BoondckCL Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 What on earth is Rian Lindell doing on your probationary list? He's a perfectly good kicker, and has yet to miss a FG this season. Also, why is McCargo on your list? If you're willing to give Losman three years to develop, why not give McCargo at least three games? 780215[/snapback] Rian Lindell is on the list because everytime i take him off he ends up !@#$ing up a kick that usually ends up costing us the game, so i keep him on probation for luck. McCargo is on there because he is a bust. HAHA. No seriously he seemed like a logical choice since he is the weakest of all of the DT's on the roster next to Tim Anderson. He just got on this week, so hopefully he can jump off quickly. I was thinking of adding posters from this board that piss me off.
Simon Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 The difference I see between Roethlisberger and Losman is this: Ummmm, you might also want to consider the situations they've been in since they entered teh league. Like P'burgh's dominant OLine in front of Roethlisberger vs Losman's cheesecloth Or the stability of the Stiller organization vs the Bills asylum Or the deepest stable of RB's I've ever seen vs Willis and some role players Or WR corps' with the likes of Ward, Burress, RandleEl, etc vs Lee Evans Or Heath Miller at TE Or Danny "NewHampshire" Kreider at FB
BuffOrange Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 All, HA & JDG have provided valid points & insightful opinions (agree or disagree) with no personal attacks; to which the replies have been an embarassing disgrace. That is all.
Orton's Arm Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Steve Young: total failure. That guy wasn't good until like his fifth year. As we know, any QB who isn't pro bowl caliber by year 3 is worthless. So if you use a first round pick on a guy, you should hold onto him for at least five years in case he's the next Steve Young. Since that's the case, the Bills obviously made a mistake by getting rid of Rob Johnson after just four years.
Simon Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 the Bills obviously made a mistake by getting rid of Rob Johnson after just four years. 780229[/snapback] Rob Johnson was almost 30 years old when the Bills let him go. I guess JP should get 4-5 more years.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 So if you use a first round pick on a guy, you should hold onto him for at least five years in case he's the next Steve Young. Since that's the case, the Bills obviously made a mistake by getting rid of Rob Johnson after just four years. 780229[/snapback] Not at all. Hell, Johnson already had three NFL seasons under his belt before we took him on. Not full seasons of play, hence the reason we gave him a longer look and chance to grow and play out his potential, which no one can argue he didn't have. But he had a reasonable amount of time to prove something in four years here. And Kelly had two USFL years and a few more years to learn before he brought us to the playoffs. One can only imagine what would have happened if he started his career in Buffalo. At the first sign of failure, the first few bonehead interceptions, Jimbo probably would have been thrown under the bus by the same people who are doing it to Losman today. But people forget this all the time. In the revisionist history he was always great and always a Buffalo hero, whom everyone loved. Look, the point is, we gave these guys a shot. Losman deserves the same.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Rob Johnson was almost 30 years old when the Bills let him go.I guess JP should get 4-5 more years. 780243[/snapback] Right, that's exactly what I said. Because I said a guy needs 7 seasons in the NFL to prove himself. I hope JP succeeds on more than one level so I can be around for the warm memories the haters will have of him later on, as though they always supported him as one of their beloved Bills. It'll be the kind of moment in which it's nice to rely on Darin and the search function here.
Orton's Arm Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Ummmm, you might also want to consider the situations they've been in since they entered teh league.Like P'burgh's dominant OLine in front of Roethlisberger vs Losman's cheesecloth Or the stability of the Stiller organization vs the Bills asylum Or the deepest stable of RB's I've ever seen vs Willis and some role players Or WR corps' with the likes of Ward, Burress, RandleEl, etc vs Lee Evans Or Heath Miller at TE Or Danny "NewHampshire" Kreider at FB 780224[/snapback] I'll grant you most of those points. I'll take issue with the WR thing however, because last year Losman also had Moulds. In addition, he had a full year to study the playbook and watch film before being thrown to the wolves. But I'll grant your point that overall, Pittsburgh's situation on offense was and is a lot better than that of the Bills. So I agree with your implication that if you're comparing Losman's performance to Roethlisberger's, you have to grade the former on a curve. But the difference in yards per attempt between the two quarterbacks is so huge that you'd have to grade Losman on a curve the size of Pamela Anderson's bust if you wanted to make the two come out equal. Moreover, Holcomb has spent his career surrounded by weak supporting casts, and he's amassed a higher yards per attempt stat for his career than Losman's average either for his career or for the year. In the coming weeks, we'll get a better feel for how much Losman has or hasn't improved. It would be premature to say he hasn't improved, but it would also be premature to say he's become Dilfer.
Simon Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Right, that's exactly what I said. Because I said a guy needs 7 seasons in the NFL to prove himself. I hope JP succeeds on more than one level so I can be around for the warm memories the haters will have of him later on, as though they always supported him as one of their beloved Bills. It'll be the kind of moment in which it's nice to rely on Darin and the search function here. 780252[/snapback] To clear up any vagaries in my post: I think Losman was progressing well and I have no problems with him at this point. I didn't mean for my response to come off as me taking a shot at him or at you. Just goofing around with the bizarre notion of comparing Rob Johnson to Losman. But the difference in yards per attempt between the two quarterbacks is so huge that you'd have to grade Losman on a curve the size of Pamela Anderson's bust if you wanted to make the two come out equal. Yards per attempt? Are you joking? Talk about hunting up arbitrary statistics to support your preconceived notion. And the difference between Buffalo and P'burgh the past few years has been about the size of Pam Anderson's bust.
BoondckCL Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Does anybody realize that you are not going to persuade Holcoms Arm away from his stand point. Unlike all the other flip flop's here, he is not going to budge. It's like trying to persuade my grandmother to believe abortions should be legal. It's just not happening.
MDH Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Some people saw a performance that was solid, mistake-free, and Roethlisberger-like, while others saw 84 passing yards and a punter with a very sore foot. 780196[/snapback] Losman did what was asked of him in that game, nothing more, nothing less. The coaching staff managed the game well and I wouldn't want the Bills to have put the ball in the air anymore than they did considering how their D and ST were playing. I also wouldn't want Losman to take any chances with the ball considering how well the D and ST were playing. There are times to take some chances in order to move the chains or score more points, Sunday was not one of them. Who the hell cares how many yards passing he had? If the game was closer and the Bills needed the O to score more points I have no doubt that the coaching staff would have called a different game. But as it is they called a conservative one which Losman executed well enough to help win the game. I think we all know that Losman can make plays down the field and he finally showed us that he can also manage a game pretty well when that's what is called for. Imo, the bottom line is that you're not going to be happy with Losman no matter what and there's really nothing he could do, aside from putting up type Peyton numbers, that would please you. You’ve pretty much said it already, based on what you know from him in college you’re not even willing to give him a chance. I’m wondering how much Tulane football you’ve actually seen…
Mile High Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Does anybody realize that you are not going to persuade Holcoms Arm away from his stand point. Unlike all the other flip flop's here, he is not going to budge. It's like trying to persuade my grandmother to believe abortions should be legal. It's just not happening. 780264[/snapback] Starting to realize that. But, it's real simple. Kelly had his chance last year TD and MM were trying to save face. And he was average at best. There is also one more factor that makes it simple. Upside..... Holcomb pretty much has none, while Losman has all the potential in the world. KH's careeer stats are ok because he was on a Browns team who had no running game and were always playing catch up.
Dibs Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 I went back and reread the first three pages of this thread. It started off with comments from people who were evidently very happy about Losman's performance. Someone called Losman's performance "solid," so JDG responded by asking, "if 83 yards is 'solid,' I'd hate to see what you think a 'mediocre' day looks like...." This initiated an argument over whether Losman's performance was solid or mediocre; and whether it was or wasn't Roethlisberger-like. 780196[/snapback] But the point becomes...why quibble over the semantics used? Once JDG flung that first pointed barb the rest is progressive stupidity on both sides(great way to alienate yourself Dibs ) I actually had no problem with your first post HA since you acknowledged what was being said(that JP has shown improvement) & then you pointed out where he could improve....not overly pointed or barby. I believe the expression about 'raining on a parade' has something to do with JDGs origonal post & the reactions of people to it IMO are quite justified.
Orton's Arm Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 Does anybody realize that you are not going to persuade Holcoms Arm away from his stand point. Unlike all the other flip flop's here, he is not going to budge. It's like trying to persuade my grandmother to believe abortions should be legal. It's just not happening. 780264[/snapback] Hey, maybe your grandmother thinks you are stubborn for not allowing yourself to be persuaded by everything she's said. Maybe she's right about you being stubborn, and maybe you inherited your stubbornness from her. It's always the people with whom you disagree who get labeled stubborn; never the people with whom you agree.
pkwwjd Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 I'd rather think in terms of Favre, Steve Young or John Elway. All were athletic QBs but none of them won big until they learned to rely on their team mates instead of doing everything themselves. I don't think anyone is confusing Losman with Vick. 780047[/snapback] Would you be referring to the John Elway who completed 47% of his passes and 1:2 TD:INT in his first 11 games? and Steve Young who completed just over 50% with a nearly 1:2 ratio in his first 1 1/2 seasons (19 games)? Favre is the only one of the three that actually did well in his first full season of starting -- 64% and more TDs than INTs Oh wait ... isn't that about what JP is doing right now? about 64% and more TDs than his non-existent INT # BTW, HA, I call myself stubborn, and I usually agree with myself. It's not about who agrees or disagrees once you get past adolescence.
CosmicBills Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 It's always the people with whom you disagree who get labeled stubborn; never the people with whom you agree. 780532[/snapback] No, it's the people who have rigid agendas. Agenda's immune to factual evidence, rational observations, or objective discussions. Being unwilling to change your mind despite the evidence to the contrary is what it means to be stubborn. I respect people who have opinions, even those different than my own. It's what makes life interesting. And it doesn't bother me that you and JDG have this steadfast agenda to be proven right about JP. It's your choice. I just think it's hilarious when you and JDG put the priority of your agenda above reason and more importantly above the team's success. Because it's not about the team, it's not about the QB, it's about you guys. You don't see it -- but that's what it is. Narrow, unenlightened self interest does not impress me. But it does make me laugh. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have a beer with either of you guys and laugh about it. In the end we're still talking about the same thing -- Bills football. And that is always a good thing.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 He doesn't have any kind of hidden agenda. He just really, really likes the yards per attempt stat.
Orton's Arm Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 BTW, HA, I call myself stubborn, and I usually agree with myself. It's not about who agrees or disagrees once you get past adolescence. 780565[/snapback] If you're saying that people on both sides of the Losman debate are guilty of being stubborn, I can live with that.
Orton's Arm Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 He just really, really likes the yards per attempt stat. 780572[/snapback] That's true. You judge a runningback on yards per carry. Why not judge a quarterback on yards per attempt? In both cases you have to look at other things also--does he commit a lot of turnovers, how many TDs does he have, etc. But you start by looking at yards per carry/yards per attempt.
stuckincincy Posted September 20, 2006 Posted September 20, 2006 That's true. You judge a runningback on yards per carry. Why not judge a quarterback on yards per attempt? In both cases you have to look at other things also--does he commit a lot of turnovers, how many TDs does he have, etc. But you start by looking at yards per carry/yards per attempt. 780580[/snapback] You also have to factor in qb's that have wr's, who produce reliably good YAC numbers. It gets complicated.
Recommended Posts