Cosell column on Smith's performance

[deep9er]

Smith did the bare minimum to win the game with his 2 TD's. Yeah his receivers couldn't get open but he got 3 or 4 balls knocked down at the line and didn't make some throws that he needed to make. Throughout the game the underneath seemed open and the Niners didn't exploit it or when they tried Smith couldn't make the throw. Smith did not have a good game. But they still could have won which is a testament to how good the D is.

yeah, seems to me he has more passes knocked down than he should? believe it was four too in this game, two might be expected but four?

some of it just may be the linemen, don't know this part?

 

[Kinzu]

49ers Blog and Q&A: Turnovers, not Alex Smith, killed the 49ers

"the difference between the two quarterbacks from the second half onward was miniscule. Both defenses became dominant as the game went on and made things extremely difficult for the quarterbacks. No one was open. Manning's second half and overtime statistics: 16-31 (51.6 percent) for 135 yards and a touchdown. Smith's: 10-19 (52.6 percent) for 117 yards and a touchdown. Manning was sacked four times in the second half and overtime; Smith was sacked three times. The 49ers converted only once on third down in the second half and overtime. The Giants converted only twice."

"It should be noted that Smith also rushed six times in the game for 42 yards. Manning was credited with one run for -2 yards. Both of the Giants' second-half scores followed turnovers by return man Kyle Williams and started deep in San Francisco territory."

But just remember folks that Eli is an elite QB and Alex is just backup material. It's such a joke at how underrated Alex can be and yet how overrated Eli has become.

 

[iHATEdodgers]

A few things and then we can let this rest.

First, I absolutely agree that we outplayed the Giants and should/would have won this game if not for Kyle Williams inexplicably botching not one but two punts. That's what made the difference, and I'm not denying that.

I also question the playcalling. We seemed to go away from the run in the second half, or we would throw on early downs and run on second and long, etc. That seemed like a mistake, especially as the passing offense struggled. I would have liked to have seen a few designed passes to Hunter, as passing to the RBs did seem to be working, and the Giants have struggled to keep up with Hunter's speed and quickness. We largely put the game in Smith's hands, and maybe that was a mistake, but we did have some chances that we failed to capitalize on.

The only reason we were still in that game was because of an absolutely phenomenal performance by our defense, and that has nothing to do with Smith. Smith made two great throws and had a good scramble. Those effectively led to all 17 of our points. Smith deserves credit for those, and maybe saying he had a "terrible" game is not fair. The two TD passes alone might raise it to a solid game. On the whole, though, I found his performance to be below average. He had three balls batted at the line and missed several throws badly. He looked like the Alex Smith of a couple years ago. While our receivers had some trouble getting open, Smith also missed them when they were. As Cosell points out, on at least three occasions he missed open receivers who were quite open. And in two of those cases, he didn't just miss the throw, but he never made it. I wasn't focusing on the WRs, so I can't say if they were getting separation or not, but I can say that Smith missed several throws, looked skittish in the pocket, and could not make a play when we desperately needed on. He is far from the only person to blame for this loss, but he does deserve some the blame for the loss. Our offense simply couldn't function, and at the end of the day, that always comes back to the QB. I have defended Smith based on mitigating circumstances in the past, but this time I don't think there is much defense.

Finally, as I have said, I don't think Eli was much better and might have been worse. He had more yards, but he's lucky he didn't have two INTs. He was only in a position to win the game because of Williams' blunders. But I'm not interested in assessing Eli's performance here. I'm interested in why Smith struggled.

The bold part is an accurate statement.

But in every post before this one in this thread you said he was "largely" responsible and "terrible" ...you have blamed him for everything from batted balls (90% not the QBs fault) to not hitting the 3 guys who he missed all game (which is funny in itself (3 guys? seriously), but obviously disregards the other 15 or so plays where NO ONE was open), to looking skittish (7 runs for 42 - I'll take it every time) and now you are quoting Cosell (who is hardly impartial). To me most of that is an espnboardish take on what really happened.

 

[MHSL82]

The bold part is an accurate statement.

But in every post before this one in this thread you said he was "largely" responsible and "terrible" ...you have blamed him for everything from batted balls (90% not the QBs fault) to not hitting the 3 guys who he missed all game (which is funny in itself (3 guys? seriously), but obviously disregards the other 15 or so plays where NO ONE was open), to looking skittish (7 runs for 42 - I'll take it every time) and now you are quoting Cosell (who is hardly impartial). To me most of that is an espnboardish take on what really happened.

MW49er5 will hate me for saying this (please don't kill me, MW), but while I think your point is valid (I agree with you), I think you are picking on the wrong guy - as in, I think his opinion, while different than mine, is without an agenda (relatively speaking) and I don't think he means to exaggerate his point, if at all.

Crimson has been "largely" credible over the years. I do think sometimes we all overcompensate to look objective - let me explain. I've felt that Crimson had been objective during the bad years and someone comes on and calls him a Smith lover. He's repeatedly defended the guy (as well as blamed) based on objective reasons, not excuses. So now I've felt that he makes it a point to emphasize it when he does criticize Smith. I don't think he changes his opinion, just says that opinion louder, if you know what I mean. I may have this wrong, and I don't mean to give a backhanded compliment or an insult, it's just the way I see it. Also, ih8Dodgers, I don't mean to be condescending or anything either so I apologize if this seems rude to you.

Plus, I think ESPN is being bandied about quite loosely these days in general. I have seen Crimson be called a Smith apologist and a Smith hater in the same thread before, strangely enough.

 

[MW49ers5]

MW49er5 will hate me for saying this (please don't kill me, MW), but while I think your point is valid (I agree with you), I think you are picking on the wrong guy - as in, I think his opinion, while different than mine, is without an agenda (relatively speaking) and I don't think he means to exaggerate his point, if at all.

Crimson has been "largely" credible over the years. I do think sometimes we all overcompensate to look objective - let me explain. I've felt that Crimson had been objective during the bad years and someone comes on and calls him a Smith lover. He's repeatedly defended the guy (as well as blamed) based on objective reasons, not excuses. So now I've felt that he makes it a point to emphasize it when he does criticize Smith. I don't think he changes his opinion, just says that opinion louder, if you know what I mean. I may have this wrong, and I don't mean to give a backhanded compliment or an insult, it's just the way I see it. Also, ih8Dodgers, I don't mean to be condescending or anything either so I apologize if this seems rude to you.

Plus, I think ESPN is being bandied about quite loosely these days in general. I have seen Crimson be called a Smith apologist and a Smith hater in the same thread before, strangely enough.

Ha ha ha...no worries here my friend...

 

[iHATEdodgers]

MW49er5 will hate me for saying this (please don't kill me, MW), but while I think your point is valid (I agree with you), I think you are picking on the wrong guy - as in, I think his opinion, while different than mine, is without an agenda (relatively speaking) and I don't think he means to exaggerate his point, if at all.

Crimson has been "largely" credible over the years. I do think sometimes we all overcompensate to look objective - let me explain. I've felt that Crimson had been objective during the bad years and someone comes on and calls him a Smith lover. He's repeatedly defended the guy (as well as blamed) based on objective reasons, not excuses. So now I've felt that he makes it a point to emphasize it when he does criticize Smith. I don't think he changes his opinion, just says that opinion louder, if you know what I mean. I may have this wrong, and I don't mean to give a backhanded compliment or an insult, it's just the way I see it. Also, ih8Dodgers, I don't mean to be condescending or anything either so I apologize if this seems rude to you.

Plus, I think ESPN is being bandied about quite loosely these days in general. I have seen Crimson be called a Smith apologist and a Smith hater in the same thread before, strangely enough.

Nah good post man. I agree Crimson is "largely" credible - and by largely I actually mean largely (heheh). I think he overstated the role Smith played in the defeat but clarified his position somewhat and hey he's entitled to whatever he feels anyway - but then I am entitled to respond - isn't that what the internets are for? It was a fairly civil discussion although I may have dropped an F-bomb somewhere so give it back if you find it I needed that shit today at work.

I made my point. He made his. My point was better. HAha. I don't want to discuss this anymore... unless someone else wants to throw down :boxing:

 

[MHSL82]

Nah good post man. I agree Crimson is "largely" credible - and by largely I actually mean largely (heheh). I think he overstated the role Smith played in the defeat but clarified his position somewhat and hey he's entitled to whatever he feels anyway - but then I am entitled to respond - isn't that what the internets are for? It was a fairly civil discussion although I may have dropped an F-bomb somewhere so give it back if you find it I needed that shit today at work.

I made my point. He made his. My point was better. HAha. I don't want to discuss this anymore... unless someone else wants to throw down :boxing:

I hate this last game, I don't know why I ever talked about it. I think that's why I was focusing on tangential topics like posters and stuff... heck, I don't even want to talk about the weather because I feel that was reason we lost, too. Someone asked me if it was going to rain tomorrow and I was about to tell them that I don't give a fuck. Just kidding. Alex seemed affected by the rain - now, there I go, I'm talking about the damn game, again! Shit, I need to throw someone down, though I doubt I do it with the same experienced beat down you do. I'd rather have lost by 14.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Heheh! Yeah I would say batted balls are maybe 10% QB 45% OL and 45% Good D. There was one batted ball from the game where on the replay our guy (I think it was Snyder) was barely even touching the guy he was defending... hey genius the pass is designed to go over your head maybe you should lock him up or something. Sigh. Some people just don't understand the ole football.

Batted balls are 10% on the QB? Yeah, we're the ones who don't know football. Smith clearly bears hardly any responsibility for the fact that three passes were batted at the line.

 

[Kinzu]

Batted balls are 10% on the QB? Yeah, we're the ones who don't know football. Smith clearly bears hardly any responsibility for the fact that three passes were batted at the line.

I don't think I would ever put a batted ball at the line on the QB. It's not like they see the guys hands up or really even see it happening at all. They are looking down the field and when they see a window to throw in they pull the trigger. They don't see a window and then look to see if the lineman are going to bat it down.


It's partial the O-Line's fault because they could've blocked the guy better, but it's mostly just a good defensive play.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The bold part is an accurate statement.

But in every post before this one in this thread you said he was "largely" responsible and "terrible" ...you have blamed him for everything from batted balls (90% not the QBs fault) to not hitting the 3 guys who he missed all game (which is funny in itself (3 guys? seriously), but obviously disregards the other 15 or so plays where NO ONE was open), to looking skittish (7 runs for 42 - I'll take it every time) and now you are quoting Cosell (who is hardly impartial). To me most of that is an espnboardish take on what really happened.

Smith is largely to blame for the loss. Sorry if you don't want to accept it, but that's a reality. Now, maybe "largely" means something different to me than it does to you - for instance, I'm not saying he's the most responsible party - but I don't know how anyone could have left that game satisfied with Smith's play.

Terrible may have been an overstatement. Smith did make three very good plays that led directly to 17 points. That's not bad. But other than those plays, he was simply awful.

Batted balls are primarily on the QB, especially when there are three in one game. I haven't seen the Snyder play you refer to, but an OL can't chase down a DL who drops off the line on a pass play. It sounds like that might have been the case on the play in issue, though I'll look for it when I review the tape. In that case, it's up to the QB to recognize it and either throw over the defender or look elsewhere.

I mentioned three plays that Cosell drew attention to. I'm not really sure why you think Cosell has an agenda. He seems like a much more impartial observer than anyone on this board, and he's been largely correct that Harbaugh has put Smith in position to succeed this season. Smith has a couple very good games this year, and a lot more mediocre games in which he took the plays he could, took his fair share of bad or mediocre plays (primarily sacks or throwaways, though better than INTs), and generally did enough to get us the wins. But let's not confuse that with Smith moving to the elite level. He's still an average QB, IMO. I'd say he moved from below average to above average this year, but he's still got a long way to go for me to be perfectly content with him as our QB.

As for Cosell's point here, there is no doubt that Smith missed open guys in this one. Yes, Crabtree seemed to struggle getting open. But he did get open at times and Smith missed him, as he also missed Williams, Davis, and Walker.

As for the runs, those are nice stats. Of his six runs, three were failed third-down conversions. One drew a penalty which led to a first down, but not due to anything Smith did. The other two were negative plays. He had a great first down scramble to set up the FG. He also had the two called runs that were fine, but nothing extraordinary. Overall, I'd say his running was ok.

If you think my comments look like the ESPN board, you've clearly forgotten what that was like. You may disagree with my position, but it's certainly a reasonable position.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I don't think I would ever put a batted ball at the line on the QB. It's not like they see the guys hands up or really even see it happening at all. They are looking down the field and when they see a window to throw in they pull the trigger. They don't see a window and then look to see if the lineman are going to bat it down.


It's partial the O-Line's fault because they could've blocked the guy better, but it's mostly just a good defensive play.

I disagree. At times it is a good defensive play. Other times it's a product of the QB not having a clear throwing lane. If it had nothing to do with the QB, good QBs would have balls batted as often as bad QBs. They don't. Smith has had a problem with batted balls throughout his career, and it reared its head again this week.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

MW49er5 will hate me for saying this (please don't kill me, MW), but while I think your point is valid (I agree with you), I think you are picking on the wrong guy - as in, I think his opinion, while different than mine, is without an agenda (relatively speaking) and I don't think he means to exaggerate his point, if at all.

Crimson has been "largely" credible over the years. I do think sometimes we all overcompensate to look objective - let me explain. I've felt that Crimson had been objective during the bad years and someone comes on and calls him a Smith lover. He's repeatedly defended the guy (as well as blamed) based on objective reasons, not excuses. So now I've felt that he makes it a point to emphasize it when he does criticize Smith. I don't think he changes his opinion, just says that opinion louder, if you know what I mean. I may have this wrong, and I don't mean to give a backhanded compliment or an insult, it's just the way I see it. Also, ih8Dodgers, I don't mean to be condescending or anything either so I apologize if this seems rude to you.

Plus, I think ESPN is being bandied about quite loosely these days in general. I have seen Crimson be called a Smith apologist and a Smith hater in the same thread before, strangely enough.

THe criticism of Smith on the ESPN boards was out of control. I believed - and I feel I've been vindicated - that Smith could play well in the right situation. However, this year, in a good situation, I continue to see some flaws in Smith's game that I'm not sure he can really improve upon. I may be wrong, and I hope I am. I think he's our QB next year, and possibly for the foreseeable future, and I'm ok with that. But I haven't seem Smith play well enough to make me think we're completely set at the QB position. He was great at the end of the NO game. Phenomenal. This past week I think he was pretty shaky. He made a few superb plays, and he made a lot more poor plays. I think those poor plays kept us in a position where one mistake (or two, as the case may be) could cost us the game. As such, I think his game as a whole was not very good. Other than calling his overall game terrible - I was still stinging from the loss at that point (still kind of am) - I don't think I've made too many overstatements in this thread.

 

[Kinzu]

Crimson I'm just curious on this

How do you feel Eli played if you think Smith was awful and the reason we lost?
The media seems to think every time the Giants win it's because Eli is a top 5 QB.

Eli did throw for over 300 yards but it took him a ton of passes to it at only 5.4 yards per completion. He had 2 balls that should've been picked. He also needed the short field twice to get points on the board for his team. I see a lot of Alex was horrible on 3rd downs, but Eli only converted I think 2 the entire 2nd half with the game on the line. Alex only had 1 conversion though (I might have them mixed up). Eli also contributed a lot more to his team losing probability than he did their winning probability. He also posted a lower QB Rating and barely a better QBR than Alex.

It's easier for me to say Eli played bad enough to lose while Alex played good enough to win based on where the game was going prior to the muffed punt. After that Eli was able to convert the turnover into a TD, but he did nothing after that. Alex got us down the field to get the game tying FG, but then he was not able to do anything else afterwards. I guess you could say neither QB did enough to win, but one of them got lucky he didn't have to.

I honestly think more of the Giants credit should be aimed at those receivers than Eli. He is not making them as much as they are making him. I mean how many times have those guys broken big plays after making the catch for him?

While it sucks that Alex couldn't just make a few plays in the 4th quarter. I don't think it should be looked at as a horrible game. It was still a much better game than Ryan and Rodgers had against them. Rodgers proved his worth last year by winning the Super Bowl, but Matt Ryan right now should be looked at as worst than Alex. He has failed what 2 or 3 years in a row to earn the Falcons a playoff win? He seems to always come up short when they need him. We at least got one great playoff game out of our QB.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson I'm just curious on this

How do you feel Eli played if you think Smith was awful and the reason we lost?
The media seems to think every time the Giants win it's because Eli is a top 5 QB.

Eli did throw for over 300 yards but it took him a ton of passes to it at only 5.4 yards per completion. He had 2 balls that should've been picked. He also needed the short field twice to get points on the board for his team. I see a lot of Alex was horrible on 3rd downs, but Eli only converted I think 2 the entire 2nd half with the game on the line. Alex only had 1 conversion though (I might have them mixed up). Eli also contributed a lot more to his team losing probability than he did their winning probability. He also posted a lower QB Rating and barely a better QBR than Alex.

It's easier for me to say Eli played bad enough to lose while Alex played good enough to win based on where the game was going prior to the muffed punt. After that Eli was able to convert the turnover into a TD, but he did nothing after that. Alex got us down the field to get the game tying FG, but then he was not able to do anything else afterwards. I guess you could say neither QB did enough to win, but one of them got lucky he didn't have to.

I honestly think more of the Giants credit should be aimed at those receivers than Eli. He is not making them as much as they are making him. I mean how many times have those guys broken big plays after making the catch for him?

While it sucks that Alex couldn't just make a few plays in the 4th quarter. I don't think it should be looked at as a horrible game. It was still a much better game than Ryan and Rodgers had against them. Rodgers proved his worth last year by winning the Super Bowl, but Matt Ryan right now should be looked at as worst than Alex. He has failed what 2 or 3 years in a row to earn the Falcons a playoff win? He seems to always come up short when they need him. We at least got one great playoff game out of our QB.

I've said several times in this thread that I think Eli also played poorly. How did he play compared to Smith? Tough to say. He had two balls that should have been picked, and a couple more that were pretty darn close. But he also threw more good balls than Smith did. Smith was helped by a good return when he tied the game, and Eli was helped by the turnovers. I thought our DL was causing more problems than their DL was late in the game, but again, I'd have to rewatch the game to say for sure.

I think all the praise of Eli is ridiculous after this game. He's had a great season, but this game was very shaky for him. I saw the ESPN highlights Sunday night and wondered if I had seen the same game. They showed Eli completing pass after pass. Of course, those plays came from three or four different drives, but ESPN was cutting them up to make it look like it was a single drive (in a bar and couldn't hear what they were saying about his play, but assuming it was along the lines of how well Eli played). But Eli rising to the level of an elite QB and willing his team to the super bowl is a better story line than two ineffective offenses seeing who would mess up first.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Watching the NFL Replay version last night (yes, I'm into my 3rd viewing already), one thing it made me think about is.....yes, the WR criticism is well-known, but of the 49ers targets - are there any you trust to go up and get a ball in 1 on 1 coverage? You see Eli able to throw these balls into tight coverage because his WRs would beat anyone other than Carlos Rogers to the ball.

With the Niners, its Crabtree - and he's had some dubious moments lately - and no one else. For the skills they do have, one thing none of them have is that combo of aggressively attacking the ball + great hands. Besides getting open consistently - which Cruz can do - the thing that hasn't been mentioned as much is that guys like Nicks and Manningham almost always come down with the ball, even with good coverage.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Watching the NFL Replay version last night (yes, I'm into my 3rd viewing already), one thing it made me think about is.....yes, the WR criticism is well-known, but of the 49ers targets - are there any you trust to go up and get a ball in 1 on 1 coverage? You see Eli able to throw these balls into tight coverage because his WRs would beat anyone other than Carlos Rogers to the ball.

With the Niners, its Crabtree - and he's had some dubious moments lately - and no one else. For the skills they do have, one thing none of them have is that combo of aggressively attacking the ball + great hands. Besides getting open consistently - which Cruz can do - the thing that hasn't been mentioned as much is that guys like Nicks and Manningham almost always come down with the ball, even with good coverage.

Exactly. Which is why I'm advocating us getting a huge WR with a large catching radius. It's probably numero uno on our need list. Re-signing our free agents goes without saying. Smith isn't gonna chuck a ball to someone he doesn't trust to make the play. I can't blame him for not trusting our guys.

 

[deep9er]

Exactly. Which is why I'm advocating us getting a huge WR with a large catching radius. It's probably numero uno on our need list. Re-signing our free agents goes without saying. Smith isn't gonna chuck a ball to someone he doesn't trust to make the play. I can't blame him for not trusting our guys.

yep, Alex needs to be more comfortable than most QB's.

if a WR got more open more often, then Alex will 'trust' him. so a large WR with a large catching radius is ideal, but even if we get receivers who can just get open...............

 

[MW49ers5]

yep, Alex needs to be more comfortable than most QB's.

if a WR got more open more often, then Alex will 'trust' him. so a large WR with a large catching radius is ideal, but even if we get receivers who can just get open...............

Yeah, I agree with this and I think the way Harbaugh coached Smith is indicative of this trepidation.

IMO, Alex Smith's #1 priority this season was not to make plays it was to NOT make mistakes. When he felt the opportunity was there to do both - he pulled the trigger, otherwise the policy was to live to play another down.

When reviewing Smith's 5 INT's a strong case can be made that only one was entirely his fault.

 

[MHSL82]

Yeah, I agree with this and I think the way Harbaugh coached Smith is indicative of this trepidation.

IMO, Alex Smith's #1 priority this season was not to make plays it was to NOT make mistakes. When he felt the opportunity was there to do both - he pulled the trigger, otherwise the policy was to live to play another down.

When reviewing Smith's 5 INT's a strong case can be made that only one was entirely his fault.

I think if we can improve on our red zone offense either by adding better receivers, incorporating better plays, taking more shots, or whatnot, this strategy could work all the way to a SB win (assuming we still have a great defense). You might think well, no shit Sherlock, but there were plenty of people saying that we need to take risks to win it and I believe some of them weren't meaning moderate risks. Some risk is involved, like when I said take more shots to the endzone, but it's not as dramatic as some people make it sound like. If we had a great red zone offense, this wouldn't be an issue, even with Smith not taking many deep passes. Having said that, we do need to improve our deep passing plays for certain situations, it's just need not be a huge shift in our philosophy.

 

[deep9er]

Yeah, I agree with this and I think the way Harbaugh coached Smith is indicative of this trepidation.

IMO, Alex Smith's #1 priority this season was not to make plays it was to NOT make mistakes. When he felt the opportunity was there to do both - he pulled the trigger, otherwise the policy was to live to play another down.

When reviewing Smith's 5 INT's a strong case can be made that only one was entirely his fault.

with the confidence everyone gained this season, can't help but think Alex will be a little less "safer" next season?