Third and long...

[IDBillzFan]

I'll grant Houston's playcalling could have been better in that game.

687692[/snapback]

That's like saying "I'll grant Paris Hilton could suck a few less dicks in her life."

 

Houston's refusal to change their game plan is what lost them the game and I refuse to take some starry-eyed Bills fan approach to that truth. It was great moment and a tremendous memory of comraderie with the 200 Orlando Bills Backers with whom I watched the game, but it was more a lesson in the traps of complacency than it was a lesson in the upside to being resilient.

 

Twenty-eight second-half passes with a 32-point lead. They deserved to lose.

[BuffOrange]

Is that nightmare finally maybe over? There's been a lot of gnashed teeth over the lack of O-line picks, but damn. How many times in the last couple years did the Bills easily give up 3rd and 5 or better (let alone 4th and whatever...).

686448[/snapback]

 

Which games specifically do you recall this being a problem? I seem to remember the Atlanta game being especially bad in that department; but otherwise I don't recall the defense being especially worse on 3rd down than any other down. Of course I was fortunate enough to miss the game in Miami.

[BuffOrange]

I've read posts that said Losman played poorly because he lacked pass protection.  Losman played poorly because there weren't enough running plays called.  Losman played poorly because most QBs play poorly their first nine games.  Losman played poorly because his WRs didn't try hard enough.  Losman played poorly because the playcalling wasn't good enough.  But this is the first thread where I've seen it written that Losman played poorly because the defense played poorly.  By the end of August, let's try to come up with at least three more ways to explain away Losman's poor play!

687154[/snapback]

 

Yep, get ready for a "Fire Fairchild" campaign by Week 2.

[Orton's Arm]

That's like saying "I'll grant Paris Hilton could suck a few less dicks in her life."

 

Houston's refusal to change their game plan is what lost them the game and I refuse to take some starry-eyed Bills fan approach to that truth. It was great moment and a tremendous memory of comraderie with the 200 Orlando Bills Backers with whom I watched the game, but it was more a lesson in the traps of complacency than it was a lesson in the upside to being resilient.

 

Twenty-eight second-half passes with a 32-point lead. They deserved to lose.

In order for a team to get the greatest comeback in NFL history, a number of things have to go right. Having Kevin Gilbride call the other team's offense was one of those things. Having Frank Reich under center was another. Be honest with me--do you really think a guy like Trent Dilfer or Gus Frerotte could have brought the Bills back? I don't. Yes, Kevin Gilbride's pass-oriented playcalling created an opportunity to come back. Reich was able to take advantage of that opportunity. A lesser QB couldn't have.

[IDBillzFan]

In order for a team to get the greatest comeback in NFL history, a number of things have to go right.  Having Kevin Gilbride call the other team's offense was one of those things.  Having Frank Reich under center was another.  Be honest with me--do you really think a guy like Trent Dilfer or Gus Frerotte could have brought the Bills back?  I don't.  Yes, Kevin Gilbride's pass-oriented playcalling created an opportunity to come back.  Reich was able to take advantage of that opportunity.  A lesser QB couldn't have.

687751[/snapback]

I don't think Frank Reich stands alone as the only guy who could have won that game. Yes, I think a Trent Dilfer could have done that. But I can promise you there was never a moment that I thought Frank Freakin' Backup Reich could do it. It was freak thing. Period.

 

I will agree that a lot of things had to go right in those final hours, and because of that, I think we were fortunate to have Reich back there. But please do not confuse him with an ideal piece of evidence for your argument that Losman should be more honed by now because it's just crap, and we both know it.

 

Reich had a decent line in front of him. A line that had been together for a bit. Meanwhile Losman has been playing behind a line sewn together by a mad scientist. Give him a line. And player support. And a bit of competition. Give him that, and when he starts looking like Billy Joe, then I'll agree it's time to put the experiment away.

[Orton's Arm]

I don't think Frank Reich stands alone as the only guy who could have won that game. Yes, I think a Trent Dilfer could have done that.

That's a very extreme statement.

But I can promise you there was never a moment that I thought Frank Freakin' Backup Reich could do it.

In that case, your assessment of Reich was wrong.

Reich had a decent line in front of him. A line that had been together for a bit. Meanwhile Losman has been playing behind a line sewn together by a mad scientist. Give him a line. And player support. And a bit of competition. Give him that, and when he starts looking like Billy Joe, then I'll agree it's time to put the experiment away.

I agree with your amusing comment about the mad scientist. But how much of a line did Rob Johnson have in front of him? Not much, but he's still a bust. Or since you brought up Billy Joe Hobart, how good was the line in front of that guy? Maybe if Billy Joe Hobart had been given a line . . . well, nevermind. As for player support, the coach can't just go into the locker room and say, "I want you to start respecting player X." Player support is something Losman has to earn on his own. These players know a lot more about Losman than you or I do. If they don't support him, it's not exactly the best sign.

 

Take Notre Dame, back when Joe Montana was a sophomore. There was an established starter there. But when that starter was pulled to give Montana a chance to play, did the players revolt? No! On the contrary, a wave of excitement rippled through the team--the players knew they were going to win. They loved the decision to put Montana under center. It took Notre Dame's coaches a while longer to figure out something the players already knew.

 

I'll grant that a second-year QB has to fight an uphill battle to gain player preference over a seasoned veteran. But I don't get the feeling that anyone from the Giants felt as negatively about Eli Manning as some of the Bills' players apparently felt about Losman. Kurt Warner is a better quarterback than Kelly Holcomb, so you'd think that the Giants players would be more mutinous than the Bills. The fact the Giants' players seem to have been more accepting of the switch speaks volumes about the relative perceptions of Manning and Losman.

[Sisyphean Bills]

As for player support, the coach can't just go into the locker room and say, "I want you to start respecting player X."  Player support is something Losman has to earn on his own.  These players know a lot more about Losman than you or I do.  If they don't support him, it's not exactly the best sign.

 

Take Notre Dame, back when Joe Montana was a sophomore.  There was an established starter there.  But when that starter was pulled to give Montana a chance to play, did the players revolt?  No!  On the contrary, a wave of excitement rippled through the team--the players knew they were going to win.  They loved the decision to put Montana under center.  It took Notre Dame's coaches a while longer to figure out something the players already knew. 

 

I'll grant that a second-year QB has to fight an uphill battle to gain player preference over a seasoned veteran.  But I don't get the feeling that anyone from the Giants felt as negatively about Eli Manning as some of the Bills' players apparently felt about Losman.  Kurt Warner is a better quarterback than Kelly Holcomb, so you'd think that the Giants players would be more mutinous than the Bills.  The fact the Giants' players seem to have been more accepting of the switch speaks volumes about the relative perceptions of Manning and Losman.

687825[/snapback]

 

This is admittedly disturbing.

 

Still, I wonder how much of this was Losman and how much of this was misplaced anger at management. The Bills had a respected veteran QB in Bledsoe and Donahoe simply dumped the veteran QB to rush a young kid who was nowhere, nowhere remotely, close to ready into the starting role. A player's career is only so long. I'm sure the other veteran players were extremely ticked off to see team management scuttle the ship out of sheer arrogance.

 

They had zero respect for Losman. They had zero respect for Mularkey and the coaching staff. They went home on game day. They got suspended. They demanded the hell out of Buffalo.

 

Given all that happened, pinning this toxic disaster of a train wreck all on Losman isn't fair and gives him far too much blame for many things which were way, way beyond his control.

[Ghost of BiB]

Geeze.

 

Another Losman thread.

 

Whoda thought?

[IDBillzFan]

Geeze.

 

Another Losman thread.

 

Whoda thought?

687956[/snapback]

You need to put a few qualifiers in your original post that state any discussions about Losman will automatically cause the thread to be closed. On the other hand, it's fun to banter with Holcomb's Arm about our team because I always walk away feeling so smart.

[Ghost of BiB]

Which games specifically do you recall this being a problem?  I seem to remember the Atlanta game being especially bad in that department; but otherwise I don't recall the defense being especially worse on 3rd down than any other down.  Of course I was fortunate enough to miss the game in Miami.

687713[/snapback]

 

Buffalo finished last in the league defensively last year on 3rd down stops. Opponents were able to pick up a third down 46.5% of the time. Basically, every second third down attempt.

 

Moses could be the QB, throwing to Jesus Christ and it's not going to help if they can't get on the field. Yes, one can also argue that if the offense stayed on the field it wouldn't be as much of a factor - but in my opinion, I still find this stat to be pretty significant.

 

By contrast, the Buffalo offense converted third down 36.8% of the time, ranking 20th in the NFL.

[Dan Gross]

Geeze.

 

Another Losman thread.

 

Whoda thought?

687956[/snapback]

 

 

Sorry, my fault. I said the "L word," which apparently automatically summons Noodle Arm into any thread.

 

I'll send you my coordinates by PM.

 

 

At least your thread got some page views and comments...

[Orton's Arm]

This is admittedly disturbing.

 

Still, I wonder how much of this was Losman and how much of this was misplaced anger at management.  The Bills had a respected veteran QB in Bledsoe and Donahoe simply dumped the veteran QB to rush a young kid who was nowhere, nowhere remotely, close to ready into the starting role.

Losman's situation reminds me of Carson Palmer's. The Bengals used a first round pick on a quarterback. Like Losman, Palmer spent his rookie year watching and learning. The Bengals had a veteran QB whose contribution to the team had been roughly the same as Bledsoe's to the Bills. Palmer was annointed the starter going into his second year; with no quarterback competition. Palmer did go through some early-year struggles. But I've heard nothing about anyone on the Bengals revolting, or failing to play their best for Palmer, or doing any of that stuff.

 

If anything, Kitna was in a stronger position to cause a player revolt than Holcomb was. Kitna had had years to learn the offense and earn his teammates' respect. Unlike Kitna, Holcomb had little starting experience. Also, Holcomb had to start from scratch with learning the offense and getting to know his teammates. Losman, on the other hand, had been given an extra year to learn the Mike Mularkey offense; and to gain the respect of his teammates.

 

You say the Bills were angry about an established veteran like Bledsoe being sent away so an unready quarterback could take his place. But surely the Bengals players were in the same situation. In the Bengals' case, a revolt would seem to have made more sense, because the established veteran was sitting on the bench, ready to play, instead of with some other team.

 

You could point out that Marvin Lewis, by setting a clear direction and sticking with it, did more to avoid a player revolt than Mike Mularkey did. Though one wonders: did Losman fail because Mularkey lost control over his team, or did Mularkey lose control because Losman failed? Mularkey seemed to have good control over his team back in 2004. Only when he made the decision to start Losman over Holcomb on opening day did the players seem to start losing trust in his judgement.

 

You could compare Losman's situation with another one where the coaches failed to set a firm direction: the Flutie/Johnson controversy. Johnson was a young, unproven guy the Bills used a first round pick on. Flutie had a ton of experience from his time in the CFL; and he was able to come in and provide an immediate impact. Nonetheless, many of the Bills' players and coaches supported Johnson. I remember reading an article saying the locker room had become divided three ways. One faction (of which Eric Moulds was a member) favored Flutie. Another (to which Jerry Ostroski belonged) favored Johnson. The third--Jay Riemersma comes to mind--was neutral. Even in the absence of firm direction from the top, a relatively young, unproven Rob Johnson was able to show his teammates enough in practice and in games to have some of them on his side, and many others neutral. I could be wrong, but I just don't get the feeling Losman's support in the locker room is anything near to what Johnson's was. I doubt the Bills of today are much more impressed by Holcomb than the earlier Bills teams had been with Flutie. Maybe this particular Bills team sees less in Losman than the earlier one saw in Johnson. It's not exactly the kind of realization that would make you sleep easy at night if you were the Bills' coach.

[Ghost of BiB]

Sorry, my fault.  I said the "L word," which apparently automatically summons Noodle Arm into any thread.

 

I'll send you my coordinates by PM.

 

 

At least your thread got some page views and comments... 

688049[/snapback]

 

Nah, don't bother.

 

I'm a pacifist now.

[Beerball]

Moses could be the QB, throwing to Jesus Christ and it's not going to help if they can't get on the field.

688046[/snapback]

Both are over the hill so to speak. Marv would have been crucified if he used the off season to sign either.

 

Moses to JC for the Hail Mary, God wouldn't that be great?!

[Orton's Arm]

Sorry, my fault.  I said the "L word," which apparently automatically summons Noodle Arm into any thread.

 

I'll send you my coordinates by PM.

 

 

At least your thread got some page views and comments... 

688049[/snapback]

The "Noodle Arm" nickname isn't half as clever as the Any_Arm_But_Losman's you came up with. That said, I'll refrain from posting further comments about Losman in this thread.

[Ghost of BiB]

The "Noodle Arm" nickname isn't half as clever as the Any_Arm_But_Losman's you came up with. That said, I'll refrain from posting further comments about Losman in this thread.

688062[/snapback]

 

Geeze, that would be nice considering this thread was started to purposely talk about something.....OTHER THAN LOSMAN!!

[Orton's Arm]

Geeze, that would be nice considering this thread was started to purposely talk about something.....OTHER THAN LOSMAN!!

688064[/snapback]

You're welcome.

[apuszczalowski]

This situation does not really mirror the situation with the Bengals. Cinncinati drafted Palmer first overall which is a spot where the player is expected to start immediately. Buffalo drafted Losman further down and was expected to sit for a bit. buffalo was coming off a season where they just barely made the playoffs by one game under the leadership of Bledsoe. They outright released Bledsoe cause they said he did not even have the chance to compete for the starting job, he would be the backup and JP would start. They were being told that they would be a playoff team with or without Drew.

 

JP sat out almost an entire year with an injury so he did not have the advantage of getting to practice all year behind bledsoe and with the team. He was pretty much a first year player last year. Palmer had the chance to work behind a veteran in practice and watch an entire season and learn behind him and work with him in practice.

 

The Bengals were always being considered a team on the rise or rebuilding so most of the players weren't going into the season being told how they were expected to make the playoffs, so starting a second year QB who had been tutored and worked behind a veteran for a full year they said he was ready.

 

Buffalo had 2 players (Moulds and Adams) who stood up and disaproved of this situation cause they believed the hype that they were a playoff team and didn't feel JP was ready.

 

No one here knows how players feel about one another in the locker room and who the respect. We are all going off speculation because the media who writes stories to catch peoples interest are telling us this. (you know, the same media that told us exactly what Marv was planning to do in the draft this year). JP was put in a bad situation because he was just handed the job to lead the team and players didn't like that. (Its almost like the kid in your class (JP Losman) that gets everything handed to them unlike the rest of the class who has to go out and work to get the stuff they want (the rest of the team). You end up hating that kid (JP) just because he was given the stuff they (the team) had to work for, when you should be mad at the people who gave it to him (MM and TD)

[Orton's Arm]

This situation does not really mirror the situation with the Bengals.

Interesting post. But since I've decided to stop talking about Losman on this thread, I'll respond with something else. Something . . . related to the original topic of the thread.

 

One of the things I like about these off-season changes is the increased depth at defensive tackle. We've added Triplett, McCargo, and Kyle Williams. With that kind of depth, I'm hoping the defensive tackles won't wear down as easily, and will be able to provide a good pass rush in the 4th quarter.

 

Bill Walsh once said that a deep defensive line was the key to winning games. That dramatic Super Bowl win was a good example. The Bengals had the ball, the lead, and a chance to ice the win with a first down or two. But the 49ers had good depth on the defensive line. The good play by that line led to a Bengals 3-and-out; after which Montana marched his team down the field. I'd still like to see the Bills have more good players at defensive end besides just Schobel. But at least the defensive tackle position seems to be solid.

[Dan Gross]

Nah, don't bother.

 

I'm a pacifist now.

688052[/snapback]

 

Well, if my "magic mod capabilities" included splitting threads I would...