Jimmy Garoppolo-QB-EIU

I just want a pro style qb and a coach to match

Originally posted by dmax:
I just want a pro style qb and a coach to match

What exactly does that mean? Christian Hackenberg played in a pro style offense...how's he doing?

Guys don't need to play in a pro style offense to be good NFL QBs long term. Sure a guy coming in from a pro style system should be able to grasp an NFL offense quicker but it should not be the #1 requirement.

As long as the QB has shown ability to read defenses, lead his team no matter what play is called, not crumble under the pressure of the game or pressure from the defense and is accurate with ability to make NFL throws and isn't a total dumbass...that'll be good enough.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9ersLiferInChicago:
Fine, fare enough.

But I have to say that you are plain wrong to suggest that I'm basing my opinion based on him coming from NE. I site other, more important factors, but like I said, fair enough.

. . . we can get a QB that's devloped and ready to roll for a 2nd rd pick.

That, my friend, is - respectfully - simply unrealistic. And I suspect that what's driving that thinking is the desire to get Garrett. Even Joe Montana and Tom Brady needed development. Every QB coming out of college needs to be developed for the pro game, especially these days with the spread check-with-me offenses infecting the college game. Not every QB is Andrew Luck, and those type of QB's come along about once every 20 years, and you damn sure won't get them in the 2nd round.

I mean what else are you basing you idea on? You said he's not a fit for this system how so? Your argument is mainly based around the fact that a backup qb in NE didn't turn out good so he can't...I mean if I'm wrong then explain it a little better

I know we most likely don't get Myles, I've accepted that...but I will take Jimmy g with my 2nd rd pick vs a top 2 pick on a qb...I know qbs have to be developed what do you think he's been doing for 3 yrs behind Brady in NE?? He's more developed then any qb coming out of this draft and most qbs in college football nowadays.

we'd have a leg up on a kid that's matured and learned from one of the best qb in NFL history...we can then go BPA or trade down in the first which everyone in here seems to have a hard on over doing anyway lol.

If we can't get a trade done then go after one of the two qbs. This just gives us a more pro-ready qb and more options at the top.

Most of the value Garapollo offers is based on his ability to come in and be a starting QB right away. He doesn't offer a tremendously high ceiling compared to some of these draft prospects. You're paying for and giving up draft picks for a guy who can make you better right away. We're 3-4 years away from being a competitive playoff team, so I'd much rather take a QB who can grow with the team.

Garapollo will likely be a much better player in 2017 than many of these rookies since there isn't an Andrew Luck type prospect available. Why does that factor into the equation at all for the 49ers? We may actually be better off losing a bunch of games in 2017 too as opposed to going 6-10 because we added a mediocre starting QB.

If Garrett is available at 2, I'd rather draft him and either trade up for a QB in the ~10-20 range (Kizer/Watson), pick a 2nd-3rd round QB we can develop (Mahomes, Rudolph, Falk), or wait until 2017 to address the QB position. In no scenario do I want Garoppolo even if we could get him for a 3rd round pick. We're going nowhere in the next 4 years with an average starting QB which is what I expect Garoppolo to be (and what will cost $18+ million a year starting in 2018).

All we'd be doing is hurting our draft position for the next 2 years, giving up a 2nd round pick this year, and paying Garopollo $55 million over the next 4 years ($900K in 2017, starting QB money over the following 3 years) as opposed to paying the #2 overall pick $27 million over 4 years or a 2nd round pick $7 million over 4 years. Garopollo makes more sense for a team that could go far in the playoffs with an average NFL starting QB (Broncos, possibly Cardinals, another contender that loses a starting QB in the offseason).

Why not hire McDaniels and then, if McDaniels loves him, pull the trigger?

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Most of the value Garapollo offers is based on his ability to come in and be a starting QB right away. He doesn't offer a tremendously high ceiling compared to some of these draft prospects. You're paying for and giving up draft picks for a guy who can make you better right away. We're 3-4 years away from being a competitive playoff team, so I'd much rather take a QB who can grow with the team.

Garapollo will likely be a much better player in 2017 than many of these rookies since there isn't an Andrew Luck type prospect available. Why does that factor into the equation at all for the 49ers? We may actually be better off losing a bunch of games in 2017 too as opposed to going 6-10 because we added a mediocre starting QB.

If Garrett is available at 2, I'd rather draft him and either trade up for a QB in the ~10-20 range (Kizer/Watson), pick a 2nd-3rd round QB we can develop (Mahomes, Rudolph, Falk), or wait until 2017 to address the QB position. In no scenario do I want Garoppolo even if we could get him for a 3rd round pick. We're going nowhere in the next 4 years with an average starting QB which is what I expect Garoppolo to be (and what will cost $18+ million a year starting in 2018).

All we'd be doing is hurting our draft position for the next 2 years, giving up a 2nd round pick this year, and paying Garopollo $55 million over the next 4 years ($900K in 2017, starting QB money over the following 3 years) as opposed to paying the #2 overall pick $27 million over 4 years or a 2nd round pick $7 million over 4 years. Garopollo makes more sense for a team that could go far in the playoffs with an average NFL starting QB (Broncos, possibly Cardinals, another contender that loses a starting QB in the offseason).

I disagree with this. If you have a franchise QB you aren't 3-4 years away from being competitive. You're competitive instantly and for the next decade.

Is he a franchise QB? No idea. But I think he will be more successful in the NFL than any QB in this draft. If you're going to spend a 2nd or 3rd on a QB, you're better off spending it on Garappolo.

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:
Most of the value Garapollo offers is based on his ability to come in and be a starting QB right away. He doesn't offer a tremendously high ceiling compared to some of these draft prospects. You're paying for and giving up draft picks for a guy who can make you better right away. We're 3-4 years away from being a competitive playoff team, so I'd much rather take a QB who can grow with the team.

Garapollo will likely be a much better player in 2017 than many of these rookies since there isn't an Andrew Luck type prospect available. Why does that factor into the equation at all for the 49ers? We may actually be better off losing a bunch of games in 2017 too as opposed to going 6-10 because we added a mediocre starting QB.

If Garrett is available at 2, I'd rather draft him and either trade up for a QB in the ~10-20 range (Kizer/Watson), pick a 2nd-3rd round QB we can develop (Mahomes, Rudolph, Falk), or wait until 2017 to address the QB position. In no scenario do I want Garoppolo even if we could get him for a 3rd round pick. We're going nowhere in the next 4 years with an average starting QB which is what I expect Garoppolo to be (and what will cost $18+ million a year starting in 2018).

All we'd be doing is hurting our draft position for the next 2 years, giving up a 2nd round pick this year, and paying Garopollo $55 million over the next 4 years ($900K in 2017, starting QB money over the following 3 years) as opposed to paying the #2 overall pick $27 million over 4 years or a 2nd round pick $7 million over 4 years. Garopollo makes more sense for a team that could go far in the playoffs with an average NFL starting QB (Broncos, possibly Cardinals, another contender that loses a starting QB in the offseason).

I disagree with this. If you have a franchise QB you aren't 3-4 years away from being competitive. You're competitive instantly and for the next decade.

Is he a franchise QB? No idea. But I think he will be more successful in the NFL than any QB in this draft. If you're going to spend a 2nd or 3rd on a QB, you're better off spending it on Garappolo.

We are going absolutely nowhere with an average NFL starter over the next 3-4 years. With an average QB, our offense is still average at best and our defense is one of the worst in the league right now.

We could have a franchise QB and still miss the playoffs with the lack of talent we have on offense and defense.

In my opinion, Garapollo has a higher floor than any of the QBs in the draft. He's good enough to be a starter already. I don't think he has a better shot at being a top 5 QB in the league than Kizer or Trubisky which is what it would take for us to be a competitive playoff team in the near future. Garopollo would make a ton of sense for the Broncos if they aren't sold on Paxton Lynch. He doesn't make a lot of sense for the 49ers or Browns.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by 9moon:
but if you have the As of Spade on your hand, would you not be asking for a lot as well if you were the PATRIOTS??

So let them ask for a lot, doesn't mean that they will get it.


How much did they get for Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins, two premier proven players? A late 2nd rounder and a compensatory 3rd round pick for Pro Bowl caliber players.

WOULD YOU give anything MORE than a 2nd and a 3rd rounder Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins??????

... and do you still CARE BOUT pro bowlers????

do not argue w/them Patriots.. they are running the show at the moment.. they know a 2nd rounder and a conditional 3rd rounder is better than releasing the two players they would NOT rather sign TOP DOLLARS..

they know better that those two weak minded fools would not be inspired enough to be where they at and that the performance will well below expectation..

did you not learn and see that when we signed TULA BANTA CAIN ???

Originally posted by midrdan:

Why not hire McDaniels and then, if McDaniels loves him, pull the trigger?

I think this is a realistic option. NE is so successful because they run such an excellent scheme. Regardless of who is at QB, the offense works. McDaniels has a great grasp of what works in the NFL. He needs an experienced DC to handle the other side of the ball and I think we could have a quick turnaround.

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by midrdan:
Why not hire McDaniels and then, if McDaniels loves him, pull the trigger?

I think this is a realistic option. NE is so successful because they run such an excellent scheme. Regardless of who is at QB, the offense works. McDaniels has a great grasp of what works in the NFL. He needs an experienced DC to handle the other side of the ball and I think we could have a quick turnaround.

Why would McDaniels risk his reputation to come here? He'd be a candidate for much better head coaching jobs.

Originally posted by midrdan:

Why not hire McDaniels and then, if McDaniels loves him, pull the trigger?

Not that easy....pretty sure he declined any interest from us last few seasons.

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by midrdan:
Why not hire McDaniels and then, if McDaniels loves him, pull the trigger?

I think this is a realistic option. NE is so successful because they run such an excellent scheme. Regardless of who is at QB, the offense works. McDaniels has a great grasp of what works in the NFL. He needs an experienced DC to handle the other side of the ball and I think we could have a quick turnaround.

Why would McDaniels risk his reputation to come here? He'd be a candidate for much better head coaching jobs.

His reputation? The reputation he has as a head coach along with being an OC outside of being at NE stinks.

And regarding your previous points I don't think you understand the value of draft picks in general. Giving up a high second round pick AND having to pay a salary that is potentially triple of what a draft pick would get is a lot of value. While you may think that Trubisky and Kizer may have more upside than Jimmy Garoppolo there is really no evidence of that being the case. The fact that Garoppolo has started games in the NFL, has won those games, and has looked like a potential franchise QB demonstrates to me that the upside is there.

Yet somehow Trubisky's one year of starting and Deshone's mediocre play, all while having to "give up" a top 2 pick is more enticing to you. Give me Jimmy Garoppolo for a second or Deshaun Watson maybe with a trade down instead.

Originally posted by midrdan:
Why not hire McDaniels and then, if McDaniels loves him, pull the trigger?

That's the only way I think it would work.

Originally posted by Ninerfan84:

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by midrdan:
Why not hire McDaniels and then, if McDaniels loves him, pull the trigger?

I think this is a realistic option. NE is so successful because they run such an excellent scheme. Regardless of who is at QB, the offense works. McDaniels has a great grasp of what works in the NFL. He needs an experienced DC to handle the other side of the ball and I think we could have a quick turnaround.

Why would McDaniels risk his reputation to come here? He'd be a candidate for much better head coaching jobs.

His reputation? The reputation he has as a head coach along with being an OC outside of being at NE stinks.

And regarding your previous points I don't think you understand the value of draft picks in general. Giving up a high second round pick AND having to pay a salary that is potentially triple of what a draft pick would get is a lot of value. While you may think that Trubisky and Kizer may have more upside than Jimmy Garoppolo there is really no evidence of that being the case. The fact that Garoppolo has started games in the NFL, has won those games, and has looked like a potential franchise QB demonstrates to me that the upside is there.

Yet somehow Trubisky's one year of starting and Deshone's mediocre play, all while having to "give up" a top 2 pick is more enticing to you. Give me Jimmy Garoppolo for a second or Deshaun Watson maybe with a trade down instead.

I don't think you understand that coming here could potentially ruin McDaniel's career. Right now, he's one of the most attractive coaches on the market for head coach positions because he's done a good job in New England even though his track record as a head coach isn't good. He can and will wait for the right opportunity rather than jumping ship to coach one of the two worst teams in the league.

Garopollo was a late 2nd round pick with concerns about his size and arm strength. He's done well in 2 NFL starts. Somehow Trubisky's one year of starting isn't impressive to you, but Garopollo's 2 starts in an offense that has made a lot of mediocre QBs look good is? All 3 of these QBs are far better coming out of college than Garopollo was.

I'm not sure there's any evidence that Garoppolo has more upside than Kizer or Trubisky. Kizer and Trubisky are bigger, have better arms, are more athletic, and Trubisky may even be more accurate. Garoppolo learned one offense that many QBs have been successful in over 3 years and played well in 2 games. He's more of a proven commodity given he's played well in the NFL in limited action which is why I posted that in my opinion he has a higher floor than any of the draft candidates, but he does not have a higher ceiling than either Trubisky or Kizer (just a higher chance of reaching his ceiling). If he wasn't going to be a free agent in 2018 and eligible for the massive payday that every starting QB receives, he'd be worth a lot more.

I still think Garopollo is potentially worth a late first round pick to a team that is competitive right now and needs a starting QB (if there's another Bridgewater situation in the offseason). I'd trust him in 2017 more than any of the rookie QBs. But the 49ers are at the opposite end of that spectrum so I wouldn't give up much for him.

Originally posted by eastcoast49ersfan:

Most of the value Garapollo offers is based on his ability to come in and be a starting QB right away. He doesn't offer a tremendously high ceiling compared to some of these draft prospects. You're paying for and giving up draft picks for a guy who can make you better right away. We're 3-4 years away from being a competitive playoff team, so I'd much rather take a QB who can grow with the team.

Garapollo will likely be a much better player in 2017 than many of these rookies since there isn't an Andrew Luck type prospect available. Why does that factor into the equation at all for the 49ers? We may actually be better off losing a bunch of games in 2017 too as opposed to going 6-10 because we added a mediocre starting QB.

If Garrett is available at 2, I'd rather draft him and either trade up for a QB in the ~10-20 range (Kizer/Watson), pick a 2nd-3rd round QB we can develop (Mahomes, Rudolph, Falk), or wait until 2017 to address the QB position. In no scenario do I want Garoppolo even if we could get him for a 3rd round pick. We're going nowhere in the next 4 years with an average starting QB which is what I expect Garoppolo to be (and what will cost $18+ million a year starting in 2018).

All we'd be doing is hurting our draft position for the next 2 years, giving up a 2nd round pick this year, and paying Garopollo $55 million over the next 4 years ($900K in 2017, starting QB money over the following 3 years) as opposed to paying the #2 overall pick $27 million over 4 years or a 2nd round pick $7 million over 4 years. Garopollo makes more sense for a team that could go far in the playoffs with an average NFL starting QB (Broncos, possibly Cardinals, another contender that loses a starting QB in the offseason).

Except Falk, Rudolph, and Mahomes could all stay in school.

1st: Garrett, 2nd: corey davis, 3rd: beckwith

Give our 4th, second 5th, 7th, and next year's 3rd (conditional 2nd) and throw in their pick of olb minus lynch or ilb minus bow and Ray. Throw in Ellington ( ) too if ya have to

Especially a no Brainer if mahomes and falk stay in school, imo

If garret goes #1 to browns, and mahomes elects to return to college, trubisky is the pick. Only way he isn't in this scenario is if we get both 1st rounders from TEN in a trade back.

Obvi, go hardcore in FA, especially at NT and ILB..and shore up OL