QB Competition

If we draft a QB, whether it be at the 10th pick or the 111th pick, I have to wonder, will we keep 4 QB's, if not, who is on the outs???

Originally posted by Kolohe:
If we draft a QB, whether it be at the 10th pick or the 111th pick, I have to wonder, will we keep 4 QB's, if not, who is on the outs???

Now that's a good question... If we draft a guy' I would assume he would make the team as well as Hill.

Smiths new contract makes him easier to dump; but the coaching staff may think he has a better upside then Huard. Even though I think Huard has done a better job when he has gotten the opportunity to play, I don't think Sing and Scotty are ready to give up on Smith... Huard would get cut IMO

Huard is a proven commodity. Good solid backup. Alex hasn't proven anything.

Originally posted by ezrider:
Huard is a proven commodity. Good solid backup. Alex hasn't proven anything.

I think every Niners fan should agree with that ! Unless they are Alex's Mom or Wife etc.
Now is his chance to prove he can be a good backup or even a starter in the NFL. I doubt he has the talent to do that but this is his chance and he certainly can't ever say the team didn't give him chance after chance and then one more chance in 2009.
Good luck Alex,if you surprise everyone and do well then it is good for the team . If not,then at least you are one rich son of a gun !!!

I would rather have the unproven QB who has shown intangibles, poise, and good decision-making over the unproven QB who has shown zero intangibles, very little poise, and only average decision-making.

Originally posted by ezrider:
Huard is a proven commodity. Good solid backup. Alex hasn't proven anything.

I totally agree also.

If we draft a QB we keep Hill, Huard and the Rookie.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
If we draft a QB, whether it be at the 10th pick or the 111th pick, I have to wonder, will we keep 4 QB's, if not, who is on the outs???

Now that's a good question... If we draft a guy' I would assume he would make the team as well as Hill.

Smiths new contract makes him easier to dump; but the coaching staff may think he has a better upside then Huard. Even though I think Huard has done a better job when he has gotten the opportunity to play, I don't think Sing and Scotty are ready to give up on Smith... Huard would get cut IMO

But this is the thing, what if Huard has a good pre-season?? If he even comes away with 3-4 TD's in preseason, I think he sticks around. I doubt the team gets rid of a veteran back up and be stuck with Smith, Hill and rookie. Going by their track record in picking up Dilfer, Weinke and Jamie Martin, I think Huard is a lock to make this roster. But if Sanchez or Stafford is picked up at #10, IMO Smith is a goner. If we draft one in the 5th-7th rounds, the rookie goes to either the PS or if he looks good in preseason and comes on strong, than I think Smith will be traded or released.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
If we draft a QB, whether it be at the 10th pick or the 111th pick, I have to wonder, will we keep 4 QB's, if not, who is on the outs???

Now that's a good question... If we draft a guy' I would assume he would make the team as well as Hill.

Smiths new contract makes him easier to dump; but the coaching staff may think he has a better upside then Huard. Even though I think Huard has done a better job when he has gotten the opportunity to play, I don't think Sing and Scotty are ready to give up on Smith... Huard would get cut IMO

But this is the thing, what if Huard has a good pre-season?? If he even comes away with 3-4 TD's in preseason, I think he sticks around. I doubt the team gets rid of a veteran back up and be stuck with Smith, Hill and rookie. Going by their track record in picking up Dilfer, Weinke and Jamie Martin, I think Huard is a lock to make this roster. But if Sanchez or Stafford is picked up at #10, IMO Smith is a goner. If we draft one in the 5th-7th rounds, the rookie goes to either the PS or if he looks good in preseason and comes on strong, than I think Smith will be traded or released.

The most difficult thing will be this situation:

Hill starts, goes 4-2 through 6 games and gets hurt. It will be difficult to want Alex Smith to start when we ALL know Huard gives us a better chance to win.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
If we draft a QB, whether it be at the 10th pick or the 111th pick, I have to wonder, will we keep 4 QB's, if not, who is on the outs???

Now that's a good question... If we draft a guy' I would assume he would make the team as well as Hill.

Smiths new contract makes him easier to dump; but the coaching staff may think he has a better upside then Huard. Even though I think Huard has done a better job when he has gotten the opportunity to play, I don't think Sing and Scotty are ready to give up on Smith... Huard would get cut IMO

But this is the thing, what if Huard has a good pre-season?? If he even comes away with 3-4 TD's in preseason, I think he sticks around. I doubt the team gets rid of a veteran back up and be stuck with Smith, Hill and rookie. Going by their track record in picking up Dilfer, Weinke and Jamie Martin, I think Huard is a lock to make this roster. But if Sanchez or Stafford is picked up at #10, IMO Smith is a goner. If we draft one in the 5th-7th rounds, the rookie goes to either the PS or if he looks good in preseason and comes on strong, than I think Smith will be traded or released.

The most difficult thing will be this situation:

Hill starts, goes 4-2 through 6 games and gets hurt. It will be difficult to want Alex Smith to start when we ALL know Huard gives us a better chance to win.

Amen, Huard off the bench inspires more confidence than Smith. I am hoping we can trade Alex now that his contract is more easily digested.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
If we draft a QB, whether it be at the 10th pick or the 111th pick, I have to wonder, will we keep 4 QB's, if not, who is on the outs???

Now that's a good question... If we draft a guy' I would assume he would make the team as well as Hill.

Smiths new contract makes him easier to dump; but the coaching staff may think he has a better upside then Huard. Even though I think Huard has done a better job when he has gotten the opportunity to play, I don't think Sing and Scotty are ready to give up on Smith... Huard would get cut IMO

But this is the thing, what if Huard has a good pre-season?? If he even comes away with 3-4 TD's in preseason, I think he sticks around. I doubt the team gets rid of a veteran back up and be stuck with Smith, Hill and rookie. Going by their track record in picking up Dilfer, Weinke and Jamie Martin, I think Huard is a lock to make this roster. But if Sanchez or Stafford is picked up at #10, IMO Smith is a goner. If we draft one in the 5th-7th rounds, the rookie goes to either the PS or if he looks good in preseason and comes on strong, than I think Smith will be traded or released.

The most difficult thing will be this situation:

Hill starts, goes 4-2 through 6 games and gets hurt. It will be difficult to want Alex Smith to start when we ALL know Huard gives us a better chance to win.

Scary situation. But if we pick up a QB in the first round. Smith is a goner. So no worries.

Now if we do not pick up a QB. This is where you need to thank god that Nolan is not the HC anymore. Sing may put Alex in, but he surely will get yanked in favor of Huard if he stinks it up which Im 100% sure he will. Gotta love a coach that will make ADJUSTMENTS

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
If we draft a QB, whether it be at the 10th pick or the 111th pick, I have to wonder, will we keep 4 QB's, if not, who is on the outs???

Now that's a good question... If we draft a guy' I would assume he would make the team as well as Hill.

Smiths new contract makes him easier to dump; but the coaching staff may think he has a better upside then Huard. Even though I think Huard has done a better job when he has gotten the opportunity to play, I don't think Sing and Scotty are ready to give up on Smith... Huard would get cut IMO

But this is the thing, what if Huard has a good pre-season?? If he even comes away with 3-4 TD's in preseason, I think he sticks around. I doubt the team gets rid of a veteran back up and be stuck with Smith, Hill and rookie. Going by their track record in picking up Dilfer, Weinke and Jamie Martin, I think Huard is a lock to make this roster. But if Sanchez or Stafford is picked up at #10, IMO Smith is a goner. If we draft one in the 5th-7th rounds, the rookie goes to either the PS or if he looks good in preseason and comes on strong, than I think Smith will be traded or released.

I agree with your analysis. Although the permuntations are multiple. I particularly agree where you condition what happens on WHERE the QB is picked. It's the most plausible and logical scenario.

But with the Niners, I could also see this happening: Say we pick Sanchez or Stafford; Alex has a strong preseason. With how sold McC is on Smith, he could look to trade Hill to a QB needy team (especially one making a strong play-off run and in need of a really good back-up; Hill would be great there as he manages games very well).

Then we would go with Smith and a proven veteran back-up. If Smith really faltered, and it was obvious we couldn't realistically make a play-off run, we insert our new guy to allow him to develop. This is more of a big risk/big reward approach: It proves, once and for all, whether Smith has "got it" because if he cannot step up now, he never will. And if Smith is proven a "bust" beyond any shadow of doubt, We go with the long-term view. And it may not be that long term if the new guy is as advertised.

See . . . I don't necessarily think that it's a mistake to play a rookie sooner rather than later. It depends on the individual, his mental toughness. I think Sanchez is very tough mentally, despite his relatively short number of starts. He's not going to be phased like Alex obviously was when he was inserted. Sanchez and Stafford are both much more mature than Smith was.

Actually I do not fault Nolan at all for inserting Smith in midway through his first season; It's not that unusual. It's just that Smith wasn't up to the challenge and then Nolan lost the plot.

Remember, also, that two rookies led their teams to playoffs last season. You could say that both had more starts, but IMO it's more a question of mental toughness.

I think that this whole discussion is moot with respect to an early QB pick, though; IMO neither Stafford, nor Sanchez will be there at #10 and Freemen is not worth that high a placement.

Originally posted by NinerNZ:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
If we draft a QB, whether it be at the 10th pick or the 111th pick, I have to wonder, will we keep 4 QB's, if not, who is on the outs???

Now that's a good question... If we draft a guy' I would assume he would make the team as well as Hill.

Smiths new contract makes him easier to dump; but the coaching staff may think he has a better upside then Huard. Even though I think Huard has done a better job when he has gotten the opportunity to play, I don't think Sing and Scotty are ready to give up on Smith... Huard would get cut IMO

But this is the thing, what if Huard has a good pre-season?? If he even comes away with 3-4 TD's in preseason, I think he sticks around. I doubt the team gets rid of a veteran back up and be stuck with Smith, Hill and rookie. Going by their track record in picking up Dilfer, Weinke and Jamie Martin, I think Huard is a lock to make this roster. But if Sanchez or Stafford is picked up at #10, IMO Smith is a goner. If we draft one in the 5th-7th rounds, the rookie goes to either the PS or if he looks good in preseason and comes on strong, than I think Smith will be traded or released.

I agree with your analysis. Although the permuntations are multiple. I particularly agree where you condition what happens on WHERE the QB is picked. It's the most plausible and logical scenario.

But with the Niners, I could also see this happening: Say we pick Sanchez or Stafford; Alex has a strong preseason. With how sold McC is on Smith, he could look to trade Hill to a QB needy team (especially one making a strong play-off run and in need of a really good back-up; Hill would be great there as he manages games very well).

Then we would go with Smith and a proven veteran back-up. If Smith really faltered, and it was obvious we couldn't realistically make a play-off run, we insert our new guy to allow him to develop. This is more of a big risk/big reward approach: It proves, once and for all, whether Smith has "got it" because if he cannot step up now, he never will. And if Smith is proven a "bust" beyond any shadow of doubt, We go with the long-term view. And it may not be that long term if the new guy is as advertised.

See . . . I don't necessarily think that it's a mistake to play a rookie sooner rather than later. It depends on the individual, his mental toughness. I think Sanchez is very tough mentally, despite his relatively short number of starts. He's not going to be phased like Alex obviously was when he was inserted. Sanchez and Stafford are both much more mature than Smith was.

Actually I do not fault Nolan at all for inserting Smith in midway through his first season; It's not that unusual. It's just that Smith wasn't up to the challenge and then Nolan lost the plot.

Remember, also, that two rookies led their teams to playoffs last season. You could say that both had more starts, but IMO it's more a question of mental toughness.

I think that this whole discussion is moot with respect to an early QB pick, though; IMO neither Stafford, nor Sanchez will be there at #10 and Freemen is not worth that high a placement.

i would disagree with your statement about not finding fault for nolan by starting him mid season his rookie year...it is not the way to develop a very young qb, especially when you dont have an oline to protect him or playmakers to catch the ball and do something...plus nolanstarted him vs the undefeated colts, then considered by many to be the best team in the league...that really shows nolan had no clue about how to bring a young aong...should have started him vs cards or some other team where he would have a chance for success...

bill walsh used to keep montana on the bench early in his career, and then send him for deberg when niners got near the goalline, so that joe might have some success and be able to use his mobility near the goal...walsh is a all time great coach, nolan a failure

Originally posted by hofer36:

Originally posted by NinerNZ:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
If we draft a QB, whether it be at the 10th pick or the 111th pick, I have to wonder, will we keep 4 QB's, if not, who is on the outs???

Now that's a good question... If we draft a guy' I would assume he would make the team as well as Hill.

Smiths new contract makes him easier to dump; but the coaching staff may think he has a better upside then Huard. Even though I think Huard has done a better job when he has gotten the opportunity to play, I don't think Sing and Scotty are ready to give up on Smith... Huard would get cut IMO

But this is the thing, what if Huard has a good pre-season?? If he even comes away with 3-4 TD's in preseason, I think he sticks around. I doubt the team gets rid of a veteran back up and be stuck with Smith, Hill and rookie. Going by their track record in picking up Dilfer, Weinke and Jamie Martin, I think Huard is a lock to make this roster. But if Sanchez or Stafford is picked up at #10, IMO Smith is a goner. If we draft one in the 5th-7th rounds, the rookie goes to either the PS or if he looks good in preseason and comes on strong, than I think Smith will be traded or released.

I agree with your analysis. Although the permuntations are multiple. I particularly agree where you condition what happens on WHERE the QB is picked. It's the most plausible and logical scenario.

But with the Niners, I could also see this happening: Say we pick Sanchez or Stafford; Alex has a strong preseason. With how sold McC is on Smith, he could look to trade Hill to a QB needy team (especially one making a strong play-off run and in need of a really good back-up; Hill would be great there as he manages games very well).

Then we would go with Smith and a proven veteran back-up. If Smith really faltered, and it was obvious we couldn't realistically make a play-off run, we insert our new guy to allow him to develop. This is more of a big risk/big reward approach: It proves, once and for all, whether Smith has "got it" because if he cannot step up now, he never will. And if Smith is proven a "bust" beyond any shadow of doubt, We go with the long-term view. And it may not be that long term if the new guy is as advertised.

See . . . I don't necessarily think that it's a mistake to play a rookie sooner rather than later. It depends on the individual, his mental toughness. I think Sanchez is very tough mentally, despite his relatively short number of starts. He's not going to be phased like Alex obviously was when he was inserted. Sanchez and Stafford are both much more mature than Smith was.

Actually I do not fault Nolan at all for inserting Smith in midway through his first season; It's not that unusual. It's just that Smith wasn't up to the challenge and then Nolan lost the plot.

Remember, also, that two rookies led their teams to playoffs last season. You could say that both had more starts, but IMO it's more a question of mental toughness.

I think that this whole discussion is moot with respect to an early QB pick, though; IMO neither Stafford, nor Sanchez will be there at #10 and Freemen is not worth that high a placement.

i would disagree with your statement about not finding fault for nolan by starting him mid season his rookie year...it is not the way to develop a very young qb, especially when you dont have an oline to protect him or playmakers to catch the ball and do something...plus nolanstarted him vs the undefeated colts, then considered by many to be the best team in the league...that really shows nolan had no clue about how to bring a young aong...should have started him vs cards or some other team where he would have a chance for success...

bill walsh used to keep montana on the bench early in his career, and then send him for deberg when niners got near the goalline, so that joe might have some success and be able to use his mobility near the goal...walsh is a all time great coach, nolan a failure

Well, hindsight is always 20/20.

Ryan started from day one. He seemed to handle it OK. Flacco shortly after the season started; again OK.

It's true that the Niners OL was not good; probably a lot of that was on coaching. Some is also on the QB. So what does one say? We suck as coaches so we shouldn't develop our young talent? The OL supposedly still sucks, so would Smith still be sitting on the bench?

I recall Aikman starting as a rookie and getting pummelled because he had a OL that was developing. It was painful to watch, but gradually they progressed to the point of dominance. Point being that sitting a QB is not the ONLY way to develop a QB. There is a school of thought that feels that there is no substitute for playing experience as a rookie. And it's been a successful way to develop QBs. Aikman, PManning. More recently, Ryan, Flacco. There are plenty of them.

Nolan tried to follow that pattern, but he had neither the ability to properly scheme for this strategy, nor the acutity in talent spotting to develop the necessary support structure to make his plan work.

Obviously Nolan was a failure as a coach. But if by that you're implying that because Nolan started him in his first year, he couldn't be expected to be any good for another three years, I reject that. Alex survived his first year healthy and had a reputed excellent coordinator in his second year. He still didn't pick it up. Most of what Smith is today has to do with Smith's intrinsic qualities.

We'll see what this year brings . . . maybe Smith will surprise with what he's picked up from Martz's teachings last season . . . maybe not. I'd put my odds on the latter. But hey . . .

This thread is nonsensical. Is it even really about the QB competition? I don't know what is going on in this circus!

Originally posted by TOP_CAT:

Originally posted by Kolohe:


Very true, which chaps my ass, as to why Singletary hasn't named Hill the starter. After all wouldn't you go into the season with the QB that pretty much adds to the reason that he is our HC??

Probably has not named Hill the outright starter (although he has said Hill is the starter going into camp) because he doesn't lie and he knew a while back that another QB might be brought in to start for the team IF that player presented himself in free agency. I am sure they were possibly talking about Garcia or even McNabb ,if he demanded out of Philly ,like was the rumor. And of course Warner did present himself as a free agent and they did consider him. There has even been talk about Cutler wanting out of Denver. So Sing just did not want to guarantee anything to Hill and then pull the rug out from under Hill later IF they found a gem in free agency.

Not to mention that Sing may feel that Hill does his best while under pressure to perform?

Hill IS the starting QB until further notice. Just like most of the starters on the team who would be benched by Sing IF someone beats them out.

After all the QB hoopla that past this off-season, I have to agree with your post.