Originally posted by darkknight49:
Originally posted by ZRF80:
Originally posted by darkknight49:
Originally posted by ZRF80:
Ok, I will repeat it for the last time. Smith has been in the league for FIVE YEARS ! What part of that do some of you not get ? I dont care if he was injured for part of that time. He could have used it to watch the game and learn it from the sidelines. He could have used it to study tape. He could have used it to adapt to the speed of the game. Combine that with the fact that he had started approx. 2 season's worth of games, he should be WAY ahead than where he currently is.
And no, I dont care about his age, his different OCs, his poor oline, etc. because Shaun Hill had to replace him with the same problems, but he didnt seem to have trouble (barr this season) adjusting accordingly.
Enough with the excuses.............
then you have failed to intelligently and objectively analyze a situation within it's context. In mathematics, the solution to an equation relies on all the variable to be accurate. The correct answer, or even a logical answer, cannot be achieved by removing variables you deem worthless.
They are deemed worthless if someone of lesser skill (eg Hill) is able to adjust to the same variables.
I'm assuming you're a shaun hill guy from these posts. From your first argument, you say that Hill replaced smith on a team with the same problems and didn't have trouble barring this season (which, is actually having trouble).
One, smith didn't play last year, so you can't say Hill did better than smith when you don't have any results for how smith did. In 07, The wonderous Hostler Offense kept the entire team back and Hill didn't play till the end of season against teams that were bad (Cin) or resting (TB). Hill didn't throw for more than 197 yards in any game that season.
You want to compare Hill to Smith, go ahead. But at least make it a logical argument. When people are trying to weigh the validity and plausibility of an argument, it's usually beast not to make your bias appear so profound. Many people won't take an argument seriously if that is the case.
Also, Im curious to know what were your expectations of smith when he was selected?
Forget the Hill vs. Smith debate. To put it simply, I think Hill is a better QB, but I have no problem with him sitting on the bench. He has also shown that he is not the future, and I wouldnt want to go through the same motions with him, as we are doing with Smith, in order to get a more efficient passing game. So that argument is moot. I was just pointing out that I dont think it's justified to use OCs and different offensive systems as excuses because Hill was productive in the same formats in which Smith failed.
However, for the bolded.........I know hindsight is 20/20. With that aside........knowing what you know now with Smith, if you were back in 2005 with the first overall pick and you knew all this would happen with Smith + the fact that Smith would finally have a complete game (and show promise) in his 5th year in the league..........would you have still wanted him ?
You can defend Smith all you want, but the one thing you cant debate is that we have definitely (as fans + coaches) gone to extraordinary measures to accomodate Smith, whether it was finding decent OCs, signing free agents to huge contracts, giving him the offense he needs, etc. I just find it a little too much, especially since the dividends have been very poor, to say the least. Combine this with all the statements we're getting from analysts (Hodge, Jaworski), former players (Antonio Bryant), and HOFers (Young, Rice), not to mention former coaches (Urban Meyer), and it doesnt look too good for Smith. But then again, as Ceadder would point out, those guys are just haters and wouldnt know football from their ass.
[ Edited by ZRF80 on Dec 4, 2009 at 19:26:16 ]
that is not nice
