QB controversy in 9ers land?

^^^ I know he said one of the best 3rd round picks in the history of the draft. It's why I pointed out that there are 22 Hall of Famers who were 3rd round picks.

If we're talking best, for me "one of the best of all time" doesn't imply top 25-50, but maybe that's different for you.

I have no idea what you think divisional bias has to do with any of this.

The bias my post was poking at is recency bias.

The niners have 3 HOF 3rd rounders... Haley, Montana, and TO. Soon to be 4 when Gore retires

Popeyejones":68g9buoh said:

^^^ I know he said one of the best 3rd round picks in the history of the draft. It's why I pointed out that there are 22 Hall of Famers who were 3rd round picks.

If we're talking best, for me "one of the best of all time" doesn't imply top 25-50, but maybe that's different for you.

I have no idea what you think divisional bias has to do with any of this.

The bias my post was poking at is recency bias.

Click to expand...

This is basic arithmetic, I know Niner fans struggle to count past 5, but try to follow this. Not factoring in compensatory picks (I only counted picks through 1959, after that, I multiplied seasons by the number of teams that existed, and I didn't count the AFL draft, USFL dispersal draft, or any supplementary picks), I estimate there have been at least 1,912 3rd round picks in NFL history. The top 50 is only 2.6% of that total, and even if you put all 22 HoFers ahead of him, I'd still say he's in the top 30 all time. Just so you know, that's the top 1.5% of all third round picks ever.

Yes, he's one of the best. You're just another troll.

^^^ This is all pretty silly IMO but to me "one of the best of all time" more or less suggests that something is in the conversation for the best of all time. That's why I said 22 Hall of Famers -- most of whom aren't even in the conversation for best of all time from the 3rd round IMO (and that includes two 49ers)-- would disagree.


The full population -- which is what you're deriving a percentage from -- is to me beside the point for this type of statement.

By your logic the 10,000th best restaurant in the United States is one of the best restaurants in the United States.*
I don't think "top 10,000" is what people mean when they say a restaurant is one of the best in the country.

It would also mean that the 525th best city in the United States is one of the best cities in the U.S. -- again, I don't think #525 is what people are talking about when debating best cities.

More generally -- and I mean this sincerely -- I hope you realize that I think we can legitimately disagree without you calling me a troll or accusing me off biases I don't really understand.

*10,000 would put our imaginary restaurant at about your 1.5%. It's the same for 525 and cities.

Jimmy GQ will show that Kyler dude how a NFL QB should look like, no double GQ will both games against the Kyler dude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maulbert":56sn0agf said:

Popeyejones":56sn0agf said:

^^^ I know he said one of the best 3rd round picks in the history of the draft. It's why I pointed out that there are 22 Hall of Famers who were 3rd round picks.

If we're talking best, for me "one of the best of all time" doesn't imply top 25-50, but maybe that's different for you.

I have no idea what you think divisional bias has to do with any of this.

The bias my post was poking at is recency bias.

Click to expand...

This is basic arithmetic, I know Niner fans struggle to count past 5, but try to follow this. Not factoring in compensatory picks (I only counted picks through 1959, after that, I multiplied seasons by the number of teams that existed, and I didn't count the AFL draft, USFL dispersal draft, or any supplementary picks), I estimate there have been at least 1,912 3rd round picks in NFL history. The top 50 is only 2.6% of that total, and even if you put all 22 HoFers ahead of him, I'd still say he's in the top 30 all time. Just so you know, that's the top 1.5% of all third round picks ever.

Yes, he's one of the best. You're just another troll.

Click to expand...

:2thumbs: :irishdrinkers:

Get ready for the long winded word salad and pretzel logic in response to your post.

Sports Hernia":2o6nvyty said:

Get ready for the long winded word salad and pretzel logic in response to your post.

Click to expand...

My explanation for my thinking is above and was posted four hours before you posted this.

Likewise, as I said to Maulbert, I think we can legitimately disagree without immediately resorting to insulting each other. :2thumbs:

I don't believe there's a QB controversy in Santa Clara, unless you're talking about who's going to be the #2.

GQ is the superior talent, he just needs to stay healthy.

Popeyejones":2rrwm8as said:

Sports Hernia":2rrwm8as said:

Get ready for the long winded word salad and pretzel logic in response to your post.

Click to expand...

My explanation for my thinking is above and was posted four hours before you posted this.

Likewise, as I said to Maulbert, I think we can legitimately disagree without immediately resorting to insulting each other. :2thumbs:

Click to expand...

I didn’t read the full thread before I posted.

You didn’t disappoint. :2thumbs:

You might want to grow a little thicker skin, If I wanted to really insult you, I would have.

Sports Hernia":ak7axoti said:

You might want to grow a little thicker skin, If I wanted to really insult you, I would have.

Click to expand...

:lol: :roll:

Oh noes!!!!!

JGfromtheNW":3dbdoc03 said:

I don't believe there's a QB controversy in Santa Clara, unless you're talking about who's going to be the #2.

GQ is the superior talent, he just needs to stay healthy.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, though. So far he hasn't, even in very limited action. Otherwise, assuming he progresses as most quarterbacks do, he'll certainly be a productive starter (his other weaknesses are minor). But some people are just not really physically cut out for the physical rigors of the sport. Take Jimmie Ward, for example. You could even argue that Steve Young wasn't, but he had so much talent that even with the constant injuries he was worth the investment.

5_Golden_Rings":2dzujts8 said:

JGfromtheNW":2dzujts8 said:

I don't believe there's a QB controversy in Santa Clara, unless you're talking about who's going to be the #2.

GQ is the superior talent, he just needs to stay healthy.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, though. So far he hasn't, even in very limited action. Otherwise, assuming he progresses as most quarterbacks do, he'll certainly be a productive starter (his other weaknesses are minor). But some people are just not really physically cut out for the physical rigors of the sport. Take Jimmie Ward, for example. You could even argue that Steve Young wasn't, but he had so much talent that even with the constant injuries he was worth the investment.

Click to expand...

I feel like you just kinda have to bracket out the injury thing, because there's really no way to know if it's a long term concern or not.

He's been injured twice, sure, but two isn't much of a trend. It's very different from Ward who IIRC has finished one of five seasons and has yet to make it through one.

As for his weaknesses as a player, we still don't know what's real, what's fixable, and what's just flukey.

Basically, he could stay healthy and emerge as a top 10 starting QB and that wouldn't surprise me, but he could stay healthy and be exposed as a bottom 10 starting QB and that wouldn't really surprise me either. Or he could not stay healthy and I again wouldn't be surprised.

My take is really that anyone who is claiming to have written the book on Garoppolo at this point is definitely trying to sell you something.

5_Golden_Rings":2pa4wa9z said:

JGfromtheNW":2pa4wa9z said:

I don't believe there's a QB controversy in Santa Clara, unless you're talking about who's going to be the #2.

GQ is the superior talent, he just needs to stay healthy.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, though. So far he hasn't, even in very limited action. Otherwise, assuming he progresses as most quarterbacks do, he'll certainly be a productive starter (his other weaknesses are minor). But some people are just not really physically cut out for the physical rigors of the sport. Take Jimmie Ward, for example. You could even argue that Steve Young wasn't, but he had so much talent that even with the constant injuries he was worth the investment.

Click to expand...

Romo is a great example. Dude had talent, but defenders would only sneeze on him and his back would go out.

Popeyejones":6my9j8ex said:

5_Golden_Rings":6my9j8ex said:

JGfromtheNW":6my9j8ex said:

I don't believe there's a QB controversy in Santa Clara, unless you're talking about who's going to be the #2.

GQ is the superior talent, he just needs to stay healthy.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, though. So far he hasn't, even in very limited action. Otherwise, assuming he progresses as most quarterbacks do, he'll certainly be a productive starter (his other weaknesses are minor). But some people are just not really physically cut out for the physical rigors of the sport. Take Jimmie Ward, for example. You could even argue that Steve Young wasn't, but he had so much talent that even with the constant injuries he was worth the investment.

Click to expand...

I feel like you just kinda have to bracket out the injury thing, because there's really no way to know if it's a long term concern or not.

He's been injured twice, sure, but two isn't much of a trend. It's very different from Ward who IIRC has finished one of five seasons and has yet to make it through one.

As for his weaknesses as a player, we still don't know what's real, what's fixable, and what's just flukey.

Basically, he could stay healthy and emerge as a top 10 starting QB and that wouldn't surprise me, but he could stay healthy and be exposed as a bottom 10 starting QB and that wouldn't really surprise me either. Or he could not stay healthy and I again wouldn't be surprised.

My take is really that anyone who is claiming to have written the book on Garoppolo at this point is definitely trying to sell you something.

Click to expand...

You, you can say he's injury prone, but the two injuries he's had were ones I think most QBs would have had in same situation.

Moreover, he had never been hurt on any other level of football.

Obviously I can't say definitively he's not injury prone, but I really don't think we know that yet.

Marvin49":3prgeb8a said:

You, you can say he's injury prone, but the two injuries he's had were ones I think most QBs would have had in same situation.

Moreover, he had never been hurt on any other level of football.

Obviously I can't say definitively he's not injury prone, but I really don't think we know that yet.

Click to expand...

Yep. He missed some time with a sprained shoulder a few years ago, and then tore his ACL last year.

My hesitation about thinking he's injury prone is threefold:

(1) Of all the positions in the NFL save for punter and kicker, QB is the one for which "injury prone" isn't even really a thing. QBs are very protected, and aren't even making any contact with anybody on most plays (more on this and Romo below).

(2) Garoppolo is really good at protecting his body when getting hit. It's an impressive part of his game, and IMO he might only be second in the NFL to Russell Wilson in that regard (a subtle part of Wilson's game I've always been very impressed by).

(3) As far as injury prone QBs go, there's kinda Tony Romo, and then not really anybody else, and I don't think Tony Romo was "injury prone." Rather, he broke the exact same bone three times (his left clavicle) and had major back problems through the later part of his career. Breaking the same bone over and over again and having a chronic back issue means Romo had *specific* problems that affected him throughout his career, which isn't really what we mean by "injury prone" IMO. If you take out his left clavicle and his chronic back problem he broke his pinky once, which hey, okay. If Garoppolo keeps spraining the same shoulder or his same ACL keeps tearing let's talk about it, but even talking about talking about that is still a ways off, IMO.

Edit: I guess you could say Rodgers for this too, but again, this is about *patterns*. If you want to know about Rodgers and his injury history you're basically talking about his left clavicle and his left lower leg and foot over and over again. That's not so much "injury prone" as "this guy has specific problems with specific parts of his body at this later stage in his career".

https://sportsinjurypredictor.com/playe ... dgers/2636

Maulbert":387n4hla said:

I do agree GQ hasn't had a meaningful situation yet, the thing is, while Wilson CLEARLY was better than Flynn in 2012 (Which turned out in the long run to not mean anything at all) I didn't really start believing Wilson had 'IT' until he willed the team to victory over Chicago in December of his rookie year. When he led the comeback against the Patriots in October, I thought it was great, but that could easily have been a fluke. They were at home with the crowd behind them, and Brady had his first multi-pick game in literal SEASONS.

In Chicago, he led a 97 yard TD drive in under 4 minutes on the road that should have been a game winner, except Richard Sherman gave up a 56 yard completion to Brandon Marshall which allowed the Bears to send the game into overtime. He then led them on an 80 yard drive in OT that ended the game with a TD. That was when I knew he had 'IT'. GQ hasn't stayed healthy long enough to have that moment, even if you like his play. Health is part of 'IT', and Jimmy has not shown even an iota of proof that he can stay healthy. He couldn't even stay healthy for 4 games in New England during Brady's suspension in 2016.

Click to expand...

It is not my recollection that Russell was "clearly" playing above Flynn in the 2012 preseason. As a matter of fact, until he got hurt, Flynn was getting most of the work with the first team offense both in practice and in the preseason games. The argument against Russell was that his preseason success was coming as a result of playing against 2nd and 3rd string opposition while Flynn was playing against the starters. I do think that Russell would have still gotten the nod even if Flynn remained healthy but it was far from a clear cut decision.

But I do agree with you regarding the Chicago game. That's the point at which I jumped on the Russell bandwagon and haven't left it since. Up until then, I had rationalized his success, along with that of RG3 and Kaepernick, as being part of the read option fad and that defenses would eventually figure it out.

RiverDog":2mg80s2r said:

Maulbert":2mg80s2r said:

I do agree GQ hasn't had a meaningful situation yet, the thing is, while Wilson CLEARLY was better than Flynn in 2012 (Which turned out in the long run to not mean anything at all) I didn't really start believing Wilson had 'IT' until he willed the team to victory over Chicago in December of his rookie year. When he led the comeback against the Patriots in October, I thought it was great, but that could easily have been a fluke. They were at home with the crowd behind them, and Brady had his first multi-pick game in literal SEASONS.

In Chicago, he led a 97 yard TD drive in under 4 minutes on the road that should have been a game winner, except Richard Sherman gave up a 56 yard completion to Brandon Marshall which allowed the Bears to send the game into overtime. He then led them on an 80 yard drive in OT that ended the game with a TD. That was when I knew he had 'IT'. GQ hasn't stayed healthy long enough to have that moment, even if you like his play. Health is part of 'IT', and Jimmy has not shown even an iota of proof that he can stay healthy. He couldn't even stay healthy for 4 games in New England during Brady's suspension in 2016.

Click to expand...

It is not my recollection that Russell was "clearly" playing above Flynn in the 2012 preseason. As a matter of fact, until he got hurt, Flynn was getting most of the work with the first team offense both in practice and in the preseason games. The argument against Russell was that his preseason success was coming as a result of playing against 2nd and 3rd string opposition while Flynn was playing against the starters. I do think that Russell would have still gotten the nod even if Flynn remained healthy but it was far from a clear cut decision.

But I do agree with you regarding the Chicago game. That's the point at which I jumped on the Russell bandwagon and haven't left it since. Up until then, I had rationalized his success, along with that of RG3 and Kaepernick, as being part of the read option fad and that defenses would eventually figure it out.

Click to expand...

I knew Wilson was going to start after he destroyed KC in the third preseason game of 2012. It was obvious he had outplayed Flynn by then.

Maulbert":26lop2c8 said:

I knew Wilson was going to start after he destroyed KC in the third preseason game of 2012. It was obvious he had outplayed Flynn by then.

Click to expand...

Same. That KC game was a thing of beauty. Wasn't that also the first time we truly saw the flagrant beauty of Wilson's deep balls?

RiverDog":r1xzgjzq said:

Maulbert":r1xzgjzq said:

I do agree GQ hasn't had a meaningful situation yet, the thing is, while Wilson CLEARLY was better than Flynn in 2012 (Which turned out in the long run to not mean anything at all) I didn't really start believing Wilson had 'IT' until he willed the team to victory over Chicago in December of his rookie year. When he led the comeback against the Patriots in October, I thought it was great, but that could easily have been a fluke. They were at home with the crowd behind them, and Brady had his first multi-pick game in literal SEASONS.

In Chicago, he led a 97 yard TD drive in under 4 minutes on the road that should have been a game winner, except Richard Sherman gave up a 56 yard completion to Brandon Marshall which allowed the Bears to send the game into overtime. He then led them on an 80 yard drive in OT that ended the game with a TD. That was when I knew he had 'IT'. GQ hasn't stayed healthy long enough to have that moment, even if you like his play. Health is part of 'IT', and Jimmy has not shown even an iota of proof that he can stay healthy. He couldn't even stay healthy for 4 games in New England during Brady's suspension in 2016.

Click to expand...

It is not my recollection that Russell was "clearly" playing above Flynn in the 2012 preseason. As a matter of fact, until he got hurt, Flynn was getting most of the work with the first team offense both in practice and in the preseason games. The argument against Russell was that his preseason success was coming as a result of playing against 2nd and 3rd string opposition while Flynn was playing against the starters. I do think that Russell would have still gotten the nod even if Flynn remained healthy but it was far from a clear cut decision.

But I do agree with you regarding the Chicago game. That's the point at which I jumped on the Russell bandwagon and haven't left it since. Up until then, I had rationalized his success, along with that of RG3 and Kaepernick, as being part of the read option fad and that defenses would eventually figure it out.

Click to expand...

When I watched those preseason games, it looked like to me that the Seahawk offense was moving better. Flynn was missing easy passes and holding the ball. In fact, I blame Flynn in part for Owens getting cut. He missed him several times, or didn't quite lead him enough. Wilson, on the other hand, promptly converted a 3rd and 17 in his first drive in the second preseason game. The offense looked more chaotic, but it moved better based on what I remember.

5_Golden_Rings":c6spwdfv said:

RiverDog":c6spwdfv said:

Maulbert":c6spwdfv said:

I do agree GQ hasn't had a meaningful situation yet, the thing is, while Wilson CLEARLY was better than Flynn in 2012 (Which turned out in the long run to not mean anything at all) I didn't really start believing Wilson had 'IT' until he willed the team to victory over Chicago in December of his rookie year. When he led the comeback against the Patriots in October, I thought it was great, but that could easily have been a fluke. They were at home with the crowd behind them, and Brady had his first multi-pick game in literal SEASONS.

In Chicago, he led a 97 yard TD drive in under 4 minutes on the road that should have been a game winner, except Richard Sherman gave up a 56 yard completion to Brandon Marshall which allowed the Bears to send the game into overtime. He then led them on an 80 yard drive in OT that ended the game with a TD. That was when I knew he had 'IT'. GQ hasn't stayed healthy long enough to have that moment, even if you like his play. Health is part of 'IT', and Jimmy has not shown even an iota of proof that he can stay healthy. He couldn't even stay healthy for 4 games in New England during Brady's suspension in 2016.

Click to expand...

It is not my recollection that Russell was "clearly" playing above Flynn in the 2012 preseason. As a matter of fact, until he got hurt, Flynn was getting most of the work with the first team offense both in practice and in the preseason games. The argument against Russell was that his preseason success was coming as a result of playing against 2nd and 3rd string opposition while Flynn was playing against the starters. I do think that Russell would have still gotten the nod even if Flynn remained healthy but it was far from a clear cut decision.

But I do agree with you regarding the Chicago game. That's the point at which I jumped on the Russell bandwagon and haven't left it since. Up until then, I had rationalized his success, along with that of RG3 and Kaepernick, as being part of the read option fad and that defenses would eventually figure it out.

Click to expand...

When I watched those preseason games, it looked like to me that the Seahawk offense was moving better. Flynn was missing easy passes and holding the ball. In fact, I blame Flynn in part for Owens getting cut. He missed him several times, or didn't quite lead him enough. Wilson, on the other hand, promptly converted a 3rd and 17 in his first drive in the second preseason game. The offense looked more chaotic, but it moved better based on what I remember.

Click to expand...

It was JUST the preseason, and while Wilson had a great game against KC, I never put too much stock in them (also, KC turned out to be atrocious in 2012, they were 2-14), but yes, it was quite clear the offense played better under Wilson than Flynn. The one thing I will say, however, was that Owens wasn't going to make the team, anyway. He was still good, no doubt about that, but he was well past the point where his attitude and reputation as a diva weren't worth his production. When Buffalo and Cincinnati don't want you, you're done.