12-06-2021, 07:26 AM
Thank you Phogge. I so agree. Plus Jimmy drive the team 90 plus yards at the end
I’m ready for next week. Marching to the playoffs
I’m ready for next week. Marching to the playoffs
(12-06-2021, 07:19 AM)Phogge Wrote: Garropolo didn’t fumble on a kick return or not have a protective edge on the first punt. He didn’t cause Moseley to go down or Warner and Deebo to be out.
They now are going to have to pony up if there are any good corners in FA or make a stunning trade of a star to grab a corner.
There are a bunch of crappy playoff contenders in the NFC. With Jimmy they have a chance. With Lance they don’t.
(12-06-2021, 07:19 AM)Phogge Wrote: Garropolo didn’t fumble on a kick return or not have a protective edge on the first punt. He didn’t cause Moseley to go down or Warner and Deebo to be out.
They now are going to have to pony up if there are any good corners in FA or make a stunning trade of a star to grab a corner.
There are a bunch of crappy playoff contenders in the NFC. With Jimmy they have a chance. With Lance they don’t.
(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 07:19 AM)Phogge Wrote: Garropolo didn’t fumble on a kick return or not have a protective edge on the first punt. He didn’t cause Moseley to go down or Warner and Deebo to be out.
They now are going to have to pony up if there are any good corners in FA or make a stunning trade of a star to grab a corner.
There are a bunch of crappy playoff contenders in the NFC. With Jimmy they have a chance. With Lance they don’t.
Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
I will admit, some of my frustration is watching JG fixed like a statute and making high throws over the middle. Time and time again.
And some of it is wondering why they gave so much up for Lance only to sit him.
Also, a simple question: when is the last time you recall JG hitting a receiver deep (I mean 40 yards down field?). They don’t even try anymore. Their long TD passes generally are short throws with long runs. A la Kittle yesterday.
I realize the vertical passing game is not employed as it once was. But every once in a while …. If just to keep defenses honest.
(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 07:19 AM)Phogge Wrote: Garropolo didn’t fumble on a kick return or not have a protective edge on the first punt. He didn’t cause Moseley to go down or Warner and Deebo to be out.
They now are going to have to pony up if there are any good corners in FA or make a stunning trade of a star to grab a corner.
There are a bunch of crappy playoff contenders in the NFC. With Jimmy they have a chance. With Lance they don’t.
Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
I will admit, some of my frustration is watching JG fixed like a statute and making high throws over the middle. Time and time again.
And some of it is wondering why they gave so much up for Lance only to sit him.
Also, a simple question: when is the last time you recall JG hitting a receiver deep (I mean 40 yards down field?). They don’t even try anymore. Their long TD passes generally are short throws with long runs. A la Kittle yesterday.
I realize the vertical passing game is not employed as it once was. But every once in a while …. If just to keep defenses honest.
(12-06-2021, 10:22 AM)BobK Wrote: JG leaving seems like bad news to me. Of course 30-13 is poor I guess :)
(12-06-2021, 10:22 AM)BobK Wrote: JG leaving seems like bad news to me. Of course 30-13 is poor I guess :)
(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote: Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote: Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
(12-06-2021, 02:18 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote: Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
That was the plan and Shanahan used Lance is goal line packages in two of the first three games (Detroit, Green Bay).
At a recent press conference Shanahan was asked why he stopped using Lance and he said that it disrupted his play calling rhythm to have to adjust to defensive adjustments when he switched quarterbacks mid-game. So it's either that (entirely possible given how particular Shanahan is about play calling) or he's lost confidence in Lance's ability at the moment and is using that explanation so as not to throw him under the bus.
I'm pretty sure the plan was to use Lance in those packages while gradually playing him more and perhaps even making him the starter at some point this season. The fact that things went the other way would indicate that Lance simply wasn't ready to take on added responsibility and that the timetable for him replacing JG is longer than what the team initially projected.
(12-06-2021, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: And Lex they would probably be 3-9.
Ok so Jimmy leaves and Lance has an ACL in Game two next year. LOL.
(12-06-2021, 02:18 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote: Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
That was the plan and Shanahan used Lance is goal line packages in two of the first three games (Detroit, Green Bay).
At a recent press conference Shanahan was asked why he stopped using Lance and he said that it disrupted his play calling rhythm to have to adjust to defensive adjustments when he switched quarterbacks mid-game. So it's either that (entirely possible given how particular Shanahan is about play calling) or he's lost confidence in Lance's ability at the moment and is using that explanation so as not to throw him under the bus.
I'm pretty sure the plan was to use Lance in those packages while gradually playing him more and perhaps even making him the starter at some point this season. The fact that things went the other way would indicate that Lance simply wasn't ready to take on added responsibility and that the timetable for him replacing JG is longer than what the team initially projected.
(12-06-2021, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: And Lex they would probably be 3-9.
Ok so Jimmy leaves and Lance has an ACL in Game two next year. LOL.
(12-06-2021, 02:27 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 02:18 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote: Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
That was the plan and Shanahan used Lance is goal line packages in two of the first three games (Detroit, Green Bay).
At a recent press conference Shanahan was asked why he stopped using Lance and he said that it disrupted his play calling rhythm to have to adjust to defensive adjustments when he switched quarterbacks mid-game. So it's either that (entirely possible given how particular Shanahan is about play calling) or he's lost confidence in Lance's ability at the moment and is using that explanation so as not to throw him under the bus.
I'm pretty sure the plan was to use Lance in those packages while gradually playing him more and perhaps even making him the starter at some point this season. The fact that things went the other way would indicate that Lance simply wasn't ready to take on added responsibility and that the timetable for him replacing JG is longer than what the team initially projected.
I think you are right. But I hope you are wrong….
(12-06-2021, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: And Lex they would probably be 3-9.
Ok so Jimmy leaves and Lance has an ACL in Game two next year. LOL.
I doubt that. And it’s a foregone conclusion that JG will be gone next year. If he isn’t, that’s a “tell” that they blew it when they picked Lance. And if that’s the case, Lynch and Shanahan can start packing.
(12-06-2021, 02:27 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 02:18 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote: Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
That was the plan and Shanahan used Lance is goal line packages in two of the first three games (Detroit, Green Bay).
At a recent press conference Shanahan was asked why he stopped using Lance and he said that it disrupted his play calling rhythm to have to adjust to defensive adjustments when he switched quarterbacks mid-game. So it's either that (entirely possible given how particular Shanahan is about play calling) or he's lost confidence in Lance's ability at the moment and is using that explanation so as not to throw him under the bus.
I'm pretty sure the plan was to use Lance in those packages while gradually playing him more and perhaps even making him the starter at some point this season. The fact that things went the other way would indicate that Lance simply wasn't ready to take on added responsibility and that the timetable for him replacing JG is longer than what the team initially projected.
I think you are right. But I hope you are wrong….
(12-06-2021, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: And Lex they would probably be 3-9.
Ok so Jimmy leaves and Lance has an ACL in Game two next year. LOL.
I doubt that. And it’s a foregone conclusion that JG will be gone next year. If he isn’t, that’s a “tell” that they blew it when they picked Lance. And if that’s the case, Lynch and Shanahan can start packing.
(12-06-2021, 02:27 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 02:18 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote: Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
That was the plan and Shanahan used Lance is goal line packages in two of the first three games (Detroit, Green Bay).
At a recent press conference Shanahan was asked why he stopped using Lance and he said that it disrupted his play calling rhythm to have to adjust to defensive adjustments when he switched quarterbacks mid-game. So it's either that (entirely possible given how particular Shanahan is about play calling) or he's lost confidence in Lance's ability at the moment and is using that explanation so as not to throw him under the bus.
I'm pretty sure the plan was to use Lance in those packages while gradually playing him more and perhaps even making him the starter at some point this season. The fact that things went the other way would indicate that Lance simply wasn't ready to take on added responsibility and that the timetable for him replacing JG is longer than what the team initially projected.
I think you are right. But I hope you are wrong….
(12-06-2021, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: And Lex they would probably be 3-9.
Ok so Jimmy leaves and Lance has an ACL in Game two next year. LOL.
I doubt that. And it’s a foregone conclusion that JG will be gone next year. If he isn’t, that’s a “tell” that they blew it when they picked Lance. And if that’s the case, Lynch and Shanahan can start packing.
(12-06-2021, 02:27 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 02:18 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 09:23 AM)lex24 Wrote: Not suggesting they should make a change now. Too late. The time to do it was from day one. Also, when Walsh had Montana as a rookie, he had a package he’d use Montana in. Generally when inside the 20. Helped him get his feet wet, and I’m sure built some confidence. I had expected Shanahan to do something similar.
That was the plan and Shanahan used Lance is goal line packages in two of the first three games (Detroit, Green Bay).
At a recent press conference Shanahan was asked why he stopped using Lance and he said that it disrupted his play calling rhythm to have to adjust to defensive adjustments when he switched quarterbacks mid-game. So it's either that (entirely possible given how particular Shanahan is about play calling) or he's lost confidence in Lance's ability at the moment and is using that explanation so as not to throw him under the bus.
I'm pretty sure the plan was to use Lance in those packages while gradually playing him more and perhaps even making him the starter at some point this season. The fact that things went the other way would indicate that Lance simply wasn't ready to take on added responsibility and that the timetable for him replacing JG is longer than what the team initially projected.
I think you are right. But I hope you are wrong….
(12-06-2021, 01:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: And Lex they would probably be 3-9.
Ok so Jimmy leaves and Lance has an ACL in Game two next year. LOL.
I doubt that. And it’s a foregone conclusion that JG will be gone next year. If he isn’t, that’s a “tell” that they blew it when they picked Lance. And if that’s the case, Lynch and Shanahan can start packing.
(12-07-2021, 12:25 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 10:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 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.
(12-07-2021, 12:25 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 10:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 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.
(12-07-2021, 08:31 AM)Phogge Wrote: So now you have a need for at least one corner. (can’t count on Verrett next year). The best will be gone when you draft so you need to either trade or sign a FA. Good luck. The Niners won’t play Thomas right now and Lenoir was pulled in favor of the ultimate journeyman Johnson. You can’t move Williams because he’s one of the best nickels in the NFL.
Jimmy didn’t lose the game. The whole team did.
And the elephant in the room is what if Lance is hurt next year. Nate Sudfield? LOL.
(12-07-2021, 08:31 AM)Phogge Wrote: So now you have a need for at least one corner. (can’t count on Verrett next year). The best will be gone when you draft so you need to either trade or sign a FA. Good luck. The Niners won’t play Thomas right now and Lenoir was pulled in favor of the ultimate journeyman Johnson. You can’t move Williams because he’s one of the best nickels in the NFL.
Jimmy didn’t lose the game. The whole team did.
And the elephant in the room is what if Lance is hurt next year. Nate Sudfield? LOL.
(12-07-2021, 12:25 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 10:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 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.
(12-07-2021, 12:25 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 10:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 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.
(12-07-2021, 10:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-07-2021, 12:25 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 10:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 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
(12-07-2021, 10:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-07-2021, 12:25 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-06-2021, 10:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 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