After watching the 49er game, I have come to the conclusion that recruiting Garbers would provide a major upgrade at QB over Garoppolo. During the third and fourth quarters Garoppolo was often way off target to open receivers and fouled up calling the snap on the 49ers' final offensive play at 4th and 1 .

In the late 3d Qtr Garoppolo had a comfortable lead and had a receiver wide open on the far sideline about 15 yards down field. From the camera angle the receiver had a clear path to a TD that would have sealed the game. But the ball sailed high 3+ feet over the WR's head.

In the late 4th Qtr he again had a receiver open for a first down along the near sideline But again he over threw the receiver by several feet and the ball was intercepted. The announcers said that the terrible pass was a "gift" that set up the Cowboys for a possible comeback win.

Then in the 49ers last offensive series, on in Cowboy territory, the 49ers go for the first down. Garoppolo fails to survey the line, and snaps the ball too early while one of his players was in motion. He was not under pressure to snap the ball but snapped it anyway. He had the announcers scratching their heads why the ball was snapped too early.

Any of these three plays could have been enough to cost the 49ers the game. luckily they did not only because the Cowboys had even a greater number of screwups.

But if Cal had lost either the USC or Big Game on similar mistakes this board would have been buzzing withe "anti-Garbers" posts

I also love spending further roster space and draft capital on another QB when they have so many holes on their roster

GivemTheAxe said:

---

After watching the 49er game, I have come to the conclusion that recruiting Garbers would provide a major upgrade at QB over Garoppolo. During the third and fourth quarters Garoppolo was often way off target to open receivers and fouled up calling the snap on the 49ers' final offensive play at 4th and 1 .

In the late 3d Qtr Garoppolo had a comfortable lead and had a receiver wide open on the far sideline about 15 yards down field. From the camera angle the receiver had a clear path to a TD that would have sealed the game. But the ball sailed high 3+ feet over the WR's head.

In the late 4th Qtr he again had a receiver open for a first down along the near sideline But again he over threw the receiver by several feet and the ball was intercepted. The announcers said that the terrible pass was a "gift" that set up the Cowboys for a possible comeback win.

Then in the 49ers last offensive series, on in Cowboy territory, the 49ers go for the first down. Garoppolo fails to survey the line, and snaps the ball too early while one of his players was in motion. He was not under pressure to snap the ball but snapped it anyway. He had the announcers scratching their heads why the ball was snapped too early.

Any of these three plays could have been enough to cost the 49ers the game. luckily they did not only because the Cowboys had even a greater number of screwups.

But if Cal had lost either the USC or Big Game on similar mistakes this board would have been buzzing withe "anti-Garbers" posts

---

Jimmy's passes sailed, a product of his injury.
Garbers release is not nearly as fast as Jimmy's.
And Garbers is not as accurate.
The reason Jimmy snapped the ball is they needed to have the advantage on the push in order for the sneak to be successful. It is true he snapped it too early (about a millisecond too early).
Mistakes happen.
Garbers makes more mistakes than Jimmy...by far.

Jimmy has been playing in extreme pain the last 2 weeks.
Garbers wouldn't do that.

Besides, the 49ers hate Cal, remember?

What if he beats that guy from Butte?

Mahomes: 400+ yards; 5 TD OUCH!

Peninsula teams are not really on the radar.

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

After watching the 49er game, I have come to the conclusion that recruiting Garbers would provide a major upgrade at QB over Garoppolo. During the third and fourth quarters Garoppolo was often way off target to open receivers and fouled up calling the snap on the 49ers' final offensive play at 4th and 1 .

In the late 3d Qtr Garoppolo had a comfortable lead and had a receiver wide open on the far sideline about 15 yards down field. From the camera angle the receiver had a clear path to a TD that would have sealed the game. But the ball sailed high 3+ feet over the WR's head.

In the late 4th Qtr he again had a receiver open for a first down along the near sideline But again he over threw the receiver by several feet and the ball was intercepted. The announcers said that the terrible pass was a "gift" that set up the Cowboys for a possible comeback win.

Then in the 49ers last offensive series, on in Cowboy territory, the 49ers go for the first down. Garoppolo fails to survey the line, and snaps the ball too early while one of his players was in motion. He was not under pressure to snap the ball but snapped it anyway. He had the announcers scratching their heads why the ball was snapped too early.

Any of these three plays could have been enough to cost the 49ers the game. luckily they did not only because the Cowboys had even a greater number of screwups.

But if Cal had lost either the USC or Big Game on similar mistakes this board would have been buzzing withe "anti-Garbers" posts

---

Garappolo won't be playing for SF next season. He will be traded (or released) thus clearing the way for Lance to take over.

You don't take a $25 million hit to your salary cap for a second string QB.

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

FYI i was actually making my comments in jest. i know that CG has only a long shot at making the Pro's. instead i was trying to make the point that many NFL starting QB's had some of the same flaws that Garbers has been criticized for on this board.

Yes I know that there is a difference between College football and the NFL. But none the less Garoppolo looked pathetic at times. He had plenty of time to throw but still could not make the short passes that would have allowed the 49ers to blow out the Cowboys. I have mentioned two of his bad throws. There was another where he starred down the receiver that even I knew where it was going. But he still tried to force it into traffic and of course it was picked off by the Cowboys.

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

Lamar Jackson is another level runner. There are plenty of QBs that are running threats that are not nearly as good as Lamar Jackson and Garbers' running ability is good enough to be effective as a few of them. It is his arm that is the question. Without the threat of his arm, his running would be shut down easily, like Tim Tebow was.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

FYI i was actually making my comments in jest. i know that CG has only a long shot at making the Pro's. instead i was trying to make the point that many NFL starting QB's had some of the same flaws that Garbers has been criticized for on this board.

Yes I know that there is a difference between College football and the NFL. But none the less Garoppolo looked pathetic at times. He had plenty of time to throw but still could not make the short passes that would have allowed the 49ers to blow out the Cowboys. I have mentioned two of his bad throws. There was another where he starred down the receiver that even I knew where it was going. But he still tried to force it into traffic and of course it was picked off by the Cowboys.

---

The only INT Garappolo threw was an overthrow to a receiver who was open near the sideline. Perhaps, you are thinking of another game/opponent/situation.

I want some of what you're smokin!

calumnus said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

Lamar Jackson is another level runner. There are plenty of QBs that are running threats that are not nearly as good as Lamar Jackson and Garbers' running ability is good enough to be effective as a few of them. It is his arm that is the question. Without the threat of his arm, his running would be shut down easily, like Tim Tebow was.

---

Lamar Jackson is one of the fastest player in the NFL. Josh Allen comes to mind as a good QB runner with just above average speed. Interestingly, I found out that Raheem Moster had the two fastest offensive runs with the ball in 2020. This includes wr after the catch.

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

After watching the 49er game, I have come to the conclusion that recruiting Garbers would provide a major upgrade at QB over Garoppolo. During the third and fourth quarters Garoppolo was often way off target to open receivers and fouled up calling the snap on the 49ers' final offensive play at 4th and 1 .

In the late 3d Qtr Garoppolo had a comfortable lead and had a receiver wide open on the far sideline about 15 yards down field. From the camera angle the receiver had a clear path to a TD that would have sealed the game. But the ball sailed high 3+ feet over the WR's head.

In the late 4th Qtr he again had a receiver open for a first down along the near sideline But again he over threw the receiver by several feet and the ball was intercepted. The announcers said that the terrible pass was a "gift" that set up the Cowboys for a possible comeback win.

Then in the 49ers last offensive series, on in Cowboy territory, the 49ers go for the first down. Garoppolo fails to survey the line, and snaps the ball too early while one of his players was in motion. He was not under pressure to snap the ball but snapped it anyway. He had the announcers scratching their heads why the ball was snapped too early.

Any of these three plays could have been enough to cost the 49ers the game. luckily they did not only because the Cowboys had even a greater number of screwups.

But if Cal had lost either the USC or Big Game on similar mistakes this board would have been buzzing withe "anti-Garbers" posts

---

Garappolo won't be playing for SF next season. He will be traded (or released) thus clearing the way for Lance to take over.

---

While that is the most likely scenario, it's hardly a guarantee.

ducky23 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

After watching the 49er game, I have come to the conclusion that recruiting Garbers would provide a major upgrade at QB over Garoppolo. During the third and fourth quarters Garoppolo was often way off target to open receivers and fouled up calling the snap on the 49ers' final offensive play at 4th and 1 .

In the late 3d Qtr Garoppolo had a comfortable lead and had a receiver wide open on the far sideline about 15 yards down field. From the camera angle the receiver had a clear path to a TD that would have sealed the game. But the ball sailed high 3+ feet over the WR's head.

In the late 4th Qtr he again had a receiver open for a first down along the near sideline But again he over threw the receiver by several feet and the ball was intercepted. The announcers said that the terrible pass was a "gift" that set up the Cowboys for a possible comeback win.

Then in the 49ers last offensive series, on in Cowboy territory, the 49ers go for the first down. Garoppolo fails to survey the line, and snaps the ball too early while one of his players was in motion. He was not under pressure to snap the ball but snapped it anyway. He had the announcers scratching their heads why the ball was snapped too early.

Any of these three plays could have been enough to cost the 49ers the game. luckily they did not only because the Cowboys had even a greater number of screwups.

But if Cal had lost either the USC or Big Game on similar mistakes this board would have been buzzing withe "anti-Garbers" posts

---

Garappolo won't be playing for SF next season. He will be traded (or released) thus clearing the way for Lance to take over.

---

While that is the most likely scenario, it's hardly a guarantee.

---

Garappolo has a year left on his contract. If he wins in GB and plays well, despite an injured hand that is likely to become stiff in the cold, the 49ers will be tempted to keep him. The problem is affording his contract while re-signing some guys that are more critical than Jimmy. But the 49ers have been creative before. I am guessing that Jimmy would like to stay. He acts like it.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

FYI i was actually making my comments in jest. i know that CG has only a long shot at making the Pro's. instead i was trying to make the point that many NFL starting QB's had some of the same flaws that Garbers has been criticized for on this board.

Yes I know that there is a difference between College football and the NFL. But none the less Garoppolo looked pathetic at times. He had plenty of time to throw but still could not make the short passes that would have allowed the 49ers to blow out the Cowboys. I have mentioned two of his bad throws. There was another where he starred down the receiver that even I knew where it was going. But he still tried to force it into traffic and of course it was picked off by the Cowboys.

---

Thanks for clarifying. Upon reflection, after posting, I realized that your post had to be in jest.
But I disagree that Jimmy is a bad QB. He threw one INT and it was not forced into coverage. It would have been complete for a first down but sailed due to his hand injury.
He has had a history of INTs. Shannahan explained why and defended Garappolo in the process.
Garappolo releases the ball very quickly and this has the disadvantages of some INTs. There are many great QBs in history that had just as big or bigger INT issues. Brett Farve comes to mind but nobody said he was pathetic.
Anyway, there are advantages to the quick release as well. And this suits the SF offense that is based on rythm, avoiding sacks and YAC. For example, Jimmy had 0 sacks. Prescott had 5.
Jimmy is still growing in the game, but he is heading in the right direction. And his experience is a huge factor for SF in these playoffs.
His INTs in the last 3 games have much more to do with the ball sailing due to his injury than they do with failing to make reads, which used to be the issue.

Most folks disagree with me. They don't want to take the positives with the negatives and they want Lance at QB. I want Jimmy at QB and I'll take the INTs because I know the SF defense can handle it.

Jimmy made a mental mistake snapping the ball early before T. Williams was set, costing SF the ball and allowing Dallas to make a late drive that could have resulted in a Cowboy win. It was a bad mistake but it is understandable for 3 reasons.

• SF was trying to quick count Dallas to get the first down before the Cowboy defense was ready.
• The first down would have won the game and Jimmy saw that there was space if he snapped it right away.
• T. Williams was only a millisecond from getting set and it looked like, from Jimmy's angle, that he was set.

Folks love to rag on Jimmy. But Jimmy wins and I think folks are going to miss him when he is gone.
There is no comparison between Jimmy and Garbers, even in jest.
Garbers deserved the criticisms he got, when he got them.
He improved a lot over the last half, but his lowsy performances early on, including a 6 point performance against WSU at home is not something that Jimmy has ever approached at the NFL. Jimmy is much more consistent than that.

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

FYI i was actually making my comments in jest. i know that CG has only a long shot at making the Pro's. instead i was trying to make the point that many NFL starting QB's had some of the same flaws that Garbers has been criticized for on this board.

Yes I know that there is a difference between College football and the NFL. But none the less Garoppolo looked pathetic at times. He had plenty of time to throw but still could not make the short passes that would have allowed the 49ers to blow out the Cowboys. I have mentioned two of his bad throws. There was another where he starred down the receiver that even I knew where it was going. But he still tried to force it into traffic and of course it was picked off by the Cowboys.

---

Thanks for clarifying. Upon reflection, after posting, I realized that your post had to be in jest.
But I disagree that Jimmy is a bad QB. He threw one INT and it was not forced into coverage. It would have been complete for a first down but sailed due to his hand injury.
He has had a history of INTs. Shannahan explained why and defended Garappolo in the process.
Garappolo releases the ball very quickly and this has the disadvantages of some INTs. There are many great QBs in history that had just as big or bigger INT issues. Brett Farve comes to mind but nobody said he was pathetic.
Anyway, there are advantages to the quick release as well. And this suits the SF offense that is based on rythm, avoiding sacks and YAC. For example, Jimmy had 0 sacks. Prescott had 5.
Jimmy is still growing in the game, but he is heading in the right direction. And his experience is a huge factor for SF in these playoffs.
His INTs in the last 3 games have much more to do with the ball sailing due to his injury than they do with failing to make reads, which used to be the issue.

Most folks disagree with me. They don't want to take the positives with the negatives and they want Lance at QB. I want Jimmy at QB and I'll take the INTs because I know the SF defense can handle it.

Jimmy made a mental mistake snapping the ball early before T. Williams was set, costing SF the ball and allowing Dallas to make a late drive that could have resulted in a Cowboy win. It was a bad mistake but it is understandable for 3 reasons.

• SF was trying to quick count Dallas to get the first down before the Cowboy defense was ready.
• The first down would have won the game and Jimmy saw that there was space if he snapped it right away.
• T. Williams was only a millisecond from getting set and it looked like, from Jimmy's angle, that he was set.

Folks love to rag on Jimmy. But Jimmy wins and I think folks are going to miss him when he is gone.
There is no comparison between Jimmy and Garbers, even in jest.
Garbers deserved the criticisms he got, when he got them.
He improved a lot over the last half, but his lowsy performances early on, including a 6 point performance against WSU at home is not something that Jimmy has ever approached at the NFL. Jimmy is much more consistent than that.

---

I agree with you. Jimmy G. is a very good QB, and I hope the Niners are able to keep him going forward. I'm not yet sold on Lance. He may become a good one with more experience, but he still has a lot to prove. Jimmy is a proven winner, as his 33-14 (70%) won/loss record record demonstrates.

Golden One said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

FYI i was actually making my comments in jest. i know that CG has only a long shot at making the Pro's. instead i was trying to make the point that many NFL starting QB's had some of the same flaws that Garbers has been criticized for on this board.

Yes I know that there is a difference between College football and the NFL. But none the less Garoppolo looked pathetic at times. He had plenty of time to throw but still could not make the short passes that would have allowed the 49ers to blow out the Cowboys. I have mentioned two of his bad throws. There was another where he starred down the receiver that even I knew where it was going. But he still tried to force it into traffic and of course it was picked off by the Cowboys.

---

Thanks for clarifying. Upon reflection, after posting, I realized that your post had to be in jest.
But I disagree that Jimmy is a bad QB. He threw one INT and it was not forced into coverage. It would have been complete for a first down but sailed due to his hand injury.
He has had a history of INTs. Shannahan explained why and defended Garappolo in the process.
Garappolo releases the ball very quickly and this has the disadvantages of some INTs. There are many great QBs in history that had just as big or bigger INT issues. Brett Farve comes to mind but nobody said he was pathetic.
Anyway, there are advantages to the quick release as well. And this suits the SF offense that is based on rythm, avoiding sacks and YAC. For example, Jimmy had 0 sacks. Prescott had 5.
Jimmy is still growing in the game, but he is heading in the right direction. And his experience is a huge factor for SF in these playoffs.
His INTs in the last 3 games have much more to do with the ball sailing due to his injury than they do with failing to make reads, which used to be the issue.

Most folks disagree with me. They don't want to take the positives with the negatives and they want Lance at QB. I want Jimmy at QB and I'll take the INTs because I know the SF defense can handle it.

Jimmy made a mental mistake snapping the ball early before T. Williams was set, costing SF the ball and allowing Dallas to make a late drive that could have resulted in a Cowboy win. It was a bad mistake but it is understandable for 3 reasons.

• SF was trying to quick count Dallas to get the first down before the Cowboy defense was ready.
• The first down would have won the game and Jimmy saw that there was space if he snapped it right away.
• T. Williams was only a millisecond from getting set and it looked like, from Jimmy's angle, that he was set.

Folks love to rag on Jimmy. But Jimmy wins and I think folks are going to miss him when he is gone.
There is no comparison between Jimmy and Garbers, even in jest.
Garbers deserved the criticisms he got, when he got them.
He improved a lot over the last half, but his lowsy performances early on, including a 6 point performance against WSU at home is not something that Jimmy has ever approached at the NFL. Jimmy is much more consistent than that.

---

I agree with you. Jimmy G. is a very good QB, and I hope the Niners are able to keep him going forward. I'm not yet sold on Lance. He may become a good one with more experience, but he still has a lot to prove. Jimmy is a proven winner, as his 33-14 (70%) won/loss record record demonstrates.

---

many are critical of Jimmy. But you know who isn't? The people that play with and coach him.

heartofthebear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

FYI i was actually making my comments in jest. i know that CG has only a long shot at making the Pro's. instead i was trying to make the point that many NFL starting QB's had some of the same flaws that Garbers has been criticized for on this board.

Yes I know that there is a difference between College football and the NFL. But none the less Garoppolo looked pathetic at times. He had plenty of time to throw but still could not make the short passes that would have allowed the 49ers to blow out the Cowboys. I have mentioned two of his bad throws. There was another where he starred down the receiver that even I knew where it was going. But he still tried to force it into traffic and of course it was picked off by the Cowboys.

---

Thanks for clarifying. Upon reflection, after posting, I realized that your post had to be in jest.
But I disagree that Jimmy is a bad QB. He threw one INT and it was not forced into coverage. It would have been complete for a first down but sailed due to his hand injury.
He has had a history of INTs. Shannahan explained why and defended Garappolo in the process.
Garappolo releases the ball very quickly and this has the disadvantages of some INTs. There are many great QBs in history that had just as big or bigger INT issues. Brett Farve comes to mind but nobody said he was pathetic.
Anyway, there are advantages to the quick release as well. And this suits the SF offense that is based on rythm, avoiding sacks and YAC. For example, Jimmy had 0 sacks. Prescott had 5.
Jimmy is still growing in the game, but he is heading in the right direction. And his experience is a huge factor for SF in these playoffs.
His INTs in the last 3 games have much more to do with the ball sailing due to his injury than they do with failing to make reads, which used to be the issue.

Most folks disagree with me. They don't want to take the positives with the negatives and they want Lance at QB. I want Jimmy at QB and I'll take the INTs because I know the SF defense can handle it.

Jimmy made a mental mistake snapping the ball early before T. Williams was set, costing SF the ball and allowing Dallas to make a late drive that could have resulted in a Cowboy win. It was a bad mistake but it is understandable for 3 reasons.

• SF was trying to quick count Dallas to get the first down before the Cowboy defense was ready.
• The first down would have won the game and Jimmy saw that there was space if he snapped it right away.
• T. Williams was only a millisecond from getting set and it looked like, from Jimmy's angle, that he was set.

Folks love to rag on Jimmy. But Jimmy wins and I think folks are going to miss him when he is gone.
There is no comparison between Jimmy and Garbers, even in jest.
Garbers deserved the criticisms he got, when he got them.
He improved a lot over the last half, but his lowsy performances early on, including a 6 point performance against WSU at home is not something that Jimmy has ever approached at the NFL. Jimmy is much more consistent than that.

---

I agree with you. Jimmy G. is a very good QB, and I hope the Niners are able to keep him going forward. I'm not yet sold on Lance. He may become a good one with more experience, but he still has a lot to prove. Jimmy is a proven winner, as his 33-14 (70%) won/loss record record demonstrates.

---

many are critical of Jimmy. But you know who isn't? The people that play with and coach him.

---

The HC and GM traded 3 #1 picks to get his successor. That pretty much says it all.

ducky23 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

After watching the 49er game, I have come to the conclusion that recruiting Garbers would provide a major upgrade at QB over Garoppolo. During the third and fourth quarters Garoppolo was often way off target to open receivers and fouled up calling the snap on the 49ers' final offensive play at 4th and 1 .

In the late 3d Qtr Garoppolo had a comfortable lead and had a receiver wide open on the far sideline about 15 yards down field. From the camera angle the receiver had a clear path to a TD that would have sealed the game. But the ball sailed high 3+ feet over the WR's head.

In the late 4th Qtr he again had a receiver open for a first down along the near sideline But again he over threw the receiver by several feet and the ball was intercepted. The announcers said that the terrible pass was a "gift" that set up the Cowboys for a possible comeback win.

Then in the 49ers last offensive series, on in Cowboy territory, the 49ers go for the first down. Garoppolo fails to survey the line, and snaps the ball too early while one of his players was in motion. He was not under pressure to snap the ball but snapped it anyway. He had the announcers scratching their heads why the ball was snapped too early.

Any of these three plays could have been enough to cost the 49ers the game. luckily they did not only because the Cowboys had even a greater number of screwups.

But if Cal had lost either the USC or Big Game on similar mistakes this board would have been buzzing withe "anti-Garbers" posts

---

Garappolo won't be playing for SF next season. He will be traded (or released) thus clearing the way for Lance to take over.

---

While that is the most likely scenario, it's hardly a guarantee.

---

There are 25.5 million reasons why Garappolo won't be on the SF roster next year. That means it is nearly as close to a guarantee as the sun rising tomorrow morning.

philbert said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

FYI i was actually making my comments in jest. i know that CG has only a long shot at making the Pro's. instead i was trying to make the point that many NFL starting QB's had some of the same flaws that Garbers has been criticized for on this board.

Yes I know that there is a difference between College football and the NFL. But none the less Garoppolo looked pathetic at times. He had plenty of time to throw but still could not make the short passes that would have allowed the 49ers to blow out the Cowboys. I have mentioned two of his bad throws. There was another where he starred down the receiver that even I knew where it was going. But he still tried to force it into traffic and of course it was picked off by the Cowboys.

---

Thanks for clarifying. Upon reflection, after posting, I realized that your post had to be in jest.
But I disagree that Jimmy is a bad QB. He threw one INT and it was not forced into coverage. It would have been complete for a first down but sailed due to his hand injury.
He has had a history of INTs. Shannahan explained why and defended Garappolo in the process.
Garappolo releases the ball very quickly and this has the disadvantages of some INTs. There are many great QBs in history that had just as big or bigger INT issues. Brett Farve comes to mind but nobody said he was pathetic.
Anyway, there are advantages to the quick release as well. And this suits the SF offense that is based on rythm, avoiding sacks and YAC. For example, Jimmy had 0 sacks. Prescott had 5.
Jimmy is still growing in the game, but he is heading in the right direction. And his experience is a huge factor for SF in these playoffs.
His INTs in the last 3 games have much more to do with the ball sailing due to his injury than they do with failing to make reads, which used to be the issue.

Most folks disagree with me. They don't want to take the positives with the negatives and they want Lance at QB. I want Jimmy at QB and I'll take the INTs because I know the SF defense can handle it.

Jimmy made a mental mistake snapping the ball early before T. Williams was set, costing SF the ball and allowing Dallas to make a late drive that could have resulted in a Cowboy win. It was a bad mistake but it is understandable for 3 reasons.

• SF was trying to quick count Dallas to get the first down before the Cowboy defense was ready.
• The first down would have won the game and Jimmy saw that there was space if he snapped it right away.
• T. Williams was only a millisecond from getting set and it looked like, from Jimmy's angle, that he was set.

Folks love to rag on Jimmy. But Jimmy wins and I think folks are going to miss him when he is gone.
There is no comparison between Jimmy and Garbers, even in jest.
Garbers deserved the criticisms he got, when he got them.
He improved a lot over the last half, but his lowsy performances early on, including a 6 point performance against WSU at home is not something that Jimmy has ever approached at the NFL. Jimmy is much more consistent than that.

---

I agree with you. Jimmy G. is a very good QB, and I hope the Niners are able to keep him going forward. I'm not yet sold on Lance. He may become a good one with more experience, but he still has a lot to prove. Jimmy is a proven winner, as his 33-14 (70%) won/loss record record demonstrates.

---

many are critical of Jimmy. But you know who isn't? The people that play with and coach him.

---

The HC and GM traded 3 #1 picks to get his successor. That pretty much says it all.

---

Wouldn't be the first time that Lynch and Shanahan have completely blown it on high draft picks.

Compelling! When Garbers is healthy, the 49ers have never lost with him at QB, but they have with Jimmy. Can't argue the facts!

Golden One said:

---

philbert said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Garoppolo has some of the same weaknesses as Garbers (some inaccuracy and lack of field vision), but Jimmy has them at an NFL level, whereas Chase had them on a college level.

Garoppolo's biggest weakness is that he tends to not come up big at key moments.

Garbers is more of a running threat, but I'd be very surprised if he makes an NFL roster, though I am rooting for him.

Garbers a major upgrade to Garoppolo on the 49ers? No, not at all, but I'd love for you to be right and me wrong, so good luck.

---

Other than the comment that Jimmy doesn't come up big in key moments, I agree on all fronts.
Also, if Garbers tries to run the way he did at Cal, he will soon find out he's not a running threat in the NFL.
To be a running threat in the NFL, you have to have Lamar Jackson speed. Garbers does not.
Garbers was a great runner in college because of his decision making but that won't help him the NFL.

---

FYI i was actually making my comments in jest. i know that CG has only a long shot at making the Pro's. instead i was trying to make the point that many NFL starting QB's had some of the same flaws that Garbers has been criticized for on this board.

Yes I know that there is a difference between College football and the NFL. But none the less Garoppolo looked pathetic at times. He had plenty of time to throw but still could not make the short passes that would have allowed the 49ers to blow out the Cowboys. I have mentioned two of his bad throws. There was another where he starred down the receiver that even I knew where it was going. But he still tried to force it into traffic and of course it was picked off by the Cowboys.

---

Thanks for clarifying. Upon reflection, after posting, I realized that your post had to be in jest.
But I disagree that Jimmy is a bad QB. He threw one INT and it was not forced into coverage. It would have been complete for a first down but sailed due to his hand injury.
He has had a history of INTs. Shannahan explained why and defended Garappolo in the process.
Garappolo releases the ball very quickly and this has the disadvantages of some INTs. There are many great QBs in history that had just as big or bigger INT issues. Brett Farve comes to mind but nobody said he was pathetic.
Anyway, there are advantages to the quick release as well. And this suits the SF offense that is based on rythm, avoiding sacks and YAC. For example, Jimmy had 0 sacks. Prescott had 5.
Jimmy is still growing in the game, but he is heading in the right direction. And his experience is a huge factor for SF in these playoffs.
His INTs in the last 3 games have much more to do with the ball sailing due to his injury than they do with failing to make reads, which used to be the issue.

Most folks disagree with me. They don't want to take the positives with the negatives and they want Lance at QB. I want Jimmy at QB and I'll take the INTs because I know the SF defense can handle it.

Jimmy made a mental mistake snapping the ball early before T. Williams was set, costing SF the ball and allowing Dallas to make a late drive that could have resulted in a Cowboy win. It was a bad mistake but it is understandable for 3 reasons.

• SF was trying to quick count Dallas to get the first down before the Cowboy defense was ready.
• The first down would have won the game and Jimmy saw that there was space if he snapped it right away.
• T. Williams was only a millisecond from getting set and it looked like, from Jimmy's angle, that he was set.

Folks love to rag on Jimmy. But Jimmy wins and I think folks are going to miss him when he is gone.
There is no comparison between Jimmy and Garbers, even in jest.
Garbers deserved the criticisms he got, when he got them.
He improved a lot over the last half, but his lowsy performances early on, including a 6 point performance against WSU at home is not something that Jimmy has ever approached at the NFL. Jimmy is much more consistent than that.

---

I agree with you. Jimmy G. is a very good QB, and I hope the Niners are able to keep him going forward. I'm not yet sold on Lance. He may become a good one with more experience, but he still has a lot to prove. Jimmy is a proven winner, as his 33-14 (70%) won/loss record record demonstrates.

---

many are critical of Jimmy. But you know who isn't? The people that play with and coach him.

---

The HC and GM traded 3 #1 picks to get his successor. That pretty much says it all.

---

Wouldn't be the first time that Lynch and Shanahan have completely blown it on high draft picks.

---

Lynch and Shanahan may have blown it on the choice of successor (it is really hard to judge how a guy will fare in the NFL based on a limited number of game playing QB at the FCS level), we'll find out eventually.

There is a big difference between seeing that a guy has proven he isn't the answer and identifying that a guy who has only shown potential will be worth a really high pick (and in the case of Trey Lance didn't have much on his resume besides potential). There isn't any reason to think that Lynch and Shanahan blew it in thinking that they need an upgrade from Jimmy G, finding the upgrade is the hard thing.

It isn't like there is any real history of Lynch and Shanahan giving up on a guy only to have him become great. Who have they let go as a talent decision that they should have kept? Letting Buckner go had nothing to do with thinking Buckner was done, it was a salary cap decision combined with thinking they could adequately replace him for less, and maybe they could have if they did a better job of making high draft picks and free agent choices.

Shanahan has made pretty clear that one big reason he wanted to find a replacement for Jimmy is that Jimmy has not been able to stay healthy. Nothing has really changed in that regard. The Niners lost to the Titans because Jimmy's thumb made him really suck. The second half on Sunday was affected because not only did Jimmy still have the thumb issues, but he had a shoulder problem. None of that really accounts for the early snap, but everything else he did, who knows.

Even if he could stay healthy, however, he isn't going to be a spectacular QB. Jimmy G fits better into Kyle's scheme than Trey Lance. But Kyle thinks Trey has potential to be spectacular, Jimmy doesn't. Combine that with Jimmy's propensity to be injured, and he wants to move on.

Trading 3 #1 picks to get Jimmy's successor doesn't say that they made the right choice of successor, but it clearly says they believe a replacement is needed, and there is no reason to think that decision is wrong.

Cal8285 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Wouldn't be the first time that Lynch and Shanahan have completely blown it on high draft picks.

---

Lynch and Shanahan may have blown it on the choice of successor (it is really hard to judge how a guy will fare in the NFL based on a limited number of game playing QB at the FCS level), we'll find out eventually.

There is a big difference between seeing that a guy has proven he isn't the answer and identifying that a guy who has only shown potential will be worth a really high pick (and in the case of Trey Lance didn't have much on his resume besides potential). There isn't any reason to think that Lynch and Shanahan blew it in thinking that they need an upgrade from Jimmy G, finding the upgrade is the hard thing.

It isn't like there is any real history of Lynch and Shanahan giving up on a guy only to have him become great. Who have they let go as a talent decision that they should have kept? Letting Buckner go had nothing to do with thinking Buckner was done, it was a salary cap decision combined with thinking they could adequately replace him for less, and maybe they could have if they did a better job of making high draft picks and free agent choices.

Shanahan has made pretty clear that one big reason he wanted to find a replacement for Jimmy is that Jimmy has not been able to stay healthy. Nothing has really changed in that regard. The Niners lost to the Titans because Jimmy's thumb made him really suck. The second half on Sunday was affected because not only did Jimmy still have the thumb issues, but he had a shoulder problem. None of that really accounts for the early snap, but everything else he did, who knows.

Even if he could stay healthy, however, he isn't going to be a spectacular QB. Jimmy G fits better into Kyle's scheme than Trey Lance. But Kyle thinks Trey has potential to be spectacular, Jimmy doesn't. Combine that with Jimmy's propensity to be injured, and he wants to move on.

Trading 3 #1 picks to get Jimmy's successor doesn't say that they made the right choice of successor, but it clearly says they believe a replacement is needed, and there is no reason to think that decision is wrong.

---

Among the notable high draft picks by Lynch and Shanahan are the following busts or disappointments:

Solomon Thomas (1st round)
Reuben Foster (1st round)
Dante Pettis l(2nd round)
Aaron Banks (2nd round)
Tavarius Moore (3rd round)
C.J Beathard (3rd round)
Jalen Hurd (3rd round)
Trey Sermon (3rd round)
Ahkello Witherspoon (3rd round)

Time will tell if Trey Lance is added to this list.

Their best draft picks have clearly been:

Nick Bosa (1st round)
Brandon Aiyuk (1st round)
Deebo Samuel (2nd round)
Fred Warner (3rd round)
George Kittle (5th round)
Dre Greenlaw (5th round)
Elijah Mitchell (6th round)

Golden One said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Wouldn't be the first time that Lynch and Shanahan have completely blown it on high draft picks.

---

Lynch and Shanahan may have blown it on the choice of successor (it is really hard to judge how a guy will fare in the NFL based on a limited number of game playing QB at the FCS level), we'll find out eventually.

There is a big difference between seeing that a guy has proven he isn't the answer and identifying that a guy who has only shown potential will be worth a really high pick (and in the case of Trey Lance didn't have much on his resume besides potential). There isn't any reason to think that Lynch and Shanahan blew it in thinking that they need an upgrade from Jimmy G, finding the upgrade is the hard thing.

It isn't like there is any real history of Lynch and Shanahan giving up on a guy only to have him become great. Who have they let go as a talent decision that they should have kept? Letting Buckner go had nothing to do with thinking Buckner was done, it was a salary cap decision combined with thinking they could adequately replace him for less, and maybe they could have if they did a better job of making high draft picks and free agent choices.

Shanahan has made pretty clear that one big reason he wanted to find a replacement for Jimmy is that Jimmy has not been able to stay healthy. Nothing has really changed in that regard. The Niners lost to the Titans because Jimmy's thumb made him really suck. The second half on Sunday was affected because not only did Jimmy still have the thumb issues, but he had a shoulder problem. None of that really accounts for the early snap, but everything else he did, who knows.

Even if he could stay healthy, however, he isn't going to be a spectacular QB. Jimmy G fits better into Kyle's scheme than Trey Lance. But Kyle thinks Trey has potential to be spectacular, Jimmy doesn't. Combine that with Jimmy's propensity to be injured, and he wants to move on.

Trading 3 #1 picks to get Jimmy's successor doesn't say that they made the right choice of successor, but it clearly says they believe a replacement is needed, and there is no reason to think that decision is wrong.

---

Among the notable high draft picks by Lynch and Shanahan are the following busts or disappointments:

Solomon Thomas (1st round)
Reuben Foster (1st round)
Dante Pettis l(2nd round)
Aaron Banks (2nd round)
Tavarius Moore (3rd round)
C.J Beathard (3rd round)
Jalen Hurd (3rd round)
Trey Sermon (3rd round)
Ahkello Witherspoon (3rd round)

Their best draft picks have clearly been:

Nick Bosa (1st round)
Brandon Aiyuk (1st round)
Deebo Samuel (2nd round)
Fred Warner (3rd round)
George Kittle (5th round)
Dre Greenlaw (5th round)
Elijah Mitchell (6th round)

Time will tell if Trey Lance is added to this list.

---

FIFY….

(Also, it is a bit early to write off Banks and Sermon and I would add Thomas, 3rd Round, to the latter list)

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Wouldn't be the first time that Lynch and Shanahan have completely blown it on high draft picks.

---

Lynch and Shanahan may have blown it on the choice of successor (it is really hard to judge how a guy will fare in the NFL based on a limited number of game playing QB at the FCS level), we'll find out eventually.

There is a big difference between seeing that a guy has proven he isn't the answer and identifying that a guy who has only shown potential will be worth a really high pick (and in the case of Trey Lance didn't have much on his resume besides potential). There isn't any reason to think that Lynch and Shanahan blew it in thinking that they need an upgrade from Jimmy G, finding the upgrade is the hard thing.

It isn't like there is any real history of Lynch and Shanahan giving up on a guy only to have him become great. Who have they let go as a talent decision that they should have kept? Letting Buckner go had nothing to do with thinking Buckner was done, it was a salary cap decision combined with thinking they could adequately replace him for less, and maybe they could have if they did a better job of making high draft picks and free agent choices.

Shanahan has made pretty clear that one big reason he wanted to find a replacement for Jimmy is that Jimmy has not been able to stay healthy. Nothing has really changed in that regard. The Niners lost to the Titans because Jimmy's thumb made him really suck. The second half on Sunday was affected because not only did Jimmy still have the thumb issues, but he had a shoulder problem. None of that really accounts for the early snap, but everything else he did, who knows.

Even if he could stay healthy, however, he isn't going to be a spectacular QB. Jimmy G fits better into Kyle's scheme than Trey Lance. But Kyle thinks Trey has potential to be spectacular, Jimmy doesn't. Combine that with Jimmy's propensity to be injured, and he wants to move on.

Trading 3 #1 picks to get Jimmy's successor doesn't say that they made the right choice of successor, but it clearly says they believe a replacement is needed, and there is no reason to think that decision is wrong.

---

Among the notable high draft picks by Lynch and Shanahan are the following busts or disappointments:

Solomon Thomas (1st round)
Reuben Foster (1st round)
Dante Pettis l(2nd round)
Aaron Banks (2nd round)
Tavarius Moore (3rd round)
C.J Beathard (3rd round)
Jalen Hurd (3rd round)
Trey Sermon (3rd round)
Ahkello Witherspoon (3rd round)

Their best draft picks have clearly been:

Nick Bosa (1st round)
Brandon Aiyuk (1st round)
Deebo Samuel (2nd round)
Fred Warner (3rd round)
George Kittle (5th round)
Dre Greenlaw (5th round)
Elijah Mitchell (6th round)

Time will tell if Trey Lance is added to this list.

---

FIFY….

(Also, it is a bit early to write off Banks and Sermon and I would add Thomas, 3rd Round, to the latter list)

---

Love your optimism, '71. Hope you're right, and it's not just wishful thinking!

Golden One said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Wouldn't be the first time that Lynch and Shanahan have completely blown it on high draft picks.

---

Lynch and Shanahan may have blown it on the choice of successor (it is really hard to judge how a guy will fare in the NFL based on a limited number of game playing QB at the FCS level), we'll find out eventually.

There is a big difference between seeing that a guy has proven he isn't the answer and identifying that a guy who has only shown potential will be worth a really high pick (and in the case of Trey Lance didn't have much on his resume besides potential). There isn't any reason to think that Lynch and Shanahan blew it in thinking that they need an upgrade from Jimmy G, finding the upgrade is the hard thing.

It isn't like there is any real history of Lynch and Shanahan giving up on a guy only to have him become great. Who have they let go as a talent decision that they should have kept? Letting Buckner go had nothing to do with thinking Buckner was done, it was a salary cap decision combined with thinking they could adequately replace him for less, and maybe they could have if they did a better job of making high draft picks and free agent choices.

Shanahan has made pretty clear that one big reason he wanted to find a replacement for Jimmy is that Jimmy has not been able to stay healthy. Nothing has really changed in that regard. The Niners lost to the Titans because Jimmy's thumb made him really suck. The second half on Sunday was affected because not only did Jimmy still have the thumb issues, but he had a shoulder problem. None of that really accounts for the early snap, but everything else he did, who knows.

Even if he could stay healthy, however, he isn't going to be a spectacular QB. Jimmy G fits better into Kyle's scheme than Trey Lance. But Kyle thinks Trey has potential to be spectacular, Jimmy doesn't. Combine that with Jimmy's propensity to be injured, and he wants to move on.

Trading 3 #1 picks to get Jimmy's successor doesn't say that they made the right choice of successor, but it clearly says they believe a replacement is needed, and there is no reason to think that decision is wrong.

---

Among the notable high draft picks by Lynch and Shanahan are the following busts or disappointments:

Solomon Thomas (1st round)
Reuben Foster (1st round)
Dante Pettis l(2nd round)
Aaron Banks (2nd round)
Tavarius Moore (3rd round)
C.J Beathard (3rd round)
Jalen Hurd (3rd round)
Trey Sermon (3rd round)
Ahkello Witherspoon (3rd round)

Their best draft picks have clearly been:

Nick Bosa (1st round)
Brandon Aiyuk (1st round)
Deebo Samuel (2nd round)
Fred Warner (3rd round)
George Kittle (5th round)
Dre Greenlaw (5th round)
Elijah Mitchell (6th round)

Time will tell if Trey Lance is added to this list.

---

FIFY….

(Also, it is a bit early to write off Banks and Sermon and I would add Thomas, 3rd Round, to the latter list)

---

Love your optimism, '71. Hope you're right, and it's not just wishful thinking!

---

By the way, I took a look at the draft choices since 2017. Here are two more hits…

2020 Round 7 - Jauan Jennings. I think the guy is going to be a very good receiver
2017 Round 6 - D.J. Jones. He has already proven to be a solid inside DLer.

One beat writer's take. The development of the young players this season has been notable.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/49ers-current-roster-makeup-means-they-wont-be-going-away

Tonight against GB, Jimmy threw one interception; but, it could have been four...And, three of the possible four could have been returned for touchdowns. Jimmy is a handsome dude with a great smile, but, he really is a back-up QB.
1) In jury prone
2) Weak arm
3) Throws off his black foot
4) Little mobility
5) He, does, however, have a good locker room presence.