What should the Bills have done at QB

[sfladave]

wow, sfldave...

I was never ever pro-holcomb, but never really anti holcomb either. I was of the "coaches know best" mindset. btu after this post I have to say that I might just be anti-holcomb now.

607574[/snapback]

I was never anti Holcomb per say. I just didn't think he would take us to the promised land if he was our starter. I did and still do think he was a good pick up in FA as a good back up. I have to admit that even I was a little surprised when I compared his numbers to RJ.

 

RJ>KH

[Orton's Arm]

Now explain to me why we should think Holcomb is anything more than an OK back up. He doesn't even beat Rob Johnson on 12/13 categories.

607550[/snapback]

Interesting numbers. I always felt that, given enough time to throw, Johnson could really do bad things to the defense. But if you pressured him, he'd respond poorly.

 

Some of the Johnson numbers you cited are merely a result of him having played more games than Holcomb. Others--like his career passer rating--are actually quite good. I remember a few years into his Buffalo career, Johnson's passer rating was actually higher than Jim Kelly's. Partly that's a reflection on the fact the passer rating isn't a perfect measurement of what a QB brings, partly it's the result of Johnson's own ability to make big plays when he had time in the pocket, and partly it's because Johnson was usually careful about not throwing interceptable passes. Kelly was more Favre-like in his tendency to just throw it up there and hope your own guy makes a play.

 

The thing about Johnson was he was hurt too often (a fact which doesn't show up in your numbers), and he took too many sacks (which may or may not be included in your average yards per play stat, but otherwise doesn't show up in your numbers). Take away those two problems, and Johnson's a good QB.

 

People complain that Holcomb's rating overstates his true performance because of too many short passes on 3rd and long. So instead, let's look at how many points the Bills scored when Holcomb played from start to finish. The comparison team is the 2005 NE Patriots.

 

Bills/Holcomb minimum points per game:16

Patriots minimum points per game: 16

 

Bills/Holcomb average points per game: 22.9

Patriots average points per game: 23.7

 

There's a strong consensus that Losman pretty much stunk in three of his first four games. But it's felt he did much better in his second chance at starting. Throwing his first four games out the window, let's look at how Losman did the second time around, in games he played start to finish:

 

Bills/Losman version 2 minimum points per game: 7

Bills/Losman version 2 average points per game: 12.3*

 

*This average would go up to 14 if you threw in the half of the K.C. game in which Losman played.

 

Throwing QB rating out the window, and looking strictly at points scored per game, Holcomb produced results that looked a lot more like the Patriots' results than like version 2 of Losman's. This, despite the fact that Holcomb had the same inferior offensive line Losman had, the same people calling the plays, the same guys dropping passes, and the same suspect running game. It's strange that many of the same people who blame Losman's problems on the offensive unit around him are unwilling to give Holcomb credit for having produced results with that same flawed offensive unit.

[sfladave]

Interesting numbers. I always felt that, given enough time to throw, Johnson could really do bad things to the defense. But if you pressured him, he'd respond poorly.

 

Some of the Johnson numbers you cited are merely a result of him having played more games than Holcomb. Others--like his career passer rating--are actually quite good. I remember a few years into his Buffalo career, Johnson's passer rating was actually higher than Jim Kelly's. Partly that's a reflection on the fact the passer rating isn't a perfect measurement of what a QB brings, partly it's the result of Johnson's own ability to make big plays when he had time in the pocket, and partly it's because Johnson was usually careful about not throwing interceptable passes. Kelly was more Favre-like in his tendency to just throw it up there and hope your own guy makes a play.

 

The thing about Johnson was he was hurt too often (a fact which doesn't show up in your numbers), and he took too many sacks (which may or may not be included in your average yards per play stat, but otherwise doesn't show up in your numbers). Take away those two problems, and Johnson's a good QB.

 

People complain that Holcomb's rating overstates his true performance because of too many short passes on 3rd and long. So instead, let's look at how many points the Bills scored when Holcomb played from start to finish. The comparison team is the 2005 NE Patriots.

 

Bills/Holcomb minimum points per game:16

Patriots minimum points per game: 16

 

Bills/Holcomb average points per game: 22.9

Patriots average points per game: 23.7

 

There's a strong consensus that Losman pretty much stunk in three of his first four games. But it's felt he did much better in his second chance at starting. Throwing his first four games out the window, let's look at how Losman did the second time around, in games he played start to finish:

 

Bills/Losman version 2 minimum points per game: 7

Bills/Losman version 2 average points per game: 12.3*

 

*This average would go up to 14 if you threw in the half of the K.C. game in which Losman played.

 

Throwing QB rating out the window, and looking strictly at points scored per game, Holcomb produced results that looked a lot more like the Patriots' results than like version 2 of Losman's. This, despite the fact that Holcomb had the same inferior offensive line Losman had, the same people calling the plays, the same guys dropping passes, and the same suspect running game. It's strange that many of the same people who blame Losman's problems on the offensive unit around him are unwilling to give Holcomb credit for having produced results with that same flawed offensive unit.

607580[/snapback]

OK let's look at how many points each of those Qbs were responsible for during the games they played last year.

 

Kelly played in 10 games, JP in 9.

 

Kelly scored 56 of the teams 134 points in the games that he played. 41% of the points.

 

JP scored 42 of the the teams 104 points in the games that he played. 40% of the points.

 

edit: Kelly averaged 5.6 points in the games he played. JP averaged 4.6 points in the games he played.

 

Kelly was only able to average 1 point per game average better than JP, even though he has the advantage of being a 10 year veteran.

 

This points per game argument has so many holes in it I don't know where to even start. Let's just leave it with a 10 year veteran was barely able to out do a guy who has only started 8 games in his career, and that said veteran has stats that are convincingly worse than Rob Johnson's.

 

Give me your best shot!

[WVUFootball29]

Any statistic can say whatever you want it to say. Its like bending a piece of copper wire, you can make any shape you want if you twist it enough.

 

The way I see it, if we were/are going to stick with a veteran QB instead of working Losman, we should have kept Bledsoe.

[sfladave]

Any statistic can say whatever you want it to say.  Its like bending a piece of copper wire, you can make any shape you want if you twist it enough.

 

The way I see it, if we were/are going to stick with a veteran QB instead of working Losman, we should have kept Bledsoe.

607590[/snapback]

Statistics by their nature are meant to be manipulated. That is why they are such a bad indication of success or failure in micro situations.

 

The sad thing I found during this "research" is that together both of the Bills QBs averaged only 6.125 points per game. Was this because of the QBs, the coaches, the OL, the GM or the play calling? I say all of the above.

 

JP certainly has more upside than Kelly. Will he ever reach that upside? I do not know, but he does have that upside that Kelly does not.

 

If anything, these statistics warrant the approach that many here are calling for, an upgrade at QB. I just think that we have to prioritize and the lines win out in the long end of it.

 

If the salary cap were not an issue and we had unlimited amounts of $s to spend, then yes we could conceivably fix all of our problems right now. Reality dictates a different approach must be made, therefore we start with the foundation, the lines.

[The Senator]

Hmmm...now when I factor in the portions of the games that Holcomb played against Tampa Bay, New Orleans, and Kansas City, his average points-per-game seems to be 15.4!

 

As my good friend The Dean is fond of saying, "If you torture the numbers long enough, they'll confess to anything."

 

A more realistic view - if Kelly Holcomb is our starter in '06, we are DOOMED!!!

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

It doesnt matter its Time to focus on the future since nothing can be done on changing the past.

[stuckincincy]

Statistics by their nature are meant to be manipulated. That is why they are such a bad indication of success or failure in micro situations.

 

The sad thing I found during this "research" is that together both of the Bills QBs averaged only 6.125 points per game. Was this because of the QBs, the coaches, the OL, the GM or the play calling? I say all of the above.

 

JP certainly has more upside than Kelly. Will he ever reach that upside? I do not know, but he does have that upside that Kelly does not.

 

If anything, these statistics warrant the approach that many here are calling for, an upgrade at QB. I just think that we have to prioritize and the lines win out in the long end of it.

 

If the salary cap were not an issue and we had unlimited amounts of $s to spend, then yes we could conceivably fix all of our problems right now. Reality dictates a different approach must be made, therefore we start with the foundation, the lines.

607591[/snapback]

 

Player statistics sure have many grey areas, but they are useful to compare this one and that one. Pro teams spend the time and money to break down and analyze players on a pretty much play-by-play situation - an onerous undertaking that a fan (or a reporter or columnist) can't do.

 

It's always the case that there will be players that are better than their stats indicate, and vice versa. Football organizations are better at judging those than you or me, but misjudgements abound - as well as plain old bad luck.

[2003Contenders]

One other point I'd like to make is that Holcomb benefitted from a more balanced offensive coaching philosophy. I remember being at that home game against Miami, KH's first start. And I remember watching MM make better use of the running game and place KH in a better spot to succeed than he ever did with Losman.

 

In fact, that to me was the great failure last season. MM and TD supposedly saw what Pittsburgh was able to do with Big Ben and felt that they could do the same thing here with JP. The problem is that MM never tried to really follow Pittsburgh's blueprint by spoon-feeding JP and bringing him along slowly with a strong running game. They threw him into the deep end... but were much kinder about playing it safe, when they inserted KH.

 

Also, KH's big wins came in two home games against Miami and the NYJ -- two games in which I feel confident that JP would have led us to victory as well. Both games also exhibited the same problem that we saw with either QB -- an inability of the offense to do anything in the second half. The lone game that we won with KH behind the reigns that JP may not have pulled out is the Cinci game. However, I would trump that by pointing out how inept the offense was in the KC game before JP came in off the bench.

 

It's sad that we are having to debate which less than adequate QB is better. At least in JP's case he has the upside to get better -- and I'd like to see if that upside exists before I even think about giving up on him.

[Buckeye Eric]

Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda.

 

The Bills should have taken:

 

Lynn Swann over Ruben Gant in '74

Clay Matthews or Ozzie Newsome over Terry Miller in '78

Mike Singletary instead of Booker More in '81

Jerry Rice over Derrick Burroughs in '85

 

...and so on.

[Orton's Arm]

edit: Kelly averaged 5.6 points in the games he played. JP averaged 4.6 points in the games he played.

607588[/snapback]

When you say the QB was responsible for a certain number of points, I take it you mean TD passes. This measure is flawed. Let's say the offense starts at its own 1, and produces 98 passing yards. Then--from the other team's 1--McGahee runs it in for a TD. Does this mean the running game should get credit for 7 points, and the passing game credit for zero? Of course not. Or let's say the offense drives to the other team's 20, and then stalls. Should the credit for the ensuing FG go entirely to the kicker, and not to the offense that put him there? Absolutely not.

 

The definition you're using blots out every contribution the QB might make to the offense, except the TD pass.

[Orton's Arm]

All right. I figured that if I was going to complain about someone else's method of measuring a QB's contribution to a team's scoring, I may as well come up with something better. So I went through the games Holcomb played through, as well as Losman version 2's games. I used the following methodology:

 

- If the QB helped lead the offense into FG range, I'd give him 3 points if a FG was scored.

- If the offense started in FG range, the QB could get 4 points of credit for turning a FG into a TD.

- If the offense started outside FG range, the QB would get 7 points of credit for contributing to a TD drive.

 

Holcomb averaged 19.6 points per game under these rules; while Losman version 2 averaged just 11.0 points per game. Losman's average goes up to 12.2 points per game if you throw in the 2nd half of the KC game.

 

My definition excluded 9 offensive points for Holcomb, and 6 for Losman. With one exception, those exclusions came because the QBs began drives already inside FG range. The one exception was a drive which Holcomb started outside FG range, but to which he contributed just 6 passing yards.

[The Senator]

Like I said earlier, if you torture the numbers long enough, they'll confess to anything!

 

(Holcomb = DOOMED!)

[Orton's Arm]

Like I said earlier, if you torture the numbers long enough, they'll confess to anything!

 

(Holcomb = DOOMED!)

607786[/snapback]

How the @#@$@$#@# is what I did "torturing" numbers? Does your comment represent a sober analysis of what I've done? Of course not--you made it out of blind impulse.

 

You could look at QB rating, which Holcomb does well in. But people complained that I'm obsessed with QB ratings, and that Holcomb's rating gives him too much credit for a 2 yard pass on 3rd and 7. Fine. Look at points per game. But the objection there is that Terrence McGee's returns for TDs get thrown into points per game, even though the QB had nothing to do with them.

 

So I devise a system which gives the QB credit only for points the offense is responsible for, and even then, only when he makes a significant contribution to those drives. Now I have to listen to people cry about how I'm "torturing" numbers. Devise a better system if you're so smart. Don't complain about mine.

[The Senator]

So I devise a system which gives the QB credit only for points the offense is responsible for, and even then, only when he makes a significant contribution to those drives.

607795[/snapback]

You devise a system?

 

And that's not manipulating the statistics to serve your needs?

 

Oh.

[The Dean]

You devise a system? 

 

And that's not manipulating the statistics to serve your needs?

 

Oh.

607803[/snapback]

 

 

The Arm blinded me with science. SCIENCE!

[Orton's Arm]

You devise a system? 

 

And that's not manipulating the statistics to serve your needs?

 

Oh.

607803[/snapback]

Obviously, there's no arguing with you. In your eyes, the fact that I've created a system is the same thing as the system being deeply biased and flawed. You clearly don't feel the need to look beneath the surface to examine whether the biases you think might be there really are.

[The Senator]

In your eyes, the fact that I've created a system is the same thing as the system being deeply biased and flawed.

607816[/snapback]

Strange...I have no recollection of saying that.

[Orton's Arm]

Strange...I have no recollection of saying that.

607820[/snapback]

Maybe not in those exact words, but that's exactly what you implied. But that's not the issue here.

 

I'm not even going to try to talk you into thinking Holcomb should be the answer at starter. You think he's not starter-material, and that's fine. But keep in mind that under Holcomb, the offense created an average of 7 more points per game than it did under Losman version 2. So if Holcomb isn't the answer, then, barring dramatic improvement, Losman isn't the answer either. That's mainly the point I was getting at.

[sfladave]

Maybe not in those exact words, but that's exactly what you implied. But that's not the issue here.

 

I'm not even going to try to talk you into thinking Holcomb should be the answer at starter. You think he's not starter-material, and that's fine. But keep in mind that under Holcomb, the offense created an average of 7 more points per game than it did under Losman version 2. So if Holcomb isn't the answer, then, barring dramatic improvement, Losman isn't the answer either. That's mainly the point I was getting at.

607831[/snapback]

The bottom line is that neither of our QBs did a very good job last year. Holcomb is a known quantity. We know what we have with Holcomb, we don't know what we have in JP. JP hasn't shown us that he is any better, in fact his stats are worse.

 

The difference between the 2 of them is that JP might be able to adjust and take it to the next level. Holcomb we know will not. Holcomb is not going to suddenly elevate his play after 10 years in the league to that consistently good or great level. JP did show improvement last year. It was obvious that the game did slow down some for him, but it needs to slow down a lot more.

 

After releasing Bledsoe the biggest mistake the Bills made last year was not keeping JP in for the majority of the snaps. He lost real game experience and the Bills lost real game evaluation.