For WZ members that have been following football 35 + years

Originally posted by LoneWolf:
Technically no one has been a fan for longer but that makes him no more of a fan then the other, the older fan may know more of the facts and way the games went due to actually seeing them and not just reading the stat sheet. The problem with some younger fans is that there so caught up in this fantasy football age all that is appealing to them is big stats big blow outs and unrealistic passing yards, what may be exciting in football to person A may not be enough for person B.

I agree. This is also the reason when it came to feedback, I asked for guys that had been watching the game for a certain amount of time. Had nothing to do with fanhood, but just the ability to keep things in perspective.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by LoneWolf:
Technically no one has been a fan for longer but that makes him no more of a fan then the other, the older fan may know more of the facts and way the games went due to actually seeing them and not just reading the stat sheet. The problem with some younger fans is that there so caught up in this fantasy football age all that is appealing to them is big stats big blow outs and unrealistic passing yards, what may be exciting in football to person A may not be enough for person B.

I agree. This is also the reason when it came to feedback, I asked for guys that had been watching the game for a certain amount of time. Had nothing to do with fanhood, but just the ability to keep things in perspective.

Younger people are often the greatest fans as they are not as skeptical...yet. Those of us who have been through many ups and downs know the tide will turn, where ever you find it...just hope it stays up for a while.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
Compared to what? In the 1980s, he was in the top 5 times in his career and was in the top 10 eleven times. I think only Marino was ahead of him in yards and TDs when he retired so how is that not big numbers? The only other guys in the span that did it as consistently are Warren Moon and maybe another I might be missing.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/ElwaJo00.htm

He wasn't Top 10 11 times in the 1980's. There aren't even 11 years in the 1980's.

He only topped 3500 yards once in the 1980's. That was the year he threw for 3800+, and he led the NFL in pass attempts with 605. That was actually the second highest single season number of pass attempts in NFL history at the time. His yards per pass attempt figure was terrible - 6.4. That was also the only year in the 80's he threw for 20+ TDs.

His only really good year in the 80's was 1987. If not for the strike, his cumulative numbers likely would've reflected that.

Elway was basically Donovan McNabb with a stronger arm.

Phil Simms, meanwhile, had a 4,000+ yard year, a 3,800+ yard year, and a 3400+ yard season consecutively, with 20+ TDs in each of those years (1984-1986). And his yards/attempt figures were excellent (7.6, 7.7, 7.5). Simms was the more productive quarterback in the 80's when you look at games played vs. production.

Edit: double post

Originally posted by Faraz80:
Put it this way. You put the name Alex Smith instead of Aikman, no way the Cowboys become a dynasty in the 90s. Everyone likes to give credit to Emmitt Smith and the vaunted Dallas defense for their success, but lets not forget that Aikman helped guys like Michael Irvin, Daryl Johnston, Jay Novacek and heck even Alvin Harper play like probowlers. Besides VD, whens the last time Alex made his receivers look "probowl" type ?

This isnt even a discussion folks.

Right. Because Alex's receivers are the same caliber as Irvin.

Originally posted by mkmasn:

Originally posted by Faraz80:

Put it this way. You put the name Alex Smith instead of Aikman, no way the Cowboys become a dynasty in the 90s. Everyone likes to give credit to Emmitt Smith and the vaunted Dallas defense for their success, but lets not forget that Aikman helped guys like Michael Irvin, Daryl Johnston, Jay Novacek and heck even Alvin Harper play like probowlers. Besides VD, whens the last time Alex made his receivers look "probowl" type ?

This isnt even a discussion folks.

Right. Because Alex's receivers are the same caliber as Irvin.

I tend to give most of the credit to the Dallas line. And it was pretty amazing. But right now I don't think we have a receiver to match the revolting Irvin, and maybe even Harper.

But it all starts with the line, and thankfully ours is starting to dramatically improve.

But this business about Aikman making his receivers look Pro Bowl and Smith not is puzzling. Obviously receivers rely on a steady flow of well thrown and catchable balls. But likewise quarterbacks rely on their receivers running the planned routes, getting open, fighting for the ball and so forth. I remain unconvinced that in these respects Smith is getting anywhere near the support from his receivers that Aikman got from his, for example. So who makes who look Pro Bowl?

Our entire passing game appears to me to be a work in progress and in an early stage of its development.

Just another Alex Smith thread not in the Alex Smith thread.

Originally posted by English:
Our entire passing game appears to me to be a work in progress and in an early stage of its development.

As it will forever be so long as Alex is our QB.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by mkmasn:

Originally posted by Faraz80:

Put it this way. You put the name Alex Smith instead of Aikman, no way the Cowboys become a dynasty in the 90s. Everyone likes to give credit to Emmitt Smith and the vaunted Dallas defense for their success, but lets not forget that Aikman helped guys like Michael Irvin, Daryl Johnston, Jay Novacek and heck even Alvin Harper play like probowlers. Besides VD, whens the last time Alex made his receivers look "probowl" type ?

This isnt even a discussion folks.

Right. Because Alex's receivers are the same caliber as Irvin.

I tend to give most of the credit to the Dallas line. And it was pretty amazing. But right now I don't think we have a receiver to match the revolting Irvin, and maybe even Harper.

But it all starts with the line, and thankfully ours is starting to dramatically improve.

But this business about Aikman making his receivers look Pro Bowl and Smith not is puzzling. Obviously receivers rely on a steady flow of well thrown and catchable balls. But likewise quarterbacks rely on their receivers running the planned routes, getting open, fighting for the ball and so forth. I remain unconvinced that in these respects Smith is getting anywhere near the support from his receivers that Aikman got from his, for example. So who makes who look Pro Bowl?

Our entire passing game appears to me to be a work in progress and in an early stage of its development.

Always love when you chime in and complete my thoughts.

Originally posted by mkmasn:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by mkmasn:

Originally posted by Faraz80:

Put it this way. You put the name Alex Smith instead of Aikman, no way the Cowboys become a dynasty in the 90s. Everyone likes to give credit to Emmitt Smith and the vaunted Dallas defense for their success, but lets not forget that Aikman helped guys like Michael Irvin, Daryl Johnston, Jay Novacek and heck even Alvin Harper play like probowlers. Besides VD, whens the last time Alex made his receivers look "probowl" type ?

This isnt even a discussion folks.

Right. Because Alex's receivers are the same caliber as Irvin.

I tend to give most of the credit to the Dallas line. And it was pretty amazing. But right now I don't think we have a receiver to match the revolting Irvin, and maybe even Harper.

But it all starts with the line, and thankfully ours is starting to dramatically improve.

But this business about Aikman making his receivers look Pro Bowl and Smith not is puzzling. Obviously receivers rely on a steady flow of well thrown and catchable balls. But likewise quarterbacks rely on their receivers running the planned routes, getting open, fighting for the ball and so forth. I remain unconvinced that in these respects Smith is getting anywhere near the support from his receivers that Aikman got from his, for example. So who makes who look Pro Bowl?

Our entire passing game appears to me to be a work in progress and in an early stage of its development.

Always love when you chime in and complete my thoughts.

Bro!!

Originally posted by 1For13On3rdDown:
He wasn't Top 10 11 times in the 1980's. There aren't even 11 years in the 1980's.

He only topped 3500 yards once in the 1980's. That was the year he threw for 3800+, and he led the NFL in pass attempts with 605. That was actually the second highest single season number of pass attempts in NFL history at the time. His yards per pass attempt figure was terrible - 6.4. That was also the only year in the 80's he threw for 20+ TDs.

His only really good year in the 80's was 1987. If not for the strike, his cumulative numbers likely would've reflected that.

Elway was basically Donovan McNabb with a stronger arm.

Phil Simms, meanwhile, had a 4,000+ yard year, a 3,800+ yard year, and a 3400+ yard season consecutively, with 20+ TDs in each of those years (1984-1986). And his yards/attempt figures were excellent (7.6, 7.7, 7.5). Simms was the more productive quarterback in the 80's when you look at games played vs. production.

My apologies. That was supposed to be for his career, not the 1980s. That will be edited. Phil Simms by contrast only made the top 10 in passing yards for a season four times in his entire career. So while Simms may have had bigger numbers a year here or there, he did not consistently remain a top 10 QB in passing yards or in TDs. Elway on the other hand, did.

BTW, how do you determine who put up big numbers without comparing them to the numbers QBs were putting up at that point in time? Outside of your two years you selected, how does Phil Sims measure up to his contemporaries in passing yardage and TDs?

The QB that reminds me most of Alex is Phil Simms. They both had rocky starts, lost significant time to injury and remained with the team through thiick and thin. Simms probably threw a tighter spiral than Alex. They both played with great defenses and relied heavily on the ground game. Let's hope that Alex has a few Super Bowl on the horizon.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by LoneWolf:
Technically no one has been a fan for longer but that makes him no more of a fan then the other, the older fan may know more of the facts and way the games went due to actually seeing them and not just reading the stat sheet. The problem with some younger fans is that there so caught up in this fantasy football age all that is appealing to them is big stats big blow outs and unrealistic passing yards, what may be exciting in football to person A may not be enough for person B.

I agree. This is also the reason when it came to feedback, I asked for guys that had been watching the game for a certain amount of time. Had nothing to do with fanhood, but just the ability to keep things in perspective.

Younger people are often the greatest fans as they are not as skeptical...yet. Those of us who have been through many ups and downs know the tide will turn, where ever you find it...just hope it stays up for a while.

most younger people here think the niners were only good starting with the 94 team, which is not the best or even the second best niner team of all time in my opinion.I do not compare alex to other quarterbacks or other scenarios.i still maintain you just can not look at the quarterback but you have to look at the team that the quarterback had and the entire body of the work and coaches. example, in 1975/76 we had jim plunkett who was a game manager but he should have been more cuz he had three great targets to throw to in willie mcgee, gene washington and ted kwalik. he had the best one two running back punch in the nfl with delvin williams and wilber jackson. plus a great coach in monte clark we had the best defensive line in the history of the nfl. plunkett then goes to oakland who had all of those things but for some reason he turned into more than a game changer and went to the super bowl. why? i have no clue. that is why it is hard to compare quarterbacks in my opinion

Originally posted by cciowa:
most younger people here think the niners were only good starting with the 94 team, which is not the best or even the second best niner team of all time in my opinion.I do not compare alex to other quarterbacks or other scenarios.i still maintain you just can not look at the quarterback but you have to look at the team that the quarterback had and the entire body of the work and coaches. example, in 1975/76 we had jim plunkett who was a game manager but he should have been more cuz he had three great targets to throw to in willie mcgee, gene washington and ted kwalik. he had the best one two running back punch in the nfl with delvin williams and wilber jackson. plus a great coach in monte clark we had the best defensive line in the history of the nfl. plunkett then goes to oakland who had all of those things but for some reason he turned into more than a game changer and went to the super bowl. why? i have no clue. that is why it is hard to compare quarterbacks in my opinion

Jim Plunkett is a name I left off (really before my time). The goal really was to compare skill sets and see how he measured up to other QBs with a similar skill set. It would be like Philly fans having a discussion comparing the skill set of Michael Vick to Steve Young (or even Randall Cunningham for that matter), to determine what is missing from said player for them to take their game to the next level. The misconception is that Alex Smith has to be a top 5 passer in order to lead this team to the promised land, but this thread shows that there are many guys (and now you added Jim Plunkett) that have won championships without being a big numbers guy compared to other QBs in their era.

What I have learned is that certain things, Smith just isn't going to have, like the ability to get the ball out quickly. But there are things that he can do that will allow him to play within himself and get more consistency out of his own game and the passing offense.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by cciowa:
most younger people here think the niners were only good starting with the 94 team, which is not the best or even the second best niner team of all time in my opinion.I do not compare alex to other quarterbacks or other scenarios.i still maintain you just can not look at the quarterback but you have to look at the team that the quarterback had and the entire body of the work and coaches. example, in 1975/76 we had jim plunkett who was a game manager but he should have been more cuz he had three great targets to throw to in willie mcgee, gene washington and ted kwalik. he had the best one two running back punch in the nfl with delvin williams and wilber jackson. plus a great coach in monte clark we had the best defensive line in the history of the nfl. plunkett then goes to oakland who had all of those things but for some reason he turned into more than a game changer and went to the super bowl. why? i have no clue. that is why it is hard to compare quarterbacks in my opinion

Jim Plunkett is a name I left off (really before my time). The goal really was to compare skill sets and see how he measured up to other QBs with a similar skill set. It would be like Philly fans having a discussion comparing the skill set of Michael Vick to Steve Young (or even Randall Cunningham for that matter), to determine what is missing from said player for them to take their game to the next level. The misconception is that Alex Smith has to be a top 5 passer in order to lead this team to the promised land, but this thread shows that there are many guys (and now you added Jim Plunkett) that have won championships without being a big numbers guy compared to other QBs in their era.

What I have learned is that certain things, Smith just isn't going to have, like the ability to get the ball out quickly. But there are things that he can do that will allow him to play within himself and get more consistency out of his own game and the passing offense.

i agree with your thoughts. you do not have to be a top ten passer but many people think you have to be. i think after the last 12 years of s**t we went through, i am very happy to win with a good running game, a very good defense, a more than respectable passing game and good special teams.. oh the other thing,, i do not know enough about quarterbacks and the game overall cuz i never played or coached to form an opinion on comparing quarterbacks

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
Jim Plunkett is a name I left off (really before my time). The goal really was to compare skill sets and see how he measured up to other QBs with a similar skill set. It would be like Philly fans having a discussion comparing the skill set of Michael Vick to Steve Young (or even Randall Cunningham for that matter), to determine what is missing from said player for them to take their game to the next level. The misconception is that Alex Smith has to be a top 5 passer in order to lead this team to the promised land, but this thread shows that there are many guys (and now you added Jim Plunkett) that have won championships without being a big numbers guy compared to other QBs in their era.

What I have learned is that certain things, Smith just isn't going to have, like the ability to get the ball out quickly. But there are things that he can do that will allow him to play within himself and get more consistency out of his own game and the passing offense.

Hey! This thread is fun and comparing doesn't have to be insulting unless folks want to be insulted. For instance, Rodgers release is similar to Marino's in that the ball seems to just take off with very little effort, traveling at the speed of light. I think Marino was better on the release but Rodgers obviously has better mobility. Marino had great pocket awareness though and moved very effectively...just couldn't outrun the hot dog vendor.

Plunkett had a really good arm and was a really good QB...so glad he wasn't totally destroyed in NE! Came close, as Smith was almost destroyed in SF.

I think you have identified a trait that doesn't have to be a weakness for Smith...the release. He has to play more like Montana did, knowing where the receivers were going to be so he could establish a rhythm. CK has a bit of a hitch in bringing the ball back but his release is much quicker once the ball is back. Both players have NFL quality motions so that is not the separating factor.

Those who try to compare Young's situation with CK are forgetting Young's time in SoCal and TB. Then he sat behind Montana. He had eight years pro football experience before starting for SF (being kind to the old USFL here!).

The number one trait I want to see in Smith is the one he demonstrated against NO last year--the ability to win the big games. Some really great (?) QBs did not have the clutch gene.