That team has the best collection of players in the league on both sides of the ball. Purdy is a decent player, certainly great pocket presence and maneuverability but he is not, NOT a good passer of the football in my opinion.
SF has a ridiculously good team. They are giving that KC offense fits.
I'm sure someone has relied on a lottery ticket to feed their kids
Trey Lance was the plan. When that flopped he was a lucky gamble. That can’t be our plan either. If we can get one of the top guys we have to pull the trigger.
Is never a plan. You could draft a qb every year and never find even a backup quality player. Purdy is a nice story, and may be a good qb for a long time, but you can’t bank on finding that type of player late in the draft as strategy to find your qb.
Probability is about 95% that you're right. Someone outside
Perfect game to show the difference between a good QB and a elite QB.
One could argue that the defensive holding penalty helped get them down the field ( negating a 4th and long) and then the offensive holding penalty really took the steam out of their last drive. Instead of 1st and 10 at the 14, it’s 2nd and 12 from the 28 …Those plays are killers. I think Purdyplayed well beyond good; but Sir Patrick was Sir Patrick.
Neither qb in Super Bowl 58 was drafted in the top 3 or even close.
Come to think of it, the same was true of Super Bowl 57.
What is your point about top 3?
I noticed you didn't want to go back one more year. why not? And Mahomes was the 2nd QB taken in his draft year and was a top 10 pick.
My point is that because a qb is taken in the top 3, he may not be a top nfl qb. In fact, he may not be any good at all. And, as you know, it can be very expensive to trade up for one.
Come to think of it, the same was true of Super Bowl 57.
What is your point about top 3?
I noticed you didn't want to go back one more year. why not? And Mahomes was the 2nd QB taken in his draft year and was a top 10 pick.
My point is that because a qb is taken in the top 3, he may not be a top nfl qb. In fact, he may not be any good at all. And, as you know, it can be very expensive to trade up for one.
This is a strawman argument. I donly know of anyone who is saying that drafting a QB in the top 3 is a guarantee but they certainly is a MUCH better chance.
in a game where it seemed like SF dominated 1st half play, I knew if it was that close the rest of the game the Chefs would win....Mahomes or Purdy? Mahomes 101 times out of 100.
Its a shame for Shanahan to have not had an above average QB. That offense would be unstoppable with the right QB. If SF had somehow won that game Jennings was the MVP. Definitely not Purdy and McCaffery had the fumble. That offense, with Deebo, Aiyuk, Kittle and McCaffery not to mention a line that gives him all day and he couldn't get it done. And I had no confidence he would. The Chefs finally realized in the 4Q that if they were going to win it was Mahomes, Mahomes, a bit of Taylors BF and Mahomes. Purdy isn't know for his feet and in this game he seemed like a Tommy Cutlets to me minus the Italian flair.
RE: RE: RE: Neither qb in Super Bowl 58 was drafted in the top 3 or even close.
Come to think of it, the same was true of Super Bowl 57.
What is your point about top 3?
I noticed you didn't want to go back one more year. why not? And Mahomes was the 2nd QB taken in his draft year and was a top 10 pick.
My point is that because a qb is taken in the top 3, he may not be a top nfl qb. In fact, he may not be any good at all. And, as you know, it can be very expensive to trade up for one.
Of course not, nothing is guaranteed in the NFL draft (or any sport, but obviously in this case the NFL). But the results are clear, the majority of franchise QB's come from the 1st round and the early portion of the 1st round.
doesn't mean the QB will be good or pan out, but the results are indisputable.
RE: Probability is about 95% that you're right. Someone outside
the top 3 prospects will be as effective as Purdy.
Probability is about 5% that you'll identify him.
This is exactly the right point. I'd argue that second percentage is even lower than you're suggesting, but I appreciate that 95%/5% illustrates the point well.
RE: Neither qb in Super Bowl 58 was drafted in the top 3 or even close.
The plan is to add as many great players to your roster as possible to ensure that just about any QB can function and flourish.
This is gonna warp some brains here but here goes---do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board. They watched the film and saw a QB that left meat on the bone time and time again. Jimmy G didn't really commit too many mistakes or miss too many plays so they kept him UNTIL he started to show cracks/injury issues and his play deteriorated. They knew because the Niners system afforded them the clear cut vision to see when a QB isn't helping the cause.
When you have a good roster, everything is easier for everyone. IT's also easier to identity bad play at QB.
Purdy will get more shots as long as he leads this team deep in January but at some point the Niners will look to upgrade. His career will now be defined by these title game moments. HE's 1-2 over the last 2 seasons. HE's a good player. NEeds to play better in these games.
NYG must identify a QB(s) they believe is a franchise changer
This is gonna warp some brains here but here goes---do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board. They watched the film and saw a QB that left meat on the bone time and time again.
Do you have anything to back that assertion up?
Because one could argue that the reason why the Niners have such a strong roster overall is because they apply the same thinking to every position: challenge the status quo and fail fast. They don't get married to failure, they continue to have alternative options in the pipeline and they iterate until they hit.
They had Garoppolo and they still traded up (at a hefty price) for Lance. They had just drafted Lance the year before and they still added another QB in Purdy. They had Elijah Mitchell and they still traded for McCaffrey. They had Deebo Samuel and still drafted Brandon Aiyuk. They had a strong defense and still added Chase Young.
The examples are numerous. And the takeaway is that they don't get satisfied at any position.
Only comes into play because the three of them likely won't be options, or may not be options outside of an excessive haul.
So we find ourselves in a position where the consensus guys may not be in play circumstantially. So the question is, where do we go from here? What I want to see from JS and BD is a well thought out plan. There are no guarantees that there even is a legit franchise QB outside of the top 3. There are only so many of them (small number) in each draft. What I don't want is a knee jerk reaction. That would be a classic DG move.
Get us a plan, an execute on it. Don't force a bad decision on us just for the sake of change, keep improving the roster with a clear mind of the fact that Jones is not the answer.
This is gonna warp some brains here but here goes---do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board. They watched the film and saw a QB that left meat on the bone time and time again.
Do you have anything to back that assertion up?
Because one could argue that the reason why the Niners have such a strong roster overall is because they apply the same thinking to every position: challenge the status quo and fail fast. They don't get married to failure, they continue to have alternative options in the pipeline and they iterate until they hit.
They had Garoppolo and they still traded up (at a hefty price) for Lance. They had just drafted Lance the year before and they still added another QB in Purdy. They had Elijah Mitchell and they still traded for McCaffrey. They had Deebo Samuel and still drafted Brandon Aiyuk. They had a strong defense and still added Chase Young.
The examples are numerous. And the takeaway is that they don't get satisfied at any position.
You want me to back up the assertion that bad rosters make things harder on the QB? And that a well built team will not only help one identity QB's play but also allow for said QB to play at a higher level.
Really?
It's simple logic. I don't have to back it up but listen to Pat Kirwin who said the same thing time and time again.
i acknowledged that in my first take that Jimmy was OK for a time until the cracks started building more and more.
Purdy might not be far off from Jimmy G's run in SF if he isn't careful. IF the QB doesn't win a title for a team that is stacked with star power, eventually the Niners will look to upgrade at QB. AS good as Purdy has been, he's not a super bowl winning QB. Not yet.
RE: RE: RE: The plan is to be drafting QBs even if you think you already have one
This is gonna warp some brains here but here goes---do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board. They watched the film and saw a QB that left meat on the bone time and time again.
Do you have anything to back that assertion up?
Because one could argue that the reason why the Niners have such a strong roster overall is because they apply the same thinking to every position: challenge the status quo and fail fast. They don't get married to failure, they continue to have alternative options in the pipeline and they iterate until they hit.
They had Garoppolo and they still traded up (at a hefty price) for Lance. They had just drafted Lance the year before and they still added another QB in Purdy. They had Elijah Mitchell and they still traded for McCaffrey. They had Deebo Samuel and still drafted Brandon Aiyuk. They had a strong defense and still added Chase Young.
The examples are numerous. And the takeaway is that they don't get satisfied at any position.
I think we are on the same page word for word. My point about the QB is that the roster in SF is so good it's a lot easier to identify when the QB is holding things back. Lance was a mess.
Protect the QB enough and give him enough weapons and there's less room for excuses. Lance sat for a year or so then got hurt then when he did play he looked lost. They saw enough.
it's shared by man. Bad rosters can in fact hold QBs back. OF course there are degrees and of course the QB is the ultimate equalizer, and yes you can still see bad from good no matter how the roster is shaped.
This is gonna warp some brains here but here goes---do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board. They watched the film and saw a QB that left meat on the bone time and time again.
Do you have anything to back that assertion up?
Because one could argue that the reason why the Niners have such a strong roster overall is because they apply the same thinking to every position: challenge the status quo and fail fast. They don't get married to failure, they continue to have alternative options in the pipeline and they iterate until they hit.
They had Garoppolo and they still traded up (at a hefty price) for Lance. They had just drafted Lance the year before and they still added another QB in Purdy. They had Elijah Mitchell and they still traded for McCaffrey. They had Deebo Samuel and still drafted Brandon Aiyuk. They had a strong defense and still added Chase Young.
The examples are numerous. And the takeaway is that they don't get satisfied at any position.
You want me to back up the assertion that bad rosters make things harder on the QB? And that a well built team will not only help one identity QB's play but also allow for said QB to play at a higher level.
Really?
It's simple logic. I don't have to back it up but listen to Pat Kirwin who said the same thing time and time again.
No, I want you to back up this:
Quote:
do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board.
Not sure if this was your intention, but that reads like you were saying that the ONLY reason why the 49ers were able to evaluate their QBs was because of the rest of their roster, and it was that interpretation that I was challenging.
They evaluate every single roster spot and apply competition to each one of them, even if the incumbent hasn't technically failed yet. There are no scholarship players there.
The Giants, on the other hand, will avoid certain positions if they just recently addressed them (like not drafting a single QB in any round, since they drafted DJ, or not signing Whitworth years ago because they had just drafted Flowers).
Perfect game to show the difference between a good QB and a elite QB.
One could argue that the defensive holding penalty helped get them down the field ( negating a 4th and long) and then the offensive holding penalty really took the steam out of their last drive. Instead of 1st and 10 at the 14, it’s 2nd and 12 from the 28 …Those plays are killers. I think Purdyplayed well beyond good; but Sir Patrick was Sir Patrick.
I believe they overcame the hold in OT when Purdy hit Juszczy for a first down on the scramble.
What derailed their OT drive was the run on second and 4 with McCaffrey to the right. They had something going to the left side, but Shanahan ran the stretch play to the right. and the Chiefs stymied it. They should have kept pounding that left side behind TW and away from Jones. I think Shanahan's has an Achilles heel as a play caller later in games. He's great scripting plays early but loses his feel later in games.
And then on 3rd down, Purdy couldn't make the play.
But back specifically to Purdy, he missed TD passes to Aiyuk and Samuel. You can't miss those opportunities.
If I'm the San Fran brass, I am probably keeping Purdy on a keep-proving-it multi-year deal. But I'm also looking for an opportunity to add another QB.
Purdy just finished the 2nd year of a 4-year deal.
nor should they do anything other than keep options open at the QB position. Purdy does a lot more good than bad out there. HE lost to a legend last night. Shit happens.
nor should they do anything other than keep options open at the QB position. Purdy does a lot more good than bad out there. HE lost to a legend last night. Shit happens.
Exactly.
Although Purdy should be suggesting that a 4-year deal for $160M, $92M in guarantees and a separate guaranteed injury clause is an interesting start to the discussions!
RE: Purdy just finished the 2nd year of a 4-year deal.
can't see what an elite QB can do over a "competent" QB, then we are screwed. There was NO better illustration of the difference than last night.
If ANYONE thinks Jones can do what EITHER guy did last night, they are smoking something!
DRAFT THE QB!!!!!
can't see what an elite QB can do over a "competent" QB, then we are screwed. There was NO better illustration of the difference than last night.
If ANYONE thinks Jones can do what EITHER guy did last night, they are smoking something!
DRAFT THE QB!!!!!
I get it, people are emotional. But seriously this is an odd statement. Daboll was a key person in developing one of the elite QBs to get to where he is today and Kafka literally had his hands on Mahomes' development.
Did anyone think that Reid went into a kind of zone
with his play calling late in the game? It seemed that he was attacking weaknesses in the 49ers defense surgically, like he knew what the 49ers defense was going to do as he was calling his own play.
Because Mahomes was great but boy did he have some easy throws and runs to execute in the 4th qt/OT.
the 49ers traded up for Trey Lance.
Brock Purdy happened, just like Tom Brady happened, but no team plans for either to happen that way.
SF has a ridiculously good team. They are giving that KC offense fits.
Perfect game to show the difference between a good QB and a elite QB.
Makes it even more amazing what Mahomes does for that team.
Probability is about 5% that you'll identify him.
the 49ers traded up for Trey Lance.
Brock Purdy happened, just like Tom Brady happened, but no team plans for either to happen that way.
Probability is about 5% that you'll identify him.
Well written.......and that 5% usually is luck, right?
Get the QB
They have put every egg in his 22-36-1 basket
They only drafted 5 during Eli Mannings 16 year career with the bulk of those choices being at/near the end
It seems to me an organizational philosophy to not challenge the “franchise QB”
Schoen had 11 draft picks in 2022 and a QB they declined an option on and still didn’t draft a QB.
How can they be so obtuse at 1925 Giants Drive?
Perfect game to show the difference between a good QB and a elite QB.
One could argue that the defensive holding penalty helped get them down the field ( negating a 4th and long) and then the offensive holding penalty really took the steam out of their last drive. Instead of 1st and 10 at the 14, it’s 2nd and 12 from the 28 …Those plays are killers. I think Purdyplayed well beyond good; but Sir Patrick was Sir Patrick.
What is your point about top 3?
I noticed you didn't want to go back one more year. why not? And Mahomes was the 2nd QB taken in his draft year and was a top 10 pick.
...or Kyle Shanahan
Quote:
Come to think of it, the same was true of Super Bowl 57.
What is your point about top 3?
I noticed you didn't want to go back one more year. why not? And Mahomes was the 2nd QB taken in his draft year and was a top 10 pick.
My point is that because a qb is taken in the top 3, he may not be a top nfl qb. In fact, he may not be any good at all. And, as you know, it can be very expensive to trade up for one.
Giants have a lot of holes on the team. If they fill the other holes in the early rounds, I'm okay with it. If they draft a QB, I'm ok with it.
Quote:
In comment 16396182 Ira said:
Quote:
Come to think of it, the same was true of Super Bowl 57.
What is your point about top 3?
I noticed you didn't want to go back one more year. why not? And Mahomes was the 2nd QB taken in his draft year and was a top 10 pick.
My point is that because a qb is taken in the top 3, he may not be a top nfl qb. In fact, he may not be any good at all. And, as you know, it can be very expensive to trade up for one.
This is a strawman argument. I donly know of anyone who is saying that drafting a QB in the top 3 is a guarantee but they certainly is a MUCH better chance.
Its a shame for Shanahan to have not had an above average QB. That offense would be unstoppable with the right QB. If SF had somehow won that game Jennings was the MVP. Definitely not Purdy and McCaffery had the fumble. That offense, with Deebo, Aiyuk, Kittle and McCaffery not to mention a line that gives him all day and he couldn't get it done. And I had no confidence he would. The Chefs finally realized in the 4Q that if they were going to win it was Mahomes, Mahomes, a bit of Taylors BF and Mahomes. Purdy isn't know for his feet and in this game he seemed like a Tommy Cutlets to me minus the Italian flair.
Quote:
In comment 16396182 Ira said:
Quote:
Come to think of it, the same was true of Super Bowl 57.
What is your point about top 3?
I noticed you didn't want to go back one more year. why not? And Mahomes was the 2nd QB taken in his draft year and was a top 10 pick.
My point is that because a qb is taken in the top 3, he may not be a top nfl qb. In fact, he may not be any good at all. And, as you know, it can be very expensive to trade up for one.
Of course not, nothing is guaranteed in the NFL draft (or any sport, but obviously in this case the NFL). But the results are clear, the majority of franchise QB's come from the 1st round and the early portion of the 1st round.
doesn't mean the QB will be good or pan out, but the results are indisputable.
Probability is about 5% that you'll identify him.
This is exactly the right point. I'd argue that second percentage is even lower than you're suggesting, but I appreciate that 95%/5% illustrates the point well.
Or even close?
There are 256 draft picks in a typical draft.
#10 overall is pretty fucking close to #3 when you're looking at a set of 256.
Get the QB
Yep. I had about 10% confidence the 49ers would win the game, even though I think their roster is better than KC on the whole.
Get the QB. Forget about Jones being the future.
The plan is to add as many great players to your roster as possible to ensure that just about any QB can function and flourish.
This is gonna warp some brains here but here goes---do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board. They watched the film and saw a QB that left meat on the bone time and time again. Jimmy G didn't really commit too many mistakes or miss too many plays so they kept him UNTIL he started to show cracks/injury issues and his play deteriorated. They knew because the Niners system afforded them the clear cut vision to see when a QB isn't helping the cause.
When you have a good roster, everything is easier for everyone. IT's also easier to identity bad play at QB.
Purdy will get more shots as long as he leads this team deep in January but at some point the Niners will look to upgrade. His career will now be defined by these title game moments. HE's 1-2 over the last 2 seasons. HE's a good player. NEeds to play better in these games.
Do you have anything to back that assertion up?
Because one could argue that the reason why the Niners have such a strong roster overall is because they apply the same thinking to every position: challenge the status quo and fail fast. They don't get married to failure, they continue to have alternative options in the pipeline and they iterate until they hit.
They had Garoppolo and they still traded up (at a hefty price) for Lance. They had just drafted Lance the year before and they still added another QB in Purdy. They had Elijah Mitchell and they still traded for McCaffrey. They had Deebo Samuel and still drafted Brandon Aiyuk. They had a strong defense and still added Chase Young.
The examples are numerous. And the takeaway is that they don't get satisfied at any position.
So we find ourselves in a position where the consensus guys may not be in play circumstantially. So the question is, where do we go from here? What I want to see from JS and BD is a well thought out plan. There are no guarantees that there even is a legit franchise QB outside of the top 3. There are only so many of them (small number) in each draft. What I don't want is a knee jerk reaction. That would be a classic DG move.
Get us a plan, an execute on it. Don't force a bad decision on us just for the sake of change, keep improving the roster with a clear mind of the fact that Jones is not the answer.
Quote:
This is gonna warp some brains here but here goes---do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board. They watched the film and saw a QB that left meat on the bone time and time again.
Do you have anything to back that assertion up?
Because one could argue that the reason why the Niners have such a strong roster overall is because they apply the same thinking to every position: challenge the status quo and fail fast. They don't get married to failure, they continue to have alternative options in the pipeline and they iterate until they hit.
They had Garoppolo and they still traded up (at a hefty price) for Lance. They had just drafted Lance the year before and they still added another QB in Purdy. They had Elijah Mitchell and they still traded for McCaffrey. They had Deebo Samuel and still drafted Brandon Aiyuk. They had a strong defense and still added Chase Young.
The examples are numerous. And the takeaway is that they don't get satisfied at any position.
You want me to back up the assertion that bad rosters make things harder on the QB? And that a well built team will not only help one identity QB's play but also allow for said QB to play at a higher level.
Really?
It's simple logic. I don't have to back it up but listen to Pat Kirwin who said the same thing time and time again.
Purdy might not be far off from Jimmy G's run in SF if he isn't careful. IF the QB doesn't win a title for a team that is stacked with star power, eventually the Niners will look to upgrade at QB. AS good as Purdy has been, he's not a super bowl winning QB. Not yet.
Quote:
This is gonna warp some brains here but here goes---do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board. They watched the film and saw a QB that left meat on the bone time and time again.
Do you have anything to back that assertion up?
Because one could argue that the reason why the Niners have such a strong roster overall is because they apply the same thinking to every position: challenge the status quo and fail fast. They don't get married to failure, they continue to have alternative options in the pipeline and they iterate until they hit.
They had Garoppolo and they still traded up (at a hefty price) for Lance. They had just drafted Lance the year before and they still added another QB in Purdy. They had Elijah Mitchell and they still traded for McCaffrey. They had Deebo Samuel and still drafted Brandon Aiyuk. They had a strong defense and still added Chase Young.
The examples are numerous. And the takeaway is that they don't get satisfied at any position.
I think we are on the same page word for word. My point about the QB is that the roster in SF is so good it's a lot easier to identify when the QB is holding things back. Lance was a mess.
Protect the QB enough and give him enough weapons and there's less room for excuses. Lance sat for a year or so then got hurt then when he did play he looked lost. They saw enough.
We need to get better across the board.
Quote:
In comment 16396481 djm said:
Quote:
This is gonna warp some brains here but here goes---do you know WHY the Niners were so quick to move on from Trey Lance? Because he was BAD despite playing in a system that boasted ALL PRO and PRO BOWL talent across the board. They watched the film and saw a QB that left meat on the bone time and time again.
Do you have anything to back that assertion up?
Because one could argue that the reason why the Niners have such a strong roster overall is because they apply the same thinking to every position: challenge the status quo and fail fast. They don't get married to failure, they continue to have alternative options in the pipeline and they iterate until they hit.
They had Garoppolo and they still traded up (at a hefty price) for Lance. They had just drafted Lance the year before and they still added another QB in Purdy. They had Elijah Mitchell and they still traded for McCaffrey. They had Deebo Samuel and still drafted Brandon Aiyuk. They had a strong defense and still added Chase Young.
The examples are numerous. And the takeaway is that they don't get satisfied at any position.
You want me to back up the assertion that bad rosters make things harder on the QB? And that a well built team will not only help one identity QB's play but also allow for said QB to play at a higher level.
Really?
It's simple logic. I don't have to back it up but listen to Pat Kirwin who said the same thing time and time again.
No, I want you to back up this:
Not sure if this was your intention, but that reads like you were saying that the ONLY reason why the 49ers were able to evaluate their QBs was because of the rest of their roster, and it was that interpretation that I was challenging.
They evaluate every single roster spot and apply competition to each one of them, even if the incumbent hasn't technically failed yet. There are no scholarship players there.
The Giants, on the other hand, will avoid certain positions if they just recently addressed them (like not drafting a single QB in any round, since they drafted DJ, or not signing Whitworth years ago because they had just drafted Flowers).
Quote:
Purdy couldn't punch it in. But Mahomes could in.
Perfect game to show the difference between a good QB and a elite QB.
One could argue that the defensive holding penalty helped get them down the field ( negating a 4th and long) and then the offensive holding penalty really took the steam out of their last drive. Instead of 1st and 10 at the 14, it’s 2nd and 12 from the 28 …Those plays are killers. I think Purdyplayed well beyond good; but Sir Patrick was Sir Patrick.
I believe they overcame the hold in OT when Purdy hit Juszczy for a first down on the scramble.
What derailed their OT drive was the run on second and 4 with McCaffrey to the right. They had something going to the left side, but Shanahan ran the stretch play to the right. and the Chiefs stymied it. They should have kept pounding that left side behind TW and away from Jones. I think Shanahan's has an Achilles heel as a play caller later in games. He's great scripting plays early but loses his feel later in games.
And then on 3rd down, Purdy couldn't make the play.
But back specifically to Purdy, he missed TD passes to Aiyuk and Samuel. You can't miss those opportunities.
If I'm the San Fran brass, I am probably keeping Purdy on a keep-proving-it multi-year deal. But I'm also looking for an opportunity to add another QB.
Exactly.
Although Purdy should be suggesting that a 4-year deal for $160M, $92M in guarantees and a separate guaranteed injury clause is an interesting start to the discussions!
My bad. You are correct. I thought they could re-negotiate at the end of this season.
If ANYONE thinks Jones can do what EITHER guy did last night, they are smoking something!
DRAFT THE QB!!!!!
If ANYONE thinks Jones can do what EITHER guy did last night, they are smoking something!
DRAFT THE QB!!!!!
Because Mahomes was great but boy did he have some easy throws and runs to execute in the 4th qt/OT.
Was it just me?