I would list the order identically.

I just wanted to relay that particular speculation.

There are those who trash the 49ers for paying so much.  I'm not sure if I am among them yet.

To me, if you are certain you don't have the guy at QB, you have to do what's necessary to get that guy.  This was a team that almost won the Super Bowl a couple of years ago. 

Last year they were beset by injuries.

If they are healthy this year, the 49ers could easily have a winning season at least, which would put the first round pick they gave up at the bottom of the round.  If they hit on their QB choice, whomever that may be, they should be towards the bottom of the draft order for a while, mitigating the true cost of the trade.

The problem with going that far in when you go all in?

First, if the guy they covet flops, they are in deep doodoo and either need to overpay in FA or trade even more darft capital to get a guy to replace him.
Second, if Trent begins to show his age or gets hurt, they're not going to have a chance at a top tackle in the near future to protect the guy they just sold the farm for. Unless, of course they overpay in FA or trade picks.

If the guy pans out, is there anyone out there dumb enough to trade for Garoppolo's 24M salary for each of the next two seasons? He's affordable to cut, but I don't think they have enough room to afford converting his salary to signing bonus and then shopping him as an affordable QB to another team.

Well of course there are risks associated with the strategy, including all the ones you list above.

However, if they never made the trade up, and drafted a QB at 12 and he flopped, they'd still have to consider overpaying in FA (assuming a viable QB ever got on the market) or trade draft capital to get in position to get the replacement.

Furthermore, if they never made the trade up and missed out on their QB in such a strong top heavy QB draft like this year's class, there's no telling when they'd get the chance to get another top QB.  As I was saying earlier, next year's QB class does not look anywhere near as strong as this one.  Right now based upon what I've read, there's only one QB that is carrying a first round grade, and he doesn't seem to have the same grade as Trevor Lawrence..and perhaps not Fields nor Lance.

You could also argue that because they have Garoppolo, they aren't truly desperate at the position, and therefore are less apt to make a catastrophic error at the position.  Desperation could lead to a reach, and possibly even offering more for a lesser player.

That said, the part of me that opposes this trade does so in part because of Mac Jones, and in part because of the price.  I do not assert that Mac Jones is a bad QB or for that matter that he can't be a successful QB in the NFL.  However, he does NOT in any way offer the array of physical attributes as the other top QBs in this class.  He doesn't have the combination of size, arm strength, athletic ability, speed, etc as Lawrence, Fields, Lance, or even Wilson.  If he had the physical attributes of Elway, Luck or even a Cam Newton, plus the intangibles Mac Jones seems to offer, I could better understand the willingness to pay so much to trade up.  But there are reasons the general consensus is he is rated below the other four guys.  As an NFL QB prospect, his physical attributes seem nondescript.  Furthermore, he played with absolutely overwhelming surrounding talent during his tenure at Alabama, including Henry Ruggs, Jerry Jeudy, Devonta Smith and Jaylen Waddle- all of whom were either first round picks last year orwill be first round picks this year.  That doesn't even include the linemen protecting him and opening the holes for a guy like Najee Harris.  Nor does it include a typically star studded defense that routinely produces NFL talent.  I haven't seen a QB come from such a powerful program since Steve Walsh came from those late 80s Miami teams, or perhaps more recently, Leinarrt from the early 200s USC teams. 

Because he is a relatively nondescript physical specimen at the position, that brings the price to move up to get him into heightened scrutiny.  In reviewing the prior trades up for first round QBs since 2000, I didn't find a single trade that  involved 3 first round picks to get the deal done.  But most of the guys those teams moved up for were better physical specimens than Jones, the one exception being Eli Manning.  I think the one initial saving grace to this deal is the the first year cost isn't excessive.  The 49ers could still have a relatively normal draft class this year.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

The problem with going that far in when you go all in?

First, if the guy they covet flops, they are in deep doodoo and either need to overpay in FA or trade even more darft capital to get a guy to replace him.
Second, if Trent begins to show his age or gets hurt, they're not going to have a chance at a top tackle in the near future to protect the guy they just sold the farm for. Unless, of course they overpay in FA or trade picks.

If the guy pans out, is there anyone out there dumb enough to trade for Garoppolo's 24M salary for each of the next two seasons? He's affordable to cut, but I don't think they have enough room to afford converting his salary to signing bonus and then shopping him as an affordable QB to another team.

Well of course there are risks associated with the strategy, including all the ones you list above.

However, if they never made the trade up, and drafted a QB at 12 and he flopped, they'd still have to consider overpaying in FA (assuming a viable QB ever got on the market) or trade draft capital to get in position to get the replacement.

Furthermore, if they never made the trade up and missed out on their QB in such a strong top heavy QB draft like this year's class, there's no telling when they'd get the chance to get another top QB.  As I was saying earlier, next year's QB class does not look anywhere near as strong as this one.  Right now based upon what I've read, there's only one QB that is carrying a first round grade, and he doesn't seem to have the same grade as Trevor Lawrence..and perhaps not Fields nor Lance.

You could also argue that because they have Garoppolo, they aren't truly desperate at the position, and therefore are less apt to make a catastrophic error at the position.  Desperation could lead to a reach, and possibly even offering more for a lesser player.

That said, the part of me that opposes this trade does so in part because of Mac Jones, and in part because of the price.  I do not assert that Mac Jones is a bad QB or for that matter that he can't be a successful QB in the NFL.  However, he does NOT in any way offer the array of physical attributes as the other top QBs in this class.  He doesn't have the combination of size, arm strength, athletic ability, speed, etc as Lawrence, Fields, Lance, or even Wilson.  If he had the physical attributes of Elway, Luck or even a Cam Newton, plus the intangibles Mac Jones seems to offer, I could better understand the willingness to pay so much to trade up.  But there are reasons the general consensus is he is rated below the other four guys.  As an NFL QB prospect, his physical attributes seem nondescript.  Furthermore, he played with absolutely overwhelming surrounding talent during his tenure at Alabama, including Henry Ruggs, Jerry Jeudy, Devonta Smith and Jaylen Waddle- all of whom were either first round picks last year orwill be first round picks this year.  That doesn't even include the linemen protecting him and opening the holes for a guy like Najee Harris.  Nor does it include a typically star studded defense that routinely produces NFL talent.  I haven't seen a QB come from such a powerful program since Steve Walsh came from those late 80s Miami teams, or perhaps more recently, Leinarrt from the early 200s USC teams. 

Because he is a relatively nondescript physical specimen at the position, that brings the price to move up to get him into heightened scrutiny.  In reviewing the prior trades up for first round QBs since 2000, I didn't find a single trade that  involved 3 first round picks to get the deal done.  But most of the guys those teams moved up for were better physical specimens than Jones, the one exception being Eli Manning.  I think the one initial saving grace to this deal is the the first year cost isn't excessive.  The 49ers could still have a relatively normal draft class this year.

I agree with everything you said here. The 9ers being this aggressive for a QB like Mac is risky. They had to know that someone else was planning to move into the 3-6 range for him, otherwise I don't see the urgency of doing the deal a month in advance of the darft.

---

Well of course there are risks associated with the strategy, including all the ones you list above.

However, if they never made the trade up, and drafted a QB at 12 and he flopped, they'd still have to consider overpaying in FA (assuming a viable QB ever got on the market) or trade draft capital to get in position to get the replacement.

Furthermore, if they never made the trade up and missed out on their QB in such a strong top heavy QB draft like this year's class, there's no telling when they'd get the chance to get another top QB.  As I was saying earlier, next year's QB class does not look anywhere near as strong as this one.  Right now based upon what I've read, there's only one QB that is carrying a first round grade, and he doesn't seem to have the same grade as Trevor Lawrence..and perhaps not Fields nor Lance.

You could also argue that because they have Garoppolo, they aren't truly desperate at the position, and therefore are less apt to make a catastrophic error at the position.  Desperation could lead to a reach, and possibly even offering more for a lesser player.

That said, the part of me that opposes this trade does so in part because of Mac Jones, and in part because of the price.  I do not assert that Mac Jones is a bad QB or for that matter that he can't be a successful QB in the NFL.  However, he does NOT in any way offer the array of physical attributes as the other top QBs in this class.  He doesn't have the combination of size, arm strength, athletic ability, speed, etc as Lawrence, Fields, Lance, or even Wilson.  If he had the physical attributes of Elway, Luck or even a Cam Newton, plus the intangibles Mac Jones seems to offer, I could better understand the willingness to pay so much to trade up.  But there are reasons the general consensus is he is rated below the other four guys.  As an NFL QB prospect, his physical attributes seem nondescript.  Furthermore, he played with absolutely overwhelming surrounding talent during his tenure at Alabama, including Henry Ruggs, Jerry Jeudy, Devonta Smith and Jaylen Waddle- all of whom were either first round picks last year orwill be first round picks this year.  That doesn't even include the linemen protecting him and opening the holes for a guy like Najee Harris.  Nor does it include a typically star studded defense that routinely produces NFL talent.  I haven't seen a QB come from such a powerful program since Steve Walsh came from those late 80s Miami teams, or perhaps more recently, Leinarrt from the early 200s USC teams. 

Because he is a relatively nondescript physical specimen at the position, that brings the price to move up to get him into heightened scrutiny.  In reviewing the prior trades up for first round QBs since 2000, I didn't find a single trade that  involved 3 first round picks to get the deal done.  But most of the guys those teams moved up for were better physical specimens than Jones, the one exception being Eli Manning.  I think the one initial saving grace to this deal is the the first year cost isn't excessive.  The 49ers could still have a relatively normal draft class this year.

I agree with everything you said here. The 9ers being this aggressive for a QB like Mac is risky. They had to know that someone else was planning to move into the 3-6 range for him, otherwise I don't see the urgency of doing the deal a month in advance of the darft.

Someone else on another video I saw raised an interesting point.

Would the 49ers have made this deal if Watson were not having his off field problems?  Wouldn't they have offered this deal to Houston if they knew Watson's off field problems did not exist?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

---

Some are speculating that San Francisco will take Trey Lance.  The first argument is that SF wouldn't trade that high unless they knew they had their guy.  Fields' pro day is next week.  If he's their target, wouldn't they wait until after that to see how he did before making the trade?  Also, San Francisco is saying that they plan to keep Jimmy Garoppolo as their starter in 2021 despite having a high salary.  Some are interpreting this as a sign they are taking the developmental quarterback, Trey Lance, and will need an experienced quarterback until he's ready.  Would you keep Garoppolo and his $26 million cap hit if you were drafting Fields?  

On the other hand, maybe San Francisco likes Fields enough that they are confident about his pro-day.  They could also just be saying that they are keeping Garoppolo as a strategy to drive up his trade value.

....would you trade three firsts for a guy who isn't ready?

Hypothetically, if I knew for a fact that the player would have the career of Tom Brady, but it would take him a year to reach that level of play, then yes, I would.  A franchise quarterback can change the face of a franchise for over a decade.  Waiting one year may be a price many teams would be willing to pay.  I'm not saying Trey Lance is Brady and I'm not saying I like the trade by San Francisco.  I'm just trying to make sense of it.  Lance may take more time to develop and be more risky, but some people believe he has a high ceiling because of his physical attributes.  If you give up that amount of trade capital, I find it unlikely they are doing it for someone that doesn't have a high ceiling.  I don't think you make the trade for a medium-high ceiling guy even if he may have a higher floor or be more ready on day one.  Besides, if you take them at their word that they aren't interested in trading Garoppolo, then it's already a given that they don't expect the draft pick to start initially.  You don't pay a quarterback $26 million to be a backup.

---

---

....would you trade three firsts for a guy who isn't ready?

Hypothetically, if I knew for a fact that the player would have the career of Tom Brady, but it would take him a year to reach that level of play, then yes, I would.  A franchise quarterback can change the face of a franchise for over a decade.  Waiting one year may be a price many teams would be willing to pay.  I'm not saying Trey Lance is Brady and I'm not saying I like the trade by San Francisco.  I'm just trying to make sense of it.  Lance may take more time to develop and be more risky, but some people believe he has a high ceiling because of his physical attributes.  If you give up that amount of trade capital, I find it unlikely they are doing it for someone that doesn't have a high ceiling.  I don't think you make the trade for a medium-high ceiling guy even if he may have a higher floor or be more ready on day one.  Besides, if you take them at their word that they aren't interested in trading Garoppolo, then it's already a given that they don't expect the draft pick to start initially.  You don't pay a quarterback $26 million to be a backup.

Absolutely correct.

Let me piggy back on this argument for a moment.

If you were the GM of a QB starved team, how much would you be willing to pay the Packers in trade for an in his prime Aaron Rodgers?  The same MVP and Super Bowl winning QB who has made multiple Pro bowls.

If he were 26 and the Packers put him on the trade market, how much would you pay to get him?

I don't have to be Packers GM Brian Gutenkunst or their other executive Mark Murphy to tell you one first round pick wouldn't be close to enough to get him.  Two?  Getting warmer, but given the importance of the position and the likely number of bidders for the pick, you'd likely have to pay more to get him.

Would that price be at all mitigated by the fact he wasn't a first year starter?

Of course not!

Besides, even in the case of hall of fame caliber QBs, most times their first year as a starter are no great shakes.  Troy Aikman went winless as a rookie.  Peyton Manning threw 28 INTs as a rookie starter who went 3-13.  Both of them are in the Hall of Fame.  As TheDuke007 pointed out, brady wasn't a starter in his rookie year, either.  Mahomes is considered the best young QB in the game.  He rode the pines for most of his rookie year.  Reid didn't think he was ready.  Does that lessen his value now?

The first year as a starter is probably one of the lowest criteria you should use to determine the worth of a QB prospect.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Based on what I am reading about his pro day yesterday, I think Mac Jones is not going to be the pick at #3.

---

Based on what I am reading about his pro day yesterday, I think Mac Jones is not going to be the pick at #3.

Perhaps not.

Either way, I'm glad it's THEM paying that price, and not us.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Based on what I am reading about his pro day yesterday, I think Mac Jones is not going to be the pick at #3.

Perhaps not.

Either way, I'm glad it's THEM paying that price, and not us.

PREACH.

Not having to talk myself into one of these other 4 QBs is so nice.

---

Perhaps not.

Either way, I'm glad it's THEM paying that price, and not us.

PREACH.

Not having to talk myself into one of these other 4 QBs is so nice.

I think all of the guys being discussed as first rounders have good things to offer a team looking for a QB.  But I think Lawrence has the fewest questions and the most strengths, and is the best candidate overall.

The fact we can get him without having to give up a fortune makes last season palatable-even worthwhile.

That said, all of his attributes do not absolve this team from the responsibility of giving him adequate help.  He is the most important part of the puzzle, but by no means is he the only part of the puzzle.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!