Manning chooses Broncos

[Bemular]

This season? Crimson, every 4th Qtr comeback ever engineered by any QB was made necessary because of many deficiencies and mistakes that occurred during the game - not just this season but every season.

Last time I checked, the monikers "Capt Comeback" & "The Comeback Kid" were positive labels not negative; so stop trying to make them negative - that is just desperation on your part.

And this is why we need to do anything in our powers to acquire Tim Tebow!

LMAO!! No shit - I think we start Colin and then just send in either Smith or Tebow in the 4th and we are 16-0!

 

[ViperVisor]

Can someone please explain to me how our awful numbers on 3rd down, and Smith's bad numbers in particular, is a straw man when discussing how good he was this season? Haven't figured this one out yet.

35.9% First Down on 3rd down passes is not good. True.

Stafford was 37.4%, Eli was 38.3%.

3rd down conversion is tough to do. You need skill and a well oiled machine on offense typically. A good and experienced QB, Not a mash unit of WRs and Not a inconsistent OL. The defense has a good idea of what you want to do and it is often threading a needle.

I would hope it would get better in 2012.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Several contract details:

NFL.com news: Peyton Manning, Broncos agree to five-year, $96 million deal

 

[MHSL82]

You're wrong again! Harbaugh and Baalke think they have something in Kaep. You don't waste a 2nd round pick on a prospect if you don't think that that particular prospect had no chance to be a good/great player in the league.

We could have had Brooks Reed or Kyle Rudolph with that pick. Why pass up on those guys for Kaep if you don't think he had no futre in playing somewhere close to a high level in this league.

In addition, the 3 year contract is not being renegotaiated at all whatsoever. They are not even scared (or showing minimal concern) if Smith doesn't sign the darn contract - because, though they may feel that Kaep may still need about 1/2 a year to a full year in order for them to feel comfortable in allowing him to be a starter, they are willing to expedite the process in gambling with Smith's future. Thus, Harbaugh and Baalke are "assuming" as well that Kaep can carry the team and continue to progress though he may not be "fully ready" to be a solid starter in the league.

Not necessarily. I think they know there's no way Alex would leave us. Why compromise when he won't leave? I think if Houston offered Alex a deal that was more or around ours, they might throw him a bone (not much). Obviously, if Houston offered the deal, it would mean Smith is better than he is, but what I mean is, there's no way Alex would pick Miami over the Niners. And this is not even considering Mike Nolan (or is he gone there, too?). No one would choose Miami and I would lose respect for him if he went to be a backup, even on a good team. I agree that they are confident in Kaepernick's future. I know Harbaugh picked him, but if he didn't, I think Baalke would still act the same. If we had won the SB, the offer would have been higher in the first place.

 

[MHSL82]

Quick question, say Seattle had taken smith. Would you honeslty be terrified to play him twice a yr? I live in AZ and listen to sport radio here and have few friends that are Cards fans. They want us to retain smith becuase they know what we have in him. He is average at best!

Like i said if Alex thinks he is worth more then the contract offered then bye bye! We save money with Kap and can make the team better overall.

Fair enough, nobody has seen enough of him in the NFL. But you obviously think its a big enough gap for him not to be starting at all.

Do you think the deal that is reportedly on the table for smith is fair or does he deserve more?

I know you weren't asking me, but no, I don't think he deserves any more. I would maybe bump the guaranteed a little higher for good faith, as I do see it as a low end deal, but he can't ask for more than 24 and I don't think he is. Maybe the agent wants to pass the 26 Flynn got, but other than that. How about 27 million, 11 guaranteed. Then they can say they were fair because they were offering more than Flynn's 26 & 10. Heck, add a team option for a fourth year with no added guaranteed. It would add 3M + bump the guaranteed 1M.

 

[Bemular]

You said "criminally bad", unjustifiable in any light. Too much coffee this morning?

this is just it....why do you frame it like this? I doubt a single person here says he's so very good, or has so much promise. Why do you jump straight to the exaggerations? The argument is with "below-average in virtually every other area" type comments. Everything is exaggerated. Everything is hyperbole. Its statements like that that drive people toward the extremes. I try my best to stay fair, but I know it just doesn't work.....so I'm willing to take my lumps when people say I'm not being fair. I'll try to drop this, its a stupid way to spend a day.

In my limited experience with this Crimsoncrew I can say that every word of this post is precise. And although it does not list all the fallacies used by Crimsoncrew, it is a start and is very respectfully stated. I hope he takes this to heart. Great Post!

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

I know you weren't asking me, but no, I don't think he deserves any more. I would maybe bump the guaranteed a little higher for good faith, as I do see it as a low end deal, but he can't ask for more than 24 and I don't think he is. Maybe the agent wants to pass the 26 Flynn got, but other than that. How about 27 million, 11 guaranteed. Then they can say they were fair because they were offering more than Flynn's 26 & 10. Heck, add a team option for a fourth year with no added guaranteed. It would add 3M + bump the guaranteed 1M.

We clearly have all the leverage right now against smith and he should know that. I am fine with smith accepting that contract and being the starter with Kap pushing him. Im not going to let one average yr make me think Alex deserves better money. If the hawks/Cards want to overpay for QB's that are unknown then so be it. We know what we have in Smith already and yes he may get better with a 2nd full yr and more weapons but i feel like i have said that many times. Our front office has a certain way of building are team and if thats what they feel smith deserves then as they say take it or leave it! We can and will move on if that is the case.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I disagree on both of your primary claims and now this repackaged claim.

I'm shocked to hear that.

First, we are not comparing Ballard to the rest of the TE's in the NFL so your statement that Ballard was "well below average" is meaningless to this discussion.

The above is just another example of you making a statistically incorrect statement due to not understanding the context of the discussion or in an attempt to introduce a straw man argument - and you do this ALL the time.

In proper context we would compare Ballard to Davis and in that comparison the tangibles are much closer than you think - not even close to being markedly different as you are claiming.

Two thoughts. First, I said Ballard was below average assuming that people on this board would realize that, at least as a receiver, Davis is far above average, and thus clearly better than Ballard.

Second, we get a taste of what you do ALL the time above in bold. You state that Davis' and Ballard's tangibles are closer than I think, and not even close to being markedly different, but you don't support that statement. What are Ballard's tangibles and how do they relate to Davis'? Do you think Ballard is nearly as good a TE as Davis? Is Pascoe as good as Walker? Based on what?

You didn't answer my question about the number of Giants games you watched, so I'm going to assume it was just the two and thus your claim of the Giants OLine being markedly worse than the 49ers is either just a guess or one that is supported by available statistics; which, if we interpret them objectively and correctly tell a different story then the one you are trying to sell.

I probably watched the better part of four Giants games this year. And I saw Diehl getting his ass handed to him in all of them.

I would say the Giants Oline did a worse job opening holes for the running game between the 20's but inside the 20's they were much better than us.

They might have been somewhat more effective inside the 20. Though I would say the Giants OL was helped considerably in that area by their QB, who threw nearly twice as many red zone TDs as Smith and forced defenses back on their heels in the red zone

As for protection if we are to assume that a reasonable percent of sacks are attributable to the OLine and we apply that same percentage equally to both OLines then we can say that the Giants Oline was better in that department as well.

We could assume that, but we'd be largely wrong. The QB has a tremendous amount of influence over sacks. Your good buddy MW and I discussed this at some length following the Dallas game. He was arguing that Smith was to blame for all but one of the sacks he took. Since he knows the game much better than you, I'll just assume you agree with his position. One of the things that sets Manning apart from Smith is his ability to avoid pressure and make quick decisions to beat the rush.

Overall, your claim that the Giants were "markedly worse at every other position [and now] position group" is false.

No, it's not.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

You said "criminally bad", unjustifiable in any light. Too much coffee this morning?



this is just it....why do you frame it like this? I doubt a single person here says he's so very good, or has so much promise. Why do you jump straight to the exaggerations? The argument is with "below-average in virtually every other area" type comments. Everything is exaggerated. Everything is hyperbole. Its statements like that that drive people toward the extremes. I try my best to stay fair, but I know it just doesn't work.....so I'm willing to take my lumps when people say I'm not being fair. I'll try to drop this, its a stupid way to spend a day.

Viper said earlier this morning that Smith was "very good" this season. Iguana clearly holds that view as well. That's the hyperbole, not me citing it. We just saw Mark Sanchez get bank after a generally bad season. If Smith had such a strong season, why aren't teams trying desperately to get a 27-year-old QB who was very good this year?

As for criminally bad, that's a fair assessment of Diehl. He very nearly got Eli killed in the championship game. McKenzie was only a little better.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Or to turn it around, why haven't the Niners explored a single other QB than Manning? If Smith sucks so badly, why are they gonna give him his job back? If you guys were honest you'd admit that Smith could have gone places this offseason if he really wanted to, at least Miami and Seattle would have taken him.

He doesn't suck so badly. He was offered a fair deal, for a mid-level NFL starting QB. That's what Smith is and that's clearly how the FO views him. I think he's better than a lot of options out there, and certainly preferable for this team to throwing a lot of money at a guy like Flynn, even though Flynn might have more upside.

You say he could have gone other places, but both Seattle and Miami signed other guys. Seattle signed a completely unproven player and Miami went after a has-been. Again, if Smith was really coming off a very good season, why aren't teams absolutely throwing money at him? Why aren't they promising him the starting job for the next five or six years? If protecting the football is the most important thing for a QB, and we pretty much all agree that Alex Smith was one of the best ever in this category, why aren't half the teams in the league lining up to pay him franchise money? Why can't he beat the mediocre offer we made?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

This season? Crimson, every 4th Qtr comeback ever engineered by any QB was made necessary because of many deficiencies and mistakes that occurred during the game - not just this season but every season.

Last time I checked, the monikers "Capt Comeback" & "The Comeback Kid" were positive labels not negative; so stop trying to make them negative - that is just desperation on your part.

That isn't to say that some comebacks are not made necessary because of the deficiencies and mistakes made solely by the QB, but that applys to ALL QB's not just Alex and THAT isn't the point as you would like to make everyone believe. The outcome is the only point. Had we lost those games then that outcome would be the point.

The point here is simply this. This year Alex demonstrated he could overcome deficiencies and mistakes, regardless of who owned them, and win games. The deficiencies and mistakes themselves belong to another conversation on a separate topic.

I'm not disputing that Alex had some great comebacks and made some big plays in the clutch. You're misrepresenting my argument. We had seven comebacks and Smith played a central role in all of them. He deserves a lot of credit for that.

Having said that, our defense was one of the top in league (second, I think) in forcing turnovers, we held opponents to 20 points or fewer in 12 of 16 games, and below 14 points in seven. When the D is playing that well, we shouldn't need seven come-from-behind victories. The offense struggled to sustain drives and to score TDs, allowing teams that we were dominating defensively to stay in the game and take late leads. A lot of the third down and red zone deficiencies fall on Alex Smith IMO.

So as I said, the comebacks are great. A better QB wouldn't need to come back, though. A better QB would have put the game away in the third quarter.

 

[ViperVisor]

Viper said earlier this morning that Smith was "very good" this season. Iguana clearly holds that view as well. That's the hyperbole, not me citing it. We just saw Mark Sanchez get bank after a generally bad season. If Smith had such a strong season, why aren't teams trying desperately to get a 27-year-old QB who was very good this year?

Smith was very good. I have backed that unbold statement with lots of factual info.

I am not informed on the Jets Situation but probably had something to do with cap as he already had one of those big rookie deals.


There were 5 teams that just took a QB high in 2011 draft *Cin *Min *Jax *Tenn *Car.
1 team signed up a QB *AZ 1 resigned a QB *BUF.
2 mega QB prospects in this draft.

That is 9 teams out of the market.

Add in the teams with establishes QBs that they believe are good and ascending or already better than that.

You only have a handful of spots that might of wanted Alex Smith.

And it is a business where ownership has to sell Smith regardless of his potential play on the field. His name isn't selling tickets.

 

[imac_21]

Smith was very good. I have backed that unbold statement with lots of factual info.

I am not informed on the Jets Situation but probably had something to do with cap as he already had one of those big rookie deals.


There were 5 teams that just took a QB high in 2011 draft *Cin *Min *Jax *Tenn *Car.
1 team signed up a QB *AZ 1 resigned a QB *BUF.
2 mega QB prospects in this draft.

That is 9 teams out of the market.

Add in the teams with establishes QBs that they believe are good and ascending or already better than that.

You only have a handful of spots that might of wanted Alex Smith.

And it is a business where ownership has to sell Smith regardless of his potential play on the field. His name isn't selling tickets.

You have backed up the statement that Smith was "very good" with ONE factual piece of information: he didn't turn the ball over much.

Whenever someone points out somewhere he was average or worse, you dismiss it as a straw man.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Crimson.....now we're parsing, but there is a difference between saying someone "is" very good, and "was" very good during some timeframe. Saying Smith was very good last year is defensible.......I wouldn't say "very", but there's an argument there.

Again, nobody is saying he "is" very good as you claimed, but maybe this is an oversight.

 

[ViperVisor]

You have backed up the statement that Smith was "very good" with ONE factual piece of information: he didn't turn the ball over much.

Whenever someone points out somewhere he was average or worse, you dismiss it as a straw man.

What?

He was below average in TD%. Average in yards per, Solid Comp%. GREAT in INT%.

The other things matter and that is why it wasn't a great year.

But still Very Good overall.

What is dismissed is when I or someone else points out the failure of our targets to catch balls somewhat consistently or O-Line to pass protect somewhat consistently.

 

[wartyOne]

Crimson.....now we're parsing, but there is a difference between saying someone "is" very good, and "was" very good during some timeframe. Saying Smith was very good last year is defensible.......I wouldn't say "very", but there's an argument there.

Again, nobody is saying he "is" very good as you claimed, but maybe this is an oversight.

This wording of "very good" is what I have a problem with. I take very good to mean better than bottom half of the league in many statistical categories.

Attempts: 20
Completions: 17
Percentage: 11 (though this does represent the median between first and last)
Yards: 19
YPA: 17
Long pass: Tied for 34 with Cutler, McCoy and Tebow
TD: 17
INT: Better than everybody with statistical relevance, though for comparison sake, Rodgers only threw one more, despite throwing 28 more TD's.
Sacks: He lead the league in getting sacked (some on the Line, some on the QB is fair)
Rating: 9. This and the INT's are the only categories I would classify as "very good" (elite in the INT category) and they are intertwined as turnovers are the biggest detriment to a quarterback rating.
YPG: 27

It's not inaccurate or hyperbole to say he was below average in most categories. It is inaccurate and hyperbole to suggest that he was "very good" this year. If he was very good, who was good/average/bad/very bad?

And I realize you aren't the one who called him "very good." I'm just clarifying my stance.

 

[wartyOne]

What?

He was below average in TD%. Average in yards per, Solid Comp%. GREAT in INT%.

The other things matter and that is why it wasn't a great year.

But still Very Good overall.

What is dismissed is when I or someone else points out the failure of our targets to catch balls somewhat consistently or O-Line to pass protect somewhat consistently.

You can't put all of the blame on the receivers and line for those things. They have a part, but so does Alex. How many times did he flat out miss an open receiver? How many times did his inability to make a decision and throw somebody open lead to a sack? It's not black and white on either side.

 

[ViperVisor]

Jesus Christ...

*God Like*
Rodgers
*MVP*
Brees
*Great*
Tom Brady
Tony Romo
Matthew Stafford
Eli Manning
*Very Good*
Matt Ryan
Alex Smith

Elementary school adjectives. Not hard to comprehend.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Yeah, but Warty obviously this was a very low-risk, low-reward offense where the first and second priorities were to control field position. Clearly Smith's limitations were part of the idea there, but we saw many times where the offense was opened up and executed better. In fact, I would say more often than not.....when allowed to open it up, they moved the ball better.

Personally I put a season like Brees' in the "Great" category, and Eli in the "very good" category....but Smith, at 17/5 TD/INT, 61% completions, 7.1 ypa.....I would think that qualifies as "good" to any reasonable person.

 

[wartyOne]

Jesus Christ...

*God Like*
Rodgers
*MVP*
Brees
*Great*
Tom Brady
Tony Romo
Matthew Stafford
Eli Manning
*Very Good*
Matt Ryan
Alex Smith

Elementary school adjectives. Not hard to comprehend.

Good. Then nothing you've posted supports your claim that he had a very good year. Everything I've posted points to him having an average year.