Kultarr Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 I think that any rational person inside the organization has abandonded the concept of "this team has a better chance to win with (...)" ever since the Miami collapse. The QB carousel has been the story of the season. But we don't know the real reason why Losman has been on the bench the last three games. MM could have wanted to see how the team played with Holcomb at the helm to get a better gauge for next year (as all players seemed to support) to probably see if Bills may still need to replace both QBs. To me that's a totally different strategy than to put up a superficial win to save a job. 547591[/snapback] Are you saying that Losman is a bust at QB? He'd have to be a bust in order for MM (or the organization) to give up on him in his first season after only a few starts, with the view that giving him (or any young player that is potentially the foundation of the future of the franchise) practice reps and playing time has absolutely no benefit for anyone in an otherwise wasted season.
Adam Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 40%, cause Moulds is gone for sure if MM stays. 547232[/snapback] Moulds needs to be gone regardless....buh bye Eric. No hall of fame for you
GG Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Is there any evidence that something like this took place? It may just be true that Losman was/is injured. 547711[/snapback] As much evidence as the speculation as to why Holcomb got the start. But factors supporting my theory - Losman is listed as probable, players fairly united in support of Holcomb & calling for open competition next year, Losman remaining quiet even though Holcomb stands to take his job next season. There have been a lot of strange moves regarding the QB position in the last couple of years, and I find it implausible that the only reason that MM started Holcomb was to pad the wins.
GG Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Are you saying that Losman is a bust at QB? He'd have to be a bust in order for MM (or the organization) to give up on him in his first season after only a few starts, with the view that giving him (or any young player that is potentially the foundation of the future of the franchise) practice reps and playing time has absolutely no benefit for anyone in an otherwise wasted season. 547726[/snapback] No, I'm saying that MM likely thinks that JP may still need another year of learning, and having Holcomb in there was a test to see if the Bills can rely on him next year, or get yet another vet in there in camp.
Kultarr Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 As much evidence as the speculation as to why Holcomb got the start. But factors supporting my theory - Losman is listed as probable, players fairly united in support of Holcomb & calling for open competition next year, Losman remaining quiet even though Holcomb stands to take his job next season. There have been a lot of strange moves regarding the QB position in the last couple of years, and I find it implausible that the only reason that MM started Holcomb was to pad the wins. 547742[/snapback] Thanks for the background there, old buddy. I agree that the situation looks chaotic, even at long distance. If it does turn out to be true that Losman has already burned his bridges in Buffalo (in some sort of record time), then that would be a frightening commentary on just how badly the Bills scouting department and football operations have collapsed and spun out of control.
Adam Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 I think that any rational person inside the organization has abandonded the concept of "this team has a better chance to win with (...)" ever since the Miami collapse. The QB carousel has been the story of the season. But we don't know the real reason why Losman has been on the bench the last three games. MM could have wanted to see how the team played with Holcomb at the helm to get a better gauge for next year (as all players seemed to support) to probably see if Bills may still need to replace both QBs. To me that's a totally different strategy than to put up a superficial win to save a job. 547591[/snapback] Also- giving Losman one isolated start- after not playing for 2-3 games is pointless.
Kultarr Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 No, I'm saying that MM likely thinks that JP may still need another year of learning, and having Holcomb in there was a test to see if the Bills can rely on him next year, or get yet another vet in there in camp. 547752[/snapback] I'm not sure what is left to evaluate about Holcomb though. He's still the not quite good enough QB he has always been as an NFL journeyman. He's been around long enough to know the job of an NFL QB and he's not going to suddenly grow an Elway arm overnight...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 Also- giving Losman one isolated start- after not playing for 2-3 games is pointless. 547765[/snapback] Totally untrue. Any start, any series that Losman plays in gets him closer to having the game slow down for him, or at the very least closer to finding out whether he is a franchise quarterback or viable starter in this league. Particularly after that first benching.
Mark VI Posted January 2, 2006 Author Posted January 2, 2006 TD's blueprint for 2005 had an inexperienced JP growing while the #2 D and ST's carried the club. Why do some completely forget that now ? I haven't given up on JP yet.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 TD's blueprint for 2005 had an inexperienced JP growing while the #2 D and ST's carried the club. Why do some completely forget that now ? I haven't given up on JP yet. 547775[/snapback] That was instantly truncated by Mularkey and Clements giving him deplorable game plans and play calling, asking him to drop back and set up, survey the field and pick out his second and third receivers all while his injured, undertalented OL didnt block for him. If they would have just called the Kelly Holcomb plays, or just gave him short passes and roll outs and swing passes to Willlis and run, run, run-play-action, Losman's blowout likely never would have happened.
BuffaloDave55 Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 4th worst record over the last 10 years. TD must go. MM has shown some of the worst play calling....3 yd patterns when you need 9. Using their fullback (who not even one of the top 15 best offensive player) on key plays. Taking one of the top RB's out on 3rd downs replacing him with what on most teams would be a 3rd string RB... Ralph help! Or i just might not renew my tickets!
GG Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 TD's blueprint for 2005 had an inexperienced JP growing while the #2 D and ST's carried the club. Why do some completely forget that now ? I haven't given up on JP yet. 547775[/snapback] Haven't forgotten it at all, just amazed at the sheer stupidity of that plan (in retrospect). I'll admit that I was willing to give the front office the benefit of the doubt that Losman showed enough promise in practice sessions that he was ready for the starting positions. I even bought the rhetoric that Losman would have seen some game action if he didn't get hurt. Add the sleepless nights he spent with Wyche learning the system, and there's no way that we could lose. But I think that we learned very early that he was not ready, and worse than us finding out, the Bills knew and the opposition knew. I don't buy that our coordinators had a different game plan for Losman than they had for Holcomb. The difference is that Losman wasn't ready this year.
Adam Posted January 2, 2006 Posted January 2, 2006 4th worst record over the last 10 years. TD must go. MM has shown some of the worst play calling....3 yd patterns when you need 9. Using their fullback (who not even one of the top 15 best offensive player) on key plays. Taking one of the top RB's out on 3rd downs replacing him with what on most teams would be a 3rd string RB... Ralph help! Or i just might not renew my tickets! 547778[/snapback] As far as the playcalling- not everyone can get open in the spot you want them to, nor can they bunch up at the 1st down marker. Also, Mularkey had to deal with not having a great OL when calling plays. I don't disagree with a lot of Donahoe's draft picks- only a complete blithering idiot reaches for needs- you take the best guy available, or you pay for it big time when you run out of talented players down the road- everything isn't about right now.
Recommended Posts