Myth of the "300 yd passer" ...to be a "great" QB

Originally posted by scarletandgold:

Originally posted by tjd808185:
Winning doesn't necessarily mean you have a great qb or winning because of great qb play.

singletary is that you?

Actually, Singletary says you NEED a QB. What tjd says is not what Singletary would ever say.

"You gotta have a quarterback," said Singletary, who is now the Vikings assistant head coach-slash-linebackers coach. "It helps. A lot. It also helps the defense."

Reference: http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/2011/01/25/singletary-learns-his-qb-lesson/

Originally posted by Psinex:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by harbaughisGOD:

Well Alex smith has 3 300 yard games in 8 years and 0 400 yard games in his whole career. I remember him trying to talk smack about Cam Newton saying he puts up good stats cus they were always behind. What about all the years we were playing from behind?? Where are your stats Mr. Smith?? Where were your 300 yard games?

That's been talked about and it's either everyone else's fault or that's just not how Alex plays the game.

I think most of us care less about the 300 yard stat. I care more about whether or not a team fears our QB and if you ask me, as a fan, I am not afraid when the 49ers play QB's like the ones listed here. Why? Because if our coaches plan properly to mess up their coach's plans, then these QB's are most likely not to overcome outside the scope of the play. They won't make great things happen. To me, Alex is in this list.

Ponder
Gabbert
Ftizpatrick
Tannehill
Sanchez
Flacco
Dalton
Weeden
Schaub
Hasselbeck
Cassell
Palmer
Rivers
Stafford
Skelton
Bradford
Wilson
Cutler (far too easy to rattle)


NOW, these are the QB's that keep coaches awake late at night because they can make great plays happen outside the scope if their original play or they are masters at adjusting on their own vs the opposing coach's strategy. These are guys that you NEVER want to be in a close game at the end with because you know they will find a way to overcome your defense, no matter how dominant it is more often than not.

Newton
Luck
Freeman
Brees
Rodgers
RG III
Vick
Manning Bros
Romo
Brady
Roethlisberger

Cutler is too easy to rattle and Cam Newton is not? Surely you can't be serious about Josh Freeman on your "elite" list or even Michael Vick. I wouldn't throw around the word "master" to describe Newton, Freeman or Vick. And the jury is still out on RG3 and Luck. And we've seen Alex go way beyond the scope of the game and his coaching to win a game.

Yes but you must admit, even if they break down often, they are still scary QBs that have the ability to make some amazing plays if the game is close even if the defense picks what looks like the best play against them. The QBs in the first list are pretty much considered stopped at that point.

Originally posted by Joecool:
Yes but you must admit, even if they break down often, they are still scary QBs that have the ability to make some amazing plays if the game is close even if the defense picks what looks like the best play against them. The QBs in the first list are pretty much considered stopped at that point.

Not intending to be insulting... but it just seems to me that you have a preference for the JT O'Sullivans. You know.. the QBs that take lots of risks and will dazzle often, but will also cost you often.

That's okay... I get that it is just a preference. It's just not a preference that Harbaugh wants to deal with. If the first two of my sentences are true? Then it does make me understand your WZ mission these days. All good either way.. Some people like the FF big-chunk-300-400+ yard passing dazzlers... I can understand it.

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Yes but you must admit, even if they break down often, they are still scary QBs that have the ability to make some amazing plays if the game is close even if the defense picks what looks like the best play against them. The QBs in the first list are pretty much considered stopped at that point.

Not intending to be insulting... but it just seems to me that you have a preference for the JT O'Sullivans. You know.. the QBs that take lots of risks and will dazzle often, but will also cost you often.

That's okay... I get that it is just a preference. It's just not a preference that Harbaugh wants to deal with. If the first two of my sentences are true? Then it does make me understand your WZ mission these days. All good either way.. Some people like the FF big-chunk-300-400+ yard passing dazzlers... I can understand it.

No worries about the bold as long as it stays to football. We can always agree to disagree but let's not stop making our points because there are still some good points from both sides.

No, I don't. However, it takes risks to overcome certain situations. These QB's are not only "risk takers" but they have the throwing ability to make certain throws when a defense thinks they have everything covered.

There are also some on this list that can probably benefit from a coach like Harbaugh. Mentioned in one of the threads earlier, imagine if Brett Favre had Mike Martz and not Holmgren. Favre would look like the worst decision-maker ever.

Getting back on track, the point is that these are QB's can do things you just can't game plan for.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Yes but you must admit, even if they break down often, they are still scary QBs that have the ability to make some amazing plays if the game is close even if the defense picks what looks like the best play against them. The QBs in the first list are pretty much considered stopped at that point.

Not intending to be insulting... but it just seems to me that you have a preference for the JT O'Sullivans. You know.. the QBs that take lots of risks and will dazzle often, but will also cost you often.

That's okay... I get that it is just a preference. It's just not a preference that Harbaugh wants to deal with. If the first two of my sentences are true? Then it does make me understand your WZ mission these days. All good either way.. Some people like the FF big-chunk-300-400+ yard passing dazzlers... I can understand it.

No worries about the bold as long as it stays to football. We can always agree to disagree but let's not stop making our points because there are still some good points from both sides.

No, I don't. However, it takes risks to overcome certain situations. These QB's are not only "risk takers" but they have the throwing ability to make certain throws when a defense thinks they have everything covered.

There are also some on this list that can probably benefit from a coach like Harbaugh. Mentioned in one of the threads earlier, imagine if Brett Favre had Mike Martz and not Holmgren. Favre would look like the worst decision-maker ever.

Getting back on track, the point is that these are QB's can do things you just can't game plan for.

Sure you can. Earlier in the year, the 49ers played the Packers and Lions, shutting both of them down for the most part. We didn't play our standard 3-4, putting extra backs in the secondary. While Rodgers and Stafford are going to get their passing yards, we didn't give up the big plays on the backside. Culliver knocked a potentially game-changing pass to Jordy Nelson away to seal the game. They stuffed the run and kept the passes underneath, ate up the clock to keep Rodgers off the field. All of that was game planning and execution.

Generally speaking, if you don't put a pass rush on most NFL QB's, they can make those plays that you can't seemingly plan for. That is what happened against the Vikings and Giants. We barely even knocked them down, much less sacked them.

Originally posted by Psinex:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Yes but you must admit, even if they break down often, they are still scary QBs that have the ability to make some amazing plays if the game is close even if the defense picks what looks like the best play against them. The QBs in the first list are pretty much considered stopped at that point.

Not intending to be insulting... but it just seems to me that you have a preference for the JT O'Sullivans. You know.. the QBs that take lots of risks and will dazzle often, but will also cost you often.

That's okay... I get that it is just a preference. It's just not a preference that Harbaugh wants to deal with. If the first two of my sentences are true? Then it does make me understand your WZ mission these days. All good either way.. Some people like the FF big-chunk-300-400+ yard passing dazzlers... I can understand it.

No worries about the bold as long as it stays to football. We can always agree to disagree but let's not stop making our points because there are still some good points from both sides.

No, I don't. However, it takes risks to overcome certain situations. These QB's are not only "risk takers" but they have the throwing ability to make certain throws when a defense thinks they have everything covered.

There are also some on this list that can probably benefit from a coach like Harbaugh. Mentioned in one of the threads earlier, imagine if Brett Favre had Mike Martz and not Holmgren. Favre would look like the worst decision-maker ever.

Getting back on track, the point is that these are QB's can do things you just can't game plan for.

Sure you can. Earlier in the year, the 49ers played the Packers and Lions, shutting both of them down for the most part. We didn't play our standard 3-4, putting extra backs in the secondary. While Rodgers and Stafford are going to get their passing yards, we didn't give up the big plays on the backside. Culliver knocked a potentially game-changing pass to Jordy Nelson away to seal the game. They stuffed the run and kept the passes underneath, ate up the clock to keep Rodgers off the field. All of that was game planning and execution.

Generally speaking, if you don't put a pass rush on most NFL QB's, they can make those plays that you can't seemingly plan for. That is what happened against the Vikings and Giants. We barely even knocked them down, much less sacked them.

As I recall, GB was a couple of throws from tieing that game. Did you see what SEA did to Rodgers but they still couldn't hold Rodgers down throughout the game. How many times was he sacked in that 1st half. Very difficult for a Defense to sustain a high level throughout a game. We learned that in the Saints game. These are the QB's where even if you are playing great defense, can kill you if their team keeps the game close or if our team cannot separate no matter how great of a defense we are playing.

In the NFCC, Eli Manning played like crap but he also made an AMAZING play that helped his team win: the chinstrap to his nose sideline pass to his RB of all people. Don't forget some of the plays he made in the Superbowls.

These QB's find a way and they usually find it outside the scope the design. In an era of so many even matchups, a play or two is all that's needed and these guys are extremely difficult to plan for or overcome a perfect plan.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Psinex:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Yes but you must admit, even if they break down often, they are still scary QBs that have the ability to make some amazing plays if the game is close even if the defense picks what looks like the best play against them. The QBs in the first list are pretty much considered stopped at that point.

Not intending to be insulting... but it just seems to me that you have a preference for the JT O'Sullivans. You know.. the QBs that take lots of risks and will dazzle often, but will also cost you often.

That's okay... I get that it is just a preference. It's just not a preference that Harbaugh wants to deal with. If the first two of my sentences are true? Then it does make me understand your WZ mission these days. All good either way.. Some people like the FF big-chunk-300-400+ yard passing dazzlers... I can understand it.

No worries about the bold as long as it stays to football. We can always agree to disagree but let's not stop making our points because there are still some good points from both sides.

No, I don't. However, it takes risks to overcome certain situations. These QB's are not only "risk takers" but they have the throwing ability to make certain throws when a defense thinks they have everything covered.

There are also some on this list that can probably benefit from a coach like Harbaugh. Mentioned in one of the threads earlier, imagine if Brett Favre had Mike Martz and not Holmgren. Favre would look like the worst decision-maker ever.

Getting back on track, the point is that these are QB's can do things you just can't game plan for.

Sure you can. Earlier in the year, the 49ers played the Packers and Lions, shutting both of them down for the most part. We didn't play our standard 3-4, putting extra backs in the secondary. While Rodgers and Stafford are going to get their passing yards, we didn't give up the big plays on the backside. Culliver knocked a potentially game-changing pass to Jordy Nelson away to seal the game. They stuffed the run and kept the passes underneath, ate up the clock to keep Rodgers off the field. All of that was game planning and execution.

Generally speaking, if you don't put a pass rush on most NFL QB's, they can make those plays that you can't seemingly plan for. That is what happened against the Vikings and Giants. We barely even knocked them down, much less sacked them.

As I recall, GB was a couple of throws from tieing that game. Did you see what SEA did to Rodgers but they still couldn't hold Rodgers down throughout the game. How many times was he sacked in that 1st half. Very difficult for a Defense to sustain a high level throughout a game. We learned that in the Saints game. These are the QB's where even if you are playing great defense, can kill you if their team keeps the game close or if our team cannot separate no matter how great of a defense we are playing.

In the NFCC, Eli Manning played like crap but he also made an AMAZING play that helped his team win: the chinstrap to his nose sideline pass to his RB of all people. Don't forget some of the plays he made in the Superbowls.

These QB's find a way and they usually find it outside the scope the design. In an era of so many even matchups, a play or two is all that's needed and these guys are extremely difficult to plan for or overcome a perfect plan.

Please explain what you mean by "outside the scope of the design"?

Originally posted by aTx49er:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Psinex:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Yes but you must admit, even if they break down often, they are still scary QBs that have the ability to make some amazing plays if the game is close even if the defense picks what looks like the best play against them. The QBs in the first list are pretty much considered stopped at that point.

Not intending to be insulting... but it just seems to me that you have a preference for the JT O'Sullivans. You know.. the QBs that take lots of risks and will dazzle often, but will also cost you often.

That's okay... I get that it is just a preference. It's just not a preference that Harbaugh wants to deal with. If the first two of my sentences are true? Then it does make me understand your WZ mission these days. All good either way.. Some people like the FF big-chunk-300-400+ yard passing dazzlers... I can understand it.

No worries about the bold as long as it stays to football. We can always agree to disagree but let's not stop making our points because there are still some good points from both sides.

No, I don't. However, it takes risks to overcome certain situations. These QB's are not only "risk takers" but they have the throwing ability to make certain throws when a defense thinks they have everything covered.

There are also some on this list that can probably benefit from a coach like Harbaugh. Mentioned in one of the threads earlier, imagine if Brett Favre had Mike Martz and not Holmgren. Favre would look like the worst decision-maker ever.

Getting back on track, the point is that these are QB's can do things you just can't game plan for.

Sure you can. Earlier in the year, the 49ers played the Packers and Lions, shutting both of them down for the most part. We didn't play our standard 3-4, putting extra backs in the secondary. While Rodgers and Stafford are going to get their passing yards, we didn't give up the big plays on the backside. Culliver knocked a potentially game-changing pass to Jordy Nelson away to seal the game. They stuffed the run and kept the passes underneath, ate up the clock to keep Rodgers off the field. All of that was game planning and execution.

Generally speaking, if you don't put a pass rush on most NFL QB's, they can make those plays that you can't seemingly plan for. That is what happened against the Vikings and Giants. We barely even knocked them down, much less sacked them.

As I recall, GB was a couple of throws from tieing that game. Did you see what SEA did to Rodgers but they still couldn't hold Rodgers down throughout the game. How many times was he sacked in that 1st half. Very difficult for a Defense to sustain a high level throughout a game. We learned that in the Saints game. These are the QB's where even if you are playing great defense, can kill you if their team keeps the game close or if our team cannot separate no matter how great of a defense we are playing.

In the NFCC, Eli Manning played like crap but he also made an AMAZING play that helped his team win: the chinstrap to his nose sideline pass to his RB of all people. Don't forget some of the plays he made in the Superbowls.

These QB's find a way and they usually find it outside the scope the design. In an era of so many even matchups, a play or two is all that's needed and these guys are extremely difficult to plan for or overcome a perfect plan.

Please explain what you mean by "outside the scope of the design"?

Lets say a QB drops back and his firs read has been nudged off his route but he can still beat his man by slightly adjusting his route. The better QBs are better aware that they need to buy his WR a beat longer by sliding in the pocket or looking off and immediately coming back to that receiver. These are little things that happen throughout most games and we blame our receivers. These are things that don't stop better QBs from still executing the play.
It's all about how the QB is able to extend plays. The play I described is a split second where it doesn't appear the play is extended but the QB made it happen.
How about knowing a player is going to be an initial double team but purposely showing a commitment to another spot on the field in order to move the defense. Good QBs do this when they know thief are not going to get easy wide open looks. The lesser mental QBs use their legs more but they are still dangerous in a different way.

Alex on the other hand fits in that top list where the play is highly unlike to work if a receiver is slightly veered off or the defense gives a look that makes it appear nothing will be open. He hasn't proved yet that he can make these extremly subtle adjustments.

Anyone who has played QB knows what I'm talking about. You know you want to go to a certain receiver but look him off to move the defense. Or you are ready to throw but have to do a double clutch and then throw flat-footed because he needed that split second extra to get himself free. Or you know you are lookin for the post and immediately slide into a more favorable spot to make a better angled throw.
It's hard to explain for those who feel every player around that QB must also run everything to perfection. That is far from the truth. The primary factor is the pocket and our OL has done very well this year.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by aTx49er:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Psinex:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Yes but you must admit, even if they break down often, they are still scary QBs that have the ability to make some amazing plays if the game is close even if the defense picks what looks like the best play against them. The QBs in the first list are pretty much considered stopped at that point.

Not intending to be insulting... but it just seems to me that you have a preference for the JT O'Sullivans. You know.. the QBs that take lots of risks and will dazzle often, but will also cost you often.

That's okay... I get that it is just a preference. It's just not a preference that Harbaugh wants to deal with. If the first two of my sentences are true? Then it does make me understand your WZ mission these days. All good either way.. Some people like the FF big-chunk-300-400+ yard passing dazzlers... I can understand it.

No worries about the bold as long as it stays to football. We can always agree to disagree but let's not stop making our points because there are still some good points from both sides.

No, I don't. However, it takes risks to overcome certain situations. These QB's are not only "risk takers" but they have the throwing ability to make certain throws when a defense thinks they have everything covered.

There are also some on this list that can probably benefit from a coach like Harbaugh. Mentioned in one of the threads earlier, imagine if Brett Favre had Mike Martz and not Holmgren. Favre would look like the worst decision-maker ever.

Getting back on track, the point is that these are QB's can do things you just can't game plan for.

Sure you can. Earlier in the year, the 49ers played the Packers and Lions, shutting both of them down for the most part. We didn't play our standard 3-4, putting extra backs in the secondary. While Rodgers and Stafford are going to get their passing yards, we didn't give up the big plays on the backside. Culliver knocked a potentially game-changing pass to Jordy Nelson away to seal the game. They stuffed the run and kept the passes underneath, ate up the clock to keep Rodgers off the field. All of that was game planning and execution.

Generally speaking, if you don't put a pass rush on most NFL QB's, they can make those plays that you can't seemingly plan for. That is what happened against the Vikings and Giants. We barely even knocked them down, much less sacked them.

As I recall, GB was a couple of throws from tieing that game. Did you see what SEA did to Rodgers but they still couldn't hold Rodgers down throughout the game. How many times was he sacked in that 1st half. Very difficult for a Defense to sustain a high level throughout a game. We learned that in the Saints game. These are the QB's where even if you are playing great defense, can kill you if their team keeps the game close or if our team cannot separate no matter how great of a defense we are playing.

In the NFCC, Eli Manning played like crap but he also made an AMAZING play that helped his team win: the chinstrap to his nose sideline pass to his RB of all people. Don't forget some of the plays he made in the Superbowls.

These QB's find a way and they usually find it outside the scope the design. In an era of so many even matchups, a play or two is all that's needed and these guys are extremely difficult to plan for or overcome a perfect plan.

Please explain what you mean by "outside the scope of the design"?

Lets say a QB drops back and his firs read has been nudged off his route but he can still beat his man by slightly adjusting his route. The better QBs are better aware that they need to buy his WR a beat longer by sliding in the pocket or looking off and immediately coming back to that receiver. These are little things that happen throughout most games and we blame our receivers. These are things that don't stop better QBs from still executing the play.
It's all about how the QB is able to extend plays. The play I described is a split second where it doesn't appear the play is extended but the QB made it happen.
How about knowing a player is going to be an initial double team but purposely showing a commitment to another spot on the field in order to move the defense. Good QBs do this when they know thief are not going to get easy wide open looks. The lesser mental QBs use their legs more but they are still dangerous in a different way.

Alex on the other hand fits in that top list where the play is highly unlike to work if a receiver is slightly veered off or the defense gives a look that makes it appear nothing will be open. He hasn't proved yet that he can make these extremly subtle adjustments.

Anyone who has played QB knows what I'm talking about. You know you want to go to a certain receiver but look him off to move the defense. Or you are ready to throw but have to do a double clutch and then throw flat-footed because he needed that split second extra to get himself free. Or you know you are lookin for the post and immediately slide into a more favorable spot to make a better angled throw.
It's hard to explain for those who feel every player around that QB must also run everything to perfection. That is far from the truth. The primary factor is the pocket and our OL has done very well this year.

The bolded is not true in a west coast system.

I'll give you that in a different system, the requirements of running pinpoint routes and having the timing down perfectly are not as important. But the WCO is based on timing and precision routes. It is a finesse based offense. Yes, there are times for improvisation, but the majority of the time, you need that timing and precision. And a 70% completion rate is a testament to that.

Originally posted by mkmasn:
The bolded is not true in a west coast system.

I'll give you that in a different system, the requirements of running pinpoint routes and having the timing down perfectly are not as important. But the WCO is based on timing and precision routes. It is a finesse based offense. Yes, there are times for improvisation, but the majority of the time, you need that timing and precision. And a 70% completion rate is a testament to that.

I'm talking about specific games vs tougher defenses where the play design isn't getting the players as open as it was designed to.

joe, for guys that are rooks, the two standouts are RG3 and Luck. Both have been in the system 8 weeks.Newton is a talent, but not one I would want. You never know what the heck is going to do either good or bad. Undisciplined, and not a premier qb .

Freeman....definitely not a premier qb.
Vick ...man, plenty of talent, but he is another one that can be great or horrid. 3 fumbles 4 Ints in one game, and unsteady in about 4 others. Great qB? not for me.
Romo...again,, plenty of talent, surrounded by bad owner, GM and HC. But he now has a track record of either being bitten by the unlucky bug, or he isn't a premier Qb, again, not for me.
Rottenberger aging great qb , starting to show his age, wt, concentration...very good qb on his way down.

That leaves.

Eli super star
Peyton ( who will be both lucky and blessed to finish the season. I wish he would retire while he still can use his arms and hands) Definitely not my Qb I want. Very short term playing time...i sure hope i am wrong on that, or he quits sooner than he gets badly injured. He is a super star
Brady super star
Brees super star

That leaves me with 4 super stars, and one of those should be retiring for his own good.
That leaves 3 super stars, bona fide HOF

And Alex. The 3 or 4 super stars have been playing in their own systems for years, and Alex has been playing in his for exactly 1 and 1/2 seasons. This is his first season since being drafted that he has had the same OC/HC/QB coach, and I have never rated him good, bad or indifferent until he had a HC/OC for more than a yr, and had a good OL. Yes he has been here what , 6 yrs, but this is only his first yr with any continuity. I think of alex as getting his head and body beaten in for 4 of those yrs, playing on NO coaching with no OL. So for me this is just his second season with all the accessory tools. He played great last yr under a great coach. Now that is being continued. His job is to run an O that Harbaugh keeps very close to 50 % passing and 50% running....unless late in game and while ahead, Frank gets the ball. You are comparing, I think , alex to other 5 yr or more Qbs with constant coaching, all of it good, while he is just getting started with good coaching, good line, good D, etc. I think of alex as a guy with under 2 yrs good coaching, preceded by 4 yrs of horrid coaching,and body beatings.

He is doing what his coach wants to win, and except for the miserable excuse of O and D gameplan and awful playcalling, against the Giants, has played well. He is not brees, brady or one of the peytons. He is close behind, and way better (for me) than the rest of the list you mentioned. Vick's and Romo's athleticism don't take care of managing themselves and the game well , and winning. Alex does. I don't think alex will ever be a 300 yds/game qb, because our coach isn't into that. He correctly is using short passes mostly and occasional deep ones. But anything but quick short passes against NYG, MN, Detroit, BEARs, ATL is stupid, because of the BIG RUSH . ADD TEXANS to that list also.

Joe I appreciate you don't care for our QB but i also don't think you are looking at what he has done with and for this team in the last 14-4 and 6-2 seasons...which is still to be played out. Look, you want brees, brady or the mannings for your qB, fine...but you are going to have to root for the PATs, BRoncs, Giants, or Saints.
I know it is hard for you joe, but alex IS OUR qb. Comparing and carefully lodging bona fide complaints is fine. But he is who he is, he is ours( i hope yours) and he is a winner finally given a great coach, GM and team. I think I will just continue pulling for our guys and looking at the good things that they all do...and I won't get hung up on who or what they could or should have done. Every one is entitled to his opinion joe, and also who he roots for. If you honestly would rather see brady, brees, or the mannings play, then root and watch them. Personally, I prefer to root for my 49ers, and if alex is qb, I root for him. if someone else is better that is available, i will root for the 9ers and the better qb. Right now, and for last yr and a half joe, that has been alex.

good post as usual by the doc. good job

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:

joe, for guys that are rooks, the two standouts are RG3 and Luck. Both have been in the system 8 weeks.Newton is a talent, but not one I would want. You never know what the heck is going to do either good or bad. Undisciplined, and not a premier qb .

Freeman....definitely not a premier qb.
Vick ...man, plenty of talent, but he is another one that can be great or horrid. 3 fumbles 4 Ints in one game, and unsteady in about 4 others. Great qB? not for me.
Romo...again,, plenty of talent, surrounded by bad owner, GM and HC. But he now has a track record of either being bitten by the unlucky bug, or he isn't a premier Qb, again, not for me.
Rottenberger aging great qb , starting to show his age, wt, concentration...very good qb on his way down.

That leaves.

Eli super star
Peyton ( who will be both lucky and blessed to finish the season. I wish he would retire while he still can use his arms and hands) Definitely not my Qb I want. Very short term playing time...i sure hope i am wrong on that, or he quits sooner than he gets badly injured. He is a super star
Brady super star
Brees super star

That leaves me with 4 super stars, and one of those should be retiring for his own good.
That leaves 3 super stars, bona fide HOF

And Alex. The 3 or 4 super stars have been playing in their own systems for years, and Alex has been playing in his for exactly 1 and 1/2 seasons. This is his first season since being drafted that he has had the same OC/HC/QB coach, and I have never rated him good, bad or indifferent until he had a HC/OC for more than a yr, and had a good OL. Yes he has been here what , 6 yrs, but this is only his first yr with any continuity. I think of alex as getting his head and body beaten in for 4 of those yrs, playing on NO coaching with no OL. So for me this is just his second season with all the accessory tools. He played great last yr under a great coach. Now that is being continued. His job is to run an O that Harbaugh keeps very close to 50 % passing and 50% running....unless late in game and while ahead, Frank gets the ball. You are comparing, I think , alex to other 5 yr or more Qbs with constant coaching, all of it good, while he is just getting started with good coaching, good line, good D, etc. I think of alex as a guy with under 2 yrs good coaching, preceded by 4 yrs of horrid coaching,and body beatings.

He is doing what his coach wants to win, and except for the miserable excuse of O and D gameplan and awful playcalling, against the Giants, has played well. He is not brees, brady or one of the peytons. He is close behind, and way better (for me) than the rest of the list you mentioned. Vick's and Romo's athleticism don't take care of managing themselves and the game well , and winning. Alex does. I don't think alex will ever be a 300 yds/game qb, because our coach isn't into that. He correctly is using short passes mostly and occasional deep ones. But anything but quick short passes against NYG, MN, Detroit, BEARs, ATL is stupid, because of the BIG RUSH . ADD TEXANS to that list also.

Joe I appreciate you don't care for our QB but i also don't think you are looking at what he has done with and for this team in the last 14-4 and 6-2 seasons...which is still to be played out. Look, you want brees, brady or the mannings for your qB, fine...but you are going to have to root for the PATs, BRoncs, Giants, or Saints.
I know it is hard for you joe, but alex IS OUR qb. Comparing and carefully lodging bona fide complaints is fine. But he is who he is, he is ours( i hope yours) and he is a winner finally given a great coach, GM and team. I think I will just continue pulling for our guys and looking at the good things that they all do...and I won't get hung up on who or what they could or should have done. Every one is entitled to his opinion joe, and also who he roots for. If you honestly would rather see brady, brees, or the mannings play, then root and watch them. Personally, I prefer to root for my 49ers, and if alex is qb, I root for him. if someone else is better that is available, i will root for the 9ers and the better qb. Right now, and for last yr and a half joe, that has been alex.

You missed my point. I was talking about a game being close, which QBs in the league have the best abilities to overcome a well designed defense or a perfect defensive call or keeps a defensive coordinator who is only up by one point sweating bullets.
Don't think any defensive coach would be sweating about Alex and the QBs on that first list.

That's all my point was which is which QBs do most DCs fear if the game comes down to one drive.

Sorry, Joe, I misunderstood your point, which I partially agree with. Altho they should be wary of alex. In close games he did beat Eli and brees last yr, right down to the last play.

After Thanksgiving, I have changed my mind. I think maybe we should try and get Romo, a 300 yd Qb.. Yesterday he put up 441yds, was 37/62 with 2 Ints. Now there's a guy who can routinely put up 300 yds/game, and he has already won 5 games this yr...or is it 4?