Regarding our QB situation next year.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 14, 2009 1:48 PM PST
Email
PrintSo i keep hearing about Nate Davis, Smith, Hill...
I don't think there is much of a chance that Hill get back under center. I hope Smith can get it together.
But the thing i'm trying to figure out is why do we talk about how nate davis isn't ready. so we should draft another QB next year.
So your telling me that if we draft a Qb next year the conversation won't be about how he needs to wait a year? i don't know how many are comfortable with starting a rookie QB that we would draft next year, over Nate who has been in the system for a year, ofcourse given Smith continues on his journey of underachieving.
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.
251 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Next years QB
It seems pretty clear by now that we need 2 new guards and 1+ new tackles (and a good pass rusher, and a good safety) a lot more than we need a new QB. Unless the new QB could throw all passes in less than 0.75 seconds to a group of wide receivers who can run out patterns 15-20 yard down field in less than 1.5 seconds, they would be getting the same criticisms as Smith and Hill after a few games.
by seafood lover on Nov 14, 2009 3:38 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
i'm all for the lineman
but i’m just thinking that if we can get a player like berry than great, talents like that don’t come around often.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 14, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
i wish this were true
but every time anyone brings up nate davis all i hear is we should draft another QB which drives me nuts!
by whitemike1644 on Nov 14, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
My problem is the QB’s coming out of this draft. Ya, it’s got a lot of quantity but serious issues about it’s quality.
I’d rather have 6 other franchises reach for QBs this year and maybe the 49ers can maneuver for a better quality QB in 2011 since almost everyone would have blown their wad. We’d still get two good football players in the meantime.
so are you two...
ok with drafting a QB in the first round and having him sit a year or start him right away???
by whitemike1644 on Nov 15, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions
I think it's far too early to talk about it
Once we know for sure what we have in Alex we can see where we need to go.
Seriously. At the end of the season, as long as Alex keeps starting, we’ll know exactly what we need to do at QB. Maybe we can stand pat with Smith. That would be great. Maybe he’s really just not cut out for it, though. In that case, we absolutely have to do something. No ifs ands or if/ands.
Of course, drafting a QB isn’t the only option. If it turns out we need to make a move at QB, we could,/b> theoretically sign the QBOF, too. Theoretically.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I think we should draft a qb every year until we find one
However, we should use a later round pick (3-6)
/kaboom
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 18, 2009 4:11 PM PST up reply actions
except me
i kid, i kid. Draft Eric Berry, sign Pennington!
Bengie Molina is the slowest human in existence- except maybe Homer Simpson. And Man-Ram.
i'm all on the berry boat
but not so much for chad. he has had like 5 shoulder surgeries at this point.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 14, 2009 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
I don't know that signing Pennington would even be an option...
He may very well be retired by 2010. From what I understood, the shoulder was already practically a mass of scar tissue held together with bailing wire, duct tape, and bits of string. This last injury seems pretty likely to leave him unable to throw.
options
1) go with Alex Smith as the franchise QB for the next 5-6 years or more
2) play around with the ideas of starting Shaun Hill, Nate Davis, Alex Smith, Chad Pennington, or some rookie QB (the main thing here is that we are going to announce every off-season for the next 5 years or so that Alex Smith is being give an opportunity to compete for the starting QB gig during training camp and preseason)
3) dump Alex Smith (off the roster or to permanent backup status without always saying that he could win the starting job every single offseason)
4) commit to starting Nate Davis next year and give him a shot
5) Colt McCoy from Texas – a very accurate short-to-intermediate range passer, quick on his feet, not a lot of arm strength, smart & good instincts, they say he has “elite intangibles” and he’s like a “mobile Chad Pennington”
6) Sam Bradford from Oklahoma – could be really good behind a strong O-line but has trouble against strong pass rushing, looks like he’d fold behind a weak offensive line
7) Tim Tebow from Florida – also supposed to have those “intangibles,” is a great team leader, but he’s kind of a raw passer, could end up improving or could end up be a multiple interception QB in the NFL
8) Jimmy Clausen from Notre Dame – there’s still some question whether he’ll skip his senior year and enter the 2010 draft, or he could wait until the 2011 draft, out of the four, he probably has the most upside for turning into a star franchise QB – he’s breaking all kinds of passing records for the Fighting Irish … but again, so did Brady Quinn
9) Tony Pike, Jake Locker, Jevan Snead or some other QB that would go in the 3rd-5th rounds
- is my nightmare
- is my preference right now, even if the Niners defense takes us to the playoffs with Smith as the starter
#5-#9 are all interesting to think about, but … offensive line, pass rush, offensive line, secondary, offensive line and OFFENSIVE LINE
"We’ll see them again in the playoffs." - Mike Singletary, right after the Week 3 Minnesota game
Jake Locker and Jevan Snead going in the 3rd-5th rounds?
where are you getting those numbers from? i’ve heard people say locker could go #1 and jevan could be top 10.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
Yeah, they are both almost certainly guaranteed to go in the first round, if not top 15, simply on the virtue that they are both strong-armed QBs in pro-style offenses.
Colt McCoy and Sam Bradford may have gaudy numbers but may not be so hot on measurables.
by Fearless Frog on Nov 14, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions
Snead isn't going in the top 25 this year.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 14, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
WTF happened to him?
I was watching him vs. TENN….
He doesn’t seem to pay attention when he’s on the field.
His only INT today came on an attempted screen, the guy was right in front of him and he threw it anyways…..
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 15, 2009 12:28 AM PST up reply actions
Don't know
Maybe he’ll improve his stock if he plays another year.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 15, 2009 12:32 AM PST up reply actions
Hopefully
Nutt doesn’t even trust Snead anymore.
They owned TENN with the running game.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 15, 2009 12:35 AM PST up reply actions
Why draft a QB next year?
Well let’s see, the top 2 QB’s on the roster are both abysmal. The only other QB is a 5th round pick who has never played a regular season down. This is the most important position in football, where adding an elite player turns the whole team around, and lots of people don’t want to even think about drafting a QB. No offense, but i find the idea preposterous.
Anyone who thinks that a great QB wouldn’t make this offense a lot better simply has no clue what they’re talking about. Yes, the O-line is very bad, but there are tons of plays that Smith/Hill don’t make that a better QB would. You think Drew Brees would have been as bad as Smith was the last 2 games if he had been on the Niners? Please. Ben Roethlisberger has played with an awful O-line for years, that doesn’t mean he automatically becomes Shaun Hill.
What’s even more annoying is that people want to fire Jimmy Raye for not opening up the offense. While I think he could have been more aggressive in the second half, generally the reason they can’t open up the offense is because the QB’s (and the line too) won’t allow it. If the Niners had Drew Brees (or any good QB) they would be able to throw the ball around a lot beause they have very good players at the other skil positions, but you just can’t do it without a guy who can throw them the ball. And while Alex looked good for his first six quarters, he’s looked terrible the last two games even in a conservative offense. It’s still possible that he’s the answer, but it doesn’t look very likely. And depending on a 5th round pick to be the answer for the next few years because of a few preseason games is just as big of a longshot.
Passing on a franchise QB in the draft this year would not only be a huge mistake, it should be a fireable offense. Now granted you can never be sure how good a college QB will be but if you think you’ve found a future franchise quarterback you draft him, period. The difference between a franhise QB and the upgrade you will get at any other position is just enourmous. Notice how when a team gets one of the better QB’s (Manning, Brady, Big Ben, Brees, McNabb, Eli) their usually contenders for the next decade.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 14, 2009 10:29 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
who do you like?
McCoy, Bradford and Tebow all worry me.
"We’ll see them again in the playoffs." - Mike Singletary, right after the Week 3 Minnesota game
There will be plenty
We don’t know who will declare at this point though…
The top two guys are Juniors (Clausen and Locker).
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 15, 2009 12:31 AM PST up reply actions
I like Clausen and Locker
I wouldn’t pick McCoy in the first few rounds. Bradford I’d consider in round one, and Tebow in round 2 or 3.
But my point is not to take a QB no matter what, it’s to take a QB if the right guy is there. Ruling out picking a QB before the draft when a franchise guy might be available is just stupid.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 15, 2009 12:32 AM PST up reply actions
Ruling out picking a QB before the draft when a franchise guy might be available is just stupid.
Amen.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 15, 2009 12:33 AM PST up reply actions
i agree also
i just think us picking up a QB in the 1st round would not be the best idea especially since there is no super stand out, that is playing to a manning type. so risking our first’s on that would worry me. i don’t know i think the draft is probably the biggest toss up ever.
hell nate davis could be the next tom brady, or just another qb that will be a career back up.
who knows i’m just saying Qb’s are more hit or miss than any other position.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 15, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
If a Tebow isn't worth a 1st round pick
why would he be worth a 2nd or 3rd?
In other words, if we’re looking for a franchise type QB why would ‘value’ trump quality?
The future ain't what it used to be.
The real question is:
Are any of the QBs who will come out in 2010 a real “Franchise QB”?
Bradford hurt his shoulder twice and will have missed a year. Tebow doesn’t project as a NFL starting QB from what I have read here and other places. McCoy apparently doesn’t play at that level and is not in a pro style offense. He is a good QB but that isn’t Franchise.
Clausen and Locker look good but there is a possibility that both will go back for their senior year.
The it looks to me is that maybe the 49ers can pick up Bradford in a later round because of his inactivity and injury but otherwise, I don’t see a Franchise QB.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
That's my point Ebj
Why bother wasting any draft pick on a non FQB? We have plenty of other glaring needs.
The future ain't what it used to be.
Line
A franchise QB is sort of a moot point if the team doesn’t already possess a franchise O-Line. The Niners need to draft O-Linemen before they even think of trying to find the QB of the future.
Did the Steelers have a Franchise O-line in 2008?
They had no O-line, no running game, and crappy/unproven WRs.
But they had Ben Roethlisberger and an elite defense….that’s all that mattered
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 15, 2009 12:33 AM PST up reply actions
Not really
Did the Falcons have a franchise O-line (whatever that means) when they picked Ryan? Uh, no, everyone was saying he was going to get killed. Did the Colts have a franhise O-line when they picked Manning? Did the Chargers when they picked Rivers? Did the Giants when they picked Eli?
Furthermore, whose to say we don’t take a QB and an O-lineman in the first round?
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 15, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions
Yes I know
But it doesn’t really matter, teams take a top QB without having a great line all the time, in fact I’d say that’s usually the case.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 15, 2009 8:07 PM PST up reply actions
steelers crappy unproven Wr's
yea just googled that and nothing came up.
your crazy.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 15, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
In 2008 Holmes was unproven
Nate Washington isn’t anything special and Hines Ward wasn’t playing so great last year either.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 15, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions
having a bad year and being unproven are to totally different things
by whitemike1644 on Nov 15, 2009 10:29 PM PST up reply actions
Didn't say Ward was unproven
Failure to communicate son….
Said: Crappy/Unproven
Could be one or the other, not both.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 17, 2009 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
There is no try, only do or do not.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 18, 2009 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
Weird, I thought Hines Ward and Sanontio Holmes were pretty good.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Wait a second
Hines Ward and Santonio are not crappy unproven receivers.
I think the draft is QB heavy and I wouldnt mind using a pick on a quarterback. I would prefer in the first round though the niners take an elite defensive player and a Left tackle. I say go after Eric Berry or Terence Cody, and the other 1st just get the best tackle available.
Santonio was unrpoven in 2008
Ward wasn’t that good last year.
He’s kicking ass this year though…
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 15, 2009 9:22 PM PST up reply actions
Sac hang much?
"Optimist Prime"
I'll say it over and over Crabtree was not the pick we NEEDED, at least until he scores with 100yds receiving.
Unless he's been learning the offense by himself and practicing it on his own time....
There is no way that happens.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 15, 2009 9:26 PM PST up reply actions
Why is everyone dismissing Nate Davis?
He hasn’t played a down, yet he is being dismissed as irrelevant to the 49ers’ QB search. I don’t think the team would have drafted him if they didn’t believe he could eventually become a starter. I say give him a chance by working him in next year in situations where he has a high probability of success. Give him a chance to develop instead of just tossing him into the fire.
The chances of drafting a QB next year who can come in and start immediately are pretty remote – guys like Matt Ryan are pretty rare, so replacing Smith/Hill next year will likely only happen through a FA signing of some other team’s reject or a trade. So I think the reasonable way to proceed is to start Smith/Hill next year, split time with Davis to see what he’s got, and then draft another QB in 2011. Or bite the bullet and make a trade for someone like Johnson in Tampa Bay who has some promise, release Smith, and let Hill and Davis compete for the backup spot. I would be comfortable with something like that.
Davis is not irrelevant
But the odds are long that he develops into a good starter so it’s not a good idea to depend on him.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 15, 2009 5:26 PM PST up reply actions
According to your odds Alex Smith should be bona fide NFL starter. You’ve been playing the odds card on Nate Davis for 4 months. Is that your entire evaluation, just his draft position? I never heard anything else from you on this subject?
According to my odds?
What the (site decorum) is that supposed to mean? I’m not making up odds, the probabiliy that a 5th round QB becomes a good starter is really low, period. It’s a fact. A top 10 QB has maybe a 50% chance of being a good starter. That doesn’t mean it’s a lock, but it’s a heck of a lot more likely than a 5th rounder.
My evaluation is that I really liked what I saw from Davis in preseason, but so what? It was 2-3 preseason games, it doesn’t mean too much. You want to wait two years and then just hope Davis is the answer?
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 15, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions
Why do you think the odds are against Davis being a good starter?
He was projected to be a high draft pick until he got sick and lost the last two games of the season last year but he still played pretty good last year.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Beause he wasn’t drafted in the 1st round or near the 1st round. He’s been consistent on this for awhile but it doesn’t make much sense to me.
If the question was where should the 49ers draft a QB in the upcoming draft I’d prefer to choose in the 1st round over the 5th round.
However, this is comparison of the QB who the team already likes on the roster versus a potential QB draft pick.
Because 5th round picks rarely become good starters
Especially at quarterback, it’s just simple probability.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 15, 2009 8:00 PM PST up reply actions
its been well known people avoided him because of his disability
before that came out he was higher on the draft boards.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 15, 2009 10:32 PM PST up reply actions
Yes...
And obviously they think that will make it harder for him to become a good QB. What’s your point?
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 15, 2009 10:43 PM PST up reply actions
it is less likely, that does not mean it will not happen and has not happened in the past.
By your logic, we should stay with Smith forever regardless of performance because probabilistically he is a great quarterback at 1st overall pick. In fact, the only other quarterbacks we should consider are other 1st overall picks, because only they can be better than another 1st overall pick.
And Tom Brady should be on the sideline right now, and third round pick Joe Montana should never have played.
by hellaninersfan on Nov 16, 2009 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
Ummm... no
By your logic, we should stay with Smith forever regardless of performance because probabilistically he is a great quarterback at 1st overall pick. In fact, the only other quarterbacks we should consider are other 1st overall picks, because only they can be better than another 1st overall pick.
And Tom Brady should be on the sideline right now, and third round pick Joe Montana should never have played.
No, that’s the exact opposite of the logic I’m employing. The logic of some people here is that Davis is as likely as a 1st round QB to work out because… of something. There really isn’t much logic to it.
My logic would be that Alex Smith had a good shot at becoming a good QB when he was drafted (assuming you don’t think he was a massive reach) but 3-4 years of poor performance suggests heavily otherwise. The odds are long that any QB who plays as poorly as he has will be a productive example.
Tom Brady is a great example of my point, and what you should do. The Pats had Drew Bledsoe so they weren’t counting on Brady, he was able to develop slowly and only came in after Bledsoe got hurt. Would the Pats have been smart if they hadn’t had Bledsoe to solely depend on Brady? Of course not. They didn’t know what they had with him, and if you look at the history of 5th and 6th round QB’s very, very few of them work out. Go put all of their names in a hat and then pick one to be the guy you depend on, you will be greatly disappointed 9 times out of 10.
Now go pick from a group of first round QB’s, notice how the success rate changes. Would it be so bad to add one of these guys to the team rather than hoping and praying that Davis is one of the few late round QB’s that actually amounts to anything? Hm…
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
The point:
My logic would be that Alex Smith had a good shot at becoming a good QB when he was drafted (assuming you don’t think he was a massive reach) but 3-4 years of poor performance suggests heavily otherwise. The odds are long that any QB who plays as poorly as he has will be a productive example.
First of all, on one level you are obviously right: QBs who have been bad for 3-4 years rarely turn it around and become very good or great.
On the other hand, you also overplay your hand here by fudging the facts, with repsect to Smith.
Because Smith doesn’t have 3-4 years of bad performance. He’s got TWO years of bad performance. (It strikes me as totally unreasonable to hold his third-year post-injury performance against him).
That’s my biggest complaint with the anti-Smith crowd. It’s not that Smith has suggested that he’s the next Elway, but there’s a lot of valid context to his performance which you seem to want to ignore:
Assuming he stays healthy and starts for the rest of this year, Smith will have three years worth of games, more or less, under his belt. And based on what we’ve seen right now, I think it’s clear that Smith is not only a lot better than he was 2+ years ago (the last time he was healthy) but he may well still be improving.
If Smith did have four years of PT and was performing at the level he’s showing us now, well, that’d be one thing. But it’s not the case. And it’s not fair to him to suggest that it is.
Sorry
I wasn’t trying to fudge anything about Smith’s performance, I was just too lazy to look up the exact number of games he had started. :-)
I thought it was about three years but your right, he hasn’t started that many. He’s still a 5th year player though, so holding him to the standards of a 3rd year player is a bit disingenous. Aaron Rodgers is in only his 2nd year starting, but clearly he’s had a chance to develop much more than that even while he was on the bench.
But no, I am not an Anti-Smith person, at least not in what I think your implying. I think he should start the rest of the season, and we should judge him based on how that goes. I’m just guessing that he’s not going to look a whole lot better than he has so far, which I don’t think would be good enough for me to pass on say Sam Bradford if he was available for the Niners first pick.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions
no your totally right.
because the only other QB that had dyslexia was Terry Bradshaw and that guy couldn’t throw the ball.
;-)
by whitemike1644 on Nov 17, 2009 8:57 PM PST up reply actions
for the record he was a dyslexic QB
that called his own plays.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 18, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
when he is the only other one i can find.
i think its valid… also have you seen how terrible ball state is since nate left??? that can not be an oversight…
by whitemike1644 on Nov 19, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
I said this before, and I'll say it again ...
… but making any sort of decision about Smith’s future with this team before the end of the season is just stupid.
I know people want to yammer, whatever, but really, there’s absolutely no reason to even think about this into the postseason. We will have three times as much meaningful information about Smith then as we do now.
I also don’t understand people who want to “commit” to Nate Davis. You have no idea what he’s capable of. Neither do I. He was a fifth-round pick for a variety of reasons. He played one excellent half of PRE SEASON football, which, IIRC was in the second half of a game (eg, when most of the guys playing are fighting for special teams roster spots).
Just chill, people. There’s plenty of time to plan our QB strategy for next year once we have more than 3 games of Smith to judge him on.
If you can't judge Smth by now
you don’t understand football. Only quarterbacks with natural instincts succeed in being top notch QBs. Alex doesn’t have them and will always be inconsistent.
Kezarvet
I agree, too, but he needs to fail publicly.
His primary supporter is McCloughan, who doesn’t want a 1st overall QB bust on his record, so it’s going to take the balance of this year to, hopefully, convince everyone he’s either got what it takes or doesn’t. The worst thing that could happen is that he muddles through with a “just adequate” performance that gives his supporters just enough evidence to stay on his bandwagon. Let’s hope he either succeeds or fails in a convincing fashion.
by MontanaPass on Nov 16, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
I think people forget....
That McC didn’t have full authority on draft picks until last year (I think). Nolan had carried that authority since he was hired. Smith was Nolan’s pick. I don’t think York’s hold that over McC’s head unless there is something I don’t know, like McC was clamoring for him in meetings, etc…
So you would have judged Brees after his third season?
I’m willing to bet that Smith’s numbers at the end of this year will be better than Brees were in his third season – and that’s a somewhat reasonable comparison since an injury has kept Smith out for the last two years.
I mean, his YPA is better right now and his INT% is pretty close.
Brees is probably the second-best QB in the league right now. And after his third season, he was right in the Smith-right-now ballpark. Smith has shown dramatic improvement this season from his second season.
And you are claiming you can throw in the towel with confidence?
I call b.s.
by Ronaldinho on Nov 16, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
brees was on a very young chargers team, that was not very good
and the system did not fit his abilities. so you can’t compare the two.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 16, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah
I don’t think you can expect most quarterbacks to just explode like he did.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 1:55 PM PST up reply actions
Wait a second:
You’re saying that the team wasn’t very good, and the system didn’t fit him, and those are points that say they’re different?
I’m confused. Are you saying that our team is good? Or are you saying that the system we’re running fits Smith?
Now for a few facts:
If the system was the problem, why did Brees excell the very next season with a huge number of the same players on the team?
If the problem was the quality of the team, well, yes, our defense this year is much better than the Charger’s 2003 defense. But beyond that … they had the #1 rushing offense in yards per attempt.
- in the league.
Kind of punches a hole in the argument that the problem was that the team was terrible in a way that our team isn’t, doesn’t it?
The reality is that Brees didn’t put it together until his 4th year. Now, that doesn’t mean Smith will put it together in a similar way, but Smith is substantially better now than he was before he got hurt in his third season, isn’t he? Doesn’t that buy him a little benefit of the doubt.
Just like I said,
you refer to stats. Smith will always put up some numbers but he will also always throw interceptions and be slow with his delivery and late with his passes. To compare Smith with Brees is hilarious. Brees has always played with poise and confidence. Alex looks like a deer in the headlights.
Yes, I am claiming that you can throw in the towel with confidence re Alex. Smith has shown DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENT? You have to be kidding. His passer rating is 79.5 and that includes a half where he threw 3 TDs against a prevent defense. Take that away and he’d be below 50!
You may call BS, but I call lack of knowledge.
Kezarvet
I do call BS on the part where you say “take away three TDs.”
You really can’t do that.
Also, QB rating is terrible.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions
If Smith fails, give Davis a chance
We don’t know what Davis can do until we see what Davis can do. And that goes double for any QB in the draft. When Smith was drafted, he was supposed to be our franchise QB, but his success in college has not made the transition to the NFL. He’s only one in a long list of college stars who discovered that it ain’t so easy in the bigtime.
Do I need to remind you that Montana was a third-round pick and Steve Young came to the Bucs in the supplemental draft? Does anyone think that’s relevant to their careers? I don’t care how they acquired Davis. He’s on the roster already, and that makes him worth more than a bird in the bush.
We need a better quarterback, IMO. But the greater need is a stronger line to give him time to throw and to take the pressure off him by facilitating a running game. That’s where I’d focus attention in the draft. Frankly, until that’s in place, it’s hard to even evaluate quarterbacks.
There is a standard procedure for rebuilding
and it includes
drafting and building a strong offensive line before drafting a franchise QB.
(True not every successfull team has done it that way, but most have, and it is the normal and proven way that most GM’s follow.)
If we continue to ignore that, then we will continue to struggle and suffer.
me neither actually,
but it seems like some people are.
Anyway, I like the direction the team is going. To mention a few things:
Willis is awesome (and Sing is an ideal coach for him).
Vernon D. has amazing potential (and Sing is the ideal coach for him).
Crabtree is on the team and playing like at top 5 pick (drama was avoided).
Alex Smith is getting a chance to find out what he can do (albeit with a suspect oline).
I might feel differently if Staley had not gone down, but to me this is a rebuilding year plain and simple and I am focused on player development and not at all on won-loss.
That's just not true
You do what you can with what you have, if a “franchise QB” is available in the draft you don’t pass on him just because you haven’t found a solution at right tackle yet.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 15, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry to jump on you but . . .
This is as bad as saying the basketball team just needs a 7 foot, shot blocking, rebounding, imposing center. Or a baseball team saying we just need that 40 HR, 100 RBI left fielder.
Whose actually available to fit this description of a franchise level QB? Just because the team wants and needs one doesn’t mean there is one available.
We already drafted a "franchise QB" named Smith.
Sure fire, guaranteed, money back, all star QB that hasn’t worked out that well. Like Druckenmiller. So the argument some people make that only drafting a top 1st round QB will give the team a “franchise” QB hasn’t worked well for the 49ers. But drafting later has – Montana & Young.
Having said that, I’d wait until 2011 and mortgage the house to get that kid from USC.
by MontanaPass on Nov 16, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
The 49ers didn’t draft Young.
Also, drafting Montana in the 4th round in 1979 was using the 82nd overall pick. Today, he’d be an early third round pick… by that.
However, using “We drafted one quarterback 30 years ago outside of the first round who happened to work out” is an awful, awful, awful argument.
Most successful QBs come from the first three rounds. Whether that is the result of good scouting, self-fulfilling prophecy style development or some combination of the two, it’s just plain flat out how it is.
Do you think that the Chargers are really torn up that they went out and drafted Drew Brees and Phillip Rivers even though they failed so miserably with Ryan Leaf?
No. Fact: The easiest way to land a franchise quarterback in the NFL is to draft him in the first round. Play the odds. Play the odds. Please, please play the odds, 49ers.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
I mean mid-third round.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
Young wasn't a 1st round pick, either.
Which was the point. The 9ers traded for him. But I don’t see anyone arguing that the team has had great success drafting QBs in the 1st round, either.
And I’m not arguing for not ever drafting a 1st round QB, either, as I would probably mortgage the team to get Matt Barkley if he develops as expected. But here’s something to think about that I don’t see anyone commenting on – the cost of high-profile QB busts.
Whenever a 1st round QB doesn’t work out, teams lose years attempting to salvage a high profile mistake that costs them both wins and big $$$. When a 3rd round QB doesn’t work out, he’s gone in a couple of years and the team doesn’t lose much money. So which is the better strategy, drafting high and risking severe negative consequences for up to 5-6 years, or drafting more QBs later at little expense or risk and developing them or discarding them as required? I like the second option because a team can then make several mistakes with few consequences while sorting through the options. And only one of those later picks has to work out well for the team to succeed. It’s the difference between betting your house on one hand of blackjack or betting $10000 a hand over a few dozen hands. That may be a poor metaphor, but I’m sure you get the point.
Whenever a 1st round QB doesn’t work out, teams lose years attempting to salvage a high profile mistake that costs them both wins and big $$$. When a 3rd round QB doesn’t work out, he’s gone in a couple of years and the team doesn’t lose much money. So which is the better strategy, drafting high and risking severe negative consequences for up to 5-6 years, or drafting more QBs later at little expense or risk and developing them or discarding them as required?
I think that being afraid of a high-reward player because the risk is also high is a surefire way to get yourself stuck in a pattern of failure for years. Yes, you may blow a lot of money and a few years on a high-round pick, but your chances of not blowing it are also better than in other rounds. You can take a guy in the third or later round every three years for as long as you want, but you’re more likely to just go 9, 10, 12, 15, etc. years without ever picking one up who is worthwhile. I’d rather lose 4 – 5 years on a monumental bust and then try again than go on indefinitely convinced that one day one of these middling talents you drafted in the third round will prove everyone wrong.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions
We'll have to disagree on this.
I think there are enough mid & late round QBs who have been successful to make the low-risk strategy the preferred route. It’s definitely less traumatic for both the team and the fans. As bignerd pointed out below, teams can be pretty successful with even a mediocre QB if the rest of the team is sound.
But either way, finding a top QB may be the most difficult job in football.
" but your chances of not blowing it are also better than in other rounds."
That’s not really true.
It’s hard to “blow” a fifth-round pick.
And you have to look at the opportunity cost. The opportunity cost (the value of the lower-risk player you could have taken) is MUCH higher with a first round pick, and that’s part of what makes screwing up with those picks so damaging.
Well, by “blow” I mean “not finding your man”.
I know that the player isn’t “busting” in the traditional sense but if your strategy for getting a top-tier quarterback is to go third round or later every two to four years until you find one, then your expectation is that you’re going to get your guy with one of those picks, and every guy who doesn’t pan out is busting that expectation.
I just don’t see how you can be so afraid of screwing up a high-level pick that you’re not even willing to make one. That pick has to go somewhere. You’re spending that money on someone. Yes, the risk is higher when you spend it on a quarterback, but that can’t force you into avoiding that risk as a matter of policy. Not to my mind, at least.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
In short:
I know that we’ve all been burned by Alex Smith. I know that we don’t want to be burned by another Alex Smith. I get it. It hurts. Alex Smith is one of the reasons we’ve struggled these past five seasons. I know. It hurts. It hurts to be burned.
But I would much rather be burned by another Alex Smith, and even another after that trying to hit it big than spend my time trying to get my hopes up about an indefinite number of consecutive Nate Davis picks where the team is just hoping to stay in the game by betting on a pair of deuces.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The risk is there no matter who you pick
It’s not like QB’s are the only players who bust.
The difference is that having somebody like Brodie Croyle or Ryan Fitzpatrick or any other mid-to-late round QB you’re likely to find compared to Matt Ryan or Ben Roethlisberger or Phillip Rivers or Peyton Manning is absolutely enourmous when compared to the difference between having a Vince Wilfork at NT instead of having Aubrayo Franklin or Isaac Sopoaga there or Laron Landry or Adrian Wilson instead of Michael Lewis.
QB’s have a much bigger impact on the team and are much harder to find in free agency or through trade. You can sign a decent starter at safety or inside linebacker or defensive tackle (how much did Franklin, Spikes and Lewis cost), you don’t find decent starting QB’s on the open market. I mean really, think of an average starting QB, the 16th best starter in the league. Depending on who you like that could be Matt Schaub, Eli Manning, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, or Jay Cutler. Yet their value dwarfs over that of a decent safety like Michael Lewis. Anyone one of them is probably worth at least a 1st and a 3rd rounder, if not more.
The bottom line is easily the biggest reward in the draft is finding a franchise QB. And if you don’t, there’s really not any other way to get one. They basically never hit free agency (that’s another benefit of finding a franchise QB, you basically control him his whole career) and you have to give up a king’s ransom just to get a guy like Cutler. So all your left with is Brodie Croyle, Joey Harrington, Byron Leftwich, Kerry Collins, Shaun Hill… or Alex Smith. And the offense will subsequently be mediocre almost no matter how good the rest of your offensive players are. So yes, it’s a risk, but the reward more than justifies it assuming you don’t already have a franchise quarterback (which we’ll have to wait and see on Alex). You’d be a fool to pass up a guy you thought could develop into one of the aforementioned franchise guys just because there’s a chance he might not be.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
Hey somebody remind me
How long did Steve Young sit on the sidelines behind Joe Montana?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
The chargers are a useful point of comparison
Do you think that the Chargers are really torn up that they went out and drafted Drew Brees and Phillip Rivers even though they failed so miserably with Ryan Leaf?
If the Chargers knew what they had in Brees, there’s no way they draft a QB #1 in 2004. Brees was horrible in 2003, and so they drafted Rivers. Then Brees put it together and became a top QB, and then eventually let him walk.
But if they had one more year’s worth of knowledge about Brees, there’s no way they take Rivers. You’ve got to think maybe they grab Larry Fitzgerald there.
But they didn’t know. They pulled the trigger too soon, and so instead of having two top players (Brees and Fitzgerald) they have one (Rivers).
It’s true that if you want a top QB, your odds are best if you draft high. You are much more likely to get a good QB high than you are low. This is, of course, true for all players. (I"m not sure it’s MORE true of QBs than other positions, however, but it might be a little bit.)
Here’s the problem:
You are far more likely to draft a bust picking a QB in the first round than you are picking another position in the first round.
What you’re really doing is balancing, on one side of the ledger, the odds of improvement from your new QB over Alex Smith, against, on the other side of the ledger, Alex Smith’s improvement + whatever other player you could take with that pick. If that pick, say, solidifies the right side of our O-line … that’s a pretty big change.
When you draft a QB in the first round
you’re playing Texas Hold ’em and going all in. You might double up, or you might go out.
High risk, high reward.
I prefer to take a solid QB in the later rounds and develop him for a few years.
I prefer to take a solid QB in the later rounds and develop him for a few years.
But the chances of him actually being solid are that much lower. It’s a nice thing to say, but how often does it actually work?
I prefer to play the odds and lose the pot if I have to. The next time I throw my bets, I’ll do the same thing. If you play the odds and you have a scout worth his salt, you will benefit from it. It might not be immediate. You might have to live through a rough stretch.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
By later I mean
2nd or 3rd, not 4th or 5th.
I also think that Parcells’ criteria for a successful NFL QB simplify things immensely. If he doesn’t have his degree (or isn’t a senior), doesn’t have 3 years starting, and doesn’t have 23 wins under his belt he doesn’t go on the board. Parcells probably wouldn’t have drafted Alex Smith (2 years starting, 21-1 as a starter but he did get his degree in only 2 years).
Nate Davis wouldn’t have been there either since he left without his degree. He did have 3 years as a starter, but he also doesn’t have 23 wins.
I agree with Howie again...
You prefer to take a QB in later rounds and let him develop?
Do you know how many QBs are taken in later rounds and DON"T develop? So how many years do you give this QB to develop? Let’s say 10% of QBs in later rounds develop or are even servicable. You give each QB 3 years to develop since that is usually the time QB’s start to really excel. You may find ONE QB in 30 years of drafting by that logic, 1 QB, per 3 yrs w/10% success rate.
Not something I’m ok with.
I get what you're saying
I really do. I wonder how much of my argument in this case rests on this specific draft where i’m not sold on any of the QB prospects.
I do agree that on top of everything I’ve said, it DOES depend on the players available.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions
Now THAT, I can agree with.
I’m not all for taking a QB just because we need one. I felt like we did that with Alex Smith. If the right guy isn’t there, let’s grab someone else. I think we did that with Crabtree this year. He was too good to pass up. If a QB is there, but a NT, or Safety, or LB is too good to pass up, I’m all for moving off the QB. But if he is the right guy, for the right pick, I’m game even if it’s in the first round.
I don’t disagree with anything you say. My point is probably being overstated, but it’s a reaction to the fear of the first round quarterback.
I honestly believe that you cannot be afraid of picking a quarterback in the first round. Yes, you do it understanding the risks involved, but it’s done because the reward is also that much greater. Yes, you run the risk of busting your quarterback position for a handful of years, but do you really expect to find the QBOF within that same period of time if you’re not willing to take that risk?
I don’t.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
You are far more likely to draft a bust picking a QB in the first round than you are picking another position in the first round.
Do you have any proof of this? I won’t contend that the bust rate may be higher but I don’t buy that there’s a gigantic difference between the bust rate of a QB and the bust rate of a different position. It’s (IMO) almost all internal bias that makes the bust rate seem higher. QB bust rates seem high because guys like Jamarcus Russell, Alex Smith, Vince Young, Brady Quinn, Matt Leinart, Jason Campbell, J.P. Losman, or even Brian Brohm become the center of attention as soon as they are picked and everyone remembers them. But if a wide receiver busts it is a lot less memorable and therefore the bust rate seems lower. How many football fans think about Charles Rogers, Reggie Williams, Chad Jackson, Mike Williams, Robert Meachem, Craig Davis, Sinorice Moss, Troy Williamson, Matt Jones, Dwayne Jarrett, Mark Clayton, Reggie Brown, Mark Bradley, Michael Clayton, Rashaun Woods, Bryant Johnson, Bethel Johnson, andTaylor Jacobs.
That sounds like a lot of names but those guys are all busts taken in the first round or top half of the second round over the span of only 5 drafts! (2002-2007) And that’s not even mentioning other guys who really didn’t contribute much to the teams that drafted them like Roy Williams, Braylon Edwards, Devery Henderson, or Roscoe Parrish.
Really, all positions bust all the time. Playing QB is harder because there are only 32 starting spots but being a slot receiver really has almost zero draft value, it’s easy to sign a free agent or find a mid-to-late round pick like Josh Morgan or Jason Hill who can do the same thing for nothing. If there is a higher bust rate for QB’s, it’s certainly not high enough to balance out the much higher reward a QB could bring for a team desperate for a good quarterback. That doesn’t mean always draft a QB with a high pick, but if you need one and there’s a good guy available then take him, don’t depend on a longshot 5th round pick.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions
Lol
Who said Smith was guaranteed?
Basically what your saying is the Niners failed once before, so they shouldn’t try again. To me that’s silly, sorry.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
That would indeed be silly if I were saying that.
But I didn’t say that, did I? You might want to try differentiating between obvious hyperbole and statements of fact. It’s called reading comprehension.
I never said you said it
Only that I find it funny that anyone would have ever said that, but I don’t remember anyone saying Smith was a lock to be really good.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 1:56 PM PST up reply actions
Do you know what "literalism" means?
When someone says, “That was the best birthday ever!”, do you take that literally? Probably not. So why would you take a sentence like, “Sure fire, guaranteed, money back, all star QB that hasn’t worked out that well.” literally? Either your reading comprehension is poor or you are being obtuse.
Thank you for the grammar lesson
I’ll try to make sure not to ever misunderstand anyone on the internet ever again.
You are trying to make a point by bringing up Alex Smith aren’t you? I hope you’re not just doing it to be annoying, so I assume you are saying they shouldn’t draft a QB in the first round because they drafted Alex Smith and he didn’t work out. That is silly logic, but perhaps I’m misunderstanding you again. Please explain what your point really is then.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
Right
Which is exactly why I said that you only draft him if you think he can be that guy. Really, read my comment if you’re going to respond to it. I have said many times that you don’t draft a QB just for the sake of drafting a QB (ie: drafting Colt McCoy or Tim Tebow in the first round would be a horrible decision) but you don’t pass up a guy you think can be a franchise QB either.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
I think Clausen, Locker, and Bradford could all be really good
We’ll see how those guys fair in the rest of the season and the workouts/combine/etc. I’d consider any of them with one of the Niners first round picks.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
I'd pass on Bradford
Simply based on the fact that he’s broken. Let’s not look for a guy that James Andrews has already sliced and diced.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
yeah i don't know how we spend another first round pick on a QB with shoulder problems
now in the 2nd….hmm…..
Drew Brees has shoulder problems
Just sayin’.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 18, 2009 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
i agree.
i would take him… just not in the first round… alex smith has shoulder problems tooo, just sayin
by whitemike1644 on Nov 19, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
just wondering.
does anything think that we should start davis maybe for like the last 2 or 3 games if we are out of the hunt?
and if we are out of the hunt obviously Smith probably wasn’t playing well at that point.
i think it wouldn’t be a bad idea. our last 3 games are the eagles, lions, then rams. and by then the eagles will probably have a idea of where their play off picture stands but we all know where the last two teams will be.
what do you guys think if we started davis against the lions at home and/or the rams. given we are out of the hunt?
“does anything think that we should start davis maybe for like the last 2 or 3 games if we are out of the hunt?”
That’s actually a pretty good idea.
by AmorVincitOmnia on Nov 15, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
Technically that makes sense but
if Alex Smith is playing well and it is becoming “his team” you can’t really do that.
Otherwise it is just an issue of if ND is ready and if so, sure, you would like to see what he has got. I bet he is a tough kid mentally and physically, but I wouldn’t count on Alex not playing well. Unless he gets hurt you may not be able to take him out.
The other issue is the Oline and whether it is a good idea to put a rookie behind this line. One would have to see how well they are playing and protecting at that time.
“The other issue is the Oline and whether it is a good idea to put a rookie behind this line.”
It would only be for 2 games.
by AmorVincitOmnia on Nov 15, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions
no i know.
i said IF smith isn’t playing well and we are out of the hunt… if smith is playing well and we are winning then i’m fine with davis sitting.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 15, 2009 10:35 PM PST up reply actions
Matt Miaocco said Nate Davis gets no reps in practice at QB since Smith runs the starters and Hill runs the scout squad. Davis occasionally plays defensive back. Unless thats changed there is no way in the world he’ll be ready to start games this season, and that won’t be changed.
by hellaninersfan on Nov 16, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
Actually I would like to see Davis play some in the last few games this year to get him comfortable with the 1st team
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
If the 49ers get a QB next year...
It should be through free agency.
And it should only happen if Alex Smith bombs the rest of the season.
Otherwise, they should focus their attention on the offensive line and the defensive backs.
by AmorVincitOmnia on Nov 15, 2009 3:29 PM PST reply actions
free agency?
Have you looked at the “talent” available in free agency this coming offseason? It’s not pretty for a long term solution.
by David Fucillo on Nov 15, 2009 3:41 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks for the link Fooch!
Yep the QA position is bad. But some of the other positions are rather nice. I don’t see Will Blackmon from GB on that list but on mine I use from Walter Football and I think he could do quite well as a RS
by ChesapeakeBay9er on Nov 15, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
Nope, I haven't looked.
But that sucks that there’s no one good.
by AmorVincitOmnia on Nov 15, 2009 7:10 PM PST up reply actions
Alex Smith from a scout's perspective
I have been reexamining some film, attempting to look at Alex Smith from a scout’s perspective. I realize there is much more to consider, but to be brief I will focus primarily on two plays: specifically the two most recent interceptions.
One was on a key play against the Titans with 3:00 minutes to go and the score 27-20. Josh Morgan was closely defended; the pass was on the numbers, went into the air and and was then intercepted and returned for a touchdown. The key questions on any interception are: should that pass have been thrown and, was the ball thrown badly in a way that led to the interception? I don’t see any error on the part of Alex Smith on that pass. He initially looks off defenders, and then throws the ball accurately into single coverage. The decision and execution are fine.
The most recent interception occurred in the 1st half against the Bears on a deep sideline route to Crabtree. There is a detailed analysis of that in another post which emphasizes the fact that Crabtree had the inside position and that throwing the ball to the outside was therefore a mistake. I don’t thing we can be sure that was Smith’s mistake without knowing what was called and what was expected in terms of Crabtree’s route. On a deep play like that, the receiver runs the last 3rd or so of his route after the trajectory of the pass has been established. Thus quarterbacks must be able to throw those passes with some trust and expectation regarding where his receiver will go. I believe that generally young quarterbacks are taught to throw to the outside to avoid interceptions by safeties on deep sideline routes. Whether Smith or Crabtree did not execute properly on this play is unclear to me. Throwing to Crabtree deep with single coverage would generally be considered a good decision on the quarterback’s part.
If that play had happened on a 3rd down, it is equivalent to a punt and thus not costly; not much different from an incomplete pass. (Clearly that sort of interception is very different in impact and effect from a red zone interception, or an interception that leads to excellent field position or a touchdown for the other team, as above.) In this case, however, it was on 1st down and thus prematurely ended a drive.
From a scout’s point of view I don’t find a lot to criticize in those plays. Additionally, I like the way the team has been moving the chains on some drives with AS at quarterback, though that has not been consistent. I know there are a lot of maturation issues with AS and the offense in general.
The 49ers are a young team with a very young offense which has had very little time playing together. There is nothing I see on the field that suggests the offense cannot play well together when they have a better offensive line and have had more experience individually, and more playing and practice time together.
by zacksf on Nov 15, 2009 5:06 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
You have bought Singletary's BS hook, line, and sinker.
The Niners are the SIXTH OLDEST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE. Singletary keeps referring to the team as young to make excuses for the stupid mistakes that are being made. Alex Smith is mediocre and will always be mediocre. Young or not.
Kezarvet
The starters are pretty young
Especially on offense. Heitmann is the only offensive player of any consequence older than 26 (Gore, Smih, Crabtree, Morgan, VD, Coffee, Jason Hill, Staley, and Rachal are all 26 or younger). That’s got to be one of the youngest offenses in the league.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
age
okay we have some old players
Bruce -37
Nedney – 36
Barry Sims – 34
Brian Jennings -33
Walt Harris – 35
Jeff Ulbrich -32
Takeo Spikes -32
Not sure where you got that stat that are the 6th oldest team, but most of those guys don’t start. Sims is starting because of Staley’s injury. Nedney is the kicker and Jennings in the LS so that doesn’t really count on whether a team is consider old or younger because they hardly play. Ulbrich wasn’t starting, Bruce isn’t anymore, Harris would count if he wasn’t on IR. Spikes starts. And i’m sure whether your stat counted Rossum.
Go 49ers
Another 49ers stat
33 players on the roster are 49ers draft picks. 2nd highest rate in the league just behind Green Bay.
Exactly
The key players are young, especially on offense. On defense there are a few guys (Smith, Franklin, Clements, Spikes) that are older veterans but the team is pretty young when you look at it closely.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions
I beg to differ. Smith threw to the wrong place.
The defender was playing inside man in a cover-2 scheme. The CB is taking away the sideline and depending on the safety for help inside. The coverage was easy to read because there was nobody else in the area. The safety failed to break on Crabtree until late, leaving him wide open on the inside with room to spare (as the wide-angle replay showed). Crabtree was facing inside, clearly expecting the ball to arrive on his free side. Instead, the ball arrived high and behind Crabtree, right where the CB was. Crabs attempted to turn around but stumbled.
So why did Smith throw it outside instead of inside when the coverage clearly dictated a throw inside? This wasn’t a timing route, where the ball is thrown to a specific spot before the WR breaks. So Smith either misread the coverage and was expecting Crabs to turn outside, or he simply made a bad throw to the wrong area. Either way, it’s on Smith. The only way Smith gets off the hook here is if Crabs completely ran the wrong route and Alex was improvising.
The only “miscommunication” here was Smith not reading the coverage correctly from what I saw. But that’s something that does happen with all QBs, so it’s not indicative of a fatal flaw. But inaccuracy is a fatal flaw for a QB, and that is a distinct possibility here.
by MontanaPass on Nov 16, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
Reason
The reason Davis should sit a year vs another QB if we draft one in the first round this year is hopefully the first round pick is more NFL ready. More polished. Davis is very raw, is dyslexic, and throws w/out laces. To me, he needs to study. However, a top tier QB in college could start.
Who?
Rule 1: You actually need to name a QB in the draft who could possess these skills. Provide a name and state a case. This college QB everyone talks about sounds very good but has yet to have a name.
Who is the most NFL ready, polished and would be a better option than Nate Davis from Day 1?
speaking for myself, I don't really like any of them
McCoy’s a spread/system QB with a suspect arm. An Alex Smith-level project at the NFL level.
Snead has all but been benched by his coach.
Pike is a one-and-a-half-year wonder and has been injured.
Sam Bradford has a broken shoulder and plays in a verrry QB-friendly offense.
Clausen is the best of the bunch, but as Persiflage said, Brady Quinn looked great at ND too.
And that QB from Florida will never play more than a year at QB in the NFL. I’m not alone in predicting this.
Jason Hill is turning the corner!
heck, even McCoy and Bradford. I’m just not sold on Davis. I think all 4 of those QBs are smarter and more polished than Davis.
that doesn't make QB a high draft priority
we have to build a whole team. There are some weaknesses to address.
You mean most notably at OL.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
That can be debated.
I think with Staley, Pashos (if stays), Heitmann, and HOPEFULLY Rachal that we are one FA pickup from having a decent line. However, QB is our biggest weakness. A probowl QB makes a bigger difference on our team than a probowl RT or LG.
Don't know about McCoy
If McCoy would have declared last year I would have considered Nate the better prospect.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 17, 2009 11:46 PM PST up reply actions
Of the QBs I like
I like Colt Mccoy, he makes plays and rarely loses games. He is 41-7 over his career and he reminds me a lot of Drew Brees, just the way he plays.
Bill Stull from Pitt is a very good player and I wouldnt mind the niners spending a later draft pick on him.
The other guy I like is Max Hall from BYU, I wouldn’t mind the niners getting any one of these three in the next years draft.
Personally the three guys I am really excited about in a couple years when they come out are Andrew Luck(Stanford) Ryan Mallet(Arkansas) and Kellen Moore(Boise). I just have a feeling barring injury, these three will be better than any qb that comes out this year.
"I like Colt Mccoy, he makes plays and rarely loses games. "
Wins and Losses are a bad stat to judge a QB by in the pro … but they reach absurd levels when you’re talking about a college QB who plays for a football-factory school.
Colt McCoy has had a major talent advantage, on both sides on the ball, in 80% of the games he’s played. In probably half of the games he’s played, his team could have won without ever passing the ball. They could have said, “We’re going to run on every play” and still won.
He’s played the vast majority of his games with an o-line that can handle whatever the opposing team can throw at him and receivers who can beat the DB’s covering them one-on-one.
He may be a good QB, honestly, evaluating college QBs is incredibly difficult, and the only thing that’s obvious about him is that he’s not a Peyton-Manning style lock at being a franchise QB. Beyond that? I don’t have a strong opinion.
But citing Ws and Ls makes no sense at all.
Agreed, as usual
And for the record I don’t like McCoy much at all, I just don’t see his skills translating to the next level.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
You have some valid points
Thing is, in general those football factories get get better football players at their program including that position Quarterback. He beat out another QB who people are speaking highly of in Jevon Snead for that spot. This running game you speak of at Texas has been their biggest problem forcing them to throw more than they would like. And you know what the past two years, Colt Mccoy has led the nation in completion percentage. He makes accurate throws and thats one of the things I like about him. The win-loss record is also important because it speaks to intangibles and making plays at the end of games. It would be one thing if he was Ken Dorsey and the reason he was so good was his team was so much better than everyone else’s that just isn’t true with this Texas team.
Colt Mccoy will be a solid Pro and will have better career than Clausen or Bradford
by Oracle Junkie on Nov 17, 2009 1:23 AM PST up reply actions
Jevan Snead sucks this year.
Colt McCoy completes mostly short, high completion passes, he’s not very strong and throws his share of wounded ducks.
Read this:
http://walterfootball.com/mattblog091023.php
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 17, 2009 11:50 PM PST up reply actions
Good article
He was a little too speculative for my taste as shown here…
McCoy will likely never be able to pick up an NFL offense to the point where he could be a consistent, multi-year starter..
Boy did he lambaste Alex Smith.
He's mostly right though...
I tend to agree with him because he actually watches hours of “real” tape (not youtube…like most of us, lol).
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 18, 2009 10:26 PM PST up reply actions
He is still just a kid though...
….in one of his articles he stated how he still had homework . I agree with taking what he says into account but no way do I base my argument on what he has to say. Does he watch more tape than me, ABSOLUTELY because I watch little to none, but I would prefer to listen to Kiper or the other “professionals”.
Read his Crabtree article. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Just makes you think this is just one person’s point of view that doesn’t have as many facts as you would think.
I don't care for his WR analysis
He is doesn’t evaluate them that well.
BTW: I don’t think the homework thing is that important. I’m pretty sure Fooch has homework too, and he’s not really a kid.
I do base my Colt McCoy argument on his analysis because I agree with him.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 19, 2009 8:07 PM PST up reply actions
Well that’s probably a bit different. You support his analysis because it agrees with what you came up with on your own. You aren’t letting him decide for you.
I knew the Fooch comeback was coming. lol
homework
I’m a third year law student. Consider me in full-on senioritis! At least until May, at which point I have to start studying for the bar.
by David Fucillo on Nov 20, 2009 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
Good luck
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 20, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
You aren’t letting him decide for you.
obviously
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 20, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
Thank God I Am Not The 49ers GM
First i was against drafting a QB, then i was for it and now i am on the fence.
First things first it appears that Shaun Hill isn’t the answer and he will be nothing more then a backup QB for the remainder of his 49er career. Not because i don’t believe he can’t succeed but simply because he doesn’t fit into the 49ers plans. Alex Smith has 7 more games to prove that he is the answer. Am i confident that he will succeed? Not entirely, but i am willing to take a wait and see approach. It he does succeed it makes this decision much easier. Nate Davis is a huge wild card in this whole situation, but it appears this joker won’t be played for at least another season. I think we can all argue against him starting next season and have a reasonable reason for arguing that.
So what does this mean? Well it means that the 49ers QB situation remains unstable. If Smith continues to progress and wins games (we make the playoffs) then of course the decision will have been made. And that is the best scenario for the organization.
Draft a QB? Maybe! In the 1st round? Not so sure of that. It is well documented on here that i am a huge fan of Jimmy Clausen. But a lot would have to occur for him to fall onto our lap. First he would have to forgo his senior season, which most likely isn’t going to happen. Second, if he were to come out in 2010 then he would have to fall into the teens, and folks that just isn’t going to happen.
Other options1st round: QB- Colt Mccoy: Not sold on him as an NFL QB
1st roujnd, QB- Tim Tebow He has bust written all over him
1st round: QB- Sam Bradford Viable option in the teens due to injury
2nd round, QB- Javon Snead Has had a horrible season, not sold on him at all
2nd round, QB- Jake Locker May not come out… Can’t see him falling to 2nd round
Mid round QB- Tony Pike More of a project QB like Nate Davis
Mid round QB- Max Hall I could see him succeeding, Nice mid round pick
These are just some options i decided to list.
Now onto the Free Agent/Trade Front
Free Agents
QB- Chad Pennington: This pencil thin QB needs a monster offensive line in front of him and obviously we don’t have that
QB- Jason Campbell: He just isn’t that good of a QB, i would really advocate against going after him
QB- Jeff Garcia: Been there done that. It seems like his career is over with
QB- Kyle Orton: Decent option in free agency, he is the ultimate game manager. Denver will never let him go
QB- Kerry Collins: Did very well last season, but is nothing more then a backup at this point
QB- Kellen Clemons: Pretty much a back up QB and nothing more
Trade Front
QB- Brady Quinn, Cleveland: This is a viable option, he does have talent. Questions arise regarding his bonus due and what it would take to get him. Buy low trade may work out for the 49ers
QB- Michael Vick, Philadelphia: Intriguing option and could allow us to go young in the offensive line with his scrambling ability. He does appear to be in shape and could be a good option. Just wonder what Philadelphia might ask for him
QB- Trent Edwards: Buffalo isn’t happy with him. May be a nice option to battle with Alex Smith in training camp. If it doesn’t cost more then a scrub player and mid round pick maybe we pull the trigger.
QB- Matt Leinert: Would Arizona consider trading him within the division? Highly unlikely. If so jump on the talks and see if we can get something done
Released Player Options
QB- Marc Bulger: Could this even be considered an option?
QB- Derek Anderson: Just added for some comic relief on NN
QB- David Gerard: Could have been an option before. Playing too well now to be here
Depending on how the rest of the season plays out Alex Smith may actually be our best option next season and even further into the future. I am not sure about ANY of the top QB prospects with the exception of Jimmy Clausen. The trade market is intriguing but how many of them will actually be moved? And the free agent options don’t impress me one iota with the exception of Orton who won’t be available.
I say go with Alex Smith, Shaun Hill and Nate Davis while drafting a QB in the mid-late rounds and hide him on the practice squad or keep 4 QB’s
"Cannot play with them. Cannot win with them. Cannot coach with them. Can't do it. I want winners. I want people that want to win!!!"
by nocal81(Vincent) on Nov 16, 2009 12:22 AM PST reply actions
It's a tough decision for sure
I’m not sold on any of the surefire 1st round QBs either, especially when we have so much more we need. I’ve always liked Jeff Garcia but who knows how much he actually has left in his tank.
QB- Brady Quinn, Cleveland: This is a viable option, he does have talent. Questions arise regarding his bonus due and what it would take to get him. Buy low trade may work out for the 49ers
I don’t think he’d do any better here than he did in Cleveland. Besides he’s got his starting job back and I don’t know that Cleveland will let him go—they know that Anderson isn’t going to be it.
QB- Michael Vick, Philadelphia: Intriguing option and could allow us to go young in the offensive line with his scrambling ability. He does appear to be in shape and could be a good option. Just wonder what Philadelphia might ask for him
QB- Trent Edwards: Buffalo isn’t happy with him. May be a nice option to battle with Alex Smith in training camp. If it doesn’t cost more then a scrub player and mid round pick maybe we pull the trigger.
I’m not sure that he’s a better option than Alex Smith. His completion percentage is lower. His average YPC this year is higher than Alex. Quite honestly I’m not sure he’s any better.
QB- Matt Leinert: Would Arizona consider trading him within the division? Highly unlikely. If so jump on the talks and see if we can get something done
Why would AZ want to trade him anyway? Warner isn’t going to be around forever and they need someone there. I really doubt they trade him.
If I had my druthers I’d pick a QB in the second round. I also like Max Hall. He’s got a great completion rate (something like 69% over his career) and rarely turns the ball over. This year he’s been averaging almost 10 yards per pass attempt with a 69.9% accuracy.
He also fits Parcell’s requirements for a QB. Senior, 3 years starting, and 23 wins.
I have to say
I’d be intrigued by either Quinn or Vick. I was initially totally against signing Vick, but I don’t know, I could be swayed into giving him a chance now. However, it’s a big longshot to say the least. And Quinn just intrigues me because he’s never been given much of a chance in Cleveland (until now?) and while I thought he was a bit overrated as a prospect I think he could still be fairly good with some good talent around him. I guess I’d have to know how much Cleveland wanted for him though.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
am i the only one that think vicks got a good 3 or 4 years left in him?
by whitemike1644 on Nov 16, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t think Vick has 3 or 4 good snaps left in him. Did he do something this weekend cause I haven’t seen him make a play all year?
Vick
he only gets like 1 or 2 snaps a game. If they are losing, they aren’t going to put him in. They kept trying to do wildcat stuff and options but that isn’t working
Go 49ers
everyone knows they are not using him right... they put him in twice..
and have him run and bench him.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 16, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions
He hasn't really gotten much of an opportunity
But we’re not talking about bringing him in as a Wildcat guy anyway.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
all the more reason we can probably get him on the cheap.
given we don’t want to start Davis next year.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 16, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions
Quinn might be a viable option but just as much as reclamation project as Alex Smith. Alex Smith’s main issues are turnovers and freezing up at just the wrong time. Quinn’s issue is he always checks down to the short pass, which Singletary might like. Not sure about Quinn’s deep throws, just heard he’s not an accurate throwing QB.
There's one other option, and it's not a good one.
What happens if Alex Smith just muddles through the rest of the season without doing anything decisive one way or another? Let’s say the team finishes 9-7 but misses the wildcard spot and Alex has a QB rating of about 80 with TDs and INTs roughly equal. What happens then? Would McCloughan finally say he’s not the guy and move on, or say there’s still enough “promise” there to leave him as the starter? This is the real nightmare scenario. Unresolved QB situation.
Me? I say if Smith doesn’t clearly demonstrate he’s the guy by being able to drive the team down the field and score points, have a QB rating up around 90, and a 2:1 TD/INT ratio, he’s done except as a placeholder while N. Davis is worked into place. I would also trade for somebody like Josh Johnson in Tampa Bay. He started some games this year and did pretty well despite having a terrible team around him. Releasing Hill or Smith and allowing Johnson and Davis to compete for the starting job might be the best option available while the team waits for the Promised One to come along in the draft – the kid from USC, Matt Barkley, comes to mind for 2011.
What happens if Alex Smith just muddles through the rest of the season without doing anything decisive one way or another?
By all rights, if Alex Smith hasn’t given us a definitive reason to stick with him next season, then there is no middle ground. There should be no middle ground. We can’t justifiably go into a sixth year with him if there are enough doubts to feel wishy-washy about the decision.
If he hasn’t proven that he should be trusted going forward, then we should start looking for his replacement immediately. No questions asked. This is his last chance.
I really don’t understand why anybody would feel that he should possibly be given another chance after this season.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions
I'm sure you read the article about the FO fears.
The one that said the 49ers were “terrified” they would release or trade Smith and then have him do well someplace else. That’s the reason some people would want to keep him around. There are reputations and future employment opportunities at stake. Nobody wants to be associated with a high profile draft bust.
If you’ve never experienced the joys of corporate politics, this is called CYA. You screw up badly, but instead of fixing the situation and moving on, the corpse is kept on life support and given resources so the perpetrator(s) don’t have to admit a mistake and take a hit to their reputations. Happens every day in the biggest and best of companies, and football teams aren’t immune.
What happens if Alex Smith just muddles through the rest of the season without doing anything decisive one way or another? Let’s say the team finishes 9-7 but misses the wildcard spot and Alex has a QB rating of about 80 with TDs and INTs roughly equal.
I’d actually take this. The Panthers have gotten away with for most of the decade. The 49ers don’t need a great QB to be competitive, they need someone around average. Fix a few other glaring holes on the roster and wait for a QB to present itself. No need reaching for Tebow/Bradford/McCoy if they are not it. Play the poker strategy, fold and let someone else lose their pot on a bad hand.
Delhomme was better than "just getting by" for most of the decade
And the rest of their team was pretty awesome for awhile too.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 16, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions
A good OL could make almost any QB look good.
Let’s face it – with the current OL, few QBs could succeed. Smith gets very little time even in the shotgun. My guess is that either Smith or Hill could have decent success behind a top 10 OL, and no QB is going to make this OL look good. Top draft priority should be finding a good pass defending RT, a developmental swing tackle, and a G with better quickness than Baas. Snyder can move inside to LG replacing Baas, Pashos signed as backup RT & starting RG, and Rachal moved to backup while he learns technique. Brian Bulaga & Chris Scott would be good draft picks, imho.
Didn't we already get a developmental swing tackle last year?
By picking up Boone? Not saying he’s the next coming of Munoz but developmental swing tackle is a perfect description of him really isn’t it?
by ChesapeakeBay9er on Nov 20, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
I think that Alex has to prove that he's our future
to stick around. If he just muddles through with Shaun Hill like numbers than we need to start shopping for a QB either in the draft or through FA.
Snead might not even declare
If he returns to school and continues sucking, he’ll be benched and his football career will be over.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 17, 2009 11:56 PM PST up reply actions
He may return to school, but I feel like if he came out he goes in first round.
Would you take Snead in 2nd?
Depends
He needs to start playing better.
It seems as if the game is going to fast for him and he makes poor decisions.
Jamarcus Russell has even more athletic ability than Snead, look where that’s getting him…..
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 18, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions
Just my observation
I think Snead is smarter, and much better work ethic. Russell has a horrible work ethic, doesn’t study, and I don’t believe he is all that intelligent. He got away with it in college because of his freak athletic ability but not in NFL.
I think Snead would have a better career than Russell. I would grab him in 2nd. NFL is more about preparation which Russell lacks.
How do you explain Snead's suckage?
To me it seems like he’s confused.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 19, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions
OC?
It’s only his 2nd year. Maybe there is tape out there on his tendencies and now teams are adjusting and the OC doesn’t know what to call so he is switching up his game plan and Snead isn’t comfortable with it?
I don't know about that...
His latest INT came on a screen pass.
The LB did know it was coming and was in perfect position BUT Snead should have seen him (he was right in front of Snead) and yet, he threw the ball anyways…
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 20, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
I Agree Regarding Locker
but Snead hasn’t shown anything in terms of playing. He has talent but hasn’t brought it on the field. 17td-14int 53% in 2009
"Cannot play with them. Cannot win with them. Cannot coach with them. Can't do it. I want winners. I want people that want to win!!!"
by nocal81(Vincent) on Nov 18, 2009 7:47 PM PST up reply actions
Quinn
I really don’t like him.
He has a good O line and he still can’t make things happen.
He looks afraid 90% of the time.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 17, 2009 11:57 PM PST up reply actions
If you had Eric Mangini as a coach you'd look afraid too. :-)
by ChesapeakeBay9er on Nov 20, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions
I'd spit in his face.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 20, 2009 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
On Jake Locker
I have always liked the guy, but I fear he is very similar to Jay Cutler and that he has had carry terrible teams on his back in college. He has some bad tendecies to just trust his talent because he knows he has to win the game because there is no other way his team can do it. They are both very Jeff George like.
Nah he goes by the Name of
TIm Tebow
GeT Ya Popcorn ReadY
The Last Names Ever, First Names Greatest.
Ya gotta go for oline first,
What I mean is, as MontanaPass and others said, improve the oline before you invest in another QB.
And there are defensive priorities to consider as well: cover saftey, edge rusher, corner?
I can’t see taking a quarterback in the first 2 (or 3) rounds unless some very unusual circumstance arises.
Gotta go for fundamentals. We need to dominate the trenches (or at least not get dominated and dictated to by stronger, better lines). And we need a strong secondary.
this is not a good year to draft a QB. There are only two great options: Clausen and Locker. They put up good numbers in pro style systems and scouts seem to love them. They’ll be gone by pick 5. Sam Bradford is the next option. He could fall to us, it wouldn’t surprise me all that much. But he has a shoulder injury and played in a spread offense. that sounds too familiar. He also probably won’t fall to us.
Heres the QBs that might:
Colt McCoy- Matt McGuire hates this guy. Spread offense, he only has to make 1 read then he runs. doesn’t really fly in the pros. He actually compares him to Alex Smith.
Tebow- doesn’t throw all that well but has great athleticism, work ethic and leadership. He throws a lot of passes that will be interceptions guaranteed in the NFL. Also, jacksonville will want him to fill seats, so he may not fall to us anyway.
Tony Pike- one good season. not a great arm, makes good decisions. Sounds like Shaun Hill. We’ve already got Shaun Hill and he’s a known quantity.
Jevan Snead- he could fall to the 3rd round after the season he’s been having. Don’t know much about him though.
Ryan Mallet- A very raw quarterback with a lot of upside who would need to be developed for a few years before he could see playing time. Sounds exactly like Nate Davis.
I’d much rather have a good tackle, cornerback, OLB, guard or safety than any of those guys.
by hellaninersfan on Nov 16, 2009 11:07 PM PST reply actions
i dont get this post
alex smith is doing fine. in my opinion he IS our future. we hit a speed bump and lost a few games big deal it happens. especially when smith was recently just named the starter. we all knew shaun hill wasnt the final answer so unless you guys want to throw in nate davis, i think smith will be just fine. our game vs the bears was huge. it was an amazing win and the first for crabtree as a niner. look for things to start clicking and for us to start rolling here pretty soon. keep throwing to davis and get everyone healthy. if were not players this post season we damn sure will be next postseason
by nhlogan on Nov 17, 2009 1:53 AM PST reply actions
Draft a QB somewhat high
Let Smith keep going and if he turns the corner, great! If not, then let him get the starts next year. If He is struggling by week 6-7, then go with the new guy. Kepp Hill for the 3rd String and drop Nate Davis.
Why would they drop Nate Davis?
He hasn’t done anything wrong
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 17, 2009 11:58 PM PST up reply actions
because Drew thinks he's dumb.
"Pat is still just scratching the surface." - Coach Singletary on LB Patrick Willis
lol talk about equal opportunity for all.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 18, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
I like the drafting thing....
I’d take a QB somewhat early, have an open competition between new guy, Smith, Davis, winner starts, drop Hill.
A three QB race will never work.
Barely enough reps for a two horse race and it still hurts the development of the offense.
Main reason I comment the 1st round QB starter rate is a self fulfilling prophecy. The team has to pick a QB in March without a competition. Who do they pick? The guy they are paying all the money and who they have tied their own job to.
from the college players i'm seeing.
no one is ready to come in and start.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 18, 2009 6:30 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think the defense needs much enhancement at this point
Especially if Franklin comes back, QB will be a much bigger priority.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 2:20 AM PST up reply actions
our defense is as bad at closing as our offense. We need to stop the pass, both in the trenches and in the secondary.That will probably eat up at least two of our early draft picks. Plus a OT, that leaves 1 value pick. I like Rondo McClain to eventually replace TKO with our 2nd first round pick if he’s there, or a quick running back like Spiller or Best, since injury-prone Frank Gore’s career will likely be shorter than we all expect.
Davis may not be great, but are any of the draft options better?
by hellaninersfan on Nov 19, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
Yes
But I also don’t like McClain, if for no other reason than the Ted only plays 60% of the snaps. It doesn’t seem worth it to invest a first rounder for that spot.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
I really don't wat to see us draft McClain
We’ll ruin his career.
The coaches will probably want to play him on the D-line in the nickel defense.
He needs to be a true No.1 MLB
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 19, 2009 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
We could still use pass-rush help
Even if Manny has definitely been better than the pessimists expected.
One of our two first-round picks much be spent on a tackle, but you can often get a quality, ready-to-start RT mid-to-low in the first round. If we want a first-year-impact pass-rusher, we almost certainly should go after him with the higher of our two first round picks.
Then maybe a guard or safety in the second round.
Yeah, I can get behind that
Although it’d be nice if we could wait until the second round to draft a RT if possible.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
didn't staley play LT in college?
i read that somewhere, if so we can get either tackle and just place them accordingly.
by whitemike1644 on Nov 19, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
Yes
I’m pretty sure. But Staley is a much better fit there, I don’t think he’d be a good fit at RT.
by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
Staley was a LT in college, RT as a rookie
As a rule of thumb your LT is supposed to be quicker, and your RT stronger, although most players who play one position should be able to play the other, since a LT does plenty of drive-blocking and an RT still matches up against top pass-rushers.
Looks like a possibility
Of course the places these guys are at in relation will be in a state of flux till up to draft really but some good possibilities in the first and second round.Below is some information I gleaned from ESPN’s Scout’s INC Top 100 Possible drafted players.
1) Russell Okung OT 6’8" 299 Oklahoma State Overall Rank: 4
2) Trent Williams OT 6’5" 306 Oklahoma Overall Rank: 19
3) Charles Brown OT 6’5¼" 285 USC 92 Overall Rank: 22
4) Bryan Bulaga OT 6’6" 311 Iowa Overall Rank: 25
5) Anthony Davis OT 6’5½" 328 Rutgers Overall Rank: 27
6) Tony Washington OT 6’6⅛" 300 Abilene Christian Overall Rank: 58
7) Selvish Capers OT 6’4⅝" 293 West Virginia Overall Rank: 72
8) Edward Wang OT 6’4⅝" 298 Virginia Tech Overall Rank: 81
9) Sam Young OT 6’7½" 314 Notre Dame Overall Rank: 84
10) Kyle Calloway OT 6’6½" 318 Iowa Overall Rank: 90
11) Jason Fox OT 6’6" 301 Miami (FL) Overall Rank: 94
12) Ciron Black OT 6’4" 327 LSU Overall Rank: 113
13) Adam Ulatoski OT 6’8" 296 Texas Overall Rank: 134
So if we extrapolate a wee bit and consider Overall Rank as where they might be picked, it looks like some good choices still available for an RT in the second.
by ChesapeakeBay9er on Nov 20, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
FWIW I just don't usually expect a second-round draft pick
to have an immediate impact. Rachal is more typical – a guy with a lot of physical skills who is going to need some work to get to the point of being an effective pro.
What about Loadholt (spelling)?
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 20, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
Great pick up!
He seems to be a real lucky catch. I do like him. What was his draft point? By that I mean what round and pick did they get him at? Can’t remember and too lazy to look it up at the moment. :-)
by ChesapeakeBay9er on Nov 20, 2009 5:52 PM PST up reply actions
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=phil+loadholt+wiki
Round 2 pick 54
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
by SportsChicken on Nov 20, 2009 10:27 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Peyton Manning’s face on all 32 NFL logos
- Todd Haley could be in for a bumpy ride in Pittsburgh
- Alex Smith caddied for Jim Harbaugh at AT&T Pro-Am
- Boston (in) Common: Kevin Youkilis set to marry Tom Brady’s sister
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
