Are you Happy with the Jimmy Garoppolo Trade?

Are you Happy with the Jimmy Garoppolo Trade?

  • Yes

    Votes: 123 63.7%
  • No

    Votes: 70 36.3%

  • Total voters
    193
  • Poll closed .

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,033
I am a bit disappointed that there is currently no clear post-Brady plan, but I can’t be too disappointed. Jimmy was not going to sign an extension to sit while TB12 finishes his career. Jimmy might have two big contracts left before he declines. He needs to get paid and prove he’s worthy of an age 30 big money extension to set himself up for retirement. This is what BB was negotiating with/against: Jimmy’s need to go out and prove himself and maximize his potential. I also think that deep down BB would have less respect for someone who was content to ride the pine. Jimmy never made an issue of playing behind Tom, did things the “Patriot Way” and was an important part of the team. The Patriots got decent value for him, nearly a first round pick. That’s not bad. Disappointed that he’s not the QB of the future, but not unhappy with the value of the trade.
Well, let’s not lose sight of the fact that By all appearances, Belichick DID have a post-Brady plan.

Brady just fucked it up by refusing to decline in an age appropriate manner.
 

mulluysavage

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
714
Reads threads backwards
"I'm not happy with this trade. I traded Brisett, who could be a good QB, thinking that Jimmy would want to be the future Pats QB, and therefore sign a long-term contract this year. I told him he's got a future here that we are all excited about. Well, he sees Tom performing well indefinitely, and that he has a chance to start now, which is what he really wants as it turns out. Things changed for him, or he's just getting a clear idea of that now. I'm not too happy about all that. I could keep him the rest of the year in case TB goes down. But we've had all these injuries, and I don't see us winning it all with him this year, which I'm not too happy about either. Franchising a backup is ridiculously expensive, and you know what, Tom really could play great for a few more years. Franchising to trade is too risky too. Giving him up for the rest of the year is also risky, but getting a 2nd is a pretty good asset to build the team on going forward. None of these options are that great. Having no viable backup, well, I'm not very happy with that. So I'm not really happy with this trade, but I think it's the best move anyway."

-Bill Belichick
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
I find it very hard to believe the Patriots thought they could sign Jimmy G long term until recently. Those are negotiations you have in February and March. If you couldn't come to an agreement then you'd have to plan on him becoming a FA unless he's tagged.

All in all, I'm happy. I would have been happy with this return at the beginning of the off season. The reports of high first rounder or multiple first rounders got my hopes up but at the end of the day it's a good deal.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
I think the team has handled the situation poorly over the last eight months. We don't know for sure what they were offered in the offseason but we do know that (1) they sent a lot of public signals that they weren't going to trade JG at all unless completely blown away, such that a number of possibly interested teams just looked elsewhere (i.e., Chicago) and (2) a number of teams turned out to be willing to pay big prices to move up in the draft to secure a QB. If the Pats were interested in trading JG for more than a high second, it looks like a pretty stupid offseason strategy. This is like wanting to sell your house for at least 500K and putting a "make me move" price on Zillow of a million.

My guess is that they really though they could sign JG to an extension. But, if so, they really should have been able to figure that out in the offseason. The other possibility is that they were planning on franchising him (to keep or trade) but now realize that they really want to use the tag on Butler. In any case, the whole sequence was not BB's finest hour.
 

Curt S Loew

SoSH Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
6,513
Shantytown
I think the team has handled the situation poorly over the last eight months. We don't know for sure what they were offered in the offseason but we do know that (1) they sent a lot of public signals that they weren't going to trade JG at all unless completely blown away, such that a number of possibly interested teams just looked elsewhere (i.e., Chicago) and (2) a number of teams turned out to be willing to pay big prices to move up in the draft to secure a QB. If the Pats were interested in trading JG for more than a high second, it looks like a pretty stupid offseason strategy. This is like wanting to sell your house for at least 500K and putting a "make me move" price on Zillow of a million.

My guess is that they really though they could sign JG to an extension. But, if so, they really should have been able to figure that out in the offseason. The other possibility is that they were planning on franchising him (to keep or trade) but now realize that they really want to use the tag on Butler. In any case, the whole sequence was not BB's finest hour.
Not really. They wanted to sell for a million and were only being offered 500K. They finally had to settle on the 500K. More likely, less than 500K.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
I think the team has handled the situation poorly over the last eight months. We don't know for sure what they were offered in the offseason but we do know that (1) they sent a lot of public signals that they weren't going to trade JG at all unless completely blown away, such that a number of possibly interested teams just looked elsewhere (i.e., Chicago) and (2) a number of teams turned out to be willing to pay big prices to move up in the draft to secure a QB. If the Pats were interested in trading JG for more than a high second, it looks like a pretty stupid offseason strategy. This is like wanting to sell your house for at least 500K and putting a "make me move" price on Zillow of a million.
To be fair re: the bolded, the two teams that moved up were KC and Houston. I don't think the Pats were going to send Garoppolo to a conference rival like that.

Brady will drop off a cliff at some point, and the Patriots don't know when. I think there was value in seeing if it would be early this year. There was a non-zero chance Brady got hurt or played ineffectively and Garoppolo came in and the transition started this year. So there was value to the Patriots in keeping Jimmy for that eventuality.

At the end of the day, I'm skeptical the offers in the offseason would have been a lot more substantial. A first is a ton to give up for a guy with two career starts who only has a year of cost control.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
Not really. They wanted to sell for a million and were only being offered 500K. They finally had to settle on the 500K. More likely, less than 500K.
We don't know what they were offered and pretending to know - either on one side or the other - is silly. We just know what they publicly signaled they were asking for.

To be fair re: the bolded, the two teams that moved up were KC and Houston. I don't think the Pats were going to send Garoppolo to a conference rival like that.

Brady will drop off a cliff at some point, and the Patriots don't know when. I think there was value in seeing if it would be early this year. There was a non-zero chance Brady got hurt or played ineffectively and Garoppolo came in and the transition started this year. So there was value to the Patriots in keeping Jimmy for that eventuality.

At the end of the day, I'm skeptical the offers in the offseason would have been a lot more substantial. A first is a ton to give up for a guy with two career starts who only has a year of cost control.
Its all hypothetical, but I think Chicago is pretty interesting to consider. In total, they gave out $74M in QB contracts, including $47M guaranteed, and paid #3 overall, two 3rd rounders, and a 4th rounder to do it. If the Patriots had seriously pursued something, would they have given us a 2018 first and a 2017 4th, or something along those lines, for the right to sign JG to a contract in the 4/60 range? Seems at least plausible to me, especially given JG's Chicago roots, Ryan Pace being an Eastern Illinois guy, etc. Maybe they didn't like Garoppolo and a lot of the Chicago speculation last February was just media bullshit. Or maybe they wanted Garoppolo but weren't willing to pay the reported king's ransom of multiple firsts and decided to just move on and sign Glennon, after which point a JG trade wasn't in the cards.

I agree that having the ability to monitor Brady early this season had some value.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
I guess the only thing I don't get after reading many of the articles is how casually people throw out that Jimmy G was the QB answer for the next 10 years for the franchise.
10 years from when? If we started the count from next season that would put Jimmy in his 35/36 year old season. Most quarterbacks still aren't playing at a high level at that point. If the timeline was to start in 2019 (after the Brady contract expires), 10 years seems even more unrealistic.
I must just be seeing it wrong. It looks like the real decision was about 6-7 years of Jimmy G vs 2-3 more years of Brady and then an unknown.
I trust that BB made the decision he thought was best and as a fan I will just continue to enjoy watching Brady play at a MVP level.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
I know I am deep in the tea leaves here, but what if

Trading JG frees up the franchise tag to use on Malcolm Butler.

Why would they do that you ask? I wonder if the bloom might be off the Gilmore rose considering the "improvement" that the defense has seen during his injury.

Now they may very well hope and expect Gilmore to improve (this or) next year. Best case you have two Very good to elite CBs. Pretty valuable in todays NFL. Worse case you have 1 Very Good Corner and you hope that Gilmore "gets it eventually" and or look to dump/trade him as soon as its palatable.

Getting to the Franchise number (14ish million?) for Butler is way easier then getting to the Franchise number (20 million ish) for Garoppolo. Especially when you consider that Malcolm is making 3.9 Already and JG was making 430k. So you basically have to find 10 million to keep Butler as opposed to 19.5 Million to keep JG.

All this assumes they cannot agree to a LT deal with Butler.

You factor in the 2nd rounder that could be used for a front 7 player and This team (assuming TB health and slight if any decline) would again be a Favorite for the 2018-2019
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Greg Bedard's take:

Do I think they mismanaged the asset and the rest of the quarterback room? Yes. They were not open for business on Garoppolo last offseason — they didn’t entertain offers — and that was a mistake. They should have opened the bidding during a weak quarterback draft, traded Garoppolo and then forged ahead with Jacoby Brissett as the backup. That would have been in the best interest of the franchise’s future, and will be second-guessed for years to come.

But they made their choice and the decision to trade Garoppolo just came down to bad timing because Brady is doing the impossible. Brady, through his own freak determination and Belichick’s decision to draft Garoppolo when he did, has pushed back the timetable on the succession plan.
https://www.bostonsportsjournal.com/2017/11/01/bedard-tom-brady-earned-right-continue-bill-belichick-just-deal/
 

eustis22

New Member
Nov 14, 2016
998
I'm not happy.

I'm convinced, that when Brady does his Peyton career swan dive by game 5 next year, my declining years are doomed to watch a succession of Baby McKowns roll in and roll out of Foxboro.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
I know I am deep in the tea leaves here, but what if

Trading JG frees up the franchise tag to use on Malcolm Butler.

Why would they do that you ask? I wonder if the bloom might be off the Gilmore rose considering the "improvement" that the defense has seen during his injury.

Now they may very well hope and expect Gilmore to improve (this or) next year. Best case you have two Very good to elite CBs. Pretty valuable in todays NFL. Worse case you have 1 Very Good Corner and you hope that Gilmore "gets it eventually" and or look to dump/trade him as soon as its palatable.

Getting to the Franchise number (14ish million?) for Butler is way easier then getting to the Franchise number (20 million ish) for Garoppolo. Especially when you consider that Malcolm is making 3.9 Already and JG was making 430k. So you basically have to find 10 million to keep Butler as opposed to 19.5 Million to keep JG.

All this assumes they cannot agree to a LT deal with Butler.

You factor in the 2nd rounder that could be used for a front 7 player and This team (assuming TB health and slight if any decline) would again be a Favorite for the 2018-2019
I think franchising Butler would be a great move now. Not only would franchising JG tie up the franchise tag, it would tie up $24M in salary during the free agency period. And who cares if it pisses Butler off, he is already pissed off. He might sit out the first half of the season but whatever. Clearly the "window" will still be open next year, and having Butler on the team makes them a better team.
 

genoasalami

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2006
2,579
All I know is that it puts this team in a precarious position ....yes, we know Brady is relatively healthy and performing at a high level, but the fact remains. He is 40. I do not care how much avocado someone eats or how in shape someone may be, 40 is 40. You better have some sort of solid backup plan at QB. All they have now is Hoyer which is a stop gap signing. That's all. So, instead of having a successor on staff, there is no one. To be honest, Brady playing at 40 and 41 puts the team in a pickle. Maybe it will all work out and he play another 2 or 3 years at a high level, but every day he gets older the risk of injury goes up as does the recovery time from any such injuries. The transition from Brady to his successor has a lot of intrigue, because for the first time in a long time we have absolutely no idea who is next in line.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
All I know is that it puts this team in a precarious position ....yes, we know Brady is relatively healthy and performing at a high level, but the fact remains. He is 40. I do not care how much avocado someone eats or how in shape someone may be, 40 is 40. You better have some sort of solid backup plan at QB. All they have now is Hoyer which is a stop gap signing. That's all. So, instead of having a successor on staff, there is no one. To be honest, Brady playing at 40 and 41 puts the team in a pickle. Maybe it will all work out and he play another 2 or 3 years at a high level, but every day he gets older the risk of injury goes up as does the recovery time from any such injuries. The transition from Brady to his successor has a lot of intrigue, because for the first time in a long time we have absolutely no idea who is next in line.
What team isn't in a precarious position if their starting QB goes down? Who are the Saints grooming to take Drew Brees' spot? What happened to Oakland this year when Derek Carr got hurt, or Green Bay when Aaron Rodgers went down?

The Patriots were in uncharted territory for the last few years by having not only a HOF starter, but also a backup that could have stepped right in. Of course, that assumption is based on the belief that Jimmy G. really is good enough to take over the reigns (which frankly, I don't know how anyone can be sure of that after 6 quarters). However, it's absolutely impossible for any team to keep a starting QB, and a backup who could be starting for longer than the Pats have done it.

The only real comparable I can think of was the Favre/Rodgers situation in Green Bay, and had Favre not hit a wall and gone to wherever, would Aaron Rodgers have stuck around? He became a starter in his 4th season. Steve Young had to wait 4 seasons in San Fran behind Montana, but he had already failed as a starter in Tampa Bay before going to San Fran, so there was much less of a "we have the stud waiting in the wings" belief that there was with Rodgers.

The bottom line is the Pats had to do something. Jimmy G. was not signing a long term contract to sit on the bench, and the Pats weren't going to offer him enough money to get him to sit on the bench for a long time. Franchising him would be insane, so they got the absolute maximum amount they could out of him and his rookie deal, and dealt him before they had to give him away for nothing.

I don't think anyone truly loves the trade, including BB, but I also really don't understand what else the Pats could have done. Now, they go out and draft a QB in this year's draft, and start grooming him like they did Jimmy G. Jimmy G. was simply born too early, and Tom Brady simply refused to die. Not much they could have done to change those two things.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I think franchising Butler would be a great move now. Not only would franchising JG tie up the franchise tag, it would tie up $24M in salary during the free agency period. And who cares if it pisses Butler off, he is already pissed off. He might sit out the first half of the season but whatever. Clearly the "window" will still be open next year, and having Butler on the team makes them a better team.
At a 15 million tag give or take, I’m not sure he does make the team better.
 

Sportsbstn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2004
8,794
The Patriots were in uncharted territory for the last few years by having not only a HOF starter, but also a backup that could have stepped right in. Of course, that assumption is based on the belief that Jimmy G. really is good enough to take over the reigns (which frankly, I don't know how anyone can be sure of that after 6 quarters). However, it's absolutely impossible for any team to keep a starting QB, and a backup who could be starting for longer than the Pats.
It's also on the assumption that Jimmy G would stay healthy and given he didn't even last 2 games before getting seriously hurt, that is no given either. If Brady wasn't the best (or at worst the 2nd best QB in the game) right now, this situation would likely have gone down very differently, but the truth is Brady is likely to still be elite for the foreseeable future and As you said, Jimmy had good promise based on a very limited sample size. Even at 40, Brady is and likely will be the superior QB over the next few years. More rookie QB have come into the league ready to play than in recent memory, so finding someone to take over in 3 years or so should be doable. If Jimmy was at QB right now, I'm not sure if the Patriots are even .500 given the offensive line and defensive play.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
I'm not happy.

I'm convinced, that when Brady does his Peyton career swan dive by game 5 next year, my declining years are doomed to watch a succession of Baby McKowns roll in and roll out of Foxboro.
There is no statistical evidence that this occurs.
There is no biological evidence that this would occur.
In fact, a more parsimonious explanation exists for peyton -- his multiple fusion surgeries killed his arm flexibility and throwing strength.
I have seen zero evidence and lots of assertion that QB's fall off a cliff past 40, barring injury. Put up or shut up; it is a myth until demonstrated otherwise.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
What team isn't in a precarious position if their starting QB goes down? Who are the Saints grooming to take Drew Brees' spot? What happened to Oakland this year when Derek Carr got hurt, or Green Bay when Aaron Rodgers went down?
Seriously. This goes for every team in the league. If your QB goes down, your team is in trouble. The reason why this hasn't been a huge issue in Minnesota is that Sam Bradford kind of sucks anyway, so losing him isn't like losing Brady, Brees, or Rodgers.

Green Bay was a super bowl hopeful. Rodgers goes down and that team is done. Carr turned the Raiders ship around last year, got hurt, and their playoff performance was abysmal. There is no backup plan for when the QB goes down.

The Pats could not have afforded to keep JimmyG, which is just a reality of the NFL.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I voted no.

I get why people voted yes and I am less negative than I was when the deal was announced.

But I am still at no because

- I like JG a lot more than Hoyer if Brady goes out for 2-4 games this year; no reason to punt on a season in the Brady Window

- I think Jimmy COULD be an elite QB

- QB is the most important position in sports as it affects winning and losing; and finding an elite player at that position is not easy

- while there are many very good young QBs in the NFL right now, many teams go years if not decades without having a star at that position; look at the AFC East where the best opposing QB is Tyrod Taylor

- Brady is 40 and going strong; but a drop off at some point in the next year or so would not be shocking

- Volin's points about the Pats being able to suffer two very high QB salaries for another season made sense to me; while actually doing that would be unusual and perhaps unprecedented, this is an unusual circumstance and QB is so critical to winning

On the flip side, I do LOVE the fact that the Pats have seemingly committed to Tom for the next several years. That is glorious.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
There is no statistical evidence that this occurs.
There is no biological evidence that this would occur.
In fact, a more parsimonious explanation exists for peyton -- his multiple fusion surgeries killed his arm flexibility and throwing strength.
I have seen zero evidence and lots of assertion that QB's fall off a cliff past 40, barring injury. Put up or shut up; it is a myth until demonstrated otherwise.
http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/payroll-personnel/93-how-quarterbacks-age

The bottom line is that very successful quarterbacks like [Peyton] Manning aren't going to become bad slowly. All of sudden one year, they'll have significant drop-off in performance. If they were 26 and had the same kind of season or had a similar injury, they'd no doubt be back at camp the following July. But at 36, that job in the broadcast booth will seem quite enticing. Successful, established QBs will generally continue to be successful until one day they're not. We won't see it coming. But of course, everyone will pretend they did.
It's not quite that clear-cut (the level of decline is not outside of year-to-year variation), but that's typically how it plays out.

EDIT: Note that was written *before* Manning fell off a cliff.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Volin’s points about paying 2 QBs actually don’t make much sense to me. Paying Jimmy the franchise tag next year and keeping Brady on the roster would have been far more of a risk of punting a season in the “Brady window” than making this trade. They’d essentially have a $20’something million dead money hit for next year it Brady was healthy. Its probably more than all the available cap space the Pats will have, so basically run this years team out with no free agent resignings or additions. They’d still eventually have to extend JG, either with Brady here (an idea JG doesn’t seem like he was too wild about) or without Brady here (and that would be a fun extension negotiation after franchising JG to sit the bench).

There was a perfectly valid case for moving on from Brady after this season and giving the keys to JG. Bold and risky move, maybe it would have been the right move, maybe not, but for the reasons you discuss about the difficulty of finding a quarterback its a valid choice. The case for keeping both quarterbacks after this season was, IMHO, always a pretty weak one.
 

Curtis Pride

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
1,374
Watertown, MA
I wish there was a third option in the poll: "Not really happy, but I can accept it." "Yes" seems to imply that the trade will be an unqualified success, while "no" feels like "the Patriots got screwed!" From a pragmatic standpoint, this seems like perfectly cromulent trade with some calculated risks factored in. This is the kind of trade usually make or break successful organization, not individually but cumulatively.

It really comes down to whether Brady will play well enough top win in 2018 and 2019, doesn't it? If yes, Garopppolo was expendable. If no, Garoppolo might give some hope for glory instead of none at all with Hoyer. If the team had an all-world defense, then a somewhat competent ball-control backup QB like Jeff Hostetler could win a Super Bowl. Since the Patriots do not have an all-world defense, they need an elite QB to win.

The only scenario where I'll regret the trade is if Jimmy G turns out to be Carson Wentz-in-waiting. If he's slightly better than Tyrod Taylor or Ryan Tannehill, I'll just shrug and wait until they draft someone similar 2018 and develop him under Brady. It's not the end of the world.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/research/payroll-personnel/93-how-quarterbacks-age


It's not quite that clear-cut (the level of decline is not outside of year-to-year variation), but that's typically how it plays out.

EDIT: Note that was written *before* Manning fell off a cliff.
We can agree to disagree, but I interpret that parenthetical statement as critical. If the level of decline is unremarkable, as in, it could happen at any point, it suggests that players are either losing their spots quickly or opting to retire (e.g. due to injury). To me, this is evidence that QB aging is random, and not a decline. From the same article:

One of the more interesting things in the numbers was that the final year of a QB's career, regardless of age, is usually pretty bad, but not necessarily worse than the usual year-to-year variation in any individual QB's resume. In fact, the final year of a QB's career, on average, represents a decline of -0.75 AYPA. This is far worse than any one year of average decline due to age--actually equivalent to about 6 years of decline. To me, this suggests that natural variance is helping end many QB careers.

In fact, if you simply remove the very last season of each QB's career from the data, age-related decline virtually disappears.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
We can agree to disagree, but I interpret that parenthetical statement as critical. If the level of decline is unremarkable, as in, it could happen at any point, it suggests that players are either losing their spots quickly or opting to retire (e.g. due to injury). To me, this is evidence that QB aging is random, and not a decline. From the same article:
In a practical sense, I don't think it matters. If Brady has the worst season of his career next year, is he going to come back in 2019? Or is he going to hang them up? Would the Patriots want him back?

I'm not also not sure that either you or Burke is drawing the right inference from the amount of decline, but we don't have any counterfactuals because by definition no one's coming back after their final seasons.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
MMQB this morning with a quote from an anonymous scout about Jimmy G being a top 10 QB for the next 10 years.
Out of all the possible outcomes of this trade, I would think one of the lowest probability outcomes would be Jimmy G being a top 10 QB in the NFL at 36.
Again, I wish the timeline worked out better and Jimmy could pick up where Brady leaves off, but the timing just wasn't right.
No one thought Brady would still be MVP level at 40.
But on the other hand, I never expected Jimmy to take over for the Pats and win another 5 SBs. In fact, I would have been happy if he just made it to one as the starter.
I would also like to wait to provide my final thoughts on the trade after I see what the Pats do with the early 2nd round pick.

Edit: link to article
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/02/jimmy-garoppolo-trade-san-francisco-49ers-mmqb
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
In a practical sense, I don't think it matters. If Brady has the worst season of his career next year, is he going to come back in 2019? Or is he going to hang them up? Would the Patriots want him back?

I'm not also not sure that either you or Burke is drawing the right inference from the amount of decline, but we don't have any counterfactuals because by definition no one's coming back after their final seasons.
Oh, absolutely. In fact, I was hoping someone would cite this piece, as it raises a number of interesting questions regarding QB aging. Furthermore a decline of 0.75 AYPA would still place Brady in the upper tier of QBs. He would need to decline by nearly 2 AYPA to become merely average.

Just to clarify, the only inference I'm drawing is that I don't know what the last year means. Not all QBs have that last year decline either. Part of the issue, apart from the lack of a followup season, is that we have poor sampling per season; some of that year to year variation is driven by poor sampling. I think more complicated approaches could be used to test this question, but I haven't see anyone try.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Oh, absolutely. In fact, I was hoping someone would cite this piece, as it raises a number of interesting questions regarding QB aging. Furthermore a decline of 0.75 AYPA would still place Brady in the upper tier of QBs. He would need to decline by nearly 2 AYPA to become merely average.
Specific to Brady's case, it seems unlikely he's going to decline gradually because, well, he's 40 and he's not declining gradually. The typical year-on-year decline cited in that article would still have Brady playing average-to-above-average when he's 50.

So the most likely scenarios with Brady are 1) he suffers a major injury and doesn't want to rehab at his age 2) he suffers a somewhat-less-serious injury that lets him play but causes a marked drop in effectiveness (like Manning) 3) he plays another 3-5 years basically at the same level he's at now and walks away on his own terms. 1 and 2 strike me as more likely than 3, but the big question becomes whether Brady is more susceptible to injury because of his age. I guess to that article's point (and yours), if he gets hurt now, it will be chalked up to his age, but who really knows? His only other major injury was in the middle of his prime (and his only other injury that caused him to miss any time was in the AFCCG his first year as starter). Is Brady more likely to get hurt in the next five years than he was in the last five or the five before that? And if yes, how much more?
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Specific to Brady's case, it seems unlikely he's going to decline gradually because, well, he's 40 and he's not declining gradually. The typical year-on-year decline cited in that article would still have Brady playing average-to-above-average when he's 50.

So the most likely scenarios with Brady are 1) he suffers a major injury and doesn't want to rehab at his age 2) he suffers a somewhat-less-serious injury that lets him play but causes a marked drop in effectiveness (like Manning) 3) he plays another 3-5 years basically at the same level he's at now and walks away on his own terms. 1 and 2 strike me as more likely than 3, but the big question becomes whether Brady is more susceptible to injury because of his age. I guess to that article's point (and yours), if he gets hurt now, it will be chalked up to his age, but who really knows? His only other major injury was in the middle of his prime (and his only other injury that caused him to miss any time was in the AFCCG his first year as starter). Is Brady more likely to get hurt in the next five years than he was in the last five or the five before that? And if yes, how much more?
Precisely, which is why biological evidence can be extremely useful here. If we can establish whether 40 year olds are more vulnerable to injury than 30 year olds, it would help us ascertain the probability between those scenarios. Even then, #1 or 2 may be more likely simply due to heavy attrition observed in the NFL in general.

I'm not a orthopaedic specialist, but DRS mentioned earlier that he's unaware of such evidence. However, DRS may have been referring specificially to joint damage to the arm and not other types of degradation.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
There is no statistical evidence that this occurs.
There is no biological evidence that this would occur.
In fact, a more parsimonious explanation exists for peyton -- his multiple fusion surgeries killed his arm flexibility and throwing strength.
I have seen zero evidence and lots of assertion that QB's fall off a cliff past 40, barring injury. Put up or shut up; it is a myth until demonstrated otherwise.
There is no statistical evidence that this occurs.
There is no biological evidence that this would occur.
In fact, a more parsimonious explanation exists for peyton -- his multiple fusion surgeries killed his arm flexibility and throwing strength.
I have seen zero evidence and lots of assertion that QB's fall off a cliff past 40, barring injury. Put up or shut up; it is a myth until demonstrated otherwise.

I am curious of your evidence of QBs playing well beyond age 40? This was quite an aggressive post.
There is a thread about the scientifically unsound, or at least unsupported reasons TB12 believes he can go 5 more years. It is your belief (and perhaps hope) TB has three more years, but that does not make doubting it a preposterous proposition. Kobe was the model of the workaholic fitness freak, etc,etc and before one catastrophic injury. (And before we start an entire thing, yes I am aware he was a bad person off the court.)
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,646
Arkansas
there is only 1 nightmare ser for u
they fran jimmy sign couisns and trade jimmy to den or the jets rem a petes was in den org as our college guy he went to sf Lynch called broncos preseason games for like 4 years

i think after seeing how bad denver QB'S really are elway couild put a 18 1st and 19 1st on the table and then mike giardi will be moveing to denver in 2018
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I am curious of your evidence of QBs playing well beyond age 40? This was quite an aggressive post.
There is a thread about the scientifically unsound, or at least unsupported reasons TB12 believes he can go 5 more years. It is your belief (and perhaps hope) TB has three more years, but that does not make doubting it a preposterous proposition. Kobe was the model of the workaholic fitness freak, etc,etc and before one catastrophic injury. (And before we start an entire thing, yes I am aware he was a bad person off the court.)
The problem is that QB's were never protected like they are now. A 40 year old Elway or Marino or DeBerg or whoever had gotten the tar beat out of him for many years and was lucky to be generally ambulatory.

Also, the quality of sports medicine was comparatively shit 25 years ago, wasn't it? So a QB who was really good and hit 35 and had an arm issue had a lot less chance of it being fixed with no particular repercussions.

Brady is first of his kind.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
Now that Watson is out, I am not happy. The Pats could have gotten a whole lot more from the Texans for Jimmy G. /hottake
 

ShaneTrot

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2002
6,402
Overland Park, KS
Now that Watson is out, I am not happy. The Pats could have gotten a whole lot more from the Texans for Jimmy G. /hottake
One thought is could they have received more from an AFC team, of course then they would be strengthening a contender to the AFC crown. If I was Jacksonville or Denver, I would have offered a king's ransom for Jimmy G. And if I was NE, I would not trade him to these teams.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Volin’s points about paying 2 QBs actually don’t make much sense to me. Paying Jimmy the franchise tag next year and keeping Brady on the roster would have been far more of a risk of punting a season in the “Brady window” than making this trade. They’d essentially have a $20’something million dead money hit for next year it Brady was healthy. Its probably more than all the available cap space the Pats will have, so basically run this years team out with no free agent resignings or additions. They’d still eventually have to extend JG, either with Brady here (an idea JG doesn’t seem like he was too wild about) or without Brady here (and that would be a fun extension negotiation after franchising JG to sit the bench).
I admit that it's a little hard to see how they could have paid Jimmy the franchise amount and retained enough flexibility next season.

Here is Volin on that:

■ Per the NFL Players Association, the Patriots currently have $157 million in salary cap commitments next year. The cap hasn’t been set, but it has gone up $12 million each of the past two years. It is at $167 million this year, so let’s conservatively assume the salary cap is $177 million next year. Plus, the Patriots will probably roll over $1 million-$2 million more in cap space.

They will need to spend money at left tackle, and they have Malcolm Butler’s contract to deal with. But they have most of the team already under contract: Brady, Julian Edelman, Rob Gronkowski, Brandin Cooks, Chris Hogan, Dont’a Hightower, Devin McCourty, Stephon Gilmore, James White, Rex Burkhead, Kyle Van Noy, and four-fifths of the offensive line. They won’t be big players in free agency as they were this year.

■ The salary cap is fungible. There are always ways to create cap space by restructuring other contracts and converting salary into signing bonuses. The Patriots can create millions more in cap space by releasing Dwayne Allen, David Harris, and others. They can restructure Gronk, Cooks, or McCourty.

So the Patriots could’ve made it work with Garoppolo and the franchise tag, if they really wanted to. They could have made the one-year spending commitment, just to buy an extra year of time to decide on Brady vs. Garoppolo.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2017/10/31/money-would-bad-reason-trade-jimmy-garoppolo/sMUnvLzDXwCq5hWlSgztDI/story.html

I know that isn't the most "precise" argument. But in my view none of this can be viewed in a vacuum.

Where I come out is that I would accept the risk for one season that the Pats' flexibility would have been hampered, I would trust BB/Caserio to find a way to make it work, I would be highly motivated by what I perceive as JG's unusually high upside and I would factor in the possibility that Brady could get hurt or eventually start to deteriorate. All of that would have lead me to do the highly unusual and pay two QBs handsomely for a season and then take it from there.

That said, there are undoubtedly other factors that I am not privy to. Tom E. Curran is essentially pushing that Brady would not have been OK with making less next year than Jimmy and that Brady was concerned that Bill was eventually going to choose JG, which contributed to this coming to a head now. I can see that. And with both QBs having the same agent, the situation was more than a little bit complicated. And perhaps Jimmy would have become a problem if forced to the bench for another season.

So as with most everything in sports, those on the inside know a lot more than us, and with their level of knowledge my conclusion may very well be different.
 

eustis22

New Member
Nov 14, 2016
998
But I wanted to be IN 9 of the next 15 SBs. It's the only reason I'm still alive.

That, and Olivia Munn.

Sadly, people are making sense for the seasons following THIS one, re trading I Am Groop..
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
there is only 1 nightmare ser for u
they fran jimmy sign couisns and trade jimmy to den or the jets rem a petes was in den org as our college guy he went to sf Lynch called broncos preseason games for like 4 years

i think after seeing how bad denver QB'S really are elway couild put a 18 1st and 19 1st on the table and then mike giardi will be moveing to denver in 2018
Why wouldn't the Broncos make a run at Cousins and bank the picks? Can they make enough cap room?
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
I like the trade. I wish we could have kept Jimmy as the successor, but the timing was off. I like that he went to the NFC which, if we don't meet in the Super Bowl, will only be a factor every few years or so. In fact, if Jimmy is any good, then he'll be facing our AFC rivals over the years and hopefully adding to their loss totals.

I also like that this seems a plan. They got 8 more games to check on Brady and 8 more games of insurance - and still pulled off a high 2nd rounder (if not the top - go Beathard). One interesting question (at least to me) was what would have happened if Brady was mediocre this year up to this point.

Whether I really like the trade will come after the draft along with next training camp.
 

thehitcat

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,376
Windham, ME
Why is there no "In Bill I Trust" button. I feel like all votes like this in the current incarnation of both the Patriots and Celtics (substitute "Danny") should get this option. Because I wouldn't have made this trade were I in this job but if Bill does it for the Patriots or Danny for the Celtics I am OK with it because I believe in their evaluation skills and their knowledge beyond what I know and believe to be true.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,669
I get the trade, and of course I trust BB (though not particularly with second round picks) but I lean towards no, and it only has to do with winning a Super Bowl this year. I believe Tom Brady is the best quarterback playing right now and that if he'd got hurt and Garappolo had filled in their chances to win the AFC would obviously drop.

But they wouldn't have dropped to zero, which is the case now.

In fact, compared to the other AFC playoff QBs at this moment in time (Taylor, Smith, Roethlisberger, Mariota,
Bortles then Cutler, Flacco) I'd say Jimmy stacks up OK or better against all but of course Ben (if he's upright)....I would absolutely believe the Pats would have had a decent shot at coming out of that tournament on top.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
There are win/wins and no-wins.

I think this one was closer to a no-win situation so BB almost made the best out of it.

But we lost more than we won.

Almost?

i sense, but have no facts to support my feeling, BB could have leveraged the Browns more to get additional draft compensation (an additional '18 3rd or 4th, or an additional future pick etc) or trade him to the Browns, but for his reasons (out of AFC, he liked JG and saw a better spot for him in SF) he cut a quick last-day deal for SF's #2, to make the almost best of a no-win situation. .
 

Hatcher Steals Home

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
216
...we don't have any counterfactuals because by definition no one's coming back after their final seasons.
While this has to be true technically, you could look at Favre retiring and playing again as an example. Likewise with Cutler this season and, to a lesser extent, Roethlisberger.

I am not sure it fits the narrative given the age and rationale, but Vick could work as well.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Report that the Pats didn’t give Cleveland a chance to trade for Jimmy. On the one hand they may have received better compensation, but on the other hand it seems like they wanted him out of the AFC. Quite a bit different than when they sent Bledsoe to Buffalo. Says a lot about Jimmy IMO.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
Report that the Pats didn’t give Cleveland a chance to trade for Jimmy. On the one hand they may have received better compensation, but on the other hand it seems like they wanted him out of the AFC. Quite a bit different than when they sent Bledsoe to Buffalo. Says a lot about Jimmy IMO.
Did that report come out of Cleveland? The organization that hired Grigson, that left the office at 5 pm th day before the trade deadline, and that supposedly was late in getting their paperwork to the league for their trade with the Bengals that wasn't completed? Belichick may not have wanted to trade Jimmy there for multiple reasons or maybe the Browns are trying to make themselves look better.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
All valid. Also possible BB hates the Browns. Also possible BB wanted to put Jimmy in a better situation with Shanahan.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
All valid. Also possible BB hates the Browns. Also possible BB wanted to put Jimmy in a better situation with Shanahan.
BB hating the Browns would be weird and irrational - the Browns he worked for moved to Baltimore.

I think getting Hoyer back was a big factor in dealing with SF. Cleveland didn't have any to offer who could slide into the backup role seamlessly for the rest of the season. Probably no one did, certainly not anyone with the need and such a high pick to offer.
 

Sportsbstn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2004
8,794
Did that report come out of Cleveland? The organization that hired Grigson, that left the office at 5 pm th day before the trade deadline, and that supposedly was late in getting their paperwork to the league for their trade with the Bengals that wasn't completed? Belichick may not have wanted to trade Jimmy there for multiple reasons or maybe the Browns are trying to make themselves look better.
lol can't you just see the Browns front office saying to each other, "did you call that trade in? No, i thought you did. Oh FFS!
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
BB hating the Browns would be weird and irrational - the Browns he worked for moved to Baltimore.

I think getting Hoyer back was a big factor in dealing with SF. Cleveland didn't have any to offer who could slide into the backup role seamlessly for the rest of the season. Probably no one did, certainly not anyone with the need and such a high pick to offer.
You've nailed it in the second paragraph. Everyone seems to be missing that.