Change at QB WILL FIX EVERYTHING?

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by 49ersNoKaOi:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
4 Ints because of Tree(seems to have worked itself out)
5 Fumbles because of Gore.
1 Fumble due to Walker.
1 Fumble from Clements.

That's 8 turnovers left 4 of which are DEFINITELY on Smith.

So Smith has 4 definite to his credit.

So changing QB is really going to fix a big part of the problem? Don't make me laugh.

~Ceadder

Beautiful, you should be a lawyer.

Jeez! All I can respond with is WOW! The guy has 9 INTs and 1 fumble, and you think he is only to blame for 4? That is just amazing...

3 INTs' were DEFINITELY Smith's fault. 2 to Gore. And one that was headed to Morgan that got picked cleanly off the carpet.

1 Fumble was DEFINITELY Smith's fault.

Tree caused FOUR of his Interceptions.

That's 8 Turnovers.

The final one being to Ginn who I think should have turned around earlier. I think that if Ginn had indeed turned around when he was supposed to that he should have been able to make a play on the ball. That one to me is 50/50 because I played Receiver and IMHO that's on both of them. Was it underthrown? Possibly. But my job as a Receiver on a Go route is to look back when I near the end of my route. Ginn didn't turn around until it was too late for him to catch the Pass. Smith COULD have gone to Davis but Collinsworth pointed out that Davis was covered too. The INT did set Davis up for a later attempt on the same play though so all was not completely f@cked up by that INT.

Oh and as a former Receiver, I will call em all straight up instead of dropping it all in the QBs' lap.

T.O. used to do that crap to Garcia all the time when he would tip uncatchable Passes up in the air and man it pisses me off when other Receivers do it too. So as a rule I don't play that garbage. Be straight up. Your Receiver goes to the turf because he slipped is that the QBs' fault on timing routes? Nope. How bout when it hits them in the numbers? Nope. Sorry but those are all on Tree. Just like when he overran his route to the Sideline instead of cutting it off at the break. When you are unprepared it shows up in your technique EVERY time.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by 49ersNoKaOi:

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by 49ersNoKaOi:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
4 Ints because of Tree(seems to have worked itself out)
5 Fumbles because of Gore.
1 Fumble due to Walker.
1 Fumble from Clements.

That's 8 turnovers left 4 of which are DEFINITELY on Smith.

So Smith has 4 definite to his credit.

So changing QB is really going to fix a big part of the problem? Don't make me laugh.

~Ceadder

Beautiful, you should be a lawyer.

Jeez! All I can respond with is WOW! The guy has 9 INTs and 1 fumble, and you think he is only to blame for 4? That is just amazing...

That response wont sway this jury.

This guy better hope he gets a bench trial and the judge is as big a AS fan as he is.

[ Edited by BringBackTO on Oct 14, 2010 at 10:30:25 ]

Originally posted by Leathaface:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
4 Ints because of Tree(seems to have worked itself out)
5 Fumbles because of Gore.
1 Fumble due to Walker.
1 Fumble from Clements.

That's 8 turnovers left 4 of which are DEFINITELY on Smith.

So Smith has 4 definite to his credit.

So changing QB is really going to fix a big part of the problem? Don't make me laugh.

~Ceadder

Ceadder, you are the most delusional Smith homer I've ever seen.

Seriously. The guy has been a Smith apologist since the day he was drafted. I would like to see his breakdown of EVERY Smith turnover since 2005. Im sure when it's all said and done, he will have blamed Smith for no more than 5-7 turnovers his entire career.

Originally posted by Leathaface:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
4 Ints because of Tree(seems to have worked itself out)
5 Fumbles because of Gore.
1 Fumble due to Walker.
1 Fumble from Clements.

That's 8 turnovers left 4 of which are DEFINITELY on Smith.

So Smith has 4 definite to his credit.

So changing QB is really going to fix a big part of the problem? Don't make me laugh.

~Ceadder

Ceadder, you are the most delusional Smith homer I've ever seen.

Really?

Debate it then. Don't call me delusional and don't call me a homer.

I nailed down the specifics. Debate them.

~Ceadder

No, Carr is not the answer!

Originally posted by ZRF80:

Originally posted by Leathaface:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
4 Ints because of Tree(seems to have worked itself out)
5 Fumbles because of Gore.
1 Fumble due to Walker.
1 Fumble from Clements.

That's 8 turnovers left 4 of which are DEFINITELY on Smith.

So Smith has 4 definite to his credit.

So changing QB is really going to fix a big part of the problem? Don't make me laugh.

~Ceadder

Ceadder, you are the most delusional Smith homer I've ever seen.

Seriously. The guy has been a Smith apologist since the day he was drafted. I would like to see his breakdown of EVERY Smith turnover since 2005. Im sure when it's all said and done, he will have blamed Smith for no more than 5-7 turnovers his entire career.

Step up and debate it then or go away.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Originally posted by SJniner7:
We all know QB change won't fix evverything. This has become evident with our approach to consistent runs on first downs, sloppy defensive play, and poor ball handling.

However, a QB change may have gotten us a few wins. Smith has not been very careful with the ball at all.

We have how many turnovers? I believe the team has 15.
How many of them was Smith part of? 10... I say "part of" because you guys like to blame everyone else for the turnovers.

I don't know how you guys don't see the pattern with this team. Smith starts out good, plays poorly for 2-3 quarters, then buffs his stats near the end while simultaneously losing. If we changed QB to at least someone who could take care of the ball, or even just have half the turnovers that Smith has had, we might be at least 1-4 or 2-3 right now

See your right actually, now on the same token. If your QB did just enough, to keep you in the game down to the final minute in 2 to 3 games. Then wouldnt you expect the D to make a stop. Because you have to agree, no QB plays good every game, and just like when the Skins beat the EAgles, Mcnabb said after the game. "Defense you won the game for us. I know me and the O havent gotten it together yet, but we will, just be patient, and we'll meet you half way."

If we were blown out continously then fine, but in the Saints game, D should of stopped and we got a win. Falcons game, D stopped we would of won. Maybe even the Eagles game, key stops and we would of won.

What im saying is, definitely the blame falls on Smith cuz he is the QB. But my question is, from what a lot of you say, we should have to worry about asking the D to win the game for us, because the O should be better. Well if u think like that your crazy. When one part fails, then another should step up. Which in our case, they have all fallen.

I'll give you the seahawks and chiefs game, but I put it on the O in the Falcons game. Only 1 offensive TD and the D gave up 16. Sorry, but the O needs to score more than 7 f**king pts, and in the first quarter too no less. The other two games were a mixture of both, but at the end of the day, it's the O that's giving the turnovers. Not to say that the D is lights out, which it's obviously not, but the O is worse in comparison.

Do I think a change at QB will fix everything? No, but I don't see how it could be worse. If you put in one of the QB's ZRF suggested, there is no doubt in my mind that we at least win the Falcons game, and possibly the saints and eagles games as well. Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by blunt_probe:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Originally posted by SJniner7:
We all know QB change won't fix evverything. This has become evident with our approach to consistent runs on first downs, sloppy defensive play, and poor ball handling.

However, a QB change may have gotten us a few wins. Smith has not been very careful with the ball at all.

We have how many turnovers? I believe the team has 15.
How many of them was Smith part of? 10... I say "part of" because you guys like to blame everyone else for the turnovers.

I don't know how you guys don't see the pattern with this team. Smith starts out good, plays poorly for 2-3 quarters, then buffs his stats near the end while simultaneously losing. If we changed QB to at least someone who could take care of the ball, or even just have half the turnovers that Smith has had, we might be at least 1-4 or 2-3 right now

See your right actually, now on the same token. If your QB did just enough, to keep you in the game down to the final minute in 2 to 3 games. Then wouldnt you expect the D to make a stop. Because you have to agree, no QB plays good every game, and just like when the Skins beat the EAgles, Mcnabb said after the game. "Defense you won the game for us. I know me and the O havent gotten it together yet, but we will, just be patient, and we'll meet you half way."

If we were blown out continously then fine, but in the Saints game, D should of stopped and we got a win. Falcons game, D stopped we would of won. Maybe even the Eagles game, key stops and we would of won.

What im saying is, definitely the blame falls on Smith cuz he is the QB. But my question is, from what a lot of you say, we should have to worry about asking the D to win the game for us, because the O should be better. Well if u think like that your crazy. When one part fails, then another should step up. Which in our case, they have all fallen.

I'll give you the seahawks and chiefs game, but I put it on the O in the Falcons game. Only 1 offensive TD and the D gave up 16. Sorry, but the O needs to score more than 7 f**king pts, and in the first quarter too no less. The other two games were a mixture of both, but at the end of the day, it's the O that's giving the turnovers. Not to say that the D is lights out, which it's obviously not, but the O is worse in comparison.

Do I think a change at QB will fix everything? No, but I don't see how it could be worse. If you put in one of the QB's ZRF suggested, there is no doubt in my mind that we at least win the Falcons game, and possibly the saints and eagles games as well. Just my 2 cents.

The defense DID make the critical stop in the Eagles game...only to have the offense turn it over AGAIN. Giving up only 20 points on 4 turnovers (since Smiths fumble was directly 7) is pretty damn good against a competent offense like the Eagles.

And by the way 92 people have voted so far, which lets me know that most on here do understand the question.

And those that give the examples of players, are doing exactly what i said dont do.

Let me help you guys that say this question is hard. The example given if we had Brees, blah blah blah, do u not think that we'd be 0-5.

Well if thats the case, then your answer is yes, a new qb change will effect everything else. It's not that hard a question fellas.

Honestly, changing from smith to carr could either be a good thing or a disaster. I'm not even gonna try and guess what the result would be. It's a toss-up as far as I'm concerned. The players and coaches seem to think smith is the best option. The fans and media mostly say bench him. Hmmm.

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Lets rephrase.

If Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers was our starting QB, would we be 0-5 ?

/endthread

Originally posted by ZRF80:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Lets rephrase.

If Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers was our starting QB, would we be 0-5 ?

/endthread

get off it Z. you CAN NOT say for sure that we could have won any of the last five games with one of those QBs. jesus f**kin' christ!


end of thread my ass.

It must be great living your life. You're actually convinced that with any of the above QBs, we'd be just as bad as we are with Alex Smith. Cause Im sure Brady/Manning/Brees/Rodgers would have not taken advantage of Seattle early on and put us up 21-0. Cause none of them could manage more than 7 offensive points against Atlanta. Cause all of them would allow a 17-10 manageable game to become a 24-10 laughfest.

Right...........Alex Smith is just as good as any of those guys, and has MAXIMIZED the offensive output that this team is capable of.

Pathetic......

pathetic is your above little tangent. you must be some sort of seer. you must have the ability see multiple outcomes of the past with different people playing the part of QB. it must be great living your life with that ability.


again, you CAN NOT say for sure any of the QBs you listed would have won any of the last five games. just give it up. you are making yourself look like someone who enjoys EAD.

[ Edited by boast on Oct 14, 2010 at 10:43:54 ]

Originally posted by blunt_probe:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Originally posted by SJniner7:
We all know QB change won't fix evverything. This has become evident with our approach to consistent runs on first downs, sloppy defensive play, and poor ball handling.

However, a QB change may have gotten us a few wins. Smith has not been very careful with the ball at all.

We have how many turnovers? I believe the team has 15.
How many of them was Smith part of? 10... I say "part of" because you guys like to blame everyone else for the turnovers.

I don't know how you guys don't see the pattern with this team. Smith starts out good, plays poorly for 2-3 quarters, then buffs his stats near the end while simultaneously losing. If we changed QB to at least someone who could take care of the ball, or even just have half the turnovers that Smith has had, we might be at least 1-4 or 2-3 right now

See your right actually, now on the same token. If your QB did just enough, to keep you in the game down to the final minute in 2 to 3 games. Then wouldnt you expect the D to make a stop. Because you have to agree, no QB plays good every game, and just like when the Skins beat the EAgles, Mcnabb said after the game. "Defense you won the game for us. I know me and the O havent gotten it together yet, but we will, just be patient, and we'll meet you half way."

If we were blown out continously then fine, but in the Saints game, D should of stopped and we got a win. Falcons game, D stopped we would of won. Maybe even the Eagles game, key stops and we would of won.

What im saying is, definitely the blame falls on Smith cuz he is the QB. But my question is, from what a lot of you say, we should have to worry about asking the D to win the game for us, because the O should be better. Well if u think like that your crazy. When one part fails, then another should step up. Which in our case, they have all fallen.

I'll give you the seahawks and chiefs game, but I put it on the O in the Falcons game. Only 1 offensive TD and the D gave up 16. Sorry, but the O needs to score more than 7 f**king pts, and in the first quarter too no less. The other two games were a mixture of both, but at the end of the day, it's the O that's giving the turnovers. Not to say that the D is lights out, which it's obviously not, but the O is worse in comparison.

Do I think a change at QB will fix everything? No, but I don't see how it could be worse. If you put in one of the QB's ZRF suggested, there is no doubt in my mind that we at least win the Falcons game, and possibly the saints and eagles games as well. Just my 2 cents.

The playcalling wasn't exactly the greatest. Now JC is on a learning curve but Smith is money when he's calling his own plays. I subscribe to the notion that Smith has been too conservative in close games cause he doesn't want to cost us a game with a mistake. And can you blame him? look how many turnovers we had going into Atlanta. The week before he just got his ass kicked by the Chiefs. We were taking a -12 turnover ratio with us and IMHO, Smith played like it after Mays got that turnover in the End Zone.

Nate got that INT and then gave it right back to them. Unfortunately our Defense couldn't keep them from marching down the field to kick the game winner.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by blunt_probe:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Originally posted by SJniner7:
We all know QB change won't fix evverything. This has become evident with our approach to consistent runs on first downs, sloppy defensive play, and poor ball handling.

However, a QB change may have gotten us a few wins. Smith has not been very careful with the ball at all.

We have how many turnovers? I believe the team has 15.
How many of them was Smith part of? 10... I say "part of" because you guys like to blame everyone else for the turnovers.

I don't know how you guys don't see the pattern with this team. Smith starts out good, plays poorly for 2-3 quarters, then buffs his stats near the end while simultaneously losing. If we changed QB to at least someone who could take care of the ball, or even just have half the turnovers that Smith has had, we might be at least 1-4 or 2-3 right now

See your right actually, now on the same token. If your QB did just enough, to keep you in the game down to the final minute in 2 to 3 games. Then wouldnt you expect the D to make a stop. Because you have to agree, no QB plays good every game, and just like when the Skins beat the EAgles, Mcnabb said after the game. "Defense you won the game for us. I know me and the O havent gotten it together yet, but we will, just be patient, and we'll meet you half way."

If we were blown out continously then fine, but in the Saints game, D should of stopped and we got a win. Falcons game, D stopped we would of won. Maybe even the Eagles game, key stops and we would of won.

What im saying is, definitely the blame falls on Smith cuz he is the QB. But my question is, from what a lot of you say, we should have to worry about asking the D to win the game for us, because the O should be better. Well if u think like that your crazy. When one part fails, then another should step up. Which in our case, they have all fallen.

I'll give you the seahawks and chiefs game, but I put it on the O in the Falcons game. Only 1 offensive TD and the D gave up 16. Sorry, but the O needs to score more than 7 f**king pts, and in the first quarter too no less. The other two games were a mixture of both, but at the end of the day, it's the O that's giving the turnovers. Not to say that the D is lights out, which it's obviously not, but the O is worse in comparison.

Do I think a change at QB will fix everything? No, but I don't see how it could be worse. If you put in one of the QB's ZRF suggested, there is no doubt in my mind that we at least win the Falcons game, and possibly the saints and eagles games as well. Just my 2 cents.

Thank you. There is a such thing as an honest answer on this board. Thats all i was pointing out. Yeah he may have lost that falcons game singlehandedly like some say, but at least in the two games u mentioned, had the D stepped up, we'd be 2-3, instead of 0-5.

I appreciate the 2 cents.

repost, sorry

[ Edited by Jersey9er on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:06:34 ]