Pats not trading Garoppolo - Schefter

[Huckleberry1]

If they could some how convince Garrapolo to do a four to five year extension I'd be all for it, I like the guy and think he could be a decent QB, what I don't like is the Brady's done horsesh.t.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

And this is why the Browns are the Browns.

Browns strongly considering Mitch Trubisky No. 1 overall, sources say

 

[Ring 6]

I wasn't talking about 2017 or JG specifically (in fact, I expect JG to be traded before this draft, and if not, to either just walk away or be tagged and traded after the 2017 season. In any event, I would be beyond shocked if he's on the team in 2018, if for no other reason than the contracts make it incredibly unrealistic.) So whoever Brady's successor will be, it won't be JG.

My issue is with the dumb concept of "NE should not move on from Brady until he's better than his replacement." That's dumb because it completely ignores the crucial issue of time. At some point 5-10 years of a good starter is more important to have than 1 or 2 years of a superstar.

I will agree that while Brady is better than the prospective replacement there is no issue with staying with Brady while the replacement is under the team's control. Of course you go with whoever's better in that situation! The problem is when the replacement finishes the final year of his contract and the coaching staff feels Brady (for whatever reason) is a short-timer. Even if Brady is still better than the replacement at that point, BB (or whoever) has to seriously think about moving on because the alternative is to not have a viable QB when Brady is done.

So let me understand this. If Brady goes out and has another Brady year and wins his 6th SB, then afterward BB asks for his honest assessment of how long he thinks he will keep playing and Brady says he is sure he can play 2 more but could be retiring after that you would want BB to cut Brady then and sign Jimmy g long term rather than keep Brady as his QB and let Jimmy g walk or trade for whatever he can get if he can fit the tag under the cap. Is that your position?

 

[The Gr8est]

And this is why the Browns are the Browns.

Browns strongly considering Mitch Trubisky No. 1 overall, sources say

So the Browns would use the #1 pick overall for Trubisky, yet a high #1 pick is too much for Garoppolo?

I think this is a smoke screen, but if the Browns take Trubisky #1 it is just more of the Browns being the Browns.

 

[strngplyr]

And this is why the Browns are the Browns.

Browns strongly considering Mitch Trubisky No. 1 overall, sources say

If this is true then there is 0 reason to not offer the #1 pick for JG.

 

[Ring 6]

And this is why the Browns are the Browns.

Browns strongly considering Mitch Trubisky No. 1 overall, sources say

It's speculation.
And these Browns are not the Browns of the past.
Hell they could be worse but the current regime didn't put them in this mess and seem to be doing a lot of things right given what they inherited.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Trubisky has 13 college starts, they could probably land him at #12 if they wanted. It would be another Browns being the Browns move if they did.

I'd rather take Watson, at least he has shown that he can play big time college football, and he played great in the biggest games.

Its funny, that every year you hear about these college QBs rising to the top of the NFL draft and you can barely remember them playing 6 months earlier.

Trubisky = Goff = Bortles, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Ring 6]

So the Browns would use the #1 pick overall for Trubisky, yet a high #1 pick is too much for Garoppolo?

I think this is a smoke screen, but if the Browns take Trubisky #1 it is just more of the Browns being the Browns.

Forgetting that Jimmy g is a patriot it is not dumb to compare

A QB drafted 3 years ago at the end of the second round who has thrown 94 passes in 3 years and pkayed 1 full game, who is now 25 years old and will command a franchise QB contract.

With a 22 year old who you feel is the best player in the draft and you will get on a rookie contract.

 

[Ring 6]

Trubisky has 13 college starts, they could probably land him at #12 if they wanted. It would be another Browns being the Browns move if they did.

I'd rather take Watson, at least he has shown that he can play big time college football, and he played great in the biggest games.

Its funny, that every year you hear about these college QBs rising to the top of the NFL draft and you can barely remember them playing 6 months earlier.

Trubisky = Goff = Bortles, etc. etc. etc.

Goff was very well known in college. But you may have meant wentz.

 

[borg]

If this is true then there is 0 reason to not offer the #1 pick for JG.

Monetarily, there are approximately 43 million reasons to use the #1 to secure Trubisky for 5 yrs/$30 mill vs JG for 5 yrs/$70+ million ($900k + 4 x $18 mill). That $8.6 million/year savings can build a deeper team.
Having a quality QB on a rookie contract provides a major advantage for teams (See Seattle, Baltimore, NE, etc)

 

[Ring 6]

Upfront bonus he gets today vs. having to wait a year. Bird in hand vs. 2 in bush

No. There is no way he is going to accept a smaller contract sooner in order to sit in the bench. Just simply no way.

 

[The Gr8est]

Monetarily, there are approximately 43 million reasons to use the #1 to secure Trubisky for 5 yrs/$30 mill vs JG for 5 yrs/$70+ million ($900k + 4 x $18 mill). That $8.6 million/year savings can build a deeper team.
Having a quality QB on a rookie contract provides a major advantage for teams (See Seattle, Baltimore, NE, etc)

All true, but that is predicated on having a QB who can actually play.

A mediocre QB on a cheap contract is no bargain at all.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think that any JG extension will happen but to say that him accepting one would mean he doesn't want to play isn't necessarily true.

It could mean he would begrudgingly accept waiting to play on the best managed and coached team in the NFL and almost guarantees success, then comes the huge payday.

Unlikely and probably impossible scenario, but it doesn't have to mean he doesn't care about playing. Being able to play for the best teams will give you a longer career (more earning potential) than playing for a **** team. (Phillip Rivers probably an exception to that, as he's done well for himself surrounded by trash for much of his career)

Yes it does. Any player who takes less money to sit on the bench than he can get to start is a loser who doesn't want to play.

 

[Ring 6]

All true, but that is predicated on having a QB who can actually play.

A mediocre QB on a cheap contract is no bargain at all.

What if Jimmy g turns out to be a mediocre QB on a huge contract?

 

[The Gr8est]

What if Jimmy g turns out to be a mediocre QB on a huge contract?

There is more evidence that Jimmy can play in the NFL* than Trubisky, but both are risks.

 

[Ring 6]

There is more evidence that Jimmy can play in the NFL* than Trubisky, but both are risks.

He is also 31/2 years older and has been largely idle for 3 years. There was not more evidence coming into the league.
Those factors stack up against 1 1/2 games and make it a reasonable decision

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Forgetting that Jimmy g is a patriot it is not dumb to compare

A QB drafted 3 years ago at the end of the second round who has thrown 94 passes in 3 years and pkayed 1 full game, who is now 25 years old and will command a franchise QB contract.

With a 22 year old who you feel is the best player in the draft and you will get on a rookie contract.

The counterargument is: The QB drafted 3 years ago at #62 overall lasted that long specifically due to concerns about his competition level and offensive system (to a certain extent, a lack thereof). Had he performed at that same level or less at a big name college program, we're looking at a top 10 pick.

Now 3 years later, we have a guy sitting on the bench behind the GOAT, who played 6 quarters in a structured offensive system and looked very good doing so, on the road opening night against the prior year's NFC Conference Finalist and at home against a 2017 playoff team. He had been the sole backup for said GOAT his first two seasons in the league. The thing about sitting on the bench behind the GOAT is that someone like Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Drew Brees, etc. would also be sitting on the bench behind him had they been drafted by the Patriots. It's not really fair to use that against him.

Basically you're seeing a guy who addressed the concerns that kept him out of the top ten - competition level and ability to understand an NFL offense. Problem is he only showed that in 6 quarters, but it's certainly a heck of a lot better than not showing it at all. While NFL durability now becomes a question mark, I think the main two question marks are significantly reduced from 3 years ago. But agreed that they're still question marks, as Matt Flynn and others have illustrated.

I totally agree with your other points - a 22 year old has more potential than a 25 year old in general, the 22 year old will have a rookie contract versus an upcoming free agent, etc. The issue is if the best player in the draft is better or can be any better than this other alternative. Given what scouts and analysts have made known about this QB class, it's right to be skeptical. But given this particular QB class, versus say the 2012 QB class, and I think there is an argument to be made that Garoppolo would be a better option for them.

 

[deroc5050]

I guess that means that Tom Brady is "clueless"because he's the one who is adamant about playing four to five more seasons. Then again I'm sure you know much more about what Tom Brady can and can't do than he does. I mean hell, what does he know, he's just the guy who has been proving all his detractors wrong for 17 years. But I'm sure you and Max Kellerman are right, he's just going to suddenly suck, and Jimmy Garrapolo is going to be the greatest QB of all time.

Thats what Brady says.. of course thats what Brady is gonna say. Brady also said he will stop playing when he can't play anymore. Brady doesn't even know when that will be. If everything goes really well you get 3 more great seasons out of Brady. After that most likely the wall is gonna come.

So in a good scenario you trade away a possible star QB and get another 3 years out of Brady. I would stick with Brady if thats the case and cross my fingers.

 

[Ring 6]

The counterargument is: The QB drafted 3 years ago at #62 overall lasted that long specifically due to concerns about his competition level and offensive system (to a certain extent, a lack thereof). Had he performed at that same level or less at a big name college program, we're looking at a top 10 pick.

Well we can argue any point if we just make things up.

Now 3 years later, we have a guy sitting on the bench behind the GOAT, who played 6 quarters in a structured offensive system and looked very good doing so, on the road opening night against the prior year's NFC Conference Finalist and at home against a 2017 playoff team. He had been the sole backup for said GOAT his first two seasons in the league. The thing about sitting on the bench behind the GOAT is that someone like Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Drew Brees, etc. would also be sitting on the bench behind him had they been drafted by the Patriots. It's not really fair to use that against him.

The fact is that he hasn't played football not why or who is in front of him. Players don't generally improve on the sidelines.

Basically you're seeing a guy who addressed the concerns that kept him out of the top ten

You have no idea what kept him out of the top 10 and 94 passes on 3 years is not addressing inexperience.

- competition level and ability to understand an NFL offense. Problem is he only showed that in 6 quarters, but it's certainly a heck of a lot better than not showing it at all. While NFL durability now becomes a question mark, I think the main two question marks are significantly reduced from 3 years ago. But agreed that they're still question marks, as Matt Flynn and others have illustrated.

There are positives and negatives on both sides which is my point.

I totally agree with your other points - a 22 year old has more potential than a 25 year old in general, the 22 year old will have a rookie contract versus an upcoming free agent, etc. The issue is if the best player in the draft is better or can be any better than this other alternative. Given what scouts and analysts have made known about this QB class, it's right to be skeptical. But given this particular QB class, versus say the 2012 QB class, and I think there is an argument to be made that Garoppolo would be a better option for them.

You aren't drafting a QB class you are drafting one QB based upon how you evaluate him.
Brady's QB class sucked does that mean he sucks?

As I said I was responding to the claim it would be idiotic to draft the best QB in the draft instead if trading for garoppolo, not that trunisky is better.

Another MAJOR factor in this.
If I am Hugh Jackson I would absolutely prefer to bring in my guy, teach him my system, train him and educate him my way than to bring in someone who spent 3 years in another organization

 

[yopats]

Well we can argue any point if we just make things up.


The fact is that he hasn't played football not why or who is in front of him. Players don't generally improve on the sidelines.


You have no idea what kept him out of the top 10 and 94 passes on 3 years is not addressing inexperience.




There are positives and negatives on both sides which is my point.

You aren't drafting a QB class you are drafting one QB based upon how you evaluate him.
Brady's QB class sucked does that mean he sucks?

As I said I was responding to the claim it would be idiotic to draft the best QB in the draft instead if trading for garoppolo, not that trunisky is better.

Another MAJOR factor in this.
If I am Hugh Jackson I would absolutely prefer to bring in my guy, teach him my system, train him and educate him my way than to bring in someone who spent 3 years in another organization

Problem with that theory is that when Hue goes 1 and 15 again he's fired