Orton's Arm

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.

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

There are places which can help you with that stuttering problem. On the other hand, you probably have bigger problems than that!

That 77 yard drive that impressed you took place against a prevent defense. It's easy to look good when that's what you're up against. Yeah, the overall yardage total seems impressive. But 70 of those yards were against a prevent defense. Many more were the result of a WR such as Parrish turning a short pass into a long gain. Now you could say that sometimes a QB like Montana would help his receivers with YAC by hitting them in perfect stride. I really didn't see Losman doing that at all. The high YAC was because of the playcalling, blocking, and speed of the WRs, and not because Losman threw the ball with a Montana-like sense of timing. After taking all these things into account, Losman's yardage total begins to look a lot more similar to the one he had last week against Miami.

Yeah, the Jets had a relatively low conversion percentage on third down. But they got away with that by generally avoiding getting into third down situations in the first place. The Bills didn't. As for the 22 yard pass play you mentioned, it was a short dump-off to Roscoe, who proceeded to get most of those 22 yards after the catch. In fact a lot of the plays we saw were like that: the QB makes a nice, short, safe throw, with the blocking all set up for the receiver to get a big gain after the catch. With the Bills' speed at receiver this makes a lot of sense; and it has the added benefit of not asking too much from the quarterback.

The Bills lost a game in which McGahee had 150 rushing yards to the Jets' 69. Part of that's turnovers; and even if you absolve Losman from blame for the two fumbles, you've still got the interception. But part of it is that the offense displayed many of the same problems it had last week: inability to go for the killing blow, to finish off drives with touchdowns instead of settling for field goals or punts. Against the Jets, there were ten times when Losman dropped back to pass on third down. Three times he completed a pass but was short. Another three times he threw incomplete. Then there was a sack. There were only three times out of ten when he completed a 3rd down pass for a first down. I described similar problems after last week's win over Miami. I was basically told to shut up and be happy with the win. But guess what? Losman's inability to convert third downs or sustain drives came back to haunt us this week; as I felt it would sooner or later. The Bills can't expect the defense to dominate every team the way it did the hapless Dolphins; so at some point Losman will have to learn to sustain drives. Or he'll need to be replaced with someone who can.

I'll give you that Losman has occassional good moments. No question there. The difference between the Losman-optimists and Losman-pessimists is that the former see those moments as a harbinger of what his play will always be like, while the pessimists think he'll play just well enough to be a coach killer.

It's obvious which team had the better quarterback today, so let's not go there. But you do bring up a good point about the pass rush/pass protection. It killed me to see Mangold playing well in a Jets uniform when I was practically begging Marv to draft him. Improved offensive line play is a big reason why the Jets are now 2-1.

Are you saying Losman's the second worst QB in the league? I found the following post from a Bills fan on that Jets board: Now that's some serious trash talking!

I noticed another error in the article: Vincent was placed on a special type of injured reserve, thereby ending his season with the Bills. He's still allowed to play for some other team.

It's too bad it's you that's asking me this question, and not your avatar.

That's not what I'm trying to say. It should be obvious to anyone the defense played well, and Kelsay played like an animal in the first half. But let's face it: Culpepper looked like a boy among men, and Miami's offensive line was worse than I expected. And I expected it to be pretty bad. Do you think we'll be able to exert the same level of pressure on the QB if we face a team with a real line, such as the Steelers? Or that every quarterback will respond as badly as did Culpepper? That's all I was getting at. But that said, I really am excited about our defense. I'm shocked at how well the rookies have played, and at the extent to which Kelsay and Denny have improved.

I can't believe I'm actually defending Mike Mularkey. But the Moulds benching was for disciplinary reasons, which you can either agree or disagree with. It wasn't based on production. The Adams thing was weird--it seemed like he just stopped producing or caring at some point in 2005. I haven't kept close track of him though--has he produced anything this year? Or is he more or less done?

Mike Shanahan has been a very successful coach in Denver. But with a name like Mike, he'd be doomed in Buffalo.

Other than Losman, which players do you feel Mularkey benched that he should have started?

The 72 yard TD drive was based on a 50 yard pass interference penalty. No shame in that, but it's not the same as moving 72 yards over the course of fifteen plays. The fact that the second longest drive was only 49 yards long pretty much proves my point.

You know, the same thing happened last year when the Bills went to New England. It was late in the game, the Bills were behind, and Holcomb had just completed a pass to Moulds for a first down deep in New England territory. But that pass was wiped out by a bogus penalty on Moulds, thereby turning 1st and 10 into 4th and 11. We all know what happened on that 4th and 11 play. But did Losman's supporters say, "you only get so many chances against a defense like that, on the road"? No!

I'll agree with this up to a point. The Bills have the makings of a good or even very good defense for a long time to come. But there's a world of difference between very good and elite. To achieve the latter, you really do need a few stars--Bruce Smith, Bryce Paup, Ray Lewis, guys like that. The Bills' two best defenders--Spikes and Schobel--won't be in their primes forever. Also, aging players such as London Fletcher will need to be replaced at some point. So the Bills are on their way to creating the kind of young, dominating unit you've described, but there's a lot of work left to be done. If you were to add an elite pass rusher or two to the defensive line . . . man! That would be something. Throw in a young but good offensive line, and a solid quarterback, and you'd have the makings of a team that'd be a serious threat to win the Super Bowl.

You're right. Mularkey's decision to sit a healthy Losman had nothing to do with his level of play.

Agreed. A lot of stuff went our way in Miami that we can't really count on in future games. The blocked punt by Wire comes to mind, as does the absolutely terrible play by Culpepper. If you take those things away (which future opponents may well do), the offense's inability to sustain drives becomes a more significant factor. Until that problem gets fixed, it's doubtful the Bills will go to the playoffs. That said, there's a lot to like about this team. All those rookies on defense are playing a lot better than we have any right to expect. It's a scrappy, opportunistic bunch of defenders who seem to make every game interesting. But while the defense is vastly improved over last year, I'd like to see more consistency against the run.

There's an unwritten rule that if you want to be a coach or GM, your name has to be Mike or Bill. Since that's the case, and since we're talking about the Buffalo Bills, it makes sense to hire guys named Bill instead of Mike. Look at the track record: Guys we hired named Mike Mike Shepherd Mike Mularkey Coaches and GMs named Bill Bill Parcells Bill Belichick Bill Cowher Bill Polian You can't go wrong with any of them. It's time for a little more Bill and a little less Mike. Maybe Levy realizes this, which would explain why he didn't hire Mike Sherman.

In the Miami game, it seemed the offensive line did a decent job at run blocking. With McGahee and Anthony Thomas as the RBs, it makes sense to strongly emphasize the running attack. The Bills shouldn't be afraid to take advantage of Losman's mobility by rolling him out of the pocket and having him scramble for first downs. The Bills could have success with an Atlanta Falcons style of offense: a good running game, and a mobile quarterback who's always a threat to throw the deep ball. Granted Losman's not as fast as Vick, and Buffalo's offensive line isn't as good as Atlanta's, so this might not work as well for us as it does for them. But it's still worth a try.

Point taken. But once injuries put Johnson on the bench, the coaches more or less kept him there even when he got healthy. Losman faced the same situation last year.

You make a good point about the new system, and about the fact that Buffalo wasn't an ideal situation for a new quarterback. But similar things could have been said about Rob Johnson--you had an impatient coaching staff that benched him in favor of a veteran, you had a poor offensive line, all that stuff. But at some point a quarterback just has to produce. You seem to recognize that. And barring injury, we'll get to see how much or how little Losman can produce as the season continues.

Well, if you wanted a big response, you sure picked the right subject.