Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by NCommand:
Same exact pressure rate and same low ypc.

But if you feel the need to continue to defend Stafford, go for it you Rams fan.

Wasn't the same pressure rate. I showed you it. was 48% of something like that.

7 sacks is also not the same.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Just like the O line thread and harping about not bringing the QB into it. Lets keep this about the QB.

You don't think Mahomes or Allen would still thrive as passers if they were in the Shanny system and the run game wasn't working?

Even in a run first system, there are going to be games that you need to depend on your QB to carry the offense when the run game isn't working.

I am. I'm saying if you took the passing game away from higher end QB's like the aforementioned, could the TEAM win by playing to their weakness? It's all about how you're built. Your strengths. We just saw Stafford play under identical circumstances to Jimmy in the NFCCG, who isn't as talented, completely s**t the bed and could only score 10 points. Could the Rams just switch gears and win with the running game if their passing game is shut down?

That's what you're saying here. If we have to play outside our formula and how this team is built, of course we're less likely to win. They don't spend countless hours in the passing game like a pass centric offense would do.

I don't see this as a Jimmy stat but how a team is constructed to win.

Not even kind of true

Same exact pressure rate and same low ypc.

But if you feel the need to continue to defend Stafford, go for it you Rams fan.

I don't give a s**t about the pressure rate. The ram OL play game one was nothing close to the niner OL play in the NFCCG. Was infinitely worse and not one unbiased person would think otherwise . No need for exaggerated takes ti try and defend a position

True. They only had a 38% pressure rate. Jimmy had 41% through all of the playoffs.

And Stafford, like Jimmy, couldn't escape that pressure and many of them turned into sacks. Jimmy's usually turn into big hits and INT's (he never throws it away).

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Just like the O line thread and harping about not bringing the QB into it. Lets keep this about the QB.

You don't think Mahomes or Allen would still thrive as passers if they were in the Shanny system and the run game wasn't working?

Even in a run first system, there are going to be games that you need to depend on your QB to carry the offense when the run game isn't working.

I am. I'm saying if you took the passing game away from higher end QB's like the aforementioned, could the TEAM win by playing to their weakness? It's all about how you're built. Your strengths. We just saw Stafford play under identical circumstances to Jimmy in the NFCCG, who isn't as talented, completely s**t the bed and could only score 10 points. Could the Rams just switch gears and win with the running game if their passing game is shut down?

That's what you're saying here. If we have to play outside our formula and how this team is built, of course we're less likely to win. They don't spend countless hours in the passing game like a pass centric offense would do.

If we are being honest, the QB dictates more than anything else if an offense is capable of being pass centric or not. Shanny is run centric by choice as we all know. But I am willing to bet that Matt Ryan was more than capable of winning games with his arm regardless of the 2016 Falcons turning run heavy. You can bring up the Falcons SB loss if you want but that would be relying on 1 game to make your point.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Same exact pressure rate and same low ypc.

But if you feel the need to continue to defend Stafford, go for it you Rams fan.

Wasn't the same pressure rate. I showed you it. was 48% of something like that.

7 sacks is also not the same.

I showed you 38%. But anything over 25% is massive duress so it's pretty moot. Can't run? Can't pass?

Can't win.

Originally posted by NCommand:
I showed you 38%. But anything over 25% is massive duress so it's pretty moot. Can't run? Can't pass?

Can't win.

Unless your Stafford IN THE ACTUAL NFC CHAMPIONSHIP

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Just like the O line thread and harping about not bringing the QB into it. Lets keep this about the QB.

You don't think Mahomes or Allen would still thrive as passers if they were in the Shanny system and the run game wasn't working?

Even in a run first system, there are going to be games that you need to depend on your QB to carry the offense when the run game isn't working.

I am. I'm saying if you took the passing game away from higher end QB's like the aforementioned, could the TEAM win by playing to their weakness? It's all about how you're built. Your strengths. We just saw Stafford play under identical circumstances to Jimmy in the NFCCG, who isn't as talented, completely s**t the bed and could only score 10 points. Could the Rams just switch gears and win with the running game if their passing game is shut down?

That's what you're saying here. If we have to play outside our formula and how this team is built, of course we're less likely to win. They don't spend countless hours in the passing game like a pass centric offense would do.

I don't see this as a Jimmy stat but how a team is constructed to win.

Not even kind of true

Same exact pressure rate and same low ypc.

But if you feel the need to continue to defend Stafford, go for it you Rams fan.

I don't give a s**t about the pressure rate. The ram OL play game one was nothing close to the niner OL play in the NFCCG. Was infinitely worse and not one unbiased person would think otherwise . No need for exaggerated takes ti try and defend a position

True. They only had a 38% pressure rate. Jimmy had 41% through all of the playoffs.

And Stafford, like Jimmy, couldn't escape that pressure and many of them turned into sacks. Jimmy's usually turn into big hits and INT's (he never throws it away).

Here you go with pressure rates again. I'll use one of your lines from years ago before you shifted to pressure rates as the barometer. "Well what actually constitutes a pressure? Seems very subjective"
if you are seriously trying to say with a straight face that the OL play were comparable, then you are being disingenuous.

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Here you go with pressure rates again. I'll use one of your lines from years ago before you shifted to pressure rates as the barometer. "Well what actually constitutes a pressure? Seems very subjective"
if you are seriously trying to say with a straight face that the OL play were comparable, then you are being disingenuous.

Post 127146. That's the exact same as a sack Hoov. No actual difference.

Jimmy hater fake 9ers fan their opinion don't matter. You can tell at the vegas odd if he's good or not. Those are professional that knows what they doing, not keyboard warriors opinions

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Just like the O line thread and harping about not bringing the QB into it. Lets keep this about the QB.

You don't think Mahomes or Allen would still thrive as passers if they were in the Shanny system and the run game wasn't working?

Even in a run first system, there are going to be games that you need to depend on your QB to carry the offense when the run game isn't working.

I am. I'm saying if you took the passing game away from higher end QB's like the aforementioned, could the TEAM win by playing to their weakness? It's all about how you're built. Your strengths. We just saw Stafford play under identical circumstances to Jimmy in the NFCCG, who isn't as talented, completely s**t the bed and could only score 10 points. Could the Rams just switch gears and win with the running game if their passing game is shut down?

That's what you're saying here. If we have to play outside our formula and how this team is built, of course we're less likely to win. They don't spend countless hours in the passing game like a pass centric offense would do.

I don't see this as a Jimmy stat but how a team is constructed to win.

idk.. We're built with better pass catching options than runners..

But we don't access them like a pass centric team. At best, Kyle will draw up one receiver per game. With our league leading rushing attempts, there's only room for one primary. Sometimes Kyle highlights Kittle, other times its Deebo or Aiyuk. But Kyle isn't taking rushing snaps away to increase passing attempts just to get 2 receivers to 100+ yards each. It can still happen but usually, it's outside "the winning formula."

but we don't have a Qb to go pass centric. What other stints has Kyle done this much juggling and creating new plays/postions, keeping his best pass catchers in to block to win ?

Originally posted by dioworld:

Jimmy hater fake 9ers fan their opinion don't matter. You can tell at the vegas odd if he's good or not. Those are professional that knows what they doing, not keyboard warriors opinions

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Just like the O line thread and harping about not bringing the QB into it. Lets keep this about the QB.

You don't think Mahomes or Allen would still thrive as passers if they were in the Shanny system and the run game wasn't working?

Even in a run first system, there are going to be games that you need to depend on your QB to carry the offense when the run game isn't working.

I am. I'm saying if you took the passing game away from higher end QB's like the aforementioned, could the TEAM win by playing to their weakness? It's all about how you're built. Your strengths. We just saw Stafford play under identical circumstances to Jimmy in the NFCCG, who isn't as talented, completely s**t the bed and could only score 10 points. Could the Rams just switch gears and win with the running game if their passing game is shut down?

That's what you're saying here. If we have to play outside our formula and how this team is built, of course we're less likely to win. They don't spend countless hours in the passing game like a pass centric offense would do.

If we are being honest, the QB dictates more than anything else if an offense is capable of being pass centric or not. Shanny is run centric by choice as we all know. But I am willing to bet that Matt Ryan was more than capable of winning games with his arm regardless of the 2016 Falcons turning run heavy. You can bring up the Falcons SB loss if you want but that would be relying on 1 game to make your point.

I get where you're going. I agree with your premise that we're not winning too many games where we really need to rely on Jimmy and the passing game. I just feel like, a big part of that, is because the whole winning formula is broken so you typically see a ripple effect even effecting the defense. I'm just coming at it from a team building and formula perspective. Kyle has this formula down to the number of rushes we need to have to win. That tells you where they're spending their focus...here.

Could that change if Trey or another more talented passing QB was in the building? Maybe but we're still learning about Kyle as the HC vs. Kyle the OC.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Jimmy do work on SNF! I'll root for you as long as you are in SF. I will also be objective and know he's an avg starting NFL QB, which isn't horrible but the truth. Either way we got some pretty bad QB play across the league and guys starting that have no business being starters. Jimmy is a starter.

when Trey comes back, I will root for him to succeed and understand it's a process. You don't wake up and magically become a great pocket passing QB. It will require reps and getting through all of it. Let's be objective about all of it and understand the process. I would think there's room for 49er fans to support both.

You see, this is where you keep getting yourself in trouble. You always claim you're just being objective about something which you assert is an "obvious" truth, which is that Jimmy is an average QB. That's you're opinion and you're entitled to it but that doesn't make it true. It is a common theme in this thread and, from the opposite side posted by others in the Lance thread. People keep mistaking their opinions for some hard truth and so they feel compelled to have to endlessly debate their point to convince everyone else that their opinion is the correct one, and everyone else is just too stupid to realize it, when in fact it's just your opinion.

It's like the hypocrisy of another poster in here who has been going on about how he and others don't REALLY dislike Jimmy, they are just offering valid "criticisms" of his play. Spending ten pages worth of posts arguing about whether or not a pass that Jimmy threw to Deebo against Chicago last year, that resulted in a TD that helped them win the game was a good pass or not. That's not just "criticism" that's pathological. Jimmy threw it, Deebo caught it, they scored a TD, who cares.

It's also like an idea, that is popular in here and is often echoed among some of the talking head class on TV, looking at you Dan Orlovsky, which claims that it's the defense and Kyle's scheme that are primarily responsible for the team's success and that Jimmy has virtually nothing to do with it and is just along for the ride. If that were true then just about any QB of average skill should be able to do it, but so far that hasn't been the case. They win with Jimmy and lose with everyone else. Does Jimmy have his shortcomings? Absolutely, but so far he has been the only one that has manged to keep the team competitive through the course of a whole season.

Now of course the hope with Lance is that he will have a higher ceiling than Jimmy in terms of his ability to attack down the field more frequently, which seems to be the only thing that some people in here care about. They will go on about how the threat of the deep ball puts more pressure on opposing defenses and forces them to defend the whole field and yadda, yadda, yadda. But if you read between the lines a bit you will usually find that they just think it's more "entertaining" to watch a QB throw the ball all around the field then the ground and pound, short passing game which seems to have been the team's philosophy for the past few year's. I will let guys like Jonnydel sort all of that out because he clearly has more insight on it.

The book on Lance has yet to be written. I think it is everyone's hope that he will turn out to be everything the team believed he could be when they drafted him, but he is still, clearly, a work in progress, People say that the conditions in the Chicago game were a big factor in that loss. Probably, but there was a game against Washington in 2019 where it was also pouring down rain and the team had five turnovers and yet they still found a way to win it with Jimmy at the helm.

Although it was a very limited sample size, the offense did not look particularly dynamic in the first couple of drives against Seattle. They were running the ball well but there was just something about it that seemed a bit off. It was pointed out by some analyst I was watching that on Deebo's long run on a read option Lance made the wrong read on that play and should have kept the ball himself. Deebo's skill turned what looked like a sure loss into a huge gain so it worked out, which I am cool with, but it was still, apparently the wrong call by Lance, which is just his inexperience, So now this whole experiment has been put on hold for another year, which is unfortunate in some ways but may allow for the short term benefit of the team being more competitive this year.

This whole situation is an odd one with a lot of competing narratives. Steve Young, who lost two straight NFC championship games as I recall because of ill timed picks, is telling anyone who will listen that Jimmy got "fired" from the job, which is hard to argue with. Dan Orlovsky, is telling anyone who will listen that Jimmy is just along for the ride and can't get the team over the hump. This from a guy who I don't think ever took his team to an NFL playoff game. However there is someone else out there, whose name escapes me for the moment, pointing out that one of the underlying dynamics at play here is that Lance was handed the job, because of his draft status, without the benefit of actually having earned it which is something that may have led to some of the recent talk being rumored to have come out of the locker room.

When Jimmy's status was still unclear as training camp approached and the team was saying, at least publicly, that they weren't going to release him I suggested that if that were the case they should just bring him back to camp and let he and Lance compete for the job and may the best man win. That would help ease any unspoken issues among the team about who should start and might have been beneficial in terms of Lance's development in terms of making him compete for a job that he had already planned on being his. I mean, if Lance is destined to be so much better than Jimmy than he shouldn't have had any problem beating him out in camp, right?

But that's not the way things worked out and now Jimmy is back as QB1 and we'll see how far he can take us. I am of the camp who believes that Jimmy is perfectly capable of taking the team to the Super Bowl and winning it but that it will require his consistently best play to do so. There seem to be a couple of pretty good teams out there at the moment so this may well be a tougher get than their 2019 run. But, if they can pull it off, that will just make it that much sweeter. Go Niners!

For someone who criticized NY for stating opinions as truth, you did a lot of it yourself. "The offense did not look particularly dynamic", "there was something about it that was just off". They went 73 and 74 yards on those two drives. They only had 1 drive the rest of the game out of 8 that went as far.

Also, you mixed up the game against Washington and the game against the Steelers in 2019. We only had 1 turnover in the bad weather game against Washington, an interception by Jimmy. We also only scored 9 points and averaged 4.3 yards a play. We won because the defense did what they didn't do against the Bears and shut the Washington offense down completely for the entire game.

And those are both just my opinions. You are free to disagree with them if you have a different take I am not going to spend the next 20 posts arguing about it with you to "prove" I am right. It was just my observation that the energy of the offense changed when Jimmy came in, it seemed more dynamic. I have no doubt that a lot of that had to do with his experience in the system. Perhaps Sunday night it will be a completely different scenario. Time will tell I guess. .

As to the other, you're right I did get the games mixed up, but as I recall they won that game against Pittsburgh as well in spite of having five turnovers so the salient point remains unchanged. Despite the circumstances of the game they found a way to win with Jimmy under center, whether that was because of the defense or not. It also goes back to the usual hypocrisy that "teams" win games, not QB's. Except where Jimmy is concerned. Against Washington in the rain, the defense saved the day and carried Jimmy along with it, but against Chicago in the rain, the defense didn't do its job and cost Lance the win. You guys can't keep having it both ways so you can keep pushing whatever agenda it is you have. It's like the Green Bay game at the end of last year, "well the special teams won that game. Jimmy didn't do anything" Well, maybe so, but the TEAM won, so who cares. They lived to fight anther day in which case maybe someone else may have had an opportunity to step up and make a difference. Who knows, it might have even been Jimmy.

Originally posted by dioworld:
Jimmy hater fake 9ers fan their opinion don't matter. You can tell at the vegas odd if he's good or not. Those are professional that knows what they doing, not keyboard warriors opinions

what are the odds that he's good ?

Originally posted by Silky:
I love NY85 and his viewpoints, but this is the opposite of objective "I will also be objective and know he's an avg starting NFL QB, which isn't horrible but the truth,"

That's like my wife stating "I cannot have an affair with the hot young pool boy Nathan tonight. I will root for you as my husband to help me achieve orgasm, but I know you are average in the bedroom. I will temper my expectations."

Silky,

While I don't have a problem with anyone calling out NY for that statement. I think the statement is pretty fair if it's a comment about the past, if it's for this season, yes it's entirety possible Jimmy elevates his game to be considered elite, so you could make the argument that it's not being objective in the present.

My problem is that the poster who called NY out makes the exact same mistake that he claims NY did. He contributes to definitive claims about Trey, and ignores the egregious ones like Trey's a bust, Trey wouldn't have made the playoffs, and then simultaneously he's the king of fairness for Jimmy. It's so incredibly hypocritical and yet people gobble that s**t up like it's fair and reasonable.

Can we just stop making "factual" claims that we cannot prove? I will indeed call out posters who make claims that Trey would have played better than Jimmy going forward, and all while knowing how many posters will claim it's a fact Jimmy will perform better than Trey. You cannot prove either of those statements. And yet only one is socially acceptable on this board.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Just like the O line thread and harping about not bringing the QB into it. Lets keep this about the QB.

You don't think Mahomes or Allen would still thrive as passers if they were in the Shanny system and the run game wasn't working?

Even in a run first system, there are going to be games that you need to depend on your QB to carry the offense when the run game isn't working.

I am. I'm saying if you took the passing game away from higher end QB's like the aforementioned, could the TEAM win by playing to their weakness? It's all about how you're built. Your strengths. We just saw Stafford play under identical circumstances to Jimmy in the NFCCG, who isn't as talented, completely s**t the bed and could only score 10 points. Could the Rams just switch gears and win with the running game if their passing game is shut down?

That's what you're saying here. If we have to play outside our formula and how this team is built, of course we're less likely to win. They don't spend countless hours in the passing game like a pass centric offense would do.

I don't see this as a Jimmy stat but how a team is constructed to win.

idk.. We're built with better pass catching options than runners..

But we don't access them like a pass centric team. At best, Kyle will draw up one receiver per game. With our league leading rushing attempts, there's only room for one primary. Sometimes Kyle highlights Kittle, other times its Deebo or Aiyuk. But Kyle isn't taking rushing snaps away to increase passing attempts just to get 2 receivers to 100+ yards each. It can still happen but usually, it's outside "the winning formula."

but we don't have a Qb to go pass centric. What other stints has Kyle done this much juggling and creating new plays/postions, keeping his best pass catchers in to block to win ?

Kyle, the HC, just spent 2 years INCREASING the running game with a handpicked QB. So maybe that was just Kyle the OC with players he inherited while trying to make a name for himself in hopes of becoming a HC some day?