Excellent Michael Hurley Article: Significant Aspect Of Garoppolo Trade That Nobody’s Talking About

[fgssand]

He couldn't make it through two games, how does that make him " a potential SB winning QB?"

I actually like Garrapolo but this absolute certainty people have about him when he couldn't make it through two games is bizarre. He played really well when he was on the field but the first big hit he took put him out of action, so there have to be serious concerns about his ability to make it through a full season, let alone a career.

I made sure to include the word "IF"..........

I also think if the Patriots didn't believe he had serious potential, he wouldn't still be here.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I actually like Garrapolo but this absolute certainty people have about him when he couldn't make it through two games is bizarre.

The people who think JG will accomplish something in the NFL at least have lots more data than you, Mr. Extreme Fetish About Literally One Datapoint That I Will Rabidly Hammer Into The Ground Repeatedly Under A Vastly Mistaken Belief It Proves Anything Whatsoever And Then Whines About The Alleged Certainty I Claim Others Illegitimately Have.

 

[Ivan]

I made sure to include the word "IF"..........

I also think if the Patriots didn't believe he had serious potential, he wouldn't still be here.

I didn't say he didn't have potential and I acknowledged that he played really well in the five quarters he was in, but once again what I take issue with is the projection of him as a Super Bowl winning QB when he couldn't make it through two games, and he was only asked to play 4. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how good he is if he can't take big hits.

 

[Ivan]

The people who think JG will accomplish something in the NFL at least have lots more data than you, Mr. Extreme Fetish About Literally One Datapoint That I Will Rabidly Hammer Into The Ground Repeatedly Under A Vastly Mistaken Belief It Proves Anything Whatsoever And Then Whines About The Alleged Certainty I Claim Others Illegitimately Have.

LMAO

Having a rough time with the truth this morning Quantum?

And that's a really ironic statement coming from the guy whose only claim on Brady deteriorating is his age.


Jimmy Garrapolo has to show he can stay on the field to be able to entrust the future of a franchise to him, that's a fact. Don't like it? Tough sh.t.

 

[Ivan]

The people who think JG will accomplish something in the NFL at least have lots more data than you, Mr. Extreme Fetish About Literally One Datapoint That I Will Rabidly Hammer Into The Ground Repeatedly Under A Vastly Mistaken Belief It Proves Anything Whatsoever And Then Whines About The Alleged Certainty I Claim Others Illegitimately Have.

Nice tantrum. Now you can go beat your little fisties and feeties into the ground.

 

[Ivan]

The people who think JG will accomplish something in the NFL at least have lots more data than you,

Go for it, let's see it?

I'm looking forward to this Mr. Brady's 39, Brady's 39, Brady's 39, Brady's 39, Brady's 39, Brady's 39.....

 

[Ivan]

I made sure to include the word "IF"..........

I also think if the Patriots didn't believe he had serious potential, he wouldn't still be here.

I do agree completely on his potential, and I think his ability to play st a high level at NFL speed is the biggest hurdle young QBs have to overcome.

 

[signbabybrady]

Well, you did say Top Ten.

Anyway, Patriots seem to be able to identify and develop QBs better than other teams, and their sweet spot appears to be a bit later than other teams as a result. I think they've been more opportunistic than proactive picking later guys whom others don't identify as top tier then developing them well. Looking at the record, they've been pretty damn good at it. Most of the guys they selected as backups managed to have reasonable careers in the NFL and they've gotten good compensation for them afterwards.

I know I said top ten but the thing about being top ten is that anything that gets selected after 10 was an option for you. I'd like to think this staff and organization would not let the right guy slip past them.

As you point out they have had success developing guys from later rounds so it would only stand to reason that their chance would increase the higher they select and that there ceiling might be higher than just reasonable career.

 

[maineman209]

I didn't say he didn't have potential and I acknowledged that he played really well in the five quarters he was in, but once again what I take issue with is the projection of him as a Super Bowl winning QB when he couldn't make it through two games, and he was only asked to play 4. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how good he is if he can't take big hits.

Curran reported it as being a grade-2 AC sprain. Throwing shoulder, IIRC.

If so, it seems only reasonable that he'd sit out the rest of that game and the next game 4 days later.

Sitting out wk-4 is another question. Maybe it was the coaching staff being careful. Maybe it was JG being careful with his own future.

Or maybe JG genuinely felt that he wouldn't be able to help the team.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Except that one must ask the question "are there REALLY that many sure things at the top of the QB draft?"

Look at last year. Carson Wentz and Jared Goff. Who here thinks these are going to be future Pro Bowl Franchise QBs? Meanwhile Dak Prescott was drafted in which round? The draft is a crapshoot, and while you can often get a GOOD QB at the top of the first, you seldom get a GREAT QB simply because there are only a few of those, one every 5 years or so. Let's look at the top 10 QB picks since 2001 when the Dynasty began.

Jared Goff (Bust)
Carson Wentz (TBD)
Blake Bortles (Bust)
Jameis Winston (TBD)
Marcus Mariotta (TBD)
Andrew Luck (Elite)
Robert Griffin III (Bust)
Ryan Tannehill (Okay)
Cam Newton (Elite)
Jake Locker (Bust)
Blaine Gabbert (Bust)
Sam Bradford (Okay)
Matt Stafford (Okay)
Mark Sanchez (Bust)
Matt Ryan (Elite)
Jamarcus Russell (Bust)
Vince Young (Bust)
Matt Leinart (Bust)
Alex Smith (Okay)
Eli Manning (Elite)
Phil Rivers (Okay)
Carson Palmer (Okay)
Byron Leftwich (Bust)
David Carr (Bust)
Joey Harrington (Bust)
Michael Vick (Bust)

Out of those 26 guys, you've had 4 (four) who have made it to the Super Bowl, and only one guy has won it. You have thirteen busts (50%!!!!!! ), six okay QBs, four guys who are elite and four who we can't really assess yet but whose potential ranges from "okay to elite" . So is a 15% shot at an elite QB worth it?

Looking at the Super Bowls won by people other than Tom Brady, how many of those guys were Elite?

Peyton Manning
Russell Wilson
Joe Flacco
Eli Manning
Ben Roethlisberger
Brad Johnson

Manning was good in his first SB (note: not during the game, but during the season leading up to the game) but I probably could have played better in the second one. Flacco had a brief period of four games where he played out of his mind but after that he's just reverted to being Jump Ball Joe, and nothing makes me happier than the Ratbirds being stuck with his mega-contract and crappy play indefinitely. The Ben is a decent QB, but even with the great receivers and RB he has can't seem to win. He may well be overrated. Brad Johnson? Russell Wilson relies too much on his legs to have the longevity to be elite and his D was the major reason they won. Out of these guys, only the Mannings were drafted in the Top Ten.

So from my point of view. you don't need to draft a QB in the Top Ten, and it seems a position particularly prone to busts. What gets you to the top often is a great D with a merely competent (or even incompetent) QB. We already have two QBs who could suffice in that respect.

BTW, this analysis made me realize just how absolutely above and beyond every other QB Brady actually is. In case anyone forgot...

This was an interesting post. I guess the top 10 was just a random selection, though it leaves Ben just outside.

But I think using Super Bowl appearances and wins as a metric can skew data since it's such a small sample size since only 1 QB starter wins a Super Bowl every year. It's just hard for many guys to ever go to a Super Bowl, especially in an era when Brady/Manning/Ben have made the majority of trips in the AFC, while Eli/Wilson are not as dominant but have multiple trips in the NFC during that era.

So the flip-side of the coin is that of the 175 QBs drafted AFTER the top 10 since 2001, you still only have 7 QBs who have gone to the Super Bowl, and 5 who have won it (3 were 1st round picks: Ben, Flacco, Rodgers).

So if you don't use an arbitrary top 10 limit, and just look at the data to see where there seems to be a significant difference, you could say it's roughly the 1st round.

There were 44 1st round QBs taken since 2001, with 11 QBs appearing in the Super Bowl and 5 having won it vs. 157 QBs drafted after the 1st round, with 3 QBs appearing in the Super Bowl and 2 having won it. One of those guys is Drew Brees, the #32 pick overall before the Texans joined, so just outside that 1st round.

So I'd say investing a 1st round pick in a QB does look to matter, though to your data, it doesn't necessarily have to be a top 10 pick. And maybe that's because the teams that are picking in the top 10 consistently are doing so for a reason, because they suck so consistently. Meanwhile decent organizations help those mid-1st rounders like Ben and the Steelers, Flacco and the Ravens, Rodgers and the Packers, much more so than the Jaguars or Titans or Rams (who made multiple top 10 choices on QBs) end up doing.

 

[maineman209]

I do agree completely on his potential, and I think his ability to play st a high level at NFL speed is the biggest hurdle young QBs have to overcome.

I saw JG live at practice when he was a rookie. Even then he looked almost NFL-ready, especially against the Eagles.

 

[patchick]

Every year I notice two statements being repeated before the draft:

1. There's a "plateau" of talent in this draft, so that the players available from [somewhere in round 1] through [somewhere around the end of round 2] are all pretty much equal values. Therefore lower pick X is essentially as valuable as higher pick number Y.

2. This Patriots' roster is so stacked that they really don't have room for a lot of rookies, so stocking up on draft picks this year is pointless.

Every single year.

FWIW, I'm skeptical of both claims. We may see a theoretical talent plateau of 30 picks, but if the handful of prospects a team is targeting are gone, they're gone. And as for the "no room for rookies," the fact that we always say that yet late-round picks and UDFAs always make the roster and contribute gives the lie to it. The Patriots' current starting roster includes half a dozen day-3/undrafted prospects who joined stacked rosters with "no room."

More generally, more rookies means more competition. It means more lottery tickets that just-maybe can turn into a Julian Edelman or Malcolm Butler. It means more depth and options in the case of injury. And most important of all, it means planning for the future so that you never have a rebuilding year. Yes, the 2017 roster would probably be fine without a single draft pick. But you don't draft for this season, you draft for next season and beyond. The 2018 roster obviously does have holes, and it's not too early to think about filling them.

I do believe that no draft pick could be as valuable as Garoppolo to the Patriots THIS YEAR. Nobody. Because with him, the Patriots are still Superbowl contenders if Brady goes down. But they're giving up a lot of future value for that.

 

[signbabybrady]

I think it's pretty obvious they think Jimmy IS that guy and as such, I seriously doubt he is getting traded.

Wouldn't you agree that if he is that good, you just don't trade potential Super Bowl champion QB? Not for any price.

As we've discussed many times the problem with Jimmy is just a matter of timing. Unless you're giving up on TB sooner then Jimmy's contract then JG is not the guy. So mine as well flip him for an even more highly rated player out of college and start grooming a newb.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Well, Hurley's argument isn't that BB doesn't like value at the top of the draft but rather that he doesn't like the top of this draft.

Agreed - though nothing stopping him from trading back or for future years picks...

I think what it comes down to is that Belichick is in a bit of a "win now/next few years" mode when it comes to using his cap space with proven free agents thus limiting the number of roster spots for rookies - it's a pretty wise way to go

And the spots BB may have in mind for rookies that fit in his system can often be well out of the 1st round

I think Hurley's helping with a bit of postering, acknowledging that the "stock" on draft picks this year is pretty low and the Browns need to sweeten the pot as a result - all of which is pretty much true.

Both Garropolo and Butler can be had - but only for the right price.

I'm actually kindof rooting for the Browns to pull off the trade (with the Patriots well compensated of course!) I'm pretty tired of a storied NFL franchise continuing to be an annual laughing stock mainly because of bad ownership and a poorly run league.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Did anyone else notice a comment at the bottom of Hurley's piece by one "Mike" aka NEM?

This twitter account has to be a joke, no? No way NEM could still be among the living... (does make sense he hates Butler however!)

Mike (@M_Allen_aka_NEM) | Twitter

 

[BTTA]

Thoughtful post, thanks. The biggest longer view needs are at OT and DE, IMHO.

For this coming year, and every year, the team needs a certain percentage of players who are competing to show the coaching staff that they belong. Players who have been on the roster in the prior year(s) have already had that opportunity. The team is made much more competitive when there is at least one player at every position who is on the edge of earning significant playing time. It helps shake the cobwebs off the vets. This is particularly important after a SB, in part because the vets are a month behind in the recovery process.

The new guys they've acquired are a good start, but not enough. It would be good to get serious competition at every position on the OL, and every position in the front seven of the defense.

Every year I notice two statements being repeated before the draft:

1. There's a "plateau" of talent in this draft, so that the players available from [somewhere in round 1] through [somewhere around the end of round 2] are all pretty much equal values. Therefore lower pick X is essentially as valuable as higher pick number Y.

2. This Patriots' roster is so stacked that they really don't have room for a lot of rookies, so stocking up on draft picks this year is pointless.

Every single year.

FWIW, I'm skeptical of both claims. We may see a theoretical talent plateau of 30 picks, but if the handful of prospects a team is targeting are gone, they're gone. And as for the "no room for rookies," the fact that we always say that yet late-round picks and UDFAs always make the roster and contribute gives the lie to it. The Patriots' current starting roster includes half a dozen day-3/undrafted prospects who joined stacked rosters with "no room."

More generally, more rookies means more competition. It means more lottery tickets that just-maybe can turn into a Julian Edelman or Malcolm Butler. It means more depth and options in the case of injury. And most important of all, it means planning for the future so that you never have a rebuilding year. Yes, the 2017 roster would probably be fine without a single draft pick. But you don't draft for this season, you draft for next season and beyond. The 2018 roster obviously does have holes, and it's not to early to think about filling them.

I do believe that no draft pick could be as valuable as Garoppolo to the Patriots THIS YEAR. Nobody. Because with him, the Patriots are still Superbowl contenders if Brady goes down. But they're giving up a lot of future value for that.

 

[Ivan]

Curran reported it as being a grade-2 AC sprain. Throwing shoulder, IIRC.

If so, it seems only reasonable that he'd sit out the rest of that game and the next game 4 days later.

Sitting out wk-4 is another question. Maybe it was the coaching staff being careful. Maybe it was JG being careful with his own future.

Or maybe JG genuinely felt that he wouldn't be able to help the team.

Yep, we have no idea what went into their decision. My concern with Garrapolo is that given his size and playing style those types of hits are likely to continue, and it won't matter how well he plays if he can't weather big hits and stay on the field. Rodgers is an appropriate comparison and he's been able to figure out how to withstand those hits, Romo is another appropriate comparison and he just keeps getting hurt. It's hard to predict how Garrapolo will fare going forward but it's definitely going to be a concern for any team betting their future on him.

 

[BTTA]

There have also been multiple accounts of the Pats using the pre-draft scouting period to file away reports on players that they may want 4 or 5 years from now when they become FA, or in trades. This is about building an archive, not just a shopping list.

 

[n6249c]

I don't buy it either.

BB has been scouting more than just a few first round prospects.

That is the action of someone who fully expects to have a first round pick in his arsenal.

Disagree. Belichick would do it because it's the right thing to do the due diligence on those players for the future even if he has no picks in the draft. Period. Full stop.

 

[50-yard-line]

Younger WR's for future?

Just want to comment on this bit...

Mitchell is 23.
Cooks is 23.
Hogan is 28.

That's a pretty young trio of receivers.