Brady’s backup? Heir apparent in NE?

[Ghosted]

Favre jerked the team around two straight years with retirements and un-retirements. Manning had a neck injury that no one was sure he would recover from. Montana was out for a year and all but half a game the following year with an elbow issue allowing Young to take over in San Francisco. Tom Brady has been healthy all year and playing at a high level.

One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell me which one is not like the other, by the time I finish my song?

This argument is more than extremely flawed. First, the QB comps and situations you listed are so far off-based that they're not even worth bringing up.

In Montana's case, he was coming off of a year where he didn't play. Steve Young took over, dropped a 25-7 line on a 14-2 team (and was #1 in TD's, QB rating and was leading the league's #1 scoring offense), and looked like an obvious franchise-changing QB.

Manning was coming off of a career-threatening injury, and the Colts were staring at a generational QB prospect by all accounts in Luck.

We all know the Favre dynamic, and even taking that away, no one is comparing Jimmy to Rodgers as a prospect.

You could type of a multi-paragraph synopsis on how those situations are so utterly different, and we haven't even talked about Jimmy yet. A "franchise QB" is also completely subjective, and you have to realize one thing - Jimmy doesn't have to be a top 5 guy to be a valuable franchise QB. Look at Stafford, Cousins ect. And yes, 2 years of Brady would be FAR more valuable to NE than a top-15ish QB for 7 years. Look around the league. It's littered with those type of guys who will never win (or will come close to winning) a championship. That's a completely different level altogether. It doesn't mean that they aren't valuable.

Right, I covered this already. Like I said obviously Brady is in a very different place right now than those guys were. But again like I said, even with hindsight and the knowledge that all of those guys ended up playing at least one season of MVP caliber football for their new team, none of the teams regretted the decision to let them walk.

So Brady has what, 1-3 years of elite play left if we're being extremely generous? Even with the hindsight that Peyton had 3 elite seasons left (including one where he broke the NFL TD record) no one in Indy was regretting the decision to move on from Peyton and wished they could give up Andrew Luck in exchange for those 3 years, again barring a crazy botched surgery ending Luck's career.

It has nothing to do with Brady. It has everything to do with Garoppolo. They clearly don't feel that he is going to be an elite QB. Which is fine, maybe they feel he would be OK, but OK QBs aren't worth anything in normal fantasy leagues (obviously superflex, 2qb, or large leagues changes things). To me the reason to hold Garoppolo was on the hope that they really did believe he was that kind of QB and he would step in to that awesome New England system and be the next fantasy stud QB. I am a lot less interested in a guy who's upside is that he'll maybe be one of those decent top 15ish type QBs, which just became a much more likely upside. Not that becoming an elite difference maker was likely before, but it was a lot more possible.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with 7 years with regards to a top-15ish QB play like Stafford, when regarding New England's decision of 2 years of Brady vs. 7 years of top 15ish play. Stafford is already in his 7th season since his breakout and he's 29 years old with probably 10 years left in his career. That's SEVENTEEN years, not seven.

Yet you own him in one lol.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, man, but I doubt you'll find anyone else that follows that team closely that shares your outlandish opinions. You're certainly entitled to them, though.