JDG

I notice you didn't mention the play of JP Losman..... ;-) JDG

But Marv also kept him on the roster.... even though the plan was surely to play the two rookies at safety, Marv probably saw something in Wire on special teams... JDG

I don't know what your definition of a "steal" is, but a 5th-rounder for a Doug Gabriel seems like fair market value. Heck, guys like Doug Gabriel are often cut. I also thought that signing Art Shell was a great move by the Raiders - one of the two best candidates available, between him and Whisenhunt (who is apparently going to be taking over for Cowher next season.) Al Davis also opened his pocketbook for Aaron Brooks - if this is "Major League", he is sure being subtle about it. Finally, apparently the Bills like Leonhard better than Baker... JDG

I definitely have to question any guy who can say "I'm a Mularkey fan" with a straight face....

I can think of at least a handfull of players on this team that are better players than McGahee.... though I agree that sitting McGahee for Thomas is silly.... JDG

Well over 25% (6 of 23) of Losman's passes were to RB's and TE's....its not like they were being completely ignored. And if your TE was Robert Royal, would that really be your game plan? JDG

Tell that to Priest Holmes. JDG

Except, Lori, that Losman was originally benched after four games, not nine games. Losman's completion percentage in those four games was 47.8% with an average of 108 yards per game. His rating in those four games was somewhere around 44.8. He had 1 TD, 2 INT, and 10(!) sacks. Manning, on the other hand, twice passed for 300 yards in his first four games, had a 55% completion percentage. Even after nine games, Manning's completion percentage was higher, and he had almost no games comparable to Losman's disaster in Tampa, vs. Atlanta, at San Antonio, and at New England. That's an important difference - Manning maintained a minimum competancy. Losman did not. JDG

Who knows? But some people act like it was a crime against humanity for Mularkey to have benched Losman after four games. On the contrary, it would have been football malpractice for Mularkey to leave Losman in there.... JDG

Its all about the situation. Priest Holmes was one of the best short-yardage backs I have ever seen. When he would get in this situation, he would just take the handoff and run full speed at the line, and get the short distance by sheer force of will. I don't have a problem with using your elusiveness in certain situations, but on 4th and 1, when everyone in the stadium is expecting a run up the middle, you absolutely have to run with more authority. We only need a half a yard. Willis should be able to get that on power alone. JDG

It kind of says it all that the above performance line was still better than Losman's doesn't it..... Let's remember that JP Losman played *more* as a rookie than Carson Palmer did. Now, let's compare Losman's first nine vs. Palmer's first nine: Losman: 49.6% completion Palmer: 56.9% completion Losman: 1340 yards passing Palmer: 1897 yards passing Losman: 2 wins - 7 losses (counting KC) Palmer: 4 wins - 5 losses Losman: 3 games with a rating below 35.0 Palmer: Only 1 game with a rating below 50 (43.4 vs. Baltimore) Losman: 4 games with sub-50% completion percentage Palmer: 1 game with sub-50% completion (48.1% vs. Baltimore, which was better than all four of Losman's games) Carson Palmer, however, was also not stinking up the joint with sub-NFL-caliber QB performances. Palmer was allowed to develop because he was at least showing a minimum standard of competence that Losman was lacking last season. Let's consider how Losman was playing when he was benched: 39% completion for 113 yards at Tampa 43.5% completion for **75 YARDS** 0 TD and 1 INT at home vs. Atlanta 46.7% completion for **75 YARDS** 0 TD and 1 INT @ San Antonio vs. a Saints team that had one of the worst defenses in the League, and had just given up 50+ points to a woeful Packers team. The guy passed for 150 yards COMBINED in two full weeks. Mike Mularkey was a horrible coach, but he should have been fired on the spot if he didn't bench Losman under those circumstances after three performances like that. Losman, at that point, simply looked like he didn't belong in the CFL, let alone the NFL. We lost by 2 points. I'll let you figure out how exactly NE scored those two points. Those two points are even uglier when one considers Losman's performance on the play before, when he very nearly scored for NE on that play, either by taking a safety while dancing in the end zone, or by the ill-advised pass he threw that could easily have been returned for a TD. You would have thought that Losman would have been more careful the second time around. JDG

Mike Mularkey produced two of the most embarassing losses in Bills history. He was a laughingstock. Whether Kotite or Mularkey was the worse coach is simply a philosophical question. They were both miserable... And Keyshawn wasn't that bad a pick. Keyshawn is still starting all these years later, and the Jets got two first rounders when they traded him away. JDG

I personally see a big difference between a practiced, designed, and well-executed quick-count and a spot-quick-count because the play clock is winding down, and results in the offense appearing to not run smoothly and on time - particularly on the most critical play of the game! Perhaps it wasn't JP's fault, but given the frequency with which it occurred, I think that QB error is the most likely explanation. Jauron isn't exactly a rookie Head Coach. He might screw that up once, but not multiple times in a game. Unfortunately, the scary thing for the Bills is that based on all evidence, JP Losman currently gives us the best chance to win. It just doesn't mean that that's a very good chance. We *need* JP to get better, a *lot* better. I saw 10 points scored, none in the second half; only 265 yards of total offense; a fumble; and terrible decision-making on consecutive plays in the shadow of his own goal posts, resulting in the game-deciding safety. I'm not sure how this adds up to "*far more* good than bad". About the best I can say for it is that it was at least better than many of his games last year. JDG

With the benefit of hindsight, even if you somehow argue that the change in momentum didn't affect a single thing about the rest of the game, we now know that that field goal would have given us the lead at the end of the game. The Patriots, down by 1, would have kicked a field goal on 4th down, giving us the ball back at the end of the game with a chance to win. The problem here is that people are totally underrating the importance of three points. Field goals don't just win games on the final play - just ask the St. Louis Rams. JDG

They played a lot better than Losman in their 9 starts, and didn't get benched for poor performance. Losman's a third year player. I refuse to set his benchmark as the performance that would be expected of a rookie in Week 10 of an NFL season. JDG

O.k., so what you are saying is that until everyone else on the team plays mistake-free football, we shouldn't be pointing out any of JP Losman's flaws or mistakes......?

He delivered what, 10 total offensive points? Zero in the second half? And how about the way he basically gave the game away by running *sideways* in the endzone, rather than forward enough to at least avoid the safety? You could say it is just one bad play, but the play before he held onto the ball way too long in the endzone, and barely avoided the safety by chucking the ball into tight coverage where it could easily have been returned for a TD. On the most critical drive of the game, Losman basically imploded in the shadow of our own endzone. Losman had a few good moments, to be sure - but he failed to put together a complete game, and ultimately that cost us. And finally, you have me pegged completely wrong. I don't "hate the kid." I hate losing. I only dislike Losman to the extent that he somehow seems to keep associating himself with losing around here.... JDG

You mean, stopping us, right? O.k., while it wasn't the only thing - it was clear from the sheer volume of the boos and the CBS shots of fans in the stands that the fans had *turned* on the Patriots at the end of the first half. A great way for the fans to forget all that, though, was to get them involved in supporting the team on a 4th down stop, and get excited about pulling off the 4th down stop. JDG

Actuallly, our DL may have a decent pass rush. But we do seem to be a bit undersized against teams that want to run it down our throat.... JDG

Such as Losman not getting a smooth snap count and handoff yet? With that being said, when Priest Holmes has (had) to get two feet, he took the handoff and ran full speed at the line (usually the goal line.) McGahee got stuffed because he danced and hesitated. Yuck. JDG

Lindell has been hitting from 50+ for a year now, and we had the benefit of a good wind. In that situation, the FG was absolutely the right call. JDG

You mention the way the game was going at that point, but the way the game was going at that point was that the Patriots had just been rsoundedly booed into the locker room at halftime, and then the Bills had taken the ball to start the half and marched right down the field. The Bills had the Patriots on the ropes, and they did the only thing that could have put the Patriots and the fans back into the game... In *this* situation its a no-brainer, you're up by 10 points, don't do anything *stupid* that lets them back in it... To essentially take 3 points off the board for a shot at four more, but with so much momentum risk at stake, is just simply a bad bet. JDG

That's because even after the emotional momentum boost the Patriots received from the 4th down stop they still went on to beat us by more than three points, right? Sorry, but I have no idea how you can say this. You may have an argument about it not being a no-brainer either way, but 20/20 hindsight is pretty clear that those three times would have given us the best chance to win the game. JDG

I agree, Losman has made leaps and bounds improvement. Last year in a key road divisional game, Losman followed up a great first half by blowing a 21 point lead. This year, Losman followed up a solid first half by only blowing a 10 point lead. Losman did not seem to have command of this offense. All too often, it seemed that we were rushing the snap count due to a low play clock, or botching the handoff - witness the 4th down play. Besides being completely shut down in the second half, Losman twice inexcusably made himself vulnerable in our own endzone, leading to the game-winning safety. I don't know about anyone else, but I feel absolutely sick and disgusted. We were in control of the Patriots in Foxboro, and we should have won this game. Once again, Losman did not show the mental acuity to win the big game.... JDG

I do think that a player who has been in an NFL setting for year, and has had a full year to engage in the mental work of learning an NFL offense, is better placed to succeed as a player than a player of equal talent who is coming in as a rookie out of a college setting. Interesting..... So, at no point are running backs measured by yards per attempt? It just never factors in the equation for you? That's just something from "my own crazy little world"? It seems that you can either say that RB's are to be measured by total yards per season and TD's, period - or you can say that other factors should be taken into account, such as the quality of the talent around them, and yards per carry, and yards per reception, etc. You can't have it both ways, though. You can't tell me that we can only look at total yards per season *and* those other circumstances that make Willis McGahee look better, but *not* those other circumstances that make Thurman Thomas' first two years look better. You certainly can't tell me that I am living in a crazy little world for pointing out the additional evidence that makes Thurman Thomas' first two years look better. Did Thurman Thomas have a better environment in which to succeed in 1988 and 1989 than McGahee in 2004 and 2005? Heck yes. The question is, are the extenuating circumstances sufficient to account for the gap between the two respective performances? You, on the other hand, have been arguing that the two performances were *equal*, even without considering McGahee's extenuating circumstances. My whole point is that the straight-measure of the two performances is clear that Thomas' performance in 1988 and 1989 was superior to McGahee's performance in 2004 and 2005. If we are agreed on that point, you can then argue that the extenuating circumstances surrounding McGahee in 20004 and 2005 more than account for the gap between the two performances. Heck, you might even be able to convince me of that point. JDG