What should the Bills have done at QB

[Kultarr]

Since Johnson was going into his fourth year (and was in the last year of his contract) this wouldn't have applied to him. The $25 million contract wasn't designed to make Johnson feel good--though I'm sure it had that effect! If Butler hadn't extended Johnson, Johnson would have hit free agency after the season had ended. If he doesn't re-sign with the Bills, we're out those draft picks. If he plays well and does re-sign, it would be because the Bills won a bidding war. Not good. If you're trading away that kind of draft value for a guy, you'd better make sure he's under contract for more than just one year.

 

Johnson's play in the Jacksonville game was more than "pretty good." It was stellar; which is why teams were so eager to acquire him. After the Bills had obtained the rights to Johnson, San Diego offered us the 2nd overall pick in the draft for him. Butler refused, and San Diego would go on to use that pick on Ryan Leaf.

608363[/snapback]

 

Exactly right, Arm.

 

The Bills had just traded a 1st and 4th round pick for him, which meant they felt he was worth a pick in the top 5 of that year's draft. In other words, they were sky-high on Rob Johnson and thought he was going to be something very special. They weren't going to "audition him on the cheap" and risk him holding out or flipping them a bird at the end of the season -- that just isn't a realistic scenario.

 

It is an argument based on two false assumptions. (1) That the Bills had reluctance, misgivings or doubts about Rob Johnson being a great QB at the time. This is clearly false because they gave up a ton just to get him. (2) That the Bills organization holds all the cards in dealing with players and agents. This couldn't be further from the truth. There are other teams out there and many of them will pay the going rate for talent, e.g., Seattle and Hasselbeck. Further, being overly miserly is not in a team's long term best interest. It's hard to attract top free agents when you justly earn a reputation for paying pennies on the dollar to your top players.

 

The expectations were that the Bills had just traded for the next Brett Favre or Peyton Manning. Let's say this was the Favre situation and Brett Favre had been given a low-ball audition and left Green Bay to have his stellar Hall-of-Fame career somewhere else like, say, archrival Minnesota. You think Ron Wolf would be regarded as an intelligent man and great GM? Uh, no way. He'd be a marked man, a laughingstock buffoon, and/or a member of the witness protection program.

 

With perfect hindsight, it's easy to say Flutie's contract should not have had so many performance bonuses and the Bills should've never traded for Rob Johnson or traded him to San Diego or whatever.

 

But the thinking was that the Bills had a team and needed to find a good enough QB to get the core group (Smith, Thomas, Reed, etc.) back to the Super Bowl. If Rob Johnson had been 1/10-th the QB they thought they were getting, it would've worked and we'd all be tickled silly talking about the year we went all the way and toyed with the Rams, or whoever, in the big dance.

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly right, Arm. 

 

The Bills had just traded a 1st and 4th round pick for him, which meant they felt he was worth a pick in the top 5 of that year's draft.  In other words, they were sky-high on Rob Johnson and thought he was going to be something very special.  They weren't going to "audition him on the cheap" and risk him holding out or flipping them a bird at the end of the season -- that just isn't a realistic scenario. 

 

It is an argument based on two false assumptions.  (1) That the Bills had reluctance, misgivings or doubts about Rob Johnson being a great QB at the time.  This is clearly false because they gave up a ton just to get him.  (2) That the Bills organization holds all the cards in dealing with players and agents.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  There are other teams out there and many of them will pay the going rate for talent, e.g., Seattle and Hasselbeck.  Further, being overly miserly is not in a team's long term best interest.  It's hard to attract top free agents when you justly earn a reputation for paying pennies on the dollar to your top players.

 

The expectations were that the Bills had just traded for the next Brett Favre or Peyton Manning.  Let's say this was the Favre situation and Brett Favre had been given a low-ball audition and left Green Bay to have his stellar Hall-of-Fame career somewhere else like, say, archrival Minnesota.  You think Ron Wolf would be regarded as an intelligent man and great GM?  Uh, no way.  He'd be a marked man, a laughingstock buffoon, and/or a member of the witness protection program.

 

With perfect hindsight, it's easy to say Flutie's contract should not have had so many performance bonuses and the Bills should've never traded for Rob Johnson or traded him to San Diego or whatever.

 

But the thinking was that the Bills had a team and needed to find a good enough QB to get the core group (Smith, Thomas, Reed, etc.) back to the Super Bowl.  If Rob Johnson had been 1/10-th the QB they thought they were getting, it would've worked and we'd all be tickled silly talking about the year we went all the way and toyed with the Rams, or whoever, in the big dance.

608540[/snapback]

Where is the precedent for that? And again, I wasnt saying wait until he plays great and then offer him a contract at the end of the season, I meant wait until he plays in camp and pre-season and games one and two or so and give him 25 million in late September. If he plays decent or well, he is going to sign the contract. If he doesn't, you always have the transition and franchise tags to work out a deal. And again, this isn't like scouting a college QB and liking what you see and picking him number 5 in the draft and giving him 25 mil. The scouts already did that three years ago and that same player lasted until the fourth round even though he had all the tools. This isn't like a FA QB coming in that had played a lot and showed he could play. This was one game in three years, because he was lousy in the other spot duty he had. In fact, outside of that one game, he threw four passes more and had two interceptions and at least three sacks. JP Losman looked pretty damn good in his first game as a starter against a crappy team in the opener, too.

[Orton's Arm]

Where the hell did this claim come from?

608521[/snapback]

If you recall that time, San Diego and Buffalo were both interested in Rob Johnson. Butler offered Jacksonville a first and fourth round pick for the guy, but it was a deal that would expire quickly. Beathard didn't respond quickly, so Jacksonville had to take the bird in the hand (the Butler offer) or wait to see what San Diego would decide to offer. The Jaguars chose the former course; apparently believing that if San Diego didn't one up Buffalo right then, it might not do so at all. Later on, after Beathard had examined the situation more closely, he decided to offer Buffalo the 2nd pick in the draft for Rob Johnson.

[Dan Gross]

If you recall that time, San Diego and Buffalo were both interested in Rob Johnson. Butler offered Jacksonville a first and fourth round pick for the guy, but it was a deal that would expire quickly. Beathard didn't respond quickly, so Jacksonville had to take the bird in the hand (the Butler offer) or wait to see what San Diego would decide to offer. The Jaguars chose the former course; apparently believing that if San Diego didn't one up Buffalo right then, it might not do so at all. Later on, after Beathard had examined the situation more closely, he decided to offer Buffalo the 2nd pick in the draft for Rob Johnson.

608553[/snapback]

 

The way this thread has turned, you might want to change the title to say 1998 rather than 2003...

[Ramius]

Later on, after Beathard had examined the situation more closely, he decided to offer Buffalo the 2nd pick in the draft for Rob Johnson.

608553[/snapback]

 

I need some verification that SD offered the #2 overall to the Bills for Rob Johnson, before i'm even remotely going to believe this.

[Kelly the Dog]

If you recall that time, San Diego and Buffalo were both interested in Rob Johnson. Butler offered Jacksonville a first and fourth round pick for the guy, but it was a deal that would expire quickly. Beathard didn't respond quickly, so Jacksonville had to take the bird in the hand (the Butler offer) or wait to see what San Diego would decide to offer. The Jaguars chose the former course; apparently believing that if San Diego didn't one up Buffalo right then, it might not do so at all. Later on, after Beathard had examined the situation more closely, he decided to offer Buffalo the 2nd pick in the draft for Rob Johnson.

608553[/snapback]

Garbage. The Chargers didn't even have the 2nd pick in the draft, they had the third. And they loved Leaf. So much so, that even though the Cardinals were ahead of them and already had their Quarterback of the future, to MOVE UP ONE SPOT the Chargers gave Arizona their first round pick (3rd overall), their second-round pick (32nd overall), their 1999 first-round pick, WR/KR Eric Metcalf, and linebacker Patrick Sapp.

 

So they did this for their second choice? Because they were rebuffed for Rob Johnson? Or are you inferring they made this trade with the Cardinals just on the hopes that the Bills would take a #2 but not #3 for him.

[Orton's Arm]

I need some verification that SD offered the #2 overall to the Bills for Rob Johnson, before i'm even remotely going to believe this.

608561[/snapback]

That's fair. I looked for verification, but this was an obscure event--a trade that never happened--from many years ago. It's not like the fate of the world rests on getting to the bottom of this matter, so I'll just let things be.

[Kelly the Dog]

That's fair. I looked for verification, but this was an obscure event--a trade that never happened--from many years ago. It's not like the fate of the world rests on getting to the bottom of this matter, so I'll just let things be.

608581[/snapback]

Probably for the best, because it's virtually impossible to link to thin air.

[Orton's Arm]

Probably for the best, because it's virtually impossible to link to thin air.

608584[/snapback]

Apparently, letting things be is easier for some than for others!

[Kelly the Dog]

Apparently, letting things be is easier for some than for others!

608591[/snapback]

Apparently, you must work for some whole cloth company.

[Orton's Arm]

The way this thread has turned, you might want to change the title to say 1998 rather than 2003...

608559[/snapback]

Too true. Of course, in 1998 we had the Johnson/Flutie controversy. Johnson was an unproven "QB of the future" that the Bills traded away strong draft position to acquire. Flutie was a savvy veteran who--before coming to Buffalo--was never quite able to make it as a starter in the NFL. Johnson had a bigger arm than Flutie. Johnson's supporters were excited about his deep passes. But Flutie got rid of the ball faster, and did a better job of adapting to the Bills' problems on the offensive line.

[Dan Gross]

Too true. Of course, in 1998 we had the Johnson/Flutie controversy. Johnson was an unproven "QB of the future" that the Bills traded away strong draft position to acquire. Flutie was a savvy veteran who--before coming to Buffalo--was never quite able to make it as a starter in the NFL. Johnson had a bigger arm than Flutie. Johnson's supporters were excited about his deep passes. But Flutie got rid of the ball faster, and did a better job of adapting to the Bills' problems on the offensive line.

608601[/snapback]

 

And Flutie was the one who, given a whole season would show considerable arm fatigue by the end of it. And, if you are trying to draw a parallel here (which I'm sure you'll deny when faced with it), Flutie "adapted" by running around with the ball, not being a "pocket passer."

[Ramius]

That's fair. I looked for verification, but this was an obscure event--a trade that never happened--from many years ago. It's not like the fate of the world rests on getting to the bottom of this matter, so I'll just let things be.

608581[/snapback]

 

Sure it was obscure, but how come none of the media outlets picked it up, but you did?

 

Also, when all the second guessing is done by todays papers, everyone says we shouldnt have traded the #9 overall and a 4th rounder for RJ, but no one says we should have dealt RJ for the #2 pick in the draft? Perhaps because you are full of stojan.

[Orton's Arm]

And, if you are trying to draw a parallel year (which I'm sure you'll deny when faced with it),

608610[/snapback]

Of course I'm trying to draw a parallel! You're correct to say it's not a 100% parallel, but the two situations sure are similar.

[Orton's Arm]

Sure it was obscure, but how come none of the media outlets picked it up, but you did?

608612[/snapback]

Of course the media outlets picked it up at the time. How do you think I heard about it? But the ones that did don't seem to have archived their content that far back, or else my Google search was flawed.

[Dan Gross]

Actually, I admit it freely! You're correct to say it's not a 100% parallel, but the two situations sure are similar.

608622[/snapback]

 

Except there are a combinations of issues with the parallel:

1.) Your knock against Losman appears to center around the fact that he isn't a "pocket passer..." but neither was Flutie...most of his success came outside the pocket, so if you call Flutie successful then you acknowledge that you can have success without being a "pocket passer."

2.) Johnson was the one with the high completion %age/QB Rating numbers. Flutie "just won."

[Orton's Arm]

Except there are a combinations of issues with the parallel:

1.) Your knock against Losman appears to center around the fact that he isn't a "pocket passer..." but neither was Flutie...most of his success came outside the pocket, so if you call Flutie successful then you acknowledge that you can have success without being a "pocket passer."

2.) Johnson was the one with the high completion %age/QB Rating numbers.  Flutie "just won."

608632[/snapback]

The bottom line is that Losman has shown neither the high QB rating/completion percentage/etc. of Johnson, nor the ability to get rid of the ball quickly of Flutie.

[Dan Gross]

The bottom line is that Losman has shown neither the high QB rating/completion percentage/etc. of Johnson, nor the ability to get rid of the ball quickly of Flutie.

608644[/snapback]

 

I wasn't referring to Flutie getting rid of the ball quickly, it was more about his being able to get yardage/buy time with his feet, which Losman has shown (5.0 YPC).

 

But, whatever, I say toe-may-toe, you say toh-mah-toh. I think he hasn't been given enough opportunity to show what he can do, all things considered, you've determined that he's conclusively shown that he's useless. I see someone who could be a Palmer or Brees (or admittedly a Harrington), you see someone who is definitely a Leaf...

 

You win, I'm done.

[The Senator]

I'm going to try to be patient with you here, and walk you through the system step-by-step.

 

1. Start with the total number of points the Bills scored.

 

2. Subtract the points scored by the defense and by the return units. Holcomb lost 14 points in the Bengals game alone through this step. Losman version 2? He didn't lose any points here.

 

3. Subtract 3 points from any scoring drive which started in field goal range. Two of Losman version 2's scoring drives started in FG range, so he loses six points. The same could be said about Holcomb. However, since Losman version 2 played in fewer games than Holcomb, this step hurts Losman v2 a little more.

 

4. Take away the points from drives where the QB made little or no contribution. Holcomb loses 3 points through this step. Losman version 2 doesn't lose any.

 

All three points-per-game adjustments I made hurt Holcomb, but only one hurt Losman version 2. Even so, Holcomb still led the Bills' offense to an average of 7 more points per game than Losman version 2.

608520[/snapback]

Didn't you already respond to this before? I'm sure you did - it was the whole "man-love" insult you hurled my way. Do you feel a need to respond multiple times to the same post? I mean, what is your damage?

 

No really...exactly what is your major malfunction? Are you Holcomb's kid or something? If so, I understand your misguided passion - if not, there are people at Bry Lin that can help you...

 

getmentalhelp.com

 

As for your condescending "patience", before you look any more foolish by trying to explain your ridiculous system - a system that makes sense to you, and you alone, understand that I have a degree from one of the finest academic institutions in the world - as do many on this board - and I find your convoluted logic just too painful to read after about the ninth word.

 

Seek help...even the numbers are screaming in sheer agony, "Stop the torture...please..."

 

Here's a much more simple system that everyone can understand, whether or not they agree...

 

Holcomb = DOOMED!!!

[Like A Mofo]

Let's compare Rob Johnson and Kelly Holcomb then. The bold indicates the better between the two.

 

Career games started/games played/years in league:

RJ - 29/48/10

KH - 21/34/10

 

Career QB rating:

RJ - 83.6

KH - 79.9

 

Career Completion %:

RJ - 61.3

KH - 64.6

 

Career passing yards:

RJ - 5795

KH - 5401

 

Career rushing yards:

RJ - 877

KH - 30

 

Career total yards:

RJ - 6672

KH - 5431

 

Career total yards per play:

RJ - 7.05

KH - 6.36

 

Career TD/INT:

RJ - 30/23

KH - 37/37

 

Career fumbles:

RJ - 14

KH - 24

 

Career YPC:

RJ - 7.19

KH - 6.67

 

Career 20+ yard completions:

RJ - 76

KH - 54

 

Career 40+ yard completions:

RJ - 14

KH - 9

 

Career seaons with 100+ QB rating:

RJ - 3 (total 15 games played)

KH - 1 (total 1 game played)

 

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]

 

Can I be the first to say I nominate this as the post of the year to date????

 

Excellent post!!!!