Change at QB WILL FIX EVERYTHING?

Originally posted by 49ersNoKaOi:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
4 Ints because of Tree(seems to have worked itself out)
5 Fumbles because of Gore.
1 Fumble due to Walker.
1 Fumble from Clements.

That's 8 turnovers left 4 of which are DEFINITELY on Smith.

So Smith has 4 definite to his credit.

So changing QB is really going to fix a big part of the problem? Don't make me laugh.

~Ceadder

Beautiful, you should be a lawyer.

Jeez! All I can respond with is WOW! The guy has 9 INTs and 1 fumble, and you think he is only to blame for 4? That is just amazing...

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Originally posted by 49ersNoKaOi:

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
4 Ints because of Tree(seems to have worked itself out)
5 Fumbles because of Gore.
1 Fumble due to Walker.
1 Fumble from Clements.

That's 8 turnovers left 4 of which are DEFINITELY on Smith.

So Smith has 4 definite to his credit.

So changing QB is really going to fix a big part of the problem? Don't make me laugh.

~Ceadder

Beautiful, you should be a lawyer.

Jeez! All I can respond with is WOW! The guy has 9 INTs and 1 fumble, and you think he is only to blame for 4? That is just amazing...

That response wont sway this jury.

We all know QB change won't fix evverything. This has become evident with our approach to consistent runs on first downs, sloppy defensive play, and poor ball handling.

However, a QB change may have gotten us a few wins. Smith has not been very careful with the ball at all.

We have how many turnovers? I believe the team has 15.
How many of them was Smith part of? 10... I say "part of" because you guys like to blame everyone else for the turnovers.

I don't know how you guys don't see the pattern with this team. Smith starts out good, plays poorly for 2-3 quarters, then buffs his stats near the end while simultaneously losing. If we changed QB to at least someone who could take care of the ball, or even just have half the turnovers that Smith has had, we might be at least 1-4 or 2-3 right now

Originally posted by Shaj:
this is a loaded survey, worded in a way that nobody could vote "yes" in their right minds. Of course changing QBs won't solve world hunger. Will having a Flacco/Ryan/Roethlisberger/Rivers/Brees type QB make us NFC championship contenders? YES.

LOL, now come on Shaj. No disrespect brotha, but i wont say any names but there are also a few of your buddies, you can include or exclude yourself, that are soo hung up on the Qb position that they are blinded by every other aspect.

Maybe not you, but i can give u 5 off the top that every thread, every game, whether the D f**ks up, the Special Teams f**ks up, or sumthing that happens in another area, you guys bring it back to the QB.

Trust me i know that just because u have a good QB, doesnt make the whole team step up. and if u dont believe me look at proven teams like Dallas and Vikings.

They have studs and HOF RB's and QB's, but their record is 1-3. When Favre throws for 3td's and 2 int's. He still expects the D to make a stop. Only on our team do we say nah f**k that. Smith scored what 3 and 2, well it should of been 4-2 then we would of won, the hell with the D making a key stop to win the game, f**k that.

But nah overall i made this survey because like i said when u ask a man to step up and say what he feels he should be able too. no flipflopping. And as a result, maybe not you, but many of your partners, and u at least sumtimes, the only comments you make starts or ends with "Change at QB, or get rid of", like just that step will magically make everything else better.

Lets rephrase.

If Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers was our starting QB, would we be 0-5 ?

/endthread

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
4 Ints because of Tree(seems to have worked itself out)
5 Fumbles because of Gore.
1 Fumble due to Walker.
1 Fumble from Clements.

That's 8 turnovers left 4 of which are DEFINITELY on Smith.

So Smith has 4 definite to his credit.

So changing QB is really going to fix a big part of the problem? Don't make me laugh.

~Ceadder

Ceadder, you are the most delusional Smith homer I've ever seen.

I'm just tired of looking at Smith tank a win with poor play. i don't think Carr or Smith are any better it's just that I've had it with Smith. but as usually come Sunday I'll have faith in him again.

Originally posted by SJniner7:

Jeez! All I can respond with is WOW! The guy has 9 INTs and 1 fumble, and you think he is only to blame for 4? That is just amazing...

My receivers coach in high school had this saying: "If you can get your hands on the ball, it should be a catch"

At least 4 of those INTs were touched/tipped/dropped by his own guys into the hands of an opposing player. My opinion...they weren't his fault. Even if the pass was a little off, the receiver needed to adjust to the pass, and in the case that they couldn't secure it, they needed to make sure the defense didn't have a chance to nab it. Fail on both counts by those receivers.

Originally posted by SJniner7:
We all know QB change won't fix evverything. This has become evident with our approach to consistent runs on first downs, sloppy defensive play, and poor ball handling.

However, a QB change may have gotten us a few wins. Smith has not been very careful with the ball at all.

We have how many turnovers? I believe the team has 15.
How many of them was Smith part of? 10... I say "part of" because you guys like to blame everyone else for the turnovers.

I don't know how you guys don't see the pattern with this team. Smith starts out good, plays poorly for 2-3 quarters, then buffs his stats near the end while simultaneously losing. If we changed QB to at least someone who could take care of the ball, or even just have half the turnovers that Smith has had, we might be at least 1-4 or 2-3 right now

See your right actually, now on the same token. If your QB did just enough, to keep you in the game down to the final minute in 2 to 3 games. Then wouldnt you expect the D to make a stop. Because you have to agree, no QB plays good every game, and just like when the Skins beat the EAgles, Mcnabb said after the game. "Defense you won the game for us. I know me and the O havent gotten it together yet, but we will, just be patient, and we'll meet you half way."

If we were blown out continously then fine, but in the Saints game, D should of stopped and we got a win. Falcons game, D stopped we would of won. Maybe even the Eagles game, key stops and we would of won.

What im saying is, definitely the blame falls on Smith cuz he is the QB. But my question is, from what a lot of you say, we should have to worry about asking the D to win the game for us, because the O should be better. Well if u think like that your crazy. When one part fails, then another should step up. Which in our case, they have all fallen.

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Lets rephrase.

If Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers was our starting QB, would we be 0-5 ?

/endthread

get off it Z. you CAN NOT say for sure that we could have won any of the last five games with one of those QBs. jesus f**kin' christ!


end of thread my ass.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean it would make a big difference. That's like not fixing your engine because you would still have a broken AC and old tires.

Sure, the new engine might not fix EVERYTHING, but it would sure go a long way to getting things working properly.

We should change this poll to: "If we change QB, we will start winning some games?" I have to agree with Shaj in that there is no way you can answer yes to this question.

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Lets rephrase.

If Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers was our starting QB, would we be 0-5 ?

/endthread

Nice! I think regardless of who is QB with the poor blocking, drops, fumbles we would still pretty much suck. Yes Alex has a ton of Ints but come on now, how many of these were tipped, tipped at the line of scrimmage? We need solid play from everybody not just Smith. The O-Line has to keep the QB clean at least halfway clean. The WR's gotta catch balls when they hit their hands. Gore needs to hold onto the ball and our Defense needs to get some damn fumbles and ints. We need better play all across the team, from everybody!

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Lets rephrase.

If Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers was our starting QB, would we be 0-5 ?

/endthread

get off it Z. you CAN NOT say for sure that we could have won any of the last five games with one of those QBs. jesus f**kin' christ!


end of thread my ass.

It must be great living your life. You're actually convinced that with any of the above QBs, we'd be just as bad as we are with Alex Smith. Cause Im sure Brady/Manning/Brees/Rodgers would have not taken advantage of Seattle early on and put us up 21-0. Cause none of them could manage more than 7 offensive points against Atlanta. Cause all of them would allow a 17-10 manageable game to become a 24-10 laughfest.

Right...........Alex Smith is just as good as any of those guys, and has MAXIMIZED the offensive output that this team is capable of.

Pathetic......

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Lets rephrase.

If Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers was our starting QB, would we be 0-5 ?

/endthread

See what i mean ZRF, just like a child that u tell not to play with a toy, u still do it. Nah man up and dont come back with if blah blah blah.

LIke i said in the beginning regardless of who is at QB, is that what will make the entire team better. Please adress the issue asked or dont post.

And like i said to one of your buddies on here, there are few that live by if the QB is different EVERYTHING ELSE IMPROVES. And to be real, u were one of the 5 that I said i could mention to Shaj, that every post usually starts or end with something in changing the QB.

and by the way, dont just pick the guys u like. Dont forget we have Mcnabb, Romo, Favre, etc, and a few others that are 1-3, with Studs at RB, WR, and QB positions, so your point is invalid.

once again, question is, IF you make a change at QB. Everything else on the team will get better which will lead to more wins.