finknottle Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I am a bit surprised by fans. Due to the success of Roethlisberger, everyone feels that the development of young QBs should be instant. There is an absolute disregard for the fact most QBs need time to mature. Losman has yet to play a complete season. He is still very young. He has talent. Yet, many think he should be playing like a superstar now or hit the road. I invest it stocks. If I bought a stock and expected it to jump in 1 year, I would not have the stomach for it. Losman is an investment. He is an investment we paid a 1st round pick for. That is a large investment. We need to lose the mentality of instant success for QBs and stick to our guns. I believe Losman should play all 16 games this season. He will get better. If he doesn't show improvement we get rid of him after the season. The Lions spent too much time with Harrington. He never showed promise. This should be a complete season for Losman to show us his value. He has gone through some growing pains, a lot of them, but has to be given a full chance due to the large investment made to get him. If he's really as bad as people think he is. Then we draft Brady Quinn with the 1st pick next year. I have watched Losman. He is a nervouse wreck. We know he wasn't over and underthrowing players in college. We know he has the ability to play QB. He needs a chance. That's what the Bills should give him. Last season was a disaster. He should have played all 16 games. The talk about we should have got Kitna or Ramsey is ridiculous. We have 2 QBs that can be starters. Losman must be given the shot. I know people are anxious for the Bills to win now. So am I. Patience with a young QB will give us some hope. 640576[/snapback] Two points: 1. A lot of people assume that just because you give a guy time, that he will work out, he just needs time starting. The higher the pick, the stronger the belief. 2. It's not about how long we the fans needs to determine whether a player can do it. It's about how long the coaches need.
stuckincincy Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 it is just not the QB , you have to have some kind of a half way good team to go with the QB . hope JP or nall become our brady . 640636[/snapback] Yes. Carson Palmer fell into a good position in '04. The B'gals had built a decent OL, aided by dumb luck when G Eric Steinbach fell into their laps. They had two up-and-coming WR's with that nice combination of speed, elusiveness, and good hands. With that, they generally were able to keep rookie FB Jeremi Johnson in the linup - a good blocker with decent hands. And RB Rudi Johnson hit his stride. And his game is very much an inside one, which kept the opponent's DE's more at less at home and not looping around for the sack or hurry.
Albany,n.y. Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 I am a bit surprised by fans. Due to the success of Roethlisberger, everyone feels that the development of young QBs should be instant. There is an absolute disregard for the fact most QBs need time to mature. Losman has yet to play a complete season. He is still very young. He has talent. Yet, many think he should be playing like a superstar now or hit the road. I invest it stocks. If I bought a stock and expected it to jump in 1 year, I would not have the stomach for it. Losman is an investment. He is an investment we paid a 1st round pick for. That is a large investment. We need to lose the mentality of instant success for QBs and stick to our guns. I believe Losman should play all 16 games this season. He will get better. If he doesn't show improvement we get rid of him after the season. The Lions spent too much time with Harrington. He never showed promise. This should be a complete season for Losman to show us his value. He has gone through some growing pains, a lot of them, but has to be given a full chance due to the large investment made to get him. If he's really as bad as people think he is. Then we draft Brady Quinn with the 1st pick next year. I have watched Losman. He is a nervouse wreck. We know he wasn't over and underthrowing players in college. We know he has the ability to play QB. He needs a chance. That's what the Bills should give him. Last season was a disaster. He should have played all 16 games. The talk about we should have got Kitna or Ramsey is ridiculous. We have 2 QBs that can be starters. Losman must be given the shot. I know people are anxious for the Bills to win now. So am I. Patience with a young QB will give us some hope. 640576[/snapback] When the head coach of your team doesn't understand your logic, it is a disaster for the team & the player involved. Unfortunately, by jerking JP around, Mularkey destroyed the confidence of his team in its young QB. As a result, some players aligned themselves with Holcomb like some did with Flutie years ago. This will cause nothing but trouble as long as either JP or Holcomb is the starter and the other guy is still on the team. Best case scenario-JP wins the starter's job, Nall beats out Holcomb for #2 & Holcomb is sent elsewhere. Holcomb cannot be on the team if JP is the starter due to the irreparable damage that Mularkey created in the locker room with both guys here. Nall being #2 is the perfect excuse to ship Holcomb elsewhere. Next best case scenario-Nall wins the starter's job & the players support Nall while Holcomb & Losman hold clipboards. Worse case scenario-Holcomb starts with Nall & JP 2 & 3. As long as Holcomb is the starter, this team has no future at QB.
Ramius Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 From what I hear, that sort of logic is WAY over VA's head. 640625[/snapback] There arent many thing that DONT go over VA's head, figuratively AND literally. To say that orton won the games, and not chicago's D reaches a level of assinine achieved before only by BF.
VABills Posted March 23, 2006 Posted March 23, 2006 There arent many thing that DONT go over VA's head, figuratively AND literally. To say that orton won the games, and not chicago's D reaches a level of assinine achieved before only by BF. 640672[/snapback] Ahh yes, personal attacks and no context to base anything on. Yet, Bledsoe had the #2 defense the year before and couldn't make the playoffs. Sure the defense won a lot of games, but the QB also can't lose them. But keep up your fantasies that just because someone we drafted is the Holy Grail, and it will happen.
NJ_BillsFan Posted March 24, 2006 Author Posted March 24, 2006 Why, because he won 10 games? Do you dispute that fact? 640607[/snapback] Wouldn't Losman or any other QB won at least 10 games as well. It doesn't look like Orton was anything special since he will not be starting anywhere anytime soon. He was in a system that allowed him to suck and still win.
VABills Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Wouldn't Losman or any other QB won at least 10 games as well. It doesn't look like Orton was anything special since he will not be starting anywhere anytime soon. He was in a system that allowed him to suck and still win. 640700[/snapback] He only sucked in one game. I don't know if Losman or any other QB would have won 10 games in 15 starts, but to discount what Orton did is stupid. To do anything else is conjecture and fantasy, as Orton did do it.
Webster Guy Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Here are the passer ratings for last year. There are 16 teams in the NFC. Orton finished last. Now, is there more to a QB than his passer rating? Of course. Orton showed to be a capable backup who can fill in while the starter is injured. If you watched the Sunday Night game in week 15 against Atlanta (Bears win 16-3 after Orton was replaced at half), there's no doubt that Orton wasn't the best QB on his team. Atlanta defensive end Patrick Kerney said it should be an easy decision: "There is no doubt that he (Grossman) is a stronger quarterback and more of a threat to throw. It makes them a little more multidimensional than they were with Orton in there." QB Ratings NFC 1 Matt Hasselbeck SEA 3459 449 294 24 9 56 98.2 2 Marc Bulger STL 2297 287 192 14 9 57 94.4 3 Brad Johnson MIN 1885 294 184 12 4 80 88.9 4 Jake Delhomme CAR 3421 435 262 24 16 80 88.1 5 Mark Brunell WAS 3050 454 262 23 10 78 85.9 6 Kurt Warner ARI 2713 375 242 11 9 63 85.8 7 Donovan McNabb PHI 2507 357 211 16 9 91 85.0 8 Drew Bledsoe DAL 3639 499 300 23 17 71 83.7 9 Chris Simms TB 2035 313 191 10 7 78 81.4 10 Eli Manning NYG 3762 557 294 24 17 78 75.9 11 Josh McCown ARI 1836 270 163 9 11 49 74.9 12 Michael Vick ATL 2412 387 214 15 13 58 73.1 13 Joey Harrington DET 2021 330 188 12 12 86 72.0 14 Brett Favre GB 3881 607 372 20 29 59 70.9 15 Aaron Brooks NO 2882 431 240 13 17 66 70.0 16 Kyle Orton CHI 1869 368 190 9 13 54 59.7 Not putting down Orton, just pointing out the fact that right now, he is a capable backup.
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Ahh yes, personal attacks and no context to base anything on. Yet, Bledsoe had the #2 defense the year before and couldn't make the playoffs. Sure the defense won a lot of games, but the QB also can't lose them. But keep up your fantasies that just because someone we drafted is the Holy Grail, and it will happen. 640678[/snapback] Says the guy defending Kyle friggin' Orton as someone who has it. Won't even get into the comparisons between the AFC/NFC, nor the difference between the AFC East of Bledsoe's final season in Buffalo vs last year's NFC Central, because obviously such nuances are beyond your too simplistic reasoning powers.
VABills Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Says the guy defending Kyle friggin' Orton as someone who has it. Won't even get into the comparisons between the AFC/NFC, nor the difference between the AFC East of Bledsoe's final season in Buffalo vs last year's NFC Central, because obviously such nuances are beyond your too simplistic reasoning powers. 640747[/snapback] Yup, since the NFC North was so much worse. Let's see the division champ was 11-5 2nd was 9-7 3rd was 5-11 4th was 4-12 Let's see how that power house AFC east did; 1st was 11-5 2nd was 9-7 3rd was 5-11 4th was 4-12 Yup that is a much better record for the AFC East then that weak ass NFC North. Oh and let's forget that he actually was the QB for 10 wins last year. Or if you throw out that fiasco in Cincy he still had a poor QB rating but it was 67 with that game ignored. Let's see did I forget actually winning counts a lot. Would you rather have a Qb have a 60 Qb rating, make the playoffs and get 10-11 wins? Or have a Qb get a Qb rating of 110, break all kinds of records, but have the team go 5-11. Just checking. But I guess winning isn't important as long as you have a possible superstar.
Mile High Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Didn't Orten win 10 games on 15 starts last year? Yeah his stats sucked, but he did enough to let his team win or not lose however you want to put it. There are certain folks who have it others don't. It isn't just big ben. 640603[/snapback] I think that his team did enough to let him win.
bobblehead Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 I have nowhere said anything about any Bills QB here. 640624[/snapback] Yet, the message was clear.
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Orton's important stats: 1. 15/28, 141 Yards, zero TDs, zero interceptions. Two completions over 20 yards (20 and 22 yards). Fumbled twice, losing one. Bears lose 9-7. 2. 14/21, 150 yards, 1 TD, zero interceptions. Three completions over 20 yards (21, 23, 28 yards). Bears win 38-6. 3. 17/39, 149 yards, 0 TDs, 5 interceptions. One completion over 20 yards (23). Fumbled once but didn't lose it. Bears lose 24-7 4. 16/26, 117 yards, 1 TD, zero interceptions. One completion over 20 yards (22). Fumbled twice, losing one. Bears lose 20-10. 5. 16/25, 117 yards, 2 TDs, 1 interception. No completions over 20 yards. Lost one fumble. Bears win 28-3 6. 15/29, 145 yards, 1 TD, no interceptions. 2 completions over 20 yards (23, 26). Fumbled once but didn't lose it. Bears win 10-6. 7. 17/31, 230 yards, 1 TD, no interceptions. 3 completions over 20 yards (23, 25, 54). Bears win 19-13 in OT on an interception return. 8. 12/26, 137, 1 TD, 2 interceptions. 3 passes over 20 yards (22, 30, 33). Lost only fumble. Bears win 20-17. 9. 8/13, 67 yards, no TDs, 1 interception. Game played in ridiculous wind. Bears win 17-9. 10. 15/26, 136 yards, 1 TD, 1 interception. No completions over 20 yards. Bears win 13-3. 11. 14/28, 134 yards, 1 TD, 1 interception. One completion over 20 yards (41 yard screen pass to Jones). Fumbled twice, but didn't lose either. Bears win 13-10. 12. 6/17, 68 yards, no TDs, 1 interception. One completion over 20 yards (34). Lost only fumble. Bears WIN 19-7. 13. 17/35, 207 yards, no TDs, no interceptions. Three completions over 20 yards (21, 27, 43). Bears lose 21-9. 14. 2/10, 12 yards, no TDs, no interceptions. 15. 6/14, 59 yards, no TDs, no interceptions. One completion over 20 yards (21). Lost only fumble. Bears lose 34-10.
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Yup, since the NFC North was so much worse. Let's see the division champ was 11-5 2nd was 9-7 3rd was 5-11 4th was 4-12 Let's see how that power house AFC east did; 1st was 11-5 2nd was 9-7 3rd was 5-11 4th was 4-12 Yup that is a much better record for the AFC East then that weak ass NFC North. And to think I questioned your reasoning ability. Oh and let's forget that he actually was the QB for 10 wins last year. Which in "dumbassville" apparently has some meaning. Or if you throw out that fiasco in Cincy he still had a poor QB rating but it was 67 with that game ignored. Yeah, let's throw out a bad loss against a quality opponent (one of the few Chicago actually played). Let's see did I forget actually winning counts a lot. Not when we're evaluating individual performance. Lovey thought so much of your boy's "winningness" that he benched him with 2 games left in the season for a guy who wasn't 100 percent physically and hadn't played all season. Would you rather have a Qb have a 60 Qb rating, make the playoffs and get 10-11 wins? Or have a Qb get a Qb rating of 110, break all kinds of records, but have the team go 5-11. The team's record wouldn't jade me into believing Orton was anymore than a mediocre QB. You sound like a fuggin' Flutopian - which makes alot of sense considering you could wear Dougie's hand me downs. But I guess winning isn't important as long as you have a possible superstar. 640764[/snapback] I'd call you an idiot but you'll probably pout for a couple of days again.
Ramius Posted March 24, 2006 Posted March 24, 2006 Oh and let's forget that he actually was the QB for 10 wins last year. Or if you throw out that fiasco in Cincy he still had a poor QB rating but it was 67 with that game ignored. Let's see did I forget actually winning counts a lot. Would you rather have a Qb have a 60 Qb rating, make the playoffs and get 10-11 wins? Or have a Qb get a Qb rating of 110, break all kinds of records, but have the team go 5-11. Just checking. But I guess winning isn't important as long as you have a possible superstar. 640764[/snapback] Lets see if i understand. Losman had roughly the same rating as orton (not counting orton's horrendous start) So because orton's team wins 10 games for him, and losmans team blows, that makes orton really good and losman suck. God, you're dense.
Recommended Posts