Tortured Soul

This is maybe the dumbest most irrelevant, most beautiful and inspiring post I've ever read. Nice work.

His 3.8 yards per carry ranks 30th in the league. That is why many Bills fans are down on him. Can you honestly tell me that you're happy with the way he played this year? Yes, improving the line will help him immensely, but anyone can run behind a good line. Case in point - Denver. Willis was supposed to be a special talent. And to belabor a point, Henry put up better numbers behind an equally poor line.

How does this compare to Jeff Reardon?

Yes.

http://www.billsdaily.com/news/index.shtml#123005 Sorry to state the obvious, but Crowell will make more than Posey. A backup can't make more than the starter, so that's the end of Posey...but we already knew that.

Touches per sack ( attempts, rushes, and sacks divided by sacks): Losman: 10.6 Bledsoe: 12.2 Holcomb: 14.8

AVP was not a great backup. He was a mediocre backup. Rich Gannon was a great backup, and when he was finally given a chance - at about the same age Holcomb is now - all he did was take his team to the SB and win the MVP. Why is no one anxious to see what Holcomb can do behind a line that gives him time? Why do people only use this excuse for JP?

It seems like there are great TE's coming out every year now, though. There's been Gates, Shockey, Winslow, Clark, Witten, Troupe. I think the TE position is getting stronger year by year and am not sure it is necessary to use our top pick on one.

J (Cleveland): Is JP Losman really hurt? Is there any reason to keep Holcomb at QB for the last game? Chris Mortensen: (11:37 AM ET ) Yes, Losman still has some swelling on his leg. And the fact that he's a young QB who has missed practice time doesn't help. It's important that the Bills win the game, believe it or not. Has anyone heard this? I thought it was his shoulder.

If TD had not drafted JP, he would've been selected in the next five picks by StL, Dal, or GB.

You're right that it limits our options, and considering that there should be a few other open GM slots, we will be picking from the second tier, but I don't think it completely precludes anyone from outside the organization. For example, say you were offered the job, but you had to keep Mularkey, would you? BTW, I think this is the number 1 reason Mularkey should go - to expand our GM options. MM has defintely not been that impressive, but were it not for the GM switch, I'd say give him a 3rd year. Because Donahoe must go, MM gets tossed, too. The difference between MM and Big Mike is that RW has already paid Big Mike, and although there is a cap hit, that is only NFL imaginary money. RW won't be writing anymore checks to big Mike. He would, however, have to write a check to MM. And my choice for GM - Kirk Ferentz with complete organizational control.

It's not that Holcomb played so great. It's that the bar was set so low, he comes off looking great. You say it like it's an easy thing to put receivers in positions to get YAC. It hasn't been so far.

Does anyone know that last time a 14-point dog won? Is there a list of the biggest upsets by lines in history?

Keep it the way it is. I'm more interested in the creative ways they come up with to lose the game.

This has been discussed in the media, and the sentiment was that there is too much at stake for a team ever to lose on purpose. Plus, no draft pick - not even the great Reggie - is a sure thing. Plus, this might cause teams to play kelly Holcomb istead of JP Losman.

They are 2-3 against likely playoff teams, 1-1 at home, 1-2 on the road. I'll stick with Seattle.

That would put him 17th in the league - the definition of average - but without a TE or receiving-threat RB. This works both ways. Something caused Holcomb to stick around for ten years, and that something was talent (and inertia). I bet I can be in the NFL for ten years and still won't be a very good QB.

Sure seemed t omotivate Willis last year, and took some quality carries. My point was, though, it doesn't take a lot, but we need a guy we can trust every down to pick up yards. And maybe that is Gates. Who knows?

I'll settle for Travis Henry.

We need more than a journeyman - but we would need another backup whether McGahee was running well or not. You cannot give a running back the 35 times a game without him completely breaking down. The top running back this year in carries doesn't have 25 a game, and the two top running games - ATL and DEN - don't have a RB averaging 20 a game. Put someone else next to Willis and that will motivate him, too.

I guess we're not disagreeing too much. My point basically is that not every short passing game is the same. There's the kind we do and there's the kind that suits Holcomb.

I think a lot more of the offense is designed for outs and curls than slants and crosses, not as high-percentage throws. I also think Holcomb would do better in an offense that depends on rhythm, while this one will give the ball more to the runnning back to establish the run. Holcomb does not fit a conservative power offense well. He fits a west coast offense. The advantage of the west coast offense is that short passes that start as throws on five yards downfield become 10 and 15 yards downfiled as the game progresses without anyone really noticing. That's not the same as taking shots downfield.

Re: conventional wisdom on sacks. I disagree with the theory. Running quarterbacks, most notably Vick, have high sack numbers because of the times they scramble and get caught behind the line for a sack when it really should be counted as a run for a loss. Also, if a quarterback thinks he can always run away, he will be more likely to hold onto the ball longer. I generally agree with you, but it's important to remember that an offense designed for Losman is very different than an offense designed for Holcomb. Holcomb plays a West-Coast style, not too dependent on the running game. Holcomb has hardly any receiving threat out of the backfield and absolutely no tight end threat. So, I'm willing to cut him some slack for playing his game in Losman's offense. And about Roscoe, we drafted a midget with our first pick because moves like that are supposed to be routine.

Anything touched by the hands of Belichik doesn't count. I doubt you'd even know the name Tom Brady if not for him.

And I don't understand why TD would accept this demotion. He's still a football man, not a businessman, even if that's what he's been more successful at. Someone will offer him a GM or Direfctor of Pro Personnel-type job, and he'll take it.