Quote
BigGame81

Quote
moklerman

Quote
BigGame81
When they just gave up the farm for Trey Lance?

The same reason the Seahawks moved on from Matt Flynn. The same reason AZ was able to move on from Rosen. The same reason the Rams moved on from Goff. You have to have a good QB in today's game and the way the rules are set up, it won't kill your team to move on from a mistake. It's why the Buccaneers signed and I think extended 40+ Brady. It just depends on how motivated the 49ers are "right now" and how long they think Rodgers has got left. Do they think that 3+ years of Rodgers creeping into his '40's is worth the risk? Would you give up Lane for a potential SB appearance? What would the merchandise and marketing impact be if they got Rodgers?

I'll of course agree that Rodgers would be a massive upgrade there but you can't give up 2 1's for a QB and then a year later sign Rodgers.

From what I recall, Flynn wasn't a massive contract and the Cardinals didn't give up anything for Rosen. Just took him when he was available.

You give up on Lance after 1 year after giving up 2 #1's, that's just a bad look.

You're already admitting you were wrong and what do you do with Lance? Trade him? You'll never get back what you gave up. You'd also be giving up a cheap rookie salary for a QB. Just wouldn't make much sense.

At the time, the Flynn deal was pretty significant. Seahawks admitted their mistake before he even really played for them. Cardinals drafted Rosen with the 10th overall pick. That's generally considered a LOT to dump after 1 year.

Today's landscape is different though. McVay has been leading the way in using draft capitol in different ways. Which is something I forgot to emphasize. That the rest of the NFC West has been approaching things a certain way may have an influence on what the 49ers do. Inter division activity is often like that. Anyway, the Rams just gave up "more" to get Stafford so it's entirely possible that the 49ers may look at it through that perspective. And Rodgers isn't going to cost them any draft capitol. The could sign Rodgers, keep Lance for the future and do what they can with JG. Lance wouldn't like it but he had a chance and didn't show to be one of the instant phenoms so he gets put on the back burner for a few years while Rodgers plays out his swan song.

Whatever bad look it would be on the personnel department for trading two 1st's to get Lance, IMO, would be more than offset by the excitement, enthusiasm and marketing that Rodgers would bring.