Mr. Scot

There are a couple of very good young options for that. I'm actually starting to think more about Frank Reich though.

There was plenty of chatter prior to the season that the 49ers were starting to doubt him. And the games he started didn't do a whole lot to alleviate those doubts.

No, it's not. It's an extremely complicated process that even experienced and professional people frequently get wrong. And to be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't evaluate athletic ability. Just don't prioritize it over skills that are way more important for being a quarterback. As to Jones, I wasn't a big fan of his but he did look decent under McDaniels. Now he's under Matt Patricia, so I'm not sure what to think there.

I get the impression that Shanahan and company have already evaluated him, and didn't exactly come up with a glowing recommendation. If somebody else wants to give him more time, cool. Wouldn't want it to be us though.

Interesting post script to Eagles-Colts...

I seriously doubt it.

Looking at a guys quarterback traits like accuracy, ability to read/process, etc. first. If they also happen to be athletic, great. If not, okay.

As I recall, he hardly ever passed in college. And hate to say it, but I've heard"jjust give them time" going all the way back to Michael Vick needing X years to learn the West Coast Offense. It's just a poor strategy.

Lance is a prime example of the "hey this guy is super athletic; let's take him and teach him to be a quarterback" idea.

That's not the only reason to balk at a fully guaranteed contract.

I don't. For one, as stated I don't believe the team wants to go that route. But for another, if they balked at fully guaranteeing Watson's contract, why would they then turn around and fully guarantee one for Jackson?

Said it elsewhere but it bears repeating here... Scott Fitterer has repeatedly stated his belief that the best strategy for team building is to draft a quarterback and build around them. With Matt Rhule gone, I expect that to be the path we follow. It could conceivably be with Matt Corral, but I think it's more likely we'll draft someone else this April and focus on them.

Think of it this way... If we had been the team that gave something up for him, what would we be saying?

Fitterer has repeatedly said that the correct path is to draft a quarterback and build around him. He said it over and over this past offseason almost like he was pleading his case for the team to go that route. With Rhule gone, I expect them to finally follow that strategy, whether it be by sticking with Matt Corral or using a high draft pick this coming offseason. (option two is probably more likely) If they do sign a veteran, it's likely going to be a stopgap type.

Recorded it. Plan on watching the full thing later. Here's the link to his 33rd Team interview...

That we got anything at all for him is looking like an absolute robbery right now.

Seconded...

All right, this is weird... Those quotes bear a lot of similarity to what was said in the Charles Robinson article. It wouldn't exactly be shocking to find out he read an article about himself, but to turn around and quote or paraphrase things that were in it would be kind of

I wouldn't object to bringing him back.

Pretty much. Have said repeatedly that I have no hate for somebody just because they're awful at their job. And like others, I blame Tepper more for being dumb enough to hire him. I'll watch out of sheer morbid curiosity.

How about we just give up one first round pick? Specifically, by using it to draft a rookie to build around.