Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The guy that had 9 turnovers in his last two starts?Is Matt Barkley worth a 1st and a 4th?
The guy that had 9 turnovers in his last two starts?Is Matt Barkley worth a 1st and a 4th?
Not sure if ur asking me, but I would say A. as of now probably not and B. not really relevant to jimmahs current trade value discussion imhoIs Matt Barkley worth a 1st and a 4th?
Lets not forget that time Brady got benched the year the Pats werent good anymore against the Chiefs. Jimmy came in against a suffocating Chiefs D and drove down the field and scored with no problem.He had two good games. Plus some good game experience. Yeah, probably two 1's.
I know you're either fishing or trying (poorly) to make a point but how many times has Barkley looked terrible out on the field, so his two "good" games look more like outliers - especially when they were followed up by two games where he threw 8 interceptions and lost a fumble.He had two good games. Plus some good game experience. Yeah, probably two 1's.
He was not considered a consensus first rounder in that draft. At all.I know you're either fishing or trying (poorly) to make a point but how many times has Barkley looked terrible out on the field, so his two "good" games look more like outliers - especially when they were followed up by two games where he threw 8 interceptions and lost a fumble.
I get that Garropolo is not exactly proven - but once again he was considered a pretty good prospect to begin with and has (in a very small sample size) looked the part. I don't think ultimately that a team will trade a first for him, but I wouldn't think it was a bad move if they did. If he went in the late first (as predicted) in his draft would people think it was a bad pick? I'd take him over Paxton Lynch who went in the late first just last season.
He was a late first / early second in most mocks (and ended up being a late second). It doesn't earn him anything at this point, but it's a puzzle piece in the evaluation of what his value is now. Being groomed in NE has had mixed results, but how is that relevant? My evaluation is based on how he's looked in preseason games and more importantly regular season games.He was not considered a consensus first rounder in that draft. At all.
Matt Barkley was rated much higher before his final season, and was talked about as 1st overall.
That and 2.75 gets you on the subway.
Jimmy's draft scouting reports that we read on the internet really aren't relevant anymore, to my mind. We have no idea what teams really thought about him, and why his price would go UP based on two games is a mystery to me.
Bring groomed in NE has been proven, PROVEN, to not matter one bit, no?
Candy arm. Also lots of bad games. Also already been cut once. Major prospect from major program that went in 4th round.He had two good games. Plus some good game experience. Yeah, probably two 1's.
Not sure...how many franchises are proven in that Department? Is there a franchise that has been pumping out back-ups who have turned into legit starters on a regular basis? In the past Cassel is your best comp...the Pats got a #2 for him (and Vrabel) after playing a full season and looking pretty good...that was nine years ago...he was Ok for KC for a couple of years (not a bust...but way overpaid) and than nothing more than a marginal backup at best...outside of that the Pats have not had a backup that had the potential of Jimmy G...sorry but there was not much buzz about Mallet and I don't think anyone thought they were getting much back for him...he was a nice draft-day gamble because he looked like he might have some real talent despite the head-case issues...at no point in his career with the Pats did he look like anything too special...the rest of the back-ups in the Brady era were nothing more than back-ups...they are not comps to Jimmy G...He was not considered a consensus first rounder in that draft. At all.
Matt Barkley was rated much higher before his final season, and was talked about as 1st overall.
That and 2.75 gets you on the subway.
Jimmy's draft scouting reports that we read on the internet really aren't relevant anymore, to my mind. We have no idea what teams really thought about him, and why his price would go UP based on two games is a mystery to me.
Bring groomed in NE has been proven, PROVEN, to not matter one bit, no?
Holy spit ... we really are repeating the entire Rohan-Davey-for-big-picks talk.They wanted the same thing for Rohan Davey.
GB during the Ron Wolf era... that lead to so many starting QBs in the NFL. The Ted Thompson era is too early to tell:Not sure...how many franchises are proven in that Department? Is there a franchise that has been pumping out back-ups who have turned into legit starters on a regular basis?
the only team I could see potentially giving up a #1 is Houston...they are saddled with Osweiler's contract for one more year and he sucks...with Jimmy G making almost no money he would allow Houston to take a second shot at solving their QB issues while surviving Osweiler's contract for 2017...this is a team that needs to get this position solved ASAP and with Brock's contract hanging over them they do not have a ton of options...
at the end-of-the-day I do think Cleveland is the best fit...they have the first pick in the second round
Agreed...I don't think they are going to get a #1 (I hope I am wrong)...the only scenario I see where it is possible is Houston if they are desperate but that is a long-shot...BGB during the Ron Wolf era... that lead to so many starting QBs in the NFL. The Ted Thompson era is too early to tell:
Matt Flynn was a complete bust in Oakland
Scott Tolzein looked really good in Indianapolis this year when Luck was out (if you watched the game)
Houston isn't going to risk wasting a 1st round pick on another flop QB to go with their flop of a QB making way too much money. That would be a nightmare. Yes, they need a QB ASAP but I can't see them taking another risk on an even more unproven commodity than what they did with Osweiler. Osweiler was somewhat known having played... Jimmy G doesn't even have that. Yes, it makes sense on paper but if it didn't turn out it'd be a PR nightmare. I could see Houston pushing hard for Cousins if Washington lets him hit the open market, whcih is very possible given how much he may be worth. Yes, it would be kind of dumb to pay two QBs a combined 35 million or so... I'm not even sure they can afford it. If Houston can get him for cheaper than a 1st rounder, I think you've hit it on the head. I just don't think that's going to happen with Houston's position in the draft
Cleveland is the best fit. I can see that second round pick being one worthy of giving up, or maybe next year's second round pick. I agree with that.
Well, Id argue there were more than those 2 but yes in the last 10 years there hasn't been a team like that where a backup has gone to another team and done exceptionally well. I think after the Matt Flynn and Cassell experiments there aren't a whole lot of teams willing to take that risk on an unproven player.Agreed...I don't think they are going to get a #1 (I hope I am wrong)...the only scenario I see where it is possible is Houston if they are desperate but that is a long-shot...
As for Green Bay...it's been a long tome since Hasselbeck and Brooks played there but that is your best-case scenario...in the last decade I just don't think there's a team that fits the bill of consistently developing back-up QBs into future legit QBs...it happens but I don't think any team has a formula to do it consistently...
I think the biggest issue has been the overpaying of these type of QBs...it is one thing rolling the dice on them (it's easy to see why teams do it in a QB-starved league)...it's another thing doing it with a contract like Osweiler got...that's the killer with these guys...you get killed on the field and with your cap...a guy like Glennon fits this category...there is definite intrigue with him but you may have to give him some real money and if he busts you are saddled with his money...I keep going back to it but the fact is Jimmy G still has a year left on his original deal so if he doesn't work out you don't get killed because you didn't make a long-term investment in him prior to seeing how he actually performs...Well, Id argue there were more than those 2 but yes in the last 10 years there hasn't been a team like that where a backup has gone to another team and done exceptionally well. I think after the Matt Flynn and Cassell experiments there aren't a whole lot of teams willing to take that risk on an unproven player.
The interesting question is...who is worthy of a 1st?I'm a Pats fan and there's no way he's worth a first round pick. No chance.
What's Jimmy G done to warrant being worthy of a first round draft pick? He's started what....three games in his career? One of them a mop up job at the end of the season?The interesting question is...who is worthy of a 1st?
Brady, Brees or some other aging QB?
Never really understood this argument. What has any rookie done to deserve being worth a 1st round pick?What's Jimmy G done to warrant being worthy of a first round draft pick? He's started what....three games in his career? One of them a mop up job at the end of the season?
It's been the way of the NFL for as long as I can remember. Picks are worth exponentially more than players....even players who have performed at a fairly high level. You do realize that don't you?Never really understood this argument. What has any rookie done to deserve being worth a 1st round pick?
Last six games of 2014 (including their playoff loss to the Colts): 120/201 (60%), 1380 yards, 6 TDs, 6 INTs, 1 fumble lost. He fell off a cliff.Really? Peyton played 17 years. In 2014, he had these stats:
66.2% completion percentage - Right about average, actually 0.9% over his career average
4727 yards - 2nd best yardage in his career
39 TDs - 3rd best TDs in his career
15 INTs - 7th best INTs in his career (better INT% than his career average)
Fantasy wise, that was his 3rd best year of his career, so outside of his 2 record breaking TD seasons of 49 and 55, this was as good as you got for his career. If Peyton's 3rd best fantasy year in his 17 years was signs of slipping then your expectations were way too high. That is normal regression after a record breaking year, not slipping. He slipped in 2015.
Excellent answerIt's been the way of the NFL for as long as I can remember. Picks are worth exponentially more than players....even players who have performed at a fairly high level. You do realize that don't you?
What do you want? I'm not a GM. I don't know why they feel that way. They just do. Nevermind the idea that an amateur HAS to be picked first because, you know......it's the amateur draft. They've alleviated somewhat the concept of a amateur rookie coming in and making mad money with the slotting system, thus putting more emphasis on value in regards to established players.Excellent answer![]()
My brother explained this to me. The structure of rookie contracts makes 1st round picks much more valuable. If you trade a first for Garoppolo, you have to extend him about a year later at starting QB money. That's why a first and a fourth is such a reach for this guy. You're giving up a cost-controlled impact starter (presumably) for an unproven QB that's only started three games in the NFL. The only reason teams will do this is that quarterbacking is so valuable that the cost control might be outweighed by the potential to have a franchise QB, something a lot of teams would beg for.What do you want? I'm not a GM. I don't know why they feel that way. They just do. Nevermind the idea that an amateur HAS to be picked first because, you know......it's the amateur draft. They've alleviated somewhat the concept of a amateur rookie coming in and making mad money with the slotting system, thus putting more emphasis on value in regards to established players.
And to criticize my answer to your question without answering the original question isn't very conducive to legit conversation....so I ask again. What has JG done to deserve being a first round draft pick?
ETA: I'm sure if there were a situation where veteran FAs were eligible to go back into the draft....there wouldn't always be a rookie at the top of the amateur draft...but since it's the amateur draft......there's always going to be rookies in it.
It's not like the Bears have a history of trading Kyle Orton, two 1st's, and a 3rd for Jay Cutler to Josh McDaniels or anything.Not a chance
Ugh. had a long reply written and lost it so to summarize.rockaction said:My brother explained this to me. The structure of rookie contracts makes 1st round picks much more valuable. If you trade a first for Garoppolo, you have to extend him about a year later at starting QB money. That's why a first and a fourth is such a reach for this guy. You're giving up a cost-controlled impact starter (presumably) for an unproven QB that's only started three games in the NFL. The only reason teams will do this is that quarterbacking is so valuable that the cost control might be outweighed by the potential to have a franchise QB, something a lot of teams would beg for.
Most teams have a difficult time developing one qb into a legit starter. Ravens might have the best recent past with Ty, Flacco and Derek Anderson.Boston said:in the last decade I just don't think there's a team that fits the bill of consistently developing back-up QBs into future legit QBs...it happens but I don't think any team has a formula to do it consistently...
There's zero chance the Rams trade for a qb right now. (Literally zero for STL, which you mention 3 times, but hey who cares about LA anyway? )Thunderlips said:STL - No need....but Goff isn't tied to the incoming HC. But they don't have much to trade with.
One would think if they wanted jimmy they would have discussed it when they acquired Collins. We don't know if they did (could he have even been traded on the IR?) But the path might already be set.I dont want the Browns to trade for JG, but if they want to, I would really hope that having to sign him to an actual deal rather than a rookie deal would not impact their decision.
I mean, they gotta be like 100 million under the cap for 2017.
I agree, but you can also wind up with a cost-controlled non-impact starter like Goff.rockaction said:My brother explained this to me. The structure of rookie contracts makes 1st round picks much more valuable. If you trade a first for Garoppolo, you have to extend him about a year later at starting QB money. That's why a first and a fourth is such a reach for this guy. You're giving up a cost-controlled impact starter (presumably) for an unproven QB that's only started three games in the NFL. The only reason teams will do this is that quarterbacking is so valuable that the cost control might be outweighed by the potential to have a franchise QB, something a lot of teams would beg for.
If you look at the 2 games he started, he performed very well.Thunderlips said:What's Jimmy G done to warrant being worthy of a first round draft pick? He's started what....three games in his career? One of them a mop up job at the end of the season?
The other thing (and this has zero to do with the Pats and far from breaking news) is teams do foolish things when it comes to QBs...whether it is giving up a ton of picks for a rookie or a veteran like Bradford, giving out stupid contracts (Brock is just the latest in this category) or rolling the dice on QBs with limited experience (Brock again) teams get desperate when it comes to this position and will take gambles they may not otherwise do...a GM and/or Coach knows his job security is paper thin if they don't have a legit QB so some will roll the dice with this position if they have no other choice because it's getting real difficult to overcome subpar QB play in today's NFL and you may lose your job anyways...and as they always say...you only need one team to like you...If you look at the 2 games he started, he performed very well.
AZ - 24-33 for 264 yards and 1 TD, 4-12 rushing yards; QB rating of 106.1
MIA - 18-26 for 232 yards and 3 TDs; QB rating of 135.4 (this is before getting injured in late in the 2nd quarter)
Beyond the stats though, he passed the eyeball test. First game against a good defense (fresh out of the gate, no injuries per se), he lead them to a victory. Against Miami, who always plays NE tough, I thought he felt a lot more comfortable, building off of his performance vs. AZ.
Do these two games warrant a 1st? Not necessarily. However, the 1st round pick would be for his performance in these games and, most importantly, his potential.
Be a very talented rookie. what an odd statement. Are you advocating that no team should make a 1st round pick?ghostguy123 said:Never really understood this argument. What has any rookie done to deserve being worth a 1st round pick?
rockaction said:My brother explained this to me. The structure of rookie contracts makes 1st round picks much more valuable. If you trade a first for Garoppolo, you have to extend him about a year later at starting QB money. That's why a first and a fourth is such a reach for this guy. You're giving up a cost-controlled impact starter (presumably) for an unproven QB that's only started three games in the NFL. The only reason teams will do this is that quarterbacking is so valuable that the cost control might be outweighed by the potential to have a franchise QB, something a lot of teams would beg for.
I agree, but you can also wind up with a cost-controlled non-impact starter like Goff.
He apparently doesn't have any potential either. Jimmy has potential. That's what your trading for.Goff's career is over already?
It seems pretty clear that the 1st and 4th round price tag was pure speculation/a guess by Schefter as to what the Pats could get on the market.The other way you know this is a manufactured story is the timing.
Week 16 of the regular season. That's when all the hot trade talk goes down, is it? People are getting into specifics like a 1st and a 4th, 3 months before a trade can happen?
Sounds about right.
Be a very talented rookie. what an odd statement. Are you advocating that no team should make a 1st round pick?
I happened to be listening to that sports radio station live when Schefter said this. It was Schefter who initiated it and the Boston announcers on the radio station were surprised Schefter thought it would be so high. Once he said it, they ran with it.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.
Watching hard knocks was painful. Case keenum's wife had a better understanding of the Rams playbook than Goff. The kid is an actual moron. Hope he gets over it.Goff's career is over already?