I would not allow cap space for 1 year to decide something of this magnitude.

All you can deal with is probabilities. It is significantly probable that TB cannot sustain his current level of play beyond 42 years old.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,315
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
There is a way to make Jimmy G the long-term QB option. It involves Tom Brady not being on the team in 2018. This idea that Jimmy G is going to hang out in the wings until 2020 or w/e strikes me as heavy wishcasting.

If they are looking to keep Jimmy G in a world where the Mike Glennon contract exists, they should offer $35MM guaranteed today rather than dick around and wait until after the season.,
I know the thought, Stitch, but we are going on the public comments. What if privately, BB, Brady, JG, and Kraft know of a sooner and more realistic Brady retire date? Maybe they have some info privately they aren't sharing and this all makes sense in a year. I can't imagine Brady playing through some deteriorating years. There are so many unknowns to this, I hate to comment because it just gives rise to a sloppy thread, but I think all we really know is that BB has commented about how in practice you can't really tell the difference in the 2 QB's when they are running the offense. This is huge considering Brady is one of the one's he's talking about.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
How was he "bad"? If you're basing it on SSS stats then you're wrong.

His completion % was 61.8%, around the same as Wentz/Tyrod Taylor. He's YPA was 7.27, which is like Aaron Rodgers, he didn't turn the ball over, and added 83 yards on the ground.

So, I know rate stats and the like are meaningless in samples this small, but where are you looking to say "generally bad", because it's not the numbers.
I didn't say it was because of the numbers. I say it because they had to hobble the offense for him - which is expected. They won the Houston game in spite of Brisset because of the defense. Without a broken finger, I think they still lose in Buffalo. The skillset that Brisset showed last year is one that usually plays well for a game or two, but not one that typically leads to viable NFL quarterbacking. He may get better - he may not.

In my opinion, from what we saw last year, there is a gigantic skill gap between Garoppalo and Brisset. Brisset will probably close some of that gap with more practice/film/etc, but right now, IMO, the Patriots would be a decidedly worse team with Brisset starting than Garappolo. Is that really under debate?


I can't imagine Brady playing through some deteriorating years. .
I'm always a bit surprised by this - Brady seems to me like the sort of guy who is so competitive that he's going to see decline as a challenge, and basically going to need to be dragged off the field. There's some evidence that Giselle has been trying to get him to retire for a couple years now.

Maybe that's the driver of the difference in opinion here.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
6,715
San Francisco
But even 85% of TB12 play in 2016 (saying he slips a noticeable amount going into 2018) is probably more likely than not better than Jimmy G.
I get really liking Jimmy and will be happy when he continues the Pats excellence, but I must be reading into the posts above as to me they sound like people are almost certain Jimmy will be a better QB than Brady in 2018.
I just don't see that.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,315
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
But even 85% of TB12 play in 2016 (saying he slips a noticeable amount going into 2018) is probably more likely than not better than Jimmy G.
I get really liking Jimmy and will be happy when he continues the Pats excellence, but I must be reading into the posts above as to me they sound like people are almost certain Jimmy will be a better QB than Brady in 2018.
I just don't see that.
I don't think that. I just think JG is the best post-Brady option. I just wish I knew when the post Brady era begins, that would answer a bunch of questions.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
But even 85% of TB12 play in 2016 (saying he slips a noticeable amount going into 2018) is probably more likely than not better than Jimmy G.
I get really liking Jimmy and will be happy when he continues the Pats excellence, but I must be reading into the posts above as to me they sound like people are almost certain Jimmy will be a better QB than Brady in 2018.
I just don't see that.
Nobody is certain of anything. All we can evaluate is the team's estimation of the situation based on its actions. Barring a huge surprise -- the Pats getting overwhelmed with an offer -- it appears he stays.

What is that tell you?

1. They are aware of TB's age and what it is reasonable to expect from someone that age going forward.

2. They think highly of JG as a possible successor.

3. They are not close to that level of comfort with JB -- it would be rather shocking if they were.

4. They are well aware of what happens to teams without a QB solution. Those teams are not SB contenders. Those teams must pay an incredibly high price to position themselves to draft those solutions. Even when they pay that price, the failure rate is high. So you could be in a spin cycle of paying high prices for a long time.

There is enormous long term risk that we have never to face in a serious way since 2001.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,449
Maine
I certainly have my BB Fan boy glasses on, but why do many of us assume that JG HAS to be kept because he is likely above average. Is it because finding a QB who can be above average is hard? Maybe for 97% of the NFL, but not for BB.

BB has had 5 Starting QBs with the Pats.
Bledsoe : 5-13
Brady: nuff Said
Cassel: 10-5
JG: 2-0
Brissett: 1-1
18-19 combined. If we remove Bledsoe who BB was "Stuck with" and Brady who is a freak that will never happen again, they are 13-6.

JGs success means literally nothing. Not only is it SSS but there is history of a Journey man QB (Cassels 36-44 record) having a seasons worth of success under BB.

BB may choose QBs like he chooses every other position. How will this player perform for US in OUR system. Evidently Brady, Cassel, JG and Brissett have been proven as successful in that aspect. Maybe not as individuals but as an aggregate.
Hell he took a QB with a 24-48 career record (Testaverde) and coached him to a 16-15 record. Seems fair to concede that BB will get average performance out of an other wise less then steller QB.

This keep leading me back to
1. Why do we think that BB cant find another player as good as JG (If Brissett isnt that guy eventually)? FOR HIS TEAM, Belicheck has done so before in the form of Matt Cassel going 10-5. Or do we think JG will be better then 10-5 year over year?

2. Can a JAG QB (like Cassel or Testaverde) have the Patriots in the playoff hunt year after year. If so then why do we feel it would be hard to get one of those guys? BB has gotten QBs "later in the draft" over the last 18 years that were either ignored, overlooked or unwanted by other teams. Those QBs all have had above average success. (Even when the GOAT freak is removed from the equation).

Do we think that Cassel would have turned into a pumpkin had he taken over full time for the Patriots in 2009? Do we not believe that BB would have 10-6/9-7/11-5 teams?

How can we be sure that JG is better then JAG status.
JAG guys play slightly better then that and get BB teams into the playoff hunt.
He seems to be able to turn pretty much anyone he picks up into minimum of JAGs and historically slightly better.

Worse case JG is the real deal and becomes Steve Young, Aaron Rodgers for another team while we end up with a JAG who plays slightly above his head. (and whatever we accrue from trading him)
Best case JG is is the real deal and becomes Steve Young, Aaron Rodgers for our team.
More likely JG becomes slightly better then 2008 Matt Cassel year in and year out for us, or worse case for another team while we have Matt Cassel year in and year out.


I apologize for the stream of consciousness of this post. The bottom line seems to be, I am not sure that BB cant find another "JG", and if so why are we so worried about trading him?
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
12,040
I didn't say it was because of the numbers. I say it because they had to hobble the offense for him - which is expected. They won the Houston game in spite of Brisset because of the defense. Without a broken finger, I think they still lose in Buffalo. The skillset that Brisset showed last year is one that usually plays well for a game or two, but not one that typically leads to viable NFL quarterbacking. He may get better - he may not.

In my opinion, from what we saw last year, there is a gigantic skill gap between Garoppalo and Brisset. Brisset will probably close some of that gap with more practice/film/etc, but right now, IMO, the Patriots would be a decidedly worse team with Brisset starting than Garappolo. Is that really under debate?
You're talking about the difference between a third-year NFL QB and a rookie. As is Bill Parcells' oft-quoted opinion, the biggest jump in performance for a player is between year 1 and year 2. It's not really fair to judge "What you've got" with Garoppolo (time to learn how to spell his name) and Brissett (his too!) based on where they were at in September 2016. The "skillset Brissett showed last year" is unlikely to be what he shows this coming year, or next year. Dismissively saying "he may get better or he may not" casts a far-more-pessimistic view on player development than is normally seen in the NFL.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Or after the 2018 season. I would not allow cap space for 1 year to decide something of this magnitude.

All you can deal with is probabilities. It is significantly probable that TB cannot sustain his current level of play beyond 42 years old.
Franchising him is going to cost like $22 million dollars and then they have to sign him after and, if they "need" him, the cost is going up. If they want him long-term, just pay market rate for an unproven starting quarterback now and be done with it.

I know the thought, Stitch, but we are going on the public comments. What if privately, BB, Brady, JG, and Kraft know of a sooner and more realistic Brady retire date? Maybe they have some info privately they aren't sharing and this all makes sense in a year. I can't imagine Brady playing through some deteriorating years. There are so many unknowns to this, I hate to comment because it just gives rise to a sloppy thread, but I think all we really know is that BB has commented about how in practice you can't really tell the difference in the 2 QB's when they are running the offense. This is huge considering Brady is one of the one's he's talking about.
Listen to the podcast that Brady did with Peter King post Super Bowl. Father time might get him, but I feel supremely confident in saying the planned retirement date isnt 2017 or 2018.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
"We [being] worried about trading him" is entirely beside the point. What matters is what BB is worried about.

Here is his draft history at the position for the Pats.

http://nep.247sports.com/Bolt/Quarterback-Bill-Belichicks-Patriots-draft-history-36991685

Apart from once in the history of the universe TB, it's likely no better or worse than most other teams', apart from your usual suspects -- Browns and Jets.

That provides ample reason for worry if you are presented with the choice of dealing someone you DO feel good about.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I certainly have my BB Fan boy glasses on, but why do many of us assume that JG HAS to be kept because he is likely above average. Is it because finding a QB who can be above average is hard? Maybe for 97% of the NFL, but not for BB.

BB has had 5 Starting QBs with the Pats.
Bledsoe : 5-13
Brady: nuff Said
Cassel: 10-5
JG: 2-0
Brissett: 1-1
18-19 combined. If we remove Bledsoe who BB was "Stuck with" and Brady who is a freak that will never happen again, they are 13-6.

JGs success means literally nothing. Not only is it SSS but there is history of a Journey man QB (Cassels 36-44 record) having a seasons worth of success under BB.

BB may choose QBs like he chooses every other position. How will this player perform for US in OUR system. Evidently Brady, Cassel, JG and Brissett have been proven as successful in that aspect. Maybe not as individuals but as an aggregate.
Hell he took a QB with a 24-48 career record (Testaverde) and coached him to a 16-15 record. Seems fair to concede that BB will get average performance out of an other wise less then steller QB.
I hate using win loss stats for QBs like this. Bledsoe went 5-13 as a starter largely because the 2000 Patriots sucked. Cassel went 10-5 largely because he took over what, in 2007, was one of the very best football teams of all time.

Also JG's success means little in a SSS, but BB's evaluation of JG over four years means a whole lot.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Franchising him is going to cost like $22 million dollars and then they have to sign him after and, if they "need" him the cost is going up. If they want him long-term, just pay market rate for an unproven starting quarterback now and be done with it.



Listen to the podcast that Brady did with Peter King post Super Bowl. Father time might get him, but I feel supremely confident in saying the planned retirement date isnt 2017 or 2018.
Agree with you. Strike that sort of deal and ride the rising cap to take the sting out of it.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,449
Maine
"largely because he took over what, in 2007, was one of the very best football teams of all time."


And the assumption seems to be that the Patriots will suddenly stop being one of the best teams in the league in 2018,19 or 20 when every historical precedent is that BB will continue to field one of the best teams in the league.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I should add there's still the unknown of whether Jimmy G wants to sign up for this situation rather than a clearer shot at actually playing in '18 and that the more likely outcome to keep Jimmy G here in '18 and beyond is the Pats saying "this is the last season for Brady in NE. Its your team in '18".

Im on record as saying I dont think the Pats are going to push Brady out the door, but I think we are collectively making this too complicated. Jimmy G as long-term QB answer=Brady somewhere else in 2018.

"largely because he took over what, in 2007, was one of the very best football teams of all time."


And the assumption seems to be that the Patriots will suddenly stop being one of the best teams in the league in 2018,19 or 20 when every historical precedent is that BB will continue to field one of the best teams in the league.


If we are dumbing it down to basic team oriented stats, the Pats have made the playoffs 100% of the time since 2003 with a great QB at the helm. They have made it 0% of the time without a great QB at the helm.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,449
Maine
HAHAHA! That made me smile.

I think our disagreement comes from the expectation you mention though. We are NOT going to make the Playoffs every year post Brady. Thinking that JG or anyone is going to do that is a fools errand. I just am not convinced yet that JG is going to be that much better then any number of options.

I guess you can say "this is all about what BB feels, and he feels that JG is so good he needs to keep him based on the last 4 years". And that may turn out to be true. It might also be true that everything BB has done is posturing to increase the potential return.

I am not saying trade JG because he is a bum or wont amount to anything. I am also not saying sell him for $.25 on the dollar. But if the return was high enough (2 2nds and a 4th for instance) I would trade him in a heartbeat.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
If Polian is right (see above), it's worth revisiting the trade that yielded Wentz, one year and four days ago:

The Eagles will give up their first-round pick (eighth overall), their third (77th) and fourth (100th), along with their 2017 first-rounder and their 2018 second-rounder. They will get the Browns’ fourth-rounder in 2017 as well as the second pick.
To move up six spots in the first round, and get a fourth rounder the following year, you give up:

The first round pick in the swap, a third-rounder, a fourth rounder, your first round pick the following year, and a second round pick the year after that..

If Curran is right, the Pats requiring "multiple firsts" -- at least two -- for JG is quite reasonable. The "merits" don't matter. The RGIII trade paved the way for this trade. They are historical facts that set the market.

The Eagles, by the way, must be thrilled one year in, with all the caveats.

One can only imagine the "suck for Sam Darnold" campaign if he puts in another solid season at USC. The League is going to have a major problem on its hands toward the end of next season.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
HAHAHA! That made me smile.

I think our disagreement comes from the expectation you mention though. We are NOT going to make the Playoffs every year post Brady. Thinking that JG or anyone is going to do that is a fools errand. I just am not convinced yet that JG is going to be that much better then any number of options.

I guess you can say "this is all about what BB feels, and he feels that JG is so good he needs to keep him based on the last 4 years". And that may turn out to be true. It might also be true that everything BB has done is posturing to increase the potential return.

I am not saying trade JG because he is a bum or wont amount to anything. I am also not saying sell him for $.25 on the dollar. But if the return was high enough (2 2nds and a 4th for instance) I would trade him in a heartbeat.
You would deal him for 2 seconds and a fourth after RGIII and Wentz went down? Do you have some land for sale?
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,315
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
If Polian is right (see above), it's worth revisiting the trade that yielded Wentz, one year and four days ago:

To move up six spots in the first round, and get a fourth rounder the following year, you give up:

The first round pick in the swap, a third-rounder, a fourth rounder, your first round pick the following year, and a second round pick the year after that..

If Curran is right, the Pats requiring "multiple firsts" -- at least two -- for JG is quite reasonable. The "merits" don't matter. The RGIII trade paved the way for this trade. They are historical facts that set the market.

The Eagles, by the way, must be thrilled one year in, with all the caveats.

One can only imagine the "suck for Sam Darnold" campaign if he puts in another solid season at USC. The League is going to have a major problem on its hands toward the end of next season.
Sam Bradford is another trade comp. 1st and 4th. I think that was the base thinking of a lot of the early media speculation on what it would take.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
HAHAHA! That made me smile.

I think our disagreement comes from the expectation you mention though. We are NOT going to make the Playoffs every year post Brady. Thinking that JG or anyone is going to do that is a fools errand. I just am not convinced yet that JG is going to be that much better then any number of options.

I guess you can say "this is all about what BB feels, and he feels that JG is so good he needs to keep him based on the last 4 years". And that may turn out to be true. It might also be true that everything BB has done is posturing to increase the potential return.

I am not saying trade JG because he is a bum or wont amount to anything. I am also not saying sell him for $.25 on the dollar. But if the return was high enough (2 2nds and a 4th for instance) I would trade him in a heartbeat.
Obviously being facetious, but I think the Pats still are going to need a good quarterback to contend. I do agree that, given the information we have as fans, JG's range of outcomes is fairly wide.

I also lean towards trading him based on my set of assumptions, but its arguable and depends on the return. I think 12 would probably be enough for me.

Sam Bradford is another trade comp. 1st and 4th. I think that was the base thinking of a lot of the early media speculation on what it would take.


This is a better comp to me than RG III or Wentz. Not perfect: Jimmy G has a higher ceiling, Pats dont have as desperate of a buyer, Bradford is older, each contract situation has pros and cons, but this seems like a more reasonable comp.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,449
Maine
Ideally it would be higher then that. Ideally the 2 firsts you point out as "market value".

However We have traded other Backup QBs gotten a pick in the same round they were originally chosen, added in the fact that we had 2-3-4 years of "Backup insurance" and been perfectly happy with the exchange.

If we get "2 2nds and a 4th" + 3 years of JG backup services (including 2 wins) I would count that as a big win.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Sam Bradford is another trade comp. 1st and 4th. I think that was the base thinking of a lot of the early media speculation on what it would take.
And they paid $11 million of Bradford's salary, and were oversubscribed at the position. Desperation on Vikings' side as well with the new stadium and so forth. And it was done in season. Lots of complicating factors on this deal.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
You're talking about the difference between a third-year NFL QB and a rookie. As is Bill Parcells' oft-quoted opinion, the biggest jump in performance for a player is between year 1 and year 2. It's not really fair to judge "What you've got" with Garoppolo (time to learn how to spell his name) and Brissett (his too!) based on where they were at in September 2016. The "skillset Brissett showed last year" is unlikely to be what he shows this coming year, or next year. Dismissively saying "he may get better or he may not" casts a far-more-pessimistic view on player development than is normally seen in the NFL.
Of course he's going to get better - but there's a very real chance that "get better" gets him nowhere near what JG is now. The vast majority of quarterback prospects in the NFL don't improve enough in that 2nd and 3rd year to be viable - and chances are, neither will Brisset. He's a wildcard. JG isn't a wildcard - if BB think's he's a viable NFL starter at this point - he probably is.

I'm always amazed that the argument that bakahump is making is almost never turned on Brady - if the Patriots can make scrubs like Matt Cassel look elite, then why do we assume Brady actually is the GOAT, and not a good quarterback who BB has made look better than he is?

I think the Patriots are probably better in the league than anybody at finding talent that fits their philosophies, and bending their strategy and tactics to fit the talent they have, and the talent that's available. I think that applies equally to Brady as it does to everyone else - and I think Brady's career would have been hugely different if he had been drafted by say, the Browns. I don't think BB would have been as successful without Brady, but I think we'd still be talking about him as being one of the best in the league, and he'd have won superbowls. (Maybe 1-2 instead of 5).

JG or otherwise - I think people are nuts if they think the Patriots are going to fall back into the pack when Brady retires. The Patriots with a mid-tier quarterback are still a way better team than the NYJ, BUF, MIA are without major ownership changes. I'm way more worried about when BB retires.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
They are synergistic, but think you are underselling Brady. I look at the 2006 team and what the 2013 and 2015 teams were running out on offense late in the playoffs and have a hard time saying "man, that's a very good quarterback that BB and company are making look better through their system" I think the Pats would have been successful with a mid-tier good quarterback (if BB didnt get fired by the end of 2002), but there would have been some down seasons along the way. What Brady has done is given them the luxury of being in the mix every year even if, in the short-term, the rest of the personnel was pretty bad.

As for the specific w/l argument, Brady's winning percentage is in such a different galaxy from everyone else's that trying to turning the argument on its head would be fruitless. its a hugely flawed stat, but he's 30 games better than Joe Montana.
 
Last edited:

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
6,715
San Francisco
Of course he's going to get better - but there's a very real chance that "get better" gets him nowhere near what JG is now. The vast majority of quarterback prospects in the NFL don't improve enough in that 2nd and 3rd year to be viable - and chances are, neither will Brisset. He's a wildcard. JG isn't a wildcard - if BB think's he's a viable NFL starter at this point - he probably is.

I'm always amazed that the argument that bakahump is making is almost never turned on Brady - if the Patriots can make scrubs like Matt Cassel look elite, then why do we assume Brady actually is the GOAT, and not a good quarterback who BB has made look better than he is?

I think the Patriots are probably better in the league than anybody at finding talent that fits their philosophies, and bending their strategy and tactics to fit the talent they have, and the talent that's available. I think that applies equally to Brady as it does to everyone else - and I think Brady's career would have been hugely different if he had been drafted by say, the Browns. I don't think BB would have been as successful without Brady, but I think we'd still be talking about him as being one of the best in the league, and he'd have won superbowls. (Maybe 1-2 instead of 5).

JG or otherwise - I think people are nuts if they think the Patriots are going to fall back into the pack when Brady retires. The Patriots with a mid-tier quarterback are still a way better team than the NYJ, BUF, MIA are without major ownership changes. I'm way more worried about when BB retires.
On the flip side, if BB didn't hit the ultimate jackpot with Brady as a 6th round pick, does anyone actually believe the Pats would have 5 titles with BB and some other combination of QBs?
Edit - basically what the post about synergy said.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Bradford was traded September 3. Not exactly the start of training camp, but not in season either.
Thanks for the correction. But in any case, after Teddy B went down, and after an offseason and preseason during which Bradford made plain he was not a happy camper when Wentz was drafted. Eagles dearly wanted to move on once they decided to go with Wentz that first year.

Two needy if not desperate teams for entirely different reasons. It's a benchmark, but I think not as clean as the Wentz acquisition.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I now think that there is a possibility where BB keeps JG this year and then lets him walk. The reason being that in 2017, JG is the best backup QB he can find, at a reasonable price, and one that he knows can fill in if needed.

Come 2018, JG will be too expensive to be that guy (best backup QB he can find, at a reasonable price). But by 2018, BB will know a LOT more about JB, such that by that time, JB will be able to be that guy (best backup QB he can find, at a reasonable price).

I think that Brady's successor is quite probably not on the roster right now, and quite likely, not even in the NFL. Yet.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,985
I'm always amazed that the argument that bakahump is making is almost never turned on Brady - if the Patriots can make scrubs like Matt Cassel look elite, then why do we assume Brady actually is the GOAT, and not a good quarterback who BB has made look better than he is?
I hate this so much every time I hear it/read it. The 2008 Patriots went from consensus favorites to win the Super Bowl with Tom Brady to missing the playoffs without him. That was a much bigger drop-off than there was, for example, with the Bulls going from Michael Jordan in 1992-93 to no Michael Jordan in 1993-94. Or maybe you believe Phil Jackson made Pete Myers look elite.
 

Number45forever

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2003
1,965
Vermont
I hate this so much every time I hear it/read it. The 2008 Patriots went from consensus favorites to win the Super Bowl with Tom Brady to missing the playoffs without him. That was a much bigger drop-off than there was, for example, with the Bulls going from Michael Jordan in 1992-93 to no Michael Jordan in 1993-94. Or maybe you believe Phil Jackson made Pete Myers look elite.
Yeah, but the 08 Pats went 11-5 and missed the playoffs as one of only a handful of 11-5 teams to ever do so. And they had the sixth best point differential in the whole NFL that year. It's pretty easy to compare that Pats team to the first non-Jordan Bulls team, I think. It's still a team sport in both cases, no matter how transcendent the one player is.