Jimmy G and Baker M must feel like yesterday's meatloaf???

Shanahan thinks Trey Lance is the next Josh Allen, he’s delusional. 

I don't think he is delusional. I think he knows better. I just think he was in such a rush to get away from Jimmy G and his noodle arm that he overreached. I think he believes Jimmy G lost them a Super Bowl. I mean, he completely took him out of the gameplan in the NFC Championship that season but he couldn't do that in the Bowl. Not facing Patrick Mahomes. And I forget Jimmy G's stat line for that game. Maybe it was serviceable but I analyzed every single one of Jimmy G's passes that season. I formed a theory in game 1, that his knee was affecting his plant, and therefore affecting his accuracy and velocity, and replayed every subsequent pass, often in Slo-Mo, to prove my theory. A lot of my closest friends and a few family members are Niners fans so whenever I watched a game with one, I would point it out and do my Slo-Mo thing. I would tell them, as they were getting hyped for the playoffs, that the Niners would only go as far as Jimmy G's wounded ducks would take them. The rest is history. I think baby Shan feels like one got away from him, and it caused him to overreach on Lance. That was a very weak QB pool. The last few have been pretty weak.

I always said Trey Lance should have been playing last season as the starter...You have to throw him into the fire and have him make all his mistakes that all rookie QB's make...Now this season is his rookie season...Expect the awful bad games...When you draft a QB that high you have to play him right away unless what was the the reason for drafting him so high for.. Either he was ready and warranted being drafted so high or he was not and was overdrafted... Sure Maholmes has a great 2nd year after sitting his entire 1st year but Lance is so raw....Bad move by the 49ers to not play him right away last season....

Regarding Jimmy..Why would any team trade for him and his $25 million salary when they can get him if he is released for 1/3rd of the price. Well all know what Jimmy is...Will never carry a team but more of a game manager...So for $25 million...and give up a 2nd/3rd round pick.....

How do you know he's even a real person?   Can you prove it?

Everything you said is right but they made it to the NFC championship last year which points to why he didn't start the whole year. The Niners overachieved. People try to knock baby Shane but he is a damn good coach and took that team, solid at most positions except for QB, CB, and S, some of the most important positions, took them to an NFC championship. So overachieving and falling short just means nothing but a lower draft position and a wasted year which should've been Trey Lance's throwaway year.

The good news is Shan's offense is super simple for a QB. It's just his version of his dad's offense. Zone blocking. Running the ball. He has such an understanding of it that if they were allowed to cut like they did in Denver, it would be nearly unstoppable.

“One Play Trey” is not the guy...yet. When you have a Super Bowl contending team you need to be very careful in deciding to go with an inexperienced QB. Assuming Jimmy G comes back from his injury okay -- he is a top-15 QB...and there is no doubt he is a top-15 QB. I have written extensively on this elsewhere. He has the intangibles you do not get with an average QB that may be more physically talented. When you have a QB that consistently wins -- and wins some games he should not win -- you really better be correct when replacing him. There are certainly things he does well, like having a quick release and reading defenses well. There are some things he needs to work on, like not taking as many sacks and he does not have the zip or mechanics he should have. When your QB has the huddle presence and leadership skills that Jimmy G has, you have to be very careful when deciding whether to replace him with another QB just because that QB can run and has a stronger arm.
Garoppolo could lose every game this year and still have well over a .500 record. He has a better winning percentage than Wilson or Rodgers has. A better winning record than Big Ben or Peyton Manning, Brees had, etc. etc. It would be understandable if it had been only one or two years -- then you could say it was a team thing or he was lucky or he had an outlier couple of years. But that is not the case. He has consistently made his teams better. He also has one of the best ATS records as well. So, he consistently wins with his team.
The situation is that even handicappers do not know what to make of him for this reason. For example, usually there is a large drop-off in starter to backup QB. But last year after the shoulder hit there was some doubt who would start in Green Bay. This was a quote:

"Jimmy Garoppolo is one of the most polarizing QBs I can remember when it comes to the point spread.
Some bookmakers say he's 2.5 points better than Lance, others say there's no drop-off at all and one NFL savant just told me Lance is better and I think he's serious.
Amazing."

Another example:

“It’s not just about how good the starter is, it’s also what we think of the backup,” Circa Sports sportsbook manager Chris Bennett told NESN. “And I don’t think we have the backup figured out in this case because he’s a rookie and he’s only had a little bit of playing time.
“We kind of have something to draw on. It was the game when the Niners faced the Texans near the end of the season. At the beginning of the week, the presumption was that Garoppolo was going to start. San Francisco was favored by 15 in the market. Information got out on Tuesday that Garoppolo was hurt and might not start, so the line got as low as 11.5. Then it closed 14 at kickoff with Lance.
“So it really wasn’t a big difference (-15 to -14) in that scenario.”

Then you have this sort of idea:

"Lucky enough to get 7 wins with Lance. My guess, best 5-12 and without Deebo S., they are in the deep bottom 5 of the NFL"

So, it is easy to see how polarizing the situation has been made now, There is no doubt that Lance has a high ceiling. But is he really the guy you want to take over a top 3-4-5 NFC team when you do not know if he can really take you to the next level or not? The question is not even can he do it but is he even ready?

The bigger issue is now you have unnecessarily created a huge QB controversy. Now your starter -- no matter who it is -- will be looking over their shoulder after every single bad throw or series. That is why they now have to wait until Jimmy G is okayed by the doctor and trade him. If that takes too long and the teams all have their slots set at QB -- then they will have another issue. Shanahan should have squelched this, no matter what he was really thinking.
Now as soon as they trade Jimmy G -- I promise you they will be looking for their next potential franchsie-QB. Because Lance is not ready to be the guy they hoped he would be -- and they were not willing to give him time to develop.
Consider, even taking over the exact same team, what are the chances that Lance will have the winning percentage year-in-and-year-out that Jimmy G has had? Very, very slim -- because he would have to be in the top 3 QB right away -- AND, every year. The worst thing would be for the team and Lance to have a great year and barely miss the SB or lose the SB. Then the expectations would be unrealistic as they lose players and players get old. They would have to maintain the team around a young unproven guy that probably did well because the rest of the team made him look better than he was. Whereas, with Jimmy G, they could have tried to take the next step by addressing other long-term signings, trades, etc. It is not as if Brady or Rodgers was stepping in to replace Jimmy G.

The only way forward now is to trade Jimmy G and hope Lance can have a great 'rookie' year and the rest of the team can do enough to win the games and not depend on him to have to do it. Shanahan is a sharp guy and they drafted Lance because they saw something in him -- so, I am sure he is committed at this point. But the chances of Lance being long-term the winner they already have is not that high. Or as clutch as Jimmy G has been. This is slightly outdated now, but for example:

"...his passer rating in the fourth quarter is 105.9, and in the fourth quarter when the game is within seven points, it's 112.4."

It would be different if this was Andrew Luck they had drafted or someone like that with a history at an elite level -- Lance just does not have that. But now the team, has to unload Jimmy G and move forward and maybe they can take the next step this year. Lance with his strong arm and legs will give them something that Jimmy G could not. I just do not see that translating into more wins, or more crucial wins.

@Raiders22

 Jimmy G has been trash since injuring his knee. Record is no indicator, as many of those games were won in spite of Jimmy G. Look at his touchdown to interception ratio as one indicator. The Niners are kind of forked though because they overreached on Trey. So you have shell of his former self has been Jimmy G and unproven never was Trey Lance.

@StumpTownStu

 That’s not the statistic I would look at the most, considering his offense and talents.  I have already broken down all of his stats in the other thread in detail.  But for sure winning does matter and he wins and always has won.  But to say they won in spite of him indicates another QB could step in and do better.  That is not the case.  As I have explained in detail — he is a top half QB and not as easily replaced as fans think.  Maybe Lance pans out.  But as I stated before it is a very risky proposition to think he will be an upgrade.  

As far as being a shell of his former self — maybe, maybe not.  Time will tell.  Maybe he does not heal from the injury well enough.  In that case it will be a good thing they have Lance.  

But it is not luck that he ranks right with Brady and Rodgers as far as winning percentage. 

For example, look at Shanahan’s record with him and without him.  Jimmy G ain’t that bad — if healthy.  It is just that everyone wants the next Brady or Rodgers. 

@Raiders22

 You think he is a top half candidate. I have watched all of his games, and broken down his throwing mechanics, and I would disagree. You say they didn't win some games in spite of him. I say they won an NFC Championship game where he attempted like seven passes because Kyle knew he was shite. So he took him completely out of the game plan. If you watched 9ers games, really watched them, all of them, you would see they have won games in spite of him. They have won games because of him too but if you watched his actual mechanics, watched his throws, you would know he sucks. That doesn't mean Trey Lance is the answer but Jimmy G is not a too half QB. My theory is the injury to his knee affects his plant, therefore affecting his velocity and his accuracy. Before that injury he was on the verge of being very special. Since the injury he throws a horrible ball. It's why the Niners want to move on. It's why nobody wants him. And to hold up his win/loss record, and his QBR in the 4th quarter, but say his interceptions should not be looked at is completely asinine.

Not dismissing his interceptions at all.  Just do not care for the TD/Int ratio statistic.  They are not related like people think they are.  Certainly, ints matter.  But look at how well Stafford did last year despite all of his ints.  I can give you a lot of data on why that is a bad stat to use as a yardstick.  In statistics it is what we would refer to as a noisy statistic.  You cannot take them in a vacuum at all.

I always like to back my points up — so I will give you some quotes from others from how useless this is to make this a ratio.  

But that is a whole different matter.  Sure, he is absolutely a top-half QB.  The numbers show it.  Even his great rating late in one-score games would indicate that his td/ratio would be better in clutch time.  

I have always had issues with his mechanics and his game management skills. The bigger issue is his lack of responsibility — or willingness to take blame.  Maybe he has gotten better about this lately, I do not know.  I wrote an awful lot about this and in great detail in the other thread.  

You can say the Packers win games despite Rodgers — as I pointed out he is awful at coming from behind — but, yet, they still do it from time to time, etc.  So, sure, it is still a team sport.  But to dismiss his winning percentage as a QB is wrong to do.   You can still have mechanical issues fundamentally and still have the other winning intangibles that he has.  

There is no doubt in my mind that he is a top-half QB when he is healthy.  All the numbers show this.  It isn’t not even up for debate.  Now you can argue whether he has a weak arm or has bad mechanics.  I am not saying that he doesn’t.  I am saying I would take him over any other athletic QB that hasn’t proved he can win like he has.  He has proved this year in and year out.  It was not like he had one or two good years.  He is consistent.  He is not one of those checkdown QBs — he is trying to win the games.

That is why I am saying the 49ers are about to take a real chance now that they have decided to go with the QB with the ‘more upside’.  

Now if they really, truly feel Lance is a top-15 QB — then by all means, give him a shot.  I just do not think he is — but I know Jimmy G is.  

But things change quickly, and Todd is the last — and will surely remain the last — quarterback to lead the NFL in TD/INT Ratio with a sub-2.00 rate.  When Ryan Fitzpatrick(31/15) or Ryan Tannehill (24/12) throw twice as many touchdowns as interceptions, it sounds good, but it really isn’t.  It’s just average now.  And given the randomness of interceptions, a few bad bounces can really torpedo a quarterback’s ratio given the rising tides at play.

TD/INT Ratio likely emerged as a “key” quarterback statistic because passer rating is incredibly complicated and silly, while passing yards are simple to understand but have almost no correlation to success.  TD/INT Ratio suffers from some of the same flaws as passer rating in that the correlation to winning is tricky — trailing quarterbacks tend to throw interceptions, so the causation arrow runs both ways — but that makes nice antidotes to pure passing yards (if you want a high correlation to winning) and passer rating (if you value simplicity).

But then think about Montana.  He retired with the best TD/INT Ratio in NFL history, courtesy of 273 touchdowns and 139 interceptions.  That’s a 1.96 ratio. Yet, given the recent trend lines, that will likely slow in as below-average in 2016. If that’s not a good enough reason to look at all TD/INT Ratios with a skeptical eye,

That is a partial quote from an article.  But as you know the NFL offenses have gotten so efficient nowadays that some of that stats do not really compare across the eras.  Look at how high the completion percentage is today, etc., etc. 

So, at one time the ratio may have mattered for the casual fan.  But from an efficiency or analytical standpoint — today it is at best out-dated.  Many other stats are better used to grade a QB. 

“TD/INT ratio was always an overblown statistic, but in today's game it is essentially meaningless. TD% is highly influenced by goal line play calling, while INT% is clouded by game situation, playing style, and a heavy dose of randomness. Neither TD's or INT's say much about the quarterback's ability, so when you put them together it just compounds the distortion. If we used TD-INT difference instead of ratio, it would be slightly less problematic, but still bad. The ratio method exacerbates randomness, as the more random of the two numbers (INT's) is the denominator, which inadvertently gives INT's several times the weight of TD's. For example:

QB A: 40 TD, 5 INT
QB B: 10 TD, 1 INT

Anyone in their right mind would choose the productivity of QB A over QB B, but TD/INT ratio thinks QB B is better. It's a terrible metric, plain and simple, and football analysis would be better off without it.”

“I almost get the feeling that the stat was created to somehow "put a check" on thinking a QB is great because he throws a lot of TD's. As in, "Man, Joe Blow is awesome, he threw 40 TD's last year!" "Yeah, but hold on buddy, he's not that great because he also threw a lot of picks", etc.

So it's like, "Hey, let's take the best thing that can happen when a QB throws the ball, and put it together with the worst thing that can happen". In some kind of yin-yang way of thinking, maybe it's alright, but it doesn't seem like they can be related, as Adam notes.”

"but it doesn't seem like they can be related"

Exactly. If you're going to use a ratio to measure something, the numerator should be a subset of the denominator (completions / attempts) OR the two numbers should be direct opposites (hot days / cold days). TD passes and INT's aren't a subset of each other, nor are they opposites; they're two unrelated events.”

“Another reason TD/INT sucks is because it's focused exclusively on rare events, while ignoring the vast majority of a quarterback's plays. Touchdowns and interceptions COMBINED only comprise roughly 6% of QB dropbacks. Do we really want to put so much emphasis on a metric that ignores 94% of a QB's passing plays?”

“An int could happen on any throw.”

”True, but that's what INT% is for. Generally when people use TD/INT ratio, it's lazy shorthand for the entirety of a quarterback's performance (while ignoring important stats like NY/A).”

”I think it would be a mistake to stop using td-int ratio. If you want to argue that it isn't particularly useful as a single season metric, I won't argue too strenuously. But surely it still has use as a career measure. I don't agree with Adam that "neither td's or int's say much about the quarterback's ability". Over the course of a full career, a QB who throws a lot of TDs while avoiding turnovers is going to really help his team. And the ability of players like Rodgers, Wilson, Brady, Mcnabb, etc. to maintain a strong ratio of TDs to picks is a major reason why their teams have won so many games.”

“"Baseball players hit a lot more home runs than they did fifty years ago. But a guy who's consistently near the top in home runs is still likely to be one of the best players in MLB today."

That's true, but HR's are a relatively pure measure of skill, whereas TD passes are not. Batters have roughly the same opportunity to hit a HR every time they come to the plate, and their chances of doing so are not influenced by teammate interaction. Furthermore, nobody in baseball is dividing home runs by an unrelated event and calling it a meaningful statistic.

If TD/INT ratio had a baseball equivalent, it would be something like HR/GIDP (grounded into double play). Bill James would laugh at such a metric.”

“Again, it just seems like an attempt to put the best and worst thing that can happen on a pass play together in one stat. Although not quite the same thing, would we even consider a TD/fumble ratio for running backs? Of course not...TD's for a RB is an important stat, as is FUM%, but we don't put them together in one stat (or do we? I've never seen it!)”

“I think TD throwing is essentially a byproduct of other aspects of QB play (in addition to a litany of other variables out of his control). Good QB's throw more TD's because they get into the red zone more often, not because they have some special ability to complete passes specifically in the end zone. As you alluded to, there's nothing a QB can do to really get better or worse at throwing TD's, other than just becoming a better or worse passer overall. QB's can consciously choose to trade INT's for sacks and vice versa, or trade Comp% for Y/C, but what can they trade for more TD passes? Nothing I can think of.

Interesting that you bring up a hypothetical TD/FUM ratio for running backs. That never crossed my mind before...and maybe that's the point!”

“But fumbles by a RB and INTs aren't really the same thing, beyond the fact that they both count as turnovers. Throwing downfield is a much more complex task than just carrying the ball. A QB can avoid INTs by making pre snap reads, anticipating where DBs will be positioned, throwing accurately downfield, avoiding cross body throws, avoiding tips by DL at the line of scrimmage, etc. A QB can also cut down on INTs by avoiding risky throws altogether. But if he does this, he's unlikely to maintain a high TD rate. Rodgers and Brady are the best at doing both. That's a big part of why they have been the two most productive QBs in the league since 2007.”

”WR - totally get what you're saying. Yes, fumbles and INT's aren't quite the same, I brought it up because the TD/FUM thing smacks of the same kind of thinking as TD/INT. But they're different, yes.

But here's the crux of the matter with your argument I believe - it's your opinion that (not) throwing interceptions is related to throwing TD's, based on your statement, "But if he does this [avoiding risky throws altogether], he's unlikely to maintain a high TD rate." And so this is what we need to look at. I looked at all QB's from 1970-2015 who threw over 100 touchdowns (career) and the correlation between TD's and INT's for these passers is 0.70; meaning the more TD's a QB has thrown, the more INT's they throw (and vice-versa) which basically supports what you're saying. Of course, the problem there is that the more passes of any kind that a QB throws, the more likely he is to throw both TD's and INT's anyway, so I'm not sure we can use that. How about rate stats? Here, we have a different story: looking at the same QB's, we get a correlation of -0.03 when comparing TD% to INT%, which means there is no connection. And this makes sense to me, and it's why comparing these two events is difficult. If you say to me that TD% and INT% aren't the same because an INT can happen at any time, and TD's usually don't happen anywhere on the field, etc. and thus you can't make this correlation, I'd completely agree with you.

Take a look at the chart...some guys throw a lot of TD's (per attempt) and a lot of INT's. Some guys throw a lot TD's and not that many INT's, etc., etc. Yes, Rodgers and Brady are great because they don't throw picks and they throw TD's. I'm on board with that, and I agree that TD/INT perhaps has some interest in career stats, in a yin-yang/bad-good type of way. But I just can't really take it seriously as anything other than that, in the sense that they aren't really related.”

Okay. That’s enough of all of that.  Just to point out to you how some others feel that that is not a great yardstick is all and why they feel hat way.  I have never felt it was a good one.  The ones I broke down in the other thread that do matter would better to me to determine QB value to a team.  

There are for sure some stats that Jimmy G is not a top-15 QB in.  I admit there are issues with his mechanics—there always have been.  

I just think — for all the reasons I put in the other thread — that people look too quickly to the next ‘big name QB’.  They are always looking for the next Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Manning, etc.  They just do not realize how very, very rare those guys are and, therefore, do not appreciate when they have an above average QB already. 

They should have kept both QBs and let Lance develop without turning it into a QB controversy.  

Now to me they go from a top 3-4-5 NFC team to maybe a top 10 NFC team, maybe. 

This is something I just pulled up real quick, so not sure how up to date it is.  

The San Francisco 49ershad a record of 8-27 without Jimmy Garoppolosince 2017.

The San Francisco 49erswere 31-15 with Jimmy Garoppolosince 2017.

So, when he is healthy, there is no doubt how great his winning percentage is.  

Now you can make the point that you want and need a heathy QB because Jimmy G is injury prone.  But that is not what they are indicating. They are really indicating that Lance is their franchise guy.  Maybe he will be.  Time will tell I guess.  

@Raiders22

 Using Stafford as a comparison is laughable and really just strengthens my point. Last year Stafford threw for about 900 yards more than Jimmy did in his best and one full season one about 125 more attempts. Granted, this was in a 17 game season rather than 17. He threw for 14 more touchdowns and still had a better TD:Int ratio. He's been asked to do more in his offenses than Jimmy G ever has. If you understand Kyle's offense, which is a version of his father's zone blocking run oriented offense, you will realize that he isn't asked to do much. They pound the ball. Kyle's passing plays don't feature a ton of reads. Often one or two, then a check down. Completely different than McVay's offense. Jimmy hypothetically capable of managing a multiple read progression, having ran the Erhartd-Perkins offense in New England, but that's not what he has been asked to do. If you watch his interceptions, they haven't come because he is asked to be the driving force of the offense, because he is trying to push the ball down field. They have come because he has thrown weak, fluttering, wounded duck passes, often off of his back foot. I think this is a direct result of the knee injury sustained in his first full season in SF. He has seemed apprehensive about driving off of his plant leg. For a QB, this always leads to passes that passes that lack both velocity and accuracy. Passes that float. I think it is more mental than physical. If he can correct this, he still has potential. If he can correct it.

I think Kyle overreached on Trey. That was a very weak QB class, and in many years he would've been a 2nd or 3rd round project. I am not sold on him as the future so I'm definitely not sold on him as the presence. However, I understand Kyle's urgency to move on from Jimmy. I'll illustrate this by comparing both offenses Jimmy has run.

In the New England Erhardt-Perkins you may have as many as five viable reads. They utilize two TE sets, H-backs, etc. And these guys are all running short slants and outs, etc. You don't need a rocket arm. Brady didn't have a cannon. Mac Jones definitely does not. You just have to make the correct read.

In Kyle's offense, on any given play, there may be all sorts of movement, guys running picks, decoys, etc but there may be only one actual read. It's based upon buying time, and if everything goes according to plan, that one read should be open but you often need to buy time with your legs for it to develop, and fire it in there when the opening develops. If it doesn't develop, you check it down. It's simplified for a QB but you need athleticism and arm strength. Two things Jimmy currently lacks. This is why Kyle was in such a rush to move on from Jimmy. He loved him when he first came to SF and felt he was their franchise QB. He has been a shell of his former self since his knee injury though.

Look at his post season performance. In 6 games he is 4-2. Pretty good, right? In those games he has thrown for about 960 yards. He has thrown 4 TDs against 6 ints.

To bring up his QBR in the 4th quarter, I would have to ask in how many of those games was he playing from behind forced to throw vs. how many of those games did he has a lead, and wasn't asked to throw the ball much?

Like I said, if Jimmy G was a top 15 QB, why doesn't anybody want him. Why did the Browns sign Watson. Why aren't the Texans interested? Why didn't the Seahawks target him as a one/two year bridge QB? Pittsburgh. Denver. Dettoit. Why did Kyle gamble his career on an unproven FCS QB?  It isn't simply questions about his health, as it relates to his latest injury. There are major questions surrounding both his throwing strength AND accuracy.

@StumpTownStu

 No. My point was simply that Stafford that he didn’t have an elite ratio — like a Rodgers or Brady — yet, still won the SB.  It is just not a very valid stat to use.  There are way more stats to grade a QB, offense, or team efficiency on.  That is all my point is about that stat.  Stafford was just the obvious example.