Hall was a DB when he started his freshman year. His QB Rating was a 123.6, which is excellent. Smith did not have a very good game vs. Cincy (79.9 QB Rating). If you want to know who won that game, it was our running game and the defense that picked Cincy off 5 times. He didn't manage the offense very well (in the season) if he didn't complete 50% of his passes. That's not acceptable to me. He didn't manage the offense very well if he had more turnovers than TDs. I don't need 300 yards and three TDs. I need efficiency, especially from a team that primarily runs the ball. I would settle for 5-8 125 yards 0 TDs, 0 ints. In a game like La-Monroe, where the Smith only had to throw the ball 5 times, gets sacked for a safety and we win 41-2, you're not going to convince me that it was his passing game that got us there. In a game like Idaho, where Smith goes 3-14 with 50 yards, 0 TDs, 2 ints... you're not going to convince me it was his poise and passing ability that got us the 10-0 win. Both of these were LATE SEASON games. He did EXCELLENT against MTSU and I'll even give him NMSU for his efficiency, but if you want to compare, the only thing that Smith has over Hall is WINS, and I've shown how that's misleading. It bothers ME when people write threads like this, stating that Smith should start OVER HALL simply because of our wins from last year, and act like he lit it up vs. Cincinnatti. They make a lot of statements that have no merit. SMITH is a better passer (despite his lower QB Rating). He's got a better arm (despite a lower yards/completion). He's more mobile (are you joking? Hall ran for 300 yards and 4 TDs his sophomore year). By saying that Smith should start, and giving him credit for the wins, it means you're granting Hall credit for the losses his sophomore year, despite the fact that our offensive line, defense, and running game were much worse in 2001 than they were in 2002. That, and we didn't play a Div. I-AA team in 2001. Do you really want me to compare our defense and running game in 2001 and 2002? First of all, Hall was a BIG PART of the running game in 2001. We had less yardage and less than half the TDs on the ground (not counting Hall) in 2001 than we did in 2002. Our defense was ranked about 50 spots lower in 2001 than it was in 2002. We allowed more than 300 yards of offense on a number of occasions, including teams like Troy State and in the bowl game against CSU. Our PASSING game, however, was much better in 2001 than it was in 2002, in efficiency... not just yardage. It also bothers me when people assume that just because I think Hall should start and that he's a better runner and passer, that I'll be rooting against Smith. If Smith gets the starting job, I PRAY I'm proven wrong on this, and that he lights it up. To assume otherwise is both childish and ridiculous. I'm a Mean Green fan, kids - not a Hall or Smith fan. That said, we're NOT going to be able to win games against quality opponents with inconsistency at QB. Remember USF last year? They stopped our running game and we were forced to put it into Smith's hands. It wasn't pretty. I feel we SETTLED for 8 wins last year. We SETTLED for just winning the Sun Belt. People want to go with the hot hand, and that's the only reason I can see wanting Smith to play. However, it's illogical.