Browns to make pitch for Jimmy G // Trubisky #1 QB on their board
-
They were not really a 4-14 team that suddenly went to 13-3.....but actually a 12-4, that lost their QB and star RB, Demarco Murray)....so, they got worse when they lost their 2 stars and dropped to 4 wins for a single year.....and then immediately returned to being a 12 win team upon replacing those 2.....
You are what your record is. Sure, they lost Romo...who may have gotten them to 6-10...and they gave away Murray...so you don't credit they for that.
They gave away a big talent. It helped make them losers.
And, the QB stats have been steady for 3 years....almost to the yard.........BUT, the RB stats fell WAY OFF for 2015 and rebounded when a new RB was added...
So....to answer your question from above...What else of significance changed on that team?......The only significant changes were a huge drop in rushing when Murray left.....and a huge increase when Elliot was added......
Elliott might have helped get them back to .500 if Romo were still starting. Prescott and Elliott got them from 4-12 to 3-13.
Facts, ma'am. Read them and weep.
12-4 in 2014.They were not really a 4-14 team that suddenly went to 13-3.....but actually a 12-4, that lost their QB and star RB, Demarco Murray)....so, they got worse when they lost their 2 stars and dropped to 4 wins for a single year.....and then immediately returned to being a 12 win team upon replacing those 2.....
You are what your record is. Sure, they lost Romo...who may have gotten them to 6-10...and they gave away Murray...so you don't credit they for that.
They gave away a big talent. It helped make them losers.
And, the QB stats have been steady for 3 years....almost to the yard.........BUT, the RB stats fell WAY OFF for 2015 and rebounded when a new RB was added...
So....to answer your question from above...What else of significance changed on that team?......The only significant changes were a huge drop in rushing when Murray left.....and a huge increase when Elliot was added......
Elliott might have helped get them back to .500 if Romo were still starting. Prescott and Elliott got them from 4-12 to 3-13.
Facts, ma'am. Read them and weep.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
pretty good read its a pretty long article explaining the "Worth" of draft picks in relation to the QB Market. Oddly enough it seems to make mathematical sense to draft Trubisky or another top QB according to market value
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/how-the-cleveland-browns-can-beat-the-draft-quarterback-market-011617
"The Cleveland Browns have the first overall pick. Do they take a quarterback? Find out how the Browns can beat the quarterback market in the 2017 Draft." -
Zombo said:
Oh, Jeezus. Watch the film.
He is better than our QBs.
He is 25 and can paid an incentive based contact.
What is wrong with you homos?
Z
A. I don't want to give up anything more than a mid 2d round pick for him (see...I came to see things a bit more your way, previously I did'nt want to give up more than a 3)
B. He will be a FA....he won't want an incentive laden contract, he will want a guaranteed money deal....or his agent would be a fool.
C. I would NOT want to franchise him....not unless he really was the difference in this team making the playoffs. Franchising him means you pay him the average of the top 5 QBs in the league. I don't think we are ready to put him in the Rodgers/Brady/BR/ type category
A. I don't want to give up anything more than a mid 2d round pick for him (see...I came to see things a bit more your way, previously I did'nt want to give up more than a 3)
B. He will be a FA....he won't want an incentive laden contract, he will want a guaranteed money deal....or his agent would be a fool.
C. I would NOT want to franchise him....not unless he really was the difference in this team making the playoffs. Franchising him means you pay him the average of the top 5 QBs in the league. I don't think we are ready to put him in the Rodgers/Brady/BR/ type category
Hi Z, here's the competition to make Jimmy worth franchising. About $23 million will git er done.
- Colts QB Andrew Luck: $24.6 million.
- Saints QB Drew Brees: $24.3 million.
- Ravens QB Joe Flacco: $22.1 million.
- Packers QB Aaron Rodgers: $22 million.
- Seahawks QB Russell Wilson: $21.9 million.
- Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger: $21.85 million.
-
I started a thread like this over a month ago. My source was an article whose "source" was former GM Lombardi. Anyway why not if the price isn't too high. The first pick should be Jonathon Allen who fits in with a 4-3. The Next pick should be Myles Garrett. How's that?
-
I started a thread like this over a month ago. My source was an article whose "source" was former GM Lombardi. Anyway why not if the price isn't too high. The first pick should be Jonathon Allen who fits in with a 4-3. The Next pick should be Myles Garrett. How's that?
-
12-4 in 2014.They were not really a 4-14 team that suddenly went to 13-3.....but actually a 12-4, that lost their QB and star RB, Demarco Murray)....so, they got worse when they lost their 2 stars and dropped to 4 wins for a single year.....and then immediately returned to being a 12 win team upon replacing those 2.....
You are what your record is. Sure, they lost Romo...who may have gotten them to 6-10...and they gave away Murray...so you don't credit they for that.
They gave away a big talent. It helped make them losers.
And, the QB stats have been steady for 3 years....almost to the yard.........BUT, the RB stats fell WAY OFF for 2015 and rebounded when a new RB was added...
So....to answer your question from above...What else of significance changed on that team?......The only significant changes were a huge drop in rushing when Murray left.....and a huge increase when Elliot was added......
Elliott might have helped get them back to .500 if Romo were still starting. Prescott and Elliott got them from 4-12 to 3-13.
Facts, ma'am. Read them and weep.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
12-4 in 2014.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
You are making the assumption that Romo would have been just as good as he was 2 years ago...which was literally his best year ever. His injuries and just his age count against him.
So, I am saying that yes, with Romo and Murray, they MAY have been a .500 team
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
You haven't proved shit other than you just have an overinflated opinion. Romo would not have gotten the Cowboys anywhere near the 13-3 record that they had. That is my opinion....and there is NOTHING you can say or do to disprove it.
The Cowboys, imo, have been much better off with Prescott than with Romo......they won a lot more games than they would have with Romo.
-
12-4 in 2014.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
You are making the assumption that Romo would have been just as good as he was 2 years ago...which was literally his best year ever. His injuries and just his age count against him.
So, I am saying that yes, with Romo and Murray, they MAY have been a .500 team
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
You haven't proved shit other than you just have an overinflated opinion. Romo would not have gotten the Cowboys anywhere near the 13-3 record that they had. That is my opinion....and there is NOTHING you can say or do to disprove it.
The Cowboys, imo, have been much better off with Prescott than with Romo......they won a lot more games than they would have with Romo.
12-4 in 2014.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
You are making the assumption that Romo would have been just as good as he was 2 years ago...which was literally his best year ever. His injuries and just his age count against him.
So, I am saying that yes, with Romo and Murray, they MAY have been a .500 team
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
You haven't proved shit other than you just have an overinflated opinion. Romo would not have gotten the Cowboys anywhere near the 13-3 record that they had. That is my opinion....and there is NOTHING you can say or do to disprove it.
The Cowboys, imo, have been much better off with Prescott than with Romo......they won a lot more games than they would have with Romo.
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
-
12-4 in 2014.
4-12 in 2015. 2 of those wins were Romo's...so 2-12 without Romo.
Then, by your (completely wrong) logic, that means the combo of Romo and Murray are worth 10 wins, while the rest of the team is worth 2 wins.
That means that this year's team, with Romo and Murray, would then be 12-4, just like they were in 2014. Therefore, the very best argument you can make is that Dak/Zeke are combined worth one more regular season win than Romo/Murray.
Facts, Ma'am.
You are making the assumption that Romo would have been just as good as he was 2 years ago...which was literally his best year ever. His injuries and just his age count against him.
So, I am saying that yes, with Romo and Murray, they MAY have been a .500 team
The worst part is that I very much like Dak and Zeke...but your backwards reasoning and jocksniffing urges me into downplaying their performance simply to prove you wrong.
You haven't proved shit other than you just have an overinflated opinion. Romo would not have gotten the Cowboys anywhere near the 13-3 record that they had. That is my opinion....and there is NOTHING you can say or do to disprove it.
The Cowboys, imo, have been much better off with Prescott than with Romo......they won a lot more games than they would have with Romo.
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
I am making a statement of opinion, yes......which may in fact be on more solid ground than your opinion.
My opinion is simple: Romo would not be as good as he was 2 years ago.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
There is more evidence in his entire career that he is an 8-8 QB than that he is a 12-4 QB. In the 4 years prior to 2014 he was 1-5, 8-8, 8-8, 8-7.
I will grant that I think that the team around him improved, so that could help him...but he had been a .500 QB for some time.
And, this year he was 36, and injury prone.
So my premise is actually far more reliable with much more data to support it.
And my bottom line statement persists: Cowboys......much better with Dak Prescott.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
Except, of course, it is not. You show one good year as your evidence....I show 5 mediocre years. And I show that Romo is physically unreliable.
He has played in 4/5 games in 2 years.
-
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
I am making a statement of opinion, yes......which may in fact be on more solid ground than your opinion.
My opinion is simple: Romo would not be as good as he was 2 years ago.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
There is more evidence in his entire career that he is an 8-8 QB than that he is a 12-4 QB. In the 4 years prior to 2014 he was 1-5, 8-8, 8-8, 8-7.
I will grant that I think that the team around him improved, so that could help him...but he had been a .500 QB for some time.
And, this year he was 36, and injury prone.
So my premise is actually far more reliable with much more data to support it.
And my bottom line statement persists: Cowboys......much better with Dak Prescott.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
Except, of course, it is not. You show one good year as your evidence....I show 5 mediocre years. And I show that Romo is physically unreliable.
He has played in 4/5 games in 2 years.
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
I am making a statement of opinion, yes......which may in fact be on more solid ground than your opinion.
My opinion is simple: Romo would not be as good as he was 2 years ago.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
There is more evidence in his entire career that he is an 8-8 QB than that he is a 12-4 QB. In the 4 years prior to 2014 he was 1-5, 8-8, 8-8, 8-7.
I will grant that I think that the team around him improved, so that could help him...but he had been a .500 QB for some time.
And, this year he was 36, and injury prone.
So my premise is actually far more reliable with much more data to support it.
And my bottom line statement persists: Cowboys......much better with Dak Prescott.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
Except, of course, it is not. You show one good year as your evidence....I show 5 mediocre years. And I show that Romo is physically unreliable.
He has played in 4/5 games in 2 years.
Except, of course, that he's 78-49 for his career with a 13-3 season, 11-5 season and a 12-4 season as well.
He's had 6 seasons where he's started at least 15 games. Of those, he's had three 10+ win seasons and three 8-8 seasons. So your premise that he's a .500 QB is both unfounded and ridiculous. Injury has nothing to do with it because the premise is whether or not the team would have more wins with Dak or more wins with Romo. Not who would be injured first.
You're wrong. You've been proven wrong by multiple people on multiple accounts. It's over.
But now you'll slightly pivot to a micropoint that benefits your argument in some way and dismisses the rest - the patented Gipper heeldig pivot. This time, I'm not falling for it...I'm done with it.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Mitch2Pryor said:
The advantage would be instant gratification, and a quicker rebuild. With Haslam's trigger finger, that instant success is necessary. Any way you acquire a QB is a risk, and eventually you're going to have to pay him if he's franchise material.
I actually really like Mitch, hence my username. It's just the logic that an inexperienced rook would be worth the #1 pick, but a guy who has shown success (albeit short term) wouldn't even be worth #33.
If we want to be competitive next year, the smart thing to do would be sacrifice #33 and something next year for a QB, and capitalize on the deep defensive talent in this draft.
If we take Mitch, which I would be fine with, it's gonna be a few years before we are competitive, and is Haslam really going to wait that long?
WE would be competitive faster with an outstanding QB than we would be with a defensive player. Simple fact of life.
Dallas Cowboys went from a .500 team to the best record in football because of the QB they got. Yes,they also got that top notch RB...and every team needs that. But they got to the top because of a QB, not because of defense.
A QB will take you further faster than any other position (or two) on the team.
Dallas Cowboys went from a .500 team to the best record in football because of the QB they got. Yes,they also got that top notch RB...and every team needs that. But they got to the top because of a QB, not because of defense.
Nope.
DAL had LB Sean Lee play at a Pro-Bowl level which they didn't have in 2015 because Lee played 0 games. They also had the top-ranked secondary in 2016, which they didn't have in 2015. Yes they had defensive weakness in the rest of the front7 [thus Jared Cook led GB in targets and receptions and yards..] but the 2015 D was average.
The defensive cohesion shut down teams when the O was misfiring - for example, Dez only had 50 catches. That's not normal..
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
-
You're making an assumption that he won't. As a matter of fact, your entire premise is based upon an assumption.
I am making a statement of opinion, yes......which may in fact be on more solid ground than your opinion.
My opinion is simple: Romo would not be as good as he was 2 years ago.
You say they MAY be a .500 team, I say they MAY be a 12-4 team. Considering as your argument is that Romo is too old to do that, yet there's more recent evidence of him going 12-4 than there is him going 8-8...my premise stands as being more reliable.
There is more evidence in his entire career that he is an 8-8 QB than that he is a 12-4 QB. In the 4 years prior to 2014 he was 1-5, 8-8, 8-8, 8-7.
I will grant that I think that the team around him improved, so that could help him...but he had been a .500 QB for some time.
And, this year he was 36, and injury prone.
So my premise is actually far more reliable with much more data to support it.
And my bottom line statement persists: Cowboys......much better with Dak Prescott.
I don't have to disprove your opinion. It's just based in less fact than mine, therefore it is less reliable, therefore it is shit. The end.
Except, of course, it is not. You show one good year as your evidence....I show 5 mediocre years. And I show that Romo is physically unreliable.
He has played in 4/5 games in 2 years.
Except, of course, that he's 78-49 for his career with a 13-3 season, 11-5 season and a 12-4 season as well.
He's had 6 seasons where he's started at least 15 games. Of those, he's had three 10+ win seasons and three 8-8 seasons. So your premise that he's a .500 QB is both unfounded and ridiculous. Injury has nothing to do with it because the premise is whether or not the team would have more wins with Dak or more wins with Romo. Not who would be injured first.
You're wrong. You've been proven wrong by multiple people on multiple accounts. It's over.
But now you'll slightly pivot to a micropoint that benefits your argument in some way and dismisses the rest - the patented Gipper heeldig pivot. This time, I'm not falling for it...I'm done with it.
Except, of course, that he's 78-49 for his career with a 13-3 season, 11-5 season and a 12-4 season as well.
And all but the one were like over 10 years ago.
He's had 6 seasons where he's started at least 15 games. Of those, he's had three 10+ win seasons and three 8-8 seasons. So your premise that he's a .500 QB is both unfounded and ridiculous. Injury has nothing to do with it because the premise is whether or not the team would have more wins with Dak or more wins with Romo. Not who would be injured first.
Lately, he is basically a .500 QB. In the last 5 years, he was like 1-5, 8-8, 8-8, 8-7.,then 21-4
And yes, the premise IS whether or not the Cowboys are better off with Prescott than Romo
And absolutely, injury is a factor in that equation. As is age. You can't be good for a team if you can't play.
The Cowboys were far better off this year with Prescott than they were with Romo.
There is no way you can formulate an argument to refute that....other than obstinancy.
You're wrong. You've been proven wrong by multiple people on multiple accounts. It's over.
I am not wrong in this respect: The Cowboys, 2016...not 2014, not 2007 or whatever... are better off with Prescott than Romo. No ifs, ands, or buts.
But now you'll slightly pivot to a micropoint that benefits your argument in some way and dismisses the rest - the patented Gipper heeldig pivot. This time, I'm not falling for it...I'm done with it.
I would say it is more like a Macropoint.
And here is my heel dig pivot: Scoreboard.
-
Dallas Cowboys went from a .500 team to the best record in football because of the QB they got. Yes,they also got that top notch RB...and every team needs that. But they got to the top because of a QB, not because of defense.
Nope.
DAL had LB Sean Lee play at a Pro-Bowl level which they didn't have in 2015 because Lee played 0 games. They also had the top-ranked secondary in 2016, which they didn't have in 2015. Yes they had defensive weakness in the rest of the front7 [thus Jared Cook led GB in targets and receptions and yards..] but the 2015 D was average.
The defensive cohesion shut down teams when the O was misfiring - for example, Dez only had 50 catches. That's not normal..
Nope.
DAL had LB Sean Lee play at a Pro-Bowl level which they didn't have in 2015 because Lee played 0 games. They also had the top-ranked secondary in 2016, which they didn't have in 2015. Yes they had defensive weakness in the rest of the front7 [thus Jared Cook led GB in targets and receptions and yards..] but the 2015 D was average.
The defensive cohesion shut down teams when the O was misfiring - for example, Dez only had 50 catches. That's not normal..
I won't argue that there has been some improvement on their defense. That was not, however their major area of improvement.
Find me any source that does not say that the QB and the running back are not the Cowboys major reason for improvement.
-
They're still in the playoffs with Romo.
What Romo? The I wish he were 10 years younger without a broken back Romo? Or the 36 year old can't stay healthy Romo.
Plus, it is rather superfluous. The Cowboys had the best record in the game with the guy they had playing QB. THEY had no interest in playing Romo. They may have no interest in even keeping him on that team in the future.
If he does anything in the future, where would he go?
Texas won't want his contract...not with that of the Ostrich hanging over their head.
Denver? I think they will just go with the Siemian/Lynch combo and look to the future, not the past.
San FRancisco? Chicago. They will be looking to draft guys likely.
Jets?
Browns?
-
Nope.
DAL had LB Sean Lee play at a Pro-Bowl level which they didn't have in 2015 because Lee played 0 games. They also had the top-ranked secondary in 2016, which they didn't have in 2015. Yes they had defensive weakness in the rest of the front7 [thus Jared Cook led GB in targets and receptions and yards..] but the 2015 D was average.
The defensive cohesion shut down teams when the O was misfiring - for example, Dez only had 50 catches. That's not normal..
I won't argue that there has been some improvement on their defense. That was not, however their major area of improvement.
Find me any source that does not say that the QB and the running back are not the Cowboys major reason for improvement.
I won't argue that there has been some improvement on their defense. That was not, however their major area of improvement.
Their only "statistical" area of improvement was in the running game(notable, measurable, statistical improvement - not imagined).....with no notable changes in the passing stats for several years...
Already said....and completely ignored.....as usual....
-
I won't argue that there has been some improvement on their defense. That was not, however their major area of improvement.
Their only "statistical" area of improvement was in the running game(notable, measurable, statistical improvement - not imagined).....with no notable changes in the passing stats for several years...
Already said....and completely ignored.....as usual....
-
I prefer that Myles makes them eat those words, but hopefully on our team.
Hey if we draft Garrett @ #1, I want to see a disruptive force. Von Miller good- that's the standard he's going to be held to. I won't have any problems with that.
Hey if we draft Garrett @ #1, I want to see a disruptive force. Von Miller good- that's the standard he's going to be held to. I won't have any problems with that.
I think that is what most people expect. That said, I recally many on here claiming Clowney was a bust. I don't think many claim that now. The point is that it sometimes takes some time.
If we take Garrett ,which we should, I can already hear people calling him a bust because he didn't have any sacks in his first game.
I can turn that around. If we take Mitch, he better start game 1 and play as well as Brady. If he does that, I won't have any problems.
-
Many fans and analysts are quick to point out, "How many other Patriots QB's have gone on to play well?" Here's the thing, it's not exactly apples to oranges, ok? What's the difference? For starters, Garoppolo was drafted in the second round. That's a pretty high pick, and there was more than one OC who had him as their number 1 QB in the DRAFT, one of them being our very own, Shannahan. Sure, it was a late second round pick, but still, what round was Matt Cassell drafted in? Yeah, the seventh. Furthermore, Cassell didn't even START in college. That's right, go back and see how many passes he threw during his college tenure. Now let's look at Brian Hoyer. Actually, let's not. We know his story (ahem..not drafted, right?). Ok, so let's look at Ryan Mallett. He was drafted in the 3rd round, which is very close to where Garoppolo was taken, but that's where the similarities end. Mallett was a big guy with a VERY slow delivery and subpar mobility. The market for Garoppolo is said to be a 1st round pick and possibly a 4th. That might be too high, but that's what we've all heard, right? Anybody here remember what Mallett was traded for? Yeah...I think it was a conditional 7th rounder. Could be wrong, but I don't think I am. By comparison, Garoppolo has solid size, a lightning quick delivery, terrific accuracy, and the ONLY reason the Patriots are even THINKING about trading him, is because they know they can't afford to keep him. In the true Patriot way, they will look to get something for an asset, rather than waiting for the player's contract to expire and get NOTHING when they walk.
To complete my point, our radio show has interviewed multiple analysts and experts, and EACH ONE has said that Jimmy Garoppolo, if he was coming out of school this season, would likely be rated the number one QB entering the draft. Can anybody truthfully say that about Mallett? Hoyer? Cassell? No. So I really don't want to hear anymore about, "The other Patriot QB's didn't do squat when they left!!!" It's NOT the same.
-
Many fans and analysts are quick to point out, "How many other Patriots QB's have gone on to play well?" Here's the thing, it's not exactly apples to oranges, ok? What's the difference? For starters, Garoppolo was drafted in the second round. That's a pretty high pick, and there was more than one OC who had him as their number 1 QB in the DRAFT, one of them being our very own, Shannahan. Sure, it was a late second round pick, but still, what round was Matt Cassell drafted in? Yeah, the seventh. Furthermore, Cassell didn't even START in college. That's right, go back and see how many passes he threw during his college tenure. Now let's look at Brian Hoyer. Actually, let's not. We know his story (ahem..not drafted, right?). Ok, so let's look at Ryan Mallett. He was drafted in the 3rd round, which is very close to where Garoppolo was taken, but that's where the similarities end. Mallett was a big guy with a VERY slow delivery and subpar mobility. The market for Garoppolo is said to be a 1st round pick and possibly a 4th. That might be too high, but that's what we've all heard, right? Anybody here remember what Mallett was traded for? Yeah...I think it was a conditional 7th rounder. Could be wrong, but I don't think I am. By comparison, Garoppolo has solid size, a lightning quick delivery, terrific accuracy, and the ONLY reason the Patriots are even THINKING about trading him, is because they know they can't afford to keep him. In the true Patriot way, they will look to get something for an asset, rather than waiting for the player's contract to expire and get NOTHING when they walk.
To complete my point, our radio show has interviewed multiple analysts and experts, and EACH ONE has said that Jimmy Garoppolo, if he was coming out of school this season, would likely be rated the number one QB entering the draft. Can anybody truthfully say that about Mallett? Hoyer? Cassell? No. So I really don't want to hear anymore about, "The other Patriot QB's didn't do squat when they left!!!" It's NOT the same.
Many fans and analysts are quick to point out, "How many other Patriots QB's have gone on to play well?" Here's the thing, it's not exactly apples to oranges, ok? What's the difference? For starters, Garoppolo was drafted in the second round. That's a pretty high pick, and there was more than one OC who had him as their number 1 QB in the DRAFT, one of them being our very own, Shannahan. Sure, it was a late second round pick, but still, what round was Matt Cassell drafted in? Yeah, the seventh. Furthermore, Cassell didn't even START in college. That's right, go back and see how many passes he threw during his college tenure. Now let's look at Brian Hoyer. Actually, let's not. We know his story (ahem..not drafted, right?). Ok, so let's look at Ryan Mallett. He was drafted in the 3rd round, which is very close to where Garoppolo was taken, but that's where the similarities end. Mallett was a big guy with a VERY slow delivery and subpar mobility. The market for Garoppolo is said to be a 1st round pick and possibly a 4th. That might be too high, but that's what we've all heard, right? Anybody here remember what Mallett was traded for? Yeah...I think it was a conditional 7th rounder. Could be wrong, but I don't think I am. By comparison, Garoppolo has solid size, a lightning quick delivery, terrific accuracy, and the ONLY reason the Patriots are even THINKING about trading him, is because they know they can't afford to keep him. In the true Patriot way, they will look to get something for an asset, rather than waiting for the player's contract to expire and get NOTHING when they walk.
To complete my point, our radio show has interviewed multiple analysts and experts, and EACH ONE has said that Jimmy Garoppolo, if he was coming out of school this season, would likely be rated the number one QB entering the draft. Can anybody truthfully say that about Mallett? Hoyer? Cassell? No. So I really don't want to hear anymore about, "The other Patriot QB's didn't do squat when they left!!!" It's NOT the same.
Quit making sense.
Frowned upon here.
Zombo
-
Many fans and analysts are quick to point out, "How many other Patriots QB's have gone on to play well?" Here's the thing, it's not exactly apples to oranges, ok? What's the difference? For starters, Garoppolo was drafted in the second round. That's a pretty high pick, and there was more than one OC who had him as their number 1 QB in the DRAFT, one of them being our very own, Shannahan. Sure, it was a late second round pick, but still, what round was Matt Cassell drafted in? Yeah, the seventh. Furthermore, Cassell didn't even START in college. That's right, go back and see how many passes he threw during his college tenure. Now let's look at Brian Hoyer. Actually, let's not. We know his story (ahem..not drafted, right?). Ok, so let's look at Ryan Mallett. He was drafted in the 3rd round, which is very close to where Garoppolo was taken, but that's where the similarities end. Mallett was a big guy with a VERY slow delivery and subpar mobility. The market for Garoppolo is said to be a 1st round pick and possibly a 4th. That might be too high, but that's what we've all heard, right? Anybody here remember what Mallett was traded for? Yeah...I think it was a conditional 7th rounder. Could be wrong, but I don't think I am. By comparison, Garoppolo has solid size, a lightning quick delivery, terrific accuracy, and the ONLY reason the Patriots are even THINKING about trading him, is because they know they can't afford to keep him. In the true Patriot way, they will look to get something for an asset, rather than waiting for the player's contract to expire and get NOTHING when they walk.
To complete my point, our radio show has interviewed multiple analysts and experts, and EACH ONE has said that Jimmy Garoppolo, if he was coming out of school this season, would likely be rated the number one QB entering the draft. Can anybody truthfully say that about Mallett? Hoyer? Cassell? No. So I really don't want to hear anymore about, "The other Patriot QB's didn't do squat when they left!!!" It's NOT the same.
Many fans and analysts are quick to point out, "How many other Patriots QB's have gone on to play well?" Here's the thing, it's not exactly apples to oranges, ok? What's the difference? For starters, Garoppolo was drafted in the second round. That's a pretty high pick, and there was more than one OC who had him as their number 1 QB in the DRAFT, one of them being our very own, Shannahan. Sure, it was a late second round pick, but still, what round was Matt Cassell drafted in? Yeah, the seventh. Furthermore, Cassell didn't even START in college. That's right, go back and see how many passes he threw during his college tenure. Now let's look at Brian Hoyer. Actually, let's not. We know his story (ahem..not drafted, right?). Ok, so let's look at Ryan Mallett. He was drafted in the 3rd round, which is very close to where Garoppolo was taken, but that's where the similarities end. Mallett was a big guy with a VERY slow delivery and subpar mobility. The market for Garoppolo is said to be a 1st round pick and possibly a 4th. That might be too high, but that's what we've all heard, right? Anybody here remember what Mallett was traded for? Yeah...I think it was a conditional 7th rounder. Could be wrong, but I don't think I am. By comparison, Garoppolo has solid size, a lightning quick delivery, terrific accuracy, and the ONLY reason the Patriots are even THINKING about trading him, is because they know they can't afford to keep him. In the true Patriot way, they will look to get something for an asset, rather than waiting for the player's contract to expire and get NOTHING when they walk.
To complete my point, our radio show has interviewed multiple analysts and experts, and EACH ONE has said that Jimmy Garoppolo, if he was coming out of school this season, would likely be rated the number one QB entering the draft. Can anybody truthfully say that about Mallett? Hoyer? Cassell? No. So I really don't want to hear anymore about, "The other Patriot QB's didn't do squat when they left!!!" It's NOT the same.
Is there proof that Shanahan had JG as the number one QB in the draft? All I've seen is speculation that he liked him, that's about it.
Further, can you provide proof of these analysts saying JG is better than every QB in this draft? Because I haven't seen it.
I can make unsubstantiated claims as well. Hue Jackson already bought Mitch Trubisky a new house. Jimmy Haslam's illegitimate son is DeShone Kizer.
If Shanahan had JG as his #1 QB, then it's all but settled - SF will be signing him.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login