Orton's Arm

The defender was coming in unblocked, so Holcomb obviously didn't have time to go through all his reads. Maybe the guy at the six was supposed to be his primary target if the other team blitzed.

Based on salary, a good offensive tackle or cornerback affects the outcome of the game almost as much as a good QB. But nobody is stupid enough to say that Nate Clements is a lousy cornerback because of his mediocre win/loss record as a starter. Football is a TEAM game. TEAMs compile win/loss records; individual players don't.

I remember that play. He had virtually no time whatsoever in the pocket; and therefore went to his first option instead of his best option. At least he gave the receiver a chance to break a tackle and get a TD, instead of taking the sack as RJ or Bledsoe would have.

21-26 is better than just okay. I would have liked to see more downfield passing, but without an offensive line there's only so much you can do.

Excellent post.

Yes, but those sacks are not a reflection of problems at the QB position. They are indicative of problems with the offense as a whole. Maybe if you were the head coach/GM, you'd try to fix the sack problem with a QB change. If I were in charge, I'd look to fix those problems by addressing playcalling, the offensive line, and blitz pickup by TEs and backs. By your logic, Trent Dilfer is a better QB than Jim Kelly. Dilfer is 1-0 in Super Bowls, Kelly is 0-4.

How many QBs wouldn't have taken sacks on those three plays? Those particular sacks were strictly the result of poor pass protection. I thought his internal clock functioned well, and that he did a good job of dumping off the ball when there wasn't the opportunity for something more. To repeat something I've said elsewhere, talking about a QB's record as a starter makes sense if you believe the other 52 men on the roster are only there to cheer. Blaming the massive problems of the entire Cleveland organization on just one man playing one position makes no sense to me. Holcomb may well be a much better QB than a lot of people now realize.

Yeah, I guess I could have phrased it better. I was trying to distinguish the three sacks from plays I've seen in the past where the QB had time to make a quick throw despite an unblocked defender coming from near one of the sidelines.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to mention that play. . . . Technically it was ruled a fumble. Realistically, that play says nothing about Holcomb's accuracy, and a great deal about our offense's failure to provide anything remotely resembling pass protection in the second half.

On those sack plays, did you see a QB who dropped back in the pocket, patted the ball half a dozen times, only to eventually take a sack? I didn't. I saw defenders coming from the middle of the field, with little to no evidence anyone in particular was trying to block them. By blaming those sacks on the QB, you make yourself seem desperate to support an incorrect point of view.

I just checked out the full play-by-play here: http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay/N...0051009_MIA@BUF and Holcomb didn't have an incomplete pass in the second half. Not one! Clearly the offense's second-half problems were due to causes other than poor QB play.

My vote goes to Holcomb. He managed the game well, had completions to seven different receivers in the first half. He has a knack for making lemonaide out of lemons.

Yeah, a guy with no pass protection who puts up a 106 QB rating against a very good defense is clearly not someone you want quarterbacking your team for any length of time.

Um, those sacks were the fault of the blocking, not the QB. If you allow defenders to come untouched or pratically untouched up the middle of the field, your QB is going to take sacks. Buffalo's offensive problems in the second half were because Miami did a better job exploiting our line. Having gone 20-26 on the day, the QB is not the problem.

It's too easy to blame Mike Mularkey & co. for this situation. Losman was given the starter's job in training camp so that he could be given as many snaps as possible. The hope was that at some point early in the season, Losman would start to look something like a guy who deserves to be a starter. So far, Losman hasn't even looked like someone who deserves to be a backup. With players like London Fletcher, Sam Adams, and Lawyer Milloy, the defense is built to win this year rather than next year. If Mularkey stuck with Losman, he'd bascially be writing off the rest of those guys' careers.

Something like this would make more sense if our owner wasn't 87 years old.

I'm starting to wonder what might have been had Losman not been drafted, and the Bills had used the main two Losman picks--the 1st and 2nd rounder--on big men for the trenches. We could have given Holcomb the lion's share of snaps in the off-season preparations . . .

QBs don't have win totals. TEAMS have win totals. Any time your QB puts up over 400 yards and 3 TDs, only a fool would blame him for the loss.

Rob Johnson had Tony Boselli at LT; and a solid offensive line to work with in general. Had we given Johnson the same kind of pass protection, maybe his stay here would have been longer. Holcomb's success came without an offensive line.

Look at Eric Moulds' situation. Near the beginning of his career, he was introduced to the Bills' QB of the future: Todd Collins. As an aside, he met with the Bills' other-QB-of-the-future-in-case-things-don't-work-out Billy Joe Hobert. A few years later, he met with QB of the future Rob Johnson. Then with QB of the future Drew Bledsoe. Moulds has been in the league ten years, and his career won't last forever. The QB of the future that's been throwing him passes the last four weeks has a rating of 55 or something. If YOU were Moulds, how patient would you be?

The lack of production with Moulds/Evans is probably due more to problems at QB and along the offensive line than to problems with those players themselves. I don't have a problem with Evans' remarks about the Losman benching. The coaches made a decision, and Evans voiced support for said decision in the media. What's Evans supposed to say--that he's going to hold out until Losman's back on the field?

Excellent analysis, Don. Losman needs to develop an awareness of the whole field, instead of locking into Moulds. If we wanted a QB who could only focus on one receiver, we'd have stuck with Bledsoe.

If the Bills coaches were cowards, they would have played Losman the whole year, and blamed any losses on giving the rookie experience. With Holcomb under center, the Bills can't blame any losses to Miami or the Jets on the rookie. Seems to me the coaches are looking for wins, not excuses.

Kurt Warner spent time in the Arena Football League and bagging groceries before leading the Rams to a Super Bowl victory. Anything can happen. Holcomb doesn't come with any guarantees, but then again neither does Losman.

I agree with this. Part of the reason why the Patriots do so well against us is because their coaching staff has Jerry Gray's number. In fact, they've got his home number, his work number, his driver's license number, his social security number . . .