[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.