Just now, Shalodeep said:

Being carried there twice wouldn't be impressive and they tried to get away from him behind center a few times already. Unless he is what lurie wants as a QB at the end of the season, we grab his replacement next offseason 

If he’s one and done and lacking stats he’s a goner. Sure. You need at least stats if you are completely unsuccessful (like Dak) to get payed.

But no way in hell people will say: He got carried deep into playoffs, let’s get rid of him.

14 minutes ago, Infam said:

If we make it deep into the playoffs I very much doubt that.

Did the 49ers just replace Jimmy G after getting to the NFC title game ??  Isn't that the same Jimmy G that went to the Super Bowl 2 years earlier ??

4 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Did the 49ers just replace Jimmy G after getting to the NFC title game ??  Isn't that the same Jimmy G that went to the Super Bowl 2 years earlier ??

You guys better get ready to cheer for Hurts for many years to come.. 😁

4 minutes ago, Infam said:

You guys better get ready to cheer for Hurts for many years to come.. 😁

I don't cheer for other teams back ups 

4 minutes ago, Infam said:

You guys better get ready to cheer for Hurts for many years to come.. 😁

Won’t be the starter after next year, and possibly not even next year

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

Won’t be the starter after next year, and possibly not even next year

I will very much enjoy how much people will be annoyed when this turns out to be false.

17 minutes ago, Infam said:

So after making playoffs in his first full season he leads them deep into playoffs, 24 years old.

Yeah sure, dream on. 😄

Out of curiosity... what was Tim Tebow's fate in Denver after he led them to the playoffs and a playoff victory at the age of 24?

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Out of curiosity... what was Tim Tebow's fate in Denver after he led them to the playoffs and a playoff victory at the age of 24?

We were talking about him making a deep playoff run without having ‘the stats’.. 

It’s not unheard of, sure. We got rid of Foles, so obviously playoff success isn’t everything for our FO.

But I am pretty sure if he has success in the playoffs, he’ll stay.

Just now, Infam said:

We were talking about him making a deep playoff run without having ‘the stats’.. 

It’s not unheard of, sure, ask Foles. But I am pretty sure if he has success in tge playoffs, he’ll stay.

I'll ask again... what was Tim Tebow's fate in Denver after he led them to the playoffs and a playoff victory at the age of 24?

7 minutes ago, Infam said:

I will very much enjoy how much people will be annoyed when this turns out to be false.

I will very much enjoy posting the screenshot I just took of this when Hurts is replaced.

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

I'll ask again... what was Tim Tebow's fate in Denver after he led them to the playoffs and a playoff victory at the age of 24?

So what? 
If you play lottery and win, should I assume everyone that plays will?

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

I will very much enjoy posting the screenshot I just took of this when Hurts is replaced.

No problem. I am confident enough to admit when I was wrong.

Like believing in Wentz for example.

1 minute ago, Infam said:

So what? 
If you play lottery and win, should I assume everyone that plays will?

Ok.  Name an example of a QB who makes a deep playoff run without the stats and was 'the guy' the following year with that team.   Trent Dilfer won the SB with the Ravens, didn't have the stats and was gone the next season.  Jimmy G, as has already been pointed out, is a guy that SF has been trying to replace for years.  Can you name one?

 

What you are suggesting is the OPPOSITE of the odds you are portraying.  In the NFL, the QB has to both win in the playoffs AND put up stats while doing so... and frankly, many times, they will even take the stats over the wins when push comes to shove and contract time rolls around... see also, Prescott, Dak, Murray, Kyler, Cousins, Kirk, etc.  Stats are what gets QBs paid in the NFL.   Very very very few QBs get the chance to improve on their stats even after a playoff run, because the team usually sees the QB without the stats as the piece that held them back from going even further, and they do whatever they can to fix the QB position while the other pieces are in place around that position.  (or have you not been watching what's happened recently in the NFL with the QB movement... Brady, Stafford, Wilson, Watson, etc.?)

5 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Ok.  Name an example of a QB who makes a deep playoff run without the stats and was 'the guy' the following year with that team.   Trent Dilfer won the SB with the Ravens, didn't have the stats and was gone the next season.  Jimmy G, as has already been pointed out, is a guy that SF has been trying to replace for years.  Can you name one?

 

What you are suggesting is the OPPOSITE of the odds you are portraying.  In the NFL, the QB has to both win in the playoffs AND put up stats while doing so... and frankly, many times, they will even take the stats over the wins when push comes to shove and contract time rolls around... see also, Prescott, Dak, Murray, Kyler, Cousins, Kirk, etc.  Stats are what gets QBs paid in the NFL.   Very very very few QBs get the chance to improve on their stats even after a playoff run, because the team usually sees the QB without the stats as the piece that held them back from going even further, and they do whatever they can to fix the QB position while the other pieces are in place around that position.  (or have you not been watching what's happened recently in the NFL with the QB movement... Brady, Stafford, Wilson, Watson, etc.?)

You know what, that sounds fair enough. I think there should be examples, but given I’m too lazy to actually check I’ll concede the point.

53 minutes ago, downundermike said:

I will very much enjoy posting the screenshot I just took of this when Hurts is replaced.

Me too. Don’t forget to tag me so I don’t miss it lol. 

1 hour ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Ok.  Name an example of a QB who makes a deep playoff run without the stats and was 'the guy' the following year with that team.   Trent Dilfer won the SB with the Ravens, didn't have the stats and was gone the next season.  Jimmy G, as has already been pointed out, is a guy that SF has been trying to replace for years.  Can you name one?

 

What you are suggesting is the OPPOSITE of the odds you are portraying.  In the NFL, the QB has to both win in the playoffs AND put up stats while doing so... and frankly, many times, they will even take the stats over the wins when push comes to shove and contract time rolls around... see also, Prescott, Dak, Murray, Kyler, Cousins, Kirk, etc.  Stats are what gets QBs paid in the NFL.   Very very very few QBs get the chance to improve on their stats even after a playoff run, because the team usually sees the QB without the stats as the piece that held them back from going even further, and they do whatever they can to fix the QB position while the other pieces are in place around that position.  (or have you not been watching what's happened recently in the NFL with the QB movement... Brady, Stafford, Wilson, Watson, etc.?)

Eli Manning? And if you go back further, there were a lot more, like Jeff Hostetler, etc.

I guess maybe there aren't any recent examples anymore of QBs who don't have the stats but keeps winning in the playoffs. The league has changed so much just in the last 10 years.

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

Did the 49ers just replace Jimmy G after getting to the NFC title game ??  Isn't that the same Jimmy G that went to the Super Bowl 2 years earlier ??

Yes, but Hurts is not a 30-year-old QB making $26 million a year right now.

2 hours ago, opa-opa said:

Eli Manning? And if you go back further, there were a lot more, like Jeff Hostetler, etc.

I guess maybe there aren't any recent examples anymore of QBs who don't have the stats but keeps winning in the playoffs. The league has changed so much just in the last 10 years.

Nope.  Hostetler was a career backup in NY.  He came in for Phil Simms in relief the year they won the SB (1990 season).  And then had to compete with Simms to win the starting job, it wasn't handed to him.  He was injured during 1991 and Simms took over.  And at the start of 1992, Simms was the starter again in NY.  He then became the starter with the Raiders in 1993. 

Eli Manning was always a stats guy.  He went over 4k passing yards 7 times and missed by a hair's breadth twice more.  Eli's biggest issue was always the bad INTs.  But, he could always sling it around.  And he had something that none of these others have... he had the golden Manning name.  

 

I'd love to see the other names in the 'etc.'  There's just not a list of QBs that get that opportunity.  Hurts needs to prove he can be a passer in the NFL to remain a starter.  

 

But, I agree... the NFL is very very different than it has been in the past.  It was always an impatient league, and it has gotten even less patient than before.

9 hours ago, EazyEaglez said:

I can accept that my quarterback isn’t that good when he’s getting 2mil, but not when he’s getting well over 20 mil, but that’s just me.

I can’t accept either.

4 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Ok.  Name an example of a QB who makes a deep playoff run without the stats and was 'the guy' the following year with that team. 

Tom Brady

 

15 games played, 14 starts, couldn’t even throw for 3000 yards, didn’t even throw 20 TDs, a suboptimal 1.5-1 TD to INT ratio, yards per attempt under 7, passer rating in the 80’s. Nearly 3% of his passes were intercepted (which was one of the worst percentages that year for QB’s who started more than 12 games), didn’t even throw for 190(!) yards a game.

Zero draft investment to force them to keep him, zero contract investment to force them to keep him, even had a franchise QB on the roster at the time

 

IMO, without hindsight and only knowing what we knew then, it was harder for us to stick with Wentz over Foles after 2017 than it would have been for the Pats to just stay with Bledsoe. He had already led them to the Super Bowl, he was a many time pro bowler, and a lot of pundits expected him to outperform Tom in Buffalo.

So not only does it perfectly fit your question, but of all the QB scenarios, you would be hard pressed to find a situation where it was easier just to move off from the guy. He didn’t put up stats like Bledsoe, he didn’t have an arm like Bledsoe, he wasn’t going to outduel any of the big guys if they ever broke through his defense (again, at the time); so why did they stay with Tom? Because he fit the offense they built, they had a rapport with the young guy willing to do whatever it took, and they simply liked his moxie.

24 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Tom Brady

 

15 games played, 14 starts, couldn’t even throw for 3000 yards, didn’t even throw 20 TDs, a suboptimal 1.5-1 TD to INT ratio, yards per attempt under 7, passer rating in the 80’s. Nearly 3% of his passes were intercepted (which was one of the worst percentages that year for QB’s who started more than 12 games), didn’t even throw for 190(!) yards a game.

Zero draft investment to force them to keep him, zero contract investment to force them to keep him, even had a franchise QB on the roster at the time

Are you bringing up the Brady from over 20 years ago? 

The league has changed so much since then, the point of their discussion is to identify a modern day QB that fits the role of being successful without stats. Even modern day Brady has evolved into that model. He finished first in yards and TDs, second in QBR. 

1 minute ago, kentwo said:

Are you bringing up the Brady from over 20 years ago? 

The league has changed so much since then, the point of their discussion is to identify a modern day QB that fits the role of being successful without stats. Even modern day Brady has evolved into that model. He finished first in yards and TDs, second in QBR. 

Im bringing up Brady under the context that the person who presented that question had already brought up Trent Dilfer as an example; Trent who won before Brady

6 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'll ask again... what was Tim Tebow's fate in Denver after he led them to the playoffs and a playoff victory at the age of 24?

The same as Foles's

6 hours ago, Infam said:

I will very much enjoy how much people will be annoyed when this turns out to be false.

Do you enjoy being in NFL purgatory with a backwards offense that has no chance of competing?  Or does watching people get annoyed by Hurts make it all worthwhile?

3 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Tom Brady

 

15 games played, 14 starts, couldn’t even throw for 3000 yards, didn’t even throw 20 TDs, a suboptimal 1.5-1 TD to INT ratio, yards per attempt under 7, passer rating in the 80’s. Nearly 3% of his passes were intercepted (which was one of the worst percentages that year for QB’s who started more than 12 games), didn’t even throw for 190(!) yards a game.

Zero draft investment to force them to keep him, zero contract investment to force them to keep him, even had a franchise QB on the roster at the time

 

IMO, without hindsight and only knowing what we knew then, it was harder for us to stick with Wentz over Foles after 2017 than it would have been for the Pats to just stay with Bledsoe. He had already led them to the Super Bowl, he was a many time pro bowler, and a lot of pundits expected him to outperform Tom in Buffalo.

So not only does it perfectly fit your question, but of all the QB scenarios, you would be hard pressed to find a situation where it was easier just to move off from the guy. He didn’t put up stats like Bledsoe, he didn’t have an arm like Bledsoe, he wasn’t going to outduel any of the big guys if they ever broke through his defense (again, at the time); so why did they stay with Tom? Because he fit the offense they built, they had a rapport with the young guy willing to do whatever it took, and they simply liked his moxie.

You are correct.  That's one.