|
It is, not optimal.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
fsif posted:Is he going to be ready Year 3 then? He's so bad in Year 2 that the 9ers want to start Garappolo again, but by Year 3—despite having very limited real-game playing time—he transforms into a quarterback worthy of the #3 pick? I don't know if it's bad so much as needs more seasoning. Even though it's just preseason, seeing him in games again will tell a lot about his progress from last year Either way it is pretty amusing that they could have taken Justin Fields or Mac Jones and either guy would have been ready to go immediately and they could have traded Jimmy for a bigger haul right then than they can get now. If Lance ends up just being a bust and can't play that trade is gonna go down as an all time stupid move
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Maybe he just needs a lot of seasoning like Aaron Rodgers
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
lol seasoning, oh my goodness
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Maybe he just needs a lot of seasoning like Aaron Rodgers Does clay count as seasoning
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
Hmm... https://twitter.com/TMZ_Sports/status/1506590354467954695
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
QBs who succeed big as rookies usually slide into a system they're familiar with. Mahomes, Lamar, Allen and Prescott are some of the most notable and the ones that generally suck are the ones that don't. If you don't have learn a new playbook (or that playbook can be clipped so it highlights your strengths), verbiage and everything else while you're adjusting to the demands of leading an NFL huddle, playing NFL defenses, new team, new city and the list goes on you have a much faster college to pro transition. All of those guys I mentioned came from very similar systems in college to what's run by their pro team - or what was at the time of their first starts. Lance was barely ready to come out and was 100% drafted on his potential and I think in the preseason he did show a propensity to get a little bit of the snowball effect when he made a bad read or dumb play - he stopped trusting his instincts pretty quickly and the 49ers seemed really good about babying him through that. If he's not ready there's not really much wrong with playing Jimmy for another year, or another 8 games, or whatever it takes to get Lance to where he's good to go. I don't think a QB taking two years, especially one extremely raw in a completely new system is going to ring alarm bells. The old clock used to be 3 years before they're an effective starter and 5 years before they hit their prime. I mean we've seen what happens when a guy isn't acclimated with Fields and thrown in early and how badly a team can gently caress up potential and their future potential with Darnold. I thought a year might be enough for Lance but if it's not its not the end of the world. I would think though if we didn't see Lance start at least one game this year there might be cause for concern though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
I feel like you have to start Lance pretty soon, not only to take advantage of the rookie deal but to find out what you've got. It's definitely a little concerning, if that blurb is even true. I have no idea who Matt Maiocco is though and it doesn't say anything about who he spoke to or how he came to that conclusion. So I'm a little skeptical of what he even knows. That being said if he's really that bad and Jimmy gives you a [much] better chance to win then yeah it's a real tough decision. I still think he absolutely needs playing time next year in some form, and I find myself doubting that Jimmy can actually take them all the way anyways. He did come close yeah, but that's the real question. If he can't, then give Lance the experience since you gotta figure out what he can do and if he's poo poo you need to start all over again and find a new guy. Only if you truly believe that Jimmy can take you all the way should you start him again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Play posted:I have no idea who Matt Maiocco is though and it doesn't say anything about who he spoke to or how he came to that conclusion. So I'm a little skeptical of what he even knows. he's a 27 year veteran of covering the 49ers with numerous sportswriting awards with access to the team
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:QBs who succeed big as rookies usually slide into a system they're familiar with. Mahomes, Lamar, Allen and Prescott are some of the most notable and the ones that generally suck are the ones that don't. If you don't have learn a new playbook (or that playbook can be clipped so it highlights your strengths), verbiage and everything else while you're adjusting to the demands of leading an NFL huddle, playing NFL defenses, new team, new city and the list goes on you have a much faster college to pro transition. All of those guys I mentioned came from very similar systems in college to what's run by their pro team - or what was at the time of their first starts. Please tell me more about Josh Allen's success as a rookie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
Or Mahomes's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
fsif posted:Or Mahomes's. Don't you remember all the tweets of no look passes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Dubious posted:he's a 27 year veteran of covering the 49ers with numerous sportswriting awards with access to the team Well, that definitely helps and it's not surprising that there is doubt. The dude completed 318 passes in college and 100 and change in high school. He's so raw. Really the pick itself was a huge reach and based purely on potential. He also has an extremely wack throwing motion that's super loopy. That being said actions will speak a lot louder than words and we'll probably know by the end of training camp what the deal is there. Him being a bust wouldn't really surprise me at all, but I hope it's not the case. At some point you just gotta let him show what he can do and if he can't do poo poo it's time to look for alternatives. fsif posted:Or Mahomes's. Hey he beat the Broncos. I think
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
Play posted:I feel like you have to start Lance pretty soon, not only to take advantage of the rookie deal but to find out what you've got. It's definitely a little concerning, if that blurb is even true. I have no idea who Matt Maiocco is though and it doesn't say anything about who he spoke to or how he came to that conclusion. So I'm a little skeptical of what he even knows. Why do you have to start him if you don't think he's ready? That sounds like something a dumb and bad team would do when they have a viable starting option already. Rushing a raw product because of some arbitrary clock on how he should develop sounds like a good way to ruin any potential he has. Nobody's getting fired over there. Nobody is offering a kings ransom for Jimmy G. Seems like waiting is the obvious play if you have question marks because you have a championship roster now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
Sataere posted:Why do you have to start him if you don't think he's ready? That sounds like something a dumb and bad team would do when they have a viable starting option already. Rushing a raw product because of some arbitrary clock on how he should develop sounds like a good way to ruin any potential he has. Nobody's getting fired over there. Nobody is offering a kings ransom for Jimmy G. Seems like waiting is the obvious play if you have question marks because you have a championship roster now. It's because Lance probably won't get a ton better holding a clipboard. And the 49ers' roster isn't championship caliber with Jimmy G starting. I know they got really close a few years ago, but every playoff exit has been because of Garappolo's limitations. Why tread water another year with him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
MrLogan posted:Please tell me more about Josh Allen's success as a rookie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:He went 5-5 in games he started and finished; compared to some recent examples, that's a big success! He looked absolutely awful though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
fsif posted:It's because Lance probably won't get a ton better holding a clipboard. Considering how raw Lance was coming out, I'm not sure this is true. It isn't like holding a clipboard is the only thing he'll be doing. An extra year being patient isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things if you think you can truly develop him into an athletic monster. Those extra years had a significant impact of Rodgers development. Just because guys are ready earlier doesn't mean you shouldn't be flexible when an outlier comes along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
The Steelers never finished under .500 with Big Ben at QB, even the hulking zombie version of Roethlisberger over the past few years. Does that trend continue with Trubisky? Would acquiring Baker Mayfield be an upgrade overall for Pittsburgh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Real talk: The Washington Football Team should offer the Browns a 6th or whatever to take Baker off their hands. He's better then Wentz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Real talk: The Washington Football Team should offer the Browns a 6th or whatever to take Baker off their hands. Baker and Wentz quarterback room would be legendary
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Real talk: The Washington Football Team should offer the Browns a 6th or whatever to take Baker off their hands. Probably too proud for that. I'd bet the Browns would take just about any offer to keep him from ending up on the Steelers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
fsif posted:It's because Lance probably won't get a ton better holding a clipboard. Yeah, that's my thought. Sitting is well and good I guess but there's no replacement for actual game experience. This theory does kind of put 'winning the super bowl' as the ONLY goal worth achieving, which I actually don't totally agree with. A good winning season is an excellent thing and worth doing. But it's more about getting him out there, getting him experience, and (eventually, I'm thinking maybe after two years starting if it's not a total disaster) you can make a permanent evaluation. Lance may simply be a bust and if he is it would be better to know that for sure and be ready to move on from him being the future. But if he's not a bust, starting more games will only help him develop, yeah you can develop on the scout team but it's just not the same. Another thing worth taking into account is damaging his confidence and making his bust status a foregone conclusion. But I'm not sure that's really worth worrying about too much, if he's worth starting in the NFL he'll rise to the challenge. CocoaNuts posted:The Steelers never finished under .500 with Big Ben at QB, even the hulking zombie version of Roethlisberger over the past few years. Trubisky is way better than Ben was last year at those respective points in their careers. AFC North is a dogfight so who knows about results but I would put money on passing yards per game going up substantially. And I think they probably break even at least if their defense is still playing like it was last year. Trubs definitely had some bad traits but he also had good ones, and the Bears offense has been proven to be even worse without him than it was with him. I'm really curious to see how he looks, although the Steelers offense ALSO had more problems than just Ben. As for Baker, I don't think they'd have any interest in that I think they want to see what Trubisky can do for now and they got him on a reasonable contract.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
fsif posted:It's because Lance probably won't get a ton better holding a clipboard. To play devils advocate, if Tartt didn't drop that easy rear end INT I think there is no way they don't win that game. Look at that play again, Stafford literally threw it right to him. Shanahan also deserves a good chunk of the blame too, that's three times now he hasn't been able to close out a game like that and you can't blame 28-3 on Jimmy. Stafford got bailed out so hard by that, if he didn't drop it the narrative on Stafford is definitely still that he's a loser and he was the problem right along with the Lions being the Lions. I still think they can win with Jimmy, the NFC is super weak right now and the AFC teams are going to kick the poo poo out of each other by the end of the year. The only real threat to them are the Rams and the Bucs. Dallas is kind of a joke and the Packers just traded away their best weapon Nodoze fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Mar 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
Play posted:Yeah, that's my thought. Sitting is well and good I guess but there's no replacement for actual game experience. I don't think it is a clear yes/no answer. It depends on why you might want to wait a bit longer to start him. If it's a thing like Rodgers where his mechanics need to be completely rebuilt and you aren't sure he's there yet, take the time to get that muscle memory intact so when things go wrong he's less likely to revert to bad habits. If it's a question about his ability to process information and you aren't sure how he will handle game speed, you probably need to throw him out there and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
Impossibly Perfect Sphere posted:He looked absolutely awful though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
Sataere posted:Considering how raw Lance was coming out, I'm not sure this is true. It isn't like holding a clipboard is the only thing he'll be doing. An extra year being patient isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things if you think you can truly develop him into an athletic monster. Those extra years had a significant impact of Rodgers development. Just because guys are ready earlier doesn't mean you shouldn't be flexible when an outlier comes along. There's also the fact that some QB's are more NFL ready than others along with considering the teams they play for. The 49ers are still in a window, even with with Jimmy and the team they have now, so loving around with a project is more risky. They have more to lose and can also afford to be more patient They know what they have at least, which is a SB contending team. Buffalo (and teams like the Jets and Jacksonville right now) weren't really risking all that much by saying gently caress it let's see what the kid can do and have the luxury of on the job training since they aren't going anywhere anyhow. If Lance had wound up in Detroit, Carolina or Washington then you kind of figure why the gently caress not but SF is very competitive. Run him out too soon and you might waste a year or, worse, ruin the kid's confidence or get him hurt. Kalli posted:Real talk: The Washington Football Team should offer the Browns a 6th or whatever to take Baker off their hands. Bonus option. Bring in Nick Foles as a backup. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Mar 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
sitting lance another year if he isn't ready is absolutely the right move and throwing him to the wolves if he's not is a franchise altering decision
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Jimmy G is still on the Niners when the season starts if the Trey Lance rumors are true. It's not as if there's a better alternative they could bring in from elsewhere at the moment (last year I was hoping they'd trade for DeShaun until we all found out about his... proclivities) and by all accounts he's very popular in the locker room. Even if Lance is ready it wouldn't be a stupid idea to ease him in over the course of the season in case the team stumbles coming out of the gate like last year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
MrLogan posted:Please tell me more about Josh Allen's success as a rookie. fsif posted:Or Mahomes's. I'm sorry I didnt' write "first two years" instead of as a rookie because my point of: Sataere posted:Why do you have to start him if you don't think he's ready? That sounds like something a dumb and bad team would do when they have a viable starting option already. Rushing a raw product because of some arbitrary clock on how he should develop sounds like a good way to ruin any potential he has. Nobody's getting fired over there. Nobody is offering a kings ransom for Jimmy G. Seems like waiting is the obvious play if you have question marks because you have a championship roster now. Was clearly false and wrong because Mahomes found success sitting for a year and the Bills chose the absolute best path of development for Allen. It's almost as if three players in completely different situations can be handled in a different fashion and find success.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
There's several reasons you might start a young QB even if you're unsure if he's ready. 1) There's no way to know for absolute certain until you see them out there playing. I mean yeah if they can't learn enough plays or something that's different, but there's a certain amount of guesswork and projection involved until he actually gets a chance to play consistently. 2) They won't improve (or at least won't improve as much) without actually playing; that's pretty much inarguable. I thought Lance showed some pretty good stuff in his limited playing time last year and I think more of that would help him. 3) Rookie QBs are only cost controlled for a certain amount of time. This is a huge opportunity for a team to make a push, if their cost controlled young QB is actually good. Keep in mind that Rodgers, who is often cited when it comes to these things, was drafted and sat BEFORE the creation of the rookie wage scale in 2011. So that concern wasn't really relevant back then. 4) And finally, it's valuable to the team to know if they have their guy or not as soon as possible. If you baby him along for three years or whatever and he ends up totally sucking, you're exactly back where you started. It is better to know that more quickly, so alternatives can be searched for. No matter what Jimmy's gonna be gone after next year and if Lance isn't the guy the 49ers absolutely need to know that in order to arrange something else, either a trade or draft another prospect. I don't really buy the argument that he would get 'ruined' by playing. If he gets 'ruined' by playing football then he's probably not a franchise quarterback regardless. And the 49ers have set up an excellent situation for him with a good O line, receivers, and running game so it's not like an Andrew Luck/RG3 situation or anything. This is all contingent on him meeting at least a certain standard, of course. If he can't do that then you might as well give up on him anyways though. There are also some convincing reasons for not starting a young QB, of course, but this post is meant to show why you would want to even if you're not positive he's better than another guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
Play posted:There's several reasons you might start a young QB even if you're unsure if he's ready. The season hasn't happened yet, lets be realistic here, it's a beat writer saying he's not ready right now. That doesn't mean Lance isn't working his rear end off right now and will be in a better spot this pre-season than last and it doesn't mean he won't show the team he's actually ready during training camp and the preseason and be the starter opening day. I'm just saying pointing to what one or two or three guys have done in their careers as young QBs doesn't mean that's the right move for Lance. I fully expect him to start at least 8 games this coming season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:The season hasn't happened yet, lets be realistic here, it's a beat writer saying he's not ready right now. That doesn't mean Lance isn't working his rear end off right now and will be in a better spot this pre-season than last and it doesn't mean he won't show the team he's actually ready during training camp and the preseason and be the starter opening day. I agree actually. I was more just trying to lay out the argument FOR starting young QBs in a general sense, although true I'm mostly referring to Lance in this case. But yeah, I would be pretty surprised to see Jimmy start every game next season, Lance may even begin the season as the starter. That all depends on the offseason and training camp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Watson wasn't out of the woods before, now he still might get nailed to a tree for his misbehavior. Well done, Cleveland! But check out how the Browns structured his contract: As part of Watson's new deal, he will make roughly $1 million in his base salary for 2022. That means if he's suspended by the NFL for violating its code of conduct policy related to sexual assault, he would lose less than $60,000 per game lost. A second grand jury in Texas is considering evidence related to another accusation of sexual misconduct against Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, ESPN confirmed with Tony Buzbee, the lawyer for the complainant. The Browns declined comment, but a team spokesperson told ESPN that the team was aware of the potential of a second grand jury and was made aware that it was hearing evidence. The Browns have yet to provide specifics of their investigation. They also didn't speak to any of the 22 women who have filed lawsuits against Watson and accused him of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, according to their attorney. "[The Browns] didn't contact me, and again, I didn't expect them to, but I would've taken their call, and if they had specific questions that I could disclose to him, I certainly would've done it," (Tony) Buzbee (the lawyer for the complainant) told ESPN. "And if they wanted to talk to some of the plaintiffs, I would've made them available just like I did with the NFL, if they wanted to. Ultimately it [would've been] up to the women, but [no team] did that." FULL STORY: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/33585725/second-grand-jury-mulls-another-charge-cleveland-browns-qb-deshaun-watson
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:I'm sorry I didnt' write "first two years" instead of as a rookie because my point of: Every situation is different and a good front office is going to take the context of the situation into account before doing something that has long term consequences. With Jimmy G on their roster, there is no need to rush, so the 49ers should do what is best for Lance's development. Because by doing what is best for Lance's long-term development, they are also doing what is best long-term for the teams overall success. Play posted:I don't really buy the argument that he would get 'ruined' by playing. If he gets 'ruined' by playing football then he's probably not a franchise quarterback regardless. So you're saying it was David Carr's fault he was beat to poo poo? He should have just been good at football! Victim blaming is not a good look. Prospects can be ruined by circumstance. I mostly believe that if a guy is gonna be good, he's gonna be good also, but I don't take that gospel as an absolute. And that's no reason to not put a guy in the best position to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
I don't think anyone said to never start a young project QB unless you're totally sure about him, at least that I read. People were just pointing out why some teams are willing to take the gamble and why sometimes it's worth the risk depending on the team's situation. Like, if you're Houston this year, why the gently caress not throw Malik Willis out there if you wind up with him? When Buffalo drafted Josh Allen, they were poo poo so, sure, trot him on out. If you're in a spot like, say, Miami or Pittsburgh and you wind up with Kenny Pickett, do you rush him out there before seeing if Trubiski has something or Tua can be made into something viable? You CAN gently caress a guy up early if you push him too hard. RG3 looked like a world beater for a full season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
This conversation literally started because Play led with this.Play posted:I feel like you have to start Lance pretty soon, not only to take advantage of the rookie deal but to find out what you've got. Also, thank you for that. I'm home sick and bored, so enjoyed the debate. Especially since I am clearly right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
There's a pretty good chance that the Lance whispers are bullshit and it's all just part of an effort to get a prospective trade partner to up their compensation for Jimmy G. But taken at face value, of course it's a red flag. There's no other modern precedent for a QB picked in the top 10, let alone top 3, to need two whole seasons on the bench before they're even ready to start. When the 9ers traded all the way up to get him, there wasn't a soul alive that said, "can't wait to watch him in 2023!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
I mean who that's left is trading for Jimmy and not Baker. Jimmy is Jimmy but Baker's best is a good as his and isn't made of glass and balsa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Right, Garappolo's trade market at this point is probably just Carolina offering a 6th. Seattle is the only other team where he might make sense but I doubt SF would deal him in the division.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2022 23:51
|
|