Jump to content

49ers QB Situation: What Would YOU Do?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

So obviously last Friday the 49ers shook up the draft and NFL world by trading two future first rounders to get to #3 to draft one of the top QBs. Some questions:

1. Which of the three QBs would you take at #3 (Jones/Fields/Lance)?

Fields / Lance / Jones that order

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

2. Would you keep Garoppolo for one more year (ala Chiefs with Smith) or go with the rookie from day one?

If Lance, you 100% keep Jimmy G. I'd probably keep him and start him for the others as well. 

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

3. What is the least amount of compensation it would take for you to trade Garoppolo?

Someone in the WFT forum would offer a 2nd. I thought that was outrageous. I'd be limited to a 3rd at the highest and even then I wouldn't want him. 

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

4. Do you think the Niners have a realistic chance to win it all with Garoppolo at QB? 

No. 

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

5. Do you think the Niners have a realistic chance to win it all with one of the rookie QBs?

In year 1? No. 

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

6. If the team starts the rookie QB from day one, how many years can this regime miss the playoffs before they are on the hot seat? 

It depends where they started. Are they also in Year 1? Then maybe 3 or 4. Are they in year 3 or 4? Then one maybe two. 

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

7. Would you have made the trade Shanahan/Lynch made or gone another route? 

Being that I root for the team that did the RG3 trade... no. I would have for Lawrence. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

I mean Shanahan mentioned they looked into Watson but obviously you can't trade for him right now. That would have definitely been option #1. 

Maybe I'm biased, maybe I just want this to be over with - but I see this as the best opportunity TO trade for him. You're potentially getting him on a "scratch n dent" discount. Sure, there's backlash - but backlash is quickly forgotten once Watson throws for 325/4/0 and a GW TD.

I'm sure Nick Caserio will operate in good faith to get from underneath this. Offer up two firsts and see what bites...

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, KingOfNewYork said:

Yeah I'd do it for Watson as well but the allegations have hurt that potential at the moment. 

See above - this could be like buying Bitcoin back when it was $6.00. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ET80 said:

See above - this could be like buying Bitcoin back when it was $6.00. 

Yeah I mean, even if the evidence we do have is true you're basically trading for a "creep" nothing some counseling and philanthropy wont help change public perception. Might be worth the risk. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KingOfNewYork said:

Yeah I mean, even if the evidence we do have is true you're basically trading for a "creep" nothing some counseling and philanthropy wont help change public perception. Might be worth the risk. 

And the reward is a top 3-5 QB entering his prime on a very manageable contract.

Someone is going to take a chance, and San Francisco has an organizational culture that could withstand such fallout early on. 

Not every team could pull this off, but San Francisco is one that could.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Wilson (likely won’t be available) 

2) Lance (all the potential in the world, better fit in Shanahan’s system than Fields, and I’ve had Lance as the better prospect since November without waivering)

3) Fields

Def gonna be a QB. They aren’t even hiding it. Some of the most honest press conferences I’ve ever seen. It’s nice to see but also strange. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Maybe I'm biased, maybe I just want this to be over with - but I see this as the best opportunity TO trade for him. You're potentially getting him on a "scratch n dent" discount. Sure, there's backlash - but backlash is quickly forgotten once Watson throws for 325/4/0 and a GW TD.

I'm sure Nick Caserio will operate in good faith to get from underneath this. Offer up two firsts and see what bites...

Except you can't trade for him right now, you just can't risk it until this all plays out. And you don't even know if the NFL put him on the exempt list or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Well, he holds a bit of leverage but if he wants to go or does go, this is why you've picked your QB at 3. It's his time. It's a less ideal situation than having both, but you roll with Fields/Lance. Might take an extra year but you're stacked as you say

My only issue as a fan would be 'superbowl now!' pressure. Similar, probably, to what LAR have been feeling. It is a lot of pressure knowing you've given up future prime capital to win now with a good roster that won't always be there. But, enjoy the ride. SF are a damned good team about to get better

I believe that Shanahan prefers to sit the rookie for a year and wants to roll out Jimmy with this roster. They were able to bring back pretty much every free agent they needed to and have crazy depth. But a lot of the players that re-signed did so on a one year deal. So go for it next year and then there will be bit of a roster reset in 2022 and then you go with the rookie.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MikeT14 said:

Fields / Lance / Jones that order

If Lance, you 100% keep Jimmy G. I'd probably keep him and start him for the others as well. 

Someone in the WFT forum would offer a 2nd. I thought that was outrageous. I'd be limited to a 3rd at the highest and even then I wouldn't want him. 

No. 

In year 1? No. 

It depends where they started. Are they also in Year 1? Then maybe 3 or 4. Are they in year 3 or 4? Then one maybe two. 

Being that I root for the team that did the RG3 trade... no. I would have for Lawrence. 

 

This regime is in year 5 now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Maybe I'm biased, maybe I just want this to be over with - but I see this as the best opportunity TO trade for him. You're potentially getting him on a "scratch n dent" discount. Sure, there's backlash - but backlash is quickly forgotten once Watson throws for 325/4/0 and a GW TD.

I'm sure Nick Caserio will operate in good faith to get from underneath this. Offer up two firsts and see what bites...

2024 first  and 2025 first conditional on no more than 4 games lost from the current allegations.  4-10 games lost the 2024 first becomes a 2nd.  10+ games the 2025 first becomes a second.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

This regime is in year 5 now.

IMO, going to a Super Bowl, especially in that they "overachieved" doing it based off of perception of what they "should" be able to do with that roster, and that buys more time.

Year 1 and 2, you have a regime that didn't have a QB that traded for one, who then immediately started winning, and then got hurt, so they:

...overpaid Jimmy G, and then:

...used that #2 pick on Bosa and had an elite defense, in which they made the Super Bowl, after which they:

...had a BUNCH of injuries/key injuries everywhere, and still were competitive and battled their way to a respectable around .500 record, so they:

...made their move and traded up.

This will buy them another 1-3 years, in which it will largely depend on this very Quarterback succeeding as to whether or not Shanahan and/or Lynch are going to be out of jobs by 2023. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

This regime is in year 5 now.

Okay sorry. Specifically YOUR regime? They get AT LEAST two more years if not more imo

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, squire12 said:

2024 first  and 2025 first conditional on no more than 4 games lost from the current allegations.  4-10 games lost the 2024 first becomes a 2nd.  10+ games the 2025 first becomes a second.

I doubt Caserio would go for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Except you can't trade for him right now, you just can't risk it until this all plays out. And you don't even know if the NFL put him on the exempt list or not.

Anyone else? Sure. But if you're looking at a lengthy suspension, the 49ers have Jimmy G to play out the season.

I've seen worse contingency plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

IMO, going to a Super Bowl, especially in that they "overachieved" doing it based off of perception of what they "should" be able to do with that roster, and that buys more time.

Year 1 and 2, you have a regime that didn't have a QB that traded for one, who then immediately started winning, and then got hurt, so they:

...overpaid Jimmy G, and then:

...used that #2 pick on Bosa and had an elite defense, in which they made the Super Bowl, after which they:

...had a BUNCH of injuries/key injuries everywhere, and still were competitive and battled their way to a respectable around .500 record, so they:

...made their move and traded up.

This will buy them another 1-3 years, in which it will largely depend on this very Quarterback succeeding as to whether or not Shanahan and/or Lynch are going to be out of jobs by 2023. 

Oh I agree. The roster was the worst in football when they took over in 2017 and now they have one of the best rosters in the league. But things can sour quick, especially if they keep losing. Injuries have been brutal but they will have to start winning more soon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...