Question for the J.P.Losman haters

[Kelly the Dog]

Usually you get accused of being a brick wall or of engaging in flip-flopping.  In fact, it's often a choose your poison type situation.  Looks like my, uh, "fans" are trying to ram both types of poison down my throat! 

789632[/snapback]

Jesus Christ, you misunderstood that, too.

[Orton's Arm]

Consistent good decision-making for a quarterback comes with experience. Some have it and some don't. But it is very, very rare that a QB shows consistent good decision-making in their first year as a starter.

That's fair. But many other supporters of Losman seem to feel he has lots of "upside" because of his physical tools. He certainly does have more upside in the 10% of the game that's physical. Whether he has upside in the mental part of the game is another question entirely.

[Orton's Arm]

Jesus Christ, you misunderstood that, too. 

789636[/snapback]

Um, no I didn't. Ramius did, and I'll get to why in a moment. I was simply amused at being accused of flip flopping and of being a brick wall within a few posts.

 

Earlier I wrote that too few of TD's early round draft choices worked out well, and I stand by that remark. My more recent post stated that you start whichever players are the best, regardless of where you drafted them. So if your sixth round choice is better than your second rounder, you start the sixth round guy.

 

I'm not sure how or why Ramius insisted upon seeing this as a flip flop. If, say, Jason Peters is a better right tackle than Mike Williams, shouldn't you start Jason Peters? And shouldn't you be a little concerned that the Mike Williams pick didn't work out better?

[Kelly the Dog]

That's fair.  But many other supporters of Losman seem to feel he has lots of "upside" because of his physical tools.  He certainly does have more upside in the 10% of the game that's physical.  Whether he has upside in the mental part of the game is another question entirely.

789638[/snapback]

The 10% is physical idea is so wrong it's almost disturbing. There are thousands of quarterbacks over the years that have played in college that have the mental capacity to play in the NFL if not star in the NFL. But their arm is not strong enough or they weigh 180 pounds or they're 5'9" or they cannot move or they have diabetes or they're not tough enough to take the hits or any number of other things. The mental aspects of the game are incredibly important, sure, but there have been an unlimited amount of players with the mental capacity to play, they just lacked the physical capability. To be a good NFL quarterback you must have a great deal of both. There are very few exceptions.

[Kelly the Dog]

Um, no I didn't.  Ramius did, and I'll get to why in a moment.  I was simply amused at being accused of flip flopping and of being a brick wall within a few posts.

 

Earlier I wrote that too few of TD's early round draft choices worked out well, and I stand by that remark.  My more recent post stated that you start whichever players are the best, regardless of where you drafted them.  So if your sixth round choice is better than your second rounder, you start the sixth round guy. 

 

I'm not sure how or why Ramius insisted upon seeing this as a flip flop.  If, say, Jason Peters is a better right tackle than Mike Williams, shouldn't you start Jason Peters?  And shouldn't you be a little concerned that the Mike Williams pick didn't work out better?

789640[/snapback]

Yes, you most surely misunderstood. He was criticizing you for being a brick wall and for flip-flopping in the same post because that's exactly what you do. Consistently. You have a brick wall stance that you won't budge from, and you flipflop your reasoning or statistics to support that brick wall stance. A third grader could have understood that.

[Orton's Arm]

The 10% is physical idea is so wrong it's almost disturbing.

Clearly, some players just don't have the physical ability to succeed in the NFL. You're right in saying that a quarterback like that can be as accurate or as smart as he pleases, and he's not going to be the answer at QB. But if a player has that minimum toolset, the game is 90% mental. Look at Tom Brady: mediocre arm strength, zero mobility, great mental tools.

[Kelly the Dog]

Clearly, some players just don't have the physical ability to succeed in the NFL.  You're right in saying that a quarterback like that can be as accurate or as smart as he pleases, and he's not going to be the answer at QB.  But if a player has that minimum toolset, the game is 90% mental.  Look at Tom Brady: mediocre arm strength, zero mobility, great mental tools.

789648[/snapback]

Brady easily has NFL caliber arm strength, he just doesn't have a cannon. He has very good if not great mobility in the pocket, is very quick to duck out of trouble, and can even scramble, he simply lacks speed to run for huge stretches.

[Orton's Arm]

Yes, you most surely misunderstood. He was criticizing you for being a brick wall and for flip-flopping in the same post because that's exactly what you do. Consistently. You have a brick wall stance that you won't budge from, and you flipflop your reasoning or statistics to support that brick wall stance. A third grader could have understood that.

789647[/snapback]

It doesn't sound like you're accusing me of flip-flopping in this particular case, but just in general. Hey, maybe I am willing to change my mind about specific things, and some people would call that flip flopping. I'll come up with an idea, throw it out there, and see which stuff is good enough to withstand the critical scrutiny of others. If something doesn't pass that test (such as the YAC thing), I'll move on. Maybe to you that's flip flopping. But what isn't flip flopping is my stance on draft choices. You start whichever players are the best, regardless of where they were drafted. At the same time, you expect your GM to experience success in the early rounds of the draft.

 

Ramius didn't accuse me of flip flopping because he disagrees with my style of conversation. He accuses me of anything and everything he can because criticism of Losman creates the same emotions in him that AKC experiences when he's around Pats or Dolphins fans. If you haven't grasped something as obvious as that by now, you need to be paying closer attention.

[Kelly the Dog]

I have to give you credit, HA. You're the first person I have ever heard of that actually admits to just throwing sh-- against a wall and seeing if it sticks. Most people at least try to create the impression that they think before they speak first. You clearly don't. But at least you admit you are full of crap. That explains a lot. Thanks. What it doesn't explain is that one would think the law of averages would let you say some things that were smart in retrospect. I mean, I realize you didn't intend them to be smart, you were just chucking. You must be a very unlucky fellow in life. Perhaps there is a job for you in Vegas as a "Cooler".

[Ramius]

It doesn't sound like you're accusing me of flip-flopping in this particular case, but just in general.  Hey, maybe I am willing to change my mind about specific things, and some people would call that flip flopping.  I'll come up with an idea, throw it out there, and see which stuff is good enough to withstand the critical scrutiny of others.  If something doesn't pass that test (such as the YAC thing), I'll move on.  Maybe to you that's flip flopping.  But what isn't flip flopping is my stance on draft choices.  You start whichever players are the best, regardless of where they were drafted.  At the same time, you expect your GM to experience success in the early rounds of the draft. 

 

Ramius didn't accuse me of flip flopping because he disagrees with my style of conversation.  He accuses me of anything and everything he can because criticism of Losman creates the same emotions in him that AKC experiences when he's around Pats or Dolphins fans.  If you haven't grasped something as obvious as that by now, you need to be paying closer attention.

789652[/snapback]

 

No, i accused you of flip-flopping because you say TD sucks because he didnt draft any early round starters. Then you say that it doesnt matter where your starters come from, because it suits your crusade against JP.

 

You also flip-flop is your biased obtuse QB assessment. Its ok in your book for holcomb to throw for 100 yards as long as we win, as happend a few times last year. Now all of a sudden, JP does the same thing, but thats not good enough.

 

I dont tihnk losman is a HOFer or a sure fire great QB. Theres still questions. But he needs a full season to start before we can make an assessment. If he isnt getting it done by seasons end, then we need to explore other options. (that doesnt mean Nall) But he needs time to show whether or not he can do it. And last sunday, he made some mistakes, but looked good. And his mistakes were those of the inexperienced variety, not the flawed QB variety.

 

You on the other hands, use every single one of your posts to go out of your way to bash losman. You pull stats out of your ass to try and bash him. Fer chrissakes, you claimed that 328 passing yards were almost equal to 83 yards.

[Orton's Arm]

I have to give you credit, HA. You're the first person I have ever heard of that actually admits to just throwing sh-- against a wall and seeing if it sticks. Most people at least try to create the impression that they think before they speak first. You clearly don't. But at least you admit you are full of crap. That explains a lot. Thanks. What it doesn't explain is that one would think the law of averages would let you say some things that were smart in retrospect. I mean, I realize you didn't intend them to be smart, you were just chucking. You must be a very unlucky fellow in life. Perhaps there is a job for you in Vegas as a "Cooler".

789662[/snapback]

You know, for a while there you were really sounding reasonable. But the above post is a total--and I believe deliberate--distortion of what I wrote.

 

Getting back to the YAC thing, I honestly felt that getting 38% of one's passing yards through YAC was high. It turns out that's more normal than I'd realized. Thanks to listening to others, I actually learned something. Maybe you're not here to learn anything from others; maybe you feel the need to have all the answers (or pretend to) every time you post. As for me, I'll come up with an idea, which I honestly believe to be correct, I'll throw it out there, and see if anyone can shoot it down. Maybe you're not the type of person who happens to think of a lot of new ideas, or maybe you were taught to only voice opinions which you could prove, or which many others believe.

 

If acting that way meets your goals, fine. I'm not going to disrespect you just because you think differently than me, or want different things than I do. My goals are perhaps different, and require a different process. I seek newness, I seek deeper insight and understanding; and individual ideas are a vehicle to arrive at that understanding. As an example, I ran a regression a few weeks ago, hoping to prove a particular point about drafting offensive linemen early. The regression showed the opposite of what I'd hoped, but I posted it anyway. In this case, I was actually hoping to be shot down, but in an intellectually rigorous way which would disprove the conclusion the regression seemed to demonstrate. In the end, I wound up running a different regression, which, while it didn't disprove the first one's conclusion, at least narrowed its scope.

 

At the end of the day, what I want is deeper insight. Part of the process of getting that involves being shot down from time to time. Yes there are jerks who rub it in my face whenever an idea gets shot down, and you know what? It's not that big a deal. It'd be better if their parents had actually taught them some manners, but that's more their problem than it is mine. What I want is to come up with new, original contributions to this board, and if I have to get shot down a few times to come up with something good, so be it. At the end of the day, people will know more, and have a better understanding of football related issues. To me, that's more important than whether I do or don't get labeled by those who like labeling.

[MDH]

It doesn't sound like you're accusing me of flip-flopping in this particular case, but just in general.  Hey, maybe I am willing to change my mind about specific things, and some people would call that flip flopping.  I'll come up with an idea, throw it out there, and see which stuff is good enough to withstand the critical scrutiny of others.

789652[/snapback]

 

It would seem that you'd look at the specifics of his game and then decide he won't be good instead of deciding he wont' be good and then looking for reasons. But hey, that's just me.

[Dibs]

Like I said, I have typed ad nauseum what I think about Losman and his nine games, and his three this year. If you want a cliff notes version of the thousands of posts...

.....He's rather average. But his kind of "5" is a 9-0-10-1, which, to me, is much better than most player's "5's" which are 3-5-7-5. If he eliminates some of the 1's, and turns them into 5's and 6's he could be special.

788935[/snapback]

I'm glad JDG goaded you into that post Kelly....they are the sort of posts that make drudging through the tedium worth while.

Unlike most of you, I virtually never get to see us play. I listen on the radio, I watch the highlight shows, I devour stats & media opinion but until we are considered Sunday/Monday night worthy I won't get to see entire drives, let alone games.

Thank you for spelling out your 'fair & balanced' opinion of what you see in JP. I don't recall seeing anywhere such an elaborate assessment of him since perhaps he was drafted....not even then.

We can only hope that he keeps improving & realizes some of that tremendous upside.

Thanks again Kelly & thanks JDG for inspiring him.

[Orton's Arm]

It would seem that you'd look at the specifics of his game and then decide he won't be good instead of deciding he wont' be good and then looking for reasons.  But hey, that's just me.

789760[/snapback]

If I understand you correctly, you want me to arrive at the same conclusion (he won't be good) but via different means. Is that correct?

[Dibs]

...The Bills should ignore the fact that Losman was a first round pick, and Nall a second-tier free agent....

789009[/snapback]

What makes you think that this isn't the case? That that is not exactly what they did?

I totally agree with the statement but I think perhaps this concept is where you are going majorly wrong. Managements job is primarily to win games both for now & into the future....with the Superbowl in mind as ultimate goal. I cannot prove that they are ignoring draft position in this case just as you cannot prove they aren't but considering JP was the pick of a previous management(& coach), the concept does not hold much water that they are doing that in this case. Obviously they will have picked who they feel is the best.

 

But is he really the better quarterback?  I'm not so sure.  The same people who ask that JP be given at least 16 games or 32 games are willing to write Nall off after what was actually a fairly reasonable preseason effort......

789009[/snapback]

It does not matter one bit if you(or I) are sure or not. I would say that at this point that Marv & DJ are sure & that is what counts. Read Marv's book(esp. the KC years) & you'll see that what you are accusing him of is really quite out of character for him. I don't think that many have written Nall off at this point....honestly, who knows? What most have done is assumed that JP has the better potential at QB of the two. That doesn't mean that Nall is no good or that he won't end up being the better pro....what it means is that JP has been assessed by most to have the greater potential at this time. It's really quite simple.

 

....I'd like to see him get significant playing time in the regular season.  This isn't to say JP should be benched after that Jets game.  Clearly now is not the right time.  But at some point, I would like to see what Nall can or can't do.

789009[/snapback]

Look at this last paragraph. If you're assessment is wrong, doing what you ask could be very detrimental to JPs progression & the team (harmony/unity/progression) as well. There is no reason at this time to doubt Marv & DJs decision. We are seeing vast improvement (mentally) by JP & until he shows himself to be a lost cause or that he cannot get any better, it would be wrong to start Nall just to 'see what he can do'.

It may be very, very sad if in fact he could become the better QB but GMs & coaches do not put in a backup over a starter unless the backup has won the starters job.....sorry, my mistake, MM did it with JP & look how that turns out.

[Orton's Arm]

What makes you think that this isn't the case?  That that is not exactly what they did?

I've heard both views expressed: that the competition was indeed a fair one, and that the competition was rigged so that Losman would win. I don't have enough information to know if either view is correct, or if the truth lies somewhere in between. For now, I'll assume that if Nall was promised a legitimate chance at a starting spot, then that's what he was given.

I totally agree with the statement but I think perhaps this concept is where you are going majorly wrong.  Managements job is primarily to win games both for now & into the future....with the Superbowl in mind as ultimate goal.  I cannot prove that they are ignoring draft position in this case just as you cannot prove they aren't but considering JP was the pick of a previous management(& coach), the concept does not hold much water that they are doing that in this case.  Obviously they will have picked who they feel is the best.

You may well be right in saying Marv doesn't pay very much attention to where a player was drafted. I certainly don't have any inside knowledge that would tell me one way or the other. But some fans seem to think Losman deserves first shot at the starter's position because of where he was taken; and I disagree with that view.

It does not matter one bit if you(or I) are sure or not.  I would say that at this point that Marv & DJ are sure & that is what counts.  Read Marv's book(esp. the KC years) & you'll see that what you are accusing him of is really quite out of character for him. 

I'm a little confused as to exactly what accusations you feel I've thrown Levy's way. Nall was promised a shot at the starting position, and indeed a quarterback competition took place. But Nall had to leave the competition for a while due to injury; and by the time he came back, Losman had established himself as the front runner. I don't see how Levy or Jauron could have acted differently, but circumstances were such that Nall didn't get the same chance to prove himself Losman had. It's a tough break for Nall, but not a sign that Levy or Jaruon failed to live up to their promises.

If you're assessment is wrong, doing what you ask could be very detrimental to JPs progression & the team (harmony/unity/progression) as well.  There is no reason at this time to doubt Marv & DJs decision. 

 

You have a point here, in that if you insert Nall and he fails to prove himself, it would lead to a general aimlessness. But it's frustrating, because nobody knew what Kurt Warner or Tom Brady could do until they were thrown into the fire. In both cases that happened due to injury, and you hate to hope for or rely on an injury to your starter. Also, you hate to bench your starter except under extreme circumstances. So what choice does that leave you with? If Nall does very well in practice, the coaches could reward him by throwing him in for one series per game. I know it's not a usual practice, mostly because coaches don't want to see a divided locker room. With two young, developing quarterbacks, that could easily become the case. Players would argue Nall should receive more or fewer snaps, depending on his and Losman's relative performances each week. I don't really have a perfect solution for finding out more about Nall.

[Dibs]

I'm a little confused as to exactly what accusations you feel I've thrown Levy's way......

789777[/snapback]

Not a huge accusation but....

You stated that the Bills should evaluate the talent not the draft position as if that was perhaps not what they did...even stating "The Bills should ignore the fact that Losman was a first round pick, and Nall a second-tier free agent."....why would you say this if you did not think that perhaps it was quite possible that they did the opposite.

To even imply that Marv & DJ would chose a QB they did not view as being the best option for the team is quite a statement to make. The only reasonable reason to ever 'guarantee' a position to a lesser player over a greater player would be due to salary-cap constraints. Since we had/have no such problems, it is ridiculous to contemplate the concept.

 

....If Nall does very well in practice, the coaches could reward him by throwing him in for one series per game. I know it's not a usual practice, mostly because coaches don't want to see a divided locker room. With two young, developing quarterbacks.....

789777[/snapback]

Yes, if Nall shines in practice(as Brady apparently did before DB got injured at NE), Nall might just usurp JP...& if the result ended being similar to Brady we'd all be happy. Why raise the concept repeatedly though? Obviously we have not heard how 'magic' he is looking in practice. He has not even usurped KH for the #2 job. You do seem very fixated on the concept of Nall becoming the starter. You agreed that Marv & DJ have basically done the only thing they could have in regards to the QB situation. Why keep raising the concept over & over? Is there more to this topic than I can see? Even if you get everybody to agree that Nall has great potential....it won't change anything. JP is the man(for now).

At the risk of sounding blunt......live with it.

[Orton's Arm]

Not a huge accusation but....

You stated that the Bills should evaluate the talent not the draft position as if that was perhaps not what they did...even stating "The Bills should ignore the fact that Losman was a first round pick, and Nall a second-tier free agent."....why would you say this if you did not think that perhaps it was quite possible that they did the opposite.

I didn't mean to sound like the Bills were paying attention to draft status.

 

You do seem very fixated on the concept of Nall becoming the starter. 

It's more of a curiousity to see what he can or can't do, than an insistence that he'll necessarily be a good quarterback. Once the Bills acquired him, I got excited by what I learned, and looked forward to him getting the chance to prove himself on the field. It's too bad injury got in the way of that chance, but as you point out, there's no point in crying over spilt milk.

 

You mention that Nall hasn't been overwhelming in practice, as evidenced by the fact Holcomb's ahead of him on the depth chart. The word from Green Bay fans is that Nall plays better than he practices. No, the mediocre practices aren't a good sign, but I still feel there's a chance Nall could do something special if he was put into a game. That said, I'll try not to think about possible quarterback changes these next few weeks, because you're right in saying there's little point in doing so.