There are 256 users in the forums
Originally posted by Silky:
Wow if most fans were like SD no QB would have a shot to be successful. Thank god he doesn't coach. I wonder what his rendition of Allen and Mahomes would have been their rookie years
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by elguapo:
Which games would you be referring to? The Arizona game where he came about 1 inch away from tying the Cardinals, who at the time were the best team in the NFL and the top defense? And he did not get to use George Kittle because he was injured? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.
Or should we focus on the Houston game, you know the team that absolutely obliterated Justin Herbert and made him look like absolute garbage whereas Lance looked like a stud. Even when some of you were pointing to his struggles in the first half, you do realize he was 10 for 13 throwing the ball right? Yeah real good examples. Lance had the BEST FIRST two games out of any rookie quarterback in the NFL by far.
Like I said before, Lance had to play against the best team in the NFL and a top defense at the time in his first start and still looked like he belonged Bigtime without Mostert and Kittle and he had to play Houston who destroyed San Diego the week prior and for all of you that might not be keeping up with football they whipped Cincinnati with a back up quarterback you know, the team that went to the Super Bowl and should've won? Yeah Lance was impressive in his first two starts I don't think you some of you people (sorry SD just the facts not your feelings matter) really know how to truly analyze football.
Facts.
Couldn't beat out Jimmy G.
Doesn't know the play book.
Steve Young says not ready.
Joe Montana says not ready.
Originally posted by elguapo:
We all know San Diego is completely wrong especially when he references two quarterbacks that haven't played the game in over 20 years when they aren't analysts as his evidence
Every rookie quarterback isn't ready and hardly any of them had a quarterback like Jimmy Garoppolo as the starter. So the arguments are so flawed it's laughable.
Just ignore him, he's wrong plain and simple. Also, of course he won't acknowledge that Lance had the best first two starts when compared to ALL the other rookie qbs.
Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by elguapo:
Which games would you be referring to? The Arizona game where he came about 1 inch away from tying the Cardinals, who at the time were the best team in the NFL and the top defense? And he did not get to use George Kittle because he was injured? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.
Or should we focus on the Houston game, you know the team that absolutely obliterated Justin Herbert and made him look like absolute garbage whereas Lance looked like a stud. Even when some of you were pointing to his struggles in the first half, you do realize he was 10 for 13 throwing the ball right? Yeah real good examples. Lance had the BEST FIRST two games out of any rookie quarterback in the NFL by far.
Like I said before, Lance had to play against the best team in the NFL and a top defense at the time in his first start and still looked like he belonged Bigtime without Mostert and Kittle and he had to play Houston who destroyed San Diego the week prior and for all of you that might not be keeping up with football they whipped Cincinnati with a back up quarterback you know, the team that went to the Super Bowl and should've won? Yeah Lance was impressive in his first two starts I don't think you some of you people (sorry SD just the facts not your feelings matter) really know how to truly analyze football.
Facts.
Couldn't beat out Jimmy G.
Doesn't know the play book.
Steve Young says not ready.
Joe Montana says not ready.
Your takes are already pretty questionable. Sprinkling in lying isn't going to do much to help that out lol
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
This. People may not agree with all of MY takes, but at least I dont blatantly lie.
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Those guys were all STARTERS. Had no trouble learning the playbook in 1 full season. All were more successful than Lance by a lot. Fields is much more athletic if you wanted an athletic QB. Certainly faster with at least as much arm strength. A much better spiral. I would say a little more accurate.
Lol name me their backups heading into the season….or would you like me to do it for you? Jax-CJ, NJ-flacco, NE-Hoyer.
All those dudes either got all the reps from day 1 or half way through TC. They were FORCED to start.
Fields looked like absolute crap his first couple game as a starter AND he was splitting 1st team reps with Dalton. Go look at his first two games. He completed 46% and 30% of his passes. He was sacked 9 times.
Again you don't know s**t about what he did and didn't know regarding the playbook. We've been thru it. Cosell disagrees with you and so does Kyle.
You want to throw up subject takes…at the very least backup it up with legit facts or listen when someone else proves them.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Those guys were all STARTERS. Had no trouble learning the playbook in 1 full season. All were more successful than Lance by a lot. Fields is much more athletic if you wanted an athletic QB. Certainly faster with at least as much arm strength. A much better spiral. I would say a little more accurate.
Lol name me their backups heading into the season….or would you like me to do it for you? Jax-CJ, NJ-flacco, NE-Hoyer.
All those dudes either got all the reps from day 1 or half way through TC. They were FORCED to start.
Fields looked like absolute crap his first couple game as a starter AND he was splitting 1st team reps with Dalton. Go look at his first two games. He completed 46% and 30% of his passes. He was sacked 9 times.
Again you don't know s**t about what he did and didn't know regarding the playbook. We've been thru it. Cosell disagrees with you and so does Kyle.
You want to throw up subject takes…at the very least backup it up with legit facts or listen when someone else proves them.
So you are telling me Jimmy G is better than people like to admit to here on the WZ.
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Those guys were all STARTERS. Had no trouble learning the playbook in 1 full season. All were more successful than Lance by a lot. Fields is much more athletic if you wanted an athletic QB. Certainly faster with at least as much arm strength. A much better spiral. I would say a little more accurate.
Lol name me their backups heading into the season….or would you like me to do it for you? Jax-CJ, NJ-flacco, NE-Hoyer.
All those dudes either got all the reps from day 1 or half way through TC. They were FORCED to start.
Fields looked like absolute crap his first couple game as a starter AND he was splitting 1st team reps with Dalton. Go look at his first two games. He completed 46% and 30% of his passes. He was sacked 9 times.
Again you don't know s**t about what he did and didn't know regarding the playbook. We've been thru it. Cosell disagrees with you and so does Kyle.
You want to throw up subject takes…at the very least backup it up with legit facts or listen when someone else proves them.
So you are telling me Jimmy G is better than people like to admit to here on the WZ.
I think it's pretty clear he's a 12-18th best QB in the league. He's been proven to be a winning QB, who wins the playoffs, but can't win a championship. Which means he's not your long term solution (for anyone). Which also means the only reason to start him (at $27M) is that you need to win and make the playoffs.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
So he's not really that bad than. You can't have it both ways.
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
I think it's pretty clear he's a 12-18th best QB in the league. He's been proven to be a winning QB, who wins the playoffs, but can't win a championship. Which means he's not your long term solution (for anyone). Which also means the only reason to start him (at $27M) is that you need to win and make the playoffs.
Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:
I agree with everything SanDiego49ers said.
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Originally posted by NinerBuff:
I think it's pretty clear he's a 12-18th best QB in the league. He's been proven to be a winning QB, who wins the playoffs, but can't win a championship. Which means he's not your long term solution (for anyone). Which also means the only reason to start him (at $27M) is that you need to win and make the playoffs.
What hook with the ranking deflation? Jimmys 8 - 14. Solid 2nd quartile guy. Where do you come up with 12 to 18? What ranking is that?
Originally posted by Aj_hwd954:
Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:
I agree with everything SanDiego49ers said.
This. Wasn't a fan of his takes back in the day, but he's been spot on lately
