ESPN - 49ers can succeed in Play Offs without great QB

Originally posted by 8to80:
FYI, analysts use "game manager" to refer to QBs who don't have to put up spectacular numbers for the team to win because the team has a great defense and a run-oriented offense.


I guess your definition of "game manager" is different than the rest of the NFL. "Game manager" doesn't mean just "one who manages a game". Heck, if that was the definition, then why are coaches seldom referred to as game managers? And no, Montana was not a game manager.

I said game manager is someone that plays smart football, nothing about coaches at all. And by definition Montana was a game manager, the best one that has ever played in my opinion. To me there are only two types of QB's game managers and gunslingers( high risk/ boom or bust types) and Joe wasn't a gunslinger. There are various levels of play that can be attained by either type of QB from piss poor Heath Shular /Ryan Leaf to greats Montana / Favre.

Comparing is fun but unless you want to make it a life's work it won't hold up.

Some issues that can't be quantified:

1) Passing when the team is behind vs ahead. Smith is greatly assisted this year by the D & STs but only one blowout.
2) Team mate quality. Manning had a very good running game for much of his career and some great receivers, Gore also good. Grossman?
3) Coaching is key to team success. Can anyone compare Nolan and Singletary with successful teams and not see the difference?
4) Injuries--there are still people on this site who refuse to take into account Smith's broken shoulder years as lost. Eli's injuries?
5) System--this year Smith is playing in the sixth system in seven years (although he was injured w/Martz), with 7 OCs. Eli?
6) People tend to believe and use stats that reinforce their original thinking. Not excluding myself from this at all.

So I am looking at this year as the first year of Smith having a decent shot with a good HC/OC/D/ST and a decent OL & WRs. He is showing that these differences are meaningful by playing better and winning. And I'm not knocking Eli or Rex because they have not played in perfect situations either.

Joe Montana was the quintessential game manager, as was Walsh. Love the comparison with Smith...thanks to whoever came up with it!

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Crabtree is a good player but reckless on the field. He doesn't run crisp routes. Needs to stop hanging out with Iverson and practice more.

oh yeah, he's completely reckless!!!! i HATE when he gets wide open downfield..what a DIVA

Young is right, he was not a good route runner in college and still needs work on his routes, and this is coming from someone that thinks he can be the best wr on the team. If you go back and read the scouting reports from the draft this was a real concern with him, good news, it is a very fixable problem, all it takes is practicing them.

This is just a silly topic. How many "great" QBs are playing right now? Rodgers and ...? Brady isn't playing great. P. Manning is out.

Even if we say there are 3 great QBs that mean nearly every team doesn't have one. I just don't understand the premise then for the conversation.

Originally posted by taney71:
This is just a silly topic. How many "great" QBs are playing right now? Rodgers and ...? Brady isn't playing great. P. Manning is out.

Even if we say there are 3 great QBs that mean nearly every team doesn't have one. I just don't understand the premise then for the conversation.

QB's have taken over the national consciousness when it comes to football. they've been over-sold, and its become an easier position to play. Mediocre QB's are putting up numbers that would make Montana's best season look silly. And there's the "Cult of Passing Yards" where people worship yardage totals because everyone likes the long-ball and when your team completes a bunch of deep throws it feels like your team is playing really well; when your team marches down the field 4, 5 yards at a time running the ball, people feel (apparently) like the team is struggling.

the whole thing is silly.

What is a great QB anyways? Yards?

Hard to argue Alex Smith hasn't been great this season. His wins, passer rating, efficiency, and turnovers are elite this season.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Crabtree is a good player but reckless on the field. He doesn't run crisp routes. Needs to stop hanging out with Iverson and practice more.

oh yeah, he's completely reckless!!!! i HATE when he gets wide open downfield..what a DIVA

Young is right, he was not a good route runner in college and still needs work on his routes, and this is coming from someone that thinks he can be the best wr on the team. If you go back and read the scouting reports from the draft this was a real concern with him, good news, it is a very fixable problem, all it takes is practicing them.

Somewhat disagree about the college route running. In the TTech offense the WRs had areas they ran to rather than specific routes. Their coach was interviewed during the draft TV blitz when Crabtree was taken and pointed that out--very confusing interview but that's what I took from it. So Crabtree had some work to do regarding route running. I think he has been much better this year and doesn't seem to be letting the DBs get position on him as he did last year

He had a good rapport with Harrell and they read each other very well. I think they will be on the same page by the end of the year if he and Smith can stay healthy...a big if with Crabtree!

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by taney71:
This is just a silly topic. How many "great" QBs are playing right now? Rodgers and ...? Brady isn't playing great. P. Manning is out.

Even if we say there are 3 great QBs that mean nearly every team doesn't have one. I just don't understand the premise then for the conversation.

QB's have taken over the national consciousness when it comes to football. they've been over-sold, and its become an easier position to play. Mediocre QB's are putting up numbers that would make Montana's best season look silly. And there's the "Cult of Passing Yards" where people worship yardage totals because everyone likes the long-ball and when your team completes a bunch of deep throws it feels like your team is playing really well; when your team marches down the field 4, 5 yards at a time running the ball, people feel (apparently) like the team is struggling.

the whole thing is silly.

Great post! The game has changed so much since the 1980s when Montana was in his prime. I remember when a 55% comp. percentage was great for QBs. When Steve Young got to 60% people thought that was amazing. Now 60% is standard.

Your point about the "Cult of Passing Yards" is also spot on. If passing yards were a sign of a great QB then Rex Grossman would be the top QB every year he's been in the league.

Originally posted by HessianDud:
not to keep harping on the Eli/Alex comparison, but I think Eli's Super Bowl year is a an interesting cut off to compare the two. A more precise comparison, though, is the year right after the Super Bowl.

In 2008, Eli was 27 years old and had played in 73 games. This year Alex is 27 and will have played in 70 games.

2008 was Eli's first truly good year. The Giants won 12 games, he completed 60% of his passes (before that: about 55%), had 21 TD's to 10 INT's (before that, he averaged about 23 TD's and 18 INTs a year), added more than an entire yard to his YPA average to get to 6.8, and had a career high passer rating of 86.4 (mid 70s before that). Has about 3200 yards, which was normal for him, and he averaged just over 200 YPG.

before that, his numbers were ok. Some good, some bad, overall numbers that said "decent QB, nothing special, but a good enough starter in the NFL." But 2008 is the year that he "turned the corner" and started to put up some really good numbers (and some really bad, like his 25 picks last year).

Excluding their rookie years and Alex's 2007 (shoulder injury) these are what Eli's 3 seasons prior to 2008 looked like, and what Alex's 3 seasons prior to this year look like (For Alex: 2006; 2009; 2010--For Eli: 2005; 2006; 2007)

Completion %:
Alex: 58.1; 60.5; 59.6
Eli: 52.8; 57.7; 56.1

Yards per Game:
Alex: 180.6; 213.6; 215.5
Eli: 235.1; 202.8; 208.5

Passer Rating:
Alex: 74.8; 81.5; 82.1
Eli: 75.9; 77.0; 73.9

Yards per Attempt:
Alex: 6.5; 6.3; 6.9
Eli: 6.8; 6.2; 6.3

TD % & INT %

Alex: 3.6 & 3.6; 4.8 & 3.2; 4.1 & 2.9
Eli: 4.3 & 3.1; 4.6 & 3.4; 4.3 & 3.8

Game Winning Drives:

Alex: 6
Eli: 8


...anyway, my point is that at a similar junction in their careers, they had similar numbers in a lot of categories. Obviously, in the one that counts most--wins--Eli had a big advantage, and by 2007 obviously he already had a Super Bowl ring. But if we're just thinking about "what kind of QB's win Super Bowls", Eli of 2007 is a good comparison for Alex of 2011. That doesn't mean that Smith will win a Super Bowl this year or necessarily soon, of course.

This is a great post!!

Gives me even more reason to believe if we bring Alex back his upcoming years, he could be pretty damn good with more years in Harbaugh's offense.

Without great play from Alex Smith, would we have won the Philadelphia or Detroit game? Not likely. He has it in him, we just need to free Alex. And play less Gore, more Hunter. I don't like the overuse of Gore. What sparked him was splitting carries more evenly with Hunter. Apart from two big runs a game, he's not getting big gains. Hunter looks like a man possessed, breaking tackles after it looks like someone's taking him down. We NEED to play him, and I'm worried that we'll have a repeat of last year, over running and depending on Gore until he gets injured. 31 carries last week is no good.

Originally posted by taney71:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by taney71:
This is just a silly topic. How many "great" QBs are playing right now? Rodgers and ...? Brady isn't playing great. P. Manning is out.

Even if we say there are 3 great QBs that mean nearly every team doesn't have one. I just don't understand the premise then for the conversation.

QB's have taken over the national consciousness when it comes to football. they've been over-sold, and its become an easier position to play. Mediocre QB's are putting up numbers that would make Montana's best season look silly. And there's the "Cult of Passing Yards" where people worship yardage totals because everyone likes the long-ball and when your team completes a bunch of deep throws it feels like your team is playing really well; when your team marches down the field 4, 5 yards at a time running the ball, people feel (apparently) like the team is struggling.

the whole thing is silly.

Great post! The game has changed so much since the 1980s when Montana was in his prime. I remember when a 55% comp. percentage was great for QBs. When Steve Young got to 60% people thought that was amazing. Now 60% is standard.

Your point about the "Cult of Passing Yards" is also spot on. If passing yards were a sign of a great QB then Rex Grossman would be the top QB every year he's been in the league.

Remember when the Manning/Brady debate used to center around the fact that Manning had the stats, but Brady had the championships?

Now Brady is putting up the stats, and he's not winning championships.


...Not that the two are mutually exclusive, obviously. But the way the NFL is being "sold" right now is based around "elite QB's" chucking the ball around and it being "a passing league" and we've bought into the myth that you have to pass to win. Rodgers is playing ridiculous football right now, but their Super Bowl run was marked by the emergence of James Starks as a viable running threat in the playoffs.

Balance is still the key to winning championships. It always has been. But a myth has been built over the last ten years and some fans have gobbled it up.

Originally posted by HessianDud:
Remember when the Manning/Brady debate used to center around the fact that Manning had the stats, but Brady had the championships?

Now Brady is putting up the stats, and he's not winning championships.


...Not that the two are mutually exclusive, obviously. But the way the NFL is being "sold" right now is based around "elite QB's" chucking the ball around and it being "a passing league" and we've bought into the myth that you have to pass to win. Rodgers is playing ridiculous football right now, but their Super Bowl run was marked by the emergence of James Starks as a viable running threat in the playoffs.

Balance is still the key to winning championships. It always has been. But a myth has been built over the last ten years and some fans have gobbled it up.

Again good point. I believe the first year Tom Brady went above 4000 yards passing was the year the Pats didn't win the Superbowl (2006). That came after the Pats winning back-to-back Superbowls.

I forgot about the run game for the Packers last year.

Originally posted by 49ersalldaway126:
i think alex can be a great qb his stats this year are pretty good compared to other 1st year WCO qb

either way our offense has looked better every week

and according to snyder we have only used about 40% of our playbook (probably doing the easier less complex plays now)

by the end of the year alex will be considered a good qb

next year with harbaugh and continuuity he will be considered a great qb (historically qb dont do well in first year of WCO)

he's a great game manager

What I noticed is that it is the same webzoners that fail to realize what the rest of us and the NFL know: Alex Smith is a good game-manager, not a great QB. Just because you think Alex Smith is a top-10 QB doesn't make it reasonable to make up your own definition of "game manager" and start calling Joe Montana one. Coaches are never referred to as "game managers", so you can't call Walsh one either.

Like I said before, a game manager is a QB that doesn't have to put up spectacular numbers for the team to win because they have a great defense and a run-oriented offense. I didn't make this up, this has been the definition for quite some time.

It's mind-boggling how EVERYONE else is saying the same thing, yet you guys are saying the complete opposite. It's almost like you guys do not read any articles or watch any analyst shows. I guess i will start posting them in the Alex Smith thread for you.

Originally posted by 8to80:

Like I said before, a game manager is a QB that doesn't have to put up spectacular numbers for the team to win because they have a great defense and a run-oriented offense. I didn't make this up, this has been the definition for quite some time.

You do realize that Montana was a game manager at least from 1981-1984 or so based on your definition. The 9ers teams of the early to mid 1980s were known for their defense and run game, not passing attack.