NFC West

[MHSL82]

That just seems silly to me - it is what it is so just say what it is.

Nah. I'll say it's the same. It's silly to make a big deal about 3 or 7 yards short. You gotta understand that I'm referring to those who make a mountain out of a mole hill about the significance of 300 yards when only 54% of those performances lead to victories. I'm not going around touting Smith as a 300 yard QB because he has some games that are close. I'm just saying calm down to those who make it sound like he averages 125 and tops out at 200. I wasn't referring to you because you don't do that.

 

[Bemular]

Nah. I'll say it's the same. It's silly to make a big deal about 3 or 7 yards short. You gotta understand that I'm referring to those who make a mountain out of a mole hill about the significance of 300 yards when only 54% of those performances lead to victories. I'm not going around touting Smith as a 300 yard QB because he has some games that are close. I'm just saying calm down to those who make it sound like he averages 125 and tops out at 200. I wasn't referring to you because you don't do that.

I guess I have never encountered these people who are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

As for your statistic, it is very misleading. Many, perhaps most dominating QB's that throw for 300+ yards win a helluva lot more than 54% of their games. Thus, one can argue that QB's throwing for 300+ yards and NOT winning are possibly, perhaps even likely NOT dominating.

As an example: Brady, Brees, Rodgers & Stafford were 33-7 when throwing for 300+ yards in 2011. That is an 82.5% win percentage. So, as you can see there is some credibility to the argument.

 

[MHSL82]

I guess I have never encountered these people who are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

As for your statistic, it is very misleading. Many, perhaps most dominating QB's that throw for 300+ yards win a helluva lot more than 54% of their games. Thus, one can argue that QB's throwing for 300+ yards and NOT winning are possibly, perhaps even likely NOT dominating.

As an example: Brady, Brees, Rodgers & Stafford were 33-7 when throwing for 300+ yards in 2011. That is an 82.5% win percentage. So, as you can see there is some credibility to the argument.

I got the 54% from the end of this video. Note that 300 yard QBs play other 300 yard QBs.

NFL Videos: Alex Smith criticisms fair or foul?

As for others, I guess I cruise the message boards more than you do? Either way, they are out there.

 

[mem49er]

As an example: Brady, Brees, Rodgers & Stafford were 33-7 when throwing for 300+ yards in 2011. That is an 82.5% win percentage. So, as you can see there is some credibility to the argument.

Bit of a limited sample, no? One season, all guys on winning teams (that season)...no comparison to the games they threw for less than 300.

 

[Bemular]

Bit of a limited sample, no? One season, all guys on winning teams (that season)...no comparison to the games they threw for less than 300.

No, not at all. The sample I used serves to illustrate the overarching point which is that the 54% average is made up of those who hit 100% (Rodgers) and those who hit 0% (Newton). Thus, to make a blanket statement that only 54% of 300+ YPG performances lead to victories is misleading.

 

[mem49er]

No, not at all. The sample I used serves to illustrate the overarching point which is that the 54% average is made up of those who hit 100% (Rodgers) and those who hit 0% (Newton). Thus, to make a blanket statement that only 54% of 300+ YPG performances lead to victories is misleading.

I see your point here, but the sentiment didn't really come across with the other post. There are winning 300yds and losing ones; it's an average of two different ends of the "winning" spectrum.

Here, have a :charlie:!

 

[Bemular]

I see your point here, but the sentiment didn't really come across with the other post. There are winning 300yds and losing ones; it's an average of two different ends of the "winning" spectrum.

Here, have a :charlie:!

What, no ? Obviously I need to step up my game.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Yeah, In my opinion, as an elite weapon Vernon Davis is better than any TEs the Panthers had a year ago, and to me that makes the whole group better (receiving crop). The attention he draws makes it easier for the rest of the WRs to succeed who aren't that good. Think of how the only time Qadry Ismail and Brandon Stokely were decent (2000 Ravens), it was because Shannon Sharpe drew all of the attention and he was often drew coverage to him solely putting the WRs in constent one-on-one situations. In the NFL receivers are mandated to win one-on-one battles. Our #2 receivers were open constantly but Smith in 2010 failed to capitalize. Afraid to make mistakes. He's not better better Cam nor did he (Cam) have better weapons did he did. Simply put, Smith failed Davis during the regular season as opposed to Davis failing Smith as Crimson tried to paint it out to be.

Bullshit. That argument would only hold water if Davis struggled the entire year. He didn't. It was still Smith who was throwing to Davis over the last three games, counting the postseason, when he averaged 137 yards and 1.33 TDs a game. Davis himself admitted that he was having trouble picking up the playbook in the first half of the season. I don't doubt that Davis would have put up better numbers with a better QB. But Davis was not consistent at all early in the season. Only when he became comfortable did he start to flourish.

I'm not arguing Smith vs. Cam Newton here. You said it's not debatable that our receivers were better than the Panthers. As several people have debated it, that statement was clearly wrong. The Niners may have been better, but it was a pretty close thing. Especially when you factor in Crabtree and Gore both residing among the league leaders in dropped passes.

 

[MHSL82]

No, not at all. The sample I used serves to illustrate the overarching point which is that the 54% average is made up of those who hit 100% (Rodgers) and those who hit 0% (Newton). Thus, to make a blanket statement that only 54% of 300+ YPG performances lead to victories is misleading.

Of course 300 games are helpful sometimes. No one has ever lost because their QB inexplicably threw for 300 yards. They may lose because the QB is trying to get more yards passing by forcing ill-advised throws that get picked off or are incomplete instead of the checkdown. But if they connect, 300 is not a bad thing. But why would you look at one spectrum to disprove a general statement that yards are less important than defense + special teams + ball protection + opportunistic shots, etc.? We have the latter and are working on things like third down conversions to get the former.

No one ever won games because of yards alone, they won because of points and defense. Yards help get those points but they don't matter if they stall before then. Smith struggled in the red zone, THAT was the problem. Not the yards. We stalled on third down too often. THAT was the problem. Not the yards. That was my point all along. So when someone says he can't get 300 yard games because he has only 2 (when 5 are close enough for me) I say, so what? Why didn't we score more than the other team? Why did we stall on third down? Why did he make that bone-headed pass? This fixation on yards per game is a bit overrated. I would like the ypa to go up, but if that's on fewer passes, fewer yards, more points, I don't care. (More passes would obviously lead to more yards in that instance.)

Effectively moving the chains is important. But I don't care how many yards of that was passing. If we have short fields all game, guess what, we're going to have fewer yards and the offense appreciates that. If we're up, guess what, we're going to run the clock out. Basically verbatim of what Smith said. We cannot continue to screw up in the red zone or go dead on third down. We fix those, the yards will come. We don't need to go to the yards.

What's the point of saying some QBs win with 300 yard games? Obviously they do. 46 percent of the time they lose. When a QB goes for yards when he doesn't have to, he's more likely to lose. When teams are down by a lot, they are more likely to pass. I would like a more aggressive offense from the start if it doesn't sacrifice too many drives by INTs. Heck, we ALL want more yards, that's exciting, right? (Assuming the defense is still great and hard hitting excitement, too.) I would like more yards if only it would shut everyone up. But the moment Smith pushes for more yards and we lose, we'll say he pushed a winnable game. The game, here, is to go for it when we need it, take what we can get, use our strategies to attack them when we can. That's what Harbaugh did in 2011. When this offense gets going is when we'll see us dictating to the defense. That's what we're trying to get to this year.

 

[Bemular]

.

I reduced your post to everything that was either accurate or made sense.

 

[MHSL82]

I reduced your post to everything that was either accurate or made sense.

Hey, I at least try not to be rude to others when they have a different opinion. I'd appreciate it if you did the same. You can respond with relevant argument, ignore the post, or talk about llamas. I just don't get the point of being rude.

 

[mem49er]

I reduced your post to everything that was either accurate or made sense.

I don't agree with it, but it made me el-oh-el. I think Bem's just trying to mess with your head, MHSL.

 

[Bemular]

Hey, I at least try not to be rude to others when they have a different opionion. I'd appreciate it if you did the same.

I am aware of your efforts to TRY and not be rude; unfortunately, I am also well aware of your continued passive aggressive failures to do so. So it would seem we both have something we would appreciate from the other.

Look, MHSL82, if you want to argue that 982 = 1000, and 290 = 300 and all QB's who throw for 300+ lose ~46% of the time, go for it. I would argue as I demonstrated that there is a distinct difference between those QB's that throw for 300+ and win and those that throw for 300+ and lose.

 

[MHSL82]

I am aware of your efforts to TRY and not be rude; unfortunately, I am also well aware of your continued passive aggressive failures to do so. So it would seem we both have something we would appreciate from the other.

Look, MHSL82, if you want to argue that 982 = 1000, and 290 = 300 and all QB's who throw for 300+ lose ~46% of the time, go for it. I would argue as I demonstrated that there is a distinct difference between those QB's that throw for 300+ and win and those that throw for 300+ and lose.

I didn't argue that. I just think that Tom Brady's of the world are better at third down, touchdowns, and red zone conversions than Smith, all more important than yards. Winning, too. That's what makes them better than Smith. Not the yards themselves. And where did I say "all" lose? I distinguished that in my first posts and the one you didn't read in good faith. I say good faith because there was plenty accurate and would make sense to someone actually giving it an honest effort to figure out what I was saying about.

Continued passive aggressive failures? Where are these? Can you show me one? I'm sorry if you read them that way. I don't intend them to be directed at anyone. I just know the tactic to call the other confused and say that nothing they stated was accurate or made sense is rude. It seems you no longer have a problem with Crimsoncrew, but rather with me. We don't agree on some things. I don't say anything bad about you and your posting styles or opinions. Just I agree or I don't.

Can we just let bygones be bygones, agree to disagree? I honestly find you to be one of the better posters except for these isolated times where it seems a bit rough. I may be more sensitive than other posters but I really try to stick to an argument or concede, not be passive aggressive as you say I am. I'm sorry if my posting style comes out to be rude, I don't intend on being that way, directly or indirectly. I think others can vouch for me.

 

[MHSL82]

I don't agree with it, but it made me el-oh-el. I think Bem's just trying to mess with your head, MHSL.

It's just a message board. I don't actually take it personal. I just have more fun on these boards if we can just discuss football and opinions. I've seen the "." edits before and they have some humor to it. But just like email, it can be misinterpretted.

 

[threelittleturds]

Yeah, In my opinion, as an elite weapon Vernon Davis is better than any TEs the Panthers had a year ago, and to me that makes the whole group better (receiving crop). The attention he draws makes it easier for the rest of the WRs to succeed who aren't that good. Think of how the only time Qadry Ismail and Brandon Stokely were decent (2000 Ravens), it was because Shannon Sharpe drew all of the attention and he was often drew coverage to him solely putting the WRs in constent one-on-one situations. In the NFL receivers are mandated to win one-on-one battles. Our #2 receivers were open constantly but Smith in 2010 failed to capitalize. Afraid to make mistakes. He's not better better Cam nor did he (Cam) have better weapons did he did. Simply put, Smith failed Davis during the regular season as opposed to Davis failing Smith as Crimson tried to paint it out to be.



Don't get me wrong, I think Kyle Williams is the main reason why we lost the super bowl in 2011 (for lack of better words though it was the NFC Championship game) - But Alex Smith was also a key reason as to why we didn't advance...While Eli was being hammered by Justin Smith and company, he kept his composure and was willing to make tough throws when needed. He took calculated risk unlike Smith who only took a shot with Delanie Walker as time expired sending us to overtime. Smith was not throwing the receivers open, unlike Eli. I mean, our coners were playing good enough for us to win (prior to Brown's injury) - however, tough they were sticking with their man, Eli was throwing the receivers open. Smith on the other hand, didn't throw the ball in certain (hot spots) because he perceived his receivers as being covered. That's not a "pro bowl" mentality.



I swear to you, it's not the receivers. Your issue there is with the QB. Not the recievers. It's like saying that Deymarius Thomas, Eric Decker, and Eddie Royal are bums because of their 2011 stats. Watch how all 3 of these players produce in 2012 with their new respective bbf (QBs). C'mon bro, I know you can see the underlying issue here like I can - you're just being bias and not realizing it.

I was going to say that I find it hard to really judge the 49ers receivers fairly because they have Alex Smith throwing them the ball, but I deleted that because I figured most of us felt that way, and I wanted to keep it about the receivers and not a Smith vs Newton thing. I already believe Cam is a better QB than Smith compared to where he is going into his 2nd year and where Smith was, by the time he is in the league 7 years I'm pretty sure he'll be considered one of the elite.


I just don't think the 49ers WR corps was very good last year, and it seems Baalke and Harbaugh agree by bringing in Moss, Manningham, and Jenkins. I mean that is an overhaul of the position and teams don't do that unless they feel it is a weak group. The Panthers on the other hand drafted one WR in the 4th round.

 

[MHSL82]

Bem's rep is exploding. I don't pay much attention to rep, but last time I saw it was in the 800's and now it's in the 2000's. Either that or I am mis-remembering. It appears that everyone loves his "." and I over-reacted (which was obvious). Oh well, it wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. I diagree with the statement and still believe I was right, but it is funny.

I give myself a big

I need a llama.

 

[threelittleturds]

I need a llama.

Here you go, a badass llama.

 

[MHSL82]

Here you go, a badass llama.

Thanks, I feel better already.

 

[NinerSickness]

Here you go, a badass llama.

HAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That is friggn' hillarious!