ESPN - 49ers can succeed in Play Offs without great QB

^great post, informative

Originally posted by 8to80:

Originally posted by KowboyKiller:
Actually you can't compare Eli the year he won the super bowl to Alex this year, Alex is performing much better.

Eli 2007: 208 yards/game, 56 comp%, 20 ints and a rating of 73. I'll take what Alex Smith is doing over that.

I love how you rounded the 73.9 rating down to 73 as if it would have made your argument better. No one was comparing Eli Manning in 2007 to Alex Smith in 2011 except you. LOL.

Was it 73.9? I just saw 73 and posted that. 74 then, not really a whole hell of a lot better.

I'm comparing Eli's season in 2007 to Alex this year because Eli won a super bowl while not playing like a franchise pro bowl quarterback, rather a more pedestrian one, since that's what this thread is about, it's kind of relevant.

Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
how do you guys define game manager?

that means luck is one too you know in stanford they ran almost 300 more times than they passed when harbaugh was coach?

i dont have the exact run to pass ratio of joe montana 49ers but he rarely every threw for over 260 yards

in fact his best year he only averaged 244 yards


harbaugh runs the same offense as walsh

with luck (one of the best colllege prospects of all time) he ran the ball more than they passed with him

and walsh obviously didnt make montana pass much either in fact the most hes averaged in a single season was 29 attempts per game in 1983

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
No way, Montana was the best game manager of all time.

Wow, Montana a game manager? Really? You guys do know he is arguably the best QB to play the game. I guess there will always going to be the few outliers. My only guess is you guys never saw him play, and you guys just neglected his stats. BTW, he threw for over 260 yards/game in 4 seasons while Smith has never done that (Smith has thrown for over 200 yards/game in only 2 seasons). Tom Brady threw for over 260 yards/game in only 3 seasons, so I guess he's a game manager too. Right?

I guess you guys can continue your comparisons between Alex and Super Bowl MVPs. I choose not to because it will ALWAYS paint Alex Smith as a terrible QB (no matter how slanted you guys will make the arguments), which I think is unfair.

NFL analysts continually refer to Alex Smith as a game manager, but I guess you guys just block all of that out.

all quarterbacks are game managers. its part of the job description.

the term itself, as an insult, is dumb, one of the dumber things that is getting bandied about lately, and must be related to the Cult of Passing Yards so many people seem to worship.

Originally posted by HessianDud:
all quarterbacks are game managers. its part of the job description.

the term itself, as an insult, is dumb, one of the dumber things that is getting bandied about lately, and must be related to the Cult of Passing Yards so many people seem to worship.

LOL. That's why almost all NFL analysts refer to Smith as a great "game manager" while they refer to Brady, Montana, Rodgers, and Peyton as "elite quarterbacks". Everyone else can see it, so I don't know why some of you can't. You can see it when he plays. You can see it in his stats.

It's not an insult, it's the truth. I think half the QBs in the league are "game managers", and I think we have one of the best. We don't need Alex to be a great elite QB.
But no matter anyone says, I don't think it's going to change your minds. I am going to stop wasting my time, and post regarding our best players.

Originally posted by 8to80:

Originally posted by HessianDud:
all quarterbacks are game managers. its part of the job description.

the term itself, as an insult, is dumb, one of the dumber things that is getting bandied about lately, and must be related to the Cult of Passing Yards so many people seem to worship.

LOL. That's why almost all NFL analysts refer to Smith as a great "game manager" while they refer to Brady, Montana, Rodgers, and Peyton as "elite quarterbacks". Everyone else can see it, so I don't know why some of you can't. You can see it when he plays. You can see it in his stats.

It's not an insult, it's the truth. I think half the QBs in the league are "game managers", and I think we have one of the best. We don't need Alex to be a great elite QB.
But no matter anyone says, I don't think it's going to change your minds. I am going to stop wasting my time, and post regarding our best players.

meh. analysts use "game manager" as shorthand for "not very good." Its a lazy term that means nothing, and usually indicates a lack of understanding about the player in question.

Alex does "manage the game", just like every quarterback. He isn't elite, but the difference between an elite QB and the rest has less to do with the difference between "gunslinging" and "game managing" as it does with the difference between experienced and inexperienced players, comfort in offensive systems vs discomfort, skilled supporting cast vs mediocre supporting cast, good coaching vs poor coaching, etc. It's all interconnected. Tom Brady was a "game manager" his first few years in the league. He ran an offense tailored to its personnel. And then his experience and the addition of new players and the formulation of an offensive philosophy by the coaching staff changed the way he plays and the way that team runs. There is a sharp dividing line between Brady "the game manager" and Brady "the elite QB", and that line is 2007.

...By the way, on one side of that line, Brady won 3 Super Bowls. On the other side, he's won zero.

Originally posted by 8to80:

Wow, Montana a game manager? Really? You guys do know he is arguably the best QB to play the game. I guess there will always going to be the few outliers. My only guess is you guys never saw him play, and you guys just neglected his stats. BTW, he threw for over 260 yards/game in 4 seasons while Smith has never done that (Smith has thrown for over 200 yards/game in only 2 seasons). Tom Brady threw for over 260 yards/game in only 3 seasons, so I guess he's a game manager too. Right?

I guess you guys can continue your comparisons between Alex and Super Bowl MVPs. I choose not to because it will ALWAYS paint Alex Smith as a terrible QB (no matter how slanted you guys will make the arguments), which I think is unfair.

NFL analysts continually refer to Alex Smith as a game manager, but I guess you guys just block all of that out.

Yes Montana was a game manager, that is what good QB's do. I am 40 years old and started watching the Niners because of Joe Montana, have seen him play lots and lots of games. You act like game manager is a derogatory term, it isn't to me, it means playing smart football, playing within they system, like Montana was the master of.I can't help what you want it to mean. If you were paying attention I said Smith is not the caliber of QB Montana is(in my opinion Joe's a caliber all his own) . I also know that the passing game has not gotten in sync yet, but there are a few guys here that act like they expect it to be going full swing without having the depth of thought to understand the reasons it is not clicking yet. Joe himself said in the early training camp days that it would take awhile for the passing offense to start clicking, he said it took them three years to get it together.

Originally posted by HessianDud:
meh. analysts use "game manager" as shorthand for "not very good." Its a lazy term that means nothing, and usually indicates a lack of understanding about the player in question.

Alex does "manage the game", just like every quarterback. He isn't elite, but the difference between an elite QB and the rest has less to do with the difference between "gunslinging" and "game managing" as it does with the difference between experienced and inexperienced players, comfort in offensive systems vs discomfort, skilled supporting cast vs mediocre supporting cast, good coaching vs poor coaching, etc. It's all interconnected. Tom Brady was a "game manager" his first few years in the league. He ran an offense tailored to its personnel. And then his experience and the addition of new players and the formulation of an offensive philosophy by the coaching staff changed the way he plays and the way that team runs. There is a sharp dividing line between Brady "the game manager" and Brady "the elite QB", and that line is 2007.

...By the way, on one side of that line, Brady won 3 Super Bowls. On the other side, he's won zero.

FYI, analysts use "game manager" to refer to QBs who don't have to put up spectacular numbers for the team to win because the team has a great defense and a run-oriented offense.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Yes Montana was a game manager, that is what good QB's do. I am 40 years old and started watching the Niners because of Joe Montana, have seen him play lots and lots of games. You act like game manager is a derogatory term, it isn't to me, it means playing smart football, playing within they system, like Montana was the master of.I can't help what you want it to mean. If you were paying attention I said Smith is not the caliber of QB Montana is(in my opinion Joe's a caliber all his own) . I also know that the passing game has not gotten in sync yet, but there are a few guys here that act like they expect it to be going full swing without having the depth of thought to understand the reasons it is not clicking yet. Joe himself said in the early training camp days that it would take awhile for the passing offense to start clicking, he said it took them three years to get it together.

I guess your definition of "game manager" is different than the rest of the NFL. "Game manager" doesn't mean just "one who manages a game". Heck, if that was the definition, then why are coaches seldom referred to as game managers? And no, Montana was not a game manager.

Originally posted by 8to80:
FYI, analysts use "game manager" to refer to QBs who don't have to put up spectacular numbers for the team to win because the team has a great defense and a run-oriented offense.

i know what it means, thanks, and i think its dumb.

Originally posted by Jcool:

Originally posted by verb1der:
The 85 bears did it, I see similarities got damnit!

"god dammit"

some people dont like taking Gods name in vain so they use GOT instead.

We have great D, great ST, great Run game and great coaching and we are winning because of those things.

Its still crystal clear that our passing game is weak. Our longest pass play was a 44 yarder to K. Hunter in Philly on a busted play four yard dumpoff. If we want to be perennial powerhouses we need to have all aspects clicking.

For those of you who are visual learners:

Defense:

Special Teams:

Running game:

Passing Game:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
We have great D, great ST, great Run game and great coaching and we are winning because of those things.

Its still crystal clear that our passing game is weak. Our longest pass play was a 44 yarder to K. Hunter in Philly on a busted play four yard dumpoff. If we want to be perennial powerhouses we need to have all aspects clicking.

For those of you who are visual learners:

Defense:

Special Teams:

Running game:

Passing Game:

The Cult of Passing Yards has many followers.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
We have great D, great ST, great Run game and great coaching and we are winning because of those things.

Its still crystal clear that our passing game is weak. Our longest pass play was a 44 yarder to K. Hunter in Philly on a busted play four yard dumpoff. If we want to be perennial powerhouses we need to have all aspects clicking.

For those of you who are visual learners:

Defense:

Special Teams:

Running game:

Passing Game:

The Cult of Passing Yards has many followers.

Not just yards. pass protection is not always there, wrs besides morgon (miss em) don't do a great job at RAC. Missing the open deep guy. At least Braylon is back. We are a good running game and the passing game is effeciant enough to avoid blowing it. Smith has produced in the clutch though which is great.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Not just yards. pass protection is not always there, wrs besides morgon don't do a great job at RAC. Missing the open deep guy. At least Braylon is coming back. We are a good running game and the passing game is effeciant enough to avoid blowing it. Smith has produced in the clutch though which is great.

there's definitely work to do, not surprising considering all the factors. I just wouldn't give it a thumbs down, personally; more like a thumbs-sideways: it gets the job done, looks great sometimes, looks bad other times, but overall is good enough for now.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Not just yards. pass protection is not always there, wrs besides morgon don't do a great job at RAC. Missing the open deep guy. At least Braylon is coming back. We are a good running game and the passing game is effeciant enough to avoid blowing it. Smith has produced in the clutch though which is great.

there's definitely work to do, not surprising considering all the factors. I just wouldn't give it a thumbs down, personally; more like a thumbs-sideways: it gets the job done, looks great sometimes, looks bad other times, but overall is good enough for now.

I was looking for a thumbs sideways but they didn't have it. I think we can go deep in the playoffs if we continue to play this way but to be perennial this is an aspect of the game we have to improve. If we get a great air game going we can demolish other teams. It was working in the TB game and was a reason we blew them out.