Orton's Arm Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 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.
bleedinblue Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 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. 470825[/snapback] 6 for 6, 51 yards, 3 sacks. 100% completion rate, 0 production rate
IDBillzFan Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 Hey, considering your Holcomb's Arm do you think you could explain this: 2-8-MIA12 (5:25) K.Holcomb FUMBLES (Aborted) at MIA 25, ball out of bounds at MIA 27. Backward pass went out of bounds, ball placed at spot of out of bounds. Pressure on QB: V.Holliday. Note the appropriate use of the word "aborted."
Orton's Arm Posted October 9, 2005 Author Posted October 9, 2005 6 for 6, 51 yards, 3 sacks. 100% completion rate, 0 production rate 470828[/snapback] 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.
Buffan00 Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 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. 470842[/snapback] Nice post!
jarthur31 Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 Sacks aren't because of sucky QB play. Drew is gone and we still have this problem. JP can't be blamed for all the takedowns he gets either. It's something else................
Orton's Arm Posted October 9, 2005 Author Posted October 9, 2005 Hey, considering your Holcomb's Arm do you think you could explain this:Note the appropriate use of the word "aborted." 470829[/snapback] 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.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 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. 470842[/snapback] Actually all 3 sacks came from outside. Taylor beat Gandy, then beat Jerman, and the 3rd was a blitz by a DB off the edge beat a RB block. But, he didnt have time to throw on all 3, so your correct in that aspect.
firedawg Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 I am JP's biggest supporter but Kelly did a GREAT Job and I hope that JP can learn from a veteran QB that is a teacher. I think Kelly showed JP what he is supposed to do! Kelly will take the start when he is told to and he has proven that he is only here to help!. Oh yea Moulds did OK he wasn't great! How bout that "D" and S/T.
Orton's Arm Posted October 9, 2005 Author Posted October 9, 2005 Actually all 3 sacks came from outside. Taylor beat Gandy, then beat Jerman, and the 3rd was a blitz by a DB off the edge beat a RB block. But, he didnt have time to throw on all 3, so your correct in that aspect. 470853[/snapback] 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.
bleedinblue Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 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. 470866[/snapback] A sack is a sack is a sack and counts on the QB line. There were several times when his so called internal clock was inoperative and he should have/could have gotten rid of the ball and/or felt the pressure open. Holcomb ha a decent performance, but by no measure anything to get excited about. Face it, he is npow 5-9 as a starter, a good fill in but certainly not going to lead anyone to the promised land.
finknottle Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 6 for 6, 51 yards, 3 sacks. 100% completion rate, 0 production rate 470828[/snapback] You are all half-right. I looked at the numbers and found this for WM: 1st Half: 17 for 50 yards, 1 TD 2nd Half: 14 for 36 yards, 0 TD, 0 production rate. He's the problem - we need to cut this loser!
bleedinblue Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 You are all half-right. I looked at the numbers and found this for WM: 1st Half: 17 for 50 yards, 1 TD 2nd Half: 14 for 36 yards, 0 TD, 0 production rate. He's the problem - we need to cut this loser! 470877[/snapback] http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=32679
Orton's Arm Posted October 9, 2005 Author Posted October 9, 2005 A sack is a sack is a sack and counts on the QB line. How many QBs wouldn't have taken sacks on those three plays? Those particular sacks were strictly the result of poor pass protection. There were several times when his so called internal clock was inoperative and he should have/could have gotten rid of the ball and/or felt the pressure open. 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. Holcomb ha a decent performance, but by no measure anything to get excited about. Face it, he is npow 5-9 as a starter, a good fill in but certainly not going to lead anyone to the promised land. 470875[/snapback] 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.
bleedinblue Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 How many QBs wouldn't have taken sacks on those three plays? Those particular sacks were strictly the result of poor pass protection. 470926[/snapback] Doesn't matter, a sack is a sack is a sack 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. 470926[/snapback] 3 sacks, ball thrown backwards out of bounds 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.470926[/snapback] Like it or not, comes with the QB position.
Orton's Arm Posted October 9, 2005 Author Posted October 9, 2005 Doesn't matter, a sack is a sack is a sack 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. Like it or not, comes with the QB position. 470942[/snapback] By your logic, Trent Dilfer is a better QB than Jim Kelly. Dilfer is 1-0 in Super Bowls, Kelly is 0-4.
PatPatPatSack Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 Actually all 3 sacks came from outside. Taylor beat Gandy, then beat Jerman, and the 3rd was a blitz by a DB off the edge beat a RB block. But, he didnt have time to throw on all 3, so your correct in that aspect. 470853[/snapback] Beat Gandy like a drum on that play. Is Taylor really that good? Looks like Gandy kind of whiffed at the air. It looked mighty bad. But is Taylor the "best player in the NFL?"
Simon Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 But is Taylor the "best player in the NFL?" He's not even the best player on his unit. Although he is probably the most overrated player in the NFL.
Peter Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 Beat Gandy like a drum on that play. Is Taylor really that good? Looks like Gandy kind of whiffed at the air. It looked mighty bad. But is Taylor the "best player in the NFL?" 470974[/snapback] Taylor is pretty good. He has made a lot of players look bad with his speed.
Adam Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 Holcomb played ok- I thought that the routes were more than 1-2 yard curls helped clear the line a bit, and gave more room to make throws- especially in the opening half. We arent a superbowl team, but we're not too bad either.
Recommended Posts