49ers QB competition: Let's cut to the chase

by Fooch on Jun 1, 2008 10:17 PM PDT in News Comment 71 comments

I've spent much of the offseason trying to figure out the best time for this post. The quarterback position has generated more controversy than any other position on the 49ers since Mike Nolan took charge. The team drafted Alex Smith in 2005 to be the quarterback of the future and the controversy has not let up. Last year things culminated with the Nolan-Smith feud last season over Smith's injury issues. The situation was not helped (or maybe it was?) when Shaun Hill emerged to win 2 of his 3 starts late in the season and show poise and precision in the pocket. Alex Smith will be working under his fourth offensive coordinator in as many seasons. However, this is no ordinary OC. This is the mad scientist Mike Martz. Smith is running out of excuses and Shaun Hill was gaining a lot of steam late in the season. Oh and then there's J.T. O'Sullivan who actually has experience in a Mike Martz offense.

So back to why now for this post. Word out of 49ers camp is that they really would like to have a clear #1 after these OTAs so that they can have their guy at the beginning of training camp. The best case scenario would see this happen. One of the three steps up and the controversy is dulled until something potentially goes bad in the regular season. However, life is not that simple and these are "non-contact" drills we're talking about. Matt Barrows made a good point late last week when discussing the QB competition. Alex Smith is a good practice QB, which should conceivably give him the edge in the OTAs. Hill has looked better in games, which would mean he'd start slow but gain steam once preseason games get going. And O'Sullivan is the one with experience in the system, so he certainly can't be counted out.

In the past I've thrown up polls on who you think will be starting at a certain position. In this case, I just want to see how divided Niners Nation is on who they think SHOULD be the starting quarterback. I know we've had a million and one conversations about the quarterback position through various threads, but consider this as about official as it gets. If you are so inclined, throw out some reasons for why you voted the way you did. I know this can bring out the passion in all of us, so let's try and keep the discussion civilized and relatively intelligent.

In the meantime, who do I think should be the starting quarterback? First off, I'm going to throw J.T. O'Sullivan out of the discussion because I don't know enough about him and what little I do know, it just doesn't seem likely that he should be the guy given the keys to whatever car this is he's supposed to be driving. It would be easy to say it should be Shaun Hill. He ended the season looking rather impressive and was clearly the flavor of the month in 49erland. While he didn't put up amazing numbers, he won games, and in the end that's all that matters. Alex Smith on the other hand only seemed to cause heartburn in fans and in Mike Nolan. The communication problems over Smith's injury only exacerbated things and I think many fans are still pissed Matt Leinart didn't come out that year and the 49ers were stuck picking between two guys (Smith and Rodgers) who came from suspect programs (in terms of producing NFL-caliber quarterbacks).

In the end, my vote in the poll is going to Alex Smith. It is not because he has the big contract or that an player shouldn't lose his job due to injury. Rather, I feel that long term, Alex Smith has the tools to win games for this franchise ("small hands" aside). Some of the Smith-haters (and that's not meant as an insult) have said he keeps getting excuses and these excuses could go on forever. I don't see the multiple OCs as a reason for Smith not to develop. However, I do believe last year was a bit of a lost year because of the injury issues. At the end of 2006 Smith was showing signs of development and that development ran into a wall known as Rocky Bernard. I certainly can't say for sure that Smith would have continued improving if he hadn't been hurt. However, I don't think anyone can argue that he was clearly going to be god-awful if he'd remained healthy.

I do like Shaun Hill and what he brought to the table late in the season. It is not always the most physically gifted player who ends up being the man. However, if Hill were to get the starting job, I'm curious to see how teams scout him a year later. Although he didn't get a lot of playing time and most teams would still be seeing him for the first time, teams will certainly be more prepared than they were last year. And as with what could've been if Smith had remained healthy, it's entirely possible to think Hill can turn into the long-term answer for the 49ers.

Although I'm voting for Smith, I've reached a point where I just want SOMEBODY to be a clear-cut #1 and end any controversy quickly. The sooner the team can have a clear leader at quarterback, the sooner they can build chemistry around that QB. I think it's more important that anybody be in that position rather than a specific somebody. It's kind of like when a team hands the team to their #1 draft pick QB and says they're all yours. I think half the battle is just instilling that sense of confidence in the rest of the team that the guy running the offense is the best man for the job, and not that he's the guy who'll have to do for now until something better might come along.

Poll

Who do you think SHOULD be starting QB?

Alex Smith

247 votes

Shaun Hill

87 votes

J.T. O'Sullivan

34 votes

368 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 71 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I wouldve voted for "other"

I’m not particularly enamored with any of those options so I had to show a little school pride and vote for UC Davis alum O’Sullivan.

by sam23 on Jun 1, 2008 11:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The Starting Quarterback Deserves to be Alex Smith

Really, it’s Alex Smith’s job to lose, his contract is too expensive to simply bench him; if he doesn’t play with the concept of Martz’s offense, rather than starting him the Niners would slowly bring him back to the game. Smith is running out of excuses as Fooch pointed out with precision an arrow brings to the target. If Smith re-injures his once separated right shoulder, his career with the 49ers will be running out of options, as a result, if Smith is anointed the starter, there will be Hill and O’Sullivan waiting in the wings.

I actually voted for Shaun Hill, because he was the bright side late in the season, winning games. It was a fresh change of scenery, because nobody likes losing, and Dilfer didn’t do the job, it was impressive the way Hill took the reins and led the charge. But the fact that I voted for Hill doesn’t mean Smith should be the 2nd stringer, the 49ers have too much invested in him.

Even we name Smith as the starting quarterback, if he doesn’t do well during the preseason, there is still time to name a different starter for the actual NFL football season. The OTA’s, training camp, and preseason are important in being able to gauge who gives the 49ers the best chance to win.

Martz did say that he has never had a quarterback who was as nimble on his feet as Smith is, all his past quarterbacks were pocket passers he developed into MVPs. Fooch in looking at the long term, is right regarding the tools Smith has in allowing his potential to fully surface as the next two seasons progresses.

Under OC Norv Turner, Smith showed glimpses of what he can do, now Nolan has handed him the keys of a Maserati, will Smith have a breakout year barring injury?
That’s a good question, but as successful a coach Martz is, there is confidence in Smith in respect to developing him as a true NFL quarterback.

If we don't have Turner as our OC, Martz will get the job done, and possibly even better.

by 16to80endzone on Jun 1, 2008 11:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

meh

“Shaun Hill emerged to win 2 of his 3 starts late in the season“

Actually, Hill was 2-0 in the games he started. The other, he played exceptionally well after coming in for an injured dilfer.

Anyway, I’ve made it no secret that I’m anti-Smith. I haven’t seen him do anything that’s made me stop and say “wow, I’m glad we have that guy under center instead of Johnny Average.” Even in his best flashes, his performance can only be thought of as “okay”. And Smith-supporters seem to spend so much of their arguments trying to convince us (and some trying to convince themselves) that he doesn’t suck. The subject of Smith potentially being an above average-to-good QB doesn’t even get brought up by his strongest backers.

But opinions aside, this is why I think Smith doesn’t have the edge like so many people do: his only advantage is that he makes more sense as a long term guy. Unfortunately for Smith, the guy who decides who plays and who doesn’t is in a win-now situation. Mike Nolan knows that his job is on the line, and at this point he can’t afford to make the sensible choice of what would be best for the franchise a year or two down the road. Nolan needs to win games now…and the only guy who’s shown signs of being able to deliver that to him so far is Hill.

by shlecko on Jun 1, 2008 11:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hill really wasn’t that good, even last year. He got the major benefit of playing in one game where the opposing defense was playing in a pillow scheme (read: soft and fluffy), and two games that the Niners won on the ground. Not to mention he got the best protection our offensive line produced all year outside of Dilfer’s win.

And look what Dilfer did when he had protection. Dilfer’s win was 10 times better than either of Hill’s from a QB perspective. But nobody is annointing him anything.

Hill had a LOT of things fall his way in less than 3 career games. The guy is completely unproven, and he throws a hell of an ugly pass.

I’m not trying to condemn him. If he does end up starting, I think that would likely be fine. He makes quick, accurate reads and seems fairly composed. But I just don’t see where he’s done anything – including “winning games” (since I would say Gore won those two games, if anybody, not Hill) – that deserves the kinds of accolades he sometimes gets.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 2, 2008 3:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Hill is unproven

Smith is proven to suck.

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We both know I'm a Smith defender, but I don't deny one bit that

Smith hasn’t proven a heck of a lot, and what he has proven hasn’t been particularly good – that’s for sure. I wasn’t drawing a comparison between the two, though. I wasn’t even trying to defend Smith by knocking down Hill. I just don’t understand what exactly was so good about what Hill did, either.

A lot of people seem to make these player evaluations “if I don’t like Smith, than I have to like Hill,” or “If I do like Smith, than I can’t like Hill,” or a similar false dichotomy. Regardless of somebody’s feelings about Smith, I’d hope they could see that Hill’s really done very little.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 2, 2008 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's just say that both are pretty unproven

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting fact

Not including the one Seattle start where he played one snap, Smith has an 11-18 career record, which is not great, but not horrible considering what the niners have done ver the last 3 years. I don’t think Smith haters understand how serious his injury was. He should have been out for the season, but tried to tough it out. Hill is just another Tim Rattay. He had a couple big games in 2003, so we dumped Garcia and look how it all turned out. I see Smith as a david garrad type player, and indtead of busting on Smith’s chops, he should be upset with D, who everyone thought would redefine the TE. He has proven that the combine does not make you good. I mean, he may be fast and strong, but he gets a ton of false starts and holding calls when blocking, and drops balls and run bad routes. It doesn’t matter how talented you are if you do not have basic TE skills. As for the QB ituation, I believe Smith will win it and lead the niner to a 9-7 season or better

According to the comminsioner of the nfl, 104 people retired last year. 7 due to age, and the rest because of Patrick Willis

by montasmob69 on Jun 3, 2008 5:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What the Niners have done over the last 3 years

Is directly related to Smith’s play. You can’t say that Smith has been decent because the Niners have sucked recently. The Niners have sucked recently in part because of Smith.

by methodrampage on Jun 3, 2008 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

see, this is my biggest beef

People say that Hill didn’t “win” those games – maybe that’s correct.
People say that Hill didn’t make the huge gamebreaking plays in those games – I happen to agree.

But what Shaun Hill did, consistently, was make the little plays when they were needed. He was superb on 3rd downs, where Smith seems to struggle most. He knows how to put the ball into the hands of his playmakers, and let THEM carry the team. Smith’s problem often seems to be that he tries too hard to make the plays himself.

And about the protection? It was no coincidence that the line gave him “the best protection that any QB saw all year.” Hill has tremendous pocket presence – a necessary tool in all previous Mike Martz offenses. He doesn’t get himself sacked. The line quietly complained about Smith for 3 years about being too jumpy and running away from his protection, and Dilfer was a statue in the pocket…lacking even the ability sidestep the slightest rushes. You don’t have to be Steve Young or Randall Cunningham to avoid the rush – you just have to be smart and know where your guys are going to be and get there – that’s what Hill is good at, and that’s why the guys on the line themselves were so big on Hill last year.

The 49ers aren’t now, and REALLY weren’t last year, a strong passing team. With Gore and Deshaun Foster in our backfield, the strength of this team is going to continue to be the running game. In an offense like ours, we need QB who can play conservatively. Play smart and don’t force things. Deliver a catchable ball and put guys into a position to make plays down the field. We aren’t going to be slinging it 30-40 times a game, so our emphasis should be on getting the job done in the select opportunities that will be available. Do you really, after all you’ve seen, still thing that Smith is that kind of guy?

by shlecko on Jun 2, 2008 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve never heard a single thing about the offensive line speaking either badly of Smith or highly of Hill.

And I don’t see why this has to keep turning into a case where naming Hill’s faults is equivalent to defending Smith. A=/=B. I happen to think that Smith is a smart, mobile QB with a strong arm who has the most trouble in the parts of his game that are the most easily improvable, which is the source of my optimism. If Smith’s two main problems are making slow (not poor) reads and running away from protection, those are two highly trainable areas of the game for a quarterback – especially a young quarterback. If his problems were things like floating passes or misreading defenses, those would be things that would offer significantly less room for optimism.

But at no point was I actually talking about Smith. And what you’re saying about Hill seems fairly dubious. It’s not that I don’t think Hill is a fine QB. Like I said, he makes faster reads than Smith and he does play better in the pocket. But the notion that the pass protection was better because Hill doesn’t run seems ridiculous to me, and the “proof” of offensive lineman whisperings is not only completely new to me (when were they saying those things… what did they say???), but still can’t possibly account for the sheer level of improvement that the line showed during Hill’s starts.

To address your other points, I never said that Hill didn’t make any gamebreaking plays, and I never criticized him for not making those plays. That’s not always the job of a winning quarterback, and it shouldn’t be a necessary consideration when looking over two and a half games’ worth of play. I actually never even directly criticized him. He did a fine, and perfectly serviceable job when he was given the chance. What I was criticizing was the notion that he somehow proved something last year – and more than that, that he somehow proved something especially good. He took advantage of three very easy situations for a pro-quarterback, and he didn’t come out with anything all that sparkly to show for it. He demonstrated a few encouraging skills which we’ve already gone over, but he also showed a penchant for falling back on the dump read and for having a weak inaccurate arm.

And if by Hill making the little plays you mean “dumped it off to Gore a bunch,” then sure, he made all the little plays. It’s not that he doesn’t deserve credit. It’s that you’re really giving him a lot more personal credit than he deserves for elements of both circumstance and external performance (by which I mean the rest of the team).

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 2, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

>_>

If his problems were things like floating passes or misreading defenses, those would be things that would offer significantly less room for optimism.

When were these not things that Smith has struggled with? Smith’s completion percentage stands as a supporting fact that should be obvious enough from watching the games: Smith isn’t very accurate at all, and even the passes that he does complete are often poorly thrown balls. One of the things that Djax caught a lot of heat for in the locker room was speaking up against Smith – saying that he would regularly ignore open targets and later try to “make up for it” by forcing some poorly advised throws.

I’m not sure why you think that the idea of pocket presence being a factor in pass protection is “ridiculous.” Smith often doesn’t stand in the pocket long enough, and runs away from his blocking because he feels pressured by a rushing presence that wouldn’t actually hit for another second or two (an eternity in football). On any TV camera, this can make a good block look like a complete whiff, as defensive lineman break off in pursuit of Smith, while the OL continues to protect a vacated pocket. This would infuriate any protection unit, and did in fact produce rumblings in the clubhouse. When the Hill bandwagon gassed up late in the year, the linemen were the first to get interviewed…and there wasn’t a one of them that didn’t praise him for his patience and presence in the pocket. Several of them were quoted as saying “he (Hill) makes things easier on us.”

I won’t touch the topic of Hill being “inaccurate”. I don’t know what games you were watching, but I disagree wholeheartedly, and I would think that the WR corps of our team might differ with you there also.

And to address your later point, you have to keep in mind that Hill was playing with a broken finger on his passing hand last year. While he’s never been scouted as a QB with a tremendous downfield arm, there were times when it was obvious that his injury was taking an effect on his performance. As a result, the playbook was written up to reflect this – which is why we saw so many short slants, curls and dump off options in his playtime. The fact that he “dumped it off to Gore a bunch” had a whole lot to do with the fact that nearly every play was designed to have that option. Furthermore, it was often guys like Gore, VD and Delanie Walker who were in those positions to take the short passes. Those are our playmakers, and giving them opportunities to make things happen after the catch can’t, I don’t think, be viewed as a bad thing.

by shlecko on Jun 3, 2008 5:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just going on last season..

I don’t remember the numbers or where they were posted, but if his WRs had caught just HALF of the balls they dropped early last season, Smith’s completion percentage would have been around 60%, which is about where most quarterbacks in the league are at. It isn’t an earth-shattering number, but it is far from “struggling.”

As for your last point, you can’t say that Hill’s “accuracy” can’t be negated by the fact that he threw shorter passes. The offensive line played a little better toward the end of the season, which gave him more time. It is also possible to argue that with Smith in the lineup, the initial read(s) will more than likely be a more intermediate or deep route, whereas with Hill, they can’t do that. Because they’re look downfield less, it gives Hill a lot more time to read the underneath stuff.

I’m not saying Hill sucks. I’m not saying Smith is good. I’m just saying that there is definitely reason to think that their successes and failures could be related (arguable how much) to their surroundings (or lack thereof).

by sfgfan on Jun 3, 2008 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As the 2007 Season Progressed..

sfgfan, You do know football. It’s true that the offensive line re-discovered a resurgence of their prowess toward the end of the season, that happens to any football team who has gotten over injuries or just started to gel together as a unit.

As for your quote saying that with Hill, it gives him more time to read the underneath stuff because Smith has been the starter since he was drafted, they have thrown all kinds of play calls at him, the short slants, the intermediate or deep routes, whereas Hill had been largely untested, and remember, with Jim Hostler, the 49ers offense was too conservative for my liking. It seemed as if he didn’t have confidence with the quarterbacks, or with himself as OC.

by 16to80endzone on Jun 3, 2008 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Confidence with Hostler

I think it had more to do with himself than the players. Remember, Hostler was Smith’s QB coach ever since he was drafted, so he HAS to know what Smith is capable of (being there through the Turner year and all). Hostler was probably afraid of being the “goat,” and that made him fear mistakes. In return, though, he still got blamed for losing, and rightfully so.

The team didn’t help him out very much, though.

by sfgfan on Jun 3, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, aside from the wildly errant throws we saw during Smith’s “playing through a season ending shoulder injury” games, his reports of his inaccurate arm have been greatly exaggerated. He’s no worse than average, and actually has decent touch on longer routes (which we saw plenty of in the first half of 2006 with Antonio Bryant).

And I should rephrase: I don’t think that pocket presence as a factor in passing protection is ridiculous. I just think that you’re ridiculously overvaluing it.

And I did see the Hill games. His passes were not pretty, but he got away with a lot because he threw to more moderate routes, often in soft coverage.

And if you’re going to keep in mind that Hill was playing with a broken finger, I don’t see how you can discount the shoulder injury that should have had Smith out for the season the second it happened. A lot of the things that Smith gets criticized for unfairly come from the games after the injury when he ustifiably looked awful.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 3, 2008 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

meh

I’ve watched every 49er game of Smith’s career, and I disagree with your first point completely. In the first half of 06, most of the downfield passes to Bryant were circus catches – often with Bryant going up high and paying for it afterwards. Even in 05, Smith’s best long passes were spectacular plays made by Brandon Lloyd, and weren’t very pretty throws.

In fact, I have a pretty good memory, and I can only recall one truly impressive pass over 20 yards in Smith’s entire career as a 49er – and it came in a preseason game last year.

Smith throws a horrible deep ball, in my opinion. It’s probably his weakest trait as a QB. And that’s just something that I’ve come to believe by watching the guy play.

Once more, I can’t stress enough how important pocket presence is in a good protection scheme. You may disagree, but I think it had a lot more to do with the O-Line’s improved performance last year than just “meshing as a group.”

Just think… the Patriots’ line is amazing – no doubt – but I guarantee that if you put Alex Smith or Trent Dilfer back there, those guys are still going to give up a ton of sacks. Just like the linemen have got to work together, the QB has got to be on the same page as them for things to work.

As for your last point, I’m not discounting Smith’s injury having an effect on his 07 performance. Smith was horrendous after his shoulder injury, but he wasn’t very impressive before that.

And finally, (not directed at anyone inparticular) this is something that’s been eating at me for a while now: people have got to stop arguing that Hill only looked good last year because the gameplan was Gore-heavy…and then, in the same breath, using Smith’s 06 season as so-called “proof” that Smith has real upside. Do you people not remember how many touches Gore got that year? Norv Turner didn’t make Smith better – he just took the ball out of his hands and gave it to Frank. Which is exactly what needs to happen this year, regardless of who’s under center.

by shlecko on Jun 3, 2008 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

also

and the same goes for the claims that Hill only looked good last year because he was exclusively throwing short/intermediate routes. Norv did the same thing for Smith two years ago – throwing in lots of screens, rollout dumps and the same checkdowns that Shaun Hill threw in his short 07 season. Remember? Gore had 61 receptions in 06, and his avg YPR that year is almost identical to what it was in 07. No one seems to want to remember these things.

The routes that people are claiming are Hill’s only asset are the same routes that Smith threw the year before – and they’re the only reason that his completion percentage was as high as it was (an averagetastic 58.1%).

by shlecko on Jun 3, 2008 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As the check-downs go, it’s the use of the check-down that defines its usefulness to me. In 2006 Smith overutilized the checkdown because he was a second year player unaccustomed to making reads at the pro level learning his second pro system. If the game was moving too quickly for him, he could check-down to Gore to slow things down for himself.

If Smith were to go to Gore that often as a check-down (rather than as designed) in this, his fourth pro season, I wouldn’t find it acceptable because he wouldn’t be using it as a learning tool anymore, he’d be using it as a crutch.

I suppose you could say the same thing about Hill last season, making the first two starts of career. I’m less inclined to give a five year veteran the benefit of that doubt, though.

But again, I’m not criticizing Hill as a player for using his check-down. What I’m criticizing is the idea that using his check-down is proof that he’s good. Or that completing short and moderate (but mostly short) passes to wide open receivers is proof that he’s good. It’s not! I wouldn’t say the opposite about Smith, either. The fact that Smith overutilized his check-down in 2006 is NOT proof that he is good. It was proof that he wasn’t comfortable with his primary reads – which is acceptable in a second year player (and won’t be this season). Hill using his check-downs last season is not proof that he was good. It was, at best, proof of the same problem Smith had in 2006 – proof of acceptability. But also proof of the same problems Smith had in a guy who is 4 years older.

I’ve never said that Hill is bad. I’ve rejected the idea that he’s proven in any way that he’s good. I wholeheartedly support the idea that he’s acceptable.

Conversely, though again I can’t stand speaking in terms of Hill v. Smith, I’ve never said that Smith is good. I reject that idea that he’s proven that he’s good. I also reject the idea that he’s proven that he’s bad. At his best he’s demonstrated that he’s capable with potential and at his worst he’s demonstrated that he’s inexperienced. Inexperience ends pretty much this year, so that will be out of the equation for anything he does in 2008.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 3, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

First of all

It won’t matter who is at QB, if gore gets 15 carries a game, we will lose. Now keep this in mind, the defenses shaun hill faced sucked. Minnesota’s safe defense, cincinatti, and tampa’s back ups. We ran then passed, because Teddy T. knew how to use our best player, which we did not do when smith was QB because Hostler was in the booth all alone.

According to the comminsioner of the nfl, 104 people retired last year. 7 due to age, and the rest because of Patrick Willis

by montasmob69 on Jun 3, 2008 5:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is actually a logical fallacy. If Gore gets 15 carries a game, it’s likely because the team fell into an early hole and couldn’t run, which would likely be because the passing game was ineffective. A team can give their running back 25 carries a game regardless of the situation, but if they’re staked to an early deficit then the golden 25 carries rule will actually hurt their chances of winning the game.

It’s not actually a rule so much as it is a phenomenon. Teams naturally win more games where their running backs get more carries because that stat is an indication that the team was in control of the game – and teams win more games that they are in control. But the order of comprehension is generally backward (in no small part thanks to ESPN). It’s never “25 carries a game suggests a team will be dominant,” but rather is always “the dominance of a team suggests you’ll see 25 carries a game.”

I tend to argue that for Gore to get 25 carries a game, the quarterback and the passing game HAVE to be effective. It’s not, for the 49ers to win, Gore has to get 25 carries a game. It’s actually, for Gore to get 25 carries a game, the 49ers have to be winning.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 3, 2008 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said.

by sfgfan on Jun 3, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Smith

I voted for Smith, but I think it is inaccurate to say his problem was injuries. Smith showed absolutely nothing from the first preseason game to the Rocky Benard hit, and then nothing after that. That said, I think he can make more NFL throws than Hill. As for the Norv year, yeah he looked halfway decent at times, but 16 tds-16 picks is only somewhat acceptable because he was a 2nd year QB. They had the 26th ranked offense in 2006, so it is not like he was setting the world on fire.

I would keep him on an extremely short leash, and I am sure he will be on one.

by Nellieball on Jun 2, 2008 12:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

As I remember it, Smith looked really good in the preseason, so much so that people were very excited coming into the year. Now, that means absolutely nothing, but since you brought it up…

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jun 2, 2008 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He also looked good against Pittsburgh

Which is no small feat. See the game highlights.

by Nineraguan on Jun 2, 2008 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Read This Hill Lovers and Weap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’m sorry, but for anybody who thinks Hill should be starting quarterback is high. Hill played all of three games last year against two non playoff teams and only half a playoff team in Tampa Bay. Here’s a little recap of each game (In my point of view).

Game 1 – Minnesota – Against Minnesota he came in during the second half on a team that was up 27-0. All they did in the second half was play nickel coverage/prevent defense, to stop any big passing plays and rarely rushed. So he was given all day in the backfield (because of the lack of pressure) and did short dump-offs underneath. His longest passing gain was a dump off pass to Frank Gore, who through his marvelous running skills, churned out 26 yards by himself. The defense was letting time run out and making sure their was no big gains. Why else do you think Hill put up 27 pass attempts in only a half of play.

Game 2 – Cincinnati – I’m sorry but Shaun Hill did not win this game, Frank “Bowling Ball of Knives” Gore, did. Gore had 138 yards rushing in that game, and was their attack between the twenties. Hill supplemented passing where he could completing short passes on curls, fades, and slants, but it was all Gore. Hill, against one of the worst 5 passing defenses in the league had 21 completions, and threw for 197 yards. Which is fine, but his longest throw was for 19 yards… 19! When he did throw down field the ball often sailed over the receiver’s head or was wobbly.

Game 3 – Tampa Bay – If anyone remembers, against the only playoff caliber team, Hill looked awful against the first team defense. In the middle of the second quarter (after a Garcia sack) the Bucs took out on offense and defense some of their play-makers (The Bucs didn’t want to risk injury before the playoffs). But even after this, Tampa Bay’s still strong defense was a challenge for Hill. Hill made a 11 out of his 24 passes for a comp. rate of 45.8 and had a 5.13 YPA. Once again Hill’s longest pass was under 30 (23) and was made when the CB on D-Jack slipped, allowing for D-Jack to score un-attested.

Now I would like to clear up something, I’m not saying Hill is bad, I personally like Hill, he signed my ball:-) But what I am saying is that his 3 played games, that many Smith-Bashers hail, were not that impressive. I realize that Hill’s finger was broken. but if you claim that, you also have to give Smith that his arm was shredded as well. Thus if we take away each person’s injured games we are left with Smith’s 2008 record of 2-1. In which his first two games he carried. Besides from a breakout run on a 4th and 1 against St. Louis, Gore had really not done much the first two games, and it was Smith’s own miraculous run that won us the Arizona Game.

Smith is just as capable as Hill and is better in many other ways. Smith is more athletically capable, is younger and has more in game experience. While Hill does look confident in the pocket and his some intangibles, you have to wonder, was he just a product of good timing. The 49ers’ season was already over, the teams he faced had each game outlook decided when he went in (Min. already won, Cin. season was a lost, and Tam. was sitting out players for the playoffs). Because of this, and the fact that he was 3rd string QB and no one expected anything from him, could he handle the pressure of being the #1 QB and be victorious against better and more driven teams? No.

by StrictlyFootball on Jun 2, 2008 1:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sorry for some grammar errors

It was really late so sorry

by StrictlyFootball on Jun 2, 2008 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t even notice the grammar errors through all the complete sense you were making.

Just for funsies, I like to look at Dilfer’s win, because it was the only other game all year that the offensive line and the running game played as effectively as they did in both Hill starts. Dilfer was 25/39 for 256 yards and 2 touchdowns.

Weird how the QBs play “better” when they have protection and a running game….

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 2, 2008 3:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weird how that protection and running game came out of no where

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, the running game came out of the offensive line doing its job. The protection was probably a combination of defenses playing light and small sample size.

Your inference (not necessarily your intention) seems to be that the protection and the running game were an effect to which Shaun Hill was the cause, but I just don’t see how that’s even remotely possible.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 2, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or maybe the OL just hates Smith

Who knows? I don’t.

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it was Tollner

You noticed that the improved line and passing came started when Ted Tollner came in (Week 8) to “assist” Jim Hostler. The offensive game plan became less transparent and they ran more counters, fades and double tight end packages. Tollner recognized the potential in Delanie Walker and highlighted the strengths in the offense. Once Tollner came in Gore, V. Davis, and some what D-Jack in all statistics improved at least 60%. Also because the offense became less easy to read, opposing defenses let up on practically rushing 5-6 guys every down. Plus you have to give credit to Staley who during the year improved greatly, and Snyder who came in for Jennings (once again injured) and started at left tackle (hardest job on the line) and started off slow but became a key reason for the lessening in sacks the last 4 to 5 games of the season. Personally I think Snyder should get a nod a staring this year whether at RT or LG.

by StrictlyFootball on Jun 2, 2008 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill "Lovers" & Smith "Haters"

I don’t think these people are one of the same. I think Hill is probably a decent back-up on any other team. I think Smith is probably a decent back-up on any other team. But the fact remains, sadly, that more than likely one of them will be the Niners starting QB. I’m not sure if anybody thinks Hill is going to be a world beater but it’s easy to get caught up in wanting to ride the hot hand. I wouldn’t really have an issue with Smith being handed the starting job as long as Hill is given the chance to step in if Smith struggles.

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

O'Sullivan!

seems like most people seem to dislike either Smith or Hill or both. Start the O’Sullivan movement! (how bad can he be?)

by sam23 on Jun 2, 2008 8:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Only one way to find out!

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 2, 2008 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Should" is pretty subjective

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 10:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

exactly

The whole point of this is to get people’s opinions on who they think deserve it…maybe not the best phrasing, but this was meant to be a subjective post with subjective comments.

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

by Fooch on Jun 2, 2008 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill and Smith

The only reason Smith should start is because he was a first round pick and the Niners need to find out what exactly, if anything, they have in him. With that said, I’m not convinced that Smith gives the Niners the best chance to win next year. So if my main concern is winning now maybe I feel Hill should start but if my concern is winning in the future maybe Smith should start (although I feel all of this is a little premature and should be re-engaged during the preseason games.

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

qb discussions

I’m sure there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss this. I would be absolutely shocked if the team had a sure-fire #1 at the end of the OTAs. Training camp and preseason offer so much more. When we get to the preseason games we’ll get more to the question of who WILL be the starting quarterback.

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

by Fooch on Jun 2, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah.

I don’t think a “sure” #1 will emerge (at least in any convincing fashion) until after the first couple of preseason games. It won’t be until those first two (or so) games that people actually SEE Smith and Hill running Martz’ offense.

by sfgfan on Jun 2, 2008 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm firmly in the "Angry at Leinert" Camp

I think many fans are still pissed Matt Leinart didn’t come out that year

Honestly, the kid gave up the chance to be the heir to Joe Montana and Steve Young in order to try to win a second Heisman, another national title, and take ballroom dancing. Instead he accomplishes none of the football goals and ends up going where all good players go to die… (and more than a few bad ones) Oh well, the good news is that in a few years when his career is over, he can turn that ballroom dancing class into an advantage on Dancing With the Stars.

I’ve always been of the mind that you “Dance with the girl what brung ya.” So I’ll stick with Alex Smith for now. I’m still of the mindset that Hill was successful in the same way that so many back-up QB’s have been hot for a year before opposing teams get a full scouting report on them.

Ultimately, as a Kentucky boy I’m really just rooting for Alex Smith to knock Tim Couch out of the “Worst QB drafted #1 overall” position. Remember… Couch did take the Browns to the playoffs one time; something that I think Smith is no threat to accomplish. (Still the only time that moribund franchise has been there since their return to the league.) I just hate that it will be at the expense of my favorite NFL team.

In the long run, I don’t believe that the QB of the future is on the current roster. If I knew who we would get or where we would get them from… I’d be making millions as a GM. As it stands, I’m just a grumpy guy wasting time at work.

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jun 2, 2008 1:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Leinart ain't all that

So the Niners didn’t miss out on much. Braylon Edwards would still have been a vastly better pick than Leinart. I’ve got no beef with Leinart staying in school, I think it had a lot less to do with being possibly drafted by the 49ers than some think. He’s was like royalty in LA, probably a bigger star than he would have been in SF his rookie year. Life is about enjoying yourself and I bet he enjoyed the shit out of his final year at USC.

Also, didn’t the Browns make the playoffs last year?

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Leinert

Could be that he’ll be another NFL flop… but I don’t think I’d get much of an argument if I made the statement that the chance of being an NFL flop goes up drastically when someone is drafted by the Cardinals.

Browns last year? Nope. They had it all but sewn up until about 2 weeks left in the season when an amazing confluence of events transpired to make them miss the playoffs.

Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."

by chirop1 on Jun 2, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d hate to be Leinart’s shoulder if he had been drafted by the Niners. :)

At the time Leinart was drafted, I was on record as saying that he was the surest bet since Peyton Manning. That has since proven to be a dubious claim, but I think the principles of what led me to say that at the time remain, and that as a #1 draft pick he would have been heads and shoulders above Smith. Hopefully time proves Smith to ultimately be the better player.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 2, 2008 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"the chance of being an NFL flop goes up drastically when someone is drafted by the Cardinals."

Same could be said for the Niners (at this point in time).

by methodrampage on Jun 3, 2008 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely, Method, Braylon would have been a much better pick than either quarterback.

Also, looking back at that draft, Smith wasn’t the worst pick in the top 10. No one knew Merriman or Ware would blow up/take steroids (were we even running a 3-4 then?). Ronnie Brown and Caddy Williams? No thanks. Cedric Benson, Pacman Troy Williamson, Antrel Rolle, Carlos Rogers, Mike Williams? I would say we got the 2nd best pick in the top 10.

Smith is better than Couch, and both could be decent if they didn’t get hit in the mouth so much.

The Browns are far from “moribund”, and have been since the current regime was hired. They just haven’t showed it on the field till last year because of the past mistakes of the franchise. They didn’t make the playoffs last year, but only on a tiebreaker and they had a 10-6 record.

by rufio on Jun 2, 2008 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ronnie Brown?

Are you serious? Did you see what he did last year with Cam Cameron before he blew his knee out? He was looking pretty damn impressive. Now granted we snagged Gore that year in the 3rd (only because he was considered a major injury risk) but if you take Gore out of the equation Brown would have been a better pick than Smith.

by methodrampage on Jun 3, 2008 7:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

IAWTC

by sfgfan on Jun 3, 2008 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow, seriously?

No.

Ronnie Brown is amazing, and will be a stud for years to come, if he can recover from that unforseeable knee injury. Cadillac Williams was great his rookie year before falling to a freak injury, himself. Benson looked good in year 1, also. Everyone knew Pacman was a gamble, but he was a total gamebreaker before his off-the-field issues…and at least he’s not still reeling in free paychecks. Smith isn’t the worst pick we’ve ever made, but I’d leave it at that.

by shlecko on Jun 3, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Benson has never looked very good.

by methodrampage on Jun 3, 2008 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

O'Sullivan!

If I wanted to make millions like a GM would make, let’s make a bet. I’d bet that O’Sullivan would be the starter, not necessarily at the beginning of the 2008 NFL season, but a couple of games into the season. O’Sullivan has TALENT despite the fact he has not played much, and he plays with a confidence that “some people might call arrogance,” with others that rather term it as “fiesty,” this came from the Mercury News that came out today, check www.mercurynews.com.

Let me quote here from the Mercury News article: “He just plays with so much flair,” said Bob Biggs, his former UC-Davis coach. “The way he carries himself. The way he walks up to the line. The way he can throw on the run. Some quarterbacks are almost blasé. J.T. is not blasé by any means.”

If you read the article, you’ll come away more optimistic about O’Sullivan, because people are vouching for him as deserving a chance to be the starting quarterback for the 49ers team.

What has he done in his career to merit such attention? Although he has not thrived in the NFL yet, he has in NFL’s cousin: NFL Europe, he won the co-offensive MVP award and had a 104.8 passer rating for the Frankfurt Galaxy in 2007, just a year ago.

Would Alex Smith have done as well in NFL Europe? That’s a good question, and while we signed Shaun Hill to a contract as a measure of good faith in him, I like about the fact that Hill can step in and do mop-up work.

I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Sullivan impressed the 49ers brass and snatches the starting quarterback’s job from the other two hopefuls.

The bottom line is that the starting quarterback position is up for grabs, everyone is in the thick of the QB competition.

Awwwooo.

by 16to80endzone on Jun 2, 2008 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I bet O'Sullivan can milk the shit out of Martz' cow

UC Davis being an agriculture school and all.

by methodrampage on Jun 2, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you dig deep enough...

Here’s the praise I would have loved to have read from his former coach:

“He’s got a great touch on the deep ball, can go through his options quickly, has great pocket presence and mobility to escape the sack and make things happen, and in general is a very good quarterback. I think he’ll be a success in the NFL.”

Saying he plays with flair and carries himself well tells me about as much as “he was the NFL Europe co-MVP.” Which is to say, not a lot.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Jun 2, 2008 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

More Said, the Praises You Want to Hear, Diggin' Deeper

I scraped up the praises and exclamation you want to hear, citing the SJ Mercury News from www.mercurynews.com/49ers/ci_9452284 quoting Mike Moroski in the O’Sullivan article:

“O’Sullivan, he (Moroski) said, “is a passer whose timing and precision on deep routes were impeccable.” To stress this point, Moroski used his index finger table to draw up a stutter-go route, showing where the quarterback would release the ball and where it would settle neatly at the receiver’s back shoulder.

“We ran that time and time and time again,” Moroski said.

Biggs recalled another standby, a play-action pass that O’Sullivan would invariably use as an excuse to throw deep. Biggs said the quarterback would roll to his right and release the ball 40 to 50 yards down field – just before side-stepping a hard-charging defender.

“We called that one the chuck-and-duck,” Biggs said. “And he was good at it.”

16to80endzone’s response: O’Sullivan not only plays with flair, or was the NFL Europe’s co-MVP, but he sure can chuck-and-duck right after throwing a 50 yarder down field.

Did that poopin’ make you feel better, JRPhillips? If we got a man who can chuck-and-duck, we are looking at the highlight reels every week!

by 16to80endzone on Jun 2, 2008 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow!

Amazingly… No. Can’t tell you why, but I do believe there’s a good bit of difference between college and the pros.

Kyle Boller could throw 75 yards from his knees. Ken Dorsey had something like a 36-3 record in college. Ryan Leaf was considered a can’t miss quarterback coming out of college, and many experts didn’t know if he’d be taken over Peyton Manning. But hey, if he can chuck and duck, hooray! Looks like the Niners have their next Hall of Fame-bound quarterback!

I’d LOVE to be wrong, endzone, I really would. And I’d love for O’Sullivan to be the answer to all the quarterbacking problems the 49ers have had. But there’s probably a reason he was drafted in the sixth round, and was cut by something like six teams. And has only played in two games since 2002, one of them where he just took a knee twice.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Jun 2, 2008 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right Under Our Noses

Sometimes a jewel of a quarterback can be right under our noses. We can live on an island and never know there are zillions of precious pearls inside shelled mollusks in the ocean, if we are castaways and don’t have scuba diving equipment.

For years Steve Young sat on the bench while Joe Montana threw zillions of touchdowns to Jerry Rice, Young was a jewel of a quarterback sitting only because Montana was a legendary quarterback. How can I know that Young would have the highest passer ratings in the NFL and take the 49ers to the Super Bowl and Disneyland if he is sitting on the bench?

If O’Sullivan is ever to reach his potential, and match his NFL Europe MVP accomplishment, Martz will be the one to give the football to O’Sullivan, with Nolan and McCloughan’s blessing, and have O’Sullivan run with it.

Otherwise, O’Sullivan is right under our noses.

by 16to80endzone on Jun 2, 2008 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jon Kitna is not Joe Montana, and screw you for even making an analogy including both of them.

by rufio on Jun 2, 2008 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s real nice to be overly excited about a career backup quarterback from a small time college who was drafted in the late rounds…

But I’m about here:

I’d love to believe, and I’ll be cheering him on if he’s made the starter. I’m just not very excited about JT O’Sullivan right now.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Jun 2, 2008 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are right, but you shouldn’t lump Dorsey in there with Leaf and Boller.

Everyone knew Dorsey wouldn’t be an NFL starter, and he was drafted in round 7. He also won so many games because he had Frank Gore backing up Clinton Portis backing up Willis McGahee. Andre Johnson, Kellen Winslow, Jeremy Shocky, Devin Hester, Brandon Meriweather, Sean Taylor, Jon Vilma, Vernon Carey, Vince Wilfork, Sinorice Moss, Eric Winston, Ed Reed, Bryant McKinnie, Jon Beason, DJ Williams, I think you get the drift. Boller and Leaf are busts.

by rufio on Jun 2, 2008 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Point taken

The reason I included him is because Dorsey’s college coach – and many others – could easily point to his college career record and say, “Lookie lookie! An amazingly good college record, so he’s an obvious late round find!” I had high hopes for Dorsey myself, partly because he’s a local boy, partly because I just wanted him to be really really good.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Jun 2, 2008 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair

but O’Sullivan’s coach is marveling at his talent-something directly connected to the player-and not his record or team. You need physical skills to play in the NFL, period. Maybe JT has them, maybe he doesn’t, I don’t know, but his coach seems to think so.

I think, or certainly hope GMs and coaches trust what they see in front of them over something a guy’s coach said happened this one time back in the glory days. Unless JT completely blows up in every practice and preseason game from now till the regular season, he should be no higher than 3rd string. You are completely right to be pessimistic.

by rufio on Jun 2, 2008 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude, he played for UC Davis, not against SEC, Big 12, or even Pac 10 or Big 10 defenses.

If he has the physical tools, maybe we should give him a shot if Smith chokes. Hill doesn’t, and is a career backup.

by rufio on Jun 2, 2008 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No S---t!

UC Davis an agriculture school? Maybe I can apply to that school? I like freebies, especially free milk.

by 16to80endzone on Jun 2, 2008 3:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

UC Davis is kind of selective, though. And they don’t have analogies on the SATs anymore.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 2, 2008 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No analogies on the SAT

This probably helps 16to80endzone’s chances.

by methodrampage on Jun 3, 2008 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank jesus they don’t have those anymore, they were always bullshit.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jun 3, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Total bs.

I always seemed to get the one that was like this:

dog:puppy ::

a) two words I’ve never heard of
b) two words I’ve never heard of – unclear if they’re nouns.
c) two words nobody has ever heard of
d) two batshit crazy words beyond comprehension.

My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.

by howtheyscored on Jun 3, 2008 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention that they gave the nebulous instructions of picking the option that fits best. So, theoretically, you could have two answers that could be correct but you would have to decide which one is “more correct”. F that, give me my math problems and let me leave happy.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Jun 3, 2008 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hill, Smith… Smith, Hill…

O’Sullivan…

No matter how it’s looked at, it still looks like a pocketful of unimpressive. I thought Hill looked good in his starts, going through his reads, hitting open receivers, and actually getting first downs. Smith was getting run over out there with an O-line that didn’t stop anyone, and a running game that didn’t get started for a while.

I think at some point, we have to throw out last year’s numbers for both QBs, simply because Hostler did a piss poor job (God bless him for trying). Smith looked improved in his second year, and it isn’t unreasonable to think that if Norv Turner stuck around, he could have actually built on that season. So do you give Smith another shot with an experienced OC? Why not? But Hill looked much sharper than Smith last year, so maybe you go with him again. Why not? My guess is we’re looking at six of one, half dozen of the other. It’s just going to take a team effort to actually win games again.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Jun 2, 2008 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Smith should be the guy.

Hill can’t keep 8th and 9th men out of the box, and he can’t throw deep. Somebody in the NFL will figure that out, destroy the 49ers O if it is led by HIll, and everyone else will copy what that team did.

8 and 9 men in the box won’t make our best offensive weapon (Frank Gore) happy.

Smith might be able to do it, but he still hasn’t proven he can get it done. He does have the potential, so we need to give him the nod. There are questions about Smith, but questions he will have to answer this year.

If we are drafting high next year….Curtis Painter, anyone? Matt Stafford? Sam Bradford? Tim Tebow? Mark Sanchez? There could be a lot to choose from. Hill is not the Derek Anderson of 2008, he is not going to break through after being buried on somebody’s depth chart.

by rufio on Jun 2, 2008 8:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs