Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Again, same BS that SWH is spewing.

It literally blows my mind that you consider what I am saying BS. Yes, I know you never claimed Kyle had no affect on Jimmy's 3rd down play. But you refuse to acknowledge that its entirely possible that he had a MAJOR impact on Jimmy's 3rd down play. In 2020, he made NICK MULLENS have a similar 3rd down conversion rate as TOM BRADY ffs. Doesnt that speak volumes?

The "BS" I'm referring to is taking a comment from me which was attributing a defense's improvement due "solely" to Jimmy G becoming the starter, and creating a strawman argument that Jimmy "did it by himself." Implying that the defensive players didn't even need to line up, didn't actually make any tackles, didn't actually get any sacks or interceptions. It's simply an intellectually dishonest way of arguing. Do I really have to qualify my statement with "well the defensive players did run out there on defense and make tackles, so they deserve credit?" That is an OBVIOUS truth and one that does not need to be stated. We are all adults here and don't need that type of coddling.

My point was that in 2017, the defensive performance going from bottom 5 to top 5 was due to Jimmy becoming the starter. No other variables changed, none. So Jimmy's play at QB was the difference. Now, did WR's have to catch the ball? Yes. Did Kyle have to call plays? Yes. Did the defense have to make tackles, get sacks, and intercept passes? Yes. But those variables existed BEFORE Jimmy became the starter. So it's not necessary to repeat that those variables also existed after he became the starter.

This "BS" is why this thread is so damn long. Because anytime someone has anything positive to say about Jimmy's contributions, we have to have pages and pages of philosophical discussion about every minute detail. I mean random still can't admit that W/L record is a QB stat, even though it's recorded in the NFL record book lol.

Originally posted by Furlow:
9ers4eva is saying zero. You, Random and others are attempting to get it as close to zero as possible. You still haven't answered about the defensive turnaround in 2017. That is the PERFECT comparison for what we're talking about, as there were no defensive players added, the coaches were the same, the offense was the same, etc. All that changed was Jimmy became the starter.

No I am not. I'm saying he doesn't get ALL the credit. Also saying that if the Raiders defense improves/regressed it isn't ALL on Jimmy.

Pat Mahomes is unquestionably the best QB in the league. Chiefs have the most efficient offense. Why is their defense not at the same level?

Originally posted by Furlow:
The "BS" I'm referring to is taking a comment from me which was attributing a defense's improvement due "solely" to Jimmy G becoming the starter, and creating a strawman argument that Jimmy "did it by himself." Implying that the defensive players didn't even need to line up, didn't actually make any tackles, didn't actually get any sacks or interceptions. It's simply an intellectually dishonest way of arguing. Do I really have to qualify my statement with "well the defensive players did run out there on defense and make tackles, so they deserve credit?" That is an OBVIOUS truth and one that does not need to be stated. We are all adults here and don't need that type of coddling.

My point was that in 2017, the defensive performance going from bottom 5 to top 5 was due to Jimmy becoming the starter. No other variables changed, none. So Jimmy's play at QB was the difference. Now, did WR's have to catch the ball? Yes. Did Kyle have to call plays? Yes. Did the defense have to make tackles, get sacks, and intercept passes? Yes. But those variables existed BEFORE Jimmy became the starter. So it's not necessary to repeat that those variables also existed after he became the starter.

This "BS" is why this thread is so damn long. Because anytime someone has anything positive to say about Jimmy's contributions, we have to have pages and pages of philosophical discussion about every minute detail. I mean random still can't admit that W/L record is a QB stat, even though it's recorded in the NFL record book lol.

All the credit means all the credit. You literally said if the Raiders regress you will blame Jimmy. It's EXACTLY what you are doing.

This thread goes on so long because things like what you are saying or faithful with his Jimmy outduled all 3 QBs in the playoffs in 21 crap get said that are patently absurd. Can't speak to all your run ins with random but I've never seen SWH be anything but reasonable with his takes.

D Adams to JG:

Jimmy let's get this 💰 👊🏾

I shouldn't need to qualify when I say the defensive players had nothing to do with the turnaround in 2017 that I don't actually mean they had nothing to do with the turnaround and clearly they played a part.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
9ers4eva is saying zero. You, Random and others are attempting to get it as close to zero as possible. You still haven't answered about the defensive turnaround in 2017. That is the PERFECT comparison for what we're talking about, as there were no defensive players added, the coaches were the same, the offense was the same, etc. All that changed was Jimmy became the starter.

No I am not. I'm saying he doesn't get ALL the credit. Also saying that if the Raiders defense improves/regressed it isn't ALL on Jimmy.

Pat Mahomes is unquestionably the best QB in the league. Chiefs have the most efficient offense. Why is their defense not at the same level?

To your point about "all," please tell me what other variables besides Jimmy changed in 2017 to make the defense go from bottom 5 to top 5.

Regarding the Chiefs, they have an up-tempo offense and score very fast. They are middle of the pack in TOP (29:50 last year), so their defense is on the field a lot, which as we've discussed makes it more difficult for them to make plays. That's their style. It's analogous to the Golden State Warriors who play very fast and score a lot, and thus give up a lot of points on defense. I know, a different sport, but the "pace" of the offense dictates the pace for the defense. That said, KC's defense is underrated. They finished 11th in total defense, and in terms of yards per play, they are actually top 10 (7th to be exact). They were also 2nd in the NFL in sacks. Not a good example for you unless you're trying to prove my point for me.

Jimmy is not Mahomes though, duh. He has a different style and is better at short/intermediate throws. He thrives in a slower offense that grinds it out more. That helps the defense. Alex Smith was the same. it's no surprise that KC's defense got worse once Mahomes became the starter.

Which of course leads to the obvious point which is that a team should not select a QB solely based on how much they will help the defense. Perhaps that is the disconnect here and I shouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I am NOT making the argument that Jimmy nor Jimmy's style is ideal for any/all teams. Once Purdy became the starter it became painfully obvious that having a more aggressive QB was better for our team. In KC's case, it has meant multiple Super Bowl wins. So yes, there is a balance between conservative/efficient QB play helping the defense versus aggressive QB play that scores more and hurts the defense.

My point about Jimmy is that overall his style and efficiency drastically helped the Niners overall. We were a bottom feeder team and it was looking like Kyle/Lynch might be a bust. Jimmy turned the franchise around and showed us the winning formula. Purdy has improved on that and taken the team to another level. But that doesn't mean that Jimmy sucks, is only a backup, and/or is only worth a bag of chips. The constant negativity from the loud minority in here is misplaced and illogical.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
I shouldn't need to qualify when I say the defensive players had nothing to do with the turnaround in 2017 that I don't actually mean they had nothing to do with the turnaround and clearly they played a part.

That's not what I said at all. Crap post. At this point I can only assume that you are trolling and inciting. I tried.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
D Adams to JG:

Jimmy let's get this 💰 👊🏾

Adams seems like a really cool teammate. He always has his guys' backs.

Originally posted by Furlow:
JFC man. Of course the players on defense get credit for making tackles, stops, sacks, interceptions. But no, they do not get credit for that TURNAROUND because they had nothing to do with it. Do you think they just coincidentally decided to start playing better once Jimmy got there? Give me a break.

It's like you guys intentionally misinterpret words and opinions just so you can argue.

Never said it you say huh

You are the one trolling and misrepresenting me. Show me one place where I've said Jimmy deserves zero credit

Whereas you have said MULTIPLE times Jimmy deserves all the credit for the turn around and clearly above said the defensive players had nothing to do with it. Your words.

Originally posted by Furlow:
To your point about "all," please tell me what other variables besides Jimmy changed in 2017 to make the defense go from bottom 5 to top 5.

Regarding the Chiefs, they have an up-tempo offense and score very fast. They are middle of the pack in TOP (29:50 last year), so their defense is on the field a lot, which as we've discussed makes it more difficult for them to make plays. That's their style. It's analogous to the Golden State Warriors who play very fast and score a lot, and thus give up a lot of points on defense. I know, a different sport, but the "pace" of the offense dictates the pace for the defense. That said, KC's defense is underrated. They finished 11th in total defense, and in terms of yards per play, they are actually top 10 (7th to be exact). They were also 2nd in the NFL in sacks. Not a good example for you unless you're trying to prove my point for me.

Jimmy is not Mahomes though, duh. He has a different style and is better at short/intermediate throws. He thrives in a slower offense that grinds it out more. That helps the defense. Alex Smith was the same. it's no surprise that KC's defense got worse once Mahomes became the starter.

Which of course leads to the obvious point which is that a team should not select a QB solely based on how much they will help the defense. Perhaps that is the disconnect here and I shouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I am NOT making the argument that Jimmy nor Jimmy's style is ideal for any/all teams. Once Purdy became the starter it became painfully obvious that having a more aggressive QB was better for our team. In KC's case, it has meant multiple Super Bowl wins. So yes, there is a balance between conservative/efficient QB play helping the defense versus aggressive QB play that scores more and hurts the defense.

My point about Jimmy is that overall his style and efficiency drastically helped the Niners overall. We were a bottom feeder team and it was looking like Kyle/Lynch might be a bust. Jimmy turned the franchise around and showed us the winning formula. Purdy has improved on that and taken the team to another level. But that doesn't mean that Jimmy sucks, is only a backup, and/or is only worth a bag of chips. The constant negativity from the loud minority in here is misplaced and illogical.

How does KC prove your point though? Seems to prove mine actually. Or are you suggesting if Andy just held the ball a couple more minutes per game that defense would be on par with the 9ers?

Biggest thing that helps a defense is the offense scoring touchdowns. No matter how much time that takes. It's why despite all our time of possession under Harbaugh the offense was nowhere near as effective as it could be. We kicked too many field goals. It was the defense and special teams setting the offense up with far more often then the reverse under Alex.

It's why the Chiefs are successful more than anything else on D. Playing with big leads. That's where the offense helps the most, not possessing the ball.

If the Raiders defense stays stagnant or regresses I don't believe Jimmy should shoulder much blame at all. They just aren't that good in the back 7. Jimmy won't magically change that into a top 10 group by possessing the ball. They need to add serious pieces to it for them to even sniff the playoffs.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
To your point about "all," please tell me what other variables besides Jimmy changed in 2017 to make the defense go from bottom 5 to top 5.

Regarding the Chiefs, they have an up-tempo offense and score very fast. They are middle of the pack in TOP (29:50 last year), so their defense is on the field a lot, which as we've discussed makes it more difficult for them to make plays. That's their style. It's analogous to the Golden State Warriors who play very fast and score a lot, and thus give up a lot of points on defense. I know, a different sport, but the "pace" of the offense dictates the pace for the defense. That said, KC's defense is underrated. They finished 11th in total defense, and in terms of yards per play, they are actually top 10 (7th to be exact). They were also 2nd in the NFL in sacks. Not a good example for you unless you're trying to prove my point for me.

Jimmy is not Mahomes though, duh. He has a different style and is better at short/intermediate throws. He thrives in a slower offense that grinds it out more. That helps the defense. Alex Smith was the same. it's no surprise that KC's defense got worse once Mahomes became the starter.

Which of course leads to the obvious point which is that a team should not select a QB solely based on how much they will help the defense. Perhaps that is the disconnect here and I shouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I am NOT making the argument that Jimmy nor Jimmy's style is ideal for any/all teams. Once Purdy became the starter it became painfully obvious that having a more aggressive QB was better for our team. In KC's case, it has meant multiple Super Bowl wins. So yes, there is a balance between conservative/efficient QB play helping the defense versus aggressive QB play that scores more and hurts the defense.

My point about Jimmy is that overall his style and efficiency drastically helped the Niners overall. We were a bottom feeder team and it was looking like Kyle/Lynch might be a bust. Jimmy turned the franchise around and showed us the winning formula. Purdy has improved on that and taken the team to another level. But that doesn't mean that Jimmy sucks, is only a backup, and/or is only worth a bag of chips. The constant negativity from the loud minority in here is misplaced and illogical.

How does KC prove your point though? Seems to prove mine actually. Or are you suggesting if Andy just held the ball a couple more minutes per game that defense would be on par with the 9ers?

Biggest thing that helps a defense is the offense scoring touchdowns. No matter how much time that takes. It's why despite all our time of possession under Harbaugh the offense was nowhere near as effective as it could be. We kicked too many field goals. It was the defense and special teams setting the offense up with far more often then the reverse under Alex.

It's why the Chiefs are successful more than anything else on D. Playing with big leads. That's where the offense helps the most, not possessing the ball.

So if a team scores a touchdown in one play, that helps the defense the same as scoring a touchdown after a 10 minute drive? Tell me you've never played football (defense anyway) without telling me you've never played football... Hell you don't even have to have played the game to know that being able to rest for an extra 10 minutes helps more than only being able to rest for 30 seconds. I can't with you anymore on this.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
To your point about "all," please tell me what other variables besides Jimmy changed in 2017 to make the defense go from bottom 5 to top 5.

Regarding the Chiefs, they have an up-tempo offense and score very fast. They are middle of the pack in TOP (29:50 last year), so their defense is on the field a lot, which as we've discussed makes it more difficult for them to make plays. That's their style. It's analogous to the Golden State Warriors who play very fast and score a lot, and thus give up a lot of points on defense. I know, a different sport, but the "pace" of the offense dictates the pace for the defense. That said, KC's defense is underrated. They finished 11th in total defense, and in terms of yards per play, they are actually top 10 (7th to be exact). They were also 2nd in the NFL in sacks. Not a good example for you unless you're trying to prove my point for me.

Jimmy is not Mahomes though, duh. He has a different style and is better at short/intermediate throws. He thrives in a slower offense that grinds it out more. That helps the defense. Alex Smith was the same. it's no surprise that KC's defense got worse once Mahomes became the starter.

Which of course leads to the obvious point which is that a team should not select a QB solely based on how much they will help the defense. Perhaps that is the disconnect here and I shouldn't be surprised if that's the case. I am NOT making the argument that Jimmy nor Jimmy's style is ideal for any/all teams. Once Purdy became the starter it became painfully obvious that having a more aggressive QB was better for our team. In KC's case, it has meant multiple Super Bowl wins. So yes, there is a balance between conservative/efficient QB play helping the defense versus aggressive QB play that scores more and hurts the defense.

My point about Jimmy is that overall his style and efficiency drastically helped the Niners overall. We were a bottom feeder team and it was looking like Kyle/Lynch might be a bust. Jimmy turned the franchise around and showed us the winning formula. Purdy has improved on that and taken the team to another level. But that doesn't mean that Jimmy sucks, is only a backup, and/or is only worth a bag of chips. The constant negativity from the loud minority in here is misplaced and illogical.

How does KC prove your point though? Seems to prove mine actually. Or are you suggesting if Andy just held the ball a couple more minutes per game that defense would be on par with the 9ers?

Biggest thing that helps a defense is the offense scoring touchdowns. No matter how much time that takes. It's why despite all our time of possession under Harbaugh the offense was nowhere near as effective as it could be. We kicked too many field goals. It was the defense and special teams setting the offense up with far more often then the reverse under Alex.

It's why the Chiefs are successful more than anything else on D. Playing with big leads. That's where the offense helps the most, not possessing the ball.

So if a team scores a touchdown in one play, that helps the defense the same as scoring a touchdown after a 10 minute drive? Tell me you've never played football (defense anyway) without telling me you've never played football... Hell you don't even have to have played the game to know that being able to rest for an extra 10 minutes helps more than only being able to rest for 30 seconds. I can't with you anymore on this.

So jimmy should get a large portion of the blame in the SB and NFCCG 2021 for not giving his defense rest in the 4th qtr

Originally posted by Furlow:
The "BS" I'm referring to is taking a comment from me which was attributing a defense's improvement due "solely" to Jimmy G becoming the starter, and creating a strawman argument that Jimmy "did it by himself." Implying that the defensive players didn't even need to line up, didn't actually make any tackles, didn't actually get any sacks or interceptions. It's simply an intellectually dishonest way of arguing. Do I really have to qualify my statement with "well the defensive players did run out there on defense and make tackles, so they deserve credit?" That is an OBVIOUS truth and one that does not need to be stated. We are all adults here and don't need that type of coddling.

My point was that in 2017, the defensive performance going from bottom 5 to top 5 was due to Jimmy becoming the starter. No other variables changed, none. So Jimmy's play at QB was the difference. Now, did WR's have to catch the ball? Yes. Did Kyle have to call plays? Yes. Did the defense have to make tackles, get sacks, and intercept passes? Yes. But those variables existed BEFORE Jimmy became the starter. So it's not necessary to repeat that those variables also existed after he became the starter.

This "BS" is why this thread is so damn long. Because anytime someone has anything positive to say about Jimmy's contributions, we have to have pages and pages of philosophical discussion about every minute detail. I mean random still can't admit that W/L record is a QB stat, even though it's recorded in the NFL record book lol.

I just reread every single post I made to you since the topic came up and not once did I do what you are claiming in the bolded. In fact I even agreed with you. Ironic that you complain about strawmanning.

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by JTB1974:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Exactly. They all hung their hat on "he sucks" and had to beg Lynch for a job last year. Time to move those goal posts so they can "criticize" him some more. Even though they hate him and don't want to see his thread anymore. Lol

He still got paid like an average QB though which proves his fans wrong that said he was a very good QB, Even top 10 some claimed. Any QB who is close to being a top 10 QB is getting paid much more than $22 Million per year unless they are on a rookie deal. Daniel Jones who is not even top 10 got like $40 Million. Carr got around $37 Million.

He's probably above average but his injury history knocks his value down. Jones is young and improving.

This... He's in the 10-15 range but no team his paying him that much just to get hurt. To act like his extensive injury history has no bearing on his value is just like those who wrongfully said for months that nobody wanted him last year.

Probably closer to 15 but yes.

I'd say 12 to 13 but there's still a good amount of talent in that range like Cousins, Carr, Tannehill, Kyler and so on so even putting him in that 15 area is good. I'd put him ahead Tannehill, Kyler, and on par with Cousins with maybe an ever so slight edge to Carr. It's a good group and I see no shame in Jimmy being in that group.

That's actually what I ranked him in my original QB statistical analysis. But I have nothing in there related to coach input, so I suspect I rank him a spot or two higher than he should be. I'm going to do another one soon, but this time with statistical analysis of four years of data to make sure the win% correlation is as accurate as it could be. But compiling stats takes ages.