Orton's Arm

That's a really good site. Thanks for the link.

It was 4th and 11, and yes, I've heard about it. But Holcomb had moved the chains the previous play by completing a pass to Moulds. But because it was New England, the officials decided to take that play away by calling a petty pass interference penalty on Moulds. So instead of 1st and 10, we had 4th and 11. Then Clements or Mularkey decided that Moulds was a ten year vet with whom Holcomb had great chemistry and who could make plays in the clutch, so why not use him as a decoy while making Roscoe "this is the first NFL game in my entire life" Parrish the main target on that game-deciding play. Brilliant! This may come as a shock to many, but the Mularkey coaching staff's effort to fool the Belichick coaching staff didn't work! The diminutive Parrish was covered. Maybe throwing to Moulds was the wrong answer, but I'm not sure there was a right answer on that particular play.

I see your point.

Any quarterback can have a bad day, as Big Ben's recent performance attests. The question is whether Losman can be good most of the time. That isn't a question that can be answered in just one game.

He's in his third year. He should already be going through progressions in his short game. In answer to your other points, Nall has a good arm, and can threaten defenses deep. Yeah, Losman dumped the ball off a little, but not in a way that moved the chains.

Agreed. But sometimes the QB sets his WRs up for good YAC. Joe Montana would hit his receivers in full stride, allowing them to produce much better YAC than they could have done had it been just about any other QB back there.

JDG and I have presented a fair amount of factual evidence and rational observations to support our conclusions. As for being objective; if you're trying to say that Losman's supporters are objective, and his detractors are biased, then to me that's more a statement about your own level of objectivity than it is about anyone else's. I just felt a little disappointed with the Bills' passing game after having watched that Miami game. I would have felt the same way if the name on the back of the jersey read "Nall" or "Holcomb" instead of "Losman." My reaction would have been, "C'mon Nall. I've been pushing for you to be the starter. Surely you can reward my faith in you better than this. Dropping back for a pass on third down ten times, and only converting twice. You call that Bills football?" But I kept these feelings to myself until after a Losman supporter started throwing personal insults at JDG. I just didn't feel Losman had done anything to justify the kind of praise he was getting. Yes, he didn't turn the ball over, and he showed some skill at dumping the ball off. Not a Holcombesque level of skill in that area, but some. I could see why people would want to praise Losman for the things he did well, but some people responded rudely when the discussion turned to the things Losman did poorly (overall yardage, yards per attempt, third down conversions). If a quarterback's going to be a bust, it's usually because he can't handle the mental aspect of the game. Conversely, if a quarterback is going to be great, it's because he excels at reading defenses and throwing the ball accurately. I remember back when Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were being drafted. Peyton Manning was described as the more "polished" of the two, while Ryan Leaf was said to have more "upside" because of his stronger arm. In other words, Manning had demonstrated a significantly stronger grasp of the mental aspect of the game than had Leaf; but Leaf was the more athletically gifted. Based on this, I developed a strong preference for Manning over Leaf--a preference which subsequent events have justified. I've also watched as most other early round quarterbacks taken for their athletic gifts have gone on to become busts--Akili Smith, Kordell Stewart, etc. If this thought process is accurate for quarterbacks in general, it's probably accurate for Losman in particular. Yes, it's about the Bills, and there's always the danger of letting one's feelings distort what should be a clear, cold, and objective thought process. But I've done my best to think about Losman in the same way I'd have thought of him had it been Green Bay that had drafted him. Has Losman done anything to show my initial thought process was incorrect? He's probably worked harder than I'd expected, and he played better in the 2006 preseason than I thought he would. He's avoided interceptions so far this year. So there are a few things here and there that he's shown. But I feel it's more likely these things are a flash in the pan than they are a sign that Losman is on his way to being the long-term answer at quarterback. Even Ryan Leaf had the occassional good game.

That's true. You judge a runningback on yards per carry. Why not judge a quarterback on yards per attempt? In both cases you have to look at other things also--does he commit a lot of turnovers, how many TDs does he have, etc. But you start by looking at yards per carry/yards per attempt.

If you're saying that people on both sides of the Losman debate are guilty of being stubborn, I can live with that.

Hey, maybe your grandmother thinks you are stubborn for not allowing yourself to be persuaded by everything she's said. Maybe she's right about you being stubborn, and maybe you inherited your stubbornness from her. It's always the people with whom you disagree who get labeled stubborn; never the people with whom you agree.

I'll grant you most of those points. I'll take issue with the WR thing however, because last year Losman also had Moulds. In addition, he had a full year to study the playbook and watch film before being thrown to the wolves. But I'll grant your point that overall, Pittsburgh's situation on offense was and is a lot better than that of the Bills. So I agree with your implication that if you're comparing Losman's performance to Roethlisberger's, you have to grade the former on a curve. But the difference in yards per attempt between the two quarterbacks is so huge that you'd have to grade Losman on a curve the size of Pamela Anderson's bust if you wanted to make the two come out equal. Moreover, Holcomb has spent his career surrounded by weak supporting casts, and he's amassed a higher yards per attempt stat for his career than Losman's average either for his career or for the year. In the coming weeks, we'll get a better feel for how much Losman has or hasn't improved. It would be premature to say he hasn't improved, but it would also be premature to say he's become Dilfer.

So if you use a first round pick on a guy, you should hold onto him for at least five years in case he's the next Steve Young. Since that's the case, the Bills obviously made a mistake by getting rid of Rob Johnson after just four years.

What on earth is Rian Lindell doing on your probationary list? He's a perfectly good kicker, and has yet to miss a FG this season. Also, why is McCargo on your list? If you're willing to give Losman three years to develop, why not give McCargo at least three games?

I went back and reread the first three pages of this thread. It started off with comments from people who were evidently very happy about Losman's performance. Someone called Losman's performance "solid," so JDG responded by asking, "if 83 yards is 'solid,' I'd hate to see what you think a 'mediocre' day looks like...." This initiated an argument over whether Losman's performance was solid or mediocre; and whether it was or wasn't Roethlisberger-like. Joe Six Pack, a Losman supporter, was the first to throw in a personal insult. The next personal insult came from Ramius, another Losman supporter; and the third came from Risin, who just so happens to support Losman. On the other hand, many Losman supporters were able to rise above the kindergarten level, and discuss their views with intelligence and maturity. The last thing I want to do is lump all Losman supporters together. But the reason the discussion turned into a heated argument was because some Losman supporters decided to make it one. A few of Losman's supporters have one way of looking at him, and think that anyone who sees him differently is either blind, stupid, or motivated by a hidden agenda. You don't have to be any of these things to be unimpressed with Losman's performance against Miami. Some people saw a performance that was solid, mistake-free, and Roethlisberger-like, while others saw 84 passing yards and a punter with a very sore foot.

You've presented your case quite reasonably, and you seem more objective than most other Losman supporters. The difference I see between Roethlisberger and Losman is this: Roethlisberger did a solid job of establishing himself as a good decision maker at the college level; while Losman may have been drafted more for his athletic potential. It's true that as a rookie, Roethlisberger hadn't fully memorized the playbook; which is why he'd either throw the ball to his first read, or not at all. This situation doesn't really apply to Losman, who didn't start getting real playing time until he'd had ample opportunity to learn the playbook. So the question then becomes, if you have an athletic college quarterback without a proven track record as a pocket passer, how much of a pocket passer can you expect him to become at the professional level? How much patience is enough, and how much is too much? The Falcons are in a similar situation with Vick. Nobody doubts Vick's mobility or his arm strength, but he'll never be able to do what Peyton Manning or Tom Brady can do. Is that something the Falcons are prepared to live with because of Vick's speed, or will they need to move in a different direction?

You mean you'll stop responding to my posts with emotional drivel or lame attempts at clever put-downs? And this is supposed to bother me because . . . ?

Now that I understand your view better, I find it a lot more reasonable. My point has been that it's too early to start saying Losman is as good as Dilfer or Roethlisberger. You seem to agree with this, while adding that it's too early to say that he isn't. I can live with this.

You accuse me of being like an emotional woman, yet your post showed a little emotion itself. In answer to some of the other stuff you threw at me, I would actually prefer to see Nall start than Holcomb. With Losman, my biggest concern is whether he's talented at reading defenses or making complex decisions quickly. As JDG has pointed out, things were simplified for Losman to such a degree he really didn't have the opportunity to show much ability to make complex decisions quickly. Maybe he'll develop that eventually, but maybe some other quarterback would have more long-term potential in that area.

This is annoying. More than once, I explained that the only thing I'm trying to prove here is that Losman's performance against Miami wasn't as good as an average performance from Roethlisberger or Dilfer. That's it. I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand. Most of Losman's supporters feel his stats from last year should be thrown out the window. You, I see, feel the opposite way. Last year, Losman averaged 5.9 yards per attempt. This year, he's at 6.0. Pretty consistent, no? Trent Dilfer's career yards per attempt is 6.6; while Roethlisberger's is at 8.7. All I'm getting at is that Losman has yet to earn Dilfer or Roethlisberger comparisons, and that some Bills fans are getting a little overeager.

I agree you have to take into account the individual circumstances a player faced. On the other hand, there are those who seem to believe that if a team won, all its players (or at least the QB) must have played well. These people also seem to believe that if a team lost, its QB must have played badly. I strongly disagree with this type of thinking, because it assumes the QB's level of play is the only factor which determines a game's outcome. In answer to your question, Pennington played well in his team's loss to the Patriots. I agree with your point that you should take a close look at what a player is asked to do, and then see if he's doing it. If your team is protecting a lead, typically your quarterback won't be asked to pass for as many yards as a team coming from behind. He will, however, be asked to protect the football, which Losman did. He'll also be asked to convert third downs to move the chains. That area was where I felt Losman's performance was lacking, and where his performance fell short of what the coaches should have expected. Two 3rd completions for first downs, versus six appearances by Moorman. That's good game management how?

I agree that if you're going to drive the ball 90 yards, you typically want to drag out the process as long as possible. In that sense, the QB who goes for the short, high percentage throws is better than the guy who goes for long bombs all the time. But short, safe passes only work if you're moving the chains; which isn't something Losman did against Miami.

In his rookie year, Big Ben averaged 8.9 yards per pass attempt. That's a big reason why he got so much good press. Yes, some of his days were better than others. But over the course of the season, Big Ben's yards per attempt was quite solid for a veteran player, let alone a rookie. Against the Dolphins, Losman averaged a mere 4.6 yards per attempt, which is why I don't feel Big Ben comparisons are warranted.

When evaluating teams yes. When evaluating individual players . . . not so much so.

Holcomb's been in the league 11 years, not nine. But yes, Losman did manage the game like a poor man's Holcomb. Edit: I tend not to rely on passer rating nearly as much as I used to. I changed my mind about passer rating when I learned that John Elway's career passer rating was very similar to Holcomb's. I consider myself a Holcomb fan, but there's no way Holcomb's level of play is anywhere close to John Elway's. If, however, you look at yards per attempt, you'll see that John Elway's career average is substantially higher than Holcomb's. The reason for all this is their different styles of play. Holcomb would go for the short, high percentage passes, and thereby inflate his completion percentage. Operating out of the shotgun, John Elway would attempt more high risk, high reward passes. This would cause his completion percentage (and therefore his quarterback rating) to be artificially low. In the end, I realized there's no reason to take completion percentage into account. Say that quarterback A is 1/3 for 20 yards. Quarterback B is 2/3 for 20 yards. In my mind, each quarterback has been equally productive.

Let me ask you this question: do you feel the lack of objectivity only works one way? Do you feel that Losman's strongest doubters lack objectivity, while his strongest supporters are unbiased? Let's face it: Losman had 83 passing yards in Miami. Moorman was asked to punt six times. Losman's yards per attempt was a mere 4.6; and he only converted 20% of the third downs on which he was asked to throw. Yes Losman avoided mistakes, which is part of being a good game manager. But he didn't move the chains, which is also part of being a good game manager. I'm not trying to argue that this one game proves anything one way or the other about the direction his overall career will take. It's just one game. But it's a game where many Bills fans got excited because they thought they saw Roethlisberger, or at very least Trent Dilfer. The only point I'm trying to argue here is that Losman's play in Miami didn't come close to either standard. If Losman has a Roethlisberger-like day, I'll be the first to say so. Okay, well maybe not quite the first. But I will say so at some point.