- 01/22/2013, 05:32PM ET
Goodell 2.0 said 01/22, 05:32 PM
Brady will not retire a Patriot as long as Belicheat is the HC for 1 simple reason.
Regardless of who you are, if you are a member of the pats and someone can do what you do for a cheaper price, then you will be cut or traded.
Look at Richard Seymor, Drew Bledsoe, Randy Moss, Ty Warren, Jim Plunkett, Lawyer Milloy, Asante Samuel, Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel, Ted Washington and Dan Koppen just to name a few. Curtis Martin was OROY in 1995 and off the team after 3 seasons. All extremely productive and had alot of football left in the tank when they were sent packing(Except maybe Moss) Deion Branch as well but Im sure his 2nd run with the Pats is about over. Wes Welker is probably gone in the offseason as well. The Patriots have shown absolutely ZERO loyalty to any player regardless of postion and pay scale. Im not looking at normanl churning of the bottom of the roster....These guys were NOT role players or special teammers. They were major contributors to a
Thats why Brady....Just like Manning, Favre, Montana and Namath wont retire with the team he made
Dyhard is a certified stoner said 01/22, 10:06 PM
Welcome back to the site but I do have to disagree with you. While they has been a history of players they've let go, I think that Belichick only looks out for the best of the team. While they can get someone for a cheaper price at a skill position, they will not get someone at a cheaper price for their quarterback and replace Tom Brady. You aren't going to find someone who is one of the best quarterbacks in the league.
The only people who are comparable to Tom Brady are Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. You get rid of Brady and the whole offense is going to take a huge hit. They can get rid of other pieces to their puzzle because Brady will make anybody he has better. But you can't get rid of Brady. New England lets him go, they can't rely on their WRs they have and they can't let anyone else go. With Brady, they can let other players go, replace them for cheaper players and still have a very good team.
Right now, they're favorites to win the Super Bowl for 2014 at 4-1 odds. You get rid of Tom Brady, you can kiss that good bye. Even if they change other positions, they NEED Brady and Brady won't go anywhere else. Why would he? Why should he?
Goodell 2.0 said 01/22, 11:31 PM
"While they can get someone for a cheaper price at a skill position, they will not get someone at a cheaper price for their quarterback and replace Tom Brady. You aren't going to find someone who is one of the best quarterbacks in the league. "
You forget that Drew Bledsoe was the franchise QB in New England and did absolutely NOTHING to loose his job but get hurt. And when he did they had Brady who was SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to take over, they made the move.
You also forget Lawyer Milloy who was a team captian in 2002 and fresh off a probowl nod, not to mention a member of the 90's and 2000 NFL all decade team.....He was RELEASED 5 DAYS before the start of the 2003 season after making the Probowl and the 1st team all pro (AFC)
Richard Seymour had 5 all pro nods before getting traded....
Curtis Martin was only 3 years into his pro career when they traded him. He is the only person not named Barry Sanders to have 1000 yards rushing in 10 consecutive seasons, and was 10 times the receiver that Barry Sanders was
Tom Brady is just the next in a long list of players the players to be cut by the pats. Hell, the Bills even cut Jim Kelly before he retired
Dyhard is a certified stoner said 01/23, 01:55 AM
And when he got hurt, who stepped in? Oh, that's right, Tom Brady. There was a reason that they got rid of Drew Bledsoe...Brady was right there and was BETTER than Bledsoe. Can you say the same thing about Mallet? Hell, I don't think Belichick trusts Mallet that much right now and I sure as hell know he won't be better than Brady or even at his skill level. So what reason would they have in getting rid of him? He's their offense!
They were trying to cut down Milloy's cap impact since the winter before they cut him and were unable to do so, so they released him. They haven't been trying to do any sort of the same thing with Brady right now and they haven't even talked about releasing him. As I've asked before, why would they? Just because they have a history of cutting players for cap reasons doesn't mean that they're going to do this with Tom Brady.
This team, without some of the players you mentioned, was still a contender for the Super Bowl. Without Brady, this team isn't. Do you think they're going to risk being a contender for the Super Bowl by cutting Brady for a measly couple of million in the cap when they can cut others to get the same result cap wise?
Goodell 2.0 said 01/23, 01:50 PM
"Oh, that's right, Tom Brady. There was a reason that they got rid of Drew Bledsoe...Brady was right there and was BETTER than Bledsoe."
When he was winning his SB rings, he was nothing more than a game manager. A average to slightly above average QB. Look at his numbers when the Pats were at thier best.
His first 7 years he never had more than 28 nTD's in a season and was good for 14 INTS a year. He NEVER averaged more than 250 yards passing in any season. Those are Carson Palmer numbers in his prime....Donovan McNabb numbers in his prime. How is this so much BETTER than Bledsoe? It's not....It really isnt
Whats crazy is when he was average, he won multiple Super Bowls. Now he is ELITE, and cant win ****.
"Just because they have a history of cutting players for cap reasons doesn't mean that they're going to do this with Tom Brady. "
Yes, it does actually. The time will come just like with Seymour when they realize that they wont keep him, and unload him for a 2nd or 3rd round pick to a team that is desperate. Thats what the pats have ALWAYS done, and will always do. It will probably be in 2-3 years when he is in the final year of his contract
Dyhard is a certified stoner said 01/23, 02:23 PM
I hope you're kidding. Brady is better than Bledsoe. There's absolutely no denying that. I question you're knowledge in the NFL if you claim that to be false. Brady is an elite quarterback and you can't just ditch him to the side for a cheaper player who is significantly worse. Without Brady, that offense is a shitshow.
Brady has been an elite quarterback and he has struggled with a terrible offensive line for a lot of his time in New England. Plus, just check out his stats in the post-season. You can't deny that he is a better QB than Bledsoe was.
This is an entire different scenario than what it was when Bledsoe was with NE and had Brady behind him. Brady is one of the best QBs in the league. Bledsoe wasn't a sure-lock HoF and he didn't have a questionable player sitting behind him like Mallet. You can see it when Mallet plays, he isn't on Brady's level or close to it.
Seymour was hell over his deal and they needed to get rid of him. Plus, he wasn't a signature piece to their team in where his loss would mean a destruction of the team like Brady's loss would be. Brady is gonna retire in New England. NE or Belichick aren't that stupid.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia