Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I wouldn't panic of the $27m as backup qb.. he was signed in early 2018 to that deal a lot has changed since then.. for all his faults if the D pitches a shutout for 2 quarters we win a SB ring maybe 2 SB rings..

The situation will resolve itself. Gonna be TL and Suds with Brock on PS...

I guess some of us are just wanting a QB that we dont have to make statements like "if the defense gives up 0 points for 2 quarters we win a SB ring."

"It's just barbershop talk. It's just something to have a topic. It's just foolish," he said about the Garoppolo criticism. "... When you hear them blaming Jimmy, Jimmy doesn't play defense. We had a 10-point lead. We get the guy a stop, we win the game."

-Richard Sherman (aka Jimmy Homer)

#dialog

Jimmy G is just a modern Neil O'Donnell, a mediocre QB who was an efficient game manager for a contender that relied on a strong defense and run game, and who didn't have the talent to win the big game.

Like Jimmy, he lost the 95'- 96' SB with his subpar play.

Still, despite throwing 3 SB picks to 1 td, O'Donnell managed to get a 5 year $25 million contract in the offseason from the desperate Jets, based on his winning record with the Steelers.

And once he got paid, he did the most Jimmy thing by getting injured after going 0-6. So much for bringing a winning culture.

Given that they have uncannily similar stats and regular season win %, you can deduce that Jimmy's winning record, like O'Donnell's, was mostly due to playing on a talented and well coached team, and not the QBs respective talents.

When O'Donnell left, the Steelers kept chugging along with a 10-6 record with journeyman QB Mike Tomczak in 96'-97', and 11-5 in 97'-98' with 1st year starter Kordell Stewart.

The Niners will not only do just fine without Jimmy in Trey's 1st year, they will thrive without him.

Neil O'Donnell -

4 years 92'- 95' 37-16 win loss (69.8%)

QBR 87.6 913-1,585 (57.6% completion rate) 10,904 yards 57 tds 32 ints (1.74 td-int ratio).

1 Pro Bowl

Jimmy Garappolo

5 years 17'-21' 31-14 win loss (68.8%) QBR 98.3 898-1,324 (67.7% completion rate) 11,162 yards 66 tds 38 ints (1.74 td-int ratio).

#RentFree

Originally posted by NCommand:
#RentFree

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by cciowa:
smart teams. well run teams. teams that are smart with a cap do not keep a 27 million dollar back up qb...... the reason we got trey so was in theory.. we could be more than just competitive. keeping jimmy invites un needed drama in this team.. and if your theory is right that trey is not ready or not the guy they thought he was.. well. then we have a much bigger problem on our team and lynch and kyle will then get fired in my opinion. sad that in many circles here.. we have went from WIN NOW to being happy with competitive

I wouldn't panic of the $27m as backup qb.. he was signed in early 2018 to that deal a lot has changed since then.. for all his faults if the D pitches a shutout for 2 quarters we win a SB ring maybe 2 SB rings..

The situation will resolve itself. Gonna be TL and Suds with Brock on PS...

Its simple really. If a defense gives up less than 24 points in a game and the team loses, its the offenses fault. If the offense scores more than 24 points and the team loses, its the defenses fault. Imo, 24 points is the divide for who is to blame for a loss.

20 points has been enough to win a Superbowl 16% of the time (and almost 50% of those wins came in 1975 or before).

We are not talking about 1975. We are talking about the modern game.





Teams who score an average of 24 points or more and give up an average of 24 points or less are pretty much a guarantee to make the playoffs.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by cciowa:
smart teams. well run teams. teams that are smart with a cap do not keep a 27 million dollar back up qb...... the reason we got trey so was in theory.. we could be more than just competitive. keeping jimmy invites un needed drama in this team.. and if your theory is right that trey is not ready or not the guy they thought he was.. well. then we have a much bigger problem on our team and lynch and kyle will then get fired in my opinion. sad that in many circles here.. we have went from WIN NOW to being happy with competitive

I wouldn't panic of the $27m as backup qb.. he was signed in early 2018 to that deal a lot has changed since then.. for all his faults if the D pitches a shutout for 2 quarters we win a SB ring maybe 2 SB rings..

The situation will resolve itself. Gonna be TL and Suds with Brock on PS...

Its simple really. If a defense gives up less than 24 points in a game and the team loses, its the offenses fault. If the offense scores more than 24 points and the team loses, its the defenses fault. Imo, 24 points is the divide for who is to blame for a loss.

20 points has been enough to win a Superbowl 16% of the time (and almost 50% of those wins came in 1975 or before).

We are not talking about 1975. We are talking about the modern game.





Teams who score an average of 24 points or more and give up an average of 24 points or less are pretty much a guarantee to make the playoffs.

I am not disagreeing with you. I agree with you. Scoring 20 points in a Superbowl pretty much guarantees a loss. This is backed up with historical evidence.

Originally posted by SinceXVI:
#dialog

Jimmy G is just a modern Neil O'Donnell, a mediocre QB who was an efficient game manager for a contender that relied on a strong defense and run game, and who didn't have the talent to win the big game.

Like Jimmy he lost the 95'- 96' SB with his subpar play.

Still, despite throwing 3 SB picks to 1 td, O'Donnell managed to get a 5 year $25 million contract in the offseason from the desperate Jets, based on his winning record with the Steelers.

And once he got paid, he did the most Jimmy thing by getting injured after going 0-6. So much for bringing a winning culture.

Given that they have uncannily similar stats and regular season win %, you can deduce that Jimmy's winning record, like O'Donnell's, was mostly due to playing on a talented and well coached team, and not the QBs respective talents.

When O'Donnell left, the Steelers kept chugging along with a 10-6 record with QBs Mike Tomczak in 96'-97', and 11-5 in 97'-98' with 1st year starter Kordell Stewart.

The Niners will not only do just fine without Jimmy in Trey's 1st year, they be better off without him.

Neil O'Donnell -

4 years 92'- 95' 37-16 win loss (69.8%)

QBR 87.6 913-1,585 (57.6% completion rate) 10,904 yards 57 tds 32 ints (1.74 td-int ratio).

1 Pro Bowl

Jimmy Garappolo

5 years 17'-21' 31-14 win loss (68.8%) QBR 98.3 898-1,324 (67.7% completion rate) 11,162 yards 66 tds 38 ints (1.74 td-int ratio).

Interesting comparison but i wouldnt go far as to say the 49ers would be better off without him. That solely depends on Trey Lance's performance. Our record with and without Jimmy speaks for itself. A lot of people keep forgetting we were like 1-9 before he got here and finished with like 6 straight wins. On top of that the 49ers record when he is out with an injury is well below .500

So to say we are better off without him is a stretch. I have faith in Trey Lance but i can also see him going through some growing pains to,

Originally posted by YACBros85:
I believe Trey will be the starter and Jimmy will be gone. I have expressed that so many times on these boards, ad nauseum.

Are you comparing the Shanahan/Lynch regime to the JT and Chip eras?

Yes. I am in favor of the long term approach that puts us in contention every or every other season rather than the gamble the future for the win now approach. The high risk/high reward approach is no guarantee and can really put this team in a terrible spot going forward.

i just meant that after the nightmare of jt and chip of which i was a big homer at the time and liked both moves. lol.. i was totally fine in just being competitive cuz for years we were not.. when kyle comes in. we get to the super bowl.. and my mindset changed to wanting something a bit more.. we achieved being back to competitive.. even in the injury ravaged year after the super bowl. i think its ok to take a chance and get a playmaker to go along with the brick by brick approach that has made us competitive and in two years more than competitive.. taking a chance is getting trey to get us over the hump which is something jimmy could not do? am i wrong about that? maybe i am.. and i also know.. removing a elite game changer piece like deebo is a terrible thing for us short term and long term.. in regards to jimmy.. i will believe it when i see it

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by cciowa:
smart teams. well run teams. teams that are smart with a cap do not keep a 27 million dollar back up qb...... the reason we got trey so was in theory.. we could be more than just competitive. keeping jimmy invites un needed drama in this team.. and if your theory is right that trey is not ready or not the guy they thought he was.. well. then we have a much bigger problem on our team and lynch and kyle will then get fired in my opinion. sad that in many circles here.. we have went from WIN NOW to being happy with competitive

I wouldn't panic of the $27m as backup qb.. he was signed in early 2018 to that deal a lot has changed since then.. for all his faults if the D pitches a shutout for 2 quarters we win a SB ring maybe 2 SB rings..

The situation will resolve itself. Gonna be TL and Suds with Brock on PS...

Its simple really. If a defense gives up less than 24 points in a game and the team loses, its the offenses fault. If the offense scores more than 24 points and the team loses, its the defenses fault. Imo, 24 points is the divide for who is to blame for a loss.

20 points has been enough to win a Superbowl 16% of the time (and almost 50% of those wins came in 1975 or before).

We are not talking about 1975. We are talking about the modern game.





Teams who score an average of 24 points or more and give up an average of 24 points or less are pretty much a guarantee to make the playoffs.

I am not disagreeing with you. I agree with you. Scoring 20 points in a Superbowl pretty much guarantees a loss. This is backed up with historical evidence.

The losing team scored less than 20 points 38 times. That means 20 points were required to win the Super Bowl roughly 67.8% of the time.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by cciowa:
smart teams. well run teams. teams that are smart with a cap do not keep a 27 million dollar back up qb...... the reason we got trey so was in theory.. we could be more than just competitive. keeping jimmy invites un needed drama in this team.. and if your theory is right that trey is not ready or not the guy they thought he was.. well. then we have a much bigger problem on our team and lynch and kyle will then get fired in my opinion. sad that in many circles here.. we have went from WIN NOW to being happy with competitive

I wouldn't panic of the $27m as backup qb.. he was signed in early 2018 to that deal a lot has changed since then.. for all his faults if the D pitches a shutout for 2 quarters we win a SB ring maybe 2 SB rings..

The situation will resolve itself. Gonna be TL and Suds with Brock on PS...

Its simple really. If a defense gives up less than 24 points in a game and the team loses, its the offenses fault. If the offense scores more than 24 points and the team loses, its the defenses fault. Imo, 24 points is the divide for who is to blame for a loss.

20 points has been enough to win a Superbowl 16% of the time (and almost 50% of those wins came in 1975 or before).

We are not talking about 1975. We are talking about the modern game.





Teams who score an average of 24 points or more and give up an average of 24 points or less are pretty much a guarantee to make the playoffs.

I am not disagreeing with you. I agree with you. Scoring 20 points in a Superbowl pretty much guarantees a loss. This is backed up with historical evidence.

Oh. Sorry. I misunderstood your post.

Originally posted by NotAFinga42:
The losing team scored less than 20 points 38 times. That means 20 points were required to win the Super Bowl roughly 67.8% of the time.

It takes a lot more than 1 game to win a SB. Also, both SB contenders are typically decent on both offense and defense or completely dominant on one or the other.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NotAFinga42:
The losing team scored less than 20 points 38 times. That means 20 points were required to win the Super Bowl roughly 67.8% of the time.

It takes a lot more than 1 game to win a SB. Also, both SB contenders are typically decent on both offense and defense or completely dominant on one or the other.

Agreed. Was just pointing out the numbers. The winning teams defense obviously plays a role in the score as well.

Originally posted by NotAFinga42:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NotAFinga42:
The losing team scored less than 20 points 38 times. That means 20 points were required to win the Super Bowl roughly 67.8% of the time.

It takes a lot more than 1 game to win a SB. Also, both SB contenders are typically decent on both offense and defense or completely dominant on one or the other.

Agreed. Was just pointing out the numbers. The winning teams defense obviously plays a role in the score as well.

I only brought it up because I cannot stand when posters (not you) bring up the defense when defending Jimmy. The defense, more times than not, did their job last season. Especially in the playoffs. The offense? Not so much.

Originally posted by NCommand:
#RentFree

Lol so true.

Originally posted by miked1978:
Interesting comparison but i wouldnt go far as to say the 49ers would be better off without him. That solely depends on Trey Lance's performance. Our record with and without Jimmy speaks for itself. A lot of people keep forgetting we were like 1-9 before he got here and finished with like 6 straight wins. On top of that the 49ers record when he is out with an injury is well below .500

So to say we are better off without him is a stretch. I have faith in Trey Lance but i can also see him going through some growing pains to,

I'm pretty confident in that statement. Jimmy's record was due to being more talented than Mullens, Beathard, and Hoyer, and being able to run Shanahan's offense efficiently, but not because he did anything special.

However, Trey is not only far more physically gifted than Jimmy, he's far better at his craft in reading defenses pre-snap, moving linebackers and safeties with his eyes, going through progressions, looking down field when scrambling, and picking yards with his legs.

If Trey played all 17 games on the same level of last years Texans game with all his mistakes (int and 2 more near ints), the Niners will be better as the skill players will have more chances to make plays.