Mac Jones-QB-49ers

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
No at #3. But they could possibly be that dumb. I just don't see how he is worth #3 overall.

In tennis they call it an unforced error. I can see the signs now if tennis prodigy Mac Jones doesn't pan out. I really haven't moved from my initial take that the players available at the #3 pick didn't justify the trade capital we gave up. There is good news, though. You ready for it? Mac Jones is going to be good. People might still grumble if he's eclipsed by Fields or Lance, but I can't envision Jones being a bust if that's Shanahan's guy. And I don't equate his selection with C.J. Beathard, whose chief attribute seemed to be his ability to get up off the turf after holding it too long and getting nailed. Jones is anticipatory and will succeed.

Originally posted by Giedi:
Well thats the other point Kyle makes. If they *lean* on their athleticism- in his experience he says it delays their pocket QB development. He is saying that, not me. But seeing Steve be a one read and run QB for years, makes me kind of agree with him.

Now you look at Mahomes and the pro Field's/Lance guys say Mahomes did fine developing behind Alex, therefore Fields/Lance will be just fine. But this isn't Fat Andy's offense, this is Kyles offense- one of the more compelx offenses in the NFL. Again, its that athleticism vs intangibles argument --- i don't have the answer to that question, but Kyle will have to come up with one on the 29th, he can't pick two QBs with that #3 pick.

Using that logic it makes sense as to why all the experts have concluded it's Mac. Shanahan has also said his view has evolved and that there are "hundreds" of ways to be good enough, so the question is how patient is he willing to be with a prospect that uses that athleticism but is "good enough" in at least one of those hundred other ways. I don't think it's just intangibles vs athleticism, there's also arm strength, ability to throw with velocity off platform (unless we are counting these under athleticism?). Honestly at this point my only real reservation with Mac at 3 is his arm, he's just not a premium arm talent guy

Originally posted by BSofSF:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
No at #3. But they could possibly be that dumb. I just don't see how he is worth #3 overall.

In tennis they call it an unforced error. I can see the signs now if tennis prodigy Mac Jones doesn't pan out. I really haven't moved from my initial take that the players available at the #3 pick didn't justify the trade capital we gave up. There is good news, though. You ready for it? Mac Jones is going to be good. People might still grumble if he's eclipsed by Fields or Lance, but I can't envision Jones being a bust if that's Shanahan's guy. And I don't equate his selection with C.J. Beathard, whose chief attribute seemed to be his ability to get up after the turf after holding it too long and getting nailed. Jones is anticipatory and will succeed.

I think he is about like Jimmy G. I can't see giving up this much trade capital to get Jimmy G #2. We already got that.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by BSofSF:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
No at #3. But they could possibly be that dumb. I just don't see how he is worth #3 overall.

In tennis they call it an unforced error. I can see the signs now if tennis prodigy Mac Jones doesn't pan out. I really haven't moved from my initial take that the players available at the #3 pick didn't justify the trade capital we gave up. There is good news, though. You ready for it? Mac Jones is going to be good. People might still grumble if he's eclipsed by Fields or Lance, but I can't envision Jones being a bust if that's Shanahan's guy. And I don't equate his selection with C.J. Beathard, whose chief attribute seemed to be his ability to get up after the turf after holding it too long and getting nailed. Jones is anticipatory and will succeed.

I think he is about like Jimmy G. I can't see giving up this much trade capital to get Jimmy G #2. We already got that.

Agree. The trade doesn't make sense. But don't hold it against Jones if he's the pick. He'll be better than Jimmy, and he'll cost significantly less. He's smarter, has better touch of the short stuff that translates to better RAC, and he seems to hit the deep balls with much better accuracy. This is where Jimmy is pretty deficient. Not to mention all of his time on IR.

Originally posted by swayze:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Well thats the other point Kyle makes. If they *lean* on their athleticism- in his experience he says it delays their pocket QB development. He is saying that, not me. But seeing Steve be a one read and run QB for years, makes me kind of agree with him.

Now you look at Mahomes and the pro Field's/Lance guys say Mahomes did fine developing behind Alex, therefore Fields/Lance will be just fine. But this isn't Fat Andy's offense, this is Kyles offense- one of the more compelx offenses in the NFL. Again, its that athleticism vs intangibles argument --- i don't have the answer to that question, but Kyle will have to come up with one on the 29th, he can't pick two QBs with that #3 pick.

Using that logic it makes sense as to why all the experts have concluded it's Mac. Shanahan has also said his view has evolved and that there are "hundreds" of ways to be good enough, so the question is how patient is he willing to be with a prospect that uses that athleticism but is "good enough" in at least one of those hundred other ways. I don't think it's just intangibles vs athleticism, there's also arm strength, ability to throw with velocity off platform (unless we are counting these under athleticism?). Honestly at this point my only real reservation with Mac at 3 is his arm, he's just not a premium arm talent guy

Totally agree. This gets lost often in the pocket-passer vs pocket-passer-with-athleticism debate, but arm strength is another significant trait in being a QB. It's not like arm strength is a black and white concept either, as in there isn't a dividing line between being good enough and not being good enough. Like I hear people say he can make all the NFL throws. No he can't. He can't flick his wrist rolling to the left and send a 60 yard strike to a receiver in stride like Fields does with ease. A guy with limits to his arm will put limits to the playbook. I'm not saying that Mac can't make the common and necessary throws with a clean pocket. He certainly can. But there's throws the other two can make, there's speed in which they can force the ball into a tight window that Mac isn't capable of. Again this begs the question of whether this kind of capital should be used on a guy with legitimate limitations?

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by swayze:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Well thats the other point Kyle makes. If they *lean* on their athleticism- in his experience he says it delays their pocket QB development. He is saying that, not me. But seeing Steve be a one read and run QB for years, makes me kind of agree with him.

Now you look at Mahomes and the pro Field's/Lance guys say Mahomes did fine developing behind Alex, therefore Fields/Lance will be just fine. But this isn't Fat Andy's offense, this is Kyles offense- one of the more compelx offenses in the NFL. Again, its that athleticism vs intangibles argument --- i don't have the answer to that question, but Kyle will have to come up with one on the 29th, he can't pick two QBs with that #3 pick.

Using that logic it makes sense as to why all the experts have concluded it's Mac. Shanahan has also said his view has evolved and that there are "hundreds" of ways to be good enough, so the question is how patient is he willing to be with a prospect that uses that athleticism but is "good enough" in at least one of those hundred other ways. I don't think it's just intangibles vs athleticism, there's also arm strength, ability to throw with velocity off platform (unless we are counting these under athleticism?). Honestly at this point my only real reservation with Mac at 3 is his arm, he's just not a premium arm talent guy

Totally agree. This gets lost often in the pocket-passer vs pocket-passer-with-athleticism debate, but arm strength is another significant trait in being a QB. It's not like arm strength is a black and white concept either, as in there isn't a dividing line between being good enough and not being good enough. Like I hear people say he can make all the NFL throws. No he can't. He can't flick his wrist rolling to the left and send a 60 yard strike to a receiver in stride like Fields does with ease. A guy with limits to his arm will put limits to the playbook. I'm not saying that Mac can't make the common and necessary throws with a clean pocket. He certainly can. But there's throws the other two can make, there's speed in which they can force the ball into a tight window that Mac isn't capable of. Again this begs the question of whether this kind of capital should be used on a guy with legitimate limitations?

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by swayze:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Well thats the other point Kyle makes. If they *lean* on their athleticism- in his experience he says it delays their pocket QB development. He is saying that, not me. But seeing Steve be a one read and run QB for years, makes me kind of agree with him.

Now you look at Mahomes and the pro Field's/Lance guys say Mahomes did fine developing behind Alex, therefore Fields/Lance will be just fine. But this isn't Fat Andy's offense, this is Kyles offense- one of the more compelx offenses in the NFL. Again, its that athleticism vs intangibles argument --- i don't have the answer to that question, but Kyle will have to come up with one on the 29th, he can't pick two QBs with that #3 pick.

Using that logic it makes sense as to why all the experts have concluded it's Mac. Shanahan has also said his view has evolved and that there are "hundreds" of ways to be good enough, so the question is how patient is he willing to be with a prospect that uses that athleticism but is "good enough" in at least one of those hundred other ways. I don't think it's just intangibles vs athleticism, there's also arm strength, ability to throw with velocity off platform (unless we are counting these under athleticism?). Honestly at this point my only real reservation with Mac at 3 is his arm, he's just not a premium arm talent guy

Totally agree. This gets lost often in the pocket-passer vs pocket-passer-with-athleticism debate, but arm strength is another significant trait in being a QB. It's not like arm strength is a black and white concept either, as in there isn't a dividing line between being good enough and not being good enough. Like I hear people say he can make all the NFL throws. No he can't. He can't flick his wrist rolling to the left and send a 60 yard strike to a receiver in stride like Fields does with ease. A guy with limits to his arm will put limits to the playbook. I'm not saying that Mac can't make the common and necessary throws with a clean pocket. He certainly can. But there's throws the other two can make, there's speed in which they can force the ball into a tight window that Mac isn't capable of. Again this begs the question of whether this kind of capital should be used on a guy with legitimate limitations?

Why aren't more people talking about this dime 🎯 #NFLDraft pic.twitter.com/PW2itTUQ4B

— Mac Hereford (@Mac_Hereford) March 31, 2021

Lol right on time

Originally posted by jcs:

Why aren't more people talking about this dime 🎯 #NFLDraft pic.twitter.com/PW2itTUQ4B

— Mac Hereford (@Mac_Hereford) March 31, 2021

That was more of a full body heave while Fields looks like he just tosses a dart across his chest with ease. But I admit he did get it 60 yards. Point still stands that the other two have arms that allow them to make throws that Mac cannot make, reach targets faster.

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by jcs:

Why aren't more people talking about this dime 🎯 #NFLDraft pic.twitter.com/PW2itTUQ4B

— Mac Hereford (@Mac_Hereford) March 31, 2021

That was more of a full body heave while Fields looks like he just tosses a dart across his chest with ease. But I admit he did get it 60 yards. Point still stands that the other two have arms that allow them to make throws that Mac cannot make, reach targets faster.

That was an off platform throw and Mac Jones has plenty arm enough to make every through required of the position and he can do it with consistent ball placement something the other two guys struggle with.

Originally posted by Giedi:
Well thats the other point Kyle makes. If they *lean* on their athleticism- in his experience he says it delays their pocket QB development. He is saying that, not me. But seeing Steve be a one read and run QB for years, makes me kind of agree with him.

Now you look at Mahomes and the pro Field's/Lance guys say Mahomes did fine developing behind Alex, therefore Fields/Lance will be just fine. But this isn't Fat Andy's offense, this is Kyles offense- one of the more compelx offenses in the NFL. Again, its that athleticism vs intangibles argument --- i don't have the answer to that question, but Kyle will have to come up with one on the 29th, he can't pick two QBs with that #3 pick.

Do you know what else can help qb development within the pocket? Not having the pocket collapse .5 seconds after the snap.

Originally posted by Chance:
That was more of a full body heave while Fields looks like he just tosses a dart across his chest with ease. But I admit he did get it 60 yards. Point still stands that the other two have arms that allow them to make throws that Mac cannot make, reach targets faster.

I guess a response to that would be that like Kurt Warner said, once you get to the playoffs, it becomes more about being able to consistently make the layups and free throws that allow your team to get down the field. You start seeing better and better defenses that limit the big plays and you have to be able to methodically move it up and down the field against those defenses. You can be a complete regular season stud and then fall apart in the playoffs because those big plays get taken away, you have to really earn it snap by snap.

Originally posted by BSofSF:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by BSofSF:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
No at #3. But they could possibly be that dumb. I just don't see how he is worth #3 overall.

In tennis they call it an unforced error. I can see the signs now if tennis prodigy Mac Jones doesn't pan out. I really haven't moved from my initial take that the players available at the #3 pick didn't justify the trade capital we gave up. There is good news, though. You ready for it? Mac Jones is going to be good. People might still grumble if he's eclipsed by Fields or Lance, but I can't envision Jones being a bust if that's Shanahan's guy. And I don't equate his selection with C.J. Beathard, whose chief attribute seemed to be his ability to get up after the turf after holding it too long and getting nailed. Jones is anticipatory and will succeed.

I think he is about like Jimmy G. I can't see giving up this much trade capital to get Jimmy G #2. We already got that.

Agree. The trade doesn't make sense. But don't hold it against Jones if he's the pick. He'll be better than Jimmy, and he'll cost significantly less. He's smarter, has better touch of the short stuff that translates to better RAC, and he seems to hit the deep balls with much better accuracy. This is where Jimmy is pretty deficient. Not to mention all of his time on IR.

There's no guarantee that he's better than Jimmy. In fact, it's a lot better chance that he's not.

Originally posted by boomer49er:
There's no guarantee that he's better than Jimmy. In fact, it's a lot better chance that he's not.

If the 49ers draft him, that is Shanahan placing an enormous bet that he is quite a bit better. Maybe he'd be right, maybe he'd be wrong but only time would prove that out one way or the other.

Originally posted by boomer49er:
There's no guarantee that he's better than Jimmy. In fact, it's a lot better chance that he's not.

You could say that with all of the prospects. 40% of first round QB's don't hit, something like that? But I'll trust my eyeballs. I think he'll end up better than Jimmy. Jimmy has a fantastically quick release and he seems to be a well liked leader. He doesn't seem to be a super cerebral QB, and certainly makes 2-3 scary bad throws per game. And he's also got a pretty convincing track record now that he's brittle. I am confident Jones will be better. I'd say the same for Fields. Trey Lance I am a little suspicious of, but maybe. I'm sorry it came to this with Jimmy because I totally supported the guy and enjoyed watching him play. I think he'll do a good job this year and we'll salvage a nice trade for him.

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by jcs:

Why aren't more people talking about this dime 🎯 #NFLDraft pic.twitter.com/PW2itTUQ4B

— Mac Hereford (@Mac_Hereford) March 31, 2021

That was more of a full body heave while Fields looks like he just tosses a dart across his chest with ease. But I admit he did get it 60 yards. Point still stands that the other two have arms that allow them to make throws that Mac cannot make, reach targets faster.

That was an off platform throw and Mac Jones has plenty arm enough to make every through required of the position and he can do it with consistent ball placement something the other two guys struggle with.

It was a practiced throw during a pro day. The tape does not show a lot of off-platform throws of good distance or velocity. There's simply circumstances in which arm strength is beneficial every game. "Whoops, don't have the velocity to get that throw to the receiver before he gets out of bounds." "Whoops, can't put my body into a throw to that wide open receiver there, therefore I'm going to check down here." I'm not saying he can't make all the throws necessary from a clean pocket, but when stuff breaks down as is common in a game, Fields and Lance retain more options at their disposal.