HOLCOMB

[Buftex]

The worst playcall Tom Clements made all game. The throw to Moulds wasn't a good choice, but none of the other options Holcomb had been given would have been good choices either.

 

 

493011[/snapback]

 

 

I am on your side in defending Holcomb, keep in mind. However, please go back and look at that play, and please quit perpetuating this myth that Tom Clements told Holcomb to throw to Moulds...everyone claims to have watched the play over and over, but nobody but me, apparently, sees that the play was really designed to go to Shaud Williams, in the middle of the field.

 

Let me break it down for you:

 

Holcomb lines up in the shotgun, Shaud Williams to his left.

 

When he snaps the ball, the DE for New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) makes an agressive move on Jason Peters, appearing that he is going to get at Holcomb. Peters, however, recovers and drives the New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) DE wide of Holcomb, and actually does a great job on him. However, because of the initial burst of the DE, Holcomb steps up in the pocket, buying himself even more time. He looks to the center of the field where Shaud Williams appears to be hung up on a New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) linebacker. Feeling a pass rush that isn't there, he then looks to Moulds, who is coming back toward him, to get open, thus winding up short of the first down marker. Holcomb, got happy feet and tossed the ball to Moulds, who was well coverd. If he had been more patient he would have seen that Shaud had shed his blocker and was very wide open.

 

We can blast Clements all we want, but this one dreadful play falls on Holcomb I am afraid. I think Clements called a pretty good game. It is easy to say his play calling sucked, when things don't work. This was one game, however, where the offensive staff didn't abandon things that they were successful with.

[Orton's Arm]

Oh yeah,  please don't compare KH to Joe Montana ever again.  I nearly lost my lunch.

493054[/snapback]

I didn't say that Holcomb was as good a player as Joe Montana. While I think Holcomb has the potential to have a good career, his accomplishments are quite small in comparison with Montana's.

 

On the other hand, I have to admit to looking at Montana's career QB rating of 92.3 and comparing it to Holcomb's rating with the Bills of 92.0. But that's not a fair comparison because when Montana played, defenses were allowed to do more to the receiver than they can do now. Also, it's one thing to compile a nice QB rating over the course of a few games--which Holcomb has done here in Buffalo--and another to do that over an entire career. Montana had the gift of hitting his receivers in perfect stride, giving them the best chance to make yards after the catch. I haven't seen as much of that from Holcomb. Also Montana was more mobile than Holcomb, helping his team in ways that don't show up in QB ratings.

 

Still, I think back to Holcomb's 400 yard performances, and I wonder how much he could achieve in a stable situation, with good pass protection, and receivers who didn't have the drops ours did yesterday. While I don't think Holcomb is as good as Montana, I do think there's a chance the Bills could get a Super Bowl win with Holcomb under center, so long as they were strong elsewhere. You're not going to win very many Super Bowl rings with players named Anderson manning the line of scrimmage.

[respk]

The reality is we have four options at QB and the only one of them that has shown a propensity to actually look like an NFL QB is Holcomb. He won't lead us to the Super Bowl or even the playoffs most likely, but he has a better chance than the others. Even if that isn't saying much.

 

JP is lost right now and if he plays all hope of winning is lost.

Matthews - There is a reason we hired him out of the unemployment line.

Jason Peters - The guy hasn't had a chance and I'm not sure how he would do playing DL, LB, punt team, kickoff team, LT, TE and QB all in one game. I wonder if there has ever been a player who played every position on offense and defense and special teams in one game.

[Realist]

I am on your side in defending Holcomb, keep in mind.  However, please go back and look at that play, and please quit perpetuating this myth that Tom Clements told Holcomb to throw to Moulds...everyone claims to have watched the play over and over, but nobody but me, apparently, sees that the play was really designed to go to Shaud Williams, in the middle of the field. 

 

Let me break it down for you:

 

Holcomb lines up in the shotgun, Shaud Williams to his left.

 

When he snaps the ball, the DE for New England makes an agressive move on Mike Williams, appearing that he is going to get at Holcomb.  Big Mike, however, recovers and drives the New England DE wide of Holcomb, and actually does a great job on him.  However, because of the initial burst of the DE, Holcomb steps up in the pocket, buying himself even more time.  He looks to the center of the field where Shaud Williams appears to be hung up on a New England linebacker.  Feeling a pass rush that isn't there, he then looks to Moulds, who is coming back toward him, to get open, thus winding up short of the first down marker.  Holcomb, got happy feet and tossed the ball to Moulds, who was well coverd.  If he had been more patient he would have seen that Shaud had shed his blocker and was very wide open. 

 

We can blast Clements all we want, but this one dreadful play falls on Holcomb I am afraid.  I think Clements called a pretty good game.  It is easy to say his play calling sucked, when things don't work. This was one game, however, where the offensive staff didn't abandon things that they were successful with.

493067[/snapback]

 

To tell you the truth, if Moulds was a decoy out there, he never should have been an option let alone the second read. If Williams was the main target, all his other reads should have been players beyond the first down marker. Moulds should not even have been considered. You're right KH blew that one.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Still, I think back to Holcomb's 400 yard performances, and I wonder how much he could achieve in a stable situation, with good pass protection, and receivers who didn't have the drops ours did yesterday. While I don't think Holcomb is as good as Montana, I do think there's a chance the Bills could get a Super Bowl win with Holcomb under center, so long as they were strong elsewhere. You're not going to win very many Super Bowl rings with players named Anderson manning the line of scrimmage.

493069[/snapback]

Did it occur to you that Holcomb's 400 yard passing performances were in losses?

 

Holcomb is an average, somewhat smart QB with limited skills and even more limited upside. His history has been as a guy who has played hard in tough losses. Starting record: 6-11 now, if my numbers are right.

 

Holcomb will only lead the Bills to the Super Bowl in the same way the Rob Johnson led the Bucs there.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I do think there's a chance the Bills could get a Super Bowl win with Holcomb under center, so long as they were strong elsewhere.

493069[/snapback]

Substitute "Bledsoe" for "Holcomb" and this sounds very, very familiar.

[Risin]

I didn't say that Holcomb was as good a player as Joe Montana. While I think Holcomb has the potential to have a good career, his accomplishments are quite small in comparison with Montana's.

 

On the other hand, I have to admit to looking at Montana's career QB rating of 92.3 and comparing it to Holcomb's rating with the Bills of 92.0. But that's not a fair comparison because when Montana played, defenses were allowed to do more to the receiver than they can do now. Also, it's one thing to compile a nice QB rating over the course of a few games--which Holcomb has done here in Buffalo--and another to do that over an entire career. Montana had the gift of hitting his receivers in perfect stride, giving them the best chance to make yards after the catch. I haven't seen as much of that from Holcomb. Also Montana was more mobile than Holcomb, helping his team in ways that don't show up in QB ratings.

 

Still, I think back to Holcomb's 400 yard performances, and I wonder how much he could achieve in a stable situation, with good pass protection, and receivers who didn't have the drops ours did yesterday. While I don't think Holcomb is as good as Montana, I do think there's a chance the Bills could get a Super Bowl win with Holcomb under center, so long as they were strong elsewhere. You're not going to win very many Super Bowl rings with players named Anderson manning the line of scrimmage.

493069[/snapback]

 

 

Keep dreaming of what could have been with KH. It's fans like you, that make me want the Bills to cut the best backup we've had since Frank Reich. (I don't count Flutie as a backup)

 

I'm done debating with you, no offense, but you're annoying.

[Orton's Arm]

I am on your side in defending Holcomb, keep in mind.  However, please go back and look at that play, and please quit perpetuating this myth that Tom Clements told Holcomb to throw to Moulds...everyone claims to have watched the play over and over, but nobody but me, apparently, sees that the play was really designed to go to Shaud Williams, in the middle of the field.

493067[/snapback]

I never said the play was designed to go to Moulds. Based on Holcomb's comments after the game, it sounded like the primary receiver was Parrish, and Moulds a decoy. My problem with the play call was that if you're going to use Moulds as a decoy, you should have him line up on one side of the field, and your intended targets on the other. Moulds could then run past the first down marker. If everyone is covered, Holcomb can throw to Moulds anyway, because Moulds is a tall, physical receiver who can catch a jump ball.

 

I don't have the game on tape, so for the sake of argument I'll agree that the play would have worked out better had Holcomb waited and thrown to Shaud Williams. But in general, you want your QB to have a clock inside his head, because otherwise someone will come from the blindside and sack him. It's easy for Jim Kelly to say that Holcomb should have waited, because Kelly's best days in Buffalo were spent playing behind the likes of Kent Hull, Jim Ritcher, Will Wolford, Howard Ballard. When you're playing behind players like Teague and Anderson, you need to expect the worst.

[Orton's Arm]

His history has been as a guy who has played hard in tough losses.  Starting record: 6-11 now, if my numbers are right.

493073[/snapback]

You are right. Clearly the only problem on that Cleveland team was at QB. If they had found anything even remotely resembling an NFL QB, they would have won the Super Bowl every year Holcomb was there. That's why each of those losses was completely Holcomb's fault.

[RuntheDamnBall]

You are right. Clearly the only problem on that Cleveland team was at QB. If they had found anything even remotely resembling an NFL QB, they would have won the Super Bowl every year Holcomb was there. That's why each of those losses was completely Holcomb's fault.

493094[/snapback]

Makes no less sense than saying he could take the Bills to the Super Bowl.

[Orton's Arm]

Substitute "Bledsoe" for "Holcomb" and this sounds very, very familiar.

493076[/snapback]

Bledsoe was a sack waiting to happen; Holcomb isn't. Bledsoe's QB rating in 2004 was in the low to mid 70s; Holcomb's rating this year, in the same offense, with the same supporting cast, is 92.

[Buftex]

I never said the play was designed to go to Moulds. Based on Holcomb's comments after the game, it sounded like the primary receiver was Parrish, and Moulds a decoy. My problem with the play call was that if you're going to use Moulds as a decoy, you should have him line up on one side of the field, and your intended targets on the other. Moulds could then run past the first down marker. If everyone is covered, Holcomb can throw to Moulds anyway, because Moulds is a tall, physical receiver who can catch a jump ball.

 

I don't have the game on tape, so for the sake of argument I'll agree that the play would have worked out better had Holcomb waited and thrown to Shaud Williams. But in general, you want your QB to have a clock inside his head, because otherwise someone will come from the blindside and sack him. It's easy for Jim Kelly to say that Holcomb should have waited, because Kelly's best days in Buffalo were spent playing behind the likes of Kent Hull, Jim Ritcher, Will Wolford, Howard Ballard. When you're playing behind players like Teague and Anderson, you need to expect the worst.

493086[/snapback]

 

Honestly, I didn't know that Jim Kelly had made any sort of comment, as I don't live in WNY, so I don't get any local commentary, but your point is well taken. I just don't think that Clements call was a bad one. Maybe Roscoe was the intended to be the first option (which I would have a little problem with), but there was at least one better option than Moulds, and it was right in front of Kelly Holcombs face. He just got spooked, and rushed the play. I think for the most part, his poise had been excellent, but not on that play.

[Orton's Arm]

Makes no less sense than saying he could take the Bills to the Super Bowl.

493096[/snapback]

The Ravens got a Super Bowl win with Trent Dilfer as QB. There was a five game stretch when the offense didn't score a TD; and Dilfer was the starter for some of those games. The Bills' offense has produced a TD in each of Holcomb's starts.

 

Do I think that Holcomb, or any other QB, could take this particular Bills team to a Super Bowl Championship, or even a playoff win? No. But I do think that with a strong draft/offseason there is the potential for Holcomb and the Bills to do something next year.

[RuntheDamnBall]

You are right. Clearly the only problem on that Cleveland team was at QB. If they had found anything even remotely resembling an NFL QB, they would have won the Super Bowl every year Holcomb was there. That's why each of those losses was completely Holcomb's fault.

493094[/snapback]

For the record, the 2002 Cleveland team was a playoff team. Holcomb wasn't the difference there.

 

In 2003, Holcomb was the starter, threw 10 TDs, 12 INTs and was injured for a good deal of the season.

 

And in his 400 yard game last year, he threw a game-ending INT that was returned for a TD.

 

Facts suck.

 

But hey, surround Holcomb with a cast of All-Pros and he'll be the second coming of Montana.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

We can blast Clements all we want, but this one dreadful play falls on Holcomb I am afraid.  I think Clements called a pretty good game.  It is easy to say his play calling sucked, when things don't work. This was one game, however, where the offensive staff didn't abandon things that they were successful with.

493067[/snapback]

 

 

You're high. Clements hasn't called a good game all year...and he won't, until he stops trying to prove how clever he is and starts trying to win games.

[Orton's Arm]

For the record, the 2002 Cleveland team was a playoff team.  Holcomb wasn't the difference there.

 

In 2003, Holcomb was the starter, threw 10 TDs, 12 INTs and was injured for a good deal of the season. 

 

And in his 400 yard game last year, he threw a game-ending INT that was returned for a TD.

 

Facts suck.

 

But hey, surround Holcomb with a cast of All-Pros and he'll be the second coming of Montana.

493111[/snapback]

Those who are most eager to see JP play state that you need actual game experience to truly learn how to play QB in the NFL. In Holcomb's first year as starter he clearly had his ups and downs. His QB rating for that year was a mediocre 74.6. His rating has significantly improved since then.

 

Even when a guy is getting his first starts, you expect to see flashes of greatness. Holcomb has shown that in his 400 yard performances.

 

Yes, there's a chance this will be another flash in the pan, as Bledsoe was in the first half of 2002. There's also a chance we've found ourselves a quarterback.

[1billsfan]

Those who are most eager to see JP play state that you need actual game experience to truly learn how to play QB in the NFL. In Holcomb's first year as starter he clearly had his ups and downs. His QB rating for that year was a mediocre 74.6. His rating has significantly improved since then.

 

Even when a guy is getting his first starts, you expect to see flashes of greatness. Holcomb has shown that in his 400 yard performances.

 

Yes, there's a chance this will be another flash in the pan, as Bledsoe was in the first half of 2002. There's also a chance we've found ourselves a quarterback.

493142[/snapback]

 

 

Dude, last year the Giants benched a 2 time NFL MVP to get their quarterback of the future much needed playing time. Oh and by the way, the Giants had a winning record at the time. Eli Manning sucked eggs for the Giants the rest of that season. Now they are one of the best teams in the NFC. If the Bill's braintrust had a clue they wouldn't give a rat's you-know-what about upsetting Moulds and they'd bench KH.

 

It makes no sense what so ever to keep Kelly Holcomb in at QB the rest of this season. The Bills made a major trade to get JP Losman which makes him the undisputed Bill's QB of the future. If Malarkey stays with Holcomb I may not even watch the KC game. With two loses in a row your boy's fate should be pretty much sealed. But knowing the knuckleheads running the show, I have my doubts.

[Orton's Arm]

Dude, last year the Giants benched a 2 time NFL MVP to get their quarterback of the future much needed playing time. Oh and by the way, the Giants had a winning record at the time.

If I thought Losman could be the next Eli Manning, I'd have a different opinion about things. As things stand, the player on our roster who has the best chance of proving himself the QB of the future is Kelly Holcomb.

The Bills made a major trade to get JP Losman which makes him the undisputed Bill's QB of the future.

Much like they made a major trade a few years earlier to get Rob Johnson to be the QB of the future, while picking up Flutie as free agent nobody else really wanted. Flutie was too old to be a long-term answer at QB; Holcomb is several years younger now than Flutie was then.

If Malarkey stays with Holcomb I may not even watch the KC game.

I don't always agree with decisions by TD or Mularkey, but I will watch the KC game.

 

With two loses in a row your boy's fate should be pretty much sealed.

493171[/snapback]

If your point is that those losses were Holcomb's fault, you're wrong. A QB change would have done nothing to address the main problem in the Oakland game, which was the 38 points they put up against us. Nor would it have addressed the main problems in the New England game: key passes dropped by receivers, critical breakdowns in pass protection, penalties, and the defense allowing 21 points late in the game.

 

If instead you're saying the Bills can't go anywhere this year anyway, and should think about the future, you're right. I think Holcomb is more likely to be the QB of the future than Losman, but he needs more starts to prove this, and to gain a comfort level with his receivers that will carry over into next year.

[Buftex]

You're high.  Clements hasn't called a good game all year...and he won't, until he stops trying to prove how clever he is and starts trying to win games.

493116[/snapback]

 

 

Like Bill Parcells said yesterday, "at some point, the players have to win the game, the coaches can only do so much." Other than the 4th and 7 play, what was the big problem with Clements play calling on Sunday? We had a good balance of pass and run, McGhaee ran the ball 31 times, Holcomb made good decisions for the first 52 minutes of the game. What was in the play calling that was so offensive? Maybe they tried too hard to get Parrish in the mix, but they have to try to use him some how. There is a big difference between calling a bad game, and executing a game plan. For the most part, things worked very well. Take away Moulds questionable PI call on that last drive, and we very well would have won, or at least taken a lead at that point. I don't think there would be near as much crying about the Clements game plan....back to my bong!

[bleedinblue]

A weak arm was the biggest reason why Joe Montana was available in the 3rd round. Anyway, Holcomb's arm looked fine to me when he was throwing that nice long TD pass to Moulds.

492987[/snapback]

That "nice long pass" was 15 maybe 2o yards, Moulds did the rest of the 55.