Grant Cohn on Smith's Strengths and Weaknesses

[tallglassofwater007]

Gannon didn't really do much until his 12th year in the league and then he had a good 4 year stretch and got hurt and eventually retired. So Smith would need to blossom a lot faster than Gannon if we are gonna have him as the QB while this defense's window is still wide open.

 

[MHSL82]

my guess is 90% of fans want a 1 year contract, but the question is......will he sign it?

if i was Alex and offered a 1 year deal, i'd sign elsewhere no matter the circumstances, just wouldn't stay in SF.

regarding 'big jump', say he did make a big jump in 2012...........then we wouldn't be able to sign him so easily. he'll have much more leverage on the 49ers, will command much more money.

I would think a two year deal, for that reason, is better than one. If he performs well and it looks like he's still improving, we can extend next year. If not, we either keep him the second year as starter if Kaep still isn't ready (I doubt) or having him as a backup to Kaep for one year would be good - or he's tradeable. This is all assuming he doesn't get a big money contract. A one year contract is great if he doesn't progress - but if he doesn't progress I would rather have Kaep in and have him as a backup. If he does progress (the big jump) a one year contract doesn't lock him up for less and if we do extend him then, the price would go up (not by world-shattering levels, but an increase is an increase). Why not hedge your bets with at least two years at reasonable money?

As for longer than two years, I'm the wrong person to ask because I have more confidence in him than most and I want him here for long term. I may be wrong, but I'm just trying to be honest. If he doesn't jump this year, I will recognize that I was wrong and look elsewhere for QB.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

I would think a two year deal, for that reason, is better than one. If he performs well and it looks like he's still improving, we can extend next year. If not, we either keep him the second year as starter if Kaep still isn't ready (I doubt) or having him as a backup to Kaep for one year would be good - or he's tradeable. This is all assuming he doesn't get a big money contract. A one year contract is great if he doesn't progress - but if he doesn't progress I would rather have Kaep in and have him as a backup. If he does progress (the big jump) a one year contract doesn't lock him up for less and if we do extend him then, the price would go up (not by world-shattering levels, but an increase is an increase). Why not hedge your bets with at least two years at reasonable money?

As for longer than two years, I'm the wrong person to ask because I have more confidence in him than most and I want him here for long term. I may be wrong, but I'm just trying to be honest. If he doesn't jump this year, I will recognize that I was wrong and look elsewhere for QB.

I have not seen nearly enough of Kaep to be comfortable at all with him starting. I'm still just trying to grasp being comfortable at all with Smith starting.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Couple =/= 1 year.

i'm tryin to be optimistic here

 

[Flyingiguana]

Gannon was an ancient bloomer. The only other guy I can think of who comes close to Gannon is Vinny Testaverde, who was a very high pick, did nothing for years, and then put together several pretty good years really late. Though even with Vinny, he was never more than a mediocre QB.

As said, if Smith needs another five years, we've got to move on. I've supported Smith all along, though I would have been more aggressive about trying to find a replacement over the past three years. But as many have said, I think he's really only got this year to move into the top-10. He'll probably get a 2-3 year deal, but I still think he's on the hot seat.

the expectations should go up, especially if we do go out and make some moves to surround smith with some actual talent. we need a bit more than vernon and gore to show up on offense

 

[clyde_carbon]

my guess is 90% of fans want a 1 year contract, but the question is......will he sign it?

if i was Alex and offered a 1 year deal, i'd sign elsewhere no matter the circumstances, just wouldn't stay in SF.

regarding 'big jump', say he did make a big jump in 2012...........then we wouldn't be able to sign him so easily. he'll have much more leverage on the 49ers, will command much more money.

What if he doesn't make a big jump? What if he actually regresses?

 

[deep9er]

What if he doesn't make a big jump? What if he actually regresses?

its the same with all free agents, what if Rogers regresses? Goldson? Peyton Manning?

you evaluate, project ahead, value the player, and negotiate near that value. when the season starts, the player(s) will just play their best. at THAT time you can only hope you're projections were correct for the most part.

my post you're responding to is NOT saying sign Alex Smith long term now because he might make a big jump. it was meant to point out one negative of signing him to a one year deal, a response to MHLS.

 

[clyde_carbon]

its the same with all free agents, what if Rogers regresses? Goldson? Peyton Manning?

you evaluate, project ahead, value the player, and negotiate near that value. when the season starts, the player(s) will just play their best. at THAT time you can only hope you're projections were correct for the most part.

my post you're responding to is NOT saying sign Alex Smith long term now because he might make a big jump. it was meant to point out one negative of signing him to a one year deal, a response to MHLS.

No, it's not the same with all FAs. Alex Smith had 6 years of sub-par play and then one mediocre year. That's not the same as Manning, or even Rogers.

 

[deep9er]

No, it's not the same with all FAs. Alex Smith had 6 years of sub-par play and then one mediocre year. That's not the same as Manning, or even Rogers.

this part is the same....

you evaluate, project ahead, value the player, and negotiate near that value. when the season starts, the player(s) will just play their best. at THAT time you can only hope you're projections were correct for the most part

obviously, you'll end up projecting and valuing each player differently, but you take this same approach to free agents.

 

[clyde_carbon]

this part is the same....

you evaluate, project ahead, value the player, and negotiate near that value. when the season starts, the player(s) will just play their best. at THAT time you can only hope you're projections were correct for the most part

obviously, you'll end up projecting and valuing each player differently, but you take this same approach to free agents.

That's fine, but you're basically saying that Alex Smith has the same probably to regress as any other FA, including a guy like Peyton Manning. That's what I'm disagreeing with.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

What if he doesn't make a big jump? What if he actually regresses?

I mean, at this point if he regresses I think it's time to move on. I'm not saying he has to have an incredible year, just play as consistently as he did this year and hopefully the offense opens up more when we are close to scoring.

It's going to be hard to repeat the performance of this year as a whole. Harder schedule means we probably win less games. Better teams means Smith will probably make more mistakes. But he can make more mistakes and still have a better year than he had this year. Not sure if I am making sense with that.

 

[ViperVisor]

No, it's not the same with all FAs. Alex Smith had 6 years of sub-par play and then one mediocre year. That's not the same as Manning, or even Rogers.

He was par in 09 and 10. Saying Mediocre 11 is mediocre retardation for a monkey for a human it is full retard.

And the clubs in the bag and course condition were not good.

When you don't argue from reality it fudges up the debate.

If he was sub par in 09 and 10 Harbaugh or the previous coaches would of dumped him. Nobody keeps a sub par QB around after his franchise label hope and contract are gone. He was OK so they powers that be didn't cut him.

Get you head out of your ass. For Christ sake we have pointed out your blanket BS statements for what they are. Accept reality and move on. Or just move your ass out of here and back to ESPN.

 

[MHSL82]

That's fine, but you're basically saying that Alex Smith has the same probably to regress as any other FA, including a guy like Peyton Manning. That's what I'm disagreeing with.

I don't think he said that or at least I don't think that's what he meant. He might have implied that and that can be easily inferred from what he said. But, if pressed, I don't think he would stick to that statement that an Alex regression is as likely as a healthy Peyton Manning regression. I do not expect Alex to regress, but it's more likely than Manning doing so if he hadn't been injured (not comparing healthy Smith with injured Manning, that'd be reflected in the pay per year).

IMO - He's simply saying there's a risk that the money contracted for will be more than what is produced. For Manning, 28 million (likely reduced to 10-20 million) for a less-than-Manning Manning will be a disppointment and a loss of money. For Smith, 10 million for a regressed Smith will be a disappointment and a loss of money. He's saying you can't value him less duration-wise because he might regress, you value him money-wise what you think he's worth and sign him to a reasonable length (2-3 IMO). If you can lock him in for 2-3 years with a low quaranteed amount (versus 1) for a reasonable amount, if he regresses he can be Kaep's backup for a good amount.

So nowhere did Deep say to pay him a lot or extend him long, he was simply saying there's a risk with a one-year deal. If we didn't have Kaep, then a one-year deal would IMO make more sense - succeed without a backup extend for bigger pay. Fail with no backup, don't want to be stuck with him - prioritize a QB in FA/draft. Succeed with Kaep on the bench, higher amount to keep Smith. Fail with Kaep on the bench, put Smith as backup. This is all based upon a reasonable quasi-starter pay with incentives.

 

[deep9er]

That's fine, but you're basically saying that Alex Smith has the same probably to regress as any other FA, including a guy like Peyton Manning. That's what I'm disagreeing with.

no, if it came out that way my bad?

i certainly don't think this at all.

 

[deep9er]

I don't think he said that or at least I don't think that's what he meant. He might have implied that and that can be easily inferred from what he said. But, if pressed, I don't think he would stick to that statement that an Alex regression is as likely as a healthy Peyton Manning regression. I do not expect Alex to regress, but it's more likely than Manning doing so if he hadn't been injured (not comparing healthy Smith with injured Manning, that'd be reflected in the pay per year).

IMO - He's simply saying there's a risk that the money contracted for will be more than what is produced. For Manning, 28 million (likely reduced to 10-20 million) for a less-than-Manning Manning will be a disppointment and a loss of money. For Smith, 10 million for a regressed Smith will be a disappointment and a loss of money. He's saying you can't value him less duration-wise because he might regress, you value him money-wise what you think he's worth and sign him to a reasonable length (2-3 IMO). If you can lock him in for 2-3 years with a low quaranteed amount (versus 1) for a reasonable amount, if he regresses he can be Kaep's backup for a good amount.

So nowhere did Deep say to pay him a lot or extend him long, he was simply saying there's a risk with a one-year deal. If we didn't have Kaep, then a one-year deal would IMO make more sense - succeed without a backup extend for bigger pay. Fail with no backup, don't want to be stuck with him - prioritize a QB in FA/draft. Succeed with Kaep on the bench, higher amount to keep Smith. Fail with Kaep on the bench, put Smith as backup. This is all based upon a reasonable quasi-starter pay with incentives.

Clyde's hate for Alex Smith warps his thinking....badly??? Its so strange cause it only happens with Alex Smith?

 

[clyde_carbon]

I don't think he said that or at least I don't think that's what he meant. He might have implied that and that can be easily inferred from what he said. But, if pressed, I don't think he would stick to that statement that an Alex regression is as likely as a healthy Peyton Manning regression. I do not expect Alex to regress, but it's more likely than Manning doing so if he hadn't been injured (not comparing healthy Smith with injured Manning, that'd be reflected in the pay per year).

IMO - He's simply saying there's a risk that the money contracted for will be more than what is produced. For Manning, 28 million (likely reduced to 10-20 million) for a less-than-Manning Manning will be a disppointment and a loss of money. For Smith, 10 million for a regressed Smith will be a disappointment and a loss of money. He's saying you can't value him less duration-wise because he might regress, you value him money-wise what you think he's worth and sign him to a reasonable length (2-3 IMO). If you can lock him in for 2-3 years with a low quaranteed amount (versus 1) for a reasonable amount, if he regresses he can be Kaep's backup for a good amount.

So nowhere did Deep say to pay him a lot or extend him long, he was simply saying there's a risk with a one-year deal. If we didn't have Kaep, then a one-year deal would IMO make more sense - succeed without a backup extend for bigger pay. Fail with no backup, don't want to be stuck with him - prioritize a QB in FA/draft. Succeed with Kaep on the bench, higher amount to keep Smith. Fail with Kaep on the bench, put Smith as backup. This is all based upon a reasonable quasi-starter pay with incentives.

I know what Deep was saying. What I'M saying is that there's also a possibility that Smith regresses, making a deal more than one year long also risky.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Clyde's hate for Alex Smith warps his thinking....badly??? Its so strange cause it only happens with Alex Smith?

Hate? Are fucking kidding me? All I said was that there's a possibility that Smith also regresses, so I would think twice about signing him for longer than a year. Get the fuck over yourself.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

No, it's not the same with all FAs. Alex Smith had 6 years of sub-par play and then one mediocre year. That's not the same as Manning, or even Rogers.

He was par in 09 and 10. Saying Mediocre 11 is mediocre retardation for a monkey for a human it is full retard.

And the clubs in the bag and course condition were not good.

When you don't argue from reality it fudges up the debate.

If he was sub par in 09 and 10 Harbaugh or the previous coaches would of dumped him. Nobody keeps a sub par QB around after his franchise label hope and contract are gone. He was OK so they powers that be didn't cut him.

Get you head out of your ass. For Christ sake we have pointed out your blanket BS statements for what they are. Accept reality and move on. Or just move your ass out of here and back to ESPN.

I'm more with Clyde on this one. Smith was definitely subpar in 2009 and 2010. If you break the 2010 season in half, then Smith was awful for half and perhaps slightly above average for half. But viewed as a whole, he was bad in both seasons.

In 2009, Smith was 19th in rating, 20th in yards per game, 24th in YPA, 19th in TDs, tied for 17th in INTs, and 5th in sacks. The only category where he was in the top-half of the league was sacks (shockingly). His QBR that year was a 42.2.

In 2010, Smith was 21st in rating, 22nd in yards per game, 18th in yards per attempt, tied for 14th in TDs, 13th in INTs, and 9th in sacks. His QBR was 40.0.

It's a bit hard to compare Smith with others in terms of TDs, INTs, and sacks because he played considerably less in those seasons than most starters, but he wasn't a very good QB. "Subpar" is subjective, but he was certainly below average if "average" is the exact midpoint.

In 2011, Smith was 9th in rating, 1st in INTs, and 2nd in turnovers. Great numbers. But he was also 27th in yards per game, 17th in yards per attempt, 17th in TDs, and worst in sacks. He was 22nd in QBR at 46.4.

Smith had a pretty good season. He did what he was asked to do and we had a great year. But he really struggled on the road, hurt the offense by repeatedly taking sacks he could have avoided, and missed way too many throws. Was his year, taken as a whole, mediocre? Again, that's subjective. But I would say it was only slightly above average. He made fewer mistakes than most guys, but also made fewer big plays. I think we've got to see quite a bit more out of him to justify sticking with him.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Now, having said all that, I think we will and probably should give Smith a 2-3 year deal, probably the latter. If Harbaugh likes Smith, we should trust him. But I want a QB who can take over the game and win it, and with a few isolated exceptions - most dramatically the Saints game - Smith still isn't that guy. Our offense has to improve a lot, and I think that starts with Smith.

 

[ViperVisor]

In 2009 the NFL avg QB Rating was 81.2

In 2010 the NFL avg QB Rating was 82.2

Smith 2009 81.5

Smith 2010 82.1


Please accept reality served to you on a plate.