49ers QB Situation: What Would YOU Do?

[vikingsrule]

12 minutes ago, DontTazeMeBro said:

Unless the rookie is complete trash in training camp, start him. I’ve never seen any compelling evidence that QBs need to wait a year. There’s overwhelming evidence that they don’t. Every time a team insists they’re not going to start the rookie, the rookie ends up starting, almost 100%. And I’m a believer that you learn and get better by doing things. 

I agree with this. There’s no reason to sit a rookie QB unless your team is trash or the rookie hasn’t earned it. Sitting a rookie QB just to sit him seems very outdated. The 49ers have a lot of talent. If the 49ers want to maximize value they ought to take the QB they love at 3 and trade Jimmy G to a QB desperate team once the first round QBs come off the board. 

Edited March 31, 2021 by vikingsrule

[stl4life07]

1 hour ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

So your whole premise was that Jimmy stayed healthy and they caught lightning in a bottle all the luck rained down on them? Lol, I mean fair to question Jimmy's durability going forward but that team was stacked all around. They still dealt with more injuries that year than the Rams in any year since McVay has arrived. 

Ok so I think you have what Im saying wrong. Im not saying the Niners themselves was lucky when they went to the Superbowl. Im saying the luck was Jimmy G having a season of relative health which in turn helped the Niners get to the Superbowl. I dont care how talented you is as a team the two most important pieces to a team is head coach and quarterback. The Rams was the healthiest team in 2016 but they had a rookie quarterback in Goff and a losing head coach in Fisher who had no idea what he was doing on offense. The team sucked. The team did have some talent though and thats when McVay came in 2017 the Rams once again was the healthiest team in the NFL and they went (11-5) won the NFC West and hosted a playoff game. In 2018 they was the 4th healthiest team got even more talent and went to the Superbowl. Unfortunately the two biggest blows was Gurley which was the biggest piece to the offense because its a running offense and then Kupp which was Goff favorite target. But my point is yes the Niners main issue was Jimmy G not being available outside of that one season when they went to the Superbowl. That was lightening in a bottle. Again not saying the Niners was lucky in general but not having to worry about Mullens or Beathard for a season does wonders for a team especially when you paid your "franchise QB" big money he need to be available. Jimmy G wasnt and now the Niners put themselves in position to draft a QB that hopefully can be their franchise QB and can be available and help them get back to the Superbowl sooner rather than later. 

[GW21]

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

2. Would you keep Garoppolo for one more year (ala Chiefs with Smith) or go with the rookie from day one?
Depends on the value we would get for Jimmy. I wouldn't dump him or give him away just for the sake of not having him on the roster. If we aren't offered what we see as fair value I would keep him.  

3. What is the least amount of compensation it would take for you to trade Garoppolo?
I would hold out for a future first or a conditional pick that could turn into a future first. If that offer isn't on the table, let him play out this year and see if you can get something similar next offseason. 

4. Do you think the Niners have a realistic chance to win it all with Garoppolo at QB? 
I think that they can (but I'm a 49ers fan). 

5. Do you think the Niners have a realistic chance to win it all with one of the rookie QBs?
I think it would be a little less likely than if they ran it back with Jimmy.

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? 
Two. Possibly fired after the third year of missing the playoffs.

7. Would you have made the trade Shanahan/Lynch made or gone another route? 
Yes. Now hopefully they pick the right guy. I would not have given up this draft capital for Mac Jones.  

[Uncle Buck]

10 hours 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.  I think his stock has dropped a little too much as of late.  He is from a big-time program and played well on the biggest stage possible in college (National Championship).  His upside may not be as high as that of Lance, but his floor is a LOT higher, IMO.  He is also closer to being able to lead a stacked Niners team to success.
 

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

I'd probably keep him around.  Let him start the year, and if he wins and keeps winning and stays healthy, stick with him for the year.  Then trade him in the offseason when his stock is high.  You don't really have much to lose by keeping him around.

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

Third round pick.

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

Absolutely.  They were very close a couple years ago.  He and the rest of the team just need to stay healthy.

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

They have a chance, but I guess I'd be surprised.  You have a great defense like Big Ben benefitted from in his rookie season, so you always have that shot, but it usually takes a little time for a rookie to get up to speed.
 

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?

I don't know the situation well enough to answer that.

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

Absolutely!  The only thing I wonder about is why they didn't deal with the Jets and go all the way up to #2.  It seems like Wilson is the concensus #2 QB in the draft, so if you're going to make a big trade, you might as well go all the way.  I guess maybe the Jets wanted so much they decided it wasn't worth it.  Hard to say.

 

[Apparition]

11 hours 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)?

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

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

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

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

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? 

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

You don't have to answer all these questions, but just curious to hear some outside perspective on things Niners fans have been debating since the trade was made.

1. Depends how long a leash Shanny thinks he has. If he needs results this year, then Jones. If he thinks he can burn another season developing a guy (or is confident enough in his system that he can get away with starting a rawer talent, then Fields). I wouldn't personally take Lance before the 40th or so pick in a normal season, and not before pick 20 this year.

2. Not at his current cap number. They have to restructure him at a minimum. But if there's confidence in the guy they draft, they should just release him outright, acquire Minshew in a trade to be the backup, and roll with the rookie.

3. Most teams that would be interested in JG don't have the cap room to acquire him under his current deal. Personally, given his durability issues, I wouldn't trade anything more than a conditional 4th for him. I think realistically the Niners should ask for a 2nd, then let themselves be talked down from that.

4. Not with the way he played last season. Durability issues aside, he's regressed. 

5. Nope, but that's mostly because no team has ever done it with a rookie. There's a first time for everything, and if any team can pull it off, why wouldn't it be them?

6. I would give them until year 3 IF they win double-digit games in year 2 but miss the postseason just because of how tough the division is.

7. You gotta shoot your shot. If they hadn't made that trade, someone else would have. 

[SkippyX]

6 hours ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

Agreed.  Mac Jones needs a team with an excellent O-Line and offensive coaching.

- Mac Jones on the 2021 49ers or Patriots goes 15-1 and plays in the Super Bowl.

This is great. Thanks for the laugh.

1972 Dolphins, 1984 49ers, 1985 Bears, 1991 WFT, 1998 Vikings, 2004 Steelers, 2007 Patriots, 2011 Packers, and Mac Jones on 2 different teams next year.

Brady only won 15+ regular season games once in 21 years but bleep that guy, we are talking Mac the Mediocrity here.

Peyton Manning was a hell of a prospect and he never did better than 14-2 but that guy was not Just Another Jones.

[Dr A W Niloc]

2 hours ago, SkippyX said:

This is great. Thanks for the laugh.

1972 Dolphins, 1984 49ers, 1985 Bears, 1991 WFT, 1998 Vikings, 2004 Steelers, 2007 Patriots, 2011 Packers, and Mac Jones on 2 different teams next year.

Brady only won 15+ regular season games once in 21 years but bleep that guy, we are talking Mac the Mediocrity here.

Peyton Manning was a hell of a prospect and he never did better than 14-2 but that guy was not Just Another Jones.

If Mac were a phenomenal player he'd be going #1, wouldn't he?

If Mac were a phenomenal player he wouldn't need a top 4 O-Line, would he?

If Mac were a phenomenal player he wouldn't need a Hall of Fame Head Coach, would he?

If Mac were a phenomenal player he wouldn't need such a great Tight End, would he?

Oh, and in New England or San Francisco he'll have a top 4 defense, to boot.

If the fit is right consistent "mediocrity" can be more than enough (especially if it describes PFF's #1 rated QB in 2020). 

It's a team game.

 

 

[Soko]

10 hours ago, DontTazeMeBro said:

Unless the rookie is complete trash in training camp, start him. I’ve never seen any compelling evidence that QBs need to wait a year. There’s overwhelming evidence that they don’t. Every time a team insists they’re not going to start the rookie, the rookie ends up starting, almost 100%. And I’m a believer that you learn and get better by doing things. 

What overwhelming evidence is there that rookie quarterbacks don’t need to sit? 

I assume (and correct me if I’m wrong) that said evidence, are guys like Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck, to an extent, Herbert/Watson (who started because of injury/horrible starters, but weren’t the first choice)? There’d be two problems with that, though. 

First, is that we don’t really know that Luck wouldn’t have been a HOFer if he sat. Or if Christian Ponder would’ve been relevant if he sat. We can’t prove things that didn’t happen. Would Mahomes/Rodgers have been this great if they started Week 1? Probably, but we don’t really know that. You can’t really say that there’s no evidence that QBs need to sit more often, because you can’t prove things that didn’t happen. If anything, more first round QBs in particular bust than they do hit - so if we’re rolling with the idea that more bust than hit, and more start than sit, then evidence says they should sit. 3/3 of the last MVPs weren’t opening day starters and 2/3 didn’t play any meaningful games in their rookie campaigns. The GOAT sat for his rookie season. 

Second, is all QBs are different. What worked for one player, may not work for another. 

I agree that, as a rule of thumb, getting rookies some NFL experience is good for them. But I do think that players get valuable lessons by learning behind a quality vet, even from the bench, and they also avoid any potentially damning habits that a rocky rookie campaign can cause or exacerbate. But it’s case by case.

Edited April 1, 2021 by Yin-Yang

[N4L]

15 hours 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. 

I remember a thread in NFL General a few years ago that was either right after the Chiefs traded Alex Smith, or right after they drafted Mahomes.

The title was something like "Should the Chiefs fire Andy Reid". Its a laughable thought in hindsight. 

I remember someone (not me) saying "No, they were bad when he got there and you should let him have a shot with the QB he hand picked" 

I understand the narrative that Kyle and John are staking their jobs on this rookie. They are undoubtedly putting their reputations on the line, but I am not sure that Jed York is looking at this as if it goes poorly that he will fire them and look for another coach/GM. 

To understand it you need some backstory. Probably more information than you really need but here we go: One of Jed's first acts as an owner was to fire Mike Nolan. In fact, it was actually what caused him to be vocal with his Mom to give him team control over his Dad. Nolan had to go but John York was clueless. Jed fought for control, got it, fired Nolan immediately with a few weeks left in the season. Then Mike Singletary took over as the interim coach and sent Vernon Davis to the showers, made that famous I WANT WINNERS post game speech to the media, and had Jed convinced he was "the next great 49er coach". Singletary is a legend as a player obviously but there is a reason I call him dingleberry. Dude was clueless as a coach. 

After dingleberry was fired, we kinda lucked into Jim Harbaugh because the guy didnt even have to move. He obviously is a prick but we won games. He and Jed got in a huge feud, Jed had a huge ego about why the 49ers were having success, thought he could hire any coach and win a superbowl, hired jim freaking tomsula. Obviously that guy was in way over his head and gets fired after one season. We then hire chip freaking kelly and go 2-14. Jed had egg on his face for feuding with Harbaugh, who was literally the only coach who ever won him games. Then he hired kyle and has given him multiple 6 year contracts. 

So Jed had a quick trigger when he was younger, but hes gone through the hiring process and hired enough crummy coaches to know its not easy to find a qualified coach who can win consistently. I think he recognizes what his role should be and has embraced it. 

I think also he has his uncle (Eddie Debartolo) in his ear who regrets pushing Bill Walsh out the door too early

kyle is 41. He isn't going anywhere, regardless of how this trade goes imo 

Edited April 1, 2021 by N4L

[Hunter2_1]

16 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

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.

 

I think it may happen sooner. One or both of these will happen - Jimmy has games where he's trying his best to lose it by throwing interceptions when he shouldn't, and the calls for the rookie will start mounting. OR he simply breaks again.

Call me cynic, but I expect one or both of these

[MWil23]

4 hours ago, N4L said:

I remember a thread in NFL General a few years ago that was either right after the Chiefs traded Alex Smith, or right after they drafted Mahomes.

The title was something like "Should the Chiefs fire Andy Reid". Its a laughable thought in hindsight. 

I remember someone (not me) saying "No, they were bad when he got there and you should let him have a shot with the QB he hand picked" 

People are WAY too quick to fire NFL coaches IMO. Look at guys like Marty Schottenheimer in Washington, for example.

4 hours ago, N4L said:

I understand the narrative that Kyle and John are staking their jobs on this rookie. They are undoubtedly putting their reputations on the line, but I am not sure that Jed York is looking at this as if it goes poorly that he will fire them and look for another coach/GM. 

To understand it you need some backstory. Probably more information than you really need but here we go: One of Jed's first acts as an owner was to fire Mike Nolan. In fact, it was actually what caused him to be vocal with his Mom to give him team control over his Dad. Nolan had to go but John York was clueless. Jed fought for control, got it, fired Nolan immediately with a few weeks left in the season. Then Mike Singletary took over as the interim coach and sent Vernon Davis to the showers, made that famous I WANT WINNERS post game speech to the media, and had Jed convinced he was "the next great 49er coach". Singletary is a legend as a player obviously but there is a reason I call him dingleberry. Dude was clueless as a coach. 

After dingleberry was fired, we kinda lucked into Jim Harbaugh because the guy didnt even have to move. He obviously is a prick but we won games. He and Jed got in a huge feud, Jed had a huge ego about why the 49ers were having success, thought he could hire any coach and win a superbowl, hired jim freaking tomsula. Obviously that guy was in way over his head and gets fired after one season. We then hire chip freaking kelly and go 2-14. Jed had egg on his face for feuding with Harbaugh, who was literally the only coach who ever won him games. Then he hired kyle and has given him multiple 6 year contracts. 

This makes total sense. It's VERY similar to what the Browns have done since the Shurmur/Heckert HC and GM combo, followed by the Pettine/Farmer HC/GM combo, followed by the Chudzinski and Lombardi combo, followed by the Hue/Sashi HC/GM combo...and that brings us to Freddie Kitchens/Dorsey and the current regime, which finally looks stable...and that's all happened in a 7 year span!!!! 

4 hours ago, N4L said:

So Jed had a quick trigger when he was younger, but hes gone through the hiring process and hired enough crummy coaches to know its not easy to find a qualified coach who can win consistently. I think he recognizes what his role should be and has embraced it. 

I think also he has his uncle (Eddie Debartolo) in his ear who regrets pushing Bill Walsh out the door too early

kyle is 41. He isn't going anywhere, regardless of how this trade goes imo 

Ironically, most Browns fans loved Shanahan when he was our OC when Pettine was here. It turned into a MAJOR power struggle and epic PowerPoint presentation (Shanahan threw everyone uder the bus and quit LOL)

https://www.businessinsider.com/kyle-shanahan-presentation-2015-2

(You should give that above article a read)

Long story short, you have coaches/FO personnel who hopefully have learned from their mistakes, but at the same token, you have a Lynch/Shanahan regime that will have been there for about 7-8 years by 2023 (2017-2023/2024).

If for some crazy reason they have continued to have playoff missing seasons/early exit, I think that period of time would be appropriate to consider a shakeup. 

JMHO

[scar988]

22 hours 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)?

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

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

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

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

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? 

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

You don't have to answer all these questions, but just curious to hear some outside perspective on things Niners fans have been debating since the trade was made.

1) Fields. Best fit long-term for the scheme of the three guys.

2) Keep Garoppolo, but if Fields goes out and Russell Wilsons all over him, trade him before the deadline.

3) a 7th round pick. Dude sucks.

4) No.

5) Fields gives them the best chance, but they could win with any of the three listed.

6) 2. 

7) Always trade up if there's that existential talent you just don't have on the roster.

[J-ALL-DAY]

4 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

I think it may happen sooner. One or both of these will happen - Jimmy has games where he's trying his best to lose it by throwing interceptions when he shouldn't, and the calls for the rookie will start mounting. OR he simply breaks again.

Call me cynic, but I expect one or both of these

I don't see Jimmy intentionally tanking games but it would be hilarious to see Shanahan's reaction on the sidelines if that happened LOL.

It really does suck though how Jimmy was rushed back to play last season when he had no business being on the field. Never was healthy after returning and then re-injured his ankle. I don't think he nor his team are happy about that and especially after this trade up, they may request a trade soon....So get ready for Jimmy to be winning your Pats a bunch of games..........until he gets hurt again lol.

[SkippyX]

9 hours ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

 

It's a team game.

 

So you don't waste the #3 pick on the next AJ McCarron because your TEAM as in T E A M Team will suck if you do.

[sammymvpknight]

10 hours ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

If Mac were a phenomenal player he'd be going #1, wouldn't he?

If Mac were a phenomenal player he wouldn't need a top 4 O-Line, would he?

If Mac were a phenomenal player he wouldn't need a Hall of Fame Head Coach, would he?

If Mac were a phenomenal player he wouldn't need such a great Tight End, would he?

Oh, and in New England or San Francisco he'll have a top 4 defense, to boot.

If the fit is right consistent "mediocrity" can be more than enough (especially if it describes PFF's #1 rated QB in 2020). 

It's a team game.

 

 

There will be lots of good QBs that won't be drafted #1 this year, but would have been selected #1 in many other seasons. Lawrence is the best QB prospect that I've seen since Manning, so is that to say that every QB drafted since Manning aren't phenomenal prospects? Because Lawrence would have been drafted before all of them. Heck...I think that may have even been drafted before Manning.