Kyle Shanahan: no guarantee Jimmy G will be on roster on Sunday

[Deus Irae]

I've not been following your discussion with that poster, but I have to point to something upon reading your posts...

I will respond to both your posts with this answer because this conversation is going in circles. The biggest problem with your argument is that you assume, or are making the assumption based off what you have said; that the QB they trade multiple picks to move up for will guarantee we fixed the position. That is a major fallacy.

The drop off from Mac Jones for example to Trask, Monds or Mills is not enormous. Mac and Trask are almost the same guy except Trask can move.

???

 

[captain stone]

Can't blame Shanny

Jimmy svcks.

Shanny sucks too.

 

[mgcolby]

I've not been following your discussion with that poster, but I have to point to something upon reading your posts...





???

I hope if you read it would make sense. But I was refraining from full on telling him what he believes/assumes. I was leaving room for me misreading or maybe him not expressing himself correctly. Which probably confuses you more. Makes sense to me and that is all that matters damn it.

And no I think Mac and Trask are very similar. And it wasn't long ago that the "experts" had Trask and Mac flipped. But that really is irrelevant to the overall point I was making.

 

[captain stone]

If you get the right QB and it costs you next years 1, so what? You will have a qb on a rookie contract and can replace the puck with a free agent.

Fixing qb and giving up picks to do it, makes you a better football team than using the picks in other players and not fixing qb.

#46 this year and our 1st-rounder next year should Both be OFF. THE. TABLE. for ANY of the non-Lawrences in ANY trade package...Period.

 

[Ring 6]

#46 this year and our 1st-rounder next year should Both be OFF. THE. TABLE. for ANY of the non-Lawrences in ANY trade package...Period.

Why? What good do those picks do if you have no QB? I’d trade them both to move up and get Fields without a second thought.
You aren’t moving up without using those 2 picks. The qb is more important than the picks.
A QBs on a rookie contract let’s you use free agency to replace both of them.

In general I agree with keeping picks but this is defcon4. Those picks would be like putting a new paint job, new tires, and a shiny hood ornament on a car without an engine.

 

[Deus Irae]

#46 this year and our 1st-rounder next year should Both be OFF. THE. TABLE. for ANY of the non-Lawrences in ANY trade package...Period.

What a silly notion. C'mon, Cap. You're being that guy...

 

[rochrist]

I've not been following your discussion with that poster, but I have to point to something upon reading your posts...





???

Huh? My impression was he was just about the least athletic of all the mentioned QBs. Comments like 'a statue in the pocket' and 'not a running threat'.

 

[Lansdowne]

Never trust Dan Sileo he makes up **** all the time

 

[Deus Irae]

Huh? My impression was he was just about the least athletic of all the mentioned QBs. Comments like 'a statue in the pocket' and 'not a running threat'.

1. He was apparently bagging on the other poster for making an assumption about that posterr's preferred QB(s)

the QB they trade multiple picks to move up for will guarantee we fixed the position

while making a QB assumption of his own

The drop off from Mac Jones for example to Trask, Monds or Mills is not enormous. Mac and Trask are almost the same guy except Trask can move.

And, if you're evaluating your QBOTF based upon his athleticism, rather than his actual QB skills, you're doing it wrong. I realize that means that a whole lot of people are doing it wrong, but that's what's happening. And those people used to know that, because history's made it abundantly clear.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

He still has a no trade clause.

can be waved easily though right? or are you saying he can choose where traded? would make sense if he wants to play for bb

 

[patman52]

Has Jimmy agreed to massive pay cut yet?

Until that happens, he's irrelevant to me.

Right, I would not pay him Cam money. 4 of the last 5 seasons he has not most of the year. I certainly would not trade for him at all.

 

[mgcolby]

can be waved easily though right? or are you saying he can choose where traded? would make sense if he wants to play for bb

He can decline a trade to say Denver and force a trade to NE if there were one to be made. But yes he can wave the no trade clause.

 

[Ring 6]

I will respond to both your posts with this answer because this conversation is going in circles. The biggest problem with your argument is that you assume, or are making the assumption based off what you have said; that the QB they trade multiple picks to move up for will guarantee we fixed the position. That is a major fallacy.

[/QUOTE]
Where did I ever say that? I’ve clearly explained otherwise.
So go ahead and explain to me what other method will guarantee the an position is fixed, or guarantee anything at all.
Guarantee is an inane standard.
But not getting a qb certainly makes it extremely likely we aren’t winning.
I will trust that your need to argue as if I am calling it a guarantee means you really gave no legitimate counter argument.

The drop off from Mac Jones for example to Trask, Monds or Mills is not enormous. Mac and Trask are almost the same guy except Trask can move.

Are you out if your mind?

I think the current QB market is aiking to the current housing market. People are making really bad decisions buying houses that are way overpriced, simply because they want to buy a house or are finally ready to buy a house. So instead of waiting, they settle for a house. Then offer way more than it's worth and in a year or two from now when the correction or god forbid a crash occurs they will be upside down on a house they really didn't want in the first place.

That is a horrible analogy. And a complete lack of understanding of people.

 

[mgcolby]

Where did I ever say that? I’ve clearly explained otherwise.
So go ahead and explain to me what other method will guarantee the an position is fixed, or guarantee anything at all.
Guarantee is an inane standard.
But not getting a qb certainly makes it extremely likely we aren’t winning.
I will trust that your need to argue as if I am calling it a guarantee means you really gave no legitimate counter argument.

That is exactly what you are arguing. You keep saying if we don't give up multiple picks to move up and get a QB then we did nothing to fix the position. That statement implies in order to fix the QB position this is the only way to do it. It is not. It's simple. Many ways to make this work. And simply because it is a guy you hate that maybe one of the options makes it no less viable.

Are you out if your mind?

That is a horrible analogy. And a complete lack of understanding of people.

If you say so! Two things I am willing to wager on with certainty. 1. In a time in the near future one year maybe two whatever short period it maybe a lot of people in this country that bought houses right now will regret it. 2. Not all 5 of the "first round" QBs will be successful in the NFL and some of the teams who drafted them will regret it, especially if they gave up 2 or 3 first round picks. I've explained this ad nauseam and you want to keep going in circles. Spend picks if that is the guy you truly feel is the guy, if not look for other short term solutions. Basically, do not make a move just to make a move. That is not the way to operate.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

None of the rookie QBs will help this year, and maybe never pan out. Absolutely do not bet the farm on the 4th QB left. Nope. The fastest turnaround would be get Jimmy Garoppolo back here and pay as little as possible in draft capital. What if he starts to grumble in SF and the Pats offered a 3rd or maybe only a 4th (what we paid for Moss).

Belichick has already explained 15 years ago why it's dumb to package picks for position need. He's said if the player doesn't pan out then you're back to square one. It doesn't solve the QB position by blowing all our picks. This is the type of moronic move someone like our offensive coordinator would make like when he packaged 3 picks for BUST Tim Tebow.

.

 

[mgcolby]

And, if you're evaluating your QBOTF based upon his athleticism, rather than his actual QB skills, you're doing it wrong. I realize that means that a whole lot of people are doing it wrong, but that's what's happening. And those people used to know that, because history's made it abundantly clear.

You really should read the conversation before weighing in on what you think I was doing.

And no I do not evaluate QB's on movement. I am not a running QB guy at all. I don't pretend to be a scout. But during my youth and school coaching years I attended many coaching clinics and a scouting course. All of it was very informative and humbling. I don't pretend to run around thinking I can evaluate players better than NE's coaching staff. All I said is there are very subtle differences between Trask and Jones. But I like and prefer Jones and did so prior to their draft stocks flipping. I have stated that on this board many times, Mac Jones is the guy I want. But that looks highly unlikely now.

Fields not a huge fan and a big part of that is QB history at Ohio St. Lance is intriguing but do you trade more than a future 2nd to move up for him? Maybe a future first but nothing more and that is dicey to me. Either way the last gist of this blurb is what the other poster and I were discussing.

 

[captain stone]

Why? What good do those picks do if you have no QB? I’d trade them both to move up and get Fields without a second thought.
You aren’t moving up without using those 2 picks. The qb is more important than the picks.
A QBs on a rookie contract let’s you use free agency to replace both of them.

In general I agree with keeping picks but this is defcon4. Those picks would be like putting a new paint job, new tires, and a shiny hood ornament on a car without an engine.

What a silly notion. C'mon, Cap. You're being that guy...

This is the Worst. Year. Ever. to properly evaluate college QBs; I am certainly not going to sacrifice #46 and/or any future Day 1 or Day 2 picks for virtual unknowns like these non-Lawrences....Besides, if Bill were that enamored with them then he should've started Stid vs the J-E-T-E; we would at worst be picking at #13, if not #10...

If the Loins or Panthers are willing to accept #s 15, 122 & 188 for 7/8, then that's cool; otherwise I'm calling their bluff...Let's see just how serious the 'Skins & Bears really are...

 

[Hyped]

This is the Worst. Year. Ever. to properly evaluate college QBs;

This can't be said enough times.....I agree!

 

[BradytoMosstoGronk]

Thursday needs to get here already

 

[Deus Irae]

This is the Worst. Year. Ever. to properly evaluate college QBs; I am certainly not going to sacrifice #46 and/or any future Day 1 or Day 2 picks for virtual unknowns like these non-Lawrences....Besides, if Bill were that enamored with them then he should've started Stid vs the J-E-T-E; we would at worst be picking at #13, if not #10...

If the Loins or Panthers are willing to accept #s 15, 122 & 188 for 7/8, then that's cool; otherwise I'm calling their bluff...Let's see just how serious the 'Skins & Bears really are...

Immediately dismissing any and all possible trades is folly, unless you're already 100% certain that you're out on the QBs, based upon in depth evaluation. That's all I was referring to.