[BostonCard]

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.

BC

[BostonCard]

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.

BC

[msqueri]

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.



BC

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.

It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.

Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

[msqueri]

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.



BC

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.

It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.

Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

[Mick]

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.
BC

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.

It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.

Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

Jimmy G was a middle-of-the-pack quarterback who thrived by being in Shanahan's scheme.  it almost won the Super Bowl.  Except now, Jimmy G. is a middle-of-the-pack quarterback coming off of a throwing shoulder injury that required surgical repair.  Torn labrum, split capsule, rotator cuff injury (likely).  When my son had a similar injury, the doc said you have a 90% chance of coming back at 90%.  That puts Jimmy G. into bottom-third territory.  I realize that Shanahan and Lynch are trying for some sleight-of-hand to make it appear that Garoppolo (who has GREAT W/L stats) is an amazing QB, but he really isn't.  He has Samuel, Kittle, Aiyuk, Mitchell, the best LT in football and (until this year) a very, very good line.

BTW, Garoppolo's rating was 98.74, just above his career 97.2 rating.  And not that it matters terribly, but Lance's rating was 97.33...he had one bad game against the Cardinals (rating 58.41), then 117.3 against the Seahawks, 127.08 against the Lions and 116.03 against the Texans.

All rookie QB ratings:
- Lance, 97.33
- Jones, 92.5
- Mills, 88.8
- Fields, 73.2
- Lawrence, 71.9
- Mond, 70.1
- Wilson, Zach, 69.7
- Trask, no rating

I dispute that Lance has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade.  They weren't going to find a QB in 2022, 2021 was the rich year.  And Lynch and Shanahan aren't getting any younger, they have a good team and good coaches...they really needed a quarterback.  Mac Jones would probably get them in the playoffs most years, losing in the wild card or first round -- just like Russell Wilson has every year since 2014.

Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential, he was the top rated QB this year despite being backup for virtually all of it.  Great trade, IMHO.

[Mick]

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.
BC

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.

It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.

Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

Jimmy G was a middle-of-the-pack quarterback who thrived by being in Shanahan's scheme.  it almost won the Super Bowl.  Except now, Jimmy G. is a middle-of-the-pack quarterback coming off of a throwing shoulder injury that required surgical repair.  Torn labrum, split capsule, rotator cuff injury (likely).  When my son had a similar injury, the doc said you have a 90% chance of coming back at 90%.  That puts Jimmy G. into bottom-third territory.  I realize that Shanahan and Lynch are trying for some sleight-of-hand to make it appear that Garoppolo (who has GREAT W/L stats) is an amazing QB, but he really isn't.  He has Samuel, Kittle, Aiyuk, Mitchell, the best LT in football and (until this year) a very, very good line.

BTW, Garoppolo's rating was 98.74, just above his career 97.2 rating.  And not that it matters terribly, but Lance's rating was 97.33...he had one bad game against the Cardinals (rating 58.41), then 117.3 against the Seahawks, 127.08 against the Lions and 116.03 against the Texans.

All rookie QB ratings:
- Lance, 97.33
- Jones, 92.5
- Mills, 88.8
- Fields, 73.2
- Lawrence, 71.9
- Mond, 70.1
- Wilson, Zach, 69.7
- Trask, no rating

I dispute that Lance has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade.  They weren't going to find a QB in 2022, 2021 was the rich year.  And Lynch and Shanahan aren't getting any younger, they have a good team and good coaches...they really needed a quarterback.  Mac Jones would probably get them in the playoffs most years, losing in the wild card or first round -- just like Russell Wilson has every year since 2014.

Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential, he was the top rated QB this year despite being backup for virtually all of it.  Great trade, IMHO.

[msqueri]

Regarding whether the Niners' brain trust should receive the benefit of the doubt regarding their draft judgment, I'll take your Warner, Mitchell, Greenlaw, and Jennings and raise you the much more comprehensive empirical analysis ESPN did a few weeks ago looking at NFL draft value between 2012-2021. That looked systematically at Career Approximated Value over what would be expected from a player at each draft slot.

That analysis found that the Niners rank #30 in the NFL in drafting over the last decade. That harsh judgment underrates the current brain trust because it is heavily influenced by outright disastrous 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 drafts (Trent Baalke truly does worse than a dart throwing monkey, and he did it again with his idiotic Travon Walker pick this year). In the drafts Lynch and Shanahan are responsible for, 2017 was the 12th best draft, 2018 was the 8th best, 2019 was the 3rd best, 2020 was the 19th best, and 2021 was the 20th best. There is of course time for any of these ranks to get better or worse depending on if future performance deviates from what's happened to date (this truly could happen in both directions, for instance getting value from Lance but not from Samuel or any number of other ways performance could differ from what's happened to date).

Looking at this, the first Lynch/Shanahan drafts were better than I gave them credit for but we now are several years removed from the last good one. For the 2021, 2022, and 2023 drafts it really boils down to the audacious bet on Lance. Personally I don't look at all of this and think these guys are deserving of blind trust. If you look at their first round picks, their first couple were very disappointing (Solomon Thomas, Reuben Foster) and since then they've all been acceptable in relation to draft slot without any home runs vis-a-vis what would be expected from that slot (Mike McGlinchey, Nick Bosa, Brandon Aiyuk). None of this tells us much about their QB evaluation in particular. In Lance We Trust!

---

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.

BC

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.



It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.



Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

Jimmy G was a middle-of-the-pack quarterback who thrived by being in Shanahan's scheme.  it almost won the Super Bowl.  Except now, Jimmy G. is a middle-of-the-pack quarterback coming off of a throwing shoulder injury that required surgical repair.  Torn labrum, split capsule, rotator cuff injury (likely).  When my son had a similar injury, the doc said you have a 90% chance of coming back at 90%.  That puts Jimmy G. into bottom-third territory.  I realize that Shanahan and Lynch are trying for some sleight-of-hand to make it appear that Garoppolo (who has GREAT W/L stats) is an amazing QB, but he really isn't.  He has Samuel, Kittle, Aiyuk, Mitchell, the best LT in football and (until this year) a very, very good line.



BTW, Garoppolo's rating was 98.74, just above his career 97.2 rating.  And not that it matters terribly, but Lance's rating was 97.33...he had one bad game against the Cardinals (rating 58.41), then 117.3 against the Seahawks, 127.08 against the Lions and 116.03 against the Texans.



All rookie QB ratings:

- Lance, 97.33

- Jones, 92.5

- Mills, 88.8

- Fields, 73.2

- Lawrence, 71.9

- Mond, 70.1

- Wilson, Zach, 69.7

- Trask, no rating



I dispute that Lance has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade.  They weren't going to find a QB in 2022, 2021 was the rich year.  And Lynch and Shanahan aren't getting any younger, they have a good team and good coaches...they really needed a quarterback.  Mac Jones would probably get them in the playoffs most years, losing in the wild card or first round -- just like Russell Wilson has every year since 2014.



Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential, he was the top rated QB this year despite being backup for virtually all of it.  Great trade, IMHO.

I think you're cherry picking stats and doing a similar sleight of hand you said the brain trust were doing with Jimmy G to give Lance credit for his supporting cast. The QB rating stat you cited is misleading, especially in such a small sample. If one were to want to evaluate the small sample, Total QBR is a far better stat. Here are how the rookies (plus Jimmy G in parentheses for visualization) ranked in Total QBR:

(Jimmy G - 53.3)
Mac Jones - 50.9
Davis Mills - 35.5
Trevor Lawrence - 33.5
Zach Wilson - 28.2
Justin Fields - 26.4

Lance did not rank because he did not play enough. However, his Total QBR was 33.4, in the bottom half of the rookie quarterbacks ordinally but in the ballpark as Mills and Lawrence.

I don't put Lance's chances of being a Hall of Famer all that much higher, if at all, from Fields and Jones. I certainly don't think they're that much higher plus giving up scads of top picks for several years. It is definitely incorrect to say Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential. Nobody in the NFL, much less you or me, can tell before a draft which QBs do or don't have Hall of Fame potential. Among the last 15 Hall of Fame QBs, ten were picked with the 11th overall pick or later. Statistically for QBs there isn't a difference between the #3 pick's likelihood of becoming a Hall of Famer and the #12 pick's likelihood.

I don't disagree that it made sense to go and get a QB, but prudent would have been to have Mac Jones back up Jimmy G and see what you have. If after a few years it's not working out you can look to the 2023/2024/2025 draft for a QB. I know everybody wants to find the franchise guy, but just willing it to be is not prudent. Once you're talking about non-number one overall picks, it's a spin of the roulette wheel to get that franchise guy. There is nothing Lynch and Shanahan could have possibly seen in Lance to make it likely he would be the franchise guy. It was a bet, plain and simple. And they bet a lot.

[msqueri]

Regarding whether the Niners' brain trust should receive the benefit of the doubt regarding their draft judgment, I'll take your Warner, Mitchell, Greenlaw, and Jennings and raise you the much more comprehensive empirical analysis ESPN did a few weeks ago looking at NFL draft value between 2012-2021. That looked systematically at Career Approximated Value over what would be expected from a player at each draft slot.

That analysis found that the Niners rank #30 in the NFL in drafting over the last decade. That harsh judgment underrates the current brain trust because it is heavily influenced by outright disastrous 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 drafts (Trent Baalke truly does worse than a dart throwing monkey, and he did it again with his idiotic Travon Walker pick this year). In the drafts Lynch and Shanahan are responsible for, 2017 was the 12th best draft, 2018 was the 8th best, 2019 was the 3rd best, 2020 was the 19th best, and 2021 was the 20th best. There is of course time for any of these ranks to get better or worse depending on if future performance deviates from what's happened to date (this truly could happen in both directions, for instance getting value from Lance but not from Samuel or any number of other ways performance could differ from what's happened to date).

Looking at this, the first Lynch/Shanahan drafts were better than I gave them credit for but we now are several years removed from the last good one. For the 2021, 2022, and 2023 drafts it really boils down to the audacious bet on Lance. Personally I don't look at all of this and think these guys are deserving of blind trust. If you look at their first round picks, their first couple were very disappointing (Solomon Thomas, Reuben Foster) and since then they've all been acceptable in relation to draft slot without any home runs vis-a-vis what would be expected from that slot (Mike McGlinchey, Nick Bosa, Brandon Aiyuk). None of this tells us much about their QB evaluation in particular. In Lance We Trust!

---

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.

BC

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.



It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.



Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

Jimmy G was a middle-of-the-pack quarterback who thrived by being in Shanahan's scheme.  it almost won the Super Bowl.  Except now, Jimmy G. is a middle-of-the-pack quarterback coming off of a throwing shoulder injury that required surgical repair.  Torn labrum, split capsule, rotator cuff injury (likely).  When my son had a similar injury, the doc said you have a 90% chance of coming back at 90%.  That puts Jimmy G. into bottom-third territory.  I realize that Shanahan and Lynch are trying for some sleight-of-hand to make it appear that Garoppolo (who has GREAT W/L stats) is an amazing QB, but he really isn't.  He has Samuel, Kittle, Aiyuk, Mitchell, the best LT in football and (until this year) a very, very good line.



BTW, Garoppolo's rating was 98.74, just above his career 97.2 rating.  And not that it matters terribly, but Lance's rating was 97.33...he had one bad game against the Cardinals (rating 58.41), then 117.3 against the Seahawks, 127.08 against the Lions and 116.03 against the Texans.



All rookie QB ratings:

- Lance, 97.33

- Jones, 92.5

- Mills, 88.8

- Fields, 73.2

- Lawrence, 71.9

- Mond, 70.1

- Wilson, Zach, 69.7

- Trask, no rating



I dispute that Lance has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade.  They weren't going to find a QB in 2022, 2021 was the rich year.  And Lynch and Shanahan aren't getting any younger, they have a good team and good coaches...they really needed a quarterback.  Mac Jones would probably get them in the playoffs most years, losing in the wild card or first round -- just like Russell Wilson has every year since 2014.



Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential, he was the top rated QB this year despite being backup for virtually all of it.  Great trade, IMHO.

I think you're cherry picking stats and doing a similar sleight of hand you said the brain trust were doing with Jimmy G to give Lance credit for his supporting cast. The QB rating stat you cited is misleading, especially in such a small sample. If one were to want to evaluate the small sample, Total QBR is a far better stat. Here are how the rookies (plus Jimmy G in parentheses for visualization) ranked in Total QBR:

(Jimmy G - 53.3)
Mac Jones - 50.9
Davis Mills - 35.5
Trevor Lawrence - 33.5
Zach Wilson - 28.2
Justin Fields - 26.4

Lance did not rank because he did not play enough. However, his Total QBR was 33.4, in the bottom half of the rookie quarterbacks ordinally but in the ballpark as Mills and Lawrence.

I don't put Lance's chances of being a Hall of Famer all that much higher, if at all, from Fields and Jones. I certainly don't think they're that much higher plus giving up scads of top picks for several years. It is definitely incorrect to say Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential. Nobody in the NFL, much less you or me, can tell before a draft which QBs do or don't have Hall of Fame potential. Among the last 15 Hall of Fame QBs, ten were picked with the 11th overall pick or later. Statistically for QBs there isn't a difference between the #3 pick's likelihood of becoming a Hall of Famer and the #12 pick's likelihood.

I don't disagree that it made sense to go and get a QB, but prudent would have been to have Mac Jones back up Jimmy G and see what you have. If after a few years it's not working out you can look to the 2023/2024/2025 draft for a QB. I know everybody wants to find the franchise guy, but just willing it to be is not prudent. Once you're talking about non-number one overall picks, it's a spin of the roulette wheel to get that franchise guy. There is nothing Lynch and Shanahan could have possibly seen in Lance to make it likely he would be the franchise guy. It was a bet, plain and simple. And they bet a lot.

[DC 86]

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.
BC

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.

It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.

Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

Jimmy G was a middle-of-the-pack quarterback who thrived by being in Shanahan's scheme.  it almost won the Super Bowl.  Except now, Jimmy G. is a middle-of-the-pack quarterback coming off of a throwing shoulder injury that required surgical repair.  Torn labrum, split capsule, rotator cuff injury (likely).  When my son had a similar injury, the doc said you have a 90% chance of coming back at 90%.  That puts Jimmy G. into bottom-third territory.  I realize that Shanahan and Lynch are trying for some sleight-of-hand to make it appear that Garoppolo (who has GREAT W/L stats) is an amazing QB, but he really isn't.  He has Samuel, Kittle, Aiyuk, Mitchell, the best LT in football and (until this year) a very, very good line.

BTW, Garoppolo's rating was 98.74, just above his career 97.2 rating.  And not that it matters terribly, but Lance's rating was 97.33...he had one bad game against the Cardinals (rating 58.41), then 117.3 against the Seahawks, 127.08 against the Lions and 116.03 against the Texans.

All rookie QB ratings:
- Lance, 97.33
- Jones, 92.5
- Mills, 88.8
- Fields, 73.2
- Lawrence, 71.9
- Mond, 70.1
- Wilson, Zach, 69.7
- Trask, no rating

I dispute that Lance has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade.  They weren't going to find a QB in 2022, 2021 was the rich year.  And Lynch and Shanahan aren't getting any younger, they have a good team and good coaches...they really needed a quarterback.  Mac Jones would probably get them in the playoffs most years, losing in the wild card or first round -- just like Russell Wilson has every year since 2014.

Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential, he was the top rated QB this year despite being backup for virtually all of it.  Great trade, IMHO.

Are we really using the NFL passer rating formula, which was implemented in 1973 and hasn't been updated since? For a game that has changed dramatically over the last five decades. The passer rating that placed Kirk Cousins fourth (103.1), Jimmy Garoppolo ninth (98.7), Patrick Mahomes tenth (98.5) and Josh Allen fifteenth (92.2) last season?

Are we accepting a sample size of 71 pass attempts over an entire season to establish that Lance was the best rookie QB? Is his 127.1 passer rating against the Lions that you cited really meaningful? he threw one pass in that game, for five yards. Btw, you have the order of the games wrong, the Lions was his first game, the "bad" Cardinals game was the third of four games that he attempted a pass in, not the first.

[DC 86]

It’s not just that he has to better than the alternatives; he has to be better than them by the value of the picks that SF gave up to move up in the draft to get him.  And therein lies the rub.
BC

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.

It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.

Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

Jimmy G was a middle-of-the-pack quarterback who thrived by being in Shanahan's scheme.  it almost won the Super Bowl.  Except now, Jimmy G. is a middle-of-the-pack quarterback coming off of a throwing shoulder injury that required surgical repair.  Torn labrum, split capsule, rotator cuff injury (likely).  When my son had a similar injury, the doc said you have a 90% chance of coming back at 90%.  That puts Jimmy G. into bottom-third territory.  I realize that Shanahan and Lynch are trying for some sleight-of-hand to make it appear that Garoppolo (who has GREAT W/L stats) is an amazing QB, but he really isn't.  He has Samuel, Kittle, Aiyuk, Mitchell, the best LT in football and (until this year) a very, very good line.

BTW, Garoppolo's rating was 98.74, just above his career 97.2 rating.  And not that it matters terribly, but Lance's rating was 97.33...he had one bad game against the Cardinals (rating 58.41), then 117.3 against the Seahawks, 127.08 against the Lions and 116.03 against the Texans.

All rookie QB ratings:
- Lance, 97.33
- Jones, 92.5
- Mills, 88.8
- Fields, 73.2
- Lawrence, 71.9
- Mond, 70.1
- Wilson, Zach, 69.7
- Trask, no rating

I dispute that Lance has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade.  They weren't going to find a QB in 2022, 2021 was the rich year.  And Lynch and Shanahan aren't getting any younger, they have a good team and good coaches...they really needed a quarterback.  Mac Jones would probably get them in the playoffs most years, losing in the wild card or first round -- just like Russell Wilson has every year since 2014.

Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential, he was the top rated QB this year despite being backup for virtually all of it.  Great trade, IMHO.

Are we really using the NFL passer rating formula, which was implemented in 1973 and hasn't been updated since? For a game that has changed dramatically over the last five decades. The passer rating that placed Kirk Cousins fourth (103.1), Jimmy Garoppolo ninth (98.7), Patrick Mahomes tenth (98.5) and Josh Allen fifteenth (92.2) last season?

Are we accepting a sample size of 71 pass attempts over an entire season to establish that Lance was the best rookie QB? Is his 127.1 passer rating against the Lions that you cited really meaningful? he threw one pass in that game, for five yards. Btw, you have the order of the games wrong, the Lions was his first game, the "bad" Cardinals game was the third of four games that he attempted a pass in, not the first.

[Giants]

Lance does not have to be Hall of Fame QB to make the trade worthwhile.  He needs to consistently perform at a level that is good enough to support the team in their effort to win championships.  That may or may not lead to enshrinement at the Pro Football HOF.  

IMO, the trade was a brilliant move.  Garappolo was not the guy. The Niners knew this year would be a poor QB draft.  They had to make a move last year to get their guy and they took their best shot.  Of the QB’s available last year, I would have taken Lance at #2 behind Lawrence.

[Giants]

Lance does not have to be Hall of Fame QB to make the trade worthwhile.  He needs to consistently perform at a level that is good enough to support the team in their effort to win championships.  That may or may not lead to enshrinement at the Pro Football HOF.  

IMO, the trade was a brilliant move.  Garappolo was not the guy. The Niners knew this year would be a poor QB draft.  They had to make a move last year to get their guy and they took their best shot.  Of the QB’s available last year, I would have taken Lance at #2 behind Lawrence.

[msqueri]

Lance does not have to be Hall of Fame QB to make the trade worthwhile.  He needs to consistently perform at a level that is good enough to support the team in their effort to win championships.  That may or may not lead to enshrinement at the Pro Football HOF.  



IMO, the trade was a brilliant move.  Garappolo was not the guy. The Niners knew this year would be a poor QB draft.  They had to make a move last year to get their guy and they took their best shot.  Of the QB’s available last year, I would have taken Lance at #2 behind Lawrence.

What does it mean to support the team in its efforts to win championships? Didn't Jimmy G do that or are you saying (as I think you should as the bare minimum for supporting this trade) that Lance has to be significantly better than Jimmy G? Do you agree, for instance, Lance has to be a perennial top 10 QB? Not a brobdingnagian difference between saying that and saying Hall of Fame though admittedly a bit lower of a bar than I've set.

Will you think it's a "brilliant move" if Lance is a top 10 QB but Jones, Mills, Willis, Trask, Mond, Ridder, or Corral (any of whom we could have easily had at much less opportunity cost) is better?

Part of my stridency on this is that I was SCREAMING last year before the trade was even made and then before we knew which QB the Niners would take at #3 that either the consolation prize among the top five QBs or Davis Mills would be a far better bet than taking a QB near the top of the draft. I really think fans are under a misapprehension about what a non-number one overall QB's prospects of success are. Lance should have been seen as, at best, marginally more likely than Jones, Mills, or unknown 2022 QBs to be (Willis turned out to be an interesting option) to be great. Marginally.

[msqueri]

Lance does not have to be Hall of Fame QB to make the trade worthwhile.  He needs to consistently perform at a level that is good enough to support the team in their effort to win championships.  That may or may not lead to enshrinement at the Pro Football HOF.  



IMO, the trade was a brilliant move.  Garappolo was not the guy. The Niners knew this year would be a poor QB draft.  They had to make a move last year to get their guy and they took their best shot.  Of the QB’s available last year, I would have taken Lance at #2 behind Lawrence.

What does it mean to support the team in its efforts to win championships? Didn't Jimmy G do that or are you saying (as I think you should as the bare minimum for supporting this trade) that Lance has to be significantly better than Jimmy G? Do you agree, for instance, Lance has to be a perennial top 10 QB? Not a brobdingnagian difference between saying that and saying Hall of Fame though admittedly a bit lower of a bar than I've set.

Will you think it's a "brilliant move" if Lance is a top 10 QB but Jones, Mills, Willis, Trask, Mond, Ridder, or Corral (any of whom we could have easily had at much less opportunity cost) is better?

Part of my stridency on this is that I was SCREAMING last year before the trade was even made and then before we knew which QB the Niners would take at #3 that either the consolation prize among the top five QBs or Davis Mills would be a far better bet than taking a QB near the top of the draft. I really think fans are under a misapprehension about what a non-number one overall QB's prospects of success are. Lance should have been seen as, at best, marginally more likely than Jones, Mills, or unknown 2022 QBs to be (Willis turned out to be an interesting option) to be great. Marginally.

[lex24]

Lance does not have to be Hall of Fame QB to make the trade worthwhile.  He needs to consistently perform at a level that is good enough to support the team in their effort to win championships.  That may or may not lead to enshrinement at the Pro Football HOF.  



IMO, the trade was a brilliant move.  Garappolo was not the guy. The Niners knew this year would be a poor QB draft.  They had to make a move last year to get their guy and they took their best shot.  Of the QB’s available last year, I would have taken Lance at #2 behind Lawrence.

What does it mean to support the team in its efforts to win championships? Didn't Jimmy G do that or are you saying (as I think you should as the bare minimum for supporting this trade) that Lance has to be significantly better than Jimmy G? Do you agree, for instance, Lance has to be a perennial top 10 QB? Not a of immense proportions difference between saying that and saying Hall of Fame though admittedly a bit lower of a bar than I've set.

Will you think it's a "brilliant move" if Lance is a top 10 QB but Jones, Mills, Willis, Trask, Mond, Ridder, or Corral (any of whom we could have easily had at much less opportunity cost) is better?

Part of my stridency on this is that I was SCREAMING last year before the trade was even made and then before we knew which QB the Niners would take at #3 that either the consolation prize among the top five QBs or Davis Mills would be a far better bet than taking a QB near the top of the draft. I really think fans are under a misapprehension about what a non-number one overall QB's prospects of success are. Lance should have been seen as, at best, marginally more likely than Jones, Mills, or unknown 2022 QBs to be (Willis turned out to be an interesting option) to be great. Marginally.

Lance has a higher upside.  Perhaps significantly.  But it’s a crap shoot with QB’s. And they went all-in.  They either take the pot or bust.  

JG certainly isn’t and wasn’t the answer.

[lex24]

Lance does not have to be Hall of Fame QB to make the trade worthwhile.  He needs to consistently perform at a level that is good enough to support the team in their effort to win championships.  That may or may not lead to enshrinement at the Pro Football HOF.  



IMO, the trade was a brilliant move.  Garappolo was not the guy. The Niners knew this year would be a poor QB draft.  They had to make a move last year to get their guy and they took their best shot.  Of the QB’s available last year, I would have taken Lance at #2 behind Lawrence.

What does it mean to support the team in its efforts to win championships? Didn't Jimmy G do that or are you saying (as I think you should as the bare minimum for supporting this trade) that Lance has to be significantly better than Jimmy G? Do you agree, for instance, Lance has to be a perennial top 10 QB? Not a of immense proportions difference between saying that and saying Hall of Fame though admittedly a bit lower of a bar than I've set.

Will you think it's a "brilliant move" if Lance is a top 10 QB but Jones, Mills, Willis, Trask, Mond, Ridder, or Corral (any of whom we could have easily had at much less opportunity cost) is better?

Part of my stridency on this is that I was SCREAMING last year before the trade was even made and then before we knew which QB the Niners would take at #3 that either the consolation prize among the top five QBs or Davis Mills would be a far better bet than taking a QB near the top of the draft. I really think fans are under a misapprehension about what a non-number one overall QB's prospects of success are. Lance should have been seen as, at best, marginally more likely than Jones, Mills, or unknown 2022 QBs to be (Willis turned out to be an interesting option) to be great. Marginally.

Lance has a higher upside.  Perhaps significantly.  But it’s a crap shoot with QB’s. And they went all-in.  They either take the pot or bust.  

JG certainly isn’t and wasn’t the answer.

[msqueri]

My smartass answer: Akili Smith was viewed as having a higher upside than Daunte Culpepper. Vince Young was viewed as having a higher ceiling than Jay Cutler. Robert Griffin III was viewed as having a higher ceiling than Ryan Tannehill. Blake Bortles was viewed as having a higher ceiling than Derek Carr.

The ceiling teams see in picks around where Lance pan out less than half the time. Oftentimes, like above, lesser regarded QBs actually turn out better. I am not suggesting teams should have picked Culpepper/Cutler/Tannehill/Carr instead but rather that there is a tried and true track record of being a bit patient with QBs and also of finding value in places other than the top four picks of the draft. [That raises another problem with the audacious Trey Lance bet: it being such a boom or bust proposition. With Lance there's a 33 percent chance he's good whereas with a non-QB at #3 you likely have much better odds. Heck, at #12, the pick the Niners gave up, the Cowboys got one of the best players in the NFL in Micah Parsons]

I understand that the argument is that Jimmy G/Daunte Culpepper/Jay Cutler/Ryan Tannehill/Derek Carr aren't likely to win a Super Bowl (though I think several of them are good enough with the right supporting cast) so the idea is to roll the dice and hope they come up with your number. The problem with this argument is that what fans perceive as "ceiling" doesn't necessarily translate to a higher likelihood of greatness. Among the previous top 2-4 picks, it was Philip Rivers and Matt Ryan who ended up reaching the highest ceiling, not any one of the number of dual-threat guys who also went that high.

More to the point, among the QBs who've reached the highest ceiling in the NFL, both historically and recently, they're often guys who weren't top of the draft QBs. Ben Roethlisberger, Jim Kelly, Aaron Rodgers, Dan Marino, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, Russell Wilson, Tom Brady, Warren Moon, and Kurt Warner were Hall of Famers who weren't top 10 draft picks, much less top three. Among more recent draft picks Derek Carr, Dak Prescott, Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson, and Lamar Jackson have reached awfully high ceilings without being top 10 picks. We'll see how high Jalen Hurts and Mac Jones can get.

Like you said, it's a crap shoot with QBs. Why a team would sell the farm to take that crapshoot at #3 rather than #12 is beyond me. Trading for Trevor Lawrence? Ok. The most likely outcome (relative to expenditure/opportunity cost) for Trey Lance is disaster. Too rich for my blood.

[msqueri]

My smartass answer: Akili Smith was viewed as having a higher upside than Daunte Culpepper. Vince Young was viewed as having a higher ceiling than Jay Cutler. Robert Griffin III was viewed as having a higher ceiling than Ryan Tannehill. Blake Bortles was viewed as having a higher ceiling than Derek Carr.

The ceiling teams see in picks around where Lance pan out less than half the time. Oftentimes, like above, lesser regarded QBs actually turn out better. I am not suggesting teams should have picked Culpepper/Cutler/Tannehill/Carr instead but rather that there is a tried and true track record of being a bit patient with QBs and also of finding value in places other than the top four picks of the draft. [That raises another problem with the audacious Trey Lance bet: it being such a boom or bust proposition. With Lance there's a 33 percent chance he's good whereas with a non-QB at #3 you likely have much better odds. Heck, at #12, the pick the Niners gave up, the Cowboys got one of the best players in the NFL in Micah Parsons]

I understand that the argument is that Jimmy G/Daunte Culpepper/Jay Cutler/Ryan Tannehill/Derek Carr aren't likely to win a Super Bowl (though I think several of them are good enough with the right supporting cast) so the idea is to roll the dice and hope they come up with your number. The problem with this argument is that what fans perceive as "ceiling" doesn't necessarily translate to a higher likelihood of greatness. Among the previous top 2-4 picks, it was Philip Rivers and Matt Ryan who ended up reaching the highest ceiling, not any one of the number of dual-threat guys who also went that high.

More to the point, among the QBs who've reached the highest ceiling in the NFL, both historically and recently, they're often guys who weren't top of the draft QBs. Ben Roethlisberger, Jim Kelly, Aaron Rodgers, Dan Marino, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, Russell Wilson, Tom Brady, Warren Moon, and Kurt Warner were Hall of Famers who weren't top 10 draft picks, much less top three. Among more recent draft picks Derek Carr, Dak Prescott, Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson, and Lamar Jackson have reached awfully high ceilings without being top 10 picks. We'll see how high Jalen Hurts and Mac Jones can get.

Like you said, it's a crap shoot with QBs. Why a team would sell the farm to take that crapshoot at #3 rather than #12 is beyond me. Trading for Trevor Lawrence? Ok. The most likely outcome (relative to expenditure/opportunity cost) for Trey Lance is disaster. Too rich for my blood.

[Giants]

Lance does not have to be Hall of Fame QB to make the trade worthwhile.  He needs to consistently perform at a level that is good enough to support the team in their effort to win championships.  That may or may not lead to enshrinement at the Pro Football HOF.  



IMO, the trade was a brilliant move.  Garappolo was not the guy. The Niners knew this year would be a poor QB draft.  They had to make a move last year to get their guy and they took their best shot.  Of the QB’s available last year, I would have taken Lance at #2 behind Lawrence.

What does it mean to support the team in its efforts to win championships? Didn't Jimmy G do that or are you saying (as I think you should as the bare minimum for supporting this trade) that Lance has to be significantly better than Jimmy G? Do you agree, for instance, Lance has to be a perennial top 10 QB? Not a of immense proportions difference between saying that and saying Hall of Fame though admittedly a bit lower of a bar than I've set.

Will you think it's a "brilliant move" if Lance is a top 10 QB but Jones, Mills, Willis, Trask, Mond, Ridder, or Corral (any of whom we could have easily had at much less opportunity cost) is better?

Part of my stridency on this is that I was SCREAMING last year before the trade was even made and then before we knew which QB the Niners would take at #3 that either the consolation prize among the top five QBs or Davis Mills would be a far better bet than taking a QB near the top of the draft. I really think fans are under a misapprehension about what a non-number one overall QB's prospects of success are. Lance should have been seen as, at best, marginally more likely than Jones, Mills, or unknown 2022 QBs to be (Willis turned out to be an interesting option) to be great. Marginally.

Answers to Q’s in paragraph one - yes and yes.

I do not believe any of the guys you mentioned will be better than Lance, including Willis, Ridder and Corral who were selected this year.  In fact, I think the gulf will end up being quite wide between Lance and them.

The only way we can resolve this debate is to earmark our calendars for a revisit after the 2024 season.

[Giants]

Lance does not have to be Hall of Fame QB to make the trade worthwhile.  He needs to consistently perform at a level that is good enough to support the team in their effort to win championships.  That may or may not lead to enshrinement at the Pro Football HOF.  



IMO, the trade was a brilliant move.  Garappolo was not the guy. The Niners knew this year would be a poor QB draft.  They had to make a move last year to get their guy and they took their best shot.  Of the QB’s available last year, I would have taken Lance at #2 behind Lawrence.

What does it mean to support the team in its efforts to win championships? Didn't Jimmy G do that or are you saying (as I think you should as the bare minimum for supporting this trade) that Lance has to be significantly better than Jimmy G? Do you agree, for instance, Lance has to be a perennial top 10 QB? Not a of immense proportions difference between saying that and saying Hall of Fame though admittedly a bit lower of a bar than I've set.

Will you think it's a "brilliant move" if Lance is a top 10 QB but Jones, Mills, Willis, Trask, Mond, Ridder, or Corral (any of whom we could have easily had at much less opportunity cost) is better?

Part of my stridency on this is that I was SCREAMING last year before the trade was even made and then before we knew which QB the Niners would take at #3 that either the consolation prize among the top five QBs or Davis Mills would be a far better bet than taking a QB near the top of the draft. I really think fans are under a misapprehension about what a non-number one overall QB's prospects of success are. Lance should have been seen as, at best, marginally more likely than Jones, Mills, or unknown 2022 QBs to be (Willis turned out to be an interesting option) to be great. Marginally.

Answers to Q’s in paragraph one - yes and yes.

I do not believe any of the guys you mentioned will be better than Lance, including Willis, Ridder and Corral who were selected this year.  In fact, I think the gulf will end up being quite wide between Lance and them.

The only way we can resolve this debate is to earmark our calendars for a revisit after the 2024 season.

[Mick]

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.



It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.



Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

Jimmy G was a middle-of-the-pack quarterback who thrived by being in Shanahan's scheme.  it almost won the Super Bowl.  Except now, Jimmy G. is a middle-of-the-pack quarterback coming off of a throwing shoulder injury that required surgical repair.  Torn labrum, split capsule, rotator cuff injury (likely).  When my son had a similar injury, the doc said you have a 90% chance of coming back at 90%.  That puts Jimmy G. into bottom-third territory.  I realize that Shanahan and Lynch are trying for some sleight-of-hand to make it appear that Garoppolo (who has GREAT W/L stats) is an amazing QB, but he really isn't.  He has Samuel, Kittle, Aiyuk, Mitchell, the best LT in football and (until this year) a very, very good line.



BTW, Garoppolo's rating was 98.74, just above his career 97.2 rating.  And not that it matters terribly, but Lance's rating was 97.33...he had one bad game against the Cardinals (rating 58.41), then 117.3 against the Seahawks, 127.08 against the Lions and 116.03 against the Texans.



All rookie QB ratings:

- Lance, 97.33

- Jones, 92.5

- Mills, 88.8

- Fields, 73.2

- Lawrence, 71.9

- Mond, 70.1

- Wilson, Zach, 69.7

- Trask, no rating



I dispute that Lance has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade.  They weren't going to find a QB in 2022, 2021 was the rich year.  And Lynch and Shanahan aren't getting any younger, they have a good team and good coaches...they really needed a quarterback.  Mac Jones would probably get them in the playoffs most years, losing in the wild card or first round -- just like Russell Wilson has every year since 2014.



Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential, he was the top rated QB this year despite being backup for virtually all of it.  Great trade, IMHO.

[/quote]

I think you're cherry picking stats and doing a similar sleight of hand you said the brain trust were doing with Jimmy G to give Lance credit for his supporting cast. The QB rating stat you cited is misleading, especially in such a small sample. If one were to want to evaluate the small sample, Total QBR is a far better stat. Here are how the rookies (plus Jimmy G in parentheses for visualization) ranked in Total QBR:

(Jimmy G - 53.3)
Mac Jones - 50.9
Davis Mills - 35.5
Trevor Lawrence - 33.5
Zach Wilson - 28.2
Justin Fields - 26.4

Lance did not rank because he did not play enough. However, his Total QBR was 33.4, in the bottom half of the rookie quarterbacks ordinally but in the ballpark as Mills and Lawrence.

I don't put Lance's chances of being a Hall of Famer all that much higher, if at all, from Fields and Jones. I certainly don't think they're that much higher plus giving up scads of top picks for several years. It is definitely incorrect to say Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential. Nobody in the NFL, much less you or me, can tell before a draft which QBs do or don't have Hall of Fame potential. Among the last 15 Hall of Fame QBs, ten were picked with the 11th overall pick or later. Statistically for QBs there isn't a difference between the #3 pick's likelihood of becoming a Hall of Famer and the #12 pick's likelihood.

I don't disagree that it made sense to go and get a QB, but prudent would have been to have Mac Jones back up Jimmy G and see what you have. If after a few years it's not working out you can look to the 2023/2024/2025 draft for a QB. I know everybody wants to find the franchise guy, but just willing it to be is not prudent. Once you're talking about non-number one overall picks, it's a spin of the roulette wheel to get that franchise guy. There is nothing Lynch and Shanahan could have possibly seen in Lance to make it likely he would be the franchise guy. It was a bet, plain and simple. And they bet a lot.
[/quote]

I don't know if Lance will be a Hall of Famer.  I don't think you can say that about any player immediately after their rookie season, particularly a quarterback.  I think Lance was widely perceived to have a much higher upside than Mac Jones.  Jones didn't/doesn't project to be much better, if any better than Garoppolo.

[Mick]

Exactly. Given what we gave up I don't think it's an exaggeration to say he has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade. The team mortgaged the future in a year in which they already had a good (but arguably not good enough to be a Super Bowl favorite) QB1 under contract for the next two years and it was an extremely strong QB draft in which the original pick was widely seen as good enough to get Fields or Jones. Or they could have traded up a few spots and given up much less. They have bet not just on Trey Lance being a legend but Trey Lance being a legend in a way others in a deep QB draft wouldn't be.



It's a disastrous trade if, for instance, Trey Lance becomes as good as Jimmy G. That's a big problem because the #3 pick in the draft turning into Jimmy G actually wouldn't be such a bad result historically speaking. If you look at the history of QBs drafted in the 2-4 range since 1980 (Art Schlicter, Jim Everett, Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Steve McNair, Ryan Leaf, Donovan McNabb, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, Philip Rivers, Vince Young, Matt Ryan, Robert Griffin III, Blake Bortles, Marcus Mariota, Carson Wentz, Mitchell Trubisky, and Sam Darnold), you start to feel a lot better about Jimmy G being backed up by Mac Jones for 1-2 years before turning over the job to Jones. The pick we traded the farm for has a historical record of giving you a 6 percent change of a Hall of Famer and maybe a 33 percent chance of a good QB.



Like true meatheads, Lynch and Shanahan thought they could do better with the pick than that sordid history. We'll see if they're right. But they're going to have to be spectacularly right to justify trading away what they did, with the solid QB baseline they were trying to improve upon, in a year with lots of attractive QB options.

Jimmy G was a middle-of-the-pack quarterback who thrived by being in Shanahan's scheme.  it almost won the Super Bowl.  Except now, Jimmy G. is a middle-of-the-pack quarterback coming off of a throwing shoulder injury that required surgical repair.  Torn labrum, split capsule, rotator cuff injury (likely).  When my son had a similar injury, the doc said you have a 90% chance of coming back at 90%.  That puts Jimmy G. into bottom-third territory.  I realize that Shanahan and Lynch are trying for some sleight-of-hand to make it appear that Garoppolo (who has GREAT W/L stats) is an amazing QB, but he really isn't.  He has Samuel, Kittle, Aiyuk, Mitchell, the best LT in football and (until this year) a very, very good line.



BTW, Garoppolo's rating was 98.74, just above his career 97.2 rating.  And not that it matters terribly, but Lance's rating was 97.33...he had one bad game against the Cardinals (rating 58.41), then 117.3 against the Seahawks, 127.08 against the Lions and 116.03 against the Texans.



All rookie QB ratings:

- Lance, 97.33

- Jones, 92.5

- Mills, 88.8

- Fields, 73.2

- Lawrence, 71.9

- Mond, 70.1

- Wilson, Zach, 69.7

- Trask, no rating



I dispute that Lance has to be a Hall of Famer for this to be a good trade.  They weren't going to find a QB in 2022, 2021 was the rich year.  And Lynch and Shanahan aren't getting any younger, they have a good team and good coaches...they really needed a quarterback.  Mac Jones would probably get them in the playoffs most years, losing in the wild card or first round -- just like Russell Wilson has every year since 2014.



Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential, he was the top rated QB this year despite being backup for virtually all of it.  Great trade, IMHO.

[/quote]

I think you're cherry picking stats and doing a similar sleight of hand you said the brain trust were doing with Jimmy G to give Lance credit for his supporting cast. The QB rating stat you cited is misleading, especially in such a small sample. If one were to want to evaluate the small sample, Total QBR is a far better stat. Here are how the rookies (plus Jimmy G in parentheses for visualization) ranked in Total QBR:

(Jimmy G - 53.3)
Mac Jones - 50.9
Davis Mills - 35.5
Trevor Lawrence - 33.5
Zach Wilson - 28.2
Justin Fields - 26.4

Lance did not rank because he did not play enough. However, his Total QBR was 33.4, in the bottom half of the rookie quarterbacks ordinally but in the ballpark as Mills and Lawrence.

I don't put Lance's chances of being a Hall of Famer all that much higher, if at all, from Fields and Jones. I certainly don't think they're that much higher plus giving up scads of top picks for several years. It is definitely incorrect to say Lance is the only one with Hall of Fame potential. Nobody in the NFL, much less you or me, can tell before a draft which QBs do or don't have Hall of Fame potential. Among the last 15 Hall of Fame QBs, ten were picked with the 11th overall pick or later. Statistically for QBs there isn't a difference between the #3 pick's likelihood of becoming a Hall of Famer and the #12 pick's likelihood.

I don't disagree that it made sense to go and get a QB, but prudent would have been to have Mac Jones back up Jimmy G and see what you have. If after a few years it's not working out you can look to the 2023/2024/2025 draft for a QB. I know everybody wants to find the franchise guy, but just willing it to be is not prudent. Once you're talking about non-number one overall picks, it's a spin of the roulette wheel to get that franchise guy. There is nothing Lynch and Shanahan could have possibly seen in Lance to make it likely he would be the franchise guy. It was a bet, plain and simple. And they bet a lot.
[/quote]

I don't know if Lance will be a Hall of Famer.  I don't think you can say that about any player immediately after their rookie season, particularly a quarterback.  I think Lance was widely perceived to have a much higher upside than Mac Jones.  Jones didn't/doesn't project to be much better, if any better than Garoppolo.

[Giants]

Being prudent does not win Super Bowls.  Being bold yields Lombardi’s.  

Lance was a bold move.  Jones would have been a prudent move. 

For example, the Rams made a bold move by acquiring Stafford at a cost of a number of high draft picks. They reaped the benefit of that trade.  I don’t think anyone can question the wisdom of that deal.

IMO, the odds of Lance leading SF to a Super Bowl win are much greater than the odds of the other aforementioned 20221/2022 QB’s or Garappolo doing so.

[Giants]

Being prudent does not win Super Bowls.  Being bold yields Lombardi’s.  

Lance was a bold move.  Jones would have been a prudent move. 

For example, the Rams made a bold move by acquiring Stafford at a cost of a number of high draft picks. They reaped the benefit of that trade.  I don’t think anyone can question the wisdom of that deal.

IMO, the odds of Lance leading SF to a Super Bowl win are much greater than the odds of the other aforementioned 20221/2022 QB’s or Garappolo doing so.

[msqueri]

Being prudent does not win Super Bowls.  Being bold yields Lombardi’s.  



Lance was a bold move.  Jones would have been a prudent move. 



For example, the Rams made a bold move by acquiring Stafford at a cost of a number of high draft picks. They reaped the benefit of that trade.  I don’t think anyone can question the wisdom of that deal.



IMO, the odds of Lance leading SF to a Super Bowl win are much greater than the odds of the other aforementioned 20221/2022 QB’s or Garappolo doing so.

What the Niners did is pretty close to the opposite of what the Rams did with their bold move to trade for proven mega stars rather than prioritize draft picks. Draft picks are crapshoots, especially at QB. What the Rams did was assess that trading for a proven QB definitely good enough to win a Super Bowl was worth quite a bit of speculative draft potential. What the Niners did was trade their capital for speculative draft potential. Not the same thing. The Rams' insight was that Stafford and Miller were quite a bit more valuable in trying to win a Super Bowl than some draft picks.

A bold move with a good chance of being successful would have been to trade a ton of capital for Stafford or Rodgers or Watson. Heck, Tannehill would be more likely to win a Super Bowl than Trey Lance (or any non-number one overall pick QB who has never played in the NFL).

To think about how crazy this trade was, think about the fact that to get Lance the Niners gave up 2021, 2022, and 2023 first round picks and a 2022 compensatory third round pick whereas to get Stafford the Rams gave up 2022 and 2023 first rounds picks, a third round pick, and Jared Goff. Not a big difference between what those trades gave up despite Lance (ANY number three overall pick, no matter how much ceiling one thinks they have) having probably a 10-20 percent chance of ever being as good as Matthew Stafford. 

It's a false choice to choose between bold and prudent. If you want to be bold go out and find a way to get Tom Brady or Matthew Stafford or another QB you KNOW is the level you need. It's a meathead, arrogant philosophy to look at Trey Lance and think that bold move would yield Lombardis. I realize you're not saying it will happen, just that fortune favors the bold. But in making the trade the 49ers brain trust essentially placed a bet that it will happen.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ but I don't get all the talk of "ceiling." Ceiling just means how good a player can become. Mid-first round, second round, and even third round picks become better players than number three overall picks all the time. All the time. Statistically, I dare you to look at QBs picked top of the draft (but not number one overall) and say that they can be counted on to reach a higher ceiling than those picked around #12. I don't even know what people mean when they say Trey Lance has a higher ceiling than Mac Jones. Because Lance runs better? If Jones ends up being able to mentally process/throw in tight windows/be more accurate, he'll reach a higher ceiling than Lance regardless of whatever tools somebody thinks they see in the QBs.

Being a Super Bowl-quality QB is not a predictable, scientific function of who looked good at the combine. It's instructive to look at draft selection spots of the QBs who have actually won Lombardi Trophies. Looking at every Super Bowl since 1980, here are the draft spots and how well they're represented:

#1: Jim Plunkett (2), Troy Aikman (3), John Elway (2), Peyton Manning (2), Eli Manning (2), Matthew Stafford
#5: Jim McMahon
#6: Trent Dilfer
#7: Phil Simms
#10: Patrick Mahomes
#11: Ben Roethlisberger (2)
#17: Doug Williams
#18: Joe Flacco
#24: Aaron Rodgers
#32: Drew Brees
#33: Brett Favre
#59 Jeff Hostetler
#75: Russell Wilson
#82: Joe Montana (4)
#88: Nick Foles
#99: Joe Theismann
#146: Mark Rypien
#199: Tom Brady (7)
#227: Brad Johnson
Undrafted: Kurt Warner
N/A: Steve Young drafted to USFL #11 and #1 in NFL supplemental draft

The move, obviously, is to draft a generational QB at #1 overall. The pick in last year's draft that can give a reasonable hope of uber-greatness was Trevor Lawrence. But the Jaguars wanted that pick and the Niners didn't have that "bold" move available, so they pretended that picking #3 would significantly increase the odds of going to a Super Bowl. The problem is that is wishful thinking. The 2-4 spots in the draft have been a wasteland for Super Bowl aspiring QBs. In the decades covered by this span above, there have been 21 QBs drafted in those spots (18 before the Niners made the trade) and none have yet won a Super Bowl. A few (Steve McNair, Donovan McNabb, and Matt Ryan) have been good enough to get there but didn't get that brass ring. I don't know why 2-4 has empirically been a wasteland for QBs. Maybe it's the worst of all worlds of having massive, franchise-determining expectations but not the talent of the generational guys at #1.

Whatever the reason, I'm just being honest that the historical track record is that drafting a QB later in the first round or second round or third round is as likely to get you that Lombardi. QB in the NFL is just that hard. Those who tell you Trey Lance has so much more upside than Mac Jones really don't know what they're talking about. Sorry. They're clueless. Nobody knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be, and there is only one spot in the draft where you can somewhat cut through that paralyzing uncertainty: #1 overall. But that's not what the Niners traded for.

[msqueri]

Being prudent does not win Super Bowls.  Being bold yields Lombardi’s.  



Lance was a bold move.  Jones would have been a prudent move. 



For example, the Rams made a bold move by acquiring Stafford at a cost of a number of high draft picks. They reaped the benefit of that trade.  I don’t think anyone can question the wisdom of that deal.



IMO, the odds of Lance leading SF to a Super Bowl win are much greater than the odds of the other aforementioned 20221/2022 QB’s or Garappolo doing so.

What the Niners did is pretty close to the opposite of what the Rams did with their bold move to trade for proven mega stars rather than prioritize draft picks. Draft picks are crapshoots, especially at QB. What the Rams did was assess that trading for a proven QB definitely good enough to win a Super Bowl was worth quite a bit of speculative draft potential. What the Niners did was trade their capital for speculative draft potential. Not the same thing. The Rams' insight was that Stafford and Miller were quite a bit more valuable in trying to win a Super Bowl than some draft picks.

A bold move with a good chance of being successful would have been to trade a ton of capital for Stafford or Rodgers or Watson. Heck, Tannehill would be more likely to win a Super Bowl than Trey Lance (or any non-number one overall pick QB who has never played in the NFL).

To think about how crazy this trade was, think about the fact that to get Lance the Niners gave up 2021, 2022, and 2023 first round picks and a 2022 compensatory third round pick whereas to get Stafford the Rams gave up 2022 and 2023 first rounds picks, a third round pick, and Jared Goff. Not a big difference between what those trades gave up despite Lance (ANY number three overall pick, no matter how much ceiling one thinks they have) having probably a 10-20 percent chance of ever being as good as Matthew Stafford. 

It's a false choice to choose between bold and prudent. If you want to be bold go out and find a way to get Tom Brady or Matthew Stafford or another QB you KNOW is the level you need. It's a meathead, arrogant philosophy to look at Trey Lance and think that bold move would yield Lombardis. I realize you're not saying it will happen, just that fortune favors the bold. But in making the trade the 49ers brain trust essentially placed a bet that it will happen.

I suppose reasonable minds can differ but I don't get all the talk of "ceiling." Ceiling just means how good a player can become. Mid-first round, second round, and even third round picks become better players than number three overall picks all the time. All the time. Statistically, I dare you to look at QBs picked top of the draft (but not number one overall) and say that they can be counted on to reach a higher ceiling than those picked around #12. I don't even know what people mean when they say Trey Lance has a higher ceiling than Mac Jones. Because Lance runs better? If Jones ends up being able to mentally process/throw in tight windows/be more accurate, he'll reach a higher ceiling than Lance regardless of whatever tools somebody thinks they see in the QBs.

Being a Super Bowl-quality QB is not a predictable, scientific function of who looked good at the combine. It's instructive to look at draft selection spots of the QBs who have actually won Lombardi Trophies. Looking at every Super Bowl since 1980, here are the draft spots and how well they're represented:

#1: Jim Plunkett (2), Troy Aikman (3), John Elway (2), Peyton Manning (2), Eli Manning (2), Matthew Stafford
#5: Jim McMahon
#6: Trent Dilfer
#7: Phil Simms
#10: Patrick Mahomes
#11: Ben Roethlisberger (2)
#17: Doug Williams
#18: Joe Flacco
#24: Aaron Rodgers
#32: Drew Brees
#33: Brett Favre
#59 Jeff Hostetler
#75: Russell Wilson
#82: Joe Montana (4)
#88: Nick Foles
#99: Joe Theismann
#146: Mark Rypien
#199: Tom Brady (7)
#227: Brad Johnson
Undrafted: Kurt Warner
N/A: Steve Young drafted to USFL #11 and #1 in NFL supplemental draft

The move, obviously, is to draft a generational QB at #1 overall. The pick in last year's draft that can give a reasonable hope of uber-greatness was Trevor Lawrence. But the Jaguars wanted that pick and the Niners didn't have that "bold" move available, so they pretended that picking #3 would significantly increase the odds of going to a Super Bowl. The problem is that is wishful thinking. The 2-4 spots in the draft have been a wasteland for Super Bowl aspiring QBs. In the decades covered by this span above, there have been 21 QBs drafted in those spots (18 before the Niners made the trade) and none have yet won a Super Bowl. A few (Steve McNair, Donovan McNabb, and Matt Ryan) have been good enough to get there but didn't get that brass ring. I don't know why 2-4 has empirically been a wasteland for QBs. Maybe it's the worst of all worlds of having massive, franchise-determining expectations but not the talent of the generational guys at #1.

Whatever the reason, I'm just being honest that the historical track record is that drafting a QB later in the first round or second round or third round is as likely to get you that Lombardi. QB in the NFL is just that hard. Those who tell you Trey Lance has so much more upside than Mac Jones really don't know what they're talking about. Sorry. They're clueless. Nobody knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be, and there is only one spot in the draft where you can somewhat cut through that paralyzing uncertainty: #1 overall. But that's not what the Niners traded for.

[OutsiderFan]

Appreciate the passion, but the Niners made the right move trading picks for Lance.

First of all, they were in the Stafford trade market, but I think Stafford wanted the Rams, and was able to get his wish.

If you paid attention to the 2022 draft, you would notice that if Trey Lance were available last week, he wold have been the #1 overall pick.  So the Niners effectively went from #12 to #1.

Last season they had to improve the quality of talent in their QB room, and they knew they needed an heir apparent to Garoppolo who could be more dynamic. Trey Lance was able to start and win a game that put the Niners in the playoffs and ultimately a dropped INT from a Super Bowl.

Quarterback is the only position for which you trade significant draft capital to select in the draft.

The Niners have a championship contending team.  They would have drafted 29 in the first round this year, and they plan to draft similarly low in 2023 when they won't be drafting in first round. They weren't giving up chances to draft Top 10 prospects.

If Lance develops into what the team wants, nobody and I mean nobody, is going to whine about the fact the Niners traded 3 first round picks to get him. That's especially the case if even a couple players per 21, 22, 23 drafts turn out to be solid contributors or more. 

The Niners save a lot of money not having to pay first round pick money. If they can use that money to bolster their roster in ways not possible with first round draft picks, that's a benefit as well.

First round picks are sexy, but they are not the end all, be all. Round 2-6 are the most important. They provide the most opportunities to find contributing players and yield the best value for salary cap purposes. The ShanaLynch Niners have done pretty well drafting these rounds, better than they have their first round selections.

[OutsiderFan]

Appreciate the passion, but the Niners made the right move trading picks for Lance.

First of all, they were in the Stafford trade market, but I think Stafford wanted the Rams, and was able to get his wish.

If you paid attention to the 2022 draft, you would notice that if Trey Lance were available last week, he wold have been the #1 overall pick.  So the Niners effectively went from #12 to #1.

Last season they had to improve the quality of talent in their QB room, and they knew they needed an heir apparent to Garoppolo who could be more dynamic. Trey Lance was able to start and win a game that put the Niners in the playoffs and ultimately a dropped INT from a Super Bowl.

Quarterback is the only position for which you trade significant draft capital to select in the draft.

The Niners have a championship contending team.  They would have drafted 29 in the first round this year, and they plan to draft similarly low in 2023 when they won't be drafting in first round. They weren't giving up chances to draft Top 10 prospects.

If Lance develops into what the team wants, nobody and I mean nobody, is going to whine about the fact the Niners traded 3 first round picks to get him. That's especially the case if even a couple players per 21, 22, 23 drafts turn out to be solid contributors or more. 

The Niners save a lot of money not having to pay first round pick money. If they can use that money to bolster their roster in ways not possible with first round draft picks, that's a benefit as well.

First round picks are sexy, but they are not the end all, be all. Round 2-6 are the most important. They provide the most opportunities to find contributing players and yield the best value for salary cap purposes. The ShanaLynch Niners have done pretty well drafting these rounds, better than they have their first round selections.

[Giants]

Like OF, I appreciate your passion.  However, I think calling me “clueless” is a bit over the top.  I stand behind my belief that Lance will be a much better pro QB than Jones.  May I suggest that you are not “clueless” regarding your opinions.  Instead, I believe misguided might be a better choice of words.  :) 

“No one knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be”…

Yikes, that is beyond over the top.

Even before they were drafted, I knew that Elway and P. Manning were going to be HOF QBs.  It was evident to anyone paying attention that they were extraordinarily talented and were Canton-bound the day they were selected.

Heck, if I knew that as a fan, those who are paid to make personnel decisions certainly knew it.

[Giants]

Like OF, I appreciate your passion.  However, I think calling me “clueless” is a bit over the top.  I stand behind my belief that Lance will be a much better pro QB than Jones.  May I suggest that you are not “clueless” regarding your opinions.  Instead, I believe misguided might be a better choice of words.  :) 

“No one knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be”…

Yikes, that is beyond over the top.

Even before they were drafted, I knew that Elway and P. Manning were going to be HOF QBs.  It was evident to anyone paying attention that they were extraordinarily talented and were Canton-bound the day they were selected.

Heck, if I knew that as a fan, those who are paid to make personnel decisions certainly knew it.

[msqueri]

Like OF, I appreciate your passion.  However, I think calling me “clueless” is a bit over the top.  I stand behind my belief that Lance will be a much better pro QB than Jones.  May I suggest that you are not “clueless” regarding your opinions.  Instead, I believe misguided might be a better choice of words.  :) 

“No one knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be”…

Yikes, that is beyond over the top.

Even before they were drafted, I knew that Elway and P. Manning were going to be HOF QBs.  It was evident to anyone paying attention that they were extraordinarily talented and were Canton-bound the day they were selected.

Heck, if I knew that as a fan, those who are paid to make personnel decisions certainly knew it.

Apologies for the word choice. Sometimes I get carried away in my debating prose/rhetorical flourishes. My more disparaging comments are really meant for the pros who feign such high confidence in an extremely uncertain and fraught endeavor like NFL QB evaluation but on re-read I definitely see how it reads like I'm talking about you. Sorry.

We can agree to disagree - and, honestly, to me variety/disagreement is the essence and spice of sports fandom/barroom debate/message boards and I really appreciate and enjoy the intellectual parrying with you - but I continue to think that it's really guesswork for either of us to say who is going to be better between two non-Elway/Manning/Luck first half of the first round QBs. I just find the historical record of how unpredictable that is very compelling. Jones having such a good rookie season only heightens my sense that it would be squarely in the range of plausible outcomes for him to be better than any of Wilson, Lance, and Fields (and I guess Lawrence too).

For what it's worth, I tried to be precise in my posts in this thread to distinguish between number one pick generational talents and other top-of-the-draft talents. I think you're taking me out of context. The same sentence that said "nobody knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be" made clear #1 is the one place that cuts through that uncertainty. I think it's disingenuous to say knowing Elway/Manning would be Hall of Famers is the same as knowing Lance (or Wilson or Fields) will be great. If the latter were even remotely on that level there would have been debates about them versus Lawrence. 

By the way, maybe you have reason to believe it was disinformation but when the Niners traded for the #3 pick wasn't there A LOT of talk that they loved Jones and were thinking about taking him there? It seems dubious that the Niners traded for the #3 pick specifically for Lance. Rather, they know Wilson, Fields, Lance, and Jones would be options at #2 and #3 and thought it was an extremely strong group so they wanted to take their shot. Doesn't that cut against any arguments that there was particular confidence in Lance as the one guy?

[msqueri]

Like OF, I appreciate your passion.  However, I think calling me “clueless” is a bit over the top.  I stand behind my belief that Lance will be a much better pro QB than Jones.  May I suggest that you are not “clueless” regarding your opinions.  Instead, I believe misguided might be a better choice of words.  :) 

“No one knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be”…

Yikes, that is beyond over the top.

Even before they were drafted, I knew that Elway and P. Manning were going to be HOF QBs.  It was evident to anyone paying attention that they were extraordinarily talented and were Canton-bound the day they were selected.

Heck, if I knew that as a fan, those who are paid to make personnel decisions certainly knew it.

Apologies for the word choice. Sometimes I get carried away in my debating prose/rhetorical flourishes. My more disparaging comments are really meant for the pros who feign such high confidence in an extremely uncertain and fraught endeavor like NFL QB evaluation but on re-read I definitely see how it reads like I'm talking about you. Sorry.

We can agree to disagree - and, honestly, to me variety/disagreement is the essence and spice of sports fandom/barroom debate/message boards and I really appreciate and enjoy the intellectual parrying with you - but I continue to think that it's really guesswork for either of us to say who is going to be better between two non-Elway/Manning/Luck first half of the first round QBs. I just find the historical record of how unpredictable that is very compelling. Jones having such a good rookie season only heightens my sense that it would be squarely in the range of plausible outcomes for him to be better than any of Wilson, Lance, and Fields (and I guess Lawrence too).

For what it's worth, I tried to be precise in my posts in this thread to distinguish between number one pick generational talents and other top-of-the-draft talents. I think you're taking me out of context. The same sentence that said "nobody knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be" made clear #1 is the one place that cuts through that uncertainty. I think it's disingenuous to say knowing Elway/Manning would be Hall of Famers is the same as knowing Lance (or Wilson or Fields) will be great. If the latter were even remotely on that level there would have been debates about them versus Lawrence. 

By the way, maybe you have reason to believe it was disinformation but when the Niners traded for the #3 pick wasn't there A LOT of talk that they loved Jones and were thinking about taking him there? It seems dubious that the Niners traded for the #3 pick specifically for Lance. Rather, they know Wilson, Fields, Lance, and Jones would be options at #2 and #3 and thought it was an extremely strong group so they wanted to take their shot. Doesn't that cut against any arguments that there was particular confidence in Lance as the one guy?

[DC 86]

Like OF, I appreciate your passion.  However, I think calling me “clueless” is a bit over the top.  I stand behind my belief that Lance will be a much better pro QB than Jones.  May I suggest that you are not “clueless” regarding your opinions.  Instead, I believe misguided might be a better choice of words.  :) 

“No one knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be”…

Yikes, that is beyond over the top.

Even before they were drafted, I knew that Elway and P. Manning were going to be HOF QBs.  It was evident to anyone paying attention that they were extraordinarily talented and were Canton-bound the day they were selected.

Heck, if I knew that as a fan, those who are paid to make personnel decisions certainly knew it.

Msqueri didn't call you clueless, he called everyone clueless, which presumably includes himself (in this context). There have been numerous articles and studies proving that NFL teams don't have particular insight into drafting players; that the degree of randomness is high and that teams that move up to draft a specific player have the same hit/miss rate as those that stay put.

Your comment amount Manning and Elway is the same argument that masqueri documented: that the first overall pick has lived up to expectation at a high rate. What is also documented is that picks 2-4 are far less reliable.

You said that "the odds of Lance leading SF to a Super Bowl win are much greater than the odds of the other aforementioned 20221/2022 QB’s". But what is that based on? nobody knows at this point, and it's unlikely that one player has "much greater" likelihood than the other half dozen.

Lance fits the profile (mobile, strong arm) of player who is frequently characterized as having "major upside". A quarterback who is smart but slow and soft bodied is usually stereotyped as having a high ceiling, being a career backup, possibly a game manager. For example, Tom Brady coming out of college. Is Lance's profile much different from Justin Fields? with the exception that Fields played against top competition in high pressure games in college.

At the end of the day, Lance may be the best or the worst of the QBs. He's in a much better situation than the others who are on worse (or much worse) teams than the 49ers, and who have less accomplished coaches than the 49ers. But there's no evidence at this point, and I don't think Lynch/Shanahan have a demonstrated track record (in drafting) that makes this situation any different from the many high (non-first overall) quarterbacks who have ultimately delivered a broad range of outcomes, with more disappointments than successes. I'm on the side that none of us knows, but it will be fun to find out what happens.

P.S. was writing this and saw that msqueri had already replied when I posted, not trying to pile on.

[DC 86]

Like OF, I appreciate your passion.  However, I think calling me “clueless” is a bit over the top.  I stand behind my belief that Lance will be a much better pro QB than Jones.  May I suggest that you are not “clueless” regarding your opinions.  Instead, I believe misguided might be a better choice of words.  :) 

“No one knows who the great NFL QBs are going to be”…

Yikes, that is beyond over the top.

Even before they were drafted, I knew that Elway and P. Manning were going to be HOF QBs.  It was evident to anyone paying attention that they were extraordinarily talented and were Canton-bound the day they were selected.

Heck, if I knew that as a fan, those who are paid to make personnel decisions certainly knew it.

Msqueri didn't call you clueless, he called everyone clueless, which presumably includes himself (in this context). There have been numerous articles and studies proving that NFL teams don't have particular insight into drafting players; that the degree of randomness is high and that teams that move up to draft a specific player have the same hit/miss rate as those that stay put.

Your comment amount Manning and Elway is the same argument that masqueri documented: that the first overall pick has lived up to expectation at a high rate. What is also documented is that picks 2-4 are far less reliable.

You said that "the odds of Lance leading SF to a Super Bowl win are much greater than the odds of the other aforementioned 20221/2022 QB’s". But what is that based on? nobody knows at this point, and it's unlikely that one player has "much greater" likelihood than the other half dozen.

Lance fits the profile (mobile, strong arm) of player who is frequently characterized as having "major upside". A quarterback who is smart but slow and soft bodied is usually stereotyped as having a high ceiling, being a career backup, possibly a game manager. For example, Tom Brady coming out of college. Is Lance's profile much different from Justin Fields? with the exception that Fields played against top competition in high pressure games in college.

At the end of the day, Lance may be the best or the worst of the QBs. He's in a much better situation than the others who are on worse (or much worse) teams than the 49ers, and who have less accomplished coaches than the 49ers. But there's no evidence at this point, and I don't think Lynch/Shanahan have a demonstrated track record (in drafting) that makes this situation any different from the many high (non-first overall) quarterbacks who have ultimately delivered a broad range of outcomes, with more disappointments than successes. I'm on the side that none of us knows, but it will be fun to find out what happens.

P.S. was writing this and saw that msqueri had already replied when I posted, not trying to pile on.

[cardcrimson]

For your reading pleasure and a few laughs, the biggest QB busts in (recent) history: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1047...ft-history

Note four #1 overall picks: Jeff George, David Carr, Tim Couch, and JaMarcus Russell. And there is Ryan Leaf. Todd Marinovich, too. Of course Niner fans will remember Jim Drunkenmiller.

Drafting QBs is a total crap shoot. Leaf had all, all the skills, and was a head case. Marinovich, too. Russell liked to eat. So much more to being a great NFL QB than what you see on a college gridiron.

Never watched a down of Lance. Watched a ton of Jones. Loved Jones as a QB at Alabama and thought he'd be great in the right NFL system. Belichick's is perfect for him. Has an incredible fire, too. We shall see.

[cardcrimson]

For your reading pleasure and a few laughs, the biggest QB busts in (recent) history: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1047...ft-history

Note four #1 overall picks: Jeff George, David Carr, Tim Couch, and JaMarcus Russell. And there is Ryan Leaf. Todd Marinovich, too. Of course Niner fans will remember Jim Drunkenmiller.

Drafting QBs is a total crap shoot. Leaf had all, all the skills, and was a head case. Marinovich, too. Russell liked to eat. So much more to being a great NFL QB than what you see on a college gridiron.

Never watched a down of Lance. Watched a ton of Jones. Loved Jones as a QB at Alabama and thought he'd be great in the right NFL system. Belichick's is perfect for him. Has an incredible fire, too. We shall see.

[Mick]

The Texans just added Kevin Hogan:
Texans sign recently released veteran quarterback (msn.com)

---

Note four #1 overall picks: Jeff George, David Carr, Tim Couch, and JaMarcus Russell. And there is Ryan Leaf. Todd Marinovich, too. Of course Niner fans will remember Jim Drunkenmiller.

Druckenmiller was a particularly low watt bulb.  I listened to him on an interview, it was very painful.  The average Wonderlic score is 29 today, but it was 19 when Druckenmiller took it.  Of the 16 QBs in that draft, Druckenmiller's 20 score on the Wonderlic test came in tied for dead last.

[Mick]

The Texans just added Kevin Hogan:
Texans sign recently released veteran quarterback (msn.com)

---

Note four #1 overall picks: Jeff George, David Carr, Tim Couch, and JaMarcus Russell. And there is Ryan Leaf. Todd Marinovich, too. Of course Niner fans will remember Jim Drunkenmiller.

Druckenmiller was a particularly low watt bulb.  I listened to him on an interview, it was very painful.  The average Wonderlic score is 29 today, but it was 19 when Druckenmiller took it.  Of the 16 QBs in that draft, Druckenmiller's 20 score on the Wonderlic test came in tied for dead last.

[msqueri]

While Druckenmiller can maybe never be topped for me as a Niner fan and also a Niner-obsessive 7th/8th grader when he played for us, Paxton Lynch gives me deja vu. I watched as much of his USFL debut as I could stomach a few weeks ago because I was curious to see Cameron Scarlett in action and - against USFL competition! - former first round pick Lynch looked like Jack West. So, so bad.

[msqueri]

While Druckenmiller can maybe never be topped for me as a Niner fan and also a Niner-obsessive 7th/8th grader when he played for us, Paxton Lynch gives me deja vu. I watched as much of his USFL debut as I could stomach a few weeks ago because I was curious to see Cameron Scarlett in action and - against USFL competition! - former first round pick Lynch looked like Jack West. So, so bad.