Trade him to an AFC team that maybe only needs a QB to seriously contend?Now that Romo is nomo, for what price would we actually consider trading Jimmy to Houston?
Trade him to an AFC team that maybe only needs a QB to seriously contend?Now that Romo is nomo, for what price would we actually consider trading Jimmy to Houston?
It's not like there won't be other contenders. Going to have to go through someone. My question was given this dynamic, what would our price be? For me, their #1 wouldn't be enough. But I don't think Belichick would worry too much about the potential scenarios that may not even materialized as long as he's getting a return he likes.Trade him to an AFC team that maybe only needs a QB to seriously contend?
I want no part of him going to Houston. I can live with a rebuilding effort in Cleveland and getting value back, but I don't want him going to Houston and making our lives a living hell as long as him, Clowney, JJ, and Nuke are upright.Now that Romo is nomo, for what price would we actually consider trading Jimmy to Houston?
No.I asked in the Butler thread but seems more appropriate here.
Assuming you could turn JG into picks that you then trade for Sherman, would you do it?
Sherman, Gilmore, Butler
Pray for a healthy Brady.
If this list is accurate, I really one see one Pro Day visit (Barnett) with a guy commonly thought to be in play at #12. If anything this list suggests to me that the Patriots aren't putting a lot of stock in that possibility.Turning it around a bit, the mock drafts are pointing to Cleveland being LOADED with young talent after this draft. They'll have a young and cheap team filled with high-upside guys everywhere, except for the one place where you most need someone special.
If I'm Cleveland, I'm thinking 12+ for real hope of moving up past Cincinnati and Baltimore isn't a bad deal at all. And if I'm BB, well, it depends on what he believes about Brady's current health and future plans, but based on this past season, I can see him pushing some chips into the future. Maybe a 2018 1 to give him the draft capital needed to grab a QB next year if he needs one, plus a 2 or 3 this year?
Depends on what the Browns are offering, right?Now that Romo is nomo, for what price would we actually consider trading Jimmy to Houston?
We'll see. They were 1-15 last year, 31st in points scored and 30th in points allowed. Young, yes, cheap, yes, high-upside, maybe, actually good? Probably not.Turning it around a bit, the mock drafts are pointing to Cleveland being LOADED with young talent after this draft. They'll have a young and cheap team filled with high-upside guys everywhere, except for the one place where you most need someone special.
I guess, but my point is not necessarily that those pass rushers will be available only at #12 overall, but that they won't be available at #72. Do you feel the same way, if that's the case?If this list is accurate, I really one see one Pro Day visit (Barnett) with a guy commonly thought to be in play at #12. If anything this list suggests to me that the Patriots aren't putting a lot of stock in that possibility.
Few, if any, teams waste visits on players available at 72. What the Patriots, and other late-drafting teams, are doing is getting a free look at players they might have to face in the next year. Heck, knowing the NE brain trust, they're probably identifying players who they might want to take a run at when their drafting teams fail to employ them properly. McClellin and Van Noy types, for exampleI guess, but my point is not necessarily that those pass rushers will be available only at #12 overall, but that they won't be available at #72. Do you feel the same way, if that's the case?
Earl Grey is in for his Pro Day visit next Tuesday, I believe....if there hasn't been even a decent trade rumor for many weeks, and if Mary Cabot has not posted even hypothetically for a couple weeks, then goddamit we'll create some of our own by reading tea leaves on who visits.
Earl Grey is in for his Pro Day visit next Tuesday, I believe.
There are several reasons to be leaking this, one being a signal to Garrett -- calm down young man; you are not in Canton yet.I'd have to assume this is either bullshit or a lame negotiation strategy while looking at trading for a qb.
Even the Browns aren't this stupid.
The entire back-and-forth is premised on the Browns having already sized Trubisky up as plausible a long-term answer. Otherwise, they'd never go there over someone like Garrett or pick your other top flight defensive prospect.wait, "small sample size with JG", but an incoming draftee with a sample size of exactly 0 in-game reps, exactly 0 offseasons and 0 preseasons, and maybe 1 pre-draft film session with your coaches, is a reason to take Trubisky?
I get the arguments for years-of-control and the cost thereof. That's totally legit. I'd argue the window-of-contention thing (having a good QB suddenly brings you into a contention window, is a signal to FAs, gives you a foundation, etc), but it's still a fair argument. But sample size is not.
Not only is his NFL sample size zero, he only made about 15 starts in his entire college career. He had 572 passing attempts in his college career at UNC. Jimmy G? Almost 1700. He completed almost twice as many passes (1047) as Trubisky had passing attempts.wait, "small sample size with JG", but an incoming draftee with a sample size of exactly 0 in-game reps, exactly 0 offseasons and 0 preseasons, and maybe 1 pre-draft film session with your coaches, is a reason to take Trubisky?
I get the arguments for years-of-control and the cost thereof. That's totally legit. I'd argue the window-of-contention thing (having a good QB suddenly brings you into a contention window, is a signal to FAs, gives you a foundation, etc), but it's still a fair argument. But sample size is not.
JG has played against professional football players, and acquitted himself well. Trubisky has not. The error bars are certainly smaller on JG. Trubisky's ceiling may be higher (I don't know), but he's way more likely to not be a viable NFL starter than JG is.The entire back-and-forth is premised on the Browns having already sized Trubisky up as plausible a long-term answer. Otherwise, they'd never go there over someone like Garrett or pick your other top flight defensive prospect.
Once that threshold is crossed, and you buy the comp. does JG come with much more certainty, and the likely answer is "no". JG is not Steve Young, or even close to Steve Young.
I'm not saying the threshold should be crossed. I'm more persuaded by the people who have been saying for months that none of these guys warrants a first-round grade. But it's not out of the question that the Browns have a different view.
That's not what the comment was in response to though - it was in response to JG having a "Small sample size".You are missing the point. If they decided the guy is, the guy they want, they will take actions based on the decision. For example I know a team that drafted a guy that never earned he starting job outright until his senior year and only completed 442 passes in college. Then that team, despite all the stats of the other guy had over tthe new QB, handed the kid the job,
Yeah, seriously.They are the Browns for a reason, but I'd think the new philosophy would not repeat mistakes of the past.
Good post. I would also add that scouting college QBs and predicting NFL success has gotten more difficult with the proliferation of spread offenses designed to simplify the game for college QBs from a mental standpoint. That is another warning flag with Trubisky. He has played almost exclusively from the shotgun in an offense designed to make his reads and decision making relatively simple. Good luck with that on the NFL level.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.
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.The only way this is true is if they think Trubisky is their guy AND someone else's guy in the 2-11 spot. The way everyone is rating this QB class, I can't believe you'd rate with him to any great degree over Watson/Mahomes/etc, but if they have, this is the only thing that makes sense. That they truly feel there is a large separation between Trubisky and the other QB's and they don't think they can get both Garrett and Trubisky.
So question becomes, what would you rather have if you select your own picks at 1, 12?
Trubisky + one of Foster, Humphrey, Barnett, Wilson, McKinley?
OR
Garrett + Watson/Mahomes?
They are the Browns for a reason, but I'd think the new philosophy would not repeat mistakes of the past.
At which point, Belichick laughs and asks for 33, the 2018 first and more.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.
Is this supposed to add or detract the credibility of the idea?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.
To each his own.Is this supposed to add or detract the credibility of the idea?
I'm not so sure. The Pats put a pretty high value on the 2nd round, and with #33, it allows BB a longer opportunity to leverage that pick for more assets. I thought it was an interesting theory but it hinges on who is left on the QB board come Friday.At which point, Belichick laughs and asks for 33, the 2018 first and more.
I know he came off a bit snarky, but I think it's a legit question. Does your friend have any actual sources or ties to anyone that would be able to provide said speculation? The fact he runs a fantasy website doesn't really mean much. Context matters, otherwise it's just noise.To each his own.
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.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.