2 firsts for a 36 year old QB is an insanely horrible move.... especially for a team coming off a 4-12. revis/marshall or not we arent close enough to make that move. thats a move you make in say, 2010 coming off the afc championship game where you are just a QB away... and even that thats a ton to pay. oakland gave up 2 firsts for a younger palmer and that blew up in their face. i think the same would happen here. I'm 100% for brining in brees, but not if it means parting with first round or multiple picks. I'd give a 3rd for him, nothing more. the guy is 36, he might be out off football ina year or 2 and a serious decline could also come at any moment
im not sure he does. and im not sure outdoors in this division in the northeast he wouldnt come crashing down. look at his numbers/success vs. the NFC east. its not great. look at his numbers outdoors, its not great. health/dropoff is always concern at 36,37,38 as well.
Good point. Brees and that offense are unstoppable in the dome, but outdoors, not so much. Even when he played in SD, you are talking about weather that is basically as close to ideal as you can get.
trading for a old qb is pointless..it will make us contenders now but in 2-3 we will suck balls again
If he comes over and we win 1 super bowl, you would give 2 shits about our future 2-3 years from now? Really? I would sacrifice the next 15 years, if bringing Brees guaranteed a super bowl title.
if he could bring us to a superbowl..... i think that is pretty unlikely though. As I mentioned earlier, if this was 2010 and we could add a 36 year old brees to a AFC championship team that had just about everything but a QB, yeah, i make that move. but adding him to a 4-12 team with a new coach, new coordinators, new system, etc... yeah no way, not for a first(s)
How much of that is the prorated signing bonus? That portion would hit the Saints cap if he was to be traded. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
the current roster isnt coming off an afc title game. it really doesnt matter what the roster looks like. you dont go all in like that without having come close to the Superbowl last year. plenty of rosters look 10 times better then us and still sucked. we were 4-12.... and with 50+ man rosters you cant assume anything but what you have proven on the field... too many moving parts to do otherwise. it would be one of the worst moves in a while if we parted with 2 firsts for him.
Not sure I can agree with this at all We're the Broncos coming off a title game when they got the "old" Peyton ? In fact people here were Saying don't sign Peyton he's old, and he went on to break records. 4-12 was last year and means zilch today. If the jets can have a chance at Brees given our moves we'd be in a position to make a run at it all. To not take that shot would be the worst move in a while. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ENORMOUS difference.... 1) the broncos didnt have to trade for peyton manning, he was a free agent. all they had to invest was money, not a first rounder or multiple picks 2) the broncos were coming off an 8-8 season, not 4-12, and their only real weakspot was QB, they had pieces on offense and defense. Having to invest MUCH less for manning, and starting with a better team, i cant see how this is even close to comporable if brees got cut, id 100% be in on signing him.
Still absolutely disagree. The sign or trade the goal was the same. And again record last year means zilch. We have pieces in place had a poor record due to poor coaching and poor general management. We will absolutely have to agree to disagree on this one Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
you simply can not dismiss the difference between trading first rounds picks for a QB vs. just signing a QB. signing the QB is LOW risk HIGH reward trading for the QB is HIGH risk HIGH reward thats an enormous difference that simply can not be dismissed. if the broncos wiffed on peyton they lose nothing. if we traded for brees and wiffed it would set the franchise back several years. of course it means something.... it means we had major issues last season. we had poor coaching in your own words... we have an entirely new coaching staff, that is an enormous unknown. in 2010 we had a staff coming off a great season. we are going to have a ton of turnover and ton of unkowns coming in. just slapping names together means nothing, look at philly a couple years ago. you dont sell out for a QB with that price tag unless its CLEAR you are 1 piece away. we arent even clearly 3 or 4 pieces away. no to mention you are talking about a 36 year old, more prone to injury/diminishing skill
Brees may or may not have two years left. IMO that is irrelevant. IMO first of all, you don't trade a top 5 pick for a 36 year-old player who could break down or his play fall off a cliff at any second, when that top 5 pick could bring you a player that could help you from 7-10 years. Second, Brees has been a warm weather QB in SD and a dome QB in NO. I saw somewhere that he had not been very good in cold weather. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Jets are not ready to go "all in." They're nowhere near ready. Yes, they've made some great strides, at least on paper, in FA, but the OL is still a huge question mark. Offensive players have to learn Gailey's system, and the defensive players have to learn Bowles' system, which doesn't sound easy. It sounds as complex as Rex's system. There will be a learning curve. Bowles is also a rookie HC and Mac a rookie GM. As good as they may be, there will be mistakes and adjustments. You and a bunch (I assume younger fans) of Jets fans are getting too excited, carried away, and ahead of yourselves. Take a deep breath, my friend and relax. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Yes, he's elite, but at his age, he's more brittle and his play could deteriorate rapidly. If he was a FA that would have been one thing. But trading the #6 pick is insane and short sighted. It's ignoring the realities of the Jets' situation. You are getting too caught up in the excitement and are not being realistic in your expectations. I'm not going to repeat what I said to al_toon_88, but ready my response to him to see the reasons why I think that would be a terrible, ridiculous move.
Yes, because there are no guarantees. Brees could come here and go down with a career-ending injury in TC. He could stay healthy and his play could deteriorate badly overnight. He could struggle in the NE weather. In the NFL he's always played in a warm climate (SD) or in a dome. It's been a long time since his days at Purdue. If what I've read is correct, he doesn't play very well in cold weather, either. I wouldn't trade 10 more years of suckdom for a SB ring. I want the Jets to be in the hunt every year and have a sound foundation, not foolishly go all in for 1-2 years, fail, and then suck for 10 years because their cap is screwed and they lost some high draft picks that should have been key starters.
No, it isn't. The 2010 roster had strong veteran leadership and great chemistry. There were role players who did well. This team has a bunch of new players, new systems on both offense and defense, a new CS where the HC is a rookie. You're talking out your ass and couldn't be more wrong.
