Could we get anything good for Boykin from:

[scutterhawk]

quote]

As far as why no other team has signed T-Jack to this point, I'll admit I'm a bit puzzled. The guy has a .500 record in the league, has thrown more touchdowns than picks, has grown his QB rating in the years where he's been given ample amount of snaps and has been endorsed by Pete and John as their backup the last 3 years. Obviously the domestic assault charge scared some teams off, but he was cleared of those wrongdoings rather quickly by the law. It would be unjust for false accusations to deny him of employment. Like any of us, I don't know if there's things going on behind the scenes as this is a private matter. For all I know, he and his wife are undergoing counseling and he won't resume his career until that facet of his life is settled. Maybe Pete knows that too. Just speculating.

Even if this scenario with T-Jack doesn't play out, what are we looking for with Tavone? Two
or three years of development and then seek a trade? Career caddy to Russ as time would be on his side, unlike Tarvaris? How long would he settle for that role? What if the injuries this year would make for what could turn out to be the best option to trade him and we miss out?

Doesn't it also puzzle you that we have Heaps and not Jackson?
Hell, maybe we can trade Heaps for your 4th round, and Voila! :stirthepot: :stirthepot:

 

[Siouxhawk]

quote]

As far as why no other team has signed T-Jack to this point, I'll admit I'm a bit puzzled. The guy has a .500 record in the league, has thrown more touchdowns than picks, has grown his QB rating in the years where he's been given ample amount of snaps and has been endorsed by Pete and John as their backup the last 3 years. Obviously the domestic assault charge scared some teams off, but he was cleared of those wrongdoings rather quickly by the law. It would be unjust for false accusations to deny him of employment. Like any of us, I don't know if there's things going on behind the scenes as this is a private matter. For all I know, he and his wife are undergoing counseling and he won't resume his career until that facet of his life is settled. Maybe Pete knows that too. Just speculating.

Even if this scenario with T-Jack doesn't play out, what are we looking for with Tavone? Two
or three years of development and then seek a trade? Career caddy to Russ as time would be on his side, unlike Tarvaris? How long would he settle for that role? What if the injuries this year would make for what could turn out to be the best option to trade him and we miss out?

Doesn't it also puzzle you that we have Heaps and not Jackson?
Hell, maybe we can trade Heaps for your 4th round, and Voila! :stirthepot: :stirthepot:

No, because Heaps won't be around next week. They'll either have Tavone as the backup on the 53 or they'll bring in Tarvaris as the backup and move Tavone to the PS. Only 2 options.

 

[Ad Hawk]

As far as trading Boykin today, what kind of compensation would be needed? Many are missing the point, I think, that if the endgame is to eventually trade Boykin, why not do it now if the price were right? God forbid he becomes our starter, so why not take the compensation now if it were offered?

God forbid anyone other than RW be the starter. True, that. But that is equally true for TJ as for Boykin.

Your "if" about the endgame needs to be considered less a realistic scenario and is rather just your personal dream. Proof that this is Pete's plan is severely lacking. You can play the if game all you want, but evidence is strongly against your position. Why keep pushing it?

As for TJ being savvy, that's hyperbole, at this point. Average stats from years ago+age+few recent nfl reps doesn't=savvy.

Of course it's the endgame put in motion -- what else could it be? Are you advocating that Boykin be the backup for the next 5 years? I'm under the impression that we're modeling this strategy after the Patriots, who developed a backup QB and then traded him 3 or 4 years down the road. Are you saying you'd like to see Boykin be our long-term backup. That could be a noble idea, but it doesn't allay my fears and apprehension for this year.

Your fears and apprehension that TJ may be unemployed aren't really relevant on this board or in this discussion.

Concerning the Hawks, Yes, I'd certainly advocate Boykin being the backup since I don't see anyone better for this team.

Should Boykin develop and be given a chance to start somewhere else, that'd be great for him. Hopefully we'd get some compensation in return for him if it happens before FA begins. That's a secondary plus to having a good backup should RW get hurt.

 

[McGruff]

Excellent idea. A lot of you just want to keep Boykin to develop him and trade him for a pick. Why not just do it now and bring back Tarvaris. We get a more reliable backup and a draft pick to boot.

Because Boykin needs to actually be developed before he is worthy of a pick. 32 teams passed him over a total of 253 times in the draft, including several teams in need of starting and backup caliber quarterbacks. Only one of those teams has any real idea about what he is capable of and what he brings to the table, all others essentially have the same draft grade on him that they had on him in April.

What could we get in trade for Boykin now? A 7th at best, and probably a conditional 7th at that.

Unless they are planning on cutting him anyway, there is no way the Hawks are trading him. If they are planning on cutting him, the only conceivable reason they had to keep him last Saturday was to try to fool other teams into thinking he is worth a trade. I just don't see this org behaving that way

So if no team is willing to give up a measly 7th round pick for him and he needs to develop, why not just stash him on the practice squad and bring in a veteran backup? If a team snatched him off of our practice squad to be their backup, we get a conditional pick, right? We've been down this road before with Josh Portis, B.J. Daniels and Terrelle Pryor. Is Boykin so much better than those guys?

Yes. Boykin was considered 4th round talent with some personal baggage and schematic issues that caused him to fall. He also has an entire off season in our system with our coaches, which makes him more valuable to us than to anyone else.

For those citing the Patriots as an example of how to "turn backups into draft picks" there is only one example of that ever working for them, and that was Matt Cassell (and Mike Vrabel) for #34 overall. That was a pretty unique situation too, in that Cassell had actually started a significant number of games for New England the year before. Cassell was largely a bust for KC.

They subsequently drafted Ryan Mallett in the 3rd round, only to trade him 3 years later for a conditional 7th round pick. Not really a great investment there. Mallett has sucked since then.

Jimmy Garapolo was then drafted with a 2nd round pick, and even if he does well for the Patriots while starting for New England in place of Tom Brady, they are unlikely to recoup that pick. They might get a 2nd, but more than likely would get a 3rd or 4th.

 

[Siouxhawk]

As far as trading Boykin today, what kind of compensation would be needed? Many are missing the point, I think, that if the endgame is to eventually trade Boykin, why not do it now if the price were right? God forbid he becomes our starter, so why not take the compensation now if it were offered?

God forbid anyone other than RW be the starter. True, that. But that is equally true for TJ as for Boykin.

Your "if" about the endgame needs to be considered less a realistic scenario and is rather just your personal dream. Proof that this is Pete's plan is severely lacking. You can play the if game all you want, but evidence is strongly against your position. Why keep pushing it?

As for TJ being savvy, that's hyperbole, at this point. Average stats from years ago+age+few recent nfl reps doesn't=savvy.

Of course it's the endgame put in motion -- what else could it be? Are you advocating that Boykin be the backup for the next 5 years? I'm under the impression that we're modeling this strategy after the Patriots, who developed a backup QB and then traded him 3 or 4 years down the road. Are you saying you'd like to see Boykin be our long-term backup. That could be a noble idea, but it doesn't allay my fears and apprehension for this year.

Your fears and apprehension that TJ may be unemployed aren't really relevant on this board or in this discussion.

Concerning the Hawks, Yes, I'd certainly advocate Boykin being the backup since I don't see anyone better for this team.

Should Boykin develop and be given a chance to start somewhere else, that'd be great for him. Hopefully we'd get some compensation in return for him if it happens before FA begins. That's a secondary plus to having a good backup should RW get hurt.

My concerns hinge on the backup QB situation for the Seahawks heading into this season, so yes, it is relevant to this thread and this team.

And it sounds like you aspire to the idea of trading Trevone for compensation down the road. But what price would you put on him if another team came calling today?

 

[McGruff]

As far as trading Boykin today, what kind of compensation would be needed? Many are missing the point, I think, that if the endgame is to eventually trade Boykin, why not do it now if the price were right? God forbid he becomes our starter, so why not take the compensation now if it were offered?

God forbid anyone other than RW be the starter. True, that. But that is equally true for TJ as for Boykin.

Your "if" about the endgame needs to be considered less a realistic scenario and is rather just your personal dream. Proof that this is Pete's plan is severely lacking. You can play the if game all you want, but evidence is strongly against your position. Why keep pushing it?

As for TJ being savvy, that's hyperbole, at this point. Average stats from years ago+age+few recent nfl reps doesn't=savvy.

Of course it's the endgame put in motion -- what else could it be? Are you advocating that Boykin be the backup for the next 5 years? I'm under the impression that we're modeling this strategy after the Patriots, who developed a backup QB and then traded him 3 or 4 years down the road. Are you saying you'd like to see Boykin be our long-term backup. That could be a noble idea, but it doesn't allay my fears and apprehension for this year.

90% of NFL backup Qb's either become lifetime backups for one team (Doug Pederson) or journeyman backups for multiple teams.

4 years of quality backup (minimum) for less than 2 million dollar TOTAL is worth more than what Boykin could get on the trade market.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Because Boykin needs to actually be developed before he is worthy of a pick. 32 teams passed him over a total of 253 times in the draft, including several teams in need of starting and backup caliber quarterbacks. Only one of those teams has any real idea about what he is capable of and what he brings to the table, all others essentially have the same draft grade on him that they had on him in April.

What could we get in trade for Boykin now? A 7th at best, and probably a conditional 7th at that.

Unless they are planning on cutting him anyway, there is no way the Hawks are trading him. If they are planning on cutting him, the only conceivable reason they had to keep him last Saturday was to try to fool other teams into thinking he is worth a trade. I just don't see this org behaving that way

So if no team is willing to give up a measly 7th round pick for him and he needs to develop, why not just stash him on the practice squad and bring in a veteran backup? If a team snatched him off of our practice squad to be their backup, we get a conditional pick, right? We've been down this road before with Josh Portis, B.J. Daniels and Terrelle Pryor. Is Boykin so much better than those guys?

Yes. Boykin was considered 4th round talent with some personal baggage and schematic issues that caused him to fall. He also has an entire off season in our system with our coaches, which makes him more valuable to us than to anyone else.

For those citing the Patriots as an example of how to "turn backups into draft picks" there is only one example of that ever working for them, and that was Matt Cassell (and Mike Vrabel) for #34 overall. That was a pretty unique situation too, in that Cassell had actually started a significant number of games for New England the year before. Cassell was largely a bust for KC.

They subsequently drafted Ryan Mallett in the 3rd round, only to trade him 3 years later for a conditional 7th round pick. Not really a great investment there. Mallett has sucked since then.

Jimmy Garapolo was then drafted with a 2nd round pick, and even if he does well for the Patriots while starting for New England in place of Tom Brady, they are unlikely to recoup that pick. They might get a 2nd, but more than likely would get a 3rd or 4th.

Thanks McGruff. So aside from Cassell, investing in a developmental QB seldom yields a high return. So by that mere fact alone, if our coach isn't sold on the security our young QB brings to the all-important backup position, it could be conceivable that he stashes him on the practice squad for further training and brings in a veteran who gives him more assurances.

 

[McGruff]

Yes. Boykin was considered 4th round talent with some personal baggage and schematic issues that caused him to fall. He also has an entire off season in our system with our coaches, which makes him more valuable to us than to anyone else.

For those citing the Patriots as an example of how to "turn backups into draft picks" there is only one example of that ever working for them, and that was Matt Cassell (and Mike Vrabel) for #34 overall. That was a pretty unique situation too, in that Cassell had actually started a significant number of games for New England the year before. Cassell was largely a bust for KC.

They subsequently drafted Ryan Mallett in the 3rd round, only to trade him 3 years later for a conditional 7th round pick. Not really a great investment there. Mallett has sucked since then.

Jimmy Garapolo was then drafted with a 2nd round pick, and even if he does well for the Patriots while starting for New England in place of Tom Brady, they are unlikely to recoup that pick. They might get a 2nd, but more than likely would get a 3rd or 4th.

Thanks McGruff. So aside from Cassell, investing in a developmental QB seldom yields a high return. So by that mere fact alone, if our coach isn't sold on the security our young QB brings to the all-important backup position, it could be conceivable that he stashes him on the practice squad for further training and brings in a veteran who gives him more assurances.

The return is found in the security the backup offers as a backup.

Let me put it this way. If we released Boykin today he would be snapped up instantly while veteran journeyman QB's like Jackson and Whitehurst and Vick and Flynn and Lindely and Freeman sit idly by. Why? Because you can get the same production from Boykin for 4 years as you could Jackson for 1 year.

 

[Ad Hawk]

if our coach isn't sold on the security our young QB brings to the all-important backup position, it could be conceivable that he stashes him on the practice squad for further training and brings in a veteran who gives him more assurances.

I'm curious why this hypothetical "if" keeps showing up with the implication that it actually represents some kind of reality. Please explain.

 

[McGruff]

if our coach isn't sold on the security our young QB brings to the all-important backup position, it could be conceivable that he stashes him on the practice squad for further training and brings in a veteran who gives him more assurances.

I'm curious why this hypothetical "if" keeps showing up with the implication that it actually represents some kind of reality. Please explain.

Thank you . . . there has been nothing to indicate that the staff is not comfortable with what they see in Boykin.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Yes. Boykin was considered 4th round talent with some personal baggage and schematic issues that caused him to fall. He also has an entire off season in our system with our coaches, which makes him more valuable to us than to anyone else.

For those citing the Patriots as an example of how to "turn backups into draft picks" there is only one example of that ever working for them, and that was Matt Cassell (and Mike Vrabel) for #34 overall. That was a pretty unique situation too, in that Cassell had actually started a significant number of games for New England the year before. Cassell was largely a bust for KC.

They subsequently drafted Ryan Mallett in the 3rd round, only to trade him 3 years later for a conditional 7th round pick. Not really a great investment there. Mallett has sucked since then.

Jimmy Garapolo was then drafted with a 2nd round pick, and even if he does well for the Patriots while starting for New England in place of Tom Brady, they are unlikely to recoup that pick. They might get a 2nd, but more than likely would get a 3rd or 4th.

Thanks McGruff. So aside from Cassell, investing in a developmental QB seldom yields a high return. So by that mere fact alone, if our coach isn't sold on the security our young QB brings to the all-important backup position, it could be conceivable that he stashes him on the practice squad for further training and brings in a veteran who gives him more assurances.

The return is found in the security the backup offers as a backup.

Let me put it this way. If we released Boykin today he would be snapped up instantly while veteran journeyman QB's like Jackson and Whitehurst and Vick and Flynn and Lindely and Freeman sit idly by. Why? Because you can get the same production from Boykin for 4 years as you could Jackson for 1 year.

And I'm sure that's what Pete will be mulling over -- will he get that same level of security from the position. And to clarify, I n ever wrote we'd release Boykin; I said we'd put him on the practice squad. Big difference there as a team interested in claiming him would have to add him to their 53 roster and give us a conditional pick.

 

[Ad Hawk]

And it sounds like you aspire to the idea of trading Trevone for compensation down the road. But what price would you put on him if another team came calling today?

I think you misunderstand. I wouldn't trade him today nor aspire to trade him in the future either, unless the compensation was worth it and we were assured a quality backup could be found to replace him with more upside/skills/familiarity with the program/lower cost, etc. Otherwise, why consider it? No such backup is currently available. Here is the heart of your challenge here presenting what you think is a option that nobody in football considers viable; if they did, he'd already be employed.

As was pointed out by McGruff, Boykin offers security at an important position. I'm sure Pete's done mulling this issue over as if it were even an issue.

 

[McGruff]

Yes. Boykin was considered 4th round talent with some personal baggage and schematic issues that caused him to fall. He also has an entire off season in our system with our coaches, which makes him more valuable to us than to anyone else.

For those citing the Patriots as an example of how to "turn backups into draft picks" there is only one example of that ever working for them, and that was Matt Cassell (and Mike Vrabel) for #34 overall. That was a pretty unique situation too, in that Cassell had actually started a significant number of games for New England the year before. Cassell was largely a bust for KC.

They subsequently drafted Ryan Mallett in the 3rd round, only to trade him 3 years later for a conditional 7th round pick. Not really a great investment there. Mallett has sucked since then.

Jimmy Garapolo was then drafted with a 2nd round pick, and even if he does well for the Patriots while starting for New England in place of Tom Brady, they are unlikely to recoup that pick. They might get a 2nd, but more than likely would get a 3rd or 4th.

Thanks McGruff. So aside from Cassell, investing in a developmental QB seldom yields a high return. So by that mere fact alone, if our coach isn't sold on the security our young QB brings to the all-important backup position, it could be conceivable that he stashes him on the practice squad for further training and brings in a veteran who gives him more assurances.

The return is found in the security the backup offers as a backup.

Let me put it this way. If we released Boykin today he would be snapped up instantly while veteran journeyman QB's like Jackson and Whitehurst and Vick and Flynn and Lindely and Freeman sit idly by. Why? Because you can get the same production from Boykin for 4 years as you could Jackson for 1 year.

And I'm sure that's what Pete will be mulling over -- will he get that same level of security from the position. And to clarify, I n ever wrote we'd release Boykin; I said we'd put him on the practice squad. Big difference there as a team interested in claiming him would have to add him to their 53 roster and give us a conditional pick.

You don't understand how the practice squad works.

A player does not go directly from the preseason roster to the practice squad. First, they must be released. After they have cleared waivers during which time any team in the NFL can claim him for a rookie minimum salary contract, they are eligible to sign to the practice squad.

once they are on the practice squad, another team may sign them, but ONLY to the regular 53 man roster. And no draft pick is needed to do so.

So yes, for Boykin to become eligible for the practice squad, we must first release him.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

I'll bite...

How about Boykin, a 2nd, and a 5th for #28?

We wouldn't have any cash left to hookup Bennett, but...

You're dreaming!
What the OP has in mind is much more likely: Boykin for Bridgewater straight up right?

 

[Russ Willstrong]

What's funny about this trade idea is that Zimmer wants an efficient passer who has experience so Minny would a chance for post season success. TJack actually played alongside AP and may welcome a reunion under the new regime.
As for Boykin, IMO his value as undrafted FA and untested rookie puts him far from consideration in Minny.
They already have a better young prospect with a big arm, height and mobility in Joel Stave. Their other prospect Taylor Heinicke shows upside too.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Thanks McGruff. So aside from Cassell, investing in a developmental QB seldom yields a high return. So by that mere fact alone, if our coach isn't sold on the security our young QB brings to the all-important backup position, it could be conceivable that he stashes him on the practice squad for further training and brings in a veteran who gives him more assurances.

The return is found in the security the backup offers as a backup.

Let me put it this way. If we released Boykin today he would be snapped up instantly while veteran journeyman QB's like Jackson and Whitehurst and Vick and Flynn and Lindely and Freeman sit idly by. Why? Because you can get the same production from Boykin for 4 years as you could Jackson for 1 year.

And I'm sure that's what Pete will be mulling over -- will he get that same level of security from the position. And to clarify, I n ever wrote we'd release Boykin; I said we'd put him on the practice squad. Big difference there as a team interested in claiming him would have to add him to their 53 roster and give us a conditional pick.

You don't understand how the practice squad works.

A player does not go directly from the preseason roster to the practice squad. First, they must be released. After they have cleared waivers during which time any team in the NFL can claim him for a rookie minimum salary contract, they are eligible to sign to the practice squad.

once they are on the practice squad, another team may sign them, but ONLY to the regular 53 man roster. And no draft pick is needed to do so.

So yes, for Boykin to become eligible for the practice squad, we must first release him.

Yes McGruff, I was under the impression that the players we put on the practice squad would be protected to the extent that a team would at least have to put them on their 53. How do we accumulate conditional draft picks if it's not those players that we have poached from our practice squad that amount to picks?

 

[Siouxhawk]

And it sounds like you aspire to the idea of trading Trevone for compensation down the road. But what price would you put on him if another team came calling today?

I think you misunderstand. I wouldn't trade him today nor aspire to trade him in the future either, unless the compensation was worth it and we were assured a quality backup could be found to replace him with more upside/skills/familiarity with the program/lower cost, etc. Otherwise, why consider it? No such backup is currently available. Here is the heart of your challenge here presenting what you think is a option that nobody in football considers viable; if they did, he'd already be employed.

As was pointed out by McGruff, Boykin offers security at an important position. I'm sure Pete's done mulling this issue over as if it were even an issue.

And I'd be surprised if Pete was finished with his decision about this. Tarvaris is a better backup currently and that's hardly a question. Trevone might have a higher ceiling, but I'm thinking about this year.

 

[McGruff]

Yes McGruff, I was under the impression that the players we put on the practice squad would be protected to the extent that a team would at least have to put them on their 53. How do we accumulate conditional draft picks if it's not those players that we have poached from our practice squad that amount to picks?

Conditional draft pick come from trades made with other teams.

Compensatory draft picks come from free agency losses and gains. If you lose more qualifying free agents than you gain, you get picks. Practice Squad players do not qualify as free agents.

Practice squad is protected in that teams must put them on tehir 53 man roster, which means releasing a player that they have invested in. But that is the only thing keeping them from raiding practice squads.

 

[mrt144]

And it sounds like you aspire to the idea of trading Trevone for compensation down the road. But what price would you put on him if another team came calling today?

I think you misunderstand. I wouldn't trade him today nor aspire to trade him in the future either, unless the compensation was worth it and we were assured a quality backup could be found to replace him with more upside/skills/familiarity with the program/lower cost, etc. Otherwise, why consider it? No such backup is currently available. Here is the heart of your challenge here presenting what you think is a option that nobody in football considers viable; if they did, he'd already be employed.

As was pointed out by McGruff, Boykin offers security at an important position. I'm sure Pete's done mulling this issue over as if it were even an issue.

And I'd be surprised if Pete was finished with his decision about this. Tarvaris is a better backup currently and that's hardly a question. Trevone might have a higher ceiling, but I'm thinking about this year.

And it's apparent that you're working at this from the starting position that T-Jack should be back here and then finding myriad reasons to justify it as crazy and contradictory to what Pete and John have done in the off season.

 

[McGruff]

And it sounds like you aspire to the idea of trading Trevone for compensation down the road. But what price would you put on him if another team came calling today?

I think you misunderstand. I wouldn't trade him today nor aspire to trade him in the future either, unless the compensation was worth it and we were assured a quality backup could be found to replace him with more upside/skills/familiarity with the program/lower cost, etc. Otherwise, why consider it? No such backup is currently available. Here is the heart of your challenge here presenting what you think is a option that nobody in football considers viable; if they did, he'd already be employed.

As was pointed out by McGruff, Boykin offers security at an important position. I'm sure Pete's done mulling this issue over as if it were even an issue.

And I'd be surprised if Pete was finished with his decision about this. Tarvaris is a better backup currently and that's hardly a question. Trevone might have a higher ceiling, but I'm thinking about this year.

I think given Tavaris' age and declining physical skills and how little live action he's seen in the last 5 years, Trevone actually might be a better backup currently.

Add in the factor of cost-benefit, and the pendulum shifts pretty titanically.

And this is coming from a guy who is historically a huge defender of jackson. He was my #1 QB the year we initially signed him, and people thought I was crayz. What he was able to do injured with a pretty bad team was pretty phenomenal to me.

But that was 5 years ago. 5 years is an eternity in the NFL. TJack might as well be Doug Flutie at this point.