[BostonCard]

Are you equating Garopolo and Rogers?

BC

No.  But that's irrelevant to the rebuttal point I was making to Lex's comment that drafting Trey and not playing him by Y2 means GM and coach must go.  Just don't see why . . . ipse dixit.

Allowances can sometimes be made when you are transitioning a HoF QB, who is still performing at or near the top of the league.  Rogers QBR is fifth in the league; his passer rating is fourth.  Green Bay is 9-3 in the league, in first place in the NFC North.  The Packers have a chance to win a championship this year, so it seems kind of silly to ditch your high performing QB, no? In fact, you’d be an idiot not to play Green Bay.

The situation in San Francisco is more tenuous. It’s not so much that the Niners should be playing Lance. If Garopolo (who is not playing all that badly) leads the team to the playoffs, the pressure will be off. But if you a) gave up a second round pick to land Garopolo, then signed him for a 5 year, $137 million contract, including a $7M signing bonus, $74M guaranteed, then draft his replacement after trading a curve-breaking three first round draft picks… and at the end of the process have little to show for it, people will wonder whether your team should remain coach/GM.

That being said, the Niners at 6-6 are tied with the WTF for the last playoff spot (the WTF has the better conference record, and thus the tiebreaker, at the moment), and sometimes QBs need a couple of years backing up before they are ready to start. Young famously sat on the bench behind Montana for four years. Aaron Rogers himself was Brett Farce’s back-up for three years. So, honestly, even if the Niners exercise the option on Garopolo for next year, I don’t think it’s a problem for Lynch/Shanahan, unless they fail to make the playoffs this year or next and Young is a bust.

BC

[BostonCard]

Are you equating Garopolo and Rogers?

BC

No.  But that's irrelevant to the rebuttal point I was making to Lex's comment that drafting Trey and not playing him by Y2 means GM and coach must go.  Just don't see why . . . ipse dixit.

Allowances can sometimes be made when you are transitioning a HoF QB, who is still performing at or near the top of the league.  Rogers QBR is fifth in the league; his passer rating is fourth.  Green Bay is 9-3 in the league, in first place in the NFC North.  The Packers have a chance to win a championship this year, so it seems kind of silly to ditch your high performing QB, no? In fact, you’d be an idiot not to play Green Bay.

The situation in San Francisco is more tenuous. It’s not so much that the Niners should be playing Lance. If Garopolo (who is not playing all that badly) leads the team to the playoffs, the pressure will be off. But if you a) gave up a second round pick to land Garopolo, then signed him for a 5 year, $137 million contract, including a $7M signing bonus, $74M guaranteed, then draft his replacement after trading a curve-breaking three first round draft picks… and at the end of the process have little to show for it, people will wonder whether your team should remain coach/GM.

That being said, the Niners at 6-6 are tied with the WTF for the last playoff spot (the WTF has the better conference record, and thus the tiebreaker, at the moment), and sometimes QBs need a couple of years backing up before they are ready to start. Young famously sat on the bench behind Montana for four years. Aaron Rogers himself was Brett Farce’s back-up for three years. So, honestly, even if the Niners exercise the option on Garopolo for next year, I don’t think it’s a problem for Lynch/Shanahan, unless they fail to make the playoffs this year or next and Young is a bust.

BC