Are we 2-0 if Alex was starting?

This thread has opened up pandoras box for all the Alex Smith lovers again.

Give it up people. Your boy Alex Smith lost the QB competition. Obviously Mike Singletary and the rest of the 49ers coaching staff and organization didn't think he has what it takes to win.

We are 2-0 with Shaun Hill at quarterback. Regardless of ALLLLLLL the other little things you may argue, (our Defense is winning the game, Frank Gore won the second game, It was unfair because Smith was injured, blah blah blah), Shaun Hill is our starter and he is winning.

Are we 2-0 if Alex was starting?? who knows, who cares, it doesn't matter. Alex Smith is the second string, backup, "number 2"... He's busy holding clipboards and wearing headsets on the sidelines. We'll never know.

Shaun Hill and the 49ers are 2-0. That's all that matters.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
It is totally ridiculous how some of you can bag on Smith after the way the former regime handled his development. You guys act like it is his fault that he didn't succeed, when it has everything to do with the way he was mishandled. As far as the talent level being the same as it was when he last played...anyone that thinks it is the same (or worse) needs to take a minute and try to regain their touch with reality. Hill didn't outplay Smith this preseason, in fact he mostly looked worse than Smith, and he definitely has not lit up the world to this point, he hasn't even looked as good as he did last year. I give him credit for not making mistakes to this point, but Smith could do everything that Hill has done to this point and probably more, and may be the better long term option of the two. I just hope he keeps on working with the QB coach to get back into game shape. Like it or not Hill barely won the starting spot from a guy that had been out for 18 months with a major shoulder injury, and kinda got it by default. He surely didn't play any better than Smith, in fact, he looked more confused than Smith in the second preseason game. If Smith is so bad, then why couldn't Hill blow him away? The answer is that Smith is not as bad as some of you proclaim him to be, some of you guys are just knee jerk reactionaries that are predisposed to wildly overreact to even minor occurrences.

Okay-say the previous regime mishandled him, that doesn't he's ready at this point. He may still have some scars on him and who is to say he has gotten over it? Point is and fact is Sing said that neither really ran away with the competition in preseason. So why did he choose Hill, because he knows hill won't throw the game away, they still have doubts about smith and he didn't do anything to dispell these doubts!!!!!

smith may have a strong arm-so who gives a rats a$$ if they can't hit the side of the barn. At least when I was watching he was throwing it behind and over the heads of the receivers, these usually lead to intercepts.

His old college coach says he really needs to learn the system before he becomes comfortable. So that is another minus. By the time he gets comfy Davis will have become comfy also and have none of the scars that alex may still has. Smith may well still be an okay QB-who knows, he may pull a plunkett-but not now or not here.

Besides didn't he hurt himself a little-so who knows how that would affect him-especially when the line played pi$$ poor in pass schemes.

Let it go! There is more important things to debate, unless you don't have a life.

Originally posted by WildBill:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
It is totally ridiculous how some of you can bag on Smith after the way the former regime handled his development. You guys act like it is his fault that he didn't succeed, when it has everything to do with the way he was mishandled. As far as the talent level being the same as it was when he last played...anyone that thinks it is the same (or worse) needs to take a minute and try to regain their touch with reality. Hill didn't outplay Smith this preseason, in fact he mostly looked worse than Smith, and he definitely has not lit up the world to this point, he hasn't even looked as good as he did last year. I give him credit for not making mistakes to this point, but Smith could do everything that Hill has done to this point and probably more, and may be the better long term option of the two. I just hope he keeps on working with the QB coach to get back into game shape. Like it or not Hill barely won the starting spot from a guy that had been out for 18 months with a major shoulder injury, and kinda got it by default. He surely didn't play any better than Smith, in fact, he looked more confused than Smith in the second preseason game. If Smith is so bad, then why couldn't Hill blow him away? The answer is that Smith is not as bad as some of you proclaim him to be, some of you guys are just knee jerk reactionaries that are predisposed to wildly overreact to even minor occurrences.

Okay-say the previous regime mishandled him, that doesn't he's ready at this point. He may still have some scars on him and who is to say he has gotten over it? Point is and fact is Sing said that neither really ran away with the competition in preseason. So why did he choose Hill, because he knows hill won't throw the game away, they still have doubts about smith and he didn't do anything to dispell these doubts!!!!!

Hill may have a strong arm-so who gives a rats a$$ if they can't hit the side of the barn. At least when I was watching he was throwing it behind and over the heads of the receivers, these usually lead to intercepts.

His old college coach says he really needs to learn the system before he becomes comfortable. So that is another minus. By the time he gets comfy Davis will have become comfy also and have none of the scars that alex may still has. Smith may well still be an okay QB-who knows, he may pull a plunkett-but not now or not here.

Besides didn't he hurt himself a little-so who knows how that would affect him-especially when the line played pi$$ poor in pass schemes.

Let it go! There is more important things to debate, unless you don't have a life.

This silly mealodrama about previous coaches ruining Smith is quite comical. It would be easy to say Hill has had it rougher, but yet he ended up beating Smith for the job. After all, for years he was a 3rd stringer, and never got the hands on coaching a #1 draft pick starter does like Smith did for three years. Both guys had to deal with changes of OC every year, and spotty O-line play. As far as the Nolan Smith fued...well it takes two to tango. I have no sympathy for even young adults not handling their business correctly, and not having some cohones while working in the adult world. Nice guys finish last.

An all new coaching staff decided Smith was not good enough to be starter for the 49ers this year. Just like another new OC decided he wasn't the guy last year. So there is no other explanation why he is no longer a starter other than he just is not good enough.

Ulitmately, I do not discount that Smith may one day put it all together & be good NFL starter. My rant is more about fans that just don't want to accept that he himself will determine whether he is good enough by proving it on the field, regardless of any & all obstacles he has had to & will have to overcome. This is the way it is in the cold hard world.

oops meant to say smith may have a stronger arm but has a hard time hitting the side of the barn

For some on this board if Alex wasn't 3-0 after 2 games He would be a bust

If you combine Shaun Hills head on Alex Smith body = Super Bowl skilled Q.B.

And his name would be Shaun Smith.

Originally posted by ObePwnD:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
As much as I have given up on small hands I think we'd still be 2-0. Shaun Hill was steady and consistent when he needed to be but had a bunch of plays disrupted because of his pocket presence and side armed delivery. I think Alex, against the Cards and Hawks would do a little better in the passing game and hence, we'd still probably win and be 2-0.

Who could say, but we would have at least 1 or 2 ints thrown by now. If that would have happened in the Tard game, we could have lost. But who knows.

Hill should have been intercepted numerous times in the Arizona game. He got very lucky.

All things set aside, I believe we'd still be 2-0 right now with the way our D is playing. Hill has been very average so far, and I don't doubt that Alex could've played at least as well.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
As much as I have given up on small hands I think we'd still be 2-0. Shaun Hill was steady and consistent when he needed to be but had a bunch of plays disrupted because of his pocket presence and side armed delivery. I think Alex, against the Cards and Hawks would do a little better in the passing game and hence, we'd still probably win and be 2-0.

Well, right now the poll is at 50% Yes / 50% No.

That appears correct as NONE of us really know for sure.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by ObePwnD:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
As much as I have given up on small hands I think we'd still be 2-0. Shaun Hill was steady and consistent when he needed to be but had a bunch of plays disrupted because of his pocket presence and side armed delivery. I think Alex, against the Cards and Hawks would do a little better in the passing game and hence, we'd still probably win and be 2-0.

Who could say, but we would have at least 1 or 2 ints thrown by now. If that would have happened in the Tard game, we could have lost. But who knows.

Hill should have been intercepted numerous times in the Arizona game. He got very lucky.

All things set aside, I believe we'd still be 2-0 right now with the way our D is playing. Hill has been very average so far, and I don't doubt that Alex could've played at least as well.

I don't know if he would have played as well with a higher percentage because Hill is a very accurate QB and usually puts up very solid precentages.

A combination of Smith and Hill would be the perfect QB with Hill possessing 70% to 80% of the more important skills. Basically, it would be ideal for Hill to have Alex's strong arm rather than Smith to have Hill's 3 or 4 other qualities Smith has not shown.

Do you know what that tells me. Smith is missing a lot more than your average QB...I'm not going to say it, but THOSE types of QBs don't start.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by ObePwnD:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
As much as I have given up on small hands I think we'd still be 2-0. Shaun Hill was steady and consistent when he needed to be but had a bunch of plays disrupted because of his pocket presence and side armed delivery. I think Alex, against the Cards and Hawks would do a little better in the passing game and hence, we'd still probably win and be 2-0.

Who could say, but we would have at least 1 or 2 ints thrown by now. If that would have happened in the Tard game, we could have lost. But who knows.

Hill should have been intercepted numerous times in the Arizona game. He got very lucky.

All things set aside, I believe we'd still be 2-0 right now with the way our D is playing. Hill has been very average so far, and I don't doubt that Alex could've played at least as well.

Lucky or not, he wasn't intercepted was he... So would you rather have a decent lucky QB or a decent unlucky one?

We will never know.

Any answers are purely speculative and will only serve to stir up the Hill vs Smith debate.

IMHO, yes we would be 2-0 with Smith as QB.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by ObePwnD:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
As much as I have given up on small hands I think we'd still be 2-0. Shaun Hill was steady and consistent when he needed to be but had a bunch of plays disrupted because of his pocket presence and side armed delivery. I think Alex, against the Cards and Hawks would do a little better in the passing game and hence, we'd still probably win and be 2-0.

Who could say, but we would have at least 1 or 2 ints thrown by now. If that would have happened in the Tard game, we could have lost. But who knows.

Hill should have been intercepted numerous times in the Arizona game. He got very lucky.

All things set aside, I believe we'd still be 2-0 right now with the way our D is playing. Hill has been very average so far, and I don't doubt that Alex could've played at least as well.

I don't know if he would have played as well with a higher percentage because Hill is a very accurate QB and usually puts up very solid precentages.

A combination of Smith and Hill would be the perfect QB with Hill possessing 70% to 80% of the more important skills. Basically, it would be ideal for Hill to have Alex's strong arm rather than Smith to have Hill's 3 or 4 other qualities Smith has not shown.

Do you know what that tells me. Smith is missing a lot more than your average QB...I'm not going to say it, but THOSE types of QBs don't start.

Judging by the poll, it seems it could pretty much go either way, and I don't disagree. Without having seen Smith in there, we can't know for sure.

But as long as we're winning, I'll be happy. It's all good, I just want Hill to do better. We know, and he knows as well, that he needs to improve if we're going to really be something this year.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by ObePwnD:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
As much as I have given up on small hands I think we'd still be 2-0. Shaun Hill was steady and consistent when he needed to be but had a bunch of plays disrupted because of his pocket presence and side armed delivery. I think Alex, against the Cards and Hawks would do a little better in the passing game and hence, we'd still probably win and be 2-0.

Who could say, but we would have at least 1 or 2 ints thrown by now. If that would have happened in the Tard game, we could have lost. But who knows.

Hill should have been intercepted numerous times in the Arizona game. He got very lucky.

All things set aside, I believe we'd still be 2-0 right now with the way our D is playing. Hill has been very average so far, and I don't doubt that Alex could've played at least as well.

I don't know if he would have played as well with a higher percentage because Hill is a very accurate QB and usually puts up very solid precentages.

A combination of Smith and Hill would be the perfect QB with Hill possessing 70% to 80% of the more important skills. Basically, it would be ideal for Hill to have Alex's strong arm rather than Smith to have Hill's 3 or 4 other qualities Smith has not shown.

Do you know what that tells me. Smith is missing a lot more than your average QB...I'm not going to say it, but THOSE types of QBs don't start.

Judging by the poll, it seems it could pretty much go either way, and I don't disagree. Without having seen Smith in there, we can't know for sure.

But as long as we're winning, I'll be happy. It's all good, I just want Hill to do better. We know, and he knows as well, that he needs to improve if we're going to really be something this year.

Personally, I think we win with Smith also but not as efficient as a performance. No one can discount his winning drives in that 2-0 start in 2007.

With this "new" 49er mentality, I just feel an efficient, high percentage QB is more valuable. We are more like the old true WCO than most acknowledge. Our passing game is an extension of our running game. It's just that we don't have the reveiving fire power as Joe Montana didn't have early in his career. THEN, the passes were like an extension of the run.

I think Alex Smith doesn't bring that type of passing game to this offense.

In the Vikings game this weekend, it is clearly either going to unravel for Shaun Hill or firm up for Shaun Hill.

In any event we ALL shall discover really what Shaun Hill can and can't do.

Stay Tuned!

hell no. one of the reasons we are 2-0 is that we aint making the costly mistakes. alex would have thrown a couple int's already and he would have lost a game or both.