There are 64 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Arguments for Alex Smith and Shaun Hill to Start

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 ]
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 ]
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,527
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.
Originally posted by Kolohe:
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.

But also being that this statement my be true, still does not change the fact that he still hadnt been put in difficult situations. Hill has come in to play factually at the end of every season that he's played for us soo far. Always after a first and second guy falter. And some may not want to talk about it, but it does make a big difference if your beginning a season or trying to salvage one and it dont matter what part of the season you play. Not knocking the guy cause he has won games for us. But like i said even in that he's 7-3, i think or soo. But i laugh at the fact that it's over how many years, and what part of the season. Like i said to one of the moderators earlier, if i've been on the team for 4 years, played 2 games my first season, 2 my next, 3 my third and 6 my fourth. So thats a total of 13 games over a 4yr period lets not forget. I finish the end of the fourth season, and win some games. Now some of my fans say hey his record is 8-5, he deserves to start. Now do i really deserve to start being that the majorty of my wins came in my first 3 years. You see how just cause someone is 7-3 dont mean much. Let it be 7-3 at the beginning of season, or as the backup in the first half of the season as well, not just ALWAYS second half. Hill cant help the cards he was dealt when starting, with that being said, it doesnt change the fact that it was still second half of the season ever year he's played with us and that his winning record isnt much at all because it's not for an entire season, just won games and lost spread out over almost 4 years.
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

I'm going to have to favor Alex Smith in this reply. The difference in Alex not learning new systems as well as Shaun Hill are fundamentals. Shaun Hill knows what he is as a QB and he has his signature type of play set where he only needs to make minor tweaks to his style in order to fit a new system. Hill also understands exactly what he can or can't do and new coaches, after seeing him, understand exactly what he can or can't do and call the plays accordingly.

Alex Smith has no signature set style (he's mobile but doesn't scramble well) or basic proper fundamentals. When a new coach comes in, everyone SAYS Alex can make all of the throws but he has been inconsistent with ALL of the throws even though he has the arm strength to get the ball to the location. This is where a coach has more difficultly forming an offense to cater to his "strengths" and Alex is also thinking he needs to start from scratch when a new coach tweaks his footwork as Alex really never set into his own comfort and work from those.

Alex is like a college student in his first two years trying to figure out his niche whereas Shaun is like a guy who's returning to college after 5 years off where he knows his style and what types of majors he falls into and his mental maturity of handling them for Shaun's perspective. Alex has NO perspective.



As for Maddog's initial post: Alex Smith has not shown an ounce more than a game manager and games where he has high volume throwing are not very good games because he has not shown to be an accurate passer, especially, the deepball being his "strength". If we were to have a machine-like 80's offense, it Shaun Hill would have a higher probability with operating that type of offense. Right now, the ONLY type of offense Alex Smith would have a slightly higher chance over Hill would be a run-run 12-20 yard pass offense as Smith needs a little more time to make the read and a less complicated progression system. All of this assuming their play from the past. Who knows, it may all have clicked for Alex and he does it all.

However, the worst case high risk/high reward scenario would be to have Alex Smith start. Now, with a 13 ranked defense from last year only getting better, you don't want to eff that up with a high risk as we have done with JTO the highest risk highest reward scenario that failed last year.

Therefore, unless one player shines immensely brighter than the other, the decision on who starts sits with which one of the two can lead a team and be an extension of the offensive coordinator/head coach on the field, especially with an "up and coming defense".

[ Edited by Joecool on Jun 26, 2009 at 11:53:52 ]
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,527
Originally posted by Jersey9er:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
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.

But also being that this statement my be true, still does not change the fact that he still hadnt been put in difficult situations. Hill has come in to play factually at the end of every season that he's played for us soo far. Always after a first and second guy falter. And some may not want to talk about it, but it does make a big difference if your beginning a season or trying to salvage one and it dont matter what part of the season you play. Not knocking the guy cause he has won games for us. But like i said even in that he's 7-3, i think or soo. But i laugh at the fact that it's over how many years, and what part of the season. Like i said to one of the moderators earlier, if i've been on the team for 4 years, played 2 games my first season, 2 my next, 3 my third and 6 my fourth. So thats a total of 13 games over a 4yr period lets not forget. I finish the end of the fourth season, and win some games. Now some of my fans say hey his record is 8-5, he deserves to start. Now do i really deserve to start being that the majorty of my wins came in my first 3 years. You see how just cause someone is 7-3 dont mean much. Let it be 7-3 at the beginning of season, or as the backup in the first half of the season as well, not just ALWAYS second half. Hill cant help the cards he was dealt when starting, with that being said, it doesnt change the fact that it was still second half of the season ever year he's played with us and that his winning record isnt much at all because it's not for an entire season, just won games and lost spread out over almost 4 years.

So leads me to my repeated question....why not start Hill and see what hes got in the beginning of the season?? How else are we suppose to know if we keep putting this off??
Win or lose, Hill as not played SO well as to make him beyond criticism or make him a lock as the starting QB. Why can't everyone just sit back and enjoy a true QB competition? If you are so certain that he is the better starter, then it is inevitable that he will start and unworthy of all this back and forth, yes? I'm gonna enjoy the ride no matter. If McC and Sing want to delay a decision and make them both work for it, then let it be so and stop all the whining.
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,527
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Win or lose, Hill as not played SO well as to make him beyond criticism or make him a lock as the starting QB. Why can't everyone just sit back and enjoy a true QB competition? If you are so certain that he is the better starter, then it is inevitable that he will start and unworthy of all this back and forth, yes? I'm gonna enjoy the ride no matter. If McC and Sing want to delay a decision and make them both work for it, then let it be so and stop all the whining.

Who's whining, I thought this was a message board where people agree and disagree, debate and argue about the likes and dislikes of our beloved team??
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Win or lose, Hill as not played SO well as to make him beyond criticism or make him a lock as the starting QB. Why can't everyone just sit back and enjoy a true QB competition? If you are so certain that he is the better starter, then it is inevitable that he will start and unworthy of all this back and forth, yes? I'm gonna enjoy the ride no matter. If McC and Sing want to delay a decision and make them both work for it, then let it be so and stop all the whining.

Who's whining, I thought this was a message board where people agree and disagree, debate and argue about the likes and dislikes of our beloved team??


If the shoe fits, but I'm sure you can notice that I have not quoted you with that "whine" response. And please don't suggest that there are not posters here that do not whine about this situation.
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,527
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Win or lose, Hill as not played SO well as to make him beyond criticism or make him a lock as the starting QB. Why can't everyone just sit back and enjoy a true QB competition? If you are so certain that he is the better starter, then it is inevitable that he will start and unworthy of all this back and forth, yes? I'm gonna enjoy the ride no matter. If McC and Sing want to delay a decision and make them both work for it, then let it be so and stop all the whining.

Who's whining, I thought this was a message board where people agree and disagree, debate and argue about the likes and dislikes of our beloved team??


If the shoe fits, but I'm sure you can notice that I have not quoted you with that "whine" response. And please don't suggest that there are not posters here that do not whine about this situation.

Of course and vice versa for the people who are for and aren't for Smith do the same. But again, who's whining, hate to side step from the thread at hand so if you wanna talk about it feel free to do it via PM.
Stays home during bye to work with Crabtree, takes pay cut, works out nonstop, has the smarts to audible/manage pass blocking.

I can go on and on with this, this guy was suppose to be our future but all we did was poop on his chest with five different offensive coordinators before kicking him to the curb. If anything we should just make him our assistant offensive coordinator since he's a walking encyclopedia of what not to ****ing do.

I'm always amazed at people who tell me "he sux look at his stats" because it becomes obvious to me that they've never seen him play, in college or the pros. To develop as a quarterback in the NFL you need a little thing called a coach and when Alex Smith came into this league as a rookie he was greeted by San Francisco's Quarterback coach Jim Hostler. Yes, the same Jim Hostler who was only able to muster up 23 touchdowns as offensive coordinator in the 2007 season. This along with not having receivers to throw the ball to and not having blockers to give him time in the pocket is the reason as to why Smith has the stats that he has.

Now that we have a real #1 WR on the team we need a quarterback that will be able to develop chemistry with him for years to come and to be truthful, a 29 y/o "game manager" who throws a deep ball that come down "like a punt" is not going to develop anymore than he already has. The simple truth of the matter is that we can no longer just hope for the best anymore. We're stubborn to think that we can get to the playoffs with a game manager at the quarterback position when our defense is giving up 45 points to decent at best teams. We need a playmaker and as of right now Shaun Hill is not a playmaker. I'm not saying that we need to bench Shaun Hill for Alex or Nate, I'm just saying that we need to be searching for a future piece to this puzzle. If it's not Hill then is the piece on our bench? Or will we need to get it in a future draft?

Thoughts, flames or comments?
  • B650
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,205
Originally posted by Mospeed:
Stays home during bye to work with Crabtree, takes pay cut, works out nonstop, has the smarts to audible/manage pass blocking.

I can go on and on with this, this guy was suppose to be our future but all we did was poop on his chest with five different offensive coordinators before kicking him to the curb. If anything we should just make him our assistant offensive coordinator since he's a walking encyclopedia of what not to ****ing do.

I'm always amazed at people who tell me "he sux look at his stats" because it becomes obvious to me that they've never seen him play, in college or the pros. To develop as a quarterback in the NFL you need a little thing called a coach and when Alex Smith came into this league as a rookie he was greeted by San Francisco's Quarterback coach Jim Hostler. Yes, the same Jim Hostler who was only able to muster up 23 touchdowns as offensive coordinator in the 2007 season. This along with not having receivers to throw the ball to and not having blockers to give him time in the pocket is the reason as to why Smith has the stats that he has.

Now that we have a real #1 WR on the team we need a quarterback that will be able to develop chemistry with him for years to come and to be truthful, a 29 y/o "game manager" who throws a deep ball that come down "like a punt" is not going to develop anymore than he already has. The simple truth of the matter is that we can no longer just hope for the best anymore. We're stubborn to think that we can get to the playoffs with a game manager at the quarterback position when our defense is giving up 45 points to decent at best teams. We need a playmaker and as of right now Shaun Hill is not a playmaker. I'm not saying that we need to bench Shaun Hill for Alex or Nate, I'm just saying that we need to be searching for a future piece to this puzzle. If it's not Hill then is the piece on our bench? Or will we need to get it in a future draft?

Thoughts, flames or comments?

I think everyone knows this by now. It remains to be seen whether or not Smith or Davis will amount to anything, but with this OL, it's doubtful they'll be able to do anything special. If we go on a losing streak, something must be done.
Originally posted by Mospeed:
Stays home during bye to work with Crabtree, takes pay cut, works out nonstop, has the smarts to audible/manage pass blocking.

I can go on and on with this, this guy was suppose to be our future but all we did was poop on his chest with five different offensive coordinators before kicking him to the curb. If anything we should just make him our assistant offensive coordinator since he's a walking encyclopedia of what not to ****ing do.

I'm always amazed at people who tell me "he sux look at his stats" because it becomes obvious to me that they've never seen him play, in college or the pros. To develop as a quarterback in the NFL you need a little thing called a coach and when Alex Smith came into this league as a rookie he was greeted by San Francisco's Quarterback coach Jim Hostler. Yes, the same Jim Hostler who was only able to muster up 23 touchdowns as offensive coordinator in the 2007 season. This along with not having receivers to throw the ball to and not having blockers to give him time in the pocket is the reason as to why Smith has the stats that he has.

Now that we have a real #1 WR on the team we need a quarterback that will be able to develop chemistry with him for years to come and to be truthful, a 29 y/o "game manager" who throws a deep ball that come down "like a punt" is not going to develop anymore than he already has. The simple truth of the matter is that we can no longer just hope for the best anymore. We're stubborn to think that we can get to the playoffs with a game manager at the quarterback position when our defense is giving up 45 points to decent at best teams. We need a playmaker and as of right now Shaun Hill is not a playmaker. I'm not saying that we need to bench Shaun Hill for Alex or Nate, I'm just saying that we need to be searching for a future piece to this puzzle. If it's not Hill then is the piece on our bench? Or will we need to get it in a future draft?

Thoughts, flames or comments?

You know who else wanted a game manager instead of a playmaker with a huge arm? Denver. They're 5-0. We did too, and we're a Favre miracle away from being 4-1. Your Alex Smith love is seething. MAKE IT STOP.
Originally posted by fan49:
and yes i like hill but no matter how i look at it he got put into easy situations unlike alex smith.

Wrong! It is not as easy getting no snap before playing compared to someone who was groomed. He even had to share snaps most of this off-season.

[ Edited by pigskin on Oct 14, 2009 at 00:18:53 ]
Argument for Nate Davis to Start: He is not a wasted pick.