QB Competition

Originally posted by yoyo49:


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

Look, Alex is Alex and Steve is Steve. These are 2 different QB's. Just because one had success dosn't mean the other will. This is no different then saying Jay Cutlers second season was better then Montana's second season; therefore, Cutler will be a hall of famer... 1+1 does not equal 372...

All this info means is that its possible; not probable. With all that said, I hope Alex can make that jump; but, I honestly don't think he will...

It blows my mind that people are trying to argue that it was obvious Steve Young was going to be a great QB. As I recall, most fans hated the idea of bringing Young in. Most fans were outraged that Walsh would bring in this upstart bust to challenge Montana. I don't remember ANYONE predicting that he would be great. There were nothing but complaints about Young for years - happy feet, scrambling instead of staying in the pocket, too freaky, not having fun, doesn't have the "instincts," etc. etc.

Originally posted by BrodieFan:
It blows my mind that people are trying to argue that it was obvious Steve Young was going to be a great QB. As I recall, most fans hated the idea of bringing Young in. Most fans were outraged that Walsh would bring in this upstart bust to challenge Montana. I don't remember ANYONE predicting that he would be great. There were nothing but complaints about Young for years - happy feet, scrambling instead of staying in the pocket, too freaky, not having fun, doesn't have the "instincts," etc. etc.

I remember just how much almost everyone hated Steve especially in 1992 when he took over for Montana based on an injury which Seifert said he would never do...rant for another thread.

As far as I can remember, he really didn't get his due until that beloved 1994 season and finally in the NFC Championship game against the Cowboys at home.

That was one HUGE monkey off of his back, seriously. Until then, we as fans didn't give him his due. Others did, but we didn't until then.

Thankfully, the late, great Mr. Bill Walsh (RIP) knew better!

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by yoyo49:


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

Look, Alex is Alex and Steve is Steve. These are 2 different QB's. Just because one had success dosn't mean the other will. This is no different then saying Jay Cutlers second season was better then Montana's second season; therefore, Cutler will be a hall of famer... 1+1 does not equal 372...

All this info means is that its possible; not probable. With all that said, I hope Alex can make that jump; but, I honestly don't think he will...

I completely agree and I clearly stated in my last post that it wasn't my intent to make that kind of comparison. My intent was to show that a QB that has struggled early in his career and been proclaimed a bust is capable of turning his career around with a better surrounding cast and better coaching. It doesn't mean he will but he does have a legitimate chance in his current situation to do so.

Second, where do you guys keep coming up with this notion that Steve Young showed promise and consistency while at Tampa? Its not like you guys were actually watching the games to see it. I mean nobody was televising Tampa games in the 80's unless you lived in Florida and most of those households were watching the Dolphins. Second, even if you did get the Bucs on TV, why would you even be watching their games?

Just because Bill Walsh saw promise doesn't mean it was clearly evident that everyone else (like you and me) would also be able to see it. I thought that was one of Bill Walsh's great abilities; to see talent where everybody else saw trash?

Originally posted by BrodieFan:
It blows my mind that people are trying to argue that it was obvious Steve Young was going to be a great QB. As I recall, most fans hated the idea of bringing Young in. Most fans were outraged that Walsh would bring in this upstart bust to challenge Montana. I don't remember ANYONE predicting that he would be great. There were nothing but complaints about Young for years - happy feet, scrambling instead of staying in the pocket, too freaky, not having fun, doesn't have the "instincts," etc. etc.

Bingo. And Bravo.

Troy Aikman did not have a good year until Emmitt Smith broke out with 1500 yards, his first 1000 yard season.

Alex Smith had almost a 1700 yard back and his stats were not efficient.

Aikman had a 64% completion percentage whereas Alex Smith's was 58%.

Alex only had 6.5 yards per attempt and Aikman had 7.6.

Alex's rating 74.8 and Aikman's was 86.7.


Irvin went from a measly 400 yard 3rd year to a 1500 yard 4th year. I'm sorry, but Aikman was able to use Emmitt Smith's breakout year to his advantage whereas Alex Smith couldn't even take advantage of 8 sometimes 9 men fronts.





Oh, by the way, Alex was sacked every 12.6 attempts.
Aikman was sacked every 11.3 attempts.


Alex had a better running back and the lines were about even but the 9ers had better run blocking, either that or Gore ran better than Emmitt.

Quote:
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

Maybe Tampa stayed bad because they let Young depart.....

but there iss one other thing I would like to add. How come you consider it a legitimate reason to say that Young played on a bad team but when Alex Smith supporters say he was on a bad team or he has had 5 different OC's, you automatically proclaim they are making excuses for him.

I'm sorry but an excuse is an excuse whether you like the player or not. Saying that Young's poor play was a result of him playing on a bad team is just as much of an excuse as saying Smith's poor play is a result of having 5 OC's.

They are all facts but are they all legitimate reasons or are they all excuses? You can't pick and choose which are which just to help your arguement. They are either one or the other.

Originally posted by Joecool:
Troy Aikman did not have a good year until Emmitt Smith broke out with 1500 yards, his first 1000 yard season.

Alex Smith had almost a 1700 yard back and his stats were not efficient.

Aikman had a 64% completion percentage whereas Alex Smith's was 58%.

Alex only had 6.5 yards per attempt and Aikman had 7.6.

Alex's rating 74.8 and Aikman's was 86.7.


Irvin went from a measly 400 yard 3rd year to a 1500 yard 4th year. I'm sorry, but Aikman was able to use Emmitt Smith's breakout year to his advantage whereas Alex Smith couldn't even take advantage of 8 sometimes 9 men fronts.





Oh, by the way, Alex was sacked every 12.6 attempts.
Aikman was sacked every 11.3 attempts.


Alex had a better running back and the lines were about even but the 9ers had better run blocking, either that or Gore ran better than Emmitt.

How come if Gore is the main reason for our success in 2006 and the main reason the Niners won 7 games.... and if Smith actually hurt the team in 2006.... how come he hasn't been able to replicate those kind of numbers? How come the niners haven't been able to improve on that win total? We have had Gore all these years but things actually got worse when Smith got hurt in 2007.

You guys give him all this credit for being this great runningback in 2006 but he hasn't been able to duplicate that kind of success. And its not Alex Smith's Fault because he has basically been injured during that time.

Just wondering...

Originally posted by yoyo49:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Troy Aikman did not have a good year until Emmitt Smith broke out with 1500 yards, his first 1000 yard season.

Alex Smith had almost a 1700 yard back and his stats were not efficient.

Aikman had a 64% completion percentage whereas Alex Smith's was 58%.

Alex only had 6.5 yards per attempt and Aikman had 7.6.

Alex's rating 74.8 and Aikman's was 86.7.


Irvin went from a measly 400 yard 3rd year to a 1500 yard 4th year. I'm sorry, but Aikman was able to use Emmitt Smith's breakout year to his advantage whereas Alex Smith couldn't even take advantage of 8 sometimes 9 men fronts.





Oh, by the way, Alex was sacked every 12.6 attempts.
Aikman was sacked every 11.3 attempts.


Alex had a better running back and the lines were about even but the 9ers had better run blocking, either that or Gore ran better than Emmitt.

How come if Gore is the main reason for our success in 2006 and the main reason the Niners won 7 games.... and if Smith actually hurt the team in 2006.... how come he hasn't been able to replicate those kind of numbers? How come the niners haven't been able to improve on that win total? We have had Gore all these years but things actually got worse when Smith got hurt in 2007.

You guys give him all this credit for being this great runningback in 2006 but he hasn't been able to duplicate that kind of success. And its not Alex Smith's Fault because he has basically been injured during that time.

Just wondering...

Gore went from Norv Turner to Hostler and then to Martz and Gore has still been our leading offensive producer each year.

How come Gore's numbers went down?

- he was coming off multiple injuries in the offseason and going into 2007. (surgery on both shoulders and ankles... broken hand in TC... remember now?) In 2008, all one needs to do is utter the word MARTZ.

- defenses won't respect an offense until a QB emerges that can put the ball downfield... they won't respect an OL until they prove that they can pick up the blitzes...

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by yoyo49:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Troy Aikman did not have a good year until Emmitt Smith broke out with 1500 yards, his first 1000 yard season.

Alex Smith had almost a 1700 yard back and his stats were not efficient.

Aikman had a 64% completion percentage whereas Alex Smith's was 58%.

Alex only had 6.5 yards per attempt and Aikman had 7.6.

Alex's rating 74.8 and Aikman's was 86.7.


Irvin went from a measly 400 yard 3rd year to a 1500 yard 4th year. I'm sorry, but Aikman was able to use Emmitt Smith's breakout year to his advantage whereas Alex Smith couldn't even take advantage of 8 sometimes 9 men fronts.





Oh, by the way, Alex was sacked every 12.6 attempts.
Aikman was sacked every 11.3 attempts.


Alex had a better running back and the lines were about even but the 9ers had better run blocking, either that or Gore ran better than Emmitt.

How come if Gore is the main reason for our success in 2006 and the main reason the Niners won 7 games.... and if Smith actually hurt the team in 2006.... how come he hasn't been able to replicate those kind of numbers? How come the niners haven't been able to improve on that win total? We have had Gore all these years but things actually got worse when Smith got hurt in 2007.

You guys give him all this credit for being this great runningback in 2006 but he hasn't been able to duplicate that kind of success. And its not Alex Smith's Fault because he has basically been injured during that time.

Just wondering...

Gore went from Norv Turner to Hostler and then to Martz and Gore has still been our leading offensive producer each year.

So its ok to say Gore has had multiple OC's but its not ok to say Smith has? Plus if I remember correctly, Runningback is the easiest position to transition from to any new offense.

Plus, he may be our leading offensive producer, but its been on one of the worst offenses in the NFL the last couple of years.

Disclaimer: I love Frank the Tank I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here

Originally posted by yoyo49:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Troy Aikman did not have a good year until Emmitt Smith broke out with 1500 yards, his first 1000 yard season.

Alex Smith had almost a 1700 yard back and his stats were not efficient.

Aikman had a 64% completion percentage whereas Alex Smith's was 58%.

Alex only had 6.5 yards per attempt and Aikman had 7.6.

Alex's rating 74.8 and Aikman's was 86.7.


Irvin went from a measly 400 yard 3rd year to a 1500 yard 4th year. I'm sorry, but Aikman was able to use Emmitt Smith's breakout year to his advantage whereas Alex Smith couldn't even take advantage of 8 sometimes 9 men fronts.





Oh, by the way, Alex was sacked every 12.6 attempts.
Aikman was sacked every 11.3 attempts.


Alex had a better running back and the lines were about even but the 9ers had better run blocking, either that or Gore ran better than Emmitt.

How come if Gore is the main reason for our success in 2006 and the main reason the Niners won 7 games.... and if Smith actually hurt the team in 2006.... how come he hasn't been able to replicate those kind of numbers? How come the niners haven't been able to improve on that win total? We have had Gore all these years but things actually got worse when Smith got hurt in 2007.

You guys give him all this credit for being this great runningback in 2006 but he hasn't been able to duplicate that kind of success. And its not Alex Smith's Fault because he has basically been injured during that time.

Just wondering...

You're seriously gonna bash on Gore, who was responsible for so many of our wins that year, and ever since, so you can defend this loser Smith.

wow wow wow wow.

Originally posted by niner4life21:

Originally posted by yoyo49:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Troy Aikman did not have a good year until Emmitt Smith broke out with 1500 yards, his first 1000 yard season.

Alex Smith had almost a 1700 yard back and his stats were not efficient.

Aikman had a 64% completion percentage whereas Alex Smith's was 58%.

Alex only had 6.5 yards per attempt and Aikman had 7.6.

Alex's rating 74.8 and Aikman's was 86.7.


Irvin went from a measly 400 yard 3rd year to a 1500 yard 4th year. I'm sorry, but Aikman was able to use Emmitt Smith's breakout year to his advantage whereas Alex Smith couldn't even take advantage of 8 sometimes 9 men fronts.





Oh, by the way, Alex was sacked every 12.6 attempts.
Aikman was sacked every 11.3 attempts.


Alex had a better running back and the lines were about even but the 9ers had better run blocking, either that or Gore ran better than Emmitt.

How come if Gore is the main reason for our success in 2006 and the main reason the Niners won 7 games.... and if Smith actually hurt the team in 2006.... how come he hasn't been able to replicate those kind of numbers? How come the niners haven't been able to improve on that win total? We have had Gore all these years but things actually got worse when Smith got hurt in 2007.

You guys give him all this credit for being this great runningback in 2006 but he hasn't been able to duplicate that kind of success. And its not Alex Smith's Fault because he has basically been injured during that time.

Just wondering...

You're seriously gonna bash on Gore, who was responsible for so many of our wins that year, and ever since, so you can defend this loser Smith.

wow wow wow wow.

I'm not bashing Gore. Gore's numbers have significantly drop off since 2006. Its a legitimate question to ask. Maybe not in this forum but its still true. And I don't see how thats bashing a player to simply stat he hasn't performed as well since 2006.

Simple. Hostler just plain sucked as an OC and Martz was too busy throwing the ball downfield. Neither offense used Gore optimally and hence his numbers dropped off. With Alex, he had an awful rookie year (which is unsurprising for a QB), then he started to find his way under Turner. Then Hostler was an awful OC and Smith got injured. The guy clearly has not been given a fair shot. I'm not saying he will be great, but it's going to be another 2 years before we know what we have in this guy. Until then, I'm withholding judgment either way.

Hey, I know why Gore's numbers have dropped off. Its because they got rid of Norris, its because of the different offenses, its because of injuries, its because of Martz.

I fully expect to see Gore return to 1500 plus yards this season regardless of who is at QB.

Point out the obvious and everybody loses their lid. I guess this is what they mean when guys say lie to your wife when she asks if it makes her butt look big.

Some players on this team are just untouchable.



Well love to stay and chat guys but got to catch a flight to Austin.