apuszczalowski Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 The difference between Palmer and Losman was that Plamer had more time to sit behind Kitna to watch and learn the offence, unlike Losman who missed most of his first year with an injury and then handed the job and the veteran sarter was released instead of staying on as the backup (not JP or TD's fault, Bledsoe did not want to be a backup). Also Palmer was coming in to replace John Kitna, where as JP was taking over for Drew Bledsoe, a QB who had record numbers a season before and was still a decent QB (say what you will, but give him a decent o-line and he is pretty good). A guy we threw a parade for a couple seasons earlier. The biggest problem was that the management rushed JP into the starters position of a team that was on the verge of making the playoffs and had HIGH hopes for this last season. Phillip Rivers will probably go through the same problems this year if he struggles as he is pretty much going into the same position JP was in Last year. But maybe Rivers has a better coaching staff that isn't playing for their jobs this year.
Pyrite Gal Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 As above I am not a JP basher or disciple. One thing that is hard for me to get past with JP is incidents from his his rookie season. When Vincent hit him and he broke his leg, *NOTE: Vincent obviously did not do it with the intention of breaking his leg*, but still it was obvious (to me) that Vincent gave him a little shot in practice because he didn't like JP's attitude/behavior. Then fast forward to the NE game when Mularkey threw him in there completely by surprise - there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that was done to send him a message and tell him he better start getting his head on straight and taking a different approach to the game. So much is said of how much he studied tape with Wyche etc. before last season as a measure of how inherently studious and hard-working he is - but that was not how he was when he showed up. Sure you can say "Well - he was a rookie, what do you expect?" - BUT, even if he was a "trout-mouthed" rookie and somewhat overwhelmed - if being so hardworking and studious was really part of his make-up, why was it so completely missing his rookie season? It certainly did not appear that he was acting in a way that earned respect from other players or the coaches that first year. Separate form any feelings about his performance on the field, I personally thought Bledsoe was a pretty stand-up guy, and the thing that always stands out in my mind when he left was his incredulitity that they were handing the job over to JP in particular. Sure he was bitter about the way he left, but the shock and awe he displayed about JP being handed the job I think spoke volumes. It was obvious JP didn't do much to earn his respect, and he didn't think JP was anywhere close to being ready for a variety of reasons - and I think a lot of other players felt the same. Some maybe still do. 692206[/snapback] For me the key thing starts with actual results on the field rather than some soap opera estimation of whether he great or bad attitude. If one finds the results lacking (as one obviously should in terms of JPs performance so far. The next questions are has he shown talent over his careeer (college and pro since there actually only a relatively limited set of appearances for him as a Bill) and has he shown progress, It would only be after making this assessment that I might get into the difficult to know and specify issues of "attitude: IF (a big IF) I think they may have made a difference in his performance on the field and ability to improve. This strikes me as the bottomline: 1. Does he have the talent to succeed as an NFL QB? This to me is a different question than whether he was worth a first round draft choice. I do not think he was and actually tend to doubt that almost any QB can really lead the team which drafted him to the SB. RoboQB was the first one to puill this off last year but he was the first 1st round QB pick to pull this off for the team which selected him since Dallas chose Aikman in 89. Even Manning, as great of a player as he is has never gotten his fiends to the Big Dance unless he bought them tickets. However how he was acquired is simply water under the bridge as far as the issue of improving him goes and the was he worth a 1st rounder is at most an interesting distraction from the real question. Overall, I think the answer to this question is yes. In collefe he was certainly an untamed and poorly trained talent, but he was a talent nonetheless. His ability to throw the ball a country mile off the wrong foot (and even with a sense of accuracy and pace sometimes) while running for his life which he showed at Tulane is a rare thing If he had stayed in and had a performance which would have been a normal progression for a college player, it appears he easily would have been the 1st QB taken that year (Aaron Rodgers slipped to 18 and probably top 10 or top 4 pick given how hysperventilated folks get about QBs, He obviously needed a lot of training since only the occaisional Micheal Vick or Dante Culpepper makes a living running for their life as their style of play, but my answer is yes he has the basic talent but had a primary need to be trained. 2. How is that training and development going? In fits and starts with some significant forward progress, but also some significant stalls. However, in my judgment, its about what one would expect being trained within a totally disrupted team. A. I liked what I saw initially such as in his rookie pre-season performances where he showed ability and a command of himself and play to be doing positive things on the field. This of course was against vanilla Ds with a bunch of scrubs playing so one should not have declared this a done deal, but I liked what I saw initially. B. The injury set back his play but actually play against the pro and at pro speed was only one of the things he needed )and actually among the lesser essentials) as I felt he needed a bit of study and play booksmarts in his quest to slow the game down so he could use his body and athleticism well. C. He also got a necessary lesson when he was "throw in" to the NE game to mop-up for bledsoe. He learned you gotta be ready to play whenever you put the uniform on and that relying on only athlecism aint gonna cut it. D. I think the most impressive learning he has shown was in a series of mop-ups during the streak where his play results progress from a delay of game first time he was in the huddle in a real game and he failed to exercise control, but in his second game though he still had not gained control of the game yet, he kept control of himself and called a TO (the 5 yards saved in avoiding the penalty proved critical later in his converting a third down on a freelance scramble, then he again was productive in his next outing this time hitting a critical 3rd down pass rather than relying on the scramble to convert. In each of these outings he achieved the major goal which was to scored and move the clock. E. He stalled out (and in some minds took a step back) in being given he starter role before he was ready. Its really impossible to judge the depth of this flameout IMHO because it came in the midst of total team meltdown as the team seem to sense TD was playing for the future and the D failed to stop the run. Then the meltdown occured leading to the deserved canning of TD and the resignation of MM. Was JP central to this meltdown? Yep. His play was not productive and the team's meltdown IMHO was firmly linked to the Ds sense that TD had turned 05 into a preseason to train JP rather than giving them a BAD but still the BEST we could do with what we had chance to win with Bledsoe. Was bad play by JP central to this meltdown? Yep. One cannot look at the O performance, see the hissy-fit by Moulds, ot hear players and team leaders like Fletcher state the obvious and not know bad production by JP was central to the meltdown. Is he done as a player? NO WAY. It would simply be dumb, bad football and bad team development to give up on him now. He has a lot of talent (though it has not- and may never be- trained to go in the right direction), we have a ton invested financially in him which can only be realized if he works out, in the NFL the hisstory has been QB development can take some time and occur successfully after some horrendous starts. While you do not want to fall into the trap of sticking with a loser because he may work out, the only answer is to strike a balance and run away from a Favre or Steve Yound before they blossom. It comes down to striking the right balance in an individual case. As far as JP goes he has shown talent yet be turned into productivity, and we have a cash investment which we can only make payoff if we give him a chance in camp o beat out Nall and Holccomb, may the best man win is far more intelligent than pulling a TD an anointing someone based on GM or fan thinking rather than playing it out on the field.
Stevie Ray Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Well, look at the Bills' front office and coaching staff after JP's first year as starter. Through firings and resignations, the Bills lost the GM who drafted Losman, Losman's head coach, his offensive coordinator, and his position coach. Someone should hand Losman a broom, because that's a clean sweep! 692312[/snapback] So the fact the Bills went 3-4 in games Losman wasnt even on the field had nothing to do with it?
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 What I always wondered is how good JP would have fared with the #2 defense of 2004 that lead the league in turnovers. With our defense and our special teams, the 2004 team lead the NFL in drives starting in opponents' territory. Anyways in terms of his attitude, JP is a different kinda of guy. He seems like he does his own thing, has a little cockiness, and maybe some of the veterans couldn't relate to him. Anyways, winning solves any problems. So if JP wins the starting job and helps us win some games, all will be fine.
Scraps Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I asked for specific examples about his time with the Bills. 692227[/snapback] I am neither a JP hater nor a devotee. Don't you think you're asking an impossible question? Do you really expect any team mates on an NFL team to publicly say that their QB can't play the position, is selfish or some sort of a jack ass? Do you really expect them to say that about any other player on the team for that matter?
John from Riverside Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 The whole veterans thing, to me, is obvious. The Bills as a team and an organization went into 2005 with very high hopes. They were coming off winning six of their last seven games. Mularkey was 9-7 as a rookie coach. The defense was #2 in the league for the second year in a row. There was talk it was going to be an all-time great defense. The special teams were the best in the league. Evans had come on, Willis looked like he may be special, the offensive line looked like it was coming together. The veteran laden team was jacked up. But the organization, TD in particular, because of the way Bledsoe ended the season, had decided that he had taken them as far as he could. They didn't want to go through another year with a ceiling. If Bledsoe would have played well against Pittsburgh, he would have still been there. But he didn't, so he wasn't. It was the right choice, even in retrospect. It wasn't at all that JP was just handed the job. It was far, far more that Bledsoe had lost the job. The Vets were a little uneasy because they didn't know what they had in JP. They THOUGHT they knew what they had everywhere else (although now we surely knew better). Spikes and Moulds and Campbell and Fletcher and Milloy and Vincent were all sick of losing and thought this was going to be their year. So when JP was a little in over his head, they weren't thinking like a coach or a GM or fan, they weren't willing to go through the growing pains for the good of the team in the long run. They thought their window was now, and they knew they had a likable, pretty efficient, 12 year vet sitting right there who had some playoff experience. And pretty soon, Moulds started getting more vocal. TKO was gone. They saw their high hopes collapsing in front of them and they got selfish. That's all. Had nothing to do with JP's personality or not liking him. They saw in his eyes he was not ready to take control of this team ONCE they had already started tanking themselves. He was not being put in a position to succeed by his coaches or his teammates or his wildly erratic and often lousy play. And it snowballed. There was a lot of blame to go around. The coaches simply lied to us by saying we're going with the guy who gives us the best chance to win. That was never the case. Holcomb was always the guy that gave them the best chance to win simply because of his experience and JP's non-experience. They gambled big and lost big when they saw JP's talent and thought he could pull a Big Ben (even though they didn't give him Big Ben duties). What they should have been doing is looking past this season as soon as TKO got hurt and Milloy and Vincent were hurt and by game three they knew their defense was incapable of stopping teams cold. But they didn't. They went to a lets-try-to-turn-this-thing-around-like-we-did-last-year M.O. even though the parts were not in place. And that backfired and proved disastrous, too. And the fans and JP suffered because of it. TD lost his job because of it. Mularkey lost his job because of it (even though he "quit"). Gray and Clements lost their jobs because of it. Moulds lost his cool and his job because of it. Milloy and Campbell and Adams lost their jobs because of it. 692373[/snapback] I agree with you Kelly....it seemed to me that the bills had a certain plan and the whole thing devestatingly fell apart. I think the plan was to dominate on defense....run the ball....and put JP in a position of success..... It just didn't turn out that way...I also think that is why we invested nearly our whole draft in defense so that we can go BACK to that plan (sort of) I know that a lot of fans hated what we did with our OL this year....I dont...the bills had a plan and they stuck to it.... - Except for Tripplet they drafted for their defense....and they get Takeo back - On offense instead of putting rookie players in front of JP Losman (or whoever the QB may be) they went and got seasoned veterans that DONT suck....Reyes and Fowler will be big additions
Orton's Arm Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 So the fact the Bills went 3-4 in games Losman wasnt even on the field had nothing to do with it? 692413[/snapback] Point taken. And yet . . . Bledsoe wasn't there because TD had faith in Losman. Wyche spent all that time over the summer teaching Losman, and not Bledsoe or Holcomb. All those mini-camps and so on were devoted to getting Losman ready. The Bills didn't have that 1st, 2nd, and 5th round pick because TD had faith in Losman. Give the Bills back those picks, give them a better veteran QB situation--either with Bledsoe or with a Holcomb who's been given more snaps in training camp--and the Bills would have had a much better winning percentage than 3-4 would imply.
Scraps Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I agree with you Kelly....it seemed to me that the bills had a certain plan and the whole thing devestatingly fell apart. I think the plan was to dominate on defense....run the ball....and put JP in a position of success..... It just didn't turn out that way...I also think that is why we invested nearly our whole draft in defense so that we can go BACK to that plan (sort of) I know that a lot of fans hated what we did with our OL this year....I dont...the bills had a plan and they stuck to it.... - Except for Tripplet they drafted for their defense....and they get Takeo back - On offense instead of putting rookie players in front of JP Losman (or whoever the QB may be) they went and got seasoned veterans that DONT suck....Reyes and Fowler will be big additions 692540[/snapback] The Bills had more seasoned veterans last year. You don't really consider Jason Peters to be a "seasoned vet", do you? How do you know that Reyes/Fowler will be any better than Anderson/Teague.
John from Riverside Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Point taken. And yet . . . Bledsoe wasn't there because TD had faith in Losman. Wyche spent all that time over the summer teaching Losman, and not Bledsoe or Holcomb. All those mini-camps and so on were devoted to getting Losman ready. The Bills didn't have that 1st, 2nd, and 5th round pick because TD had faith in Losman. Give the Bills back those picks, give them a better veteran QB situation--either with Bledsoe or with a Holcomb who's been given more snaps in training camp--and the Bills would have had a much better winning percentage than 3-4 would imply. 692552[/snapback] Yes and no Holcomb.... Yes they may have if one of those additional picks might have made a difference on defense in some capacity.... No because it would not have mattered who they put at QB.....when are getting less then 2 seconds of protection from your center out of a shotgun formation you could have put (insert the name of your favorite QB) and it would not have mattered.....
John from Riverside Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 The Bills had more seasoned veterans last year. You don't really consider Jason Peters to be a "seasoned vet", do you? How do you know that Reyes/Fowler will be any better than Anderson/Teague. 692556[/snapback] Because they have shown that they can get it done on other teams.... Fowler was solid in the time he got...the fact that he stepped in and immediately became the starting center without any sort of competition says a lot there....he has the natural center quickness that Teague lacked.... Reyes comes from a very good Panthers line.....he may be a "turn your man to the side" runblocker (which by the way is exactly how the denver OL do their blocks.....but from what I have seen I am very impressed with his pass blocking..... They are def a upgrade Also....regarding Peters....OL tend to make a big jump from 1st to 2nd year (and even more in the 3rd year) and I thought Peters showed consistancy and a lot of potential last year....Gandy was a lot better then people are giving credit for.....Villy was hurt most of the year.... Our protection breakdowns were happing in the middle of our OL
Dr. K Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 The whole veterans thing, to me, is obvious. The Bills as a team and an organization went into 2005 with very high hopes. They were coming off winning six of their last seven games. Mularkey was 9-7 as a rookie coach. The defense was #2 in the league for the second year in a row. There was talk it was going to be an all-time great defense. The special teams were the best in the league. Evans had come on, Willis looked like he may be special, the offensive line looked like it was coming together. The veteran laden team was jacked up. But the organization, TD in particular, because of the way Bledsoe ended the season, had decided that he had taken them as far as he could. They didn't want to go through another year with a ceiling. If Bledsoe would have played well against Pittsburgh, he would have still been there. But he didn't, so he wasn't. It was the right choice, even in retrospect. It wasn't at all that JP was just handed the job. It was far, far more that Bledsoe had lost the job. The Vets were a little uneasy because they didn't know what they had in JP. They THOUGHT they knew what they had everywhere else (although now we surely knew better). Spikes and Moulds and Campbell and Fletcher and Milloy and Vincent were all sick of losing and thought this was going to be their year. So when JP was a little in over his head, they weren't thinking like a coach or a GM or fan, they weren't willing to go through the growing pains for the good of the team in the long run. They thought their window was now, and they knew they had a likable, pretty efficient, 12 year vet sitting right there who had some playoff experience. And pretty soon, Moulds started getting more vocal. TKO was gone. They saw their high hopes collapsing in front of them and they got selfish. That's all. Had nothing to do with JP's personality or not liking him. They saw in his eyes he was not ready to take control of this team ONCE they had already started tanking themselves. He was not being put in a position to succeed by his coaches or his teammates or his wildly erratic and often lousy play. And it snowballed. There was a lot of blame to go around. The coaches simply lied to us by saying we're going with the guy who gives us the best chance to win. That was never the case. Holcomb was always the guy that gave them the best chance to win simply because of his experience and JP's non-experience. They gambled big and lost big when they saw JP's talent and thought he could pull a Big Ben (even though they didn't give him Big Ben duties). What they should have been doing is looking past this season as soon as TKO got hurt and Milloy and Vincent were hurt and by game three they knew their defense was incapable of stopping teams cold. But they didn't. They went to a lets-try-to-turn-this-thing-around-like-we-did-last-year M.O. even though the parts were not in place. And that backfired and proved disastrous, too. And the fans and JP suffered because of it. TD lost his job because of it. Mularkey lost his job because of it (even though he "quit"). Gray and Clements lost their jobs because of it. Moulds lost his cool and his job because of it. Milloy and Campbell and Adams lost their jobs because of it. 692373[/snapback] Well said! This is EXACTLY my judgment of what happened last season. The bet that Donohoe and the rest of the coaching staff made did not pay off, and the team did not handle itself well once it became clear that the plan wasn't going to work--thus the vacillation between JP and Holcomb. It wasn't a bad plan, in my opinion, and it's not workign cost a lot of people their jobs. That's probably as it should be. The page is turned and now there's a new plan. We'll see how it works.
Scraps Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Because they have shown that they can get it done on other teams.... Fowler was solid in the time he got...the fact that he stepped in and immediately became the starting center without any sort of competition says a lot there....he has the natural center quickness that Teague lacked.... Reyes comes from a very good Panthers line.....he may be a "turn your man to the side" runblocker (which by the way is exactly how the denver OL do their blocks.....but from what I have seen I am very impressed with his pass blocking..... They are def a upgrade Also....regarding Peters....OL tend to make a big jump from 1st to 2nd year (and even more in the 3rd year) and I thought Peters showed consistancy and a lot of potential last year....Gandy was a lot better then people are giving credit for.....Villy was hurt most of the year.... Our protection breakdowns were happing in the middle of our OL 692560[/snapback] I hope you're right, but to me your arguments smack of rationalization and homerism.
John from Riverside Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I hope you're right, but to me your arguments smack of rationalization and homerism. 692567[/snapback] Well we wont really know until they hit the field......but this looks a lot like the way the patriots filled their O line. I am not saying I wouldn't want a proven all pro at every position.....but I do think that we have talent on the O line....and mouse was brought in because he was supposed to be the best.
Ozymandius Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Well we wont really know until they hit the field......but this looks a lot like the way the patriots filled their O line. 692574[/snapback] Just because someone spends $30,000 on producing a film doesn't mean they'll end up with Clerks (or insert your own favorite low budget flick). And just because a team goes cheap on the line doesn't mean they'll end up having the success of the Patriots. Usually you just end up with what you pay for: crap. Like the Blair Witch Project. Like you said, though, we'll wait and see. But right now I'm gagging at any comparison between us and the Patriots.
BobbyC81 Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I was talking with a Bills fan I met today, and he said the Bills should have drafted Leinart and gotten rid of Losman. Assuming hotter heads prevailed and this ridiculous suggestion became reality, I wanted to know why, and the gentleman said he "didn't like Losman's attitude." Now, I've heard rumors, and I saw pre-draft reports, but I would love to see some of those who are in the anti-Losman camp come up with something written, some direct quotes, or some statements from Bills players that really call attention to Losman's poor attitude. What I have heard are measured responses from Bills players that seemed to say that they didn't think that his being handed the job was good for him or the team, a notion it seems Losman himself agrees with. What I have read are articles that seem to say the guy values the chance he's been given, is conscientious, likes Buffalo, and understands he needs to work hard to earn the job this year. What I'm looking for is undisputable information that says the guy is what a lot here seem to think he is. What I'm sick of is unsubstantiated evidence that is giving the guy a bad rap and seen as grounds for judgment when the guy has started all of 8 NFL games. Judging him on his football merits, or worries on a lack thereof, are something quite different and, IMO, justifiable to this point. I still think the investment and the reports on him merit a real chance this year. Those who feel differently and have some statements to back it up, step up, why don't you? 691805[/snapback] Here's my "three" cents: 1) An observation: having watched every game on "the tube", I recall seeing numerous times, when they put the camera on JP on the sidelines that he was all alone. Perhaps someone who attended the home games could lend some more input here as to whether that was more common. It could mean nothing, but could also mean that he wasn't well-liked by his teammates. 2) Can anyone who still has tapes from the games of last season take a look at what you could see happened after JP was sacked. I recall, back with RJ, that the O-line got so sick of him taking sacks, that usually nobody was around to help pick him up afterwards. If the same thing was happening with JP, then, as with (1) above, could possibly show lack of respect or dislike by teammates. 3) This is just a minor thing, but a friend of mine, who still lives in the Buffalo area, caught a clip on the news about the Bills which showed JP in Mularkey's office with his bare feet prominently placed on Mularkey's desk. This bugged my friend as a sign of arrogance and disrespect by JP. Now, it didn't bother me that much, but I'll have to admit, experiencing something similar would likely result in me knocking a person on their a$$ for doing something like that. 4) As the season wore on, with issues like Moulds supposedly representing the starting offense in demanding a change at QB when JP was struggling, how much of this was due to frustaration of the offense struggling and how much was due to dislike or disrespect of JP??
Kelly the Dog Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Just because someone spends $30,000 on producing a film doesn't mean they'll end up with Clerks (or insert your own favorite low budget flick). And just because a team goes cheap on the line doesn't mean they'll end up having the success of the Patriots. Usually you just end up with what you pay for: crap. Like the Blair Witch Project. Like you said, though, we'll wait and see. But right now I'm gagging at any comparison between us and the Patriots. 692576[/snapback] Bad example. The Blair Witch Project cost $60,000 to make and took in $248,639,099 in box office alone, not counting VHS, DVD, pay-per-view and TV. It is one of the biggest success stories in the history of moviedumb.
Bill from NYC Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 3) This is just a minor thing, but a friend of mine, who still lives in the Buffalo area, caught a clip on the news about the Bills which showed JP in Mularkey's office with his bare feet prominently placed on Mularkey's desk. This bugged my friend as a sign of arrogance and disrespect by JP. 692602[/snapback] Minor? It is outrageous enough that I am loathe to believe it. Has anyone else read or heard of this?
Pyrite Gal Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Minor? It is outrageous enough that I am loathe to believe it. Has anyone else read or heard of this? 692623[/snapback] Without some other clear signs that is psrt of some pattern of behavior or more directly related to some breakdown in discipline this is little more than a minor issue which says more about the viewer drawing large conclusions from this than the event itself. It would be silly to conclude that what happened here was actually MM telling JP to take off his shoes and put his feet on the desk to fool the reporter coming in about how laid back they are as to ascribe this episode to be a sign of some huge issue. Both reads on this situation are silly and we would need a lot more to draw any real conclusions.
Orton's Arm Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Yes and no Holcomb.... Yes they may have if one of those additional picks might have made a difference on defense in some capacity.... No because it would not have mattered who they put at QB.....when are getting less then 2 seconds of protection from your center out of a shotgun formation you could have put (insert the name of your favorite QB) and it would not have mattered..... While I completely agree the offensive line was an embarrassment to the Bills franchise, it still matters who the quarterback is. Holcomb has some limitations, but he's very good at turning lemons into lemonaide. In all the games where Holcomb played start to finish, the Bills scored at least 16 points. That was also the Patriots' minimum points per game--a low water mark they hit twice last year. So the offense could have produced under Holcomb even if (as is likely) none of the added draft picks had been used on offensive linemen. Assuming the three Losman picks A) weren't busts, and B) weren't used on offensive skill players, they really would have helped the team.
Stevie Ray Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Point taken. And yet . . . Bledsoe wasn't there because TD had faith in Losman. Wyche spent all that time over the summer teaching Losman, and not Bledsoe or Holcomb. All those mini-camps and so on were devoted to getting Losman ready. The Bills didn't have that 1st, 2nd, and 5th round pick because TD had faith in Losman. Give the Bills back those picks, give them a better veteran QB situation--either with Bledsoe or with a Holcomb who's been given more snaps in training camp--and the Bills would have had a much better winning percentage than 3-4 would imply. 692552[/snapback] Ah, but isnt it ironic that in essence you have answered your own question as far as what the Bills success would have been with those picks. Your signature re Donahoe's 2nd round picks give a snapshot of the overall 'success' of his drafting. And THAT, not Losman alone or Losman for the most part, is what proved to be his undoing (not to mention the bad coaching picks but we'll leave that for another thread).
Recommended Posts