2017 Butler Watch: Love Me Tender

H78

Fists of Millennial Fury!
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2009
4,613
I'm asking you to give credence to your hypotheses that a) the Saints have been focused solely on Butler and b) that there must be some sort of backdoor deal involved with the Pats.

That's not trolling; that's simply not accepting statements made without supporting evidence
A) They didn't pay top dollar to any other CB that could be had for less money without giving up a pick.

B) I said it SEEMS like there may be a backdoor deal, because media reports SEEM to indicate, Yaz - ******SEEM****** to indicate - that the player that they're pursuing above other players is Butler. I think it's fair to assume that because they're bending over backwards SEEMINGLY trying to make space for Butler.

Here's where the cranky SoSH posters can really damper threads. You simply WONDER, out loud, about something, and within minutes the overly-aggressive types jump in demanding proof of your musings. Like, get off my ass, man - this isn't a fucking trial.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
Do some people really think the saints had a shot at Gilmore?

NE had a lot more cap room and is a much better team. Unless Gilmore really likes crawfish and King cake how exactly was NO going to beat a NE offer?
 

Curt S Loew

SoSH Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
6,516
Shantytown
I don't. Look, you asked why I think it's strange. I explained why I think so. They're clearing space to pay top-dollar to Butler. It appears he's not going to settle for anything less. If they sign him for more than Gilmore, the question becomes why not sign Gilmore and save your pick?

It just seems like there's some back-room agreement between BB and SP about this deal. On the surface, it's pretty confusing considering all the hoops NO is jumping through between clearing space and trading a/several high pick(s).

It just feels like NO is giving up a lot when somewhat comparable players could likely - when the dust settles - have been had for less.
Because the Patriots did.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
A) They didn't pay top dollar to any other CB that could be had for less money without giving up a pick.

B) I said it SEEMS like there may be a backdoor deal, because media reports SEEM to indicate, Yaz - ******SEEM****** to indicate - that the player that they're pursuing above other players is Butler. I think it's fair to assume that because they're bending over backwards SEEMINGLY trying to make space for Butler.

Here's where the cranky SoSH posters can really damper threads. You simply WONDER, out loud, about something, and within minutes the overly-aggressive types jump in demanding proof of your musings. Like, get off my ass, man - this isn't a fucking trial.
"Cranky?" Not seeing that at all.
 

Pandemonium67

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
5,575
Lesterland
It's certainly possible the Saints considered Gilmore, but the Pats moved quickly and aggressively to sign him. Not to mention that Gilmore, who has seen the Pats closeup a hundred times, preferred the Pats to anyone else.
 

wilked

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,046
As a point of reference, Hightower made $7.724M on the first four years of his rookie deal.

Butler, if he plays 2017 at the $3.91M tender, will have made $5.440M in his first four years - plus he has earned performance based incentives. I am guessing that gets him to around $6M total for his first four years.

Hightower then made $7.751M with his 5th year option. That totals $15.475M in his first 5 years.

Butler will be a UFA for his 5th year. The franchise tag is somewhere $14-15M. But even if he "only" got Logan Ryan money - $10M - he would make roughly the same as Hightower his first 5 years in the league.

Hightower was a first round pick. Butler was an undrafted free agent.

Just thought this was interesting context. And further proof that nothing about his situation is "unfair".
To be fair though, that is like saying the guy who started with $4,760, and put it into a 1 year CD earning 5% (ending with $5,000), is equivalent to the guy who started with $625, went to Vegas, put it on black, and let it ride twice (ending with $5,000). Yes, they are in the same spot at the end of the day, but one of the guy carried a ton of risk and had a significantly lower EV

It's a stretch of an analogy but my point is that Butler is probably feeling like he has to carry all the risk in the player/team relationship - a point that is very true, and likely is at the center of this negotiation / dance
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
Initially, the Patriots took on higher risk to give Butler a roster spot than they did in comparison with giving Hightower a spot.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Initially, the Patriots took on higher risk to give Butler a roster spot than they did in comparison with giving Hightower a spot.
The NFL thinks the value of the 52nd and 53rd roster spots is so low that they don't even count against the cap. Butler has never received any bonus money, so the roster spot is the only thing the Patriots have risked.

I don't think this argument is very strong.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The NFL thinks the value of the 52nd and 53rd roster spots is so low that they don't even count against the cap. Butler has never received any bonus money, so the roster spot is the only thing the Patriots have risked.

I don't think this argument is very strong.
They only don't count against the cap in the off-season. Once the season starts, all 53, plus the practice squad, plus PUP, plus IR. Everybody counts, even dead soldiers.

Roster spots have enormous value, even if only in opportunity cost; it is why teams will often move someone to IR.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,070
Hingham, MA
The NFL thinks the value of the 52nd and 53rd roster spots is so low that they don't even count against the cap. Butler has never received any bonus money, so the roster spot is the only thing the Patriots have risked.

I don't think this argument is very strong.
What was the risk Butler took? Giving up the french fry job to try out for the NFL?
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
Giving a player a roster spot is taking a risk on that player, mainly because you are cutting someone else.

Last year, the Patriots cut CreVon Leblanc as part of the final roster cuts (who was originally signed by the Patriots as an undrafted free agent much like Butler). He was claimed by the Bears and played 13 games, starting 9 of them.

Now, I am not saying that the Patriots lost Leblanc because they retained Butler, but I am just saying that there are only so many roster spots available and sometimes organizations have to make tough choices. By retaining Butler back in 2014, the Patriots had to cut someone else from the roster.

Electing to retain a first round draft pick on the roster (such as keeping Hightower) versus retaining an undrafted free agent on the roster (such as keeping Butler) is significantly less risky to the organization. Because of this, and because of this only, it completely makes sense that Butler's rookie contract would include more risk for the player than Hightower's rookie contract would.

At the time they both signed their rookie contracts, Butler was a riskier bet for the team.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
So you agree with the original point by wilked that Butler has taken on more financial risk than Hightower.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,070
Hingham, MA
So you agree with the original point by wilked that Butler has taken on more financial risk than Hightower.
Isn't that completely out of the player's control? I am sure Butler would have liked to be a first round pick too. There is no financial risk the player takes on in his rookie year. With Butler, in his 2nd year (2015), he hadn't proved anything, so he still wasn't taking on risk. In his 3rd year (2016), then he was finally taking on some risk - he had proven himself as a very good player, but if he got significantly hurt in 2016, he'd never see serious money. Which is why he was negotiating with the Pats before the 2016 season. Same story for this upcoming season.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
So you agree with the original point by wilked that Butler has taken on more financial risk than Hightower.
Yes, but he did so because the Patriots took on more financial risk by offering Butler a contract (in comparison to how much risk they took on in offering Hightower a contract).

Butler was a riskier player. Therefore his contract reflects more risk.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Yes, but he did so because the Patriots took on more financial risk by offering Butler a contract (in comparison to how much risk they took on in offering Hightower a contract).

Butler was a riskier player. Therefore his contract reflects more risk.
I think you're confusing terms here. The Patriots took on almost no financial risk signing Butler, because nothing was guaranteed, they could cut him at any point, and they are required to pay out that money to somebody - Butler's contract (and by that I mean rookie minimum to slot 53) is essentially sunk cost.

There was opportunity cost (as displayed in the CreVeon example) - and that is risk, but not really financial.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Seriously I think some of you just like to argue and feel the need to "win".

The initial point was from Butler's pov he had taken on the financial risk. I really don't see what's so controversial or debatable about that.


And you can argue maybe the Pats took on risk with the roster spot. Although there are more spots in the off season.
But financially, they took on more risk with Hightower. If he sucked or got hurt it cost the Patriots a lot more than Butler. Some of that may be offset by being "safer " bit Butler would cost little financial if they cir him.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
I'm confused. When exactly did Butler take on risk? When he signed as a free agent? When he went to NO? What risk did he take on other than the risk of injury that every NFL player takes on?
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
The initial point was from Butler's pov he had taken on the financial risk. I really don't see what's so controversial or debatable about that.
Wilked's original post was in response to a previous post. The previous post was a comparison of how much Butler earned in his rookie contract versus Hightower.

No one is denying or debating whether or not Butler took on more risk than Hightower did.

What we are pointing out is that it is completely logical and reasonable that Butler would have had to carry more risk than Hightower carried. Butler was an undrafted free agent. Hightower was a first round draft pick.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
Seriously I think some of you just like to argue and feel the need to "win".

The initial point was from Butler's pov he had taken on the financial risk. I really don't see what's so controversial or debatable about that.


And you can argue maybe the Pats took on risk with the roster spot. Although there are more spots in the off season.
But financially, they took on more risk with Hightower. If he sucked or got hurt it cost the Patriots a lot more than Butler. Some of that may be offset by being "safer " bit Butler would cost little financial if they cir him.
We don't love SoSH for the flowers and sunshine. But I do think you are exactly correct. I suspect Butler's thought process is: "I'm grateful to the Patriots for taking a chance on me. But then I went and proved I was one of the top corners in the game and they still treated me like I was on the practice squad. But I figured that once my rookie contract was up they'd pay me. Instead they give me 3.9 million and use that first round draft pick to artificially lower my value."

Yes, that's part of the CBA but it's not human nature. Costly punishment is when people make choices that hurt themselves in order to hurt (punish) others. In variants of the prisoners dilemma people use costly punishment to harm defectors, which results in cooperative equilibriums. It's not something people choose through rational thought, but a basic prosocial trait that is part of human nature: if you see someone act selfishly you get upset and are willing to sacrifice in order to punish the person being selfish. In sports, that's why we see players reject a "disrespectful" offer from one team only to sign for even less somewhere else.

Setting that aside, Butler and the Patriots have earned the opportunity cost of a 53rd roster spot many times over.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
I think you're confusing terms here. The Patriots took on almost no financial risk signing Butler, because nothing was guaranteed, they could cut him at any point, and they are required to pay out that money to somebody - Butler's contract (and by that I mean rookie minimum to slot 53) is essentially sunk cost.

There was opportunity cost (as displayed in the CreVeon example) - and that is risk, but not really financial.
Seriously I think some of you just like to argue and feel the need to "win".

The initial point was from Butler's pov he had taken on the financial risk. I really don't see what's so controversial or debatable about that.


And you can argue maybe the Pats took on risk with the roster spot. Although there are more spots in the off season.
But financially, they took on more risk with Hightower. If he sucked or got hurt it cost the Patriots a lot more than Butler. Some of that may be offset by being "safer " bit Butler would cost little financial if they cir him.
Saying that the Patriots took on financial risk was obviously the wrong term.

I still think that while Butler may feel like he currently carries all the risk in the team/player relationship, the team carried the burden of the risk earlier in his career and that risk was due, more than anything else, to Butler being an undrafted free agent.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,070
Hingham, MA
Again, the only year that Butler has taken on any risk whatsoever was 2016. He opted to not sign a longer term deal after the 2015 season because he thought he was worth more than the Patriots offered. He passed up the security of (probably) being set for life because he figured he could make more than what they were offering. And it seems as if he is willing to do the same in 2017.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
I hope if the Patriots extend Butler that they give him an opt-out clause ... because that debate will make this one look like Joanie and Chaci disagreeing on a flavor for their malt
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
9,092
Duval
I hope if the Patriots extend Butler that they give him an opt-out clause ... because that debate will make this one look like Joanie and Chaci disagreeing on a flavor for their malt
But you said never cross the streams, Egon!
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,649
Arkansas
butler needs to sign his tender its 3m $$$ he will cash in next season and if i was the saints i wouild give NE 11 for butler
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Seriously I think some of you just like to argue and feel the need to "win".

The initial point was from Butler's pov he had taken on the financial risk. I really don't see what's so controversial or debatable about that.


And you can argue maybe the Pats took on risk with the roster spot. Although there are more spots in the off season.
But financially, they took on more risk with Hightower. If he sucked or got hurt it cost the Patriots a lot more than Butler. Some of that may be offset by being "safer " bit Butler would cost little financial if they cir him.
I don't think any of us can speak to Butler's POV, but the only risk Butler took was the possibility that a different team would give him better development opportunities. Note: financial opportunities are not part of that risk. No one would've paid more for Butler through this year and no one wouldn't have tendered him and no one would offer him an extension that doesn't account for his RFA price this year. That said, the Patriots also only took on the risk associated with the fact that they could've brought in a different UDFA. In other words, both sides assumed minimal risk.

Now, Butler had a very risky position. But, that wasn't his choice nor was it the Patriots' choice. That was a product of his not being drafted. But, it's important to frame this properly. Butler did not take on risk, risk was what he was stuck with because he wasn't good enough in college to get himself drafted.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I don't think any of us can speak to Butler's POV, but the only risk Butler took was the possibility that a different team would give him better development opportunities. Note: financial opportunities are not part of that risk. No one would've paid more for Butler through this year and no one wouldn't have tendered him and no one would offer him an extension that doesn't account for his RFA price this year. That said, the Patriots also only took on the risk associated with the fact that they could've brought in a different UDFA. In other words, both sides assumed minimal risk.

Now, Butler had a very risky position. But, that wasn't his choice nor was it the Patriots' choice. That was a product of his not being drafted. But, it's important to frame this properly. Butler did not take on risk, risk was what he was stuck with because he wasn't good enough in college to get himself drafted.
Acknowledging that you said we don't know Butlers POV, and splitting hairs, but...

1) Only two people REALLY know if anyone would have paid more for Butler in his undrafted position. He might have had other offers (though perhaps there was some story about them being desperate and the Pats were indeed the only one kicking the tires) that were worth more up front and decided that an apprenticeship with the Patriots was worth more in the long term than a couple of more dollars with say Cleveland. He might have decided that a smaller undrafted signing bonus was a small price to pay to come to a team that was in need of quality corner play (if he did make that assessment - then good for him). We truly don't know what was on the table for him when he initially signed with the Patriots as an undrafted free agent. If he did have an alternative to the Patriots and chose them as his best route to long term development and money - then points for believing in himself that way... risk be damned.
2) If he is playing at the level has for the Patriots - he clearly was good enough to get drafted. He is being talked about as tradeable for a first round pick after all. Maybe he didn't show well enough in college? Maybe he didn't work hard enough when her was younger (I don't know this to be true or false)? Maybe he didn't train enough for the combine - guys with the uber agents get personal trainers to ensure their combine showing is maximized. His agent might not have had the resources or knowledge to have him train properly? Maybe a late bloomer? Maybe it took a better coaching staff to identify a way for his skill set to be maximized? Maybe a lot of things, but there are scenarios where he can be considered to be either more or less responsible for the risk predicament he is in.

I'm not banging on you for your points... just that so much of what we are thinking of as fans with regard to this situation is rooted in a lot of assumptions - and we just don't know what kinds of decisions led the two (now three?) parties to be where they are in this moment.
 
Last edited:

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Yes, poor phrasing on my part.
Should have simply said players like Hightower had more financial security than Butler over the first few years of their contract. That is the way the system works for several reasons.

As for what he may have been paid by another team. Who knows? We don't know what someone may have offered last off-season or this year. Plenty of pairs have received big deals when they still had time on their current deal.
But each situation is different and who knows what the situation would be of Butler signed elsewhere as an UDFA.

And that's not criticism in the way the Pats have handled this. I have no issue with how they've done it.
It's tough to criticize either side at this point and with what little information we have.


Looking forward, I'd think the longer this goes on the better it looks that Butler will be in NE at least one more year.
 

lithos2003

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
361
Acknowledging that you said we don't know Butlers POV, and splitting hairs, but...

1) Only two people REALLY know if anyone would have paid more for Butler in his undrafted position. He might have had other offers (though perhaps there was some story about them being desperate and the Pats were indeed the only one kicking the tires) that were worth more up front and decided that an apprenticeship with the Patriots was worth more in the long term than a couple of more dollars with say Cleveland. He might have decided that a smaller undrafted signing bonus was a small price to pay to come to a team that was in need of quality corner play (if he did make that assessment - then good for him). We truly don't know what was on the table for him when he initially signed with the Patriots as an undrafted free agent. If he did have an alternative to the Patriots and chose them as his best route to long term development and money - then points for believing in himself that way... risk be damned.
2) If he is playing at the level has for the Patriots - he clearly was good enough to get drafted. He is being talked about as tradeable for a first round pick after all. Maybe he didn't show well enough in college? Maybe he didn't work hard enough when her was younger (I don't know this to be true or false)? Maybe he didn't train enough for the combine - guys with the uber agents get personal trainers to ensure their combine showing is maximized. His agent might not have had the resources or knowledge to have him train properly? Maybe a late bloomer? Maybe it took a better coaching staff to identify a way for his skill set to be maximized? Maybe a lot of things, but there are scenarios where he can be considered to be either more or less responsible for the risk predicament he is in.

I'm not banging on you for your points... just that so much of what we are thinking of as fans with regard to this situation is rooted in a lot of assumptions - and we just don't know what kinds of decisions led the two (now three?) parties to be where they are in this moment.
For the first point, see this post from a few pages ago - the Patriots were his only shot:

So you'd agree, then, that Derek Simpson is working whatever angles he can to gin up Butler's market? I wouldn't imagine he'd rely on a single tactic in that regard.

I'm coming around to the idea that he's not an idiot. I recently re-read the story of how he got the Patriots to show interest. Boyer (and Butler) deserve the lion's share of the credit for taking the right risks, but it took some balls to do this:



I thought there was more in that really long in-depth article from, might've been last summer, about Butler's rise and his relationship with Simpson, but I can't find it now. I did find this about Simpson though. I had no idea Butler was Simpson's last chance to maintain his certification as an NFL agent.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Yes, poor phrasing on my part.
Should have simply said players like Hightower had more financial security than Butler over the first few years of their contract. That is the way the system works for several reasons.

As for what he may have been paid by another team. Who knows? We don't know what someone may have offered last off-season or this year. Plenty of pairs have received big deals when they still had time on their current deal.
But each situation is different and who knows what the situation would be of Butler signed elsewhere as an UDFA.

And that's not criticism in the way the Pats have handled this. I have no issue with how they've done it.
It's tough to criticize either side at this point and with what little information we have.


Looking forward, I'd think the longer this goes on the better it looks that Butler will be in NE at least one more year.
I agree with your last point. And it's the only thing that matters much to me, regardless of how we got here (either Pats/Butler or this thread).
I think as the draft draws nearer, all teams, including NO will shift their focus to the draft and all the shiny new toy possibilities there, including at CB.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I agree with your last point. And it's the only thing that matters much to me, regardless of how we got here (either Pats/Butler or this thread).
I think as the draft draws nearer, all teams, including NO will shift their focus to the draft and all the shiny new toy possibilities there, including at CB.
If I were a fan of the Saints -- or if the Pats were in the Saints' position -- I'd already be there.

They have two firsts and two thirds. I'd rather hit the position in each round, pay rookie wages, have control of the players and hope that one of the two works out than part with a first rounder and pay Malcolm the top of the CB wage scale, which is the only thing that will make Malcolm happy. There is performance risk in the draft at this position to be sure; any Pats fan would appreciate it. But I'd still go this route, particularly since the Saints don't seem to be near the top of the NFC food chain, this player "away" from a deep playoff run.

We'll be finding out, I think, that certain players are worth more to the Pats than they are to the reported trading partners. Malcolm is one, certainly at his tender level. JG, I think, is another -- at least at the levels of compensation fans seem intent on (#1, #1 in his case, some in the JG thread would have it -- give me a break).

It's useful to put the Pats in the reported trading partners' positions to figure out how these scenarios are likely to play out.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,299
AZ
Owners meetings may cause some things to loosen up in the fee agent trade markets as some of the key protagonists meet face to face.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
Sure would be nice to end up with 11/12 in the draft for 1-2 years of Butler and Jimmy G.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Sure would be nice to end up with 11/12 in the draft for 1-2 years of Butler and Jimmy G.
This would be the Elizabeth Warren position -- the least conservative estimate of the eventual outcome
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Conservative position? Nonsense. The Patriots' Reich will last a thousand years.

(or, if you prefer, imagine a scouting assistant whispering to BB during the SB parade: "remember, Caesar, thy draft picks art mortal...")
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
This would be the Elizabeth Warren position -- the least conservative estimate of the eventual outcome
Reminds me of the level of realistic expectations I see in interviews I have with students about their future goals.

Kid: I like wanne be like a doctor or lawyer or run a company like Apple you know.
Me: Well currently you are not taking any of the prerequisites for college.
Kid: Yeah but I want it!
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
Is this really much different than BB letting Hightower "find out what his market is." Obviously the parameters are different because "his" here comes with all the RFA bells and whistles -- tender, draft pick, right to match -- that Hightower didn't face. But bigger picture, its "get your best offer, and we'll see where we are."
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
This would be the Elizabeth Warren position -- the least conservative estimate of the eventual outcome
How is that the least conservative since the consensus is they want more than that for just Jimmy G?
Everything I've read is NE asking for multiple firsts + for JG. That doesn't include Butler.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Conservative position? Nonsense. The Patriots' Reich will last a thousand years.

(or, if you prefer, imagine a scouting assistant whispering to BB during the SB parade: "remember, Caesar, thy draft picks art mortal...")
Or maybe just 6 or 7 more:

Kraft via PFT

Patriots owner Robert Kraft told reporters today that he talked to Brady a few days ago, and Brady told him he plans to play six or seven more years.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I think that statement still leaves room to trade Butler after he signs an offer sheet, but doesn't sound like the team is going out of its way to facilitate Butler moving on so makes me feel better about the chances he's here next year.

Or maybe just 6 or 7 more:

Kraft via PFT
I doubt he'll end up going that long, but Im close to 100% confident that the current plan is not to retire after 2017 if he wins another ring.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Brady is constantly putting that number out as off on the horizon.

It's really a rote answer at this point, and nothing of real substance.

It wasn't that long ago, the end number of years ended on age 42-43, now he's pushing it out to 48-49.

More power to him if he pulls it off though.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Brady is constantly putting that number out as off on the horizon.

It's really a rote answer at this point, and nothing of real substance.

It wasn't that long ago, the end number of years ended on age 42-43, now he's pushing it out to 48-49.

More power to him if he pulls it off though.
Or perhaps they both realize the potential strategic benefit of saying 6-7 years and Brady has no real intentions of playing that long.