Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

Yup.

Agreed. But not last Sunday. What, "great designs?"

Just going by the highlights, because I'm not paying the NFL for All 22 until they start putting up games from the 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s. (A lame protest, but if you don't hold true to what you believe in, what are you good for? I want those damn games, and the NFL isn't getting a cent from me until they are a part of the package.)

I'll give you one:

Deebo motions to the backfield. McCaffrey motions in an orbit, ball snapped, Deebo picks up 6. Why does this matter? It gets defenses thinking about it, which leads to:

Deebo in motion, McCaffrey runs a similar motion at the snap, but this time is faked a handoff, and that leads to Aiyuk catching 20 yard pass, with every linebacker vacating the passing lanes because they were worried about McCaffrey, and the safety following Deebo over the middle, leaving an absolutely wide ass open lane to throw the deep in. Of course, he fumbled it. But the design—including the set up plays—was brilliant. And some might argue he wouldn't have fumbled it if he didn't need to catch such a high pass. But that's not what I'm discussing here.

And then later in the game, McCaffrey again comes in orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, and once again there is a playfake (to Deebo this time), and the whole defense follows, so McCaffrey can be wide open on the swing. Which incidentally has great designed blocking (via routes which get them in position, like a glorified screen pass), and McCaffrey gets inside the five yard line.

And then later int he game, the same orbit motion, this time with Deebo, with McCaffrey also in the backfield, with a playfake to Deebo, which moves linebackers, and followed by a rail route to McCaffrey which nearly goes the distance, if not for the Charger guy getting just enough of him for him to lose his balance out of bounds.

And then McCaffrey does the orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, drawing defensive eyes once more, except it's a handoff to Deebo who gets around fifteen yards, despite Aiyuk whiffing on his initial block.

All from essentially one design plan.

.
.
Also, for free, I'll give you one more none of you have considered: the key third down to Jennings. You'll note where the playcall had him breaking out. It wasn't at the yard to gain, where everyone and their mom would have expected. It was five or six yards passed it. Reminds me of our first Super Bowl win, when all season passes that went 20 yards down field were deep passes, and the 49ers did some deep comebacks that were wide open off of it. It was a great tendency breaker.

Nice stuff, man. Appreciate the work! NY wasn't going to do it.

"Great" to me is making life easy on your offense from the start. Playing to your strengths (PP + passing game). Staying ahead of the DC. Guys schemed wide open, perfectly timed screens, attacking a personnel weakness over and over (we know this one), using all your weapons, moving personnel around to confuse the defense, maybe a trick play, setting up an explosive (Dwelley bomb), etc.

This game overall (for Kyle) was about as vanilla as it gets. I'd say his game plan was vanilla but consistent...even persistent...but not "great."

But people might have different definitions of, great so it's all good.

Sometimes players decide the outcome of plays. What I've bolded here is also what I already pointed out from the highlights videos as having happened in the game. Aiyuk doesn't drop a pass and fumble the ball, we score two additional touchdowns.

Throw in McGlinchey whiffing on that 3rd and goal block and that would be three additional TD's. Plus the blocked punt. Good lord we really dominated the Chargers, should have been a blowout.

I will say though, that was the type of game that Kyle and Jimmy used to lose REGULARLY. For them both to overcome all of that and still pull out a win was really good to see. Not every win over the course of a 17 game season is going to be pretty.

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
NC what do you consider 2nd "and long" though? IMO, 2nd and long is much different than 3rd and long (for obvious reasons), and should be treated differently. Like, 2nd and 7 to me isnt 2nd and long, but 3rd and 7 is.

Just curious.

Me? I vacillate on 2nd and 7 or 2nd and 8. I'd be fine either way but to be clear, my focus is really 1st downs because we know the ripple effect that has on our passing game...like ANY penalty.

In years past, when we're picking up positive yards (3/4+), we're rolling. Kyle's playbook is fully opened.

But as we've seen with the I/OZ, so often we're in negative yards (2-4 yard losses). Boom or bust.

I think Kurt Warner touched on it well, that there are some easy schematic changes Kyle can make to make life a little easier on the QB and passing game and stay ahead of the sticks. Hence why CMC was such a huge addition.

This is why I watch first down production (or lack thereof); because of that ripple effect.

And completely ignore the night and day difference in production between the two RB's on 1st down. All of the negative 1st down runs were from the same RB. On top of that, they were alternating series throughout the game. So it wasn't like CMC wore them down in the 1st half and Mitchell took advantage of it in the 2nd half. CMC just had a poor game rushing. That is it. Nothing more to it.

So you think the Chargers played the two RB's EXACTLY the same way? And the OL blocked EXACTLY the same way for the two RB's? Seems quite doubtful. Perhaps the Chargers were just keyed in more on stopping CMC running.

Yes. Here's the gameplan. Lets shut down CMC and let that no body Mitchell gash us for 6+ yards on 1st down all game long. Also, the O line said, we like that guy Mitchell more than we do that new hotshot RB CMC. So we are going to block better for our boy Mitchell. F that CMC dude.

Not quite lol. They saw CMC absolutely torch the Rams, so they said "make someone else beat us." They were run blitzing 2-3 guys every time CMC carried the ball. The safeties were at the LOS to help by the time CMC got there. That's not a run read, that's a run blitz. I didn't see that when Mitchell was in, so he had more space to work, and the zone blocking was able to do it's job.

So you are saying that LAC's never adjusted to the other guy who was gashing the s**t out of them on 1st down all game long? Someone should fire that f**king coach. 😂

Not sure why you're trying to make a very complicated conversation and analysis so simple. There's a lot to it, it's not as simple as "CMC sucked and Mitchell was great against the Chargers."

Why? I will tell you why. Because it doesn't fit the blame Kyle Shanahan narrative that is being thrown around in here. The truth is, CMC had a poor game rushing and you and NC refuse to change your blame pie to include him because of your bias against Kyle. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

I already said it's cool to use him. He was just part of the issue on first downs. If you say those are good calls and they are execution issues because of what Mitchell did, that's fine too. But how many did Kyle need to see before he came off CMC? Doesn't that fall in the play calling pie too? Use him instead in the passing game while they're still expecting run? It's not like he didn't have 41 attempts to figure it out.

Now that is a really good question. If I had to guess. It was probably a little bit of he didn't want to tip his hand with who was lining up out there and giving CMC the benefit of the doubt. Hoping he would turn it around. If I am not mistaking, they stated using Mitchell more late in the 4th quarter when we were trying to run out the clock and why Mitchell ended up with more carries. Kyle did say the plan was to get them equal carries.

I'd also add Kyle needed to manage Mitchell's snaps as well so he might have stuck with CMC either way and then, like you said, had Mitchell, more fresh for the final drives. Naturally Mitchell would be more of a 'trusted agent' at this point in the running game.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Interesting because that's precisely what the Jimmy haters (and Alex haters) have been saying for a decade plus.

But carry on.

That's a stupid take then. If your RB is wide open it's dumb to throw anywhere else. You shouldn't be throwing to Julio Jones if he's double covered.

The best offenses are ones where you don't FEATURE anyone. You throw to the open guy, whoever that is. Our offenses with TO were terribly inefficient because everything went through him. I want no part of that.

I'm with you 100%! Glad to see you're not a part of the "bUt AiR yArDs" crew.

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm with you 100%! Glad to see you're not a part of the "bUt AiR yArDs" crew.

I want Jimmy to be aggressive and take more shots. I don't want him throwing to George Kittle in the back of the endzone despite double coverage even if he fits it in there. Theres a happy medium between more aggressive and dumb risk taking. Thats what the team needs to find however that is accomplished.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
And this ignores the great designs Kyle called which got huge gains. It also ignores the strong possibility on a lot of those first and second downs that EXECUTION was the problem.

Yup.

Agreed. But not last Sunday. What, "great designs?"

Just going by the highlights, because I'm not paying the NFL for All 22 until they start putting up games from the 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s. (A lame protest, but if you don't hold true to what you believe in, what are you good for? I want those damn games, and the NFL isn't getting a cent from me until they are a part of the package.)

I'll give you one:

Deebo motions to the backfield. McCaffrey motions in an orbit, ball snapped, Deebo picks up 6. Why does this matter? It gets defenses thinking about it, which leads to:

Deebo in motion, McCaffrey runs a similar motion at the snap, but this time is faked a handoff, and that leads to Aiyuk catching 20 yard pass, with every linebacker vacating the passing lanes because they were worried about McCaffrey, and the safety following Deebo over the middle, leaving an absolutely wide ass open lane to throw the deep in. Of course, he fumbled it. But the design—including the set up plays—was brilliant. And some might argue he wouldn't have fumbled it if he didn't need to catch such a high pass. But that's not what I'm discussing here.

And then later in the game, McCaffrey again comes in orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, and once again there is a playfake (to Deebo this time), and the whole defense follows, so McCaffrey can be wide open on the swing. Which incidentally has great designed blocking (via routes which get them in position, like a glorified screen pass), and McCaffrey gets inside the five yard line.

And then later int he game, the same orbit motion, this time with Deebo, with McCaffrey also in the backfield, with a playfake to Deebo, which moves linebackers, and followed by a rail route to McCaffrey which nearly goes the distance, if not for the Charger guy getting just enough of him for him to lose his balance out of bounds.

And then McCaffrey does the orbit motion with Deebo in the backfield, drawing defensive eyes once more, except it's a handoff to Deebo who gets around fifteen yards, despite Aiyuk whiffing on his initial block.

All from essentially one design plan.

.
.
Also, for free, I'll give you one more none of you have considered: the key third down to Jennings. You'll note where the playcall had him breaking out. It wasn't at the yard to gain, where everyone and their mom would have expected. It was five or six yards passed it. Reminds me of our first Super Bowl win, when all season passes that went 20 yards down field were deep passes, and the 49ers did some deep comebacks that were wide open off of it. It was a great tendency breaker.

Nice stuff, man. Appreciate the work! NY wasn't going to do it.

"Great" to me is making life easy on your offense from the start. Playing to your strengths (PP + passing game). Staying ahead of the DC. Guys schemed wide open, perfectly timed screens, attacking a personnel weakness over and over (we know this one), using all your weapons, moving personnel around to confuse the defense, maybe a trick play, setting up an explosive (Dwelley bomb), etc.

This game overall (for Kyle) was about as vanilla as it gets. I'd say his game plan was vanilla but consistent...even persistent...but not "great."

But people might have different definitions of, great so it's all good.

Sometimes players decide the outcome of plays. What I've bolded here is also what I already pointed out from the highlights videos as having happened in the game. Aiyuk doesn't drop a pass and fumble the ball, we score two additional touchdowns.

Definitely. It's encouraging that we have the talent to do that.

Just waiting for that complete game from all 3 units, start to finish! It's coming.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm with you 100%! Glad to see you're not a part of the "bUt AiR yArDs" crew.

I want Jimmy to be aggressive and take more shots. I don't want him throwing to George Kittle in the back of the endzone despite double coverage even if he fits it in there. Theres a happy medium between more aggressive and dumb risk taking. Thats what the team needs to find however that is accomplished.

I agree. I'm hoping Danny Gray is making progress learning the offense and as a blocker so that he can get some opportunities in the 2nd half of the season. We should see plenty of single high safety and one on one looks with our WR's with Mitchell and CMC "thunder and lightning" combo doing damage on the ground. A couple long bomb touchdowns to Gray would really open things up for our YAC specialists.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Interesting because that's precisely what the Jimmy haters (and Alex haters) have been saying for a decade plus.

But carry on.

That's a stupid take then. If your RB is wide open it's dumb to throw anywhere else. You shouldn't be throwing to Julio Jones if he's double covered.

The best offenses are ones where you don't FEATURE anyone. You throw to the open guy, whoever that is. Our offenses with TO were terribly inefficient because everything went through him. I want no part of that.

its stupid take because it entirely incorrect. Those two guys can't be compared. Smith only threw to RBs or at the LOS TEs. Jimmy just wings it

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
NC what do you consider 2nd "and long" though? IMO, 2nd and long is much different than 3rd and long (for obvious reasons), and should be treated differently. Like, 2nd and 7 to me isnt 2nd and long, but 3rd and 7 is.

Just curious.

Me? I vacillate on 2nd and 7 or 2nd and 8. I'd be fine either way but to be clear, my focus is really 1st downs because we know the ripple effect that has on our passing game...like ANY penalty.

In years past, when we're picking up positive yards (3/4+), we're rolling. Kyle's playbook is fully opened.

But as we've seen with the I/OZ, so often we're in negative yards (2-4 yard losses). Boom or bust.

I think Kurt Warner touched on it well, that there are some easy schematic changes Kyle can make to make life a little easier on the QB and passing game and stay ahead of the sticks. Hence why CMC was such a huge addition.

This is why I watch first down production (or lack thereof); because of that ripple effect.

And completely ignore the night and day difference in production between the two RB's on 1st down. All of the negative 1st down runs were from the same RB. On top of that, they were alternating series throughout the game. So it wasn't like CMC wore them down in the 1st half and Mitchell took advantage of it in the 2nd half. CMC just had a poor game rushing. That is it. Nothing more to it.

So you think the Chargers played the two RB's EXACTLY the same way? And the OL blocked EXACTLY the same way for the two RB's? Seems quite doubtful. Perhaps the Chargers were just keyed in more on stopping CMC running.

Yes. Here's the gameplan. Lets shut down CMC and let that no body Mitchell gash us for 6+ yards on 1st down all game long. Also, the O line said, we like that guy Mitchell more than we do that new hotshot RB CMC. So we are going to block better for our boy Mitchell. F that CMC dude.

Not quite lol. They saw CMC absolutely torch the Rams, so they said "make someone else beat us." They were run blitzing 2-3 guys every time CMC carried the ball. The safeties were at the LOS to help by the time CMC got there. That's not a run read, that's a run blitz. I didn't see that when Mitchell was in, so he had more space to work, and the zone blocking was able to do it's job.

So you are saying that LAC's never adjusted to the other guy who was gashing the s**t out of them on 1st down all game long? Someone should fire that f**king coach. 😂

Not sure why you're trying to make a very complicated conversation and analysis so simple. There's a lot to it, it's not as simple as "CMC sucked and Mitchell was great against the Chargers."

Why? I will tell you why. Because it doesn't fit the blame Kyle Shanahan narrative that is being thrown around in here. The truth is, CMC had a poor game rushing and you and NC refuse to change your blame pie to include him because of your bias against Kyle. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

I just don't buy it that CMC went from having an all-time great performance as a RB two weeks ago to just sucking as you're trying to argue.

And you're talking about the most complicated sport in the world lol. It's 11 on 11 tackle football with the best of the best coaches (for the most part lol) in the game. It's NEVER as simple as one player sucked and one player was good. Especially in a one game sample size.

And I don't have a "bias" against Kyle. He's the head coach, and is in charge of the roster. So the personnel and play calling stops with him. He's made good adjustments the past two games and we've played much better in the 2nd half compared to games earlier in the season. Let's hope he continues to ditch the turtle shell offense in favor of letting his QB and WR's/RB's/TE's make plays.

I think you are underestimating the difference in the back that CMC is and the back that Mitchell is. They are not the same and do not run or play the game the same. Mitchell is a better version of Wilson Jr. CMC is not a downhill run over defenders type back. He is an elusive make guys miss type back. YAC monster, if you will.

You are right that LAC game planned to stop CMC. They didn't have much film on Mitchell for this season and probably didn't know how many snaps he'd see coming back for his first game of action since week 1. But the chargers never adjusted to Mitchell's game.

The best reason for having a 1-2 punch at RB is the very thing we witnessed in the chargers game. When a team sells out to stop 1 type of back, they leave themselves vulnerable to the other. Mitchell, Deebo and CMC wore their asses out by the 3rd quarter just like George Kittle said.

NC's argument was that the negative plays on 1st and 2nd down did the QB and O line no favors. Just because CMC had a poor rushing performance doesn't mean Kyle is a poor play caller. There are possible reasons for Kyle continuing to call CMC's number in those situations even though he wasn't getting it done.

Also, Sometimes players have bad performances. It happens even to great players from time to time. The truth is Mitchell's solid performance made up for it and that it did in fact help the QB and O line late in the game when we needed big 3rd down conversions. Their front 7 were worn out and their pass rush was non existent.

Just one time go route or sluggo and JG just bleeping throws the bleep out of it.. one time in my life.. let us try it see what happens..

Do it to Deebo not these punks Benjamin or RR.. no offense Ray Ray

Come on Shanny.

Let it happen before we need it in the SB. Prax makes perfect.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
I want Jimmy to be aggressive and take more shots. I don't want him throwing to George Kittle in the back of the endzone despite double coverage even if he fits it in there. Theres a happy medium between more aggressive and dumb risk taking. Thats what the team needs to find however that is accomplished.

I agree 100% with this.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by YACBros85:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
NC what do you consider 2nd "and long" though? IMO, 2nd and long is much different than 3rd and long (for obvious reasons), and should be treated differently. Like, 2nd and 7 to me isnt 2nd and long, but 3rd and 7 is.

Just curious.

Me? I vacillate on 2nd and 7 or 2nd and 8. I'd be fine either way but to be clear, my focus is really 1st downs because we know the ripple effect that has on our passing game...like ANY penalty.

In years past, when we're picking up positive yards (3/4+), we're rolling. Kyle's playbook is fully opened.

But as we've seen with the I/OZ, so often we're in negative yards (2-4 yard losses). Boom or bust.

I think Kurt Warner touched on it well, that there are some easy schematic changes Kyle can make to make life a little easier on the QB and passing game and stay ahead of the sticks. Hence why CMC was such a huge addition.

This is why I watch first down production (or lack thereof); because of that ripple effect.

And completely ignore the night and day difference in production between the two RB's on 1st down. All of the negative 1st down runs were from the same RB. On top of that, they were alternating series throughout the game. So it wasn't like CMC wore them down in the 1st half and Mitchell took advantage of it in the 2nd half. CMC just had a poor game rushing. That is it. Nothing more to it.

So you think the Chargers played the two RB's EXACTLY the same way? And the OL blocked EXACTLY the same way for the two RB's? Seems quite doubtful. Perhaps the Chargers were just keyed in more on stopping CMC running.

Yes. Here's the gameplan. Lets shut down CMC and let that no body Mitchell gash us for 6+ yards on 1st down all game long. Also, the O line said, we like that guy Mitchell more than we do that new hotshot RB CMC. So we are going to block better for our boy Mitchell. F that CMC dude.

Not quite lol. They saw CMC absolutely torch the Rams, so they said "make someone else beat us." They were run blitzing 2-3 guys every time CMC carried the ball. The safeties were at the LOS to help by the time CMC got there. That's not a run read, that's a run blitz. I didn't see that when Mitchell was in, so he had more space to work, and the zone blocking was able to do it's job.

So you are saying that LAC's never adjusted to the other guy who was gashing the s**t out of them on 1st down all game long? Someone should fire that f**king coach. 😂

Not sure why you're trying to make a very complicated conversation and analysis so simple. There's a lot to it, it's not as simple as "CMC sucked and Mitchell was great against the Chargers."

Why? I will tell you why. Because it doesn't fit the blame Kyle Shanahan narrative that is being thrown around in here. The truth is, CMC had a poor game rushing and you and NC refuse to change your blame pie to include him because of your bias against Kyle. It really isn't as complicated as you are making it out to be.

I already said it's cool to use him. He was just part of the issue on first downs. If you say those are good calls and they are execution issues because of what Mitchell did, that's fine too. But how many did Kyle need to see before he came off CMC? Doesn't that fall in the play calling pie too? Use him instead in the passing game while they're still expecting run? It's not like he didn't have 41 attempts to figure it out.

Now that is a really good question. If I had to guess. It was probably a little bit of he didn't want to tip his hand with who was lining up out there and giving CMC the benefit of the doubt. Hoping he would turn it around. If I am not mistaking, they stated using Mitchell more late in the 4th quarter when we were trying to run out the clock and why Mitchell ended up with more carries. Kyle did say the plan was to get them equal carries.

I'd also add Kyle needed to manage Mitchell's snaps as well so he might have stuck with CMC either way and then, like you said, had Mitchell, more fresh for the final drives. Naturally Mitchell would be more of a 'trusted agent' at this point in the running game.

Kittle stated that the run game wore the chargers out by the 3rd quarter. So the game plan worked to perfection. It was actually the execution that held the scoring back, not the play calling.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Just one time go route or sluggo and JG just bleeping throws the bleep out of it.. one time in my life.. let us try it see what happens..

Do it to Deebo not these punks Benjamin or RR.. no offense Ray Ray

Come on Shanny.

Let it happen before we need it in the SB. Prax makes perfect.

Pretty sure Aiyuk ran either a go or sluggo on the play against Denver where Jimmy got sacked at the end. He was open. It's not just incumbent on Shanny.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Just one time go route or sluggo and JG just bleeping throws the bleep out of it.. one time in my life.. let us try it see what happens..

Do it to Deebo not these punks Benjamin or RR.. no offense Ray Ray

Come on Shanny.

Let it happen before we need it in the SB. Prax makes perfect.

Danny Gray?

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by OhioNiner:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Despite the very weird off-season, Jimmy has been playing really good football, the Broncos game was easily his worse. but he's in a no win position with most fans on this forum and it's a damn shame, good thing they only represent the vocal minority of the fanbase

This last game wasn't good football. I don't see a QB out there that has command of this offense. Well....in Miami I do,...but not here.

We were fortunate enough to win another one on the backs of the defense.

Jimmy made a few key third down passes. He was a contributor.

jimmy hasnt been the problem lately but lazy posters want to blame him. our receivers should never have to go out of their way to catch any passes like everyone else receivers do. Jimmy has been playing very well lately. Aiyuk dropped a TD and fumbled. Jimmy made some clutch throws last night. the unscriped sideline pass to ray ray was awesome. plays like that just confirm most of our suspicions that Kyle is holding him back, he can make those throws

The "lazy posters" as you put them are so set in their mind that they will always try to find something to reinforce their beliefs. Jimmy can go 21-25 as he did against the Rams, one of the most efficient days in the organization's history, and they can't help themselves and have to mention 2 "almost picks".

The thing is I think I see a correlation between their mindset and the mindset of some in the Justin Fields thread on NFL Talk. And yes, I'm an Ohio State fan who preferred Fields and want to see him have success. But now that he is, some are downplaying it and I don't think, as at least one or two others have indicated, it's even necessarily because they believe what they're even saying. Fields is starting to succeed and our pick is on the bench and on IR rehabbing a broken ankle.

I don't think it's even about how "bad" or "limited" Jimmy is. I'm sure the injuries have frustrated and some inconvenient picks or fumbles have even almost enraged. But I think it's still "We could have had Mahomes". So too could have eight other teams. Some of those still got good players (Cleveland, Jets, Chargers, Panthers) and still others now have QB's they hope will be good or are good (Chicago, Jacksonville, Chargers, Bengals). But then again, pretty much any of them would probably redo that pick for Mahomes.

Thing is, it's hard to say Mahomes would be quite the same Mahomes here. He'd still do some of the same things, but Kyle is probably always going to be a run first coach and a bit conservative. "But Atlanta! But Matt Ryan!" I think Jonny and maybe someone else or maybe just Jonny has referenced and even provided quotes that show that Kyle the head coach isn't the same play caller nor does he have the exact same mindset as he did in Atlanta and Houston- by his own admission.

I mean, I'd take Mahomes too. Jimmy is having arguably the best season of his career and it certainly isn't flashy. But it's doable and relatively effective. I know even as I type that it doesn't excite me either. But if it's something even a bit better than 2019 it just might take us where we want to be.

Mentioning "almost picks" is fully valid when evaluating how a QB played, and it's asinine to say otherwise. If you do that, you should not slam an offensive linemen for getting owned, but bailed out by a great play by the QB.

As for the "Atlanta" thing, you'll have to square that argument with the fact that he takes more shots when Trey is in, and immediately took more shots a couple years ago when Beathard came in.

Also, the argument about Mahomes is a joke.

I stopped reading after the first point you made, and barely skimmed the rest, so I can neither endorse nor dispute the rest of your post.

Cool. With your attitude I'll know not to pay attention to you in the future.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm with you 100%! Glad to see you're not a part of the "bUt AiR yArDs" crew.

I want Jimmy to be aggressive and take more shots. I don't want him throwing to George Kittle in the back of the endzone despite double coverage even if he fits it in there. Theres a happy medium between more aggressive and dumb risk taking. Thats what the team needs to find however that is accomplished.

No you don't. You want Jimmy to be comfortable and efficient. I don't mind a deep shot look or two a game. But if it isn't there, don't force it. Kyle knows Jimmy's winning formula. Under 30 attempts and 100+ yards rushing from the RB's.