Nate Davis has had a rough few months. After an impressive junior season at Ball State -- one in which some folks had him pegged as a possible first-round pick -- the MAC quarterback has experienced a series of setbacks that will cost him millions of dollars, and perhaps the opportunity to play professional football. ESPN.com's Jeffri Chadiha wrote earlier this month that Davis "... seemed destined to follow Ben Roethlisberger, Chad Pennington and Byron Leftwich as the next great Mid-American Conference quarterback to enter the NFL," although now he's more likely to be lumped in with Bruce Gradkowski, Charlie Frye -- or worse -- Omar Jacobs.
After stumbling through the end of the college season, in addition to poor showings at the combine and his pro day -- which only the Colts attended -- the one-time first-round prospect might be lucky to hear his name called next weekend.
During a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, NFL Network's Mike Mayock said that he heard Davis had a learning disability. "It has nothing to do with his intelligence, just whether he can learn." On Sunday, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Bob McGinn added this:
Not only must Davis overcome his status as a third-year junior but also widespread concern about his ability to handle an NFL playbook. Davis has acknowledged that he is learning disabled, and so it was not a shock when he scored merely 11 on the 50-question Wonderlic intelligence test.Davis told Chadiha that "I do have a disability, but it's not an issue in football ... I just learn differently than other people. I'm more of a visual learner."
"(Davis) has a Freeman arm and he was more accurate than Freeman," said Shemy Schembechler, a scout for the Washington Redskins. "I mean, he can throw it. But it will be a different learning process with him that some offensive coordinator is going to have to adjust to if he's going to play for you."
I have no reason to doubt Davis, but I'm not also in a position to pay him millions of dollars to wear a funny uniform and throw a football. In general, NFL personnel types are risk averse, and all else equal, there's no reason to take a chance on Davis when there are safer options. It would be one thing if Davis was a first-round talent, but he sounds destined for a backup job, or possibly even the scout team.
Sometimes, all a player needs is one shot, but as McGinn writes, the odds aren't in Davis' favor:
Although [Davis'] score [of 11] isn't that far off from the NFL average of about 19.5, it is extremely low for a quarterback. In the last 15 years, the only starting quarterbacks with scores of 15 or below have been Vince Young (15), Donovan McNabb (12), Charlie Batch (15) and Kordell Stewart (15). Seattle backup Seneca Wallace had a 10.Davis sounds like a good kid and a hard worker, and when you hear him speak he's easy to pull for: "I'm willing to do whatever it takes ... I don't care if I'm a first-round guy or if I have to come in as a free agent. All I want is a chance." Thinking positively: if guys like Kyle Boller or Dan Orlovsky can make a living in the NFL holding a clipboard, there's hope.



















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-20-2009 @ 12:33AM
nochickenhawk said...
This poor kid has been maligned right from the start of this phony f--king draft process. The intent was to discredit him to the point where the bastards would not have to pay him anything. Adding to it, the kid played at Muncie, IN for Ball State a once named Ball State Teachers College. Somehow I hope he proves all the "experts" wrong. These same "experts" who predicted stardom for Alex Smith, Joey Harrington, David Carr..........
Reply
4-20-2009 @ 10:44AM
rpoiry said...
Nate Davis is an excellent QB and a better person; who will make it in the NFL...and with his determinatin, failure is not an option..he should be a 3-4 round pick, before the so-called expects picked at him..that said I wish he would have stayed and increased his stock..
Reply
4-20-2009 @ 1:49PM
dmb1spe said...
This was even better the first time I read it a week ago on OverThePylon.blogspot.com
Reply