Just watched Nate Davis highlights!

I think Nate Davis has pretty good pocket awareness and that's a good start.

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by SJniner7:
While I do not quite believe that Davis is ready, you Smith supporters are using double standards that were applied to Hill. That obviously excludes the noodle-armness...

Now these are just off the top of my head, but...
#1 - Smith will put the game on his back, and Hill never could...
In case you didn't notice,neither did this season...
#2 - Hill beat bad teams...
Umm, Smith beat JAX (worst passing D in the league), DET, STL, and CHI. In all of those games, Smith got major help from the defense. 5 INTS in CHI, 2 redzone fumbles and six sacks against JAX, 3 INTs a fumble against DET.

Since both QB's beat ARI and STL, I will neglect those games. And let's not argue margins, because Smith had Gore's help (167 yards), while Hill didn't (35 yards or so). Almost's also don't count, since what matters at the end of the day is a win or a loss. We wouldn't have almost had to win, if they had played better during the game.

So , now you ask what's my point? I do need to see any more Hill. My point is that Alex hasn't really shown that he should be an uncontested starter for 2010, hence bring in a FA or someone to challenge him. The same arguements you guys made against Hill last season, you are using to support Smith.

Long story short, SMITH has not won a game when the defense didn't play lights out in 09. Therefore, he has not shown the ability to compete in a shoot-out, which some swore up and down that Hill would never be capable of, therefore how can you put down Davis with his "potential", but gave Alex and his "potential" all your support...

Ok, I'll bite.

One two occasions, Smith put the team on his back. One was the Seattle game and another was the Jacksonville game.

Why are you writing off Smith's performance against Jacksonville? The defense caused the fumbles after the half when we were ahead by 17-3. IIRC, it was Smith himself who took us to our redzone trips. Gore was stuffed all day long (16 carries, 36 yards). The defense did it's job in holding them to 3 points, sure. But I just think that you're nitpicking and you're looking for something to critique instead of accepting a good performance.

Having a QB competition has not produced in any ideal results. Why on Earth would you want to have another QB competition? During the recent year's that we did have a QB competition, over the long run, we've picked the wrong QB - JTO, Hill. A QB competition only serves to hinder the offense and take away valuable reps from the QB.

Smith doesn't need to be challenged or pushed. He's one of the hardest worker's on the team and he knows that if doesn't perform this season, he won't receive any contract extension. What Smith does need, is all starter reps.

I'll agree with you that Smith has not shown the ability to compete in a shoot-out, but he has shown on two specific occasions that he can lead the team back from large deficits (Houston, Greenbay). This is in fact something that Hill had never shown.

Your post is evidence that I've come to the conclusion that everybody has a checklist of items which Smith must complete before they ever accept him as a starter.

-9fA

Well, I wasn't necessarily arguing that Smith had a bad game, more of just that Smith has not competed in a shootout and been successful. You can argue Houston and Green Bay all you want, but the fact is, it was still a loss...

And "no", I do not have a checklist of items to support a QB. I support whoever is back there, but I also want the best guy behind center. IIRC, Smith threw an INT to end both of those games...?

My main poinnt is that if the defense doesn't play lights out, Smith is likely going to lose the game. And that is why I think he should be challenged, maybe not by Davis (because he is still raw), but by someone...

Ok so after your well designed and hard fought argument, one must assume you have someone in mind to bring in to challenge Smith. Who is this person that is qualified and talented enough to challenge Smith as starter for the 10 season?

There isn't a rookie who qualifies imo, and there are no FA's who do eaither. So who exactly are we bringing in to challenge young Mr. Inconsistent?

Originally posted by WINiner:


Ok so after your well designed and hard fought argument, one must assume you have someone in mind to bring in to challenge Smith. Who is this person that is qualified and talented enough to challenge Smith as starter for the 10 season?

There isn't a rookie who qualifies imo, and there are no FA's who do eaither. So who exactly are we bringing in to challenge young Mr. Inconsistent?

Honestly? Probably nobody... But would it be reasonable to suggest that this team is geared to have a rookie or Davis succeed? All of the excuses for Smith to not succeed in 2005 have been nearly fixed. That is, assuming we fix our Oline problems and return issues.

Originally posted by hofer36:

Originally posted by LeadFarmer:

Originally posted by hofer36:

Originally posted by SJniner7:
This thread should be re-labeled, since it is not a highlight reel, but every throw Nate made in the preseason...

if you looked at every run glen coffee made in the offseason you might argue he should be allowed to compete with frank gore for the starting halfback job...of course, things were different in regular season, coffee averaged 2.7 yards a carry....i think there is a good chance nate davis would have experienced a similar reality check....he didnt see thing like the eagle blitz schemes, as recently featured in sports illustrated, in preseason

You mean the Eagles D that Smith put up a 42 qb rating against? I don't see how Davis could have done much worse.

you'd be surprised

Having watched Nate Davis as a freshman from a so called lowly MAC team play against Michigan in Michigan, and watching him play against Nebraska in Nebraska as a Sophomore, I think you'd be surprised. He does not get overwhelmed easily.

The thing I don't understand is the stance that we don't want a QB competition. I could understand that thought if we had somebody that was clearly a starter, but even the Smith supporters can't say that with any confidence. What I mostly see are arguments that he has consistently shown improvement, that he does well when given enough time (just about any decent QB could BTW), and crap like that. I haven't seen any solid arguments showing that he is a solid starter now, plenty of could be/should be argument, yes. But when your future is based on could be/should be, don't you think it might be worth it to allow a bit of competition? And then there was the post earlier that the competition has not worked...that the wrong QB was selected...well, I would argue that problem boils down to not having a good QB in the competition to begin with. We've been trying to decide who might be better between two QBs that have played decent on a few occasions, bad on few occasions, and really well, well honestly I don't remember seeing any really good QB play from either one this season.

And so, to protect this guy who could be a little bit better than decent next year, we don't want a competition?? What if the other competitors turn out to be lights out better? As I said previously, even if Davis only performs the same as Smith, considering the difference in experience and practice time, I think that says a lot about who should be getting playing time. Caeddar says he'd start the guy with experience. I say I'd start the guy that performs as well as your experienced guy without having any practice time. Because that to me says he has a lot more raw talent and given the experience would very likely outperform Smith.

But the competition doesn't have to be from Davis, though I think that's a logical choice. It could come from anywhere as far as I'm concerned. When you have a QB like Manning, or Brees, or Favre, you don't have a competition. When you've got Smith or Hill...well...you really should be looking at every possible scenario.

And on Mike and Mike in the Morning today, they discussed McNabb, and there are at least some folks that cover football for a living that think it is very possible that the Eagles would be willing to engage in trade talks. They are happy with Kolb's progression, and could be thinking that McNabb is on the downswing of his career. While they redid his contract giving him more money recently, they did not extend it. And if they want to get something for him, instead of just letting him go to free agency after next year, they'll be entertaining offers.

So for those that think we should bring in another QB, whether to back up Smith or compete with him, there is an option out there that isn't beyond the realm of possibility. And if you have McNabb, even on the downswing part of his career, I'd say he gives you a better chance than Smith does. Let there be competition.

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by WINiner:


Ok so after your well designed and hard fought argument, one must assume you have someone in mind to bring in to challenge Smith. Who is this person that is qualified and talented enough to challenge Smith as starter for the 10 season?

There isn't a rookie who qualifies imo, and there are no FA's who do eaither. So who exactly are we bringing in to challenge young Mr. Inconsistent?

Honestly? Probably nobody... But would it be reasonable to suggest that this team is geared to have a rookie or Davis succeed? All of the excuses for Smith to not succeed in 2005 have been nearly fixed. That is, assuming we fix our Oline problems and return issues.

If you want to see how an example of how a rookie will perform on a team that has almost little to no issues, look no further than Mark Sanchez and the Jets. Very mediocre performance, as would be expected. Sanchez essentially had the equivalent of Smith's 2006 season. I think that this is a fair comparison.

Sanchez 2009: 53.8%, 6.7 yards / attempt, 2,444 yards, 63 QB rating, 12 TDs, 20 Ints in 15 games

Smith 2006: 58.1%, 6.5 yards / attempt, 2,890 yards, 74.8 QB rating, 16 TDs, 16 Ints in 16 games

I'll agree with you that Smith has not yet been successful in leading this team back from victory when it's all been on his shoulders. But the fact that he's been able to do so and fallen just short, at least shows me that he can. That's far more than what Davis has shown, is it not?

-9fA

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by WINiner:


Ok so after your well designed and hard fought argument, one must assume you have someone in mind to bring in to challenge Smith. Who is this person that is qualified and talented enough to challenge Smith as starter for the 10 season?

There isn't a rookie who qualifies imo, and there are no FA's who do eaither. So who exactly are we bringing in to challenge young Mr. Inconsistent?

Honestly? Probably nobody... But would it be reasonable to suggest that this team is geared to have a rookie or Davis succeed? All of the excuses for Smith to not succeed in 2005 have been nearly fixed. That is, assuming we fix our Oline problems and return issues.

If you want to see how an example of how a rookie will perform on a team that has almost little to no issues, look no further than Mark Sanchez and the Jets. Very mediocre performance, as would be expected. Sanchez essentially had the equivalent of Smith's 2006 season. I think that this is a fair comparison.

Sanchez 2009: 53.8%, 6.7 yards / attempt, 2,444 yards, 63 QB rating, 12 TDs, 20 Ints in 15 games

Smith 2006: 58.1%, 6.5 yards / attempt, 2,890 yards, 74.8 QB rating, 16 TDs, 16 Ints in 16 games

I'll agree with you that Smith has not yet been successful in leading this team back from victory when it's all been on his shoulders. But the fact that he's been able to do so and fallen just short, at least shows me that he can. That's far more than what Davis has shown, is it not?

-9fA

Davis hasn't gotten the chance to show that in real games yet, and I'm pretty sure that's what some folks would like to see, him get the chance, at least give him the opportunity to compete for the chance.

But what little chance he did get, Davis did lead the team from behind for a couple of wins. Would be nice to see if he might be able to do the same in a real game.

Originally posted by mrgneissguy:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by WINiner:


Ok so after your well designed and hard fought argument, one must assume you have someone in mind to bring in to challenge Smith. Who is this person that is qualified and talented enough to challenge Smith as starter for the 10 season?

There isn't a rookie who qualifies imo, and there are no FA's who do eaither. So who exactly are we bringing in to challenge young Mr. Inconsistent?

Honestly? Probably nobody... But would it be reasonable to suggest that this team is geared to have a rookie or Davis succeed? All of the excuses for Smith to not succeed in 2005 have been nearly fixed. That is, assuming we fix our Oline problems and return issues.

If you want to see how an example of how a rookie will perform on a team that has almost little to no issues, look no further than Mark Sanchez and the Jets. Very mediocre performance, as would be expected. Sanchez essentially had the equivalent of Smith's 2006 season. I think that this is a fair comparison.

Sanchez 2009: 53.8%, 6.7 yards / attempt, 2,444 yards, 63 QB rating, 12 TDs, 20 Ints in 15 games

Smith 2006: 58.1%, 6.5 yards / attempt, 2,890 yards, 74.8 QB rating, 16 TDs, 16 Ints in 16 games

I'll agree with you that Smith has not yet been successful in leading this team back from victory when it's all been on his shoulders. But the fact that he's been able to do so and fallen just short, at least shows me that he can. That's far more than what Davis has shown, is it not?

-9fA

Davis hasn't gotten the chance to show that in real games yet, and I'm pretty sure that's what some folks would like to see, him get the chance, at least give him the opportunity to compete for the chance.

But what little chance he did get, Davis did lead the team from behind for a couple of wins. Would be nice to see if he might be able to do the same in a real game.

Regular season games shouldn't be used to evaluate talent. This is what preseason and TC camps are for. If you want to see how Nate Davis will perform, start him against 1st string starters in the preseason.

All this calls for Nate Davis to start sounds eerily similar to the calls for Pickett and Dorsey.

-9fA

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by mrgneissguy:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by WINiner:


Ok so after your well designed and hard fought argument, one must assume you have someone in mind to bring in to challenge Smith. Who is this person that is qualified and talented enough to challenge Smith as starter for the 10 season?

There isn't a rookie who qualifies imo, and there are no FA's who do eaither. So who exactly are we bringing in to challenge young Mr. Inconsistent?

Honestly? Probably nobody... But would it be reasonable to suggest that this team is geared to have a rookie or Davis succeed? All of the excuses for Smith to not succeed in 2005 have been nearly fixed. That is, assuming we fix our Oline problems and return issues.

If you want to see how an example of how a rookie will perform on a team that has almost little to no issues, look no further than Mark Sanchez and the Jets. Very mediocre performance, as would be expected. Sanchez essentially had the equivalent of Smith's 2006 season. I think that this is a fair comparison.

Sanchez 2009: 53.8%, 6.7 yards / attempt, 2,444 yards, 63 QB rating, 12 TDs, 20 Ints in 15 games

Smith 2006: 58.1%, 6.5 yards / attempt, 2,890 yards, 74.8 QB rating, 16 TDs, 16 Ints in 16 games

I'll agree with you that Smith has not yet been successful in leading this team back from victory when it's all been on his shoulders. But the fact that he's been able to do so and fallen just short, at least shows me that he can. That's far more than what Davis has shown, is it not?

-9fA

Davis hasn't gotten the chance to show that in real games yet, and I'm pretty sure that's what some folks would like to see, him get the chance, at least give him the opportunity to compete for the chance.

But what little chance he did get, Davis did lead the team from behind for a couple of wins. Would be nice to see if he might be able to do the same in a real game.

Regular season games shouldn't be used to evaluate talent. This is what preseason and TC camps are for. If you want to see how Nate Davis will perform, start him against 1st string starters in the preseason.

All this calls for Nate Davis to start sounds eerily similar to the calls for Pickett and Dorsey.

-9fA

That's what I'm saying...allow him to compete for the job in the pre-season. I'm sorry that wasn't clear, I'm not for just giving him the job without him earning it in the pre-season. But I think it would be in the best interest of the niners to give him the chance to compete.

Originally posted by mrgneissguy:
That's what I'm saying...allow him to compete for the job in the pre-season. I'm sorry that wasn't clear, I'm not for just giving him the job without him earning it in the pre-season. But I think it would be in the best interest of the niners to give him the chance to compete.

I actually think that Davis could be competing against Hill for the backup position. I'm not a big fan of QB competitions because I feel that they hurt the offense more than they help - chemistry v. determining the 'best' starter.

Again, I feel that it would best for the team going forward if Alex was given full starter reps and Hill and Davis split the backup reps. If Smith fails, Davis has his shot at the position.

-9fA

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by mrgneissguy:
That's what I'm saying...allow him to compete for the job in the pre-season. I'm sorry that wasn't clear, I'm not for just giving him the job without him earning it in the pre-season. But I think it would be in the best interest of the niners to give him the chance to compete.

I actually think that Davis could be competing against Hill for the backup position. I'm not a big fan of QB competitions because I feel that they hurt the offense more than they help - chemistry v. determining the 'best' starter.

Again, I feel that it would best for the team going forward if Alex was given full starter reps and Hill and Davis split the backup reps. If Smith fails, Davis has his shot at the position.

-9fA

Fair enough. I have a different opinion on competitions a few posts up. I can see both sides of the argument, though. It would definitely help Smith next season to not have competition. I just think that looking beyond next season it would be worth it to have that competition now if Davis (or a FA or trade QB) looks to be progressing well. Having said that, I think another Smith/Hill competition would be a waste and wouldn't do anybody any good.

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by WINiner:


Ok so after your well designed and hard fought argument, one must assume you have someone in mind to bring in to challenge Smith. Who is this person that is qualified and talented enough to challenge Smith as starter for the 10 season?

There isn't a rookie who qualifies imo, and there are no FA's who do eaither. So who exactly are we bringing in to challenge young Mr. Inconsistent?

Honestly? Probably nobody... But would it be reasonable to suggest that this team is geared to have a rookie or Davis succeed? All of the excuses for Smith to not succeed in 2005 have been nearly fixed. That is, assuming we fix our Oline problems and return issues.

If you want to see how an example of how a rookie will perform on a team that has almost little to no issues, look no further than Mark Sanchez and the Jets. Very mediocre performance, as would be expected. Sanchez essentially had the equivalent of Smith's 2006 season. I think that this is a fair comparison.

Sanchez 2009: 53.8%, 6.7 yards / attempt, 2,444 yards, 63 QB rating, 12 TDs, 20 Ints in 15 games

Smith 2006: 58.1%, 6.5 yards / attempt, 2,890 yards, 74.8 QB rating, 16 TDs, 16 Ints in 16 games

I'll agree with you that Smith has not yet been successful in leading this team back from victory when it's all been on his shoulders. But the fact that he's been able to do so and fallen just short, at least shows me that he can. That's far more than what Davis has shown, is it not?

-9fA

I would not quite say he has fallen "just short."
1. In Houston, they were at the 40 with 4th and 10. Hardly just short.
2. In GB, they were within 6 but had 95 yard to go. Then came the INT.
3. In Seattle, he had the team in position but came up short, then could not run out the rest of the clock, giving Seattle another chance with good field position. This was probably the only game that might have been labeled "just short".

What is "just short" of a victory?
-marching down to the 1, and getting stuffed at the 1 yard line as time expires.
-getting the go ahead touchdown, then giving Favre the ball at the 10 yard line, hoping your defense can prevent a 90 yard drive...

Davis has not shown anything because he has not gotten any play time... obviously...