Brady's obviously at the point where if he could be traded for a top young QB like Matt Ryan or Sam Bradford straight up you do it. If you had a crytsal ball and knew Stafford wouldn't be hurt his whole career I'd think Stafford would be in that discussion.
No way. The only way that trading Brady makes sense is if it becomes clear that the Pats aren't going to be contenders in the foreseeable future. Since New England has as good a chance at the Super Bowl as anybody else does, it doesn't make any sense at all to trade their best player and proven winner.
waaaiiittt a second. It's not like Sam Bradford and Matt Ryan are unproven prospects or something.
Isn't this a little like saying you wouldn't trade Jeter for Pujols because Jeter is a proven winner? I'm not saying Tebow or Andrew Luck or Claussen or something. Plus it's not like Brady hasn't won anything in quite a while. He's getting very very close to the years that were like when Joe Montana was traded to the Chiefs.
Um, no, that argument is nowhere near similar. First, SS in baseball isn't close to QB in football; a great QB can have much more of an influence on the game. Also, of course, the talent disparity at this point between Pujols and Jeter is a huge one. Unlike Jeter, Brady is the best current QB of that bunch.
Brady is the best QB, and he is the best winner. The only thing that Ryan has over Brady is youth. As for Stafford, maybe he could play more than 10 games in a season for a perennial loser before he gets anointed? How can you argue anything other than that he's unproven?
Brady threw for 3,900 yards and had 36 TDs, 4 interceptions, and a 65.9% completion percentage. The only QB under the age of 28 that the Pats would trade Brady for, in my mind, is Aaron Rodgers. Guys like Ryan, Flacco, Freeman, and arguably Stafford are good QBs, but they haven't show anything close to what Brady has.