The San Francisco 49ers quietly made one of the more pragmatic quarterback moves of last offseason when they signed Mac Jones to a two-year, $7 million contract. At the time, the deal appeared purely functional rather than forward-looking.

Jones was brought in to stabilize the position behind Brock Purdy, not to challenge him. The move reflected San Francisco’s emphasis on depth and insurance at the game’s most important position.

That insurance quickly became necessary. During the 2025 season, Purdy battled a lingering toe injury that forced him to miss time, opening the door for Jones to play a far more prominent role than initially expected.

Jones appeared in 11 games and started eight, a substantial workload for a quarterback originally penciled in as a backup. His performance during that stretch reshaped perceptions around his value.

The 27-year-old completed 69.6 percent of his passes, a career high, while throwing for 2,151 yards, 13 touchdowns, and six interceptions. More importantly, the 49ers went 5–3 in games he started.

Those results mattered. San Francisco did not merely survive during Purdy’s absence. The team remained competitive, efficient, and structurally sound under Jones’ direction.

Within Kyle Shanahan’s offense, Jones showed improved decisiveness and accuracy, particularly in rhythm-based concepts. His comfort operating within structure contrasted sharply with earlier stops in his career.

Despite those positives, the long-term math remains unchanged. Jones has one year left on his deal, and the 49ers are firmly committed to Purdy as their franchise quarterback.

That reality has fueled speculation across the league. With Jones approaching the final year of his contract, many believe San Francisco could look to move him in a trade this offseason.

The logic is straightforward. Quarterback depth is valuable, but it also carries opportunity cost. If Jones can fetch a draft pick or meaningful roster asset, San Francisco must at least consider listening.

Earlier this week, that speculation gained traction when Albert Breer of The MMQB was asked to project where Jones might play in 2026. His answer pointed away from the Bay Area.

“Minnesota would be a fun idea,” Breer wrote, immediately sparking discussion. The suggestion connected several league-wide threads that have been quietly developing.

The Minnesota Vikings are preparing for a transitional period at quarterback. While J.J. McCarthy remains central to their long-term plans, the team has been clear about wanting competition.

However, Minnesota’s approach is constrained by budget considerations. The Vikings are not positioned to chase expensive veteran options without sacrificing roster balance elsewhere.

Breer noted that Minnesota has already explored the reclamation-project path, a strategy that paid dividends with Sam Darnold during the 2024 season.

That context matters. The Vikings’ success with Darnold demonstrated the organization’s confidence in its developmental infrastructure and coaching continuity.

Breer also acknowledged that quarterbacks such as Tua Tagovailoa and Kyler Murray could theoretically fit Minnesota’s needs, but not at their current contract figures.

Jones, by contrast, represents a cost-controlled alternative with recent starting experience in a comparable offensive system. His familiarity with Shanahan principles only strengthens that parallel.

The comparison to Darnold is particularly instructive. Both quarterbacks arrived in San Francisco with diminished reputations and left with restored credibility.

Jones’ stint with the 49ers has reframed him league-wide. He is no longer viewed simply as a failed first-round pick, but as a functional starter in the right environment.

Still, San Francisco’s leadership has publicly downplayed trade urgency. General manager John Lynch and head coach Kyle Shanahan both expressed comfort with Jones remaining on the roster.

At their end-of-year media availability, neither executive suggested an active desire to move on. Stability at quarterback remains a priority for a team with championship aspirations.

However, public statements rarely tell the full story. Front offices often maintain flexibility behind closed doors, especially when market conditions evolve favorably.

If the right offer emerges, San Francisco’s stance could change quickly. Backup quarterbacks with starting tape and playoff-caliber experience do not come cheap.

The key variable is price. A Day 2 draft pick would almost certainly force the 49ers to reconsider their position, particularly given Jones’ contract status.

Alternatively, a player-for-player framework could appeal. If Minnesota were willing to part with one of its top wide receivers, the calculus becomes more complex.

San Francisco’s offensive depth chart could accommodate such an addition, particularly as the team balances extensions and future cap considerations.

From Minnesota’s perspective, Jones offers a bridge option with upside. He would not block McCarthy, but would provide legitimate competition and insurance.

That competitive dynamic aligns with Kevin O’Connell’s philosophy. The Vikings have shown a willingness to let quarterbacks earn roles rather than assigning them by draft status.

For Jones, a move to Minnesota could represent a career reset. Another year in a quarterback-friendly system with defined expectations could further rehabilitate his image.

Importantly, Breer’s projection specifies an NFC destination. That distinction is notable given San Francisco’s reluctance to strengthen conference rivals without sufficient compensation.

Yet the NFC quarterback landscape is evolving. Teams value stability and competency, even if ceilings are limited. Jones fits that profile.

The broader market also matters. Several teams may explore quarterback upgrades, but few can offer immediate starting opportunities without long-term financial commitments.

Jones occupies a unique middle ground. He is affordable, experienced, and still young enough to project incremental improvement.

For the 49ers, trading Jones would be a calculated risk. Injuries are unpredictable, and quarterback depth has repeatedly proven its importance in deep playoff runs.

However, holding onto him carries its own risks. Allowing Jones to walk in free agency without return would represent a missed opportunity to extract value.

That tension defines the decision. San Francisco must balance present security against future asset management, a challenge faced by every contending roster.

The Vikings, meanwhile, are positioned to be opportunistic. If they believe Jones can replicate or exceed Darnold’s impact at a similar cost, the appeal is obvious.

As offseason discussions accelerate, Jones’ name will remain prominent. Quarterback movement often unfolds late, driven by injuries, contract standoffs, or shifting draft priorities.

While nothing is imminent, the framework is clear. San Francisco is open to listening. Minnesota is exploring options. The market is quietly aligning.

Whether a deal materializes will depend on leverage and timing. For now, Jones stands as one of the more intriguing potential quarterback trade candidates of the 2026 offseason.

What once seemed unlikely now feels plausible. In a league defined by constant reevaluation, even backup quarterbacks can become valuable currency under the right conditions.