Garoppolo: Stay or Go?

[Montalban]

Yeah, also think it was the first time a trade included three 1st for one 1st? But even though not involving three 1st rounders, the Goff trade and i think Mariota trades involved a LOT of draft capital? The Wentz trade was big too, if you include all the moves made. Anyway, we don't have a 1st rounder for the next two years, not next three.

If the Rams can trade away a LOT for a CB, and the Seahawks do the same for a Safety, then it isn't too bad for a franchise QB. I didn't like the trade when it was first annoucned, but after reading more afterward, i get the reasons for being bold.

That's right, We do have a pick in '24. Speaking of the Rams, I think they went a long time without a first round pick.

 

[deep9er]

That's right, We do have a pick in '24. Speaking of the Rams, I think they went a long time without a first round pick.

I think the Rams went/are going 5 years without a 1st? The Goff and then Jalne Ramsey trades back to back.

Seattle gave up a lot for Jamaal Adams.

Anyway, as we've all known since the 49ers mega trade was made, it all depends on how well Lance pans out? So far so good, and IF he pans out 'franchise QB', thats well worth it.

If Seattle made this trade o draft Russell Wilson, would Seattle say it was well worth it?

 

[deep9er]

That's right, We do have a pick in '24. Speaking of the Rams, I think they went a long time without a first round pick.

Just read the Seahawks are having a hard time extending Jamaal Adams?! They gave up two 1st round picks for him last year, and took their chances with his contract.

Adams is good no doubt, however they might end up paying him franchise money next season. But for now, they MIGHT have an unhappy Safety that cost them two 1st rounders?

 

[Montalban]

Just read the Seahawks are having a hard time extending Jamaal Adams?! They gave up two 1st round picks for him last year, and took their chances with his contract.

Adams is good no doubt, however they might end up paying him franchise money next season. But for now, they MIGHT have an unhappy Safety that cost them two 1st rounders?

Well, let’s hope Lance plays a lot better than he did on Saturday against the Chiefs. I think he will

 

[deep9er]

Well, let’s hope Lance plays a lot better than he did on Saturday against the Chiefs. I think he will

I think EVERYONE feels he will.

 

[Montalban]

I think EVERYONE feels he will.

I think you were one of the proponents of Fields before the draft and after watching both games, Fields looks light years ahead of our guy. We'll see, he did throw some nice balls early before the pressure rattled him.

 

[deep9er]

I think you were one of the proponents of Fields before the draft and after watching both games, Fields looks light years ahead of our guy. We'll see, he did throw some nice balls early before the pressure rattled him.

Prior to the draft i did feel Fields was the pick.

I felt the physical abilities were similar but Fields' 'resume' was at a much higher level of competition. Not only the opponents he played against but in big college games, and even bigger Bowl games. So i felt Fields was better with that 'intangible'. It isn't surprising if Fields starts out better than Lance, everone had predicted this before the draft.

At this point i'm just very happy to see Lance is ahead of everyone's schedule. To me there is no reason to push him as game 1 starter, just let him gain experience and things will work out.

 

[deep9er]

I think you were one of the proponents of Fields before the draft and after watching both games, Fields looks light years ahead of our guy. We'll see, he did throw some nice balls early before the pressure rattled him.

BTW - That said about Fields, i also felt Mac Jones could be good too if in fact he has a lot of intangibles? A high level of intangibles combined with passing skills, makes for a very good NFL QB.

 

[Montalban]

Prior to the draft i did feel Fields was the pick.

I felt the physical abilities were similar but Fields' 'resume' was at a much higher level of competition. Not only the opponents he played against but in big college games, and even bigger Bowl games. So i felt Fields was better with that 'intangible'. It isn't surprising if Fields starts out better than Lance, everone had predicted this before the draft.

At this point i'm just very happy to see Lance is ahead of everyone's schedule. To me there is no reason to push him as game 1 starter, just let him gain experience and things will work out.

Really? I didn't see it. I was expecting more though I probably shouldn't have been. He's very young and raw but its way to early to judge him. I look forward to the rest of the pre season.

 

[Montalban]

BTW - That said about Fields, i also felt Mac Jones could be good too if in fact he has a lot of intangibles? A high level of intangibles combined with passing skills, makes for a very good NFL QB.

Jones was the guy I liked. He's in a very good situation as is Lance.

 

[deep9er]

Really? I didn't see it. I was expecting more though I probably shouldn't have been. He's very young and raw but its way to early to judge him. I look forward to the rest of the pre season.

It is well known he played only one game in how long....2 years? That he played in only 17 college games total, and his college isn't at the D1 level. But you expected even more?

All the draftniks said he'd take time to learn and NFL scheme, acclimate to the speed, and gain experience. Sitting for a SEASON was common reading and this wasn't far fetched based on his experience. So now that he's ahead of schedule, some want to push him even further ahead of what he can do.

 

[Montalban]

It is well known he played only one game in how long....2 years? That he played in only 17 college games total, and his college isn't at the D1 level. But you expected even more?

All the draftniks said he'd take time to learn and NFL scheme, acclimate to the speed, and gain experience. Sitting for a SEASON was common reading and this wasn't far fetched based on his experience. So now that he's ahead of schedule, some want to push him even further ahead of what he can do.

No. You should remember that I brought up all those things as reasons I didn’t want to draft him. I thought maybe Shanahan really saw something in him since he gave up the Crown Jewels to get him. I think I fell for the hype. I actually have no illusions about him and figured he’d have a better chance to bust than be a franchise QB. It’s way to early for me yet to have any educated opinion of him. I’m hopeful though. He played about like I thought he would

 

[deep9er]

No. You should remember that I brought up all those things as reasons I didn’t want to draft him. I thought maybe Shanahan really saw something in him since he gave up the Crown Jewels to get him. I think I fell for the hype. I actually have no illusions about him and figured he’d have a better chance to bust than be a franchise QB. It’s way to early for me yet to have any educated opinion of him. I’m hopeful though. He played about like I thought he would

If he played like you thought he would, why did you say you expected more?

 

[Montalban]

If he played like you thought he would, why did you say you expected more?

I think I fell for the hype and thought maybe Shanahan was seeing something I wasn’t since he’s probably forgotten more about football than I ever knew

 

[deep9er]

I think I fell for the hype and thought maybe Shanahan was seeing something I wasn’t since he’s probably forgotten more about football than I ever knew

It is one or the other and appears you're back to "i expected more"?

 

[Montalban]

It is one or the other and appears you're back to "i expected more"?

Nah, sounds more like you just hear what you want to hear

 

[deep9er]

Nah, sounds more like you just hear what you want to hear

Oh?!

From post #109, this is what you said: "Really? I didn't see it. I was expecting more though...."

From post #112, this what you said: "He played about like I thought he would"


Did i hear just what i want to hear or do you even know what you're writing?

 

[Montalban]

Oh?!

From post #109, this is what you said: "Really? I didn't see it. I was expecting more though...."

From post #112, this what you said: "He played about like I thought he would"


Did i hear just what i want to hear or do you even know what you're writing?

My goodness, you do hear what you want to hear I clearly stated that I expected more because of all the hype from Shanahan and the press. Perhaps you are just being purposely obtuse, I don't know, but let it go, your desperation to be right is starting to make you look foolish.

 

[deep9er]

My goodness, you do hear what you want to hear I clearly stated that I expected more because of all the hype from Shanahan and the press. Perhaps you are just being purposely obtuse, I don't know, but let it go, your desperation to be right is starting to make you look foolish.

I'm just trying to follow what you say, but you're not consistent? Or would you rather i just not read what you're saying?

Anyway, by itself not a problem so I ask you to just clarify which it is? Instead of clarifying you say i don't get it and read what i want to read?! I post the hard evidence that clearly shows your inconsistency, directly from what YOU wrote. From hard evidence, Its clear who's the fool.

BTW - It is well known the person who knows he's wrong, resorts to name calling.

 

[Montalban]

I'm just trying to follow what you say, but you're not consistent? Or would you rather i just not read what you're saying?

Anyway, by itself not a problem so I ask you to just clarify which it is? Instead of clarifying you say i don't get it and read what i want to read?! I post the hard evidence that clearly shows your inconsistency, directly from what YOU wrote. From hard evidence, Its clear who's the fool.

BTW - It is well known the person who knows he's wrong, resorts to name calling.

LOL! You know, they say when you find yourself in a hole, you should quit digging. Advice you might want to follow