Arguments for Alex Smith and Shaun Hill to Start

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.

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.

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...

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

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 ]

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 ]

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...

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

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.

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

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'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.

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.

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

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.