There are 66 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

QB position up for competition next year?

Originally posted by Whomeam:
so for some reason you don't want to keep the QB who helped get us to overtime in the NFC Championship?

....and if it weren't for 2 special teams turnovers would be playing in the SB....
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
Originally posted by Whomeam:
so for some reason you don't want to keep the QB who helped get us to overtime in the NFC Championship?

....and if it weren't for 2 special teams turnovers would be playing in the SB....


The Saints had a couple of special teams muffs and fumbles too.

Hate to say it, but I think we beat the better team, then lost to the worse team. When your team relies on defense and special teams, the games are always down to the wire. Its tough to consistently win that way every game, every year.
[ Edited by BrianGO on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM ]
Originally posted by vaden:
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Alex changed his job 6 times in 6 years? Really? I thought he has been the quarterback every year. I could be wrong though.

Top 10 QB this year? No chance. He was in the top 10 in ONE measurable statistic.....QB rating (which many feel isnt the best indication of production). So he is in the top 10 in one of many statistics. How does that make him top 10 in the league? Just curious if you can explain this one.


He was #2 in TD-INT ratio, #1 in INT-ATT ratio. He outplayed Brees and Eli head-to-head in the playoffs despite a woeful receiving core. Yeah, Eli had 120 more yards but on 32 more attempts. His YPA was 2,1 lower and he threw two balls so poorly that our guys collided over who should intercept them.

Name 10 QBs that were better this year

We all know he didnt throw a lot of picks. Alex had an EXTREMELY efficient season. But with the extreme efficiency didnt come a great deal of production. But when you look at every other measureable statistic (touchdowns, passing yards, completion percentage, yards per completion, etc), he is out of the top ten. So with that being said,

Originally posted by BrianGO:
When your team relies on defense and special teams, the games are always down to the wire. Its tough to consistently win that way every game, every year.

Exactly. Look at how good the Ravens defense has been for such a long period of time. How many Superbowls have they won? How many Superbowls have they played in? How many times did they have a great regular season and a disappointing postseason?

Winning with a team that is carried by its defense is a really difficult thing to....as evident by how few strictly defensive teams have won in recent history.
Originally posted by BrianGO:
The Saints had a couple of special teams muffs and fumbles too.

Hate to say it, but I think we beat the better team, then lost to the worse team. When your team relies on defense and special teams, the games are always down to the wire. Its tough to consistently win that way every game, every year.
In the last month, you and Joecool are the two guys I find my self reading and thinking, "Yeah, what he said!" It's not about about bashing/hating/or praising. Its about how this team can get better. And I agree, no matter how good your D is, you can only win if you score points. A dominant D is good for keeping you in every game, but to win on a consistent basis your O has to score. Too many games this year came down to the wire when they should have been complete blow outs, like the Bucs game.

So here is a legit question for anyone: When your D is as good as ours, does it make sense for the O to play more conservative and win the TO battle or should our O be more aggressive knowing our D can probably hold? Just curious what everyone thinks.
[ Edited by Oakland-Niner on Jan 26, 2012 at 5:32 AM ]
Originally posted by mjboot:
I wanted dalton but was picked 1 spot ahead of the 49ers. We willl see which one of the 2 turn out the best in 2 years. Dalton seems to be ahead at the moment. Imagine if the 49ers took dalton I think the 49ers would of won it all.


Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
The Saints had a couple of special teams muffs and fumbles too.

Hate to say it, but I think we beat the better team, then lost to the worse team. When your team relies on defense and special teams, the games are always down to the wire. Its tough to consistently win that way every game, every year.
In the last month, you and Joecool are the two guys I find my self reading and thinking, "Yeah, what he said!" It's not about about bashing/hating/or praising. Its about how this team can get better. And I agree, no matter how good your D is, you can only win if you score points. A dominant D is good for keeping you in every game, but to win on a consistent basis your O has to score. Too many games this year came down to the wire when they should have been complete blow outs, like the Bucs game.

So here is a legit question for anyone: When your D is as good as ours, does it make sense for the O to play more conservative and win the TO battle or should our O be more aggressive knowing our D can probably hold? Just curious what everyone thinks.

All a moot question if williams doesn't have freak fumbles.

But every season is different I guess. Of course a better Offense would help out. Specifically, a ball control offense would be the best thing possible for a Defense sot hat they can stay fresh. Scoring also help because it can lead to making the other team one dimensional. With the niners this didn't matter much because teams became one dimensional the moment they stepped foot on the field.

The niners did not show the ability to pass for longer 3rd downs (we can argue the reasons) Longer third downs I will give some blame to Smith because I believe he was coached to not push it unless the situation dictated that he had to on those longer 3rd downs. I think that the lack of a big play receiver that could win a matchup or force a double team made this more of an issue.

On shorter running downs it was my impression that the team was very ineffective for a majority of the season. One player I would like to see gone this next season is Anthony Dixon. I would love to see a power back that actually is a load on those short downs. One that runs with great downfield momentum. If we convert a few more of those then it will make a big difference.

I believe that alex would have more confidence throwing tighter throws with a security blanket-type receiver. I thought that Edwards was that guy at the beginning of the year. I remember Alex throwing some balls up there for him, and hitting him on many of the longer 3rd down pass plays. I think that all changed when Braylon didn't make an effort on the deep pass in the baltimore game, and as he got injured they lost some of that chemistry.

A reliable se4curity (aka BIG with great hands) receiver is the minimum that this offense needs. If that person can be a matchup problem for defenses, then we might see something much better with our receiving corps. If Alex gets that guy next season, and the rest of the offense stays basically intact AND he is still not lettign it rip more often, then we can either know that he is just too timid, or he is being specifically coached to do that by Harbaugh (or possibly a combination).
  • Shemp
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 26,583
Originally posted by 9erguy:
Originally posted by 305Niner:
Originally posted by 9erguy:
Originally posted by bayniner21:
http://www.mercurynews.com/tim-kawakami/ci_19800184

highly agree with tim here screw kaep lets attempt to pick up a legit deep threat

I think we should trust harbaalke's ability to find diamonds in the rough. Are we forgetting what the rookie class did this year?? We may be fortunate and see Jeffrey fall to us at 30. Definitely shouldn't consider trading Kap. Harbaugh isn't here to groom QB's for other teams to have success with...he's here to win Super Bowls...Kap is part of that plan, IMO.

Trade Tolzien for Josh Johnson? I mean there is no QB competition if it stands with the QB we have. 49ers are not going to get a FA Vet. They are going to re-sign Smith unfortunately and go with the other 2 QB's we already have. Maybe draft one late? I doub it. Maybe Kaep can surprise, but I think he probably needs to sit 2 full years. It would be nice to get some real insurance if he didnt pan out though.

I guess I'm banking on Kaepernick panning out. In comparison to Alex...He has bigger arm, better scrambling ability, showed the clutch gene in college, he'll be 25 next year. He's not 22. Harbaugh has shown the magic touch with quarterbacks...he plucked Luck from west Houston(Katy) and helped turned him to the greatest prospect in years. He saw something in Kaepernick and I think he'll do the same.

Kellen Moore may not be a bad mid late round pickup..extremely accurate, intelligent. I know he's losing stock and has a frail frame, correct me if I'm wrong.

Kaep is turning 25?? that sucks..... I don't have much hope for him anyways. Honestly, Nate Davis played better in the pre-season (when we had him) than Kaep did. He might turn out to be great though, IDK.
Originally posted by schmons:
Originally posted by 305Niner:
Originally posted by 9erguy:
Originally posted by bayniner21:
http://www.mercurynews.com/tim-kawakami/ci_19800184

highly agree with tim here screw kaep lets attempt to pick up a legit deep threat

I think we should trust harbaalke's ability to find diamonds in the rough. Are we forgetting what the rookie class did this year?? We may be fortunate and see Jeffrey fall to us at 30. Definitely shouldn't consider trading Kap. Harbaugh isn't here to groom QB's for other teams to have success with...he's here to win Super Bowls...Kap is part of that plan, IMO.

Trade Tolzien for Josh Johnson? I mean there is no QB competition if it stands with the QB we have. 49ers are not going to get a FA Vet. They are going to re-sign Smith unfortunately and go with the other 2 QB's we already have. Maybe draft one late? I doub it. Maybe Kaep can surprise, but I think he probably needs to sit 2 full years. It would be nice to get some real insurance if he didnt pan out though.

josh johnson is a free agent. im on the josh johnson train, whos with me?


I'm probably on the train for a different reason. Its never bad to have a QB that knows a HC offense completely already in case a starter goes down. I don't think he is that great of a QB, but hey you never know what can happen. Our WR's are better than Tampa and our defense is also. If he can make Alex Smith be a game manager. I think Harbaugh can work some magic with Josh. The athletic ability is there, but the decision making is VERY questionable. I wouldn't mind having another QB that has more NFL experience vs just solely having Kaep and Tolzien.
  • vaden
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,777
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Originally posted by vaden:
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Alex changed his job 6 times in 6 years? Really? I thought he has been the quarterback every year. I could be wrong though.

Top 10 QB this year? No chance. He was in the top 10 in ONE measurable statistic.....QB rating (which many feel isnt the best indication of production). So he is in the top 10 in one of many statistics. How does that make him top 10 in the league? Just curious if you can explain this one.


He was #2 in TD-INT ratio, #1 in INT-ATT ratio. He outplayed Brees and Eli head-to-head in the playoffs despite a woeful receiving core. Yeah, Eli had 120 more yards but on 32 more attempts. His YPA was 2,1 lower and he threw two balls so poorly that our guys collided over who should intercept them.

Name 10 QBs that were better this year

We all know he didnt throw a lot of picks. Alex had an EXTREMELY efficient season. But with the extreme efficiency didnt come a great deal of production. But when you look at every other measureable statistic (touchdowns, passing yards, completion percentage, yards per completion, etc), he is out of the top ten.

He was in an extremely conservative offense with sub-par receivers and a weak OL, so of course the big fantasy stats were outside the top 10, but he did what he was asked to do better than all but a handful of QBs, and excelled in clutch situations, a huge reason why we went 13-3. He led 6 4th quarter comebacks, which has to be at or near the very top of the league, and he was superb in the playoffs, 5 TD to 0 INT (and 1 rushing TD), 101 qb rating. So which 10 QBs were better? Matt Ryan, who put up similar numbers in a vastly superior situation, and once again choked in the playoffs?
Originally posted by SF49_Benitez:
Originally posted by Brew:
Originally posted by 9erguy:
Originally posted by Brew:
Yes but Alex wins.
The team rallies around him.

Hard to argue with that.
Kinda hard to be contrarian about this one.

Yea because of our AWESOME DEFENSE... We always depend on our D...

we need a quarterback who will pull da trigger and give our nitty gritty defense a break.

Whoop there it is! But Alex is the main reason why we won our games.
Originally posted by vaden:
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Originally posted by vaden:
Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Alex changed his job 6 times in 6 years? Really? I thought he has been the quarterback every year. I could be wrong though.

Top 10 QB this year? No chance. He was in the top 10 in ONE measurable statistic.....QB rating (which many feel isnt the best indication of production). So he is in the top 10 in one of many statistics. How does that make him top 10 in the league? Just curious if you can explain this one.


He was #2 in TD-INT ratio, #1 in INT-ATT ratio. He outplayed Brees and Eli head-to-head in the playoffs despite a woeful receiving core. Yeah, Eli had 120 more yards but on 32 more attempts. His YPA was 2,1 lower and he threw two balls so poorly that our guys collided over who should intercept them.

Name 10 QBs that were better this year

We all know he didnt throw a lot of picks. Alex had an EXTREMELY efficient season. But with the extreme efficiency didnt come a great deal of production. But when you look at every other measureable statistic (touchdowns, passing yards, completion percentage, yards per completion, etc), he is out of the top ten.

He was in an extremely conservative offense with sub-par receivers and a weak OL, so of course the big fantasy stats were outside the top 10, but he did what he was asked to do better than all but a handful of QBs, and excelled in clutch situations, a huge reason why we went 13-3. He led 6 4th quarter comebacks, which has to be at or near the very top of the league, and he was superb in the playoffs, 5 TD to 0 INT (and 1 rushing TD), 101 qb rating. So which 10 QBs were better? Matt Ryan, who put up similar numbers in a vastly superior situation, and once again choked in the playoffs?

#1 There would not have been many comebacks if we didnt sputter in the red zone and having a crappy 3rd conversions. The offense had to be conservative because Alex is not a QB you want throwing alot. The more times he drops back the more times a fumble or INT is waiting to happen. He is too inconsistent.

#2 Our WR's are not subpar. This is why I would love to get a proven winner at QB to show that it is not the WR's

#3 IF we keep our defense together and add to it, the best case scenario is looking like the Ravens. Great D and mediocre O. Playoff appearances but no rings. It's a waste to be like that.
Originally posted by nw9erfan:
....and if it weren't for 2 special teams turnovers would be playing in the SB....

Umm yeah say that if you want cause you are right. But greater than that if it weren't for Alex Smith and his lack of pulling the trigger on 80% of pass plays. Then we would be competing for title #6. Yeah Alex connected on Vernon 2wice. So what! What about the other 30 dropbacks? WR's and our TE's were open so much during the game. That the final score should have been 38-20. Plus its a fact Harbaugh plays to Alex stregnths and that is a conservative offense. Ultra conservative @ times. It makes me keep an eye out for the haunting ghost of Singletary. You think I want to say these things about Alex? No I don't I support Alex because he is the QB who's leading the greatest franchise in history. It's painful to admit this crap. I'm just tired of dodging facts. And cotton picking excuses for this guy.
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
The Saints had a couple of special teams muffs and fumbles too.

Hate to say it, but I think we beat the better team, then lost to the worse team. When your team relies on defense and special teams, the games are always down to the wire. Its tough to consistently win that way every game, every year.
In the last month, you and Joecool are the two guys I find my self reading and thinking, "Yeah, what he said!" It's not about about bashing/hating/or praising. Its about how this team can get better. And I agree, no matter how good your D is, you can only win if you score points. A dominant D is good for keeping you in every game, but to win on a consistent basis your O has to score. Too many games this year came down to the wire when they should have been complete blow outs, like the Bucs game.

So here is a legit question for anyone: When your D is as good as ours, does it make sense for the O to play more conservative and win the TO battle or should our O be more aggressive knowing our D can probably hold? Just curious what everyone thinks.


In my opinion, a TD/INT ratio of 2/1 is the limit. As long as you maintain that, I think you can only help yourself with higher TD/INT numbers. Even if you throw 100TDs and 50INTs in a season, I think that is much better than throwing 10TDs and 0INTs, for example. Even if every INT is a pick-six, you are still coming out ahead with points.
The only time I would get conservative is if you either, 1) Cannot maintain a TD/INT ratio of 2/1 or, 2) You have a big lead in the 4th quarter.

So to answer your question directly, I think its ALWAYS better to be more aggressive with the exception of the two situations above. No matter how good your defense is, you're better with more TDs within the 2/1 ratio.
[ Edited by BrianGO on Jan 26, 2012 at 6:52 AM ]
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
The Saints had a couple of special teams muffs and fumbles too.

Hate to say it, but I think we beat the better team, then lost to the worse team. When your team relies on defense and special teams, the games are always down to the wire. Its tough to consistently win that way every game, every year.
In the last month, you and Joecool are the two guys I find my self reading and thinking, "Yeah, what he said!" It's not about about bashing/hating/or praising. Its about how this team can get better. And I agree, no matter how good your D is, you can only win if you score points. A dominant D is good for keeping you in every game, but to win on a consistent basis your O has to score. Too many games this year came down to the wire when they should have been complete blow outs, like the Bucs game.

So here is a legit question for anyone: When your D is as good as ours, does it make sense for the O to play more conservative and win the TO battle or should our O be more aggressive knowing our D can probably hold? Just curious what everyone thinks.

Well as another poster put it. We would essential look like the Baltimore Ravens if we do that. Do you really want that? I mean its good to get to the playoffs but I dont think we reach our potential. Can you imagine if the Ravens had a QB? Can you say Superbowl multiple times????

I just feel that we should try to upgrade the QB position. Years in the past show that this game managing type of offense will get you one great season than mediocre ones after that. Unless you have a an old school Bucs defense or Ravens D the outcome does not look good. I'm telling you right now, that we are not keeping everybody. So it would be good to just really look at the QB position.
  • Shemp
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 26,583
Originally posted by 305Niner:
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Originally posted by BrianGO:
The Saints had a couple of special teams muffs and fumbles too.

Hate to say it, but I think we beat the better team, then lost to the worse team. When your team relies on defense and special teams, the games are always down to the wire. Its tough to consistently win that way every game, every year.
In the last month, you and Joecool are the two guys I find my self reading and thinking, "Yeah, what he said!" It's not about about bashing/hating/or praising. Its about how this team can get better. And I agree, no matter how good your D is, you can only win if you score points. A dominant D is good for keeping you in every game, but to win on a consistent basis your O has to score. Too many games this year came down to the wire when they should have been complete blow outs, like the Bucs game.

So here is a legit question for anyone: When your D is as good as ours, does it make sense for the O to play more conservative and win the TO battle or should our O be more aggressive knowing our D can probably hold? Just curious what everyone thinks.

Well as another poster put it. We would essential look like the Baltimore Ravens if we do that. Do you really want that? I mean its good to get to the playoffs but I dont think we reach our potential. Can you imagine if the Ravens had a QB? Can you say Superbowl multiple times????

I just feel that we should try to upgrade the QB position. Years in the past show that this game managing type of offense will get you one great season than mediocre ones after that. Unless you have a an old school Bucs defense or Ravens D the outcome does not look good. I'm telling you right now, that we are not keeping everybody. So it would be good to just really look at the QB position.

Our conservative offense is a function of the QB's capabilities. Our QB play is also therefore not a function of our conservative offense. The test is really simple: If we had Brees, Rodgers, or Manning, would our offense still be conservative? Not a chance in hell. We'd have a wide open offense and we would have gone to the SB with roller skates on. The conclusion is fairly obvious.
Originally posted by Shaj:
Kaep is turning 25?? that sucks..... I don't have much hope for him anyways. Honestly, Nate Davis played better in the pre-season (when we had him) than Kaep did. He might turn out to be great though, IDK.


The difference between Nate Davis and Kaepernick is one MAJOR thing. MENTAL ACUMEN (a polite way of saying "intelligence").

Yes, Nate can throw the ball, but he is, by literal definition, mentally retarded.
Kaepernick could have played for Harvard if he wanted to. He has all the throwing ability, but is sharp as a razor blade with his ability to learn, concentrate and comprehend.

Nate Davis simply could not LEARN. Kaepernick CAN.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home