I must admit it, I hate Kelly Holcomb

[Orton's Arm]

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.

713101[/snapback]

Obviously, you have the power to read people's minds, because that's the only way you could possibly claim that I was being deliberately misleading. I'm sorry you feel you have to stoop to this level to defend Losman. This is beneath you, Ramius.

 

To say the Bills traded away a first round pick to acquire Losman isn't an insult to his accuracy, or his ability to see the field quickly, or any other critical factor. It's just an observation that the Cowboys acquired the Bills' 2005 first round pick (among other picks) via trade, and that the Bills in return acquired Losman. You're being awfully defensive here.

[Ramius]

Obviously, you have the power to read people's minds, because that's the only way you could possibly claim that I was being deliberately misleading.  I'm sorry you feel you have to stoop to this level to defend Losman.  This is beneath you, Ramius.

 

To say the Bills traded away a first round pick to acquire Losman isn't an insult to his accuracy, or his ability to see the field quickly, or any other critical factor.  It's just an observation that the Cowboys acquired the Bills' 2005 first round pick (among other picks) via trade, and that the Bills in return acquired Losman.  You're being awfully defensive here.

713117[/snapback]

 

This has nothing to do with Losmans abilites or what either of us think of him. You say traded away and imply that the Bills GAVE UP a first rounder. Thats what trading away is. The Bills received a 1st round pick in return. So they didnt trade away a first rounder, they swapped firsts.

 

When the bills acquired RJ, they traded away a first rounder. Then they no longer had a first round pick in 1997. But in 1996 and 1998 we only had 1 first rounder each year as well. So in 1996/1997 or 1997/1998, we only had 1 1st round pick in those 2 years because we traded one away.

 

With Losman, we had 2 first round picks in 2004 and 0 in 2005. But in those 2 years, we still had 2 first round draft picks. This is a loss of 0 first round picks. So we didnt trade away a first rounder for losman like we did for RJ.

[ganesh]

I don't think that Holcomb will emerge as the starter, either.  But I think that there are few teams that wouldn't like him to be the backup choice in case the starter is injured.

 

I'd be circumspect with replacing him,  a more or less low-cost vet, with a Nall, who has only a couple of quarters worth of game action under his belt.

 

If you can name a better 2nd qb the Bills can obtain, do so.

712559[/snapback]

 

 

The problem with KH being the backup is that he is always going to go after

the starting job....This puts too much uncertainity on either JP or Nall....causing

them to look over the shoulders......

 

I would rather have a clipboard person like a Van Pelt or Mathews to be the backup, a guy who can play, but not necessarily fighting for the starting job....

 

Carson Palmer played with no such question marks, even though they had

a starting caliber QB who was much bettern than Holcomb backing up.

[BuffOrange]

This has nothing to do with Losmans abilites or what either of us think of him. You say traded away and imply that the Bills GAVE UP a first rounder. Thats what trading away is. The Bills received a 1st round pick in return. So they didnt trade away a first rounder, they swapped firsts.

 

When the bills acquired RJ, they traded away a first rounder.  Then they no longer had a first round pick in 1997. But in 1996 and 1998 we only had 1 first rounder each year as well. So in 1996/1997 or 1997/1998, we only had 1 1st round pick in those 2 years because we traded one away.

 

With Losman, we had 2 first round picks in 2004 and 0 in 2005.  But in those 2 years, we still had 2 first round draft picks. This is a loss of 0 first round picks. So we didnt trade away a first rounder for losman like we did for RJ.

713137[/snapback]

 

Give it a rest dude, you're being such a nit.

They used a 1st round pick on RJ. They also used a first round pick on JP they would've otherwise kept if they hadn't gotten JP. Yes, they still had 2 first round picks - but the fact that JP needed to be drafted from college and RJ didn't is for all practical purposes, a negligible point, as the net loss was the same.

[Adam]

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 didnt think anything could be worse about him than the haircut

[Dibs]

I was merely implying that both players cost us first rounders, and that both players required trades to acquire.

713084[/snapback]

Cool....all I was pointing out to you was that by wording it the way you did could imply blah, blah, blah.

There are some on TBD who are somehow under the impression that Losman cost us 2 1st rounders & it gets under my skin when they say it.(obviously not referring to you). Wording it as "...the Bills used(or spent) a first round pick" would not have the possibility of the implication.

I used the word quibble because I know this is a petty argument on something that at best can be described as a side-point.(well beneath us all...well, most of us...O.K. some of us.)

Sometimes though, it can be fun(?) to bandy semantics about something unimportant.

[Orton's Arm]

Cool....all I was pointing out to you was that by wording it the way you did could imply blah, blah, blah. 

There are some on TBD who are somehow under the impression that Losman cost us 2 1st rounders & it gets under my skin when they say it.(obviously not referring to you).

I see where you're coming from. I too would get annoyed by someone acting as though Losman cost us two first rounders. I didn't mean to come across as though I felt any sort of agreement for that view.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

First lets get one thing straight HOLCOMB PLAYED BACKUP QB FOR MOST OF HIS CAREER.  What makes people here thing he can be good if he's a backup.

712161[/snapback]

 

What I said makes sense.

[OCinBuffalo]

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.

712805[/snapback]

 

 

There is no way we were watching the same games last year, or you have a severe case of selective memory. The coaching staff never used JP's mobility unless you count running from the opponent's defense because of bad line excution, even worse play calling, and worse still a gameplan that was designed for deadslow.

 

I think the "roll outs" and "draws" you may be thinking of were JP's attempts to improvise something since the coaches offered him no outlet help from the tight ends or running backs - which a good mobile quarterback offense uses extensively. Holcomb is a pocket passer like deadslow, so he fits into a one dimesional look much better than JP. Asking JP to be a pure pocket passer is like asking Derek Jeter to be a DH. Tell me that wouldn't be frustrating=messed with JP's head.

 

On the other hand, KH has only ever been a pocket passer so it's hardly a wonder that he would fit into a "throw the ball 8 1/2 yards at the most-especially when we need 9 for a first down" offense. This is a straw agrument at best.

 

This leads me to your second point. What deep ball? How many deep ball plays were called again? You have to call it to utilize it. Last year it was blatantly obvious that they had zero commitment to deep ball plays. This was a miserable attempt at a west coast/trick play offense. (Even if they did, it seems to be generally accepted by everyone that Holcomb can't get it deep on a line.) I never saw him throw a ball that was catchable past 25-30 yards last year.

 

It's not because KH can or can't do it(I'm no parrot and I honestly have no idea whether he can throw deep or not), but because we weren't calling those kind of plays. Neither guy threw deep balls. If you don't consistently take those chances and make the defense respect you, that is when they begin to stack the box. The running game has nothing to do with making sure defensive backs don't jump routes. Keeping them honest, with a commitment to throw it over their heads if they cheat, opens up the short passing game that Mularkey(apparently the best offensive coach in the league by your standards) wanted to run. The running game keeps the linebackers honest, not the defensive backs. Your logic is backward here. Please explain???

 

So, having beat this to death, how did they "reasonably" utilize JP's mobility and deep ball again? You have made some marginal to good points above but I think I've demonstrated that you are off base here, or perhaps you need to explain further.

 

JP should start and will be fine. This team will win or lose as a team - not blaming one player, like we used to - thanks to Marv. And that is no homer statement, unless you weren't a Bills fan in/can't remember 1986. (if that is the case you are clearly not alone on TBD)

 

GO BILLS!

[Kelly the Dog]

Trading for a #1 pick in a strong draft and having that player for the extra year in exchange for a #1 the following year, in a worse draft class, especially at the quarterback position you're trading for, is the equivalent, of, say, getting a free #2 and #5 draft pick.

 

Ooops.

 

In other words, it was a good/fair trade, for both teams. Of course, we could be looking at Aaron Rodgers fighting Craig Nall for the the starting job.

 

Ooops.

[Dibs]

Trading for a #1 pick in a strong draft and having that player for the extra year in exchange for a #1 the following year, in a worse draft class, especally at the quarterback position you're trading for, is the equivalent, of, say, getting a free #2 and #5 draft pick.

 

Ooops.

 

In ther words, it was a good/fair trade, for both teams. Of course, we could be looking at Aaron Rodgers fighting Craig Nall for the the starting job.

 

Ooops.

713566[/snapback]

Aaron Rodgers.

Does he?

[Ramius]

I see where you're coming from.  I too would get annoyed by someone acting as though Losman cost us two first rounders.  I didn't mean to come across as though I felt any sort of agreement for that view.

713493[/snapback]

 

Dont agree. Arguing is much more fun.

[fairweather fan]

It's wonderful being on the Stadium Wall message board. It is guaranteed that there will be a quarterback controversy, Losman-Holcomb, Bledsoe-anybody, Johnson-Flutie, even back in the day, occasional Kelly-Reich. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Pyrite Gal]

This thread got so long i could not resist even though its title and much of its content has little to do with the Bills prospects of the future (ie, the real deal as far as the starting QB is that appears the braintrust will make this choice based on who wins the competition on the field between JP, Nall and Holcomb rather than hand the jpb to a player whose on field production and health does not deserve the starting QB job).

 

1. TC got the job when he was not yet trained to be an adequate NFL starting QB because Ralph and Butler blew the assessment of how long Kelly would last.

2. Butler gave away too much for Hobert when he realized the TC could not do the hib.

3. The Bills signed RJ to an extension before he demonstrated he was not injury prone and Flutie was more of a winner anyway.

4. TD stupidly extended Bledsoe after his horrendous 2003 and then added insult to injury by handing the job to JP when Bledsoe played better but not adequately in 2004.

 

The good news is that at least rhetorically it will not matter much at all who hates JP, KH. or Nall among fans and the media, but instead these players will compete on the field.

 

Reality is still reality so JP is the first among equals because of his contract. If no QB distinguishing himself among these three, JP will likely get the call. I disagree in that i think Holcomb has some upside, but unfortunately his upside is as a back-up QB who has had some good episodes and will not rock the boat to demand a starting job h is almost certainly no capable of handling beyond a good episode here or there.

 

1. If Jauron/Farrel find a way to stop the run with undersized DTs.

2. If April gets the same production from the ST he has gotten the last two years, and

3. If the O can minimize errors while it learns to effectively run an O like the high-flying St. L crew.

 

then Holcomb can potentially play a positive role.

 

However, this role is likely to be as a back-up in a few episodes for a rejuuvenated JP, less likely but possible as a back-up in a few episodes for a learning to start at QB Nall or less likely but possible as a mistake minimizing but still effective due to run after the catch from short passes QB.

 

One of these three events coming to pass is actually more likely to me than all three QBs utterly failing. However, even with one of these three stepping up, the OL will have to improve its back-ups or avoid injury, AND, the WRs will need to be well utilized to take advantage of their speed but some limitations for each individual, AND Fairchild will have to call plays and produce receiving abuility from WM as he is slotted into the Marshall Faulk role.

 

The bottomline IMHO is that Holcomb does have some upside but I hope that JP (or Nall) are adequate enough we never test this.

[Orton's Arm]

I think the "roll outs" and "draws" you may be thinking of were JP's attempts to improvise something since the coaches offered him no outlet help from the tight ends or running backs . . .

This leads me to your second point. What deep ball? How many deep ball plays were called again?

 

JP played essentially half a season. During that time, he had 31 rushing attempts, 15 completions of over 20 yards, and 6 completions of over 40 yards. Multiplying those numbers by 2 to extrapolate his path for the entire season, you've got 62 rushing attempts, 30 completions of over 20 yards, and 12 completions of over 40 yards.

 

Compare these numbers to Jake Plummer and Peyton Manning:

 

adjusted Losman: 62 rushes, 30 completions (20+), 12 completions (40+)

Jake Plummer: 46 rushes, 44 completions (20+), 8 completions (40+)

Peyton Manning: 33 rushes, 45 completions (20+), 6 completions (40+)

 

Bear in mind that it's easier for teams like the Broncos or the Colts to call 40+ yard pass plays, because they actually have offensive lines. A 40+ yard pass could well play to both of Losman's strengths: first he'd use his speed to roll out and avoid the pressure, then he'd use his good long ball to complete the pass to Evans in one-on-one coverage.

[Pyrite Gal]

JP played essentially half a season.  During that time, he had 31 rushing attempts, 15 completions of over 20 yards, and 6 completions of over 40 yards.  Multiplying those numbers by 2 to extrapolate his path for the entire season, you've got 62 rushing attempts, 30 completions of over 20 yards, and 12 completions of over 40 yards.

 

Compare these numbers to Jake Plummer and Peyton Manning:

 

adjusted Losman: 62 rushes, 30 completions (20+), 12 completions (40+)

Jake Plummer: 46 rushes, 44 completions (20+), 8 completions (40+)

Peyton Manning: 33 rushes, 45 completions (20+), 6 completions (40+)

 

Bear in mind that it's easier for teams like the Broncos or the Colts to call 40+ yard pass plays, because they actually have offensive lines.  A 40+ yard pass could well play to both of Losman's strengths: first he'd use his speed to roll out and avoid the pressure, then he'd use his good long ball to complete the pass to Evans in one-on-one coverage.

713659[/snapback]

 

Throwing long a lot may also have beeb a sign that the Bills needed to put points on the bosrd because they were behind and trying to catch up or if they were locked in a tight game and JP needed to establish himself and the Bills O,

 

Meanwhile, judging from Indy's and Denver's record, they were pften ahead and rather than throwing long and risking the INT or stopping the clock they did not throw long as they sought to burn clock.

 

Also, the stats that you use need to make some showing of how many of these long gains from passes were in fact accurate long throws or were they short quicl hits where it was the WR who great RAC work.

[ExWNYer]

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]

 

You're wrong and tgreg99 is absolutely right. A loss in the Cincy game and the Bills definitely would have picked 3rd overall. The Jest took Ferguson 4th overall. You do the math...

[pkwwjd]

First you hone in on one questionable play by Holcomb--in a situation where he'd been set up to fail--while ignoring all the good he'd done against the Patriots up to that point.  Then you seem to say that if two quarterbacks both led losing efforts, the performances of those two quarterbacks must be equal.  You don't actually expect anyone to be persuaded by this, do you?

 

As for your point about Holcomb as a backup, I'll agree a rebuilding team like the Bills would be better off by filling the starting QB spot with a younger player.  I hope Nall's up to the task, because it would be nice to be able to focus on other needs in next year's draft.

712582[/snapback]

 

I would find it difficult to believe anyone that said that either QB playing for us last year was NOT in a situation where he was set up to fail. The game planning in the first 4 games last year was not the gameplan for a first time pro QB. By the time MM figured that out, he benched JP and began to run for the bus. The only reason that JP played again last year was because KH got hurt -- and even MM couldn't keep JP out of the lineup the following week.

[Bills_Chick]

I will also be glad when KH is outta here.