Alex Smith

Welcome To The: 49ers Paradise Forum It's What's Above The Fold	Click Here To Return To 49ers Paradise

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Why am I seeing this ad?
-If you are a Subscription Member (Black, Red, Gold) you are not signed in. Please sign-in to remove the ad.
-If you are a regular member or guest, read more about our subscription options here.

Get Your 49ers Merchandise and Support This Site! 49ers Store Click Here! Please help support this site. Donations secured and encrypted by eBay.com. Even $1 can go a long way. Thank you. Coast to Coast Tickets has the best seats for 49ers home games, as well as premium Athletics tickets, Giants baseball tickets and Sharks hockey tickets. And stay informed on what's got people buzzing by following Coast to Coast on Twitter!	Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames. The live chat room is always open. Join the following members already chatting. Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames.

.onTheClock {font-family:arial; font-size:10pt; text-align:left;} .fctitle {font-family:arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:bold;} .fctable {font-family:arial; font-size:10pt;} .hr {width:100%; height:2px; background-color:#800000; color:#800000; line-height: 1px; font-size: 1px;} Follow The NFL Draft Live

Click Here To Refresh Draft Tracker (Tracker Should Also Automatically Update).

Unread Posts | Unread Replies | Read the Forum Rules

What's the point, cc? You've already decided you disagree with me no matter what. Still, I'm game, just don't expect me to comment on this any further.

McNabb. May be unrealistic but at least it's something the guys in charge at the 49ers need to look at.
If McNabb is not available, Vick or Kolb may be. That's alternatives worth looking at as well.
If Favre doesn't retire, check out Jackson or Rosenfels.
Clemens from the Jets might be a possibility.
Anderson of the Browns?
The draft. Maybe - as Tank points out - there's a guy worth looking at after the first round? It has happened before.
There are other veterans out there who used to be good and maybe Sing. can kick start their careers? (Culpepper, Garcia, Pennington, Collins...) I mean, who thought that Warner would end his career with 3 stellar years with the Cardinals?

Limiting your options already in February to a QB with shoulder problems who has never lived up to his draft status (for a number of well documented reasons) is pretty shortsighted in my opinion.

Since you read my posts so carefully, I guess I don't need to mention that I'm not necessarily talking about replacements for Smith but also guys who can compete with him for the starting position or at least push him/help him to get better.

So our best FA options to compete with Smith are Tavares Jackson, Sage Rosenfels, Kellen Clemens and Derek Anderson. What a sterling FA crop. And after that it's Culpepper, Garcia, Pennington and Kerry Collins? This is just my personal view, but I'm pretty comfortable going with Alex Smith after reading that list.

I don't object too much to the comparison with Grossman. Outside of his Super Bowl season where he started all 16 games, Grossman never started more than 7 games in a season. His inconsistencies in that season are famous, and I think the swings between Bad Rex and Good Rex are more drastic swings than the ones between Bad Alex and Good Alex. When you look at their 2007 seasons, which follow both of their previous "best seasons as a pro," Grossman came out looking worse in his first three games than Smith did. When you look at what Smith did this season coming off the bench, it results in a better season even than Grossman's Super Bowl season.

Smith has an opportunity coming up that Grossman never had, because while Grossman has had 32 starts and appears possible he may never have another, Smith has had 40 starts and ought to certainly have more coming up. It's up to Alex to manifest his improvement on the field with, likely, a better supporting cast than Grossman ever had. I'm certainly encouraged by the hire of Solari and Ray Brown to improve the O-line.

Quote from: TANK on February 06, 2010, 10:01:50 PM

Indiana: Brees figured out Sean Payton's offense in one offseason, coming off a horrific shoulder injury. One summer with the new playbook and he was throwing for over 4,200 yards. His leading receiver was a rookie drafted in the 252nd in the draft that April - Marques Colston with 1,038...and the other key to the passing game was a rookie running back. Rookies played two of three key roles. All three were learning a new play book. Brees didn't have to succeed under those circumstances. He didn't have to pass for over 4,200 yards. He didn't have to complete 65% of his passes.

This doesn't discount anything I've already said.

How many times did people complain about the playcalling? Can anyone dispute that Sean Payton is a better playcaller than Jimmy Raye? The job of a coach is to put his players in a position for success, and Sean Payton knew exactly how to do that for Brees and every other player on his offense, rookies or not.

Drew Brees' confidence was at an extreme low point when his shoulder was injured, and he himself will tell you what a boost it was to his confidence to have Sean Payton standing on the outside and making an effort to go get him as his starter. Smith has probably been to the exact same low point in his confidence as Brees, yet has had no one say, "I want Alex Smith as my starter." Even Singletary still says "well we're always looking to upgrade the position." I'm not debating the truth of that statement, but Smith has not had anyone make that same investment in him, and there were as many doubts about Brees' future when Payton wanted him for his starter.

This has little reference to Brees' first season, but the offense remained the same throughout the season. The 49ers offense seemed to change from week to week. Sean Payton knew all along what he wanted to do with his offense and he did it. The 49ers had an identity crisis throughout the 2009 season. How is this not an extremely important factor?

It's the foundation of quarterback play, and Smith's fundamentals need work. Is that a problem? Depends on if he fixes them or not. But when his foundation is off, it's no surprise then that he's not great.

Four big factors that might just possibly have contributed to limited success on Smith's part, and might possibly have something to do with why the Saints are the Super Bowl champions.

Quote from: ntodd51 on February 07, 2010, 02:12:29 PM

Let me see if I follow you correctly. You are expecting Scot, since he makes upper six figure salary, to find the next no-name starting QB that leads this team into the future? And this QB should be in the this draft? WOW! Talk about high expectations. You make it sound so easy. Hey, while we are at it why doesn't Scot just draft the best defensive player in the draft heck also lets get one of those franchise left tackles as well. And of course it will be obvious in two to three years who the best "unknown" QB will be that's like saying in 2-3 years we will know who wins today's Super Bowl. And of course some will criticize the organization that they didn't draft that "unknown" player.

INCORRECT

I am saying (1) since Scot McCloughan makes upper six figure salary, and has a full time staff and tons of resources and access that you and I don't have, he should know more than you and me. (2) The fact that we forum participants, collectively, cannot identify who in this draft is destined for greatness, it doesn't mean that quarterback doesn't exist.

So, rather than settle for not addressing the quarterback situation, and pushing it off for another year or two...I am suggesting that the "upper six figure guy" use his vastly superior resources and scour the planet for a potentially great quarterback, and not delay because (a) its a weak QB class, or (b) Barrows says the depth chart is too crowded, or (c) lets wait and see about Nate Davis. People have passed judgment on this QB draft class, but we are only looking for one discounted talent to emerge as a leader, like any of the handful of players I have named to illustrate the point that they often exist.

The conversation, in the last part of January and now the first week in February, keeps coming back to the fact that I cannot identify the quarterback the 49ers should draft in April...and in what round. The suggestion, therefore, is the people on this forum who say there is no one worth drafting are necessarily right. I am willing to concede that after watching only 10 college games this past Fall, or reading a handful of cranks on various websites...that I should not be an indication that a fine quarterback doesn't exist in this coming draft.

And, as much as I enjoy reading wcg analysis of the college QB draft class, I am not fully ready to defer to his judgment that a better quarterback for the 49ers organization doesn't exist in this 2011 draft. For that, I will defer to well paid Scot McCloughan to prove his player evaluation talent. If McCloughan fails because because the draft didn't fall his way, okay. If he fails because he writes off the entire QB class, like wcg, or he fails because he says he had other priorities, and a quarterback emerges as a tremendous leader, this forum will hear my disdain for McCloughan.

Quote

Lastly, how do we know Nate Davis isn't this unknown QB that you are asking for. I am not saying that I think the kid will set the world on fire but since I think most feel taking a QB early isn't a realistic option and I personally feel taking QB in rounds 4-7 does really nothing but create a log jam at the QB position. I think in mini's I give as many reps to Alex and Nate as possible in order to determine what they really DO have. As much as I'd like to give the "we must be patient" speech that's not what you guys want to hear. But in reality there are many unknowns with the QB situation, it's not like we know FOR SURE Alex has reached his ceiling and we don't have a clue how good Nate can be just yet. The only way we will find either answer to these questions is time.

I pretty much know FOR SURE that nobody will reach their ceiling...Shawn Hill included...with Jimmy Raye as the OC. And, if I might extend your logic, the 49ers shouldn't make any conclusive steps to add QB talent until Smith has established his ceiling?

I don't know for sure that Nate Davis is not the QB the franchise is looking for. I look forward to seeing what he can do in the future. But, he isn't going to handcuff the front office and be the reason they don't draft a quarterback talent they like. Stockpiling QB talent may present some logistical problems at summer camp, but believe me, its a good problem.

The arguments seem to come down to two points. One side says the FA class is weak and the QBs in the draft are not rated highly by many "experts" so it would be wasting a high pick by taking one. The other side says there are a few FAs (and/or possible trades) who MAY be an upgrade over the present QBs on the roster, and while each of the high draft-eligible QBs may have flaws, they may each wind up much better than the current 49er starter. The "no" crowd says don't draft one because it would over-crowd the roster and add little to the position, while the "yes" crowd says there must be a backup plan for when/if Alex fails, and there is no reason to wait around another year to grab one of the better QBs (in the same draft-expert minds) next year.

Let's take Clausen for instance. He doesn't have the sure-fire "can't miss, Peyton Manning" label attached to him, but he's a pretty darn good QB who's played his college career against great competition and done it in a pro-style offense (which, by the way, should satisfy many in the "no" crowd). No, his arm isn't the strongest, but I would think San Francisco fans could look back at a Notre Dame QB who had that "flaw" and see that shouldn't be the reason to avoid someone. If he was there at 17, I think he'd be a great value. Would he be better than Hill and Davis as a rookie? Probably, and that means he enters the year as the No. 2 on the depth chart - behind Alex Smith - and gets the reps of a #2. Now I've read the argument, "Do you want Jimmy Raye to train the new QB?" Well no, of course not, but he is who Singletary wants. And while he's not perfect, a year of JR probably wouldn't destroy Clausen's career as an NFL QB. But after a year of seasoning, if Alex isn't much better than he has been in the past, hopefully there would be a better OC on board to work with Jimmy Clausen and develop him into a great QB. And if Alex shines in 2010, we've got the GREAT situation of a Pro Bowl QB working every day in practice, and the apprentice sitting on the bench soaking it in (think Aaron Rodgers, only with a much nicer Alex playing the Favre mentor role). The great thing is the Niners probably wind up with two quality QBs, and either they keep them both long term or trade one for more pieces of their Super Bowl puzzle.

Contrast that to another possibility - and one that I think is a REAL possibility. I doubt anyone thinks the Niners are going to go out and lay a 3-13 egg in the 2010 season - especially playing in a Warner-less NFC West. No, the worst I would see is a 7-9 debacle, which would be plenty good enough to put them out of the Jake Locker - Andrew Luck territory for the 2011 draft. They would be relegated once again to mediocre status and guess what? The QBs in the middle of the 2011 first round probably won't be any better than Clausen / Bradford / whatever, so now what do you think the Niners should do then? And there probably won't be any Drew Brees's or Peyton Mannings available through FA then either, so what do we do in 2011 if Alex had a bad 2010? Give him another year, hoping he gets better with a better OC? Draft someone and give him the reigns immediately, knowing that almost never works out? Sign a midlevel free agent to act as caretaker, knowing that just delays the process another year?

My frustration does not really come from Alex as the starter in 2010. It's that if Alex is the presumed starter in 2010 but the team doesn't at least address the POSSIBILITY that he won't develop further, and they have to replace him by 2011, we're right back at the exact same spot this time next year. By recognizing that Alex MAY have already reached his ceiling, the responsible thing for McCloughan and Co. to do is to prepare for the worst - the possibility that Alex isn't good in 2010. Then if he is, they can reward him after the 2010 season with a contract extension equal to his status.

I'm not at all - not even 1% - concerned about a logjam at the QB position in summer camp or training camp or preseason. Again, using Jimmy Clausen as the example, drafting Clausen doesn't make Alex worse. It shouldn't hurt his ego. It should motivate him to raise his game. Kurt Warner probably didn't like competing with Leinert for the starting spot, but he just went out and showed he was the better QB. That's what Alex should be able to do. If he feels he shouldn't have to compete, that's too bad. Everyone in the NFL competes.

I'm not arguing with the "no" crowd that Alex shouldn't be the starter going into 2010, even if the team drafts Clausen/Bradford/McCoy/whoever. Okay, Alex is the starter and one of those guys is the No. 2. Then whoever is picked can grow (even under Jimmy Raye, with Johnson) into a legitimate NFL QB in a year or so. Why wait for Jake Locker who won't be available to the team in 2011?

And finally, there are many who say, "We can't afford to use a high draft pick on a QB; we have important holes to fill now." Yes, the Niners would benefit from adding a starting OT, S, CB (maybe), kick returner, OLB, ted LB, etc. in this draft. But they aren't going to get all those pieces now anyway, and the QB position is the most important position on a championship team. Replay the Super Bowl if you don't understand that. Both of those teams have mediocre defenses and dynamic offenses led by MVP-caliber QBs. The Niners defense may already be better than either of those teams, but their offense falls way, way behind. They already have RBs, TEs and (maybe) WRs who are becoming great, but they lack excellence in the o-line and at the QB position. I say take two o-linemen (first and third picks) and one QB (2nd first-round pick) in the upcoming draft, fill in with other picks, make some solid middle-of-the-road FA pickups, and see how much better this team is in a year or two.

Does this make any sense?

Quote from: TANK on February 08, 2010, 11:50:37 AM

Thank you for clearing that up. I was confused b/c it sure did seem like you were expecting him to just find the right guy. Which would be a tad bit unrealistic. Is there a QB in this class? Heck, I don't know. I watch a lot of games on TV and try to listen to the guys I respect in the business, but I am far far FAR from a pro scout and have no where near their resources. And if I follow you right I think that's what you were saying as well.

It sure seems you are almost "willing" a QB to be great out of this class. It's like you KNOW a QB will be good somewhere in this class and you obviously can't name that QB b/c you don't have the resources the FO does. And when pressed by us saying where is this miracle QB you default to the unknown QB that you are sure will turn out. It leaves you a nice loophole to point to later and say "See they should have taken this guy!".

Quote from: TANK on February 08, 2010, 11:50:37 AM

And, as much as I enjoy reading wcg analysis of the college QB draft class, I am not fully ready to defer to his judgment that a better quarterback for the 49ers organization doesn't exist in this 2011 draft. For that, I will defer to well paid Scot McCloughan to prove his player evaluation talent. If McCloughan fails because because the draft didn't fall his way, okay. If he fails because he writes off the entire QB class, like wcg, or he fails because he says he had other priorities, and a quarterback emerges as a tremendous leader, this forum will hear my disdain for McCloughan.

There is a difference in what WILL happen and what we want to happen. I fully expect Scot to pass on all the QB's in this class. And I fully expect to hear your disdain for McCloughan. A couple things in life are for sure. Death, taxes and Tank criticizing the FO.

Quote from: TANK on February 08, 2010, 11:50:37 AM

So we pass the buck to Jimmy? It is what it is. I understand the need for OC continuity but at what price? It's something we as fans just must deal with. Obviously, the team can't/won't continue to wait if his level of performance is continues to hold the team back. I don't know if they are at that point. It's clear that some feel they are already there.

Quote from: STLNiner on February 08, 2010, 12:48:30 PM

Does this make any sense?

Absolutely. Great post STL.

Quote from: indianajim on February 08, 2010, 09:05:17 AM

lol. I didn't say I was in love with any of them either. I also didn't say they were the best alternatives. I was just trying to point out that there ARE alternatives out there. FA, trade, draft. Maybe you have better ideas to improve the QB situation besides standing pat?

STL: That is maybe the finest post anyone will read on this forum. Maiocco and Barrows have stiff competition with that masterpiece. Thank you for saying much better what I have bee trying to articulate for two weeks.

Andrew Luck is a freshman. He won't be in the 2011 draft. Whcih is another reason to put off drafting a QB for another year. Keep your fingers crossed for a Top 5 draft pick in 2012.

ntodd: I wish I could will it so. But, I know for a fact that the guys you respect in the business failed to identify Brett Favre and Tom Brady as Hall of Fame caliber, Super Bowl championship quarterbacks. They said Brees was too short and his arm was average...but he had nice footwork as a tennis player. Wink

I know for a fact that the guys you respect didn't know what Kurt Warner was capable of. So, while I like to listen to and read the same respected guys in the business, I am not adverse to the GM of my team doing his own quarterback evaluations and drawing his own conclusions. I would be severly disappointed if the GM of the 49ers closed the door on drafting a quarterback in January, 2010.

Do me a favor and read STLNiner's last post. If you still don't appreciate the logic then you won't be persuaded.

Wow a lot to get to.

Hojer,

Quote

wcg you keep saying that it's not 5 years only 2½. But playing games is not the only way you learn and grow. It's obviously extremely important (and there are some rookie QBs who can handle it) but there are other ways: Practice, film room, game planning, sitting on the bench watching, calling in the plays etc. etc. So I will still maintain that Alex does have 5 years experience and he seems to me to be a painfully slow learner... And why do you think NDavis will benefit from not playing when Alex didn't?

He couldn't practice in the offseason the past two years hojer. He was rehabbing injuries. The whole mental reps and watching film argument is nice in theory, but it's nothing more than a benefit added to help a QB prepare for a game. There is nothing remotely close to actually getting out there and taking snaps. You can't work on timing by doing mental reps. You can't experience a pass rush from watching film. This game is played by people that are way too talented for somebody to come in after being inactive for two years and rip things up. It's an unrealistic expectation.

You also refer to him as a slow learner, and I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Other than his rookie year, he's picked up the new offenses he's played in pretty quickly. Norv Turner raved about him when he was here, and performed pretty decently in Norv's offense after having one offseason to learn it. This season he came in with little to no offseason practice time, missed the last couple of weeks of preseason with a thumb injury and then sat for the first 6 games before getting any meaningful playing or practice time, yet he put up the best numbers of his career. How does this make him a slow learner, or lead you to believe he underperformed?

Nate Davis will benefit from sitting because he's nowhere near ready to play. Smith wasn't either his rookie year and it was disaster. The best thing they can do for Davis is to let him learn on his time and at his pace until he understands and is confident.

I'm not against considering alternatives for our QB position and have said that all along. My point has simply been that there aren't any better alternatives out there that are realistic imo. I also see drafting a QB as a waste when we did so last year and there are no QB's that scouts are raving about in this draft.

Tank,

Quote

I am assuming that Smith didn't "sit out two years" watching soap operas on tv. I hope he spent considerable time and invested tons of effort learning about NFL defenses. I thought guys used "bench time" soaking in information. Isn't that sideline time beneficial to guys like Nate Davis? I thought that was why Aaron Rodgers did so well when he finally got the opportunity. At the begining of this season, Rodgers had half as many starts as Smith. Even now, Smith has 24 more starts than Shawn Hill...a 5:2 advantage.

C'mon Tank you know these are nowhere near comparable situations. Aaron Rodgers got to work and practice in the same system with the same players for 3 years before he took over. He didn't get by on watching film and getting mental reps like you and hojer seem to think Smith should've. Are you honestly going to hold Smith's record as a rookie against him when he was nowhere near ready to play and had no talent around him?

Quote

(It is unfortunate that Smith has only 40 starts in 5 years, but did you know that Rich Gannon didn't start his 40th game until his 11th season? Trent Green had his 40th start in his 9th season. Shawn Hill can take solace.)

Not sure what your point is with this. Pls explain.

Quote

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Smith participated in the past two summer camps...taking snaps...getting use to the speed of the game in preseason games and practices...developing chemistry with Hill and Morgan and Davis. Its not like his odometer was reset back to zero. He injured his shoulder...should it be this much of a handicap?

Yes, to put it simply..yes. Why do you think teams have offseason training and minicamps? If a QB can't participate in offseason work, how good do you think he's going to be when he shows up at TC? You need more than a couple of preseason games to develop chemistry with your receivers. I didn't say he was back to zero; I said he's not a 5th year player in terms of experience because he's missed so much time on the field actually playing the game. He worked with most of these receivers for the first time in TC of this year, and even then missed a chunk of it with the thumb injury. Again I don't understand what it is you guys expected him to do out there. He hasn't played and you have to be on the field to get better. He did that in the 10 games he played this year. They weren't all pretty, but at the end of the year he had his best numbers as a pro after a two year layoff. This will be the first offseason program he's participated in in three years, and the first with the same offense, OC and players in place. We've got to see what he can do.

Quote

Little Drew Brees had a devastating injury to his right throwing shoulder (torn labrum and rotator cuff damage) that put his career in jeopardy, but that was the last game of 2005. The next year (2006), he went to a new team, learned a new offense, and managed to perform at an incredible level: 96.2 QB rating, completing 64.3%, averaging 8.0 ypa, and 4,418 yards passing...and was named the starting QB in the Pro Bowl. The Pro Bowl where he suffered a dislocated elbow, and still came back the following 2007 season to complete 67.5% and pass for 4,423 yards in 2007.

Well first off, Drew Brees is a damn good player, and secondly, he was a 5 year vet who had already established himself as a good QB when he got injured. He wasn't still in the learning process of being an NFL QB like Smith was when he got hurt. Again you are comparing situations which are in incomperable and it's because there really hasn't been a situation like the one we've seen with Smith. It is unique in every way.

Quote

Smith has 40 starts. He should have finished the season in the ascendence, and not with a sputter.

OK and tell me why you think he finished with a sputter? He played horribly in the Eagle game but other than that, he played well enough to win in almost every game he played. He wasn't great by any means, but you shouldn't have expected him to be based on where he came back from.

Quote

I already addressed 2b. there is no reason the 49ers cannot carry a 4th QB and maintain Hill as a primary backup. If Issac Bruce and Brandon Jones weren't even noticed on the 53 man roster, why keep six receivers, especially with deep threats like Vernon Davis and Delanie Walker at TE?

That's the way it worked out this year, but in most years every spot is needed for depth. Keeping 4 QB's eats into that. Hell some teams carry two QB's on the roster and one on the practice squad for depth purposes. We didn't need the extra WR this year because we didn't suffer injuries. That is certainly not something you can count on every season.

Quote

But, 2a - "there is nobody worth drafting," said the people who let Favre and Brees slip to the second round. Said the front offices who didn't see Tom Brady or Matt Schaub. Said the talent scouts and serious college football fans who missed Warner, Jeff Garcia, Tony Romo and Cassel. The people worth drafting? JaMarcus Russell? Tim Couch? Leinart? Joey Harrington?

Ok Tank you're saying we don't know how good a QB is going to be if we don't draft him. I get it, however for each of these examples you give of success stories, there are about 50 more that were failures. These are the exceptions, not the norm. Look if McC sees a QB he likes at the end of the draft, I don't care if he takes a flier on him. What I don't want to happen is a prime pick being used on a kid with less upside than Alex Smith. It makes no sense to me to add another rookie to a stable that includes a 25 year old and a 22 year old. We've got young QB's on this team to develop already. Adding another is pointless when we need to see how Smith does with a full offseason and we need to develop Davis at the same time. McCloughan actually did what you are lamenting he do this year...last year when he took a QB in the 5th round. There's not enough snaps to go around as it is.

Quote

Prior to the 2007 draft, we all knew the 49ers needed two very good OT and an impact pass rusher. Here we are looking heading into the 2010 draft (four drafts later) and we have virtually the same needs: a very good OT and an impact pass rusher. I don't want to see the years fade by and these critical needs not addressed, because they misevaluated their own talent (Parys Haralson, Adam Snyder and David Baas), or "there wasn't value" so we traded down or out of a pick. I can envision this team drafting between 14 and 18 in 2011, and the QB's worth drafting will all be gone by the 12th pick. Then what? Wait until 2012? See how time fades and seasons pass?

I agree which is why I favor drafting those positions instead of wasting a high pick on someone to sit on the bench and develop beside another young QB who needs developing. If we need to draft a QB in 2011, there will be options just like you see options you like this year. The QB position is not going to dry up after this year. Next year will feature: Locker, Ponder, Mallett and possibly Luck who will be eligible as a 3rd year sophomore. There will also be candidates who come out of the woodwork due to hype and circumstance like Claussen did this year.

Quote

And, as much as I enjoy reading wcg analysis of the college QB draft class, I am not fully ready to defer to his judgment that a better quarterback for the 49ers organization doesn't exist in this 2011 draft. For that, I will defer to well paid Scot McCloughan to prove his player evaluation talent. If McCloughan fails because because the draft didn't fall his way, okay. If he fails because he writes off the entire QB class, like wcg, or he fails because he says he had other priorities, and a quarterback emerges as a tremendous leader, this forum will hear my disdain for McCloughan.

Wise move. I wouldn't trust my evalution talent either. However something tells me you wouldn't be happy if we took a QB in round one this year and he was a total bust, which is why McCloughan has to draft talent that fits need instead of reaching to fill a need.

And last but certainly not least STL

Quote

One side says the FA class is weak and the QBs in the draft are not rated highly by many "experts" so it would be wasting a high pick by taking one. The other side says there are a few FAs (and/or possible trades) who MAY be an upgrade over the present QBs on the roster, and while each of the high draft-eligible QBs may have flaws, they may each wind up much better than the current 49er starter. The "no" crowd says don't draft one because it would over-crowd the roster and add little to the position, while the "yes" crowd says there must be a backup plan for when/if Alex fails, and there is no reason to wait around another year to grab one of the better QBs (in the same draft-expert minds) next year.

Quote

Let's take Clausen for instance. He doesn't have the sure-fire "can't miss, Peyton Manning" label attached to him, but he's a pretty darn good QB who's played his college career against great competition and done it in a pro-style offense (which, by the way, should satisfy many in the "no" crowd). No, his arm isn't the strongest, but I would think San Francisco fans could look back at a Notre Dame QB who had that "flaw" and see that shouldn't be the reason to avoid someone. If he was there at 17, I think he'd be a great value. Would he be better than Hill and Davis as a rookie? Probably, and that means he enters the year as the No. 2 on the depth chart - behind Alex Smith - and gets the reps of a #2. Now I've read the argument, "Do you want Jimmy Raye to train the new QB?" Well no, of course not, but he is who Singletary wants. And while he's not perfect, a year of JR probably wouldn't destroy Clausen's career as an NFL QB. But after a year of seasoning, if Alex isn't much better than he has been in the past, hopefully there would be a better OC on board to work with Jimmy Clausen and develop him into a great QB. And if Alex shines in 2010, we've got the GREAT situation of a Pro Bowl QB working every day in practice, and the apprentice sitting on the bench soaking it in (think Aaron Rodgers, only with a much nicer Alex playing the Favre mentor role). The great thing is the Niners probably wind up with two quality QBs, and either they keep them both long term or trade one for more pieces of their Super Bowl puzzle

.

Nice in theory, but there's one big problem: it could also turn out to be the exact opposite. Claussen could wind up being the kind of QB he was in College, which is a guy who can't win big games and showed no special qualities athletically. He could become a complete bust who we wasted a prime pick on when we already had young QB's on the roster and bigger holes to fill elsewhere. If Alex Smith doesn't work out, we will have been set back numerous years due to his injuries and time spent in development. Could you imagine how much it would kill this franchise if we did it a second time this year?

Quote

Contrast that to another possibility - and one that I think is a REAL possibility. I doubt anyone thinks the Niners are going to go out and lay a 3-13 egg in the 2010 season - especially playing in a Warner-less NFC West. No, the worst I would see is a 7-9 debacle, which would be plenty good enough to put them out of the Jake Locker - Andrew Luck territory for the 2011 draft. They would be relegated once again to mediocre status and guess what? The QBs in the middle of the 2011 first round probably won't be any better than Clausen / Bradford / whatever, so now what do you think the Niners should do then? And there probably won't be any Drew Brees's or Peyton Mannings available through FA then either, so what do we do in 2011 if Alex had a bad 2010? Give him another year, hoping he gets better with a better OC? Draft someone and give him the reigns immediately, knowing that almost never works out? Sign a midlevel free agent to act as caretaker, knowing that just delays the process another year?

Look at any draft site with credibility and you see two QB's rated as a 1st round pick which are Bradford and Claussen. That is not a good QB class in any way shape or form. I'd rather miss out on one of these two projects than miss out on a difference maker somewhere else. Luckily, there are enough QB needy teams that that shouldn't be a consideration.

Quote

My frustration does not really come from Alex as the starter in 2010. It's that if Alex is the presumed starter in 2010 but the team doesn't at least address the POSSIBILITY that he won't develop further, and they have to replace him by 2011, we're right back at the exact same spot this time next year. By recognizing that Alex MAY have already reached his ceiling, the responsible thing for McCloughan and Co. to do is to prepare for the worst - the possibility that Alex isn't good in 2010. Then if he is, they can reward him after the 2010 season with a contract extension equal to his status.

They've already done it STL. They drafted a young QB they liked last year. The only thing they could do this year to improve the situation is to sign a vet better than Hill, or trade for an established starter. If that happens, I don't think anyone will complain.

Quote

I'm not at all - not even 1% - concerned about a logjam at the QB position in summer camp or training camp or preseason. Again, using Jimmy Clausen as the example, drafting Clausen doesn't make Alex worse. It shouldn't hurt his ego. It should motivate him to raise his game. Kurt Warner probably didn't like competing with Leinert for the starting spot, but he just went out and showed he was the better QB. That's what Alex should be able to do. If he feels he shouldn't have to compete, that's too bad. Everyone in the NFL competes.

A rookie is not going to compete with Alex Smith this year. He will compete with Nate Davis and Hill for the 2nd and 3rd QB spots on the roster. You may not be concerned with keeping 4 QB's, but I guarantee you Sing does not want to do that.

Quote

I'm not arguing with the "no" crowd that Alex shouldn't be the starter going into 2010, even if the team drafts Clausen/Bradford/McCoy/whoever. Okay, Alex is the starter and one of those guys is the No. 2. Then whoever is picked can grow (even under Jimmy Raye, with Johnson) into a legitimate NFL QB in a year or so. Why wait for Jake Locker who won't be available to the team in 2011?

Why don't we give Davis a chance to grow instead of diluting the snaps even further? There are also QB's other than Locker in next year's draft.

Quote

And finally, there are many who say, "We can't afford to use a high draft pick on a QB; we have important holes to fill now." Yes, the Niners would benefit from adding a starting OT, S, CB (maybe), kick returner, OLB, ted LB, etc. in this draft. But they aren't going to get all those pieces now anyway, and the QB position is the most important position on a championship team

.

Why can't they get all those pieces now? We saw this year that a rookie RT could start for a playoff team (Loadholt for the Vikes) and we had Staley starting for us his rookie year, so why can't we get a starting RT in the first round this year? We can definitely find a KR in this draft, and most likely a pass rusher. That fills quite a few holes right there. The QB is important, but so is every other position. We've seen repeatedly that teams without star QB's can get to the SB if they have the pieces in place every where else.

Quote

Replay the Super Bowl if you don't understand that. Both of those teams have mediocre defenses and dynamic offenses led by MVP-caliber QBs. The Niners defense may already be better than either of those teams, but their offense falls way, way behind.

Sure and what won the game for the Saints? An interception off of one of those great QB's. The Colts and Saints are one of many examples on how to win in the NFL. There is no one size fits all method to win in this league. The Niners lost 8 games mainly due to their inability to play consistently at a high level from week to week. It wasn't all on the offense. They lost games in many different ways.

Quote

They already have RBs, TEs and (maybe) WRs who are becoming great, but they lack excellence in the o-line and at the QB position. I say take two o-linemen (first and third picks) and one QB (2nd first-round pick) in the upcoming draft, fill in with other picks, make some solid middle-of-the-road FA pickups, and see how much better this team is in a year or two.

I'd rather make the defense even better, improve the RT position and get a good KR. We do that and I think we're a playoff team.

I wonder what became of aliabbas ? He only made 47 posts here, yet started this, the longest thread in Dise history (I believe)

Not to mention WCG's longest POST in Dise history! LOL

lol. That post was longer than most THREADS on this forum. It's going to be a loooooooong offseason

wcg,

what you say about reps and playing time being all important is obviously right, I don't dispute that at all. But I think we need to remember where this particular discussion started. CC linked a Beerows interview with Alex Smith where he (ie., Alex) made some - I thought - pretty obvious points about what it takes to be a QB and how to play proper offense in the NFL. I then stated that it's sad it took him 5 years to realize those fairly obvious points. (That's also where the slow learning thing comes from by the way).

Surprisingly [sarcasm] you and cc reacted by saying "oh, it's not 5 years, he's only played 2½ years..." and I made the points A) practice reps and playing time is not the ONLY way to learn - especially the things mentioned in that interview - and B) in fact Alex HAS been in the league 5 years. Fairly obvious points imo. I don't know if you read the article in question but this was about intagibles, offensive philosophy etc. and not QB mechanics etc.

First I don't have much to add. I think the points have been laid out pretty clear. And it comes down to two different sides not agreeing on some basic principles. I agree with Tank, STLNiner post is probably the clearest their side has been explained. I pretty much understood where you guys were coming from the entire time but he added a few points that maybe I didn't consider before. On the flip side WCG novel pretty much lays out a lot I would have to say in rebuttal. One quote in particular stands out.

Nice in theory, but there's one big problem: it could also turn out to be the exact opposite. Claussen could wind up being the kind of QB he was in College, which is a guy who can't win big games and showed no special qualities athletically. He could become a complete bust who we wasted a prime pick on when we already had young QB's on the roster and bigger holes to fill elsewhere. If Alex Smith doesn't work out, we will have been set back numerous years due to his injuries and time spent in development. Could you imagine how much it would kill this franchise if we did it a second time this year?

I agree, you had better be darn sure he is the guy that can lead your team if you are going to invest another first round pick in a kid like Claussen. B/c WCG is right, if you just take him to take a QB and you miss the team will be miss out big time on adding pieces to compete immediately. I guess it comes down to is there a QB that can play from this years class? None of us know. Some are placing their bets towards no. Some say someone will be good and we need to find that someone.

Another point came into my head. I have a question for STLNiner, Tank and Hojer in particular. IF, and that's a big if. Let's say this team sticks with Alex and he plays exactly the same and doesn't improve at all from last year. And his numbers projected over 16 games have him throwing around 26 TD's 17 INTS and 3400 yards. But the team upgrades at pass rusher, RT, KR, S and maybe corner or a interior lineman. What would you project the Niners record would be next year?

Jimmy Clausen. HA HA HA! Someone actually broke out the Montana comparison with Jimmy Clausen?

Great competition? At Notre Dame? Montana faced much stiffer competition, won far more and bigger games and.... I mean.... Jimmy Clausen?!

LOL sorry for the tomb I wrote yesterday folks. I actually did it bit by bit over the course of the afternoon whenever I got a chance to write. I posted it as 3 seperate entries, but it just added to the previous one each time I did it. Not sure if there is a specific way to keep it from becoming one long drawn out post, but if there is fill me in. I wanted to make sure I responded to everybody who aimed a post at me, and it got quite long winded obviously.

hojer,

I remember the link, but I think you put way too much stock into what Smith said. It was typical generic player speak imo. A lot of players really don't have much to say and just recite tired and unimaginative quotes because they have nothing better to add. Look he's not stupid; He knows he has to get better and this is probably his last chance to do it. One thing you don't have to worry about with this kid is work ethic and study. He works hard. If he fails it won't be from lack of trying or study.

We all saw the Super Bowl. Two very successful teams...nobody can argue with that. But tell me, compare both teams to the 49ers and tell me where the disparity is greater: defense or offense? quarterback or pass rusher? wcg says he would rather improve the defense, the RT position and get a good KR/HB. Then draft a RT (Trent Williams) in the first round, a KR/HB (Best or Knight, maybe Tate) in the second, and use free agency to upgrade the 49ers defense (which is already equal to the Saints and Colts). I really think that the biggest disparity is leadership at the QB position.

wcg: You ask us to imagine how much it would kill this franchise if it makes another first round mistake at QB in this year's draft. A horrifying thought!!! Now, kindly explain to me why that same risk is lesser in 2011 or 2012. Because I think that risk is present every year...especially if you don't expect to have a top 5 draft pick, though it sometimes happens even when you have the first pick, overall.

To this point, I will be unhappy if McCloughan drafts a first round QB bust this year or next year or in any year. Are you suggesting it would be acceptable to you if McCloughan waited and drafted a first round QB bust in 2011, because he shows the judgment not to do it this year? Besides, first round "busts" don't just come at the QB position. They can happen at OT and pass rusher and DB, too. I suspect we would both be bumming, either way.

wcg: "Well first off, Drew Brees is a damn good player,..." and because he is a damn good player, it is inappropriate to compare him to Alex Smith? Who are we supposed to compare Smith to...the mediocre? Talk about lowered expectations.

ntodd: "But the team upgrades at pass rusher, RT, KR, S and maybe corner or a interior lineman. What would you project the Niners record would be next year?" First, so much depends on players staying healthy (imagine if Gore or Crabtree or Davis or Willis or Franklin or Justin Smith got injured in your hypothetical). Second, can we really expect immediate upgrades at pass rusher, safety and the corner with a rookie? If I recall, even Joe Staley struggled at RT his rookie season allowing 10 sacks. But, I would guess the 49ers win the NFC west with a 10-6 record but struggle in the playoffs, where their QB fails to lead. And, since you named six positions that could be addressed, lets say the pass rusher, RT and safety are addressed in the first, second and third round, respectively. KR is free agent Reggie Bush. Corner is strengthened by the return of Clements and Harris. Interior offensive lineman is a free agent...or maybe the upgrade comes from the new O-line coach and continuity and improved play calling. That still leaves a first round pick for a QBOTF. Or, swap it with the second, either way, one pick for the future...the rest to address pressing needs.

No one is concerned that a pass rusher might take reps away from Brooks or Haralson. Why should we be concerned that a rookie QB takes reps away from Shawn Hill?

Quote from: indianajim on February 09, 2010, 08:41:30 AM

You know, I've really enjoyed the back-and-forth conversation with ntodd, wcg, Bob and others who don't think the same way as me on this issue. I appreciate the fact that they've clearly stated their feelings on the subject, and they've tried to poke holes in my (and others) way of thinking. That's great dialogue, IMO.

But Indy, once again you react in your typical fashion. Speaking strictly for myself, your post adds nothing to the dialogue and that's a shame. I'm sure if you thought about it a bit you could add something to your side of the argument.

But: "HA HA HA! Someone actually broke out the Montana comparison with Jimmy Clausen?" - NO, I didn't even remotely compare Jimmy Clausen to Joe Montana and you know that. I mentioned a "flaw" that was used by the "experts" when describing each of them - that neither has the strongest arm - but once again you knew that. So this is the last time I will respond to you on this subject. Others on this board seem to appreciate a discussion, even when they disagree. I will limit my comments and dialogue to those who want to discuss this and other topics seriously.

WCG - don't apologize, it was good stuff. Again, I don't agree, but what else are we going to talk about in the middle of February? Hopefully the Combine and upcoming draft will settle some of this, but even though this topic has gone on forever, I for one have enjoyed it.

ntodd - Your last paragraph was a very good question that I had to think about for a while. One thing is I don't understand why drafting a QB means the team can't still upgrade at all the spots you mentioned. I've said they could draft two linemen in the top three picks, so that (hopefully) takes care of that. A very good KR could and should be found in Rd 3, so that can still be done. And either a safety or corner could be added through FA - I know this won't be a great year, but there will be players available. With the cash they have on hand, maybe they could find a decent FA or work out a trade for a draft pick next year? But your question was the record, and I don't know. It could be much better, but then again maybe not. The one statistic you left out for Alex was the tremendous failure rate on third down. Now, I understand this is Raye as much as anything, but the QB just has to make more of those plays work. Alex just didn't make enough plays to keep drives going. So if all the areas you mentioned were improved and Alex played the same, the record should be better - maybe 10-6. But that still doesn't mean that drafting a QB is a bad idea. They can still make those improvements and draft another QB who would be in place should any of those other scenarios I mentioned above take place (such as, Alex DOESN'T perform as good or better than 2010).

TANK: I think that was ntodd that was making thosse points, not hojer.

Quote from: TANK on February 09, 2010, 10:50:01 AM

hojer: "But the team upgrades at pass rusher, RT, KR, S and maybe corner or a interior lineman. What would you project the Niners record would be next year?" First, so much depends on players staying healthy (imagine if Gore or Crabtree or Davis or Willis or Franklin or Justin Smith got injured in your hypothetical). Second, can we really expect immediate upgrades at pass rusher, safety and the corner with a rookie? If I recall, even Joe Staley struggled at RT his rookie season allowing 10 sacks. But, I would guess the 49ers win the NFC west with a 10-6 record but struggle in the playoffs, where their QB fails to lead. And, since you named six positions that could be addressed, lets say the pass rusher, RT and safety are addressed in the first second and third round, respectively. KR is free agent Reggie Bush. Corner is strengthened by the return of Clements and Harris. Interior offensive lineman is a free agent...or maybe the upgrade comes from the new O-line coach and continuity and improved play calling.

I understand my hypothetical is just that. Just as STLNiner's post was hypothetical with the Niners taking Jimmy Claussen. My point is if the QB position doesn't change at all and Scot makes a few moves to strengthen areas of weakness its not that outlandish to say this is a playoff team. I understand that's not the ultimate goal. But I think we all take that right now, with the idea that the core players on the roster are young and will improve. Worst case if Smith or Davis are not the answer you get the roster to a point like the Vikings were a couple years ago where they were a QB away from being an elite team.

As for pass rusher taking reps from Brooks and Haralson, we've talked about this before. The QB position is different than any other position, you can never have too many pass rushers, that doesn't necessarily apply to the QB position.

Quote from: STLNiner on February 09, 2010, 11:07:49 AM

ntodd - Your last paragraph was a very good question that I had to think about for a while. One thing is I don't understand why drafting a QB means the team can't still upgrade at all the spots you mentioned. I've said they could draft two linemen in the top three picks, so that (hopefully) takes care of that. A very good KR could and should be found in Rd 3, so that can still be done. And either a safety or corner could be added through FA - I know this won't be a great year, but there will be players available. With the cash they have on hand, maybe they could find a decent FA or work out a trade for a draft pick next year? But your question was the record, and I don't know. It could be much better, but then again maybe not. The one statistic you left out for Alex was the tremendous failure rate on third down. Now, I understand this is Raye as much as anything, but the QB just has to make more of those plays work. Alex just didn't make enough plays to keep drives going. So if all the areas you mentioned were improved and Alex played the same, the record should be better - maybe 10-6. But that still doesn't mean that drafting a QB is a bad idea. They can still make those improvements and draft another QB who would be in place should any of those other scenarios I mentioned above take place (such as, Alex DOESN'T perform as good or better than 2010).

I guess I was responding to your idea of taking Claussen with one of the first round picks. And with that idea you miss out on guys like a Spiller, Graham, Thomas or the RT of Scot's choice. I guess I hadn't overly entertained the idea of taking a later round QB and still upgrading those positions. I just don't know how a round 4-7 guy will give the team anything different than Nate Davis already gives them. Nate has at least one season under his belt in learning the offense while the rookie would be starting from scratch.

Quote from: westcoastguy on February 09, 2010, 09:42:49 AM

hojer,

I remember the link, but I think you put way too much stock into what Smith said. It was typical generic player speak imo. A lot of players really don't have much to say and just recite tired and unimaginative quotes because they have nothing better to add. Look he's not stupid; He knows he has to get better and this is probably his last chance to do it. One thing you don't have to worry about with this kid is work ethic and study. He works hard. If he fails it won't be from lack of trying or study.

Actually I just made one comment based on my first impression when reading that article. Since I've had to respond to it several times I guess it looks like I make a big deal out if. I guess that's what happens on this board Roll Eyes

Quote from: STLNiner on February 09, 2010, 11:07:49 AM

TANK: I think that was ntodd that was making thosse points, not hojer.

Not to worry. Contrary to popular belief I'm actually not an Alex Hater.

Quote from: ntodd51 on February 09, 2010, 07:06:37 AM

Another point came into my head. I have a question for STLNiner, Tank and Hojer in particular. IF, and that's a big if. Let's say this team sticks with Alex and he plays exactly the same and doesn't improve at all from last year. And his numbers projected over 16 games have him throwing around 26 TD's 17 INTS and 3400 yards. But the team upgrades at pass rusher, RT, KR, S and maybe corner or a interior lineman. What would you project the Niners record would be next year?

Starting the 09 season I said that - despite Jimmy Raye - the 49ers could reach the playoffs with a strong defense and a strong running game and Shaun Hill as QB. I don't see any reason why the equation should change that much with Alex instead of Shaun. So sure, they can make the playoffs under those assumptions. The reason I want to move on from Alex is that I want more than one playoff season. What I'm looking for is SUSTAINED greatness and imo that only comes with an elite QB. So my logic is, keep searching for him until you find him. Plain and simple.

FWIW, from Barrow's blog today:

Quote

The 49ers used that reasoning in selecting Nate Davis in the fifth round last year. Davis looked very promising in the preseason last year, which is why I don't think the 49ers will draft Tebow or any other quarterback in a weak quarterback class. One scenario in which the 49ers could draft a QB: They were so impressed with Davis that they think he can take over the No. 2 role from Shaun Hill this season. I suppose that could happen, but the team's overall attitude on offense has been one of caution. Elevating Davis, who took almost no practice snaps during the regular season, to No. 2 might be too bold a move for Jimmy Raye and the 49ers.

I swear it took me half the work day (between working and reading the dise) to catch up. STL and WCG post took up the most time. I think I had to read each one 3 or 4 times to understand everything thing lol

TANK - This part of your post stood out to me: "First, so much depends on players staying healthy (imagine if Gore or Crabtree or Davis or Willis or Franklin or Justin Smith got injured in your hypothetical). You made a very good point. What I'm getting at is that Smith was injured for 2 years hadn't played a meaningful snap, yet we can't use that as an excuse. Yet, if those other players were injured, I'm sure it would have affected their play (i.e. Gore's ankles). Smith showed progress before he got injured and showed pretty good progress this year too. Who knows what he would have done had he had the same OC and been healthy the whole time. But people don't want to look at that. they just want to go off the limited, negative plays they have seen and pass judgement.

Also regarding picking a QB early. I think, if you pick a QB early, he has to be a potential star. I, personally, don't think any of the early QB's have that star potential, at least not compared to some of the later rd QB's who seem to have just as much upside. that's just my opinion, and I'll probably be wrong 4 years from now lol.

As far as comparing the 2011 QB's. The best QB in college( at least going off all the draft gurus) didn't even come out this year. And it's pretty much a given, at least based on paper, that the 2011 class will be much better than the 2010 class. The way I look at it. Smith plays well, we dont need to draft a QB. Smith plays bad and we have a Titans' like scenario: Let Davis play to see what he has, if he plays well, build around him, if he fails I'm sure the record will show and draft a QB. The overall team SHOULD be stronger so make a Jet's type trade and go get the QB you want. A lot would have to happen between now and then but it's just a scenario

Quote from: STLNiner on February 09, 2010, 11:07:49 AM

Quote from: indianajim on February 09, 2010, 08:41:30 AM

But Indy, once again you react in your typical fashion. Speaking strictly for myself, your post adds nothing to the dialogue and that's a shame. I'm sure if you thought about it a bit you could add something to your side of the argument.

But: "HA HA HA! Someone actually broke out the Montana comparison with Jimmy Clausen?" - NO, I didn't even remotely compare Jimmy Clausen to Joe Montana and you know that. I mentioned a "flaw" that was used by the "experts" when describing each of them - that neither has the strongest arm - but once again you knew that. So this is the last time I will respond to you on this subject. Others on this board seem to appreciate a discussion, even when they disagree. I will limit my comments and dialogue to those who want to discuss this and other topics seriously.

Look, dude. We're talking about FOOTBALL here. We're not having a university symposium.

Your exact quotes: "he's a pretty darn good QB who's played his college career against great competition" I laugh because it's the only response to the idea of "great competition" on Notre Dame's schedule recently.

"No, his arm isn't the strongest, but I would think San Francisco fans could look back at a Notre Dame QB who had that "flaw" and see that shouldn't be the reason to avoid someone." You seem to be insisting that the flaw is not really a flaw, hence your "quotes" around the word. You're not comparing a flaw. You're comparing something that is a perceived flaw, and then proceed to suggest he'd be "great value at 17." You are making a favorable comparison to Montana, so don't tell me in your superior tone how much I "know" that you weren't.

"I will limit my comments and dialogue to those who want to discuss this and other topics seriously." Well aren't we mr. hoity-toity here today? I'm sorry you only see fit to respond to my posts which "add nothing to the dialogue" and choose to ignore posts like the one immediately before the one to which you chose to respond. I guess we should lambast these guys for the following posts:

cervant: "I wonder what became of aliabbas ? He only made 47 posts here, yet started this, the longest thread in Dise history (I believe)"

twinspapa: "Not to mention WCG's longest POST in Dise history! LOL"

Tell me, oh great purveyor of seriousness, did those posts "add to the dialogue" enough for you? Or do you simply despise the brief posts which point out your ill-thought comparisons?

I guess I'm going to "limit my comments and dialogue" to those who don't take this so seriously.

I thought my post added to the thread. It added levity at least that was my goal.

well the first part of my last post didn't add much, but the 2nd part did, i think Grin

Everybody contributes in their own way I guess. Humour, sarcasm etc. certainly have their merits and this would be a much less interesting forum with only the serious stuff imo. I like to think that I contribute with a little bit of both and I hope other posters feel that I do - agree with me or not.

What I get pretty tired of, is comments like this one:

Quote from: commoncents on February 09, 2010, 07:14:50 PM

Smith showed progress before he got injured and showed pretty good progress this year too. Who knows what he would have done had he had the same OC and been healthy the whole time. But people don't want to look at that. they just want to go off the limited, negative plays they have seen and pass judgement.

Who in here is not accepting that Alex has been seriously injured and that it obviously has affected his career? Who is saying that having 5 OCs in 5 years is good? No one that I know of - including myself.

Quote from: TANK on February 09, 2010, 10:50:01 AM

ntodd: "But the team upgrades at pass rusher, RT, KR, S and maybe corner or a interior lineman. What would you project the Niners record would be next year?" First, so much depends on players staying healthy (imagine if Gore or Crabtree or Davis or Willis or Franklin or Justin Smith got injured in your hypothetical). Second, can we really expect immediate upgrades at pass rusher, safety and the corner with a rookie? If I recall, even Joe Staley struggled at RT his rookie season allowing 10 sacks. But, I would guess the 49ers win the NFC west with a 10-6 record but struggle in the playoffs, where their QB fails to lead. And, since you named six positions that could be addressed, lets say the pass rusher, RT and safety are addressed in the first, second and third round, respectively. KR is free agent Reggie Bush. Corner is strengthened by the return of Clements and Harris. Interior offensive lineman is a free agent...or maybe the upgrade comes from the new O-line coach and continuity and improved play calling. That still leaves a first round pick for a QBOTF. Or, swap it with the second, either way, one pick for the future...the rest to address pressing needs.

From time to time I go back and re-read my post then other responses and see if there is something I may have missed. And I thought of something else. You make a very good argument Tank in that this team really still doesn't have that great of depth. Great teams can lose a key player and still overcome. The Colts lost Bob Sanders early in the season and were still able to make the SB. Now there are the obvious exceptions like if the Colts lost Peyton or the Saints lost Brees. But if the Niners lost Gore, or Willis especially for any significant time during the season they would be in BIG trouble.

Scot made a comment maybe a year ago, I can't pull it up exactly and I am sure I am butchering his words but it was along the lines that just now felt the the team can compete talent-wise with teams around the league. I remember being surprised by the comment but looking back I can see just how talent starved the team has been over the past 4-5 years.

They are just NOW seem to be ready to be able to turn the corner and play with some of the big boys but that would mean everyone would have to stay healthy. After taking that into consideration I am convinced even more that those draft picks, especially the early ones, must be devoted to position players to add to the overall team talent level. If Scot can knock a couple of these picks out, the talent level will be raised significantly and they could afford to lose a Gore or God forbid Willis for a significant amount of time and not overly affect the team's season.

Hojer yea you are one of the first ones commentings about wanting to replace Smith without seeing what he could do in the right circumstances. So with that said, I'm tired of seeing comments about replacing a QB without fully knowing what he can do. See how this goes both ways? Wink

ntodd wrote, "Great teams can lose a key player and still overcome...But if the Niners lost Gore, or Willis especially for any significant time during the season they would be in BIG trouble...After taking that into consideration I am convinced even more that those draft picks, especially the early ones, must be devoted to position players to add to the overall team talent level. If Scot can knock a couple of these picks out, the talent level will be raised significantly and they could afford to lose a Gore or God forbid Willis for a significant amount of time and not overly affect the team's season."

ntodd, are you suggesting that McCloughan needs to "knock out" a couple of early picks to add significant depth behind Gore and Willis? You aren't happy with Coffee and McKillop? Or, if he has he already done that, then what position players must those early picks be devoted to? Should those early picks be used to add depth behind the other players I used: Crabtree? Franklin? Justin Smith? Vernon Davis?

You lost me TANK what are YOU suggesting?

Quote from: commoncents on February 10, 2010, 01:30:39 PM

No, I don't. You have more patience with Alex Smith than I do, no doubt. That's probably what this all comes down to. But that has nothing to do with your false statement about "people don't want to..." I'm sorry but I don't see the connection.

Quote from: hojer49 on February 11, 2010, 03:01:22 AM

Quote from: commoncents on February 10, 2010, 01:30:39 PM

People don't want to....what...?