calsnowskier
Sarcastic F-wad
I am not attacking what the Rams paid for Stafford. It was what they were willing to pay. And as an organization, they devalue draft picks, so sending a boat load for an older franchise-level QB makes sense (seriously, not attacking the cost they paid).Honestly, yeah it did cost them that. they're going to the superbowl. IF IF IF they win, who cares what it cost them. Thats just my opinion.
Obviously hindsight is 20/20. No there is no guarantee the 49'ers pull it off. I dont disagree with anything you've said quite honestly. I am not attacking you. For me, it's that I think Jimmy is not that good. I never did. He has the most deceiving numbers in all of football. So for me, I think it was a mistake to ever have the intention to go into a season with jimmy g as your qb. Thats making a move for lance, or any other qb aside. But toss in the fact that you had a loaded roster, and you chose to roll with jimmy, thats on kyle. You also decided to take a very very raw young qb. If he takes more time to get up to speed, and he may/likely will(understandably), then they waste another year. I may be in the minority in that thought process. I also don't think kyle trusts jimmy that much and hides him. Which again, goes back to, why are you starting jimmy with a loaded roster.
Playing the whole “Team X paid Y for player A. We could have made that deal!” game has always been an eye-roller for me. As I said earlier, maybe the Lions thought the Rams draft picks were more valuable than the Niners picks. Maybe the Niners have a different value-system in place for their picks than the Rams do (this is almost certainly true). But even assuming they don’t, who is to say the Lions would have want the same package from the Niners (Jimmy instead of Goff, of course)? Maybe they would have wanted Warner or Bosa or Aiyoke or Samuel instead of/as well as? Would the Niners have made it to the NFCCG with Stafford, but without Bosa? With Stafford, but without Warner? With Stafford, but without Samuel?