Tom Brady

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    29 points in the SB in a 13 possession game.  2 pts on the safety.

    So are you finally admitting the Pats D got lit up in both games?   HORAAY!

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Hey Rusty.

    Simple question.  Would TB have to had restructured at all last year (causing big problems in cap for the next 2 years) if the team didn't have 18M in dead money due to drafting ineffective players and signing umproductive FA's?

    How about even half that amount? 

    Wouldn't they be able to sign their top FA's this year if not for the same problem?

     




    Personally, I don't like Brady's contract numbers at all.  He certainly cashed in big time. Dead money or no dead money, he's not playing up to the level of that salary.  It's why I felt Mankins should have been dealt for a 2nd rder. Never pay on past laurels.  BB did it twice. Once with Mankins and he probably had little choice into the lockout and the fact Brady had to take the lead via the union as the lead QB into the lockout, especially after taking a below market deal back in 2006 I think it was.

     

    I think it's an issue last year, where he did restructure to help go after FAs like Brandon Lloyd or Gregory, resign some key guys and still be in position moving forward.

    You can't keep ignoring Brady is paid more now and performing worse in these postseasons. That's something you simply cannot run away from at the end of it all.

     




    Brady's cap hit was under 8 MM last year.  He outplayed that by week 8.

     

    The problem, while TB is somewhat responsible, is a defense that sends every opposing QB to Canton to get fitted for their jacket immediately after the game.

    That 18mm in dead money sure would have helped in that sense.  That would have bought a real conerback and pass rusher and safety, at least,  instead of what we got.

    More players that have to be replaced.  More dead money.  YEAH!!!

     




    Sure. So when Balt's D gets lit up in the postseason, EXCEPT when our O can't do anything for an entire half, it sure seems odd you wouldn't focus on that. Hmm. #1 rated offense and then 13 points, yet again, well below their season average.

     

    So, really, what good is it if Brady :outplayed" his salary by week 8, if Brady says his favorite ring is "the next one"?  Care to explain that contradiction?

    What about last year when Brady was gof awful in the AFC title game and subpar in the SB itself?

    What was his salary then?

    Talib and Jones being hurt didn't help NE's D int he titel game this year. Has nothing to do with this "dead money" claim. Take away any team's top CB and best pass rusher on the egde and it has an effect. It's just too bad NE, 6-1 without Gronk saw their star QB fold again.

    Been a LONG, LONG time since Brady had a strong postseason all the way through, wouldn't you say? 2006.

    Yep. 2006. And the offense in the second half vs Indy folded then, too.  Tell us, what was the "dead money" hit in 2006? lmao

    Every time you spin from the truth and try to deflect toward BB, I will remind you of these things.

     

     

     




    When did Baltimore's D get "lit up in the playoffs"? 

     

     




    Umm, Denver and in the SB itself maybe?  Blind much?

     

     




    Giving up 21 points to the Broncos is getting "lit up"? Wow. What an idiot you are.

     

     



    Well, considering our D gave up 21 in the SB last year, and everyone saying how bad it was, while being hung out to dry by our awful 4th qtr offense, yeah, apparently it is, right Phat Rex?

     

    I am just trying to keep up, Phat Rex.

    Apparently, our D averaging 20 points and under as a D the last few years has been called "pathetic" by Pezzy's standards, then apparently it is.

    LOL

    See how this works, Mr Hypocrite? I can play this game, too and catch you morons in the act with ease.

    If NE's D gave up 30+points in the SB like Balt's D did, Hurl, Babe, Pezzy and others would have collective aneursysms.

     

     




    Are you really this dumb?   8 possessions and 21 points is way worse than 13 possessions and 29 points

    one has a 2.625 ppp the other has a 2.2 ppp.  Which is worse?

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Hey Rusty.

    Simple question.  Would TB have to had restructured at all last year (causing big problems in cap for the next 2 years) if the team didn't have 18M in dead money due to drafting ineffective players and signing umproductive FA's?

    How about even half that amount? 

    Wouldn't they be able to sign their top FA's this year if not for the same problem?

     




    Personally, I don't like Brady's contract numbers at all.  He certainly cashed in big time. Dead money or no dead money, he's not playing up to the level of that salary.  It's why I felt Mankins should have been dealt for a 2nd rder. Never pay on past laurels.  BB did it twice. Once with Mankins and he probably had little choice into the lockout and the fact Brady had to take the lead via the union as the lead QB into the lockout, especially after taking a below market deal back in 2006 I think it was.

     

    I think it's an issue last year, where he did restructure to help go after FAs like Brandon Lloyd or Gregory, resign some key guys and still be in position moving forward.

    You can't keep ignoring Brady is paid more now and performing worse in these postseasons. That's something you simply cannot run away from at the end of it all.

     




    Brady's cap hit was under 8 MM last year.  He outplayed that by week 8.

     

    The problem, while TB is somewhat responsible, is a defense that sends every opposing QB to Canton to get fitted for their jacket immediately after the game.

    That 18mm in dead money sure would have helped in that sense.  That would have bought a real conerback and pass rusher and safety, at least,  instead of what we got.

    More players that have to be replaced.  More dead money.  YEAH!!!

     




    Sure. So when Balt's D gets lit up in the postseason, EXCEPT when our O can't do anything for an entire half, it sure seems odd you wouldn't focus on that. Hmm. #1 rated offense and then 13 points, yet again, well below their season average.

     

    So, really, what good is it if Brady :outplayed" his salary by week 8, if Brady says his favorite ring is "the next one"?  Care to explain that contradiction?

    What about last year when Brady was gof awful in the AFC title game and subpar in the SB itself?

    What was his salary then?

    Talib and Jones being hurt didn't help NE's D int he titel game this year. Has nothing to do with this "dead money" claim. Take away any team's top CB and best pass rusher on the egde and it has an effect. It's just too bad NE, 6-1 without Gronk saw their star QB fold again.

    Been a LONG, LONG time since Brady had a strong postseason all the way through, wouldn't you say? 2006.

    Yep. 2006. And the offense in the second half vs Indy folded then, too.  Tell us, what was the "dead money" hit in 2006? lmao

    Every time you spin from the truth and try to deflect toward BB, I will remind you of these things.

     

     

     




    When did Baltimore's D get "lit up in the playoffs"? 

     

     




    Umm, Denver and in the SB itself maybe?  Blind much?

     

     




    Giving up 21 points to the Broncos is getting "lit up"? Wow. What an idiot you are.

     

     



    Well, considering our D gave up 21 in the SB last year, and everyone saying how bad it was, while being hung out to dry by our awful 4th qtr offense, yeah, apparently it is, right Phat Rex?

     

    I am just trying to keep up, Phat Rex.

    Apparently, our D averaging 20 points and under as a D the last few years has been called "pathetic" by Pezzy's standards, then apparently it is.

    LOL

    See how this works, Mr Hypocrite? I can play this game, too and catch you morons in the act with ease.

    If NE's D gave up 30+points in the SB like Balt's D did, Hurl, Babe, Pezzy and others would have collective aneursysms.

     

     

     



    Yes, Queenie, it was terrible.  As shown by the 90 yard drive by Eli with 2 minutes to go.  When you can't stop Eli from going the length of the field because they've spent so much time on the field with ZERO three and outs and many long drives, yeah, they are terrible.

     

     




    Yeah, 13 points allowed and waiting for the offense to sustain a drive for more than 3 lousy minutes and at least get 1 FG is really "terrible".

     

    Did you just call me an idiot in the other thread saying Baltimore allowing 21 points was not getting lit up or terrible?

    Hmm.

    And that's with a QB in Baltimore who didn't throw moronic INTs or miss wide open WRs to ice games either.

    LOL

    Bludgeoning you in and out of these threads is so easy.  You contradict yourself as much as Pezzy.

     




    pathetic liar!  they scored in the 3rd and had a 6 minute drive in the 4th all in 4 freaken possessions.  4 you tool, the entire half was 4 possessions.

    Luckily for the gints, they were able to score on 3/4 possessions with the blessings of our fantastic D.

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Hey Rusty.

    Simple question.  Would TB have to had restructured at all last year (causing big problems in cap for the next 2 years) if the team didn't have 18M in dead money due to drafting ineffective players and signing umproductive FA's?

    How about even half that amount? 

    Wouldn't they be able to sign their top FA's this year if not for the same problem?

     




    Personally, I don't like Brady's contract numbers at all.  He certainly cashed in big time. Dead money or no dead money, he's not playing up to the level of that salary.  It's why I felt Mankins should have been dealt for a 2nd rder. Never pay on past laurels.  BB did it twice. Once with Mankins and he probably had little choice into the lockout and the fact Brady had to take the lead via the union as the lead QB into the lockout, especially after taking a below market deal back in 2006 I think it was.

     

    I think it's an issue last year, where he did restructure to help go after FAs like Brandon Lloyd or Gregory, resign some key guys and still be in position moving forward.

    You can't keep ignoring Brady is paid more now and performing worse in these postseasons. That's something you simply cannot run away from at the end of it all.

     




    Brady's cap hit was under 8 MM last year.  He outplayed that by week 8.

     

    The problem, while TB is somewhat responsible, is a defense that sends every opposing QB to Canton to get fitted for their jacket immediately after the game.

    That 18mm in dead money sure would have helped in that sense.  That would have bought a real conerback and pass rusher and safety, at least,  instead of what we got.

    More players that have to be replaced.  More dead money.  YEAH!!!

     




    Sure. So when Balt's D gets lit up in the postseason, EXCEPT when our O can't do anything for an entire half, it sure seems odd you wouldn't focus on that. Hmm. #1 rated offense and then 13 points, yet again, well below their season average.

     

    So, really, what good is it if Brady :outplayed" his salary by week 8, if Brady says his favorite ring is "the next one"?  Care to explain that contradiction?

    What about last year when Brady was gof awful in the AFC title game and subpar in the SB itself?

    What was his salary then?

    Talib and Jones being hurt didn't help NE's D int he titel game this year. Has nothing to do with this "dead money" claim. Take away any team's top CB and best pass rusher on the egde and it has an effect. It's just too bad NE, 6-1 without Gronk saw their star QB fold again.

    Been a LONG, LONG time since Brady had a strong postseason all the way through, wouldn't you say? 2006.

    Yep. 2006. And the offense in the second half vs Indy folded then, too.  Tell us, what was the "dead money" hit in 2006? lmao

    Every time you spin from the truth and try to deflect toward BB, I will remind you of these things.

     

     

     




    When did Baltimore's D get "lit up in the playoffs"? 

     

     




    Umm, Denver and in the SB itself maybe?  Blind much?

     

     




    Giving up 21 points to the Broncos is getting "lit up"? Wow. What an idiot you are.

     

     



    Well, considering our D gave up 21 in the SB last year, and everyone saying how bad it was, while being hung out to dry by our awful 4th qtr offense, yeah, apparently it is, right Phat Rex?

     

    I am just trying to keep up, Phat Rex.

    Apparently, our D averaging 20 points and under as a D the last few years has been called "pathetic" by Pezzy's standards, then apparently it is.

    LOL

    See how this works, Mr Hypocrite? I can play this game, too and catch you morons in the act with ease.

    If NE's D gave up 30+points in the SB like Balt's D did, Hurl, Babe, Pezzy and others would have collective aneursysms.

     

     

     




    Are you really this dumb?   8 possessions and 21 points is way worse than 13 possessions and 29 points

     

    one has a 2.625 ppp the other has a 2.2 ppp.  Which is worse?

     




    Were there turnovers by that D's QB, RBs or WRs?

     

     




    Who forces turn overs on offenses? Oh, That would be up to the D.  Where were they?

    Busy thinking about the SB party, cuz they sure weren't there on the field doing THEIR JOB!

    And yes, Balt did fumble once.  They were also stopped in the RZ, unlike in the Pats game.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    Hey Rusty.

    Simple question.  Would TB have to had restructured at all last year (causing big problems in cap for the next 2 years) if the team didn't have 18M in dead money due to drafting ineffective players and signing umproductive FA's?

    How about even half that amount? 

    Wouldn't they be able to sign their top FA's this year if not for the same problem?

     




    Personally, I don't like Brady's contract numbers at all.  He certainly cashed in big time. Dead money or no dead money, he's not playing up to the level of that salary.  It's why I felt Mankins should have been dealt for a 2nd rder. Never pay on past laurels.  BB did it twice. Once with Mankins and he probably had little choice into the lockout and the fact Brady had to take the lead via the union as the lead QB into the lockout, especially after taking a below market deal back in 2006 I think it was.

     

    I think it's an issue last year, where he did restructure to help go after FAs like Brandon Lloyd or Gregory, resign some key guys and still be in position moving forward.

    You can't keep ignoring Brady is paid more now and performing worse in these postseasons. That's something you simply cannot run away from at the end of it all.

     




    Brady's cap hit was under 8 MM last year.  He outplayed that by week 8.

     

    The problem, while TB is somewhat responsible, is a defense that sends every opposing QB to Canton to get fitted for their jacket immediately after the game.

    That 18mm in dead money sure would have helped in that sense.  That would have bought a real conerback and pass rusher and safety, at least,  instead of what we got.

    More players that have to be replaced.  More dead money.  YEAH!!!

     




    Sure. So when Balt's D gets lit up in the postseason, EXCEPT when our O can't do anything for an entire half, it sure seems odd you wouldn't focus on that. Hmm. #1 rated offense and then 13 points, yet again, well below their season average.

     

    So, really, what good is it if Brady :outplayed" his salary by week 8, if Brady says his favorite ring is "the next one"?  Care to explain that contradiction?

    What about last year when Brady was gof awful in the AFC title game and subpar in the SB itself?

    What was his salary then?

    Talib and Jones being hurt didn't help NE's D int he titel game this year. Has nothing to do with this "dead money" claim. Take away any team's top CB and best pass rusher on the egde and it has an effect. It's just too bad NE, 6-1 without Gronk saw their star QB fold again.

    Been a LONG, LONG time since Brady had a strong postseason all the way through, wouldn't you say? 2006.

    Yep. 2006. And the offense in the second half vs Indy folded then, too.  Tell us, what was the "dead money" hit in 2006? lmao

    Every time you spin from the truth and try to deflect toward BB, I will remind you of these things.

     

     

     




    When did Baltimore's D get "lit up in the playoffs"? 

     

     




    Umm, Denver and in the SB itself maybe?  Blind much?

     

     




    Giving up 21 points to the Broncos is getting "lit up"? Wow. What an idiot you are.

     

     



    Well, considering our D gave up 21 in the SB last year, and everyone saying how bad it was, while being hung out to dry by our awful 4th qtr offense, yeah, apparently it is, right Phat Rex?

     

    I am just trying to keep up, Phat Rex.

    Apparently, our D averaging 20 points and under as a D the last few years has been called "pathetic" by Pezzy's standards, then apparently it is.

    LOL

    See how this works, Mr Hypocrite? I can play this game, too and catch you morons in the act with ease.

    If NE's D gave up 30+points in the SB like Balt's D did, Hurl, Babe, Pezzy and others would have collective aneursysms.

     

     

     




    Are you really this dumb?   8 possessions and 21 points is way worse than 13 possessions and 29 points

     

    one has a 2.625 ppp the other has a 2.2 ppp.  Which is worse?

     




    Were there turnovers by that D's QB, RBs or WRs?

     

     

     




    Who forces turn overs on offenses? Oh, That would be up to the D.  Where were they?

     

    Busy thinking about the SB party, cuz they sure weren't there on the field doing THEIR JOB!

    And yes, Balt did fumble once.  They were also stopped in the RZ, unlike in the Pats game.

     




    I believe SF only got a FG off the Rice fumble.  If you call tackling a WR in desperation and it not being called "stopped", then ok. lol

     

    If one of our DBs breathes on a WR or TE, it's PI and a first down. Also, your buddy, the rookie QB CHOKED. Choked it down hard 4 times from the 5 yard line. Couldn't even get the ball snapped. LOL!

     

     

     




    The line took too long to get there, not his fault.  They had no intention of using the time out, as stated by BB himself. 

     

    More of the problem was S. Ridley( you know they guy you want to have the ball 50% of the time and personally responsible for a 14 point swing) not being able to get one yard on the one yardline and fumbling.  Now that's a problem.!  No picks = -ickless D.  No fumble recoveries = -ickless D, no rz stops = -ickless D and recievers resembling alligators  and TB not having his best game ='s no win.     learn the game.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Tom Brady

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to ClarkGriswold's comment:

     

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    In response to gr82bme's comment:

     

    In response to LessPhatRex's comment:

     

    Hmmmm, Tom Brady, you mean the guy that has almost a 22 million dollar cap hit in 2013 and 2014?  That's like 1/6 of the cap.  Did you know no team has ever won a superbowl spending that much money on one player?

     




    Do you ever consider that, as he's done several times in the past, TB will willingly re-negotiate his deal for cap relief?  With respect to "no team has ever won a superbowl...."  You should no first hand about this - Jets spend less on Revis and where did that get them?  One more thing - if the Jets had a chance to trade for TB, would you support it?  Silly Jet fans, 40 years of futility causing their dumb fans to troll other fans' boards.  It's sad really - but kind of funny too.

     

     



    Just to be clear, Brady cannot renegotiate his contract, because after this year, he has 1 year left on his deal. The most the Pats can push off from his salary this year into next is a $5 million dollar bonus. That will lower Brady's cap hit this year to $17 million, but push it next year to $27 million. 

     

    The only answer for cap relief from Brady's contract is to extend his contract. I think you are looking at at least 5 years and $100 million to extend him, taking him to his 42 birthday. 

    My thoughts on the Pats salary cap issues are pretty clear, even though Rusty does not understand them;

    1) Brady's contract is too high a percent of the total, and extending him for 5 more years is risky

    2) Vince is in a similar situation. He is over 30, has a lot of wear and tear, and has the wrong body type to extend into his 35th year

    3) Mankins simply won't renegotiate after getting jerked around and losing half a seasons pay

    4) The Pats have no obvious high salary cuts that don't make the team worse. Cutting Ghost or Lloyd, in my opinion weakens the Pats while saving them money. Cutting Fells, Larsen really doesn't save much money. 

    5) The Pats have 18 free agents, with a good 15 of them making contributions to the team of great value. While losing Chung is not much of a hit, I contend losing Arrington, Cole, Edelman, Woody, Thomas, Huma will weaken the team as they all contributed. Not to say the Pats cannot resign them, but if they wish to resign 2 of the big 3, it will be hard to bring back many of the 2 nd tier contributors. 

     

     

    Are you saying a player can only restructure once over the life of a deal?  Please post the rules that you are claiming so we can see those please.

    Please post the CBA rules on player contracts.

     

     

     



    No, they can restructure as often as they want.  All rkarp is saying is it doesn't help much to restructure when you only have a year left, because there's not a lot of time left to spread the increased bonus over. You can lower this year's cap hit but only by significantly increasing it next year.  This assumes, of course, you're restructuring by turning base into bonus, which is what is typically done with players you aren't threatening to cut.  The alternative is to ask for a pay cut from the player, but that usually only works if you are going to cut the player and the player can't get much in free agency.

     

     

     




     

    So, if they extend Brady into 2015 and 2016, when the cap goes up in 2015, the extension can be used to spread the bonus over from the previous deal, correct?  So, he'd be 39 starting the 2016 season and that might be it for Brady unless he wants to sign a 1 year deal in 2017. Something to that effect.

    RKrap's major malfunction on this topic is that he doesn't get that BB is leveraging his knowledge of Kraft telling him that the cap won't go up until 2015.  He doesn't seem to get that NY wildly spent into the lockout with no apparent knowledge the cap would be lower and flat for a LARGE portion of the first part of the CBA deal.  I warned of this with Phat Rex, but he kept pissing in the wind.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Brady's 4 year deal was specifically under the knowledge that the cap would go up in 2015, not 2013 or 2014.   This would mean, assuming Brady wants to keep playing, is healthy, etc, BB and Brady can just sit down and start doing 2 year deals, instead of 4 or 4+ year deals. A 2 year extension, say AFTER this season, would allow for the restructure and the cap is UP in 2015, so that would mean they'd be covered.

    So, barring it being illegal linking two diffeernt deals together under the new CBA rules (one deal old CBA, one new CBA), if Brady is extended, that should allow the new life of a deal to spread out the bonus money off a restructure in 2014.

    Correct?

    RKrap keeps acting like only the Jets have some special personnel powers that BB doesn't have, which is not only a sign of mental illness, it's funny at the same time.



    I'd have to research the rules on extensions.  Of course, you can extend, but you can only prorate bonus for the lesser of the life of the contract or five years.  If a contract is longer than five years then you have to prorate the bonus over the first five.  I'm not sure how it works for extensions though.  maybe if I get time I'll go read the relevant sections of the CBA.

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share