The Official Harbaugh Era QB competition!

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:


In almost every thread about Smith I have made a point of wanting the coaches to go out and find the best QBs they can. You claim I want to give Smith another chance...yeah, to compete for the job. If there is someone better great. Cut your losses and move on only works if you move on to something better, not just different.

Plunkett was the MVP of Super Bowl XV on that stacked team you mentioned. I would take a young Jim Plunkett. Or an Archie Manning (never), Fran Tarkenton (4th), Jim Kelly (5th), Dan Fouts (9th) or John Elway (11th) some QBs who are considered good to great who did not do well early in their careers. Some did very well later in their careers while some stayed on bad teams and did not.

What? Those guys played good despite some of the not so good seasons bro. The team sucked but the QBs you mentioned were good to great.

Frank Tarkenton:
By his 4th year he had 22TD and and 11 int with a 91.8 rating. This was in 64 where they went 8-5 that season and the QB and WR were killed by the D.

Jim Kelly:
This guy blew out of the gates his rookie year with 22 TD and 17 ints and a 86.5 rating.They finished 4-12 but you could tell he was legit his rookie year. He reminds be of Bradford.

Dan Foutes:
He did start out slow. But by his 6th season he was looking good.

John Elway:
He may not have the stats, but this guy was a winner and a gunslinger. When the chips were down, he led the team from behind and lifted them to victories. He led the Broncos to a 41-21 record his first 5 years.

When the chips were down he lost in 86--he was sacked in the endzone, and then in 87 dazzled the crowd by completing 14 out of 38 in another loss, then was blown out by the 9ers 55-10 in 89. Fourteen years into his career he finally threw off his tie with Jim Kelly as being the biggest losers in Super Bowl history.

I listed the players I did because many called them losers during their early careers and then they proved themselves (the number after their name is the year they gained credibility). Archie never did prove himself but many agreed he was the least lucky QB in history because his team was soooo very bad. I still have friends who argue Fran Tarkenton was a terrible QB. So...all in the eye of the beholder and before writing off a player you might want to know a bit about history.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by dj43:

If you truly believe all this team needs is Philip Rivers then I have lost a little respect for your credibility.

This offense needs a RG, a LT, a healthy LT, a TE that can read and adjust, WRs that can run good routes and get separation...and then we come to a defense that can't rush the passer or defend against the pass. Other than that, yes, this team could dominate.

Why lose credibility for me? Think about it for a second. Phillip Rivers was on a 9-7 team and had a phenomenal year. They missed the playoffs because the team sucked. DESPITE THE s**tTY TEAM EFFORT, Rivers was able to put up phenominal stats with his main WR gone most of the season, and his stud TE injured. Also, their OLINE was crap. If their TEAM was better, Rivers' QB play would have been worth a s**t. A.Smith barely puts up stats like this in his career...

Phillip Rivers 2010 Stats:
Comp: 65%
Yards: 4,710 (Smith has yet to hit 3,000 in any one season)
TD: 30 (Smith has 51 in 5 seasons. 6 including the injury season)
Int: 13 (Smith had 9 in the first 5 games)
Sacked: 38 (Bad OL this year but still able to produce)
Rating: 101.8 (Smith has yet to eclipse 85 in any given season)

So yeah. I do think the 49ers need Rivers. I think him and the 9ers would dominate the NFC west. I'll take his 30 tds and skills any day. Despite having no weapons on O for most of the year, and a bad Oline, he was able to produce and play well. His team went 9-7 because he willed them to some victories with sheer great QB play despite all the injuries, suspensions, and drama. And with no RB game to speak of.

So before you bash my cred, think about it.

With Rivers, the 9ers would be a force in the NFC for many years to come.

Certain people must think that the 9ers suck so bad that Phillip Rivers cant even make a difference

Everyone else and their momma know we are just one good qb away from owning the west

Nobody said he wouldn't make a difference. The point was that this team, based on the way multiple key players performed the past year, has numerous other problems that are holding it back besides who plays QB.

Honestly, do you think that qb is not our main problem? That if we were to plug in Rivers into our offense we wouldn't be a playoff team?

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Hypothetically Speaking: What would we talking about if Alex Smith was no longer a Niner?

Andy Lee.

If we had Jason Campbell on the roster right now, how confident would you be that Harbaugh/Roman could transform him into a "great" QB? Just as with Alex Smith, I would have my reservations based on past performance. Not impossible, but not probable either.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:


In almost every thread about Smith I have made a point of wanting the coaches to go out and find the best QBs they can. You claim I want to give Smith another chance...yeah, to compete for the job. If there is someone better great. Cut your losses and move on only works if you move on to something better, not just different.

Plunkett was the MVP of Super Bowl XV on that stacked team you mentioned. I would take a young Jim Plunkett. Or an Archie Manning (never), Fran Tarkenton (4th), Jim Kelly (5th), Dan Fouts (9th) or John Elway (11th) some QBs who are considered good to great who did not do well early in their careers. Some did very well later in their careers while some stayed on bad teams and did not.

What? Those guys played good despite some of the not so good seasons bro. The team sucked but the QBs you mentioned were good to great.

Frank Tarkenton:
By his 4th year he had 22TD and and 11 int with a 91.8 rating. This was in 64 where they went 8-5 that season and the QB and WR were killed by the D.

Jim Kelly:
This guy blew out of the gates his rookie year with 22 TD and 17 ints and a 86.5 rating.They finished 4-12 but you could tell he was legit his rookie year. He reminds be of Bradford.

Dan Foutes:
He did start out slow. But by his 6th season he was looking good.

John Elway:
He may not have the stats, but this guy was a winner and a gunslinger. When the chips were down, he led the team from behind and lifted them to victories. He led the Broncos to a 41-21 record his first 5 years.

When the chips were down he lost in 86--he was sacked in the endzone, and then in 87 dazzled the crowd by completing 14 out of 38 in another loss, then was blown out by the 9ers 55-10 in 89. Fourteen years into his career he finally threw off his tie with Jim Kelly as being the biggest losers in Super Bowl history.

I listed the players I did because many called them losers during their early careers and then they proved themselves (the number after their name is the year they gained credibility). Archie never did prove himself but many agreed he was the least lucky QB in history because his team was soooo very bad. I still have friends who argue Fran Tarkenton was a terrible QB. So...all in the eye of the beholder and before writing off a player you might want to know a bit about history.

The point is that most of the guys you listed didn't start "slow." By year 6, they were proving their worth.

Frank Tarkenton a bad QB? I guess three trips to the superbowl doesn't mean s**t these days.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by dj43:

If you truly believe all this team needs is Philip Rivers then I have lost a little respect for your credibility.

This offense needs a RG, a LT, a healthy LT, a TE that can read and adjust, WRs that can run good routes and get separation...and then we come to a defense that can't rush the passer or defend against the pass. Other than that, yes, this team could dominate.

Why lose credibility for me? Think about it for a second. Phillip Rivers was on a 9-7 team and had a phenomenal year. They missed the playoffs because the team sucked. DESPITE THE s**tTY TEAM EFFORT, Rivers was able to put up phenominal stats with his main WR gone most of the season, and his stud TE injured. Also, their OLINE was crap. If their TEAM was better, Rivers' QB play would have been worth a s**t. A.Smith barely puts up stats like this in his career...

Phillip Rivers 2010 Stats:
Comp: 65%
Yards: 4,710 (Smith has yet to hit 3,000 in any one season)
TD: 30 (Smith has 51 in 5 seasons. 6 including the injury season)
Int: 13 (Smith had 9 in the first 5 games)
Sacked: 38 (Bad OL this year but still able to produce)
Rating: 101.8 (Smith has yet to eclipse 85 in any given season)

So yeah. I do think the 49ers need Rivers. I think him and the 9ers would dominate the NFC west. I'll take his 30 tds and skills any day. Despite having no weapons on O for most of the year, and a bad Oline, he was able to produce and play well. His team went 9-7 because he willed them to some victories with sheer great QB play despite all the injuries, suspensions, and drama. And with no RB game to speak of.

So before you bash my cred, think about it.

With Rivers, the 9ers would be a force in the NFC for many years to come.

Hypothetically speaking, yes.

Some people truly don't understand that a great QB can make a lot of holes go away.

You really think a Brees or Rivers would struggle to get the ball to Crabs/Morgan/VD? You think the D would be as bad with all that newfound rest they'd get cuz the O can acutally move the ball?

I'm so sick of people downplaying the talent on this team.

Arizona went from SB contender to worst team in the league in 1 season cuz they lost their QB.

Why do Alex supporters try so hard to criticize, discredit and downplay any QB not named Alex?

Originally posted by JayBee:
Why do Alex supporters try so hard to criticize, discredit and downplay any QB not named Alex?

Alex is gonna be a 49er next year

Deal with it

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Why do Alex supporters try so hard to criticize, discredit and downplay any QB not named Alex?

Alex is gonna be a 49er next year

Deal with it

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Why do Alex supporters try so hard to criticize, discredit and downplay any QB not named Alex?

Alex is gonna be a 49er next year

Deal with it

Is that like dealing with Jock Itch. Nobody wants it; but, it's there and there's not much you can do about it. Just apply your ointment and wait for it to go away?

Alex Smith's career.

7 years of hypothesis.

lol.

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Why do Alex supporters try so hard to criticize, discredit and downplay any QB not named Alex?

Alex is gonna be a 49er next year

Deal with it

.... and this is really all it comes down to.

All this talk is either induced by boredom (people bashing to get attention) or people pouting and stomping their feet over what will be. Don't your lil feet hurt by now after all these tantrums?

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Why do Alex supporters try so hard to criticize, discredit and downplay any QB not named Alex?

Alex is gonna be a 49er next year

Deal with it

.... and this is really all it comes down to.

All this talk is either induced by boredom (people bashing to get attention) or people pouting and stomping their feet over what will be. Don't your lil feet hurt by now after all these tantrums?

LOL

Yeah, I don't know what's worse. Those who don't want to accept that Alex will be here next year or those who have to go from thread to thread screaming "I told you so", like this somehow makes up for all the years of below average performance.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Why do Alex supporters try so hard to criticize, discredit and downplay any QB not named Alex?

Alex is gonna be a 49er next year

Deal with it

.... and this is really all it comes down to.

All this talk is either induced by boredom (people bashing to get attention) or people pouting and stomping their feet over what will be. Don't your lil feet hurt by now after all these tantrums?

LOL

Yeah, I don't know what's worse. Those who don't want to accept that Alex will be here next year or those who have to go from thread to thread screaming "I told you so", like this somehow makes up for all the years of below average performance.

Agree on the first part, but where are the "I told you so" comments you speak of?

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Why do Alex supporters try so hard to criticize, discredit and downplay any QB not named Alex?

Alex is gonna be a 49er next year

Deal with it

.... and this is really all it comes down to.

All this talk is either induced by boredom (people bashing to get attention) or people pouting and stomping their feet over what will be. Don't your lil feet hurt by now after all these tantrums?

LOL

Yeah, I don't know what's worse. Those who don't want to accept that Alex will be here next year or those who have to go from thread to thread screaming "I told you so", like this somehow makes up for all the years of below average performance.

Agree on the first part, but where are the "I told you so" comments you speak of?

Didn't mean to offend you.

This is a general statement as is the statement of "people pouting and stomping their feet over what will be" was. It's a statement to the smugness of some posters on here who think this somehow proves Alex is better than what he's shown us the past several years.