There are 303 users in the forums
Originally posted by father49er:
Yet he missed receivers when it counted in a playoff game and when it counted playing the 49ers at Levi's. Don't get your hopes up only to get the same result next post season, that's all I'm saying.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by mayo49:
12 month recovery, Phoenix.
12 is the max, it could be a lot less than that but still long enough to where you can pretty much write off 2023 for him.
If the idea is to start Lance and if he sucks or gets hurts again then Purdy is going to come in to save the day, that most likely isn't happening.
Originally posted by pdc20:
At least Brady is FA and would be interested obviously by the Niners.
Imagine if he wasn´t FA or the Niners were just a team in re-build mode like the Falcons for example.
Originally posted by pdc20:
At least Brady is FA and would be interested obviously by the Niners.
Imagine if he wasn´t FA or the Niners were just a team in re-build mode like the Falcons for example.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
This is how I feel as well. Let Purdy get fully healthy and start Trey. It will be his chance to show what he's capable of. He will get at least a handful of games to do that, and if he can show that then we stick with him. If not, once Purdy is fully healthy start him.
If Purdy has to get a full reconstruction, he's not playing any meaningful snaps next season. That would be at least 7-8 months recovery and that's just to get healthy enough to start basic throwing and not jumping into game ready mode.
Originally posted by father49er:
TB12 with Lance as backup is not a bad option for a year. Assuming Kyle and TB12 works well together.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by pdc20:
At least Brady is FA and would be interested obviously by the Niners.
Imagine if he wasn´t FA or the Niners were just a team in re-build mode like the Falcons for example.
The Niners would be in a much easier, if less enjoyable, situation if they were a middling or rebuilding team. You'd just play Lance and let him take his lumps and see if he could develop into the player you thought he could be. You aren't likely sacrificing Super Bowl years in that case.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
The Niners would be in a much easier, if less enjoyable, situation if they were a middling or rebuilding team. You'd just play Lance and let him take his lumps and see if he could develop into the player you thought he could be. You aren't likely sacrificing Super Bowl years in that case.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by Waterbear:
You can't take a chance on starting a QB that we traded 3 first round picks for? What?
If we have a down year next season, the following year we have a million picks including our first rounder.
We need to see what Trey has, I don't think he will be as bad as people believe.
If he has a down year then you just wasted an entire season of a stacked roster on a bad investment. If he gets injured, then you just wasted an entire season of a stacked roster. Next season might be the last where you can throw Deebo, Kittle, McCaffrey abd Aiyuk all together out on the field at the same time.
If your Option A is a guy who has barely thrown a football in four years, you might want a better Option A or at least a really strong Option B.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Kyle can alter his system to optimize Brady's play. We have a lot of pieces that Tom Brady could maximize, like CMC, Kittle, and Deebo.
Originally posted by Waterbear:
There's no guarantee Jimmy or Brady stays healthy either. So I don't understand that argument.
I'm looking at this with the idea that Option A allows our team to allocate cap space to other parts of the team. We could continue to build a juggernaut around Trey whether the storm until Brock comes back.
I'm not saying we shouldn't sign anybody, I'd like to have a Heinicke, Minshew type QB3. But I don't think we need to continue bench Trey for someone like Brady or Jimmy G. It's counter productive at that point because you're continually stunting the growth of a QB who IMO has a lot of potential still.
I believe in Trey. I don't know for sure he will be good enough or stay healthy but people act like it's certain we would lose with Trey and win with Jimmy and its ridiculous.
Originally posted by Waterbear:
There's no guarantee Jimmy or Brady stays healthy either. So I don't understand that argument.
I'm looking at this with the idea that Option A allows our team to allocate cap space to other parts of the team. We could continue to build a juggernaut around Trey whether the storm until Brock comes back.
I'm not saying we shouldn't sign anybody, I'd like to have a Heinicke, Minshew type QB3. But I don't think we need to continue bench Trey for someone like Brady or Jimmy G. It's counter productive at that point because you're continually stunting the growth of a QB who IMO has a lot of potential still.
I believe in Trey. I don't know for sure he will be good enough or stay healthy but people act like it's certain we would lose with Trey and win with Jimmy and its ridiculous.
Originally posted by dj43:
That sounds good and all, the problem is; we can't take a chance on Purdy being fully healed in 6 months. He may not be fully healed until well into the season. We can't take that chance. We also can't take a chance on a QB that hasn't played more than 6 games in four years.
Rodgers is out of the picture. Brady is a reasonable solution for one year and buys us time for the QB room to get fully healthy.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
You have all that offensive talent for at least one more season, I don't see a good reason to not go all in. You'll only get so many more years before guys start retiring or falling off.
If someone says they have more faith in Lance to deliver a SB over Brady, they're either lying their ass off or need their home inspected for severe mold infestation.
