We knew it was possible — some might even say likely — but on Monday, it became (mostly) official: Jimmy Garoppolo is going to sign with the Las Vegas Raiders. It’s hard to be too surprised considering the key factors: he used to play for the Patriots and he was the top free-agent quarterback available.
And yet…are we supposed to be excited? Indifferent? Disappointed?
What’s funny is that I think my experience of processing this signing was a rollercoaster that featured turns around each of those corners. There are obviously arguments in favor of each of these reactions — but where you apply the most weight might vary from person to person. And so, as I attempt to process my own thoughts, I figure I’d peel back the curtain and let you into the war of opinions within my own mind — an argument, if you will, between pro-Jimmy-Jeff (“PRO”) and anti-Jimmy-Jeff (“ANTI”)…
PRO: Did you hear the news?!? Jimmy Garoppolo signed a 3-year, $67.5 million deal with $34 million guaranteed.
ANTI: meh
PRO: WHAT?! How are you not excited about this?
ANTI: I mean, it’s Jimmy G.
PRO: Yeah — the guy who is 40-17 as a starter with twice as many touchdowns as interceptions in his career. Did you catch that? FORTY WINS AND JUST SEVENTEEN LOSSES.
ANTI: …
PRO: Plus, we need a quarterback and he was the best one out there by far. Did you want Jacoby Brissett?
ANTI: Definitely no.
PRO: Jarrett Stidham? (Wait, don’t answer that). Baker Mayfield?
ANTI: Hard pass.
PRO: See what I’m saying? This was the only guy out there who was going to make us competitive next season — so let’s draft a rookie and let him sit behind Jimmy, and we’ll win games in the meantime.
ANTI: Why not just keep Carr, then?
PRO: Fair question, honestly, but clearly Carr didn’t fit what McDaniels is trying to do — and plus, while Jimmy isn’t cheap per se, he’s quite a bit cheaper than Carr.
ANTI: Yeah, but the one thing people didn’t appreciate about Carr — which they’ll miss now — is his availability. Regardless of what you think about Carr, you can’t argue with the fact that he basically never missed games. Can we talk about Jimmy’s injury history now?
PRO: …
ANTI: Yeah, exactly. This is a guy who in just the last four-and-a-half years has broken his foot, sprained his shoulder, broken his thumb, torn his UCL, injured his calf, injured his ankle and torn his ACL. In five seasons with the Niners, he has averaged six missed games per season due to injury — and it was the same story when he got his shot in New England as well!
PRO: Well, that’s why you draft a rookie!
ANTI: That’s the game plan? Pay a guy all that money while simultaneously acknowledging that this plan has major holes in it? Seems… sketch.
PRO: (shrug)
ANTI: Okay, so what’s the ceiling here? We know the Raiders are loaded on offense still — but with major work still to do on the offensive line — so what does replacing Carr with Garoppolo do for them in your mind? Is this a playoff team? .500?
PRO: On paper, he’s not as talented as Carr was, but the key here is that he’s a better fit. He’s not going to clash with McDaniels, and he understands the system far better than Carr did. So they finished, what, 6-11 last season? And lost nine games by a touchdown or less? Sheer regression as it relates to luck means there are probably a couple more wins in there, so with Garoppolo I could see this group going 9-8 — again, in part just because they get luckier. Add in the cap space and draft capital that can invest in improving the defense, and who knows…
ANTI: Do you think that’s a better plan than sticking with Stidham (2 years, $10 million with Denver) and a rookie — and then investing the extra $20 million in the defense? That’s a lot of money and could add an impact defensive lineman or corner or something!
PRO: I think either plan is defensible, but quarterback is such a critical position that it’s hard to just punt there — and as for Stidham, doesn’t it tell us something that the Raiders let him walk for so little? Right?
ANTI: I just keep coming back to the durability. That’s a lot of money to be spending on a guy that seems unlikely to play a full schedule (based on an extensive track record). Ultimately, it’s less about who he is on the field (although I do have questions about his arm strength) and more about what we do when he isn’t. Sure he’s healthy now and we can play the “what if” game, but history tells us that won’t last long. Let me ask you this to close: how many games does he have to play for this to be a good move? 13? 15?
PRO: Great question. I think it’s right there — maybe 14? That feels right.
ANTI: Do you really think he gets there? Missing just three games?
PRO: Eeesh. That’s tough!
…..
Ultimately that’s the crux, right? For all the arguing we could do right now, the answer won’t come until we’re recapping the 2023 season. I’m not worried about his capacity to play when healthy, I’m mostly worried about the total number of games — if he plays 14+, it’ll be hard to imagine this deal is a bust. But if he plays less? Watch out.
