2023 NFL Thread v Super Bowl matchup: Chiefs vs. 49ers

[King Postwhore]

Weird Stat from that game. Brady threw for more yards that game than Beldsoe.

[KevShmev]

Weird Stat from that game. Brady threw for more yards that game than Beldsoe.

The Hoodie is smart.  Once they blocked that FG attempt and made it 21-3, you know he was thinking, "Don't let Drew throw it again!"

[El Barto]

If I remember right Tony Romo was replacing Bledsoe and then his first pass was an interception.

Yeah, first of 3. People thought Parcells was fucking crazy for starting him over Bledsoe, and of course he was, but not because he saw something in Romo. Also, that was a rare instance of a coach telling Jerry how things were going to be. Jerry really wanted to stick with Bledsoe (the 23M probably factored into that) and Parcells was emphatic that it was going to be Romo going forward. 

[hunnus2000]

If I remember right Tony Romo was replacing Bledsoe and then his first pass was an interception.

Yeah, first of 3. People thought Parcells was fucking crazy for starting him over Bledsoe, and of course he was, but not because he saw something in Romo. Also, that was a rare instance of a coach telling Jerry how things were going to be. Jerry really wanted to stick with Bledsoe (the 23M probably factored into that) and Parcells was emphatic that it was going to be Romo going forward.

TR's first pass in the NFL was a 33 yard touchdown. Parcells benched Bledsoe in the second half of a game because Bledsoe was playing poorly and that's when he threw 3 picks.
Romo had quite the journey to become the starter. Sean Payton wanted to take Romo with him to New Orleans but the Cowboys said no. The Cowboys knew what they had in TR.

[Stadler]

If I remember right Tony Romo was replacing Bledsoe and then his first pass was an interception.

Yeah, first of 3. People thought Parcells was fucking crazy for starting him over Bledsoe, and of course he was, but not because he saw something in Romo. Also, that was a rare instance of a coach telling Jerry how things were going to be. Jerry really wanted to stick with Bledsoe (the 23M probably factored into that) and Parcells was emphatic that it was going to be Romo going forward.

TR's first pass in the NFL was a 33 yard touchdown. Parcells benched Bledsoe in the second half of a game because Bledsoe was playing poorly and that's when he threw 3 picks.
Romo had quite the journey to become the starter. Sean Payton wanted to take Romo with him to New Orleans but the Cowboys said no. The Cowboys knew what they had in TR.

But what did they have?  Not a sarcastic question.    I remember several times in the last five or so years of his career saying that Tony Romo would NEVER win a Super Bowl.  I like him as an announcer, I think he knows the game very well, but to this day I can't quite put my finger on whether it was the general Dallas malaise that kept them from the prize, or that Tony just didn't have that extra sauce to get them there.  My recollection is that he had this knack for... not losing his head, but not having the discipline to stick with his game when it counted the most.  The botched field goal is an easy example, but there are plenty of others.

[hunnus2000]

If I remember right Tony Romo was replacing Bledsoe and then his first pass was an interception.

Yeah, first of 3. People thought Parcells was fucking crazy for starting him over Bledsoe, and of course he was, but not because he saw something in Romo. Also, that was a rare instance of a coach telling Jerry how things were going to be. Jerry really wanted to stick with Bledsoe (the 23M probably factored into that) and Parcells was emphatic that it was going to be Romo going forward.

TR's first pass in the NFL was a 33 yard touchdown. Parcells benched Bledsoe in the second half of a game because Bledsoe was playing poorly and that's when he threw 3 picks.
Romo had quite the journey to become the starter. Sean Payton wanted to take Romo with him to New Orleans but the Cowboys said no. The Cowboys knew what they had in TR.

But what did they have?  Not a sarcastic question.    I remember several times in the last five or so years of his career saying that Tony Romo would NEVER win a Super Bowl.  I like him as an announcer, I think he knows the game very well, but to this day I can't quite put my finger on whether it was the general Dallas malaise that kept them from the prize, or that Tony just didn't have that extra sauce to get them there.  My recollection is that he had this knack for... not losing his head, but not having the discipline to stick with his game when it counted the most.  The botched field goal is an easy example, but there are plenty of others.

TR at his time was easily a top ten if not top eight QB but the Cowboys never had all the team components at once which is O-Line, defense, special teams. One of their best years was with Wade Phillips in charge and one of their worst years was with Wade Phillips.

I think the luxury of having Brady for all those years has tainted your view of what it takes as a team to win the Super Bowl. It's not just the QB.

[King Postwhore]

You have to have the great QB/Coach to win multiple SB's.  You can win a SB here and there with an average QB/ Great coach if the D is stellar. (2000 Ravens) Sometimes you get it all together at the right time (Giants 07 & 11) but you need a great QB in this league, the way it's set up to be there every year and to win multiple SB's.

[TheCountOfNYC]

If I remember right Tony Romo was replacing Bledsoe and then his first pass was an interception.

Yeah, first of 3. People thought Parcells was fucking crazy for starting him over Bledsoe, and of course he was, but not because he saw something in Romo. Also, that was a rare instance of a coach telling Jerry how things were going to be. Jerry really wanted to stick with Bledsoe (the 23M probably factored into that) and Parcells was emphatic that it was going to be Romo going forward.

TR's first pass in the NFL was a 33 yard touchdown. Parcells benched Bledsoe in the second half of a game because Bledsoe was playing poorly and that's when he threw 3 picks.
Romo had quite the journey to become the starter. Sean Payton wanted to take Romo with him to New Orleans but the Cowboys said no. The Cowboys knew what they had in TR.

But what did they have?  Not a sarcastic question.    I remember several times in the last five or so years of his career saying that Tony Romo would NEVER win a Super Bowl.  I like him as an announcer, I think he knows the game very well, but to this day I can't quite put my finger on whether it was the general Dallas malaise that kept them from the prize, or that Tony just didn't have that extra sauce to get them there.  My recollection is that he had this knack for... not losing his head, but not having the discipline to stick with his game when it counted the most.  The botched field goal is an easy example, but there are plenty of others.

TR at his time was easily a top ten if not top eight QB but the Cowboys never had all the team components at once which is O-Line, defense, special teams. One of their best years was with Wade Phillips in charge and one of their worst years was with Wade Phillips.

I think the luxury of having Brady for all those years has tainted your view of what it takes as a team to win the Super Bowl. It's not just the QB.

Let’s not forget that Brady also won most of his titles by being the best player on a well put together team, but anytime the Patriots neglected even one aspect of the team (like the average defenses they fielded from 2009-2011) they came up short. The 2020 Buccaneers defense held an elite Chiefs offense to 9 points, and that contributed more to the result of Super Bowl 55 than the Bucs offense did. Brady fans tend to ignore the rest of the team when talking about his success, and while he is a big part of that championship success, he couldn’t have done it alone, as we’ve seen with a lot of the elite quarterbacks from the same era.

[Stadler]

If I remember right Tony Romo was replacing Bledsoe and then his first pass was an interception.

Yeah, first of 3. People thought Parcells was fucking crazy for starting him over Bledsoe, and of course he was, but not because he saw something in Romo. Also, that was a rare instance of a coach telling Jerry how things were going to be. Jerry really wanted to stick with Bledsoe (the 23M probably factored into that) and Parcells was emphatic that it was going to be Romo going forward.

TR's first pass in the NFL was a 33 yard touchdown. Parcells benched Bledsoe in the second half of a game because Bledsoe was playing poorly and that's when he threw 3 picks.
Romo had quite the journey to become the starter. Sean Payton wanted to take Romo with him to New Orleans but the Cowboys said no. The Cowboys knew what they had in TR.

But what did they have?  Not a sarcastic question.    I remember several times in the last five or so years of his career saying that Tony Romo would NEVER win a Super Bowl.  I like him as an announcer, I think he knows the game very well, but to this day I can't quite put my finger on whether it was the general Dallas malaise that kept them from the prize, or that Tony just didn't have that extra sauce to get them there.  My recollection is that he had this knack for... not losing his head, but not having the discipline to stick with his game when it counted the most.  The botched field goal is an easy example, but there are plenty of others.

TR at his time was easily a top ten if not top eight QB but the Cowboys never had all the team components at once which is O-Line, defense, special teams. One of their best years was with Wade Phillips in charge and one of their worst years was with Wade Phillips.

I think the luxury of having Brady for all those years has tainted your view of what it takes as a team to win the Super Bowl. It's not just the QB.

But "I" didn't have Brady.  Yeah, I'm a Patriots fan, primarily because of Belichick, but I grew up a Giants fan.  I watched Phil Simms, Jeff Rutledge and Eli Manning (twice) win Super Bowls.   I get it.  I think, though, that doesn't mean that ANYONE can win a Super Bowl.  And "average" implies that; I think you still have to have a "winning" element to your tool set, which is why Philip Rivers, Dan Marino and Tony Romo don't have one. I think they lack something that elevates perhaps lesser skilled players.  Jim McMahon; that dude won wherever he was.  He just refused to lose, even when his body was failing him (miserably). 

I'm not saying it's JUST the QB; in fact, I've often argued that it's not.  BUT, one of the pieces you do need is an element that whatever the moment called for, the winners on the team delivered.

[King Postwhore]

<---  This Pats fan had season tickets to the Rod Rust led 1-15 team.  I've seen it all.  The good, great and the very bad.

[El Barto]

If I remember right Tony Romo was replacing Bledsoe and then his first pass was an interception.

Yeah, first of 3. People thought Parcells was fucking crazy for starting him over Bledsoe, and of course he was, but not because he saw something in Romo. Also, that was a rare instance of a coach telling Jerry how things were going to be. Jerry really wanted to stick with Bledsoe (the 23M probably factored into that) and Parcells was emphatic that it was going to be Romo going forward.

TR's first pass in the NFL was a 33 yard touchdown. Parcells benched Bledsoe in the second half of a game because Bledsoe was playing poorly and that's when he threw 3 picks.
Romo had quite the journey to become the starter. Sean Payton wanted to take Romo with him to New Orleans but the Cowboys said no. The Cowboys knew what they had in TR.

Eh, that's what I get for blindly assuming King was correct. 

But what did they have?  Not a sarcastic question.    I remember several times in the last five or so years of his career saying that Tony Romo would NEVER win a Super Bowl.  I like him as an announcer, I think he knows the game very well, but to this day I can't quite put my finger on whether it was the general Dallas malaise that kept them from the prize, or that Tony just didn't have that extra sauce to get them there.  My recollection is that he had this knack for... not losing his head, but not having the discipline to stick with his game when it counted the most.  The botched field goal is an easy example, but there are plenty of others.

Romo on a proper team wins an Owl.

Also, he was never able to live down that botched FG. That could have happened to anybody but it happened to him and it set the tone for his entire career. And as an aside, I have no idea how there are three botched holds a Sunday. I think being a holder must be the most gut-wrenching position to play.

[King Postwhore]

Wait!  I didn't say anything about Bledsoe on the Cowboys being benched. 

[Dream Team]

It seems a lot of times when QBs get labeled "winners" they're winning a lot of 17-14 games while the guys labeled "losers" are losing games 33-30. I.E., a lot of what goes into "winning" is actually leaning on your defense and running game. Tony Romo was, statistically, one of the 5 best in the game when he was playing but had the misfortune to time his most epic screwups at the worst possible moments. I just rewatched that amazing, epic shootout he had with Peyton in 2013 that ended 52-49 because he threw a game-ending pick directly at a DB.

[Stadler]

It seems a lot of times when QBs get labeled "winners" they're winning a lot of 17-14 games while the guys labeled "losers" are losing games 33-30. I.E., a lot of what goes into "winning" is actually leaning on your defense and running game. Tony Romo was, statistically, one of the 5 best in the game when he was playing but had the misfortune to time his most epic screwups at the worst possible moments. I just rewatched that amazing, epic shootout he had with Peyton in 2013 that ended 52-49 because he threw a game-ending pick directly at a DB.

That's not "misfortune".  That's the whole essence of being a winner.  Who are the great "winners" in sports?  Brady; Jordan; Orr...  they had the ability to be great for 59 minutes, or whatever, and then when the game was on the line, when there was zero margin for error, they found a new gear.  They DIDN'T throw game-ending picks directly at a DB.  Call it luck, call it something else - having played three sports up until my early 40's it's something else - but that's the essence of a winner.  Most of the great ones will tell you; there's a zone; at some point the game just slows down.   I think if you talk to the "greats" in any field they will tell you something similar.  Musicians; Steve Lukather has said this, as has Jimmy Page:  you're playing and you hit a certain groove and you forget about every thing else - the fans, your wife, your kid, your mortgage - and you're locked in and it's almost like your subconscious brain takes over.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

Ultimately football is a relatively complex sport with a ton of inputs that affect a game's result. We like to pretend it's really just one player, or one coach who is responsible for the W or L- probably because for one, it is easier to think of it that way and create a narrative that's interesting for people- but this isn't Tennis. There is no one GOAT in football.

[Stadler]

Ultimately football is a relatively complex sport with a ton of inputs that affect a game's result. We like to pretend it's really just one player, or one coach who is responsible for the W or L- probably because for one, it is easier to think of it that way and create a narrative that's interesting for people- but this isn't Tennis. There is no one GOAT in football.

I don't disagree, generally, but I don't want to go too far in the other direction. There are players - Lawrence Taylor is the most obvious choice - who DID have the ability to change the fortune of games all on their own.  Granted "GOAT" gets thrown around like Tootsie Rolls at a May Day parade, which is wrong, but that's not to say it should never be used.  I remember watching Gretsky play live in Hartford and to this day - and this includes Messier, Lemieux, and Crosby, who I've all seen play live - I've never seen someone influence every aspect of a game like that.   I know hockey - I played it up through college and even a little after - and it took me a LONG time, well after the game itself, to figure out what he was doing. I forget if it was Jack Evans or Larry Pleau coaching at the time, but rather than stand there stoically during the game, you'd see Gretsky either take the ice or leave the ice and you'd see the Whale coach tapping players.  Just his PRESENCE changed everything for the opposing team.   Some players do the expected just much better than everyone else.  An elite group of players do the unexpected. 

[lordxizor]

Lots of speculation and armchair GM-ing by people saying the Vikings should attempt to trade Kirk Cousins and draft picks to Baltimore for Lamar Jackson. Certainly an intriguing prospect for both teams. Baltimore gets a decent QB for 2023 and draft picks to potentially select the QB of the future to learn under Cousins for a season. Vikings get a potentially great QB who is 9 years younger than Cousins and could continue to grow with Jefferson as one of the best WRs in the league. I don't know how the Vikings make that work with their salary cap situation being as poor as it is and needing to give Jefferson a monster contract before 2024. I'm not sold on Jackson being the MVP-caliber QB he was for a couple years. Injuries are a big factor for him. It would be fun to see them go all-in to win a Super Bowl though, and they would be a big step closer if they made this move. Cousins is good, but he ain't getting anyone to the Super Bowl.

[KevShmev]

Lots of speculation and armchair GM-ing by people saying the Vikings should attempt to trade Kirk Cousins and draft picks to Baltimore for Lamar Jackson. Certainly an intriguing prospect for both teams. Baltimore gets a decent QB for 2023 and draft picks to potentially select the QB of the future to learn under Cousins for a season. Vikings get a potentially great QB who is 9 years younger than Cousins and could continue to grow with Jefferson as one of the best WRs in the league. I don't know how the Vikings make that work with their salary cap situation being as poor as it is and needing to give Jefferson a monster contract before 2024. I'm not sold on Jackson being the MVP-caliber QB he was for a couple years. Injuries are a big factor for him. It would be fun to see them go all-in to win a Super Bowl though, and they would be a big step closer if they made this move. Cousins is good, but he ain't getting anyone to the Super Bowl.

The same could be said for Jackson, who has one playoff win in five NFL seasons, and has generally not been a good postseason QB. Small sample size, but it's hard to get a larger sample size when you keep playing poorly in playoff games and/or missing them because you're hurt/holding out.  Cousins, for all his limitations, shows up to play every week and never gets hurt. The same cannot be said for Jackson.

[lordxizor]

Lots of speculation and armchair GM-ing by people saying the Vikings should attempt to trade Kirk Cousins and draft picks to Baltimore for Lamar Jackson. Certainly an intriguing prospect for both teams. Baltimore gets a decent QB for 2023 and draft picks to potentially select the QB of the future to learn under Cousins for a season. Vikings get a potentially great QB who is 9 years younger than Cousins and could continue to grow with Jefferson as one of the best WRs in the league. I don't know how the Vikings make that work with their salary cap situation being as poor as it is and needing to give Jefferson a monster contract before 2024. I'm not sold on Jackson being the MVP-caliber QB he was for a couple years. Injuries are a big factor for him. It would be fun to see them go all-in to win a Super Bowl though, and they would be a big step closer if they made this move. Cousins is good, but he ain't getting anyone to the Super Bowl.

The same could be said for Jackson, who has one playoff win in five NFL seasons, and has generally not been a good postseason QB. Small sample size, but it's hard to get a larger sample size when you keep playing poorly in playoff games and/or missing them because you're hurt/holding out.  Cousins, for all his limitations, shows up to play every week and never gets hurt. The same cannot be said for Jackson.

That's a fair assessment of Jackson. But it is a smaller sample size and i think there's higher upside. Cousins is definitely a good professional leader and finds a way to stay healthy despite a porous O-line the last couple seasons.

[Stadler]

I've always been a cheerleader for Jackson.   I loved him, and at times had him as one of the top three QBs in the league.  I thought with John H. he could go places.   These last two years have done two things:  one, FIRMLY convinced me that the pure athlete as QB model is a limited upside model, and two, even if one isn't right, Lamar ain't the guy.  I don't think I would invest a ton of money on a guy who may or may not be on the field physically, and who may or may not be on the field mentally even when he is on the field physically.  (And yes, even though I spoke highly of Deshawn Watson's ability, that includes him; the Browns are dumb, IMO). 

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

Lots of speculation and armchair GM-ing by people saying the Vikings should attempt to trade Kirk Cousins and draft picks to Baltimore for Lamar Jackson. Certainly an intriguing prospect for both teams. Baltimore gets a decent QB for 2023 and draft picks to potentially select the QB of the future to learn under Cousins for a season. Vikings get a potentially great QB who is 9 years younger than Cousins and could continue to grow with Jefferson as one of the best WRs in the league. I don't know how the Vikings make that work with their salary cap situation being as poor as it is and needing to give Jefferson a monster contract before 2024. I'm not sold on Jackson being the MVP-caliber QB he was for a couple years. Injuries are a big factor for him. It would be fun to see them go all-in to win a Super Bowl though, and they would be a big step closer if they made this move. Cousins is good, but he ain't getting anyone to the Super Bowl.

Same could be said about Jackson. Actually, if you compare stats of Cousins and Jacksons, Cousins has been way more consistent and productive.

[Dream Team]

Yeah I tend to see it the same way. I think one thing we all universally agree on is that a quarterback HAS TO beat you from the pocket at some point. Especially if they actually advance to the Championship Game or Super Bowl. Lamar has been spotty in that area.

[KevShmev]

Lots of speculation and armchair GM-ing by people saying the Vikings should attempt to trade Kirk Cousins and draft picks to Baltimore for Lamar Jackson. Certainly an intriguing prospect for both teams. Baltimore gets a decent QB for 2023 and draft picks to potentially select the QB of the future to learn under Cousins for a season. Vikings get a potentially great QB who is 9 years younger than Cousins and could continue to grow with Jefferson as one of the best WRs in the league. I don't know how the Vikings make that work with their salary cap situation being as poor as it is and needing to give Jefferson a monster contract before 2024. I'm not sold on Jackson being the MVP-caliber QB he was for a couple years. Injuries are a big factor for him. It would be fun to see them go all-in to win a Super Bowl though, and they would be a big step closer if they made this move. Cousins is good, but he ain't getting anyone to the Super Bowl.

The same could be said for Jackson, who has one playoff win in five NFL seasons, and has generally not been a good postseason QB. Small sample size, but it's hard to get a larger sample size when you keep playing poorly in playoff games and/or missing them because you're hurt/holding out.  Cousins, for all his limitations, shows up to play every week and never gets hurt. The same cannot be said for Jackson.

That's a fair assessment of Jackson. But it is a smaller sample size and i think there's higher upside. Cousins is definitely a good professional leader and finds a way to stay healthy despite a porous O-line the last couple seasons.

The thing is, do people think Lamar is going to be better going forward than what he has shown so far?  If so, then that small sample could turn into a bigger one if he starts winning some playoff games.  I think we all know he'll never be a Peyton Manning, but Manning was 0-3 in the playoffs in his first five NFL seasons, and took a lot of heat for it, and then went 7-3 with a Super Bowl win in the playoffs in his next four seasons, so narratives can change.  Jackson burning bridges with the Ravens, who have a history of winning a lot this century (long before Lamar was on their team), is likely counterproductive to him being more successful going forward.

[lordxizor]

Rumors are swirling of the Vikings trading Cousins to San Francisco for Trey Lance. I assume it wouldn't be a straight up deal, but who knows, and Cousins would need to approve it. I think this would make more sense for the Vikings than trying to draft a QB, or trying to trade/sign Lamar Jackson. Not sure what SF would do with Cousins though. Start him this year and hope Brock Purdy heals/develops for a year on the bench?

[El Barto]

Considering what they gave up to acquire Lance I wouldn't give up on him just yet. Even if Purdy remains the starter I'd still want to develop him.

[lordxizor]

Considering what they gave up to acquire Lance I wouldn't give up on him just yet. Even if Purdy remains the starter I'd still want to develop him.

Definitely makes less sense for SF than Minn. Having a couple young, relatively cheap QBs on the roster isn't a bad position to be in. If they were going to trade Lance, trading for draft picks would make more sense.

[bosk1]

Rumors are swirling of the Vikings trading Cousins to San Francisco for Trey Lance. I assume it wouldn't be a straight up deal, but who knows, and Cousins would need to approve it. I think this would make more sense for the Vikings than trying to draft a QB, or trying to trade/sign Lamar Jackson. Not sure what SF would do with Cousins though. Start him this year and hope Brock Purdy heals/develops for a year on the bench?

I wouldn't call it a "rumor," since nobody tied to the organization is rumored to be a source.  It's just talking heads speculating.  I would be shocked if there were any truth to this.  The facts from within the organization regarding their QB situation are:  (1) They have said Purdy is the presumptive starter next season; (2) They feel they are poised to make a serious SB run again next season; and (3) Their cap situation is workable but tight with their current QB roster, and bringing Cousins in would negatively impact that in a HUGE way.  None of those facts are favorable toward the "rumor."

[lordxizor]

Rumors are swirling of the Vikings trading Cousins to San Francisco for Trey Lance. I assume it wouldn't be a straight up deal, but who knows, and Cousins would need to approve it. I think this would make more sense for the Vikings than trying to draft a QB, or trying to trade/sign Lamar Jackson. Not sure what SF would do with Cousins though. Start him this year and hope Brock Purdy heals/develops for a year on the bench?

I wouldn't call it a "rumor," since nobody tied to the organization is rumored to be a source.  It's just talking heads speculating.  I would be shocked if there were any truth to this.  The facts from within the organization regarding their QB situation are:  (1) They have said Purdy is the presumptive starter next season; (2) They feel they are poised to make a serious SB run again next season; and (3) Their cap situation is workable but tight with their current QB roster, and bringing Cousins in would negatively impact that in a HUGE way.  None of those facts are favorable toward the "rumor."

What I read was that it was based on chatter of "people in the league" as opposed to media. What that means i dont know. Could have been no one on either Minny or SF. I doubt there was anything too substantial about it, but it's fun to speculate. I agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for SF, but I wouldn't take too much stock in what the organization says. They'd toss Purdy to the wind the day after saying he's their guy if they believed it would give them a better chance of winning a super bowl.
 

[KevShmev]

Cousins is better than any QB the 49ers have had in the Shanahan era, but he'd cost too much money against the cap for it to be feasible, I would imagine.

[bosk1]

Cousins is better than any QB the 49ers have had in the Shanahan era

  That's honestly one of the worst takes on quarterbacking that I've seen posted on this forum.

[Stadler]

Cousins is better than any QB the 49ers have had in the Shanahan era

  That's honestly one of the worst takes on quarterbacking that I've seen posted on this forum.

I don't see what the charm is with Cousins.  I view him as another Philip Rivers.  He's got numbers and records and squateen to show for it.   Only two seasons with double-digit wins, and one-and-three in the playoffs with good teams.

[KevShmev]

I don't see what the charm is with Cousins.  I view him as another Philip Rivers.  He's got numbers and records and squateen to show for it.   Only two seasons with double-digit wins, and one-and-three in the playoffs with good teams.

Cousins isn't great, but he is good and durable. No other QB Shanahan has had can say they've been good AND durable.  Purdy's sample size is still too small, and Garoppolo's 4-2 playoff record is meaningless considering he has been horrible in most of those games (4 touchdowns, 6 interceptions and 160 passing yards per game in six playoff games...woah, stand back!!).  The 49ers have no interest in bringing Garoppolo back because they know he is average at best (they didn't want him a year ago, but no other team really wanted him either), meaning they are willing to go with a still-unknown in Lance or a recovering Brock Purdy.  I usually trust that teams know more about their own quarterbacks than we do, especially one with a savvy offensive coach like Kyle Shanahan (who knows more about NFL offenses than any of us could ever dream to know) and the 49ers have basically been saying for a year, "We don't think Garoppolo is good enough to get us over the hump."  I believe them.

[Stadler]

Although I'm a fan of Jimmy G., I don't really disagree with you.  But given all that, a 34-year-old Kirk Cousins doesn't solve that problem, IMO. 

[KevShmev]

Although I'm a fan of Jimmy G., I don't really disagree with you.  But given all that, a 34-year-old Kirk Cousins doesn't solve that problem, IMO.

I agree, especially given his salary and cap hit, which, to be fair, I did mention in my post last night.

It's almost scary to think of how good that team would be if they actually got an above average QB. They are loaded almost everywhere, but just haven't gotten the most important position right (yet still have three deep playoff runs in the last five years).

[lordxizor]

Although I'm a fan of Jimmy G., I don't really disagree with you.  But given all that, a 34-year-old Kirk Cousins doesn't solve that problem, IMO. 

Cousins would put up better numbers than the Jimmy G ones in the playoffs, but would that lead to more wins? Honestly, that would largely be up to the rest of the team as I think Cousins has shown he's not the guy to put the team on his shoulders and will them to victory.

I generally think that Cousins is a better QB than many give him credit for. Some people bizarrely think he is awful, which he certainly isn't. But he's a known entity at this point, a solid, durable QB who will give you a chance to win most weeks, but don't expect him to have that magic touch that pushes you over the edge.