|
|
Post by costpet on Mar 6, 2017 9:00:46 GMT -5
Don't forget. Jimmy G. is NFL ready. And he's trained for 3 years under the GOAT.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 6, 2017 10:10:32 GMT -5
Cleveland has a chance to set itself for years. They have a lot of holes to fill, the most important is quarterback. In this year's draft, they have 11 picks. 2 1s 2 2s 1 3 2 4s 3 5s 1 6 If I'm their general manager, I'd look at this: If I gave the Pats a 1 and a 2 for Jimmy G., I would have my franchise QB plus 9 more picks to fill in my holes. They would be set for years. It would probably be their last opportunity to grab such a haul. They could be a contender for years. Which is more important? A stud DE or a great QB? It would be a smart move by the Browns and a great draft for the Pats. Win win Just because it's fun... if I were the Browns GM, I'd do one of 2 things. If Jimmy were my guy I'd do what I could to get him by trading the 12 and my second for him. If I couldn't get him then, I'd wait until the second round and take Mahomes if he was there and publicly commit to not playing him this year. If I got Jimmy then I'd do everything I could to set him up for success. You still draft Garret first over all and I wouldn't force any draft picks on offense just to do it, but with the 100+ million I have in free agency I'm making sure my offensive line isn't a sieve and that he has some weapons. I'd try to resign Pryor and then sign a guy like Robert Woods. Putting them with Corey Coleman would form a dynamic young receiving tandem. Pryor will be expensive to sign but Woods won't be too expensive (7m a year-ish)... They need to find a new Center... Mangold maybe or add a back up who played a lot last year and was ok not great but better than the current group in Tretter. I'd then go all in and sign RG Zeitler or TJ Lang. Really want Zeitler though even though he's more expensive. RG is not a huge need but a great offensive line is the best way to have a quarterback succeed and no matter who you bring in, this year or next you need that foundation. Their left side of the line is great. Defensively, I'd try to address the secondary. Corner I would go hard for a guy like Bouye... he's only 26 and I have the money so I'd go hard at him with a 5 year deal in the 13m per range. If that doesn't work then I'd drop down to the 7-10m range still focusing on younger guys. Micha Hyde would be an interesting target as a possibly safety conversion guy. As for safeties, Duron Harmon is a guy who played a lot as a back up who I'd target as a cheaper starter. He should be had for about 5m per. Patriots may be willing to match that deal but he's not worth much more than that. The Browns have to address the safety position tho. As for other spots, a well rounded tight end would be a great addition. The second 2nd rd pick maybe be a great pick to use on one. If I'm Cleveland and I don't trade the 12 for Jimmy then I'm probably going defense defense with 1 and 12. Cook would be tempting at 12 but it's a deep class. Defensive line and linebacker should be filled in by adding guy's who fit your system. I don't think there's anyone out there worth spending huge dollars on with a long term contract. Cailis Campbell would be nice but he's 30 and doesn't fit the teams timeline. But for example a guy like Karl Klugg is 29 (not much difference than 30) but his price tag will be a lot lower so I'd rather sign a few guys like him than one Campbell. Plus, the Browns need a lot of players not just a few. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 6, 2017 11:06:25 GMT -5
If you trade the 12th overall pick and the 33rd overall pick for Garoppolo and he turns out to be disappointing (i.e., anything less than a Pro Bowl-caliber player), you won't be the Browns GM much longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 6, 2017 11:41:04 GMT -5
Cleveland has a chance to set itself for years. They have a lot of holes to fill, the most important is quarterback. In this year's draft, they have 11 picks. 2 1s 2 2s 1 3 2 4s 3 5s 1 6 If I'm their general manager, I'd look at this: If I gave the Pats a 1 and a 2 for Jimmy G., I would have my franchise QB plus 9 more picks to fill in my holes. They would be set for years. It would probably be their last opportunity to grab such a haul. They could be a contender for years. Which is more important? A stud DE or a great QB? It would be a smart move by the Browns and a great draft for the Pats. Win win If the Browns would give up the 12 and a fourth I am pretty sure that would get it done. They get the best defensive player, a Qb and a great draft haul after that. It would be nice to get a 1 and a 2 but the 12 and a 4th for the Pats would be a great return also. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 6, 2017 13:50:41 GMT -5
If you trade the 12th overall pick and the 33rd overall pick for Garoppolo and he turns out to be disappointing (i.e., anything less than a Pro Bowl-caliber player), you won't be the Browns GM much longer. And if he's great then you're a hero. It's about what their evaluation is on him. If they think he's that good then that's a price they should be willing to pay. If they don't have that type of conviction then they should only be willing to pay a lot less. Even if they gave up those two picks they still have 1 and 52 in the first 2 rounds so you're hardly giving up your draft. Another side note, unrelated to these posts is I've heard a lot about any team trading for Jimmy would have to sign him for it to be worth giving up a high pick. I see the other side to that as well. Sure cost certainty can be nice but it can also be a benefit not having him signed. For example, let's say you do have strong conviction that he's the guy and you trade the 12 and one of the seconds for him. If you are right you're happy franchising him or working out s long term deal after the year. If you happen to be wrong then all you have up were picks in a draft that you still had your normal allotment of picks anyways. It's not nothing but it's better than trading the picks and being stuck in a bad contract. Point being there are two legitimate view points on it so for people (not those here that I've seen just in general) to say that would be a sticking point are being a bit presumptuous. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 6, 2017 15:16:53 GMT -5
Does anyone really think if Brown's offered both second rounders this year and one next year that Pat's don't make that trade?
I don't know if Bill would turn down two seconds this year.
We won't be able to keep Jimmy long-term. Glennon just turned down a deal to be Bucs backup that would have paid him over 7 million a year. So take any hope you had of Jimmy signing a deal and throw it out the window.
I hope I'm wrong, but I see all these reports as a marketing strategy. Cleveland fans are going crazy at the wild offers. So when GM gets him for 2 second round picks the fans will think it's a good deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 6, 2017 15:38:45 GMT -5
If you trade the 12th overall pick and the 33rd overall pick for Garoppolo and he turns out to be disappointing (i.e., anything less than a Pro Bowl-caliber player), you won't be the Browns GM much longer. And if he's great then you're a hero. It's about what their evaluation is on him. If they think he's that good then that's a price they should be willing to pay. If they don't have that type of conviction then they should only be willing to pay a lot less. Even if they gave up those two picks they still have 1 and 52 in the first 2 rounds so you're hardly giving up your draft. Another side note, unrelated to these posts is I've heard a lot about any team trading for Jimmy would have to sign him for it to be worth giving up a high pick. I see the other side to that as well. Sure cost certainty can be nice but it can also be a benefit not having him signed. For example, let's say you do have strong conviction that he's the guy and you trade the 12 and one of the seconds for him. If you are right you're happy franchising him or working out s long term deal after the year. If you happen to be wrong then all you have up were picks in a draft that you still had your normal allotment of picks anyways. It's not nothing but it's better than trading the picks and being stuck in a bad contract. Point being there are two legitimate view points on it so for people (not those here that I've seen just in general) to say that would be a sticking point are being a bit presumptuous. That's exactly my point-- you need to think that he's one of the five or ten best QBs in the league to offer up that kind of price. That seems like a bullish evaluation to me. Having extra picks doesn't make those picks less valuable, especially on a team like the Browns that lacks high-end talent just about at every position. Honestly, I think just about the worst thing that the Browns can do is try to make themselves an instant pseudo-contender. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 6, 2017 15:38:52 GMT -5
I honestly don't know. It really depends on their true evaluation of him. The Patriots were by far the lowest cash spending team last year and I believe they are like 31 or 32 in the league the last 4 years overall. They were always typically near the top of the league in cash spending before this stretch. Are they saving money for something? Are they just being cheap. One thing we know is you can throw the traditional book out the window when it comes to the Patriots. We can all get giddy and think Brady has another 3-5 years left in him but we are in uncharted territory here. He's 40 now, there's a reason 40 year old football players don't exist let alone super stars. If Belichick thinks Jimmy is the ideal replacement he will do everything he can to keep him. That position has no fair value when it's a high level player.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 6, 2017 15:56:07 GMT -5
It's a little strange that Garrapolo's asking price seems to be rising more and more long after his last NFL snap. Defenses didn't even get a read on how best to stop him and he hasn't successfully adjusted to that adjustment yet. A lot of QBs don't ever make that adjustment after showing a lot of promise.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 6, 2017 16:13:03 GMT -5
Defenses don't adjust to QBs in the same way a major league pitcher adjusts to a hitter. The things people have been raving the most about was that he showed the ability to move the defense with his eyes and go thru his progressions. Yes defenses can disguise coverages etc, but that's not really QB specific as much as it is game plan specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 6, 2017 17:54:02 GMT -5
Defenses don't adjust to QBs in the same way a major league pitcher adjusts to a hitter. The things people have been raving the most about was that he showed the ability to move the defense with his eyes and go thru his progressions. Yes defenses can disguise coverages etc, but that's not really QB specific as much as it is game plan specific. Of course defenses adjust to a QB's weaknesses once exposed. Remember when the 49ers were good about not long ago and Colin Kaepernick got a $126M contract extension? |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 6, 2017 18:10:32 GMT -5
Defenses don't adjust to QBs in the same way a major league pitcher adjusts to a hitter. The things people have been raving the most about was that he showed the ability to move the defense with his eyes and go thru his progressions. Yes defenses can disguise coverages etc, but that's not really QB specific as much as it is game plan specific. Of course defenses adjust to a QB's weaknesses once exposed. Remember when the 49ers were good about not long ago and Colin Kaepernick got a $126M contract extension? Kaepernick is the same QB he always was. Only thing that changed was the coaches and talent level of team dropped drastically. I don't think he's a good example of defenses being able to adjust to QBs weaknesses. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 6, 2017 18:48:26 GMT -5
A defense may adjust based on if a QB runs or his mobility for sure but I don't think that's what you're referring to
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 6, 2017 19:21:27 GMT -5
I am of the mind set that JG was a nice gift along the way to winning another SB. Before his great 1.5 games at the start of this yr. he wasn't really worth much. Now we are talking about getting at least 1 really good draft pick its a win win.
What if the Pats get the 33 and the first 4th, disappointed but happy still.
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 6, 2017 19:31:48 GMT -5
And if he's great then you're a hero. It's about what their evaluation is on him. If they think he's that good then that's a price they should be willing to pay. If they don't have that type of conviction then they should only be willing to pay a lot less. Even if they gave up those two picks they still have 1 and 52 in the first 2 rounds so you're hardly giving up your draft. Another side note, unrelated to these posts is I've heard a lot about any team trading for Jimmy would have to sign him for it to be worth giving up a high pick. I see the other side to that as well. Sure cost certainty can be nice but it can also be a benefit not having him signed. For example, let's say you do have strong conviction that he's the guy and you trade the 12 and one of the seconds for him. If you are right you're happy franchising him or working out s long term deal after the year. If you happen to be wrong then all you have up were picks in a draft that you still had your normal allotment of picks anyways. It's not nothing but it's better than trading the picks and being stuck in a bad contract. Point being there are two legitimate view points on it so for people (not those here that I've seen just in general) to say that would be a sticking point are being a bit presumptuous. That's exactly my point-- you need to think that he's one of the five or ten best QBs in the league to offer up that kind of price. That seems like a bullish evaluation to me. Having extra picks doesn't make those picks less valuable, especially on a team like the Browns that lacks high-end talent just about at every position. Honestly, I think just about the worst thing that the Browns can do is try to make themselves an instant pseudo-contender. I might normally agree but there are so many bad QBs in the NFL right now that I think there is reason to believe he could be top 10 if they give him some talent. Keep Pryor add Woods and an Oline that can protect him and maybe. He was very good on those timing routes and he read the D well, he did show a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 6, 2017 20:58:00 GMT -5
The Jimmy G stuff just comes down to evaluations that we aren't qualified to make nor do we have enough information to make. It's a lot of ifs. I've heard scouts and evaluators say things about him that I haven't heard about "back up" or prospect QBs. Hell Polian said he was best QB he scouted since Manning and that was from before the draft so this isn't a lower end guy who flashed in the pan. If Belichick drafted him thinking he was the replacement to Brady and all he's don't is reinforce his feelings then it's gotta be a difficult situation for Bill knowing Brady could be about to decline quick at any time.
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 6, 2017 21:09:34 GMT -5
Plans change, in this case Brady looks like he isn't going anywhere fast in fact he is more athletic now than in his 20s. This has all been said about TB and his age, at this point you have to look at least 2 years more likely 3 to plan on. I just don't see the Pats paying out 35 million + in QB salaries starting next year when they can get picks.
The alternative is they keep him a year, franchise him and trade him. Get 1 yr of cheap backup service and get picks next year. Could they do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 6, 2017 21:24:23 GMT -5
Yes they can do that
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 6, 2017 21:26:00 GMT -5
The Pats had a good signing today. Devlin 2/2.8m... he's a very valuable piece to the offense and the money is good.
|
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 7, 2017 7:13:13 GMT -5
In that scenario would it be like a sign and trade? Not sure I have seen that done in the NFL.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 7, 2017 7:22:39 GMT -5
They did it with Cassel
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Mar 7, 2017 8:01:40 GMT -5
You can always remove the franchise tag if you don't find a trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 7, 2017 8:19:04 GMT -5
Up until he signs it.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by mobaz on Mar 7, 2017 8:41:15 GMT -5
That's exactly my point-- you need to think that he's one of the five or ten best QBs in the league to offer up that kind of price. That seems like a bullish evaluation to me. Having extra picks doesn't make those picks less valuable, especially on a team like the Browns that lacks high-end talent just about at every position. Honestly, I think just about the worst thing that the Browns can do is try to make themselves an instant pseudo-contender. Ian Rappaport reporting the Bears will go hard after Mike Glennon and he's interested back. If that's the case (and what a dumb plan by Chicago), how on earth will anyone offer the Pats what they need to move Jimmy G? Unless a team's evaluation is off the charts, there's no bidding war based scarcity. I'm thinking more and more he stays. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 7, 2017 10:23:11 GMT -5
It makes sense for Chicago. Glennon turned down 7m a year because he wanted to start. If you are Chicago, why not pay him 7m a year and let him start for a year and if he isn't good then you have him at back up dollars. Stupid would be paying him like a starter. I don't think he's going to get that type of money.
As for Jimmy, I think he will be here too and I'm ok with that. This probably shows the Pats won't trade him for a second rd pick or that the Bears aren't willing to stick around to find out. Or maybe the Bears would still trade for Jimmy for a second after signing Glennon at the right contract.
|
|
