NFL executives offer their take on the Patriots and the trade possibilities for Jimmy Garoppolo

[IllegalContact]

The funny thing is I am admitting that I don't have a clue of what Garoppolo is going to be as a starter. It is you who declared him as the heir apparent.

The fact is until he plays a season or possibly two, no one knows for sure what he is going to be including the Patriots coaching staff. It is impossible to tell from a small sample like six quarters and practice reps. The only way to really know is a significant body of work like a season of football.

The only one being ridiculous is you. I am being rational stating we don't know what the guy is because we have only seen a very small sample size. I reserve my judgement on the guy until I see more, but I support a trade if someone bowls the Pats over with compensation. I am willing to roll the dice that way because I think there is as much chance of him being an average QB as an elite one (possibly more of a chance of it). You are the one who is talking about not trading the guy under any condition after seeing six quarters of the guy.

LOL.........you've made several illogical arguments, but whatever...where the f*ck did I say not trade under any conditions?.....I would probably trade him for 3 1sts from a mediocre or worse team....but then again, I would trade Brady for those same 3 1sts.

he has shown nothing to say that he's not the guy........but keep sidestepping that point

 

[Hammer of Thor]

The way I see it is if my team needed a QB would I want them to part with a first rounder for a soon to be 26 year old project with six quarters of real NFL experience who showed in that time he could be a decent NFL starter in the Patriot system?

Key points being "could be" and "in the Patriot system"?

Can't say I would. I'd also like to know who these "NFL executives" are. I doubt they are anyone who know the Pats any more than we fans do.

The unknown at this point is who the guy would be that is trading for him?

If Josh McDaniels winds up as head coach of the Bears (or anywhere else) next year, the "Patriots system" is his system, and outside of Belichick, no one will better know Garappolo's potential capabilities than him.

If Bill O'Brien keeps the Texans job and the team is willing to dump Ossweiler if he continues to play poorly, or if O'Brien is canned but somehow immediately lands another NFL HC job, we know that he runs something similar to the "Patriots System" and could be willing to pull the trigger.

Sean Payton could be canned from New Orleans this offseason if the team continues to play poorly, and he's someone that would land a job right away. If he goes somewhere without a QB, well, we know how close BB and Payton are, how much they respect and trust each other, and they both have similar roots in the Parcells system. Payton has seen Garappolo in both preseason games as well as scrimmages, and will have a good sense following conversations with BB about whether he thinks he can fit in his system.

We never hear this, but someone might be willing to give Matt Patricia a job as HC. What easier way to be able to focus as a head coach than to bring in someone he could trust from his prior job.

Etc.

Or on the other hand, none of those guys could have jobs, and it could be 100% outsiders involved. And they may share your opinions on "The Patriots System". Or they may not. So ultimately we don't know anything yet, but I will say that I wouldn't say I doubt anyone would part with a first rounder for Garappolo when we ultimately don't know who the potential suitors are in this process.

 

[Rob0729]

LOL.........you've made several illogical arguments, but whatever...where the f*ck did I say not trade under any conditions?.....I would probably trade him for 3 1sts from a mediocre or worse team....but then again, I would trade Brady for those same 3 1sts.

he has shown nothing to say that he's not the guy........but keep sidestepping that point

What illogical argument did I make? That we have no idea what kind of QB he will be based on six quarters? That is the LOGICAL argument.

And three first rounders is not a realistic trade. So you are basically saying there are no conditions you would trade Garoppolo except for if a GM has a moment of complete and utter insanity and gives away the farm for him which will never happen.

I am not sidestepping the point. I conceded in six quarters he has shown nothing to say he isn't the guy. I am just saying he hasn't been given a good enough opportunity to see if would show things that proved he isn't the guy. My SAT analogy stands.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

@Rob0729 No one is saying that Jimmy G. is good enough to force Brady out of the starting role. But I think it's fair to say that he's shown enough potential to merit holding onto for at least 1 more season....and that trading him in the offseason may not be the wisest move after all. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Rob0729]

@Rob0729 No one is saying that Jimmy G. is good enough to force Brady out of the starting role. But I think it's fair to say that he's shown enough potential to merit holding onto for at least 1 more season....and that trading him in the offseason may not be the wisest move after all. Wouldn't you agree?

We have no idea if it is the wise move or not based on 6 quarters. I do know his trade value may not be any higher than it is now. So from that standpoint it is the wisest move if the Pats' brain trust thinks his ceiling is lower than you and others think.

If the Pats think he can be a top 5 QB in the League, he is virtually untouchable. If they think he can be in the top third, you listen to trade offers and jump at a sweatheart deal. Anything less, you trade him as long as there is a first round pick compensation.

But even then, the Patriots are guessing. It may be an educated guess, but it is still a guess.

What if the Pats pass up a top ten pick next year and a second rounder and the guy ends up being a flash in the pan and never becomes more than an average QB or worse? That scenario is very possible. It is just as possible as him becoming a top 5 QB and leading this team until 2030 or beyond. We just don't know.

Personally, if the trade offer is really good, I would rather gamble on the picks than Garoppolo. But none of us know what Belichick and his staff knows about the guy.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Im no football genius but if you were gonna keep jimmy g you dont draft brisset so high. Just my opinion and i think its fairly obvious. If jimmy g was the future you keep him trade brady and draft a 4-5th rounder to develop.

Remember, though, that they had a glaring need at QB2: Someone who could come in and theoretically win a game or two if the worst came to pass (and it did).

I still don't know why they chose Brissett specifically, but you don't need to use "Garoppolo is leaving" to explain drafting a QB this year.

 

[IllegalContact]

What illogical argument did I make? That we have no idea what kind of QB he will be based on six quarters? That is the LOGICAL argument.

And three first rounders is not a realistic trade. So you are basically saying there are no conditions you would trade Garoppolo except for if a GM has a moment of complete and utter insanity and gives away the farm for him which will never happen.

I am not sidestepping the point. I conceded in six quarters he has shown nothing to say he isn't the guy. I am just saying he hasn't been given a good enough opportunity to see if would show things that proved he isn't the guy. My SAT analogy stands.

those are your words, not mine......but that's the price we are talking.......the iffiest thing in the equation is the draft picks, and these middle of the road teams (or worse) pretty much remain middle of the road teams (or worse) no matter how many 1st rounders they use

if arizona continues to struggle, I could see them easily using 3 1st rounders on a QB since they are that one player away...I could see the chiefs moving on from alex smith.......I could see the giants, saints, bears, niners all move on from what they currently have

I think it takes more of the season to play itself out, but there is a massive shortage of not only elite QBs, but even above average QB's are far and few between

there's QB hell coming soon.......
Brady
Brees
Palmer
Rivers
Manning
Roethlisberger
Fitzpatrick
Rodgers

are all 33 or older

the guys younger than that are all teases that manage to be part of failure one way or another

QB is a sellers market.......Osweiler NEVER looked as good as Garoppolo did in his 6 quarters.....I just think between the result and the technical aspects of watching him play, in Garoppolo you have a guy with the tools and the training.

so you are wrong about the no conditions and you clearly want to make it look how you want to make it look.......I see a very valuable commodity be it on this team or the next

holding onto him as long as possible has positive ramifications......if you trade him after 2016......no less than 3 1st rounders.......if you hold him until after 2017, you tag him and deal him from there.......you may not get as much, but it buys you another year with good insurance should the unspeakable happen to brady........old is old, and while the signs of decline are not there, should something happen, he will not heal as fast and the possibility of him never being the same is very high.

I think you hold onto Jimmy G as long as you can......whether it's 3 1st rounders now or a 1 and a 2 after 2017 still works for me

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

We have no idea if it is the wise move or not based on 6 quarters. I do know his trade value may not be any higher than it is now. So from that standpoint it is the wisest move if the Pats' brain trust thinks his ceiling is lower than you and others think.

If the Pats think he can be a top 5 QB in the League, he is virtually untouchable. If they think he can be in the top third, you listen to trade offers and jump at a sweatheart deal. Anything less, you trade him as long as there is a first round pick compensation.

But even then, the Patriots are guessing. It may be an educated guess, but it is still a guess.

What if the Pats pass up a top ten pick next year and a second rounder and the guy ends up being a flash in the pan and never becomes more than an average QB or worse? That scenario is very possible. It is just as possible as him becoming a top 5 QB and leading this team until 2030 or beyond. We just don't know.

Personally, if the trade offer is really good, I would rather gamble on the picks than Garoppolo. But none of us know what Belichick and his staff knows about the guy.

For me, the backup role is fundamentally a matter of contingency. With Brady's window narrowing the older he gets, you want someone who can step in to keep the offense running, without there being any kind of drastic change in playbook or disruption in game-planning (ideally).

As impressive as 11-5 was in 2008, that year was a big, missed opportunity. Given the talent that was on that roster, they may have gone all the way back to the Super Bowl, had they had someone better than Matt Cassell at QB.

If the team knows Jimmy is competent and talented enough to keep our offense running near its potential, then it's worth retaining him for that reason alone, and hope that by Year 3, Brissett is able to keep the train running if Brady loses time to injury.

If the team is determined to trade Garoppolo, then they could potentially tag him in 2018 and trade him then.

 

[Rob0729]

those are your words, not mine......but that's the price we are talking.......the iffiest thing in the equation is the draft picks, and these middle of the road teams (or worse) pretty much remain middle of the road teams (or worse) no matter how many 1st rounders they use

if arizona continues to struggle, I could see them easily using 3 1st rounders on a QB since they are that one player away...I could see the chiefs moving on from alex smith.......I could see the giants, saints, bears, niners all move on from what they currently have

I think it takes more of the season to play itself out, but there is a massive shortage of not only elite QBs, but even above average QB's are far and few between

there's QB hell coming soon.......
Brady
Brees
Palmer
Rivers
Manning
Roethlisberger
Fitzpatrick
Rodgers

are all 33 or older

the guys younger than that are all teases that manage to be part of failure one way or another

QB is a sellers market.......Osweiler NEVER looked as good as Garoppolo did in his 6 quarters.....I just think between the result and the technical aspects of watching him play, in Garoppolo you have a guy with the tools and the training.

so you are wrong about the no conditions and you clearly want to make it look how you want to make it look.......I see a very valuable commodity be it on this team or the next

holding onto him as long as possible has positive ramifications......if you trade him after 2016......no less than 3 1st rounders.......if you hold him until after 2017, you tag him and deal him from there.......you may not get as much, but it buys you another year with good insurance should the unspeakable happen to brady........old is old, and while the signs of decline are not there, should something happen, he will not heal as fast and the possibility of him never being the same is very high.

I think you hold onto Jimmy G as long as you can......whether it's 3 1st rounders now or a 1 and a 2 after 2017 still works for me

If you keep on saying nothing less than three first rounders, you are saying you don't want to trade him under any conditions.

But if the Pats tag and trade him after 2017, his trade value goes down exponentially. Teams know they cannot go into free agency in 2018 with Brady having a cap hit of $22 million and Garoppolo having a higher cap hit. Teams will drop their offers exponentially because they know the Pats have to get rid of either Brady or Garoppolo before the start of the NFL year because they cannot have something like $45-47 million of the cap tied up to the QB position. The Pats will never get nearly as much as they will in a trade than after this season.

And the QB market changes all the time. If teams get burned too many times, they don't take risks. The Osweiller thing is going to hurt a trade market for Garoppolo. If the Broncos trade Seimien after this season and he is a bust somewhere, that will even hurt the market even more in 2018.

And what if Garoppolo plays in 2017 for a game or two for some reason and he plays like crap? His market goes down exponentially and the Pats cannot tag and trade him because he might sign the franchise tag because it is more he will get elsewehere.

There are so many possibilities that you want to gamble on for six quarters. If someone offers two first this offseason, you take it unless you fully intend to make Garoppolo the QB of the future and cut or trade Brady after 2017 (he is uncuttable or tradeable until then because of his dead money). If you have any doubts that he will, you trade him because you will never get nearly as much as you will get this upcoming offseason.

 

[The Gr8est]

For me, the backup role is fundamentally a matter of contingency. With Brady's window narrowing the older he gets, you want someone who can step in to keep the offense running, without there being any kind of drastic change in playbook or disruption in game-planning (ideally).

As impressive as 11-5 was in 2008, that year was a big, missed opportunity. Given the talent that was on that roster, they may have gone all the way back to the Super Bowl, had they had someone better than Matt Cassell at QB.

If the team knows Jimmy is competent and talented enough to keep our offense running near its potential, then it's worth retaining him for that reason alone, and hope that by Year 3, Brissett is able to keep the train running if Brady loses time to injury.

If the team is determined to trade Garoppolo, then they could potentially tag him in 2018 and trade him then.

The backup QB role is more than just a matter of contingency. It is a lottery ticket in one sense, since you may potentially be able to trade him for much more than you paid to get him, and secondly, if saves a lot of cap money since a good vetetan backup QB is not cheap.

That cap saving allows you to keep or acquire another useful player.

 

[IllegalContact]

If you keep on saying nothing less than three first rounders, you are saying you don't want to trade him under any conditions.

But if the Pats tag and trade him after 2017, his trade value goes down exponentially. Teams know they cannot go into free agency in 2018 with Brady having a cap hit of $22 million and Garoppolo having a higher cap hit. Teams will drop their offers exponentially because they know the Pats have to get rid of either Brady or Garoppolo before the start of the NFL year because they cannot have something like $45-47 million of the cap tied up to the QB position. The Pats will never get nearly as much as they will in a trade than after this season.

And the QB market changes all the time. If teams get burned too many times, they don't take risks. The Osweiller thing is going to hurt a trade market for Garoppolo. If the Broncos trade Seimien after this season and he is a bust somewhere, that will even hurt the market even more in 2018.

And what if Garoppolo plays in 2017 for a game or two for some reason and he plays like crap? His market goes down exponentially and the Pats cannot tag and trade him because he might sign the franchise tag because it is more he will get elsewehere.

There are so many possibilities that you want to gamble on for six quarters. If someone offers two first this offseason, you take it unless you fully intend to make Garoppolo the QB of the future and cut or trade Brady after 2017 (he is uncuttable or tradeable until then because of his dead money). If you have any doubts that he will, you trade him because you will never get nearly as much as you will get this upcoming offseason.

I'm not saying that.....you're saying that.....learn to tell the goddamned difference and stop trying to add your stupid spin

'value goes down exponentially' .... talk about meaningless drivel

teams will still want a QB then (even more so with all the spoken QB's another year older)

what you're saying is that there is ZERO value to keeping him for 2017 and that the most valuable commodity in this situation are the draft picks which are actually the biggest wildcard

and what if he plays 2 games and shows even better than the 6 quarters? we can do this **** all day

 

[Rob0729]

For me, the backup role is fundamentally a matter of contingency. With Brady's window narrowing the older he gets, you want someone who can step in to keep the offense running, without there being any kind of drastic change in playbook or disruption in game-planning (ideally).

As impressive as 11-5 was in 2008, that year was a big, missed opportunity. Given the talent that was on that roster, they may have gone all the way back to the Super Bowl, had they had someone better than Matt Cassell at QB.

If the team knows Jimmy is competent and talented enough to keep our offense running near its potential, then it's worth retaining him for that reason alone, and hope that by Year 3, Brissett is able to keep the train running if Brady loses time to injury.

If the team is determined to trade Garoppolo, then they could potentially tag him in 2018 and trade him then.

People talk about 2008 as if the Pats missed the playoffs because they didn't do enough to get in. The fact is 11-5 in most years gets you into the platoffs and it was a fluke they didn't. If they got in, who knows what they would have done. The Pats didn't miss the playoffs that year because of Cassel, they missed because of fluke that happens only every about 20 years.

 

[Rob0729]

I'm not saying that.....you're saying that.....learn to tell the goddamned difference and stop trying to add your stupid spin

'value goes down exponentially' .... talk about meaningless drivel

teams will still want a QB then (even more so with all the spoken QB's another year older)

what you're saying is that there is ZERO value to keeping him for 2017 and that the most valuable commodity in this situation are the draft picks which are actually the biggest wildcard

and what if he plays 2 games and shows even better than the 6 quarters? we can do this **** all day

LOL! You are too cute. First, you get upset about me putting words in your mouth and then do the same with me.

I didn't say there is zero value in keeping him for 2017. I am saying if you aren't positive that he is the QB of the future for this team, you take what you can get for him after this season because his trade value goes down exponentially next year. It could be the difference between getting two firsts in a trade in 2017 vs. a second rounder in a trade in 2018. That is a huge drop and VERY RELEVANT to the conversation.

You have basically made up your mind that there is no way that the Pats should trade Brady unless a GM puts his career on the line and gambles that Garoppolo is a franchise QB that can change the fortunes of their team dramatically or get fired (which is what is the case if a GM trades three #1 picks). Any argument against it, you think is stupid.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

If Bill O'Brien keeps the Texans job and the team is willing to dump Ossweiler if he continues to play poorly, or if O'Brien is canned but somehow immediately lands another NFL HC job, we know that he runs something similar to the "Patriots System" and could be willing to pull the trigger.

.

Osweilers contract might make him uncuttable. In my novice guess, there would be $25 million in dead money if they cut him this year (3/4 of his $12 million signing bonus gets accelerated and his $16 million that is guaranteed for next year....)..They are stuck with him for 2016 and 2017....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...k-osweiler-contract-figures-houston/81563106/

 

[IllegalContact]

LOL! You are too cute. First, you get upset about me putting words in your mouth and then do the same with me.

I didn't say there is zero value in keeping him for 2017. I am saying if you aren't positive that he is the QB of the future for this team, you take what you can get for him after this season because his trade value goes down exponentially next year. It could be the difference between getting two firsts in a trade in 2017 vs. a second rounder in a trade in 2018. That is a huge drop and VERY RELEVANT to the conversation.

You have basically made up your mind that there is no way that the Pats should trade Brady unless a GM puts his career on the line and gambles that Garoppolo is a franchise QB that can change the fortunes of their team dramatically or get fired (which is what is the case if a GM trades three #1 picks). Any argument against it, you think is stupid.

you did put words in my mouth, so back at you

you admitted to knowing nothing but keep acting like you know something

and no, not any argument against it is stupid........just yours

 

[IllegalContact]

Osweilers contract might make him uncuttable. In my novice guess, there would be $25 million in dead money if they cut him this year (3/4 of his $12 million signing bonus gets accelerated and his $16 million that is guaranteed for next year....)..They are stuck with him for 2016 and 2017....

Brock Osweiler's contract: $72M with $37M guaranteed in first two years

they could keep garoppolo's salary in place for 2017 and the cap hit would not be prohibitive with a signing bonus spread out over a number of years

 

[sb1]

People talk about 2008 as if the Pats missed the playoffs because they didn't do enough to get in. The fact is 11-5 in most years gets you into the platoffs and it was a fluke they didn't. If they got in, who knows what they would have done. The Pats didn't miss the playoffs that year because of Cassel, they missed because of fluke that happens only every about 20 years.

Eh- not sure I'd call it a fluke...they could not beat any good teams in 2008 hence no playoffs.

 

[sb1]

I think Brandon Weeden was at least 26 years old when Cleveland drafted him in the 1st round, and he hadn't played in the NFL* yet.

Very true. I think he was the oldest player ever taken in the first round so maybe he is older than that. But I think that is an anomaly.

I'm not saying I don't hope some team offers them a first, I'd love to be wrong. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

People talk about 2008 as if the Pats missed the playoffs because they didn't do enough to get in. The fact is 11-5 in most years gets you into the platoffs and it was a fluke they didn't. If they got in, who knows what they would have done. The Pats didn't miss the playoffs that year because of Cassel, they missed because of fluke that happens only every about 20 years.

And the secondary was not good at all in 2008. Now, 2011 showed that Brady can still bring a team to a Super Bowl even with a terrible secondary. But on the other hand, Adalius Thomas (the good version) broke his arm in November, and Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau and Colvin (when the latter 2 came back) were shells of their former selves. So the linebacker corps at the end were basically a very good rookie in Mayo, and 4 guys who had more veteran knowledge than abilities at that point. That counts for something of course, but at the end of the day, I would have been surprised if even a Brady-led team could win the Super Bowl that year. Pittsburgh was too complete of a team in my opinion, even given Brady's strong history against them.

 

[Rob0729]

you did put words in my mouth, so back at you

you admitted to knowing nothing but keep acting like you know something

and no, not any argument against it is stupid........just yours

I am admitting I, you, and everyone else on this board know very little. Yet, you keep posting as if you know something. I think NFL teams are missing a great GM in you because you recognize in six quarters that it takes every other GM a season or two. You really missed your calling.