Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
NFL has been gift wrapping them with cupcake schedules for years, it's about damn time

regardless, I have ZERO desire in helping a hated rival get "better"

I agree except I don't see him making them that much better. They're a bad team and I can't see him improving them enough to beat the Niners, Rams, Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs etc. The teams that they are likely to beat are the same with or without him give to take a game. If he helps them beat Carolina or NO then maybe they slip back in the draft and miss out on the top QB in the draft. Make them use both 1st rounders and maybe another pick if they want to move up, just like the Niners did.

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

The Seahawks schedule is basically the same as ours except harder. I say harder because they have 2 games against the Niners who are a better team than the Seahawks. With or without Jimmy, I don't see them winning more than 5 games.

NFL has been gift wrapping them with cupcake schedules for years, it's about damn time

regardless, I have ZERO desire in helping a hated rival get "better"

Same, which is why I hope they sign Jimmy and not tank for a top QB pick.

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
The Seahawks schedule is basically the same as ours except harder. I say harder because they have 2 games against the Niners who are a better team than the Seahawks. With or without Jimmy, I don't see them winning more than 5 games.

NFL has been gift wrapping them with cupcake schedules for years, it's about damn time

regardless, I have ZERO desire in helping a hated rival get "better"

Same, which is why I hope they sign Jimmy and not tank for a top QB pick.

This logic is flawed for many reasons:

1. Pro teams don't tank
2. Even if they did, tanking doesn't work, losing teams stay losing, just ask CLE, JAX, DET, WAS, MIA, etc.
3. If they wanted to tank, why would they pay up DK and not move Lockett?
4. If they wanted to tank and this was discussed in the building why would 70 year old Pete Carroll sign on / still be around?
5. They already have multiple ones, which they can flex to move up and get a guy they want, without tanking.

It's not about tanking per se, Faithful. It's about having a realistic outlook on the upcoming season. Maybe their front office thinks they can retool in a year or 2, not completely rebuild.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
It's not about tanking per se, Faithful. It's about having a realistic outlook on the upcoming season. Maybe their front office thinks they can retool in a year or 2, not completely rebuild.

Well.. in fairness.. the post I responded to said "tank".

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
It's not about tanking per se, Faithful. It's about having a realistic outlook on the upcoming season. Maybe their front office thinks they can retool in a year or 2, not completely rebuild.

Well.. in fairness.. the post I responded to said "tank".

Right.

IF the Seahawks front office thinks they will be a bad team, and have sights set on one of the top QBs in the draft, there is absolutely no way they are going to bring in a QB that would help hypothetically go from 5 wins to 8. Doesn't make sense to me at least.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

The Seahawks schedule is basically the same as ours except harder. I say harder because they have 2 games against the Niners who are a better team than the Seahawks. With or without Jimmy, I don't see them winning more than 5 games.

NFL has been gift wrapping them with cupcake schedules for years, it's about damn time

regardless, I have ZERO desire in helping a hated rival get "better"

Same, which is why I hope they sign Jimmy and not tank for a top QB pick.

This logic is flawed for many reasons:

1. Pro teams don't tank
2. Even if they did, tanking doesn't work, losing teams stay losing, just ask CLE, JAX, DET, WAS, MIA, etc.
3. If they wanted to tank, why would they pay up DK and not move Lockett?
4. If they wanted to tank and this was discussed in the building why would 70 year old Pete Carroll sign on / still be around?
5. They already have multiple ones, which they can flex to move up and get a guy they want, without tanking.

No teams tank, many teams don't get better on purpose to revamp for the next season. I used the wrong term. My bad

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
The Seahawks schedule is basically the same as ours except harder. I say harder because they have 2 games against the Niners who are a better team than the Seahawks. With or without Jimmy, I don't see them winning more than 5 games.

NFL has been gift wrapping them with cupcake schedules for years, it's about damn time

regardless, I have ZERO desire in helping a hated rival get "better"

Same, which is why I hope they sign Jimmy and not tank for a top QB pick.

Drafting a "top qb" isn't some fool proof plan to save bad teams, look at the Jags and Jets. Colts used that logic, and they ended up ruining a generational QB. However, if a team shows they're committing to winning in a rebuilding season, even if they only end up winning 7 or 9 games games and missing the playoffs while staying competitive, that will have free agents wanting to play for them, and who's to say they won't find hidden gems late in the draft? How do you think "The L.O.B" was put together?

so no…the Seahawks signing Jimmy Garoppolo after the 49ers cut him isn't the "Keep Seattle mediocre for years to come" plan that many have created in their heads isnt going to make them worse in the long , in facts it's possibly the contrary

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
The Seahawks schedule is basically the same as ours except harder. I say harder because they have 2 games against the Niners who are a better team than the Seahawks. With or without Jimmy, I don't see them winning more than 5 games.

NFL has been gift wrapping them with cupcake schedules for years, it's about damn time

regardless, I have ZERO desire in helping a hated rival get "better"

Same, which is why I hope they sign Jimmy and not tank for a top QB pick.

Drafting a "top qb" isn't some fool proof plan to save bad teams, look at the Jags and Jets. However, if a team shows they're committing to winning even if they only end up winning 7 or 9 games games and missing the playoffs while staying competitive, that will have free agents wanting to play for them, and who's to say they won't find hidden gems late in the draft? How do you think "The L.O.B" was put together?

so no, the Seahawks signing Jimmy Garoppolo after the 49ers cut him isn't the "Keep Seattle mediocre for years to come" plan that many have created in their heads, in facts it's possibly the contrary

Yup Jags got that top QB and landed #1 in the draft.. again. This isn't NBA when a top pick is 20% of your starting lineup and plays both ways offense and defense. There is nothing like that in pro football, with 53 man rosters.

Seattle execs are not playing Madden, these are real life people.. if the team bombs to get a top pick.. they won't even be the ones making it. Do you lose games on purpose, get yourself fired, lose your job, your income, have to sell you home and relocate for a lesser position with another club to get the franchise a slightly better draft pick? Get real.

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

The Seahawks schedule is basically the same as ours except harder. I say harder because they have 2 games against the Niners who are a better team than the Seahawks. With or without Jimmy, I don't see them winning more than 5 games.

NFL has been gift wrapping them with cupcake schedules for years, it's about damn time

regardless, I have ZERO desire in helping a hated rival get "better"

Same, which is why I hope they sign Jimmy and not tank for a top QB pick.

Drafting a "top qb" isn't some fool proof plan to save bad teams, look at the Jags and Jets. However, if a team shows they're committing to winning even if they only end up winning 7 or 9 games games and missing the playoffs while staying competitive, that will have free agents wanting to play for them, and who's to say they won't find hidden gems late in the draft? How do you think "The L.O.B" was put together?

so no, the Seahawks signing Jimmy Garoppolo after the 49ers cut him isn't the "Keep Seattle mediocre for years to come" plan that many have created in their heads, in facts it's possibly the contrary

Picking up a guy no one wants isn't some fool proof plan either. Rather them have Jimmy than a top pick.

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:
Picking up a guy no one wants isn't some fool proof plan either. Rather them have Jimmy than a top pick.

I'd rather they have the top pick. That means they will be getting rolled this year, an easy 2 wins. Then they will be trotting out some college all star like Lawrence, which as we saw is another easy 2 wins. We are 4-0 right here. And if the top pick is a Jamarcus Russell type, we are set up for the next 5 years vs these guys..

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Picking up a guy no one wants isn't some fool proof plan either. Rather them have Jimmy than a top pick.

I'd rather they have the top pick. That means they will be getting rolled this year, an easy 2 wins. Then they will be trotting out some college all star like Lawrence, which as we saw is another easy 2 wins. We are 4-0 right here. And if the top pick is a Jamarcus Russell type, we are set up for the next 5 years vs these guys..

To each their own. The next Russel Wilson is also another possibility. But Jimmy is still poor old Jimmy.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:
Picking up a guy no one wants isn't some fool proof plan either. Rather them have Jimmy than a top pick.

I'd rather they have the top pick. That means they will be getting rolled this year, an easy 2 wins. Then they will be trotting out some college all star like Lawrence, which as we saw is another easy 2 wins. We are 4-0 right here. And if the top pick is a Jamarcus Russell type, we are set up for the next 5 years vs these guys..

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'd rather they have the top pick. That means they will be getting rolled this year, an easy 2 wins. Then they will be trotting out some college all star like Lawrence, which as we saw is another easy 2 wins. We are 4-0 right here. And if the top pick is a Jamarcus Russell type, we are set up for the next 5 years vs these guys..

Seattle seachickens ARE FU*KED for at least 10+ years now that they traded Wilson away, Wilson probably asked to be traded because senile pete refused to get him a real o line to protect him as Wilson is getting old and don't have the legs to run away and around anymore and their defense is garbage now, regardless if they picked up Jimmy G or tank and get a top QB in the draft next year.

Senile pete will most likely retire or leave after 2-3 failed seasons from now.

Schefter thinks a restructure is possible

I don't buy it happening. It's hard to see a QB who has been completely separated from the team holding onto a roster spot with the team when there's already a crunch at numerous positions.