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

[IllegalContact]

Either way, an 11-5 record gets you into the playoffs. To say they didn't get into the playoffs because they couldn't beat quality competition is disingenuous. It could be true that they couldn't beat quality competition, but they didn't get into the playoffs because a fluke that 11 wins couldn't get them in.

Either way, I will tell you I have no clue, you have no clue......and then I will present you with my special clue

 

[Rob0729]

Either way, I will tell you I have no clue, you have no clue......and then I will present you with my special clue

LOL! Yeah, let's spin 11-5 as an awful record. I mean imagine the Pats going 11-5 and winning a Super Bowl. Never would happen. Ssssshhhhhh! Don't tell anyone that 11-5 was the Patriots record in 2001.

And exactly how would you know if I had no clue? You couldn't find a clue if someone hand delivered it to you.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

Fans in Cleveland, SF, and Washington envy our situation right now.

 

[BradyFTW!]

You're overrating the return, and minimizing the investment, IMO. They are, essentially, 1 for 8 in the develop and flip department, with significant whiffs on O'Connell and Mallett. Hoyer qualifies as a member of the "developed without bringing back trade returns" club.

That's not notable. It's disappointing. Outside of Brady, this team has been more successful with QB conversion projects than with QBs.

If you ignore the fact that fact that they got multiple years of backup QB play for minimal cap hit from Hoyer, Mallett, Cassel and Garoppolo, then sure, you can call it disappointing. That's a strange thing to ignore, though, since it's the primary reason why they were drafted in the first place. Between Cassel, Hoyer, Mallett and Garoppolo the Pats have paid their primary backup QB peanuts against the cap for the past decade. Given that guys like Mallett, Hoyer and Matt Hasselbeck command a $2-3M cap hit, that's a fairly meaningful savings.

Again, it's not perfect, and I think it's fair to be disappointed in O'Connell and Mallett in particular, given that significant draft capital was invested into them. But it's pretty easy to see what the Pats' mindset is and why they do what they do, and they've clearly achieved what they set out to achieve in terms of QB development, and on a related-but-not-the-same note they've churned out as many competent NFL-caliber QBs as anyone, and more than most.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you ignore the fact that fact that they got multiple years of backup QB play for minimal cap hit from Hoyer, Mallett, Cassel and Garoppolo, then sure, you can call it disappointing. That's a strange thing to ignore, though, since it's the primary reason why they were drafted in the first place. Between Cassel, Hoyer, Mallett and Garoppolo the Pats have paid their primary backup QB peanuts against the cap for the past decade. Given that guys like Mallett, Hoyer and Matt Hasselbeck command a $2-3M cap hit, that's a fairly meaningful savings.

I wasn't ignoring anything. The reality is that, prior to spending a 2nd rounder on JAG, the Patriots were ****ty when it comes to drafting the QB position, having only found one (Cassel) who was even a decent backup.

 

[BradyFTW!]

answer this question yall:

Brady at current level for 4 years after this one, OR
GAR at a top 10 starting QB level for 10 years?

the only unknown in the first 1 is can he last that long, or can he last longer?
the unkonwns in the 2nd one are can GAR be a top 10 QB consistently? year after year w/ film on him? will he want to stay in NE? will he want top QB money and hinder our roster? will he be able to handle injuries? can he handle weak weapons/receivers round him? is he a good leader? is he clutch?

to me, there are just too many unknowns in the 2nd scenario, I love Gar, but gimme Brady until the end, be it bitter or be it sweet

you simply do not get rid of the GOAT for an unknown, you. just. dont.

Agreed, I'll take option A without hesitation. I think a lot of people underestimate the gap between Brady and the tenth best QB in the NFL. The team with the 10th best QB is currently sitting at team HQ, debating whether or not their QB is good enough to quarterback a Super Bowl winning team. By passer rating, QBs 7-14 last year were Tyrod Taylor, Cam Newton, Matt Stafford, Alex Smith, Ben Roethlisberger, Phil Rivers, Eli Manning, and Josh McCown.

Would anyone here not take 4 years of Brady over 10 years of Alex Smith-caliber play? I'd encourage everyone to write down a list of their personal top 10 QBs in the NFL for this purpose. For me, I'd say the top 9 are, in no particular order:


Brady
Rodgers
Roethlisberger
Brees
Rivers
Ryan
Wilson
Luck
Newton

The 10th best QB is the best of whatever's left. Tony Romo, Derek Carr, Carson Wentz, Carson Palmer, Andy Dalton, Eli Manning, Alex Smith, Matt Stafford, Marcus Mariota... that's what you're looking at.

Basically, I'd only be on board with 10 years of Garoppolo over 4 years of Brady if I was confident that Garoppolo was solidly in that first group, so arguably a top 5 QB. And I don't think it's possible to reasonably be confident of that based on 6 quarters of play. No disrespect to Jimmy, who I do think will be a good--and maybe exceptional--NFL QB, but Brady's just set the bar too high.

To look at it from a slightly different angle: let's just pretend Brady had come over from the Dominican Republic in the mid-90s, and the his age was fudged to say he was four years younger than he really was. With baseball and basketball players like that, the suspicion is usually born out by them hitting their primes unusually early and leaving them unusually early. But if Brady's birth certificate said he was 35, would anyone be even the least bit suspicious? Has anyone seen anything at all in his performance to suggest that he's actually declining in any perceptible way?

With Manning and Favre, they were able to maintain big numbers for one late-career year, with disappointing, injury-riddled seasons sandwiched on either side. Their declines don't suggest anything with Brady, because Brady's career to date has not shown any of the decline that they both clearly showed well before they reached his age. Brady has not shown himself to be any less durable, any less mobile, or any less capable of making every throw required of him than he was 5 years ago. At a certain point, we have to just accept that the age/performance curve may not apply to him.

I'm all for being a realist, but being a realist means dealing with the stark reality that's in front of you. And the stark reality here is that different people take care of their body differently and age differently, and the visible, measurable effects of aging matter a whole lot more to me than the number. If I was a Cardinals fan, I'd be a lot more worried about the immediacy of life after my QB than I am as a Patriots fan, because despite being 3 years younger than Brady, Palmer is arguably showing his age in a way that Brady never has. When age begins to noticeably take its toll on Brady, I'll agree then that there's a good case to be made for looking to the future. But until that happens, Brady is the future.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I wasn't ignoring anything. The reality is that, prior to spending a 2nd rounder on JAG, the Patriots were ****ty when it comes to drafting the QB position, having only found one (Cassel) who was even a decent backup.

Look, I see what you're doing here. You're adding arbitrary qualifications to try to make the data fit your point. You're now saying drafted so you can remove Hoyer, after Cassel so you can remove Cassel, before Garoppolo so you can remove Garoppolo, and backup so you can remove Brady. None of these qualifications existed in the original topic of discussion, so all you've done is move the goalposts so far that you can no longer even see where this discussion started.

If you have a sample size of 8, and you have to invent reasons to remove 4 to make your point, then the data doesn't support your point.

 

[Deus Irae]

Look, I see what you're doing here. You're adding arbitrary qualifications to try to make the data fit your point. You're now saying drafted so you can remove Hoyer, after Cassel so you can remove Cassel, before Garoppolo so you can remove Garoppolo, and backup so you can remove Brady. None of these qualifications existed in the original topic of discussion, so all you've done is move the goalposts so far that you can no longer even see where this discussion started.

If you have a sample size of 8, and you have to invent reasons to remove 4 to make your point, then the data doesn't support your point.

I'm not adding anything. I'm noting what was done. Hoyer was not drafted by the team. He was a UDFA. There's nothing wrong with that, but it it what it is. The reality of the Patriots QB wheel post-Brady is that the two best QBs to come out of it, at least prior to JAG, are the 7th round pick and the UDFA, while the 2 third round picks and the 5th round pick were all horseshit.

It's no shame to say "It's a small sample size, and QB is a very difficult position to hit on, and they've come up short there. But, hey, at least they made out pretty well with Hoyer, at least in terms of having a backup for a couple of years, and damned well with Cassel, right?". Instead, you minimized the draft capital expenditure and oversold the comparative return. A pair of 3rds for O'Connell and Mallet, when you've already got the GOAT, is certainly not investing "very little capital", for example. It's pissing away pretty good draft picks on terrible choices.

 

[AzPatsFan]

And when people get a handle on his capabilities, he could be awful.

People keep drooling over his performance during the Miami game, but ignore the fact that Miami played off the receivers and let them run their timing routes allowing Garoppolo to hit his first read most of the time in stride. They also forget that Miami was starting to figure him out a bit and his last few drives were not nearly as impressive.

There are still a lot of questions about Garoppolo that are huge question marks. What can he do when teams figure him out and start knocking his receivers off their timing routes and making him hold onto the ball more (that has been an issue for him where when he does hold onto the ball, he holds on way too long)? Is he durable enough to withstand the beating he is going to get? What will he do if the team is down and he has to carry the offense and the team?

We have no idea what this guy is. We have seen a lot of QBs who look great right off the bat and turn into scrubs (Matt Schaub, Josh Freeman, Colin Kaepernick, etc.). And we are going to judge Garoppolo after less than six quarters?

Then how do you rate a college QB in the Draft? You have a hell of a lot more information on Garrapolo now than any college QB.

The Pats need a successor. Brady is still great at 39, but what will he be at 41 at the end of the 2017 season, or 42 at the beginning of the 2018 season? Polo may not succeed, but one thing is certain. No one cheats Father Time forever.

 

[AzPatsFan]

My thoughts on the matter are that Brady deserves to retire here if that's what he wants to do and he deserves the right to suck for a year before being replaced.

Just my opinion.

I would agree. But he doesn't deserve to make big bucks while he fails. Nor destroy the Team while execersing his vanity.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Jimmy G isn't a sure thing.

But there is a SURE thing. NO ONE Cheats Father Time.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Sure Garoppolo has shown nothing to provehe isn't the guy, but what he has done is the equivalent of sitting down and taking the SATs , answering the the first three questions, getting them right, and then proclaiming he is done and give him the 1600 (or whatever is the perfect score these days is) because clearly he is going to ace the entire exam if he finished it.

Garoppolo has been great in the limited amount we have seen and if that is what he is for his entire career, the Pats shouldn't trade him. But we have no idea if that is what he is.

We haven't seen him play in a game where teams game plan for him.

We haven't seen him play in a game where the Pats are way down and he has to lead them back.

We haven't seen him in a game where he gets knocked around a lot.

We haven't seen how he might wear down over the course of a season.

We haven't seen him play in cold weather.

We haven't seen him play when his receivers are knocked off the line of scrimmage.

We haven't seen how he responds after have a bad game and whether he can bounce back the next or does it get into his head.

Do I need to go on? Or have I made my point?

No you haven't. You know nothing of any of those answers when you trade 3 #1s for the right to draft the QB with the #1 pick in the Draft either which many teams have done. Except you have seen that Polo can understand and learn a sophisticated pro playbook; and you have seen him operate at NFL speed which you haven't seen with any college QB.

It's a gamble either way, but your odds are somewhat better with Polo.

 

[Rob0729]

No you haven't. You know nothing of any of those answers when you trade 3 #1s for the right to draft the QB with the #1 pick in the Draft either which many teams have done. Except you have seen that Polo can understand and learn a sophisticated pro playbook; and you have seen him operate at NFL speed which you haven't seen with any college QB.

It's a gamble either way, but your odds are somewhat better with Polo.

Who gives a flying f about a draft prospect in what I was talking about? So since we have no idea what the #1 pick in next year's draft is, it tells us how Garoppolo will do in cold weather.

Sure, we have no idea how a draft pick is going to perform when drafted no matter where they are drafted. But what the hell does that have to do with the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions about Garoppolo?

 

[Rob0729]

Then how do you rate a college QB in the Draft? You have a hell of a lot more information on Garrapolo now than any college QB.

The Pats need a successor. Brady is still great at 39, but what will he be at 41 at the end of the 2017 season, or 42 at the beginning of the 2018 season? Polo may not succeed, but one thing is certain. No one cheats Father Time forever.

First, we have more info on Garoppolo, but not a whole heck of a lot more. He has played six quarters of meaningful football. It isn't a heck of a lot more than a rookie will have the day he is drafted.

Second, the Pats need a successor to Brady, but we do not know if that is Garoppolo. What if his ceiling is Ryan Fitzpatrick (capable of playing like an elite QB for short stretches, but is mostly an average to below average QB)? Do the Pats pass on a hypothetical two first for that quality of player?

Third, Brady could have 3-4 more years. That gives the Pats time to develop Brissett and possibly make him the heir apparent. Or give them time to find another heir.

I am not saying the Pats should definitely trade Garoppolo. I am saying we, as fans, watching six quarters of football have no idea if he truly is the heir apparent. And if the Pats brain trust isn't sure either and are offered a sweetheart deal, they should jump at it.

 

[IllegalContact]

LOL! Yeah, let's spin 11-5 as an awful record. I mean imagine the Pats going 11-5 and winning a Super Bowl. Never would happen. Ssssshhhhhh! Don't tell anyone that 11-5 was the Patriots record in 2001.

And exactly how would you know if I had no clue? You couldn't find a clue if someone hand delivered it to you.

You said you had no clue....so that how I know......you told me......I was just paraphrasing you

So either you have no clue or your head is up your colo-rectal region.......you can choose

 

[Rob0729]

You said you had no clue....so that how I know......you told me......I was just paraphrasing you

So either you have no clue or your head is up your colo-rectal region.......you can choose

LoL! Twisting my words again. But I won't cry like a little b*tch like you did.

 

[IllegalContact]

LoL! Twisting my words again. But I won't cry like a little b*tch like you did.

Except that you just did

So which is it?

 

[Galeb]

But there is a SURE thing. NO ONE Cheats Father Time.

Sure, but there isn't an exact date to which father time adheres. Y'all are selling Brady too short.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

First, we have more info on Garoppolo, but not a whole heck of a lot more. He has played six quarters of meaningful football. It isn't a heck of a lot more than a rookie will have the day he is drafted.

Just a reminder: we have six quarters. The Patriots have 2+ seasons of practices, meetings, etc.

 

[BTTA]

Another possibility on this is that the way the NFL is going, it would be of no surprise that hitting the QB becomes obsolete totally. Not because of injuries or concussions but because of the lack of talent at the position. It afterall is the #1 reason parity at the moment doesn't work. So within 2 seasons Tommy could be under centre knowing he isn't going to get hit. They could change it to play is over if QB is touched. His longevity would mean 2025 is indeed possible.

Brady with 5 minutes to find an open receiver would be pretty good.
We'll need more of those receivers, though, from all the running around they'll do to get the DB's to collapse from fatigue.