The we'd be better off having done nothing comment on the Kolb trade

[Russ Smith]

People keep saying this I think people are sort of missing part of the equation.

Note for this I'm assuming we don't make the trade but everything else is the same, draft Peterson(even though we probably picked him to replace DRC) etc.

So cards go into camp with Skelton as the starter with Bartell and Hall presumably looking for a possible veteran pickup but we don't know who that is because the assumption here is the Cards thought Skelton was the starter.

So in the preseason surprise, Skelton gets hurt, Hall is hurt, and suddenly we're looking at Bartel as the starter if we don't go get a QB.

Most of the guys we would have gotten are already gone, Hasselbeck etc.

So we can try to get Favre out of retirement(no thanks), Jamarcus, no thanks. We can get Garrard whoops no we can't he's hurt. Well we can trade for a young QB lets get Jimmy Clausen, hell no. Oh we can get Palmer, well Cincy wasn't willing to trade him then so that's out.

So what do we do? Well again from all the experts around we know that we were the only team interested in Kolb, so in this scenario he's still with the Eagles because nobody else wanted him.

So guess who we probably go out and get... Kevin Kolb. Of course now he has like 2 weeks to learn the system before the season starts, and Philly knows we're desperate so they probably even more out of us in trade.

So the end result is the guy doesn't know the system at all, we gave up even more in the trade and he's still starting the first 7 games until Skelton came back.

I don't see how that's any better?

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

that's pretty good logic. I'm assuming you have been debating phrazbit about nobody else wanting Kolb. I wouldn't know because I put him on ignore after proving that wasn't the case and he kept telling me it was, over and over and over as if that somehow would make it true.

Like in another thread you talked about Palmer, I think the suggested price many were willing to give up, Wells and a #2, would have turned out to be a much higher price(with the way Wells has played) than what we gave for Kolb.

 

[Russ Smith]

that's pretty good logic. I'm assuming you have been debating phrazbit about nobody else wanting Kolb. I wouldn't know because I put him on ignore after proving that wasn't the case and he kept telling me it was, over and over and over as if that somehow would make it true.

Like in another thread you talked about Palmer, I think the suggested price many were willing to give up, Wells and a #2, would have turned out to be a much higher price(with the way Wells has played) than what we gave for Kolb.

No I have him on ignore too but I've seen this reference for awhile now we would be better off having done nothing.

The only other possibility that's "better" that I see is we just are so desperate for Palmer that we tell Cincy we'll overpay to get him. We saw what Oakland gave for him so we're likely saying we give them TWO #1 picks and something else since we're desperate and they're not.

So it's quite likely we would have still gotten Kolb if you believe that situation.

Personally I don't think Kolb would still be in Philly and I don't know if we'd have still taken Peterson although I doubt we'd have taken a QB.

But I'm going on the all we know is what really happened scenario.

 

[Cheesebeef]

they should have just gone after Hasselback. said it back then and i stick by it.

 

[john h]

People keep saying this I think people are sort of missing part of the equation.

Note for this I'm assuming we don't make the trade but everything else is the same, draft Peterson(even though we probably picked him to replace DRC) etc.

So cards go into camp with Skelton as the starter with Bartell and Hall presumably looking for a possible veteran pickup but we don't know who that is because the assumption here is the Cards thought Skelton was the starter.

So in the preseason surprise, Skelton gets hurt, Hall is hurt, and suddenly we're looking at Bartel as the starter if we don't go get a QB.

Most of the guys we would have gotten are already gone, Hasselbeck etc.

So we can try to get Favre out of retirement(no thanks), Jamarcus, no thanks. We can get Garrard whoops no we can't he's hurt. Well we can trade for a young QB lets get Jimmy Clausen, hell no. Oh we can get Palmer, well Cincy wasn't willing to trade him then so that's out.

So what do we do? Well again from all the experts around we know that we were the only team interested in Kolb, so in this scenario he's still with the Eagles because nobody else wanted him.

So guess who we probably go out and get... Kevin Kolb. Of course now he has like 2 weeks to learn the system before the season starts, and Philly knows we're desperate so they probably even more out of us in trade.

So the end result is the guy doesn't know the system at all, we gave up even more in the trade and he's still starting the first 7 games until Skelton came back.

I don't see how that's any better?

Lot of "if's" here Russ. The facts are we are what we are. If Kurt were still here and Dansby Boldin, DRC, Hightower we would likely win the division. Now we are likely to finish last once again. What really hurts is when you go from playing in the Superbowl and winning two division championships to finishing last in a matter of a year. We lost to many good players and it shows.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Lot of "if's" here Russ. The facts are we are what we are. If Kurt were still here and Dansby Boldin, DRC, Hightower we would likely win the division. Now we are likely to finish last once again. What really hurts is when you go from playing in the Superbowl and winning two division championships to finishing last in a matter of a year. We lost to many good players and it shows.

Off topic, but John I keep raving about how good Tyler Wilson is and never get a response from you. I know last year you were all over Mallet. Do you not like Wilson, who I think is the next best QB to Luck. Sorry about the possible hijack.

 

[Russ Smith]

they should have just gone after Hasselback. said it back then and i stick by it.

Yeah but that's not on the table in this scenario. In this one the whole claim is doing nothing we'd have been better off.

 

[Big Deal]

Yeah but that's not on the table in this scenario. In this one the whole claim is doing nothing we'd have been better off.

But your scenario doesn't make sense. You are saying we would have done nothing, then we would have been screwed and would have had to trade for Kolb anyway.

In a scenario in which we really did nothing, then the only possible outcome (as far as being worse off) would be we would have 1 less win this year. It is also just as likely that we would have 1 additional win.

 

[football karma]

they should have just gone after Hasselback. said it back then and i stick by it.

one never knows, but I had read that Hasselbeck's two choices were SF and Tenn. AZ wasnt an option for him -- maybe because he had seen our offensive line in person

 

[Russ Smith]

But your scenario doesn't make sense. You are saying we would have done nothing, then we would have been screwed and would have had to trade for Kolb anyway.

In a scenario in which we really did nothing, then the only possible outcome (as far as being worse off) would be we would have 1 less win this year. It is also just as likely that we would have 1 additional win.

Well I'm assuming when Skelton and Hall both got hurt we wouldn't have gone into the season with Bartel starting.

And I didn't even bring up the whole would Fitz have signed if we'd done nothing angle.

But based on what actually happened we would have had to trade for a starting QB anyways, just a lot closer to the start of the season so we would have had to give up even more to get a QB.

Our pass defense is better with DRC still here but I don't think that offsets us starting Bartel at QB so I'm pretty certain we would have traded for a QB at that point anyways.

 

[Matt L]

Off topic, but John I keep raving about how good Tyler Wilson is and never get a response from you. I know last year you were all over Mallet. Do you not like Wilson, who I think is the next best QB to Luck. Sorry about the possible hijack.

Does John H have you on ignore?

 

[Phrazbit]

If the Cards were going into the preseason planning on starting Skelton and he suffered an injury that was going to keep him out no more than a month they wouldnt suddenly panic into a Kevin Kolb trade that alters the next 5 seasons. Your scenario makes no sense.

So assume that Skelton was inexorably fated to get injured during the preseason we would have ended up using either Bartell or "crappy vet QB" as our QB during those first few games... and at this point in the year we are, at worst, extactly where we are right now... only richer a 2nd round pick, a starting corner and 20 million bucks.

So yes, they would have been much better off doing nothing.

 

[Mulli]

Fitz may not resign if Cards do nothing.

 

[Russ Smith]

If the Cards were going into the preseason planning on starting Skelton and he suffered an injury that was going to keep him out no more than a month they wouldnt suddenly panic into a Kevin Kolb trade that alters the next 5 seasons. Your scenario makes no sense.

So assume that Skelton was inexorably fated to get injured during the preseason we would have ended up using either Bartell or "crappy vet QB" as our QB during those first few games... and at this point in the year we are, at worst, extactly where we are right now... only richer a 2nd round pick, a starting corner and 20 million bucks.

So yes, they would have been much better off doing nothing.

I opened yours just to see your comment since CBUS said you've been active on this topic.

You're using information in your comment that wasn't available to the Cards at the time. They didn't know at that point they would have 1 win if they traded for Kolb, at that point the Cards and a lot of the fans here believed we were good QB play away from winning our division. Hell at that time many here felt Harbaugh was intentionally tanking the season to get Luck.

So the idea the Cards would have started Bartel for 5-6 games even(IIRC Skelton became the backup in game 6 when healthy), I just find hard to swallow. Whiz thought he could win the division, he's not starting Bartel he's going to go get a QB.

now I do agree he might not panic and go get Kolb but who else was actually out there and available, very few of those "crappy Vet QB" were actually available.

The other thing you're forgetting is at the time Skelton got hurt, he was being outplayed, badly by every other QB on the roster except Croyle and that was basically even. Now if they really thought Skelton was the guy 17 attempts in 2 preseason games probably isn't enough to scare them off but it certainly wasn't going to be enough to make them think we can just go with what we have until he's back and still win the division.

On the money if the Cards hadn't given the deal to Kolb they still would have had to spend alot of that money. The NFL cap works both ways there's both a max cap, and a minimum cap, you have to spend a certain amount. I don't know what that amount is this year but if you take Kolb's contract off the books we still would have had to spend some of it to meet the minimum requirement in all likelihood.

Note I don't know why you included the part about "inexorably fated" I very clearly said I can only go on what actually happened because I don't know what else would have. There's certainly no reason to think trading for Kolb caused Skelton to be injured so seems reasonable to assume that would have still happened.

and as Mulli said the elephant in the room was Fitz, would he be here today if we hadn't made that deal? We can argue if he's all that valuable to us right now and maybe we should have dealt him but that's not part of the standing pat is better argument. that's why I said I didn't even mention Fitz for purposes of this thread, I assume he's still there even though that might not be the case.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yeah but that's not on the table in this scenario. In this one the whole claim is doing nothing we'd have been better off.

we'd probably be better off in that we'd be 0-8 and headed for Andrew Luck.

 

[Phrazbit]

I opened yours just to see your comment since CBUS said you've been active on this topic.

You're using information in your comment that wasn't available to the Cards at the time. They didn't know at that point they would have 1 win if they traded for Kolb, at that point the Cards and a lot of the fans here believed we were good QB play away from winning our division. Hell at that time many here felt Harbaugh was intentionally tanking the season to get Luck.

So the idea the Cards would have started Bartel for 5-6 games even(IIRC Skelton became the backup in game 6 when healthy), I just find hard to swallow. Whiz thought he could win the division, he's not starting Bartel he's going to go get a QB.

now I do agree he might not panic and go get Kolb but who else was actually out there and available, very few of those "crappy Vet QB" were actually available.

The other thing you're forgetting is at the time Skelton got hurt, he was being outplayed, badly by every other QB on the roster except Croyle and that was basically even. Now if they really thought Skelton was the guy 17 attempts in 2 preseason games probably isn't enough to scare them off but it certainly wasn't going to be enough to make them think we can just go with what we have until he's back and still win the division.

On the money if the Cards hadn't given the deal to Kolb they still would have had to spend alot of that money. The NFL cap works both ways there's both a max cap, and a minimum cap, you have to spend a certain amount. I don't know what that amount is this year but if you take Kolb's contract off the books we still would have had to spend some of it to meet the minimum requirement in all likelihood.

Note I don't know why you included the part about "inexorably fated" I very clearly said I can only go on what actually happened because I don't know what else would have. There's certainly no reason to think trading for Kolb caused Skelton to be injured so seems reasonable to assume that would have still happened.

and as Mulli said the elephant in the room was Fitz, would he be here today if we hadn't made that deal? We can argue if he's all that valuable to us right now and maybe we should have dealt him but that's not part of the standing pat is better argument. that's why I said I didn't even mention Fitz for purposes of this thread, I assume he's still there even though that might not be the case.

It doesnt really matter where people thought the 49ers would be or where the Cardinals would be before the season. What matters is where they are now. We are 2-6, 1-6 with Kolb and, even without using all of my rhetoric about him, he does not look like a player to build around. We gave up a LOT to get him, and it is almost impossible to imagine the team somehow being WORSE right now if they had never done the trade at all.

Injuries happen, we lost Tolar, the guy projected to be our #1 corner and the team didnt panic into trading for a corner despite that his injury created a chasm in the secondary, and he was out FOR THE YEAR! I really doubt they freak out and sell the farm because Skelton was going to miss a month. And you are really exaggerating Skelton's preseason "struggles". He played well in the 1st game, struggled during his brief play in the 2nd game and was injured during that game. Bartel passed him on the depth... because Skelton was out. Yes Bartel played well but as soon as Skelton was back and had a week of practice he was right back into his reserve role.

And maybe Fitz leaves, maybe he doesnt. I think with the gigantic contract they tossed him he was going to stay no matter what, but obviously I cant prove that.

I realize that we will never see eye to eye on this because I was against the trade before it ever happened. I agree that we were a quarterback away from being a potential playoff team, but I strongly disagreed with the choice of QB.

 

[Goldfield]

I dont think highly of this organization to say the least. But I cant bash them on being proactive and going after a potential franchise QB.

Right now it looks like a bad move. But I would of criticized this team MUCH more for not trying.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Does John H have you on ignore?

Maybe he does . I don't ever remember being in an argument with him. Of course, maybe he just thinks I'm an ass .

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I dont think highly of this organization to say the least. But I cant bash them on being proactive and going after a potential franchise QB.

Right now it looks like a bad move. But I would of criticized this team MUCH more for not trying.

Exactly, could you imagine the outcry if they had done nothing?

 

[Phrazbit]

Exactly, could you imagine the outcry if they had done nothing?

Yeah, people would have been mad, but thats a different argument than "would they be better off" if they had done nothing.

The only way you could argue that they are better off having traded for Kolb is on the pure faith that Kolb, despite the evidence to the contrary, is a franchise QB.

 

[Russ Smith]

we'd probably be better off in that we'd be 0-8 and headed for Andrew Luck.

I actually wouldn't argue that point I'm a huge Luck fan and I do believe football and basketball there are years where due to a great player it can benefit a team to lose. I don't advocate losing on purpose but there's a difference between telling players to lose and fielding a team that might not be your best team NOW but ultimately will help you.

But 0-8 would not be better than we are now in the matter of record.

 

[DoTheDew]

We should have outbid the Titans for Hasselbeck. He's not a franchise QB anymore but he went to the Titans and has been successful.

I know, I know, he's fragile and might have gotten hurt. Still he'd be better then Kolb this year and wouldn't prevent us from drafting a QB the way Kolb likely does.

Yes he was already gone when we made the Kolb trade, but if we hadn't planned on making the Kolb trade we easily could have made an offer for him. The reason we didn't make an offer was because we wanted Kolb.

 

[Russ Smith]

It doesnt really matter where people thought the 49ers would be or where the Cardinals would be before the season. What matters is where they are now. We are 2-6, 1-6 with Kolb and, even without using all of my rhetoric about him, he does not look like a player to build around. We gave up a LOT to get him, and it is almost impossible to imagine the team somehow being WORSE right now if they had never done the trade at all.

Injuries happen, we lost Tolar, the guy projected to be our #1 corner and the team didnt panic into trading for a corner despite that his injury created a chasm in the secondary, and he was out FOR THE YEAR! I really doubt they freak out and sell the farm because Skelton was going to miss a month. And you are really exaggerating Skelton's preseason "struggles". He played well in the 1st game, struggled during his brief play in the 2nd game and was injured during that game. Bartel passed him on the depth... because Skelton was out. Yes Bartel played well but as soon as Skelton was back and had a week of practice he was right back into his reserve role.

And maybe Fitz leaves, maybe he doesnt. I think with the gigantic contract they tossed him he was going to stay no matter what, but obviously I cant prove that.

I realize that we will never see eye to eye on this because I was against the trade before it ever happened. I agree that we were a quarterback away from being a potential playoff team, but I strongly disagreed with the choice of QB.

He played ok against Oakland's 2nd and 3rd string, had a nice TD throw. Against GB he wasn't very good before he got hurt, his last throw was really good but we missed the long FG. As for the he got injured during the game I don't know which play it was but I don't think we can fault the injury for him going 3-7 since his last play of the game was his best, 25 yard pass on 3rd down.

Point is in both games he looked like the same guy as last year not really accurate, not ready to play.

And in this scenario it DOES matter what the Cards thought because you approach a season differently if you think you're good enough to win the division and make the playoffs and then your QB goes down. We didn't have a #1 pick waiting in the wings to replace Skelton like we did Toler with Peterson.

And why do you keep saying a month or 4 games, Skelton didn't miss either he missed 5 games and then the bye. IIRC he was active for the first time in the 6th game against Pitt. So we start Bartel for 5 games, lose them all, and then say Ok here you go John it's your job again with Pittsburgh and Baltimore staring him in the face? I guess he had a bye week to prepare but still not exactly a good scenario.

Kolb was my 2nd choice to Palmer as I said all along. My point is it's not entirely true to say we'd be better off right now not having made the trade.

For starters if we did play Bartel not only would we have lost all those games, we likely get blown out(remember he was TERRIBLE against the Vikings). Now you're not only 0-5 with Pitt coming in you got a team that's about ready to quit if not already quit. that makes it harder to evaluate other players the rest of the year.

You really have to look at the impact on the whole team after the prior year and say how do the guys like Fitz, Dockett, Campbell et al react when they see us open the year with Bartel or Trent Edwards etc as the starter. They're all going to say I can't believe they did that again, I want the hell out of here.

Kolb hasn't panned out yet but at the time the Cards had to get a QB to show they were committed. I preferred Palmer but he would have cost even more and there's no reason to think the Bengals would actually trade him then.

In hindsight Dalton would have been a nice pick but then Dalton wouldn't look anywhere near as good in our system as he does in Cincy where they're not asking him to do that much. The whole reason for trading for a QB is we thought we were a QB away from being a good team and we clearly misjudged how ready Kolb was to play.

I didn't want to trade DRC either but I've always assumed that was one of those deals were they had decided they didn't like the kid and he didn't like the organization so get something for him now. I don't think they felt he was all that committed.

 

[Russ Smith]

We should have outbid the Titans for Hasselbeck. He's not a franchise QB anymore but he went to the Titans and has been successful.

I know, I know, he's fragile and might have gotten hurt. Still he'd be better then Kolb this year and wouldn't prevent us from drafting a QB the way Kolb likely does.

Yes he was already gone when we made the Kolb trade, but if we hadn't planned on making the Kolb trade we easily could have made an offer for him. The reason we didn't make an offer was because we wanted Kolb.

Agreed but do you really think that's what Fitz wanted us to get a 36 year old QB with a recent history of back problems? He hadn't played a full season for the last 3, the Cards were trying to show Fitz and other veterans they were committed, getting Hasselbeck would have required we draft a QB #1 too otherwise the players would have balked at it.

We would be better right now for sure, him at QB, DRC at CB and no Peterson with say Dalton sitting on the bench.

But I'm merely talking about the suggestion that if we did nothing and made Skelton the starter we'd have been better off. He missed the first 5 games someone had to start those games.

My guess is we do the same thing Oakland did decide we can win this division but we need a QB to do it.

 

[Phrazbit]

He played ok against Oakland's 2nd and 3rd string, had a nice TD throw. Against GB he wasn't very good before he got hurt, his last throw was really good but we missed the long FG. As for the he got injured during the game I don't know which play it was but I don't think we can fault the injury for him going 3-7 since his last play of the game was his best, 25 yard pass on 3rd down.

Point is in both games he looked like the same guy as last year not really accurate, not ready to play.

And in this scenario it DOES matter what the Cards thought because you approach a season differently if you think you're good enough to win the division and make the playoffs and then your QB goes down. We didn't have a #1 pick waiting in the wings to replace Skelton like we did Toler with Peterson.

And why do you keep saying a month or 4 games, Skelton didn't miss either he missed 5 games and then the bye. IIRC he was active for the first time in the 6th game against Pitt. So we start Bartel for 5 games, lose them all, and then say Ok here you go John it's your job again with Pittsburgh and Baltimore staring him in the face? I guess he had a bye week to prepare but still not exactly a good scenario.

Kolb was my 2nd choice to Palmer as I said all along. My point is it's not entirely true to say we'd be better off right now not having made the trade.

For starters if we did play Bartel not only would we have lost all those games, we likely get blown out(remember he was TERRIBLE against the Vikings). Now you're not only 0-5 with Pitt coming in you got a team that's about ready to quit if not already quit. that makes it harder to evaluate other players the rest of the year.

You really have to look at the impact on the whole team after the prior year and say how do the guys like Fitz, Dockett, Campbell et al react when they see us open the year with Bartel or Trent Edwards etc as the starter. They're all going to say I can't believe they did that again, I want the hell out of here.

Kolb hasn't panned out yet but at the time the Cards had to get a QB to show they were committed. I preferred Palmer but he would have cost even more and there's no reason to think the Bengals would actually trade him then.

In hindsight Dalton would have been a nice pick but then Dalton wouldn't look anywhere near as good in our system as he does in Cincy where they're not asking him to do that much. The whole reason for trading for a QB is we thought we were a QB away from being a good team and we clearly misjudged how ready Kolb was to play.

I didn't want to trade DRC either but I've always assumed that was one of those deals were they had decided they didn't like the kid and he didn't like the organization so get something for him now. I don't think they felt he was all that committed.

You have to start 2 corners. The Tolar injury left a chasm in the secondary, its hard to claim it didnt.

And I realize that the team thought they were a QB away from winning the division and i actually AGREE that they were. However, I strongly disagreed on their choice of a QB, and frankly after not drafting one there was not "QB of the future" out there to get in my opinion. So once they did not draft a QB (and not taking Mallet in the 3rd was inexcusable) they would have been better off signing a crappy vet guy (Moore, Edwards, Troy Smith... whoever) and going with Skelton than executing a trade that was (in my opinion at the time and far stronger now) just a desperation reach to get an instant fix "franchise" out of Kolb.

I thought this thread was meant to be retrospective, so while I was against the trade before it was ever done, it has become even harder, in retrospect, to pretend it was worth it. You can argue about the organizations intentions before hand, but thats a different debate than analyzing the results up to this point and asking if it was worth it.

The simple fact is a lot of teams are a "QB away" from being somebody. But giving up a lot of value reaching for a player who was is not going to fill that role is not an admirable pursuit, it just further sets the franchise back from properly evaluation and getting the correct player.