If you were the Rams GM (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

For the purposes of this poll, ignore the fact that this offer wouldn't actually be on the table, in addition to the player's salaries in question. Assume you will get each player at the start of a six-year deal. Also assume that you can't then turn around and re-trade Brady.

 

[Statler & Waldorf]

If I was the Rams, in a heartbeat. If I was the Pats and they offered that, i'd shoot it down in a heartbeat. At least I hope they would.

 

[Jason Wood]

For the sake of the integrity of the Shark Pool, this better be a rout in favor of Mr. Bundchen.

 

[pollardsvision]

With this hypothetical, will Brady re-sign with the Rams?

Obviously, who's the better player isn't a question, but 1 year of Brady wouldn't do the Rams much good.

ETA: Nevermind. It really doesn't matter. Even just 1 year of Brady is a great return when it means unloading $50 mill. guaranteed to a guy who can't take a hit.

 

[Chase Stuart]

With this hypothetical, will Brady re-sign with the Rams?Obviously, who's the better player isn't a question, but 1 year of Brady wouldn't do the Rams much good.

Assume you will get each player at the start of a six-year deal.I'll update the OP.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I think it would be a slam dunk for the Rams' to make this trade.

 

[bostonfred]

 

[No Way Jose]

Might get a little closer pole if you threw in a 2011 1st with 8radford.

 

[Chase Stuart]

For the sake of the integrity of the Shark Pool, this better be a rout in favor of Mr. Bundchen.

Brady turns 33 tomorrow. Bradford turns 23 in November. For the 2020 season, odds are that Bradford will be a much better pro quarterback. This year, Brady will be a much better quarterback. For a team like the Rams, Brady's immediate value isn't as important as it would be for most teams - St. Louis isn't winning it all in '10 with or without Brady. So it becomes a question of at what point over the next 3-10 years do you think Bradford will be better than Brady (and, of course, if Bradford becomes an excellent QB, you can end up with 15 years of Bradford, as opposed to 5 years of Brady). Does he eclipse him in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 years?

 

[daveR]

For year one and two, Brady's a slam dunk. Beyond that, especially years 6-7-8-9... , he'll likely be retired.

For a team on the verge, Brady makes sense. For a team that needs a few years, you gotta go Bradford.

 

[Donsmith753]

How do things change if you believe this is Brady's last season?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

QB's seem to be playing and performing very well even close to 40 years old under the right conditions. I don't think the "right conditions" are set up for Brady or anyone else in St. Louis but in regards to the trade, I'd make it if I were the Rams. For those arguing that Brady wouldn't make that much of an impact on the Rams, he's only 1 player, my retort is you have to start somewhere, and QB is a great start. There's no doubt you'd have to add offensive line help, defense, wide receivers etc....but towards the end of the 5 or 6 years that this hypothetical trade, the Rams should/would have gotten the tools they need to at least be competitive. At this point, you don't even know if Bradford is a bust or not. I know this, if the Rams offered a straight up deal today Bradford for Brady, the Patriots may not even call them back. In case it was difficult to figure out thinking if the Rams would make that trade, thinking about it from the Pats persepctive should lend a hand.

 

[Godsbrother]

For year one and two, Brady's a slam dunk. Beyond that, especially years 6-7-8-9... , he'll likely be retired.

For a team on the verge, Brady makes sense. For a team that needs a few years, you gotta go Bradford.

:IBTL:

 

[Masked Vigilante]

With Brady the Rams would challenge for the NFC West title this year

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

For the purposes of this poll, ignore the fact that this offer wouldn't actually be on the table, in addition to the player's salaries in question. Assume you will get each player at the start of a six-year deal. Also assume that you can't then turn around and re-trade Brady.

And I don't want to derail the conversation but I think going down this path is an interesting one to visit. I know you picked Bradford because he's the NO. 1 pick from this draft but you can also insert other young Qb's who are in different situations.For example, would the Jets make that trade for Brady straight up for Mark Sanchez. Currently the Jets are 6 to 1 to win the SB behind the favorites who are the Colts. With Tom Brady as the QB of the Jets, that would have to make them co-favorites at least for this upcoming season. Would the Jets pull that trigger for the SB opportunity this year?What about Stafford? The Lions are in more of a situation like the Rams, they're not winning it all this year. However, we've at least seen Stafford play at the pro level and it looks like Stafford will be able to play. Will he be a guy who gets hurt all the time because of w/e reasons, who knows but it looks like he can play.The one thing we don't know about Bradford yet is he could be a complete bust, which sways me to some degree towards making that trade for Brady.I do think the Sanchez for Brady topic is also a good one since the Jets appear to be ready to win a SB now and not 3 to 5 years down the road like some of these other teams who have these young guns.

 

[Tau837]

Yes.

The Rams would likely sell more tickets that way, and they would likely be more competitive that way over the course of a 6 year deal. Yes, it's possible that Brady will decline before the end of that period, but it's also possible Bradford will never be an above average NFL QB.

Even on a franchise like the Rams, which is not ready to win a Super Bowl in the near future, it seems like a nobrainer to me. The only reason the Rams should not do it is if they are absolutely convinced Bradford is going to be an elite QB... and the GM would have to be willing to stake his career with the Rams on that (which he has done in real life, but without a Brady alternative).

 

[Warhogs]

Trying to build an argument for Bradford.

First, I am assuming Brady for the next 6 years is going to cost more than Bradford. I also have to look at the surrounding cast. I am a team that is young and rebuilding and may not have the talent to really take advantage of Brady's ability. I can build this young group together to create a long lasting foundation. I can struggle along for a couple more years with the defense of we are a young and rebuilding franchise. If Brady were here and we stink I am probably out of a job in the next 12 months.

Building an argument for Brady.

The guy is a proven QB. Adding Brady shows some of my vets like Steven Jackson and the fans that I want to put a winning product on the field. I think adding Brady sells a bunch more tickets and raises the interest level for the Rams.

 

[southeastjerome]

A sure thing at the leagues most important position for a risky young player with a contract that could cripple the franchise if he does not work out, this is a no brainer. QBs have shown to be productive in the latter part of their careers recently, there's no reason to think Brady would be any different.

 

[B-Deep]

For the sake of the integrity of the Shark Pool, this better be a rout in favor of Mr. Bundchen.

Brady turns 33 tomorrow. Bradford turns 23 in November. For the 2020 season, odds are that Bradford will be a much better pro quarterback. This year, Brady will be a much better quarterback. For a team like the Rams, Brady's immediate value isn't as important as it would be for most teams - St. Louis isn't winning it all in '10 with or without Brady. So it becomes a question of at what point over the next 3-10 years do you think Bradford will be better than Brady (and, of course, if Bradford becomes an excellent QB, you can end up with 15 years of Bradford, as opposed to 5 years of Brady). Does he eclipse him in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 years?

i suppose the bolded is true, but i am not sure it is a lock

If you'd done this with aikman or manning you'd be right. If you'd done it with Couch or Jeff George you'd be wrong. The reason i would not do this is bradford has not shown anything at the pro level, granted this is not his fault. You know you've got several years of outstanding QB with Brady, and he has proven it. That gives you a bird in hand, and plenty of time to find a cheaper bird in the bush to replace brady.

 

[bostonfred]

For year one and two, Brady's a slam dunk. Beyond that, especially years 6-7-8-9... , he'll likely be retired. For a team on the verge, Brady makes sense. For a team that needs a few years, you gotta go Bradford.

The Pats weren't exactly "on the verge" in 2000.

 

[Jason Wood]

For the sake of the integrity of the Shark Pool, this better be a rout in favor of Mr. Bundchen.

Brady turns 33 tomorrow. Bradford turns 23 in November. For the 2020 season, odds are that Bradford will be a much better pro quarterback. This year, Brady will be a much better quarterback. For a team like the Rams, Brady's immediate value isn't as important as it would be for most teams - St. Louis isn't winning it all in '10 with or without Brady. So it becomes a question of at what point over the next 3-10 years do you think Bradford will be better than Brady (and, of course, if Bradford becomes an excellent QB, you can end up with 15 years of Bradford, as opposed to 5 years of Brady). Does he eclipse him in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 years?

I don't think that fairly couches the situation in that Bradford is a complete unknown. He could easily never be half as good as Brady IS. If we knew that Bradford would follow a career trajectory the Rams intended for him when they took him 1st overall, then no one should trade him away for Brady for the reasons you're suggesting. But when you think through that Bradford could easily be a bust, be mediocre, or be OK but nowhere as good as Brady, I think this kind of poll should be an absolute landslide.I also think it's illustrative (and maybe where you're going with this) of why something has to be done with the rookie wage scale. Guaranteeing a rookie QB with shoulder injuries in his past and coming from a system that's not pro style $50 million when many All Pros are having trouble getting extensions done is just asinine.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

A sure thing at the leagues most important position for a risky young player with a contract that could cripple the franchise if he does not work out, this is a no brainer.

Agreed - Can we at least wait and see if he can take a hit to his shoulder?

 

[Chase Stuart]

For the sake of the integrity of the Shark Pool, this better be a rout in favor of Mr. Bundchen.

Brady turns 33 tomorrow. Bradford turns 23 in November. For the 2020 season, odds are that Bradford will be a much better pro quarterback. This year, Brady will be a much better quarterback. For a team like the Rams, Brady's immediate value isn't as important as it would be for most teams - St. Louis isn't winning it all in '10 with or without Brady. So it becomes a question of at what point over the next 3-10 years do you think Bradford will be better than Brady (and, of course, if Bradford becomes an excellent QB, you can end up with 15 years of Bradford, as opposed to 5 years of Brady). Does he eclipse him in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 years?

I don't think that fairly couches the situation in that Bradford is a complete unknown. He could easily never be half as good as Brady IS. If we knew that Bradford would follow a career trajectory the Rams intended for him when they took him 1st overall, then no one should trade him away for Brady for the reasons you're suggesting. But when you think through that Bradford could easily be a bust, be mediocre, or be OK but nowhere as good as Brady, I think this kind of poll should be an absolute landslide.I also think it's illustrative (and maybe where you're going with this) of why something has to be done with the rookie wage scale. Guaranteeing a rookie QB with shoulder injuries in his past and coming from a system that's not pro style $50 million when many All Pros are having trouble getting extensions done is just asinine.

Well, I suppose we should see what sort of contract Brady ends up with first.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Brady would give the Rams a good chance at winning the West. Of course you go Brady.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'd trade for an offensive lineman or two, but getting Brady will only help the Rams become a 7-9 or 8-8 team without the big uglies to protect him. I wouldn't do this deal unless I had a good idea that landing Brady would draw the interest of decent free agent linemen on the market and this deal took place way before training camp.

 

[Chase Stuart]

A sure thing at the leagues most important position for a risky young player with a contract that could cripple the franchise if he does not work out, this is a no brainer.

Agreed - Can we at least wait and see if he can take a hit to his shoulder?

To be clear, I'm asking to ignore contracts for the purposes of this discussion. But that's not because Bradford's contract is crippling; I'm pretty sure Brady's contract (should be signed soon) will be worth more.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I can't stand Brady. I think he is (or was) really overrated. I think got really lucky at times to help win certain games. That said, this is a no-brainer. I am astonished that people would vote to take any rookie, especially a QB, over a proven pro-bowl caliber player.

 

[Chase Stuart]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=7010#comments

 

[Instinctive]

I'm very close to on the fence because of Bradford's incredible accuracy (and slight homerism...I mean come on, who doesn't overvalue a friend right?) and the 10 years difference in age.

I think I would take Brady and immediately draft another QB high to learn from the golden boy, a la Rodgers from Favre.

 

[kutta]

Just look at what Warner did for the Cardinals. It's a no-brainer that Brady would be a better choice than Bradford. Besides everything else that was mentioned, Brady would allow the Rams to attract some pretty good free agents over the next few years.

 

[TommyGilmore]

That's like asking if Arizona would rather have Kurt Warner in 2006 or Matt Leinart.

 

[cdwood]

I'd trade for an offensive lineman or two, but getting Brady will only help the Rams become a 7-9 or 8-8 team without the big uglies to protect him. I wouldn't do this deal unless I had a good idea that landing Brady would draw the interest of decent free agent linemen on the market and this deal took place way before training camp.

Lets say the Rams become a 7-9 or 8-8 in year one. In the following entry draft you could get those big uglies to protect him, would it not be reasonable to expect that the Rams would be 9-7 or 10-6 in the second season and that they'd be contending for the NFC West division title and a shot at the playoffs?

 

[Winning IS Everything]

How do things change if you believe this is Brady's last season?

Or that there may be no football next year.

 

[TommyGilmore]

How do things change if you believe this is Brady's last season?

Who believes that? And how much do I have to add to my subscription to make sure that he never posts here or contributes in any way, shape, or form to the Footballguys content?

 

[Lord Lucan]

Just playing devil's advocate here...I suspect that if a thread had appeared on this board (or cheatsheets.net!) in the summer of 1998 asking if the Colts should trade their rookie number one pick QB for future HOFer Troy Aikman, or even for Favre, that would have been laughed out of town too.

 

[Lord Lucan]

Just playing devil's advocate here...I suspect that if a thread had appeared on this board (or cheatsheets.net!) in the summer of 1998 asking if the Colts should trade their rookie number one pick QB for future HOFer Troy Aikman, or even for Favre, that would have been laughed out of town too.

Mind you, the same suggestion would also have been laughed out of town if it related to San Diego's rookie QB rather than Indy's...

 

[kutta]

Just playing devil's advocate here...I suspect that if a thread had appeared on this board (or cheatsheets.net!) in the summer of 1998 asking if the Colts should trade their rookie number one pick QB for future HOFer Troy Aikman, or even for Favre, that would have been laughed out of town too.

Yep. And it would have been right thing to do in that situation also.

 

[SSOG]

For year one and two, Brady's a slam dunk. Beyond that, especially years 6-7-8-9... , he'll likely be retired. For a team on the verge, Brady makes sense. For a team that needs a few years, you gotta go Bradford.

The Pats weren't exactly "on the verge" in 2000.

Tom Brady wasn't exactly "33 years old" in 2000.Personally, if I were the Rams GM, I'd say "thanks but no thanks" to the Pats and stick with Bradford. Since we're already playing in hypothetical-imaginary-land, I'd also trade Steven Jackson away for Ryan Matthews while I was at it. No sense owning a stud if all you're going to do is run him into the ground while you're struggling to just break even in the wins column.

 

[Jerry Lawler]

As Rams GM, I would definitely take Brady. Even though the Rams are rebuilding, I think they could compete for a title in 2 years if the young players develop and the schemes match the skills of the role players. While realism is important for a franchise with an apparent talent deficit, I think that losing tends to breed losing, so it's dangerous to allow your franchise to expect and, even worse, embrace a losing season. Simply bringing in a bunch of young players with promise and hoping they develop is not how you build a winning franchise.

I also think the converse is true: winning breeds winning. If I'm the Rams GM, I'm rushing to the phones to add Brady, even if it means probably going 7-9. I think a QB with credibility and leadership who actually wins a couple of extra games for the team makes a big difference in the team's culture, and that's when younger players work hard, attend to details, and compete on a pro level.

 

[B-Deep]

I can't stand Brady. I think he is (or was) really overrated. I think got really lucky at times to help win certain games. That said, this is a no-brainer. I am astonished that people would vote to take any rookie, especially a QB, over a proven pro-bowl caliber player.

yeah, if i had to think of one word to describe brady it would be "lucky"

 

[Tau837]

As Rams GM, I would definitely take Brady. Even though the Rams are rebuilding, I think they could compete for a title in 2 years if the young players develop and the schemes match the skills of the role players. While realism is important for a franchise with an apparent talent deficit, I think that losing tends to breed losing, so it's dangerous to allow your franchise to expect and, even worse, embrace a losing season. Simply bringing in a bunch of young players with promise and hoping they develop is not how you build a winning franchise.I also think the converse is true: winning breeds winning. If I'm the Rams GM, I'm rushing to the phones to add Brady, even if it means probably going 7-9. I think a QB with credibility and leadership who actually wins a couple of extra games for the team makes a big difference in the team's culture, and that's when younger players work hard, attend to details, and compete on a pro level.

 

[Tau837]

Just playing devil's advocate here...I suspect that if a thread had appeared on this board (or cheatsheets.net!) in the summer of 1998 asking if the Colts should trade their rookie number one pick QB for future HOFer Troy Aikman, or even for Favre, that would have been laughed out of town too.

Sure, but Peyton is an exception, not the rule. Just look at the QBs taken #1 since 1990:Jeff GeorgeDrew BledsoePeyton ManningTim CouchMichael VickDavid CarrCarson PalmerEli ManningAlex SmithJamarcus RussellMatthew StaffordThe jury is out on Stafford, so ignore him. In retrospect, I think if each of the other teams were faced with the same choice (trade their #1 QB before his first season for a Brady-equivalent), 8 of the other 10 teams would have been better off had they made such a trade... all but the Colts (Peyton) and the Giants (Eli). Every team that didn't get one of Archie Manning's kids would have been better off with the Brady-equivalent.So to say no to the idea of trading Bradford for Brady in this hypothetical scenario, you are banking on Bradford achieving a fairly rare level of success in comparison to other recent #1 QB selections. Not to mention the difference in ticket sales.

 

[FavreCo]

No chance. Brady will be washed up by the time this team improves enough to contend. Therefore he would be a waste of $. Same reason they decided against T.O.

 

[bulger2holt]

As a Rams fan, as much as I think Brady is a great QB, I say no thanks. Bradford is going to be the real deal. He will see may pro bowls these next 15 years. BTW, the Rams o-line is looking great. OT Staffold is a beast. He and Jason Smith are going to be greal OT bookends for many years to come. Add him to OC stud Jason Brown, and that's 3/5ths of your line being studly.

 

[TommyGilmore]

In retrospect, I think if each of the other teams were faced with the same choice (trade their #1 QB before his first season for a Brady-equivalent), 8 of the other 10 teams would have been better off had they made such a trade... all but the Colts (Peyton) and the Giants (Eli). Every team that didn't get one of Archie Manning's kids would have been better off with the Brady-equivalent.

I'm not sure if the Giants wouldn't be better with a "Brady-equivalent" quarterback. Of course, there was no Brady-equivalent QB in 2004 (Favre comes closest, but he was 35 in 2004. All the other top QBs were under 30.).Put Favre on the Giants in 2004 and maybe they've got 2 Superbowl appearances in the last 6 years?

 

[Instinctive]

Just playing devil's advocate here...I suspect that if a thread had appeared on this board (or cheatsheets.net!) in the summer of 1998 asking if the Colts should trade their rookie number one pick QB for future HOFer Troy Aikman, or even for Favre, that would have been laughed out of town too.

Sure, but Peyton is an exception, not the rule. Just look at the QBs taken #1 since 1990:Jeff GeorgeDrew BledsoePeyton ManningTim CouchMichael VickDavid CarrCarson PalmerEli ManningAlex SmithJamarcus RussellMatthew StaffordThe jury is out on Stafford, so ignore him. In retrospect, I think if each of the other teams were faced with the same choice (trade their #1 QB before his first season for a Brady-equivalent), 8 of the other 10 teams would have been better off had they made such a trade... all but the Colts (Peyton) and the Giants (Eli). Every team that didn't get one of Archie Manning's kids would have been better off with the Brady-equivalent.So to say no to the idea of trading Bradford for Brady in this hypothetical scenario, you are banking on Bradford achieving a fairly rare level of success in comparison to other recent #1 QB selections. Not to mention the difference in ticket sales.

I think Peyton, Eli, Bledsoe, Palmer, and Vick were all great picks. Remember Vick was taking his team to NFC championships before...dogs...happened. Palmer was thought of as potentially a top 3-5 QB in the league before the knee was wrecked and the arm thing. Vick lost some time to his broken leg, right in his prime. Eli has a super bowl win and alot of time left and a great offensive corps.

 

[Abrantes]

As Rams GM, I would definitely take Brady. Even though the Rams are rebuilding, I think they could compete for a title in 2 years if the young players develop and the schemes match the skills of the role players. While realism is important for a franchise with an apparent talent deficit, I think that losing tends to breed losing, so it's dangerous to allow your franchise to expect and, even worse, embrace a losing season. Simply bringing in a bunch of young players with promise and hoping they develop is not how you build a winning franchise.I also think the converse is true: winning breeds winning. If I'm the Rams GM, I'm rushing to the phones to add Brady, even if it means probably going 7-9. I think a QB with credibility and leadership who actually wins a couple of extra games for the team makes a big difference in the team's culture, and that's when younger players work hard, attend to details, and compete on a pro level.

Well said.

 

[DansRams]

For year one and two, Brady's a slam dunk. Beyond that, especially years 6-7-8-9... , he'll likely be retired. For a team on the verge, Brady makes sense. For a team that needs a few years, you gotta go Bradford.

The Pats weren't exactly "on the verge" in 2000.

Tom Brady wasn't exactly "33 years old" in 2000.Personally, if I were the Rams GM, I'd say "thanks but no thanks" to the Pats and stick with Bradford. Since we're already playing in hypothetical-imaginary-land, I'd also trade Steven Jackson away for Ryan Matthews while I was at it. No sense owning a stud if all you're going to do is run him into the ground while you're struggling to just break even in the wins column.

 

[SSOG]

Sure, but Peyton is an exception, not the rule. Just look at the QBs taken #1 since 1990:Jeff GeorgeDrew BledsoePeyton ManningTim CouchMichael VickDavid CarrCarson PalmerEli ManningAlex SmithJamarcus RussellMatthew StaffordThe jury is out on Stafford, so ignore him. In retrospect, I think if each of the other teams were faced with the same choice (trade their #1 QB before his first season for a Brady-equivalent), 8 of the other 10 teams would have been better off had they made such a trade... all but the Colts (Peyton) and the Giants (Eli). Every team that didn't get one of Archie Manning's kids would have been better off with the Brady-equivalent.

You're looking at how the Bradford-equivalents have performed while completely ignoring how the Brady-equivalents have performed. Sure, a lot of those guys have been pretty bad. So have a lot of the post-33 Brady-equivalents. Look at Troy Aikman (retired after his age 34 season), or Dan Fouts (threw more INTs than TDs after age 33, retired after his age 36 season), or Jim Kelly (only one top-10 passing yardage finish after age 33, retired after age 36), or Drew Bledsoe, or any number of great 33-year old QBs.Plus, you're also ignoring the role supporting cast plays in a QB's performance. I think everyone radically underrates just how much supporting cast matters. Tom Brady was just a very good game manager until he got Moss and Welker. Jay Cutler saw his ANYA drop by 2 yards when he went from Denver to Chicago. Jake Plummer averaged 2 more ANYA in Denver than he did in Arizona. Archie Manning never did the Saints any good. Kurt Warner looked like a hall of famer when he had Holt/Bruce, and again when he had Fitz/Boldin, but without them he looked like a journeyman. It's entirely possible that putting a great QB in such a terrible situation still leads to below-average results... and if I'm going to get below-average results anyway, I'd much rather get them from a guy who will still be a viable NFL player by the time I've upgraded his supporting cast.

 

[dickey moe]

Brady, Jesus Christ, and the 2nd coming of Jerry Rice couldn't get the Rams to win the NFC West next season.