QB Nick Mullens is now a Viking

Anybody have a tally of how many of his 7 INTs bounced off our receivers hands? I recall Trent Taylor's and Goody's this week but I think there were at least 1 or 2 more.. anyone know?

This last game against another top tier D will go a long way in assessing his future value either as Trade-Bait or long-term back-up.

If he lights it up [I hope we lose so we can possible get Bosa] his value will go way up.

If he tanks - then a reality check is the order of the day.

If in-between, IMO, his value will still increase.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by scottym:

Hard for me to believe there is another player more valuable than Mullins for only a 3rd.At this point he looks like a good known quantity.

Mullens is a solid QB, but his production is pretty inflated due to Shanahan's system. If you learn the offense, most any QB will look competent. Shanny schemes guys WIDE open on a regular basis. Easy money for the QB if hes getting the ball out on time.

If hes traded to JAX he'll come back to earth. But by then we'll have the draft pick.

So then why didn't CJ or Hoyer look this good?

Because they suck. I never said Mullens wasn't a solid QB. Hes just not as good as he looks in Shanahan's offense. In Jacksonville hed look a lot more pedestrian, I guarantee that.

Yardage wise, he has the 3rd highest production through his first 7 starts in NFL history. Obviously hes not THAT good in actuality.

Your words "If you learn the offense, most any QB will look competent. Shanny schemes guys WIDE open on a regular basis. Easy money for the QB if hes getting the ball out on time." Seems we can just plug ANYONE in to do that.

No one said he's the 3rd best QB in history, but thanks for proving our point for us. Any team wanting to trade for him will have to give up a 3rd, MINIMUM. Otherwise we'll just keep him as a backup. Hell one could make an argument for trading JG for more picks and cap space, to build the team around Mullens and his cheap contract.

Were 4-21 without Garoppolo. Were 6-2 with him. Obviously you cant just throw ANYONE in there and succeed. Theres a reason the 49ers paid Jimmy. Hes got huge upside, and Shanahan and Lynch know their tenures in the NFL as coach and GM will be short lived if they try to plug in mediocre backup types in there. We found a guy with legit potential. Stop trying to downplay the rarity of finding this type of leader because he got hurt and a backup looks decent.

Sorry, but anyone who is short sighted enough to think we should trade or cut Garoppolo because of what Nick Mullens has shown is a flat out derp.

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by scottym:

Hard for me to believe there is another player more valuable than Mullins for only a 3rd.At this point he looks like a good known quantity.

Mullens is a solid QB, but his production is pretty inflated due to Shanahan's system. If you learn the offense, most any QB will look competent. Shanny schemes guys WIDE open on a regular basis. Easy money for the QB if hes getting the ball out on time.

If hes traded to JAX he'll come back to earth. But by then we'll have the draft pick.

So then why didn't CJ or Hoyer look this good?

Because they suck. I never said Mullens wasn't a solid QB. Hes just not as good as he looks in Shanahan's offense. In Jacksonville hed look a lot more pedestrian, I guarantee that.

Yardage wise, he has the 3rd highest production through his first 7 starts in NFL history. Obviously hes not THAT good in actuality.

Your words "If you learn the offense, most any QB will look competent. Shanny schemes guys WIDE open on a regular basis. Easy money for the QB if hes getting the ball out on time." Seems we can just plug ANYONE in to do that.

No one said he's the 3rd best QB in history, but thanks for proving our point for us. Any team wanting to trade for him will have to give up a 3rd, MINIMUM. Otherwise we'll just keep him as a backup. Hell one could make an argument for trading JG for more picks and cap space, to build the team around Mullens and his cheap contract.

Were 4-21 without Garoppolo. Were 6-2 with him. Obviously you cant just throw ANYONE in there and succeed. Theres a reason the 49ers paid Jimmy. Hes got huge upside, and Shanahan and Lynch know their tenures in the NFL as coach and GM will be short lived if they try to plug in mediocre backup types in there. We found a guy with legit potential. Stop trying to downplay the rarity of finding this type of leader because he got hurt and a backup looks decent.

Sorry, but anyone who is short sighted enough to think we should trade or cut Garoppolo because of what Nick Mullens has shown is a flat out derp.

I said you could make the case, I didn't say that's what I think we should do. But good to see you backpedaling from your previous position on Mullens.

Originally posted by frankieuc68:

Originally posted by 9moon:
maybe u all are just misunderstanding me.... the point I'm making is that Mullen is NOT a starter... he is capable, but no means that he can be a real starter in this league... he just isn't... he's pretty similar to Fitzpatrick... he can have a great game one Sunday then back down to earth the following week..

we should keep him, yes, because he can win games (here and there) for us if or when our starter is hurt...

Wait, what? We already know this after 7 games? Or because he's undrafted and not the athletically gifted type? I know everything is stacked against him, but after 7 games I can't make that conclusion.

OK, you be the (Tampa Bay or Giants or Jags or Cincy or Washington) GM, how much at this stage would you offer for Mullen to QB for your team??

Originally posted by Niners99:
Were 4-21 without Garoppolo. Were 6-2 with him. Obviously you cant just throw ANYONE in there and succeed. Theres a reason the 49ers paid Jimmy. Hes got huge upside, and Shanahan and Lynch know their tenures in the NFL as coach and GM will be short lived if they try to plug in mediocre backup types in there. We found a guy with legit potential. Stop trying to downplay the rarity of finding this type of leader because he got hurt and a backup looks decent.

Sorry, but anyone who is short sighted enough to think we should trade or cut Garoppolo because of what Nick Mullens has shown is a flat out derp.

People are welcome to their opinion.

For all we know Jimmy G is never the same again.....

Not that i personally believe that, I am certain Jimmy G is a rare talent and glad we have him. I hope Mullens is legit and awesome, but you don't drop the best QB the 49ers have had in recent memory because of a young QB with some promise.

I'd extend Mullens this offseason through Jimmy's contract before he has any inclining of being a FA. Then decide what to do with Jimmy going forward at the end of his contract or decide to go with Nick instead going foward.

Originally posted by mayo49:
I'd extend Mullens this offseason through Jimmy's contract before he has any inclining of being a FA. Then decide what to do with Jimmy going forward at the end of his contract or decide to go with Nick instead going foward.

VERY good call!

Mullen's deserve to get another contract..

Originally posted by 9moon:

Originally posted by frankieuc68:

Originally posted by 9moon:

maybe u all are just misunderstanding me.... the point I'm making is that Mullen is NOT a starter... he is capable, but no means that he can be a real starter in this league... he just isn't... he's pretty similar to Fitzpatrick... he can have a great game one Sunday then back down to earth the following week..

we should keep him, yes, because he can win games (here and there) for us if or when our starter is hurt...

Wait, what? We already know this after 7 games? Or because he's undrafted and not the athletically gifted type? I know everything is stacked against him, but after 7 games I can't make that conclusion.

OK, you be the (Tampa Bay or Giants or Jags or Cincy or Washington) GM, how much at this stage would you offer for Mullen to QB for your team??

Moon, my stance on Mullens has always been he's perfect for our system and we should keep him. He's young and perfect insurance to JG if he's not ready or God forbid he gets injured again. Now if a team presented us an offer we can't refuse, I would seriously consider it which we can use to upgrade a starting position. My issue with your post was that you said he's only a backup material after only 7 games. Maybe, maybe not. That's not enough of games under his belt to lean one way or the other IMO. Fitzpatrick had played and started multiple seasons to know he's mediocre. He has enough sample size to declare he's backup material

Originally posted by frankieuc68:
Moon, my stance on Mullens has always been he's perfect for our system and we should keep him. He's young and perfect insurance to JG if he's not ready or God forbid he gets injured again. Now if a team presented us an offer we can't refuse, I would seriously consider it which we can use to upgrade a starting position. My issue with your post was that you said he's only a backup material after only 7 games. Maybe, maybe not. That's not enough of games under his belt to lean one way or the other IMO. Fitzpatrick had played and started multiple seasons to know he's mediocre. He has enough sample size to declare he's backup material

You could say the same thing about Beathard. Fans are always quick to jump on a player when he has a rough stretch and just as quick to call them great after a few games. It sometimes takes 2-3 years to really evaluate a players real value.

I wonder if Herbert's decision causes some desperate team to give a 1/2 for guys like Mullens and Bridgewater... Mullens for a 1st and trading our pick for a draft load could net us two 1st's, two 2nd's, two 3rd's and two 1st's and two 2nd's next year. A long shot but with this new Herbert news, who knows..

Originally posted by HarboutTHAT:
I wonder if Herbert's decision causes some desperate team to give a 1/2 for guys like Mullens and Bridgewater... Mullens for a 1st and trading our pick for a draft load could net us two 1st's, two 2nd's, two 3rd's and two 1st's and two 2nd's next year. A long shot but with this new Herbert news, who knows..

Teddy will be an UFA.

I think any player who has been in the NFL for a couple years and has a few good games under his belt is usually more valuable than any college player. He has experience and has proven he can play in the league. No college QB has that. Big difference between potential and performance. Unless the college player is a generational talent like Elway, Marino or Luck I would rather have the guy that's done it if I was looking for results in the next 5 years. If I was looking long term then maybe I go for the college guy but looking more than 5 years ahead in the NFL is really a crap shoot with injuries, free agency and coaches getting fired.In the NFL right now there are about 6 or 7 QB's that have been starting for the same team for 5 or more years.

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by HarboutTHAT:
I wonder if Herbert's decision causes some desperate team to give a 1/2 for guys like Mullens and Bridgewater... Mullens for a 1st and trading our pick for a draft load could net us two 1st's, two 2nd's, two 3rd's and two 1st's and two 2nd's next year. A long shot but with this new Herbert news, who knows..

Teddy will be an UFA.

Yeah, sorry didn't realize it was a one year contract. The post was more about Mullens...