Are we screwed at QB?

[Mr. Cynical]

In your opinion, at this point from what you've read and seen, does it really matter who starts at QB (JP, KH or Nall)?

[justasportsfan]

I'm all for starting JP but anxious to see what Nall can do.

[Dozerdog]

I'll see who does best in the preseason against real opposition before I blindly name and follow a starter.

The guy who does the best wins ythe job. If they both excell, go with JP- If they Both suck, go with the guy who will win you the most games.

[Philagape]

I voted for JP, but if Nall's the answer, that's fine too. Anybody But Holcomb.

[MTBillsFan]

We should be able to tell more probably after the 2nd preseason game. Nall will be back hopefully competing for 2nd string.
The only knock on Nall is the fact that Green Bay draft Aaron Rogers when they already had Nall. IF Nall was worthy or replacing Favre he'd still be there.

JP is the answer for now, growing pains will happen. He's only started 8 games.

[TacklingDummy]

I voted they all suck. Which is true.

[Night Train]

For the love of GOD, please get the pre-season going before the moronic QB talk gets any worse !

[theanswer74]

Screwed??? I think its more like raped.

[ICE74129]

If they Both suck, go with the guy who will win you the most games.

Which is still JP. Again its a joke all QB competitions are. But then again I don't expect the Bills staff to have the guts the Bengals, NYG etc have to just let JP start and be done with it

[ibatiger]

We should be able to tell more probably after the 2nd preseason game. Nall will be back hopefully competing for 2nd string.
The only knock on Nall is the fact that Green Bay draft Aaron Rogers when they already had Nall. IF Nall was worthy or replacing Favre he'd still be there.

JP is the answer for now, growing pains will happen. He's only started 8 games.

That's no knock on Nall. That's football. A new GM picks a QB who until a few days before the draft was supposed to be the no. 1 pick and falls to 24th. Green Bay wasn't planning on taking a QB. All the talk was about Nall being first in line to replace Favre. Stuff like that happens. I guess Losman is really nothing. His GM signed a FA Quarterback who has never been more than 2nd string. What does that say about Losman?

[Risin]

If Nall wasn't a career backup, he'd still be in Green Bay.

The training camp practices I was at, he was the worst of the three.

[Mr. Cynical]

IMO you start JP no matter what. But from what I'm reading I don't think it matters. We're likely to have a very poor year at QB.

NOTE: THIS IS MY OPINION. THIS IS NOT A REPORT.

[theanswer74]

If Nall wasn't a career backup, he'd still be in Green Bay.

The training camp practices I was at, he was the worst of the three.

That is dumb.

Most likely GB doesnt even know what they had in Nall. Its so hard to tell with QB's.

Look at the NFC championship game. Look at their QB's paths.

[Risin]

That is dumb.

Most likely GB doesnt even know what they have in Nall. Its so hard to tell with QB's.

Look at the NFC championship game. Look at their paths.


Your fellating of Nall is dumb.

You've hitched your wagon to the guy, so if he pans out you're perceived as a genius.

I've seen the man in camp, and he was BRUTAL!!

Couldn't make the short throws, or the long throws, and didn't have the rocket arm as advertised.

I don't want to hear that he needs experience either, dude started learning the offense around the sametime JP and Kelly did.

All you are is a fan who thinks he's smarter then he really is.

Come back and join those of us who aren't pretending to know more then we really do.

If I'm wrong about Nall, I'll apologize. I can only go by what I've seen, and he has stunk.

[feelthepain]

Screwed??? I think its more like raped.

:funny:

[TacklingDummy]

Which is still JP. Again its a joke all QB competitions are. But then again I don't expect the Bills staff to have the guts the Bengals, NYG etc have to just let JP start and be done with it

I seem to recall that Warner started the year and then Manning took over. And Palmer sat on the bench for a year and watched Kitna play. My FACTS could be wrong though.

[Mitchy moo]

Mr C., I think I asked this question recently, remember?

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1587729

Let's also find out with all things equal, who your grandmother would like to start and then narrow it down to ten year age brackets/ 70-80 years old only for granny.

[djjimkelly]

hopefully mr peppers solves our qb decision and breaks homobums neck on saturday

[Mitchy moo]

hopefully mr peppers solves our qb decision and breaks homobums neck on saturday


violent but effective.

[RedEyE]

The only thing that either of the three QBs need to do is to assist the running game by ensuring completions in the passing game. Keep the defense of the field and uphold an accuracy rating much higher than others have accomplished for the team in recent years.

Honestly, I don't expect see superstars from any of the choices. I just want to see better production that helps win football games.

[Kerr]

That's no knock on Nall. That's football. A new GM picks a QB who until a few days before the draft was supposed to be the no. 1 pick and falls to 24th. Green Bay wasn't planning on taking a QB. All the talk was about Nall being first in line to replace Favre. Stuff like that happens. I guess Losman is really nothing. His GM signed a FA Quarterback who has never been more than 2nd string. What does that say about Losman?


GB wasn't planning on taking a qb in the 1st round. It doesn't mean they weren't planning on taking a qb at all in the draft. Getting rodgers was a knock on nall. Rogers was too good to pass for a team looking for a successor.

Levy signed nall(I don't know why) because he wanted add some form of competition. He believes in competition, at least publicaly.

[DraftBoy]

GB wasn't planning on taking a qb in the 1st round. It doesn't mean they weren't planning on taking a qb at all in the draft. Getting rodgers was a knock on nall. Rogers was too good to pass for a team looking for a successor.

Levy signed nall(I don't know why) because he wanted add some form of competition. He believes in competition, at least publicaly.


That post makes no sense, well yes of course GB was looking to pick a QB up in that draft, but please do tell us why that was oh wise one? Oh wait thats right...they didnt have a 3rd QB on the roster at that point. Aaron Rodgers falling to them was a gift and one they couldnt pass up in their minds. Nall was the heir apparent till that gift, then Rodgers was put in place (mind you there was no competition for the #2 spot, it was settled prior to the TC). Now Nall of course was in a contract year and wanted to have a shot at starting (similar situation to Matt Schaub this year in ATL). Will he be good? Maybe. Levy has come out a few times and said this guy was brought in to challenge for the starting job. Levy brought him maybe because he didnt think the other guys could cut it, or maybe bc he just wanted to have 3 avg QB's on the roster. Choose whatever line of logic you want, but to say that GB taking Rodgers is a knock on Nall, is one of the most illogical statements one could make, taking into consideration they had no #3 QB, and any team with an aging vet QB, who could get a guy who was being talked about in the top 5 at 24, you take them. Especially if it helps fill a need.

[DraftBoy]

Your fellating of Nall is dumb.

You've hitched your wagon to the guy, so if he pans out you're perceived as a genius.

I've seen the man in camp, and he was BRUTAL!!

Couldn't make the short throws, or the long throws, and didn't have the rocket arm as advertised.

I don't want to hear that he needs experience either, dude started learning the offense around the sametime JP and Kelly did.

All you are is a fan who thinks he's smarter then he really is.

Come back and join those of us who aren't pretending to know more then we really do.

If I'm wrong about Nall, I'll apologize. I can only go by what I've seen, and he has stunk.

Which sessions did you go to? Most reports out of camp prior to his injury have been good ones. He was showing zip, good deep balls, accuracy, composure in the pocket and the one separating factor was his consistency. How do your reports differ?

[Night Train]

Which sessions did you go to? Most reports out of camp prior to his injury have been good ones. He was showing zip, good deep balls, accuracy, composure in the pocket and the one separating factor was his consistency. How do your reports differ?

Players reported Friday, July 28th and Nall was hurt Sunday afternoon the 30th.

Were there multiple glowing reports on Nall in his whole 24-48 hours of action ? I never read them.

BTW - I was there that Saturday and actually got to see him play. He's got a fair arm but has cement feet, ala Drew and Kelly Holcomb. He missed many throws. Nall was barely moving to his left when he hurt his hamstring on Sunday.

I've had it with guys who can't move a foot from the pocket. He's been a 3rd string backup for a solid reason.

[Risin]

Which sessions did you go to? Most reports out of camp prior to his injury have been good ones. He was showing zip, good deep balls, accuracy, composure in the pocket and the one separating factor was his consistency. How do your reports differ?


Was there Saturday, right before he got hurt.

I don't know who wrote the glowing reviews, but I can't endorse anything that was glowing about him.

He was consistant when I was there, consistantly not good.

[Risin]

Players reported Friday, July 28th and Nall was hurt Sunday afternoon the 30th.

Were there multiple glowing reports on Nall in his whole 24-48 hours of action ? I never read them.

BTW - I was there that Saturday and actually got to see him play. He's got a fair arm but has cement feet, ala Drew and Kelly Holcomb. He missed many throws. Nall was barely moving to his left when he hurt his hamstring on Sunday.

I've had it with guys who can't move a foot from the pocket. He's been a 3rd string backup for a solid reason.


Ahh, didn't see this post before I responded to the other.

What Night Train says, I can concur with.

Except the arm part. I was told he had a great arm, supposedly as good or better then JP's, after watching him live, I disagree.

P.S.- Night Train, wish I knew who you were, I would have stopped and said heya. I'm thinking about going next week, I have to look at their schedule, and see if I can get a day off of work. I know they break camp soon, so I don't know if I'll make another one this season. Every year my father-in-law and I try to make one of the first few days, and every year I want to go back, but am too lazy to drive by myself.

[Kerr]

That post makes no sense, well yes of course GB was looking to pick a QB up in that draft, but please do tell us why that was oh wise one? Oh wait thats right...they didnt have a 3rd QB on the roster at that point. Aaron Rodgers falling to them was a gift and one they couldnt pass up in their minds. Nall was the heir apparent till that gift, then Rodgers was put in place (mind you there was no competition for the #2 spot, it was settled prior to the TC). Now Nall of course was in a contract year and wanted to have a shot at starting (similar situation to Matt Schaub this year in ATL). Will he be good? Maybe. Levy has come out a few times and said this guy was brought in to challenge for the starting job. Levy brought him maybe because he didnt think the other guys could cut it, or maybe bc he just wanted to have 3 avg QB's on the roster. Choose whatever line of logic you want, but to say that GB taking Rodgers is a knock on Nall, is one of the most illogical statements one could make, taking into consideration they had no #3 QB, and any team with an aging vet QB, who could get a guy who was being talked about in the top 5 at 24, you take them. Especially if it helps fill a need.
You're kidding me, right? They already had JT O'sullivan on the roster, but they released him in training camp, which happens to be after the draft. Nall stuck around because he knew the offense better, that's all. Besides, you can find a #3 anywhere in FA or from nfl europe. Teams always pick up 5 to 6 qbs who they bring to camp. I dont' recall ever seeing anywhere that nall was being considered farve's successor to begin with. If nall was to ever be the heir apparent to farve, then they would have passed on rodgers.

http://cf.wisinfo.com/Packers_Chat/old_chats/q_a_061405.cfm

Read up.

"Dave, Boise, Idaho: We've been able to read a lot about our heir apparent, but what about O'Sullivan and Nall? How did they look? I saw where Nall is pegged at #2 for training camp, but did you see enough from O'Sullivan (or Rodgers) to think that may change?
DT: Well, I wouldn't read too much into Nall being the No. 2 quarterback. He's hardly a lock to be on the roster. Nall knows the offense better than O'Sullivan, but from talking to scouts around the league, they like O'Sullivan better than Nall. It wouldn't surprise me to see if the Packers can trade Nall or O'Sullivan and keep the other. It really doesn't matter if Rodgers is the No. 3 QB next season, but I think that Rodgers will be NO. 2 by the end of the year."


And what do you know? Rodgers was #2 by the end of the year.

"luke, san diego: sorry for another one, whats your early impressions on Aaron Rogers? I know he's new and also how did Craig Nall look
DT: He has a great, quick release and much better arm strength than Nall or O'Sullivan. I think it was a great draft pick. He'll be the starter in 2007, in my opinion. Nall looked fine. He's never going to look great and he's never going to look that bad either. They like him, he knows the offense, but he's never going to be a regular starter in this league."


You're welcome to take another stab at it.

[DraftBoy]

Check both Mikey, BBS, and Chris Brown's reports all said he was the best looking QB in practices prior to his injury, though I agree he has cement feet, but his arm is good (not JP good).

Also Risin there are a bunch of folks here at the BZ who go to the TC practices often, maybe make a thread about when your going so you can meet up with a bunch of them.

[DraftBoy]

You're kidding me, right? They already had JT O'sullivan on the roster, but they released him in training camp, which happens to be after the draft. Nall stuck around because he knew the offense better, that's all. Besides, you can find a #3 anywhere in FA or from nfl europe. Teams always pick up 5 to 6 qbs who they bring to camp. I dont' recall ever seeing anywhere that nall was being considered farve's successor to begin with. If nall was to ever be the heir apparent to farve, then they would have passed on rodgers.

http://cf.wisinfo.com/Packers_Chat/old_chats/q_a_061405.cfm

Read up.

"Dave, Boise, Idaho: We've been able to read a lot about our heir apparent, but what about O'Sullivan and Nall? How did they look? I saw where Nall is pegged at #2 for training camp, but did you see enough from O'Sullivan (or Rodgers) to think that may change?
DT: Well, I wouldn't read too much into Nall being the No. 2 quarterback. He's hardly a lock to be on the roster. Nall knows the offense better than O'Sullivan, but from talking to scouts around the league, they like O'Sullivan better than Nall. It wouldn't surprise me to see if the Packers can trade Nall or O'Sullivan and keep the other. It really doesn't matter if Rodgers is the No. 3 QB next season, but I think that Rodgers will be NO. 2 by the end of the year."


And what do you know? Rodgers was #2 by the end of the year.

"luke, san diego: sorry for another one, whats your early impressions on Aaron Rogers? I know he's new and also how did Craig Nall look
DT: He has a great, quick release and much better arm strength than Nall or O'Sullivan. I think it was a great draft pick. He'll be the starter in 2007, in my opinion. Nall looked fine. He's never going to look great and he's never going to look that bad either. They like him, he knows the offense, but he's never going to be a regular starter in this league."


You're welcome to take another stab at it.


Forgive me I was wrong about O'Sullivan or O'Suckivan is the name for those who know him so dearly in GB and NO. You maybe dont know he was the #2 and heir apparent but its obvious the first fan thought so. And I dont see your point except to discredit one of my points which was the one I admitted to being wrong about. You still cant prove Rodgers was selected bc they had no faith in Nall. As the moderator says (Im assuming thats DT, not knowing who DT is) Nall looks fine, I never said he'd be our savior none of these QB's will be, I just said that Rodgers was only taken bc he was gift at their posistion. If they really had no faith in Nall then they would of dealt up to try and take Rodgers earlier (bc his slide was not expected). But I do admit I was wrong that O'Sullivan was on the roster prior to the draft and cut shortly thereafter.

[Kerr]

Forgive me I was wrong about O'Sullivan or O'Suckivan is the name for those who know him so dearly in GB and NO. You maybe dont know he was the #2 and heir apparent but its obvious the first fan thought so. And I dont see your point except to discredit one of my points which was the one I admitted to being wrong about. You still cant prove Rodgers was selected bc they had no faith in Nall. As the moderator says (Im assuming thats DT, not knowing who DT is) Nall looks fine, I never said he'd be our savior none of these QB's will be, I just said that Rodgers was only taken bc he was gift at their posistion. If they really had no faith in Nall then they would of dealt up to try and take Rodgers earlier (bc his slide was not expected). But I do admit I was wrong that O'Sullivan was on the roster prior to the draft and cut shortly thereafter.

Anyone behind farve was always considered a "hair apparent", but if that were really the case with one of those qb's then, in nall's case, they would have never drafted a qb with the #1 pick to succeed farve. It was a gift rodgers fell to #1 in a weak qb class, but it doesn't mean they weren't planning on drafting another qb to succeed farve. I'm not sure what it is you can't understand about that. It's painfully obvious. The moderator also said nall would never be a regular starter in this league. Just because they had no faith in nall, doesn't mean they had to trade up for rodgers in order to prove it. They could have taken a qb in next rounds like some teams have done in the past. Nall was still young, a little older than rodgers, but old enough to take the reigns if he was ever considered farve's successor, but that was not the case. You see, putting up big numbers in nfl europe doesn't constitute a starting job in the nfl. I know that if I had enough confidence on nall I would have passed on a qb like rodgers and gone after a bigger need.

[Risin]

Check both Mikey, BBS, and Chris Brown's reports all said he was the best looking QB in practices prior to his injury, though I agree he has cement feet, but his arm is good (not JP good).

Also Risin there are a bunch of folks here at the BZ who go to the TC practices often, maybe make a thread about when your going so you can meet up with a bunch of them.


ah, I try to read as much as possible on the team, and I don't remember any glowing reviews.

If Mikey, Chris Brown or BBS said that, then I can see how you'd agree with it. I won't question them, they're around the team a lot more then I am, so if they say he was good, I'll consider myself in the minority.

Thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to post up next time I'm headed East.