The deciding factor in picking the #1 QB

[hootie1]

Last two starts he was 50% and 37%.  Yes, the 37% was NE but it was at home, Holcomb, on the road against NE was at 60%.  He had three games in the latter part of the season after he became the starter again where he was in the mid 50's so you are right, he was a little better.  Still sucked though, both of them.

 

Here is a cool stat, well maybe not:  Inside the 20 JP threw at a 31% clip, Holcomb, at a 70% clip.  Were the red zone plays that different?

 

I beleive JP will improve his accuracy, he has to.

 

JP was injured in the New England game, and stayed in. If I recall correctly, the injury happened fairly early, and could have affected his accuracy. He didn't play the next few games after the NE game because of the injury, so it wasn't minor...

704448[/snapback]

[stinky finger]

I totally agree on the idea that he is still young and I brought that up in my post giving him the benefit of the doubt that the 49% was not a true indication of his abilities and pointing out that it was essentially his rookie year.

 

All that other stuff, about the lousy coaches, plays, situations, OL, etc.  I agree, that was a problem last year but you know what, Kelly Holcomb played behind the same line, with the same coaches, same bad situations and the same bad plays.  What worries me are not the incompletions he threw while running for his life on third and 12, trying to hit Evans long.  What worries me are the roll outs we tried so often to get him away from pressure where he threw the ball over the head of Moulds or whoever on a 5 yard out pattern.  I saw that a lot.

 

I am absolutely willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what happened last year.  Not this year though.  If he is still sailing them over people's heads or tossing them in the dirt in pre-season this year and Nall or Holcomb aren't, he should sit, despite his arm strength, foot speed, draft position and all that. 

 

I think the job is his to lose and that if he is not clearly out performed in camp he will start but only by default and there will be a quick hook.  My hope is that he plays up to his potential in camp, clearly wipes the floor with Nall and Holcomb and emerges as the undisputed stater opening day.  That will happen....if he improves his accuracy.

704411[/snapback]

I think we may have a new "best post of the year"...........on this subject anyway.

[Rico]

If JP doesn't improve his accuracy and if Nall is more accurate, JP sits.  Not really a radical notion.  I think JP's problems are not his attitude, his personality, any of that stuff.  I think his problem is accuracy.  He hasn't hit his targets long or short.  Dick and Marv are not going to care about JP's credentials.  If the other guys don't really show themselves to be markedly better, JP will get the benefit of the doubt and be the default starter with a quick hook waiting if he falters.

704407[/snapback]

Agree 100%, that's it in a nut-shell.

[Ramius]

What I said: "As ineffective as Holcomb often was, his percentage was 67%. "

 

What you heard:  "...Holcomb's 67% is great".

 

ineffective=great????

 

The point I was making is that 49% is indescribably bad and that Holcomb, as bad as he was, wasn't that bad. 

 

Not all JP's incompletions were long bombs, a lot were 7 yard button hooks or outs on third and 6.  Holcomb's avg. yards per attempt was 6.5, JP's, 5.8.  Kelly had 14 plays over 20 yards and 3 over 40.  JP had 15 over 20 and 6 over 40.  The average per completion was 9.7 and 11.8 so JP was a little higher but in the end, he was not as effective as Holcomb but the bottom line is that neither player deserved to be a starter in this league. 

 

All those numbers tell you is that you had a little better chance of moving the ball forward when Holcomb dropped back to pass than when JP did.  JP isn't going to be a QB on any team throwing at a 49% clip.  As bad as Holcomb is, he was better than JP last year if only barely.

 

If JP doesn't improve his accuracy and if Nall is more accurate, JP sits.  Not really a radical notion.  I think JP's problems are not his attitude, his personality, any of that stuff.  I think his problem is accuracy.  He hasn't hit his targets long or short.  Dick and Marv are not going to care about JP's credentials.  If the other guys don't really show themselves to be markedly better, JP will get the benefit of the doubt and be the default starter with a quick hook waiting if he falters.

704407[/snapback]

 

I agree that Jp needs to improve his accuracy, but i am with kel the dog in that i feel the lack of a good o-line and terrible play calling had a ton to do with JP's failures. Meathead decided to play call according to JP's potential, not according to his current skill level, which is where he went wrong. With holcomb, they play-called to suit holcombs limited abilities. Holcombs 67% is a mirage.

[Rico]

I agree that Jp needs to improve his accuracy, but i am with kel the dog in that i feel the lack of a good o-line and terrible play calling had a ton to do with JP's failures. Meathead decided to play call according to JP's potential, not according to his current skill level, which is where he went wrong. With holcomb, they play-called to suit holcombs limited abilities. Holcombs 67% is a mirage.

704457[/snapback]

Absolutely, but regardless of the cause last year, I think Mickey's bottom line is correct.

If JP still doesn't show improvement and one of the other 2 steps up, JP will sit.

[Orton's Arm]

Holcomb completes so many passes because 80% of his passes do not travel more than 5 yards. Anyone who knows what the word football means will tell you that shorter passes = higher completion %.

I agree that Jp needs to improve his accuracy, but i am with kel the dog in that i feel the lack of a good o-line and terrible play calling had a ton to do with JP's failures. Meathead decided to play call according to JP's potential, not according to his current skill level, which is where he went wrong.

Just this once, I'll write a post disagreeing with your take on Losman.

 

Your first point seems to be that Holcomb achieved his higher completion percentage by always going for the short, safe pass, while Losman attempted more low percentage long bombs. However, Holcomb averaged 6.56 yards per pass attempt in 2005, while Losman averaged just 5.88 yards per pass attempt. For what it's worth, Nall has averaged 9.52 yards per pass attempt in limited play.

 

Secondly, you say that Holcomb was the recipient of much higher quality playcalling than was Losman. But Mularkey has had some experience in making bad quarterbacks look good, as his work with Kordell Stewart and Maddox illustrates. Holcomb also had a much better year under Mularkey than he averaged at Cleveland. Perhaps Mularkey was competent with Stewart, Maddox, and Holcomb, but incompetent with Losman.

 

A different explanation is that Losman's inadequacies forced Mularkey's hand. With Losman under center, defenses typically ganged up to stop the run. One of the running game's main purposes is to take pressure off the passing game. This purpose was being served under Losman--there was very little more defenses could do to dare us to pass. With the Bills' offensive line being what it was, running the football into a pile of nine defenders would simply have been a waste of a down.

 

The second criticism of Mularkey's playcalling was that he wasn't willing to call enough short, safe passes for Losman. Asking a quarterback to take a five or seven step drop behind a bad line, it's said, is a recipe for disaster. But a short, safe, Holcomb-like offense only works when your quarterback is consistently accurate on short to intermediate passes. Losman wasn't. Mularkey knew that any Losman-engineered drive that relied on many consecutive short, safe completions would have been far more likely to stall than to produce points. On the other hand, Losman could sometimes throw a beautiful long bomb to Evans, and score quick points that way. This wasn't a great way to run the offense, because of the lousy line. But Losman's limitations didn't give Mularkey any real alternative.

[CosmicBills]

Absolutely, but regardless of the cause last year, I think Mickey's bottom line is correct.

If JP still doesn't show improvement and one of the other 2 steps up, JP will sit.

704462[/snapback]

 

Yes -- but, and it's a huge but, whoever steps up has to step up HUGE. If it's close, JP plays. If it's a draw, JP plays. If Holcomb is slightly better than JP in camp/preseason, JP STILL plays.

 

The only way someone else starts is if they totally (and I mean drastically) outplay JP.

 

And frankly, I don't think Nall or Holcomb have the tools to do that.

[obie_wan]

Absolutely, but regardless of the cause last year, I think Mickey's bottom line is correct.

If JP still doesn't show improvement and one of the other 2 steps up, JP will sit.

704462[/snapback]

 

The only way JP improves is to play in real games.

 

The only way he doesn't start is if he breaks his leg again.

 

Holcomb is a career backup who mkaes game planning eqsy for the defense. Starting him will do more to set the team back than living with JP's growing pains.

[Rico]

The only way JP improves is to play in real games.

 

The only way he doesn't start is if he breaks his leg again.

 

Holcomb is a career backup who mkaes game planning eqsy for the defense. Starting him will do more to set the team back than living with JP's growing pains.

704490[/snapback]

Agreed... but neither you and I are calling the shots, and I think Marv & DJ see things differently.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Just this once, I'll write a post disagreeing with your take on Losman.

 

Your first point seems to be that Holcomb achieved his higher completion percentage by always going for the short, safe pass, while Losman attempted more low percentage long bombs. However, Holcomb averaged 6.56 yards per pass attempt in 2005, while Losman averaged just 5.88 yards per pass attempt. For what it's worth, Nall has averaged 9.52 yards per pass attempt in limited play.

 

 

 

Leaving aside your other points for the moment, the ypc stat is not the slam-dunk you suggest. A 1-yard flip and 10-yard run results in a ypc of 11 yds. Holcomb did have better stats than JP, but your reference to ypc does not in itself undermine the original point that Holcomb's stats were padded by his reliance on short check downs, combined with some good runs after catches (viz. his two TDs against the Jets, which relied on a heroic RAC by Fast Freddie and a semi-heroic RAC by Moulds).

[Gary M]

JP looked pretty accurate on the three TD's to Lee Evans in the first quarter of the Dolphins game.

 

I think Roscoe Parrish should be the starting QB, he has 100% completions, and no sacks.

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/teams/stats/BUF

[RuntheDamnBall]

Your first point seems to be that Holcomb achieved his higher completion percentage by always going for the short, safe pass, while Losman attempted more low percentage long bombs.  However, Holcomb averaged 6.56 yards per pass attempt in 2005, while Losman averaged just 5.88 yards per pass attempt.  For what it's worth, Nall has averaged 9.52 yards per pass attempt in limited play.

Leaving aside your other points for the moment, the ypc stat is not the slam-dunk you suggest. A 1-yard flip and 10-yard run results in a ypc of 11 yds. Holcomb did have better stats than JP, but your reference to ypc does not in itself undermine the original point that Holcomb's stats were padded by his reliance on short check downs, combined with some good runs after catches (viz. his two TDs against the Jets, which relied on a heroic RAC by Fast Freddie and a semi-heroic RAC by Moulds).

704506[/snapback]

And not even that. Holcomb's Arm was citing yards per attempt, which obviously works out better for someone who has more attempts and more completions. Yards per completion for Losman are actually better (11.9) than Holcomb's (9.7).

[Gary M]

And not even that.  Holcomb's Arm was citing yards per attempt, which obviously works out better for someone who has more attempts and more completions.  Yards per completion for Losman are actually better (11.9) than Holcomb's (9.7).

704523[/snapback]

 

 

DING DING DING

 

We have a winner.

 

SATS LIE.

[Orton's Arm]

And not even that.  Holcomb's Arm was citing yards per attempt, which obviously works out better for someone who has more attempts and more completions. 

Wrong. You can't inflate a yards per attempt stat simply by having more attempts. If player A uses 10 attempts to pass for 100 yards, and player B uses 100 attempts to pass for 1000 yards, both players will have the same 10 yards per attempt.

 

Yards per attempt is a much better indicator of a quarterback's yardage production than yardage per completion. Let's say quarterback A completes a 5 yard pass and a 50 yard pass. Quarterback B fails to complete the 5 yard pass, but still completes the 50 yarder. Quarterback A will have 27.5 yards per completion, as opposed to 50 yards per completion for quarterback B. In other words, the yards per completion stat rewards quarterbacks who miss short passes. Quarterback A will have a slightly higher yards per attempt, correctly indicating he's producing slightly more yards than quarterback B.

 

Any system of measurement which rewards a quarterback for missing short passes--as yards per completion does--is bound to make Losman appear to be better than he really is.

[Bill from NYC]

I still think Losman will be the starter this season and increase his accuracy. 

 

  Anybody can complete over 60 % of their passes when they quickly check off their primary downfield target 90 % of the time in order to throw the safe dump pass or 3 yard slant. This is why Holcomb had a grand total of 12 NFL starts up until age 32. He checks off the deeper pass because he can't throw it with his noodle arm.

 

Holcombs shotcomings can not be hidden behind a bogus stat.

 

Starting Kelly Holcomb equals 4 wins, max.

 

I'd rather gamble with someone with a possible upside. Losman first, Nall 2nd,

 

Holcomb...waivers.

704436[/snapback]

 

I agree with what you say to a very large degree. The thing is, JP's accuracy is certainly a serious cause of concern.

This link shows that even Alex Van Pelt threw for a 54.9 completion percentage. JP needs to improve a lot Mark.

 

I also agree with you and KTD that he will start on opening day. Hey, I want him to play well as much as any Bills Fan, but I am hoping (and do suspect) that Jauron will have a short leash.

 

We all have better things to do than to watch Losman continue to suck.

[Orton's Arm]

Leaving aside your other points for the moment, the ypc stat is not the slam-dunk you suggest. A 1-yard flip and 10-yard run results in a ypc of 11 yds. Holcomb did have better stats than JP, but your reference to ypc does not in itself undermine the original point that Holcomb's stats were padded by his reliance on short check downs, combined with some good runs after catches (viz. his two TDs against the Jets, which relied on a heroic RAC by Fast Freddie and a semi-heroic RAC by Moulds).

Say that a quarterback is fortunate enough to be throwing to receivers who are good at running after the catch. Given equal levels of play, this quarterback's yards per attempt is going to look better than that of some other quarterback whose receivers don't run well after the catch. The point isn't really applicable to a Holcomb/Losman discussion though, because both quarterbacks were throwing to the same receiving corps.

[Fixxxer]

I think Holcomb will be the starter come September until he has one sh------- performance (ala season finale in NJ) or is sidelined because of injury.

 

Then it will be JP's time and he will finally look decent while improving each and every game.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Say that a quarterback is fortunate enough to be throwing to receivers who are good at running after the catch.  Given equal levels of play, this quarterback's yards per attempt is going to look better than that of some other quarterback whose receivers don't run well after the catch.  The point isn't really applicable to a Holcomb/Losman discussion though, because both quarterbacks were throwing to the same receiving corps.

704573[/snapback]

 

 

Ah, but if we consider the possibility that Holcomb was more likely to throw the short check-downs than Losman, and completed more of them, then the same receiving corps can have quite different results.

 

My point is not necessarily to champion JP, but rather to point out that there are too many variables at play to select one, such as ypc, and use it as a point of comparison.

 

 

EDIT: and, as brought up above their is a big difference between relying on yards per completion vs. yards per attempt.... further proof for why stats in isolation can be an unreliable indicator.

[Matt in KC]

Wrong.  You can't inflate a yards per attempt stat simply by having more attempts. 

704554[/snapback]

Actually, RDB said more attempts and completions.

 

I think our "analysis" got a bit off track and circular.

 

Review:

Mickey said JP needs to be more accurate

Mark VI said JPs accuracy was in part because JPs pass attempts were longer / riskier (because of the plays called)

Mickey provided strong stats on Red zone completion rates that went ignored:

Here is a cool stat, well maybe not: Inside the 20 JP threw at a 31% clip, Holcomb, at a 70% clip. Were the red zone plays that different?

RJ (not THAT RJ) said that yards per attempt were higher for Holcomb (who we know had more completions)

RDB pionted out that Mark VIs point about longer riskier passes seemed to bear out when you looked at yards per completion.

 

Yards per attempt is a compound of both yards per attempt and completion percentage (which is what we're trying to explain in the first place). The real question is what is the yards per incompletion, which I don't think is recorded anywhere. And, if it was, could not be compared to yards per completion, since as RJ (not THAT RJ) said, that figure includes the run after the catch. I do believe in general it's easier for WRs to run further on average after short sure passes than long bombs. But, Lee Evans sure added a lot of YAC on those TD passes from JP....

[Mickey]

Just this once, I'll write a post disagreeing with your take on Losman.

 

Your first point seems to be that Holcomb achieved his higher completion percentage by always going for the short, safe pass, while Losman attempted more low percentage long bombs. However, Holcomb averaged 6.56 yards per pass attempt in 2005, while Losman averaged just 5.88 yards per pass attempt. For what it's worth, Nall has averaged 9.52 yards per pass attempt in limited play.

Leaving aside your other points for the moment, the ypc stat is not the slam-dunk you suggest. A 1-yard flip and 10-yard run results in a ypc of 11 yds. Holcomb did have better stats than JP, but your reference to ypc does not in itself undermine the original point that Holcomb's stats were padded by his reliance on short check downs, combined with some good runs after catches (viz. his two TDs against the Jets, which relied on a heroic RAC by Fast Freddie and a semi-heroic RAC by Moulds).

704506[/snapback]

 

You guys are arguing over two different stats I think. I pointed out earlier in the thread that HJolcomb has a higher yardage per attempt number (ypa) but JP has the higher number when it comes to yards per completion (ypc). The shows that when JP threw, he went deeper than Holcomb on average but he didn't complete enough of them to move the ball as effectively as Holcomb did. Normally, the guy with the higher ypc would have higher ypa as well but not here. The reason is the drastic difference between the completion percentages. Holcomb completed so many more of his passes than did JP that it more than made up for the fact that he threw shorter than JP did. Again, the issue is accuracy.