Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
My issue with those guys is many of them were against, for example, getting a Brady or a Stafford — and some even were against bringing in Aaron Rodgers. Now the last one wasn't possible it turns out, and the Rams sniped Stafford for us. And certainly Watson turned into a disaster. But some of these guys were available, and a large segment of our fan base was insistent on Jimmy being better than these guys. Meanwhile all but Watson are making a case for MVP.
THIS is frustrating, and it's the main reason I make so many posts showing Jimmy is average or mid tier. Because they wanted him over these top 10 guys.
So let me stop you right there.
I'm one of those guys that "wanted Jimmy over these top 10 guys", I'm what someone would call a "Jimmy supporter" or a "Jimmy stan"
I didn't "want him over these top 10 guys" because I thought Jimmy was irreplaceable or better than those top 10 guys. I wanted Jimmy because of the entire state of the team and what was best for the team going forward. I wanted Jimmy over those guys, because every single one of those guys mentioned required assets to give up in order to obtain, and quite frankly, when you dig even a little bit deeper than media driven hot takes, Jimmy's performance in 2019 did not warrant giving up assets for one of those "top 10 guys"
Define top 10? I imagine we are doing so statistically? Because if you break down Jimmy's stats with even the most basic amount of scrutiny and analysis, Jimmy was on par statistically with literally every single one of those guys. Completion percentage, YPA, YPC, TD %, deep ball accuracy, QB rating, literally every single stat that matters, Jimmy was top 10, and either on par with, or even above, all of those big names that people wanted to replace him with. Watson, Rodgers, Stafford... even QB's like Wilson and Mahomes who weren't options, but are obviously are standard setters, Jimmy was on par statistically with them. The area where Jimmy was low? Total passing yards, in which he was just shy of 4k yards in a run first offense, and still was good for #12 in the NFL that season.
Statistically speaking, Jimmy was on the same level as literally any of these guys.
That to me says that, while Jimmy is not irreplaceable, and while those guys *are* better than Jimmy, the gap isn't so wide as to justify giving up the assets to replace him.
Which is my entire problem with the trade up to draft Trey Lance. I'm not concerned with the fact that the 49ers drafted a rookie to eventually replace Jimmy. That was prudent, given both the injury history of Jimmy, and the possibility that he had topped out production wise and would never get better than what he was. Drafting a Jimmy replacement was a smart decision.
Trading away 3 additional high round picks (2 additional firsts and an additional 3rd) to do it was not a smart decision, just as it would have been a disaster to give up the assets needed to bring in a Watson, Stafford, or Rodgers (who, it can at least be argued, would have been a better choice if you're going to give up assets like that, because at least you're getting a proven commodity with either of those guys).
You have to think beyond just 1 person. Team building is deeper than "Rodgers > Jimmy". To have your analysis begin and end with that statement is short sided. Yes, Aaron Rodgers is better than Jimmy Garoppolo, regardless of whatever statistical accomplishments Jimmy had in 2019. But are the 49ers as a team better with Jimmy Garoppolo + draft picks, or Aaron Rodgers - draft picks?
We have already seen some of the prices asked for Deshaun Watson in the off-season. Picks + players. Those players would very possibly have been in the Nick Bosa / Fred Warner category. Are the 49ers better with Jimmy Garoppolo + picks + Nick Bosa / Fred Warner, or are the 49ers better with Deshaun Watson - picks - Nick Bosa / Fred Warner? Well, I'd argue that we've already seen what Deshaun Watson has accomplished in Houston with the lack of talent that he'd then have to deal with following any trade that would bring him to SF, and we've already seen what Jimmy Garoppolo has accomplished in San Francisco with the addition of all those assets around him, and while on a simple analysis says that Deshaun Watson > Jimmy Garoppolo (and Watson is who I wanted the 49ers to have originally, and the fact that we passed on him in the draft was the first mistake made by this regime that has set us up for the failure we are experiencing now), a deeper analysis says that SF with Jimmy + picks + Bosa / Warner is better than SF with Watson - picks - Bosa / Warner.
The same can be said for Aaron Rodgers, who has made a career out of disappointing post-season appearances and whining and crying about the lack of talent on the team around him. Would SF be better with Aaron Rodgers - picks - the talent that would have to be gutted to get him? Or is SF better with Jimmy + picks + keeping our top talent instead of sending it away?
Well, Green Bay's post-season track record with Aaron Rodgers is a pretty good indicator of that. And we actually had a direct observation of that, when Jimmy + talent defeated Aaron Rodgers - talent in the NFC Championship game.
On the same level, it may very well turn out that Trey Lance > Jimmy Garoppolo, and even as a "Jimmy supporter", I find that outcome to be very likely.
But the question I ask is deeper than that.
The question I ask is, are the San Francisco 49ers better with Trey Lance - picks than they would have been with Jimmy Garoppolo / QB @ #12 + picks for the next 2 years?
And *that* is the question that needs to be asked to properly address this situation the 49ers find themselves in. It's not as simple as "Trey Lance > Jimmy Garoppolo, 49ers win the trade"
You have to ask if the team as a whole is better off with the one player who may be marginally better than the good QB we already have, minus the assets we gave up to acquire him. Because the assets given up to get Trey Lance means that Trey Lance has to be better than just "good" to justify the trade. He has to be nothing short of a franchise altering QB that is good enough to overcome a lack of talent around him to catapult the team to success. The cost to acquire him was simply too high, and when you see even those "top 10 QB's" struggle to achieve team success due to a lack of talent around them, I find it hard to believe that Trey Lance is going to be SO other-wordly good that he is going to be able to single handedly overcome the deficit of talent around him to keep the 49ers as a top Super Bowl contender and finish the job that Jimmy started.
The issue here isn't that Jimmy supporters think that Jimmy is better than these top 10 guys. The issue here is that Jimmy supporters know that the recipe for success goes far deeper than Deshaun Watson / Matthew Stafford / Aaron Rodgers / Trey Lance > Jimmy Garoppolo, and the cost to replace the good QB we already have (and yes, Jimmy is -good- regardless of what sensationalist media hot takes have you believing) is something that is a detriment to the team as a whole and will set the team back even further than we would have been had we just stuck with Jimmy 100% from the get go.
We've already seen what Jimmy + talent around him accomplishes. And let me tell you... it was more than what Aaron Rodgers / Matthew Stafford / Deshaun Watson accomplished on their own - which is exactly what they would have had to do (and what Trey Lance will have to do) had we made a move to bring them in.
[ Edited by Franchise408 on Oct 29, 2021 at 10:37 AM ]
What you want to see will likely differ greatly from what you will see. jimmy's motivation will always be tempered by his talent… or lack of it to be more precise. Ten cent arm and 5 cent head don't make for a good nfl qb.