There are 136 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Hills' Leash

Silly noob, you can't put a duck on leash
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,224
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Hill should not be benched long as we are able to get to the playoffs. Soon as the numbers say we are out then the experiments can begin.

I don't like Hill as our starting QB. It drives me nuts that so many on this board think he is anywhere near adequate. Having said that, I think he is the best option on our current roster and playing Smith or Davis is throwing in the towel imo.

Ok If Hill is sucking it up and the only reason we are winning games is because of the Defense you would rather wait until we are mathmatically out of the playoff picture before looking to see if any of the other 2 QB's will have a positive impact?

If we are winning games with Hill in, then why change anything??

you missed my point. Hill wouldn't be the reason for winning the games. This is purely hypothetical of course.
Situation:
Hill and the Offense fail to score any TD's during the next 2 games. Hill is completing 40% of his passes and averaging 180 yards per game. No TD's and 1 INT per game. The only points being scored are from the Defense and ST. Do you keep Hill in the game or try Smith or Davis to see if they can spark the offense?

That's a completely different scenario than what you just replied with. Now you're saying if we lose the next two games and Hill is throwing picks, then of course, there should be a switch, no doubt about that.

But if we continue winning regardless who is contributing the most to it, then like I said, why change anything??
Originally posted by DonJulio:
Silly noob, you can't put a duck on leash


Google begs to differ.

-9fA
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Hill should not be benched long as we are able to get to the playoffs. Soon as the numbers say we are out then the experiments can begin.

I don't like Hill as our starting QB. It drives me nuts that so many on this board think he is anywhere near adequate. Having said that, I think he is the best option on our current roster and playing Smith or Davis is throwing in the towel imo.

Ok If Hill is sucking it up and the only reason we are winning games is because of the Defense you would rather wait until we are mathmatically out of the playoff picture before looking to see if any of the other 2 QB's will have a positive impact?

If we are winning games with Hill in, then why change anything??

you missed my point. Hill wouldn't be the reason for winning the games. This is purely hypothetical of course.
Situation:
Hill and the Offense fail to score any TD's during the next 2 games. Hill is completing 40% of his passes and averaging 180 yards per game. No TD's and 1 INT per game. The only points being scored are from the Defense and ST. Do you keep Hill in the game or try Smith or Davis to see if they can spark the offense?

That's a completely different scenario than what you just replied with. Now you're saying if we lose the next two games and Hill is throwing picks, then of course, there should be a switch, no doubt about that.

But if we continue winning regardless who is contributing the most to it, then like I said, why change anything??

Where in that statement did I say the team lost? How is that different? I said we are winning those games but soley because of the Defense and ST. Hill and the Offense are not contributing to the team winning games. So if we are still winning games and the above statement still applies in regards to Hill's performance. Do you keep
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,224
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Or when our QB has more rushing yards than our RB.

Misleading stat. Hill took off (rightfully so) because Atlanta was playing soft.

Kind of like those delayed handoffs you see on 3rd and 15 to pad those running stats.

-9fA

Of course, I know that. But the fact of the matter is, its tough on a QB when there is no running game.

And it's hard to have a running game when the QB doesn't scare anyone. Hill must play better and then everything else will follow.

Sure bout that??

2003 Ravens - Jamal Lewis rushed for 2,000 plus yards with a terrible QB rotation

2004 Redskins - Clinton Portis rushed for 1,300 plus yards with a crappy QB rotation

2006 49ers - Frank Gore rushed for 1,700 yards

Its not that hard to realize that the O-line is a huge part of the offenses problems.
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,224
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by backontop:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Hill should not be benched long as we are able to get to the playoffs. Soon as the numbers say we are out then the experiments can begin.

I don't like Hill as our starting QB. It drives me nuts that so many on this board think he is anywhere near adequate. Having said that, I think he is the best option on our current roster and playing Smith or Davis is throwing in the towel imo.

Ok If Hill is sucking it up and the only reason we are winning games is because of the Defense you would rather wait until we are mathmatically out of the playoff picture before looking to see if any of the other 2 QB's will have a positive impact?

If we are winning games with Hill in, then why change anything??

you missed my point. Hill wouldn't be the reason for winning the games. This is purely hypothetical of course.
Situation:
Hill and the Offense fail to score any TD's during the next 2 games. Hill is completing 40% of his passes and averaging 180 yards per game. No TD's and 1 INT per game. The only points being scored are from the Defense and ST. Do you keep Hill in the game or try Smith or Davis to see if they can spark the offense?

That's a completely different scenario than what you just replied with. Now you're saying if we lose the next two games and Hill is throwing picks, then of course, there should be a switch, no doubt about that.

But if we continue winning regardless who is contributing the most to it, then like I said, why change anything??

Where in that statement did I say the team lost? How is that different? I said we are winning those games but soley because of the Defense and ST. Hill and the Offense are not contributing to the team winning games. So if we are still winning games and the above statement still applies in regards to Hill's performance. Do you keep

Oops my bad, I read it wrong or I probably had another reply still in my mind.

But to re-answer your question. If Hill was throwing picks, and our offense wasn't scoring, then my answer is still...no, I wouldn't change a thing. Tell me why would you?? What if you change the QB situation and the problem is still the same, only we lose the next few games, would you go back to Hill or keep seeing if Smith or Davis pull through??
  • B650
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,205
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Or when our QB has more rushing yards than our RB.

Misleading stat. Hill took off (rightfully so) because Atlanta was playing soft.

Kind of like those delayed handoffs you see on 3rd and 15 to pad those running stats.

-9fA

Of course, I know that. But the fact of the matter is, its tough on a QB when there is no running game.

And it's hard to have a running game when the QB doesn't scare anyone. Hill must play better and then everything else will follow.

Sure bout that??

2003 Ravens - Jamal Lewis rushed for 2,000 plus yards with a terrible QB rotation

2004 Redskins - Clinton Portis rushed for 1,300 plus yards with a crappy QB rotation

2006 49ers - Frank Gore rushed for 1,700 yards

Its not that hard to realize that the O-line is a huge part of the offenses problems.

Yeah, of course. OL is a big reason for it, but everything goes hand-in-hand. Gore had 1,695 yards in 2006. That year we had a good running game and Alex Smith had his best season. Gore hasn't come close to that total since, and the OL has a lot to do with it, but so does the QB. I guarantee that if teams respected the pass more, our run game would improve.

Also, look at the RBs you mentioned. Those are some good backs. But I think it's pretty obvious that both our OL and QB must play better, and that will help out our running game.
Is it leather with a studded collar?
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,224
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Or when our QB has more rushing yards than our RB.

Misleading stat. Hill took off (rightfully so) because Atlanta was playing soft.

Kind of like those delayed handoffs you see on 3rd and 15 to pad those running stats.

-9fA

Of course, I know that. But the fact of the matter is, its tough on a QB when there is no running game.

And it's hard to have a running game when the QB doesn't scare anyone. Hill must play better and then everything else will follow.

Sure bout that??

2003 Ravens - Jamal Lewis rushed for 2,000 plus yards with a terrible QB rotation

2004 Redskins - Clinton Portis rushed for 1,300 plus yards with a crappy QB rotation

2006 49ers - Frank Gore rushed for 1,700 yards

Its not that hard to realize that the O-line is a huge part of the offenses problems.

Yeah, of course. OL is a big reason for it, but everything goes hand-in-hand. Gore had 1,695 yards in 2006. That year we had a good running game and Alex Smith had his best season. Gore hasn't come close to that total since, and the OL has a lot to do with it, but so does the QB. I guarantee that if teams respected the pass more, our run game would improve.

Also, look at the RBs you mentioned. Those are some good backs. But I think it's pretty obvious that both our OL and QB must play better, and that will help out our running game.

Sure Gore had 1,695 yards rushing and Smith had his career best that year, but Smith also had bad games and we atleast played out the season with him. Its been only one bad lost with Hill, why is everyone jumping ship now??

Yah, look at the QB's I mentioned?? Notice the RB's that are in now with Hill and who the QB's were for those RB's I mentioned??
  • B650
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,205
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Or when our QB has more rushing yards than our RB.

Misleading stat. Hill took off (rightfully so) because Atlanta was playing soft.

Kind of like those delayed handoffs you see on 3rd and 15 to pad those running stats.

-9fA

Of course, I know that. But the fact of the matter is, its tough on a QB when there is no running game.

And it's hard to have a running game when the QB doesn't scare anyone. Hill must play better and then everything else will follow.

Sure bout that??

2003 Ravens - Jamal Lewis rushed for 2,000 plus yards with a terrible QB rotation

2004 Redskins - Clinton Portis rushed for 1,300 plus yards with a crappy QB rotation

2006 49ers - Frank Gore rushed for 1,700 yards

Its not that hard to realize that the O-line is a huge part of the offenses problems.

Yeah, of course. OL is a big reason for it, but everything goes hand-in-hand. Gore had 1,695 yards in 2006. That year we had a good running game and Alex Smith had his best season. Gore hasn't come close to that total since, and the OL has a lot to do with it, but so does the QB. I guarantee that if teams respected the pass more, our run game would improve.

Also, look at the RBs you mentioned. Those are some good backs. But I think it's pretty obvious that both our OL and QB must play better, and that will help out our running game.

Sure Gore had 1,695 yards rushing and Smith had his career best that year, but Smith also had bad games and we atleast played out the season with him. Its been only one bad lost with Hill, why is everyone jumping ship now??

Yah, look at the QB's I mentioned?? Notice the RB's that are in now with Hill and who the QB's were for those RB's I mentioned??

They're jumping ship not because of one bad game lost, they're jumping ship because he's looked terrible in 5 games, outside of 2 drives. And I'll be ready to jump ship too if this trend continues for another two weeks.
[ Edited by B650 on Oct 22, 2009 at 4:53 PM ]
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Or when our QB has more rushing yards than our RB.

Misleading stat. Hill took off (rightfully so) because Atlanta was playing soft.

Kind of like those delayed handoffs you see on 3rd and 15 to pad those running stats.

-9fA

Of course, I know that. But the fact of the matter is, its tough on a QB when there is no running game.

And it's hard to have a running game when the QB doesn't scare anyone. Hill must play better and then everything else will follow.

Sure bout that??

2003 Ravens - Jamal Lewis rushed for 2,000 plus yards with a terrible QB rotation

2004 Redskins - Clinton Portis rushed for 1,300 plus yards with a crappy QB rotation

2006 49ers - Frank Gore rushed for 1,700 yards

Its not that hard to realize that the O-line is a huge part of the offenses problems.

Yeah, of course. OL is a big reason for it, but everything goes hand-in-hand. Gore had 1,695 yards in 2006. That year we had a good running game and Alex Smith had his best season. Gore hasn't come close to that total since, and the OL has a lot to do with it, but so does the QB. I guarantee that if teams respected the pass more, our run game would improve.

Also, look at the RBs you mentioned. Those are some good backs. But I think it's pretty obvious that both our OL and QB must play better, and that will help out our running game.

I understand your if it aint broke don't fix it. But clearly something is needs to be done about the offense. If that means changing players whether it is OLine, FB, RB, WR or QB something needs to get done to get this offense back in the game. Hell if we need to strip Raye of his lame play calling(which is where I belive 90% of the problem is) then so be it. With an incapable offense like the one that we have shown this season thus far the team will not make the playoffs depending on the defense.


we should name this thread Kalohe vs. everybody else
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,224
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Or when our QB has more rushing yards than our RB.

Misleading stat. Hill took off (rightfully so) because Atlanta was playing soft.

Kind of like those delayed handoffs you see on 3rd and 15 to pad those running stats.

-9fA

Of course, I know that. But the fact of the matter is, its tough on a QB when there is no running game.

And it's hard to have a running game when the QB doesn't scare anyone. Hill must play better and then everything else will follow.

Sure bout that??

2003 Ravens - Jamal Lewis rushed for 2,000 plus yards with a terrible QB rotation

2004 Redskins - Clinton Portis rushed for 1,300 plus yards with a crappy QB rotation

2006 49ers - Frank Gore rushed for 1,700 yards

Its not that hard to realize that the O-line is a huge part of the offenses problems.

Yeah, of course. OL is a big reason for it, but everything goes hand-in-hand. Gore had 1,695 yards in 2006. That year we had a good running game and Alex Smith had his best season. Gore hasn't come close to that total since, and the OL has a lot to do with it, but so does the QB. I guarantee that if teams respected the pass more, our run game would improve.

Also, look at the RBs you mentioned. Those are some good backs. But I think it's pretty obvious that both our OL and QB must play better, and that will help out our running game.

Sure Gore had 1,695 yards rushing and Smith had his career best that year, but Smith also had bad games and we atleast played out the season with him. Its been only one bad lost with Hill, why is everyone jumping ship now??

Yah, look at the QB's I mentioned?? Notice the RB's that are in now with Hill and who the QB's were for those RB's I mentioned??

They're jumping ship not because of one bad game lost, they're jumping ship because he's looked terrible in 5 games, outside of 2 drives. And I'll be ready to jump ship too if this trend continues for another two weeks.

REALLY?? I sure didn't see any threads calling out Hill, when we were winning, or even articles. Replies yes, but not threads, well except from a few Pro Smith fans out there, but this really isn't about Smith right now, I don't want it to get to that. But seriously, from my opinion, the OC and O-line account for a lot more of the problems around here than our little QB situation.
Originally posted by Kolohe:
REALLY?? I sure didn't see any threads calling out Hill, when we were winning, or even articles. Replies yes, but not threads, well except from a few Pro Smith fans out there, but this really isn't about Smith right now, I don't want it to get to that. But seriously, from my opinion, the OC and O-line account for a lot more of the problems around here than our little QB situation.

You probably saw them in the "Locked" Thread area. I posted a couple times that I thought Hill sucked, and all those threads got locked.
Originally posted by Kolohe:
But if we continue winning regardless who is contributing the most to it, then like I said, why change anything??

You would still make that change at any other position, regardless of wins and losses, why would a QB, especially SHAUN HILL, be any different?
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Or when our QB has more rushing yards than our RB.

Misleading stat. Hill took off (rightfully so) because Atlanta was playing soft.

Kind of like those delayed handoffs you see on 3rd and 15 to pad those running stats.

-9fA

Of course, I know that. But the fact of the matter is, its tough on a QB when there is no running game.

And it's hard to have a running game when the QB doesn't scare anyone. Hill must play better and then everything else will follow.

Sure bout that??

2003 Ravens - Jamal Lewis rushed for 2,000 plus yards with a terrible QB rotation

2004 Redskins - Clinton Portis rushed for 1,300 plus yards with a crappy QB rotation

2006 49ers - Frank Gore rushed for 1,700 yards

Its not that hard to realize that the O-line is a huge part of the offenses problems.

The ability of the QB to pass more than 10 yards did scare defenses more for those teams more than Shaun Hill of 2009 does, so yet, I'm sure about that.