NFL Superbowl: Dont Waste My Overtime

[sperry]

A&M is a really, really weird cult.

[JonSnow4President]

44 minutes ago, sperry said:

A&M is a really, really weird cult.

We have our quirks, particularly when it comes to traditions most of us can't explain (we have a weird obsession with elephants), but most of us are perfectly reasonable people, albeit with a strong bias towards conservatism I'm sure most of the board finds unfavorable. Some of the traditions I think are downright awesome though, like Silver Taps or Muster. I don't know of any large university (60,000 at the main campus last fall) that comes close to establishing that sense of a (ridiculously) large family. 

 

50 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

lies

The difference is that kids don't go to Oregon State to eat beaver, but they do enroll at Arkansas to eat pig. 

Also - why the hell does Auburn have an eagle and a tiger?

Officially, they're the Tigers.  However, with the whole War Eagle thing, I went ahead and included that.  I think the story is an Eagle started circling over a game that inspired the team to come back from a blowout or something.  They have a trained Eagle that flies in before the game now. Likewise, A&M has a Collie Mascot, Reveille, despite no apparent connection to "Aggie" due to the military students (the entire student body at the time) hitting a dog on the road and intending to take it to the Vet school the next day. The dog barked when Reveille played the next morning, but the Corps decided to keep the dog despite pets not being allowed.  

BTW, how are students enrolling at Arkansas to be able to hunt a wild hog?  Not sure I'm following that.  Those that would hunt and eat one probably already have long before they get to college (while my parents are Texans, I learned to shoot around 4-5 years old while living in Arkansas and it was no big deal). 

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

BTW, how are students enrolling at Arkansas to be able to hunt a wild hog?  Not sure I'm following that.  Those that would hunt and eat one probably already have long before they get to college (while my parents are Texans, I learned to shoot around 4-5 years old while living in Arkansas and it was no big deal). 

Man, you just ruined the next two years of Razorback recruiting, thanks

[Rockroi]

So, sorry I had stepped away for a bit, but been busy.  

One issue that I envisioned being a problem DURING THE SUPER BOWL ITSELF was the White House visit (ie "Well, the way Atlanta is dominating, at least I will not need to worry about stories about visiting Trump's White House").  So far SIX Patriots have said they will not go:

Definitely or almost certainly political: 3 - Martellus Bennett, Devin McCourty, Chris Long

Uncertain: 2 - Alan Branch, LaGarrette Blount 

Probably Doesn't Feel Like it: 1 - Dont'a Hightower.  

Bennett and McCourty both made or issued statements which are extremely clear; Long was replying to a story that demanded he not go and that quoted Long himself.  Branch and Blount both gave very non-committal statements, but I would imagine either could be just thinking "I would never stand next to that thing."  Hightower seems like the only one that could be considered apolitical: he had been to the White House twice for Alabama during their National Championships and he skipped the 2014 Championship ceremony because he had, in his words, "been there, done that."  

I know AT LEAST Chris Hogan is going to the White House (if invited).  

This "story" had a lot of legs here in Boston because of who we do not know about, namely, Brady.  Brady skipped the 2014 visit.  There have been a few Boston athletes and font-office people who have skipped, most notably Tim Thomas and Theo Epstein.  Brady just feels different. Personally, I wish he would NOT go- I feel like it would be a huge distraction if he went considering that he DID NOT go in 2014.  However, it would not change the fact that Brady almost assuredly supported Trump, something I just do not feel good about.  At the same time, it may be just as big of a distraction if Brady sat out.  

I guess what I am really saying is that I wish Trump would sit out.  

[JonSnow4President]

13 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

So, sorry I had stepped away for a bit, but been busy.  

One issue that I envisioned being a problem DURING THE SUPER BOWL ITSELF was the White House visit (ie "Well, the way Atlanta is dominating, at least I will not need to worry about stories about visiting Trump's White House").  So far SIX Patriots have said they will not go:

Definitely or almost certainly political: 3 - Martellus Bennett, Devin McCourty, Chris Long

Uncertain: 2 - Alan Branch, LaGarrette Blount 

Probably Doesn't Feel Like it: 1 - Dont'a Hightower.  

Bennett and McCourty both made or issued statements which are extremely clear; Long was replying to a story that demanded he not go and that quoted Long himself.  Branch and Blount both gave very non-committal statements, but I would imagine either could be just thinking "I would never stand next to that thing."  Hightower seems like the only one that could be considered apolitical: he had been to the White House twice for Alabama during their National Championships and he skipped the 2014 Championship ceremony because he had, in his words, "been there, done that."  

I know AT LEAST Chris Hogan is going to the White House (if invited).  

This "story" had a lot of legs here in Boston because of who we do not know about, namely, Brady.  Brady skipped the 2014 visit.  There have been a few Boston athletes and font-office people who have skipped, most notably Tim Thomas and Theo Epstein.  Brady just feels different. Personally, I wish he would NOT go- I feel like it would be a huge distraction if he went considering that he DID NOT go in 2014.  However, it would not change the fact that Brady almost assuredly supported Trump, something I just do not feel good about.  At the same time, it may be just as big of a distraction if Brady sat out.  

I guess what I am really saying is that I wish Trump would sit out.  

There was actually an article on Bleacher this morning about his opinions on his teammates not going (basically, do whatever makes sense for your for whatever reason.  It's the offseason and enjoy it as you see fit).  If I'm not mistaken, the 2014 non-visit wasn't political but was due to a previous commitment with family, probably aided by that not being Brady's first (or second, or third) opportunity.

[Rockroi]

4 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

If I'm not mistaken, the 2014 non-visit wasn't political but was due to a previous commitment with family, probably aided by that not being Brady's first (or second, or third) opportunity.

Maybe; I heard that story at the time and it could be true, but ... it could also be the smoke screen.  I think Brady is a classic "company man" and at this stage of his (absolutely incredible) career, he knows how the public and media can react to certain things and knows not to shit where he eats.  Frankly, I would love it if his snub in 2014 was not political, but if it were ... we wouldn't know, we would only have vague hints and it would look... well... it would look a lot like this.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

26 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

Maybe; I heard that story at the time and it could be true, but ... it could also be the smoke screen.  I think Brady is a classic "company man" and at this stage of his (absolutely incredible) career, he knows how the public and media can react to certain things and knows not to shit where he eats.  Frankly, I would love it if his snub in 2014 was not political, but if it were ... we wouldn't know, we would only have vague hints and it would look... well... it would look a lot like this.  

Seems like it likely was political, given his Trump support. I'm assuming the worst of course, as is my want.  

[DanteGabriel]

It's hard to buy Brady's "already had family plans" excuse from two years ago when he was spotted shopping at the Apple Store that day, but whatever. I'll go with the interpretation that he was mad the White House press secretary had made a deflated balls joke.

USA Today tried to fabricate a controversy out of Brady's interview. They took his "I try to ignore politics" line and put out some dogshit headline on it like "Brady Tells Teammates to Look Past Politics." 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

It's hard to buy Brady's "already had family plans" excuse from two years ago when he was spotted shopping at the Apple Store that day, but whatever. I'll go with the interpretation that he was mad the White House press secretary had made a deflated balls joke.

USA Today tried to fabricate a controversy out of Brady's interview. They took his "I try to ignore politics" line and put out some dogshit headline on it like "Brady Tells Teammates to Look Past Politics." 

Obama made a Deflategate joke at that Patriots visit...

 

 

[Rockroi]

On another topic, JIMMY G!!!!  Trade him.  Please.  I think.  

I think teams will be willing to trade huge for Jimmy HGH.  My theory is that if you are a GM you KNOW that you NEED a quality QB to win in the playoffs.  While strong Defenses can GET you to the playoffs (KC, Houston) unless you have a really good QB, you will be one-and-done (or go a little further if you play another team with a third-string QB).  Therefore, if there is a chance to get a QB who COULD be a really good QB, you almost HAVE to take that opportunity; otherwise you are settling on mediocrity.  

Lets get this out of the way: Jimmy G is NOT a sure thing; as others have stated, there is a "Belichick Effect" at play here.  Lets face facts- Patriots QBs have ALMOST ALWAYS looked good while playing for the Pats - Brady, Cassell, Hoyer, Mallet, Garoppolo and Brissett, have all been drafted or signed by the Pats and started games in the NFL.  Some have looked good- Hoyer, Cassell- while others have been puzzling to down right fucking terrible - Mallet ... and Cassell.  But the pedigree is there where a GM HAS to take notice.  Also- save for Gronk - Jimmy G had the full Pats arsenal at his disposal.  That is a well-developed, talented offense that knows what its doing.  Garoppolo benefited from all this and a coaching staff that knew how to use him.

The issue is that GMs cannot just hope to find a QB in the draft.  The uncertainty at QB is maddening; never in the history of pro-sports has one position dominated a sport as much as the QB dominates football.  GMs know this and they know they have to take a risk.  Some - if not most- scouts have stated that if Jimmy G were in this draft, he would be the first QB taken (granted, that's misleading because Jimmy G has 3 years in the pros).  A GM has to do some calculus: what are the odds that a good or great QB lands on this team through draft, trade or free agency?  And is Jimmy G > the player we would have drafted at QB + whomever we draft with the picks we are sneding to the Pats?

The problem is that the decent QBs out there?  Yeah, teams are not getting rid of them.  Here are the starting QBs broken down by teams more or less likely to trade (and why):

The Best QBs in the NFL:
Aaron Rodgers
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Russell Wilson
Matt Ryan
Derek Carr
Cam Newton

Discussion: I don't think there is any quibble with this list.  These are seven best QBs in the NFL and I don't imagine much debate here. Nobody on this list will be out of a job anytime soon.  

Second-Tier QBs which means they are completely untradeable under almost every circumstance:

Ben Rothlesberger - he has taken a huge step back; I would rather every single one of the guys above to start over him.  
Dak Prescott- No way is he going anywhere for the next 3 seasons minimum.  
Jameis Winston
Andrew Luck - we are getting to the point where we have to ask if he's actually any good, but not ready yet to deep six.
Kirk Cousins 
Marcus Mariotta 
Matt Stafford- Okay, maybe a little optimistic, but he's not going anywhere.   

Discussion: Everyone in this section represents those Qbs whose upside is still high even if their actual output is not great. Stafford has to make a move soon, but if you were a GM you would NEVER trade Stafford straight up for anyone in the lower sections.  
So this leaves us a few options on who will trade for Jimmy G.  Everyone below at least there is some plausible argument that could be made for a trade with the Pats for Jimmy G:

The Obi-Wan Kanobi’s: Not Dead... Well Not Yet Anyway... 
Everyone on this list is basically “no” due to cap issues... except … well… 

Joe Flacco- If the Ravens cut or traded Flacco he would still count $47.3 million against the cap.  FUCK what a dumb contract.  Can’t trade.
Carson Wentz: Not going anywhere for cap reasons- he counts an ASTOUNDING $21 mil if cut or traded before June 1 and $13.4 if cut after that.  
Jared Goff: What. The. Fuck?  If the Rams cut Goff today? $22.8 against the cap and $13.5 after June 1.  No way.  
Eli Manning If cut today he would count $8.6 against the cap; after June 1?  $6.2 mil.  Too much I think.  
Philip Rivers If he gets cut today, he counts $29 mil against the cap; $17 mil if cut after June 1.  
Brock Osweiler: You need to sit down before you read this.  Its… its really bad.  IF the Texans cut Brock (nobody with that name ever turned out to be a good person) today he would count $25 Mil against the cap; after June 1 he would count “only” $19 Mil.  That’s right … that’s entirely correct: Brock Osweiler is paid more than JJ Watt.  That’s how fucking putrid it is to pay for a QB in this league.  
Carson Palmer: The Cards cut Palmer before the end of the 2017 season he counts something like $26 mil against the cap- they can't do it.  

Tyrod Taylor: Intriguing.  Already the Bills have said they want to move on from Taylor; if cut today he would count less than $3 mil against the cap, but if after June 1?  $800K.  But, alas, being in the same division? No way.  

Andy Dalton What’s strange here is that if the Bengals cut Andy Dalton today he would only count $4.8 against the cap ($2.4 if they waited until June 1) and it would fee up $15.7 million in salary.  I’m not saying that means they WOULD trade for Jimmy G and cut the Red … Runner?  Devil?  Gun?  What’s his nickname again?  

Discussion: Ugh… could the Bengals trade for Jimmy G?  I say “no”, but it suddenly got interesting there.  

The Cutler Zone (Now with 100% less Jake Cutler) - Guys Who Have Either Plateaued or On the Decline (can be traded but likely will not be; a few could be outright cut) Basically, I define the "Cutler Zone" as Qbs the team knows are not good and they know they will likely not do anything in the playoffs, BUT ... the team cannot possibly get rid of them because the replacements may be worse.  This has been the only justification as to why Jay Cutler (hence the name) still had a job.  Ryan Tannehill is the ultimate Jay Cutler - he's not good enough to win with, not terrible enough so that if you killed in broad daylight you could avoid a conviction.   Ryan Tannehill sucks.... is what I am saying.

Alex Smith – If cut today counts $7.2 mil against the cal; $3.6 if after June 1.  The Cheifs, I think, are drunk and drunks should not make big game decisions.  I bet they think they can still win with Alex Smith.  Which is sad.  Really.  

Ryan Tannehill: If cut today, $10.4 mil against the cap; $5.8 if after June 1. And in the same division as the Pats means a trade is unlikely.

Blake Bortles: The Jags are awful, but I think they still believe in this guy.  He counts $6.5 no matter when he’s cut so the money combined with the hopes he’s something leaves the Jags out of the race.

Sam Bradford/Teddy Bridgewater: The Vikings could murder Sam Bradford in his sleep it would cost them $0.00 against the cap.  That’s right- NOTHING!  And Bridgewater?  Who is likely out for all of 2017?  $825K!  That’s almost nothing.  The problem is that Garrappolo is probably not THAT much more attractive than these two AND you know what’s Not attractive at all?  A QB controversy come 2018!   Also, they don’t have a #1 pick (traded to Phily for Bradford).  Pass.  

The Bad- QBs who actually suck.  EVERYONE on this list will trade for Jimmy G.  

JAY CUTLER! – Cutler counts $2 mil against the cap and $1 mil if cut after June 1.  I honestly believe the Bears would pay triple that if Cutler just agreed to get lost every day on the way to the stadium.  

RGIII: He counts less than $2 mil whenever cut; chump change.  

Trevor Siemian: Its actually kind of funny.  He counts $26K against the cap but if cut after June 1? $13K.  You can go throw up over there... up... just let it all out... I doubt the Pats would do that and would rather let the Broncos die on the vine.  

Ryan Fitzpatrick/Geno Smith/Bryce Petty/ The Gentleman Sitting in Section 233, Row 28, Seat 14:  What a shit-show.  These guys are all terrible for two reasons: 1) they cannot play in the NFL and 2) they have all failed to take the job from the other guys who play QB on the Jets.  But that’s not the point because RIGHT NOW only Petty is on the roster and he counts $1.8 Mil no matter when cut.  

Colin Kaepernick- He's just ... awful.  And relatively cheap: $4.7 mil if cut today or only $2.7 if cut after June 1.  (Do it).  Also, Kaep can opt out of his contract on March 2.  Hooray?

So, lets break this down:
The Draft (And whether or not they would trade for Jimmy G):

Cleveland - Yes
San Francisco -Yes
Chicago - Yes
Jacksonville – will give Bortles a chance, No.
Tennessee – No.
New York Jets – Same Div, No. 
San Diego -No
Carolina No
Cincinnati N… No?  Right?  But… I mean would it be beyond the pale?  No, okay, fine.  No.  
Buffalo – Div opp; No. 
New Orleans – No. 
Cleveland – Yes.
Arizona – No. 
Indianapolis – No. 
Philadelphia – No. 
Baltimore – No.
Washington – No. 
Tennessee – No. 
Tampa Bay – No. 
Denver – They should but likely no. 
Detroit*, Miami*, New York Giants* Oakland*, Houston*, Seattle* (10-5-1), Kansas City* (12-4), Dallas*, Green Bay*, Pittsburgh*, Atlanta* - all No and the Pats cannot trade with themselves.  

So… 
The Yeses and what they could do:

Cincinnati: Fuck it, I’m doing this.  Cinci is $45 Mil under the cap (most likely); also Pacman Jones is almost certainly gone and possibly joining him would be Maualuga and Michael Jonson.  The problem is that I don’t think the rest of the roster – including AJ Green – would be okay with it.  With the #9 pick overall, its time the Bengals restructured their team not blow it u[p.  Clear dark horse and they may not even be thinking it but … no… right?  

Chicago – Nearly Fifty-Nine Mil under the cap and they need a QB.  Supposedly the Bears like Mitch Trubisky (A name so fucking infuriating that you are stunned its not the name of one of the Frat Guys in Revenge of the Nerds), but that could be a classic “Lets cleverly drive down the price on Garoppolo.”  Supposedly the Bears have sent signals they want Jimmy G but that’s all part of this dance.  The reality is that the Bears want somebody OTHER THAN a raw recruit and their vet staff seems to indicate that.  Regardless, they want to get rid of Cutler ASAP.  They also will clear probably another $12 mil by cutting Royal, Fuller and Porter.  I think the Bears lack the stones to ultimately pull this trigger so… 

San Francisco : SF is $81 Mil under the cap, they DESPERATELY NEED a QB and KAep’s whole deal is just a problem.  When the 49’ers release Kaep they will have, literally, nobody under contract t the QB position and will either draft Mitch Trubisky.  The thing is that the 49’ers could give a great Belichikian deal here- get Garoppolo AND keep their 1st round pick by trading to the Pats the #34 pick overall which for Belichick is basically “flavor country.”  The thing is that the Pats traded Chandler Jones for a #2 and a player so the Pats may want a #1 or a #2 and some other things.  Also, Jones’ trade was kind of a surprise; Garoppolo will have many potential suitors.  I think the 49’ers have an inside track here.  

Cleveland: They have:

• $108 mil to spend under the cap;
• Desperate need for a QB who doesn’t look like Jesus; 
• Two First Round Picks and the #1 pick in round 2.
• A dumb front office.   

LETS DO THIS!  The Pats have three quality picks to look at that can land them a top 33 pick to go along with their #32 pick!  The Browns have a lot of cap space, they have multiple picks.  Also… THEY’RE THE BROWNS!  They make up for their utter lack of football knowledge with their SUPREME CONFIDENCE IN THEIR FOOTBALL KNOWLEDGE!  We can BUILD ON THIS!  

But here’s the thing… the Pats loath first round picks and rarely trade for them.  Cleveland needs a lot of players over the next 2-4 seasons.  They may want to just stock-pile players just to see who works out, and may not trade a batch of lower picks, especially that second.  

I think ultimately, Jimmy G goes to the 49’ers.  Their high 2nd round pick, cap space and potential to possibly bundle a few other trinkets could make this a deal.  Also… it’s the NFC West- we’ll see Jimmy G in 4 seasons unless there is a Super Bowl in both team’s futures.  Cleveland would need to ship that #12 pick overall or their #33 pick plus more and I do not think they want t do that.  
I also think that San Fran would feel frisky enough to do some big deals out of the gate; also Shanahan seems to like Jimmy G.  

So I think SF will do it, then possibly Cleveland and then Chicago … and if Cinci signs him I want money…. 
 

[Kalbear]

I kinda love that we've gotten to the point where we just rank Wilson above luck and no one even bats an eye.

[JonSnow4President]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I kinda love that we've gotten to the point where we just rank Wilson above luck and no one even bats an eye.

I think Luck is underrated by a lot of fans due to his team's failures (our objective friends over at PFF actually had him as the #2 QB entering week 16, the most relevant free rankings I can find).  Now, Wilson is in the top 10 (#8 in terms of grade) so it's not like he's shit, but the difference between Prescott and Wilson is a half than the gap between Wilson and Luck's grades. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, Rockroi said:

Brock Osweiler: You need to sit down before you read this.  Its… its really bad.  IF the Texans cut Brock (nobody with that name ever turned out to be a good person) today he would count $25 Mil against the cap; after June 1 he would count “only” $19 Mil.  That’s right … that’s entirely correct: Brock Osweiler is paid more than JJ Watt.  That’s how fucking putrid it is to pay for a QB in this league.  

San Francisco -Yes

San Francisco : SF is $81 Mil under the cap, they DESPERATELY NEED a QB and KAep’s whole deal is just a problem.  When the 49’ers release Kaep they will have, literally, nobody under contract t the QB position and will either draft Mitch Trubisky (A name so fucking infuriating that you are stunned its not the name of one of the Frat Guys in Revenge of the Nerds).  The thing is that the 49’ers could give a great Belichikian deal here- get Garoppolo AND keep their 1st round pick by trading to the Pats the #34 pick overall which for Belichick is basically “flavor country.”  The thing is that the Pats traded Chandler Jones for a #2 and a player so the Pats may want a #1 or a #2 and some other things.  Also, Jones’ trade was kind of a surprise; Garoppolo will have many potential suitors.  I think the 49’ers have an inside track here.  

 

So I think SF will do it, then possibly Cleveland and then Chicago … and if Cinci signs him I want money…. 
 

 So I googled Brocks thinking I would blow a hole in this assertion, but HOLY SHIT were you bang on. Just a sordid parade of twat waffles and douchebros...

http://www.famousbirthdays.com/names/brock.html

 

To the next, I truly hope not. I think Handsome Jimmy is Fool's Gold. He looks to be a slightly better than mediocre QB who has time to learn a really good system, and is very well coached. If Lynch and Shanahan give up a 1st or 2nd for this guy I'll know we hired the wrong guys. 3rd or a 4th I could live with. Bottom line, if Belichick is offering him up, he's not that good. 

 

 

[JonSnow4President]

27 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To the next, I truly hope not. I think Handsome Jimmy is Fool's Gold. He looks to be a slightly better than mediocre QB who has time to learn a really good system, and is very well coached. If Lynch and Shanahan give up a 1st or 2nd for this guy I'll know we hired the wrong guys. #rd or a 4th I could live with. Bottom line, if Belichick is offering him up, he's not that good. 

He was a borderline first round grade QB coming out of school by some draftniks.  He isn't Cam Newton from a physical standpoint or arm strength, but I think he can be successful, especially with a noted strong mind and work ethic.  Am I willing to give up a first rounder for that?  Depends on what you think of the QB crop this season (which I am very not high on).  Without any NFL experience, he was widely considered to be worth a 2nd, or at worst a 3rd rounder (given that he went in the late 2nd).  

[Rockroi]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I kinda love that we've gotten to the point where we just rank Wilson above luck and no one even bats an eye.

In Defense of the board, that was just me.  I will also say that I could have just combined the first two groups because all I am saying is that nobody in those groups is getting traded.  I think its SLIGHTLY less likley that a Super Bowl winning QB who has a track record of success is traded than a guy who has extreme ability but - outside an unreal ass-whopping against the Pats in the 2014 AFC Championship game - no actual success.   Finally, I think Wilson is in just a much better system than Luck, especially on D.  I think it was somebody on this board that said that that Wilson has never won a game where the D failed to hold the opponent to under 23 points (not sure if that's still accurate, but it was at the time).  And I think that this has a great chance to change over the next two seasons with the adjustment of the Seattle D and the restructuring of the entire Indy organization with the career-death of Grigson.  

 

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So I googled Brocks thinking I would blow a hole in this assertion, but HOLY SHIT were you bang on. Just a sordid parade of twat waffles and douchebros...

http://www.famousbirthdays.com/names/brock.html

And you didn't even mention Brock Turner.  Seriously, its a the name you give your kid if you want him to grow up to be an amazing tool box.  

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think Handsome Jimmy is Fool's Gold.

Its possible, but my point is that GMs right now have to understand this risk.  And if a guy looks like he can play in this league.. you are incentiveized to take the risk.  If you are right- GENIUS!  You are lauded over for 10 seasons and you are 2/3 of the way to the hall of fame.  But even if you are wrong, if you had NOT made the trade, where are you?  Oh, that's right - STILL not in the playoffs!  Or Tool-Boxing it up with Houston!  

I think that GMs have to pull this trigger and let the chips fall.  

[JonSnow4President]

25 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

In Defense of the board, that was just me.  I will also say that I could have just combined the first two groups because all I am saying is that nobody in those groups is getting traded.  I think its SLIGHTLY less likley that a Super Bowl winning QB who has a track record of success is traded than a guy who has extreme ability but - outside an unreal ass-whopping against the Pats in the 2014 AFC Championship game - no actual success.   Finally, I think Wilson is in just a much better system than Luck, especially on D.  I think it was somebody on this board that said that that Wilson has never won a game where the D failed to hold the opponent to under 23 points (not sure if that's still accurate, but it was at the time).  And I think that this has a great chance to change over the next two seasons with the adjustment of the Seattle D and the restructuring of the entire Indy organization with the career-death of Grigson.  

 

And you didn't even mention Brock Turner.  Seriously, its a the name you give your kid if you want him to grow up to be an amazing tool box.  

Its possible, but my point is that GMs right now have to understand this risk.  And if a guy looks like he can play in this league.. you are incentiveized to take the risk.  If you are right- GENIUS!  You are lauded over for 10 seasons and you are 2/3 of the way to the hall of fame.  But even if you are wrong, if you had NOT made the trade, where are you?  Oh, that's right - STILL not in the playoffs!  Or Tool-Boxing it up with Houston!  

I think that GMs have to pull this trigger and let the chips fall.  

Hey now.  I can think of a nice Brock(may not make sense to people over 30). 

[Maithanet]

10 hours ago, JonSnow4President said:

He was a borderline first round grade QB coming out of school by some draftniks.  He isn't Cam Newton from a physical standpoint or arm strength, but I think he can be successful, especially with a noted strong mind and work ethic.  Am I willing to give up a first rounder for that?  Depends on what you think of the QB crop this season (which I am very not high on).  Without any NFL experience, he was widely considered to be worth a 2nd, or at worst a 3rd rounder (given that he went in the late 2nd).  

But you have to admit that the rating from the draft is barely relevant at this point.  The Patriots have worked with him for years, they have far more information than anyone else.  If the Pats think he's going to be a top 10 quarterback, they will not let him go, full stop.  If they think he's going to going to be mediocre or worse, they'll trade him.  So if you're trading for him, you have to assume he sucks. 

[JonSnow4President]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

But you have to admit that the rating from the draft is barely relevant at this point.  The Patriots have worked with him for years, they have far more information than anyone else.  If the Pats think he's going to be a top 10 quarterback, they will not let him go, full stop.  If they think he's going to going to be mediocre or worse, they'll trade him.  So if you're trading for him, you have to assume he sucks. 

In the era of cap management, not really (and I think we're probably dealing with that 12-20 range, not top 10). If Garroppolo has top 20 potential, he's worth at least 16M per year.  The Pats can't pay that without getting rid of Brady, which I don't think they're ready to do.  Like with Collins, why let something go for free when you can get some benefit for it in return?

[Rockroi]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

But you have to admit that the rating from the draft is barely relevant at this point.  The Patriots have worked with him for years, they have far more information than anyone else.  If the Pats think he's going to be a top 10 quarterback, they will not let him go, full stop.  If they think he's going to going to be mediocre or worse, they'll trade him.  So if you're trading for him, you have to assume he sucks. 

See, I don't know about this.  For starters, the Pats could think JImmy G's a really good QB and may trade Jimmy G for a First round pick and just think about the QB next season etc. 

But also, there is a divide between "Top Ten" QB and "Mediocre or sucks"  Here are the guys I listed above who are outside the Top Ten but also above the "mediocre" levels:  Jameis Winston, Andrew Luck, Kirk Cousins, Marcus Mariotta, and Matt Stafford.  Most teams would be very happy getting a player at or near those levels of quality.  Still not "Top Ten" but better than mediocre.  

 

 

[DanteGabriel]

On the inevitable awfulness of people named Brock, this may be the exception that proves the rule:

https://youtu.be/rgYKYk4GryU