Should The Pats have traded Brady instead?

Humor me for a moment plz.....

I was thinking back to our situation w Joe and Steve. Walsh's way was to trade early for value as opposed to hold onto someone for too long. I agree w that approach. However, there are differences in circumstances then and now.

I personally think they shouldve kept Jimmy and dealt Brady, how it wouldve effected us is irrelevant to me, im tryna be impartial here lol. What does everyone else think??

I also dont think Brady will play as long as he feels he will. Get the most for em while you can imo. Imagine what some sucker would give up for him.

Originally posted by VDpwndMjenkins:

Humor me for a moment plz.....

I was thinking back to our situation w Joe and Steve. Walsh's way was to trade early for value as opposed to hold onto someone for too long. I agree w that approach. However, there are differences in circumstances then and now.

I personally think they shouldve kept Jimmy and dealt Brady, how it wouldve effected us is irrelevant to me, im tryna be impartial here lol. What does everyone else think??

The case can be made. Depends on if BB stays after brady and/or if they can find another gem

Pats did the opposite of what the niners and packers did (favre to rodgers) and i dont think it will work out as well for them.

There is absolutely no way that you trade Brady in the midst of an MVP level season. They either had to trade Garoppolo or watch him walk in the offseason, those were their only options.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

There is absolutely no way that you trade Brady in the midst of an MVP level season. They either had to trade Garoppolo or watch him walk in the offseason, those were their only options.

Could have happened in the offseason although thats a tough move coming off a title. But with brady being suspended and jimmy g playing well in those spots, they could have in theory put a somewhat positive spin on it.

10+ years of Garoppolo or 1-2 more years of Brady?

Without a doubt. You give him the season you don't do it mid year. Maybe push him to retire but otherwise you tag Jimmy, trade Tom.

He'll be 41 next year.

Originally posted by VDpwndMjenkins:
Humor me for a moment plz.....

I was thinking back to our situation w Joe and Steve. Walsh's way was to trade early for value as opposed to hold onto someone for too long. I agree w that approach. However, there are differences in circumstances then and now.

I personally think they shouldve kept Jimmy and dealt Brady, how it wouldve effected us is irrelevant to me, im tryna be impartial here lol. What does everyone else think??

1. Walsh was gone when Montana was traded. Carmen Policy was in charge then.

2. 49ers tried to trade Young to KC for Derrick Thomas. KC turned them down.

3. Brady is still playing 100% healthy. Montana was coming off serious injuries.

Not to us.

Originally posted by Jcool:
1. Walsh was gone when Montana was traded. Carmen Policy was in charge then.

2. 49ers tried to trade Young to KC for Derrick Thomas. KC turned them down.

3. Brady is still playing 100% healthy. Montana was coming off serious injuries.

Some of these are funny:

49er's trade nixed: Steve Young for Derrick Thomas by Daniel Perreau » Sun, 22 Mar 1992 09:30:54

Quote:

>I just read in the San Francisco Chronicle today that the 49er's offered
>Steve Young strait up for Derrick Thomas...and the Chiefs turned down the
>deal.
>Can someone please explain the logic of this to me? Am I missing some
>vital piece of information. How could the Chiefs turn this down...
>-David

Well, thef answer is simple, the Chiefs just signed 3 time Pro-Bowl quarterback
Dave Krieg on Plan B. I personally think Dave is a better qb than Young, and
an injured Young is not worth a healthy Derrick Thomas.
Now I am not going to say that Dave Krieg is the second coming of Bart Starr
or anything, but I think he is the perfect qb for the Chiefs. The Chiefs are
a move the chains kind of team with a solid offensive line and good run
support. The last time Dave had a line like this was with the Hawks in '84
when he threw 32 td's and <20 ints. Now Dave isn't that young anymore, but
I certainly see him playing well for the Chiefs and solving their problem at
qb. Personally with the line they have, I excpect Krieg to be in the pro-bowl
for the AFC. This may not be too hard, as Elway could have some problems with
the coaching business, the rest of the AFC West is in termoil at qb, and
Houston has the only qb in the central that is solid. Sure Marino and Kelly
are in the East, but that is still about 4 top qbs in the AFC and Marino's
line is looking uglier rather than prettier.
Dan Perreault

http://sporttoday.org/1_e1ee50e2c1978498_1.htm

Originally posted by ninerfan4life:

10+ years of Garoppolo or 1-2 more years of Brady?

This is what Im looking at, the future. Packers are still good because they did the right thing. We were also till 99.

He still has it. Pats are the number one seed in the AFC. They play in a piss poor division. Their biggest (arguably only) competition in the conference is Pittsburgh, a team they've owned during the Belicheck era.

Pats made the right move. Brady will be around for a few more years...

Originally posted by VDpwndMjenkins:
This is what Im looking at, the future. Packers are still good because they did the right thing. We were also till 99.

There was never any way the Patriots were going to be able to trade Brady while he was still playing at a high level. The 49ers moved on from Montana after Young had killed it for a season and Montana was seen as completely broken down. Brady is likely to be the MVP and the Patriots likely win the SB this year.

Imagine if they had traded Brady, he continued to play well and the Patriots got knocked out early in the playoffs? The fanbase would lose their damn minds. The Patriots picked the right guy to replace Brady, they just had no way of realistically estimating that he'd be still this good at his current age.

Brady was scared of getting traded , and let Kraft know.