There are 86 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

ESPN: Smith worst QB in NFC West and getting worse

Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by Joecool:


It wouldn't have mattered if we didn't draft him because we probably would have picked up Matt Lienart the following year.

I have no problem drafting Smith. I have a problem with all this "everything else needs to be improved (even after it already has) before we can evaluate Smith.

6 years!!! It has been time 3 years ago. We should have seen fate when his shoulder got hurt that the NFL just isn't for him. Or maybe when 2 journeyman QB's beat him out and keeping him automatically put us into accepting mediocre.

I'm sorry but a QB who displays NFL ability does not get beat out by journeyman QB's. Bradford, Flacco, Ryan,...do not get beat out by journeymen QB's.

JoeCool that is a fair statement. I also have said from day 1 that it is not a HUGE BLOW to draft the wrong QB....its a HUGE BLOW to keep one for too long.

IMO, the day Rocky Bernard pancaked Alex should have been the day this Franchise should have gambled on somebody else.

Some folks don't want to admit that we actually have almost every piece in place on this team.

There's a reason why we were predicted to win the division and guess what the "if" was in almost everyone's prediction? No one wants to give the prognosticators credit for pointing out this big "if". We even pointed out this big "if".

This was the general statement prior to the season.

The Niners will win the division and be a good team "if" Alex Smith can build on last year's performance.

That big "if" got up, mooned us, slapped us in the face, and gave us a stinking s**tter.

All he had to do was make standard reads and throws, which he hasn't due to his inaccuracy and all he had to do was not f**k up.

Even with Smith's incompetence, we can go 8-8 and match last years totals but we are adding in the dumbest turnovers and fumbles by other players which is why we are 0-4!
  • Otter
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 22,936
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by Otter:
Originally posted by danimal:

here is the other thing I have pointed out since day 1. Too bad our GM's and lots of fans can't figure this out.

Just because you NEED a franchise QB does not mean there is one available. Plenty of drafts have produced only QB's with average careers.

Lots of people were wrong about Rodgers including myself, but back in 05 I considered that a year where you should skip drafting a QB. Since 05 I have really liked at least one QB each year, some years I liked 2 or 3 of them. 2011 is the first time I don't like any of the QB's since I felt the same in 2005.

But, because 2011 will also be the first time since 2005 that the Franchise is officially looking for their next QB I am positive they are going to reach again.

I just think it is egotistical to think in terms of "I need, therefore there must be something for me"

Sometimes you have to wait. But we won't. We'll force it.

I hope I am wrong about Luck, Locker and Mallet.....just like I hoped I was wrong about Smith too.

You are ignoring the business and economic side of football and the draft. A #1 pick overall dictates that you select either a QB, LT, or pure cover corner. Any other position is not worth the required investment based on the current slotting and escalation from the prior year. In 2005 I wanted Braylon Edwards, but it didn't make sense to pay a receiver that kind of money.

Also on the business side, when you have multiple needs and want to get the fan base fired up to buy season tickets, selecting a new "Face of the Franchise" provides the best return. I believe the Rams had doubts about Bradford and preferred Suh, but when trying to sell tickets Bradford was the smart choice. Looks like a good one now. And it also provides the coaching staff time. If they take Suh and finish 6-10 they're probably fired. Bradford and 6-10 they can say it takes 3 years to develop a QB.

The 49ers were screwed by a perfect storm of not hiring the proper front office, hiring a legacy coach to lead the team, having the #1 pick in a draft that was considered by everyone to be weak overall, and especially weak at the QB position.

that theory is flawed. I have been hating on that one for a long time as well. Yes, we would have overpaid Braylon Edwards or Ronnie Brown(the 2 guys I wanted).....but you still get something for your money.....as opposed to virtually nothing.

For the record, I too would lean towards QB. LT and cover Corner with my #1 pick also.....BUT BUT BUT, unless I really don't like the QB, LT or CC available to me...because if I really don't like them....I will over pay the next BPA and live with that instead.

I am not ignoring that little theory, I just think I know a better one

You are right, it is flawed in the sense that it is better to get something than nothing. But again just from an economic perspective and having a salary cap it wouldn't make sense to pay someone a premium when they do not play a position that demands it. If you are paying your starting QB $15M, your backup $6M, you don't want your receiver making $15M too.

Hopefully the next CBA fixes that with the rookie cap. I think you'll see organizations cutting losses a lot faster with that.
^^ And I would bet that drafting Smith generated more short term income for the team than Brown or Edwards would have, thus softening the blow of the guaranteed $.
Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
^^ And I would bet that drafting Smith generated more short term income for the team than Brown or Edwards would have, thus softening the blow of the guaranteed $.

good point.
  • Otter
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 22,936
Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
^^ And I would bet that drafting Smith generated more short term income for the team than Brown or Edwards would have, thus softening the blow of the guaranteed $.

Probably, everyone loves a QB.

It's hard to call it a theory too, given that only twice in the last 10 drafts has a position outside of QB been drafted #1 overall.

If you go back and look at the 1990s drafts, before the TV deals cause salaries to explode you'll see that the draft was all over the place in terms of the position played by the #1 overall pick. In the 2000s the guaranteed money made a QB the best pick from an economic perspective.

Everyone pray for a rookie cap.
  • Shemp
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 26,759
Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
^^ And I would bet that drafting Smith generated more short term income for the team than Brown or Edwards would have, thus softening the blow of the guaranteed $.

yeah, but then offset by all the salaries we had to pay for all the management around Smith that got signed to guaranteed contracts but were fired because of Smith's lack of performance (Hostler, Raye, Nolan, and soon to be Singletary).