Rodgers is obviously the better QB, but Kaep just has his number

[Spur-Addict]

BatManu20, Tramon Williams gained more yards on his INT reception return comparatively to the GB offense until that point (INT made at 13 mins left in 2nd Quarter). To give you an idea, the yardage gained on that return was about 17 yards. That's unacceptable. So, the GB offense had a lot to do with them being on the field for extended periods of time throughout that game. There were at least three, 3-and-outs by the GB offense in the first half.

[HarlemHeat37]

Rodgers didn't play well, he really didn't play well in either of the 2 games he played to end the season, he was clearly rusty..however, Kaepernick played awful as well, but was bailed out by a defense that didn't understand the simple concept of containment..

Comparing Rodgers' fumble where the ball fell right in front of him to Kaepernick throwing 2 balls that should have EASILY been intercepted is just reaching, tbh..

Tramon Williams dropped an INT in the end zone that should have been easy for any decent defensive back, and Hyde dropped a ball that Kaepernick essentially begged him to take, and could have potentially been a pick-6..

Green Bay's defense got virtually no pressure on Kaepernick all game and the only reason they "only" allowed 23 points is because Kaepernick is a very mediocre QB, tbh..he missed a ton of throws and looked terrible inside the pocket, as usual..

[resistanze]

GB also kicked a fumble out of bounds, so I'd like to know the other examples of potential turnovers that negative GB's clear missed chances

[Spur-Addict]

No, not reaching. And I'm sure if I went back and watched the game there would be other turnover opportunities squandered as well by SF. But, why make excuses?

Because that's all I'm hearing tbh

[HarlemHeat37]

GB also kicked a fumble out of bounds, so I'd like to know the other examples of potential turnovers that negative GB's clear missed chances

ya, I forgot about that, Jennings had an easy fumble recovery that any decent defensive player would have recovered, tbh..

[HarlemHeat37]

No, not reaching. And I'm sure if I went back and watched the game there would be other turnover opportunities squandered as well by SF. But, why make excuses?

Because that's all I'm hearing tbh

You're actually arguing that you could find turnover opportunities that are comparable to Kaepernick throwing 2 atrocious balls that were literally in the hands of the defensive backs and dropped?..

[resistanze]

I don't see the issue...SF was the superior team and won. Rodgers could've been better, and the defense A LOT better. they missed game changers and gave up game changers. Saying "177 yards, 1 TD isn't gonna cut it!" isn't a rational football argument for someone that watched the game tbh. Pointing to the points total without factoring missed opportunities by the defense is weird. SF didn't play well at all either - they probably put up 13 points against an average defensive team.

[Spur-Addict]

A turnover opportunity is just that, an opportunity. Spin it how you'd like to. But for the most part, the meat of what I've been saying hasn't really be addressed. And to sit here and pin this on the defense is laughable when they're the only defense that created an actual turnover in yesterdays game, and only gave up 23 total points when you have the best QB in the game at the helm of your franchise who only accounted for 188 total yards and 1 TD, tbh.

[Chinook]

At some point we have to be honest and put the responsibility on the guy who's eating up a large chunk of the salary cap that causes the defense to have short comings. Also, the money spent to give weapons to said QB. And, be honest and not point to that same defense that has a talent deficiency comparatively because of that contract. Not every team with a top end QB like N.O can field a top end defense like N.O. That's an anomaly tbh. If you're getting paid the big dollars, and you have those weapons at your disposal, it's on you, period.

Especially in a game where your defense only gives up 23 points. I bet if you ask a GB fan before the game if you'd live with SF only scoring 23, they'd take that in a heartbeat.

This is trurer than most folks understand. People think quarterbacks' value is increasing due to the new rules, and that's true in a general sense. The position is becoming more important. But the effect of that is that the relative value of elite quarterbacks is decreasing. Why pay so much for a Flacco if a Nick Foles can come in and be just as good? Obviously, bad QB play can sink a team, but if organizations prioritized development and scheme, you wouldn't see Colts-like drop-offs.

[Spur-Addict]

I don't see the issue...SF was the superior team and won. Rodgers could've been better, and the defense A LOT better. they missed game changers and gave up game changers. Saying "177 yards, 1 TD isn't gonna cut it!" isn't a rational football argument for someone that watched the game tbh. Pointing to the points total without factoring missed opportunities by the defense is weird. SF didn't play well at all either - they probably put up 13 points against an average defensive team.

I think you're putting to much emphasis on a battered defense that gave up 23 total points, and caused the only turnover of the game. But in a game so close your horses carry you. If the main horse did a little more, everyone is singing his praises. He has to take it in this situation, it's only right. And I've said more than just stats, so lets be comprehensive respectfully. I know the last thing you want to do is talk about your team losing less than a day after.

[Spur-Addict]

This is trurer than most folks understand. People think quarterbacks' value is increasing due to the new rules, and that's true in a general sense. The position is becoming more important. But the effect of that is that the relative value of elite quarterbacks is decreasing. Why pay so much for a Flacco if a Nick Foles can come in and be just as good? Obviously, bad QB play can sink a team, but if organizations prioritized development and scheme, you wouldn't see Colts-like drop-offs.

Certainly, I think you have a nice point here. But how does one properly gauge the value of the QB they have based on how that team is set up? How can we gauge that talent accurately to give fair market value to both the player, and the team? Very difficult.

[resistanze]

I think you're putting to much emphasis on a battered defense that gave up 23 total points, and caused the only turnover of the game. But in a game so close your horses carry you. If the main horse did a little more, everyone is singing his praises. He has to take it in this situation, it's only right. And I've said more than just stats, so lets be comprehensive respectfully. I know the last thing you want to do is talk about your team losing less than a day after.

Not really, GB squeaked into the playoffs and faced a superior opponent, and have a lot of things to work on the the postseason. I just don't agree with your assessment,, so we'll agree to disagree.

[Chinook]

Certainly, I think you have a nice point here. But how does one properly gauge the value of the QB they have based on how that team is set up? How can we gauge that talent accurately to give fair market value to both the player, and the team? Very difficult.

The market value is currently established at about $20 Million a year. But the actual value is up for grabs. It varies by teams. Denver needed to pay a lot for Manning, because their team had a short window and no replacement. The Lions didn't need to pay for Stafford, because he hasn't shown anything when it mattered. Cutler was outplayed by his backup.

[Spur-Addict]

The market value is currently established at about $20 Million a year. But the actual value is up for grabs. It varies by teams. Denver needed to pay a lot for Manning, because their team had a short window and no replacement. The Lions didn't need to pay for Stafford, because he hasn't shown anything when it mattered. Cutler was outplayed by his backup.

Is there a number that you personally think is the ceiling for any QB? Or are there guys that justify an escalating price tag despite the detriment to your overall roster?

[Chinook]

Is there a number that you personally think is the ceiling for any QB? Or are there guys that justify an escalating price tag despite the detriment to your overall roster?

I think we're at about the cap now. But as long as teams do not develop proper backups qnd scheme appropriately, talent will always be at a premium.

I need to see a $20 Million quarterback actually win it all before I feel the current philosophy is a viable one.

[HI-FI]

I think we're at about the cap now. But as long as teams do not develop proper backups qnd scheme appropriately, talent will always be at a premium.

I need to see a $20 Million quarterback actually win it all before I feel the current philosophy is a viable one.

What about Manning? He was paid at a premium, and finally got a ring for it, though his team stepped up big time. Though I think he should've been like Brady and taken less, though Brady probably realized the system was bigger than him.


As for Kaep, I've been happy with Niners drafting him from the beginning, I think he's got the goods, but it may take awhile for it come together. Hopefully by his next contract, we don't overpay him, unless he helps us win a ring, then I don't mind him getting overpaid like Flacco.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Franchise QB's are worth every penny in today's NFL. Almost all the elites have rings--and more importantly--consistent contending football teams.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

You're actually arguing that you could find turnover opportunities that are comparable to Kaepernick throwing 2 atrocious balls that were literally in the hands of the defensive backs and dropped?..

he threw two bad passes

[Chinook]

What about Manning? He was paid at a premium, and finally got a ring for it, though his team stepped up big time. Though I think he should've been like Brady and taken less, though Brady probably realized the system was bigger than him.


As for Kaep, I've been happy with Niners drafting him from the beginning, I think he's got the goods, but it may take awhile for it come together. Hopefully by his next contract, we don't overpay him, unless he helps us win a ring, then I don't mind him getting overpaid like Flacco.

I am on record here as saying Manning was the only true franchise quarterback I've seen. And i like Kaep. But the 9ers' chances of winning drop as soon as he gets Flacco money. Seems like a pointless endeavor to cripple a team for that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Manning's 2006 cap hit was a little over $10M, so Chinook's statement about $20M QBs still stands.

[Chinook]

Franchise QB's are worth every penny in today's NFL. Almost all the elites have rings--and more importantly--consistent contending football teams.

I think it's backwards. Most quarterbacks who win rings are considered elite. How many were elite before they won? Manning is the only who comes to mind. Brady won as well, but he wasnt making elite money yet. The top four QBs have three rings since 04. Is that their fault? Not really. But clearly having one isn't a make-or-break thing.

[spurraider21]

I think it's backwards. Most quarterbacks who win rings are considered elite. How many were elite before they won? Manning is the only who comes to mind. Brady won as well, but he wasnt making elite money yet. The top four QBs have three rings since 04. Is that their fault? Not really. But clearly having one isn't a make-or-break thing.

Bombs of truth

at the notions of Eli and Flacco being elite

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

Bombs of truth

at the notions of Eli and Flacco being elite

Flacco and Eli were elite in the playoffs, thus they were rewarded.

[spurraider21]

^sure, but i'd hardly call them elite in a league with Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Manning. neither Flacco nor Eli are even in that echelon

[Chinook]

Flacco and Eli were elite in the playoffs, thus they were rewarded.

Flacco's stretch last year is overrated. Denver LBs dropped two interceptions which would have ended the game. Even still he had an elite stretch. But he had five mediocre years before that. To me that's more indicative of Joe. He's inconsistent. A team can win with him, but they can't depend on his production week in and week out. That's not worth $15 Million, let alone 20.