millbank Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 LARRY FELSER 10/30/2005 There is a week remaining until the halfway point in the NFL schedule is reached and assessments are made, but as far as it concerns the Bills, why wait? Here is this bill of particulars on the Bills: 1. Allow me to second the motion that J.P. Losman's period of development should have resumed tonight in New England. Whatever arm strength Kelly Holcomb had in Cleveland has dissipated and without throwing downfield successfully opposing defenses are going to concentrate on stopping Buffalo's meal ticket, Willis McGahee's running. Besides, the Raiders demonstrated last week that Holcomb can be stormed by a four-man rush, leaving seven men to stifle Buffalo's best pass receivers. Once Losman is reinstalled at quarterback, the microscope will zero in on what kind of decisions he makes. There is no doubt about his physical skills - arm, mobility, toughness, etc. That was something verified in the minicamps and on the practice field. His decision making can be tested only on the field. That's why he should start against the Patriots. What's the big deal about throwing him to the wolves? He's not going to cavort with many lambs in the NFL. 2. Standing trial with Losman will be management's Big Enchilada, Tom Donahoe. Trading three draft choices to get Losman and then have him turn out to be a run-of-the-mill quarterback or worse would be one too many poor decisions by Donahoe. The worst mistake was the hiring of Gregg Williams as his head coach upon his own arrival. Most GMs don't get a second chance after making a hiring error the size of Williams. Trading for Drew Bledsoe bought some time, sold some tickets and got the fans excited temporarily, but in hindsight it might have been far better to have gone with a quarterback of the future who might have been ready to roll by now. Using the fourth pick in the draft to choose Mike Williams as the offensive tackle needed so badly looked OK at the time but now Williams, the highest paid Bill, doesn't rank among the NFL's top 10 right tackles. Donahoe, with a mere sniff at the playoffs in his five years, can't afford to have Losman fail. 3. The offensive coaching strategists, who performed nobly in their first year as the Bills rose from an 0-4 start to nine victories, have become too clever by half. Giving the ball to fullback Daimon Shelton on fourth down at the Raider goal line when Shelton hadn't had a carry in five years? Ludicrous. The ball should have gone to the Bills' top weapon, McGahee, and if that didn't produce a touchdown shame on the offensive line. Speaking of the offensive line, as well as the defensive line, they and their colleagues are resentful that coach Mike Mularkey observed that they were "out-toughed" by the Raiders. When Mularkey took the Bills' job a year ago he demanded toughness from his players, and for the last dozen games that's what he got. If the players think they weren't out-toughed in Oakland they are living in a dream world. Maybe that's why they couldn't tackle LaMont Jordan. Larry Felser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 LARRY FELSER 10/30/2005 There is a week remaining until the halfway point in the NFL schedule is reached and assessments are made, but as far as it concerns the Bills, why wait? Here is this bill of particulars on the Bills: 1. Allow me to second the motion that J.P. Losman's period of development should have resumed tonight in New England. Whatever arm strength Kelly Holcomb had in Cleveland has dissipated and without throwing downfield successfully opposing defenses are going to concentrate on stopping Buffalo's meal ticket, Willis McGahee's running. Besides, the Raiders demonstrated last week that Holcomb can be stormed by a four-man rush, leaving seven men to stifle Buffalo's best pass receivers. Once Losman is reinstalled at quarterback, the microscope will zero in on what kind of decisions he makes. There is no doubt about his physical skills - arm, mobility, toughness, etc. That was something verified in the minicamps and on the practice field. His decision making can be tested only on the field. That's why he should start against the Patriots. What's the big deal about throwing him to the wolves? He's not going to cavort with many lambs in the NFL. 2. Standing trial with Losman will be management's Big Enchilada, Tom Donahoe. Trading three draft choices to get Losman and then have him turn out to be a run-of-the-mill quarterback or worse would be one too many poor decisions by Donahoe. The worst mistake was the hiring of Gregg Williams as his head coach upon his own arrival. Most GMs don't get a second chance after making a hiring error the size of Williams. Trading for Drew Bledsoe bought some time, sold some tickets and got the fans excited temporarily, but in hindsight it might have been far better to have gone with a quarterback of the future who might have been ready to roll by now. Using the fourth pick in the draft to choose Mike Williams as the offensive tackle needed so badly looked OK at the time but now Williams, the highest paid Bill, doesn't rank among the NFL's top 10 right tackles. Donahoe, with a mere sniff at the playoffs in his five years, can't afford to have Losman fail. 3. The offensive coaching strategists, who performed nobly in their first year as the Bills rose from an 0-4 start to nine victories, have become too clever by half. Giving the ball to fullback Daimon Shelton on fourth down at the Raider goal line when Shelton hadn't had a carry in five years? Ludicrous. The ball should have gone to the Bills' top weapon, McGahee, and if that didn't produce a touchdown shame on the offensive line. Speaking of the offensive line, as well as the defensive line, they and their colleagues are resentful that coach Mike Mularkey observed that they were "out-toughed" by the Raiders. When Mularkey took the Bills' job a year ago he demanded toughness from his players, and for the last dozen games that's what he got. If the players think they weren't out-toughed in Oakland they are living in a dream world. Maybe that's why they couldn't tackle LaMont Jordan. Larry Felser 489618[/snapback] sounds like that guy has been reading my posts and made an article of it.....oh well it wasnt copy writed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Glad to see that Larry Felser is as knowledgable as ever. Not! I thought this yob had retired! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 sounds like that guy has been reading my posts and made an article of it.....oh well it wasnt copy writed 489620[/snapback] "that guy"? You don't know who Felser is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Glad to see that Larry Felser is as knowledgable as ever. Not! I thought this yob had retired! 489662[/snapback] What exactly did he write that you have a problem with. Just a general he's "not knowledgeable" comment doesn't really mean much unless you're going to take the time to dispute specific points. Personally I think he’s pretty much on target. The only exception I’d make is I don’t want to see JP thrown to the wolves tonight on national TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 What exactly did he write that you have a problem with. Just a general he's "not knowledgeable" comment doesn't really mean much unless you're going to take the time to dispute specific points. Personally I think he’s pretty much on target. The only exception I’d make is I don’t want to see JP thrown to the wolves tonight on national TV. 489669[/snapback] Of course he is right about a lot of things, because hindsight is always 20/20. I have read Felser for years, and the one thing that is always consistant, is that he knows everything, after everyone else. He can rip TD for a lot of things, and much of it is warrented. But, where was Fleser before the 2002 draft, telling everyone that Mike Williams would be a disappointment? Nowhere....TD, or any NFL GM doesn't get the luxury of 3.5 seasons worth of games before deciding who to draft. It was a sound pick at the time, and few argued it. He has also picked up the mantra of the "joe fan" that Kelly Holcomb is weak armed. Holcomb may be, but how can any of us tell, when he hasn't actually attempted more than 2 or 3 deep passes in 3 starts. Felser says that Oakland proved that Holcomb could be stormed by 4-man rush, stifling the Bills best receivers. I don't know what Felser was watching. While it is true that the Raiders got a lot of pressure on the Bills, and adversely affected the offensive performance, the passing game was not really "stifled" as he says. Even beyond the first drive of the game, the passing game worked fairly well most of the time last Sunday. Holcomb, IMO, played a very good game against the Raiders, despite all of the pressure being put on him. It was the running game that was stifled. Strong arm or weak arm, an offense can't score much, with the game still in reach, if they only get the ball for 3 minutes in the fourth quarter. Of course, the biggest factor in last weeks loss was that the defense played what is likely its' worst game in about 5 years, which is saying something. As a highly respected (for whatever reason) NFL observer, you would think Felser could analyze a game better. It often sounds like he gets his observations from call in sports talk radio shows. Felser never has any forsight, only hindsight. He is a legandary sports writer by default...he is the only writer to have covered the Bills franchise, so he is given an undue amount of respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 sounds like that guy has been reading my posts and made an article of it.....oh well it wasnt copy writed 489620[/snapback] Football's over a 100 years old. Pretty hard to say anything new... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Speaking of the offensive line, as well as the defensive line, they and their colleagues are resentful that coach Mike Mularkey observed that they were "out-toughed" by the Raiders. When Mularkey took the Bills' job a year ago he demanded toughness from his players, and for the last dozen games that's what he got. If the players think they weren't out-toughed in Oakland they are living in a dream world. Maybe that's why they couldn't tackle LaMont Jordan.Larry Felser 489618[/snapback] If the linemen disagree about being "out-toughed" last week, tonight's their first opportunity to prove Mularkey wrong. 8:30 kickoff, boys, and buckle your chinstraps.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts