Losman should be our starting QB

[Stenbar]

Pretty much the same team? LMMAO! Okay chief, go with that one.

what is lmmao?..I know what lmao means ..Is it some kind of Jp excuse???

[VOR]

what is lmmao?..I know what lmao means ..Is it some kind of Jp excuse???

The second M is the mofo part. And the biggest excuse ever is that "it's pretty much the same team."

[Stenbar]

The second M is the mofo part. And the biggest excuse ever is that "it's pretty much the same team."

all bs aside whats different? If you cant see the difference between the 2 qbs I dont know what to tell you..If Edwards doesnt pan out get rid of him also..I dont care who gets this team to win as long as they win, But if you think Losman is the answer youre just wrong...

[VOR]

all bs aside whats different? If you cant see the difference between the 2 qbs I dont know what to tell you..If Edwards doesnt pan out get rid of him also..I dont care who gets this team to win as long as they win, But if you think Losman is the answer youre just wrong...

I'm not saying he's the answer. I'm saying that since Trent is struggling and the Bills still have a shot at the playoffs, something needs to be done, and that thing is to replace him, even temporarily. I'd go with Hamdan even if I thought he was anything more than a clipboard holder.

[Hanoverbills]

I watching the Bears playing the Packers and the said that the Bears have put plays in they're gameplan that Orton used at Purdue to make him feel more comfort when he is playing.I also heard the same thing about the Chiefs with Thigpin,running the same offense he ran in college.That is the differance in why those two QBs are playing better this year.I think Edwards played in a westcoast offense in college thats why he looks good with the short passes.Isn't that what we run in Buffalo?

[bigc14120]

Trent has ruined this season with his brilliant consecutive trifecta of losing to the Dolphins, Jets and Patriots. Sorry and no offense pal, but you suck. He's clueless and needs to sit and watch Losman being given his final chance to resurrect his career as a Buffalo Bill.

 

These last three losses are so historically bad for this franchise that I don't think we here at TSW are even fully aware of the magnitude.

 

I know LABillsfan is going to give me flack and plenty of others here, but drastic times call for drastic measures. I think Trent has tossed every last bit of 5-1 cache he had with these last three abysmal games against the AFC East division. It's time to shake things up and put a QB in there that can actually get the ball to #83. If Losman fails, then give the ball to Hamden. I'm done with Edwards. You and your head coach can take a hike

 

Actually, I think that Ralph has no intention of signing Losman again.....he doesn't believe...so Edwards will get the rest of the season....but that should be all. He was terrible against the Pats......stats lie...even the completions were in many cases bad throws. (I was there, actually) That is with a capital T. And he lacks the long ball arm....JP has it, but not the head. JP will still learn and succeed, but in not Buffalo, unfortunately.

 

My hope, the Bills smell the coffee and get a new QB next year. I personally hope this guy Anderson from Cleveland is available...as he won big last year...and is a scapegoat there now.

[marioc]

TheDean, I am not a JP fanboy, as you said. The fact that I think something is wrong with Edwards has nothing to do with JP.

 

JP is not the answer long-term in Buffalo, he will be gone soon. He pretty much sucks although he throws a wicked long ball.

 

Edwards may be the answer long-term but has crashed hard the past few weeks and looks nothing like the QB we had the first few weeks. I actually think it has something to do with the concussion he suffered and merely suggested he be put on a short leash for the time being. As much as it hurts, that may involve bringing JP in until they better assess Trent's health.

 

If we see more of the same from Trent I would hope the coaches won't be afraid to sit him as a preventative measure.

[Orton's Arm]

You have proved my point, thank you.

 

"Potential", "MAY be" "I don't know that Losman will"...

I agree that you generally had the sense or caution to use disclaimers when presenting your positions. Your lack of moderation is demonstrated primarily by how you treated those who disagreed with those positions.

 

As for Rivers, what I said about him at the time, was true. I will be the first to admit that he has been better in the NFL than I expected, but not nearly as good as Losman had (and still may have) the POTENTIAL to be. Rivers is still a work in progress, you understand? He has his share of issues (but not as many as your other hero, Cutler).

 

There are many people who, when describing a quarterback's "potential," are referring to his physical potential. This view is false. A quarterback's potential isn't primarily about his arm strength or how fast he can run: it's about his ability to read defenses, to hit receivers in stride, and generally to be very good at operating a complex offense. What, specifically, has Losman done to convince you that he has the "potential" to be much better at these things than Rivers?

 

I don't think the Bills would be in any better shape at QB, had they drafted Rivers (or Cutler, for that matter), and expect that Rivers would have been as damaged as JP, had he received similar treatment from the coaches, and level of play from his D and O Line. Also, he had a guy named LaDainian Tomlinson to help him along. Obviously, you think those other factors don't matter in the development of a QB.

I typically divide first round QBs into two categories: those who are noted as "polished" "accomplished pocket passers," etc., and those who are "raw" but who have plenty of "upside" (i.e., physical upside). Quarterbacks in the latter category, such as Losman, are typically far more likely to be busts than are quarterbacks in the former category.

 

As far as Losman's "treatment" from the coaches, bear in mind that he had three consecutive horrendous performances. Those were in his second year in the NFL, and his second year in that offense. Based on those performances, and on what they'd seen of him in practice, the coaches decided to bench him. I don't think the other quarterbacks you mentioned would have received such "treatment" from their coaches, because they would have done more to have inspired confidence from their coaches in the first place. However, you do have a good point about the weakness of Losman's supporting cast, especially in 2005.

 

And, I notice you included this little gem, from yourself: "I think some of the people here are selling Holcomb a little short. He's probably better than at least a third of the starting QBs in this league." Sweet!

 

Laugh all you want to over that one! Go ahead! Really! Use those words in support of your contention that I'm an idiot, or a troll, or whatever other names you might have called me! I encourage it. And once your finished, sit back and read your own post on the subject, #474373:

Holcomb is an actual QB...not one of the league's elite, mind you. But, I'll put him on par with at least half the starting QBs in the league.

Are you still laughing about what I'd written about Holcomb? No? Interesting . . .

 

The bottom line with Holcomb was that he was very good at some things (such as dumping the ball off) and weak at other things (such as throwing the ball deep). In 2005, we had a very bad offensive line (what else is new?). If your offensive line can't pass protect long enough to let the receivers get open deep--and ours clearly could not--then your best chance for offensive success is to build your offense around dinking and dunking. If you want a QB to run an offense like that, Holcomb comes to mind as a qualified candidate.

But, you know what, comments like those aren't the reasons I called you (and still think of you as) a moron. Everyone has opinions. Morons aren't those who disagree with your opinion (at least in my view).

 

You earned the title "Moron" because of your argumentative style, which shows a lack of the ability to process others opinions, admit mistakes, consider other views, etc. You have a horrible time with the hypothetical and the analogy. THAT'S why I called you a moron.

How well do you think you've lived up to your own criteria? How good a job do you think you've done at processing others' opinions, or admitting your own mistakes, or considering other views? I can't recall a single example of your having demonstrated strength--or even rudimentary competence--in any of these areas. And yet I don't think you're a moron. You may be uncivil, rude to those who disagree with you, condescending, heavily reliant on the argumentum ad hominum technique, and completely unaware of your own myriad failings and flaws, but you are not a moron.

 

You accuse me of lacking ability to process others' opinions. And it's true that I typically do not allow other people's unsupported opinions to change my own views. Given that the overwhelming majority of opinions around here are unsupported (including yours), this tendency may make me appear stubborn. But when people have presented actual information with which to support their opinions, I am willing to change my views. For example, Dibs' posts persuaded me to regard the Whitner selection in a more positive light than I hitherto had done. Wraith's posts convinced me that Losman had become a more accurate passer than I'd realized. (Though the fact that the 2006 offense was considerably simplified demonstrates that he had not overcome his mental limitations.)

 

You accuse me of failing to admit to mistakes. But just because a few people on this board loudly and repeatedly label one of my statements a "mistake" does not make it one. If you wish to continue with this accusation, please list examples in which others have demonstrated I was incorrect, and in which I failed to admit this incorrectness.

 

You wrote that I "have a horrible time with the hypothetical and the analogy." Are you trying to say that you or others have made hypothetical statements or analogies which I haven't understood? Or are you suggesting that my own hypothetical statements and analogies have been weak? Assuming your accusation is about the latter, my response is that your inability to appreciate or understand the point of my hypothetical statements and analogies is part of a larger pattern of you failing to see intelligence in those who disagree with you.

 

With a few exceptions, there are very few people in this forum who have your ability to string more than a few sentences together, and your tendency to discount the intelligence of those who see things differently than you see them.

[Stenbar]

I'm not saying he's the answer. I'm saying that since Trent is struggling and the Bills still have a shot at the playoffs, something needs to be done, and that thing is to replace him, even temporarily. I'd go with Hamdan even if I thought he was anything more than a clipboard holder.

You cant possibly believe this team as it is right now will win even a playoff game..They cant run the ball.They cant stop the run..The only thing they have done at all this year is 4th quarter comebacks ..If it wasnt for that they would have one win..You want to take the one player who has perforemd out?? COme on..They shoulda got beat against Oakland and the only reason they didnt was Trent didnt screw up and made plays..Name one game in JPs career he came back like that..You cant..If trent continues this downward spiral and doesnt comeback to at least how he played earleir get rid of him after he's had his chance..But to throw JP in at all is a huge mistake

[VOR]

You cant possibly believe this team as it is right now will win even a playoff game..They cant run the ball.They cant stop the run..The only thing they have done at all this year is 4th quarter comebacks ..If it wasnt for that they would have one win..You want to take the one player who has perforemd out?? COme on..They shoulda got beat against Oakland and the only reason they didnt was Trent didnt screw up and made plays..Name one game in JPs career he came back like that..You cant..If trent continues this downward spiral and doesnt comeback to at least how he played earleir get rid of him after he's had his chance..But to throw JP in at all is a huge mistake

"Trent didn't screw up" against Oakland? LOL! Did you forget his fumble and INT that led to 10 Raiders points? At best you could say he "didn't screw up...in the 4th quarter." But the slow starts and furious 4th quarter comebacks finally caught up with the team.

 

I don't care if the team can't win a playoff game. I just want them to make it to them. And if that means allegedly making a mistake by replacing a struggling QB who may or may not be the future, for a guy who is out the door at the end of the season, so be it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I agree that you generally had the sense or caution to use disclaimers when presenting your positions. Your lack of moderation is demonstrated primarily by how you treated those who disagreed with those positions.

 

 

 

There are many people who, when describing a quarterback's "potential," are referring to his physical potential. This view is false. A quarterback's potential isn't primarily about his arm strength or how fast he can run: it's about his ability to read defenses, to hit receivers in stride, and generally to be very good at operating a complex offense. What, specifically, has Losman done to convince you that he has the "potential" to be much better at these things than Rivers?

 

 

I typically divide first round QBs into two categories: those who are noted as "polished" "accomplished pocket passers," etc., and those who are "raw" but who have plenty of "upside" (i.e., physical upside). Quarterbacks in the latter category, such as Losman, are typically far more likely to be busts than are quarterbacks in the former category.

 

As far as Losman's "treatment" from the coaches, bear in mind that he had three consecutive horrendous performances. Those were in his second year in the NFL, and his second year in that offense. Based on those performances, and on what they'd seen of him in practice, the coaches decided to bench him. I don't think the other quarterbacks you mentioned would have received such "treatment" from their coaches, because they would have done more to have inspired confidence from their coaches in the first place. However, you do have a good point about the weakness of Losman's supporting cast, especially in 2005.

 

 

 

Laugh all you want to over that one! Go ahead! Really! Use those words in support of your contention that I'm an idiot, or a troll, or whatever other names you might have called me! I encourage it. And once your finished, sit back and read your own post on the subject, #474373:

 

Are you still laughing about what I'd written about Holcomb? No? Interesting . . .

 

The bottom line with Holcomb was that he was very good at some things (such as dumping the ball off) and weak at other things (such as throwing the ball deep). In 2005, we had a very bad offensive line (what else is new?). If your offensive line can't pass protect long enough to let the receivers get open deep--and ours clearly could not--then your best chance for offensive success is to build your offense around dinking and dunking. If you want a QB to run an offense like that, Holcomb comes to mind as a qualified candidate.

 

How well do you think you've lived up to your own criteria? How good a job do you think you've done at processing others' opinions, or admitting your own mistakes, or considering other views? I can't recall a single example of your having demonstrated strength--or even rudimentary competence--in any of these areas. And yet I don't think you're a moron. You may be uncivil, rude to those who disagree with you, condescending, heavily reliant on the argumentum ad hominum technique, and completely unaware of your own myriad failings and flaws, but you are not a moron.

 

You accuse me of lacking ability to process others' opinions. And it's true that I typically do not allow other people's unsupported opinions to change my own views. Given that the overwhelming majority of opinions around here are unsupported (including yours), this tendency may make me appear stubborn. But when people have presented actual information with which to support their opinions, I am willing to change my views. For example, Dibs' posts persuaded me to regard the Whitner selection in a more positive light than I hitherto had done. Wraith's posts convinced me that Losman had become a more accurate passer than I'd realized. (Though the fact that the 2006 offense was considerably simplified demonstrates that he had not overcome his mental limitations.)

 

You accuse me of failing to admit to mistakes. But just because a few people on this board loudly and repeatedly label one of my statements a "mistake" does not make it one. If you wish to continue with this accusation, please list examples in which others have demonstrated I was incorrect, and in which I failed to admit this incorrectness.

 

You wrote that I "have a horrible time with the hypothetical and the analogy." Are you trying to say that you or others have made hypothetical statements or analogies which I haven't understood? Or are you suggesting that my own hypothetical statements and analogies have been weak? Assuming your accusation is about the latter, my response is that your inability to appreciate or understand the point of my hypothetical statements and analogies is part of a larger pattern of you failing to see intelligence in those who disagree with you.

 

With a few exceptions, there are very few people in this forum who have your ability to string more than a few sentences together, and your tendency to discount the intelligence of those who see things differently than you see them.

 

3.5

[Stenbar]

"Trent didn't screw up" against Oakland? LOL! Did you forget his fumble and INT that led to 10 Raiders points? At best you could say he "didn't screw up...in the 4th quarter." But the slow starts and furious 4th quarter comebacks finally caught up with the team.

 

I don't care if the team can't win a playoff game. I just want them to make it to them. And if that means allegedly making a mistake by replacing a struggling QB who may or may not be the future, for a guy who is out the door at the end of the season, so be it.

I wouldve never guessed...

[VOR]

I wouldve never guessed...

Okay then, why not root for them lose all their games so they can get a better draft position? Seeing as how you're sure they'll never win a playoff game and thus making the playoffs would be a total waste.

[StupidNation]

Dean and Edward's Arm,

 

If you want proof of Dean's hero worship re-read his views with me on Whitner. I have never seen anyone find a player to be as good or polished without accomplishing much in the way of changing game on this board as Dean.

 

By the way, Losman sucks. Nice guy though, wish things worked out.

[The Dean]

I agree that you generally had the sense or caution to use disclaimers when presenting your positions. Your lack of moderation is demonstrated primarily by how you treated those who disagreed with those positions.

 

 

 

There are many people who, when describing a quarterback's "potential," are referring to his physical potential. This view is false. A quarterback's potential isn't primarily about his arm strength or how fast he can run: it's about his ability to read defenses, to hit receivers in stride, and generally to be very good at operating a complex offense. What, specifically, has Losman done to convince you that he has the "potential" to be much better at these things than Rivers?

 

I typically divide first round QBs into two categories: those who are noted as "polished" "accomplished pocket passers," etc., and those who are "raw" but who have plenty of "upside" (i.e., physical upside). Quarterbacks in the latter category, such as Losman, are typically far more likely to be busts than are quarterbacks in the former category.

 

 

When I talk about potential, I'm talking about the whole package, not just physical potential...unless I say specifically that. I wondered aloud about the overall potential of JaMarcus Russel, while accepting he has huge physical potential. I never questioned River's head, simply his ability to make all the throws that an NFL QB needs to make. While he doesn't have a particularly strong arm, and has questionable form, he is getting it done, though.

 

Losman has neither convinced me that he has, nor doesn't have, the mental capabilities to be a good QB in the NFL, as I don't think he ever was asked to do much mentally, nor did he have anywhere near an idea situation to show what he is capable of. I do think he has shown enough to suggest that, at least in this point in his career, he is not a QB that can do a lot with a little.

 

 

As far as Losman's "treatment" from the coaches, bear in mind that he had three consecutive horrendous performances. Those were in his second year in the NFL, and his second year in that offense. Based on those performances, and on what they'd seen of him in practice, the coaches decided to bench him. I don't think the other quarterbacks you mentioned would have received such "treatment" from their coaches, because they would have done more to have inspired confidence from their coaches in the first place. However, you do have a good point about the weakness of Losman's supporting cast, especially in 2005.

 

A concession? Holy crap, well, that was unexpected.

 

I'm not going to go back to look at the "three consecutive horrendous performances" and try to remember if I agree with your assessment. I do know that JP was playing to the level of the team, at the time, and did look pretty bad on a number of occasions. I also remember thinking, on many of those occasions that he was put into horrendous situations with playcalling, and available options.

 

Now Edwards, in his second year in the same offense, of a MUCH better team (with arguably better offensive playcalling and more/better options at his disposal) has had three stinkers in a row. IMO, you have to let a young QB play through these stretches. That doesn't mean you can't pull him, in a game or two, or for situations...but, he should remain the starter. On that I am as consistent as it comes. I also think it is incumbent on the coaches to do their best to put the players (particularly the QB) in a position to succeed.

 

What the Bills did wrong in the handling of JP, that the look to be doing with Edwards too, is to ignore what seems to be working for the offense, for long stretches of time.

 

 

Laugh all you want to over that one! Go ahead! Really! Use those words in support of your contention that I'm an idiot, or a troll, or whatever other names you might have called me! I encourage it. And once your finished, sit back and read your own post on the subject, #474373:

 

Are you still laughing about what I'd written about Holcomb? No? Interesting . . .

 

The bottom line with Holcomb was that he was very good at some things (such as dumping the ball off) and weak at other things (such as throwing the ball deep). In 2005, we had a very bad offensive line (what else is new?). If your offensive line can't pass protect long enough to let the receivers get open deep--and ours clearly could not--then your best chance for offensive success is to build your offense around dinking and dunking. If you want a QB to run an offense like that, Holcomb comes to mind as a qualified candidate.

 

Am I still laughing? I'm laughing so hard I am crying. But, now I am laughing at BOTH of us. Like I said, I didn't hate Holcomb, at all. It became clear, fairly quickly, I think, that he no longer had the physical ability to make the big play. And, while I really like Edwards, the lack of stretching the field has come back to bite him squarely in the ass. Losing by attempting to throw long, while ignoring the short pass has the same end result as losing because you never stretch the field, and let the opposing D sit on your LOS. They both result in losing, in the final analysis. It is true that the later approach doesn't look as bad, and can keep the team in a game. For teams with great defenses, and ST units, that CAN be a winning combination. But, when the team is on the ropes, and has shown nothing it is essential to have the longer ability as a working option.

 

Now, I want to make this perfectly clear, I think Trent has more ability to stretch the field (and he can still get better at it) than Holcomb did in his time with the Bills. Holcomb was clearly on the decline, by that time.

 

You wrote that I "have a horrible time with the hypothetical and the analogy." Are you trying to say that you or others have made hypothetical statements or analogies which I haven't understood? Or are you suggesting that my own hypothetical statements and analogies have been weak? Assuming your accusation is about the latter, my response is that your inability to appreciate or understand the point of my hypothetical statements and analogies is part of a larger pattern of you failing to see intelligence in those who disagree with you.

 

With a few exceptions, there are very few people in this forum who have your ability to string more than a few sentences together, and your tendency to discount the intelligence of those who see things differently than you see them.

 

Your biggest issues with the hypothetical and the analogy are your inability to understand them when used by others. You regularly miss the point of the poster's intent when using these constructs.

 

Again, I don't discount people (usually...more than that actually) simply for having different opinions. I discount them when they don't have the ability to reason, don't seem to recognize that their interpretation is the right one, or that there is even another way to view the reality of the situation.

 

I think (but it is hard to recall for sure) the point where I dubbed you a moron, was in your horrid understanding of research (such as the Wonderlic) and the limitations to data those tests produce.

[Thurman#1]

JP is not a very good QB. Anyone who has watched him the last 4 years knows that. He is nothing more than a decent back-up and does not have the goods to make a good starter. How many games under 200 yards are acceptable to most teams? Not many unless you are Kerry Collins on the Titans with a strong running game and stellar D.

 

 

 

Let me rephrase your post so that it says what it actually means. Here it is:

 

"I don't like JP. That is my opinion. Therefore I have decided, unilaterally, that anyone who has watched him for four years agrees with me. I know, I know, it flies in the face of ALL the evidence, since it's obvious that there are many JP fans out there, and the fact that both guys have led the team to exactly NO wins over good teams and lots of wins over bad teams. And their stats are fairly close. But I've decided. So that's the way it is."

 

I hope that helps you see how ridiculous your argument is. Liking Trent better is reasonable. Saying that anyone who has watched JP the last four years agrees with you is just wacked.

[TheKing]

How many games did Elli play in his five years in the leaque.He was a productive qb his whole career?If he was drafted by Buffalo five years ago,he would've been considered a bust.Our coach would've bench him and we would be talking about Edwards vs Manning.Archie would've made Buffalo trade him.

Yeah I'm sure you're right, if Eli was in Buffalo suddenly he'd forget how to throw the ball.

[Orton's Arm]

When I talk about potential, I'm talking about the whole package, not just physical potential...unless I say specifically that. I wondered aloud about the overall potential of JaMarcus Russel, while accepting he has huge physical potential. I never questioned River's head, simply his ability to make all the throws that an NFL QB needs to make. While he doesn't have a particularly strong arm, and has questionable form, he is getting it done, though.

 

Losman has neither convinced me that he has, nor doesn't have, the mental capabilities to be a good QB in the NFL, as I don't think he ever was asked to do much mentally, nor did he have anywhere near an idea situation to show what he is capable of. I do think he has shown enough to suggest that, at least in this point in his career, he is not a QB that can do a lot with a little.

It sounds like your view is closer to mine than it had been; albeit your opinion of Losman is still more positive than my own.

I'm not going to go back to look at the "three consecutive horrendous performances" and try to remember if I agree with your assessment. I do know that JP was playing to the level of the team, at the time, and did look pretty bad on a number of occasions. I also remember thinking, on many of those occasions that he was put into horrendous situations with playcalling, and available options.

 

Now Edwards, in his second year in the same offense, of a MUCH better team (with arguably better offensive playcalling and more/better options at his disposal) has had three stinkers in a row. IMO, you have to let a young QB play through these stretches. That doesn't mean you can't pull him, in a game or two, or for situations...but, he should remain the starter. On that I am as consistent as it comes. I also think it is incumbent on the coaches to do their best to put the players (particularly the QB) in a position to succeed.

To what extent has the offensive supporting cast truly been upgraded over the last three years? Very few people on this board would argue that our offensive line run blocks at all on most running plays. Its level of pass protection has declined substantially from last year, and there are frequently times when defenders arrive at the quarterback without the offensive line slowing them down. The Bills don't have a legitimate pass catching TE on the roster right now. In some ways, the receiving corps of three years ago was better, because you had a big, physical target (Moulds) and a speed player to stretch defenses (Evans). Over the past several games, Edwards' targets included Evans and . . . who? Josh Reed has been injured, James Hardy is a struggling rookie, Roscoe Parrish is small and one-dimensional. I don't know that the level of performance of the offensive supporting cast over the last three games--from the offensive coordinator and offensive line on down--is that much better than what we saw in 2005.

 

While Edwards clearly looked bad against New England, his performance in the Jets and Dolphins games would have been solid had it not been for the turnovers. If you blame the turnovers exclusively on Edwards (and many here do), then those two performances were indeed bad. But if a quarterback gets hit as he throws due to bad pass protection, is the resulting interception the quarterback's fault, or the fault of the offensive line? If a defender comes through the line unblocked, on a three man rush, is the resulting safety the quarterback's fault, or the fault of the offensive line? When things like that happen to most other quarterbacks, people point the finger at the offensive line. When things like that happen to Edwards, there are many who remain silent about the contribution poor line play may have made to the turnovers, and point the finger squarely at Edwards.

Am I still laughing? I'm laughing so hard I am crying. But, now I am laughing at BOTH of us. Like I said, I didn't hate Holcomb, at all. It became clear, fairly quickly, I think, that he no longer had the physical ability to make the big play.

That's true. I'd argue that his lack of arm strength was less important in our 2005 offense (where we couldn't pass protect long enough for guys to get open deep anyway) than it would be in a more typical offense. But all else being equal, you obviously want a quarterback who can make all the throws, and Holcomb doesn't fall into that category.

And, while I really like Edwards, the lack of stretching the field has come back to bite him squarely in the ass. Losing by attempting to throw long, while ignoring the short pass has the same end result as losing because you never stretch the field, and let the opposing D sit on your LOS.

I agree, although right now what's really hurting the Bills is the lack of a rushing threat. Defenses are only rushing 3 - 4 players and dropping everyone else into pass coverage. Better offensive line play and better play calling would force defenses to honor the rushing threat and would prevent teams' defenses from suffocating the Bills' receivers.

Your biggest issues with the hypothetical and the analogy are your inability to understand them when used by others. You regularly miss the point of the poster's intent when using these constructs.

Without looking at specific examples the validity of this criticism is difficult to evaluate. There have probably been some cases like the following. Someone (such as you) argues A. In arguing A, this person brings up some valid points. There may have been times when, before acknowledging the validity of those points (which to me appeared obvious), I went straight into what I felt to be the weaknesses or gaps in whatever had been argued. This is an area in which I'm probably better today than I was a few years ago, but I'm not perfect there just yet.

Again, I don't discount people (usually...more than that actually) simply for having different opinions. I discount them when they don't have the ability to reason, don't seem to recognize that their interpretation is the right one, or that there is even another way to view the reality of the situation.

There have been times when I've felt you haven't acted in the way you've described. And when you express your own view by name-calling those who disagree with you, it does not appear to outsiders that you're engaging in the reasoned, open-minded discussion you hope for from others. It's very easy for online discussions to degenerate into flame wars. Your tendency to be very quick with "cheap shots" as you put it can lead discussions into flame-like territory. Maybe some of those discussions were with . . . the less intellectually inclined, and were doomed from the beginning. But there have been other times when you have turned what should have been intelligent, reasoned discussions into name-calling contests.

I think (but it is hard to recall for sure) the point where I dubbed you a moron, was in your horrid understanding of research (such as the Wonderlic) and the limitations to data those tests produce.

Losman's initial Wonderlic score was quite low. He retook the test and received a much higher score the second time around. At the time I'd posted about this, I'd thought the Wonderlic was an aptitude or intelligence test. Something smelled fishy to me, because it shouldn't be possible to receive that big a boost on a well-designed intelligence test, from one test to the next. However, someone (it wasn't you) decided that rather than calling me names, they'd provide me with additional information about the Wonderlic. Based on the sample questions I saw, the Wonderlic is not a well-designed intelligence test. Many of the questions are knowledge-based, and a number of the questions appear to have been designed as time sinks. With a test like that, studying can indeed produce a big boost in one's test score. After seeing those sample questions, I decided individual players' scores are not necessarily very conclusive with respect to their underlying intelligence. I'm a little surprised the NFL still uses the Wonderlic instead of some other, better test.

[Thurman#1]

Who are you gonna throw in there if you pull Edwards?? LOSMAN..GTF oughta here...He blew every chance he had and you want to torture yourself again..LOL..Name a winning team Losman ever beat that made the playoffs..Name a game that Losman came up big in at a crucial time of the game..This kid did it 3 times this year already..He is in his first year as a starter he is gonna have his ups and downs..He played like crap the past 2 games..But to call for the already beaten Losman again is freaking funny..

 

 

 

Losman's done just as well against bad teams as Trent has. He's just played fewer of them. I could go through his highlights, but don't think it needs doing again. It's been done a million times before. If you missed them, it's because you tried to avoid them.

[Thurman#1]

Yes a soon as Edwards emerged you and your kind went into hiding.

That's no secret and it was anticipated.

Everyone here knows how obnoxious the Losman fan club was at the height of the QB controversy.

People scummy enough to launch all those personal attacks simply on a difference of opinion on QB, are certainly not above denying it after the fact.

Now just like the Rob Johnson fanatics they are all in denial.

 

 

Are you about to tell me that it didn't exist on this forum?

 

 

Isn't it funny to you that the tone of each and everyone of those JP fans has changed radically?

Why has it?

Because they ate their crow and their humble pie.

No escaping that.

They found out that the knew far less about the topic than they spewed.

They proved to be no experts on QBs.

They aren't about to raise their hands now and say....."yes yes I was one of those morons".

Nope they're all in denial now!

Liars and phonies is what they are, aided by a crashed hard drive!

 

 

 

I have been a public JP fan since he came to the team. I'm still a JP fan. I still think he is just as good as Trent and might have a much better career than Trent. Does that establish my bonafides as a Losman fan?

 

I haven't changed my tune any. If Losman is given a decent chance, he may well prove to be an excellent QB. So now, how has my tune changed? The same is true of Trent, who also may well prove to be an excellent QB. Where is the change of tone? It is imaginary. You are the one who is benefitting from the crash of the hard drive, since you can accuse people of saying anything you feel like. Yet somehow, as The Dean pointed out, everybody knew in advance where to make the comments and where not to so that every single one of them would become lost. Remarkable. Or else you're just remembering wrong. I wonder which is more likely.