Orton's Arm Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 No i wasnt saying the QB's played equal. but in the end a loss is a loss, no matter if the QB threw 50 yards and 6 picks, or if he threw 500 yrads and 6 TD's. And enlighten me how Nall being "up to the task" of holding the clipboard as 3rd stringer is going to help the bills win this year? 712610[/snapback] Again, you're being unconvincing. The stats say Holcomb did significantly better against the Patriots than Losman did. There's no way you're going to convince many people that the Bills' 16 points under Holcomb are the same as their seven points (net of zero) under Losman, or that Holcomb's >60% completion percentage is the same as Losman's 37%. The two points you should be raising are these: 1. The Patriots team Losman faced didn't have as many injuries on defense as the one Holcomb faced. 2. Roethlisberger looked pathetic against the Patriots in his rookie year playoff game against them, yet he's turning out to be a good quarterback. Just becaues a young, inexperienced quarterback looks terrible against a Belichick defense, doesn't mean he can't play. Either of these points would have been stronger than the one you raised. Saying that neither quarterback played well enough to win seems to place the whole responsibility for the outcome of the game on the shoulders of one player. I fought against this mistaken line of thinking back in the Johnson/Flutie debates, and I'll do the same now. I remember the Bills would win a game 10-7 or 13-10, and afterwards we'd hear how Flutie "played well enough to win." It was the defense that played well enough to win, despite not getting much help from the quarterback spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 You can't compare the two games. No Moulds in the Losman game. Meathead suspended him, leaving JP with only 1 viable receiver & the Patriots able to tee off on JP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 712770[/snapback] Since you're hell bent on your "points achieved per game" or whatever that crazy ass formula you had to trash JP in your pathetic attempt to make holcomb look good, try this... you claim that JP led the bills to 7 points, but gave up 7 points on an INT return (the int is his fault, but not his fault that our guys cant tackle on the return, so that blows that arguement out of the water). What about holcomb? Not only did he fail to convert a 4th down by not even giving his team a CHANCE to convert it, he also gave up 7 points to the patriots by fumbling the ball away on our own 20 with 5 minutes to go. Those 7 points by the way, happend to give the patriots the victory. In summation: JP has a worse statistical game in which the team got their ass kicked. Take away his INT, and we lose 28-7 instead of 35-7. Holcomb on the other hand, fumbled away a lead late in the 4th quarter, then choked when he made like a pop-warner QB and threw the ball 1 yard on 4th and 7. Take away his fumble, and the Bills are leading 16-14 with the ball and 5 mins left to kill for the win. a bit of a difference. And i'll repeat an above poster. How come sh------- play calling is an ok excuse for holcomb sucking, but not for JP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Since you're hell bent on your "points achieved per game" or whatever that crazy ass formula you had to trash JP in your pathetic attempt to make holcomb look good, try this... This is more like it. It's more fun to argue against a worthy adversary, so I'm glad you're doing better now than you were earlier. I regard the Holcomb fumble as a consequence of inept offensive line play. If you choose not to have an offensive line--a choice TD made going into the 2005 season--sometimes your quarterback will be hit for fumbles, and sometimes those fumbles will result in points for the other team. If ever a man knew how to dump the ball off in a hurry, that man was Holcomb. So in general, whatever fumbles Holcomb does commit will have been the fault of the line. As for the point Albany raised, it was a good one. I'd forgotten about the Moulds suspension. As for the issue of playcalling, I've addressed elsewhere how Mularkey built a track record of making bad quarterbacks look good. Look at the production Mularkey got from the likes of Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox. Holcomb also achieved a significantly higher rating playing for Mularkey than he did in Cleveland. I suppose it's possible Mularkey was a quarterback-friendly coach for Stewart, Maddox, and Holcomb, while being a quarterback-hostile coach for Losman. But it's more likely that Losman's own limitations forced Mularkey's hand. If Losman can't complete short passes with any real consistency, Mularkey can't implement the same death-by-1000-cuts offense for Losman that he did for Holcomb. If defenses have so little respect for the Losman passing attack that they put eight or nine men in the box to stop the run, you can't expect the running game to have as much success with Losman as it did with Holcomb. Losman's two strengths were his mobility and his deep ball; and I feel the coaching staff did a reasonable job of utilizing both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rob Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The worst thing about KH is that he has no upside. Absolutely none. He was not brought into to Buffalo to contend for a starting job. His role was to backup an injured Losman. If Kelly becomes the annointed starter, it's an admission that the Bills have nothing, no prospects, nothing at the QB position. 711963[/snapback] I agree with your opinion 100%.KH is the same as saying Losman is no Tim Couch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rob Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I would also like to state the I think that Holcums Arm is the same as my brother.He would take an opposing stand on any subject as long as he thought that he could keep the argument brewing.HA can't possibly believe that KH is a resonable solution for the Bills.But hell I've been wrong in the past maybe he does think Kelly is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I'll make this a short post, because my tears are causing problems with my keyboard. This is the very first time I've heard Holcomb is too old to have much of an upside. You'd think the point would have been made somewhere in the tens of thousands of posts I've read on these boards, but no. The newness of the idea is what makes it so emotionally disturbing. 712044[/snapback] You're kidding right? The reason you don't see "lack of upside" and "Holcomb" in the same sentence is because even the so-called "JP bashers" aren't under any illusions that Holcomb is in fact the long term solution. As for the OP, IMO it's pretty retarded to compare this situation with the RJ/Midget fiasco. Back then it actually mattered because we had a decent team. Now it's more like AVP/Collins/Billy Joe in '97. Whatever, the team sucks and so do the QB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I assume you're being sarcastic with this list. When Losman faced the Patriots later that year, he led the Bills to a sparkling seven points. On the other hand, the Patriots scored seven points by returning a Losman interception 39 yards for a touchdown. But while Losman was an equal help to both teams' scoring efforts, he did complete ten passes to the Bills, compared to just three interceptions. In other words, he was over three times more likely to complete a pass to a Bills player than to a Patriot. It was almost like he was trying to complete passes to guys on his own team! He ended the game with a stellar completion percentage of 37%. No doubt Belichick fears the greatness he sees in Losman, and is losing sleep over the possibility of facing him again! In contrast, Holcomb had 20 completions to just one interception, threw for 263 yards, completed over 60% of his passes, and led the offense to 16 points. The lone Holcomb interception didn't result in any New England points. 712533[/snapback] Yeah but, but but....4th & 7 More ironic is the fact that these are many of the same "1 play pony" Flutie lovers who pretend the '98 sack & fumble in Miami never happened....that wasn't an important play or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 You're kidding right? The reason you don't see "lack of upside" and "Holcomb" in the same sentence is because even the so-called "JP bashers" aren't under any illusions that Holcomb is in fact the long term solution. As for the OP, IMO it's pretty retarded to compare this situation with the RJ/Midget fiasco. Back then it actually mattered because we had a decent team. Now it's more like AVP/Collins/Billy Joe in '97. Whatever, the team sucks and so do the QB's. 712860[/snapback] I agree the Bills are a much worse team now than in '97. I also feel Losman has a long way to go to reach RJ's level of play; and that Flutie did more to help the team in 1998 than Holcomb did in 2005. (The two players had similar passer ratings, and similar abilities to complete short passes, but Flutie did more with his feet.) Nonetheless, there are parallels: you have a young, quarterback of the future type guy, for whom the Bills traded away a first round pick. Then you have the seasoned veteran who never could quite make it as an NFL starter prior to coming to the Bills. In both cases, the older veteran played better than expected, thereby managing to unseat the younger guy as starter. These were the factors I had in mind when I wrote about the eerie similarity between the Johnson/Flutie controversy and the Losman/Holcomb debate. I partially agree with your pessimistic view of the quarterbacks presently on the Bills' roster. There is, however, a guy who might make these reasons for pessimism Nall and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 H.A., I agree there are some rough parallels. My point was, it was almost understandable how passionate the RJ/Midget controversy was because they were a playoff team. For the life of me I can't understand why people are so hell-bent on tearing down Holcomb and pushing J.P.'s jock. I guess message boards encourage these sort of polarizing views, but again...the team sucks, so I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Nonetheless, there are parallels: you have a young, quarterback of the future type guy, for whom the Bills traded away a first round pick. ummm, no the bills didnt trade away a first round pick. we traded away a 2nd and 5th rounder for losman. but dont let facts stand in the way on your JP hatred rants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Why does anybody try to change Holcumb's Arm's mind? That's like trying to convince my grandmother that abortions should be legal. No that is not an attempt to turn this into an anti/pro abortion thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 ummm, no the bills didnt trade away a first round pick. we traded away a 2nd and 5th rounder for losman. but dont let facts stand in the way on your JP hatred rants. 712906[/snapback] The Bills traded away their first round pick in 2005 to obtain the Dallas pick in 2004. In addition, we gave up the 2nd and 5th round picks you mentioned. If you want to share your optimistic view about Losman, fine. But you've picked a strange point about which to quibble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 The Bills traded away their first round pick in 2005 to obtain the Dallas pick in 2004. In addition, we gave up the 2nd and 5th round picks you mentioned. If you want to share your optimistic view about Losman, fine. But you've picked a strange point about which to quibble. 712934[/snapback] I think quibble is the correct word here. When you say "...for whom the Bills traded away a first round pick." you put the situation out of context. You imply we used an extra first round pick. "Traded away" implies getting no return for the pick. Had you said, 'exchanged' or 'swapped' you would have implied closer to the reality of the situation.(which of course would be counter to your purpose of mentioning it in the first place). Quibbling? Yes. Important? No. Misleading? ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Losing that game would not have put the Bills in position to draft Ferguson. 712339[/snapback] Had the Bills lost that game, they would have picked 3rd in the draft. Not that it means anything, just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Statistics can be misleading.....I on the JP bandwagon (if you call that)...and I concede he needs still to polish his skills and play the game naturally rather than second guessing his WRs...However, what KH did was to increase his completion % by going for the 2 and 3 yard gains and hoped his WRs will take it an extra 5 yards...WHile there is nothing wrong with that, teams figure out that easily and the chains stop moving..... If going by stats if KHs QB rating was 20 more than JP, he should be having at least 25% more wins than JP....The point is, this is a team game and you give the QB that gives you the best chance to win the shot. KH is not that. 712196[/snapback] Fair point and I also realize stats can be misleading. However, last year KH was our best chance to win games. Trust me, I'm a huge JP guy and want him to win the job. But we basically threw away a year because of the JP experiment (and MM compounded the mistake by not sticking with one guy). I just don't understand how people can so easily dismiss KH. But I believe this defense can be a top 10 unit and we already have a top special team unit. Is it fair to throw that away to justify a 1st round pick QB? Also looking at DJ track record, he went 13-3 with Shane Matthews and Jim Miller. I think everyone can admit that KH is much better than either of those two. Hopefully, JP will win the job and earn the respect of his teammates. But as much as people hate on KH, right now he puts the Bills in a better position to win games. And with the parity in this league, the time to win is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Had the Bills lost that game, they would have picked 3rd in the draft. Not that it means anything, just saying... 712940[/snapback] Are you sure about that? The Bills would have had a 4-12 record but that would have tied them with the Titans, Jets, Packers and 49ers, all of whom had worse division or conference records than the Bills. The Bills would have moved up one spot and had a chance at Huff. Ferguson would have been long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 Are you sure about that? The Bills would have had a 4-12 record but that would have tied them with the Titans, Jets, Packers and 49ers, all of whom had worse division or conference records than the Bills. The Bills would have moved up one spot and had a chance at Huff. Ferguson would have been long gone. 712946[/snapback] It goes by win% of opponents, not division or conference record. I believe the Bills had the lowest opponents win% and therefore would have picked higher than the teams tied with them, they definitely would have drafted ahead of the Jets & would have been in position to draft D'Brick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I think quibble is the correct word here.When you say "...for whom the Bills traded away a first round pick." you put the situation out of context. You imply we used an extra first round pick. "Traded away" implies getting no return for the pick. Had you said, 'exchanged' or 'swapped' you would have implied closer to the reality of the situation.(which of course would be counter to your purpose of mentioning it in the first place). Quibbling? Yes. Important? No. Misleading? ??? I really shouldn't be responding to this post, but it gets under my skin when people imply I've been misleading. In the late 1990s, the Bills gave up their first round pick (and a 4th rounder), and in return got Johnson. Because the first round pick wasn't actually used to draft Johnson, this counts as trading away a first round pick for him. Later on, the Bills gave up a first round pick in 2005 (plus a second and fifth in 2004) for Losman. Because their own 2005 first rounder wasn't actually used to draft Losman, this again counts as trading away a first round pick to get a guy. I was merely implying that both players cost us first rounders, and that both players required trades to acquire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I really shouldn't be responding to this post, but it gets under my skin when people imply I've been misleading. In the late 1990s, the Bills gave up their first round pick (and a 4th rounder), and in return got Johnson. Because the first round pick wasn't actually used to draft Johnson, this counts as trading away a first round pick for him. Later on, the Bills gave up a first round pick in 2005 (plus a second and fifth in 2004) for Losman. Because their own 2005 first rounder wasn't actually used to draft Losman, this again counts as trading away a first round pick to get a guy. I was merely implying that both players cost us first rounders, and that both players required trades to acquire. 713084[/snapback] this might be the most ass backwards logic i have ever read. its fits in nicely with all of your other rants. And, for the record, you were deliberately misleading to make your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts