QB Competition

Originally posted by 49er4eva:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
I'm sorry but I so hate Ralph as an interviewer. He just sounds like he's whining all the time. Just whine, whine, whine.

And Steve Young can't really make that argument about "no matter what you have to make plays." What's funny is that Young was considered a bust at Tampa Bay which is why we got him so cheaply relative to his worth. He only "made plays" once he was surrounded with championship-caliber players.

Now ONCE HE DEVELOPED AND LEARNED THE GAME, he could then play without necessarily having top talent at every position.

So let's be fair here.

PUH LEASE Steve Young had a worse team than Alex Leaf had with the Bucs. But you know what you still could see consistent plays more then Alex. Just dont go there man. We have a bust on our hands and the 49ers just kept him for financial reasons. Hill will start and hopefully Nate Davis will pan out.

Really?

It's pretty hard to be worse than last in the league on defense and offense. Look at the rosters aside from the QB, and tell anyone the team couldn't possibly be as bad. It was very.. very.. bad.

A little history lesson here:

QUESTION: Who are these guys?
Joe Adams - '80/12
Bryan Clark - '81/9
Scott Barry - '85/6
John Paye - '87/10

Would it help if I added Joe Montana - '79/3?

ANSWER:
These are all of the QBs drafted by Bill Walsh during his tenure between '79 and '89. The first number is the year drafted, and the second number is the round in which they were drafted. I'll bet few of you have ever heard of the first four names.

There is something teachable here. As great a football genius as Bill Walsh was - and he was, in my estimation - even he was not infallible when it came to recognizing and developing QB talent. I've always felt that Montana's success was as much dependant on Walsh's offensive system and on intelligently developing him as it was on Joe's talent. On another team, Joe may never have thrived as he did. And even with Walsh's rare abilities, he did not spot or develop another winner in any of those other four names above. They were never picked up by any other teams either, to my knowledge.

I wish the best for Hill, but I am also curious whether proper development, better surrounding talent and more maturity can result in Smith becoming a good QB.

Originally posted by ninertico:
It is all about respect, period, IMO.


It is a choice to engage. Once you do, you are responsible for your actions, period.

Well, in a normal world this is certainly true and it would end there - period. However, when it comes to the 'zone, apparently others can be held responsible for your actions also -- as crazy as that sounds.

What I mean is, (as "Oscar" recently explained to me following a warning for a sarcastic post of mine that MIGHT have resulted in an offensive response from another poster), if you post something that results in another member responding inappropriately YOU can be warned!! That's right, we are all responsible for how other members CHOOSE to respond to our posts.

Problem is, it's very arbitrary, inconsistent, selective and random b/c it's left up to the "interpretation" and "mood" of the individual mod. Therefore, there is no consensus of opinion about a warning, just a single individual making an instant judgement which I think can be a big problem that needs to be worked out of the warning equation.

In reality, these rules should be able to be applied equally, evenly and consistently every time via a set standard of criteria regardless of which mod it is. This and similiar issues have been discussed my many fans on this site for years.

Now, common sense tells me and most sensible people that whether you "incite" (aka provoke, urge) or not (even though it's against the rules), how another member chooses to or NOT to respond to it is solely their responsibility.

As you said, they should be responsible for their own actions. Along those same lines, I feel that mature, normal adults should be in control of what they post and restrain themselves from responding inappropriately no matter what somebody else posts whether it's meant to incite or not. It's a matter of accountability and self-control.

However, with the "incite" rule, in some cases the sole responsibility is removed from the member who CHOOSES to respond inappropriately and partially placed on the poster who's post he/she is responding to which is ridiculous, IMO. This is an example of placing blame somewhere other than where is should remain -- with the member who actually responded inappropriately.

Originally posted by 49erWill:

Originally posted by Sabrason:

Originally posted by ninertico:
It is all about respect, period, IMO.


It is a choice to engage. Once you do, you are responsible for your actions, period.

Well, in a normal world this is certainly true and it would end there. However, apparently when it comes to the 'zone, others can be held responsible for your actions also -- as crazy as that sounds.

What I mean is, as "Oscar" recently explained to me following a warning, if you post something that "causes" another member to respond inappropriately (i.e. insult, personal attack, etc), YOU can be warned!! That's right -- you can be held accountable for how ANOTHER MEMBER CHOOSES TO RESPOND to your post. That means that we are all responsible for how other members respond to our posts and can be warned accordingly. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Personal Attacks
Personal attacks of ANY kind are prohibited. Personal attacks do not have to include swear words, they just have to be an attack on a person rather than their idea. Posters that only serve to incite others and serve no other purpose but to inflame tensions may be banned. Simply having a dissenting opinion on an issue, as long as that opinion is expressed in a tactful manner, is not a warnable offense.

If you or any forum user is personally attacked, report it to a moderator via the Contact Moderator feature within the forum. You agree not to reply to an attack with another attack. If you do not agree with the comments or opinions of a user, attacking that user will result in a warning or ban depending of the severity of the attack.

Do not respond to trolls. This only motivates them to post again. If an issue gets out of hand and you are a participant, you may be warned or banned as a result.

Thanks 49erWill,

I've read through the rules several times including the portion you quoted but nowhere do I see the issue I raise addressed. I'm also a little unclear when it comes to the "Posters that only serve to incite others and serve no other purpose but to inflame tensions may be banned" portion.

It seems to me that a member would have to repeatedly post nothing but obvious inciteful and inflaming comments for that to apply and qualify for a warning or ban. In 10 years here, I don't think I've ever seen another member who served NO OTHER PURPOSE but to incite and/or inflame tensions. In other words, that was not their primary reason for posting comments.

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be something like "any post deemed to incite or inflame, whether intentional or not, can result in it's poster being warned or banned." That would more clearly explain my latest warning.

Again, this brings into question the individual interpretation and mood of the mod making the decision which is what I was referring to in my previous post.

Originally posted by 49er4eva:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
I'm sorry but I so hate Ralph as an interviewer. He just sounds like he's whining all the time. Just whine, whine, whine.

And Steve Young can't really make that argument about "no matter what you have to make plays." What's funny is that Young was considered a bust at Tampa Bay which is why we got him so cheaply relative to his worth. He only "made plays" once he was surrounded with championship-caliber players.

Now ONCE HE DEVELOPED AND LEARNED THE GAME, he could then play without necessarily having top talent at every position.

So let's be fair here.

PUH LEASE Steve Young had a worse team than Alex Leaf had with the Bucs. But you know what you still could see consistent plays more then Alex. Just dont go there man. We have a bust on our hands and the 49ers just kept him for financial reasons. Hill will start and hopefully Nate Davis will pan out.

Really? So you actually watched Tampa Bay games in 1985 and 86? Back when there was only regional coverage, no internet, and no NFL sunday ticket? So how did you know Young was a more consistent then Smith if it was near impossible to see Young play at that time? (unless you lived in florida).

Anyway, here are Steve Young's stats his first 2 seasons at Tampa before being traded.

1985
Record: 1-4
Cmp%: 52.2
Yds: 935
TDs: 3
Int: 8
Ypg: 187.0
Rating: 56.9

1986
Record:2-12
Cmp%: 53.7
Yds: 2282
TDs: 8
Int: 13
Ypg: 163.0
Rating: 65.5

Alex Smith's first 2 years,

2005
Record: 2-5
Cmp%: 50.9
Yds: 875
TDs: 1
Int: 11
Rating: 40.8

2006
Record: 7-9
Cmp%: 58.1
Yds: 2890
TDs: 16
Int: 16
Rating: 74.8

I had always known that Young had struggle in Tampa, however, after looking up his stats I am shocked at how poorly he actually played. What really surprised me though was how much better Smith got in his second year compared to Young. Steve Young, statistically, looked the same his second year compared to his rookie season. Smith on the other hand was vastly improved. Not only that but Smith's second season is virtually better than Young's in every statistcal catagory.

Im venturing to guess (based on how people have reacted to Smith's first two seasons with the 49ers) that most people on the Zone who have labelled Smith a bust, would have also labelled Young a bust after his first 2 seasons in Tampa. And Tampa did feel he was a bust, thats why they traded him after only 2 seasons.

It goes to show you how a team can mishandle the development of a QB. If it wasn't for Walsh, Steve Young's career would have been over before it even got a chance to get started. After getting traded Young got to sit for the next four seasons and learn how to play the game. Smith has now been sitting for almost two years. Maybe that has helped him as well.

Now I'm not by any means saying Smith will turn out like Young. Thats not my intent here. However, Young's career shows that you shouldn't jump the gun and give up on a player to earlyin his young career. They did in Tampa bay and ended up trading away a future HOF. You don't think they still regret that trade?

I think we should see what the kid can do this pre-season and see what he gots. It doesn't hurt this team to have this QB competition. And if Smith does stink up the joint during pre-season, we still got Hill.

Yo will if people that only serve to incite others can be banned than why is sabrason still around?

Originally posted by 49erWill:

Originally posted by Sabrason:

Originally posted by ninertico:
It is all about respect, period, IMO.


It is a choice to engage. Once you do, you are responsible for your actions, period.

Well, in a normal world this is certainly true and it would end there. However, apparently when it comes to the 'zone, others can be held responsible for your actions also -- as crazy as that sounds.

What I mean is, as "Oscar" recently explained to me following a warning, if you post something that "causes" another member to respond inappropriately (i.e. insult, personal attack, etc), YOU can be warned!! That's right -- you can be held accountable for how ANOTHER MEMBER CHOOSES TO RESPOND to your post. That means that we are all responsible for how other members respond to our posts and can be warned accordingly. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Personal Attacks
Personal attacks of ANY kind are prohibited. Personal attacks do not have to include swear words, they just have to be an attack on a person rather than their idea. Posters that only serve to incite others and serve no other purpose but to inflame tensions may be banned. Simply having a dissenting opinion on an issue, as long as that opinion is expressed in a tactful manner, is not a warnable offense.

If you or any forum user is personally attacked, report it to a moderator via the Contact Moderator feature within the forum. You agree not to reply to an attack with another attack. If you do not agree with the comments or opinions of a user, attacking that user will result in a warning or ban depending of the severity of the attack.

Do not respond to trolls. This only motivates them to post again. If an issue gets out of hand and you are a participant, you may be warned or banned as a result.

Well, golly -- This sure would seem to apply to .. oh, I dunno.. A particular individual or two who ride the "Alex Leaf" postings quite hard. Hmmm. Because those posts didn't seem to be opinions "expressed in a tactful manner" in the least bit..

Originally posted by yoyo49:

Originally posted by 49er4eva:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
I'm sorry but I so hate Ralph as an interviewer. He just sounds like he's whining all the time. Just whine, whine, whine.

And Steve Young can't really make that argument about "no matter what you have to make plays." What's funny is that Young was considered a bust at Tampa Bay which is why we got him so cheaply relative to his worth. He only "made plays" once he was surrounded with championship-caliber players.

Now ONCE HE DEVELOPED AND LEARNED THE GAME, he could then play without necessarily having top talent at every position.

So let's be fair here.

PUH LEASE Steve Young had a worse team than Alex Leaf had with the Bucs. But you know what you still could see consistent plays more then Alex. Just dont go there man. We have a bust on our hands and the 49ers just kept him for financial reasons. Hill will start and hopefully Nate Davis will pan out.

Really? So you actually watched Tampa Bay games in 1985 and 86? Back when there was only regional coverage, no internet, and no NFL sunday ticket? So how did you know Young was a more consistent then Smith if it was near impossible to see Young play at that time? (unless you lived in florida).

Anyway, here are Steve Young's stats his first 2 seasons at Tampa before being traded.

1985
Record: 1-4
Cmp%: 52.2
Yds: 935
TDs: 3
Int: 8
Ypg: 187.0
Rating: 56.9

1986
Record:2-12
Cmp%: 53.7
Yds: 2282
TDs: 8
Int: 13
Ypg: 163.0
Rating: 65.5

Alex Smith's first 2 years,

2005
Record: 2-5
Cmp%: 50.9
Yds: 875
TDs: 1
Int: 11
Rating: 40.8

2006
Record: 7-9
Cmp%: 58.1
Yds: 2890
TDs: 16
Int: 16
Rating: 74.8

I had always known that Young had struggle in Tampa, however, after looking up his stats I am shocked at how poorly he actually played. What really surprised me though was how much better Smith got in his second year compared to Young. Steve Young, statistically, looked the same his second year compared to his rookie season. Smith on the other hand was vastly improved. Not only that but Smith's second season is virtually better than Young's in every statistcal catagory.

Im venturing to guess (based on how people have reacted to Smith's first two seasons with the 49ers) that most people on the Zone who have labelled Smith a bust, would have also labelled Young a bust after his first 2 seasons in Tampa. And Tampa did feel he was a bust, thats why they traded him after only 2 seasons.

It goes to show you how a team can mishandle the development of a QB. If it wasn't for Walsh, Steve Young's career would have been over before it even got a chance to get started. After getting traded Young got to sit for the next four seasons and learn how to play the game. Smith has now been sitting for almost two years. Maybe that has helped him as well.

Now I'm not by any means saying Smith will turn out like Young. Thats not my intent here. However, Young's career shows that you shouldn't jump the gun and give up on a player to earlyin his young career. They did in Tampa bay and ended up trading away a future HOF. You don't think they still regret that trade?

I think we should see what the kid can do this pre-season and see what he gots. It doesn't hurt this team to have this QB competition. And if Smith does stink up the joint during pre-season, we still got Hill.

This is a great post. I never thought to pull the stats for Young at Tampa, and I am fascinated and a little horrified by them. Great judgement by Bill Walsh.

Plunkett is another example of how a good qb can be nearly destroyed by being on a bad team. End of the day- Smith has shown his commitment to the team by renegotiating his contract. I see no problem with giving him more time. He may be a waste of a uniform, he may turn into a good qb. No one knows.

who do you guys think is better, alex smith or shaun hill?

Originally posted by RonMexico:
who do you guys think is better, alex smith or shaun hill?

alex has the physical tools, weak mental skills

shaun hill has the mental skills, and based on games last year, ok physical skills

I gotta go with hill

but i want Alex to succeed.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by yoyo49:

Originally posted by 49er4eva:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
I'm sorry but I so hate Ralph as an interviewer. He just sounds like he's whining all the time. Just whine, whine, whine.

And Steve Young can't really make that argument about "no matter what you have to make plays." What's funny is that Young was considered a bust at Tampa Bay which is why we got him so cheaply relative to his worth. He only "made plays" once he was surrounded with championship-caliber players.

Now ONCE HE DEVELOPED AND LEARNED THE GAME, he could then play without necessarily having top talent at every position.

So let's be fair here.

PUH LEASE Steve Young had a worse team than Alex Leaf had with the Bucs. But you know what you still could see consistent plays more then Alex. Just dont go there man. We have a bust on our hands and the 49ers just kept him for financial reasons. Hill will start and hopefully Nate Davis will pan out.

Really? So you actually watched Tampa Bay games in 1985 and 86? Back when there was only regional coverage, no internet, and no NFL sunday ticket? So how did you know Young was a more consistent then Smith if it was near impossible to see Young play at that time? (unless you lived in florida).

Anyway, here are Steve Young's stats his first 2 seasons at Tampa before being traded.

1985
Record: 1-4
Cmp%: 52.2
Yds: 935
TDs: 3
Int: 8
Ypg: 187.0
Rating: 56.9

1986
Record:2-12
Cmp%: 53.7
Yds: 2282
TDs: 8
Int: 13
Ypg: 163.0
Rating: 65.5

Alex Smith's first 2 years,

2005
Record: 2-5
Cmp%: 50.9
Yds: 875
TDs: 1
Int: 11
Rating: 40.8

2006
Record: 7-9
Cmp%: 58.1
Yds: 2890
TDs: 16
Int: 16
Rating: 74.8

I had always known that Young had struggle in Tampa, however, after looking up his stats I am shocked at how poorly he actually played. What really surprised me though was how much better Smith got in his second year compared to Young. Steve Young, statistically, looked the same his second year compared to his rookie season. Smith on the other hand was vastly improved. Not only that but Smith's second season is virtually better than Young's in every statistcal catagory.

Im venturing to guess (based on how people have reacted to Smith's first two seasons with the 49ers) that most people on the Zone who have labelled Smith a bust, would have also labelled Young a bust after his first 2 seasons in Tampa. And Tampa did feel he was a bust, thats why they traded him after only 2 seasons.

It goes to show you how a team can mishandle the development of a QB. If it wasn't for Walsh, Steve Young's career would have been over before it even got a chance to get started. After getting traded Young got to sit for the next four seasons and learn how to play the game. Smith has now been sitting for almost two years. Maybe that has helped him as well.

Now I'm not by any means saying Smith will turn out like Young. Thats not my intent here. However, Young's career shows that you shouldn't jump the gun and give up on a player to earlyin his young career. They did in Tampa bay and ended up trading away a future HOF. You don't think they still regret that trade?

I think we should see what the kid can do this pre-season and see what he gots. It doesn't hurt this team to have this QB competition. And if Smith does stink up the joint during pre-season, we still got Hill.

This is a great post. I never thought to pull the stats for Young at Tampa, and I am fascinated and a little horrified by them. Great judgement by Bill Walsh.

Plunkett is another example of how a good qb can be nearly destroyed by being on a bad team. End of the day- Smith has shown his commitment to the team by renegotiating his contract. I see no problem with giving him more time. He may be a waste of a uniform, he may turn into a good qb. No one knows.

The problem with more time is this is a TEAM sport not loser rehab. Bill Walsh saw something trainable and developmental in Steve Young. No one in the here in now has been clamoring for Smith asking for Smith or publically courting Smith. You cannot compare Young’s situation to Smith – Young had that thing that you could see. With Smith all you can see are stink lines. j/k. (you can't really see stink lines).

Young was a “potentially” good QB on a really bad team. The team (Bucs) stayed bad for years and years later after Young’s departure. Smith was horrible on a bad team and horrible as the team got better.

Smiths current claim to fame is that he “LOOKS” better than Shaun Hill in practice!?! Really, he “LOOKS” better than Shaun Hill in “PRACTICE”?!? That’s the measure of his potential? That’s the reason to keep giving him athletic welfare while at the same time weakening our existing QB corps? Keeping Smith into the season (unless he completely and without question dominates all others) is equal to treason against this team. here is the breakdown!!!

Hill can and does win.

Huard has won, started and has had success in this league. A great experienced backup!

Smith – doesn’t have enough experience or skill to be an effective backup for a team gearing up for a possible playoff run. And he makes (has made) too much money to be a 3rd string developmental player.

Davis is the perfect example of a 3rd string developmental player.

The only reason Smith is still around is to save face from the financial interest already invested. He is the residual infection from the Nolan and co. bad decision days. If this thing is a business as everyone always says then Smith is fat that needs to be cut. Over 2 million per TD pass what a bargain?!?

Bill Walsh an ‘offensive genius” and master teacher saw something in Steve Young. I don’t know about any of you but I don’t see any offensive guru’s or master teachers hanging around 9er HQ. And Singletary may be great and all but he isn’t gonna yell smith into a good QB. So the comparison is unfounded, unrealistic, unreasonable and unintelligent… Smith is damaged goods and needs to go away.

Dirty

You miss the point. At the time Bill Walsh signed hom he looked like a bust. Only with hindsight can you say that he was a good qb on a bad team.

I see no reason why he should not be given a bit of time with better coaches, O line and receivers than he had before. He has put his money where his mouth is. And iit is clear that he will only start if he is clearly the best guy or if Hill gets injured.

But I am aware that for a bunch of people round here it has got personal and they won't be happy until he is completely out of football. And because no one outside of the team can make an accurate assessment of him, I shall bail out now. There has been way too many threads on this subject and they all pretty much say the same thing.

Originally posted by English:
You miss the point. At the time Bill Walsh signed hom he looked like a bust. Only with hindsight can you say that he was a good qb on a bad team.

I see no reason why he should not be given a bit of time with better coaches, O line and receivers than he had before. He has put his money where his mouth is. And iit is clear that he will only start if he is clearly the best guy or if Hill gets injured.

But I am aware that for a bunch of people round here it has got personal and they won't be happy until he is completely out of football. And because no one outside of the team can make an accurate assessment of him, I shall bail out now. There has been way too many threads on this subject and they all pretty much say the same thing.

True,,, this has been discussed to death but what people want for Smith is unfair. I'd like to see Smith in san diego backing up Rivers or have him be anywhere where he can fail on his own without excuses. Here in SF, everytime he is average and completes a pass or whatnot the team haters come out and say look he's a hall of famer. On the flip side when he shows that he is one of the worst QB's in the league the team lovers come out and say look he sucks. It would be better for all involved for Smith to fail, live or (snicker) succeed somewhere else.

Dirty

You can wish for whatever you want, but clearly, Alex is not going anywhere. Our F/O still thinks he can be the QB they drafted him to be, and seem to finally comprehend that he should sit until... as Urban Meyer stated in 2005... he fully understands the system.

That was a terrific post from you, yoyo. If nothing else, it is another easy example of how a QB can struggle in the early stage of their career and turn things around with a strong dedication and proper coaching. A lot of this comes down to some misunderstanding from others. Considering the repitition in comments, that's hard to believe, but true.

(1) Alex Smith supporters DO NOT hate nor overlook the good from Shaun Hill !!!!
(2) Alex Smith supporters for the most part STILL THINK Hill should start this September! (unless there's a remarkable disparity b/w their play)
(3) Alex Smith supporters DO NOT claim to know that Alex will be a HOF/Pro Bowl QB

Again... 7-9 in 2006 from a 21 year old kid with that team is not that bad, people. Everyone but a very small group believed that Alex was developing into a good QB. Norv leaves... enter Hostler. Alex still takes SF to 2-1 before injury. Remember what happened when Dilfer came in for Alex? Yeah, exactly... it wasn't pretty to say the least. I know there is resentment over where Alex was drafted and the money... but that's on the organization. They never should have drafted him at #1 overall, and certainly should never have put him on the field until 2007 at the earliest. He was not gonna come in and instantly save our sorry butts... just not gonna happen.

Urban Meyer, people...

Quote:
Alex Smith is not that kind of player. Alex Smith is a person that, once he is taught, has to learn it all. He might struggle early, but once he gets it, he gets it."

Quote:
unless he knows exactly what's going on, he won't throw it. He won't just try to guess and take a shot. He has to know.

Quote:
early in our career with him at Utah, he was not an effective passer, because he really didn't understand. Once he understood, there was no one better.

The warning signs were there... McC and Nolan just didn't listen.

Originally posted by Sabrason:

Originally posted by ninertico:
It is all about respect, period, IMO.


It is a choice to engage. Once you do, you are responsible for your actions, period.

Well, in a normal world this is certainly true and it would end there - period. However, when it comes to the 'zone, apparently others can be held responsible for your actions also -- as crazy as that sounds.

What I mean is, (as "Oscar" recently explained to me following a warning for a sarcastic post of mine that MIGHT have resulted in an offensive response from another poster), if you post something that results in another member responding inappropriately YOU can be warned!! That's right, we are all responsible for how other members CHOOSE to respond to our posts.

Problem is, it's very arbitrary, inconsistent, selective and random b/c it's left up to the "interpretation" and "mood" of the individual mod. Therefore, there is no consensus of opinion about a warning, just a single individual making an instant judgement which I think can be a big problem that needs to be worked out of the warning equation.

In reality, these rules should be able to be applied equally, evenly and consistently every time via a set standard of criteria regardless of which mod it is. This and similiar issues have been discussed my many fans on this site for years.

Now, common sense tells me and most sensible people that whether you "incite" (aka provoke, urge) or not (even though it's against the rules), how another member chooses to or NOT to respond to it is solely their responsibility.

As you said, they should be responsible for their own actions. Along those same lines, I feel that mature, normal adults should be in control of what they post and restrain themselves from responding inappropriately no matter what somebody else posts whether it's meant to incite or not. It's a matter of accountability and self-control.

However, with the "incite" rule, in some cases the sole responsibility is removed from the member who CHOOSES to respond inappropriately and partially placed on the poster who's post he/she is responding to which is ridiculous, IMO. This is an example of placing blame somewhere other than where is should remain -- with the member who actually responded inappropriately.

I have found, Sabrason, that it takes a long time to make an excuse or try to justify one's "actions" or even try transfer blame as you are doing here with the incite rule.

Why use this thread to express and vent on an issue that has NO bearing on this conversation and would be more appropriate to express it in the Parking Lot? No, actually that would be inappropriate too because the bottom line is you are "airing out your laundry" using your grudge against the mods and our beloved Zone.

Hey, you engaged, didn't like what you got, and vented here using my quote no less.

Thanks, but it still comes down to your actions which in this case speak heavy volumes about you.

So back to the QB competition...

Both Hill and Smith both will push each other to be better QBs...just maybe, Alex can make it happen. However, I am happy knowing that Hill is there just in case.

I love my team and my QBs no matter who they are. I am rooting for both! I hope Alex wins because I want a good kid to finally make it.