Kelly the Dog Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 This is surely not always true, but it seems to me if a guy is "a project", there can be quite a wide disparity between who in the organization, what talent evaluators, what executives, what coaches, what scouts may think of that player. That seems to be the case with Nall. If a guy really has the goods, it would be self-evident to virtually everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 This is surely not always true, but it seems to me if a guy is "a project", there can be quite a wide disparity between who in the organization, what talent evaluators, what executives, what coaches, what scouts may think of that player. That seems to be the case with Nall. If a guy really has the goods, it would be self-evident to virtually everyone. 732177[/snapback] Apparently, from what I've heard, is that, unless JP screws up big time over the next month, he will be the starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Apparently, from what I've heard, is that, unless JP screws up big time over the next month, he will be the starter. 732347[/snapback] That's the only logical solution. Seriously. Unless JP is terrible, and Nall is awesome, there doesn't make much sense to play Nall ahead of Losman, because neither of them is a known commodity, or a sure thing, so you have to go with Losman because he clearly has more upside (meaning a better athlete, a bigger arm, better mobility, greater investment. I also think people expect WAY too much out of "an open competition" even if it were one. It is HIGHLY likely in an open competion that Nall will look the best doing some things, Holcomb will look the best doing other things and Losman will look the best doing what he does well. It's not going to be clear cut, it's not in game situations, it's not under the pressure of another team going full bore or the game counting in the standings or teams preparing for you, etc. In all likelihood, Losman wins the open competition 40-30-30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 That's the only logical solution. Seriously. Unless JP is terrible, and Nall is awesome, there doesn't make much sense to play Nall ahead of Losman, because neither of them is a known commodity, or a sure thing, so you have to go with Losman because he clearly has more upside (meaning a better athlete, a bigger arm, better mobility, greater investment. The investment in Losman is a sunk cost that should be ignored. As for upside, both Nall and Losman have more mobility and stronger arms than Tom Brady. I'm not interested in physical attributes as much as I am in which quarterback is the most like Brady in terms of accuracy, understanding the game, and reacting to defenses quickly. If either guy shows an edge in that department, I think you have to make him the starter. Only if the two quarterbacks' accuracy and understanding of the game are roughly equal should Losman's athletic gifts be a deciding factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 The investment in Losman is a sunk cost that should be ignored. As for upside, both Nall and Losman have more mobility and stronger arms than Tom Brady. I'm not interested in physical attributes as much as I am in which quarterback is the most like Brady in terms of accuracy, understanding the game, and reacting to defenses quickly. If either guy shows an edge in that department, I think you have to make him the starter. Only if the two quarterbacks' accuracy and understanding of the game are roughly equal should Losman's athletic gifts be a deciding factor. 732526[/snapback] All things aren't going to be equal. Losman is going to do some things better and Nall will do some things better. And in training camp, you cannot tell which qurterback is going to be the most like Brady (which, by the way, is a ridiculous thing to say. Why shouldnt they be the most like Favre or Montana or Steve Young or Peyton Manning?) You don't know until live bullets who has a better understanding of the game or reacting to defenses quicker or more accurate because practice won't tell you that. It's almost certain that their play is going to be fairly equal, but Losman has the better gifts and the higher upside and the bigger investment (tell Ralph Wilson it doesnt mean anything). So he will and he should play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACTOBILLSFAN Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I say yes. Holcomb has no chance. But I would have felt much better if Nall was the starter. 731388[/snapback] Ah yes cuz Nall had all that NFL playing experience. You're right i would have felt very confident going into this season with him as the starter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 All things aren't going to be equal. Losman is going to do some things better and Nall will do some things better. And in training camp, you cannot tell which qurterback is going to be the most like Brady (which, by the way, is a ridiculous thing to say. Why shouldnt they be the most like Favre or Montana or Steve Young or Peyton Manning?) You don't know until live bullets who has a better understanding of the game or reacting to defenses quicker or more accurate because practice won't tell you that. It's almost certain that their play is going to be fairly equal, but Losman has the better gifts and the higher upside and the bigger investment (tell Ralph Wilson it doesnt mean anything). So he will and he should play. 732554[/snapback] Some of the key things I'd look for: - Ability to read the field quickly. There are significant differences among QBs when it comes to this, and it's something they need to take a hard look at in preseason. - Accuracy. Okay, maybe Losman would be more accurate on long balls, while Nall might have the edge on short to intermediate routes. Or maybe different quarterbacks would be better at different patterns. You seem to think these differences make accuracy a non-issue. If accuracy is a non-issue for you, I can see why you support Losman! (Sorry, just had to throw that in there.) What they need to decide is if a given quarterback can be accurate in enough different types of situations to effectively operate the offense as a whole. - Leadership and other intangibles. As for the investment in Losman, any good economist will tell you sunk costs are sunk, and should be ignored. To do otherwise is to throw good money after bad. Any given investment is only worth what you can get out of it in the future, not what you put into it in the past. But people develop emotional attachments to past investments, so it's sometimes hard for them to be as forward-looking as logic demands. IIRC, the Rams traded a first round pick for Trent Green, while picking Warner up off the streets. Tom Brady was a sixth round pick, and Joe Montana was a third rounder. It's not about the size of the investment you made in a guy, it's about what he proves or doesn't prove when he joins your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts