Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Boy. This times 100. There is a small but dedicated group in here for which every bad thing that ever happens to this team will be because of Jimmy. We will win a tough game and there will be pages and pages of complaints about a pass that Jimmy "should have thrown better" and then they all come in here and try and pretend that they are just offering up "legitimate' criticism. Hopefully, everyone can now rally behind Brock Purdy and all of these stupid Jimmy and Lance arguments can be put to bed until after the season is over. Go Niners!!

Agreed. Easy to see past the BS with some in here based on their posting history.

I'm hoping along with you on the bold. But we'll see...

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Lol. Just imagine the level of criticism he'd have gotten had he gone down without being touched. And then even add a missed field goal. He'd have been eviscerated in here.

No doubt. In part why this whole discussion is stupid.

Again, I think with the right level of nuance, it's a good discussion. I do agree that "should" needs to be replaced with "could" though. There is a gray area or "meter" that QB's have to play in, and each play requires consideration of risk and reward. Decisions to bail on a play versus waiting for a window to open happen in split seconds - and the QB's who can wait the longest and make plays at the very end of those split seconds are the best of the best. Jimmy pushes that limit to the max; and that makes him a good QB but also puts him at risk for injury.

Thanks for being level headed about the conversation. Same with Vin. Wish we could say the same about everyone, but here we are.

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Lol. Just imagine the level of criticism he'd have gotten had he gone down without being touched. And then even add a missed field goal. He'd have been eviscerated in here.

No doubt. In part why this whole discussion is stupid.

Again, I think with the right level of nuance, it's a good discussion. I do agree that "should" needs to be replaced with "could" though. There is a gray area or "meter" that QB's have to play in, and each play requires consideration of risk and reward. Decisions to bail on a play versus waiting for a window to open happen in split seconds - and the QB's who can wait the longest and make plays at the very end of those split seconds are the best of the best. Jimmy pushes that limit to the max; and that makes him a good QB but also puts him at risk for injury.

Agreed, it's split second decision. He decided to not give up on the play and fight for every yard for Gould and the team. Can't fault him for that. Hats in part why some fans appreciate Jimmy.

Agree that we shouldn't fault him for it, hence why I don't like he "should" have bailed on the play. But to be fair to the conversation, he "could" have bailed on the play, gone straight down (ala Peyton Manning as SWH pointed out), and lived to fight another down. Even taking away the hindsight that we ended up not needing that field goal - hell let's say his decision to go down cost us the game and we lost. He'd still be playing. And maybe that is better than getting the field goal and risking injury. So I get the "could" part of the argument, and it's worth having.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Lol. Just imagine the level of criticism he'd have gotten had he gone down without being touched. And then even add a missed field goal. He'd have been eviscerated in here.

No doubt. In part why this whole discussion is stupid.

Again, I think with the right level of nuance, it's a good discussion. I do agree that "should" needs to be replaced with "could" though. There is a gray area or "meter" that QB's have to play in, and each play requires consideration of risk and reward. Decisions to bail on a play versus waiting for a window to open happen in split seconds - and the QB's who can wait the longest and make plays at the very end of those split seconds are the best of the best. Jimmy pushes that limit to the max; and that makes him a good QB but also puts him at risk for injury.

Agreed, it's split second decision. He decided to not give up on the play and fight for every yard for Gould and the team. Can't fault him for that. Hats in part why some fans appreciate Jimmy.

Agree that we shouldn't fault him for it, hence why I don't like he "should" have bailed on the play. But to be fair to the conversation, he "could" have bailed on the play, gone straight down (ala Peyton Manning as SWH pointed out), and lived to fight another down. Even taking away the hindsight that we ended up not needing that field goal - hell let's say his decision to go down cost us the game and we lost. He'd still be playing. And maybe that is better than getting the field goal and risking injury. So I get the "could" part of the argument, and it's worth having.

Yeah, sorry. I'm not buying that. Considering the history of the posters who are driving this conversation it's hard to view it as anything other than their typical efforts to denigrate Jimmy whenever they feel the opportunity presents self. All of this "it's a legitimate discussion for debate" nonsense is just more of their usual BS hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Lol. Just imagine the level of criticism he'd have gotten had he gone down without being touched. And then even add a missed field goal. He'd have been eviscerated in here.

No doubt. In part why this whole discussion is stupid.

Again, I think with the right level of nuance, it's a good discussion. I do agree that "should" needs to be replaced with "could" though. There is a gray area or "meter" that QB's have to play in, and each play requires consideration of risk and reward. Decisions to bail on a play versus waiting for a window to open happen in split seconds - and the QB's who can wait the longest and make plays at the very end of those split seconds are the best of the best. Jimmy pushes that limit to the max; and that makes him a good QB but also puts him at risk for injury.

Agreed, it's split second decision. He decided to not give up on the play and fight for every yard for Gould and the team. Can't fault him for that. Hats in part why some fans appreciate Jimmy.

Agree that we shouldn't fault him for it, hence why I don't like he "should" have bailed on the play. But to be fair to the conversation, he "could" have bailed on the play, gone straight down (ala Peyton Manning as SWH pointed out), and lived to fight another down. Even taking away the hindsight that we ended up not needing that field goal - hell let's say his decision to go down cost us the game and we lost. He'd still be playing. And maybe that is better than getting the field goal and risking injury. So I get the "could" part of the argument, and it's worth having.

Poster said could/should and then backed up his position on "should". So, like I said, not outright saying it's his fault but still going on how he should have prevented he injury. Certainly sounds like blame. And I'm not the only poster to point this out.

Yeah, I guess he could just curl up every time there is a free rusher coming at him. I'm sure certain posters would applaud that

like me you and others have mentioned, how many times have we seen Jimmy stand tall in the face of pressure and get a last second completion on 3rd down? Someone brought up the Purdy play which is another good example. Nobody after fact is bringing up how they should have curled up and lived to fight another down. Instead we commend their toughness for standing tall and doing their job.

So why are trying we doing it in this instance? It's because it's Jimmy and he got injured. And later on when he gets discussed certain poster can point to Jimmy's stupidity for not running out of bounds or curling up in a fetal position, instead of being selfless and fighting for every yard for his team.

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Lol. Just imagine the level of criticism he'd have gotten had he gone down without being touched. And then even add a missed field goal. He'd have been eviscerated in here.

No doubt. In part why this whole discussion is stupid.

Again, I think with the right level of nuance, it's a good discussion. I do agree that "should" needs to be replaced with "could" though. There is a gray area or "meter" that QB's have to play in, and each play requires consideration of risk and reward. Decisions to bail on a play versus waiting for a window to open happen in split seconds - and the QB's who can wait the longest and make plays at the very end of those split seconds are the best of the best. Jimmy pushes that limit to the max; and that makes him a good QB but also puts him at risk for injury.

Agreed, it's split second decision. He decided to not give up on the play and fight for every yard for Gould and the team. Can't fault him for that. Hats in part why some fans appreciate Jimmy.

Agree that we shouldn't fault him for it, hence why I don't like he "should" have bailed on the play. But to be fair to the conversation, he "could" have bailed on the play, gone straight down (ala Peyton Manning as SWH pointed out), and lived to fight another down. Even taking away the hindsight that we ended up not needing that field goal - hell let's say his decision to go down cost us the game and we lost. He'd still be playing. And maybe that is better than getting the field goal and risking injury. So I get the "could" part of the argument, and it's worth having.

Yeah, sorry. I'm not buying that. Considering the history of the posters who are driving this conversation it's hard to view it as anything other than their typical efforts to denigrate Jimmy whenever they feel the opportunity presents self. All of this "it's a legitimate discussion for debate" nonsense is just more of their usual BS hypocrisy.

Exactly! And it was could/should and backed up his position of "should". We're not the only ones that have called out the easy too see BS lol

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Yeah, sorry. I'm not buying that. Considering the history of the posters who are driving this conversation it's hard to view it as anything other than their typical efforts to denigrate Jimmy whenever they feel the opportunity presents self. All of this "it's a legitimate discussion for debate" nonsense is just more of their usual BS hypocrisy.

^^^

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
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).

Definitely a fair post. Makes a lot of sense. Maybe there is an unintentional bias because we know what ended up happening. I guess in my head I just cant help but go back to Peyton dropping to the ground immediately in similar situations over and over, that I feel like it should be part of every QB's thinking.

Good post. Thanks for the back and forth.

Likewise, I appreciate exploring the grey areas with folks like you who have the capacity to see multiple angles. Adds a lot to the overall experience in this community. I get much more out of well-reasoned disagreements than I do out of high-fiving during a circle jerk or devolving to pettiness.

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by VinculumJuris:
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).

Definitely a fair post. Makes a lot of sense. Maybe there is an unintentional bias because we know what ended up happening. I guess in my head I just cant help but go back to Peyton dropping to the ground immediately in similar situations over and over, that I feel like it should be part of every QB's thinking.

Good post. Thanks for the back and forth.

Likewise, I appreciate exploring the grey areas with folks like you who have the capacity to see multiple angles. Adds a lot to the overall experience in this community. I get much more out of well-reasoned disagreements than I do out of high-fiving during a circle jerk or devolving to pettiness.

Like the previous few posts above this one LOL

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Yeah, sorry. I'm not buying that. Considering the history of the posters who are driving this conversation it's hard to view it as anything other than their typical efforts to denigrate Jimmy whenever they feel the opportunity presents self. All of this "it's a legitimate discussion for debate" nonsense is just more of their usual BS hypocrisy.

Perhaps the oldest rule in the forum is: "Attack the post, not the poster."

It may be tiring to debate the same old points over and over again, however, it will keep you in the forum a lot longer than the bold.

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.

I get your point about going down. However, as others have said, we are talking about a decision being made in a fraction of a second. The overall context is about trying to match scores with a hot Miami team. Any opportunity to match the touchdown is on the table, including scrambling to keep the play alive.

From the game film, it looked like JG saw the rusher right away which directed his first read to space that would have been opened behind the rusher. (We can see from his head position that this is the direction he is looking.) However, that option is bracketed as Kyle noted in his interview thus not available. His next read is to the right, away from the rusher, to his second check down, which is also bracketed. This action moves him into scramble mode to keep the play alive.

I believe he did the right thing by trying to keep the play alive. In hindsight, it was costly.

So, we can gain wisdom from looking in the rearview mirror but it doesn't always apply the way we want it to.

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Lol. Just imagine the level of criticism he'd have gotten had he gone down without being touched. And then even add a missed field goal. He'd have been eviscerated in here.

No doubt. In part why this whole discussion is stupid.

Again, I think with the right level of nuance, it's a good discussion. I do agree that "should" needs to be replaced with "could" though. There is a gray area or "meter" that QB's have to play in, and each play requires consideration of risk and reward. Decisions to bail on a play versus waiting for a window to open happen in split seconds - and the QB's who can wait the longest and make plays at the very end of those split seconds are the best of the best. Jimmy pushes that limit to the max; and that makes him a good QB but also puts him at risk for injury.

Agreed, it's split second decision. He decided to not give up on the play and fight for every yard for Gould and the team. Can't fault him for that. Hats in part why some fans appreciate Jimmy.

Agree that we shouldn't fault him for it, hence why I don't like he "should" have bailed on the play. But to be fair to the conversation, he "could" have bailed on the play, gone straight down (ala Peyton Manning as SWH pointed out), and lived to fight another down. Even taking away the hindsight that we ended up not needing that field goal - hell let's say his decision to go down cost us the game and we lost. He'd still be playing. And maybe that is better than getting the field goal and risking injury. So I get the "could" part of the argument, and it's worth having.

Yeah, sorry. I'm not buying that. Considering the history of the posters who are driving this conversation it's hard to view it as anything other than their typical efforts to denigrate Jimmy whenever they feel the opportunity presents self. All of this "it's a legitimate discussion for debate" nonsense is just more of their usual BS hypocrisy.

That's why I began this with "the right level of nuance." Lol

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Yeah, sorry. I'm not buying that. Considering the history of the posters who are driving this conversation it's hard to view it as anything other than their typical efforts to denigrate Jimmy whenever they feel the opportunity presents self. All of this "it's a legitimate discussion for debate" nonsense is just more of their usual BS hypocrisy.

Perhaps the oldest rule in the forum is: "Attack the post, not the poster."

It may be tiring to debate the same old points over and over again, however, it will keep you in the forum a lot longer than the bold.

It would certainly help if the block feature only blocked comments from the person who is blocked, and not every response in a string of responses. Makes conversations difficult to follow. That would likely encourage more people to use the block feature, and then posters with a clear bias/agenda would quickly weed themselves out of threads.

It's interesting what Steve Young had to say about the situation on MNF countdown this week.

He truly believed that the Shanahan-Garoppolo partnership was on the verge of solidifying itself.

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by 5thSFG:
Purdy had a free rusher on third and ten… he should have given himself up too.

https://youtube.com/shorts/wg7_Ee3dJ_o?feature=share

someone freeze frame this at the exact moment purdy should have gone down pls.

Exactly

So why was… one a sack and one a 19 yard 3rd down completion?