jamesplante11 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, forever in debt to mo lewis said: sorry james...it wouldnt have taken you 4 or 5 posts to get to that point or bring it up Get over yourself, you have no clue where anyone’s coming from or basing their arguments from so stop claiming you do. Funny how another patriots fan says the same thing I did...Jimmy G was worth more than a 2nd rd Pick, and there’s no argument you agree. So just because I’m not a fan of your team I’m entirely wrong and off base. Also so please show me where I stayed anythjng other than the Patriots have lost on this trade so far? Oh and I’m still waiting for that beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdko Posted January 5, 2018 Author Share Posted January 5, 2018 Someone going on a beer run? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Sigh... Jimmy Garappolo trade rumors from April Quote There was no deal that would sway Bill Belichick to trade Jimmy Garoppolo in April, the coach explained on Monday. Belichick wasn’t even taking calls to discuss a potential trade of Garoppolo, who Belichick eventually dealt to the 49ers on the day before the trade deadline last week. Belichick was asked on WEEI sports radio whether the market for Garoppolo was the same in April as it was in October. “I really don’t know,” Belichick told the WEEI hosts. “There was no market to trade Jimmy in April on our end. I don’t really care what the offer was, so I don’t even know what the offers were or would’ve been. There was no interest on our end in making that deal, so it didn’t really matter what the offer was or what the offer would’ve been. I don’t really know what there were because we didn’t entertain it. “So, like I said, I feel like we had the best depth at the position probably of any team in the league — or at least we felt like we did. Maybe other teams feel differently. I don’t know. But we had great depth at that position. It’s a tremendous situation to have two quarterbacks of the caliber that we’ve had for the past, call it, two and a half years from when Jimmy was ready. Unfortunately, it just wasn’t sustainable.” Hard to say what you would of gotten when you won't even take any offers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, jamesplante11 said: Get over yourself, you have no clue where anyone’s coming from or basing their arguments from so stop claiming you do. Funny how another patriots fan says the same thing I did...Jimmy G was worth more than a 2nd rd Pick, and there’s no argument you agree. So just because I’m not a fan of your team I’m entirely wrong and off base. Also so please show me where I stayed anythjng other than the Patriots have lost on this trade so far? Oh and I’m still waiting for that beer. it appears the patriots have lost in the trade....but we still arent completely sure.....were basing it off 5 starts at the end of the year....1 vs a subpar qb and 2 vs backup/3rd string....and without those 5 starts no one really has even the slightest actual clue.... you also said the patriots got 0 return on the investment to which i said ..."the patriots got about 3.5 year of backup service at a 2nd round salary.....when they traded him they yielded nearly double what they paid for him on the trade value chart"......id say they got a return on the investment....given how many 2nd rounders from 2013-2014 drafts are no longer with their teams and were either released or traded for 5-7th round picks...i cited one who is close to home(van noy) but i can list many others.......for the patriots the investmet was worth having a backup for 3.5 years and potentially have the heir if things went south...that alone was prob worth the investment of the pick they spent how many other teams with franchise qbs are spending 2nds on backups(that 2nd was on the border of a 3rd when u think about it)...you dont see many of these other teams with franchise qbs taking guys in the 2nd.....did san diego(la)? how about the giants(they took webb recently in the 3rd was it?)...did the colts take mannings heir a year or two before he was done? you see the saints spending a 2nd on the replacement for drew? this pick served a purpose and potentially could have served a bigger one....but that bigger one never came to fruition...and they nearly doubled the value while getting almost 4 years of backup service...id say they got his worth and a return...which is more than alot of 2nd round picks end up being id gladly buy you many beers if you are ever in the area...im on the southern RI/CT border....if you are ever within an hour of me ill buy dinner and all the drinks/shots you can handle...i love to talk football Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 I''ve got to agree with forever in debt, the Jimmy G love is a bit much, people are acting like he's a HOF player or something, in another discussion somebody was pimping him as one of the rising stars of the league at QB, because apparently Watson, Wentz Goff and others weren't relavent. I think a lot of it is media hype, the he was a Pat stuff etc. But saying the Pats made a mistake is not saying they are doomed, it is simply saying they let a talented QB go for very little when their vet QB is aging and could fall apart at any time. Nobody thought Peyton Manning would suddenly fall apart, he was never the same after the neck surgeries. Or Luck, who was seen as almost as good through his first 3 seasons, then 2 mediocre ones capped with injury and unable to return this season, who knows about the next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Def. said: Sigh... Jimmy Garappolo trade rumors from April Hard to say what you would of gotten when you won't even take any offers. since when has belichick opened up and announced guys were on the market or that he was open for calls? that whole quote you had was typical bill.....its right from bill playbook....did he announce jacoby brissett was up for trade? when does bill tip his hand? did you hear him come out on an interview or press conference and say "hey guys the phones are open on chandler jones...its open season"...everything is close to the vest and he tells you next to nothing.....when have you ever heard of him jettisoning a player where he tells you that guy is on the cusp of getting moved? every trade he ever makes comes out of nowhere including the jimmy trade itself!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, forever in debt to mo lewis said: how do you extrapolate stats that him playing against tj yates and sean mannion and a rams team with nothing to play for? and your opinion says brady wasnt the mvp....but the possibility exists that the voters feel differently...peter king has already stated he gave his to brady QBs don't play against other QBs, so their stats in that case are meaningless. If you want to say he won those games mostly because of playing crappy QBs that is one thing. BTW for others who may wonder who in the world is mannion, the Rams backup QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, stevegrab said: I''ve got to agree with forever in debt, the Jimmy G love is a bit much, people are acting like he's a HOF player or something, in another discussion somebody was pimping him as one of the rising stars of the league at QB, because apparently Watson, Wentz Goff and others weren't relavent. I think a lot of it is media hype, the he was a Pat stuff etc. But saying the Pats made a mistake is not saying they are doomed, it is simply saying they let a talented QB go for very little when their vet QB is aging and could fall apart at any time. Nobody thought Peyton Manning would suddenly fall apart, he was never the same after the neck surgeries. Or Luck, who was seen as almost as good through his first 3 seasons, then 2 mediocre ones capped with injury and unable to return this season, who knows about the next. i def think jimmy could very easily join that group of watson, wentz and goff.....i really do......but i think we need to pump the brakes...i also think you need to take a step back and really look at it from the patriots perspective also......everyone is looking at and thinking "the 9ers got a franchise qb for what looks like next to nothing and the patriots got fleeced"....im not sure the patriots feel fleeced........they got a decent return, which could have been better if they had lost a game or two, they got 3.5 years of service and insurance out of him ...and they sent him to the other conference where he can only really hurt you at one specific time......i think the patriots are ok with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Just now, stevegrab said: QBs don't play against other QBs, so their stats in that case are meaningless. If you want to say he won those games mostly because of playing crappy QBs that is one thing. BTW for others who may wonder who in the world is mannion, the Rams backup QB. well ya...i know im saying...game situations may have been different for jimmy had you had gurley and goff out there....the rams playing for something....or you had deshaun out there for houston throwing 4tds.....or playing against an offense better than a trubisky led bears team that scores 14 points.....those 5 wins might have been 2 and jimmy might not be everyones "darling" right now.....regardless he played pretty well and efficiently.....just saying...the qbs/and situations you are playing against can have a ripple effect on the bottom line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, forever in debt to mo lewis said: well ya...i know im saying...game situations may have been different for jimmy had you had gurley and goff out there....the rams playing for something....or you had deshaun out there for houston throwing 4tds.....or playing against an offense better than a trubisky led bears team that scores 14 points.....those 5 wins might have been 2 and jimmy might not be everyones "darling" right now.....regardless he played pretty well and efficiently.....just saying...the qbs/and situations you are playing against can have a ripple effect on the bottom line That may be what you MEANT it isn't what you said. Not going to bother debating it, you've posted enough in this thread to tell me "if mo don't think it he won't believe it", you're one of those know-it-alls telling others what they think and know. Enjoy your Friday evening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 Just now, stevegrab said: That may be what you MEANT it isn't what you said. Not going to bother debating it, you've posted enough in this thread to tell me "if mo don't think it he won't believe it", you're one of those know-it-alls telling others what they think and know. Enjoy your Friday evening. well im sorry if you feel that way but im fairly certain that when i mentioned yates/mannion/trubisky that i was implying that the qbs on the other side have a ripple effect on the bottom line/outcome of the game.....i guess its my fault for assuming everyone understood that.....because thats truly what i meant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, MTSuper7 said: 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. you have to remember that with montana they didnt move from him on the heels of an MVP(or mvp caliber) season montana threw 16 picks in his last full year a starter...he then missed the 91 season and only started 1 game in the 92 season before being moved...the writing was on the wall in a way that its not in new england at the moment favre to rodgers is the better comparison Edited January 5, 2018 by forever in debt to mo lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 (edited) so with montana you had him missing almost 2 seasons with an elbow injury before being moved...if the elbow injury doesnt happen and he doesnt miss the 91 season do we know what happens? from the favre situation..if i recall correctly he was having a major riff with either the organization or mccarthy himself and wasnt even sure if he wanted to play for the packers at all maybe some 9ers and packers homers can chime in? Edited January 5, 2018 by forever in debt to mo lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 minute ago, forever in debt to mo lewis said: you have to remember that with montana they didnt move from him on the heels of an MVP(or mvp caliber) season montana threw 16 picks in his last full year a starter...he then missed the 91 season and only started 1 game in the 92 season before being moved...the writing was on the wall in a way that its not in new england at the moment favre to rodgers is the better comparison 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gourdeau Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 hours ago, jamesplante11 said: Or Next season could look like this.... -Bill waits for McDaniels and Patricia to take HC jobs and the retires or leaves -Brady realizes hes in over his head and hangs it up -Edleman doesn't come back full form -Gronk gets hurt again Then Kraft gets to stand there with his d**k in his hand with no QB to speak of because he let the ego of his lottery ticket get in the way of continuing a dynasty after the NN/Brady Era. Here's a few stories Wickersham broke that everyone thought were ridiculous - Tension in the Seattle locker room among the team (esp Sherman) - Tension between NE and Guerrero - Jerry Jones having an issue with Goodell - An article about Belichick wanting to turn the team over to Jimmy G on 11/7 - Harbaugh having an issue in SF Didn't you know it's IMPOSSIBLE for anything to be wrong in NE, EVER, the Beatles lasted 8 years before their ego's caused Tension, for 3 egocentric males to last 18 years is unfathomable, it was bound to happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gourdeau Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, forever in debt to mo lewis said: well im sorry if you feel that way but im fairly certain that when i mentioned yates/mannion/trubisky that i was implying that the qbs on the other side have a ripple effect on the bottom line/outcome of the game.....i guess its my fault for assuming everyone understood that.....because thats truly what i meant Much like others MEANT to say they are basing Jimmy G's value on his College success maybe ? Double edge sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 15 minutes ago, Gourdeau said: Much like others MEANT to say they are basing Jimmy G's value on his College success maybe ? Double edge sir. sorry...no....not buying that....i think its pretty clear what i was getting at when i said mannion/yates/trubisky...i know hes not playing head to head against the qbs....but like i said...a ripple effect on the game is had by the starting qb you are opposing...a full strength ram team with goff/gurley may not yield the same result....im fairly certain most understood that i didnt see anyone even allude to jimmy g's college game film here before james mentioned it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, MTSuper7 said: 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? before i get into your question and answer as best as i can..i want to add this http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/01/05/reports-conflict-on-whether-patriots-offered-jimmy-garoppolo-a-new-contract/ curran is reputable pats reporter that has been covering the team for ages..... wickersham works for a company that has laid of thousdands over the last year or so...and has made a major effort to reduce costs and staff.....wickersham has written some pieces that have had merit...im not saying hes a hack or anything...but hes also written pieces which mention the patriots serving warm gatorade to visitors, watching the seahawks practice from the hills, having a billboard that shows replays in their home stadium only to their sidelines........his company has also falsely report a video of the rams walkthrough and the incorrect measurement of 11 of 12 balls for their PSI i cant fully buy into this until i see belichick step down at the end of the year...if that were to happen i would say he was more than likely correct...proabably 100 percent now for your question...."And why sell your future at QB for peanuts? " thats a complicated one...ill start it the same way i will likely end it...jimmy is probably the qb of the future....the 9ers qb of the future...it just wasnt mean to be in new england the possibility exists that belichick really loves jimmy and feels he could just as likely win with him as he could with tom.....but brady is the known quantity and its easier to explain to the fanbase imagine belichick is thinking to himself..."at the end of the year i want to move on from brady...i want to trade him and sign jimmy long term".......now brady wins the superbowl or goes to it...or plays well in the afc title game but they get beat......but brady says hes ready to go and wants to keep playing....how do you sell that to the fans?.....now what if you trade brady to the nfc like say san fran or washington......what if brady reels off wins in san fran and takes them to the playoffs? and jimmy g's pats lose in the wild card round...or the divisonal round? or the afc title game? people arent going to be happy dont get me wrong ...there are alot of people around here who are upset that jimmy is gone ...alot of radio callers damning the move and all of that.....but theyd be equally, if not more, damning if brady went on to win games in san fran and jimmy g couldnt get superbowls in the next 3 years......what if brady took crowder and made him edelman lite...and reed was miraculously able to stay healthy and doctson blossomed and the skins led by brady won the nfc east next year? how well does that float with the new england fanbase? there may be some tension growing...we know about guerrero....we saw brady have a riff with josh mcdaniels(which in some way may include belichick).....but i think its all overblown http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/15160801/new-england-patriots-bill-belichick-calls-tom-brady-greatest-quarterback-all....can also cue the video of belichick telling brady he "loves" him after the atl superbowl i dont care what kind of evil genius you think bill is....what coach wants to be the one to move on from a qb thats 2 superbowls in the last 3 years(with a chance at another) and an MVP caliber season(most likely guaranteed top 2 finish) for a guy that had thrown 63? passes? even if belichick thinks he can win with jimmy.....its not comparible to the montana situation as we talked about....and favre was coming off a good season in which i believe he even said he wasnt sure if he wanted to come back or not and had a riff with coach/front office....the packers obviously werent worried because they had rodgers...in this case the backup plan got moved i also think its a bit crazy to think that a few days before the trade deadline kraft walks into belichicks office and demands that garappolo is traded and belichick just gets on the phone and thinks "ok ill take whatever i can get ...here goes nothing".....thats far fetched from an organization that is known to be calculated...all because of some tantrum from brady i just cant buy it until i see belichick step down at the end of the year...that would make it glaringingly obvious...like i said...garappolo might be the qb of the future...it just wasnt meant to be here.....it could have been if timing had been different or something wild happened to brady......i have no doubt belichick things highly of garappolo....but it was time to move on from one of them....and its easier to explaining trading jimmy g IMO i will say i agree that in negotiation you dont start with your best offer...i totally see your point about that.....and you're right....it was a big 180 from claiming that they werent willing to sell on him....at the same time belichick never divulges that hes looking to move guys(maybe he was hoping for someone to blow him away with an offer without advertising...cause he never advertises and his trades catch everyone by suprise....he never shows his hand)....and the possibility exists is that he was ok with moving him for what looked to be a very high 2nd if it was to the NFC at the latest possible date Edited January 6, 2018 by forever in debt to mo lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gourdeau Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Oh come on now, maybe they assumed everyone knew he had success in college and everyone had the same perception of his value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Gourdeau said: Oh come on now, maybe they assumed everyone knew he had success in college and everyone had the same perception of his value. rightttt....whats more likely....everyone assumes that some guys meant they watched jimmys FCS career at romos alma mater....or people assume when i say "he faced yates/mannion/trubisky" they know that i mean he didnt exactly face teams that were getting their best qb play? hmmmmm edit=trubisky is the bears best qb most likely...but i think we know that doesnt mean much at the moment Edited January 6, 2018 by forever in debt to mo lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Before the Patriots traded Jimmy Garoppolo to the 49ers, did New England offer Garoppolo a contract to try to get him to remain? ESPN’s ballyhooed story about the escalating tensions in New England says an offer was made. A longtime Patriots reporter says otherwise. The story from Seth Wickersham of ESPN couldn’t state it more confidently: “The Patriots repeatedly offered Garoppolo four-year contract extensions, in the $17 million to $18 million range annually that would go higher if and when he succeeded Brady. Garoppolo and [Don Yee, the agent for Garoppolo and Tom Brady] rejected the offers out of hand, for reasons that remain unclear.” But Tom Curran, who has covered the Patriots reliably for many years, also couldn’t state it more confidently: “The Patriots never extended a new contract offer to Garoppolo. No question they discussed it and spitballed about what it would look like — great pay as a backup escalating to starter money when Brady left — but the offer was never formalized. Why? Because it was clear Garoppolo wasn’t staying another year as a backup.” What to make of those conflicting reports? For starters, Wickersham’s phrasing that Garoppolo rejected the Patriots’ offers, “for reasons that remain unclear,” is odd. Garoppolo’s reasons would seem to be crystal clear: He’d rather make $25 million to be a starter than $18 million to be a backup. Who wouldn’t? Garoppolo knew the time was coming when he would either be traded to a team that saw him as its starting quarterback, or that he’d hit free agency, where the only way the Patriots could keep him would be to franchise him at more than $23 million, fully guaranteed, for the 2018 season. Then in 2019 the process would repeat, only this time the franchise tag would be $28 million fully guaranteed. Why would Garoppolo take $18 million a year to remain Brady’s backup when he knew that the Patriots would have to pay him a lot more than that to keep him? And why would he want to spend his prime years backing up Brady, who keeps saying he has no plans to retire, when he could go elsewhere and be a starter? Another important factor to consider in all this is that Yee represents both Garoppolo and Brady. Both of his clients are better off if they’re both starters than if they’re on the same team, where only one can start. It’s better for Brady that the first time he struggles next year there aren’t hot takes about how the 41-year-old is aging and it’s time to go to Garoppolo. And it’s better for Garoppolo that he’s a starter right now, not a guy just hoping to replace a legend some day. Yee would have been doing a bad job representing both of his clients if he had urged Garoppolo to sign a team-friendly deal to stay in New England. In that light, the two reports might not conflict as much as it would initially seem. Either the Patriots didn’t offer Garoppolo a contract, or they offered him only a contract that he would obviously turn down, which isn’t much of an offer at all. There’s nothing unclear about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stethant Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 My take is that it doesn't make sense to get rid of all your backup QBs when your QB, although legendary, is really getting up there in years. All this TB12 healthy living is really crap - he's going to fall off a performance cliff no matter what his diet/exercise/Giselle face-planting regimen is. OK so getting rid of Brissette who cares (he's not very good) but then to get rid of the QB you took in the 2nd round? The "Patriot Way" with Belichick has always been to get rid of guys BEFORE their skills start to decline, not after. Yes Brady is a legend in New England but is he bigger than the team, or the success of the team? People on local sports radio were talking about how Belichick wanted to leave the Pats in good stead with Garroppolo but I think there's a more likely answer: Bill wanted to prove that in the chicken-and-egg conversation about whether Brady is key to Belichick's success or vice-versa, that Belichick is the top dog. If the Patriots go on to continue mowing down the league with Garroppolo at the helm then the answer for history is that Belichick's system was in fact the key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gourdeau Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, stethant said: My take is that it doesn't make sense to get rid of all your backup QBs when your QB, although legendary, is really getting up there in years. All this TB12 healthy living is really crap - he's going to fall off a performance cliff no matter what his diet/exercise/Giselle face-planting regimen is. OK so getting rid of Brissette who cares (he's not very good) but then to get rid of the QB you took in the 2nd round? The "Patriot Way" with Belichick has always been to get rid of guys BEFORE their skills start to decline, not after. Yes Brady is a legend in New England but is he bigger than the team, or the success of the team? People on local sports radio were talking about how Belichick wanted to leave the Pats in good stead with Garroppolo but I think there's a more likely answer: Bill wanted to prove that in the chicken-and-egg conversation about whether Brady is key to Belichick's success or vice-versa, that Belichick is the top dog. If the Patriots go on to continue mowing down the league with Garroppolo at the helm then the answer for history is that Belichick's system was in fact the key. Get the F outta here with that logic nonsense! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 minute ago, Gourdeau said: Get the F outta here with that logic nonsense! lol..i love how you think everything i read from someone else is nonsense.....ive actually admitted several things i think people are right about in this thread and that i agree with tell me though...ill take one point from todays argument that i disagree with and ask you to defend the statement a couple of people have claimed the patriots got 0 return on their investment....i want you to take that stance and defend...go ahead....i want to hear your argument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.