Dolphins trade 3rd overall pick to SF

[Blue]

3 minutes ago, Forge said:

Its not. It's better to be picking 12 than it is 16 when what you want is at the top of the draft. Trades like that don't happen often. 

With it's starting QB, they are 24-9. Seems a pretty reasonable expectation. 

24-9 when led by an actual nfl starting caliber QB and not a back up seems like a pretty solid record. As my post originally said, you're banking on an injury to have the 9ers pick that high again. That's not an unreasonable claim given what we have seen through these years. Jimmy G, when healthy gives this team a floor of middling team. 

Now it's fair to wonder whether JImmy will stay healthy. Obviously 4 injuries in 35 starts is too much, but that's the reason that they are making the move. 

The logic was assuming health of Jimmy as I said in the post. It's right here:

 

The logic of Garoppolo staying health for even half the season is ludicrously unrealistic though.

[Forge]

1 minute ago, Blue said:

When it's a trend, they absolutely should.

And that's why they are going to get their guy this year. But that opens an additional can of worms with regards to what constitutes being injury prone, when do you pull the plug, etc. Jimmy had never had a leg injury in his life. Should the team have assumed that the random ACL was the start of something? If so, why? This year he hit the high ankle sprain on a turf that knocked out like 4 other guys, 2 of which went down for the season. It's a bigger conversation. 

[Forge]

Just now, Blue said:

The logic of Garoppolo staying health for even half the season is ludicrously unrealistic though.

This is 100% fair, and one of the reasons I'm glad they are making the choice to do what they are doing. My post is simply not assuming injury, and you are. That's the crux of the difference. As a team, I'd rather them assume the injury

[Blue]

Just now, Forge said:

This is 100% fair, and one of the reasons I'm glad they are making the choice to do what they are doing. My post is simply not assuming injury, and you are. That's the crux of the difference. As a team, I'd rather them assume the injury

The difference is that my assumption is based on Garoppolo simply continuing to do what he has done consistently.

[Forge]

Just now, Blue said:

The difference is that my assumption is based on Garoppolo simply continuing to do what he has done consistently.

But again, where is the line between unfortunate luck and actually being injury prone? He's had 3 injuries (the 4th is kind of a weird thing where apparently he came back too early, but it was a different injury, but it was still a high ankle sprain on the same foot? Lol I don't know, it was weird) that are completely separate from one another. At this point they need to move on just because you can't tell any more and that alone is enough of a problem at the QB position,  but I don't think the injuries, in a vacuum are necessarily indicative of him being injury prone. It's a really tough path to navigate. 

AC sprain on a hit that isn't even legal in the NFL any more. ACL popped. Foot stuck in a turf monster that also helped Solomon Thomas and Nick Bosa tear their ACL this year. 

I mean, it's a tough situation. As another example: Nick bosa has now torn his acl twice in 5 years to go along with a core injury. But the second acl was a 350 pound Becton falling on him with his cleat stuck in the artificial turf. What am I supposed to do with that as an evaluation for Bosa in terms of his injury history?  Does that make him more injury prone because it was such a specific set of circumstances that led to the injury? How often is that going to happen? But it happened, so it has to count for something. Two of Jimmy's injuries have been the direct result of a situational action (body weight tackle which isn't legal, same thing that got Rodgers and caused the rule change) and a cleat stuck in the turf. 

That entire thing is sooooo murky on how you handle that. Now, in Jimmy's case, its exacerbated because he's the QB. Its one thing to be a pass rusher like Bosa, you can work around that, but nobody can work around their QB getting hurt consistently. Back up QBs typically suck and you don't always have the money to pay a premium back up (nor should you have to pay your starter 13% of your cap and your back up another 5%). So you have to move on. I just think that its a more convoluted situation. 

[squire12]

18 minutes ago, Forge said:

24-9 when led by an actual nfl starting caliber QB and not a back up seems like a pretty solid record. As my post originally said, you're banking on an injury to have the 9ers pick that high again. That's not an unreasonable claim given what we have seen through these years. Jimmy G, when healthy gives this team a floor of middling team. 

Now it's fair to wonder whether JImmy will stay healthy. Obviously 4 injuries in 35 starts is too much, but that's the reason that they are making the move. 

So SF won't likely be picking this high again due to the roster talent and the hope that Jimmy G can stay healthy for a full season (as you noted 4 injuries in 35 starts)....yet the reason SF is making this move up is because Jimmy G can't stay healthy.

[Blue]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

But again, where is the line between unfortunate luck and actually being injury prone?

I don't know but I think we passed that point a long time ago with Jimmy. He's missed games due to injury four out of five seasons.

[Forge]

Just now, squire12 said:

So SF won't likely be picking this high again due to the roster talent and the hope that Jimmy G can stay healthy for a full season (as you noted 4 injuries in 35 starts)....yet the reason SF is making this move up is because Jimmy G can't stay healthy.

My OP said literally said, "when he's healthy" 

[Forge]

Just now, Blue said:

I don't know but I think we passed that point a long time ago with Jimmy. He's missed games due to injury four out of five seasons.

3 out of 5 (16 - and this was as a back up lol, 18, 20). 

He was healthy in 17 & 19. 

Translation: Its a healthy year, baby lol. 

 

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, Forge said:

But again, where is the line between unfortunate luck and actually being injury prone? He's had 3 injuries (the 4th is kind of a weird thing where apparently he came back too early, but it was a different injury, but it was still a high ankle sprain on the same foot? Lol I don't know, it was weird) that are completely separate from one another. At this point they need to move on just because you can't tell any more and that alone is enough of a problem at the QB position,  but I don't think the injuries, in a vacuum are necessarily indicative of him being injury prone. It's a really tough path to navigate. 

AC sprain on a hit that isn't even legal in the NFL any more. ACL popped. Foot stuck in a turf monster that also helped Solomon Thomas and Nick Bosa tear their ACL this year. 

I mean, it's a tough situation. As another example: Nick bosa has now torn his acl twice in 5 years to go along with a core injury. But the second acl was a 350 pound Becton falling on him with his cleat stuck in the artificial turf. What am I supposed to do with that as an evaluation for Bosa in terms of his injury history?  Does that make him more injury prone because it was such a specific set of circumstances that led to the injury? How often is that going to happen? But it happened, so it has to count for something. Two of Jimmy's injuries have been the direct result of a situational action (body weight tackle which isn't legal, same thing that got Rodgers and caused the rule change) and a cleat stuck in the turf. 

That entire thing is sooooo murky on how you handle that. Now, in Jimmy's case, its exacerbated because he's the QB. Its one thing to be a pass rusher like Bosa, you can work around that, but nobody can work around their QB getting hurt consistently. Back up QBs typically suck and you don't always have the money to pay a premium back up (nor should you have to pay your starter 13% of your cap and your back up another 5%). So you have to move on. I just think that its a more convoluted situation. 

The statistics point to once injured, the odds/risk/chance of similar/associated injury increases rather significantly.  Expecting that to not be the case is an interesting stance

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196323/#:~:text=Several%20authors%20have%20described%20previous,flexibility%2C%20and%20scar%20tissue%20accumulation.

 

Quote

 

Results:

ACL injury was linked to a successive injury of the same ACL, and other injuries in the LE. HS was associated with subsequent ipsilateral HS and knee injuries. Previous achilles tendon rupture increased the risk of an analogous injury on the contralateral side. An ankle sprain was associated with a re‐injury of either the ipsilateral or the contralateral ankle. Post‐injury changes were present in strength, proprioception, and kinematics, which may have led to overall changes in motor control and function.

 

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16855067/

Quote

Players with a previous hamstring injury, groin injury, and knee joint trauma were two to three times more likely to suffer an identical injury in the following season, whereas no such relation was found for ankle sprain. Age was not associated with an increased injury risk.

 

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, Forge said:

My OP said literally said, "when he's healthy" 

which is more the rare occurrence that the norm

[Forge]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

The statistics point to once injured, the odds/risk/chance of similar/associated injury increases rather significantly.  Expecting that to not be the case is an interesting stance

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196323/#:~:text=Several%20authors%20have%20described%20previous,flexibility%2C%20and%20scar%20tissue%20accumulation.

 

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16855067/

 

So two of his injuries were ankle sprains, which by your own post said that they have no relation. 

One of them is an ACL...which has always presented that risk (previous studies showed you were up to 6 times more likely to do it again), but at this point is so common that I don't think anyone particularly looks at it as woefully detrimental. A torn ACL at this point is getting to Tommy John levels in baseball. 

An AC sprain should fall under the same heading as an ankle sprain I would have to imagine, given that they are both sprains 

 

[pwny]

Mac Jones at 3 would be incredibly stupid. But also realistically at 6 is where he could have gone regardless of this.

Lawrence and Wilson seemed locked in at 1-2. Pick 3 was always likely on the move and Fields being taken there was a large possibility. Lance at 4 to the Falcons or a trade partner is in play. Then the Eagles at 6 or a trade partner (New England going up?) is the possible *normal ceiling for Jones.

The Rap report said that the 49ers were trying to move anywhere 3-6. It also sounds like the Eagles weren’t willing to trade back until the top 3 spots were locked in at QB and they knew they couldn’t move for Wilson. Maybe the Falcons are locked in for Lance/Sewell/Pitts and the Bengals excited about getting Sewell/Pitts for Burrow and they were asking for essentially the same thing that they had to give up to get to 3.

If that’s why they moved to 3 for Jones, its still incredibly bad value to spend all those resources for him. But there’s at least a logic path they’re taking to get there?

 

[Forge]

 

1 minute ago, pwny said:

Mac Jones at 3 would be incredibly stupid. But also realistically at 6 is where he could have gone regardless of this.

Lawrence and Wilson seemed locked in at 1-2. Pick 3 was always likely on the move and Fields being taken there was a large possibility. Lance at 4 to the Falcons or a trade partner is in play. Then the Eagles at 6 or a trade partner (New England going up?) is the possible *normal ceiling for Jones.

The Rap report said that the 49ers were trying to move anywhere 3-6. It also sounds like the Eagles weren’t willing to trade back until the top 3 spots were locked in at QB and they knew they couldn’t move for Wilson. Maybe the Falcons are locked in for Lance/Sewell/Pitts and the Bengals excited about getting Sewell/Pitts for Burrow and they were asking for essentially the same thing that they had to give up to get to 3.

If that’s why they moved to 3 for Jones, its still incredibly bad value to spend all those resources for him. But there’s at least a logic path they’re taking to get there?

 

The thing is, you can't discount the stupidity that comes with Shanny wanting to go get his guy. Its frustrating to watch sometimes. Shanny's second coaching stint where he doesn't have personnel control (at least over the offense) is going to be pretty impressive, I think. I love Shanny as a coach...I am not a huge fan of Shanny the personnel manager. 

[Forge]