• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MTSuper7

  1. The bolded above is the only reason I brought up Marino. I understand Marino doesn't have the career resume that Brady has. But his level of play fall off was notable, yet he remained as a liability. This is probably what you all are going to face in New England. Your best chance of avoiding such a fate would be if Brady gets Wally Pipped by the franchise's QB of the future. Rereading some of my comments, I guess I'm a heartless bastard to some extent. I have been focused solely on what makes business sense. I do think releasing Brady after this season would have been an option if they had kept Garoppolo. However, I'm not even sure what sort of cap relief that would provide. And unceremoniously dumping Brady to the curb is pretty harsh to do to a long-tenured franchise QB (let alone the GOAT). So yeah, I'll concede that fatal flaw in my plan. It seems as if New England just groomed the heir apparent too early and were screwed over by Brady's late-career success (though contending for SBs is hardly getting screwed over).
  2. It's hard not to view you guys as being smug eliteists with comments like this. That being said, I prefer to keep the conversation civil. First, trading Brady would have been brand suicide if they did so during the season. I don't recall saying they had to trade Brady during this season, but maybe I did in a moment of idiocy. Trading him is a pretty big challenge considering he is closer to an AARP card than his days at Michigan (I live in Ann Arbor and have followed this guy's career since he was here). I'd guess that he might have no-trade clause verbiage in his contract, for starters. I don't know for sure, but it wouldn't be surprising if he did. Regardless, I think there is a certain level of emotional nut-huggery of Brady going on here. Nobody seems to care that Brady is certain to begin his descent as soon as next year (heck, maybe even this postseason). I guess it's going to be Marino all over again here... Let the guy play until he throws 6 INTs against the Jaguars in a first round playoff dud. In the short term, it does look crazy to consider trading or cutting Brady, especially if the Pats win the SB again. We will never know how well Garoppolo would have done as the next face of the Patriots. But if I own the team, and my head coach doesn't want to trade the backup QB who has been groomed to take over the reins, I'm not sure it's a savvy business move to side with the almost 41-year-old franchise QB. Come on... NFL franchises are money makers, and the Patriots would easily survive the decision. People go insane over Brady because he's the GOAT and has all the rings. But QB is the single hardest position to find out there, so you're really rolling the dice by hoping to groom someone else to take over. I guess enjoy your run this year, maybe next if Brady stays elite. It's easy to take the sure thing for the next 2 years compared to the "might be great" for the next 10-12. There's certainly a much better chance that Brady falls off a cliff by 2019 than Garoppolo being a bust / lower quality NFL starter. Fun discussion. If I'm insane, I guess I'll embrace it.
  3. What is going on with the Browns?

    Wasn't there discussion that Green Bay's misuse of the IR rule for Aaron Rodgers might call for them to release Rodgers? I wonder what team would have top priority for a waiver claim for Aaron Rodgers?
  4. Nobody compares to Brady, and I'm not saying Jimmy G is the next Brady. But he would have been the next face of the franchise if he stayed. Brady is going to be 41 next year, dude. Do you really buy into this "play until I'm 45" nonsense? He is going to fall off a cliff sooner than later. It's not unreasonable to consider moving on before that happens. And if Belichick really, truly thought Jimmy G had the "it" factor to be a really good, if not great, QB, then it's not out of the question to keep him and move on from Brady. If anything, Belichick might have the ego to want to prove that Brady isn't the primary reason for the long-term success of the franchise, and Jimmy G might have been his best opportunity to prove it. The fact that a mediocre QB like Matt Cassel went 11-5 in Brady's stead is reason to suspect that a truly good QB could duplicate the success that the team has had (note, I am not saying Brady's personal successes like his otherworldly TD:INT ratio, PFF rating, etc.). The fact that Brady has performed at this level for so long is unprecedented for a QB. So yeah, I don't think it is unreasonable to consider Brady the present of the franchise but not the future. I guess this stance is laughable?
  5. I did read the article. A couple of thoughts ... First, there aren't ways to reduce your cap number? I haven't studied New England's payroll situation in my free time or anything, but we are talking about the future of your franchise here. If you think the guy has the goods, don't you try to keep him for one more year and figure out where to clear money from the books? Second, franchising Garoppolo wasn't their only option. It was pretty clear that Garoppolo wasn't interested in making backup money or waiting around for Brady to decide to hang 'em up. They could have decided that Garoppolo was actually a better investment over the next 3-5 years than whatever they could get out of Brady plus an unknown drafted QB after Brady retires. It would have been unpopular to release Brady after this season, regardless of whether or not NE makes it to or wins the SB. And in the end, protecting the brand won out. I can't blame the Patriots for siding with the short term sure thing in Brady over the long term could be in Garoppolo. But I get the feeling that Belichick, if given complete authority, would have found a way to hang onto Garoppolo. I mean, Belichick has been around professional football for a long, long time. I'm guessing he has a pretty good sense for when a player has "it". Like I said before, only time will tell if this was a long term mistake by New England.
  6. I've never. I still say that if you don't trust your football guys or your gut, you are in trouble long-term. From all accounts (granted, it's hard to know what's real vs. fake news), Belichick thought that Garoppolo was the future at QB and offered continuity for the offense (as much as could be possible moving on from Brady). I get why they traded Garoppolo - how do you voluntarily end Brady's career in NE when he is still performing at a high level? It doesn't make it the best move for the business long-term, but only time will tell. So I guess the Patriots draft a QB, spend the next year or two developing him, and hope he pans out once Brady steps down. In the meantime, it'll be fun to see how successful Garoppolo is in SF. The 2nd round price tag is still puzzling...
  7. I still disagree with the assertion that the Patriots "had to trade Jimmy G". It's certainly a difficult situation, knowing Brady has been the face of the franchise for 17 years now. But committing to him for another few years because he says he can play until he's 45? The Patriots were more or less in a no-win situation here because Garoppolo wouldn't sign an extension and Brady's ego couldn't handle the heir apparent anyway. It was clear the two wouldn't coexist beyond this year, and it's easier to sell out your future because you can't see it yet. So you keep Brady for 2018, maybe 2019 (depending on how well he is performing). But the Patriots certainly could have told Brady "thanks for everything, but we are moving on". Sometimes in a business, you have to make a difficult and unpopular decision in order to keep the business moving forward. I just don't think Kraft had the cojones to force Brady out, not did he likely have the confidence that Garoppolo would be the answer. But Kraft, as an owner, should be trusting football people here which is probably what Belichick takes issue with. I guess all you can do is revisit this in 2020 and see how happy you are with the decision (if you are a Pats fan).
  8. The NE fanbase would cry foul initially if the Pats moved on from Brady after this season, regardless of how the Pats finish. But logically speaking, could you blame the franchise from moving on from a guy who will be 41 next year? I mean seriously... What loyal fanbase is going to turn its back on its team over that? Take the name Brady out of the discussion and just say 41 year old still playing at a high level. We don't obviously know the long term implications, but I'd be mighty surprised if the Pats didn't land an early QB in the draft. And hopefully Brady doesn't get sand in his vag over it.
  9. I agree, though Montana had the more storied career with 4 SB wins so, therefore, was in more of a "GOAT" situation than Favre (even though Favre was a lock 1st ballot HOFer). And Montana made the playoffs as a Chief (as did Favre with Minny). But SF and GB weren't afraid of losing out on that short term success that continuity would bring because they were sold on the guy behind them on the depth chart (which was, again, easier for SF since they knew much more about Steve Young when they let Montana walk). From all accounts, Belichick was sold on Garoppolo. If that's true, and with Brady clearly at the end of the line within the next 2, maybe 3 years, why take a chance on your future? And why sell your future at QB for peanuts?
  10. The Browns being willing to offer a second rounder is a lot different than the Patriots asking for one. If the Patriots were taking offers for Garoppolo when Cleveland was interested, it's almost certain that NE would have asked for more. You generally start far apart and meet in the middle when you negotiate unless one of the two parties is willing to take a gamble (a la New Orleans selling their draft for Ricky Williams). For that reason, the 180 of "he's not available for trade" to offering SF a second rounder is just plain weird. I know Brady has earned the right to retire when/how he wants, but that 180 doesn't make business sense at all. I'll go back to the Packers letting Favre walk or the Niners letting Montana go. Similar situations, yet the franchises moved on because they had the heir apparent waiting in the wings. From all accounts, Belichick felt that way about Garoppolo. So why not move on from Brady after this year? He's going to be 41 next year. I don't care at what level he is playing right now - he's going to fall off a cliff performance-wise any time now. That trade was riskier than cutting Brady in the offseason would be.
  11. Gruden the new Raiders coach

    10 years for a head coach is ridiculous, especially a coach who hasn't coached anyone anywhere in over a decade. Only the Raiders...
  12. I will also add that a second rounder for a potential franchise QB is highway robbery. NE usually takes other teams to the cleaners on deals like this. It's weird. Obviously, we don't know what Garoppolo is going to do in his career, but it sounds like Belichick really thought Garoppolo was the future of the Patriots at QB. So to trade him for a 2nd rounder? Doesn't smell right, and doesn't make sense to leave your team with no fallback options behind a 40 year old QB, even if he is the GOAT and playing at a high enough level to win. That cliff isn't far away, and sooner or later, everyone falls off of it.
  13. This was one of my thoughts. Keeping Brady in the twilight of his career is really dangerous. They have nobody lined up now to take the torch. Perhaps they think their guy of the future is in the upcoming draft. But you just never know with a drafted player... I actually think it would have been more Patriot-esque for them to keep Garoppolo and trade (if allowable in his contract) Brady to a team that might only be a QB away (Jacksonville?) or outright release him after this season. The Patriots have shown time and time again that nobody is sacred / untradeable. I guess maybe Brady is the only guy exempt from that...
  14. Wild card lines discussion

    The Rams treated their game in Seattle like a playoff game - if they had lost that game, they would have lost the division lead and been in a much worse spot. So I’d call their utter road dominance of Seattle a sign that they are a legitimate contender for the SB. Minnesota is probably the favorite in the NFC with a great defense, home field in the divisional round, and Nick Foles looking like poo. I am going to assume the Rams beat Atlanta, which puts them on the road at Minnesota next weekend. They suffered their worst loss of the year in Minnesota. I think the winner of that game ends up hosting the Saints in the NFC Championship game, as Philly just isn’t going anywhere with Foles (and New Orleans has already shown that they have Carolina’s number).
  15. Championship Week, But need your help!

    Emanuel Sanders is out this weekend, so fire up Demaryius. And go Charger D.
  16. WDIS-Flex Need 2

    Kupp leads the league in red zone targets and, prior to last week's game where the Rams didn't have to throw at all, was averaging about 6-90 over the last month and change. He feels safest on this list. For second flex, I probably lean Diggs here just slightly. He scored in both GB games last year (didn't play in the GB earlier this year), and I think he has a higher floor than your other options. I generally don't trust any TEN players right now, as they have looked like hot garbage now for a while. Mariota hasn't been that good, and the playcalling has been super vanilla. The only considerations that make me think Murray might be an okay start are that the Rams can be beaten on the ground, Tennessee is at home, and they are in do-or-die mode to keep a playoff spot. Murray would be the guy I'd consider instead of Diggs. Just be ready to punch someone when Derrick Henry gets a TD... I also don't trust Coleman with Freeman running hot (and coming off a concussion), and Ebron over his career has been too inconsistent for me to trust, as he tends to get stone hands at times (plus Vontaze Burfict is making his return and Shawn Williams looks like he might finally be healthy). I'm nervous about Westbrook because Allen Hurns is coming back this week and because Westbrook took a back seat in a great matchup last week. Just not sure I can trust Westbrook, and San Fran has won three straight and is playing ok football vs. the pass right now (plus the game is in SF).
  17. Chip lineup crisis!!! Help

    Your lineup looks like the safest choices to me, though Jimmy Graham is kind of TD or bust right now. He is 7-60-2 over his last four games combined. If you are in a PPR league, and if Allen Hurns doesn't play, Keelan Cole is a reasonable alternative. That's the only thing I'd consider different from what you have set.
  18. 1/2 point PPR for WRs, 1 point PPR for RBs. Bonus points for longer TDs. Who do you like below? QB (Pick One): Big Ben @ HOU Nick Foles vs. OAK RB (Pick One): Jamaal Williams vs. MIN DeMarco Murray vs. LAR Derrick Henry vs. LAR WR (Pick One): Stefon Diggs @ GB Sammy Watkins @ TEN Dede Westbrook @ SF Keelan Cole@ SF Pick one RB or WR above as a flex as well. Respond with a link to your question, and I’ll give you my thoughts. Thanks in advance! -Matt
  19. I am so sick of NFL catch rules...

    I thought the Seferian-Jenkins bobble was even worse than the Jesse James play in terms of how the current rules don’t work. Not only does common sense get thrown out, but game flow grinds to a halt while we wait and wait for the official to make a ruling that follows the rules but makes us scratch our heads at the same time. If they don’t fix this “catch process” garbage, they ought to do away with the mandatory review on every turnover and scoring play. Officials are letting everything go and not making a decision now because they know a review is coming. I say give two coaches challenges per half. Let the coaches decide when it’s worth the risk of losing a challenge and keep the game moving otherwise. Either that or tighten up the review process so it doesn’t take ten years.
  20. Which defense?

    I go Chargers here. They have the best pass rush of the three and face the worst QB of the three (or at least Petty and Yates are equally garbage). I also think the Chargers will still mathematically be alive for the playoffs. The Steelers haven’t been the same on D since they lost Shazier. Please help with mine if you can:
  21. Any Changes? (ppr)

    I think Wallace is the better play over Tate or Westbrook. He has a higher floor than either. Maclin is doubtful to play, and the Colts are pretty weak vs the pass. Go with Wallace here. Please help with mine if you can:
  22. Who at flex? Gordon, Murray, or Perine?

    Josh Gordon. Perine is banged up and gets a tougher defensive test. Murray (and the whole TEN offense) is hard to trust right now, though this is a good spot for him (them) to bounce back. Because it is PPR, I’d go Gordon. Murray isn’t a bad play either, but the share with Derrick Henry makes it a gamble to play him. Please help with mine if you can:
  23. championship game, ur thoughts

    Brady didn’t do anything last time vs. Buffalo. I think Foles has the higher ceiling and is the better play as long as Minnesota beats Green Bay on Saturday (Eagles might rest starters in that instance with the 1 seed clinched). Gurley and McCoy are easy choices at RB. Thielen and Woods at WR. I would lean Jones over Collins at Flex. Go Kelce at TE - he has a higher floor for sure.
  24. Crazy...Cooks or Wright??

    Cooks has the higher ceiling because he can make big plays and get in the end zone. But honestly, if you want a higher floor, you're better off playing Wright. It's not a sexy play, but Cooks has two stinkers out of his last three games (including against Buffalo, this weekend's opponent).
  25. Stafford or Bortles?

    Don't get cute. Stafford is the better play. Bortles looked great at home vs. a brutally terrible Houston secondary/pass rush. The Niners have won three straight and are better than people give them credit.