Beginning of the end for New England [Merge]

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, dgambill said:

Remember...ESPN fired all its accomplished reporters and staff. They are going broke. In all actuality they probably hired the replacements from B/R. lol

Exactly.

That actually makes it worse since they are a NE based company

[Yehoodi]

2 hours ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

First of all I don't think it really counts if the team was resting nearly off it's important players and not just the QB.  If they where doing that then it means the game didn't matter all that much.  Which likely ment that the coaching staff didn't even spend as much time preparing.  So they are .700 in games that matter without Tom Brady.

 

Secondly. . . .700 or .500 . . . How many teams out there are even .500 with their backup QB?  

 

Also something that gets lost is that the Patrioits have always fielded a good defense.  They are almost always top 10 in scoring defense and many times in their championship years they where top 5.  A couple times I think they where #1.  

 

Sure you could argue a good offense helps with that but during those years you can point to a lot of teams with good offenses that didn't have nearly that good of defense.  

 

Sure TB is a good QB but championships are team accomplishments.  And for that I think you have to look at the GM/HC

 

(Valpo2004, sorry for long response)

 

There are only two games that I did not include in the stats mentioned.  That being the games Bledsoe got injured (game 2, 2001)(loss) and Brady (game 1, 2007)(win). 

 

Regarding the resting their starters game, there are included but only a few.  If my memory is correct from 2000-2017, the Pats have only rested their starters for most or part of the game in the following years:  2005 v. Mia (the game which BB pulled Brady late in the game to put in Cassell who blew the game so they could avoid Pitt in the first round), 2009 v. Hou, and 2014 v. Buf.  All of where starts by Brady but ended in losses as the team was not going full force.  So 3 losses on Brady resume, if we remove them Brady resume goes to 195-52 (0.789).   

 

And agreed with you we can not hold the 2014 Buf game against Jimmy G. as the starters were not in the game, but that is not included under Jimmy G. as i included under TB as he started that game. 

 

And lastly, as a caveat we can looked to the last two games in the 2015 season, both looses, when the Pats were trading keeping the players healthy in exchange for not going all out.  Which would bring TB resume to 195-50 (0.796) in games fought in anger.   

 

To the question of "back-up" QB I think the real question for me is not the label of "backup" but how good is that QB.  If Aaron Rodgers is the "backup" in Indy and they go 12-4 without Luck, does that mean Luck talent is qualified cause the "backup" went 12-4?  Or do we look to the backup as a QB and judge from his talent?   Minn is the #2 seed with a back-up, last years Cowboys went 13-3 with a back-up

 

For the most part Pats back-ups have been solid QBs.  Bledsoe was the starter for us and was in 2001/2, and overall is a 0.500 QB with and without NE, Matt Cassell started for other teams, had a 10-5 season with KC, and overall is  26-40 outside of NE, Jimmy has yet to lose a start, Jacoby B. did what he did in Indy this year.  Brian Hoyer who has not started for the Pats is 16-21 and 16-15 outside of SF.   So the Pats back-ups fare pretty well outside of NE.  They are not Rodgers nor are they Painter. 

 

Agreed, the Pats FO does do a good job with fielding a good team and agreed that a QB is just part of the overall machine.  In the end for me, a QB can help sway the results of a handful of game throughout the year and may include playoff games.  For me the difference between a great QB and average QB is a small handful of games in the regular season and one or two in the playoffs. 

[dgambill]

16 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

That actually makes it worse since they are a NE based company

Look I'm not going to sit here and say one way or another everything is true or false....probably small bits of both in there....but it does not surprise me in the least in todays era of horrible reporting and media stories that there be a bunch of crap in a news report.....and I DEFINATELY don't hold ESPN to such a high standard. While they aren't just regular joes making uninformed blogs like we see on B/R I definitely think they are pretty much just above the stuff I scrape off my shoe after not watching where I step playing in the yard with my dogs.

 

At this point I think ESPN would sell their own grandma for a few clicks.

[Yehoodi]

1 hour ago, DaveA1102 said:

Joint statement now released by Kraft, Brady and Belichik:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/05/belichick-brady-kraft-we-stand-united/

 

Statement in full:

 

“For the past 18 years, the three of us have enjoyed a very good and productive working relationship. In recent days, there have been multiple media reports that have speculated theories that are unsubstantiated, highly exaggerated or flat out inaccurate. The three of us share a common goal. We look forward to the enormous challenge of competing in the postseason and the opportunity to work together in the future, just as we have for the past 18 years. It is unfortunate that there is even a need for us to respond to these fallacies. As our actions have shown, we stand united.”

 

Pretty vanilla statement that doesn't come out strong, wont do anything to dispel the story.

 

Well I guess that closes the case then . . . .

 

In other news, ne interesting to see how things play out in the next few weeks.   Given the response one guess the Pats will not response to this again. 

 

It will also be interesting to see how things go in the up coming years and we can look back to see if the article is on point or the Pats joint statement, or maybe somewhere in between.  

[dgambill]

1 minute ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Well I guess that closes the case then . . . .

 

In other news, ne interesting to see how things play out in the next few weeks.   Given the response one guess the Pats will not response to this again. 

 

It will also be interesting to see how things go in the up coming years and we can look back to see if the article is on point or the Pats joint statement, or maybe somewhere in between.  

I agree....it will be handled like the deflategate stuff...answered once and then move on. I agree nothing can be substantiated until the next couple years. Following the team so closely you might be able to closer tell but I would think if Kraft tried to come in and undermine Bill's running of the team (succession, keeping players, etc) I don't think he would blink an eye to tell Kraft where to stick it...and he would move on. After all the Giants and Colts have head coaching openings...he could have his pick of former teams he thinks of fondly to go coach for if he was going to be questioned about how to run his organization. Kraft is a smart businessman.....he has hired and done some good things....meddling with Bill...I don't think would be one of them...nor do I think he would even approach Bill other than how do you see this thing transitioning (so as to not have an Eli situation). Whatever Bill would decide I can't see him disagreeing with. But maybe you might tell differently.

[Narcosys]

13 hours ago, John Waylon said:

Here's a logical argument against this story: 

 

if the the relationship between Brady, Kraft, and BB is irreparable beyond this year who should stay?

 

Brady, Kraft, and the Patriots under a new coach sticking to the same system are still a powerhouse. BB, Kraft, and Brian Hoyer probably miss the playoffs. 

 

So wouldn't it make sense for them to have McDaniels and Patricia unavailable for interviews until that situation sorts itself out? If they were to oust BB one way or another who better to take over and keep the last couple years of Brady's career as fruitful as they have been than one of those two? As it stands now they could lose both, and BB. 

 

I dunno. I'm not gonna say it's all smoke and no fire, but I'm not convinced the house is burning down. 

So you're saying BB doesn't do anything? What about game planning, scheming, hasn't management, etc.? If it's so easy how come nobody else has been successful?

 

I mean the chiefs got Matt cassel who played just as good of a season as TB. 

[The Fish]

9 hours ago, Jules said:

 

 

Brady and his super model wife are kinda creepy actually. I bet they like live in some futuristic mansion and stuff and have weird rituals to stay young. Maybe they are not even human!

They'll be handing out copies of Dianetics before long!

[dgambill]

3 hours ago, BOTT said:

Good lord, I give my opinion and you resort to calling everything ridiculous and accuse me of having it hard for Tom Brady. Typical...

Don't worry...if you say anything positive about Tom Brady around here it is heresy. I'm sitting in my office with Colt memorabilia on my mantles with Peyton and everything and every time I say how great Tom is I get raked over the coals too. Fact is players are more important than coaches. In the end it comes down to the guys on the field making things happen...even if a coach is calling the shots or setting things up. Now Bill is VERY special..he not only coaches but he puts the teams together which is what WINS championships (teams)....but those teams are made up of players (Tom being the most important). I think both would have been great (HOF) without the other...but each took each other to a level not ever seen in modern professional sports. I think your opinion is fine. I don't think one season is enough to determine something as difficult to determine as who is the most important figure on that franchise. There is enough data (statistical and visual) to see that BOTH are the best at what they do and that by working together they've achieved more than anyone else in the sport.

[Valpo2004]

19 minutes ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Well I guess that closes the case then . . . .

 

In other news, ne interesting to see how things play out in the next few weeks.   Given the response one guess the Pats will not response to this again. 

 

It will also be interesting to see how things go in the up coming years and we can look back to see if the article is on point or the Pats joint statement, or maybe somewhere in between.  

 

I agree with the statement in, I think the conflict is probably overstated.  BB isn't going to resign after New England's season is over.  But is he a little miffed about being overruled on this?  Probably.  Is he worried it's going to come to haunt them in the near future.  Also probably true.  

 

And it's likely also true that TB might be unhappy that his coach isn't buying into him playing at a high level until he's 45.

 

  

[The Fish]

8 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

I agree with the statement in, I think the conflict is probably overstated.  BB isn't going to resign after New England's season is over.  But is he a little miffed about being overruled on this?  Probably.  Is he worried it's going to come to haunt them in the near future.  Also probably true.  

I don't think it is (Tom Curan on Eisnen right now, Pat's honk, just said that the thrust of the story is right), I just don't think it will determine what's going to happen on the field. 

 

Simply put, if something doesn't seem to make sense on the surface and you don't think the the Pat's brass just got dumb, then there's a reason they did basically what all sports theory says not to do. You plan for the future, you don't sink into Kobe farewell tours.

[The Fish]

9 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Don't worry...if you say anything positive about Tom Brady around here it is heresy. I'm sitting in my office with Colt memorabilia on my mantles with Peyton and everything and every time I say how great Tom is I get raked over the coals too. Fact is players are more important than coaches. In the end it comes down to the guys on the field making things happen...even if a coach is calling the shots or setting things up. Now Bill is VERY special..he not only coaches but he puts the teams together which is what WINS championships (teams)....but those teams are made up of players (Tom being the most important). I think both would have been great (HOF) without the other...but each took each other to a level not ever seen in modern professional sports. I think your opinion is fine. I don't think one season is enough to determine something as difficult to determine as who is the most important figure on that franchise. There is enough data (statistical and visual) to see that BOTH are the best at what they do and that by working together they've achieved more than anyone else in the sport.

God Bless Colts fans!

[RockThatBlue]

2 hours ago, PrincetonTiger said:

This could tarnish the NE legacy

They have 5 super bowls. I doubt many will think of an ESPN article as something that will tarnish their legacy. I read the article and it seems a bit over the top, even for the Patriots. 

[PrincetonTiger]

Friendly Reminder from TigerTown 

This is a Colts forum not a NE forum

[Narcosys]

3 hours ago, Yehoodi said:

 

Just a few points . . . 

 

First and most critically, BB, TB and the Pats have been together since 2000.  From 2000 to the present time the Pats are 195-55 (0.780) when Brady has started and 18-18 (0.500) when Brady has not been the starter, so a 0.280 difference (these numbers do not include the games in which Bledsoe and Brady got injured, numbers do include the few games which the team rested its starters at the end of seasons).  

 

Second, in 2008 the AFCE had a very easy schedule with three of the teams finishing over 0.500 (and the fourth, Buffalo, going 7-9).  This has only happened three times in the division, 2002, 2004 and 2008.   Also Miami, in a 10 year span from 2004 to 2014 Miami has only two winnings seasons (2008 11-5, 2005 9-7), and indication they are not the strongest team thereby qualifying the 2008 11-5 season may not have been that difficult to come by if the no so strong Fins can get 11 wins.  

 

Third, yes we were not great in 2009 and likely is our weakest team. This is also the year that the team had turmoil and has traded or lost to retirement most of its early 2000s team and was in a rebuilding mode.  I" do agree with your point on this matter of 2009 but wanted to bring up the above points. 

 

In the end one must look at all things to get a better perspective on TB's contribution to the team and how the team has fared without him under center, and the analysis is not limited to just a few numbers from 2008, 2008, 2014 or 2000.   

Fair. Since I only know really of his injury season and his suspension where he has not started, and definitely should not include games where he was rested. I do not know if the onsies and twosies where he sat out for a game or two due to other injuries. So I counted it as 14-6. But I clearly misread because I was certain you went 3-1 in the first 4 games. So the number would be .650, not .700. Which translates into something like 25 games and not 20. 

 

Regardless of the strength of schedule, and irrelevant, it was a fluke you didn't make the playoffs with an 11-5 record. So saying BB couldn't make the playoffs without brady is a stretch. But you seem to be making the case that you only succeeded because of the schedule. Possibly. 

 

But I think it is a stretch to say that BB isn't a significantly large part as to why the Patriots have been successful. Defenses have more than once won you the SB. That's something that TB had no control over. 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, RockThatBlue said:

They have 5 super bowls. I doubt many will think of an ESPN article as something that will tarnish their legacy. I read the article and it seems a bit over the top, even for the Patriots. 

IMO the article is the tip of the iceberg and once B.B. and TB are gone the bandwagon will fall apart see Yankees

[John Waylon]

9 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

So you're saying BB doesn't do anything? What about game planning, scheming, hasn't management, etc.? If it's so easy how come nobody else has been successful?

 

I mean the chiefs got Matt cassel who played just as good of a season as TB. 

 

No. I never so much as insinuated that. 

 

What I said was do the Patriots coached by McDaniels or Patricia and quarterbacked by Brady stand a better chance to win it all than the Patriots coached by BB and quarterbacked by Hoyer?

 

The answer to that question is an easy one. 

 

Stop bringing up Cassell. When teams don't gameplan for a QB in April, May, and June and break him down statistically to know his tendencies in every situation and build the game plan around him QBs tend to do well. No one came fully prepared for Cassell until he was in KC. 

 

This league is full of one year wonders. Anyone remember when Derek Anderson legitimately made the Pro Bowl and nearly got the Browns in the playoffs?

 

The second year, when a defense is truly prepared for a guy, is where you get a good look at a QB. 

[BOTT]

27 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Don't worry...if you say anything positive about Tom Brady around here it is heresy. I'm sitting in my office with Colt memorabilia on my mantles with Peyton and everything and every time I say how great Tom is I get raked over the coals too. Fact is players are more important than coaches. In the end it comes down to the guys on the field making things happen...even if a coach is calling the shots or setting things up. Now Bill is VERY special..he not only coaches but he puts the teams together which is what WINS championships (teams)....but those teams are made up of players (Tom being the most important). I think both would have been great (HOF) without the other...but each took each other to a level not ever seen in modern professional sports. I think your opinion is fine. I don't think one season is enough to determine something as difficult to determine as who is the most important figure on that franchise. There is enough data (statistical and visual) to see that BOTH are the best at what they do and that by working together they've achieved more than anyone else in the sport.

yeah, I don't think it's that difficult to explain....all time great coach + all time great QB.

[2006Coltsbestever]

It is going to end eventually and their fans will go into funk. The Pats will never be as Great without Brady and BB. At least when Peyton left we didn't fall off the map because Andrew won 11 games 3 seasons in a row and went to the Final 4. That made it easy on us. We are struggling now but once Andrew gets healthy we will be fine IMO. The Pats are going to fall off the map when Brady and BB leave. They have no Plan B. We had one with Andrew taking over for Peyton. Pats should've never traded Jimmy G. Brady has maybe 1 or 2 seasons left if he can stay healthy. Pats should win it all again this season but after that I see a fall off.

[Superman]

I'll say something, nothing about this article struck me as sensational. I would bet that parts of it are exaggerated, taken out of context, etc., but nothing seems far-fetched or outrageous.

 

To be honest, we've all kind of marveled from afar that the Pats could keep this dynasty together for so long, with no drastic fallings out. Even now -- let's say everything in the article is 100% true -- they are 13-3, the #1 seed in the AFC, probably on their way to their 8th SB appearance. And that's an operation that has been splintering drastically for the last two-plus months.

 

If this article is even half true, and they've continued to be as great as they are in spite of all that difficulty, then I'll just say that I hope that Belichick hangs it up after this season or Brady's arm falls off, or both, because otherwise, they're simply unbeatable. I'm being dramatic, of course, but the point is that they continue to make it work despite what might be some drastic issues. 

 

Meanwhile, everyone in Indy is hyperventilating because Irsay might have suggested that Luck has to overcome some mental hurdles on his way back from injury. We make mountains out of molehills, while it seems New England has been turning mountains into molehills. 

[Roger]

40 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

IMO the article is the tip of the iceberg and once B.B. and TB are gone the bandwagon will fall apart see Yankees

You mean the Yankees who made the playoffs in a "rebuilding" year 2017? And promptly signed Giancarlo Stanton to pair with Aaron Judge?

[Buck Showalter]

Some back & forth banter has been removed...

[Roger]

9 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It is going to end eventually and their fans will go into funk. The Pats will never be as Great without Brady and BB. At least when Peyton left we didn't fall off the map because Andrew won 11 games 3 seasons in a row and went to the Final 4. That made it easy on us. We are struggling now but once Andrew gets healthy we will be fine IMO. The Pats are going to fall off the map when Brady and BB leave. They have no Plan B. We had one with Andrew taking over for Peyton. Pats should've never traded Jimmy G. Brady has maybe 1 or 2 seasons left if he can stay healthy. Pats should win it all again this season but after that I see a fall off.

The Colts had no plan, they picked first when Luck was available.  It's not a plan.

[dgambill]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

I'll say something, nothing about this article struck me as sensational. I would bet that parts of it are exaggerated, taken out of context, etc., but nothing seems far-fetched or outrageous.

 

To be honest, we've all kind of marveled from afar that the Pats could keep this dynasty together for so long, with no drastic fallings out. Even now -- let's say everything in the article is 100% true -- they are 13-3, the #1 seed in the AFC, probably on their way to their 8th SB appearance. And that's an operation that has been splintering drastically for the last two-plus months.

 

If this article is even half true, and they've continued to be as great as they are in spite of all that difficulty, then I'll just say that I hope that Belichick hangs it up after this season or Brady's arm falls off, or both, because otherwise, they're simply unbeatable. I'm being dramatic, of course, but the point is that they continue to make it work despite what might be some drastic issues. 

 

Meanwhile, everyone in Indy is hyperventilating because Irsay might have suggested that Luck has to overcome some mental hurdles on his way back from injury. We make mountains out of molehills, while it seems New England has been turning mountains into molehills. 

Can't like this enough! Precisely. I don't see any of this mattering or effecting the play on the field. I think we all know two things.....nothing is going to tarnish the NE legacy if two cheating scandals didn't do it...and that NE knows how to manage a crisis lol....maybe the last few presidents should hire these guys to run their white house!

[Narcosys]

42 minutes ago, BOTT said:

yeah, I don't think it's that difficult to explain....all time great coach + all time great QB.

No its not difficult. I agree TB is an all time great, but I disagree that TB is an all time great despite BB. I think TB's successes can also be attributed to BB and that TB wouldn't be as successful without him or on a different team. 

 

However, I know that it can't be proven and all speculation. 

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, Narcosys said:

No its not difficult. I agree TB is an all time great, but I disagree that TB is an all time great despite BB. I think TB's successes can also be attributed to BB and that TB wouldn't be as successful without him or on a different team. 

 

However, I know that it can't be proven and all speculation. 

Not really hard to prove since BB hasn’t had the same success without TB and TB has only played for BB 

[Superman]

17 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Can't like this enough! Precisely. I don't see any of this mattering or effecting the play on the field. I think we all know two things.....nothing is going to tarnish the NE legacy if two cheating scandals didn't do it...and that NE knows how to manage a crisis lol....maybe the last few presidents should hire these guys to run their white house!

 

What I took from the article is that Belichick wanted to establish the Pats for the future, whether he was there or not, and having a good QB was a major part of his plan. He wanted a succession plan in place, no matter what happened with Brady, and JG was that plan. 

 

When Kraft ordered him to trade JG, Belichick recognized that the line of demarcation that had always existed between ownership and football ops had been crossed, and decided to start preparing for his own exit. That's the only thing that actually affects them moving forward, IMO, and that's assuming Brady doesn't play another five years. 

 

All the stuff about hurt feelings and disagreements over TB12 and the trainer and all of that is just noise, IMO. If Belichick has decided or decides soon that he can't continue working for Kraft because of the JG order -- not the trade, but the fact that the owner forced his hand -- then the whole thing is done within a year or two. 

 

Their legacy is already tarnished by the cheating, but the legacy is so impressive that it's still one of the greatest sports dynasties of all time, definitely the greatest in the NFL in the SB era. That's with the cheating. 

[PrincetonTiger]

It is all about Legacy as the savior of the franchise

[2006Coltsbestever]

32 minutes ago, Roger said:

The Colts had no plan, they picked first when Luck was available.  It's not a plan.

I am not calling it a tank but once we got to 0-8 in 2011, our Plan B kicked in if you get my hint.

[DraftMaster]

[PrincetonTiger]

39 minutes ago, Roger said:

You mean the Yankees who made the playoffs in a "rebuilding" year 2017? And promptly signed Giancarlo Stanton to pair with Aaron Judge?

The Yankees that lost huge portions of fans in the 70s, 80s, and 90s because of their lack of winning, the retirement of megastars and handling of Stars   

  I went through it twice over the handling of Don Mattingly, Jim Abbott, and DM again

[Gramz]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What I took from the article is that Belichick wanted to establish the Pats for the future, whether he was there or not, and having a good QB was a major part of his plan. He wanted a succession plan in place, no matter what happened with Brady, and JG was that plan. 

 

When Kraft ordered him to trade JG, Belichick recognized that the line of demarcation that had always existed between ownership and football ops had been crossed, and decided to start preparing for his own exit. That's the only thing that actually affects them moving forward, IMO, and that's assuming Brady doesn't play another five years. 

 

All the stuff about hurt feelings and disagreements over TB12 and the trainer and all of that is just noise, IMO. If Belichick has decided or decides soon that he can't continue working for Kraft because of the JG order -- not the trade, but the fact that the owner forced his hand -- then the whole thing is done within a year or two. 

 

Their legacy is already tarnished by the cheating, but the legacy is so impressive that it's still one of the greatest sports dynasties of all time, definitely the greatest in the NFL in the SB era. That's with the cheating. 

Yes.  I agree with your comments about the way JG was handled and traded.

 

Hard to say about the rest, but I also believe BB didn't like some of the dealings with the personal trainer either.

 

It will be interesting, to say the least, to watch over the next few months.  But you're correct, they're still a force to be reckoned with on the field. 

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, Gramz said:

Yes.  I agree with your comments about the way JG was handled and traded.

 

Hard to say about the rest, but I also believe BB didn't like some of the dealings with the personal trainer either.

 

It will be interesting, to say the least, to watch over the next few months.  But you're correct, they're still a force to be reckoned with on the field. 

BB has always put of the air that he hates people to interfere with his plans

[dgambill]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What I took from the article is that Belichick wanted to establish the Pats for the future, whether he was there or not, and having a good QB was a major part of his plan. He wanted a succession plan in place, no matter what happened with Brady, and JG was that plan. 

 

When Kraft ordered him to trade JG, Belichick recognized that the line of demarcation that had always existed between ownership and football ops had been crossed, and decided to start preparing for his own exit. That's the only thing that actually affects them moving forward, IMO, and that's assuming Brady doesn't play another five years. 

 

All the stuff about hurt feelings and disagreements over TB12 and the trainer and all of that is just noise, IMO. If Belichick has decided or decides soon that he can't continue working for Kraft because of the JG order -- not the trade, but the fact that the owner forced his hand -- then the whole thing is done within a year or two. 

 

Their legacy is already tarnished by the cheating, but the legacy is so impressive that it's still one of the greatest sports dynasties of all time, definitely the greatest in the NFL in the SB era. That's with the cheating. 

I question that Kraft even told Bill to trade Jimmy. I have real doubts he has any influence on the day to day operation of the team...much less telling Bill how to handle his qbs. Perhaps...Kraft said he wants Tom to be a Patriot for life and said you can't move him...but I very much doubt he would say who has to back him up...and Jimmy is too much a threat to Tommy. I would say the most likely scenario is Bill decided that he wanted to see how Tom entered the season health wise and once he was comfortable that he was still same ol Tom he decided to move on from Jimmy....get his picks...and will continue to ride the Tom train for the next couple years while he molds yet another replacement. It does appear that Tom and Bill are pretty well tied together as Bills best chance at continued success long term was with Jimmy in a year or two so it does seem Bill is closer to retiring when Tom does then say continuing after with another QB. I honestly don't see any issue...cause even if that isn't the case this has been Bill's MO for forever...draft a qb in the middle rounds....groom them...and then when their value is high enough or they hit their second contract trade or let them go. I see nothing sinister here and business as usual. Bill will likely draft a qb in rd 2 and the cycle will repeat. I doubt anything in the story that has to do with Tom being scared for his future, demanding they move Jimmy, and Kraft telling Bill to move Jimmy etc etc. To me this has been the plan since they drafted Jimmy and barring injuries or Tom's production falling off they were going this way from the start.

 

We know the end will come someday...but as for now this is business as usual.

[Gramz]

if nothing else, this thread and topic has brightened an otherwise cold dreary boring day for me.  

 

I've enjoyed the article and everyone's take on it.  

 

 

[Narcosys]

34 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Not really hard to prove since BB hasn’t had the same success without TB and TB has only played for BB 

 

Which proves absolutely nothing and only speculation.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I question that Kraft even told Bill to trade Jimmy. I have real doubts he has any influence on the day to day operation of the team...much less telling Bill how to handle his qbs. Perhaps...Kraft said he wants Tom to be a Patriot for life and said you can't move him...but I very much doubt he would say who has to back him up...and Jimmy is too much a threat to Tommy. I would say the most likely scenario is Bill decided that he wanted to see how Tom entered the season health wise and once he was comfortable that he was still same ol Tom he decided to move on from Jimmy....get his picks...and will continue to ride the Tom train for the next couple years while he molds yet another replacement. It does appear that Tom and Bill are pretty well tied together as Bills best chance at continued success long term was with Jimmy in a year or two so it does seem Bill is closer to retiring when Tom does then say continuing after with another QB. I honestly don't see any issue...cause even if that isn't the case this has been Bill's MO for forever...draft a qb in the middle rounds....groom them...and then when their value is high enough or they hit their second contract trade or let them go. I see nothing sinister here and business as usual. Bill will likely draft a qb in rd 2 and the cycle will repeat. I doubt anything in the story that has to do with Tom being scared for his future, demanding they move Jimmy, and Kraft telling Bill to move Jimmy etc etc. To me this has been the plan since they drafted Jimmy and barring injuries or Tom's production falling off they were going this way from the start.

 

We know the end will come someday...but as for now this is business as usual.

 

I didn't get the sense from the article that Belichick was actively trying to move Brady. The idea I got was that he saw JG as Brady's replacement at some point, but not that he was ready to cross that bridge soon. Looking at their cap structure over the last couple seasons, I've been under the impression that they would have paid both QBs like starters if they had to.

 

Then there's the idea that the Pats could have gotten more than a 2018 2nd rounder for JG if they had moved him prior to the 2017 draft, when they reportedly told teams he was simply not available. I expected that, if they did move him, it would be because they got an outstanding offer that they couldn't refuse. That's not what happened. So why did they suddenly decide to trade him in the middle of the season, when they have the cap space to keep him, even on the tag, and had previously shown little to no desire to move him?

 

Something happened between the beginning of the season and the trade deadline, and I don't think that 'something' was as innocuous and Kraft telling Belichick 'I don't care what you do with JG, but you can't get rid of Brady.' If that was the case, I think JG would still be with the Pats.

 

As for the Pats MO, they've never used a 2nd rounder on a QB before, and the only other backup QB that they got something meaningful for was Matt Cassel, back when Brady was still in his prime. The JG situation was different -- Brady is 40 and showing signs of age, JG looked like a capable starting QB (unlike Mallett, Hoyer, etc.), and Belichick has carefully created a situation over the last couple of years where he could keep two highly paid QBs and still field a SB contender. There was no reason to move JG when they did, and if the plan was to move him at peak value, they would have done so prior to the draft. 

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't get the sense from the article that Belichick was actively trying to move Brady. The idea I got was that he saw JG as Brady's replacement at some point, but not that he was ready to cross that bridge soon. Looking at their cap structure over the last couple seasons, I've been under the impression that they would have paid both QBs like starters if they had to.

 

Then there's the idea that the Pats could have gotten more than a 2018 2nd rounder for JG if they had moved him prior to the 2017 draft, when they reportedly told teams he was simply not available. I expected that, if they did move him, it would be because they got an outstanding offer that they couldn't refuse. That's not what happened. So why did they suddenly decide to trade him in the middle of the season, when they have the cap space to keep him, even on the tag, and had previously shown little to no desire to move him?

 

Something happened between the beginning of the season and the trade deadline, and I don't think that 'something' was as innocuous and Kraft telling Belichick 'I don't care what you do with JG, but you can't get rid of Brady.' If that was the case, I think JG would still be with the Pats.

 

As for the Pats MO, they've never used a 2nd rounder on a QB before, and the only other backup QB that they got something meaningful for was Matt Cassel, back when Brady was still in his prime. The JG situation was different -- Brady is 40 and showing signs of age, JG looked like a capable starting QB (unlike Mallett, Hoyer, etc.), and Belichick has carefully created a situation over the last couple of years where he could keep two highly paid QBs and still field a SB contender. There was no reason to move JG when they did, and if the plan was to move him at peak value, they would have done so prior to the draft. 

Agreed

[dgambill]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I didn't get the sense from the article that Belichick was actively trying to move Brady. The idea I got was that he saw JG as Brady's replacement at some point, but not that he was ready to cross that bridge soon. Looking at their cap structure over the last couple seasons, I've been under the impression that they would have paid both QBs like starters if they had to.

 

Then there's the idea that the Pats could have gotten more than a 2018 2nd rounder for JG if they had moved him prior to the 2017 draft, when they reportedly told teams he was simply not available. I expected that, if they did move him, it would be because they got an outstanding offer that they couldn't refuse. That's not what happened. So why did they suddenly decide to trade him in the middle of the season, when they have the cap space to keep him, even on the tag, and had previously shown little to no desire to move him?

 

Something happened between the beginning of the season and the trade deadline, and I don't think that 'something' was as innocuous and Kraft telling Belichick 'I don't care what you do with JG, but you can't get rid of Brady.' If that was the case, I think JG would still be with the Pats.

 

As for the Pats MO, they've never used a 2nd rounder on a QB before, and the only other backup QB that they got something meaningful for was Matt Cassel, back when Brady was still in his prime. The JG situation was different -- Brady is 40 and showing signs of age, JG looked like a capable starting QB (unlike Mallett, Hoyer, etc.), and Belichick has carefully created a situation over the last couple of years where he could keep two highly paid QBs and still field a SB contender. There was no reason to move JG when they did, and if the plan was to move him at peak value, they would have done so prior to the draft. 

I don't...I think the idea was to move JG all along unless Tom couldn't perform. I also think Tom turning 40 coming off a SB and the fact he didn't have to play all 16 games last year Bill wanted to be sure Tom has enough in the tank (insurance for THIS season) to be able to continue to play at a high level before moving on from Jimmy. I think he knew all along Jimmy would be moved but he needed the right situation (SF away from AFC) to make that move and get the compensation he desired (basically a late first rd pick...although Jimmy ruined that a little). I do agree the theory was to keep both and then transition perhaps at the end of this year or next from the start....but Tom continues to defy all odds and it has pushed that timeline further out. So to maximize their window and success in the short term (where Bill is still coach) he choose to move him...and will likely restart the process with another prized youth while Hoyer holds down the back up in case something happens to Tom. I do think the team is on the same page.....Tom plays until he can't anymore...and I'm sure Kraft, Bill, and Tom have had that discussion. Since Tom is far off what is the point of keeping Jimmy (who would likely be upset to be held back another 3 years) and why not restart the same plan they've used the past decade. I fully understand what your saying....but I think nothing new is happening here other than moving Jimmy who would likely had to be tagged at the end of the year and would not have re-signed nor would he probably have signed last off-season...he wants to play after all. If anything jimmy forced their hand not Kraft or Tom.

[DougDew]

I believe much of this actually.  When players start to follow the QB and his personal trainer and bypass the team's trainers it creates a power struggle between BB and TB.  Especially when the personal trainer is more than just a trainer, its the QBs business partner too.

 

I have no doubt that BB would rather pay Garrapolo than to ride with TB for 4 to 5 more years, so I bet Kraft did indeed influence BBs decision to trade him.

 

They had a QB for the future, and gave it up.  That causes tension.  

 

Edit:  Its a power struggle.  When Brady said that he wants to play into his mid 40s that puts the onus on BB to keep him that long, even if JG was better.  I assume BB doesn't care for a player publicly trying to dictate how long he'll be with the team.

[IinD]

Drop me a text when they go 2-14. Till then I'm not buying it.