Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Just for clarity, if I was to say that I dont believe its Jimmy's fault that he got hurt, but he could/should have gone down immediately to mitigate the chance of getting hurt, I am considered to be one of the people who is "blaming" Jimmy for his injury?

Kyle seemed to be saying that to take a sack at that point would have taken them our of FG range, or at least made it more difficult for Gould.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Just for clarity, if I was to say that I dont believe its Jimmy's fault that he got hurt, but he could/should have gone down immediately to mitigate the chance of getting hurt, I am considered to be one of the people who is "blaming" Jimmy for his injury?

Sir, your nuance is always appreciated. I get what you're saying and I honestly can't disagree. Should/could Jimmy have just gone down immediately and avoided any type of struggle? Hard to argue with that. But given the importance of the game, the quick strike by Miami, the field position, the down and distance - one can clearly understand why he did what he did. It's also inline with his overall style of play which is to squeeze every bit out of every play possible. He hangs in the pocket until the last second waiting for window to open to throw to, and takes huge hits in the process. He pushes that "needle" further than most QB's are even willing to try.

To me as a fan, I appreciate this approach by Jimmy immensely. Is it the "best" approach overall? Very debatable of course. He's sustained season ending injuries because of this. He's also made some incredible throws into super tight windows for TD's and/or 3rd down conversions. I just find it very difficult to fault him for his approach because it's selfless and the intent is to help the team any way he can, even if it means sacrificing himself physically.

The timing of posts matters as well. We had guys coming in here saying "I told you so" and calling Jimmy "fragile" and a "bust" during the game and right after. Just totally uncalled for, tasteless, and shameful. I do think there is a conversation to be had about this, but if requires nuance and timing that most of the Jimmy detractors simply lack.

Thanks. Like I have said a bunch of times, its not Jimmy's "fault" he got hurt. But a lot of QBs (especially non-mobile ones) have understood that if they see a free rusher coming right at them, they just go down. Peyton used to do this regularly. I can picture it in my head. I also get why Jimmy would want to fight for extra yards, and I would never completely fault a guy for trying to make a play. But I do also believe that he needed to be smarter. More than likely, our Superbowl chances rely on his abilty to stay healthy. Time will tell if that's true.

It's all amount minimizing risk and Jimmy did not do a good job of that on that play. On the other hand, if other players did their jobs, he wouldnt have needed to.

Its an interesting conversation.

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Only if youre one of the guys who would have blamed him afterwards for taking us out of field goal position for just taking a sack.

If Jimmy would have fallen as soon as he noticed the free rusher, he would have done so on the 27 yard line. That would NOT have taken us out of field goal position.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
"Could" is an objectively true statement and allows for discussion of pros and cons.

"Should" is Monday morning quarterbacking that pretty readily blends into assigning fault. It substitutes your own judgement for his and indicates that he took a suboptimal approach. Though his approach was probably suboptimal, your judgment after the fact does not adequately substitute for his judgment in the moment for a variety of reasons.

Eh, I dont know that I agree with the should part of your post. If I was stopped at a red light and as soon as the light turned green, I accelerated and was t-boned by a drunk driver....I could easily say to myself "I should have looked before I accelerated." That doesnt mean I am assigning fault to myself for getting hit by the drunk driver who ran the red light. It was still the drunk driver's fault. It just means that I should have looked just in case something like that happened.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Just for clarity, if I was to say that I dont believe its Jimmy's fault that he got hurt, but he could/should have gone down immediately to mitigate the chance of getting hurt, I am considered to be one of the people who is "blaming" Jimmy for his injury?

Sir, your nuance is always appreciated. I get what you're saying and I honestly can't disagree. Should/could Jimmy have just gone down immediately and avoided any type of struggle? Hard to argue with that. But given the importance of the game, the quick strike by Miami, the field position, the down and distance - one can clearly understand why he did what he did. It's also inline with his overall style of play which is to squeeze every bit out of every play possible. He hangs in the pocket until the last second waiting for window to open to throw to, and takes huge hits in the process. He pushes that "needle" further than most QB's are even willing to try.

To me as a fan, I appreciate this approach by Jimmy immensely. Is it the "best" approach overall? Very debatable of course. He's sustained season ending injuries because of this. He's also made some incredible throws into super tight windows for TD's and/or 3rd down conversions. I just find it very difficult to fault him for his approach because it's selfless and the intent is to help the team any way he can, even if it means sacrificing himself physically.

The timing of posts matters as well. We had guys coming in here saying "I told you so" and calling Jimmy "fragile" and a "bust" during the game and right after. Just totally uncalled for, tasteless, and shameful. I do think there is a conversation to be had about this, but if requires nuance and timing that most of the Jimmy detractors simply lack.

Thanks. Like I have said a bunch of times, its not Jimmy's "fault" he got hurt. But a lot of QBs (especially non-mobile ones) have understood that if they see a free rusher coming right at them, they just go down. Peyton used to do this regularly. I can picture it in my head. I also get why Jimmy would want to fight for extra yards, and I would never completely fault a guy for trying to make a play. But I do also believe that he needed to be smarter. More than likely, our Superbowl chances rely on his abilty to stay healthy. Time will tell if that's true.

It's all amount minimizing risk and Jimmy did not do a good job of that on that play. On the other hand, if other players did their jobs, he wouldnt have needed to.

Its an interesting conversation.

I recall the same with Peyton Manning, he was very good about that. But as fast as Jimmy is at recognizing plays, who's open, etc. - I don't think he's near Manning in that regard. So perhaps the elite QB's can process everything fast and know more quickly that the best "play" is to just go down. Maybe by the time Jimmy knows/knew that, it's too late and he's already engaged in a tangle.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Just for clarity, if I was to say that I dont believe its Jimmy's fault that he got hurt, but he could/should have gone down immediately to mitigate the chance of getting hurt, I am considered to be one of the people who is "blaming" Jimmy for his injury?

Sir, your nuance is always appreciated. I get what you're saying and I honestly can't disagree. Should/could Jimmy have just gone down immediately and avoided any type of struggle? Hard to argue with that. But given the importance of the game, the quick strike by Miami, the field position, the down and distance - one can clearly understand why he did what he did. It's also inline with his overall style of play which is to squeeze every bit out of every play possible. He hangs in the pocket until the last second waiting for window to open to throw to, and takes huge hits in the process. He pushes that "needle" further than most QB's are even willing to try.

To me as a fan, I appreciate this approach by Jimmy immensely. Is it the "best" approach overall? Very debatable of course. He's sustained season ending injuries because of this. He's also made some incredible throws into super tight windows for TD's and/or 3rd down conversions. I just find it very difficult to fault him for his approach because it's selfless and the intent is to help the team any way he can, even if it means sacrificing himself physically.

The timing of posts matters as well. We had guys coming in here saying "I told you so" and calling Jimmy "fragile" and a "bust" during the game and right after. Just totally uncalled for, tasteless, and shameful. I do think there is a conversation to be had about this, but if requires nuance and timing that most of the Jimmy detractors simply lack.

Thanks. Like I have said a bunch of times, its not Jimmy's "fault" he got hurt. But a lot of QBs (especially non-mobile ones) have understood that if they see a free rusher coming right at them, they just go down. Peyton used to do this regularly. I can picture it in my head. I also get why Jimmy would want to fight for extra yards, and I would never completely fault a guy for trying to make a play. But I do also believe that he needed to be smarter. More than likely, our Superbowl chances rely on his abilty to stay healthy. Time will tell if that's true.

It's all amount minimizing risk and Jimmy did not do a good job of that on that play. On the other hand, if other players did their jobs, he wouldnt have needed to.

Its an interesting conversation.

Legit topic.

Given none of our QB's over the past 6 years (7 QB surgeries?), when does the energy move to the HC/QB Coach? This is a systemic problem at this point. Personnel priority? Scheme issue? Blocking scheme issue? Take one for the team mindset culture? Coaching point missed? Not rehearsed in practice?

Thoughts?

Originally posted by dj43:
Kyle seemed to be saying that to take a sack at that point would have taken them our of FG range, or at least made it more difficult for Gould.

I heard him say that and I couldnt disagree stronger. Like I said to Jose, if Jimmy went down at the exact time he identified the free rusher, we wouldnt have even been close to being out of field goal range.

He should have went down right here:



That would have been a 47 yard field goal, well within Gould's range.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
"Could" is an objectively true statement and allows for discussion of pros and cons.

"Should" is Monday morning quarterbacking that pretty readily blends into assigning fault. It substitutes your own judgement for his and indicates that he took a suboptimal approach. Though his approach was probably suboptimal, your judgment after the fact does not adequately substitute for his judgment in the moment for a variety of reasons.

Eh, I dont know that I agree with the should part of your post. If I was stopped at a red light and as soon as the light turned green, I accelerated and was t-boned by a drunk driver....I could easily say to myself "I should have looked before I accelerated." That doesnt mean I am assigning fault to myself for getting hit by the drunk driver who ran the red light. It was still the drunk driver's fault. It just means that I should have looked just in case something like that happened.

I think Vin's definitions and interpretations are spot on. Regarding your stoplight scenario, saying you should have stopped is absolutely assigning blame to yourself. Perhaps not 100%, but at least a portion. Which in that case would be ridiculous to me because you had a green light. The only person who should have done anything differently is the drunk driver.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
"Could" is an objectively true statement and allows for discussion of pros and cons.

"Should" is Monday morning quarterbacking that pretty readily blends into assigning fault. It substitutes your own judgement for his and indicates that he took a suboptimal approach. Though his approach was probably suboptimal, your judgment after the fact does not adequately substitute for his judgment in the moment for a variety of reasons.

Eh, I dont know that I agree with the should part of your post. If I was stopped at a red light and as soon as the light turned green, I accelerated and was t-boned by a drunk driver....I could easily say to myself "I should have looked before I accelerated." That doesnt mean I am assigning fault to myself for getting hit by the drunk driver who ran the red light. It was still the drunk driver's fault. It just means that I should have looked just in case something like that happened.

Without a shared definition of "fault," I don't know if we're saying the same or different things. This feels a bit like parsing words. I never said it is an affirmative assignment of fault but that it allows fault and the underlying exercise of judgment to be merged.

In any event, the more important part of my response is that saying someone should or should not do something substitutes your own judgment for theirs. Implicit in that is an assumption that your judgment is at least as valid. How you would exercise judgment is entirely subjective (for example, I disagree with your statement that minimizing risk is paramount in that situation, and your judgment also seems to be somewhat skewed by hindsight bias / result-oriented thinking).

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:
Kyle seemed to be saying that to take a sack at that point would have taken them our of FG range, or at least made it more difficult for Gould.

I heard him say that and I couldnt disagree stronger. Like I said to Jose, if Jimmy went down at the exact time he identified the free rusher, we wouldnt have even been close to being out of field goal range.

He should have went down right here:



That would have been a 47 yard field goal, well within Gould's range.

We're talking about 1 second or so post snap right here. You saying Jimmy should be deciding to go straight down at this point? That would be giving up on the play entirely. Again, he was trying to give his guys a split second longer to come open. Keep the drive going to try and match Miami's easy TD.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:
Kyle seemed to be saying that to take a sack at that point would have taken them our of FG range, or at least made it more difficult for Gould.

I heard him say that and I couldnt disagree stronger. Like I said to Jose, if Jimmy went down at the exact time he identified the free rusher, we wouldnt have even been close to being out of field goal range.

He should have went down right here:



That would have been a 47 yard field goal, well within Gould's range.

We're talking about 1 second or so post snap right here. You saying Jimmy should be deciding to go straight down at this point? That would be giving up on the play entirely. Again, he was trying to give his guys a split second longer to come open. Keep the drive going to try and match Miami's easy TD.

1 rusher. And then pushed backwards as the 2nd defender emerged so at that point you're just trying to get as far back to that starting point as you can.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:
Kyle seemed to be saying that to take a sack at that point would have taken them our of FG range, or at least made it more difficult for Gould.

I heard him say that and I couldnt disagree stronger. Like I said to Jose, if Jimmy went down at the exact time he identified the free rusher, we wouldnt have even been close to being out of field goal range.

He should have went down right here:



That would have been a 47 yard field goal, well within Gould's range.

We're talking about 1 second or so post snap right here. You saying Jimmy should be deciding to go straight down at this point? That would be giving up on the play entirely. Again, he was trying to give his guys a split second longer to come open. Keep the drive going to try and match Miami's easy TD.

1 rusher. And then pushed backwards as the 2nd defender emerged so at that point you're just trying to back as far back to that starting point as you can.

Let's also add here that it's 4 rushers and 5 OL.

Originally posted by FL9er:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
That depends on how Purdy does going forward and how much Jimmy is willing to give the 49ers a discount and a contract from which they can move on from him if they want to.

Think he was referring to coming back for the playoffs if the 49ers even get there.

Either way the odds are quite small.

2023 starting QB: Tom Brady. Book it.

No one expects they are going to get hurt. Jimmy thought he was keeping the team in FG range—which he was. 99/100 times he's fine after that sack. It was just that Jimmy failed a constitution check. The dice just weren't on our side.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
No one expects they are going to get hurt. Jimmy thought he was keeping the team in FG range—which he was. 99/100 times he's fine after that sack. It was just that Jimmy failed a constitution check. The dice just weren't on our side.

He's not that fine 99/100 times. This is jimmy you are talking about