I know lots of teams are wanting Garoppolo, but I'm just wondering....
Brady is 40 this year.
why wouldnt the pats look into keeping him.
I know Brady says he wants to play to 45, but that's not likely realistic. If this kid is as good as we've heard (and to a lesser extent seen)
Why dont the pats keep him and trade Brady next year at the age of 41?
I know Brady put up some very good numbers last year, but realistically, at the age of 41 (the age he would be when Garoppolo becomes a free agent) how many years do you really think he has left?
I really think the smart move is to keep Garoppolo and if Brady starts to show his age(or gets hurt), make the switch.
While Brady's skills still seem to be fine, the more likely scenario at this age is that he gets hurt rather seriously. Injury kills careers at this age just as much as any decline in skill level.
I would think that unless they are offered a kings ransom, The pats may actually hold Jimmy G.
Of course they may have had some realistic conversations with Brady regarding how much longer he wants to play. I'm sure the comments to the press are not the same comments made privately in the confines of Belichick's office.
Just a thought. It's like the Farve situation all over again. Only Brady hasnt slowed down yet.