2017 Jimmy G: The Dilemma

Do we keep JG as the successor?

  • Yes, Lifes unsure and Brady might actually be mortal and JG is showing too much promise

    Votes: 90 34.9%
  • We keep him for the life of his contract, If it works out it works out.

    Votes: 55 21.3%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 1" asset this off season

    Votes: 72 27.9%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 2" asset this off season

    Votes: 7 2.7%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 3" asset this off season

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 1+" asset this off season

    Votes: 27 10.5%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 2+" asset this off season

    Votes: 7 2.7%
  • Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 3+" asset this off season

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    258

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
Couldn't they just as easily move up from 33 to get Mahomes? If there is a QB run, probably just need to get ahead of the Texans.
Honestly they'd be better off just investing a couple of extra picks in Jimmy G or just tanking 2018 for a QB next year. Mahomes is a real long term prospect and I don't have a lot of faith in him being better than average.
 

shoosh77

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2009
4,374
New Canaan, CT
Honestly they'd be better off just investing a couple of extra picks in Jimmy G or just tanking 2018 for a QB next year. Mahomes is a real long term prospect and I don't have a lot of faith in him being better than average.
I'm not debating the merits of JG vs Mahomes, just that it seems if they want him, it would be easy enough to position themselves to get him.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I have a good friend who runs a Fantasy Football site and believes the Browns plan is to take Garrett at 1, BPA (non-QB) at 12, and Mahomes at 33. Their fallback plan, should someone scoop up Mahomes before the 2nd round, would be to trade #33 and their 2018 1st round pick to the Pats for Jimmy G on Friday morning/Thursday night.
I would think running through option A, B, and C, then calling the Pats in desperation for a deal would not be an ideal way to secure your QB of the future. I'm convinced Jimmy G is ours for the next decade. Don't have exactly how that is going to play out, but I think he stays a Pat.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Yeah, seriously.

If they draft Trubisky (who is about as risky as a first round prospect can be) high, then it's same shit, different day.

The simple fact is that guys who end up starting NFL quarterbacks are generally good enough to make it very clear they should be starting very early in college - the fact that Trubisky couldn't beat out a guy who didn't even get drafted is a huge knock on his talent level. (there are a handful of exceptions, but they're very rare).

Most of the studs are guys who start 35+ games at the college level, and still get drafted in the first round. Starting that many games means you were significantly better than anyone else on the team - and this was clear when you were an underclassman. It also means that scouts have plenty of film on you, and still think you're worth picking high, and it means that opponents had plenty of time to evaluate you.

Pretty much all of the huge draft busts (the Ryan Leafs and Jamarcus Russels) are guys who started 20-25 ish games and put up good numbers. Trubisky at 12 (let alone 1) is a landmine.
The one thing I've heard locally is that they felt that Trubisky was at least as good as Marquise Williams but that for recruiting reasons they didn't want to bump MW down to 2. MW is from a Charlotte public high school (where the enrollment is predominantly minority), which is a main recruiting ground for them, and they felt by giving the job to an outsider they would lose credibility with recruits and coaches in Charlotte that might steer kids their way. I'm not saying that is the reason, but I think it had something to do with it. But I completely agree with the body of work argument. For whatever reason, Trubisky didn't start but one year and has very limited film to review.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
The one thing I've heard locally is that they felt that Trubisky was at least as good as Marquise Williams but that for recruiting reasons they didn't want to bump MW down to 2. MW is from a Charlotte public high school (where the enrollment is predominantly minority), which is a main recruiting ground for them, and they felt by giving the job to an outsider they would lose credibility with recruits and coaches in Charlotte that might steer kids their way. I'm not saying that is the reason, but I think it had something to do with it. But I completely agree with the body of work argument. For whatever reason, Trubisky didn't start but one year and has very limited film to review.
This,btw, is the sort of high level thinking that led Lloyd Carr to play Drew Henson over Tom Brady.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
This,btw, is the sort of high level thinking that led Lloyd Carr to play Drew Henson over Tom Brady.
I believe Fedora has it in him. I heard him explain on the radio a few weeks ago. That could have cut both ways, maybe he did want to keep the good contacts with recruiting and this was truly a close race for QB1, so he settled it that way. Or maybe, MW was the clear QB1 and he's just trying to help out Mitch and make it sound like he would have had the job had the situation been reversed and he was from Charlotte.

Either way, I can't see him sitting Deshaun behind MW for 2 years.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I'm not debating the merits of JG vs Mahomes, just that it seems if they want him, it would be easy enough to position themselves to get him.
Yes, but dealing multiple picks for a guy whose upside is "average NFL QB" would be the Brownsian move, i.e. as stupid a move as you could imagine.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
The one thing I've heard locally is that they felt that Trubisky was at least as good as Marquise Williams but that for recruiting reasons they didn't want to bump MW down to 2. MW is from a Charlotte public high school (where the enrollment is predominantly minority), which is a main recruiting ground for them, and they felt by giving the job to an outsider they would lose credibility with recruits and coaches in Charlotte that might steer kids their way. I'm not saying that is the reason, but I think it had something to do with it. But I completely agree with the body of work argument. For whatever reason, Trubisky didn't start but one year and has very limited film to review.
Right, but "Atleast as good as the guy on his team who wasn't good enough to get drafted" is damning by faint praise.

The fact that he wasn't good enough to offset this little recruiting issue means he's probably not talented enough to be an nfl starter.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The simple fact is that guys who end up starting NFL quarterbacks are generally good enough to make it very clear they should be starting very early in college - the fact that Trubisky couldn't beat out a guy who didn't even get drafted is a huge knock on his talent level. (there are a handful of exceptions, but they're very rare).
Marquise Williams was not a good pro prospect, but he was a good college player. He was a four-star recruit out of high school and was effective in college. It's easy to say, "well, Watson would have beaten out Marquise Williams," but the reality is Watson didn't have to beat out Williams - he had to beat out Cole Stoudt, who sucked. And Stoudt started half a season before they turned to Watson. If Stoudt had played as well as Williams, would Watson have gotten on the field? If Williams had played as poorly as Stoudt, would Trubisky? We'll never know. I'm not inclined to hold it against Trubisky. How many college coaches are benching more experienced QBs who are playing well?

There's also the reality that a lot of guys in Trubisky's situation might have transferred. I don't know that I would give Trubisky bonus points for sticking it out, but I'm also not inclined to penalize him for doing so.

Most of the studs are guys who start 35+ games at the college level, and still get drafted in the first round. Starting that many games means you were significantly better than anyone else on the team - and this was clear when you were an underclassman. It also means that scouts have plenty of film on you, and still think you're worth picking high, and it means that opponents had plenty of time to evaluate you.

Pretty much all of the huge draft busts (the Ryan Leafs and Jamarcus Russels) are guys who started 20-25 ish games and put up good numbers. Trubisky at 12 (let alone 1) is a landmine.
I think this was probably more true 15-20 years ago and less true as the years go on and more players declare early. Aaron Rodgers was a JuCo transfer and two-year starter. Newton was a JuCo transfer and one-year starter. Jameis Winston was a redshirt sophomore. The four-year starters seem to be late bloomers or guys who go to poor programs or guys in the right place / right time. I'd rather have a Manning or a Luck but those guys don't grow on trees.

None of this is to say Trubisky's a better prospect than Watson - I defer to @mascho on QBs, and he has questions about Trubisky's processing speed, which is not ideal. But I think the "one-year starter" thing needs to be contextualized.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
The four-year starters seem to be late bloomers or guys who go to poor programs or guys in the right place / right time. I'd rather have a Manning or a Luck but those guys don't grow on trees..
Typically, the more college starts the guys have, the more likely the scouts are correct about their evaluation - when you have a guy like Matt Ryan who started 35+ games in college, the error bars are relatively small. If the scouts say he's top of the first round, he's probably going to be able to start at the NFL level - if the scouts say he's a 3rd or 4th round pick, he's probably not going to be able to.

The problem with Trubisky is that they have almost no data on him - which means he's super risky, so unless his ceiling is ridiculously high, you shouldn't be thinking about him that early. The fact that he has very little data because he couldn't beat out a guy who wasn't a pro prospect is a definite knock - this isn't Matt Leinart who was sitting behind Carson Palmer.

Manning was a 4 year starter, and Luck started 38 games.

Winston started 27 games, and was redshirted as a freshman behind EJ Manuel, who was drafted in the first round. Being blocked by a senior who gets drafted in the first round isn't remotely comparable to being blocked by a guy who doesn't get drafted.

Rodgers started 25 games at Cal, was the starter the second he showed up at juco, and the starter the second CAL grabbed him. Rodgers ended up at a juco because he didn't look the part (he was 5'10 as a highschool senior)

Newton is probably the closest - but he's not actually close because the reason for the low starts was never talent. As a freshman at Florida, he was blocked by a senior who was drafted in the first round(tebow), then got arrested, and transferred to juco because he was going to get expelled. He was the starter immediately there, played a year, and then was the starter immediately at Auburn.

I can't come up with any positive comparables that weren't good enough to start until their senior year, and then got drafted high and became NFL starters.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Here's another wacky trade idea out there by CBS' Will Brinson. A 3-way trade involving the Patriots, Browns, and Seahawks.

Browns get: Jimmy Garoppolo
Patriots get: Richard Sherman and #33 pick
Seahawks get: #12 pick and a conditional 2018 4th

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-mock-draft-garoppolo-to-browns-sherman-to-patriots-in-wild-three-way-trade/?ftag=SPM-05-10abb2i&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=58ef7e8604d3010a3b17fe9d&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Here's another wacky trade idea out there by CBS' Will Brinson. A 3-way trade involving the Patriots, Browns, and Seahawks.

Browns get: Jimmy Garoppolo
Patriots get: Richard Sherman and #33 pick
Seahawks get: #12 pick and a conditional 2018 4th

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-mock-draft-garoppolo-to-browns-sherman-to-patriots-in-wild-three-way-trade/?ftag=SPM-05-10abb2i&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=58ef7e8604d3010a3b17fe9d&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
Ha that is wacky. Then you trade Butler for 32 and 33. Ha.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Pats would just keep 12, 33 and conditional 4th.
Not going to give all that for Sherman

And don't see Cleveland giving all that for Garappolo.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
Assuming that part of the reluctance to trade Garoppolo is due in part to the Patriots reluctance to go into a season with Brisset as their #2 QB, what are some alternatives in a scenario where they do trade Garoppolo?

For example, I know that AJ McCarron has been discussed as a possible trade target for the Browns. McCarron is still on his rookie contract which appears to be something the Patriots value in their backup QBs.

1) Would McCarron interest the Patriots if the Patriots didn't have Garoppolo?
2) So, in terms of a three way trade, would a Browns/Patriots/Bengals trade make sense and if so, what would be a fair trade for all parties?
  • Browns give a 1st, 2nd and future 2nd. Browns get Jimmy.
  • Bengals give McCarron. Bengals get Browns 2nd round pick.
  • Patriots give Garoppolo. Patriots get a 1st and a future 2nd.
3) Are there other back up QBs who are playing on a cheap contract but who may be better than Brissett for a one or two year contingency plan?
4) Are there other veteran back up QBs that might interest the Patriots as a stop-gap solution if they were to trade Garappolo?

I know that this is mainly just a mental exercise and discussion for the sake of discussion.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Pats would just keep 12, 33 and conditional 4th.
Not going to give all that for Sherman

And don't see Cleveland giving all that for Garappolo.
I think Sherman is a great player, but he's due a bunch of money and wants a new contract (for even more) - I don't think he's hugely valuable at the moment - so I'm with you here. (especially when they just signed a good CB for 'just money' and have another good CB that they can lock up for 'just money'). Draftpicks and money seems unnecessary here.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Typically, the more college starts the guys have, the more likely the scouts are correct about their evaluation - when you have a guy like Matt Ryan who started 35+ games in college, the error bars are relatively small. If the scouts say he's top of the first round, he's probably going to be able to start at the NFL level - if the scouts say he's a 3rd or 4th round pick, he's probably not going to be able to.

The problem with Trubisky is that they have almost no data on him - which means he's super risky, so unless his ceiling is ridiculously high, you shouldn't be thinking about him that early.
You're being a little hyperbolic. They don't have "almost no data" on Trubisky - they have significantly less, but he still had 572 pass attempts, which is a real sample. Of course you'd rather have twice that many, but teams use high picks on one-year starters all the time at other positions.

The fact that he has very little data because he couldn't beat out a guy who wasn't a pro prospect is a definite knock - this isn't Matt Leinart who was sitting behind Carson Palmer.
I think you're thinking of Mark Sanchez sitting behind Leinart (which doesn't detract from your point). This doesn't bother me because a) Fedora might have been wrong, b) Fedora isn't paid to play the best pro prospect, c) Williams was an effective college QB and more experienced in the system than Trubisky.

Rodgers started 25 games at Cal, was the starter the second he showed up at juco, and the starter the second CAL grabbed him. Rodgers ended up at a juco because he didn't look the part (he was 5'10 as a highschool senior)
FWIW, Rodgers didn't start until his fifth game at Cal.

I can't come up with any positive comparables that weren't good enough to start until their senior year, and then got drafted high and became NFL starters.
Two that come to mind - Joe Flacco, who got beat out for the Pitt job by Tyler Palko and had to transfer to D2 and sit out a year, and Carson Wentz, who sat behind Brock Jensen for three years before getting the starting gig. Sitting for two or three years isn't unusual. Even Matt Ryan didn't become a full-time starter until his redshirt junior year (he started seven total games in his first three seasons), sitting behind Quinton Porter and Paul Peterson (both undrafted). The difference is Flacco, Wentz, and Ryan all came back for their senior seasons instead of declaring early. Trubisky decided to leave. Given that all the other top QBs this year are early entrants and Wentz is the only senior first-rounder in the prior three seasons, that's not surprising.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Flacco started 26 games. Wentz started 40+. Ryan started 35+

Trubisky started 13.

The fact that Trubisky has decided not to play his senior year isn't a good thing - it means the scouts have less data on him. It's means there's a significant chance that if he had played his senior year, they'd no longer be saying he's a first round pick (and there are plenty of examples of players who were expected to enter the draft, didn't, and got drafted the next year at a lower slot than expected).

Nobody ever played against Trubisky with significant film of him. Teams didn't play him a second time. Trubisky is in largely uncharted territory as far as first round picks go.

That doesn't mean he's going to be a bad quarterback - it means he's risky as all hell, and the chances of him panning out are very low.

He's the riskiest prospect in a weak quarterback class - in a typical year he's a 2nd/3rd round pick because of the risk alone. The only reason he's coming out this year is because it's a weak class. The Browns drafting him at 1 or 12 is a hugely Brownsy thing to do.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
You seem to have a lot of certainty about something very uncertain. I don't think the Browns take him at 1 for reasons already explained. And Trubisky may not get to 12. There are the Jets (annually) and the Saints are at 11 (New Orleans might be a really good place for him, if they are so inclined). Then there is the real prospect of some other team trading into the top 10.

Much of the focus is on draft risk, but there is risk everywhere. In JG's case, there is performance and money risk (if there is no contract extension, you're getting nothing of real value for him). And there are guys in the history of the League with larger and more impressive sample sizes who hugely disappointed after teams went out and got them based on one good season.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
You seem to have a lot of certainty about something very uncertain. I don't think the Browns take him at 1 for reasons already explained. And Trubisky may not get to 12. There are the Jets (annually) and the Saints are at 11 (New Orleans might be a really good place for him, if they are so inclined). Then there is the real prospect of some other team trading into the top 10.

Much of the focus is on draft risk, but there is risk everywhere. In JG's case, there is performance and money risk (if there is no contract extension, you're getting nothing of real value for him). And there are guys in the history of the League with larger and more impressive sample sizes who hugely disappointed if teams went out and got them.
I disagree about the money risk with JG. If you trade for him you specifically don't sign him so that you see what you have. If he doesn't pan out, yes it costs you a first round pick, but that is no different than if say Trubisky fails. And if he plays great, you happily sign him to a big long term deal, or franchise him. I get that Cousins kind of has Washington in a tough spot but if you are a team like the Browns I think you'd be THRILLED to have a QB worthy of paying the franchise tag to. Plus they have so many young players it's not like they are in a bad cap situation.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I disagree about the money risk with JG. If you trade for him you specifically don't sign him so that you see what you have. If he doesn't pan out, yes it costs you a first round pick, but that is no different than if say Trubisky fails. And if he plays great, you happily sign him to a big long term deal, or franchise him. I get that Cousins kind of has Washington in a tough spot but if you are a team like the Browns I think you'd be THRILLED to have a QB worthy of paying the franchise tag to. Plus they have so many young players it's not like they are in a bad cap situation.
You would not pull the plug on a rookie QB after one year absent behavior that would make Ryan Leaf blush, so it's not a good comp.

And if he plays great, you are running the very real risk of (a) losing him ("sorry, you are the Browns") or (b) channeling that Kirk Cousins' experience.

EDIT. It's likely academic because the #12 appears to be nowhere near enough (if JG is available at all), and you'd have to be truly brain dead to deal the #12 plus _ for a one-year rental who, if he plays great, you may have to franchise.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Brain dead? Really? It is the most important position in sports. If they were to offer 12 + 33, and JG is indeed a very good QB, I think both sides would be happy, even if the Browns would have to franchise him at $25M+ in 2018. YMMV.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
This game is fun; my dark horse is San Francisco. This is what they have this year:

1. First round: Own - No. 2
2. Second round: Own - No. 2 (34 overall)
3. Third round: Own - No. 2 (66 overall)
4. Fourth round: Own - No. 2 (109 overall)
5. Fourth round: Comp pick - No. 37 (143 overall)
6. Fifth round: Own - No. 2 (146 overall)
7. Fifth round: Washington (Derek Carrier trade) - No. 17 (161 overall)
8. Sixth round: Own - No. 2 (186 overall)
9. Sixth round: Denver Broncos (Vernon Davis trade) - No. 18 (202 overall)
10. Seventh round: Cleveland Browns (Andy Lee trade) - No. 1 (219 overall)
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
You would not pull the plug on a rookie QB after one year absent behavior that would make Ryan Leaf blush, so it's not a good comp.

And if he plays great, you are running the very real risk of (a) losing him ("sorry, you are the Browns") or (b) channeling that Kirk Cousins' experience.

EDIT. It's likely academic because the #12 appears to be nowhere near enough (if JG is available at all), and you'd have to be truly brain dead to deal the #12 plus _ for a one-year rental who, if he plays great, you may have to franchise.
And comparing the Cousins situation to any other is not a good comp but you continue to do it. I know you are basking in it's craptitude because you're in the area and loathe the Redskins and Snyder (I lived there a long time and agree with that and share it), but it's not a normal situation and not one you can draw parallels to with any other dynamic, real, imagined or hypothesized.

The Cousins situation was created by the particulars - the owner, the roster situation with RGIII, the animosity that bred, the ineptitude of the organization, the low balling, the personal choice Cousins made to roll the dice on himself, etc.

It was a perfect storm that isn't likely to replicated again and it's not really an informative occurrence, except in how not to treat your players. Could* it happen again? Sure. But that possibility isn't something that should prevent a team from making a trade for JG, with the intent of letting him play a year and then giving him a big deal if he performs.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I agree it's unlikely to happen in this case -- because even Cleveland, and maybe especially Cleveland --is not going to give you the 12th pick in the draft -- and then some -- for a guy unwilling to agree to an extension, who can hit you for $20MM+ for the privilege of keeping him one more year.

Cleveland is stacked. They just need to execute well on their picks and not screw it up. Paying through the nose for one-year rentals, when they get you nowhere near the playoffs in 2017 -- is screwing it up.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
But it's not a 1 year rental. It is a 1 year trial period with the ability to franchise him or lock him up. They are spending so little on their roster that even franchising him back to back years wouldn't kill them. And if he plays well in 2017 and they offer him a fair deal, I would think he would accept it.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Hue Jackson, smartly, seems to be distancing himself from any *Brownsy thing to do* with #1:

“When you draft a guy as the No. 1 pick in the National Football League, you want him to be a very dominant player, you want him to be a cornerstone player, you want him to be a generational player. That’s got to be the focus as we continue to move forward.”
Cabot is the go-to mouthpiece in this musical. Preemptive strike against *it was an organizational decision* should they soil themselves in 13 days.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/04/14/report-hue-jackson-prefers-myles-garrett-to-a-quarterback/
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,518
Maine
If Browns get JG for 2017 and then Franchise him for 2018, then by default he had a really good/promising season (in context) in 2017. If thats the case and 2018 is also very good for JG and thenby extension the Browns "Being Brownsie" will be a thing in past. They will be 2 years into an upward trajectory with really good young players on Offense (that JG will have 2 years of experience with) and on Defense. It will no longer be a destination for has beens and never will be's.
Mix in the hero/god worship a competent "Star" at a premier position would garner in Cleveland after all these years, and I dont think we could equate JG wanting to resign with them 2 years from now compared with signing with them LT TODAY.

Look at Oakland. Years lost in the forest. Carr (and Mack, who both parallel nicely with JG and Garret) comes along and now its a destination and one of the most promising young teams in the league . Hell Marshawn Lynch "wants to sign there".

Basically if JG is good, then the Browns will happily pay him and the situation (to JG and by extension the Browns) will actually look pretty promising. JG would be crazy to sign somewhere else if he has had success in Cleveland. He would have experience in the system and with the players and coaches. He would be the leader of the team. He would be a regional (or at least local) hero. What team in 2 years would be better? Oakland/LV? They have Carr. Houston? Not if JJ Watt cant stay healthy and or the defense slips. Denver? Maybe but are they really waiting/fumbling around 2 years to get their next QB? I guess NE might be the best possibility if Mcdaniels is still here (and the coach??), assuming JG has a really tight relationship with him and Brady is gone. But then he may harbor some ill will that they traded him back in '17.

Basically even if you dont agree with my last paragraph probably because of the "guessing where a team will be in 2 years is a fools errand" argument. Your probably right. Which is why In 2 years with a successful JG the Browns could have a totally different appeal to players.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,867
San Andreas Fault
Is Kaepernick a possibility if you trade Garoppolo?
I can't imagine two more diametrically opposed people than Bill Belichick and Colin Kaepernick. The kneeling during the anthem alone...Belichick is a well documented patriotic guy with his connection to the Naval Academy (his father). Next, I'm not sure if Kap is thick headed or just dumb but either way, what coach wants him with his poor play of several years now. The only thing I can think of is that BB might think he could get out of Kap what Jim Harbaugh did for a while. You never know what Belichick might do but I'd be shocked if he brought in Kaepernick.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
Remember, the President mocked Kaepernick out of the blue in a recent speech after sharing a plane ride with Mr. We Are All Patriots. Even if Belichick wanted to take a shot on him, the owner might well veto it
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
I can't imagine two more diametrically opposed people than Bill Belichick and Colin Kaepernick. The kneeling during the anthem alone...Belichick is a well documented patriotic guy with his connection to the Naval Academy (his father). Next, I'm not sure if Kap is thick headed or just dumb but either way, what coach wants him with his poor play of several years now. The only thing I can think of is that BB might think he could get out of Kap what Jim Harbaugh did for a while. You never know what Belichick might do but I'd be shocked if he brought in Kaepernick.
Belichick is smart enough to know that protest isn't unpatriotic.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Agree 100%. But is he smart enough to stay away despite Jaws anointing Kaep as potentially the greatest QB of all time?
Absolutely - Kaepernick is a terrible fit for them - but not because he kneeled on the field. If he was still 25, he might be interesting as a project, but at 29, he's too different from what they expect of a QB to try to fit.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,518
Maine
Well Mike, when you become the Washington Football Clubs GM I believe they might be looking for a QB as well.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
There will be no Jimmy Garoppolo miracle in Cleveland come draft weekend, as Browns vice president Sashi Brown said Wednesday he has no plans to trade for a veteran quarterback.
"Could we? In theory? Yes," Brown said Wednesday at the team's pre-draft news conference. "But are we planning on it or is that the plan? No."
Brown was even asked if he had the Patriots on speed dial.
"We do not," he said.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19193780/cleveland-browns-vp-sashi-brown-says-no-plans-trade-veteran-qb
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,094
It still feels like there's a deal to be made for a 2017 2nd, a 2018 1st and a conditional 2018 or 2019, but I've come around to being happy to have Jimmy G back in the fold for 2017. Looking forward to February!
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
It feels like no smoke = no fire.

Pats are all about stealth and discipline -- when they are trying to get someone. When you're trying to sell someone, it's an entirely different matter. You are out there chumming, building the market.

We're also hearing zippo from would be buyers. Instead, we're hearing from Rap tonight that a QB competition may be brewing tonight -- but in the draft, with Cleveland wary of Buffalo at #10 and maybe looking to jump them using their #12 plus more draft capital. For Trubisky.

We may think that's stupid, but it may be reflective of the Pats telling people, weeks ago, that JG is not gettable for anything short of a ransom -- or maybe not available period.
 

Pxer

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,701
Maine
Have any other (non-Pats) officials been cited as saying there is indication Jimmy G is not available? If so, I'd tend to weight those reports more highly.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Have any other (non-Pats) officials been cited as saying there is indication Jimmy G is not available? If so, I'd tend to weight those reports more highly.
I have not seen such reports, but if you're an interested team why would you say that? It would be flagging your position that you're not content to stand pat. That could be counterproductive -- as it is, we've had several separately sourced reports the last day that Cleveland, Jax and others are nervously eying each other out of fear that there will be an early QB run and that their preferred guy may not be there -- Trubisky at 12, in Cleveland's case.

Part of me wishes it were otherwise. It's going to be boring, especially Thursday night, if all the QBs who could be moved stay put. But that's the way it seems to be shaping up.

The wild card in this may be Snyder in Washington. He's an infant capable of almost anything. But even that strikes me as a long shot.

In any case, we're within one week, so everything from here out is probably a lie unless and until it happens.

Edit. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/04/20/browns-could-trade-up-from-no-12-to-draft-mitchell-trubisky/

It's going to be interesting to see whether Cleveland stays true to its statement yesterday that it's not in the business of turning more picks into fewer. They are stacked the next two years and probably right that everyone misses, so you're better off with more picks. Of course, you're also much better off with a QB.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
It would be sort of hilarious to see the Browns pay more for a QB whose upside is "could be the next Jimmy G" than they would for the developed version. I mean, sad and tragic for the long-suffering Cleveland fans, of course. But hilarious for the rest of us,
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
That's assuming JG is available at anything approaching an acceptable cost. I think that's a pretty big assumption. I'll be interested to see any post-draft reporting on this.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
whose upside is "could be the next Jimmy G"
What does that even mean?
We don't know his upside yet or how likely he is to reach it.

No NFL GM or personnel guy is going to comment on Garappolo but I'd guess there are plenty that like some of the QBs in the draft more than him.
Garopollo is a late 2nd round pick who played well for 6 quarters.
No one is looking for the next Jimmy G.

They are projecting upside and likelihood of reaching it. Factoring in cost.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
There will be no Jimmy Garoppolo miracle in Cleveland come draft weekend, as Browns vice president Sashi Brown said Wednesday he has no plans to trade for a veteran quarterback.
"Could we? In theory? Yes," Brown said Wednesday at the team's pre-draft news conference. "But are we planning on it or is that the plan? No."
Brown was even asked if he had the Patriots on speed dial.
"We do not," he said.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19193780/cleveland-browns-vp-sashi-brown-says-no-plans-trade-veteran-qb

This is a standard non-denial denial or whatever you call it.

"Are we planning on it?"

"Plans changed."
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
What does that even mean?
We don't know his upside yet or how likely he is to reach it.

No NFL GM or personnel guy is going to comment on Garappolo but I'd guess there are plenty that like some of the QBs in the draft more than him.
Garopollo is a late 2nd round pick who played well for 6 quarters.
No one is looking for the next Jimmy G.

They are projecting upside and likelihood of reaching it. Factoring in cost.
Look back a page or so in the thread for some more observations about Trubisky's pro prospects (and he does get Garappolo comps). They're not good. And he's likely going to be the first QB drafted, so either the Browns are going to have to settle for someone not even as good as Trubisky, or hand over a giant haul to vault to the top of the draft, because the teams picking in the top 10 in desperate need of a QB starts with the 49ers at #2.

New York, Chicago, and Buffalo also need a QB. And Jacksonville might be thinking that the time has come to move on from Bortles. So, yes, spending less on a player that has shown the ability to perform at the NFL level is considerably less risky than spending a lot more for a guy that was unable to beat out a QB that wasn't good enough to be drafted by an NFL team. But it's definitely the Brownsy thing to do to send #12, a future first, and a couple of seconds to the 49ers for #2 to be assured of landing a guy that gets comped to Jimmy Garoppolo.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Following up on a recent post, this is what I think you do if you want to move a player, as the draft approaches: we're open for business.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/04/21/john-schneider-says-odds-arent-very-good-for-richard-sherman-trade/

To be sure, the Sherman situation differs from JG in that Sherman reportedly has asked for a trade, and they want to placate him if it doesn't materialize, and one way of doing that is to demonstrate, *we tried.* Not so JG.

I think it's also different in that the draft is supposed to be chock full of corners genuinely worthy of early selection. That's why good return on Sherman, or Butler, is going to be tough. Not so at QB, even though the teams probably will stampeded to draft QBs earlier than they should be.

Christmas Eve is approaching and those nicely wrapped presents are dazzling, even though most of them are not nearly as good as the toys already in the closet.