2017 Jimmy G: The Dilemma
- Thread starter bakahump
- Start date
It's so nice when the football groupthink hype machine collectively decides to do something dumb in your favor.
I just have a hard time enjoying it after all the times it's gone the other way for us over the last decade. A completely silly haul for trading Jimmy G would be quite a salve for all the BS we've had to put up with... I'll just have to roll my eyes at the breathless coverage predicting a Nets-for-Pierce-and-KG type trade.
I just have a hard time enjoying it after all the times it's gone the other way for us over the last decade. A completely silly haul for trading Jimmy G would be quite a salve for all the BS we've had to put up with... I'll just have to roll my eyes at the breathless coverage predicting a Nets-for-Pierce-and-KG type trade.
......................................................................................
I have seen a lot of bad shit on the internet in my days. But that pic is now officially at the top of the list of bad shit. Like, real bad shit. I mean the worst shit. Wrong, wrong and wrong. So wrong, it made me intentionally omit the Oxford comma.
Nope.
I wouldn't do it.
He's now the #1 Boston sports athlete of all time. He is the one guy that deserves some kind of loyalty and I think you let him play until the decline kicks in.
I truly believe he's #1 all-time.
Brady
Ortiz
Williams
Bird
Bird over Russell is at best idiosyncratic and needs justification. Omitting Orr (probably a top 5 NHL player of all time) is odd, too.
Omitting Speaker and Cy Young is maybe defensible but both demand discussion.
I probably go Russell, Brady, Orr, Williams in no particular order but I'd really need to think on Young and Speaker in that context. Ortiz is probably my personal favorite and I grew up idolizing Bird, but I find it hard to mount a defense for them above those 4 and probably not over those 6.
I think Speaker and Young are somewhat automatically disqualified by the fact they spent more time with other organizations, but ymmv.
Maybe, which is part of why I didn't ultimately include them in my top 4. But it deserves discussion. As a counterexample, I don't think you could credibly talk about the Sox' best catcher ever without considering Fisk.
Fair counter, but now we are into sub genres and we're talking greatest Boston athlete. That's somewhat cursory but at the same time I don't think it delves down to positional distinction.
Young and Speaker spent more time and did more overall elsewhere. Neither even wear a Sox hat on their plaque and neither are associated (except for hardcore fans) with Boston. The others spoken of - Brady, Ortiz, Russel, Orr, Bird, Williams - are BOSTON. That's a subjective component but one I don't think should be ignored in he spirit of the argument.
That's fair, but I think it's worth mentioning them even if you ultimately decide against them.
And if you're going to claim Bird I think you need to show your work with respect to Russell (and like I said, Bird is THE Celtic of my youth), and Orr needs to be discussed in the conversation.
If you were going to force me to choose a top 4, I'd go Brady, Ortiz, Bird and Orr if for no other reason than having one of each sport and Russel and Williams were far, far before my time. Russel probably deserves to be there over Bird, but there an argument to be made about the state of the NBA when the two played their respective careers.
Guys like Young and Speaker belong in the convo, but I think then you you need to bring in Cousy, Havlicek, Bourque, Hannah, (yes) Clemens etc and then it's a sprawling mess of a debate. And that's before we even bring in guys like Pedro.
Side tracked this thread enough but I think it's that six to argue about.
Ortiz, Brady, Williams, Bird, Russel and Orr. Rings (obviously not Teddy), longevity and historically elite, all while being sons of Boston.
Guys like Young and Speaker belong in the convo, but I think then you you need to bring in Cousy, Havlicek, Bourque, Hannah, (yes) Clemens etc and then it's a sprawling mess of a debate. And that's before we even bring in guys like Pedro.
Side tracked this thread enough but I think it's that six to argue about.
Ortiz, Brady, Williams, Bird, Russel and Orr. Rings (obviously not Teddy), longevity and historically elite, all while being sons of Boston.
I think this is right on. Aging QBs tend to maintain their performance right up to the end, lose it fast, and retire quickly. Brady right now is head and shoulders above anyone else who has ever done this in terms of level of play, but we are still in uncharted waters with him and therefore JG-as-insurance still has tremendous value.
At the very least, it is enough value that if the best you can get is a second and a fourth or something, it may be best to just keep JG.
Here's hoping Josh McCown is whispering in his former employer's ear:
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/02/josh_mccown_says_jimmy_garoppo.html#incart_river_index
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2017/02/josh_mccown_says_jimmy_garoppo.html#incart_river_index
This has probably been discussed but assuming they can wrap up Butler this year they should be in decent shape going into next year regarding the tag. Cassel was traded with the tag, and obviously JG will be worth less next year with it, but it may be worth the wait.
I think this is where I'm landing. I think I'd prefer to keep JG around for this last year, and then franchise him if needed, and trade him at that point if that's on the table.
But in some ways, it really all depends on what they think of Brissett, right? If they really like him, then they can probably roll with him as the backup. If Brady really is going to play 4 more years, say, then it's entirely possible that Brady's successor is still an underclassman in college.
But in some ways, it really all depends on what they think of Brissett, right? If they really like him, then they can probably roll with him as the backup. If Brady really is going to play 4 more years, say, then it's entirely possible that Brady's successor is still an underclassman in college.
My Top 20 (in alphabetical order):
Auerbach
Belichick
Bird (Larry, not Sue)
Borque
Brady
Eruzione
Fisk
Flutie (Doug, not Darren)
Garciaparra
Hagler
Hannah
Havlicek
Marciano
Martinez (Pedro, not Ramon)
Orr
Ortiz
Rice
Russell
Williams
Yastrzemski
honourable mention:
Conigliaro (Tony, not Billy)
Cousy
Esposito (Phil, not Tony)
Ewing
Gronkowski
Lobo
McHale
Ouimet
Salazar
Shore (Eddie, not Ernie)
other-than-honourable mention:
clemens
Auerbach
Belichick
Bird (Larry, not Sue)
Borque
Brady
Eruzione
Fisk
Flutie (Doug, not Darren)
Garciaparra
Hagler
Hannah
Havlicek
Marciano
Martinez (Pedro, not Ramon)
Orr
Ortiz
Rice
Russell
Williams
Yastrzemski
honourable mention:
Conigliaro (Tony, not Billy)
Cousy
Esposito (Phil, not Tony)
Ewing
Gronkowski
Lobo
McHale
Ouimet
Salazar
Shore (Eddie, not Ernie)
other-than-honourable mention:
clemens
Sorry, I know this is supposed to be about Jimmy G, but I couldn't let this go. There's no "probably" needed in this sentence, and "5" is too big a number. You can make reasonable arguments for Gordie, Gretzky, and Orr, and the next tier starts after that...
I guess I dont understand the bolded followed by the lower part. On one hand you seem to be thinking that we need insurance for Brady NEXT year. OK. Except Brady just had a great season and while the decline phase can be quick I think most of us would say it wont be catastrophic next year.
You then propose trading JG before '18. Do you really need another year of proof to say "Damn Brady may keep this up til '20?
Wouldnt we be even more likely to need Brady insurance in '18?
Next year wont the argument be "He is 40....in uncharted territory so we need someone better then Jacoby in 2018 in the event Brady finally craters".
If you really feel strongly about not trading JG then the only thing that makes sense is some form of "keep him this year ('17) as the backup, Keep him next year ('18) as the presumed heir under the franchise or at the very least a new starter money level long term contract, Make the move to JG in 2019 at the latest."
Now if that is the plan something could happen to certainly accelerate that timeline and potentially helps the situation
1. Brady gets hurt in 2017
2. Brady becomes drastically ineffective in 2017 and a lesser player then JG
3. Brady gets hurt in 2018
4. Brady becomes drastically ineffective in 2018 and a lesser player then JG
5. The Offers for JG are ridiculously weak.
Or something could happen which could jeopardize the plan
1. JG refuses an extension past 2018
2. The Franchise tag becomes untenable salary cap wise in 2018. (untenable in the context of continuing to field a championship team.)
3. Brady continues his steller play in '17 and '18 and you have the dilemma of an either/or between a still effective Brady and a chomping at the bit and expensive JG. Queue PR nightmare.
4. The offers for JG are incredibly good (think 2 #1s)
All this ignores/discounts Brisset who may:
1. Become a capable "Backup" by as soon as '17 (Backup being defined as capable of an emergency couple starts)
2. That he may be seen as a passable successor in '19 and beyond
It also ignores/discounts the possibility that:
1. A JG trade should allow us to get a significant amount of young talent in return that helps now and later
2. Part of which might be used as the true QB successor (a hole filled now is one that will not need to be filled in 2018 or 19 and could be turned into the true heir.)
3. An influx of top of the draft talent in '17 (like at OL, Def or even RB) may facilitate Brady/team to be excellent to effective for an additional year or 2 past the current possibility (think the "Elway/Late Manning plan").
Basically it seems to me IMHO if you do not trade JG this year then you are committing to JG as the heir and putting a solid end date to the Brady Window in 2019 at the latest.
Thats fine and if some things happen could makes some sense. I just dont agree with it.
Good question bakahump. For me it comes down to this. I think the Pats are the favorite to win the SB next year. Losing Brady but having JG around to fill in still allows them to have a chance to win it all, I think. I think two years out is harder to project where the rest of the roster will be.
I'm willing to have a really good backup for this year because he's under team control, while at the same time recognizing that he's probably not the future QB. Even if that means lessening his trade value some when they do trade him. (supposing that happens)
I'm willing to have a really good backup for this year because he's under team control, while at the same time recognizing that he's probably not the future QB. Even if that means lessening his trade value some when they do trade him. (supposing that happens)
For me it comes down to the fact that I want the Pats to maximize Brady's remaining effective years with chances at a SB title.
The best way to do this is probably to flip Jimmy G this offseason.
I am not saying give Jimmy G away but a first this year or a second this year and a first next year and he should be gone.
Jimmy G has been a good draft pick by BB and I am sure he will make someone a nice franchise QB someday, but unfortunately the Pats already have a franchise QB that has shown NO signs of slowing down.
And last point, I really like Jimmy G as a player, but I highly doubt he could have led the Pats back against the Falcons and I am also dubious on the proposition that the Pats would have won the title this year without Brady.
I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts if they viewed this through another lense, because sometimes that can open up new viewpoints.
Let's say Garropolo was with another team right now with his exact same contract situation. We'll even say he'd learned an offense very similar to the Patriots' and we're all confident he'd be a great fit.
Would you want the Patriots trading their 1st this year to bring him in to back up Brady?
Let's say Garropolo was with another team right now with his exact same contract situation. We'll even say he'd learned an offense very similar to the Patriots' and we're all confident he'd be a great fit.
Would you want the Patriots trading their 1st this year to bring him in to back up Brady?
This does not follow from BJ's argument, IMO:
"Basically it seems to me IMHO if you do not trade JG this year then you are committing to JG as the heir and putting a solid end date to the Brady Window in 2019 at the latest."
If Brady stays healthy and plays well through 2017, JG could be regarded as insurance. Cost of that insurance -- the delta between what you could have gotten in a trade this offseason, and the compensatory pick you'll probably get if he leaves after next season + value of his services in games next season, if any.
You may not like the cost of that insurance, but the transaction is sensibly viewed that way and does not require a JG marriage or cutting bait with TB.
Shifting gears -- the supply side: Based on very recent developments viewed against the backdrop of the past couple of months, I'd place the chances of Cousins playing somewhere other than Washington next season at between 50 and 75%, and that may be too conservative.
"Basically it seems to me IMHO if you do not trade JG this year then you are committing to JG as the heir and putting a solid end date to the Brady Window in 2019 at the latest."
If Brady stays healthy and plays well through 2017, JG could be regarded as insurance. Cost of that insurance -- the delta between what you could have gotten in a trade this offseason, and the compensatory pick you'll probably get if he leaves after next season + value of his services in games next season, if any.
You may not like the cost of that insurance, but the transaction is sensibly viewed that way and does not require a JG marriage or cutting bait with TB.
Shifting gears -- the supply side: Based on very recent developments viewed against the backdrop of the past couple of months, I'd place the chances of Cousins playing somewhere other than Washington next season at between 50 and 75%, and that may be too conservative.
There's no doubt that JG would fetch serious value in return. And that's out of his hands.
In the things he can control dept, its assumed that when he's able, he'll walk for the big money. But I wonder if there isn't a small part of him that says "at the end of '17, I've grossed 4 million without risking brain damage. It worked out pretty well (with a lot less money) for Don Strock, Charlie Whitehurst, Zeke Bratkowski, Pat Ryan and others. I like it here, even for shorter-than-FA money."
In the things he can control dept, its assumed that when he's able, he'll walk for the big money. But I wonder if there isn't a small part of him that says "at the end of '17, I've grossed 4 million without risking brain damage. It worked out pretty well (with a lot less money) for Don Strock, Charlie Whitehurst, Zeke Bratkowski, Pat Ryan and others. I like it here, even for shorter-than-FA money."
I also don't think we should take for granted a compensatory pick if JG leaves after next season. If they sign an equivalent free agent, they cancel each other, right? That 3rd round pick would evaporate in that scenario, unless those compensation rules have changed recently.
Correct -- but that's something they can control and factor into their decision making going forward. If the value of that comp pick is zero, presumably they've picked up what they perceive to be equivalent value in making the signing.
Separately, the value that JG can fetch is very much in his hands. He can simply decline an extension. There's a pretty big delta between what a team would pay for a one-year rental and what it would pay for someone signed longer term.
That would not be an irrational choice by Jimmy if, for example, he's dealt to Cleveland.
I think that was me. I meant only in terms of whether he was actually traded. You are obviously right as to the rental aspect. (No sign-and-trades in the NFL are there?)
This is kind of a net zero though. If Cousins signs elsewhere, the team he signs with doesn't need a QB and Washington does. If Washington keeps him, they don't need a QB but some other team does. The only impact on Jimmy G is if Cousins signs somewhere that wouldn't be a potential Garoppolo landing spot (like with the Jets or Bills).
Can I throw a question out to everyone?
Are we sure Jimmy is actually as good as we think he is? Are we sure he wasn't the beneficiary of ample prep time for the first two games of the season with an offense chock-full of talent?
Are we sure he's durable and not susceptible to injury because of the way he moves out of the pocket and seems to set himself up for big hits?
On the other hand, can he move around the pocket similarly to Brady to minimize hits he takes when trying to work as a pure-passer?
I'm asking these questions because objectively speaking I'm not sure what we saw is really who Jimmy G is over the long haul. He had two good games and got injured running out of the pocket early in the third game.
I think you have to sell high right now. While I think Jimmy could be a good NFL QB, I think our eyes have deceived us a little bit because of solid game planning/prep and a couple of pretty weak opponents.
The only thing that would be worse than trading him and seeing him blossom somewhere else is keeping him, overpaying him, sacrificing high picks that could've been had now, and watching him leave the team cash-strapped for years to come. I don't think one scenario is any more or less likely than the other, but I think the smart move is to strike while the iron's hot right now and then draft another QB to sit behind TB and JB.
Are we sure Jimmy is actually as good as we think he is? Are we sure he wasn't the beneficiary of ample prep time for the first two games of the season with an offense chock-full of talent?
Are we sure he's durable and not susceptible to injury because of the way he moves out of the pocket and seems to set himself up for big hits?
On the other hand, can he move around the pocket similarly to Brady to minimize hits he takes when trying to work as a pure-passer?
I'm asking these questions because objectively speaking I'm not sure what we saw is really who Jimmy G is over the long haul. He had two good games and got injured running out of the pocket early in the third game.
I think you have to sell high right now. While I think Jimmy could be a good NFL QB, I think our eyes have deceived us a little bit because of solid game planning/prep and a couple of pretty weak opponents.
The only thing that would be worse than trading him and seeing him blossom somewhere else is keeping him, overpaying him, sacrificing high picks that could've been had now, and watching him leave the team cash-strapped for years to come. I don't think one scenario is any more or less likely than the other, but I think the smart move is to strike while the iron's hot right now and then draft another QB to sit behind TB and JB.
Except if WA parts ways, they are not going to be looking to JG. They are going to be plugging for a year with Colt McCoy, in all likelihood, while the GM iso the next Russell Wilson, or Dak or whoever. That course would represent a tremendous risk -- but someone on every team likes to think he's the smartest kid in the class.
And to H78's point -- all we know about JG is that he has flourished in our system with our coaches. It is not at all clear to me or anyone else that he would flourish elsewhere -- for example, in the offense Gruden runs here, a very different system. So unless the HC is about to be clipped, you would not expect WA to be in the JG market.
Maybe another guy in the supply chain, and this one is from a place they'd never send JG. Unless it vastly overpaid or unless the Pats really don't think much of JG:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/10/report-tyrod-taylor-unwilling-to-take-less-to-stay-with-bills/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/10/report-tyrod-taylor-unwilling-to-take-less-to-stay-with-bills/
Shit, for some reason I was thinking it was game #3. But you're right (I should have checked).
I just can't justify NOT taking a high pick for him when you consider the totality of what we can get, what he's shown us, and whether we even need him for a few years.
I will grant you the caveat that "you never know," but given everything I've read and heard as of late, Jimmy NOT being traded seems to be the longest of shots at this point. It's not a stone-cold lock, I guess, but the possibility of him staying in N.E. involved "Well, if we don't get a decent offer for him he's more valuable to the pats," and recently multiple articles from various cities involving different QB-needy teams suggest the market for him is, as Breer said the other night, "robust."
Gun to my head, he is absolutely gone. For a 1st plus.
Gun to my head, he is absolutely gone. For a 1st plus.
I think this is a perfect breakdown of the argument for keeping JG. The only point to add to the equation is the opportunity to keep JG in the unlikely scenario that Brady is clearly done after next season, and I think that's marginal enough to be almost ignored.
To me, it's not worth it. I would expect the delta to be equal to a high first rounder and probably more. As someone else said, you wouldn't give up a 1st rounder for a one-year rental backup QB. I'm also in the skeptical camp on Jimmy just because the odds are so stacked against anyone becoming a franchise QB. On balance I just think you have to trade him if you can get what people are suggesting.
Here's my question. If JG is traded for a first-round pick, what are the chances of Belichick actually using the pick to take a player? If this draft is as deep as the execs in the Breer article state, aren't we likely to see the Patriots trading out of the JG-acquired spot?
Part of me honestly just wishes for a first-round dominated with NE talk and Goodell having to announce multiple Patriots moves
Part of me honestly just wishes for a first-round dominated with NE talk and Goodell having to announce multiple Patriots moves
I think they keep the pick they acquire if it's mid-round and trade out of the last spot to a team that wants to jump into the first round and take a QB to get that extra year of control.
If it's a top 12 pick, perhaps we see BB trading up for an impact player, knowing we are hardly ever in position to do so. How top heavy is this "depth" you speak of. Because if there's a playmaking pass rusher or LB or corner, it might be nice to grab him.
Trading surplus QB for a top notch corner to match with Butler....that'd be a hell of a lot better for Brady and the team than keeping a backup who is superior to whatever Brisset will be by next Fall.
Trading surplus QB for a top notch corner to match with Butler....that'd be a hell of a lot better for Brady and the team than keeping a backup who is superior to whatever Brisset will be by next Fall.
From the Breer article (which I linked in the draft thread):
“Depth-wise, it’s great,” said one AFC executive. “What I like about it is, if we do our job and have faith in our scouts, we can get starters into the fifth round.”
“It’s a very good draft,” added a top personnel executive for an NFC team. “If you’re in a position like Cleveland is with a lot of picks—and you still gotta pick the right guys—but it’s an excellent draft. Very deep across the board.”