apuszczalowski Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 I have no problem trashing our season--this team isn't going anywhere this year anyway, and should be thinking about what's best for next year. Obviously a seasoned vet like Holcomb is going to be better than a first-year starter like Losman, at least in the short term. The Bills should start whichever QB they believe has the potential to be the better answer in the long term. By starting Holcomb, you get to see whether he can sustain his high QB rating over the course of an entire season. By starting Losman, you can see whether whatever success he may be having in practice will carry over into games. Of course, if Losman does a lousy job in practice, it's an easy decision. Give the game snaps to Holcomb, because you already know Losman isn't ready. 497716[/snapback] I completly agree that they should start whatever quarterback is better for them in the long term, and I doubt thet it is a 9 year veteran. But I have to say that starting Holcomb to see if his high QB rating can stay that high for the rest of the year is a dumb idea. Who cares about a stupid QB rating? thats all I hear people say about Holcomb is how high of a QB rating he has. Does a rating win games? No. I bet there are many QB's in the league that have a lower rating and have more wins this year than Holcomb.
Brandon Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 2-2. Ratings mean squat. 497722[/snapback] If its QB rating, completion percentage, and such that we want, Rob Johnson should have been an All Pro. But as you say, stats mean squat. Throwing an 8 yard pass on 3rd and 10 or a 0 yard pass on 4th and 7 will indeed help your QB rating, a stat skewed toward completion percentage. Too bad it doesn't help you win.
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 2-2. Ratings mean squat. 497722[/snapback] Yeah, judging a QB by win/loss record makes sense, because neither coaches nor other players affect the outcome of a game in any way, shape, or form.
apuszczalowski Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 Yeah, judging a QB by win/loss record makes sense, because neither coaches nor other players affect the outcome of a game in any way, shape, or form. 497758[/snapback] True, but will a QB rating get you into the playoffs? How about win/loss record?
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 If its QB rating, completion percentage, and such that we want, Rob Johnson should have been an All Pro. But as you say, stats mean squat. Throwing an 8 yard pass on 3rd and 10 or a 0 yard pass on 4th and 7 will indeed help your QB rating, a stat skewed toward completion percentage. Too bad it doesn't help you win. 497730[/snapback] This is a more intelligent and informed post than some of the others I've seen. Clearly Johnson's rating was inflated because he'd take the sack rather than throw the ball away. Sacks hurt your team more than incompletions, even though they don't show up in ratings. If it's 3rd and 10 and Holcomb throws to his dump-off option, there's always a chance that the player who made the catch will make a few moves and get a first down. Even if he only gets five yards, that's still five more yards of field position than you would have gotten with an incomplete pass. So Holcomb deserves some credit, though admittedly not as much as if he'd completed an 11 yard pass. What I would like to see is how well Holcomb does on converting 3rd downs in passing situations, versus how well other QBs do in converting 3rd downs when throwing. Though you have to take into account that few QBs would do well at converting 3rd and long behind the joke of a line Buffalo has.
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 True, but will a QB rating get you into the playoffs? 497764[/snapback] If the Bills had any intention of going to the playoffs, they should have fixed the offensive line. And the defensive line. And other problems. Any time your team loses a game, it's a clear sign something is wrong somewhere. Attributing all the problems your team may be having to the QB position is an excuse to ignore problems along the offensive and defensive lines. Which is more or less what TD has been doing all along anyway.
Fan in San Diego Posted November 8, 2005 Author Posted November 8, 2005 holcomb is playing well. and MUCH better than JP. how many yards a game did JP average? was it 80 or so. yeah. if we go with JP now, we are trashing our season. and with the pats lossing, its far from over. 497693[/snapback] But they were not committed to running the ball with Willis back either. TC is running the ball 20+ times a game now and they weren't doing that with JP in there. I think TC learned his lesson. It can work now IMHO.
apuszczalowski Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 If the Bills had any intention of going to the playoffs, they should have fixed the offensive line. And the defensive line. And other problems. 497770[/snapback] If they don't have any intentions of going to the playoffs, why are they even playing Holcomb then? I am not complaining about just the QB, cause they both have struggled, but alot of it was because of the team around them. Do you think if Moulds would have given 100% in all of Losmans games and maybe helped him out a bit rather than complaining to the media that Holcomb should be in we might have won a couple more games. And sure it would help if our defence played like they did last year, I think this was the biggest surprise for me this year cause I thought they would be just as good. The Bills should have built a better O-line cause a rookie QB usually needs a bit more time to complete a throw while adjusting to the NFL, but if we did that, why bother getting rid of Bledsoe? With a solid O-Line he would have been a much better QB than he was his past couple years in Buffalo
seq004 Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 TC has finally seen the light about running Willis 25 times a game. That takes a load off of JP right there. The OL is being shuffled to give JP more time. JP is definately more mobil than Holcomb. JP has a better arm than Kelly Holcomb. Now is right time to re-start JP and get the winning ways back on track. But heh ! It's just IMHO ! 497510[/snapback] That's all well and good but the bottom line is can JP get the ball in his recievers hands and he's proven that he cannot. Your right he does have a better arm and is more mobile but if he cannot connect it's worthless. I hope I'm wrong.
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 If they don't have any intentions of going to the playoffs, why are they even playing Holcomb then? Maybe they're being short-sighted and are refusing to face the reality of their situation. Maybe Losman is less ready than we've been told. Maybe they see something in Holcomb, and want to see if he's the real deal or a flash in the pan. I am not complaining about just the QB, cause they both have struggled, Um, Holcomb's 92.0 passer rating is not the sign of a struggling QB. Particularly not when you're playing behind the kind of line the Bills have. To put that QB rating into perspective, a QB who finished his career with a 92 rating would have one of the top 10 career QB ratings ever--just below Joe Montana. Granted the QB rating system doesn't take everything into account, as Brandon pointed out. But even if you discount Holcomb's rating somewhat because of all the times he threw it short on 3rd and long, it's still an impressive rating. Do you think if Moulds would have given 100% in all of Losmans games and maybe helped him out a bit rather than complaining to the media that Holcomb should be in we might have won a couple more games. Yes, just as the Moulds penalty in NE and other receivers' dropped passes in that game cost us that particular win. (Though I blame the officials rather than Moulds for that particular penalty.) I'm not knocking Losman for his win/loss ratio or even for his overall poor performances. You'd expect those of an inexperienced player. My concern is that he hasn't shown the same flashes or other positive signs that players like Eli Manning had shown four starts into their careers. And sure it would help if our defence played like they did last year, I think this was the biggest surprise for me this year cause I thought they would be just as good. Last year I felt our defense was overrated. It piled up pretty numbers against teams with struggling offenses. But it gave up game-winning drives to Jacksonville and the Jets, it allowed Pittsburgh a game-deciding nine minute drive, and it did poorly against NE. If the averages at the end of the year looked good, it was because the defense did ridiculously well against the likes of Cleveland. The Bills should have built a better O-line cause a rookie QB usually needs a bit more time to complete a throw while adjusting to the NFL, but if we did that, why bother getting rid of Bledsoe? With a solid O-Line he would have been a much better QB than he was his past couple years in Buffalo 497790[/snapback] An excellent point. Maybe the Bills would have been better served investing the 2nd, 5th, and 1st rounders spent on Losman into offensive linemen instead.
Ramius Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 But they were not committed to running the ball with Willis back either. TC is running the ball 20+ times a game now and they weren't doing that with JP in there. I think TC learned his lesson. It can work now IMHO. 497779[/snapback] Exactly. In JP's 4 games, willis averaged 19.5 carries per game. In Holcomb's 4 games, Willis has averaged 26.8 carries per game. I love how it was JP's fault that moron TC didnt run willis more in the first few games...
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 Exactly. In JP's 4 games, willis averaged 19.5 carries per game. In Holcomb's 4 games, Willis has averaged 26.8 carries per game. I love how it was JP's fault that moron TC didnt run willis more in the first few games... 497973[/snapback] This post is an excellent reason why you shouldn't judge a QB by his win/loss record.
Ramius Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 This post is an excellent reason why you shouldn't judge a QB by his win/loss record. 497983[/snapback] Its also an excellent reason why you rant/crusade about holcomb beaing great is complete and utter bull sh--. Now, stop posting and go back to practice, Kelly. I'm sure you and Tom are still going over how to throw for 0 yards on our next critical 4th down play.
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 Its also an excellent reason why you rant/crusade about holcomb beaing great is complete and utter bull sh--. Now, stop posting and go back to practice, Kelly. I'm sure you and Tom are still going over how to throw for 0 yards on our next critical 4th down play. 497989[/snapback] Thanks for your, um, insight. Maybe part of the reason why more running plays were called with Holcomb is that the Bills were doing a better job of moving the chains with him under center, and therefore could call more offensive plays overall.
1billsfan Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 Thanks for your, um, insight. Maybe part of the reason why more running plays were called with Holcomb is that the Bills were doing a better job of moving the chains with him under center, and therefore could call more offensive plays overall. 497999[/snapback] Moving the chains means jcksh*t when you don't punch it in the endzone. The Bills had the ball forever in the first half of the Pats game and had 3 points to show for it. Sorry but JP needs to start because the Holcomb "spark" has painfully run it's course with this 2 game losing streak. Time to see if the kid can play better than Mr. Career Backup.
Dawgg Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 You can't have it both ways. You argue the Bills called more running plays with KH than with JP. Then you argue that moving the chains doesn't mean s**t unless we punch it in. Don't be stupid here. When JP was going 3 and out every time he got his hands on the ball, the offense couldn't get into a rhythm and they couldn't call as many running plays. Couple that with the fact that we weren't moving the ball, defenses were not respecting the pass at all, stacking players in the box. Moving the chains means jcksh*t when you don't punch it in the endzone. The Bills had the ball forever in the first half of the Pats game and had 3 points to show for it. Sorry but JP needs to start because the Holcomb "spark" has painfully run it's course with this 2 game losing streak. Time to see if the kid can play better than Mr. Career Backup. 498015[/snapback]
Johnny Coli Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 Moving the chains means jcksh*t when you don't punch it in the endzone. The Bills had the ball forever in the first half of the Pats game and had 3 points to show for it. Sorry but JP needs to start because the Holcomb "spark" has painfully run it's course with this 2 game losing streak. Time to see if the kid can play better than Mr. Career Backup. 498015[/snapback] To add, they had the ball for 38 minutes in the Miami game and scored 3 points (after being up by 17 early, sputtering out and letting Miami back in it), and 34 minutes against the Pats, scoring...drum roll...3 points. That's 72 minutes that Sparky had to generate any offensive output at all...even just getting within field goal range. They came away with 6 points. Six points! Six points in 72 minutes against two crappy teams. And yet we should keep Sparky in there to move the chains. To move the chains where? The 40 yard line?
1billsfan Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 You can't have it both ways. You argue the Bills called more running plays with KH than with JP. Then you argue that moving the chains doesn't mean s**t unless we punch it in. Don't be stupid here. When JP was going 3 and out every time he got his hands on the ball, the offense couldn't get into a rhythm and they couldn't call as many running plays. Couple that with the fact that we weren't moving the ball, defenses were not respecting the pass at all, stacking players in the box. 498020[/snapback] Are you high? What the heck are you talking about that I can't have it both ways? That was my only post in this thread fella. Who's the stupid one now.
MDH Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 Thanks for your, um, insight. Maybe part of the reason why more running plays were called with Holcomb is that the Bills were doing a better job of moving the chains with him under center, and therefore could call more offensive plays overall. 497999[/snapback] The Bills did run more plays when Holcomb was in the game. However, instead of looking at how many plays total are being run, let's look at the percentage of plays that are running plays (not counting QB scrambles). When Losman was QBing the Bills handed the ball off 92 of the 225 plays. That's 40.8% of the time. When Holcomb is QBing the Bills have handed the ball off 128 of the 258 plays. That's 49.6% of the time. In fact, the Bills have run a total of 33 more plays in the four games that Holcomb has QBed. They've run the ball 36 more times in those same games. That, of course, means that the difference in the number of plays run are all running plays. When Holcomb is in the game they've called a balanced attack while when Losman was playing they threw the ball nearly 60% of the time.
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2005 Posted November 8, 2005 To add, they had the ball for 38 minutes in the Miami game and scored 3 points (after being up by 17 early, sputtering out and letting Miami back in it), and 34 minutes against the Pats, scoring...drum roll...3 points. That's 72 minutes that Sparky had to generate any offensive output at all...even just getting within field goal range. They came away with 6 points. Six points! Six points in 72 minutes against two crappy teams. And yet we should keep Sparky in there to move the chains. To move the chains where? The 40 yard line? 498026[/snapback] I vividly remember the most devastating drive inflicted upon the Bills football team. More than any other single event, this agonizing drive was responsible for how the Bills ultimately came to be seen. The Bills' no-huddle offense seemed unstoppable. In the previous game--a playoff game against the Raiders--the Bills had put up over 40 points in the first half. The offensive line gave great protection, Jim Kelly did an awesome job, and the offensive skill positions had real players. Yet the very next week, this high-powered offense watched for 15 minutes of game time--about an hour of real time--as the Giants inflicted one drive. Just one. The Giants picked up yardage in small chunks--first down, second down, third down, convert, first down, second down, third down, convert. That drive was led by a QB who--at that time--was a career backup, and was only filling in because the starter was hurt. The drive resulted in just three points--just three--to put the Giants up 20-19 with little time left on the clock. When the Bills' offense finally got back on the field, it was out of synch. The Giants' defense, meanwhile, had had plenty of time to rest. The Giants would finish the game with a 2:1 time of possession advantage. Anyone who scoffs at long, clock-grinding drives, or an offense that can eat up the clock, still has a lot to learn from that horrible, awful, agonizing game. The Bills need to do to others what the Giants did to them.
Recommended Posts