Would you rather...

The way Gabbert is playing leaves me uneasy. He's not blowing anyone away but is playing well enough to give him a chance. I get the feeling if all he does is not embarrass himself the FO and coaching staff will get another year.

I still don't believe Baalke and Tomsula are the guys to lead us to a Super Bowl. I can see this turning into a drawn out Mike Nolan type deal where they just show enough every year to give them another chance and prolong the mediocrity.

This is a weird question as it shouldn't have an effect on building a team, drafting a certain position...possibly

Gabbert has shown game by game improvement. He still has some weak points, like not completing enough long passes and not converting enough third downs.

However, his improvements have not plateaued yet. When they do it will be time to judge.

At the moment he is much better that Kaepernick had been all season and a lot of last season

I wouldn't hope for any 49er player to FAIL. I'm all for wanting the best option at each position, period.

Why would anyone vote for option B? Gabbert thriving is a win-win situation, good QBs are hard to come across, if you have one it is a very good thing.

Gabbert has surpassed my expectations of him, in hindsight maybe Kaep not playing many snaps in pre season was a bad move for himself and the team in general as he came into the regular season underdone and seemed to loose all confidence whereas Gabberts confidence has grown from his pre season performance

I agree with your second paragraph. We need certainly a better....or make that the BEST HC. We don't have that. He may be terrific, but I would prefer someone that is more apt to make decisions quicker, eg, in switching players from starter to second string. Same goes for coaching. He coaches not to lose, the death knell for a coach who wants to make it. Losers do that. Winners coach to win. They may take chances at times. But you never sit around wondering if they should be there ...or not.
NJ, your premise overlooks the fantastic gift we have been given. We have a guy who can actually make the O work. Just a quick check and you know the last QB didn't or couldn't do that. Hence we changed QBs. Now the gift is that blaine was used initially to see if the OL would look better with another Qb,...instead of being non functional as with kap. Well, surprise to me, he could . He wasn't great , but for a guy who hadn't played in 2 1/2 yrs, he did pretty damn well behind an OL that is truly a piece of krapt. So now we have a guy who for 4 games anyway, has been able to make the team work, and has actually had us win a game...or 2. And that is with the most God awful OL in the NFL, this yr or any in the past. These guys, C to RT stink. And that is being generous. So if gab makes you feel uneasy,, how the heck do you think he feels every time he snaps the ball? His OL has failed him, he has his #1 RB out of commission and his RB right now was selling cars 5 weeks ago.

You are entitled to say you think he may embarrass himself out there. Well, put yourself in his shoes and try playing Qb with 1200 lbs of muscle flying at you the moment you snap the ball. To me the kid is doing amazingly well considering the lack of practice he has had, the total lack of an OL and further the fact his #1 RB is on the bench. So you can feel as you do,....but for my money, blaine has done exceptionally well , based on who is protecting him,, and worse, who is the HC calling the plays or the OC who calls the plays in. Blaine has got zero to work with no matter where you look. And still he makes it work. Not great, but at least the team works. From week 3 until kap was replaced, I didn't think anybody could accomplish that.

Lastly, the gift is he is playing well enough thru 4 games to earn the right to start another 4. After that, depending on how he does, he may be playing well enough to be our bridge QB to the 2017 season. We will need a yr to get our 3 starting OLs, ( mack/pounce in FA), 1 DT starter, and 1 passrushing OLB starter. That would thereby allow us to draft /FA the 5 guys we must have to be a serious team vs another Cleveland. Build our lines first and then assuming blaine can QB us to 2017, we can get a franchise QB if one is available, or with real luck, maybe he is the guy. 2016 I would be happy bringing in a pair of UDFA Qbs and see if one has "it" to be in the NFL.

Dude played well against good teams with garbage players

That is a pretty extreme line of questioning, isn't it?

The answer to your poll is neither.

To bank the entire future of the 9ers on Blaine Gabbert and build a team around him based on 3 games is absolutely ridiculous just like wishing Gabbert to fail is.

My version of the answer is let Gabbert be the gap QB, draft Goff to groom behind Gabbert and let the chips fall as they may in camp in year 2. Hopefully, by then Goff can emerge and we won't have to give Gabbert that huge starting QB contract. We have a window of 1 year to make that happen.

I'd take having a franchise QB over just about anything, especially losing. And even a franchise QB probably won't be able to save Tomsula.

Would rather Gabbert succeed, of course. QB is a huge piece of the puzzle. We get that position right, a lot of other things will fall into place naturally.

Originally posted by BodhiPaddlesOut:
I'd take having a franchise QB over just about anything, especially losing. And even a franchise QB probably won't be able to save Tomsula.

This. Its a false proposition. I don't think even a top flight QB makes enough of a difference to give Tomsula a third year based off of what I've seen this season. Gabbert can be successful AND Tomsula can still be gone after next season.

Originally posted by Rascal:

That is a pretty extreme line of questioning, isn't it?

The answer to your poll is neither.

To bank the entire future of the 9ers on Blaine Gabbert and build a team around him based on 3 games is absolutely ridiculous just like wishing Gabbert to fail is.

My version of the answer is let Gabbert be the gap QB, draft Goff to groom behind Gabbert and let the chips fall as they may in camp in year 2. Hopefully, by then Goff can emerge and we won't have to give Gabbert that huge starting QB contract. We have a window of 1 year to make that happen.

Yes and no, because like I said if Gabbert just shows he is competent it probably kills our chances at drafting someone like Goff. One our draft position will be too low and would require trading up. Two of you feel like Gabbert is the answer and he wins 2 more games does that mean Tomsula gets another shot? He needs to fail and lose the next 4 games in order to even get a shot at Goff. He also needs to lose the next four games to have a shot at ditching Tomsula.

Also let's say Gabbert does keep losing and Goff is available but we keep Tomsula. Now in 2016 another bad year and Tomsula still doesn't win. Now a new coach and new system has put Goff in 2 systems in 2 years and you're back to an Alex Smith situation. Or maybe the new coach doesn't fit Goffs style and you a situation where the coach tries to push the QB out like in Washington.

I just see Gabbert as settling and setting back the direction of this franchise till 2018. I'd much rather him fail get the right staff and right QB and be relevant for the next 10 years.

Originally posted by nj9er:
Yes and no, because like I said if Gabbert just shows he is competent it probably kills our chances at drafting someone like Goff. One our draft position will be too low and would require trading up. Two of you feel like Gabbert is the answer and he wins 2 more games does that mean Tomsula gets another shot? He needs to fail and lose the next 4 games in order to even get a shot at Goff. He also needs to lose the next four games to have a shot at ditching Tomsula.

Also let's say Gabbert does keep losing and Goff is available but we keep Tomsula. Now in 2016 another bad year and Tomsula still doesn't win. Now a new coach and new system has put Goff in 2 systems in 2 years and you're back to an Alex Smith situation. Or maybe the new coach doesn't fit Goffs style and you a situation where the coach tries to push the QB out like in Washington.

I just see Gabbert as settling and setting back the direction of this franchise till 2018. I'd much rather him fail get the right staff and right QB and be relevant for the next 10 years.

Well, first of all, let's take the coaching situation out of the equation cos there is no telling even if Gabbert were to lose out from this point on Tomsula will definitely get fired. We don't know that.

The point of contention is on drafting Goff. Is really quite simple and you have mentioned about it too, if we don't take Goff in this coming draft, we won't have a chance to draft a top QB prospect at the top of the 1st again as common sense says Gabbert might steady our performance a bit and we might climb to the middle of the pack, thus we won't be drafting high enough to have that option again.

So, the issue is what happens after Gabbert takes us back up the middle of the pack? What happens if he is maxed out then and can't takes us any further? And we won't have a potential QB talent waiting in the wings nor will we have a high enough draft pick to take a top QB at the top of the 1st? We will be well stuck! That is the issue.

Originally posted by Rascal:

That is a pretty extreme line of questioning, isn't it?

The answer to your poll is neither.

To bank the entire future of the 9ers on Blaine Gabbert and build a team around him based on 3 games is absolutely ridiculous just like wishing Gabbert to fail is.

My version of the answer is let Gabbert be the gap QB, draft Goff to groom behind Gabbert and let the chips fall as they may in camp in year 2. Hopefully, by then Goff can emerge and we won't have to give Gabbert that huge starting QB contract. We have a window of 1 year to make that happen.

Yes and no, because like I said if Gabbert just shows he is competent it probably kills our chances at drafting someone like Goff. One our draft position will be too low and would require trading up. Two of you feel like Gabbert is the answer and he wins 2 more games does that mean Tomsula gets another shot? He needs to fail and lose the next 4 games in order to even get a shot at Goff. He also needs to lose the next four games to have a shot at ditching Tomsula.

Also let's say Gabbert does keep losing and Goff is available but we keep Tomsula. Now in 2016 another bad year and Tomsula still doesn't win. Now a new coach and new system has put Goff in 2 systems in 2 years and you're back to an Alex Smith situation. Or maybe the new coach doesn't fit Goffs style and you a situation where the coach tries to push the QB out like in Washington.

I just see Gabbert as settling and setting back the direction of this franchise till 2018. I'd much rather him fail get the right staff and right QB and be relevant for the next 10 years.

Originally posted by Rascal:

Originally posted by nj9er:

Yes and no, because like I said if Gabbert just shows he is competent it probably kills our chances at drafting someone like Goff. One our draft position will be too low and would require trading up. Two of you feel like Gabbert is the answer and he wins 2 more games does that mean Tomsula gets another shot? He needs to fail and lose the next 4 games in order to even get a shot at Goff. He also needs to lose the next four games to have a shot at ditching Tomsula.

Also let's say Gabbert does keep losing and Goff is available but we keep Tomsula. Now in 2016 another bad year and Tomsula still doesn't win. Now a new coach and new system has put Goff in 2 systems in 2 years and you're back to an Alex Smith situation. Or maybe the new coach doesn't fit Goffs style and you a situation where the coach tries to push the QB out like in Washington.

I just see Gabbert as settling and setting back the direction of this franchise till 2018. I'd much rather him fail get the right staff and right QB and be relevant for the next 10 years.

Well, first of all, let's take the coaching situation out of the equation cos there is no telling even if Gabbert were to lose out from this point on Tomsula will definitely get fired. We don't know that.

The point of contention is on drafting Goff. Is really quite simple and you have mentioned about it too, if we don't take Goff in this coming draft, we won't have a chance to draft a top QB prospect at the top of the 1st again as common sense says Gabbert might steady our performance a bit and we might climb to the middle of the pack, thus we won't be drafting high enough to have that option again.

So, the issue is what happens after Gabbert takes us back up the middle of the pack? What happens if he is maxed out then and can't takes us any further? And we won't have a potential QB talent waiting in the wings nor will we have a high enough draft pick to take a top QB at the top of the 1st? We will be well stuck! That is the issue.

I completely agree. I think that's the worst case scenario is to be comfortable with Gabbert, and for those who just want to win no matter what I feel are only focused on the short term. I don't want to win a game here or there or has off and on winning seasons. I want to go back to what we were in the 89s and 90s. I'm looking to be a team like the Steelers, Patriots, Packers, or Colts have been. We got a taste of it and management flushed it all away. This Gabbert situation just draws this out at least another year.

Maybe we will get lucky and keep a high draft position and use it to take a QB high, ideally drop a spot and still get out guy and pick up some more ammo. I just don't have the confidence in Baalke to take a QB high when Gabbert has shown some ability to run the offense. Now I don't know enough about these QBs to say Goff will or won't be the guy just that the organization needs to feel comfortable in whatever QB they take high can be a franchise QB.