Qb for next year/QB class of 2021 (merge)

[w87r]

6 minutes ago, B~Town said:

Can teams agree to a trade before free agency and just not file papers or are teams blocked from talking due to the tampering rules .

Yes a trade can be unofficially agreed upon anytime but cant be finalized till March 17th.

[danlhart87]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

Yes a trade can be unofficially agreed upon anytime but cant be finalized till March 17th.

St Patrick Day 

Most of yall will be too drunk to know

[LJpalmbeacher2]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

Yes a trade can be unofficially agreed upon anytime bit cant be finalized till March 17th.

 

Hmmm....I wonder why they chose St. Patrick's Day to be the day to finalize deals?

[w87r]

Just now, danlhart87 said:

St Patrick Day 

Most of yall will be too drunk to know

Not me

 

Just now, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Hmmm....I wonder why they chose St. Patrick's Day to be the day to finalize deals?

Just the first day of new season.

[danlhart87]

I don't drink so me either

 

[danlhart87]

 

[Gigc]

a trade might be able to be agreed to before the official signing, buuuuuut, it can also be reneged upon right up until the signing.

Just ask Josh McDaniels

[LJpalmbeacher2]

1 hour ago, Gigc said:

a trade might be able to be agreed to before the official signing, buuuuuut, it can also be reneged upon right up until the signing.

Just ask Josh McDaniels

 

Once agree upon, I don't know if it can be reneged,  but one or more of the parties can change their mind. 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

I don't drink so me either

 

 

Is that Travolta? 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

2 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

St Patrick Day 

Most of yall will be too drunk to know

 

......or care. 

[danlhart87]

24 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

 

Is that Travolta? 

Its nick Offerman. His character Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation. 

[poilucelt]

7 hours ago, Mitch Connors said:

I think the 49ers will have a hard time making this happen with Garropolo on their roster with 2 years left on a giant contract and a no trade clause. They would conceivable tie up $50-65 million of their cap over the next 2 seasons unless they move Jimmy G. Problem with that is who would be willing to trade for that Jimmy G contract and/or trade for Jimmy G in the first place? Whoever would trade for him would also have to be a place that Jimmy G wants to go otherwise he could say no. That seems like a lot to have happen here.

 

 

 

don't know their cap situations off-hand, but I suspect both the Bears and the Patriots could be interested in taking Jimmy G off the 49ers' hands

[poilucelt]

4 hours ago, EastStreet said:

lol. yeah, some thought that.

they've been a bit quiet this year.

 

IMO, he was asked to do more this year, and with some of the scheme changes (rip liz), just didn't work out well. 

 

If we didn't have so many other needs this year, there are a few great LBs in the draft. If JOK somehow drops to the second, I'd love to grab him if we've solved for the other holes. He and DL would be the best LB core in the league.

I wonder if Surratt might still be there at #54?

[ColtJax]

A lot of these big names at QB are being floated around as trade bait. Watson, Ryan, Jimmy G, Rogers, etc.. But what a lot of people are forgetting is that in all of those cases there's a huge cap hit for the trading team. It can work with draft picks, because you replace a high hit with a low cap player. But a Jimmy G for Ryan type of deal can't..

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just saw Stafford averaged 8.7 yards per pass. Imagine that with a run game.

[danlhart87]

4 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Just saw Stafford averaged 8.7 yards per pass. Imagine that with a run game.

Where did that rank among the rest

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

14 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

Where did that rank among the rest

Not sure let me see if I can find it. Has to be closed to the top. That is a yard more then Rivers.

 

[Indeee]

On 1/23/2021 at 4:05 PM, jvan1973 said:

I've never seen him play.     I just know Ballard liked him coming out.    So it's pretty obvious he doesn't "suck "

From this morning:

 

ESPN's Rob Demovsky said Packers backup QB Tim Boyle "would be more suited" than Jordan Love to start in 2021 if Aaron Rodgers is traded or retires this offseason. 

In other words, the Packers would be in bad spot if Rodgers isn't in green and yellow next season. Demovsky said "nothing [Love] has shown, at least publicly, would suggest" he's ready to replace Rodgers a year after the Packers inexplicably drafted Love in the first round. Packers beat writers have written extensively since last summer that Love is an erratic passer who appears over his head in Green Bay's offense. "Love has struggled with accuracy -- in the drill where quarterbacks throw to a stationary target (usually a net) and to players running routes on air (without a defender)," Demovsky said. He suggested the team's best course might be to trade Love, like the Patriots did with Jimmy Garoppolo when Tom Brady was unhappy about New England drafting his successor. That Love isn't locked in as Green Bay's starter post-Rodgers is an indictment of the entire organization. 

 

Just a validation to those seemingly hard to find Love assessments I was earlier referring to.

 

You are welcome!!

[Superman]

Albert Breer on Stafford:

 

The Lions are doing the right thing. I view Detroit's situation with Matthew Stafford as significantly different than where the Texans are with Deshaun Watson (we’ll get to that one below). Stafford approached owner Sheila Ford Hamp and team president Rod Wood right after the season ended and more or less asked for a fresh start. It’s understandable. Matt Patricia was the third head coach fired in his 12 years as a Lion, and he’s played for four offensive coordinators, six quarterbacks coaches, two team presidents and three controlling owners. In that time, he’s made the playoffs three times. So as he saw it, it was time. The Lions asked him to wait for a new GM and coach to be selected. He agreed. The candidates who came through knew a Stafford trade was in play, and Holmes, Campbell and Wood called him this week to tell the quarterback that they’d field offers. Which really does make this a mutual agreement to part ways. I love Stafford as a player. I also understand why the Lions would agree to this. The roster needs work—and it’ll probably take a couple of years to get it where Holmes and Campbell want it. Having an unhappy quarterback beaten down by years of losing as the face of that project really isn’t what anyone is looking for. So dealing Stafford gives the Lions a shot to build from the ground up, with a top-10 pick to go fishing for his replacement and a chance to get a good return while his value is still high. As for a team bringing him in? One former Stafford coach told me Saturday, “He’s very underrated. Toughness, intelligence, arm talent, all of it’s at a very high level. He’s elite. He really is.” He’s also under contract for the next two years at $43 million (a very affordable rate) and doesn’t turn 33 until next month. It sure looks, on the surface, like the Lions should be able to get a first-rounder and something else for him. But depending on what teams like the Texans, Falcons, Rams, Raiders and Niners decide to do, the market might be a little clogged at the position, which could create a bargain for someone.

 

Indianapolis seems like the natural landing spot for Stafford. The question, then, becomes whether GM Chris Ballard and coach Frank Reich would see Stafford as a Band-Aid or more than that. The team went with a Band-Aid last year, in Rivers, after taking a shot with Jacoby Brissett in 2019 (and that was after Jimmy Garoppolo’s name briefly came up in the DeForest Buckner trade talks with San Francisco). Might they want to fix the position once and for all? I think that would be preferable. You could point to the Buckner trade as an example of Ballard being aggressive in the way he’d have to be on Stafford—but Buckner’s 26 and a definite long-term cornerstone. My guess would be that is what Ballard’s looking for. Maybe Stafford is that. Or maybe a big move up in the draft gets him there. Remember, Ballard was part of the vetting of Mahomes in Kansas City and saw the benefit of going all in on a young player at the position and dropping him into a readymade situation. Only he knows if there’s a quarterback in this year’s draft class that he sees like the Chiefs’ folks saw Mahomes in 2017. But if there is one, I’d bet he wouldn’t be scared to move way up the draft board, get a cost-controlled young passer and use the leftover cap space to start paying the guys they’ve been building around (like Quenton Nelson and Darius Leonard).

 

The bolded parts are my own emphasis. First is Breer's thoughts on compensation. Good point that if other teams make moves for other players -- Pats/Garappolo, for instance -- maybe it drops the final ask on Stafford a little bit.

 

Second, Breer says Garappolo came up in talks between the Colts and Niners last year, while they were working on the Buckner deal. That's new to me, and might be something to look out for.

[Indeee]

On 1/23/2021 at 3:57 PM, shasta519 said:

 

It's common knowledge that so far Love has sucked? I know you can't link a podcast...but do you have any other links that talk about Love sucking? The last time I heard anything to that effect was during TC.

 

All I have found since that time (regarding Love's development) was an article from October...where Rodgers said Love was doing well...learning and opening up. And then another from a month ago that GB was pleased with his progress. 

 

The narrative about adding GB hurting because they drafted Love should be dead...as they get ready to enter the NFCCG. And with Rodgers playing at an MVP level...it's impossible to know how Love will turn out because we won't see him in a Packer uniform for a couple of years at least.

 

From this morning Jan. 26th, 2021

 

ESPN's Rob Demovsky said Packers backup QB Tim Boyle "would be more suited" than Jordan Love to start in 2021 if Aaron Rodgers is traded or retires this offseason. 

In other words, the Packers would be in bad spot if Rodgers isn't in green and yellow next season. Demovsky said "nothing [Love] has shown, at least publicly, would suggest" he's ready to replace Rodgers a year after the Packers inexplicably drafted Love in the first round. Packers beat writers have written extensively since last summer that Love is an erratic passer who appears over his head in Green Bay's offense. "Love has struggled with accuracy -- in the drill where quarterbacks throw to a stationary target (usually a net) and to players running routes on air (without a defender)," Demovsky said. He suggested the team's best course might be to trade Love, like the Patriots did with Jimmy Garoppolo when Tom Brady was unhappy about New England drafting his successor. That Love isn't locked in as Green Bay's starter post-Rodgers is an indictment of the entire organization. 

 

Enjoy!!

[Indeee]

On 1/23/2021 at 10:25 AM, jvan1973 said:

Word from who?

I know I already sent it, but I couldn't resist, just in case you missed the first one I sent

 

Jan. 26th, 2021

 

 

ESPN's Rob Demovsky said Packers backup QB Tim Boyle "would be more suited" than Jordan Love to start in 2021 if Aaron Rodgers is traded or retires this offseason. 

In other words, the Packers would be in bad spot if Rodgers isn't in green and yellow next season. Demovsky said "nothing [Love] has shown, at least publicly, would suggest" he's ready to replace Rodgers a year after the Packers inexplicably drafted Love in the first round. Packers beat writers have written extensively since last summer that Love is an erratic passer who appears over his head in Green Bay's offense. "Love has struggled with accuracy -- in the drill where quarterbacks throw to a stationary target (usually a net) and to players running routes on air (without a defender)," Demovsky said. He suggested the team's best course might be to trade Love, like the Patriots did with Jimmy Garoppolo when Tom Brady was unhappy about New England drafting his successor. That Love isn't locked in as Green Bay's starter post-Rodgers is an indictment of the entire organization. 

 

Just making sure you pay attention to the part where I bolded it for you as it goes to merit of where I told you that it was coming out of Packers media as one source

 

To me, it sounds like he sucks.....

 

Have a good one.... 

 

[jvan1973]

3 minutes ago, Indeee said:

I know I already sent it, but I couldn't resist, just in case you missed the first one I sent

 

Jan. 26th, 2021

 

 

ESPN's Rob Demovsky said Packers backup QB Tim Boyle "would be more suited" than Jordan Love to start in 2021 if Aaron Rodgers is traded or retires this offseason. 

In other words, the Packers would be in bad spot if Rodgers isn't in green and yellow next season. Demovsky said "nothing [Love] has shown, at least publicly, would suggest" he's ready to replace Rodgers a year after the Packers inexplicably drafted Love in the first round. Packers beat writers have written extensively since last summer that Love is an erratic passer who appears over his head in Green Bay's offense. "Love has struggled with accuracy -- in the drill where quarterbacks throw to a stationary target (usually a net) and to players running routes on air (without a defender)," Demovsky said. He suggested the team's best course might be to trade Love, like the Patriots did with Jimmy Garoppolo when Tom Brady was unhappy about New England drafting his successor. That Love isn't locked in as Green Bay's starter post-Rodgers is an indictment of the entire organization. 

 

Just making sure you pay attention to the part where I bolded it for you as it goes to merit of where I told you that it was coming out of Packers media as one source

 

To me, it sounds like he sucks.....

 

Have a good one.... 

 

Last summer was a long time ago

[Superman]

18 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

Where did that rank among the rest

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2020/passing.htm

 

Stafford was 9th in yards/attempt, 11th in adjusted yards/attempt. Rivers was 10th and 13th. (Not sure where 8.7 yards/attempt came from, I'm not seeing that.)

 

Also, net yards/attempt accounts for sacks. Rivers was 9th, at 7.21 ny/a, Stafford was 13th and 6.77 ny/a. Basically adjusts for the fact that Stafford was sacked twice as many times (19 vs 38), with twice as much frequency (3.4% vs 6.7%), and for more than twice as many yards lost (118 vs 254). 

 

Their raw passing stats are very close to the same across the board. But we can see how significant the sacks are to the adjusted numbers. 

[Indeee]

2 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Last summer was a long time ago

Yea, you keep doing you buddy...

 

Maybe Jordan has learned how to throw into a net by now...   

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2020/passing.htm

 

Stafford was 9th in yards/attempt, 11th in adjusted yards/attempt. Rivers was 10th and 13th. (Not sure where 8.7 yards/attempt came from, I'm not seeing that.)

 

Also, net yards/attempt accounts for sacks. Rivers was 9th, at 7.21 ny/a, Stafford was 13th and 6.77 ny/a. Basically adjusts for the fact that Stafford was sacked twice as many times (19 vs 38), with twice as much frequency (3.4% vs 6.7%), and for more than twice as many yards lost (118 vs 254). 

 

Their raw passing stats are very close to the same across the board. But we can see how significant the sacks are to the adjusted numbers. 

Yeah I don’t know where that stat came from I saw. He mentioned air yards so maybe it’s a different stat he was talking about.

[ColtJax]

Just think Colt fans, many on here were angry that we didn't take Love over trading for Buckner, and many more for not trading up and by passing our 1st second round pick and taking Love. No we have a cornerstone DT and a possible great RB for the price of nothing..

[stitches]

5 minutes ago, ColtJax said:

Just think Colt fans, many on here were angry that we didn't take Love over trading for Buckner, and many more for not trading up and by passing our 1st second round pick and taking Love. No we have a cornerstone DT and a possible great RB for the price of nothing..

Umh.... 1st round pick(no. 13) and 20M a year is not "nothing"... second round pick for a RB is not "nothing"... 

[shasta519]

36 minutes ago, Indeee said:

I know I already sent it, but I couldn't resist, just in case you missed the first one I sent

 

Jan. 26th, 2021

 

 

ESPN's Rob Demovsky said Packers backup QB Tim Boyle "would be more suited" than Jordan Love to start in 2021 if Aaron Rodgers is traded or retires this offseason. 

In other words, the Packers would be in bad spot if Rodgers isn't in green and yellow next season. Demovsky said "nothing [Love] has shown, at least publicly, would suggest" he's ready to replace Rodgers a year after the Packers inexplicably drafted Love in the first round. Packers beat writers have written extensively since last summer that Love is an erratic passer who appears over his head in Green Bay's offense. "Love has struggled with accuracy -- in the drill where quarterbacks throw to a stationary target (usually a net) and to players running routes on air (without a defender)," Demovsky said. He suggested the team's best course might be to trade Love, like the Patriots did with Jimmy Garoppolo when Tom Brady was unhappy about New England drafting his successor. That Love isn't locked in as Green Bay's starter post-Rodgers is an indictment of the entire organization. 

 

Just making sure you pay attention to the part where I bolded it for you as it goes to merit of where I told you that it was coming out of Packers media as one source

 

To me, it sounds like he sucks.....

 

Have a good one.... 

 

 

Good grief. Demovsky writes for ESPN...and he was one of the original beat writers that started pushing the "Love is struggling" narrative...along with Matt Schneidman at the Athletic. It was all part of the drama about how GB offended Rodgers while simultaneously wasting a precious chance to help the team win a SB. How do you do not see the narrative?

 

Demovsky wrote an article about Love's challenges in TC on 8/27 and then Schneidman wrote an article on 8/28 for the Athletic. Those TC observations are fair to point out...because they were there. But the tone was definitely intentional. Below is a hyperbolic excerpt Schneidman's article:

 

Quote

“He didn't fall down the depth chart...he was already at the bottom of it...but Love has yet to even provide a glimpse at why the Packers traded up to draft him in the first round.”

 

A few days after those articles were published...another writer (Ryan Wood) reported that MLF said:

 

Quote

"Love had his best day up to this point, just making some key throws downfield...I think he's consistently getting better." 

 

And then there isn't really much else after that...aside from Rodgers saying he was "doing well" in October and the team being pleased with his progress near the end of the season. So if the bolded part about is even true...where are all the post-TC articles about Love?

 

It would seem to me that they stopped right about the time it was clear that GB had the best offense in the NFL, was the SB favorite from the NFC...and Rodgers was the likely MVP. The "wasted pick" narrative wasn't interesting (or accurate) anymore...and therefore it went away...along with the accompanying "Love sucks" narrative. 

 

And then here is excerpt from a post-NFCCG article from a ForTheWin writer. 

 

Quote

"Love, a Nevada product, needed time to develop his impressive but raw tools. Is one year enough? No one knows but the Packers."

 

And here is another from from an article by a PackersWire writer: 

 

Quote

"We don’t know if Love will be good, but he has a great environment in which to develop. He’s a traits-based prospect not unlike Buffalo’s Josh Allen (a legitimate MVP candidate in his third season). Not to say that Love will be Allen, but that almost doesn’t matter."

 

Notice the much different tone (than the TC articles) when talking about Love. Multiple beat writers and none of them mentioning that Love struggled all season...just that he is a toolsy prospect who needs some time to develop. And these articles were after Rodgers made his vague comments about his future being unknown...so it would have been a perfect time to talk about how Love has sucked (if it were true). 

 

And then you have Demovsky...one of the guys who initially pushed the narrative in TC...saying that he struggled all season, appears to be in over his head...and the best course of action would be to trade him. Lol.

 

What actually was (and is) common knowledge is that Love needed time to develop (like most rookies do). This was the consensus from just about every draft pundit as well as the teams scouting him...including GB (who said they expected it). So Love's adjustment to the NFL came as no surprise to GB...especially in an offseason that was dramatically cut short by COVID.

Yet, guys like Demovsky and Schneidman took all of a handful of practices to start pushing the "Love is struggling" narrative. Not that Love was learning and developing...like nearly all rookies do (especially QBs)...just that he was erratic and didn't look the part at all. It was clickbait...and it is now.

 

But you seem to still be hung up on it. Believe what you want...but the truth is that no one, except the Packers, know where Love is at in his development...and the future will decide if he is good or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shasta519]

13 minutes ago, ColtJax said:

Just think Colt fans, many on here were angry that we didn't take Love over trading for Buckner, and many more for not trading up and by passing our 1st second round pick and taking Love. No we have a cornerstone DT and a possible great RB for the price of nothing..

 

They would have traded up from the Pitt pick instead of the Taylor pick (Pitt was #34 and Taylor was #44). And time will tell if passing on Love was the right call. Ideally, both Love (and whomever the Colts draft) are great QBs.

[coming on strong]

The problem with going after trade is colts have the least to offer . Plenty of needy Qb teams that have higher first round picks to give . Broncos ,49ers , bears ,patriots. Even though teams are over the cap they can cut players to make room .   The only hope is if stafford demands to the colts only or these teams rather draft a QB . We’ll see Stafford is only 32 so Eason would demand a trade or not resign . 

[stitches]

18 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

 

Good grief. Demovsky writes for ESPN...and he was one of the original beat writers that started pushing the "Love is struggling" narrative...along with Matt Schneidman at the Athletic. It was all part of the drama about how GB offended Rodgers while simultaneously wasting a precious chance to help the team win a SB. How do you do not see the narrative?

 

Demovsky wrote an article about Love's challenges in TC on 8/27 and then Schneidman wrote an article on 8/28 for the Athletic. Those TC observations are fair to point out...because they were there. But the tone was definitely intentional. Below is a hyperbolic excerpt Schneidman's article:

 

 

A few days after those articles were published...another writer (Ryan Wood) reported that MLF said:

 

 

And then there isn't really much else after that...aside from Rodgers saying he was "doing well" in October and the team being pleased with his progress near the end of the season. So if the bolded part about is even true...where are all the post-TC articles about Love?

 

It would seem to me that they stopped right about the time it was clear that GB had the best offense in the NFL, was the SB favorite from the NFC...and Rodgers was the likely MVP. The "wasted pick" narrative wasn't interesting (or accurate) anymore...and therefore it went away...along with the accompanying "Love sucks" narrative. 

 

And then here is excerpt from a post-NFCCG article from a ForTheWin writer. 

 

 

And here is another from from an article by a PackersWire writer: 

 

 

Notice the much different tone (than the TC articles) when talking about Love. Multiple beat writers and none of them mentioning that Love struggled all season...just that he is a toolsy prospect who needs some time to develop. And these articles were after Rodgers made his vague comments about his future being unknown...so it would have been a perfect time to talk about how Love has sucked (if it were true). 

 

And then you have Demovsky...one of the guys who initially pushed the narrative in TC...saying that he struggled all season, appears to be in over his head...and the best course of action would be to trade him. Lol.

 

What actually was (and is) common knowledge is that Love needed time to develop (like most rookies do). This was the consensus from just about every draft pundit as well as the teams scouting him...including GB (who said they expected it). So Love's adjustment to the NFL came as no surprise to GB...especially in an offseason that was dramatically cut short by COVID.

Yet, guys like Demovsky and Schneidman took all of a handful of practices to start pushing the "Love is struggling" narrative. Not that Love was learning and developing...like nearly all rookies do (especially QBs)...just that he was erratic and didn't look the part at all. It was clickbait...and it is now.

 

But you seem to still be hung up on it. Believe what you want...but the truth is that no one, except the Packers, know where Love is at in his development...and the future will decide if he is good or not.

 

Demovsky is a well known Rodgers loyalist who didn't just not like the pick, he despised what it meant for Rodgers from the very start and no amount of new information would change his mind. Not that there has been any new information as you point out, besides some generic "he's doing good" off-hand comments. The reality is just like with Jacob Eason and the Colts, the only people that know where Love is in his development are within the Packers organization and even if he wasn't doing well, they have ZERO interest in that leaking... especially if they wanted to trade him. So... IMO this is just the next step of Demovsky's defense of Rodgers' status and spot on the Packers(not that he needs it, but...). 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Kevin Bowen believes the colts told rivers they were going in a different direction. He thinks for the colts to tell him that means they have confidence in getting someone in the draft or getting Stafford. He is connecting the dots with Dodd’s interviewing with the Lions. Also Rivers had his kids enrolled for school this coming fall in Indy. The fact he didn’t have  a presser also leads him to believe this is true. Rivers can’t go on camera and lie.  With as bad as the Luck retirement was they wanted to make sure he announced it on his own terms. You can hear Kevin talk about it on his podcast. If it’s true colt fans should be very happy because that means Ballard is very confident in what he has lined up.

[Mr.NotSoCreative]

In a trade for Stafford,do you all think throwing in a guy like Turay would still cost us our 1st rounder? Maybe lessen the extra picks?

[richard pallo]

6 minutes ago, Mr.NotSoCreative said:

In a trade for Stafford,do you all think throwing in a guy like Turay would still cost us our 1st rounder? Maybe lessen the extra picks?

I think the 1st is a goner.  He should lessen another pick though.  We could offer two 1sts and Campbell as part of the trade package and have them include Galloway as part of the trade.  He is scheduled to be a FA.  But again maybe we should concentrate on just getting Stafford and not muddy the waters.  

[Dingus McGirt]

Stafford has put his mansion in Michigan on the market.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, Dingus McGirt said:

Stafford has put his mansion in Michigan on the market.

It’s been on the market awhile I believe. They were moving because they have four small kids and a ton of water and didn’t feel it was safe.

[Dingus McGirt]

1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

It’s been on the market awhile I believe. They were moving because they have four small kids and a ton of water and didn’t feel it was safe.

Ahh.  The article I saw just popped on news feed.  Thanks!

[chad72]

24 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I think the 1st is a goner.  He should lessen another pick though.  We could offer two 1sts and Campbell as part of the trade package and have them include Galloway as part of the trade.  He is scheduled to be a FA.  But again maybe we should concentrate on just getting Stafford and not muddy the waters.  

 

Yeah, let us focus on just getting Stafford. Even if we draft 4 players, quality is what we go for. Heck, Seahawks gave up a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th to move up in the 3rd round to get Tyler Lockett. I would have to say it has worked out. 

 

Quantity only goes so far. If we do a 1st and future 2nd or 3rd for Stafford, and have picks 2-7 still, we could still move up if we feel the right guy is there.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

This is a whopper of a rumor. Anyone see the Albert Breer rumor that Jimmy G almost became a colt with the Buckner deal but Brady decided to go to Tampa. I guess if SF gets Stafford Jimmy G might end up here. LMAO. 

[richard pallo]

26 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

This is a whopper of a rumor. Anyone see the Albert Breer rumor that Jimmy G almost became a colt with the Buckner deal but Brady decided to go to Tampa. I guess if SF gets Stafford Jimmy G might end up here. LMAO. 

I read that.  I guess if we were interested in him last year we would most likely have some interest this year.  Let's just get this Stafford trade done asap please.