Albany,n.y. Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 I can only think of 1 reason we're loading up on all these 3rd string QBs. Dick & Marv have seen enough of Nall & Losman to know that if either wins the starting job, which is very likely, there's not a need for Kelly Holcomb, since either Losman or Nall is adequate enough to be the 2nd stringer. However, I think the main reason is because, even though Marv was in Chicago during Johnson -Flutie, he saw the damage that Wade Phillips did, making it impossible for those two to co-exist on the same team and knows that Mike Mularkey, by his actions last season, has already poisoned whatever relationship Losman & Holcomb could have possibly ever had. As a result, Marv knows that there's no way to enter the season with one of those guys as the starter and the other his backup. If JP is the starter, his backup will be Nall, not Holcomb, and the team will need a 3rd QB. The fodder can fight it out in practice & may the best man win. If Nall wins the job, there's no need for both Holcomb & Losman on the team-and Holcomb is much easier on the salary cap to cut. Mularkey already divided the locker room last year with his QB games. Marv & Dick Jauron are not about to let that happen again this year and if all three remain healthy, Holcomb is the odd man out. There's no way they'll allow the Holcomb supporters to undermine JP, like last season-when the inmates ran the asylum. Although its not his fault, Holcomb is the final victim of Johnson/Flutie, thanks to a meathead former head coach.
AJ1 Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 I can only think of 1 reason we're loading up on all these 3rd string QBs. Dick & Marv have seen enough of Nall & Losman to know that if either wins the starting job, which is very likely, there's not a need for Kelly Holcomb, since either Losman or Nall is adequate enough to be the 2nd stringer. However, I think the main reason is because, even though Marv was in Chicago during Johnson -Flutie, he saw the damage that Wade Phillips did, making it impossible for those two to co-exist on the same team and knows that Mike Mularkey, by his actions last season, has already poisoned whatever relationship Losman & Holcomb could have possibly ever had. As a result, Marv knows that there's no way to enter the season with one of those guys as the starter and the other his backup. If JP is the starter, his backup will be Nall, not Holcomb, and the team will need a 3rd QB. The fodder can fight it out in practice & may the best man win. If Nall wins the job, there's no need for both Holcomb & Losman on the team-and Holcomb is much easier on the salary cap to cut. Mularkey already divided the locker room last year with his QB games. Marv & Dick Jauron are not about to let that happen again this year and if all three remain healthy, Holcomb is the odd man out. There's no way they'll allow the Holcomb supporters to undermine JP, like last season-when the inmates ran the asylum. Although its not his fault, Holcomb is the final victim of Johnson/Flutie, thanks to a meathead former head coach. 708492[/snapback] I suspect the only poisonous relationship was between EM and Losman and possibly between Losman and MM. I'm not sure how much JP resented being jerked around. JP said he deserved it early but I'm not sure the feelings were similar at season's end.
Mark VI Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 Why do you think 2 QB's have been signed in the last week ? I highly doubt Nall will be cut. It's down to Losman and Nall to start, since they can actually throw the ball more than 4 yards. The 2 guys they signed have average arms but put up huge college stats. Smarts without an NFL arm. I doubt Holcomb ( $$ ) will be on this roster come opening day.
I Forgot My Last Username Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 Maybe Marv should simulate the season on Madden 2007 with each quarterback and whoever loses, that's who he trades off to San Francisco.
PromoTheRobot Posted June 14, 2006 Posted June 14, 2006 Steve Fairchild had the QBs airing it out down the field Wed. Nall and Losman outperformed Holcomb in that area. Holcomb didn't really try to throw it any more than 25 yards and that's was probably smart of him. He's not known for a rocket arm. Nall and Losman both fared pretty well with their deep ball accuracy. Chris Brown Blog Consistancy is great, but if your starting QB can't throw a ball more than 25 yards, what does that do to your offense? Defenses staying closer to the LOS because they know you won't throw long? And what of your speed WR's? How much of their potential is being wasted? I will be shocked and stunned if Kelly Holcomb is the starter. PTR
obie_wan Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 Steve Fairchild had the QBs airing it out down the field Wed. Nall and Losman outperformed Holcomb in that area. Holcomb didn't really try to throw it any more than 25 yards and that's was probably smart of him. He's not known for a rocket arm. Nall and Losman both fared pretty well with their deep ball accuracy. Chris Brown Blog Consistancy is great, but if your starting QB can't throw a ball more than 25 yards, what does that do to your offense? Defenses staying closer to the LOS because they know you won't throw long? And what of your speed WR's? How much of their potential is being wasted? I will be shocked and stunned if Kelly Holcomb is the starter. PTR 708536[/snapback] makes absolutely no sense to have a backup who must operate in an entirely different offense than your starter. it was stupid for Holcomb to back up Bledsoe and it's even dumber to have him backup either Nall or Losman in a rebuilding year because he can't throw the ball downfield.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 Consistancy is great, but if your starting QB can't throw a ball more than 25 yards, what does that do to your offense? Defenses staying closer to the LOS because they know you won't throw long? And what of your speed WR's? How much of their potential is being wasted? I will be shocked and stunned if Kelly Holcomb is the starter. PTR 708536[/snapback] if your qb can't throw it more then 25 yards you pretty much get chad pennington but older. The way to stop a qb like that is to blitz them consistently. However I dont think the wr potential is being wasted. While our wr's posesses a hell of a lot of speed. Not all of them are strictly down the field burners. Their speed can be utilized for crossing patterns slants and screens to benefit their run after the catch ability. Being able to throw deep is great, as you really can't have successive 10-14 play drives all the time, but throwing short and intermediate range passes is also a necessity , as thats where most of your passing routes over the course of a season are ran. Losman has yet to show he can throw short with any kind of accuracy, and that will be a problem in itself if he doesn't improve in that area. Fairchilds offfense relies on a lot of short passes mixed in with deep passes and relies mostly on the run after catch ability of wr's and rb's, but if your qb can't hit the broad side of a barn yard door you're in trouble. I'll be pulling for losman or nall to win the competition strictly cause they're younger but just cause you can throw deep doesn't a good quaterback make.
Pyrite Gal Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 Why do you think 2 QB's have been signed in the last week ? I highly doubt Nall will be cut. It's down to Losman and Nall to start, since they can actually throw the ball more than 4 yards. The 2 guys they signed have average arms but put up huge college stats. Smarts without an NFL arm. I doubt Holcomb ( $$ ) will be on this roster come opening day. 708525[/snapback] Beyond signing there players being consistent with a stated desire to make it as competitive as possible at each position, I see no evidence that supports the dime store psychology theories being thrown around as a reading such and such a move means that the braintrust has decided to throw out a particular player. If anythinh there seems to be a pretty clear recognition that a big part of the Bills QB problems have been that a starter was chosen based on how he practiced and responded to tests rather than making this calculation based on performance on the field. It will be bad news if the brantrust has given up on any of the three leading QB candidates based on some guesstimation (even by learned football men and much less by us fans) of which QB is going to perform well in real games based on a players arm strength, height or some other locker room measureable. To the extent this team stays the course and does not make a final choice until after we see all 3 plus whomever perform in the first two pre-season games, this decision will be premature and probably work out as well as when the job was handed to TC before they attempted to train the happy feet out of him, when they handed the job to Hobert for no seeming reason except for panic, when they handed the job to RJ based on his short episodes with Jax, or when they handed an extension to Bledsoe after a horrid season, or when they handed the job to JP when he was not reay. I'm sure that we all have our favorites (the Bills braintrrust as well) and its great to hear folks argue for their guy (though usually folks take the very easy track of instead arguing that someone else sucks rather than promoting their favorite), However, if a QB has been selected based on his work in these OTAs and if any of these three has been eliminated based on what litle has happened so far this season will almost certainly be a disaster.
jarthur31 Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 I can only think of 1 reason we're loading up on all these 3rd string QBs. Dick & Marv have seen enough of Nall & Losman to know that if either wins the starting job, which is very likely, there's not a need for Kelly Holcomb, since either Losman or Nall is adequate enough to be the 2nd stringer. However, I think the main reason is because, even though Marv was in Chicago during Johnson -Flutie, he saw the damage that Wade Phillips did, making it impossible for those two to co-exist on the same team and knows that Mike Mularkey, by his actions last season, has already poisoned whatever relationship Losman & Holcomb could have possibly ever had. As a result, Marv knows that there's no way to enter the season with one of those guys as the starter and the other his backup. If JP is the starter, his backup will be Nall, not Holcomb, and the team will need a 3rd QB. The fodder can fight it out in practice & may the best man win. If Nall wins the job, there's no need for both Holcomb & Losman on the team-and Holcomb is much easier on the salary cap to cut. Mularkey already divided the locker room last year with his QB games. Marv & Dick Jauron are not about to let that happen again this year and if all three remain healthy, Holcomb is the odd man out. There's no way they'll allow the Holcomb supporters to undermine JP, like last season-when the inmates ran the asylum. Although its not his fault, Holcomb is the final victim of Johnson/Flutie, thanks to a meathead former head coach. 708492[/snapback] This is nothing but speculation. Please provide a link to these "facts". I still think we carry these 3 QB's on the roster for 2006.
JAMIEBUF12 Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 i think they can co exist.....kelly holcomb was signed last season to be the backup qb.he knew going in when he signed that was his role with the team.i am a jp supporter but if kelly did beat out jp i think jp would just suck it up and be a professional and wait and be ready for his next chance to play unlike billy joe hobert lol..................go bills in"06
TDRupp Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 This is nothing but speculation. Please provide a link to these "facts". I still think we carry these 3 QB's on the roster for 2006. 708579[/snapback] of course we could but will we? No, imho. And, why did we sign 2 QB's to seemily compete for the 3rd string job and/or be the 4th arm in camp? Possibily b/c Holcomb will be let go. I don't know of another good reason. When you look at Dick J's comments today you know he will whittle the competition down to 2 QB's prior to camp and designate 1 as 3rd stringer. IMHO, Marv and Dick ask Holcolmb to take 3rd QB job and help the young guys out as they compete or if you don't want to (like Bledsoe in 2005) we will cut you. I guess their is a slight chance they designate Nall or Losman as the 3rd QB but that seems slim, does'nt it? Peace. Go Bills!
JDG Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 I don't think relationship has anything to do with it. Holcomb is too old to be a 3rd String QB. Holcomb is a nice guy to have as the #2 to come in in the event of an injury, manage the game, and not make mistakes. At the #3 spot, I would think that you would want a developmental guy. For a moment there, when it looked like his old target, Andre Davis would be starting for us, it seemed like Holcomb had a shot to win this thing. That's harder to see nowadays... JDG
TDRupp Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 I don't think relationship has anything to do with it. Holcomb is too old to be a 3rd String QB. Holcomb is a nice guy to have as the #2 to come in in the event of an injury, manage the game, and not make mistakes. At the #3 spot, I would think that you would want a developmental guy. For a moment there, when it looked like his old target, Andre Davis would be starting for us, it seemed like Holcomb had a shot to win this thing. That's harder to see nowadays... JDG 708668[/snapback] You have a point but if you can keep a guy that has started and played well at times and have you #2 guy as a developmental guy Nall or Losman (they both really are developing), does Marv throw away Kelly H when there is a slim chance he may want to stay as #3? I don't Marv would just cut him unless he wanted a chance elsewhere to be #2. I wouldn;t w/o asking first. Holcomb if cut might like to try the Saints or SD. #2 jobs with Q's at starter position as well... Probably will eat my words and watch him start for the Bills on Opening Day...
Pyrite Gal Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 of course we could but will we? No, imho. And, why did we sign 2 QB's to seemily compete for the 3rd string job and/or be the 4th arm in camp? Possibily b/c Holcomb will be let go. I don't know of another good reason. When you look at Dick J's comments today you know he will whittle the competition down to 2 QB's prior to camp and designate 1 as 3rd stringer. IMHO, Marv and Dick ask Holcolmb to take 3rd QB job and help the young guys out as they compete or if you don't want to (like Bledsoe in 2005) we will cut you. I guess their is a slight chance they designate Nall or Losman as the 3rd QB but that seems slim, does'nt it? Peace. Go Bills! 708663[/snapback] The reason is called competition. It would be simply stupid to make a decicion to let one of them go for several reasons: 1. Injuries- JP and TV demonstrated in pre-season camp that even wearinf the no-git training camp tutu that a QB can go down. The Bills looked far abd wide and gard at the waiver wire before signing Matthews. To make a decision to cut one of these two before camp begins would simply be a bad move which might make life simplistic for the coaches but would create a dumb risk. 2. Real play- No one has yet figured out an absolute formula for making an O work. It would simply be dumb for the Bills to not even give the threepro QBs on their roster a real sgit at seeing how well they run the O rather than make decisions based mostly on 7-on-7 drills and stat sheet demographics. 3. Past real occurences- The Bills have suffered again and again in a futile effort to find the next Jim Kelly instead of attempting to win with what they have (the best ST in the league, a top-ranked statistical D and a troubled O at best). Are you really suggsting that after a decade of failure caused in large part by ramming our heads into the wall making QB decisions based on off-filed assessments rather than primaruily on field play, that we once again go down this path and bash our heads into the wall. Given our uncertainty at QB and the need to throw a bunch of passes to the 10 WRs competing for as few as 4 jobs, that we get a bunch of camp fodder QBs, lwet them compete and cut the worse ones and keep the good ones based on performance and not on somebody's assessment without seeing them play for semi-real once camp begins and in the beginninning of the pre-season.
TDRupp Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 The reason is called competition. It would be simply stupid to make a decicion to let one of them go for several reasons: 1. Injuries- JP and TV demonstrated in pre-season camp that even wearinf the no-git training camp tutu that a QB can go down. The Bills looked far abd wide and gard at the waiver wire before signing Matthews. To make a decision to cut one of these two before camp begins would simply be a bad move which might make life simplistic for the coaches but would create a dumb risk. 2. Real play- No one has yet figured out an absolute formula for making an O work. It would simply be dumb for the Bills to not even give the threepro QBs on their roster a real sgit at seeing how well they run the O rather than make decisions based mostly on 7-on-7 drills and stat sheet demographics. 3. Past real occurences- The Bills have suffered again and again in a futile effort to find the next Jim Kelly instead of attempting to win with what they have (the best ST in the league, a top-ranked statistical D and a troubled O at best). Are you really suggsting that after a decade of failure caused in large part by ramming our heads into the wall making QB decisions based on off-filed assessments rather than primaruily on field play, that we once again go down this path and bash our heads into the wall. Given our uncertainty at QB and the need to throw a bunch of passes to the 10 WRs competing for as few as 4 jobs, that we get a bunch of camp fodder QBs, lwet them compete and cut the worse ones and keep the good ones based on performance and not on somebody's assessment without seeing them play for semi-real once camp begins and in the beginninning of the pre-season. 708695[/snapback] simply stupid to make a decicion to let one of them go for several I am not arguing whether it is smart or stupid but if you read my whole post I said I would not cut Holcolmb, right? However, we now have 4 healthy QB's on our roster, 2 injured ones that were in NFLE, and a report that says will are close to bringing in Dinwiddle. That makes 5 healthy QBs and not much time before trainign camp. do you honestly think we wil keep 5 QB's to start camp if we sign Dinwiddle? And do you think Holcomb will want to stay in Buffalo as a #3, if Dick choose to let Losman and Nall compete for the #1 job? marv and Dick are not making decisions b/c we have not found a good QB for the last 10 years since Kelly - they are making decisions for this year's team and an eye looking toward the future without sacraficing this year's team.
Pyrite Gal Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 simply stupid to make a decicion to let one of them go for several I am not arguing whether it is smart or stupid but if you read my whole post I said I would not cut Holcolmb, right? However, we now have 4 healthy QB's on our roster, 2 injured ones that were in NFLE, and a report that says will are close to bringing in Dinwiddle. That makes 5 healthy QBs and not much time before trainign camp. do you honestly think we wil keep 5 QB's to start camp if we sign Dinwiddle? And do you think Holcomb will want to stay in Buffalo as a #3, if Dick choose to let Losman and Nall compete for the #1 job? marv and Dick are not making decisions b/c we have not found a good QB for the last 10 years since Kelly - they are making decisions for this year's team and an eye looking toward the future without sacraficing this year's team. 708698[/snapback] I'mjust saying that a decision to cut a QB to get down to the conventional number of 4 would in fact be making a decision based on the conventional Bills wisdom which has resuted in the designation of a starting QN based on of field assessments rather than an assessment of their on field play. From wjat I understand Marv and Jauron have emphsaized competition on the field and given that we do not come into this season with a for certain starter (a refreshing change from the previous regimes which designated Bledsoe worthy of an extension even though his onfield play in 3003 did not merit it, then designated JP as the starter though his on field play did not merit it) it is perfectly consistent with a commitment to competition that they come into camp with more than the conventional wisdom of 4 QBs. Even moreso, our having a bunch of WRs of similar skill levels of whom none have yet taken even the #2 WR job and made it there own, having more QBs to throw to the WRs (and I also hope they are going to give WM more pass catching duties), it simply strikes me as an equallt credible theort that we plan to come into camp wth nire QBs thab the conventional wisdom, It was this what else could it be besides a decision to go beyond Holcomb which i was responding to. The more competition theory actually strikes me as even more credible than the pop psychology theory of assessing who Jauron has already decided to ditch, It could be that you are right about this but I hope not as it would be a sign of the same old failed thinking in terms of front office determination of who is the QB on the field, so i just hope your rheory is wrong. I do not care who wins the QB battle, I just hope our braintrust has the cojones to put up with the battle for the beginning of camp and the first two pre-season games.
Arkady Renko Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 it was stupid for Holcomb to back up Bledsoe 708549[/snapback] Good thing he didn't.
ganesh Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 Being able to throw deep is great, as you really can't have successive 10-14 play drives all the time, but throwing short and intermediate range passes is also a necessity , as thats where most of your passing routes over the course of a season are ran. 708550[/snapback] Exactly. That was the bread and butter throws for Brady in his 1st year replacing Bledsoe and he excelled in it. One thing to point is the Season opener last year when the Texans moved everyone closer to line of scrimmage, forcing JP to go for the long throws....and he made them pay for it....Unfortunately being a rookie QB the rest of the teams adjusted to his play and with a team calling lousy predictable plays it was impossible for him to go up. Losman has yet to show he can throw short with any kind of accuracy, and that will be a problem in itself if he doesn't improve in that area. Fairchilds offfense relies on a lot of short passes mixed in with deep passes and relies mostly on the run after catch ability of wr's and rb's, but if your qb can't hit the broad side of a barn yard door you're in trouble. I'll be pulling for losman or nall to win the competition strictly cause they're younger but just cause you can throw deep doesn't a good quaterback make. 708550[/snapback] Agreed...Until JP throws the short range passes consistently we are not going to be able to move the chains and that ultimately will spell his doom.. Also he needs to play on instinct...I remember the game against Carolina. We were at our own 20 yard line and Moulds was running a crossing pattern. Rather than having confidence that his WR will get the catch (because the time ER was open was going to be a smalll window), he took off and ran and was down after a 1 yard gain....JP needs to trust his WRs making that kind of catches in traffic...
smokinandjokin Posted June 15, 2006 Posted June 15, 2006 if your qb can't throw it more then 25 yards you pretty much get chad pennington but older. The way to stop a qb like that is to blitz them consistently. 708550[/snapback] Why blitz? Isn't the purpose of blitzing to get the QB to release the ball early to a 'hot' read, thus making the passing game semi-predictable? Holcomb doesn't throw more than six yards downfield regardless; I'd rather keep my LB's in the box and pound the receivers when they catch those dink passes. I really want JP to be the starter, even if it means another 5-11 season. It's his third year- if we're 5-11 again and he looks like he did last year, it's probably time to move on. But I would be PISSED if I have to go to eight home games to watch rag arm Holcomb dink and dunk his way to a 21-25 159 yard 0 TD 1 INT performance. Not to turn this into a #21 thread, but the fact that McGahee ran for 1247 yards last year with that OLine and those QBs is a miracle in itself. Everyone dogs Willis for his 3.8 yd per carry average. I will agree, he didn't look like he had the 'burst' that makes special RBs special. But would it look so bad if he averaged 4.0 yds per carry (the minimum benchmark of an 'effective' RB)? That difference is 4 yards when spread over 20 carries (76 yds vs. 80 yds.) I don't think we were 5-11 last year because Willis didn't get four more yards per game.
Albany,n.y. Posted June 15, 2006 Author Posted June 15, 2006 This is nothing but speculation. Please provide a link to these "facts". I still think we carry these 3 QB's on the roster for 2006. 708579[/snapback] Of course it's speculation-that's why the 1st 2 paragraphs start with "I think" I'll be glad to provide a link when the final cuts are announced, or when Holcomb is traded, whichever comes 1st.
Recommended Posts