The Official Harbaugh Era QB competition!

"There were things I thought I shouldn't be doing and he'd say, 'No, do it,'" Johnson said. "And it would work. He teaches you to trust yourself as a player because he once was a player. A lot of coaches think it's all about Xs and Os, but at times you have to improvise as player. And that's where he's different from other coaches -- because he knows you're going to have to improvise when you're out on the field."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ninerinsider/detail?entry_id=92765#ixzz1RWzdFkSs


This is the exact opposite of what Sing preached. Hopefully, this will rub off on Alex.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by Otter:
stopping discussing this same player over and over.

Not the post I was expecting. I'll say this again and have been very clear about it.

If people stop posting obvious hate and even untruths about players, then guess what? These types of discussions will stop. All due respect, but maybe you need to start paying better attention to what and who starts these nasty debates. Does it start from people randomly saying our QB is wonderful? (has anyone ever even said such a thing?) Or does it start from people going out of their way to bash the player or generalize a group of posters for having the beliefs they do?

I am beginning to suspect that these Alex threads are allowed only because it's clear that it is the topic that keeps the forum going. Lots of inactivity until this topic comes up... so you let it go a while.

I would LOVE to stop defending our QB so much. So if you want shut these same old posters up about this, then guess what? You will get what you want.... IF... that's really what you want.

I'm going to address this in reverse order:

I don't know what you are getting at in the last paragraph.

Second Paragraph: We let the discussion go about Smith, because people have asked over and over again to be allowed to discuss him. The problem is all of the threads turning in to discussions about him, and the threads dedicated to him turn in to a big insult-fest with posters attacking posters.

First Paragraph: You are entitled to your opinion regarding how these debates begin. Frankly though, I don't care who starts the argument. It takes two to tango, as the expression goes.

Originally posted by Otter:
Frankly though, I don't care who starts the argument. It takes two to tango, as the expression goes.

Well this says it all, and to be blunt, I think that's a horrible way to handle things. That's like having two small children that fight all the time. You know Jimmy is always throwing the first punch that starts the fights, but for you, that doesn't matter? You still blame Benji for fighting back and judge the two equally?

Really? If you want the problem stopped... truly want it stopped... you nip it at the bud.... Stop Jimmy's BS and you have no further problems.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by Otter:
Frankly though, I don't care who starts the argument. It takes two to tango, as the expression goes.

Well this says it all, and to be blunt, I think that's a horrible way to handle things. That's like having two small children that fight all the time. You know Jimmy is always throwing the first punch that starts the fights, but for you, that doesn't matter? You still blame Benji for fighting back and judge the two equally?

Really? If you want the problem stopped... truly want it stopped... you nip it at the bud.... Stop Jimmy's BS and you have no further problems.

Or people that always get mad in Every Alex thread, should just simply not click on the threads??

Originally posted by oldman9er:
I'm moving this from the Gore thread to here, D Niner.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

There's the discrepancy. No one was blaming only Alex. You tried to make it look that way; but, everyone was talking about multiple issues with our O.

Well that's just it. (and I like the civil discussion... might actually make me see an error in my own thinking) If all of those issues exist simultaneously? Why should some put so much of the blame on the QB? Simply because he is supposed to be the shining knight that can rise above all of the problems? Is that a fair and reasonable demand? Has any QB in the history of football done this and shined through it? Has any team suffered so many problems at once?

That would be a good point if that's what the poster was doing; but, he was evenly distributing the blame between coaching, line play, receivers, and QB's. It was your post that seemed to ignore the distribution of blame and single out the QB position.

Now to answer your question... "Why should some put so much of the blame on the QB? "

It's unfortunate for the QB's that play this game; but, it's the nature of the position to have so much blame placed on them. If they get it right though, they have so much of the credit of a teams success associated with their name too. So it kinda balances out in the long run.

The QB position is a make or break position for any team. Look at the Cards without Kurt Warner...
An average to below average QB is victim to talent he has around him. He needs all the pieces to work well in order to have success. Think Trent Dilfer winning a SB.
An above average QB makes the talent around him look better than it is. This type of QB doesn't need everything to be functioning right to have a good game; he can make the best of the situation he's in. Think of Kurt Warner going to AZ, all the pieces started working once he showed up; but, stoped once he left...

Now we all agree that the line, coaching, and receivers had some problems. The question becomes was the QB position affected by these issues or did the QB rise above and make the team function despite these issues.

IMO Alex has always been a QB affected by his surroundings instead of one affecting his surroundings; which is why I see him as only an average/below average QB. People change though and maybe he will rise above and surprise us all...

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
I'm moving this from the Gore thread to here, D Niner.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

There's the discrepancy. No one was blaming only Alex. You tried to make it look that way; but, everyone was talking about multiple issues with our O.

Well that's just it. (and I like the civil discussion... might actually make me see an error in my own thinking) If all of those issues exist simultaneously? Why should some put so much of the blame on the QB? Simply because he is supposed to be the shining knight that can rise above all of the problems? Is that a fair and reasonable demand? Has any QB in the history of football done this and shined through it? Has any team suffered so many problems at once?

That would be a good point if that's what the poster was doing; but, he was evenly distributing the blame between coaching, line play, receivers, and QB's. It was your post that seemed to ignore the distribution of blame and single out the QB position.

Now to answer your question... "Why should some put so much of the blame on the QB? "

It's unfortunate for the QB's that play this game; but, it's the nature of the position to have so much blame placed on them. If they get it right though, they have so much of the credit of a teams success associated with their name too. So it kinda balances out in the long run.

The QB position is a make or break position for any team. Look at the Cards without Kurt Warner...
An average to below average QB is victim to talent he has around him. He needs all the pieces to work well in order to have success. Think Trent Dilfer winning a SB.
An above average QB makes the talent around him look better than it is. This type of QB doesn't need everything to be functioning right to have a good game; he can make the best of the situation he's in. Think of Kurt Warner going to AZ, all the pieces started working once he showed up.

Now we all agree that the line, coaching, and receivers had some problems. The question becomes was the QB position affected by these issues or did the QB rise above and make the team function despite these issues.

IMO Alex has always been a QB affected by his surroundings instead of one affecting his surroundings; which is why I see him as only an average/below average QB. People change though and maybe he will rise above and surprise us all...

edit:nvm

Originally posted by bigmike55:

Originally posted by JayBee:

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.

Exactly... Swap Alex Smith for any good to decent QB in the league and we are instantly better, not just at the QB position but as a team. Receivers would get the ball delivered on time with accuracy, the Oline wouldn't have to pass protect as long, the opponents defense wouldn't stack 8-9 guys in the box because they would have some respect for our QB/passing game, our RBs would thrive with a more balanced attack, and like you mentioned, our defense would get off the field for longer and get some much needed rest.

Alex Smith is one of the worst QBs in NFL history and the thought of him playing a 7th season as a 49er is a shame. I wouldn't be surprised if some journey man free agent comes in and beats him for the starting spot like usual.

Your knowledge of football history must be pretty weak if you think he is one of the worst ever. It is quite clear you have lost all objectivity if you honestly believe that.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by bigmike55:

Originally posted by JayBee:

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.

Exactly... Swap Alex Smith for any good to decent QB in the league and we are instantly better, not just at the QB position but as a team. Receivers would get the ball delivered on time with accuracy, the Oline wouldn't have to pass protect as long, the opponents defense wouldn't stack 8-9 guys in the box because they would have some respect for our QB/passing game, our RBs would thrive with a more balanced attack, and like you mentioned, our defense would get off the field for longer and get some much needed rest.

Alex Smith is one of the worst QBs in NFL history and the thought of him playing a 7th season as a 49er is a shame. I wouldn't be surprised if some journey man free agent comes in and beats him for the starting spot like usual.

Your knowledge of football history must be pretty weak if you think he is one of the worst ever. It is quite clear you have lost all objectivity if you honestly believe that.

The Cardinals lost more than just Warner before they fell apart... Also, Alex is not one of the worst in history, there are people like jamarcus russell Akeli smith, Cody Pickett, Ryan Leaf, Danny Wurfeul, Tim Tebow.. etc

Infact, I bet if Alex was on the Cardinals team last year, they make the playoffs and not the seahawks.

Originally posted by D_Niner:


Now to answer your question... "Why should some put so much of the blame on the QB? "

It's unfortunate for the QB's that play this game; but, it's the nature of the position to have so much blame placed on them. If they get it right though, they have so much of the credit of a teams success associated with their name too. So it kinda balances out in the long run.

Have heard this for a long time, and I do get that... I just don't agree that it should be that way.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

This type of QB doesn't need everything to be functioning right to have a good game; he can make the best of the situation he's in. Think of Kurt Warner going to AZ, all the pieces started working once he showed up

Again I hear you, but with two stipulations. One, is that we are comparing a previously well-developed QB that has to endure and overcome SOME obstacles, and rarely that often. Kurt got his arse handed to him vs the Saints when his OL couldn't block for him. Two, is that we are not talking about "everything functioning right"... we are talking about multiple things going wrong all at once.... and this starts with scheme, which is so remarkably important yet gets painfully overlooked when making such comparisons.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

IMO Alex has always been a QB affected by his surroundings instead of one affecting his surroundings; which is why I see him as only an average/below average QB. People change though and maybe he will rise above and surprise us all...

I can respect this post. Some of it goes along with my response to the 2nd quote about just how much is fuc*ed up around the QB.

"IMO Alex has always been a QB affected by his surroundings instead of one affecting his surroundings; which is why I see him as only an average/below average QB. People change though and maybe he will rise above and surprise us all..."

I concur with all of the above.

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Just because I think a player who has been awful for 6 years will be awful in his 7th, that means I want the team to fail?

No, but when your desire to see a player, and thus likely the team, fail simply so that you can crow about how you "told you so" exceeds your desire to see the team succeed regardless of who is under center, that speaks volumes.

Which is more important to you? Team success with Smith or team failure so that you can be "right"?

You're right.

I'll just fall in line with the rest and bash Sing, Carr, Troy Smith, Crabtree, Rachal, etc...because fans who bash those guys and call them busts *cough* are hoping for team failure just so they can say "I told you so".

The golden boy is untouchable.

Just so we're clear...if Alex leads this team to a Super Bowl, I'll be elated...and I hope...for everyone's sake that he gets it together this year. I just think he won't. What makes my opinion less valid than yours?

Wow. You tend to overreact and go to extremes when you post. A side effect is the creation of strawmen arguments (see prior discussions). The "but they did it, too!!" argument also doesn't work.

I just asked a question. You have given an answer...sort of.

Your opinion is perfectly valid. I just happen to disagree with the factual premises underlying it and, often, the manner in which you express it.

Whatever dude. You're the guy who came up with the dumb notion that I would rather see the team lose with Alex than win with him just so I could stroke my own ego. How you pulled that out of my post was David Blane-esque.

Alex has been below average for 6 years of his career. Odds are he will be below average next year. If that makes me less of a fan then so be it...

I brought up Sing, Crabs, etc...because it seems to be acceptable to bash them...but not the golden boy.

I can't discuss anything with you until you stop fighting windmills.

Good luck.

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by JayBee:

Originally posted by NineFourNiner:

Originally posted by JayBee:
Just because I think a player who has been awful for 6 years will be awful in his 7th, that means I want the team to fail?

No, but when your desire to see a player, and thus likely the team, fail simply so that you can crow about how you "told you so" exceeds your desire to see the team succeed regardless of who is under center, that speaks volumes.

Which is more important to you? Team success with Smith or team failure so that you can be "right"?

You're right.

I'll just fall in line with the rest and bash Sing, Carr, Troy Smith, Crabtree, Rachal, etc...because fans who bash those guys and call them busts *cough* are hoping for team failure just so they can say "I told you so".

The golden boy is untouchable.

Just so we're clear...if Alex leads this team to a Super Bowl, I'll be elated...and I hope...for everyone's sake that he gets it together this year. I just think he won't. What makes my opinion less valid than yours?

Wow. You tend to overreact and go to extremes when you post. A side effect is the creation of strawmen arguments (see prior discussions). The "but they did it, too!!" argument also doesn't work.

I just asked a question. You have given an answer...sort of.

Your opinion is perfectly valid. I just happen to disagree with the factual premises underlying it and, often, the manner in which you express it.

Whatever dude. You're the guy who came up with the dumb notion that I would rather see the team lose with Alex than win with him just so I could stroke my own ego. How you pulled that out of my post was David Blane-esque.

Alex has been below average for 6 years of his career. Odds are he will be below average next year. If that makes me less of a fan then so be it...

I brought up Sing, Crabs, etc...because it seems to be acceptable to bash them...but not the golden boy.

I can't discuss anything with you until you stop fighting windmills.

Good luck.

LOl nice reference.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by D_Niner:


Now to answer your question... "Why should some put so much of the blame on the QB? "

It's unfortunate for the QB's that play this game; but, it's the nature of the position to have so much blame placed on them. If they get it right though, they have so much of the credit of a teams success associated with their name too. So it kinda balances out in the long run.

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Have heard this for a long time, and I do get that... I just don't agree that it should be that way.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

This type of QB doesn't need everything to be functioning right to have a good game; he can make the best of the situation he's in. Think of Kurt Warner going to AZ, all the pieces started working once he showed up

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Again I hear you, but with two stipulations. One, is that we are comparing a previously well-developed QB that has to endure and overcome SOME obstacles, and rarely that often. Kurt got his arse handed to him vs the Saints when his OL couldn't block for him. Two, is that we are not talking about "everything functioning right"... we are talking about multiple things going wrong all at once.... and this starts with scheme, which is so remarkably important yet gets painfully overlooked when making such comparisons.

You're right. It all does start with scheme. Alex didn't do all that well as a rookie in the WCO, or his second year in the NFL under Norv (which was a large improvement but still below average), or couldn't do much better in the second year of the same system under J-Raye (Alex's best years as a QB but no real improvement between 09 and 10 in the same system and still just average).

And you do make a point with Kurt and AZ; but, that point does not apply to say Sam Bradford and the Rams... I'm just saying there are QB's that make the situation better and ones that are greatly affected by the situation there in. Alex appears to be the latter.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

IMO Alex has always been a QB affected by his surroundings instead of one affecting his surroundings; which is why I see him as only an average/below average QB. People change though and maybe he will rise above and surprise us all...

Originally posted by oldman9er:
I can respect this post. Some of it goes along with my response to the 2nd quote about just how much is fuc*ed up around the QB.

No argument that we've had many problems on O. I just don't think Alex is the type of QB that can roll with those punches (at least not yet)

Originally posted by D_Niner:

No argument that we've had many problems on O. I just don't think Alex is the type of QB that can roll with those punches (at least not yet)

Fair enough, but at least you (for the moment) seem to be open-minded about what he may accomplish with improved scheme, coaching, etc.

I'm not even 100% certain that Alex will be a top 10 quarterback if he gets a similarly decent level of surroundings that many QBs get. I do think he will be a top 10 if this happens, but I still have doubts. Got no problem with doubts... I just despise the absolutes and constant one-liners meant to bash and incite. There's a HUGE grey area of interpretation of what is inciteful, but seems to me that so many obvious ones get overlooked for one reason or another. (probably because activity here would decrease dramatically)

Bradford did OKAY in year 1, but his accomplishments get overblown for one reason only.... overly praise one guy to further dump on another. Bradford did have a better coached team.... where teams had to actually guess what offensive play might be coming next... That's huge.