JohnnyU

Patriots looking for a 1st and 4th for Garoppolo

1,559 posts in this topic

This is the PATS mo, they draft a QB in the middle rounds one year, then trade him for a gold mine in a couple of years.  Haven't they done this multiple times?  I'm surprised other teams haven't done this more often.  Teams are stupid if they give this, but we all know how valuable QBs are.  Watch him bust on any team other than the Pats.

 

Rotoworld -

 

ESPN's Adam Schefter believes a first- and fourth-round pick would be the "starting point" in trade negotiations for Jimmy Garoppolo.

"I don’t even know if they would do it then," Schefter added. "My own sense on Garoppolo is that they are going to explore that market. That they are going to listen. They are going to see what is out there and if some team steps forward and makes it such that they have to trade him they will, but they are just not going to look to give him away. That is not going to happen." A first and fourth was what the Vikings traded the Eagles for Sam Bradford. The Browns have already been named as one team that will "go hard" after Garoppolo. They have two first-rounders in 2017. The 49ers and Bears could also come calling.
 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How often have they really got anything close to what they wanted?  They seem to always ask for a lot but does it really happen that often?  I remember them talking about trading Mallett for a deal like this after they drafted him but they ended up trading him a season or two later for a conditional 6th or 7th round pick.

 

Edit to add: They did move Cassel to the Chiefs for the 34th overall pick.  Am I missing some? I don't see a history of them making frequent trades like this.

Edited by Warhogs
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant think of a time when the Pats traded a player as good as Jimmy looks for what they are reportedly expecting to see.

They got a 2nd for Cassell, pretty sure thats the closest in both skill and return.

Given the landscape of the NFL and how much the team likes him and what he's looked like in games, i think its safe to say at least a 1st+. 

Plenty of teams with draft stock to be squeezed, if they do trade him i expect it to be the Browns (several rumors point to the Browns) or if Josh Mcdaniels leaves this offseason then wherever he goes if they need a QB i wouldnt be surprised if they came after Jimmy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manufactured story.  

Lombardi floats some crap on BB's behalf, in a really obvious manner.

Shefter reports on what his own feeling is.  Rotoworld connects Shefter's feelings to Lombardi's previous nonsense reort, now somehow legit, and we have this nonsense.  

13 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:

Seems steep. 

Agreed. No way I'd give up that. Also, really surprised New England would even want to deal him if they felt like he was that good. Brady is 39 and Garoppolo has 1 more year on his contract. How many more years is Brady going to play? Favre is the only QB I remember having a good year at 40 (Peyton dropped like a rock at 39), but then he dropped off a ton in his age 41 season.

IMHO, the fact that Brady will be 40 next year and they are willing to trade Garoppolo is a big warning flag IMHO. Cassel had 1 decent year, but aside from a great TD%, he never ever had as good a season as his one year in NE. I wouldn't give up a 1st and 4th for a guy who NE is willing to part with when Brady is a year or 2 from retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stbugs said:
30 minutes ago, DocHolliday said:

Seems steep. 

Agreed. No way I'd give up that. Also, really surprised New England would even want to deal him if they felt like he was that good. Brady is 39 and Garoppolo has 1 more year on his contract. How many more years is Brady going to play? Favre is the only QB I remember having a good year at 40 (Peyton dropped like a rock at 39), but then he dropped off a ton in his age 41 season.

IMHO, the fact that Brady will be 40 next year and they are willing to trade Garoppolo is a big warning flag IMHO. Cassel had 1 decent year, but aside from a great TD%, he never ever had as good a season as his one year in NE. I wouldn't give up a 1st and 4th for a guy who NE is willing to part with when Brady is a year or 2 from retirement.

I agree for the most part, but it all depends on the 1st round pick... If it's Cleveland, then yeah it's way too steep. If it's a 2018 first round pick then that might be better for a franchise like Cleveland to swallow. 

I think his value is likely more of a 2nd and 4th. I would be surprised if a team gave up a 1st rounder for him, because any team needing a QB is drafting in the first 10-1 picks. The question becomes, do you feel Garoppolo is better than QB you can get in those picks? Maybe, I'm unfamiliar with the draft class at this point. Hopefully I'll get more into that soon. 

This is typical posturing... put a high price tag out there and see what you can get for him. I would be surprised for them to trade him with Brady getting up in age, but I don't see it as a red flag. More they are looking for someone to play young on a young contract. Garoppolo will likely need a slightly higher contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes no sense unless they value a QB in this draft higher than Garoppolo and feel like he will be there when they pick. Brady is old and Garoppolo has shown he can be effective in BB's offense. He's not going anywhere.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Milkman said:

Makes no sense unless they value a QB in this draft higher than Garoppolo and feel like he will be there when they pick. Brady is old and Garoppolo has shown he can be effective in BB's offense. He's not going anywhere.

Effective for 2 games in his 3rd year in the system against teams that have 0 film on him on which to prepare.

Look at Wentz, perfect example. First 3 games, 2 games with 250+ yards, 2TDs and 0 INTs. Guess how many games he's had like that after the week 4 bye? 0. Not saying he won't improve, but DCs not having anything to prepare for helps QBs, especially, have better games.

With Brady's age, I would say this is a big red flag IMHO for NE to try and trade him. What that says to me is that they don't see him as the heir apparent to Brady and they don't want to have to sign him to an Osweiler deal.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Milkman said:

Makes no sense unless they value a QB in this draft higher than Garoppolo and feel like he will be there when they pick. Brady is old and Garoppolo has shown he can be effective in BB's offense. He's not going anywhere.

Even if they value Garoppolo more than any QB in this draft (....and this is a weak QB draft coming up), they would still be stupid to give a high pick for Garoppolo.  They need a hell of a lot more than a QB, so look for Cleveland to draft BPA at #1 or trade the pick for more picks.  They do have 2 1st rd picks however, but they would be stupid to give that too.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entering the last year of his deal.

You have to give him Brock Osweiler's contract, except Brock had MORE experience as a starter.  

Never say never, because there are always dumb teams out there, and it only takes one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have Glennon, and I wouldn't pay close to that price for either. 

 

If NE thought Garoppolo was that valuable they'd be looking at a Favre/Rodgers type of decision, and I think Belicek would be leaning to the Rodgers side

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, massraider said:

Manufactured story.  

Lombardi floats some crap on BB's behalf, in a really obvious manner.

Shefter reports on what his own feeling is.  Rotoworld connects Shefter's feelings to Lombardi's previous nonsense reort, now somehow legit, and we have this nonsense.  

Yep. I've seen him on Cowherd's show before, and while his insight is good, he often comes off like a total shill for the Patriots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things:

*I know you can't beat Father Time but Brady is playing as well as he ever has and maybe moving better than than ever...he has been very adamant about playing until he is 45 and has treated his body as well as anyone could...right now I see him playing at least three more quality years...

*The issue with Garoppolo and the Pats is timing...the kids looks good but he only has one year left on his deal and if you think Brady is playing for more than that it makes sense to explore the trade market...they are not going to pay Jimmy G good money to sit on the bench for a few years and he probably wouldn't want to be in the spot either...the Pats also used a third-rounder on Brissett and from all accounts they seem to like him...his contract fits much better into being the back-up for the next three years...

*Speaking of contract I think that is one of the selling points of Jimmy G...you get to see what he is all about without committing money to him (he has a year left at very low money)...if he busts you can simply walk away and look elsewhere...you are not in a situation like Houston...

Overall I think anyone who knows exactly what will go on here is foolish...you can make a good case for either scenario...Brady is up there in years and could drop quickly...if it happens in 2017 you have a very legit prospect waiting in the wings...on the flipside Brady looks fantastic, you have Brisset as a backup and trading Jimmy G before he becomes a free agent gives you the opportunity to add more assets to a very good team...I think a 1 and a 4 is probably wishful thinking...knowing BB I see him looking for non-first-rounders where he can bring in young prospects that make no money (especially since they will probably give out a few big contracts this offseason)...gotta believe that Cleveland's first pick in the second round has a ton of value to him...it would also allow Cleveland to use those two first-rounders without having to reach for a QB...  

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boston said:

A few things:

*I know you can't beat Father Time but Brady is playing as well as he ever has and maybe moving better than than ever...he has been very adamant about playing until he is 45 and has treated his body as well as anyone could...right now I see him playing at least three more quality years...

*The issue with Garoppolo and the Pats is timing...the kids looks good but he only has one year left on his deal and if you think Brady is playing for more than that it makes sense to explore the trade market...they are not going to pay Jimmy G good money to sit on the bench for a few years and he probably wouldn't want to be in the spot either...the Pats also used a third-rounder on Brissett and from all accounts they seem to like him...his contract fits much better into being the back-up for the next three years...

*Speaking of contract I think that is one of the selling points of Jimmy G...you get to see what he is all about without committing money to him (he has a year left at very low money)...if he busts you can simply walk away and look elsewhere...you are not in a situation like Houston...

Overall I think anyone who knows exactly what will go on here is foolish...you can make a good case for either scenario...Brady is up there in years and could drop quickly...if it happens in 2017 you have a very legit prospect waiting in the wings...on the flipside Brady looks fantastic, you have Brisset as a backup and trading Jimmy G before he becomes a free agent gives you the opportunity to add more assets to a very good team...I think a 1 and a 4 is probably wishful thinking...knowing BB I see him looking for non-first-rounders where he can bring in young prospects that make no money (especially since they will probably give out a few big contracts this offseason)...gotta believe that Cleveland's first pick in the second round has a ton of value to him...it would also allow Cleveland to use those two first-rounders without having to reach for a QB...  

 

These are all good points.

Just to add to your third point: I think the Pats traded Cassell for a 2nd after tagging him, which is not the same as trading a guy with one year left on a rookie deal. The Chiefs either had to either pay him a large 1 year sum and let him become a FA after the year OR sign him long term. With Jimmy teams would have the option of seeing him in their system for one full year which is much better than giving him a big contract up front. So from that angle he's more valuable than Cassell, but conversely Cassell played a full season (516 att) and put up good numbers while Jimmy has only two starts. So I don't think we've really got much of a precedent to go by here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just haven't seen enough from Garoppolo to believe he could garner a first round pick.  Cassell at least was coming off of an 11-win season for the Pats when they dealt him (and Vrabel) for an early second.  And that trade didn't work out very well for the Chiefs, as I recall.  Other than that, I don't think there is much of a history of the Patriots dealing Brady's backups for early picks.  Hoyer was released by the Pats, not traded away.   Mallett was a third-round pick for the Patriots, and he was traded away for a conditional 6th or 7th round pick.

Similar to Brady's backups, Brett Favre's backups with the Packers always got special attention by other teams.  Mark Brunell was a 5th-round pick and two years later was traded to the Jags for a 3rd and a 5th.  Matt Hasselbeck, a 6th-round pick by the packers, was traded to Seattle to move up in the first (17 to 10) and for a third round pick.  Ty Detmer was claimed off of Waivers by Philadelphia, and Kurt Warner failed to make the Packers' squad as an undrafted free agent.

I truly do not see Brady hitting a wall real soon, but his age is undoubtedly a concern.  If the Patriots believed that Garoppolo was a first-round quality QB, they would not be willing to let him go.  I agree with Bronco Billy that Glennon is a better target, but nowhere near a first-round pick either.  Romo and Cutler should be available to teams desperate for an immediate starter.  Kaepernick and Fitzpatrick will get some attention as well.  Not exactly a great collection of free agent QBs to pursue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

These are all good points.

Just to add to your third point: I think the Pats traded Cassell for a 2nd after tagging him, which is not the same as trading a guy with one year left on a rookie deal. The Chiefs either had to either pay him a large 1 year sum and let him become a FA after the year OR sign him long term. With Jimmy teams would have the option of seeing him in their system for one full year which is much better than giving him a big contract up front. So from that angle he's more valuable than Cassell, but conversely Cassell played a full season (516 att) and put up good numbers while Jimmy has only two starts. So I don't think we've really got much of a precedent to go by here.

Do you think this point alone is worth an upgrade from a 2nd to a 1st and also a 4th? I don't. I think Garoppolo is much better than Cassell ever was, so maybe that's worth the extra picks, but I don't see any team looking at that scenario (which is legitimate) and saying that yes they will sell the farm because they get a year out of a QB under a rookie contract (when they can use that 1st round pick on a rookie QB who will be in their system for FOUR years on a rookie contract).


You can't really expect much in Garoppolo (can we come up with a nickname for this guy??? Ropo? Polo? something easier to type) when he only has 9 months if he's traded today to learn a completely new system and become familiar with the WRs. If anything I'd say you can't really call him a success or failure until he's in the system a full 2 offeseasons. So is a team willing to give a player Osweiler type money after seeing him for a short 12 months if traded today? I think that's more risky than drafting a QB and seeing how he does for 4 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, socrates said:

I just haven't seen enough from Garoppolo to believe he could garner a first round pick.  Cassell at least was coming off of an 11-win season for the Pats when they dealt him (and Vrabel) for an early second.  And that trade didn't work out very well for the Chiefs, as I recall.  Other than that, I don't think there is much of a history of the Patriots dealing Brady's backups for early picks.  Hoyer was released by the Pats, not traded away.   Mallett was a third-round pick for the Patriots, and he was traded away for a conditional 6th or 7th round pick.

Similar to Brady's backups, Brett Favre's backups with the Packers always got special attention by other teams.  Mark Brunell was a 5th-round pick and two years later was traded to the Jags for a 3rd and a 5th.  Matt Hasselbeck, a 6th-round pick by the packers, was traded to Seattle to move up in the first (17 to 10) and for a third round pick.  Ty Detmer was claimed off of Waivers by Philadelphia, and Kurt Warner failed to make the Packers' squad as an undrafted free agent.

I truly do not see Brady hitting a wall real soon, but his age is undoubtedly a concern.  If the Patriots believed that Garoppolo was a first-round quality QB, they would not be willing to let him go.  I agree with Bronco Billy that Glennon is a better target, but nowhere near a first-round pick either.  Romo and Cutler should be available to teams desperate for an immediate starter.  Kaepernick and Fitzpatrick will get some attention as well.  Not exactly a great collection of free agent QBs to pursue.

You forgot Aaron Brooks, he did pretty good for NO for a short period of time
Matt Flynn was signed big and flopped, but signed big regardless

Edited by Dr. Brew
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I have heard NE really likes Brissett long term (for better or for worse). Even though there were reports that taking Brissett off of IR = Pats will trade Jimmy G, I tend to believe BB on this one (who I recall saying if they left Brissett on IR he couldn't practice again until next year and they wanted him to get as much practice as possible).

I don't believe the Schefter reports one way or another. IMO, if they get a juicy trade offer for Jimmy G, they would probably deal him. I don't think it's a coincidence that Garoppolo hasn't played much of late. I think NE wants suitors to have memories of his 4 TD half against Miami as their lasting memory of Garoppolo. If he went out and looked bad, his trade stock would take a hit.

I am hard pressed to think Brissett will be the heir apparent to Brady, but as discussed in other threads, it would be nearly impossible to keep Brady and Garoppolo past next year.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr. Brew said:

Do you think this point alone is worth an upgrade from a 2nd to a 1st and also a 4th? I don't. 

Doesn't matter.  That 1st and 4th was pulled directly from Shefter's backside, he didn't even pretend to have a source, so I wouldn't get caught up in that 1st/4th price.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Brew said:

You forgot Aaron Brooks, he did pretty good for NO for a short period of time

Aha, nice catch.  How could I have forgotten Brooks?!  He was on my dynasty team for a short time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr. Brew said:

Do you think this point alone is worth an upgrade from a 2nd to a 1st and also a 4th? I don't. I think Garoppolo is much better than Cassell ever was, so maybe that's worth the extra picks, but I don't see any team looking at that scenario (which is legitimate) and saying that yes they will sell the farm because they get a year out of a QB under a rookie contract (when they can use that 1st round pick on a rookie QB who will be in their system for FOUR years on a rookie contract).


You can't really expect much in Garoppolo (can we come up with a nickname for this guy??? Ropo? Polo? something easier to type) when he only has 9 months if he's traded today to learn a completely new system and become familiar with the WRs. If anything I'd say you can't really call him a success or failure until he's in the system a full 2 offeseasons. So is a team willing to give a player Osweiler type money after seeing him for a short 12 months if traded today? I think that's more risky than drafting a QB and seeing how he does for 4 years. 

I think after one year you have a decent idea of what you have...if not, you still have the franchise option to use like the Redskins have done with Cousins...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr. Brew said:

Do you think this point alone is worth an upgrade from a 2nd to a 1st and also a 4th? I don't. I think Garoppolo is much better than Cassell ever was, so maybe that's worth the extra picks, but I don't see any team looking at that scenario (which is legitimate) and saying that yes they will sell the farm because they get a year out of a QB under a rookie contract (when they can use that 1st round pick on a rookie QB who will be in their system for FOUR years on a rookie contract).


You can't really expect much in Garoppolo (can we come up with a nickname for this guy??? Ropo? Polo? something easier to type) when he only has 9 months if he's traded today to learn a completely new system and become familiar with the WRs. If anything I'd say you can't really call him a success or failure until he's in the system a full 2 offeseasons. So is a team willing to give a player Osweiler type money after seeing him for a short 12 months if traded today? I think that's more risky than drafting a QB and seeing how he does for 4 years. 

I don't really have enough information to say one way or another on either (if that's worth more or less, or if Jimmy has shown to be better than Cassell did in NE). Obviously, using the handy tool of hindsight people are going to say Jimmy is better because of draft pedigree and the fact Cassell never did much outside of NE, but I don't have enough confidence to say that definitively. 

But theoretically, Jimmy has matured as a QB over the past 3 years, so that's why he's a more appealing "win now" type of investment than a 2017 rookie. If he looks good, though, he's going to cost a huge % of your cap in 2018 while the rookie would still be cheap. There are a lot of pros and cons to weigh and I'm no scout nor draft pick value expert, so I am not adding much here... just kind of rambling.

I agree - we need an abbreviation for this guy. I'm going to keep calling him Jimmy until someone finds a better name/abbreviation - but I guess you have to do something in the NFL before you earn that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is more valuable . . . a guy that has mostly sat behind Brady on one of the best teams in the league and shown limited signs of competency . . . or the right to pick Jarod Goff (with no NFL experience), who cost the Rams the #15, #43, #45, and #76 picks in the 2016 draft and their 1st and 3rd picks in the 2017 draft.

The rumor from a couple of weeks ago was Garoppolo for the Browns other first round pick in the 2017 draft (projected to be the #10 pick overall). Who knows what else would be involved coming or going from either team. I doubt this one happens either, but that was the talk for a few days.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

These are all good points.

Just to add to your third point: I think the Pats traded Cassell for a 2nd after tagging him, which is not the same as trading a guy with one year left on a rookie deal. The Chiefs either had to either pay him a large 1 year sum and let him become a FA after the year OR sign him long term. With Jimmy teams would have the option of seeing him in their system for one full year which is much better than giving him a big contract up front. So from that angle he's more valuable than Cassell, but conversely Cassell played a full season (516 att) and put up good numbers while Jimmy has only two starts. So I don't think we've really got much of a precedent to go by here.

also from what I remember.... didnt some thing the pats got a sweetheart deal from the chiefs at the time.. former pats gm (pioli etc)

they traded cassel and vrabel for pick 34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether the story is true or not, and regardless of whether they'll get what they're reported asking for, when will teams learn to stop trading for the Belichick smoke and mirrors show is the real story here.

And it isn't even that I don't think Garoppolo is talent, he is, but your only trading for half of what you see here, the player.  Unless your organization is on par with the Patriots, and few are, you're trading for players above their likely ceiling in your organization.

Edited by Braktastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

But theoretically, Jimmy has matured as a QB over the past 3 years, so that's why he's a more appealing "win now" type of investment than a 2017 rookie. If he looks good, though, he's going to cost a huge % of your cap in 2018 while the rookie would still be cheap. There are a lot of pros and cons to weigh and I'm no scout nor draft pick value expert, so I am not adding much here... just kind of rambling.

This is actually the core of the argument.  You have to believe that he is going to perform as a good QB right off the bat, because you are going to be starting him, and within a year, paying him as a starter (15 mill+/yr).

I think it's a very hard argument to make personally.  He has not gotten a lot of practie reps, or game experience.  He has been in a great environment to learn how to be a pro.  That's very nice, but what is that worth?  And did he need 3 years to learn that?  

He has 3 years of almost no game experience, no reading defenses, no rookie mistakes he'll never make again, no getting used to feeling pressure, stepping up in the pocket, or making calls at the line of scrimmage.  

Bill and the coaches like him.  Well, at one point, they liked all their QBs that flamed out elsewhere.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the when will teams stop trading for the Belichick smoke and mirrors.  They traded backup QB twice mentioned.  Cassel and Mallett and they didn't get anything for Mallett really.  It's not like this has been a continual pitfall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take would be that what the Pats are really thinking is about potentially trading Garoppolo this off season if they think they can get significantly more than what they would be awarded if they lose him to free agency in the following season.  No real reason to trade him before next year unless your return is going to be much greater than losing him in free agency.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Warhogs said:

I don't get the when will teams stop trading for the Belichick smoke and mirrors.  They traded backup QB twice mentioned.  Cassel and Mallett and they didn't get anything for Mallett really.  It's not like this has been a continual pitfall.

 

Agreed...and let's remember that both deals were with former Patriots (Pioli and O'Brien)...those guys knew exactly what they were getting...if anything there are times when people think the Pats get less than full value when trading players (Collins, Jones, Seymour, Mankins)...they just seem to turn those deals into future assets that help (ex. Chandler turned into Thuney and Mitchell)...if anything I would say one of BB's greatest strengths is his ability to know when to let a player walk or not meet the contract demands of the player...more often than not he has been correct about this (with Revis being the latest example) as he usually goes with the year early rather than a year late philosophy... 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a steep, steep price for a guy with two reasonably good games under his belt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Boston said:

Agreed...and let's remember that both deals were with former Patriots (Pioli and O'Brien)...those guys knew exactly what they were getting...if anything there are times when people think the Pats get less than full value when trading players (Collins, Jones, Seymour, Mankins)...they just seem to turn those deals into future assets that help (ex. Chandler turned into Thuney and Mitchell)...if anything I would say one of BB's greatest strengths is his ability to know when to let a player walk or not meet the contract demands of the player...more often than not he has been correct about this (with Revis being the latest example) as he usually goes with the year early rather than a year late philosophy... 

Nicely put.  This is my take as well.  I'm sure they wouldn't mind walking from Garoppolo this year if someone is willing to make it worth their while.  They Patriots brilliance is in projecting the future and not over paying and then identifying what is the most value they can get for someone not fitting in the future plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Run It Up said:

I cant think of a time when the Pats traded a player as good as Jimmy looks for what they are reportedly expecting to see.

They got a 2nd for Cassell, pretty sure thats the closest in both skill and return.

Given the landscape of the NFL and how much the team likes him and what he's looked like in games, i think its safe to say at least a 1st+. 

Plenty of teams with draft stock to be squeezed, if they do trade him i expect it to be the Browns (several rumors point to the Browns) or if Josh Mcdaniels leaves this offseason then wherever he goes if they need a QB i wouldnt be surprised if they came after Jimmy.

McDaniels hiring could lead to a team deciding to trade a 2nd or something for jimmy but agree with the rest that say a 1+4 is way too high.  

1 hour ago, JohnnyU said:

(....and this is a weak QB draft coming up), 

Gotta disagree here.  Kizer, trubisky, webb, and Watson are solid and if a team wants to gamble, if mahommes enters, he could be special.  (This isn't Winston/Mariota or probably Wentz/goff, but the top 5 are as good as most years).

Edited by FUBAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

McDaniels hiring could lead to a team deciding to trade a 2nd or something for jimmy but agree with the rest that say a 1+4 is way too high.  

Gotta disagree here.  Kizer, trubisky, webb, and Watson are solid and if a team wants to gamble, if mahommes enters, he could be special.  (This isn't Winston/Mariota or probably Wentz/goff, but the top 5 are as good as most years).

Not good enough to spend a top 5 pick on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anarchy99 said:

Which is more valuable . . . a guy that has mostly sat behind Brady on one of the best teams in the league and shown limited signs of competency . . . or the right to pick Jarod Goff (with no NFL experience), who cost the Rams the #15, #43, #45, and #76 picks in the 2016 draft and their 1st and 3rd picks in the 2017 draft.

The rumor from a couple of weeks ago was Garoppolo for the Browns other first round pick in the 2017 draft (projected to be the #10 pick overall). Who knows what else would be involved coming or going from either team. I doubt this one happens either, but that was the talk for a few days.

Its funny how people say it's too much for Jimmy G who "hasn't shown enough yet" but people don't blink about a team paying twice as much to draft a rookie. 

A GM could do a lot worse than hiring McDaniels and trading a high pick or two for Jimmy G. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Not good enough to spend a top 5 pick on.

I might agree with that, but there's a real good chance 2 go top 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how all the Pats fans think he's worth a first. It's so cute. 

It's like the Yankees in the late '90s with Ricky Ledee, etc.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tombonneau said:

Its funny how people say it's too much for Jimmy G who "hasn't shown enough yet" but people don't blink about a team paying twice as much to draft a rookie. 

A GM could do a lot worse than hiring McDaniels and trading a high pick or two for Jimmy G. 

At least now there's a difference in pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tombonneau said:

 

A GM could do a lot worse than hiring McDaniels and trading a high pick or two for Jimmy G. 

 

Worked out great for the Broncos. Good call. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.