RD2/#62 - Brady's Heir to the Throne
- Thread starter mabrowndog
- Start date
My point was about the exactness of the information. When you say there's a 60% chance of busting in blackjack, you *know* it's 60%. When we say JG has a 60% chance of busting, we're (they're) making a best guess based on much, much, much more limited information. It's one thing to say that you can evaluate the process in isolation from the results for the former, but it's much harder to do that in practice with the latter.Reverend said:
soxfan121 said:
I assume you are using the word "preserve" loosely.
My google efforts to locate a pic of that over the shoulder pass/near fumble under pressure, have failed.
I don't mean to start Brady vs. Bledsoe war here, but beyond finishing Brady's drive and one other drive that netted 3, he wasn't all that great. He was 10 for 21 that game, however he didn't have a pick, so I guess he gets credit for not doing what he normally does.
Troy Brown was an absolute beast in that game, yet Bledsoe got most of the credit.
Troy Brown was an absolute beast in that game, yet Bledsoe got most of the credit.
That Steelers team also allowed the fewest yards and 3rd-fewest points of any NFL defense, so a pedestrian performance against them isn't too bad. They allowed fewer points than the Seahawks did this year, for reference..
Super Nomario said:
The Seahawks weren't playing under the old DPI/holding rules "emphasis", which made defending the pass MUCH easier.
I don't the Steelers were a better D than this year's Seahawks, but all this adds up to a depressed passing environment for Bledsoe.Rico Guapo said:
Dick Pole Upside said:
I think this is certainly the case. Not that Brady is more at risk than the average 37 year old Pro Bowl QB, just that he is not likely to be significantly less at risk. Drafting JG is all about weighing a combination of factors.
Will Brady get hurt?
Will Brady decline due to aging?
Will Brady slowly get worse due to a combination of these two?
Will JG turn out to be a better backup QB than a random journeyman backup in a year or two?
Will JG be good enough to avoid the need to pay for a veteran backup (and allow an allocation of funds elsewhere)?
Will JG be the QB of the future in 3 or 4 years?
Lots of issues to consider, all with different probabilities of happening. Clearly the Patriots feel the the first few issues are worth preparing for to some degree within the next 3 to 4 years. And obviously they have JG rated highly enough to think it's at least possible he can help with the last 3 issues going forward.
I think BB stated very clearly that he would rather start the process of finding the next QB a year too early rather than a year too late. And I also think BB would prefer his next QB to learn the system for a few years (ala Aaron Rodgers), not be forced to throw a rookie into the starting job from Day 1.
I would expect QB to be a draft consideration over the next couple of years (non 1st rounders) until BB thinks he is grooming someone that he feels comfortable giving the reins over to. JG, at pick #62, is first up. Gotta start somewhere, and I don't think Bill wants to be stuck in 2 or 3 years with no QB prospects and a declining/injured/retired Brady. Seems reasonable to me.
Jettisoned said:
How much am I asserting?
Who said he's definitely going to be healthier and it was a slam dunk he lasts a long time?singaporesoxfan said:
singaporesoxfan said:
Do you think those GMs would go back and redo those picks they could?
Cellar-Door said:
If there was evidence either way would it matter? For one, it would be a SSS, and the rules were put in place to do one thing - keep the QBs healthy and through that make more money. If the rules were not helping what makes you think they won't change them again? The NFL has proven they don't leave money on the table.
It's no point arguing with someone who believes thisChemistry Schmemistry said:
Chemistry Schmemistry said:
That's just hilarious.
Actually it's not. It's sad.
I admit the first post you quoted was sloppily worded, but the second one wasn't and means the same thing. The backup DEs play a lot regardless of health, the opposite is true at the backup QB position. What about that do you disagree with?The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
I don't disagree with any of what you said, but I'm not sure why you would bring it up. That fact simply does not help your case at all (which appears to be that, in the abstract, using a second-rounder on a backup QB was a poor use of resources relative to adding depth at another position--let me know if you've changed your mind about this, of course). In reality quarterbacks get hurt.phragle said:
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
Because you asked this "Do you really not consider QB depth to be important, or one that is significantly less important than second-stringers at other positions?" and I think in order to answer that I have to bring up the best and worst case scenarios.
I'm glad you at least know the stance I'm taking. That's more than I can say for some.
Super Nomario said:
More than that, he, not unlike most analysts who view the game from the peripheral, opposed to actually being in it or at least understanding all its nuances (because to not do so earns them a career boot - not so with writers), he judges players strictly on results. Fact is, he doesn't know or even care if JG was instructed to 'duck' (as absurd as that may sound) or if JG was reacting to a known problem with particular OL, or if he.. whatever. My point is, there's no way that NEP didn't see the same things, considered them as Waldman does, but drafted him anyway. So to me, his opinion is immaterial. NEP is well aware but does not believe it to be an issue.
I think it's perfectly valid to evaluate the draft on the day after. And again 3 years down the road.
We do this with trades all the time. My apologies for mixing sports metaphors, but the Iglesias for Peavy trade made perfect sense at the time it was made. The team took a spare part and turned him into a #4 starter at a time when the outlook for Buchholz was anything but certain. It also worked out reasonably well, despite Peavy's struggles in 2 playoff games.
Where reasonable people can disagree is whether it was worth addressing the QB position with a 2nd round pick this season, versus addressing the team's other needs. I personally am torn on the matter, so I'm going to punt and see how it works out 3 years from now.
But I don't agree that the Patriots decision was the outcome of a broken or flawed process. Sometimes a good process is going to produce decisions that seem questionable or flat out do not work. The draft is not an exact science, and I doubt any team blindly uses computer projections to pick the player they need to draft. Deciding that age 37 is the time to start finding a future starting QB does not seem outrageous to me, nor does using a valuable draft pick to do so.
As to the value of a 2nd round pick, something I saw mentioned upthread, I took a quick and unscientific look at the 2009 and 2010 drafts. These are players that by now should be in the prime of their NFL careers barring major injury. Of the 64 players drafted in the 2nd round in those 2 drafts (which included Patrick Chung, the immortal Ron Brace, Darius Butler, Sebastian Vollmer, Rob Gronkowski, Jermaine Cunningham, and Brandon Spikes):
21 players have been noted by pro-football-reference.com as the primary starter for the majority of their years (at least 3 seasons for 2010 picks, and 4 seasons for 2009 picks). This category includes Spikes and Gronk, but not Vollmer due to his injury history. There is some arbitrariness to my process, but I'm just looking at overall trends, so there will be some obvious errors at the individual level; hopefully these errors even out.
20 have appeared in fewer than 65% of the teams games in that span in any fashion (special teams, sub, starter). Since I consider 65 to be a minimum passing grade, I label these as busts. This includes Brace, Cunningham (no argument there).
9 have had at least one Pro Bowl selections, and 4 have had multiple, including Gronk.
So, roughly one third bust out, one third become depth/ST guys (including Chung and Butler), and one-third become solid starters. There's also about a 5-10% chance of hitting a Pro Bowl caliber player. Most would argue that 2nd round picks are indeed valuable given those numbers.
We do this with trades all the time. My apologies for mixing sports metaphors, but the Iglesias for Peavy trade made perfect sense at the time it was made. The team took a spare part and turned him into a #4 starter at a time when the outlook for Buchholz was anything but certain. It also worked out reasonably well, despite Peavy's struggles in 2 playoff games.
Where reasonable people can disagree is whether it was worth addressing the QB position with a 2nd round pick this season, versus addressing the team's other needs. I personally am torn on the matter, so I'm going to punt and see how it works out 3 years from now.
But I don't agree that the Patriots decision was the outcome of a broken or flawed process. Sometimes a good process is going to produce decisions that seem questionable or flat out do not work. The draft is not an exact science, and I doubt any team blindly uses computer projections to pick the player they need to draft. Deciding that age 37 is the time to start finding a future starting QB does not seem outrageous to me, nor does using a valuable draft pick to do so.
As to the value of a 2nd round pick, something I saw mentioned upthread, I took a quick and unscientific look at the 2009 and 2010 drafts. These are players that by now should be in the prime of their NFL careers barring major injury. Of the 64 players drafted in the 2nd round in those 2 drafts (which included Patrick Chung, the immortal Ron Brace, Darius Butler, Sebastian Vollmer, Rob Gronkowski, Jermaine Cunningham, and Brandon Spikes):
21 players have been noted by pro-football-reference.com as the primary starter for the majority of their years (at least 3 seasons for 2010 picks, and 4 seasons for 2009 picks). This category includes Spikes and Gronk, but not Vollmer due to his injury history. There is some arbitrariness to my process, but I'm just looking at overall trends, so there will be some obvious errors at the individual level; hopefully these errors even out.
20 have appeared in fewer than 65% of the teams games in that span in any fashion (special teams, sub, starter). Since I consider 65 to be a minimum passing grade, I label these as busts. This includes Brace, Cunningham (no argument there).
9 have had at least one Pro Bowl selections, and 4 have had multiple, including Gronk.
So, roughly one third bust out, one third become depth/ST guys (including Chung and Butler), and one-third become solid starters. There's also about a 5-10% chance of hitting a Pro Bowl caliber player. Most would argue that 2nd round picks are indeed valuable given those numbers.
Golddust Man said:
This is completely ridiculous. You knew it by saying "it's absurd" but said it anyway. So because the patriots drafted him other peoples educated opinions are immaterial? I like to sip the kool-aid as much as anyone but that's like swimming in it.
Or they believe it is an issue but think they can fix him. In other words his other parts and potential (potential for coaching and correction too) outweigh his risk and chance to bust. But to say it isn't an issue at all is to be blind. Prospects are allowed to have flaws.... Most do.
I agree with this.Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
The argument he should have made is that Matt Waldman like basically all scouts gets as many wrong as right. Obviously he thinks he sees something on the tape, and others didn't based on looking at the writeups from other scouts. Time will tell which is right, but the Patriots saw the same tape he did and either don't think he's right or think it can be fixed. We'll probably see at some point over the next three or four years who was right.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
The debate back then divided households; the caretaker vs the gun slinger.
What sold me was his come back performance against San Diego reinforced by his 4 TD destruction of New Orleans. I suppose I was tired of the poor TD/Int ratio and boneheaded Bledsoe plays (like that one against Pittsburgh, not his only against Pittsburgh either - ask Mike Vrable). His performance in Super Bowl 31 soured me, and it was only partially repaired by the pin game.
Admittedly, I was quick on the Brady bandwagon. I remember being absolutely paranoid that Belichick would start Bledsoe in the Super Bowl, which pushed me to the point of near depression. I can honestly say with a straight face that if Bledsoe started 36, they would not have won that game. All it would have taken for the Rams to win was one or two more possessions, with short fields.
I was also entirely in the Brady camp. With him there was not the sense of impending doom that one felt with Bledsoe. God Bledsoe was fucking painful to watch. Just good enough to get your hopes up and then crush them. It makes me depressed thinking about it 20 years later.GregHarris said:
After watching a succession of QB's that included a Steve Grogan at the end of the line, Tony "The Dressman" Eason, Tom Ramsey, Doug Flutie, Marc Bleepin' Wilson, the immortals Tommy Hodson and Hugh Millen, and sports announcer in training Scott Zolak, I know I was ecstatic when Parcells ignored Will McDonough's bleatings to trade down and instead selected Bledsoe with the #1 pick. Parcells and Bledsoe brought some level of respectability back to New England, and probably helped contribute to keeping the franchise from moving to St. Louis.
For those that think finding a QB is a slam dunk, please reread my first sentence.
For those that think finding a QB is a slam dunk, please reread my first sentence.
It is pretty remarkable that outside of the one year Brady was hurt and a handful of games that Bledsoe missed, the Past have only had two starting QBs over the last 22 seasons.
I am unapologetically a Drew Bledsoe fan. That he was never as good as Tom Brady should not be held against him.
I am unapologetically a Drew Bledsoe fan. That he was never as good as Tom Brady should not be held against him.
lexrageorge said:
I think there's some entitlement (and fan emotion) at play here too. Not in a Captain Obvious, MFY fan way. Not purposefully or blindingly arrogant. But it's been 13 years since the Pats completed their first "shocked the world" championship season - uncorking a 13-year run of unprecedented excellence and sky-high expectations. That's an entire generation that grew up only knowing "elite" as a word to describe the Patriots franchise, and only knowing a future HoF and GOAT candidate Tom Brady (other than the Cassel cameo) as their QB. It's automatic. It's muscle memory. It's in the genetic code for a huge swath of New England fans.
There shouldn't be an assumption that we can just pick up a guy whenever we want to maintain this level of performance, just as there shouldn't be an assumption that TB starts every game over the remaining years of his contract *and* continues to play at GOAT-levels. I understand this gut instinct for a fan to want TB to get one more ring. But as BB said, if they want to be a year early instead of a year late with the "next guy up" at QB I can't argue with that.
Who here thinks finding a QB is a slam dunk?lexrageorge said:
The reactions here have pretty much been (1) this was a bad pick because this guy is going to suck; (2) this was a bad pick because they need to win now while they still have a HOF QB AND JG is likely to suck; or (3) this was a good pick because QB is the most important position and even though chances are JG will not be a good QB, the potential rewards outweigh the risk of blowing a #2 pick.
Edit: emphasized "And"
No one who posts regularly in this forum thinks this way. Some think assets should be used to maximize Brady's remaining time. Others think it's justified to use picks in hopes of hitting the jackpot. No one assumes it will be easy.Trlicek's Whip said:
Doug Kyed @DougKyedNESNhttps://twitter.com/DougKyedNESN · 3m
Justin Jones said Jimmy Garoppolo will walk up to him, shout out a play from Patriots playbook and ask him what his responsibilities are.
Doug Kyed @DougKyedNESNhttps://twitter.com/DougKyedNESN · 3m
Sounds like Garoppolo already is taking on a leadership role among rookies. Impressive that he has a good enough grasp of the playbook.
Everything I've read about Garoppolo suggests his intelligence, intangibles, leadership, etc., are first-rate. I can see why Belichick decided to bet on that despite Garoppolo's rough edges and weak areas.
Justin Jones said Jimmy Garoppolo will walk up to him, shout out a play from Patriots playbook and ask him what his responsibilities are.
Doug Kyed @DougKyedNESNhttps://twitter.com/DougKyedNESN · 3m
Sounds like Garoppolo already is taking on a leadership role among rookies. Impressive that he has a good enough grasp of the playbook.
Everything I've read about Garoppolo suggests his intelligence, intangibles, leadership, etc., are first-rate. I can see why Belichick decided to bet on that despite Garoppolo's rough edges and weak areas.
drleather2001 said:
Yeah, he's too eager by
drleather2001 said:
Kyed goes into more detail here:Shelterdog said:
Read more at: http://nesn.com/2014/05/jimmy-garoppolo-already-taking-on-leadership-role-among-patriots-rookies/
NortheasternPJ said:
That's pretty cool. You could extent that back another 7 years and only pick up one additional starter for the Pats (Zolak, I think) which is incredible.
Oh, and Brownstown!
Well that's interesting, as I don't recall anything like this here (or anywhere), and BB has certainly had rookie QBs before. Then you remember that BBs says nothing without a purpose and recall his statements last week that TB much closer to the end than the beginning. Presumptive heir, on his first day of college.Super Nomario said:
Ralphwiggum said:
I seemed to remember Bishop started a game somewhere, but I was wrong, it was only that Preseason game. When looking him up i did find this out. Think the Pats will pick him back up?
Shelterdog said:
Sounds like a sergeant trying to build up a lieutenant... if the sergeant was actually a flag officer.
In the conversations about when Belichich will retire, I've often wondered how much would hinge on him finding another QB he could deal with after Brady. Like, could he possibly deal with running the team without a totally committed football nerd as a QB? This as much as anything else may be why he made the pick there.
The coaches put a ton of pressure on the rookies to learn the playbook immediately. Quick story that's relevant.....drleather2001 said:
I was visiting a friend last spring in NC who was recovering from a nearly tragic fall. Years earlier him and his wife took custody of a kid whose parents had some trouble and he was just drafted by the Raiders in the 3rd round. He had gotten home 4 days after the draft and had 8 days to know his playbook and it's terminology inside and out prior to returning to Oakland. He was cramming like it was a Final Exam he was told by his positions coach that they know the day the rookies get back who will make it and who won't based on whether they grasp everything like its second nature by then. I later found out that his positions coach called him several times that week at different times of the day/night for 5-10 minutes testing him with certain playbook questions.
He also told me its a $10k fine if they lose the playbook.
Volin has a long writeup on Garoppolo today: http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/05/17/jimmy-garoppolo-has-chance-learn-from-brady-belichick/LZYvqEOy97LZEaHL8M04rL/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw
Some chestnuts:
Some chestnuts:
You can see what the Pats like in him; he's got good enough physical skills, great mechanics, and A+ intangibles. Then again, that was supposed to be the Mark Sanchez story, too, so we'll see how it plays out.