Forums

  First off 21isSuperman, love your OP and am working on a long (and short) response that I hope to post in a few days.     I do want to chime in this thread on a few points.     Regarding back ups and when and when not the starting QB is in the game.  BB and Pats non Brady starters (Bledsoe, Cassell, Garoppolo, and Brissett) are basically a 0.500 team, and the Pats with Brady are north of 0.750 if my memory serves me correct.  Just as with the breath of your OP, we need to look at the entire picture which includes Bledsoe 5-13 with BB shortly followed by Brady 3 SBs in 4 years with a good portion of the same team.   As for 2008, we had a good team and also a very weak schedule.  One only needs to look at the perennial 0.500 Phins and see they too went 11-5 that season and actually took the division with essentially the same schedule save for two games.  The Pats under Brady, short of 2002, have always been able to separate themselves from the rest of the AFC east by 2-4 games and win the division with essentially the same schedule.  So in another words, the Pats were not able to do the same thing (outpace their counterparts in the AFCE) in 2008 as they have done so with Brady in 14 of 15 years.   As for 2016.  Yes the back-up did well, but we must also look at the quality of the back-up.  It is one thing if your starter goes down and Aaron Rodgers is coming off the bench as opposed to Curtis Painter, the records will be different and we need to take into consideration the back-up when trying to extrapolate the quality of the starter.     Most folks will say Jimmy G. will be a quality starter in the NFL and Jacoby B. is a solid back up.  For the most part the pats have spent draft wealth in the last 8-10 years on back ups.     Although they were 3-1, they nearly lost game 1, had AZ made that FG, the back-ups are 2-2.  In our loss, it was the first shutout loss at home since before Bledsoe was drafted.   So yes they played well, it is a small sample size, and we nearly lost one game.     As for the colts in 2011, there were a lot things going on that might not be totally attributed to the starting QB.  The colts seemed never to put stock in a back up, they started out loosing games and it seem to steamroll.  I will point out that the colts went 11-5 the three following seasons without Manning.  Also, the Broncos before, with and after Manning were not too shabby with Tebow, Brock O (both essentially out of football) and last year with the rookies.      I always view a starter being able to win 1-4 games a season over a good back up.  I really do not see much difference between the respective back-ups and Manning and Brady as starters.     Manning and Brady are both great, I do not really see much different from looking at all the games with and without them as starters and their teams.   Sometimes teams have off years like 2011 colts without their starters, sometimes teams go 5-13 then win 3 SBs in 4 years with a different QB.       

Always loved Bruce. Class act. Always wished him well.

He's got it narrowed down to the Cavs, Lakers and Bulls I believe lol.  He'll make decision by this weekend.