bulger2holt
Footballguy
That's what they said about the 1999 Rams, and we all know how that turned out.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
If you were the Rams GM (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chase Stuart
- Start date
Tau837
Footballguy
I'm not ignoring anything. I made a hypothetical statement that *if* any of those teams had the choice to trade their #1 pick QB for a *Brady-equivalent* QB, most of them should have done so. IMO none of these examples you gave fit my hypothetical (i.e., none were *Brady-equivalent* QBs at the same age). As much as one can stand by a hypothetical statement, I stand by it.
IMO Brady is considerably better than Cutler, Plummer, and Archie Manning, and, as you noted, Warner excelled only with great supporting casts on offense; Brady has won Super Bowls without that already. Apples and oranges IMO.
You use the term *will* here, which implies you aren't allowing for the possibility that Bradford goes the route of Couch, Carr, Russell, Smith, etc. and is not a truly viable player at the end of the 6 year period in the hypothetical. It seems you are overlooking the possibility that, while Brady will likely be retired or ineffective in 6 years, the same may be true of Bradford.
(Huge Bradford fan) I saw that PFR blog post. I think it comes down to if you are aiming to win it all now or build. The Rams are young at several key positions while the Pats are in win now mode. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense without a building purpose.
The Cowboys are fortunate in that they are young and can possibly win now. I would trade Romo for Bradford in a heartbeat and Romo has put up some gaudy stats. Dez and Bradford could easily be the top connection over the next so many years and they have tons of quality young talent. Romo chokes so what is the real loss if Bradford takes time to learn? Come to think of it, Dallas would also improve their huge following in Oklahoma as well so it's a win win here IMO.
The Cowboys are fortunate in that they are young and can possibly win now. I would trade Romo for Bradford in a heartbeat and Romo has put up some gaudy stats. Dez and Bradford could easily be the top connection over the next so many years and they have tons of quality young talent. Romo chokes so what is the real loss if Bradford takes time to learn? Come to think of it, Dallas would also improve their huge following in Oklahoma as well so it's a win win here IMO.
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
voted No. My team is so young and bad that we don't even win/compete for 2-3 years, and then he'll start backsliding. Bradford is better for a young building team IMHO.
Das Boot
Footballguy
This is the key point IMO.You get an elite QB for a couple of years in Brady, then a declining elite QB for a few years.
Odds are pretty high that Bradford's talent won't eclipse Brady's until very late in Brady's career...
that's no knock on Bradford, it's true of any rookie QB being measured against Brady for the next 6 years.
You really don't think Dan Fouts, Troy Aikman, or Jim Kelly are good Tom Brady comps? Seriously?
Brady might be considerably better than Cutler, Plummer, and Archie but that doesn't mean that he's not dependent on his supporting cast. The point wasn't that Tom Brady in St. Louis would be as bad as Jake Plummer in Arizona, the point is that QBs perform substantially and demonstrably worse with bad supporting casts than they do with good supporting casts.
The odds of Bradford still being a viable player 6 years from now are several magnitudes higher than the odds of Tom Brady still being a viable player 6 years from now.
Franklin Delano Bluth
Footballguy
Aikman is a very poor comparison because (regardless of his pedigree as a winner) he just rarely put up the kind of numbers that Brady or the other guys put up. (i.e., statistically speaking, Brady has been a top-10 QB every season since 2001; Aikman? His average ranking was in the teens). Brady and Manning are the kinds of QBs who can put up top-10 stats every season AND ALSO lead their team to Super Bowls. Aikman was top-10 a couple times but otherwise he was closer to a Ben Roethlistberger-type. (Not that I'm dismissing what Aikman did; I'm just saying that he's not a good apples-to-apples comparison with Brady.)Kelly is a good comparison, although I would point out that he had more miles on his body at age 32 than Brady does.Guys like Brady and Manning offer a level of statistical consistency that simply isn't there with Aikman or (to a lesser extent) Fouts or most other quarterbacks. That's what makes them worth trading the farm for.
Franklin Delano Bluth
Footballguy
Who cares about 2016 if Brady gives you a couple deep playoff runs between now and then?
Donsmith753
Footballguy
I just think with the things surrounding his commitment to his family etc and the possibility of a lock out there may not be many more Brady years left.
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
You don't think TO's past history with QB's was more of a factor than age itself?FavreCo said:
Aikman's a fantastic comparison. You think the GM of the Rams is playing fantasy football with his team? You think if a 33-year old Troy Aikman was available he'd say "nah man, I'm going to pass on Troy Aikman because he doesn't score enough fantasy points... but if Aaron Brooks was available, things would be different!"? Troy Aikman was a first-ballot Hall of Famer with 6 pro bowls by age 30. Tom Brady has 5 pro bowls in his entire career. So his aggregate numbers weren't that great. That's what happens when you only attempt 450 passes per 16 games over your entire career. Again... first-ballot HoFer.I'm also not sure I understand the point about Jim Kelly's miles. Through age 32, Tom Brady has attempted 4218 passes. Through age 32, Kelly had attempted 3024 passes. But what about the USFL, someone might ask? Add his USFL attempts to his total and he'd attempted... 4178 passes, which is still 40 fewer than Brady. I suppose you could add his college attempts, but at that point you're really just picking nits. Regardless, I've never seen anyone list "mileage" as a contributing factor to a QB's demise.And as far as "statistical consistency" goes... Fouts' 8 straight top-12 fantasy finishes (6 of them top-6) put Brady's 6-straight top-10 fantasy finishes (3 of them top-6) to shame. The only thing that hurt Fouts' "statistical consistency" is the fact that he missed 6 games in 1983 (and still finished 12th) and 3 games in '84 (and still finished 11th). But, as I said, it's not like NFL GMs are running their teams like fantasy squads. I'd imagine they'd be more apt to look at stats like the 8-straight top-8 finishes in passer rating (six of them top-4) that Fouts put up, or the six straight top-6 finishes in yards per attempt (both levels of statistical consistency that Brady will never match).Again, I'm not comparing Tom Brady to Jake Plummer, here. I'm using first ballot HoF QBs as comps. To suggest that Brady is somehow a better or more desirable QB than every other first ballot HoF QB who has gone before him is a little... extreme.
az_prof
Footballguy
I can't believe that this isn't even more of a route for Brady. Bradford will be a better QB in 2020? Who knows if Bradford will even still be in the league in 2020? Who knows if he is any good? Brady is a proven PRO Bowl QB who can win a Superbowl. Favre has shown that in this day with today's medicine and the way the NFL protects QBs, a QB can play well into his late 30s. Give me four years of Brady over 20 years of Bradford.
Tau837
Footballguy
Brady has been a full season starter 7 times, and he started 16 games in each of those seasons. He was also a part season starter one other time, the season he replaced Bledsoe. In the 7 full seasons, he was top 10 in passing yards and top 10 in passing TDs each year. In all 8 seasons, he was top 10 in QB rating. During that span, he won 1 MVP, 2 Super Bowl MVPs, and 1 OPOY, while being the primary player leader (i.e., other than Belichick) on teams that reached 4 Super Bowls and won 3. He did this with both great supporting talent on offense (e.g., Moss, Welker, et al in 2007) and with weak supporting talent on offense (e.g., 2001). In addition, while he missed one season due to the knee injury, he has no known health issues at this point that will jeopardize his future ability to stay on the field.For purposes of this discussion, Aikman is really not comparable. He finished in the top 10 in passing yards only 4 times and in the top 10 in passing TDs only 3 times (and barely at that... 10th twice). So did he make up for it in efficiency? Somewhat... he was top 10 in QB rating 6 times. But overall he falls short statistically. How about honors/awards? He doesn't measure up... 1 Super Bowl MVP and 0 MVPs or OPOY awards. His team success is comparable, and he was clearly instrumental in that... but he had Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin throughout... he never successfully led an offense that wasn't stacked; Brady did. Aikman also played 16 games only 3 times in his career, and had some health issues (e.g., concussions).That said, the relevant year to make Aikman a comp was 1999, when Couch was the #1 pick in the draft. Despite the fact that Aikman would have been out of football shortly thereafter, it really wouldn't have hurt the Browns to have traded Couch for him. It would have forced the Browns to turn the page sooner.As for Fouts, he is more impressive than Brady statistically, albeit in a great system with a great supporting cast on offense. However, he was not viewed as a winner at age 33 in the way Brady is. He had not led his team to any Super Bowls at that point; not that it is appropriate to blame him, but he does not get the same credit Brady gets in that area. He never won a MVP award, perhaps for that reason. Furthermore, Fouts missed 6 games in his 32 year old season due to an injury to his throwing shoulder, which might have been a mild cause for concern. Also, the relevant year to make him a comp would have been 1984... but the first QB drafted that year was Esiason with the 38th pick. All in all, he is not a valid comparison for the hypothetical.Kelly is really the best comparable here IMO, as he had similar success statistically and was instrumental in leading his team to 4 Super Bowls, though he was not able to lead them to a win. He did have a strong supporting case on offense in his best stretch, but not as strong as Aikman's. He also didn't win any major awards (no MVP, OPOY, or Super Bowl MVPs).So I guess I'd see Kelly as reasonably comparable... not quite as compelling as Brady would be today, but reasonably close. Should the Pats have traded Bledsoe for Kelly after the 1993 draft, if it were possible to do so?
Tau837
Footballguy
I don't think anyone has said exactly that. I haven't.First off, we are discussing a scenario based on Brady coming off his 32 year old season, and considering everything he has accomplished to that point. So other comps would need to be considered at the same age - the offseason between their age 32 and 33 seasons.Secondly, we're talking about whether or not the team who took a QB #1 should trade that player for Brady. So for someone else to be comparable, he not only needs to be comparable in terms of accomplishments, there also needs to be a similar draft scenario in the offeseason between his age 32 and 33 seasons.Finally, Brady has a set of characteristics that, while perhaps not uniquely compelling, have rarely been achieved by other HOFers at age 32:1. Brady is universally regarded as a winner. While one might debate the merits of this kind of label, there is no doubt it would play a part in the hypothetical scenario. So any comp would have to also have that reputation. As one example of those mentioned, Fouts does not.2. Brady has won 3 Super Bowls with a varying level of supporting casts. This includes winning with a poor supporting cast on offense, which, right or wrong, causes people to give Brady even more credit that might otherwise be given to a Super Bowl winning QB (e.g., Aikman).3. While achieving #1 and #2, he has been very good statistically - a regular in the top 10 in major passing categories. And, again, he has achieved that in some cases even with relatively weak supporting casts on offense. And when he had a strong supporting cast on offense, he had one of the few best QB seasons in NFL history, some might say the best ever. Any comp would need to have shown the ability to succeed with variable supporting casts as well as the ability to play at an absolutely elite level when the supporting cast is strong. As another example mentioned, I don't think Kelly did as much with poor supporting casts, and I don't think he showed the same elite ability at his best, either.4. He has been durable outside of a single injury, missing no games since he became a starter other than the season missed due to that one shot on his knee. Any comp would need to have a similar lack of health concerns at the same age.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
So... Troy Aikman, first ballot HoFer, isn't a good Brady comp because his head coach (through no fault of Aikman's) only asked him to throw 450 times a year (despite the fact that the rest of the league still realized he was one of the best in the league, as evidenced by his 6 pro bowls despite sub-par numbers). Dan Fouts, first ballot HoFer, isn't a good comparison because, while he was the trigger man for the best offense in the entire NFL, his GM and coach couldn't field a competent defense. You'll pardon me if I'm not buying it.Here's the question as I see it: if you were a putrid team, would you trade a QB selected #1 overall in exchange for a 33-year-old first ballot HoF lock. Apparently you see the question as "would you trade the #1 overall for a first-ballot HoF lock who has played with exactly this profile of teammates (bad offense at first, good offense later) and who has achieved exactly this profile of winning and has met exactly these statistical thresholds". Well hell, if we're going that far, then Jim Kelly can't be a good comp for Brady because Kelly was a 1st round draft pick. Neither can Dan Marino or John Elway. No, the only valid comparison for Tom Brady in the entire history of the NFL is Johnny Unitas. Of course, Unitas played 40 years ago and things have changed, so he's not a good comp, either. At the end of the day, that just means there are no good Tom Brady comps, so obviously the Rams would be fools to pass on that trade.You're just parsing the data far too fine. If a QB was a first ballot HoF lock by age 33, and he was widely viewed as one of the best QBs in the league, then the system he played in or the teammates he played with are irrelevant in terms of how desirable he'd be to trade for. The Rams GM wouldn't say "man, I'd really love Aikman, if only he played in a pass-first system instead of a run-first system". He wouldn't say "I'd trade for Fouts in a heartbeat, if only he'd had a defense worth a damn".I also think the whole comparing Brady comps only to #1 draft picks in the year that they were a Brady comp (such as only comparing Aikman to Couch) is also parsing the data far too fine. I think a much better exercise would be to compile a list of QBs who were first ballot HoFers, then compile a list of QBs who were taken #1 overall, and then compare the two groups while keeping in mind that past results don't predict future performance.
Here's a list of all HoF QBs who played the bulk of their career after 1980 (to give modern comps, since I doubt Otto Graham is really all that relevant, here). In parentheses, I've listed their total AV from age 33 to retirement and their pro bowl seasons from age 33 to retirement.Steve Young (84, 5)Warren Moon (118, 8, 0)John Elway (91, 5, 0)Troy Aikman (13, 0, 0)Jim Kelly (40, 0, 0)Dan Marino (68, 2, 0)Joe Montana (50, 3, 2)Dan Fouts (38, 1, 0)50% made a pro bowl. 5 of the 8 had an AV of 50 or higher.Here's a list of all QBs taken #1 overall in that span, as well as their career AV and pro bowls:Matthew Stafford (3, 0, 0)Jamarcus Russell (8, 0, 0)Alex Smith (16, 0, 0)Eli Manning (60, 1, 0)Carson Palmer (66, 2, 0)David Carr (48, 0, 0)Michael Vick (69, 3, 0)Tim Couch (32, 0, 0)Peyton Manning (204, 10, 5)Drew Bledsoe (137, 4, 0)Jeff George (78, 0, 0)Troy Aikman (121, 6, 0)Vinny Testaverde (142, 2, 0)John Elway (203, 9, 0)Tossing Stafford out, 54% made a pro bowl. 9 of 13 have an AV of 50 or higher. Tossing Matthew Stafford out and comparing the lists, I'd definitely take the #1 overall. Sure, Russell/Smith/Carr/Couch were absolutely useless, end of discussion... but I'd call Eli, Palmer, Vick, and Testeverde a wash with the HoFers, and I'd gladly risk getting a Russell, Smith, Carr, or Couch if it gave me an equal shot at a Peyton, a Bledsoe, an Elway, or an Aikman. The Hofers have the advantage of having all of their production front-loaded into the few years after their 33rd birthday... but that's not a positive for a team that has such low immediate expectations. Hell, say what you will about the Testaverdes and Jeff Georges on the list, but those two guys combined to start over 330 career games.
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
Aikman doesn't sniff the HOF without the rings. Brady, Manning, Fouts, Kelly, and even Drew Brees are HOF players with or without the championships.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
No way Brady is a HOFer as of now without any rings.Aikman doesn't sniff the HOF without the rings. Brady, Manning, Fouts, Kelly, and even Drew Brees are HOF players with or without the championships.
No way Brady is a HOFer as of now without any rings.Aikman doesn't sniff the HOF without the rings. Brady, Manning, Fouts, Kelly, and even Drew Brees are HOF players with or without the championships.
Brady - Rings = Donovan McNabb or Steve McNair. Brees without rings has a better HoF profile than Brady without rings, too (and I don't think Brees is a HoFer yet, even with his ring).Edit: planning on weighing in with your thoughts, Chase?
Last edited by a moderator:
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
Hmmm.....maybe. He'd be on the bubble, I guess. But the 50 TDs, the MVP award, and the consistent stats would put him over the top, I think. From 2002-2007 he was 2nd only to Manning in TDs and passer rating. Even if you include the 2000, 2001 and 2008 seasons, Brady is behind only Favre and Manning for TD passes this decade.The top-3 TD passers in the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s are all HOF players (except one)........seems like Brady would have been recognized eventually.No way Brady is a HOFer as of now without any rings.
I really think that Donovan McNabb is a spot-on comparison for Brady. Both have had a very short stretch of utter dominance (Brady in 2007, McNabb in '02 and '04). Both have had a very long stretch of respectability (6 pro bowls for McNabb, 5 for Brady). Their passing numbers are very comparable, but McNabb gets a boost because of his rushing numbers. All-in-all, I think they'd have pretty much an identical HoF profile if not for Brady's rings.Serious question: do you view Donovan McNabb as a Hall of Famer? How about Steve McNair (who also has very comparable numbers, plus he matches Brady's league MVP with one of his own)? Drew Brees?
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
It's an interesting question. I expect Brady's contract will exceed (and perhaps, far exceed) Bradford's contract, which is a sign that Brady is a more valuable commodity than Bradford. And I think that Brady *is* a more valuable commodity than Bradford. That said, for the Rams, I'm not sure that he is. Sure, Brady could be a super stud for the next four seasons, but that realistically only gives the Rams a 2-3 year window. Bradford probably won't be a super stud, but if he is, that is a 10+ year window. I also don't think Brady, as good as he is, is able to improve the Rams by nearly as much as some people think. And that's got nothing to do with Brady, as I think even outstanding quarterbacks are only worth about 2 games more than an average one. Football is the ultimate team game, and the Rams team (while scattered with some possible crown jewels) is really far away from competing. I'd probably be inclined to roll the dice, and hope that Bradford turns into Peyton Manning. I think a lot of the busted QBs people reference didn't have a lot of help in the coaching department (JaMarcus Russell -- Lane Kiffin/Tom Cable; Alex Smith -- Mike Nolan; David Carr -- Dom Capers; Tim Couch -- Chris Palmer; Jeff George -- Ron Meyer; Joey Harrington -- Marty Mornhinweg/Steve Mariucci; Akili Smith - Bruce Cosley; Ryan Leaf - Kevin Gilbride/Mike Riley). So I'd be very focused on finding the right guy to coach Bradford.
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
McNabb is in the tier below Brady. He does get a boost thanks to his rushing stats, but his passing numbers are too far below Brady's to make up for it. Plus, the injuries and the fact that his replacements have been almost as successful as him -- whether a fair assessment or not -- will hurt him. And he never won an MVP award.Right now Brees is on the fence between the McNabb tier and the Brady tier. Add on another couple of Pro Bowl years and he's a lock. But add a couple of Kurt-Warner-in-New-York seasons, and maybe his future doesn't look as bright.McNair? He's a poor man's Aikman, except without the rings. No HOF for him.
Last edited by a moderator:
I voted no.
not because I dont think brady is worth it, but because there is no point in getting a guy like Brady at his age when you dont have any talent to surround him with.
He would be retired before you could put any talented people in for him to work with.
based on this logic, the trade would not be a good one for the Rams to make.
at least with Bradford, they have a number of years to draft talented receivers for him to work with and to draft an O-line that can protect him.
not because I dont think brady is worth it, but because there is no point in getting a guy like Brady at his age when you dont have any talent to surround him with.
He would be retired before you could put any talented people in for him to work with.
based on this logic, the trade would not be a good one for the Rams to make.
at least with Bradford, they have a number of years to draft talented receivers for him to work with and to draft an O-line that can protect him.
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
I'd take my chances with that they could in that division.
Tau837
Footballguy
That's not the question that was asked. If you want to ask your own question, fine. But don't say I am taking the wrong approach when I am addressing the specific question Chase asked. TIA.
I completely disagree with this. IMO not all first ballot HOF QBs are created equal, and, frankly, I'm surprised you would suggest they are. At this point, however, I prefer to agree to disagree rather than continuing this debate.
Great, knock yourself out. That's not the question I was addressing, but it may be interesting in its own right.
McNabb's passing numbers are too far below Brady's? Brady averages 17 more yards per game than McNabb for his career, which is totally negated by McNabb's 17 ypg rushing advantage. Brady has a slightly better TD% (5.3 vs. 4.6, and offset by McNabb's 22 additional rushing scores), a slightly worse INT% (2.3 vs. 2.1, and offset by McNabb's 14 more fumbles), and a slightly better QB rating (93 vs. 87, mostly because McNabb's rating doesn't include his rushing prowess). Most importantly, though, McNabb has done it with garbage at receiver. The player who has caught the largest percentage of McNabb's passing yards is a running back (Brian Westbrook). The top two receivers for most of his career were James Thrash and Todd Pinkston. That's SUBSTANTIALLY worse than Brady's Branch/Givens/Brown trio early in his career. When McNabb actually had a decent receiver, his numbers were off-the-charts good (265 yards per game, 47 TDs in 24 games)And saying that McNabb's backups have been almost as successful as him is sort of an odd point to make when comparing him to Tom Brady. Remember when Matt Cassel threw for 3700 yards while leading the Patriots to an 11-5 record? Cassel performed substantially better than Feeley or Detmer ever did. I truly believe that if Brady didn't have rings, he would honestly be viewed as a slightly poorer version of Donovan McNabb.
It seemed pretty obvious to me that Chase meant the Brady/Bradford question to be a proxy for a larger "#1 overall vs. aging HoFer" question more than a specific question just about the Rams and Tom Brady and Sam Bradford. Besides, even if you do think that it was a very specific question and not meant as a proxy for a larger issue, then how can you justify using comps for Sam Bradford but not for Tom Brady? Okay, so Troy Aikman might not be a perfect comp for Tom Brady. Is Jeff George really a good comp for Sam Bradford? I'd say Brady is far more like Aikman than Bradford is like George or Leaf.
I wasn't saying they'd all be equal. Some would be better, some would be worse. On the whole, though, they'd provide a pretty solid range that Brady would certainly fall somewhere in the middle of. Just like how some of the #1 overall QBs are certainly worse than Bradford, and others are certainly better, but he's almost certain to fall somewhere in that range.
Tau837
Footballguy
We have a long NFL track record for Brady. We have no NFL track record for Bradford. Hence, it seemed reasonable to me to use comparables to Bradford, while not necessary for Brady. Furthermore, as I already outlined, I think there are very few, if any comparables to Brady due to his particular resume at this point in his career.I get it, you disagree. I already agreed to disagree with you.
That's just it. I don't think we know at this point that some of the #1 overall QB picks are "certainly worse" or "certainly better" than Bradford. To me, that was a crucial aspect of the question. As unlikely as it may seem, Bradford could still turn out to be the worst of the lot. Or, for that matter, the best of the lot. Perhaps this is another aspect of me taking things too literally, but some of what you've written in your responses imply assumptions that I have not been making in my responses.
Last edited by a moderator:
bulger2holt
Footballguy
Bradford has the tools to be every bit as good as Brady. Actually, I think they are very similar type of players. Good size, accurate, smart, leaders, good arm, not overly mobile, and Bradford is actually more mobile.
I think Bradford will be somewhere between Rivers and Brady.
I think Bradford will be somewhere between Rivers and Brady.
Sam Bradford isn't a talented player?If Brett Favre came out of retirement, should the Rams trade Sam Bradford for him? I don't think anyone on the planet would suggest they should, which means everyone agrees that there's a point where a player's age outweighs his track record. We're just discussing where that point might be.
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
I wouldn't deal Bradford. That's only because I feel he's going to be an annual All-Pro mentioned with the likes of Rodgers/Rivers etc... 4-5 years from now.
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
Even if you incorporated McNabb's rushing stats into his passer rating (and did the same for Brady), Brady's rating would be about 8% higher than McNabb's.Chase Stuart has McNabb ranked 37th all time, with Brady at 19. I don't know if his formula puts too much weight on Super Bowl wins or Strength Of Receivers, though.SSOG said:
rodg12
Footballguy
You really think a comparison to Dan Fouts of 26 years ago is valid?? Laughable. The improvements in medicine and nutrition that players today are able to take advantage of compared to then makes the comparison entirely invalid. Not to mention the way the rules have changed since then to protect QBs more that ever (Brady/Manning especially).Aikman is a terrible comparison as well. He got beaten and battered in 1989 like Brady has not been his entire career. He had suffered multiple concussion by the time he was 33. Oh, and even just 10 years ago, the rules were significantly different allowing much more violent hits on the QB.SSOG said:
What an utterly terrible compilation of data this is.SSOG said:
Right. Fouts played a long time ago, which presented different challenges. Aikman suddenly started getting concussed by routine hits, which presented different challenges (note: it's not like Tom Brady is immune to concussions. Aikman had never been concussed before... until he had). Tom Brady had his knee absolutely shredded and then surgically repaired at age 31, which presents different challenges. The goal was not to identify a player who was actually a secret government clone of Tom Brady who had been sent back in time on a mission to play football to pave the way for the golden child. The goal was to identify a range of similar-enough players to show a range of the possible directions Brady's career could take.Also, that "beaten and battered in 1989" line was a total joke. Troy Aikman got sacked 19 times as a rookie. I'm sure he got hit more than that, but Brady got sacked 41 times his first season (which was, to borrow your words, ten years ago when the rules were different, allowing much more violent hits on the QB). I fail to see how the punishment that Aikman endured as a rookie was so many orders of magnitude higher than the punishment Tom Brady has ever received.
Moreover, while it's true that QBs are more protected from injury in this day and age, I think you're radically overrating the effect. After all, Tom Brady's lost season came from a hit in this day and age of "protected QBs", didn't it? I think this notion that Tom Brady will continue playing with no loss of effectiveness to age 38 and beyond is not a notion based in reality. It's a possible outcome, but it's not exactly fait accompli yet.
If you incorporate both players' rushing and passing stats, they have the following averagesYards per game-
McNabb - 244.1
Brady - 243.6
TDs per game-
McNabb - 1.65
Brady - 1.79
Turnovers per game-
McNabb - 0.96
Brady - 1.03
Disclaimers: McNabb's numbers are hurt in this analysis by the fact that he played in 12 games as a rookie, but only started 6 (his numbers per start jump to 254.4 yards, 1.72 TDs, and 1.00 turnovers). Turnovers per game were estimated by adding INTs to 0.5 * Fumbles (to account for the fact that the offense can recover its own fumbles).
Looks pretty spot-on across the board, especially the per-start numbers. And, again, McNabb did it with worse receivers and a worse offensive line (although, for the most part, also with a stronger running game).
oukurt
Footballguy
3-5 years of Brady or 10-15 years of a QB talented enough to become almost as special or as special as Brady? I would prefer Sam not based on talent alone, but I truly believe he has the intangibles that are needed to win the big game.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. The only way to find out is to bump this thread 5 years from now. The proof will be in the pudding by then.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. The only way to find out is to bump this thread 5 years from now. The proof will be in the pudding by then.
oukurt
Footballguy
On the verge of doing it with Sam. What an accomplishment it would be for the Rams to make the playoffs after beign the laughing stock of the NFL last season. I know the Rams record is laughable for a playoff team, but the experience Sam will get from a playoff game in his rookie season will only make him that much better when the Rams get him some receivers and more talent surroudning him in future seasons.
Football Jones
Footballguy
No way you deal Bradford for Brady. Bradford is putting up one of the best rookie seasons in history on a so-so team.
Bradford will likely be the best QB in the NFL within a few seasons. You would be absolutely crazy to do it. Not even close, IMO.
Bradford will likely be the best QB in the NFL within a few seasons. You would be absolutely crazy to do it. Not even close, IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
Worked out great for both teams sitting tight. Brady turns out to be MVP of the league and you'll have Bradford getting ROY. Bradford isn't playing at the level as Brady so this definately wouldn't have worked out for the Patriots as they're pushing for a Super Bowl this year. The Rams are improved but adding Brady instead of Bradford doesn't equate to a SB run for the Rams this year. Both teams were better off for not taking our hypothetical trade.
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
The Rams may not trade Bradford but do you think the Patriots would take Bradford today? Their SB run would be over. They're the favorites to win the SB right now, do you know how hard it is to get to that point? The Rams and Bradford may never get there. The Patriots aren't only set up this year, but they have a young team around Brady, they should be in contention for the rest of Brady's career.If the Rams wanted to trade Bradford for Brady today, Kraft would say are you freaken crazy.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Discussing this poll now is an entirely different conversation regardless of what side you were on. Judging Bradford as an unproven rookie and a complete "What if" is a dramatically different risk/return assessment than asking now that we've seen a young QB turn in one of the better performances by a rookie QB in the modern era. He's FAR more proven now than he was in August when Chase posted this.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Blackjacks
Footballguy
I was laughing as well at this post now.It is funny looking back at posts that were made preseason.As a Rams fan I WOULDN'T trade Bradford for any other QB in the NFL right now.I'm not saying he is the best right now but Brady or Manning wouldn't help this teasm win a superbowl this year. I am looking forward to the next 15 years of Sam at the helm. This team will be very good in 3-5 years when some of the STAR qb's are getting ready to retire.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Yikes. Crazy season. Eating crow now.
Similar threads
