Why's everyone so down on Kaep?

[Crimsoncrew]

so you'd be fine going back to 4-6 wins?

Seems to me that's what people - and not just the crazies - were saying about this team under Smith. In a perfect world, I think another year on the bench would be great for Kaepernick, but given the way this team runs, I'm not so sure we'd be completely out of it with him at the helm.

 

[Flyingiguana]

it can take qb's years to get going and last years class wasn't all that great. if 2-3 qb's turn into quality starters that would impress me. dalton and newton are off to good starts.

do u want to wait 4 years for kap to get things going? how would the team look with a qb with 1 ypa less and more int than td's? if it doesn't work, it could cost harbaugh and others their jobs. the chargers made a bad decision even tho rivers showed promise, while kap hasn't showed anything.

 

[MHSL82]

2nd year qb from a pistol offense? if things start off bad like they usually do with young qb's it could easily compound into a bad season. i'd rather bring in josh johnson and let kap sit and continue to develop without throwing the guy to the wolves.

Playing a QB in his second year is not throwing him to the wolves, generally. So I suspect you have something specific that makes you doubt Kaepernick? I may be one of the biggest Alex Smith supporters here since I went to Utah for a semester before transferring to USC, but it seems that 2nd year isn't unreasonable. I, of course, want Alex to succeed and force Kaep to be on the bench, but that shouldn't get in the way of general statements.

Not saying I agree or disagree, I'm guessing your rationale is one or more of the following.

Kaep is a project. Kaep runs too much. Alex currently is better (I'm giving Alex the benefit of the doubt due to experience and lack of off-season for Kaep).

 

[MHSL82]

Article on Kaepernick

 

[Crimsoncrew]

it can take qb's years to get going and last years class wasn't all that great. if 2-3 qb's turn into quality starters that would impress me. dalton and newton are off to good starts.

do u want to wait 4 years for kap to get things going? how would the team look with a qb with 1 ypa less and more int than td's? if it doesn't work, it could cost harbaugh and others their jobs. the chargers made a bad decision even tho rivers showed promise, while kap hasn't showed anything.

Their bad decision was hiring Norv as the HC, not going with Rivers at QB. Brees is the better QB, though not by much. Rivers is more than good enough to win with. Norv Turner is a great OC, but he's one of the worst HCs in the league. That team has been among the most talented in the league for years, but they can't get it done, and the coaching staff's fingerprints are all over that failure.

And this is not a Brees-Rivers debate. It's a Smith-Kaepernick debate. Those names shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence at this point.

 

[clyde_carbon]

so you'd be fine going back to 4-6 wins?

Because the offensive juggernaut that is Alex Smith is the main reason we're 8-1, right?

 

[NinerSickness]

...but he wasn't terrible. It seems that you are embellishing, but that's your style so it's fine with me. My style is to point out when I think people are exaggerating to make their point sound stronger. Your opinion is fine but you are pushing it to say it was terrible, IMO.

Ok, I'll be mroe specific. He was a bottom 10 QB even after the Eagles game. He got benched for poor play & only had good games against ATTROCIOUS NFC West teams like the Cardinals & Seahwaks. If that's not terrible to you then you have a weird definition of terrible.

Eagles game forward
111/191 58.1% 1450 yards 207.1 Y/G 94.8 passer rating

Not including Eagles game
86/152 56.6% 1151 yards 190.1 Y/G 95.6 passer rating

Look how many attempts he had in that span! 152! So 2 blow outs against the Seahwaks & Cardinals, wherein he got to pad his stats, grossly inflate those numbers. You can't look at a snipid of 150 attempts spread over 2 blow outs and a bunch of mediocre to bad performances and say that's enough to call a "turn around." Especially when he got benched for poor play!

How bad do you have to be to say you have a terrible year?

 

[MHSL82]

Ok, I'll be mroe specific. He was a bottom 10 QB even after the Eagles game. He got benched for poor play & only had good games against ATTROCIOUS NFC West teams like the Cardinals & Seahwaks. If that's not terrible to you then you have a weird definition of terrible.



Look how many attempts he had in that span! 152! So 2 blow outs against the Seahwaks & Cardinals, wherein he got to pad his stats, grossly inflate those numbers. You can't look at a snipid of 150 attempts spread over 2 blow outs and a bunch of mediocre to bad performances and say that's enough to call a "turn around." Especially when he got benched for poor play!

How bad do you have to be to say you have a terrible year?

Look, I didn't say he was good. I said he wasn't terrible AFTER THE EAGLES GAME. It was a terrible year no doubt but a lot of that stink happened before the infamous fumble-TD.

You complain about cherry picking and yet you cherry pick one part and remove it. You can't take out two games just because of the opponent or just because we blew them out. If you were grading Alex as a player, sure take out the padding stats, but if you are looking at if he had something about him that changed, you can't remove it. You can say he still wasn't good enough to play a good opponent, but you can't say he didn't improve or take steps to improve. A light can go off regardless of opponent.

Alex can only play who is on the schedule and he did well against those two - especially considering he flopped big time against Seattle previously (road game, but also this was before the "turn around" people are referring to). I bet you wouldn't exclude them if we lost and you wouldn't listen to anyone discounting the SD game due to their passing defense. The threshhold ain't high. I am not saying he was good and I'm leaving whether it was a turn around to be a matter of opinion.

Just for entertainment, if I were to take out the easy games, though he still had to suit up and play well in those easy games to escape a terrible second half season.

79-135, 58.5%, 919 yards, 216 Y/4qtrs, 6 TDs, 3 INTs 84.7 Passer Rating

That's 18th best with 14 QBs below him. Not bottom ten. Wouldn't mention it because it isn't good, but you underlined it, making it a point.

Want to see before the Eagles game?

93-151, 61.6%, 920 yards, 230 Y/G, 3 TDs, 7 INTs, 66.1 Passer Rating

The numbers are even more skewed if you take before the Singletary exchange and after it, but that would be dismissed incorrectly again as cherry picking.

As for benching, I don't take anything Singletary did seriously. I don't know how you can. Alex was not benched for poor play, he was benched because Singletary didn't know what he was doing. Note: I did not say he didn't play poorly in the SD game, I'm saying that a reasonable coach after seeing Troy flop would not have benched Alex without a better alternative. Plus, and this is the important part, he benched Alex to try and save his job. It was a political decision for him. Why do I say this? If it weren't for pre-Philadelphia Alex, the SD game was not bad enough to bench him. Some of the games Troy played would have been what you called stat-padding games.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Ok, I'll be mroe specific. He was a bottom 10 QB even after the Eagles game.He got benched for poor play & only had good games against ATTROCIOUS NFC West teams like the Cardinals & Seahwaks. If that's not terrible to you then you have a weird definition of terrible.



Look how many attempts he had in that span! 152! So 2 blow outs against the Seahwaks & Cardinals, wherein he got to pad his stats, grossly inflate those numbers. You can't look at a snipid of 150 attempts spread over 2 blow outs and a bunch of mediocre to bad performances and say that's enough to call a "turn around." Especially when he got benched for poor play!

How bad do you have to be to say you have a terrible year?

"No, he wasn't terrible! Just bad, ok?"

 

[NinerSickness]

You complain about cherry picking and yet you cherry pick one part and remove it. You can't take out two games just because of the opponent or just because we blew them out.

I was pointing out that he had 2 good games ALL SEASON. And the opponents were extremely weak. And one of them was a meaningless game because it was the last game of the season wherein neother team had a chance to make the playoffs. I don't consider that a turn-around.

Was he a top 20 QB after the Eagles game? I think not. I'd venture to say he's probably closer to 25 in terms of how I'd rank their later-year seasons.

 

[MHSL82]

I was pointing out that he had 2 good games ALL SEASON. And the opponents were extremely weak. And one of them was a meaningless game because it was the last game of the season wherein neother team had a chance to make the playoffs. I don't consider that a turn-around.

Was he a top 20 QB after the Eagles game? I think not. I'd venture to say he's probably closer to 25 in terms of how I'd rank their later-year seasons.

Yeah, you and I agree it was a terrible season and he performed terribly overall. Clyde likes to make fun of me because I can make stupid posts. He might not be a top twenty as a quality QB but I was talking about stat-wise (#18 after the Eagles game without the Seattle and Arizona game, #7 including those two) and about improving after the Eagles game. Going from 66.1 to 84.7 is a turn-around (note this does not include the Seattle and ARI games). If you were to take the first INT away (prior to the exchange, it would be higher, too) - but I didn't do that.

It does not say he was a good QB. Passer rating is overrated because it has serious flaws. The only measurement I can give you is the passer rating because that is less team oriented than 3rd down conversions, etc.

Yes, the Arizona game was meaningless and the Seattle game was against a bad opponent (though we were bad too) but if I were to substitute a middle-of-the-pack team game for those two he'd still be mid-NFL. I reserve terrible for bottom 10, which he wasn't in terms of stats. As for the eye test goes, that's an opinion thing where to me he looked better after the exchange and after the Eagles game.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Because the offensive juggernaut that is Alex Smith is the main reason we're 8-1, right?

the grass isnt always greener...

 

[MHSL82]

Because the offensive juggernaut that is Alex Smith is the main reason we're 8-1, right?

Steve Young agrees with you - he says he is slowly becoming the reason why we're winning - which means he's not there yet. He may never get there, but Young outlines how he'll get there if he does and how we'll know it (we're already winning, so winning isn't our indicator). You emphasized third down conversions and everyone agrees with red zone importance - two things Steve Young emphasized.