Orton's Arm

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!

Not only is that the biggest difference between Kelly the Dog and yourself, it's also the biggest difference between most Losman optimists and most Losman pessimists. The former seem to view good decision making as something that can be coached into almost any young quarterback, while the latter tend to see this as an innate talent Losman may not have.

I know that Mike Sherman (since relieved of GM duties) was also interested in taking Losman with a first round pick. Another GM (I don't remember his name) said he wouldn't take Losman with the last pick of the seventh round. But the real question is what the rest of the GMs in the NFL felt about Losman, and I just don't know the answer to that. In any case, Bill Parcells believes (and I agree) that you shouldn't worry about where a player was drafted. If your sixth round pick plays better than your second round pick, you start the sixth rounder. At least on the surface, the Bills took this approach to their quarterback situation. Losman didn't win the job as convincingly as you describe, because Nall's injury prevented him from getting the same chance Losman had. Given the circumstances, I can see why the Bills acted as they did. But the events of the preseason aren't conclusive as to which of the two quarterbacks will have the better career.

Let's see: you feel Viva La France shouldn't be taken seriously because he's too repetitive, because he feels Nall should start, because he supports Lazio, and because he's a hooligan. You feel that anyone who does take him seriously must be almost as bad as himself. As for the Nall thing, the Bills' coaching staff seriously considered starting Nall, or at least pretended to. He was the only QB selected with input from Fairchild, he was given 1/3 of the reps in practice, and was told he had as good a chance to start as the next guy. His chance at the starting job went away while he was injured, and not because of any poor play on his part. My point in this post isn't that Nall will ultimately turn out better than JP, because the truth is I don't know. But Viva La France's views about Nall are within what I would consider normal. I also feel the Bills' coaching staff wouldn't have promised Nall a shot at being a starter unless they felt he had a legitimate chance of earning it. While their decision to start JP shows they don't agree with Viva La France's views, neither do I think the Bills' coaching staff would consider those views the sign of insanity you seem to view them as. I don't pretend to know anything about the world of European sports, so I can't speak to the Lazio thing. I'm also at a loss to understand your accusation of hooliganism against him. All I can say there is that he sure doesn't sound like your average hooligan to me.

As Kelly pointed out, Losman's had both very good and very bad moments in his career. My view of Losman is this: TD felt Losman was worth a first round draft pick. Then again, TD has never made a major QB decision that turned out to be successful, so his endorsement of Losman means little or nothing. For this reason, Losman should be evaluated in the same light as any other young QB on our roster. The Bills should ignore the fact that Losman was a first round pick, and Nall a second-tier free agent. The decision as to which QB to start should be based on which shows the most long-term potential today, not which one was drafted higher a few years ago. I feel being a good quarterback is 90% mental and 10% physical. If Nall has an edge in reading defenses or throwing the ball accurately, that means a lot more to me than Losman's greater mobility. The Bills' coaching staff at least pretended to feel the same way I do, which is why they had an open quarterback competition. Unfortunately, by the time Nall really started to get the new offense, he got hurt. When he came back, he found that the starting position was JP's to lose. Losman played better than I expected in the preseason, and did nothing to lose his front runner status. 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. Nall was clearly playing better toward the end of the preseason as he got a better feel for the offense and the players around him. That one play where he completed a pass while he was being hauled down was simply amazing. The announcers said he had absolutely no business whatsoever even attempting that pass. The man's got guts, and 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.

I want you to think about these boards as they usually are: people arguing about McGahee, about the importance of the offensive line, about the right way to build an offensive line, about the defense, and above all, about Losman. Maybe you haven't noticed it, but sometimes those discussions can get just a little repetitive. Now along comes this Viva La France guy, who writes in a very different style than anyone else on these boards. There's creativity there. Don't believe me? Try to write something that sounds like it came from him. Have it be as long, have it sound the same, have the same feel. You won't find it easy, and you may not find it possible. That will give you a greater appreciation for his creativity. This man's posts break up the sense of monotony that otherwise sets in. I'm a little disappointed I had to explain all this to you, and that your lack of understanding caused you to make a ready fire aim personal attack. You're a little old to be acting with so little maturity.

Careful VA! If you express too many concerns about Losman, your name will appear on the next idiot of the week poll. After all, only an idiot would have any doubts whatsoever about Losman.

Gee Ramius, these sentiments are a real shock coming from you of all people. You woke up one morning, and said, "Gee. I love the way AKC treats Patriots fans. Maybe I can be the next AKC, except with regards to Losman pessimists. After all, what better way to show one's support for one's team than to act like an obnoxious jerk towards anyone who doesn't share my views about who the starting QB should be?"

I always enjoy reading your colorful posts. It's too bad more people don't appreciate your efforts to spice things up a bit. I myself would prefer to see Nall in there, instead of JP. But our reasons for this differ. So instead of talking about the JP/Nall situation, I'll address our points of difference. If you're going to be a dynasty team, you have to have a good offense--including a good quarterback. Think of core groups of players that have won multiple Super Bowls: the Steelers of the '70s, the 49ers of the '80s, the Cowboys of the mid-'90s, the Broncos, the Patriots of the 2000s. In each of those cases, the team in question had a QB who was at or near the Hall of Fame level. In fact, the only QB from those teams who isn't in the Hall of Fame is Tom Brady; and there's a very good chance he will be elected once he's eligible. This isn't to say that all of those teams were pass-oriented. The Steelers of the '70s, for example, were built to win by running the ball and dominating through defense. But sometimes, the running game might not be there, or the defense might allow more points than usual. When those things happened, the Steelers could turn to Terry Bradshaw. The Ravens of 2000 also had a dominating defense and a strong running game. But they lacked a good QB or strong passing game. So their running game and defense had to play at a truly elite level for them to win the Super Bowl. That happened once, in 2000. But without an elite passing attack to bail them out, everything has to go just perfectly for the defense and the running game for them to win the Super Bowl. That's why that core group of players hasn't been back to the Super Bowl since. On the other hand, a team like the 49ers of the '80s was built to dominate with the pass; and that domination was the biggest piece of the puzzle in their four Super Bowl wins. Yes, the defensive effort was very important too--witness the good pass rush in the 4th quarter of that Bengals Super Bowl. But as important as that pass rush was, the 49ers absolutely had to have Joe Montana as their QB in that last, game-winning drive. It's just the way that team was built. On the one hand, you have the teams with multiple Super Bowl wins, led by Hall of Fame quarterbacks. On the other, you have the Steelers of the '90s. That team was led by what you would call an Aquaman QB, and what most fans would call a good game manager--Neil O'Donnell. The Steelers had a good offensive line, a good running game, and a very good defense. What that team didn't have was any Super Bowl rings. They did quite well in executing the standard plan of winning in the trenches, running the ball, and dominating with defense. But there are times when the defense allows a few big plays, or when the running game gets shut down. The Steelers of the '90s weren't built to overcome big deficits; and had fewer options to overcome adversity than the Steelers of the '70s had. Consider the AFC Championship game against the Chargers, which the O'Donnell Steelers lost. The Steelers' running game had been shut down, so the Steelers had to turn to the air. O'Donnell was actually quite effective in racking up plenty of passing yards, but those yards didn't translate into many points. That team just wasn't built to win in the air. The Steelers team of the '70s found itself in a similar situation in its Super Bowl against the L.A. Rams. The Rams had shut down the Steelers' running attack, and the Steelers had to come from behind with their passing game. Which they did--Terry Bradshaw and Lynn Swan did an excellent job of putting points on the board. The deeper into the playoffs you go, the better the competition will be. Better competition means an increasing likelihood of your plan A getting shut down. Teams with a solid plan B (read: the ability to win via a passing attack) will be able to fight their way through this adversity. Teams without a viable plan B will be much more likely to be eliminated from the playoffs the first time their plan A fails to work. This is why teams without elite QBs don't win multiple Super Bowls, and find it very difficult to win even one Super Bowl.

You can hope for whatever you want, but something tells me Pat Williams will feel just a little extra motivation to play well against the organization that treated him like he was washed up. I hope for a Bills win myself, but I doubt it's going to happen via the Butler players embarrassing themselves.

I agree that, in general, you're better off drafting your QB than you are obtaining him through free agency. Too many players obtained via free agency are older, so there wouldn't be much chance for the QB to develop chemistry with his WRs before the time came to move on. But if you look at the relationship Montana had with Rice, or Aikman had with Irvin, or Kelly had with Reed (Jim Kelly with Andre Reed, not Kelly Holcomb with Josh Reed), you'll see the benefit of chemistry among the offensive skill position players. That benefit also exists among offensive linemen who have been together many years. Build a good offense through the draft, and keep it together as long as possible. That way you'll have chemistry, and a strong nucleus for a very long time. Then if the defense gets good too, your team will be able to do something. Good defenses don't seem to stay good for as long a time, so I feel you'd be better off building the offense first, defense second. That way everything will hopefully come together at once to give you a few really special seasons.

I loved the Kelly Holcomb = Taylor Hicks and the Josh Stamer = Lurch posts. That thread was great. You know what else I noticed? This post: Most of the Vikings fans seemed pretty classy, with this guy being an obvious example. After Sunday's game is over, I'll be wishing their team the best.

Sorry to hear that, buddy. It's bad enough to have something stolen, and even worse when the person doing the stealing is someone who should be standing by your side as a fellow Bills fan. Except that I'm not so sure the thief deserves to be called a real Bills fan any more. I'm sorry you drove all the way to Buffalo only to have that happen to you. If it's any consolation, there are other Bills fans who, had they seen the theft taking place, would have knocked that jerk's face in. Too bad no one like that happened to notice it.

I heard he got benched after a very bad performance against the Rams. I haven't watched him or followed the Rams' organization. Are there still coaches there from when Kurt was playing? If so, they might have known well how to exploit his weaknesses.

I give you credit for a really good post. You presented your views with decency and humility, but also with thought and insight. I don't know whether you handle your differences with those around you (coworkers, kids, etc.) in this same spirit. But if you do, I'm sure it's paid off big. I spent a lot more time writing about Losman than I'd originally planned. I was unhappy with the pick because I felt he was taken more for his athletic gifts than for his accuracy or mental attributes. I started writing about him, only to encounter resistance to my views. That resistance spurred me on to try to be more convincing and more eloquent, so I wrote more posts. Before I knew it, I was labeled an anti-Losman crusader. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much what labels people on this board attach or don't attach to me. Nor does it matter much to the world as a whole whether Losman becomes a Hall of Famer, a Ryan Leaf, or something in between. If I seem to care passionately about this issue, it's because I like the challenge of intelligent debate. If there's one thing I've learned from this, it's that it's a mistake for me to get carried away with my emotions, and that it's a mistake to try too hard to prove my point. I'm not perfect in these areas even now, but hopefully I'm better than I was when I started.

You object now, but if he got out on the field, maybe he'd render your objections Nall and Void! Nah, I don't have a good enough feel for Nall to know what kind of quarterback he'd turn out to be. I sense there's the potential for him to do something really good, but you'd probably have to go through a number of Nalls before one of them turned out to be Kurt Warner.

I'd have preferred Nall to Holcomb. Nall is younger, has a stronger arm, and did about as well in NFL Europe as Kurt Warner did. I'm not saying Nall's the next Kurt Warner, but I'd like to see him get the chance to show what kind of QB he can be.

Good stuff. I'm surprised at how big YAC currently is--over 50% in some cases. From a defensive perspective, that reinforces the importance of making the tackle immediately after the catch. The absence of good safeties will really hurt your ability to do that, which would explain why the Bills were so eager to draft players like Whitner and Simpson. I still would have put a little more emphasis on the offensive line, but with those YAC numbers being what they are, it's a little easier to see why Marv did what he did.

Now that's saying something!

You know what I like about you? You back up what you say with numbers, instead of trying to outdo five year olds at name-calling. Not that there's anyone in the latter category on these boards. In any case, those numbers you cite are pretty convincing, so I'll drop the YAC thing unless I come across other, even more convincing numbers.

I appreciate the effort you've made to help move the discussion in a quantitave direction. At the same time, the players you've mentioned are among the league's very best. Probably a Steve Smith or Terrell Owens is a lot more dangerous after the catch than is your average WR. Besides that, even if you're a QB with the, um, interesting experience of having Terrell Owens on your team, not all your passes will be going to him. Probably the other players catching those passes won't be as good at the YAC thing as him. In any case, 7 catches on the day is a lot--it'd put him on pace for 105 catches for the season. Owens averages 72 catches per season, and has never had more than 100 catches in a year. Owens averages 4.5 receptions per game. 4.5 receptions * 5.7 yards after the catch for each catch = 25 YAC. The other players will contribute to the YAC total also, but probably not nearly as much on a per-catch basis as Owens. So the overall YAC total could just as easily be in the 40 - 60 range as in the 100 - 120 range.

From the sound of your post, you're "fair and balanced" in the same sense that Al Franken took a "fair and balanced" look at the right. You act as though getting 38% of one's passing yards through YAC is a perfectly normal thing, and that anyone who feels differently must have had his head removed at birth. If you feel the need to take shots at me, fine. It's been done before. But you might want to pick something more reasonable about which to attack me. For example, the WR who did the most to generate that those 124 yards after the catch was Roscoe Parrish. When he was drafted, I was aghast that TD had once again used a high draft pick on an offensive skill player instead of an offensive lineman. The fact that Parrish did a world of good after the catch on Sunday would be a perfect excuse to attack me for having criticized the Parrish pick. But to say that I'm digging myself a hole because I think that over 100 yards after the catch is higher than normal? Take a deep breath, remove your hands from the keyboard, and don't come back until you're in your right mind.

Is this your way of saying you've never lost an argument?

Thanks for adding up all those YAC numbers. To clarify my earlier post, I do feel there's a yardage difference between what Losman did against the Jets and what he did against the Dolphins. I wasn't trying to deny that. But it seems that a lot of Losman's supporters just saw the 328 passing yards, and said, "Ooooh wow. 328 yards. What a great performance from JP." But as you've pointed out, 124 of those yards came after the catch. That's a lot more YAC than a QB in an average offense can expect from his WRs on an average Sunday. So the 328 yard figure overstates what Losman achieved, just as his 83 yard figure against Miami understates what he accomplished. The two performances aren't the same, but they are more similar than the raw yardage figures make them appear.

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.