The deciding factor in picking the #1 QB

[Mickey]

The fact that you'd rather lose than win with Losman is truly pathetic.

705420[/snapback]

None of us want to see the Bills lose. I think he was making a larger point, that we may not have a QB worthy of starting in the NFL who can produce wins on our roster at this point. Our starter might still be in college. I guess for him, the jury is back on JP and the verdict is not good. I disagree on that, we haven't seen JP's best yet.

[zow2]

- The longer it takes for a team to drive the length of the field (or the more plays it takes) the more chance there is for a drive to stall.....this happened A LOT to us last year (dropped passes, false starts, sacks etc.).  Every once in a while you need bigger plays. 

 

I'm glad someone else realizes this. When i hear the term "ball control" offense I shudder because successfull NFL teams must be able to convert their share of 5 or 6 play drives into TD's. Even Pittsburgh and NE have had plenty of Big plays in their arsenals on the way to winning Superbowls.

 

Buffalo bogged down way too many times last year while trying to run 10-12 play drives (failed 3rd down conversions, fumbles, int's, penalties, etc...). Also, too many of these ball control drives turned into long FG attempts.

[Nanker]

I'm glad someone else realizes this.  When i hear the term "ball control" offense I shudder because successfull NFL teams must be able to convert their share of 5 or 6 play drives into TD's.  Even Pittsburgh and NE have had plenty of Big plays in their arsenals on the way to winning Superbowls. 

 

Buffalo bogged down way too many times last year while trying to run 10-12 play drives  (failed 3rd down conversions, fumbles, int's, penalties, etc...).  Also, too many of these ball control drives turned into long FG attempts.

705656[/snapback]

 

You CAN be successful in a ball control style game - but typically they're low scoring games featuring grind-it-out drives of "three yards and a cloud of dust." That used to be how pro football was played nearly all the time pre-AFL. In today's NFL you have to have a committment to running the ball and the ass on the front line to back it up. It also helps if you have a back like The Bus.

 

The "genious" Bill Walsh brought a different kind of ball control gaming style to the league with the dink and dunk passing game that featured a light-on-their-feet OLine a lot of mis-direction and quick dump offs to the backs and darts to the Tight Ends. For that to work you need five skill position players to be ready to receive on nearly every play, and a committment to the passing game. Having a QB that is capable of making offensive reads and adjustments (I'm not talking check-downs here) is also key.

 

For the last ten years, The Bills haven't had the skill players required nor the committment to any particular offensive philosophy necessary to make ball control a success.

 

That's one of the improvements I see this offseason - the Bills improved their receiving skills at Tight End, and I'm maybe in the minority on this - but I think at WideOut too. I do NOT think Juron will try to run a "ball control" philosophy because our OLine is to light to play smash-mouth, and the receivers we have are long-ball type speedy guys - not possession receivers. Shelton has very good hands for a FB, but his role in the Offense's production was little more than as a safety valve on 3rd down. Unless Everett develops immediately I don't think the TEs we have would allow much success at a passing ball control philosophy.

 

I'm expecting something more like the old Al Davis offense - stretch the field 3-4 times a half by airing out the ball and setting the Tail Back loose with 35 touches per game.

 

If Jauron comes out and says he's going to run a ball control offense and tries to do it, I'll be worried. I just don't believe we have the guns and horses to do that.

[Mickey]

You CAN be successful in a ball control style game - but typically they're low scoring games featuring grind-it-out drives of "three yards and a cloud of dust." That used to be how pro football was played nearly all the time pre-AFL. In today's NFL you have to have a committment to running the ball and the ass on the front line to back it up. It also helps if you have a back like The Bus.

 

The "genious" Bill Walsh brought a different kind of ball control gaming style to the league with the dink and dunk passing game that featured a light-on-their-feet OLine a lot of mis-direction and quick dump offs to the backs and darts to the Tight Ends. For that to work you need five skill position players to be ready to receive on nearly every play, and a committment to the passing game. Having a QB that is capable of making offensive reads and adjustments (I'm not talking check-downs here) is also key.

 

For the last ten years, The Bills haven't had the skill players required nor the committment to any particular offensive philosophy necessary to make ball control a success.

 

That's one of the improvements I see this offseason - the Bills improved their receiving skills at Tight End, and I'm maybe in the minority on this - but I think at WideOut too. I do NOT think Juron will try to run a "ball control" philosophy because our OLine is to light to play smash-mouth, and the receivers we have are long-ball type speedy guys - not possession receivers. Shelton has very good hands for a FB, but his role in the Offense's production was little more than as a safety valve on 3rd down. Unless Everett develops immediately I don't think the TEs we have would allow much success at a passing ball control philosophy.

 

I'm expecting something more like the old Al Davis offense - stretch the field 3-4 times a half by airing out the ball and setting the Tail Back loose with 35 touches per game.

 

If Jauron comes out and says he's going to run a ball control offense and tries to do it, I'll be worried. I just don't believe we have the guns and horses to do that.

705672[/snapback]

I don't think "ball control" is really as important in the modern game as it has been in the past. I also think that teams who run the ball well, run a lot and so appear to be "committed" to the run. Teams that don't run the ball well, don't run as often and are then labeled as not being committed enough to the run. Its easy to run a lot when you are gaining yards, continuing to run when you are not might be considered being "patient" with the run to a point but at some point in a game, you have to stop doing what isn't working and try something else.

 

The thing about this team is that they seem to have been involved in an elaborate multi-year experiment designed to test the theory that if you design an offense clever enough, you don't need to have an offensive line to move the ball. What we have learned from this grand experiment is that, as it turns out, you can't have a power running game or a run & shoot game or anyother kind of game without an offensive line. Surprisingly, it turns out that no offensive system can succeed, no matter how cleverly designed, without somebody blocking somebody.

 

I agree that we don't have the horses for a run every down kind of offense but I'm not sure we have the horses to throw the ball either.

[Orton's Arm]

What we have learned from this grand experiment is that, as it turns out, you can't have a power running game or a run & shoot game or anyother kind of game without an offensive line.  Surprisingly, it turns out that no offensive system can succeed, no matter how cleverly designed, without somebody blocking somebody.

 

I agree that we don't have the horses for a run every down kind of offense but I'm not sure we have the horses to throw the ball either.

Excellent post. I'll make one modification though: there is one kind of offense the Bills can still run with their horse manure offensive line. It's where the QB takes a three step drop, and completes a quick dump-off pass for a five yard gain. Holcomb was made for this kind of offense.

 

Even without an offensive line, the Bills' offense always produced at least 13 points in games Holcomb played start to finish. I'm not saying that I liked our offense last year, or that I'm happy about this team's lack of an offensive line, or anything like that. But if you're not going to have an offensive line anyway, a quarterback with Holcomb's dump-off ability is the way to go.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Excellent post.  I'll make one modification though: there is one kind of offense the Bills can still run with their horse manure offensive line.  It's where the QB takes a three step drop, and completes a quick dump-off pass for a five yard gain.  Holcomb was made for this kind of offense. 

705793[/snapback]

Frankly, we've seen what that offense does and it sucks.

 

It is capable of beating a few non-contenders in comfortable environments, and not much more. If any one of you want to consider that progress, be my guests. I sure as hell won't. And I'd rather they continue rebuilding and take lumps and make progress with Losman, or, if he shines, Nall. Progress is not going to come if they start Holcomb (a prescription for 6-10 at best), or if they draft another QB #1 next year. I guarantee it.

[John from Riverside]

Excellent post.  I'll make one modification though: there is one kind of offense the Bills can still run with their horse manure offensive line.  It's where the QB takes a three step drop, and completes a quick dump-off pass for a five yard gain.  Holcomb was made for this kind of offense. 

 

Even without an offensive line, the Bills' offense always produced at least 13 points in games Holcomb played start to finish.  I'm not saying that I liked our offense last year, or that I'm happy about this team's lack of an offensive line, or anything like that.  But if you're not going to have an offensive line anyway, a quarterback with Holcomb's dump-off ability is the way to go.

705793[/snapback]

 

 

Once again....assessments on our offensive line are being made compared to last year....NOT THIS YEAR....we cannot due that because the O line isn't the same....

 

This line just MIGHT be good.....

[John from Riverside]

Frankly, we've seen what that offense does and it sucks.

 

It is capable of beating a few non-contenders in comfortable environments, and not much more.  If any one of you want to consider that progress, be my guests.  I sure as hell won't.  And I'd rather they continue rebuilding and take lumps and make progress with Losman, or, if he shines, Nall.  Progress is not going to come if they start Holcomb (a prescription for 6-10 at best), or if they draft another QB #1 next year.  I guarantee it.

705815[/snapback]

 

 

I would add to that that the style of offense mentioned above has virtually NO chance of coming back from behind.....say if our defense has a bad day and gives up some touchdowns......

 

With this type of offense there is absolutely NO ROOM for error.....that is why we lose

[Orton's Arm]

Believe me, I'm fully aware of the limitations last year's offense had. Any style of offense works better when you have an offensive line--including the death by a thousand small cuts offense Holcomb specializes in.

 

Nor am I arguing the Bills should start Holcomb. A rebuilding team such as the Bills should give the benefit of the doubt to younger quarterbacks such as Nall. From what I heard, Nall was able to effectively use dump-offs to make up for terrible offensive line play in a preseason game against the Bills. But he is stronger-armed than Holcomb, giving him more big-play potential. He's also got decent mobility.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Except Bledsoe does have an arm. Yeah Holcomb avoided the sack, but then got little results for it. Bledsoe also had the experience that you had to respect him. When JP went in, teams didn't respect him and came after him hard. They'd let Holcomb throw and let him try to beat you with his arm. When JP was in there the best defense plan was to rattle him which being a rookie was easy to do.

 

It was kind of similar to when we had Flutie and Johnson. Everyone would argue that they both played behind the same line and Johnson got sacked so much more that it must be his fault. But whe nFlutie was in there the last thing you wanted to do was fluch him out and make him run. Was much better to let him sit back there and throw.

 

If JP starts making the plays, the respect will come. I think if the level between them is anywhere close, start JP as he has the most upside.

 

Funny, Holcomb did what everyone said Drew needed to do. 

704429[/snapback]

[Tasker]

I don't think we have made much progress in the JPL vs KH discussionsince they stopped playing football half a year ago. I'm hugely in the JPL camp, and stick to wanting to see him start 16 games. I think his accuracy was inexperience, weak line and gameplan, and injury (New England), and is WAY too small a sample size to draw many conclusions. 228 attempts are not enough. I think all of these should improve this year, and he should be better.

 

I would expect Holcomb to be no better and likely a little worse because he is older. JP is betting on the future (a bet I think we will win) with some good short term upside too. KH is settling for mediocre right now and ignoring the future. We are a rebuilding year (but better than people think), KH might have made sense LAST year when we were pretending to be good and win now at all costs. This year we are building to the Super Bowl in 2009. JP gives us a better chance of getting there, and I think gives us better odds at each 7, 8, and 9 wins this year (5 or 6 and who cares, 10 or more are out of reach).

 

Nall is interesting, but I think a backup and someone who has proven less than JP, is less talented, and is older, so he has an uphill battle. I think having to compete for QB and having a better line and running game, JP will have less of a hero pressure, and will actually end up losing a little bit of the exciting down field stuff and make a few dumps and TE passes and actually play a little more like Holcomb than he did last year, while still having all of the upside.

 

But I'm just a Bills fan in June, so what do I know.

[Orton's Arm]

Nall is interesting, but I think a backup and someone who has proven less than JP, is less talented, and is older, so he has an uphill battle. 

I see this differently. Nall has proven himself in the preseason and NFL Europe. It's not much, but it's more than JP's done. Playing poorly in both the preseason and the regular season--as Losman did last year--doesn't count as proving anything.

 

I'd agree Losman has more overall physical talent than Nall. On the other hand, Akili Smith had more physical talent than Joe Montana. That doesn't mean Akili Smith was the more talented quarterback.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Nall is a gamer. He always looks far better in games than in practice.

 

Doubters will see Nall in game action in August and hopefully remember what I have been telling you all along. Nall is a good QB and could be great.

 

Nall career numbers are he completes 69.7 % of his passes, 9.52 yards per attempt, and has a passer rating of 139.4.

 

He completes 7 out of 10 passes, 1 of every 7 is for over 20 yards, and 1 of every 8 is a TD. He has not thrown an INT in the NFL. Has been sacked twice.

 

His disadvantage is learning something other than the West Coast Offense.

 

Some ESPN listening idiot always asks can he run? (Michael herpes Vick is not a good QB). Nall averages 1 yard/carry. Includes kneel downs.

 

Rather than lament about the Bills QB position you should be somewhat happy.

 

IMHO the Bills have 3 #2 QB's

 

Losman may have physical tools but is raw + inexperienced. (The young guy)

Holcomb has the experience but not the physical tools. (The old vet)

Nall has the physical tools and the rght amount of experience. (The right guy)

 

It so far looks like a fair battle. Whoever wins will deserve it.

That's the way it should be.

[ganesh]

I see this differently.  Nall has proven himself in the preseason and NFL Europe.  It's not much, but it's more than JP's done.  Playing poorly in both the preseason and the regular season--as Losman did last year--doesn't count as proving anything.

 

I'd agree Losman has more overall physical talent than Nall.  On the other hand, Akili Smith had more physical talent than Joe Montana.  That doesn't mean Akili Smith was the more talented quarterback.

707496[/snapback]

I agree physical talent is not everything....as my point about Brady earlier...

However, how do both JP and Nall compare in the Mental aspects....

 

A QB becomes a good one, when he stops thinking during the play and lets

his mental phase dictate what he does with the ball. (Unless you are a OL like

the Patriots where you can count 1.2.3.4.5.6....before throwing the ball).....

It is essentially important which QB has the best grasp of that aspect and he will

be the one leading the Bills next season.....Unfortunatley I don't know how

both JP and Nall have fared on that front....

[RuntheDamnBall]

Nall is a gamer.  He always looks far better in games than in practice. 

 

Doubters will see Nall in game action in August and hopefully remember what I have been telling you all along.  Nall is a good QB and could be great. 

 

Nall career numbers are he completes 69.7 % of his passes, 9.52 yards per attempt, and has a passer rating of 139.4. 

 

He completes 7 out of 10 passes, 1 of every 7 is for over 20 yards, and 1 of every 8 is a TD.  He has not thrown an INT in the NFL.  Has been sacked twice. 

 

His disadvantage is learning something other than the West Coast Offense. 

 

Some ESPN listening idiot always asks can he run?  (Michael herpes Vick is not a good QB).  Nall averages 1 yard/carry.  Includes kneel downs.

 

Rather than lament about the Bills QB position you should be somewhat happy. 

 

IMHO the Bills have 3 #2 QB's 

 

Losman may have physical tools but is raw + inexperienced. (The young guy)

Holcomb has the experience but not the physical tools.  (The old vet)

Nall has the physical tools and the rght amount of experience. (The right guy)

 

It so far looks like a fair battle.  Whoever wins will deserve it. 

That's the way it should be.

708934[/snapback]

Please inform me about how Nall's 6 games of experience trumps Losman's nine?

[CaliforniaCheez]

Stats

[Ramius]

Stats

708962[/snapback]

 

JP has played in many FULL games. You cannot just combine Nall's 4 passes in this game and 3 passes in that game into 1 game and take those stats as a truthful representation of the way nall has played.

 

 

btw-How much is holcomb's arm paying you?

[CosmicBills]

Nall is a gamer.  He always looks far better in games than in practice. 

 

Doubters will see Nall in game action in August and hopefully remember what I have been telling you all along.  Nall is a good QB and could be great. 

 

Nall career numbers are he completes 69.7 % of his passes, 9.52 yards per attempt, and has a passer rating of 139.4. 

 

He completes 7 out of 10 passes, 1 of every 7 is for over 20 yards, and 1 of every 8 is a TD.  He has not thrown an INT in the NFL.  Has been sacked twice. 

 

His disadvantage is learning something other than the West Coast Offense. 

 

Some ESPN listening idiot always asks can he run?  (Michael herpes Vick is not a good QB).  Nall averages 1 yard/carry.  Includes kneel downs.

 

Rather than lament about the Bills QB position you should be somewhat happy. 

 

IMHO the Bills have 3 #2 QB's 

 

Losman may have physical tools but is raw + inexperienced. (The young guy)

Holcomb has the experience but not the physical tools.  (The old vet)

Nall has the physical tools and the rght amount of experience. (The right guy)

 

It so far looks like a fair battle.  Whoever wins will deserve it. 

That's the way it should be.

708934[/snapback]

If Nall was so good, why did GB use their first rounder on Rogers?

 

I'm sorry, but that above all else, tells me everything I need to know about Nall. He's never going to be anything more than a backup in the NFL.

[Mickey]

I don't think we have made much progress in the JPL vs KH discussionsince they stopped playing football half a year ago.  I'm hugely in the JPL camp, and stick to wanting to see him start 16 games.  I think his accuracy was inexperience, weak line and gameplan, and injury (New England), and is WAY too small a sample size to draw many conclusions.  228 attempts are not enough.  I think all of these should improve this year, and he should be better.

 

I would expect Holcomb to be no better and likely a little worse because he is older.  JP is betting on the future (a bet I think we will win) with some good short term upside too.  KH is settling for mediocre right now and ignoring the future.  We are a rebuilding year (but better than people think), KH might have made sense LAST year when we were pretending to be good and win now at all costs.  This year we are building to the Super Bowl in 2009.  JP gives us a better chance of getting there, and I think gives us better odds at each 7, 8, and 9 wins this year (5 or 6 and who cares, 10 or more are out of reach).

 

Nall is interesting, but I think a backup and someone who has proven less than JP, is less talented, and is older, so he has an uphill battle.  I think having to compete for QB and having a better line and running game, JP will have less of a hero pressure, and will actually end up losing a little bit of the exciting down field stuff and make a few dumps and TE passes and actually play a little more like Holcomb than he did last year, while still having all of the upside.

 

But I'm just a Bills fan in June, so what do I know.

707470[/snapback]

I think everyone is in the Losman camp. Some of us would just have a quicker hook than others, some are in his camp but not at all convinced he is the man.

 

I don't think anyone right now is arguing that Holcomb should be starting. That argument will come if and when JP starts and shows little or no progress from last year. Sure hope that is not the case.

 

For me, I will wait and see what happens in camp with JP getting the nod unless he is clearly being outplayed by one or the other. Based on what I saw last year, my main concern is his accuracy. He missed too many open receivers on relatively short routes for my taste. Lots of other factors were in play, sure. Still, 31% in the redzone? Yeeech.

[CaliforniaCheez]

The Packers had a top 5 draft pick fall to the 24th pick. A starting QB over age 30. It was a value draft decision that is all.

 

Like many Packer fans I thought it was a waste of a first round pick.

Nall is a far better QB. Nall has the better arm.

 

Did you know that Nall went to the NCAA finals as a javelin thrower?

He has arm as demostrated recently in his 60 yard completion in practice.

 

Why hate a guy who may really help the team?

I think Marv got great value in Nall for the size of his contract.