What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Patriots looking for a 1st and 4th for Garoppolo (1 Viewer)

flapgreen said:
I still think the Pats are full of it. They know they're not getting that. 
Click to expand...
That may be true, but they have the luxury of just keeping him as Brady=Manning insurance if they just keep him and even if he never plays another down for NE someone will give him a big enough contract they will get a healthy compensatory pick for nothing. They are in a no-lose situation as things sit now and can afford to be pretty picky. 

 
BoltBacker said:
To me, the people that own a franchise worth a couple BILLION dollars and don't have a QB are the ones that don't have any leverage. I think the $19mil Osweiler counts against the cap as a starter and the $8mil Chase Daniel counts against the cap to not even play supports that notion. 

The only players that sign team friendly extensions imo are older, declining players that don't want to get released. Tom Brady is sort of a unicorn example of one player in a unique circumstance. People used to point to Brees as signing "team-friendly" deals because it would temporarily clear up cap space but it all counts against the cap eventually. That's why his contract is such an albatross around the franchise now. A contract being team-friendly and simply kicking the can down the road are two completely different things.
Click to expand...
You seriously don't see the difference between JG's situation and all the other situations you mentioned?

He could still sign for 18 million a year AND it could be a team friendly deal.  How?  He is set to make trash this year.  If someone extends him for 3 more years at 18 million a year, then his total contract starting this year would be 4 years and 55 million, which comes out to under 14 million a year. 

I don't even think teams would even need to offer that much to get him to sign on the dotted line.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker said:
To me, the people that own a franchise worth a couple BILLION dollars and don't have a QB are the ones that don't have any leverage..
Click to expand...
Oh, and this part isn't remotely true.  The Browns have been a dumpster fire since 1999 while the owners make a lot of money whether they have a QB or not. 

 
ghostguy123 said:
You seriously don't see the difference between JG's situation and all the other situations you mentioned?

He could still sign for 18 million a year AND it could be a team friendly deal.  How?  He is set to make trash this year.  If someone extends him for 3 more years at 18 million a year, then his total contract starting this year would be 4 years and 55 million, which comes out to under 14 million a year. 

I don't even think teams would even need to offer that much to get him to sign on the dotted line.
Click to expand...
When you said "team friendly" deal I didn't realize you were talking about giving him a 3yr/$54mil extension. So essentially you are talking about giving him the Osweiler contract starting in 2018. That's fine..... I just don't know many people that would describe the Osweiler contract as a team friendly deal. 

 
ghostguy123 said:
Oh, and this part isn't remotely true.  The Browns have been a dumpster fire since 1999 while the owners make a lot of money whether they have a QB or not. 
Click to expand...
Yes, I think ALL NFL owners make a great deal of money. I would guess a winning team generally makes more money in a given market than a non-winning team in their market. We can disagree on this point.

 
If I'm the pats I stay put. Jimmy G fits their system and he's the future. Plus Tom really can't do this forever. He's 40!

 
To the people who think the Pats wont trade JG, you're BB and another team makes a fair offer (i.e. 1st round 2017 and maybe 3rd or 4th rd) for a player that probably will not play a snap in 2017 then will leave the team as Pats can't afford him.  You have to trade him......

 
If the Pats keep Garoppolo, like kicking off, I think NE would effectively be deferring until the second half. A lot could happen in a year. Brady could A) win another title and retire, B) get hurt and not be available, C) start slipping performance wise. If any of those happen, JG might be in play as Brady's successor sooner rather than later. If Brady is no longer in the picture, that changes the dynamic 180 degrees on what they would do with Garoppolo. What would be interesting if, at some point, BB handed the keys to JG and said this is his team, how much money would Garoppolo agree to play for? Just because Brady played for below market value doesn't mean Garoppolo would.

 
BoltBacker said:
I agree with you overall, but don't let anyone try to convince you that JG is as complete an unknown as a college football player. Just a year ago Goff was taken 1st overall and was sold by mosts analysts as being the most "NFL ready" rookie in the class. Prescott was a compensatory pick between round 4 and round 5. We definitely know more how JG will look vs NFL defenses than people knew how Goff/Prescott would look vs NFL defenses one year ago. Goff looked absolutely lost and Prescott was in a much better situation but they were in completely different universes when you compare how ready they were to read and react to an NFL defense.

As far as his contract at least you get him for $3.5mil for an audition year. After that if things go well you control his future the next two years even if you can't come together on a long term deal. If things go south you can wash your hands a lot easier than teams that gives Glennon that long term deal. I think if you are a HOU you can afford to take a risk like that because your team is so strong in most other areas. If your a team like CLE losing that 1st is a much bigger deal than the $ because they have so many holes to fill and so much salary cap space to spend anyway. Either way you are going to have to sink resources into upgrading(or even spinning the roulette wheel) the QB position. PHI and LA payed a kings ransom and it's still too early to tell if it will pay off.

What happens if don't truly believe any of these guys are truly a top 10 QB this year? Take an entire season as a mulligan?
Click to expand...
I hate to say it but 2017 for the Browns is a mulligan. They have so many holes that even if JG is awesome, they still aren't making the playoffs. The Colts have more talent and have Luck and couldn't make the playoffs. That's why I would rather use my two firsts (next year is going to be extremely high, maybe #1 again) this year and next and take my dream QB next year. Maybe they do like a first round QB that needs some seasoning. It's just too much to give up for Garoppolo, who is an unknown. Two good games doesn't mean anything other than he did well on a team that went 15-2 without him against defenses who had 0 tape on him.

No chance I'd risk that. Cleveland is in a multi-year rebuild. They need first round picks and a QB. I just don't think giving up a king's ransom for someone we don't know is any better than a rookie is smart.

 
stbugs said:
I hate to say it but 2017 for the Browns is a mulligan. They have so many holes that even if JG is awesome, they still aren't making the playoffs. The Colts have more talent and have Luck and couldn't make the playoffs. That's why I would rather use my two firsts (next year is going to be extremely high, maybe #1 again) this year and next and take my dream QB next year. Maybe they do like a first round QB that needs some seasoning. It's just too much to give up for Garoppolo, who is an unknown. Two good games doesn't mean anything other than he did well on a team that went 15-2 without him against defenses who had 0 tape on him.

No chance I'd risk that. Cleveland is in a multi-year rebuild. They need first round picks and a QB. I just don't think giving up a king's ransom for someone we don't know is any better than a rookie is smart.
Click to expand...
Not saying they need to get Garropolo but if they go 2-14 and still have a black-hole at QB the job security of the Coach/GM is going get dicey...

 
stbugs said:
I hate to say it but 2017 for the Browns is a mulligan. They have so many holes that even if JG is awesome, they still aren't making the playoffs. The Colts have more talent and have Luck and couldn't make the playoffs. That's why I would rather use my two firsts (next year is going to be extremely high, maybe #1 again) this year and next and take my dream QB next year. Maybe they do like a first round QB that needs some seasoning. It's just too much to give up for Garoppolo, who is an unknown. Two good games doesn't mean anything other than he did well on a team that went 15-2 without him against defenses who had 0 tape on him.

No chance I'd risk that. Cleveland is in a multi-year rebuild. They need first round picks and a QB. I just don't think giving up a king's ransom for someone we don't know is any better than a rookie is smart.
Click to expand...
I think the king's ransom for Cleveland (if they met that 2 firsts) would be something more like their 2nd first rounder this year and a first next year.

That would mean (if Garoppolo is the guy) they'd have their QB, Joe Thomas, Myles Garrett and Jamie Collins.  If they put good players around that group they could easily flirt with .500 since they'll have an easy schedule.  Cincy x 2 (who knows what they'll be), AFC South, Bears, Vikings, Jets, Chargers are all winnable by a mediocre team.  Sure they'll have Ravens x 2, Steelers x 2 and Lions, Packers.  But we're looking at a pretty easy overall schedule today (again the NFL is hard to tell other than the Packers/Steelers being good nothing is guaranteed.  Although I'd be confident guessing the Bears will be bad and the AFC South will continue to be a mess.

But you don't do that unless you think Garoppolo has a very good shot at being a good starting QB.

 
Boston said:
Not saying they need to get Garropolo but if they go 2-14 and still have a black-hole at QB the job security of the Coach/GM is going get dicey...
Click to expand...
And if they trade two firsts and he isn't good enough? Same thing and likely worse. Coach and GM are fine for a few years. They gutted their roster to get picks. They are safe since those picks are rookies or 2nd year guys (mainly rookies). I'd personally rather get Garrett and get Trubisky/Watson at 12 (I think the guy they want will likely be available at 12) and also have a top 5 pick next year than Garrett and Garoppolo.

 
stbugs said:
And if they trade two firsts and he isn't good enough? Same thing and likely worse. Coach and GM are fine for a few years. They gutted their roster to get picks. They are safe since those picks are rookies or 2nd year guys (mainly rookies). I'd personally rather get Garrett and get Trubisky/Watson at 12 (I think the guy they want will likely be available at 12) and also have a top 5 pick next year than Garrett and Garoppolo.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter what they do...if they don't get that QB situation squared away the clock will start ticking after this year...unless you are Jeff Fisher that is life in the NFL...

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Then they are HORRIBLE front office personnel and owners.

oh, ya, nevermind.
Click to expand...
I know you don't like the Pats but this is not a Patriot thing...when it comes to QBs teams without QBs are always going to take a chance...it is just a fact-of-life in the NFL...if you don't have a QB you are doomed so whether it is reaching for a Goff, over-paying for an Osweiler or going back to the Bears trading for Rick Mirer desperate teams do desperate things...no one should be surprised by anything when it comes to this position because unfortunately you are pretty much toast in the NFL without a good one...now whether you think Jimmy G is legit or not is a totally different topic...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston said:
I know you don't like the Pats but this is not a Patriot thing...when it comes to QBs teams without QBs are always going to take a chance...it is just a fact-of-life in the NFL...if you don't have a QB you are doomed so whether it is reaching for a Goff, over-paying for an Osweiler or going back to the Bears trading for Rick Mirer desperate teams do desperate things...no one should be surprised by anything when it comes to this position because unfortunately you are pretty much toast in the NFL without a good one...now whether you think Jimmy G is legit or not is a totally different topic...
Click to expand...
You are specifically stating the GMs should be worried about their jobs. And then allow themselves to be preyed upon because of it -- and as legit reason why they should make this trade.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
You are specifically stating the GMs should be worried about their jobs. And then allow themselves to be preyed upon because of it -- and as legit reason why they should make this trade.
Click to expand...
No I am not......what I am saying is that if you do not have a solid QB in the NFL you will probably lose your job (do you disagree with that?)...due to that teams will reach to fill that position...the smart ones (or lucky ones) figure it out...the bad ones don't...whether it is Jimmy G, a draft pick or Glennon Cleveland needs to upgrade their QB position or their job security is going to get less secure...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You currently have  a 28.125% chance to keep an NFL head coach job for more then 5 years.

And furthermore if you do have a job that long there is a 2-out-of-3 chance you have won a super bowl.

NONE of those guys reached for a QB and certainly didn't overpay. In 8 of 9 of those cases they drafted a QB and let it fall to them in a value capacity (ARod, Ben, Wilson, Flacco, Brady, *Cam, Dalton, and Romo/Dak). And only 1 team got a QB in any other way and that was the Saints with Brees.

It looks like if you want a long tenured job as a GM or coach ... then doing this type of trade is exactly what you should NOT do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston said:
No I am not......what I am saying is that if you do not have a solid QB in the NFL you will probably lose your job (do you disagree with that?)...due to that teams will reach to fill that position...the smart ones (or lucky ones) figure it out...the bad ones don't...whether it is Jimmy G, a draft pick or Glennon Cleveland needs to upgrade their QB position or their job security is going to get less secure...
Click to expand...
I don't know if the Browns are a smart team, but if they're legitimately rebuilding.....the HC(and more importantly...the GM) would get some wiggle room and shouldn't have to fear for his job so much that they/he has to settle for a QB that they're not gaga over just to buy some time.

If they like JG.....they should get him at the most reasonable cost AND sign him to a long term deal.  If they don't....there's nothing wrong with passing. 

 
stbugs said:
And if they trade two firsts and he isn't good enough? Same thing and likely worse. Coach and GM are fine for a few years. They gutted their roster to get picks. They are safe since those picks are rookies or 2nd year guys (mainly rookies). I'd personally rather get Garrett and get Trubisky/Watson at 12 (I think the guy they want will likely be available at 12) and also have a top 5 pick next year and about $15MM-$18MM in additional cap space than Garrett and Garoppolo.
Click to expand...
Fixed. 

 
stlrams said:
To the people who think the Pats wont trade JG, you're BB and another team makes a fair offer (i.e. 1st round 2017 and maybe 3rd or 4th rd) for a player that probably will not play a snap in 2017 then will leave the team as Pats can't afford him.  You have to trade him......
Click to expand...
Super Bowl champs don't have to do anything. Haha.

Okay seriously if Jimmy G is the guy. And I think he might be. You figure out a way to keep him. Beside BB will only trade that first round pick for two seconds and then pick a WR who will bust. So yeah I'd rather have JG if I believe he's the heir apparent.

 
Thunderlips said:
I don't know if the Browns are a smart team, but if they're legitimately rebuilding.....the HC(and more importantly...the GM) would get some wiggle room and shouldn't have to fear for his job so much that they/he has to settle for a QB that they're not gaga over just to buy some time.

If they like JG.....they should get him at the most reasonable cost AND sign him to a long term deal.  If they don't....there's nothing wrong with passing. 
Click to expand...
I am just not talking about Jimmy G...there are many options out there...they need to at least get someone serviceable in the short-term...if not they will be awful this year and be stunting any potential growth on the offensive-side of things...have another season like this past one than they could really do something stupid next offseason because they will be under the gun...

 
Boston said:
I am just not talking about Jimmy G...there are many options out there...they need to at least get someone serviceable in the short-term...if not they will be awful this year and be stunting any potential growth on the offensive-side of things...have another season like this past one than they could really do something stupid next offseason because they will be under the gun...
Click to expand...
Fair point. 

 
BigSteelThrill said:
You currently have  a 28.125% chance to keep an NFL head coach job for more then 5 years.

And furthermore if you do have a job that long there is a 2-out-of-3 chance you have won a super bowl.

NONE of those guys reached for a QB and certainly didn't overpay. In 8 of 9 of those cases they drafted a QB and let it fall to them in a value capacity (ARod, Ben, Wilson, Flacco, Brady, *Cam, Dalton, and Romo/Dak). And only 1 team got a QB in any other way and that was the Saints with Brees.

It looks like if you want a long tenured job as a GM or coach ... then doing this type of trade is exactly what you should NOT do.
Click to expand...
Since they used a third on Kessler last year they should be all set than...

 
BigSteelThrill said:
You currently have  a 28.125% chance to keep an NFL head coach job for more then 5 years.

And furthermore if you do have a job that long there is a 2-out-of-3 chance you have won a super bowl.

NONE of those guys reached for a QB and certainly didn't overpay. In 8 of 9 of those cases they drafted a QB and let it fall to them in a value capacity (ARod, Ben, Wilson, Flacco, Brady, *Cam, Dalton, and Romo/Dak). And only 1 team got a QB in any other way and that was the Saints with Brees.

It looks like if you want a long tenured job as a GM or coach ... then doing this type of trade is exactly what you should NOT do.
Click to expand...
There are currently 10 coaches that have coached the same team for the past five years and are still there this coming year. I included Sean Payton of the Saints in this group, even though he was suspended one of those years.

A huge problem for the rest of the coaching brotherhood is the league has become a win now or be out of a job league. I know, that's not covering any new group. But owners are not going to let coaches keep losing and keep their jobs. Including the past 5 seasons and this upcoming season, here's how many coaches each franchise has had in that time:

5 coaches: BUF
4 coaches: CLE, PHI, SFO
3 coaches: CHI, DEN, HOU, JAX, LAR, MIA, OAK, SDC, TBB, TEN
2 coaches: ARI, ATL, DET, KCC, MIN, NYG, NYJ, WAS

Essentially, 14 teams have had 3 or more coaches over 5 full years and the upcoming season. So, sure, in theory teams should not be tempted to jump at any Tom, ****, or Harry that comes along at QB, and they probably could be better suited to invest their draft picks and cap dollars elsewhere, coaches have to take way more chances to find a QB or they flat out will not have a job. It's that simple. Gone are the days when a coach could get 5 years to build a team and a system. It would be great if owners let coaches try to really build a team properly, but that went out with black and white tv.

 
Gandalf said:
Super Bowl champs don't have to do anything. Haha.

Okay seriously if Jimmy G is the guy. And I think he might be. You figure out a way to keep him. Beside BB will only trade that first round pick for two seconds and then pick a WR who will bust. So yeah I'd rather have JG if I believe he's the heir apparent.
Click to expand...
Yeah, just figure it out. 

Some white-out and add 2 years to JG's contract when no one is looking. Sheesh.

JG isn't signing any deal to be a backup ... so unless you want to tag your back up QB, to the tune of $22m, ... there is no scenario where the Pats can keep him.

 
Anarchy99 said:
There are currently 10 coaches that have coached the same team for the past five years and are still there this coming year. I included Sean Payton of the Saints in this group, even though he was suspended one of those years.

A huge problem for the rest of the coaching brotherhood is the league has become a win now or be out of a job league. I know, that's not covering any new group. But owners are not going to let coaches keep losing and keep their jobs. Including the past 5 seasons and this upcoming season, here's how many coaches each franchise has had in that time:

5 coaches: BUF
4 coaches: CLE, PHI, SFO
3 coaches: CHI, DEN, HOU, JAX, LAR, MIA, OAK, SDC, TBB, TEN
2 coaches: ARI, ATL, DET, KCC, MIN, NYG, NYJ, WAS

Essentially, 14 teams have had 3 or more coaches over 5 full years and the upcoming season. So, sure, in theory teams should not be tempted to jump at any Tom, ****, or Harry that comes along at QB, and they probably could be better suited to invest their draft picks and cap dollars elsewhere, coaches have to take way more chances to find a QB or they flat out will not have a job. It's that simple. Gone are the days when a coach could get 5 years to build a team and a system. It would be great if owners let coaches try to really build a team properly, but that went out with black and white tv.
Click to expand...
This would seem more meaningful if you were talking about GMs. Most of the short tenure HCs probably don't get final say on draft picks and free agency. 

 
BoltBacker said:
Yes, which is why I said if you happen to get the first pick when there is a franchise QB available then that is the only time no risk is involved. CLE needs a franchise QB, no? Why don't you get on the horn and tell them all they need to do is draft a franchise QB with the first pick.

Am I to understand that you don't think a signing bonus counts against the salary cap?
Click to expand...


Why don't you prove to all of us that Garoppollo is better than every QB in the coming draft?

And it seems to me you were the one who couldn't figure out how to make a QB contract cap friendly.  Are you telling me you don't understand how teams can lower cap numbers by paying a higher bonus and then lesser annual salaries, which also happens to benefit the player?

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
You currently have  a 28.125% chance to keep an NFL head coach job for more then 5 years.

And furthermore if you do have a job that long there is a 2-out-of-3 chance you have won a super bowl.

NONE of those guys reached for a QB and certainly didn't overpay. In 8 of 9 of those cases they drafted a QB and let it fall to them in a value capacity (ARod, Ben, Wilson, Flacco, Brady, *Cam, Dalton, and Romo/Dak). And only 1 team got a QB in any other way and that was the Saints with Brees.

It looks like if you want a long tenured job as a GM or coach ... then doing this type of trade is exactly what you should NOT do.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

People are twisting themselves into pretzels to justify a trade that is clearly a sucker move.

"Why should the Browns trade multiple premium picks for a player with almost no track record, and only one year left on his deal?"

"Well, they don't have a QB, and they need one!"

 
BoltBacker said:
When you said "team friendly" deal I didn't realize you were talking about giving him a 3yr/$54mil extension. So essentially you are talking about giving him the Osweiler contract starting in 2018. That's fine..... I just don't know many people that would describe the Osweiler contract as a team friendly deal. 
Click to expand...
AS I have said now a dozen times, I don't think teams will need to even offer that much to get him to sign.  He would be silly NOT to sign a team friendly deal rather than play out this year for under a million.

 
Bossman said:
Yeah, just figure it out. 

Some white-out and add 2 years to JG's contract when no one is looking. Sheesh.

JG isn't signing any deal to be a backup ... so unless you want to tag your back up QB, to the tune of $22m, ... there is no scenario where the Pats can keep him.
Click to expand...
So maybe tag him then? Keep both. Also it is highly likely that Brady finishes his career not on the patriots 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With CHI and SF out of the market Carson Palmer not retiring and Romo available......the market has lost a bunch of potential players.  CLE is obviously the favorite....but if the price gets too steep, who can NE use to run the price up?

 
Thunderlips said:
With CHI and SF out of the market Carson Palmer not retiring and Romo available......the market has lost a bunch of potential players.  CLE is obviously the favorite....but if the price gets too steep, who can NE use to run the price up?
Click to expand...
I don't think Shanahan is hinging his head-coaching career on Brian Hoyer. I think they are still in the running for every QB out there. Hoyer was a "We literally need anyone- literally any human being who has played professional football - on our roster we can put under the QB column."

 
Thunderlips said:
With CHI and SF out of the market Carson Palmer not retiring and Romo available......the market has lost a bunch of potential players.  CLE is obviously the favorite....but if the price gets too steep, who can NE use to run the price up?
Click to expand...
Romo was expected to be out there and I don't think Palmer was seen as being out-of-the-picture...the market has only lost one team and let's remember that there is now one less option for those teams as well...in all honesty I think it maybe down to Cleveland or New England...if in-fact the Browns have offered the #12 I don't see another team beating that...

 
Bronco Billy said:
Why don't you prove to all of us that Garoppollo is better than every QB in the coming draft?

And it seems to me you were the one who couldn't figure out how to make a QB contract cap friendly.  Are you telling me you don't understand how teams can lower cap numbers by paying a higher bonus and then lesser annual salaries, which also happens to benefit the player?
Click to expand...
The problem CLE has is they have to choose A qb, they can't choose the entire field of rookie qb's and select the best one using hind-sight. Which QB would you take with the #1 overall pick?

So now you are saying a signing bonus does count against the cap. Good. Progress. Take time out for a 5-hour-energy-drink and check twitter.

 
Gandalf said:
So maybe tag him then? Keep both. Also it is highly likely that Brady finishes his career not on the patriots 
Click to expand...
We're talking about the Patriots here. They don't even pay their starters ... never mind $22m for a backup QB.

... and how do you keep him year 3? Tag him again at $28m?? .... can not and will not happen.

Only way JG is a Patriot beyond the 2017 season is if Brady announces his retirement before then.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Suppose a team trades two first for a tackle
Replies
32
Views
852
CletiusMaximus
CletiusMaximus
timschochet
Are the Colts for real?
Replies
26
Views
620
Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider
Ministry of Pain
New Dynasty League and we've had our first trade where people are asking questions
2
Replies
79
Views
711
JohnnyU
JohnnyU

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top