QB controversy in 9ers land?

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:26 am
  • Marvin49 wrote: Mullens is a keeper...even if I routinely misspell his last name. LOL.


    People are talking about Mullens and Garoppolo when the only real question about Mullens this offseason is if he can beat out Beathard for the #2 job, and that's *far* from guaranteed.

    I think Mullens has shown more than Beathard at this point, but it would be hard to argue that Beathard doesn't have a higher ceiling than him.

    I have to guess that the Seahawks fans here who are hyping up Nick Mullens just haven't seen a lot of him, and are basing their opinions off of having lost to him and maybe the nationally televised Raiders game (the two best games he played, and it's not even close).
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5354
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:06 pm
  • Maulbert wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:Sometimes, you can just watch a guy and KNOW he has "IT".


    That's how it feels watching Russell Wilson, and yet there are knob gobblers on here that would claim he doesn't have "IT". The difference is, Russ has actually performed in meaningful situations. All I'm saying is GQ still has to prove it, and I remain unconvinced, not from a performance standpoint, but from a health one.


    Totally Fair.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6708
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:07 pm
  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:GQ is this generation's Scott Mitchell.

    You are responsible for killing the niner’s troll’s dreams. I hope you are satisfied! :sarcasm_off: 8)


    Yeah...not so much. :D
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6708
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:10 pm
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote: Mullens is a keeper...even if I routinely misspell his last name. LOL.


    People are talking about Mullens and Garoppolo when the only real question about Mullens this offseason is if he can beat out Beathard for the #2 job, and that's *far* from guaranteed.

    I think Mullens has shown more than Beathard at this point, but it would be hard to argue that Beathard doesn't have a higher ceiling than him.

    I have to guess that the Seahawks fans here who are hyping up Nick Mullens just haven't seen a lot of him, and are basing their opinions off of having lost to him and maybe the nationally televised Raiders game (the two best games he played, and it's not even close).


    I said it before....I think its because they've never faced Jimmy G poutside of 1 garbage time possession and faced Mullens twice last year. He had 414 yards passing in a lopsided 49er loss in the first meeting and he was the QB who beat them for the first time in several years in the second meeting.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6708
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:36 pm
  • Maulbert wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:The difference is, Russ has actually performed in meaningful situations. .


    The 49ers haven't had a "meaningful situation" since the 2013 NFC championship game!! It's all about the flash plays, the ooh! plays. You can see it in certain players. I remember Willis as a rookie, you could see it. You could see it with Russell Wilson as a rookie as well, why do you think they started him after that preseason? Sometimes you don't need a big body of work to see things. The "meaningful situation" adds the element of pressure. How does someone perform when all the chips are across the line. I hope the 49ers have meaningful situations this year. Isn't that why we watch?
    94Smith
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 215
    Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:01 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:42 pm
  • 94Smith wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:The difference is, Russ has actually performed in meaningful situations. .


    The 49ers haven't had a "meaningful situation" since the 2013 NFC championship game!! It's all about the flash plays, the ooh! plays. You can see it in certain players. I remember Willis as a rookie, you could see it. You could see it with Russell Wilson as a rookie as well, why do you think they started him after that preseason? Sometimes you don't need a big body of work to see things. The "meaningful situation" adds the element of pressure. How does someone perform when all the chips are across the line. I hope the 49ers have meaningful situations this year. Isn't that why we watch?

    Excellent points sir! :2thumbs:
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 26523
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:46 pm
  • 94Smith wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:The difference is, Russ has actually performed in meaningful situations. .


    The 49ers haven't had a "meaningful situation" since the 2013 NFC championship game!! It's all about the flash plays, the ooh! plays. You can see it in certain players. I remember Willis as a rookie, you could see it. You could see it with Russell Wilson as a rookie as well, why do you think they started him after that preseason? Sometimes you don't need a big body of work to see things. The "meaningful situation" adds the element of pressure. How does someone perform when all the chips are across the line. I hope the 49ers have meaningful situations this year. Isn't that why we watch?


    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.
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6176
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:41 pm
  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    HawkGA wrote:GQ is this generation's Scott Mitchell.

    You are responsible for killing the niner’s troll’s dreams. I hope you are satisfied! :sarcasm_off: 8)


    :irishdrinkers:
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 106759
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:34 am
  • Wilson probably would have been a top 10 pick if he wasnt so damn short
    SF49r
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 577
    Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:30 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:14 am
  • SF49r wrote:Wilson probably would have been a top 10 pick if he wasnt so damn short


    Too short to win a SB.....Ummmmm. Jimmy ain't short except on doing anything worth mentioning long term in the NFL.
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 35066
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:38 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:29 pm
  • Not knocking Wilson just saying he was always talented even in college and he only dropped in the draft cause of his height which proved it was all a crapshoot anyway.
    SF49r
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 577
    Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:30 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:32 pm
  • The draft of Wilson was BRILLIANT by John Schneider. It's that simple.
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 35066
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:38 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:46 pm
  • One of the best 3rd round picks in the history of the draft, period.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 14205
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:54 pm
  • That was a pretty good draft for Seattle. 2 franchise players that would be top 5 at their positions for years? Not too shabby. Didnt the so-called experts give you guys a F for that draft?
    SF49r
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 577
    Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:30 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:09 pm
  • SF49r wrote:That was a pretty good draft for Seattle. 2 franchise players that would be top 5 at their positions for years? Not too shabby. Didnt the so-called experts give you guys a F for that draft?


    Yeah we were getting sliced and diced for like 3 years about it, then the Conference Championship and playoffs and all of a sudden many claimed it was great and forgot their initial evaluation. We didn't and neither did the players.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28977
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:39 pm
  • SF49r wrote:Wilson probably would have been a top 10 pick if he wasnt so damn short


    Maybe not put the best way, but yeah, you're right. I've heard about more than a few scouts who believe 2 more inches would have put him in the predraft conversation with RG3. There's no question Luck would always go first, but Wilson was as good as RG3 in college and CLEARLY better than Tannehill, Weeden, or Osweiler, who all went ahead of him. He just couldn't beat the height prejudice.
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6176
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:26 am
  • HawkGA wrote:GQ is this generation's Scott Mitchell.

    Why? Because Mitchell backed up Dan Marino?

    Anyway, Florio is still on about this Kirk Cousins thing. Cousins certainly has a better arm than Garoppolo, and really better than most qbs in the league, and he is better than he gets credit (30 tds to 10 ints is definitely better than aberage), but he is too old for that kind of deal for what he brings to the table, and his contract is too bloated. It’s simply not going to happen. Not unless JQ falls off the map AND Cousins struggles enough in Minnesota that they think he’s not worth the contract AND he’s willing to renegotiate his contract for a trade.

    I just can’t envision a scenario where all the things needed to happen do so. If JQ falls off a map I expect the 49ers will be drafting high enough to take a quarterback anyway.
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2016
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:38 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:25 am
  • Jeez, if the whiners ended up cutting ties with Jimmy GQ their board would implode. Some of those homers over there want to dispense with the Hall of Fame waiting period and anoint him today. :lol:
    snackdaddy
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 51
    Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:15 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:52 am
  • SoulfishHawk wrote:One of the best 3rd round picks in the history of the draft, period.


    There's twenty two Hall of Famers who would likely disagree with that, regardless of if you put a period on it or not.

    I think Wilson is on track to likely get in, although some first or second team All Pro awards (he doesn't have any) and (even better) an MVP award season would probably cement that.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5354
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:08 pm
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    SoulfishHawk wrote:One of the best 3rd round picks in the history of the draft, period.


    There's twenty two Hall of Famers who would likely disagree with that, regardless of if you put a period on it or not.

    I think Wilson is on track to likely get in, although some first or second team All Pro awards (he doesn't have any) and (even better) an MVP award season would probably cement that.


    He said one of, not just the best. Get your divisional bias out of your ears. The NFL draft has been around since 1934. Basic math easily estimates over 1,500 3rd round picks since then. I'd say Wilson is easily in the top 50 all time. I'd say 50 out of 1,500 is easily one of the best all time. Geez.
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6176
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:38 pm
  • ^^^ 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.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5354
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:43 pm
  • The niners have 3 HOF 3rd rounders... Haley, Montana, and TO. Soon to be 4 when Gore retires
    94Smith
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 215
    Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:01 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:39 pm
  • Popeyejones wrote:^^^ 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.


    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.
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6176
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:50 pm
  • ^^^ 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.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5354
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:42 pm
  • 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
    toffee
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1993
    Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:44 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:53 pm
  • Maulbert wrote:
    Popeyejones wrote:^^^ 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.


    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.

    :2thumbs: :irishdrinkers:

    Get ready for the long winded word salad and pretzel logic in response to your post.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 26523
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:46 am
  • Sports Hernia wrote:Get ready for the long winded word salad and pretzel logic in response to your post.


    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:
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5354
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:24 am
  • 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.
    JGfromtheNW
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2151
    Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:37 am
    Location: Wenatchee


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:47 pm
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    Sports Hernia wrote:Get ready for the long winded word salad and pretzel logic in response to your post.


    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 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
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 26523
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:17 pm
  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    You might want to grow a little thicker skin, If I wanted to really insult you, I would have.


    :lol: :roll:

    Oh noes!!!!!
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5354
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:29 pm
  • JGfromtheNW wrote: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.

    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
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2016
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:38 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:40 pm
  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    JGfromtheNW wrote: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.

    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.


    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.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5354
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:09 pm
  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    JGfromtheNW wrote: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.

    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.


    Romo is a great example. Dude had talent, but defenders would only sneeze on him and his back would go out.
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6176
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:37 pm
  • Popeyejones wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    JGfromtheNW wrote: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.

    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.


    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.


    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
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6708
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:23 am
  • Marvin49 wrote: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.


    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
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5354
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:37 am
  • Maulbert wrote: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.


    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
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1752
    Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:58 am
    Location: Kennewick, WA


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:32 pm
  • RiverDog wrote:
    Maulbert wrote: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.


    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.


    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
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6176
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:50 pm
  • Maulbert wrote: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.

    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?
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30965
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:39 am
  • RiverDog wrote:
    Maulbert wrote: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.


    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.

    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
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2016
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:38 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:04 am
  • 5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    RiverDog wrote:
    Maulbert wrote: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.


    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.

    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.


    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.
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6176
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:34 pm
  • Maulbert wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    RiverDog wrote:
    Maulbert wrote: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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    To some hawks fans:
    Wilson = too short, not black enough, game manager.

    To most 9ers fans:
    GQ = second coming of Brady, did ya see that quick release? Ya didn’t? Ok I got it ya were focusing on his face.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    toffee
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1993
    Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:44 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:23 am
  • toffee wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    5_Golden_Rings wrote:
    RiverDog wrote:
    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.

    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.


    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.


    To some hawks fans:
    Wilson = too short, not black enough, game manager.

    To most 9ers fans:
    GQ = second coming of Brady, did ya see that quick release? Ya didn’t? Ok I got it ya were focusing on his face.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Almost NO ONE thinks he's the second coming of Brady. Most 49ers fans think his ceiling is a Pro Bowler and possible MVP consideration while his floor is gone in a season. As for his quick release, it is an objective fact.
    5_Golden_Rings
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2016
    Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:38 am


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 28, 2019 4:36 am
  • Hey, when pretty boy wins a game that actually matters w/something on the line......I'll believe he's the real deal.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 14205
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:13 am
  • Well he has yet to match Matt Cassells career let alone Brady, where is Cassell these days.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28977
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:30 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:Well he has yet to match Matt Cassells career let alone Brady, where is Cassell these days.


    99% in 9ers’ nation luv them some GQ, he is the all in one team savior and bedside picture frame filler.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    toffee
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1993
    Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:44 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:20 am
  • Marvin49 wrote:Um......no.

    There is no controversy. Jimmy G is the QB.

    Mullins in in a competition for the #2 QB role.

    People need to just stop. I was pleasantly surprised by Mullins, but please. Its not close. Don't quote their stats to me.

    That's a guy who came in at mid-season in a trade and started games without even knowing the offense vs a guy who had spend 1.5 years in the offense before his first start.

    I also noted that the win-loss record wasn't quoted.

    I wish the media would stop creating controversy where there isn't any. Jimmy is the QB. Period.


    He hasn't played enough to crown him or trash him. Injuries happen and he might go several years without them too . As far as talent ; he wouldn't be a QB in the NFL without it . He will be the starter and he might be good ...I just hope not too good ; because of having to play them twice each season . :snack:
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1398
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:52 am
  • toffee wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Well he has yet to match Matt Cassells career let alone Brady, where is Cassell these days.


    99% in 9ers’ nation luv them some GQ, he is the all in one team savior and bedside picture frame filler.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



    Honestly I think what reasonable 49er fans would tell you is that he looked very promising in 2017 and really looked like he could be the guy...and by that I mean he could be a very good NFL QB. That doesn't mean they think he'll be Tom Brady.

    Last year a number of factors played into him not performing as well, some of which were on him and some of them were not.

    What really hurt tho with that injury was not that they should have been a playoff/super bowl team last year, its that the 49ers lost that time to work with him to become a cohesive offense. There is still a learning curve in Shanahans Offense.

    Lets be real though, if the Seahawks didn't have Wilson and they had Jimmy in the exact same scenario, they would be every bit as high on him as 49ers fans are.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6708
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:54 am
  • xray wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:Um......no.

    There is no controversy. Jimmy G is the QB.

    Mullins in in a competition for the #2 QB role.

    People need to just stop. I was pleasantly surprised by Mullins, but please. Its not close. Don't quote their stats to me.

    That's a guy who came in at mid-season in a trade and started games without even knowing the offense vs a guy who had spend 1.5 years in the offense before his first start.

    I also noted that the win-loss record wasn't quoted.

    I wish the media would stop creating controversy where there isn't any. Jimmy is the QB. Period.


    He hasn't played enough to crown him or trash him. Injuries happen and he might go several years without them too . As far as talent ; he wouldn't be a QB in the NFL without it . He will be the starter and he might be good ...I just hope not too good ; because of having to play them twice each season . :snack:


    Totally fair, but that doesn't mean 49er fans don't like what they've seen from limited playing time. Its not a slam dunk either way, but this narrative that Jimmy isn't the starter is ludicrous.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6708
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:15 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:Lets be real though, if the Seahawks didn't have Wilson and they had Jimmy in the exact same scenario, they would be every bit as high on him as 49ers fans are.


    Maybe, but if GQ were a Seahawk, and Wilson, were a 49er, I wouldn't be stupid enough to go onto the webzone and claim GQ is already better than Wilson, like a certain witless wonder on here.
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6176
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Re: QB controversy in 9ers land?
Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:50 pm
  • Maulbert wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:Lets be real though, if the Seahawks didn't have Wilson and they had Jimmy in the exact same scenario, they would be every bit as high on him as 49ers fans are.


    Maybe, but if GQ were a Seahawk, and Wilson, were a 49er, I wouldn't be stupid enough to go onto the webzone and claim GQ is already better than Wilson, like a certain witless wonder on here.


    uh.....can't speak for whomever said THAT, but that would be a dubious claim. LOL.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6708
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:37 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], olyfan63 and 52 guests