Romo also seems like a major piece of the puzzle. Or are we all just assuming he will go to Denver?
2017 Jimmy G: The Dilemma
- Thread starter bakahump
- Start date
Houston as well, maybe, but it makes zero sense for young, bad teams with cap space to invest in Romo. They need to get better, with a QB reasonably likely to be playing in 2 years. Denver and Houston may outwait Jerry Jones on Romo. And I don't see Jerry really caring, so long as Romo goes to AFC team.
I keep thinking about one issue when it comes to Jimmy's potential: health.
This isn't to tar Jimmy for getting hurt against Miami. By all accounts, sprained AC joints hurt a ton – and despite what talk radio would've had you believe, there aren't a lot of QBs who probably could've gotten back out there in the week or two that followed.
But perhaps the most underrated part of Brady's game is that he doesn't get hurt – Brady himself considers it the key to his success. Yes, there was that time he was on the injury report for, like, 9 years running. And that other time where he missed 15.87 games because Pollard dove at his knee. And that other time where he left that playoff game so Drew Bledsoe could throw terrifying backwards passes over his shoulder.
But that's it. The guy has missed a total of 21 games in 16 seasons – and four of those games were for when the league literally made up rules to force him off the field. Other than 2008, he's literally missed half of a game for health reasons over 269 games (including playoffs). Whatever the reason—Magic Alex and his malleable muscle elixirs at TB12, genetics, pain tolerance or style of play (i.e., staying in the pocket)—I can't think of a single QB in the modern era who's been as healthy as Brady for so long.
So isn't the real question not "Can Jimmy be as good as Brady?"—in 6 quarters, he's already shown he's already pretty darn close—but "Can Jimmy stay as healthy as Brady?" To that point, could anyone?
This isn't to tar Jimmy for getting hurt against Miami. By all accounts, sprained AC joints hurt a ton – and despite what talk radio would've had you believe, there aren't a lot of QBs who probably could've gotten back out there in the week or two that followed.
But perhaps the most underrated part of Brady's game is that he doesn't get hurt – Brady himself considers it the key to his success. Yes, there was that time he was on the injury report for, like, 9 years running. And that other time where he missed 15.87 games because Pollard dove at his knee. And that other time where he left that playoff game so Drew Bledsoe could throw terrifying backwards passes over his shoulder.
But that's it. The guy has missed a total of 21 games in 16 seasons – and four of those games were for when the league literally made up rules to force him off the field. Other than 2008, he's literally missed half of a game for health reasons over 269 games (including playoffs). Whatever the reason—Magic Alex and his malleable muscle elixirs at TB12, genetics, pain tolerance or style of play (i.e., staying in the pocket)—I can't think of a single QB in the modern era who's been as healthy as Brady for so long.
So isn't the real question not "Can Jimmy be as good as Brady?"—in 6 quarters, he's already shown he's already pretty darn close—but "Can Jimmy stay as healthy as Brady?" To that point, could anyone?
I was assuming 100% overlap between Romo's likely landing spots (DEN, HOU, maybe KC) and teams that BB wouldn't trade JG to under any circumstances.
You probably answered your own question.
I think the default for projecting the successor to a QB who is arguably the greatest QB ever to play and arguably the healthiest QB ever to play is that the successor wont be as good or as healthy.
Last edited:
Remember around here when Mallett was worth Larry Fitzgerald or a 1st round pick?
To be fair, that was before Larry won the Walter Payton Man of the Year award which increased his value a ton.
Just to be clear, and I could've said it better, what I meant was that Jimmy's performance in the Cardinals and Dolphins games was roughly equivalent to what we could have expected out of Brady. What I should have said is that Jimmy has shown that he *can* play at a high level – and the question is whether he can do it consistently, which is where health comes in.
So again: could Jimmy stay as healthy as Brady from here on out? Could anyone? Brady himself believes that his regimen could revolutionize player health. Does anyone here, specifically some sports medicine experts, believe there's any truth to what he's saying? And if so, what are the implications for Jimmy?
So again: could Jimmy stay as healthy as Brady from here on out? Could anyone? Brady himself believes that his regimen could revolutionize player health. Does anyone here, specifically some sports medicine experts, believe there's any truth to what he's saying? And if so, what are the implications for Jimmy?
Brett Favre played in 297 consecutive games. Peyton played in 208 in one stretch and really never missed time for injury except his neck issue, Eli has started every game since his rookie year, Rivers has started every game since he became a starter, Matt Ryan missed two games with turf toe in 2009 but otherwise has started every game of his career, etc.
Brady is a freak to be still playing at a high level at his age and to have continued his good health throughout his late 30s. But its really not that unusual for quarterbacks to have very prolonged stretches of consistent health during their normal playing years.
I don't understand this thinking. Yes, the reservation price might be higher for rivals, but at some point, BB might believe the haul of draft picks he's getting from these teams would make them a net-poorer team even with JG. Or enough of a wash that he's not more concerned than he was before the trade. I'm sure he doesn't think that Buffalo is a Garoppolo away from competing for the AFC East title, for example, nor KC a much bigger threat with Garoppolo over Smith.
Adam SchefterVerified account @AdamSchefter 23s23 seconds ago
Buffalo is keeping Tyrod Taylor on a restructured contract, per sources.
Big news here on the Jimmy front. Tyrod was expected to be released by the Bills and hit the open market. Now there's one less quality QB hitting the market.
Buffalo is keeping Tyrod Taylor on a restructured contract, per sources.
Big news here on the Jimmy front. Tyrod was expected to be released by the Bills and hit the open market. Now there's one less quality QB hitting the market.
Agreed. I don't know that Belichick wouldn't trade Jimmy to Houston, KC or Denver. I assume he has a good relationship with Bill O'Brien, he has made many, many trades with Andy Reid over the years, and he traded AJ Derby to Denver just last year.
10 years is a small sample size? The data shows the Patriots have been following a plan which involves spending their salary cap dollars on positions other than back-up QB, and part of that involves using high picks to draft the "successor" back-up. Roster spots are also valuable, and you'll note that in the 10-year analysis window, they only carry 3 QBs on the roster in that first year when the newly drafted successor is being prepped to become the primary back-up. Which means that Brisset is ready, and Garoppolo is available.
As for the allegation that Brady's "skills most certainly are diminishing", that's totally false. They will at some point, but they haven't through his age 39 season. And unless there's a high probability that "falling off a cliff" is imminent AND Garoppolo is a slam dunk top tier replacement, then he'll be traded the instant the price is right.
To be fair, trading a QB that reasonable people might think could become Pro Bowl-caliber one day is a very different thing than trading AJ Derby, who probably would've been cut if not traded. My point is more that it depends on the return, and whether BB believes the counterparty is in any way hamstringing their ability to succeed by overpaying.
We're talking about few enough situations here that each one could be regarded as sui generis.
Literally nobody with a platform to comment has suggested that Garoppolo is (or ought to be) viewed as expendable. I think you've got a bit of a burden of proof on the bolded.
Trading a young backup quarterback is the spot where "don't help a rival" has the most credence and I still don't think it should carry very much weight.
If, for example, Denver came in and offered a 1st rounder and a high pick and it was clearly the best package I'd move Jimmy there with little hesitation.
If, for example, Denver came in and offered a 1st rounder and a high pick and it was clearly the best package I'd move Jimmy there with little hesitation.
I wonder if this means SF is drafting a QB at the No 2 pick. A healthy Hoyer would be a fine transitional starter while the rookie learns.
I don't think has BB ever made a truly meaningful trade (outside of minor draft day moves up and down and other very minor stuff) with the four franchises that have been our main AFC rivals during the BB era (BAL, PIT, IND, DEN). Of course, that could be either just chance or reflect the unwillingness of those teams to trade with us, rather than the reverse.
They have no quarterbacks so I wouldn't necessarily draw that conclusion. If having Hoyer on your roster is preventing you from looking to acquire a QB that is actually good, you're doing it wrong.
He made a big trade with the Ravens that led to them picking Kyle Boller right? And the Pats got Wilfork with the 21st pick the next year.
Yup. It seems like both the Bears (who are highly linked with Glennon) and 49ers might have reached the same conclusion: Get a veteran placeholder who won't be awful and hope to draft whichever QB drops (or Mahomes) early in the second. Unfortunately for the Bears, the 49ers pick before them.
If multiple teams are thinking this way, it could open up some interesting possibilities for us to trade down from 32 on draft day.
Or SF decides that none of the draftable QBs are worth shit, and they instead take Hoyer and use the draft to stock the rest of their shitty team with good players.
Given the caveats that accompany all of the top college QBs this year, it wouldn't surprise me if a competent GM sees none of them as a QB for the future.
The "burden of proof" was provided in my initial post, a 10 year period tracking how the Pats have handled the back-up QB position. It's pretty clear they value the position (expending higher round draft picks) but don't feel it's a good use of salary cap dollars. Not a single veteran, and not a single back-up that lasted beyond his rookie deal. Likewise they minimize the number of roster spots by only carrying 3 QBs when they need to groom the back-up successor (never more than a one year period).
On that basis Garoppolo is expendable, because the successor is ready. That doesn't mean he's not valuable, it's just that - per the plan - the team is prepped and able to move on.
You're begging the question. This entire thread could be recast as attempts to answer the question "does BB have confidence in JB?"; if he does, there's little doubt JG will be traded.
Is it possible that was the strategy when they had an in his prime, GOAT QB, but the calculus (% of resources they are willing to allocate) may start to change a bit as TB enters his age 40 season?
Where the price might have been the 12th pick and a lower-round choice before Wednesday, it now may be the 12th pick this year and perhaps the second-round choice the Browns acquired from the Eagles.
http://www.espn.com/blog/cleveland-browns/post/_/id/21671/quarterback-movement-may-increase-cost-of-jimmy-garoppolo-trade
http://www.espn.com/blog/cleveland-browns/post/_/id/21671/quarterback-movement-may-increase-cost-of-jimmy-garoppolo-trade
NFL network just had someone on touting how Kirk Cousins leaving Washington and going to the Niners is just a matter of time.
So . . . . how about Jimmy G to Washington?
So . . . . how about Jimmy G to Washington?
That's kind of a reach. Who here doesn't think BB has confidence in JB? I'm simply pointing out that the back-up QB plan is at the point (back-up successor with a full season under his belt) where the Pats have previously made a change. In fact, holding onto Garoppolo for an extra season not only costs an extra roster spot, but probably retards the development of Brisset, as he'll have to share snaps with the other back-up. Neither of those would be the prime factor in a Garoppolo trade decision, but holding onto him isn't entirely cost free.
Entirely possible. On the other hand, they did expend a high pick on Brisset, and if the long term plan was to keep Brady and Garoppolo, that would be something of a waste.
Re Hoyer:
Pick up former Pats backup QB. Use draft pick to acquire untested QB used to college system?
Or use draft pick to trade for JG, demonstrated NFL level skills, same backup development experience as Hoyer, higher upside?
Picking up Hoyer almost makes JG more useful.
They needed a backup QB for the first four games of the season last year. The Pats may have felt he was better option in the draft than any other options available via free agency.
Of course the Patriots went into 2001 with a 2nd year player from Michigan as their backup QB...
... and 2002 with a rookie picked in the 4th round as their backup QB (Davey)...
... and 2005 with a rookie 7th round pick as their backup QB (Cassel)...
... and 2009 with an undrafted rookie as their backup QB (Hoyer)...
... and 2012 with a 2nd year player as their backup QB (Mallett)...
... and 2014 with a 2nd year player as their backup QB (JG).
Any reason why BB would feel uncomfortable heading into 2017 with a 2nd year player as his backup if he can get 2 first or a first and a 2nd for JG? Especially given comments like these:
"Bill Belichick added in his Friday press conference that Brissett’s extra work with Floyd has shown the impressive knowledge of the Patriots’ system that he has picked up in such a short time. Brissett’s work with Floyd, whether on his own volition or through team direction, is a strong indicator of the leadership qualities that made him an attractive draft pick for the Patriots in the first place."
... and 2002 with a rookie picked in the 4th round as their backup QB (Davey)...
... and 2005 with a rookie 7th round pick as their backup QB (Cassel)...
... and 2009 with an undrafted rookie as their backup QB (Hoyer)...
... and 2012 with a 2nd year player as their backup QB (Mallett)...
... and 2014 with a 2nd year player as their backup QB (JG).
Any reason why BB would feel uncomfortable heading into 2017 with a 2nd year player as his backup if he can get 2 first or a first and a 2nd for JG? Especially given comments like these:
"Bill Belichick added in his Friday press conference that Brissett’s extra work with Floyd has shown the impressive knowledge of the Patriots’ system that he has picked up in such a short time. Brissett’s work with Floyd, whether on his own volition or through team direction, is a strong indicator of the leadership qualities that made him an attractive draft pick for the Patriots in the first place."
Or go with Hoyer, then pick up Cousins when he walks after next season.
Glennon > Bears and Hoyer > Niners may mean that Cleve is the only team still at table. Which helps Clev's negotiating leverage, not the Pats'
What do you make of these stories that Snyder won't deal with SF because of resentment toward Shanahan?