There are 65 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

What was a bigger problem last year?

What was a bigger problem last year?

it has to be the QB! we have sucked and QB has been the ONE constant the WHOLE time! Even when Sing wasn't here we sucked so is that his fault too? Alex has been here and has sucked the whole time. 2+2=4 people.
Originally posted by WildBill:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Seems like a dodge from answering to me... c'mon, for real...

If you can evidently throw heaps of blame on the offense for being stubborn and predictable.... why can't you cut a QB the slack for being stuck in that very offense? How can anyone really assess the QB under those horrendous conditions?

Recognizing the offense for what it was... and then looking at the numbers of the QB through the time period of that offense... would it not stand to reason that the QB was held back (kneecapped) by the offensive stubborness and predictability? So then, could we not fairly imagine that QB going from an 82 QBR to something better when the offense isn't being restricted and predictable? And wouldn't better put him around the top half of all QBs? So wouldn't this mean he can be good (or at least very servicable at minimum) ?

It is just connecting the dots here. No guarantees, but it is very logical to connect them like this.

The above was not a a response to you but in general to what some of the things that was being said.

To me? To you? To whomever... Just overall trying to understand how any of us could expect better play from a QB when he is stuck with an offense consisting of predictability and stubborn play-selection. (not even to mention a documented, bottom 5 OL in regard to pass protection)
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Originally posted by WildBill:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Seems like a dodge from answering to me... c'mon, for real...

If you can evidently throw heaps of blame on the offense for being stubborn and predictable.... why can't you cut a QB the slack for being stuck in that very offense? How can anyone really assess the QB under those horrendous conditions?

Recognizing the offense for what it was... and then looking at the numbers of the QB through the time period of that offense... would it not stand to reason that the QB was held back (kneecapped) by the offensive stubborness and predictability? So then, could we not fairly imagine that QB going from an 82 QBR to something better when the offense isn't being restricted and predictable? And wouldn't better put him around the top half of all QBs? So wouldn't this mean he can be good (or at least very servicable at minimum) ?

It is just connecting the dots here. No guarantees, but it is very logical to connect them like this.

The above was not a a response to you but in general to what some of the things that was being said.

To me? To you? To whomever... Just overall trying to understand how any of us could expect better play from a QB when he is stuck with an offense consisting of predictability and stubborn play-selection. (not even to mention a documented, bottom 5 OL in regard to pass protection)


This.

Troy smith had to make s**t up on the fly, because the playbook was scaled down to 5 plays, from the 10 plays they used with Alex smith.

Remember how bad that game looked against the bucs? Yeah, Troy was exposed, the coaches were exposed and embarassed..

[ Edited by unst4bl3 on Jun 17, 2011 at 11:25:11 ]
Heres a question:

Is John Fox a good coach? Is Mike Wisenhunt? Dennis Green? i'd venture to say yes they are but they all sucked without a QB.
Originally posted by oldman9er:
response given above yours..

Like I said the kneecap analogy is a wrong and poor. Thus your conclusions are lacking. A better and more proper analogy is if have to run a 400 meter hurdle but forced to run from 20 to 40 meters behind (coaching). Now if you are world class top tier runner (QB) you still have a chance against lesser tier. If you are not then you won't be able to finish in the the top or at least make the finals. Which supports what I am saying.

To blame all 100% on coaching is a pi$$ poor analysis. They bear the brunt but not all 100%. Thats like blaming everything on a parent for a kid that strayed, he still makes the choice however limited.

[ Edited by WildBill on Jun 17, 2011 at 11:47:54 ]
Originally posted by WildBill:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
response given above yours..

Like I said the kneecap analogy is a wrong and poor. Thus your conclusions are lacking. A better and more proper analogy is if have to run a 400 meter hurdle but forced to run from 20 to 40 meters behind (coaching). Now if you are world class top tier runner (QB) you still have a chance against lesser tier. If you are not then you won't be able to finish in the the top or at least make the finals. Which supports what I am saying.

To blame all 100% on coaching is a pi$$ poor analysis. They bear the brunt but not all 100%. Thats like blaming everything on a parent for a kid that strayed, he still makes the choice however limited.

Never did I state that 100% blame falls away from the QB. You are misdirecting as to avoid a genuine answer to my question.

How can you truly assess the QB when you admit that the coaching was such crap?

answer is: It just can not be done.

... but you seem unwilling to go there, so I'll leave it be.
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Originally posted by WildBill:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
response given above yours..

Like I said the kneecap analogy is a wrong and poor. Thus your conclusions are lacking. A better and more proper analogy is if have to run a 400 meter hurdle but forced to run from 20 to 40 meters behind (coaching). Now if you are world class top tier runner (QB) you still have a chance against lesser tier. If you are not then you won't be able to finish in the the top or at least make the finals. Which supports what I am saying.

To blame all 100% on coaching is a pi$$ poor analysis. They bear the brunt but not all 100%. Thats like blaming everything on a parent for a kid that strayed, he still makes the choice however limited.

Never did I state that 100% blame falls away from the QB. You are misdirecting as to avoid a genuine answer to my question.

How can you truly assess the QB when you admit that the coaching was such crap?

answer is: It just can not be done.

... but you seem unwilling to go there, so I'll leave it be.

how can you truly asses the coaching staff when the QB/QB's were such crap?
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Originally posted by WildBill:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
response given above yours..

Like I said the kneecap analogy is a wrong and poor. Thus your conclusions are lacking. A better and more proper analogy is if have to run a 400 meter hurdle but forced to run from 20 to 40 meters behind (coaching). Now if you are world class top tier runner (QB) you still have a chance against lesser tier. If you are not then you won't be able to finish in the the top or at least make the finals. Which supports what I am saying.

To blame all 100% on coaching is a pi$$ poor analysis. They bear the brunt but not all 100%. Thats like blaming everything on a parent for a kid that strayed, he still makes the choice however limited.

Never did I state that 100% blame falls away from the QB. You are misdirecting as to avoid a genuine answer to my question.

How can you truly assess the QB when you admit that the coaching was such crap?

answer is: It just can not be done.

... but you seem unwilling to go there, so I'll leave it be.

You are avoiding the real and original question. But in answer to yours, yes you can assess the QB even when they have their hands tied. You can see what they can do given a limited and simple proposition. How they react what their faults are. If the receiver is open and they miss with no mitigating circumstance-then they missed. If they duck like Chris Everett of the lambs did in the playoffs long ago then you know the guy can be shell shocked and rattled, if they can feel the pressure and can side step it/extend the play or are they oblivious, can they make the right read. Like I said before some people when you squeeze them they focuc others wilt. Others when there is nothing on the line they play better, others don't, you can assess that.

In fact you can tell more about a QB that performs in bland situations than with cleverly thought of plays. there are two reasons why in the pre-season why plays are bland, besides the not revealing your playbook for the season, it is to see what a player can do without the plays that not only attack a D's weakness but masks your players faults. So to say you can't assess a player, in this QB, is bunk.

Like the saying goes, you learn more about a person or yourself under duress than when things are good!
Originally posted by WildBill:

You are avoiding the real and original question. But in answer to yours, yes you can assess the QB even when they have their hands tied. You can see what they can do given a limited and simple proposition. How they react what their faults are. If the receiver is open and they miss with no mitigating circumstance-then they missed. If they duck like Chris Everett of the lambs did in the playoffs long ago then you know the guy can be shell shocked and rattled, if they can feel the pressure and can side step it/extend the play or are they oblivious, can they make the right read. Like I said before some people when you squeeze them they focuc others wilt. Others when there is nothing on the line they play better, others don't, you can assess that.

In fact you can tell more about a QB that performs in bland situations than with cleverly thought of plays. there are two reasons why in the pre-season why plays are bland, besides the not revealing your playbook for the season, it is to see what a player can do without the plays that not only attack a D's weakness but masks your players faults. So to say you can't assess a player, in this QB, is bunk.

Like the saying goes, you learn more about a person or yourself under duress than when things are good!

Well then, I guess this has gone as far as it can. Thanks for the response. I know it can only come back to this, but I am pleased that Harbaugh disagrees with you... and agrees with me... about #11.

GO NINERS!!!
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Originally posted by WildBill:

You are avoiding the real and original question. But in answer to yours, yes you can assess the QB even when they have their hands tied. You can see what they can do given a limited and simple proposition. How they react what their faults are. If the receiver is open and they miss with no mitigating circumstance-then they missed. If they duck like Chris Everett of the lambs did in the playoffs long ago then you know the guy can be shell shocked and rattled, if they can feel the pressure and can side step it/extend the play or are they oblivious, can they make the right read. Like I said before some people when you squeeze them they focuc others wilt. Others when there is nothing on the line they play better, others don't, you can assess that.

In fact you can tell more about a QB that performs in bland situations than with cleverly thought of plays. there are two reasons why in the pre-season why plays are bland, besides the not revealing your playbook for the season, it is to see what a player can do without the plays that not only attack a D's weakness but masks your players faults. So to say you can't assess a player, in this QB, is bunk.

Like the saying goes, you learn more about a person or yourself under duress than when things are good!

Well then, I guess this has gone as far as it can. Thanks for the response. I know it can only come back to this, but I am pleased that Harbaugh disagrees with you... and agrees with me... about #11.

GO NINERS!!!


Go niners.
Go ALex. SMith.
Originally posted by AB83Rules:
I dont wanna blame Alex or Troy on the yr, cause it is IMO Singletary and Company's fault.

For yrs, even with Nolan, we have used crappy OCs who didnt know anything, i mean come on, Mike Johnson, Jimmy Raye, Hostler, even McCarthy wasn't good when he was here. The best was Norv Turner, till he left, and when he was here, that was Alex's best yr IMO.

So yeah, I blame Sing for the mess. So glad he is gone, and we have Harbaugh now, with an actual staff, not a bunch of geezers, ie Jerry Sullivan, etc.....

I think the bolded is more a reflection of how bad the talent was that year.
Originally posted by BHulman:
Originally posted by AB83Rules:
I dont wanna blame Alex or Troy on the yr, cause it is IMO Singletary and Company's fault.

For yrs, even with Nolan, we have used crappy OCs who didnt know anything, i mean come on, Mike Johnson, Jimmy Raye, Hostler, even McCarthy wasn't good when he was here. The best was Norv Turner, till he left, and when he was here, that was Alex's best yr IMO.

So yeah, I blame Sing for the mess. So glad he is gone, and we have Harbaugh now, with an actual staff, not a bunch of geezers, ie Jerry Sullivan, etc.....

I think the bolded is more a reflection of how bad the talent was that year.

It could have been coaching also, he didn't tailor it enough to the crap we had here
Coaching. Singletary was the worst coach i've ever seen on the niners.
Originally posted by unst4bl3:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Originally posted by WildBill:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Seems like a dodge from answering to me... c'mon, for real...

If you can evidently throw heaps of blame on the offense for being stubborn and predictable.... why can't you cut a QB the slack for being stuck in that very offense? How can anyone really assess the QB under those horrendous conditions?

Recognizing the offense for what it was... and then looking at the numbers of the QB through the time period of that offense... would it not stand to reason that the QB was held back (kneecapped) by the offensive stubborness and predictability? So then, could we not fairly imagine that QB going from an 82 QBR to something better when the offense isn't being restricted and predictable? And wouldn't better put him around the top half of all QBs? So wouldn't this mean he can be good (or at least very servicable at minimum) ?

It is just connecting the dots here. No guarantees, but it is very logical to connect them like this.

The above was not a a response to you but in general to what some of the things that was being said.

To me? To you? To whomever... Just overall trying to understand how any of us could expect better play from a QB when he is stuck with an offense consisting of predictability and stubborn play-selection. (not even to mention a documented, bottom 5 OL in regard to pass protection)


This.

Troy smith had to make s**t up on the fly, because the playbook was scaled down to 5 plays, from the 10 plays they used with Alex smith.

Remember how bad that game looked against the bucs? Yeah, Troy was exposed, the coaches were exposed and embarassed..

You can go ever earlier then that. We were exposed in Week 3 against the Chiefs...

Coaching was far superior on the other side. Especially on the D side of the ball. We got romped and Goldson (Flead flicker )was also exposed. We knew the O sucked. We only ran the ball 15 times which i think is because we were behind all game. Smith didn't help the cause and went 23/42 passing 232 yards (109 to Gore) 1TD, 1INT (poor throw), and a fumble.




[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 22, 2011 at 19:45:19 ]
How anyone could say it's not the coaching is beyond me. Alex has shown himself to be a Pro Bowl caliber quarterback in this league. He just needs a halfway decent team. The fact that he's been as good as he has (80+ passer rating) with such a horrible team speaks volumes. This guy is a winner and a class act. We have our quarterback.