Originally posted by random49er:
Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:
Good watch! Personally I think starting a 21 year old Alex ruined his potential to be something better. He was young and dumb and putting the entire franchise on his back at that age was stupid. Now some can obviously handle it but not all these guys a programmed the same. To the point if Trey. Him sitting for a year is not going to hurt a thing or him coming in if Jimmy doesn't get it done the pressure is far less
In the same way you can claim that Alex Smith starting as a rookie ruined him,...I can say that the only reason Peyton Manning had a HOF career was because of the opportunity to play and take his lumps as a rookie. Otherwise he would've never been the QB he became after sitting for a full year.
You see how this easily works both ways? Nothing is definitive for either side of the argument and will not be until time machines are created.
i think it's situational.
1. Peyton manning was a far higher level prospect than alex smith -not debatable. Also, Manning was extremely well developed from a mental standpoint. Even though he thew 20 picks his rookie year, you could see what was happening, it was not a rookie QB looking lost and getting crushed. As a rookie, manning was in a battle of mind games vs veteran DCs - sure, he came up short often, but there are very few rookie QBs who are able to come into the league and go toe to toe with DCs. Manning was ready to play
2. Alex smith came from a triple option spread offense focused on reading one or two defenders to see if he should hand off, pull and run or throw the quick pass. he was not prepared to come into an awful team with an awful coach into a system that was completely foreign to him. He was also never as physically gifted as manning. Alex NEEDED to sit if we were insistent on running a WCO