How well Jimmy Garoppolo must perform to live up to his enormous contract with 49ers

[CGI_Ram]

I hate that the Whiners paid him a lot upfront even if he got hurt. They now have more money to build around him.

Yeah, they were smart front loading that deal while they had the cap space.

 

[Akrasian]

I hate that the Whiners paid him a lot upfront even if he got hurt. They now have more money to build around him.

Well, it is smart to put the cap hit where the team can afford it. The Rams do it too.

It is less smart to give a huge contract to a QB who has yet to play the majority of a season, and who in his first year under the contract gave some signs of being figured out before he was knocked out for the season.

 

[Ram65]

Well, it is smart to put the cap hit where the team can afford it. The Rams do it too.

It is less smart to give a huge contract to a QB who has yet to play the majority of a season, and who in his first year under the contract gave some signs of being figured out before he was knocked out for the season.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/jimmy-garoppolo-14472/

This one was really big cap hit in year one compared to year two and the rest of the deal. That's the most I can remember. It really is a smart contract overall. They can cut him or trade him with only a $4.2 M cap hit in 2020. They don't have much risk in the deal outside of the first two years. Low cap hit this year which I guess helped sign some free agents. The last three years are going to be low for a veteran starting QB.

Once the Whiners made the trade. ( IIRC a second round draft pick). They had to give him a deal or he hits free agency. I don't know if it was a good move to trade for him but, the Whiners had to do something. I'm hoping he is an average or below QB. He seems to make poor throws when going a little down field. This is a little different way to try get a franchise QB and will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

[Akrasian]

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/jimmy-garoppolo-14472/
View attachment 29285

This one was really big cap hit in year one compared to year two and the rest of the deal. That's the most I can remember. It really is a smart contract overall. They can cut him or trade him with only a $4.2 M cap hit in 2020. They don't have much risk in the deal outside of the first two years. Low cap hit this year which I guess helped sign some free agents. The last three years are going to be low for a veteran starting QB.

Once the Whiners made the trade. ( IIRC a second round draft pick). They had to give him a deal or he hits free agency. I don't know if it was a good move to trade for him but, the Whiners had to do something. I'm hoping he is an average or below QB. He seems to make poor throws when going a little down field. This is a little different way to try get a franchise QB and will be interesting to see the outcome.

Oh, if they decided they had to have him, then it makes sense - of course, this wouldn't be the first time the Patriots traded a young QB they didn't want for picks, the most relevant being Matt Cassel. And the 49ers did structure the contract so he could be cut easily after this season if he bombs - in lieu of a huge signing bonus, a huge guaranteed salary in year one. Smart AND shows a little skepticism about him.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Here's the thing. It doesn't matter how well he plays. Unless his defense starts stopping the other team from scoring, they won't win. Yeah, a QB can do it for a year. But after that, you need a defense to win consistently in the NFL.

Goff and the Rams are in the same boat. The Rams defense needs to step up or the Rams will be on the outside looking in come playoff time.

wishful thinking by a fan of a playoff contender?

 

[Raptorman]

It's a matter of historical perspective. Top scoring offenses don't make it back the big game without a top defense.

Take the Packers. For the past 25 years, they have had a top 10 offense in scoring for 18 of those years. 3 Super Bowl appearances. When their defense was 1, 5, and 2 in scoring. Outside those 3 years, the Packers defense averages 15th in PPG.

Saints: Top 10 offense 11 of 13 years since Brees has been there. Average Defense rank. 20. Granted they won a Super Bowl, But they haven't done much since then.

Broncos' Elway's last 5 years. Top 10 offense. It wasn't until they had a top 10 defense that they won the Super Bowl.

Broncos. Manning. 4 years. The offense went 2, 1, 2, 19. The defense went 4, 16, 22, 4. It was that 19 and 4 years they won.

Patriots. Brady era. Top 10 offense 16 of 18 years. Top 10 defense 15 of 18 years. Super Bowl wins when the defense was 6, 1, 2, 8 and 7 in ppg.

Now, is it possible to win the Super Bowl without a top 10 defense? Yes. The Giants and Saint have done it in the recent past. But if you want your team to continue to go back and become a dynasty, then it needs to consistent year in and year out.

So please, go on thinking that the offense can do it by themselves. BTW, When the Rams won the Super Bowl, their offense was number 1, but their defense was number 4.

 

[Loyal]

It's a matter of historical perspective. Top scoring offenses don't make it back the big game without a top defense.

Take the Packers. For the past 25 years, they have had a top 10 offense in scoring for 18 of those years. 3 Super Bowl appearances. When their defense was 1, 5, and 2 in scoring. Outside those 3 years, the Packers defense averages 15th in PPG.

Saints: Top 10 offense 11 of 13 years since Brees has been there. Average Defense rank. 20. Granted they won a Super Bowl, But they haven't done much since then.

Broncos' Elway's last 5 years. Top 10 offense. It wasn't until they had a top 10 defense that they won the Super Bowl.

Broncos. Manning. 4 years. The offense went 2, 1, 2, 19. The defense went 4, 16, 22, 4. It was that 19 and 4 years they won.

Patriots. Brady era. Top 10 offense 16 of 18 years. Top 10 defense 15 of 18 years. Super Bowl wins when the defense was 6, 1, 2, 8 and 7 in ppg.

Now, is it possible to win the Super Bowl without a top 10 defense? Yes. The Giants and Saint have done it in the recent past. But if you want your team to continue to go back and become a dynasty, then it needs to consistent year in and year out.

So please, go on thinking that the offense can do it by themselves. BTW, When the Rams won the Super Bowl, their offense was number 1, but their defense was number 4.

So you disregard the moves the Rams have made on defense? Suh wasn't that good of NT during the regular season, but stiffened in the playoffs. In fact, using seasonal stats from last year is a bit misleading, because when the Rams defense decided to stop the run in the post season, they were very good at doing so. Suh and a few others were too concentrated on getting sacks instead of protecting gaps in the regular season, imo. There's a reason, aside from age and money that the Rams didn't attempt to re-sign Suh. Sebastian Joseph Day reportedly made great strides and seems poised to very adequately replace Suh's regular season production. Rookie Greg Gaines will be competing with Day for the same spot, and he's a low to the ground space eater, and reportedly loves to be double teamed (hello Aaron Donald?)

Peters is not a cover corner, but he was forced into that role when Aqib's injury lasted as long as it did. Peters markedly improved when Aqib came back. This skewed the stats last year too, when looking forward (unless Aqib is out again)

Matthews will be utilized much more effectively in the Rams Wade Phillips scheme, all over the place(OLB and ILB). He will be a resurgent player this year.

Eric Weddle is a straight up stud who doesn't often get fooled. McVay loves him and so does other savy veterans on the team.

Oh, and we still have the two-time consecutive DPOY in Aaron Donald..

The Rams defense will be better, and that should scare the hell out of the rest of the NFL.

 

[Raptorman]

So you disregard the moves the Rams have made on defense? Suh wasn't that good of NT during the regular season, but stiffened in the playoffs. In fact, using seasonal stats from last year is a bit misleading, because when the Rams defense decided to stop the run in the post season, they were very good at doing so. Suh and a few others were too concentrated on getting sacks instead of protecting gaps in the regular season, imo. There's a reason, aside from age and money that the Rams didn't attempt to re-sign Suh. Sebastian Joseph Day reportedly made great strides and seems poised to very adequately replace Suh's regular season production. Rookie Greg Gaines will be competing with Day for the same spot, and he's a low to the ground space eater, and reportedly loves to be double teamed (hello Aaron Donald?)

Peters is not a cover corner, but he was forced into that role when Aqib's injury lasted as long as it did. Peters markedly improved when Aqib came back. This skewed the stats last year too, when looking forward (unless Aqib is out again)

Matthews will be utilized much more effectively in the Rams Wade Phillips scheme, all over the place(OLB and ILB). He will be a resurgent player this year.

Eric Weddle is a straight up stud who doesn't often get fooled. McVay loves him and so does other savy veterans on the team.

Oh, and we still have the two-time consecutive DPOY in Aaron Donald..

The Rams defense will be better, and that should scare the hell out of the rest of the NFL.

I never disregard anything. In the same token, I could say the Vikings will be much more of a powerhouse on offense because of the moves they made to their offensive line. Cousin's will have a true 3rd WR, and the addition of another good tight end. As well as another year in the system. Now, this may or may not be true. Sometimes moves in the off-season don't work like we think they will. I'm simply pointing out that for a QB to do well, any QB, on an ongoing basis that it is a team effort. The QB does not win championships by himself. This isn't a knock on the Rams.

Here's little something I put together for a Vikings forum. Just more things to think about. Again, I think it shows the importance of how a good defense helps the QB.

2000-2004 Comparison of 3 QB's. So Believe it or not, statistically, Culpepper was better than Brady those 5 years. Yet Brady won 3 Super Bowls during that time period. Why? If QB play is all that it's cracked up to be, why did the Vikings and the Packers not even make it to the Big game during those years?

    Passing Per Game                                       Passing  total 2000-2004                      
Player            Cmp    Att    Yds      TD    Int       Cmp    Att    Cmp%       Yds    TD    Int    Rate
Tom Brady       19.4    31.5    217.6    1.5    0.8      1243    2018    61.6    13925    97    52    87.5
D. Culpepper    21.1    32.8    254.8    1.8    1.0      1539    2391    64.4    18598    129    74    93.2
Brett Favre*    20.6    33.2    235.5    1.8    1.1      1647    2652    62.1    18840    141    85    87.8

What did NE have that the Packers and Vikings didn't have? Ummmm..... I wonder. Could it be that Brady had a defense that gave up less than 19 points per game during the regular season? The best defense Culpepper had was 23rd in ppg. 23rd.

Player          Games    Wins    Losses    Ties    PPG    SB Wins
Tom Brady       64        48        14      0       18.2      3
D. Culpepper    73        36        37      0       24.4      0
Brett Favre*    80        53        27      0       20.5      0

Defense ranked ppg 2000-2004

Patriots.  17, 6, 17,  1,  2.   Average  8.6
Packers    14, 5, 12, 11, 23.   Average 13.0
Vikings    24 26, 30, 23, 26.   Average 25.8

The QB does matter. But not as much as people want to push and believe. This isn't a knock on the Rams. Just more historical data. If you go back and look there is a direct correlation between the top defense's, offenses and the number of regular seasons wins and Super Bowl appearances. A top offense may get you there for one year but after that, if a team wants to continue to be on top, a top defense matters more than people think.

BTW, Brady's average, he only throws 28 TD's a year. With around 10 interceptions.

 

[snackdaddy]

It's a matter of historical perspective. Top scoring offenses don't make it back the big game without a top defense.

Take the Packers. For the past 25 years, they have had a top 10 offense in scoring for 18 of those years. 3 Super Bowl appearances. When their defense was 1, 5, and 2 in scoring. Outside those 3 years, the Packers defense averages 15th in PPG.

Saints: Top 10 offense 11 of 13 years since Brees has been there. Average Defense rank. 20. Granted they won a Super Bowl, But they haven't done much since then.

Broncos' Elway's last 5 years. Top 10 offense. It wasn't until they had a top 10 defense that they won the Super Bowl.

Broncos. Manning. 4 years. The offense went 2, 1, 2, 19. The defense went 4, 16, 22, 4. It was that 19 and 4 years they won.

Patriots. Brady era. Top 10 offense 16 of 18 years. Top 10 defense 15 of 18 years. Super Bowl wins when the defense was 6, 1, 2, 8 and 7 in ppg.

Now, is it possible to win the Super Bowl without a top 10 defense? Yes. The Giants and Saint have done it in the recent past. But if you want your team to continue to go back and become a dynasty, then it needs to consistent year in and year out.

So please, go on thinking that the offense can do it by themselves. BTW, When the Rams won the Super Bowl, their offense was number 1, but their defense was number 4.

Wade Phillips has already proven he can raise his defenses level of play in the post season. Did pretty good against what many consider the best QB of our generation and best coach. It was the offense ironically that under performed. A learning lesson for a young QB and young coach.

I know we're all guilty of wishful thinking. You don't want to see the Rams get back there. What you're doing is taking past teams that have nothing to do with this one and using that argument. Were you one of the people who said the Rams would flop last year because the 2011 Eagles Dream Team flopped? Many used that argument. They won 13 games.

 

[Raptorman]

Wade Phillips has already proven he can raise his defenses level of play in the post season. Did pretty good against what many consider the best QB of our generation and best coach. It was the offense ironically that under performed. A learning lesson for a young QB and young coach.

I know we're all guilty of wishful thinking. You don't want to see the Rams get back there. What you're doing is taking past teams that have nothing to do with this one and using that argument. Were you one of the people who said the Rams would flop last year because the 2011 Eagles Dream Team flopped? Many used that argument. They won 13 games.

Those that refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

And no, I never said the Rams would flop.

 

[Reddog99]

Those that refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

And no, I never said the Rams would flop.

I think you've made some very good points brotha. The Broncos vs Seahawks superbowl was another good example

 

[snackdaddy]

Those that refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

And no, I never said the Rams would flop.

Lol, you talk like its going to happen. Just because past teams who have nothing to do with this one failed doesn't make it automatic. The Rams already proved that when so many started claiming it was going to be like the Eagles Dream Team. Before we call this season a disappointment I think I'll let it play out if you don't mind.

 

[dieterbrock]

So please, go on thinking that the offense can do it by themselves. BTW, When the Rams won the Super Bowl, their offense was number 1, but their defense was number 4.

For the life of me, I cant remember. What was Minnesota defense ranked when they won the Super Bowl?

 

[Raptorman]

For the life of me, I cant remember. What was Minnesota defense ranked when they won the Super Bowl?

Ah yes. When you have nothing to contribute. Just like a Packer fan.

 

[tempests]

2000-2004 Comparison of 3 QB's. So Believe it or not, statistically, Culpepper was better than Brady those 5 years. Yet Brady won 3 Super Bowls during that time period. Why? If QB play is all that it's cracked up to be, why did the Vikings and the Packers not even make it to the Big game during those years?

    Passing Per Game                                       Passing  total 2000-2004                    
Player            Cmp    Att    Yds      TD    Int       Cmp    Att    Cmp%       Yds    TD    Int    Rate
Tom Brady       19.4    31.5    217.6    1.5    0.8      1243    2018    61.6    13925    97    52    87.5
D. Culpepper    21.1    32.8    254.8    1.8    1.0      1539    2391    64.4    18598    129    74    93.2
Brett Favre*    20.6    33.2    235.5    1.8    1.1      1647    2652    62.1    18840    141    85    87.8

What did NE have that the Packers and Vikings didn't have? Ummmm..... I wonder. Could it be that Brady had a defense that gave up less than 19 points per game during the regular season? The best defense Culpepper had was 23rd in ppg. 23rd.

Player          Games    Wins    Losses    Ties    PPG    SB Wins
Tom Brady       64        48        14      0       18.2      3
D. Culpepper    73        36        37      0       24.4      0
Brett Favre*    80        53        27      0       20.5      0

Defense ranked ppg 2000-2004

Patriots.  17, 6, 17,  1,  2.   Average  8.6
Packers    14, 5, 12, 11, 23.   Average 13.0
Vikings    24 26, 30, 23, 26.   Average 25.8

BTW, Brady's average, he only throws 28 TD's a year. With around 10 interceptions.

For one, Culpepper was throwing to Randy Moss, and Brady was doing it with a no name cast. I remember three weeks into the 2002 season Brady had already thrown TD passes to eight different receivers, most of whom no one remembers. As soon as Moss joined the Patriots, Brady's numbers spiked immediately.

The importance of Belichick's defenses, and the foul January weather that always seemed to be at play in Foxborough, those of us who saw the Pats play back then know about that. The difference between Brady and Culpepper was while Daunte may have been a physical marvel who could chuck it 70 yards, he was streaky and prone to turnovers, especially fumbles. And at least one of his coaches called him out for being lazy and not as committed as he should have been.

 

[Raptorman]

Lol, you talk like its going to happen. Just because past teams who have nothing to do with this one failed doesn't make it automatic. The Rams already proved that when so many started claiming it was going to be like the Eagles Dream Team. Before we call this season a disappointment I think I'll let it play out if you don't mind.

Keep believing what you will. Just ask Colts fans. 14 years of Manning. Top 5 offense 11 years. 1 Super Bowl. Defense, well let's just say they weren't top 10 much. But yeah, the Rams are going to beat history. They are going to be the dynasty that that doesn't need a defense to win. Good luck with that. We shall see at the end of the year....

 

[Raptorman]

For one, Culpepper was throwing to Randy Moss, and Brady was doing it with a no name cast. I remember three weeks into the 2002 season Brady had already thrown TD passes to eight different receivers, most of whom no one remembers. As soon as Moss joined the Patriots, Brady's numbers spiked immediately.

The importance of Belichick's defenses, and the foul January weather that always seemed to be at play in Foxborough, those of us who saw the Pats play back then know about that. The difference between Brady and Culpepper was while Daunte may have been a physical marvel who could chuck it 70 yards, he was streaky and prone to turnovers, especially fumbles. And at least one of his coaches called him out for being lazy and not as committed as he should have been.

OMG, get over the Randy Moss argument already. Do you know how many times Moss led the league in Receptions? Zero. Do you know how many times he leads the league in receiving yards? Zero. Funny, no one ever says "Well Brady had Gronk to throw too." Brady's first year. Do you know who had more receptions than Moss? Troy Brown in NE. And the following year. Troy Brown. But Culpepper had Moss.

 

[dieterbrock]

Ah yes. When you have nothing to contribute. Just like a Packer fan.

I did contribute, I guess you cant remember either.
Either way, since you're a Vikings fan you wouldn't have realized that after the season ended last year, (while the Vikings were playing golf), the big boys of the NFL played in what's commonly referred to as "The Playoffs".
Held the Cowboys to their season average, thanks to a back door late TD
Held the Saints to 8.5 points below their season avg and
Held the Pats to 14 points under their season avg after they had scored 78 points in their 1st 2 Playoff games.
But hey, congrats on your "Top 10" defense scoring, it really paid off!

 

[Akrasian]

Keep believing what you will. Just ask Colts fans. 14 years of Manning. Top 5 offense 11 years. 1 Super Bowl. Defense, well let's just say they weren't top 10 much. But yeah, the Rams are going to beat history. They are going to be the dynasty that that doesn't need a defense to win. Good luck with that. We shall see at the end of the year....

Are you actually reading this thread? It's been pointed out how the Rams' defense improved significantly after they got some injured players back - and in fact, they played good to very good defense for most of the postseason.

In addition, they let the two players who were most disappointing on defense leave in free agency, and then upgraded with Weddle over Joyner, and then traded up to get a NT to replace Suh who would actually play the run. Then they upgraded their linebackers with Clay Matthews. NOBODY here but you thinks they didn't do anything to improve their defense. Nobody. Besides the above-mentioned moves, their first pick was a safety expected to get a lot of snaps. The next round they took a significant upgrade over their backup cornerbacks. Frankly, they threw a lot of resources at upgrading the defense, so going on a diatribe about the Rams thinking they don't need a defense to win shows that you haven't really been following the Rams, despite posting here sometimes.

 

[Raptorman]

I did contribute, I guess you cant remember either.
Either way, since you're a Vikings fan you wouldn't have realized that after the season ended last year, (while the Vikings were playing golf), the big boys of the NFL played in what's commonly referred to as "The Playoffs".
Held the Cowboys to their season average, thanks to a back door late TD
Held the Saints to 8.5 points below their season avg and
Held the Pats to 14 points under their season avg after they had scored 78 points in their 1st 2 Playoff games.
But hey, congrats on your "Top 10" defense scoring, it really paid off!

Well for your sake I hope your defense does improve. Otherwise, you will be the Packers of the west. Win a bunch of games, maybe another Super Bowl but no dynasty. A jump from 20 to top 10 isn't impossible, but it's rarely done in one year.

Consistency counts on defense. But of course, I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about because I'm a Vikings fan and I have no idea that the Rams are going to be balls to the walls on defense this year. Oh yeah, they picked up a washed-up Clay Matthews. That's like me saying that the Vikings offense is going to score 30 points a game.

My points about defense are valid. And nothing anyone has put forth so far proves otherwise. If the Rams defense is up to the task, so be it. But if they are not, don't expect another Super Bowl appearance.