Jimmy Garoppolo, QB, Los Angeles Rams

Originally posted by Sanfran_chrisco:

Drawing Jimmy G every day until he gets traded. Day 404: Last Day ❤️💛 pic.twitter.com/0Imsv5Bd4I

— Rita Oak (@ritaoak_art) March 13, 2023

A bonus drawing of @JimmyG_10 in his new uniform! Good luck, Jimmy! Wishing you all the best! 🫶🏼✨ pic.twitter.com/6Kg6P8Arlr

— Rita Oak (@ritaoak_art) March 14, 2023

Not a chance she didn't plan Shawshank Redemption from day one to be the finale.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
The "BS" I'm referring to is taking a comment from me which was attributing a defense's improvement due "solely" to Jimmy G becoming the starter, and creating a strawman argument that Jimmy "did it by himself." Implying that the defensive players didn't even need to line up, didn't actually make any tackles, didn't actually get any sacks or interceptions. It's simply an intellectually dishonest way of arguing. Do I really have to qualify my statement with "well the defensive players did run out there on defense and make tackles, so they deserve credit?" That is an OBVIOUS truth and one that does not need to be stated. We are all adults here and don't need that type of coddling.

My point was that in 2017, the defensive performance going from bottom 5 to top 5 was due to Jimmy becoming the starter. No other variables changed, none. So Jimmy's play at QB was the difference. Now, did WR's have to catch the ball? Yes. Did Kyle have to call plays? Yes. Did the defense have to make tackles, get sacks, and intercept passes? Yes. But those variables existed BEFORE Jimmy became the starter. So it's not necessary to repeat that those variables also existed after he became the starter.

This "BS" is why this thread is so damn long. Because anytime someone has anything positive to say about Jimmy's contributions, we have to have pages and pages of philosophical discussion about every minute detail. I mean random still can't admit that W/L record is a QB stat, even though it's recorded in the NFL record book lol.

I just reread every single post I made to you since the topic came up and not once did I do what you are claiming in the bolded. In fact I even agreed with you. Ironic that you complain about strawmanning.

With you it wasn't the players. You wanted to give credit to Kyle instead of Jimmy, and you used Mullens and Beathard as your "proof." You literally said that Jimmy "was only 10% better than Mullens" at converting 3rd downs. Jimmy at 50% compared to Mullens at 40% is a tremendous difference, and you tried to minimize it and give the credit to Kyle. Again, anything positive said about Jimmy is met with resistance by the loud minority.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by JTB1974:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Exactly. They all hung their hat on "he sucks" and had to beg Lynch for a job last year. Time to move those goal posts so they can "criticize" him some more. Even though they hate him and don't want to see his thread anymore. Lol

He still got paid like an average QB though which proves his fans wrong that said he was a very good QB, Even top 10 some claimed. Any QB who is close to being a top 10 QB is getting paid much more than $22 Million per year unless they are on a rookie deal. Daniel Jones who is not even top 10 got like $40 Million. Carr got around $37 Million.

He's probably above average but his injury history knocks his value down. Jones is young and improving.

This... He's in the 10-15 range but no team his paying him that much just to get hurt. To act like his extensive injury history has no bearing on his value is just like those who wrongfully said for months that nobody wanted him last year.

Probably closer to 15 but yes.

I'd say 12 to 13 but there's still a good amount of talent in that range like Cousins, Carr, Tannehill, Kyler and so on so even putting him in that 15 area is good. I'd put him ahead Tannehill, Kyler, and on par with Cousins with maybe an ever so slight edge to Carr. It's a good group and I see no shame in Jimmy being in that group.

That's actually what I ranked him in my original QB statistical analysis. But I have nothing in there related to coach input, so I suspect I rank him a spot or two higher than he should be. I'm going to do another one soon, but this time with statistical analysis of four years of data to make sure the win% correlation is as accurate as it could be. But compiling stats takes ages.

Are you also going to do a statistical analysis of kickers and their correlation to win percentage? Because a few in here believe that Robbie Gould influenced the wins more than Jimmy.

Originally posted by frenchmov:

OMG 💀 pic.twitter.com/5aOs2GdjR1

— Brad (@Graham_SFN) March 16, 2023

Dear God.. that's best they got?

Originally posted by Furlow:
So if a team scores a touchdown in one play, that helps the defense the same as scoring a touchdown after a 10 minute drive? Tell me you've never played football (defense anyway) without telling me you've never played football... Hell you don't even have to have played the game to know that being able to rest for an extra 10 minutes helps more than only being able to rest for 30 seconds. I can't with you anymore on this.

For me, the thing that this post is clearly missing is there is a lot more than a 1 play touchdown or a 10 minute touchdown. Does a 1 play touchdown help a defense more than a 5 minute field goal? What about a 10 minute turnover in the redzone? I dont know about that, nor is that something that is really provable.

The point he was making was that touchdowns are more valuable than eating clock. Your rebuttal is "well what about a touchdown that also eats clock?" Obviously a touchdown that eats clock helps the defense more than a touchdown in 1 play.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
The "BS" I'm referring to is taking a comment from me which was attributing a defense's improvement due "solely" to Jimmy G becoming the starter, and creating a strawman argument that Jimmy "did it by himself." Implying that the defensive players didn't even need to line up, didn't actually make any tackles, didn't actually get any sacks or interceptions. It's simply an intellectually dishonest way of arguing. Do I really have to qualify my statement with "well the defensive players did run out there on defense and make tackles, so they deserve credit?" That is an OBVIOUS truth and one that does not need to be stated. We are all adults here and don't need that type of coddling.

My point was that in 2017, the defensive performance going from bottom 5 to top 5 was due to Jimmy becoming the starter. No other variables changed, none. So Jimmy's play at QB was the difference. Now, did WR's have to catch the ball? Yes. Did Kyle have to call plays? Yes. Did the defense have to make tackles, get sacks, and intercept passes? Yes. But those variables existed BEFORE Jimmy became the starter. So it's not necessary to repeat that those variables also existed after he became the starter.

This "BS" is why this thread is so damn long. Because anytime someone has anything positive to say about Jimmy's contributions, we have to have pages and pages of philosophical discussion about every minute detail. I mean random still can't admit that W/L record is a QB stat, even though it's recorded in the NFL record book lol.

I just reread every single post I made to you since the topic came up and not once did I do what you are claiming in the bolded. In fact I even agreed with you. Ironic that you complain about strawmanning.

With you it wasn't the players. You wanted to give credit to Kyle instead of Jimmy, and you used Mullens and Beathard as your "proof." You literally said that Jimmy "was only 10% better than Mullens" at converting 3rd downs. Jimmy at 50% compared to Mullens at 40% is a tremendous difference, and you tried to minimize it and give the credit to Kyle. Again, anything positive said about Jimmy is met with resistance by the loud minority.

No. I only compared the the 40% and 50% thing after you made excuses why the 2020 stats I brought up werent valid. My main argument was about 2020, and only shifted once you dismissed factual evidence and made excuses.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
The "BS" I'm referring to is taking a comment from me which was attributing a defense's improvement due "solely" to Jimmy G becoming the starter, and creating a strawman argument that Jimmy "did it by himself." Implying that the defensive players didn't even need to line up, didn't actually make any tackles, didn't actually get any sacks or interceptions. It's simply an intellectually dishonest way of arguing. Do I really have to qualify my statement with "well the defensive players did run out there on defense and make tackles, so they deserve credit?" That is an OBVIOUS truth and one that does not need to be stated. We are all adults here and don't need that type of coddling.

My point was that in 2017, the defensive performance going from bottom 5 to top 5 was due to Jimmy becoming the starter. No other variables changed, none. So Jimmy's play at QB was the difference. Now, did WR's have to catch the ball? Yes. Did Kyle have to call plays? Yes. Did the defense have to make tackles, get sacks, and intercept passes? Yes. But those variables existed BEFORE Jimmy became the starter. So it's not necessary to repeat that those variables also existed after he became the starter.

This "BS" is why this thread is so damn long. Because anytime someone has anything positive to say about Jimmy's contributions, we have to have pages and pages of philosophical discussion about every minute detail. I mean random still can't admit that W/L record is a QB stat, even though it's recorded in the NFL record book lol.

I just reread every single post I made to you since the topic came up and not once did I do what you are claiming in the bolded. In fact I even agreed with you. Ironic that you complain about strawmanning.

With you it wasn't the players. You wanted to give credit to Kyle instead of Jimmy, and you used Mullens and Beathard as your "proof." You literally said that Jimmy "was only 10% better than Mullens" at converting 3rd downs. Jimmy at 50% compared to Mullens at 40% is a tremendous difference, and you tried to minimize it and give the credit to Kyle. Again, anything positive said about Jimmy is met with resistance by the loud minority.

No. I only compared the the 40% and 50% thing after you made excuses why the 2020 stats I brought up werent valid. My main argument was about 2020, and only shifted once you dismissed factual evidence and made excuses.

The stats were "valid." But you picked the season where Jimmy was playing with a high ankle sprain and eventually was out for the season. So was that intentional on your part to skew the stats in favor of your argument, or did you forget he was playing injured for those 6 games? And assuming you just forgot, how does that one season negate all of the other seasons where Jimmy was clearly head and shoulders better than any other Niners QB during his time here (besides Purdy)?

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So if a team scores a touchdown in one play, that helps the defense the same as scoring a touchdown after a 10 minute drive? Tell me you've never played football (defense anyway) without telling me you've never played football... Hell you don't even have to have played the game to know that being able to rest for an extra 10 minutes helps more than only being able to rest for 30 seconds. I can't with you anymore on this.

For me, the thing that this post is clearly missing is there is a lot more than a 1 play touchdown of a 10 minute touchdown. Does a 1 play touchdown help a defense more than a 5 minute field goal? What about a 10 minute turnover in the redzone? I dont know about that, nor is that something that is really provable.

The point he was making was that touchdowns are more valuable than eating clock. Your rebuttal is "well what about a touchdown that also eats clock?" Obviously a touchdown that eats clock helps the defense more than a touchdown in 1 play.

What's missing is what he actually said, because you didn't quote him. Hmm, I wonder why you would do that? Perhaps to change his point?

Well yes! That's exactly what you did! He did NOT say that touchdowns are more valuable than eating clock. He said "biggest thing that helps a defense is the offense scoring touchdowns. No matter how much time that takes." His quote. Why are you changing it now to fit your narrative?

OF COURSE scoring touchdowns is better than kicking field goals, I never argued that. Another strawman. You guys are great at that though.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
For me, the thing that this post is clearly missing is there is a lot more than a 1 play touchdown of a 10 minute touchdown. Does a 1 play touchdown help a defense more than a 5 minute field goal? What about a 10 minute turnover in the redzone? I dont know about that, nor is that something that is really provable.

The point he was making was that touchdowns are more valuable than eating clock. Your rebuttal is "well what about a touchdown that also eats clock?" Obviously a touchdown that eats clock helps the defense more than a touchdown in 1 play.

Exactly.

Using the 2017 example If our new time of possession was only say 30 minutes but instead of 2 fgs they score two touchdowns increasing the ppg by 8 the 9ers defense is helped by that far more than they are hurt by 2 more minutes on the field.

Originally posted by Furlow:
What's missing is what he actually said, because you didn't quote him. Hmm, I wonder why you would do that? Perhaps to change his point?

Well yes! That's exactly what you did! He did NOT say that touchdowns are more valuable than eating clock. He said "biggest thing that helps a defense is the offense scoring touchdowns. No matter how much time that takes." His quote. Why are you changing it now to fit your narrative?

OF COURSE scoring touchdowns is better than kicking field goals, I never argued that. Another strawman. You guys are great at that though.

It is the biggest advantage. Is a 10 minute drive for a td better than a 2? Sure. But a 10 minute turnover isn't better than a 2 min td drive. Or a FG.

You are making up strawman to argue against.

Other than when trying to run out a game what offense is gonna say f**k this big play td we need to stay on field 10 minutes and hope another td opportunity arises?

Best way to help a defense is score touchdowns. Period.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
The "BS" I'm referring to is taking a comment from me which was attributing a defense's improvement due "solely" to Jimmy G becoming the starter, and creating a strawman argument that Jimmy "did it by himself." Implying that the defensive players didn't even need to line up, didn't actually make any tackles, didn't actually get any sacks or interceptions. It's simply an intellectually dishonest way of arguing. Do I really have to qualify my statement with "well the defensive players did run out there on defense and make tackles, so they deserve credit?" That is an OBVIOUS truth and one that does not need to be stated. We are all adults here and don't need that type of coddling.

My point was that in 2017, the defensive performance going from bottom 5 to top 5 was due to Jimmy becoming the starter. No other variables changed, none. So Jimmy's play at QB was the difference. Now, did WR's have to catch the ball? Yes. Did Kyle have to call plays? Yes. Did the defense have to make tackles, get sacks, and intercept passes? Yes. But those variables existed BEFORE Jimmy became the starter. So it's not necessary to repeat that those variables also existed after he became the starter.

This "BS" is why this thread is so damn long. Because anytime someone has anything positive to say about Jimmy's contributions, we have to have pages and pages of philosophical discussion about every minute detail. I mean random still can't admit that W/L record is a QB stat, even though it's recorded in the NFL record book lol.

I just reread every single post I made to you since the topic came up and not once did I do what you are claiming in the bolded. In fact I even agreed with you. Ironic that you complain about strawmanning.

With you it wasn't the players. You wanted to give credit to Kyle instead of Jimmy, and you used Mullens and Beathard as your "proof." You literally said that Jimmy "was only 10% better than Mullens" at converting 3rd downs. Jimmy at 50% compared to Mullens at 40% is a tremendous difference, and you tried to minimize it and give the credit to Kyle. Again, anything positive said about Jimmy is met with resistance by the loud minority.

No. I only compared the the 40% and 50% thing after you made excuses why the 2020 stats I brought up werent valid. My main argument was about 2020, and only shifted once you dismissed factual evidence and made excuses.

The stats were "valid." But you picked the season where Jimmy was playing with a high ankle sprain and eventually was out for the season. So was that intentional on your part to skew the stats in favor of your argument, or did you forget he was playing injured for those 6 games? And assuming you just forgot, how does that one season negate all of the other seasons where Jimmy was clearly head and shoulders better than any other Niners QB during his time here (besides Purdy)?

I picked the season where 3 quarterbacks played with the same roster. It was an attempt to minimize needing a ton of extra context, and provide stats played in similar situations.

There was nothing intentional to skew the stats, and you thinking that just proves you cannot be unbiased about the conversation. That absolutely wasnt the intention.

One season doesnt "negate" the other seasons. But every season is different, for obvious reasons. Comparing Jimmy in 2022 and Brian Hoyer in 2017 tells you what exactly? Comparing Jimmy in 2017 and Hoyer in 2017 should tell you much more...the results of that should be obvious.

What is interesting is that Purdy and Jimmy converted 3rd downs at same rate (48.2% for Jimmy and 47.9% for Purdy).

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
What's missing is what he actually said, because you didn't quote him. Hmm, I wonder why you would do that? Perhaps to change his point?

Well yes! That's exactly what you did! He did NOT say that touchdowns are more valuable than eating clock. He said "biggest thing that helps a defense is the offense scoring touchdowns. No matter how much time that takes." His quote. Why are you changing it now to fit your narrative?

OF COURSE scoring touchdowns is better than kicking field goals, I never argued that. Another strawman. You guys are great at that though.

It is the biggest advantage. Is a 10 minute drive for a td better than a 2? Sure. But a 10 minute turnover isn't better than a 2 min td drive. Or a FG.

You are making up strawman to argue against.

I never argued the bolded. Strawman.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So if a team scores a touchdown in one play, that helps the defense the same as scoring a touchdown after a 10 minute drive? Tell me you've never played football (defense anyway) without telling me you've never played football... Hell you don't even have to have played the game to know that being able to rest for an extra 10 minutes helps more than only being able to rest for 30 seconds. I can't with you anymore on this.

For me, the thing that this post is clearly missing is there is a lot more than a 1 play touchdown of a 10 minute touchdown. Does a 1 play touchdown help a defense more than a 5 minute field goal? What about a 10 minute turnover in the redzone? I dont know about that, nor is that something that is really provable.

The point he was making was that touchdowns are more valuable than eating clock. Your rebuttal is "well what about a touchdown that also eats clock?" Obviously a touchdown that eats clock helps the defense more than a touchdown in 1 play.

What's missing is what he actually said, because you didn't quote him. Hmm, I wonder why you would do that? Perhaps to change his point?

Well yes! That's exactly what you did! He did NOT say that touchdowns are more valuable than eating clock. He said "biggest thing that helps a defense is the offense scoring touchdowns. No matter how much time that takes." His quote. Why are you changing it now to fit your narrative?

OF COURSE scoring touchdowns is better than kicking field goals, I never argued that. Another strawman. You guys are great at that though.

Ok well I am saying it. It has nothing to do with being a strawman. Your point that a 1 play touchdown drive helps the defense less than a 10 minute touchdown drive is a silly point to make because its common sense...which again, no one was arguing against. You are all over the place here. Your original point was about TOP helping the defense, to which he replied touchdowns help more. Then you attempted to combine the two points as if that somehow was a good rebuttal to his argument.

It would be interesting to see if there is any data on this. What is more important to a defense, points or rest. Because the original argument was TOP vs. TDs....and YOU made it something different.

Its comical that you are claiming we are using strawmans, when that literally is exactly what you are doing.