finknottle

Silliest thing I've ever heard. While it is true that there is a limit to comparisons between players performances on different teams, if you throw them out you wind up with nothing. I could sit here and argue that Kyle Boller is the best qb in the league right now. If you point out that some 30 qbs are doing better, I'll just use your logic.

So it's an 8-game moving average that is still factoring in to some degree the last five games of last season.

The Saints play us the same way the Falcons did: keep the safeties back to support the injury-ridden corners. We get nothing going through the air, but with WM going for 5 yards a pop we're happy. JPL goes 10/21, 105 yards, 1 INT and we lose (but WM runs for 135!).

What happened to all that preseason talk (not necc from you) about how we had the best backup linebackers in the league?

Is overlooking a receiver what you do in order to overthrow him?

That's precisely my point. If we're gonna commit to his development, then because of this freak situation in the defensive personnel we should have had him airing it out in the second half rather than handing off more. Better he practice recognizing real-game coverage mismatches here than later against the Pats...

I believe they were at full strength, except they lost a backup corner Mathis when he and Jemeriah Trotter were ejected for fighting. They went into the season with 5 cb's and none on the practice squad. For the Bills game, starter Webster and backups Mathis and Rossum were out, leaving them only with starter DeAngelo Hall and a backup Morton. The week before the game they signed some guy named Cash, who had been released by Detroit. So during the game, when Hall got injured they featured a backup at one spot, a one-week veteren on the team who had been released by the Lions at the other, and no cornerbacks to cover extra receivers.

Then why not start Holcomb? Or keep Bledsoe? PS Willis running all over the place vs DVD running all over the place even more effectively spells a short game and a loss.

There's a number of people who thought we should have run more - fair enough. On the other hand, on the question of whether Losman was really ready to play, there's a number of people who argue that his gaining game experience is more important than putting the quarterback out there who is best right now. My question is this. The Atlanta game offered Losman to work on perhaps the most important skill a quarterback can have: the ability to pick on the corners and exploit mismatches in the secondary. We are never going to face another situation where the secondary personnel was in such disarray. Ought we not have let him go at it, for the sake of his development if nothing else?

Brady suited up his whole rookie year. There's a world of difference between that - running the #2 offense - and watching with a broken leg. Even so, he was slated to sit his second year too.

My only point (hardly new) is that you don't need to be a starter to get ready. Brady and Pennington didn't learn on the job. They were drafted, and they sat for 2 years. One got his shot due to injury and the other convinced the coaching staff in practice that he was ready. Neither became starter as an investment in the future.

And convincing the fans that TH was worth a first rounder... then a second rounder... then a third rounder.

The Falcons were down to, what, two cornerbacks? #1 and #5 on the depth chart? Yeah, like they were going to be serious about stopping the running attack. I think their D was playing to provide support to the secondary, not focus on run defense.

It's nice to know that all you need to do to develop a QB to lead the team for a decade is draft some guy and play him. Sometimes you draft a guy and he's not ready. Sometimes he'll never be ready. Life has to go on. Just because you drafted him doesn't mean you should stake everything on him for 4 years. That's the strategy that forged the Bengals over the past two decades.

STFU yourself.

3 years sounds about right. Pennington and Brady sat for 2+ years. Most recent qbs who start earlier havn't seemed to pan out.

The sad thing is that while I'm not quite as pessimistic, the only thing I really disagree with is the part about JP. Hopefully he will be good, but I have yet to see anything that say's he will be good. Usually raw qb's wow you some of the time and make you cringe even more of the time. He hasn't had the lows, but I have yet to see a high. And if you don't have any upside you not going to be good.

Very interesting question... I think he woudn't have been extending his contract, and would be looking at things real closely right now.

What if it's 6-10 or even 5-11? What if he is poor but not awfull? How do we approach the situation next year? With another mulligan? He might be the next Kyle Boller. There is something to be said about playing the best players ready in the here and now...

Exceptional? In the 12 games that are finished at the time of this posting, I count 8 runningbacks (not counting guys with cameo roles) averaging over 5 ypc, with WM the 8th. 5 won their game and 3 lost. If you bring it down to 4 ypc, you pick up another 6 backs. So all in all I call a 5 ypc performance solid but not so exceptional that it will win a game. Think of it this way - we needed another TD and a FG to win. Suppose we could have squeezed in more running plays to get them, with no change in the number of passing plays. That's about a 70 yrd drive and a 50 yrd drive. Even at WM's exceptional superhuman ypc, that's another 24 carries, giving him 51 on the day... The running game can only take you so far.

Your only half right, but that makes your point all the more relevent. He has an at least marginally worse RB, and significantly worse receivers. So what does he have? A better offensive line - ok, not unexpected - and better coaching. Let me say it again, since you won't hear it from the front office: You have to conclude - at least so far - that there may be a weakness here on the coaching side of things.

I blame the Clinton administration. The decline of the Bills started on their watch.

Yeah, Brady and Pennington were never able to step in after Bledsoe and Testeverde because you can't develop sitting on the bench. As for free agents, I would think that they would rather go to a merry-go-round than to a situation where there is a clear incumbent that they have to beat out.

I'll take ok. A half a season like this - even to poor play with no flashes of brilliance - will do more to undermine his ability to lead the team when he is ready than sitting on the bench will.

Funny, seems like only yesterday that we were bragging about having the best linebacker depth in the league, with three guys who would be starters any where else. As always, the truth is somewhere in between. Crowell will be the least of our concerns. (Probably.)