Field Poll: Troy's Performance Tonight

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by wrongway9erfan:


Did you even watch the St. Louis game?? Let's do a quick recap so we can review some plays that ALEX SMITH WILL NOT MAKE. There's about 2 1/2 minutes left in the 4th qtr and we find ourselves with a 3rd and 32--that's right 3rd and 32. T. Smith buys himself some time and finds Gore for 14 yds. What does A. Smith do on this play? He runs to his right and throws the ball out of bounds. Next play 4th and 18 and guess what? T. Smith finds Gore again, after some fancy footwork for a gain of 23 yds and a 1st down--what does A. Smith do? He runs around, feels pressure, panics, and throws a pic--end of game. You can't be that dumb or naive to believe A. Smith would have triumphed in the same situation--T. Smith is a winner and A. Smith is not. It really is that simple.

Yes, I watched the game.

Sorry, I wanted you to show me the throws that Troy made that Alex hasn't. Guess I didn't make that clear.

As for your opinion that I must be "dumb or naive" to believe that Alex Smith could triumph in pressure situations with the game on the line.... Do you not remember this game?




Both had about two minutes. Troy had to overcome ridiculous amounts of penalties and called back touchdowns. He overcame adversity. Great job on his part. Alex had to get a touchdown and a two point conversion against the reigning Super Bowl Champions. Troy was playing against the team that had the worst record in the league last year.

The defense folded in regulation in both games, but held up for Troy in overtime.

I can find you more examples if you want.

Again, I'm not saying Alex is better than Troy. I'm just saying that people are very biased against him and only see the bad things that he does and never the good.

I am completely aware of what A. Smith can do--I was at the MNF game opener in 2007 when he led the team to a last minute victory against the Cards. The problem as I see it is that A. Smith's successes are few and far between--I can't even remeber a streak that he had where he was 3-1 as a starter. T. Smith has done it after starting in just 7 games including his stint in Baltimore. Troy Smith can lead with his mouth and his play. Alex Smith is not and never will be a leader. His days as a 49er starting QB are numbered. I'm sure he will make a fine backup somewhere else in the NFL.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by rk1642:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
It wasn't good.

I'd give him a C. He made a couple of throws, a couple of mistakes that against a good team would have killed us, but he didn't really have to do much. Hard to assess anyone on this team after last night, actually, because ARI just didn't care.

Troy has made some plays and shown flashes but now that we have a solid body of work to look at, he is obviously very raw. I would really like to see what he does with a full offseason of work, because right now he is very limited. I find it hard to believe that our record right now would be worse than it is if Alex were starting. In fact, I think we'd be one game better, because we would have beat Carolina.

To be fair Alex did start the Carolina game... He just didn't finish it. Also to be fair the game was tied when he went out and we had the ball, and it went downhill from there. You're right, we would have won that game if he stayed in.

I also see us at 2-9 with Alex. I don't think he carries us on his back like Troy did in vs DEN and STL. Alex loses those games.

Based on what does Alex go 2-9? We just played the easiest part of our schedule and have a OC that is calling better games than when Alex was playing.

Lets see how Troy does against the Packers and the Chargers and then we can talk about how much of a leader and how great Troy is at leading us to victories.

With Alex, we could have easily won against the Saints and the Falcons this year and that was with crappy OC play calling. I think those are games we can compare with the Packers and Saints.

Wait, Didn't we lose those games?

Alex also had Frank Gore and Joe Staily to help him out while playing the #7 D Saints and the # 20 D Atlanta.

You want to compare the # 1 D (SanDiego) and the #12 D (Packers) games to to Alex playing lesser teams with better protection and better talent around him.

Yeah, I wanna compare: Just take a look at the records of each of these teams? I don't think anyone is gonna say that there is much difference between any of these teams. All have good D, solid O, well coached and have qb's.

Now it matters who is playing with you at qb on this team? Cause I'm pretty sure Alex lost all of the games he played in by himself or thats what I read on this board evey week. But what, now the oline, rb's and OC play calling matters?

Just don't think we want to measure our team against the likes of Denver or the Cards.

Originally posted by backontop:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by backontop:
Troy has only looked good against 1 team and 1 team only and that was the Rams. He struggled against the Broncos and Cards and was shut out against the Bucs.

Who cares? He's 3-1 as a starter of a bad team that was 1-6 before he took over, and this without the benefit of training camp and while riding the bench as the 3rd stringer for the first 2 months (meaning no reps at all).

Seriously man, what exactly do you expect?

The second half of the season was the easiest stretch of the schedule. He SHOULD be 3-1 as a starter. IMHO the Bucs are a very average team that can only beat below .500 teams. They pretty much embarrassed us with Troy Smith as the QB. If Troy Smith was the QB against NO, PHL or even ATL we would have 3 or 4 shutouts.

I agree.

Originally posted by jeremysmiley:

Originally posted by backontop:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by backontop:
Troy has only looked good against 1 team and 1 team only and that was the Rams. He struggled against the Broncos and Cards and was shut out against the Bucs.

Who cares? He's 3-1 as a starter of a bad team that was 1-6 before he took over, and this without the benefit of training camp and while riding the bench as the 3rd stringer for the first 2 months (meaning no reps at all).

Seriously man, what exactly do you expect?

The second half of the season was the easiest stretch of the schedule. He SHOULD be 3-1 as a starter. IMHO the Bucs are a very average team that can only beat below .500 teams. They pretty much embarrassed us with Troy Smith as the QB. If Troy Smith was the QB against NO, PHL or even ATL we would have 3 or 4 shutouts.

I agree.

AGreed also, troy was subpar last night, take away that one crabtree throw, and the rest of his night was below alex smith standards.

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Technically, you are correct. However, as much as football is a team sport (and you are absolutely correct in stating that), the leader on MOST football teams is the QB. As he goes, so goes the team (in just about every situation).

If one is following the letter of the law, then yes, I'm wrong in stating that Troy LED the team to victory. But if you go inside that locker room (or any other), you'll find that it's not a matter of cold, hard logic. And though everyone plays a part in the wins/losses, the play of the QB often dictates whether or not a team wins/loses...in that unique capacity, he becomes a default leader.

Btw, at the pro level (and other levels as well), they track individual wins and losses for only two roles...the head coach and the QB (as opposed to the DC, OC, WR, OG, etc.). There is a reason for that, regardless of the logic involved.

I'm not "technically" correct, I'm just correct.

I understand that the leadership of a quarterback is important. However, it is merely another factor in the outcome of a team game. It is not the deciding factor.

Take Peyton Manning for example. He is undoubtedly the leader of that offense. However, if his offensive line fails to protect him, as we saw this past Sunday, he plays poorly.

Another example is Philip Rivers. He has carried the Chargers offense on his back all season without the help of his top receivers. Yet, they have lost many games this year due to poor special teams play.

Yet another example is Kyle Orton, who may not be an elite QB, but is at the top of the league right now statistically. They aren't scoring a lot of points (18th), but their defense has allowed the most points in the league.

Football is a complicated sport made up of many moving parts. It's not nearly as simple as you make it sound.

BTW, who are the "They" that you refer to?

If the QB position is "merely another factor in the outcome of a team game," how do you explan this:

NFL Franchise Player Tags by position (the average of the top 5 players in the league):

QUARTERBACK: $16.405m
DEFENSIVE END: $12.398m
OFFENSIVE LINE: $10.731m
LINEBACKER: $9.680m
WIDE RECEIVER: $9.521m
CORNERBACK: $9.566 million
RUNNING BACK: $8.156m
DEFENSIVE TACKLE: $7.003m
SAFETY: $6.455m
TIGHT END: $5.908m
PUNTER/KICKER: $2.814m

Listen, I get what you're trying to say in that this is a team sport that requires all aspects of the team to function properly to be successful. I really get that; I'm not as dumb as you might think (though perhaps not far off).

However, when you say, "I understand that the leadership of a quarterback is important. However, it is merely another factor in the outcome of a team game," you are minimizing the importance of the role of the QB in comparison to all other roles. Yes, each position plays a part, but it's not difficult to see how the various positions on a team are viewed in terms of their value (real or perceived).

The truth is (rightly or wrongly), the NFL places a higher value on the QB position than any other role, and not by accident. That doesn't mean that the QB does it all by himself, or that he is THE deciding factor in every single game because that's simply not true. It simply means that the people who write the checks are willing to pay the most to (in order):

1.) The guys under center
2.) The guys who can stop the guys under center
3.) The guys who protect the guys under center

Team sport? Yes, but not all teammates are considered equal in terms of their value/impact.

---------------------------------------

They, being whoever keeps track of the following stats (I challenge you to find similar stats for WRs, OGs, RBs, etc.):

Most Career Wins, Regular Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 185, Brett Favre, 1991–Present
Most Career Wins, Postseason Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 16, Joe Montana, 1979–1994
Most Consecutive Wins, Regular Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 23, Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts, 2008–2009
Most Consecutive Wins, Post-Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 10, Tom Brady, New England Patriots, 2001, 2003–2005
Most Consecutive Wins to start a career, Post-Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 10, Tom Brady, New England Patriots, 2001, 2003–2005
Most Consecutive Wins, Regular Season and Post-Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 25, Jim McMahon, Chicago Bears, 1984–1987
Most Consecutive Home Wins, Regular Season and Post-Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 29, Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers, 1995–1998
Most Consecutive Home Wins, Regular Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 25, Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers, 1995–1998; Tom Brady, New England Patriots, 2007-Present
Longest Regular Season home win streak to start a career for an NFL quarterback, 15, Kurt Warner, St. Louis Rams, 1999–2001
Longest Regular Season and Post-Season home win streak to start a career for an NFL quarterback, 17, Kurt Warner, St. Louis Rams, 1999–2001
Most Consecutive Road Wins, Regular Season and Post-Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 19, Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers, 1988–1990; Kansas City Chiefs, 1993
Most Consecutive Road Wins, Regular Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 18, Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers, 1989–1990; Kansas City Chiefs, 1993
Most Consecutive Road Wins in a Season, Regular Season and Postseason, by a Starting Quarterback, 10, Eli Manning, New York Giants, 2007
Most Road Wins in a Season, Regular Season and Postseason, by a Starting Quarterback, 10, Eli Manning, New York Giants, 2007
Most Wins in a Season, Regular Season and Post-Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 18, Tom Brady, New England Patriots, 2007
Most Wins in a Season, Regular Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 16, Tom Brady, New England Patriots, 2007
Most Consecutive Wins, Regular Season, by a Rookie Starting Quarterback, 13, Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers, 2004
Most Wins in a Season, Regular Season and Post-Season, by a Rookie Starting Quarterback, 14, Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers, 2004
Most Wins in a Season, Post-Season, by a Rookie Starting Quarterback, 2, Joe Flacco, Baltimore Ravens, 2008; Mark Sanchez, New York Jets, 2009
Longest regular season win streak to start a career for an NFL quarterback, 15, Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers, 2004–2005
Most Wins against a single opponent, Regular Season and Post-Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 28, Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers, 1992-2007 Minnesota Vikings, 2009-2010 vs. Detroit Lions
Longest win streak to start a career against a single opponent, Regular Season and Post-Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 10, Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers, 2004–2009 vs. Cleveland Browns
Longest win streak against a single opponent, Regular Season and Post-Season, by a Starting Quarterback, 13, Steve Young, San Francisco 49ers, vs. Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams, 1987, 1991–1998
Fewest Wins in a Regular Season by a Starting Quarterback who won the Super Bowl, 0, Doug Williams, Washington Redskins 1987

Holy s**t, I think I might be in love with you.

This is such a great response in a civil discussion, I really could just hug you. FoRealz.

I was a little blunt and harsh, I think... ok, I know I was... in my response to you. I'm probably just cranky because my favorite player in the league is out for the year. That and I moved all the furniture in my Dad's apartment yesterday by myself (big heavy furniture, thank [higher power of your choice] for creating dollies) so I pulled about every muscle in my body... and I got a nose cold last night. Poor me!

So, I'm real sorry for that. I think I may have been that way in all my other posts today without realizing. You saying, "I really get that; I'm not as dumb as you might think (though perhaps not far off).", made me realize that. I don't think you're dumb. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Ok, now that my damn mushy hippie rambling is out of the way, I'll respond to your post.

Your point about salary is a good one. I've used it in discussions, myself. Yes, quarterback is the most valued position in the NFL. I think the second most is actually Left Tackle, though.

The reason I say that the QB is merely another factor in the outcome of a game is that, as I pointed out in my previous post, a quarterback can have an amazing game or season and still lose. If a team spends all of their money on a QB, but fails to buy them protection... well, you know where I'm going. Basically, the team wasted their money on that QB.

The original point was that you said Troy Smith lead the team to victory and that quarterbacks in general are responsible for the outcome of the game.

Quote:
Technically, you are correct. However, as much as football is a team sport (and you are absolutely correct in stating that), the leader on MOST football teams is the QB. As he goes, so goes the team (in just about every situation).

I was just pointing out that this is not really true. This was especially evident in our win yesterday.

So, are you now agreeing with me when you wrote this?

Quote:
The truth is (rightly or wrongly), the NFL places a higher value on the QB position than any other role, and not by accident. That doesn't mean that the QB does it all by himself, or that he is THE deciding factor in every single game because that's simply not true.

The quarterback is the most important player. We agree on this and so does the NFL, obviously. However, I think that this does not change the fact that football is still a team sport and the credit for wins and losses goes to the team and not the quarterback.

As far as the win/loss records you provided, you're not the only one who thinks like you do. I just happen to disagree. Popular opinion is not always correct. The Earth isn't flat.

In any case, I think our problem is our coaching and not our players. So, let's just give the wins to the players and the losses to the coaches. That sound fair?

Originally posted by rk1642:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by rk1642:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
It wasn't good.

I'd give him a C. He made a couple of throws, a couple of mistakes that against a good team would have killed us, but he didn't really have to do much. Hard to assess anyone on this team after last night, actually, because ARI just didn't care.

Troy has made some plays and shown flashes but now that we have a solid body of work to look at, he is obviously very raw. I would really like to see what he does with a full offseason of work, because right now he is very limited. I find it hard to believe that our record right now would be worse than it is if Alex were starting. In fact, I think we'd be one game better, because we would have beat Carolina.

To be fair Alex did start the Carolina game... He just didn't finish it. Also to be fair the game was tied when he went out and we had the ball, and it went downhill from there. You're right, we would have won that game if he stayed in.

I also see us at 2-9 with Alex. I don't think he carries us on his back like Troy did in vs DEN and STL. Alex loses those games.

Based on what does Alex go 2-9? We just played the easiest part of our schedule and have a OC that is calling better games than when Alex was playing.

Lets see how Troy does against the Packers and the Chargers and then we can talk about how much of a leader and how great Troy is at leading us to victories.

With Alex, we could have easily won against the Saints and the Falcons this year and that was with crappy OC play calling. I think those are games we can compare with the Packers and Saints.

Wait, Didn't we lose those games?

Alex also had Frank Gore and Joe Staily to help him out while playing the #7 D Saints and the # 20 D Atlanta.

You want to compare the # 1 D (SanDiego) and the #12 D (Packers) games to to Alex playing lesser teams with better protection and better talent around him.

Yeah, I wanna compare: Just take a look at the records of each of these teams? I don't think anyone is gonna say that there is much difference between any of these teams. All have good D, solid O, well coached and have qb's.

Now it matters who is playing with you at qb on this team? Cause I'm pretty sure Alex lost all of the games he played in by himself or thats what I read on this board evey week. But what, now the oline, rb's and OC play calling matters?

Just don't think we want to measure our team against the likes of Denver or the Cards.

LOL... It's dumb posts like this that breed other dumb posts. I think the official term for what you're doing is called a slippery slope fallacy.

Most men understand math so I'll try and explain it that way for you. If you add 7+8+9 you get 24. If you change the 8 with a 3 you no longer get the same answer. The new answer is not better or worse than the old answer it's just different. Now if you use the results of that equation in another calculation the impact of changing the 8 to a 3 will be noticed.

Our O is a complicated calculation. We have our coaches, plays, players, and season wear and tear that each have different values. Whether they're better or worse can be argued; but I can guarantee that the O ran by Johnson with Stayley on the line and Gore as the RB earlier in the season is not equal to Johnson with Simms and Westbrook late in the season.

Furthermore, each team has a ranking as to where they stack up with the rest of the teams in the NFL. No way the # 1 and #12 ranked D's calculate out to the equivalent of the #7 and #20 D's.

Now for the slippery slope. Just cause some poster once said that Alex is the root of all problems on this team, it doesn't make it a true statement. To say that Troy has performed similar to Alex under different circumstances so he must also be the root of all our problems makes no sense. First off Alex was not the root of all of our problems. Secondly, how Troy performs under different circumstances is irrelevant to how he stacks up to Alex. Too many of the numbers in the math formula have changed; therefore, it's best to just go off of results of the whole. Now, 3-1 is much better than 1-6 don't you agree...

Originally posted by D_Niner:
Now, 3-1 is much better than 1-6 don't you agree...

I'm taking cold medicine and I'm tired and the rest of your post was like, yeah, I see, but wut? If I add 3-1 to 1-6 I get -3. So, since I just added Troy's record to Alex's record, I ended up with a negative number, that must mean that Troy Smith has had a negative impact on the team. Wait... that's not right. If Gore wasn't injured last night, Alex Smith would be 3-1 and Troy would be 1-6, so if I add those... wait... umm...

Alex and Troy didn't win or lose anything. The team did. Well, I blame it all on Singletary, really.

Can I motion that we Blame Singletary?

All in favor say, "I gotta watch the film."

Case dismissed.

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by D_Niner:
Now, 3-1 is much better than 1-6 don't you agree...

I'm taking cold medicine and I'm tired and the rest of your post was like, yeah, I see, but wut? If I add 3-1 to 1-6 I get -3. So, since I just added Troy's record to Alex's record, I ended up with a negative number, that must mean that Troy Smith has had a negative impact on the team. Wait... that's not right. If Gore wasn't injured last night, Alex Smith would be 3-1 and Troy would be 1-6, so if I add those... wait... umm...

Alex and Troy didn't win or lose anything. The team did. Well, I blame it all on Singletary, really.

Can I motion that we Blame Singletary?

All in favor say, "I gotta watch the film."

Case dismissed.

Lay off the cold meds dude...

A 3 and 1 record is >>> a 1 and 6 record. It all adds up to a 4 and 7 record.

And... If you read my post you will see that I'm saying the same thing you are. The results of the TEAM are what's important. I can't help it that the results of the TEAM are better with Troy than they were with Alex; but, that's the way that it is...

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by rk1642:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by rk1642:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
It wasn't good.

I'd give him a C. He made a couple of throws, a couple of mistakes that against a good team would have killed us, but he didn't really have to do much. Hard to assess anyone on this team after last night, actually, because ARI just didn't care.

Troy has made some plays and shown flashes but now that we have a solid body of work to look at, he is obviously very raw. I would really like to see what he does with a full offseason of work, because right now he is very limited. I find it hard to believe that our record right now would be worse than it is if Alex were starting. In fact, I think we'd be one game better, because we would have beat Carolina.

To be fair Alex did start the Carolina game... He just didn't finish it. Also to be fair the game was tied when he went out and we had the ball, and it went downhill from there. You're right, we would have won that game if he stayed in.

I also see us at 2-9 with Alex. I don't think he carries us on his back like Troy did in vs DEN and STL. Alex loses those games.

Based on what does Alex go 2-9? We just played the easiest part of our schedule and have a OC that is calling better games than when Alex was playing.

Lets see how Troy does against the Packers and the Chargers and then we can talk about how much of a leader and how great Troy is at leading us to victories.

With Alex, we could have easily won against the Saints and the Falcons this year and that was with crappy OC play calling. I think those are games we can compare with the Packers and Saints.

Wait, Didn't we lose those games?

Alex also had Frank Gore and Joe Staily to help him out while playing the #7 D Saints and the # 20 D Atlanta.

You want to compare the # 1 D (SanDiego) and the #12 D (Packers) games to to Alex playing lesser teams with better protection and better talent around him.

Yeah, I wanna compare: Just take a look at the records of each of these teams? I don't think anyone is gonna say that there is much difference between any of these teams. All have good D, solid O, well coached and have qb's.

Now it matters who is playing with you at qb on this team? Cause I'm pretty sure Alex lost all of the games he played in by himself or thats what I read on this board evey week. But what, now the oline, rb's and OC play calling matters?

Just don't think we want to measure our team against the likes of Denver or the Cards.

LOL... It's dumb posts like this that breed other dumb posts. I think the official term for what you're doing is called a slippery slope fallacy.

Most men understand math so I'll try and explain it that way for you. If you add 7+8+9 you get 24. If you change the 8 with a 3 you no longer get the same answer. The new answer is not better or worse than the old answer it's just different. Now if you use the results of that equation in another calculation the impact of changing the 8 to a 3 will be noticed.

Our O is a complicated calculation. We have our coaches, plays, players, and season wear and tear that each have different values. Whether they're better or worse can be argued; but I can guarantee that the O ran by Johnson with Stayley on the line and Gore as the RB earlier in the season is not equal to Johnson with Simms and Westbrook late in the season.

Furthermore, each team has a ranking as to where they stack up with the rest of the teams in the NFL. No way the # 1 and #12 ranked D's calculate out to the equivalent of the #7 and #20 D's.

Now for the slippery slope. Just cause some poster once said that Alex is the root of all problems on this team, it doesn't make it a true statement. To say that Troy has performed similar to Alex under different circumstances so he must also be the root of all our problems makes no sense. First off Alex was not the root of all of our problems. Secondly, how Troy performs under different circumstances is irrelevant to how he stacks up to Alex. Too many of the numbers in the math formula have changed; therefore, it's best to just go off of results of the whole. Now, 3-1 is much better than 1-6 don't you agree...

Oh yes, I agree with your brilliant post!! I always thought that it was Alex that was the problem, plain and simple and if we got rid of him we are playoff bound. Throught his time, the line, wr's, head coachs and the OC and thus the schemes have all changed. In Alex's case, he should have overcome all of that and led us to victories but if Troy loses Frank and an olineman then he can't be held to account if we lose.

Lets just let the rest of the games play out and then we can talk Troy vs Alex.

Besides, you only want your formula to apply to the top teams I listed but try your little formula for all the games we've played this year. I'm willing to bet that you'll see that Troy has played a much easier schedule but I'm just a man and maybe I don't even get math?

Originally posted by D_Niner:


Lay off the cold meds dude...

A 3 and 1 record is >>> a 1 and 6 record. It all adds up to a 4 and 7 record.

And... If you read my post you will see that I'm saying the same thing you are. The results of the TEAM are what's important. I can't help it that the results of the TEAM are better with Troy than they were with Alex; but, that's the way that it is...

Bud by doze id stubby....

I was just being silly, pay me no mind. All the math was intended to be nonsense.

Yeah, the team is important. They get 4 wins. Singletary gets 7 losses.

Can I get an Amen?

Originally posted by theninermaniac:
Alex is a better QB than Troy

Originally posted by Wodwo:

Originally posted by D_Niner:


Lay off the cold meds dude...

A 3 and 1 record is >>> a 1 and 6 record. It all adds up to a 4 and 7 record.

And... If you read my post you will see that I'm saying the same thing you are. The results of the TEAM are what's important. I can't help it that the results of the TEAM are better with Troy than they were with Alex; but, that's the way that it is...

Bud by doze id stubby....

I was just being silly, pay me no mind. All the math was intended to be nonsense.

Yeah, the team is important. They get 4 wins. Singletary gets 7 losses.

Can I get an Amen?

Amen Brodda

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Amen Brodda

Woohoo!

By dose feels bedder dow!

Tanks!

Originally posted by rk1642:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by rk1642:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by rk1642:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
It wasn't good.

I'd give him a C. He made a couple of throws, a couple of mistakes that against a good team would have killed us, but he didn't really have to do much. Hard to assess anyone on this team after last night, actually, because ARI just didn't care.

Troy has made some plays and shown flashes but now that we have a solid body of work to look at, he is obviously very raw. I would really like to see what he does with a full offseason of work, because right now he is very limited. I find it hard to believe that our record right now would be worse than it is if Alex were starting. In fact, I think we'd be one game better, because we would have beat Carolina.

To be fair Alex did start the Carolina game... He just didn't finish it. Also to be fair the game was tied when he went out and we had the ball, and it went downhill from there. You're right, we would have won that game if he stayed in.

I also see us at 2-9 with Alex. I don't think he carries us on his back like Troy did in vs DEN and STL. Alex loses those games.

Based on what does Alex go 2-9? We just played the easiest part of our schedule and have a OC that is calling better games than when Alex was playing.

Lets see how Troy does against the Packers and the Chargers and then we can talk about how much of a leader and how great Troy is at leading us to victories.

With Alex, we could have easily won against the Saints and the Falcons this year and that was with crappy OC play calling. I think those are games we can compare with the Packers and Saints.

Wait, Didn't we lose those games?

Alex also had Frank Gore and Joe Staily to help him out while playing the #7 D Saints and the # 20 D Atlanta.

You want to compare the # 1 D (SanDiego) and the #12 D (Packers) games to to Alex playing lesser teams with better protection and better talent around him.

Yeah, I wanna compare: Just take a look at the records of each of these teams? I don't think anyone is gonna say that there is much difference between any of these teams. All have good D, solid O, well coached and have qb's.

Now it matters who is playing with you at qb on this team? Cause I'm pretty sure Alex lost all of the games he played in by himself or thats what I read on this board evey week. But what, now the oline, rb's and OC play calling matters?

Just don't think we want to measure our team against the likes of Denver or the Cards.

LOL... It's dumb posts like this that breed other dumb posts. I think the official term for what you're doing is called a slippery slope fallacy.

Most men understand math so I'll try and explain it that way for you. If you add 7+8+9 you get 24. If you change the 8 with a 3 you no longer get the same answer. The new answer is not better or worse than the old answer it's just different. Now if you use the results of that equation in another calculation the impact of changing the 8 to a 3 will be noticed.

Our O is a complicated calculation. We have our coaches, plays, players, and season wear and tear that each have different values. Whether they're better or worse can be argued; but I can guarantee that the O ran by Johnson with Stayley on the line and Gore as the RB earlier in the season is not equal to Johnson with Simms and Westbrook late in the season.

Furthermore, each team has a ranking as to where they stack up with the rest of the teams in the NFL. No way the # 1 and #12 ranked D's calculate out to the equivalent of the #7 and #20 D's.

Now for the slippery slope. Just cause some poster once said that Alex is the root of all problems on this team, it doesn't make it a true statement. To say that Troy has performed similar to Alex under different circumstances so he must also be the root of all our problems makes no sense. First off Alex was not the root of all of our problems. Secondly, how Troy performs under different circumstances is irrelevant to how he stacks up to Alex. Too many of the numbers in the math formula have changed; therefore, it's best to just go off of results of the whole. Now, 3-1 is much better than 1-6 don't you agree...

Oh yes, I agree with your brilliant post!! I always thought that it was Alex that was the problem, plain and simple and if we got rid of him we are playoff bound. Throught his time, the line, wr's, head coachs and the OC and thus the schemes have all changed. In Alex's case, he should have overcome all of that and led us to victories but if Troy loses Frank and an olineman then he can't be held to account if we lose.

Lets just let the rest of the games play out and then we can talk Troy vs Alex.

Besides, you only want your formula to apply to the top teams I listed but try your little formula for all the games we've played this year. I'm willing to bet that you'll see that Troy has played a much easier schedule but I'm just a man and maybe I don't even get math?

Some better some worse; but what's important is that were winning games right now!

A.Smith five years

2005: 7 starts 2-5 record
2006: 16 starts 7-9 record
2007: 7 starts 2-5 record
2008: 0 starts hurt
2009: 11 starts 5-6 record
2010: 7 starts 1-6 record

T.Smith four years

2007: 2 starts 1-1 record
2008: 0 starts
2009: 0 starts
2010: 4 starts 3-1

I like alex, i think is a good qb but a 17 and 31 win loss record really don't make alex a good quarter back. Troy only played six games and has never really had the chance to really learn a system long enough to prove him self. AS had five OC but you still gotta make plays, you still gotta win and he has not done that!

[ Edited by anubis5 on Nov 30, 2010 at 17:38:42 ]