Originally posted by Franchise408:
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"
Let me stop you right there.
Tom Brady would have required ZERO assets to get, and he was willing to give us a Faithful discount.
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.
Welp, now I know who I'm talking to and how seriously I should take the rest of this.
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.
Statistically speaking, Jimmy relied more on yards after the catch per reception than all of them. His guys were number one in the NFL at that. And of course, he dead last in the NFL in yards actually thrown per pass attempt. Indicating Jimmy relied more on the weapons around him than any other starting QB in the NFL in 2019.
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.
What assets? Tom Brady was a free agent and wanted to come here.
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.
Yes it was, because Jimmy isn't even remotely close to being top 10, even when healthy.
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).
Rodgers would have been worth those assets, and Stafford wasn't going to cost that much.
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?
Aaron Rodgers? Yes. Aaron Rodgers is better than Jimmy + two first round picks and a third, and a swapping of first round 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.
Watson is irrelevant because of his alleged crimes. Moreover, Watson was not going to cost us Bosa and/or Warner. He WOULD have cost us multiple first round picks. And yes, Watson - 3 First Round picks > Jimmy + this year's first and the next 2 — HAD Watson not been embroiled in the current sexual harassment situation. Were it not for that, Watson was on his way to the Hall of Fame. A Hall of Fame QB is worth multiple entire draft classes.
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?
Yes. And you know what, YOU KNOW IT TOO. We are currently sitting here with all that talent, and we're 2-4.
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.
Rodgers has a Super Bowl ring and MVP awards. Jimmy has the worst fourth quarter passer rating in Super Bowl history, along with a playoff passer rating in the 70s. You put Rodgers on that 2019 49ers team and they go 19-0.
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?
That depends on how Trey develops. If Trey becomes a top 5 QB, then yes, and easily.
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.
Oh sure, the recipe for success. We have ZERO Super Bowl wins under Jimmy, despite having a generational defense and running game in 2019.
Rodgers has a SUPER BOWL WIN and three MVPs (and a gold jacket five years after retirement).
@ even thinking that Jimmy's "accomplishments" are fit to tie Rodger's cleats.