There are 99 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Sing's opinion on the QB position . . .

  • Shemp
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 26,768
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:
Originally posted by Shaj:
Originally posted by zillabeast:
If it was all about the Quarterback in the NFL, Dan Marino would have a fistfull of rings right now.

that's great logic. Therefore we should be satisfied with Tim Couch like stats under the stewardship of Alex Smith. Complacent fans and team management is what is going to kill this franchise. You think Eddie D would put up with these kind of QB results? Walsh? Lombardi?



Well, truly, there are some people who are just best ignored.

Noone is going to say that a QB is going to get results all by himself, but the fact that Singletary doesn't understand that QB is the single most important position on the team is indeed troubling. As are many other aspects of his custodianship. If you had the choice of having the one best player at his position on your team, it would be the QB.

I believe that the Niners will never be a serious or consistent challenger for top honors in the NFL for so long as Singletary is the head coach. It's problematic that he is stuck on an antiquated way of thinking . . . and honestly believes that pep talk has greater value than a game plan.

The organization whiffed at the opportunity to bring in some serious credibility with either Holmgren or Shanahan, both with ties to the Niners. I would be overjoyed if they could bring in somebody with smarts, like Dungy. If he could be coaxed out of retirement to lead the front office on football matters.

I think we messed up big time by not nabbing Holmgren. If we had been preparing for McCloughan's departure for a long time, then we would have fired his ass some months back and hired Holmgren, who would have given his left testicle to be our GM. That would have also meant back to the west coast system, and I'm not sure if that renders our pre-draft personnel less useful. Certainly Hill would have thrived in Holmgren's system, much more than Smith ever could (with less than 5 years of time to learn it).
Originally posted by domingo360:
The Alex Smith of right now would've won the superbowl with Dilfer's Ravens... and probably Brad Johnson's Bucs... and probably with the steelers when Big Ben won his first, etc

Originally posted by titan:
His theory is correct depending on what type of offense you play. You can't be on a pass happy offense and not have your QB as the most important player. During Peyton Manning and Drew Brees Superbowl wins ,can you replace them with Alex Smith to win a Superbowl? Probably No! could Alex Smith replaced Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson during Baltimore Ravens and Tampa Bay Super Bowl years? I would say Yes! In our situation Alex Smith doesn't have to be the most important player, he just have to be solid.

wow just WOW ....is this how most Alex fans feel?

first we have to make the playoffs, then we have to beat teams in the playoffs...not regular teams, but the BEST teams in the league, with either the Best Defenses or a very good ones.....then you have the Super Bowl....

As much as everyone wants to blame the Oline, WRs, RBs, OCs, slippery Footballs or what ever... Alex still has deficiencies that opposing DCs will easily exploit.
Originally posted by Afrikan:
Originally posted by domingo360:
The Alex Smith of right now would've won the superbowl with Dilfer's Ravens... and probably Brad Johnson's Bucs... and probably with the steelers when Big Ben won his first, etc

Originally posted by titan:
His theory is correct depending on what type of offense you play. You can't be on a pass happy offense and not have your QB as the most important player. During Peyton Manning and Drew Brees Superbowl wins ,can you replace them with Alex Smith to win a Superbowl? Probably No! could Alex Smith replaced Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson during Baltimore Ravens and Tampa Bay Super Bowl years? I would say Yes! In our situation Alex Smith doesn't have to be the most important player, he just have to be solid.

wow just WOW ....is this how most Alex fans feel?

first we have to make the playoffs, then we have to beat teams in the playoffs...not regular teams, but the BEST teams in the league, with either the Best Defenses or a very good ones.....then you have the Super Bowl....

As much as everyone wants to blame the Oline, WRs, RBs, OCs, slippery Footballs or what ever... Alex still has deficiencies that opposing DCs will easily exploit.

With Singletary's motivational skill, Canton has started making statue for Alex Smith. All fans on the zone knew that, where have you been?
Originally posted by Afrikan:
Originally posted by domingo360:
The Alex Smith of right now would've won the superbowl with Dilfer's Ravens... and probably Brad Johnson's Bucs... and probably with the steelers when Big Ben won his first, etc

Originally posted by titan:
His theory is correct depending on what type of offense you play. You can't be on a pass happy offense and not have your QB as the most important player. During Peyton Manning and Drew Brees Superbowl wins ,can you replace them with Alex Smith to win a Superbowl? Probably No! could Alex Smith replaced Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson during Baltimore Ravens and Tampa Bay Super Bowl years? I would say Yes! In our situation Alex Smith doesn't have to be the most important player, he just have to be solid.

wow just WOW ....is this how most Alex fans feel?

first we have to make the playoffs, then we have to beat teams in the playoffs...not regular teams, but the BEST teams in the league, with either the Best Defenses or a very good ones.....then you have the Super Bowl....

As much as everyone wants to blame the Oline, WRs, RBs, OCs, slippery Footballs or what ever... Alex still has deficiencies that opposing DCs will easily exploit.

Truth. Knowing that the Niners are loaded at the skill positions, DCs will use overload and delayed blitzes on Alex Smith because he has shown the tendency to panic and make bad throws. Proof of this is in the Eagles, AZ & Tennessee games.

Raye could call quick slants for him like the Pats do for Brady, but he doesn't have a quick enough release, touch & accuracy to pull it off consistently.
Singletary was the leader in arguably the best defense of all time. They had a mediocre QB in Jim McMahan. He's partially speaking from his own experience. He is also trying to pump up his team.
I want to respond to those making the argument that a top flight Qb is essential to get through the playoffs and into the SB. Names like Manning, Brady, Farve, Warner, Rivers, McNabb and Brees are frequently invoked to support that argument.

So let's look at the QB's rating when their team lost in the playoffs this last year:
Palmer - 58.3
McNabb - 68.5
Brady - 49.1
Rogers - 121.3
Warner - 73.4
Flacco - 48.4
Romo - 66.1
Rivers - 76.9
Sanchez - 93.3
Favre - 70.0
Manning - 88.5
Average = 74.0

Other than Rogers (121.3) and Sanchez (93.3) the other top QBs stunk it up in the playoffs. And it also shows that even with the good QB play of Rogers and Snachez, their teams still lost. The lesson is exactly what Sing is saying: it is foolishness to neglect the building of your entire team and it takes a complete team to win, especially if your great QB is struggling that day.

As for Alex, of the 11 games he played in last season, he only had 4 games in which his rating was lower than 74.0. Indeed, his best 7 games were 118.6, 88.8, 74.7, 96.8, 97.5 and 97.6. Considering the weaknesses he had to deal with, he did very well.

Finally, while we should be heartened by our first two picks, reality tells us that we will struggle for awhile until these newcomers have learned the techniques and gained the experience to be dependable and dominant. Yes, I am giving Alex another EXCUSE!
Originally posted by Shaj:
Originally posted by Rsrkshn:
Originally posted by Shaj:
Originally posted by zillabeast:
If it was all about the Quarterback in the NFL, Dan Marino would have a fistfull of rings right now.

that's great logic. Therefore we should be satisfied with Tim Couch like stats under the stewardship of Alex Smith. Complacent fans and team management is what is going to kill this franchise. You think Eddie D would put up with these kind of QB results? Walsh? Lombardi?



Well, truly, there are some people who are just best ignored.

Noone is going to say that a QB is going to get results all by himself, but the fact that Singletary doesn't understand that QB is the single most important position on the team is indeed troubling. As are many other aspects of his custodianship. If you had the choice of having the one best player at his position on your team, it would be the QB.

I believe that the Niners will never be a serious or consistent challenger for top honors in the NFL for so long as Singletary is the head coach. It's problematic that he is stuck on an antiquated way of thinking . . . and honestly believes that pep talk has greater value than a game plan.

The organization whiffed at the opportunity to bring in some serious credibility with either Holmgren or Shanahan, both with ties to the Niners. I would be overjoyed if they could bring in somebody with smarts, like Dungy. If he could be coaxed out of retirement to lead the front office on football matters.

I think we messed up big time by not nabbing Holmgren. If we had been preparing for McCloughan's departure for a long time, then we would have fired his ass some months back and hired Holmgren, who would have given his left testicle to be our GM. That would have also meant back to the west coast system, and I'm not sure if that renders our pre-draft personnel less useful. Certainly Hill would have thrived in Holmgren's system, much more than Smith ever could (with less than 5 years of time to learn it).

Why the f**k are people still wishing for Holmgren? We had a way better draft than the Browns.

And, newsflash, but the WCO ain't coming back.
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,699
Originally posted by excelsior:
I want to respond to those making the argument that a top flight Qb is essential to get through the playoffs and into the SB. Names like Manning, Brady, Farve, Warner, Rivers, McNabb and Brees are frequently invoked to support that argument.

So let's look at the QB's rating when their team lost in the playoffs this last year:
Palmer - 58.3
McNabb - 68.5
Brady - 49.1
Rogers - 121.3
Warner - 73.4
Flacco - 48.4
Romo - 66.1
Rivers - 76.9
Sanchez - 93.3
Favre - 70.0
Manning - 88.5
Average = 74.0

Other than Rogers (121.3) and Sanchez (93.3) the other top QBs stunk it up in the playoffs. And it also shows that even with the good QB play of Rogers and Snachez, their teams still lost. The lesson is exactly what Sing is saying: it is foolishness to neglect the building of your entire team and it takes a complete team to win, especially if your great QB is struggling that day.

As for Alex, of the 11 games he played in last season, he only had 4 games in which his rating was lower than 74.0. Indeed, his best 7 games were 118.6, 88.8, 74.7, 96.8, 97.5 and 97.6. Considering the weaknesses he had to deal with, he did very well.

Finally, while we should be heartened by our first two picks, reality tells us that we will struggle for awhile until these newcomers have learned the techniques and gained the experience to be dependable and dominant. Yes, I am giving Alex another EXCUSE!

But you see, those QB's come through went it counts, help won games that took their team to the next level. Comparing QB stats when teams lose is pretty much meaningless.
Originally posted by Afrikan:
Originally posted by domingo360:
The Alex Smith of right now would've won the superbowl with Dilfer's Ravens... and probably Brad Johnson's Bucs... and probably with the steelers when Big Ben won his first, etc

Originally posted by titan:
His theory is correct depending on what type of offense you play. You can't be on a pass happy offense and not have your QB as the most important player. During Peyton Manning and Drew Brees Superbowl wins ,can you replace them with Alex Smith to win a Superbowl? Probably No! could Alex Smith replaced Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson during Baltimore Ravens and Tampa Bay Super Bowl years? I would say Yes! In our situation Alex Smith doesn't have to be the most important player, he just have to be solid.

wow just WOW ....is this how most Alex fans feel?

first we have to make the playoffs, then we have to beat teams in the playoffs...not regular teams, but the BEST teams in the league, with either the Best Defenses or a very good ones.....then you have the Super Bowl....

As much as everyone wants to blame the Oline, WRs, RBs, OCs, slippery Footballs or what ever... Alex still has deficiencies that opposing DCs will easily exploit.

Trent Dilfer threw 12 Touchdowns the year the Ravens won it all, and the Ravens offense didn't score a touchdown for something like 6 weeks in a row during the season. So, yeah its safe to say he could have matched that performance seeing as pretty much any professional quarterback could have been put in a purple jersey that year and ended up with a ring.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The comments don't bother me in the least. I agree.

OL and defense can take a rookie to the conference championships (see: Roethlisberger and Sanchez). Change that to someone with experience.. and you've got a Super Bowl contender...

Not trying to imply anything. Just saying...

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

Colts - Manning
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Patriots - Brady
Eagles - McNabb
Packers - Favre/Rodgers

etc...etc...

The only exception I can think is the Ravens. But they have a DEEP backfield and consistently hit on their OL and D picks, which we haven't done yet.

I think Singletary's validity on the statement is somewhat true, but the probability to make the playoffs and dominate in the NFL without a legit QB at the helm for multiple years is less than 10%.

Steelers have had a legendary consistency at OL except maybe ONE season. For decades they're a top rushing team in the NFL.

Colts - Again awesome blocking. There's a reason Jeff Saturday is a household name.

Patriots - Again when they were dominant, they easily had the best OL in the league by far.

Eagles - Usually invest a 1st round pick every season in their lines - OL or DL. Philadelphia has always been a great pass-blocking team. Again, there's a reason John Runyan is a household name.

Packers - Again, not just their QB, but they've had a stable system and pretty good pass blocking over the years. When they don't it becomes clear.

Outside of Larry Allen, I can't name one 49er OL who became a household name in the last 10 years - and Allen wasn't drafted by this team so I wouldn't count him anyway. We can't name a guy because the 49ers haven't had a decent OL in a very, very long time which IMHO, explains why this offense hasn't been at the very least decent in a very long time.

You couldn't be more wrong on the Colts and you're only half right on the Patriots. Patriots have had a p*ss poor offensive line since their last Super Bowl victory and the Colts line was never anything more than average. There's a reason why those two teams can't run the football at all anymore.

Okay ... if you're going to call someone out, at least read what they're responding to...

Geek said:

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

So the overall argument is - Pro-bowl caliber QBs dominant over the past DECADE, not just last year or 2 years ago. So you're trying to argue Patriots and Colts haven't had good blocking throughout the DECADE? Seriously?

Any Niner fan would like to trade the Colts or Patriot line for the Niners line throughout the last decade?

I don't think the Colts ever had a great line. The picks don't back it up. You look at their history and you clearly see that weapons make and break the Colts. Yeah they've had 1 or 2 good offensive lineman over the years, but it's pretty much always been a patch work offensive line.

Wow. Just wow.

It was always a finesse line relying on the stretch play, and Peyton Manning making in audible into a run. You take Peyton Manning from the Colts and that line is and was average at best. Great quarterbacks disguiese mediocre lines. They pick out blitzes and beat them, they scare teams away from blitzes. It's not a coincedence that a Tom Brady led offensive line gave up 15 sacks and then the following season that same line gave up 45 sacks.

I haven't read this anywhere or even seen this on a consistent basis in the NFL. If anything it's the other way around. Great lines disguise bad average QB and turn them into pro-bowlers. That same Patriot line had injuries the time it gave up 45 sacks.

I see and respect your point, but just strongly disagree.

In recent times give me one bad QB that turned into a Pro Bowl QB because of a line. Not a Trent Dilfer or a game manager.

I think you can make a case on Grbac and Green in KC, and maybe even Troy Aikman but I wouldn't really agree on that one, but after that I've never seen a mediocre QB suddenly turn into something above that.

You look at the teams right now with mediocre QB's and great lines and you see their QBs are still mediocre. Jake Delhomme, Anyone in Miami, Joe Flacco. Yeah they can win with them, but the QB's aren't the reason why.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 27, 2010 at 06:11:41 ]
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by excelsior:
I want to respond to those making the argument that a top flight Qb is essential to get through the playoffs and into the SB. Names like Manning, Brady, Farve, Warner, Rivers, McNabb and Brees are frequently invoked to support that argument.

So let's look at the QB's rating when their team lost in the playoffs this last year:
Palmer - 58.3
McNabb - 68.5
Brady - 49.1
Rogers - 121.3
Warner - 73.4
Flacco - 48.4
Romo - 66.1
Rivers - 76.9
Sanchez - 93.3
Favre - 70.0
Manning - 88.5
Average = 74.0

Other than Rogers (121.3) and Sanchez (93.3) the other top QBs stunk it up in the playoffs. And it also shows that even with the good QB play of Rogers and Snachez, their teams still lost. The lesson is exactly what Sing is saying: it is foolishness to neglect the building of your entire team and it takes a complete team to win, especially if your great QB is struggling that day.

As for Alex, of the 11 games he played in last season, he only had 4 games in which his rating was lower than 74.0. Indeed, his best 7 games were 118.6, 88.8, 74.7, 96.8, 97.5 and 97.6. Considering the weaknesses he had to deal with, he did very well.

Finally, while we should be heartened by our first two picks, reality tells us that we will struggle for awhile until these newcomers have learned the techniques and gained the experience to be dependable and dominant. Yes, I am giving Alex another EXCUSE!

But you see, those QB's come through went it counts, help won games that took their team to the next level. Comparing QB stats when teams lose is pretty much meaningless.

You're dismissing a good post. It backed up the argument that even with a good to great qb, you also must have a good offense and a good defense to give that team a chance to get it done. And those teams listed couldn't get it done despite having HOF type qb because they didn't have an overall good enough team. Or you can say the great HOF qb suck ass in that particular attempt to get to the SB. Either way it's backing up the argument whether you have a good qb or a good team, you certainly need both. And this comes back to what Singletary is saying. That the qb is no more important than the other part of the team when you're trying to get to the SB, because you need both a good team and a good qb to get there.
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by excelsior:
I want to respond to those making the argument that a top flight Qb is essential to get through the playoffs and into the SB. Names like Manning, Brady, Farve, Warner, Rivers, McNabb and Brees are frequently invoked to support that argument.

So let's look at the QB's rating when their team lost in the playoffs this last year:
Palmer - 58.3
McNabb - 68.5
Brady - 49.1
Rogers - 121.3
Warner - 73.4
Flacco - 48.4
Romo - 66.1
Rivers - 76.9
Sanchez - 93.3
Favre - 70.0
Manning - 88.5
Average = 74.0

Other than Rogers (121.3) and Sanchez (93.3) the other top QBs stunk it up in the playoffs. And it also shows that even with the good QB play of Rogers and Snachez, their teams still lost. The lesson is exactly what Sing is saying: it is foolishness to neglect the building of your entire team and it takes a complete team to win, especially if your great QB is struggling that day.

As for Alex, of the 11 games he played in last season, he only had 4 games in which his rating was lower than 74.0. Indeed, his best 7 games were 118.6, 88.8, 74.7, 96.8, 97.5 and 97.6. Considering the weaknesses he had to deal with, he did very well.

Finally, while we should be heartened by our first two picks, reality tells us that we will struggle for awhile until these newcomers have learned the techniques and gained the experience to be dependable and dominant. Yes, I am giving Alex another EXCUSE!

But you see, those QB's come through went it counts, help won games that took their team to the next level. Comparing QB stats when teams lose is pretty much meaningless.

You're dismissing a good post. It backed up the argument that even with a good to great qb, you also must have a good offense and a good defense to give that team a chance to get it done. And those teams listed couldn't get it done despite having HOF type qb because they didn't have an overall good enough team. Or you can say the great HOF qb suck ass in that particular attempt to get to the SB. Either way it's backing up the argument whether you have a good qb or a good team, you certainly need both. And this comes back to what Singletary is saying. That the qb is no more important than the other part of the team when you're trying to get to the SB, because you need both a good team and a good qb to get there.

Well i think some may never get that its not all about the QB. Just like i posted in another thread, our teams of old, had the mindframe of no one man is more important than the team. And if everyone individually performed to the best of their ability, then the TEAM would win. If they loss, then the TEAM, knew exactly who it was because of.

With all those QB's mentioned, we all like to pick and choose this game or that game with Smith, when in some games you can say, he should have performed much better, and in some had he had more help from his surrounding cast, at times not just on the OFfense, but on the defense as well, then we would of won some of those games.

Overall, it's about TEAM, maybe some of you should jump on the TEAM BANDWAGON.
Originally posted by tommyncal:
Does anyone else find this statement by Singletary perplexing or even scary? "To me, I still believe the quarterback position is really important. But I don't think it's what they make it out to be. 'The quarterback is the most important guy"...' I don't believe that. I really don't."
Seems like every coach, analyst or whoever, that has anything to do with the NFL, has stated, at one time or another, it all starts with the QB. Just curious how many of you believe the same or are you worried about Sing's vision and plan for this team into the future? I understand it takes more than just a QB to win, but, if you had to choose between a franchise QB and franchise (insert any other position) . . . I'll take the QB



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
Originally posted by tommyncal:
Does anyone else find this statement by Singletary perplexing or even scary? "To me, I still believe the quarterback position is really important. But I don't think it's what they make it out to be. 'The quarterback is the most important guy"...' I don't believe that. I really don't."
Seems like every coach, analyst or whoever, that has anything to do with the NFL, has stated, at one time or another, it all starts with the QB. Just curious how many of you believe the same or are you worried about Sing's vision and plan for this team into the future? I understand it takes more than just a QB to win, but, if you had to choose between a franchise QB and franchise (insert any other position) . . . I'll take the QB



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 27, 2010 at 07:10:45 ]
  • Waldor
  • Info N/A
This article says it all.
http://www.49erswebzone.com/content/commentary/view.php?id=832

I am worried, really worried....