The maturation of Alex Smith

by Fooch on May 29, 2007 9:38 PM PDT in News Comment 72 comments

As the 49ers have made moves to bolster the wide receiver corp and the defense, a common theme has come up throughout the offseason, can Alex Smith continue to improve his game and lead this team to the playoffs? Some of the naysayers are looking to cut down on some of the hype. While I agree that we shouldn't get too over the top excited, there's nothing wrong with having some optimism for the upcoming season.

Nonetheless, this is an important season in the development of Alex Smith. The team bolstered the receiving corp, giving Smith a whole host of weapons. While Norv Turner is gone, the team promoted Smith's QB coach from the last 2 seasons, which should allow for some continuity. Alex Smith does not need to be a spectacular quarterback or even a very good one in my honest opinion. He just needs to develop some consistency over the course of the season and not make many mistakes, primarily by boosting that TD/INT ratio.

DPAR
Football Outsiders uses Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement (DPAR) as their primary statistic for measuring a quarterbacks contribution and ranks them accordingly. DPAR represents, "the total number of points scored due to plays where this QB passed or carried the ball, compared to a replacement-level QB in the same game situations."

According to FO's 2005 rankings, Alex Smith was dead last in DPAR, contributing a stunning -66.5 points to the 49ers cause, one of many reasons they finished 4-12. The next closest was Kyle Orton at -38.9, while Peyton Manning led all QBs at 112.5.

In 2006, the statistical improvement seen in completion percentage and other categories can be seen in his DPAR of 1.5, good for 35th among all QBs with a minimum of 100 passes, 26th among those with at least 300. The two worst QBs in the league, Andrew Walter and Bruce Gradkowski, were at -30.6 and -30.4 respectively. The best QB, again Peyton Manning, rocketed to 175.0, with the next best being Marc Bulger at 108.8.

So what do these numbers mean? Well, Alex Smith certainly has some work to do, but clearly he took a big step forward last year. I mentioned earlier that Alex Smith doesn't need to be great for this team to make the playoffs, or even to make a little noise in January. Here are the DPARs of the various NFC playoff QBs:

Drew Brees - 106.0
Donovan McNabb - 57.0/Jeff Garcia - 18
Tony Romo - 51.3
Eli Manning - 28.0
Matt Hasselbeck - 7.3
Rex Grossman - 4.1

There are some great talents there, and obviously it would be nice to see Smith climb to the upper echelon of QBs. However, the combination of a new and improved defense, along with a very good running game should allow Smith to, at the very least, move into double digits in DPAR. If Smith can lower his interception totals and bring some consistency week in and week out, this team is clearly a playoff team. While the hype machine is leading to bigger and bigger expectations, I think Alex Smith is a cool enough customer to manage the expectations on his end and take care of business. I'll have my individual predictions later this summer, but suffice to say, I think Smith takes a miniature leap from below average/average QB to solid, consistent QB and brings the team along with him.

0 recs | Comment 72 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Throw my hat in the ring

inspired mostly by the fact that Alex Smith dominated Jason Campbell in an NFL.com poll that pit 3rd year players against one another. I found that conclusion (shared by many thousands of NFL.com readers) totally ridiculous given Alex Smith's prior performance matched up against Jason Campbell, combined with the latter's favorable circumstance.

The FO numbers you provided support that, as they point that Alex Smith has performed at a historically low level. A brief look at all the FO data available reveals that Alex Smith's 2005 season was the 2nd worst that the DPAR had ever encountered, better only than David Carr's rookie year. Even Ryan Leaf compared favorably.

That Alex Smith improved to barely replacement-level (and Norv Turner is gone) is hardly evidence that he's about to break out, in my opinion.

I don't want to naysay too much, as I find the chic pick of the 49ers as a breakout team in 2007 as fine a choise as any, given the state of their division and improvement last year. Alex Smith's emergence as merely a mediocre quarterback is encouraging as well. But San Fransisco will succeed in spite of their QB in 2007, which I suspect Fooch partially agrees with here:

I mentioned earlier that Alex Smith doesn't need to be great for this team to make the playoffs, or even to make a little noise in January.

In other words, all he has to do is play comparable to Rex Grossman, a-not-so-impressive feat he's failed to accomplish to this point in his career. That, along with San Fransisco improving from one of the worst defenses in the league to the 2nd best, could mean Super Bowl in 2007.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 7:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Improvement

Part of why I consider this such an important year is that Smith's first year was epically bad, and you almost have to simply throw it out. If that's the case then, the sample size for him becomes that much smaller.

I personally think his numbers will improve because he has improved talent around him, which makes it more interesting to judge what kind of quarterback he is. Say he improves his TD/INT ratio, his completion percentage increases and he shows a little more consistency. Is that because of more and better weapons or is he actually improving as a quarterback, or both? He's certainly got the talent (minus the small hands), but it's a tough call beyond that.

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

by Fooch on May 30, 2007 8:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My thing is...

Acknowledging that Alex Smith might be a great quarterback, and even granting that his dismal 2005 was an anomaly, on what else is anyone basing that he'll be a star in 2007? He was pretty bad in 2006. Even if we shorten our memory, nothing suggests that Alex Smith is due (in fact the way most of the arguments would proceed for Smith would be to include 2005, as evidence that he's getting better).

I think he'll get better. But he's so far away from being a competetive quarterback that it won't matter. Nothing this guy has done thus far tells me he's a competent NFL QB and much of what he has done informs me otherwise. San Fransisco is an improved team, but not because of him.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Smith

I mentioned that if his numbers improve will it be his own improvement or just getting more weapons around him. I agree that it's hard to tell if he will improve or not. I think the physical talent is there to help him improve, but who knows if it will happen or not. I'm not saying he's a better QB than Jason Campbell or that he was anything more than mediocre last year. I'd prefer a little patience to see what he can become. With the new talent on both sides of the ball, I really don't think the pressure if there yet for him to be great. He certainly has to improve, but the team is improved enough to cover some of his deficiencies.

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

by Fooch on May 30, 2007 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't argue with this

his supporting cast has improved significantly, and I have a feeling that defenses are going to focus a lot more attention on Frank Gore than they were this time last year. That should open some things up down the field for Smith.

Personally, I think having a quality running back you can depend on is huge for the development of a quarterback. Frank Gore is a quality running back and then some.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Smith vs. Campbell

You can try to compare Smith to Campbell as both being 3rd year QBs in the NFL. But the fact of the matter is Smith is still only 23 (2.5 years younger than Campbell). I can't imagine what is was like for Smith to be playing QB in the NFL at 21.

Smith improved by leaps and bounds last year. If his progress continues by the time he's 25 he will be much more than a serviceable QB, which is all Campbell really projects to this year.

Oh and thank you for all those draft picks. Say hi to Andre and Brandon for me.

by methodrampage on May 30, 2007 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So...

We can't compare Alex Smith to Jason Campbell because the two (despite both being from the same draft class) are a few years apart in age. Yet you compare Alex Smith favorably to Jason Campbell, insisting that Smith will be "much more than... serviceable" whereas Campbell is merely "serviceable"?

Smith improved by leaps and bounds last year.

Let's keep perspective. The above statement was true of Ryan Leaf in 2000. I don't know that anyone in the world could reasonably anticipate Alex Smith getting worse than his 2005 performance, if only because of a normal regression towards the mean. He was historically bad. He improved to merely mediocre.

Why don't you provide the metric on which you are "project"ing Jason Campbell. Is it a statistical projection? Your subjective projection? Is there anything substantive about your prediction that you're willing to leave to criticism?

I've based my confusion of Alex Smith love on the statistical evidence provided here and elsewhere. If you have any meaningful statistical or other analysis that projects JC as merely serviceable, I am all ears.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Campbell vs. Smith

As sfgfan mentioned, football is significantly different from baseball in terms of isolating an individual player. Looking at Campbell and Smith, I see much different circumstances, which makes it all the more difficult to compare them. The only thing they have in common is they were drafted the same year and their 2006 QB ratings were both in the 70s. Campbell sat in 2005 and then moved into the starting lineup Week 11 of 2006. Alex Smith got a lot of starting time in 2005 and then all the time in 2006.

I spent my college years in Washington, DC and got to watch plenty (if not too much) Redskins football, so I still keep an eye out on them even though I'm not a fan. I like Campbell and am glad they finally handed the reigns over to him because he is going to be a good quarterback. It's fun to try and compare players, but I really think the best comparison won't be applicable for another year or two. Assuming no injuries, I think the next two years for BOTH of these guys will be intriguing to watch as they develop.

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

by Fooch on May 30, 2007 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Historically bad

Smith was historically bad in '05, the Niners as a team weren't much better. Is Alex Smith Ryan Leaf? No, I really don't see Smith being the head case that was Ryan Leaf. I don't think he's challanged any fans or reporters to fights. So you can pretty much knock off those comparisons.

But go ahead, you can compare Smith and Campbell, but I don't think you can ignore the age difference. Taken down to the very basics, Campbell has more 2 more years of experience as a QB in general. A lot of maturation and developement can occur in 2 years. So what's more important draft class or age? I'd take age every day.

Smith sported a QB rating of 74.8, Campbell 76.5. Basically on par with each other. Is Smith going to be at the same level in two years? I hope not. I haven't seen any statistical evidence that suggests he will.

Campbell projecting to a serviceable is just my own subjective projection which has been developed over my many years of watching mass amounts of football. But you're right, Campbell could prove to be far less than serviceable next year, as I haven't seen anything that proves that he will be better or worse than a serviceable QB. If your priveledged to such information please share.

And for you statistical analysis of Alex Smith, what does it prove? Nothing really. He's played on some not so good Niner teams as a 21 and 22 year old. You're also looking at an rather small sample size. I'll take my gut, you take your stats, we'll see who ends up with the better year.

by methodrampage on May 30, 2007 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Age

As age has become a discussion point, I stumbled across an interesting article from FO: "Will Jason Campbell save the Redskins?," which I'm sure Skin Patrol has read. Obviously plenty of points to be made about everyone, but an interesting comment about Alex Smith in the column. The article is discussing the college to pros projection system. About Smith:

Alex Smith

After a rookie year in which Smith was worse than even Ryan Leaf, I can't say that I really expected Smith to bounce back to his above-average projection. He hasn't bounced all the way back to it yet (he was projected slightly above 2.0 DPAR per game this year and he's right around 1.5) but he has shown significant promise. One improvement I am working on making to the projection system for next year is the inclusion of age as a variable. Right now, only number of years in NFL is included. In the age of redshirts (and holding kids back in grade school for athletic reasons; I'm looking at you Clausen family) most quarterbacks enter the league at age 23 or 24. Smith, however, was 21 as a rookie, probably a disadvantage when it comes to his early performance.

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

by Fooch on May 30, 2007 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jackpot

Thank you very much Fooch. But do we have to consider that the article was written by a 19 year old?

by methodrampage on May 30, 2007 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

19-year old

Yea, he's been writing for less time than other FO writers so it's definitely a key factor! Of course he's probably smarter than me right now.

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

by Fooch on May 30, 2007 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably smarter

than I as well.

by methodrampage on May 30, 2007 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

it would be a good idea for you to to consider his age, if that supports the conclusion you are trying to reach and you cannot discount his QB projection system any other way. That appears to be the case.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not discounting anything

I was just suprised that that article was written by a 19 yr. old.

by methodrampage on May 30, 2007 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Smith was historically bad in '05, the Niners as a team weren't much better.

Don't think this is fair to your 49ers. They were bad in 2005 but not historically bad. They had just 4 wins though that happens every year and isn't especially unusual. In that particular year two teams (Saints and Texans) were actually worse. When I speak of historically bad production, I'm talking about once every few years, not routinely bad annual outings. Also, don't let the tail wag the dog... were the 49ers really super bad in 2005 and thus Alex Smith suffered or were they really super bad in 2005 because Alex Smith failed? I would suggest that since his performance was comparatively worse than the actual performance of the team overall, thus the second conclusion makes more sense.

Re: Ryan Leaf. I never compared his attitude to Alex Smith's. I compared their production. The numbers speak for themselves.

Taking your absurdly reductive metric to it's logical conclusion, Redskins should hope Sammy Baugh lines up under center.

I'm willing to consider Smith's age and weigh that against everything else he's done. Again, what has he done that tells me he's going to be good? I can look at what Campbell has done and resonably conclude that he's going to improve. I can do the same for Smith, but anything beyond modest improvement is arguing against his current production.

This age stuff will get tired quickly as well. Alex Smith played when he was 21, but he also had one of the worst seasons of any QB in recent history. He played when he was 22, but he also had a fairly pedestrian performance given his prior NFL experience and considering his age. He will be 23 when next season starts. By the year's end I hope you are willing to grant that fans can reasonably begin deterimining his potential as a quarterback in the NFL.

Here's some, if you are married to QB Rating, which I'm not. The following well known QBs saw their QB Rating decline two years after thier 2nd NFL season: Peyton Manning, Marc Bulger, Jon Kitna, Tom Brady, Steve McNair, Mike Vick, Jake Plummer... That's after a very quick check and includes a wide range of QBs, talented and otherwise. The point being that there's no guaranteed that Alex Smith, or anyone, will necessarily improve two years from this day.

The statistical evidence that suggests Alex Smith specifically could regress is his 2005 and 2006 performance. Nothing he's done in those two years indicates greatness. He could very easily turn that around and, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, I think he will given the improved talent around him. But I wouldn't assert it strongly, either, and I think many people are giving Alex Smith more credit than his performance to date would justify.

But you're right, Campbell could prove to be far less than serviceable next year, as I haven't seen anything that proves that he will be better or worse than a serviceable QB. If your priveledged to such information please share.

Happily. Fooch provided David Lewin's QB projection system which operates on a regression analysis of the past 10 years of QBs drafted in the 1st two rounds. It identifies the things quality quarterbacks had in common and what distinguished busts from productive players, and determined that College starts and Completion % were the two most relevant factors. Jason Campbell was high in both categories. Alex Smith was not. That system projects Jason Campbell as a great QB.

Another reason he might succeed is that he's operating in an offensive system that was better than any other in the league from 2001-2005. Al Saunders has proven over decades of coaching that he has the offensive know how to create quality, productive units that score points and win games. He did it in St. Louis operating in the Greatest Show on Turf. He did it in Kansas City.

JC has the benefit of offensive consistency for the first time since High School. All four years at Auburn he had to learn a new offense. Both his years in Washington he's had to do the same. Finally, mercifully, 2007 represents offensive continuity for JC. He has succeeded without it. He should excel with it.

I am not saying that Alex Smith will be bad. I am saying that nothing he did in the past two years gives us reason to think he'll be good. No offense to your "gut", but much of the rest of us think stats and analysis both have a place in NFL discussion. I will grant that Alex Smith was a young quarterback on a bad team. He played just as one might expect: like a bad quarterback on a bad team.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

After reading the last sentence...

let me just say that I'm not attacking the 49ers. You guys said they were bad in 2005, I'm just repeating that. I have no issue with the 49ers. I think the man-love for Alex Smith in the media recently is a bit excessive. My last post sounds unnecessarily combative and I want to stress that I am here to discuss football, not attack the fan base of any particular team.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Man-love

I don't think theres a lot of man-love for Smith in the media. From most of what I've seen, the media-heads are "interested", "curious", or "intrigued" in how Smith will do this season, but I don't think anyone is writing him in as a sure-fire Pro-Bowler, or even a high-caliber QB.

Most of the man-love for Smith comes from the 49ers fanbase itself, as it should. As I previously expressed, I'm cheering him on, but as with most prospects, you have to be cautiously optimistic. I want him to throw for 3000+ yards and have a passing percentage near 65%, but I don't necessarily expect him to get there. I do think he'll get darned close, though.

by sfgfan on May 30, 2007 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair point...

so rather than attacking some anonymous "media" force, I'll point directly to a recent NFL.com frontpage poll asking "Which of these third-year players is most ready to break out in 2007?" Alex Smith dominated the ranking with 180 thousand votes in. Needless to say, I disagreed with that conclusion.

I am willing to say that the 49ers are a chic favorite to take the division, an argument that pretty much depends on the continued improvement of Alex Smith. Without naming anyone specifically, because I haven't the inclination right now (or alternatively, and I should admit this, I might have imagined the entire Alex Smith man-love issue), I believe that many have based that pick on drastic improvement of Alex Smith. As I've said before, I think it's a bit premature to claim that yet, especially given how he's performed to date. None of which is to say that he will NOT improve drastically in 2007.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And you sir

are in the minority. Deal with it.

by methodrampage on May 30, 2007 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just slit my wrists.

I hope you are happy. Your internet debate skills have forced me to rethink my position. After I have consulted with James Murphy's Guide to Debate (3rd Edition) I will return and best you.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The gauntlet

has been dropped.

by methodrampage on May 31, 2007 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too bad this isn't how I make a living

but I'll play the game.

Fair enough the '05 Niners weren't historically bad, they were "super" bad? But apparently better than they were the year before when they netted the first overall pick with 2 wins (is that historically bad, I'm not totally sure what the qualifications are). So two answer your first question, I don't think the Niners were super bad because Alex Smith "failed". I don't know what you expect from a 21 yr. old QB who ran a spread offense in college. But I'm wasn't, and still not, ready to label Smith as a failure after his first year. But the '04 team had such QB greats as Ken Dorsey, Tim Rattay, Cody Pickett and Brandon Doman on the roster. I think Alex Smith has more than a fighting chance of being better than any of those guys. Lining up behind Smith was Kevan Barlow (stud) and his #1 WR, you should know a whole lot about this guy Skin Patrol, Brandon Lloyd. The rest of the reciever core was filled out with Battle, Wilson and a couple guys who are no longer in the NFL. Now those are some offensive weapons, damn!

Most definately, I believe this year 49er fans, and everyone else for that matter, will begin to see what kind of QB Alex Smith is going to be. I think he will continue to improve but I think his real potential or dare I say lack there of will be shown this year. You keep harping on how bad Smith was in '05 and give him no credit for his VAST improvements, although the end result might be mediocrity. The offense as a whole improved in '06 as did Smith's production. The offense looks to have been improved once again. And I suspect the Smith perfomance will improve as well.

I'm not a huge QB rating fan, but it does show that right now Smith and Campbell are comperable. Both could improve and both could suck. You're name dropping but your failing to prove a point. Almost half you list weren't fulltime starters in their 2nd year, I think Kitna actually improved from his 2nd to 4th year (72.3 to 75.6), Tom Brady dropped from 86.5 to 85.9, Manning dropped from 90.7 to 84.1, and Bulger didn't play in a game in 01 but I guess that his first season but he improved his QB from the 2nd season he actually played an NFL game to his 4th season actually playing. Weak arguement for Smith not being able to improve. All we've seen Smith do over the past two seasons is improve, what's saying he isn't going to continue?

And this year will definately provide some insight to how good Campbell might expect to be. Honestly I don't see him being much better than Smith. But time will tell.

by methodrampage on May 30, 2007 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

But apparently better than they were the year before when they netted the first overall pick with 2 wins (is that historically bad, I'm not totally sure what the qualifications are).

You'd know what the qualifications were if you read my post. Reminding you:

When I speak of historically bad production, I'm talking about once every few years, not routinely bad annual outings.

The 49ers won 2 games a year before another team did, which would call into question how "historically" bad it really was. In any event, Alex Smith wasn't on the 2004 49ers, and the quality of that team is irrelevant to the discussion.

So two answer your first question, I don't think the Niners were super bad because Alex Smith "failed". I don't know what you expect from a 21 yr. old QB who ran a spread offense in college.

Something better than the 2nd worst QB performance in recent history? Besides throwing 16 interceptions on 1 touchdown, what could he possibly done that would have qualified for failure given his circumstance? You've set the bar so low that no one could possibly crawl underneath it -- that didn't stop Smith from trying in '05.

I think Alex Smith has more than a fighting chance of being better than any of those guys. Lining up behind Smith was Kevan Barlow (stud) and his #1 WR, you should know a whole lot about this guy Skin Patrol, Brandon Lloyd.

Really? Kevin Barlow? Because I'm pretty sure Frank Gore was in there as well.

You keep harping on how bad Smith was in '05 and give him no credit for his VAST improvements, although the end result might be mediocrity.

Well that's just crazy. You might as well be repeating EXACTLY what I just said. I gave Alex Smith the same credit you just gave him; he improved drastically from one of the worst qb performances in history (a fact you haven't disputed) to merely one of the most forgettable. How am I not giving him credit for that?

I'm not a huge QB rating fan, but it does show that right now Smith and Campbell are comperable.

So long as we are willing to bury our head in the sands when anyone mentions 2005. Sure, in that world they are comparable.

I've insisted repeatedly that Alex Smith will improve, though you seem unwilling to acknowledge that. If you want to attack Campbell, that's fine and I welcome the debate. But the least you could do (out of curtesy) is provide the metric you're using to measure QBs so I can respond appropriately. I'm measuring Alex Smith on traditional metrics of TD:Int ratio as well as one's provided thankfully by the host of this website, in the thread we're commenting in. Based on what he's done to date, I've made the fairly uncontroversial point that perhaps it is best to wait and see with Alex Smith, as there isn't any reason (outside of being a fan of the 49ers, which admittedly I am not) to proclaim that he'll succeed in 2007.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mind if I cut in, Braekneck?

"there isn't any reason (outside of being a fan of the 49ers, which admittedly I am not) to proclaim that he'll succeed in 2007."

There isn't? Let's see, after a brutal rookie season had everyone around the sport (especially 49er fans) questioning his abilities, he rebounded to post about a league-average year at the age most QB's are still juniors in college. He did this despite not having one wide reciever on his roster who is likely to start in the league in 2007 (I believe Arnaz Battle will be the 49ers #3 receiver). He now has 2 legitimate starters, along with the best parts of his supporting cast from last year (Gore, Davis, Battle).

So he's a 23 year-old QB, one with a tremendously high IQ and an undisputed dedication and work ethic, one who's already made great strides in the pros at an age when most guys haven't seen the field yet, one now newly equipped with a much better receiver corps, an improved line, and the same beast at RB. I would say those are some pretty goddamn good reasons to proclaim he'll succeed in 2007. And you wanna know what metric I'm using? The oldest one in the book -- common sense, baby.

Does that mean Smith will surely succeed? No way. It's football, any one of a million things could go wrong. No one here is saying he's a sure bet. But to come here and tell people who watch every play of every game Smith plays in that their very rational optimism about him is unfounded just because of sour grapes over your boy losing some stupid poll? That's just lame, man.

"You gotta bring ass, to get ass." --EDDIE DeBARTOLO JR.

by Josh from Hollywood on May 31, 2007 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ooo

This seems to apply to the question that I (long-windedly) posted below. The improvement in supporting cast has been almost exponential, but here's where I keyed in:
"So he's a 23 year-old QB, one with a tremendously high IQ and an undisputed dedication and work ethic."

Statistics tend to have relatively stable and remarkably reliable trends that allow for knowledgeable projections (a fact taken to the extreme by statistical baseball analysts), but football seems thusfar to resist individual statistical player evaluation to that kind of extreme - in large part because 1) it's still a new practice and 2) the mathematics of multiple player interaction in football is a thousand times more complicated than in most other sports.

I'm just kind of hitting a tennis ball against a wall when I'm saying these things, I know, but I think it's really interesting.

I agree that Skins doesn't quite seem to be giving AS a fair shake because I, too, see many of the same reasons that you do for optimism, but it does remain that by his particular method of evaluation AS falls into a statistical category that has chartable trends from which he is pulling his conclusion.

I'm not going to get into the AS vs. JC debate (maybe because I've never been very high on JC, and I do have some degree of homerism for AS), but I will say that I believe there is legitimate merit for almost everything that's been said in this thread.

I do think there are a lot of base statistics that need to be "discovered" for players before I completely buy a lot of these things logically. For example, years starting and completion % for a college QB as primary predictors of NFL success doesn't convince me logically. It makes sense in a very base way, but it seems like there are a few factors missing there. Though the trend definitely exists, the reasons for the trend feel logically to me like they lie in different statistics that aren't being seen or acknowledged. We have a long way to go.

But I love Smith's intelligence, dedication, work ethic, character, and confidence ALL as non-statistical indications of what lay in store for him. It could be a beautiful future.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on May 31, 2007 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Let's see, after a brutal rookie season...

I think it is strange to defend Alex Smith by drawing attention to that year, since it is that year on which one might conclude that his resume to date is suspect.

He did this despite not having one wide reciever on his roster who is likely to start in the league in 2007 (I believe Arnaz Battle will be the 49ers #3 receiver).

I think Antonio Bryant is a legitimate starter in this league. Per the metrics provided in this thread, he was a better WR than Darrell Jackson as recently as 2005.

He now has 2 legitimate starters, along with the best parts of his supporting cast from last year (Gore, Davis, Battle).

Who is the 2nd legitimate starter? Ahsley Lelie???? Again, basing my opinion only on the metrics provided by this thread, Ashley Lelie wasn't even of replacement level quality as recently as last year. I would say that San Fransisco has an improved receiving unit (with the addition of Jackson) but putting Lelie on a pedastal will require additional justification. The most productive receiver that Alex Smith had last year is also gone.

Vernon Davis is a huge addition, and the one I think will have the most significant positive impact on Alex Smith's 2007 season. A full season with Davis could be huge for Smith's development. I acknolwedge that.

But to come here and tell people who watch every play of every game Smith plays in that their very rational optimism about him is unfounded just because of sour grapes over your boy losing some stupid poll? That's just lame, man.

A poll prompted me to ask a question, one I thought could be best answered by knowledgeable San Fransisco 49ers fans. Wouldn't you know it, I come to Niners Nation and there's a thread about Alex Smith. I enjoy discussing Football, I happen to have a lot of respect for the statistical methodology presented here, wouldn't it be a grand idea to engage fans of the 49ers in a discussion about their QB. If you think discussing Football is "lame", then I encourage you to pass on this discussion. I'm not telling SF fans that their alleged rational optimism over Alex Smith is unfounded because Jason Campbell lost a poll, I'm telling them that their alleged rational optimism over Alex Smith is not supported by the available statistical evidence.

Your argument seems to be that he'll have more weapons around him offensively and thus should improve. I'd agree with that (fairly modest and uncontroversial) statement given the addition of Darrell Jackson and the return of Vernon Davis.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 31, 2007 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Optimism

I think the best summation of why some 49ers fans are optimistic about Smith would be:

The addition of some offensive weapons
His intelligence combined with his young age relative to other QBs in the league

There's not a great statistical model to support it, but rather our own version of common sense. Antonio Bryant technically has the skills of a legit starter in the league, but I feel much more confident with a combination of DJax, Lelie, Battle, Williams and Davis than the combination we were throwing out last year. Obviously, in a couple of years we'll be able to look back and make a judgment on this, but I think it's tough to say right now.

I have no problem admitting Alex Smith probably won that NFL.com poll largely due to the hype around the 49ers as a whole. The 49ers will be the sexy pick in the media and the hype will only continue. I just hope he is able to back up this hype on the field this fall. I know that any 49ers fan I talk to is excited to see how it all plays out. I think it's rational-irrationality that is behind our excitement (if that even makes any sense). It's some factors we think benefit Smith combined with our own irrational (at times) love of the 49ers. We've wandered in the desert much of this decade and we're oh so thirsty!

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

by Fooch on May 31, 2007 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the record

I think the 49ers are a legitimate contender for the NFC West title. I don't think that argument is irrational or specific only to 49er fans either.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 31, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

I definitely think they've improved enough to contend for the NFC West Title. The irrational part is more just the general fan-dom, but I suppose that applies to any sports fan. Although statistics should tell us most anything, it's nice to mix in the human element as well.

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

by Fooch on May 31, 2007 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well pffffft

I wouldn't know anything about that, as my Redskins analyses and commentary focuses exclusively on objective factoids used logically towards a defensible conclusion.

Also, the Redskins will win the Super Bowl next year.

Let me conclude by saying that I have absolutely no problem with 49er fans loving Alex Smith. Not a wink of sleep is lost in my household over that, and I wish you fans all the best in 2007, seeing as how our two teams won't have to face each other until the Conference Championship anyways, and you guys really don't have a chance in that game.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 31, 2007 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Square peg in round hole.

It's not that stats don't tell a story. I just find it hard to believe that using stats alone to draw "defensible" conclusions in football is completely possible. Before I end up sounding like Joe Morgan or some other idiot who writes off statistics all together, let me tell you that I agree statistics DO tell part of the story.

Unlike baseball, football is truly a team sport. With that in mind, all of the ground-level statistics that are used to calculate any of the sabermetric/advanced statistics are intertwined with all of the players on the field at that given moment. It's a lot easier to isolate a player's performance (and projections) based on peripherals/statistics in baseball than it is in football.

For example, every yard that a running back gains is a due in large part to his surroundings. That includes (but may not be limited to): his offensive line (blocking, line audibles), his wideouts and tight ends (blocking), his quarterback (ability to audible into a more suitable play), and most importantly, the playcalling of both teams.

Are you saying that the statistics you use in your analysis and commentary is enough to paint a full picture? It's one thing to be a supporter of sabermetrics and statistics and the use of them to project (or analyze) player performance. It's another to totally shun the other-side, which is the vibe I get from you.

With all due respect, I really don't think that any current set of advanced statistic analysis of a football player isn't able to isolate a player form his team. Until that is possible (which I'm not sure it is in football), I don't know if statistics alone can be used to judge a player's performance, let alone project that player's performance in the future. Stats paint part of the picture in football, but I don't know if they'll be able to paint the whole thing.

by sfgfan on May 31, 2007 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was actually just joking.

I make irrational emotional appeals all the time when discussing the Washington Redskins. For instance I frequently reference Jason Campbell's well groomed mustache as evidence that he's a solid QB, which (probably) doesn't have a lot to do with throwing a football.

I came here asking for a reason to believe in Alex Smith, since a cold, impartial look at his statistics does not provide much optimism. You guys enlightened me on improved personnel (I forgot about Darrell Jackson). I still think the kid has a long ways to go, and I'm not joining this Alex Smith bandwagon any time soon, but rest assure that I fully understand that stats are not the only important measurement in football, and that a lot of fate-changing stuff happens (during the offseason, for instance) that stats cannot account for. The post you responded to was facetious.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 31, 2007 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah.

The internets make it difficult to read intent of words. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

by sfgfan on May 31, 2007 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

NFC Title Game

I think the Redskins-49ers NFC title game will go down as one of the greatest of all time, but the 49ers shall prevail thanks to the home field advantage they earn thanks to their 14-1-1 record (We tie the Browns Week 17). While the Redskins trot out a respectable 12-4 record and the battle for MVP comes down to Smith, Campbell, Portis and Gore it's not quite enough for the Redskins who fall 3-2. I'll buy you a beer to cry in thought!

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

by Fooch on May 31, 2007 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know about that.

I think home field advantage is still up in the air. The Redskins will not lose a game in 2007, so San Fransisco will also need to be undefeated. I think the next tie breaker is Strength of Schedule (perhaps Strength of Victory) and we won't know that until the end of Week 17.

My prediction for the NFCCG is that a full rostered game would be evenly matched, except Frank Gore will suffer explosive, debilitating diarrhea and will have to sit it out (literally). That gives a huge edge to the Redskins, who take it and reclaim the NFC as the dominant conference in the Super Bowl, against the Houston Texans.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 31, 2007 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clayton

Newly emerged backup running back Thomas Clayton (who was arrested last year for assault after bumping a campus meter maid with his car) will run down the meter maid offense that is the Washington Redskins!

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

by Fooch on May 31, 2007 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perfect!

I was hoping you'd ignore my statement that Bryant wouldn't be a starter in 2007 (something I strongly believe and you gave no evidence to contradict that) and instead use statistics to show that Bryant is an above-average WR. See, by doing that you've failed my common sense test. You've looked at stats to prove he's good, but those stats don't show you why the Niners released him, or why other teams won't give him a starting spot. They don't show he was suspended for 2 games last year (and another 2 this year), they don't show another game where he was benched by the team for disciplinary reasons, or the time he called out Alex Smith on national TV by waving his arms and yelling at him after he was overthrown on a 3rd Down play. They don't show all the times he gave up on routes. That's why stats are useful, but not always more useful thana pair of eyes and some good old fashioned common sense.

Also, yes, I do think Lelie is a "legitimate starter", but no, I certainly did not "put him on a pedastal". I have no idea where you pulled that out from, but I wouldn't want to smell it. Want to know what I actually think of Lelie as player? Here's my quote from this site when the 49ers signed him: "I don't really like Lelie, but I love that contract". Wow, look at that pedastal! It's like I'm making love to him with my words!

And yes, I ABSOLUTELY want to include Smith's 2005 as a reason in support of why he will continue to improve. Without 2005, where are the signs of improvement? Nonexistent. If a graph starts out at average and doesn't move, where's the trend headed? Nowhere. But if you start out at the very bottom, and suddenly reach average in your very next step, where is the trend headed? Up, up, up. If I say I'm in Omaha and I left 2 hours ago, how do you know what kind of time I'm making if you don't know where I left from? The fact that Smith's first step came when he was 21, completely inexperienced in everything from running a pro-style offense to even taking a snap from center, and playing with horrible talent on offense, it only makes the strides he's made in a short period of time more impressive.

Lastly, no, I don't think talking football is lame. I think I made it pretty clear what i thought was lame, but again you chose to ignore my exact words (as you did with Btyant and Lelie), and just infered whatever you like.

"You gotta bring ass, to get ass." --EDDIE DeBARTOLO JR.

by Josh from Hollywood on May 31, 2007 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Re: Bryant

Bryant's on field performance is good enough to make him a legitimate starter, and he performed as one when he was on the field with Alex Smith. Antonio Bryant might not see much field because he's a behavioral nightmare, but I wanted it made clear that he's a decent enough receiver when he actually plays.

Also, yes, I do think Lelie is a "legitimate starter", but no, I certainly did not "put him on a pedastal".

I will grant that he is a serviceable #2 wide receiver.

Re: Smith's improvement

I wouldn't consider the strides he's made impressive. I don't think there is a quarterback in the league who could have performed as badly as Smith did in 2005 consecutively.

Re: Lame

You said you thought it was lame that I did X. I didn't do X. I explained that I didn't do X, but rather that I did Y. I suggested that perhaps Y was what you thought lame.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 31, 2007 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay...

"I wouldn't consider the strides he's made impressive. I don't think there is a quarterback in the league who could have performed as badly as Smith did in 2005 consecutively."

So you don't find it impressive, and it sounds like you actually found it somewhat predictable. Is this really the case? Were you really predicting that a QB who just posted an historically bad season was about to bounce back with a league-average season? If so, you are the only one I know who predicted that -- and that includes myself, every 49er fan I know, and every writer on every football blog or football pulication I read.

Since you're so enamored of stats, here's a little challenge for you: Compile a list of QBs who have started all of his team's 16 games and put up a league-average or better season at age of 22 or younger. My bet is that will be a very short list, and that most names on it will have turned out to be pretty damn good.

If that one doesn't suit your fancy, here's another: Compile a list of players (any postion, any pro sport) who were in the bottom 5% of the league at their position as a 21 (or younger) rookie, but who bounced back to post a league-average or better season the very next year. That list will be exceptionally short, and I seriously wonder if a single player on that list would not have gone on the be a better than average player over the remainder of his career (baring a catastrophic injury, of course).

The reason for this should be obvious: any player struggling at that age usually takes some time to improve significantly due to lack of maturity, experience, etc. Take Troy Aikman, for example. As a 23 year-old rookie (the age Smith will be this year), he threw for a 52% completion rate, 9 TD's and 18 INT's, and 6.0 yards per attempt. But being the future Hall of Famer he was, you might expect him bounce back with a much better 2nd year. You'd be wrong. His numbers that year were just slightly better (56% completion rate, 11 TD's and 18 INT's, and 6.5 yards per attempt. Smith's 2nd year was better than that. It wasn't until Aikman's third year that his improvement started to show as he put up the first of 5 consecutive seasons with a 63+ completion rate, more TD's than INT's, and 7.3+ yards per attempt.

"You gotta bring ass, to get ass." --EDDIE DeBARTOLO JR.

by Josh from Hollywood on May 31, 2007 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aikman - Smith

This is just a random thought with no real basis in statistics or facts or whatever. When I saw Aikman's numbers and considered his career, it made me think that Alex Smith has the potential to be our version of Troy Aikman: A guy who is talented but not a once in a life time talent, a guy who's career might be made by having big time weapons around him. Frank Gore is obviously a stud in the running game. Vernon Davis could become that stud in the passing game and Smith has the various weapons at his disposal now. Like I said, this is more just a type of hunch if you will. But I certainly don't think it's entirely out of the realm of possibility. Nothing guaranteed, but again, it's just a thought.

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

by Fooch on May 31, 2007 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's funny

I've thought the exact same thing, that's why I used him as the example. If you look at Aikman's stats, there not at all gaudy, he never really threw for a lot of TD's (you don't need to with Emmitt in the backfield), but he was exceptionally accurate. That is the one thing that has me worried about Smith -- he's plenty athletic enough, and has the arm to make all the throws, but I don't see a tremendously accurate passer. That could be his achilles heel. As I've said above, he's young enough to still improve by leaps and bounds, but I seriously doubt he'll ever make it to Pro Bowl level unless he really improves there.

"You gotta bring ass, to get ass." --EDDIE DeBARTOLO JR.

by Josh from Hollywood on May 31, 2007 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

So you don't find it impressive, and it sounds like you actually found it somewhat predictable. Is this really the case?

There was never any question that Alex Smith would improve on his 2005 performance, as regrssion towards the mean (as well as normal QB maturation) would dictate that. You are impressed that he's not a very good quarterback because he used to be a horrible one. I'm not. I've said that repeatedly that improvement from very bad to not very good doesn't blow my hair back. Ryan Leaf improved on his 1998 performance.

I don't know how many more ways I can tell you this: I view Alex Smith's 2005 season as partial evidence of his ceiling as a quarterback. I do not think he's that good. I don't think he will retire as bad as his 2005 season, though it tells me a good bit about him as a quarterback, enough so that I'm happy you guys have him and we don't. Improving on one of the worst seasons in history is not a difficult task. 2006 was hardly an outstanding season, especially for a qb with seven NFL starts of experience.

Compile a list of QBs who have started all of his team's 16 games and put up a league-average or better season at age of 22 or younger.

The list will be artificially short because most rookies aren't 22 and most rookies don't start 16 games. Alex Smith didn't start 16 games his rookie season and wouldn't have started 16 in 2006 had he not had NFL experience in 2005. But I think a comparison with Shaun King is apt given that he started young (just 22) and played a full season the following year. His performance in 1999 and 2000 were more impressive than Alex Smith's in 2005 and 2006 respectively. As it turned out, he wasn't a great quarterback.

I think we'd both agree that more important than age in determining how a QB will perform is prior NFL experience. The difference between being 21 and 22 is exactly one day, whereas the difference between even just one NFL start and zero is significant. I'm pretty sure I could compile a list of 2nd year QBs who have outperformed Alex Smith (and many of them will not be stars). The difference is that the ones I list won't have bombed their first year quite as badly.

Re: Aikman and Smith

The major difference between Troy Aikman and Alex Smith is that Aikman never played as badly as Smith did in 2005. Also, I think the 1989 Cowboys could qualify as a "historically bad team" at least comparable to your 2005 49ers, and Aikman still played better.

But the point of all this is that nothing Alex Smith has done suggests he'll be a good quarterback. There might be a bunch of factors (his age, the team, etc.) that explain why he's been bad and mediocre, but there isn't anything positive to reference that projects him as great. On a really bad team, he was the worst. On an team, he was an average player. As the 49ers improve, I'd predict his game improves as well. But I would happily bet against Pro Bowls in Smith's future. He simply does not yet appear to be a great quarterback.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 1, 2007 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

Smith played as well as Grossman did last year. Grossman is also someone I think gets unfairly criticized. He was up and down last year but it was his first time starting a whole season. I think Grossman showed the ability to be a good QB (not great, good) and I wouldn't be surprised to see him build on last year. The same goes for Alex Smith.

by marcello on May 30, 2007 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't disagree with this

strongly. I think Grossman slightly outplayed Smith last year, though I happily grant that it was close enough to compare the two. I think you are right that Alex Smith improves.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 30, 2007 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A Gentleman's Wager

Skin Patrol, lets make it interesting. How's about a little wager on who actually has their "breakout" season in '07. You have Campbell and I've got Smith. The loser has post an eulogy proclaiming the greatness of the winner's QB and milding denouncing their own. Since you are seemingly more statistically astute I'll let you propose the means and parameters of measuring the said breakout performances. Alex Smith is going to look mighty fine on the front page of Hogs Haven.

by methodrampage on May 31, 2007 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A brilliant idea.

And should you have any reservations about being able to successfully collect, I'd draw your attention to this post I was bound by word to make, even though it pained me so.

As this entire discussion arose from the statistical methodology used by Football Outsiders, I happily submit that as my first choice. My initial offer is this: If Alex Smith is lower than Jason Campbell in DPAR, then you must post in deference to the great mustachioed Madman (Jason Campbell) either here or at Hogs Haven, whichever you'd prefer. Should Alex Smith best JC in DPAR, I will post either here (in a diary) or on the front page of Hogs Haven, acknowledging my error, you decide in the real estate.

I typically consider injury caveats and the like cowardly, though am willing to give on that pending compelling reasoning.

If you're more comfortable with traditional QB metrics (QB Rating, completion percentage, some amalgamation of multiple metrics) present it and I'll happily accept or decline.

Winner is responsible for reminding the loser to pay up. My email is hogshaven@yahoo.com.

Let me know if the terms meet your approval, if not we'll get something hammered out one way or another. I think there's a sufficient amount of witnesses here as well.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 31, 2007 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wager

I definitely like the sound of that kind of wager...I'm hoping to work out something similar with Fieldgulls.com and Turfshowtimes.com before the 2007 season starts.

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

by Fooch on May 31, 2007 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The question is

What happens if neither breaks out or both do? I haven't had much time to wrap my brain around DPAR, so give me a little time to figure out what exactly is going on there. But back to the breakout concept. What kind of DPAR would constitute a braekout? Is there a range of values that would be acceptable?

I guess I'm mostly concerned about what happens if Campbell ends up with a DPAR of say 7 and Smith ends up with a DPAR of 6.5. Both are far from a breakout season and I don't think a DPAR of 7 compared to 6.5 would be something to get all excited about.

Just as it's possible that neither one breaksout it's also possible that both breakout. And between you and me is there really a loser in that situation?

I think there needs to be some kind of qualifying DPAR that needs to be met for a breakout season. As most of this thread was started by that breakout poll.

Lastly, DPAR would already suggest that Campbell is a better QB than Smith, with a 14.8 DPAR compared to 1.5. So for Smith to breakout would his qualifying DPAR be the same as Campbell's?

I also find it interesting that by QB rating the two are comperable but there is a vast difference in DPAR.

Anyways those are just some things that I think might need to be addressed. Forgive me if they are very lucid points, I've been trying to recover from a late night that was filled with too many pitchers of Sierra Neveda and Fat Tire.

by methodrampage on May 31, 2007 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Breakout

Once you've had a chance to check out DPAR, why not just go with whomever finishes higher. The weapons are there for Smith, so certainly he could bust out ahead of Campbell. And if not, so be it. I think coming up with various thresh-holds would complicate things unnecessarily.

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

by Fooch on May 31, 2007 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Breakout"

I don't really want to base the wager merely on Alex Smith breaking out as a) it adds difficulty to determining what we are betting on (what is a "breakout season per DPAR or even traditional measures?) and b) puts me rooting against Alex Smith and nothing else. I'd much rather just straight up compare both players as what originally had me questioning Smith was a poll comparing him to JC, and I like rooting for JC more than I would rooting against Alex Smith. I've already acknowledged that Alex Smith could improve in 2007 on his 2006 performance. That (alone) is not something I want to bet on.

I'm not even going to attempt to guess at what we'd both agree would constitute a breakout season per DPAR or anything else. That's just too long of a conversation.

If we have a bet, winners and losers should be clearly defined. That unfortunately might sway us from the original intent of the bet (to pit my guy against your guy to see who breaks out the most) but that's a risk I'm willing to take, in order to ensure that we aren't left squabbling when all is said and done over who won and who lost.

Per your point about how Campbell is already superior to Smith in DPAR, I'm willing to go by a different metric if you'd like, though let's make sure it is clearly defined. But whatever metric we use will have to be uniform for both players, as I am unwilling to "spot" Alex Smith any points on JAson's behalf, either in DPAR or any other methodology.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on May 31, 2007 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

DPAR - OK

Alright I'm fine with using DPAR. But I think there needs to be a minimum DPAR limit set that at least one QB needs to meet for his "breakout". I'm not going to waste my time writing a profound eulogy for the mustachioed Madman, if he only sucks slightly less than Smith. I'm think either a DPAR value needs to be set or their DPAR ranking needs to atleast break the top 16. And you can't blame me for trying to get a spread for Smith, knew it wouldn't fly but had to try.

To summarize, we use DPAR to measure the performance, highest DPAR wins. For the bet to be valid Campbell and/or Smith has to have a top 16 DPAR in the league.

Let me know what you think.

by methodrampage on Jun 1, 2007 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Works for me.

Just stating the conditions explicitly:

If Alex Smith or Jason Campbell are in the top 16 in the league in DPAR (notice that this also sets a caveat, as DPAR only ranks QBs who throw at least 100 passes in an NFL season), and Alex Smith has a higher DPAR than Jason Campbell, then I will write a diary at either Niners Nation (which can be promoted to the front page by Fooch, if he sees fit) or a front page post at Hogs Haven acknowledging that I was wrong, praising the impressive development of Alex Smith, and drawing attention to the gap in ability between the two concurrant with their final rankings. Location of the post will be up to Braekneck. Winner is in charge of reminding the loser to pay up.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 1, 2007 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Posting the winner

Personally, I have no problem if the post appears at both sites. If Smith wins, Skin Patrol could post a diary here that I'd have no problem promoting to the front and then he could also post on his own site. If Campbell wins, vice versa. That way we could mix it up between the sites a little more. Just my thoughts on it.

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

by Fooch on Jun 1, 2007 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Works for me

I think it's a good idea for the postings to appear on both sites. I'm sure the Hogs Haven crowd could stand to learn a little bit more about A. Smith and I'm sure the 49er fans would like to see what Skin Patrol has to say.

by methodrampage on Jun 1, 2007 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Works for me.

Hogs Haven

by Skin Patrol on Jun 1, 2007 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds good

The deal is done.

Now I have another write off for the NFL Season package, I'm going to have to watch more Redskins games. Bring on some football.

by methodrampage on Jun 1, 2007 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My take.

I have been saying it for a while, but I'll say it again. I agree with Fooch's point of view that Smith doesn't have to be a star. He doesn't even have to be touchdown producing machine. What he does have to do is limit his mistakes.

From what I've seen, Smith has slowly matured to where I think Nolan wants him to eventually go. I don't think Nolan expected him to be anywhere close to Montana or Young. I don't even think Nolan expects Smith to be like Jeff Garcia (during the better years). I think Nolan just wants Smith to learn how to manage the team, command respect, and limit mistakes.

Look at one of the more overlooked moves of last season. Smith needed a mentor. Tim Rattay and Ken Dorsey are far from being that. So who comes here via trade? Trent Dilfer. I'll be as quick as anyone to say that Dilfer isn't and has never been a good NFL QB. What he does have is a good head on his shoulders that knows how to manage a team and limit QB mistakes. He knows he can't always help what his teammates are going to do with the ball, but he knows he can control what he does with it.

Having Dilfer here to show Smith what I perceive to be "Nolan's vision" of an NFL QB is as vital as bringing in Norv Turner last season. With Norv gone, his system still lives in the 49ers with their assistants, the offensive coordinator (who was Smith's QB of the past two seasons), and of course, in Smith and Dilfer. Smith is a bright and smart guy. He has tons of knowledge at his disposal, and readily uses it.

What he also has now, though, is surrounding talent. Don't get me wrong, the offense isn't an elite offense like Indianapolis or San Diego. However, the talent on the offense is drastically improved over what he has been in at least four to five years.

Unlike baseball, where a lot of sabermetric stats can isolate a player's performance from the rest of the team (or opponents and parks), football isn't completely capable of that. A quarterback's statistics will, to some extent, be an extension of those around him. That is why the influx of drastically improved talent cannot be overlooked.

That influx of talent is one of the primary reasons for the optimism about Smith. Another reason is that he is finally returning to an offensive system for the first time since college. Bill Walsh and/or Mike Holmgren (I think) have said that a QB's third season in the league is usually his most telling. How he does in that third year will paint you a pretty good picture of how he will do for the remainder of his career.

The problem is that Smith hasn't had one system for three years. He's just now starting his second with one, and it may work out to his advantage.

I agree that there are reasons to NOT think Alex Smith is going to succeed. There are also reasons that you could point out to think that he may fail miserably. But there are plenty of reasons to also think that Smith will do well enough. There are also SOME reasons to think that he could be great.

Smith has shown progression, and thats all you ask. As long as he is showing that he continues to grow, then there is still hope. As a 49er fan, I find enjoyment in feeling that Smith will do well. It'd be kind of "wrong" for me to think otherwise.

I hope he tears it up this year and proves all of those naysayers wrong. He has got to be way better than Rex Grossman. He's just gotta be.

by sfgfan on May 30, 2007 10:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Not a perfect example, but a similar situation is JP Losman with the Buffalo Bills. I'm not saying Losman is going to be a star either, but he's finally giving Bills fans some hope (at least I hope so) after last season (his third in the league, but with a different offensive system in each).

JP Losman article on CBS Sportsline.

by sfgfan on May 30, 2007 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Edwards

While Losman could certainly do something, I really like the Bills drafting Trent Edwards. Gives them a guy to develop is Losman doesn't work out.

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

by Fooch on May 30, 2007 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Slightly off-topic, but slightly on-topic

USA Today has an article noting the key points of the 49ers off-season and how it could affect them for next season.

There's an interesting little blurb in the article that includes McCloughan stating that when they chose Alex Smith, they didn't expect him to win games (by himself) for the team until year 4 or 5. He also mentioned that success this year, while it rests heavily on Smith, will also depend heavily on the success of the offense as a whole.

My favorite comment is where McCloughan thinks that top to bottom, the current offensive line is one of the best he's ever seen. He was there during the Jones-Hutchinson years of Seattle, mind you.

USA Today Article

by sfgfan on May 30, 2007 2:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

On-topic

I think it's right on topic as far as the comments by McCloughlan and Hostler:

Vice president of personnel Scot McCloughan says Smith must play well for the team to make the playoffs. But he isn't putting the entire weight of the team's success on Smith's shoulders, at least not yet. "He'll be more important to the team in the future than in 2007," McCloughan says. "This year the responsibility will fall more to the offense as a whole. Smith is our trigger man; he'll need to make plays, and I expect him to take another step forward in his development.

"But when we drafted him No. 1, we didn't expect him to win games for us until his fourth or fifth year. This season it will be more of a team effort."

McCloughan has collected good talent around Smith. Second-year Frank Gore rushed for a franchise-record 1,695 yards last season.

"A lot of factors go into a quarterback having a good year," Hostler says. "One key is having the players around him stay healthy. That gives him a comfort level and allows him to relax and play."

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

by Fooch on May 30, 2007 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Great discussion, guys. I haven't had the internet in a few days, but I'm thrilled to see this thread doing so well.

There's only one thing that I want to see discussed that hasn't really been touched so far. It's interesting, because true statistical evaluation of individual performances in football is still pretty much in its infancy (and I'm kind of excited about seeing where it might go, though I'm skeptical about a few of the things I've seen so far). Because of that, a lot of evaluation still lies in various "unmeasureables."

So here's the thing. Statistically speaking I think we've determined that there is a lot of reason to be excited about Alex Smith as an average NFL starter in the long run, very few reasons to believe he will even skirt that liminal area between average and great, almost no reason to expect him to be great, and more than a few reasons to expect him to be a backup somewhere in about four years. Statistically speaking. That's a great, mostly objective conclusion that can be backed up at least moderately well by the well-informed. I'm more than happy to support that conclusion and the means by which it was reached.

What I'm wondering is that in a world in which these kinds of statistical evaluations are still being developed and still need time to be tested, understood, and (most importantly) accepoted properly, what kind of weight are we willing to continue to put in other forms of evaluation.

For example: I am excited about Alex Smith in many ways because of his character and his intelligence. As far as I'm concerned, it's all well and good to say that statistically Ryan Leaf actually compared BETTER than Alex Smith after two years (which, I think at least a version of that has been said), but it is extremely misleading nonetheless. Ryan Leaf, for instance, wasa person with significant character issues and almost no intelligence who was highly touted for the most part because of his physical attributes and nothing else. He was always a good bet to either a) drive himself out of the league, or b) simply fail to ever comprehend enough NFL level material to succeed. I could have confidently said that after his second year he was unlikely to improve because he had hit both his emotional and his mental ceilings by that point.

Alex Smith is a high character guy with significantly better than average intelligence at an earlier stage of his life than most of his peers. He hasn't even scratched his emotional or his mental ceilings in terms of the game, most likely.

It can't be measured, but I can't help but find it significant. It's not the only "immeasurable" that has me excited about The Future of Alex Smith, and we can talk about more as we go on from here, but it is definitely worth discussing.

Especially with QBs, it seems that high character, high intelligence guys who-have-the-physical-tools-and-proper-mentality consistently perform at higher levels than other guys. I could list a hundred, and the only guy right now who I think (off the top of my head) even starts to be an exception is Mike Vick.

Alex Smith has the character and the emotional maturity. He seems to have the intelligence. He seems to have a solid psychological make-up (read: mentality). He seems to be an extremely promising young QB in a lot of these ways, but statistics tell us not to count our chickens (as well they should!).

So where do things like character, emotional maturity, intelligence, "make-up," etc. fall into our evaluations WITHOUT letting proper statistical evidence fall by the wayside?

I think that statistically speaking Alex Smith projects to be a very average QB for a long time, but that there are a lot of intangibles that allow us to reasonably believe that he can at least marginally exceed those projections. A guy like Leaf (and I know, he is an extremely easy example, but it gets the job done) projected similarly to be very average QB for a long time, but there were a lot of intangibles which suggested that he would fail to meet those projections. Sure, hindsight is so on and so forth, but I'm wondering.

I personally think that AS is going to be a VERY good QB for a long time based on some of the reasons stated above and some more that aren't immediately relevant to discussion, but how does everybody else feel about these things. I think they have been under-represented in the discussion so far and I really want to get some earnest opinion.

I'm bound to learn something, and that's what i'm realy looking forward to. (... also, lists of successful low character/low intelligence QBs would be extremely interesting, because I'm failing to think of any and it would really do my opinion good to either know that I'm not alone or to learn that I am).

Thanks!

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on May 30, 2007 10:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh

I should add that when I say "who-have-the-physical-tools-and-proper-mentality," it should be understood that I mean those two things are necessary for ANYBODY, regardless of character or intelligence, to be able to succeed in the NFL. I include them so that you know I did not overlook them, but they should be read as givens.

For instance, Ken Dorsey failed largely because he could barely throw the ball twenty yards downfield without needing to put it thirty yards vertically. Nobody can succeed that way. And so on. Mentality is a bit abstract, but it's more or less the mental capacity to deal with position, power, and pressure with a minimum of strain. Tim Rattay might be a good example of a guy who failed from lack of mentality (or, to switch gears... Armando Benitez! Oooo... excuse me as I vomit).

So understand my meaning for those two things. Though technically immeasurable, I don't believe that they are variables. Success necessitates both in football. The other immeasurables I mention (and more that I hope are to come) are variables in terms of sucess, and it is that variability - as well as that immeasurability - that I am interested in discussing specifically with respect to the new advanced statistical means of evaluation in mind.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on May 30, 2007 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The "Failure" tag

seems to be getting thrown around a lot. What exactly is a failure? And can you be a failure one year and a success the next and then revert back to a failure or once your a failure you're always a failure? And how much do expectations weigh in on a player being a failure?

I suppose being a player can be a failure one year and not the next, but personally it seems like a more permanent label. Skin Patrol has mentioned Smith being a failure in '05. It's possible to consider him a failure for his '05 performance and I'll be the first to admit that it was painful to watch but what were the real expectations for Smith that year? He was 21 hadn't seen the same offense more than two years in a row and had most recently played in Urban Meyer's genius spread option offense. I guess we could have expected anything better than a "historically" bad season but even with an average NFL QB the '05 team wasn't going to the playoffs.

As for Dorsey, I'm not sure I'd consider him a failure he was a 7th round pick. I never thought he'd be much more than a really solid back-up QB and I suppose he's fallen short of that but when packaged with a 7th round pick he netted us Dilfer. And my all accounts Dilfer's presence is benefiting Smith. So I basically think by one way or another Dorsey served his purpose and isn't all that much of a failure basically because his expectations were never very high and his hard to fall really short of low expectations.

Back to Smith, what were the expectations of him last year? To improve? It'd be hard for him not to. He wasn't anything special last year but I think he at least got back on people's radar. In '06 he improved his TD's by 1500% over '05. He's going to have to live up to lofty expectations this year, but is what would constitute him being a failure in '07?

by methodrampage on May 31, 2007 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

I agree that the "failure" tag has thrown around quite a bit, and used in a myriad of ways. To me, failure is a "final" or "permanent" tag, and should only be used as such.

You could say Smith's (and the 49ers') 2005 was a failure. On the whole, that year was pretty bad, sure. But I think to dub Smith a failure in the sense that he won't be much more than league average (if that) is utterly premature.

Out of all of the positions on the football field, quarterback is arguably (or possibly undeniably) the most difficult position to learn at the NFL level. A QB of Smith's background (multiple systems in college, and up until this year, multiple systems on the pro level) cannot be judged after one or two seasons.

In college, Smith really blossomed in the second year of Meyer's offense, didn't he? He finally has a chance at returning to a system this season, for the first time in his professional career. That should give anyone, especially 49ers fans, plenty of reason to be optimistic. I don't expect him to produce like Peyton Manning, but I do expect him to be a better (passing) QB than guys like Rex Grossman or Mike Vick.

The most important thing is to limit his own mistakes, and capitalize more on the opponent's mistakes. If he could reduce his INT rate to below 1 INT/game, and throw a couple more TDs, I'd consider that a drastic improvement. I (nor do the 49ers) need him to throw 30 TDs. I'd gladly take 20 if he only throws 12 TDs.

by sfgfan on May 31, 2007 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah

God point. The way I was using failure was in more general career terms, and "expectation free." Assuming that all football players have the same job regardless of individual incoming expectations, I was counting outright "failures" as players who failed to produce reasonably close to league average over the course of their careers. As a seventh round pick, I guess Dorsey was nowhere near a failure, but as a football player I'm saying that he was. Anyway, that's how I was doing it. Though they may have met or exceeded expectations, Dorsey and Rattay (my examples) still failed as NFL level QBs.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on May 31, 2007 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

QB failures

I do agree that there a lot of intangibles while we figure out the best statistical methods.

In the meantime, as far as QB failures, What if we simply look at high pick QBs that failed and take it from there??

Four examples of failures in no particular order:

Akili Smith
Cade McNown
Rick Mirer
Jim Druckenmiller

There were some other guys, but not quite the failures above: Joey Harrington, Kyle Boller, Patrick Ramsey, Quincy Carter.

It's too late at night for me to analyze these guys, but any thoughts on some of them? It'd be nice and easy to have a simple analysis, but who knows. The first 4 were all drafted as QBs of the future in the first round.

Thoughts?

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

by Fooch on May 30, 2007 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

It's too late for me to start analyzing things, too... but I can say this: three of your first four examples are former 49ers. That stings a bit.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over...

by howtheyscored on May 30, 2007 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unintentional

Yea that's a scary thought, that's for sure. I didn't even plan that out that way.

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

by Fooch on May 31, 2007 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think...

... Akili Smith wasn't very good to begin with. He may have succeeded in the right system, but was doomed to the pre-Marvin-Lewis Bengals.

... Rick Mirer was just plain overrated coming out of college, if I remember right. Wasn't he pretty much drafted for the same reason Druckenmiller was? Physical tools? I can't believe the Bears gave up a 1st round pick to get him in '97.

... Harrington was doomed the way Akili Smith was doomed.

... Ramsey was a pick I never really understood.

... Carter falls into that category as well.

... Boller is a guy I had higher hopes for. Similar to the 49ers own Alex Smith, he wasn't drafted to become a star. He was drafted to become a manager of the game. He failed at that and I can't really think of any excuses for him. He didn't "do his job".

by sfgfan on May 31, 2007 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

my head hurts...

from reading all of that...

basically, the way i look at this whole alex smith conversation is that we really can't judge him on anything yet. almost all quarterbacks go through their ups and downs their first two years as a pro. the third years for a quarterback is the year that they begin showing/making great strides and really show what they are capable of. we'll know a lot more about alex smith and what his future as an nfl qb might hold after this season.

plus, he'll have more weapons on offense this season that he has had in the past.

just give him time...

by coachAJ on May 31, 2007 3:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs