Not necessarily. They don't need to pay a backup a lot of money with Brady still playing well, even if they are high on Garoppolo. But it could be worth it for the Texans or other teams.
If they thought that Jimmy G was going to be something special, they'd dump Brady to get him started at the end of next season and that would be the smart thing to do. The next 10 years of a special QB greatly outweighs the last 1 or 2 of ANY QB. Like I said though, I know you are sold on Jimmy G being "the savior" just like you'll be sold that the next Patriots backup is "the savior" or the next draft crush. I've been a Texans fan long enough to know how that kind of thing works.
I've never used the word savior. And you've been a Texans fan long enough to realize that any and all possible available QB's need to be considered, given the status quo. All the Pats need to determine is if Brady is going to be effective for the next 2-3 years. At that point, it's a waste to re-sign the backup, regardless of his quality. It would take a Montana like injury to convince them otherwise. Yes, Brady is still that good. Most pre-schoolers would understand this, but you're still struggling.
All they need to determine is something that cannot be determined. No big deal. Anyway, there's no point in discussing this further given that it's impossible to know how much Brady has left (although the assumption SHOULD be that it can't be that much left due to the entire history of the league....and the history of humanity when dealing with the effects of aging) and there's no chance whatsoever that Jimmy G plays in Houston next year. It's all just a pointless circle jerk.
I will say one thing though.....I agree, most preschoolers probably wouldn't recognize that a great QB will ever become a bad QB due to the effects of time....I would hope that we'd be slightly above that childish level of thinking.
The Pats would NEVER dump Brady. He is that franchise along with hoodie. Who knows how long Hoodie wants to continue coaching, there is no indication that he'd want to spend another 10 years trying to win with Jimmy G. He might hang it up once Brady retires. In that case, it makes the most sense to trade Jimmy G and try to win as many SBs right now.
Huh? They're sticking with Brady because he's still playing at an MVP level... and is showing little to zero physical signs of regression. You're suggestion that they'd trade him if they thought Jimmy G would be "special" is both preposterous and requires far more "pre-determination" to know exactly how he'll hold up physically/mentally over the grind of 10+ years. In the end, unless you have a vetting period like the 49ers had with Young/Montana, or even the Cowboys had with Romo/Prescott... teams will always stick with the more proven guy (especially in the case of Tom ****ing Brady). On the contrary... that is exactly what we're discussing... and that's exactly why the Patriots are going to make a move to optimize the value of a backup QB they don't expect to be doing anything for them. But if your black/white reasoning has reached its limit... especially in the face of said old QB having one of the greatest overall SB performances, coming off one of his greatest overall seasons, again with him showing no signs of slowing down from a physical or overall performance standpoint... I guess you'll have to bow out of this discussion.
Sure... in 2-3 years, when he's slowed down... and Jimmy G is long gone and the Pats start their rebuild. They're not going to hang onto him while he has value... AND while Brady is playing at a high level. That's pretty simple to figure out.
People said the same thing about Joe Montana, Brett Favre, and Peyton Manning.....sorry but NFL FO's don't always go with the emotional line of thinking, they do what is best for their team. If there was a Steve Young, Aaron Rodgers, or Andrew Luck sitting waiting for a chance to play (as some people have deluded themselves into thinking Jimmy G could be) then they'd force Brady out after next season and let him do whatever he wanted to do either retiring or spending the last one or two years he has left on some other team......and that would be the right move.
Montana and Manning got hurt. Their respective teams would not have moved on from them coming off MVP seasons without injury (and knowing what Manning had left in the tank, even in a regressed state, there's a good chance the Colts would have had a better chance at another SB title had they traded the #1 pick). Also, all three weren't playing at a fraction of the level of what Brady has been doing at their respective ages.
I posted in the other thread but nothing higher than a 3rd round pick or JJO, whom the Pats wanted earlier this year. Anything more than that is not worth it for three reasons. 1) Jimmy G has 1.5 starts and Belichick talked him up like no other player in recent memory. He claimed he couldn't tell the difference between Jimmy G and Brady. 2) He got hurt in his 2nd start, mid 2nd quarter. 3) The fact that they are willing to trade him. Those facts makes the price a 3rd rounder or less or JJO. I think another team, Bears/Browns, will overpay so my point and this thread are most likely a waste of time.
Those two ideas have zero to do with the Texans' willingness to deal for Garoppolo. He'd make less than a $1MM next year so Brock would be cleared out before you had to extend him. And how does a second round pick in '14 impact a potential trade in '17?
I said those are valid criticisms Also, Brock is a $6mil cap hit after next year, so it will affect the decision more than zero
Exactly, the Osweiler deal has 0 to do with the fact that the Texans don't want the next backup QB the Patriots are trying to rip someone off to take off their hands.
LOL sounds like Bobby is overcompensating for the fact that he completely missed on evaluating Ryan Mallett. Guess that's understandable, you don't want to hype up an NE QB again after hyping up Ryan Mallett so hard and getting burned the last time. The problem is that Mallett and Jimmy G are two completely different people, the situations are unrelated.
That's just the thing, I didn't hype him up, YOU guys did. I was completely against trading for him but eventually I bought into the hype and gave him the benefit of the doubt....I find it annoying that you guys are doing the exact same thing again, only this time you want to give up a LOT more to pick up their trash.
So Jimmy G is trash? Bet some team gives up quite a bit for that trash. But hey, you know more than they do.
I think the chances of him being at least an average starting QB in the NFL are VERY low, so if a well below average starting QB is what you'd consider "trash" (think Osweiler, Cassel, or Mallett) then yes. I agree though that someone will overpay for him....just like the Cheifs did for Cassel, just like the Texans did for Mallett, just like the Rams did for Nick Foles. It's how it works. When I was saying that trading for Mallett was a mistake, I was called a Ryan Fitzpatrick fan, now that I'm against doing the same thing again the same mouth breathers call me an Osweiler fan.....I wonder what the line will be next season when someone is advocating picking up Jacoby Brissett
We disagree on Jimmy G then, I think he will be as good, if not better than Schaub. I also don't think giving up a 7th for Mallett was an over pay. With Fisher no QB is going to look decent. Foles actually looked pretty good under Reid this yr . I always thought that the Os signing was a overreaction to the Hoyer debacle and hoped McNair and Smith would get lucky, It just didn't work out. Hopefully you don't consider me a mouth breather because I disagree with you about Jimmy G.
