Agent Smith: The Future or The Schmuture?

by howtheyscored on Oct 4, 2007 11:53 AM PDT

There has been scattered discussion about this in various threads recently, and I think for the first time around the site we're starting to see a fair amount of opposing or varying positions on the "Smith" question. Because of this, and the mini-pseudo-panic caused by his injury, it seems like we finally have a good time to really get a good centralized discussion on the topic.

There are some obvious anti-Smithites out there (DraftQBin2008 comes to mind), and some outspoken Smith-boosters (Fooch, for instance).

One thing I think this could turn into is an argument about whether or not Smith is to blame for what's going on this year, and I'd rather that it not turn that way. Rather, I'd prefer if the discussion was more tailored toward why we do or do not think that Alex Smith is the QB of the future (which I'll define pretty unquivocably later).

An example of the kind of stuff I've been seeing that seems constructive to this conversation are:

If you just look at the black and white performance of Alex Smith in his not-quite-as-young-as-it-used-to-be career, there really isn't much to smile about. He had a horrific rookie year. He had a slightly-better-than-crappy sophomore season that people liked to refer to as "major improvement!" and he was (save one drive) churning out a painfully awful showing in what was supposed to be the year that we could finally judge him. If I'm wrong, you can feel free to throw tomatoes at me down the road, but I think it's pretty safe to say that Alex Smith is not the answer that the 49ers franchise was searching for. He's probably not even the answer to the Cleveland Browns backup role in a couple years.... The guy seems to never want to throw the ball down the field unless a guy is wide the f open (and then he usually overthrows him by 4-9 yards). - shleckothegecko

With this kind of well reasoned rebuttal

Yes, he thinks he feels more pressure than he is actually under sometimes and begins to react to it too soon. Yes, he could try to make quicker decisions. But honestly, the kid hardly has made any mistakes that has drastically hurt this team.... If the WRs have held onto at least 66% of their drops, Smith's completion percentage would be close to 60% rather than 50%. - sfgfan

Yes, I am taking both of those quotes out of context, but I think you can see what I'm getting at. They both deal with things that Smith has shown that either dicouarage or encourage an individual's faith that Alex is the guy of the future.

Clearly, I don't want to limit discussion to what we see on the field, so feel free to write about any aspect of the guy's character or game. I also think this would be an AWESOME time for you footballoutsiders advanced stat geeks to really bust it out the balls, because I don't think advanced stats have really gotten a lot of play in this discussion since the infamous "Battle of Jason Campbell," and I imagine they'd be pretty useful in this kind of evaluation/debate.

For convenience's sake, I'm going to define "QB of the future" as "Still starting for us in five years." I think that's perfectly fair.

Bottom line, though. Comment starter: Do you believe that Alex Smith will be the quarterback of this team in five years? Why, or why not.

Poll: Future = Starting in Five, Schmuture = Schmarting in Schmive. You get the idea.

Poll

Alex Smith: QB of the....?

Schmuture

16 votes

Future

31 votes

47 votes | Poll has closed

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Age or Experience

What's the parameter we're judging Smith on? Age or experience?

As a 22 year old and a second year player, I think he played pretty good last year. As a 23 year old I think he showed some pretty good moxy, while as a third year player I've been less than impressed, thus far this season.

The main problem is we really have no idea how anyone else would fare under center, in this abortion that is our offense (unless you want to use last week where Dilfer looked worse than Smith). Smith looked good enough last year to justify not bringing anyone else in to challenge for the starting QB job. However, in my opinion, he hasn't done that thus far this season. Dilfer wasn't brought in to push Smith for playing time but rather to mentor Smith. The offense as a whole is mess, like Smith even Gore is a shadow of himself this year. But where exactly does the blame lie? The OL, Smith, Hostler, the San Diego Chargers?

I suspect we'll find out just how bad the offense and/or Smith is over the next few weeks. If, over the next few weeks, the offense can get rolling, or not, with Dilfer under center we'll have learned a few things. There are really only three possible outcomes for the next couple, or 6 weeks:

Outcome 1: The offense continues to sputter with Dilfer under center.
Outcome 2: The offense starts to roll and Smith keeps it rolling upon his return.
Outcome 3: The offense starts to roll but upon Smith's return it starts to sputter again.

Outcomes 1 and 2 basically take the heat of Smith, somewhat, as he can't really be labeled as the main culprit for a shitty offense. Outcome 3 should seal his fate.

I suspect Dilfer won't fare much better than Smith has thus far. This will means that whenever he returns he'll be the undisputed starting QB, which will most likely carry into next season. That's where I see the problem. Smith shouldn't just be handed the starting job. Someone should be brought in to push him, whether it be a free agent or a draftee, and Dilfer should be relegated to the 3rd QB (or he can trade his helmet in for a headset). Bottom line, without a comperable counterpart we'll never be able to properly evaluate Smith.

by methodrampage on Oct 4, 2007 1:29 PM PDT reply actions

That's a GREAT question

And it's one that brings me back to the idea of advanced statistics, and it brings me to that because it makes me think of baseball - the grand master of advanced stats.

But age vs. experience is something that baseball GMs and statisticians have really made a science out of. It's gotten to the point where you could look at probably 85% of baseball prospects with plus stats and skill sets and evaluate their chances of major league usefulness within a pretty slim margin of error based just on their age and level.

It would be great to see football minds put together studies on age vs. experience relative to production because it would really help to enlighten these kinds of questions in a reasonable hypothetical way. The player comp systems that I've seen from football outsiders and "advanced" football stats have all given me pretty significant pause as reliable systems.

Without something like that, though, it's hard to answer the question based on anything but intuition. In baseball it seems that age is generally the heavier weight in that particular equation, and I think that should give us reason for optimism. OTOH, baseball is not football (esp since baseball has a much wider breadth of ages for entering professionals - something like 16-25, whereas football is usually closer to 20-23). So that might give us reason for pessimism. I'm not really sure.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 4, 2007 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Baseball is wierd

When you consider guys tend to hit their prime in their late 20's. And there is typically more time to assess players in baseball than there is in football. Baseball, throughout the various levels, seems to be more unified than football. Basically, baseball is baseball no matter what level it's being played at, high school, college, A, AAA. While football isn't as simple, schemes and coaching can hide or expose a player's strengths or weakness more so than in baseball.

Smith for example playing QB in a Urban Meyer's spread offense, in which he hardly, if ever, took a snap from under center. But that's not how the NFL game is played. We know Smith had good success running a spread offense in college but could he had run a more NFL style offense in college with the same efficiency?

by methodrampage on Oct 5, 2007 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Smith supporter

I've been a pretty vocal Smith supporter over the past few months. My support hasn't been of some kind of blind faith or fanboy-ism. I have my fair share of criticisms on him as well. However, I see a lot more positives from him than negatives. Couple that with a other factors, I do think he could be the QB of the future.

Positives and Negatives
Before going into those other factors, lets talk about what I perceive to be his positives. The kid is very intelligent. In his head, he knows not only his own assignments, but those of everyone around him. You can say that's just part of being a quarterback, but not every quarterback shows he can do this.

Another positive is his athleticism and toughness. Smith has quick feet and can run a lot better than the average NFL QB. That mobility is a plus. However, you can't be a mobile QB and not take some hits. He has shown the ability to take punishment and get back up (because of the sorry state of the offensive line). He has also shown the toughness to lay out for that extra foot or so to get the first down instead of sliding or going out of bounds. These are some of the things Steve Young used to do, except Steve perfected it over time.

The last positive (that I'm going to discuss) is his accuracy. His completion percentage so far this year doesn't tell the whole story and everyone knows that. He's shown that he's capable of throwing the deep ball (Battle's catch in the first game, a couple of deep drops by Jackson in the first couple of games) as well as the short ball (VD's screens, outs, ins). His teammates just aren't offering him very much help this year. As HTS quoted me saying, if the receivers he's thrown to would have caught at least 66% of the drops they have (or catches they didn't bother to reach for), his completion percentage would be a lot closer to 60% than the close to %50 it is now.

After reading what I've wrote, I'm sure everyone thinks I'm seeing Smith through some rose-colored glasses, or something. As I said earlier, he isn't without his faults. One of his primary faults is that he is too "smart". He's no doubt been drilled by Nolan (and probably beyond) to not make mistakes. If he thinks he's reading the coverage a certain way and believes he doesn't have a window, he has to move onto his next read. However, with the way the offensive line is currently performing, he has got to make the decisions come faster. For as smart as he is, his pocket presence is lacking. What people either don't know or don't remember is that he didn't run anything remotely close to a pro-style offense in college. The pocket wasn't anything close to a traditional NFL pocket, so it's kind of his third year in that kind of a situation. Pocket presence is something that is developed through experience, and I have little doubt that he can develop that.

System
Outside of Alex Smith's skills, the biggest contributor to whether or not he can run this team is the system that is in place. The construction of the team by Mike Nolan and Scott McCloughan has a vision and a purpose. They've constructed a team that has a defense that will (hopefully/eventually) win them ball-games, but for now will keep them in ball games. With that defense in mind, the offense really only has one assignment: don't put the game out of reach.

There is a lot of bad that can be said about the offense this year and many reasons for it's ineffectiveness. However, you can't really blame much of it on ACTUAL mistakes made by Smith. It'd be hard to find very many instances that scream "if he hadn't done this...". His only interception came on a timing option route where he read the coverage right, but his receiver didn't.

His job, as Nolan puts it, is to manage the game. He does exactly what the gameplan is asking him to do, and the game plan suits him well. It spreads the load over all of the "skill" groups, rather than pile it on the shoulders of a QB. Only problem with that is, when the center cog of the offense (the offensive line) isn't turning correctly, the machine on the whole falters. That is what we're seeing this year with this team.

Leadership and dedication
I didn't include this in his positives/negatives, and it's something he has to earn from others, not something he develops by himself. You don't become a good leader because you can talk, think, or act a certain way. You become a leader when your comrades believe in you and live (or die) by your word. He commands the respect of his teammates and they have all the faith in the world he can succeed. That's saying a lot, considering he's still one of the "babies" of the team, age-wise.

Having the faith of your teammates, much like having momentum during a game, can be a very valuable thing. For one, it keeps his confidence up in trying times (like those of now). It also allows him to develop a trust for his teammates (receivers, linemen, backs, and even defense), allowing him to talk to them about things, work with them on things, and improve the team on the whole.

In addition to earning the trust of his teammates, he is also determined not to let them down. In an article linked in one of the other thread/diaries, Mike Singletary says that the desire to succeed separates talented players from good players. Alex has the determination improve himself and his teammates. He works hard at studying film and working with his receivers, preparing for the next game. You can't teach a player to care, and Smith seems to care a whole lot.

Basically
I think he's completely capable of being the QB of the future. Will he be that? I can't answer for sure, as he's got a lot of work ahead of him. Does he have the tools to get there, though? You bet he does. He's not a franchise QB yet, but he's working on it.

by sfgfan on Oct 4, 2007 3:32 PM PDT reply actions

Thanks

This comment pretty much goes above and beyond. I am personally one of the Smith-Boosters, like you, and I agree with most all of what you say.

I also think that his accuracy downfield has been pretty impressive, even over the course of his career as a 49er (remember Antonio Bryant's downfield success). One thing I do worry about is his downfield reads, which it's very hard to guage with the receivers he's had - this year especially with the O-line too - but which it seems he's really struggled with his whole career (inordinate number of checkdowns last year when he had time in the pocket, the checkdown seems to be his default this year too).

But I love his intelligence, his confidence, and his age (tenuous, I know).

The thing that I could see turning people away from Smith is that he's not really spectacular in any way. Good, but not great speed and mobility. Good, but not great arm strength. Good, but not great decision making. He's kind of the ultimate manager, but it would be hard to even imagine him even being, say, a Jake Delhomme in a Jake Delhomme good year in terms of really pushing the "game manager" envelope. Maybe that's a bad example, but I needed a guy who was good, but not great, and still had some stretches of greatness. Delhomme came to mind.

I'll leave it at that for now, and we'll see where it goes.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 4, 2007 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Above and beyond...

Well, you pretty much go above and beyond in managing the community prediction game. I thought it'd only be fair to answer your question (or contribute to your discussion) in the best way I can.

Your comparison to Delhomme is an interesting one. It's true that Smith hasn't shown many flashes of greatness. No one will mistake him (right now) for anyone like Delhomme. However, even Delhomme took time to develop didn't he? Alex has shown poise and confidence under pressure, though.

My favorite Alex Smith moments were from that Seahawks game at the end of last season. The same game where he bounced off of the blitzing DB and tossed a pass that Frank dove for and rolled into the endzone. The same game he ran that naked bootleg. That comeback was completely awesome. Fast forward to the first game of this season, and I saw much of the same Alex again.

Nolan has said it before, and he'll continue to say it until the day he's fired. Alex (or anyone on the team for that matter) doesn't have to be spectacular or great. All they have to do is do their part in making the TEAM great. His entire team philosophy is built around that, and it shows in a variety of ways. The most glaring example is the depth chart.

Again, I'm not saying Alex WILL be someone like Delhomme (or any other example of a "great manager"), but I strongly believe he has all of the tools he needs to get himself there (in time).

by sfgfan on Oct 4, 2007 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions

doesn't need to be great

I've commented on the fact that Smith doesn't need to be great, but here's another question I just though of. In consistently emphasizing that point, is Nolan unknowingly holding Smith back? He wants a game manager, and so is it possible he and Hostler are not opening things up as much as they could? I'm throwing these out more out of curiosity. And of course, it's not easy to get hard and fast answers until the offensive line improves. But thoughts?

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Oct 4, 2007 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Not necessarily.

As I pointed out previously, the offense hasn't really been held back the last couple of weeks. They've increased the amount of play-action plays called, and they've used all kinds of different packages.

They've used Walker/Davis all over the field. Those two guys have lined up at TE, wide WR, slot WR, FB, two TE. They've also lined up Morran Norris and Michael Robinson in similar fashion. The WRs are moving into different spots, such as Jackson in the slot on one play and Battle in the slot on another. Personnel-wise, the offense has given the defense a lot of different looks, so the coaching hasn't been very conservative in that sense.

As for playcalling, I've noted they've used a bit more play-action as of late. The problem is, if your running game isn't working, play-action won't work either. The defensive front four/five players have done a great job of keeping running lanes relatively closed, which prevents Frank from busting any plays wide open. Because the line is holding their assignments so well, the linebackers and DBs dont HAVE to overreact to a hand-off or play-fake, because they know Frank can't do a whole lot right off the bat anyway, giving them time to come in if he indeed gets the ball.

As I previously noted (somewhere in the archives), draws also only work when the passing game is working. The defense has to believe the offense is actually working for the delay draw to work. Last week, the team ran a draw to Michael Robinson and he gained about 16 or 17 yards (still short of a first down). That worked because it was third and long and the defense "knew" the team was going to pass.

For me, it still comes down the line (as you point out Fooch). As I mentioned yesterday, the line has to do at LEAST one thing right (pass or run block) if they can't do both. This line is really doing neither, and it's hurting really bad.

by sfgfan on Oct 5, 2007 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions

It's impossible to evaluate his performance

this season. No quarterback-- and I mean that literally-- could succeed under the conditions of the first four games, in which the 49ers offensive line has been a nonentity. Michael Vick might have busted a few scrambles for some extra yardage, but even he would look horrible as an actual passer.

Let me quote an instructive passage from this week's TMQ:

"What's with the Rams and Niners? Sure, Alex Smith was injured and replaced by over-the-hill Trent Dilfer. Did that mean the San Francisco offensive line got the rest of the day off? Seattle coaches responded to having Dilfer in the game by ordering blitzes; San Francisco coaches did not respond by keeping a tight end back to block. The Squared Sevens' offensive line surrendered six sacks and looked just awful on several. Score Blue Men Group 3, Niners 0 in the second quarter, a standard four-man Seattle rush dropped Dilfer as three, count 'em three, San Francisco offensive linemen simply stood watching, not attempting to block anyone. And the Niners have a heavy investment in their offensive line: megabucks free agent Jonas Jennings at one tackle, first-round choice Joe Staley at the other, Pro Bowler Larry Allen at guard."

Under these kinds of conditions (and this was typical of the O-line this year even before the Smith injury, though the specific play in question happened after it) I can't fault Dilfer his 12-for-33, just as I can't fault Smith, or for that matter Frank Gore, his own mediocre yards per pass average.

What I do know is that on the occasions when he's had time to throw and open receivers, Smith has put the ball on the money. That's the mark of a good quarterback to me. The great ones can make plays even when their receivers aren't really open; he's not at that level yet. But Smith, unlike the rest of the offense, really hasn't done anything badly wrong to this point.

It doesn't matter if you get there if you don't know where you're going.

by Zagarna on Oct 4, 2007 5:23 PM PDT reply actions

That's not exactly what I was getting at, though

We've had plenty of discussion over how much the problems this year have come at Smith's hands, but that's not quite what I was asking about here. There seems to be a pretty general consensus that Smith is, at least in large part, not to blame for the product we've been seeing on the field. Where I've been seeing major dissent in the Smith discussion has been when things have moved in the direction of "is Smith the future of this football team?"

I mean, we can't really blame Dilfer for last week either, and if Jim Druckenmiller were our QB we wouldn't be able to blame him specifically, either, but that doesn't mean that we should count on either of them to be leading this team five years down the line.

And we are getting to that "standard" three or four year evaluation period on a developing QB. So I was wondering why people here do or do not expect to see Smith leading this team in the future, how we feel about his development (or lack thereof) up to this point, and the potential for his development moving forward.

Before recently, we've had a pretty strong community-wide opinion that Smith is pretty much the guy, but recently I've been seeing a lot of conversation going the other way, and I thought it would be a perfect time to get some good discussion going from both sides of the coin because I'm so used to just seeing the one side around here. It's refreshing to see other opinions, especially when they are coming in such a well reasoned fashion.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 4, 2007 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions

I understand

What I'm saying is that Smith's performance is literally unevaluable this season. It's worthless. Garbage data. All it will do is confuse the issue.

What I find bizarre about this whole thing is the plague of Smith-haters coming out of the woodworks after he got injured. I mean, an injury isn't a sign that a player is bad, it's just a sign that he's injured. The whole conversation, if such it can be called, on the issue has been extremely weird.

It doesn't matter if you get there if you don't know where you're going.

by Zagarna on Oct 5, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions

How times change

If you asked this question at the end of the last season, while Norv was still the OC, I believe you would have heard a resounding "Yes" as the answer to your question.

So what's changed? Norv is gone, Hostler is in. The offense looks horrible, especially the OL, and in turn Smith looks more like he did in his rookie year than he did in his sophomore campaign.

I think Smith has a shot at being the future franchise QB for the 49ers. But I think it'd be foolish if we continue to sit back and wait for it too happen, because it's no guarantee that it will. Bring in a Harrington, a Carr, a Holcomb, a Huard, a Leftwich, and let's see how they fair. But for Smith to be the QB in 5 years he needs a contract extension as I think he's only signed thru 2010. Currently at this moment in time I don't see him getting resigned. So if you put on the spot right now I'd say "No Smith is not the answer". But with that said, it's still too early to ask the question.

by methodrampage on Oct 5, 2007 8:56 AM PDT reply actions

Agreed, mostly

I'm still waiting for the DraftQBin2008, shleckothegecko, or Unleash The Gore's to chime in on this question, but you bring up some good points.

Even though the potential is still there in spades for Smith, the guarantee of having it fulfilled is smaller than ever, and will get no greater as time wears on. Especially if his contract is up in 2010, we're getting to the point where we have no choice but to put together some form of contingency plan. Whether this plan is centered around going in another direction or bringing in a player to push him for playing time is unclear, and I'm still not confortable with doing it quite this early, but it would be irresponsible, barring Smith's breakout, not to put one in action within a year (and a half...).

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down. Over and over. / My Blog, For Writers

by howtheyscored on Oct 5, 2007 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions

Why not?

I don't really have anything new to say.

In his first year, it was too embarrassing to watch but remember we had Barlow. Last year he was actually OK, a little below average but OK. I thought he was actually doing somewhat better than last year especially considering no Norv Turner. Bad news: low completion % and only one TD. Great news: he only has one interception, but thats been reported as being the receivers fault.

Which brings up the problem with the receivers. We LEAD the league in drops, we don't have anyone that gets YAC, and we don't have a deep threat whatsoever. One can argue that the receivers never get open, (I can't really say because of the *** camera angles) but even Nolan has admitted to that. So basically, our wide receivers are TERRIBLE. Which makes makes it so hard to judge Smith.

As far as the system goes, why can't the system be tailored a little more toward Smith? Why can't he be in the shotgun more? or more rollouts?

The only thing I see wrong with him is that he hardly throws the ball deep. I don't know if thats the playcalling, Nolan in his ear telling him not to throw it deep or simply that our boys can't get open.

So basically I think he can be the future. Why not?

by SteveRice on Oct 6, 2007 7:17 AM PDT reply actions

where do ...

Where do you get stats on drops?

FO has "caught %" for WR/TE:

Jackson 47% (58th / 65 WR)
Battle 52% (tied for about 50th/65)
Davis 53% (28th/ 33TE,
Walker 36% (worst in the NFL)

It doesn't seem real likely that this is even mostly due to the receivers. I have not even watched every game, but Smiths seems horribly inaccurate. I am not sure how many of those drops were easy vs. hard catches.

by zenbitz on Oct 12, 2007 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions