There are 883 users in the forums
Shop 49ers game tickets
Originally posted by Niners99:Meanwhile, Garoppolo took over a crap roster with 20+ guys on IR, and has us looking like a playoff team. But the Kap excuses about roster talent will continue.
Originally posted by Niners99:Meanwhile, Garoppolo took over a crap roster with 20+ guys on IR, and has us looking like a playoff team. But the Kap excuses about roster talent will continue.
Originally posted by AmpLee:Originally posted by NCommand:Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:https://www.profootballweekly.com/2017/12/20/way-we-hear-it-how-we-expect-the-san-francisco-49ers-to-deal-with-jimmy-garoppolos-contract/aq96eti/
All of this now begs a fascinating question: How will the 49ers handle Garoppolo's contract situation in the offseason? He is an unrestricted free agent-to-be come March, and there's still quite an interesting debate afoot. After all, how do you value a potential franchise quarterback after making what could be a total of seven NFL starts, with only five of them coming with your team?
The most obvious answer is that the 49ers could place the franchise tag on Garoppolo. However, in speaking to people who are familiar with how the 49ers do business, we don't believe that will be the end game here.
Kirk Cousins might be as close to a comp as we have with Garoppolo, who is proving to be quite the unique circumstance, and Cousins had made 25 starts before Washington franchised him the first time. So even that's apples to oranges.
Franchising Garoppolo the next two seasons, as Washington has done with Cousins, would ensure Garoppolo almost $50 million guaranteed. And you could argue that Garoppolo would earn more guaranteed on the open market next spring than Cousins would, if they both were set free.
But that's not likely to be the case, and the 49ers know that franchising Garoppolo could end up just kicking the can down the road and being a cost-prohibitive move over the long term. It would cost the 49ers more than $23 million this year alone, and what would happen if Garoppolo played even better next season? It would cost them more.
Hard as it might be to think about a player who signed for more than $70 million guaranteed, but Derek Carr took a discount to stay with the Oakland Raiders. So did Matthew Stafford, who earned $22 million more than Carr did guaranteed, in staying with the Detroit Lions. Had either player hit the open market, the prices only would have been higher.
That's how the 49ers are viewing the Garoppolo negotiations. They traded for him, got him on the cheap (a high second-round pick) but now must pay in the form of long-term cash. The franchise tag doesn't appear to be their best option at all.
There's always the chance he fails, of course. Look at Carr's struggles this season. Or think about what happened to Joe Flacco after he signed his post-Super Bowl deal. But it's the price of doing business, and that's what the 49ers appear to realize. Taking Carr a step forward, if he was a free agent this coming offseason — as he was originally slated to be — he still would get a monster deal, even with a poor 2017 season. That's the positional value of quarterback in the NFL today.
So we expect the 49ers to sign Garoppolo to a deal that is something in line with what the Kansas City Chiefs and Miami Dolphins paid their quarterbacks, Alex Smith and Ryan Tannehill, respectively, in 2014 and 2015. Add annual inflation, which in the NFL is as much as 10 percent, and you could be looking at, at the very minimum, a four-year extension in the neighborhood of at least $85 million to $90 million total — with somewhere around 40 to 50 percent of it guaranteed, and a big chunk of it coming in the first two years of the deal.
(If you extend the deal to five or six years, the overall numbers go up, but Garoppolo might want to bet on himself and try to hit the market again following his age-30 season.)
And those first two years of any deal he signs would clearly have to be north of the franchise guarantee — the 2018 tender, plus a 120-percent kicker in 2019 — that almost certainly would exceed $50 million. Is that expensive to pay a player with so little experience? Yes, but we believe the 49ers have the foresight to know that it could be more costly for them to avoid paying that now and have it end up costing them more later.
That's nearly identical to what an agent said (I posted a link previously in here)...3 or 4 year deal in this neighborhood, revisiting FA around 30 years old.
I hope we lock him up for five years. A 3 year deal would be somewhat disappointing.
Originally posted by BleedsRedNGold:
Originally posted by okdkid:Wilson? He's a gimmicky ass QB in a gimmicky offense. I'd rather have Goff.
**Take your fandom off before answering**
Name all of the QBs (when healthy) you would take over Garoppolo right now. I can't name more than four.
Brady
Wentz
Wilson
Rodgers
Not Newton. Not Big Ben. Not Brees. Not Ryan. I can't find another QB.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by swoosh6996:
The very threat of him scrambling makes him a threat, and that right there opens up everything for him. Take the scrambling ability away and i believe he is not a top 10 QB.
As good as he is now, Jimmy will be a nightmare to defend in this offense next year. He's already proving it behind this rag-tag group of scrubs we have at on the o-line and in the WR corp. I imagine next year we won't even be having these "would you rather have over Jimmy" discussions.
His ability to scramble is probably the only reason he's still alive.
Give him an even average NFL OL and I think he'd be fine sitting back in the pocket and flinging it.
He runs mostly because he has no choice. Not his fault that Seattle is historically awful at drafting OL. They've spent more picks on OL over the past 5 years than any other team and have basically nothing to show for it.
Originally posted by Wu-5Rings:"Baalke doesn't have a draft class to hang his hat on. Excluding 2010, which is clouded by the transition from McCloughan.
Baalke's 61 draft picks since 2011 have amounted to just two Pro Bowls and one All-Pro nomination."
But but but but... Keapernick????? Really??? WoW amazing how people still here creating a false narrative.
https://www.google.com/amp/ninerswire.usatoday.com/2016/10/10/this-is-all-your-fault-trent-baalke/amp/
Tisk, tisk, tisk. Facts don't lie. Sheesh.
Jimmy make sure John Lynch takes care of you thats all I'm saying. Don't know what anyone else is saying. Alot of baalke apologists up in here.
Originally posted by NCommand:Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:https://www.profootballweekly.com/2017/12/20/way-we-hear-it-how-we-expect-the-san-francisco-49ers-to-deal-with-jimmy-garoppolos-contract/aq96eti/
All of this now begs a fascinating question: How will the 49ers handle Garoppolo's contract situation in the offseason? He is an unrestricted free agent-to-be come March, and there's still quite an interesting debate afoot. After all, how do you value a potential franchise quarterback after making what could be a total of seven NFL starts, with only five of them coming with your team?
The most obvious answer is that the 49ers could place the franchise tag on Garoppolo. However, in speaking to people who are familiar with how the 49ers do business, we don't believe that will be the end game here.
Kirk Cousins might be as close to a comp as we have with Garoppolo, who is proving to be quite the unique circumstance, and Cousins had made 25 starts before Washington franchised him the first time. So even that's apples to oranges.
Franchising Garoppolo the next two seasons, as Washington has done with Cousins, would ensure Garoppolo almost $50 million guaranteed. And you could argue that Garoppolo would earn more guaranteed on the open market next spring than Cousins would, if they both were set free.
But that's not likely to be the case, and the 49ers know that franchising Garoppolo could end up just kicking the can down the road and being a cost-prohibitive move over the long term. It would cost the 49ers more than $23 million this year alone, and what would happen if Garoppolo played even better next season? It would cost them more.
Hard as it might be to think about a player who signed for more than $70 million guaranteed, but Derek Carr took a discount to stay with the Oakland Raiders. So did Matthew Stafford, who earned $22 million more than Carr did guaranteed, in staying with the Detroit Lions. Had either player hit the open market, the prices only would have been higher.
That's how the 49ers are viewing the Garoppolo negotiations. They traded for him, got him on the cheap (a high second-round pick) but now must pay in the form of long-term cash. The franchise tag doesn't appear to be their best option at all.
There's always the chance he fails, of course. Look at Carr's struggles this season. Or think about what happened to Joe Flacco after he signed his post-Super Bowl deal. But it's the price of doing business, and that's what the 49ers appear to realize. Taking Carr a step forward, if he was a free agent this coming offseason — as he was originally slated to be — he still would get a monster deal, even with a poor 2017 season. That's the positional value of quarterback in the NFL today.
So we expect the 49ers to sign Garoppolo to a deal that is something in line with what the Kansas City Chiefs and Miami Dolphins paid their quarterbacks, Alex Smith and Ryan Tannehill, respectively, in 2014 and 2015. Add annual inflation, which in the NFL is as much as 10 percent, and you could be looking at, at the very minimum, a four-year extension in the neighborhood of at least $85 million to $90 million total — with somewhere around 40 to 50 percent of it guaranteed, and a big chunk of it coming in the first two years of the deal.
(If you extend the deal to five or six years, the overall numbers go up, but Garoppolo might want to bet on himself and try to hit the market again following his age-30 season.)
And those first two years of any deal he signs would clearly have to be north of the franchise guarantee — the 2018 tender, plus a 120-percent kicker in 2019 — that almost certainly would exceed $50 million. Is that expensive to pay a player with so little experience? Yes, but we believe the 49ers have the foresight to know that it could be more costly for them to avoid paying that now and have it end up costing them more later.
That's nearly identical to what an agent said (I posted a link previously in here)...3 or 4 year deal in this neighborhood, revisiting FA around 30 years old.
Originally posted by Niners99:Originally posted by Wu-5Rings:"Baalke doesn't have a draft class to hang his hat on. Excluding 2010, which is clouded by the transition from McCloughan.
Baalke's 61 draft picks since 2011 have amounted to just two Pro Bowls and one All-Pro nomination."
But but but but... Keapernick????? Really??? WoW amazing how people still here creating a false narrative.
https://www.google.com/amp/ninerswire.usatoday.com/2016/10/10/this-is-all-your-fault-trent-baalke/amp/
Tisk, tisk, tisk. Facts don't lie. Sheesh.
Jimmy make sure John Lynch takes care of you thats all I'm saying. Don't know what anyone else is saying. Alot of baalke apologists up in here.
LOL talk about deflection. The delusion is real. Literally NOBODY is a Baalke apologist. The NFL adjusted to Kap, and he had NO answer. Period.
I dont see any All-Pro's on this team, yet Garoppolo has been incredible. Excuses, excuses. Just admit that Kap wasn't legit. He had a great team, a great coach, and ran an offense that the NFL was unprepared to stop. After that, he fell apart, because his fundamentals were non-existent. Poor mechanics, didnt go through progressions, no touch, no accuracy, no pocket presence, etc.
Originally posted by littleken:
Originally posted by BleedsRedNGold:
Originally posted by okdkid:Wilson? He's a gimmicky ass QB in a gimmicky offense. I'd rather have Goff.
**Take your fandom off before answering**
Name all of the QBs (when healthy) you would take over Garoppolo right now. I can't name more than four.
Brady
Wentz
Wilson
Rodgers
Not Newton. Not Big Ben. Not Brees. Not Ryan. I can't find another QB.
I wouldn't include Wilson or Golf. The Rams gave Golf everything, McVay, solid OL, good receivers, Gurley, and he still had only a good season (not that impressive of a season to be honest).
Regarding on Watson, I seriously think it might be a somewhat of a gimmick offense this season and his production might not be sustainable going forward.
Without considering age, I would take Brady, Rodgers, Wentz, and Brees.
Factoring age, only Wentz would be in consideration. If he didn't torn his ACL I would take Wentz, but with the torn ACL, I probably won't take him over Jimmy G.
Originally posted by Wu-5Rings:I agree Wu, look at the speed we have now. Goodwin. I wanted Baalke to draft a speedster to free up the underneath routes and he never did that. He's was absolutely clueless as a GM. Jed wasn't any better as an owner back then. He pretty much kowtowed to Baalke. After the fans raked his behind over a bed of hot coals, finally he got a back bone and fired the doofus and hired somebody (ShanaLynch) with the proper hierarchy design. I think Jed has turned the corner, proof is in the pudding though, i.e. if he can stay out of football and just be a good owner - he'll get my trust in him back.
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by Wu-5Rings:
"Baalke doesn't have a draft class to hang his hat on. Excluding 2010, which is clouded by the transition from McCloughan.
Baalke's 61 draft picks since 2011 have amounted to just two Pro Bowls and one All-Pro nomination."
But but but but... Keapernick????? Really??? WoW amazing how people still here creating a false narrative.
https://www.google.com/amp/ninerswire.usatoday.com/2016/10/10/this-is-all-your-fault-trent-baalke/amp/
Tisk, tisk, tisk. Facts don't lie. Sheesh.
Jimmy make sure John Lynch takes care of you thats all I'm saying. Don't know what anyone else is saying. Alot of baalke apologists up in here.
LOL talk about deflection. The delusion is real. Literally NOBODY is a Baalke apologist. The NFL adjusted to Kap, and he had NO answer. Period.
I dont see any All-Pro's on this team, yet Garoppolo has been incredible. Excuses, excuses. Just admit that Kap wasn't legit. He had a great team, a great coach, and ran an offense that the NFL was unprepared to stop. After that, he fell apart, because his fundamentals were non-existent. Poor mechanics, didnt go through progressions, no touch, no accuracy, no pocket presence, etc.
If that makes you sleep at night 🤙🏽
The facts still remain though. Not one draft class..
That's embarrassing as a GM. Patch work doesn't always work, it's a hard lesson that I want to avoid.
Surround Jimmy with quality draft picks..
Originally posted by Wu-5Rings:If that makes you sleep at night 🤙🏽
The facts still remain though. Not one draft class..
That's embarrassing as a GM. Patch work doesn't always work, it's a hard lesson that I want to avoid.
Surround Jimmy with quality draft picks..
Originally posted by AmpLee:
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
I think it's more like 3 year deal , with the last 1 or 2 years facilitating an easier out for both side—extension, restructure, free agency, etc.
You want 2 big contracts within the extent of his career, not just one big long deal. Don't think any qb would want that, especially a franchise qb.
A 5 year deal would put him in line for a new contract at 31 years old, well within the prime of a QB for another major contract. The other thing that could happen is that a QB may take a discount to keep winning after already obtaining a lucrative initial contract. If he's only paid on a three year deal, chances are he won't be taking a discount on a subsequent deal.
Originally posted by AmpLee:Originally posted by qnnhan7:I think it's more like 3 year deal , with the last 1 or 2 years facilitating an easier out for both side—extension, restructure, free agency, etc.
You want 2 big contracts within the extent of his career, not just one big long deal. Don't think any qb would want that, especially a franchise qb.
A 5 year deal would put him in line for a new contract at 31 years old, well within the prime of a QB for another major contract. The other thing that could happen is that a QB may take a discount to keep winning after already obtaining a lucrative initial contract. If he's only paid on a three year deal, chances are he won't be taking a discount on a subsequent deal.
Originally posted by TheRickestRick:Originally posted by littleken:Originally posted by BleedsRedNGold:Wilson? He's a gimmicky ass QB in a gimmicky offense. I'd rather have Goff.Originally posted by okdkid:**Take your fandom off before answering**
Name all of the QBs (when healthy) you would take over Garoppolo right now. I can't name more than four.
Brady
Wentz
Wilson
Rodgers
Not Newton. Not Big Ben. Not Brees. Not Ryan. I can't find another QB.
I wouldn't include Wilson or Golf. The Rams gave Golf everything, McVay, solid OL, good receivers, Gurley, and he still had only a good season (not that impressive of a season to be honest).
Regarding on Watson, I seriously think it might be a somewhat of a gimmick offense this season and his production might not be sustainable going forward.
Without considering age, I would take Brady, Rodgers, Wentz, and Brees.
Factoring age, only Wentz would be in consideration. If he didn't torn his ACL I would take Wentz, but with the torn ACL, I probably won't take him over Jimmy G.
Brees, Brady, Rodgers and Wentz are the only Qbs operating at a consistently higher level than Jimmy GQ right now all things considering.
Wilson is a no because he HAS to rely on his legs in order to have any success. Jimmy GQ doesnt have to rely on going off-script to move the chains, but has the ability to do so when needed.
Goff and Watson have the same potential but if all 3 were put in the same exact situation, you go with the guy with the experience and tutelage.
Other Considerations:
Big Ben: Good but that offense has become non-functional at times where Antonio Brown and Bell arent on their game. Could you imagine the past three games with Brown as the #1 WR rather than Goodwin...or just having his interior O-line... points off for Ben.
Matty Ice: JG is already ahead of where Ryan was at this point with his first few months with Shanny, sooo nope.
Outside of Blake Bortles doing his best 2013 Flacco impression and Wilsons 2 minute warning heroics... there isnt much of an argument to take anyone not in the top 4 listed over Jimmy GQ.
Originally posted by Giedi:I agree Wu, look at the speed we have now. Goodwin. I wanted Baalke to draft a speedster to free up the underneath routes and he never did that. He's was absolutely clueless as a GM. Jed wasn't any better as an owner back then. He pretty much kowtowed to Baalke. After the fans raked his behind over a bed of hot coals, finally he got a back bone and fired the doofus and hired somebody (ShanaLynch) with the proper hierarchy design. I think Jed has turned the corner, proof is in the pudding though, i.e. if he can stay out of football and just be a good owner - he'll get my trust in him back.
