Pats QB Options

Status
Not open for further replies.

djbayko

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
17,300
Los Angeles, CA
As an aside, what a dreadful year 2013 was for QBs. The scouts did a pretty good job of staying away.

Rnd. Pick No. NFL team Player College
1 16 Buffalo Bills EJ Manuel Florida State
2 39 New York Jets Geno Smith West Virginia
3 73 Tampa Bay Buccaneers Mike Glennon N.C. State
4 98 Philadelphia Eagles Matt Barkley USC
4 110 New York Giants Ryan Nassib Syracuse
4 112 Oakland Raiders Tyler Wilson Arkansas
4 115 Pittsburgh Steelers Landry Jones Oklahoma
7 221 San Diego Chargers Brad Sorensen Southern Utah
7 234 Denver Broncos Zac Dysert Miami (OH)
7 237 San Francisco 49ers B. J. Daniels South Florida
7 249 Atlanta Falcons Sean Renfree Duke
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
21,479
A Scud Away from Hell
This should cut down on SF's asking price. Isn't there a small chance that JG simply gets released as well?

There's no way SF carries the risk of holding the $24m bag if/when JG becomes a backup or gets hurt.

Of course, he could start for the Niners while the newly drafted QB gets ready but boy, that's quite a gamble.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
2,312
SF could cut him when he loses his job, which is what I would do absent a good trade offer. If he starts 1/2 the season that's 12m they can roll over to next year. He only has $7.5m in injury guarantees this year as far as I can tell.
 

SuperManny

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
676
Washington, DC
SF could cut him when he loses his job, which is what I would do absent a good trade offer. If he starts 1/2 the season that's 12m they can roll over to next year. He only has $7.5m in injury guarantees this year as far as I can tell.
I thought that season became guaranteed once the season starts, at least for veterans
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,775
SF could cut him when he loses his job, which is what I would do absent a good trade offer. If he starts 1/2 the season that's 12m they can roll over to next year. He only has $7.5m in injury guarantees this year as far as I can tell.
Veterans salaries are guaranteed once they make the opening day roster
 

lambeau

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2010
1,175
Connecticut
At any point SF can cut Jimmy and dump his salary--BB may wait for this, since he won't trade and pay $25 M--until September?
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,467
This should cut down on SF's asking price. Isn't there a small chance that JG simply gets released as well?

There's no way SF carries the risk of holding the $24m bag if/when JG becomes a backup or gets hurt.

Of course, he could start for the Niners while the newly drafted QB gets ready but boy, that's quite a gamble.
I think there is zero chance they cut him before the season.
I think the odds of him starting all 16 is higher than the odds of him getting cut. Unless someone blows them away with an offer, I think they'll play him so long as he is healthy and the better option, and that may be all year. They're in a lot of ways a win now team that just happened to be in position to get their next QB, which extends their window. It make a lot of sense to take the Smith/Brees approach, at least to start.
The idea that you have to start a rookie or else it's a waste is dumb, most top QBs start as rookies because they are usually going to bad teams with no playoff hopes who are throwing away the season. The point of getting the rookie QB isn't for his first season, it's that you think he can be your starter for most of a decade.
You're not wasting anything having a QB sit a year... was the tradeup for Mahomes a waste? Was the Rodgers pick a waste? How about Phil Rivers? No, of course not, because you shouldn't care if your QB draft pick starts day 1, or even year 1. You should care that you develop him into the best possible QB for the 10+ years you're going to have him. Starting a QB who isn't ready isn't always the best thing for his development.
 

scott bankheadcase

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
1,690
hoboken
This should cut down on SF's asking price. Isn't there a small chance that JG simply gets released as well?

There's no way SF carries the risk of holding the $24m bag if/when JG becomes a backup or gets hurt.

Of course, he could start for the Niners while the newly drafted QB gets ready but boy, that's quite a gamble.
What’s the gamble? They have plenty of cap space, still 20 million in space, counting Jimmy’s 26. Then the year after cap goes up and they can get out of the contract again with very little dead money.

The real gamble would be going into a season with a win now/soon roster and only a rookie and josh Rosen on it.

I mean I think they’d be willing to trade for a decent value, but, otherwise the gamble would be not keeping him.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
14,092
Washington
I think there is zero chance they cut him before the season.
I think the odds of him starting all 16 is higher than the odds of him getting cut. Unless someone blows them away with an offer, I think they'll play him so long as he is healthy and the better option, and that may be all year. They're in a lot of ways a win now team that just happened to be in position to get their next QB, which extends their window. It make a lot of sense to take the Smith/Brees approach, at least to start.
The idea that you have to start a rookie or else it's a waste is dumb, most top QBs start as rookies because they are usually going to bad teams with no playoff hopes who are throwing away the season. The point of getting the rookie QB isn't for his first season, it's that you think he can be your starter for most of a decade.
You're not wasting anything having a QB sit a year... was the tradeup for Mahomes a waste? Was the Rodgers pick a waste? How about Phil Rivers? No, of course not, because you shouldn't care if your QB draft pick starts day 1, or even year 1. You should care that you develop him into the best possible QB for the 10+ years you're going to have him. Starting a QB who isn't ready isn't always the best thing for his development.
Yup.

If they draft Lance and he quickly picks up the offense and completely blows everyone away and just takes the job from JG, great! Maybe then you try to find JG a new home during the season, if there is a market. But you can't count on it.

How risky is it for what could be a competitive team to bring in two new QBs who don't know the offense? And what if there are Covid challenges that limit practice time or prevent some coaches and players from being able to work together as much as needed?

It may be somewhat irregular, but I think it is by far the safest play as long as JG's contract isn't weighing them down too much. San Francisco really isn't like most teams drafting a QB with a high pick. They don't suck. And the challenges that come with the pandemic are just an added wrinkle that makes things harder, but that also could provide some opportunity. Just get to the playoffs. Maybe other teams there will have more Covid challenges than you and help you make a run.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
73,014
Oregon
King's column on the subject is up

It seems stunning to think Alabama’s Mac Jones could be the Niners’ choice—and “could be” is the operative phrase because the Niners have not decided who to choose at three. You can expect Lynch or coach Kyle Shanahan to say that today when they meet with the local press for the first time since January. But Jones is in the mix. Friend-of-Shanahan Chris Simms, an NBC Sports analyst, wasn’t predicting Jones would be the Niners’ guy when we talked Saturday, but he said: “Where Mac fits that offense perfectly is that Kyle will give him one or two clues about what the defense will do on a play, and the results will be top notch for Mac when he executes the play. He has Joe Burrow-type reading of the defense. Plus, other than Zach Wilson, Mac is the best bullseye-thrower in the draft.” If not Jones, my best guess is Trey Lance, athletic and strong-armed, would be the pick here.
Last point regarding the Niners, if they pick Mac Jones: There is a cadre of evaluators who do not think Jones is a great quarterback for 2021 football because he’s not mobile like a Lance or Wilson. Maybe those evaluators are wrong. We’ll find out soon enough. But if San Francisco picks Jones, the upshot will be stark. For a team to spend three first-round picks on Mac Jones will be the story to watch out of the 2021 draft.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/28/urban-meyer-jaguars-trevor-lawrence-nfl-draft-trades-fmia-peter-king/?cid=fmiatw
 

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
2,734
King's column on the subject is up

It seems stunning to think Alabama’s Mac Jones could be the Niners’ choice—and “could be” is the operative phrase because the Niners have not decided who to choose at three. You can expect Lynch or coach Kyle Shanahan to say that today when they meet with the local press for the first time since January. But Jones is in the mix. Friend-of-Shanahan Chris Simms, an NBC Sports analyst, wasn’t predicting Jones would be the Niners’ guy when we talked Saturday, but he said: “Where Mac fits that offense perfectly is that Kyle will give him one or two clues about what the defense will do on a play, and the results will be top notch for Mac when he executes the play. He has Joe Burrow-type reading of the defense. Plus, other than Zach Wilson, Mac is the best bullseye-thrower in the draft.” If not Jones, my best guess is Trey Lance, athletic and strong-armed, would be the pick here.
Last point regarding the Niners, if they pick Mac Jones: There is a cadre of evaluators who do not think Jones is a great quarterback for 2021 football because he’s not mobile like a Lance or Wilson. Maybe those evaluators are wrong. We’ll find out soon enough. But if San Francisco picks Jones, the upshot will be stark. For a team to spend three first-round picks on Mac Jones will be the story to watch out of the 2021 draft.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/28/urban-meyer-jaguars-trevor-lawrence-nfl-draft-trades-fmia-peter-king/?cid=fmiatw
Is it just me, or does it seem a little crazy to believe the Niners traded up with that package and don't know who the pick is? Like, it's one thing to trade 3 first round picks for the guy. But apparently they have multiple guys on their board they value at that price?
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,851
Philadelphia

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
46,027
Is it just me, or does it seem a little crazy to believe the Niners traded up with that package and don't know who the pick is? Like, it's one thing to trade 3 first round picks for the guy. But apparently they have multiple guys on their board they value at that price?
I think they just won't tell Peter King. I have no doubt they know.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,175
As E5 already mentioned, my impression was that people here were saying that the 49ers might not start their #3 pick right away, not that he won't play all year long Having said that, I was curious how often this happened. Here are all of the QBs drafted within the top 5 picks over the past 20 seasons.

Year Draft Pos. QB Week 1st Start Games Started Notes
2020 1 Joe Burrow 1 10
2020 5 Tua Tagovailoa 7 9
2019 1 Kyler Murray 1 16
2018 1 Baker Mayfield 4 13
2018 3 Sam Darnold 1 13
2017 2 Mitchell Trubisky 5 12
2016 1 Jared Goff 10 7
2016 2 Carson Wentz 1 16
2015 1 Jameis Winston 1 16
2015 2 Marcus Mariota 1 12
2014 3 Blake Bortles 4 13
2012 1 Andrew Luck 1 16
2012 2 Robert Griffin III 1 15
2011 1 Cam Newton 1 16
2010 1 Sam Bradford 1 16
2009 1 Matthew Stafford 1 10
2009 5 Mark Sanchez 1 15
2008 3 Matt Ryan 1 16
2007 1 JaMarcus Russell 13 1 Held out until end of training camp
2006 3 Vince Young 4 13
2005 1 Alex Smith 5 7
2004 1 Eli Manning 10 7
2004 4 Philip Rivers N/A 0 Held out until end of training camp, Drew Brees started
2003 1 Carson Palmer 1 13
2002 1 David Carr 1 16
2002 3 Joey Harrington 3 12
2001 1 Michael Vick 8 2
I like the list - but it's wrong on Palmer. The 13 starts was in 2004. Not going to fact check the rest.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
3,431
Amstredam
Is it just me, or does it seem a little crazy to believe the Niners traded up with that package and don't know who the pick is? Like, it's one thing to trade 3 first round picks for the guy. But apparently they have multiple guys on their board they value at that price?
I don't find it that crazy. They are trading up to 3 and will probably have 3 options that they like.
So really they did the math and were sure whomever they end up with is worth the price of moving up, the fact that the name isn't locked in, is not that big of a deal in the equation.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,722
Hingham, MA
This is super intriguing. If both Lance and Fields are there come 4, the Pats will have the opportunity to trade up to basically any of the 4th-7th picks and grab one (obviously completely dependent upon which other teams are trying to trade up). When the news broke that SF had traded for 3, I lost basically all hope for the Pats to trade up for a QB, but it feels like it could be back in play again.
 

Otto

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
1,732
Anytime, USA
It's why you see the Pats, and I assume other teams, cut fringe players before the season and then bring them back later when the full season contract isn't guaranteed
Sort of. A vested veteran who is on the 53 man roster for the first game of the season and is cut at some point after that is eligible to make a claim for termination pay (equal to the rest of the season salary). It is not the same as a guarantee because a player can collect termination pay only once in his career. As an example, a player making $5 million in a season who gets cut might think that's the right time to make a claim for termination pay. If he was making a lot less, he might not. If he had already made a claim before, he can't.

Another reason teams cut vested veterans before week 1 and bring them back after is that vested veterans aren't subject to waivers. So they can cut the vested veteran - and keep the second year guy who would have to pass through waivers - and tell the vested veteran that they'll sign him after the week 1 game.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
12,702
In a perfect scenario, they draft a young QB and let him marinate for a number of games while Cam starts and performs well. The Pats then give the rookie QB a shot, sees that he's ready, and jettison an inexpensive Cam to a contending team that has lost its starter and is in need of a new one.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,764
deep inside Guido territory
Depends how good your team is. Rookie QBs are almost always bad. If Jimmy G stays healthy and you're a SB contender you don't bench him for Lance or Fields because you traded up for him. You take the SB run, and then trade Jimmy and his higher value (staying healthy, 1 less year to restructure etc.) and get more for him than now.
SF is a good team. With a healthy Jimmy they are in the playoff hunt, with a rookie they aren't.

The example you might look to is.... Phil Rivers. Drafted #4, sat the first year on a division winning team (amusingly not just didn't start, when Brees missed a game Doug Flutie started). RIvers actually sat his 2nd year too.
I mean is SF really a Super Bowl contender with Jimmy Garoppolo? They're in a stacked NFC West and they have Tampa Bay and Green Bay to deal with outside the division. They would be a playoff contender with Gardner Minshew or another cheaper veteran QB as well.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,467
I mean is SF really a Super Bowl contender with Jimmy Garoppolo? They're in a stacked NFC West and they have Tampa Bay and Green Bay to deal with outside the division. They would be a playoff contender with Gardner Minshew or another cheaper veteran QB as well.
They think they are. They played backup QBs most of the year, lost a ton of key players to injury and were still pretty decent. Then they went out and added guys like Trent Williams. They went .500 in that division mostly with their backups.
And while I am not the biggest Jimmy G fan... he's better than Minshew (who you have to trade for), or any FA out there. He's probably better than anyone you can easily trade for (and even then, you'd rather just spend money given how far under the cap you are).

They look at this team and see it as comparable to the one that went to the SuperBowl recently with Jimmy G. If you see that, it make zero sense to trade for or sign a QB who is worse and doesn't know the system. Just keep Jimmy and see what happens. Long term they don't trust Jimmy to stay healthy and think going to a young cheap QB is the move, but short term they are in a good place to try and squeeze one more year out of Jimmy G. Tanking doesn't make sense with their other moves, and half/halfing it with a worse vet QB who doesn't know the system is the worst option. They have no real reason to worry about the cap, so why make the team worse for that reason?
 

Beomoose

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2006
19,000
Wherabouts Unknown
This is super intriguing. If both Lance and Fields are there come 4, the Pats will have the opportunity to trade up to basically any of the 4th-7th picks and grab one (obviously completely dependent upon which other teams are trying to trade up). When the news broke that SF had traded for 3, I lost basically all hope for the Pats to trade up for a QB, but it feels like it could be back in play again.
Agreed. Now if we can get some sort of read on what ATL's going to do...
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,683
Santa Monica, CA
I mean is SF really a Super Bowl contender with Jimmy Garoppolo? They're in a stacked NFC West and they have Tampa Bay and Green Bay to deal with outside the division. They would be a playoff contender with Gardner Minshew or another cheaper veteran QB as well.
If they thought they were a Super Bowl contender, they absolutely would not have just traded up to #3 to find a rookie QB.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,722
Hingham, MA
If they thought they were a Super Bowl contender, they absolutely would not have just traded up to #3 to find a rookie QB.
I'm not sure that this is necessarily true. What if they think they can contend this year, but also set themselves up for the next 10 years with a new QB? Would it be all that different from what KC did with Mahomes, or if the Pats were to trade up to 4-7 and draft Lance/Fields, but keep Cam and let him start the season?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,467
If they thought they were a Super Bowl contender, they absolutely would not have just traded up to #3 to find a rookie QB.
We've seen teams do it before, KC, LAC, GB etc. You can be a contender but need a long-term QB solution at the same time. Plenty of teams make the SB with mediocre QBs, and SF could be one ( in fact they were 2 years ago). They saw an opportunity to get what they hope is an elite QB in the future, which will let them be a contender over a much longer window. They are in a rare spot where they can be a contender now, AND develop a QB to step in and extend the window.

Edit- to be more clear, SF sees themselves as a team that can make a run like they did in 2019, it's a similar team. However, they also think Jimmy is too inconsistent, injury prone, etc. to be worth giving a new deal. Given that they would like to draft a QB, in the hope that they can make a run this year, but also be set up like the Chiefs with an elite young QB added to an already good playoff team, learning the system, learning the NFL, and then stepping in prepared when Jimmy goes. The added advantage being, if Jimmy stays healthy for a full year, then like KC with Alex Smith, you can recoup some of your investment in the new QB. Jimmy will be worth a lot more if he can play most of the year next year, than he is now with only 1 healthy year.
 
Last edited:

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,423
Are the 9ers significantly worse on paper than 2 years ago? I could easily see the offense being better with the addition of Williams and emergence of Aiyuk. Defensively I know some key guys from the SB team are gone, but I would think getting healthy has them closer in talent to 2019-20 than the 20-21 version. And it's a tough division, but not one in which they're particularly outclassed by anyone save the Rams if Stafford works out.

If I'm Shanahan, I need to believe strongly in year 1 development if I'm throwing a rookie out there instead of Jimmy. And if I'm Jimmy and in the mood to bet on myself, I actually don't see many realistic options for me this year as superior to building up my stock than staying put.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,764
deep inside Guido territory
They think they are. They played backup QBs most of the year, lost a ton of key players to injury and were still pretty decent. Then they went out and added guys like Trent Williams. They went .500 in that division mostly with their backups.
And while I am not the biggest Jimmy G fan... he's better than Minshew (who you have to trade for), or any FA out there. He's probably better than anyone you can easily trade for (and even then, you'd rather just spend money given how far under the cap you are).

They look at this team and see it as comparable to the one that went to the SuperBowl recently with Jimmy G. If you see that, it make zero sense to trade for or sign a QB who is worse and doesn't know the system. Just keep Jimmy and see what happens. Long term they don't trust Jimmy to stay healthy and think going to a young cheap QB is the move, but short term they are in a good place to try and squeeze one more year out of Jimmy G. Tanking doesn't make sense with their other moves, and half/halfing it with a worse vet QB who doesn't know the system is the worst option. They have no real reason to worry about the cap, so why make the team worse for that reason?
They could view this season as an opportunity to dump Jimmy G, roll over even more cap space to 2022, and still have a good shot to make the playoffs. According to OTC, they currently have $29 million in 2022 cap space with only 24 players under contract so they do need the space. I don't think they make the team worse with a vet QB other than Jimmy handling the reigns until their guy is ready to go. And who knows.....their pick at #3 could be ready by Week 1 and beat out Jimmy or whoever is there in training camp. I just don't see how keeping Garoppolo is going to be tenable especially since he probably won't be happy being used as a stopgap option. I'm not sure Jimmy would do this, but this sort of thing could not be good for the locker room.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,683
Santa Monica, CA
The year after they acquired Mahomes, the Chiefs were not a top ten most-likely team to win a Super Bowl. They had a 32 year old, pretty mediocre QB and needed a new QB to become a contender.

The Chargers were coming off a 5-11 season with a 38-year-old QB when they drafted Love (they didn't trade up at all, right?).

Green Bay drafted a developmental QB late in the first round - not really comparable to what we're seeing here.

This is a team that just traded away their next two 1st round picks to add a rookie QB. If you think you're capable of winning a Super Bowl with the guy you have, who is under contract for the next two years and 30 years old, you just don't do that.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,467
They could view this season as an opportunity to dump Jimmy G, roll over even more cap space to 2022, and still have a good shot to make the playoffs. According to OTC, they currently have $29 million in 2022 cap space with only 24 players under contract so they do need the space. I don't think they make the team worse with a vet QB other than Jimmy handling the reigns until their guy is ready to go. And who knows.....their pick at #3 could be ready by Week 1 and beat out Jimmy or whoever is there in training camp. I just don't see how keeping Garoppolo is going to be tenable especially since he probably won't be happy being used as a stopgap option. I'm not sure Jimmy would do this, but this sort of thing could not be good for the locker room.
See I don't get this at all...

1. Who is the other vet QB that has as much upside for them as Jimmy G, especially given they would need to learn a pretty complicated system?
2. Nobody gives a shit how Jimmy feels... he's not a star QB, he's played 1 full season in 4 there, he's in no position to demand anything, and I doubt it does anything to the lockerroom. The Chiefs were fine, and they had a much better more proven QB in Smith.

As to the cap... they'll have over 55M in cap space next year if they trade Jimmy after the season, and looking at the roster, ways to make even more (and of course they'll have QB locked up cheap).

The year after they acquired Mahomes, the Chiefs were not a top ten most-likely team to win a Super Bowl. They had a 32 year old, pretty mediocre QB and needed a new QB to become a contender.

The Chargers were coming off a 5-11 season with a 38-year-old QB when they drafted Love (they didn't trade up at all, right?).

Green Bay drafted a developmental QB late in the first round - not really comparable to what we're seeing here.

This is a team that just traded away their next two 1st round picks to add a rookie QB. If you think you're capable of winning a Super Bowl with the guy you have, who is under contract for the next two years and 30 years old, you just don't do that.
The Chiefs had just gone 12-4 and been the 2 seed in the AFC, and their QB went to the pro-bowl. If that's not a SB contender, there basically isn't such a thing.
I meant when LAC drafted Rivers and GB drafted Rodgers (admittedly not trade ups)

The point is... people keep arguing against a solid strategy, on the basis of... "Well teams drafting top 5 haven't done it before" ignoring that basically no teams drafting top 5 have had the chance to do it. It's especially weird since we just saw it done to great effect less than 5 years ago with a big trade into the top 10 by a good team, to draft a QB and sit him a year.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,683
Santa Monica, CA
I'm not sure that this is necessarily true. What if they think they can contend this year, but also set themselves up for the next 10 years with a new QB? Would it be all that different from what KC did with Mahomes, or if the Pats were to trade up to 4-7 and draft Lance/Fields, but keep Cam and let him start the season?
Those are all examples of teams that didn't think they could win a Super Bowl with what they currently had. It's self-evident that SF feels the same about their chances with Jimmy G. He is going to end up cut or traded for a late round pick prior to the season.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,683
Santa Monica, CA
See I don't get this at all...

1. Who is the other vet QB that has as much upside for them as Jimmy G, especially given they would need to learn a pretty complicated system?
2. Nobody gives a shit how Jimmy feels... he's not a star QB, he's played 1 full season in 4 there, he's in no position to demand anything, and I doubt it does anything to the lockerroom. The Chiefs were fine, and they had a much better more proven QB in Smith.

As to the cap... they'll have over 55M in cap space next year if they trade Jimmy after the season, and looking at the roster, ways to make even more (and of course they'll have QB locked up cheap).


The Chiefs had just gone 12-4 and been the 2 seed in the AFC, and their QB went to the pro-bowl. If that's not a SB contender, there basically isn't such a thing.
I meant when LAC drafted Rivers and GB drafted Rodgers (admittedly not trade ups)
The 2017 Chiefs had the 11th best odds of winning the Super Bowl that year. And Alex Smith went to the Pro Bowl as an injury replacement. He was one of 6 AFC quarterbacks to "go to the Pro Bowl" in 2017. They were not a real contender by anyone's measure.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,467
The 2017 Chiefs had the 11th best odds of winning the Super Bowl that year. And Alex Smith went to the Pro Bowl as an injury replacement. He was one of 6 AFC quarterbacks to "go to the Pro Bowl" in 2017. They were not a real contender by anyone's measure.
I'm talking about 2016, but... odds are a dumb way to analyze it. The team was the 2 seed at 12-4 the previous season, I don't care what Vegas odds may have been, there is no way they didn't see themselves as contenders (and they were, they won the West again) unless we take contenders to mean outright favorites. Any NFL team that expects to win the division sees themselves as contenders, and being a top 10 (they were tied with the Saints) in the SB odds means you are a contender, it means you're seen pre-season as a clear playoff team.

Edit- the point is that SF like KC in 2016-17, sees themselves as a good team, and may take the same approach. The idea that everyone but the top 5 teams in the league are not contenders is dumb, we've seen more than enough 3-6 seeds make the Super Bowl to know that if you make the playoffs you have a shot.

As E5, notes. A lot of these arguments sure seem like "I want Jimmy G, so here's why SF MUST trade him" rather than "the best thing for SF is to trade Jimmy G for scraps"
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
73,014
Oregon
All these posts with reasons for the 49ers to shed JG (and his contract) read to me as though they have an undercurrent of wish-fulfillment to them.

So, if they can't win a Super Bowl with him, or they can't count on him to stay healthy for a full season, or he wouldn't be happy as a placeholder or competing for a job ... my question would be:

Why should the Patriots want him? Because he showed promise with them briefly five years ago (before getting hurt)? Because he was a binky? Because they shouldn't have traded him in the first place?

Why is there are reason to believe that he would be any more than he's shown at SF if he were to return to the Patriots?
 
Last edited:

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,175
The 2017 Chiefs had the 11th best odds of winning the Super Bowl that year. And Alex Smith went to the Pro Bowl as an injury replacement. He was one of 6 AFC quarterbacks to "go to the Pro Bowl" in 2017. They were not a real contender by anyone's measure.
Those are some crazy odds that year...I forgot the Raiders were supposed to be a viable team that recently.

1) Pats +275 (13-3, lost SB)
2T) Seahawks (9-7), Raiders (6-10) & Packers (7-9) +800
5) Steelers +1000 (13-3)
6T) Giants (3-13) & Cowboys (9-7) +1200
8) Falcons +1600 (10-6)
9) Titans +2000 (9-7)
10T) Saints (11-5) & Chiefs (10-6) +2500

Eagles were one of 6 teams tied for 13th at +4000. Nice payout at 40-1. Jets were +100,000. Not a great investment.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,683
Santa Monica, CA
All these posts with reasons for the 49ers to shed JG (and his contract) read to me as though they have an undercurrent of wish-fulfillment to them.

So, if they can't win a Super Bowl with him, or they can't count on him to stay healthy for a full season, or he wouldn't be happy as a placeholder or competing for a job ... my question would be:

Why should the Patriots want him? Because he showed promise with them briefly five years ago (before getting hurt)? Because he was a binky? Because they shouldn't have traded him in the first place?

Why is there are reason to believe thathe would be any more than he's shown at SF if he were to return to the Patriots?
This is a very reasonable line of inquiry. My response would be, in short, because the alternative appears to be Cam Newton.

edit: I mean, if the Pats had a decent option, we would not be having a months-long discussion about Jimmy G. But as flawed as he may be, he knows the system and he's worlds better than Newton.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,683
Santa Monica, CA
Those are some crazy odds that year...I forgot the Raiders were supposed to be a viable team that recently.

1) Pats +275 (13-3, lost SB)
2T) Seahawks (9-7), Raiders (6-10) & Packers (7-9) +800
5) Steelers +1000 (13-3)
6T) Giants (3-13) & Cowboys (9-7) +1200
8) Falcons +1600 (10-6)
9) Titans +2000 (9-7)
10T) Saints (11-5) & Chiefs (10-6) +2500

Eagles were one of 6 teams tied for 13th at +4000. Nice payout at 40-1. Jets were +100,000. Not a great investment.
Looking back from 2021, through the lens of how the Chiefs have been the last few years with Mahomes, it may be hard to remember. But no one thought that team was winning a Super Bowl with Alex Smith, including Andy Reid and KC management.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,764
deep inside Guido territory
See I don't get this at all...

1. Who is the other vet QB that has as much upside for them as Jimmy G, especially given they would need to learn a pretty complicated system?
2. Nobody gives a shit how Jimmy feels... he's not a star QB, he's played 1 full season in 4 there, he's in no position to demand anything, and I doubt it does anything to the lockerroom. The Chiefs were fine, and they had a much better more proven QB in Smith.

As to the cap... they'll have over 55M in cap space next year if they trade Jimmy after the season, and looking at the roster, ways to make even more (and of course they'll have QB locked up cheap).


The Chiefs had just gone 12-4 and been the 2 seed in the AFC, and their QB went to the pro-bowl. If that's not a SB contender, there basically isn't such a thing.
I meant when LAC drafted Rivers and GB drafted Rodgers (admittedly not trade ups)

The point is... people keep arguing against a solid strategy, on the basis of... "Well teams drafting top 5 haven't done it before" ignoring that basically no teams drafting top 5 have had the chance to do it. It's especially weird since we just saw it done to great effect less than 5 years ago with a big trade into the top 10 by a good team, to draft a QB and sit him a year.
1.Why would they want to pay $25 million to somebody that is not in their plans and will pull the minute their draft pick is ready to go? That just doesn't make any financial sense to me.
2. The Chiefs were fine because Alex Smith accepted that he was out at the end of the year. I'm not quite sure Jimmy is going to be that accommodating. He is in a position to demand something because if he doesn't want to go along with their plan of him starting until their pick is ready to go then he could just threaten to sit out. More likely, John Lynch and Don Yee will come to an understanding that the player wants out and Lynch will trade him.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
23,467
1.Why would they want to pay $25 million to somebody that is not in their plans and will pull the minute their draft pick is ready to go? That just doesn't make any financial sense to me.
2. The Chiefs were fine because Alex Smith accepted that he was out at the end of the year. I'm not quite sure Jimmy is going to be that accommodating. He is in a position to demand something because if he doesn't want to go along with their plan of him starting until their pick is ready to go then he could just threaten to sit out. More likely, John Lynch and Don Yee will come to an understanding that the player wants out and Lynch will trade him.
1. Because they are paying $25M for a better shot at winning the Super Bowl, which they think they can do. That's a bargain if you believe it is possible, they'll be spending for far more QB certainty, and that makes a lot of sense. Bringing up the reasonable floor of QB play on a team you think is a contender is worth that money easily.
2. What is Jimmy's leverage...If he sits out they don't have to pay him. Also... Jimmy has played less than 1/3rd of his team's snaps in 3 of the last 4, he'd be a fool to sit out, he has far more reason to go along with this than Smith did. Smith was is much more demand than Jimmy is. If he plays well this year he's looking at a trade after the year and a hefty extension, if he sits out, what are the deals for him... Jameis or Cam level deals probably. He's going to be 30+ with essentially no track record of success.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.