Is this a make or break year for Jimmy G?

After some spot starts plus a single full season as starter why isn't he great yet?

lets see who he ends up throwing to. right now due to injuries.. we have the salvation army of wide outs right now in camp. lol

Originally posted by cciowa:

lets see who he ends up throwing to. right now due to injuries.. we have the salvation army of wide outs right now in camp. lol

I would love for Jimmy to have wide receiver weapons like more than half the teams in the league. I don't think people consider this when judging Jimmy. Our receivers have potential but they are not proven yet. Trent Taylor and Deebo Samuel will help but comparatively speaking Jimmy's never had good receivers to throw to and spotty pass protection at best

Originally posted by thl408:

After some spot starts plus a single full season as starter why isn't he great yet?

-Niner Talk

I think people are under rating our receivers because we don't have one big time guy. As a group they work pretty well in Kyle's system and don't forget that he has the best tight end.

no.
next question

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I think people are under rating our receivers because we don't have one big time guy. As a group they work pretty well in Kyle's system and don't forget that he has the best tight end.

Besides Deebo none of these dudes have proven anything to be considered underrated.

Originally posted by lamontb:
Besides Deebo none of these dudes have proven anything to be considered underrated.

People on the zone act like most teams have a stable of great wide receivers. They don't. Most teams have a main guy and a bunch support guys. If you have a guy that gets 110-120 receptions per year the other guys aren't going to have a lot of receptions. With our "terrible" receiving corps we still ranked 13th and would probably have been higher if our running game wasn't so good and had needed to pass more. Teams have enough trouble keeping one whiny big time receiver happy.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Besides Deebo none of these dudes have proven anything to be considered underrated.

People on the zone act like most teams have a stable of great wide receivers. They don't. Most teams have a main guy and a bunch support guys. If you have a guy that gets 110-120 receptions per year the other guys aren't going to have a lot of receptions. With our "terrible" receiving corps we still ranked 13th and would probably have been higher if our running game wasn't so good and had needed to pass more. Teams have enough trouble keeping one whiny big time receiver happy.

I'd much rather have a great number one receiver and a bunch of other decent ones than what you are saying. Look at teams like the Saints with Michael Thomas or the Chiefs with Tyreek hill or the Texans with Hopkins or Green Bay with Adams I can go on and on and on.

It's much better because at least you have a receiver that can make a play on third down or get touchdowns unlike our receivers. I don't know if you were OK with our receivers getting no more than five touchdowns per year but that is not good. It's actually horrible. My standards are a lot higher than that. Our poor receiving production shows in the redzone where we ALWAYS struggle and that has costs us games (and partially the Super Bowl ask Tyreek hill) not having a reliable go to target at wide receiver.

How can it be make or break when he's the only starting caliber qb on the roster?

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by lamontb:
Besides Deebo none of these dudes have proven anything to be considered underrated.

People on the zone act like most teams have a stable of great wide receivers. They don't. Most teams have a main guy and a bunch support guys. If you have a guy that gets 110-120 receptions per year the other guys aren't going to have a lot of receptions. With our "terrible" receiving corps we still ranked 13th and would probably have been higher if our running game wasn't so good and had needed to pass more. Teams have enough trouble keeping one whiny big time receiver happy.

I'd much rather have a great number one receiver and a bunch of other decent ones than what you are saying. Look at teams like the Saints with Michael Thomas or the Chiefs with Tyreek hill or the Texans with Hopkins or Green Bay with Adams I can go on and on and on.

It's much better because at least you have a receiver that can make a play on third down or get touchdowns unlike our receivers. I don't know if you were OK with our receivers getting no more than five touchdowns per year but that is not good. It's actually horrible. My standards are a lot higher than that. Our poor receiving production shows in the redzone where we ALWAYS struggle and that has costs us games (and partially the Super Bowl ask Tyreek hill) not having a reliable go to target at wide receiver.

I generally agree to what you are saying. But you got some bad examples. All these teams were in the playoffs and the Chiefs just won the super and the biggest play was made by Hill. I think you can get it done both ways. Great group of wr's or one stud. As long has yo have the qb to get it done. We just don't have a proven group. If we had Deebo and Sanders then yes you can say that's a proven group. But now we have Deebo and 5/6 question marks. I'm not saying they are a bad group just unproven. We will find out shortly.

Probably

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by lamontb:

Besides Deebo none of these dudes have proven anything to be considered underrated.

People on the zone act like most teams have a stable of great wide receivers. They don't. Most teams have a main guy and a bunch support guys. If you have a guy that gets 110-120 receptions per year the other guys aren't going to have a lot of receptions. With our "terrible" receiving corps we still ranked 13th and would probably have been higher if our running game wasn't so good and had needed to pass more. Teams have enough trouble keeping one whiny big time receiver happy.

I'd much rather have a great number one receiver and a bunch of other decent ones than what you are saying. Look at teams like the Saints with Michael Thomas or the Chiefs with Tyreek hill or the Texans with Hopkins or Green Bay with Adams I can go on and on and on.

It's much better because at least you have a receiver that can make a play on third down or get touchdowns unlike our receivers. I don't know if you were OK with our receivers getting no more than five touchdowns per year but that is not good. It's actually horrible. My standards are a lot higher than that. Our poor receiving production shows in the redzone where we ALWAYS struggle and that has costs us games (and partially the Super Bowl ask Tyreek hill) not having a reliable go to target at wide receiver.

I generally agree to what you are saying. But you got some bad examples. All these teams were in the playoffs and the Chiefs just won the super and the biggest play was made by Hill. I think you can get it done both ways. Great group of wr's or one stud. As long has yo have the qb to get it done. We just don't have a proven group. If we had Deebo and Sanders then yes you can say that's a proven group. But now we have Deebo and 5/6 question marks. I'm not saying they are a bad group just unproven. We will find out shortly.

I disagree those are excellent examples. I have a whole lot of other ones. But I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. Those teams that have a great number one receiver also have other receivers that contribute. Those other contributors aren't much worse than our better receivers on our team. Certainly could be argued as good as our number two or three receivers.

In general you don't need a great number one receiver to win a Super Bowl however our receiving corps has been garbage for the last 10 years. So any of those examples I listed would've helped our team a lot more than having a rookie wr Be our best option and him only getting 3 receiving touchdowns? We absolutely needed any of those teams number one receivers last year because our second third fourth receivers were not producing much at all.

Again I think I just have a higher expected standard because I want to not struggle in the red zone like we always do because we don't have a good receiver that can get touchdowns when it matters.

In time our core will be top 10 but right now it is the reason we are held back in the passing game. Most people that watched our games saw that our receivers were having trouble getting separation and like I was saying we need a good receiver that's reliable which we did not have. When Samuel is your best receiver as a rookie you have problems. He will be very good and same with Brandon A and Trent Taylor but again that is what was holding us back.

Going forward you are right, I don't think it will be a problem

Originally posted by walker807:
You could put Jimmy on any team in the league and he would win games. All he does is win.

I like Jimmy.

I think he will be even better next year.

But this statement of yours is absolutely absurd.