2021-2022 NFL Season

[Speilmen230]

If you got in on the over 3.5 draft position early, there was some really good money to be made (assuming Jones to SF chatter was a smoke screen this whole time). I got it at +210 and +175 from two different books. I was almost considering a third bet this morning when it moved to -110 but held back.

Just didn't make any sense for them to trade three firsts to go get Jones. Vegas is now rapidly trying to adjust their position, hence pulling the option all together today.

[dmbfd15]

Lol I’m all about throwing down a few bets here and there but don’t think I’d be confident enough to try to guess O/U on a dude’s draft spot. A LOT can happen in the next two weeks. Just ask Laremy Tunsil.

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by Speilmen230

If you got in on the over 3.5 draft position early, there was some really good money to be made (assuming Jones to SF chatter was a smoke screen this whole time). I got it at +210 and +175 from two different books. I was almost considering a third bet this morning when it moved to -110 but held back.

Just didn't make any sense for them to trade three firsts to go get Jones. Vegas is now rapidly trying to adjust their position, hence pulling the option all together today.

You're active on wallstreetbets, right?

[Speilmen230]

Actually not at all. Wall Street intimidates me.

[Speilmen230]

Originally Posted by dmbfd15

Lol I’m all about throwing down a few bets here and there but don’t think I’d be confident enough to try to guess O/U on a dude’s draft spot. A LOT can happen in the next two weeks. Just ask Laremy Tunsil.

I'm here for all of it. I'll happily eat it if SF takes him at 3 and it actually turns out to be the right move. If it is anything but that, I'll happily fade them as an organization the next 4 years as they ruin their window with poor QB evaluation.

[DMBstandUP1984]

He has the draft not happened yet

[Foreverford05]

Fields pro day was pretty impressive, especially compared to Jones'. I feel like JF will be decent this year, like Murray was his 1st year

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by Speilmen230

I'm here for all of it. I'll happily eat it if SF takes him at 3 and it actually turns out to be the right move. If it is anything but that, I'll happily fade them as an organization the next 4 years as they ruin their window with poor QB evaluation.

I'm coming at it from a different angle. As far as I'm concerned, they got faded when they gave up those picks to move up 9 spots. Until they dig themselves out of that hole, Lynch has a black mark on his reputation.

[Speilmen230]

Eh, their roster is pretty damn solid. They've got a lot of dudes coming back from injury this year. If they run it back with Jimmy G as the starter, everyone stays healthy, and you have Fields sitting behind Jimmy, I think they're a 10 win team easily. Health derailed their 2020 campaign.

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by Speilmen230

Eh, their roster is pretty damn solid. They've got a lot of dudes coming back from injury this year. If they run it back with Jimmy G as the starter, everyone stays healthy, and you have Fields sitting behind Jimmy, I think they're a 10 win team easily. Health derailed their 2020 campaign.

If they're trading away that many picks and don't plan on the QB they draft starting at some point next season, they're even dumber than I gave them credit for.

[Speilmen230]

I imagine Justin will start for them at some point seeing as Jimmy has only started all 16 games once (2019). His next most started games was... Last year, with 6.

[ToySoldier#34]

Originally Posted by Speilmen230

I imagine Justin will start for them at some point seeing as Jimmy has only started all 16 games once (2019). His next most started games was... Last year, with 6.

A lot of the injury problems Jimmy G has had are either A) bad coaching, or B) not listening to coaching. He's more injury prone that others it seems but a lot of it has been stupid decisions.

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by Speilmen230

I imagine Justin will start for them at some point seeing as Jimmy has only started all 16 games once (2019). His next most started games was... Last year, with 6.

Ok, then we can nix the idea of them drafting him to sit behind Jimmy G all year and still consider it a "success" if they win so many games, right? Because if you think a QB is worth that much to trade up for, he shouldn't be a project.

If they leverage that much and don't at least get back to the SB while Fields/Jones is on a rookie contract...it was a bust of a move.

[Speilmen230]

Originally Posted by ToySoldier#34

A lot of the injury problems Jimmy G has had are either A) bad coaching, or B) not listening to coaching. He's more injury prone that others it seems but a lot of it has been stupid decisions.

Definitely do not disagree with this. I think some guys are naturally more injury prone than others, and Jimmy might be one of those guys, but I also agree that his decision making isn't always best. Especially the scrambling/sliding/taking hits aspect of his game.

Originally Posted by Antiramie

Ok, then we can nix the idea of them drafting him to sit behind Jimmy G all year and still consider it a "success" if they win so many games, right? Because if you think a QB is worth that much to trade up for, he shouldn't be a project.

If they leverage that much and don't at least get back to the SB while Fields/Jones is on a rookie contract...it was a bust of a move.

It seems like your standard for trading 3 firsts means that they need to draft the next Joe Montana and get back to the SB this year or it's a complete bust.

I didn't agree with it, but the Hawks traded two firsts for Jamal Adams. I don't think it has doomed their franchise, but I also don't think it has dramatically improved their franchise either.

I think SF has a strong internal infrastructure, and they will get the right guy and he will start when the time is right. Hell, who is to say they don't take Fields and he doesn't go into camp and immediately just take the team over like Russ did in Seattle with Matt Flynn?

[UNC41]

Originally Posted by Antiramie

Ok, then we can nix the idea of them drafting him to sit behind Jimmy G all year and still consider it a "success" if they win so many games, right? Because if you think a QB is worth that much to trade up for, he shouldn't be a project.

If they leverage that much and don't at least get back to the SB while Fields/Jones is on a rookie contract...it was a bust of a move.

Would you consider the Chiefs move to get Patrick Mahomes a failure because they sat him his rookie year? They traded 2 1sts and a 3rd to move up and get him.

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by Speilmen230

Definitely do not disagree with this. I think some guys are naturally more injury prone than others, and Jimmy might be one of those guys, but I also agree that his decision making isn't always best. Especially the scrambling/sliding/taking hits aspect of his game.



It seems like your standard for trading 3 firsts means that they need to draft the next Joe Montana and get back to the SB this year or it's a complete bust.

I didn't agree with it, but the Hawks traded two firsts for Jamal Adams. I don't think it has doomed their franchise, but I also don't think it has dramatically improved their franchise either.

I think SF has a strong internal infrastructure, and they will get the right guy and he will start when the time is right. Hell, who is to say they don't take Fields and he doesn't go into camp and immediately just take the team over like Russ did in Seattle with Matt Flynn?

No, I literally stated what my standard was ie "while he's still on a rookie contract".

If you don't think the QB you draft is strong enough to 100% take the job from Jimmy G, he's not worth over-leveraging for. Like I said, you don't do that for a guy that's a project.

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by UNC41

Would you consider the Chiefs move to get Patrick Mahomes a failure because they sat him his rookie year? They traded 2 1sts and a 3rd to move up and get him.

The Chiefs gave up less (to move up more spots), and they didn't have a QB situation like SF's with a high likelihood that Mahomes would be needed to start his rookie season.

I think they're apples and oranges.

[Speilmen230]

Originally Posted by Antiramie

No, I literally stated what my standard was ie "while he's still on a rookie contract".

If you don't think the QB you draft is strong enough to 100% take the job from Jimmy G, he's not worth over-leveraging for. Like I said, you don't do that for a guy that's a project.

These are conflicting views though. If he isn't good enough right away to unseat Jimmy, then it's not worth making the move for. But also, if you can win a SB during the rookie contract, then it's a success.

I think a big part is that they won't have the opportunity to draft this high again during a QB rich draft for quite some time. The seat is obviously very hot underneath Jimmy and they thought this year was the best opportunity to secure their future at that position, while still having a serviceable starter.

For the record, I do not view Fields as a project. I think he could very well overtake Jimmy in camp if he picks up playbooks/offense schemes as quickly as it is currently being reported.

Below is from The Ringer: https://www.theringer.com/2021/4/14/...atives-pro-day

The idea that Fields is slow at processing surprised Avery, who recalled a scene from the 2017 Elite 11 competition when players were asked to memorize a vast playbook resembling NFL concepts.

“Justin was the only guy of the 24 quarterbacks there who was not only able to do it, but he was able to have the mental flexibility to flip calls on-demand without seeing it,” Avery said. “He had the highest grade of not only going through the correct read, but getting off things in the correct order. And he took the least amount of sacks. So for him to be able to do that at 18, it’s undoubted to me that he has the tools to do that a few years since then.”

Day’s offensive scheme tasked Fields with the responsibility of managing complex reads in addition to facing elite competition. According to NBC Sports Edge’s Derrik Klassen, 75 percent of Fields’s career opponents rank in the top 20 in defensive SP+. That’s by far the highest average of any QB in this year’s class. That difficult schedule never hindered Fields, though—the Buckeyes finished second in offensive SP+ last season, up from fourth in 2019.

[UNC41]

Originally Posted by Antiramie

The Chiefs gave up less (to move up more spots), and they didn't have a QB situation like SF's with a high likelihood that Mahomes would be needed to start his rookie season.

I think they're apples and oranges.

My takeaway from your posts is that it is ok to give up 2 1sts and a 3rd for a QB and sit him his first year but not 3 1sts and a 3rd. The other stuff you're talking about is all irrelevant, tbh.

If we look back in 3 years and the 49ers have a franchise QB then the trade will be a success. If they don't, it'll be a failure. It's really that simple.

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by Speilmen230

These are conflicting views though. If he isn't good enough right away to unseat Jimmy, then it's not worth making the move for. But also, if you can win a SB during the rookie contract, then it's a success.

I think a big part is that they won't have the opportunity to draft this high again during a QB rich draft for quite some time. The seat is obviously very hot underneath Jimmy and they thought this year was the best opportunity to secure their future at that position, while still having a serviceable starter.

For the record, I do not view Fields as a project. I think he could very well overtake Jimmy in camp if he picks up playbooks/offense schemes as quickly as it is currently being reported.

Below is from The Ringer: https://www.theringer.com/2021/4/14/...atives-pro-day

How are those conflicting views? They're both in support of drafting a QB to win now. You don't give away future 1sts in hopes to win later. You're literally leveraging your future for a better chance of winning now. SF obviously doesn't think Jimmy G is the answer for now or else they wouldn't be doing this, whether it be performance or health related. And you don't do it for a guy you don't think can't start sooner than later. KC had the luxury of being able to let Mahomes sit for a year because Smith won 11 games two years in a row, was healthy, and they didn't leverage as much to get him.

If SF drafts Fields/Jones and they can't beat Jimmy G for the job or Jimmy G gets hurt and they can't produce well enough to get them back to the SB before they're due a bigger contract with the team having less draft picks to pay guys rookie salaries...it was a failure for those 4-5 years.

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by UNC41

My takeaway from your posts is that it is ok to give up 2 1sts and a 3rd for a QB and sit him his first year but not 3 1sts and a 3rd. The other stuff you're talking about is all irrelevant, tbh.

How is context not relevant? I'd be more ok with letting a rookie sit knowing I gave away fewer draft picks and have a healthy QB that's won 11 games two years in a row vs what SF did.

I'm not saying you couldn't criticize KC too. But personally I don't think what they did is nearly as risky and should be condemned as much if it backfired.

[Speilmen230]

Leveraging future firsts in worse QB drafts for a better first in a loaded QB draft when QB is the biggest need on your team doesn't seem like a "win now" move as much as it seems like a "let's get one while there's one to get" kind of move.

Again, I think Jimmy is a perfectly capable starter. They got to the damn super bowl the one and only year they got 16 starts out of him. 13-3. He's got two years left on his deal and by all accounts he should be QB1 day one of camp.

Putting expectations on Fields to overtake him in camp because of what you gave up to get him seems silly to me. I think he is going to be the QB of the Niners long term and they will have been proven right to make the move they have down the road.

As an aside, I think the Niners situation is actually much more similar to the Chiefs situation than you're admitting. Highly capable but limited starter under contract, bring in a young stud with loads of talent who just needs some grooming before he's ready. I'd argue Fields is more pro ready day 1 than Mahomes was coming out in 2017. I still won't expect him to beat out Jimmy G for the job in camp. If he does, he's way ahead of schedule and the Niners will have knocked this thing out of the park.

[UNC41]

Originally Posted by Antiramie

How is context not relevant? I'd be more ok with letting a rookie sit knowing I gave away fewer draft picks and have a healthy QB that's won 11 games two years in a row vs what SF did.

I'm not saying you couldn't criticize KC too. But personally I don't think what they did is nearly as risky and should be condemned as much if it backfired.

Because it's short-sighted to judge the trade based on what happens during the QB's rookie year. The 49ers didn't move all those assets for the 2021 season. They made the move to get a long-term answer at the most important position in sports.

Like I said in the part of my post you deleted, the trade will be a success if we look back in 3 years and they have a franchise QB. If they don't, it'll be a failure.

[ToySoldier#34]

Originally Posted by UNC41

If we look back in 3 years and the 49ers have a franchise QB then the trade will be a success. If they don't, it'll be a failure. It's really that simple.

This is correct, making the rookie season pass / fail doesn't quite check out for many reasons, also if a team were to do what SF did and draft someone like Trey Lance they'd be dumb to expect him to deliver in year one.

[Speilmen230]

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by UNC41

Because it's short-sighted to judge the trade based on what happens during the QB's rookie year. The 49ers didn't move all those assets for the 2021 season. They made the move to get a long-term answer at the most important position in sports.

Like I said in the part of my post you deleted, the trade will be a success if we look back in 3 years and they have a franchise QB. If they don't, it'll be a failure.

And having a long term answer doesn't mean much if you can't build around him when your core starts falling apart in 4-5 years and you need those picks you traded away ala Deshaun Watson/Houston.

I didn't say Fields/Jones needs to have immediate success, but having success before their rookie deal is up is very important.

[UNC41]

Originally Posted by Antiramie

And having a long term answer doesn't mean much if you can't build around him when your core starts falling apart in 4-5 years and you need those picks you traded away ala Deshaun Watson/Houston.

I didn't say Fields/Jones needs to have immediate success, but having success before their rookie deal is up is very important.

The Watson trade didn't inhibit Houston from building a team. It was trading away a ton of draft capital for guys like Demaryius Thomas, Tunsil, Conley and Cooks while also trading away picks to other teams so that they'd take Osweiler and Hopkins that hampered Houston.

You said the trade wouldn't be a success if the QB doesn't start this year. That's what I am saying is premature to say. I agree on the rookie deal part.

[Antiramie]

Originally Posted by UNC41

The Watson trade didn't inhibit Houston from building a team. It was trading away a ton of draft capital for guys like Demaryius Thomas, Tunsil, Conley and Cooks while also trading away picks to other teams so that they'd take Osweiler and Hopkins that hampered Houston.

You said the trade wouldn't be a success if the QB doesn't start this year. That's what I am saying is premature to say. I agree on the rookie deal part.

I was talking about them trading draft capital and how it impacted Watson and the team...not them trading up for Watson specifically.

I said, given Jimmy G's health concerns, that SF has to have the mindset that they might need Fields/Jones to start this season. And if one of those guys has to come in and can't get it done it's going to reflect poorly on Lynch for moving up to draft a guy that's not going to be ready if needed. That's very different than KC drafting Mahomes and there being no pressure on him to have to start his rookie year. And what if Jimmy G stays healthy and makes another deep run? Then you have a QB controversy. Every situation is taking an L for the front office unless you get Fields/Jones on the field and they can show they were worth moving up for him.

[Foreverford05]

Alex Smith retires. Probably for the best.

[Lee3691]

As a Browns fan, there is no one that even has me somewhat interested with their first round pick. Hoping they trade out of it for an extra 3 rounder this yea & extra 1st rounder next year.