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: Alex Smith, #11

Posted: 2/12/2013 3:22 PM

Re: Alex Smith, #11 


"Smith isn't a fit for the offense that Turner and Chud run."

-- Turner was Smith's OC in SF before SD. Smith did pretty well with him. Not sure of the schemes used, but there is that history. 

"And really,what is it you expect AS to be able to do? win 8 games? the division? make a playoff run? None of that is going to happen, none."

-- Smith seems to be a smart game manager- not a game changer. He is a piece of the puzzle at best. While the Niners may have done better with him in the red zone towards the end of the SB, there is no proof that the Browns would do better with him going forward. 

But he does have some experience and some talent.

"And to pass judgement on BW based solely on his perfromance in an ill fitting offense is shortsighted at best."

-- True. But you never know how a new regime may think. However, as you say, if the Browns give up significant items to get Smith, he better produce. It's the same thing that has to be factored into RG3 and an evaluation of his career eventually. Or any player. (All Browns fans should be glad that RG3 ended his season face down on the field with a leg injury. Runnng QBs can become targets... Just ask Vick.)

" Ditching BW after one year in Shurmur's offense isn't a smart move, it's a arrogant one."

-- Smart/arrogant. The old saying: It aint bragging if you can do it.Or as a beer commercial says: It's not magic if it works. It aint a dumb and arrogant move if it's based on insider knowledge and results in a better QB.

Otherwise, it is dumb and arrogant.

Since BW was drafted, the owner and the FO and the coaches have all changed. That gives a certain flexibility to decisions.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/17/2013 4:43 PM

Re: Alex Smith, #11 


If they do get rid of Weeden, I doubt it will be based solely on his 2012 season's work.  The folks who are in charge now surely formed judgments of some sort of the top QB prospects in the last draft.  What Weeden showed on film (in both practices, which we didn't get to see, and games) during the season could well have confirmed exactly the "issues" they thought they saw from his college film.  If that's the case, it would hardly be knee-jerk to move on from him.  In fact, if that's the case, it might be malpractice to go another year with Weeden as the top option at QB. 

I imagine it's also possible that most of the scouting department did not put a high value on Weeden, but that Holmgren insisted he be taken at 22.  I know I saw some reports around the draft saying Heckert, at least, had Weeden rated second round and Holmgren insisted he be taken earlier in order not to "miss out."  If that's true, now that Holmgren's gone, there might not be anybody in the building who thinks Weeden is a viable option as starting QB going forward.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/19/2013 5:36 PM

Re: Alex Smith, #11 


" If that's the case, it would hardly be knee-jerk to move on from him.  In fact, if that's the case, it might be malpraitctice to go another year with Weeden as the top option at QB."

-- As Shakespeare said: There's the rub.

If you are well informed and convinced that Weeden aint it, it would be malpractice not to move on. On the other hand, if you are poorly informed it would be malpractice to give up on a good QB.

And to complicate matters, maybe it's possible that Weeden is "good enough" to handle the QB position and win if the right team is built around him. Or maybe it's only possible that he can take the team just so far no matter what.

Sometimes people can be so informed and so connected that they screw up. (Glad to see you as a coordinator, Norv!). The old "Can't see the forest for the trees" kind of thing. Judgment can be more indicative about real things than "facts" can be at times.
Reply | Quote
  • redright
  • Faithful Best Friend
  • 12971 posts this site

Posted: 2/19/2013 7:25 PM

Re: Alex Smith, #11 


HH

Sometimes people can be so informed and so connected that they screw up. (Glad to see you as a coordinator, Norv!). The old "Can't see the forest for the trees" kind of thing. Judgment can be more indicative about real things than "facts" can be at times.

rr......It is good to have Norv and Chud. Likely they are superior in evaluating QBS and know better than Banner and Lombardi how Weeden or ANY other QB projects in their system. If Weeden is the QB in 13, it may not mean he is the guy, it just may mean he was as good as was available.  To be the champ, you have to beat the champ. The bar may be low but right now Weeden has the belt.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/22/2013 10:57 AM

Re: Alex Smith, #11 



HeadHole wrote: "Smith isn't a fit for the offense that Turner and Chud run."

-- Turner was Smith's OC in SF before SD. Smith did pretty well with him. Not sure of the schemes used, but there is that history.
It was the "Frank Gore rushes for 1,600 yards" scheme.
Reply | Quote