next two games will settle the Hill vs Smith argument once and for all!

Originally posted by SnakePlissken:

Originally posted by pelos21:
What with these english teachers?

Who the hell invited Seinfeld onto this board?

Originally posted by kronik:
Hill did not beat these 2 teams. Our defense beat these 2 teams. Please watch the games before u speak.

Originally posted by glorydayz:
The next two games are the real test when it comes to the A. Smith vs S. Hill argument! Hill beat these teams already, and he got the cards in Arizona with Warner as the starter.

So, if A. Smith can't beat the next two teams (Cards at home), the argument is moot and S. Hill is the best QB on this roster!

Hill is not the best QB on the roster regardless of the final score.

Originally posted by Juniorminime:

Originally posted by kronik:
Hill did not beat these 2 teams. Our defense beat these 2 teams. Please watch the games before u speak.

How do people come up with this stuff? I do not recall the defense giving Hill the ball with good field position in either game. Did we get any defenseive TDs? Did the D give up any turnovers? I am not clamoring for Hill to be back in there, but it sounds like you both need to... umm.. how did you say it? "watch the games before you speak"...

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by B650:
What a stupid thread. What can you do though? There's always going to be 2 or 3 guys who are blind to what's really going on. After 5.5 games, it's amazing that there are still people who feel Hill is the better QB. What's their basis? Their basis is that Hill "manages games," and that he "has one more win than Alex." That's a pretty stupid argument considering Hill has started 6 games, while Alex has only started 5. First it was "Alex hasn't won a game." Then it was "Alex throws too many picks." Next up, it's "Hill has a better QB rating." Now if you look at the stats, Smith is better in every single category, so all they can say is, "Hill has more wins than Smith." It's hilarious. After this Sunday, Smith is also going to be 3-3. I wonder what they're going to come up with next?

Well, I distinctly remember this time last year when everyone constantly repeated... "But Hill came in late in the season, and there wasn't any pressure to win" and so on and so on. That same theory does apply to Alex.

Hill put together a solid string of wins last year, when teams were supposedly unable "to game plan for him." He was severely gimped by the lame azz playcalling this year, yet still managed to go 3-3. Smith has yet to do that. As far as I see it, he is 2-3 as a starter. He really needs to prove his worth over these next few games.

If anything, the arguement should be "which QB should we keep as a backup?" if Alex falters the rest of the season...

Are you serious? The same theroy does NOT apply to Alex because there is pressure to win this season. We are still in the hunt, whereas last year, people were making those arguments when the Niners were already ruled out of the playoffs.

It looks like you've made it clear you're not a Hill Homer, but that doesn't mean you have to be a Smith basher.

Originally posted by kronik:
Hill did not beat these 2 teams. Our defense beat these 2 teams. Please watch the games before u speak.

LOL then who won the Bears game for us?? You know I accept that hes starting right now and am pretty much enjoying the play of Alex Smith, but you bias Alex Smith fans are selective too, as much as Hill fans.

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by Juniorminime:

Originally posted by kronik:
Hill did not beat these 2 teams. Our defense beat these 2 teams. Please watch the games before u speak.

How do people come up with this stuff? I do not recall the defense giving Hill the ball with good field position in either game. Did we get any defenseive TDs? Did the D give up any turnovers? I am not clamoring for Hill to be back in there, but it sounds like you both need to... umm.. how did you say it? "watch the games before you speak"...

Hill didn't do anything out standing to make us say he won these games for us. The Zona game was a good over all team effort, the offense scored and moved the ball when it had too. Defense stopped the Zona offense when it need to.

Seattle was pretty much all Gore. Hill did his part, but it was Gore more than any one else.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by kronik:
Hill did not beat these 2 teams. Our defense beat these 2 teams. Please watch the games before u speak.

LOL then who won the Bears game for us?? You know I accept that hes starting right now and am pretty much enjoying the play of Alex Smith, but you bias Alex Smith fans are selective too, as much as Hill fans.

Cutler won the Bears game for us. What game were you watch'n

Originally posted by glorydayz:
The next two games are the real test when it comes to the A. Smith vs S. Hill argument! Hill beat these teams already, and he got the cards in Arizona with Warner as the starter.

So, if A. Smith can't beat the next two teams (Cards at home), the argument is moot and S. Hill is the best QB on this roster!

Are you ZRF80's twin?????

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
It's already settled. LOL. Where have you been? It's Alex now and probably into the future with more spread offense.

Hill still has more wins than Alex to this point, so it is far from settled.

Hill will only start if Alex gets hurt, so yeah for all intensive purposes it's settled.....

Uhhhhhh let me help you out here. I hear people say this all of the time and it's incorrect.

Intents and Purposes

The correct phrase is "to all intents and purposes." This phrase dates back to the 1500s and originated in English law, where it was "to all intents, constructions, and purposes." In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable. The phrase means "for all practical purposes" and is generally used to compare two nonidentical acts or deeds, i.e., "She went to his room and drank with him, which she viewed to all intents and purposes as consent to sex." (In reality, only a sober 'yes' is consent to sex so to all intents and purposes she is a rapist). A shorter equivalent phrase is "in effect."
When used in a strictly legal sense, the wording would be "intent and purposes," as it refers to one's mental attitude/state at the time said action occurred.
A common malapropism is "for all intense and purposes", (also, "for all intensive purposes") a result of the original phrase being misheard and repeated. The word "intense" is used here incorrectly; "intense" is used in English to indicate a degree of intensity, i.e., "As the afternoon passed, the fire grew more intense."
Suggestion

It is important to avoid malapropisms as far as possible, as some people take them as a hallmark of ignorance and lack of education. If you have problems with to all intents and purposes bear in mind that in that expression intents is redundant. Use one of the alternatives suggested above.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
It's already settled. LOL. Where have you been? It's Alex now and probably into the future with more spread offense.

Yeah i agree. I still dont even know why we are even making comparisons to the two anymore. i guess just for personal satisfaction or sumthin of that nature.

And dont forget, teams that start the season, arent the same after week 9. And i have read this from almost every columnist out there, both Matts, Question Lady, even kevin lynch, nfl network, espn. All said that we won when these teams were banged up. Seattle no hassleback, arizona, no boldin, and a few others, etc. So the beginning of the season is not now. That was the past. And had we played each team, as they are now, then we may have a different outcome.

But it is what it is. Point is that there should be no more Hill vs Smith. You can only put Smith vs, a qb who will again start for us. And Hill wont ever start for us again. Anyway besides the INT's Alex has put up more offensive TD's than Hill has through his first 6 games. a better qb rating, etc. So he's already a little better than Hill, IMO

Originally posted by FourNine49:

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by B650:
What a stupid thread. What can you do though? There's always going to be 2 or 3 guys who are blind to what's really going on. After 5.5 games, it's amazing that there are still people who feel Hill is the better QB. What's their basis? Their basis is that Hill "manages games," and that he "has one more win than Alex." That's a pretty stupid argument considering Hill has started 6 games, while Alex has only started 5. First it was "Alex hasn't won a game." Then it was "Alex throws too many picks." Next up, it's "Hill has a better QB rating." Now if you look at the stats, Smith is better in every single category, so all they can say is, "Hill has more wins than Smith." It's hilarious. After this Sunday, Smith is also going to be 3-3. I wonder what they're going to come up with next?

Well, I distinctly remember this time last year when everyone constantly repeated... "But Hill came in late in the season, and there wasn't any pressure to win" and so on and so on. That same theory does apply to Alex.

Hill put together a solid string of wins last year, when teams were supposedly unable "to game plan for him." He was severely gimped by the lame azz playcalling this year, yet still managed to go 3-3. Smith has yet to do that. As far as I see it, he is 2-3 as a starter. He really needs to prove his worth over these next few games.

If anything, the arguement should be "which QB should we keep as a backup?" if Alex falters the rest of the season...

Are you serious? The same theroy does NOT apply to Alex because there is pressure to win this season. We are still in the hunt, whereas last year, people were making those arguments when the Niners were already ruled out of the playoffs.

It looks like you've made it clear you're not a Hill Homer, but that doesn't mean you have to be a Smith basher.

Not to mention that Smith has had pressure to win ever since stepping up to the podium on draft day.

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
It's already settled. LOL. Where have you been? It's Alex now and probably into the future with more spread offense.

Hill still has more wins than Alex to this point, so it is far from settled.

Except Hill isn't part of the equation anymore unless Alex gets hurt.

Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Dude, the argument isn't mute. IT'S MOOT. Mute would mean it's still there but it can't talk. Sorry but this drives me crazy and I see people make this mistake every day.


Carry on.

You should get angry at spell check as it doesn't catch that stuff. Sheesh, how are we supposed to know if a computer can't even figure it out.

As for the comparison, it doesn't matter anymore because Hill excelled in Martz's offense which was exactly what we weren't doing early this year. Put Hill back in that offense and you will see that he is capable. Of course, once again, Smith gets whatever he wants.

I think it was settled 5 weeks ago!