OFFICIAL: 2006 Smith vs 2009 Hill Tracker

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by TexasNiner84:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Alex was what? 20 years old in 2006?

Yeah this is going to be very telling. Compare Drew Brees' stats to Shaun Hill in their first two seasons. Hill looks good there too.

Until this healthy version of Alex gets to play there is no way to compare. Judging Alex in his very raw seasons under a terrible team and horrible coaching decisions just isn't fair.

I know the simple minded like to make comparisons with black and white stats but that's not how it works because there is no fair sample.

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring and Dan Marino doesn't.

Super Bowl Ring >>>>> No Super Bowl Ring

Trent's better

so............ you're saying alex smith is like marino????....... last time i checked wins give you superbowls.. not good quarterbacks like dan marino.... shaun hill obviously has more wins than alex... btw the comparison is just to know where hill and this team stand, not that hill is better than alex

Hence, "Tracker" in the title. People are completely miscontruing this thread as a Pro Hill thread. Except for the "deep ball" comment in my stat post, there is no favor of either.

That's not true.

Earlier you said that you didn't want to go week by week because it would make Alex look bad, which has an implied negativity towards Smith. If this were a fair comparison, you would do week by week to show people where they were at that point in the season.

what he meant by that was that there are different variables that arise as the season goes on. It doesn't necessarily mean alex played bad... . I never got a hint that he might be leaning towards shaun hill as being "better", he is just TRACKING shaun hill's stats to see if he ENDS up better than smith... why is everybody missunderstanding this thread???

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by TexasNiner84:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Alex was what? 20 years old in 2006?

Yeah this is going to be very telling. Compare Drew Brees' stats to Shaun Hill in their first two seasons. Hill looks good there too.

Until this healthy version of Alex gets to play there is no way to compare. Judging Alex in his very raw seasons under a terrible team and horrible coaching decisions just isn't fair.

I know the simple minded like to make comparisons with black and white stats but that's not how it works because there is no fair sample.

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring and Dan Marino doesn't.

Super Bowl Ring >>>>> No Super Bowl Ring

Trent's better

so............ you're saying alex smith is like marino????....... last time i checked wins give you superbowls.. not good quarterbacks like dan marino.... shaun hill obviously has more wins than alex... btw the comparison is just to know where hill and this team stand, not that hill is better than alex

Hence, "Tracker" in the title. People are completely miscontruing this thread as a Pro Hill thread. Except for the "deep ball" comment in my stat post, there is no favor of either.

That's not true.

Earlier you said that you didn't want to go week by week because it would make Alex look bad, which has an implied negativity towards Smith. If this were a fair comparison, you would do week by week to show people where they were at that point in the season.

There is nothing in my original post of this thread that says one is better than the other. The stats will be adjusted as the season goes but the original post on this thread was not bashing any of the two players.

Um. . . .

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by 49ersnum1:
you should do it week by week..

Shaun Hill has 1td 0int and around 350yds passing after 2 games
Alex Smith had 2td 0int and around 500yds passing after 2 games in 06

I was thinking about that, but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and compare the entire season.

That clearly implies a preference.

So, there are two options here:

1.) You show the week-by-week stats to give a fair comparison of their progression
2.) You show Alex's combined stats becauge you're unwilling to either do the necessary work to break them out or you don't want to show a true comparison because you're favoring Hill

It's not a fair comparison as it is. Even though we know Hill's numbers will be better than Alex's, you have to show it week by week to avoid showing a bias.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
This is so stupid, yet somehow expected of you.

... and 2006 pass blocking was BETTER than the 2009 pass blocking??? Huge FAIL.

Hey now, I'm not creating this for myself or anything. Just that threads are beginning to get hijacked by Smith vs Hill, so why not have a seperate one about it.

FYI

Fact: I think Alex would have gone 2-0 this year.
Fact: I think Alex will surprise us next year with a year to sit and watch an offense before he applies the offense.
Fact: I don't think Alex will be a highly efficient QB, but he will be much better than a bust.

Good response... and I'm shocked and pleased by your apparent willingness and rational thought with your facts.

As for your other post to me... nope.

Staley is much better than Jennings was in edge protection. ( don't bother with "stats"... everyone by now should know that sack-stats are horribly misleading when asserting blame ) 2006 Jennings WAS better at protection than 2007 Jennings, but still...
Staley > Jennings in this aspect.

Snyder is a far better protector than given credit for, and is so much better than Kwame at protection that your "wash" comment was painfully horrific. Maybe your memory of Kwame's protection skills has diminished over time, but
Snyder >>>>>>>>> Harris in this aspect

The protection from Smiley in 2007 was awful prior to injury, but he was solid in 2006. To me, THIS one is a wash comparing the two.
Rachal = Smiley

Heitmann = Heitmann = pretty decent, but he lost some battles on occasion.

Larry Allen was a stud run blocker, but if his feet didn't move quickly enough, he was susceptible to penetration. (was far worse in 2007) Baas has been very good in protection and run blocking in 2008 and 2009, and is highly underappreciated here.
Allen = Baas in this aspect

now what else ya got? wanna talk receivers?

I don't think there can be any doubt that our current roster surpasses the talent level of our roster in 2006. The only caveat I have is that, as a unit, our offensive line still hasn't quite gelled and probably won't for another couple weeks, and that is showing in week 1 vs. the Cardinals and overall in their pass protection.

Having said that, there is still one factor which would severely skew the comparability of the Hill & Smith's statistics - the Offensive Coordinator.

I can't believe there is anyone who would claim that Jimmy Raye is an improvement over Norv Turner. If we learned only one thing from 2007, it is that your Offensive Coordinator does matter.

So if Hill does well, the Smith apologists will claim Hill had the better roster, and if Hill does worse, the Hill apologists can claim it was because of Jimmy Raye's ineptitude. As a result, even this valiant attempt to end the Hill vs. Smith debate, will ultimately prove unsuccessful.

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Alex was what? 20 years old in 2006?

Yeah this is going to be very telling. Compare Drew Brees' stats to Shaun Hill in their first two seasons. Hill looks good there too.

Until this healthy version of Alex gets to play there is no way to compare. Judging Alex in his very raw seasons under a terrible team and horrible coaching decisions just isn't fair.

I know the simple minded like to make comparisons with black and white stats but that's not how it works because there is no fair sample.

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring and Dan Marino doesn't.

Super Bowl Ring >>>>> No Super Bowl Ring

Trent's better

I give you Exhibit A:

Most popular excuse used by the Alex defenders. His age.

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by TexasNiner84:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Alex was what? 20 years old in 2006?

Yeah this is going to be very telling. Compare Drew Brees' stats to Shaun Hill in their first two seasons. Hill looks good there too.

Until this healthy version of Alex gets to play there is no way to compare. Judging Alex in his very raw seasons under a terrible team and horrible coaching decisions just isn't fair.

I know the simple minded like to make comparisons with black and white stats but that's not how it works because there is no fair sample.

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring and Dan Marino doesn't.

Super Bowl Ring >>>>> No Super Bowl Ring

Trent's better

so............ you're saying alex smith is like marino????....... last time i checked wins give you superbowls.. not good quarterbacks like dan marino.... shaun hill obviously has more wins than alex... btw the comparison is just to know where hill and this team stand, not that hill is better than alex

Hence, "Tracker" in the title. People are completely miscontruing this thread as a Pro Hill thread. Except for the "deep ball" comment in my stat post, there is no favor of either.

That's not true.

Earlier you said that you didn't want to go week by week because it would make Alex look bad, which has an implied negativity towards Smith. If this were a fair comparison, you would do week by week to show people where they were at that point in the season.

There is nothing in my original post of this thread that says one is better than the other. The stats will be adjusted as the season goes but the original post on this thread was not bashing any of the two players.

Um. . . .

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by 49ersnum1:
you should do it week by week..

Shaun Hill has 1td 0int and around 350yds passing after 2 games
Alex Smith had 2td 0int and around 500yds passing after 2 games in 06

I was thinking about that, but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and compare the entire season.

That clearly implies a preference.

So, there are two options here:

1.) You show the week-by-week stats to give a fair comparison of their progression
2.) You show Alex's combined stats becauge you're unwilling to either do the necessary work to break them out or you don't want to show a true comparison because you're favoring Hill

It's not a fair comparison as it is. Even though we know Hill's numbers will be better than Alex's, you have to show it week by week to avoid showing a bias.

What part of "...but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt" did you see as favoring against Smith? When I said "him" I mean Smith...you know...giving Smith the benefit.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by TexasNiner84:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Alex was what? 20 years old in 2006?

Yeah this is going to be very telling. Compare Drew Brees' stats to Shaun Hill in their first two seasons. Hill looks good there too.

Until this healthy version of Alex gets to play there is no way to compare. Judging Alex in his very raw seasons under a terrible team and horrible coaching decisions just isn't fair.

I know the simple minded like to make comparisons with black and white stats but that's not how it works because there is no fair sample.

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring and Dan Marino doesn't.

Super Bowl Ring >>>>> No Super Bowl Ring

Trent's better

so............ you're saying alex smith is like marino????....... last time i checked wins give you superbowls.. not good quarterbacks like dan marino.... shaun hill obviously has more wins than alex... btw the comparison is just to know where hill and this team stand, not that hill is better than alex

Hence, "Tracker" in the title. People are completely miscontruing this thread as a Pro Hill thread. Except for the "deep ball" comment in my stat post, there is no favor of either.

That's not true.

Earlier you said that you didn't want to go week by week because it would make Alex look bad, which has an implied negativity towards Smith. If this were a fair comparison, you would do week by week to show people where they were at that point in the season.

There is nothing in my original post of this thread that says one is better than the other. The stats will be adjusted as the season goes but the original post on this thread was not bashing any of the two players.

Um. . . .

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by 49ersnum1:
you should do it week by week..

Shaun Hill has 1td 0int and around 350yds passing after 2 games
Alex Smith had 2td 0int and around 500yds passing after 2 games in 06

I was thinking about that, but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and compare the entire season.

That clearly implies a preference.

So, there are two options here:

1.) You show the week-by-week stats to give a fair comparison of their progression
2.) You show Alex's combined stats becauge you're unwilling to either do the necessary work to break them out or you don't want to show a true comparison because you're favoring Hill

It's not a fair comparison as it is. Even though we know Hill's numbers will be better than Alex's, you have to show it week by week to avoid showing a bias.

What part of "...but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt" did you see as favoring against Smith? When I said "him" I mean Smith...you know...giving Smith the benefit.

What part of this do you not understand? The argument I made was that you stated that there was "no favor of either," which is fundamentally untrue because of the implied negativity toward Smith in that one statement. Now do you understand, or do I need to draw a picture for you?

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by TexasNiner84:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Alex was what? 20 years old in 2006?

Yeah this is going to be very telling. Compare Drew Brees' stats to Shaun Hill in their first two seasons. Hill looks good there too.

Until this healthy version of Alex gets to play there is no way to compare. Judging Alex in his very raw seasons under a terrible team and horrible coaching decisions just isn't fair.

I know the simple minded like to make comparisons with black and white stats but that's not how it works because there is no fair sample.

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring and Dan Marino doesn't.

Super Bowl Ring >>>>> No Super Bowl Ring

Trent's better

so............ you're saying alex smith is like marino????....... last time i checked wins give you superbowls.. not good quarterbacks like dan marino.... shaun hill obviously has more wins than alex... btw the comparison is just to know where hill and this team stand, not that hill is better than alex

Hence, "Tracker" in the title. People are completely miscontruing this thread as a Pro Hill thread. Except for the "deep ball" comment in my stat post, there is no favor of either.

That's not true.

Earlier you said that you didn't want to go week by week because it would make Alex look bad, which has an implied negativity towards Smith. If this were a fair comparison, you would do week by week to show people where they were at that point in the season.

There is nothing in my original post of this thread that says one is better than the other. The stats will be adjusted as the season goes but the original post on this thread was not bashing any of the two players.

Um. . . .

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by 49ersnum1:
you should do it week by week..

Shaun Hill has 1td 0int and around 350yds passing after 2 games
Alex Smith had 2td 0int and around 500yds passing after 2 games in 06

I was thinking about that, but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and compare the entire season.

That clearly implies a preference.

So, there are two options here:

1.) You show the week-by-week stats to give a fair comparison of their progression
2.) You show Alex's combined stats becauge you're unwilling to either do the necessary work to break them out or you don't want to show a true comparison because you're favoring Hill

It's not a fair comparison as it is. Even though we know Hill's numbers will be better than Alex's, you have to show it week by week to avoid showing a bias.

What part of "...but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt" did you see as favoring against Smith? When I said "him" I mean Smith...you know...giving Smith the benefit.

What part of this do you not understand? The argument I made was that you stated that there was "no favor of either," which is fundamentally untrue because of the implied negativity toward Smith in that one statement. Now do you understand, or do I need to draw a picture for you?

That one statement was not in my original post. It was only a reply to a comment.

Poster: Why didn't you include this?
Me: Because that would actually hurt Smith.

That means my original post did not hurt Smith.

I think Joe Cool's way of comparing Smith and Hill is especially flawed.

1. It is difficult to assess Smith's performance without knowing what he was coached to do. What did Turner tell him to do? What plays and game schemes did Turner (as influenced by whatever Nolan told Turner to do) require Smith to implement?

2. Cool compared OL, but curiously failed to compare WRs. Are WRs not relevant? Do their talent and experience have a bearing on a QB's success?

3. Does it not seem better to compare apples to apples? Of course it would be better to compare Smith's first two games to Hill's first two games. With more film to study, Def. Cord. begin doing a better job scheming against a QB's weaknesses and tendencies.

In the end, this comparison is a waste of time. Since QB's gain more maturity and experience with time, the real question would be how Alex compares to Hill now? I still suspect that Sing was going to name Smith the season's starter, but could not because his thumb strain was going to keep him out of getting properly ready for the first regular season game.

Originally posted by excelsior:
I think Joe Cool's way of comparing Smith and Hill is especially flawed.

1. It is difficult to assess Smith's performance without knowing what he was coached to do. What did Turner tell him to do? What plays and game schemes did Turner (as influenced by whatever Nolan told Turner to do) require Smith to implement?

2. Cool compared OL, but curiously failed to compare WRs. Are WRs not relevant? Do their talent and experience have a bearing on a QB's success?

3. Does it not seem better to compare apples to apples? Of course it would be better to compare Smith's first two games to Hill's first two games. With more film to study, Def. Cord. begin doing a better job scheming against a QB's weaknesses and tendencies.

In the end, this comparison is a waste of time. Since QB's gain more maturity and experience with time, the real question would be how Alex compares to Hill now? I still suspect that Sing was going to name Smith the season's starter, but could not because his thumb strain was going to keep him out of getting properly ready for the first regular season game.

Sing probably wanted Smith to be the starter, but since their play was similar, there was no reason to. Hill wins games. Smith doesn't. Singletary was just making the safe choice. He probably felt that Hill deserved his chance, and that if he plays poorly, you always have the option of putting in Smith. I think it just comes down to this: The only way Smith starts this year is if he had a ridiculous training camp head and shoulders above Hill, which didn't happen.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by TexasNiner84:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Alex was what? 20 years old in 2006?

Yeah this is going to be very telling. Compare Drew Brees' stats to Shaun Hill in their first two seasons. Hill looks good there too.

Until this healthy version of Alex gets to play there is no way to compare. Judging Alex in his very raw seasons under a terrible team and horrible coaching decisions just isn't fair.

I know the simple minded like to make comparisons with black and white stats but that's not how it works because there is no fair sample.

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring and Dan Marino doesn't.

Super Bowl Ring >>>>> No Super Bowl Ring

Trent's better

so............ you're saying alex smith is like marino????....... last time i checked wins give you superbowls.. not good quarterbacks like dan marino.... shaun hill obviously has more wins than alex... btw the comparison is just to know where hill and this team stand, not that hill is better than alex

Hence, "Tracker" in the title. People are completely miscontruing this thread as a Pro Hill thread. Except for the "deep ball" comment in my stat post, there is no favor of either.

That's not true.

Earlier you said that you didn't want to go week by week because it would make Alex look bad, which has an implied negativity towards Smith. If this were a fair comparison, you would do week by week to show people where they were at that point in the season.

There is nothing in my original post of this thread that says one is better than the other. The stats will be adjusted as the season goes but the original post on this thread was not bashing any of the two players.

Um. . . .

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by 49ersnum1:
you should do it week by week..

Shaun Hill has 1td 0int and around 350yds passing after 2 games
Alex Smith had 2td 0int and around 500yds passing after 2 games in 06

I was thinking about that, but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and compare the entire season.

That clearly implies a preference.

So, there are two options here:

1.) You show the week-by-week stats to give a fair comparison of their progression
2.) You show Alex's combined stats becauge you're unwilling to either do the necessary work to break them out or you don't want to show a true comparison because you're favoring Hill

It's not a fair comparison as it is. Even though we know Hill's numbers will be better than Alex's, you have to show it week by week to avoid showing a bias.

What part of "...but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt" did you see as favoring against Smith? When I said "him" I mean Smith...you know...giving Smith the benefit.

What part of this do you not understand? The argument I made was that you stated that there was "no favor of either," which is fundamentally untrue because of the implied negativity toward Smith in that one statement. Now do you understand, or do I need to draw a picture for you?

That one statement was not in my original post. It was only a reply to a comment.

Poster: Why didn't you include this?
Me: Because that would actually hurt Smith.

That means my original post did not hurt Smith.

Your original post also didn't have the stats, so your little technicality you're trying to get off on is moot.

Just admit it: You implied that Hill was better than Smith when you stated that but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Squirrel:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by TexasNiner84:

Originally posted by Canadian49er:
Alex was what? 20 years old in 2006?

Yeah this is going to be very telling. Compare Drew Brees' stats to Shaun Hill in their first two seasons. Hill looks good there too.

Until this healthy version of Alex gets to play there is no way to compare. Judging Alex in his very raw seasons under a terrible team and horrible coaching decisions just isn't fair.

I know the simple minded like to make comparisons with black and white stats but that's not how it works because there is no fair sample.

Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring and Dan Marino doesn't.

Super Bowl Ring >>>>> No Super Bowl Ring

Trent's better

so............ you're saying alex smith is like marino????....... last time i checked wins give you superbowls.. not good quarterbacks like dan marino.... shaun hill obviously has more wins than alex... btw the comparison is just to know where hill and this team stand, not that hill is better than alex

Hence, "Tracker" in the title. People are completely miscontruing this thread as a Pro Hill thread. Except for the "deep ball" comment in my stat post, there is no favor of either.

That's not true.

Earlier you said that you didn't want to go week by week because it would make Alex look bad, which has an implied negativity towards Smith. If this were a fair comparison, you would do week by week to show people where they were at that point in the season.

There is nothing in my original post of this thread that says one is better than the other. The stats will be adjusted as the season goes but the original post on this thread was not bashing any of the two players.

Um. . . .

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by 49ersnum1:
you should do it week by week..

Shaun Hill has 1td 0int and around 350yds passing after 2 games
Alex Smith had 2td 0int and around 500yds passing after 2 games in 06

I was thinking about that, but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and compare the entire season.

That clearly implies a preference.

So, there are two options here:

1.) You show the week-by-week stats to give a fair comparison of their progression
2.) You show Alex's combined stats becauge you're unwilling to either do the necessary work to break them out or you don't want to show a true comparison because you're favoring Hill

It's not a fair comparison as it is. Even though we know Hill's numbers will be better than Alex's, you have to show it week by week to avoid showing a bias.

What part of "...but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt" did you see as favoring against Smith? When I said "him" I mean Smith...you know...giving Smith the benefit.

What part of this do you not understand? The argument I made was that you stated that there was "no favor of either," which is fundamentally untrue because of the implied negativity toward Smith in that one statement. Now do you understand, or do I need to draw a picture for you?

That one statement was not in my original post. It was only a reply to a comment.

Poster: Why didn't you include this?
Me: Because that would actually hurt Smith.

That means my original post did not hurt Smith.

Your original post also didn't have the stats, so your little technicality you're trying to get off on is moot.

Just admit it: You implied that Hill was better than Smith when you stated that but the stats go downhill in a hurry for Alex Smith. I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

Sometimes, when I write things, people listen and sometimes when I write things, people listen.

Originally posted by valrod33:

Agreed.

Bump:

Hill basically has a 90 rating for the year.

I don't care what the stats are, if Hill is leading or if Alex is leading.

Alex Smith is much further ahead than Shaun Hill hands down.