There are 239 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

QB Competition

Originally posted by BrodieFan:
You're right - one game is not a big enough sample. But I could say the same thing about a half a season. I think Shaun Hill should probably start because he ended the season as the starter and had some success, but my worry is that by the third or fourth game he played, some DB's had him almost completely figured out.

The difference is that it only took Hill 10 games to win 7 of them. It took Alex 16 games to get the same number of wins...

I'm not a fan of comparing these different seasons with different systems and different players. There are too many variables to come to any decisive answers.

I like looking at the 07 season because they both played 3 (mostly healthy) games with the same OC, system, and players. Hills stats blow Smiths out of the water here... I only like to use the 06 and 08 data to identify if a trend exists with their play.

IMO Hill will get us more wins, based off of data, stats, and trends, then Smith can.
[ Edited by D_Niner on Apr 7, 2009 at 8:52 AM ]
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by Joecool:
I still don't understand a need for a competition. We have a guy who went 7-3 and 5-0 at home.

No Respect.

Shuan Hill's nickname should be Rodney Dangerfield.

and smith went 7-9 in 2006, with impressive wins vs seattle and denver, 2 and 1 in 2007 before being hurt, and is the guy that present management chose to be the quarterback of the future...

i really do not see why fans write smith off so quickly, alot seem to be putting alot of stock in smith's 3 games in 2007 when he came back and played with a severely seperated shoulder....i realize that shaun hill could probably excel with a seperated shoulder, but most qbs with a shoulder needing major surgery arent going to play too well, and im not going to put much stock in such games in judging a player

shaun hill has never started, let alone won, a game that meant anything in the standings.....he has rode out the end of 2 dismal seasons....

what is the probably with hill earning the job, certainly if he is so great he will surely be able to withstand any competition, heck he probably would have beat out cutler or warner if the niners had obtained them

LOL you do know the difference between 7-3 and 7-9; right?...


I just can't believe the homer factor on the board sometimes...

Brotha, i'm right there with ya, dont forget the difference between 7-3 over a few seasons (all second half of the season), and 7-9 entire season, right?
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by Joecool:
I still don't understand a need for a competition. We have a guy who went 7-3 and 5-0 at home.

No Respect.

Shuan Hill's nickname should be Rodney Dangerfield.

and smith went 7-9 in 2006, with impressive wins vs seattle and denver, 2 and 1 in 2007 before being hurt, and is the guy that present management chose to be the quarterback of the future...

i really do not see why fans write smith off so quickly, alot seem to be putting alot of stock in smith's 3 games in 2007 when he came back and played with a severely seperated shoulder....i realize that shaun hill could probably excel with a seperated shoulder, but most qbs with a shoulder needing major surgery arent going to play too well, and im not going to put much stock in such games in judging a player

shaun hill has never started, let alone won, a game that meant anything in the standings.....he has rode out the end of 2 dismal seasons....

what is the probably with hill earning the job, certainly if he is so great he will surely be able to withstand any competition, heck he probably would have beat out cutler or warner if the niners had obtained them

LOL you do know the difference between 7-3 and 7-9; right?...


I just can't believe the homer factor on the board sometimes...

Brotha, i'm right there with ya, dont forget the difference between 7-3 over a few seasons (all second half of the season), and 7-9 entire season, right?

At what point in the season did Alex Smith get most of those 7 wins...err...I mean, Frank Gore get most of those 7 wins.
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
You're right - one game is not a big enough sample. But I could say the same thing about a half a season. I think Shaun Hill should probably start because he ended the season as the starter and had some success, but my worry is that by the third or fourth game he played, some DB's had him almost completely figured out.

The difference is that it only took Hill 10 games to win 7 of them. It took Alex 16 games to get the same number of wins...

I'm not a fan of comparing these different seasons with different systems and different players. There are too many variables to come to any decisive answers.

I like looking at the 07 season because they both played 3 (mostly healthy) games with the same OC, system, and players. Hills stats blow Smiths out of the water here... I only like to use the 06 and 08 data to identify if a trend exists with their play.

IMO Hill will get us more wins, based off of data, stats, and trends, then Smith can.


in 2006 smith's record of 7-9 was reached with a team that had a terrible defense...defense gave up over 40 in a number of games (chiefs and bear games come to mind, they were over before the 1st quarter)....no such defensive bombs in shaun hill's run., except maybe the cowboy game last year.....as you say there are a number of variables, which can affect a number, such as 7-3.....shaun hill stinks up the ram game, throws a punt that josh morgan pulls down, niners get big interception by tarrell brown at games end to win....goes on hill ledger as a win, but does it really add much to the argument that he can lead niners to a playoff...i dont think so...

with shaun hill, niners go 7-9 or 8-8 at best, in my opinion..at least smith has some potential to excel better than that (again, my opinion) as he develops...remember when niners took him, they said they werent necessarily taqking the guy who was best at that point, but rather the guy who would be best 4 years down the road (that 4 year projection is obviously off, given smith missed a year and a half with injury)

even if hill's stats are viewed as better, they are not so outstanding as to make him exempt from competing for the job
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by Joecool:
I still don't understand a need for a competition. We have a guy who went 7-3 and 5-0 at home.

No Respect.

Shuan Hill's nickname should be Rodney Dangerfield.

and smith went 7-9 in 2006, with impressive wins vs seattle and denver, 2 and 1 in 2007 before being hurt, and is the guy that present management chose to be the quarterback of the future...

i really do not see why fans write smith off so quickly, alot seem to be putting alot of stock in smith's 3 games in 2007 when he came back and played with a severely seperated shoulder....i realize that shaun hill could probably excel with a seperated shoulder, but most qbs with a shoulder needing major surgery arent going to play too well, and im not going to put much stock in such games in judging a player

shaun hill has never started, let alone won, a game that meant anything in the standings.....he has rode out the end of 2 dismal seasons....

what is the probably with hill earning the job, certainly if he is so great he will surely be able to withstand any competition, heck he probably would have beat out cutler or warner if the niners had obtained them

LOL you do know the difference between 7-3 and 7-9; right?...


I just can't believe the homer factor on the board sometimes...

Brotha, i'm right there with ya, dont forget the difference between 7-3 over a few seasons (all second half of the season), and 7-9 entire season, right?

At what point in the season did Alex Smith get most of those 7 wins...err...I mean, Frank Gore get most of those 7 wins.

Cool here u go again. Since you seem to know then tell me brotha. And i hope you saw what i said earlier bout gore getting most of the wins. Overrated brotha. The team got most of the wins first all. and i notice in your getting back, say what you want, but that still dont change the fact that it's still second half of the season. so
Saying Alex Smith is the reason we had (a whopping) 7 wins in 2006 is like saying Trent Dilfer is the reason the Ravens won the Super Bowl.

Yea, that ridiculous.
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by Joecool:
I still don't understand a need for a competition. We have a guy who went 7-3 and 5-0 at home.

No Respect.

Shuan Hill's nickname should be Rodney Dangerfield.

and smith went 7-9 in 2006, with impressive wins vs seattle and denver, 2 and 1 in 2007 before being hurt, and is the guy that present management chose to be the quarterback of the future...

i really do not see why fans write smith off so quickly, alot seem to be putting alot of stock in smith's 3 games in 2007 when he came back and played with a severely seperated shoulder....i realize that shaun hill could probably excel with a seperated shoulder, but most qbs with a shoulder needing major surgery arent going to play too well, and im not going to put much stock in such games in judging a player

shaun hill has never started, let alone won, a game that meant anything in the standings.....he has rode out the end of 2 dismal seasons....

what is the probably with hill earning the job, certainly if he is so great he will surely be able to withstand any competition, heck he probably would have beat out cutler or warner if the niners had obtained them

LOL you do know the difference between 7-3 and 7-9; right?...


I just can't believe the homer factor on the board sometimes...

Brotha, i'm right there with ya, dont forget the difference between 7-3 over a few seasons (all second half of the season), and 7-9 entire season, right?

At what point in the season did Alex Smith get most of those 7 wins...err...I mean, Frank Gore get most of those 7 wins.

Cool here u go again. Since you seem to know then tell me brotha. And i hope you saw what i said earlier bout gore getting most of the wins. Overrated brotha. The team got most of the wins first all. and i notice in your getting back, say what you want, but that still dont change the fact that it's still second half of the season. so

I think I misunderstood what you wrote. I think we are on the same page.
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
You're right - one game is not a big enough sample. But I could say the same thing about a half a season. I think Shaun Hill should probably start because he ended the season as the starter and had some success, but my worry is that by the third or fourth game he played, some DB's had him almost completely figured out.

The difference is that it only took Hill 10 games to win 7 of them. It took Alex 16 games to get the same number of wins...

I'm not a fan of comparing these different seasons with different systems and different players. There are too many variables to come to any decisive answers.

I like looking at the 07 season because they both played 3 (mostly healthy) games with the same OC, system, and players. Hills stats blow Smiths out of the water here... I only like to use the 06 and 08 data to identify if a trend exists with their play.

IMO Hill will get us more wins, based off of data, stats, and trends, then Smith can.


in 2006 smith's record of 7-9 was reached with a team that had a terrible defense...defense gave up over 40 in a number of games (chiefs and bear games come to mind, they were over before the 1st quarter)....no such defensive bombs in shaun hill's run., except maybe the cowboy game last year.....as you say there are a number of variables, which can affect a number, such as 7-3.....shaun hill stinks up the ram game, throws a punt that josh morgan pulls down, niners get big interception by tarrell brown at games end to win....goes on hill ledger as a win, but does it really add much to the argument that he can lead niners to a playoff...i dont think so...

with shaun hill, niners go 7-9 or 8-8 at best, in my opinion..at least smith has some potential to excel better than that (again, my opinion) as he develops...remember when niners took him, they said they werent necessarily taqking the guy who was best at that point, but rather the guy who would be best 4 years down the road (that 4 year projection is obviously off, given smith missed a year and a half with injury)

even if hill's stats are viewed as better, they are not so outstanding as to make him exempt from competing for the job

You miss the point.... It's not that Hill has performed so well that he is exempt from competition. Its that Smiths performance has been so poor that he does not deserve to compete for the start. Smiths stats indicate he should be our 3rd string QB behind Huard (not competing for the starting spot)...


Above you talk about the D being a major problem with the 2006 season and Hill would only have gone 7-9 if he were the starter.

In that season we only averaged 18.9 points per game with Smith controlling the O. Smith, himself, only threw or ran for 7.9 points per game.

In Hill's opportunities he has our O putting up 20.9 points per game with Hill running or passing for 12.6 points himself.

Now, with our 2006 D problems, wouldn't you want a QB that has proven they can put up more points to compensate for said D? Wouldn't that give us the best chance to win?
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
You're right - one game is not a big enough sample. But I could say the same thing about a half a season. I think Shaun Hill should probably start because he ended the season as the starter and had some success, but my worry is that by the third or fourth game he played, some DB's had him almost completely figured out.

The difference is that it only took Hill 10 games to win 7 of them. It took Alex 16 games to get the same number of wins...

I'm not a fan of comparing these different seasons with different systems and different players. There are too many variables to come to any decisive answers.

I like looking at the 07 season because they both played 3 (mostly healthy) games with the same OC, system, and players. Hills stats blow Smiths out of the water here... I only like to use the 06 and 08 data to identify if a trend exists with their play.

IMO Hill will get us more wins, based off of data, stats, and trends, then Smith can.


in 2006 smith's record of 7-9 was reached with a team that had a terrible defense...defense gave up over 40 in a number of games (chiefs and bear games come to mind, they were over before the 1st quarter)....no such defensive bombs in shaun hill's run., except maybe the cowboy game last year.....as you say there are a number of variables, which can affect a number, such as 7-3.....shaun hill stinks up the ram game, throws a punt that josh morgan pulls down, niners get big interception by tarrell brown at games end to win....goes on hill ledger as a win, but does it really add much to the argument that he can lead niners to a playoff...i dont think so...

with shaun hill, niners go 7-9 or 8-8 at best, in my opinion..at least smith has some potential to excel better than that (again, my opinion) as he develops...remember when niners took him, they said they werent necessarily taqking the guy who was best at that point, but rather the guy who would be best 4 years down the road (that 4 year projection is obviously off, given smith missed a year and a half with injury)

even if hill's stats are viewed as better, they are not so outstanding as to make him exempt from competing for the job

You miss the point.... It's not that Hill has performed so well that he is exempt from competition. Its that Smiths performance has been so poor that he does not deserve to compete for the start. Smiths stats indicate he should be our 3rd string QB behind Huard (not competing for the starting spot)...


Above you talk about the D being a major problem with the 2006 season and Hill would only have gone 7-9 if he were the starter.

In that season we only averaged 18.9 points per game with Smith controlling the O. Smith, himself, only threw or ran for 7.9 points per game.

In Hill's opportunities he has our O putting up 20.9 points per game with Hill running or passing for 12.6 points himself.

Now, with our 2006 D problems, wouldn't you want a QB that has proven they can put up more points to compensate for said D? Wouldn't that give us the best chance to win?

if smith's performance were so poor, why did he enter the 2007 season as starter....he played well in 2006, for a 22 year old 2nd year player, and the niners were seen as an up and coming team, with profiles in national media like ESPN The Magazine----
he went 2-1 in 2007 before being injured and hasnt been healthy since....those facts do not argue for him being kept from competing for the qb job
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
You're right - one game is not a big enough sample. But I could say the same thing about a half a season. I think Shaun Hill should probably start because he ended the season as the starter and had some success, but my worry is that by the third or fourth game he played, some DB's had him almost completely figured out.

The difference is that it only took Hill 10 games to win 7 of them. It took Alex 16 games to get the same number of wins...

I'm not a fan of comparing these different seasons with different systems and different players. There are too many variables to come to any decisive answers.

I like looking at the 07 season because they both played 3 (mostly healthy) games with the same OC, system, and players. Hills stats blow Smiths out of the water here... I only like to use the 06 and 08 data to identify if a trend exists with their play.

IMO Hill will get us more wins, based off of data, stats, and trends, then Smith can.


in 2006 smith's record of 7-9 was reached with a team that had a terrible defense...defense gave up over 40 in a number of games (chiefs and bear games come to mind, they were over before the 1st quarter)....no such defensive bombs in shaun hill's run., except maybe the cowboy game last year.....as you say there are a number of variables, which can affect a number, such as 7-3.....shaun hill stinks up the ram game, throws a punt that josh morgan pulls down, niners get big interception by tarrell brown at games end to win....goes on hill ledger as a win, but does it really add much to the argument that he can lead niners to a playoff...i dont think so...

with shaun hill, niners go 7-9 or 8-8 at best, in my opinion..at least smith has some potential to excel better than that (again, my opinion) as he develops...remember when niners took him, they said they werent necessarily taqking the guy who was best at that point, but rather the guy who would be best 4 years down the road (that 4 year projection is obviously off, given smith missed a year and a half with injury)

even if hill's stats are viewed as better, they are not so outstanding as to make him exempt from competing for the job

You miss the point.... It's not that Hill has performed so well that he is exempt from competition. Its that Smiths performance has been so poor that he does not deserve to compete for the start. Smiths stats indicate he should be our 3rd string QB behind Huard (not competing for the starting spot)...


Above you talk about the D being a major problem with the 2006 season and Hill would only have gone 7-9 if he were the starter.

In that season we only averaged 18.9 points per game with Smith controlling the O. Smith, himself, only threw or ran for 7.9 points per game.

In Hill's opportunities he has our O putting up 20.9 points per game with Hill running or passing for 12.6 points himself.

Now, with our 2006 D problems, wouldn't you want a QB that has proven they can put up more points to compensate for said D? Wouldn't that give us the best chance to win?

My Dear sweet brotha numpsie, here we go again. Still avoiding the fact that a lot, i wont say all, but a lot of fans were on him after norv in 06. Then in 07 when he went 2-1, (who cares about semantics), then got hurt. The TEAM believed in him with every season he played. and really 18.9 points a game, compared to 20.9. Whoopdee doo. thats not enough to say hey appoint hill. Smith and Hill both deserve to compete. Smith playing one full season and winning 2 out of 3 in the following seasons games. Hill as usual ended with two wins one year, and ended the year again with some wins. Notice the pattern there, entire year, first half and second, as opposed to all second half wins. So as a result of this, they both deserve to compete and may the best man win. But please you people sound like Hill's gonna be the next garcia, or young or sumthin. And if we really getting deep about our team, if anything, neither smith or hill led us into the playoffs, so that to me says, s**t they both are on equal ground. Dont believe me, then talk to Sing and see what he feels. Sing's words, were that Hill will be the starter going into camp, which is a given, being he finished the season last year, however he has also said the two men will battle, and if Sing didnt come out and endorse Hill 100%, we all know why, because he's not completely sold. So it's not soo much having to do with Alex, it's more of some of you hating the fact that Sing isnt sold on Hill as much as some of you are.
[ Edited by Jersey9er on Apr 7, 2009 at 12:07 PM ]
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
You're right - one game is not a big enough sample. But I could say the same thing about a half a season. I think Shaun Hill should probably start because he ended the season as the starter and had some success, but my worry is that by the third or fourth game he played, some DB's had him almost completely figured out.

The difference is that it only took Hill 10 games to win 7 of them. It took Alex 16 games to get the same number of wins...

I'm not a fan of comparing these different seasons with different systems and different players. There are too many variables to come to any decisive answers.

I like looking at the 07 season because they both played 3 (mostly healthy) games with the same OC, system, and players. Hills stats blow Smiths out of the water here... I only like to use the 06 and 08 data to identify if a trend exists with their play.

IMO Hill will get us more wins, based off of data, stats, and trends, then Smith can.


in 2006 smith's record of 7-9 was reached with a team that had a terrible defense...defense gave up over 40 in a number of games (chiefs and bear games come to mind, they were over before the 1st quarter)....no such defensive bombs in shaun hill's run., except maybe the cowboy game last year.....as you say there are a number of variables, which can affect a number, such as 7-3.....shaun hill stinks up the ram game, throws a punt that josh morgan pulls down, niners get big interception by tarrell brown at games end to win....goes on hill ledger as a win, but does it really add much to the argument that he can lead niners to a playoff...i dont think so...

with shaun hill, niners go 7-9 or 8-8 at best, in my opinion..at least smith has some potential to excel better than that (again, my opinion) as he develops...remember when niners took him, they said they werent necessarily taqking the guy who was best at that point, but rather the guy who would be best 4 years down the road (that 4 year projection is obviously off, given smith missed a year and a half with injury)

even if hill's stats are viewed as better, they are not so outstanding as to make him exempt from competing for the job

You miss the point.... It's not that Hill has performed so well that he is exempt from competition. Its that Smiths performance has been so poor that he does not deserve to compete for the start. Smiths stats indicate he should be our 3rd string QB behind Huard (not competing for the starting spot)...


Above you talk about the D being a major problem with the 2006 season and Hill would only have gone 7-9 if he were the starter.

In that season we only averaged 18.9 points per game with Smith controlling the O. Smith, himself, only threw or ran for 7.9 points per game.

In Hill's opportunities he has our O putting up 20.9 points per game with Hill running or passing for 12.6 points himself.

Now, with our 2006 D problems, wouldn't you want a QB that has proven they can put up more points to compensate for said D? Wouldn't that give us the best chance to win?

if smith's performance were so poor, why did he enter the 2007 season as starter....he played well in 2006, for a 22 year old 2nd year player, and the niners were seen as an up and coming team, with profiles in national media like ESPN The Magazine----
he went 2-1 in 2007 before being injured and hasnt been healthy since....those facts do not argue for him being kept from competing for the qb job

That was the season when Hill was the third QB behind Dilfer? Looks like Nolan didn't know anything so why not start Smith and stay consistent with dumb personnel decisions?
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by hofer36:
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by BrodieFan:
You're right - one game is not a big enough sample. But I could say the same thing about a half a season. I think Shaun Hill should probably start because he ended the season as the starter and had some success, but my worry is that by the third or fourth game he played, some DB's had him almost completely figured out.

The difference is that it only took Hill 10 games to win 7 of them. It took Alex 16 games to get the same number of wins...

I'm not a fan of comparing these different seasons with different systems and different players. There are too many variables to come to any decisive answers.

I like looking at the 07 season because they both played 3 (mostly healthy) games with the same OC, system, and players. Hills stats blow Smiths out of the water here... I only like to use the 06 and 08 data to identify if a trend exists with their play.

IMO Hill will get us more wins, based off of data, stats, and trends, then Smith can.


in 2006 smith's record of 7-9 was reached with a team that had a terrible defense...defense gave up over 40 in a number of games (chiefs and bear games come to mind, they were over before the 1st quarter)....no such defensive bombs in shaun hill's run., except maybe the cowboy game last year.....as you say there are a number of variables, which can affect a number, such as 7-3.....shaun hill stinks up the ram game, throws a punt that josh morgan pulls down, niners get big interception by tarrell brown at games end to win....goes on hill ledger as a win, but does it really add much to the argument that he can lead niners to a playoff...i dont think so...

with shaun hill, niners go 7-9 or 8-8 at best, in my opinion..at least smith has some potential to excel better than that (again, my opinion) as he develops...remember when niners took him, they said they werent necessarily taqking the guy who was best at that point, but rather the guy who would be best 4 years down the road (that 4 year projection is obviously off, given smith missed a year and a half with injury)

even if hill's stats are viewed as better, they are not so outstanding as to make him exempt from competing for the job

You miss the point.... It's not that Hill has performed so well that he is exempt from competition. Its that Smiths performance has been so poor that he does not deserve to compete for the start. Smiths stats indicate he should be our 3rd string QB behind Huard (not competing for the starting spot)...


Above you talk about the D being a major problem with the 2006 season and Hill would only have gone 7-9 if he were the starter.

In that season we only averaged 18.9 points per game with Smith controlling the O. Smith, himself, only threw or ran for 7.9 points per game.

In Hill's opportunities he has our O putting up 20.9 points per game with Hill running or passing for 12.6 points himself.

Now, with our 2006 D problems, wouldn't you want a QB that has proven they can put up more points to compensate for said D? Wouldn't that give us the best chance to win?

if smith's performance were so poor, why did he enter the 2007 season as starter....he played well in 2006, for a 22 year old 2nd year player, and the niners were seen as an up and coming team, with profiles in national media like ESPN The Magazine----
he went 2-1 in 2007 before being injured and hasnt been healthy since....those facts do not argue for him being kept from competing for the qb job

That was the season when Hill was the third QB behind Dilfer? Looks like Nolan didn't know anything so why not start Smith and stay consistent with dumb personnel decisions?

Joe's right on here... It's the same reason Smith started the 06 season after his terrible 2005 performance. Nolan had too much invested in the kid to allow any other QB to start.
Originally posted by Jersey9er:


My Dear sweet brotha numpsie, here we go again. Still avoiding the fact that a lot, i wont say all, but a lot of fans were on him after norv in 06. Then in 07 when he went 2-1, (who cares about semantics), then got hurt. The TEAM believed in him with every season he played. and really 18.9 points a game, compared to 20.9. Whoopdee doo. thats not enough to say hey appoint hill. Smith and Hill both deserve to compete. Smith playing one full season and winning 2 out of 3 in the following seasons games. Hill as usual ended with two wins one year, and ended the year again with some wins. Notice the pattern there, entire year, first half and second, as opposed to all second half wins. So as a result of this, they both deserve to compete and may the best man win. But please you people sound like Hill's gonna be the next garcia, or young or sumthin. And if we really getting deep about our team, if anything, neither smith or hill led us into the playoffs, so that to me says, s**t they both are on equal ground. Dont believe me, then talk to Sing and see what he feels. Sing's words, were that Hill will be the starter going into camp, which is a given, being he finished the season last year, however he has also said the two men will battle, and if Sing didnt come out and endorse Hill 100%, we all know why, because he's not completely sold. So it's not soo much having to do with Alex, it's more of some of you hating the fact that Sing isnt sold on Hill as much as some of you are.

Only one avoiding anything here is you avoiding the facts that Hill has out performed Smith, consistently. The only thing you have to go off of is a false perception that he has talent but just hasn't shown it yet...

What is Smith waiting for? Is he building up suspense just to prove all us doubters wrong? Did 2 shoulder injuries somehow make him a much better QB?

In my world, if it looks like a dog, sounds like a dog, and plays like a dog; then its a dog... If a guy looks like a bust, sounds like a bust, and plays like a bust; then he's a bust (not a HOF QB as some on here would like us to think)

But I do agree, Smith deserves to compete; just not with Hill. He should have to win the backup job over Huard (who has better stats then Smith) before he can compete with our starter...
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,700
Originally posted by D_Niner:
Originally posted by Jersey9er:


My Dear sweet brotha numpsie, here we go again. Still avoiding the fact that a lot, i wont say all, but a lot of fans were on him after norv in 06. Then in 07 when he went 2-1, (who cares about semantics), then got hurt. The TEAM believed in him with every season he played. and really 18.9 points a game, compared to 20.9. Whoopdee doo. thats not enough to say hey appoint hill. Smith and Hill both deserve to compete. Smith playing one full season and winning 2 out of 3 in the following seasons games. Hill as usual ended with two wins one year, and ended the year again with some wins. Notice the pattern there, entire year, first half and second, as opposed to all second half wins. So as a result of this, they both deserve to compete and may the best man win. But please you people sound like Hill's gonna be the next garcia, or young or sumthin. And if we really getting deep about our team, if anything, neither smith or hill led us into the playoffs, so that to me says, s**t they both are on equal ground. Dont believe me, then talk to Sing and see what he feels. Sing's words, were that Hill will be the starter going into camp, which is a given, being he finished the season last year, however he has also said the two men will battle, and if Sing didnt come out and endorse Hill 100%, we all know why, because he's not completely sold. So it's not soo much having to do with Alex, it's more of some of you hating the fact that Sing isnt sold on Hill as much as some of you are.

Only one avoiding anything here is you avoiding the facts that Hill has out performed Smith, consistently. The only thing you have to go off of is a false perception that he has talent but just hasn't shown it yet...

What is Smith waiting for? Is he building up suspense just to prove all us doubters wrong? Did 2 shoulder injuries somehow make him a much better QB?

In my world, if it looks like a dog, sounds like a dog, and plays like a dog; then its a dog... If a guy looks like a bust, sounds like a bust, and plays like a bust; then he's a bust (not a HOF QB as some on here would like us to think)

But I do agree, Smith deserves to compete; just not with Hill. He should have to win the backup job over Huard (who has better stats then Smith) before he can compete with our starter...

Exactly what I said a few replies ago. BUT IMO, if there actually was a competition between the two, both Smith and Huard. I would have to assume their would be a light favoritism on Smith's side to win the job, only because he was chosen #1 overall by our genius of a staff in Scott McCloughan and Mike Nolan.

Anyone remember the KC game back in 2006, 41-0, Huard was absolutely having his way with us going 18-23 208 yards 2 TD's 78% comp%. I thought Huard would nail down the starting job in KC. through 8 games he only threw 1 pick, IMO that's pretty impressive.
It's going to be, once again, Huard is going to look better than both of them in practice in the minimal chances he gets.

Matt M. and Matt B are going to report that Huard looks the best, the reporters will then ask Singletary about it and the "Competition" will end right there with Hill as the starter.

Our guys suck and any veteran will look better than these guys in practice. Just give the ball to the guy who can win more freaking games than lose and let him try and keep it.