Pats QB Options

Status
Not open for further replies.

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,048
Santa Monica, CA
But that's not getting released necessarily though right? I don't think anyone is saying SF won't trade him for mild value.
Of course they're going to hold out at least through the draft and try and pry a 5th rounder out of someone. I have no idea if a team will eventually get desperate and bite. But they're not paying him $25m to be their emergency option at QB, and they didn't trade up to #3 for someone who they don't plan on starting this year.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,800
I'll bet you $100 to the Jimmy Fund that Jimmy G plays zero snaps for the 49ers this year.
Meh, he might not... but the idea that I'm pushing back on was... "their jobs are on the line if the QB they draft isn't a day 1 starter", I will bet any amount of money that Shannahan and Lynch aren't getting fired if they draft a QB who doesn't start week 1.
I mean that was just silliness. You think if Shannahan announces Jimmy G, or even Rosen is starting week 1, that Jed York is announcing that they've fired Shannahan and Lynch?
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,257
Jimmy stands to make what like $25 million dollars if he makes it through the year on the 9ers roster? He’s not getting near that this year if he gets cut and he’s not getting anywhere near that in 2022 if he doesn’t play well this year wherever he is.

The 9ers offense is loaded. If it’s his job to lose this year in camp it’s the best place for him to be to maximize $$ and the chance at a nice deal in 2022. The situation benefits both sides unless Shanahan is hell bent on starting the rookie week 1, which I don’t see as the most likely scenario given it means a likely real hit to the SF 2021 playoff chances.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,708
Does nobody think that it would be an issue that the only news out of SF every single day would be when does the inevitable Mac Jones takeover begin?

I mean it’s great it all worked out with Alex Smith and Andy Reid and the number 10 pick, but I’m doubting the warm and fuzzies on this one.

But, hey, trade Jimmy Week 5 for a conditional 7th or something.
I think Jones starts week one.

If they think their team is good enough to win a Super Bowl with Jimmy now, you don't move up to the 3rd pick to take a guy who won't help you win this year, you take immediate help(probably while staying at 12).

If they don't think they can win a Super Bowl with Jimmy, get Jones on the clock with playing experience, get off of Jimmys money and put it towards Fred Warner or something, and start building towards the future.

Having the #3 pick sitting on the bench behind a lame duck QB is untenable in my eyes. Won't have to wait for a bad stretch of games, or even a bad game, from Jimmy to start the QB controversy. The controversy starts Thursday night and extends to every bad play by Jimmy until he's removed.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,048
Santa Monica, CA
Meh, he might not... but the idea that I'm pushing back on was... "their jobs are on the line if the QB they draft isn't a day 1 starter", I will bet any amount of money that Shannahan and Lynch aren't getting fired if they draft a QB who doesn't start week 1.
I mean that was just silliness. You think if Shannahan announces Jimmy G, or even Rosen is starting week 1, that Jed York is announcing that they've fired Shannahan and Lynch?
That's a sad strawman effort.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,800
That's a sad strawman effort.
Okay, so what was the point of your post where you said that they had to cut Jimmy G because their jobs were on the line if the #3 pick wasn't an immediate starter?
I mean... your entire basis for the argument that Jimmy G would get cut is that they HAVE to start the rookie or else... but that isn't how the NFL works, we've seen if many times before, where teams in fact prefer not to start their young QBs day 1, even bad teams with no real starter do it... nevermind teams that are substantially similar to one that recently went to the SB, with the same QB who could start.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,048
Santa Monica, CA
Okay, so what was the point of your post where you said that they had to cut Jimmy G because their jobs were on the line if the #3 pick wasn't an immediate starter?
I mean... your entire basis for the argument that Jimmy G would get cut is that they HAVE to start the rookie or else... but that isn't how the NFL works, we've seen if many times before, where teams in fact prefer not to start their young QBs day 1, even bad teams with no real starter do it... nevermind teams that are substantially similar to one that recently went to the SB, with the same QB who could start.
Ok. So take the bet.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,800
Ok. So take the bet.
Except that wasn't my argument. My argument was they don't have a significant incentive to cut him if the #3 pick isn't ready week 1, not that they will definitely start him. Your argument is that they must cut him because.... reasons. And I was pointing out that your reasons are 100% wishful thinking rather than actual reason. You didn't say... "I don't think Jimmy G will start week 1" you said... "Shannahan and Lynch put their careers on the line if their pick isn't an immediate starter" and that is just nonsense.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,800
If @Cellar-Door won’t take the bet, I will.
Go ahead and take it... I think it's 50/50 they trade Jimmy G to Denver. I have no strong feeling on him being their starter, I just think the idea that because you draft a guy top 3 you NEED to start him week 1 or risk getting fired is crazy. You don't put him out there until you think it will help him succeed long term, you don't get fired because your QB didn't start week 1, you get fired because your QB sucks in year 3, and one of the ways to make that happen is to send him out overmatched to fail so badly you break him.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,553
Hingham, MA
Go ahead and take it... I think it's 50/50 they trade Jimmy G to Denver. I have no strong feeling on him being their starter, I just think the idea that because you draft a guy top 3 you NEED to start him week 1 or risk getting fired is crazy. You don't put him out there until you think it will help him succeed long term, you don't get fired because your QB didn't start week 1, you get fired because your QB sucks in year 3, and one of the ways to make that happen is to send him out overmatched to fail so badly you break him.
Completely agree. I think Jimmy is their week 1 starter. I think he plays at least 4 games and probably more.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,048
Santa Monica, CA
Except that wasn't my argument. My argument was they don't have a significant incentive to cut him if the #3 pick isn't ready week 1, not that they will definitely start him. Your argument is that they must cut him because.... reasons. And I was pointing out that your reasons are 100% wishful thinking rather than actual reason. You didn't say... "I don't think Jimmy G will start week 1" you said... "Shannahan and Lynch put their careers on the line if their pick isn't an immediate starter" and that is just nonsense.
I've articulated the reasons several times in this thread. In short, this is real life, not a video game. You don't trade up to #3 for a QB you don't plan on starting immediately when you have a roster like SF's. You don't pay a backup QB $25m.

It's insane to believe that the move to #3 was to draft a QB they hope can be good in 2024. This move is about 2021. They think they can win right away with whomever they draft at #3. And if they don't, the Lynch/Shanahan era is drawing close to its end.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,553
Hingham, MA
I've articulated the reasons several times in this thread. In short, this is real life, not a video game. You don't trade up to #3 for a QB you don't plan on starting immediately when you have a roster like SF's. You don't pay a backup QB $25m.

It's insane to believe that the move to #3 was to draft a QB they hope can be good in 2024. This move is about 2021. They think they can win right away with whomever they draft at #3. And if they don't, the Lynch/Shanahan era is drawing close to its end.
This is a rare situation. But the closest thing we have seen is a very good Chiefs team moving up 17 spots in the draft to take a QB. They proceeded to not play their rookie QB until a meaningless week 17 game. It’s not an apples to apples comparison because they only picked at 10 and not 3. But they also were a win now team that instead of getting any immediate value out of their first round pick punted for the first year. Just because it worked for KC doesn’t mean it will work for SF. Just because KC even tried it doesn’t mean SF will try it. But there is at least some level of precedent here with a win now team giving up a lot to trade up for their QB of the future and not playing him.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,800
I've articulated the reasons several times in this thread. In short, this is real life, not a video game. You don't trade up to #3 for a QB you don't plan on starting immediately when you have a roster like SF's. You don't pay a backup QB $25m.

It's insane to believe that the move to #3 was to draft a QB they hope can be good in 2024. This move is about 2021. They think they can win right away with whomever they draft at #3. And if they don't, the Lynch/Shanahan era is drawing close to its end.
Or it's about 2022. KC is an obvious example, but so is SD, who used the #4 pick on a QB, then proceeded to have him 3rd on the depth chart as they won the west at 12-4, also the 2011 Titans took a QB 8th, and didn't start him ( they missed the playoffs on tiebreakers). And that's just the guys who didn't play at all, you also have your guys who sat part of the year (Allen, Tua, etc.).

That' the thing... it's rare a team with a decent QB and a good roster has the opportunity to draft top 10 (either through weird previous season or a trade up) and grab their QB of the future, but in the few times it has happened, starting the QB right away hasn't necessarily been the move. Teams have had real success with the strategy of starting the vet.
Your entire theory is built on the faulty assumption that the pick has to start, and that therefore you're overpaying for a backup. The alternative has proven to be just as true, which is you are paying for a starter, and developing your pick so he can take over in a year more prepared. But beyond that faulty assumption is the issue of Shannahan and Lynch's future. If they were really in a "win this year or else" hot seat, the owner wouldn't have agreed to the trade up. You don't pick a QB at 3, or 1 even for that matter assuming they'll be good year 1... almost none of them are. You draft a QB high because you think he'll be good a year or two out, and you then can get 4 good years at cheap money, then extend him long term, locking down the QB position for a decade. Worrying about year 1 is shortsighted.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
776
A team being "in win now mode" is a reason not to start a rookie QB over a competent NFL QB.

Teams that aren't in win now mode should be more likely to play their rookie?

Teams like the 2020 Miami Dolphins who started Fitz over Tua for the 1st 6 games of the season after drafting Tua 5th overall.

Teams like the Chargers who only started Justin Herbert week 2 after getting stabby with Tyrod, after drafting Herbert 6th overall.

In 2018, Tyrod also blocked Baker Mayfield until he started week 3 throwing 4/14 for 19 yards.

& the Bills trotted out Nathan Peterman week 1 & only benched him for Josh Allen after Peterman went 5/18 for 24 yards & 2 picks after trading up to draft him 7th overall.

& the mortal Sam Bradford started over Chosen (10th) Rosen until week 3.

In 2017, the Bears traded up to #2 overall to draft Mitchell Trubisky...& then started Mike Glennon for the 1st 4 weeks.

The Chiefs traded up to #10 to not play Mahomes over Alex Smith until week 17 (as mentioned up-thread).

& the Texans, who traded up to #12 to draft Deshaun Watson, started Tom Savage week 1 before benching him after he went 7/13 for 62 yards.

In 2016, the Rams traded up to draft Jared Goff #1 & started Case Keenum the 1st 9 games of the season.

The only 1st round rookies to actually start week 1 during this period were Wentz/Darnold/Kyler/Burrow.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
776
Oh, I forgot LJax...in 2018 Joe Flacco started the 1st 9 games before he took over (32nd pick).

Also Jordan Love who the Packers traded up to #26 to draft & then sat his whole rookie year behind some some State Farm guy.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
776
Sorry, 2 more from 2019:

Daniel Jones, 6th pick, sat behind Eli for 2 weeks.

& Dwayne Haskins, 15th pick, also sat behind Case Keenum for 4 weeks, came in for injured Kernum to be awful, sat behind Colt McCoy game 5, & Keenum games 6-8 before his 1st start in week 9.

Bottom line: 5 drafts, 21 QBs taken round 1, 4 started week 1, including 2 of 4 #1 picks.
 

SuperManny

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
659
Washington, DC
If you go back another year you add Winston and Mariota who I believe both started right away but it does seem like most 1st round QBs come in within a few games or at the latest part way through the season. If you expect your rookie QB to be starting by week 4 or 6 does it make sense to pay $25M for those other 4-6 starts? I would personally start the rookie QB right away if I'm trading up to 3 and save the cap space. Keeping Garoppolo makes more sense if you are drafting Lance though.

For the Pats I don't think Garoppolo would fit under the cap so it doesn't even seem like a realistic option anyways.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
776
If you go back another year you add Winston and Mariota who I believe both started right away but it does seem like most 1st round QBs come in within a few games or at the latest part way through the season. If you expect your rookie QB to be starting by week 4 or 6 does it make sense to pay $25M for those other 4-6 starts? I would personally start the rookie QB right away if I'm trading up to 3 and save the cap space. Keeping Garoppolo makes more sense if you are drafting Lance though.

For the Pats I don't think Garoppolo would fit under the cap so it doesn't even seem like a realistic option anyways.
Yeah, they actually started week 1 against each other lol.

I think if Lance plays he'll have a better rookie year than Mac, but yeah.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
A team being "in win now mode" is a reason not to start a rookie QB over a competent NFL QB.

Teams that aren't in win now mode should be more likely to play their rookie?

Teams like the 2020 Miami Dolphins who started Fitz over Tua for the 1st 6 games of the season after drafting Tua 5th overall.

Teams like the Chargers who only started Justin Herbert week 2 after getting stabby with Tyrod, after drafting Herbert 6th overall.

In 2018, Tyrod also blocked Baker Mayfield until he started week 3 throwing 4/14 for 19 yards.

& the Bills trotted out Nathan Peterman week 1 & only benched him for Josh Allen after Peterman went 5/18 for 24 yards & 2 picks after trading up to draft him 7th overall.

& the mortal Sam Bradford started over Chosen (10th) Rosen until week 3.

In 2017, the Bears traded up to #2 overall to draft Mitchell Trubisky...& then started Mike Glennon for the 1st 4 weeks.

The Chiefs traded up to #10 to not play Mahomes over Alex Smith until week 17 (as mentioned up-thread).

& the Texans, who traded up to #12 to draft Deshaun Watson, started Tom Savage week 1 before benching him after he went 7/13 for 62 yards.

In 2016, the Rams traded up to draft Jared Goff #1 & started Case Keenum the 1st 9 games of the season.

The only 1st round rookies to actually start week 1 during this period were Wentz/Darnold/Kyler/Burrow.
Sorry, 2 more from 2019:

Daniel Jones, 6th pick, sat behind Eli for 2 weeks.

& Dwayne Haskins, 15th pick, also sat behind Case Keenum for 4 weeks, came in for injured Kernum to be awful, sat behind Colt McCoy game 5, & Keenum games 6-8 before his 1st start in week 9.

Bottom line: 5 drafts, 21 QBs taken round 1, 4 started week 1, including 2 of 4 #1 picks.
Other than Eli and arguably, Alex Smith, the game 1 starters were all low-paid journeymen, who were easily replaced when the time came. Jimmy G, both by salary and by background, is less fungible than the Tyrod Taylor’s and Mike Glennon’s of the world.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,019
Lynch and Shanahan are saying absolutely nothing but word salad garbage. People on this board have been making the argument that it makes sense for the Niners to keep Jimmy G for a month now, and have yet to put forth a compelling argument, because there simply isn’t one. Of all the examples put forth above, the only one that is at all close is the Mahomes / Smith situation, and even that is not that close as KC did not pay the ransom SF did, and Mahomes was not close to being considered a sure thing as a somewhat polarizing #11 pick. A team is not going to pay the ridiculous price SF did to move up to #3 and draft Mac Jones, and then pay someone $25M as a placeholder. Doing such a thing would create an untenable situation (camps would form, Jimmy would be pissed, etc.). I think there is a good chance SF will move Jimmy on Thursday, after the pick.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,216
So you're Belichick and after SF makes the pick of, say, Mac Jones, they call you and offer you JG (who has already agreed to the trade) for a 2022 second round pick. Meanwhile, you've got Carolina willing to trade you the #8 pick - with which you are hoping to take Trey Lance or Justin Fields, one of which you are pretty convinced will be there at #8 - in exchange for #15, a 2021 second round pick, and, say, a 2022 third round pick.

If you trade for JG, you could use #15 on another stud player - an offensive tackle or DL or CB or even one of the stud WRs - and keep all your 2021 draft ammo, probably even trading *back* and picking up a 2022 second rounder for your trouble. But then you've got JG as your QB at $25 million, as opposed to a rookie on a rookie deal.

Which option would you choose in this scenario?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,216
Rookie QB because JG is not the long term answer. No brainer IMO.
What do you mean by "long term"? JG is only 29 years of age. These days, he might have another 10 years left in him. Assuming he stays relatively free from injury, which he hasn't been able to do, but then if that's what you're worried about, that's a bigger reason to not want him.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
11,750
I put Jimmy G in the Eli Manning/Joe Flacco/Phil Rivers class: a talented QB to be sure, but a guy whose team isn't going to win a championship, or is going to win one (largely) because of its defense.

I don't want him back under any circumstances. A good guy, but a talented "loser".
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
38,957
I put Jimmy G in the Eli Manning/Joe Flacco/Phil Rivers class: a talented QB to be sure, but a guy who's team isn't going to win a championship, or is going to win one (largely) because of its defense.

I don't want him back under any circumstances. A good guy, but a talented "loser".
And the difference between Jimmy and those guys listed above is that the latter group is durable. I don't want to have a QB who I'm going to worry about getting injured every time there is a light rain. Some of his injuries may be bad luck but don't really care at this point. Hard pass on Jimmy. Give me the rookie QB all day and night. There might be some talent/production remaining from Jimmy but I'm going to let some other team try to find it.
 

axx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
7,001
Lynch and Shanahan are saying absolutely nothing but word salad garbage. People on this board have been making the argument that it makes sense for the Niners to keep Jimmy G for a month now, and have yet to put forth a compelling argument, because there simply isn’t one. Of all the examples put forth above, the only one that is at all close is the Mahomes / Smith situation, and even that is not that close as KC did not pay the ransom SF did, and Mahomes was not close to being considered a sure thing as a somewhat polarizing #11 pick. A team is not going to pay the ridiculous price SF did to move up to #3 and draft Mac Jones, and then pay someone $25M as a placeholder. Doing such a thing would create an untenable situation (camps would form, Jimmy would be pissed, etc.). I think there is a good chance SF will move Jimmy on Thursday, after the pick.
Because they can make the playoffs if Jimmy is healthy while buying some time to develop the QB. They can trade him now but they aren't giving him away.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
776
Other than Eli and arguably, Alex Smith, the game 1 starters were all low-paid journeymen, who were easily replaced when the time came. Jimmy G, both by salary and by background, is less fungible than the Tyrod Taylor’s and Mike Glennon’s of the world.
Sam Bradford made $13.5m for 3 games before the Cards cut him.

But I'm not sure what your point is? That JG is too good to keep on the roster?
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
776
So you're Belichick and after SF makes the pick of, say, Mac Jones, they call you and offer you JG (who has already agreed to the trade) for a 2022 second round pick. Meanwhile, you've got Carolina willing to trade you the #8 pick - with which you are hoping to take Trey Lance or Justin Fields, one of which you are pretty convinced will be there at #8 - in exchange for #15, a 2021 second round pick, and, say, a 2022 third round pick.

If you trade for JG, you could use #15 on another stud player - an offensive tackle or DL or CB or even one of the stud WRs - and keep all your 2021 draft ammo, probably even trading *back* and picking up a 2022 second rounder for your trouble. But then you've got JG as your QB at $25 million, as opposed to a rookie on a rookie deal.

Which option would you choose in this scenario?
That Carolina deal sounds amazing while I wouldn't take on JG for zero trade compensation at that price.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
1,257
Because they can make the playoffs if Jimmy is healthy while buying some time to develop the QB. They can trade him now but they aren't giving him away.
Yup. I'm open to a couple pro-trade/cut arguments: the ability to roll his cap savings into next year is a legitimate one, and while I don't agree with this I accept that some think throwing a rookie into the fire right away would be best for said rookie's development. I'm much, much less open to any argument that the 49ers are better off in 2021 without Jimmy. They can be a fringe contender this year with good QB play, and odds are he is more likely to give you good QB play this year than the newbie.

The overcorrection on him has been a bit over the top. 69% completions, 4000 yards passing, 27 TDs to 13 INTs - it's not like he Rex Grossman'd the way to the Super Bowl two years ago. In terms of a New England return, I'm still interested, but not at the cost of draft capital, $25 million on an already tight roster, nor the opportunity cost of a potential stud. I still think he can win a Super Bowl, so if we miss out on a draft QB and he gets cut, absolutely. But prioritizing him, no way.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sam Bradford made $13.5m for 3 games before the Cards cut him.

But I'm not sure what your point is? That JG is too good to keep on the roster?
Sorry. I was on my phone and typing less is easier than typing more.
My point was that there's no QB controversy among your fan base or your local media, when you have a guy who is an obvious placeholder while your shiny new draft pick gets his feet wet or when you bench the journeyman mid-season to bring in said rookie.
My recollection is that the NY market was filled with arguing over the Eli/Daniel Jones situation: some who wanted the change made earlier; some who wanted more loyalty toward Eli.
Plus, as Jungleland notes above, there is a real opportunity cost in keeping Jimmy G's $25M cap hit on the roster; that's not backup QB money. As Jungle notes, that cap space can be rolled over into 2022.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,216
JG's career numbers are very solid:

48 g, 32 starts, 24-8 record, 67.5% completion, 8,042 yards, 8.2 y/a, 51 td, 26 int, 98.9 rating

I mean just compare that to what Cam did passing last year, and it's night and day. Yes, Cam gets points for his rushing, but in terms of being a thrower, it's not even close between the two of them.
 
Aug 9, 2015
28
If you’re BB, you know Jimmy G is going to be available next year (absent some kind of freak event, like the 9ers rookie QB getting hurt in preseason or practice) and you know the Pats are in a preferred position to get him. You also know Cam is likely your QB1 this year, so the question is really whether the cost of moving up to get Fields/Lance/Jones is worth (1) the improvement over Cam or Jimmy G in 2022 and (2) the cost of passing on another good player (CB, LB, OT) likely to be available at 15. After this year’s Cam experience, I can’t help thinking that Bill is stuck in a bit of the 1990s mindset, where you could win with a Hostetler/Simms/Testaverde/Kosar, and build the rest of your roster. We also know how much he prioritizes overall depth and all three phases of the team. I’d make a reasonable trade with DET or CAR to get Fields because I think it’s so much harder to win without a truly top echelon QB in the NFL now, but my guess is that he’ll end up moving back, getting another late 2nd or 3rd and adding another piece, maybe take a flier on Newman in the 5th or 6th round.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
776
Sorry. I was on my phone and typing less is easier than typing more.
My point was that there's no QB controversy among your fan base or your local media, when you have a guy who is an obvious placeholder while your shiny new draft pick gets his feet wet or when you bench the journeyman mid-season to bring in said rookie.
My recollection is that the NY market was filled with arguing over the Eli/Daniel Jones situation: some who wanted the change made earlier; some who wanted more loyalty toward Eli.
Plus, as Jungleland notes above, there is a real opportunity cost in keeping Jimmy G's $25M cap hit on the roster; that's not backup QB money. As Jungle notes, that cap space can be rolled over into 2022.
Every post I've ever made on this website except 1 was on my phone & they're still way too long lol.

Yeah, I mean once they realize they can't trade him at his contract # they should try to get him to agree to a paycut before cutting.

They could pay him like $17m, which is potentially more than he could get elsewhere, save $8m, avoid the embarrassment of playing Mac Jones, etc.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,048
Santa Monica, CA
JG's career numbers are very solid:

48 g, 32 starts, 24-8 record, 67.5% completion, 8,042 yards, 8.2 y/a, 51 td, 26 int, 98.9 rating

I mean just compare that to what Cam did passing last year, and it's night and day. Yes, Cam gets points for his rushing, but in terms of being a thrower, it's not even close between the two of them.
Correct. It is a no-brainer to want Jimmy G over Cam as long as it isn't on at a cost of $25M. If he's released, or if he's traded and reworks his deal, it's a huge improvement for the Pats. They can still take a QB in the middle rounds, since Stidham feels like a dud and they'll need a backup/future project.

I can't see him agreeing to take a paycut in San Francisco. Who would agree to a paycut along with a role as a placeholder for a highly-valued rookie that the team is totally invested in? If you're willing to take a paycut, take it to play somewhere.

And yeesh, how did we miss this from yesterday:

Then you had Kyle Shanahan’s press conference on Monday where he let this slip:

“We decided we needed a starting quarterback,” Shanahan said. “So we traded two 1s to get a starting quarterback. Hopefully, we end up picking the best one. But I know we’re going to get a starting quarterback with that. That’s a smart move to me. Not necessarily a smart move, but that’s the move you have to do and how much it costs to do these type of things. You just sit there and wait and keep your fingers crossed and hope things work out. And that’s something we didn’t want to do this year.”
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
21,800
One thing I think people miss....

Jimmy G 100% should not want to be released... Traded? Sure. Released? No way.

He'd be trading 26M for what... 2M? 5M guaranteed if he's lucky? There isn't a team that looks at Jimmy and sees even half what he makes now as a reasonable salary.

For a guy with his injury history, his agent would be committing malpractice trying to get released. His best possible outcome is starting in SF (with a great offense and staff) and staying healthy. Even if he gets replaced, showing he can stay healthy and play decently will make him a bunch of money.

I also think that worries about a controversy are overblown, players are pros, they know eventually the kid will start, and when depends on how the other QB plays (and the only way it becomes a real controversy is if you have a great year and win the SB, which... you take every time, nobody argues for the vet over the hotshot rookie on a team that didn't win).
If I were a coach I'd be far more worried what the impact is if I cut Jimmy G and my rookie is completely overwhelmed. Then all of the sudden I have a toxic mess as all these vets I got there by selling that we were a SB contender realize I wasted at least a year of their careers on a disaster QB. Also both lockerroom and fanbase can get toxic real quick when you promise you can contend with a rookie QB, and then he turns out to be an average rookie and be pretty terrible, and that can effect the development of the rookie. Plenty of QBs got ruined by high expectations and lack of patience for poor results.

Now I do see the money issue, BUT... I think you'd rather not roll over extra cap and try to:
1. Win, which may not help the cap, but does help the owner's wallet.
2. Rebuild Jimmy's value so you're talking a 2nd or better for him in what should be a better market of teams with cap space.
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,066
Cambridge
Lynch and Shanahan are saying absolutely nothing but word salad garbage. People on this board have been making the argument that it makes sense for the Niners to keep Jimmy G for a month now, and have yet to put forth a compelling argument, because there simply isn’t one. Of all the examples put forth above, the only one that is at all close is the Mahomes / Smith situation, and even that is not that close as KC did not pay the ransom SF did, and Mahomes was not close to being considered a sure thing as a somewhat polarizing #11 pick. A team is not going to pay the ridiculous price SF did to move up to #3 and draft Mac Jones, and then pay someone $25M as a placeholder. Doing such a thing would create an untenable situation (camps would form, Jimmy would be pissed, etc.). I think there is a good chance SF will move Jimmy on Thursday, after the pick.
I think this works different in a league with a hard salary cap. Taking $25M off the payroll at a time when you can fill that $25M with other players is valuable (and would have been particularly valuable this offseason, with fewer teams having cap space). Taking $25M off the payroll at a time when you can't fill it is only worth $25M in cash, which is rarely a limiting factor in the NFL. Similarly, the trade market for a $25M QB is much stronger when teams have the cap room to accommodate him.

Of course, the NFL isn't quite a hard capped league in that you can roll unused cap over, so you get some (but less) value for that $25M if it's cleared from payroll. But the fact remains that for this year alone, Jimmy G is almost certainly going to be a more valuable use of $25M than having $25M in extra space for mid-season acquisitions, so if SF thinks of themselves as a contender (and when healthy, they probably are), I think they should keep him.

I also agree that it would have been smarter for them to get him off the payroll earlier, and replace him with $25M of 2021 players. But for a contender in 2021, replacing him with $25M worth of 2022 players really isn't the same thing, so at this point, I think SF should keep him.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
13,128
Washington
Going into the season having to start a rookie could easily be a wasted season for an otherwise talented, probable playofff team. And of course if this talented team misses the playoffs because of a rookie's growing pains, maybe the fans turn on that kid and who knows how that impacts his development moving forward. That is a problem that shit teams drafting a new QB don't have to worry too much about. Expectations are low because they suck.

The 49ers don't suck. Jimmy G may not be worth his contract to the 49ers, but he's worth a lot more to them than anyone else. Yeah, losing some potential cap savings sucks. But they've managed their cap well. Putting all their eggs in the rookie QB basket could easily waste a whole season of salaries.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,553
Hingham, MA
What do you mean by "long term"? JG is only 29 years of age. These days, he might have another 10 years left in him. Assuming he stays relatively free from injury, which he hasn't been able to do, but then if that's what you're worried about, that's a bigger reason to not want him.
Basically my thinking is a rookie is cheaper, has higher upside, and JG's injury history.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,019
Going into the season having to start a rookie could easily be a wasted season for an otherwise talented, probable playoff team. And of course if this talented team misses the playoffs because of a rookie's growing pains,offf tea maybe the fans turn on that kid and who knows how that impacts his development moving forward. That is a problem that shit teams drafting a new QB don't have to worry too much about. Expectations are low because they suck.

The 49ers don't suck. Jimmy G may not be worth his contract to the 49ers, but he's worth a lot more to them than anyone else. Yeah, losing some potential cap savings sucks. But they've managed their cap well. Putting all their eggs in the rookie QB basket could easily waste a whole season of salaries.
Of course not, but having such an expensive insurance policy is not likely to happen (I think Kyed equated it to having a $100,00 insurance policy on a $10,000 car). They should (and would) replace Jimmy G with a lower priced vet, perhaps Teddy B or Minshew.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,553
Hingham, MA
My point was that there's no QB controversy among your fan base or your local media, when you have a guy who is an obvious placeholder while your shiny new draft pick gets his feet wet or when you bench the journeyman mid-season to bring in said rookie.
Either way I think everyone would know Jimmy is a placeholder, since he will be a UFA next year.

One thing I think people miss....

Jimmy G 100% should not want to be released... Traded? Sure. Released? No way.

He'd be trading 26M for what... 2M? 5M guaranteed if he's lucky? There isn't a team that looks at Jimmy and sees even half what he makes now as a reasonable salary.

For a guy with his injury history, his agent would be committing malpractice trying to get released. His best possible outcome is starting in SF (with a great offense and staff) and staying healthy. Even if he gets replaced, showing he can stay healthy and play decently will make him a bunch of money.

I also think that worries about a controversy are overblown, players are pros, they know eventually the kid will start, and when depends on how the other QB plays (and the only way it becomes a real controversy is if you have a great year and win the SB, which... you take every time, nobody argues for the vet over the hotshot rookie on a team that didn't win).
If I were a coach I'd be far more worried what the impact is if I cut Jimmy G and my rookie is completely overwhelmed. Then all of the sudden I have a toxic mess as all these vets I got there by selling that we were a SB contender realize I wasted at least a year of their careers on a disaster QB. Also both lockerroom and fanbase can get toxic real quick when you promise you can contend with a rookie QB, and then he turns out to be an average rookie and be pretty terrible, and that can effect the development of the rookie. Plenty of QBs got ruined by high expectations and lack of patience for poor results.

Now I do see the money issue, BUT... I think you'd rather not roll over extra cap and try to:
1. Win, which may not help the cap, but does help the owner's wallet.
2. Rebuild Jimmy's value so you're talking a 2nd or better for him in what should be a better market of teams with cap space.
Agree with all of this. Absent him starting 16+ games for the Niners (and making $25M), his next best scenario is probably starting for the Pats, given the team they will be putting around him.

However, to your very last point about rebuilding Jimmy's value - if he plays well for the Niners this year, they won't be able to trade him (unless it is mid-season), as he will be a UFA next year. That said, if he plays well and gets a big contract, he'll be worth a 3rd round comp pick in 2023.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,216
Yep. Draft their QB, whoever that is. Trade JG to clear cap space and add a pick. Then use the pick to get extra help. Then sign Minshew, who honestly might not even be that far off of JG.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,553
Hingham, MA
I also agree that it would have been smarter for them to get him off the payroll earlier, and replace him with $25M of 2021 players. But for a contender in 2021, replacing him with $25M worth of 2022 players really isn't the same thing, so at this point, I think SF should keep him.
Right, while the $25M would help them next year, A) the cap will be going back up, and B) they will have a rookie QB so they'll already be saving a ton of money like the early years of Wilson in Seattle and Mahomes in KC (when they each won their rings).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,553
Hingham, MA
Yep. Draft their QB, whoever that is. Trade JG to clear cap space and add a pick. Then use the pick to get extra help. Then sign Minshew, who honestly might not even be that far off of JG.
See I don't think they can get much (if anything) from him due to his contract, unless he is willing to restructure as part of a trade (not sure how that works in the NFL?).
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,576
Richmond, VA
Other than Eli and arguably, Alex Smith, the game 1 starters were all low-paid journeymen, who were easily replaced when the time came. Jimmy G, both by salary and by background, is less fungible than the Tyrod Taylor’s and Mike Glennon’s of the world.
Aaron Rodgers, picked 24th, sat behind the inimitable Brett Favre for three years.
It's interesting...in the two of those years Brett was...not good.

2006: 20 tds, 29 interceptions, Completions 61% , Team went 4-12
2006: 18 tds, 18 interceptions, QBR of 45.5, Completions 56% , Team went 8-8

I know JG isn't Brett Favre, and #24 pick isn't the same as #3, but still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.