RD2/#62 - Brady's Heir to the Throne

Are you happy with the Patriots drafting Jimmy Garoppolo with pick #62?

  • Hell yeah. Belichick is brilliant. This kid is going to make people forget Brady ever existed.

    Votes: 66 49.6%
  • Hell no. Belichick's a jackass. This kid sucks and is only going to ride the pine for the duration o

    Votes: 67 50.4%

  • Total voters
    133

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
41,492
RedOctober3829 said:
I want to win as much as possible before Brady retires. I've accepted they'll take a step back when he retires so maximize the opportunities now to win another Super Bowl before he's done.
 
That's completely legit. From a fan's perspective.
 
Frankly though, the team may have other ideas.
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,703
Why is it a foregone conclusion that Mallett leaves?
 
If Janine Garappolo comes in and sucks it wouldn't it be more plausible that the Pats retain Mallett? Or is the thought that he has enough potential value to another team as a starter and the Pats wouldn't match or exceed?
 
Edit: Clarity
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
16,935
Manramsclan said:
Why is it a foregone conclusion that Mallett leaves?
 
If Janine Garappolo comes in and sucks it wouldn't it be more plausible that the Pats retain Mallett? Or is the thought that he has enough potential value to another team as a starter and the Pats wouldn't match or exceed?
 
Edit: Clarity
The Patriots can't offer him the opportunity to even fight for the starting job. He's not going to stay to be the backup. They also couldn't afford to pay him much either, but the opportunity to play is the bigger issue.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
41,492
Manramsclan said:
Why is it a foregone conclusion that Mallett leaves?
 
Because why would he resign? He only plays here if Brady is hurt. He can go somewhere else where he has a shot at starting.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
DrewDawg said:
 
Because why would he resign? He only plays here if Brady is hurt. He can go somewhere else where he has a shot at starting.
 
Like Houston or Arizona.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
12,962
Carmine's closet
Super Nomario said:
This doesn't bother me. There are 7 inactives every week. Last year they had three guys in Bequette, Beauharnais, and Barker who played fewer than 50 snaps (including special teams) and were inactive almost the whole year. They can redshirt a 3rd QB.
 
It's just the perfectionist in me. If there's room for improvement - any at all - I'd doing anything for it. So if comes down to cutting a young DE with some promise or carrying a 3rd QB the decision is easy for me. It's not my biggest problem with this, but it's something I haven't seen mentioned.
 
Super Nomario said:
Maybe, if they picked Casey, but not if they picked DeMarcus Van Dyke or Jah Reid or Brandon Hogan or Jerrel Jernigan or Drake Nevis or any of probably 25 of the 30 players after Mallett. They didn't give up a useful player to take Mallett;
 
Like I said, it's entirely dependent on the player.
 
Super Nomario said:
they gave up a chance at a useful player, and not a very good chance.
 
Yes but that cuts both ways. They gave up a chance at a useful player for the chance of a different useful player. Every draft choice works this way, it's not unique.
 
Of course it's hindsight, but when you win a SB it validates everything. The Percy Harvin trade this year can't be questioned, ever. Why isn't the opposite true, like when we lost in 2011 with Kyle Love starting, and Brandon Deaderick playing in the SB?
 
Super Nomario said:
SF121 fairly likened the pick to insurance. Brady's at the age where most QBs are wrapping up their careers. Rich Gannon was first-team All-Pro at age 37; he started just 10 games over the next two seasons (his last two). Trent Green made a Pro Bowl at 35 and never started more than 8 games in a season again. Marino missed 5 games in his age-38 season and then retired. Simms played just 10 games over his age 36 and 37 seasons. Even Elway, who went out a Super Bowl winner, missed 4 games in his final season; that Bubby Brister was able go 4-0 in those games helped Denver keep their playoff position. Warren Moon was a regular starter until age 42 but missed time in 6 of his last 7 seasons as a starter. Steve Young played just 3 games at age 38 and then retired. Montana missed 16, 15, 5, and 2 games from age 35-on. The list goes on and on.
 
I'm not buying this. I'm not comparing any of those guys to Brady. We know Brady is a different animal. It's a different game too. Unless Wendell is involved, they don't get hit like they used to, and modern medicine is much more advanced. It's not apples to apples.
 
Super Nomario said:
His contract means, barring catastrophe, Brady will be the regular starter the next three seasons at least. But if you think it's likely he'll play 16 games each of those three seasons, you're kidding yourself. Could he? Of course, but chances are he'll miss games here and there, and having a competent backup might be the difference between winning the Super Bowl (like the '99 Broncos) or missing the playoffs entirely (like the Packers last year).
You can get a competent backup for more reasonable price. Mallett is a perfect example.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
9,293
NH
Super Nomario said:
SF121 fairly likened the pick to insurance. Brady's at the age where most QBs are wrapping up their careers. Rich Gannon was first-team All-Pro at age 37; he started just 10 games over the next two seasons (his last two). Trent Green made a Pro Bowl at 35 and never started more than 8 games in a season again. Marino missed 5 games in his age-38 season and then retired. Simms played just 10 games over his age 36 and 37 seasons. Even Elway, who went out a Super Bowl winner, missed 4 games in his final season; that Bubby Brister was able go 4-0 in those games helped Denver keep their playoff position. Warren Moon was a regular starter until age 42 but missed time in 6 of his last 7 seasons as a starter. Steve Young played just 3 games at age 38 and then retired. Montana missed 16, 15, 5, and 2 games from age 35-on. The list goes on and on.
 
His contract means, barring catastrophe, Brady will be the regular starter the next three seasons at least. But if you think it's likely he'll play 16 games each of those three seasons, you're kidding yourself. Could he? Of course, but chances are he'll miss games here and there, and having a competent backup might be the difference between winning the Super Bowl (like the '99 Broncos) or missing the playoffs entirely (like the Packers last year).
 
So, Peyton Manning recovering from multiple neck surgeries at 37 years old just set multiple records for an NFL QB and we're supposed to be worried about Brady entering his 37 year old season. Jimmy G isn't going to lead us to a Super Bowl. I'm fairly confident in that assertion. 
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,544
Hingham, MA
"Jimmy G isn't going to lead us to a Super Bowl"

reminds me of my roommate fall 2001

"we are never winning anything of consequence with Brady"

How could you possibly know?
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
9,293
NH
tims4wins said:
"Jimmy G isn't going to lead us to a Super Bowl"

reminds me of my roommate fall 2001


"we are never winning anything of consequence with Brady"

How could you possibly know?
 
Again, Brady is the exception not the rule. If he goes down we're fucked regardless of our second round QB.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
12,962
Carmine's closet
tims4wins said:
"Jimmy G isn't going to lead us to a Super Bowl"

reminds me of my roommate fall 2001

"we are never winning anything of consequence with Brady"

How could you possibly know?
 
You're talking to the guy that drafted Nick Foles
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,804
Mansfield MA
phragle said:
It's just the perfectionist in me. If there's room for improvement - any at all - I'd doing anything for it. So if comes down to cutting a young DE with some promise or carrying a 3rd QB the decision is easy for me. It's not my biggest problem with this, but it's something I haven't seen mentioned.
Why a young DE with some promise and not a young QB with some promise? You can't play 53 guys anyway.
 
phragle said:
Yes but that cuts both ways. They gave up a chance at a useful player for the chance of a different useful player. Every draft choice works this way, it's not unique.
I agree with all this, but I don't think this is a point against drafting Mallett / Garoppolo. The entire draft is an exercise in uncertainty. For a pick to work out or not work out, there's always a bunch of stuff that has to break a certain way. In the case of a backup QB, one of those things is the health of the starter. QB's a unique situation where you really can't play two at once. That means it's less likely a backup QB is going to be useful than a backup at other positions - if you draft Nix as Wilfork's backup and he turns out to be really good, you can find a way to play both guys - but counter-acting that is the fact (and I know you agree with this) that QB is much more important than any other position on the field.
 
It's true that Garoppolo won't have much value over the next couple years if Brady stays healthy, but that's a pretty big if.
 
phragle said:
 
Of course it's hindsight, but when you win a SB it validates everything. The Percy Harvin trade this year can't be questioned, ever. Why isn't the opposite true, like when we lost in 2011 with Kyle Love starting, and Brandon Deaderick playing in the SB?
You really don't think you can question any move a team makes if it wins the Super Bowl? Does this mean if the Pats go out and win the Super Bowl this year the Garoppolo pick was smart in hindsight?
 
phragle said:
 
 I'm not buying this. I'm not comparing any of those guys to Brady. We know Brady is a different animal. It's a different game too. Unless Wendell is involved, they don't get hit like they used to, and modern medicine is much more advanced. It's not apples to apples.
 
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
So, Peyton Manning recovering from multiple neck surgeries at 37 years old just set multiple records for an NFL QB and we're supposed to be worried about Brady entering his 37 year old season. 
Modern medical science and Brady's work ethic are incredible, but the human body is still the human body and eventually it starts to break down. I'll be happy to be wrong on this.
 
EDIT: also, this move is more about 2015+ (if it was just 2014, Mallett is fine). Maybe Brady holds up at 37 as Manning did, but what about 38? 39? 40? If Brady misses 5 games in 2016 and Garoppolo comes in and plays well, this will probably pay off.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
16,935
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
Again, Brady is the exception not the rule. If he goes down we're fucked regardless of our second round QB.
Huh?
The rule to which Brady is the exception is that later round QBs don't pan out. That is exactly why the Patriots would want to draft a QB in the first two rounds when he is getting closer to the end of his career. The Patriots are one of the best teams in the league, a large part of that is Brady, but they have a lot of talent on both sides of the ball right now, having a good backup is important so that if Brady goes down we aren't definitely fucked.
If Brady gets hurt and misses games in the middle of the year the backup QB situation could make the difference between making the playoffs and losing the whole season. 
Additionally quarterbacks in their late 30s can come to the end very quickly, if the rule is that late round picks don't make good QBs and it is important to have a potential replacement being developed, then you have to use an early pick at some point.
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,023
Somerville, MA
Super Nomario said:
Modern medical science and Brady's work ethic are incredible, but the human body is still the human body and eventually it starts to break down. I'll be happy to be wrong on this.
 
EDIT: also, this move is more about 2015+ (if it was just 2014, Mallett is fine). Maybe Brady holds up at 37 as Manning did, but what about 38? 39? 40? If Brady misses 5 games in 2016 and Garoppolo comes in and plays well, this will probably pay off.
 
Yeah, putting all your eggs in the basket of a QB in his 37-40 year old seasons is crazy. It's also probably not feasible to extend Mallett, at this point in his career he is going to want at least a sniff at a competition for a starting job. So either they need to draft a capable backup for the next few years, or sign one via free agency. But are there any decent veteran QBs out there who would take close to veteran league minimum to backup Brady? Because Jimmy G is going to have just over a $1m cap hit for the next four years. I'm not totally sold on this pick, but I understand where the organization is coming from.
 
Total hypothetical here, but combine the best case scenario for Garoppolo with Brady's skills staring to decline more than anticipated, that's a very interesting and uncomfortable situation for the Patriots. Would they ever consider trading Brady? I'm pretty sure BB wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but for the organization as a whole that would be tough. But it's happened to QBs as good as him
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,962
Deathofthebambino said:
The heir apparent talk drives me insane.  As we discussed yesterday, unless we're all missing some examples, there are 2 QB's in the past 40 years that turned into top 10-15 QB's for the team that drafted them, after spending 3 years watching their predecessor from the bench.  I have a pretty good feeling that BB also knows this, so talking about this as a foregone conclusion that the plan is for JG to replace Brady when Brady's contract is up doesn't make any sense to me.  I think he absolutely drafted the best player they had on their board instead of based on need, and I think it was a mistake. 
I'm sure we're missing a ton of examples. I came up with that short list in 15 seconds off the top of my head. The reason teams don't plan this far ahead is that few GMs are that secure to where they can do what is truly in the best long term interest of the organization.

Belichick said in his presser that he wanted to begin addressing "the QB situation" and also stated "For a position like this I'd rather be early then wait and be late." There is no question that JG will get first crack at being Brady's heir apparent......if things aren't working out in 12-24 months Belichick has another crack to find his guy.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,684
Except how long is BB going to be the coach. He's not getting any younger either.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
12,962
Carmine's closet
Super Nomario said:
Why a young DE with some promise and not a young QB with some promise? You can't play 53 guys anyway.
 
I think you answered your own question.
 
Super Nomario said:
I agree with all this, but I don't think this is a point against drafting Mallett / Garoppolo. The entire draft is an exercise in uncertainty. For a pick to work out or not work out, there's always a bunch of stuff that has to break a certain way. In the case of a backup QB, one of those things is the health of the starter. QB's a unique situation where you really can't play two at once. That means it's less likely a backup QB is going to be useful than a backup at other positions - if you draft Nix as Wilfork's backup and he turns out to be really good, you can find a way to play both guys - but counter-acting that is the fact (and I know you agree with this) that QB is much more important than any other position on the field.
 
In addition, you can play more than two DEs. You can often play three and sometimes four DEs. Just ask Pete Carroll.
 
Super Nomario said:
It's true that Garoppolo won't have much value over the next couple years if Brady stays healthy, but that's a pretty big if.
 
(If they used the pick on an O linemen, that if gets smaller.)
 
I'm not sure it's a big if anyway. We might just disagree on this but aside from one dirty preseaon hit, Brady doesn't miss games. He plays through concussions, sprains, whatever was up with his hand this year, sore right shoulders. This isn't Michael Vick we're talking about. For my money he's the toughest player in the league. They need to build around him instead of using a valuable asset on an insurance policy to his other insurance policy.
 
Super Nomario said:
You really don't think you can question any move a team makes if it wins the Super Bowl? Does this mean if the Pats go out and win the Super Bowl this year the Garoppolo pick was smart in hindsight?
 
Question it if you want, but if you go back and change something you no longer know if they win a Super Bowl. Unintended consequences. Rohan Davey - good pick , they won a SB with him.
 
Super Nomario said:
Modern medical science and Brady's work ethic are incredible, but the human body is still the human body and eventually it starts to break down. I'll be happy to be wrong on this.
 
I'm much more worried about other positions over the next four years.
 
Super Nomario said:
EDIT: also, this move is more about 2015+ (if it was just 2014, Mallett is fine). Maybe Brady holds up at 37 as Manning did, but what about 38? 39? 40? If Brady misses 5 games in 2016 and Garoppolo comes in and plays well, this will probably pay off.
And we're back to the uncertainty. Not only the uncertainty that Garoppolo is good at football, but also that he even gets to play. At least with Nix we only have one of those uncertainties.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
24,528
Here
axx said:
Except how long is BB going to be the coach. He's not getting any younger either.
Yet he was also talking about the transition after Brady. I think he's staying longer than people realize.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
16,935
phragle said:
 
And we're back to the uncertainty. Not only the uncertainty that Garoppolo is good at football, but also that he even gets to play. At least with Nix we only have one of those uncertainties.
Sure, but planning for best case scenarios is a bad way of running a football team, or any business, or really any activity.
Part of running a football team is planning for good, bad and in between.
If you draft Nix and Brady gets hurt in 2015 and his career is in jeopardy, well you're screwed.
If you draft Garappolo and the same happens, then you have a chance of being okay.
There is no guarantee Nix would play anyway, he would likely be somewhere between the 4th and 7th string DT going into the year, if everyone stayed healthy at DT he might not even see the field.
 

Chemistry Schmemistry

has been programmed to get funky/cry human tears
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2002
7,868
Michigan
Number of quarterbacks, modern era (1974-2013) with six or more games with significant playing time, based on age during season:

33: 73
34: 64
35: 45
36: 40
37: 29
38: 19
39: 7
40: 5
41: 4
42: 1

Performance compared to league mean, quarterback, by age:

33: +4%
34: +2%
35: +4%
36: +5%
37: +3%
38: +1%
39: +3% (note extremely low sample size from this point forward)
40: +12%
41: -1%
42: -4%

Generally, quarterbacks just don't play when they can't play well, so the top list is more important than the bottom list. Brady will be 37 this season. To assume he'll even be the starter next year seems optimistic. For quarterbacks, 37 is the age when steep decline often begins.

Every individual has his own curve, but I think it's very important to watch the backup situation once a quarterback hits 35-36, and absolutely idiotic not to have a plan for when he hits 38. Since resigning Mallett will be difficult if he doesn't play this year, if Belichick thinks Garoppolo has starter potential, this was a need pick.
 

Chemistry Schmemistry

has been programmed to get funky/cry human tears
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2002
7,868
Michigan
I'll throw out another idea here. Belichick is Belichick because he plans so carefully. It's not enough just to have a good quarterback. He can win with receivers or with no receivers. He can win with spare parts on defense. He can win when he loses players to injury in situations where most teams would fold up and accept an 8-win season. Belichick is the only guy out there who knows what the word "dynasty" means.

He is not going to let this team go into any season without an answer to every question he can think of.

This may be the most important chart I've got.

Number of regular seasons with 10 or more wins, 2003-2013:

11: New England
10: Indianapolis
7: Green Bay
6: Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
5: Atlanta, Denver, New Orleans, Seattle
4: Carolina, Chicago, Cincinnati, Kansas City, New York Giants, San Diego
3: Dallas, Minnesota, New York Jets, San Francisco, Tennessee
2: Arizona, Houston, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa Bay, Washington
1: Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis
0: Buffalo, Oakland

Belichick doesn't rebuild. He plans. You can call this chart Brady/Manning/flotsam and jetsam if you like. But I would call it planning for every contingency.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
12,962
Carmine's closet
Chemistry Schmemistry said:
Number of quarterbacks, modern era (1974-2013) with six or more games with significant playing time, based on age during season:

33: 73
34: 64
35: 45
36: 40
37: 29
38: 19
39: 7
40: 5
41: 4
42: 1

Performance compared to league mean, quarterback, by age:

33: +4%
34: +2%
35: +4%
36: +5%
37: +3%
38: +1%
39: +3% (note extremely low sample size from this point forward)
40: +12%
41: -1%
42: -4%

Generally, quarterbacks just don't play when they can't play well, so the top list is more important than the bottom list. Brady will be 37 this season. To assume he'll even be the starter next year seems optimistic. For quarterbacks, 37 is the age when steep decline often begins.

Every individual has his own curve, but I think it's very important to watch the backup situation once a quarterback hits 35-36, and absolutely idiotic not to have a plan for when he hits 38. Since resigning Mallett will be difficult if he doesn't play this year, if Belichick thinks Garoppolo has starter potential, this was a need pick.
 
Yeah and let's consider that this is not your average individual.
 
Chemistry Schmemistry said:
I'll throw out another idea here. Belichick is Belichick because he plans so carefully. It's not enough just to have a good quarterback. He can win with receivers or with no receivers. He can win with spare parts on defense. He can win when he loses players to injury in situations where most teams would fold up and accept an 8-win season. Belichick is the only guy out there who knows what the word "dynasty" means.

He is not going to let this team go into any season without an answer to every question he can think of.

This may be the most important chart I've got.

Number of regular seasons with 10 or more wins, 2003-2013:

11: New England
10: Indianapolis
7: Green Bay, Philadelphia
6: Baltimore, Pittsburgh
5: Atlanta, Denver, New Orleans, Seattle
4: Carolina, Chicago, Cincinnati, Kansas City, New York Giants, San Diego
3: Dallas, Minnesota, New York Jets, San Francisco, Tennessee
2: Arizona, Houston, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa Bay, Washington
1: Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis
0: Buffalo, Oakland

Belichick doesn't rebuild. He plans. You can call this chart Brady/Manning/flotsam and jetsam if you like. But I would call it planning for every contingency.
 
A Goat QB and Goat coach can make up for a decent GM.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
16,935
phragle said:
 
Yeah and let's consider that this is not your average individual.
 
Is Brady Wolverine?
The drop off in the number of QBs isn't because they suddenly decline (though they do inevitably and Brady looks to be starting his.), but because they get hurt and even with evolving sports medicine guys who are closing in on 40 don't heal as quick or as well as young guys, and many are willing to hang it up rather than wait a year plus to get in a last season or two.
Honestly there are some pretty decent arguments to be made for not drafting Garappolo where they did, but "Tom Brady is special and will never get hurt or decline in any way from age 37 to 40" isn't one of them.
 

PedrosRedGlove

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2005
558
Ed Hillel said:
Yet he was also talking about the transition after Brady. I think he's staying longer than people realize.
I was thinking the same thing listening to his press conferences this weekend.  I mean, we speculate all the time on when/how soon he'll walk away, but has the man actually shown any indication that he plans to any time soon?  He's probably not even considering it until Coughlin retires.
 

naclone

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
130
NYC
Chemistry Schmemistry said:
11: New England
10: Indianapolis
7: Green Bay
6: Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
5: Atlanta, Denver, New Orleans, Seattle
4: Carolina, Chicago, Cincinnati, Kansas City, New York Giants, San Diego
3: Dallas, Minnesota, New York Jets, San Francisco, Tennessee
2: Arizona, Houston, Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa Bay, Washington
1: Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis
0: Buffalo, Oakland
Belichick doesn't rebuild. He plans. You can call this chart Brady/Manning/flotsam and jetsam if you like. But I would call it planning for every contingency.
And worth pointing out that despite being second on this list, Indy still had a 1-15 season - as a result of losing their HOF QB. Whereas our worst record over the same stretch was 11-5 when we lost our HOF QB.

I think it comes down to, if you build your team to win a super bowl or make decisions because you're close to a super bowl or you're trying to win within a window or whatever, not only are you not likely to win a super bowl, you're also looking at a bunch of 8-8 or worse seasons.

Whereas building the team to win the division - every year - is going to give you chance after chance after chance. And we've seen that who's on a roll or hot at the right time has as big an impact as draft day.

As a spoiled fan who has enjoyed this ridiculous run the last decade or so, my highest priority is never losing 10 games again. Ever. Because as horrible as losing a super bowl feels i'll still take it over never getting to one and watching the losses pile up all season. Of course i want brady to win another trophy and of course i dont want to be the 90s bills or 00s eagles, but i want even less to be the jets or browns or vikings. Doomed because you dont have the right guy behind center.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,804
Mansfield MA
phragle said:
I think you answered your own question.
Huh?
 
phragle said:
I'm not sure it's a big if anyway. We might just disagree on this but aside from one dirty preseaon hit, Brady doesn't miss games. He plays through concussions, sprains, whatever was up with his hand this year, sore right shoulders. This isn't Michael Vick we're talking about. For my money he's the toughest player in the league. They need to build around him instead of using a valuable asset on an insurance policy to his other insurance policy.
He's tough as nails but he turns 37 in a couple months. He's still human.
 
phragle said:
 Question it if you want, but if you go back and change something you no longer know if they win a Super Bowl. Unintended consequences. Rohan Davey - good pick , they won a SB with him.
Well, I hope you end up being in a position to go back and praise this pick because they end up winning a Super Bowl.
 
How far back does this grace period go? Was drafting James Carpenter in the first round retroactively smart because he was on the Super Bowl team? How about signing Matt Flynn?
 
phragle said:
And we're back to the uncertainty. Not only the uncertainty that Garoppolo is good at football, but also that he even gets to play. At least with Nix we only have one of those uncertainties.
This is true, but counteracting that is that QB is the most important position on the field. They went 12-4 last year with basically a replacement-level interior defensive line. A replacement-level QB would be a different story.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,682
02130
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
So, Peyton Manning recovering from multiple neck surgeries at 37 years old just set multiple records for an NFL QB and we're supposed to be worried about Brady entering his 37 year old season. Jimmy G isn't going to lead us to a Super Bowl. I'm fairly confident in that assertion. 
But Manning's team went 1-15 the year he was hurt because their backups were terrible. That's the whole point.
 
Again, JG is not likely to be great but a potential injury to Brady doesn't have to mean he's out the whole season either. Very easy to foresee JG holding the fort for 4-8 games and then Brady coming back for the playoffs.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,804
Mansfield MA
Deathofthebambino said:
SF, if the concern is you might not be able to get a guy next year, there is another alternative.  Take a different guy later on this year.  Again, we're all saying the same thing.  We hope JG never sees the field, he's just a backup, etc.  If that's the case, is it more important to get "your guy" at number 62 rather than grab someone later on, if they are just going to sit on the bench?  I personally don't think so.  And if you take a guy later on, and you aren't really happy with him, then you just keep Mallett and look again next year.  The bottom line is that there are a ton of options to shoring up the depth behind Brady for a couple of years that don't involved drafting a guy in the 2nd round this year.  That's literally my only problem with the pick.  If they feel that JG is that much better than whatever else they could have gotten later on in the draft, or next year, I have a hard time buying that they were so confident that he would reach them at #62.  It just doesn't fit.  Something is lost in translation when thinking about it logically, and thus, the only thing I keep coming back to is that they had to have drafted the best available guy according to their board, need be damned.
 
Re: the bolded, by that logic they would trade up every time they really like a player, wouldn't they? At some point you have to take calculated risks that teams aren't going to take players. Most of the teams picking ahead of the Pats have settled QB situations - they might have determined that once Garoppolo got past Tennessee at 54 he was probably going to be there at 62, and if he went earlier than that he was going to cost more than they wanted to pay to move up.
 
There's also a decent chance that they didn't feel the rest of the draft pool was a lot better than what they'd get later, and if Garoppolo had been gone they would have tried to trade back. They traded back with the third-round pick, after all. If they had Garoppolo rated as far-and-away their top QB but had 5 RBs rated about the same, it makes sense to take the QB now and hope to get one of the RB later, even if the RB figures to contribute more in the short term.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I can see both sides of the QB in the second round debate.  In the end, I lean to drafting a stud QB a year too early rather than a year too late.  That's not a perfect answer, the Pats of course have real needs that could have been addressed in round two and Death indeed made some good points up thread.
 
What bothers me is what came next on Friday and Saturday.  The last we saw the Pats, the current QB had too few reliable skill options on offense.  In the last game, he had Edelman and Vereen and effectvely no one else. 
 
Since that time, they added LeFell, White and not much else.
 
That doesn't seem to be enough.  
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
9,293
NH
Chemistry Schmemistry said:
Number of quarterbacks, modern era (1974-2013) with six or more games with significant playing time, based on age during season:

33: 73
34: 64
35: 45
36: 40
37: 29
38: 19
39: 7
40: 5
41: 4
42: 1

Performance compared to league mean, quarterback, by age:

33: +4%
34: +2%
35: +4%
36: +5%
37: +3%
38: +1%
39: +3% (note extremely low sample size from this point forward)
40: +12%
41: -1%
42: -4%

Generally, quarterbacks just don't play when they can't play well, so the top list is more important than the bottom list. Brady will be 37 this season. To assume he'll even be the starter next year seems optimistic. For quarterbacks, 37 is the age when steep decline often begins.

Every individual has his own curve, but I think it's very important to watch the backup situation once a quarterback hits 35-36, and absolutely idiotic not to have a plan for when he hits 38. Since resigning Mallett will be difficult if he doesn't play this year, if Belichick thinks Garoppolo has starter potential, this was a need pick.
 
This is by far the craziest thing I've read in this thread.
 
Everyone keeps going back to when Brady got hurt and when Cassel came in. Cassel had been with the team for three years prior to him starting. As for when Peyton went down and the Colts plummeted they tried a washed up Kerry Collins and a second year QB in Curtis Painter. If the concern is this year or next then keeping Mallet should be the priority. JG is not going to come right in and supplant Mallet. If he's that good I'll happily admit to being wrong, but I don't see it.
 
 
phragle said:
 
You're talking to the guy that drafted Nick Foles
 
Andy Reid?
 
 
Cellar-Door said:
Huh?
The rule to which Brady is the exception is that later round QBs don't pan out. That is exactly why the Patriots would want to draft a QB in the first two rounds when he is getting closer to the end of his career. The Patriots are one of the best teams in the league, a large part of that is Brady, but they have a lot of talent on both sides of the ball right now, having a good backup is important so that if Brady goes down we aren't definitely fucked.
If Brady gets hurt and misses games in the middle of the year the backup QB situation could make the difference between making the playoffs and losing the whole season. 
Additionally quarterbacks in their late 30s can come to the end very quickly, if the rule is that late round picks don't make good QBs and it is important to have a potential replacement being developed, then you have to use an early pick at some point.
 
You missed what I was replying to. Brady is the exception to many rules. I was responding to the comment about someone saying that Brady wouldn't lead us to a Super Bowl in 2001.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,682
02130
TheoShmeo said:
I can see both sides of the QB in the second round debate.  In the end, I lean to drafting a stud QB a year too early rather than a year too late.  That's not a perfect answer, the Pats of course have real needs that could have been addressed in round two and Death indeed made some good points up thread.
 
What bothers me is what came next on Friday and Saturday.  The last we saw the Pats, the current QB had too few reliable skill options on offense.  In the last game, he had Edelman and Vereen and effectvely no one else. 
 
Since that time, they added LeFell, White and not much else.
 
That doesn't seem to be enough.  
Isn't the big jump from years 1 to 2 for WRs and maybe TEs as well? It's rare to see a rookie WR or TE do really well, especially when they are drafted in the 2nd round or later. They could have picked an RB earlier I guess but it's rare that those players are well-rounded as rookies, and they're probably OK at the position for this year.
 
You're always looking to add more talent but I think with Dobson and Boyce making the year 1 to 2 leap and Gronk and Amendola hopefully being healthier, I'm OK with prioritizing other positions.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
45,612
deep inside Guido territory
TheoShmeo said:
I can see both sides of the QB in the second round debate.  In the end, I lean to drafting a stud QB a year too early rather than a year too late.  That's not a perfect answer, the Pats of course have real needs that could have been addressed in round two and Death indeed made some good points up thread.
 
What bothers me is what came next on Friday and Saturday.  The last we saw the Pats, the current QB had too few reliable skill options on offense.  In the last game, he had Edelman and Vereen and effectvely no one else. 
 
Since that time, they added LeFell, White and not much else.
 
That doesn't seem to be enough.  
Since then, they'll be adding this guy named Gronkowski.  I'm sure you've heard of him.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
24,528
Here
RedOctober3829 said:
Since then, they'll be adding this guy named Gronkowski.  I'm sure you've heard of him.
Dobson, too, who wasn't healthy the entire last 6 weeks or so.

Then again, with Gronk I kind of just assume he'll never be playing come playoff time at this point, reasonable or not.
 

epraz

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2002
5,713
RedOctober3829 said:
Since then, they'll be adding this guy named Gronkowski.  I'm sure you've heard of him.
 
I'm getting to the point where I'm not expecting many healthy games out of Gronkowski.  His ACL/MCL was flukey for sure, but after his injuries earlier in 2013 and 2012 and his college history, I'm waiting for the shoe to drop every play he's on the field.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
soxhop411 said:
<p>
Mike Reiss ‏@MikeReiss  2mmabrowndog is a dingus
Asked BB if there was example that stood out to him on importance of having QB position accounted for at all layers, and he said 2011 Colts.
 
Mike Reiss ‏@MikeReiss  1mmabrowndog is a dingus
BB went on to say that Patriots would never want to build their team in a way that would lead to 1-15 season because of no viable QB option.
 
 
Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran  [url=" [URL="https://twitter.com/tomecurran/status/465293267714985984%22%5D6m
https://twitter.com/tomecurran/status/465293267714985984%22%5D6m"]https://twitter.com/tomecurran/status/465293267714985984"]6m
mabrowndog is a dingus[/url][/url]
I don't think we would put together our team the way Indianapolis did it when they lost Manning. .... I don't think we'd be happy going 1-15.



Pretty expansive for BB, who probably thought after all these years that people understood how he views this. Even beat writers -- e.g, Guregian -- don't. It's pretty simple.

1. As long as he is drawing a breath, the Pats are going going 1 and 15, which is what you need to get Luck or, for that matter, Bledsoe. And even then, your cratering better happen in the right year.

Efficiency freaks should note that it pretty much needs to be 1 and 15, and not 3 and 13 or 4 and 12. Check with the Redskins on the tariff for RGIII.

2. He is just not going to give up on a season if his starter goes down. Having a rookie as the only backup is pretty much a recipe for giving up on the season. Which means that unless JG jumps out of the stadium early enough, you can pretty much count on 3 QBs on the roster.

3. You can't count on getting experienced quality insurance. Reportedly, the Bucs passed on a have dozen overtures for Glennon.

The most reasonable forecast is Mallet passing the torch to JG, and hopefully he'll show enough not to make this a high priority item a year from now.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
41,492
dcmissle said:
2. He is just not going to give up on a season if his starter goes down. Having a rookie as the only backup is pretty much a recipe for giving up on the season. 
 
Except for the season when undrafted rookie Hoyer was the only other QB on the roster.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,008
I don't disagree re: Gronk, but they've built the offense around him and a handful of other guys with spotty injury histories. While we'd all have loved them to go out and get a Hernandez replacement or a tall, fast receiver, there's also reason for optimism with the current group. As others have noted, Dobson/Boyce/Thompkins were likely drafted in hopes that they would click this year. Just because they were thrust into unexpectedly heavy playing time and struggled as rookies shouldn't deter from the long term game plan. At some point it's not a matter of sunk cost but of trusting that luck will break a bit better. If we don't get more from at least one or two of Gronk/Dobson/Amendola/Vereen this year I'll be shocked.
 
As far as JG, I don't know enough about him to truly comment on the pick, but I like the proactive move. I think we're getting close to the point where the potential that a good backup or good next QB helps the team either now or in the long run outweighs the potential that we'll hit on the right skill player/pass rusher in rd two that makes this year's Super Bowl chances significantly higher. As someone said above, we've gotta be talking roughly a .1% decrease in Super Bowl odds this year vs. had they gone with a position of greater "need." I want this team to be excellent for a long time and it's thrilling that Bill has never really deviated from that approach. There is life after Brady.
 

mikcou

Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2007
331
Boston
DrewDawg said:
 
Except for the season when an undrafted Hoyer was the only other QB on the roster.
 
I'd note that that year Kevin O'Connell (a 2008 3rd rounder) came into camp - Hoyer was just a considerably better player already because O'Connell was a complete bust.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
This point has been made but definitely worth repeating given some of the responses since: a good backup QB can make a big difference next year or in the next few years even if we don't end up in a 2008-type scenario. Brady could be knocked out for only a few games, and having a solid backup QB who can step in and perform could make the difference between playoffs and no playoffs, HFA vs. no HFA, or advancing a round or not. The fact that Garoppolo seems like he might require a bit more development time than your typical second-rounder aside, I don't buy the argument that adding someone at a different position would affect the team's chances over the next few seasons significantly more than what they ended up doing. Even in a deep draft, a late second-rounder at a position where it's possible to fit multiple guys in (CB, DL, TE) is far from a slam dunk to become an effective contributor. I'm happy with them just taking a guy near or at the top of their board, and being proactive about adding depth to a position that figured to become an area of need after 2014.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,779
Deathofthebambino said:
The heir apparent talk drives me insane.  As we discussed yesterday, unless we're all missing some examples, there are 2 QB's in the past 40 years that turned into top 10-15 QB's for the team that drafted them, after spending 3 years watching their predecessor from the bench.  I have a pretty good feeling that BB also knows this, so talking about this as a foregone conclusion that the plan is for JG to replace Brady when Brady's contract is up doesn't make any sense to me.  I think he absolutely drafted the best player they had on their board instead of based on need, and I think it was a mistake. 
You keep saying this but it's not getting any more true. BB's ONLY goal is to draft players who will best help the NE Patriots win games. Agreed? As a part of this he very clearly takes need into consideration, that's why he drafted 3 WRs last year and beefed up the lines this year. It would be illogical to draft the best player at a position of overlap if your own internal projections have the marginal value of said player lower than another, slightly inferior player at a position of need. He's a highly intelligent, highly logical human being who doesn't make rudimentary, illogical mistakes with one of the most important decisions of his year.

Now, do you and he agree that JG was the best marginal upgrade available at the second round? Perhaps not. I'm not sure I agree with his priorities of preventing 1-15 vs winning a Super Bowl*. If this was about 2017 I'm more on board. He's not saying it, so I'm speculating, but I believe Brady's age and more volatile than usual performance in 2013 factored into the decision. I'm confident he didn't make an irrational decision based on an arbitrary draft rule.

*these two things may actually be the same thing. I.e., BB appears to believe that winning regular season games and making the playoffs is the key to winning a Super Bowl and not building mega teams with a short window.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
12,962
Carmine's closet
Super Nomario said:
You asked,
 
Super Nomario said:
Why a young DE with some promise and not a young QB with some promise? You can't play 53 guys anyway.
then said this,
 
Super Nomario said:
QB's a unique situation where you really can't play two at once. That means it's less likely a backup QB is going to be useful than a backup at other positions
 
so I think you answered your own question. 
 
Super Nomario said:
He's tough as nails but he turns 37 in a couple months. He's still human.
 
And what is your money on, hangin them up now or playing til he's 40?

What Rich Gannon, Trent Green, or Joe Montana did doesn't concern me. They're different people, in a different time, and playing a different game.
 
How many years does Manning have left you think? I'd be shocked if Brady doesn't play longer than him. Brady is in way better shape and is younger. If Manning plays one more year that's at least three for Brady. If he plays two that's at least four for Brady and by then Garoppolo is expiring. Getting starting time out of the rookie deal is the best part, but that probably won't happen.
 
It's too early for a Brady replacement and too high to a Mallett replacement.
 
Super Nomario said:
Well, I hope you end up being in a position to go back and praise this pick because they end up winning a Super Bowl.
 
How far back does this grace period go? Was drafting James Carpenter in the first round retroactively smart because he was on the Super Bowl team? How about signing Matt Flynn?
 
I won't praise it but I won't keep criticizing it either.
 
Super Nomario said:
This is true, but counteracting that is that QB is the most important position on the field. They went 12-4 last year with basically a replacement-level interior defensive line. A replacement-level QB would be a different story.
No position is important if it's not on the field.
 
Cellar-Door said:
Is Brady Wolverine?
He's the wolverine in relation to the rest of the weasel family.
 
Toe Nash said:
But Manning's team went 1-15 the year he was hurt because their backups were terrible. That's the whole point.
 
Again, JG is not likely to be great but a potential injury to Brady doesn't have to mean he's out the whole season either. Very easy to foresee JG holding the fort for 4-8 games and then Brady coming back for the playoffs.
 
I don't know why people (inluding BB) are bitching about potentially ever being the 2011 Colts. They're in as great of a position as anyone over the next fifteen years. What would suck is for the 2011 scenario to happen again. It wouldn't suck to suck for Luck.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,008
But sucking for Luck was a perfect storm, was it not? Peyton goes down in a year where you have not one but two slam dunk QB prospects, and as far as the rest of the Colts' roster the team was in a down year of its rebuilding cycle. (Let's face it, had Peyton not gotten hurt, it would've taken perhaps his absolute best season to make the 2011 Colts a contender.) 
 
Belichick has spent his entire tenure in New England building for the future. We've seen a year or two like 2009 where Brady was the only difference between sucking and the playoffs, but for the most part, the team has always been built to compete now and indefinitely. Barring disaster it strikes me as unlikely as hell that a Belichick roster will ever have the ability to go 2011 Colts, let alone in the right year where the top QB is can't miss. I think a lot of the bitching about the possibility is because it's borderline unfathomable, not because anyone's afraid of a single year of suffering at the bottom of the league.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
@Phragle: You do realize Mallett was drafted with the 74th overall pick, a whopping 12 picks later than Garoppolo went, right? When would have been the proper time to pick his replacement, in your eyes? Next year, when Mallett's contract's up, the incoming QB crop is (at least according to what I'm reading) significantly weaker, Brady's a year older, and you don't have a guy on his rookie contract with a year in the system under his belt? Or later in the draft, when, for all we know, they had a significantly worse internal grade on the next tier of guys? I mean, yeah, a backup quarterback is less likely to see the field than a backup DL, DB or TE, but is that really the only variable that's important to you? This is obvious but QB is the most important position on the field and it's not particularly close. Depth at QB is extremely important, and it seems perfectly reasonable to address it with a correspondingly high pick. Also the idea that the Patriots should just plan to tank the season if Brady goes down is ludicrous--the 2011 Colts were extremely lucky to (a.) have a roster and generally a season bad enough to actually land the top pick in the draft and (b.) to do this in the year when Luck came out. Yes, it worked out OK for them, but your long-term plan just can't be to tear it all down and suck for a season.
 
Edit: err yeah, the last part is what Jungleland said basically
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,682
02130
phragle said:
 
I don't know why people (inluding BB) are bitching about potentially ever being the 2011 Colts. They're in as great of a position as anyone over the next fifteen years. What would suck is for the 2011 scenario to happen again. It wouldn't suck to suck for Luck.
I'm pretty sure you know this, but it took a ton of luck for them to be in this position.
 
First, they had to secure the first pick. They ended up tanking and being really bad, but they lost three straight games early in the season by a touchdown or less, and had the lead in each of them. The Rams and Bucs actually had worse point differentials that year. And I don't think the Patriots are going to have such a bad roster anytime soon that a Brady injury immediately takes them to the #1 pick.
 
Even if you do get the first pick, it has to be a year where there is a Luck. He's the best QB prospect since Manning, right? The year before was Newton, who's a franchise guy, but before that was Bradford and last year the first QB picked was EJ Manuel. Or, maybe you get Ryan Leaf.
 
Then Luck has to pan out. So far he looks good, but maybe he never gets any better or regresses. 
 
If any of those things don't work out, you're still looking for a franchise QB the next year, and without one you're going to be stuck in mediocrity. The Rams are probably a good example, they have had a million high picks and everyone mostly agrees their roster is pretty good, but Bradford just isn't that great. But what do they do if they don't take Bradford #1?
 
So yes, I'd prefer to try to solve the QB issue early than hope a whole lot of things go right for the team to be "set up" like the Colts.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
RedOctober3829 said:
Since then, they'll be adding this guy named Gronkowski.  I'm sure you've heard of him.
Tee hee.
 
Yes, this is well known, Red. 
 
What is less known is whether he'll be ready for opening day and, if not, when thereafter we might see him.
 
As to the three 2013 rookie WRs making a big jump between years one and two, let's hope.  My point wasn't so much that they needed to add a lot of additional offensive weapons.  I was just hoping for at least one more WR/TE type who might reasonably appear to be a contributor.
 
There's time between now and opening day.  As Red probably meant, maybe they get Gronk back.   And maybe they get Dustin Keller in free agency.  I was hoping for more in the area of offensive weaponry between the pre-draft free agency period and the draft itself, and I'm a little surprised that the take from those two areas was so small given how limited Brady's choices were in the AFC Championship Game.  That's not to say that they weren't correct to address other needs, too.  They were.   It's jsut not all or nothing.  
 
 
 

Golddust Man

Banned
May 1, 2014
76
I'm coming around to
 
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
@Phragle: You do realize Mallett was drafted with the 74th overall pick, a whopping 12 picks later than Garoppolo went, right? When would have been the proper time to pick his replacement, in your eyes? Next year, when Mallett's contract's up, the incoming QB crop is (at least according to what I'm reading) significantly weaker, Brady's a year older, and you don't have a guy on his rookie contract with a year in the system under his belt? Or later in the draft, when, for all we know, they had a significantly worse internal grade on the next tier of guys? I mean, yeah, a backup quarterback is less likely to see the field than a backup DL, DB or TE, but is that really the only variable that's important to you? This is obvious but QB is the most important position on the field and it's not particularly close. Depth at QB is extremely important, and it seems perfectly reasonable to address it with a correspondingly high pick. Also the idea that the Patriots should just plan to tank the season if Brady goes down is ludicrous--the 2011 Colts were extremely lucky to (a.) have a roster and generally a season bad enough to actually land the top pick in the draft and (b.) to do this in the year when Luck came out. Yes, it worked out OK for them, but your long-term plan just can't be to tear it all down and suck for a season.
 
Edit: err yeah, the last part is what Jungleland said basically
 
I've come around; That makes perfect sense. My assumption that Mallett is as good as gone because Garoppolo was drafted high makes less sense when proper depth is considered. For that matter there's something to be said about the risk BB took having just 2 QB's on the roster for all these years. IIRC he is the only GM who did that.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
12,962
Carmine's closet
Jungleland said:
But sucking for Luck was a perfect storm, was it not? 
 
This is where I stopped reading. Whatever you were going to say isn't a response to what I said. I said the the Colts 2011 situation was great for them, and why wouldn't someone want that. Well BB said he wouldn't.  You're right it was a perfect storm, who wouldn't want that? If BB said he didn't want to be the Dolphins when Marino left, that makes sense. I'm pretty sure anyone with a brain would like to be the 2011 Colts.
 
Not addressing the 2011 Colts anymore in this thread. I knew that comment would get out of control.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
18,962
Fwiw.......

Gil Brandt, obviosuly an unbiased source, named two players at the combine who stood out above everyone else in the areas of balancing the many on-field and off-field responsibilities during Combine Week and left the biggest impression.....Vandy WR Jordan Mathews and Jimmy Garoppolo.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
4,682
02130
phragle said:
 
This is where I stopped reading. Whatever you were going to say isn't a response to what I said. I said the the Colts 2011 situation was great for them, and why wouldn't someone want that. Well BB said he wouldn't.  You're right it was a perfect storm, who wouldn't want that? If BB said he didn't want to be the Dolphins when Marino left, that makes sense. I'm pretty sure anyone with a brain would like to be the 2011 Colts.
 
Not addressing the 2011 Colts anymore in this thread. I knew that comment would get out of control.
I think that is probably what BB meant and you basically agree with him, but feel free to take your ball and go home. He didn't say he wouldn't want to be the Colts, he said he doesn't want to put his team together in a way where losing one player would destroy their chances.
 
If you asked BB, "Would you be OK with a 1-15 season after Brady left if you were guaranteed to get Andrew Luck?" then that's an interesting question, and maybe he'd say yeah. But the way BB works I think he knows that a 1-15 season, even if you have a good overall roster and can rebound, gives you maybe a 20% chance of getting a good QB and a 80% chance of something else (who may be a great player at a different position). So that's why he said that he always wants to put together his roster that way so that it doesn't bottom out. 
 
“I think organizationally, in our organization I don’t think we would put together a team the way Indianapolis did it when they lost [Peyton] Manning and they go 0-16, 1-15 or whatever it was [2-14]. I don’t think that’s really what we’re looking for,” Belichick said in an unsolicited reference to the Colts. “Unfortunately when we lost Tom [Brady] in 2008 – we had a player that could step in and we won 11 games. We want to be competitive even if something happens to a player at any position. I think depth is always important. You never know when you’re going to need it. But I don’t think we’d be happy going 1-15 if we had an injury at one position. But other people have different philosophies. I’m just saying that the contrast to that example. I don’t think that’s really what we’re trying to do.” 
 

Golddust Man

Banned
May 1, 2014
76
Toe Nash said:
“I think organizationally, in our organization I don’t think we would put together a team the way Indianapolis did it when they lost [Peyton] Manning and they go 0-16, 1-15 or whatever it was [2-14]. I don’t think that’s really what we’re looking for,” Belichick said in an unsolicited reference to the Colts. “Unfortunately when we lost Tom [Brady] in 2008 – we had a player that could step in and we won 11 games. We want to be competitive even if something happens to a player at any position. I think depth is always important. You never know when you’re going to need it. But I don’t think we’d be happy going 1-15 if we had an injury at one position. But other people have different philosophies. I’m just saying that the contrast to that example. I don’t think that’s really what we’re trying to do.” 
 
That's a pretty insulting statement by BB, based solely on hindsight.. Sorgi was thought to be basically Cassell and they picked up Collins. And had Orlovsky. How is that not being better prepared than 2008? BB is right that his team didn't crash that year, but it's not because of the team's outstanding depth at QB.