Draft Countdown Forums

Go Back   Draft Countdown Forums > Draft Countdown Forums > Pro Football

Pro Football Discuss professional football.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-09-2008, 10:53 PM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,802
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Here's the way things work. Starting experience is the fastest way to develop and evaluate a QB. You can make progress in half a season starting that they wouldn't make in half a decade holding a clipboard for another QB. You're going to see Aaron Rodgers make rookie mistakes this season, but he'll make strides one way or another that he was unable to make in the years he spent backing up Favre. Look at recent succesful QBs. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Carson Palmer, Ben Roethlisberger, Phillip Rivers, Marc Bulger, Tony Romo, Derek Anderson, Jay Cutler, Brett Favre, David Garrard. For every QB who took more than three years to stop being terrible, I can name a dozen who never stopped being terrible, and a dozen who proved their worth soon after they got the job.
You're talking like there are certain guidelines to become a successful quarterback and that there's one way that things work. And that's not the case. Everyone learns differently and sometimes it depends on certain circumstances like player personnel and coaching personnel to evaluate the time it takes until you become successful if you even do. There is no "this is how things work" science to becoming a great quarterback. You can name a dozen that either had a lot of experience starting or just holding clipboards and they're still terrible. There are really many variables to determining one's success as a quarterback that it's not an exact science. That's why it's so difficult to find an elite starting quarterback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
There's almost a dozen teams this past season that would have taken Aikman's 91 season over what they had to deal with. 229 yards a game at 65% completion? It might not have been a historic season, he might have done better later on, but it was a good season, particularly for having played only 12 games.
Okay? You could say that about every season with regarding teams. Doesn't mean Aikman's 91 season was special or anything like that. There have been quarterbacks that have had similar seasons but nothing ever developed of them. And since when does "going to the Pro Bowl" merit anything special? It's a bias contest which is why I don't consider it worth any significant value. Players go every single season that don't deserve to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Fouts proves your point in the same respect that the spelling of society proves the way i and e should be ordered. It's the exception that proves the rule. Can it happen? Sure. But the overwhelming mountain of evidence shows that it is so unlikely to occur that you'd be a fool to bet on it. As I said, for every QB who had 3 or more terrible years starting at the beginning of their career who went on to be successful, I can name dozens who went on to be failures, and dozens who proved themselve quickly and became successes.
But my point still stands. It can be done. And I've already given you other examples. The consensus of Drew Brees after 2003 was that he wasn't going to be anything special. Which is why Eli Manning was targeted in the following draft. Regarding Alex Smith he doesn't even have three years of starting experience under his belt. He started seven games in 2005, sixteen in 2006, and he basically started three this past season. When he came back his arm was clearly different and he was not throwing the same at all. Troy Aikman like I was talking about earlier, took more than three years to become legitimate starting quarterback in this league. Same thing with Steve Young. Dan Fouts we already talked about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Bradshaw was abbysmal save for 1975 and 1978. Even then, he wasn't great, he was merely above average.
This is merely subjective so I'll just say that we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Players have fluctuations. Even Brett Favre had a couple of really awful years in there. Brees had a poor year, as the team did as a whole. But he had already shown he could complete 60% of his passes, that he could avoid needless sacks, that he could keep his turnovers at a manageable level.
But Brees didn't complete that high percentage of passes the following season. And he was not making plays at all. That's why he was eventually benched and the Chargers were looking for someone else by the 2004 draft. No one "saw" anything until 2004. Bottom line. Everyone thought Brees was a bust.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
You were the one who brought up dropped passes as a justification for Smith's decreased completion percentage. I was simply pointing out that Brees had more drops to deal with.
I merely said that because I was telling you that small statistics like that were almost to the point of being irrelevant. My main point was that both seasons didn't dictate that Brees was anything "special" at that point. And he didn't build upon the little success he had the following season. He didn't get injured. He was flat out benched. I mean you were comparing 60% completion percentage to 58%. That's not a huge difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
No, that in and of itself doesn't make Brees better than Tom Brady, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing. But if you compare say Tom Brady's 06 season to Drew Brees' 06 season, Brees didn't completely destroy him in any specific catagory, but he had a few TDs more, a pick less, more yards, more attempts, a higher completion percentage, fewer sacks, fewer fumbles. Each in themselves not significant. But as a whole, they were the difference between Drew Brees being the All Pro QB in 06, and Tom Brady not even making the Pro Bowl.
Why would I compared those seasons to each other? Both had a great year, and both have variables on their team that dictated how their offenses operated. The Pro Bowl is a horrible, terrible reason to use in a debate. It's a bias contest. Eli Manning helped lead his team to the playoffs and win the Super Bowl with a successful 4 game winning streak where he played very well and he didn't go to Hawaii. Ben Rothelisberger did the same thing. I mean what is your point in comparing both seasons? My angle is that not all great quarterbacks are going to have historic seasons year after year after year. I've watched both players play and I personally like how Tom Brady plays the game more than Drew Brees. I just believe he's a little more consistent.


Bottom line in all of this, do you really believe that if Brees and Smith had their second season years evaluated together at the same time, before Brees became the player he is today, and then took both of their seasons afterwards where things didn't go their way whether do to injury or eventually getting benched because of poor performance, could you honestly say that he was the superior player and would be a great quarterback in the near future?
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

Last edited by Ness : 07-09-2008 at 11:03 PM.
Ness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 02:35 AM    (permalink
Paranoidmoonduck
Team Leader
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,439
Reputation: 197475
Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

I think there's two things to be said here:

The first is that Drew Brees completely reinvented himself as a quarterback. Plagued by wobbly balls and a less than impressive natural arm strength, he went back to the drawing board with his throwing motion. He incorporated way more hip torque and cleaned up the release. He was an entirely new quarterback heading into 2004. Brees did what you almost never see a quarterback do successfully. He changed.

The second thing is that you should never count out a guy like Alex Smith. He's got the tools, he definitely got the smarts, and he definitely hasn't had the supporting cast you typically associate with success. Brees had the good fortune of re-inventing himself just as that Charger team was coming together, and no one knows where the Niners or going (or if Alex Smith will even be going along with them).

In the end, the list of talented quarterbacks who's careers were crippled by poor offensive lines, a lack of top notch targets, and inconsistent coaching is much longer than the list of quarterbacks who were clear duds over their first several seasons and then came back with a vastly improved game. Doesn't mean anything for Smith as an individual, but as an outsider there is reason to be dubious.
__________________
Paranoidmoonduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 02:41 AM    (permalink
BlindSite
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,728
Reputation: 56147
BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

If Smith was to be released at the end of next season there'd be a lot of teams interested imo.
__________________

BlindSite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2008, 05:53 PM    (permalink
DragonFireKai
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 1,116
Reputation: 1397
DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ness View Post
You're talking like there are certain guidelines to become a successful quarterback and that there's one way that things work. And that's not the case. Everyone learns differently and sometimes it depends on certain circumstances like player personnel and coaching personnel to evaluate the time it takes until you become successful if you even do. There is no "this is how things work" science to becoming a great quarterback. You can name a dozen that either had a lot of experience starting or just holding clipboards and they're still terrible. There are really many variables to determining one's success as a quarterback that it's not an exact science. That's why it's so difficult to find an elite starting quarterback.
Finding an elite starting QB is difficult because there are so few of them. There's 6-10 in the league at any given time. You can't make a player who isn't an elite QB into one if the ability isn't there. You can only develop what's already there. By putting them into a starting role, you simply accelerate the process, because the team focuses on them. The starter takes all the game reps, which are the best for learning. They get the overwhelming majority of the first team reps, which are the next best. They are the focus of individual film study with the coaches. If there's a flaw in their gameplay, it's exposed almost immediately. These are things that don't happen as a backup. People can get by without having those things revealed as a backup. Look at any QB in their first year of extensive starts. They make the same mistakes as a rookie QB who just got handed the reigns.

Quote:
Okay? You could say that about every season with regarding teams. Doesn't mean Aikman's 91 season was special or anything like that. There have been quarterbacks that have had similar seasons but nothing ever developed of them. And since when does "going to the Pro Bowl" merit anything special? It's a bias contest which is why I don't consider it worth any significant value. Players go every single season that don't deserve to.
But his season was by no means bad. If you extended it out to 16 games it would tally over 3600 yards, 15 TDs, 13 INTs, and a passer rating in the mid 80s. Not hall of fame production, but above average, and good enough to warrant keeping him as a starter, even if his production never rose significantly above that level of production. Troy Aikman was miles ahead of where Alex Smith is. Aikman was above average in 1991, Smith has never been better than sub par, there's the difference between the two.

Quote:
But my point still stands. It can be done. And I've already given you other examples. The consensus of Drew Brees after 2003 was that he wasn't going to be anything special. Which is why Eli Manning was targeted in the following draft. Regarding Alex Smith he doesn't even have three years of starting experience under his belt. He started seven games in 2005, sixteen in 2006, and he basically started three this past season. When he came back his arm was clearly different and he was not throwing the same at all. Troy Aikman like I was talking about earlier, took more than three years to become legitimate starting quarterback in this league. Same thing with Steve Young. Dan Fouts we already talked about.
It can be done doesn't mean you should count on it being done. Why do you think that Smith will suddenly put it all together now? When the overwhelming majority of evidence says he's beyond repair? Put aside your bias for a second. Look at other QBs in similar situations. Rex Grossman, entering essentially his third season starting, has performed better than Smith on every level, he's going into an open competition with Kyle Orton, and will probably be looking for another team soon. Tavaris Jackson has played on a similar level as Smith. JP Losman has played better than anything Smith has done, and he might not beat out Trent Edwards for the starting job. Do you think they're all going to flower into elite QBs too? If not, why do you think they'll fail and Smith will succeed?

Quote:
But Brees didn't complete that high percentage of passes the following season. And he was not making plays at all. That's why he was eventually benched and the Chargers were looking for someone else by the 2004 draft. No one "saw" anything until 2004. Bottom line. Everyone thought Brees was a bust.
Regression often occurs. Even the best players might have an off season, but having a servicable season under their belt already increases the likelyhood that they can improve beyond their regressed season. Favre was good in 92, bad in 93, and the league MVP for the next three years. The players who have a good season early on, then suffer through a bad season have a infinitely better chance at becoming a consistantly good player than a player who never posted a good season.

Quote:
I merely said that because I was telling you that small statistics like that were almost to the point of being irrelevant. My main point was that both seasons didn't dictate that Brees was anything "special" at that point. And he didn't build upon the little success he had the following season. He didn't get injured. He was flat out benched. I mean you were comparing 60% completion percentage to 58%. That's not a huge difference.
We already went over the issues that caused the paranoia in San Diego. People overlooked what he had done his first season starting because they feared a repeat of the Leaf incident. I'm not simply comparing the completion percentages, I'm comparing the whole season, each lead that Brees had over Smith in each statistical catagory paints a picture of a season that was as a whole significantly better.

Quote:
Why would I compared those seasons to each other? Both had a great year, and both have variables on their team that dictated how their offenses operated.
Because while both seasons were good, Brees' season was significantly better overall.

Quote:
The Pro Bowl is a horrible, terrible reason to use in a debate. It's a bias contest. Eli Manning helped lead his team to the playoffs and win the Super Bowl with a successful 4 game winning streak where he played very well and he didn't go to Hawaii.
Perhaps that was because Eli Manning was mediocre at best during the regular season? Just a thought.

Quote:
Ben Rothelisberger did the same thing.
Roethlisberger was operating strictly as a game manager at that point, and while his numbers were efficient, the entire body of work wasn't as impressive as the QBs who went ahead of him. You could make an argument for him, but it would be a weak one.

Quote:
I mean what is your point in comparing both seasons? My angle is that not all great quarterbacks are going to have historic seasons year after year after year. I've watched both players play and I personally like how Tom Brady plays the game more than Drew Brees. I just believe he's a little more consistent.
You mentioned how Brady has a problem with fumbling, as if it somehow justified Smith's problems. I was simply pointing out that fumbling wasn't a good thing because some good QBs get away with it, it's a bad thing that some QBs manage to succeed in spite of.

Quote:
Bottom line in all of this, do you really believe that if Brees and Smith had their second season years evaluated together at the same time, before Brees became the player he is today, and then took both of their seasons afterwards where things didn't go their way whether do to injury or eventually getting benched because of poor performance, could you honestly say that he was the superior player and would be a great quarterback in the near future?
I wouldn't have said Brees would have been a great QB, but he was on his way to being a servicable starter. Coming in in his first season even really getting into games and having an average year, I was thinking Don Meridith, nothing amazing, maybe a few pro bowls in some down years, and probably a journeyman for a while after that. Smith, with a God Awful start, and a sub par follow up had me thinking Steve Fuller.
__________________

Stand Tall and Shake the Heavens!
The Destroyer Is Manifest!
I reserve the rights to retract any posts made betwen midnight and 5 AM PST due to being really, really drunk
DragonFireKai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 12:44 AM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,802
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Finding an elite starting QB is difficult because there are so few of them. There's 6-10 in the league at any given time. You can't make a player who isn't an elite QB into one if the ability isn't there. You can only develop what's already there. By putting them into a starting role, you simply accelerate the process, because the team focuses on them. The starter takes all the game reps, which are the best for learning. They get the overwhelming majority of the first team reps, which are the next best. They are the focus of individual film study with the coaches. If there's a flaw in their gameplay, it's exposed almost immediately. These are things that don't happen as a backup. People can get by without having those things revealed as a backup. Look at any QB in their first year of extensive starts. They make the same mistakes as a rookie QB who just got handed the reigns.
Yes and that's my entire angle. Quarterbacks need time to develop. And it doesn't take the same amount of time for each player. And there are various reasons for this. It could be the change of offensive personnel, scheme that takes time to learn, personal effort, etc. That doesn't mean all quarterbacks have the potential to be good, however that also doesn't mean that there is a "set" amount of time for quarterbacks to become reliable starters. Like in the Drew Brees example, if in 2002 it was evident that he was going to be as dynamic as he started to in 2004, then why was there a consensus among fans and the organization that it was time to move on and get another quarterback? Just because a young quarterback starts most of their games it doesn't mean they have a better chance of succeeding necessarily. It doesn't seem logical, but there is a certain truth to it because there have been young drafted quarterbacks that played sparingly their first couple of seasons and it wasn't until maybe their third season that they were a starter, and then became a reliable one. This "developing young quarterback" thing isn't an exact science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
But his season was by no means bad. If you extended it out to 16 games it would tally over 3600 yards, 15 TDs, 13 INTs, and a passer rating in the mid 80s. Not hall of fame production, but above average, and good enough to warrant keeping him as a starter, even if his production never rose significantly above that level of production. Troy Aikman was miles ahead of where Alex Smith is. Aikman was above average in 1991, Smith has never been better than sub par, there's the difference between the two.
But he didn't play that many games. Bottom line. He could have done worse. He could have done better. We'll never know. So idle speculation has no value. And Aikman had a much better surrounding cast at that point in time than Smith did. It wasn't even close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
It can be done doesn't mean you should count on it being done. Why do you think that Smith will suddenly put it all together now? When the overwhelming majority of evidence says he's beyond repair? Put aside your bias for a second. Look at other QBs in similar situations. Rex Grossman, entering essentially his third season starting, has performed better than Smith on every level, he's going into an open competition with Kyle Orton, and will probably be looking for another team soon. Tavaris Jackson has played on a similar level as Smith. JP Losman has played better than anything Smith has done, and he might not beat out Trent Edwards for the starting job. Do you think they're all going to flower into elite QBs too? If not, why do you think they'll fail and Smith will succeed?
Bias? I have none. That's simply what I believe. I usually treat each case different. Think about it. This will be Alex Smith's fourth offensive coordinator in just as many seasons. In Alex Smith's first season he looked abysmal. In his second, he showed promise. Especially in the first few games of the season when he was tops in a few categories for QB's. Our defense was a major let down and that's why we lost a lot of games. Then Turner bounced. Then Hostler was promoted who was arguably the worst offensive coordinator in our franchise's history. A former defensive back at Indiana with no offensive coordinator experience was coaching our offense. It was a complete failure. The same offensive line with no change except for Staley for Harris performed horribly. And the playcalling was predictable. Frank Gore ran up the middle almost 80% of the time in the same exact direction out of very similar formations. The receivers kept dropping passes, including seven in the Steelers game. Then Smith got injured in the fourth game of the year on the second or third play from the game. Why? Because of our dreadful offensive line. Then Smith came back too soon from his injury because of some comment from Mike Nolan questioning his "toughness". Smith came back and it was like he was a different person. His passes were highly inaccurate and he was clearly in pain. He then was put on the injured list. Now tell me how an offense with almost all the starters returning magically becomes significantly worse? Hostler was the reason. It wasn't until Ted Tollener came in as a consultant that we got anything going. Smith only has about 26 games where he was able to play fully healthy. That's less than two years. And each came under a different offensive coordinator. The ball has not bounced his way at all. Why would I think that anything would become different? I don't know what the future holds. I never stated that Alex Smith would finally break out and become All Pro bound. But I'm not going to be pessimistic about the idea. Because why? I took in all the variables and I truly don't know. Like I said, every case is different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Regression often occurs. Even the best players might have an off season, but having a servicable season under their belt already increases the likelyhood that they can improve beyond their regressed season. Favre was good in 92, bad in 93, and the league MVP for the next three years. The players who have a good season early on, then suffer through a bad season have a infinitely better chance at becoming a consistantly good player than a player who never posted a good season.
So you're saying that 2002 was a good season for Drew Brees? So good that the organization thought about drafting someone else? And that Alex Smith's 2006 season wasn't enough to be optimistic? But Drew's was? Both seasons are relatively the same. Like I said you're really reaching by comparing 60% to 58%. It's easy for you to say all this now, but if it was 2002 and we were talking about Brees, then I highly doubt you would be so bold. No one knew that Brees would become the player he is today after 2002. And they believed less after 2003. I mean if this logic works for Brees, how does it not work for Smith? Both seasons are practically the same. If you take the first several games of his third season when he was healthy, his efficiency wasn't that bad. And that's dealing with an unproductive offensive line and receivers that led the league in dropped passes by the time he tore his shoulder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
We already went over the issues that caused the paranoia in San Diego. People overlooked what he had done his first season starting because they feared a repeat of the Leaf incident. I'm not simply comparing the completion percentages, I'm comparing the whole season, each lead that Brees had over Smith in each statistical catagory paints a picture of a season that was as a whole significantly better.
And I'm comparing the entire season as well. By years end there was optimism that Alex Smith would go on to do better the next season, but things didn't bounce the team's way at all. At least for the offense. If you think that throwing nearly the same amount of touchdowns and the same amount of picks and more yards because Drew Brees passed more, yet didn't throw that many touchdowns, and a 58 to 60 percent completion percentage was significantly better like night and day, then you truly have a different way of thinking about comparisons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Because while both seasons were good, Brees' season was significantly better overall.
But that doesn't mean he's the better player. That's a subjective opinion. Especially in a team sport that depends on so many different circumstances for success.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Perhaps that was because Eli Manning was mediocre at best during the regular season? Just a thought.
Yes the voting takes place when? Week 8 or 11? Again, another reason why the Pro Bowl is a bogus element to use in a debate. Eli Manning caught fire in the playoffs and performed very well. I bet he sure values his Super Bowl ring instead of the Pro Bowl spot he missed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Roethlisberger was operating strictly as a game manager at that point, and while his numbers were efficient, the entire body of work wasn't as impressive as the QBs who went ahead of him. You could make an argument for him, but it would be a weak one.
Again, he performed well in the playoffs and helped his team win the Super Bowl. Who cares about the Pro Bowl? If you think my argument is weak, then that's your angle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
You mentioned how Brady has a problem with fumbling, as if it somehow justified Smith's problems. I was simply pointing out that fumbling wasn't a good thing because some good QBs get away with it, it's a bad thing that some QBs manage to succeed in spite of.
And you metioned that Brees didn't fumble as if it made him the superior player. Yet I gave you an example of another player that has had fumbling issues in the past for several seasons and the consensus is that he's a better player because of the consistency and resolve he's displayed season after season. Fumbling is not a good thing, but just because you are better at holding on to the ball doesn't mean you're a better player in other aspects of your game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
I wouldn't have said Brees would have been a great QB, but he was on his way to being a servicable starter. Coming in in his first season even really getting into games and having an average year, I was thinking Don Meridith, nothing amazing, maybe a few pro bowls in some down years, and probably a journeyman for a while after that. Smith, with a God Awful start, and a sub par follow up had me thinking Steve Fuller.
Hmmm...well then that's your viewpoint and I suppose that's where this ends.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

Last edited by Ness : 07-11-2008 at 12:47 AM.
Ness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2008, 01:00 AM    (permalink
Bengalsrocket
Pro Bowler
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,424
Reputation: 307159
Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

quote sniping is lame :( Failing to read one's thoughts as an entire argument doesn't make you a good debater.
Bengalsrocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 06:35 PM    (permalink
DragonFireKai
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 1,116
Reputation: 1397
DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ness View Post
Yes and that's my entire angle. Quarterbacks need time to develop. And it doesn't take the same amount of time for each player. And there are various reasons for this. It could be the change of offensive personnel, scheme that takes time to learn, personal effort, etc. That doesn't mean all quarterbacks have the potential to be good, however that also doesn't mean that there is a "set" amount of time for quarterbacks to become reliable starters. Like in the Drew Brees example, if in 2002 it was evident that he was going to be as dynamic as he started to in 2004, then why was there a consensus among fans and the organization that it was time to move on and get another quarterback? Just because a young quarterback starts most of their games it doesn't mean they have a better chance of succeeding necessarily. It doesn't seem logical, but there is a certain truth to it because there have been young drafted quarterbacks that played sparingly their first couple of seasons and it wasn't until maybe their third season that they were a starter, and then became a reliable one. This "developing young quarterback" thing isn't an exact science.
You've completely missed the point. I'm not saying that QBs don't need to develop. What I'm saying is that when placed in the starting role, they develop a lot faster. It says nothing about wheather they'll succeed or fail, that's on the player. But they'll do one or the other, and they'll do it fast when they're starting.

Quote:
But he didn't play that many games. Bottom line. He could have done worse. He could have done better. We'll never know. So idle speculation has no value. And Aikman had a much better surrounding cast at that point in time than Smith did. It wasn't even close.
No, he didn't play that many games, but the point is that he had a successful season.

Quote:
Bias? I have none. That's simply what I believe. I usually treat each case different. Think about it. This will be Alex Smith's fourth offensive coordinator in just as many seasons. In Alex Smith's first season he looked abysmal. In his second, he showed promise. Especially in the first few games of the season when he was tops in a few categories for QB's. Our defense was a major let down and that's why we lost a lot of games.
I'm sure the offense, ranked 26th in yards and 24th in points in 06, had nothing to do with the 49ers poor performance. The 2006 49ers as a whole were lucky they even won 7 games. They had, by a wide margin, the worst point differential of any 7-9 team in NFL history. In fact, only two 6-10 teams had worse differentials than the 06 49ers. Smith's season was only remarkable in comparison to his 05 campaign. When looked at alone, it is decidedly subpar, below 60% completion, Low yardage total, high interception percentage, too many fumbles. Couple this with playing against one of the weakest defensive schedules in the league. You can see a picture starting to paint itself.

Quote:
Then Turner bounced. Then Hostler was promoted who was arguably the worst offensive coordinator in our franchise's history. A former defensive back at Indiana with no offensive coordinator experience was coaching our offense. It was a complete failure. The same offensive line with no change except for Staley for Harris performed horribly. And the playcalling was predictable. Frank Gore ran up the middle almost 80% of the time in the same exact direction out of very similar formations. The receivers kept dropping passes, including seven in the Steelers game. Then Smith got injured in the fourth game of the year on the second or third play from the game. Why? Because of our dreadful offensive line. Then Smith came back too soon from his injury because of some comment from Mike Nolan questioning his "toughness". Smith came back and it was like he was a different person. His passes were highly inaccurate and he was clearly in pain. He then was put on the injured list. Now tell me how an offense with almost all the starters returning magically becomes significantly worse? Hostler was the reason. It wasn't until Ted Tollener came in as a consultant that we got anything going. Smith only has about 26 games where he was able to play fully healthy. That's less than two years. And each came under a different offensive coordinator. The ball has not bounced his way at all. Why would I think that anything would become different? I don't know what the future holds. I never stated that Alex Smith would finally break out and become All Pro bound. But I'm not going to be pessimistic about the idea. Because why? I took in all the variables and I truly don't know. Like I said, every case is different.
You want a breakdown of everything that went wrong with the offense? Sure. Let's start on the line. Larry Allen played well in 2006 and acted as the lynchpin holding the interior line together. He got old. It happens. It wouldn't matter who was coaching, you can't fix that. It was Allen's responsibility that got Smith injured. You returned Jonas Jennings, but he was dealing with family issues to the point where he left the team for a week to take care of his ill mother. That weighs heavily on the conscience, and once again, can't be fixed by the coach. He was swiftly replaced by Adam Snyder, who has the skill set to be a great right tackle. Unfortunately, he was playing left tackle.

At the reciever position, the offense was hurt by replacing Antonio Bryant with Darrell Jackson, not in the recieving ability, both players had the same catch percentage, but in the downfield blocking. Bryant was a great downfield blocker, Jackson was a terrible one, this exacerbated the problems with Gore in the running games. Compounded with the death of Gore's mother, and the problems on the line, led to a weak season from Gore.

Further complicating the matter was the tougher schedule being played against.

Quote:
So you're saying that 2002 was a good season for Drew Brees? So good that the organization thought about drafting someone else? And that Alex Smith's 2006 season wasn't enough to be optimistic? But Drew's was? Both seasons are relatively the same. Like I said you're really reaching by comparing 60% to 58%. It's easy for you to say all this now, but if it was 2002 and we were talking about Brees, then I highly doubt you would be so bold. No one knew that Brees would become the player he is today after 2002. And they believed less after 2003. I mean if this logic works for Brees, how does it not work for Smith? Both seasons are practically the same. If you take the first several games of his third season when he was healthy, his efficiency wasn't that bad. And that's dealing with an unproductive offensive line and receivers that led the league in dropped passes by the time he tore his shoulder.
Are you sure you're using the right formula? Smith's QB rating through the first three games of 07 was a whopping 67.4. If he had maintained that level of play, he would have been splashed right in between Brodie Croyle and Rex Grossman. I'm sure you consider them on the road to success too.

Quote:
And I'm comparing the entire season as well. By years end there was optimism that Alex Smith would go on to do better the next season, but things didn't bounce the team's way at all. At least for the offense. If you think that throwing nearly the same amount of touchdowns and the same amount of picks and more yards because Drew Brees passed more, yet didn't throw that many touchdowns, and a 58 to 60 percent completion percentage was significantly better like night and day, then you truly have a different way of thinking about comparisons.
Each little edge adds up in the total. Brees had more yards, more TDs, a better completion rating, fewer sacks, fewer fumbles, a lower sack percentage, a higher passer rating, higher yards per game, and did it against a tougher schedule.

Smith had a slight edge in Y/A, but they were equal in NY/A, and Brees had an edge in Adjusted NY/P.

Each difference doesn't mean a whole lot if all other things are equal, but because Brees leads in so many catagories, it adds up. It's not a matter of just completion rating, or just yards, or just TDs, it's the whole season.

Quote:
But that doesn't mean he's the better player. That's a subjective opinion. Especially in a team sport that depends on so many different circumstances for success.
I've already shown that Brees had to contend with just as much inneptitude from his recievers as Smith did, and Brees had a tougher schedule than Smith. I've already looked at the teams.

Quote:
Yes the voting takes place when? Week 8 or 11? Again, another reason why the Pro Bowl is a bogus element to use in a debate. Eli Manning caught fire in the playoffs and performed very well. I bet he sure values his Super Bowl ring instead of the Pro Bowl spot he missed.
The voting ends in January. Tell me, who would you have dropped off the NFC squad to make room for Eli and his 20 INTs? Eli Manning was average at best thus far in his career, save for the 07 Playoffs, which incidentally, are not part of the season being voted on.

Quote:
Again, he performed well in the playoffs and helped his team win the Super Bowl. Who cares about the Pro Bowl? If you think my argument is weak, then that's your angle.
So did Trent Dilfer, you think he should have gone to the Pro Bowl for the Ravens? What if Rex Grossman had won the Super Bowl in 06? Would a couple of fluke plays by the defense and Devin Hester magically make him a better QB? No.

Quote:
And you metioned that Brees didn't fumble as if it made him the superior player. Yet I gave you an example of another player that has had fumbling issues in the past for several seasons and the consensus is that he's a better player because of the consistency and resolve he's displayed season after season. Fumbling is not a good thing, but just because you are better at holding on to the ball doesn't mean you're a better player in other aspects of your game.
Here's the thing, Brees was better at the other aspects too! He also fumbled less. Which did make him a better player than Smith. Smith does not have the redeeming value in his play to justify his fumbling concerns.
__________________

Stand Tall and Shake the Heavens!
The Destroyer Is Manifest!
I reserve the rights to retract any posts made betwen midnight and 5 AM PST due to being really, really drunk
DragonFireKai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 06:39 PM    (permalink
Gay Ork Wang
Matt Forte = Baby Marcus Allen
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oktoberfestland
Posts: 19,455
Reputation: 680057
Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Gay Ork Wang is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

soooo what r we talking about? Im to lazy to read all that
__________________

Gay Ork Wang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2008, 06:51 PM    (permalink
Crickett
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,168
Reputation: 950956
Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Crickett is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renji View Post
soooo what r we talking about? Im to lazy to read all that
A13X SM1T# 1$ TEH AW3S0M3!!!!!!!!!




Seriousky, he's Tim Couch all over again. And he always was.
Crickett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 12:59 AM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,802
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
You've completely missed the point. I'm not saying that QBs don't need to develop. What I'm saying is that when placed in the starting role, they develop a lot faster. It says nothing about wheather they'll succeed or fail, that's on the player. But they'll do one or the other, and they'll do it fast when they're starting.
Okay so you're just stating a pure logical approach? For what reason? Yes it's obvious that giving some more experience is going to give them a chance to improve faster. Practice makes perfect. Okay? I told you that even though that's the logical approach, and I agree with it, it doesn't always work out. And sometimes the reverse happens where a player that doesn't have that much starting experience performs great from the beginning. And whether a quarterback succeeds or fails isn't always on their shoulders. I know you may not have been saying that, but just keep it in mind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
No, he didn't play that many games, but the point is that he had a successful season.
And that's totally subjective on both our ends.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
I'm sure the offense, ranked 26th in yards and 24th in points in 06, had nothing to do with the 49ers poor performance. The 2006 49ers as a whole were lucky they even won 7 games. They had, by a wide margin, the worst point differential of any 7-9 team in NFL history. In fact, only two 6-10 teams had worse differentials than the 06 49ers. Smith's season was only remarkable in comparison to his 05 campaign. When looked at alone, it is decidedly subpar, below 60% completion, Low yardage total, high interception percentage, too many fumbles. Couple this with playing against one of the weakest defensive schedules in the league. You can see a picture starting to paint itself.
I never implied the 49ers had an explosive offense that year, or could have. Nor did I insinuate that the 49ers didn't have trouble on offense. But if you watch the games the 49ers and their defense were getting blown out from the start until the 49ers played Minnesota. That's when Mike Nolan decided to handle the defense personally. And it payed off. The defense actually gave us a chance and we finished with a 5-4 record after starting 2-5. Regardless if we were lucky to win the amount of games we did, we still won them and that's all that matters. That's like saying the 1999 Tennessee Titans were lucky to go 13-3 when statistically they weren't historically dominant. Below average 60% when compared to 58%. You keep trying to hang on to that piece of evidence like it's difference between completely abysmal and completely amazing, when it's not. And Brees started a good amount of games the following season and had a lower percentage, but his season wasn't cut short by injury it was cut short by bad performance period. Low yardage total. The 49ers were 30th in passing attempts that season if I'm not mistaken. Brees threw for more yards on more attempts but threw almost the same amount of touchdowns. Smith had less attempts but threw almost the same amount. As for fumbling, there have been a lot of great quarterbacks that have had fumbling issues. I already made an analysis on one. I don't see the same picture you're trying to paint. I only see a very similar comparison with a few tweaks trying to be made out into a difference like night and day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
You want a breakdown of everything that went wrong with the offense? Sure. Let's start on the line. Larry Allen played well in 2006 and acted as the lynchpin holding the interior line together. He got old. It happens. It wouldn't matter who was coaching, you can't fix that. It was Allen's responsibility that got Smith injured. You returned Jonas Jennings, but he was dealing with family issues to the point where he left the team for a week to take care of his ill mother. That weighs heavily on the conscience, and once again, can't be fixed by the coach. He was swiftly replaced by Adam Snyder, who has the skill set to be a great right tackle. Unfortunately, he was playing left tackle.
Why would I want a breakdown when I already told you about it? Larry Allen played well in run support, not in pass support are you kidding? His legs haven't moved that well for years. He was already old. And yes you can fix coaching. You can fix what plays are called so they aren't predictable. That's why Tollener was brought in and surprise surprise, during the Arizona game we finally ended our losing streak and Dilfer passed for the most yards out of all his starts that season if I'm not mistaken. And the line was playing horribly through the first three games. Frank Gore was not getting the yards and blowing through defense like he was in 2006. Gore even said in practice during the middle of the season that the players just weren't committed do what Hostler was trying to teach them because it was very foreign and it didn't seem to be working the way things worked with Turner the previous year:

Frank Gore - "Norv Turner, he's been doing it for awhile. Whenever he said something, we wanted to do it," Gore said. "Now I feel that a lot of people, when coach Hoss calls something, it gets in the back of their heads, 'Is he calling the right play?'"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
At the reciever position, the offense was hurt by replacing Antonio Bryant with Darrell Jackson, not in the recieving ability, both players had the same catch percentage, but in the downfield blocking. Bryant was a great downfield blocker, Jackson was a terrible one, this exacerbated the problems with Gore in the running games. Compounded with the death of Gore's mother, and the problems on the line, led to a weak season from Gore.
Yes the offensive line was weakened. But even during the opening game the 49ers offensive line was a shell of it's former self the previous season with practically the same amount of starters. It became significantly worse. Are you really going to judge someone's season performance based on something you have no clue about unless you're in their shoes? Yes Gore's mother died. That doesn't mean he didn't try his best on game day. He was literally running up the same holes out of the same formations almost all the time. Norv Turner didn't do that. We didn't have a toss play if I recall until the third game of the season. Or a trap. That's absurd. And our receivers were horrible at catching the football last year for whatever reason. This combined with bad line play, bad play calling, did not help Alex Smith in his third season. And that's the point I was trying to make all along. But despite all of these issues, in his first three starts his QB rating wasn't that bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Further complicating the matter was the tougher schedule being played against.
What are you talking about? The 49ers were predicted to play the third easiest schedule and ended up playing the sixth when it was all said and done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Are you sure you're using the right formula? Smith's QB rating through the first three games of 07 was a whopping 67.4. If he had maintained that level of play, he would have been splashed right in between Brodie Croyle and Rex Grossman. I'm sure you consider them on the road to success too.
I read a different report. Perhaps it was incorrect. Regardless, if Croyle and Grossman were dealing with all of the issues that Smith has dealt and is dealing with, I'd give them a little break too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Each little edge adds up in the total. Brees had more yards, more TDs, a better completion rating, fewer sacks, fewer fumbles, a lower sack percentage, a higher passer rating, higher yards per game, and did it against a tougher schedule.

Smith had a slight edge in Y/A, but they were equal in NY/A, and Brees had an edge in Adjusted NY/P.

Each difference doesn't mean a whole lot if all other things are equal, but because Brees leads in so many catagories, it adds up. It's not a matter of just completion rating, or just yards, or just TDs, it's the whole season.
But you could do that about a lot of great quarterbacks who have had great seasons. But that doesn't mean they're necessarily better quarterbacks does it? And Brees was dreadful the following season when he wasn't injured. At least I don't recall him having any significant injury. He just was benched. You're comparing small details in a sport that revolves around so many variables within a teamwork effort and trying to equate a huge difference. A 76.9 passer rating compared to a 74.8? I mean are you serious? I'm just not buying it sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
I've already shown that Brees had to contend with just as much inneptitude from his recievers as Smith did, and Brees had a tougher schedule than Smith. I've already looked at the teams.
And that is still a subjective opinion based on the parameters you define for success within a team effort. The Chargers had the 22nd hardest schedule in 2002. I could easily dismiss that personally as not a very big difference for the 49ers 2006 schedule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
The voting ends in January. Tell me, who would you have dropped off the NFC squad to make room for Eli and his 20 INTs? Eli Manning was average at best thus far in his career, save for the 07 Playoffs, which incidentally, are not part of the season being voted on.
I was questioning when it ends, just when it starts. Regardless, if regular season accomplishments are a bigger deal than championships then we have different angles when comparing those aspects. If I were a Giants fan, I'd be happy for the championship instead of Eli's missed trip to Hawaii personally. Which is why I don't use Pro Bowl spots as an element for supporting most of my arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
So did Trent Dilfer, you think he should have gone to the Pro Bowl for the Ravens? What if Rex Grossman had won the Super Bowl in 06? Would a couple of fluke plays by the defense and Devin Hester magically make him a better QB? No.
But you're admiring single player accomplishments within a team sport. I'm not. Which is why I don't care about the Pro Bowl. And Trent Dilfer helped the Ravens win the Super Bowl. Like I said in my previous statement I bet Ravens fans were happy at the time for the championship instead of Dilfer's Pro Bowl spot that he missed. Why would I think that Dilfer should have gone to the Pro Bowl? I don't care about the biased contest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
Here's the thing, Brees was better at the other aspects too! He also fumbled less. Which did make him a better player than Smith. Smith does not have the redeeming value in his play to justify his fumbling concerns.
But not during 2002 in my opinion no he was not better by a significant amount. Especially when he lowered his promise when doing horrible the following season when healthy and got benched.

The main picture for all of this is that you believe that Alex Smith won't get any better. Okay that's fine. I on the other hand don't believe there's enough evidence to make a final judgment on a 24 year old quarterback that's been through three offensive coordinators in three seasons and hasn't really had consistent supporting cast on the offensive side of the ball. Nor has he started even three years worth of football while reasonably healthy. I'm going to wait a little longer and see.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

Last edited by Ness : 07-13-2008 at 08:43 PM.
Ness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 01:11 AM    (permalink
BlindSite
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,728
Reputation: 56147
BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

For a quarterback to develop successfully you need 4 things.

1. Protection (see: offensive line)
2. Experienced / Talented receivers
3. Consistency in the offensive coaching staff
4. A solid prospect to begin with.

The 49ers have had one of the four in Smith's time with the club and that's a solid prospect. Just now the team is starting to come together on the offensive line and in the weaponry department. So I'm not going to condemn him just yet.
__________________

BlindSite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 01:23 AM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,802
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlindSite View Post
For a quarterback to develop successfully you need 4 things.

1. Protection (see: offensive line)
2. Experienced / Talented receivers
3. Consistency in the offensive coaching staff
4. A solid prospect to begin with.

The 49ers have had one of the four in Smith's time with the club and that's a solid prospect. Just now the team is starting to come together on the offensive line and in the weaponry department. So I'm not going to condemn him just yet.
Well I wouldn't call him a bust just yet either the way things have gone for him.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

Last edited by Ness : 07-13-2008 at 01:26 AM.
Ness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 02:12 AM    (permalink
PACKmanN
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: toronto
Posts: 7,049
Reputation: 114301
PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.PACKmanN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlindSite View Post
If Smith was to be released at the end of next season there'd be a lot of teams interested imo.
based on what? he has had his own problems.
__________________
PACKmanN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 02:16 AM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,802
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PACKmanN View Post
based on what? he has had his own problems.
Based on the prospect that he could actually be coached the right way with talent surrounding him and succeed. He's had his own problems sure, but he's being made out to be a lot worse than he actually is in my mind.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.
Ness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 02:18 AM    (permalink
BlindSite
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,728
Reputation: 56147
BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ness View Post
Based on the prospect that he could actually be coached the right way with talent surrounding him and succeed. He's had his own problems sure, but he's being made out to be a lot worse than he actually is in my mind.
My sentiments exactly, plus for a QB he's still pretty young.
__________________

BlindSite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 02:27 AM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,802
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlindSite View Post
My sentiments exactly, plus for a QB he's still pretty young.
Yes who knew the age of 24 was the age of final judgment.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.
Ness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 03:21 AM    (permalink
yourfavestoner
#1 Vickscuser
All-NFLDC
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LakerLand
Posts: 13,130
Reputation: 628697
yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Not to mention that he was actually showing some half ass decent signs of development in his only season with a good offensive coordinator.

Also, this is kinda off topic, but everybody keeps talking about how Wade Phillips should be looking over his shoulder. But shouldn't Norv Turner be just as concerned? I'd assume that it's Superbowl or bust in Chargerland, and anything less would feel like a bitter disappointment. Will AJ Smith axe Norv and go after a better head coaching candidate if that happens?

Last edited by yourfavestoner : 07-13-2008 at 03:23 AM.
yourfavestoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 03:37 AM    (permalink
Paranoidmoonduck
Team Leader
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,439
Reputation: 197475
Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Paranoidmoonduck is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourfavestoner View Post
Also, this is kinda off topic, but everybody keeps talking about how Wade Phillips should be looking over his shoulder. But shouldn't Norv Turner be just as concerned? I'd assume that it's Superbowl or bust in Chargerland, and anything less would feel like a bitter disappointment. Will AJ Smith axe Norv and go after a better head coaching candidate if that happens?
I think Wade Phillips might well be gone no matter what, because the Cowboys already have a successor in mind, someone they're paying to stick around until they can give him full control. I think Norv should be on a tight leash, mostly because I think he's a pretty mediocre head coach, but unless the Chargers front office has someone specific in mind he's safer than Phillips.
__________________
Paranoidmoonduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 01:22 PM    (permalink
YAYareaRB
All-NFLDC
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,206
Reputation: 496749
YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.YAYareaRB is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bengalsrocket View Post
quote sniping is lame
Quote
Quote:
:( Failing to read
Sniping
Quote:
one's thoughts as an entire argument
Is
Quote:
doesn't make you a good debater.
AWWW$$$0|\/|333ZZZZZZ
__________________


YAYareaRB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 04:17 PM    (permalink
Geo
Neo Geo (Moderator)
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: California
Posts: 17,530
Reputation: 121499
Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourfavestoner View Post
Also, this is kinda off topic, but everybody keeps talking about how Wade Phillips should be looking over his shoulder. But shouldn't Norv Turner be just as concerned? I'd assume that it's Superbowl or bust in Chargerland, and anything less would feel like a bitter disappointment. Will AJ Smith axe Norv and go after a better head coaching candidate if that happens?
The Chargers winning two playoff games and getting to the AFC Championship Game this past season should give Turner both '08 and '09, I think. But if they aren't in the AFCCG in '09 or at least in the divisional playoffs, then he could be potentially yanked afterwards.
__________________
Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.
Geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 04:24 PM    (permalink
Bengalsrocket
Pro Bowler
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,424
Reputation: 307159
Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Bengalsrocket is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YAYareaRB View Post
Quote

Sniping

Is

AWWW$$$0|\/|333ZZZZZZ
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! :P
Bengalsrocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2008, 06:17 PM    (permalink
BlindSite
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,728
Reputation: 56147
BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BlindSite is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourfavestoner View Post
Not to mention that he was actually showing some half ass decent signs of development in his only season with a good offensive coordinator.

Also, this is kinda off topic, but everybody keeps talking about how Wade Phillips should be looking over his shoulder. But shouldn't Norv Turner be just as concerned? I'd assume that it's Superbowl or bust in Chargerland, and anything less would feel like a bitter disappointment. Will AJ Smith axe Norv and go after a better head coaching candidate if that happens?
To be honest I don't know why he was hired in the first place. When I heard he was interviewing I thought it was to replace Cam Cameron as the OC. Instead all of a sudden he's announced as the HC.

I think the chargers should have been in the SB already and they've had the roster but not the coaching to do so.
__________________

BlindSite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 09:10 PM    (permalink
abaddon41_80
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 4,013
Reputation: 323867
abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

It is really refreshing to see some non-49er fans defending Alex Smith. Everyone I know seems to have an irrational hate of him
abaddon41_80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 11:54 PM    (permalink
DragonFireKai
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 1,116
Reputation: 1397
DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.DragonFireKai is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ness View Post
Okay so you're just stating a pure logical approach? For what reason? Yes it's obvious that giving some more experience is going to give them a chance to improve faster. Practice makes perfect. Okay? I told you that even though that's the logical approach, and I agree with it, it doesn't always work out. And sometimes the reverse happens where a player that doesn't have that much starting experience performs great from the beginning. And whether a quarterback succeeds or fails isn't always on their shoulders. I know you may not have been saying that, but just keep it in mind.
But you've still dodged the fundamental question. Why do you think Smith will succeed when the overwhelming amount of evidence says that he won't?

And if it's no longer in the Smith's hands, and he'll fail not through his own fault, but due to incompatabilities with the system and personnel, he'll still fail, he'll still hurt the team, and the team is better off searching for someone else who won't fail in those circumstances.

Quote:
And that's totally subjective on both our ends.
Not really. He was certainly far better than anything that Alex Smith has put up yet. Aikman's completion percentage was great by any standard. Aikman's passer rating in 91 was the exact same as Carson Palmer's was this season. I guess the Bengals should be looking for someone to replace Palmer, because he wasn't successful this season, nor was Chad Pennington, Derek Anderson, Phillip Rivers, or Eli Manning.

Quote:
I never implied the 49ers had an explosive offense that year, or could have. Nor did I insinuate that the 49ers didn't have trouble on offense. But if you watch the games the 49ers and their defense were getting blown out from the start until the 49ers played Minnesota. That's when Mike Nolan decided to handle the defense personally. And it payed off. The defense actually gave us a chance and we finished with a 5-4 record after starting 2-5.
Or you went from playing the Chiefs, Eagles, Chargers, and Bears to playing the Seahawks, Lions, Vikings, and Broncos.

Quote:
Regardless if we were lucky to win the amount of games we did, we still won them and that's all that matters. That's like saying the 1999 Tennessee Titans were lucky to go 13-3 when statistically they weren't historically dominant.
The 99 Titans had an average point differential of 4.2 ppg and had a turnover margin of +18. The point differential is on the low side for a 13-3 team, it gives you a pythagorean of about a 10-6 team. The last five teams to go 13-3 had margins of 8.1, 11.8, 9.0, 9.5, and 10.8. 4.2 ppg is low, but enough for a team with that kind of margin to expect to make the playoffs as a lower seed, which incidently, the Titans were a wild card team.

The 06 49ers had an average point differential of -7.1, and a turnover margin of -5. That point margin is almost dead on average for 5-11 teams. If you look at the last five teams to go 7-9, you get margins of -6.4, -.3, -.9, -6.1, -.4, and -5.6. (Incidently, don't expect big things from the Bills or Lions in 08.)

Quote:
Below average 60% when compared to 58%. You keep trying to hang on to that piece of evidence like it's difference between completely abysmal and completely amazing, when it's not.
No, but it is the difference between sub par and average.

Quote:
And Brees started a good amount of games the following season and had a lower percentage, but his season wasn't cut short by injury it was cut short by bad performance period.
That tends to happen when you've got a fan favorite backing you up and you regress. It happened to Matt Hasselbeck in his first season with the Seahawks. A brief period of sub par performance early on isn't good, but it isn't a death knell, however an extended period of weak performance to start off a career almost always is.

Quote:
Low yardage total. The 49ers were 30th in passing attempts that season if I'm not mistaken. Brees threw for more yards on more attempts but threw almost the same amount of touchdowns. Smith had less attempts but threw almost the same amount. As for fumbling, there have been a lot of great quarterbacks that have had fumbling issues. I already made an analysis on one. I don't see the same picture you're trying to paint. I only see a very similar comparison with a few tweaks trying to be made out into a difference like night and day.
Once again, just because a good quarterback gets away with a fumbling problem doesn't mean you can just write it off. Smith threw TDs with slightly more frequency than Brees, but also threw INT with a wider margin more than Brees. INTs are more damaging to a team than a TD is helpful. A TD pass is only ten yards more valuable than a pass to the one yard line, while an INT is on average 45 yards more valuable than forcing a punt from the same LOS. Smith averaged 168 net passing yards per game in 06, Brees averaged 194.

Quote:
Why would I want a breakdown when I already told you about it? Larry Allen played well in run support, not in pass support are you kidding? His legs haven't moved that well for years. He was already old.
In 2006 the 49ers averaged 4.4 yards behind Allen, in 2007 they averaged 4.27. In 2006, the 49ers were stuffed on 24% of their running plays, in 2007 that went up to 27%. The 49ers had a an Adjusted Sack Rate of 7% in 2006, in 2007 it went up to 10.3%. He might have already been old, but in 2007, he started playing like he was old.

Quote:
And yes you can fix coaching. You can fix what plays are called so they aren't predictable. That's why Tollener was brought in and surprise surprise, during the Arizona game we finally ended our losing streak and Dilfer passed for the most yards out of all his starts that season if I'm not mistaken.
You misunderstood me. I meant that the coaching couldn't fix Allen's declining level of play. I did word that poorly. As for Dilfer's season high against Arizona, when you're playing the worst pass defense you'll face all season, you're expected to do better than you did against the better defenses.

Quote:
And the line was playing horribly through the first three games. Frank Gore was not getting the yards and blowing through defense like he was in 2006. Gore even said in practice during the middle of the season that the players just weren't committed do what Hostler was trying to teach them because it was very foreign and it didn't seem to be working the way things worked with Turner the previous year:

Frank Gore - "Norv Turner, he's been doing it for awhile. Whenever he said something, we wanted to do it," Gore said. "Now I feel that a lot of people, when coach Hoss calls something, it gets in the back of their heads, 'Is he calling the right play?'"


Yes the offensive line was weakened. But even during the opening game the 49ers offensive line was a shell of it's former self the previous season with practically the same amount of starters. It became significantly worse.
But the majority of the offensive line issues were independent of coaching. Aging, injuries, and personal tragedies.

Quote:
Are you really going to judge someone's season performance based on something you have no clue about unless you're in their shoes? Yes Gore's mother died. That doesn't mean he didn't try his best on game day. He was literally running up the same holes out of the same formations almost all the time. Norv Turner didn't do that. We didn't have a toss play if I recall until the third game of the season. Or a trap. That's absurd. And our receivers were horrible at catching the football last year for whatever reason. This combined with bad line play, bad play calling, did not help Alex Smith in his third season. And that's the point I was trying to make all along. But despite all of these issues, in his first three starts his QB rating wasn't that bad.
Since when was a 62.7 not bad? I'd rate that as pretty bad.

Quote:
What are you talking about? The 49ers were predicted to play the third easiest schedule and ended up playing the sixth when it was all said and done.
The Seahawks and Cardinals were noticably improved across the board. The Rams offense was gutted, but the defense was playing at the same level as the year before. You replace the AFC West with the AFC North. The Vikings improved significantly.

Quote:
But you could do that about a lot of great quarterbacks who have had great seasons. But that doesn't mean they're necessarily better quarterbacks does it?
No, but it'll tell you who had the better season, and when you're comparing a player's first season starting, as opposed to another player's second, and the player with less starting experience has a better season than anything the more experienced QB has done thus far, there might be something there.

Quote:
And Brees was dreadful the following season when he wasn't injured. At least I don't recall him having any significant injury. He just was benched. You're comparing small details in a sport that revolves around so many variables within a teamwork effort and trying to equate a huge difference. A 76.9 passer rating compared to a 74.8? I mean are you serious? I'm just not buying it sorry.
Through two seasons starting, Drew Brees had a QB rating of 73.7. Through two seasons starting, Alex Smith had a QB rating of 65.5. You make a big issue about Brees having a regression his second season starting, but that's not that unusual, plenty of QBs will have a down year, and still turn out successful. Favre, Roethlisberger, Kitna, and Culpepper all had regressed years in their second or third season starting.

Quote:
And that is still a subjective opinion based on the parameters you define for success within a team effort. The Chargers had the 22nd hardest schedule in 2002. I could easily dismiss that personally as not a very big difference for the 49ers 2006 schedule.
The AFC west Champion Raiders in 2002 went on to the super bowl. The Chiefs had the number one scoring offense in the NFL. The Broncos had the #3 offense and #6 defense. The chargers played each of those teams twice. The Chargers played the defending super bowl champions. The Chargers player 5 games against teams with losing records that season, in 2006, the 49ers played 7 teams with losing records.

Quote:
I was questioning when it ends, just when it starts. Regardless, if regular season accomplishments are a bigger deal than championships then we have different angles when comparing those aspects. If I were a Giants fan, I'd be happy for the championship instead of Eli's missed trip to Hawaii personally. Which is why I don't use Pro Bowl spots as an element for supporting most of my arguments.
You're confusing being a good player with being on a good team. Eli was not a good player in 2007, he was on a good team in 2007. He was good for 3 games in the post season, but that's not indicative of his performance at large.

Quote:
But not during 2002 in my opinion no he was not better by a significant amount. Especially when he lowered his promise when doing horrible the following season when healthy and got benched.
Even before Smith got hurt, his passer rating was lower than Brees' in 03.
__________________

Stand Tall and Shake the Heavens!
The Destroyer Is Manifest!
I reserve the rights to retract any posts made betwen midnight and 5 AM PST due to being really, really drunk
DragonFireKai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2008, 11:47 AM    (permalink
abaddon41_80
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 4,013
Reputation: 323867
abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.abaddon41_80 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
But you've still dodged the fundamental question. Why do you think Smith will succeed when the overwhelming amount of evidence says that he won't?
I for one fail to see the overwhelming evidence that he won't succeed. Is it his rookie season when he was only 21 years old and in a situation where no quarterback could have done well? Is it his second season when he had a decent supporting cast and did reasonably well for a second year player? Or is it last season when he only played 3 games while healthy and had a record of 2-1 and then did horrible when he was playing injured?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFireKai View Post
INTs are more damaging to a team than a TD is helpful.
You lost a little credibility with that statement because it is just plain not true. When a touchdown is scored the team gets at least 6 points automatically but when an interception is thrown it doesn't always end in points for the other team
abaddon41_80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.