Flacco's eventual replacement.

[rmcjacket23]

14 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

The Saints used a third rounder on Garrett Grayson last season (2015). The Patriots took Ryan Mallett in the third (2011) and then Garrapolo in the second  (2014, Brady was 36 at the time). The Broncos used a second rounder on Brock Osweiler, despite securing Peyton Manning at 35. Despite coming off a career year, the Bucs drafted Mike Glennon in the third to be the eventual replacement to Josh Freeman. Only one had only one year left on their contract. All were 36 or younger.

1. The Pats take QBs for trade bait. Nobody really thinks that Garappolo is going to be in New England in two years, just like nobody thought Mallett was sticking around for 7-8 years waiting for Brady to retire.

2. Yes, because of Peyton's neck. They didn't get Peyton thinking he was going to play 5 more years in Denver. They got about the max they thought they would get out of him. I already said that injury concerns are the biggest reason teams make the decision to do this (similar to Dak Prescott in Dallas).

3. Not really close to a career year for Freeman in 2012, which is why they drafted Glennon. 2010, by far his best season, was followed by a horrendous 2011 season and pretty pedestrian 2012 season. He averaged 23 turnovers a season his last two years in TB, including 19 in 2012. Hence, Glennon.

[BmoreBird22]

21 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. The Pats take QBs for trade bait. Nobody really thinks that Garappolo is going to be in New England in two years, just like nobody thought Mallett was sticking around for 7-8 years waiting for Brady to retire.

2. Yes, because of Peyton's neck. They didn't get Peyton thinking he was going to play 5 more years in Denver. They got about the max they thought they would get out of him. I already said that injury concerns are the biggest reason teams make the decision to do this (similar to Dak Prescott in Dallas).

3. Not really close to a career year for Freeman in 2012, which is why they drafted Glennon. 2010, by far his best season, was followed by a horrendous 2011 season and pretty pedestrian 2012 season. He averaged 23 turnovers a season his last two years in TB, including 19 in 2012. Hence, Glennon.

They do it one time and now we're supposed to believe for Jimmy G? Somehow, I find it hard to believe because Brady is almost 40 and at some point, the Patriots are going to need someone. Also, can you name a team that takes a quarterback in the second with no intention of ever playing him "just to be trade bait". I mean, hell, Jacoby Brissett just got drafted in the third round by the Patriots. Trade bait!

I'm sure the Saints also took Grayson in the third to be trade bait. Back after the 2013 season. Brees had almost 5,000 yards passing in four straight seasons (48 yards shy) and did have 30 touchdowns in four straight. 

Dak Prescott was a fourth rounder, so he doesn't really fit in here. But on the subject of Peyton, he signed a five year contract and was going to be given fully guaranteed salaries if he passed his physical, so it's probably safe to say they had faith in him holding up. 

2012 was statistically his best season from a YPA, passing yards, and touchdown standpoint and he cut down on his turnovers by at least five from the previous year.

There's also the famous example of the Packers taking Aaron Rodgers in the first round, despite Favre being 35 and coming off a pretty strong 2004 campaign that saw him break the playoff touchdown streak record and move into second for the regular season streak.

You wanted examples and there they are.

[rmw10]

It'll likely be a few years before we start looking for a true replacement, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if we drafted a QB in the 3rd/4th round range in one of the next couple of drafts as an insurance policy.

[rmcjacket23]

38 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

They do it one time and now we're supposed to believe for Jimmy G? Somehow, I find it hard to believe because Brady is almost 40 and at some point, the Patriots are going to need someone. Also, can you name a team that takes a quarterback in the second with no intention of ever playing him "just to be trade bait". I mean, hell, Jacoby Brissett just got drafted in the third round by the Patriots. Trade bait!

I'm sure the Saints also took Grayson in the third to be trade bait. Back after the 2013 season. Brees had almost 5,000 yards passing in four straight seasons (48 yards shy) and did have 30 touchdowns in four straight. 

Dak Prescott was a fourth rounder, so he doesn't really fit in here. But on the subject of Peyton, he signed a five year contract and was going to be given fully guaranteed salaries if he passed his physical, so it's probably safe to say they had faith in him holding up. 

2012 was statistically his best season from a YPA, passing yards, and touchdown standpoint and he cut down on his turnovers by at least five from the previous year.

There's also the famous example of the Packers taking Aaron Rodgers in the first round, despite Favre being 35 and coming off a pretty strong 2004 campaign that saw him break the playoff touchdown streak record and move into second for the regular season streak.

You wanted examples and there they are.

1. Pretty much yes. I mean who really thought Mallett was the future for the Patriots, when they took in the third in 2011? Where was the realistic expectation that Brady would be gone by 2014? What, at age 37, an age many QBs still are productive at, with a QB who's largely healthy his whole career and doesn't require barely any of the skill sets that tend to phade with age (arm strength and mobility), he was all of the sudden just going to fade?

I suppose in theory Garoppolo is supposed to be the guy, but if nothing else, I think he's a hedge. At this point, its hard to see a path where he is the future starter in NE, because it would require Brady to retire basically after next season (highly unlikely) OR would require the Pats to pony up like starter level money to a backup, because that's what it will take to retain him. If he had played the full four games this season, on the path he's on, he's looking at Brock Osweiler money most likely in less than two years. Something tells me the Patriots won't be paying that for a guy unless they actually KNOW he's going to be the starter.

Its actually one of the biggest criticisms of the Patriots draft history. Selecting QBs early in the draft, them not contributing barely at all, and them not getting a return for the investment. 

2. I forgot about Grayson, so the Saints are a good example of this. However, they didn't even do this until Brees was 37. So if we were to project similar with Joe, that means that we would be targeting a QB to be drafted at age 37, which is still 6 years away. That would put us drafting somebody in the 2022 draft, which is basically would I said. That's a year or two later than what 757 projected, which was part of my argument.

3. You're not foolish enough to think the length of the contract matters. We saw how quickly it went from fully guaranteed salaries to not on the team. He was going to be cut if he didn't retire.

4. Freeman had the same YPA as he did in 2010, with only 2 more TDs (on almost 100 more attempts) and had 10 more turnovers than in 2010. Yes, he cut his turnovers (pretty much impossible not to do when you have 27 turnovers in a season) down to a whopping 19.

League-wide, his "best" season in 2012 netted him 12th in YPA, 29th in completion pct (lowest since his rookie year), tied for 5th highest in INTs, and if you're into QB rating, he was 19th. And that was his "best". Hence, Mike Glennon.

5. Yes, Aaron Rodgers... over a decade ago. That's our example. Dozens of QBs have been drafted since then, and we've got pretty much one example from over 10 years ago of a team actually successfully using a high pick on a QB, letting them sit for a substantial period of time, and it actually working out great for the franchise.

AND we haven't even gotten to the biggest deterrent of this, which is the financial side. 

[rmcjacket23]

40 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

It'll likely be a few years before we start looking for a true replacement, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if we drafted a QB in the 3rd/4th round range in one of the next couple of drafts as an insurance policy.

And this is realistic. But there's a difference between drafting an "insurance policy" and drafting somebody that we actually think has future franchise QB expectations. 

 

[rmw10]

1 minute ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And this is realistic. But there's a difference between drafting an "insurance policy" and drafting somebody that we actually think has future franchise QB expectations. 

 

I guess insurance policy should be more along the lines of say, Brett Hundley (since he was mentioned earlier).  Basically, a guy that definitely won't be knocking down the door to start right away, but could sit for 3 or 4 years and develop.  At that point, you can see if you like the development and want to keep him, or decide to move on.  Maybe insurance policy isn't the best use of words, but someone that has the potential to be a franchise guy with some growth and development.

[rmcjacket23]

12 hours ago, GrimCoconut said:

It seems we've entered an era where QB are playing far longer than given credit. I wouldn't be surprised if Flacco lasted until nearly 40, especially with the rule changes favoring the QB

Partially. Its also a combination of this "grooming" concept not really having great historical success (particularly in the last 10 years or so, which is really all thats relevant), and the gigantic benefits teams get out of having rookie QBs playing well for their team.

The notion of waiting until year 3-4 of a 5 year rookie deal to see valuable contributions from a QB who's supposed to be the future of the franchise isn't wise when you're paying that QB $5M a year (or less if we're talking 2nd or 3rd rounders) and will have to pay him $20M a year just a year or two later.

There's plenty of teams who have drafted guys thinking it would work out that way... sit for a year or two, develop, and then come in and save the day. Very, very, very few have. In most cases, they make starts in year 1, due to various circumstances.

Edited September 21, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, rmw10 said:

I guess insurance policy should be more along the lines of say, Brett Hundley (since he was mentioned earlier).  Basically, a guy that definitely won't be knocking down the door to start right away, but could sit for 3 or 4 years and develop.  At that point, you can see if you like the development and want to keep him, or decide to move on.  Maybe insurance policy isn't the best use of words, but someone that has the potential to be a franchise guy with some growth and development.

Yes. I agree with this. I think Garoppolo is this guy. He's a guy you drafted so that IF Brady falls off a cliff in his 3rd or 4th year, he knows the system and will do better than some street FA. Maybe he's a keeper, maybe he isn't. 

But there's no way the Patriots draft Garoppolo thinking that by year 4 they're kicking Brady out and giving him the keys.

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

1. Pretty much yes. I mean who really thought Mallett was the future for the Patriots, when they took in the third in 2011? Where was the realistic expectation that Brady would be gone by 2014? What, at age 37, an age many QBs still are productive at, with a QB who's largely healthy his whole career and doesn't require barely any of the skill sets that tend to phade with age (arm strength and mobility), he was all of the sudden just going to fade?

I suppose in theory Garoppolo is supposed to be the guy, but if nothing else, I think he's a hedge. At this point, its hard to see a path where he is the future starter in NE, because it would require Brady to retire basically after next season (highly unlikely) OR would require the Pats to pony up like starter level money to a backup, because that's what it will take to retain him. If he had played the full four games this season, on the path he's on, he's looking at Brock Osweiler money most likely in less than two years. Something tells me the Patriots won't be paying that for a guy unless they actually KNOW he's going to be the starter.

Its actually one of the biggest criticisms of the Patriots draft history. Selecting QBs early in the draft, them not contributing barely at all, and them not getting a return for the investment. 

2. I forgot about Grayson, so the Saints are a good example of this. However, they didn't even do this until Brees was 37. So if we were to project similar with Joe, that means that we would be targeting a QB to be drafted at age 37, which is still 6 years away. That would put us drafting somebody in the 2022 draft, which is basically would I said. That's a year or two later than what 757 projected, which was part of my argument.

3. You're not foolish enough to think the length of the contract matters. We saw how quickly it went from fully guaranteed salaries to not on the team. He was going to be cut if he didn't retire.

4. Freeman had the same YPA as he did in 2010, with only 2 more TDs (on almost 100 more attempts) and had 10 more turnovers than in 2010. Yes, he cut his turnovers (pretty much impossible not to do when you have 27 turnovers in a season) down to a whopping 19.

League-wide, his "best" season in 2012 netted him 12th in YPA, 29th in completion pct (lowest since his rookie year), tied for 5th highest in INTs, and if you're into QB rating, he was 19th. And that was his "best". Hence, Mike Glennon.

5. Yes, Aaron Rodgers... over a decade ago. That's our example. Dozens of QBs have been drafted since then, and we've got pretty much one example from over 10 years ago of a team actually successfully using a high pick on a QB, letting them sit for a substantial period of time, and it actually working out great for the franchise.

AND we haven't even gotten to the biggest deterrent of this, which is the financial side. 

Ryan Mallet was always viewed as a first round talent, possibly the most talented quarterback in that draft class, but questions over maturity and the ability to take coaching/management critique well came into question. Considering that he was their fifth pick in the top 3 rounds, they could afford to take that chance. All they realistically had to do was show that his maturity issues were overblown and he'd likely fetch a pretty nice pick; at least higher than that third they paid. 

In the case of Garrapollo, do you really think some team is truly going to pay high money for him off of four games? Yeah, I'm sure that's realistic. Of course we'll have to see how Osweiler does over a full 16 game season, but many believed it to be one of the dumbest decisions the Texans could have made and it will probably appear that way, too, after the season. Where have we seen this before, though... A Patriot plays well in extended action (15 starts), parlays that into a contract with another team, then completely flounders... Oh, right- Matt Cassell.

Teams are going to be smarter than to pay a handsome contract to Garapollo after four games in the Patriots system because we're seeing that mistakes can happen without multiple seasons back up that high level of play (Kaepernick, Taylor, Cousins). Except for those guys, they actually played well at some point in time for 16 games. 

There's also an instance of a similar amount of games played at a high level, only to see that player never actually play meaningful time with his new team in Matt Flynn.

As far as the Patriots go in this regard, you would have to imagine that the Patriots are going to see what they have in Brissett and Garapollo to see if either can be their quarterback of the future. It's not unheard of for a quarterback to sit and learn a few years behind a veteran (Rodgers, Rivers).

Well, he played four years for them and won a Super Bowl for them, but I'm more so saying that they wouldn't have signed him for that length (with the cap hits likely making it impossible to cut him before that fourth or fifth year) if they didn't have faith that he could contribute in some form or fashion for at least two to three years.

I'd also point out that the Bucs had very little on that offensive line outside of Penn and had very little to work with at receiver outside of Vincent Jackson. They had also brought in a new head coach (probably why they even drafted a new quarterback), but that's neither here nor there.

There's other examples of this. Like I said, I think Jimmy G will be the eventual replacement, there's Rodgers-Favre, Grayson-Brees, McNabb-Kolb. I'm not even gonna sit here and say it happens super often, but we also have to realize that not a ton of teams have franchise quarterbacks playing well into their age 35 campaign or later now a days.

[Maryland]

The catch 22 with these "trade bait" QBs is that your starter has to get injured for the backup to get some time to show his skillset--though not too much time, lest he get exposed for being terrible. 

Additionally, a lot of these "trade bait" QBs aren't going to fetch a pick remotely equal to what was spent to draft them. For example, Mallett was traded to the Texans for a conditional 7th round pick because the only good tape on him was from preseason, yet he was drafted in the 3rd. Seems like a waste of a pick when you could be using that 3rd round pick to actually bolster your depth at a position of use. The same will probably happen with Brissett. Jimmy Clausen was another high-pick turned trade-bait who never worked out. Brock Osweiler might have been good trade-bait or a QB of the future, but by the time he got a chance to play, he was an impending UFA--no value was really gained. It seems like the Kevin Kolbs, Nick Foles, and Matt Cassels (though he was a 7th rounder) of the world are few and far between--big trades for successful backup QBs are pretty rare. Those mid-round picks are better spent on positional players if you are only drafting the QB as potential trade-bait.