Niners Trade for #3 Pick

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,193
The 9ers have a good enough roster to win now - Jimmy is still immensely valuable to them this year. He was a clear goner if they traded for Stafford as affording both would have been essentially impossible. When the new guy is on a rookie deal that necessity out the window. Unless a) they want the #3 pick to start week 1 or b) get a great trade offer, they should absolutely keep him for the '21 season. I don't see a nor b as all that likely, so I'd be surprised if he's moved soon.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,508
Agreed. I bet it's Pitts at 6, and Darrisaw or Vera-Tucker at 18.
Anyone think the Phins might trade #6 to some team not named the New England Patriots to ensure that they usurp one more QB from the Pats' reach? Maybe while they're on the clock at #6 on draft night?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,343
Anyone think the Phins might trade #6 to some team not named the New England Patriots to ensure that they usurp one more QB from the Pats' reach? Maybe while they're on the clock at #6 on draft night?
The new regime in MIA seems to be competent. Trying to trade out of your pick in order to prevent one of the 31 other teams from drafting a particular player is...... not how a well run team operates.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,508
The new regime in MIA seems to be competent. Trying to trade out of your pick in order to prevent one of the 31 other teams from drafting a particular player is...... not how a well run team operates.
I'm not saying that the Phins would put themselves in a worse situation. I'm just saying that maybe they can get fair value (if they're inclined to trade down) and stick it to the Pats in the process. It's a consideration, not the sole/primary consideration.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
35,436
Hartford, CT
I would be surprised if Miami trades any lower than 6 given it’ll give them a definite shot at one of Pitts, Waddle, Smith, and Chase. No reason to get cute to pick up another mid round pick by trading to 8 or 9 and lose out on your preferred player.
 

djbayko

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
15,161
Waltham, MA
I'm not saying that the Phins would put themselves in a worse situation. I'm just saying that maybe they can get fair value (if they're inclined to trade down) and stick it to the Pats in the process. It's a consideration, not the sole/primary consideration.
You’re setting yourself up for taking a small haircut on that whole series of transactions for a number of reasons.

Competent management should just worry about their own team rather than trying to orchestrate how a draft unfolds.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,508
I would be surprised if Miami trades any lower than 6 given it’ll give them a definite shot at one of Pitts, Waddle, Smith, and Chase. No reason to get cute to pick up another mid round pick by trading to 8 or 9 and lose out on your preferred player.
They'd actually have to trade to #16 or after to stick it to the Pats (which only strengthens your point).
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
2,119
Arkansas
john lynch has a great working relonship with denver if all 5 QB are gone by 9 i can see denver offerd 9 and a 22 1st or 22 2nd for jimmy g its up to ATL if they draft fields 5 qb will go in the top 9
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
5,235
The local media out here seems to think that the Niners are going to draft a QB AND go for it this year by keeping Jimmy G.

The national media seems to think that's preposterous.

Unfortunately, you can't rule out the Niners implicitly or otherwise asking the local media to parrot their talking points and the media buying in. We'll see.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
28,417
john lynch has a great working relonship with denver if all 5 QB are gone by 9 i can see denver offerd 9 and a 22 1st or 22 2nd for jimmy g its up to ATL if they draft fields 5 qb will go in the top 9
The "JimmyG gets released" route was an attractive path to him rejoining the Pats, but if it's a trade I'd prefer the Pats trade for Minshew over JimmyG anyway. Yes, BB probably sees it differently.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,626
OK, so 8-10 games of Stidham or some guy they sign off the streecorner. Either way Garappolo still isn’t a QB of the future unless you’re a hospital.
There is a draft in April as well.

And, again sir, the debate started as should Garapollo agree to take a pay cut to stay in SF as a one year(at most) starter or try to get to another team(NOT NECESSARILY NEW ENGLAND) that might be interested in having him for more than one year.

You've oddly turned that into a crusade to remind everyone that Garapollo gets hurt a lot, I promise we all already know this.

You do you though.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
9,985
There is a draft in April as well.

And, again sir, the debate started as should Garapollo agree to take a pay cut to stay in SF as a one year(at most) starter or try to get to another team(NOT NECESSARILY NEW ENGLAND) that might be interested in having him for more than one year.

You've oddly turned that into a crusade to remind everyone that Garapollo gets hurt a lot, I promise we all already know this.

You do you though.
Nice goalpost move. You literally started the discussion with the claim that if New England traded for Garappolo that Newton might not make the roster. Which is insane given that Garappolo is a part time QB.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
The "JimmyG gets released" route was an attractive path to him rejoining the Pats, but if it's a trade I'd prefer the Pats trade for Minshew over JimmyG anyway. Yes, BB probably sees it differently.
Minshew is underrated but is a below-average starting QB. He’s better than the 2020 version of Cam, but that’s the highest praise I’d give him. JG is definitely better. Maybe JG is overpaid for what he brings, but giving up a mid-round pick for a below-average starter like Minshew doesn’t solve anything. (Minshew has value to the Jags as a good, cost-controlled backup, so the acquisition cost would be more than nominal.)
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,993
Belichick is not trading draft assets for either JG or Minshew. I think he's been pretty clear how much he likes Cam as his QB.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
Belichick is not trading draft assets for either JG or Minshew. I think he's been pretty clear how much he likes Cam as his QB.
Define assets. I could see him throwing SF a 5th or 6th rounder for him if JG reworks his deal. The Pats have too many picks this year anyway.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
2,167
I don't understand how the mechanics would work. JG would have to rework the deal with SF because his current deal won't fit in the Pats cap, but SF would be unlikely to want to take any dead money on behalf of the Pats. I suppose you could give them a lot of draft assets to agree to take dead money for the Pats, but I certainly wouldn't want to. Alternatively you could probably make some bad decisions on some expensive contracts to get space. A JG trade doesn't make sense unless you think he is good enough that you are willing to gut the team.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
31,312
Southwestern CT
There is a draft in April as well.

And, again sir, the debate started as should Garapollo agree to take a pay cut to stay in SF as a one year(at most) starter or try to get to another team(NOT NECESSARILY NEW ENGLAND) that might be interested in having him for more than one year.

You've oddly turned that into a crusade to remind everyone that Garapollo gets hurt a lot, I promise we all already know this.

You do you though.
I have no dog in this hunt, but you might want to look into the spelling of "Garoppolo" or simply use "Jimmy G" in the future.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,626
Nice goalpost move. You literally started the discussion with the claim that if New England traded for Garappolo that Newton might not make the roster. Which is insane given that Garappolo is a part time QB.
I literally started the discussion with this claim

(1) Niners Trade for #3 Pick | Sons of Sam Horn

Goalpost still in the exact same spot.

I have no dog in this hunt, but you might want to look into the spelling of "Garoppolo" or simply use "Jimmy G" in the future.
Sorry if I offended you sir.

It's a name I never get right.

I'll try my best to do better
 
Last edited:

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,626
I don't understand how the mechanics would work. JG would have to rework the deal with SF because his current deal won't fit in the Pats cap, but SF would be unlikely to want to take any dead money on behalf of the Pats. I suppose you could give them a lot of draft assets to agree to take dead money for the Pats, but I certainly wouldn't want to. Alternatively you could probably make some bad decisions on some expensive contracts to get space. A JG trade doesn't make sense unless you think he is good enough that you are willing to gut the team.
It's really hard to see any way for the Pats to trade for him, for the reasons you stated.

For him to fit under the Pats cap in a trade, either the Pats would have to do some major trading/cutting/restructuring, SF would have to restructure his deal to pay him a big bonus just to trade him and take a big dead cap hit, or Garoppolo (I think I got it this time!!) would have to knock his salary way down first to fit under the Patriots cap.

All three of those seem pretty unlikely, the first two because it hurts the teams too much, the third because if Jimmy is going to take a major pay cut to leave, why not just tell SF I'll play here for my full 24 million dollar salary or you can cut me and I'll go sign that cheaper deal with my new team as a free agent.

I guess it's at least possible if he wouldn't lower his salary to make a trade happen, SF could threaten to cut him right before opening day before his salary guarantees and leave him looking for a new team with very little cap space available and having to jump in to a new situation with no training camp. Could be an interesting poker game behind the scenes is SF does want to trade him.

If the Broncos or Panthers considered him an upgrade, he could easily fit there if those teams don't draft a guy.

edit: had Chargers in here instead of Panthers. (thanks JCizzle)
 
Last edited:

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
13,037
It's really hard to see any way for the Pats to trade for him, for the reasons you stated.

For him to fit under the Pats cap in a trade, either the Pats would have to do some major trading/cutting/restructuring, SF would have to restructure his deal to pay him a big bonus just to trade him and take a big dead cap hit, or Garoppolo (I think I got it this time!!) would have to knock his salary way down first to fit under the Patriots cap.

All three of those seem pretty unlikely, the first two because it hurts the teams too much, the third because if Jimmy is going to take a major pay cut to leave, why not just tell SF I'll play here for my full 24 million dollar salary or you can cut me and I'll go sign that cheaper deal with my new team as a free agent.

I guess it's at least possible if he wouldn't lower his salary to make a trade happen, SF could threaten to cut him right before opening day before his salary guarantees and leave him looking for a new team with very little cap space available and having to jump in to a new situation with no training camp. Could be an interesting poker game behind the scenes is SF does want to trade him.

If the Broncos or Chargers considered him an upgrade, he could easily fit there if those teams don't draft a guy.
Don't the chargers have one of the best young QBs in the league?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,666
Daniel Jeremiah this morning on The Athletic podcast said that a majority of the people in the league think Mac Jones isn't a smokescreen, he's the pick.

"Of the people that you would want to believe and put your faith in, the overwhelming majority of them believe this is going to be Mac Jones with that pick. So that's what's so shocking."
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
5,235
Shanahan has a definite sense of "I'm smarter than you" at times; it would fit right into that character for him to spearhead a move to pick Jones at #3 and plan to rub it into everyone's faces for the rest of time when (if) he succeeds in making him a star.
I don't disagree, though one would think he'd learn a little humility from the last time his squad made the third pick in the draft.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
38,356
I would be mighty fine with Jones going at #3. Pushes 2 of the Fields/Lance/Wilson group down along with other non-QBs. I will say this, with Kittle, Deebo, Aiyuk, Mostert, etc., the Niners do have the talent to maximize whatever Mac is ultimately going to become at the NFL level.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
18,868
Philadelphia
Shanahan has a definite sense of "I'm smarter than you" at times; it would fit right into that character for him to spearhead a move to pick Jones at #3 and plan to rub it into everyone's faces for the rest of time when (if) he succeeds in making him a star.
Its also possible that NFL front offices just like Mac Jones a lot more in general than the draftnik community. Danny Kelly mentioned something to that effect on the Ringer NFL Podcast the other day.

I am very grateful for the amount of analysis done by draftniks, that help more casual observers like myself, but I think its fair to say that this community can be prone to a lot of groupthink and herding at times. Rightly or wrongly, certain ideas can become articles of faith and those ideas may not necessarily be shared by NFL decision makers themselves.

From what I recall, we saw versions of this in recent years with both Baker Mayfield and Kyler Murray. Both guys were frequently mocked in the bottom half of the first round in the early parts of the offseason and only over time, perhaps once the true opinions of NFL decision makers began to get out and circulate a bit more, did they end up rising to the top of mock drafts. Mayfield might be the more interesting comparison because there really weren't any other good QBs really competing with Murray. From what I remember (and my memory could be faulty here), not many draftniks had Baker as their QB1 in January/February. Darnold/Rosen/Allen were all routinely mocked ahead of him.
 
Last edited:

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
2,456
Its also possible that NFL front offices just like Mac Jones a lot more in general than the draftnik community. Danny Kelly mentioned something to that effect on the Ringer NFL Podcast the other day.

I am very grateful for the amount of analysis done by draftniks, that help more casual observers like myself, but I think its fair to say that this community can be prone to a lot of groupthink and herding at times. Rightly or wrongly, certain ideas can become articles of faith and those ideas may not necessarily be shared by NFL decision makers themselves.

From what I recall, we saw versions of this in recent years with both Baker Mayfield and Kyler Murray. Both guys were frequently mocked in the bottom half of the first round in the early parts of the offseason and only over time, perhaps once the true opinions of NFL decision makers began to get out and circulate a bit more, did they end up rising to the top of mock drafts.
This. We're not that far removed from a draft that had most experts ranking Mitch Trubisky as the #1 QB with Watson consistently outside the top 10 prospects overall and Mahomes consistently outside the top 20. Teams make some terrible draft choices, but the consensus view is hardly perfect.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,343
This. We're not that far removed from a draft that had most experts ranking Mitch Trubisky as the #1 QB with Watson consistently outside the top 10 prospects overall and Mahomes consistently outside the top 20. Teams make some terrible draft choices, but the consensus view is hardly perfect.
I mean... Trubisky was the #1 QB picked, and Watson did get picked outside the top 10. That doesn't feel like groupthink out of touch with the league, that was pretty accurate to how the league ended up valuing those players on draft night.
Also, looking it up, Mahomes wasn't consistently outside the top 20, he was top 15 in a lot of drafts. (The Ringer amusingly had Watson, then Mahomes early, then Trubisky much laater, a bad prediction, but a good read of talent).
 
It doesn't really matter whether the Niners have Jones rated at #3 - what matters is where the team that has Jones second-highest on its board (and would want to pick him, and might be in a position to pick him) has him rated. Because the cost for the Niners to trade up to #3 could still be too high even if they have Jones pegged absolutely correctly: at the very least, I find it hard to imagine that they wouldn't be better off trading with the Eagles at #6, because there's no way anyone else before #7 would be interested in Jones, and the cost should have been that much lower.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,666
I mean... Trubisky was the #1 QB picked, and Watson did get picked outside the top 10. That doesn't feel like groupthink out of touch with the league, that was pretty accurate to how the league ended up valuing those players on draft night.
Wasn't his point not that groupthink is out of touch with the league, but that groupthink isn't always right, and a GM going against it isn't necessarily wrong?
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
18,868
Philadelphia
It doesn't really matter whether the Niners have Jones rated at #3 - what matters is where the team that has Jones second-highest on its board (and would want to pick him, and might be in a position to pick him) has him rated. Because the cost for the Niners to trade up to #3 could still be too high even if they have Jones pegged absolutely correctly: at the very least, I find it hard to imagine that they wouldn't be better off trading with the Eagles at #6, because there's no way anyone else before #7 would be interested in Jones, and the cost should have been that much lower.
I'm not sure how we can possibly know that. Maybe Carolina, Denver, New England, or some other team also loves Mac Jones and has also been looking into trading up to take him.

I'm not necessarily convinced that the 49ers will even take Jones but if he's the guy they really want and they have reason to believe that some other teams share their evaluation, then moving up to 3 was the only way to ensure that they could get him.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,343
Wasn't his point not that groupthink is out of touch with the league, but that groupthink isn't always right, and a GM going against it isn't necessarily wrong?
I think from the original post, the idea was that a lot of front offices were higher on Jones than the media.
Which may be true, and I agree going against consensus isn't wrong, I was pointing out that when a media consensus happens, it's usually in response to hints that a league consensus is forming.
The incentives are in favor of being know as accurately reflecting the league, one reason you see a lot of movement in ranks/mocks based on what they are hearing from league scouts.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm not sure how we can possibly know that. Maybe Carolina, Denver, New England, or some other team also loves Mac Jones and has also been looking into trading up to take him.

I'm not necessarily convinced that the 49ers will even take Jones but if he's the guy they really want and they have reason to believe that some other teams share their evaluation, then moving up to 3 was the only way to ensure that they could get him.
I seem to recall some Patriot draft in the not too distant past where the Pats traded up to take a guy -- my memory is that it was Tavon Wilson, but don't hold me to that -- where the consensus was that it was a stretch, but the word that leaked out of Foxboro was that the Pats liked him and had inside info that just one other team did as well, so they traded up to get ahead of that team.

So maybe the 49ers liked Jones and felt that they had a good shot at him at 12, but then their intel was telling them that some other team liked Jones and had their plans set on trading up to get him. If that's the case, they had to get to 3, as 4 and 5 would be there for that other team to leapfrog over them at 6.
 

Jake Peavy's Demons

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 13, 2013
105
I seem to recall some Patriot draft in the not too distant past where the Pats traded up to take a guy -- my memory is that it was Tavon Wilson, but don't hold me to that -- where the consensus was that it was a stretch, but the word that leaked out of Foxboro was that the Pats liked him and had inside info that just one other team did as well, so they traded up to get ahead of that team.
Kyle Dugger.

https://theathletic.com/1780465/2020/04/29/kyle-dugger-path-to-the-patriots/

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/05/01/did-patriots-have-to-draft-kyle-dugger-early-one-report-suggests-yes/
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,666
Albert Breer

@AlbertBreer

49ers coach Kyle Shanahan asked on going to Alabama Pro Day tomorrow, and not North Dakota State or BYU, says it was important for the team not to tip its hand before the trade was done. "Now that you're up at 3, you don't have to hide as much."
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
26,787
Hingham, MA
Albert Breer
@AlbertBreer

49ers coach Kyle Shanahan asked on going to Alabama Pro Day tomorrow, and not North Dakota State or BYU, says it was important for the team not to tip its hand before the trade was done. "Now that you're up at 3, you don't have to hide as much."
couple other Shanny quotes

Kyle Shanahan: "To move up to 3, we had to feel good there’d be three guys we’d feel comfortable leading our team for a long time. There’s a chance to get there with four or five. There’s five guys at are kind of at this party." Says he's glad they have month to work on which one

Kyle Shanahan spoke with Garoppolo about trade, too: "Obviously no one wants to hear that. He wasn’t totally excited about it, as you’d expect. This doesn’t change any of our circumstances right now. We’ve got a real good team."

#49ers coach Kyle Shanahan said it's accurate that team is planning to keep Jimmy Garoppolo, barring being blown away by offer. Shanahan said he believes it would be hard to find a QB who helps them win right now more than Garoppolo and excited to have a QB learning behind him.
 
Feb 19, 2015
3,642
Shanahan has a definite sense of "I'm smarter than you" at times; it would fit right into that character for him to spearhead a move to pick Jones at #3 and plan to rub it into everyone's faces for the rest of time when (if) he succeeds in making him a star.
While I have no problem believing Shanahan thinks he's the smartest guy in every room he's in, I highly doubt that he's moving up to #3 to take a lesser QB prospect on purpose just to show how smart he is. If he takes Jones at 3, it means he thinks he's the best choice available there. And it probably also means he thinks other teams might feel the same way.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,214
Move the Sticks podcast with Brooks and Jeremiah is a good listen on this trade.