Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
FF Ninja

Was the Garoppolo trade a good or bad trade for the 49ers?

Was the Garappolo trade a good or bad trade for the 49ers?  

234 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Just now, FF Ninja said:

I'm pretty sure inexperienced FA QB do perform individual workouts, but can't claim to be 100% sure.

Of course this questionable evaluation period is better than an individual try out, but I'm not convinced it is worth the 2.01 and possibly playing themselves out of the 1.01.

Thank you for conceeding something here...

Secondly, it is a HUGE ASSUMPTION that you are making by implying that this is an evaluation process starting from near zero. They likely already made up their mind that he's their guy and they are willing to use a tag on him and pay him.

Third, you ASSUME SF can win a game. Without OR with him. There is just NO GUARANTEE he even steps on the game field, OR that if he steps on the field that he can throw it to (basically me at WR) and we can win. 

So many ASSumptions in here...it stinks. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

Correct. NFL franchises are wildly profitable. The cap space money is a drop in the bucket. So what's your point?

Beyond that, as I've already mentioned, this move could easily cost them more money than it saves. Among other things, replacing a rookie 2.01 contract with a free agent contract with a comparable player will cost millions over what that 4 year rookie contract would be.

You are the only one arguing money savings, with yourself. Please stop.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scooby1974 said:

You are the only one arguing money savings, with yourself. Please stop.

Try reading. Other people have mentioned it multiple times. It's a weak and pointless argument. I'd love to stop having to refute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

I'm pretty sure inexperienced FA QB do perform individual workouts, but can't claim to be 100% sure.

Of course this questionable evaluation period is better than an individual try out, but I'm not convinced it is worth the 2.01 and possibly playing themselves out of the 1.01.

Inexperienced on the game field (playing well when he DID play) but not on the practice quad, YEARS OF TIME with the best QB to sling the ball ever and arguable the best Coach in the modern era. It's likely he'd be (and will be) a starter on 75% of the other 32 teams in the league. Dude drew the short straw backing up Brady if he was expecting ANY playing time. haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scooby1974 said:

Thank you for conceeding something here...

Secondly, it is a HUGE ASSUMPTION that you are making by implying that this is an evaluation process starting from near zero. They likely already made up their mind that he's their guy and they are willing to use a tag on him and pay him.

Third, you ASSUME SF can win a game. Without OR with him. There is just NO GUARANTEE he even steps on the game field, OR that if he steps on the field that he can throw it to (basically me at WR) and we can win. 

So many ASSumptions in here...it stinks. ;)

There are assumption both ways. Like the assumption they needed to franchise him to land him. 

You can't deny that their odds of winning games has increased by improving at QB. JG doesn't have to be that good to be better than Beathard. Yes, it's an assumption that JG is better, but a pretty safe assumption, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

Try reading. Other people have mentioned it multiple times. It's a weak and pointless argument. I'd love to stop having to refute it.

If it's weak, and I agree, than let it ride. It's the OTHER bad assumptions you are making that we care most to refute. But you CAN'T LISTEN because you have to be right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

There are assumption both ways. Like the assumption they needed to franchise him to land him. 

You can't deny that their odds of winning games has increased by improving at QB. JG doesn't have to be that good to be better than Beathard. Yes, it's an assumption that JG is better, but a pretty safe assumption, no?

Do you NEED to franchise him? No. But nobody is saying you do. What we ARE saying is that other suitors have much more to offer by means of stronger teams, better situations, and just as much money. If I'm JG and thinking long term, I'm likely already leaning toward Denver or Jax or even Minny. So Franchising him now costs SF more money but guarantees they get him. It also guarantees they don't need to burn their top pick on a QB. CAN YOU AGREE WITH THIS, Ninja?

I wouldn't deny that their odds of winning improves IF HE PLAYS and PLAYS VERY WELL with backup at best starters. He IS FAR better than Beathard. But ASSUMING they put him in their NOW or AT ALL is a HUGE ASSUMPTION. However, even if he goes in there and overcomes all that is set against him (missing OTA's, preseason, practice, chemistry, half a season, new system----I agree with all your points here) I STILL don't think they can win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have strength in numbers and my time is limited, so I'm out, but as a recap:

A rookie HC and GM send ~2.01 and decrease their odds of the 1.01 for the right to franchise an unknown QB talent (who is UFA after this season) and a questionable at best try out period. Same team has $57M of unused cap space this season, yet everyone thinks there's a high risk they couldn't land him as a FA. It was interesting to see 3/4th of you think this was a smart use of draft capital. 

Enjoy piling on. It was real.:bye:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

You guys have strength in numbers and my time is limited, so I'm out, but as a recap:

A rookie HC and GM send ~2.01 and decrease their odds of the 1.01 for the right to franchise an unknown QB talent (who is UFA after this season) and a questionable at best try out period. Same team has $57M of unused cap space this season, yet everyone thinks there's a high risk they couldn't land him as a FA. It was interesting to see 3/4th of you think this was a smart use of draft capital. 

Enjoy piling on. It was real.:bye:

HOLY COP OUT! As soon as I ask you a specific question you run without answering it? Lame. Your RECAP has been blown full of holes.

As a recap of the 99% that have chimed in: The majority (is there ANYONE that has backed your side up with any plausible argument at all?) disagrees with your thoughts in your recap so you take your ball and go home.

WE WIN! And SO DO THE 9ERS! Except they don't, because they suck....but they do come out of it with a Starting QB and a top draft pick if they want it...so they STILL WIN, without winning! 

Edited by Scooby1974
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say at this point. They have to throw him in there with the same zeros that CJ Bethard is playing with and make a comparison I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Shanahan say yesterday that Garoppolo might not play this year? If he doesn't play, what is the point of getting him now? Seems like the 9ers will be in position to grab a top prospect in a very good QB class, I don't see how they can not play Jimmy and see what they have in him. At least evaluate the guy. If they keep Jimmy they'll have to fork over a ton of cash to him and pass on a potential franchise QB who would cost them much less up front. Just seems dumb not to play the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scooby1974 said:

Do you NEED to franchise him? No. But nobody is saying you do. What we ARE saying is that other suitors have much more to offer by means of stronger teams, better situations, and just as much money. If I'm JG and thinking long term, I'm likely already leaning toward Denver or Jax or even Minny. So Franchising him now costs SF more money but guarantees they get him. It also guarantees they don't need to burn their top pick on a QB. CAN YOU AGREE WITH THIS, Ninja?

I wouldn't deny that their odds of winning improves IF HE PLAYS and PLAYS VERY WELL with backup at best starters. He IS FAR better than Beathard. But ASSUMING they put him in their NOW or AT ALL is a HUGE ASSUMPTION. However, even if he goes in there and overcomes all that is set against him (missing OTA's, preseason, practice, chemistry, half a season, new system----I agree with all your points here) I STILL don't think they can win.

What if not "burning" their top pick on a QB is actually the wrong thing to do?

Your last sentence is just silly- the first time they played Arizona, in Arizona, Hoyer had a 54.3 QB rating and they had the lead in overtime until the Cards scored a TD to win by 3. This week they're playing them again, at home this time and without Carson Palmer, and you don't think they can win? Next week they're playing those ferocious NY Giants at home, and then they have a home game vs. Seattle, who they were beating in the 4th qtr., on the road, despite Hoyer's sub-50 QB rating. They also have games against the Bears and the Tom Savage led Texans as well. He very well may not play in any of these games, but they absolutely could win a couple of them with merely competent QB play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Cassel 2.0

Is that worth a high second round (basically a bottom of the first round) pick?  Especially if you have to franchise him (20+ Million)?

I'd have traded a low first round / high second rounder if there was an "unofficial" deal in place to keep him long term with dollars that made sense.  I made the same argument for Cassel when the Patriots were singing this song then, and I'd make it for JG when the Pats are singing it now.  6 years $78M, 25-30 or so guaranteed? Sure.

But $21 million to have him help you win 4 games in 2018?  Madness.

Share this post


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

Correct. NFL franchises are wildly profitable. The cap space money is a drop in the bucket. So what's your point?

Beyond that, as I've already mentioned, this move could easily cost them more money than it saves. Among other things, replacing a rookie 2.01 contract with a free agent contract with a comparable player will cost millions over what that 4 year rookie contract would be.

ETA:

What do you mean about paying huge upfront money to 2 QBs? They pay JG and draft a rookie or two anywhere in the draft. That's one FA contract and one rookie contract. Not two huge contracts.

1. If you don't understand a front loaded contract, google can probably help you. 

2. He's on the open market anyway. He's an unrestricted FA. Plus, I never asserted he'd give them a try before you buy deal. Seemed you understood that when addressing the front loaded contract.

3. I guess you are not familiar with rookie contract. The rookie QB, regardless of round taken, has a largely predetermined contract based on draft position. Some teams prefer to groom a rookie QB for one year, such as the case was with Rivers and Palmer. 

Ninja please... You're trying to "lecture" me on how a rookie contracts work? And then proceed to bring up 2 players that were rookies long before the rookie salary cap was instituted.  You propose something vapid and idealistic like "front-loaded" but then resort to patronizing fluffery when asked to clarify. 

What's most boggling is your belief that somehow JG would choose a "front-loaded" contract over more secure long term deals as an UFA... You keep insisting that somehow him being a UFA at the end of the season is "the same"... but the fact is the niners would ONLY need to offer this silly contract of yours (that no coveted FA would ever take) if they didn't know what they were getting. Fortunately for them, this won't even be an issue because they have him on their roster NOW. I dunno if you're just dodging this fact because it's so important to convince yourself that you're right or if you truly are just so lodged in fantasy football mode that these differences "don't matter". Either way, it ends up making this a pretty pointless exercise. 

Get your last word in homey... I'm done here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Statorama said:

Matt Cassel 2.0

Is that worth a high second round (basically a bottom of the first round) pick?  Especially if you have to franchise him (20+ Million)?

I'd have traded a low first round / high second rounder if there was an "unofficial" deal in place to keep him long term with dollars that made sense.  I made the same argument for Cassel when the Patriots were singing this song then, and I'd make it for JG when the Pats are singing it now.  6 years $78M, 25-30 or so guaranteed? Sure.

But $21 million to have him help you win 4 games in 2018?  Madness.

Disagree with the assumption straight away.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, humpback said:

What if not "burning" their top pick on a QB is actually the wrong thing to do?

Your last sentence is just silly- the first time they played Arizona, in Arizona, Hoyer had a 54.3 QB rating and they had the lead in overtime until the Cards scored a TD to win by 3. This week they're playing them again, at home this time and without Carson Palmer, and you don't think they can win? Next week they're playing those ferocious NY Giants at home, and then they have a home game vs. Seattle, who they were beating in the 4th qtr., on the road, despite Hoyer's sub-50 QB rating. They also have games against the Bears and the Tom Savage led Texans as well. He very well may not play in any of these games, but they absolutely could win a couple of them with merely competent QB play.

Good points, humpback...

However, this move does not keep them from changing their mind.

Agreed that saying there is no way they can win was silly now that I am more aware of their upcoming schedule it is entirely possible to see that they COULD win something. But that said, they still SUCK and they still lost their best WR for the season. I would hope that they just keep him benched (at least until any risk of a win affecting a draft spot is negated) and not risk injury or a win, but we'll see.

I live in the Philly area where I've watched the 76ers TANK for 3 seasons, so perhaps the idea of purposely sucking is just second nature to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Scooby1974 said:

HOLY COP OUT! As soon as I ask you a specific question you run without answering it? Lame. Your RECAP has been blown full of holes.

As a recap of the 99% that have chimed in: The majority (is there ANYONE that has backed your side up with any plausible argument at all?) disagrees with your thoughts in your recap so you take your ball and go home.

WE WIN! And SO DO THE 9ERS! Except they don't, because they suck....but they do come out of it with a Starting QB and a top draft pick if they want it...so they STILL WIN, without winning! 

Finally someone that sees through him.  Like most of the good points brought up in here, he ignored them just so he could bullet point his points that don't make much sense.  The big issue that everyone (sort of) agrees on is that there are a TON of unknowns here.  And that's kind of the point.  Unknowns can be really bad.  Unknowns could be not knowing he sucks and ending up in a Brock deal.  Unknowns can be signing a guy that doesn't jive with your system, front office, teammates, etc.  Unknowns could be THINKING "hey I'll just sign him this offseason" and then suddenly Elway brings him in for a steak dinner and facility tour and he never even gets on the plane to SF and you're stuck with a rookie qb that you might really really not like pre-draft.  Unknowns could be "hey he's pretty good I'll offer him 15/year- oh he wants 25/year?  Ok goodbye, we still have options to draft a rookie"

SF took a lot of those unknowns away with this deal while still having all the options next offseason.  To say they were taking the easy way out to make their jobs easier is a very loaded way of putting it.  Yes they made a decision that will ultimately make their jobs easier and make the chances of landing a franchise qb better.  That team has an enormous amount of picks... this wasn't that high of cost to them. 

Share this post


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

Why would Shanahan say yesterday that Garoppolo might not play this year? If he doesn't play, what is the point of getting him now? Seems like the 9ers will be in position to grab a top prospect in a very good QB class, I don't see how they can not play Jimmy and see what they have in him. At least evaluate the guy. If they keep Jimmy they'll have to fork over a ton of cash to him and pass on a potential franchise QB who would cost them much less up front. Just seems dumb not to play the guy.

This was looked at as a good draft class a few months ago.  This is no longer the case.  It is looked at as mediocre.  All the top prospects have not looked very promising this year.  Darnold/Rosen look far from locks to be franchise type guys, and it's likely that Shanahan doesn't love either of them and had a chance to get a guy in his facility, studying his offense, that he has loved for 2 years. 

The point (one of) of getting him in now is to start the woo'ing process now.  He gets 6 months with the guy and I think once he learns the offense and is around that atmosphere, that he will sign there before visiting anyone else.  Something that would have been very hard to get across in the 6 hour visit he would get (might not actually get) in March.  You don't want your new franchise qb walking into their first meetings/practices/etc with the team a couple months before the season. 

As for playing the guy I guess I can see your point in that they need to play him to evaluate him.  Like another poster mentioned, his evaluation process on this guy has been going for 2 years.  I think Shanny is fairly confident that Jimmy is 'their guy'.  Bringing their guy in early gives all sorts of advantages.  I ultimately think he will play a few games this year anyways.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Statorama said:

Matt Cassel 2.0

Is that worth a high second round (basically a bottom of the first round) pick?  Especially if you have to franchise him (20+ Million)?

I'd have traded a low first round / high second rounder if there was an "unofficial" deal in place to keep him long term with dollars that made sense.  I made the same argument for Cassel when the Patriots were singing this song then, and I'd make it for JG when the Pats are singing it now.  6 years $78M, 25-30 or so guaranteed? Sure.

But $21 million to have him help you win 4 games in 2018?  Madness.

To compare JG's talent to MC is madness.  I know it's easy to draw the comparison based on situation, but they are not remotely the same player.

Like you say, you would have done this if there was an unofficial deal to keep him there long term.  I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but I am pretty confident that having him in there this week as opposed to (maybe) next March is an astronomical leg up on making that happen.  They didn't pay the 2nd rounder to win the race, but they paid the 2nd rounder to get to start the race with a giant head start. (Plus a lot of other advantages that come from having him here early).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scooby1974 said:

Good points, humpback...

However, this move does not keep them from changing their mind.

Agreed that saying there is no way they can win was silly now that I am more aware of their upcoming schedule it is entirely possible to see that they COULD win something. But that said, they still SUCK and they still lost their best WR for the season. I would hope that they just keep him benched (at least until any risk of a win affecting a draft spot is negated) and not risk injury or a win, but we'll see.

I live in the Philly area where I've watched the 76ers TANK for 3 seasons, so perhaps the idea of purposely sucking is just second nature to me.

Of course, there are a lot of ways this could play out, I'm just pointing out that there are pro's and con's to all of these scenarios. Keeping him benched helps their chances at getting a top draft pick, but it also gives them somewhat less information to evaluate him on. Franchising him keeps him around for another year to see how he does in the system, but also means they are likely passing on next years QB class. Etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Statorama said:

Matt Cassel 2.0

 

That's an easy "comparison" to toss out there for obvious reasons but Cassel was a seventh round draft pick who didn't even start for his college team while Garapolo was a projected late first round pick that fell to round two. Garappolo has a better skillset as well imo.

People also forget that Cassell did lead the Chiefs to a playoff appearance and made a Pro Bowl as a Chief. He eventually fell apart but wasn't a total bust - heck he's still bouncing around in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

That's an easy "comparison" to toss out there for obvious reasons but Cassel was a seventh round draft pick who didn't even start for his college team while Garapolo was a projected late first round pick that fell to round two. Garappolo has a better skillset as well imo.

People also forget that Cassell did lead the Chiefs to a playoff appearance and made a Pro Bowl as a Chief. He eventually fell apart but wasn't a total bust - heck he's still bouncing around in the league.

I agree that a Casell comparison is misguided for the reasons you've outlined.

Cassel, Brees, Palmer, and ASmith are the only QB's in the league right now that have won 10 games in a season for two different franchises.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deamon said:

This was looked at as a good draft class a few months ago.  This is no longer the case.  It is looked at as mediocre.  All the top prospects have not looked very promising this year.  Darnold/Rosen look far from locks to be franchise type guys, and it's likely that Shanahan doesn't love either of them and had a chance to get a guy in his facility, studying his offense, that he has loved for 2 years. 

 

There once was this guy named Dan Marino. https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/dan-marino-1.html  ....who was thought to be the next great one after his junior season. Then he stunk it up his senior season which allowed Miami to pick him at #27.

You can't go just by the numbers and these guys all have better numbers than Marino's sr. season.

One thing that you have to look for is do they want to put in the effort to be great. Wentz came across like that. Got with his new receivers in the offseason, on his own. Look at him go. P. Lynch did not. One is a stud the other is a dud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lod001 said:

There once was this guy named Dan Marino. https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/dan-marino-1.html  ....who was thought to be the next great one after his junior season. Then he stunk it up his senior season which allowed Miami to pick him at #27.

You can't go just by the numbers and these guys all have better numbers than Marino's sr. season.

One thing that you have to look for is do they want to put in the effort to be great. Wentz came across like that. Got with his new receivers in the offseason, on his own. Look at him go. P. Lynch did not. One is a stud the other is a dud.

Agreed.  I'm not really going just by their numbers though.  They have both lacked poise and many scouts have soured on them overall.  For every Marino there's a top 5 draft bust.  Also, we are in much more of a passing age now so it's really tough to compare Darnold's numbers to Marino's.  The fact is there is no home run Andrew Luck this year, so it's looking like just another unpredictable draft class.  I'd take a late 1st rounder that has 4 years being the NFL + a stud defensive player at 1.02 over any of those guys right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this board really needs is a cap on how many posts any one poster can make in any single thread in a day.

Maybe exempt the game day threads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 5:36 PM, Arodin said:

What this board really needs is a cap on how many posts any one poster can make in any single thread in a day.

Maybe exempt the game day threads...

You've hit your quota ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 1:36 PM, Dr. Octopus said:

That's an easy "comparison" to toss out there for obvious reasons but Cassel was a seventh round draft pick who didn't even start for his college team while Garapolo was a projected late first round pick that fell to round two. Garappolo has a better skillset as well imo.

People also forget that Cassell did lead the Chiefs to a playoff appearance and made a Pro Bowl as a Chief. He eventually fell apart but wasn't a total bust - heck he's still bouncing around in the league.

Brady was a 6th round pick who didn't start for his college team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 0:42 PM, Statorama said:

Matt Cassel 2.0

Is that worth a high second round (basically a bottom of the first round) pick?  Especially if you have to franchise him (20+ Million)?

I'd have traded a low first round / high second rounder if there was an "unofficial" deal in place to keep him long term with dollars that made sense.  I made the same argument for Cassel when the Patriots were singing this song then, and I'd make it for JG when the Pats are singing it now.  6 years $78M, 25-30 or so guaranteed? Sure.

But $21 million to have him help you win 4 games in 2018?  Madness.

6 years for $78M?  When Stafford just got $25 per year?  Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tool said:

Brady was a 6th round pick who didn't start for his college team.

Very relevant!!!!

Plus Brady did start games for his college team.

Edited by Dr. Octopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2017 at 0:18 PM, FF Ninja said:

Facts:

  • 49ers are 0-8
  • Garappolo is an unrestricted free agent after this season
  • They paid their own 2nd round pick (likely very high)

The question is not about New England. Just the 49ers.

I think the trade is a clear win for SF.   Limited downside and potential steal.

Who cares about their record?  The opportunity to have JG in their system over the second half of the season give him/them an edge going into 2018.

UFA?  You do have to pay QBs, right?

How many picks do the 49ers need after fleecing the Bears?  An early second isn't going to sink the franchise.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tool said:

Brady was a 6th round pick who didn't start for his college team.

Tom Brady was the primary starting QB at Michigan in both his junior and senior years.

He had 638 career pass attempts. Comparing him to Cassel (33 career attempts in mop-up duty) is ignorant to say the least.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Jordan didnt even make his high school team.

Yep, still the worst thread going on the internet right now.  This is incredible. Fans of both teams should be happy about this deal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably been said already, but it is way too early to judge this trade.

 

Given the track record of Brady backups SF got fleeced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dezbelief said:

Probably been said already, but it is way too early to judge this trade.

 

Given the track record of Brady backups SF got fleeced.

Two ways to judge a trade, just like in FF.

Judge it at the time, then judge it after it plays out.  

If you trade AJ Green for a 2018 7th round pick, it is a bad trade at the time even if Green dies the next day and that 7th round pick is the next Jerry Rice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Kyle Shanahan was in Cleveland, he liked Jimmy G and wanted to draft him. He liked Cousins more than RG3 when he was in DC. So he gets a QB and doesn't have to use his !st round pick on one, he pays him way less than Cousins. Kyle and John Lynch have to think win/win for SF. 

The teams has so many holes that not blowing top draft pick on QB that will set the franchise back even more is positive for them

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t get this move. They’ll have a top two pick and the choice of the qb they want. And whatever people think now, that guy will be a lot more talented than Garappolo. Can only guess that Kubiak fell in love and made a dumb move.

 

Great move by the pats. They traded him at the deadline before he walks in free agency for a high second round pick. Robbery. And to keep him the 49ers will have to give him almost 20 million a year for a guy who hasn’t done a thing in the nfl. And since it’s so late in the year, they won’t know if he’s good or awful before passing on a qb next draft. I don’t know how anybody thinks the 49ers won this.

 

Oh and I guarantee the hoodie doesn’t think he’s good or he’d have tried to keep him to replace Brady.

Edited by voiceofunreason
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DropKick said:

I think the trade is a clear win for SF.   Limited downside and potential steal.

Who cares about their record?  The opportunity to have JG in their system over the second half of the season give him/them an edge going into 2018.

UFA?  You do have to pay QBs, right?

How many picks do the 49ers need after fleecing the Bears?  An early second isn't going to sink the franchise.

 

Not sure I would say a clear win for SF.  It's a potential clear win for SF.  SF could easily botch this, but if they do their diligence right, they will know if Garappolo is their future QB before the end of the season.  They just need to know if they need to draft a QB next year with their first choice.

A 2nd round pick is a reasonable price to pay to see if Garappolo is the real deal or not.  IMO well worth the risk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this move for the 9ers in general. Unless Jimmy bombs, they'll be able to pass on a QB, move down, & get a ton of compensation.

The 9ers have a lot of holes & they need picks.

I like it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

I like this move for the 9ers in general. Unless Jimmy bombs, they'll be able to pass on a QB, move down, & get a ton of compensation.

The 9ers have a lot of holes & they need picks.

I like it.

Worked great for the browns.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schefter repeating a good point someone else told him this morning...

If the 49ers don't like what they see for some reason they can always franchise JG and trade him -- possibly for something more than they paid.  It's about as close to zero risk as it gets.  I believe that option wasn't available to the Pats for cap reasons (the 49ers are something like $60MM under the cap).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, voiceofunreason said:

Key word...49ers. Oh and the browns were the other team that wanted Garappolo.

"Yeah" (Bill Lumbergh-style), the difference in those organizations right now is like night & day. 

The Browns, from their HC to their front office has shown to be a joke this season.

 

 

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Schefter repeating a good point someone else told him this morning...

If the 49ers don't like what they see for some reason they can always franchise JG and trade him -- possibly for something more than they paid.  It's about as close to zero risk as it gets.  I believe that option wasn't available to the Pats for cap reasons (the 49ers are something like $60MM under the cap).

So no team was willing to offer more for him now, but after SF doesn't like what they see they might be able to get someone to pay even more for less control? Doesn't make sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

"Yeah" (Bill Lumbergh-style), the difference in those organizations right now is like night & day. 

The Browns, from their HC to their front office has shown to be a joke this season.

Based on what? Seems a tad premature to say the difference is night and day, considering SF's new GM and HC have zero career wins so far.

Either way, the "but, Browns" excuse doesn't work here- most people liked their deals to trade down. That's kind of the point- at the time they seemed like the right move, but in hindsight they should have stayed put and drafted the QB. Same thing could happen to SF next year.

Edited by humpback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, humpback said:

Based on what? Seems a tad premature to say the difference is night and day, considering SF's new GM and HC have zero career wins so far.

Either way, the "but, Browns" excuse doesn't work here- most people liked their deals to trade down. That's kind of the point- at the time they seemed like the right move, but in hindsight they should have stayed put and drafted the QB. Same thing could happen to SF next year.

In short, the Browns look like a train wreck.

The 9ers seem to have their stuff together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.