Will the new coaching staff support JP...

[ganesh]

I'm curious to see how JP handles himself in the preseason and in training camp. If he messes up there, you hand the job to Holcomb. If he shows potential, you give him the first four games of the season to see how he does. If he's not producing by the end of game four, it would be hard to say when he'd start. Next year will be his third in the league, and it's time the Bills started reaping some rewards from their investment in JP.

597952[/snapback]

 

Holcomb cannot carry this team for 16 games....If JP is not going to be

the guy, they should look for another Veteran QB in the offseason to compete.

Keeping KH will only add more QB controversy to this team.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I don't disagree about THIS description of KH, necessarily.  But, do you think Dilfer or Kitna are anything other than your description of Holcomb?

598093[/snapback]

 

Kitna is no better than Holcomb. He's going to fumble and choke games away while making just enough plays that some fans will think he's going to turn it on any game now. Kitna is a fumbling machine, btw.

 

Dilfer is not a great QB, but he can manage a game if kept on a short leash. He's more comparable to Jake Plummer, I'd say. If he can hand the ball off and throw the ball to keep the defense honest, he might be OK. Ask him to take 7 step drops behind a porous line play after play, and it's going to get fugly really fast. He's a good mentor, from what I hear, so I wouldn't mind him helping out Losman to be honest. But, behind our '05 line, Dilfer would suck too. (Who wouldn't?)

[The Senator]

My biggest worry is with the QB coach. Fairchild almost looks like he will want to have the duel responsibility as QB coach. If that happens, Fairchild will be too busy to properly coach the QBs; although, that would leave one coach out of the chain in developing the most important position in football. In other words, there will be no misinterreptation in the system being run.

 

598166[/snapback]

 

Well, if Fairchild gets too busy, he could always bring in someone to help out with the QBs...someone like Jim Kelly, maybe?

[Kelly the Dog]

I made the mistake of assuming the readers of my post had the ability to interpret my words with some modicum of intelligence. Sorry about the careless mistake.

 

For those who lack this ability--or choose not to apply it--here is a "For Dummies" version of my original post:

 

Original version: If Losman messes up in training camp and preseason, you hand the job to Holcomb.

 

Expanded version for dummies: If Losman messes up in training camp and preseason, you hand the job to Holcomb. Unless of course Holcomb is injured, or messes up quite badly himself, or gets kidnapped by terrorists, or randomly decides to retire, or gets killed in a car accident. At that point, the QB position will probably stink for the year anyway, so you'd go with Losman on the off chance he might improve.

 

Original version: You give Losman four games to see if he can produce.

 

Expanded version for dummies: If Losman has four consecutive bad games, you'd go with Holcomb. If he has one good game and three bad ones, you give him through week five. If he has another bad game in week five, you go with Holcomb. If he plays well in week five, you'd give him through week seven to have another good game. For these purposes, two decent games count the same as one good one.

 

My original point--which you apparently failed to grasp--was that it's Losman's third year, and it's about time he started giving the coaching staff a reason to believe he's the answer. Holcomb hasn't had many starts either, but he plays like a veteran because he's been around the league a while. If Losman can't get the job done in training camp or preseason, why should the Bills believe he's the answer in the regular season? The only reason I'd see would be blind hope. Of course, they say love is blind, which may go a long way to explaining your feelings about JP.

598105[/snapback]

Thanks for proving my point. You agree your first post was stupid. You don't think if JP has a bad pre-seaason then hand the job to Holcomb, as you previously said, you think they should fight it out and see who is healthy and ready to play. And you don't think they should give JP four games like you said, you think they should see how it goes early in the year and then make a decision based on play. At least you were smart enough to realize you were stupid. Carry on.

[Max Fischer]

I'm constantly amazed that anyone still believes (even in hindsight) that JP, essentially a rookie, could have succeeded last season.

 

Look at what this board said were MAJOR problems and need to be fixed:

 

1. The offensive line was one of the worst in the league. Many scenarios have nearly an entire new line next year -- only to retain the UFA TE to start at RT. Nearly three seconds of pass protection was a high water mark for any game.

 

2. Below average play at TE (likely a must for young QBs). Moreover, lack of a pass catching RB or FB. In other words, no worthy safety valve. How many times do we have to see brady, big ben, palmer or even the "average" team QBs find the safety receiver wide open?

 

3. At best, an inconsistant run game AND/OR constantly playing from behind due to the seive for a defense. If the opposing team knew the Bills HAD to pass it was tee-time.

 

4. A #1 WR who rarely played like one and certainly left the fireworks for off the field.

 

5. Recievers who never appeared to be open. How many catches do you recall where the Bills receiver was OPEN? I'm still shocked when I see another team's reciever with more than a yard of space. It seemed JP or KH had to thread the needle on every pass.

 

6. At times atrocious and at best unimaginative/dumbfounding play calling.

 

If you agree that just a few of these things occured, how can you not give JP the benefit of a mulligan and a chance to play well on a decently run team?

 

Does anyone really think any QB could have pulled his team along

[Tipster19]

Wow Max Fischer, what a accurate analogy. I'll give losman the benefit of the doubt. I think (or hope, I'm not sure which yet) Jauron will bring a calming influence to this upended team. I do think that it would be in our best interest to still bring in more stability to this position this year. In case of injury, lack of production or anything else that could go awry. Going with a still unproven young QB and a journeyman doesn't give me the best of confidence. Hopefully this Losman proves alot of people wrong, including me. There's nothing that I would enjoy more. Thanks for your intelligent response.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I'm constantly amazed that anyone still believes (even in hindsight) that JP, essentially a rookie, could have succeeded last season.

 

Look at what this board said were MAJOR problems and need to be fixed:

 

1.  The offensive line was one of the worst in the league.  Many scenarios have nearly an entire new line next year -- only to retain the UFA TE to start at RT.  Nearly three seconds of pass protection was a high water mark for any game.

 

2.  Below average play at TE (likely a must for young QBs).  Moreover, lack of a pass catching RB or FB.  In other words, no worthy safety valve.  How many times do we have to see brady, big ben, palmer or even the "average" team QBs find the safety receiver wide open?

 

3.  At best, an inconsistant run game AND/OR constantly playing from behind due to the seive for a defense.  If the opposing team knew the Bills HAD to pass it was tee-time. 

 

4.  A  #1 WR who rarely played like one and certainly left the fireworks for off the field.

 

5.  Recievers who never appeared to be open.  How many catches do you recall where the Bills receiver was OPEN?  I'm still shocked when I see another team's reciever with more than a yard of space.  It seemed JP or KH had to thread the needle on every pass.

 

6.  At times atrocious and at best unimaginative/dumbfounding play calling.

 

If you agree that just a few of these things occured, how can you not give JP the benefit of a mulligan and a chance to play well on a decently run team?

 

Does anyone really think any QB could have pulled his team along

598274[/snapback]

 

Damn straight. Nope. Give me Michael Vick, a jet pack, and roller skates, and then maybe, only maybe, we lose a few games by fewer points.

[Max Fischer]

Wow Max Fischer, what a accurate analogy. I'll give losman the benefit of the doubt. I think (or hope, I'm not sure which yet) Jauron will bring a calming influence to this upended team. I do think that it would be in our best interest to still bring in more stability to this position this year. In case of injury, lack of production or anything else that could go awry. Going with a still unproven young QB and a journeyman doesn't give me the best of confidence. Hopefully this Losman proves alot of people wrong, including me. There's nothing that I would enjoy more. Thanks for your intelligent response.

598344[/snapback]

 

And not to belabor the point, but how could have JP done a whole lot better last year and what difference will it make who plays QB if we don't address the core problems?

 

I've seen a bunch of QB what-ifs (including Big Ben) but highly doubt it would have made that much difference in wins this past year.

 

Posters have suggested about 10 different QBs (including drafting a QB to start ) but I can't think how it will make any difference if we don't first address all the core issues that really sunk the team LAST year.

 

In other words, QB, even if JP is average, is the least important change the team needs. Give JP a little time, have some sort of run game, get at least one reciever slightly open each play and create an identity. Then we can determine if JP is a problem or will do just fine.

 

Otherwise, we may be asking JP to achieve the impossible.

[The Dean]

Posters have suggested about 10 different QBs (including drafting a QB to start  )

598595[/snapback]

 

 

Stupidest idea ever...no?

 

Guess who was promoting that?

[Orton's Arm]

You agree your first post was stupid.

598258[/snapback]

Obviously, you're determined to believe what you want, ignoring the evidence right in front of you. That applies both to your take on my posts, and your take on Losman. Must be nice to live in a world where wishing and believing are the same.

[Kelly the Dog]

Obviously, you're determined to believe what you want, ignoring the evidence right in front of you. That applies both to your take on my posts, and your take on Losman. Must be nice to live in a world where wishing and believing are the same.

598614[/snapback]

Actually, Lackof, I specifically laid the detailed evidence right out in front of you, the board, and the entire world wide web. Your response is to just ignore all evidence and take a feeble potshot.

 

And of course wishing and believing are not the same thing. For example, I wish to God that you'd get a clue or a brain and at least another take, but I don't believe it's ever going to happen.

[Orton's Arm]

In other words, QB, even if JP is average, is the least important change the team needs. 

I strongly disagree. Quarterback is the most important position on the team, which is why QBs make the most money. It's very, very difficult to get to the Super Bowl without an elite level of QB play, and almost imposible to do so more than once. I challenge anyone to name a team which made it to the Super Bowl twice or more, with the same group of core players, that didn't have a very good QB. Let's look at the teams that have made it there multiple times close together:

 

NE Patriots (2000s)

Denver ('80s and '90s)

Packers ('90s)

Cowboys ('90s)

Bills (early '90s)

'49ers ('80s)

Steelers ('70s)

Cowboys ('70s)

 

Notice anything in common? Each of these teams had a QB who was at or slightly below a Hall of Fame level. An elite QB alone isn't enough to get you multiple Super Bowl appearances, as Dan Marino proved down in Miami. But if you don't have an elite QB, it's basically impossible to get there more than once.

 

So if Losman will never be more than average, the Bills need to figure out a way to upgrade his position. That means examining all their options, including first round QBs.

 

Give JP a little time, have some sort of run game, get at least one reciever slightly open each play and create an identity.  Then we can determine if JP is a problem or will do just fine.

What kind of offensive line did the Bills have when they evaluated Rob Johnson? Was the running game any more of a threat with Antowain Smith than it is with Willis McGahee? I'd agree the offense as a whole needs to be fixed, and that makes it tougher to evaluate a QB. But I think it's still possible.

 

You worry about whether Losman is being asked to achieve the impossible. I'd just like to see him play at or above the level of Holcomb. If Holcomb is the journeyman/loser many posters seem to feel, it should be a cinch to outplay him, right? Eli Manning gave Kurt Warner a run for his money as a rookie in preseason; and I don't think it's unrealistic to ask the same from Losman in his third year here.

[Orton's Arm]

Actually, Lackof, I specifically laid the detailed evidence right out in front of you, the board, and the entire world wide web. Your response is to just ignore all evidence and take a feeble potshot.

Where is this "evidence" you're bragging about? Give me a link.

 

For example, I wish to God that you'd get a clue or a brain and at least another take, but I don't believe it's ever going to happen.

598623[/snapback]

Pot? Kettle? Black?

[Kelly the Dog]

Where is this "evidence" you're bragging about? Give me a link.

Pot? Kettle? Black?

598643[/snapback]

Oh, boogers! Again I have fallen victim to the deadly, inarguably brilliant "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" defense. Drat! When will I learn?

[Orton's Arm]

Oh, boogers! Again I have fallen victim to the deadly, inarguably brilliant "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" defense. Drat! When will I learn?

598646[/snapback]

All bluster, and no link to the "evidence" you bragged about. What a surprise.

[Kelly the Dog]

All bluster, and no link to the "evidence" you bragged about. What a surprise.

598652[/snapback]

The evidence is listed above in this same thread in post 17, 36 and 44. Under a couple posts of yours that I detailed what you said and why it was foolish, with specifics, and just short of twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles

and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each

one was to be used as evidence against you.

 

There is really no need to provide a link at the request of someone that has already been provided the information and ignored it.

[Orton's Arm]

The evidence is listed above in this same thread in post 17, 36 and 44. Under a couple posts of yours that I detailed what you said and why it was foolish, with specifics, and just short of twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles

and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each

one was to be used as evidence against you.

 

There is really no need to provide a link at the request of someone that has already been provided the information and ignored it.

598661[/snapback]

Post 17 didn't provide evidence of anything more than a misunderstanding. Oviously, we disagree as to whose fault the misunderstanding was. I posted post #36 myself, where I cleared up the confusion. In post #44, you tried to differentiate between what I'd written in #36 (which you seemed to think was reasonable) from your interpretation of my original post (which you thought was not).

 

To be honest, this is one of the sillier debates I've become involved in, and I don't think either of us is doing himself a favor by continuing with it. Let's just drop this.

[Max Fischer]

I strongly disagree. Quarterback is the most important position on the team, which is why QBs make the most money. It's very, very difficult to get to the Super Bowl without an elite level of QB play, and almost imposible to do so more than once. I challenge anyone to name a team which made it to the Super Bowl twice or more, with the same group of core players, that didn't have a very good QB. Let's look at the teams that have made it there multiple times close together:

 

NE Patriots (2000s)

Denver ('80s and '90s)

Packers ('90s)

Cowboys ('90s)

Bills (early '90s)

'49ers ('80s)

Steelers ('70s)

Cowboys ('70s)

 

Notice anything in common? Each of these teams had a QB who was at or slightly below a Hall of Fame level. An elite QB alone isn't enough to get you multiple Super Bowl appearances, as Dan Marino proved down in Miami. But if you don't have an elite QB, it's basically impossible to get there more than once.

 

So if Losman will never be more than average, the Bills need to figure out a way to upgrade his position. That means examining all their options, including first round QBs.

What kind of offensive line did the Bills have when they evaluated Rob Johnson? Was the running game any more of a threat with Antowain Smith than it is with Willis McGahee? I'd agree the offense as a whole needs to be fixed, and that makes it tougher to evaluate a QB. But I think it's still possible.

 

You worry about whether Losman is being asked to achieve the impossible. I'd just like to see him play at or above the level of Holcomb. If Holcomb is the journeyman/loser many posters seem to feel, it should be a cinch to outplay him, right? Eli Manning gave Kurt Warner a run for his money as a rookie in preseason; and I don't think it's unrealistic to ask the same from Losman in his third year here.

598634[/snapback]

 

Couple of points:

 

1. You can't seriously believe the QBs on those teams (in thier prime) would have led the 2005 Bills to the playoffs and beyond. Jim Kelly MAY have won a game or two more but that would have been the 91-94 Kelly, not the 83-84 version.

 

2. What makes a good QB? If you dont have time to throw, bad playcalling or open recievers you're not going to the pro bowl, let alone the playoffs.

 

3. Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jeff Hofstetler, Boomer Eaisison, Jim McMahon, Neil O'Donnell, Tim Hasselbeck, Chris Chandler, Brad Johnson all got their teams to the super bowl. By the way, Five of the Nine won.

 

4. How many "Elite QBs" took their team to the super bowl in their second year? Third? Fourth? How many took them there with a crappy OL and no running game?

 

I bet most of them had crappy first few seasons but you want to declare JP, in his first full season, a bust because he couldn't lead a bad team to the playoffs?

 

Holcomb did not do much better and certainly played no better from his first to last game and he's been in the league since before JP started college.

 

The only thing we agree on (if I can follow your sandskrit) is to let JP compete for the starting QB spot. Hopefully by that time we've addressed the core problems and he'll have a snowballs chance of being successful. If they don't address the core problems not all the "elite QBs" in the league can lead this team beyond mediocrity.

[sfladave]

I strongly disagree. Quarterback is the most important position on the team, which is why QBs make the most money. It's very, very difficult to get to the Super Bowl without an elite level of QB play, and almost imposible to do so more than once. I challenge anyone to name a team which made it to the Super Bowl twice or more, with the same group of core players, that didn't have a very good QB. Let's look at the teams that have made it there multiple times close together:

 

NE Patriots (2000s)

Denver ('80s and '90s)

Packers ('90s)

Cowboys ('90s)

Bills (early '90s)

'49ers ('80s)

Steelers ('70s)

Cowboys ('70s)

 

Notice anything in common? Each of these teams had a QB who was at or slightly below a Hall of Fame level. An elite QB alone isn't enough to get you multiple Super Bowl appearances, as Dan Marino proved down in Miami. But if you don't have an elite QB, it's basically impossible to get there more than once.

 

598634[/snapback]

You completely ignored what Max Fischer said, which was, "In other words, QB, even if JP is average, is the least important change the team needs." LEAST IMPORTANT CHANGE THE TEAM NEEDS! He never said that the QB is not the most important position, he was saying we have other areas that are far more important to address!

 

I'm sorry but you have now sunk to the level of a crusader in my opinion, which is only a half step above an instigating troll. Your support of the Bills needing to replace JP has been noted and even respected by myself. However your constant closed minded crusading approach to this is VERY old and VERY....yawn...boring.

 

So if Losman will never be more than average, the Bills need to figure out a way to upgrade his position. That means examining all their options, including first round QBs.

Put the horse back in front of the cart. In other words fix the biggest problem first, our lines.

 

What kind of offensive line did the Bills have when they evaluated Rob Johnson? Was the running game any more of a threat with Antowain Smith than it is with Willis McGahee? I'd agree the offense as a whole needs to be fixed, and that makes it tougher to evaluate a QB. But I think it's still possible.

The Bills have not had a good OL since the SB years. Just because they have not tried to fix it since then does not mean that they shouldn't have. RJ, Flutie, Bledsoe, Losman and even Holcomb all could have performed MUCH better if we had focused on upgrading our OL.

 

You worry about whether Losman is being asked to achieve the impossible. I'd just like to see him play at or above the level of Holcomb. If Holcomb is the journeyman/loser many posters seem to feel, it should be a cinch to outplay him, right? Eli Manning gave Kurt Warner a run for his money as a rookie in preseason; and I don't think it's unrealistic to ask the same from Losman in his third year here.

I look to Pittsburgh and see how they handled Ben. They kept things very simple for him at first and then gradually expanded the passing game as he became more comfortable and confident. They were able to do this because they had an excellent OL and running game.

 

The Bills should have done the same for JP, but they didn't. Holcomb might be better equipped to run a more complex offense because of his experience. He will not however give us any upside. Holcombs limitations can not be overcome. JPs probably can be if he is brought along at a proper pace.

[Orton's Arm]

Couple of points:

 

1. You can't seriously believe the QBs on those teams (in thier prime) would have led the 2005 Bills to the playoffs and beyond.  Jim Kelly MAY have won a game or two more but that would have been the 91-94 Kelly, not the 83-84 version.

I'm not stupid enough to believe that any QB could have led the 2005 Bills to the playoffs, let alone the Super Bowl.

2.  What makes a good QB?  If you dont have time to throw, bad playcalling or open recievers you're not going to the pro bowl, let alone the playoffs.

Point granted. However, throwing behind the same offensive line, to the same receivers, with the same people calling the plays, and the same running game, Holcomb compiled a QB rating of 85.6, while Losman's rating was 64.9. This doesn't mean Losman will never improve, but it does mean that some of the passing game's problems in 2005 were his fault.

3.  Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jeff Hofstetler, Boomer Eaisison, Jim McMahon, Neil O'Donnell, Tim Hasselbeck, Chris Chandler, Brad Johnson all got their teams to the super bowl.  By the way, Five of the Nine won. 

Tim Hasselbeck has bounced around the league a little. Mostly he's been a backup, but he did play in seven games for the Redskins back in '03. You might be thinking of Matt Hasselbeck, the Seahawks' QB. He compiled a QB rating of 98.2 for the 2005 season, which is pretty nearly elite level. Some of the other QBs you mention, such as Esiason, O'Donnell, and Brad Johnson, were above average for starters.

 

But there are still a few guys like Trent Dilfer. He's a good example of what I'm talking about, actually. The Ravens of 2000 had one of the two best defenses in NFL history. Yet that team only has one Super Bowl ring to show for this achievement. Well, you say, one ring is a whole lot better than none. But take a closer look at how they came to have that ring. In the playoff game against the Titans, the Ravens won 20-10. However, ten of the Ravens' points came because of big special teams plays. Even when your special teams are good, you can't count on them to score every week, or even most weeks. Let's say the Ravens' special teams had been quiet that particular week. There's an excellent chance they would have lost that game.

 

Bad breaks can happen to teams with elite passing games too. But because an elite passing game can be kept intact longer than an elite defense, you give yourself more chances to have a year when the breaks go your way.

I bet most of them had crappy first few seasons but you want to declare JP, in his first full season, a bust because he couldn't lead a bad team to the playoffs?

The question is whether Losman has the potential for greatness. If he doesn't, the Bills should start looking for his replacement sooner rather than later. It takes time for a QB to develop, so if Losman isn't going to become something special, you'd want to give his replacement as much time to learn as possible.

If they don't address the core problems not all the "elite QBs" in the league can lead this team beyond mediocrity.

598683[/snapback]

I agree there's no excuse for the way the OL has been neglected. Teams that made it deep into this year's playoffs usually spent multiple first day draft picks on their offensive lines. The Bills aren't a QB away from having a good offense. But they might not be an offensive line away from having a good offense either. Maybe they need both.