What do you think are chances 4 starting QB?

[Orton's Arm]

Please do not fool yourself into thinking that draft position due to slotting and sunk costs do not make any difference in future decisions. Often they are the key thing.

In economics terms, they shouldn't be. In the real world, they often are. Why? Because key decision-makers have their credibility tied up in specific high-profile decisions. A lot of TD's credibility was tied up in the outcome of the Losman experiment. On the other hand, if your fifth round pick never does anything, nobody will really care.

 

Fortunately, none of Levy's credibility is at stake with Losman. You mention salaries. If player A and player B give you the same amount of football talent, you'd want to go with whichever player was cheaper. This is especially true under the salary cap. Sometimes it's hard to get rid of a guy due to the acceleration of bonuses. But usually by the time you figure out a guy isn't going to work out you've amortized most of his bonus anyway.

[JDG]

Your second paragraph seems to be addressed to someone other than me, even though I'm the one you quoted.  There's no way that anyone can possibly accuse me of being unaware of the possibility that Losman is a bust.

687615[/snapback]

 

Oops.... let me correct that.....

[JDG]

Of course they do. But you were responding to a post about who had more pure talent. And I would say it's pretty obvious if 95% of GMs and draftniks and scouts thought Losman was 1-2 round talent and Nall was 5-7 round talent, that Losman has more natural talent. They all could be wrong of course, but I doubt it on this one.

687549[/snapback]

 

Uh.... o.k. But Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, and Andre Ware all had worlds of physical talent to. In the end, though, I think that they all ultimately had less talent than Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, and Jake Delhomme.

 

I think this discussion is being prolonged because you show no signs of even allowing for the possibility that Losman just might be in the first group, and that Craig Nall might be in the latter group - a guy who was admittedly drafted low, but ultimately has more talent than certain mid-to-late first round picks.

 

JDG

[JDG]

Where Losman was drafted is irrelevant.  For one thing, sunk costs are sunk--you ignore them in making future decisions. . 

 

This is so completely wrong in terms of understanding the last 12 years+ or so of football, that my first thought was that you could not be claiming what you seemed to be claiming.

 

However, the words above are the words above and they are completely counter to how decisions have been made under the salary cap.

 

1, Where a player is drafted is slotted and determines his initial contract. The Bills hung onto MW not only because they had sunk a bunch of $ into him.but because if the cut him the acceleration of the bonus paid to him would kill the team. Where a player is drafted has a big impact on decisions on whether to keep him or not/

 

2. The HC may ignore where a player was drafted and his costs if he is commited to making straight football descisions. However, it is the owner who owns the team and its his money. Just as Ralph hated having an $8 million bonus sit on the bench and anointed RJ the starter after he rolled over an Indy team that had given up when they realized the game outcome would not improve their playoff position the decision about the future was driven by $ rather than football.

 

3. Pro football used to be a sport which happened to be a business but today it is a businss that happens to also be a sport.

 

Please do not fool yourself into thinking that draft position due to slotting and sunk costs do not make any difference in future decisions. Often they are the key thing.

687752[/snapback]

 

Sorry, Yvel, but Holcomb's Arm is right-on here. The difference with some high draft picks is that the high signing bonus makes the marginal cost of cutting them prohibitive.

 

But you can't change the past, you can only affect what happens in the future... and so sunk costs are irrelevant.

 

JDG

[dave mcbride]

Uh.... o.k. But Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, and Andre Ware all had worlds of physical talent to. In the end, though, I think that they all ultimately had less talent than Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, and Jake Delhomme.

 

I think this discussion is being prolonged because you show no signs of even allowing for the possibility that Losman just might be in the first group, and that Craig Nall might be in the latter group - a guy who was admittedly drafted low, but ultimately has more talent than certain mid-to-late first round picks.

 

JDG

687767[/snapback]

draft-day *projected* talent goes out the window when a guy is a couple of years into his career. why is this being brought up?

 

at any rate, losman may be good, and he may suck. but where he was drafted will have nothing to do with it. if it did, mike williams would be a more prized commodity than jason peters, and eric flowers would be more prized than pat williams.

[Dan Gross]

If you're saying Losman has a world of physical talent, I agree.  But if playing QB was just about physical talent, why not line Willis McGahee up under center?  He'd be faster than every QB except Michael Vick.

 

The real question is whether Losman has the accuracy and mental tools to play QB.  You don't know whether 95% of GMs felt he had these mental tools or not.  TD and Mike Sherman felt this way about him, but both men are failed GMs.

687565[/snapback]

 

...and the latter felt that Nall had the tools as well....go figger....

[dave mcbride]

...and the latter felt that Nall had the tools as well....go figger....

687775[/snapback]

???

 

sherman was gone when the decision was made not to keep nall. anyway, what does this have to do with the price of cheese?

[Kelly the Dog]

Uh.... o.k. But Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, and Andre Ware all had worlds of physical talent to. In the end, though, I think that they all ultimately had less talent than Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, and Jake Delhomme.

 

I think this discussion is being prolonged because you show no signs of even allowing for the possibility that Losman just might be in the first group, and that Craig Nall might be in the latter group - a guy who was admittedly drafted low, but ultimately has more talent than certain mid-to-late first round picks.

 

JDG

687767[/snapback]

Totally and utterly untrue. I have said all along we don't know about Losman. My point is and always has been and have been saying over and over and over that we don't know about either, and I would prefer to go with the one that has the bigger upside and better pedigree and more talent. Why, if you don't know, would you go with the guy with less physical skills, less experience, less pedigree?

[Dan Gross]

???

 

sherman was gone when the decision was made not to keep nall. anyway, what does this have to do with the price of cheese?

687778[/snapback]

 

Any_Arm_But_Losmans has been arguing that Nall has the tools to succeed while Losman does not. He bases Losman not having the tools in part on the apparently poor (based on their current level of front-office employment) player evaluation skills on the teams that coveted Losman (Bills/Green Bay) while ignoring the fact that one of the same unemployed folks who thought Losman would be good is a guy who thought Nall would be good....How can you argue that Losman is worse because Sherman wanted him when the other guy was drafted by Sherman?

[dave mcbride]

Any_Arm_But_Losmans has been arguing that Nall has the tools to succeed while Losman does not.  He bases Losman not having the tools in part on the apparently poor (based on their current level of employment) player evaluation skills on the teams that coveted Losman (Bills/Green Bay) while ignoring the fact that one of the same unemployed folks who thought Losman would be good is a guy who thought Nall would be good....How can you argue that Losman is worse because Sherman wanted him when the other guy was drafted by Sherman?

687783[/snapback]

i'm not arguing that losman is worse. i'm arguing that the bills should give nall a fair chance to nall to win the the starting job. if he's better than losman, give it to him; if not, give it to losman. some here are suggesting that the bills would be foolish not to favor losman. i disagree.

[Kelly the Dog]

i'm not arguing that losman is worse. i'm arguing that the bills should give nall a fair chance to nall to win the the starting job. if he's better than losman, give it to him; if not, give it to losman. some here are suggesting that the bills would be foolish not to favor losman. i disagree.

687786[/snapback]

The point is only that you are not going to be able to tell from practice. If it were practice, Kelly Holcomb would and should start. Is that what you want?

[Dan Gross]

i'm not arguing that losman is worse. i'm arguing that the bills should give nall a fair chance to nall to win the the starting job. if he's better than losman, give it to him; if not, give it to losman. some here are suggesting that the bills would be foolish not to favor losman. i disagree.

687786[/snapback]

 

Oh, you are Holcomb's Arm? If not, I wasn't talking to you....

[dave mcbride]

The point is only that you are not going to be able to tell from practice. If it were practice, Kelly Holcomb would and should start. Is that what you want?

687789[/snapback]

if kelly holcomb is a better qb and losman is the second coming of cade mcnown/david klingler/tim couch, then hell yeah, start holcomb.

[Kelly the Dog]

if kelly holcomb is a better qb and losman is the second coming of cade mcnown/david klingler/tim couch, then hell yeah, start holcomb.

687796[/snapback]

RJ should still be the Bills quarterback apparently. I hear he is fabulous in practice.

[Orton's Arm]

Any_Arm_But_Losmans has been arguing that Nall has the tools to succeed while Losman does not.  He bases Losman not having the tools in part on the apparently poor (based on their current level of front-office employment) player evaluation skills on the teams that coveted Losman (Bills/Green Bay) while ignoring the fact that one of the same unemployed folks who thought Losman would be good is a guy who thought Nall would be good....How can you argue that Losman is worse because Sherman wanted him when the other guy was drafted by Sherman?

687783[/snapback]

That's a funny nickname you came up with! Glad to see the creative juices are flowing.

 

I'll grant you that a Mike Sherman endorsement means little, whether its recipient is Losman or Nall. My main point is that if Nall outplays Losman, Nall should get the start. The fact that a couple of failed GMs thought Losman was worthy of a first round pick shouldn't cloud what would otherwise be a clear picture.

[JDG]

Totally and utterly untrue. I have said all along we don't know about Losman. My point is and always has been and have been saying over and over and over that we don't know about either, and I would prefer to go with the one that has the bigger upside and better pedigree and more talent. Why, if you don't know, would you go with the guy with less physical skills, less experience, less pedigree?

687781[/snapback]

 

Not necessarily. One guy has received several opportunities and has stunk up the joint. Another guy has had three limited appearances, and played well.

 

I'd argue that the other guy might have moved ahead of the former in the "upside department" based on that available evidence.

 

I think that Nall has the height, size, and arm to be an NFL starter. I also think coming out of the Green Bay QB Factory is at least as much pedigree as coming out of Tulane in the 1st Round of the Draft. And its not like the choice is starting Losman or cutting Losman. All I'm saying is that unless Losman shows in practice that he is a much, much, better football player than he was last year, then the best available move for the Bills is to start Nall. If Nall doesn't pan out, then you can give Losman another shot - despite having not shown anything in practice.

 

And you can mock Holcomb all you want, but he went on the road, in the playoffs, to Pittsburgh, in January, and hung up 33 points on the Steelers. The Browns eventually realized that sometimes you have to start the QB that can actually play the game over the QB with the arm and the pedigree.

 

JDG

[JDG]

RJ should still be the Bills quarterback apparently. I hear he is fabulous in practice.

687798[/snapback]

 

O.k., so apparently Losman isn't the best in practice, and we *know* that Losman isn't the best in games - so why exactly do you want to start him again?

 

JDG

[Orton's Arm]

Not necessarily.  One guy has received several opportunities and has stunk up the joint.  Another guy has had three limited appearances, and played well.

I'd add to this by pointing out Nall has usually played well in the preseason. It's not much, but it's more than can be said of Losman.

[Dibs]

Bearing all this in mind, take a look at Nall.  I'll grant the possibility Nall may be a one-game wonder.  But a 139.4 QB rating--largely compiled against a fierce Chicago defense--isn't a Saab Station Wagon....

687411[/snapback]

 

Which fierce Chicago defense are you referring to?

 

The game where Nall lit up Chicago was the last in 2004.

Chicago finished that year 5-11 with the 21st ranked D.

Nalls stats were 7-13-131, 1TD... QBR: 114.6

 

Nall did not play at all last year.

 

I honestly cannot see how anyone can be certain one way or the other on either JP or Nall.

I don't understand....we are Bills fans....how could any of us be upset about the possibility of any QB stepping up & succeeding?

[Orton's Arm]

Chicago finished that year 5-11 with the 21st ranked D.

So in 2004, the Bears had to face Nall, and they finished with the 21st ranked defense. In 2005, they avoided Nall, and their defensive ranking went up to #1 or #2. Coincidence? I think not.

 

On a more serious note, I didn't realize Chicago's defense was below average in 2004. But often if a team does well in a given year, it's because it had finished the previous year strong. So you'll hear about a team that went 6-10, but four of those wins came during the final six games. The next year, that team will be 12-4 or something. For Chicago to have done as well as it did on defense in 2005, you'd think the defensive improvement might well have started late in 2004.