[jayasena]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

If Nottingham didn't convince the coaches to go with him over Nunes in months of practice, what exactly are we expecting to see in two halves of games? Aside from being a public display of the competition (as opposed to the mostly closed practices), what new information would that bring to light? Or are people going with a Copenhagen interpretation here that the mere observation of the competition by more people will somehow lead to an unambiguous outcome?

Or are some folks really suggesting Nottingham outplayed Nunes in practices (in a broader sense, not in any individual metric) but Shaw ignored that evidence for some unknown reason? And that Shaw is afraid of that buried evidence coming out if there were to be a more public competition? Wouldn't something concrete have leaked from others associated with the team by now if a cover up of that magnitude was taking place?

I'm very much with Garvin on this one -- the benefits of making a decision and giving more reps to one guy well before the start of the season is clearly beneficial. I'm also a strong believer that in cases like this, the harder the decision, the less impact the choice has on the final outcomes, and making a timely decision is better than over-investing to arrive at the "right" decision.

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.

[jayasena]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

If Nottingham didn't convince the coaches to go with him over Nunes in months of practice, what exactly are we expecting to see in two halves of games? Aside from being a public display of the competition (as opposed to the mostly closed practices), what new information would that bring to light? Or are people going with a Copenhagen interpretation here that the mere observation of the competition by more people will somehow lead to an unambiguous outcome?

Or are some folks really suggesting Nottingham outplayed Nunes in practices (in a broader sense, not in any individual metric) but Shaw ignored that evidence for some unknown reason? And that Shaw is afraid of that buried evidence coming out if there were to be a more public competition? Wouldn't something concrete have leaked from others associated with the team by now if a cover up of that magnitude was taking place?

I'm very much with Garvin on this one -- the benefits of making a decision and giving more reps to one guy well before the start of the season is clearly beneficial. I'm also a strong believer that in cases like this, the harder the decision, the less impact the choice has on the final outcomes, and making a timely decision is better than over-investing to arrive at the "right" decision.

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.