Shaun Hill over Alex Smith?

Hello Field Gullers, this fanpost is addressing what John wrote in the Thursday Night Football post.

John said that the Niners should have stuck with Shaun Hill over Alex Smith, which I find pretty curious as I think (and most Niner fans do as well) that it seems pretty obvious that Smith should be the starter the rest of the year. He has looked better than Hill, his DVOA as better (at least before yesterday's game, but it's probably still a fair amount higher), and he's only 25 so he still has a chance of getting better.

Anyway, I just wanted to hear why John (or anyone else for that matter) thinks Hill would be a better choice than Smith, because I don't really see much evidence that he would be. I'd have posted this in one of the posts already up but I got momentarily banned for going off topic once before and I don't think anyone will check back in the original game thread so, here it is.

about 2 years ago Brendan Scolari 10 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think seeing if Alex Smith has improved in games is something SF needs to find out.

I’m sure they hope it’s not at the cost of losing games, but come the next draft they need to know if they have a (franchise) QB or not. Hill is very limited in what he can do. That may be working for Orton/Denver right now, but SF had Smith on the roster. He has experience. He may be a near-bust coming into this season, but with his added experience, could be ahead of a QB they would draft next year and save potentially a 1st round pick in the process, which they could use elsewhere.

Smith is also much cheaper than a franchise signal-caller would be if selected in the early part of the draft next year. He restructured his deal to stay with the team.

by Misfit74 on Nov 13, 2009 7:45 PM PST reply actions

I completely agree with this post

What your team needs is a QB, one way or the other, that isn’t young, inexperienced, inconfident, and untalented. If your team had even Matt Stafford you guys would be golden. That said what you have is cheap and what you have is working, but you just dont seem to be able to put up points even though your defense is great and your running game is consistently good (which is better IMO than sometimes great).

What you need is Hasselbeck. What we need is your offensive line. In both cases we’re doing poorly without the others units.

2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.

by Chickadee on Nov 13, 2009 7:55 PM PST up reply actions

This is pretty much what I am thinking

Although I also think Smith is better than Hill right now anyway, just because he can throw the ball downfield a bit better and is better at avoiding sacks, two things that are pretty important when you are trying ot run the ball and don’t have a very good offensive line.

by Brendan Scolari on Nov 14, 2009 12:10 AM PST up reply actions

No one else?

I was hoping John would respond. Oh well.

by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:08 AM PST reply actions

Smith has thrown 3 times as many interceptions as Hill in 2/3 the games

His completion% will likely move back down to his normal 50 something percent while Hill’s would likely have improved, especially against the pass defenses that Smith has seen.

Either way the 9ers need a new QB.

by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 8:49 AM PST up reply actions

Yes, they do need a new one

However, the INT’s stat you pointed out is misleading because Hill only threw 2 picks and his INT rate was not sustainable. As for your completion percentage argument, I’d like to hear your reasoning behind that.

Smith has been better from a DVOA perspective, so even if the pass D’s he’s played our worse it still doesn’t make up for the difference in their play.

by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions

Hill's career completion% is 61.7

I would think that given the rest of the year and allowing him to face the weak passing defenses that Smith played against his completion% move back towards that number. Maybe not, Hill hasn’t played a ton and maybe his low completion% this year is his regression.

Hill’s int% is 1.2, below his career line of 2.1%. That doesn’t seem exceptionally low for Hill. Smith is at 4.9% which is above his career mark of 4.1% Maybe Hill’s number will move back towards his career line, maybe it’s just a matter of some development and his ultra conservative play style. Maybe Smith’s number will drop a bit as the year goes on, or maybe Alex Smith sucks.

by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions

It makes sense why 9er fans like Smith right now, something is better than nothing

Shaun Hill is boring, amirite? But either way you’re rolling out a QB with a negative DVOA and DYAR.

by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions

Yes he's very boring

And obviously they’re both mostly bad it’s just a question of which one is worse.

by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions

I think his completion percentage

Is mostly due to the fact that he’s so scared of taking risks downfield, similiar to Jason Campbell. The Captain Checkdown moniker would be fitting for Hill. But it’s not really very effective, his style that is.

His INT rate is also low because of his unwillingness to take risks. However, 1.2 is unsustainable, no matter who you are I think. But again it’s a question of if he’s effective, some fans like him because of his good traditional stats (his conservative style keeps his INT rate low and completion percentage high, as you stated), but as you can see by his DVOA he’s still been worse than Smith, even though Smith hasn’t been great himself.

by Brendan Scolari on Nov 19, 2009 3:02 PM PST up reply actions