Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Well this has possible down the road QB controversy written all over it.


I generally agree.

 

But also there were some reports that he has sort of cashed it in. This might be a sign he’s ok being a career back up?

 

I don’t know. I’m just making stuff up at this point. 

  • Haha (+1) 4
Posted (edited)

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1564363001167319042

 

Sorry, not sure if I embedded properly. From Adam Schefter:

Jimmy Garoppolo and the 49ers agreed to a restructured one-year contract that will keep the QB in San Francisco this season, per sources. The contract contains no-trade and no-tag clauses, assuring Garoppolo will remain in SF this season and have the freedom to leave in 2023.

Edited by UKBillFan
Tweet in bold
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Sounds like Jimmy doesn't like starting since he is always getting hurt.  Maybe he's content with just being a back up and feels he's made enough money already!  

 

He would have been the Seahawks or Browns opening day starter if he wanted to be!  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Disagree 1
Posted

Given lances athletic ability it’s never bad to have one of the best backups in the league. But this whole situation and last season wreak of Lance is not progressing like a top drafted 1st rounder should. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BuffaloButt said:

Sounds like Jimmy doesn't like starting since he is always getting hurt.  Maybe he's content with just being a back up and feels he's made enough money already!  

 

He would have been the Seahawks or Browns opening day starter if he wanted to be!  

 

Browns had already ruled themselves out as they're going to apparently stick with Brissett until Watson has served his suspension.

As per Rapoport, sounds like Garoppolo was not that interested in going to the Seahawks.

Could be a good way to start a coaching career; help Lance through his first season as starter.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, BuffaloButt said:

Sounds like Jimmy doesn't like starting since he is always getting hurt.  Maybe he's content with just being a back up and feels he's made enough money already!  

 

He would have been the Seahawks or Browns opening day starter if he wanted to be!  

Would rather take a pay cut 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, BuffaloButt said:

Sounds like Jimmy doesn't like starting since he is always getting hurt.  Maybe he's content with just being a back up and feels he's made enough money already!  

 

He would have been the Seahawks or Browns opening day starter if he wanted to be!  

Falcons, Jets, and maybe Miami, wk3+, Giants wk2+ as well. That’s the only explanation, that he likes the backup job. Billy Volek is the only other QB I can recall who favored being a backup over starter opportunities. 

Edited by Charles Romes
Posted
15 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

Too realistic.  An agent would not want to make that deal since he would take a cut in commission.  Is Jimmy his own agent?

The agent doesn’t get to decide…Lance has looked bad in preseason…Jimmy may get an opportunity to start again with the 49ers, and the new contract makes him more tradable if something opens up during the season….

  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, mannc said:

The agent doesn’t get to decide…Lance has looked bad in preseason…Jimmy may get an opportunity to start again with the 49ers, and the new contract makes him more tradable if something opens up during the season….

I guess you missed the no trade part of the contract. 

  • Agree 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said:

Smart decision. Still getting paid on a good team while staying in the system you know with the coach you know.

 

Wins across the board.


Lance does not win with this. Pressure is on, has to produce now.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, wppete said:


Lance does not win with this. Pressure is on, has to produce now.  

 

Year 2 on a loaded team with arguably the best developer of QB talent in the league.  

 

He had better show something.

  • Agree 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

I guess you missed the no trade part of the contract. 

 

In fairness, doesn't the no trade clause mean that Garoppolo has to agree to a trade, rather than there won't be a trade at all?

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 1
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...