Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Former Niners QB Alex Smith wants more $ than Jay Cutler
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
oldman9er


Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 40064
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chrissooner49er wrote:

Double standard there on the bold, SoCal. You want everything fair for Kaep, then do the same for Alex. No QB can be held responsible for the mistakes a punt returner makes. Yet that is what you imply. And the red zone concerns have not gone away since Alex left, have they? And yet Alex had much worse WRs than we currently have or had in the last year.


Ya just couldn't avoid that post like I did, huh? d'oh!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SoCalNiner


Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 22893
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chrissooner49er wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
AMG1713 wrote:
If that's really what he's asking for, the Chiefs should let him hit the market. No one would come close to offering him that, and he'd probably come back on something a bit more reasonable. That said... I never in a million years thought we'd get two 2nd round picks for him last year, so who knows what he could really fetch on an open market.

Why is this its own thread on the 49ers forum, though? Now that we've gotten and spent our compensation for Alex Smith, I really couldn't care less about him anymore.


Umm, really? Let's see. He took one team to the Chamionship game and played well enough to win it if the PR didn't muff two punts. Then had them on pace to return again the following year until he got hurt. Then he went to the team with the worst record in the league and in his very first year there took them to the playoffs. What more do you want out of a QB?


If he played well enough to win it, he would have won it. He played well enough to not lose the game, there's a big difference there. Let's not pretend he wasn't given a lot of opportunities to get into the end zone. Again.....Just to be clear, I'm not saying he lost us the game; Williams did that. However, to say that he played well enough to win is not true.

As far as what he's asking for. If it is indeed around $18 million, then that's the going rate for a starting QB. Alex Smith may not be a great starting QB, but he is a good one, and I think he's worth market value.

Also, I thought you always said that football is a team sport? Why are you now changing your tune, and saying that "he took them"


Double standard there on the bold, SoCal. You want everything fair for Kaep, then do the same for Alex. No QB can be held responsible for the mistakes a punt returner makes. Yet that is what you imply. And the red zone concerns have not gone away since Alex left, have they? And yet Alex had much worse WRs than we currently have or had in the last year.


How am I implying that? I said that I didn't blame Alex for that loss, and it was on Williams. See what you want to see though.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John232


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 10539
Location: A place where everybody is from somewhere else.
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lol Alex is still the most sensitive topic on here.
_________________

xsaMainevent on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jwalter_81


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 2085
Location: Harrogate, England
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AMG1713 wrote:
If that's really what he's asking for, the Chiefs should let him hit the market. No one would come close to offering him that, and he'd probably come back on something a bit more reasonable. That said... I never in a million years thought we'd get two 2nd round picks for him last year, so who knows what he could really fetch on an open market.

Why is this its own thread on the 49ers forum, though? Now that we've gotten and spent our compensation for Alex Smith, I really couldn't care less about him anymore.


Thanks for your input. There are tons of needless posts if what you you are saying is true. How about just read along and go on about your merry way then? It's that simple
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14204
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoCalNiner wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
AMG1713 wrote:
If that's really what he's asking for, the Chiefs should let him hit the market. No one would come close to offering him that, and he'd probably come back on something a bit more reasonable. That said... I never in a million years thought we'd get two 2nd round picks for him last year, so who knows what he could really fetch on an open market.

Why is this its own thread on the 49ers forum, though? Now that we've gotten and spent our compensation for Alex Smith, I really couldn't care less about him anymore.


Umm, really? Let's see. He took one team to the Chamionship game and played well enough to win it if the PR didn't muff two punts. Then had them on pace to return again the following year until he got hurt. Then he went to the team with the worst record in the league and in his very first year there took them to the playoffs. What more do you want out of a QB?


If he played well enough to win it, he would have won it. He played well enough to not lose the game, there's a big difference there. Let's not pretend he wasn't given a lot of opportunities to get into the end zone. Again.....Just to be clear, I'm not saying he lost us the game; Williams did that. However, to say that he played well enough to win is not true.

As far as what he's asking for. If it is indeed around $18 million, then that's the going rate for a starting QB. Alex Smith may not be a great starting QB, but he is a good one, and I think he's worth market value.

Also, I thought you always said that football is a team sport? Why are you now changing your tune, and saying that "he took them"


If you say that by definition a QB did not play well enough to win a game if his team doesn't win, then OK. But I would think by most people's definition that if a QB gives his team a lead and all they have to do is hold on to the ball, or not give up a long game winning drive to the other team, I think most people would say the QB played well enough for his team to win. If KW doesn't fumble either one of those punts, let alone both of them, we almost certainly win the game. Therefore he DID play well enough for us to win, by the way I would use that phrase. My way of looking at it is that a punt returner fumbles two punts late in a game less than one time in a hundred (maybe less than one time in a thousand) and without that we win. So we win a game like that 99 times out of a 100 (maybe 999 times out of a thousand). In my book that means the QB played well enough for us to win the game.

We'll probably never agree on this point, but as I've said countless times I believe the single, most important thing a QB has to do - above everything else and particularly if he plays on a good team, is not lose it. If Kap understood that he might have thrown away that final int, tried again, and we might have been in the SB. Sorry, but you know I'm like this, I would add that if you don't lose a game that cannot be tied, than you win it. So if you're saying that he played well enough not to lose it, to me that's the same as saying he played well enough to win it.

And yeah QB's rarely win games on their own, BUT as I've maintained with you often, they can lose a game largely on their own. In any case, the question being discussed was how much he's worth, and "taking" multiple teams to the playoffs is indeed a relevant factor. When talking about money people often discuss whether a QB has "won" the SB, or "taken" his team to the playoffs, even when they understand those achievements are team achievements. I'm merely using the common language people use when discussing how much a QB is worth - has he "won" a SB, "taken his team" to a SB, "gotten his team" to the playoffs, etc.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14204
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

J-ALL-DAY wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
If he were to hit FA next year I think a lot would depend on how he, and KC, do this year. They're one team that might have gotten worse instead of better this off-season. If he can get them back in the playoffs again with that surrounding cast he might be worth it. If they regress by a few games he might be headed back to a backup role - depending on how much of their success or failure people lay on the QB. Sure 18's high, but pretty good QBs get paid a whole lot of money these days.


That's what you have to look at. If KC is not willing to pay him 18 million, will another team? If so, then he has some leverage. If not, then he is just wasting him time. Then Smith has to look at the situation he would be put in on another team. Does he really want to leave Reid and the crew? Now, no one knows if he is really asking for 18 million. End of the day, I expect them to get this settled and he should have a deal by training camp.


I would expect him to get a pretty good raise, but not to $18 million.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SoCalNiner


Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 22893
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
AMG1713 wrote:
If that's really what he's asking for, the Chiefs should let him hit the market. No one would come close to offering him that, and he'd probably come back on something a bit more reasonable. That said... I never in a million years thought we'd get two 2nd round picks for him last year, so who knows what he could really fetch on an open market.

Why is this its own thread on the 49ers forum, though? Now that we've gotten and spent our compensation for Alex Smith, I really couldn't care less about him anymore.


Umm, really? Let's see. He took one team to the Chamionship game and played well enough to win it if the PR didn't muff two punts. Then had them on pace to return again the following year until he got hurt. Then he went to the team with the worst record in the league and in his very first year there took them to the playoffs. What more do you want out of a QB?


If he played well enough to win it, he would have won it. He played well enough to not lose the game, there's a big difference there. Let's not pretend he wasn't given a lot of opportunities to get into the end zone. Again.....Just to be clear, I'm not saying he lost us the game; Williams did that. However, to say that he played well enough to win is not true.

As far as what he's asking for. If it is indeed around $18 million, then that's the going rate for a starting QB. Alex Smith may not be a great starting QB, but he is a good one, and I think he's worth market value.

Also, I thought you always said that football is a team sport? Why are you now changing your tune, and saying that "he took them"


If you say that by definition a QB did not play well enough to win a game if his team doesn't win, then OK. But I would think by most people's definition that if a QB gives his team a lead and all they have to do is hold on to the ball, or not give up a long game winning drive to the other team, I think most people would say the QB played well enough for his team to win. If KW doesn't fumble either one of those punts, let alone both of them, we almost certainly win the game. Therefore he DID play well enough for us to win, by the way I would use that phrase. My way of looking at it is that a punt returner fumbles two punts late in a game less than one time in a hundred (maybe less than one time in a thousand) and without that we win. So we win a game like that 99 times out of a 100 (maybe 999 times out of a thousand). In my book that means the QB played well enough for us to win the game.

We'll probably never agree on this point, but as I've said countless times I believe the single, most important thing a QB has to do - above everything else and particularly if he plays on a good team, is not lose it. If Kap understood that he might have thrown away that final int, tried again, and we might have been in the SB. Sorry, but you know I'm like this, I would add that if you don't lose a game that cannot be tied, than you win it. So if you're saying that he played well enough not to lose it, to me that's the same as saying he played well enough to win it.

And yeah QB's rarely win games on their own, BUT as I've maintained with you often, they can lose a game largely on their own. In any case, the question being discussed was how much he's worth, and "taking" multiple teams to the playoffs is indeed a relevant factor. When talking about money people often discuss whether a QB has "won" the SB, or "taken" his team to the playoffs, even when they understand those achievements are team achievements. I'm merely using the common language people use when discussing how much a QB is worth - has he "won" a SB, "taken his team" to a SB, "gotten his team" to the playoffs, etc.


You honestly can say that going 3 and out for the last few drives is enough to win the game? Unless you have a two TD lead, you don't win many of those games. That's not playing well enough to win.

I can agree with playing well enough to not lose, and that's what he did. He didn't cost us the play, but saying that he did well enough to win the game is laughable.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SoCalNiner


Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 22893
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What Alex did against the Colts in the playoffs was enough to win the game. In the NFCCG against the Giants, not so much.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
49erjunkie


Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 2774
Location: Closer than you think
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see this thread and three words come to my mind: not our problem.
_________________


Walter Redskins on the sig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Psychlone


Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 3817
Location: Marin County, CA.
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

49erjunkie wrote:
I see this thread and three words come to my mind: not our problem.
Except for the fact that what he receives will be the absolute floor for Kaep. Other than that, meh...
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14204
PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoCalNiner wrote:
What Alex did against the Colts in the playoffs was enough to win the game. In the NFCCG against the Giants, not so much.


Semantics, maybe? I think when someone says a QB won a game, but they put a lot of emphasis on the QB as in "HE won the game", they generally mean it was his effort, or largely his effort, that won the game. On the other hand when someone says a QB "played well enough for his team to win" it is generally implied that he did not play great but he did enough for his team to win barring unusual circumstances. It almost always means he could have done more, which is what you are saying. But at the same time it means he did enough to give his team a chance. He had a come-from-behind TD drive late in the 3rd quarter in which all but two of the yards were by the QB. A little while later when he might have had a chance to add to that lead came one of the muffs - and in a scoring position for NY. The he led another drive to tie the game in the 4th quarter in which most of the yards were from the QB. And we all know that after a few punts on both sides when we would have had a chance to pull out the OT win came the other muff, again in scoring position. He sure as heck could have done more, but without that first muff maybe they never regain the lead, and without the second we have a chance for the winning score instead of giving it to them. To me that's what the phrase "he played well enough for the team to win" means. It's easy to believe you disagree with that. It's actually hard to believe you find that position laughable.

You have now said twice he did enough "not to lose". But in a game that can't end in a tie, you are saying the exact same thing as "he played well enough to win". If you don't lose and you don't tie the only other possible outcome is you win. So to end this discussion I'll just assume you and I are saying the same thing differently.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SoCalNiner


Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 22893
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

big9erfan wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
What Alex did against the Colts in the playoffs was enough to win the game. In the NFCCG against the Giants, not so much.


Semantics, maybe? I think when someone says a QB won a game, but they put a lot of emphasis on the QB as in "HE won the game", they generally mean it was his effort, or largely his effort, that won the game. On the other hand when someone says a QB "played well enough for his team to win" it is generally implied that he did not play great but he did enough for his team to win barring unusual circumstances. It almost always means he could have done more, which is what you are saying. But at the same time it means he did enough to give his team a chance. He had a come-from-behind TD drive late in the 3rd quarter in which all but two of the yards were by the QB. A little while later when he might have had a chance to add to that lead came one of the muffs - and in a scoring position for NY. The he led another drive to tie the game in the 4th quarter in which most of the yards were from the QB. And we all know that after a few punts on both sides when we would have had a chance to pull out the OT win came the other muff, again in scoring position. He sure as heck could have done more, but without that first muff maybe they never regain the lead, and without the second we have a chance for the winning score instead of giving it to them. To me that's what the phrase "he played well enough for the team to win" means. It's easy to believe you disagree with that. It's actually hard to believe you find that position laughable.

You have now said twice he did enough "not to lose". But in a game that can't end in a tie, you are saying the exact same thing as "he played well enough to win". If you don't lose and you don't tie the only other possible outcome is you win. So to end this discussion I'll just assume you and I are saying the same thing differently.


When he "sure as heck could have done more", then he obviously did not do enough to win. I don't think he played well enough to win because he left a lot on the field that day, as did a lot of our players.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chrissooner49er


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 4041
Location: Tulsa, OK
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoCalNiner wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
What Alex did against the Colts in the playoffs was enough to win the game. In the NFCCG against the Giants, not so much.


Semantics, maybe? I think when someone says a QB won a game, but they put a lot of emphasis on the QB as in "HE won the game", they generally mean it was his effort, or largely his effort, that won the game. On the other hand when someone says a QB "played well enough for his team to win" it is generally implied that he did not play great but he did enough for his team to win barring unusual circumstances. It almost always means he could have done more, which is what you are saying. But at the same time it means he did enough to give his team a chance. He had a come-from-behind TD drive late in the 3rd quarter in which all but two of the yards were by the QB. A little while later when he might have had a chance to add to that lead came one of the muffs - and in a scoring position for NY. The he led another drive to tie the game in the 4th quarter in which most of the yards were from the QB. And we all know that after a few punts on both sides when we would have had a chance to pull out the OT win came the other muff, again in scoring position. He sure as heck could have done more, but without that first muff maybe they never regain the lead, and without the second we have a chance for the winning score instead of giving it to them. To me that's what the phrase "he played well enough for the team to win" means. It's easy to believe you disagree with that. It's actually hard to believe you find that position laughable.

You have now said twice he did enough "not to lose". But in a game that can't end in a tie, you are saying the exact same thing as "he played well enough to win". If you don't lose and you don't tie the only other possible outcome is you win. So to end this discussion I'll just assume you and I are saying the same thing differently.


When he "sure as heck could have done more", then he obviously did not do enough to win. I don't think he played well enough to win because he left a lot on the field that day, as did a lot of our players.


Laughing

Have you seen the movie "Frozen"? 'Cause you really should just "Let It Go", SoCal. Razz
_________________
fa·nat·ic (f-ntk)
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
Draft wishes:1st-Beckham/Cooks,Fuller/Verrett;2nd-T. Murphy,Moncrief,Su'a-Filo,M. Smith;3rd-Abbrederis,Ben Gardner,J.Watkins,T. Reilly...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SoCalNiner


Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Posts: 22893
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chrissooner49er wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
What Alex did against the Colts in the playoffs was enough to win the game. In the NFCCG against the Giants, not so much.


Semantics, maybe? I think when someone says a QB won a game, but they put a lot of emphasis on the QB as in "HE won the game", they generally mean it was his effort, or largely his effort, that won the game. On the other hand when someone says a QB "played well enough for his team to win" it is generally implied that he did not play great but he did enough for his team to win barring unusual circumstances. It almost always means he could have done more, which is what you are saying. But at the same time it means he did enough to give his team a chance. He had a come-from-behind TD drive late in the 3rd quarter in which all but two of the yards were by the QB. A little while later when he might have had a chance to add to that lead came one of the muffs - and in a scoring position for NY. The he led another drive to tie the game in the 4th quarter in which most of the yards were from the QB. And we all know that after a few punts on both sides when we would have had a chance to pull out the OT win came the other muff, again in scoring position. He sure as heck could have done more, but without that first muff maybe they never regain the lead, and without the second we have a chance for the winning score instead of giving it to them. To me that's what the phrase "he played well enough for the team to win" means. It's easy to believe you disagree with that. It's actually hard to believe you find that position laughable.

You have now said twice he did enough "not to lose". But in a game that can't end in a tie, you are saying the exact same thing as "he played well enough to win". If you don't lose and you don't tie the only other possible outcome is you win. So to end this discussion I'll just assume you and I are saying the same thing differently.


When he "sure as heck could have done more", then he obviously did not do enough to win. I don't think he played well enough to win because he left a lot on the field that day, as did a lot of our players.


Laughing

Have you seen the movie "Frozen"? 'Cause you really should just "Let It Go", SoCal. Razz


Not that I care about your comment. However, if you had a problem with my comment earlier about people "missing" Alex, why say this? Or is it alright for you make comments like this one, and not ok for others? Ya know.....like a double standard.

I kind of wish Frozen came out when Alex was traded because I could have sang "For the First Time in Forever"
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big9erfan


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 14204
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoCalNiner wrote:
big9erfan wrote:
SoCalNiner wrote:
What Alex did against the Colts in the playoffs was enough to win the game. In the NFCCG against the Giants, not so much.


Semantics, maybe? I think when someone says a QB won a game, but they put a lot of emphasis on the QB as in "HE won the game", they generally mean it was his effort, or largely his effort, that won the game. On the other hand when someone says a QB "played well enough for his team to win" it is generally implied that he did not play great but he did enough for his team to win barring unusual circumstances. It almost always means he could have done more, which is what you are saying. But at the same time it means he did enough to give his team a chance. He had a come-from-behind TD drive late in the 3rd quarter in which all but two of the yards were by the QB. A little while later when he might have had a chance to add to that lead came one of the muffs - and in a scoring position for NY. The he led another drive to tie the game in the 4th quarter in which most of the yards were from the QB. And we all know that after a few punts on both sides when we would have had a chance to pull out the OT win came the other muff, again in scoring position. He sure as heck could have done more, but without that first muff maybe they never regain the lead, and without the second we have a chance for the winning score instead of giving it to them. To me that's what the phrase "he played well enough for the team to win" means. It's easy to believe you disagree with that. It's actually hard to believe you find that position laughable.

You have now said twice he did enough "not to lose". But in a game that can't end in a tie, you are saying the exact same thing as "he played well enough to win". If you don't lose and you don't tie the only other possible outcome is you win. So to end this discussion I'll just assume you and I are saying the same thing differently.


When he "sure as heck could have done more", then he obviously did not do enough to win. I don't think he played well enough to win because he left a lot on the field that day, as did a lot of our players.


Fair enough. We disagree about some other things too. Very Happy
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> San Francisco 49ers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group