Pats QB Options

Status
Not open for further replies.

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
30,736
AZ
So you're Belichick and after SF makes the pick of, say, Mac Jones, they call you and offer you JG (who has already agreed to the trade) for a 2022 second round pick. Meanwhile, you've got Carolina willing to trade you the #8 pick - with which you are hoping to take Trey Lance or Justin Fields, one of which you are pretty convinced will be there at #8 - in exchange for #15, a 2021 second round pick, and, say, a 2022 third round pick.

If you trade for JG, you could use #15 on another stud player - an offensive tackle or DL or CB or even one of the stud WRs - and keep all your 2021 draft ammo, probably even trading *back* and picking up a 2022 second rounder for your trouble. But then you've got JG as your QB at $25 million, as opposed to a rookie on a rookie deal.

Which option would you choose in this scenario?
Since the Jimmy G trade would be voided immediately for a cap violation I think I have no choice but to take the Carolina trade. ;0)
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,394
Basically my thinking is a rookie is cheaper, has higher upside, and JG's injury history.
Also... sure Jimmy G is "only 29" on the other hand, he's 29 with only 1 good NFL season under his belt. He has another injury and he's probably done on the "potential starter" merry-go round, and goes straight to the "vet backup break glass in case of emergency" pile.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
12,839
Washington
Of course not, but having such an expensive insurance policy is not likely to happen (I think Kyed equated it to having a $100,00 insurance policy on a $10,000 car). They should (and would) replace Jimmy G with a lower priced vet, perhaps Teddy B or Minshew.
Eh. Maybe. But if Jimmy G can stay healthy, he's a lot better than those other guys, knows the offense, and has had some success with the 49ers. The 49ers are not a 10,000 car. They have playoff aspirations. The things Jimmy G brings to the table are worth more to a team with playoff aspirations.

The biggest knock on him is health. If he can't stay healthy, well, then you have to throw the rookie out there and see what happens. I don't think the fans turn on the kid under those circumstances if he isn't ready.

Maybe the 49ers get a decent offer than makes that risk worth it. And I do think the calculus for getting rid of Jimmy is better if Jones is the pick instead of Lance. There is no way Lance is going to be ready to start for a while. But man, if the fans don't like the Jones pick, Shanny does it anyway and in the process gets rid of Jimmy? Jones better be good, because the fans will turn on him and Shanahan with a quickness.

Edit: Jimmy G isn't just a security blanket for the 49ers, I think he might be one for Shanahan's reputation too.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
520
A few small corrections/clarifications...

Of course not, but having such an expensive insurance policy is not likely to happen (I think Kyed equated it to having a $100,00 insurance policy on a $10,000 car). They should (and would) replace Jimmy G with a lower priced vet, perhaps Teddy B or Minshew.
Teddy B would cost $18m to trade for + $2.8m dead cap to get rid of Jimmy G doesn't provide a ton of savings, plus the Panthers would be eating $20m dead cap to trade him, so they almost certainly would want an actual asset in exchange since they only save $3m on the cap by moving on from him this year.

Either way I think everyone would know Jimmy is a placeholder, since he will be a UFA next year.



Agree with all of this. Absent him starting 16+ games for the Niners (and making $25M), his next best scenario is probably starting for the Pats, given the team they will be putting around him.

However, to your very last point about rebuilding Jimmy's value - if he plays well for the Niners this year, they won't be able to trade him (unless it is mid-season), as he will be a UFA next year. That said, if he plays well and gets a big contract, he'll be worth a 3rd round comp pick in 2023.
The bolded is wrong. JG has 1 more year at $27m after this one, & his no trade clause goes away after this season.

Yep. Draft their QB, whoever that is. Trade JG to clear cap space and add a pick. Then use the pick to get extra help. Then sign Minshew, who honestly might not even be that far off of JG.
Minshew would require a trade as he's currently under contract with the Jaguars & they have no reason to cut him as he only makes $850k this year & is under contract for next year, too.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,204
Philadelphia
In a vacuum, paying JG $25m to sit on the bench for much/most of the year is a stupid thing to do. But it is likely their least bad choice at this point. It is not so easy to just trade him, acquire another backup QB like Minshew or Teddy via trade, and then bring that backup QB up to speed sufficiently so that he can do a credible job. Even if Jones is a very quick learner, I think they'll be hesitant to cut Jimmy during camp because (a) if Jones gets hurt or struggles, you've got no insurance policy beyond Rosen (and a big part of the reason for getting a new QB in the first place is Shanahan being frustrated with his QB getting hurt and a potentially title contending team having their season ruined) and (b) cutting JG in camp would completely fuck him over after jerking him around all offseason and you want to be careful about developing a reputation for doing that with your high profile players and team leaders.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,394
Really the flaw with all the "move on from Jimmy G but get a cheap vet" theories is the same....
If you do it you're tanking the year. And that's fine, but you have to go in knowing that, and if you were you shouldn't have done all the things you did to this point, or said the things you did.
Tanking a year to develop your rookie QB is fine, but if you do it after telling your fanbase (and owner, and players) for months that you think you're a title contender, you've just made yourself a massive mess.
There is no FA QB who could start and be as good as Jimmy (when healthy), in fact the FAs are all just awful (probably the best one is.... Nick Mullens who they had last year).

So either you keep Jimmy, or you trade for a QB (likely not as good considering he doesn't know your system) so you now are giving up picks to get a QB, to replace your current QB, just to add a bit of cap space next year.

To me there are two paths that make sense for SF:
1. Keep Jimmy, hope he rebuilds value and you can trade him after the year for a decent return.
2. Trade Jimmy for anything you can get now, accept that you're finishing last in your division, and that the fans will be angry and hope your rookie can win the lockerroom and look good by year end.


Edit- the key is there is not really a reasonable middle ground, there isn't a reasonable way to replace Jimmy with a QB for less money that doesn't drop the ceiling of your 2021-22 team.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
520
Trading your 1st round pick & then tanking would be a hard Texans-level yikes.

I think everyone's best option is a JG restructure where they reduce his salary but add some guaranteed $ & maybe let him out of next year's salary which although expensive, is only downside for him because no guaranteed $ so if he's worth more they keep him & if he's worth less they cut him.

So maybe go from the 2/$49.7/$0 left & convert it to a 1/$17m/$12m or something.

That would also allow them to potentially recoup a comp pick if they let him walk after the year.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
12,751
Just for fun: Fontenot has acknowledged that ATL's cap situation is bad enough to consider offers on Jones. So, what kind of crazy package do you put out there for Jones plus #4?
Atlanta really can't trade Jones until after something like June 1. That way they aren't pummeled with a huge dead cap hit. So this kind of trade really can't work. I would love to see NE entertain a trade for him after June 1 though. No idea how to make it work but he's one of the most incredible pass-catchers I've ever seen.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,265
Mansfield MA
In a vacuum, paying JG $25m to sit on the bench for much/most of the year is a stupid thing to do. But it is likely their least bad choice at this point. It is not so easy to just trade him, acquire another backup QB like Minshew or Teddy via trade, and then bring that backup QB up to speed sufficiently so that he can do a credible job. Even if Jones is a very quick learner, I think they'll be hesitant to cut Jimmy during camp because (a) if Jones gets hurt or struggles, you've got no insurance policy beyond Rosen (and a big part of the reason for getting a new QB in the first place is Shanahan being frustrated with his QB getting hurt and a potentially title contending team having their season ruined) and (b) cutting JG in camp would completely fuck him over after jerking him around all offseason and you want to be careful about developing a reputation for doing that with your high profile players and team leaders.
It's pretty weird that they didn't retain Beathard or Mullens (yet, I guess) whether they want to keep Jimmy, trade / cut Jimmy, or aren't sure. They really need a 3rd QB given Garoppolo's injury history.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,403
Hingham, MA
The bolded is wrong. JG has 1 more year at $27m after this one, & his no trade clause goes away after this season.
Thanks, brainfart on my part - I thought he had signed a 4 year deal.

All the more reason for the Niners to keep him so they can trade him next offseason.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
13,602
It's pretty weird that they didn't retain Beathard or Mullens (yet, I guess) whether they want to keep Jimmy, trade / cut Jimmy, or aren't sure. They really need a 3rd QB given Garoppolo's injury history.
I think they envision Sudfeld as that person.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,403
Hingham, MA
Atlanta really can't trade Jones until after something like June 1. That way they aren't pummeled with a huge dead cap hit. So this kind of trade really can't work. I would love to see NE entertain a trade for him after June 1 though. No idea how to make it work but he's one of the most incredible pass-catchers I've ever seen.
Right, the Pats could trade for Jones prior to June 1 and designate it a post June 1 trade, but it would have to be a completely separate transaction, as they would have to send 2022 draft picks to Atlanta in return.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
520
I'm kind of missing the cap savings for the Falcons on Julio.

If they trade him after June 1st, they can split his $40.55 million over 2 years & have $20.27m dead each of the next 2 years... but his actual cap hit over the next 2 years is $42.3m.

Oh, I see it now - they get off his guaranteed $15.3m base. So they save $17m over 2 years & miss out on his $19.3m 2023 age 34 season.

Looking at their books, they're such a disaster. Everyone who makes at least $3.5m would cost more to cut than to keep (except Grady Jarrett who would save $1.7m of his $21m).

They really should just blow it up, eat the cap hits, trade Julio, Matt Ryan, & everything else that's not boarded down & start over with Fields or Lance. Get a high pick next year, which you can trade down from & in 2 years you'll have $100m+ of space, lots of draft capital & a great young QB.

I don't think they will cuz humans & not a video game blah blah blah, but that really seems like their only path forward.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
520
Right, the Pats could trade for Jones prior to June 1 and designate it a post June 1 trade, but it would have to be a completely separate transaction, as they would have to send 2022 draft picks to Atlanta in return.
You can't designate trades the way you can cuts - would have to just agree in principle.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
44,244
In addition to whatever they offer Carolina they should add the plays that they should never ever call for Darnold.
 
Last edited:

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,915
Santa Monica, CA
We're well into "don't listen to the noise" season here...because here is Todd McShay reporting basically the opposite of what is reported a few posts above:

Two separate sources within the league (not inside the Patriots organization) said New England is more likely to move back than up based on pre-draft conversations. So no, it doesn’t sound like the Patriots are going up the board to get a QB. And like we all already know, moving back is more in line with what coach Bill Belichick likes to do on draft day.


One additional thought: Could we see the fifth QB fall this far? It’s possible. But if New England is truly not in love with one of the top five signal-callers and won’t make the trade up, we could see Washington and Chicago racing up to get whoever is still there, be it Mac Jones, Trey Lance or Justin Fields.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,403
Hingham, MA
We're well into "don't listen to the noise" season here...because here is Todd McShay reporting basically the opposite of what is reported a few posts above:

Two separate sources within the league (not inside the Patriots organization) said New England is more likely to move back than up based on pre-draft conversations. So no, it doesn’t sound like the Patriots are going up the board to get a QB. And like we all already know, moving back is more in line with what coach Bill Belichick likes to do on draft day.


One additional thought: Could we see the fifth QB fall this far? It’s possible. But if New England is truly not in love with one of the top five signal-callers and won’t make the trade up, we could see Washington and Chicago racing up to get whoever is still there, be it Mac Jones, Trey Lance or Justin Fields.
While it's true they move back more than they move up, of their 44 draft pick trades in the last 10 years that don't include a player, they have traded up 15 times. This includes Hightower, Gronk, Chandler Jones, Uche, Onwenu. They've done it 10 times in the last 4 years. They're far less opposed to it than general perception.

My feeling on a trade up is that it won't be past Dallas at 10, but that would be the range they start thinking about moving up a few slots.

Thankfully, we'll know in about 54 hours.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
520
What I heard from McShay separately was that the Patriots have talked to "more" teams about trading back than trading up, which seems pretty obvious since there are more teams after them than teams ahead of them that would consider moving down.

I think the hierarchy is probably...

1) Look to trade up for Fields/Lance if the right opportunity arises.

2) If that doesn't work & the good QBs are gone by the time they pick, see if they can get some excellent value to move down.

3) If that doesn't work, draft BPA.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
44,244
What I heard from McShay separately was that the Patriots have talked to "more" teams about trading back than trading up, which seems pretty obvious since there are more teams after them than teams ahead of them that would consider moving down.
Yes--there's maybe 3 or 4 targets ahead of them but LITERALLY EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE NFL BEHIND THEM.
 

Seabass

has an efficient neck
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
5,091
Brooklyn
We're well into "don't listen to the noise" season here...because here is Todd McShay reporting basically the opposite of what is reported a few posts above:

Two separate sources within the league (not inside the Patriots organization) said New England is more likely to move back than up based on pre-draft conversations. So no, it doesn’t sound like the Patriots are going up the board to get a QB. And like we all already know, moving back is more in line with what coach Bill Belichick likes to do on draft day.


One additional thought: Could we see the fifth QB fall this far? It’s possible. But if New England is truly not in love with one of the top five signal-callers and won’t make the trade up, we could see Washington and Chicago racing up to get whoever is still there, be it Mac Jones, Trey Lance or Justin Fields.
I listened to him on Russillo's podcast and he followed that up with (paraphrasing) "Whenever I think Belichick is going to do one thing, he seems to do the opposite." When Chris Simms was on with Russillo he said that when he worked for the Pats the draft room only ever had three or four people in it, and in that room the actual board with player rankings was covered up with a locked garage-style door.

All of the speculation is fun, and I hope the Pats trade up for Fields or Lance. But one thing I think we've all learned is that BB is not going to let any information leak that he doesn't want out there. All these conflicting reports are probably because BB is calling everyone to have plans in place for every permutation of the draft. Kinda boring, but that's my bet.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
520
The other piece of that equation is if you don't know what other teams are willing to do to trade up to 15, you'll have no clue what the actual opportunity cost of trading up from 15 is.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,915
Santa Monica, CA
I listened to him on Russillo's podcast and he followed that up with (paraphrasing) "Whenever I think Belichick is going to do one thing, he seems to do the opposite." When Chris Simms was on with Russillo he said that when he worked for the Pats the draft room only ever had three or four people in it, and in that room the actual board with player rankings was covered up with a locked garage-style door.

All of the speculation is fun, and I hope the Pats trade up for Fields or Lance. But one thing I think we've all learned is that BB is not going to let any information leak that he doesn't want out there. All these conflicting reports are probably because BB is calling everyone to have plans in place for every permutation of the draft. Kinda boring, but that's my bet.
There's no doubt that's right. I'm sure there's no decision in place to move up or move down or stay at 15 and pick...just an ongoing evaluation of the costs and benefits of all those options.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,174
around the way
I somehow missed that Simms worked for the Pats for a year. Always wondered why threw so many jackass takes out there about the home team, particularly TFB.
 

deythur

lurker
While it's true they move back more than they move up, of their 44 draft pick trades in the last 10 years that don't include a player, they have traded up 15 times. This includes Hightower, Gronk, Chandler Jones, Uche, Onwenu. They've done it 10 times in the last 4 years. They're far less opposed to it than general perception.

My feeling on a trade up is that it won't be past Dallas at 10, but that would be the range they start thinking about moving up a few slots.

Thankfully, we'll know in about 54 hours.
Where and how does someone like JCJ factor into possible trade scenarios? Could be a useful piece to any of the teams we may look to trade up with for a QB or does the tender somewhat nullify that as an option?
 
Sep 1, 2019
81
If we're targeting Dallas #10 for trading up (if Fields or Lance slide), Gilmore might be someone that has value for the Cowboys as a team that wants to win now and needs a CB. I'd rather not part with JCJ.

Edit: covered in other thread
 
Last edited:

deythur

lurker
If we're targeting Dallas #10 for trading up (if Fields or Lance slide), Gilmore might be someone that has value for the Cowboys as a team that wants to win now and needs a CB. I'd rather not part with JCJ.

Edit: covered in other thread
My bad, I wasnt in the other thread. Was looking to see how he might match up with a team we would trade with if looking to draft a qb.

Going back to the shadows now.
 

brendan f

lurker
Jan 13, 2019
25
Really the flaw with all the "move on from Jimmy G but get a cheap vet" theories is the same....
If you do it you're tanking the year.
I'm not sure why they'd be "tanking" a year with a vet. Organizationally, this would be viewed as a bridge year to get the rookie ready. If it's Mac Jones (which it appears to be) this is clearly a QB the organization thinks is close to ready, if not ready now to start games. If it's a bridge, it's a short one.

. Trade Jimmy for anything you can get now, accept that you're finishing last in your division, and that the fans will be angry and hope your rookie can win the lockerroom and look good by year end.
This is an absolute worst-case scenario with all kinds of assumptions, and very unlikely to occur. It also assumes, on some level, that Jimmy G already has the support of his lockerroom, which isn't clear. He certainly doesn't seem to have the support of his coaches or GM. They can babble to the media all they want about how much they respect Jimmy, but the move to pay a huge ransom to get a quarterback speaks volumes about how they feel about him.
 

Jeff Van GULLY

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
3,642
Jeff Howe affirms Breer’s reporting

After numerous conversations with sources around the league, it’s clear the Patriots are still candidates to move up into the top 10 picks of the draft, and that’s hardly the only drama surrounding the well-hyped class of quarterbacks.

Specifically with the Patriots, these trade discussions are a strong indication they’ve found conviction in at least one of those top quarterbacks, and word is they think highly of Ohio State’s Justin Fields – highly enough that they’ve even spoken with the Atlanta Falcons about the fourth pick.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
My sense is that every year BB calls the teams ahead of him and behind him to gauge their interest and pricing for trades. This year is more note-worthy in that their starting position is high enough that we are talking about more highly-rated prospects.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,394
I'm not sure why they'd be "tanking" a year with a vet. Organizationally, this would be viewed as a bridge year to get the rookie ready. If it's Mac Jones (which it appears to be) this is clearly a QB the organization thinks is close to ready, if not ready now to start games. If it's a bridge, it's a short one.



This is an absolute worst-case scenario with all kinds of assumptions, and very unlikely to occur. It also assumes, on some level, that Jimmy G already has the support of his lockerroom, which isn't clear. He certainly doesn't seem to have the support of his coaches or GM. They can babble to the media all they want about how much they respect Jimmy, but the move to pay a huge ransom to get a quarterback speaks volumes about how they feel about him.
The point is... there are no vets to get.. Any QB you add is going to be worse than JImmy G. Perhaps "tanking" is the wrong word, but they aren't a good team if they don't have a Jimmy G or better caliber QB, you aren't making the playoffs out of the NFC West with Nick Mullens at QB.

The second is definitely not the worst case. The worst-case is that you cut Jimmy G for nothing and the rookie is garbage. The point of that is... if you aren't going to play Jimmy G trade him now because his value isn't going up if he doesn't play.

The simple answer is... Jimmy G is almost certainly the best QB that the 49ers could have start this year if they are trying to win games. If they aren't trying to win games they can go with the rookie or Josh Rosen or something, but if they were doing that, they shouldn't have spent months telling everyone that they were competing for a title, because it's obviously untrue. It's not that the lockerroom is behind Jimmy G (I have no clue), it's that you sold the lockerroom on the idea that they were going to be title contenders, and then you go into the season without a QB (a great rookie season is almost always still not good).
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
44,244
On NESN's podcast, Doug Kyed said he would not be surprised if Fields fell to #15 and the Patriots don't take him.

His rationale was that there seems to be *some* reason he's falling, so it could happen, which didn't seem like it was based on inside info or anything.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
12,660
UWS, NYC
I find myself swinging around to this priority list:
1. Lance or Fields if it takes not more than 2021 and 2022 first rounders to get them [strong preference]
2. Swap a fifth rounder for Gardner Minshew, and take Mond/Trask/Mills/Newman in the 3rd
3. Mac Jones at 1-15

I'm warming a little to Mac. I'm confident Belichick would not spend a first rounder on a QB unless he really believed in him. Hard to imagine BB thinking "I really need a QB, and this dude is the best one left so okay."
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
11,222
I'm really happy that we only have ~36 hours until we can finally bury the "baseless speculation dead horse" that was beaten to death a long time ago.

1. Pats are trading up to take a QB
2. Pats are trading up but not to take a QB
3. Pats are staying at 15 and will take a QB there
4. Pats are staying at 15 but won't take a QB there
5. Pats are trading down
6. Pats will take one of Mond/Mills/Trask somewhere in the draft

What am I missing?
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
20,918
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I'm really happy that we only have ~36 hours until we can finally bury the "baseless speculation dead horse" that was beaten to death a long time ago.

1. Pats are trading up to take a QB
2. Pats are trading up but not to take a QB
3. Pats are staying at 15 and will take a QB there
4. Pats are staying at 15 but won't take a QB there
5. Pats are trading down
6. Pats will take one of Mond/Mills/Trask somewhere in the draft

What am I missing?
Knowing Bill, probably what he will actually do lol
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,612
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I'm really happy that we only have ~36 hours until we can finally bury the "baseless speculation dead horse" that was beaten to death a long time ago.

1. Pats are trading up to take a QB
2. Pats are trading up but not to take a QB
3. Pats are staying at 15 and will take a QB there
4. Pats are staying at 15 but won't take a QB there
5. Pats are trading down
6. Pats will take one of Mond/Mills/Trask somewhere in the draft

What am I missing?
This happens and by Friday afternoon we'll have approximately 35 articles by Pats beat writers talking about how the guy they picked isn't any less talented than the QBs who went in the first round (and is actually a better prospect than at least one of them).
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,821
CT
I have no idea if that is good or bad for the Pats.
Good, in my opinion. Carolina just traded for Darnold. Denver now has Lock and Teddy on the roster. Who else is their competition for a QB in front of them? Washington and Chicago behind them.

They still might want to move up to make sure they don’t get leapfrogged, but they don’t have to go up to 4 to do it.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,204
Philadelphia
I have no idea if that is good or bad for the Pats.
Good I think.

Carolina was probably going to try and get rid of Bridgewater no matter what, possibly cutting him if they couldn't trade him, so I don't think this really should change any assessment of their likelihood of drafting a QB.

But Denver just doesn't make this trade and then take a QB.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
44,244
Good, in my opinion. Carolina just traded for Darnold. Denver now has Lock and Teddy on the roster. Who else is their competition for a QB in front of them? Washington and Chicago behind them.

They still might want to move up to make sure they don’t get leapfrogged, but they don’t have to go up to 4 to do it.
But Denver just doesn't make this trade and then take a QB.
They can cut Lock for almost nothing--his dead cap hit is like $1.5M.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.