QB Sam Darnold is a Viking

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
That doesn't make sense. There's a vast space between let it rip and being completely ineffective. Not every QB is capable of being an effective 'game manager'.

Its dubious Sam is capable against a good team like the Bengals.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Its dubious Sam is capable against a good team like the Bengals.

We'll see maybe. Definitely think our D will most likely need a great game, because I can't see us going out there and letting Darnold sling it all over the field. Run the ball well, complete some passes, don't turn it over.

He comes out looking crisp and maybe we can adjust and open it up a little more if necessary

C'mon Sammy from Alabammy !

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
If Darnold is clearly head and shoulders better than "he who shall not be named" of 49ers QBs, then we shouldn't have to play conservative with him at the helm.

I expect no training wheels with Darnold. and truthfully I'm more worried about our defense right now.

That doesn't make sense. There's a vast space between let it rip and being completely ineffective. Not every QB is capable of being an effective 'game manager'.

It make's perfect sense to me.

Many people say that Darnold is a better fit as a backup because we wouldn't have to change the offense, because stylistically he's closer to Brock than Voldemort.

Now you're saying he might just need to play conservatively… why? He's a veteran with plenty of experience. More experience than Brock. There's no need to play game manager just play his game.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
It make's perfect sense to me.

Many people say that Darnold is a better fit as a backup because we wouldn't have to change the offense, because stylistically he's closer to Brock than Voldemort.

Now you're saying he might just need to play conservatively… why? He's a veteran with plenty of experience. More experience than Brock. There's no need to play game manager just play his game.

He's a better fit as a backup because he's a better player. But he's not a good enough player to let him go out there and put the offense on his back. This is simple.

We changed our offense because that was to Trey's strength and it avoided his weaknesses. We'll do the same for Darnold at least in terms of play selection. This is what all good coaches do depending on the player… including great ones.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
If Darnold is clearly head and shoulders better than "he who shall not be named" of 49ers QBs, then we shouldn't have to play conservative with him at the helm.

I expect no training wheels with Darnold. and truthfully I'm more worried about our defense right now.

That doesn't make sense. There's a vast space between let it rip and being completely ineffective. Not every QB is capable of being an effective 'game manager'.

It make's perfect sense to me.

Many people say that Darnold is a better fit as a backup because we wouldn't have to change the offense, because stylistically he's closer to Brock than Voldemort.

Now you're saying he might just need to play conservatively… why? He's a veteran with plenty of experience. More experience than Brock. There's no need to play game manager just play his game.

Style wise, Darnold has some BP and also those 3rd overall pick traits you speak of. BP is asked by Kyle to manage the game. BP was saying it himself. Don't be a hero, be the point guard. That's what we ask of QB1. Now you want us to air raid with QB2? Not gonna happen. As NC says, Kyle runs this b.

hmm

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Style wise, Darnold has some BP and also those 3rd overall pick traits you speak of. BP is asked by Kyle to manage the game. BP was saying it himself. Don't be a hero, be the point guard. That's what we ask of QB1. Now you want us to air raid with QB2? Not gonna happen. As NC says, Kyle runs this b.

LOL. You have the worst reading comprehension skills of anyone on this board. That's not what he said at all.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
It make's perfect sense to me.

Many people say that Darnold is a better fit as a backup because we wouldn't have to change the offense, because stylistically he's closer to Brock than Voldemort.

Now you're saying he might just need to play conservatively… why? He's a veteran with plenty of experience. More experience than Brock. There's no need to play game manager just play his game.

He's a better fit as a backup because he's a better player. But he's not a good enough player to let him go out there and put the offense on his back. This is simple.

We changed our offense because that was to Trey's strength and it avoided his weaknesses. We'll do the same for Darnold at least in terms of play selection. This is what all good coaches do depending on the player… including great ones.

To use your words, there's a vast space between putting the offense on his back and being a game manager.

When I think of game managing. I think of Alex Smith.

I'm not going to get into the consequences of trading away Voldemort for someone who is only trusted to game manager.

But my point is he should be able to perform in this offense, based on his ability and experience, not just manage the game. We can agree to disagree, that's fine, but quite frankly I don't think we beat the Bengals with a game manager type performance anyway.

The Goat gonna show up Sunday!

Originally posted by Waterbear:
To use your words, there's a vast space between putting the offense on his back and being a game manager.

When I think of game managing. I think of Alex Smith.

I'm not going to get into the consequences of trading away Voldemort for someone who is only trusted to game manager.

But my point is he should be able to perform in this offense, based on his ability and experience, not just manage the game. We can agree to disagree, that's fine, but quite frankly I don't think we beat the Bengals with a game manager type performance anyway.

We would kill to have Alex Smith in a backup spot.

It's not concerning to me that we traded away a player who really isn't close to good enough to be a game manager without significant playing time and development (with nothing guaranteed in terms of results). It's a disconnect in understanding just how bad he was playing in pretty much every appearance.

This argument was made many times in the offseason before all this stuff (Darnold signing, Lance trade) became reality. Not only could we not develop the guy without sacrificing the team's ceiling but we couldn't trust him to play in spots because he needed development. His floor, which is where he currently is, is simply not acceptable if you want to win.

* to add… I also have my doubts a game manager performance will be good enough to beat the Bengals. We'll see if our defense shows up.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
We would kill to have Alex Smith in a backup spot.

It's not concerning to me that we traded away a player who really isn't close to good enough to be a game manager without significant playing time and development (with nothing guaranteed in terms of results). It's a disconnect in understanding just how bad he was playing in pretty much every appearance.

This argument was made many times in the offseason before all this stuff (Darnold signing, Lance trade) became reality. Not only could we not develop the guy without sacrificing the team's ceiling but we couldn't trust him to play in spots because he needed development. His floor, which is where he currently is, is simply not acceptable if you want to win.

* to add… I also have my doubts a game manager performance will be good enough to beat the Bengals. We'll see if our defense shows up.

So here's my thing. If we are to take Kyle at his word that Darnold was clearly better and more of what we needed than TL, then having the expectations that he can run a functional offense this weekend shouldn't be too high of a standard to hold him to. That's why I said IF Darnold comes out and lays an egg, then they will have questions to answer.

The expectation is that Darnold should be able to lead this team in a similar fashion to what Purdy does. I didn't set that expectation. Kyle did. So we will see. We need a good game out of Darnold, but I for one will not be holding my breath.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
To use your words, there's a vast space between putting the offense on his back and being a game manager.

When I think of game managing. I think of Alex Smith.

I'm not going to get into the consequences of trading away Voldemort for someone who is only trusted to game manager.

But my point is he should be able to perform in this offense, based on his ability and experience, not just manage the game. We can agree to disagree, that's fine, but quite frankly I don't think we beat the Bengals with a game manager type performance anyway.

We would kill to have Alex Smith in a backup spot.

It's not concerning to me that we traded away a player who really isn't close to good enough to be a game manager without significant playing time and development (with nothing guaranteed in terms of results). It's a disconnect in understanding just how bad he was playing in pretty much every appearance.

This argument was made many times in the offseason before all this stuff (Darnold signing, Lance trade) became reality. Not only could we not develop the guy without sacrificing the team's ceiling but we couldn't trust him to play in spots because he needed development. His floor, which is where he currently is, is simply not acceptable if you want to win.

* to add… I also have my doubts a game manager performance will be good enough to beat the Bengals. We'll see if our defense shows up.

I mean Alex Smith stylistically, I wasn't making a comment on his effectiveness. Everything was short, careful throws that didn't allow teams to create turnovers.

Darnold has a better arm than Purdy. There's no reason we shouldn't trust him to take shots downfield. He fully capable of doing so. He can play within the offense just like Purdy.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
I mean Alex Smith stylistically, I wasn't making a comment on his effectiveness. Everything was short, careful throws that didn't allow teams to create turnovers.

Darnold has a better arm than Purdy. There's no reason we shouldn't trust him to take shots downfield. He fully capable of doing so. He can play within the offense just like Purdy.

Stronger arm but isn't as poised, doesn't see the field as well, isn't as fast at progressions and on and on.

We can dial up deep shots on playactions and trust that Sam can execute when Kyle gets a first read open… but that's not playing the position at a level that Purdy has shown.

It's ok, we will just run CMC to the ground again lol. As far as defense..*cough* zero blitz blunder Wilks sigh. What a joke and a half.

I would take Alex over Darnold any day. We shall see what happens 👀