dave mcbride Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 i'm certainly not saying he's the second coming, but jeez, let's give holcomb some props: attempts - 193 completions - 132 completion pct. - 68.4 yds - 1325 ypa - 6.87 tds - 8 ints - 4 passer rating - 92.9 http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1624
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Holcomb is the most under appreciated player on this team, all because he doesn't have a cannon arm. He's good enough to not lose games, which if you have a strong run game and defense is just the type of qb you should have. I'm glad he's on our team. Losmans got a ways to go before he's as good as holcomb
BillsObserver Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 those are fantastic numbers for sure but the reason the completion rate is so high is because of the endless amount of check down passes. i'm not blasting him for that, but on 3 and 8's, he settles for the 3 yard dish over taking a shot at the first. if holcomb plays anything like he did in cincinatti then he deserves to be our starting quarterback. reminds me of brad johnson a lot (for those watching the vikings' game now.) the question is can he be that consistent? he's never been given that chance for an entire season. i loved how lee evans, e moulds and josh reed got a nice amount of attention respectively. actually moulds looks like a pro bowler when holcomb is in there. it will be interesting to see who gets the start this last game.
YOOOOOO Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 I like Holcomb....but get out of here with this high comp %..... throw a 3 yard pass to Moulds on a 3rd and 17.....then take a sack on a hell mary attempt..... We have seen this all season....When you dont make the attempt to stretch for a big play....your not going to throw many incompletions.... dink & dunk isnt a bad thing....if ya do it consistently....he doesnt.... Is Losman better then Holcomb....right now nope.... and the only reason he isnt....is cuz he doesnt have the experience that Holcomb does...
Like A Mofo Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Holcomb is the most under appreciated player on this team, all because he doesn't have a cannon arm. He's good enough to not lose games, which if you have a strong run game and defense is just the type of qb you should have. I'm glad he's on our team. Losmans got a ways to go before he's as good as holcomb 542538[/snapback] Couldnt agree more with this assessment.
Geo in Pa Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Yards per attempt = 6.87 - not bad - I always believed that is the most important stat for a QB - if you get close to 8, you are in the upper echolon (sp?) of QB's.
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 i'm certainly not saying he's the second coming, but jeez, let's give holcomb some props:attempts - 193 completions - 132 completion pct. - 68.4 yds - 1325 ypa - 6.87 tds - 8 ints - 4 passer rating - 92.9 http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1624 542537[/snapback] You have to depend on your receivers to be able to do the work with a lot of short-yardage checkdowns. We got that yesterday and we also had a minimum of costly penalties called on us. Can we depend on that on a week-in, week-out basis? We did see that, if they are all showing up on the same day, Moulds-Evans-Reed-Parrish is a pretty damned formidable foursome. That's a big if so far, though.
CosmicBills Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 If this team were anywhere close to being a contender, then yes, Holcomb would be the perfect guy. Truth is, they're not close. Holcomb is old, and by the time the team is ready to contend, he will be on the wrong side of 35. The point is we have a young QB with better skills but zero game experience. Why waste games on Holcomb (who has peaked) when we could be using these last games to develop the kid? Worst case scenario we find out that Losman is not the future. Best case, we discover he is AND he gets the experience during the rebuilding of this team. Holcomb is never going to win a superbowl or a playoff game with the Bills (sad but most likely true). It's a waste of time to keep starting him.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 If this team were anywhere close to being a contender, then yes, Holcomb would be the perfect guy. Truth is, they're not close. Holcomb is old, and by the time the team is ready to contend, he will be on the wrong side of 35. The point is we have a young QB with better skills but zero game experience. Why waste games on Holcomb (who has peaked) when we could be using these last games to develop the kid? Worst case scenario we find out that Losman is not the future. Best case, we discover he is AND he gets the experience during the rebuilding of this team. Holcomb is never going to win a superbowl or a playoff game with the Bills (sad but most likely true). It's a waste of time to keep starting him. 542558[/snapback] I understand what you're saying and agree about getting losman the experience to see if he is gonna be our future qb, but I don't agree that'll take that long to turn around. It's been proven in this league it doesn't take that long to field a competative team look no further then ne or this years bears team. 1-2 years tops for competeant gm and coaches to turn a team around. It's been done plenty of times.
Buckeye Eric Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Holcomb is the most under appreciated player on this team, all because he doesn't have a cannon arm. He's good enough to not lose games, which if you have a strong run game and defense is just the type of qb you should have. I'm glad he's on our team. Losmans got a ways to go before he's as good as holcomb 542538[/snapback] It is all about experience. Holcomb has bveen in the league for 10 years and that is what seperates him from Losman, not talent.
Orton's Arm Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 The stat that got my attention was this was the first time in 45 games that a Bills QB broke the 300 yard barrier. You don't break that barrier by only throwing 5 yard passes on 3rd and 15.
Tortured Soul Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 Yards per attempt = 6.87 - not bad - I always believed that is the most important stat for a QB - if you get close to 8, you are in the upper echolon (sp?) of QB's. 542547[/snapback] That would put him 17th in the league - the definition of average - but without a TE or receiving-threat RB. It is all about experience. Holcomb has bveen in the league for 10 years and that is what seperates him from Losman, not talent. 542640[/snapback] This works both ways. Something caused Holcomb to stick around for ten years, and that something was talent (and inertia). I bet I can be in the NFL for ten years and still won't be a very good QB.
Johnny Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 those are fantastic numbers for sure but the reason the completion rate is so high is because of the endless amount of check down passes. i'm not blasting him for that, but on 3 and 8's, he settles for the 3 yard dish over taking a shot at the first. if holcomb plays anything like he did in cincinatti then he deserves to be our starting quarterback. reminds me of brad johnson a lot (for those watching the vikings' game now.) the question is can he be that consistent? he's never been given that chance for an entire season. i loved how lee evans, e moulds and josh reed got a nice amount of attention respectively. actually moulds looks like a pro bowler when holcomb is in there. it will be interesting to see who gets the start this last game. 542539[/snapback] would you rather him not check down and throw the ball away....i say go ahead and pad the completion percentage stat if needed.
BillsObserver Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 would you rather him not check down and throw the ball away....i say go ahead and pad the completion percentage stat if needed. 542844[/snapback] rob johnson had a sweet completion percentage. you're not banned yet?
Johnny Posted December 26, 2005 Posted December 26, 2005 rob johnson had a sweet completion percentage. you're not banned yet? 542846[/snapback] no, why would i be? so what if rob johnson had a sweet completion percentage? so did Joe Montana
Orton's Arm Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 The difference between Holcomb and Johnson is that Holcomb knows how to get rid of the ball quickly, while Johnson was a sack waiting to happen.
BillsObserver Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 The difference between Holcomb and Johnson is that Holcomb knows how to get rid of the ball quickly, while Johnson was a sack waiting to happen. 542961[/snapback] There was never a comparison between the two. I pointed out that RJ racked up a sweet completion percentage himself. Just wanted to point out to the new whipping boy of TBD that a good completion percentage doesn't mean you're a good winning quarterback. The only percentage I care about of Holcomb's, is how many games he wins for us. If he even gets that chance. That's a whole different topic. so what if rob johnson had a sweet completion percentage? so did Joe Montana guess that shut his pacpiehole You're strange.
Johnny Posted December 27, 2005 Posted December 27, 2005 There was never a comparison between the two. I pointed out that RJ racked up a sweet completion percentage himself. Just wanted to point out to the new whipping boy of TBD that a good completion percentage doesn't mean you're a good winning quarterback. The only percentage I care about of Holcomb's, is how many games he wins for us. If he even gets that chance. That's a whole different topic. You're strange. 542972[/snapback] when the Arm points out your inferior gridiron knowledge, you got a long way to go to educating the "new tbd whippng boy"
Recommended Posts