Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by mayo49:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Posters claiming people hate Jimmy are doing so because they can't logically defend their own opinions and have to use a straw man arguments to sound competent. It forces you to try to defend not being a hater instead of the content and reasoning of your original post. It's really really getting old.

I debated several posters about Trey Lance's ability before the draft and although I thought some of their takes were objectively inaccurate and condescending, I never once reduced their opinions to shear "hate".

I have no problem having an debate or discussion with someone who believes a player is much better or much worse than I do that's trying to be intellectually honest. We're all not all going agree but it's sad to me how few and far between those kind of discussions are happening in this thread.

This is perfect, I couldn't have said it better

Very well said. Hear hear. That goes for everyone that can't defend their opinions logically

If Lance doesn't pan out, does Jimmy G get partial blame being his tutor? If Lance pans out, does Jimmy G get partial credit being his tutor?

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:
LMAO
You still trying to dismiss the importance of 3rd down efficiency!!
You constantly trying to argue that 3rd down isn't the money down, totally shows your lack of football IQ.. but carry on

I know you're not big on factual stuff and evidence backing points up and all of that,...but someone taking a look into it for several recent NFL seasons showed there to be a not-so-strong correlation between 3rd down conversion rates and winning games. Right around 50%,...is that amazing or what!?

2012 - 2016 NFL Stats

Dark green is 16 games (actual), light green is 8 game predictive. Again,..nothing strong.
Call the down whatever nickname you wish. But 51% isin't exactly "money" for me aside from a coin flip,..and I'd rather just save my coin (if Lance doesn't want it )



And a MNF Game years ago highlighted the point:

15 conversions @ 71% clip,...vs a team that only converted 3 1st downs. How in the hell did they lose this game and only put up 23 points?

Well,...teams (that) are converting on 1st and 2nd independently more often than they need to on 1st. 1st and 2nd together accounts for like 70% of the conversions and 80+% of the offense. Why do we want to leave 80% of the production out when we're to judge comparative performance?

Teams that don't constantly NEED a high rate of success on 3rd down are probably killing it on 1st and 2nd. 3rd downs conversions are a last resort for an offense before punting, and you are testing down the field much more on 1st and 2nd downs (something we've been HORRIBLE at), so it's pretty much nonsense to think/say that 3rd downs are more important to scoring & winning than the 1st two downs.

Quoting the article writer:

I do get why the talking heads focus on 3rd down though. It's the down that teams are "supposed" to convert. The league average conversion rate of 39% is much higher than 1st or 2nd downs (19%, 30%). It's also the last chance (usually) for the offense to keep a series alive and the last line of defense for . . . well, the defense.

But it's really a false narrative. People always seem to place undue importance on the last link in a chain of events, as if all glory and blame is to be found there. It's that mystical point where "clutch" diverges from "choke"; barstool wisdom from a pair of wrap-around Oakley's and a backwards baseball cap.

The fact is that of all run and pass plays, 80% are NOT 3rd downs and 3rd down conversions are NOT the most common down where conversions occur.

Even though I think it's kinda common sense stuff, there is your outsourced data that of course you'll never legitimately reply to that supports my point. And there's more -- there's a much stronger correlation with 1st down offensive success and winning than 3rd down offensive success and winning. But I'll leave at least a little to the imagination that you can come back after some HW and reply with.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
what you are posting is all your feelings above though

• They could have gotten rid of Jimmy but want to see lance (even though you post how he is better than jimmy)
• They don't owe jimmy
• Gotten paid for not playing (fact), Was there a way to know this was how it would end up?
• Rumors (Fact) , but Rumors are both true and false. This doesn't mean if you didn't hear anything, it must be the way i see it.
• While it might be a great being a top paid back up with half cut salary. wouldn't it be better to be a back up at full salary ?
• No one is disagreeing the feeling that he is overpaid and should be paid less. but reality is, there isn't a need for him to take a paycut when he is on the books without having to cut anyone else at the moment

On top of that.. everything that you counter everyone when you see the slightness of positivity, you come quick to rain on everything. Now you going after the man's money

I'm the same way with another player that used to be in the league that also used to be on the 49ers.. but that player is truly awful and i didn't need to say much towards the end as his play did my talking lol

I don't think Jimmy is great, but i think he's good for the psyche of the team right now

but i get it NY.. all good

Rain on what lol? I've been saying they should do this weeks ago.

You're the one all up in your feelings on this topic bringing up how I would "feel" if my boss asked me to take a pay cut. How would Jimmy "feel"? They didn't know what they truly have in Lance, until they actually get to see him in a TC with pads on. They didn't even know 100% they would be drafting him until they were on the clock as well.

Yes it is a fact that he's been paid a f**k ton of money for not playing. It's a fact that SF doesn't owe him anything (he's got no GTD cash until week 1). The fact is they do not have to pay him $26M to keep him in SF, if they truly don't want too. Jimmy has zero leverage at this point. No one is gonna sign him for more than $12M at this point in the season. Teams have their QBs in place. 90% of teams do not have that type of cash right now either.

Rumors are rumors, not facts. There was also reports saying NE was not interested in Jimmy all the same.

Would he still not be the 12th highest paid QB in the league this yr AFTER taking a proper pay cut? IMO that seems like a more sensible cap hit for his skill set. He also get's to be a FA in 2022, and gets to compete to be a starter on a SB roster.

Paying someone $26M because of psyche is horrible business…not fiscally responsible, especially if you're just waiting for him to get hurt. It's like aying Dee Ford a stupid amount of cash knowing he's gonna get hurt. Horrible way to run an organization imo.

Look I'm not expecting them to do this because Kyle/John already asked Jed if it's okay to still pay Jimmy, but It makes sense if Lance is looked at as a starter this yr.

we will see

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:
LMAO
You still trying to dismiss the importance of 3rd down efficiency!!
You constantly trying to argue that 3rd down isn't the money down, totally shows your lack of football IQ.. but carry on

I know you're not big on factual stuff and evidence backing points up and all of that,...but someone taking a look into it for several recent NFL seasons showed there to be a not-so-strong correlation between 3rd down conversion rates and winning games. Right around 50%,...is that amazing or what!?

2012 - 2016 NFL Stats

Dark green is 16 games (actual), light green is 8 game predictive. Again,..nothing strong.
Call the down whatever nicname you wish. But 51% isin't exactly "mo)ney" for me aside from a coin flip,..and I'd rather just save my coin (if Lance doesn't want it )



And a MNF Game years ago highlighted the point:

15 conversions @ 71% clip,...vs a team that only converted 3 1st downs. How in the hell did they lose this game and only put up 23 points?

Well,...teams (that) are converting on 1st and 2nd independently more often than they need to on 1st. 1st and 2nd together accounts for like 70% of the conversions and 80+% of the offense. Why do we want to leave 80% of the production out when we're to judge comparative performance?

Teams that don't constantly NEED a high rate of success on 3rd down are probably killing it on 1st and 2nd. 3rd downs conversions are a last resort for an offense before punting, and you are testing down the field much more on 1st and 2nd downs (something we've been HORRIBLE at), so it's pretty much nonsense to think/say that 3rd downs are more important to scoring & winning than the 1st two downs.

Quoting the article writer:

I do get why the talking heads focus on 3rd down though. It's the down that teams are "supposed" to convert. The league average conversion rate of 39% is much higher than 1st or 2nd downs (19%, 30%). It's also the last chance (usually) for the offense to keep a series alive and the last line of defense for . . . well, the defense.

But it's really a false narrative. People always seem to place undue importance on the last link in a chain of events, as if all glory and blame is to be found there. It's that mystical point where "clutch" diverges from "choke"; barstool wisdom from a pair of wrap-around Oakley's and a backwards baseball cap.

The fact is that of all run and pass plays, 80% are NOT 3rd downs and 3rd down conversions are NOT the most common down where conversions occur.

Even though I think it's kinda common sense stuff, there is your outsourced data that of course you'll never legitimately reply to that supports my point. And there's more -- there's a much stronger correlation with 1st down offensive success and winning than 3rd down offensive success and winning. But I'll leave at least a little to the imagination that you can come back after some HW and reply with.

Basically what you're saying is staying ahead of the chains is important right? Not being in constant 3rd and long is important? Running game and yes having a capable QB is important.

You know who was top 3 in 3rd down completion % last yr? Jared Goff (49%) which was 1 % less than Jimmy in 2019. He was the highest ranked NFC QB last yr (only behind Mahomes/Allen) and ahead of the MVP Rogers. Goff just got shipped out of town and it probably cost the team a 1st RD pick to move him lol.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:

LMAO
You still trying to dismiss the importance of 3rd down efficiency!!
You constantly trying to argue that 3rd down isn't the money down, totally shows your lack of football IQ.. but carry on

I know you're not big on factual stuff and evidence backing points up and all of that,...but someone taking a look into it for several recent NFL seasons showed there to be a not-so-strong correlation between 3rd down conversion rates and winning games. Right around 50%,...is that amazing or what!?

2012 - 2016 NFL Stats

Dark green is 16 games (actual), light green is 8 game predictive. Again,..nothing strong.
Call the down whatever nicname you wish. But 51% isin't exactly "mo)ney" for me aside from a coin flip,..and I'd rather just save my coin (if Lance doesn't want it )



And a MNF Game years ago highlighted the point:

15 conversions @ 71% clip,...vs a team that only converted 3 1st downs. How in the hell did they lose this game and only put up 23 points?

Well,...teams (that) are converting on 1st and 2nd independently more often than they need to on 1st. 1st and 2nd together accounts for like 70% of the conversions and 80+% of the offense. Why do we want to leave 80% of the production out when we're to judge comparative performance?

Teams that don't constantly NEED a high rate of success on 3rd down are probably killing it on 1st and 2nd. 3rd downs conversions are a last resort for an offense before punting, and you are testing down the field much more on 1st and 2nd downs (something we've been HORRIBLE at), so it's pretty much nonsense to think/say that 3rd downs are more important to scoring & winning than the 1st two downs.

Quoting the article writer:

I do get why the talking heads focus on 3rd down though. It's the down that teams are "supposed" to convert. The league average conversion rate of 39% is much higher than 1st or 2nd downs (19%, 30%). It's also the last chance (usually) for the offense to keep a series alive and the last line of defense for . . . well, the defense.

But it's really a false narrative. People always seem to place undue importance on the last link in a chain of events, as if all glory and blame is to be found there. It's that mystical point where "clutch" diverges from "choke"; barstool wisdom from a pair of wrap-around Oakley's and a backwards baseball cap.

The fact is that of all run and pass plays, 80% are NOT 3rd downs and 3rd down conversions are NOT the most common down where conversions occur.

Even though I think it's kinda common sense stuff, there is your outsourced data that of course you'll never legitimately reply to that supports my point. And there's more -- there's a much stronger correlation with 1st down offensive success and winning than 3rd down offensive success and winning. But I'll leave at least a little to the imagination that you can come back after some HW and reply with.

LOL

You could just look at the top 10 3rd down conversion rate teams and their win loss record. Those two charts don't tell much of a story.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Basically what you're saying is staying ahead of the chains is important right? Not being in constant 3rd and long is important? Running game and yes having a capable QB is important.

You know who was top 3 in 3rd down completion % last yr? Jared Goff (49%) which was 1 % less than Jimmy in 2019. He was the highest ranked NFC QB last yr (only behind Mahomes/Allen) and ahead of the MVP Rogers. Goff just got shipped out of town and it probably cost the team a 1st RD pick to move him lol.

Is that an outlier?

3rd down conversion rates strongly correlate with winning. Higher 3rd down rates correlates to more sustained drives, TOP and scores.

You guys are arguing 3rd downs rates are unimportant just to support your opinions on Jimmy.

It is ridiculous.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Is that an outlier?

3rd down conversion rates strongly correlate with winning. Higher 3rd down rates correlates to more sustained drives, TOP and scores.

You guys are arguing 3rd downs rates are unimportant just to support your opinions on Jimmy.

It is ridiculous.

Show me where I said it wasn't important? What I was asking in the pervious comment is 1st down very important as well? Is staying ahead of the chains important in regards to being MORE successful in converting on 3rd down more often? 1+1=2, no?

Goff has constantly been on the top 10 in that stat.

Originally posted by mayo49:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Posters claiming people hate Jimmy are doing so because they can't logically defend their own opinions and have to use a straw man arguments to sound competent. It forces you to try to defend not being a hater instead of the content and reasoning of your original post. It's really really getting old.

I debated several posters about Trey Lance's ability before the draft and although I thought some of their takes were objectively inaccurate and condescending, I never once reduced their opinions to shear "hate".

I have no problem having an debate or discussion with someone who believes a player is much better or much worse than I do that's trying to be intellectually honest. We're all not all going agree but it's sad to me how few and far between those kind of discussions are happening in this thread.

This is perfect, I couldn't have said it better

Yep.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
what you are posting is all your feelings above though

• They could have gotten rid of Jimmy but want to see lance (even though you post how he is better than jimmy)
• They don't owe jimmy
• Gotten paid for not playing (fact), Was there a way to know this was how it would end up?
• Rumors (Fact) , but Rumors are both true and false. This doesn't mean if you didn't hear anything, it must be the way i see it.
• While it might be a great being a top paid back up with half cut salary. wouldn't it be better to be a back up at full salary ?
• No one is disagreeing the feeling that he is overpaid and should be paid less. but reality is, there isn't a need for him to take a paycut when he is on the books without having to cut anyone else at the moment

On top of that.. everything that you counter everyone when you see the slightness of positivity, you come quick to rain on everything. Now you going after the man's money

I'm the same way with another player that used to be in the league that also used to be on the 49ers.. but that player is truly awful and i didn't need to say much towards the end as his play did my talking lol

I don't think Jimmy is great, but i think he's good for the psyche of the team right now

but i get it NY.. all good

Rain on what lol? I've been saying they should do this weeks ago.

You're the one all up in your feelings on this topic bringing up how I would "feel" if my boss asked me to take a pay cut. How would Jimmy "feel"? They didn't know what they truly have in Lance, until they actually get to see him in a TC with pads on. They didn't even know 100% they would be drafting him until they were on the clock as well.

Yes it is a fact that he's been paid a f**k ton of money for not playing. It's a fact that SF doesn't owe him anything (he's got no GTD cash until week 1). The fact is they do not have to pay him $26M to keep him in SF, if they truly don't want too. Jimmy has zero leverage at this point. No one is gonna sign him for more than $12M at this point in the season. Teams have their QBs in place. 90% of teams do not have that type of cash right now either.

Rumors are rumors, not facts. There was also reports saying NE was not interested in Jimmy all the same.

Would he still not be the 12th highest paid QB in the league this yr AFTER taking a proper pay cut? IMO that seems like a more sensible cap hit for his skill set. He also get's to be a FA in 2022, and gets to compete to be a starter on a SB roster.

Paying someone $26M because of psyche is horrible business…not fiscally responsible, especially if you're just waiting for him to get hurt. It's like aying Dee Ford a stupid amount of cash knowing he's gonna get hurt. Horrible way to run an organization imo.

Look I'm not expecting them to do this because Kyle/John already asked Jed if it's okay to still pay Jimmy, but It makes sense if Lance is looked at as a starter this yr.

we will see

i've taken feelings out of this.. but you're willing to take a pay cut for nothing to prove your point

As for money..what has been done is done. We paid Jimmy.

This is not Madden football you can't just get rid of players with no effect. The team loves jimmy. Chemistry can not be overpaid and it cannot be discounted

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Is that an outlier?

3rd down conversion rates strongly correlate with winning. Higher 3rd down rates correlates to more sustained drives, TOP and scores.

You guys are arguing 3rd downs rates are unimportant just to support your opinions on Jimmy.

It is ridiculous.

Show me where I said it wasn't important? What I was asking in the pervious comment is 1st down very important as well? Is staying ahead of the chains important in regards to being MORE successful in converting on 3rd down more often? 1+1=2, no?

Goff has constantly been on the top 10 in that stat.

I love when Woo just makes up stuff and then argues against it.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Jeepzilla:
LMAO
You still trying to dismiss the importance of 3rd down efficiency!!
You constantly trying to argue that 3rd down isn't the money down, totally shows your lack of football IQ.. but carry on

and a MNF Game years ago highlighted the point:

15 conversions @ 71% clip,...vs a team that only converted 3 1st downs. How in the hell did they lose this game and only put up 23 points?

Well,...teams (that) are converting on 1st and 2nd independently more often than they need to on 1st. 1st and 2nd together accounts for like 70% of the conversions and 80+% of the offense. Why do we want to leave 80% of the production out when we're to judge comparative performance?

Teams that don't constantly NEED a high rate of success on 3rd down are probably killing it on 1st and 2nd. 3rd downs conversions are a last resort for an offense before punting, and you are testing down the field much more on 1st and 2nd downs (something we've been HORRIBLE at), so it's pretty much nonsense to think/say that 3rd downs are more important to scoring & winning than the 1st two downs.

Quoting the article writer:

I do get why the talking heads focus on 3rd down though. It's the down that teams are "supposed" to convert. The league average conversion rate of 39% is much higher than 1st or 2nd downs (19%, 30%). It's also the last chance (usually) for the offense to keep a series alive and the last line of defense for . . . well, the defense.

But it's really a false narrative. People always seem to place undue importance on the last link in a chain of events, as if all glory and blame is to be found there. It's that mystical point where "clutch" diverges from "choke"; barstool wisdom from a pair of wrap-around Oakley's and a backwards baseball cap.

The fact is that of all run and pass plays, 80% are NOT 3rd downs and 3rd down conversions are NOT the most common down where conversions occur.

Even though I think it's kinda common sense stuff, there is your outsourced data that of course you'll never legitimately reply to that supports my point. And there's more -- there's a much stronger correlation with 1st down offensive success and winning than 3rd down offensive success and winning. But I'll leave at least a little to the imagination that you can come back after some HW and reply with.

In that MNF game.. Dolphins couldn't play defense

Colts Scored 21 points on 3 drives that total 11 plays, 240 yards in 4 mins time. Two of those TDs in the 4th Qtr

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Is that an outlier?

3rd down conversion rates strongly correlate with winning. Higher 3rd down rates correlates to more sustained drives, TOP and scores.

You guys are arguing 3rd downs rates are unimportant just to support your opinions on Jimmy.

It is ridiculous.

Obviously you aren't good at reading stats if you were just showed 5 years worth of data for all teams that showed a 51% correlation to winning. But some subjects obviously aren't meant for all, so I digress.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
In that MNF game.. Dolphins couldn't play defense

Colts Scored 21 points on 3 drives that total 11 plays, 240 yards in 4 mins time. Two of those TDs in the 4th Qtr

There you go,...you're beginning to trend in the right direction. Keep going...

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
i've taken feelings out of this.. but you're willing to take a pay cut for nothing to prove your point

As for money..what has been done is done. We paid Jimmy.

This is not Madden football you can't just get rid of players with no effect. The team loves jimmy. Chemistry can not be overpaid and it cannot be discounted

100%