What was a bigger problem last year?

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Oh cmon, in what article JH is talking about Smith does he mention how well Alex plays? What hes said so far isnt a glowing endorsement of Smiths abilities on Sunday.

He never once said he plans to start Smith

Google takes just a minute. Saves you from the embarrassment of eating your words.

Quote:
New 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh is so sure Alex Smith will play for San Francisco this season, he gave the unsigned free agent a playbook during the NFL draft. Harbaugh even expects Smith to be his starting quarterback if and when the 2011 season swings around

http://sanfrancisco49ers.thefootballfanshop.info/san-francisco-49ers-rumors/harbaugh-expects-qb-alex-smith-to-start-if-he-returns/

Quote:
Harbaugh: ‘I like Alex … I like what I see on tape’

http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/2011/02/inside-the-49ers/harbaugh-on-knbr-i-like-alex/


Now, you were saying?

He expects Smith to start isnt the same as saying he will. As HC he could have said Smith "will" start not that he expects Smith to beat Carr and Kap to start. Him liking what he sees on tape isnt a glowing endorsement either. He easily could have gone into specifics on what he liked and why. You know on how Smith keeps his poise under pressure, accuracy, arm strength etc etc. All we got was tough dillo skin and how hes been treated. You also forgot to google paying 5 mill to start too. Where did that# come from? Seems youre assuming some things and might have made up another. Just sayin

Be careful that you don't trip backpedlling like that. This is the whole problem with you guys, you want to argue, but refuse to come to the debate prepared to back up your position with fact. Hyperbole won't get you anywhere on this site. too many that know what they are talking about, the oldman being just one of many.

Just show them the "facts" bro.

"Smith was among about 15 players at the team’s facility working out and he met with Harbaugh, who has made it known he would like the team to reunite with the 2005 No. 1 overall pick—but Harbaugh said there will be a wide-open quarterback competition whenever football resumes. "

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/04/29/49ers-trade-up-to-take-nevada-qb-kaepernick/

[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 27, 2011 at 17:44:15 ]

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Oh cmon, in what article JH is talking about Smith does he mention how well Alex plays? What hes said so far isnt a glowing endorsement of Smiths abilities on Sunday.

He never once said he plans to start Smith

Google takes just a minute. Saves you from the embarrassment of eating your words.

Quote:
New 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh is so sure Alex Smith will play for San Francisco this season, he gave the unsigned free agent a playbook during the NFL draft. Harbaugh even expects Smith to be his starting quarterback if and when the 2011 season swings around

http://sanfrancisco49ers.thefootballfanshop.info/san-francisco-49ers-rumors/harbaugh-expects-qb-alex-smith-to-start-if-he-returns/

Quote:
Harbaugh: ‘I like Alex … I like what I see on tape’

http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/2011/02/inside-the-49ers/harbaugh-on-knbr-i-like-alex/


Now, you were saying?

He expects Smith to start isnt the same as saying he will. As HC he could have said Smith "will" start not that he expects Smith to beat Carr and Kap to start. Him liking what he sees on tape isnt a glowing endorsement either. He easily could have gone into specifics on what he liked and why. You know on how Smith keeps his poise under pressure, accuracy, arm strength etc etc. All we got was tough dillo skin and how hes been treated. You also forgot to google paying 5 mill to start too. Where did that# come from? Seems youre assuming some things and might have made up another. Just sayin

Be careful that you don't trip backpedlling like that. This is the whole problem with you guys, you want to argue, but refuse to come to the debate prepared to back up your position with fact. Hyperbole won't get you anywhere on this site. too many that know what they are talking about, the oldman being just one of many.

Just show them the "facts" bro.

"Smith was among about 15 players at the team’s facility working out and he met with Harbaugh, who has made it known he would like the team to reunite with the 2005 No. 1 overall pick—but Harbaugh said there will be a wide-open quarterback competition whenever football resumes. "

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/04/29/49ers-trade-up-to-take-nevada-qb-kaepernick/

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Why is everyone acting as if Bradford set the world on fire anyway?

Okay, so we all admit and recognize that Alex was a 20 year old in 2005 and had NO business stepping onto the field for a talent deprived team. Yes? All agree?


So year 2... full year... Alex puts up a 74.8 QBR. He does this with the wonderful Kwame Harris at tackle and essentially nothing at receiver.

So how did the much more ready Sam Bradford do in this grand year? 76.5

Don't misunderstand... Bradford did fine for a rookie and he will very likely grow into a very good QB. But I see no logic in exaggerating Sam just to further dump on Alex. Essentially, they were both rookies when they put up the above numbers.

If people really want to say it is unfair to dismiss 2005 because it's convenient, then not much can be done about that. I dismiss the 2005 year for all the reasons above. I dismiss the 2007 year, as the stats are skewed due to throws made from a separated shoulder.

I posted this up in a thread that got locked:

Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games

Alex Smith Rookie year after inheriting 1-15 team:

50.9% Completion, 1 TD, 15 int, 29 sacks and2 fumbles in 9 games.

Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Bradford had 3512 yard passing his rookie year with no stud WRs. Hell, the WR corp had injuriy problems for the Rams and he was throwing to scrubs. A.Smith has yet to eclipse 3,000 yards in one season in his entire career. Closest he got was 2,850....

Being injury prone doesn't help.

Alex even got to sit and watch and learn the O for half a season. Bradford got thrown to the Wolves. And Bradford himself came from a spread offense and wasn't "NFL ready" yet.

But then again, Rams have a good OL, WRs, HC, OC, QB coach?

Bradford got his first 300 yard game in 10 games. It took A. Smith 4 years to do it. And he only did it once more since.

TWO 300 YARD GAMES IN 6 SEASONS? Even though we always play from behind and are in the worst division in football. JUST TWO? We haven't been THAT much worse then the Rams in the last 6 years have we?

Oh well, the Rams must have better HC OC combo and the offense was designed for Bradford with checkdown passes so it was easy for him to accumulate great stats for a rookie huh? As if Smith never checks s**t down....

Cue the Smith fans who will now question my football knowledge, try to say rams have superior coaching and O Line, come up with some justifications for the above or will attempt to question my mental state.

Here are some "facts." Now go ahead and discredit my facts.

[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 27, 2011 at 18:12:22 ]

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Why is everyone acting as if Bradford set the world on fire anyway?

Okay, so we all admit and recognize that Alex was a 20 year old in 2005 and had NO business stepping onto the field for a talent deprived team. Yes? All agree?


So year 2... full year... Alex puts up a 74.8 QBR. He does this with the wonderful Kwame Harris at tackle and essentially nothing at receiver.

So how did the much more ready Sam Bradford do in this grand year? 76.5

Don't misunderstand... Bradford did fine for a rookie and he will very likely grow into a very good QB. But I see no logic in exaggerating Sam just to further dump on Alex. Essentially, they were both rookies when they put up the above numbers.

If people really want to say it is unfair to dismiss 2005 because it's convenient, then not much can be done about that. I dismiss the 2005 year for all the reasons above. I dismiss the 2007 year, as the stats are skewed due to throws made from a separated shoulder.

I posted this up in a thread that got locked:

Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games

Alex Smith Rookie year after inheriting 1-15 team:

50.9% Completion, 1 TD, 15 int, 29 sacks and2 fumbles in 9 games.

Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Bradford had 3512 yard passing his rookie year with no stud WRs. Hell, the WR corp had injuriy problems for the Rams and he was throwing to scrubs. A.Smith has yet to eclipse 3,000 yards in one season in his entire career. Closest he got was 2,850....

Being injury prone doesn't help.

But then again, Rams have a good OL, WRs, HC, OC, QB coach?

Bradford got his first 300 yard game in 10 games. It took A. Smith 4 years to do it. And he only did it once more since.

TWO 300 YARD GAMES IN 6 SEASONS? Even though we always play from behind and are in the worst division in football. JUST TWO? We haven't been THAT much worse then the Rams in the last 6 years have we?

Oh well, the Rams must have better HC OC combo and the offense was designed for Bradford with checkdown passes so it was easy for him to accumulate great stats for a rookie huh? As if Smith never checks s**t down....

Cue the Smith fans who will now question my football knowledge, try to say rams have superior coaching and O Line, come up with some justifications for the above or will attempt to question my mental state.

Here are some "facts." Now go ahead and discredit my facts.

Damn bruh, good breakdown. You certainly aren't lacking any football knowledge.

I like the Rams example because its very similar to the situation Alex came into his rookie year, some can even argue that it was even worse. People also seem to forget he was out of football for a while, with a shoulder injury. We were expected to win the west and its sad that, a rookie led team, with less overall talent was closer to the playoffs than we were. Also, i dont think that he had better offensive co-ordinator, because Alex's took a head coaching position, while Bradford's got canned.

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

Don't be so quick to pat me on the back.

The point is that Bradford looks better then Alex ever has. Even as a 6th year player with a back to back OC in Jimmy Raye, who does suck, but he is an experienced coach in this league. Not much better then the rams situation is right now.

You can make a good argument that Bradford outplayed Smith even this year. A rookie vs a 6th year vet on very similar situations. Also, you ignored the fact that Bradford threw for 3,512 yards his rookie year and Smith has yet to eclipse 3000, even with Norv Turner in his "rookie year."

I still think that sitting on the bench for half a season was good for him, just like alot of Smith fans argue, especially when comparing Smith and Rodgers. Wasn't smith "thrown into the wolves." Well Bradford was thrown deeper into the Wolf den.

Don't forget the whole 300 yard performance in his 10th game compared to Smith's 4 year 300 yard game drought.

So in 2010 Alex's Stats in 11 games (injury prone)were the following:

Yards: 2370

Yard per game: 215

Comp %: 68

TD: 14

Int 10:

Sacked: 25

Fumbles: 4


This, in his 6th year, isn't better then Bradford's rookie year. And there is a general consensus that 49ers are more talented all around then the ButtRams. Bradford's situation is just as bad if not worse the ours right now. A 1-15 team last year with a s**tload of injuries.

As for you "down the stretch" argument, Bradford posted a 85.5 rating in 7 games against teams like ATL, KC, and NO along with NFC west garbage teams and Denver. Not to shabby for a rookie. He didn't play very well against those better teams but those are playoff teams.

Your sample with Alex smith, (98.5) comes from only the last 4 games of the season where we played against SEA, AZ, STL, and SD. Against SD he threw up a 66 rating. Against the seahawks he had a 130.7 and 300+ yards which was the best game of his career. These stats you put up are misleading.

Smith's rating was 82.5 and missed games against Greenbay and Tampa Bay, which, if history shows correctly, would have dropped it down. Plus he only played in 11 games compared to 16 by Bradford. Rating naturally go down as you play more games. That's why the 4 game sample where Smith put up 90+ rating isn't significant at all. Bradfors was 76 and Smith was 82. Thats 6 points in ratings, one point for each year Smith has been in the league. Remember, we are comparing a rookie vs a Vet in similar situations and they played the same exact teams.

Give me Bradford for Smith trade any day, except no GM in the world, except some fans on here would ever do that. Its statements like that which make me laugh when you question other people's football knowlege.

As for your last comment, are you really saying that you would rather go with a "hot hand" for right now rather then the future, just because A Smith had 3 good games against s**t nfc west teams?

[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 27, 2011 at 19:39:08 ]

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

This, I saw nothing wrong with alex at the end of the season. I saw improvement, and figure there would be an actual step forward this year, instead of a baby step.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

This this and this.

Yeah we can't dwell on the distant past though.

The first 7 last season A.Smith had a 76 rating. But that's in the distant past. The last four games, he had a 90.

[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 27, 2011 at 19:46:57 ]

Didn't read... lol.... thanks anyway.

Harbaugh stated that he expects Alex to start... like I posted with source. Jim likes what he sees on the field from Alex, and thinks he was dumped on by the organization. I agree with him... you don't. You guys are just gonna have to deal with it. Stop arguing with me as if I were Jim Harbaugh. It's not my decision, and not one you can argue into a different direction.

Play nice now...

[ Edited by oldman9er on Jun 27, 2011 at 19:54:37 ]

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Didn't read... lol.... thanks anyway.

Harbaugh stated that he expects Alex to start... like I posted with source. Jim likes what he sees on the field from Alex, and thinks he was dumped on by the organization. I agree with him... you don't. You guys are just gonna have to deal with it. Stop arguing with me as if I were Jim Harbaugh. It's not my decision, and not one you can argue into a different direction.

Play nice now...

[ Edited by jimmy49erfan on Jun 27, 2011 at 20:17:43 ]

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Didn't read... lol.... thanks anyway.

Harbaugh stated that he expects Alex to start... like I posted with source. Jim likes what he sees on the field from Alex, and thinks he was dumped on by the organization. I agree with him... you don't. You guys are just gonna have to deal with it. Stop arguing with me as if I were Jim Harbaugh. It's not my decision, and not one you can argue into a different direction.

Play nice now...

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was [b]59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.
[/b]
Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

Anybody else notice the pro Smith guys remove his bad games and then remove the good games of anyone they are comparing him against?

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Didn't read... lol.... thanks anyway.

Harbaugh stated that he expects Alex to start... like I posted with source. Jim likes what he sees on the field from Alex, and thinks he was dumped on by the organization. I agree with him... you don't. You guys are just gonna have to deal with it. Stop arguing with me as if I were Jim Harbaugh. It's not my decision, and not one you can argue into a different direction.

Play nice now...

"Didn't read."

At least say i have a point.

LOL

[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 27, 2011 at 22:17:28 ]