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

10 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Do we have to get into this again? I don't have much free time so I'll just say my bit and leave it at that if that's ok. I've been out of the country for a few weeks... I just researched Jimmy Garappolo news for 5 minutes to reply, so I am definitely missing some things, but it looks like one of the scenarios I predicted played out:

Jimmy has played himself into a position where the 49ers now have to break the bank to keep him or drop $23.5M to franchise him for one year. Had they left him rotting on the bench in New England they (1) certainly could've signed him cheaper (would there be competition? Yes, but would an unknown get a larger contract than he'll be getting now? Undoubtedly not.),  (2) would have a 2nd round pick, and (3) would be drafting from a higher spot. But hey, maybe this extra time in the system will be more valuable than that. Sure seems like he learned things pretty quickly so I'm guessing the extra time won't make a tangible difference. From what I read before, Shanahan really wanted him, so all they really bought with this large loss in draft capital (and cap space) was peace of mind that signing him will (probably) be the right move.

So in summary:

  • 49ers trade early 2nd round pick
  • 49ers win 4 meaningless games (maybe 5)
  • 49ers lower draft position from top 2 to maybe outside top 10
  • Jimmy G gains additional contract negotiation leverage; SF will now have to pay out the nose to keep him
  • ownership gains peace of mind he's their QB
  • Jimmy gains extra time with playbook that he seemingly didn't need

If they can't reach a long term contract due to this trade (and time for him to showcase his skills) and he signs elsewhere in 2019 (or 2020 if they franchise him twice), this trade will have hosed them (unless by some miracle they win a championship next year - if so, who cares about 2019?). If they can reach a long term deal with him - like they were going to in the offseason anyway - then all they did was flounder draft capital and pay a lot more for his contract for some peace of mind. So while I think signs are certainly pointing to SF bringing JG over for 2018 as a good move (something we wouldn't have known with any level of confidence until next year without the trade), I still think this trade was very poor strategy. I know you kept saying "there's going to be competition to sign him" but you can't pretend that SF wouldn't have won that bidding war with their cap space and you have to admit the result of that bidding war would've been a much cheaper contract that what he's going to demand now. I mean, thinking about it from a slightly different angle: we all know he's going to get paid more now than he was going to before he got showcased, and if SF can afford this contract, they could've afforded the lesser contract they would've paid him. And if they have to franchise him, that $23.5M for one year is probably only about $10M shy of what they would've had to guarantee him for a 4 year contract. I don't even want to think about the guaranteed money he's going to get now.

So yes, I agree he looks like a good fit. I never said he would bust or even took a stance of any kind on his fit or talent - I'm no scout or high level talent evaluator. I said this trade was a bad move strategically and I still think so.:shrug:

Wow. You just said everything I was going to.  Well done.

Though I want to add one thing - Jimmy G did add one huge thing the 49ers were missing and that is EXCITEMENT.  He brought level of energy to the entire team that they hadnt seen in a long time.  For some reason the Jimmy G effect hit the entire franchise. The offense was better, the defense was better the fans were energized and the team won games.  I am not sure how you quantify that monetarily, but this franchise has an excitement level they havent had for years.  You talk to any 9er fan now and they are pumped. They believe they have found their qb and cant wait for next year.  That has to count for something. This was a dead franchise going nowhere and now they are one of the more exciting teams in the NFL.
This is going to lead to more ticket sales, merchandise, and overall excitement and expectations for 2018...

So while I agree that this deal isnt all roses as it appears on the surface, I think there is a lot for 49er fans to be thrilled about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FF Ninja said:

Maybe you're right, but I think he could've been signed to a Brock-like contract (at the time, everyone knew Brock was an overpay - I think people would consider a Brock contract for JG to be fair). If they sign him for only ~$8M more than that, or even $15M more than that, then sure, not a ton of harm done in that regard. If they have to pay him $23.5M for one year and then sign him to a mega deal a year later, then yes, a ton of harm done.

But don't gloss over possibly moving from 1st or 2nd overall down to possibly outside the top 10 AND losing the 2.01 or 2.02 pick. Think about the bounty people pay to move up ~8-12 spots to 1.01 or 1.02. That's a huge loss.

 :lmao: At least get your facts straight.  How can they move down 10 spots?  Cleveland already would be ahead of them.  They likely would have won ONE of those games without Jimmy (vs Texans, Titans, Jags, Bears, or most likely, the Rams bench).  That puts them at 2 wins with a lower SOS than the Giants, so they would be picking 3rd.  There is no possible way they can pick 15th now.  The lowest they can pick now is 10th/11th due to their SOS.

This also drops down their 2nd round pick to a 10/11 2nd round that they're giving up.

Your answers are completely loaded.  You ignore the fact that it can't possibly be pick 1, and keep putting in "the 1.01' and the "2.01" to try to strengthen your imaginary point.  So yes, they dropped from 1.03 to 1.09 and gave up their 2nd round pick.  That first pick likely is spent on a QB anyways (cheapness doesn't matter, they have tons to spend).

What would you rather have?  Jimmy+ Great player at 1.09, or 3rd best qb in the draft (darnold and rosen might go top 2 so you'er reaching for a qb at 3 potentially anyways) + pick 2.03.  Stop saying "they could have signed him anyways".  10+ teams need qbs... the odds of him ending up in sf were less than 50%, and are now 100%.

You've been very narrow minded and stubbon this whole conversation.  It's gotten to the point where it's just sad that you're still trying to defend this anymore.  Reminds me of Fisher trying to convince everyone he's a great head coach this week.  It's grasping at straws at this point.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Wow. You just said everything I was going to.  Well done.

Though I want to add one thing - Jimmy G did add one huge thing the 49ers were missing and that is EXCITEMENT.  He brought level of energy to the entire team that they hadnt seen in a long time.  For some reason the Jimmy G effect hit the entire franchise. The offense was better, the defense was better the fans were energized and the team won games.  I am not sure how you quantify that monetarily, but this franchise has an excitement level they havent had for years.  You talk to any 9er fan now and they are pumped. They believe they have found their qb and cant wait for next year.  That has to count for something. This was a dead franchise going nowhere and now they are one of the more exciting teams in the NFL.
This is going to lead to more ticket sales, merchandise, and overall excitement and expectations for 2018...

So while I agree that this deal isnt all roses as it appears on the surface, I think there is a lot for 49er fans to be thrilled about.

Yep, add that to the stack of positives from this trade.  Also to go along with this, I think someone mentioned before that they will become far more attractive for FA talent to go to now.  The positives go on and on, and the only negative is losing a few spots in the draft where they likely would have been reaching on some rookie QB anyways. 

This franchise and fans are now instantly in a good place and accomplished what many teams spend year after year trying to do, and that's finding that franchise QB.  Odds are you don't get him next year without this trade, and they just totally turned their franchise around by giving up pick #40.  Trade of the decade for sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Do we have to get into this again? I don't have much free time so I'll just say my bit and leave it at that if that's ok. I've been out of the country for a few weeks... I just researched Jimmy Garappolo news for 5 minutes to reply, so I am definitely missing some things, but it looks like one of the scenarios I predicted played out:

Jimmy has played himself into a position where the 49ers now have to break the bank to keep him or drop $23.5M to franchise him for one year. Had they left him rotting on the bench in New England they (1) certainly could've signed him cheaper (would there be competition? Yes, but would an unknown get a larger contract than he'll be getting now? Undoubtedly not.),  (2) would have a 2nd round pick, and (3) would be drafting from a higher spot. But hey, maybe this extra time in the system will be more valuable than that. Sure seems like he learned things pretty quickly so I'm guessing the extra time won't make a tangible difference. From what I read before, Shanahan really wanted him, so all they really bought with this large loss in draft capital (and cap space) was peace of mind that signing him will (probably) be the right move.

So in summary:

  • 49ers trade early 2nd round pick
  • 49ers win 4 meaningless games (maybe 5)
  • 49ers lower draft position from top 2 to maybe outside top 10
  • Jimmy G gains additional contract negotiation leverage; SF will now have to pay out the nose to keep him
  • ownership gains peace of mind he's their QB
  • Jimmy gains extra time with playbook that he seemingly didn't need

If they can't reach a long term contract due to this trade (and time for him to showcase his skills) and he signs elsewhere in 2019 (or 2020 if they franchise him twice), this trade will have hosed them (unless by some miracle they win a championship next year - if so, who cares about 2019?). If they can reach a long term deal with him - like they were going to in the offseason anyway - then all they did was flounder draft capital and pay a lot more for his contract for some peace of mind. So while I think signs are certainly pointing to SF bringing JG over for 2018 as a good move (something we wouldn't have known with any level of confidence until next year without the trade), I still think this trade was very poor strategy. I know you kept saying "there's going to be competition to sign him" but you can't pretend that SF wouldn't have won that bidding war with their cap space and you have to admit the result of that bidding war would've been a much cheaper contract that what he's going to demand now. I mean, thinking about it from a slightly different angle: we all know he's going to get paid more now than he was going to before he got showcased, and if SF can afford this contract, they could've afforded the lesser contract they would've paid him. And if they have to franchise him, that $23.5M for one year is probably only about $10M shy of what they would've had to guarantee him for a 4 year contract. I don't even want to think about the guaranteed money he's going to get now.

So yes, I agree he looks like a good fit. I never said he would bust or even took a stance of any kind on his fit or talent - I'm no scout or high level talent evaluator. I said this trade was a bad move strategically and I still think so.:shrug:

Cleveland Browns

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s stupid for @FF Ninja to point out the hidden costs of winning, those posts seemed unnecessary. While there are some flaws to the thinking/assumptions made, the overall point is probably something most people hadn’t thought about. Paying a 2nd and dropping back a bit in the first is a good price to be the sole team negotiating. And if he would have gone out there and petermanned up the place then you get out for that cost. You can’t just assume a team will sign a FA because they want to, it takes 2 to tango. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read through the all the posts however-too long, so forgive me if I repeat

1. Shanahan liked him, wanted to draft him while in Cleveland, many teams would have paid higher price to acquire him

2. 49ers were going to tag him or pay him regardless if he played or not

3. figure the 49ers paid a second round pick plus whatever they dropped in draft for him-they don't care they have their QB and can spend their time and draft picks on other holes, ask Cleveland or Houston what its like with a question mark at QB, or Denver or Jets, or Cleveland (purposely put them twice) or Zona, or whomever needs a QB. 

4. Jimmy G is developed as a QB, and can now focus on learning SF offense play book. There is no definite when you draft- there is hope only that QB can play in NFL, I can list the stories of belief but readers know who didn't pan out and the stories of some guys who did

Overall, I think SF is very happy with the trade and where they now stand. Plus no team wants to lose, ask the Browns how bad that is. Winning is why we hear terms like "it's their Super Bowl". I think NE is saying "we could've/should've got a higher pick"lol

 

Edited by bigupsetter
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly a great trade for San Fran. The real question to me is how bad of a trade it was for New England. They may have Brady for two more years or none. It will take them ten years to find their next QB now. I'm guessing hoody goes with Brady. San Fran meanwhile has the next ten locked up (although there was this Foles guy for 5 games one year). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Clearly a great trade for San Fran. The real question to me is how bad of a trade it was for New England. They may have Brady for two more years or none. It will take them ten years to find their next QB now. I'm guessing hoody goes with Brady. San Fran meanwhile has the next ten locked up (although there was this Foles guy for 5 games one year). 

I will play the role of Captain Obvious here. We still don't really know much about JG yet. He's looked good for a month, no doubt, but let's see how he does once DC's get some film on him. My guess is he will be a good long term starter. I think some people are anointing him as a Top 5 QB a bit on the early side.

We don't know what Brady will do moving forward. Could be a year or multiple years. We also don't know how capable BB is in finding QB talent. Most of the guys he drafted were not drafted to be "the guy" and the huge majority of them were mid or late round picks. If we say JG is going to be a decent QB, he was the only early pick that BB used on a QB. IMO, the verdict is still out on whether BB can spot a decent QB if he uses an early draft pick.

The other thing (probably the most interesting one) is that many are assuming NE goes down the toilet once TB hangs 'em up. If BB is still calling the shots, I don't see the Pats turning into a 5-11 team. They could easily still be a playoff team.Since we don't know who will be taking the snaps, clearly hard to predict what might or might not happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

The other thing (probably the most interesting one) is that many are assuming NE goes down the toilet once TB hangs 'em up. If BB is still calling the shots, I don't see the Pats turning into a 5-11 team. They could easily still be a playoff team.Since we don't know who will be taking the snaps, clearly hard to predict what might or might not happen.

One of Rosen, Mayfield, Jackson, Darnold, Rudolph, Allen.  I think NE will draft whichever one of these QBs falls to them in the 1st rd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CaptainJT said:

Wow. You just said everything I was going to.  Well done.

Though I want to add one thing - Jimmy G did add one huge thing the 49ers were missing and that is EXCITEMENT.  He brought level of energy to the entire team that they hadnt seen in a long time.  For some reason the Jimmy G effect hit the entire franchise. The offense was better, the defense was better the fans were energized and the team won games.  I am not sure how you quantify that monetarily, but this franchise has an excitement level they havent had for years.  You talk to any 9er fan now and they are pumped. They believe they have found their qb and cant wait for next year.  That has to count for something. This was a dead franchise going nowhere and now they are one of the more exciting teams in the NFL.
This is going to lead to more ticket sales, merchandise, and overall excitement and expectations for 2018...

So while I agree that this deal isnt all roses as it appears on the surface, I think there is a lot for 49er fans to be thrilled about.

Excitement?

no - the one element he brought that the Niners were missing is “having a really good, maybe (dare I say, great?) QB”

that’s a hell of a lot more important than excitement. 

Tim Tebow on the Broncos brought “excitement”. Garapolo could bring a championship back to SF. 

Zero problems with this trade. You’d need a hat with a light on it, a pick axe and a full set of spelunking gear to go looking for problems with this trade, especially with the benefit of having seen a taste of the results. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of unintelligent replies I don't want to waste my time on, like someone not even being able to grasp how they could move down 10 spots. If that simple concept can't be understood, I'm not surprised the rest of my post is confusing. I'll save time and let ESPN explain it:

Quote

 It wasn't that long ago that every projection for the 2018 NFL draft had the San Francisco 49ers picking near the top. If they weren't going to land the No. 1 overall choice (they weren't, as Cleveland has never budged), they were in prime position to have the No. 2 selection for the second consecutive year.

Even optimistic projections that the Niners would win a few games over the course of the season left them with, at worst, a top-five pick. In fact, ESPN's Football Power Index at one point pegged the 49ers with a 95 percent chance to finish with a top-five pick.

Then Jimmy Garoppolo happened. Since installing Garoppolo as the starting quarterback before the Dec. 3 game against the Chicago Bears, the Niners have looked and played like a completely different team. San Francisco is the only team in the league to go 4-0 during the past month with wins against Chicago, Houston and AFC playoff contenders Tennessee and Jacksonville.

With each passing week, the Niners' potential draft position has dropped while their Q rating has increased. A franchise that was once all but certain to pick in the top five now sits at No. 8 were the NFL draft to take place today. Crazy as it sounds, it's not out of the question the 49ers could fall out of the top 10 altogether with a win this week against the Los Angeles Rams.

 

14 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

The extra money they MAY need to pay him and dropping down 6-10 spots in the draft is more than offset by knowing the team has a franchise QB locked up. 

You are making a ton of assumptions:

  1. We don’t know that Jimmy will get paid all that much more than he would have made on the open market. The Niners have leverage with the franchise tag and they don’t have to compete with 5-6 teams.
  2. We don’t know that the 49ers would have even been the team that he would have signed with.
  3. There is also a trade off between loss of draft capital and now having the option to take the BPA instead of a QB.
  1. You can't seriously tell me that he didn't gain massive contract negotiation leverage with his play the past few weeks. I admittedly haven't seen it with my own eyes or even read much about it, but the wins and the stats alone will sky rocket his value compared to where it was when he was a total unknown. The franchise tag is a nice fail safe option, but it isn't really "leverage" because $23.5M is a metric ****-ton of guaranteed money for 1 year. This dude went from getting an "unknown with upside" 4-year deal to possibly getting paid like a franchise QB.
  2. As for the second assumption - you are right. We don't know they would have been able to outbid the Browns, but c'mon. SF wasn't looking rosy, but it sure looked better than Cleveland if it came down to a tie. And it's not like even the Browns and 49ers were going to get into some crazy bidding war where they pay an uknown a Stafford-esque contract. It is definitely an assumption that they would've been able to sign him, but one of the safest there is. Let's wait until we see his final contract and then try to tell me they couldn't have signed him for that or less as a free agent even with competition from the Browns. 
  3. I never said they HAD to draft a QB with their first round pick. If SF believed in JG enough to trade away ~2.02 for him, then they should've had the confidence to sign him as a FA and not draft a QB with ~1.02. They could've used 2.02 or even waited longer - because if they were signing JG as a FA, the rookie was going to get a year to be groomed.

Look, I'm not trying to claim they gained absolutely nothing from this trade. I'm just saying they paid a HIGH price to make their job easier. The GM and HC should've evaluated JG in the offseason, paid him a Brock-like contract (maybe even a bit higher if they had to), and used the ~1.02 and ~2.02 to fill some of the many holes in their lineup. Instead, they paid a high price to have confidence they've got their guy. Dropping 5-10 spots in the first round should not be scoffed at as the price of doing business. Possibly going from a moderate 2nd contract to a franchise QB contract should not be overlooked either just because they currently have cash. Same thing for throwing away an early 2nd. That's a VALUABLE pick in the NFL. Rookie contracts are the only way to keep yourself under the cap while winning. There's a reason winning teams acquire picks and losing teams are the one trading up. This was a rookie move by a rookie GM and rookie HC.

As I'll mention at the end of this post, proponents of this trade are making a lot of assumptions, too.

11 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

None of that means diddly in comparison to the confidence that they have solved the position.  Every single team in the league would give this up for the free preview and to make sure the position is solved.  And if they don't sign him at all they'll get a 3rd compensatory pick back.  Miniscule investment.

There is zero assurance they "would have won him anyway".  Every team in the league can find room to sign a QB they believe is the guy.  NEP probably would have FT him and then traded him or gotten Brady to take another sweetheart restructure - and they already have plenty of cap space to do it even if Brady says no.

That's just like your opinion, man.

And also a hell of an assumption to follow that opinion.

Following that up, a dumb/incorrect statement about a compensatory pick. The 49ers WILL be signing FAs this offseason. It will offset losing JG, thus no compensatory pick. 

Then claiming gaining a late 3rd vs. losing an early 2nd AND moving down a lot in the 1st round = minuscule investment... well, I'm moving on from this one. Sadly yours was one of the better arguments made and it was pretty laughable.

3 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

I don’t think it’s stupid for @FF Ninja to point out the hidden costs of winning, those posts seemed unnecessary. While there are some flaws to the thinking/assumptions made, the overall point is probably something most people hadn’t thought about. Paying a 2nd and dropping back a bit in the first is a good price to be the sole team negotiating. And if he would have gone out there and petermanned up the place then you get out for that cost. You can’t just assume a team will sign a FA because they want to, it takes 2 to tango. 

On the bolded, one of the points I made early in the thread was that if this offensive system really is that difficult to grasp, could SF really have held it against him if the struggled after coming in mid-season and being thrown to the wolves with a bad defense, bad OL, and bad WR corps? That was one of the reasons I didn't like the trade. Either he looks good and you have to pay more for him OR he struggles and you're left guessing "is he bad or was it the situation?"  There really was no outcome of this trade that would make it a good strategic trade. 

I know lots of people here don't like the assumption that the 49ers could have landed JG as a FA (so this isn't solely a reply to you but you did address it in your next sentence), and I'll concede it wasn't 100%, but the odds were solidly in their favor. The NFL isn't some noob auction league where you see two fools inexplicably bidding up Amari Cooper over what Julio Jones just went for the pick before. These GMs and agents base contracts on previous known prices, kind of like real estate agents looks at recently sold similar houses in the area when putting a house up for sale or negotiating a purchase for a client. GMs would be looking at the Brock and Glennon contracts and JG would be looking to step those contracts up a bit as the cap increases. Despite what people in this thread seem to believe, JG isn't the only QB option on the market (unlike Brock which is why his contract was a relatively huge gap up in FA QB pricing at the time). I don't have time to go through all the scenarios, but for one, the Browns would maybe make a run at JG (we don't know he's a target for them), but if SF went hard, the Browns would almost certainly enter into trade negotiations with the Bengals for McCarron as they already expressed interest in him and Cincy is down to trade him. Cousins, Brees, Bradford, and Bridgewater are some other QB options. I guarantee you JG wasn't the prized target of all 32 GMs. The 49ers could have signed him for less than they are going to pay now. Hell, it was known that they were interested in Cousins beforehand. They could have used that against JG in negotiations if he didn't want to end up with the lowly Browns. But now they've painted themselves in a corner and paid a high price to do it. Sure, it's nice that he's a semi-known commodity after these past few games, but I can't believe people are ignoring the lack of strategy by the rookie GM and HC here.

Finally, I'll add one bit of warning: remember when the Vikings traded for Bradford and they were crushing it in 2016 (5-0) only to fall apart? I'm not saying that's going to happen, just that it could. Everyone seems to be making an assumption after only 4 games that JG is definitely the answer. I'd say the odds of 2018 JG/49ers having a 2016 Bradford/Vikings-esque collapse are about the same as the odds of the 49ers not landing JG as a FA if they hadn't traded for him (spoon fed clarification for Deamon: slim... I'm saying the odds are slim). So while I'm making a relatively safe assumption and getting blasted for it, almost ALL of you are also making a relatively safe assumption but pretending it's not an assumption but a fact. The other assumption is that the 49ers are able to sign him long term after franchising him this year if it comes to that. Another assumption that is safe, but not 100%.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:doh: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That's just like your opinion, man.

And also a hell of an assumption to follow that opinion.

Following that up, a dumb/incorrect statement about a compensatory pick. The 49ers WILL be signing FAs this offseason. It will offset losing JG, thus no compensatory pick. 

Then claiming gaining a late 3rd vs. losing an early 2nd AND moving down a lot in the 1st round = minuscule investment... well, I'm moving on from this one. Sadly yours was one of the better arguments made and it was pretty laughable.

You know what's a dumb/incorrect statement about a compensatory pick?  Saying that just because the 49's sign some FA's that they would lose the comp pick JG would bring.  That's also the 2nd assumption you've made about how the 49'ers will act this offseason.  Typical response though that your opinion is gospel while others' are garbage.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a simple flow chart:

• did the 49ers need a good QB? ——<yes>——-is Jimmy Garapolo a good QB?——-<yes>——-should the 49rs have made the trade at the cost of 10 draft spots? ——-<yes> ———<end>

There are no “no’s on this flowchart @FF Ninja. While I’m not one of the ones making ad hominem attacks, I definitely do understand the concept of dropping 10 spots. I’ve mentioned it several times as have many, many others. 

We fully acknowledge that the 49ers paid a price to acquire Garapolo, and we recognize that the price went up when JimmyG started winning games. It went from a 2.01-03 draft pick to a 2.07-10 draft pick. At the time the 1.01 wasn’t a lock, and there were a lot of games to go. 

So with the complete understanding that the 49ers paid for JimmyG, then paid more in ancilary costs, I (and others) are still saying it’s worth every penny. 

Because there are a slew of positives as a result as well. 

• QB is no longer a concern short term. Warning duly noted, we can cross bridges when we come to them. It’s utterly ridiculous to discuss how Garapolo might or might not perform. What matters is that he’s shown well enough to have confidence that the likely outcome is good enough to not draft a QB in the 1st round. 

• Niners can now draft “best available” or trade down for picks since QB is addressed.

• FA (especially skill positions) will again want to come to SF. Ya think Pierre Garçon is happy Garapolo is in town? Bet your sweet heiny he is.

In summary, in exchange for a mystery player at 2.0x, and the $ they would have paid Garapolo anyway, the 49ers now have their franchise QB.

How many times have he Cleveland Browns been mentioned in this topic? 10 or more? There’s a reason for that.

Some teams squander high pick after high pick Year after year on QBs that don’t pan out in the NFL. Blue chip prospects flame out alllllll the time. 

Whether long term is successful or not, for right now the 49ers are confident that they have a starting QB & that he can be the centerpiece of an offense.  And that is worth losing 3-7 spots in draft position in the 2nd round and more. If the 49ers had started Garapolo 2 weeks earlier & he won 2 more games causing them to pick at 2.12, it would still have been a fantastic trade. 

I appreciate your passion, and much respect for that. But I think you’re way off on this subject. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

You know what's a dumb/incorrect statement about a compensatory pick?  Saying that just because the 49's sign some FA's that they would lose the comp pick JG would bring.  That's also the 2nd assumption you've made about how the 49'ers will act this offseason.  Typical response though that your opinion is gospel while others' are garbage.

Actually, if you read the thread, someone else brought up the compensatory pick and someone else refuted it. I'm just repeating the other person's work.

14 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Here’s a simple flow chart:

• did the 49ers need a good QB? ——<yes>——-is Jimmy Garapolo a good QB?——-<yes>——-should the 49rs have made the trade at the cost of 10 draft spots? ——-<yes> ———<end>

There are no “no’s on this flowchart @FF Ninja. While I’m not one of the ones making ad hominem attacks, I definitely do understand the concept of dropping 10 spots. I’ve mentioned it several times as have many, many others. 

We fully acknowledge that the 49ers paid a price to acquire Garapolo, and we recognize that the price went up when JimmyG started winning games. It went from a 2.01-03 draft pick to a 2.07-10 draft pick. At the time the 1.01 wasn’t a lock, and there were a lot of games to go. 

So with the complete understanding that the 49ers paid for JimmyG, then paid more in ancilary costs, I (and others) are still saying it’s worth every penny. 

Because there are a slew of positives as a result as well. 

• QB is no longer a concern short term. Warning duly noted, we can cross bridges when we come to them. It’s utterly ridiculous to discuss how Garapolo might or might not perform. What matters is that he’s shown well enough to have confidence that the likely outcome is good enough to not draft a QB in the 1st round. 

• Niners can now draft “best available” or trade down for picks since QB is addressed.

• FA (especially skill positions) will again want to come to SF. Ya think Pierre Garçon is happy Garapolo is in town? Bet your sweet heiny he is.

In summary, in exchange for a mystery player at 2.0x, and the $ they would have paid Garapolo anyway, the 49ers now have their franchise QB.

How many times have he Cleveland Browns been mentioned in this topic? 10 or more? There’s a reason for that.

Some teams squander high pick after high pick Year after year on QBs that don’t pan out in the NFL. Blue chip prospects flame out alllllll the time. 

Whether long term is successful or not, for right now the 49ers are confident that they have a starting QB & that he can be the centerpiece of an offense.  And that is worth losing 3-7 spots in draft position in the 2nd round and more. If the 49ers had started Garapolo 2 weeks earlier & he won 2 more games causing them to pick at 2.12, it would still have been a fantastic trade. 

I appreciate your passion, and much respect for that. But I think you’re way off on this subject. 

I know you weren't one of the ones making the ever so clever ad hominem attacks. Didn't mean to ignore you, but didn't have time to get to everything. Evaluating this trade isn't super complicated but it's also not as simple as you want to make it with your flowchart. 

The other positives you listed aren't as strong as you think they are. They were likely going to sign him as a FA anyway, so drafting BPA isn't some sort of new advantage. I think even if they sign him long term, they should still proceed to draft a backup to groom. As for signing FAs... they almost always go where the money goes. They didn't just gain a significant leg up on anyone and there are still plenty of more desirable places for a WR to land.

You said you understood the loss of draft value in moving from 1.02 down 5-10 spots but then ignored it in your summary ;) To your credit, you did mention it later, but it belongs in the summary. That's a HUGE loss of value.

The Browns are mentioned in QB threads just like the Patriots are in mentioned in RB/WR threads. Don't read into it too much. Not every QB is going to Cleveland and not every FA RB/WR is going to the Pats. People in forums are predictable. 

The f*ed up thing is... I'm not even passionate about this at all. I don't really care about JG or the 49ers. This was just such a weird strategic blunder that I'm shocked so many people are overlooking it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with @FF Ninja. I think the Niners gained more than they lost in the deal. The ability to audition Garappolo is invaluable. The rapport that is being built is worth more than the draft position the Niners are losing. The increased price tag to sign him stems from an increased value because he is playing great. Knowing his level of play is worth the extra cash.

However, he is putting a lot of effort and reasoning into his posts. To dismiss as dumb, stupid or stopped reading is what's wrong with the Shark Pool.
I like hearing contrarian thoughts because it makes me question my assumptions and to try to silence the people that do so only leads to a group-think mentality that helps no one.

  • Like 8

Share this post


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

I don't agree with @FF Ninja. I think the Niners gained more than they lost in the deal. The ability to audition Garappolo is invaluable. The rapport that is being built is worth more than the draft position the Niners are losing. The increased price tag to sign him stems from an increased value because he is playing great. Knowing his level of play is worth the extra cash.

However, he is putting a lot of effort and reasoning into his posts. To dismiss as dumb, stupid or stopped reading is what's wrong with the Shark Pool.
I like hearing contrarian thoughts because it makes me question my assumptions and to try to silence the people that do so only leads to a group-think mentality that helps no one.

The niners got a good to maybe one day great franchise QB for a 2nd round pick. As a pats fan... ugh. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ninja, we all understand your arguments.  We just dont agree with your opinions because of the plethera of positives that astoundingly outweigh the negatives.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Finally, I'll add one bit of warning: remember when the Vikings traded for Bradford and they were crushing it in 2016 (5-0) only to fall apart? I'm not saying that's going to happen, just that it could. Everyone seems to be making an assumption after only 4 games that JG is definitely the answer. I'd say the odds of 2018 JG/49ers having a 2016 Bradford/Vikings-esque collapse are about the same as the odds of the 49ers not landing JG as a FA if they hadn't traded for him (spoon fed clarification for Deamon: slim... I'm saying the odds are slim). So while I'm making a relatively safe assumption and getting blasted for it, almost ALL of you are also making a relatively safe assumption but pretending it's not an assumption but a fact. The other assumption is that the 49ers are able to sign him long term after franchising him this year if it comes to that. Another assumption that is safe, but not 100%.

This is not a comparable situation.  The Vikings tanked because they lost their entire offensive line due to injuries.  It didn't matter what QB they had back there.  This is not a good comparison.  If the 49ers/JimmyG collapse in the same way the Vikings/Bradford collapsed then it won't be due to JimmyG.  It would be due to the entire offensive line being injured and having to play guys pulled out of Best Buy to be the starting guard or tackle. 

 

I would reference more of Mariota or Winston who showed solid QB play early and have regressed as teams have acquired tape and have started to figure some things out.  Many of the people here are already anointing Jimmy G as a top QB after 5 games played.  There is a long way for him to continue that ascent and there is no guarantee it happens as other teams start to study his tape and start to scheme for him.  I don't think anyone can state for certainty he is the savior. 

 

Your points have some validity but I think the bulk of the opposition is stating that even with your points the price to pay to getting to see JimmyG and have some team control is well worth it.  I have no idea if Jimmy G will be the answer and be the greatest QB ever (as some seem to believe already) but I do think at this point the trade was definitely worth it to be in the current position they are in.  Will it turn out to be worth it 10 years from now?  Who knows.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gawain said:

I like hearing contrarian thoughts because it makes me question my assumptions and to try to silence the people that do so only leads to a group-think mentality that helps no one.

You are far too reasonable to be in this thread. It's join the circle jerk or GTFO in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a fine trade for both teams.  I see why NE did it.  I wouldnt have, but I get it.  I would have gone into the offseason and figured it out then, but again, i get it.

If BB does decide to stay after Brady is done, I bet he would be able to attract the best available  vet QBs pretty easily.  Say Brady is toast after this year.  You think BB would have trouble recruiting Cousins?  Brees? Anyone?

So the Pats get a good 2nd rounder, probably keep Brady 2-3 more good years, and can sign the best available FA QB if they dont already have a groomed QB on the roster.

The 49ers just got what appears to be a legit QB for peanuts compared to what a franchise QB generally costs, and more than likely are now able to attract better FAs and have a great shot at the playoffs NEXT year.  

Right now, i say good deal for both teams.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

If BB does decide to stay after Brady is done, I bet he would be able to attract the best available  vet QBs pretty easily.  Say Brady is toast after this year.  You think BB would have trouble recruiting Cousins?  Brees? Anyone?

This is a very good point that I have not seen mentioned before this. I agree with it, and it makes the deal better for NE, since it implies reduced long term risk at the QB position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is not a comparable situation.  The Vikings tanked because they lost their entire offensive line due to injuries.  It didn't matter what QB they had back there.  This is not a good comparison.  If the 49ers/JimmyG collapse in the same way the Vikings/Bradford collapsed then it won't be due to JimmyG.  It would be due to the entire offensive line being injured and having to play guys pulled out of Best Buy to be the starting guard or tackle. 

I would reference more of Mariota or Winston who showed solid QB play early and have regressed as teams have acquired tape and have started to figure some things out.  Many of the people here are already anointing Jimmy G as a top QB after 5 games played.  There is a long way for him to continue that ascent and there is no guarantee it happens as other teams start to study his tape and start to scheme for him.  I don't think anyone can state for certainty he is the savior. 

Your points have some validity but I think the bulk of the opposition is stating that even with your points the price to pay to getting to see JimmyG and have some team control is well worth it.  I have no idea if Jimmy G will be the answer and be the greatest QB ever (as some seem to believe already) but I do think at this point the trade was definitely worth it to be in the current position they are in.  Will it turn out to be worth it 10 years from now?  Who knows.....

I realize it is possible to nit pick some differences between any comparison, but I'm glad you got the point. 4-5 good games does not mean JG is 100% certain to be a franchise QB. The odds are good that he's a good fit, but it's still an assumption. Same as assuming the 49ers could've signed JG as a FA if they didn't trade for him. The odds were good, but not 100%.

As I've stated, they definitely gained something from the trade. I just think the price they paid is being way undervalued. Moving back 5-10 spots at the top of the draft and losing an early 2nd are massive losses of draft capital. Signing someone to an "unknown prospect" 2nd contract vs. a franchise QB contract is also going to hurt them long term (granted we need to see how the numbers play out before we can define just how much that aspect hurt them).

The 49ers are a rebuilding team. Nobody is reasonably expecting them to win a championship next year. Would it really have held them back as a franchise to sign JG as a FA and see what they've got in him next year? The end result was going to be the same. They should be drafting a backup QB next year regardless if they signed him as a FA or followed the current path.

I think we all need to take a step back and realize there's a reason good teams don't throw around draft capital like the 49ers just did. Sure, they've got a lot of draft picks and a lot of cap space... right now. But recall the old phrase, "a fool and his money are soon parted."

This was not a forward thinking trade. This was a desperate trade from an 0-8 (?) team by a rookie GM and rookie HC. They paid a high price to make their 2018 job easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great trade for the 9ers. Bears should've sent NE their first last year for him. Kind of surprised NE settled on a 2nd after holding firm all off season for a first. Still don't really understand it from the Pats perspective after investing a second on him to begin with and coaching him up for 3 years. Even if he's never an elite QB, I suspect he'll be at least as good as Trubisky could ever be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FF Ninja said:
  1. As for the second assumption - you are right. We don't know they would have been able to outbid the Browns, but c'mon. SF wasn't looking rosy, but it sure looked better than Cleveland if it came down to a tie. And it's not like even the Browns and 49ers were going to get into some crazy bidding war where they pay an uknown a Stafford-esque contract. It is definitely an assumption that they would've been able to sign him, but one of the safest there is. Let's wait until we see his final contract and then try to tell me they couldn't have signed him for that or less as a free agent even with competition from the Browns. 

It wasn't just the Browns and the 'Niners that would have been bidding for his services, I can count more than 10 teams that could have some interest in going after a FA QB this offseason: SF, Cleveland, NYJ, Jax, Denver, Miami, Minnesota, Washington, Buffalo, NYG, Pitts (if Ben retires), Indy (if Luck is finished), Arizona...

Maybe all of those teams wouldn't be serious players fort Jimmy G and admittedly in some cases (Wash, NYG, Minn) those teams being players for Jimmy G puts another QB on the market - but the point is there could easily have been a bidding war.

Would you rather pay $24MM for a QB that won you your last five games and looks like a franchise QB or $18MM on the next Brock Osweiler (i.e. an unknown)?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Great trade for the 9ers. Bears should've sent NE their first last year for him. Kind of surprised NE settled on a 2nd after holding firm all off season for a first. Still don't really understand it from the Pats perspective after investing a second on him to begin with and coaching him up for 3 years. Even if he's never an elite QB, I suspect he'll be at least as good as Trubisky could ever be.

I wonder if BB has decided that he will continue as long as Brady continues and will retire once Brady does.  If that is the case, he could think that Brady has 1 or 2 more years and JimmyG won't get a shot to play so by moving him for a pick he could get a piece that will be more short term benefit.  It's not the best way to go for the franchise as a whole but may be a better short term acquisition.  Couple that with JimmyG being a free agent and probably realizing they won't resign him anyway he might as well get something.

Share this post


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

Everyone seems to be making an assumption after only 4 games that JG is definitely the answer. I'd say the odds of 2018 JG/49ers having a 2016 Bradford/Vikings-esque collapse are about the same as the odds of the 49ers not landing JG as a FA if they hadn't traded for him (spoon fed clarification for Deamon: slim... I'm saying the odds are slim). So while I'm making a relatively safe assumption and getting blasted for it, almost ALL of you are also making a relatively safe assumption but pretending it's not an assumption but a fact. The other assumption is that the 49ers are able to sign him long term after franchising him this year if it comes to that. Another assumption that is safe, but not 100%.

It's certainly true that Garropolo is guaranteed nothing in 2018 - but we're talking about mitigating risk. It's far safer to assume he's a near franchise level QB after seeing him in NE and SF then if we just saw him in NE. I'd rather pay $25-28MM for Garropolo now than $18-21MM that a team probably would have had to if he stayed in NE as the backup.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Stopped reading at that point.

Didn't you read earlier when he said he has a higher IQ than most people in this thread so he is much smarter than everyone?  :lmao:

Share this post


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

It wasn't just the Browns and the 'Niners that would have been bidding for his services, I can count more than 10 teams that could have some interest in going after a FA QB this offseason: SF, Cleveland, NYJ, Jax, Denver, Miami, Minnesota, Washington, Buffalo, NYG, Pitts (if Ben retires), Indy (if Luck is finished), Arizona...

Maybe all of those teams wouldn't be serious players fort Jimmy G and admittedly in some cases (Wash, NYG, Minn) those teams being players for Jimmy G puts another QB on the market - but the point is there could easily have been a bidding war.

Would you rather pay $24MM for a QB that won you your last five games and looks like a franchise QB or $18MM on the next Brock Osweiler (i.e. an unknown)?

If SF is sitting on a bunch of cash and with a stronger need than most of those teams, why even mention them? Minnesota doesn't belong there. They are almost certainly going to roll with at least one, probably two of TB, Bradford, and Keenum next year. Odds are good Ben and Luck will be back next year... or at least good enough that those teams won't be throwing a big contract at JG. There are only three realistic high bidders: 49ers, Browns, and Jets (https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/). And would it be the end of the world if they ended up with Cousins instead of JG if, by some outside chance, they got outbid for JG? I'm not a Cousins fan but Shanahan really seems to like him.

But the point I was trying to make was that even if there was a bidding war, there's no way it would've approached what his contract will be now.

Given their situation, I think it would be prudent to risk the $18M on the next Brock and keep your draft capital. If he sucks, hopefully you took a shot on a QB or two in the middle rounds to groom (or drafted one with the 2.02 - and that guy, if JG pans out, might be able to net you a trade in a few years - like JG did the pats - after he's filled in as a cheap backup for a while... despite how easy it is to overlook, backup QB can be critically important). Losing all that draft capital and potentially spending top dollar on QB for the next 4 years hurts their future. That's not an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cute to see the two kids eating dirt in the sandbox at recess are bonding together in this thread over their hate for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best part of the trade from the 49ers side is that they had an option on JG -- they didn't have to lock him up with a big contract until after they knew what they had.  Either through the moonshot ending to 2017 that's actually happening, or by playing a year under the tag in 2018.

But yeah.  Any time you lock up a franchise QB for a pick in the 40s you've won.  Teams are willing to give multiple firsts to get that.  The outside chance they could have done better isn't worth thinking about IMO.  They got their guy, and they've found out what they needed to know to feel comfortable paying the guy.  Given what three years under the tag is worth (Cousins would end up with $78MM) I'd expect a deal to come in at like 4 years, $100MM with a huge chunk guaranteed.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JG and pick 10

Or

Some rookie QB at 3 and a player at 35 with an outside shot at landing JG in FA

Knowing what we know now, arguing the second option is plain silly.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

There are a lot of unintelligent replies I don't want to waste my time on, like someone not even being able to grasp how they could move down 10 spots. If that simple concept can't be understood, I'm not surprised the rest of my post is confusing. I'll save time and let ESPN explain it:

 

  1. You can't seriously tell me that he didn't gain massive contract negotiation leverage with his play the past few weeks. I admittedly haven't seen it with my own eyes or even read much about it, but the wins and the stats alone will sky rocket his value compared to where it was when he was a total unknown. The franchise tag is a nice fail safe option, but it isn't really "leverage" because $23.5M is a metric ****-ton of guaranteed money for 1 year. This dude went from getting an "unknown with upside" 4-year deal to possibly getting paid like a franchise QB.
  2. As for the second assumption - you are right. We don't know they would have been able to outbid the Browns, but c'mon. SF wasn't looking rosy, but it sure looked better than Cleveland if it came down to a tie. And it's not like even the Browns and 49ers were going to get into some crazy bidding war where they pay an uknown a Stafford-esque contract. It is definitely an assumption that they would've been able to sign him, but one of the safest there is. Let's wait until we see his final contract and then try to tell me they couldn't have signed him for that or less as a free agent even with competition from the Browns. 
  3. I never said they HAD to draft a QB with their first round pick. If SF believed in JG enough to trade away ~2.02 for him, then they should've had the confidence to sign him as a FA and not draft a QB with ~1.02. They could've used 2.02 or even waited longer - because if they were signing JG as a FA, the rookie was going to get a year to be groomed.

Look, I'm not trying to claim they gained absolutely nothing from this trade. I'm just saying they paid a HIGH price to make their job easier. The GM and HC should've evaluated JG in the offseason, paid him a Brock-like contract (maybe even a bit higher if they had to), and used the ~1.02 and ~2.02 to fill some of the many holes in their lineup. Instead, they paid a high price to have confidence they've got their guy. Dropping 5-10 spots in the first round should not be scoffed at as the price of doing business. Possibly going from a moderate 2nd contract to a franchise QB contract should not be overlooked either just because they currently have cash. Same thing for throwing away an early 2nd. That's a VALUABLE pick in the NFL. Rookie contracts are the only way to keep yourself under the cap while winning. There's a reason winning teams acquire picks and losing teams are the one trading up. This was a rookie move by a rookie GM and rookie HC.

As I'll mention at the end of this post, proponents of this trade are making a lot of assumptions, too.

That's just like your opinion, man.

And also a hell of an assumption to follow that opinion.

Following that up, a dumb/incorrect statement about a compensatory pick. The 49ers WILL be signing FAs this offseason. It will offset losing JG, thus no compensatory pick. 

Then claiming gaining a late 3rd vs. losing an early 2nd AND moving down a lot in the 1st round = minuscule investment... well, I'm moving on from this one. Sadly yours was one of the better arguments made and it was pretty laughable.

On the bolded, one of the points I made early in the thread was that if this offensive system really is that difficult to grasp, could SF really have held it against him if the struggled after coming in mid-season and being thrown to the wolves with a bad defense, bad OL, and bad WR corps? That was one of the reasons I didn't like the trade. Either he looks good and you have to pay more for him OR he struggles and you're left guessing "is he bad or was it the situation?"  There really was no outcome of this trade that would make it a good strategic trade. 

I know lots of people here don't like the assumption that the 49ers could have landed JG as a FA (so this isn't solely a reply to you but you did address it in your next sentence), and I'll concede it wasn't 100%, but the odds were solidly in their favor. The NFL isn't some noob auction league where you see two fools inexplicably bidding up Amari Cooper over what Julio Jones just went for the pick before. These GMs and agents base contracts on previous known prices, kind of like real estate agents looks at recently sold similar houses in the area when putting a house up for sale or negotiating a purchase for a client. GMs would be looking at the Brock and Glennon contracts and JG would be looking to step those contracts up a bit as the cap increases. Despite what people in this thread seem to believe, JG isn't the only QB option on the market (unlike Brock which is why his contract was a relatively huge gap up in FA QB pricing at the time). I don't have time to go through all the scenarios, but for one, the Browns would maybe make a run at JG (we don't know he's a target for them), but if SF went hard, the Browns would almost certainly enter into trade negotiations with the Bengals for McCarron as they already expressed interest in him and Cincy is down to trade him. Cousins, Brees, Bradford, and Bridgewater are some other QB options. I guarantee you JG wasn't the prized target of all 32 GMs. The 49ers could have signed him for less than they are going to pay now. Hell, it was known that they were interested in Cousins beforehand. They could have used that against JG in negotiations if he didn't want to end up with the lowly Browns. But now they've painted themselves in a corner and paid a high price to do it. Sure, it's nice that he's a semi-known commodity after these past few games, but I can't believe people are ignoring the lack of strategy by the rookie GM and HC here.

Finally, I'll add one bit of warning: remember when the Vikings traded for Bradford and they were crushing it in 2016 (5-0) only to fall apart? I'm not saying that's going to happen, just that it could. Everyone seems to be making an assumption after only 4 games that JG is definitely the answer. I'd say the odds of 2018 JG/49ers having a 2016 Bradford/Vikings-esque collapse are about the same as the odds of the 49ers not landing JG as a FA if they hadn't traded for him (spoon fed clarification for Deamon: slim... I'm saying the odds are slim). So while I'm making a relatively safe assumption and getting blasted for it, almost ALL of you are also making a relatively safe assumption but pretending it's not an assumption but a fact. The other assumption is that the 49ers are able to sign him long term after franchising him this year if it comes to that. Another assumption that is safe, but not 100%.

Too many completely inept/arrogant things in this post to hit them all. 

1.  "one of the safest assumptions out there is that Jimmy would choose SF over the other 10 teams that would likely be trying to sign him" is laughable.  Again you seem to act like you know where he'd go.  You bring up only ONE team in your comparisons and that's a team that no one in their right mind would want to go.  Yes SF would win over Cleveland... but I doubt over all the other teams.  Unlikely SF signs him this offseason.

2.  Stop saying 10 spots.  They likely would have picked 3rd without Jimmy playing.  Now they will likely pick 9/10.  That is not 10 spots.  10 spots is actually mathematically impossible for them at this point, yet you saying "8-12" spots, or "10 spots" over and over doesn't make it any more possible.  It just makes your exaggerations and loaded way of explaining things even less relevant.  But again, I guess your high IQ somehow makes the 10 spot drop a possibility when it's not?  Would you like to prove me your point with numbers that they'd be moving down up to 12 spots?  I'm listening.  (assuming you'll ignore that point because you can't defend it)

3.  You love to bash people for making assumptions but you are making more in here than anyone else.  And almost everyone in here has called you out on it and you run and hide from it.  You seem to have the most selective hearing possible, or admitting you are wrong is something you aren't able to fully handle.  Either way, it's pretty pathetic.  Your assumptions are far more unlikely than anyone else's.  You have given the other side almost no out in terms of being correct.  Best case he comes in and lights it up and they sign him long term.... that looks like it may happen but you are still arguing against it. 

Jimmy is staying in San Fran.  It looks like he is happy and thriving and bringing excitement to the organization again.  This was an absolute BEST case scenario for the 49ers.  You are ignoring people's good points about being able to now sign FA's better, the drop not being as big as your exaggeration, the Franchising possibility, etc.  You are making some of the trolls in these threads look like saints.  At least try to sound somewhat competent with your replies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Actually, if you read the thread, someone else brought up the compensatory pick and someone else refuted it. I'm just repeating the other person's work.

I know you weren't one of the ones making the ever so clever ad hominem attacks. Didn't mean to ignore you, but didn't have time to get to everything. Evaluating this trade isn't super complicated but it's also not as simple as you want to make it with your flowchart. 

The other positives you listed aren't as strong as you think they are. They were likely going to sign him as a FA anyway, so drafting BPA isn't some sort of new advantage. I think even if they sign him long term, they should still proceed to draft a backup to groom. As for signing FAs... they almost always go where the money goes. They didn't just gain a significant leg up on anyone and there are still plenty of more desirable places for a WR to land.

You said you understood the loss of draft value in moving from 1.02 down 5-10 spots but then ignored it in your summary ;) To your credit, you did mention it later, but it belongs in the summary. That's a HUGE loss of value.

The Browns are mentioned in QB threads just like the Patriots are in mentioned in RB/WR threads. Don't read into it too much. Not every QB is going to Cleveland and not every FA RB/WR is going to the Pats. People in forums are predictable. 

The f*ed up thing is... I'm not even passionate about this at all. I don't really care about JG or the 49ers. This was just such a weird strategic blunder that I'm shocked so many people are overlooking it.

Wrong, odds were against them.
Wrong, many lately are going to teams with better situations.
Wrong, 1.02 likely wasn't even their pick.
Maybe you should self-reflect a little bit that maybe it's you that is off and not every other person being wrong.

Share this post


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

If SF is sitting on a bunch of cash and with a stronger need than most of those teams, why even mention them? Minnesota doesn't belong there. They are almost certainly going to roll with at least one, probably two of TB, Bradford, and Keenum next year. Odds are good Ben and Luck will be back next year... or at least good enough that those teams won't be throwing a big contract at JG. There are only three realistic high bidders: 49ers, Browns, and Jets (https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/). And would it be the end of the world if they ended up with Cousins instead of JG if, by some outside chance, they got outbid for JG? I'm not a Cousins fan but Shanahan really seems to like him.

But the point I was trying to make was that even if there was a bidding war, there's no way it would've approached what his contract will be now.

Given their situation, I think it would be prudent to risk the $18M on the next Brock and keep your draft capital. If he sucks, hopefully you took a shot on a QB or two in the middle rounds to groom (or drafted one with the 2.02 - and that guy, if JG pans out, might be able to net you a trade in a few years - like JG did the pats - after he's filled in as a cheap backup for a while... despite how easy it is to overlook, backup QB can be critically important). Losing all that draft capital and potentially spending top dollar on QB for the next 4 years hurts their future. That's not an opinion.

I really think you’re downplaying the value of locking in a franchise QB. You’re also kind of contradicting yourself by bringing up how much cap room SF has but then also saying how they will get him “discounted” without him having had his audition. If they wanted to make sure they “won” his services over other more established teams they would have needed to pay up.

The bottom line is the positives always outweighed the negatives and it played out even more so in reality - yet you’ve dug in your heels and can’t admit that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong.

it happens.

Edited by Dr. Octopus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

I think it was a fine trade for both teams.  I see why NE did it.  I wouldnt have, but I get it.  I would have gone into the offseason and figured it out then, but again, i get it.

If BB does decide to stay after Brady is done, I bet he would be able to attract the best available  vet QBs pretty easily.  Say Brady is toast after this year.  You think BB would have trouble recruiting Cousins?  Brees? Anyone?

So the Pats get a good 2nd rounder, probably keep Brady 2-3 more good years, and can sign the best available FA QB if they dont already have a groomed QB on the roster.

The 49ers just got what appears to be a legit QB for peanuts compared to what a franchise QB generally costs, and more than likely are now able to attract better FAs and have a great shot at the playoffs NEXT year.  

Right now, i say good deal for both teams.

New England had no choice really.  Can't spend 50 mil a year on QBs.  I mean, I guess they could have traded Tom, but that would have just been unthinkable.  They were stuck between a rock and a hard place there.  Not that hard of a place though, Tom is still great. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I realize it is possible to nit pick some differences between any comparison, but I'm glad you got the point. 4-5 good games does not mean JG is 100% certain to be a franchise QB. The odds are good that he's a good fit, but it's still an assumption. Same as assuming the 49ers could've signed JG as a FA if they didn't trade for him. The odds were good, but not 100%.

As I've stated, they definitely gained something from the trade. I just think the price they paid is being way undervalued. Moving back 5-10 spots at the top of the draft and losing an early 2nd are massive losses of draft capital. Signing someone to an "unknown prospect" 2nd contract vs. a franchise QB contract is also going to hurt them long term (granted we need to see how the numbers play out before we can define just how much that aspect hurt them).

The 49ers are a rebuilding team. Nobody is reasonably expecting them to win a championship next year. Would it really have held them back as a franchise to sign JG as a FA and see what they've got in him next year? The end result was going to be the same. They should be drafting a backup QB next year regardless if they signed him as a FA or followed the current path.

I think we all need to take a step back and realize there's a reason good teams don't throw around draft capital like the 49ers just did. Sure, they've got a lot of draft picks and a lot of cap space... right now. But recall the old phrase, "a fool and his money are soon parted."

This was not a forward thinking trade. This was a desperate trade from an 0-8 (?) team by a rookie GM and rookie HC. They paid a high price to make their 2018 job easier.

It can't be 10 spots.

Like the Rams and Eagles?  Where would those franchises be if they hadn't done that?

This was one of the most forward thinking trades in recent memory.  It was thinking ahead to not having to go through a bidding war with 10 other teams, having draft flexibility come April to not have to draft QB, Not possibly wasting millions of future cap money on a guy that might suck/not be a fit for years to come, etc.  This move was as forward thinking as it comes.


 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It wasn't just the Browns and the 'Niners that would have been bidding for his services, I can count more than 10 teams that could have some interest in going after a FA QB this offseason: SF, Cleveland, NYJ, Jax, Denver, Miami, Minnesota, Washington, Buffalo, NYG, Pitts (if Ben retires), Indy (if Luck is finished), Arizona...

Maybe all of those teams wouldn't be serious players fort Jimmy G and admittedly in some cases (Wash, NYG, Minn) those teams being players for Jimmy G puts another QB on the market - but the point is there could easily have been a bidding war.

Would you rather pay $24MM for a QB that won you your last five games and looks like a franchise QB or $18MM on the next Brock Osweiler (i.e. an unknown)?

 

Not sure why a 1 in 10 shot somehow is one of the 'safest assumption" out there.  I agree SF had a better chance than a lot of those teams, but tell me I have to bet my house on SF or 'the field" had this trade not gone down and I take the field.  24 vs 18 is irrelevant if it's the difference between a franchise guy or even a 10% chance he turns into Brock.

Share this post


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

It's cute to see the two kids eating dirt in the sandbox at recess are bonding together in this thread over their hate for me.

You mean 10 kids?  And one spoiled one that can't admit when he's made a mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t realize that a 4 game sample size was enough to anoint a guy a franchise QB/player. 

FF Ninja may be throwing around a lot of assumptions here but the true believers are doing the same here as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with draft position is a non starter as any team coming out of a bad run of years will trade draft position for season ticket sales and JG is delivering the goods on local excitement for the team.  People here may value early picks over ticket sales, but there isn't a single GM or owner who would agree.  As to what niners will need to pay JG, they are so far under the cap that it doesn't matter.  They are going to have to overpay veterans anyway to get to the cap floor.  JG's contract, even if it's a franchise tag, will mean almost nothing to the bottom line for the niners or even in how much they'll spend in FA.  I remember OAK having huge amounts of cap space early in McKenzie's tenure as GM and him getting a lot of heat in doling out big contracts to vets but he had to do that to avoid the cap floor.  As far as being able to get JG in FA, I don't think they would have had the chance.  I expected NE to franchise and trade JG much like they did Cassell.  And that would put the niners in a bidding war with other teams.  In that scenario, neither JG or SF has the cards.  NE does.  I actually think NE made a huge mistake in trading him when they did. 

In hindsight, this is a spectacular deal for the niners.  They've addressed the biggest need on their team by getting a franchise QB, generated serious excitement for the team heading into 2018, and alleviated cap floor concerns.   They can focus scouting efforts on other needs, arrange the FA board priorities earlier, and more.  I don't see how a second round pick is anywhere near a bad deal for them. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jeaton6 said:

I didn’t realize that a 4 game sample size was enough to anoint a guy a franchise QB/player. 

FF Ninja may be throwing around a lot of assumptions here but the true believers are doing the same here as well. 

So which rookie QBs that would have been available at 3 are you taking over JG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jeaton6 said:

I didn’t realize that a 4 game sample size was enough to anoint a guy a franchise QB/player. 

FF Ninja may be throwing around a lot of assumptions here but the true believers are doing the same here as well. 

I haven't seen anyone do what he's done in the last four games since at least Garcia.  JG is legit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jeaton6 said:

I didn’t realize that a 4 game sample size was enough to anoint a guy a franchise QB/player. 

FF Ninja may be throwing around a lot of assumptions here but the true believers are doing the same here as well. 

It's a small sample size, but this guy doesn't carry near the risk that a rookie qb coming out of college does.  Jimmy has been in the league a while, and has played extremely well.  No I don't think he's automatically some top 5 QB... we don't know that yet.  But from both stats and more importantly, the eye test, he has shown an ability to be this teams franchise QB and lead the team.  His leadership and accuracy turned an awful team into a good one, in just 4 games.  I don't think there's much question that he's their guy for the next 4+ years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could block this thread. Or not open it. Its such a train wreck I cant resist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

So which rookie QBs that would have been available at 3 are you taking over JG?

This is another thing that keeps being ignored.  San Fran most LIKELY would be picking at #3.  Not #2, and definitely not #1 (I see Ninja has finally dropped the "1st or 2nd pick" wording since being called out on it, but is still calling it the '1.02".  I think the two pac qbs are going to go 1-2.  A QB at 3 would be a reach if that was the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like saying my car broke down and I have no way to work. I could buy the new car now, but if I wait 45 days to buy the car it will be 1500 dollars if it is still on the lot. 

 

Edit: you have no idea if the 49ers were the favorite to land him, get out of here with that. 

Edited by msudaisy26

Share this post


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

It's cute to see the two kids eating dirt in the sandbox at recess are bonding together in this thread over their hate for me.

How can you even see us through the window you have been licking for the last 2 hours?

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.