Colts 18 - 49ers 14: Grading out QB Alex Smith
by David Fucillo on Nov 2, 2009 7:00 AM PST
in San Francisco 49ers News
Email
PrintWhen I was writing yesterday's recap, I mentioned that I was withholding comments on Alex Smith. Given how big a story it was in 49ers-land when Smith was elevated to QB1, I felt it was definitely deserving of its own post. Additionally, I thought it'd be useful to provide an opportunity to grade Smith's performance. I think an assessment of his performance will be rather interesting and will hopefully provide some insight into what people are thinking of Smith.
Statistically, it obviously was not the best day he's ever had: 19/32, 198 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 74.7 QB rating. A subjective observation of Smith would indicate some struggles on his part. For the purposes of this assessment, I thought I'd start with the negatives and then move on to the positives. There is plenty of gray area here, but there is also some black and white observations that can be made.
Starting on the negative side, he definitely sailed some passes. For instance, the pass to Crabtree that was intercepted seemed a bit high. Six inches lower and Crabtree hauls that in. I went back and checked out the interception and it seemed to be off the tips of Crabtree's fingers, meaning no real chance for him to make a play. Beyond that there was at least one other instance I recall where Smith had a ball sail on Isaac Bruce right at a Colts defender, who thankfully dropped it. So the sailing is something to be addressed. Of course it's better than chucking balls into the ground in front of your receivers, am I right?
Smith also had some issues with pocket presence on at least one sack. It seemed like he should have anticipated a bit more and unloaded the ball. The last Freeney sack though was tough to get away from so less blame for him on that one.
After the jump we look into the good from Smith...
I know the numbers don't reflect it, but all things considered, I actually thought Alex Smith's performance yesterday could have been a whole lot worse. That's not the most inspiring comment, but I suppose it's a step in the right direction. I'm not sure how many other folks feel this, but when I watch Smith guiding the offense, and I watch Shaun Hill guiding the offense, I just have a greater amount of confidence when Smith is behind center. In the end my level of confidence in Smith is obviously meaningless for this team's chances of winning games.
However, I like having a QB that actually makes me feel like the 49ers offense can actually hang around against a better offense. Sure the offense sputtered at times, but they were certainly attempting to make things happen. Excluding sacks, the 49ers attempted 32 passes and rushed the ball 19 times. I'm not looking for a Steve Spurrier pitch and catch offense by any stretch of the imagination. However, I do like an offense that is willing to open things open up a bit.
Alex Smith may not be the greatest QB in the world, but I think he probably puts the 49ers offense in a better position to succeed than Shaun Hill does. Smith simply makes plays Shaun Hill can not. As much as I like Shaun Hill, he just lacks certain key physical characteristics that a successful QB often needs. Now I'm definitely not about to say Alex Smith is the answer for this team long term. Six quarters of football is not enough to tell us that. However, I do think the six quarters have shown us Alex Smith is not the same QB he was two seasons ago. Maybe he's not Joe Montana, but I think he is a much better QB today than he was two years ago. Of course, given where the bar was set, that's not exactly saying much. But again, like I mentioned above in saying he could be worse, it's a start.
I wanted to get in one more "good" point for Smith. His scrambling ability, while not Steve Young-esque, is good enough to bring something to the table. Shaun Hill could make short runs when needed, but he was not a guy you wanted tucking down the ball. Alex Smith did not have any huge gains on the ground, but he seems to be much better at buying time outside the pocket, as compared to Shaun Hill.
I've attached a poll asking for a vote on how you'd grade Alex Smith A through F. I thought about adding pluses and minuses but then the poll just gets out of hand. My analysis of the "good" in Smith makes this appear more like a referendum on Smith vs. Hill, but let's just keep the poll as an assessment of Alex Smith's performance in four quarters against the Colts. In the comments, feel free to offer your reasons for deciding the way you did as well.
307 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I give him bonus points...
…for being better than Peyton Manning. Plus, he made some really good throws, and after Gore’s big run, the only time our offense moved was when we threw the ball.
The biggest thing I noticed from Alex was his much improved awareness. His big problem 2 years ago was just standing there and getting sacked…he probably avoided 3-4 sacks yesterday.
So, counting our line issues and their pass rush along with his performance, I’ll give him a B.
Never use a big word where a diminutive alternative would suffice.
Yeah, it really is worth noting that Staley was out for pretty much the whole game. It’s amazing that he wasn’t sacked 10 times.
Gore had some nice picks on Freeney, though. It’s nice having a back who can actually pick up a block.
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 2, 2009 8:06 AM PST up reply actions
I give him bonus points for being better than Peyton Manning.
Really? In what aspect was he better than Peyton Manning on Sunday? I realize that Manning didn’t have a TD pass, but he moved his offense down the field better during the course of the game than Alex Smith did (which still isn’t saying much).
A 74.7 passer rating isn’t anything to get too excited about.
passer rating is a meaningless stat
but regardless, I would agree that Alex did not out perform Peyton.
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 2, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
Why is it meaningless?
In the games on Sunday, 10 out of the 11 winning QBs had a passer rating that was higher than the rating of the losing QB. The sole exception was Matt Sanchez losing to the Dolphins. With a rate that high, you’d still deny a correlation between the rating and a QB’s performance?
And passing rating aside- I just feel like saying that Alex Smith played better than Peyton Manning deserves some kind of explanation.
Passer rating is based on some pretty arbitrary stuff. Not even arbitrary assumptions. Just arbitrary numbers that happen to spew out results that vaguely order modern quarterbacks in a visually intuitive way. It’s not kind to historically great QBs and is absolute nonsense over single game samples.
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 2, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
But we were talking about a single game sample; whether Alex Smith performed better than Peyton Manning on Sunday. That was the claim that was made and I disputed it.
And are you denying that the 10 for 11 trend this past week means anything? It was just a coincidence? (Edit: After MNF, not surprisingly the QB with the higher passer rating once again won the game. That makes the trend 11 for 12 this week. Quite a “coincidence”!)
If you want to examine the rating over the entire season instead of a single week, the trend holds true. The QBs with the top five passer ratings have a combined 30-6 record. The QBs with the bottom five passer ratings are a combined 7-29. Are you really going to tell me that this is just a coincidence too?
Give me a break. People who want to try to say that the passer rating is meaningless in the NFL speak a lot of fluff without using any facts to back up their assertions.
1. Only interceptions are accounted for in the QB Ratings, not fumbles or number of time sacked.
2. It calculates INT based on the average per attempt. If a QB throws 3 INTs in 30 attempts, he’ll have a higher rating than if he threw 3 INTs in 20 attemptes, regardless of the fact that 3 INTs came in the same contest.
3. The same can be said about TD passes, they are calculated on an average per attempt as well. If a guy throws 4 TD passes in 30 attempts, he’ll have a lower rating than a guy who has 4 TD passes in 20 attempts. This neglects the fact again, that both QBs had 4 TD passes in one game.
Obviously, the QB on the winning team is going to have the better QB rating because generally A, Teams that win turn the ball over less; B, Teams that win have a better balance between run/pass; and C, Teams that trail are passing more to catch up.
The QB Rating is useless. And again, I was agreeing that Alex Smith did not outplay Peyton Manning, but saying so because of a QB Ratings is ridiculous. Manning threw for 347 yards and had a 64% completion rate, yet his rating was 86. Alex Smith has 196 yards, 59% completion rate, but his rating was only 11.5 points lower at 74.6?
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 3, 2009 6:57 AM PST up reply actions
Funny thing is ...
I agree with you that QB rating is a mediocre stat, but quite frankly you SHOULD look at RATES for ints (and TDs) and not the per game numbers.
Now, mind you, TDs aren’t a meaningful individual stat for QBs anyway. But ints are, and the most important number is INT rate.
in a season total yes
the per attempt factor is more relevant, but not in a single game factor.
the end of year QB Rating is much more “meaningful” than a game by game QB rating is what I was trying to point out.
regardless, I don’t think the QB rating at the end of the year is that much better, but I certainly don’t think a rating for an individual game has any merit at all.
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 3, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
Just because the results look good doesn’t mean that the method is right. Andrew lays it out in detail below, so I’ll stick to a more analogy-driven tack.
I’ve used this example before, but using QB rating as a way to see which QB played better is like saying “discriminating against minorities is wrong because their food is delicious.”
Yeah, the conclusion might be spot on, but your method is so backward and contradictory that you’re still dead 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 3, 2009 8:05 AM PST up reply actions
Oh man, has new SB done away with hard breaks?
Let’s see if two soft breaks does the trick.
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 3, 2009 8:06 AM PST up reply actions
Crap, what a hassle.
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 3, 2009 8:06 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, they fixed it. Now I look like an idiot.
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 3, 2009 8:17 AM PST up reply actions
And by “below” I mean “above”. It was below when I was typing the comment.
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 3, 2009 8:07 AM PST up reply actions
Passing Rating isn't useless, but it also isn't the end-all stat either
Outliers screw them up, as well as the lack of rushing yardage (for the QB) or fumbles.
7
It's the worst of all possible metrics...
…in that it’s incredibly complex, stated in terms of random units that nobody knows (74.7…yards, points, ???), with no actual correlation to success.
I guess I was just going by...
…all the Colts fans in my section who wondered why the “Happy Feet” Peyton was back. He under threw multiple guys and then missed a wide-open receiver on a 2-pointer with no pressure on him at all. I wasn’t saying Alex Smith is better than Peyton but just saying Peyton was brutal all day.
Never use a big word where a diminutive alternative would suffice.
Mea Culpa
As a Colts fan living in Indy. I would like to say that I was impressed by the 49er effort and Alex Smith’s performance in particular. The team was obviously well prepared. The colts were fortunate to get the win. Since Alex has taken the field I see a much more confident team. Sheepishly, I must admit that I was telling everyone I could that it would be a blow out. Now it is my turn to eat some crow! Good Luck!!
I voted B
but only because he never faked an injury. The defense gets As across the board for faking leg cramps all game long, stalling Colts drives and preventing Manning from throwing a TD.
/sarcasm
Smith did a good job yesterday, all things considered. A lot of people are talking about how poor the offense did in the second half, but fail to acknowledge how much better the Colts defense played in the final two quarters. Smith’s only INT came on a tipped ball that was a high throw. Only Cris Carter could’ve one handed that for a catch, and Crabtree would’ve got killed if he went up there with two hands.
I thought Smith showed pretty good poise, and I thought the O-Line gave him enough chances to take what the defense was giving. The Colts came out in the second half and really started clamping down and playing tight defense. There wasn’t much there for Smith to take. A few dropped balls put Smith’s completion % under 60 (and hurt his ypa too).
Smith attempted 32 passes and had a 6.2 ypa rate. Manning had 48 pass attempts at 7.2 ypa. Smith was sacked 4 times and lost 16 yards in the sacks, while Manning was sacked 3 times and lost 20 yards. I’d say it’s a pretty comparable game between the two QBs, the difference at the end of the day was execution. The Colts executed better in the second half on offense and defense, and the 49ers just couldn’t beat a team that was that(I’m holding up my two fingers about an inch apart) much better yesterday.
the INT
I think it’s kind of contradictory though to intimate that the INT wasn’t entirely Smith’s fault because it was a high throw that was tipped…don’t you? I mean…it was a high throw. Sure it may have fallen incomplete if not tipped by Crabtree…but high throws also sail directly into the hands of safeties like almost happened on some of the other sailing misses he had in this game.
I gave him a C because that’s kinda the “average” category. He did good, made some plays, made some bad throws too, got sacked 4 times which was perhaps only partially his fault but nonetheless…it was an average performance.
Again, as fooch said, i’m not comparing him to Hill when I grade him “C”. If I was comparing his performance to how I thought Hill would have fared in this game…I would have given A.Smith a “B”.
You don't understand the new math they're using in schools...
B is the new C. C is terrible, D is gawdawful, and F is WTFYSL.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
I wasn't excusing the INT as not Smith's fault
if that’s how you took it.
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 2, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions
alex smith
sailing passes is critical. he misses his target. Smith and Hill are just a fill-in, anyway, until Nate the Great is ready.
Smith is in for the remainder of the season (barring injury). if he turns it around, great. if he continues missing the receivers, it’s “come on, Nate.”
Nate no earlier than mid-season 2010. Maybe the Niners will have an O-line that will give him 3.5 seconds.
Regarding Alex: First half – B. Second half – D. I give him a high C for the week.
Truth has a well-known liberal bias.
Look, for the second half, i’d still give him a B, because the receivers didn’t catch the ball, the line didn’t protect well, and i have to look at the offensive scheme compared to the first half. Towards the end of the first half, when they were in the 2 minute drill, just check out what Smith did in that span, again in the spread. He needs to be in the spread due to the fact he sees the field better, and let’s be honest he looks so much better in that type of system, but some how Raye should be able to work in the run. So overall i’m giving him a B on both first and second half. He looks so much more mature
Totally agree re the receivers...
…and line. This week highlighted once again how much Bruce has declined. Also, credit to the Colts for stepping it up in the second half.
For sure, i agree credit the colts with their D, but this just proves the niners can play with anybody, and i love the effort, but i’m hoping Raye looks at what Smith did this week against the Colts and plays to Smith’s strengths for the rest of the season, he just slices through the D easily when in the spread
I’m reaaaalllly losing my patience with Jimmy Raye. The thing that really, really, really bothers me about him is that he’s obviously capable of calling an efficient game. We’ve been seeing drives all season long where suddenly we get a long, extended drive with efficient pass plays and well-timed runs where we march the length of the field and stick the ball in the endzone. We saw it with Shaun Hill on more than one occasion. We’ve seen it with Alex Smith now in both games that he’s played.
I just can’t stand that he only calls an actual offensive scheme when the team is down by 10+ or when there are less than three minutes to go in the half. If you’ve repeatedly done something that works, regardless of QB, and if you’ve repeatedly done something that doesn’t work, regardless of QB, it’s insanity to keep doing the thing that doesn’t work. And it’s really starting to piss me off.
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 2, 2009 8:12 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Rumor has it...
…that Smith’s headset failed during that final first-half scoring drive. Coincidence?
And I’m sure his headset failed three times last week, too. I feel like the delay of game was also a problem for him two years ago. I’m not sure he has the clock awareness he should.
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 2, 2009 8:27 AM PST up reply actions
Ha! I thought you were replying to my other comment.
Nice joke. Now that I get it, I’m laughing.
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 2, 2009 8:28 AM PST up reply actions
clock awareness
One of those delay of games last week was because Crabtree lined up in the wrong spot and they were trying to figure it out. I thought I read somewhere that Smith thought the sideline was gonna call the timeout. Not something he should do, but something to keep in mind I think.
by David Fucillo on Nov 2, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions
I agree about the clock awareness
the last few years we’ve really had a problem with getting plays in on time and getting to the line. We’ve taken a lot of delay penalties or wasted a lot of time outs. Hard to say if the blame shoudl go to the QB or the OC for not getting the play in on time
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Good question, but I'm betting it would help
If we could ever have the same QB and coordinator from year-to-year.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
They had three nice drives going yesterday
That ended with INT, fumble and sacked out of FG range. Raye looks worse than he is because we can’t get any continuity with our drives. If memory serves, Smith had just passed for two first downs and we were moving, up 7-3, and I’m thinking we’re about to extend the lead. Then the INT which was not Raye’s fault.
3rd quarter, we’re up 14-9 and have just run for two first downs. We’re using some clock and even if we don’t score, we ca flip field position with a punt. Except Crabtree fumbled. That was not Raye’s fault.
When trailing 18-14, we moved the ball into FG range despite the dropped pass from Bruce. We then get a delay of game and sacked. I actually think this is a bit of raye’s fault since I wanted a draw play to assure a FG. But Indy did a 3-man rush and our QB still got sacked and that is not Raye’s fault.
There are things to not like about Raye’s playcalling. But too much blame is placed on his shoulders.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
by SpurredOn on Nov 2, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with that, too.
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 2, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions
The reason
people a re placing blame on Raye is because of his lack of creativity… it’s not for all the things you mentioned above. Of course all of those things cannot be put on Raye because the players are the ones who made the mistakes. However, if you’re not taking chances, you’re calling run plays to the fullback on a 2nd and 10 because it worked one time in the past, etc… you’re not utilizing your talent and or playmaker(s). You use a fullback in short yardage situations like he did on a couple 3rd and 1’s. He’s not stretching the field. He’s not often creating mismatches. I suspect that if Crabtree was in his 3rd year and Raye was still here that if Crabtree was being doubled that he wouldn’t try and think outside the box to create 1 on 1 situations. To me, it’s not completely the plays that he is calling but when and what. I can’t totally wrap it up in to one little paragraph but I find myself going, “what the hell was that Jimmy?” on several plays throughout the course of the games; even on some of the plays that we get lucky and convert on. I personally don’t think Jimmy Raye is the long term answer. Personally I think we need a younger guy who is hungry, that can grow with the franchise, who takes more chances, and doesn’t sit on the ball with a small lead but goes for the jugular. Someone we can get the continuity with thats not going to die or retire soon. We have the talent, it’s just not being used correctly, IMO.
I don't think it's about "hunger"
I actually think Raye is here because Sing wanted someone who had been there/done that while dealing with so many young players on offense who had been in multiple systems the past few years plus a QB competition.
I also think the “what he hell was that Jimmy” comes about when plays don’t work but you have to look at the players. Smtih drops back to pass and his foot is stepped on. He gets sacked by a 3-man rush. Bruce drops a ball. Alex threw high over a wide-open Bruce. Crabtree fumbles. These are not Raye’s fault. I hate that I’m left to defend him but many of the arguments against him are incorrect (saying we run too much) or vague (he nees to mix it up but when he does people don’t like the different play because it didn’t work). He had a QB making his first start in two years. A rookie WR in his second game. Lost his LT on play number one. Oh, and was going against a good pass defense with two pass rushers we wish we had. There needs to be more perspective when it comes to Raye, especially since Smith and Crabtree have begun playing. There also needs to be more accuracy and specifics with the arguments against him.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
also think the "what he hell was that Jimmy" comes about when plays don’t work but you have to look at the players
Incorrect… as you see above, I stated that I say this even on certain plays that are successful. I just think, “stupid playcall, we got lucky”. That is what I am saying.
Raye is not the long-term answer…I just don’t see that at all
"we got lucky"
Come on Drew. You can’t say that successful plays are because we’re lucky then blame Raye when a play doesn’t work. You have to place more responsibility on the players, starting with the O-line, and also give credit to a good defense.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I'm not saying the players aren't to be blamed as well
I’m not convinced that Raye is the guy long-term. I just watch all these other teams (successful ones) and they open it up. If they’re beating someone like we were in the Minnesota game, they don’t do the turtle thing and retract their heads in to their shell. They get aggresive and put the nail in the coffin. There’s always gonna be rebuts like, well Bly coulda sealed it and what not too but thats not what I am talking about.
It just frustrates me beyond frustration to know that we have the talent to put up 30+ points a game but don’t. And I think as long as Raye is here, we will never be that typ of team. I’m not one of the guys who is sitting here saying we run too much. I know that we pass more than we run. What I am saying is that Raye doesn’t use the guys right. I think howtheyscored mentioned the inconsistency below in this:
And I look at what looks like completely different playcalling, and I look at what appears to be a completely different level of success, and I wonder why I only see that kind of playcalling on, like, an average of one drive per game. And that’s what frustrates me about the playcalling.
I think that in a nutshell I am saying this also. I cannot see him getting more consistent or successful on more than one drive a game anytime soon. So it’s not just the players. When a team is not successful there are multiple things that aren’t going right. Raye is not part of the solution to our problems
It just frustrates me beyond frustration to know that we have the talent to put up 30+ points a game but don’t.
This is not a 30 point a game offense, not even close (see Saints and Colts). The team has some talent at the skill position but the offensive line is bottom tier.
Huuh?
Alex Smith, Frank Gore, Michael Crabtree, Vernon Davis, Josh Morgan, Isaac Bruce….and even some of the bench guys that aren’t being used correctly have plenty of talent to score 30 points a game.
It’s the play-calling. We make it look easy at times and then abandon what is working.
That's a lot of players...
Who haven’t consistently played together as a unit to claim they can consistently score 30 a game.
Jeebus, this is Smith’s first start in 2 years. Lighten the hell up.
Well, we're waiting....
What the hell are you talking about?
This convo is about Jimmy Raye and bad play-calling. You’re off topic and trying (as usual) to stir things up. Go mow a lawn or something…
You're saying that this offense..
Which is essentially still new to each other can score 30 points a game like the Saints.
Move over to the side a bit. I can cut those weeds you’re deep in right now.
Well, we're waiting....
The Saints
are scoring 40 points a game 39.7 to be exact so no one condradicts me on that also… they’re in a league of their own.
This offense has the potential to score more than it is with Raye calling the game
I think you’re underestimating how difficult it is to score 30 points a game. Even very good teams do it very seldom.
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 2, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions
I understand that
there’s only two teams that are above now. My point is that this team has the talent to score 1 more TD per game. And with the defense we have, there’s potential for alot more wins on our record than what has been accomplished.
There’s lots of blame that can go around of course but it cannot all go to the players. When you are last or near last in 3rd down conversions, that has to be chalked up a majority to bad decisions with the play-calling
Earlier this season
You thought Smith was a bust and his way out the door. Now look at you.
Well, we're waiting....
Look at me what?
I’m saying he’s doing decent… You act like I am the only one that thought that. Plenty of people thought that. Fans, media, coaches, etc…
If you’re going to just trash talk, I can ignore. I’m not stuping to your level anymore
LOL..
And what a way to show you’re “above it all” by posting a pic of a cow patty below in this thread.
Bwah!
At least you’re consistent with your hypocrisies, which includes your opinion of Smith.
Well, we're waiting....
And
your consistent in your trolling…
Btw, why’d you lose all of your favorite teams on your profile? Fanhood?
In your intellectual words, “Bwah”…whatever the hell that means
I thought...
You were gonna bag out of this “trash talk”?
BTW, feel free to add all of my subscribed SBNation blogs to your spreadsheet.
Lulz!!
Well, we're waiting....
Before yesterday
we were averaging 23 points a game… So what you’re saying is I am nuts for thinking we could avergae 1 more TD a game if we didn’t abandon what is working in certain games?
And when I said “lucky”…there are certain plays that we do get lucky on. I don’t know, maybe luck is not the exact word I would use but I have seen plays where the player barely got a first down and had to do every little thing in his power to get it because of a stupid playcall. Like a run on a 3rd and long, or screen play, etc. You cannot fully blame players when we are last in the league in 3rd down conversions
I think one could argue we're just as unlucky
How many cutback lanes have the backs missed? There are others; these things even out. Great teams speed pass luck and make very few mistakes. Good team create some luck and overcome most mistakes. Our offense, due mainly to the line but also to the inexperience of so many young players, is one step below good. I hope they can reach it (O-line excepted) by the end of the year with more PT together plus the continued maturation of Smith and Crabtree.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Um, there have been specifics.
Nobody is complaining about the fumble, or a dropped ball (actually i screamed at the TV), or a bad pass. These things happen on occasion and you deal with them and move forward.
The questionable play calling is constant
I mean, seriously. The only time that we drove the field and scored was when the offense opened up a bit, and it resulted in essentially moving at will and looking very comfortable doing it.
The playcalling has shown no willingness to adapt to what works.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
We also had three nice drives going that all ended with mistakes
That’s not Raye’s fault. If those drive go for scores, due to the players not fumbling/INT/ poor blocking, Raye looks smarter. As would any OC.
The problem is that people should be complaining about the mistakes players make instead of saying the playcalling has too may runs when in fact there were more than twice as many passes. I do not agree that those things just happen and you move forward; turnovers lose games. Indy had zero. That was the difference.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Okay, just for kicks, I looked at the play by play. Here's every first down play SF ran:
Run up the middle
6 yard pass
Sack (followed by run up the middle)
Run up the middle
Run up the middle
INC pass to the fullback
Run left
27 yard pass (this was the TD drive)
run up the middle
run behind left tackle
INC pass
run up the middle
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
So 5/12 were passes and 7/12 were runs?
A near 50/50 split. Seems balanced to me. However, if you don’t like that (which is a fair argument to have) then simply say you’d like more first down passing. I posted that during the game day thread. I wanted more passing on early downs, not because Raye runs too much or I hate the run, but because the Colts seemed to be getting better pass rush on 3rd down. There’s no guarantee it would’ve worked and we could have been in many 2nd and 10 situations. But I would have called a couple of those runs plays as passes. I also know it doesn’t guarantee success.
And thank you for looking it up.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Key words on the run plays “up the middle”…no counter’s, no run off tackles, no pitch plays, no misdirections, etc… He’s so soooo predictable
How many pitch plays or misdirection plays do you often see from more "creative" offenses
Pitches are very rare. Misdirection isn’t reported in the “play by play.”
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
See Cards game last night
Alot of pitch plays to Williams and Stewart. Also the Jets, Ravens, and Titans run alot of pitch plays successfully too
I was watching GB vs. MIN
And by lots you mean… 15% of running plays? 20%?
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Umm..
You complain about “No pitches or misdirection,” I provide some reasoning for why there weren’t any (pitches are rare and misdirection doesn’t get reported in the PbP), and you say my comment is away from the point? Not quite following your thinking…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
Those are combination misdirection & pitch plays
You want to see that play on first downs? First, a lot of first downs are on the first play of a drive. You won’t see misdirection on the first play of a drive very often, if ever, because it’s not setup just yet.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
The reason those two pitches are effective is because they're rare
Those are not normal pitch plays. Those are specifically “We see their back side end biting down when he sees the blockers going one way.” It’s creating a 1-on-1 situation with Gore and the end knowing that the end is already biting down. It’s not a play you can consistently run because it’ll get stopped.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
You are failing to realize that Raye is not being creative. When you run up the middle 7 times out of as many plays as listed above, you are failing as an OC in the National Football League. Especially when your star player is getting slammed in the face on a majority at the line. He’s beating Gore’s face in to a wall
And you're failing to realize that a
“Run up the middle” can be executed in many different ways, through various gaps, with pulling linemen, etc. And that some plays are called to set up other plays (like your beloved pitch play).
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
ALL CAPS REALLY HELP MY ARGUMENT!!!!~
GAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
Seriously Drew, have you never heard of the idea that there are two A gaps and two B gaps that can be considered “up the middle?” Do you know what a “trap” is? It doesn’t always have to be the simple “dive.”
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
Seriously Dubs, have you ever heard of the term “predictable” or “vanilla”… Hey maybe even this will help with your reasoning ablility or lack there of… teams stack the box against us when it’s a run play because they know when we’re going to run a “trap” or a “dive” or in an A gap or B gap.
So...
If we just keep calling something vanilla or predictable, it’ll somehow be true?
teams stack the box against us when it’s a run play
If the other team knows its a run play, maybe Jimmy should get his headset checked and wire tap some of his assistants’ phones. Clearly, we’ve got a rat.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
teams stack the box against us when it’s a run play because they know when we’re going to run a "trap" or a "dive" or in an A gap or B gap.
This is actually what I said. If you’re going to quote me, quote the entire thing, otherwise your twisting a point by only using a partial.
Maybe this is a new concept for ya Dubs but teams do watch film and can see just how predictable our runs are… that probably explains the stacking the box a bit more than your ludicrous and wild:
If the other team knows its a run play, maybe Jimmy should get his headset checked and wire tap some of his assistants’ phones. Clearly, we’ve got a rat.
Clearly...
A) You can’t take a joke.
and
B) "teams stack the box against us when it’s a run play because they know when we’re going to run a “trap” or a “dive” or in an A gap or B gap."
You’re implying that teams KNOW what we’re doing. If you’re suggesting this, I’d like to see some of your evidence, rather than just continually regurgitated hypotheses.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
That was a joke?
Wow, hilarious. I’m definitely gonna suggest you go in to stand up.
What evidence? The writing is on the wall. Anyone who has sat through a game knows that Jimmy Raye has been predictable with the run plays he calls. It’s not a new concept. What do you want, you want me to research and break down every single run play this season? If thats what it will take to convince you that he’s super unoriginal, then I will but its sort of a waste of time. Better yet, since you seem to have all the free time, why don’t you contradict yourself and create a FanPost in regards to EVERY single run play ran by Jimmy Raye this season
1st play of a drive?
That has nothing to do with anything…It could have been set up on the previous drive. Maybe not the first play of the game but there’s no substance to that point unless you ARE talking about the first play of a game.
Let’s face the facts here since this is what we are talking about….Jimmy Raye is not creative
Ummm...
Let’s face the facts here since this is what we are talking about….Jimmy Raye is not creative
I don’t think the facts presented support your conclusion.
Clearly, we’re getting into the “Drew’s getting passionate” realm, so I’m just going to stop here. I don’t think the presented facts suggest that Raye is the main problem. There’s lots of blame to go around everywhere (QB, WR, LOL, RB, FB, Opposing defenses doing their jobs, etc.).
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
Pitch plays aren’t that rare.
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 2, 2009 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
I’m not saying they come up every single drive, and they’re obviously used far less than a traditional handoff, but you still see them frequently.
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 2, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not really convinced that pitch plays are that common
Maybe one of the real stat heads can chime in on the numbers, but I suspect it’s lower than 15% pitch plays.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
Well, I would imagine that if 1 in 10 is 10%, lower than 15% would be pretty accurate. However, with so many plays called in a game, you don’t have to be 15% or more to be seen with frequency in a non-relative way.
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 2, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
Rare enough that you often wouldn't see them in a random selection of 10-15 plays
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
That’s true.
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 2, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Since when
did an entire football game only have 10-15 plays? They happen, do they not? You were acting like they’re as rare as a duck-billed platypus
He’s responding to the drive summary posted above.
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 2, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
You were acting like they’re as rare as a duck-billed platypus
No, you read what I wrote as if I was saying they were as rare as duck billed platypus. The topic of conversation was the 1st down plays run vs. Indy, not the game as a whole.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
The topic began
with Jimmy Raye. Way to follow…
Comment I responded to by SpurredOn:
There are things to not like about Raye’s playcalling. But too much blame is placed on his shoulders.
Sigh...
And the facts presented were the play calling on first down. To which you requested more pitches & misdirection…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
Exactly
Whats your point?
Jimmy Raye has ran 2 pitch plays out of, what, 7 games now? Real creative there
I really don't comprehend you
You’re forgetting the pitch play we ran in Minny… remember? The one where Coffee dropped the ball, was lucky enough to have it bounce back to him, and then got tackled for a 5 yard loss? Remember that one? Maybe that’s part of the reason more aren’t called. Because pitch plays are more risky than handoffs.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, you know what, you convinced me…Jimmy Raye is a genius…he should be given every award there is… In fact, he should be given the head coaching position next year because of his pure genius ability alone….
One word suits you best in regards to this topic: Blind
Strawman
I never said he was genius, just that the presented facts didn’t substantiate the conclusion that you came to. If you have other facts to present, go for it.
Until then, this “blind” man is going to keep waiting for you to come up with a coherent argument for or against something without jumping to and fro in an effort to confuse people and change the subject because he has no idea what he’s talking about.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
Drew!
Look! A humming bird!
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
I see...
Word association. If I keep calling Raye “vanilla,” maybe it’ll be true.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
I think I speak for more people than just myself when I say that this particular exchange has moved well past the point of self-parody at this point.
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 2, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t see trees fall in the forest either but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
I don’t see how one thing was plucked out of what I originally said to begin with anyway. This was the point.
Key words on the run plays "up the middle"…no counter’s, no run off tackles, no pitch plays, no misdirections, etc… He’s so soooo predictable
Drew - run up the middle leaves no room for perspective
By that I mean, was it a counter sweep but Gore had to turn it up inside? I saw one yesterday where Bass was slow in pulling so Gore’s outside run gets counted as “up the middle.” Perhaps that’s why Raye calls fewer outside runs, as he knows the Guards don’t excel at pulling.
I’ve seen what appeared to be outside runs called in prior games but the RB was tackled beind the Guard because the penetration was too quick. It’s now always as it appears which I why I am always stating that I wish I could sit in on the film session, to know what was really called and where the mistake was made.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Don't bother
Raye is vanilla and predictable, and we’re blind.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
Of course they got a better pass rush on 3rd down
They knew there was a pass coming because the first and second down runs only gained 4 yards.
it’s not even so much that it’s OMG JUST KEEP RUNNING OFF TACKLE.
It’s so very conservative. Even the passes (aside from the TD drive) were short.
I mean, is it just a coincidence that the ONLY TIME they actually threw the ball downfield, they drove and scored a TD in about 90 seconds?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
How many occassions yesterday did we run on 1st and 2nd down?
I would bet maybe two times at most. I know we opened the game with a 7 yd gain. Running on 2nd & 3 seems simple enough for a pro offense, yet we couldn’t get that done.
Also, the TD drive had one downfield pass; the first play. Everything else was the same distance as most other passes all game. It was great 2-min drive. Being in the hurry-up seemed to gas the Colts passrushers. Perhaps they were also playing a more conservative defense; I don’t know. Again, I’’m okay with more pass plays on early downs. Or using the hurry-up more often if Raye thinks our offense can handle it in the flow of the game. But I know that with our O-line, pass plays have just as much opportunity to be blocked poorly as run plays only with worse results. I can’t blame Raye for being more cautious than some of us think we’d be when you consider that.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Nobody
is blaming Raye for the players mistakes. It’s the lack of creativity, it’s the inconsistency on playcalling, it’s just Raye…. he’s never been successful anywhere he has been with exception to possibly the Rams in the 80’s. Besides that, he’s never been anywhere long-term. I wonder why…
He’s just too conservative…I think in today’s NFL, the successful teams have guts and take chances. I don’t see that in Raye. He telegraphs the play calls. And he just isn’t it long-term. He’s 63 years old and not getting younger. He’s still trying to run the same offense he was when he had Eric Dickerson and the game has evolved.
Nonsense
Creatively, what kind of crappy slippery slope argument is that? How do you judge creativity?
Why don’t you log into the game thread next week and call out each Jimmy Raye play before it happens if he is so predictable and uncreative?
It's funny you say that
cause watching the game with my brother, I called out at least 5 run plays…and then shortly afterward cussed Raye cause it was obvious what was coming. He telegraphs the stuff
The game has my full attention when it’s on. I don’t have any desire to be online when the game is going
I think the thing for me is that I look at those drives like Shaun Hill had in Arizona or Minnesota, or like Smith had at the end of the first half this game, or the whole second half last game, and I go “these are the drives that we’re moving the ball… almost effortlessly, even… and these are the drives where visually, it appears the offense is running a completely different scheme.”
And I look at what looks like completely different playcalling, and I look at what appears to be a completely different level of success, and I wonder why I only see that kind of playcalling on, like, an average of one drive per game. And that’s what frustrates me about the playcalling.
There are plenty of things that frustrate me about the players, but as long as Raye is the topic of the day, that’s my beef.
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 2, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
I do get this
But I also remind myself that if we called other drives the same as the successful ones, they all wouldn’t work. Otherwise we’d be the ‘07 Patriots and we are far from that. One thing that stops us from having more consistency and thus more overall plays is the line. How many run plays get stuffed for zero or negative yards? How many drives stall becuase the QB got sacked or had to throw it away? When the line has a solid 8-10 play performance, we tend to score. But those perfromances do not happen often enough. Raye’s calls look fine and then boom, Chilo whiffs on a block. Drive over and Raye looks predictable.
I also think any assessment of Raye has to be pre-Houston and since Houston. It seems that with the addition of Crabtree plus the strengths that Alex brings over Hill, Raye has been calling a more aggresive game plan. Or Smith is just able to attempt and complete passes that Hill could not.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
And I look at what looks like completely different playcalling, and I look at what appears to be a completely different level of success, and I wonder why I only see that kind of playcalling on, like, an average of one drive per game. And that’s what frustrates me about the playcalling.
It’s called dimentia…. Raye’s a senior citizen…it happens when you get old. In all seriousness though, I’m not sure if I am the only one that notices this when Raye is being interviewed, but it seems like he forgets what he is saying alot of times and then just improv’s the rest
Agreed...
Don’t we ultimately want whatever works? At the end of the first half, the 49ers went no huddle and drove right down the field for a score. Why wasn’t that tried at least once in the second half? 14 points at half, 14 at the end of the game – even if you use the “new math”, that’s a big goose egg in the second half.
I have always believed that coaches need to adapt to the strengths of the players they are coaching. Smith performs well in the shotgun…play from the shotgun 80% of the time. It doesn’t mean you can’t run the football, but isn’t the objective to maximize your players’ individual abilities and give them the best chance to succeed?
My problem with Raye is twofold – he is relying on our offensive line to punch holes when the line is arguably the weakest part of the team. I understand that you have to run the football, but there are different ways to do it (counters, pitches, etc.) Secondly, his first down calls seem to either be runs or short passes, which constantly put the 49ers in 2nd and 3rd and long situations. If the defense is stacking the line of scrimmage, play action and throw downfield to back them off. Until teams start to see the 49ers consistently do this, the team will continue to struggle on 1st down. Variety Jimmy, please, just a little bit of variety…
"Granted, this is not a great situation, but when all you have is lemons, you add some vodka to dull the pain..."
Short passes
So you also wouldn’t like the Bill Walsh offense? He believed in using the short passing game to set up and 2 and medium/short as well as to replace some of the running plays.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I have no problem whatsoever with it, but...
the 49er teams you are referring to also had a vertical game to be very afraid of, and teams didn’t dare stack the line unless they wanted to see #80 running right by them.
My point is that as long as the 49ers continue to use such a conservative approach on 1st downs, teams will continue to crowd the line and the 49ers will be faced with long 2nd downs. And while the 49ers don’t have a threat like Rice, they do have the ability to throw downfield, especially if the other team isn’t expecting them to…
"Granted, this is not a great situation, but when all you have is lemons, you add some vodka to dull the pain..."
Smith will get better
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Nov 2, 2009 8:04 AM PST up reply actions
The two of you are...
idiots. Sorry, not a word I like to use often, but you both have no idea what you are talking about and clearly no real evidence to support the claim that Nate Davis is even capable of leading the Niner offense. A few plays against a third team defenses in the pre-season and a four year career in the M.A.C. does not a starting NFL QB make. You both are living in la-la land if you think that somehow Davis is prepared to be a stater in the NFL, let alone surpass a the overall first round pick in the NFL draft. Smith is a superior athlete (Davis might win in arm strength, but what’s the real difference in being able to throw the ball 70 yards compared to 60) and has far more field intelligence and experience than Davis. Enough of this talk about Davis becoming the eventual starter – it’s not going to happen! Smith threw one bad pass that was off by about half of a foot, the rest of the day he threw strong, solid strikes. B
+10000
pre-season doesnt count for anything. The nexxt person who calls Nate Davis – Nate the Great is gonna get banned.
nate the great?
isn’t that Nate “the great” Thurmond? am i gonna get banned? :( come on guys, he’s at least another year from anything, and i agree, pre-season doesnt say a whole lot, i’m sure anybody would look good as a 3rd QB
I have to agree
Nate Davis has looked good in meaningless preseason games against 3rd string defenses, but it’s hard to really judge a player on that. Maybe he’ll turn into a great player. One of those hidden gems. After all, Tom Brady wasn’t drafted untill the 6th round. Then again, maybe he’ll never be anything more than a reliable backup like Seneca Wallace in Seattle. Or maybe he’ll bounce around the league for a few years and end up doing nothing. Either way, it’s way too soon to start naming him the savior of the 49ers.
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
exactly
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Personally
I don’t ever see Davis even getting a shot. Especially if the Niners draft another QB. It’s wearing on me seeing all these people even mentioning Davis when he’s our 3rd string QB. If he was our 2nd string then okay…but he’s not. It’s not very logical in my opinion to be clamouring for a guy who’s last on the depth chart. Smith has only had 6 quarters of football in regular season and people are calling for his head already. I will wait to pass judgment until the end of the year.
I thought Smith looked decent yesterday. Were there things he could have done diferently? Of course but the same argument could be made about Peyton Manning who threw 0 TD passes and 0 INT’s.
nate
Production you can argue. What you produce against a 3rd string defense, how many completions, yards, TD’s…etc. I get that.
Skill you can measure as well though and matters only slightly against whom you are playing. Making an accurate, on time throw is something I saw Nate do a lot of in PS. Granted he may have had more time to throw due to scrubs in on defense. Granted the DB’s might not have been in a position to bat down a pass like starters would have been. But I did see him make good decisions and throws.
So for that there is hope he may turn into something…who knows what…but there is potential.
The fear I think is taking another project draft pick guy and staking the future on their development. I tend to think free agency, although much more unlikely that you can find a guy, gives you a better percentage of success. Again, the right guy probably won’t be available. But then we’re weighing this:
Is Nate Davis closer to being a starter after having a year under his belt than a guy from the draft? Is a 1st rounder in better position than a guy who might not have been a first rounder but has a year of practice, playbook, watching veterans, etc?
It’s a bit of a gamble either way.
Lot of posters on these boards with the number 81 in their handles. Interesting.
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 2, 2009 8:07 AM PST up reply actions
I’ve never heard of those kinds of rocks. Are they sedimentary?
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 2, 2009 8:13 AM PST up reply actions
I would give him a C+...
…rounded up to a B. Interestingly, his QB rating yesterday was about what it was during his best season (2006).
Smith's QB rating yesteday=Smith's QB rating in 2006
That is interesting. I’m not sure if Smith will ever be an A at QB, but if he consistently gives the team a B-level performance, that’s probably enough for the team to win. It’s well above the football equivalent of the Mendoza line—Bill Simmons calls it the Trudeau line. The thing is that with a few more weeks of practice, I can see Smith going up from where he is now—something that Raider fans, Browns fans, Bills fans, Rams fans, Bucs fans and many other fans can’t say.
Morgan breaks through in 2009!
He's better than Trudeau for sure
That’s Russell and Anderson territory.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I tend to agree
some of the kinks hopefully will be ironed out the more time he has practicing with the 1’s. Still, with crabtree and vernon davis (and yes, the rest of the guys) to bail you out…I sure’s heck hope that his numbers at least start to resemble legitamacy. All I would ask for is 200+yards and 1-2 TD’s with no INT’s.
One more drive and he would've had 200+ yards
Perhaps even that 2nd TD to win the game. But we couldn’t get the ball back for the final six minutes.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I gave him a B
I really think that he played very very well, given the opportunities that he had. He had at least 3 dropped passes that I counted, and I know at least two of his incompletions were due to being pressured out of the pocket. I agree that he sailed a couple of passes and should have avoided one sack, but how many times was he pressured? The more he is out there this year, the better he is going to be.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME ALEX SMITH!
I own an Alex Smith Jersey and would have been ashamed to say so the past couple years, but I am wearing it proudly now and supporting our new qb. He’s no Steve Young or Joe Montana, but give him some time and see this being a great season!
Yup this isn’t the same qb. He looks like he knows whats up no more deer in the headlights look anymore. Hopefully he tears it up against the Titans
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Nov 2, 2009 8:06 AM PST up reply actions
you gotta support him
you just do. these guys are playing hard and trying. they aren’t going to play any better if we boo them.
We can Do it
We are still undefeated in our division and I do believe that we can win against non-divison teams. We just got to do the small things that put us over the top. I am hoping that the Titans game will put us on the right path to that winning streak we need. All the bandwagon guys should be gone so the real fans should be excited.
Revenge is a dish best served in the playoffs!
Considering the offensive line and the pass protection he gets,
I give him an A.
Nothing against any particular player, but Fooch, I think you have understated the effect our offensive line has on play calling and on the ability of a quarterback to execute.
One just has no confidence that they can protect, and that effects everything the offense does. Each completed pass occurs in the context of this stress and adversity.
Probably 3 or 4 of the players we have now, Staley included, will be part of a much stronger offensive line next year, but this year we are really stymied.
What would Montana have been able to do without players like Keith Franhorst looking out for him. At this point, based on what I have seen, we do not need to draft a QB; that is, Alex Smoth is the QB of the next 8 years for the 49ers.
I think that Alex Smith has looked very good during the time that he’s played this season. He’s fitting the ball into passing lanes that I haven’t seen anybody hit since Garcia (and believe me, that hurts me to say). He’s really got something going with Vernon Davis. He’s even made Isaac Bruce look somewhat less old and terrible from time to time.
I gave him a B, though. He made some mistakes. He still has to get that delay of game monkey off his back. He still has to keep the ball down just a little. But he’s making good reads and confident throws. He’s giving himself protection when the line doesn’t. I don’t know… he looks good.
And I hope it lasts. Maybe it won’t. But I hope it does.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
The perfect example is that pass to Crabtree for like 15 yards, he just zipped it right to him.
I think that delay of game thing will pass, his first real start in 2 years, so i’ll give him a pass, but the offense looked good the first half, but stalled due to play calling the second half. Like i said, he’s making good readsa nd confident throws because he’s more mature
audible!
I think he should start using audibles when he knows the run is going to get smashed! That and there have to be some deep routes being run. Take a shot. I agree with someone (perhaps from a different blog?) who asked why Crabtree deep hasn’t been tried? I know he’s more known as a possession receiver but the guy has good hands. If he ever got into single coverage deep…I’d uncork it.
By the way, props to Barry Sims for filling in for Joe Staley, giving up ONLY 1 sack, plus Smith’s doin OK eluding the sack
should be interesting to see if Simms earned himself any time at least in a rotation. Like someone said, if Staley comes back and can play right side or we can do some sort of shuffle, maybe we can patch together a good line before playoff run time (oh wait…that’s now for teams like us!)
yes props to Sims, Feeney is pretty awesome
but did you notice how much help he was getting from the left guard? They doubled Feeney with 2 oLineman on most pass plays which made it very easy for blitzers and the other defensive linemen to penetrate and pressure.
Yeah Sims stepped it up
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Nov 2, 2009 8:30 AM PST up reply actions
They doubled Feeney with 2 oLineman on most pass plays
Don’t most teams do that?
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
Rhythm
It Seems to me that Alex Smtih needs Rhythm to be successful. When he’s in the spread, consistently passing the ball, he’s best.
When Raye calls a HB dive, followed by a FB dive, followed by a 3rd-and-7 or 8 pass play, its pretty hard for him to get in rhythm.
Am I wrong?
How often did that happen?
I think people assume that’s how the plays are called way more than they really are. I could be wrong but I don’t remember that happening yesterday or in Houston (with Smith at QB).
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
i agree with rhythm
and thanks for the help spelling rhythm. I always mess it up what with all the h’s….
I like the spread with a back beside the QB every now and then. Or backs on either side. QB can come under center if need be here and there. Motion a TE in for a blocker on a running play if the other RB isn’t on the field…
Point being keep him in similar formations and keep it rolling. If A.Smith is so cerebral…let’s give the kid more and more of his own plays to call like Manning does…I’M NOT COMPARING HIM TO PEYTON THOUGH SO NO NEED TO FLAME!!! :-D
I think it could work and Raye should be able to adapt. We shall see.
Most frustrating game I've seen so far this year.
Yes, more than Minnesota. That was a fluke play at the last second.
Yesterday made me sick. You can’t go INTO Indy, lead 14-9 at halftime, and then stop doing what allowed you to march down the field and score a TD. Conservative offense in the second half killed the team.
Frank Gore is a damn good running back, and he busted a long TD early in the game, but it was bad tackling by Indy and probably should have been a 6 yard gain. That’s Gore though, and that’s what he does.. but did Raye not realize that Joe Staley was hurt on like the first play of the game? Why the hard headed RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN nonsense, when the only time that the field was opened up and Smith was let loose a bit, he marched down and hit VD for a touchdown? Davis is becoming one of the best (offensive) tight ends in the NFL. Crabtree has shown that he’s got the potential to be very, very good. Smith actually looks like he belongs in the league. Let them play, and stop putting Alex Smith in 3rd and long situations before you let him pass.
But if you do, stop calling 4 yard out routes. I know I’m not the best at math, but 4 yard gains on 3rd and 7 don’t do a lot for me.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
The four-yard outs
maybe should be in place of the handoffs to Gore on first downs.
by Bob In Beaverton on Nov 2, 2009 8:28 AM PST up reply actions
Perhaps.
But the way I look at it — this team is NOT set up to be a dominant rushing team. I don’t care how many times Singletary and Raye say it, that doesn’t make it true. A subpar offensive line along with an offense first tight end do not combine to make a smashmouth running attack.
I don’t know if it’s a failure to adapt, or unwillingness by Singletary/Raye, or if Raye just isn’t capable, but that’s what is so frustrating. We’ve seen glimpses of what this offense could be, and it’s not a run left/run right/short pass/PUNT offense.
Instead of trying to put the game away yesterday – or at least padding their lead – instead they tried to control the clock, failed, and let Indy chip away until they finally grabbed the lead. It was easy to see it happening.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I don't think the 4 yard out route's are the primary receivers
I’m guessing that the primary receivers on those routes ran deeper down the field but were covered so Smith threw to the check down player. However I do agree with your frustration over the play calling. At the end of the first half the 49ers opened things up and let Smith do what he does best. Why do the 49ers need to be losing or in the 2 minute drill to run the same offense?
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
What run run run?
Gore had 13 carries. Smith attempted 32 passes, 37 when you count four sacks and one rush attempt due to pressure. He did that in 26 minutes of possession time. Would you have preferred he pass the ball 50 times, in Indy with Freeney and Mathis rushing the QB? Wouldn’t that be the kind of predictability that would get our QB killed, especially with this O-line? And worse, with Staley out that would’ve been begging for trouble.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Just keep running the ball, whatever, is Raye blind? can he not see the fact that any NFL team can’t run the ball on 2nd and 8 with your FB and expect a huge gain? In our case, it’s almost like the damn pass sets up the run, and it showed last week, the pass set up the run.
The FB play
That went for huge yardage against either the Rams or Seahawks. It’s just a simple misdirection trying to catch the defense over-pursuing. If it breaks it for first down, it’s nice trickery. If it gains a yard that sucks, but it’s only 3rd and 7. A pro offense should be able to convert 3rd and 7.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
yea i see what you’re saying, i just didn’t agree that you’d do a FB misdirection, woulda been nice if it had worked, but oh well, hindsight. This offense is more capable of converting 3rd downs more than what it was with Hill in my opinion
I do agree with that
Yesterday was a tough start for Alex. Freeney and Mathis are built to stop 3rd and long. I expect better third down conversion rate vs. the Titans.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Gore also had 5 receptions (second on the team yesterday)
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
agreed
why is it that we only seem to have success when we absolutely have to have it? You don’t lay down until the game is in hand. Indy went for it on 4th down at the end of the game. Sure if they didn’t make it we would have only had one play but the point is they had the killer instinct.
We need to put some trust into the offense. Let them prove they can do it.
I voted Smith a "B"
You’ve got to remember that he sat for the first, what, five and a half games this season, so there will still be some rough edges. The high passes are worrisome, so we’ll have to keep an eye on that.
More worrisome is the running game. It’s nice that Gore breaks off a long run or two every few games, but the value of a run game traditionally is to control the ball, help with time of possession and give the defense a blow on the sideline. Our run game is so bad that you can blame most of the team’s three and outs on miserable run plays on first and second down. I realize that it was close to a 2-1 difference between pass and run yesterday, but as unsuccessful as the run was it seemed like Raye was going to the run too much. So the problem isn’t too much running. It’s that the running isn’t working except for a couple of Gore explosions (which help with the stats but obscures the fact that they aren’t very successful in the run game as a function of the offense).
So here I am in a thread on Smith and I’m ranting about the run game, but clearly the offense is failing overall because the run isn’t working. Raye has to figure out a way to get the ball into Gore’s hands (screens, flairs, etc.) to adapt for the failure in run-blocking, and to figure out a substitute for those failed handoffs. Something that can be done out of the shotgun, where Smith is most effective.
I think the delay of game problems will resolve as long as it’s not a coaching problem of getting the plays in on time. I would expect the sailing passes should decrease too. And overall, A. Smith is playing on so much higher a level than he did a few years ago that it’s amazing he’s the same guy. But unless Raye can come up with ways of making the run game work, or develop some combination of screens and quick passes to defeat the pass rush and replace the failed run game then Smith’s success can only go so far.
by Bob In Beaverton on Nov 2, 2009 8:27 AM PST reply actions
you hit the nail on the head
Smith can be mediocre, he cna be good, or he can be great, but whichever one it is, the offense won’t be consistent until we can develop a running game or at least a scheme that can get us 4-6 yards on first down with some consistency. Even just getting 1 or 2 or 3 first downs before stalling and having to punt would be a huge boon to this team, as it would help with field position, give us more time of possession, and let the defense rest. It seems like the offense is boom or bust – either a long TD drive or a 3 and out. We can’t expect to score on every drive, but we need to at least move the ball a little before we punt.
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Hey, Smith might not be compared to Montana or Young anytime soon...
But he was not the reason they lost the game yesterday. I personally blame Jimmy Raye’s offensive gameplan for the second half. Usually when a team goes into halftime, the coordinators make adjustments to take advantage of what the other team is doing and they look better in the second half because of those adjustments. The Niner Offense went into a shell after the half, reverting to an offense that has proven to be a loser. Run, run, 3rd and long, punt Offense is a loser. Yet Raye keeps going back to it with a lead. Any lead. Raye started to kill clock on the opening drive of the 3rd quarter. That is playing not to lose in stead of playing to win. This is Raye’s Modus Operendi, and it has cost the Niners at least 3 games that they could have won if they had just kept the pedal to the metal. Especially when the Niner Defense is putting forth a HEROIC effort to stop the opposing team.
I am not sure what Coach Singletary is going to do with the offense woes that have beset this team. There is no rhyme or reason to the offensive playcalling that Raye has called. It just is nonsense the way Raye has called games. Especially in the second half, when most coordinators make adjustments and go to their strengths, Raye reverts to an offense that is so predictable and so blatently wrong that even my 9 year old son knows what play the Niners are going to run.
The Second half was just an offensive joke. Trying to kill the clock the entire second half with a slim lead is a sure loss every time. I think the offensive delay of game penalties are a result of how slowly the plays are coming in from the sideline. There has to be a better play caller who can call plays and get theim into the QB in a timely mannor. Also the playes need to be effective and successful. We have had some really poor play calling in the second half of too many games and there just needs to be a change at offensive coordinator in order to give the offense a fighting chance. Someone else needs to call the plays durring the game.
I have to think the offensive unit as a whole is flustrated by the conservative nature of the gameplan after the half. The predictibility of the offense just makes it even harder for the offense to execute. If the opposing defense knows what play you are going to run, it is hard to run the play sucessfully. How about mixing in a few passes in the early downs in the second half? Run out of passing formations? Do something different than Run, Run, 3rd and long incomplete, punt. Raye might think that is playing it smart, but teams actually look at game tape of all the Niners previous games, and this offense that Raye runs is like a well known script.
There is no ingenuity or trickery involved. Someone needs to call the plays other than Raye. The bottom line is Raye doesnt have the ability to mix it up and keep the opposition defense guessing. They know the plays the Niners are going to run and are sitting and waiting for the run on first and second down. Hopefully SIngletary gives the Niners a chance and allows some one else to start callng the plays on the field. Put Raye in the booth and have a younger, more innovative coach calling plays based on the defense’s changes on the fly! Just going into an offensive shell and hunkering down to protect a slim lead is a sure way to lose every week. Smith has shown he can make plays. Keep mixing the run pass and let Smith make plays to our playmakers. The Niners need to come out of the halftime more agressive no matter what the score is! Raye is just too predictable, and gives the Niners no chance to succeed given the repetative nature of Raye’s play calling. Someone else needs to call the plays, because Raye isnt getting the job done!
Another year, another chance to hope for the team !!
Enough talk about..
comparing Smith to Montana and Young. I would imagine that 85% of the people on this blog are not even old enough to have any real memory of Montana as a Niner, and watching old YouTube videos does not count. I actually saw Montana throw balls at the Stick when he had wide receivers named Solomon, Clark and Francis. There is no comparison to be made between Joe and Alex Smith. Joe is a legend and a QB God.
As for Young, if any real comparison is to be made this one would be more accurate, but that might only be because of his scrambling ability. I would imagine that most people on here were in elementary school when Young and the Niners were at the top of their game in the early to mid 90’s. And who really understands football in the 5th grade? Additionally both QBs took years to develop into top notch NFL players. Montana was not a full time starter until his fourth season in the NFL. Comparign Smith to Montana, who is arguably the #1 or #2 QB in NFL history is simply unfair. It was unfair to Young twenty tears ago and to do so to Smith today it is just stupid. Young by the way started his career in the U.S.F.L. and then played miserably for Tampa Bay for two seasons (a team that was about as bad as the 49ers were when Smith was drafted, perhaps another reason the comparison between the two might be more accurate) before spending 3 years as a backup to one the greatest QB to ever step on a football field. Can you imagine how good Smith would be if he had spent the first three years of his career watching and learning from Joe? Go do some research on Wikipedia and then maybe you can start making some INFORMED comparisons. There is no excuse for ignorance regarding 49er history, period!
There’s no such thing as an old YouTube video.
And while I agree with you that there is no comparison and that any sentence with those three names together should probably be stricken from the record, I disagree with you that youth has anything to do with anybody making those comparisons. You don’t have to have SEEN Montana play to understand that there is simply no comparison.
BUT:
I actually don’t think anybody is making those comparisons. Everybody is saying “He’s not Montana or Young…” which is what everybody has said about every quarterback we’ve had since Young retired anyway. It’s always going to happen. Those guys are the benchmarks and, fair or not, every quarterback we’re going to see until the last person who saw Young play is dead is going to be held up to those players. Most people will say “he’s not them, but he doesn’t have to be.” Some people will be more ridiculous.
I think that for some reason, we feel beholden to mention that a guy isn’t as good as those players, even when it’s self-evident. We feel beholden to dismiss the idea that a guy HAS to be as good as those players, even though we know perfectly well that the very idea that he does have to be that good is insane.
I don’t know why we feel beholden to that, but we do.
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 2, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions
I’m pretty sure Cody Pickett was Steve Young, actually.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
Cody Pickett was the Steve Young of special teams.
Also, man he would have had a great name if he’d been a cornerback.
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 2, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
That's not entirely true
Young backed up Montana for 5 years but he still played a lot during that time. The problem was the Montana had a lot of injuries. I remember hearing a joke that said, “What’s the difference between Joe Montana and a dollar? You can get 4 quarters from a dollar.” My point is, Steve Young wasn’t sitting and watching and learning for 3 years before stepping in. He was playing in games right from the start. In fact, sometimes Bill Walsh would start the game with Montana and then switch in the second half to Young even when Montana wasn’t hurt. Remember that crazy TD run Young had against the Vikings? That was when Montana was still on the team.
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
Perhaps the real issue is...
That we have not given Alex Smith a chance to become Alex Smith. He has all of the natural skills to be a fantastic NFL QB and create his own legacy. I am not saying you have to have seen Joe or Steve play to be able to make a comparison, but simply that the ignorance of youth has a lot to do with making the comparison in the first place. I wish everyone could have had the opportunity to have been a fan of the NIners in the 80’s and early 90’s it was really something extraordinary. We were like Yankees fans, spoiled to the core, because we were always so much better than everyone else.
Why not Elway, Marino, Kelly, Aikman...
Etc.
I don’t think comparing Smith to any HOF QB is warranted. The only way to compare Smith is amongst his contemporaries playing the the NFL as of right now, and even then, the sample size is too small to do that.
BTW, I’ve been a fan since 1977.
Well, we're waiting....
1977...
That makes you one of maybe three. And you get extra points for being a fan of the Niners pre-Debartolo / Walsh.
I can’t help the fact that I was born in 1985. That doesn’t mean I get negative points for the fact that I wasn’t a fan 30 years ago.
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 2, 2009 9:30 AM PST up reply actions
You get a boatload of Historian points...
For reminding me about what I’ve forgotten in with your Year By Year articles, as well as the other articles on Walsh.
Well, we're waiting....
no one...
is giving you negative points for being born in 1985, which coincidentally was the year we got Rice, and actually gives you points.
by N.Y.C. Niner on Nov 2, 2009 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
Also being a guy that was born in '85...
1985, which coincidentally was the year we got Rice
makes me feel really old. Thanks for that.
"It came down like a punt, Coach!" - Josh Morgan
THE YEAR WE GOT FRED QUILLAN!
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 3, 2009 8:09 AM PST up reply actions
Being old doesn't make you any more of a fan than the next guy.
Hell, I grew up and every year the big thing was whether we’d finish 14-2 or 12-4. There were the rare seasons we only won 10, and the horrific 1991 when we went 10-6 but missed the playoffs.
What does that have to do with anything though?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
Fan since 1980
Which means since I was old enough to remember. And I don’t compare any of our QBs to those guys because one, they are were the greatest and no one can ever do what they did when and how they did it. Number two, it reminds me of Steeler fans in the 80s who couldn’t let go and compared everything to Bradshaw and the Steel Curtain. Until you move on and realize it’s a new era with new players that are going to do it differently, you stay stuck in some past fantasy land. IMO.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
What fan base moves on?
Bucs? Because they were the worst team in the league for 25 years and dressed liked creamsicles.
I can’t think of one franchise that doesn’t live in the glory of their past.
Perhaps poorly worded on my part
What I meant was living in the past and comparing every current player or coach to guys that were the best of their era and in some cases, the GOAT. It’s an unfair comparison and too easy for anyone to say “Walsh would’ve done this” or “we’d have won that game with Montana.” Those aren’t constructive arguments to the present.
Pittsburgh moved forward with hiring Cower, who had his own excellent era there. It could never live up to the original Steel Curtain, even if he had won four SBs, because the first group will always be the first. Just as Joe, Ronnie, Walsh and those guys will be. It doesn’t mean there’s not another philosophy to reach the same goals as they’ll be reached by different people.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I see
You need a meeting with Al Davis. DHB isn’t Cliff Branch, Tom Cable isn’t John Madden and Jamarcus Russell isn’t the LA Coliseum.
Why not Elway, Marino, Kelly, Aikman...
because they are not in the same league as Joe, but maybe Steve.
What does that have to do with anything?
Sure, I grew up every year wondering if “this season” was going to be 14-2 or 12-4. That’s just the way it was. I hated Flipper Anderson, and I hated the Cowboys.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
I am not saying you have to have seen Joe or Steve play to be able to make a comparison, but simply that the ignorance of youth has a lot to do with making the comparison in the first place.
I don’t think that’s true, though.
1. Again, I don’t think anybody is making that comparison. If anything, everybody is making the anti-comparison.
2. Being youthful doesn’t make us stupid. Putting Alex Smith anywhere near the same level of those two is stupid. It’s not a youthful mistake. It’s a stupid mistake.
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 2, 2009 9:32 AM PST up reply actions
I don't have the time to...
get into a Socratic argument about how there is no such thing as an anti-comparison. Secondly, ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. Yes, the young are often more ignorant than the old when it comes to history, especially as it relates to the Niners, but not stupid. FYI, I just found at least 15 OLD clips of the Niners on YouTube from back in the glory days. Start your education there. Seriously, you will enjoy it and develop a deeper sense of pride as a Niner fan.
Well..
I dunno if you’re addressing Howie solely here, but Howie is probably one of the most dedicated fans who is also the Resident Historian here. Go look up the “Year By Year” articles here.
Well, we're waiting....
Woof.
Isn’t contrasting something the anti-comparison? Anyway, that’s not the point. Nobody is saying “Alex Smith blah blah Joe Montana he should be that good blah blah.” The point is always “He’s not Joe Montana, but he
shouldn’thave to be.”
Basically, everyone is saying what you’re saying. You’re saying “there is no comparison.” Everybody is saying “we shouldn’t compare them.” I really don’t see where the conflict of opinion is here.
And about youth, I’m not confusing ignorance with stupidity. Everybody 15 years and older has seen the old footage of Joe Montana. We all know what the deal was. It’s not like the young people here are saying “ALEX SMITH IS BETTER THAN Y.A. TITLLE” – because that would be an example of ignorance. Because most of them simply don’t know anything about Tittle. We all know the deal with Montana. We’ve all seen the footage. There is no hallowed hall where the oldies go to talk about the games they saw and the youngins sit back and go “I’ve never even SEEN footage of Joe Montana!”
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 2, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
Oh dangit. Italics fail.
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 2, 2009 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
ALEX SMITH IS BETTER THAN JOHN BRO
Uh, never mind.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
FRANKIE ALBERT = OVERRATED
I MEAN, 73.5 CAREER QB RATING AMIRITE?
(For the record, I think Albert was great, but he got exposed a bit – maybe a lot, even – when the team started playing in the NFL)
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 2, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
By the way, N.Y.C. Niner, I wasn’t trying to pile on with this comment. I just thought this was a fun line to roll with. I think you and I basically agree, even if we don’t see eye to eye on every detail.
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 2, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
Smith lost "DA GAMEZ!"...
Sorry, just had to kick that tire once more here.
I give Smith a C, only because I like to raise the bar a bit here.
Well, we're waiting....
drummer
you’d complain about winning the lotto because of all the taxes you’d have to pay.
by Bob In Beaverton on Nov 2, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Then again..
I’m not like some people here (like say yourself) that thinks they’re Donald Trump because they had BINGO!
Well, we're waiting....
ehhhh
“Of course it’s better than chucking balls into the ground in front of your receivers, am I right?”
except that to the ground is incomplete whereas sailing balls can mean INT’s…
true
I think the point I meant to make was that Smith has the better arm. Gonna lead to some INTs on the sailed passes, but he can make more of the longer throws than Hill.
by David Fucillo on Nov 2, 2009 9:43 AM PST up reply actions
Grade inflation here
A “C” is plenty high in my view, but the team should continue with him anyway. It is when a QB lifts a team to achieve more than they are individually that they are doing a great job. That’s why Manning was still better than Smith even if his stats weren’t as good. He could see the whole game. Smith is still focused on footwork, release time, etc.
smith gets a c from me..
yeah the “Alex Smith over your head rocket ball” is back, unfortunately—-it seems like he hasn’t learned a thing from the probowl caliber quarterbacks that placement is so important at this level..
For crying out loud, can’t anyone teach this offense an 8-9 yard quick slant that actually has the ball going very low where only the wr can get it? Or can Smith not throw it?
He still has trouble it seems leading recievers (isaac bruce ball behind), and keeping the ball in play on the run (michael crabtree OB ball).
Yes he finally is starting to use his arm strength in outs and downfield, but still needs to learn its not how hard you can gun it, sometimes a feathery accurate pass will be much better. Given Jimmy Raye’s dumbfounded stubborness in simplistic patterns, the qb in this system has to be perfect.
Smith is about average = C.
it seems like he hasn’t learned a thing from the probowl caliber quarterbacks that placement is so important at this level.
I don’t recall him ever being around any of those types of quarterbacks.
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 2, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions
LOL
49ers Al Grito De Guerra!!! hahaha
by 49erSalvatrucha on Nov 2, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
HERE WE GO AGAIN
mediocre, we are always landing on hope. HOPE is not a plan. Lets build up the o line and quit messing around. we have not had a descent qb since GARCIA……Who by the way is still available. Yet we will put 8 wide recievers on the roster. WHO THROWS THE BALL TO THE WIDE RECIEVERS…….A GOOD QB. This is on the shoulders of the Scott M and the others to put us into a position to win. Singletary is only as good as the talent he is given. We have lost every game becuse of the lack of qb…..
The other QB,
Manning had happy feet on a few occasions, missed badly on some passes, and failed to avoid sacks. In that one game he was only marginally better than Smith.
You
obviously continue to be an Alex Smith detractor based on unsubstantiated conclusions. I discount everything you say about him due to your bias. He was developing into a NFL caliber QB at the end of the ’06 season, with 4 wins, starting with the Jets and finishing against the Broncos in a game with playoff implications for the them. He was the primary subject of an ESPN, the Mag, 6 page article on the emergance of the 49ers going into the ’07 season. This was published before the loss of Turner to the Chargers. In ’07 he won the first two games before losing to a very good Steeler team. In the fouth game he was crushed by Bernard and lost for the rest of ’07 and ’08, despite the foolish attempt by Nolan to discredit him. You and other ignorant posters and “sports wrtiers” want to hold those seasons against him, for whatever reason. He is showing his continued growth and development now and will be our best option, far and away, at QB, for potential post season play. GO ALEX!
Huh?
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 2, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
reply
Are you responding to my main post, or someone’s comment about it?
by David Fucillo on Nov 2, 2009 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
Don't worry, he was resonding to this guy
Despite an ambitious user name he gets lot of response around here.
just watched the highlight video
on nfl.com. Have to say the last two sacks could have been avoided. The Mathis sack came on a 3 man rush and was on his right side. Gore slipped out immediately into the right flat, where the rush came from. Could have been an easy toss.
The Freeney sack late in the game…the pocket started collapsing but after 3 seconds. Smith stepped up and was sacked at about 4.5 seconds elapsed.
Just my observations. Gotta work on feeling the pressure and avoiding those sacks.
Also, the tip-ball INT…I don’t have any good angles but it almost looked like crabtree sat on the route or slowed down a little? Anyone get more on that?
I voted C
For much of the reasons most people voted B on. I just saw it as a C. Alex couldn’t get anything going consistently in the second half. To me, it looked like Indy’s pass rush stepped it up in the second half and could’ve contributed to Alex’s struggling a little more. Penalties didn’t help, either. Overall, it was middle of the road and pretty much what I was expecting out of Alex against Indy’s pass defense. Yes, I was expecting a C performance meaning my overall opinion of Alex stays. (The opinion being a positive one.)
Hill is better than Smith
Smith has a stronger arm and runs faster but that is it.
Smith still looks in one direction and takes too much time deciding where to throw the ball.
Smith can get out the pocket when scrambling but Rarely ever makes a good throw on the run. 90% of the time, he throws the ball out of bounds.
Hill has won games for us and shown that he makes smarter choices. I’m just surprised that Singletary is going to make the same career mistake as Nolan and place his team in the hands of Smith.
Your second point is wrong and your third point is missing the fact that most of the times he’s throwing it out of bounds, that’s actually because he has nowhere else to go with it.
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 2, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
I knew somebody would bring up the "won games for us" argument.
Hill never beat a team as good as this Colts team.
B-minus so I voted B
He can’t get an A because we didn’t win and an awesome A performance would have won the game. Yet I feel more optimistic with him at QB and Crabtree at WR that we will cal more pass plays and complete more down the field.
Alex did well and it’s too bad he didn’t receive better blocking in the 4th quarter. It’s also too bad that he didn’t have one more drive to go hurry-up and see if he could win the game. I do know that the 2-min drill he led before the half was the best I’ve seen us run since I don’t know when. And how abour Raye there? All season he opens with a draw or screen in that situtation, yet backed up on his own goal line and Indy with three timeouts he had Smith go up the field. Nice.
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
I think it might be worth discussing somewhere how good Crabtree has looked. Accepting the small sample size for everything that it rightfully isn’t worth, I think he’s looked like our best wide receiver out there without much argument.
Only Davis has looked better. Anything can happen, of course, and it’s only been two weeks, but he really has me excited right now.
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 2, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
Agree
He’s still making mistakes, but making a mistake in your second game is better than making a mistake in your second or third year. He’s a professional. How could anyone ever have hated him?
by Bob In Beaverton on Nov 2, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
How could anyone ever have hated him?
Well… can’t hate the guy for what he does on the field. But he wasn’t on the field for the first 5 games…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
I'd give Smith a B-
Barely acceptable, gets rounded up to a B at some point, mostly because of the degree of difficulty.
I gave him a B
He played well outside of a few mistakes.
What we've got here is a failure to communicate.
What
Seven voters gave Smith an “F.” Did they watch the game, or even look at the stats? They must still be wallowing in their hatred.
Alex Smith is a looser and the fact that he loost the game prooves that.
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 2, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
I should have all capped that.
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 2, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
i think all the extra O's got the point across
"Pat is still just scratching the surface." - Coach Singletary on LB Patrick Willis
Yeah
Hill is way tighter.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 3:38 PM PST up reply actions
Every team except the Lions has been better than us
Every team has been better than us the last few years.
Beating any team is good.
I watched Green Bay yesterday. When Rodgers rolled out he found receivers. When Smith rolls out he almost never finds a receiver. He doesn’t make the consistent completion that will allow us to win. He doesn’t see the field.
I’m not here to say that Hill is the answer to our QB problems. I think Hill and Smith are close in ability.
Lets see how Smith does in the next two weeks to see if we go back to Hill or not.
I think we've been better than the Raiders
And Rams. And Bills. And perhaps the Browns too.
Is it also possible that with Rodgers having experienced receivers, they do a better job of getting open when the QB scrambles?
You gotta bring ass to get ass.
Every team except the Lions has been better than us
No.
Every team has been better than us the last few years.
No.
I watched Green Bay yesterday. When Rodgers rolled out he found receivers. When Smith rolls out he almost never finds a receiver. He doesn’t make the consistent completion that will allow us to win. He doesn’t see the field.
From what I saw of that game, Rodgers had a lot more designed rollouts than Smith had for the Niners, so it’s not a fair comparison. If you roll out because that’s what the play tells you to do, then a fan can reasonably expect you to complete the pass. If you roll out because your protection failed, then throwing the ball away out of bounds isn’t really a disaster of a play.
I’m not here to say that Hill is the answer to our QB problems. I think Hill and Smith are close in ability.
Smith has always had more ability than Smith. He’s just had problems with using it effectively.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
Football Outsiders . . . is that you?
Every team except the Lions has been better than us . . . Every team has been better than us the last few years.
I Gave Alex A "B"
He did a lot of good things. His stats would suggest a “C” but i am not ready to blame him for the horrid play calling. At some point it’s up to the coaching staff to put the players in position to succeed. And Jimmy Raye did not do that. As fooch said, Alex did sail a couple passes, but that can be fixed. Crabtree dropped a pass as did both Morgan and Bruce. Watching a replay of the game and pausing it to check out Smith’s release i saw a couple things.
1. Not once did he stare down one receiver. On many occasions i saw him look left then drop to the read on the right and deliver a great ball. Other times he looked atop and saw nothing then released to the drop off. This is the sign of a confident and capable NFL QB.
2. When Indianapolis got pressure on Smith, which surprisingly wasn’t a whole lot, he stood in the pocket and either delivered the ball to an open receiver or threw it a way. He showed incredible pocket presence.
3. Keep in mind this was his first start in over two years. Using that as a barometer we have to come to the conclusion that he played well. Smith will continue to improved week in and week out. The Tennessee game will be telling. Their secondary just isn’t that good, especially with the injury. Smith should be able to take advantage with Crabtree and hopefully Morgan on the outside and either Bruce or Jones in the slot.
"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 2, 2009 12:14 PM PST reply actions
I think he is a much better QB today than he was two years ago.
Statistically, it obviously was not the best day he’s ever had: 19/32, 198 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 74.7 QB rating.
2006: 58.1% completion rating, 180.6 ypg, 1 TD/game, 1 INT/game, 74.8 rating.
so tell me, Fooch, what makes him a better QB than he was 2 years ago? the extra 17 yards?
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
Well, he’s got 4 TDs and 2 INTs this season, and his average YPG goes up if you include Houston too, so using only this last game is a pretty bad way to make this point.
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 2, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
Especially because the Colts are the best team in the AFC right now.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
the best team, absolutely
but are they the best defense? hardly.
alex smith never once had to face Peyton Manning.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
Indianapolis is leading the NFL in points allowed per game.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
Is Peyton Manning leading the NFL in points allowed per game?
I didn’t think so.
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 2, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
the houston game was a fluke.
the defense wasnt trying. smith even admitted it after the game.
he didnt face a real defense until yesterday and he put up the same numbers as in 2006.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
You can’t throw out statistical data just because you think it’s an outlier.
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 2, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
So Smith sucks
when the stats back you and when the stats don’t back you.
Okay.
by Bob In Beaverton on Nov 2, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
I can put it another way:
It’s just plain stupid to throw out statistical data just because you think it’s an outlier.
I just didn’t think that sounded as friendly, so I said it the other way.
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 2, 2009 1:05 PM PST up reply actions
The interesting thing is:
Going into this last week, Ind’s pass defense DVOA was -15%. ATl’s was +14%. It other words, if you want to argue that Atl was an outlier, then it follows that Ind was just as much of an outlier.
Clearly you didn't attend TexansForever's "Statistics 104: How to spin the numbers to your advantage"
He expertly described how to cherry pick whichever stats you like and ignore those you don’t. I’ll send you my lecture notes if you like…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Nov 2, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
I’ll gladly take anything that’s going to be on the test at the end of the term.
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 2, 2009 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
The colts defensive DVOA against the pass is -15%.
That means, to compare to what you’d expect against an “average” team, you would inflate Smith’s stats by 15%. Which gives you 68% completion, and 7.1 YPA.
Which is pretty damn good.
But if you don’t like using DVOA, for whatever reason, let’s pick another fair comparison: let’s compare Smith’s season-long per game numbers in 2006 to his this year – rather than pick his season-long numbers in 2006 against his worst game of the season in 2009.
2006 2009
comp% 58.1 63
YPA 6.5 7.5
TD/INT ratio 1/1 2/1
YPG 180 202
QBr Rating: 74.8 95.0
You still want to say there’s no reason to think he’s improved?
Every single one of those numbers is improved substantially from 2006.
of course i used his worst game of the year.
you kind of have to when he’s played ONE GAME.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
Except he's actually played TWO GAMES.
I can type in all caps too. When you have basic facts wrong, talking in all caps doesn’t help you.
Smith has always had more ability than Hill
He just hasn’t been able to use it effectively. I love that post.
I’m going to try that one on my VP this week and see if it will help with a raise.
“I have more ability than others, I just haven’t been able to use it effectively”
A lot of homers here...
B? No, he doesn’t deserve a B. A B is Peyton Manning’s game: 300+ yards and moving the chains when necessary.
Alex gets a C.
A lot of homers here…
What an astute observation.
by Andrew Davidson on Nov 2, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
i vote a c too
people can stop saying he’s as good as aaron rodgers now hopefully. smith just isn’t that good.
we’ll never win consistently with him. lack of pocket presence, lack of scrambling ability. at one point he was doing a fast tip-towing movement sideways to avoid the rush. i think we r seriously screwed unless we get another experienced qb to tide us over until nate is ready.
"There is no pressure. Pressure only exists when you're not prepared."
-The Samurai
I guess we are easy graders
Considering Alex put up Shaun Hill like numbers I was expecting more C’s and ville comments.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Niners Nation
Related FanShots on Niners Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
