Time to trade Brady?

[Donoghus]

They went 14-2 in a what was generally considered at the beginning of the season as a "bridge year".  

You don't go out and trade a franchise quarterback when a team in on the rise, which believe it or not, the Patriots are right now.  They have one of the youngest defenses in the league that will go into next year with an added year of experience at their fingertypes.  On the offensive side of the ball, they had two outstanding rookie tight ends who will no longer be rookies next year.  And to boot, they have two 1st rounders, two 2nd rounders, and two 3rd rounders.  The LAST thing they need is more draft picks right now.

They don't need to pull a Herschel Walker type deal to become relevant like the Cowboys did in the late 80s.  They're already there.  And you sure as heck don't do it with Brady.

They're not that far off. Again, let's reflect on the fact they made the divisional round and had HCA in a bridge year!!! They may not match 14-2 next year with another tough schedule in '11 (at least on paper) but they'll be very much in the hunt barring some major injuries.  

[jasonditz]

Assuming it is "time" to make this move, is it even possible? Who do you trade him to? What do you demand back? What even is fair value for a franchise QB coming off a record-breaking season?

[Eja117]

They went 14-2 in a what was generally considered at the beginning of the season as a "bridge year".  

You don't go out and trade a franchise quarterback when a team in on the rise, which believe it or not, the Patriots are right now.  They have one of the youngest defenses in the league that will go into next year with an added year of experience at their fingertypes.  On the offensive side of the ball, they had two outstanding rookie tight ends who will no longer be rookies next year.  And to boot, they have two 1st rounders, two 2nd rounders, and two 3rd rounders.  The LAST thing they need is more draft picks right now.

They don't need to pull a Herschel Walker type deal to become relevant like the Cowboys did in the late 80s.  They're already there.  And you sure as heck don't do it with Brady.

They're not that far off. Again, let's reflect on the fact they made the divisional round and had HCA in a bridge year!!! They may not match 14-2 next year with another tough schedule in '11 (at least on paper) but they'll be very much in the hunt barring some major injuries.  

They were supposedly on the way up in 2007 too, but Brady got outplayed by a Manning that year too.

I agree with you about the draft picks. I thought some of Roy's ideas way back on page one or two made the most sense.

[rondohondo]

They went 14-2 in a what was generally considered at the beginning of the season as a "bridge year".  

You don't go out and trade a franchise quarterback when a team in on the rise, which believe it or not, the Patriots are right now.  They have one of the youngest defenses in the league that will go into next year with an added year of experience at their fingertypes.  On the offensive side of the ball, they had two outstanding rookie tight ends who will no longer be rookies next year.  And to boot, they have two 1st rounders, two 2nd rounders, and two 3rd rounders.  The LAST thing they need is more draft picks right now.

They don't need to pull a Herschel Walker type deal to become relevant like the Cowboys did in the late 80s.  They're already there.  And you sure as heck don't do it with Brady.

They're not that far off. Again, let's reflect on the fact they made the divisional round and had HCA in a bridge year!!! They may not match 14-2 next year with another tough schedule in '11 (at least on paper) but they'll be very much in the hunt barring some major injuries.  

They were supposedly on the way up in 2007 too, but Brady got outplayed by a Manning that year too.

I agree with you about the draft picks. I thought some of Roy's ideas way back on page one or two made the most sense.

how were they supposedly on the way up in 2007? That defense was clearly on its last legs with Bruschi, Seau, Harrison as the leaders .

That is why the Pats had to draft all the defensive players we have now .

Brady was under constant pressure in that game just like the jets game, but still gave the pats the lead with 2 mins left.

Manning needed a miracle play to win that game and he got it with the tyrie catch.

[Donoghus]

They went 14-2 in a what was generally considered at the beginning of the season as a "bridge year".  

You don't go out and trade a franchise quarterback when a team in on the rise, which believe it or not, the Patriots are right now.  They have one of the youngest defenses in the league that will go into next year with an added year of experience at their fingertypes.  On the offensive side of the ball, they had two outstanding rookie tight ends who will no longer be rookies next year.  And to boot, they have two 1st rounders, two 2nd rounders, and two 3rd rounders.  The LAST thing they need is more draft picks right now.

They don't need to pull a Herschel Walker type deal to become relevant like the Cowboys did in the late 80s.  They're already there.  And you sure as heck don't do it with Brady.

They're not that far off. Again, let's reflect on the fact they made the divisional round and had HCA in a bridge year!!! They may not match 14-2 next year with another tough schedule in '11 (at least on paper) but they'll be very much in the hunt barring some major injuries.  

They were supposedly on the way up in 2007 too, but Brady got outplayed by a Manning that year too.

I agree with you about the draft picks. I thought some of Roy's ideas way back on page one or two made the most sense.

Really?  That '07 team was considered a "team on the way up" and not a stop-gap "win now" team with 30+ veterans ladened all over that defense such as Bruschi, Colvin, Harrison, Seau?  C'mon, please cite me one reference from '07 that considered that '07 team as a team on the way up?

Belichick took his perceived weaknesses from coming up just short in '06 against the Colts and essentially went "all-in" through his offseason moves acquiring Moss, Welker, and Thomas.

This most recent incarnation of the Patriots was built a very different way than the '07 bunch.  The age group of those two defenses alone was quite different.

[Eja117]

They went 14-2 in a what was generally considered at the beginning of the season as a "bridge year".  

You don't go out and trade a franchise quarterback when a team in on the rise, which believe it or not, the Patriots are right now.  They have one of the youngest defenses in the league that will go into next year with an added year of experience at their fingertypes.  On the offensive side of the ball, they had two outstanding rookie tight ends who will no longer be rookies next year.  And to boot, they have two 1st rounders, two 2nd rounders, and two 3rd rounders.  The LAST thing they need is more draft picks right now.

They don't need to pull a Herschel Walker type deal to become relevant like the Cowboys did in the late 80s.  They're already there.  And you sure as heck don't do it with Brady.

They're not that far off. Again, let's reflect on the fact they made the divisional round and had HCA in a bridge year!!! They may not match 14-2 next year with another tough schedule in '11 (at least on paper) but they'll be very much in the hunt barring some major injuries.  

They were supposedly on the way up in 2007 too, but Brady got outplayed by a Manning that year too.

I agree with you about the draft picks. I thought some of Roy's ideas way back on page one or two made the most sense.

how were they supposedly on the way up in 2007? That defense was clearly on its last legs with Bruschi, Seau, Harrison as the leaders .

That is why the Pats had to draft all the defensive players we have now .

Brady was under constant pressure in that game just like the jets game, but still gave the pats the lead with 2 mins left.

Manning needed a miracle play to win that game and he got it with the tyrie catch.

Escaped a sack.  When was the last time Brady did that? Living memory?

[Eja117]

They went 14-2 in a what was generally considered at the beginning of the season as a "bridge year".  

You don't go out and trade a franchise quarterback when a team in on the rise, which believe it or not, the Patriots are right now.  They have one of the youngest defenses in the league that will go into next year with an added year of experience at their fingertypes.  On the offensive side of the ball, they had two outstanding rookie tight ends who will no longer be rookies next year.  And to boot, they have two 1st rounders, two 2nd rounders, and two 3rd rounders.  The LAST thing they need is more draft picks right now.

They don't need to pull a Herschel Walker type deal to become relevant like the Cowboys did in the late 80s.  They're already there.  And you sure as heck don't do it with Brady.

They're not that far off. Again, let's reflect on the fact they made the divisional round and had HCA in a bridge year!!! They may not match 14-2 next year with another tough schedule in '11 (at least on paper) but they'll be very much in the hunt barring some major injuries.  

They were supposedly on the way up in 2007 too, but Brady got outplayed by a Manning that year too.

I agree with you about the draft picks. I thought some of Roy's ideas way back on page one or two made the most sense.

Really?  That '07 team was considered a "team on the way up" and not a stop-gap "win now" team with 30+ veterans ladened all over that defense such as Bruschi, Colvin, Harrison, Seau?  C'mon, please cite me one reference from '07 that considered that '07 team as a team on the way up?

Belichick took his perceived weaknesses from coming up just short in '06 against the Colts and essentially went "all-in" through his offseason moves acquiring Moss, Welker, and Thomas.

This most recent incarnation of the Patriots was built a very different way than the '07 bunch.  The age group of those two defenses alone was quite different.

Oh. I didn't realize I was the only guy that expected the 08 team to be the best team in the league and the team to be the best in the league for years to come. If we were going to be bad we should have traded in chips right then. Which we did with Seymour.

[Donoghus]

They went 14-2 in a what was generally considered at the beginning of the season as a "bridge year".  

You don't go out and trade a franchise quarterback when a team in on the rise, which believe it or not, the Patriots are right now.  They have one of the youngest defenses in the league that will go into next year with an added year of experience at their fingertypes.  On the offensive side of the ball, they had two outstanding rookie tight ends who will no longer be rookies next year.  And to boot, they have two 1st rounders, two 2nd rounders, and two 3rd rounders.  The LAST thing they need is more draft picks right now.

They don't need to pull a Herschel Walker type deal to become relevant like the Cowboys did in the late 80s.  They're already there.  And you sure as heck don't do it with Brady.

They're not that far off. Again, let's reflect on the fact they made the divisional round and had HCA in a bridge year!!! They may not match 14-2 next year with another tough schedule in '11 (at least on paper) but they'll be very much in the hunt barring some major injuries.  

They were supposedly on the way up in 2007 too, but Brady got outplayed by a Manning that year too.

I agree with you about the draft picks. I thought some of Roy's ideas way back on page one or two made the most sense.

Really?  That '07 team was considered a "team on the way up" and not a stop-gap "win now" team with 30+ veterans ladened all over that defense such as Bruschi, Colvin, Harrison, Seau?  C'mon, please cite me one reference from '07 that considered that '07 team as a team on the way up?

Belichick took his perceived weaknesses from coming up just short in '06 against the Colts and essentially went "all-in" through his offseason moves acquiring Moss, Welker, and Thomas.

This most recent incarnation of the Patriots was built a very different way than the '07 bunch.  The age group of those two defenses alone was quite different.

Oh. I didn't realize I was the only guy that expected the 08 team to be the best team in the league and the team to be the best in the league for years to come. If we were going to be bad we should have traded in chips right then. Which we did with Seymour.

But you're not addressing how they were considered a "team on the up"? That's what I'm addressing here.  Everyone knew they were a great team and set for the present going into '08 after SB XLII but I don't think people were saying they were a team on the rise, not with that defense.  That team wasn't without question marks, even coming off a 16-0 regular season the season before. 

They're weren't a "team on the up" and they weren't built to be back in '07 & '08.  For lack of a better term, they were "all in".

[winsomme]

All I know is it is difficult to discuss whether or not something is a crapshoot when I don't know what constitutes a crapshoot for you.

and "anything 50/50 and below" is really still too broad a range.

anyway, I think Belichick has acquitted himself well with his first round picks. So as I've said, if he thought he could get a franchise QB in this draft with Locker or Mallett I would take it out of the "crapshoot" category...

  Haha. Not only did you bring up the word crapshoot in the discussion, but you gave it a reasonable definition when you did. Discussions like this are littered with words like possible or probably or likely that don't have set definitions. There's no way either of us have any idea how likely it is that BB could recognize a franchise qb in the first round. I wouldn't trade an MVP caliber for that random chance but clearly you would.

I don't really care for the feigned blog laughter that doesn't really apply to anything or add anything to the discussion.

It started to seem during the discussion that you were being very liberal in the way you applied the term "crapshoot" so I asked you to identify its meaning for yourself.

as I suspected, you have a very broad range for it in terms of what "likelihoods" fall under its umbrella.

The reasonable definition for "crapshoot" IMO is in the "highly unlikely" neighborhood.

and once again here I am trying to untwist my actual position from what you have tried to twist it into and then argue against.

I guess the question is whether you do it on purpose for your own amusement or you actually don't understand the point I'm making.

and now neither of us can assess likelihood? You've spent this whole thread telling me how unlikely all of this is relating to trading Brady and any successful plans at trying to replace him.

If BB says he believes he has a franchise QB at #16 in this draft, it's not random. It would be based on his scouting of the player. The thing that would make it not "highly unlikely" (ie "crapshoot") that he is right would be his track record in assessing talent in the first round which as I've pointed out is quite good.

and again, you wouldn't be trading Brady for this chance. You'd be trading Brady because another team offered a terrific package to get him...

plus, how many times do I have to state that I'm not advocating for trading Brady. I'm simply pointing out that it is not as outrageous as you seem to believe.

[BballTim]

every team could conceivably contend. That's life in the NFL. The question is whether the team trading for Brady is as good at evaluating their ability to win as Belichick's.

Obviously he wouldn't trade Brady to a team that he expected to be turned into a contender in the year that he would be getting picks back.

  Sure, just like he didn't expect Oakland to be any good this year.

Belichick in any deal would be banking on either a team with a weak front office or coaching situation and/or a team gambling on Brady's impact to the point where they are giving up too much talent and picks in return.

  Key word: gambling.

I wouldn't call that a crapshoot...I would call that kind of move a risky but examined....

  Yes, as I've stated, you're trading away an MVP caliber quarterback for a risky move.

you seem to be equating risk with "crapshoot". every move has some degree of risk...are they all crapshoots?

  Well, you have to consider likelihood. Could a team fall completely apart with Brady at the helm? Yes. Is it a probable event? No. So crapshoot. Can a quarterback that you draft become a franchise qb? Yes. Is it likely? No. So, again, crapshoot. Which of those events do you think are more likely than not to occur? Is it more likely than not that one or the other will occur in a given year? You claim that I equate  risk with crapshoot. You don't seem to differentiate between possible and likely.

as for Mallett or Locker, if it would be a crapshoot then why scout...why do any scouting?

  Haha. Do you think that every draft pick BB makes works out perfectly? If not, why do any scouting?

again, you make your own arguments better than you make others for them...

when did I say all BBs draft picks work out perfectly?

maybe if you actually stick to what my arguments actually are and stop moving the goal posts around we could actually progress here.

I'm tired of having to point out how you arguing about positions I haven't taken.

  You asked why they should do any scouting if drafting is a crapshoot. I merely pointed out that it is, and they do.

If Belichick has a better draft record than anyone else then it's not a crapshoot.

  Sure it is, unless he's picking the best player available most of the time. And you can't say he's better than most at picking great qbs in the 1st round as he's never done it, unless he did with the Browns.

[BballTim]

All I know is it is difficult to discuss whether or not something is a crapshoot when I don't know what constitutes a crapshoot for you.

and "anything 50/50 and below" is really still too broad a range.

anyway, I think Belichick has acquitted himself well with his first round picks. So as I've said, if he thought he could get a franchise QB in this draft with Locker or Mallett I would take it out of the "crapshoot" category...

  Haha. Not only did you bring up the word crapshoot in the discussion, but you gave it a reasonable definition when you did. Discussions like this are littered with words like possible or probably or likely that don't have set definitions. There's no way either of us have any idea how likely it is that BB could recognize a franchise qb in the first round. I wouldn't trade an MVP caliber for that random chance but clearly you would.

It started to seem during the discussion that you were being very liberal in the way you applied the term "crapshoot" so I asked you to identify its meaning for yourself.

as I suspected, you have a very broad range for it in terms of what "likelihoods" fall under its umbrella.

The reasonable definition for "crapshoot" IMO is in the "highly unlikely" neighborhood.

  Ok, the easy way to solve this is to go to a dictionary website:

  Definition of CRAPSHOOT
: something (as a business venture) that has an unpredictable outcome

  or:

1.
Informal . anything unpredictable, risky, or problematical; gamble.

  Neither of these say anything that resembles "highly unlikely". My "liberal" application of the word seems to be appropriate.

and now neither of us can assess likelihood? You've spent this whole thread telling me how unlikely all of this is relating to trading Brady and any successful plans at trying to replace him.

  Clearly neither of us can say with any certainty that qb that BB drafts in the 1st round will become a franchise player. He has no history of doing so in the past and most qbs drafted in the top round don't come close to approaching the level of success you're looking for. Not to mention that there's no guarantee that such a player won't be drafted before the Pats pick.

If BB says he believes he has a franchise QB at #16 in this draft, it's not random. It would be based on his scouting of the player. The thing that would make it not "highly unlikely" (ie "crapshoot") that he is right would be his track record in assessing talent in the first round which as I've pointed out is quite good.

  Everyone that drafts a qb in the first round scouts that player. Every team that drafts a qb in the first round expects that qb to become a productive starter. That doesn't seem to increase the likelihood of it happening.

and again, you wouldn't be trading Brady for this chance. You'd be trading Brady because another team offered a terrific package to get him...

  A terrific package would be a couple of top level players and some draft picks, but not a top-flite quarterback. Such a trade would lessen the Pat's chances to win the title without a suitable replacement for Brady, an MVP-level qb.

plus, how many times do I have to state that I'm not advocating for trading Brady. I'm simply pointing out that it is not as outrageous as you seem to believe.

  I guess as often as I have to disagree with this point. No team would ever trade a qb like Brady unless they had a pretty lock solid way to replace him. That means like a Steve Young on their roster, not pinning their hopes to any of A) the team that drafts Brady doing poorly enough to yield a good draft pick, B) no team drafting before you picking the qb that you want, or C) drafting a rookie qb and expecting them to become a franchise qb. You're depending on at least two of these events and likely all three. All of them are crapshoots.

[winsomme]

All I know is it is difficult to discuss whether or not something is a crapshoot when I don't know what constitutes a crapshoot for you.

and "anything 50/50 and below" is really still too broad a range.

anyway, I think Belichick has acquitted himself well with his first round picks. So as I've said, if he thought he could get a franchise QB in this draft with Locker or Mallett I would take it out of the "crapshoot" category...

  Haha. Not only did you bring up the word crapshoot in the discussion, but you gave it a reasonable definition when you did. Discussions like this are littered with words like possible or probably or likely that don't have set definitions. There's no way either of us have any idea how likely it is that BB could recognize a franchise qb in the first round. I wouldn't trade an MVP caliber for that random chance but clearly you would.

It started to seem during the discussion that you were being very liberal in the way you applied the term "crapshoot" so I asked you to identify its meaning for yourself.

as I suspected, you have a very broad range for it in terms of what "likelihoods" fall under its umbrella.

The reasonable definition for "crapshoot" IMO is in the "highly unlikely" neighborhood.

  Ok, the easy way to solve this is to go to a dictionary website:

  Definition of CRAPSHOOT
: something (as a business venture) that has an unpredictable outcome

  or:

1.
Informal . anything unpredictable, risky, or problematical; gamble.

  Neither of these say anything that resembles "highly unlikely". My "liberal" application of the word seems to be appropriate.

and now neither of us can assess likelihood? You've spent this whole thread telling me how unlikely all of this is relating to trading Brady and any successful plans at trying to replace him.

  Clearly neither of us can say with any certainty that qb that BB drafts in the 1st round will become a franchise player. He has no history of doing so in the past and most qbs drafted in the top round don't come close to approaching the level of success you're looking for. Not to mention that there's no guarantee that such a player won't be drafted before the Pats pick.

If BB says he believes he has a franchise QB at #16 in this draft, it's not random. It would be based on his scouting of the player. The thing that would make it not "highly unlikely" (ie "crapshoot") that he is right would be his track record in assessing talent in the first round which as I've pointed out is quite good.

  Everyone that drafts a qb in the first round scouts that player. Every team that drafts a qb in the first round expects that qb to become a productive starter. That doesn't seem to increase the likelihood of it happening.

and again, you wouldn't be trading Brady for this chance. You'd be trading Brady because another team offered a terrific package to get him...

  A terrific package would be a couple of top level players and some draft picks, but not a top-flite quarterback. Such a trade would lessen the Pat's chances to win the title without a suitable replacement for Brady, an MVP-level qb.

that being the case, everything is a crapshoot because sports by its very nature is unpredictable.

Look at Sunday's game. We have our MVP QB, that you would never even think of trading unless you had a lock for another MVP-level QB, running a 14-2 team with home field advantage through the playoffs playing a team they demolished only weeks before and what does that buy you?  A CRAPSHOOT.

So, if it's all a crapshoot then, why not trade Brady (playing devil's advocate)?

Trading Brady is a crapshoot and keeping Brady is a crapshoot, right?

I think we both know that "crapshoot" has a negative connotation, but if you want to apply it to any situation without attaching any degree of risk to it, then maybe we should just not use it because it does not appear to be helpful in this discussion.

also, if we aren' able as fans to assess degrees of likelihood for things that by their nature are unpredictable then sports blogging wouldn't exist. That's what we do here. I mean, even in the part where you say we can't guage likelihood that a BB QB pick would pan out you immediately do just that...

 I guess as often as I have to disagree with this point. No team would ever trade a qb like Brady unless they had a pretty lock solid way to replace him. That means like a Steve Young on their roster, not pinning their hopes to any of A) the team that drafts Brady doing poorly enough to yield a good draft pick, B) no team drafting before you picking the qb that you want, or C) drafting a rookie qb and expecting them to become a franchise qb. You're depending on at least two of these events and likely all three. All of them are crapshoots.

So the question is how often are you going to misrepresent my position on whether I would personally trade Brady in order to make that point that no team would ever do it....

[winsomme]

Everyone that drafts a qb in the first round scouts that player. Every team that drafts a qb in the first round expects that qb to become a productive starter. That doesn't seem to increase the likelihood of it happening.

If scouting didn't increase the likelihood that you get a productive starter, then you wouldn't do it.

[screwedupmaniac]

You've gotta be kidding me, what would we trade him for? We need a new offensive line, the cure is absolutely NOT getting rid of one of the best qb's in the game.

[BballTim]

Everyone that drafts a qb in the first round scouts that player. Every team that drafts a qb in the first round expects that qb to become a productive starter. That doesn't seem to increase the likelihood of it happening.

If scouting didn't increase the likelihood that you get a productive starter, then you wouldn't do it.

  I was saying that every team expects the qb that they draft in the first round to be a productive starter. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.