Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Re: FAcy and Draft

  • redright
  • Faithful Best Friend
  • 12908 posts this site

Posted: 2/13/2013 9:27 PM

Re: FAcy and Draft 


Game,
Those that say Weeden will lose his job if Smith is brought in must assume that Smith is clearly superior. And if that is so, what's the problem?

rr

not really. Smith is a step aheads of Weeden. Has to be. He has 6 years experience and Weeds has one  year in the land of misfit coaches.  Likely Smith wins the QB competition, becomes the starter and never becomes all that and a bag of chips. Weeden may not be better, but if you are not certain Smith is to be your franchise QB, all you've done is paid a high price for an interim QB. Weeds or  Moore or Anderson could do that. We need to be certain Smith is our QB for 5 years or pass. Average or slightly better than average means five years of never getting to the dance.

Do you remember Bill Walsh taking an underachiever, Steve Deberg and getting him to perform as is he was pro-bowl quality?  DeBerg thought he was all world.  Not so. Walsh knew it. NO mega bucks for DeBerg. See much the same with Smith.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/13/2013 11:26 PM

Re: FAcy and Draft 



redright wrote:

Game,
Those that say Weeden will lose his job if Smith is brought in must assume that Smith is clearly superior. And if that is so, what's the problem?

rr

not really. Smith is a step aheads of Weeden. Has to be. He has 6 years experience and Weeds has one  year in the land of misfit coaches.  Likely Smith wins the QB competition, becomes the starter and never becomes all that and a bag of chips. Weeden may not be better, but if you are not certain Smith is to be your franchise QB, all you've done is paid a high price for an interim QB. Weeds or  Moore or Anderson could do that. We need to be certain Smith is our QB for 5 years or pass. Average or slightly better than average means five years of never getting to the dance.

Do you remember Bill Walsh taking an underachiever, Steve Deberg and getting him to perform as is he was pro-bowl quality?  DeBerg thought he was all world.  Not so. Walsh knew it. NO mega bucks for DeBerg. See much the same with Smith.

Red, Deberg was a pretty old vet, no? Don't think that's a good comparison. As I've said above, Smith would have to come at a reasonable price to be worth adding. Reasonable being front loaded contract so that if he turns out to be meh, you cut him and walk away.
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote
  • redright
  • Faithful Best Friend
  • 12908 posts this site

Posted: 2/14/2013 10:17 AM

Re: FAcy and Draft 



Gameface64 wrote:
redright wrote:

Game,
Those that say Weeden will lose his job if Smith is brought in must assume that Smith is clearly superior. And if that is so, what's the problem?

rr

not really. Smith is a step aheads of Weeden. Has to be. He has 6 years experience and Weeds has one  year in the land of misfit coaches.  Likely Smith wins the QB competition, becomes the starter and never becomes all that and a bag of chips. Weeden may not be better, but if you are not certain Smith is to be your franchise QB, all you've done is paid a high price for an interim QB. Weeds or  Moore or Anderson could do that. We need to be certain Smith is our QB for 5 years or pass. Average or slightly better than average means five years of never getting to the dance.

Do you remember Bill Walsh taking an underachiever, Steve Deberg and getting him to perform as is he was pro-bowl quality?  DeBerg thought he was all world.  Not so. Walsh knew it. NO mega bucks for DeBerg. See much the same with Smith.

Red, Deberg was a pretty old vet, no? Don't think that's a good comparison. As I've said above, Smith would have to come at a reasonable price to be worth adding. Reasonable being front loaded contract so that if he turns out to be meh, you cut him and walk away.
O K How about the statiscally best Q B the Browns ever had...better statistically than Unitas and on  a great Browns team ....... Milt Plum?  

If I can not get a stud Q B, Im going wih Weeds, D A, Moore,    It gives us a chance to build the team and have a chance at better quartering.
Reply | Quote
  • redright
  • Faithful Best Friend
  • 12908 posts this site

Posted: 2/15/2013 8:52 PM

Re: FAcy and Draft 



Gameface64 wrote:
redright wrote:

Game,
Those that say Weeden will lose his job if Smith is brought in must assume that Smith is clearly superior. And if that is so, what's the problem?

rr

not really. Smith is a step aheads of Weeden. Has to be. He has 6 years experience and Weeds has one  year in the land of misfit coaches.  Likely Smith wins the QB competition, becomes the starter and never becomes all that and a bag of chips. Weeden may not be better, but if you are not certain Smith is to be your franchise QB, all you've done is paid a high price for an interim QB. Weeds or  Moore or Anderson could do that. We need to be certain Smith is our QB for 5 years or pass. Average or slightly better than average means five years of never getting to the dance.

Do you remember Bill Walsh taking an underachiever, Steve Deberg and getting him to perform as is he was pro-bowl quality?  DeBerg thought he was all world.  Not so. Walsh knew it. NO mega bucks for DeBerg. See much the same with Smith.

Red, Deberg was a pretty old vet, no? Don't think that's a good comparison. As I've said above, Smith would have to come at a reasonable price to be worth adding. Reasonable being front loaded contract so that if he turns out to be meh, you cut him and walk away.
Steve Deberg...born January, 1954...QB of San Francisco 49ers until 1980....makes him 26 going on 27. much younger than Smith.  Deberg and Smith...just good enough to lose with.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/16/2013 1:35 AM

Re: FAcy and Draft 



redright wrote:
Gameface64 wrote:
redright wrote:

Game,
Those that say Weeden will lose his job if Smith is brought in must assume that Smith is clearly superior. And if that is so, what's the problem?

rr

not really. Smith is a step aheads of Weeden. Has to be. He has 6 years experience and Weeds has one  year in the land of misfit coaches.  Likely Smith wins the QB competition, becomes the starter and never becomes all that and a bag of chips. Weeden may not be better, but if you are not certain Smith is to be your franchise QB, all you've done is paid a high price for an interim QB. Weeds or  Moore or Anderson could do that. We need to be certain Smith is our QB for 5 years or pass. Average or slightly better than average means five years of never getting to the dance.

Do you remember Bill Walsh taking an underachiever, Steve Deberg and getting him to perform as is he was pro-bowl quality?  DeBerg thought he was all world.  Not so. Walsh knew it. NO mega bucks for DeBerg. See much the same with Smith.

Red, Deberg was a pretty old vet, no? Don't think that's a good comparison. As I've said above, Smith would have to come at a reasonable price to be worth adding. Reasonable being front loaded contract so that if he turns out to be meh, you cut him and walk away.
Steve Deberg...born January, 1954...QB of San Francisco 49ers until 1980....makes him 26 going on 27. much younger than Smith.  Deberg and Smith...just good enough to lose with.
Red, are you trying to pull a fast one on me? I had to look it up, but DeBerg's stats in his first 4 years in the league with SF were not Pro Bowl quality by any stretch of the imagination. On a team that won as few as 2 games and topped out at 6 wins with DeBerg, he never threw more tds than picks. His best rating was 77, not that I believe in that system much.  When DeBerg was good, it was much later in his career with KC. Like 1990, when he was 35.

http://www.nfl.com/player/stevedeberg/2500356/care erstats


DeBerg and Smith as your comparison may even be right when it all plays out, but for now you're reaching to prove your point with a really sketchy and weak analogy.
>>> Decleater <<<

Last edited 2/16/2013 1:39 AM by Gameface64

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/16/2013 7:55 AM

Re: FAcy and Draft 


OK Game, I understand YPOV. I am not interested in putting all my eggs in the Weeden basket either. And there are options.

Alex Smith- Everyone talks as if Smith is a FA, he's not. The ones who knows he's not assume he'll be released. But why would the 9ers release him? Who do they have to backup Keap if they do? AS's pay for 13' is less than 9mill. Coupled with Keap and the 9ers have less than 11mill in the position. Peanuts for a starting QB let alone a starter and backup. To get Smith is going to take picks. Knowing that, what's a reasonable price? As Headhole has already stated, the floor for the bidding is a 3rd rounder. That's way more than I would pay for a known placeholder.

Ryan Mallett- Again pick drafts to aquire, but if we're going to spend them on anybody I would perfer it be Mallett. 6'6" 240 with an absolute cannon for a arm. But I don't think he's as smart as Weeden. He's had off field problems. And he's thrown all of 4 passes in his career with 1 int.

So now outside of those 2 who would you have besides Weeden?
Geno, T. Wilson, Barkley?
Meh, all. And all would cost us a first round pick.

I'm all for signing the best FA QB to compete with/push Weeden. For my money I think that's Matt Moore. I'm all for using a draft pick to get a young guy to develop, just not a first round pick. I can see Bray lasting until the 4th rd, afterall Foles did. If not then Landry Jones.

Throw them all out there, give them all a fair evaluation, and then go with the best one whoever it is.

Then if they all fail, reload next year in the first rd where there will be real talent to choose from.

That's MPOV. No need throwing our darts against a board with no balloons to pop.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/16/2013 9:00 AM

Re: FAcy and Draft 



poppa9601 wrote:



That's MPOV. No need throwing our darts against a board with no balloons to pop.

Common ground on the majority of your post. I've never stated that Smith should be a target at any price, only that he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand based on losing his job to a rising star like Kaperernick. Due dilligence, imo, would be to at least explore the option and see if there was any creative way that it could work.

The problem I have with your statement above is that not all the baloons are what they seem to be. And Russell Wilson and Kaepernick were not highly touted, or thought to be the brightest shiniest most fully inflated balloons to throw for when the darts were tossed. And those that look good for next year's draft may not be so attractive by 2014. Just ask Matt Barkley.

Last year's QB class may have been one for the ages, I don't know. Or there may be a trend that college QBs are becoming better and more prepared. Either way, my only point is that we need to go balls out to find a QB that can compete on a high level. More than anything, I believe that's what has set this franchise back the most since 99.
>>> Decleater <<<
Reply | Quote
  • redright
  • Faithful Best Friend
  • 12908 posts this site

Posted: 2/16/2013 7:21 PM

Re: FAcy and Draft 



Gameface64 wrote:
redright wrote:
Gameface64 wrote:
redright wrote:

Game,
Those that say Weeden will lose his job if Smith is brought in must assume that Smith is clearly superior. And if that is so, what's the problem?

rr

not really. Smith is a step aheads of Weeden. Has to be. He has 6 years experience and Weeds has one  year in the land of misfit coaches.  Likely Smith wins the QB competition, becomes the starter and never becomes all that and a bag of chips. Weeden may not be better, but if you are not certain Smith is to be your franchise QB, all you've done is paid a high price for an interim QB. Weeds or  Moore or Anderson could do that. We need to be certain Smith is our QB for 5 years or pass. Average or slightly better than average means five years of never getting to the dance.

Do you remember Bill Walsh taking an underachiever, Steve Deberg and getting him to perform as is he was pro-bowl quality?  DeBerg thought he was all world.  Not so. Walsh knew it. NO mega bucks for DeBerg. See much the same with Smith.

Red, Deberg was a pretty old vet, no? Don't think that's a good comparison. As I've said above, Smith would have to come at a reasonable price to be worth adding. Reasonable being front loaded contract so that if he turns out to be meh, you cut him and walk away.
Steve Deberg...born January, 1954...QB of San Francisco 49ers until 1980....makes him 26 going on 27. much younger than Smith.  Deberg and Smith...just good enough to lose with.
Red, are you trying to pull a fast one on me? I had to look it up, but DeBerg's stats in his first 4 years in the league with SF were not Pro Bowl quality by any stretch of the imagination. On a team that won as few as 2 games and topped out at 6 wins with DeBerg, he never threw more tds than picks. His best rating was 77, not that I believe in that system much.  When DeBerg was good, it was much later in his career with KC. Like 1990, when he was 35.

http://www.nfl.com/player/stevedeberg/2500356/care erstats


DeBerg and Smith as your comparison may even be right when it all plays out, but for now you're reaching to prove your point with a really sketchy and weak analogy.
I am missing a  post of mine, kindly excuse the repeat if indeed there is one.

NO GF not trying to pull a fast one.  Steve DeBerg IIRC was one of the many QBs Walsh coached up to near pro-bowl status.  Many QBs had their best year under Walsh. Virgil Carter was one and he was a dreadful pop-gun QB.  My memory of Deberg was of him holding out as in his mind he was a high quality QB. Not so in Walsh's mind and was moved. 

77 QB  rating was a  good rating back then. As I remembered it, most QBs including HOF QBs didn't rate that high. Terry Bradshaw came to mind and my post that went awry queried how he compared. I looked it up. In only two or Terry's full season did he do better than a 77 QB rating. He has a lifetime QB rating of 70. 

Archie manning, pro bowler career PR of 67 had one year with a passing rating better than 77. 14 years in the NFL and one  year he did better than Deberg's 77.

Dan Fouts was another of the Pro Bowl QBs. Had an 84 passing rating in 1980 and a career passing rating of 80.

The last of the Pro-bowl QBs I looked at was a favorite of mine, Brian Sipe. 10 years and a career QB rating of 74. He did exceed 77 three times.

GF, there are statistics and then there are statistics.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/16/2013 9:38 PM

Re: FAcy and Draft 


Ahhh Red, you're a'right.

I don't even like the NFL QB rating system, and you're right about stats. Just don't think Smith and DeBerg are a good parallel. Although I will concede that some coaches do a good job with QBs, but don't believe for a second that a good coach, even Harbaugh, can consistently make poor players rate near the top of the league. Smith earned that, and I'm not going to completely discount it to coaching, or Frank Gore, or the SF defense.

Montana really was that good, Walsh didn't make him out of clay.
>>> Decleater <<<

Last edited 2/16/2013 9:39 PM by Gameface64

Reply | Quote
  • redright
  • Faithful Best Friend
  • 12908 posts this site

Posted: 2/17/2013 7:43 PM

Re: FAcy and Draft 



Gameface64 wrote: Ahhh Red, you're a'right.

I don't even like the NFL QB rating system, and you're right about stats. Just don't think Smith and DeBerg are a good parallel. Although I will concede that some coaches do a good job with QBs, but don't believe for a second that a good coach, even Harbaugh, can consistently make poor players rate near the top of the league. Smith earned that, and I'm not going to completely discount it to coaching, or Frank Gore, or the SF defense.

Montana really was that good, Walsh didn't make him out of clay.


I agree with you GF. Montana was that good. He had "it". 

Deberg wasn't that good. He was at his best when Walsh coached him and it went to his head, as I remember it.  Walsh knew Deberg wasn't special.

As far as Smith, I don't know enough about him. I have not studied him and must yield to your opinion. Don't know, but he seems to me as a QB who did very well with a great team. I don't see us as having a great team and don't know that Smith can carry this team on his back. Don't know and have no reason to think Weeden can carry this team. IMO, I doubt we have a QB that can be "that guy".  I don't see anyone available who qualifies as that guy, and that includes all the likely suspects,  Anderson, Weeden, Moore, Smith, McCoy or Lewis. It iis not that I don't like Smith, it is more of not seeing him as a QB capable of taking this team to the dance.

I could be wrong. I didn't like the choice of Weeden and especialy so at @22. I don't see any QB worthy of committing the franchise to. I want to use whatever capital we have in building a solid team. It was my position during last year's draft and remains so today.  I do want to be wrong on Weeden.

Reply | Quote