Jordan Yates

[Squints]

Right, because, that's right, he didn't come back. He was out the rest of the season. At the beginning of the season, all things reset. If you played football or any team sport growing up you know that.

Sims will get his chance. You just hide and watch. Any coach worth his salt follows that rule. Otherwise, you end up losing the locker room. As I said, I'm not saying Sims comes back as the starter as soon as he's well, but he will get his chance both in practice and in the game.

Dude you have no idea what you're talking about. Drew Bledsoe was not out for the year after the Mo Lewis hit. He was medically cleared to play less then two months after the injury (Source) and played in the AFC Championship game that year when Brady got hurt. Here's the box score.

Here's a quote from Bledsoe himself from an SI article about the whole thing. Emphasis mine:

“That was a bitter pill to swallow,” he said. “I thought I was entitled to get my job back, and it turns out I wasn’t, and it doesn’t work that way."

Are you going to sit here and tell me Bill Belichick isn't a coach worth his salt? Give me a break.

If you want another example how about Jim Harbaugh keeping Colin Kaepernick as the starting QB when Alex Smith had recovered from his concussion in 2012. They only went to the Super Bowl that year. Or Justin Herbert taking over for Tyrod Taylor after his lung puncture by the Chargers' team doctor and never giving the job back. How about Matt Nagy refusing to comment if Andy Dalton will remain the starting QB once his knee is healed if Justin Fields plays well during his absence. This is all from the top of my head. It happens. All. The. Time.

EDIT: Just thought of another one. Tyrod Taylor again. Gets hurt and Baker Mayfield takes over. He starts for the rest of the season even after Tyrod Taylor is healthy.

Imagine how many times its happened to positions that don't have the media spotlight on them and you had no idea. Hell, Raheem Mostert only got starting getting carries on the 49ers because three guys ahead of him on the depth chart got hurt. By the time the end of the year came around two of those guys were healthy and Mostert was still the starting running back and they were on the bench. I don't recall hearing anyone bringing up issues losing your job to injury at the time. Weird.

So on one hand we've got a bunch of fans on message boards/social media who most likely topped out playing high school ball and some sports media talking heads. And on the other we've got the actions of coaches at the highest level of the sport and a guy who this actually happened to. Yea I know who I'm going with. It's lip service. If those who cite the cliche were being honest they'd say the last part that's typically omitted: "You don't lose your job to injury, unless you're losing it to someone better than you."

And for the record, I did play team sports growing up. I'm just not naive.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

On that play im pretty sure his throwing motion was obstructed.

Could be but there were times when I don't think it would have mattered. Anyway, he was a fine quarterback, a good Tech man and he gave it all he had. Can't ask for more from any player.

 

[jgtengineer]

Could be but there were times when I don't think it would have mattered. Anyway, he was a fine quarterback, a good Tech man and he gave it all he had. Can't ask for more from any player.

yeah i mean he defintiely had a few duck passes but every QB has those that slip at times, hell i've even seen it happen to aaron rodgers, tevin was also a master of getting them to commit to the hit on him before pitching as such he did wear a bit more running back center pad height.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Dude you have no idea what you're talking about. Drew Bledsoe was not out for the year after the Mo Lewis hit. He was medically cleared to play less then two months after the injury (Source) and played in the AFC Championship game that year when Brady got hurt. Here's the box score.

Here's a quote from Bledsoe himself from an SI article about the whole thing. Emphasis mine:


Are you going to sit here and tell me Bill Belichick isn't a coach worth his salt? Give me a break.

If you want another example how about Jim Harbaugh keeping Colin Kaepernick as the starting QB when Alex Smith had recovered from his concussion in 2012. They only went to the Super Bowl that year. Or Justin Herbert taking over for Tyrod Taylor after his lung puncture by the Chargers' team doctor and never giving the job back. How about Matt Nagy refusing to comment if Andy Dalton will remain the starting QB once his knee is healed if Justin Fields plays well during his absence. This is all from the top of my head. It happens. All. The. Time.

EDIT: Just thought of another one. Tyrod Taylor again. Gets hurt and Baker Mayfield takes over. He starts for the rest of the season even after Tyrod Taylor is healthy.

Imagine how many times its happened to positions that don't have the media spotlight on them and you had no idea. Hell, Raheem Mostert only got starting getting carries on the 49ers because three guys ahead of him on the depth chart got hurt. By the time the end of the year came around two of those guys were healthy and Mostert was still the starting running back and they were on the bench. I don't recall hearing anyone bringing up issues losing your job to injury at the time. Weird.

So on one hand we've got a bunch of fans on message boards/social media who most likely topped out playing high school ball and some sports media talking heads. And on the other we've got the actions of coaches at the highest level of the sport and a guy who this actually happened to. Yea I know who I'm going with. It's lip service. If those who cite the cliche were being honest they'd say the last part that's typically omitted: "You don't lose your job to injury, unless you're losing it to someone better than you."

And for the record, I did play team sports growing up. I'm just not naive.

Dude, wait, I'm not your dude.

Per your own words, if the player is better then you, then you got beat out for the job. You hide and watch. Sims will have an opportunity to retain his job when he comes back from injury. The coaches are going to give him his chance, as I’ve said all along.

I’ve also said all along that if he earns it back, he’ll earn it back in practice AND in games. All these professional examples you mention, we’re you in the practices afterwards? Do you know ther Bledsoe, Taylor or any of these other examples didn’t get beat out in practice after they came back healthy? Pretty sure Taylor had opportunities after he came back.

For transparency sake, I didn’t remember Bledsoe coming back, but then again that’s a pretty unique situation.

Bottom line is if a player gets injured, he (or she) is going to get the opportunity to keep their job. As I said before, until someone like @Ibeeballin says differently, just because you say it’s lip service doesn’t make it so. Every coach I’ve ever been around had intimated that.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Dude, wait, I'm not your dude.

Per your own words, if the player is better then you, then you got beat out for the job. You hide and watch. Sims will have an opportunity to retain his job when he comes back from injury. The coaches are going to give him his chance, as I’ve said all along.

I’ve also said all along that if he earns it back, he’ll earn it back in practice AND in games. All these professional examples you mention, we’re you in the practices afterwards? Do you know ther Bledsoe, Taylor or any of these other examples didn’t get beat out in practice after they came back healthy? Pretty sure Taylor had opportunities after he came back.

For transparency sake, I didn’t remember Bledsoe coming back, but then again that’s a pretty unique situation.

Bottom line is if a player gets injured, he (or she) is going to get the opportunity to keep their job. As I said before, until someone like @Ibeeballin says differently, just because you say it’s lip service doesn’t make it so. Every coach I’ve ever been around had intimated that.

FWIW, I think there is some merit to your argument, but it's not as concrete as you probably believe. I did not play football, but I played baseball competitively through college. People did in fact lose their starting positions while injured, but not everyone. Generally speaking, whether that player got a legitimate shot to keep the job depended on either their pre-injury output being considerably better than the replacement (Think WAR stat in baseball) or extreme progress in practice that went beyond what coaches had seen prior to the injury. I saw this a lot with pitchers, and occasionally with position players.

Like I said, I can't speak to football, but I imagine that Yates is going to continue to get starts unless/until he plays poorly in a game or Sims drastically improves in practice. It's not apples and apples to Eason/Fromm injury wise, but similar the Eason losing his job to Fromm, if Yates keeps progressing and starts actually winning games, he's going to be awfully hard to unseat.

 

[kalld12]

Dude, wait, I'm not your dude.

Per your own words, if the player is better then you, then you got beat out for the job. You hide and watch. Sims will have an opportunity to retain his job when he comes back from injury. The coaches are going to give him his chance, as I’ve said all along.

I’ve also said all along that if he earns it back, he’ll earn it back in practice AND in games. All these professional examples you mention, we’re you in the practices afterwards? Do you know ther Bledsoe, Taylor or any of these other examples didn’t get beat out in practice after they came back healthy? Pretty sure Taylor had opportunities after he came back.

For transparency sake, I didn’t remember Bledsoe coming back, but then again that’s a pretty unique situation.

Bottom line is if a player gets injured, he (or she) is going to get the opportunity to keep their job. As I said before, until someone like @Ibeeballin says differently, just because you say it’s lip service doesn’t make it so. Every coach I’ve ever been around had intimated that.

If Yates plays lights out the rest of the way and we win some ball games I dont see Sims getting that chance you so desperately think will happen. I guess only time will tell, but that mountain that Sims needs to climb to overtake Yates is growing bigger every week. Either way, I think the positive take away from all of this is this will continue to drive competition in practice and i'm sure we can all agree that in either situation we now know we have a serviceable backup. Good problem to have!

 

[kalld12]

FWIW, I think there is some merit to your argument, but it's not as concrete as you probably believe. I did not play football, but I played baseball competitively through college. People did in fact lose their starting positions while injured, but not everyone. Generally speaking, whether that player got a legitimate shot to keep the job depended on either their pre-injury output being considerably better than the replacement (Think WAR stat in baseball) or extreme progress in practice that went beyond what coaches had seen prior to the injury. I saw this a lot with pitchers, and occasionally with position players.

Like I said, I can't speak to football, but I imagine that Yates is going to continue to get starts unless/until he plays poorly in a game or Sims drastically improves in practice. It's not apples and apples to Eason/Fromm injury wise, but similar the Eason losing his job to Fromm, if Yates keeps progressing and starts actually winning games, he's going to be awfully hard to unseat.

Agree 100%, well written

 

[forensicbuzz]

FWIW, I think there is some merit to your argument, but it's not as concrete as you probably believe. I did not play football, but I played baseball competitively through college. People did in fact lose their starting positions while injured, but not everyone. Generally speaking, whether that player got a legitimate shot to keep the job depended on either their pre-injury output being considerably better than the replacement (Think WAR stat in baseball) or extreme progress in practice that went beyond what coaches had seen prior to the injury. I saw this a lot with pitchers, and occasionally with position players.

Like I said, I can't speak to football, but I imagine that Yates is going to continue to get starts unless/until he plays poorly in a game or Sims drastically improves in practice. It's not apples and apples to Eason/Fromm injury wise, but similar the Eason losing his job to Fromm, if Yates keeps progressing and starts actually winning games, he's going to be awfully hard to unseat.

I agree with what you’re saying. I’ve never said or implied that Yates would not continue to start. I love Yates and have always been a fan.

But, he’s had 18 months to take control of the starting job, and didn’t. Sims, through all of his mistakes last year, held onto the top position. There’s no way the coaches are not going to give him a shot at earning his playing time back when he’s healthy. It could be a VERY short leash in games, but I won’t believe it won’t happen until the coach says so.

I understand what you’re saying about baseball. It’s a little bit apples and oranges, but in the same vein.

 

[forensicbuzz]

If Yates plays lights out the rest of the way and we win some ball games I dont see Sims getting that chance you so desperately think will happen. I guess only time will tell, but that mountain that Sims needs to climb to overtake Yates is growing bigger every week. Either way, I think the positive take away from all of this is this will continue to drive competition in practice and i'm sure we can all agree that in either situation we now know we have a serviceable backup. Good problem to have!

There ain’t nothing desperate about my thoughts. Sims will get his chance. Never said he’d take it back, just that he’d be given the chance. I agree it’s a good problem to have. I don’t think this would divide a locker room.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I agree with what you’re saying. I’ve never said or implied that Yates would not continue to start. I love Yates and have always been a fan.

But, he’s had 18 months to take control of the starting job, and didn’t. Sims, through all of his mistakes last year, held onto the top position. There’s no way the coaches are not going to give him a shot at earning his playing time back when he’s healthy. It could be a VERY short leash in games, but I won’t believe it won’t happen until the coach says so.

I understand what you’re saying about baseball. It’s a little bit apples and oranges, but in the same vein.

My only quibble is, at this point, he has taken control of the starting job. What happened in those previous 18 months doesn't matter as long as he continues to be the better QB on the field.

FWIW, I feel bad for CGC and CDP in this case, because if they decide to start Sims and we lose, no matter how well Sims plays, they will be second guessed by the press and fans.

 

[ibeattetris]

My only quibble is, at this point, he has taken control of the starting job. What happened in those previous 18 months doesn't matter as long as he continues to be the better QB on the field.

FWIW, I feel bad for CGC and CDP in this case, because if they decide to start Sims and we lose, no matter how well Sims plays, they will be second guessed by the press and fans.

This is sadly incredibly true.

 

[RonJohn]

FWIW, I feel bad for CGC and CDP in this case, because if they decide to start Sims and we lose, no matter how well Sims plays, they will be second guessed by the press and fans.

If they start Yates and lose, the fans will say that we would have won if they had played Sims.

I think there is a general feeling that it is time to start winning some games. Ken had an article of large donors pretty much saying that. It is on the coaches to play the players (not just QB) who give the team the best chance of winning. If the coaches think we have the best chance of winning with Sims, then they should play him. If they think we have the best chance with Yates, they should play him. If GT beats UNC and Pitt, nobody will pay much attention to people complaining about the QB choice.

 

[wvGT11]

If they start Yates and lose, the fans will say that we would have won if they had played Sims.

I think there is a general feeling that it is time to start winning some games. Ken had an article of large donors pretty much saying that. It is on the coaches to play the players (not just QB) who give the team the best chance of winning. If the coaches think we have the best chance of winning with Sims, then they should play him. If they think we have the best chance with Yates, they should play him. If GT beats UNC and Pitt, nobody will pay much attention to people complaining about the QB choice.

Very well put.

The thing is right out of the gate Yates has been ready to play. Sims clearly has some sort of mental game he is dealing with. He may practice well and give the coaches the impression he is better to win the game it hasn't panned out at game time

Do you risk that though? I mean clearly for Sims more game time will help him but at what risk though ?

 

[MidtownJacket]

Good news is even if we win, the fans are going to second guess them so no added stress from that

My only quibble is, at this point, he has taken control of the starting job. What happened in those previous 18 months doesn't matter as long as he continues to be the better QB on the field.

FWIW, I feel bad for CGC and CDP in this case, because if they decide to start Sims and we lose, no matter how well Sims plays, they will be second guessed by the press and fans.

This is sadly incredibly true.

If they start Yates and lose, the fans will say that we would have won if they had played Sims.

I think there is a general feeling that it is time to start winning some games. Ken had an article of large donors pretty much saying that. It is on the coaches to play the players (not just QB) who give the team the best chance of winning. If the coaches think we have the best chance of winning with Sims, then they should play him. If they think we have the best chance with Yates, they should play him. If GT beats UNC and Pitt, nobody will pay much attention to people complaining about the QB choice.

 

[slugboy]

I'm old enough to remember when the controversy was whether we'd even have ONE person who could play QB.

 

[danny daniel]

I would go with Yates to start and stay for at least a half unless the game gets out of hand. As long as we are up or no more than 14 points down I would stay with Yates. More than 14 behind I would give Sims the ball if he is 100% healthy. The hard decision then might be the next start. At this point In general I consider Yates the starter and Sims will have to outperform him . I would highly value turnovers and touchdowns.

 

[forensicbuzz]

My only quibble is, at this point, he has taken control of the starting job. What happened in those previous 18 months doesn't matter as long as he continues to be the better QB on the field.

FWIW, I feel bad for CGC and CDP in this case, because if they decide to start Sims and we lose, no matter how well Sims plays, they will be second guessed by the press and fans.

I don't think they will start Sims, even when he's healthy. I think they'll give him a series at a time. If he earns it back, then he's earned it back. But, I think Yates will also have the same opportunity to hold on to what he's grabbed hold of now. I think it will only make them both better. As long as there's no division in the locker room, competition is good. This is no different than had Yates been put in during the NIU game and balled out. I think this is Yates to lose, but Sims will have plenty of opportunity to take it back.

 

[bobongo]

I'm old enough to remember when the controversy was whether we'd even have ONE person who could play QB.

Yeah, and imagine that both of these guys have three more years of eligibility after this one.

 

[takethepoints]

I'm old enough to remember when the controversy was whether we'd even have ONE person who could play QB.

Yeah, me too. But most of the time that was because when people looked at Paul's QBs (that is who you are talking about, right?) they did so by comparing them to QBs on conventional spread teams, not by gaging whether they could actually, you know, win in the spread option. Same thing goes for, say, Kansas State under Bill Synder. Those teams won a lot, but people were always complaining about the QB play because guys like Jesse Ertz didn't look like conventional spread QBs and weren't highly rated out of high school. Largely, of course, because they didn't look like conventional spread QBs.

What matters about QB play is whether the team wins with the QB on the field or, at least, has a chance to do so. I think it is too bad that Yates is going to be stuck with winning against a really good UNC team; he could play quite well and we'll probably still lose. But them's the odds.

 

[GoldZ]

Sims has only had part of 1 quarter. What are you talking about?

It's not his first game fb.