Mickey

Stop dancing around the question, I asked you whether the size of Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald contributes to them being the dangerous receivers they are. Your answer was that size was worthless as to Santana Moss and Derrick Mason. Wonderful answer if I had asked you about Santana Moss and Derrick Mason. Let me ask you yet again so that everyone can enjoy watching you dance some more: Does the exceptional size of Larry Fitzgerald and Randy Moss contribute to them being the dangerous receivers they are? Circle one: YES or NO ???????????? This is pretty entertaining. First you take the ridiculous position that size is never, ever, ever a factor in determining the quality of a WR not even a small factor, not even just one of many others. Then, even when it becomes obvious that you overstated the matter, your arrogance won't let you back off of it, not even an inch, thus you just have to dance and dance and look more and more ridiculous each round.

I think everyone is in the Losman camp. Some of us would just have a quicker hook than others, some are in his camp but not at all convinced he is the man. I don't think anyone right now is arguing that Holcomb should be starting. That argument will come if and when JP starts and shows little or no progress from last year. Sure hope that is not the case. For me, I will wait and see what happens in camp with JP getting the nod unless he is clearly being outplayed by one or the other. Based on what I saw last year, my main concern is his accuracy. He missed too many open receivers on relatively short routes for my taste. Lots of other factors were in play, sure. Still, 31% in the redzone? Yeeech.

Maybe we should take up a collection and buy him some new crayons so he can go back to whatever he was doing before he started posting here.

Yes, they are all of those things. However, does not their size, in addition to those other attributes, contribute to them being the dangerous receivers they are?

LaDaieris says it is a "stretch" to consider a 6-1 WR to be tall. What is "tall" for a WR? Lets see what they were saying about 6-1 WR's in the last two drafts: Chad Jackson: "He has good size for a receiver." Ethan Kilmer: "has the size, strength, quickness and playing speed to be a solid backup" and "uses his aggressiveness, size/strength" Ben Obumanu: "He is a tall receiver..." and "Obomano definitely has the size teams like in a receiver at nearly 6-1..." Delanie Walker: "well-built receiver with the size..." and "Walker is a big receiver..." And in 2005: Troy Williamson: "Tall, long-limbed athlete with a good frame..." Reggie Brown: "Uses his size well to get off the press..." and "Uses his size to compete..." Mark Bradley: "He has excellent size, he has a tall frame and is well built." 6-1 is tall for a WR.

How dare you suggest that Nance might be good? Where do you get off? Who do you think you are? You know nothing about football. Nothing, nothing, nothing. oops, sorry, I thought I was that LaDairis guy...

No one is pimping Nance over Wilson. A claim was made that given what we pay Price and Reed, Nance had no chance of ever unseating them. That is when I made my first post in this thread that if Nance outplays them, he should be on the roster and later I compared the stats and vitals of Nance, Reed and Price. Reed and Price are under 6'. I haven't mention Wilson once. You dismiss these guys as being "only" 6-1. Over 6 is considered tall for a reciever while 6' is probably the standard. Please point out in a prior post where I said that his height makes "all the difference" as opposed to it being one quality about him that I like. I'll ask the question again since we can see just how long you can dodge the question, is it your position that size is never an advantage for a WR? Put another way, are Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald good WR's despite their size?

How many of them pulled hammy's on their pro day? By the way, the NFL hasn't missed out on Nance, didn't you notice that he is on an NFL roster? Seems like the NFL was very much aware of him. I am not saying that his not being drafted wasn't warranted, it may very well have been, only that it doesn't mean there is no way the guy can play because of it. That seems to be your position, that a guy who was well known and then doesn't get drafted absolutely can't play and any one who sees potential in him is an idiot. So is Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald. Obviously, size is not the only attribute that can be of benefit for a receiver. No one, NO ONE, is saying that, why do you keep responding as if I have? I'll ask again so you can dodge the question one more time, is size something that can be of benefit to a WR?* *NOTE: This shouldn't be mininterpreted by you for the umpteenth time as a statement that size alone is all a WR needs to succeed. It does explain why he was invited to the combine and finds himself on an NFL roster doesn't it, or did the Bills sign him despite his size? Again, you are lumping me in with whatever scorn you feel was heaped on you by others, go back to your first post in response to me to see where this started. Your first post in this thread didn't mention anything about dropping balls or separation, just what you thought would hurt his ST's play. Then you went on a condescending sarcastic rant about "h+w+b+40=football skills" as the only relevant consideration of Nance's ability, which, wasn't what I had claimed. Here is what you said and if this is your idea of a "simple kind response" then your parents raised an even more ill-mannered lout than I thought: 708785[/snapback]

Yes, there are receivers whose size didn't help them because they had bad hands. No kidding. Really? Thanks because none of us would have known that without the benefit of your insight. All those of us who see potential in Nance have done is cite his size as a plus for him, we haven't made it the end all and be all of what it is to be a good WR. I'll ask it again, is it your position that because size wasn't much help to some WR's that size therefore doesn't matter at all? Since you are so fond of citing a few players and then drawing a sweeping conclusion, lets look at a few tall WR's: Chad Johnson 6-1 Larry Fitzgerald 6-3 Anquan Boldin 6-1 Plaxico Burress 6-5 Eddie Kennison 6-1 Antonio Gates 6-5 Jimmy Smith 6-1 Antonio Bryant 6-2 Randy Moss 6-4 Houshmandzazdeh 6-1 Jerry Porter 6-2 Those guys were all in the top 25 in rec. yards last year. Only 6 of the top 25 were under 6' tall. Ceratinly, these guys have other skills but in addition to those, they are tall and use it to their advantage. Despite what you girlfriend, or boyfriend for that matter, keeps telling you, size does matter. No, that is not what I said. In fact, I never mentioned his size in connection with his football skills at all. Instead, I cited his play for 4 years on a major college football team and the fact that he is now on an NFL roster getting paid to play professional football. Hardly the resume of someone with no "football skill" as you claim. If so, then go ahead and be a jackass in responding to them. That doesn't explain you taking the same attitude and bluster in response to my posts which didn't attack you in anyway. All valid points, pity you can't make them without adding childish insults such as this: By the way, you do know that he pulled his hamstring during his pro day workout, don't you? Could that explain why he didn't get drafted? Nahhhh. That discussion was specifically about Aiken vs. Nance on special teams. You replied that Nance can't return kicks. Well, neither does Aiken, didn't you know that? If you did, why did you bring up kick returning in answering the question of what Aiken can do on ST that Nance can't? Maybe you're not quite as informed as your arrogance and insulting manner would imply. Nance returning kicks was never part of the discussion until you brought it in. I'm not going to explain Nance being a gunner or return man since I never proposed that he could play either position. His contribution on special teams would be similar to Aiken's, open field blocking. I see no reason why Nance couldn't be a valuable contributor on special teams, especially open field blocking. I didn't respond to your "...simple kind response..." with an attack of any kind. Your response to my post however was all condescension and sarcasm. Coming all the way back to my original point, Nance is an interesting prospect given his college career, his size, speed and intangibles that, despite his status as a UDFA, deserves a fair shot at a roster spot no matter who is ahead of him. This team finished 5-11, I don't think there are many people on that roster whose position is unassailable. 708779[/snapback]

Why don't you explain why the Bills signed him if he is so bad, so lacking in any football skills whatsoever? Lots of very good football players go undrafted and I hope that is the case with Nance. By the same token, the fact that he wasn't drafted is some indication that he doesn't have the right stuff at this point to challenge for a roster spot. Size doesn't automatically mean he will be great and no one here as argued that absurd point which you keep trying to tag on them. Pointing out that he has size and that such size can be a good thing for a WR to have is simply recognizing the obvious. It is not tantamount to a declaration that his size alone makes him a pro bowler. It is why scouts pay a lot of attention to size along with many, many other factors. The point being made here is simply that Nance be given a fair shot at making the roster and that the early indications are that he is playing very well in the OTA's. Why does that make us all birdbrains so deserving of your obnoxious scorn?

Okie Dokie. Size, speed and stength don't matter in the NFL. Brilliant analysis. What a bunch of fools those coaches and scouts are for spending all that time, effort and money measuring and timing these guys. Are you arguing that Nance doesn't have "football skills"? I guess all that time as a starting WR for a major college program and his presence on an actual NFL roster is a mirage. The post I was responding to indicated, wrongfully I thought, that in my argument to give Nance a fair shot, I was implying that just "anyone" could learn special teams. My citing the info on Nance was done simply to point out that Nance isn't just "anyone". He is a solid athlete who had a good career in college. The fact that he wasn't drafted doesn't exactly equate to him having no "football skills". The Bills didn't sign him to clean the locker room, they signed him to play football so at some level he certainly has "football skills". I asked what Aiken did on special teams that was so special that Nance couldn't be taught and your response was "..to answer your question, Nance is hardly agile enough to return kicks." Aiken has, to my knowledge, never returned a kick. So I don't know why you made that comparison. Is it really so terrible to propose that Nance be given a fair shot to make the roster that it deserves your snarling responses? Lots of us have disagreed on Nance's potential in this thread without it getting ugly. Respectful disagreement among fans. Happens all the time, give it a try.

"...not expecting him to suck as badly either." Is that what we are reduced to, limiting our suckiness to manageable levels? I hear you. I really don't know what to expect from him at all this year. I saw plenty last year to worry me quite a bit about his viability as a starter but there was so much else wrong with this team, it was hard to tell how much of that was him. At the same time, I really don't recall many moments, fleeting though they might have been where he did something that made me go "Wow, this guy can play." I'd be more confident if there were more of those moments last year. My hope for him right now is still based on what he did in college rather than his play over the last two years. Cautiously optimistic. That is what I am on JP. He still has a strong arm, good feet and a healthy attitude. Now he even has an offensive line, I hope.

I am just using the only stats we have and made no effort at all to claim that they were directly comparable. The point was that neither Price nor Reed are anything special at this point and their stats certainly show just that. The point being that Nance making this roster is not as impossible as the post to which I was replying indicated. I haven't seen Nance play in the pros but I have seen the other two play. Lets see what he can do and if he outplays the guys ahead of him, I don't care who they are, he should make the roster. Radical position, I know but I'm sticking to it.

Not just anyone, we are talking about a 6-4 WR who runs a 4.5 forty who is a good blocker. Tell me why they can't teach him to play special teams? If it comes down to a guy who can be a real threat at WR and who can play ST's and a guy who can play ST's but not WR, who do you think they will keep? Somebody please tell me what Sam Aiken does that is so special on ST's that no one else can do?

What is that based on? I'd reserve my judgment on that until I get a chance to see Nance play. I have seen Price and Reed play and neither, especially lately, are anything to write home about. Nance wouldn't have to be all world to be better than those guys. Reed, 5-10, 208 lbs, in 2005 he had 32 catches for 449 14yds per, and 2 tds Price, 5-11, 190 lbs, in 2004 he had 45 for 575yds, 12.8 per and 3 tds Nance, 6-4, 213 lbs, in 2005 he had 81 for 1,107 yds, over 100 per gm, 14 tds Nance would excel as a red zone go to guy due to his size. Know what JP's numbers were inside the opponents 20? 31% complete, less than 2 yards per attempt. One pick, 4 sacks and only 3 tds. Maybe he could use another option in the red zone? I'd give you Holcombs red zone numbers but I don't want to dishearten JP's fans, me included, with the comparison.

Tasker was the best ST player to have played the game and he was a good receiver (Kelly called him "uncoverable"), Aiken isn't anywhere near that class at either position. Nance has real potential, enough to be playing a lot more than 20 plays a game in a couple years, maybe a lot sooner. Besides, number of plays isn't a measure of performance or importance. How many of those ST's plays are touchbacks, fair catches or kicks out of bounds? I have no idea at this point if Nance is going to be much better than Aiken as a WR or on ST but if he proves he is a much better WR in camp, I say let Aiken go and teach Nance how to play special teams.

I am not encouraged or discouraged by any of that talk. It is just talk. That is the kind of thing I have heard every off season about this or that player. Some of it proved to be prophetic, some of it not. It is meaningless. The only thing I know about JP's performance so far is what he did last year which was pretty awful. This is a whole new year, a whole new team so not much of what happened last year matters any more but neither will any of this talk once the real deal starts.

You are right about the difficulties for Nance given the roster situation. Even so, I have to beleive that there is always room on the roster for a guy who makes plays no matter what overpaid name players there are ahead of him. If player A outplays player B, then that is all that should matter. Shame on our coaches if performance on the field takes a back seat to any other factor. As for special teams prowess, Aiken is a WR first and a pretty poor one at that. I'd rather try and teach Nance special teams than to hope that Aiken suddenly improves as a receiver. He has had plenty of time to do that and hasn't come through.

Of the three, the most unkown in terms of quality is Nall. He just hasn't had much experience on the field in a game to know much about him. JP has had limited time as well but he does have 1/2 a season of starts and spent a whole off season and camp as the starter getting all the reps. Holcomb is obviously a known quantity, no surprises, what you see is what you get. This is JP's third year in the league and so he is pretty ripe to get it all figured out finally....I hope.

If the point here is that Holcomb suks, I agree but as suky as he is, he still was more effective than JP was last year and that makes me very, very nervous. ....and yes, I know all the reasons why we should beleive that JP is going to improve drastically this year and I am not aruging that they don't make sense. However, I will believe it when I see it.* *Please do not leap to the conclusion that I think Holcomb or Nall should start based on this post, I don't.

One thing you can always realy on around here is a healthy sprinkling of jealousy and resentment towards professional athletes because they make more and work less than we do. They are professional football players, they aren't working the swingshift at the factory. People with talent that rare who have worked their butts off to get where they are against cut throat competition are usually rewarded by our society with more money and less work. Doctors, CEOs, etc. get the same rewards. Yeah, if Troy Vincent said that stuff in a normal job, he'd be canned, same with Willis and his prolonged siesta. Thing is, they aren't in a normal job. In their job, if you have the talent, you get away with that kind of thing. That having been said, Willis should be here if he really gave a damn about winning. The fact that he isn't speaks volumes about whether, despite his talent, he has the fire in his belly you need to win in this league. If he doesn't, then we will move on when his current contract expires.

I don't think "ball control" is really as important in the modern game as it has been in the past. I also think that teams who run the ball well, run a lot and so appear to be "committed" to the run. Teams that don't run the ball well, don't run as often and are then labeled as not being committed enough to the run. Its easy to run a lot when you are gaining yards, continuing to run when you are not might be considered being "patient" with the run to a point but at some point in a game, you have to stop doing what isn't working and try something else. The thing about this team is that they seem to have been involved in an elaborate multi-year experiment designed to test the theory that if you design an offense clever enough, you don't need to have an offensive line to move the ball. What we have learned from this grand experiment is that, as it turns out, you can't have a power running game or a run & shoot game or anyother kind of game without an offensive line. Surprisingly, it turns out that no offensive system can succeed, no matter how cleverly designed, without somebody blocking somebody. I agree that we don't have the horses for a run every down kind of offense but I'm not sure we have the horses to throw the ball either.

None of us want to see the Bills lose. I think he was making a larger point, that we may not have a QB worthy of starting in the NFL who can produce wins on our roster at this point. Our starter might still be in college. I guess for him, the jury is back on JP and the verdict is not good. I disagree on that, we haven't seen JP's best yet.

I agree that all either really had time to complete were short passes but my concern is that JP missed a lot of those too. His accuracy problems were not confined to long bombs. Holcomb was simply more accurate and the huge difference, 67% to 49%, isn't due entirely to one guy throwing short and the other long. In fact, inside the redzone from 20 and in, the difference is even worse, 70% to 31% I think. JP wasn't throwing any longer there than Holcomb.

Maybe we should add Darlene? In Memory of Paul (Bib) and Darlene Lewczk etc.?