2017 Jimmy G: The Dilemma

nothumb · Feb 2, 2017

dcmissle said:
I don't know that it much matters from the Pats' perspective.

If they are open to trading JG at all, they'll have a price point, and, sure, an active bidding market would help them once that threshhold is reached.

But the main thing here is risk aversion. If you're without an above-average QB for 10 years, you're MF'ed for 10 years -- at least by comparison to the last 16 years.

And it's tough. How long can Brady play at this level? Is JG a worthy successor? Brissett?

Five years ago, it's pretty easy. What can I get for JG? How does that compare to a 3rd round compensatory pick next spring? What's the value of having JG as insurance for a year?

Now it's more complicated.

I agree there's a bit of a wrinkle here, but the non-trade or backup options are pretty marginal. So long as you still think Brady wants to play beyond 2017, you really have to deal Jimmy this offseason.

If you're worried about Brissett as a backup for a few games max, you can bring in a veteran. The only scenario where keeping Jimmy is likely to outweigh his projected trade value is if Brady either suffers a career ending injury in 2017, or makes a surprise decision to retire (prompting you to keep JG and extend him).

I don't think the risk of TB hanging them up early or getting Theismann'd is that high. It can happen, but my guess is the Pats think there's a 90% chance or better that TB is their starter in 2018. If that number were like, I dunno, 50%, then it becomes a real dilemma. And there is still real risk in letting JG go no matter what, I don't mean to minimize that. But I think the number one issue is where you think Tom will be in 2018, and so long as the answer is "here," you've gotta get what you can for Jimmy.

bankshot1 · Feb 2, 2017

gammoseditor said:
There are more rumors from teams outside the AFC East but they did trade Bledsoe to the Bills. I don't see how trading Jimmy G would be any different if they got the right offer.

Bledsoe was towards the end of his career, and a known commodity to BB, and he was all in on Brady as it related to the Pats future..

JG is closer to the start of his career, and the Pats have no clear successor to Brady as they did to Bledsoe.

IMO the risk/reward of the two situations are very different.

If a trade is is in the future, I'd prefer it to be out of division, and then out of conference.

Hoodie Sleeves · Feb 2, 2017

The problem with this whole question is that the Patriots are, in my mind, fundamentally different than the rest of the NFL.

If Bill Belichick were to come out tomorrow and state that he could put together a top 5 NFL offense with any of Matt Cassel, Brian Hoyer, Matt Gutierez, Garoppolo, etc, I'd have no reason to doubt him. He's shown (Cassel, Hoyer, Garoppalo) that he can get pretty damn good performance out of assets that other teams can't.

Normally, I'd say a team trading a backup quarterback who has looked good when they have a 40 year old starter is an implicit declaration that they don't think the backup is franchise quarterback material.

Simply put, there's almost no price high enough to pay for a 25 year old franchise quarterback who you've been able to watch every day and assure yourself that your evaluation is correct. RG3 went for 3 1sts and a 2nd - what do you think the cost would have been if the team had 3 years of NFL practices to firm up their evaluations (and they still had the same opinion of him)?

I'd also be very surprised if the Patriots think Brady is the 2018 starter right now - it's just too far off for a 40+ year old player (even if that player is Brady). Guys his age tend not to heal quickly, and little things tend to blow up their game. Yes, the sample is small, but theres a reason the sample is small.

So I'd view a JG trade as confirmation of one of a couple of things:
1. They don't think JG is the guy.
2. They don't think filling the QB position is as hard as everyone else seems to.
3. They think Brisset has enough potential that if Brady craters, they'll be ok for a bit.

If he's not traded this offseason, I'd expect to see him extended this year at medium money, and expect him to be starting in '18.

pappymojo · Feb 2, 2017

nothumb said:
I agree there's a bit of a wrinkle here, but the non-trade or backup options are pretty marginal. So long as you still think Brady wants to play beyond 2017, you really have to deal Jimmy this offseason.

If you're worried about Brissett as a backup for a few games max, you can bring in a veteran. The only scenario where keeping Jimmy is likely to outweigh his projected trade value is if Brady either suffers a career ending injury in 2017, or makes a surprise decision to retire (prompting you to keep JG and extend him).

I don't think the risk of TB hanging them up early or getting Theismann'd is that high. It can happen, but my guess is the Pats think there's a 90% chance or better that TB is their starter in 2018. If that number were like, I dunno, 50%, then it becomes a real dilemma. And there is still real risk in letting JG go no matter what, I don't mean to minimize that. But I think the number one issue is where you think Tom will be in 2018, and so long as the answer is "here," you've gotta get what you can for Jimmy.

Small quibble, but when is the last time the Patriots paid a veteran salary for back up QB? Just too expensive.

Cousin Walter01 · Feb 2, 2017

pappymojo said:
Small quibble, but when is the last time the Patriots paid a veteran salary for back up QB? Just too expensive.

Vinny Testaverde in '06
Doug Flute in '05
Jim Miller in '04

Papelbon's Poutine · Feb 2, 2017

Hoodie Sleeves said:
The problem with this whole question is that the Patriots are, in my mind, fundamentally different than the rest of the NFL.

If Bill Belichick were to come out tomorrow and state that he could put together a top 5 NFL offense with any of Matt Cassel, Brian Hoyer, Matt Gutierez, Garoppolo, etc, I'd have no reason to doubt him. He's shown (Cassel, Hoyer, Garoppalo) that he can get pretty damn good performance out of assets that other teams can't.

Normally, I'd say a team trading a backup quarterback who has looked good when they have a 40 year old starter is an implicit declaration that they don't think the backup is franchise quarterback material.

Simply put, there's almost no price high enough to pay for a 25 year old franchise quarterback who you've been able to watch every day and assure yourself that your evaluation is correct. RG3 went for 3 1sts and a 2nd - what do you think the cost would have been if the team had 3 years of NFL practices to firm up their evaluations (and they still had the same opinion of him)?

I'd also be very surprised if the Patriots think Brady is the 2018 starter right now - it's just too far off for a 40+ year old player (even if that player is Brady). Guys his age tend not to heal quickly, and little things tend to blow up their game. Yes, the sample is small, but theres a reason the sample is small.

So I'd view a JG trade as confirmation of one of a couple of things:
1. They don't think JG is the guy.
2. They don't think filling the QB position is as hard as everyone else seems to.
3. They think Brisset has enough potential that if Brady craters, they'll be ok for a bit.

If he's not traded this offseason, I'd expect to see him extended this year at medium money, and expect him to be starting in '18.

If Jimmy extends for medium money, Yee should be stripped of his certification. The only way he's here past next season is with a franchise tag or if Brady blows up next season.

nothumb · Feb 2, 2017

pappymojo said:
Small quibble, but when is the last time the Patriots paid a veteran salary for back up QB? Just too expensive.

I agree, and I doubt they would. More just pointing out that, if that's your main concern, a few million for a one year deal costs a lot less than the value of multiple high round picks. (Or, to be even more precise, less than the value gap between multiple high round picks and whatever comp pick they might get if Jimmy walks).

I think the Pats drafting Jacoby where they did was a pretty clear signal that, for whatever reason (Brady's plans, Jimmy's ability, relative value on trade market) they don't expect to hang on to him. Given their expertise in knowing when to let go of an asset, I'm going to assume they've balanced the costs and benefits appropriately and hope for the best.

And the funny part is that he probably isn't nearly as valuable if Tom hadn't been suspended. That extended prep to start is an unusual luxury for a backup.

chief1 · Feb 2, 2017

tims4wins said:
Good point, a 2nd or 3rd in 2017 plus a first in 2018 would be a decent package

Don't you think that if the Pats do trade him they will want a player in return who would contribute immediately? Not saying a player so much as a first round pick that is a plug and play guy. The above scenario seems to me as it would be trading Jimmy for a future asset. Second round picks are more crap shoots. I give you Cy Jones as a case in point. I believe the Pats thought, at the very least, he would be a ST contributor this year. Hasn't worked out, which is typical of second rounders much more than firsts.

nothumb · Feb 2, 2017

chief1 said:
Don't you think that if the Pats do trade him they will want a player in return who would contribute immediately? Not saying a player so much as a first round pick that is a plug and play guy. The above scenario seems to me as it would be trading Jimmy for a future asset. Second round picks are more crap shoots. I give you Cy Jones as a case in point. I believe the Pats thought, at the very least, he would be a ST contributor this year. Hasn't worked out, which is typical of second rounders much more than firsts.

Jimmy is not projected to play much on 2017. The Pats have a pretty young roster and BB has been probably more willing than almost any other coach / GM to accept future value in exchange for current assets if he sees a good deal. In other words, what the hell would make you think the Pats WOULDN'T be happy to take some future value for JG, perhaps even more so than a typical position player?

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Feb 2, 2017

E5 Yaz said:
A first-rounder could always be in 2018, when the Bears or Niners might believe their pick won't be as high as it is today

I think this kind of package is a strong possibility. BB has often tried to increase his draft stock value by trading into later years and taking advantage of the short time horizons of other teams (ie, trading a 2011 first to the Saints for a 2011 2nd and 2012 first, I still can't believe the Saints did that). The Bears' Fox/Pace tandem in particular has every incentive in the world to trade future value for a current solution at the QB position. If the team doesn't markedly improve this year, they're getting fired. And the best way to markedly improve this year is to acquire a QB like Garoppolo that can start from Day1 and to keep their highest draft picks. And if Jimmy sucks and the deal turns bad, the lack of a 2018 1st won't be their problem because they won't be around anymore.

I'm not sure who says no to a deal of Jimmy to Chicago for a 2018 1st and a 2017 4th.

dcmissle · Feb 2, 2017

That would be the market equivalent of a 2017 2nd and a 2017 4th. And if the Bears find a 8 to 10-year answer at QB for that price, that is the trade of this century.

snowmanny · Feb 2, 2017

Yeah I'd say no. Here is the thing about Jimmy G: he's very good and the Patriots project to be Super Bowl contenders next year even if 40 year old Tom Brady gets hurt - as long as JG is still there. So even a 2017 2nd and a 2018 1st gives me pause, but I guess you take it from a team that might suck (i.e. the Bears but not the Texans).

bankshot1 · Feb 2, 2017

dcmissle said:
That would be the market equivalent of a 2017 2nd and a 2017 4th. And if the Bears find a 8 to 10-year answer at QB for that price, that is the trade of this century.

Assuming the '17 2nd round and 4th round scenario, at the Bears draft position, that would equal 654 value points, or about the value of the 28th or 29th pick in the first round. It would be a steal for a 8-10 year starting QB.

Red Averages · Feb 2, 2017

Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
I'm not sure who says no to a deal of Jimmy to Chicago for a 2018 1st and a 2017 4th.

]

The Pats if Cleveland is offering #12 and another pick... Hence the leverage implied with 4+ teams needing a QB and no solution available outside of a team having a backup on a good contract that could hang onto him if said offer never appears. The more this is playing out the more we could get surprised to the upside at an offer. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a Bears/49ers swap with NE 1st plus a first/2nd in 18 or #12 and a 3rd from Clev. At this point it's just figuring out who will blink first. Given the leverage I highly doubt it'll be NE.

As mentioned upthread this is why the pick of Brissett was so important. They used a 3rd rounder on a #3 QB and carried him all year. That should say something about how they view Jacoby. We've also seen quotes throughout the year that he stays for extra work (most recently with Floyd to help him get acclimated). As we know BB thrives on this type of extra commitment and leadership.

In the end, when the 30 for 30 is made on deflategate it'll be remembered for getting the Pats more than a 1st and 4th and for helping Brady get some extra rest/motivation for the team on another super bowl run (hopefully win).

Reggie's Racquet · Feb 2, 2017

You know I'm not entirely convinced that Brady won't retire sooner than he says. I mean he has a beautiful wife that out earns him, wonderful kids, all the money he will ever need and his health. His parents health might also be a factor. If he wins on Sunday what does he have left to prove? This is why you keep Jimmy. IMO.

heavyde050 · Feb 2, 2017

bankshot1 said:
Assuming the '17 2nd round and 4th round scenario, at the Bears draft position, that would equal 654 value points, or about the value of the 28th or 29th pick in the first round. It would be a steal for a 8-10 year starting QB.

What are we using as a definition for a 8-10 year starting QB?

Pro Bowl, All-Pro, or Playoffs? Just want to know what the baseline is.

There are a lot of bad starting QBs out there so clarification may help.

simplyeric · Feb 2, 2017

Reggie's Racquet said:
You know I'm not entirely convinced that Brady won't retire sooner than he says. I mean he has a beautiful wife that out earns him, wonderful kids, all the money he will ever need and his health. His parents health might also be a factor. If he wins on Sunday what does he have left to prove? This is why you keep Jimmy. IMO.

I wonder if Tom and Bill ever discuss that.

Mugsy's Jock · Feb 2, 2017

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see acquiring Jimmy G as the same as getting an 8-10 year QB. It's one year of control, and then he'll be a free agent and (unless franchised, which ain't cheap) could elect to go wherever he pleases. Even, say, back to New England to be reunited with Coach McDaniels when Brady and Belichick sail off into the sunset after winning SB LII.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Feb 2, 2017

dcmissle said:
That would be the market equivalent of a 2017 2nd and a 2017 4th. And if the Bears find a 8 to 10-year answer at QB for that price, that is the trade of this century.

Absolutely. But JG is far from guaranteed to be an 8-10 year starter. At the other extreme, if he bombs or gets hurt and then fades away then the Bears end up giving us a top five pick for the next Matt Flynn, which is also the trade of the century.

It's going to be fascinating to watch. I really have no idea what is going to happen.

DJnVa · Feb 2, 2017

Reggie's Racquet said:
You know I'm not entirely convinced that Brady won't retire sooner than he says. I mean he has a beautiful wife that out earns him, wonderful kids, all the money he will ever need and his health. His parents health might also be a factor. If he wins on Sunday what does he have left to prove? This is why you keep Jimmy. IMO.

Well, if a win on Sunday is what convinces him to leave, then I'm pretty sure we'll still have JG on the roster.

After all the things Brady has done for the team, I doubt he's going to keep any info like this to himself and spring it on the team the week before camp opens.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Feb 2, 2017

Reggie's Racquet said:
You know I'm not entirely convinced that Brady won't retire sooner than he says. I mean he has a beautiful wife that out earns him, wonderful kids, all the money he will ever need and his health. His parents health might also be a factor. If he wins on Sunday what does he have left to prove? This is why you keep Jimmy. IMO.

Everything we know about Brady suggests the opposite. The guy lives to compete on the football field. He has unlimited money and access to nightlife and other temptations yet has created an insane alternative lifestyle geared toward becoming a mega-nutritious well rested superhuman in the hope that he can play as long as possible. Even when banging Giselle he probably spends half the time thinking about zone blitz schemes and option routes. I absolutely believe him when he says that he will play until he sucks.

shoosh77 · Feb 2, 2017

Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Everything we know about Brady suggests the opposite. The guy lives to compete on the football field. He has unlimited money and access to nightlife and other temptations yet has created an insane alternative lifestyle geared toward becoming a mega-nutritious well rested superhuman in the hope that he can play as long as possible. Even when banging Giselle he probably spends half the time thinking about zone blitz schemes and option routes. I absolutely believe him when he says that he will play until he sucks.

Well of course he's thinking those things with Giselle, how else do you expect him to hold off...

leftfieldlegacy · Feb 2, 2017

I like the idea of getting a 2018 1st round pick from Cleveland and then look forward to watching Goodell's head explode immediately after he announces "with the first pick of the 2018 NFL draft, the NE Patriots select Sam Darnold QB USC"

Super Nomario · Feb 3, 2017

Mugsy's Jock said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see acquiring Jimmy G as the same as getting an 8-10 year QB. It's one year of control, and then he'll be a free agent and (unless franchised, which ain't cheap) could elect to go wherever he pleases. Even, say, back to New England to be reunited with Coach McDaniels when Brady and Belichick sail off into the sunset after winning SB LII.

If you like Garoppolo enough to trade a high pick for him, you like him enough to buy out the last year of his rookie deal and his franchise years. You are right that, economically, it is not as favorable as a draft pick's contract. If some team likes Watson or Kizer or Trubisky about the same as Garoppolo, they should draft the rookie instead.

tims4wins · Feb 3, 2017

chief1 said:
Don't you think that if the Pats do trade him they will want a player in return who would contribute immediately? Not saying a player so much as a first round pick that is a plug and play guy. The above scenario seems to me as it would be trading Jimmy for a future asset. Second round picks are more crap shoots. I give you Cy Jones as a case in point. I believe the Pats thought, at the very least, he would be a ST contributor this year. Hasn't worked out, which is typical of second rounders much more than firsts.

Even their 1st rounders aren't generally plug and play. Brown wasn't Solder wasn't. Hightower was part of a rotation. Etc. They have been contributors but not necessarily starters. So I don't think this is necessarily a consideration.

bankshot1 · Feb 3, 2017

heavyde050 said:
What are we using as a definition for a 8-10 year starting QB?

Pro Bowl, All-Pro, or Playoffs? Just want to know what the baseline is.

There are a lot of bad starting QBs out there so clarification may help.

I was using DCM's "8-10 year answer" (a post above mine) as a proxy for a solid/stable good starting QB. I've no idea if JG can be an All-pro, or pro-bowl QB, but he may be a solid 10 year starter, which would probably place him in the above average group of NFL QBs, and a guy that a GM can build a team around.

My point was receiving the equivalent of a late 1st rounder (650 draft value points) for a good 8-10 year starting QB, may be a very good deal for the buyer. I think in a seller's market the Pats can get more than a late 1st rounder for JG.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Feb 3, 2017

Super Nomario said:
If you like Garoppolo enough to trade a high pick for him, you like him enough to buy out the last year of his rookie deal and his franchise years. You are right that, economically, it is not as favorable as a draft pick's contract. If some team likes Watson or Kizer or Trubisky about the same as Garoppolo, they should draft the rookie instead.

Agree with everything here. To follow up on the last point, though, an important dynamic is that most teams won't get to choose between JG and a specific draft eligible QB. SF may have that choice de facto if we assume CLE takes Garrett number 1. But if you're Chicago, you may like Trubitsky as much as JG but you have no guarantee of landing him and you'll probably have to decide on JG before you know (I think it most likely that Jimmy is traded before the draft if he is dealt). So you may prefer to draft Trubitsky in the abstract but the only way to guarantee a happy solution to your QB problem is to trade for JG when you can.

heavyde050 · Feb 3, 2017

bankshot1 said:
I was using DCM's "8-10 year answer" (a post above mine) as a proxy for a solid/stable good starting QB. I've no idea if JG can be an All-pro, or pro-bowl QB, but he may be a solid 10 year starter, which would probably place him in the above average group of NFL QBs, and a guy that a GM can build a team around.

My point was receiving the equivalent of a late 1st rounder (650 draft value points) for a good 8-10 year starting QB, may be a very good deal for the buyer. I think in a seller's market the Pats can get more than a late 1st rounder for JG.

Thanks for the clarification.

dcmissle · Feb 3, 2017

Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Absolutely. But JG is far from guaranteed to be an 8-10 year starter. At the other extreme, if he bombs or gets hurt and then fades away then the Bears end up giving us a top five pick for the next Matt Flynn, which is also the trade of the century.

It's going to be fascinating to watch. I really have no idea what is going to happen.

This is where asymmetric risk kicks in.

If you are the Bears, who reportedly are cutting bait with Cutler, or the Browns, you make this trade again and again until you hit on it. You're not going anywhere until QB is satisfactorily addressed.

If you're the Pats, it's different IMO. Yeah, it would be nice to add the equivalent of a 2nd and 4th in 2017 -- it should improve the team. But if you don't have a successor to good Brady, whenever that successor may be needed, you are in trouble, and that 2nd and 4th are going to be small consolation. If JB busts out, you wind up in the same shopping line as Chi and Cleve, albeit with a better team.

I think people are undervaluing, from the Pats' perspective, the one-year insurance JG provides. As a backup should TB go down next year, maybe preserving that season, but more importantly, as a window to see what you really have in JB.

Pats are in this fortunate position because they got ahead of the curve on draft days past, ignoring complaints that the JG and JB picks were "wasted".

nothumb · Feb 3, 2017

dcmissle said:
This is where asymmetric risk kicks in.

If you are the Bears, who reportedly are cutting bait with Cutler, or the Browns, you make this trade again and again until you hit on it. You're not going anywhere until QB is satisfactorily addressed.

If you're the Pats, it's different IMO. Yeah, it would be nice to add the equivalent of a 2nd and 4th in 2017 -- it should improve the team. But if you don't have a successor to good Brady, whenever that successor may be needed, you are in trouble, and that 2nd and 4th are going to be small consolation. If JB busts out, you wind up in the same shopping line as Chi and Cleve, albeit with a better team.

I think people are undervaluing, from the Pats' perspective, the one-year insurance JG provides. As a backup should TB go down next year, maybe preserving that season, but more importantly, as a window to see what you really have in JB.

Pats are in this fortunate position because they got ahead of the curve on draft days past, ignoring complaints that the JG and JB picks were "wasted".

I think the asymmetric risk points are valid, BUT if the Pats are pretty sure TB plans to play in 2018 and beyond, realistically the upside you preserve by keeping Jimmy is rendered moot. Even if TB has a season-ender in week 10 and Jimmy keeps you in the playoff hunt, if Tom is coming back in 2018, that's not worth a high 1st plus, which is what the market probably amounts to, because you still lose Jimmy after the season (or franchise him and lose your leverage for a trade).

I guess the one argument for keeping him that we haven't really explored much is whether you might still get a 1st for him even if you do a tag and trade next offseason. Theoretically the acquiring team would have two years of control (albeit at top-market rates due to the tag) and would still have a decent chance to work out an extension.

I kind of doubt his market would be that high unless he plays a bunch of snaps at a high level next season, and you don't have the TB12 suspension looming to give you that this time around.

dcmissle · Feb 3, 2017

The franchise tags for QBs next offseason reportedly will hit $35 MM. That is what's reported here wrt Cousins situation. Not gonna happen. JG would sign that tender in a heartbeat, then everyone has you by the short hairs.

bankshot1 · Feb 3, 2017

dcmissle said:
The franchise tags for QBs next offseason reportedly will hit $35 MM. That is what's reported here wrt Cousins situation. Not gonna happen. JG would sign that tender in a heartbeat, then everyone has you by the short hairs.

$35MM might be the 2 yr discount package.

I think the franchise tag for '16 was $19.5MM, and projected to go to over $21MM for '17.

edmunddantes · Feb 3, 2017

Cousins was already tagged. So he gets the second year franchised (Forget what it is... 20 or 25%) kicked on his tag.

DourDoerr · Feb 3, 2017

In some interview this week, Brady mentioned how much easier the mental aspect is for him now (I'm paraphrasing). That's hard won and he's in an unusual spot to have perhaps the fastest "supercomputer" a qb has ever had at his disposal while still in good physical shape.
Peyton for instance was in the same space mentally but obviously couldn't keep up physically. Given how much Brady has been underestimated and derided in favor of draft royalty, etc., it'd be very hard IMO to simply give up that gift. He's worked hard to develop the mental game and it was probably his best skill going into the draft, but it's not as easy to measure as 40 time, so hello 6th round.
I'd guess it's a source of pride for him and he's conscious that these 39-plus years are uncharted waters and he'll really be able to separate himself from the other all time great qb's. I've changed my mind on this and agree too that he's going until he can't make the throws/take the hits. With the Patriots and BB. Long way of saying that if a 1st gets offered, JG's gone.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Feb 3, 2017

dcmissle said:
This is where asymmetric risk kicks in.

If you are the Bears, who reportedly are cutting bait with Cutler, or the Browns, you make this trade again and again until you hit on it. You're not going anywhere until QB is satisfactorily addressed.

If you're the Pats, it's different IMO. Yeah, it would be nice to add the equivalent of a 2nd and 4th in 2017 -- it should improve the team. But if you don't have a successor to good Brady, whenever that successor may be needed, you are in trouble, and that 2nd and 4th are going to be small consolation. If JB busts out, you wind up in the same shopping line as Chi and Cleve, albeit with a better team.

I think people are undervaluing, from the Pats' perspective, the one-year insurance JG provides. As a backup should TB go down next year, maybe preserving that season, but more importantly, as a window to see what you really have in JB.

Pats are in this fortunate position because they got ahead of the curve on draft days past, ignoring complaints that the JG and JB picks were "wasted".

These are very reasonable points. That insurance can be really valuable, especially if BB, McDaniels, and others believe that JG is the real deal.

That is the biggest X factor in the whole situation: What do the Patriots truly think about JG?

Super Nomario · Feb 3, 2017

dcmissle said:
This is where asymmetric risk kicks in.

If you are the Bears, who reportedly are cutting bait with Cutler, or the Browns, you make this trade again and again until you hit on it. You're not going anywhere until QB is satisfactorily addressed.

I think it's a tough position for some of these teams. Yeah, you need a QB, but you don't want to be the Rams either and dropping your top pick into a dumpster fire situation.

dcmissle said:
If you're the Pats, it's different IMO. Yeah, it would be nice to add the equivalent of a 2nd and 4th in 2017 -- it should improve the team. But if you don't have a successor to good Brady, whenever that successor may be needed, you are in trouble, and that 2nd and 4th are going to be small consolation. If JB busts out, you wind up in the same shopping line as Chi and Cleve, albeit with a better team.

I think people are undervaluing, from the Pats' perspective, the one-year insurance JG provides. As a backup should TB go down next year, maybe preserving that season, but more importantly, as a window to see what you really have in JB.

The problem is that Garoppolo's value drops after the 2017 season (unless he ends up playing a lot and plays well). So it's weighing his value as one year of insurance + (his value as a long term successor x the chances Brady gets hurt / loses it in 2017) versus the trade value lost after the season. Three years ago they thought Garoppolo was worth a second-round pick, but that was getting three/four years of insurance and the chances Brady lost it any time during that span. Now that they're facing just one year of insurance / Brady losing it, I think you take a second for him, and you certainly take a first.

dcmissle said:
Pats are in this fortunate position because they got ahead of the curve on draft days past, ignoring complaints that the JG and JB picks were "wasted".

How much does Belichick not want to be caught without a QB? He used a fourth-round pick on a QB (Rohan Davey) in 2002, just weeks after Brady won his first Super Bowl. He used a third-round pick on a QB (Kevin O'Connell) in 2008, after a season where Brady broke almost every meaningful passing record. He has no interest in living the Curtis Painter life.

bankshot1 · Feb 3, 2017

The thing is the Pats lose all leverage with JG after this year. If he wants to start and Brady is still behind center, he likely goes the FA route after the '17 season. What's the value of a 1 year insurance policy, when you may have another QB already in-house? IMO barring a sudden Brady retirement or... the Pats have to seriously test the JG market ASAP and talk with interested parties. I don't think the Pats let him walk away for nothing in return.

ElcaballitoMVP · Feb 3, 2017

Pretty sure the Pats would get a 3rd round comp pick if they kept JG and he left as a free agent. Those better educated about the compensation process can correct me if I'm wrong.

So, it's JG for 1 year + a 3rd round comp pick vs whatever they could get for him now. At the start of the season I was told the Pats loved JG so I don't think they'd have any problem walking away from the trade market if they don't get great value for him. IMO, I don't think a 2nd rounder is enough.

wilked · Feb 3, 2017

ElcaballitoMVP said:
So, it's JG for 1 year + a 3rd round comp pick vs whatever they could get for him now.

You are missing the cap hit and $$

Cesar Crespo · Feb 3, 2017

If one team is offering a 1st round pick in the 18-30 range, and one team is offering a package of picks that doesn't include a first rounder, what would that package have to be for you take it? Would any team be able to offer that many picks? Seems like 1st rounder or bust seems to simplistic an approach when it's possible there is more value elsewhere.

Hoodie Sleeves · Feb 3, 2017

nothumb said:
I think the asymmetric risk points are valid, BUT if the Pats are pretty sure TB plans to play in 2018 and beyond, realistically the upside you preserve by keeping Jimmy is rendered moot.

I hate this argument.

Brady's plans are only marginally important here. He'll be 40 before next season starts.

He could very well plan to be playing in 2020, and be a non-viable starter by game 10 next year. When older QBs fail, they fail rapidly. Injuries heal slower (or don't heal completely), little issues get exacerbated by decreases in flexibility, strength, speed, etc. Things snowball, because after the problems start, teams notice them, and start taking advantage. Yes, he's still playing at a fantasticly high level, but the chances of that being true two years from now are low.

The Patriots shouldn't be making any decisions at this point based on the assumption that Tom Brady will be able to start two years from now.

simplyeric · Feb 3, 2017

Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
These are very reasonable points. That insurance can be really valuable, especially if BB, McDaniels, and others believe that JG is the real deal.

That is the biggest X factor in the whole situation: What do the Patriots truly think about JG?

The biggest X-factor might be: What do the Patriots truly think about Brissett, and what do they think about what they'll get out of the draft pick they trade for?

Of course they don't "know" what Brady is going to be doing next year or two years from now, in terms of football performance. I doubt they are worrying terribly about basic in-game injury...JG went down during the season to injuries, and JB would have been sitting, if he had been the starter with a halfway decent backup. You can't predict it.

So wouldn't BB be trying to maximize their window right now with Brady? The chance at another strong playoff run is worth a lot. So a deferred high 1st round pick (2018) would be a little less valuable than usual, because it's only truly valuable if Brady is still playing that year too.

If they think JG is the "real deal" (i.e. a really good pro-bowl qb), but they think Brissett might be a "good deal" (i.e. a better than average, pretty competent qb) they might be better served to trade JG for the short term Brady window, and use a high pick on the o-line to protect him or to improve the D (pass rush?), or use the pick to get pieces for the rebuilding if Brissett needs to step in (and they'll draft another backup QB in the 3rd or 4th round this year)

nothumb · Feb 3, 2017

Hoodie Sleeves said:
I hate this argument.

Brady's plans are only marginally important here. He'll be 40 before next season starts.

He could very well plan to be playing in 2020, and be a non-viable starter by game 10 next year. When older QBs fail, they fail rapidly. Injuries heal slower (or don't heal completely), little issues get exacerbated by decreases in flexibility, strength, speed, etc. Things snowball, because after the problems start, teams notice them, and start taking advantage. Yes, he's still playing at a fantasticly high level, but the chances of that being true two years from now are low.

The Patriots shouldn't be making any decisions at this point based on the assumption that Tom Brady will be able to start two years from now.

I think the skepticism here is fair, but we aren't even talking two years from now. If the Pats keep Jimmy this offseason, one year from now they will be facing the decision whether to tag him, extend him or let him walk. And in exchange for that year of evaluation (and JG as a backup) they will be giving up a first round pick and more.

Caveats about old QBs aside, the likelihood that you would get such a definitive decline from Brady in that span that you know you are moving on is very low. Even if he gets hurt he will probably say he plans to come back.

singaporesoxfan · Feb 3, 2017

dcmissle said:
That would be the market equivalent of a 2017 2nd and a 2017 4th. And if the Bears find a 8 to 10-year answer at QB for that price, that is the trade of this century.

That's begging the question in determining the right trade value for JG: by assuming a 2018 1st is equivalent to a 2017 2nd (when most of the research suggests that the standard formula is massively over-discounting the future), your assumptions automatically lead to the conclusion of a 2018 1st and 2017 4th for JG being the trade of the century.

Edit: To add, I think Belichick has feasted a lot in his draft trades by trading with people using that formula.

snowmanny · Feb 3, 2017

bosox79 said:
If one team is offering a 1st round pick in the 18-30 range, and one team is offering a package of picks that doesn't include a first rounder, what would that package have to be for you take it? Would any team be able to offer that many picks? Seems like 1st rounder or bust seems to simplistic an approach when it's possible there is more value elsewhere.

Well there's the draft value chart. But a #18 pick, say, is worth more than the rest of that team's draft plus next year's second round pick.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

singaporesoxfan · Feb 3, 2017

bankshot1 said:
Assuming the '17 2nd round and 4th round scenario, at the Bears draft position, that would equal 654 value points, or about the value of the 28th or 29th pick in the first round. It would be a steal for a 8-10 year starting QB.

The assumption of an '18 1st rounder being equivalent to a '17 2nd round is a convenient mathematical heuristic, but it's incredibly far off. Belichick as GM has made a ton off people assuming essentially a 50% discount rate. To evaluate whether an '18 1st and '17 4th was truly worthwhile, I'd 1) use a different value chart because the Johnson one is likely outdated (there's the Harvard one and the Football Perspective one) and 2) use only a tiny discount in the value of a 1st round pick between '17 and '18. Using both value charts, and assuming a discount of 4 spots in the draft, and assuming the Bears finish middle of the pack in 2018, both the Harvard and Football Perspective charts suggest that such an offer would be worth the value of something like a top-10 pick.

Cesar Crespo · Feb 3, 2017

snowmanny said:
Well there's the draft value chart. But a #18 pick, say, is worth more than the rest of that team's draft plus next year's second round pick.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

Thanks. If I'm reading that chart right, the 18th pick would be worth the 40th and 50th pick in the draft? So if a team were offering the 18th and 82nd pick in the draft, another team offering 40, 50, 67 is the better deal?

singaporesoxfan · Feb 3, 2017

snowmanny said:
Well there's the draft value chart. But a #18 pick, say, is worth more than the rest of that team's draft plus next year's second round pick.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft/draft-trade-chart/

The general critique of the 'traditional' Jimmy Johnson draft value chart is that it seriously overvalues higher picks. The values of the Football Perspective / Harvard charts suggest a 1st rounder at #18 is worth roughly the team's 2nd rounder plus 3rd rounder, not the entire rest of draft. The SportsNation article I linked to above with the Harvard chart claims that most GMs have moved away from using that chart to their own value charts.

dcmissle · Feb 3, 2017

singaporesoxfan said:
The assumption of an '18 1st rounder being equivalent to a '17 2nd round is a convenient mathematical heuristic, but it's incredibly far off. Belichick as GM has made a ton off people assuming essentially a 50% discount rate. To evaluate whether an '18 1st and '17 4th was truly worthwhile, I'd 1) use a different value chart because the Johnson one is likely outdated (there's the Harvard one and the Football Perspective one) and 2) use only a tiny discount in the value of a 1st round pick between '17 and '18. Using both value charts, and assuming a discount of 4 spots in the draft, and assuming the Bears finish middle of the pack in 2018, both the Harvard and Football Perspective charts suggest that such an offer would be worth the value of something like a top-10 pick.

Assuming all of that, if the Bears, or Browns, or whoever, were to find their answer at QB for a top 10 2018 pick, it would be damn well worth it.

And from the Pats perspective, they would have turned the no. 62 pick three years ago into a top 10 pick one year from now, which is fine work, especially when you consider JG gave them 2 very important wins this year.

But if JG goes, and JB cannot cut it, they will be screwed, at least for a bit. The notion of counting -- not hoping, but counting, -- on a 41-yr old TB to return to current form after a season-ending injury next year, as some have suggested, is beyond my risk tolerance.

The job here is to get the big things right. QBs are THE big things.

Could well be wrong, but I don't see them parting with JG unless they have lots of confidence in JB and can command more than a first round pick. And that's gonna be hard to do based on the well chronicled failures of QBs who had more in the books than two good starts.

Unless they just think that getting out of the JG business is good because he likely won't be a QB you can count on to get you consistently to the playoffs. That's an entirely different conversation.

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

We keep him for the life of his contract, If it works out it works out.

Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 1" asset this off season

Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 2" asset this off season

Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 3" asset this off season

Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 1+" asset this off season

Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 2+" asset this off season

Instead we trade JG for a "Tier 3+" asset this off season

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Homeland Security

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Deflatigator

Member

Member

owes you $50

Member

Member

Member

Eli apologist

Member

Dorito Dawg

Member

Member

Member

Member

PN23's replacement

Member

Member

Member

Deflatigator

Member

Deflatigator

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

79

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

79

Well-Known Member

Deflatigator