DeLuca1967 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Yeah, because it's really important to spend 2 games evaluating our third string QB. Taking JP out eliminates any chance he'll ever develop into anything in this city. And why would we do that? Because we have a third string QB with 30+ career pass attempts who we think might be the savior but only if we give him 2-4 games to find out (in the same garbage offensive unit that can't get anything done)? 835841[/snapback] So you think that JP Loseman is going to figure out how to play QB in those two games? If JP hasn't started to develop by now? It's not going to happen. Wanting to see the Bills other options doesn't mean that they are the " savior". That's the same BS that others try to sell. Be better than that. Let's just see if Nall has any QB skills. We already know the limits of the guy that is starting now. Nall doesn't have to be a " savior" to be better then Loseman. He just has to be OK and that would be a huge improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLuca1967 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 You forgot your patented "i'm a douchebag" smilie 835802[/snapback] You know that is much more interesting than anything you have to say on the Losman debate. It has to be since you have nothing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 So you think that JP Loseman is going to figure out how to play QB in those two games? 835876[/snapback] Retard, I wrote exactly why I thought JP has to play all 16 games. And yes I do think that JP will be a better QB next year if he plays 16 games this year instead of 14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 If JP hasn't started to develop by now? It's not going to happen. 835876[/snapback] Kind of like Drew Brees right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PacificCoastBillsFan Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 So you think that JP Loseman is going to figure out how to play QB in those two games? If JP hasn't started to develop by now? It's not going to happen. Wanting to see the Bills other options doesn't mean that they are the " savior". That's the same BS that others try to sell. Be better than that. Let's just see if Nall has any QB skills. We already know the limits of the guy that is starting now. Nall doesn't have to be a " savior" to be better then Loseman. He just has to be OK and that would be a huge improvement. 835876[/snapback] So, what is your version of "OKAY." Probably any body without the initials of "JPL" Give it a rest. Preseason, and practice is where it is left to evaluate the QB. Whether you like it or not, from every indication out of OBD JP is the starting QB. Why you might ask, "Because the coaching staff believes it is the "help around JP that is lacking." The last two games, give me no reason to believe otherwise..........Unless you say it is JP's fault for doing what is asked of him. Again, if it were TURN OVERS that were constantly costing the bills the games, I would say its JP. But it is not. You ought to be alittle open minded.........you world may not be so gloomy as you protray it to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Don't know who he is, but he hits the nail right on the head... 835340[/snapback] Oh, really? I'm just about ready to email him and tell him to KMA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Why is everyone so hard on the playcalling? Mularky always said "we're gonna run the ball" but he always gave up on the run when they started stacking the box. The current coaches say "we're gonna run the ball" and they actually do it. 835622[/snapback] Man, ain't that the truth. And I actually saw a couple of people compare Fairchild's playcalling to Mularkey's. Those people are the definition of don't know sh*t. I loved all the running plays because it showed they knew they were out gunned and they weren't going to let them romp to an easy victory by going toe-to-toe with them. They wanted to win, and turning the ball over was not an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Man, ain't that the truth. And I actually saw a couple of people compare Fairchild's playcalling to Mularkey's. Those people are the definition of don't know sh*t. I loved all the running plays because it showed they knew they were out gunned and they weren't going to let them romp to an easy victory by going toe-to-toe with them. They wanted to win, and turning the ball over was not an option. 835947[/snapback] To be honest, I love that the team is both saying they're going to run the ball and actually doing it (for once). My problem is more with the actual plays that are called when we decide to pass. The occasional play-action call could really work for a team this focused on running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLuca1967 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Retard, I wrote exactly why I thought JP has to play all 16 games. And yes I do think that JP will be a better QB next year if he plays 16 games this year instead of 14. 835894[/snapback] And you call me "retard"? And for the people that want to bring up Drew Brees again? Try Todd Collins. It's a much closer match. They each had 17 starts until fans knew they couldn't cut it. The party is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Yeah, because it's really important to spend 2 games evaluating our third string QB. Taking JP out eliminates any chance he'll ever develop into anything in this city. And why would we do that? Because we have a third string QB with 30+ career pass attempts who we think might be the savior but only if we give him 2-4 games to find out (in the same garbage offensive unit that can't get anything done)? 835841[/snapback] Face it--we are completely screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 The party is over. 837154[/snapback] Says the guy who thinks we need to spend 2 games evaluating our third string QB. Yes, God forbid we let our young QB play an entire season under the same offense and see if that helps him develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts