Mickey

I hope JP plays well enough for us not to have to address the QB situation yet again. We have so many other holes to fill, we can't keep throwing resources into finding a QB without roster quality slipping elsewhere.

I can't agree that 4 games into the season it was time to hang it up, give it up and go into an extended preseason mode for the younguns. Twelve games were left. Besides, JP was hurt against New England which is why Holcomb started the last three weeks. Really, I am not sure I buy the notion that the coaches didn't give JP a fair shake. They started him the first 4 games despite terrible performances on his part in losing three straight. The coaches, to their credit I think, were not prepared to throw away the season give how close we were to the playoffs the year before. Thus, they did what just about any coach would have done, they tried something different and gave KH a shot. Then we won two games in a row. I can't imagine there was anyone in their right mind who was shouting to put JP back in during the week before the Oakland game despite the two straight wins or was declaring the season to be over with our record at 3-3. Although he lost at Oakland, he played very well against NE on the road, nearly pulling off the upset of the season. I can see where the coaches decided to give him one more shot against KC. From there, JP was teh starter again until he got hurt. I can hardly fault the coaches for ruining his development by not playing him hurt in the last three meangless games. Quite the contrary, why put the franchise QB behind a lousy offensive line whose motivation is shot on a team marking the days to the offseason? I'm all for JP being the starter this year and my opinion of the coaches last year is just about as bad as yours. By the same token I don't buy the notion that poor JP's developement was ruined because he got pulled for playing poorly on a team that was still trying to make the playoffs. I am looking forward to the new JP.

Drew had no problem with throwing the deep ball but he still faced "8 in the box". The reason, I surmise, had nothing to do with the QB's arm strength and everything to do with our offensive line. With a poor line, you can play 8 in the box and send a bunch of them. They will get to the QB way before the WR's get deep enough to make a first down catch. 8 in the box isn't just a defense to stuff the run, against a bad line, it is a great defense against the pass as well. 8 in the box stops the runa and takes away the dump offs. All it leaves are deeper routes which never happen for us because the QB doesn't have the time for those routes to develop.

You are right and in fact, it turns out he was the leading rusher in the entire USFL in 1984 with 1,467 yards playing for the Birmingham Stallions who finished the year 14-4 and in the playoffs. He had another 500 yards in receiving and 5 TD catches to go with his 8 TDs on the ground. What was Buffalo's record in 1984? Answer: 2-14.

15 carries for 90 yards and 2 TD's that game. He was in the pro bowl three years straight. He missed the whole 1984 season due to injury. He was also hurt in 1982, playing in only 7 games that year. That was the only reason he didn't get 1,000 that year. He was actually having his best year ever at the time. 633 yards in ony 7 games was pretty sweet.

When he was here, from 1980-1985, his avg yards per carry numbers were: 1980 3.9 1981 4.3 1982 4.7 1983 4.3 1984 injured 1985 3.3 He went over 1,000 three times and caught 50+ balls a few times. Twice he managed to catch 7 TD passes in a season. All told he had 36 TDs for us. He finished in the top 10 for yards from scrimmage three times. Yeah, Cribbs could flat out play.

Yes, I much prefer it when the QB ignores the rush, waits for the WR to get downfield and then gets sacked before he can get his arm cocked. Does anybody remember the common wisdom on the wall circa 2004? Let me remind you, it was that our defense was so good, all we needed was a QB that wouldn't screw up the defense with devastating turnovers. The offense didn't need to win the game, it just needed to keep from losing it. Exit Drew Bledsoe and enter JP Losman and Kelly Holcomb. Holcomb was to be our insurance policy in case JP didn't work out so that our expected playoff run wouldn't depend on the arm of an untested second year man who spent half the year in a cast and the other half carrying a clip board. Gettting Holcomb was hailed as a great decision because he was everything Drew wasn't. A high percentage, dump-off kind of guy who didn't give up big sacks and turnovers. Now the common wisdom has been revised in a revisionist sort of way. Last year was not a year we expected to make the playoffs. Instead it was a throw away year the coaches should have used to train Losman, winning be damned. And Holcomb, who is everything we said we wanted, is a jack ass who should be run off the roster on a rail. The first requirement to be a football fan: short memory.

I have a sad feeling that we are a 4-12 team regardless of whether we start Holcomb or Losman. All the more reason to start JP? May be so.

Your are right there, some of the best players we ever had were surly SOB's, especially when they lost. They hated, hated, hated losing so much. Not a bad way to go I guess.

Kind of the opposite of the "never let 'em see you sweat" attitude.

A new rule change like that is bound to confuse and perplex the unwary. Since we have a solid ST coach in April, I have a feeling our guys won't be perplexed or confused. In fact, I imagine April will find a way to take advantage of this rule in some way long before anyone else does. Advantage Buffalo.

I think it was John Gruden who said "...potential will get you fired in the NFL..." He is a young QB, he is not a rookie. This is his third year in the NFL. Potential alone will only get you so many opportunities in this league. As Don Rumsfeld would say: Patience? yes. Blank check to play poorly? No. Need to go the pro bowl? No. Need to improve 31% red zone completion rate? Yes.

He was one of the first fairly high profile FA signings of the Donohoe era. He never really played up to the pretty high expectations we all had when he was first signed. Some thought he was given a little more latitude than, based on his performance, he deserved. Some wondered if perhaps TD was reluctant to admit that he made a mistake in signing him so he stuck around on the roster.

"pink pants" ????? Never heard that one before.

Not surprising. I wrote these comments in posts last summer: "I have been very disappointed in Jeff Posey. He just doesn't make plays. Maybe it is the system and all, maybe the playbook is slanted to London and TKO, I don't know. I do know that you almost never hear his name called. Don't get me wrong, I would have no problem going into 2005 with the same "D" but if we are looking to see where it could improve, I think Posey is possibly the weakest starter in the group." And: "...replacing Posey would certainly be on my top 5 ways to improve this defense." And this in 11/04: "I don't think Posey is really as good as the rest of the defense so we should keep our eye out for a LB with speed." Little did I know that we had a quick one already on the roster. I never thought Crowel would get off the bench but Spikes' injury gave him an opportunity and he made the most of it.

What do you "camp followers" have to say about Whitner's first practice??? Amid all the grumbling about the hold out (all 9 practices of it) and questioning over whether he was taken too high, seems we have lost our customary excitement over a top pick. Looking at the clips available at the team site, I have to say I had no idea he was that built. The guy looks positively scary strong. If he is really as fast as timed at the combine, Whitner could be a difference maker for this defense once he get over the rookie jitters. Seems a week or two ago we were all dancing a jig over Martin Nance and every other player in camp. Is no one excited about Whitner?

I think Simms got 12.1 M and Huff 15 M in guaranteed money putting the 1/2 way mark at 13.55. So it makes sense. When they say "guaranteed", doesn't that usually refer to the signing bonus which they get right away? That 13.55 would be spread out for 5 years for a cap hit of 2.71 per year at a minimum. Incentive money, roster bonuses, future yearly salary, etc. would all be added as paid. There is nothing really noteworthy here is there? Maybe to those who think we took him too high or that a safety shouldn't be taken that high. For the 8th pick in the draft, seems like we didn't get a bargain nor did we get shafted. I wonder what the hold up was? Seems like as soon as Sims signed, we should have been able to get a deal at 13.55 immediately. Oh well, he is in camp now and from the clips at the team site, this guy is ripped for a safety. Looks more like a linebacker. If he is really as fast as billed, we got a freak back there.

You may be right Bill, only time will tell. I just think that at the end of the day, targeting SS as the top need was reasonable given the new defense and the roster (Wire and Bowen). One could argue that DT or a G was more pressing, sure, but you have to admit that SS was a reasonable priority. Well, we ended up with the best SS on the board at the time we picked him, what is so bad about that? Same with DT, I think that was a high priority and the guy we took was the best on the board when we took him. As for both McCargo and Whitner, there was a huge drop off after them at both positions. You know how I feel about the OL but unfortunately, the defense collapsed unexpectedly last year bumping the secondary up the priority ladder. One thing few have mentioned is that throughout his career, Marv has always thought that you can never have too many DB's. Look at the Levy era drafts and you will see time and again that Marv was always taking DB's pretty high in the draft. In his first draft he took two in the second round, Odomes and Roland Mitchell. In his third and fourth draft he used his first selections on DB's (James Williams and Henry Jones). In '93 and '94 he used both first round picks on Thomas Smith and Jeff Burris. Given his history, Marv obviously believes that one of the most crucial factors in building a winner is a solid secondary. This year's draft certainly reflects that I would say.

In the draft board in their minds, we could have traded down and out of the first and second rounds and loaded up with 15 picks in the third & fourth rounds while McCargo and Whitner would still have been there for us in the seventh.

The guaranteed money is what matters and 13.5 or so would be 1/2 way between what Huff and Ngata were paid which is about right.

Proof? Link? Did Mularkey order the MRI?

They thought they did those things when they signed Anderson and Gandy, drafted Everett, etc. I think they really thought that they had a better chance at making the playoffs going the way they did than sticking with Drew. Not saying it made sense but I think that really was what they believed.

All the contemporaneous news articles I could find indicated that he was unable to play, I linked some of them. I couldn't find a single article that said he could play but that Mularkey refused to play him. In fact, from the articles I could find he missed at least the tuesday and wed. practice before the Denver game and Mularkey wasn't even sure he could be the back-up for that game. Were the veterans demanding that JP not even be allowed to practice??? He started practicing the next week but Mularkey said he wouldn't play him hurt...and he didn't. The idea that they wouldn't play him in a totally meaningless game I think is just too senseless to be true. Not playing a guy who was hurt however, now that does make sense.

I don't favor Holcomb this year. I am, however, worried about a QB that can't manage to outplay Kelly Holcomb. Admittedly, one poster made a good point, that outplaying KH isn't so easy because KH is not that bad of a QB. This whole thing started because I pointed out that I was hoping JP would clearly outplay KH from the git-go in camp and was disappointed that, based on the posted camp reports which I qouted and updated extensively, he wasn't kicking KH's tail, far from it in fact. From that modest beginning rained a thousand posts about how its not his fault, he is still too green and all because the moronic coaches last year didn't start him for all 16 games. His poor performance in camp is apparently Mike Mularkey's fault. On a positive note, the last few camp reports posted indicate that he is starting to play better.

Wow, it is so rare to see the words "Bennie Anderson" without the word "holding" nearby. There have actually been a few recent reports that JP's play has picked up. I have been keeping a running tally of quotes from camp observers on QB performance and some good things have been said lately.