Arguments for Alex Smith and Shaun Hill to Start | Page 3

MadDog49er · 2009-06-25T06:03:44-07:00

The most difficult decision of the Mike Singletary administration will soon have to be made: Who to start at QB. In an attempt to be fair to both parties, I present arguments for both Alex Smith and Shaun Hill. According to Matt Barrows, Alex Smith has looked healthier, stronger, more accurate this past month than in the previous two years. He was the unquestioned starting quarterback two years ago before his shoulder injury, and was a player who seemed to have a strong upside to his game. Did his shoulder injury two years ago affect his ability to play at a high level? Surely. The question is: How much? Smith presents the best long-term QB answer for the Niners, when stacked against Hill. Alex is four years younger, possesses a stronger arm, and has greater mobility in and out of the pocket. Supporters of Smith will state that the Niners' OL has never given Alex the chance to develop his game, as he has been running for his life the moment he stood behind the center. Critics will say that: He simply doesn't get it; although intelligent, he simply has not been able to transition from the shotgun to playing under the center; that he lacks the characteristic of being a strong leader. Critics will argue that he slumps his head too much, isn't a guy who can rally the team effectively, doesn't inspire confidence. All of these statements would be true to some degree. Even the most strident Smith fans would have to admit that these are specific areas of improvement that must happen for Smith to have a starting role in this league. Shaun Hill has been the super-sub the previous two seasons. His high winning percentage, and strong QB rating in 2008, point to a guy as a winner. He is a terrific leader, and even though he doesn't have a dynamic arm, he gets the ball in most places at most times (although it surely isn't pretty). He is consistent, and does a solid job at limiting turnovers in most games. Hill is a solid game manager. Players rally behind him, more so than Smith. Hill has the necessary confidence that Smith has lacked at times. Finally, while Smith has struggled to adjust to four OC's in four years (as predicted last season, the 2009 season would make for a fifth OC), Hill seems to assimilate each offense with greater ease. Critics will state that he has limited upside to his game due to sub-standard arm strength, that he cannot make a number of throws on the field, that he doesn't have the ability to stretch the field. They will state that while Hill must be a game manager to win, Smith can post points on the board, that the offense can be more dynamic. The Niners have a tough call. Outside of the first month of his rookie season, Smith has never come off the bench in his career, and this could be a good thing or bad thing. In one sense, it might take the pressure off of him to produce right away. However, it might also hurt his confidence to be a backup to a NFL journeyman QB. The momentum this spring has been with Smith. How would he react to not getting the starting role? On the flip side, Hill has been outstanding in a backup role. The team would have tremendous confidence in Hill if Smith went down with an injury in a game, or simply was not producing. However, he has never gone into a season as the starter, and the expectations for greater offensive production may not match his skill set. Entering the season as a starter is a far different animal than coming off the bench. And yet, when Hill plays, the Niners win. Would that change if he started the season at QB, instead of a relief pitcher? In the end, the Niners will have to answer the question: Which QB gives us a better chance to win? And the answer could be based upon their thoughts on the offensive line and defense. If the Niners have confidence that they will be able to run the ball efffectively, limit the QB to 20-25 throws a game, and have a studly defense, Shaun Hill would appear to be the better option. However, if the Niners really want to open up the offense in 2009, and feel like the defense will not be strong enough to carry the team this season, Smith may be the better option. There will certainly be more than 1,000 Smith-Hill/Hill-Smith threads once training camp emerges, and the daily drama will surely stoke fires. Ultimately, the team needs to strongly endorse one guy as the starter, or else risk a tough year. Teams with training camp battles at QB, and uncertainty entering the season, struggle to win games, and generally have sub-500 seasons. The goal should be to announce the QB as soon as possible so that everyone is on the same page. Bold 2010 Prediction: There will not be a QB controversy for the Niners in 2010. Either Hill will show that he is a starter in this league, or not. Smith will show that he is a stable franchise QB to build a team around. Or, the Niners will target a QB in free agency or the draft, to start right away. Cheers. [ Edited by MadDog49er on Jun 25, 2009 at 09:30:42 ]

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:28 AM

#31

kidash98
Hall of Fame
Posts: 26,660

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by baltien:
While I would love nothing more to see Alex succeed on this team, I do not think it would be wise for him to start. The chief reason being, Hill showed us last year that he deserves the starting role.

And until he shows us that he can't handle it (by his play), it should remain his job.

Also, imagine if Smith starts and then tanks. It would be detrimental to the morale of our team, and all but erase the (little) progress that we made last year.

Alex is young, and can only benefit by sitting awhile longer and learning.

But then the argument could be 5 OC's in 5 years and we could yet again be looking at another QB competition.

I like Alex Smith, I really do....

But what's the difference with him learning new offense every year and with S. Hill learning the same thing and succeding??? Given, he (Smith) was hurt last year but it seems like Hill was able to adapt to the changes and play whereas Smith was stuck! Again, I do hope that Smith proves me wong but for the time being, I think the QB is for Hill to lose.

- 98

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:31 AM

#32

Mr.Mcgibblets
Veteran
Posts: 15,079

It's much easier to step in during the middle of a losing season when the team starts to get their stuff together. Also easier for a long-time veteran backup to "wing it with gusto"... he has nothing to lose and very little pressure on him for multiple reasons.

edit: add to that, that SF had to "dumb-down" the playbook for Hill in 07.

[ Edited by oldman9er on Jun 26, 2009 at 10:32:30 ]

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:32 AM

#33

Kolohe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 67,023

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by baltien:
While I would love nothing more to see Alex succeed on this team, I do not think it would be wise for him to start. The chief reason being, Hill showed us last year that he deserves the starting role.

And until he shows us that he can't handle it (by his play), it should remain his job.

Also, imagine if Smith starts and then tanks. It would be detrimental to the morale of our team, and all but erase the (little) progress that we made last year.

Alex is young, and can only benefit by sitting awhile longer and learning.

But then the argument could be 5 OC's in 5 years and we could yet again be looking at another QB competition.

Clearly an unbiased statement here from our mod...

So your saying there wouldn't be?? Just so you know, yes, I do want Hill to start, I haven't been afraid to hold anything back about our QB situation, but that's only because I want to see if Hill can pick up where he left off from last year. me Wanting Hill to start doesn't really have anything to do with me being a fan of Smith or not.

But isn't it pretty clear, if Smith does tank, wouldn't that mean its because of the time being in yet another new offense??

[ Edited by Kolohe on Jun 26, 2009 at 10:34:04 ]

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:36 AM

#34

Mr.Mcgibblets
Veteran
Posts: 15,079

No.. no more excuses. If Alex starts, it is because he looks clearly better than Hill, and therefore has a pretty solid grip of the playbook. So that leaves only his performance to blame. (assuming we don't have another league leading 20+ % in dropped passes or the next Kwame Harris-turnstyle emerges)

After reading your post again, it was less... "bitter" than I first suspected though...

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:36 AM

#35

kidash98
Hall of Fame
Posts: 26,660

Originally posted by oldman9er:
It's much easier to step in during the middle of a losing season when the team starts to get their stuff together. Also easier for a long-time veteran backup to "wing it with gusto"... he has nothing to lose and very little pressure on him for multiple reasons.

edit: add to that, that SF had to "dumb-down" the playbook for Hill in 07.

"dumb down" or not, the person still had to play...

- 98

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:37 AM

#36

Kolohe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 67,023

Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by baltien:
While I would love nothing more to see Alex succeed on this team, I do not think it would be wise for him to start. The chief reason being, Hill showed us last year that he deserves the starting role.

And until he shows us that he can't handle it (by his play), it should remain his job.

Also, imagine if Smith starts and then tanks. It would be detrimental to the morale of our team, and all but erase the (little) progress that we made last year.

Alex is young, and can only benefit by sitting awhile longer and learning.

But then the argument could be 5 OC's in 5 years and we could yet again be looking at another QB competition.

I like Alex Smith, I really do....

But what's the difference with him learning new offense every year and with S. Hill learning the same thing and succeding??? Given, he (Smith) was hurt last year but it seems like Hill was able to adapt to the changes and play whereas Smith was stuck! Again, I do hope that Smith proves me wong but for the time being, I think the QB is for Hill to lose.

- 98

The difference is, from a statement that his college coach Urban Myer gave, that hes needs time in the same offense to fully show his potential (OK maybe not in those words, but I'm sure I'm pretty close). But yes, I do agree with you Oliver, the QB job SHOULD be Hill's until he proves otherwise.

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:41 AM

#37

kidash98
Hall of Fame
Posts: 26,660

Originally posted by oldman9er:
No.. no more excuses. If Alex starts, it is because he looks clearly better than Hill, and therefore has a pretty solid grip of the playbook. So that leaves only his performance to blame. (assuming we don't have another league leading 20+ % in dropped passes or the next Kwame Harris-turnstyle emerges)

After reading your post again, it was less... "bitter" than I first suspected though...

It has been said, time and again, that Alex looks better in the practice field than Hill.... Yet Hill performs better on the field (gameday) when it counts.

It's not a knock on Smith and as I stated, I like the kid and wish he succeeds! But given what we have seens so far, Hill should be the starter...

- 98

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:42 AM

#38

kidash98
Hall of Fame
Posts: 26,660

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by baltien:
While I would love nothing more to see Alex succeed on this team, I do not think it would be wise for him to start. The chief reason being, Hill showed us last year that he deserves the starting role.

And until he shows us that he can't handle it (by his play), it should remain his job.

Also, imagine if Smith starts and then tanks. It would be detrimental to the morale of our team, and all but erase the (little) progress that we made last year.

Alex is young, and can only benefit by sitting awhile longer and learning.

But then the argument could be 5 OC's in 5 years and we could yet again be looking at another QB competition.

I like Alex Smith, I really do....

But what's the difference with him learning new offense every year and with S. Hill learning the same thing and succeding??? Given, he (Smith) was hurt last year but it seems like Hill was able to adapt to the changes and play whereas Smith was stuck! Again, I do hope that Smith proves me wong but for the time being, I think the QB is for Hill to lose.

- 98

The difference is, from a statement that his college coach Urban Myer gave, that hes needs time in the same offense to fully show his potential (OK maybe not in those words, but I'm sure I'm pretty close). But yes, I do agree with you Oliver, the QB job SHOULD be Hill's until he proves otherwise.

Then with that reasoning, shouldn't he learn the system first before playing/starting???

- 98

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:54 AM

#39

Mr.Mcgibblets
Veteran
Posts: 15,079

I'm expecting that with Alex's already gained experience, as well as his dedication and intellect, that he may just pick things up very quickly as opposed to the past. It will be up to our coaching staff to determine just how fully absorbed he is through preseason. A hard task to be sure. If he starts, some mistakes will occur as he fully gets it all, but he's at the point (unlike years past) where he should have a good chance to complete his learning as he plays without being a large detriment to the W/L column.

Jun 26, 2009 at 10:54 AM

#40

Kolohe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 67,023

Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by baltien:
While I would love nothing more to see Alex succeed on this team, I do not think it would be wise for him to start. The chief reason being, Hill showed us last year that he deserves the starting role.

And until he shows us that he can't handle it (by his play), it should remain his job.

Also, imagine if Smith starts and then tanks. It would be detrimental to the morale of our team, and all but erase the (little) progress that we made last year.

Alex is young, and can only benefit by sitting awhile longer and learning.

But then the argument could be 5 OC's in 5 years and we could yet again be looking at another QB competition.

I like Alex Smith, I really do....

But what's the difference with him learning new offense every year and with S. Hill learning the same thing and succeding??? Given, he (Smith) was hurt last year but it seems like Hill was able to adapt to the changes and play whereas Smith was stuck! Again, I do hope that Smith proves me wong but for the time being, I think the QB is for Hill to lose.

- 98

The difference is, from a statement that his college coach Urban Myer gave, that hes needs time in the same offense to fully show his potential (OK maybe not in those words, but I'm sure I'm pretty close). But yes, I do agree with you Oliver, the QB job SHOULD be Hill's until he proves otherwise.

Then with that reasoning, shouldn't he learn the system first before playing/starting???

- 98

I would agree with that. But in Smith's case or in a number overall draftee's case, I believe in you pay'em you play'em approach.

Jun 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

#41

kidash98
Hall of Fame
Posts: 26,660

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by baltien:
While I would love nothing more to see Alex succeed on this team, I do not think it would be wise for him to start. The chief reason being, Hill showed us last year that he deserves the starting role.

And until he shows us that he can't handle it (by his play), it should remain his job.

Also, imagine if Smith starts and then tanks. It would be detrimental to the morale of our team, and all but erase the (little) progress that we made last year.

Alex is young, and can only benefit by sitting awhile longer and learning.

But then the argument could be 5 OC's in 5 years and we could yet again be looking at another QB competition.

I like Alex Smith, I really do....

But what's the difference with him learning new offense every year and with S. Hill learning the same thing and succeding??? Given, he (Smith) was hurt last year but it seems like Hill was able to adapt to the changes and play whereas Smith was stuck! Again, I do hope that Smith proves me wong but for the time being, I think the QB is for Hill to lose.

- 98

The difference is, from a statement that his college coach Urban Myer gave, that hes needs time in the same offense to fully show his potential (OK maybe not in those words, but I'm sure I'm pretty close). But yes, I do agree with you Oliver, the QB job SHOULD be Hill's until he proves otherwise.

Then with that reasoning, shouldn't he learn the system first before playing/starting???

- 98

I would agree with that. But in Smith's case or in a number overall draftee's case, I believe in you pay'em you play'em approach.

He's not getting paid starter salary this year, would you still start him????

- 98

Jun 26, 2009 at 11:12 AM

#42

Kolohe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 67,023

Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by baltien:
While I would love nothing more to see Alex succeed on this team, I do not think it would be wise for him to start. The chief reason being, Hill showed us last year that he deserves the starting role.

And until he shows us that he can't handle it (by his play), it should remain his job.

Also, imagine if Smith starts and then tanks. It would be detrimental to the morale of our team, and all but erase the (little) progress that we made last year.

Alex is young, and can only benefit by sitting awhile longer and learning.

But then the argument could be 5 OC's in 5 years and we could yet again be looking at another QB competition.

I like Alex Smith, I really do....

But what's the difference with him learning new offense every year and with S. Hill learning the same thing and succeding??? Given, he (Smith) was hurt last year but it seems like Hill was able to adapt to the changes and play whereas Smith was stuck! Again, I do hope that Smith proves me wong but for the time being, I think the QB is for Hill to lose.

- 98

The difference is, from a statement that his college coach Urban Myer gave, that hes needs time in the same offense to fully show his potential (OK maybe not in those words, but I'm sure I'm pretty close). But yes, I do agree with you Oliver, the QB job SHOULD be Hill's until he proves otherwise.

Then with that reasoning, shouldn't he learn the system first before playing/starting???

- 98

I would agree with that. But in Smith's case or in a number overall draftee's case, I believe in you pay'em you play'em approach.

He's not getting paid starter salary this year, would you still start him????

- 98

No, I would wait to see how this year plays out, especially since he took back up money. Hill has momentum (real game time momentum) going into this next season, I wouldn't mess with it, nor would I mess with the chemistry of the offense.

Jun 26, 2009 at 11:25 AM

#43

fan49
Veteran
Posts: 6,293

Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by baltien:
While I would love nothing more to see Alex succeed on this team, I do not think it would be wise for him to start. The chief reason being, Hill showed us last year that he deserves the starting role.

And until he shows us that he can't handle it (by his play), it should remain his job.

Also, imagine if Smith starts and then tanks. It would be detrimental to the morale of our team, and all but erase the (little) progress that we made last year.

Alex is young, and can only benefit by sitting awhile longer and learning.

But then the argument could be 5 OC's in 5 years and we could yet again be looking at another QB competition.

I like Alex Smith, I really do....

But what's the difference with him learning new offense every year and with S. Hill learning the same thing and succeding??? Given, he (Smith) was hurt last year but it seems like Hill was able to adapt to the changes and play whereas Smith was stuck! Again, I do hope that Smith proves me wong but for the time being, I think the QB is for Hill to lose.

- 98

succeding against no good d's and playoff teams not risking getting hurt. sing made the team win. the defense stepped up o didnt change too much except at one point letting hos go, and improvement from jto and dilfer to hilll, not that hard. and were looking at what 5 different systems that alex played and what hill played in 2? if you need proof about garbage d's look not hard.. iv posted plenty of times hill played d's ranked in the late 20's and hill couldnt get 200 yards, and alex busted what 289 against the number 1 d in the nfl. (same year) and yes i like hill but no matter how i look at it he got put into easy situations unlike alex smith.

[ Edited by fan49 on Jun 26, 2009 at 11:26:22 ]

Jun 26, 2009 at 11:29 AM

#44

fan49
Veteran
Posts: 6,293

Originally posted by PRIMETIME21:
don't care if you alex smith or shaun hill supporter, its obvious who the starter is going to be and thats shaun hill.

really.... obvious to who. not fans, not espn, not sing, not mac. just you right. alex has 80x the arm, faster on feet, and younger. hill has game management. and hill played the worst d's in the nfl, that must be why its obvious. right

[ Edited by fan49 on Jun 26, 2009 at 11:30:40 ]

Jun 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

#45

Kolohe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 67,023

Originally posted by fan49:
Originally posted by kidash98:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by baltien:
While I would love nothing more to see Alex succeed on this team, I do not think it would be wise for him to start. The chief reason being, Hill showed us last year that he deserves the starting role.

And until he shows us that he can't handle it (by his play), it should remain his job.

Also, imagine if Smith starts and then tanks. It would be detrimental to the morale of our team, and all but erase the (little) progress that we made last year.

Alex is young, and can only benefit by sitting awhile longer and learning.

But then the argument could be 5 OC's in 5 years and we could yet again be looking at another QB competition.

I like Alex Smith, I really do....

But what's the difference with him learning new offense every year and with S. Hill learning the same thing and succeding??? Given, he (Smith) was hurt last year but it seems like Hill was able to adapt to the changes and play whereas Smith was stuck! Again, I do hope that Smith proves me wong but for the time being, I think the QB is for Hill to lose.

- 98

succeding against no good d's and playoff teams not risking getting hurt. sing made the team win. the defense stepped up o didnt change too much except at one point letting hos go, and improvement from jto and dilfer to hilll, not that hard. and were looking at what 5 different systems that alex played and what hill played in 2? if you need proof about garbage d's look not hard.. iv posted plenty of times hill played d's ranked in the late 20's and hill couldnt get 200 yards, and alex busted what 289 against the number 1 d in the nfl. (same year) and yes i like hill but no matter how i look at it he got put into easy situations unlike alex smith.

Aaah yes the "all he did was beat crappy teams" argument. C'mon man, can you seriously put that on Hill. What Hill did was play the cards he was dealt, he nor any other person could have changed that.