Campy

Earlier in the week when I asked you what you'd say if Holcomb leads the Bills to a victory your response was "They should've started Losman." Change your tune?

It's actually closer to 20 carries a game, but don't let fact stand in the way of your crusade.

Happy B-Day Jason.

The even better news is that they dumped a player who wanted to go home to Europe if he didn't make the Sabres' roster, and acquired a solid AHL netminder to prevent the Amerks from crashing while Miller and Biron are in Bflo and Mika is traded away.

Obviously not make the playoffs? The Bills could capture a share of first place if they win on Sunday with a Pats loss to Atlanta (entirely possible).

Exactly what did Moulds say that would make you think he's blaming anything on Losman? I read an AP article containing some of Moulds' remarks but there wasn't anything I saw that seemed the least bit derogatory or inflammatory toward JP.

If the other team can't score, you can't lose. Good theory, but having an ineffective offense leaves the defense on the field too long. Our current Time of Possesion stat is somewhat misleading because we had the ball for 38 minutes in the Houston game (enjoyed visiting with you BTW).. But look at the other games. 21:10 against Tampa Bay, 29:11 versus Atlanta, and 23:40 last week. In those 3 games we averaged roughly 24:40 in Time of Possesion. It's tough to ask a defense to stop the opponent when your own offense isn't capable of generating a first down. The D has struggled at times, generally late in games, but the offense hasn't exactly held up their end of the bargain either. I'm thinking the move has more to do with JP's inability to move the offense - to generate first downs and to eat clock - than it does with making him a scapegoat for the D.

From the article you reference: If a person wants to cast blame on the vets because MM decided to sit JP for a game (or two or however many), wouldn't he be one of the people JP described as "trying to pull us apart?" I think he's right in that "the one thing we can't do is point the finger at each other." Too bad we fans don't follow suit.

RMPL. We're talking about percentage of plays being runs. I could be mistaken, but I gotta believe the Bills are toward the bottom in total plays from scrimmage with the constant parade of 3 and outs we've seen. And like I said earlier, given how many times we've played from behind, and the run percentage is still in the top quarter of the league, it's simply not accurate to portray Clements as "pass happy."

Dude, you really need to get out more. I'll admit I'm surprised Bflo wasn't ranked higher, but I guess playing from behind in 3 of 4 games (as opposed to protecting a lead) will force a team to run less. A quick scan of the 6 teams ranked ahead of us and you'll notice something about them, or more specifically, their W-L record. Those teams have protected leads by the run. We've run the ball despite having no other offensive means of getting first downs. When you consider how many times we've gone 3 and out, and that we're often playing from behind, I guess it's safe to say the Bills do run the ball often.

Pretty much the same here Bill, except the whole mechanics part. I could give a rat's arse about mechanics, I just want a QB who can hit the gorge from the Maid of the Mist. I really thought JP needed some more development time, but DB was cut so we all knew what was next. Fans did have higher expectations IMO due to his relatively solid play, save for a few mental lapses, throughout preseason and in the Texans game. Boy has it ever been downhill since those halcyon days of, oh I dunno, last month. Somewhere in the midwest there is a man called Fezmid who finds himself wishing he wasn't able to say "Told you so."

Learning something that is complex (like how to be a starting QB in the NFL) can be, well, complex. Having had experience training people (no, not how to be a starting QB in the NFL), I learned that everyone learns at a difference pace. Different methods may be used to reach people, and there may be times where the trainee tells the trainer "Yuh, uh-huh, I got it," and really believe they do understand it - But when pressed to explain it back to the trainer, the trainee is suddenly clueless. And it goes the other way too. I've had trainees tell me they don't get it, but when I ask them to explain what they do understand, it turns out they get the whole concept, they just didn't know they did. I guess my point in all that is that there are as many ways to learn as there are people willing to learn. At this point in time, sitting may very well be the best thing for JP's development. No one can say for certain how JP will develop, or whether the benching will harm or help his development, but the people making these kinds of decisions have the most to lose if their decisions don't work out. They also have a vested interest in doing what they feel is right for the team, contrary to what you, me, or any other chucklehead believes is right. Luckily for them, they also happen to be a bit closer to the situation than we are, and they know a lot more about what's going on than we do.

Every oppenent should plan to stop our run. It's the only means we have of gathering positive yards. I'd sell out to stop our run and force our QB to make me pay for it. We haven't had a QB do that since the second quarter of Week 1.

I'm no fan of Steinbrenner, but I think it's apples and oranges here. You can't get to a Super Bowl if you don't make the playoffs. You don't make the playoffs by serving up 'W's to division rivals - You get there by forcing them to accept an L.

Right there with you Dan. I wanted them to go with Flutie, and I wanted them to keep Bledsoe this year. So you're on of the exceptions, but BillfromNYC has a valid point - the same posters who ripped on DB for everything also happen to be the largest critics of the benching. He threw out a blanket statement, and it doesn't apply to you, but there are many posters (dare I say the majority of those being critical) to whom it does.

I pretty much said as much in a different thread. But I'm a little confused. Before it was all DB's fault, but now it's everybody's but Losman's fault? Too bad Bledsoe was chased out of town because it should be pretty obvious that JP needs more seasoning before being handed the reigns to the offense. Another year on the bench would have served him well IMO, and the "addition by subtraction" theory again fails miserably. It's that old idiom we all heard has kids - Be careful what you wish for, it might come true. Well the vocal Bledsoe bashers got their wish but their knight in shining armor is a spastic kid wrapped in tin foil. He might make a great knight one day, but right now he's in over his head.

Interestingly, the only logical reason I can see for benching JP is that he needs to step back, study, and learn. We have a chance to capture a share of first place in the division, so they're going with a player that, while perhaps not great, is a decent QB who will complete over 50% of his passes and throw for over 100 yards. 4 weeks into his first real season and you think he's been labeled a bust by anyone, much less by the Bills? Oh my.

Well said. It strikes me as odd, AKC, that everyone who dislikes this move seems to think that those who support it think JP should be chased out of town. I won't speak for anyone else, but nothing's farther from the truth for me. I think JP will be a good QB for us, but right now he's not getting it done. Not only has he not been improving, his performance has grown worse each week. If the Bills can beat Miami, we're right there, possibly even in a tie for first. As the lightbulbs start turning on for JP, he'll be handed the reigns, but this week, today, let's beat Miami!

But (there's always a but) is starting a different QB in one game (or even several) really a long-term detriment to the team (or JP for that matter)? I don't think it is. What is it about having Holcomb at the helm for a game or two that makes this move upsetting to you?

Agreed. I don't think anyone anticipated Losman sucking as bad as he has. I know I didn't. They don't respect our passing game (neither do I), and until Losman shows he can make teams pay, our oppenents won't worry about it. Since the D is stacked against our runs, we have little choice but to give the QB chances to make Ds pay. Until he (or Holcomb this Sunday) actually does it though, the running game will be tough going IMO. If Bflo can provide even the threat of going over the top, IMO we'll see more Willis - if for no other reason than we'd retain possesion beyond the 3 and out which has become the norm over the last few weeks.

OK, 8th, but it seems you're missing my point here. Willis's number has been called a lot, especially considering that the Bills have only had 225 offensive plays from scrimmage this year, due in no small part to Losman's poor play. Defenses don't have to play us honest, they load up against the run because our passing game is a joke. As for Seattle, they've won 2 games, including one by a blowout, and they were close enough in the two they lost to not stop running until late in the game (one game was lost by 3 points). As I imagine you've heard before, playing from behind limits the number of times you can call runs and unfortunately for both of us, that has been the case more often than not. I have neither the patience, energy, nor the inclination to do so, but feel free to look up all 32 teams' total offensive plays from scrimmage and let me know the percentage of runs called by each team. I bet Bflo's run rate (as far as a percentage of total plays from scrimmage) would be far above the league average. I'd bet it'd be among the highest in the NFL. Certainly higher than 8th. Want Buffalo to run more? Pray for an effective passing game. It will move the safeties back off the LoS and open even more opportunities for Willis to get his attempts.

I was under the impression this thread was a tongue in cheek criticism of Ralph and after having read the posts, I responded. You mentioned Ralph's unwillingness to pay out big money upfront was a reason the Bills can't/don't get "prime talent." I beg to differ as there is nothing that I've ever seen (beyond your opinion, which happens to agree with those of some real doozies around here) to support that position, and I maintain that Mularkey is, and will be, a good coach for years to come. As far as staff, there were very few Mularkey critics 3 weeks ago... The team's struggling. Big deal. You and I (and many others) are old enough to have been through this before - many times before. At the end of the day, the players need to step up and make plays. If the players lack the natural talent, blame the scouts, not the coach. Now if you'll excuse me, there must be a memo floating around here somewhere it seems I need to read.

Willis has the 6th most carries of any RB in the league. Perhaps a new dead horse should be sought.

I believe this team has playoff calibre players. Be patient. To each his own. Pass me the shrooms. He didn't, nor will he have to. With all of the bitching going on around here, it sounds like we fans have created it, not the coach, His job is to try and win games. If a couple of fans get their feathers ruffled because mother didn't hold them enough as infants that's their problem, not mine, not his. Hmm. Well, considering that alternative is pissing and moaning like a bunch of schoolgirls on an internet message board... I'm still waiting for my shrooms. Pass them and the KY too. Huh? Exactly. I would have prefered to let Losman mature for another year myself, but that's not the case. Too bad Bledsoe was chased out of town... Either way, it's not permanent. Just relax and roll with it.