There are 128 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

I say we try nate davis with first team offense

I say we try nate davis with first team offense

Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by thojess:
Originally posted by Joecool:


Hill MUST go for this game as the team will finally go into a game that is not regular season with an actual starting QB and they all need live reps together.



Really? MUST? I really don't think it would be that big of a deal if Hill just rested and got 100%. I think a healthy back is a higher priority than 20 odd snaps.

For them to come out sharper on Game 1, yes, he must start this game and they need to work as a real regular season team.

Are you sure you're not channeling your inner fan on this one? I know that's what we'd like to see... but certainly starting QBs have missed 3rd preseason games and managed to come out sharp in the past. It's not like there is a direct causal link between preseason snaps and regular season performance. MUST implies zero probability of success sans 20 snaps this week and that is just not accurate.
  • fryet
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,868
If neither Smith nor Hill can start, then I would start Davis. It would allow us to evaluate him more, and give us a better idea on whether he can be our third string QB during the season. In fact, I would have him play the whole game. Huard is probably going to be cut, so there is no point in giving him playing time.
Yesterday I would have thought it stupid to waste first team reps on Nate Davis, but now - with both Smith & Hill injured (assuming neither can play) - I would give Davis the first team reps. We already pretty much know what we have in Huard, so why not let the rookie bloody his nose a little?
Originally posted by thojess:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by thojess:
Originally posted by Joecool:


Hill MUST go for this game as the team will finally go into a game that is not regular season with an actual starting QB and they all need live reps together.



Really? MUST? I really don't think it would be that big of a deal if Hill just rested and got 100%. I think a healthy back is a higher priority than 20 odd snaps.

For them to come out sharper on Game 1, yes, he must start this game and they need to work as a real regular season team.

Are you sure you're not channeling your inner fan on this one? I know that's what we'd like to see... but certainly starting QBs have missed 3rd preseason games and managed to come out sharp in the past. It's not like there is a direct causal link between preseason snaps and regular season performance. MUST implies zero probability of success sans 20 snaps this week and that is just not accurate.

I know starting QBs miss preseason but those QBs have already started for the team the year prior and then some. They already had the little things resolved with the offensive players. They have already established how everything will be done by them by prior years and spending the majority of the snaps in off season. We have not had a chance since last year. Hill hasn't gotten the bulk of the snaps and when Smith comes in after 11 plays in practice, the offense, once again, must adjust. They need to have this set or get as many reps as they can get with one crew, with THE crew and not have to shake out the little kinks in regular season.

This is the reason why this QB competition was stupid. It's one thing if both QBs know the system and the offense knows the system, but we have a new OC and one guy needs ALL of the reps. We are going to be behind other teams in how well we do things because of this dumb competition. Alex Smith, bless him, has been anchoring this team to the ground letting it drag because he can't outperform the other guy and we keep fooling ourselves trying to push him out there.

Would it have hurt to just say, "Hey, I don't want Alex to start until he has it MASTERED. For now, let's concentrate on a guy who we know what we will get and let him take control and let this offense run like a machine as well as it can?"

Seriously, these QB competitions keep holding us back and now Hill still may not get a good chance to dig his feet in the dirt, play and practice some good minutes and be crisp on day 1.
[ Edited by Joecool on Aug 26, 2009 at 3:11 PM ]
Originally posted by BigDaddy:
Originally posted by Robert:
Originally posted by TheFunkyChicken:
Originally posted by Robert:
And I say we try Gio Carmazzi with the first team offense...

Hill is our starter for the season and I don't want that to change. If he's able to start on saturday then he should.

But I will say that I'd be a lot more excited about watching a preseason game against Dallas with Davis starting than I would with Huard starting. Not because I think Davis would do better, but because I'm more interested in seeing how he does than seeing how Huard does.

Unfortunately, I think Gio Carmazzi probably knows more plays than Davis does at this point. Given that preseason is about evaluating players by putting them in different positions, in the third preseason game, you need to put in a QB who can run as much of the offense as possible (ideally, your starters).

I was just making a crack about Garmazzi, obviously. But IF Hill and Smith can't go, then Huard has to start the game to give the players the best simulation possible. The point is moot anyway, Hill's gonna start: http://www.nfl.com/preseason/story?id=09000d5d81228ddb&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

Hell, why don't we call Rattay or even Jeff George. I heard something about George saying he's still better than most QB's in the league.

Jeff George to the rescue! I love it!
Really excited about his future for this team.

Hope for the best, pray for a savior!
Hill is the best option right now, but its not like we have a lot to lose by giving Nate a shot with the first team O in the preseason.
Some of the nonsense that come's from the most active posters on this site is amazing and I'll give you one example.
This notion that you shouldn't start a rookie at QB b/c his 'confidence' will be destroyed forever...is this really what your opinion is and your sticking by it? The more this is claimed by the knowitalls on this site the more they show their lack of understanding about pro sports. Any player that is unsuccessful as a first year starter in the NFL didn't have the required mental makeup to succeed in the first place. First year players many not have winning records that first year but the team won't have changed even with the 'vet' playing. So stupid it's a indication of how clueless 'fans' are about the process of becoming a legit player in this league.
Nice, I didn't use the word 'red boxers' once in this post. Perfect.
Originally posted by imoDvoris:
Some of the nonsense that come's from the most active posters on this site is amazing and I'll give you one example.
This notion that you shouldn't start a rookie at QB b/c his 'confidence' will be destroyed forever...is this really what your opinion is and your sticking by it? The more this is claimed by the knowitalls on this site the more they show their lack of understanding about pro sports. Any player that is unsuccessful as a first year starter in the NFL didn't have the required mental makeup to succeed in the first place. First year players many not have winning records that first year but the team won't have changed even with the 'vet' playing. So stupid it's a indication of how clueless 'fans' are about the process of becoming a legit player in this league.
Nice, I didn't use the word 'red boxers' once in this post. Perfect.

I'm a little confused by what you're saying, so if I misread your post, sorry in advance.

Many rookies stink their first year, but not because they don't have the mental makeup. They lack the knowledge to make them successful... Peyton Manning and Troy Aikman come to mind as QBs who really struggled as rookies, then turned it around. The supporting cast also helps.
NOPE! NEP! SORRY! Nate Davis is not our QB of the future!
Originally posted by imoDvoris:
Some of the nonsense that come's from the most active posters on this site is amazing and I'll give you one example.
This notion that you shouldn't start a rookie at QB b/c his 'confidence' will be destroyed forever...is this really what your opinion is and your sticking by it? The more this is claimed by the knowitalls on this site the more they show their lack of understanding about pro sports. Any player that is unsuccessful as a first year starter in the NFL didn't have the required mental makeup to succeed in the first place. First year players many not have winning records that first year but the team won't have changed even with the 'vet' playing. So stupid it's a indication of how clueless 'fans' are about the process of becoming a legit player in this league.
Nice, I didn't use the word 'red boxers' once in this post. Perfect.

There is almost too much wrong with this post to warrant a response, but every now and again you have to rise up and grab the flame-bait.

Quote:
Any player that is unsuccessful as a first year starter in the NFL didn't have the required mental makeup to succeed in the first place.

Absurd! There have been throughout the history of football plenty of folks (QB's especially) that have had poor results the first year or two of their careers only to turn things around to great success. You'd have to be a complete ignoramus not to recognize that fact... Bradshaw, Aikman, and Young might have a thing or two to say about that, and I'm quite certain you know what those 3 have in common.

Now on to the rest of your 'post.' What's with all the words in quotes? What's with the insults? Why the hell are you so prickly about red boxes? And just WTF is up with your attitude, n00b?
Originally posted by mrgneissguy:
OK, here's something to ponder. True he was playing against the Raider scrubs (though we should also mention that the O-line and other offensive players around him were also scrubs).

You can argue that his decision making should have been easier, and maybe that his receivers should have been more open. And maybe even say that he benefited from a secondary that probably don't react as quickly as the first stringers. The good thinking, judgment, and poise in the pocket we all saw could definitely be attributed to who he was playing against. I cannot argue that. But carrying those things over to the first string just comes with more reps and experience.

But when I watched that game, compared to both Smith and Hill, Davis had better form, better technique (yes even taking the snap from center), threw the ball with zip when needed, with touch when needed, and had a better spiral (gloves and funny grip were going to be a problem?). None of those things have much to do with who you're playing against. They have everything to do with your abilities.

I also notice that no one is disputing that he performed better than Hill or Smith in that game. They are just arguing that he did so because of this or that. And honestly, you cannot automatically say he would perform better against a "real" NFL defense. But neither can you honestly and definitively say he wouldn't. There is no body of evidence for it yet, no data yet. So let's not go overboard and throw Hill and Smith to the sidelines for the season and bring in Davis from day 1. But let's also not assume that he sucks and has no chance because he came from a small school and has a learning disability.

I don't think he should start a regular season game yet, hell I think I read where he got all of 4 pass attempts the first few days of training camp, and even Manning needs more than that to play well. But I think he has more talent than the others and once he learns the system (and his learning disability will not be a significant problem) and gets comfortable with the speed of the game over time, he will easily out perform them. Probably not this year, but soon.

Something else. He came from the MAC, where other serious NFL QBs have emerged. He is right up there in the record books with the likes of Leftwich and Roethlisberger. And he got all of his numbers in three years. Last time I checked, Ben had more than one ring on his finger and is considered a great one by many.

I just don't see what is so terrible about seeing what he can handle with the starters in a pre-season game. Especially when starting QBs hardly ever play more than one series in the fourth pre-season game anyway. Smith's thumb is messed up and he shouldn't be playing. If you like Huard, that's great, so do I, but his positives are that he has the experience and we know what he does with/against the first string. Sing may know who the starter is, but maybe he needs to see Nate play with the first string to decide if he gets a roster spot or goes to the practice squad. I would hate for Sing to make that decision based on assumptions, like many of the folks here are throwing out. I would hope those decisions would be based on actual performance.

Great post man! I agree nobody knows whether Nate Davis would be "eaten alive" by NFL defenses, as somebody in this thread claimed. People on here make their assumptions based on what they've read from our beatwriters ("Nate Davis has a learning disability and will take time to learn the offense," etc..) and nothing more. Sometimes a guy can surprise you when given the opportunity. I'm not saying we should throw him in there during the season, but I don't think it would hurt to allow him some reps with the first unit against another team's first string defense in a preseason game. Everyone needs experience to get better.
Every 49ers fan pining for rookie Nate Davis to be the 49ers' regular-season starter should have watched Davis during the midpoint of the afternoon practice. It would have cured you. During one team session, his snaps went like this:

Pass intended for Josh Morgan is picked off by Shawntae Spencer

Pass intended for Josh Morgan is nearly picked off by Dashon Goldson

A quick pass to Joe Jon Finley turns into a fumble when Finley is stripped by Dre Bly

Quick completion to Bear Pascoe

Davis can't get a pass away and the play is called dead.

Short pass to Michael Robinson is at his feet and incomplete.

Nate Davis' two-minute drive lasted 10 seconds. He zipped the ball down the middle to Delanie Walker. Rookie safety Curtis Taylor looked like he would easily swat the ball away but somehow he missed it, the ball landed in Walker's hands and he raced to a 70-yard touchdown. Now that's how you end a practice.

Link
Originally posted by 49erFan:
Every 49ers fan pining for rookie Nate Davis to be the 49ers' regular-season starter should have watched Davis during the midpoint of the afternoon practice. It would have cured you. During one team session, his snaps went like this:

Pass intended for Josh Morgan is picked off by Shawntae Spencer

Pass intended for Josh Morgan is nearly picked off by Dashon Goldson

A quick pass to Joe Jon Finley turns into a fumble when Finley is stripped by Dre Bly

Quick completion to Bear Pascoe

Davis can't get a pass away and the play is called dead.

Short pass to Michael Robinson is at his feet and incomplete.

Nate Davis' two-minute drive lasted 10 seconds. He zipped the ball down the middle to Delanie Walker. Rookie safety Curtis Taylor looked like he would easily swat the ball away but somehow he missed it, the ball landed in Walker's hands and he raced to a 70-yard touchdown. Now that's how you end a practice.

Link

lol got damn. the people that want davis to start are just looking for a miracle
Ok hello webzone..here's my opinion on Nate Davis:

1. There is a reason he went to Ball State which means not a high level of recruitment.

2. He was drafted late in the draft (5th round) which isn't really a place you look to find a starting qb.

3. When the niners take the field against the defending NFC champs do you really see us being as competitive as we are with hill? Its not like he's another Matt Ryan.

I don't really care about his disorder because nobodys perfect but there's my piece on Nate.