Campy

If he's not ready to start, then no. Starting him would make no sense, and could potentially have adverse effects on him. Also, the teams have a commitment to the league to field their most competitive team, and IMO, DB is the best QB on the roster. If Losman is "the man" next year, he'll have plenty of time to get there without making him start against St Louis.

Let's see if we can decipher: The coaches will determine the best course of action for the development of Losman. If they determine his development would be improved by his starting, fine. If they determine he's not ready to start, that's fine too. They know better than we do. He doesn't really care who the QB is, because he'll root for that player to do well. At the end of the day, since he cannot change who the coaches decide to play, he'll just root for whoever is in the game to do well. He won't get complain or get mad if "his guy" is not on the field. The team is bigger than the player.

No argument there.

Me too. He made a couple of nice plays when he did not allow them to get stuck on him, but for most of the night he seemed to be having a difficult time shedding blockers. I made a mental note to watch him next week to see if that was due to an off night, or if he just can't shed blocks.

Bull-stevestojan. I'll believe that when you provide a link from any reputable source not named Jerry Sullivan.

That's the type of mismatch that can happen in (2-deep) zone coverages.

Had you read the post to which you are responding, you would have seen that I made reference to the fact that EVERYBODY sucked. But I cannot/will not hold DB accountable for Dillon's 250+, 5.8 yard per carry average, as he's not on defense. What color is the sky in your world? Sincerely, The Happy Place.

Putting your head down and running into people is a C-Spine injury waiting to happen. If he's going to continue tossing the ball to defenders 5 yards in front of him, Krumrie had better teach him to tackle.

Considering I've forgotten more Xs and Os than the majority on this board will ever know, I'll take that as a compliment. Here's the deal, it makes no sense to blame ONE GUY when every single one of them played like stevestojan. Given the way the Pats blew this alledgedly great defense off the ball when they ran, and then turned right around and gave Brady a decade to find open receivers, the D deserves the majority of the blame. Our D singlehandedly took us out of our gameplan. Whether you believe it or not simply doesn't matter.

With the exception of maybe 4 or five plays, everything about our D sucked. DBs not turning in time to make a play on the ball, zero pass rush, and a total lack of "want-to" against the run. By far and away the worst D showing sense the last time Buffalo went to Foxboro.

The D coulodn't stop the run. Drew blew chunks, as did his offensive mates. Dillon ate up 74 yards against our D in the first quarter, and we barely managed to slow him down after that (and allowed Faulk to gain over 60 yards). If DB played the way he did but the D shut down the run, I'd say about 80% with a healthy 19.9% at WM and the running game (to include the OL). Since the D was worthless against the run AND the pass, they singlehandedly took us out of our gameplan, therefore, they get the lionshare of the blame. I'd say about 40% D, 30% WM/running game, and 30% DB/WRs.

+

It's not hard, but you'd have to look at the big picture. Dillon: 151 rushing yards, 74 of them in the first quarter. Faulk: 61 rushing yards. McGahee: 37 yards on 14 attempts. I'll leave you to fill in the blanks.

The running game was atrocious. WM had 14 carries for a whopping 37 yards. But I guess that was the QB's fault too. DBs, LBs, DLs, OLs, TEs, WRs, QB, and RBs all got their ass handed to them tonight. Looking at the positives, at least there was a consistent effort across the board.

Dillon had 74 yards rushing in the 1st quarter, yet the time of possession was even. Nice try.

If you can convince me that Losman starting would've held the Pats to say, 112 yards (100 yards less than what they actually had), then I'll believe that DB no longer provides the Bills with the best chance of winning.

Just curious, how do you reconcile giving up 212 yards on the ground to the Pats, yet still blame an offensive player?

How will that rectify the D giving up over 200 rushing yards to Dillon and Faulk?

We moved the ball with the running game, but just didn't get the points. Our D did nothing but give up over 150 yards to Dillon (another 61 yards to Kevin Faulk). I don't care who you try to pin the blame on, this D giving up over 200 rushing yards is a recipe for disaster. You need not worry about me, I'm not the one with blinders.

Yeah, I can't believe that DB let Dillon rush for 74 yards in one freaking quarter. He sucks... Sorry bro. It's a team game and the D didn't hold their end of the bargain, which was to keep it close enough to continue to slam McGahee and take our shots off the play-action. Yeah, DB played like stevestojan, but he had an awful lot of company.

Prepare to be upset my friend. The reality is that DB gives us the best chance to win.

From what I've read, it just depends on how sore his kneck is - Probably be a game-time decision.

Good question. I know Bernie Kukar did the Bucs/Atl game & Jeff Triplette did Pitt/Browns. SCOTT Greene did the Lions game. I'm not sure which crew we get this evening.

I signed it. Great idea. Not sure it will help, but at least we can feel as though we're doing something to help correct this oversight by the HoF voters.

Ironically enough, I read the same thing on a Rams message board last week IMO, run, run, and then run some more against NE. That type of gameplan worked out better for the Steelers than the gameplan to take advantage of the Pats' banged-up secondary did for the Rams.