JohnnyU

Patriots looking for a 1st and 4th for Garoppolo

1,559 posts in this topic

17 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

????  If JG was an UFA right now he would be getting close to that 18 million.  Doesnt matter if he is truly worth it or not, he would get it.

I disagree. I think he would be getting good money but he hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of money. People point to Osweiler, that's great, but Osweiler had starting experience last offseason. JG really doesn't. I don't think he'd get 18, but he would likely get a lot more than what I am projecting, I can concede to that. 

16 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

Let's say he gets traded and signs a 5 year, $40 million extension with $20 million guaranteed.

So yeah... this is exactly what I'm saying his market value is... yet you've been throwing this 18 million/year number around. I'm probably a little underestimating the market value, but let's say it's 5 years 50 million. It's definitely not 5 year 90 million. That just seems insane for a guy who has literally stood on the sideline for 3 seasons. 

16 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

It is in JG's best interest to sign a long term deal this offseason. 

I agree with this 100%

16 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

Sure, that may seem crazy, but the Texans gave Osweiler $18 million a year and the Bills gave Tyrod Taylor over $15M a year last off-season. The Bears gave JAY CUTLER $18.1M with $56M guaranteed a couple of years ago and he had an established track record . . . for losing (only 2 winning seasons in 9 years at the time). Sam Bradford had an equally mediocre career and got 2 years and $36M out of MIN with $26M guaranteed . . . with multiple injuries and no winning seasons under his belt.

You named 3 players that, at the time they signed their contracts, they had done more for their team than JG ever has. 
If anything, you've just created a very nice list of examples of why teams SHOULDN'T pay top dollar for unproven QBs... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, should teams be willing to pay a lot more for players that are more proven but have had lukewarm results and notable issues (Cutler, Bradford, Palmer pre-ARI, etc.) that haven't lit it up or won anything but are "established" . . . or guys that don't have a track record and have warm and fuzzy upside? Basically using the premise that the mystique of what we don't know about Garoppolo outweighs what we do know about other players (established but not going to be a superstar).

One thing not getting enough discussion here is that teams are WILLING to throw big money around for QB's. That's just how things are these days. Every year, we cringe at how much players are getting signed for, and every year the bar is raised higher and higher. No one is putting a gun to the heads of owners, they embrace paying big money for a starting QB and keep doing it. Many times those may not be sound or great decisions, yet owners continue to pay a premium for the most important position on a football team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Hypothetically, should teams be willing to pay a lot more for players that are more proven but have had lukewarm results and notable issues (Cutler, Bradford, Palmer pre-ARI, etc.) that haven't lit it up or won anything but are "established" . . . or guys that don't have a track record and have warm and fuzzy upside? Basically using the premise that the mystique of what we don't know about Garoppolo outweighs what we do know about other players (established but not going to be a superstar).

One thing not getting enough discussion here is that teams are WILLING to throw big money around for QB's. That's just how things are these days. Every year, we cringe at how much players are getting signed for, and every year the bar is raised higher and higher. No one is putting a gun to the heads of owners, they embrace paying big money for a starting QB and keep doing it. Many times those may not be sound or great decisions, yet owners continue to pay a premium for the most important position on a football team.

Regarding the bolded, I think teams look at players like Bradford and Cutler and they see a Quarterback that might not win you games but won't lose you games (alright maybe not Cutler, but still). I think teams look at that and say if they can build an exceptional team around an average QB then they have a shot at winning. History doesn't necessarily support that but you have to also look at this from the business side. If a team keeps going after QB QB QB until they get it right, they will lose their fan base and fall into a sea of mediocrity to plane sucking. Look at CLE. I think teams are willing to commit a large chunk of money to this level of QB in order to stabilize an important position. The hope would then to, at a later date, replace that average QB with a young talent or different FA to put them over the top. At least that's what it seems like to me. Maybe I'm wrong. 

Share this post


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

Regarding the bolded, I think teams look at players like Bradford and Cutler and they see a Quarterback that might not win you games but won't lose you games (alright maybe not Cutler, but still). I think teams look at that and say if they can build an exceptional team around an average QB then they have a shot at winning. History doesn't necessarily support that but you have to also look at this from the business side. If a team keeps going after QB QB QB until they get it right, they will lose their fan base and fall into a sea of mediocrity to plane sucking. Look at CLE. I think teams are willing to commit a large chunk of money to this level of QB in order to stabilize an important position. The hope would then to, at a later date, replace that average QB with a young talent or different FA to put them over the top. At least that's what it seems like to me. Maybe I'm wrong. 

The Browns have $108 million in cap space. They have so much cap space, that they are in danger of not meeting the league payout minimum. The Niners are second with $82 million and the Bears are 9th with $59 million. In today's NFL, being a starting QB is a license to print money. I doubt the Browns at this point care what it costs for a decent QB. They want to win (as do all teams). 

I somewhat disagree with the notion that rebuilding teams should round out a team first and not worry about spending capital (picks and $$$) on a QB until later. IMO, teams should do what they can to find that QB and worry about the rest of the team once they have solidified the QB spot. Plenty has been discussed about teams not winning without a QB, we don't need to rehash that again.

There have been a number of teams struggling for so long to find a QB that it almost would make sense to draft multiple guys and even sign a free agent in an effort to have too many options instead of not enough. But that's just me thinking out loud and it's not my money . . .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry jones drafted multiple QBs. He took aikman and then walsh right after him.  The redskins took multiple qbs.  They took RG3 and then cousins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2017 at 3:30 PM, Anarchy99 said:

Going back 20 years, not a lot of pure backup QBs have gone on to prominence, but there were a few.

Acquired by Trade:

The Three Matt's
Matt Hasselbeck (3 Pro Bowl Selections)
Matt Schaub (2 Pro Bowls)
Matt Cassel (1 Pro Bowl)

Acquired in Free Agency:
Marc Bulger (2 Pro Bowls)
Trent Green (2 Pro Bowls)
Jake Delhomme (1 Pro Bowl)
Tyrod Taylor (1 Pro Bowl)

Yes, there were some notable missteps along the way (Charlie Whitehurst, Tarvaris Jackson, Kevin Kolb, Matt Flynn, Brock Osweiler to name a few) . . . but I don't think the hit rate or miss rate in signing a back up is all that worse than drafting a first round QB.

Garoppolo is stuck behind Brady. If the Packers several years ago opted to stick with Favre and traded Rosgers, would that have been considered a bad trade for the team acquiring Rodgers? I am not suggesting Garoppolo is on par with Rodgers, but sometimes players get behind a player and it's not their fault they can't get on the field.

I'd say it's much worse as the 1st round QBs that "worked" out as the 1st round QBs that did work out fared way better than the 3 Matts (the traded guys, this is not a FA situation, since that requires no draft picks).

Cassel had 1 good season and while he made the pro-bowl, it was because of an unsustainable TD ratio (for him, more than 50% above his good year in NE). He threw for 3116 yards, which isn't exactly a huge number and was under over 60% completion rate. I have no idea if he was one of those alternates, but Roethlisberger missed 4 games and honestly, based on the stats, I would argue for Flacco as the 4th AFC QB (Brady, Manning and Rivers were all better and made the Pro-Bowl). Normally 3 QBs make the pro-bowl for each side, so again Cassel likely made it due to someone dropping out. He was under .500 for every other year after NE. Not exactly what you'd expect for a 1st round QB that worked.

Schaub - Not much to say. Decent QB, had 3 good years, but honestly, led his team to 1 playoff appearance in 7 years and became known more for his pick-6 ability than his QB prowess.

Hasselbeck - Only one I'd consider a solid QB for several seasons leading the team to the playoffs 6 times.

Here's the list of solid QBs in the 1st round (I'm going to include 2004 (Schaub's year and 2015 as well, no need to leave out the bookends) that you were trying to say isn't much better than the 3 Matts, heck even Bulger, Green, Delhomme and Taylor:

Winston, Mariota, Luck, Newton, Stafford, Ryan, Flacco, Smith, Rodgers, Manning, River, Roethlisberger

Honorable Mention (i.e. as good as some of the guys you listed): Cutler (1 pro-bowl), Tannehill, Bradford, Vince Young (2 pro-bowls), RG3 (1 pro-bowl)

Possible: Bortles, Bridgewater (still feel bad about that injury)

Summary is that the 1st round QBs that worked out are among the top QBs in the league and have been/will be their franchise's QBs for years, i.e. not just 1 good year. I don't think there is a single backup QB you listed that is in the class of the 12 I listed. I would deem that as way worse success record and that if I was a team looking for a franchise QB (not just a starter by default) that I would take the risk of a bust to also have the chance at another QB that could be in the list above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2017 at 6:57 AM, Anarchy99 said:

To me, a franchise QB is someone that is consistently a top performer, someone that can carry the team, someone that consistently makes the playoffs and comes through in the clutch, and someone that it's a no brainer that that guy is your QB and will be for a long time. Basically a HOF worthy QB. So going around the league at this juncture in time (IMO) . . .

AFC EAST: Brady and no one else
AFC NORTH: Roethlisberger. Flacco and Dalton are decent QB's but not franchise guys,
AFC SOUTH: Luck. Maybe on Mariota but too soon to tell.
AFC WEST: Probably no one. Rivers likely should have been one. Smith really isn't one. Who knows with Carr.
NFC EAST: Probably no one. The Redskins can't seem to lock up Cousins. Eli had two great SB runs but overall has not been great (only playoff wins were in SB years).
NFC NORTH: Rodgers. Stafford has put up some big numbers but the Lions really haven't won much.
NFC SOUTH: Brees. Ryan's a maybe. ATL won't look for a QB but not a consistent winner prior to this year. Newton probably but CAR 2 good years vs. 4 mediocre ones. Too soon to tell on Winston.
NFC WEST: Wilson.

So I got 6 guys on my list as franchise QB's. How on earth do the Patriots (or anyone else) know what JG is with any certainty? As a pro, never played in bad weather. Never been in a playoff game. Never faced a truly great defense. He played well against ARI and out of his mind against MIA, If not for that first half against the Phins, we would not have a 20+ page thread on Jimmy Garoppolo. All BB can really say with any certainty is he looks good in practice playing with the B team and he could say he thinks he would do well in real action if needed. That's about it. It's hard to stake a claim to being a potential HOFer after two starts.

We could argue definitions. Imo your definition is way too limiting.  Franchise qb is simply the guy the coaching staff is confident in to lead the team for multiple years.   Rivers absolutely has been a franchise qb.

AFC EAST: Brady. 
AFC NORTH: Ben, Joe, Andy
AFC SOUTH: Luck. MM
AFC WEST: rivers, carr. 
NFC EAST: cousins sure should be, that this is even a question makes me question that staff.  Dak looks the part, Eli has been.  Wentz probably will be but isn't yet.  
NFC NORTH: Rodgers. Stafford. 
NFC SOUTH: all of them. 
NFC WEST: Wilson. Palmer has been when healthy but he's not there now.  

I'm more inclined to include QBs like Winston and Mariota. They're young sure, but two good years where they've improved and shown their skill and leadership is enough for me.  Dak and Wentz don't make the cut yet but should next year. 

Your calling Ryan a "maybe" makes the point in our differences of opinion. There's zero doubt that he has the job for the next 5 years (barring injury of course). That's what a franchise QB is, the guy the team builds around.  It matters less imo whether that qb is dominant himself or simply provides leadership and consistency.  

Flacco and Dalton will probably be the guys others disagree with, but they're not going anywhere and the teams mostly have done well with them. 

To the point for jimmy G, would a team be reasonably happy to have traded a 1st round pick to the pats for Dalton or Flacco?  I think that's the caliber we can expect from jimmy.

Edited by FUBAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the current crop of QBs that have been the starting QB for the same team for 5 years or more:

Brady, Ryan, Brees, Flacco, Newton, Dalton, Stafford, Rodgers, Luck, Smith (assuming he still is this upcoming season), Brees, Minning, Roethlisberger, Tannehill, Wilson.

That's 15 guys. There are other candidates that may turn out to be longer term solutions, but they haven't played long enough yet (Mariota, Winston, Cousins, Carr, Prescott, etc.). And there are others that may or may not work out (Wentz, Goff, Bortles, etc.).

I am not even sure what we are debating here at this point. Could Garoppolo be a starter somewhere for 5 years? Of course. But some people are saying that if he can't play for 10 years with the same team and be a difference maker than their team shouldn't want him.

So my point in all this was that what a franchise QB is or isn't will vary from person to person. And depending upon what you want or expect out of a QB will also impact whether you think JG is worth acquiring (or whether the Pats should let him go).

But for a lot of the QB's that have been brought up as "franchise" QB's, they themselves may not have made a huge impact on their team's won loss record. Put any QB in the league on the Browns, Bear, or Niners last year and they would all be under .500. That's the part I am having an issue with. Put Garoppolo or any incoming rookie QB and those teams are not going to change much short term. Goff did very little with the Rams. Does that make him less of a franchise quarterback candidate because he got drafted by a terrible team (that gave up two firsts, two seconds, and two thirds to be able to draft him)? Garoppolo certainly could not have doe worse than Goff (0-7 record, 63.6 passer rating).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2017 at 6:57 AM, Anarchy99 said:

 

AFC EAST: Brady and no one else
AFC NORTH: Roethlisberger. Flacco and Dalton are decent QB's but not franchise guys,
AFC SOUTH: Luck. Maybe on Mariota but too soon to tell.
AFC WEST: Probably no one. Rivers likely should have been one. Smith really isn't one. Who knows with Carr.
NFC EAST: Probably no one. The Redskins can't seem to lock up Cousins. Eli had two great SB runs but overall has not been great (only playoff wins were in SB years).
NFC NORTH: Rodgers. Stafford has put up some big numbers but the Lions really haven't won much.
NFC SOUTH: Brees. Ryan's a maybe. ATL won't look for a QB but not a consistent winner prior to this year. Newton probably but CAR 2 good years vs. 4 mediocre ones. Too soon to tell on Winston.
NFC WEST: Wilson.

So I got 6 guys on my list as franchise QB's.

 

Wait. What?  So in your opinion unless you have a future HoF QB on your roster that you don't have your franchise QB?  No wonder why we are all over the map on this.  Seriously?  Rivers, Flacco, and Dalton aren't franchise QBs?

 

To me and I'm guessing most others enjoined in this discussion (and interested in football) a franchise QB is a guy who stabilizes the position for multiple years so that you don't have to address QB with high draft picks and can work on building up the team around them.   

 

If your definition of a franchise QB is this restrictive, then about 25 teams, give or take, ought to be burning 1st rounders on QBs looking for the next HoFer to come out of college.  I just don't get your logic.

2 people like this

Share this post


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

 

Wait. What?  So in your opinion unless you have a future HoF QB on your roster that you don't have your franchise QB?  No wonder why we are all over the map on this.  Seriously?  Rivers, Flacco, and Dalton aren't franchise QBs?

 

To me and I'm guessing most others enjoined in this discussion (and interested in football) a franchise QB is a guy who stabilizes the position for multiple years so that you don't have to address QB with high draft picks and can work on building up the team around them.   

 

If your definition of a franchise QB is this restrictive, then about 25 teams, give or take, ought to be burning 1st rounders on QBs looking for the next HoFer to come out of college.  I just don't get your logic.

 

Shouldn't a franchise QB be a guy that you don't feel like you need to upgrade at any time?  Rivers I think would be a franchise guy and even Flacco but I'm not sure about Dalton.  I bet Bengals fans would be just fine with getting someone better.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

 

Wait. What?  So in your opinion unless you have a future HoF QB on your roster that you don't have your franchise QB?  No wonder why we are all over the map on this.  Seriously?  Rivers, Flacco, and Dalton aren't franchise QBs?

or Eli, who won two Super Bowls (but apparently wasn't great otherwise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can go around and around all day on this.

The Ravens have been successful, but Flacco hasn't really been the reason why they have been competitive. His numbers have been average most years. Yes, he had one fantastic SB run. Same thing with Eli, except he had two great SB runs. The last few years there has been talk and discussion on if the Giants should consider moving on from Eli. He's usually had a ton of talented targets to throw to, which is why some people have suggested it might be time to move on from him. 215 INT and 104 fumbles over his career also haven't helped.

If the goal overall is to win the SB, then there's a whole tier of other QBs that meet the other franchise QB requirements. Rivers led some great teams and went to one conference championship. The Bengals haven't usually been an offensive juggernaut but have done well in the regular season with Dalton . . . but he hasn't won a playoff game. In 8 years, Stafford and the Lions have a losing record and have yet to win a playoff game. Smith has done well in the regular season for the Chiefs, but do people think the Chiefs build their roster around him? The Dolphins have basically been a .500 QB with Tannehill . . . is he someone you build your team around?

There could be a million and one reasons why these teams haven't won and most have them have nothing to do with the QB. They aren't responsible for the other 52 guys on the roster or the coaching staff. Should these teams look to draft a QB with every first round pick? Of course not. But at a certain point after a number of years maybe they should consider whether their QB is part of the reason why they didn't win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what Anarchy99 is saying. It's kinda like what the Redskins are thinking. Cousins is good but does he deserve franchise level $?

Of course he does because the alternatives suck. Trade him and you have nothing. Keep him, maybe he puts up great stats like Rivers does in most years but he just can't get you over the hump. You need to build a great D for the lesser QBs. See Baltimore.

Flacco is not consistently great but can put up great games followed by trash but what are they going to do? They are stuck with him. For some reason WASH can't figure it out. IT's Cousins or you go back to sucking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine a Super Bowl winning team that has JUST a HOF QB.  The NFL is the consummate team game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, but what is the point of the round about discussion of what you think the definition of a franchise QB is as it relates to JG?  All that matters is whether or not a team thinks he will help the them more than whoever they could get with the picks they need to trade to get him.

I just read one person say, by his definition, that there are like 4 or 5 franchise QBs in the league, while some others named like 20 or so.  That's a rather large discrepancy. 

 

Share this post


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

I can't imagine a Super Bowl winning team that has JUST a HOF QB.  The NFL is the consummate team game.

Yes, what Drew Brees did in 2009 was remarkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostguy123 said:

Just curious, but what is the point of the round about discussion of what you think the definition of a franchise QB is as it relates to JG?  All that matters is whether or not a team thinks he will help the them more than whoever they could get with the picks they need to trade to get him.

I just read one person say, by his definition, that there are like 4 or 5 franchise QBs in the league, while some others named like 20 or so.  That's a rather large discrepancy. 

 

Some people were saying that if Garoppolo is really a franchise QB, then NE has to keep him because they are so hard to find. If there really are 20+ in the league, then it doesn't appear that franchise QB's are as hard to find as some people think. But if there are a small amount of franchise QB's and JG would be among them, then NE keeping him makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Some people were saying that if Garoppolo is really a franchise QB, then NE has to keep him because they are so hard to find. If there really are 20+ in the league, then it doesn't appear that franchise QB's are as hard to find as some people think. But if there are a small amount of franchise QB's and JG would be among them, then NE keeping him makes more sense.

So then what is the definition of a franchise QB?  Not YOUR definition.  What is THE definition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

So then what is the definition of a franchise QB?  Not YOUR definition.  What is THE definition?

That's kind of why it is being discussed. Everyone has a different set of criteria.

How To Define A Franchise QB in Today's NFL

That article is old (2013) but they came up with 11 players that met their definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

That's kind of why it is being discussed. Everyone has a different set of criteria.

How To Define A Franchise QB in Today's NFL

That article is old (2013) but they came up with 11 players that met their definition.

That's the point.  Everyone has different criteria.  None of us know what BB's criteria is, or what the criteria is for any of the teams about to make offers for JG. 

People are saying "If BB trades JG that must mean he doesnt think he is a franchise QB" when nobody even knows what BB considers to be a franchise QB.  If BB thinks there are 20 franchise QBs in the league right now, then he could EASILY trade JG away to improve his chances to get another super bowl in the next 2-3 years even if he thinks JG is THAT definition of a franchise QB.

We can come to whatever consensus we want to on here about what a franchise QB is, but we have no idea what BB or the other teams think. 

Seems the term "franchise QB" is just a fruitless term that is thrown around and means nothing because everyone defines it differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

 

Shouldn't a franchise QB be a guy that you don't feel like you need to upgrade at any time?  Rivers I think would be a franchise guy and even Flacco but I'm not sure about Dalton.  I bet Bengals fans would be just fine with getting someone better.

 

I can understand the argument against Dalton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

 

Shouldn't a franchise QB be a guy that you don't feel like you need to upgrade at any time?  Rivers I think would be a franchise guy and even Flacco but I'm not sure about Dalton.  I bet Bengals fans would be just fine with getting someone better.

No doubt but that shows just how hard it is to find one. Some guys need really great players around them on O or a great, top 5 D to go far in the playoffs. That is Dalton and Flacco and to a lesser extent Rivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

 

Shouldn't a franchise QB be a guy that you don't feel like you need to upgrade at any time?  Rivers I think would be a franchise guy and even Flacco but I'm not sure about Dalton.  I bet Bengals fans would be just fine with getting someone better.

:shrug: other than the Patriots, every team would probably be "just fine with getting someone better."

1 hour ago, Anarchy99 said:

Some people were saying that if Garoppolo is really a franchise QB, then NE has to keep him because they are so hard to find. If there really are 20+ in the league, then it doesn't appear that franchise QB's are as hard to find as some people think. But if there are a small amount of franchise QB's and JG would be among them, then NE keeping him makes more sense.

Let's say there are 20 franchise QBs.  They have between 16 to 1 year of experience.  So roughly speaking you might find 2 (closer to 1.25) new franchise QBs each year.  Thats tough to find.  Especially when the pats hoard three of them ;)

Share this post


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

:shrug: other than the Patriots, every team would probably be "just fine with getting someone better."

Let's say there are 20 franchise QBs.  They have between 16 to 1 year of experience.  So roughly speaking you might find 2 (closer to 1.25) new franchise QBs each year.  Thats tough to find.  Especially when the pats hoard three of them ;)

So you're saying the Packers, Saints, Chargers, Steelers and Seahawks are all looking for better QBs?  They may be looking for a back up or even a guy to take their place eventually but they are not saying to themselves that they need to find a better QB this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lod001 said:

Yes, what Drew Brees did in 2009 was remarkable.

Yes.  Especially when he recovered the on-side kick & returned the pick-6!

Edited by daveR
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

So you're saying the Packers, Saints, Chargers, Steelers and Seahawks are all looking for better QBs?  They may be looking for a back up or even a guy to take their place eventually but they are not saying to themselves that they need to find a better QB this year.

I was actually kidding, but "would be fine with" doesn't equal "looking for" or "saying to themselves that they need to find..."  

Eta: but your post illustrates the point.  Cincy and Baltimore aren't in the market for a new starting qb either, because they have a franchise qb.

Edited by FUBAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a team looks at their QB and says, "We've got a guy we can win with for the next 5 years and don't need to worry about drafting another one in the early rounds" then I'd say that he's a franchise QB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If a team looks at their QB and says, "We've got a guy we can win with for the next 5 years and don't need to worry about drafting another one in the early rounds" then I'd say that he's a franchise QB.

Well that takes Brady and Brees off the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostguy123 said:

Well that takes Brady and Brees off the list.

Yes but those guys are at the end of their franchise careers.  They've already proved themselves to be franchise QBs.  They will eventually need to be replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If a team looks at their QB and says, "We've got a guy we can win with for the next 5 years and don't need to worry about drafting another one in the early rounds" then I'd say that he's a franchise QB.

With two caveats, I'll agree. 

1. The guy has to have proven it, to some degree anyway. ie  Wentz isn't a franchise qb yet. 

2. You already replied, but the guys with less than 5 years before retiring. They qualify with an asterisk *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FUBAR said:

With two caveats, I'll agree. 

1. The guy has to have proven it, to some degree anyway. ie  Wentz isn't a franchise qb yet. 

2. You already replied, but the guys with less than 5 years before retiring. They qualify with an asterisk *

Sounds good to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: if you knew your team was getting Andy Dalton, would you trade your first round pick for him?  (Assume Andy is 4 years younger / 26)

Edited by FUBAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Sounds good to me.

:hifive:

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, daveR said:

Yes.  Especially when he recovered the on-side kick & returned the pick-6!

:lmao: you are making no sense. That has nothing to do with your original, false statement. I took you to school with your 'I've never seen team with just one HOF caliber player win the SB'. I give you Drew Brees and you go off on a  tangent talking about an INT and an onside kick. Fact is there may be another HOF player on the 2009 Saints as well probably HOF players on the 2017 Pats (more so on their D). It's way to early to say there isn't. Your statement was a weak attempt to proclaim Brady a one man show and the only reason they won. Really weak actually.

Share this post


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

Q: if you knew your team was getting Andy Dalton, would you trade your first round pick for him?  (Assume Andy is 4 years younger / 26)

Maybe. Lots of variables. He's low end of starting caliber QB's so I would have to already be built to win with a D like HOU or DEN. if I had OsWILDer, I would consider the move, especially if I had the pick they have. Otherwise you waste a SB caliber D and by the time you find a viable QB, your D is old and gone. It's a sell out to win it all basically. He would have to be the best available option by far.

if I was building a team, no.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shanahan getting in on the franchise Q discussion: http://www.theredzone.org/BlogDescription/tabid/61/EntryId/61837/Kyle-Shanahan--49ers-willing-to-be-patient-to-land-franchise-quarterback/Default.aspx

What isn't certain is where Shanahan and Lynch will be able to find their man. As is always the case, franchise quarterbacks don't grow on trees and teams aren't in a hurry to let the ones that are qualified walk away. In fact, Shanahan has said he believes there's only about seven surefire answers in the world.

"You’re always looking for one of those seven throwers on the planet, whatever that number is," Shanahan said. "But I’m guessing there’s only around seven, so you’d better not be set on that and say, 'Hey, I need one of those seven guys.' I hope we get one of those guys, but if you don’t, you’ve got to find other ways to win."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presumption that Garopplo would get paid is relevant but the assumption that he will go for a bounty of draft picks asinine.

Patriot homers are trying to build up Garoppolo to reap some sort of 'fantasy' draft windfall like a gaggle of 12 year olds.  

Boil this down to how often this sort of thing has happened in the NFL.  Not signing a free agent quarterback but paying a premium of draft picks for a guy who wasn't a top pick and who has less then two full NFL games on his resume.

It should be simple to make a list of QBs who weren't a 1st round picks and who had not been starters.  Who only had one year left on their rookie contracts where a team would HAVE to negotiate an extension and pay a salary cap premium just to keep them.  I'm sure injury plays no part so make sure to list guys who had gotten injured in their second NFL start and complile that list so we can see in the long history of the NFL all of the quarterbacks that were traded for a windfall of draft picks.

Lets take a look at that long list of quarterbacks who fit into JG's profile and you will find. :tumbleweed:

Bottom line.  The contract is one thing but assuming this guy is worth multiple high draft picks is insanity.  

The only argument that anyone arguing for JG is not that he is a franchise QB but that teams are so DESPERATE for a QB that they will pay anything.  

OK, then name the long list of QBs who fit Garoppolo's profile that were traded for a bounty of draft picks.  If you make that argument then show how often it has happened and if it hasn't then forget about the 12 year old boy 'fantasy' of reaping a windfall of draft picks because it ain't happening..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's definitely not going for more than 2 picks and he probably goes simply for a 2nd rounder unless some really stupid GM loses his mind. Not beyond the realm of possibilities, however. A lot of these guys are really stupid.

If I recall Garapollo was injured in the preseason his rookie year and then just got hurt again. I have a feeling that he's a Tony Romo injury risk.

Share this post


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

With two caveats, I'll agree. 

1. The guy has to have proven it, to some degree anyway. ie  Wentz isn't a franchise qb yet. 

2. You already replied, but the guys with less than 5 years before retiring. They qualify with an asterisk *

Guys like Wentz, Mariotta, Winston, Goff, Prescott are expected by their teams to be franchise guys. Those teams are fine with them in the role for the next couple of years (or regime change). For all intents and purposes, they're "franchise" guys. 

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.