There are 76 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Who Will Start @ QB For SF Next Week

Who Will Start @ QB For SF Next Week

It's no question Alex should be the QB after today. He proved us doubters wrong, and he really has improved.
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...

The 3% are going over tapes of Hill's quacking ducks.
[ Edited by qnnhan7 on Oct 25, 2009 at 4:44 PM ]
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...

The 3% are going over tapes of Hill's quacking ducks.

The 3% must have been "punters" in high school.
  • B650
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,205
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...

Hillusionists.

After all, Hill only had one and a half bad games.

The OL isn't giving him enough time to block. It's all about time.

The OL played better when Alex was in for some reason. That's not Hill's fault.

Crabtree was just starting out in the 1st half and didn't know much. He got it together in the 2nd half, and thus, Alex greatly benefit. If Hill was playing in the 2nd half, Hill would've destroyed Houston as well.

I could go on and on.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...

They are not going to make themselves known, even they know how ridiculous their position has become.
The S. Hill experiement should be over. Now, we need to see what A. Smith can do from here on, so that they can determine what they are going to do with those 2 first round draft picks and the future of this team. Too early to say A. Smith is the future...He just played half a game. Get back to me after the season is over.
[ Edited by sacleads on Oct 25, 2009 at 4:48 PM ]
  • Antix
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,231
Is this even a question?

Raye said himself the offense needs intermediate to deep routes to be completed in order for the running game to be opened up. Hill doesn't have the arm for the offense to be successful.

Smith HAS to start if we want any chance to beat INDY.
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...

Hillusionists.

After all, Hill only had one and a half bad games.

The OL isn't giving him enough time to block. It's all about time.

The OL played better when Alex was in for some reason. That's not Hill's fault.

Crabtree was just starting out in the 1st half and didn't know much. He got it together in the 2nd half, and thus, Alex greatly benefit. If Hill was playing in the 2nd half, Hill would've destroyed Houston as well.

I could go on and on.

lol its funnny alex smith has more reasons why he did bad and are acually more legit and yet peeple mark them up as excuses but when it happens to hill they seem legit
If I would've saw this thread this morning, I wouldn't of even opened it. Now, I'm voting for Alex. WTF?? It's been a strange day in football land.
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...

Hillusionists.

After all, Hill only had one and a half bad games.

The OL isn't giving him enough time to block. It's all about time.

The OL played better when Alex was in for some reason. That's not Hill's fault.

Crabtree was just starting out in the 1st half and didn't know much. He got it together in the 2nd half, and thus, Alex greatly benefit. If Hill was playing in the 2nd half, Hill would've destroyed Houston as well.

I could go on and on.

lol its funnny alex smith has more reasons why he did bad and are acually more legit and yet peeple mark them up as excuses but when it happens to hill they seem legit
It's because Hill had shown actual production before, so he was given slack. The Alex we saw today was nothing like how he used to be.
  • B650
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,205
Originally posted by blunt_probe:
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...

Hillusionists.

After all, Hill only had one and a half bad games.

The OL isn't giving him enough time to block. It's all about time.

The OL played better when Alex was in for some reason. That's not Hill's fault.

Crabtree was just starting out in the 1st half and didn't know much. He got it together in the 2nd half, and thus, Alex greatly benefit. If Hill was playing in the 2nd half, Hill would've destroyed Houston as well.

I could go on and on.

lol its funnny alex smith has more reasons why he did bad and are acually more legit and yet peeple mark them up as excuses but when it happens to hill they seem legit
It's because Hill had shown actual production before, so he was given slack. The Alex we saw today was nothing like how he used to be.

He played well in 2006.
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by blunt_probe:
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...

Hillusionists.

After all, Hill only had one and a half bad games.

The OL isn't giving him enough time to block. It's all about time.

The OL played better when Alex was in for some reason. That's not Hill's fault.

Crabtree was just starting out in the 1st half and didn't know much. He got it together in the 2nd half, and thus, Alex greatly benefit. If Hill was playing in the 2nd half, Hill would've destroyed Houston as well.

I could go on and on.

lol its funnny alex smith has more reasons why he did bad and are acually more legit and yet peeple mark them up as excuses but when it happens to hill they seem legit
It's because Hill had shown actual production before, so he was given slack. The Alex we saw today was nothing like how he used to be.

He played well in 2006.

No, he didn't. That was Gore's year through and through. 16 TDs and 16 INT is not impressive. That year he gave us hope he'd get better, but he didn't play well.
Originally posted by Antix:
Is this even a question?

Raye said himself the offense needs intermediate to deep routes to be completed in order for the running game to be opened up. Hill doesn't have the arm for the offense to be successful.

Smith HAS to start if we want any chance to beat INDY.


I agree
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by blunt_probe:
Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
Originally posted by B650:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
LOL.

97%

to

3%

so far. What I want to know is who are these 3%?...

Hillusionists.

After all, Hill only had one and a half bad games.

The OL isn't giving him enough time to block. It's all about time.

The OL played better when Alex was in for some reason. That's not Hill's fault.

Crabtree was just starting out in the 1st half and didn't know much. He got it together in the 2nd half, and thus, Alex greatly benefit. If Hill was playing in the 2nd half, Hill would've destroyed Houston as well.

I could go on and on.

lol its funnny alex smith has more reasons why he did bad and are acually more legit and yet peeple mark them up as excuses but when it happens to hill they seem legit
It's because Hill had shown actual production before, so he was given slack. The Alex we saw today was nothing like how he used to be.

He played well in 2006.

He did. That has been what has really bothered me; all the revisionist history that has gone on since Alex got hurt. But I will be the first to admit, that was the best I ever saw him play.