Kelly the Dog Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Why did his own team very publicly come out and say they were going to draft JP Losman in the first round of the 2004 draft, they traded for J.T. O'Sullivan in 2004, drafted Aaron Rogers in the first round of the 2005 draft, and then didn't put up much of a fight to keep Nall this year. Just a thought.
Lofton80 Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Explanation according to Packers message board was the new GM drafted Rogers and my read from the message board was the fans liked Nall better than Rogers. We will see soon enough how good he is.
ACor58 Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Craig Nall struggled in camp his first two years and really didn't come around until the 03 season when he led NFL Europe in passing and played well in the opportunities he was given. As far as Rodgers, it was tough to pass on the 2nd rated QB in the draft that fell all the way to the bottom of round one.
Lurker Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Why draft a QB in Round 1? Probably for the same reason any team with a 1.) soon-to-be-retiring HOF QB who never, ever misses a game, and 2.) a backup drafted in the 5th round who's in his fourth NFL season and had a limited number of chanches to play would.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Nall will be a fine #2 QB. Holcomb may or may not stick depending on what happens in the draft, i.e. if they use a early day 2 pick on a QB (to groom).
dave mcbride Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Why did his own team very publicly come out and say they were going to draft JP Losman in the first round of the 2004 draft, they traded for J.T. O'Sullivan in 2004, drafted Aaron Rogers in the first round of the 2005 draft, and then didn't put up much of a fight to keep Nall this year. Just a thought. 641991[/snapback] fair point, but it is an indisputable fact that most of the qb backups who have left the pack have enjoyed tremendous success elsewhere. my question about him is this: how good is his arm? he certainly has the right size. if he has the arm, then i'm pretty confident that he won't be a chump.
Coach Tuesday Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 The fact that they drafted Rodgers at all completely undercuts your argument - they obviously have no clue what they are doing. That guy is an obvious bust, he will never amount to anything in the NFL and it's obvious from watching him on the field, in practice, and his demeanor on the sidelines.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 fair point, but it is an indisputable fact that most of the qb backups who have left the pack have enjoyed tremendous success elsewhere. my question about him is this: how good is his arm? he certainly has the right size. if he has the arm, then i'm pretty confident that he won't be a chump. 642049[/snapback] He threw a Javelin 70 yards. He has an above average arm. I know madden ratings dont mean anything, but they have him at a 94 throwing power, one of the best in the game.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 25, 2006 Author Posted March 25, 2006 Craig Nall struggled in camp his first two years and really didn't come around until the 03 season when he led NFL Europe in passing and played well in the opportunities he was given. As far as Rodgers, it was tough to pass on the 2nd rated QB in the draft that fell all the way to the bottom of round one. 642008[/snapback] The Losman, O'Sullivan, Rodgers issues were all in 2004 or after. So He came into his own in 2003 and THEN they did this?
Kelly the Dog Posted March 25, 2006 Author Posted March 25, 2006 The fact that they drafted Rodgers at all completely undercuts your argument - they obviously have no clue what they are doing. That guy is an obvious bust, he will never amount to anything in the NFL and it's obvious from watching him on the field, in practice, and his demeanor on the sidelines. 642053[/snapback] Not sure if you were joking or not, but they surely didnt think he was going to be a bust. And the coach was the one that most people here wanted to run the Bills and coach the offense.
Coach Tuesday Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Not sure if you were joking or not, but they surely didnt think he was going to be a bust. And the coach was the one that most people here wanted to run the Bills and coach the offense. 642065[/snapback] Not joking. Rodgers is a joke, yes that's my opinion but I've watched a fair amount of him and I really can't believe that a team would draft him in the first round and annoint him QB of the future. And I don't think Sherman was the one who pulled the trigger on that pick - if I recall correctly, he already had been stripped of his GM duties by then. I'm not saying Nall is any good - I'm just saying the fact that the Packers weren't sold on him doesn't answer that question.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 25, 2006 Author Posted March 25, 2006 Explanation according to Packers message board was the new GM drafted Rogersand my read from the message board was the fans liked Nall better than Rogers. We will see soon enough how good he is. 642006[/snapback] Actually, we probably won't. We will see in him in one third of the pre-season games and then baring injury, probably not see him very much during the season. I think he is pretty good myself, and I am glad we got him. As a back-up.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 25, 2006 Author Posted March 25, 2006 Not joking. Rodgers is a joke, yes that's my opinion but I've watched a fair amount of him and I really can't believe that a team would draft him in the first round and annoint him QB of the future. And I don't think Sherman was the one who pulled the trigger on that pick - if I recall correctly, he already had been stripped of his GM duties by then. I'm not saying Nall is any good - I'm just saying the fact that the Packers weren't sold on him doesn't answer that question. 642067[/snapback] That doesnt explain the fact that Sherman was just about the pick Losman the year before and hand him the reigns to replace Favre. Over Nall. Or trading for a nobody like JT O'Sullivan who is just like Nall, playing 3-4 seasons of back-up and leading the NFLE in passing.
Coach Tuesday Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 That doesnt explain the fact that Sherman was just about the pick Losman the year before and hand him the reigns to replace Favre. Over Nall. Or trading for a nobody like JT O'Sullivan who is just like Nall, playing 3-4 seasons of back-up and leading the NFLE in passing. 642070[/snapback] And Sherman was embarassingly stripped of his GM duties after making one bone-headed move after the next. If anything, your argument may tell us something about JP...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 25, 2006 Author Posted March 25, 2006 And Sherman was embarassingly stripped of his GM duties after making one bone-headed move after the next. If anything, your argument may tell us something about JP... 642072[/snapback] It wasn't all Sherman before or after he was given and relieved of his GM duties. And BOTH regimes wanted to change quarterbacks with first round picks.
Coach Tuesday Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 It wasn't all Sherman before or after he was given and relieved of his GM duties. And BOTH regimes wanted to change quarterbacks with first round picks. 642074[/snapback] ... and BOTH regimes are inept. That's my point.
Albany,n.y. Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 Nall will be a fine #2 QB. Holcomb may or may not stick depending on what happens in the draft, i.e. if they use a early day 2 pick on a QB (to groom). 642031[/snapback] Marv is not drafting any QBs. We already have 5 on the roster. Of the top 3, all cost as much or more to cut than keep-so the top 3 are basically set in stone. JP counts the most to cut over keeping, so he's a lock to stay, even if he gets demoted to 3rd string. Holcomb is closest to break even cap wise, so he'd be the only one in any danger of leaving-and that would have to be a trade. There's no room on the roster to draft a QB to groom-Marv wanted all his QBs to have some NFL camp experience coming into this season. We're much more likely to draft a QB in 2007 when the 3 headed monster has shaken itself out.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 25, 2006 Author Posted March 25, 2006 ... and BOTH regimes are inept. That's my point. 642075[/snapback] 12-4 12-4 10-6 10-6 4-12 I wish we were so inept. So I guess your point is two seperate regimes had no idea what they had in Craig Nall, knew nothing about evaluating talent in the NFL, especially on offense and at the quarterback position, managed to salvage a 48-32 record in the last five years with players that actually stink, and by not playing Nall, but the really good player (who we know is really good because they didnt play him, they only play bad players they think are good) they are letting go for peanuts to the Bills.
Pyrite Gal Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 KFBD I think you are judging Nall a bit too harshly because you are setting an incorrect standard for the Packers motivation in picking Rodgers. Did they choose him because they felt Nall was a bust? Not necessarily. Did they opick him because they were not secure in trusting him to replace Favre? Yep, i think so. These two conclusions are not the same thing. Just because you draft a highly touted QB as a replacement for Favre does not mean you feel your current #2 is a bust. It simply means they are not secure in the belief that a 5th round draft pick who never started an NFL game is going to be able to replace a future HOF QB. Would you be?
Coach Tuesday Posted March 25, 2006 Posted March 25, 2006 I wish we were so inept. 642080[/snapback] I wish we'd been in the NFC Norris Division for the past decade.
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts