Manning chooses Broncos

[TobyTyler]

That's bullshit. Pure and simple.

Actually, the points he makes about the failures of our offensive line and our receivers to catch the ball are solid.

 

[Flyingiguana]

I agree with your categorization for Brees and Eli. I think Alex had a great year by his previous standards. But I also think it's an average year when compared to the rest of the quarterbacks in the league. Regardless of the reason as to why we limited the offense (whether by execution, design or "other").

Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time considering 197 passing yards and 1.1 TD's a game as good. That screams average for QB play at this level to me. I certainly wouldn't consider that "very good."

half of our wins were the result of comebacks by smith. that's 7 of 14 wins. including doing it twice against the guy who just broke marino's record.

u can say harbaugh was conservative because of smith, etc. after morgan went down our offense became much more conservative.

 

[TobyTyler]

are you talking regular season or the playoff game?

Playoff. He was OK in the regular season game against the G men.

 

[ViperVisor]

You're right, it isn't hard to comprehend. C/C+ is not very good. Not ever.

If I change those to letter grades I could easily be justified in giving Smith a B/B+

You are just lashing out and not refuting the facts of the season Smith had. You can not minimize the importance of not throwing the ball away. It is a big part of being a good QB. The avg INT% of the guys above Smith in Rating was 2.1%

 

[imac_21]

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.

So is it possible to be "very good" as a QB with the limitations that came with our offense. Do we need to add a qualifier that he was "very good" in this offense? If so, I don't think we can evaluate him at all because there is no baseline for what a QB can do in this offense.

We can't say what Rodgers or any other QB would do in this offense because it hasn't happened. Furthermore, we don't know how much of the offense was held back due to the structure vs risks Alex wasn't willing to take. If we had Rodgers, for example, would he have taken more risks and tried to make throws Alex wasn't willing to make.

Was he hesitant to make throws into tight areas because he was instructed to play that way, or was it something with him that prevented him from making those throws (confidence in the receivers, confidence in himself or whatever).

Ultimately, we can compare Alex Smith in 2011 to Alex Smith earlier in his career. Compared to Alex Smith in every season with the exception of the second half (roughly) of 2010, Alex Smith was very good. Compared to how he played from the Eagles' game on in 2010, he was average.

That's the kicker. Everyone wants to credit Harbaugh for Smith's turn around and say that he will continue to improve exponentially. But how much better was he in 2011 than the final 6 games of 2010 (including Carolina)?

In those 6 games he threw for 1141 yards (190 per game, despite not playing all of the Carolina game or the St Louis game), 7.5 ypa, 8 TDs and 1 INT. That's a rating of 95.3 before Harbaugh arrived.

Why are we expecting Harbaugh to continue the improvement he brought to Smith when that improvement started before Harbaugh arrived?

 

[imac_21]

If I change those to letter grades I could easily be justified in giving Smith a B/B+

You are just lashing out and not refuting the facts of the season Smith had. You can not minimize the importance of not throwing the ball away. It is a big part of being a good QB. The avg INT% of the guys above Smith in Rating was 2.1%

If you had a horribly low standard you could. But a B/B+ is not "very good" either.

 

[ViperVisor]

If you had a horribly low standard you could. But a B/B+ is not "very good" either.

You are tying yourself in knots with anti-logic.

 

[Bemular]

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.

I have read your post and you are even more wrong now than before; and you are now attempting to cover your tracks by just making shit up. As I said, your claim that the Giants were "markedly worse at every other position [and now] position group" is false.

You have provided zero evidence to support your claim that "the Giants were "markedly worse at every other position [and now] position group"

Perhaps you should either adjust your claim or maybe you should look up the word markedly? Just some thoughts. Do what you wish but disagreeing doesn't change the facts which I have provided to support my position.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Yeah, cc...just FYI, when I said "now we're parsing", I did mean "I'm going to parse these words". No disagreement.

But it does depend on what the definition of "is" is. People always scoffed at Clinton for that one, but he was serious!

 

[Bemular]

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

"Crimsoncrew: Let me ask this: if Smith is so very good, or has so much promise...,"


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.

Except the part where he said no one has claimed Smith was very good. Viper has stated that repeatedly now. As such, I wasn't exaggerating when I repeated it. As that was effectively Space's only claim that was even close to fact-based, it turns out that very little of his post was precise.

In my fairly extensive experience with you and your alter ego, I can say that your continued inability to keep the facts straight is par for the course.

Pistol's entire post is a precise characterization of the BS you spew on this board. Once again your inability to comprehend what is clearly written is astounding!

Thanks again for the comparison, but it is simply not true although I now know why you think it is.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I really do enjoy when you guys go at it.....its like just snarling, mutual-zero respect slugfests, all set in quite literate and generally calm comments.

 

[Bemular]

[QUOTE 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.

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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Oh, okay, so what you are saying is that as great as comebacks are they always reflect poorly on the QB. Thus, according to you Joe Montana should not be considered a very good QB because if we had a better QB than Montana then all those comebacks of his would not have been necessary in the first place.

Got it - Pure genius!

 

[jayviabay]

You are tying yourself in knots with anti-logic.

its always a head shaker when the tea pot calls the kettle black...

 

[clyde_carbon]

Actually, the points he makes about the failures of our offensive line and our receivers to catch the ball are solid.

I don't think Viper raised a single fair point this entire debate. Just a bunch of drivel and nonsense topped with skewed stats that rarely apply.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Pistol's entire post is a precise characterization of the BS you spew on this board. Once again your inability to comprehend what is clearly written is astounding!

Thanks again for the comparison, but it is simply not true although I now know why you think it is.

Shutup Bemular. It's obvious what you're doing. Crimson buried you in a debate last week and now you're trying to cheerlead from the sideline against him. It's pathetic.

 

[jayviabay]

I don't think Viper raised a single fair point this entire debate. Just a bunch of drivel and nonsense topped with skewed stats that rarely apply.

+1

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I thought only the Saints and Dolphins showed any interest in Brees who was coming off a shoulder injury.

They were the two most interested teams and they engaged in a pretty serious bidding war. Again, no one has shown more than lukewarm interest in Smith. The one team he visited signed a retread who may be worse than their current starter a day after the fact. Either Alex doesn't want to leave and teams know it - which may be true - or teams don't think very highly of him. Even if it's the former, I'd expect any team that really believed in him to throw a lot of money his way and see what happened.

 

[Bemular]

Shutup Bemular. It's obvious what you're doing. Crimson buried you in a debate last week and now you're trying to cheerlead from the sideline against him. It's pathetic.

If it were so obvious, this burial that you speak of, then why are you now cheerleading for him? Perhaps you should shutup!

 

[Crimsoncrew]

half of our wins were the result of comebacks by smith. that's 7 of 14 wins. including doing it twice against the guy who just broke marino's record.

u can say harbaugh was conservative because of smith, etc. after morgan went down our offense became much more conservative.

And more than half of our wins (8 of 14) were the result of the D holding our opponent under 12 points. I've already addressed the comebacks at some length above. Commendable, but not a sure sign of a great QB IMO.

As for the aggressiveness, I think it's a bogus argument to claim that Morgan's injury led to a drastic change in our approach. We didn't go aggressive against the Eagles until we were trailing big and had to. We were fairly aggressive against TB. At home, against the worst pass rush in the NFL last year. And we were aggressive the following week in Detroit, throwing 32 times (to that point, only topped against Philly). We played conservatively against the Browns and Redskins, teams that were 26th and 30th in scoring. We were then quite aggressive against the Giants and Cards in the next two games. We were conservative when it behooved us to be conservative - often on the road where Smith and the OL tended to struggle - and we were aggressive when we felt we needed to be. It's not as if Morgan's injury completely changed our approach.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

If I change those to letter grades I could easily be justified in giving Smith a B/B+

You are just lashing out and not refuting the facts of the season Smith had. You can not minimize the importance of not throwing the ball away. It is a big part of being a good QB. The avg INT% of the guys above Smith in Rating was 2.1%

Yes. But it's not the single most important thing, as you claimed.