EC-Bills Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Nobody here is throwing JP over any cliffs. We're just saying we need to be realistic about his chances of success. 588752[/snapback] If you think he has a 50/50 shot of being the real deal, you're a more optimistic man than me. 588966[/snapback] Realistic?!? After only 8 games?!? Geez with your insight, you should be knocking on OBD's door offering up your services.
EC-Bills Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Neither am I. But his performance has so under-whelmed me that I think it is a fair question to ask if he has what it takes. So many people rally behind him because he is a first rounder, saying you can't sit a first-rounder and wait for him to develop on the bench, etc etc. At that point it becomes more than fair to wonder about whether he should have been picked there, and look at TD's track record drafting QB's. That was the thrust of the original poster, and I think it is worth thinking about. The original post never suggested that JP was the cause of all our problems. 588757[/snapback] Sure it's a fair question. The merits of whether or not he should have been drafted when he was is moot at this point. The original poster has a serious case of manlove KH and consistently trashes JP. Hardly an ubiased question. As I said before, I don't know if JP is the answer or not, but we're never going to find out by jerking him around. Give the kid an oppurtunity to compete fairly for the job and let's see what happens.
Ramius Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 You seem to think you can make Losman into a better QB by criticizing Holcomb. In any case, Holcomb's career passer rating of 79.9 is pretty decent for a starter. 589027[/snapback] Sp let me get this straight... Bledsoe's career rating of about 76 means he sucks and Td made a bad move by getting him, but holcrap's rating of 79 makes him a good starter?
EC-Bills Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Sp let me get this straight... Bledsoe's career rating of about 76 means he sucks and Td made a bad move by getting him, but holcrap's rating of 79 makes him a good starter? 589054[/snapback] Sure it does if you only avg 2 starts over a 9 year career.
Orton's Arm Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 Sp let me get this straight... Bledsoe's career rating of about 76 means he sucks and Td made a bad move by getting him, but holcrap's rating of 79 makes him a good starter? 589054[/snapback] TD's decision to trade away a first round pick for a QB rated at 76 wasn't a stroke of brilliance. Holcomb's passer rating isn't significantly higher than Bledsoe's, but TD didn't give up any draft picks, or very much salary cap space, to get Holcomb. So yeah, the Holcomb signing was a lot better than the Bledsoe trade.
Orton's Arm Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 Realistic?!? After only 8 games?!? Geez with your insight, you should be knocking on OBD's door offering up your services. 589036[/snapback] Realistically speaking, JP may have a 15% chance of ever becoming the real deal. The Bills should hope for the best outcome, while preparing for the one that's more likely.
The Dean Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Realistically speaking, JP may have a 15% chance of ever becoming the real deal. The Bills should hope for the best outcome, while preparing for the one that's more likely. 589082[/snapback] 15%? Can you show your work? What chance does the BEST prospect have, IYO? How about the middling prospects? How does that 15% compare to guys like Rivers and the baseball player in Dallas? What did you think Ben's chances were? Eli's? What about the top guys coming out? I'm not suggesting you answer all these questions...just give us some parameters to work with here...k?
EC-Bills Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 TD's decision to trade away a first round pick for a QB rated at 76 wasn't a stroke of brilliance. Holcomb's passer rating isn't significantly higher than Bledsoe's, but TD didn't give up any draft picks, or very much salary cap space, to get Holcomb. So yeah, the Holcomb signing was a lot better than the Bledsoe trade. 589075[/snapback] Are you on crack?!? The trade for Bledsoe was a good trade at the time. Did it end up working out for Drew here? No, but it was a good trade. The trade energized the fan base, gave us some credibility, and Drew went to the pro bowl as an alternate. The fact you are comparing someone who has averaged only 2 starts over 9 years to DB, who has averaged significantly more games over the same period, is absurd.
The Dean Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Are you on crack?!? The trade for Bledsoe was a good trade at the time. Did it end up working out for Drew here? No, but it was a good trade. The trade energized the fan base, gave us some credibility, and Drew went to the pro bowl as an alternate. The fact you are comparing someone who has averaged only 2 starts over 9 years to DB, who has averaged significantly more games over the same period, is absurd. 589095[/snapback] He "favorably" compared Holcomb to Drew.
Orton's Arm Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 15%? Can you show your work? What chance does the BEST prospect have, IYO? How about the middling prospects? How does that 15% compare to guys like Rivers and the baseball player in Dallas? What did you think Ben's chances were? Eli's? What about the top guys coming out? I'm not suggesting you answer all these questions...just give us some parameters to work with here...k? 589094[/snapback] 15% may be a little generous. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, Losman has done nothing--either in college or the pros--to show he can become a good pocket passer. He's good at making plays on the run, and he's at his best when plays break down. He's got a strong arm. But can he sit in the pocket and pick defenses apart? You take a guy with little to no track record of doing that, and I'd say his chance of learning is about 15% or less. Most guys can't, which is why the odds are against him. Now, you take a guy who established himself as a good pocket passer while in college, and his odds of doing that in the pros are a lot higher. Take Joe Montana. Even in high school, you could see he was exceptionally accurate, and that he could hit receivers in stride. If a college QB looks like Montana at Notre Dame, then I'd say that college QB would have a very good chance of becoming a successful pro.
Orton's Arm Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 He "favorably" compared Holcomb to Drew. 589099[/snapback] Wrong. I favorably compared the low priced Holcomb deal to the high priced Drew deal. Had we not traded for Drew, maybe we could have used that first round pick on a player who would still be with us today. Any curiousity as to how New England used the first round pick they got in exchange for Drew, or what that player might have to offer them this coming season? Had we not done the Drew deal, maybe Ty Warren would be on our team instead of theirs.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Now, you take a guy who established himself as a good pocket passer while in college, and his odds of doing that in the pros are a lot higher. Take Joe Montana. Even in high school, you could see he was exceptionally accurate, and that he could hit receivers in stride. If a college QB looks like Montana at Notre Dame, then I'd say that college QB would have a very good chance of becoming a successful pro. 589122[/snapback] Montana did pretty well in Walsh's WCO, didn't he? Not the strongest arm, and not very mobile, but intelligent with a nice touch on the ball. Then there's that strong-armed, happy-footed Mississippi kid who broke receivers fingers on 15 yard crossing patterns... Brett Favre. He also did pretty well running a WCO for Walsh disciple Mike Holmgren, once he got him settled down and some big hosses in front of him. You just never know where the next great one might jump up from. Maybe someone in Atlanta felt he only had a 15% chance of being any good.
Kultarr Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Arm- I think you are confusing folks by hopping back and forth in the topic you state you are addressing and also by saying contradctory things even in the same thread. This thread has some examples. 1. At one point in this thread you state that it is an indictment of JP and his work (IMHO this is fine as different folks have different legitimate opinions as to whether its to early to pull the plug on him or not orwhether it was a good idea to pick him in the first place). Since you entitled this thread as being an assessment of TD and folks assume that JP is really the target of your assessment since TD is simply old news, folks are simply confused by what you are saying here. If you see some evidence that Holcomb is flat out better than JP then make the case (which I do not think you can at this point because both have such clear failings, but the JP advantage from the Bills standpoint is that he has some potential (even if small) to be the Bills QB of the future because he is young and has many fired guys who worked on his development in his two years. I think there is a fair case to make that Holcomb produced better than JP, but given his age and his past history of being an adequate back-up but never productive as a starter there appears to be little chance that he is the Bills QB of the future. 2. Your separation of Holcomb out of TD's track record on QB's may be convenient for this argument but has little to do with reality. You seem to want to claim JP is a horrible choice by laying out a case that TD has a record of always making horrible QB choices. Claiming that both Holcomb is the man at QB, but somehow we should ignore the fact TD deserves as much credit/blame for this QB choice as any QB choice he made makes no sense. I think you have a case which matches the facts if you simply assess TD as having a mixed bag in leading us in QB choices for the Bills. 1. QB choices in 2001- For the most part TD was playing the hand Butlet dealt him as he was living in a world of horrendous QB choices by Butler/Ralph going back to their misassessment of how long Jimbo would last and what they should do to replace him. TD seemed to have a clear (and I think correct) assessment of this situation before he was hired (he was asked on his ESPN show about the question of DF/RJ and responded that given DF's record of leading the team to W's and RJ injury prone record why is there even a question as the answer is obvious which QB could deliver more for the Bills). However, once he became GM, TD again had the right view as his job was much larger than the question of who is the better QB right here right now, but it was also obvious that DF though better was not our QB of the future, nor was he likely to be a good mentor for our QB of the future as he wanted to play and the Bills had lied to him about getting a fair shot at starting when we signed him. It seemed clear that RJ was not our QB of the future because he was too injury prone and Butler has goofed up by giving him a big bonus and then overlaying DFs achieved incentives into them. However, as TD walked into a situation where we has already paid RJ/DF whether we cut them or not, the obvious answer to the question of who do you keep was the opposite of the answer to who is the better QB right here and right now. In addition, to making a good decision (the only one to be made really as 2991 was all about cao hell) regarding QB he made a good decision regarding the back-up. TD went with AVP and though he was no more than a back-up quality player folks falsely seemed to conclude that good play by AVP when the other team has backed off having knocked out your starter would also translate into good AVP play as a starter. it did not. AVP was a good back-up and nothing more but he was paid like a back-up and nothing more so this was a good choice by TD. 2002- This was probably TDs only year of making very good QB choices. Getting Bledsoe worked out as well in 2002 as really could be hoped for. Having made the good but forced choice of cutting RJ after his injury riddled 2001, he was left with AVP as a proven inadequate starter and a waiver wire which boasted backside of his career Rodney Peete and good but injury prone Chris Chandler as possible starters for us. Instead, TD suceeded in pulling off an unheard of in division trade to get Bledsoe. We paid substantially for him as it cost us a 2003 #1 (actually far below BBs orginal asking price of 2 #1s for this player who played QB in the majority of a must-win game in NE's 2001 road to the SB). The deal had clear downsides for us as BB in fact did translate his knowledge of Bledsoe's limitations into two losses in the division that year. However, TD's choices at QB worked out bigtime for the Bills in 2002 as Bledsoe's arrival was a big part in a rejuvenated Bills fan base after a horrid 3-13 season. Bledsoe's play in 2002 was a key part in the team improving from 3-13 to 8-8 and this is reflected in him meriting his 2002 Pro Bowl reserve nod (if you disagree then simply name the QB(s) whom you think deserved the Pro Bowl reserve nod for the 2002 season more than he did (the sound you hear is crickets chirping). Even though BB killed him it did not matter for us as we were not going to the playoffs in 2002 in any way, shape, or form. With a Kevin Killdrive O that no one had film on initially we had good results and a lot of this was about some extraordinary TD work. Add into this kudos he deserves for making the right call in using our cap room and roster space for development help at other positions than QB by correctly reading that the recently lung collapsed Bledsoe was a big boy who could survive a tone of pounding from an offense which gave up way too many sacks and that AVP was a good back-up if needed we went with only 2 QBs that season. Add into this further, that TD led the charge in turning nothing into something by replacing the 1st given up for Bledsoe into AT's 1st for FA PP and I think TD has to be recognized for pulling off one of the best years of QB judgment I have ever seen in 2002! 2003- This year unfirtunately was the football version of why the first President Bush was smart enough not to toss Saddam in 1991 which easily could have been done after the 1st Gulf War. One can make an unorthodox brilliant move as TD did acquiring Bledsoe in 2002, but if you break it you have bought it and there needed to be some correct and potentially radical moves in 2003 to continue the march forward the 2002 success of the Bills and our intial mission accomplished in throwing out the idiot Saddam. Just as trying to establish civil society in Iraq has proved to be a harder task than we envisioned and something which cannot be done on the cheap (our country is paying for it with the lives of our great troops) so too the Bills really needed to do some radical stuff to make 2003 work as well as 2002. Here we see how many other team decisions really determine the QB and O production. A. Bledsoe had a horrendous year in 2003 following up an outstanding year in 2002. B.Among the lead factors in the horrendous QB play in 2003 was: 1. Kevin Killdrive refusing to vary our offense even though everyone now had tons of film and BB provided a roadmap on how to exploit Bledsoe's weaknesses. 2. Ther hiring of GW (instead of Fox or begging after Lewis) became obvious as he was not able to force Killdrive to vary the O 3. The team melted down as Ruben openly challenged Killdrive but in the end both had to die as Bills since Ruben was right but the Bills could not hang with an employee who pointed this out publicly (RB correctly defended his teammates whom Killdrive tried to blame but the die was cast). At any rate, as good as 2002 was, 2003 saw some other very bad TD decisions about hiring GW and then going passive/aggressive allowing GW to screw up as long as he and not TD took the blame was bad for us as fans. 2004- TD screwed up bigtime IMHO by extending Bledsoe's deal. Bledsoe is not an ureasonable back-up at all and like Holcomb you can even win with him as a starter under the right circumstances and with other teammates really leading the team with their play on the field. However, a player of Bledsoe/Holco,b quality is a good investment at low Holcomb salary, but is not worth it at all at the salary Bledsoe got in 2004. It is somewhat ironic as actually the work MM/Clements did with Bledsoe in 2004 was quite impressive. Taking advantage of the things he did well (great hands, a strong arm and a lot of experiebce) and minimizing the things he did poorly with good O design an choices (he is not mobile at all, but the answer is you then need to run him on draws and make good use of the WM stiff arm going around the corner to stop the LBs and DEs from selling out to blitz the statue like Bledsoe around and through a poress Bills pass pro. they also ran some great fakes with handoffs and pitch backs and throws by Bledsoe and even a fake QB sneak) was really a great piece of O work. However, even with some great O work, the Bills still fell a game short of the playoffs as like Holcomb, Bledsoe is not enough of a player to deliver you to the playoffs without some significant help. Once tbe D failed to stop Parker in Pitts and the ST did not have its usual productive game for the Bills as Clements laid the ball on the carpet and Lindell missed a chip shot, Bledsoe was simply like Holcomb on the backside of his career and could not deliver in crunch time. 2005- In contrast to his great QB choices in 2002, 2005 saw TD really make some bad QB choices: 1. We paid in 2005 for the stupid extension of Bledsoe's contract in 2004. He can be adequate with a good team around him (as shown by the Boys getting a winning record but again falling a game short of the playoffs in 2005 with Bledsoe at the helm). However, once we signed him we should have kept him as we ended up with the penalty of his accelerated cap hit from cutting him. We are only marginally good enough to compete with him. without him and with the cap hit was a killer for us. 2. He gave the QB starter job to JP and even JP said that this was not the right way for him to win the job. In essence, TD committed to the future as he used 2005 as training camp to develop JP. Again this move shows that this is a TEAM game and TD seemed to hope that our D ranked #2 statistically the past two years would deliver the '85 Bears like performance they promised (not unreasonably actually since 10 of 11 starters were back). However, IMHO I think that the players really took this unconciously as the Bills not maximizing their chances for the playoffs in 2005. This made a small, marginal, but enough of a difference in this league where almost all the athletes are very good players. You gotta want it worse than the opponents and when TD consigned 05 to be a likely development year for JP we were done as the D simply and suddenly sucked. That being said, I think TD does deserve kudos and a positive nod for signing Holcomb for chump change. Perhaps, if we had come into pre-season and demanded of JP that he win the job on the field which even JP says is the right way to do this he could have stepped up and really take the job from Holcomb. I would have needed to get lucky though and once he was handed the job essentially by the front office and over the apparent objections of MM who wanted to win now, and then over the apparent fact based objections of Moulds because JP demonstrably did not use his WRs we were done. So overall, TD is a clear mixed bag in QB choices: 2001- Made as good a choice as he could make though we only had bad choices 2002- He made outstanding and innovative choices. 2003- The infrastructure he created failed completely to manage the team well which destroyed QB output as Bledsoe was not good enough to deal with bad HC work. 2004- Extneding Bledsoe was not a playoff strategy though it did prove to be a winning stategy with some good O work. Close but close only counts with hand grenades. 2005- As horrendous as 2002 was good as the front office did not give the players their best (even though the best chance was not very good) to win. This recipe got TD fired (he deserved it as 5 years with no playoffs is simply unacceptable. There may be no accountability for screwing up the Presidency but at least there should be for triva like the NFL)! The point you seem to be making though (and trying furiously but unsuccessfully IMHO to substantiate this by making a false and unsupportable claim that TD totally sucks in QB choices) is that we need to go with Holcomb rather than JP. Maybe but maybe not as the KH/JP deal strikes me as somewhat similar to the RJ/DF deal TD found when he got here. It is very clear that KH is more productive than JP (just as TD saw no question that DF was more productive than RJ). However, though KH is a far better mentor than DF (particularly after we lied to DF about getting a fair chance to be the starter when he signed) he still is on well into the bacside of his career, has no record beyond some great episodes of productive QB work and is not our QB of the future. Just as there is no question that KH is more productive than JP, there is not question contractually and in terms of where they are in their career that JP MIGHT become our QB of the future and Holcomb is too old and too unaccomplished in terms of consistent long-term results from his career to have any more than a reasonable chance to be a very good back-up QB for us. Rather trying to indict JP by his play (his age and contract dictate that though he not be given the starter's job like he was this year that he be given every reasonable shot we can to win this job on the field) I think there is a better case to be made based on reality. The fact simply is that if JP does develop and lead the Bills to an SB win next season (our ultimate goal) unless RoboQB leads Pitts to a win on Sunday he will be the first QB selected by a team to lead his team to an SB victory since Aikman was picked by Dallas in 1989. At the time when JP was selected it meant adopting a strategy for winning the SB whicb simply had not worked out for a team's draft choice in almost twenty years. Even if RoboQB leads Pitts to the promised land there is a reasonable argument that this is the chance occurence which is the exception that proves the rule. Success has been far more likely to occur in maing other QB choices from the field of QB development opportunities rather than making a pick for your QB of the future in the first round. 1. Teams have a history of greater success wining it all since Dallas picked Aikman of finding a 1st round or first day selected QB though other means than drafting him and endirig his failures while he learns the game. Successful choices of highly touted QBs traded to SB winners include Dilfer, supplemental pick Steve Young, and second round pick Favre. If you must have a 1st round or high pick at QB they are run out of town not infrquently when they fail learning and these players can be found. There is some thought that Dante Culpepper will be such a player this year. I for one wouldnot do this because I think QBs capable of winning the SB can be had for even the NFL vet minimum, but if you MUST have a first round pick this strategy has worked better than drafting a player in the 1st to play QB for you. The question is whether RoboQB will be the exceotionthat supports this "rule". 2. Teams have a hsitory of greater success actually picking good UDFAs who if they fail will have a minimal cap hit rather than giving the QB a 1st round slot contract where if he fails he kills your team for a couple of years at least. The classic was the Rams finding Warner at Wal-mart but the productive work of Jake Delhomme means this is possible. When one considers the factual occurence that a great QB like Peyton Manning after a dismal rookie year of learning has still only led the Colts to not significantly more playoff games that the Chargers have gotten to since they made the horrible choice of Ryan Leaf says something. Manning was such a far better choice than Leaf in terms of on field play one would naturally assume that it won't even be funny how much more Indy has achieved than SD. Yet, the real world occuences are because this is a TEAM game with the QB playing an important but far from the only important and often not even the most important role for a team, Manning really has only led the Colts to one really successful season IMHO) the year they made the conference final. This is better than SD who only recovered from the hiccup of Leaf to make it to the playoffs last year. However, given the hoopla and the cap hit of Manning, his career playoff record which is somewhere around 3-6 is better but not extraordinarily so than SD which is roughly 0-1 in the Leaf reign or error (in essence what is their playoff record while Manning ia around). 3, Draft late and develop 'em- Tom nrady is lightening in a bottle and inflates the winning % of QBs with this pedigree, but the facts are the facts. 4. Other folks rejects- Folks like Brad Johnson (a two-time loser before winning it all with TB) or folks like Hasselback this year are certainly far more real alternatives that expecting our pick of JP to work. The bottom-line though it too part: 1. Merely showing JP will not work out does not mean Holcomb will. 2. The chances of winning the SB are 1 out of 32 anyway, and given the small chance of either Holcomb working out or JP developing this why it is fairly meaningless at this early date in JPs career to declare it over (it may be but Holcomb is not a high probability improvement of our chances). Just as we cannot go back into the past and reverse TDs dumb decision to use the draft to get our QB of the future instead of more proven difficult techniques, we cannot avoid the reality of the contractual hit if we were to cut JP. JP needs to win this job on the field like he has said, and I'm not sure anyone rationally argues otherwise. However, if you are arguing to give this job to Holcomb this is not rational either. 588424[/snapback] Dare I mention it? Smubster, the little smurf is a UFA this year. What do you think?
The Dean Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 Maybe someone in Atlanta felt he only had a 15% chance of being any good. 589150[/snapback] Well, maybe somebody, but my guess is it wasn't anyone associated with NFL football. There's no way someone involved n football would write-off a guy like that given the situation. Now, a guy on a Falcon's BB who thought they should never have drafted Favre...well...maybe.
Nanker Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 You seem to think you can make Losman into a better QB by criticizing Holcomb. In any case, Holcomb's career passer rating of 79.9 is pretty decent for a starter. 589027[/snapback] No, Holcomb is a bad QB with no upside potential. He's got a noodle arm that can't get the ball more than 15 yds downfield. He fumbles, can't run and won't scare any opposing defenses - EVER! For crimmie sakes he sat on his ass for the first six years of his career and then couldn't make a go of it in Cleveland. CLEVELAND! Now he's your idol? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Orton's Arm Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 Montana did pretty well in Walsh's WCO, didn't he? Not the strongest arm, and not very mobile, but intelligent with a nice touch on the ball. Then there's that strong-armed, happy-footed Mississippi kid who broke receivers fingers on 15 yard crossing patterns... Brett Favre. He also did pretty well running a WCO for Walsh disciple Mike Holmgren, once he got him settled down and some big hosses in front of him. You just never know where the next great one might jump up from. Maybe someone in Atlanta felt he only had a 15% chance of being any good. 589150[/snapback] I have heard some players say Favre looks good in those very short shorts. On a more serious note, Losman's done nothing--either in college or the pros--to earn a Favre comparison. Ryan Leaf had a strong arm too.
Orton's Arm Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 No, Holcomb is a bad QB with no upside potential. He's got a noodle arm that can't get the ball more than 15 yds downfield. He fumbles, can't run and won't scare any opposing defenses - EVER!For crimmie sakes he sat on his ass for the first six years of his career and then couldn't make a go of it in Cleveland. CLEVELAND! Now he's your idol? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 589241[/snapback] I never said he was my idol. I think he has more potential than most people may realize. But I also think the Bills can do better, which is why I'm suggesting they take a long, hard look at Cutler. In fact, I've mentioned Cutler earlier in this thread, which you'd know if you'd read it.
Ramius Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 I have heard some players say Favre looks good in those very short shorts. On a more serious note, Losman's done nothing--either in college or the pros--to earn a Favre comparison. Ryan Leaf had a strong arm too. 589426[/snapback] And what excatly has holcomb done to show that he can lead this team? NOTHING! But i guess being a journeyman backup is good enough for a HOF induction.
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 I have heard some players say Favre looks good in those very short pants. On a more serious note, Losman's done nothing--either in college or the pros--to earn a Favre comparison. Ryan Leaf had a strong arm too. 589426[/snapback] Nor can he expect to have by playing in parts of nine games, with the coach constantly looking over his shoulder and not letting him learn and finish games. Not with a coach who gave it all to him, only to take it away. Losman did not have one chance to earn the job from Mularkey. It was all-or-nothing. Also, the point was that Favre had done nothing in his first two years, champ. Ryan Leaf was actively destructive to his team and his locker room. Losman has acted in no way to earn comparisons to Ryan Leaf. But keep on with your mystical "Holcomb-is-the-future" obsession...
Orton's Arm Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 And what excatly has holcomb done to show that he can lead this team? NOTHING! But i guess being a journeyman backup is good enough for a HOF induction. 589430[/snapback] Being a "journeyman backup" may not be good enough for a HOF induction. But it was enough to send Losman to the bench. Twice!
Recommended Posts