Nope, but your reading skills obviously need improvement. The question asked was:
"I don't understand why you can't get a high 1st round pick for him"
I don't want to get too personal as I have been a bit snippy lately from lack of sleep, and I do like reading some of your stuff. But I'm scratching my head here wondering why you're criticizing my reading when you're the one who actually didn't read deroc5050's post in it's entirety, skipping the last line. It reminded me of this guy:
Let me bold the relevant parts since you missed them the first time. And the second time. Third time's the charm, they say:
According to Andy Heart on CSNE the Pats at best would get a late round 1st pick for Jimmy G. And more likely a high 2nd round pick... Sorry doesnt make sense to me.. Jimmy G was a 2nd round pick and is developed.. I don't understand why you can't get a high 1st round pick for him. Or a late round first and a third / 4th round pick..
As for the rest...
Saying we can't get a high 1st round pick is not even remotely the same as saying we can't get a first rounder at all. There is a huge difference between the number three pick in the draft and the number 21 pick in the draft.
When this is the analogy you have to make, you really only hurt your own point.
And for every Jimmy Garoppolo, there's a Jay Cutler, Matt Flynn or Matt Cassel.
It cracks me up how people in this forum seem to think that being Tom Brady's back up makes someone a significantly better quarterback. There is nothing magical about holding Tom Brady's clipboard that make someone a great quarterback. Hoyer, Cassel and Mallet are not names which we will be seeing in Canton anytime soon.
I agree the formula is more complex than that. But none of that changes the fact that three years of low cost certainty is better than one year of low cost certainty, all else being equal.
Already went over not reading the entire post, and there are numerous examples showing that late firsts plus other picks can happen. But out of curiosity, what do you consider a "high" pick? This feels like a moving target.
To me, a top pick is in the top 20 because those are the non-playoff teams, and because we almost never get to draft that high, in which case I would say the Jay Cutler trade. But I'm sure to many others, they would consider top 16 since that's half of the league, so I'd say the Drew Bledsoe trade. But some may consider top 10. That would be the Rob Johnson trade. Or maybe top 5 since we will just keep moving the goal posts.
And what about draft picks that are unprotected at the time of the trade? The Raiders traded their future 1st for Carson Palmer. It ended up being 17th, so it probably doesn't count in your definition of high. But it could have been 1st overall, as it was totally unprotected. The Raiders started 4-2 before making the trade, then went 4-6 with Palmer, leaving the Raiders as one of the 7 teams to finish at 8-8. Based on strength of schedule, that pick fell to 17th, but could have been as high as 12th if SOS worked out differently, or their luck in close games (4-1 in 1-possession games after trading for Palmer) had been slightly different. Ditto the Vikings pick which ends up at 14th, but could have been much lower (or higher). The team dealing the pick has no certainty of what that pick will be worth.
The point about the 3 years contract was that it only matters if the player is worth it. Everyone is obsessing over the potential extra 3 years of cheap contracts, and I understood your point, but I think you give it way too much weight because:
a) it doesn't matter if the player sucks, and
b) it doesn't matter if you have to give up extra top 3-picks to get them.
So if your team is convinced Jimmy G is great, why not trade a 1st for him, keep your 2nd, 3rd, and 1st next year and draft players to help? Is that any better/worse than trading all 4 of those picks for 1 big question mark who might have 3 extra cheap years on their deal? Of course not.
I also find it amusing you throw out Cutler, Flynn and Cassel as examples of failures. None of those guys are going to the HOF, but they all exceeded expectations and were hardly the flops that you seemed to want to indicate. You also slag Hoyer and Mallett, and really all of those guys exceeded expectations one way or another.
But I really don't understand the Cutler, Cassel, and Hoyer criticisms.
If we don't listen to fan radio and use more objective measures (say career AV and Chase Stuart's excellent draft value chart), we can get a good indication of which players exceeded expectations based on their draft position, and by how much.
Let's start with Cassel. He was a 7th-round pick in the 2005 draft, so from that time to now, 145 QBs have been drafted (does not include UDFAs). As a late 7th-round pick, his draft value chart expects him to have 10.1 AV in his first 5 seasons. Cassel put up 25 AV, despite sitting 3 of those years. His 46 career AV also puts him 12th in the list of 145 QBs drafted since 2005, and only 3 of the guys ahead of him were NOT 1st-rounders.
Then there's Cutler, the 11th pick overall in the 2006 draft. According to Stuart's draft value chart, we should expect 29.3 AV, and Cutler produces 52 despite sitting his rookie season and switching teams midway. Cutler has an 11-year career and going.
There's a tendency to label anyone who isn't a first-ballot HOFer as a JAG, but that's well above average. Since that 2005 draft, he's 3rd in career AV, 2nd in starts, and one of only 18 QBs to get a Pro Bowl nomination.
Hoyer was an UDFA but the lowest value in Stuart's chart is 10.1 so we'll use that too. Hoyer technically fails the first 5 year test on Stuart's draft chart because he only started 4 games in his first 5 seasons, but he produced 18 career AV over an 8 year career (and counting), which would put him in the top 30 list of drafted QBs since 2005. Not bad for an UDFA.
Flynn and Mallett didn't do much in terms of actual production, although the longevity of their careers far exceeded expectations.
So measuring Cassel as a failure because he's not Brady isn't really fair. He's exceeded almost every other 7th rounder (Ryan Fitzpatrick is slightly ahead of him), and he's done better than 24 1st-round QBs, and 53 QBs drafted in the first 3 rounds. Meanwhile, Hoyer, an UDFA, had a better career than 116 drafted QBs going back to 2005.
And you think none of that has to do with working with Brady? That both players were just naturally way more talented than their draft position indicated? Or did learning from the GOAT day after day after day possibly have something to do with it?
At the end of the day, Jimmy not get traded. He might get traded for a 1st and a 4th. He might get traded for a high 1st (whatever that is). He might get traded for a 2nd and a 3rd. Nobody knows for sure. But all of those scenarios are possible, even if they're not probable.
