There are 98 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Should Hill Really be our starter?

Should Hill Really be our starter?

Originally posted by GONINERS09:
Hill is no a starting QB he is ok off the bench but there is a reason he was not drafted. I recall saying we should sign Vick but no one wanted to listen. Now I see Aaron Rodgers out there lighting it up and it's disgusting because we should have him as our franchise QB. The ghost of McNolan still haunts us I think it's time for Scotty McJackass to go. Asside from Willis and Staley his drafts haven't been great and I think he is the one who didn't want Vick for whatever reasons probably scared it would scare away the Santa Clara voters. Hill gives us no chance of making the playoffs it's like the Nolan regime all over again. HOLMGREN VICK '10.

I am no Hill supporter but Vick was not the answer.

Not sure why you people fell it is clever to twist people's names into insults, but anyway I think you are wrong. The problem, I believe, was Nolan's player development not Scotty's player selection.
Originally posted by 49ersnum1:
Lets all remember that Hill lights it up game days. Pre season, and practice, is not Hills game.. Hill has played horrible in practice and pre season over the last 3 season, but ummm 7-3 (cough cough) 18td 9int while taking over the last couple seasons. If Hill plays horrible the first 2-3 games then we can have this convo, but out of all 4 QBs.. Hill is a gamer, and has showed to be a very good QB over the last 2 seasons

If Hill plays horrible and we lose the first two games, our season is pretty much a wash. We start the season vs the Cards (Arizona starts with us and Jacksonville) and Seahawks (Seattle plays the Rams and us). If we go 0-2 against those two teams in the first two games, we're done. If both the Cards and Seahawks get out to a 2-0 start with us being 0-2, its going to be hard pressed to come back from that.

Hill needs to step it up, now. What he did last season is what got him the starting job, what he does this season determines if he's going to keep it. That's something a lot of people fail to understand. The minute he was named the starter, last season doesn't matter, its only this season (and so far he's not looking to good).

If he's having problems in the preseason, where everything is about as vanilla as it can get, what's going to happen when the regular season rolls around and everything gets kicked up a notch.
Whoa is me...wtf? That's it...Arnaz Battle for QB!!
Originally posted by 190836:
Originally posted by Apone:
Absolutely he gives us the best shot to go the super bowl.

To go to the super bowl?

Maybe Hill promised the team to buy tickets for everyone if they lose more than 8 games.
Originally posted by RedWaltz24:
Originally posted by 190836:
Originally posted by Apone:
Absolutely he gives us the best shot to go the super bowl.

To go to the super bowl?

Maybe Hill promised the team to buy tickets for everyone if they lose more than 8 games.

I don't think even Hill believes he can take the team to the Super Bowl. I am not a huge Tony Romo fan but the difference between that caliber of a QB and our three back-ups is huge. Imagine if we had a real solid starting QB.
No, not at all..He was out played by Smith and Davis.
I would have no problem with Davis in even if we were getting killed, I am willing to suffer another losing year and watch him play.
I love the really smart people who say it was against 3rd stringers, well he played with 2nd and 3rd stringers and dallas had some starters in on D when Davis was in there. So when he looks really good against whoever it doesnt matter because of who it was against....Makes alot of sense!

Maybe Hill will get a clue and buy an arm by the time the season starts.
Hill just plain sucks, co#k big friggin co*k.
  • dj43
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 20,155
We all knew, or should have known, that Shaun Hill's lack of arm strength was going to limit the passing game. The talk was all about how he was a "winner" despite his limitations. The questions about the quality of opponents were much discusssed on this board. Some felt it didn't matter, others thought it was very telling.

Well, no matter which side of the issue you may be on, it is clear that Hill may be the best answer for now, but he is not the long-term solution. Whether that solution is Smith or Huard or Davis, is the only question remaining. Smith has looked better than at any time in the past but that debate has raged for months. Huard is a known commodity and may be the best short-term solution. Davis has shown promise but only against guys who won't make the regular season roster. Perhaps next week he will get some time against first or second team San Diego.

Perhaps the team will get by on power running alone but that certainly did not seem to be the case in the first half last night. But we knew all this before the season ever started. This team will still be hard-pressed to attain 8 wins this year.
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by GONINERS09:
Hill is no a starting QB he is ok off the bench but there is a reason he was not drafted. I recall saying we should sign Vick but no one wanted to listen. Now I see Aaron Rodgers out there lighting it up and it's disgusting because we should have him as our franchise QB. The ghost of McNolan still haunts us I think it's time for Scotty McJackass to go. Asside from Willis and Staley his drafts haven't been great and I think he is the one who didn't want Vick for whatever reasons probably scared it would scare away the Santa Clara voters. Hill gives us no chance of making the playoffs it's like the Nolan regime all over again. HOLMGREN VICK '10.

I am no Hill supporter but Vick was not the answer.

Not sure why you people fell it is clever to twist people's names into insults, but anyway I think you are wrong. The problem, I believe, was Nolan's player development not Scotty's player selection.

I agree, Nolan and his staff never understood how to develop players and had guys that could play on the bench while players that were not as good cost us games. I think Smith has shown a little progress in his QB mechanics since Johnson has been here, maybe the trend will continue...who knows, but at this point, Hill isn't inspiring much confidence. Good post English.
Originally posted by ninerfan818:
Woe is me...wtf? That's it...Arnaz Battle for QB!!

Fixed!
  • lazy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 3,570
Yes.
You know how we all say we need a mix of Alex Smth and Shuan Hill?



Aaron Rodgers
Originally posted by Joecool:
You know how we all say we need a mix of Alex Smth and Shuan Hill?



Aaron Rodgers

There's just one problem. The Aaron Rodgers that the Packers got would be different then the Aaron Rodgers we would have gotten.

The 49ers as an organization were in no position to develop a rookie QB. They didn't have the coaching staff in place for it (Hostler as QB coach, a HC who had no clue how an offense works or what philosophy he wanted to run, etc).

The Aaron Rodgers we would have gotten would have fared no better then Smith.
Originally posted by ninerfan818:
Originally posted by RedWaltz24:
Originally posted by 190836:
Originally posted by Apone:
Absolutely he gives us the best shot to go the super bowl.

To go to the super bowl?

Maybe Hill promised the team to buy tickets for everyone if they lose more than 8 games.

I don't think even Hill believes he can take the team to the Super Bowl. I am not a huge Tony Romo fan but the difference between that caliber of a QB and our three back-ups is huge. Imagine if we had a real solid starting QB.

you mean a QB who could take us to the playoffs sometimes and blow it in front of the world?

He's a solid regular season QB, nothing more

A poor mans Dan Marino, all flash in the season, but look out when the playoffs come...
Originally posted by linkboy:
Originally posted by Joecool:
You know how we all say we need a mix of Alex Smth and Shuan Hill?



Aaron Rodgers

There's just one problem. The Aaron Rodgers that the Packers got would be different then the Aaron Rodgers we would have gotten.

The 49ers as an organization were in no position to develop a rookie QB. They didn't have the coaching staff in place for it (Hostler as QB coach, a HC who had no clue how an offense works or what philosophy he wanted to run, etc).

The Aaron Rodgers we would have gotten would have fared no better then Smith.

Yes but we would still have an Aaron Rodgers with a quick release and strong arm, which is much better than what we have had.
Preseason folks... Give him a chance in real game situations...