What do you say to Jp after our loss to the Jets?

[Like A Mofo]

I never get tired of this post.    "Losman's yardage total begins to look a lot more similar to the one he had last week against Miami."  How does 328 ever look similar to 83?

786140[/snapback]

 

 

Well if you take out the 2 and reverse the 8 and 3 in 328, then we have the answer to how Holcumb-Arm's brilliant mind works!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Well if you take out the 2 and reverse the 8 and 3 in 328, then we have the answer to how Holcumb-Arm's brilliant mind works! 

786155[/snapback]

 

Is the 2 the yards after the catch? Because we can take it out then...

[Like A Mofo]

Is the 2 the yards after the catch?  Because we can take it out then...

786160[/snapback]

 

 

[Ramius]

Is the 2 the yards after the catch?  Because we can take it out then...

786160[/snapback]

 

We can also combine it with JDG logic. I think you can take away most of losman's yards, because even though they were completed passes, they MIGHT NOT have been completed. So theres another chunk of losmans yards gone on passes that might not have been completed.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

We can also combine it with JDG logic. I think you can take away most of losman's yards, because even though they were completed passes, they MIGHT NOT have been completed. So theres another chunk of losmans yards gone on passes that might not have been completed.

786167[/snapback]

 

I think we've thus reached the point where Losman was throwing backwards all day...

[Kelly the Dog]

I think we've thus reached the point where Losman was throwing backwards all day... 

786174[/snapback]

But they weren't the good kind of short passes that allow receivers to turn up the field and sprint untouched to the endzone 51 yards later like Joe Montana threw, they were the bad kind of short passes that allow receivers to turn up the field and sprint untouched to the endzone 51 yards later. I don't even know why they count them in the stats as completions or yards or scores. I think they should add those 1-1-51-0-1 stats onto Montana's career records.

[Risin]

As you said, i honestly think HA needs to be evaluated by a psychiatrist and possibly be perscribed some drugs to fix his numerous problems.

786136[/snapback]

 

 

I say we take the Spiked Lemonaide route.

 

His crusade had more validity, and that is saying a lot.

[Orton's Arm]

But most of that 8.6 YPA was after the catch, so it doesn't count.

 

Like receivers catch Holcomb's passes and stop dead in their tracks... 

786150[/snapback]

For someone who's already written Losman off as a bust, you sure are getting a kick out of agreeing with his supporters.

[Kelly the Dog]

For someone who's already written Losman off as a bust, you sure are getting a kick out of agreeing with his supporters.

786383[/snapback]

Perhaps it is because he watches the games and doesn't record all of his responses before the season and then cut and paste them after it starts.

[Orton's Arm]

Nah, this week he comes up with somehow saying Losman's 330 yards passing were basically the same as his 80 yards last week, because of YAC and a prevent defense.

 

Lets completely forget the fact that the Jets werent in a prevent defense. As you said, i honestly think HA needs to be evaluated by a psychiatrist and possibly be perscribed some drugs to fix his numerous problems.

786136[/snapback]

Not that you're really interesting in what I was or wasn't saying, because I'm sure it's all the same to you. But my earlier point was that the difference in yardage between this week and last week seems more dramatic than it should, because of the prevent defense Losman faced in the waning moments of the game, and because of the fact that this week the receivers did such a good job of running after the catch. So his performance wasn't 200+ yards better after you take those things into account, but it still was somewhat better strictly from a yardage standpoint.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not that you're really interesting in what I was or wasn't saying, because I'm sure it's all the same to you.  But my earlier point was that the difference in yardage between this week and last week seems more dramatic than it should, because of the prevent defense Losman faced in the waning moments of the game, and because of the fact that this week the receivers did such a good job of running after the catch.  So his performance wasn't 200+ yards better after you take those things into account, but it still was somewhat better strictly from a yardage standpoint.

786392[/snapback]

Please do mean a favor. Define a "prevent defense", and then apply that definition to the defense the Jets were playing in the last three minutes.

 

BTW, he had 275 yards passing before the alleged prevent defense came in which wasn't a prevent defense.

[Brandon]

Not that you're really interesting in what I was or wasn't saying, because I'm sure it's all the same to you.  But my earlier point was that the difference in yardage between this week and last week seems more dramatic than it should, because of the prevent defense Losman faced in the waning moments of the game, and because of the fact that this week the receivers did such a good job of running after the catch.  So his performance wasn't 200+ yards better after you take those things into account, but it still was somewhat better strictly from a yardage standpoint.

786392[/snapback]

 

I dunno. Saying that Losman only racked up those yards due to a prevent seems kind of weak to me. He had about 150 yards at halftime and then racked up another 180 in the 2nd half. Were the Jets playing prevent the whole game?

[Kelly the Dog]

I dunno.  Saying that Losman only racked up those yards due to a prevent seems kind of weak to me.  He had about 150 yards at halftime and then racked up another 180 in the 2nd half.  Were the Jets playing prevent the whole game?

786398[/snapback]

I am not positive. But I do know they weren't playing prevent when they were playing prevent.

[MDH]

Now, I suppose that rather than roll out away from the blitz while watching for the WR to get free so he could pull the trigger, he could have stared Willis down to see if the block was made or not and thereby forfeited any chance of making a play even if Willis hit on the block.

785361[/snapback]

 

You know, given how Willis picks up the blitz this might not be such a bad idea!

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

I am not positive. But I do know they weren't playing prevent when they were playing prevent.

786404[/snapback]

 

O...K.

[Ramius]

Some plays they were.  Like the touchdown the Parrish had.  That was a prevent defense.

786671[/snapback]

 

This is either brilliant use of sarcasm or one of the dumbest things ever posted this side of JDG and holcombs arm. Based on your posts the past few days, I'm going with the latter.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Not that you're really interesting in what I was or wasn't saying, because I'm sure it's all the same to you.  But my earlier point was that the difference in yardage between this week and last week seems more dramatic than it should, because of the prevent defense Losman faced in the waning moments of the game, and because of the fact that this week the receivers did such a good job of running after the catch.  So his performance wasn't 200+ yards better after you take those things into account, but it still was somewhat better strictly from a yardage standpoint.

786392[/snapback]

 

And when every other quarterback on the planet throws against a prevent defense with receivers that run after the catch, they get credit for the yards. But you're arguing that Losman should be held to a completely different (and breathtakingly inane) standard because...?

 

We'll discuss precisely what a "prevent defense" is another time. Suffice to say, in the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word [sic] means what you think it means."

[mead107]

Not that you're really interesting in what I was or wasn't saying, because I'm sure it's all the same to you.  But my earlier point was that the difference in yardage between this week and last week seems more dramatic than it should, because of the prevent defense Losman faced in the waning moments of the game, and because of the fact that this week the receivers did such a good job of running after the catch.  So his performance wasn't 200+ yards better after you take those things into account, but it still was somewhat better strictly from a yardage standpoint.

786392[/snapback]

get real . your statment is bull sh-- >

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

This is either brilliant use of sarcasm or one of the dumbest things ever posted this side of JDG and holcombs arm. Based on your posts the past few days, I'm going with the latter.

786698[/snapback]

 

I've had a really bad weekend and I haven't been on a computer in several days. I'm not in the groove of posting just yet. I'll be back in form soon. Just put up with what I'm saying for now.

[Orton's Arm]

get real . your statment is bull sh-- >

786728[/snapback]

I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but it seems that Losman's fans in general have a double standard. On the one hand, when a member of the supporting cast doesn't do his job as well as expected (think of the McGahee ole block), they're quick to point out that the resulting fumble is McGahee's fault, not Losman's. And you know what? I agree with that.

 

But there were also many times when Losman was the recipient of a stellar effort from his supporting cast. Losman would dump the ball off to players such as Parrish, and the WR would run for a huge gain after the catch. The pass itself would be a very ordinary low risk NFL pass, but the blocking and WR's elusiveness would result in a special play.

 

A number of people are coming across as though they want to give Losman all the credit for those plays, even though his role was rather small. In other words, Losman gets to take credit for the exceptional things his supporting cast does, but doesn't get the blame for the times when his supporting cast doesn't perform.

 

Now, some might come back and say that other quarterbacks have WRs who run for YAC too. These QBs don't necessarily throw the ball with Montana-like timing, yet they get credit for the YAC yards anyway. But against the Jets, the Bills' WRs did an exceptional job of getting YAC; and that would tend to inflate Losman's yardage total both when compared with other QBs, as well as when it's compared with his performance against Miami in week 2. On the Bills' first TD play, Parrish had 41 yards after the catch. Later Parrish would have a 22 yard YAC after catching a screen from Losman. Just on those two plays, there were 63 yards of YAC; as opposed to the 83 total passing yards Losman had in the whole game against Miami.

 

Are those 63 yards of YAC the result of better quarterbacking this week as opposed to last week? No. They're the result of the WRs doing more after the catch due to the playcalling, the blocking, and what the Jets' defense was doing or failing to do.

 

After last week's game, I wrote that Losman's performance wasn't as bad as his 83 passing yards would indicate. This week, I'm writing that his performance isn't as good as his 300+ yards would indicate. All those YAC yards this week is one reason why the total yardage figure significantly overstates the difference in performance between these last two weeks.