It's JimmyG Time!!!!

Share this page

subroc said:
So, because Brady is suspended that means it is time to replace him? That is the argument I see here.
Click to expand...

Then I think you need to look more closely. No-one is arguing for that.
 
Smudger said:
Then I think you need to look more closely. No-one is arguing for that.
Click to expand...

I certainly wasn't. My argument was that Garap is the guy you consider trading Brady because he's almost 40 and will only be playing another 2-3 years.

The only reason the suspension is relevant is because it gives you a chance to see if Garap is indeed the player you all hope he is. (As well as you can in 4 games.)
 
Jaric said:
I certainly wasn't. My argument was that Garap is the guy you consider trading Brady because he's almost 40 and will only be playing another 2-3 years.

The only reason the suspension is relevant is because it gives you a chance to see if Garap is indeed the player you all hope he is. (As well as you can in 4 games.)
Click to expand...

As much as you would like that, its not going to happen. They know already what JG is, regardless of what happens in those 4 games. They thought enough of him to extend Brady 4 more years and draft another QB in the 3rd round.

---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 AM ----------
foobahl said:
I am not suggesting that Brady be benched at all. I think it would be wise if JG is playing well and we are 4-0 why not give TB another week to get timing down again. That is not benching TB, it is allowing him time refresh his years of (and training camp for that matter) playing with his offense. I do not see any harm in that, to TB or JG. This scenario is not a JG is the future see ya later TB deal. To suggest that because in the past TB has never stunk the place up or been game ready is false. TB will be here until TB decides to leave. BB could not trade TB if he wanted to. And he doesn't.
Click to expand...

As I said before, you think Brady is not going to have timing with guys he has played 5 years with being in the league 16 years, but JG will after 4 games?
 
that is not what I think. I think that if the Pats are undefeated going into game 5, why not give TB more time. It doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have his timing, but if the team is rolling, why not. It is a long season if we are going as far as I hope. It also does not mean that after working out alone or with other people besides his guys, he will come back and be perfectly timed up with the entire offense, not just the guys who have been here for 5 years. How many on the offensive interior line have even been here 5 years. it is not just a couple of wr and Gronk. I see value in easing TB back in if the team has that luxury. Why it would not be considered is beyond me.
 
Jaric said:
I certainly wasn't. My argument was that Garap is the guy you consider trading Brady because he's almost 40 and will only be playing another 2-3 years.
Click to expand...
You almost sound as if you've had experience with a choice between and aging QB with only a few more years and a young gun to take over the franchise.
 
Patriots71 said:
As I said before, you think Brady is not going to have timing with guys he has played 5 years with being in the league 16 years, but JG will after 4 games?
Click to expand...
Why is it all or nothing? Why can't they both have chemistry with receivers? Isn't the chemistry that is displayed in games built over extensive repetitions in practice?

We're talking what might happen in 3 years when a decision will have to be made with JG? If you don't accept that, then I understand your point. If you do accept that, then it would be beneficial to see if JG is the heir apparent or not.

Behind all the rhetoric, that is the base question. All the thoughts about when BRady comes back, and if BB will ever replace TB before TB wants to retire are all just variations on the theme of What do we do in three years.
 
spacecrime said:
You almost sound as if you've had experience with a choice between and aging QB with only a few more years and a young gun to take over the franchise.
Click to expand...

It Irsay knew ManninHGH was going to juice he probably would have kept him and have a second ring right now. Choices, choices .... Nutkick
 
Patriots71 said:
As much as you would like that, its not going to happen. They know already what JG is, regardless of what happens in those 4 games. They thought enough of him to extend Brady 4 more years and draft another QB in the 3rd round.
Click to expand...
Why exactly would I want you guys to confirm you've got a starting QB for the next ten years and get a bunch of picks by trading Brady?
 
Jaric said:
Why exactly would I want you guys to confirm you've got a starting QB for the next ten years and get a bunch of picks by trading Brady?
Click to expand...

lol. That is not happening off of a four game sample. Bill is not the pill popper who treated his franchize QB like dirt on the way out while watching him pump HGH and go on to have the best 4 years of his career in Denver while he doled out the richest contact to a QB who is a turnover machine. I mean you really can't make this stuff up but I can see why you would be here hoping the Pats handle their Qb situation better. :coffee:
 
Mazz22 said:
lol. That is not happening off of a four game sample. Bill is not the pill popper who treated his franchize QB like dirt on the way out while watching him pump HGH and go on to have the best 4 years of his career in Denver while he doled out the richest contact to a QB who is a turnover machine. I mean you really can't make this stuff up but I can see why you would be here hoping the Pats handle their Qb situation better. :coffee:
Click to expand...

So just to confirm before I start laughing, but are you contending the Colts should have kept Manning, and that had we done so we'd have won a Super Bowl?

---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 AM ----------
TommyD420 said:
How did that one end again? I forget. :coffee:
Click to expand...

I mean, not too badly. I know we missed the playoffs this year, but that happens to the best teams when you keep having QBs get hurt.
 
Jaric said:
So just to confirm before I start laughing, but are you contending the Colts should have kept Manning, and that had we done so we'd have won a Super Bowl?

---------- Post added at 08:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 AM ----------



I mean, not too badly. I know we missed the playoffs this year, but that happens to the best teams when you keep having QBs get hurt.
Click to expand...

No. Just pointing out the chasm in how your team handled your franchize QB and how things have ultimately turned out vs how the Pats have handled and continue to handle Brady. But drugs can do that.
 
Mazz22 said:
No. Just pointing out the chasm in how your team handled your franchize QB and how things have ultimately turned out vs how the Pats have handled and continue to handle Brady. But drugs can do that.
Click to expand...

So, I'm curious. What should the Colts have done differently with their QB situation?
 
Jaric said:
So, I'm curious. What should the Colts have done differently with their QB situation?
Click to expand...

You mean besides Irsay calling Manning a politician and saying he was great for star war numbers but should have won more rings like Brady? I mean honestly, he kicked him to the curb as hard as you could for a guy that literally built your stadium and relevance the past 15 years.

On top, he got zippo for him when he still had great football left via HGH.
 
Mazz22 said:
You mean besides Irsay calling Manning a politician and saying he was great for star war numbers but should have won more rings like Brady? I mean honestly, he kicked him to the curb as hard as you could for a guy that literally built your stadium and relevance the past 15 years.
Click to expand...

So basically we shouldn't say the same things that you guys said about Peyton Manning.

If you believe that cutting Manning was such a terrible thing, you really weren't paying attention to the state of the franchise at that point. Or the state of Manning's health for that matter.
 
Jaric said:
So basically we shouldn't say the same things that you guys said about Peyton Manning.

If you believe that cutting Manning was such a terrible thing, you really weren't paying attention to the state of the franchise at that point. Or the state of Manning's health for that matter.
Click to expand...

WTH? You think your OWN owner should say the same things hated rival fans have said about your franchise QB. Are you on drugs too?

Manning's health aside, his contract was the issue which is what forced his release instead of Irsay fleecing some dumb team like the Redskins or Jets who both wanted Manning badly and most likely would have handed over multiple picks. Irsay screwed up his departure about as poor as you could. The only thing he got right was TANKING the season but I have a tough time even giving him credit for that as he had let the back QB situation deteriorate to such crap that he thought an ancient Collins was his best bet and then Painter.
 
93North said:
Let Jimmy start and win a game before we talk about signing him or calling him competent.
Click to expand...

Why don't you continue to do that. Nobody here, NOBODY, has made ANY proclamations (or even predictions really) re: JG. All the dialogue centers on IF.

What IF Jimmy does good? FAIR QUESTION.

Then What? Logical (mandatory) NEXT QUESTION..

This is a Discussion forum. Smarts and Dumbs ( :wave: ) alike gather here to make salient points or fools of themselves. Maybe you could even start a thread where nobody is allowed to speculate.

EDIT: In fact I like the idea. I'll start the thread myself and we can get the silent ball rolling. :thumb:


Cheers, BostonTim
 
Ok, so we have "Irsay should have rubbed his balls on the way out." I think he did quite enough of that, but sure, we'll put you down as pro-Manning knob polishing

Do you have any idea why we didn't trade him?

Do you know how the contract language played into that decision?

Also, you do know that Bill Polian was actually the one who neglected the backup QB situation not Jim Irsay right? The same Bill Polian who got fired after that debacle of a season. So if anyone "tanked" it would be the very people who all got fired/cut after the season for their efforts.

So basically what you're arguing is that our front office was so in love with Andrew Luck that they were willing to give up their own jobs just so the franchise could possibly be able to draft him. Players had to be willing to end their careers just to make him a colt.

Or option B is that we were simply unprepared for life without Manning because he'd never missed a game for like 10+ years and we determined a backup QB wasn't a good allocation of limited resources. That eventually turned out to be wrong, but there was solid logic behind it.

So we have "gambled and lost" on one hand vs "vast unprovable conspiracy theory on the other."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top