2017 Jimmy G: The Dilemma
- Thread starter bakahump
- Start date
Yeah! Until Tommy learns the difference between French fries and pizza or whatever, goddamit.
My opinion is that this made up "40" number is a mere consequence of our base 10 numeric system. Programmed aging due to the shortening of our telomeres is unavoidable but steady, and damage related aging for someone like Brady can be aided by diet and exercise but would be offset by his "occupational" hazards. Of course as stated above injury recovery will worsen so whether Brady can play to ... say 45 ... is more likely in the hands of the offensive line than a loss of skills.
Or just lying down and dodging bullets...
Edit: If Mo Lewis was still on the Jets we might not be having this conversation.
ProFootballTalkVerified account @ProFootballTalk 40m40 minutes ago
Cleveland may make a run at trading for Kirk Cousins
Cleveland may make a run at trading for Kirk Cousins
Per a league source, Cousins' concern upon signing the franchise tag was that he could be traded, "specifically" to Cleveland. The Browns have the cap space, draft picks and need to pursue a deal. Were Cousins to be acquired without a long-term contract already in tow, the sides would have until July 15 to come to an agreement. Although he's tried to tamp down the speculation in recent days, Cousins appears bitterly unhappy in Washington.
Doesnt sound very optimistic for the Browns, Cousins is going to have a pretty big say where he goes.
Doesnt sound very optimistic for the Browns, Cousins is going to have a pretty big say where he goes.
Yup. If you are durable and fearless of injury risk, you really have the hammer in this negotiation, and Cousins has those qualities, along with $44 million for the 16 and 17 seasons.
It is a beautiful sight, the tag being used against owners this way. Especially against Snyder.
This pursuit has gone on so long, it should be a Taylor Swift song
http://www.espn.com/blog/cleveland/post/_/id/3091/browns-quarterback-tracker-clarity-on-jimmy-garoppolos-status-could-come-soon
Browns. Bring #1 overall and we can talk. Otherwise, non starter. Not a hard concept to grasp.
I mean, I'm in the camp that says hold him then. For me, another year of insurance + a rd 3 comp is not significantly worse than a 2 or whatever the Browns will be offering
There's tons of permutations (including what Stitch just said) that offer enough value and are more reasonable than the #1 pick (which would be completely unprecedented, btw).
If the Browns come with #12, yeah you take that.
If they come with #33 this year and their first or second next year, yeah you take that.
Add in filler on top of you like, but we are talking about one season of a backup.
Yes, I get that TB12 is 40 years old. Yes, I get he could have a career ending injury. Yes, I get QBs can fall of a cliff. But injury can't be accounted for and there's no reason to think his cliff fall will come this season. To the former, they've never placed an overt premium on the backup slot as a 'break glass in case of fire' situation and there's little reason to think that Brisset isn't on par with Miller, Hoyer, Cassel, Mallet or an aged Flutie or Testaverde, etc.
You're in your camp, I'm in the camp that there is no possible chance i see that the Patriots franchise him after next season (which would be paying him more than Brady to hold a clipboard and opens up a Kirk Cousins situation) to maintain control while waiting for Brady to call it quits or blow a knee or whatever. That's not how this team works and it's not how they manage the cap. It's completely against how they operate.
Wrapping ones head around the JG situation comes down to two things:
1. The organization never places a premium on one season over long term.
2. TB will never leave this franchise except on his own terms or career ending injury.
TB is signed for three more years. He will play those. So then what is the value of keeping JG for one season? Injury insurance and nothing more. Sure you could hypothetically tag him to trade, but what are you getting back? The tag move worked with Cassel but it was a lot lower then and MC had a full season of production.
If they get offered #12, or #33 and a second or first next season they should absolutely jump at it.
(I'll also add that counting on comp picks - which are a black box and can be null and void of the Pats sign FAs themselves - is foolish, imo. They could very well end up rolling over a big chunk of cap into next year, signing a couple big players like Gilmore and seeing literally nothing for losing JG to FA. And on top, if they don't figure out Butler, then they have to lose one of them for nothing, because they can't tag both.)
Yeah, the franchising solution makes no sense to me either. Franchising him without moving on from Brady would be like a $45MM hit for quarterbacks in 2018. I get that a good quarterback is the most valuable asset possible, but that's seems completely untenable to me.
I still think they are going to trade JimmyG for either 12 or something like a 2nd and a conditional pick next year and that the asking prices being floated are a result of the Pats trying to get their asking price in what is currently a one buyer deep market.
I still think they are going to trade JimmyG for either 12 or something like a 2nd and a conditional pick next year and that the asking prices being floated are a result of the Pats trying to get their asking price in what is currently a one buyer deep market.
While I agree that the #1 pick seems outlandish, and is unprecedented, do people think BB might try this approach:
'Listen guys, if you don't get JG you're going to use that #1 pick on a college QB, totally untested in the NFL. JG has been studying under the greatest (cough I mean TB12 not me, of course), and has absolutely demonstrated ability to play in the NFL.
So, do you feel lucky? Untested college QB or groomed and demonstrated NFL QB?'
I'd be disappointed if he didn't at least try.
(This general idea has been espoused previously in this thread, if I recall).
Obviously if they can get JG for the 12, then the 1 gets used for other things. But it's a valid thing to try.
'Listen guys, if you don't get JG you're going to use that #1 pick on a college QB, totally untested in the NFL. JG has been studying under the greatest (cough I mean TB12 not me, of course), and has absolutely demonstrated ability to play in the NFL.
So, do you feel lucky? Untested college QB or groomed and demonstrated NFL QB?'
I'd be disappointed if he didn't at least try.
(This general idea has been espoused previously in this thread, if I recall).
Obviously if they can get JG for the 12, then the 1 gets used for other things. But it's a valid thing to try.
yeah, not even the Browns are dumb enough to not make the counterargument, "but a #1 draftee has 5 years of team control at well-below-market prices, whereas you're giving us 1 year of rookie money plus whatever FA years we can bargain with JG for. Way less value, even if his expected performance is higher."
I don't disagre with any of the previous arguments, but just so we're clear: With that #1 overall pick the Browns wouldn't be taking a QB, they'd be taking that pass rusher.
Who wouldn't be happy to get 2017 #12 and next year's 1st round pick?
I'd be ecstatic.
I'd love to see it announced just that way:
"With the first pick ... in the 2017 NFL Draft ... the Cleveland Browns select ... that pass rusher ...
Thank you. I can actually hear the Belichick snort after he repeats the word "value" to Sashi Brown.
My hope is that it will catch on and he'll wind up wearing that on the back of his jersey.
Edit I DIDN'T TYPE "I still," autocorrect. "Duck" you!
Its more like a 60M hit for quarterbacks spread over 2017-18. The rollover rules in the context of a team with a lot of cap flexibility makes it somewhat shortsighted only to think about specific cap years. It would technically be a 45M hit in 2018 and a 2017 hit in 2017 but its easy to smooth that out. 30M on quarterbacks for a few years is not all that different than a lot of teams which are paying 20-24M for a starter and then a few million for a competent backup. Its high but not ludicrous.
If BB and Josh think JG can play like a top 10 type QB in their system for 8-10 years starting in 2019, then paying 30M per year for quarterbacks over the next couple years to facilitate that transition is a small price to pay. Of course, they may not think that. But I'd say that their evaluation of JG is by far the biggest factor at play here. If they like him, the salary cap really should not be that much of an impediment to keeping him.
Whether there is precedent or not, I don't entirely understand why the expectation of the #1 overall is so crazy for a possible franchise QB who has only PLAYED 6 quarters when teams draft hopeful franchise QBs #1 overall all the time on zero NFL experience.
Is it just the lack of control years?
Is it just the lack of control years?
The Pats should absolutely go after the #1 (at the very least as leverage to ensure they get #12 and more), and Cleveland has to seriously think about it. Getting beyond the sensationalism of the "#1 OVERALL PICK!" I think the new Browns front office won't shy away from trading #1 just because it's #1, especially given all the other draft capital they have and what that #1 can get them.
Cleveland has to ask themselves do they want Myles Garrett for the next 5 years, but have effectively no offense and no chance to win in the near term with no solution on the horizon, or do you want a competent QB to give yourself an offense and a chance to win sooner? They clearly think JG can be that guy if they are going after him hard.
If they don't give the Pats what they want, then they keep their picks, build out the OL and DL and then tank it again to land Darnold or Rosen at the top of next year's draft.
Cleveland has to ask themselves do they want Myles Garrett for the next 5 years, but have effectively no offense and no chance to win in the near term with no solution on the horizon, or do you want a competent QB to give yourself an offense and a chance to win sooner? They clearly think JG can be that guy if they are going after him hard.
If they don't give the Pats what they want, then they keep their picks, build out the OL and DL and then tank it again to land Darnold or Rosen at the top of next year's draft.
I dont totally get why you are lumping '17 and '18 together. I get your point about specific years regarding the cap, but I dont get lumping '17 and '18 together in this context since they can keep JG for '17 and decide not to franchise him. If they're going to keep both quarterbacks, then '18/'19 seems more like the right way to took at it and the cap number is going to be higher than 30MM.
Also by 2019 Jimmy G will be 28 years old. 8-10 years of peak play from then is pretty optimistic.
If they want JG as the long-term solution, they should move on from Brady after '17. I think that's a perfectly valid line to take, I just dont think its the way the franchise is going to go with Tom Brady involved.
And since there's little chance of even reaching the playoffs with Garappolo next season, what's wrong with this strategy?
I'm assuming the counter-factual is trading JG this offseason and that keeping him means you also plan to franchise him in 2018. One could dispute those assumptions but if that is the case then you're talking about paying a total of about 60M for quarterbacks in the 2017-18 bridge years and the team essentially has the luxury of effectively spreading that cap hit over the two seasons through rollover.
For me, the two routes that make sense (depending on the team's evaluation of JG) are to either trade him this offseason for a good haul or to keep him with the plan of franchising him next offseason and moving on from Brady after 2018 at the latest. Keeping him and then not franchising him next offseason simply doesn't make a lot of sense to me but I may not fully understand the team's thinking.
Sort of hard to evaluate the last option, I think, without knowing what's on the table for Jimmy G. If they turn down 12 and then let him walk, I get the reasoning but seems like an expensive opportunity cost. If there isnt a first rounder on the table, makes more sense to me.
On the other hand, let's assume you are the Browns and you take a QB #1.
Jared Goff got essentially 4 years, $28M, which was about a 12% bump above Jameis Winston's 4/$25M. So maybe this year's #1 QB might get 4/$31M.
If you trade for JG, you get 1 year for $885,000, then possible extension or franchise tag for 2018. So you end up having him for 2 years for about $25M. But if he plays great in 2017 and leads you out of Brownsville, then maybe you get him to sign something closer to what Osweiler got (4/$72M, with $37M guaranteed).
So if things work out well, you end up paying JG a lot more over a 5 year window than you would a #1 pick. However, it affords you a full year to see if he's worthy of that money. Or looked at another way, if things don't go well, after 2017, you are on the hook for zero dollars going forward with JG, but with a #1 pick, you are still looking at another 3 years and about $23M left to pay.
Personally, I don't think JG for #1 is quite equitable -- I think the Pats would have to pad that out to make up the difference. But would the Browns consider JG and JE11 for #1?
If he plays great in 2017 he's going to get like $100 million dollars and a bunch of guaranteed money or play under the franchise tag.
I actually assume if the Browns trade for Jimmy G they're going to extend him as part of it.
Uh, you think they're going to trade Edelman? Huh?
Doubt it, but actually think its more likely than getting #1 overall for JG
Giselle performing on a stripper pole at the next SoSH bash is more likely than getting the 1/1 for JG
As I noted in the depth chart thread, it wouldn't surprise me. And as a sweetener to Cleveland goes, getting a WR who has experience and chemistry with JG would make that a pretty good deal.
It's not that far away, in concept, to when the Pats added Vrabel to the Cassel trade. Differences abound, but I think that Pioli saw Vrabel as a valuable players in terms of intangibles, much in the way that BB brought in a whole bunch of former Jets when he came over in 2000 -- to help infuse a new culture at a grass root level.
It was widely believed that Vrabel actually reduced the return the Pats got for MC.
If he plays great you give him his $100M and you're happy about it. It almost doesn't matter what you pay a good quarterback - the cost of not having one is so prohibitively high.
The problems are when you give a quarterback who isn't good lots of money.
I wasnt opining on whether giving him the money was good or bad, just that JimmyG being really good in Cleveland wouldnt result in the Osweiller contract after the season, but dont totally agree. It doesnt matter what you pay Tom Brady to play quarterback. When a team pays merely good quarterbacks big money they havent been able to put the pieces needed around him if the goal is to win a title rather than merely be pretty good. Cap is getting looser, so maybe that changes.
Yeah, but that's probably nonsense. They could have just cut him if he was a drag on the return they got.
First-round QBs often are busts. Backup QBs that look great in limited action and are traded or leave on big FA deals often are busts. I don't think comparing JG to a hypothetical QB drafted with #1 or #12 is a useful exercise.
If they wanted to absorb the cap cost, sure. But eating $5M around that time wasn't really an option and his salary was guaranteed.
Edit: and it's kind of the same situation. They weren't getting 1-1 for him and he had a limited market. If KC said we'll give you #33 and a 3/4, it's not anywhere outside the realm of possibility BB deemed the additional pick to be worth the cap space.