Original Byrd Man Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 I've never been a big fan of Paul Hamilton's, but for him to claim that there was indeed a fair competion for the QB position, and that The FO is responsible for TE's benching and release is ridiculous. To have a fair competition shouldn't everyone have a chance with the #1"s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 I've never been a big fan of Paul Hamilton's, but for him to claim that there was indeed a fair competion for the QB position, and that The FO is responsible for TE's benching and release is ridiculous. To have a fair competition shouldn't everyone have a chance with the #1"s? Hamilton wrote that the competition simply went down as Chan said it would back in March: A) each of the 3 QBs would get an equal number of reps during the spring minicamps B) 1 of the 3 would be the clear cut #1 entering training camp and thus get the most reps C) the other 2 would need to wrest the #1 spot away. All of this happened, and that's why Trent started all through the preseason. Allowing Trent to take the reins and prove himself as the top dog was the only way to see if he could still make it in this league... and he failed. Now, onto Plan B. I'm not always crazy about Paul Hamilton's football analysis but he was present during the various camps and saw this play out just as Gailey explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 I've never been a big fan of Paul Hamilton's, but for him to claim that there was indeed a fair competion for the QB position, and that The FO is responsible for TE's benching and release is ridiculous. To have a fair competition shouldn't everyone have a chance with the #1"s? I agree that each potential starting QB should have started at least one pre-season game with the ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 I agree that each potential starting QB should have started at least one pre-season game with the ones. I can see the point, but then I would also have to agree that Christian Gaddis deserved a shot with the ones too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 I agree that each potential starting QB should have started at least one pre-season game with the ones. But that wasn't what Chan said he was going to do. Many people seem to be questioning the decision making process, but nobody here really knows what that process was. They are guessing based on outcomes. Chan has told us why he made certain decisions, and I have to say while I haven't agreed with every decision, his reasoning has seemed sound. He did exactly what he said he would do to evaluate the QBs. You can question his methodology, I do myself, but he followed his plan. That is if he is to be believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 Based on the outcome, a reasonable adjective to describe the process is fugtarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 Based on the outcome, a reasonable adjective to describe the process is fugtarded. Trent gone = good outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts