Outside Topic OT: 2022 Niners thread - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic OT: 2022 Niners thread (/thread-23181.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic OT: 2022 Niners thread (/thread-23181.html)
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - OutsiderFan - 05-06-2022
As long as the Niners release Garoppolo after the injury guarantee release date and before September cut down day, they only owe him $1.4M.
It just wouldn't be a good dynamic to have Garoppolo on the Niners roster with Lance as the guy earmarked to start. The potential for a divided locker room would be too big, so he won't be playing for the Niners.
On thing I am confident about is that Garoppolo won't be getting paid $27M to play QB in 2022.
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - Mick - 05-06-2022
(05-05-2022, 06:32 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-05-2022, 02:49 PM)msqueri Wrote: Little or no choice among the 2021 draft's top few QB options, but that assumes that they HAD to pick one of the top few 2021 QB options. Assuming that/imagining only a path forward in which they got one of those top few QBs was a blinked, desperate mentality. Put another way, they had a choice whether to get the QB of the future at the top of the draft and they chose to. But they had plenty of other choices available.You are for sure correct that there were other paths available. #5 above probably isn't one of them however. Jimmy G will make too much money in 2022 to keep around. They need the cap space. That is why the consensus is that he will be released if he is not traded. Given that, #4 is also problematic because a great veteran QB probably also makes more than they can afford cap-wise. There also may have been nobody out there they liked. They simply needed a cheap but great QB on a rookie contract for a few years. Undoubtedly they considered the other three options and decided to go with the one that would deliver them Lance. Let's just hope it "works" for them. I think the draft is a very random instrument. That said, you have to make your "best possible decision", knowing full well it isn't a lock.
1. Draft whoever was remaining at #12, which was hardly a bad option. Mac Jones was a good prospect on paper who was plausibly discussed to go earlier and, with the benefit of hindsight now, had a really good rookie year.
2. Draft a promising QB in the second or third round, of which there were numerous options. Davis Mills was one that was obvious to many of us as an extremely high ceiling option and, with the benefit of hindsight now, had a solid rookie year.
3. Trade up but not so far up as #3. It was a choice to want to be able to choose between three of the top five rather than just two or to get a decent consolation prize.
4. Trade for a proven NFL QB.
5. Keep Jimmy G as the QB through 2022 and wait for another option to trade or draft for a QB. Acting like the 2021 draft was a once in a lifetime opportunity was itself a desperate move considering we already had a QB1 signed for multiple more seasons playing at a level better than a young first round QB could be expected to play in his first two years. Mock drafts are now forecasting the 2023 draft and it looks possible that QB class will be very strong as well. It wasn't a now or never thing. Patience can pay off. If the Niners passed on a QB at #12 in 2021 they could have gotten Micah Parsons, which probably would have improved near-term Super Bowl odds more than any of these non-Lawrence QB options.
There were choices. The Niners made one, not the only one.
If the coach or GM is a hack (Trent Baalke, Jim whatshisface), I would definitely question this choice based upon the statistics above. If it's a coach and GM team that got us into two (2) Super Bowls and a conference championship every single year they had an average NFL starting quarterback, then I'd definitely give them the benefit of the doubt, particularly since every year they had a backup QB (or a backup to the backup QB, if you prefer) in Hoyer, Beathard, Mullens; they finished below .500. Not by much, interestingly, there were a lot of close losses.
After the Jim Tomsula debacle (6-10) and the Chip Kelly disaster (2-14), and seven (7) seasons' of Trent Baalke's miserable draft record, Lynch and Shanahan took over. Their first season, 2017, is a microcosm of my point. Using Baalke's "talent", they lost their first six games -- five of them by a field goal or less. They were 1-10, with Beathard at 0-6 and Hoying at 1-4. In comes Garropolo, and they go 5-0. The only difference being that an average NFL starter (Garoppolo) took over for two average NFL backups. Beathard's QBR (apparently we need to be slaves to that statistic) was 82.7 in those five games, Beathard's QBR was 35.4. I can't find Hoyer's, but his rating was 74.1 and Garoppolo's was 96.2.
Lynch and Shanahan and everyone on this board knows that to WIN THE SUPER BOWL, you need a great quarterback. Good quarterbacks, generally speaking, don't win Super Bowls. Great quarterbacks do. And I think they see potential greatness in Trey Lance, who is still just 21. I think the odds of Lance getting to greatness is better than Mac Jones.
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - Phogge - 05-06-2022
I wonder if Lynch knows (probably he could give a S) how much angst is going on in a site dominated by his fellow college grads.
They rolled the dice, somehow it will work out and then all you amateur GMs' can continue your angst when Lance doesn't lead them to the Promised land.
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - Giants - 05-06-2022
(05-06-2022, 10:40 AM)Phogge Wrote: I wonder if Lynch knows (probably he could give a S) how much angst is going on in a site dominated by his fellow college grads.
They rolled the dice, somehow it will work out and then all you amateur GMs' can continue your angst when Lance doesn't lead them to the Promised land.
The two biggest sports news stories in the Bay Area over the last several months: Garappolo and Samuel. It just shows the influence the Niners have on the local scene. In order:
1. 49ers (win or lose)
2. Giants/Warriors or Warriors/Giants (depending on most recent results)
3. Everyone else (does anyone really care about the rest?)
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - Phogge - 05-06-2022
Yep. I care about:
1) The Derby
2) The Giants
3) The PGA/Open/British
4) The Niners
5) The Grizz
55) Stanford FB
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - BostonCard - 05-06-2022
Super Bowl champion QB Trent Dilfer would beg to disagree that you need a great quarterback. Jeff Hostetler and Mark Rypien agree.
BC
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - DC 86 - 05-06-2022
(05-06-2022, 05:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Super Bowl champion QB Trent Dilfer would beg to disagree that you need a great quarterback. Jeff Hostetler and Mark Rypien agree.
BC
I'll add Nick Foles, Brad Johnson, Doug Williams and a broken down Peyton Manning in his final season (9 touchdowns and 17 interceptions, yikes).
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - BostonCard - 05-06-2022
The other thing that I think might be worth challenging here is the idea of a “high ceiling” player. Now, that is admittedly hard to define, but usually when I hear that,people are referring to athletic quarterbacks with a cannon of an arm. But when I think the QB’s who are in the discussion for “greatest of all time”, many of them could move in the pocket but were not necessarily super athletic and had strong but not massive arm strength. Here’s the scouting report on Tom Brady:
Quote: --Poor build
--Skinny
--Lacks great physical stature and strength
--Lacks mobility and ability to avoid the rush
--Lacks a really strong arm
--Can’t drive the ball downfield
--Does not throw a really tight spiral
--System-type player who can get exposed if forced to ad lib
--Gets knocked down easily
Doesn’t exactly scream “high ceiling” does it. By that metric, Joe Montana had a lower ceiling than Jack Thompson.
To me, the marks of a great quarterback are decision making ability, cool under pressure, pocket presence and ability to sense and elude the rush, anticipation, accuracy, leadership, grit, and some combination of strength, build, and luck that enables avoiding injury. Don’t get me wrong, arm strength and athleticism help, but I think too often GMs, coaches, and fans become enamored with them, thinking that they define a player’s ceiling, while ignoring all the attributes that determine whether the player will reach that proverbial ceiling.
BC
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - Goose - 05-06-2022
(05-06-2022, 09:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Don’t get me wrong, arm strength and athleticism help, but I think too often GMs, coaches, and fans become enamored with them, thinking that they define a player’s ceiling, while ignoring all the attributes that determine whether the player will reach that proverbial ceiling.I agree with you here. However, the problem is that the things that "make" Brady a winner are intangibles that are impossible to measure. Lots of guys seem to have all the intangibles and it just doesn't work out. For others, it does.Nobody knows why. Kevin Hogan got his chance at least partially because Shaw had more faith in him than others did. It was a feeling. Coaches don't like admitting they are relying on their feelings, so they fall back to the other things that are at least somewhat measurable.
BC
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - BostonCard - 05-06-2022
Right, but given that “ceiling” isn’t the be all and end all of QB greatness, wouldn’t it follow that you shouldn’t trade a bunch of draft picks to move up a few spots in the draft just to get the “high ceiling” QB?
BV
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - lex24 - 05-06-2022
(05-06-2022, 08:59 AM)msqueri Wrote:(05-06-2022, 08:39 AM)lex24 Wrote: We will see, won’t we? Go back to when QBs were being discussed. Jones was thought to be by far the weakest of the first rounders. Concern in part for what I call the Leinert Question”. And that is- was the supporting cast so good that it makes the QB look so much better than he is? Plus lack of mobility.
They could have waited and probably got Jones. Probably. Fields would have involved making some move up. Probably not costing near as much as moving to #3.
One thing is certain - Lynch and Shanahan determined Garrapolo is not the answer. And the complete lack of interest shown by the rest of the league confirms that. Obviously the injury hurt a bit. As did Brady coming back and Wilson getting traded. But there still are teams looking for QB’s. There always are. Fact is, he is not particularly highly regarded.
I still think he will be released. I just can’t see them having another year with both JG and Lance on the roster.
Proponents of the Leinart Question have had a doozy of a few years. At least so far in the NFL, Joe Burrow, Deshaun Watson, Derek Carr (having Devante Adams at a Group of Five school qualifies I think), Kyler Murray, Mac Jones, Jalen Hurts, and Tua Tagovailoa have not been overrated based on their supporting casts (that is, they don't look bad for their draft slots). We'll see if Justin Fields continues to make the Leinart Question look silly. The building body of evidence is that, because QB is by far the most important and difficult position, when a QB dominates college competition they deserve a lot of the credit. Full stop. Mac Jones and Jalen Hurts deserve a lot more of the credit than people want to give them.
I suspect that the revealed preferences of the league will continue to corroborate a move away from the Leinart Question. I suspect teams aren't going to shy away from Bryce Young and CJ Stroud because of a worry that they're overrated based on their supporting casts.
A theory on why the Leinart Question is a dumber question to ask in 2022 than it was in 2006: there has been such a convergence of top skill position talent at a very few programs (Oklahoma, Alabama, LSU, Ohio State) that the smart take is that those schools have the best QBs AND the best WRs. That wasn't the case in 2006. But when Bryce Young is the top recruit in the country and then gets to play with an unending stream of NFL super studs and dominates, you don't need to overthink who deserves the credit. Both QB and WRs are sublime.
I think the lack of interest in Jimmy G has a fair amount to do with the current injury as well as the fact that one of the worst QB situations in the league is the Niners' rival and obviously that trade isn't happening. But I do think that his very poor track record staying healthy plays a big part here too. He can't be relied on.
To qualify for the Leinhart question, you have to be relatively immobile and not have a particularly strong arm. Most the guys you list do not fit the criteria. Jones does.
As for JG - he is relatively immobile, is inaccurate downfield. Not particularly great in the pocket. Can’t throw the ball worth beans outside the numbers. And gets hurt a lot. He does throw a nice slant. Great intangibles. Give him a great defense and a great running game and we can win. Course, he got to a SB and an NFC Championship game while doing essentially nothing in the playoffs.
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - Goose - 05-07-2022
(05-06-2022, 09:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Right, but given that “ceiling” isn’t the be all and end all of QB greatness, wouldn’t it follow that you shouldn’t trade a bunch of draft picks to move up a few spots in the draft just to get the “high ceiling” QB?It seems to me that the argument centers around the fact that determining who is a "high ceiling" QB relies on noisy measurements that have a large standard deviation. One is attempting to maximize the expected value of the total draft. The value of a franchise QB is greater than the value of any individual other player, but possibly not that of several other players. If the draft picks you are giving up are "less noisy" than the one you are getting, then you may be better off keeping them. OTOH, if they are even more noisy (which I think arguably they are) and have a lower total expected value, give them up. Sounds simple, but these expected values are all vectors. What is the correct norm to use in comparing them? Also, some of the effects are non-linear and interacting. If you have a franchise QB and you also have no receivers because you gave up too many draft picks (or paid a veteran QB too much), it doesn't help you nearly as much as his "expected value" would suggest. The evaluation is also a function of time. A rookie may take X years to develop, so you have to integrate over his entire career.
BV
In short, it is a judgement that is neither reliably measurable or well understood. There is also no unique answer (probably) and no way to perform controlled experiments. That is why many more or less reasonable people on this thread do not agree on the answer.
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - Mick - 05-07-2022
(05-07-2022, 07:00 AM)Goose Wrote:(05-06-2022, 09:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Right, but given that “ceiling” isn’t the be all and end all of QB greatness, wouldn’t it follow that you shouldn’t trade a bunch of draft picks to move up a few spots in the draft just to get the “high ceiling” QB?It seems to me that the argument centers around the fact that determining who is a "high ceiling" QB relies on noisy measurements that have a large standard deviation. One is attempting to maximize the expected value of the total draft. The value of a franchise QB is greater than the value of any individual other player, but possibly not that of several other players. If the draft picks you are giving up are "less noisy" than the one you are getting, then you may be better off keeping them. OTOH, if they are even more noisy (which I think arguably they are) and have a lower total expected value, give them up. Sounds simple, but these expected values are all vectors. What is the correct norm to use in comparing them? Also, some of the effects are non-linear and interacting. If you have a franchise QB and you also have no receivers because you gave up too many draft picks (or paid a veteran QB too much), it doesn't help you nearly as much as his "expected value" would suggest. The evaluation is also a function of time. A rookie may take X years to develop, so you have to integrate over his entire career.
BV
In short, it is a judgement that is neither reliably measurable or well understood. There is also no unique answer (probably) and no way to perform controlled experiments. That is why many more or less reasonable people on this thread do not agree on the answer.
49er draft success since the arrival of Lynch and Shanahan. Shows that in two measures they were #14 and #12 of 32 NFL teams from 2017 to 2021, but #10 when taking into account positional value.
Riske: A new look at historical draft success for all 32 NFL teams | NFL News, Rankings and Statistics | PFF
https://media.pff.com/2021/02/teams_over_expectation.png
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - msqueri - 05-07-2022
(05-07-2022, 09:46 AM)Mick Wrote:(05-07-2022, 07:00 AM)Goose Wrote:(05-06-2022, 09:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Right, but given that “ceiling” isn’t the be all and end all of QB greatness, wouldn’t it follow that you shouldn’t trade a bunch of draft picks to move up a few spots in the draft just to get the “high ceiling” QB?It seems to me that the argument centers around the fact that determining who is a "high ceiling" QB relies on noisy measurements that have a large standard deviation. One is attempting to maximize the expected value of the total draft. The value of a franchise QB is greater than the value of any individual other player, but possibly not that of several other players. If the draft picks you are giving up are "less noisy" than the one you are getting, then you may be better off keeping them. OTOH, if they are even more noisy (which I think arguably they are) and have a lower total expected value, give them up. Sounds simple, but these expected values are all vectors. What is the correct norm to use in comparing them? Also, some of the effects are non-linear and interacting. If you have a franchise QB and you also have no receivers because you gave up too many draft picks (or paid a veteran QB too much), it doesn't help you nearly as much as his "expected value" would suggest. The evaluation is also a function of time. A rookie may take X years to develop, so you have to integrate over his entire career.
BV
In short, it is a judgement that is neither reliably measurable or well understood. There is also no unique answer (probably) and no way to perform controlled experiments. That is why many more or less reasonable people on this thread do not agree on the answer.
49er draft success since the arrival of Lynch and Shanahan. Shows that in two measures they were #14 and #12 of 32 NFL teams from 2017 to 2021, but #10 when taking into account positional value.
Riske: A new look at historical draft success for all 32 NFL teams | NFL News, Rankings and Statistics | PFF
https://media.pff.com/2021/02/teams_over_expectation.png
This data persuades me that I tend to be too harsh in general with regard to Lynch/Shanahan draft bona fides. It doesn’t tell me much with regard to QB evaluation and drafting, however. They’ve drafted CJ Beathard, Trey Lance, and Brock Purdy. The latter two require many more data points to evaluate. Beathard was arguably a pretty decent pick by 2nd to 4th round QB standards (by production at least, though a skeptic could argue opportunity had a lot to do with that), and for the record I hated that pick at the time so score one for the brain trust. Maybe I should give them some benefit of the doubt in QB evaluation. On the other hand, I think the data I/DC 86/BC have pointed to shows how incredibly difficult QB evaluation is. If Lynch/Shanahan are better than throwing darts that would be impressive. Maybe they are.
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - BostonCard - 05-07-2022
(05-07-2022, 10:43 AM)msqueri Wrote: If Lynch/Shanahan are better than throwing doubts that would be impressive. Maybe they are.
You and I are the one throwing doubts.
BC
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - OutsiderFan - 05-07-2022
If you just look at the players drafted by ShanaLynch, you are aware of how those players have and haven't developed into contributors, and you are honest, you would know they are pretty good at drafting, especially non #1 picks.
They have drafted 4 All-Pro players: Kittle, Warner, Bosa, Samuel
Other "hits" - players who have made big contributions to winning:
- D.J. Jones, Dre Greenlaw, Jauan Jennings, , Brandon Aiyuk, Justin Skule, Mike McGlinchey
Guys who played and produced to some degree:
- Marcell Harrs, Kentavious Street, Travrarius Moore (picked Mahomes in Super Bowl), DJ Reed (stared for Seattle)
There are several players it's too early to tell what they will develop into.
Every player drafted in the 2020 and 2021 draft classes is still on the team. That means before Drake Jackson was picked in the 2nd round of 2022, the last 13 draft picks the Niners made are on the roster today, and out of the last 21 picks they made, 18 are on the roster today and were never off it last season. The team was a dropped pick away from a Super Bowl appearance.
RE: 2022 Giants thread - Giants - 07-11-2022
Would SF trade him to a divisional rival that has significant issues at QB?
RE: 2022 Giants thread - Phogge - 07-11-2022
The price goes up the closer to home.
RE: 2022 Giants thread - OutsiderFan - 07-11-2022
(07-11-2022, 01:48 PM)Mick Wrote: Garoppolo currently rumored to Seahawks...maybe Geno Smith, Drew Lock and Jacob Eason don't give them comfort. Garoppolo had a much better 2021 than any of those three.
This is a Giants/MLB thread. Let's not pollute with another topic so we must get through other posts for the Giants/MLB discussion.
RE: OT: 2022 Niners thread - Mick - 07-11-2022
Garoppolo currently rumored to Seahawks...maybe Geno Smith, Drew Lock and Jacob Eason don't give them comfort. Garoppolo had a much better 2021 than any of those three. USA Today's Seahawk's Wire doesn't seem to like the idea.
Seahawks have ‘done their homework’ on 49ers QB Jimmy Garoppolo (usatoday.com)