Time to trade Brady?

[Eja117]

Colt McCoy is a better QB than Tom Brady too, according to Eja.

What an absolute joke.

On what level could that possibly be true by what I'm saying?  Colt McCoy and 5 first rounders might be better.

[Eja117]

Best season of his career? I totally disagree.

And if Sanchez does win the Super Bowl then I'd have to say Sanchez passes Brady as the better quarterback. 

That's just plain silly.  That would also rank Snachez of Brees, Manning and any other QB who doesn't win the Super Bowl.  Only one team wins every year. 

Right. The QB that went on the road and outplayed every other QB on their turf and then won the Super Bowl would have to be considered the best QB in football. Exactly. Kinda like when Brady did it and Montana did it people started to consider them the best QBs in football.

  Without reading all the posts, your logic seems to assume that Sanchez and Brady play all of the positions on offense, defense and special teams. Otherwise, no, you can't just say that the team that wins the super bowl has the best qb.

Exactly...the Ravens won in 2000 with Trent Dilfer at quarterback...nuff said.  There's no way you can say Sanchez automatically becomes the best QB in the league just because you win the super bowl.  It's called a TEAM effort.

Give me Trent Dilfer's career over Dan Marino's all day long and twice on any given Sunday.


Who do you think is happier with the career of their QB? Miami fans, or Baltimore fans?

  I doubt any fans in Baltimore thought that Trent Dilfer was the reason they won the Super Bowl. He only had one other season in his career where he won a playoff game and he never started another playoff game after that year. And, more importantly, nobody would ever come to the ridiculous conclusion that the Dolphins would have been more successful or even close to as successful with Dilfer instead of Marino.

  Who's career do you think Philly fans liked more Charles Barkley or Franklin Edwards? Because one of them was on a title team and one of them wasn't.

No, but Dilfer wasn't the reason they lost.  Dan Marino might have been a reason the Dolphins lost.  Tom Brady was a huge huge reason the Pats lost the other night.  Sanchez was a big reason the Jets won the other night.   I don't see why people can't admit that.

[Eja117]

So which is it? We need a great QB?  Or it's  a team sport and you don't need a great QB? If it's such a TEAM sport and you need a great defense then what is so bad about trading a player to reinforce the defense/team?
 
The same people are saying Brady has 4-5 years left and simultaneously the defense is years away and that it's a team game.  Well then.  

False dichotomy.

Football is the ultimate team sport where three separate units of 11 men to a side have to choreograph effectively to win the game. You need a good overall team to win the super bowl. Special teams, defense, and offense.

Having an MVP caliber QB is the biggest single piece to creating a overall winning team, beacuse an elite QB is the biggest piece to an offense. Thus one player can make the biggest possible contribution to 1/3 of the game. So trading such a QB is non-sensical if your goal is to create a winner in the short or medium term. Especially when your likely return is unknown draft picks.

You need a good team to win, but you also need some luck. You need to make the 50/50 plays, you need to be healthy, and you need to play well.

It's not  nonsensical if the rest of the team is "years away" and there are so many problems with the team.

According to other posters on the thread  the whole defense needs upgrades. The receivers need upgrades. The O line needs upgrades.  Well then. If the QB only has a few years left. And the rest of the team needs all these upgrades. Are we in a position where even an elite QB can't win?  

And I'm not sold we have an elite QB anymore.

And I get tired of the regular season stats that are completely meaningless. Marino and Farve have lots or regular season stats. I guess they are the Trent Dilfers of regular season stats.  Elite QBs are 100% entirely determined by post season success and Brady hasn't had it in a while now getting beaten by supposedly worse QBs despite having all the advantages.

I can't change that. That is what has happened.

[BballTim]

No, but Dilfer wasn't the reason they lost.  Dan Marino might have been a reason the Dolphins lost.  Tom Brady was a huge huge reason the Pats lost the other night.  Sanchez was a big reason the Jets won the other night.   I don't see why people can't admit that.

  So "wasn't the reason they lost" = "best quarterback in the league"? And Brady was sacked 5 times while Sanchez wasn't sacked at all. Do you think if the teams switched quarterbacks and Sanchez, not Brady, was the one under pressure that he'd have won the game for the Pats?

  There should be a 72 hour cooling off period before people start threads like this.

[Rondo2287]

Also, This wasnt a Brady issue IMO.  This is a schematic issue against the Jets defense. 

Brady used play action incredibly ineffectively last night.  Going into last nights game the Jets have owned the pats on play action. 

When brady uses play action against the rest of the NFL
Comp pct 71.8 
Yds/att 11.1 
TD-Int 15-3
Passer rtg 130.2


Play action against the Jets
Comp pct 33.3
Yds/Att 2.9
TD-INT 0-1
Passer Rtg 14.6

EJA you are ignoring the facts.  Does this look like something brady is doing wrong?  They are the same plays, they work incredibly well against 31 teams in the league and not well against another.  Are you suggesting its the person running the plays?  Are you suggesting that there were receivers running free all over the place Sunday and brady didnt get the ball to them? 

This was more a schematic issue than a brady issue.  The intercetion was Brady's fault 100 percent.  but other than that, im going to give the jets credit

[boom]

No, but Dilfer wasn't the reason they lost.  Dan Marino might have been a reason the Dolphins lost.  Tom Brady was a huge huge reason the Pats lost the other night.  Sanchez was a big reason the Jets won the other night.   I don't see why people can't admit that.

You'd be correct, if that was true. However it's not, therefore you are not correct.

Tom Brady, while not playing up to what we're use to seeing from him, still put up 300 yards and two TD against one of the best defenses in the league. He should have another TD as well. Sanchez played out of his mind in one of the most important games of his life, and good for him. However, the Jets defense was outstanding - the DBs covered our receivers and the D-Line put pressure on Brady.

I'd suggest you go back and re-watch the game and count how many dropped balls there were from the receivers. Or watch how many run plays were for a minimal gain or even a loss of yards.

I guess we watched different games. The one I watched only had one number 12 under center, whereas yours apparently had eleven little Tommy's running all over the field tossing, running, and catching balls.

[Rondo2287]

Best season of his career? I totally disagree.

And if Sanchez does win the Super Bowl then I'd have to say Sanchez passes Brady as the better quarterback. 

That's just plain silly.  That would also rank Snachez of Brees, Manning and any other QB who doesn't win the Super Bowl.  Only one team wins every year. 

Right. The QB that went on the road and outplayed every other QB on their turf and then won the Super Bowl would have to be considered the best QB in football. Exactly. Kinda like when Brady did it and Montana did it people started to consider them the best QBs in football.

  Without reading all the posts, your logic seems to assume that Sanchez and Brady play all of the positions on offense, defense and special teams. Otherwise, no, you can't just say that the team that wins the super bowl has the best qb.

Exactly...the Ravens won in 2000 with Trent Dilfer at quarterback...nuff said.  There's no way you can say Sanchez automatically becomes the best QB in the league just because you win the super bowl.  It's called a TEAM effort.

Give me Trent Dilfer's career over Dan Marino's all day long and twice on any given Sunday.


Who do you think is happier with the career of their QB? Miami fans, or Baltimore fans?

  I doubt any fans in Baltimore thought that Trent Dilfer was the reason they won the Super Bowl. He only had one other season in his career where he won a playoff game and he never started another playoff game after that year. And, more importantly, nobody would ever come to the ridiculous conclusion that the Dolphins would have been more successful or even close to as successful with Dilfer instead of Marino.

  Who's career do you think Philly fans liked more Charles Barkley or Franklin Edwards? Because one of them was on a title team and one of them wasn't.

No, but Dilfer wasn't the reason they lost.  Dan Marino might have been a reason the Dolphins lost.  Tom Brady was a huge huge reason the Pats lost the other night.  Sanchez was a big reason the Jets won the other night.   I don't see why people can't admit that.

If Sanchez was on the Pats would they have won the game the other night?  Absolutely not.

[Fafnir]

Regular season stats aren't meaningless, that's a viewpoint you and I will never agree on EJA.

Regular season stats tell you who's the best QB in the league that year, a one game sample doesn't do that. Its still non-sensical to trade an MVP level QB even if the rest of the team isn't championship material. Because in the NFL teams can get hot and make a run (2001 Pats/2006 Colts/etc...) all the way.

Not to mention that there is so much change from year to year in the league that you have to maximize a MVP QBs window.

[winsomme]

No, but Dilfer wasn't the reason they lost.  Dan Marino might have been a reason the Dolphins lost.  Tom Brady was a huge huge reason the Pats lost the other night.  Sanchez was a big reason the Jets won the other night.   I don't see why people can't admit that.

  So "wasn't the reason they lost" = "best quarterback in the league"? And Brady was sacked 5 times while Sanchez wasn't sacked at all. Do you think if the teams switched quarterbacks and Sanchez, not Brady, was the one under pressure that he'd have won the game for the Pats?

  There should be a 72 hour cooling off period before people start threads like this.

In terms of the playoffs, it has been a while since Brady has delivered. Plus, I think the reason he struggles is lack of protection combined with lack of elite players at the skill positions.

With Light and Mankins potentially on the way out and Belichick not terribly motivated to get elite players at the skill positions, we could have the same problems next season as well....and beyond.

So the idea of trading Brady isn't all that outrageous. Especially if you could put yourself in line to somehow get the Stanford QB down the line...

Personally, Iike I mentioned, the change I'm looking for is the big man (keeping Brady)...I think you can win AND have some fun....IMO you shouldn't have to be so personality-less to win football games.

and I thought the handling of Welker was embarrassing.

[winsomme]

Regular season stats aren't meaningless, that's a viewpoint you and I will never agree on EJA.

Regular season stats tell you who's the best QB in the league that year, a one game sample doesn't do that. Its still non-sensical to trade an MVP level QB even if the rest of the team isn't championship material. Because in the NFL teams can get hot and make a run (2001 Pats/2006 Colts/etc...) all the way.

Not to mention that there is so much change from year to year in the league that you have to maximize a MVP QBs window.

I don't know Faf, we've always touted TBs post season, big game play as the reason he's the best of all time...

I think we all need to take our medicine on the Sanchez front. I had no idea he had the kind of game in him. not coming into Gillette with the Pats dominating opponents the way they were.

and the fact that he's doing this so early in his career should not go unnoticed too.

[Rondo2287]

Regular season stats aren't meaningless, that's a viewpoint you and I will never agree on EJA.

Regular season stats tell you who's the best QB in the league that year, a one game sample doesn't do that. Its still non-sensical to trade an MVP level QB even if the rest of the team isn't championship material. Because in the NFL teams can get hot and make a run (2001 Pats/2006 Colts/etc...) all the way.

Not to mention that there is so much change from year to year in the league that you have to maximize a MVP QBs window.

I don't know Faf, we've always touted TBs post season, big game play as the reason he's the best of all time...

I think we all need to take our medicine on the Sanchez front. I had no idea he had the kind of game in him. not coming into Gillette with the Pats dominating opponents the way they were.

and the fact that he's doing this so early in his career should not go unnoticed too.

Im with you on alot of this, but can you tell me how many times Brady missed receivers running open around the field on sunday?  I agree his pick was his fault but its not like he was off target something like that. 


Also lets keep in mind that Brady has been sacked 9 times since the last time the pats defense sacked a qb in the playoffs.  Shouldnt the opposing QB's look better when that is going on?

[Fafnir]

Regular season stats aren't meaningless, that's a viewpoint you and I will never agree on EJA.

Regular season stats tell you who's the best QB in the league that year, a one game sample doesn't do that. Its still non-sensical to trade an MVP level QB even if the rest of the team isn't championship material. Because in the NFL teams can get hot and make a run (2001 Pats/2006 Colts/etc...) all the way.

Not to mention that there is so much change from year to year in the league that you have to maximize a MVP QBs window.

I don't know Faf, we've always touted TBs post season, big game play as the reason he's the best of all time...

I think we all need to take our medicine on the Sanchez front. I had no idea he had the kind of game in him. not coming into Gillette with the Pats dominating opponents the way they were.

and the fact that he's doing this so early in his career should not go unnoticed too.

Yeah that's why I think Peyton has been the superior player over his career.

Its you homer pats fans that have been obsessed with the post season.  Trust me as Bears fan I know that just having your QB upright and playing in the regular season has huge value.

Both are still great players, I think the Colts would be in a position to draft Fairly or Gabbert if Peyton was injured for the year. The Pats would probably be in the top 10 too.

[winsomme]

Regular season stats aren't meaningless, that's a viewpoint you and I will never agree on EJA.

Regular season stats tell you who's the best QB in the league that year, a one game sample doesn't do that. Its still non-sensical to trade an MVP level QB even if the rest of the team isn't championship material. Because in the NFL teams can get hot and make a run (2001 Pats/2006 Colts/etc...) all the way.

Not to mention that there is so much change from year to year in the league that you have to maximize a MVP QBs window.

I don't know Faf, we've always touted TBs post season, big game play as the reason he's the best of all time...

I think we all need to take our medicine on the Sanchez front. I had no idea he had the kind of game in him. not coming into Gillette with the Pats dominating opponents the way they were.

and the fact that he's doing this so early in his career should not go unnoticed too.

Im with you on alot of this, but can you tell me how many times Brady missed receivers running open around the field on sunday?  I agree his pick was his fault but its not like he was off target something like that. 


Also lets keep in mind that Brady has been sacked 9 times since the last time the pats defense sacked a qb in the playoffs.  Shouldnt the opposing QB's look better when that is going on?

fair enough, but the Pats are generally considered a bend don't break defense. They just don't target pass rushers (to my dismay). Their whole system is predicated of not beating themselves and taking advantage of it when you do...

As for Brady, he just never looked in control. I think the commentary I've been hearing is right. The Jets flooded the zone and took away all the dink and dunk stuff that they were feasting on and when it came time to stretch the field we just don't have that weapon....

I'm also still waiting for a running game that can drive the ball...If you look at the personnel of the Jets, they have all the elements...the questionable one up till now was Sanchez.

[Fafnir]

Pats need to get a true deep threat and help on the line on both sides of the ball. Their offensive/defensive lines weren't good enough in that game. Other than Wilfork no one really commands the line on defense.

[guava_wrench]

Best season of his career? I totally disagree.

And if Sanchez does win the Super Bowl then I'd have to say Sanchez passes Brady as the better quarterback.  

That's just plain silly.  That would also rank Snachez of Brees, Manning and any other QB who doesn't win the Super Bowl.  Only one team wins every year.  

Right. The QB that went on the road and outplayed every other QB on their turf and then won the Super Bowl would have to be considered the best QB in football. Exactly. Kinda like when Brady did it and Montana did it people started to consider them the best QBs in football.

Or maybe more like Trent Dilfer. (someone has probably mentioned this already)

Montana was considered the best because of continued excellence, not because of a playoff run.