The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[Darth Tater]

Rodgers will likely cost too much. The SB is nice but from 1971 to 1992, it was the fact that with the exception of 4 seasons we were in it at least till the bitter end in the regular season (and in 3 of those seasons, it wasn't until late November at the earliest) that really make that time so memorable. Wilson is the only guy who would take a king's ransom to get that'll probably get you multiple bites at the apple and you will likely have assets when you need to rebuild. Rodgers gets you one, maybe 2 bites, and you're back to rebuild with no assets and a significant probability you didn't get rings anyway. Remember, the NFL playoff structure makes it such that getting into the playoffs (div round is the beginning) makes getting to the SB mostly about luck.

[DWinzit]

36 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

Here are the free agents we could sign and would that could possibly get the starting job day 1:

Fitzpatrick, Newton, Dalton, Taylor, Winston, Brissett, Bridgewater, Trubisky, Mariota, Flacco.

 

-Tannehill

-Ryan

-Wentz

-Carr

-Garoppolo

-Winston

-Bridgewater

-Trubisky

-Mariota

Assuming they are all FA's...Ryans age hurts him because I really want the guy 2 plus years

Carr

Ryan

 

Tannehill

Winston

Trubisky

Mariota

Jimmy G

Wentz

Bridgewater

Brissett

Newton

Dalton

Flacco

Taylor

 

[markmills67]

Personally I would offer 2 1st round picks for Carr as my best option. I would only offer them 3 1st rounders if we have plenty of Cap Space available in the next 3 years, so we can have a team to compete to get deep into the playoffs. 

[Conn]

3 hours ago, zCommander said:

If we get Jimmy G. then you all better not complain about his play in the game day thread 'cause I will go nuclear on your ass! lol

 

This is extremely stupid, stop. Nobody is dying for a QB of that caliber, and yet he’d still be better than Heinicke. That’s the only argument most here are making. I really do not want Jimmy G but if someone who prefers ****ing Heinicke has the nerve to go off on anyone about QB preference in a gameday thread they have no self awareness. 

[KDawg]

5 hours ago, markmills67 said:

I thought we offered Cooper a bigger Contract, but with less money. guaranteed. That for me would be Cooper's reasons for staying at Dallas and not who we have as QB. 

If you think QB didn’t also play a role I have swamp land in Florida for sale. Cheap.

[Skinsinparadise]

47 minutes ago, wit33 said:

The more I see this stat the more I believe it’s not necessarily good to be among the leaders. 

 

comebacks = bad?  

[actorguy1]

Standing on his podcast today:

 

As of right now, based off parsing comments from Rivera interview:

Most likely to sign Trubisky and draft a rookie. Most likely rookie in his opinion is Malik Willis and let him sit behind Trubisky.

[HigSkin]

Interesting thing with JimmyG in that Steve Young, Joe Montana and Schefter have come out the last week with this Trey Lance isn't ready narrative and 49ers might keep JimmyG.  It's got to be leaking from the 49ers.

 

One theory might be they aren't getting squat in offers and trying to drive up his trade value.  LOL

 

https://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/steve-young-questions-if-trey-lance-is-ready/

https://www.si.com/nfl/49ers/news/why-joe-montana-thinks-trey-lance-isnt-ready-to-be-the-49ers-starting-quarterback

https://www.si.com/nfl/49ers/news/adam-schefter-says-its-no-lock-the-49ers-will-trade-jimmy-garoppolo

 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by HigSkin

[shemp nixon]

3 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

Standing on his podcast today:

 

As of right now, based off parsing comments from Rivera interview:

Most likely to sign Trubisky and draft a rookie. Most likely rookie in his opinion is Malik Willis and let him sit behind Trubisky.

And the drumbeat for Willis would start after Trubisky's first bad throw in mini-camp.

[FLSkinz83]

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of Trubisky.     Maybe it's because I love the draft and don't want to trade picks.

[mistertim]

39 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Rodgers will likely cost too much. The SB is nice but from 1971 to 1992, it was the fact that with the exception of 4 seasons we were in it at least till the bitter end in the regular season (and in 3 of those seasons, it wasn't until late November at the earliest) that really make that time so memorable. Wilson is the only guy who would take a king's ransom to get that'll probably get you multiple bites at the apple and you will likely have assets when you need to rebuild. Rodgers gets you one, maybe 2 bites, and you're back to rebuild with no assets and a significant probability you didn't get rings anyway. Remember, the NFL playoff structure makes it such that getting into the playoffs (div round is the beginning) makes getting to the SB mostly about luck.

 

1992 was 30 years ago and the NFL was a very different game back then for many reasons. Now you have to have a top QB to be a perennial contender. Talking about what happened 30 years ago doesn't really do anything for us.

 

As far as costing a lot for not enough return...let's say we have three scenarios:

 

1) We get Rodgers for 3 1st round picks and give him a 3 year deal. He immediately gives us 3 years of being a SB contender.

 

2) We think the cost is too high for Rodgers and instead we maybe trade a 2nd for Jimmy G and for the next 3 seasons we use our 1st round picks on other positions. How likely is the combination of Jimmy G and those 3 other 1st round picks at other positions (maybe a T, a Mike backer, and a WR, just to throw some out there) to make us immediate SB contenders? I'd say very unlikely.

 

3) We think the cost is too high for Rodgers and instead we pick up a FA like Trubisky or Mariota and draft a rookie in the 1st round. 

 

Option 1 gives us the most immediate return, since Rodgers is a future HoFer and a multi-MVP QB. However, the cost is pretty high and even though he makes us an immediate contender, there's no guaranteeing an actual SB appearance or win.

 

Option 2 is more or less pointless to me. We'll be no closer to winning a SB, we'd be out a 2nd round pick, would probably have had to pay Jimmy G a bunch of money, and would have wasted another 3 years of some of our good young players for nothing. But at least we'd be semi-watchable for a little while.

 

Option 3 is theoretically the best and worst. If the QB we draft ends up an elite stud, we're basically set for the next 10-15 years most likely and will probably be a perennial contender for a good amount of that time. If the QB we draft busts or is mediocre, we then have to turn around again in a couple of years and start over.

 

Which one would you choose? 3 would be ideal (if it turns out well) but to me 1 is way more palatable than 2.

 

3 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

Interesting thing with JimmyG in that Steve Young, Joe Montana and Schefter have come out the last week with this Trey Lance isn't ready narrative and 49ers might keep JimmyG.  It's got to be leaking from the 49ers.

 

One theory they might be they aren't getting squat in offers and trying to drive up his trade value.  LOL

 

https://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/steve-young-questions-if-trey-lance-is-ready/

https://www.si.com/nfl/49ers/news/why-joe-montana-thinks-trey-lance-isnt-ready-to-be-the-49ers-starting-quarterback

https://www.si.com/nfl/49ers/news/adam-schefter-says-its-no-lock-the-49ers-will-trade-jimmy-garoppolo

 

I can't see how Jimmy G's value is going to increase outside of him suddenly turning into Mahomes overnight. He's been to a SB and another conference championship game. That's fresh in peoples' minds (even though he had little to do with those playoff wins). If they keep him for another season and he stays...well, himself...then it's unlikely they'll have a repeat of this season. So his trade value would probably go down as that would be farther in the past and he'd also be a year older.

 

I think they'll get what they can now. Someone will probably pony up a 2nd. I think they really wanted a 1st but they may have to realize that nobody truly believes Jimmy G is as good as the Niners are trying to make it sound right now for his trade value.

[Darth Tater]

After some podcasts and some statements by Ron, I am about 90% certain that Taylor Heinecke will be our starter in the end. I am now resigned to another 5 to 10 years of suck to mediocrity.

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

1992 was 30 years ago and the NFL was a very different game back then for many reasons. Now you have to have a top QB to be a perennial contender. Talking about what happened 30 years ago doesn't really do anything for us.

 

What is the price of tea in China right now?

[Inigo Montoya]

We need to offer Rodgers ownership stake or whatever he wants if this is really possible. There is no cost too high, we've never had a QB like Rodgers, never, nothing close. Push all the chips in for a 3 year window

I think the guy is potentially bat**** crazy and its strange he hasn't won more SBs... maybe we have a window. Have to try 

[Conn]

29 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

Standing on his podcast today:

 

As of right now, based off parsing comments from Rivera interview:

Most likely to sign Trubisky and draft a rookie. Most likely rookie in his opinion is Malik Willis and let him sit behind Trubisky.

Better watch out for PIT trading in front of us for him then, they apparently covet him and in recent years these leaks about their round 1 targets are pretty accurate. 

14 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

After some podcasts and some statements by Ron, I am about 90% certain that Taylor Heinecke will be our starter in the end. I am now resigned to another 5 to 10 years of suck to mediocrity.

This is the exact opposite of what he’s been screaming for the world to hear for over a month now, are you being sarcastic? 

[Skinsinparadise]

Standig on Sheehan's podcasts.  Mostly the same stuff. 

 

A.  Standig references his interview with Rivera.  Says Rivera might have tipped his hand that he's pessimistic that he will land a big target considering his comment about ts likely they both drafting someone and likely have two veterans on the roster. 

 

B.  Found it notable that Rivera didn't mention having a Qb competition this year, his takeaway from that is that Rivera believes whomever QB they get, they will be an upgrade over Heinicke

 

C.  Doesn't matter how much they want the big name Qbs, doesn't mean they get him.

 

D.  Trubisky:  when he asks around about him (I presume his sources around the league but he didn't specify) he doesn't get enthusiasm.  But he goes with the standard beggars can't be choosers argument that he might be the best option they got.  And suggests if he's the guy their likely will be PR fallout with fans.  Standig likes picking on Trubisky as to the PR issue, I gather he's judging that based on the feedback he gets from fans on twitter. 

 

E.  He references Jimmy G being a step better than the FAs.  He says if fans are going to fret about Jimmy G, it can get even less exciting referring to the FAs/Trubisky

 

F.  You can't sell fans on Trubisky-Heinicke.  It compels them to draft a QB high if you want to generate some fan excitement. 

 

G.  Sheehan thinks Trubisky and Mariota would be FA targets, he asks Standig about it. Standig adds maybe Bridgewater too because Hurney acquired him once.   He thinks fans could swallow Bridgewater easier than Trubisky.  But they both agree none of these guys move the meedle with fans.

 

 

 

 

Standig article

 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[mistertim]

18 minutes ago, Conn said:

This is the exact opposite of what he’s been screaming for the world to hear for over a month now, are you being sarcastic? 

 

Yeah that takeaway from the interviews is the opposite of what I got and I'd think everyone got. The takeaway is that they absolutely positively have to get an upgrade at the QB position, that Heinicke is absolutely positively not seen as a starter (Ron literally laughed at the idea in one interview), and that they're willing to go big for a top veteran but could settle for less and a draft pick.

 

Not sure how anyone can watch any interviews with our coaches and FO and come away with the idea that Heinicke will be the starter. Maybe if literally every other option at QB all die in a plane crash or something.

[BleedBNG]

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Sheehan thinks Trubisky and Mariota would be FA targets, he asks Standig about it. Standig adds maybe Bridgewater too because Hurney acquired him once.   He thinks fans could swallow Bridgewater easier than Trubisky.  But they both agree none of these guys move the meedle with fans.

Not me.

 

I'd be more intrigued by Trubisky.  Not that I really buy that he's been fixed by moving from Nagy to Buffalo for a year.  I think the chances are slim that he'll be much of anything more than what he was in Chicago.  But I'd have more interest to see that unfold than bringing in Bridgewater who is an absolute snoozefest.  I have zero interest in watching him dink and dunk us into 17 points a game.

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Nobody "WANTS" Jimmy G dude. Nobody is dieing for him to be our awesome starting QB to build a dynasty. He's the top of the scrap heap and the best we might be able to get.

 

Jimmy G is Heinicke, if Heinicke was an NFL QB.

 

If you are planning to "go nuclear" on other fans if Jimmy G struggles, it's because you are making **** up so you can act like a baby about it. Don't do that.

(Jimmy throws a pick)

 

@zCommander: TH, aka the best QB ever, would never have done that.  You fools who wanted him over TH, what do you think now?  We should have given TH a 3 year 10 million per year extension when we could.  You all are such fools.  

[Skinsinparadise]

GB restructuring contracts IMO not a good sign for those (me, included) who want Rodgers to hit the market.  For me its not so much I expect Rodgers comes here, its that I want to get Denver out of the QB market, assuming that's where he goes.    As far as desperation its seems like the trifecta are:  Denver, Carolina, Commanders.

 

As for the wild off chance that Rodgers would come here.  Are we really going to be satisfied with perhaps winning a SB if 3 years later we will be looking for another QB? Yuck. 

 

Instead, I like the idea of just going the way we have been doing it, we take it back with a mediocre to less than that QB, and surround them with mega talent.  If we sign Trubisky for example and draft Ridder -- Vegas might have to reconfigure their current dismal odds for us winning a Lombardi. 

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[DWinzit]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

comebacks = bad?  

Only if you are continually putting the team a position that they must comeback

40 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

1992 was 30 years ago and the NFL was a very different game back then for many reasons. Now you have to have a top QB to be a perennial contender. Talking about what happened 30 years ago doesn't really do anything for us.

 

As far as costing a lot for not enough return...let's say we have three scenarios:

 

1) We get Rodgers for 3 1st round picks and give him a 3 year deal. He immediately gives us 3 years of being a SB contender.

 

2) We think the cost is too high for Rodgers and instead we maybe trade a 2nd for Jimmy G and for the next 3 seasons we use our 1st round picks on other positions. How likely is the combination of Jimmy G and those 3 other 1st round picks at other positions (maybe a T, a Mike backer, and a WR, just to throw some out there) to make us immediate SB contenders? I'd say very unlikely.

 

3) We think the cost is too high for Rodgers and instead we pick up a FA like Trubisky or Mariota and draft a rookie in the 1st round. 

 

Option 1 gives us the most immediate return, since Rodgers is a future HoFer and a multi-MVP QB. However, the cost is pretty high and even though he makes us an immediate contender, there's no guaranteeing an actual SB appearance or win.

 

Option 2 is more or less pointless to me. We'll be no closer to winning a SB, we'd be out a 2nd round pick, would probably have had to pay Jimmy G a bunch of money, and would have wasted another 3 years of some of our good young players for nothing. But at least we'd be semi-watchable for a little while.

 

Option 3 is theoretically the best and worst. If the QB we draft ends up an elite stud, we're basically set for the next 10-15 years most likely and will probably be a perennial contender for a good amount of that time. If the QB we draft busts or is mediocre, we then have to turn around again in a couple of years and start over.

 

Which one would you choose? 3 would be ideal (if it turns out well) but to me 1 is way more palatable than 2.

 

 

I can't see how Jimmy G's value is going to increase outside of him suddenly turning into Mahomes overnight. He's been to a SB and another conference championship game. That's fresh in peoples' minds (even though he had little to do with those playoff wins). If they keep him for another season and he stays...well, himself...then it's unlikely they'll have a repeat of this season. So his trade value would probably go down as that would be farther in the past and he'd also be a year older.

 

I think they'll get what they can now. Someone will probably pony up a 2nd. I think they really wanted a 1st but they may have to realize that nobody truly believes Jimmy G is as good as the Niners are trying to make it sound right now for his trade value.

Yes #3 is the one you want if you nail your selection

 

The issue with #1 is we have been through the older vet to bring us to the next level and failed due to injuries. Same with going all in on moving up for stud in the draft. We really have had piss poor luck at QB over the past decade. 

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Only if you are continually putting the team a position that they must comeback

 

 

OK sure but most games are close.  There weren't any crap QBs on the list of top comebacks.  If this list was Daniel jones, Case Keenum, etc, I'd worry. 😀

[DJHJR86]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Are we really going to be satisfied with perhaps winning a SB if 3 years later we will be looking for another QB?

 

Yes, absolutely. 

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

Yes, absolutely. 

 

Me, too.  I was being a bit sarcastic.

[DWinzit]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK sure but most games are close.  There weren't any crap QBs on the list of top comebacks.  If this list was Daniel jones, Case Keenum, etc, I'd worry. 😀

Well, it makes sense because its probably going to be guys that have started the most since 2015. That does move most schmucks out of the way. 

 

Deep down I can tell you are mad Darnold isn't on the list 😜