The Arguments For And Against The Raiders Signing Tom Brady
Winslow Townson-USA TODAY Sports

This story just won’t go away — at least not until Tom Brady officially puts pen to paper somewhere. Not even Julian Edelman saying “he’s coming back” can’t put the brakes on a train that has left the station: is there really a chance that Tom Brady would sign with the Las Vegas Raiders?

For those who haven’t been tracking, this story really got legs when respected NFL writer Larry Fitzgerald Sr. reported that the Raiders were prepared to offer Brady a two-year deal worth $60 million. Since then, the Raiders haven’t denied anything — doing their best to offer tepid support to Derek Carr just in case the whole Brady thing doesn’t work out.

We’ve covered Carr ad nauseum of late, but my take on Carr can be summarized like this: Carr isn’t one of the best 7-8 quarterbacks in the league, but that doesn’t make him worthless either. Can he carry a team to a Super Bowl by himself? Definitely not. But is he good enough to take you there with a competent team and staff around him? I’d put my money on ‘yes.’

Which brings us to Brady. What’s even more fascinating than asking the above questions about Carr is asking them of the soon-to-be 43-year old Brady. Is he an elite quarterback? Can he carry a team to the Super Bowl? His 2019 performance would seem to indicate a clear answer to both questions, the difference being that he has been that guy at times in the past.

So what should the Raiders do? Assuming Brady is genuinely interested in coming to town (which is a massive, unverified assumption I’m simply making for the sake of this argument), should the Raiders shift course and sign him?

The arguments in favor of signing Brady

1) Signing Brady and trading Carr might improve the team in the short-term

If the numbers above are accurate, signing Brady would require the Raiders to commit an extra $18.1 million over the next two years to their quarterback position (the difference between Brady’s deal and Carr’s). The upside, however, is that the Raiders would essentially be paying that money not only to (in theory) upgrade the quarterback position but also to ‘buy’ a draft pick.

Could Carr fetch a second-round pick? If the answer is ‘yes’, then it’s a compelling move. Imagine if the Raiders netted a late second and used that pick on a wide receiver like Michael Pittman Jr. or Donovan Peoples-Jones? They’d make something like $14 million over four years on their rookie deal — plus the extra $18, and you’re getting one of these guys for less than the cost of a free agent like Robby Anderson. That’s intriguing — especially if it means the Raiders could use a first-round pick to add a second defensive player or even a quarterback if there’s a guy they like.

2) It’s not you Derek, it’s me

Maybe the Raiders just need a locker room shake-up? It’s nothing against Carr, but maybe in order for the franchise to believe they’re not the ‘old Raiders’ we’re all familiar with, they need a genuine legend to take the reigns. It’s hard to imagine adding Brady wouldn’t result in an immediate culture change, even if the on-field performance from the quarterback wouldn’t change dramatically.

3) It’s Tom-Freaking-Brady

Yes, he was average (at best) last season, and yes, he has already defied the odds by lasting this long. But even as an aging veteran, the chance to sign a legit Hall of Famer isn’t one the Raiders should pass up. Is he as good as he once was? Of course not. But he’s smart, he’s a winner and he’s more the type of guy Jon Gruden would seem to thrive with.

Rich Gannon wasn’t a physical specimen when Gruden made him an MVP — and Brad Johnson wasn’t quite in his prime when Gruden took him to the Super Bowl. Brady had a better pre-Gruden career than both of those guys, and with Gruden’s offense plus Brady’s intuition, it could be a real opportunity to make a leap.

The arguments against signing him

1) Did you watch the 2019 season?

Last season Brady posted the lowest completion percentage since 2013 (60.8%), threw 24 touchdowns, which he hasn’t been below since 2003, his lowest yards-per-attempt since 2002 and his lowest QBR since the stat was invented in 2006. Did I mention that he’ll turn 43 before next season?

Carr, on the other hand, completed a career-high 70.4% of his passes, threw for a career-high in yards (although he was still three yards behind Brady) and posted a career-high in QBR. To be fair, Carr threw three less touchdowns than Brady while also throwing the same number of interceptions. Yes, Brady had a down year but it was still on par with Carr’s in most categories.

2) What’s the long-term plan here?

Even if one concedes that 2020 has a brighter outlook with Brady at the helm, what, exactly, is the plan for beyond that? Even if you believe he’ll be a solid option in 2021, surely you can’t count on him beyond that — right?

And if he is that good, then how do you expect to be in play for a quarterback-of-the-future anytime soon? If you’re signing Brady to contend for the playoffs, you won’t be picking anywhere near the top of a draft for a few years. So do you draft a quarterback this year despite the fact that your needs elsewhere are plenty? Or are you banking on finding a gem outside of the top-10 picks one year? Or do you plan on tanking for a year once Brady is gone?

None of these seem like gambles worth making.

3) Are we sure we’ve seen the best of Carr yet?

To me, this is the most compelling argument against signing Brady. Now, I know, you can make Carr’s stats say just about whatever you want to — and so I’m not even talking about stats in this case.

We’ve all seen the ceiling with Carr — a near MVP season in 2016 in which he carried a fairly mediocre team (with some luck) to a playoff game he wasn’t able to play in due to injury. This isn’t a matter of projection so much as a question of whether or not you believe he can get back there.

Has Carr been blessed with above-average offensive line play for the back-half of his career? Absolutely. Has he lacked consistent weapons for most of his career? Also true. Has the coaching turnover hindered the expected level of development? Presumably. Does there appear to be something missing at times? Sure seems like it.

Again, what you do with all that information is up to you, as you can make the narrative say whatever you want it to.

But what I keep coming back to is this: to bet your franchise on the fact that Carr isn’t good enough in hopes of turning the locker room around, making a one-year run or boosting publicity seems like a risky move — and one I’m not sure I’d make.

Then again, we are talking about Vegas here.

As we approach free agency in the next few weeks, check back in this space for similar write-ups on other rumored free agents of interest.