Why Shaun Hill Isn't a Good QB
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:36 AM PDT
Email
Print
Hey guys. My name is Brendan and just like you I like the Niners. However, after hearing otherwise many times on this site I feel compelled to point out the reasons why Shaun Hill just isn't a very good NFL quarterback. Now that doesn't mean you shouldn't like him or root for him, it just means that expecting him to play at a Pro-Bowl level or even an above average level isn't very realistic.
The first clue that Hill might not be very good can be seen just by taking a look at his past. Out of college he went undrafted, a sign that he probably doesn't have the talent to be a good NFL player. Obviously there are exceptions (Tony Romo comes to mind), but those are few and far between. Going undrafted proves at least the Hill probably doesn't have talent that will wow anybody.
After the draft Hill signed with the Vikings where he spent the next four years of his career. He was a backup for Daunte Culpepper, which is completely understandable, for the first three years until Culpepper got hurt. Then Brad Johnson came in and played decently while Hill sat on the bench. Hill did spend 2003 in NFL Europe where he excelled but the point is his first four years after college he had exactly 2 NFL snaps, both kneels in the last game of the 2005 season.
Still, that's not completely career ending, and Hill then finally found his way to San Francisco and signed with the Niners. His first year here he sat behind Alex Smith and Trent Dilfer. This was Smith's best season and obviously Hill wouldn't play over him but it is a bit telling that Hill couldn't beat out Dilfer for the backup job.
Again in 2007 Hill was behind Smith and Dilfer on the depth chart, both of whom played really poorly. But as we all know they both hurt and Hill finally got a chance to step onto the field without having to take a knee. Hill got to play 3 games, facing the Vikings, Bengals and Bucs. Note the weakness of those three pass defenses though, according to Football Outsiders they ranked 24th, 30th, and 4th in DVOA respectively. Hill actually put together two good games against the weak defenses though and had 3 TD's and only 1 INT against the Bucs. However, he couldn't complete even 50% of his passes and his YPA was only 5.1 against the Bucs as well. That season Smith and Dilfer ranked 49th and 51st in passing DVOA respectively out of 51 qualifying QB's so they were both miserable. Hill only threw 84 passes so he didn't qualify but his 6.0 DVOA would have put him a respectable 21st on the list, albeit in a limited sample. But do realize that Jake Delhomme (92 passes) and Kerry Collins (88 passes) put up DVOA's more than double Hill's that same year, so his success in such a small sample size doesn't mean all that much.
2008 again brought questions about Hill's talent when he couldn't even beat out J.T. O'Sullivan for the starting job. I know Hill isn't supposed to be a good practice player, but really? Hill got a chance anyway when O'Sullivan ranked 40th out of 41 qualifying QB's in passing DVOA with a ridiculous -37.3%. Hill played in 9 games last year and faced another very easy schedule. The teams he faced had an average pass defense DVOA of 15.8% (positive numbers mean the defense is poor), which also happens to be the same as the Bengals pass defense DVOA. That's right, the average defense Hill faced last year was equivalent to the 2008 Cincinnatti Bengals.
And Hill did have some good games, he had a QB rating above 100 three times. He also had terrible games, completeling less than 50% of his passes against the Cardinals 25th ranked pass defense and throwing 3 interceptions against the Rams 27th ranked pass defense. Although the final numbers looked fine, 13 TD's and 8 INT's, they were a mirage of the schedule. Hill ranked 28th among 41 qualifying QB's with a -2.4 DVOA, behind such luminaries as Seneca Wallace, Dan Orlovsky, Tarvaris Jackson, and Sage Rosenfels. None of these QB's have much of a future and yet they were all better than Hill last year.
One might expect him to improve because of his limited experience but that is unlikely. Here is a graph of quarterback aging curves:
You can see that most QB's peak around ages 25-27 and see a slow but steady drop off in their numbers after that. Hill is already 29 and while I think it's possible that he gets a bit better from just taking more snaps it seems very unlikely that there is some untapped talent left in him. He pretty much is what he is.
So in conclusion, Shaun Hill has had trouble winning NFL jobs over marginal (at best) players and even when he has gotten on the field has for the most part has been pretty unimpressive. While he has been surrounded by less than ideal talent he still has not been able to play at even an average level outside of a couple games in 2007 when teams had absolutely no film on him. Most QB's with play comparable to his are backups and are not expected to be starters, let alone lead their team to the playoffs.
His TD/INT and W/L numbers really don't mean much because of the difficulty of the teams he's faced which inflates them in such a limited sample size. Stats like DVOA adjust for his opponent, include fumbles and sacks, and rate players on a per play basis to give a more accurate indicator of a player's ability (similiar to triple slash stats in baseball). And while there is a chance that he figures out something that has hampered his game for the last 6-8 years, the numbers and Hill's inability to get on the field against mediocre competition indicate the much more likely scenario is that he is just not an ideal starter for an NFL team.
Does this mean that the Niners can't win in 2009? Absolutely not. What it does mean though is that expecting Hill to perform like an above average quarterback and lead a great offense is probably not going to happen unless he has a miraculous change in his performance. Don't be surprised if the Niners are looking hard at drafting a quarterback once again in the 2010 NFL Draft, and this time possibly in a much higher round than the fifth.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
613 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hm..
Where he spent his time earlier in his career doesn’t mean anything. He came in as a third stringer for the 49ers because Trent Dilfer was already established. It isn’t that he couldn’t “beat out” Dilfer for the backup job, it is simply that it was never a consideration. There was no battle, and there’s a reason for that. Also, he was backup on the Vikings because nobody wanted to take a chance on the guy.
Yeah, that is because he’s not a pretty player. By that I mean his style of play, it lacks finesse but it gets the job done. I also like the fact that you bring up Kerry Collins and Jake Delhomme, two players who are unremarkable and bad at making decisions, yet have led their respective teams into the post-season.
Then you result to claiming that Shaun Hill couldn’t beat out J.T. O’Sullivan for the job, and this is something I have to laugh at. Were you watching the 49ers at all? Did you follow that quarterback “battle?” Because I covered the damn thing and it most certainly was NOT a battle. J.T. was the starter from the beginning and within a week or two it was pretty clear at the time. Shaun Hill again did not get his chance.
So, attempting to look at WHY Shaun Hill has had trouble winning the starting job? It isn’t the best excuse, but it’s the only true one, and that is that Hill is a poor practice player. On gameday he goes out, plays well, has great games, has some OK games, but never really looks all that bad.
So what do we call the man who wins games yet looks bad in practice? In my book the former is of more importance, and I’m going to continue calling him a good QB.
One last thing, you bring in age, but fail to realize that these charts are going off guys who have played full seasons their entire careers. Shaun Hill is fresh. A bit older than most guys starting fresh, but he’s not facing the wear and tear most other starting QBs his age are.
by James Brady on Jul 30, 2009 6:02 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Ninjames
more posts like this man! the man behind the Nuggets speaks!
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
It's just..
I feel so safe in the shelter of my own Nuggets posts. But I’m always watching, believe you me. Always watching.
Real reply: WOOT! I try and post when I can. Thanks!
by James Brady on Jul 30, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
The thing is
A QB that doesn’t clearly have the talent to stand out against guys like JTO and Dilfer probably isn’t very good. The fact that they had to “battle” shows that Hill isn’t all that impressive.
As for the age curves, it’s mostly just to point out that he’s already at or probablypast his physical peak so he probably isn’t going to get a whole lot better.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I am wondering if you read my post...
Shaun Hill is a bad practice player and a good gamer. This FACT kept him from showing his stuff to the coaches. How can you show that you’re good in a game without of course, being put in a game? I doubt the coaches were even WATCHING when Shaun Hill practiced when we had Dilfer. Hill at the time was what Damon Huard is to us now. That’s no fault of Shaun’s, I’ll tell you that much.
Once again, the JTO “situation” was fixed from the start. Somebody could have came in showing off the tools of Drew Brees in passing finesse and Martz would have picked JTO. (Read as: someone LIKE Drew Brees, NOT ACTUALLY Drew Brees.)
I read it but I think your looking at the situation the wrong way
Saying Hill is a bad practice player is a bad excuse. Sure, he may be worse in practice than he is in games but your still just throwing the football. If he had great talent coaches would see that. But he doesn’t, and practicing poorly just makes it even worse. Of course he played in preseason and in NFL Europe so he did have some time in games.
And I absolutely believe if an unknown QB of Drew Brees’ caliber was there they would have won the job. That player would have just absolutely blown away JTO both in practices and in games and the coaches would have had no choice but to play him. Someone of Hill’s caliber isn’t able to do that though.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions
It is truth that Shaun Hill is a bad practice player, it’s an excuse, but it’s a valid one. You’re denying clear cut evidence, denying stats, denying the vote of confidence form his peers, denying everything and basing your argument on the merit of a power-hungry, half-crazy, do-it-my-way-or-I’ll-take-you-all-down-with-me OC who our coaching staff had the good graces to let go before he crazied his way into another turnover-happy season for us. If you didn’t catch that, I’m talking about Mike Martz. Regardless of what the FO says, the decision for JTO was Martz and Martz alone, and he knew before he inked the damn contract that JTO was getting the job.
And did you really just say its “just throwing the football?” Come on. Now I cant take you seriously.
by James Brady on Jul 30, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I dig your style Ninja
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Holy (site decorum)!
I just laughed hysterically, tried to hold it in and made a noise like a dying giraffe. The guy in the cubicle next to me gave me a very strange look.
lol
I don’t know what I laughed harder at, the boyzIImen song or that post.
Either way, i’m left strangely confused, yet almost in tears from laughter.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
The "throwing the football" bit
I meant that you should still be able to see a player’s talent in practice. Obviously they do more than just throw.
You’re denying clear cut evidence, denying stats, denying the vote of confidence form his peers, denying everything and basing your argument on the merit of a power-hungry, half-crazy, do-it-my-way-or-I’ll-take-you-all-down-with-me OC
No, you are denying clear-cut evidence and stats. The stats show that Hill hasn’t been very good. Saying he has been a good QB is complete denial of what the stats show.
I could care less about a vote of confidence from his peers. I care about his play on the field, which hasn’t been very good. Most QB’s have the support of their teammates.
And Mike Martz has little to do with the argument. Throughout his whole career Hill has been unable to get playing time and when he has played he’s shown that he is not that good.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I know.
I know what you meant by the “throwing the football” bit, but it was still an incredibly moronic statement to make..
I’m denying stats? I’m pretty sure I’m the only one in this argument who’s even CONSIDERING stats! He’s played good football, not GREAT, but good. You seriously need to get it through your skull what the word GOOD means. By your logic every [site decorum] quarterback not named Peyton Manning, Tom Brady or Drew Brees aren’t good QBs. and before you get all excited and call me out, that’s just a generalization.
If you could care less about a vote of confidence from his peers, you’re a bit more naive than I previously thought. You claim to care about his play on the field, but obviously you’ve only seen the one or two games where he actually played on a sub-par level.
Mike Martz has little to do with the argument? Then why, praytell, did you bring up the fact that Shaun Hill could not get his vote of confidence? The [site decorum] argument doesn’t work JUST for you and not me. And by “throughout his whole career” you’re digigng yourself DEEPER into your hole because we know already why Hill didn’t get playing time. It had nothing to do with not being able to wow people, it had to do with not getting any kind of opportunity to show his strengths. The strengths that make him a GOOD quarterback. Tom Brady didn’t get his chance until someone was injured, he sure as hell didn’t WOW everyone, did he?
Oh, you.
Intangibles mean next to nothing. Who cares if Hill has the vote of confidence from his peers? Statistically, if Alex Smith kicks the crap out of Hill, but doesn’t have the ‘support’ from the team, is he a worse QB? No.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Nope, and I never based an argument around it.
He was just throwing frivelous crap out there, I thought I’d join the fun.
Btw Frog, I just want you to know that the YouTube video up there applies to you as well. Only double.
by James Brady on Jul 30, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks, that's sweet.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
"By your logic every [site decorum] quarterback not named Peyton Manning, Tom Brady or Drew Brees aren’t good QBs. "
Seriously though, where do you get an idea like this? Ranking 28th out of 41 QB’s in DVOA is hardly good, and I would say if he could at least post a positive DVOA would be a start.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Um, what?
They are a pain in the ass because they show the truth instead of just blindly spouting, “Hill is 7-3 as a starter!”?
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions
This.
DVOA is by far and away considered one of the best statistical measurements of players, and far more accurate than “LOLZ 13 TDS 8 INTS MOTIVATED BY SINGLETARY HEE HEE”
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
A
W is a W it doesnt really matter how you get it now does it?
by metalman763 on Aug 24, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions
It's true...
… that a win is a win by definition. However, when you use it to project the future, you have to start differentiating between the sources of those wins. A win against the Browns is a LOT different than a win against the Patriots.
And of course, the age thing..
You’ve stated nothing new, so yeah… Still holding the same stance on that.
I don't have to state anything new
He’s past his physical peak, that’s not really debatable. He can still get better with experience, but he’s already had 6 years in the NFL to learn how to play QB. If he hasn’t learned yet, it’s unlikely that he’ll get much better.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, it is debatable.
I believe I debated it, if you’d just scroll up a bit, I’m sure its still there unless data loss has occured.
I don't see your argument
Just that he’s “fresh”? That has nothing to do with the fact that he is still past his physical peak.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Shaun Hill is nearly age 30.
He’s physically not going to get better. His stats may look marginally better but that’s simply due to the small sample size of him starting.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Hold the phone, professor
You of all people shouldn’t be arguing age, unless you weren’t serious about being a Jeff Garcia supporter. Garcia was 29 when he first made the 49ers and 30 when he threw for 4200 yards. This after going undrafted, spending time backing up Flutie in the CFL, and being named 2nd string QB on the Niners because all the other options available were worse (Steve Stenstrom, Mark Garcia).
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
Sure...
Garcia was also accused of “not looking the part” (short, scrawny) and having a weak arm.
The problem with this comparison is that Jeff Garcia had been putting up spectacular numbers for a Grey Cup winning team in the CFL for years – while Hill has been buried deep on the depth chart behind other journeymen for years of his own.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
BUT HE WAS UNDRAFTED!!! DON’T YOU SEE????
It’s obviously not a fair comparison, but the guy spent years not playing in the NFL, not getting an opportunity, and became a full time starter when he was 30 years old. In fairness, at that time there weren’t too many fans who thought he’d be as good as he was.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
but the guy spent years … not getting an opportunity, and became a full time starter when he was 30 years old.
No.
Garcia got his shot and he ran with it. He, as mentioned, was a full-time starter from 1995-1998 when he enjoyed successful seasons in the CFL (all 4 seasons with 3000+ yards and 25+ TDs – three of those years going over 4000 yards). Garcia’s track record made a strong case for his potential NFL success.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
According to DVOA
Jeff Garcia was a below average QB in his CFL years between 1995-1998 because his stats were compiled against inferior opponents.
You best be trollin'
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
You can’t knock Shaun Hills stats down because of the competition level while boasting about Jeff Garcia’s passing numbers in the CFL.
Sure I can.
Because Jeff Garcia essentially dominated inferior competition. Shaun Hill has looked marginal at best facing the poorest of NFL competition.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
And then Garcia went on to put very good numbers in the NFL
When Hill does that I’ll be more than happy to call him a good QB. But for now, the evidence points to him being not very good.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Again what evidence?
Only the DVOA stat suggests he is below average. You ignore his win percentage, his QB rating and TD/INT ratio.
I like Jeff but he wouldn’t have made a Pro Bowl without T.O.
DVOA is a far more advanced and accurate measurement than the stats you listed.
For one, it’s not ‘his’ winning percentage, two, QB rating is a bit of a joke stat, and a 2:1 TD ratio is not anything to brag about.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions
As Fearless Frog said
1. Win% is not an induvidual stat.
2. His QB rating and TD/INT ratio are inflated because of the easy schedule he has played because there is such a limited sample to judge Hill from. On a per-play basis Hill has been below average.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Useless stats
If we went off of win %, QB rating, and TD/INT ratio, Jake Delhomme had one of the best seasons ever as a quarterback in the history of the NFL.
Win/Loss 2:1
QB rating 110.7
TD/Int Ratio 8:1
Delhomme went out for the season in game 3. The Panthers went on to finish 7-9. That’s the problem with these stats & a small sample size.
Win/Loss ratio?
First of all, as has been said numerous times, that isn’t an individual stat. Secondly, using for 3 games is preposterous.
And yes, he was having a very good year that year so far. But we should players based on their whole careers not 3 games. And I fail to see anything you wrote that shows DVOA as useless.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 3, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh
My mistake then. I agree with him that those stats are useless if that’s what the point was, I thought he was saying the other way around.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 3, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't actually expect Garcia to do that well.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Ok, your right
The great majority of QB’s are past their physical peak by age 29. It’s possible that Hill is an exception to that but given that we have no evidence that he is it’s foolish to assume so until proven otherwise.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
There's far too much assuming going on both ways in this argument.
S’all I know. This has been fun. Is this your first post on the Nation? Its been a blast, keep it up. (Asking due to the introduction proclaiming your name.)
I've seen him frequently post for a long time,
so I’ll wager that’s a ‘no’.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
No it's not
I agree, a good debate is always fun. I’ll give you this, I hope I’m wrong and Hill turns into the next Tom Brady and the Niners win 3 superbowls in the next decade. ;-)
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I think ultimately
Our argument boils down to what constitutes as “good” and we have two entirely different viewpoints of what does and does not. I can vouch, however, that from what I see all over the net most people seem to have the same expectations I do, and most likely the same identity of the word “good..”
Right
And that’s why I’m trying to point out that your expectations are too high and your definition of good is much too low. And actually you’re only talking about Niners fans, I’d say the rest of the league sees Hill more for what he is, a marginal QB.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions
When Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger are evaluated as average at best, it’s you who has the expectation problem.
The group who is supporting you believes the QB position is just another position on the team.
I didn't say they were average at best
I said they were hardly great the year their team won the superbowl, which is true, look at their numbers.
And obviously the QB is just another position (albeit the most important one), it’s not the be-all-end-all for team success.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Look, you're too stubborn for this kind of argument.
It’s one that comes down to perception and I think you’re flat out wrong, as you do to me. You, for one, don’t even KNOW what my expectations are, so again you’re coming off as completely ridiculous.
Or maybe I’m too stubborn for this kind of argument, who knows, ‘eh? Either way I’m moving on. Your article failed to sway me from my position of believing that Shaun Hill is a serviceable quarterback.
James it's hard to understand your argument
When frankly, it hardly makes sense. You say I deny the stats when I’m the only one using any stats. Your the one who is basing his opinion on Hill “having the support of his teammates” or defying aging curves.
And obviously you are free to believe whatever you want, but you’ve clearly stated that you feel Shaun Hill is a good QB when all evidence shows that he isn’t. How that makes me completely ridiculous is beyond me.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, I already said that the “having the support of his teammates” thing wasn’t even a part of my argument, Jesus Christ stop bending my words, PLEASE. Also, I am using stats, because I’m looking at them and seeing that OH.. HE DIDN’T PLAY BAD. He played like a good QB.
What makes you completely ridiculous is that you JUST stated your opinion as fact and claimed that “all evidence shows that he isn’t.” When many of YOUR points are that “things are unlikely.” Get over it, he’s a good QB, the stats show it, the wins show it, gg.
And I know I cant end it on that.
Now I’m coming off as an ass. Whatever, its been a fun argument and I’ll say I have what I think and you have what you think, the gist of what I’m saying is that I do not agree with your article, sir, and I still believe that Shaun Hill is a good quarterback. Thank you. I apologize for the rudeness.
No worries about the rudeness
It is to be expected whenever someone writes a critical post.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions
"He played like a good QB."
When?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, come on James.
I never expected you to be a part of the ‘62% completion and 7-3’ train. Son…I am disappoint.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't bend your words
You really did say that.
What makes you completely ridiculous is that you JUST stated your opinion as fact and claimed that "all evidence shows that he isn’t." When many of YOUR points are that "things are unlikely."
Really? Explain which statements I called facts that weren’t?
“Get over it, he’s a good QB, the stats show it, the wins show it, gg.”
Wins is a terrible way to judge a QB. And the stats DON’T show it, that’s exactly what I showed in my article. His numbers are very below average when you adjust for his opponent. I have no reason to “get over it”, because you can’t seem to show anything that refutes my point.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess good is all relative
He may or may not continue his winning streak. This is what really matters, however I am SURE not many fas would say this guy is or ever will be a probowl caliber QB.
This franchise will continue to struggle until they strengthen both lines, get a OLB that can create a consistent pass rush and a QB that commands the respect of the defense.
Are you high?!!!!!!!!!!!
Let’s get some things cleared up real quick about Shaun. No. He doesn’t have a cannon for an arm, so there goes the “pretty” factor. No. He wasn’t drafted. I attribute that to coming from that college football powerhouse Maryland. By the by,since you wanna covet drafted players so much, take into account Jake Delhomme. Another undraftd guy from Louisiana-Lafayette. All he did was lead his team to a Super Bowl. And we won’t even mention that Warner guy. So there goes that arguement.
Moreover concerning these guys, Seneca Wallace, Dan Orlovsky, Tarvaris Jackson, and Sage Rosenfels, with the exception of spot duty. None of them have had exceptional careers so far. They really haven’t had the opportunity. So, slash another claim.
Lastly, for anyone who follows football, ESPECIALLY THE NINERS, you would realixe as far as “beating out” the incumbants of Alex Smith or Trent Dilfer……..that wacky tobaccy you smoke hasn’t helped you any. First off, the Niners had Millions of dollars invested in Smith along with a 1st rd draft choice so that wasn’t even a thought. Dilfer has a Super Bowl to his credit and WAS BROUGHT IN TO MENTOR SMITH!! An experiment I’m sorry to say didn’t work. On to O’Sullivan……HE WASN’T A NINER CHOICE! He was given the starting reigns over Hill and Smith because Martz was the OC and MARTZ wanted J.T. due to familiarity. No other reason. When J.T. was exposed as having happy feet under pressure in Martz’s offense, down the drain he went. ’Nuff said.
In closing, a nice article with an even better graph. But, please…..next time….GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
K.C.Edwards -AKA- "THE" DarkkStarr
I think you're proving his point.
Seneca Wallace, Dan Orlovsky, Tarvaris Jackson, and Sage Rosenfels, with the exception of spot duty. None of them have had exceptional careers so far. They really haven’t had the opportunity.
Actually, Orlovsky is the only one who hasn’t started at least 10 games. (He started 7.) They’ve had opportunities to earn the starting job, except for Wallace. I don’t think Hill’s a bad QB, but I still see no evidence that he’s a good one.
Posts like this are what I was hoping to see out of this thread.
The title alone should have been enough to drag out the mindless pro-Hill arguments.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Truth.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm a cynical fan..
Who is very critical of this team, from the FO down, but even I won’t go as far as calling Hill a bad QB, considering that the 49ers have had truly bad QB’s since Garcia. If Hill is bad, than that means Smith is worse. Hill is a good QB, not great, and maybe just mediocre. But, so far he gives the team a chance to win. He isn’t killing them game in game out. Sure, he can flat out suck a half like he did against the Rams last season, but he still managed to make the plays that won the game. I don’t think he is the future of this team, but to have him on the bench to save a disaster in Smith wastes the rest of the roster.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Jul 30, 2009 7:46 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think he is the future of this team, but to have him on the bench to save a disaster in Smith wastes the rest of the roster
What if Smith “fairly” beats out Hill in the QB competition? Let’s assume “fairly” means outplays Hill in both training camp and the preseason games. Will you still feel it’s waste to have Hill on the bench?
For the most part, I agree with what you say in this post.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Than you start Smith..
But you keep him on a short leash and bench him if he plays worse than Hill has played in real NFL games.
by Johnnysixnut on Jul 30, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
And then Mike Singletary gets blasted for being indecisive and thinking he has the luxury of switching back and forth between QBs.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
But...
…. but… but it worked for Bill Walsh!
/sarcasm (Just in case it wasn’t clear.)
Correct me since I'm probably wrong,
but I thought Young’s playing time stemmed from Montana missing time due to frequent injuries?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
For the most part...
… that is correct. I think there were a couple of occassions where Walsh went with Young because Montana was ineffective for whatever reason. My memory could be wrong, though. I’m too lazy to go back through Howie’s blast from the past posts, though.
There was one point where Walsh chose to stick with Young after Montana supposedly had healed enough to play again. Walsh insisted that Montana was not 100% healthy, and that his priority was the health of his QB, but Montana himself (along with most of the media) believed that Young was simply left on the field because he was the obvious heir and had been performing at a higher level than Joe immediately before his injury.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
To be honest
I’d consider it a miracle at this point if Alex Smith is a better QB than Shaun Hill. Even in Alex Smith’s best season with Norv Turner he was woefully indecisive, could never squeeze the ball through traffic without getting picked and could not make a play if pressured. Hill does have a noodle arm but he gets the ball out of his own hands into a teammates to make a play and has done so consistently. Not to mention, Hill has always kept the team in games and hasn’t cost the team a victory yet. The only aspect I’ve seen Alex Smith do better than Hill is the 2 minute passing drill where Alex seems to be play his best and Hill has been mostly ineffective.
I’m expecting a potential playoff run with Shaun Hill as our starter, I’m thinking next year or a missed opportunity if we start Alex Smith opening the season.
Considering game results to this point in time by each QB, I’d want to think that Smith should REALLY have to outplay Hill in order to be named the starter.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
I don't disagree, but
the fact that Smith was drafted #1 overall probably gives him some benefit of the doubt, too.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
JTO and Smith beat him last season..
Just think if Smith wasn’t injured. Smith looked bad in Martz’s system, just by his head alone. The case is this: both QBs, no matter who starts the first half of the season season, will eventually end the second half. So I guess it doesn’t matter.
Well, we're waiting....
I thought this was pretty well-reasoned.
Then again, I’m a Seahawks fan, so I don’t have any emotional investment in Hill (aside from being grateful that he performed okay as a stopgap in fantasy when I picked him off the wire). So far it appears that Hill is not a good QB. That’s not to say that he’s a bad one, and a good QB certainly isn’t required for a team to be good. (’06 Bears, anyone?)
Well reasoned?
Going undrafted proves at least the Hill probably doesn’t have talent that will wow anybody.
Going undrafted doesn’t prove anything other than he was overlooked on draft day.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 30, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
but for what reasons
are these guys overlooked?
sometimes they are overlooked for the silliest reasons (recent injury), or other times for logical reasons (issues with the law)
I agree though, all going undrafted proves is that that player was overlooked on draft day. In some player’s cases its because of talent, and that’s why a large number of UDFAs are khlav khalash.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Reasons for being overlooked?
Scouting and talent assessing is an inexact science.
Hill has already proven that he was at least draftable. There are plenty of guys who get drafted and accomplish less.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 30, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Very true
It still puts the odds very much against him though. The percentage of undrafted players who go on to be successful is miniscule compared to the percentage of first or second rounders.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
NFL Scouts
Are not good at evaluating QB’s in the draft. They rate QB’s off the following criteria: arm strength, height and ability to scramble. If the first two items on the list are the most useless attributes IMO, ability to scramble is nice but it’s bonus.
Also, high pick starting QB’s are a bit of self fulfilling prophesy. One of the main reasons 1st round QBs start so much is organizations insist upon it, no matter how bad that prospect has played in the past (sounds familiar).
Yes
But they still have a MUCH higher success rate than QB’s that don’t get drafted.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Being 1st round pick guarantees the QB will be given the starting role and won’t get yanked immediately for a bad performance(s). To me this is like a stat saying minorities cannot make good CEO’s based off past hiring data. It’s not a stat proving merit, it’s a stat that underlines the substantial differences in opportunity.
But there's still a reason Hill hasn't gotten much of an opportunity
If he was that good then he would get one. But even when he has been on the field he has shown that he is not that good.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Brendan, Well thought out post
I agree with your conclusion:
Does this mean that the Niners can’t win in 2009? Absolutely not. What it does mean though is that expecting Hill to perform like an above average quarterback and lead a great offense is probably not going to happen unless he has a miraculous change in his performance.
You are going to take a lot of heat (especially from the koolaid drinkers), but your statistical analysis looks correct to me.
Sf Fans should hope Hill ranks in the 16-24 range for qbs. That would be an amazing season for him and with Gore running give your team a good season.
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Jul 30, 2009 8:04 AM PDT reply actions
I don't think a lot of us
are expecting Hill to be an above average QB that leads a great offense.
Some just want to see what Hill can do with a full 16 games as starter, since you know, Hill has never had that opportunity.
I hope which ever QB wins the QB “battle”, has a fair enough shake to get a full season of games, barring any JTO-esque play during the season.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think...
… that the fans you’re speaking of are the ones that prompted Brendan’s post. I think his post was more geared toward the fans that think Hill will make Pro Bowlers out of Bruce/Morgan/Crabtree. While I certainly believe Hill can help the team win, I find it very difficult to believe that if they do win, it’ll be because the WRs (and by extension, the QB) put up big numbers.
I totally agree
But I think the few fans that believe Hill will make pro bowlers are far outnumbered by the more realistic minded fans. I could be wrong, but either way I don’t intend to knock this post for it’s intentions.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
True, but they're a vocal minority.
Already a lot of people on this board are attacking the author for saying Hill is bad….only problem is that he didn’t say that. He said he isn’t good. There’s room in between, and right now that’s where Hill is.
it seems
Hill has been in that room for two seasons now. Its getting a bit frustrating, I’ll admit to that.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Missed the point....
I don’t think the fans of this post or this site are “drinking the kool-aid”. It’s a simple matter of production. As I stated earlier in this very post…..no one believes Shaun can out dual Alex in the physical category. that is a foregone conclusion. What the fans argue is that in the time Shaun has had to perform, he has gotten the job done more CONSISTANTLY than Alex. Bar none. Now, don’t get me wrong. I realize all the blame shouldn’t fall squarely on Alex’s surgically repaired shoulders. The front office hasn’t helped with all the personnel and staff changes since Alex began wearing the red and gold. But, to discount Shaun’s victories with the same teams that Alex had at his disposal is a detriment to the work Hill put into the games he played. ’Nuff said.
K.C.Edwards -AKA- "THE" DarkkStarr
Just wait and see
You’re crazy to call him a bad QB. All he did was win games. Under Martz system and a bad Offensive line, he is a winner.The biggest differences last year was that he move the offense up and down the field. Moving the chain is important than long tosses. Get off Hill back and start supporting him. So what if he isn’t a gunslinger. In 8 games, he pass for over 2000 yards, 13 TD and 87.5 QB rating. Double that and you got Cutler who can throw the the bomb and where did it get Him? P.S. to thoses who don’t know, Hill had the 12th best QB rating last year. Not bad for a 3rd stringer !!!
You certainly aren't predicting
4,000 yards and 26 TDs for Hill are you?
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think...
… Brendan was calling Hill a bad QB at all. He’s just saying he’s probably nothing more than an mediocre (aka average) QB.
All I saying is that
Hill isn’t that bad. His #‘s prove it. With a new Offensive system, he may prove to be a better QB than most of us expect. We haven’t given him a chance. If he does play all 16 game, I predict 24 TD and over 3000 yards. That would be very easy if he played like he did in 08. Again, that depends on the OL and OC call playing cause I know he can do it. He does have a sense of what’s happening on the field. If He does fail, I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong. I’ll man up to it !
by LASVEGASNINER on Jul 30, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
A sfgfan said
I don’t think Hill is BAD. He has clearly outperformed JTO, Alex Smith, and Dilfer when given the opportunity so he’s not terrible. It’s more that it seems Niner’s fans expectations for him (both here and just talking to Niners fans in the Bay Area) are much too high for what kind of player he actually is though.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Brendan
Misuse of word, Okay. Sometimes we overlook the quality and character of a person. I think is the case with Hill. He has something that everyone has missed. It appears that he has the support from his teammates and has good vision on the field. I not saying the he’s the future but can be the leader for a couple of years. Yes, I do like his #‘s and they can improve with the new Offense. Yes, I am high on him just like when Steve Young took over for GOD. Everyone hated Young only because of their Love for Joe. That change later. I’m not saying Hill is Joe or Steve, but he is the best chance we have now.
by LASVEGASNINER on Jul 30, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
He is the best chance we have
You and I agree on that. But being better than Alex Smith is nothing to brag about.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
pti
but I have a comment about this comment:
It appears that [Hill] has the support from his teammates and has good vision on the field
Maybe he has the team’s support, maybe not. The issue I have with this comment is the vision part. I went back and watched several games from late last season recently. I’m certainly no scout but from what I can tell Hill is 100% capable of completing the dinks and dunks to matriculate the ball down field; and every now and again he can pull a rabbit out of his hat in the form of the long bomb (see rams game last year 50 yard td to Morgan I think). I do think however, that hill lacks peripheral vision needed to protect against those untimely picks. What I mean is that Hill simply doesn’t see the defender sometimes and throws picks. It’s not complicated. I think Hill is fully aware that he cannot throw 70 yards like a Steve McNair. But he is fully capable of playing qb in a conservative offense. Oh and the good thing is that the peripheral vision thing will improve with time.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
"again he can pull a rabbit out of his hat in the form of the long bomb (see rams game last year 50 yard td to Morgan I think)."
That awful throw is intercepted by almost any other secondary.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Seriously.
That throw was a dead duck if I’ve ever seen one. Slow wind-up, huge arc, hung in the air for what seemed like an eternity, and it just happened to fall into the hands of a receiver when 5 guys were in the area.
I don’t see how anyone can use that throw as an argument FOR Hill.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Because it looked nice on TV.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
it didn't look that nice on TV
When Morgan caught the ball, I thought “of people how did Morgan come down with thing?”
OJ Atogwe absolutely whiffed on the INT, and Morgan deserves more credit for the TD than Hill. Heck, Jason Hill gets more credit for the TD, for “allowing” Morgan to make the grab.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Well the point is
It wasn’t a great throw.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions
How else is the ball suppose to travel in the air 55 yards...
…when you have a noodle arm, through a time warp or something? I gave one example that is better than just saying Hill will succeed because I think he his cute.
Just so you know in that Rams game the Niners were trailing by 13 with 7 minutes in the 4th quarter. The Niners won the game 17-16. Correct me if I’m wrong but that right there is called a comeback. And I’m pretty sure that’s not his first comeback. So I am not using that throw itself, but the comeback, as evidence of Sugar’s competence.
Also Hill is not totally imobile. Please stop laughing, seriously. I’m not saying that he is fleet footed like Randall, but he’s got better legs than Marino. I swear I have seen him run for a couple of firsts downs, and according to yahoo he had 115 rush yds last year. I’m not saying he is a rushing threat at all. What I’m saying is the internal clock is there, like others have mentioned, when the pass isn’t there he will tuck and run like any good qb should do.
(and please don’t give me that garbage about it being against the Rams)
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Correct me if I’m wrong but that right there is called a comeback
Shaun Hill led a drive in the 4th quarter of that game. It ended in a punt.
That punt was muffed by the Ram’s returner, giving the 49ers amazing field position and the chance to get back into the game.
That, among other reasons, stands as an example of how it’s more accurate to say that the Rams lost that game than it is to say the 49ers (and especially Hill, who almost gave it away several times) won it.
(and please don’t give me that garbage about it being against the Rams)Sorry, but asking for someone to not tell you the truth really isn’t a valid way to win an argument.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
yeah...no
any coach with a pair will tell you that a punt is better than an interception. Obviously scoring a touchdown would have been prefered, but wees po’ folk like to take what wees can get…you’re impossible.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
"any coach with a pair will tell you that a punt is better than an interception. "
You can’t possibly be serious. Because he failed the objective in one way, it’s better than if he made the situation even worse?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
no way dude, what i’m saying is in terms of field position a punt is better than an interception ( or a turnover is what i meant so say). jesus h. christ sometimes you are on point but sometimes you are way off base
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
So what you're saying....
… is that what makes Hill better is that the COACH decided it was time to punt rather than risk Hill throwing a 4th down INT?
exactly
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
LOL
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
that 'exaclty' comment was a joke by the way
I’ll try to clarify, because I swear in my head this makes sense.
Shelcko said this:
Shaun Hill led a drive in the 4th quarter of that game. It ended in a punt
.
Yeah, who doesn’t know that. My point was that it was better than throwing a pick or turning the ball over. What’s so difficult to understand about that, I mean, there was 11:00 left in the game. and he had an unsuccessful drive so fuckin what. You guys crack me up though, seriously.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
The point is,
that it’s not hard to be better than the absolute worst case scenario. Yes, he didn’t turn the ball over. He still didn’t positively affect the team in any way by failing to keeping the drive alive.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions
absolute worst case scenario, huh,
yeah I guess those scoring drives that came after the fact don’t really matter…you’re right Shaun Hill sucks but at least he is producing enough testosterone to sprout more than a handful of hairlets:
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
ok debate aside
I’m not following the debate you guys are having, but I am laughing quite out loud at that Hasselbeck photo. That should be the new photo in the caption contest.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions
This has nothing to do with the debate.
I don’t see the point in trying to insult the Seahawks QB.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
nothing to do with the debate
everything to do with smack talk…suck it up buddy
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
“RESPECT MY RIGHT TO WANDER AIMLESSLY OFF TOPIC AND POST INFLAMMATORY NONSENSE!”
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Suck it up?
I like the Niners. I just don’t see the point of saying that.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Um, okay?
And Hasselbeck’s probably thrown a TD more than Hill for every hair lost.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions
appologies
that was out of line, i let my emotions get the better of me.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
No biggie.
And I’m all up for trash talk, but it would make sense if it were in a more relevant thread, like the official game thread in Week 2 or something.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I never had much of an argument anyways
but i’m defending Hill until they drag his lifeless body off the field.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Yeah, who doesn’t know that.
It was unclear whether or not you knew that, seeing as how you were so quick to give Hill sole credit for the “comeback” victory over the Rams.
They choked horribly and coughed up the game into Hill’s lap. Even with the gift, he still almost handed it back to them – and you seem to think that this is somehow supposed to make a strong case for him being an exceptional QB.
I don’t get it.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I'm sorry, but 'it being against the Rams' is arguably the most telling thing about the entire game.
One general rule of thumb regarding the NFL is that good teams blow out bad ones. The Rams, by any measurable standard, were just a hair above the worst team in the league last season. The fact that the 49ers couldn’t win handily and Hill had to lead a miracle comeback that he really wasn’t responsible for sort of shows the state of the team and the QB.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions
oh omniscient one
…are you aware that Frank Gore didn’t even suit up for that game. And no I’m not changing the subject. I’m just saying.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Gore or no Gore...
… that Rams pass defense was one of (if not THE) worst in the league. Instead of Hill tearing them up, he had a fairly bad game.
yeah...but he had a glare in his eye all game
and he woke up late…and his jockstrap was too tight…
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
yeah, if you consider a...
…comeback awful then i guess so
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
A comeback that Hill was not responsible for,
and vs. the Rams, no less, a team that should have been blown out if the 49ers were actually a good team.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes
I do consider 3 INT’s versus one of the worst pass defenses in the league awful. A fair assessment, no?
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
you guys are just stuborn
I’ll take 3 ints and a W every week.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Of course
Anyone would. But that doesn’t mean the QB had a good game!!
Really, start seperating the QB’s performance from the team’s performance. I’m always happy if my team wins, that doesn’t mean the QB had a good game.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
point taken
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
3 INTs and a W, sure.
But don’t chalk that performance up to ‘Shaun Hill must be a good QB because he’s 7-3 as a starter’ because you can’t chalk the Rams game as a W because of Hill’s performance and I’m sure you know that.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions
hey, for the right pri$e our
quarterbacks will do anything, wink, wink
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
awful is a judgement call
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Hopefully you wouldn't call it a good throw at least.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions
you guys either never played football
or you played too much football, either way, i think you are just being provocative, which is cool..but that throw was awesome. You guys are way too critical sometime for the most meaningless things: its pretty simple, if the ball makes it from the qb’s hand to the receiver’s hand it’s a completion, if you want to split hairs go ahead, but that’s too trivial iffin you ask me.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
The catch was awesome.
The throw is rightfully criticized as one that would have been picked by most other secondaries. The DBs had time to look up, look at Morgan/Hill, look up, and STILL make adjustments. The fact the safety didn’t at least knock the ball away was an utter FAIL on his part.
Correct.
I’m looking at the replay right now, and how the ball went right through Atogwe’s hands is astounding. I guess Morgan can be praised for hauling it in through traffic, but Hill shouldn’t get any praise for throwing up a hail mary than even Mark Roman would have a fair chance of intercepting.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
False
Roman would have been nipping at Morgan’s feet rather than the ball.
Fine, have it your way.
A hail mary that even Brian Russell would have a fair chance of intercepting.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions
you guys either never played football or you played too much football … if the ball makes it from the qb’s hand to the receiver’s hand it’s a completion, if you want to split hairs go ahead, but that’s too trivial iffin you ask me.
I played QB in high school, and I can promise you that if I had made a throw like that, I would have gotten reemed the following Monday in film study. Something to the tune of, “Son, I know that the pass was a completion and all, but if you ever throw a ball like that again, I can promise you that I will have your head before you make it to the sideline.”
If a High school Coach would be displeased with that throw, I can’t possibly imagine how an NFL coach could watch an NFL QB throw that pass and be content with it.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
You are missing a point
Shaun Hill did throw to the one WR on the team who could come down with that ball. I’m sure the coach would have told you it wasn’t the best throw but he would have noted that you tossed it to the best jump ball leaper and is the reason why the play was made.
...Really?
I give up.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 30, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
If you and your coach couldn’t find a reason why 55 yard completed touchdown pass did work than maybe you ought to give up.
You don't get it.
I give up because you’ve resorted to desperate nonsense.
Just because a coach says, in one breath, that the WR made a terrific play on the ball does NOT mean that he also thinks that the throw was adequate. What does Josh Morgan being the target of a wobbly duck have to do with Hill’s skill level? You’re reaching into the dark grasping for any reason to praise Hill, and the things you’re coming up with are trash.
We’re talking about Shaun Hill here. Specifically, we’re talking about one throw that he made into triple coverage (though, to be fair, it was only double coverage when he let it go…the third guy just had time to notice, adjust, and position himself underneath the throw while the football was hanging in the air). We’re talking about an ugly-as-all hell desperate prayer of a pass that, by some combination of miraculous events and piss-poor defensive play, managed to slip through the hands of the best player on the opposition’s defense and into the hands of a 6th round rookie playing with a bum hamstring.
What part of that do you think that Shaun Hill really deserves credit for, exactly?
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Jul 30, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The part where if you are going to throw a wobbling duck into triple coverage at least throw it to the WR who could possible come down with it.
According to a few reports Josh Morgan has made that catch in practice a couple times. I’m suggesting Shaun throw that duck because he was paying attention and had conviction that Morgan would make the play.
I don't think you understand.
Even throwing to Larry Fitzgerald or Randy Moss in triple coverage would be severely ill-advised. Just because Morgan came down with it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a terrible decision and throw by Hill.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Who's to say...
… the pass was even intended for Morgan? For all we know, Hill was actually trying to hit Hill, but the trajectory of the ball was just so bad that Morgan ended up with it?
This reads like a
6th grade essay. Terrible. Undrafted doesn’t mean a whole lot:
- Kurt Warner – A quarterback who graduated from the University of Northern Iowa, Warner’s professional career started in the Arena Football League. After he played one season in NFL Europa, Warner signed with the St. Louis Rams. Warner earned the Super Bowl MVP award for his performance in Super Bowl XXXIV. In addition Warner is a two time NFL MVP.
- Priest Holmes – A running back from the University of Texas at Austin; Holmes led the NFL in rushing yards in 2002
- Rod Smith – A wide receiver from Missouri Southern State University; he established a number of Denver Broncos team records and has appeared in multiple Pro Bowl games.
- James Harrison – A Linebacker who currently plays for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Heard of him?
- Brian Waters – A guard who is the only offensive lineman to be an AFC player of the week.[citation needed]
- Tony Romo – A Quarterback from Eastern Illinois University who was signed in 2003, and spent the first three years of his career as a backup. In 2006, his first season as a starter, he made the Pro Bowl. He has also tied the Dallas Cowboys team record for most touchdown passes (5) in a game.
- Wayne Chrebet – A wide receiver from Hofstra University, he established both New York Jets team records and NFL records.
- Jake Delhomme – A quarterback from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He played in the now defunct NFL Europa before playing significant minutes in the NFL. He was a member of the first Carolina Panthers team to play in the Super Bowl and has played in the Pro Bowl.
- Willie Parker – A running back, he set set a number of Pittsburgh Steelers team records.
- Antonio Gates – A tight end from Kent State University, he has established a number of NFL records.
- Joshua Cribbs – A kick returner from Kent State University, he is on pace to set a new NFL record in return yards.
- Adam Vinatieri – A Placekicker from South Dakota State, he has set several NFL post-season and Super Bowl records and is a two-time Pro Bowl selection. In addition he is a four time Super Bowl champion.
- Jason Peters – Pro Bowl and All-Pro offensive tackle for the Buffalo Bills. He played tight end for the Arkansas Razorbacks in college and was moved to tackle because of his size. He beat out top-5 draft pick Mike Williams to win the position.
- Ben Utecht – A versatile player who was able to play both tight end and wide receiver in Super Bowl XLI.
Please do your research before jumping to unsupportable conclusions.
Kezarvet
by kezarvet on Jul 30, 2009 9:50 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I didn't know Brian Waters
was undrafted. that’s a good list you have there.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Really?
You’re going to use 14 examples of “success” to refute decades of failures? He DID say that there are some exceptions, but those exceptions are very few and far in between.
by sfgfan on Jul 30, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
Plus, it seems QB would be one of the harder positions to come in and play as an undrafted. So, why should we care about a list of undrafted non QBs?
Sounds like someone should take their own advice about “doing their research before jumping to unsupportable conclusions.”
Undrafted vs. Late Draft Picks
The draft has changed a lot over the years. There have been succesful QB drafted in the 9th rounds and beyond which in today’s draft would be considered “undrafted” as the draft is only 7 rounds long. So if you or someone really wants to do some research you can come up with plenty of QB that would be “undrafted” by today’s standards.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 30, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
We have forgotten
Warren Moon and Jeff Garcia.
by LASVEGASNINER on Jul 30, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I think your proving my point
When your whole list includes 3 QB’s, it’s obviously VERY unlikely that an undrafted QB is going to become a good player. As I said it’s not impossible, but very very unlikely.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Once again, hm I say
I forgot we live in a world where every person has the ability to change the meaning of words and warp the very fabric of reality, which in this case takes form in the word “unlikely” suddenly meaning “impossible.”
What it boils down to is we don’t have to wait for Shaun Hill to “become a good player.” He already is. What we do have to wait for is Shaun Hill to either become a great player, or become a bad one. As it stands, the man is a good player.
I also don’t understand where all this “Well he’s not what most 49er fans think he is…” Looking around this site, and of course, looking around the entire net for daily links.. I don’t see MUCH expectations for Shaun Hill. Nobody is trying to proclaim his greatness, at this point we just want stability and a good signal caller.
by James Brady on Jul 30, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Can you please point out where I said it was impossible that HIll becomes a good QB?
I said numerous times in the post that it is possible, just very unlikely.
I don’t see MUCH expectations for Shaun Hill.
But yet in the paragraph above you call Shaun Hill a good QB, proving that expectations are too high for Hill. What makes you say he is a good QB? The fact that he went undrafted and struggled to play over marginal players or the fact that when he has played he hasn’t been very good? There’s simply not any evidence to this point that Hill is a good QB. It’s possible that he becomes one, but not likely.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Note the teams he faced.
And a team’s record show’s how the whole teamperforms, not the QB.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions
The QB position is the most important on any team. The strength and weakness at that position dictates the personality and playing style of the rest of team. The QB is not one of 22 starters, it’s the premier position in football and has the greatest impact on the game.
Bad teams or not he still posts a winning record and can’t think of a single win the 49ers recorded in spite of Hill’s play.
The Bears went to the SB in spite of Grossman. The NFC was also weak that year while Grossman remains an extreme example with really no other peers.
Solid QB play...
… doesn’t require the QB to be good. As Brendan pointed out before, he believes Hill can probably win games. He’s just not a world-beater that some people seem to be making him out to be.
Yes
And a team can win with or without a good QB (though the latter is obviously much tougher) so judging a QB based on his team’s W-L record is not very smart.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Find me one person claiming Shaun Hill is a world beater? That’s changing the topic/argument of this fan post completely.
Solid QB play is good QB play, I don’t see how you can draw a difference? The QB either makes the critical plays he needs to make for the team to win or he doesn’t. A QB’s performance is hardly ubiquitous to the outcome of the game.
re:
Hill’s play has been mostly subpar, as I detailed in the actual post.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Subpar according to what?
What has been subpar? You haven’t proved a thing.
You cannot compare stats to Drew Brees because it’s an entirely different offensive philosophy. Shaun Hill and 49ers play a game management philosophy that doesn’t produce significant passing stats or touchdown throwing opportunities. You are so blinded to this observation you cannot properly evaluate Ben Roethlisberger.
According to you line of logic, Jeff Blake was a significantly better QB than Trent Dilfer was for the 2000 Ravens because he put up stats, wildly and foolishly tossing the ball around while leading the Ravens to a sub-500 record. Lets forget the fact that the Ravens defense was statistically the same for both QB’s and Dilfer went practically undefeated throwing the ball for less yards.
I used DVOA
Which compares players on a play-by play basis while adjusting for their opponent. According to DVOA, Hill was !0% below average last year per play.
In other words, he was clearly subpar or below average. He was ranked 28th out of 41 QB’s with significant playing time. I don’t know what Roethlisberger has to do with it, but he wasn’t all that good last year either.
And I’m not sure if you read the post or not, but if you did it’s pretty clear I’m not just looking for wild passing numbers. On a per-play basis, Shaun Hill has not performed very well.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions
If you have a better way of measuring performance than DVOA, I'm all ears.
And don’t tell me Hill is a good QB because ’he’s a proven winner’ or ‘13 TDs!’
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for it that Hill is a good QB
over well-respected statistics that prove otherwise.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Well respected?
Last I checked DVOA only circulates the Internet as a favorite of blog geeks. If being completely ignored by the actual professional field is respect than you have a point.
So what is your evidence that Hill is good then?
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions
All against poor teams
Which I explained in the fanpost. If you adjust for opponents defense Hill’s numbers are below average. Is that too hard to understand?
And W-L is a team statistic, not a player statistic? Does the rest of the team not matter or something?
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s the problem with DVOA, it measures opponent difficulty over the course of the season but not the difficulty of the opponent over course of the game. Just because the method puts some statistical weight on an opponent doesn’t mean it does so accurately.
You realize the Rams gave one of their better efforts of the season in that close home game loss. On the reverse side the Giants probably played there worst game of the year while beating the 49ers. According to DVOA the 49ers gained a bump in ranking in the loss to the Giants but lost some statistical weight in the win against the Rams. Anyone who watched those games would know the Rams were the friskier opponent but DVOA’s statistical weight gets it backwards.
Yes, a QB’s performance effects how the rest of the team plays. Not all 3rd down and 6’s are the same. Good QB’s pick up the 1st down in critical moments allowing their offense to keep the ball, generate a longer drive, maybe points. Bad QB’s fail, lose the game’s momentum, punt and the opposing team marches down to score on their defense. As a result, the team has attempt less statically effective plays during the next series. Again, DVOA attempts to statically normalize the situation but lacks accuracy.
re:
You realize the Rams gave one of their better efforts of the season in that close home game loss. On the reverse side the Giants probably played there worst game of the year while beating the 49ers. According to DVOA the 49ers gained a bump in ranking in the loss to the Giants but lost some statistical weight in the win against the Rams. Anyone who watched those games would know the Rams were the friskier opponent but DVOA’s statistical weight gets it backwards.
This is horrible logic. I don’t know who was “friskier”, but the Giants were surely better seeing as how they won. Perhaps the Rams seemed “frisky” because the Niners just played awfully? I don’t know about you, but I think when a team barely beats the RAMS they deserve to be bumped down in the rankings.
“Bad QB’s fail, lose the game’s momentum, punt and the opposing team marches down to score on their defense. As a result, the team has attempt less statically effective plays during the next series.”
Could you explain this? I really don’t see why punting in the last drive would make you use a less effective group of plays on your next drive. You should always pick the plays that allow you to succeed. If your just saying because there was a lopsided score, that usually inflates a QB’s numbers because the other defense is in prevent the whole time and allows any underneath passes, but DVOA adjusts for this for the most part as well.
The one thing I will give you is that DVOA doesn’t account for injuries or the talent of your teammates, but then again no stat really does. If you don’t like DVOA I’d simply ask what stat do you think is more accurate?
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 1, 2009 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions
So Rex Grossman is a good QB?
The ’06 Bears went 13-3 under Rex and he had more TDs than INTs. Sure, his QB rating was lower, but since his record was so much better it must even out.
Jim Schwartz, new GM of the Detroit Lions and former member of Tennessee's front office,
is a friend of Aaron Schatz, the creator of FootballOutsiders and DVOA statistics, and is a big believer in them. Rumor is that he’s also using them in his analysis of players.
However, I suppose I’m fine with you being akin to a sheep being lead to slaughter. Ignorance is bliss, they say.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow
The understudy of Matt Millen. You realize the new GM of the Lions wasn’t brought in from the outside but promoted within after the disastrous 0-16 season?
I meant head coach, my bad.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, he's the head coach.
He was working previously with the Tennessee Titans as the defensive coordinator.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions
We have our very own Joe Morgan!
“Statistics are a lie! Batting average is the only true way to determine the talent level of a hitter! Walks are overrated! Bloggers in their parents’ basements know nothing about baseball!”
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Don't forget ERA is the true measure of the mettle of a pitcher.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions
"What has been subpar? You haven’t proved a thing."
Read the DVOA stats. Shaun Hill was worse than Seneca Wallace, Dan Orlovsky, Sage Rosenfels, and others. Considering all 3 are career backups, that’s almost cementing that Hill has been subpar.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions
So your debating but didn't even both to read the fanpost
Where I wrote exactly that. Very clever.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 1, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions
"A QB’s performance is hardly ubiquitous to the outcome of the game."
This is why wins are not a QB stat.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope to god this was a joke.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Why is this still being brought up?
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
That's funny.
I already argued those points up there, and you’ve failed to refute them. I’ll continue up there, if you don’t mind. (Speaking of course, to the "struggled to play over marginal players, undrafted, which I’ve already put an arguement out for.) And as for the “when he has played he hasn’t been very good” well I just don’t see it. He’s been good, look at the stats. He hasn’t been GREAT (maybe once or twice) and he hasn’t been TERRIBLE (maybe once or twice) and this averages out to being a GOOD QB. Playing consistently good with some great games, and a few bad ones.
And as for the “impossible” thing. If you’re saying its not impossible then why are you basing the fact that he’s undrafted as grounds for being bad? Doesn’t make sense to me. You’re saying “He’s undrafted, so this is one reason he’s bad.” Which means you’re eliminated all possibility of him being good and undrafted.
Unsupportable?
Look, this is not even debatable. Top-tier talent almost never comes out of the undrafted pool.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh,
I just found out you are an LA fan, Dodgers and Lakers. Writing on a 49er QB? Explains a lot.
Kezarvet
What does....
… being a fan of other teams have anything to do with being a 49ers fan? It’s not like he’s a Red Sox fan.
I don't know what that has to do with anything.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Debating logically is beyond him...
so he’s searching for other, more groundless, reasons to discredit someone who is arguing over his head.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Oh yeah?
Well…your avatar has a picture of Drew Brees! You are not competent enough to post here! Git!
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I've been defeated =(
I submit to your superior logic.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Don't misquote an otherwise well reasoned article.
Good article, and you echo my sentiments regarding how mediocre Hill is. But readers, he is NOT saying Hill is a “bad” QB, just not a very good one, and don’t get your hopes up.
I feel compelled to point out the reasons why Shaun Hill just isn’t a very good NFL quarterback. Now that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t like him or root for him, it just means that expecting him to play at a Pro-Bowl level or even an above average level isn’t very realistic.
Overall, Smith has better talent, but hasn’t been given a fair shot. He was running for his life behind a patched together O-line, and with inconsistent O coordinators going through a revolving door. Perhaps Smith really doesn’t have the decision making skills to be a good QB in the NFL, but let’s give him a chance to earn the position with a better team around him, and keep it if he performs.
About Smith
Shaun Hill was QB on the same the 49er team with the same issues. A better offensive line and WR corp didn’t check in with Shaun Hill. Hill is significantly better than Alex Smith at making plays while being pressured which is why he’s been the more effective QB.
Hill is significantly better than Alex Smith at making plays while being pressured which is why he’s been the more effective QB
What?
To play devil’s advocate for a second and make my argument FOR Hill, I’d have to say that one of his strong points is his internal clock – which allows him to get ride of the ball before heavy pressure really arrives.
He does this by locating (or perhaps holding out for, as it sometimes seems) his dump-off option or stepping up in the pocket for what can sometimes result in a short run. The benefit is that you can turn some negative plays into 3-7 yard gains. The downside, obviously, is that you take your eyes off the receivers downfield and essentially give up on the play – which sometimes turns 20+ yard plays into those same 3-7 yard gains. It’s efficient, sure, but if you’re looking for someone who “makes plays under pressure”, then I’m not sure if this really qualifies.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Generally yes, its true that expecting a big year out of Shaun Hill is wishful thinking. Is anyone really expecting him to be “good”? I just want him to be ok, and relative to what we’ve had in the past that will actually be good.
Arguments against some of your points:
1) The fact that he wasn’t drafted doesn’t really mean much. As shown above lots of good players weren’t drafted, and many more were drafted late.
2) The not beating out Alex Smith, JTO, and Trent Dilfer was more due to poor coaching decisions than through any fault of Shaun Hill’s. Smith has had injury issues among other things, but there’s no doubt that Hill has played the best of any 49er QB since Garcia.
3) QB’s peak around 25-27? Really? That’s surprising and makes me doubt the validity of that graph. Even if that is a general trend I can think of so many instances to the contrary that its pretty meaningless to me. In particular:
4) Undrafted QB’s who went on to establish themselves as decent or better starters like: Brad Johnson, Jeff Garcia, Jake Delhomme, Kurt Warner, Tony Romo…most of these guys didn’t even get a chance to play until they were 29 or 30. That’s just the way it is for an UDFA and its clearly not a reflection of skill level.
About QB’s who peak around age 25-27
It defies all logic to me but I have a theory. I can’t think of a single elite QB who was at their best in their mid 20’s except of Daunte Culpepper. The stat might be true but it’s probably because all those 1st round QB’s washouts are forced on the field between ages 25-27 so teams can see what they have. After they’ve proven to suck they are outside the NFL or playing the backup role the rest of their career. Statistically than they are at their peak between ages 25-27.
Good post
But the age chart argues that the older a QB get, the poorer the performance – on average, which may be true. Still, I want to know about the actual skills of a QB and not his age. Kurt Warner lit it up in ‘99 at age 28, and is still very good to this day. Our own Jeff Garcia made 3 straight Pro Bowls at ages 30-32, then again at age 37. Steve Young didn’t become the full time starter until age 31 and made 7 straight Pro Bowls until age 37. Rich Gannon wasn’t a Pro Bowler until age 34, he won MVP at age 37. All of Warren Moon’s Pro Bowl seasons came between ages 32 and 41! I wonder how John Elway made 6 Pro Bowls between 31 and 38. I guess they all had skill. All had different skill sets, but they all had it. So tell me again why Hill’s age has anything to do with anything.
by mr. instigator on Jul 30, 2009 10:31 AM PDT reply actions
At Hill's age he's not likely to get much better
If he’s already good, like those guys were, then obviously he can continue to be good for a while.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 2, 2009 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions
That's not always true
When people use the term age what they are really talking about is experience. Hill has considerably less experience than Alex Smith.
Not always
But generally it is true. Obviously there are always exceptions to the rule.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 3, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Not really.
You could make a strong argument that Gannon really wasn’t all that good until he came to the Raiders. Who really considered Kurt Warner to be “already good” when he was a 2nd string QB who was bagging groceries 2 years before? Sure he had the talent in him, but that goes without saying, it took the right circumstances for him to blossom.
by mr. instigator on Aug 6, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
We shouldn’t have to keep saying it, but a small number of examples doesn’t mean a lot. When Brendan says, “he’s not LIKELY to get much better” he’s conceding the fact that it CAN happen. Mentioning the six or seven guys who have done it in the past only proves how few there have really been respectively to a more traditional developmental path.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, it CAN happen. We’ve seen it happen a six or seven times over the last two decades alone!
But that is a very, very, very, very, very, very bad reason to expect that it might be likely.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Good post if you're into that type of statistic analysis
Some of you know that I’m am not. Can anybody show me Roethlisberger’s DVOA numbers in comparison to the rest of the league? Please do so, it will make the obvious clear, you can’t measure a qb by stats, ratings, and wins is not a QB stat. The recent Superbowl winner’s quarterbacks haven’t been sensational players and at best decent qb’s, aside from Manning and Brady. Most winning teams have a. a running game, b. a good defense, or a combination of both. All the qbs mentioned that had a higher dvoa had more talent around them than Hill in his 10 starts. You can’t measure Hill until he gets a full season under the healm. I personally think he will continue to do what he did in college, win games. In the great words of Fearless Frog the niners had the easiest schedule in the second half of the season, however the loss to the dolphins was on the Pass D, and the Dumb ass OC that pulled V Davis at a crucial point in the game when he held one of the leagues sack leaders at bay the ENTIRE game. Everyone KNOWS shaun Hill does not have elite arm strength, it’s no secret, so how do you measure a guy who played for an idiot OC that didn’t change his pass pass pass play calling scheme. shaun Hill will be perfect in a run based offense that utilizes the playaction and the TE. Also with receivers that run good routes and understand their offense. The numerous OC’s and lack of talent on offense would directly effect any qb, and when you accopany that with a defense that can’t pressure the QB, SWAN Hill hasn’t had a legitimate shot to cntend with better teams in the league. Frankly this season will be the most talented offensively, the best gameplan in years since Norv Turner, and an OC who will utilize the offenses strengths and not build a system that is just his and arrogant enough to believe it will work on any team. By the way does ZMartz have a job yet? Offensive mastermind my ass, he seems to think he’s playing Madden. Even on Madden if you play with th eniners you use V Davis a lot.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
Your right that Roethlisberger and Eli Manning haven't been top notch QB's when their teams won the Superbowl
And I completely agree that the Niners can win a Superbowl with HIll, in fact any team can win a Superbowl with a bad QB. My only point is that I think Niners fans as a group have expectations much too high for Hill because he hasn’t shown a whole lot yet.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think Hill will have Pro Bowl numbers
I just think he is god enough for the niners to win and he has the most talent around him as any niner qb since 03. Smith is getting what I ccall the Sexy treatment (sexy rexy that is) grossman for those who don’t know. He was signed at 50 mil so he had to start. Now he isn’t and he doesn’t deserve to Hill has EARNED The chance to play starter for the year. I think if he does the niners will win the WEST
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
"I just think he is god enough for the niners to win and he has the most talent around him as any niner qb since 03."
I agree with all of this (assuming you meant "good not “god”).
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 1, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Because
He only has immeasurables to back him up… his good games very much did come against weak offenses, so that argument is out the door, and I’m not sure that they are very many strong arguments for him. It is like arguing that Clayton is a good RB… just not enough sound evidence to prove it.
I thought...
This fanpost was a response to nocal81’s. *toungue in cheeck
http://www.ninersnation.com/2009/7/29/968149/comparing-qbs-and-looking-at-shaun
Well, we're waiting....
uhmmmm....
this post did nothing to convince me that Sugar Hill is not a good qb. and the way you play with syntax is really kind of elementary if you ask me. in fact this post only makes me feel much better about Hill being the starter. Because little of what you say makes sense, for example you said this a few comments above:
in fact any team can win a Superbowl with a bad QB
How is that even close to being a fact? From now on every time you opine, I will take the exact opposite of what you say to be the truth.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Hmm
Ok, not sure what your saying. i don’t see what’s wrong with that quote.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
shouldn't you be studying or something?
A.) There is no stat that you can pull out of your little football reference books that will convince me that Big Ben is not one of the best qbs in the leaque. He shrugs off would be sackers like a teflon jacket deflects bullet; in short Big Ben is a mobile monolith with a cannon attached.
B.) I meant to say semantics.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Studying?
You are really losing me here.
A.) If I can’t convince you that Roethlisberger is middling at best, then I’m not even going to try. Suffice it to say, you are watching the Steelers with beer goggles on.
B.) Your slip proved you semantically imprecise ;). Are you talking about philosophical semantics or language semantics? There is a bit of a difference. Philosophically, though, I could argue the semantics of pretty much anything so arguing semantics is a bit of a moot point. It is all subjective. Even the way we interpret fact is subjective, as evidenced by the varying interpretations of Hill’s performance last season.
I'll quote the author again
in fact any team can win a super bowl with a bad qb
He even said he didn’t see the problem with the quote. Perhaps you can enlighten me. How is that comment a fact? It just doesn’t make sense to say “any” team, if he had qualified it by saying “some” teams, then I would have no beef at all.
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Well
Now you really are arguing semantics. I perceived his intended meaning to be that any team with a lot of talent and proper coaching can win with a bad QB. I doubt his intended meaning was that any of the 32 current teams could do it.
I can dig that
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
That is exactly what I meant
Just the fact that you don’t need a good QB to win, it just helps.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 1, 2009 12:19 AM PDT up reply actions
This is the best fanpost I've ever read.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
Wow
Thanks, unless you were being sarcastic. Actually, thanks either way. ;-)
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm going to got on a limb
and say he’s not being sarcastic.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Well in that case
Just wow, that is a very nice thing to say.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay Nay sayers
This isn’t an argument of stats really, but rather a comparision of Hill vs The rest of the league. His definition of good QB seems to lie in the area of top 12 – 14 QBs in the league.
Hill falls around the 16ish best QB in the league. Therefore he is not good. He is average.
"Hill falls around the 16ish best QB in the league"
Reasoning for this assessment?
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd place him more around 22nd.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Where are the 11-5 guys?
They’re suppose to come to my defense on this one.
49ers are going to win the SB this year!!!
Singletary Wins Coach of the Year!!
Crabtree goes for 1,000 yards!!
In the beginning there was Willis then there was the injury reserve.
While I haven't gone through all the league's QB's yet
I would guess I would rank him quite a bit lower than that.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions
where the heck is Josh G and the Shaun Hill Bandwagon?
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
He’s preparing to throw his proverbial haymakers at Brendan.
Heads up, Brendan!
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
yeah you better watch out Brendan
when he catches wind of this fanpost, expect at least 115 more comments which will mostly be replies to himself
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
LOL...
proverbial haymakers
This has turned out to be an epic thread. Props Brandon.
Well, we're waiting....
Decision Making
In Smith’s best year under Turner he was 22 years old. Its odd that when talking about decision making we are comparing a 22 with a 30 year old. I dont know about you guys, but I’m 26 and I was an idiot at 22.
Lets all face it. Hill is decent, but not good enough to beat great teams. Alex has unfinished business.
"Hill is... not good enough to beat great teams."
and we know that because he has already faced a great team. oh wait, according to everyone rooting for Alex Smith, Hill has only ever faced bad defenses. nevermind, then, i guess your talking about a situation that hasn’t even happened yet.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
Er
Did you read the post? He fared poorly against poor defenses (i.e. Arizona and St. Louis), so it is unlikely that he would fare well against stronger defenses. Of course, there is no solid evidence, but if I lost to the 100th seeded tennis player, how would I fare against the 30th? 20th?
Not so well
Which is exactly the problem with believing that Hill is good based on how he’s doen so far.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 31, 2009 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions
That's a sample of two games!
Sadly, this appears to be the crutch of the argument against Hill.
Why does this argument not work?
It assumes a linear level of performance based on opponent’s strength. You assuming because Hill had his two statistically worse games against two lower rated opponents/defenses that his performance will graph linearly worse against stronger opponents/defenses.
I’m sorry, football isn’t that simple. You can go back to both Joe Montana and Steve Young in the 80’s-90’s and find both put up sub par performances against the dregs of the NFL: Cards and Bucs (consistently if my memory serves me correct). You will also find statistically excellent performances against the more difficult opponent/defenses in the league. Why, because performance results are not linear to the difficulty/strength of the opponent.
Offensive output is linked to match ups, home/away, opponent familiarity, motivation/effort and plain ole ability to execute that Sunday. You only start to see a significant, consistent degradation in offensive output when the opponent is in the top 5 defenses in the league.
If you put down your graphing calculators and actually sniff around your small sample size you’d realize your judgment is based off two lackluster performances on the road against division opponents. If you knew one iota about football than you’d you know EVERY team struggles on the road against division opponents. Look it up.
Shaun Hill has started 10 total games, 5 at home and 5 on the road. His QB rating is respectful, along with TD:INT ratio and the teams record. However all you want to consider is his DVOA score from last year where the team played 5 out of 8 games on the road. It shouldn’t take a statistical genius to figure out a significant performance difference between home/away games for any QB.
You’ve done a wonderful job of proving how incompetently hard headed you can all be, but haven’t made a substantial case as to why Hill is definitively a bad QB. His DVOA is bad, he threw a couple INT’s on the road against familiar division opponents. Go look again at your precious DVOA score on Hill, your sample is unbalanced which reflects negatively on his score.
The only conclusion a rational person would draw from Hill’s small statical sample is that he’s not going to throw for too many 300 yard games. I’d venture to say he’s never going to fantasy QB star even in home games, however being a good fantasy QB does not equate to being an actual good QB.
That’s a sample of two games!
You’re using small sample size as an argument FOR Hill?
Umwut?
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Read and Comprehend
It’s your stated hypothesis that Shaun Hill is conclusively a bad QB, the burden of proof must fall upon those making the claim. The above blurb just pokes holes in your Googled statistical analysis.
If your only response is the inverse argument (Shaun Hill is great) must be proven true in order for you claim to be false than you are telling me you have no substantial response.
the burden of proof must fall upon those making the claim
The “claim” in question is that of whether or not Shaun Hill is an above average quarterback. I believe there is no reason and little evidence to support the fact that he is. The burden of proof lies upon your shoulders to prove that he may be. That’s just how it works.
It’s not a matter of whoever started spouting off wild statements first gets to claim the “true” argument, and have all others try to prove them wrong. A quarterback is an unknown quantity until proven otherwise – so it’s up to his supporters to prove that he is, somehow, in some way, above average.
But thanks for introducing another way to shoot down your own arguments.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
This is absolutely correct.
For the record, I’m not one to vehemently deny Hill is a good QB were that indeed so. However, with most statistical evidence proving otherwise, I just don’t see it. Serviceable on a run-first offense, perhaps, as long as his role is almost downplayed to a fault. But he doesn’t strike me as even starting material. Has anyone noticed how odd his pocket presence is?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 31, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Please let this be for the last time.
It’s your stated hypothesis that Shaun Hill is conclusively a bad QB
NO. That is NOT the stated hypothesis. He said that Hill is not good, is not above average. “Not good” does not necessarily mean bad; “not above average” can mean “average” or slightly below. This post is not ripping Hill apart for being awful. Re-read it if you don’t believe me.
(Also, +1 for schlecko’s response.)
What it does mean though is that expecting Hill to perform like an above average quarterback and lead a great offense is probably not going to happen unless he has a miraculous change in his performance.
He is making this conclusion based off 8 games! What would be so miraculous about a change in performance? Joe Flacco played in more games last season, is the book closed on him?
Actually
I’m making it based off of his whole career. Not getting drafted, His inability to start over bad competition, putting up marginal numbers when he has played, and already being 29 years old.
And Joe Flacco was 23 last year! If he had spent most of his career as a backup and struggled to start over Alex Smith and JT O’Sullivan, and then finally got to play at age 28/29 for ten games and wasn’t very good then absolutely I would make the same conclusion.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 4, 2009 2:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually
I believe the DVOA numbers, which factor in his play-by-play performance and the strength of the defenses that he faced. Those were just to good examples of that larger sample.
Hmm
I would have to ask Florida Danny about that one, as he has more contact with the people at Football Outsiders. I would say, though, that the statistics are not given on a per-game basis, so it evens out over the course of the season. The DVOA is never as accurate early in the season as it is late in the season.
I'm not sure
But I don’t see home field advantage mentioned anywhere in the DVOA explanation page so I’m guessing it isn’t accounted for. But like you said, it evens out over the course of the season anyway.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 1, 2009 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I think I’m pinpointing what’s bugging me about both your fanpost and all the following comments… The title is, “Why Shaun Hill isn’t a Good QB.”
“Good” is a little too ambiguous of a term. What is good? Does good equal average? Do you have to be above average to be good? Do you need to be a top 10% to be good? The ambiguity is causing everyone to fall all over themselves arguing a relative term, either in massive praise or massive derision.
Perhaps instead of saying he isn’t “good,” we need to state what he likely will or won’t be in the context of football. This might make a little more sense. Then we just re-title the article, “Why Shaun Hill won’t be an average QB,” or, “Why Shaun Hill isn’t an Above Average QB,” and arguing why he won’t be a better-than-50% or better-than-70% of starting QBs.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
I think either would work.
I don’t think Hill is likely to be even average, but it seems a lot of people disagree with that assessment, hence the fanpost.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
So why root for him? If there’s enough evidence for you to think he’ll be a below average QB, why say the following?
Now that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t like him or root for him
If we should expect him to play badly enough that he’ll be in the bottom half of QBs in the league… Why would we root for that?
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
You root for it...
… if it’s the best option the team has. From what I gather, Brendan believes Hill, while not good, gives the 49ers the best chance to win right now.
Indeed.
And what dick of a fan doesn’t root for their own players? I wasn’t enthusiastic at all when that P.O.S. Charlie Frye started a game for Seattle last season, but I sure as hell was cheering for him to not suck.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I cheer...
… for Barry Zito every time he starts. Sports fans are doomed to the root for the doomed players the teams they’re fans of bring to them.
That guy was a beast in my old PC baseball game from 1999.
He was on the A’s I think and he would always strike out my lineup of Edgar Martinez and whoever else was on the Mariners at the time.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions
That was Zito...
… with a fastball that was two or three MPH faster than what he has now and better control. He still has that ridiculous curve ball, but for some reason his control comes and goes as it pleases now-a-days.
His control, for the most part, is still there.
The problem is that hitters have learned not to swing at his curve unless he hangs it, and the difference between his fastball and his change-up has become the difference between a BP pitch thrown by the ball boy and a BP pitch thrown by the manager’s youngest nephew.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Because he's on the Niners and he's the best we've got
You are rooting for the team to succeed no matter the players right? I mean, Dre Bly isn’t likely to be very good either but you’re going to root for him to succeed aren’t you?
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
How dare you!!?
How dare you queston Dre Bly?!
Look I can handle all this talk about Hill, but now you’re bringing Bly into this.
Bly FTW, he is the R0xx0r5!
Greatest. Defensive. Back. From. North. Carolina. On. The. Entire. Planet. Unless. You. Count. Gerald. Sensabaugh. I. Do. Not.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 30, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
A joke right?
Sorry, I’m a bit slow on Bly’s college accolades.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, he's kidding.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah okay
Thanks for clearing that up.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
i believe
that the “R0xx0r5” and the “Unless. You. Count. Gerald. Sensabaugh. I. Do. Not.” part shoulda given it away haha. regardless i loled
it was bad enough
when you said that Shaun Hill wouldnt succeed because he went undrafted, considering Jeff Garcia, Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, and the immortal Johnny Unitas did so as well, but paragraph 6 is where it got really ugly. Suggesting Shaun Hill lost a QB competition is ridiculous, he was disqualified by a mentally unstable offensive coordinator.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
He also sucked in camp and pre-season.
But we like to forget that, don’t we?
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
And by every member of the media...
who reported weekly about how awful he and Smith looked in camp.
And by everyone who watched the pre-season games before the 2008 season – which doesn’t seem to include you. I’m not speaking for Martz here…I’m speaking for myself when I say that they both looked TERRIBLE going into last year’s opener. Smith, we know, was playing with a broken shoulder at the time…but as far as we know, the only thing that was holding back Hill was his own talent level.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Funny, the reports from camp coming directly from Mike Martz was Shaun Hill was having shoulder issues and why he was conveniently forced to promote JTO to the QB competition and why Hill wasn’t being given reps in practice. Funny how we forget that.
Funny, the reports from camp coming directly from Mike Martz was Shaun Hill was having shoulder issues
Actually, Martz talked briefly to the media about how Hill, from his point of view, seemed to be suffering from “Dead Arm”. Hill denied these claims, insisting that he was 100% healthy and was experiencing no physical limitations.
I guess Martz had just never seen a true noodle arm before.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Sigh
Out of college he went undrafted, a sign that he probably doesn’t have the talent to be a good NFL player. Obviously there are exceptions (Tony Romo comes to mind), but those are few and far between. Going undrafted proves at least the Hill probably doesn’t have talent that will wow anybody.
I didn’t say he wouldn’t succeed because he was undrafted, I said it was very unlikely. It’s right there in that quote.
And not only did he not win the starting job, he wasn’t good enough to be the starter for multiple years in a row. That wasn’t all on Mike Martz.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
It seems like half of your posts are defending yourself
against people who didn’t read the article. They’re constantly putting the wrong words into your mouth….may I take a stab?
PEOPLE: HILL IS NOT GOOD. THAT DOESN’T MEAN HE SUCKS.
Well it seems like it
According to some of the commenters in this thread I think Hill is terrible, the NIners have no chance in ’09, and no undrafted player has succeeded in history.
But thanks for the support.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 31, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions
I told you they would come after you
even though all you did was say don’t expect Hill to be a good qb (paraphrased).
I thought orinally your post was good and still do. Can’t complain about 300 plus comments in 38 hours in any event.
We’ll all know after the first week of the regular season if Hill has the goods, cause my cards are gonna score 30+ points that first game and force SF to lean on the QB to catch up.
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Jul 31, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
"he was disqualified by a mentally unstable offensive coordinator."
Get the hell out with that. I guarantee you and many others were proclaiming Martz the next Walsh after Week 2 last season and JT O’Sullivan survived 8 sacks to have the first 300 yard passing game by a 49ers QB in years.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think many Niners fans like Martz these days
But blaming him for the way Hil’s career has turned out so far is silly.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 31, 2009 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh no, not here buddy
Martz was a waste of an OC for a season. He’s a pass junkie, and we had below average receivers and a corpse at WR . We also had a noodle armed Qb with an injured thumb (Hill). Didn’t make sense to have him. He’s good with RB’s that can get the ball dumped of to them when there is a threat at the Wideout. Martz is an idiot………..teams always lead in sacks so a qb’s health is not important to his system.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
Okay.
But that still doesn’t change the fact that at least half of the fanbase already proclaimed JTO the savior after week 2 and thought Martz would actually work out. Even I could have told you before the season he was going to make a bad offensive line look even worse.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 31, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
that's just because
detroit was only 0-1 coming into the game. we knew not the horrible things to come for that team.
also i go to UC Davis so i was like “OMG MY SCHOOL CAN MAKE GOOD PLAYERS!!!”
god i was so pissed the rest of the season…
A point I think that’s missed is that there are only a scant few “good” QB’s in the league. Peyton, Brady, McNabb, Brees, Ben, Carson, Rivers, and Warner. 8 out of 32. Everyone else is pretty much average. But back on topic…
Shaun Hill is an average quarterback….but he goes out and wins games. As long as he does that, it really doesn’t matter if he throws for 125 or 350 yards. He made the plays that put the Niners in position to win the games they did. Shaun Hill is pretty much a solid representation of what the majority of the league has under center. He isn’t the future, and we all know that, but for right now, this season, until he proves otherwise, having him under center gives us the best chance to win games.
49er and ATL Hawks fan since '86, Braves fan since '90, Bama fan since birth.
Shaun Hill is pretty much a solid representation of what the majority of the league has under center
Yeah, I’m not so sure about that…
I think part of the reason that we’re getting national media attention for having a “problem at the QB position” is because we’ve got an incumbent starter who is of significantly less value than most starters around the league.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Agreed. Just a quick ranking of the starting QB's in the NFC
Brees
McNabb
Warner
Rodgers
Romo
Cutler
Ryan
Eli
Hasselbeck
Delhomme
Campbell
Bulger
Hill
Rosenfels
Leftwich
Culpepper
This wasn’t scientific or anything, I just quicky listed the QB’s in the NFC in a rough order of their quality. Hill is 13th, and the only QB’s below him are Rosenfels, Leftwich, and Culpepper. Of course, the Bucs and the Lions drafted 1st round QB’s this year in the draft to fix their problem and the Vikings’ QB situation is considered a league-wide joke.
You could make an argument that Hill should be a bit higher on the list (or a bit lower really), but Fooch gave the Niners QB situation a B (at least he admitted he was wrong) and Ninjames and others are calling Hill a “good QB”. To me that means he must be at least in the top 8 QB’s, and I don’t see how you could rank Hill near any of those guys.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 30, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
In addition, you could make a valid case that Hill should be ranked last among QBs in the NFC West.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions
A valid case?
I’d think that such a statement would go without saying.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Some people here hate Marc Bulger for some reason.
Hasselbald isn’t wildly popular either, evidently.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, I think Marc Bulger is garbage.
But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t start him over Hill/Smith.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Kurt Warner
Matt Hasselbeck
Marc Bulger
Michael Robinson
They all ranks as better QBs in the NFC West than Shaun Hill.
(Ok I was joking about MRob)
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 31, 2009 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
funny story...
when Dilfer went down against the vikings i was like, “ok all they need to do now is hurt whoever the 3rd stringer is and we can see what robinson can do” … yeah haha
this made me laugh
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
Nor do I.
I find it awesome how he’s made the Pro-Bowl every year he’s started a full season, though.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 30, 2009 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions
It's the fact that the Rams have been so bad (which is partly Bulger's fault)
That Bulger gets no love from other fans. Not that he’s that good anymore but he’s better than HIll I think.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 31, 2009 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Bulger's gonna surprise some people this year.
His O-line was atrocious; he’s been sacked a ton over the last few years. I see him bouncing back to being respectable.
For a guy known as having a quick release it’s difficult to blame the Rams problems the last two years all on the offensive line.
Yeah it's definitely
Partly his fault too.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 31, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Mirer, Stenstrom, Garcia...
Who won that “Battle”?
One is a Cardinal under Walsh, another who went to Notre Dame and liked and endorsede, and another who went undrafted but signed.
Well, we're waiting....
Shaun Hill
Not the hero San Francisco deserves, but the one it needs right now.
If I gotta play, I'm gonna play 'till I win,
Since I gotta be here, I can´t wait to begin
by albertoleecho on Jul 31, 2009 9:06 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
this comment just blew my mind
and up rode a camargue horse named Victory, upon the magnificent beast sat a triumphant rider, that rider's name: Noodle Arm.
this.
Don’t give up on Shaun hill, because he won’t give up on you.
by Steve Young on Jul 31, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So, when does 'Why Alex Smith Isn't a Good QB' come out?
I suppose after nocal81 states his case for him.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
Swan Hill
Is a QB that hasn’t been given a chance. No one can justify him being called garbage or good considering his body of work. But if you wanna call him a 30 year old rookie, his numbers were better than Flacco’s amongst some other qb’s in the league. Delhomme and Campbell are no where near better than Shaun hill. We seen Delhome on his B Day last year, and We seen campbell help squander a lead against ughhh, Hill I think. So how does he sit behind these two P.O.S??
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
Well because it's silly to judg players based on one game
2008 DVOA:
Delhomme: 18.0%
Cambpell: 8.3%
Hill: -2.4%
Hill was much worse than either of them on a per-play basis last year.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 31, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
But if you wanna call him a 30 year old rookie, his numbers were better than Flacco’s amongst some other qb’s in the league.
You can’t exactly call him a rookie, though. Rookies don’t have half a decade’s worth of watching the NFL play out from the sidelines or running an NFL scout team offense.
Annnnd....
Don’t forget that Joe Flacco sucks!
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 31, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
But he'd still start in San Francisco!
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Just on reputation associated with his name.
To me, he’s a poor man’s version of Ben Roethlisberger, except less accurate, less poise, and no intangibles.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 31, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
But he's got a square jaw and a grizzled 3-day growth beard!
The guy’s obviously an incumbent HOF’er.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
don't forget those brows
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
You mean 'that brow'
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 31, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Whoa
How can anyone not like Flacco?
The guy has a great powerful arm, uses the sidelines very well, was very poise for a rookie.[ I’d take him over Matt Ryan, who I believe had a fluke season vs an easy schedule.]
This teammates get on him all the time about the brow, which he refuses to shave. In HS people called him “melon head”, and made fun of how his right arm was much larger then his left. Seems like he’s at the butt of all jokes.
I guess we disagree, then.
I think Matt Ryan is overrated to hell in a handcart but to me, Flacco just plain isn’t that good, and if it weren’t for the fact he was playing on a team that had a monster defense and excellent rushing attack, he would look like Jeff George.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 31, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Matt Ryan being overrated...
is more a matter of how you call it. Obviously, he’s not on the level of Brady, Brees or Manning. He did, however, perform quite admirably after being drafted by a crappy team and thrown into the fire – something that destroys the careers of most top draft choices.
I gave him a lot of praise last season because he was basically defining the best case scenario for rookie NFL quarterbacks. People should be more hesitant to shower him with accolades in 2009, but there’s little reason to believe that he won’t continue to improve.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I see both Ryan and Flacco taking a bit of a step backward in 2009
Ryan because I think Turner will regress (Curse of 370 anyone?) and the Falcons were extremely healthy on offense last year and I think they’ll have more injuries this year. Flacco because I’m not sure who he is going to throw the ball to now that Derrick Mason is gone. I still think they will both have good careers though (especially Ryan).
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 1, 2009 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions
haha my bad
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
You’re wrong. It’s the best nickname I’ve ever heard. I love it.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 3, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It also helps to know the origin. Hang on.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 3, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions
http://www.ninersnation.com/2009/4/2/820108/help-coach-singletary-sign-jay
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 3, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions
So because it was mentioned off-handedly in some completely uninformed post
That makes it good? I just don’t see it at all, it’s incredibly lame.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 3, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, yes. In my opinion that makes this one specific nickname good.
But we don’t have to agree. I know why you think it’s dumb. It’s because it is dumb. I happen to be entertained by its dumbness. I also enjoy the phonics of the thing.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 3, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Fair enough
I dont like it, but you do. Nothing wrong with that. :-)
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 3, 2009 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions
SWAN HILL FTW
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
My bookie says
3-1, Hill starts and 8-1, Smith starts.
3-1 Hill starts?
Are you sure it’s not 1-3? Those seem like really good odds for Hill.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 31, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Well if DVOA is what you use to measure a Qb
You could say that the Steelers could have had Swan Hill and wona superbowl!! This is why Ben is overrated in my book, he has had a top 5 or 10 defense every year in his career and the couple seasons where the running game wasn’t top ten he had bad statistical seasons, sounds to me that he is overrated.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
probably should have posted it instead of replying
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
Except that after 2007,
Ben Roethlisberger can gun with the big boys if given an average offensive line. He threw for like 32+ TDs.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 2, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Where can I find the DVOA list for 08-9
Anyone have a link
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
www.footballoutsiders.com
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 2, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions
posting a video of highlights
can make anybody look good. The video of kwame’s ‘highlights’ made alex smith look like a serviceable QB with a horrible OL. I would actually take Daunte Culpepper over hill or smith for this year, but hey thats just my opinion.
Mike Martz System - A Different Angle
Look at how being in a Mike Martz system inflated the numbers of Kitna in Detroit and how he fell on his face and is now a backup in Dallas. Look at how Bulger’s QB rating was 92-101 during Martz’s tenure and has been in the low 70’s the past 2 seasons. Kurt Warner became a backup from 2002-2006 after winning the super bowl & an mvp. Trent Green had an OK season in Washington 1998 then followed Martz to St. Louis & didn’t play in 1999, and started only 5 games in 2000. Let’s not even talk about he-who-should-not-be-named (JTO) – being a backup in Cincy.
The only point I’m trying to make is that Mike Martz has a way of inflating QB ratings and pass attempts/yards in his system, and the track record isn’t pretty for QB’s that played in his system the following year. A couple of these guys (Warner & Green) have come back to have good careers, but all statistics surrounding hill should be taken with a huge grain of Martz salt.
I predict Hill starting game 1, Smith becoming the starter before game 8, and the Niners never looking back. Hill will be riding the bench in a different city in 2010 with Davis being the backup and drafting either a QB1 or QB3 in 2010 based on Smith’s performance through the end of 2009.
Boo-yah Grandma. =)
offensive changes
I could be wrong (and I don’t have a link to back this up at this point), but I thought I remembered reading that when Hill took over as starter the offense was stripped down a bit from the Martz Greatest Show on Turf style. I could be wrong, but I thought I read that somewhere.
by David Fucillo on Aug 3, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I know...
… it was for rhetorical (or whatever) effect, but I’m pretty sure that Hill will still be with the 49ers next season, starting or not this season (Hill still has one more year on his deal after this one, I think). The only way he goes elsewhere is if he AND Smith are successful this preseason, providing a possibility for SOME trade value.
Decent Point
As Fooch says it wasn’t quit Martz offense when Singletary (thus Hill) took over. Martz offense didn’t boost JTO. Based on opinions I read from around the league this past year with the 49ers was confirmation that Martz offense is now obsolete. It’s something to consider.
Hill’s number were not bad. His DVOA rating takes hit because the 49ers competition index wasn’t strong. DVOA was formulated by looking at statistics over the course of an entire season. I’m not sure the same statistical model holds up evaluating for 1/2 season.
Based on opinions I read from around the league this past year with the 49ers was confirmation that Martz offense is now obsolete.
If you could name these sources, or perhaps even track them down, then that’d be great.
Martz’s scheme is far from obsolete. He even saw limited success on a team that didn’t have anything even remotely close to what might resemble proper personnel to run his system. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Martz was a questionable choice for us, considering the tools we had to work with last season, but that’s a long ways away from saying that his system simply cannot work in the NFL anymore. If you gave him the reigns of an offense like New England’s or Arizona’s, I have no doubt he’d be putting up 40 points a game with ease.
Let’s not forget that he took one of the most abysmal offensive units we’ve ever seen in that of the 2007 team – ranked dead last in the NFL in points, yards, 3rd down % and 30th in turnover margin – and turned it into a nearly-respectable (though still turnover prone) group while carrying over what was essentially the exact same roster of crappy players.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I believe Trent Dilfer buried Mike Martz right after the season. I’m being lazy but the story could be posted on this blog in the archives. I believe I heard the Dilfer’s interview on KHTK. Of course, Dilfer had such strong words (the ‘obsolete idea’) the radio stations asked follow up questions to the other various football experts they interviewed throughout the week, a few were in agreement.
And just about everyone but Mike Nolan agrees that Martz was not a fit for the team’s personnel.
I would not give Martz too much credit for turning around the offense. It had no place to go but up, and the personnel could not have been any younger, greener with a few key injuries in 2007.
I have to agree with this.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 3, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, the offense was still pretty darn bad last year
But he definitely improved it and i agree with your point that Martz’s offense is in no way obsolete.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 3, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
"I’m not sure the same statistical model holds up evaluating for 1/2 season."
But the whole season was evaluated. The adjustments are based on the whole season, not just the part that Hill played. And when adjusting for the whole season, Hill’s numbers weren’t any good. So I don’t really understand your point.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 3, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions
What is so hard to understand?
Shaun Hill only played 1/2 season. The half in which he played 2 more road games than home games. DVOA sorta assumes symmetry between home/away in their model because they are not accounting for it in their competition index. Also, even the bigger DVOA fans admit the model greatly improves it’s accuracy as the season goes on. An 8 game sample isn’t as accurate as a 16 game sample. What is so hard to understand about that?
I’m willing bet if you took any QB’s stats, randomly eliminated their statistics for 3 home games (meaning they played 62.5% of their games on the road: Hill 5 away/ 3 home games = 62.5%) their DVOA score would take a dive.
From what I understand..
DVOA weighs individual statistics. Not an individual’s itself alone, but against the whole.
I think this argument has gone to razoring thin bits of cheese for the fish to bite on that you can’t place on the hook.
Well, we're waiting....
by drummer on Aug 4, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
The problem is the model doesn’t have a whole on Hill. It’s evaluation on Hill has a greater likelihood of error compared to the evaluations on QB’s who played a full season.
Indeed.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 4, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Come on now...
I think you have gone away from your true opinion on Hill for the sake of what has now become a defensive measure against what you truly feel. Read my first post in this thread. You have to scroll way the hell up there to find it, but my response was if Hill was a bad QB, then you would have to consider Dorsey, Pickett, hell, who has been a good QB for the 49ers? I’m not good at Math, even though I use it everyday, but I can judge performance, which I do everyday. This argument has gone far beneath what the evidence tells us, and we don’t need DVOA to tell us that. You now have broken it into minutia. The thing is, between both of youse, you don’t know how you did it.
Well, we're waiting....
Yes
And it may marginally effect his DVOA, but the 1 game difference between a 5/3 and 4/4 home/away ratio is not all that makes Hill’s stats what they are. He would perhaps be a bit higher, but not enough to make a big deal over.
And yes, DVOA gets more accurate as the season goes on, but my point was the adjustments are accounting for the whole season anyways. If your just saying that Hill didn’t get 16 games to play in, then yeah obviously that limits his sample size. But what evidence do we have from Hill’s whole career that he is good?
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 4, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Just wanted to fly by and say that...
This comment thread is psychotic.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
TD to Int ratio and comp percentage
is what I use to rate QB’s, along with third down passer rating, and what they accoplish on the drive that matters.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
So you don't consider the opponent
A QB faces when they put up those stats?
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 4, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah
But execution down the stretch to get the win matters more than the first half. It’s not like good qb’s haven’t loss to bad passing defenses and at the same time put up bad numbers, see manning vs Green Bay last year
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
Yeah that's one game
Of course every QB will have bad games. But DVOA (which takes into account the whole season) rightfully shows Manning as a terrific player, whereas Hill hasn’t been so good.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 4, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
They key being full season
He hasn’t had one, as I said before in this drawn out topic he doesn’t have the body of work to call him good or bad. Just an opinion.
By the way, no ones is mentioning he had a sprained thumb on his throwing hand in most of his games.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
That's part of the argument though
Why has he still not had a full season of play?
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 5, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Hill isnt going to be confused with a HOF QB..
No one is saying that Hill will ever live up to the legacy of HOF QB’s that we as Niner fans have had the pleasure of watching over the years. No one is going to put that kind of pressure on Hill. He is a SERVICABLE QB! He ranked 22 out of 40 QB’s last year after you crunch all the numbers. That is a middle of the road SERVICABLE QB. No one expects Hill to carry this team to the Superbowl. Raye and Singletary know Hill’s limitations and strengths. They will design the offense around what Hill does best. With an improved running game, the Niners can still be a good offensive team. But scant few games will be won on the arm of Shawn Hill. There are at least 18 teams that would rather have Hill on their roster that the bum they have throwing the ball. Lets look at the positives Hill brings to the table. He is a good field general. He commands respect in the huddle. He doesnt make a lot of dumb mistakes, because he doesnt take a lot of chances downfield. Hill will move the chains. If he can just complete the ocasional pass to keep the defenses honest, the Niners will be able to move the ball. The longer the Niner Offense can keep the ball, the less the opposing team’s offense has it. Also longer drives give your defense time to rest. The less time the defense has to spend on the field, the better chance the defense will have something left in the tank come the 4th quarter. So Hill might not be a HOF caliber QB, but lets give him the credit he deserves. He wants to win. He is a MAX EFFORT player. That means he has to play ALL OUT just to be a mediocre QB. If we make the playoffs this year, it will be because Hill made LESS mistakes and MORE long drives that lead to scoring.
Our defense is shaping up to be a top 10 D, but no defense can stay on the field 75% of the game and be expected to hold firm in the 4th quarter. With pressure of ANY kind on the opposition’s QB, our defense can be a real bright spot this year. Keeping them fresh is the QB’s job. Reduce turnovers and errant 3rd down passes gives your Defense a boost and could possibly help win the ocasional close game. In contrast, a QB like J.T. O’Turnover is the kind of QB that makes a Defense look very bad. Turnovers are a defense’s worst enemy. Hill is pretty good at not turning the ball over. Lets all hope that the running game improves to the point that Hill doesn’t have to throw for 300yds to win games, because that isnt Hill’s strength. We need 100+ yards from our running backs to compete. That controls the clock and gives the D the rest they need to play at peak performance.
Lets all get behind Hill and Root for the team to COMPETE this year. The draft will bring better options at QB eventually, but for now Hill is the best we have (unless Smith all of a sudden blossoms into a starter…) What all those numbers in the post at the top don’t measure is HEART. Hill has HEART. He will give you everything he’s got for the “W”.
Another year, another chance to hope for the team !!
"Turnovers are a defense’s worst enemy. Hill is pretty good at not turning the ball over."
Not really. Granted, he’s not JTO bad, but he it’s not like he’s 2007 David Garrard.
Lets all hope that the running game improves to the point that Hill doesn’t have to throw for 300yds to win games, because that isnt Hill’s strength.
So basically, passing is his weakness?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 4, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Who is like Garrard 07?
Not many Qb’s throw just 3 int’s in a season. Shaun Hill played with one of the bottom half teams last year as far as D, ST, and offense. You don’t judge a qb by wins for a reason. Passing isn’t his weakness, the deep ball is.
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
How is Hill good at not turning the ball over?
He had 8 INT’s and 7 fumbles in half a season. Granted, part of the reason for having so many fumbles is the offensive line, but I don’t think ball security is a strength of Hill’s by any means.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 4, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Naysayers, the lot of ya'.
The Samurai practices many styles, one of which, is smashmouth.
I don't think your a naysayer
If you try to be realistic, which is all I’m trying to be.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 5, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
What about Jeff Garcia?
The guy didn’t get a chance until he was 30 years old, older than Hill. He was below average for sure his first year before he turned into a pro bowler. And does anyone have an uglier throw than Jeff Garcia?
To a lesser extent, look at Doug Flutie. Didn’t become a full time starter until he was 36. Ok, so he wasn’t great, but he was probably above average.
So, why is it so hard to believe an ‘ugly’ quarterback like Hill gets overlooked and when given the chance is a very good quarterback?
I still don’t understand why the 49ers thought it was a good idea to get rid of two of the hardest things to find in a good quarterback and a good coach when they jettisoned Mariucci and Garcia with no back up plan. I think we’re still reeling from that decision.
previous post
I see hammystyle already pointed this out too:
“4) Undrafted QB’s who went on to establish themselves as decent or better starters like: Brad Johnson, Jeff Garcia, Jake Delhomme, Kurt Warner, Tony Romo…most of these guys didn’t even get a chance to play until they were 29 or 30. That’s just the way it is for an UDFA and its clearly not a reflection of skill level.”
It’s a completely different career path for any QB not drafted in the 1st/2nd round. Organizations are going to force those players on the field. Typically the other QBs have continue to make a roster and hope the starter sucks or is injured to even be given the opportunity. To claim Hill has been beat out in camp for the past 6 years for the starter role is a complete farce. This is probably the 1st year he has really be given the chance to compete for the starting job.
I don’t even want to get into to what makes a QB a 1st round pick. The evaluation seems about as fickle as it gets. Colt Brennan would have been 1st round if Hawaii was competitive in the Sugar Bowl. Since they got blown out and he had a poor showing he dropped to the 3rd/4th round pick.
Colt Brennan would have been 1st round if Hawaii was competitive in the Sugar Bowl. Since they got blown out and he had a poor showing he dropped to the 3rd/4th round pick.
No.
Colt Brennan came out of Hawaii – a team that keeps its head above water in the WAC (!) by running a ridiculous spread offense. Brennan, like several UH QBs before him, was never going to make it into the 1st round. His bowl game performance had nothing to do with that.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Actually
Romo was a full-time starter by the time he was 26, and Warner and Delhomme by the time they were 28. Garcia and Johnson are both exceptions, but Johnson was never really that good.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 5, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Brad Johnson was pretty darn good for a few years.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, for one he hasn't been good yet
But I do think it is a possibility, just very unlikely. Guys like Garcia are very few and far between.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 5, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
A couple observations...
The inprobability of undrafted players becoming good NFL players does not support your argument. Very few players who are undrafted ever start in the NFL, Shaun Hill has and has had success. This is the same as arguing that a comet that has a trejectory that may or may not hit earth probably will not because it is very rare for comets to hit earth.
Another poor argument, IMO is that a QB’s value cannot be determined by his win/loss record. Just as a QB cannot be given 100% credit for most wins, he cannot be blamed for most losses (exceptions do apply). However, It is clear that the QB has a greater effect on the outcome of most games than any other player on the field. Anyone who disagrees with this is dilusional. So, to argue that a QB’s DVOA ranking is somehow more important than his win/loss record is a flawed statement from the get go. There is no “I” in team, and you play the game to win. I am sure the Steelers were not thinking, wow if we had Peyton or Brady we really would have won the Superbowl.
Teams fit together like a puzzle. The “right” players does not always mean the best players. Having a well defined role, and knowing how to be the effective within that role is far more important than elite talent. Heart. Momentum. Chemistry. Will to win. None of these things are statistically measurable. Anyone who claims that these things are not significant or worse yet are irrelevant, well I simply cannot believe that we are watching the same sporting events.
He is putting up..
a whole lot of platitudes and saying that anyone who disagrees with them is delusional and irrelevant. You don’t see that? This has Bleacher Report all over it.
Well, we're waiting....
Hasn’t the 400+ comments on this story been all about who is delusional and which platitude(s) someone wants to buy into?
Well...
You seem to have played a huge part in this 400+ comment thread, but if you want to buy into SanFranSoldiers post, then by all means. It didn’t render Brendon’s point moot, but hey, maybe we’re all delusional for contributing to this thread, and Fooch and Co. are irrelevant for using things like DVOA.
It’s still a pretty bad post though.
Well, we're waiting....
I am sure the Steelers were not thinking, wow if we had Peyton or Brady we really would have won the Superbowl.
Actually, I’m pretty sure all the teams NOT Indy or New England wish they had a Peyton or Brady on their team. Not saying that they would have definitely won the Super Bowl with either player, but the Steelers definitely wouldn’t turn them down if they were available to them.
That isn't the point...
The teams that did have those two players didn’t win the Super Bowl. Would you rather be the team that had Peyton Manning but didn’t win the Superbowl, or the team that didn’t and did?
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 4, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
For one season, or for the course of said players' careers?
Because I’d much rather be Indy for Peyton’s run or New England during Brady’s than Pittsburgh during Ben Roethlisberger’s career.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
There is a problem with this line of thinking...
It is pointless to debate a scenario which is so unlikely. Name a likely scenario which would allow these players to switch teams without losing any of the other players that are currently on the Steelers roster and I might see merit to this point.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 4, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Then why did you propose it?
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
I didn't...
The point was that you would pick the team that won the superbowl. They play the games to compete for a title, if that is not your teams goal, you either suck and you know it, or you are setting the bar too low. Second place is the first loser. It is not a relevant argument to say well I would be the team that won the superbowl and have Peyton Manning. Yeah, me too. That is not insightful in any way. But was that an option this year? Under what scenario would it have been possible for the Steeler’s to keep their team intact and have Peyton Manning as their quarterback. Hell under what scenario could the Steelers have Peyton Manning as their quarterback period? I can’t think of one. The question is not “is it better to have the one of the best QB’s” the question is " Is Shaun hill a good qb" I say, so far so good.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 4, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions
It is not a relevant argument to say well I would be the team that won the superbowl and have Peyton Manning. Yeah, me too.
Howie was just pointing out why your choice of example was poor. You kinda rambled off topic for a while after that.
Ignoring that for a moment, we’ll look at the greater issue and answer what I’m sure you meant your point to be – and that is “Would you rather ignore the QB position in favor of building a Super Bowl worthy team around the position (Steelers, Bears, Vikings), or would you rather grab your franchise QB (a Manning type, as you mentioned) and hope for things to fall together at some point during the 10-15 years of his career? (Colts, Patriots, Saints)”
The answer to that, I should think, would be strongly in favor of the second option. You grab your Brady or your Manning and you develop a team around them. You keep fans in the seats and the media on your side with a franchise QB and, eventually (as we’ve seen with guys like Manning, Young, Elway, etc.) you go all the way.
The question is not "is it better to have the one of the best QB’s" the question is " Is Shaun hill a good qb" I say, so far so good.
Since you’re now straying from your proposed hypothetical and getting to the heart of this thread, I’ll ask you this: What, in your mind, makes Hill so good, exactly?
Is it that he put up a marginally decent record against really crappy teams?
Is it that he performed slightly below league average against, overall, some pretty poor pass defenses?
Is it that he’s a scrappy, gritty, underdog type and it’s fun to root for him?
Is it that he wasn’t as embarassing to watch as the QB who occupied his job before him?
Please, indulge us.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
That is not a fair question...
My argument has never been that I would rather have Shaun Hill than a top notch QB, I am not saying that he is very good, just that he has given me no reason to think he is bad. I pretty much agree with what fooch said at the bottom of this thread, I think Shaun Hill can be an effective QB in a run oriented offense. Even the author of this article has said he believes the team could make the playoffs and even win the Superbowl with Hill at QB. To me, that is a good QB. Not elite, Not great, but not a detriment to the team. He knows his role and he is able to fufill the responsibilities of that role while generally making a positive impact on the teams ability to win games. That is how I define a good player at any position.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 4, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
That was not my intended question it is way off topic
I am not here to debate which method of team building is more effective, personally I think both have their merits. In fact, one of the best examples you gave, the Patriots, stumbled onto their franchise quarterback. They were building their team around an aging, underperforming quarterback, and would have very likely been searching for a serviceable replacement who fit the teams identity had Brady not exceeded all reasonable expectations and become an elite QB.
I was simply pointing out that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and that building a run oriented team with a dominant defense has been a successful business model. My opinion is you still need a good quarterback to make it work and that Shaun Hill has given me no reason to believe that he isn’t capable.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 4, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I still don't understand this argument in the slightest:
I think Shaun Hill can be an effective QB in a run oriented offense.
What you’re saying is that Shaun Hill’s glaring weaknesses can be veiled and minimized by limiting his opportunities to perform.
How does “He can be serviceable so long as you take the game out of his hands” become “he’s good”?
How does a player who needs to rely on everyone else to make up for his lack of talent in order for the team or offensive unit to have any success become known as “good”?
The examples being given as scenarios in which a Hill-led 49ers team can win games are synonymous with the issues that a team would have to overcome if they had a sub-par or weak player at the position.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
If that's the kind of offense..
That suits Hill, well, it sure can suit Smith as well as a whole lot of mid tier QB’s.
Well, we're waiting....
This is ridiculous...
I already answered those questions. My opinions to all the questions you just asked are contained in another post further down in this thread, which happens to be a response to you. It was the one where you were being unecessarily and erroneously condescending.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 4, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Was it a direct response to me?...
I thought it was to shlecko. I don’t think I was condescending in the least. Not like “delusional” or “irrelevant”. Maybe the “platitude” thing. But now that you’ve fleshed it out and have some “delusional” rebuttals to counter you, I guess the rebuttals are pretty darn “relevant” after all.
Well, we're waiting....
I was responding to shlecko...
But you responded first, so my comment showed up under yours. See how that works.
As far as delusional is concerned, should I assume that you don’t believe that the play of the QB will generally have more of an impact on the outcome of the game than the play at any other position? If so feel free to attempt to argue your point, instead of simply telling me I’m wrong.
As far as irrelevant goes. Read what I wrote again, I never said that anybody elses POV is irrelevant. You clearly did not read that part of my post as it is written because I see no way that it could be perceived in the way you seem to have understood it.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 12:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm having a hard time..
Trying to figure out the linearity of where you’re going with this. It isn’t making sense to me. Even though the linearity as far as a thread is pretty well laid out. I’m pointing out keywords from your original response to the OP. It’s pretty basic really. Those words were aggressive in nature, and used to try to negate a very complex issue, not because of the issue at hand, but because of the emotional nature of the subject. There is a lot of pragmatic reasoning in this conversation. Your first post didn’t reflect that. Rather, it demeaned it.
You want to be the Bad Guy? This is what the Bad Guy gets.
Well, we're waiting....
You pointed out two key words...
That you viewed to be aggressive in nature. I said:
However, It is clear that the QB has a greater effect on the outcome of most games than any other player on the field. Anyone who disagrees with this is dilusional.
It makes very liitle sense to assume that the second quoted sentence applies to everything in my post, or even everything before that sentence occurred. I think it is clear that it applies only to the sentence that immediately preceded it. That is certainly how it was intended.
I also said:
Heart. Momentum. Chemistry. Will to win. None of these things are statistically measurable. Anyone who claims that these things are not significant or worse yet are irrelevant, well I simply cannot believe that we are watching the same sporting events.
So, you see the word irrelevent was used to descibe how a person could view intangibles (as in: intangibles such as heart, momentum, chemistry, will to win are irrelevant to the outcome of a football game) I was in know way claiming that anyones stated opinion was irrelevent, and I do not see how this sentences can be interpreted that way.
Do you actually disagree with either of these statements, or are you just sticking up for those people out there reading who might disagree with one or both of them and take offense.
Both of my statements communicated widely accepted POV’s. It’s like saying “Peyton Manning is a good QB. Anyone who disagrees with this is dilusional” or "Injuries can be detrimental to the success of a team. Anyone who claims that they are not significant, or worse yet, are irrelelvant; well I just can’t believe that we are watching the same sporting events.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 3:46 AM PDT up reply actions
About this...
There is a lot of pragmatic reasoning in this conversation. Your first post didn’t reflect that. Rather, it demeaned it.
This is just ad hominem attack, pointing out nothing more than your perception of my original response. Explain to me why you think it was not pragmatic. Explain to me how it demeaned the conversation. If you are going to make a statement saying my arguments do not have substance, than at least back those accusations with something of substance.
You want to be the Bad Guy? This is what the Bad Guy gets.
I was not trying to be the bag guy. Your perceived my post as arrogant, it was not intended to be that way. I simply provided my opinion on the merits of some of the arguments that had been used to support the OP’s opinion that Shaun Hill is not a very good quarterback.
If you are going to compare Shaun Hill to all the other QB’s in the league than he will show up as below average. But I don’t think that is a good way to determine if a QB is good.
If I try a new food and were to compare it to all the other foods I have ever eaten, I may conclude that it wasn’t even close to the best thing I ever tasted. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it was good. This is how I am evaluating Shaun Hill. I am not comparing him to other QB’s because his role in our offense is not the same as most other QB’s. As long as he is capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of his role, and makes an overall positive impact on the teams ability to win football games than he qualifies as a good quarteback IMO.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I find these two paragraphs really perplexing:
If you are going to compare Shaun Hill to all the other QB’s in the league than he will show up as below average. But I don’t think that is a good way to determine if a QB is good.
If I try a new food and were to compare it to all the other foods I have ever eaten, I may conclude that it wasn’t even close to the best thing I ever tasted. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it was good. This is how I am evaluating Shaun Hill. I am not comparing him to other QB’s because his role in our offense is not the same as most other QB’s. As long as he is capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of his role, and makes an overall positive impact on the teams ability to win football games than he qualifies as a good quarteback IMO.
I don’t know how you could believe that a QB’s quality should not be judged by his relative ability compared to the other QB’s in the NFL.
And I think we all judge foods by all the other foods we have tried. How else do we determine if a food is good or not? If I think most fruits taste better than apples then I’m probably not going to eat many apples, and vice versa.
And Hill is “capable” I guess, as he is an NFL QB. But the point is that most of the other starting QB’s in the league would fill the “Niners starting quarterback” role better than he would.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 5, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions
It is simple
Because you can’t simply say we would be better if we had a better QB, and than go to the QB store and get one. So I measure good by success in reality. We can both be right. The 49ers could be better if they had a better QB, I have never argued that point. That doesn’t prove that Shaun Hill isn’t good. If he continues to have success, and make positive contibutions, than he is good. If he doesn’t he is not.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
If Shaun hil is the 25th best QB
Out of 32 starters, then he isn’t good. It doesn’t matter whether we could acquire those other starters or not.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 5, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Back to the food analogy...
Just because something is my 25th favorite food does not make it bad. If I were to make a list of my top 25 favorite foods, I imagine that the 25th is something that I like, and eat pretty regularly. In fact the top things on that list I do not eat all that often. That is getting somewhat off topic, but the point is that your argument is flawed. Even if you were to say that their is a direct correlation between how high you rank a food and how often you eat that food, there would still be no correlation between how high you rank a quarterback and whether he is good or not. The correlation there would be better quarterbacks get more playing time. Even if you accept this as truth, you still cannot prove that Shaun Hill is a bad quarterback. Sure he has gotten less playing time than better quarterbacks, but he could very likely be the starter this year, which means that he will have the oppportunity to play 16 games . If he can make plays, make good decisions, limit his mistakes, and move the chains, as he has proven he can do already. If he can stay healthy, and the running game holds up its end of the bargain the 49ers will have a productive offense to go along with a good defense. This combination usually translates into wins.
Talent can be negated by poor decision making. Decision Making can make up for a lack of physical abilty. The ability to step up when the pressure is on is a real thing. This is the NFL, shrinking violets need not apply. All the talent in the world won’t help you if you fold like a lawn chair on third down, or with the clock expiring. A quarterback shouldn’t have to carry the team. Its not about making all the plays that lead your team to victory. It isn’t even about making most of the plays that lead your team to victory. Its about making the plays that you need to make to help your team achieve victory. If your team is winning despite having you as their quarterback, it will be obvious. Teams are rarely so good, that they consistantly make up for poor play from the QB. Quarterbacks that I deem as bad are a detriment to their team. You cannot be a detriment to your team simply because you are not as good as QB’s who are better than you.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Here's why I've given up:
If you are going to compare Shaun Hill to all the other QB’s in the league than he will show up as below average
You’ve admitted that Shaun Hill is, in fact, NOT a good quarterback by NFL standards.
You just think he’s good in general – compared to everyone, I guess.
It’s like saying Britney Spears is a good singer because she’s better than I’ll ever be. While it’s true that she’s worlds beyond my own skill level, I just don’t see how it’s relevant, as I’m not trying to sing. When compared to other artists with actual talent, she’s terrible. Just like Shaun Hill, when compared to other NFL quarterbacks, is not very good.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Your getting close...
Being an NFL quarterback on an active roster does mean that you are one of the best quarterbacks in the world at the current moment. But being an NFL quarterback does not prove you are a good quarterback by NFL standards, that is obvious. What does prove that you are a good NFL quarterback, is when you are given a chance to start, your presense makes an overall positive impact on your teams ability to win football games. So far Hill has shown that he is not a detriment to our football team, and that his presense on the field is more positive than negative, IMO.
The argument that Shaun Hill is a bad quarterback because better quarterbacks are better than him, is not at all logical. This would mean that there is only one good quarterback and all other quarterbacks are bad.
I haven’t really even said that I think Shaun Hill is a good QB. My main point is that he has done nothing that leads me to believe that he is a bad quarterback, and with a small sample of games he has shown an overall positive impact on the teams ability to win football games. The rest is hypothetical on both sides of this argument. If he continues to play as he has, he is a good QB. If he doesn’t, he isn’t.
It may just come down to this: I think I have a more realistic opinion on what I believe constitutes the word good. You think that having a higher standard is more realistic. That is the long and short of it.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Good god.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 5, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I think I have a more realistic opinion on what I believe constitutes the word good.
I think “good” should be stretched very little beyond its own definition and intended meaning – which is “of a level above the average of one’s peers”. I don’t know why that seems so unrealistic to you.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
The dictionary has...
definitions that agree with both of our desciptions of the word good. This supports my argument that we are using two seperate scales. If we don’t agree on what good means than how can we agree on what good is.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 6, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions
It would have been nice if you’d actually provided the definitions you’re talking about. Stating something as fact without backing it up isn’t really a productive debate style.
In fact, the only definitions on Merriam-Webster that seem to apply are “Adequate, Satisfactory” and “Competent, Skillful”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/good
Of course, I just skimmed that, so I might have missed something.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Stating something as fact, that is fact...
You forgot that part. Competant, and skillful are both definitions that I would apply to Shaun Hill. I believe someone who is both competant and skillfull is good. As I have said all along Hill has shown he can be good. Time will tell if he is good. At this point he has done nothing that makes me think he is bad.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 6, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
If Hill is a below average starter
He’s not good, period. Let’s not make it complicated. If he’s in the 20’s as far as QB rankings, he’s below average.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 6, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
But you didn’t state a fact at all. You said that there are a lot of definitions in the dictionary that support your opinion.
I think that “the” is a noun, and there are a lot of definitions in the dictionary that support that.
See how easy it is?
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know if...
I should bother replying and explaining my position (check: reiterating it to redundancy) because you’re doing a pretty good job of illustrating it.
Well, we're waiting....
I don't know if you should bother either...
Your arguments are all bark and no bite
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions
If you are talking about tone again
I am intentionally using an “agressive” tone at this point.
Ad Hominem attacks make you look silly. If that is all that you have in your arsenal, than you must be typing just to see your words in print. You don’t win a debate by telling the other person thier wrong. It just doesn’t work that way. So if you have a good argument, and choose not to use it your forfeiting.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions
But we're all...
Delusional and irrelevant here. Why are you trying to debate something you’ve dismissed on your first shot?
Hmmm?
Well, we're waiting....
What I have been attempting to debate with you...
Is whether that initial post was what you say it was. It wasn’t intended that way. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, and I don’t think I am always right. But, like most people, I do believe I am right until someone points out flaws in my logic. At this point many have tried, and the only thing that has been shown is that we are using different scales. You haven’t even tried, all you have said is that I am arrogant and that I am wrong.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions
If you had read...
My very first reply to the Author, maybe that would help clue you in on where I stand in the whole debate. It’s a pretty simple statement. No need to lather\rinse\repeat.
The flaws in your logic I leave to everyone else who on the other side of your “argument”. All I pointed out is that your opening salvo was pretty darn arrogant, as well as banal. That’s just my opinion. Take it for what it’s worth.
Well, we're waiting....
I just re-read your original response...
And it seems like you pretty much agree with me.
But it in no way explains how my original response was arrogant and banal. You still insist that I refered to someones opinion as irrelevant, when I clearly did not. I concede the point to you on my dilusional comment, and I still don’t believe the overall tone of the post was arrogant or banal. Ironically, banal is just a one word ad hominem labeling my comments as un-original and irrellevant. You still have not provided anything except your own self- rightous opinion. Not even a shred of substance.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions
First of all..
I agree with me. I don’t think I necessarily agree with you, and I really haven’t bothered much to look at your reply’s to everyone else. I didn’t feel the need to break down the Author’s post, because he made a fair argument that other would eventually address. I just put my 2 cents in, because it’s really that simple to me. But I also feel the article has merit. You don’t have this dense of a discussion from both sides if it wasn’t valid.
You first post on the other hand didn’t have any real meat against it, just the usual banal “team, heart” etc., the stuff beaten to death here and elsewhere, and you QB hypothetical has been pretty much countered with good reasoning behind it. Pretty much everything in your first post has been refuted by everyone else, and I don’t need to add more to it. But you took a hard stance, and now are making this discussion more about you than about the argument itself. You’re really kinda whacked out on this. Making this about you makes you, well, arrogant, which you have been during your whole run of posts. Do you wanna know how you did it again?
By saying I agree with you.
Well, we're waiting....
I never intended this argument to be about me...
Your reply to my comment attacked my tone, and did not address the content in any way shape or form. You made it about my perceived attitude, and dismissed the content out of hand. And you accuse me of making the conversation about me. If you would just take me at my word, and assume that I am being truthful when I say that I was not attempting to be condescending than we could have saved a whole lot of space in this comment section. At times I have been sarcastic, but I have not been dismissing others opinions out of hand. If I dont agree, than I say that, and I support that opinion with, what I believe to be logically grounded counterpoints. Others are free to dissect the logic, and provide counterpoints as they see fit. That is what the forum is for.
This is what I should have said: I agree with the opinion you stated about Shaun Hill in your original post. When I said you agree with me I was simply pointing out that we have almost identical opinions of Shaun Hill, at least as stated in that opening response. You may not agree completely with my reasoning, but the resulting opinion is identical.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, now you're taking the first step..
Of getting it, and of course I am being condescending in saying that. But I know when and where to pick those spots and can acknowledge it. The thing is here, is that you could have easily dismissed it, much like I’ve dismissed a lot of your responses about me.
The reason why to dismiss this? To avoid what we’re doing now.
I’ve already conceded on you taking my opinion for what it’s worth. I guess it’s worth a lot more than I thought.
Well, we're waiting....
So know I am wrong for arguing in the first place...
Fact check: You have responded to my comments as much as I have to yours.
However i will grant your wish.
You are dismissed.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 6, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Incidentally...
“ad hominem labeling my comments” is a contradiction in terms. Ad hominem arguments say nothing about the comments; they refer to the person making the case rather than the case itself.
Wow, did you all grab dictionary's while I was gone?
An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.
You do not have to attack a person for it to be an ad hominem. Labeling my post banal and arrogant, without providing reason or substance to support such claims is an ad hominem. It is a personal attack. You don’t have to call the person making the comments banal and arrogant for it to be considered an ad hominem.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 6, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not...
An “Ad Hominen” attack. That’s your attempt at a definition. Too bad you missed it.
Well, we're waiting....
That's what happens when you major in philosophy.
You spend time getting to know the major logical fallacies. And you’re right about what ad hominem is (the first time, at least), but this wasn’t ad hominem.
All I pointed out is that your opening salvo was pretty darn arrogant, as well as banal.
If he called you banal it would be ad hominem, but he didn’t. If you want him to say WHY your argument is banal, then he’s making an unsupported argument, but if he doesn’t talk about you then it can’t be ad hominem.
You don’t win a debate by telling the other person thier wrong. It just doesn’t work that way.
Speaking from first hand experience here? I seem to recall you using that tactic earlier in the thread.
P.S.
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They%27re
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Please provide examples
I tend to make those typos and fail to catch them. This will probably continue. A person can be illiterate and still hold well formed opinions. Your are being critical and it is pointless.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Your getting close…
telling the other person thier wrong.
your forfeiting.
Honest to God, I’m not trying to be critical by throwing some low blows here. I’m just a big fan of the English language, and this (sadly) common mistake bugs me to no end.
If I can get just one person per 400 comment thread to learn how to properly use these words, then I will have made a difference – is that really so pointless? =)
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Thats just it, I understand how and when those words should be used...
I just inadvertantly interchange them when I am writing from my internal dialougue. The words sound the same in my head, and I haven’t formed a habit of always typing them in the proper contexts. If I am writing an email at work, I go back and check for these mistakes and correct them. When I am commenting here, I frankly don’t care. But thanks for the english lesson anyways , Professor.
Can we get back to the conversation at hand?
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions
And as for your examples...
At this point we all are using a tone that is bordering on civil and condescending. All of your examples are from latter conversations. They were used in comments where I, at the very least, attempted to support my arguments with substance. Please provide even one specific example where I have said you or anyone else is wrong, without attempting to explain why I think the logic was flawed. It hasn’t happened.
You may not agree with me, but you have to give me an “A” for effort
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions
WTF?
You don’t think that “below average” tells us anything about him being “good” or not? If someone or something is below average they are not good. It really is that simple. (Yes, there are multiple definitions to the word, but we’re using common sense here.)
BTW, your food ananlogy makes no sense both because A) taste is subjective B) there are such a limited number of QBs and C) because of your word choice. If you ate something and your judgment places it within the worst twenty percent of the food you’ve ever eaten you probably wouldn’t call it “good.” It doesn’t have to be “close to the best thing [you] ever tasted” but it can’t suck. IF IT IS MEDIOCRE, IT MAY NOT BE BAD, BUT IT’S STILL NOT GOOD.
Sheesh, your reaching buddy...
I am sure my analogy would not hold up under scientific scrutiny, however it was meant to illustrate a point. Lets take a look at a common analogy:
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
What if I threw a stone but it didn’t hit a wall, would it still be ill-advised to throw stones?
What if I threw a small stone softly, but it was not thrown hard enough to break the glass, would it still be ill advised.
You can break down any analogy using intentionally dense logic. It is just a futile attempt to not accept the point that is being made.
If you have 32 players who do not have the exact same stats, and your going to rank them on stats alone, you are going to have a list numbering 1-32 no matter if the stats are close or far apart. To say that numbers 16 and 17 are the average, and everyone above those numbers are good, and everyone below is bad makes no sense. You could have 32 good players or you could have 5.
Using common sense huh? Nice to see you are reducing arguments to baseless ad hominems as well
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 6, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow....
You can break down any analogy using intentionally dense logic. It is just a futile attempt to not accept the point that is being made.
So THAT’S what you’re doing here….okay, thanks for explaining yourself.
Yes, Hill is a good QB in that he is skilled enough to play in the NFL. Is he a good NFL QB? If you use the common sense definition of good, then you’re probably gonna have to answer no.
(And again, not ad hominem. Not even close. As for the stone-throwing, I’m not even going to bother.)
If you have 32 players who do not have the exact same stats, and your going to rank them on stats alone, you are going to have a list numbering 1-32 no matter if the stats are close or far apart. To say that numbers 16 and 17 are the average, and everyone above those numbers are good, and everyone below is bad makes no sense. You could have 32 good players or you could have 5.
You don’t actually believe this do you? If you have 32 players they can’t possibly all be considered good. There has to be an average level player and then guys who are below average.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 12, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions
replys
Even if somebody has already replied to a comment, it makes it easier to follow if you use the reply button.
by David Fucillo on Aug 5, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
replys
I have used the reply button in all but one of my posts which was the very first one. But, if I reply directly to shlecko after drummer has already replied to that same comment from shlecko my reply shows up under drummer’s reply not under shlecko’s, correct?
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
No.
If you clicked the reply link directly to shlecko, the reply would be posted at the same level (but below) drummer’s. Your reply was attached to drummer’s comment.
Okay, still confused
Could you clarify this, the way I read your response it seemed as if you said I was incorrect, but than explained it as if I was correct. Also, How can you tell a post is a direct reply to another post?
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
You're right about where a reply is placed.
To determine whether a post is a direct reply to another post, click the “up” button (next to the “reply” button).
This doesn't make sense to me..
Because Drummer’s reply was posted while I was I was still typing my reply, so how could it be that I replied to a comment that wasn’t there when I began typing?
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I hit the reply link on your post from 12:55
But this post should show up below my previous 2 posts because they were also replys to your post at 12:55, so it will look as if I am actually replying to my post at 1:09.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
But it doesnt.
If you click the “up” link, it’ll show you which post you replied to. As of right now, the alignment of your three responses are correct, if you replied to my 12:55 comment.
As for the somehow replying to a comment that post while you were typing, I have no idea. Maybe there IS a glitch in the code for the site. But I’m posted many times while other responses were popping up. The alignment always seemed to work out okay, though.
That helps, thanks
I had never used the up link before. However, it should have been clear to Drummer that I was not responding to him because of this:
I already answered those questions. My opinions to all the questions you just asked are contained in another post further down in this thread, which happens to be a response to you. It was the one where you were being unecessarily and erroneously condescending.
If you read his post that directly preceeded the one I just quoted you will notice that it does not contain any questions. I can see where it could be confusing, but I am pretty sure most people can figure out I was talking to shlecko.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Mistakes happen
I don’t know if that was a glitch or not, but in any case, mistakes happen. I wasn’t trying to criticize you or anything like that for not using the reply button properly. I was just trying to help you understand how the reply system seems to work in general, because you had a misunderstanding.
I definitely agree with this
Well stated.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 5, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
But the team that has Peyton Manning did win the Super Bowl.
That’s a crazy, irrelevant question. I’d rather have the team that had Trent Dilfer that did win the Super Bowl than the team that had Joe Montana but didn’t.
But if you asked me which team I’d pick if I had one chance to win the Super Bowl, I’d take the team with Joe Montana every single freaking time.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 4, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
But see that wasn't the question...
Asking your question doesn’t make my question irrelevant. In fact it isn’t even applicable to this topic. The only reason my question is relevant, is it was being used to point out that the team with the inferior QB won the Superbowl. I still think Big Ben is a good QB, but he is not as good as Peyton. He does have more rings though; and fewer years in the league to aquire those rings. Most people would rather have Peyton over Big Ben at the QB position. Few would trade the Colts success under Peyton, for the Steelers under Roethlisberger.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions
No, asking my question doesn’t make your question irrelevant. Your question does that fine on its own. We can debate retrospect until the cows and the pigs and the sheep and the horses and the goats come home, but it does nothing to prepare us for what to expect going forward. Retrospect is fine and dandy, but it’s not very useful.
But then even if I break it down into a more basic framework, it’s stil insufficient. Your question could be driving at “Would you rather have a solid quarterback on a team that gives you a great chance to win or a great quarterback on a team that doesn’t?” I think that’s reductive. I’d much rather have a great quarterback on a team that gives me a great chance to win. It’s not like this is a multiple choice test with 4 distinct answers.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 5, 2009 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Another poor argument, IMO is that a QB’s value cannot be determined by his win/loss record … Anyone who disagrees with this is dilusional.
Joe Flacco > Jay Cutler
AMIDOINITRITE?
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Win / Loss is lousy. Tim Couch went 8-6 one season. Obviously, that was the season that he had turned the corner in his career and became a legit NFL starter.
CONTEXT, people.
MORE context is GOOD.
LESS context is BAD.
If you’re willing to be reductive, then you’re willing to be wrong. That’s all there is to it.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 4, 2009 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Completely disagree about the W/L record
DVOA is absolutely much more important than W/L record when you are evaluating a QB. The Steelers had a historically good defense, that was a much bigger factor in them winning the Super Bowl than Big Ben. And if they could trade him for Peyton or Brady last year (disregarding is injury) you can be sure that they would do it in a heart beat, no matter what each of their W/L records are.
As for your last paragraph, I disagree again. Obviously a player’s role matters, but talent is what makes a good team. Why have the Niners been awful the last five years? Do you really think they just have less will to win than other teams, or do they just have less talent?
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 5, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Depends on coaching
We saw at the 2nd half of last year when Sing took over that the guys played differently. They were more agressive. They showed way more will on the field than they did w/ Nolan. W/ this team I have thought for a while now that it is more about willpower than talent. I think they have plenty of talented players on this squad.
Fans stuck in the 80's are lame. Respect the past, live in the now.
I disagree.
They have players talented in their own way, but there are very few 49ers that are premier NFL starters.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 10, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually I think the team DVOA was worse with Sing
They just played easier teams, which sorta shoots down the “will to win” coming in to play there.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 12, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions
"Will to win"...
Buzzwords rule people like maveric. How many times have you heard that?
Well, we're waiting....
Perhaps we'll have to wait until the season plays out
Or at least see who wins the QB competition. If Smith wins I don’t see how anyone can argue that Hill is good.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 13, 2009 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I think I may have been taken out of context
Does anybody here believe that the QB does not have more of an impact on the outcome of most games than any other position. My opinion is that anybody who disagrees with that specific statement is dilusional. That was all I was saying there.
@ drummer
I really don’t see how you got that from my statements, so please clarify where you feel that I was saying that so I can clarify, because it certainly not my intention.
Just the tone of the post..
You’re not really refuting anything in the thread with substance, rather, your posts reads like it should be placed in the “Intangibles” post a while back. And there are a lot of things that make a QB have an impact on a game, positive or negative.
Well, we're waiting....
It depends whether you believe the original post had substance. There is many differing opinions if you read through the thread. Sorta what I meant by 400+ comments arguing who is delusional.
I was like...
The 3rd of 4th person to respond to the OP when he posted it. If a thread has legs, it has legs. That means what the OP posted has substance.
Well, we're waiting....
It's just a flawed argument.
In a general sense, sure, it’s probably safe to say that the QB holds a greater amount of control over the outcome of the game than, say, a fullback or a punter. However, football is a team sport – and the outcome of a game is determined by the performance of 22+ players over the coarse of 60 minutes of regulation play. In the end, the performance of one individual, regardless of how much it may be greater than another individual’s, is relatively minor.
Say, for example, you have a QB that throws for 300+ yards and 3 scores, with no interceptions. In that same game, his defensive unit gives up 6 scores and allows the defense to dominate T.O.P. during the majority of the second half. That QB (who we will name Brew Drees, for the sake of argument) performed admirably, but did not win the game. He may play the most important position on the field, but his influence of the game’s outcome was pretty minute thanks to the poor performance of several players on his own team’s secondary.
Another example – we have a QB (again, for the sake of storytelling, we’ll call him Ren Bothlisberger) who throws for 168 yards and one touchdown with three interceptions. His defensive unit, however, is dominant and allows only 10 points, while Ren’s running back racks up 180 yards on the ground to go with two touchdowns. Ren played pretty poorly – and though he plays the most “important” position on the field, the outcome of the game was decided mostly by the players around him.
Ren, the lesser of the two quarterbacks, comes away with a win.
Brew, clearly having had the superior performance, is still stuck with a loss because football is a team sport and the outcome of football games is not controlled by individuals. These things happen in the NFL. A lot.
This is why win-loss record is hardly worth mentioning in reference to the judgment of QB talent.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Yours is a flawed argument as well...
You are referring to a single game in each QB’s season. If a team is constantly winning despite their quartebacks lackluster performances, or if a quarterback is constantly pulling out the win despite his teams performance than there is an inbalance that exists, and those teams rarely have lasting success. However, if a player is not very talented, but is able to be successful in a defined role, than I would argue that he is a good player. I simply refuse to believe that all or even most of the games the 49ers won with Hill under center were won despite having him as their quarterback. He did what was needed of him to put the team in a position to win the game. Could he have done more? Absolutely. He also could have done what JTO did. He simply did what was needed. Good teams don’t need elite quarterbacks. The Patriots play as a team, that is why they have been so successful. Tom Brady is not what makes that team great, the team and the system make him better. Tom is simply a role player who plays his role extremely well. I really don’t think Matt Cassell will be as effective for the Chiefs as he was for the Patriots, and my opinion is that Brady would be much less effective for a less disciplined team as well. As I said before, you play the game to win. One win or loss proves nothing. Good should be defined by how many times your team is able put up the W with you at the helm, not by how many games you could have won If you would have had a better team around you.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 4, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Sorry, I guess my veiled references were a little too ninja-like.
You are referring to a single game in each QB’s season. If a team is constantly winning despite their quartebacks lackluster performances, or if a quarterback is constantly pulling out the win despite his teams performance than there is an inbalance that exists, and those teams rarely have lasting success.
Believe it or not, I was actually making mention to real NFL quarterbacks.
Brew Drees, the NFL QB who put up spectacular numbers but still couldn’t post a winning record due, in most part, to a horrendous defensive secondary is actually….DREW BREES! Stealthy, I know.
Ren Bothlisberger, the NFL QB who put up pretty craptastic numbers, but still won a Super Bowl by riding the backs of a dominant defense and a strong running game is actually….BEN ROTHLISBERGER. Gasp! I know, who saw that one coming!?
The point is that I was not referring to a single game in each QB’s season at all. I guess I should have made that more obvious.
Somehow.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
by shlecko on Aug 4, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
How perfectly condescending...
Unfortunately, I understood that you were talking about those specific QB’s. Drew Brees is the better quarterback but Ben Roethlisberger had more wins. I did however believe that you were refering to specific games instead of the entire season. It may have had to do with the fact that you provided specific game stats for each player, but never the less I still find your point to be moot. I no more believe that the Steelers won thier games and eventually the Superbowl despite having Big Ben as their QB, than I believe that Drew Brees is the only reason the Saints won the games that they did.
We agree that wins are accomplished by teams, not individual players. In fact, I would argue that the most succesful teams are those that are able to successfully diminish the importance of QB play and it’s overall impact on the teams win/loss record. A defense that can hold opponents to 10 points a game makes the QB’s job a lot easier. Having better players at every other offensive position makes the QB’s job much easier. However, I don’t believe that a QB who needs to have a strong supporting cast around him to be successful cannot be a considered a good QB.
A great QB can make up for lackluster players at other positions, but that is dysfunctional and goes against the whole idea of teamwork. A great supporting cast diminsihes the need for a great QB, and provides an opportunity for a specialist to operate within a true team atmosphere, and be successful. Any QB who can fulfill their duties in a team atmosphere, and make a mostly positive impact on the teams win/loss record is a good player IMO.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 4, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions
re:
He did what was needed of him to put the team in a position to win the game. Could he have done more? Absolutely. He also could have done what JTO did.
JTO was the worst QB in football last year, I don’t think we should judge Hill based on him. Hill was below average and not the kind of player you want to be your starting QB.
The Patriots play as a team, that is why they have been so successful.
No, the Pats have had some of the most talented teams in the league this past decade.
Tom Brady is not what makes that team great, the team and the system make him better. Tom is simply a role player who plays his role extremely well.
When his career is over Brady will go in the Hall of Fame as one of the greatest palyers of all-time. Saying he is a role player is simply wrong.
I really don’t think Matt Cassell will be as effective for the Chiefs as he was for the Patriots, and my opinion is that Brady would be much less effective for a less disciplined team as well.
Your confusing talent for heart and discipline. Cassel will be worse because the Chiefs offense is awful. They have Dwayne Bowe and a bunch of nothings at WR and an old, declining Larry Johnson at RB. With the Pats Cassel had possibly the best starting WR duo in the league in Moss and Welker, plus a great O-line. That’s why he’ll play worse.
Good should be defined by how many times your team is able put up the W with you at the helm, not by how many games you could have won If you would have had a better team around you
Teams should be judged based on how many wins they get, not individual players. Are Patrick Willis and Frank Gore bad because they’ve never been on winning teams? Is Willie Parker better than Frank Gore? After all, he’s won two Superbowls and Gore has never had a winning season.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 5, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
?????????????
Come on now, I have a right to defend myself. I have already clarified one point where I was taken out of context ( and it probably was my own fault; I am certainly no literary master, and stoned to boot) but to label my whole post as arrogant because of a single reference to someone being dilusional if they disagreed with a widely accepted point of view seems a bit extreme to me.
Hill
Just wanted to get some of my thoughts down. It’d be nice to find a scouting report on Shaun Hill coming out of college.
The time in Minnesota is easily explainable. Daunte Culpepper was the guy and Brad Johnson was an extremely proven alternative. With JTO last year Hill was basically knocked out of the competition in the first week or two of practice. They claimed a sore arm, but when he got back in JTO had assumed the starting role.
While Shaun Hill has done fairly decently against less than stellar opponents, it’s still hard to get a handle on him. Is that chart listing every single QB ever or a lesser amount? I just think Hill’s career trajectory has been different than a lot of QBs. Maybe he amounts to nothing, but given the limited number of games and the quality of the opponents I really want to see what he could do in a full 16 game season as teams adjust to him.
Given some of the QBs that have succeeded in the NFL I think he could be a fairly decent QB. Maybe a power-run based offense could be the support he needs. That might not be the case, but I’m anxious to see this season.
The other thing that makes Hill hard to read is his finger injury. If offseason reports are anywhere near accurate, he’s only now fully recovered from his broken finger two years ago. Who knows what that means?
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 4, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions
good point
I had completely forgotten about that. Would be good to know more about that.
by David Fucillo on Aug 4, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I said it before and I’ll say it again. The comment thread in this post was psychotic.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 4, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, it was obviously intended to be flame bait.
But that doesn’t mean that it can’t also be fun =)
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
It was intended to try to point out the facts.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 5, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
waah, waah, waah, Shaun Hill’s won only 7 out of the 10 NFL games he’s ever been allowed to start, waah, waah, waah, he’s going to keep sucking
How many days until someone else posts another anti-Hill post listing all the same reasons we’re not supposed to have faith in this guy that have been listed over and over again on this website thousands of times already?
sorry man, but Ninjames dominated in this one
If Alex Smith is our starting QB on day 1 of the regular season, I’m going to start investigating different creative suicide alternatives.
"Those boos really motivate me to make something happen." - Bonds
Awesome!
If Alex Smith is our starting QB on day 1 of the regular season, I’m going to start investigating different creative suicide alternatives.
I was pulling for Smith before, but now…
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Ninjames spouted off the same terrible pro-Hill arguments rooted in fantasy and basically summize to
“As long as Hill doesn’t have to pass the ball, he won’t be a liability. If he’s not a liability, therefore he is a good QB’
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 5, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions
The problem with your example...
Is that even a run heavy offense passes at least 40% of the time. That is a significant amount of pass plays. Shaun Hill had plenty of opportunities to lose games last year but he very rarley made those critical mistakes. Great is having the physical ability to make up for incremental poor decisions. Elite is Having talent and decision making skills. Good is any player that makes an overall positive impact on his teams ability to win football games. That is how I see it.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 5, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions
That hail mary against the Rams was a critical mistake.
And Hill does not make positive impacts on the team’s ability to win. True, it’s not like they won games in spite of him, but he certainly wasn’t a difference-making contributor.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 6, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Good is any player that makes an overall positive impact on his teams ability to win football games.
What does this mean exactly? An average starting QB was better than Hill was last year. If you replaced Hill’s performance with an average starting QB performance the Niners would have been better. Therefore, I must conclude that Hill didn’t have an “overall positive impact”, he had a negative one.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 6, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
This was not an anti-Hill post.
I don’t quite see why you’ve decided to become the non-anti-Hill reactionary voice of the world. It seems like somebody could say something completely factual about Hill, and if it was even remotely unflattering you would – at this point – condemn that person as a Smith Fan Hill Hater and ridicule their comment with misinterpretation and misguided vitriol.
What’s the deal?
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Most of the comments I have made...
Are replies to people who have replied to me. Many of you have dismissed my comments out of hand. Others made good points, and those people made it clear that they are judging Hill on a differant scale than I do.
A NT tackle in a 3-4 defense is not expected to put up monster stats. Their role in the defense is to be big, to be strong, and to occupy blockers. Any 3-4 NT who is successful at occupying blockers consistently will be considered, at the very least, to be a good player. The same player might not be as valuable in a 4-3 defense. This correlates directly with the QB position in a run oriented offense. The role is to make plays when you need to extend a drive, and to not make costly mistakes. Is it an easier job that more players could be succesful at, yes. But if your team can be successful in the NFL, and your quarterback is contributing positively towards your teams ability to win games, than you have a good QB. I really am not even that high on Hill. Like you I would prefer a better quarterback. A much better scenario for our team would be for Smith to realize his potential. My point is this, Shaun Hill has shown he can get it done. Time will tell if can do the same against stiffer competition. It is certainly not a forgone conclusion that he cannot. Indications are that it is possible. Here is to hoping for the best.
by SanFranSoldier on Aug 6, 2009 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions
He wasn't talking to you.
Also, you’re rambling off topic again.
My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists.
Yeah, I was talking to Persilflage in this case.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Not making mistakes =/= postively contributing.
Not making mistake =/= not negatively contributing.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 6, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Ignore that last one.
What I meant to say was
Not making mistakes = not negatively contributing.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 6, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
sorry man, but Ninjames dominated in this one
Um… no.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 6, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Maiocco's Take
Less about Hill’s caliber, & more about Smith’s caliber in relation to Hill:
The games are key but there’s no question QB Alex Smith has put himself in position to win 49ers’ starting job.
this freakin' thread
exploded! I don’t even want to know whose involved in what up there! dare I risk raising my BP?
by Andrew Davidson on Aug 5, 2009 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Move along...There is nothing to see here....
We all love a trainwreck though.
This is probably the most epic thread posted in a while, and it isn’t even a Joe vs. Steve debate. You know, real QBs.
Well, we're waiting....
To be fair to me, I said it twice before him and now once below him. So I’m at least three times as above it all as that guy.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions
But it's clear..
That you think you’re “above it all”, thus why question it?
Well, we're waiting....
It’s pretty tough to question it with a view this awesome. You guys look like ants from up here. Soft, bipedal ants.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m thinking I should bottle it, actually. Pheremone city, let me just tell you.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions
You've improved on the formula...
It’s a testament to your dedication of refinement. Before, it was like Guido in NYC. Now, it’s as subtle as when you walk into a Macy’s.
Well, we're waiting....
This comment thread is psychotic.
I mean, even I couldn’t save it.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe you would do better..
Trying to save the World. Even less, the economy.
Well, we're waiting....
No way
My powers only work in the blog world. It’s like Superman on Earth.
The only thing I could do for the world or the economy would be to gently reassure them that it was going to be alright.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions
At least you recognize that..
Yet, this is a Blog, and the subject is the 49ers. Should be an easy task for you.
Well, we're waiting....
Which makes my failure all the more puzzling. Perhaps this is Bizarro-world?
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Jesus Christ.
Not this again.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 6, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
You must think
Rex Grossman is pretty good too right? NFC Champion Rex Grossman?
I’d like to know who the “other QB’s” are woh couldn’t win, unless we’re defining Alex Smith, Trent Dilfer, JT O’Sullivan, and Cody Pickett as legitimate QB’s I don’t see who your talking about.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 6, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Rex wasn;t an NFC Champion QB
Orton was the winner he is the Hill in this situation. he didn’t lose the game kinda like Hill. grossman had the long ball and a GM that didn’t want to be wrong, sounds like Smith
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
Grossman was the starting QB in 2007, not Orton
But let’s use Orton. Did you hate the Cutler trade from the Bear’s prospective then? The Broncos traded Cutler, who’s never had a winning record, for the glorious Kyle Orton, plus 2 first round picks.
Why would the Bears do that if all that mattered was a QB’s record? Furthermore, let’s trade Patrick Willis immediately for Gary Brackett. After all, Brackett has been on some great Colts teams and Willis has never won anything. Makes sense right?
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 6, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Orton played more games and won more games that season
Do you watch football? No why would i want to trade Willis for Brackett? Get a clue
aka Optimist Prime 09...........9ers (site decorum)
Ah, the joy of ignorance
Grossman 06-07 season (the year the Bears went to the Superbowl): 16 starts, 3193 yards
Orton 2006-2007 season: 0 starts, 0 yards
But I need to get a clue right?
And as for the Willis for Brackett joke trade, that was because commenter Mathews suggested that a winning record is all that matters. If that were true, then obviously we would want to trade Willis for Brackett because Brackett has won more games. The point was that using wins and losses as individual stats is beyond ludicrous.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 8, 2009 5:26 AM PDT up reply actions
http://www.ninersnation.com/2009/7/30/968833/why-shaun-hill-isnt-a-good-qb#19243297
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 6, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah, my computer can barely even load this thread anymore
this is my 5th and last attempt to even post this comment, keeps freezing up on me
"Those boos really motivate me to make something happen." - Bonds
I expected a Thank you and have a good night...
Great points! Smith should start!
Joe and Steve were under the same system for years... don't expect Smith to be super so soon.
Wow
You’ve generated a butt-load of comments from the faithful. So, in response to your post, I’m going to write you the longest response in Ninersnation history.
Shaun Hill hasn’t brought this much excitement to the quarterback position since Jeff Garcia left. He has a 7 and 3 record as a starter, and based on what I’ve seen on t.v., has the kind of instincts (i.e. pocket presence) that you need in order to be successful. Forget about Hill’s track-record prior to joining the 49ers. That was the past. Why not focus on what he’s already done with the 49ers. Put this into perspective: In those 10 games that Hill started, wouldn’t you agree that the team he was playing for was crappy? In spite of that, he still managed to guide them to a 7 and 3 record. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? Imagine putting in Alex Smith for those 10 games. You honestly think he would have fared better? Is Hill going to be a pro-bowl quarterback, probably not. And is he even going to perform at an “above average” level as you say, probably not either. But put it this way, I’d rather have Shaun manage the game and give us a chance to win, than to have Alex Smith throw multiple interceptions, get sacked 5 times because he can’t seem to get rid of the ball quickly enough, and consequently ruin a game.
You brought up the fact that Hill couldn’t even win the starting job on a team with mediocre competition at the QB position, therefore he isn’t a good QB. Well, couldn’t the same be said about Alex Smith? J.T. O’sullivan, of all quarterbacks, was signed and immediately made the starting quarterback before preseason even began. Dude was a freakin’ journeyman! Yet, smith couldn’t beat him out!
I heard the guys talking over on knbr a few days ago, and word on the street is, the 49ers ‘secretly’ wants Smith to succeed. That’s the only reason why Smith has been given an equal shot at starting. My question is, why?! Smith has already been given his shot. I get tired of hearing people say that he hasn’t been able to live up to expectations because “the 49ers have mishandled him” (i.e. 4 different offensive coordinators in 4 years). That’s a REASONABLE explanation for Smith’s struggles, but have you guys ever wondered, “Well, if he was a good quarterback, I don’t think the 49ers would have brought in 4 different OCs in 4 years.” The same could be said about Tim Couch, and all the other booty quarterbacks who were drafted high and never met expectations. But back to the point here. The 49ers only brought in those 4 different OCs because they felt they needed to make up for Smith’s deficiencies in passing the ball. They brought in Norv Turner, for instance, because they wanted someone who could help accommodate Smith’s ‘athleticism’. That is, Turner would call more pass plays that allowed Smith to run out of the pocket so that he would be given the option of either passing the ball or using his so-called athleticism to run and gain positive yards. Granted, he improved by throwing 16 TDs that year, but don’t forget! He also threw 16 interceptions as well. Further, please don’t ever, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, forget that this kid threw 11 interceptions before getting his 1st NFL touchdown, which probably wouldn’t even have happened if that diva, Brandon Lloyd, didn’t make a great catch. For a #1 overall pick, I don’t care how horrible the team is and how bad the receivers are, how in the world can you explain the 11 int, 1 TD performance in his first season? The only explanation is that the guy sucks! Why can’t people understand that?!
Fans who want Smith to start should be reminded that Hill is Singletary’s guy because he’s a game manager. His style of play better suits Sing’s philosophy, and that is, defense wins games, not the offense. It’s also worth noting that Coach Sing was brought in the very same year Smith was drafted. I think it’s safe to say that he’s seen enough of Alex.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a die-hard 49ers fan and wanted SO MUCH for Smith to succeed. Still today, I must admit, that I ‘secretly’ want Smith (a really kind-hearted human being) to succeed and ultimately win the starting job from Hill, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. Like what many NFL experts have been saying, I’d really be surprised if Hill wasn’t named the starter by preseason’s end.
Listen, if Smith can’t even make simple, routine pass plays consistently the way Hill has done, than you don’t deserve to be the starter. Enough said! I believe it was either Matt Barrows or Matt Maaioco who said (in Smith’s 2nd season) that one of Smith’s many problems is that he is mechanically flawed. They pointed out that Smith has a tendency to throw off his back foot. As a result, many of his passes tend to sail high. I thought this was a pretty damn accurate critique. Remember some of those pass plays that sailed WAY high over Antonio Bryant’s head? Anyway, I’m anxious to see how Smith performs in the preseason, and whether or not his passes will still sail high like it has in the past 4 years.
Oh yeah, I would be surprised if they went for another QB next year. The 49ers drafted this kid, Nate Davis, who some believe was 1st round talent, but simply dropped because of his learning disability. Remember what they said about Frank Gore? How ‘bout the 49ers give this kid, Davis, a shot before they decide on drafting another QB. I saw some of his college highlights, and man…… I was impressed. Scrambling up and down, side to side, showing pocket presence, avoiding the rush, and gunning it to his receivers with his cannon arm. If that isn’t a hint about what this kid can do, I don’t know what is. It’s funny… Scott McCloughan and the guys saw Smith’s college highlights, which basically consisted of him sitting in the pocket untouched while operating from the shotgun package, and they were convinced enough to draft him #1.
(Great post by the way. You provided a lot of evidence for your claims. They stimulated my mind to the nth degree.)
- It’s ya boy, Waiting4JoshMorgan
by Waiting4JoshMorgan on Aug 7, 2009 10:06 PM PDT reply actions
I can't respond to this right now
It’s 5:30 in the moring and I haven’t slept. ;-)
Thanks for the kind words though. I’ll try to give a decent response at some point tommorow.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 8, 2009 5:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Don't get him wrong, I think he knows that Alex Smith has sucked too,
but Shaun Hill isn’t a legit starting QB either (and he did not ‘guide’ them to a 7-3 record; WINS ARE NOT A QB STAT), and Smith has more potential to get better.
Also, Nate Davis didn’t drop because of his learning disability, he dropped because of his turnover issues, and odd throwing mechanics.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 8, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
I don’t think Smith is a good QB either. Smith not being any good doesn’t somehow make Hill better though, even though a lot of fans seem to see it that way.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 8, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue with that.
No one thinks he was a good pick, and I haven’t seen many people say he deserves to start either. That doesn’t mean Hill’s any good though.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 8, 2009 5:30 AM PDT up reply actions
It hurts....
I can’t believe the things I’m reading here. It really freaking hurts me, Brendan, that you would use such words to describe Hill. “That doesn’t mean Hill’s any good though”… ??? My only response to that is, I guess your standards for quarterback play is sooooooo EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH, that it completely disallows you from giving Shaun Hill the slightest amount of credit for what he’s shown he can do at the NFL level. Please don’t get me wrong as I am not attacking you (I’m merely challenging the things you say in a healthy manner). The guy can play! Didn’t you see what he did last year in his starts?
You seem like an old school guy, so I’m gonna say that your posts make you sound as though you still live in the past of Montana and Young. Well guess what? We are in 2009, and like I said, we haven’t had a decent quarterback come along in a very long time. And now that we finally have one, no one is willing to accept that because for some reason they still want that “franchise” quarterback. C’mon, man. We have a good quarterback at helm. What more do you want?
And Fearless Frog, I’d respond to your response to mine, but it was so brief and lacking in further explanation, that I decided against it. I’ll check back another time to see if I finally get that response from Brendan, and whether or not you want to expand on what you said regarding Hill not guiding the 49ers to those wins…….. (Oh I can’t help it!!!!) I’ll just ask this. If Hill didn’t ‘guide’ them to those wins, how else would you phrase it? Perhaps it would have been more appropriate and more to your liking if I said, “In the 10 games that Hill started, the team went 7 and 3”?
I don’t want to drag on this post any longer as I’m sure most of you don’t appreciate me posting to this extent. I’ll end it by saying this. Hill is going to win the job, and will continue on proving that he is a better quarterback than what people give him credit for. If he completely bombs (which I highly doubt), well then I guess I’m going to have to eat my words.
It’s 11:56, and the 49ers won behind 3 interceptions.
It’s ya boi Waiting4JoshMorgan sayin’, good night to you all.
by Waiting4JoshMorgan on Aug 14, 2009 11:59 PM PDT reply actions
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.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Ryan Tannehill won’t start right away, according to Dolphins’ owner
- Lions WR Titus Young barred from practice after starting fight with teammate
- Winslow move could be a costly one for Bucs in the short term
- Matthew Stafford spends $15,000 to win auction package, then gives it to a young fan’s family
- Tim Tebow allegedly asked Broadway actress to remove scantily clad Twitter photo
