I think it depends how one is using the terms. Schefter is a reporter and arguably the most connected reporter in football. But as an analyst, he's really not anything close to the top of his field...he's a news/rumors guy not an analysis guy. Dilfer has his flaws and his mouth can get ahead of his head, but he's a quality analyst when he gets down to doing it (rather than 'hot takes).
To me, anyway, that is why DCM brought up the ages 32 and 40. The odds of an elite QB being washed up at 32, even after an injury, are minuscule. But like it or not, the odds of an elite QB being washed up at age 40 are higher than any of us would care to admit. Even QBs who have maintained their effectiveness into their late 30s tend to see their careers end abruptly. Watching Brady play at age 39 it seems unthinkable that he could be anywhere near the end. But what he is currently doing is unprecedented (unpresidented?) and while no good comps exist, the track record among good QBs in their late 30s is poor.
As I've thought about this, I think the other strong possibility is that a 2018 1st is the key piece in the deal. This is an underappreciated part of the Bradford deal. When you deal a future first, its easier to come to an agreement because the two sides can have different expectations of the likely range of the pick. For example, I really really doubt Chicago is going to trade us #3 overall in 2017 for JG. But they could trade us a 2018 first having convinced themselves that with JG, a good draft (including the ability to use #3 overall), and some astute free agent signings that pick will be in the high teens or low 20s next year. Meanwhile, the Patriots may look at that offer, the overall crappiness of the Bears franchise and roster, and decide that there is a very high probability the pick ends up Top 10.
The other thing to look at with there being very few 40+ seasons is that the guys who did get there, or got close - they all dropped off a cliff. Most of it was due to injuries, but Marino, Manning, Favre, etc, all went from being among the best in the league to being out of football in the span of about a season.
Schefter is also almost certainly reporting something he'd heard from credible sources. Now those sources may include interested parties of all sorts but it's completely believable that informed people think that the Pats are going to have a big ask for Jimmy G--and that there's enough teams like Chicago out there that they'll be able to get a good haul.
Completely agree. I don't get how Manning even factors into these conversations. He had a bunch of health issues (plus HGH for his "wife") and at the end couldn't even feel his fingers in his hand. Favre wasn't a picture of health by the end and Marino was 20 years ago.
Favre wasn't a picture of health at the end? Dude was a notorious boozer early in his career and Pill Popper throughout. The fact that he made it through alive is amazing.
I was being polite. Your post is basically what i had originally written.
That's some clown school stuff right there -- telling Schefter about a bid your team intends to make in what will be, by definition, a competitive market for JG. Thankfully the games begin today.
Jimmy G. Kizer has the physical tools but he is raw and has accuracy and touch issues. He's a developmental guy, rather than a guy who can step in immediately and lead a pro offense.
If you're the Browns though, do you care about stuff like "raw" and "step in immediately" for the 2017 season? I would think the additional years of cost control Kizer would give you would be a big edge (assuming you rate them remotely similarly as prospects).
On the other hand, if you're Hue Jackson (or Sashi Brown) how long can you wait? You've just presided over one abominable season for which you've largely been given a pass. But you might need to show substantial improvement in 2017 and then be .500 or better in 2018 to keep your job. If Kizer doesn't play in 2017 and spends 2018 learning on the job and making a ton of mistakes that set back the team, that developmental trajectory might work for the longer term interests of the franchise but be too late for you personally.
Kiper on Kizer: "I thought Kizer (6-foot-4, 230 pounds) could have used another year in school, but he's intriguing, and he's absolutely one of the most talented signal-callers in this draft. The question is whether he'll reach his potential."
That's an X-factor here, for sure. But Chicago has the option of just standing pat with Jay Cutler if they're prioritizing winning now, and it's hard to imagine the Patriots dealing Garoppolo in division to the Jets. There are a bunch of other vet options out there, too. Cleveland won't be in the mix for Romo, I imagine, but Tyrod Taylor and Kaepernick could both be out there, and Hue has history with A.J. McCarron, who is sort of in the same situation as Jimmy G. I just can't imagine the Browns parting with the 12th pick for a guy with one cost-controlled year when they are so far away from contending. A package built around 33, or 51, and / or a 2018 high pick makes more sense.
I largely agree on the price range, which I've said a few times in this thread but probably wasn't clear in my last post. But, at those prices (very high 2nd and another pick or two or a deal built around a 2018 1st) I think there will be a lot of interest and at least one (maybe more) of these QB needy teams will much rather go in that direction then spend a high 1st on Kizer or another college QB. So I guess my more accurate answer to the original question is that my preference order for Cleveland would be:
This is certainly conventional wisdom--though as we saw with the Bledsoe trade Pats are willing to buck that for best return.
The key difference being they knew Bledsoe wasn't all that good, whereas I think they have a much higher opinion of Jimmy.
I guess my point is that they have a bunch of similar options to #1. Trade for Garoppolo, or McCarron, or Teddy Bridgewater, or Cutler, or sign Taylor or Kaepernick, etc. If they've decided that's the best approach, I don't think there's any reason to get to your #2 option unless their eval on Garoppolo is just head-and-shoulders above everyone else.
I think that's overstating things a good bit, though a few things are reasonable to note:
With the nationwide running joke about how the Browns and this is who've you've started the past 15 years:
To add to this, does Bledsoe's (perhaps) limited time running the Weis-Belichick offense make it easier to trade within the division - particularly in light of the above?
Agree with that last point in general. I think JG will be the most attractive of that bunch (unless Bridgewater is available) but the question is how much more attractive he'll be seen by teams.
It's also possible that they're almost as high on Brissett (or at least where they project him to be after another season or two of work) as they are on Jimmy G. I think their view of JB plays a significant role in what they plan on doing with Jimmy.
I disagree with this. If they have internal knowledge (and they do) about Brady's future and how they feel about Brissett, then knowing that they could possibly lose JG as a FA means they might need to deal him even thinking he's good enough.
Assuming CLE wants Jimmy G over McCarron, Taylor, etc., I would supplement your order as follows:
Are they keeping Bradford and Bridgewater next year? I assume they'll deal one (assuming they're both healthy, no sure thing).
Well, of course they're almost certainly not. But they're not dealing the YOUNG ONE. I mean, hey, maybe they are, but that's ridiculous.
It is ridiculous. However, Zimmer really talked him up and said he has earned the right to be the starter next season. Maybe until another team has an emergency and he's dealt again.
This is the point. Bridgewater's injury is of the type that no one would trade for him without seeing him in game action. And the Vikings won't trade Bradford without knowing that Bridgewater is healthy.
This puts it as concisely as can be. I deem it part of New Englanders pessimism that there's such a strong current saying a #1 can't be had for JG. He's a no-brainer to be worth a #1, imho.
Yep. JG is clearly Plan A for plenty of clubs, and should be.
But you just know BB will take the newly acquired '17' top 12 pick and trade it for a 2 and 3 in '17 and '18
As a follow-up, today in response to a Cleveland Brown fan who asked if the Browns should trade the #1 of the draft for JG, (not the 12, but the first pick) Francesa was unhesitant, and said "yes" and stayed the course saying JG could be the long-term solution/foundation for the Browns.
Isn't BB against top 10 picks generally because of the money they get, or is that under the old regime?
