ESPN: Sam Bradford best in NFC West for 3rd down passing, Alex Smith worst

Originally posted by Joecool:

No. Gore had 127 carries to Barlow's 176. Jackson is averaging 3.9 per carry and Gore and Barlow combined to average 3.9.

Bradford is getting as much help from the running game as Smith got his rookie season.

Awww... and I just agreed with you right after you posted this.

You're totally right. My bad. It was even Hicks and Gore that really finished out the season with Smith.

Originally posted by valrod33:
Comparing Steven Jackson now to Gore/Barlow then is stupid.

The per carry avg may be the same but teams back then were not afraid of Barlow/Gore then as they would be to Jackson now.

Jackson may not be getting a ton of yards but everybody knows he is an elite back so you still have to game plan for him the same cant be said for Gore/Barlow back then.

Im not using that as an excuse for Alex im just pointing that out because thats not fair to even Compare Jackson to that combo of Gore/Barlow

I dunno... I can't even remember far enough to be accurate without checking things.

I think all teams did was pin their ears back and rush Smith every game.

Shouldn't have started him. Ugly. Ugly. Ugly.

Originally posted by valrod33:
Comparing Steven Jackson now to Gore/Barlow then is stupid.

The per carry avg may be the same but teams back then were not afraid of Barlow/Gore then as they would be to Jackson now.

Jackson may not be getting a ton of yards but everybody knows he is an elite back so you still have to game plan for him the same cant be said for Gore/Barlow back then.

Im not using that as an excuse for Alex im just pointing that out because thats not fair to even Compare Jackson to that combo of Gore/Barlow

Yes but teams were playing us strong to stop the run and force Alex to beat us. He still had issues letting that ball go and trusting the play.

Lloyd, Morton, and Battle weren't great but they weren't scrub receivers, well-experienced in Morton's case. The biggest difference in rookie Smith and rookie Bradford is the tight throws attempted. In all honesty, this is STILL an issue Smith has.

Now consider that rookie Bradford is not throwing 1 TD to 11 INT and also with many more attempts. rookie Bradford is actually playing as "well" as 6-year Smith who has more talent around him.

There's simply very little reasoning, if any at all, to say Bradford is playing better because there is much more talent around him.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by valrod33:
Comparing Steven Jackson now to Gore/Barlow then is stupid.

The per carry avg may be the same but teams back then were not afraid of Barlow/Gore then as they would be to Jackson now.

Jackson may not be getting a ton of yards but everybody knows he is an elite back so you still have to game plan for him the same cant be said for Gore/Barlow back then.

Im not using that as an excuse for Alex im just pointing that out because thats not fair to even Compare Jackson to that combo of Gore/Barlow

Yes but teams were playing us strong to stop the run and force Alex to beat us. He still had issues letting that ball go and trusting the play.

Lloyd, Morton, and Battle weren't great but they weren't scrub receivers, well-experienced in Morton's case. The biggest difference in rookie Smith and rookie Bradford is the tight throws attempted. In all honesty, this is STILL an issue Smith has.

Now consider that rookie Bradford is not throwing 1 TD to 11 INT and also with many more attempts. rookie Bradford is actually playing as "well" as 6-year Smith who has more talent around him.

There's simply very little reasoning, if any at all, to say Bradford is playing better because there is much more talent around him.

I wasnt making a case for Alex i was jsut sticking up for Steven Jackson, he should never be in the same sentence as Barlow

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by valrod33:
Comparing Steven Jackson now to Gore/Barlow then is stupid.

The per carry avg may be the same but teams back then were not afraid of Barlow/Gore then as they would be to Jackson now.

Jackson may not be getting a ton of yards but everybody knows he is an elite back so you still have to game plan for him the same cant be said for Gore/Barlow back then.

Im not using that as an excuse for Alex im just pointing that out because thats not fair to even Compare Jackson to that combo of Gore/Barlow

Yes but teams were playing us strong to stop the run and force Alex to beat us. He still had issues letting that ball go and trusting the play.

Lloyd, Morton, and Battle weren't great but they weren't scrub receivers, well-experienced in Morton's case. The biggest difference in rookie Smith and rookie Bradford is the tight throws attempted. In all honesty, this is STILL an issue Smith has.

Now consider that rookie Bradford is not throwing 1 TD to 11 INT and also with many more attempts. rookie Bradford is actually playing as "well" as 6-year Smith who has more talent around him.

There's simply very little reasoning, if any at all, to say Bradford is playing better because there is much more talent around him.

Morton was rock slow. He looked like he should have been on crutches out there. Yes, he HAD been a good (not great) receiver but he was at the very end of his career. He was nothing. Teams didn't bother worrying about press or zone coverage because he couldn't beat either one.

Lloyd was at this frustrating worst that year. He would make one spectacular catch then drop an easy one. He NEVER went over the middle for fear of getting hit. He was an immature punk that was widely disliked by his teammates.

Battle was learning to play WR and later turned into a decent "possession" WR, but was never a threat at any time during that season, or any other.

As valrod has pointed out, Steven Jackson is a THREAT at any time, which takes a lot of pressure off Bradford. Barlow/Gore were never anything close to that kind of threat AT THAT TIME.

Add in the fact that the Ram defense is giving Bradford the ball in far better field position most of the time than what the 49ers did then.

No, Smith did not play well back then but to say that the current Rams are on a par with the 2005 49ers is just wrong.

Finally, it isn't like Bradford is tearing up the league. His rating is 75% the same as Smith (fractions aside). In the three years in which Smith has been fully healthy, he has been at that level or higher all three - not that 75% is anything great.

Now, believe it or not, I am taking a long vacation from Alex Smith...he is done as a 49er unless a miracle occurs, and since few want to talk about anything else but him, ignoring all other data, I'm out.

I continue to be dismayed by people talking about our "talent." It takes much more than that to win in today's NFL. You need players who do not screw up. You can be big, fast and athletic, but if you are not catching a catchable ball, not running good routes, not getting open, fumbling or commiting penalties, your great talent is irrelevant.

Originally posted by excelsior:
I continue to be dismayed by people talking about our "talent." It takes much more than that to win in today's NFL. You need players who do not screw up. You can be big, fast and athletic, but if you are not catching a catchable ball, not running good routes, not getting open, fumbling or commiting penalties, your great talent is irrelevant.

You forgot to add "turning the ball over in the redzone or throwing INTs."

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by valrod33:
Comparing Steven Jackson now to Gore/Barlow then is stupid.

The per carry avg may be the same but teams back then were not afraid of Barlow/Gore then as they would be to Jackson now.

Jackson may not be getting a ton of yards but everybody knows he is an elite back so you still have to game plan for him the same cant be said for Gore/Barlow back then.

Im not using that as an excuse for Alex im just pointing that out because thats not fair to even Compare Jackson to that combo of Gore/Barlow

Yes but teams were playing us strong to stop the run and force Alex to beat us. He still had issues letting that ball go and trusting the play.

Lloyd, Morton, and Battle weren't great but they weren't scrub receivers, well-experienced in Morton's case. The biggest difference in rookie Smith and rookie Bradford is the tight throws attempted. In all honesty, this is STILL an issue Smith has.

Now consider that rookie Bradford is not throwing 1 TD to 11 INT and also with many more attempts. rookie Bradford is actually playing as "well" as 6-year Smith who has more talent around him.

There's simply very little reasoning, if any at all, to say Bradford is playing better because there is much more talent around him.

Morton was rock slow. He looked like he should have been on crutches out there. Yes, he HAD been a good (not great) receiver but he was at the very end of his career. He was nothing. Teams didn't bother worrying about press or zone coverage because he couldn't beat either one.

Lloyd was at this frustrating worst that year. He would make one spectacular catch then drop an easy one. He NEVER went over the middle for fear of getting hit. He was an immature punk that was widely disliked by his teammates.

Battle was learning to play WR and later turned into a decent "possession" WR, but was never a threat at any time during that season, or any other.

As valrod has pointed out, Steven Jackson is a THREAT at any time, which takes a lot of pressure off Bradford. Barlow/Gore were never anything close to that kind of threat AT THAT TIME.

Add in the fact that the Ram defense is giving Bradford the ball in far better field position most of the time than what the 49ers did then.

No, Smith did not play well back then but to say that the current Rams are on a par with the 2005 49ers is just wrong.

Finally, it isn't like Bradford is tearing up the league. His rating is 75% the same as Smith (fractions aside). In the three years in which Smith has been fully healthy, he has been at that level or higher all three - not that 75% is anything great.

Now, believe it or not, I am taking a long vacation from Alex Smith...he is done as a 49er unless a miracle occurs, and since few want to talk about anything else but him, ignoring all other data, I'm out.

Morton is slow? The prior year he caught 55 balls for 795 yards at a 14.5 average. If you are a WR and are running faster than a 4.6, then you have enough speed. Your theory about receivers is not concrete.

And to the bold: Smith has been healthy for 2 years and that cannot contribute to his poor play. Yes his "poor play" is a rookie's solid to good play. Now add in the fact that the 49ers has far more talent on offense than the Rams and Bradford is actually playing better than Alex.

Alex Smith will be a Arizona Cardinal next year. Mark it.

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:
Alex Smith will be an Arizona Cardinal as a backup next year. Mark it.

**Fixed!

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:
Alex Smith will be a Arizona Cardinal next year. Mark it.

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:
Alex Smith will be an Arizona Cardinal and will be, at best, a backup next year. Mark it.

**Fixed!

***Fixed

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:
Alex Smith will be a Arizona Cardinal next year. Mark it.

good possibility actually, but wherever he goes, he will simply be a very temporary placeholder until someone better comes along or develops on their roster. Alex needs to be surrounded by greatness in all offensive positions and with long term consistency in his coaching staff in order to play average to above average as a QB, and in order to play below average as a #1 overall pick in his 6th year or so in the league. And that's after he's been in the system long enough to be functional, which we know is measured in years and not months.

As far as I know, no #1 QB in the history of the NFL has ever gone 6 seasons in the NFL without making the pro-bowl. Another dubious distinction. The Raiders were actually smarter than us by dumping Jamarcus very early in the failed experiment - they cut their losses and moved on, and look how that has paid off for them. Sad to say, but we should learn from the Raiders.

Originally posted by Shaj:

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:
Alex Smith will be a Arizona Cardinal next year. Mark it.

good possibility actually, but wherever he goes, he will simply be a very temporary placeholder until someone better comes along or develops on their roster. Alex needs to be surrounded by greatness in all offensive positions and with long term consistency in his coaching staff in order to play average to above average as a QB, and in order to play below average as a #1 overall pick in his 6th year or so in the league. And that's after he's been in the system long enough to be functional, which we know is measured in years and not months.

As far as I know, no #1 QB in the history of the NFL has ever gone 6 seasons in the NFL without making the pro-bowl. Another dubious distinction. The Raiders were actually smarter than us by dumping Jamarcus very early in the failed experiment - they cut their losses and moved on, and look how that has paid off for them. Sad to say, but we should learn from the Raiders.

A much bigger thing to learn from the Raiders would be how to run the ball. If we could run like that we wouldn't be having this discussion or be 2-6.

Originally posted by redmanc07:

Originally posted by Shaj:

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:
Alex Smith will be a Arizona Cardinal next year. Mark it.

good possibility actually, but wherever he goes, he will simply be a very temporary placeholder until someone better comes along or develops on their roster. Alex needs to be surrounded by greatness in all offensive positions and with long term consistency in his coaching staff in order to play average to above average as a QB, and in order to play below average as a #1 overall pick in his 6th year or so in the league. And that's after he's been in the system long enough to be functional, which we know is measured in years and not months.

As far as I know, no #1 QB in the history of the NFL has ever gone 6 seasons in the NFL without making the pro-bowl. Another dubious distinction. The Raiders were actually smarter than us by dumping Jamarcus very early in the failed experiment - they cut their losses and moved on, and look how that has paid off for them. Sad to say, but we should learn from the Raiders.

A much bigger thing to learn from the Raiders would be how to run the ball. If we could run like that we wouldn't be having this discussion or be 2-6.

Thats a good point, their running game has been very good. But finding faults outside of the QB position on the 49ers doesn't fit into their agenda.