Logical Reasoning Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 It should be noted that a large majority of the posts from this point until the beginning of camp may be related to the qb controversy so I will throw my topic out and you can decide if you wish to go on. It is hard for any team to let go of a draft choice taken in the first three rounds within the first two/three years which Green Bay did with Brohm. It is not only admitting a mistake and a bad/wasted mistake; but it is also a refection on your scouting and overall management especially when it is a qb. The Pack must have been truly disappointed in the guy, extremely impressed with the guy the got last year which is usually the case with most cuts like Brohms, or they really thought they could sneak him through the practice squad, or another reason. Another thing to consider, with respect to the Green Bay climate, would be the Favre impact. Brohm was walking in on an absolute mess with the media having Favre updates every half hour, Rodgers getting hate mail and more attention than what he would have liked on things outside of football. The Pack had to make Rodgers a winner and quickly. The scrutiny of all the qbs must have been a bit tough. This isn't to say that Brohm didn't suck and I am not trying to make excuses for the guy. I didn't watch too much with GB but they did play a preseason game against us and I don't remember him playing especially well, but that is one game. When Brohm was drafted, Mayock said that he did nothing incredibly well but was strong at analyzing and reading defenses quickly. I am an Edwards guy, but it will be interesting to see how Gailey does this. Let all three of them sweat.
GrudginglyPessimistic Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 The Bills are in a bad situation at QB mainly because all three have significant failings which stop them from being a credible option for the job: 1. Edwards had been deemed the starter of the future but tried and failed to own this position and also has a history where objective standards earn him the label of injury prone. Maybe he failed because our braintrust butchered the O scheme and perhaps his recent workout efforts will make him less injury prone, but the key here is MAYBE 2. Brohm was chosen to be the next Favre and the Pack simply cut him loose and went elsewhere to find and use Rodgers. Maybe the Pack was wrong. MAYBE 3. Smart guy but the conventional wisdom dubs him not a good enough athlete but maybe the conventional wisdom is wrong. MAYBE The key here is for the Bills to rely upon the past proven ability of Gailey to squeeze good play out of QBs who the conventional wisdom has given up on. The key here would seem to be NOT to simply give the starter job to any of these three based on fan or media "logical reasoning" but instead rely on Gailey to oversee a QB winning the job on the field.
vincec Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 I'm sure that all three will have their chance to start games this season. We'll see how they do.
Nanker Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 Brohm skated in GB. He didn't put in the work required to be a #2 - yet alone a starter. He could have stayed in GB, but chose to get a second chance in a new environment. He seems committed to having an NFL career. Let's see what he can do.
Logical Reasoning Posted June 26, 2010 Author Posted June 26, 2010 The Bills are in a bad situation at QB mainly because all three have significant failings which stop them from being a credible option for the job: 1. Edwards had been deemed the starter of the future but tried and failed to own this position and also has a history where objective standards earn him the label of injury prone. Maybe he failed because our braintrust butchered the O scheme and perhaps his recent workout efforts will make him less injury prone, but the key here is MAYBE 2. Brohm was chosen to be the next Favre and the Pack simply cut him loose and went elsewhere to find and use Rodgers. Maybe the Pack was wrong. MAYBE 3. Smart guy but the conventional wisdom dubs him not a good enough athlete but maybe the conventional wisdom is wrong. MAYBE The key here is for the Bills to rely upon the past proven ability of Gailey to squeeze good play out of QBs who the conventional wisdom has given up on. The key here would seem to be NOT to simply give the starter job to any of these three based on fan or media "logical reasoning" but instead rely on Gailey to oversee a QB winning the job on the field. I agree with earning the job on the field, but you can't split the time evenly to give enough time to each and have someone ready or for that matter an offense by opening day.
mary owen Posted June 26, 2010 Posted June 26, 2010 I'm sure that all three will have their chance to start games this season. We'll see how they do. Love tha avatar. Most memorable Donald Sutherland moment ever. I thought this post was going to be about Chan refusing to say who the #1 QB is SO FAR. To me, why hide who the coaching staff feels is the guy TO THIS POINT? Nothing wrong with saying "There is a pecking order right now, based on the camp activities to date and this pecking order can change between July and game 1." Seriously, they have to have an idea of who they like to this point. I think it would drive up the competitive nature of the QB race. The number one would know that he has to keep improving to stay at the top of the depth chart, the number 2 guy would realise he can move up into that slot, but he would be driven and weary of the #3, and the #3 guy would have his eye on out-performing the current #2. I don't understand the secrecy. Does anyone think that this would be a distraction to the team?
Recommended Posts