Jump to content

Around the NFL III - The NFLiest Yet

y2lamanaki

By y2lamanaki
in San Francisco 49ers

 Share

Should the Seahawks move to the CFL?  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Seahawks move to the CFL?

    • Yes, be gone with them already.
      12
    • No, I want see the Seahawks get beat down in the NFC West for years to come.
      13
    • No, because then poor RudyZ might be stuck with them.
      12
    • No, because I am a proud toothless member of the 12th Man which you all know means I became a fan in 2012. It's also the last year I took a shower, because my hygiene is lacking.
      1

Recommended Posts

N4L

N4L

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 757-NINER said:

We're a long ways away from SB talk imo. We could potentially lose seven starters. Nine if you want to count Hyder & Garland. We still have studs like Bosa, Kittle & Warner. But what made the 2019 team so good was our depth, especially defensively. That depth is non-existent heading into a new year. And the secondary is looking like it will be a shell of its former self with the guys we'll be inclined to lose.

Alot of the fanbase seems to think all we need is a legit QB and we're back as front-runners in the NFC. Maybe so. I'm not aa certain. There are alot of legit QBs who come up short every year. It will certainly make Shanny's job easier but the road back to the SB is exponentially harder than it was before. And we' re about to see a big upheaval in our roster. Not to mention breaking in a first time DC. Alot remains to be seen for me personally.

This is exactly why we need a better QB! To mask some of these other issues we will have over the next 2ish years.

Having a franchise QB is the simplest path to sustained success. Look at the seahawks, their roster has been bad over the last 5 years, yet they continue to win ball games.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
757-NINER

757-NINER

Posted
Posted
Just now, N4L said:

This is exactly why we need a better QB! To mask some of these other issues we will have over the next 2ish years.

Having a franchise QB is the simplest path to sustained success. Look at the seahawks, their roster has been bad over the last 5 years, yet they continue to win ball games.

But they can't win in the playoffs....which is kind of like important. 

I don't want to be a team just good enough but not great. That's its own kind of purgatory. Great QBs are definitely better than medicore ones but it doesn't guarantee success. Look at GB & Seattle. Every year they're in the playoffs and every year they're not quite good enough to do anything once they get there, tho the Pack just went to back-to-back NFCCG. 

Its a slippery slope. EVERYDAY I switch my stance from going after that franchise QB to wanting us to keep building and retooling through the draft. I look at the Chiefs and how they were kind of in that meddling middle with Alex as their QB and then they kind of lucked into Mahomes. Wishful thinking I guess on my part...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
49ersfan

49ersfan

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Forge said:

Watson and Stafford aren't competing. Those are two completely different stratospheres. I don't know how Rodgers is "likely" to be on the market.  

Basically, we hold the trump card becasue we have #12 which is worth Washingtons 1 & 2 (same for Indy and Chicago). So if we put 12 on the table, those teams have to go up. I'd say 1 + 3 + next year 2. If we don't put 12 on the table, they could probably get away with something like a 1 + 4 and that will get it done pretty easily because the top end of the market isn't there. Honestly, we are the one driving this market. If 12 is off the table, his trade value is vastly different. If Stafford ends up with us, it could easily be only a first round pick because of the value of that pick. 

Rodgers sounded pissed yesterday and he's still not happy that they drafted Jordan Love. On one hand its lunacy to trade your MVP QB, on the other hand he's 37, his value is as high as it could be, and the Packers could want to move on with their 1st round QB they traded up for. 

We could offer #12...he's better than Jimmy G for sure. I really wouldn't want to offer more, but who knows. I've earmarked our 1st rounder on a QB upgrade for months, so i'm ok with spending it on Stafford, but i'd hope to not give up more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
49ersfan

49ersfan

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, NcFinest9erFan said:

Question is as stated in the tweet, are the colts looking for another short term answer or will they try to find a long term answer? and do they think Jimmy is a long term answer?

A lot of missing details from that little blurb. Did the Colts bring up Jimmy G and we said no? Did we bring up Jimmy G and the Colts said no? Did both teams include him in initial proposals but unable to work on a deal? Did Jimmy G veto it himself via his no-trade clause? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NcFinest9erFan

NcFinest9erFan

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, 49ersfan said:

A lot of missing details from that little blurb. Did the Colts bring up Jimmy G and we said no? Did we bring up Jimmy G and the Colts said no? Did both teams include him in initial proposals but unable to work on a deal? Did Jimmy G veto it himself via his no-trade clause? 

Since we passed on Brady, I am going to assume that we said no?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
49ersfan

49ersfan

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, NcFinest9erFan said:

Since we passed on Brady, I am going to assume that we said no?

Definitely could be the case. I think we'd be more amenable to trading him this offseason. 

There's a lot of domino effects from the QB's on the market/about to be on the market. I initially thought this would be a pretty stable QB offseason, but it looks like there will be a lot of movement with Watson, Stafford, maybe Rodgers & Jimmy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...