Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

I'd take the red rifle as a bridge QB while we wait to get out from Darnold's fifth year option.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Jimmy G has a relatively weak arm but he is above average in what he does well, he's good before the play, he's accurate and has good touch and placement on the short and intermediate routes and Shanahan for the criticism he gets has put together good crossing and flooding schemes that take advantage of those strengths.

The issues in his game start to emerge when teams take away the flooding cross routes as he simply doesn't have the arm to throw a line drive on a 15 out like the plus arm guys. He's safe when asked go throw a fade on a stick route to Kittle but he does throw INTs when he tries for a line drive type throw and the DBs have an opportunity to break on the ball.

Its why I always joke that Jimmy is good for at least one INT chance a quarter. There will be an important drive where the running game gets stopped or a screen gets stopped and it ends up 3rd and long and the crossing routes can be taken up with a cover 2 scheme and the 49ers have to throw a more traditional more vertical pass.

Its also why they have an offensive cast of dynamic after the catch guys and drafted Lance who they hope can grow into that touch type passer but also has the arm to laser those concepts when the high percentage stuff is taken away.

I think Jimmy would actually be a fit in Carolina not with the scheme and coaches but with the personnel. Him simply giving cmc and Moore and Anderson touch passes in space would be extremely effective if Rhule and McAdoo have those types of plays in their playbook.

I know when Eli was in the twilight of his career McAdoo was able to dial up more quick drops and shorter high percentage stuff but Eli always had a rifle to get in tight windows Jimmy simply doesn't have.

I think anyone from that Shanahan or McVay world would be a solid fit for Jimmy to go to. I don't see a lot of guys out there atm though

I also think a genius like they have in New Orleans could be pretty effective with him too.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

CocoaNuts posted:

How about Thomas Edward Patrick Brady Jr.?

https://twitter.com/BleacherReport/status/1485244771446706178


Think he'll finally call it a career? If so, who steps up? Can Kyle Trask become the starter by next season?

I think he could but I think he'll have one more shot. If Tom retires the Buccs as a whole are probably due a rebuild - I would assume Leftwich would take a gig elsewhere, Arians probably retires again, Gronk would be gone - a few other guys would probably not re-sign (a fair few are on cheap one year deals to run it back). Buccs would be OK if things went well over the next few years and they're in a weak division but if Brady retires the organisation would be set back two to three years imo.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

All three of those guys are under contract and not even on the market. The Steelers probably draft one of the guys who need some time to sit and sign like... Nick Foles for a year as a bridge.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Play posted:

I don't believe it for a second anyways. Brady has never and will never put his family above his legacy.

I mean, the guys arguably the greatest of all time, holds every single record a QB can hold, has more SB rings than anyone ever and won one without Billy 5 aces. I think his legacy is secure.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

pasaluki posted:

It is but as fsif pointed out Brady hasn't properly exploited his last season financially.

This is the same mf who has documentaries on about him while real nfl games are going on.
He's doing SiriusXM shows and plugging Ring Alarm systems and crypto practically right out of the shower after the game.

It's a good point, but he's estimated to be worth something like 250million dollars in his own right. I mean...

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Play posted:

I agree but try telling that to a perfectionist megalomaniac who seems perfectly willing to slap his name on literally anything if it earns him a buck.

If he does retire I doubt his family will be the reason, anyways.

At least not until that lip heals.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

CocoaNuts posted:

The intrigue grows in Green Bay...



Not only might Aaron Rodgers and Davante Adams be a package deal, but the timing on whether both will return to the Green Bay Packers could happen almost simultaneously.

While Rodgers originally said he would likely have a decision by the time free agency begins, which is March 16, he offered the possibility that it could be even sooner.

If the Packers are going to use the franchise tag on Adams, the All-Pro receiver, they can do so as early as Feb. 22 but no later than March 8. Rodgers has already said he does not want to be part of a rebuild and likely considers anything without Adams to be just that. And likewise for Adams; he would almost certainly prefer to be able to explore his options if Rodgers doesn't return to the Packers.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...t-davante-adams

I can't even fathom what a package deal of Adams and Rodgers would cost - not to mention you'd have to shell out the extension for both.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Yeah I mean, I've said it before about Jones in NY. Their team is pretty hosed from top to bottom and there's a lot Daniel Jones does adequately. They're not going to be overly competitive next season anyway - might as well boost his confidence and say he's your guy if you're planning to buff the skill positions on offense and build the lines as well. Plus it kind of makes sense to give your (hopefully) competent incoming coaching staff a year to see if his issues are able to be fixed. If not you can just drop his option and let him go, while making the situation more conducive to being successful with another rookie.

Drafting a QB for the giants in the first round wouldn't exactly do a lot of good considering it's a trash class and they're just so depleted everywhere else.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

I gotta think if Payton was still around he would have been a bit of a boon in new Orleans. If there's one thing Payton can do it's polish a turd and he was pretty successful when Brees' arm strength went from good to turd in his last couple years. Now that he's gone... Trying to think who has decent yard after catch receivers and a good run game? Maybe Denver if they can't go after one of the better guys - but is he that much better than Bridgewater?

I'd take him in Carolina if it meant literally every single draft pick we had was going to go to the offensive line. We don't even have a second or third you could throw in to send though.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Why would you wish that on Jimmy?

An embarrassment of riches in the passing game and on the offensive line to a really good head coach isn't exactly mean.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

MrLogan posted:

Murray hasn't shown that he's an NFL quality starter. Unless the Cards think he'll take a Josh Allen style leap, if they can fleece a team, they should.

If he didn't miss time he would have thrown for 4500 yards, and 30 TDs at a 69% completion rate. He's definitely a productive starter. He just hasn't had post season success or shown himself to be able to go drive for drive with Matt Stafford in his only playoff game. I think he's definitely worth seeing out his fourth year and the cardinals trading him at this point - barring it being for someones top 15 pick would have no answer to who they trot out unless they sign Jameis Winston or Nick Foles.

Down the stretch with an injury and his number one target out he faded I'll grant you, but you don't throw out a QB doing that in his 3rd year - at least I don't think it's a smart move to do so.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

I watched plenty of Panthers games last year and plenty of Cardinals games and I can freely admit I would not be unhappy if Kyler was suiting up for my team every week.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

The saints offensive line and running back situation unless Kamara gets hit with a long suspension is always going to make them attractive. It's always going to be a safe choice. The team's pretty solid if unspectacular everywhere and if nothing else they'll be right in the mix for the playoffs by way of the division sucking.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Play posted:

I thought their O line struggled quite a lot this year actually, in comparison to years past.

But their defense was elite and overall they were a playoff-ready team outside of QB.

They weren't as good as years past but they did have some injuries and a constantly rotating rear end bag at QB. Their tackle situation is still one of the best in the league and their interior isn't bad.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Mariota is probably attractive as a stop gap since he can probably be something in a QB room simply given how long he's been around now, and while I agree he's never going to win a superbowl he can at least scramble and run an offense.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Aaron Rodgers is currently insta posting like a teenage girl having her first break up.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

FizFashizzle posted:

i'd rather the panthers signed tittykisser than traded for cousins.

overpay i don't give a poo poo money isn't real

At this point I'll take Heinicke back for a late rounder after Washington trade or sign someone.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

In the last day I've heard that David Tepper has dicks out for Pickett, the front office for the panthers loves Willis, the Panthers are going to trade as early as next week for Jimmy g.

I hate this time of year.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Impossibly Perfect Sphere posted:

Seahawks Tell Wilson they Want Open Relationship

His at the time wife and golden tate told him the same thing ends the same way.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

NGL the Panthers' interest in watson is truly loving disgusting me right now.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

YOLOsubmarine posted:

Yea, that’s worked really well for the Packers.

Yeah but I mean, there's four franchises in our division who are staring down the barrel of QB hell or ending up with a piece of poo poo rapist (for three of them anyway). When 5 or 6 seasons ago there were 3 legitimate MVP candidates suiting up.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

If that twitter from earlier assigning Mayfield a grade of a third/second was accurate indy, carolina, seattle would all be insane not to be burning the phones for Mayfield. I would think the Browns wouldn't want to ship him somewhere in the AFC if they had their druthers though.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Ornery and Hornery posted:

Mayfield was in a QB friendly system, with a top tier OL, top tier running game, and two great receiving weapons. He was still far from elite.

What makes you think him going to Seattle of all places would improve that?

It would improve seattle with Drew Lock? My thought process was less whats good for Baker and more whats the most likely fit tbh. Even then I'm a baker homer.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

If you've got an offensive roster of 20 or so people you're going to get people that don't gel for whatever reason and they're going to form cliques, so all it takes is for one person to mouth off to the media and it's going to get worse. Fair enough if it turns out to be true but the browns front office saying something bad about baker at this point doesn't exactly make me want to condemn him. I mean... I've seen the players they pursue so.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

syzpid posted:

I got some bad news for you about Carolina's roster

Anyone else feel that Ryan was kind of pissed the Falcons were one of Watson's suitors, and requested a trade no matter what, and because the Falcons aren't the Browns it was handled a lot better.

Carolina have a good roster. It's bad QB and pretty poor coaching that's cost them.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

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.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

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.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Play posted:

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.

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.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Sataere posted:

I feel like you missed my point, since you pretty much said what I've been saying.Just reread your post and see that you are agreeing with me because you are a smart and handsome man.

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.

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. :v:

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.

:respek:

BiggerBoat posted:

He's really weird because there's pretty much no other QB in NFL history with his broken and erratic career trajectory.

Drafted in the top 2, looked OK as a rookie, blossomed and became an MVP candidate on a team that won the SB and then just...lost it. Fell off a loving cliff like that. It's really bizarre and there's no real legitimate comparison, at least that I can think of. Usually when a highly drafted QB flames out, it's obvious from the get go. Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Jamarcus Russell and dudes like that. RG3 got hurt and was never the same but he's the closest thing I can think of. QB's don't usually have this gradual upwards trajectory, become stars and then just completely poo poo the bed like he has.

Wentz honestly looked like The Answer at QB for Philly heading into the next 10 years at one point. I guess there's always going to be a team that thinks if he did it in 2017, he can do it again and convinces themselves that he can recapture that magic but there's obviously something broken about him in the head and nobody seems to like the loving guy.

He reminds me of a couple NBA players that suddenly forgot how to shoot or a few MLB guys that got the yips and couldn't pitch a strike or make a throw to first. Except with Carson it's becoming more and more clear he's just got assholitis not a loss of ability. He's a little like Ben Simmons in a way.

Washington is perfect for him.

I wonder if the assholitis thing is just being a QB or an athlete in general, like we all love Steve Smith, but the dudes a loving rear end in a top hat, the only reason he's beloved is he was a demi-god with a football in his hands and had the determination that would have made him a champion at tennis or boxing or anything he ended up playing. If you're successful people will put up with a lot but if you're not you're going to grate people pretty quickly. I know there's a lot of guys out there who are successful and not assholes, but winning seems to change everything. He's certainly got broke brain in terms of his field reads and everything else so I agree there.


Cavauro posted:

if baker or anybody does anything publicly it should be providing help for the victims rather than some sweet owns because he got football screwed

Baker getting traded and getting a new deal then immediately donating a chunk of his bonus to a womens advocacy group would be an all time troll move and I'd forever love him for it.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

BiggerBoat posted:

Weird. That's the only place I can picture him landing. Maybe Seattle?

I guess as it looks now, some contending team is gonna lose a starter and bring him in mid season.

It makes sense to me given the panthers seem to be all in on an OT and less so sniffing around Willis. They could also trade back because fitterer loves to trade around. Focus on getting your best player and then worry about filling that gap imo.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

I would have thought if Murray was on the block it would have been a lot more loud. Especially given what the market for Watson was.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

MrLogan posted:

Watson is a top 5 QB and Murray looks like a high ceiling backup at the moment.

I know he hasn't yet shown he can carry a team, but that's a little harsh. At week 8 he was a being talked about as an MVP candidate.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

I want to believe.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

YOLOsubmarine posted:

Pretty sure they actually think they’re doing exactly what they need to to compete in the division. You don’t bring your 70 year old coach back to start a rebuild and then let him spend a second on a running back.

To be fair they kind of did have a massive need at running back.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

I just can't see how Lock will miraculously stop making boneheaded throws that he did in Denver just over and over again but it would be cool if he made a go of it. I just don't see it.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

I really don't get Peterman, maybe he's one of those dudes like Ty Detmer where he's everything you want in a QB except actually being able to play on Sunday. Like a really good scout team guy, super good team mate and knowledgeable or whatever? I can't explain it, other than like. He has one of Jerry Jones' dick pics or knows the whereabouts of one of Peyton's illegitimate children or something and the league doesn't want the scandal.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

pasaluki posted:

One thing that's an actual mindfuck is Peterman beat out Josh Allen for the starter job. And this is even after that Chargers game.

See that's kinda gotta make me think the dudes some kind of idiot savant at every aspect of being a professional QB except for putting passes in hands of receivers on game day.

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

If he's truly ambidextrous there's a lot less of a learning curve on doing things rear end about in terms of roll outs and plays to either side. QBs always have a side they're better at rolling out to which means you can gameplan a little more for it, but if the dude can develop into being able to boot let and roll out and throw to either side or slide around in the pocket and keep his mechanics it would be an interesting thing to work with.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BlindSite
Feb 8, 2009

Black Lighter posted:

There had to have been a year where Matt Hasselbeck was the best QB in the NFC West

2004

San Francisco started Tim Rattay, Cardinals had McCown and Marc Bulger.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply