Orton's Arm

113/228 works out to a completion percentage of 49.6% for Losman. Given that Holcomb (even before this year) had a significantly higher completion percentage and yards per attempt, I'm not so sure Losman will become the next Holcomb. But even if he does, is that really what we hoped for when we used a first round pick on the guy? I mean, let's say Holcomb is better than 1/3 of the starting QBs in the league: guys like Gus Frerotte, Kyle Boller, Joey Harrington, etc. The fact we have a QB of the future who might someday also be better than guys like those isn't exactly a reason to start making reservations for the next Super Bowl.

The Losman man-love crowd has an answer for everything. QB rating doesn't count, because it gives Holcomb too much credit for 2 yard passes on 3rd and 7. Points per game doesn't count, because it gives Holcomb credit for McGee's TD returns. Points produced by the offense per game doesn't count, because IT'S A MEASURE I DEVELOPED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE LOSMAN MAN-LOVE CROWD! Just admit it: you will ignore ANY measure which shows Holcomb outplayed version 2 of Losman. This isn't the message you want to hear, so you've got fingers firmly inserted in both ears.

Winning percentage has got to be one of the dumbest ways ever to evaluate a QB. Are the other 52 men on the roster just there to cheer the QB on while he wins or loses the game all on his own?

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. So the question is this: do you win now by starting Holcomb and addressing the lines, or do you build for the future by drafting a QB with a high pick? Based on the tone of the messages coming out of One Bills Drive, it sounds like they're choosing the first course.

Maybe not in those exact words, but that's exactly what you implied. But that's not the issue here. I'm not even going to try to talk you into thinking Holcomb should be the answer at starter. You think he's not starter-material, and that's fine. But keep in mind that under Holcomb, the offense created an average of 7 more points per game than it did under Losman version 2. So if Holcomb isn't the answer, then, barring dramatic improvement, Losman isn't the answer either. That's mainly the point I was getting at.

Obviously, there's no arguing with you. In your eyes, the fact that I've created a system is the same thing as the system being deeply biased and flawed. You clearly don't feel the need to look beneath the surface to examine whether the biases you think might be there really are.

How the @#@$@$#@# is what I did "torturing" numbers? Does your comment represent a sober analysis of what I've done? Of course not--you made it out of blind impulse. You could look at QB rating, which Holcomb does well in. But people complained that I'm obsessed with QB ratings, and that Holcomb's rating gives him too much credit for a 2 yard pass on 3rd and 7. Fine. Look at points per game. But the objection there is that Terrence McGee's returns for TDs get thrown into points per game, even though the QB had nothing to do with them. So I devise a system which gives the QB credit only for points the offense is responsible for, and even then, only when he makes a significant contribution to those drives. Now I have to listen to people cry about how I'm "torturing" numbers. Devise a better system if you're so smart. Don't complain about mine.

All right. I figured that if I was going to complain about someone else's method of measuring a QB's contribution to a team's scoring, I may as well come up with something better. So I went through the games Holcomb played through, as well as Losman version 2's games. I used the following methodology: - If the QB helped lead the offense into FG range, I'd give him 3 points if a FG was scored. - If the offense started in FG range, the QB could get 4 points of credit for turning a FG into a TD. - If the offense started outside FG range, the QB would get 7 points of credit for contributing to a TD drive. Holcomb averaged 19.6 points per game under these rules; while Losman version 2 averaged just 11.0 points per game. Losman's average goes up to 12.2 points per game if you throw in the 2nd half of the KC game. My definition excluded 9 offensive points for Holcomb, and 6 for Losman. With one exception, those exclusions came because the QBs began drives already inside FG range. The one exception was a drive which Holcomb started outside FG range, but to which he contributed just 6 passing yards.

When you say the QB was responsible for a certain number of points, I take it you mean TD passes. This measure is flawed. Let's say the offense starts at its own 1, and produces 98 passing yards. Then--from the other team's 1--McGahee runs it in for a TD. Does this mean the running game should get credit for 7 points, and the passing game credit for zero? Of course not. Or let's say the offense drives to the other team's 20, and then stalls. Should the credit for the ensuing FG go entirely to the kicker, and not to the offense that put him there? Absolutely not. The definition you're using blots out every contribution the QB might make to the offense, except the TD pass.

Interesting numbers. I always felt that, given enough time to throw, Johnson could really do bad things to the defense. But if you pressured him, he'd respond poorly. Some of the Johnson numbers you cited are merely a result of him having played more games than Holcomb. Others--like his career passer rating--are actually quite good. I remember a few years into his Buffalo career, Johnson's passer rating was actually higher than Jim Kelly's. Partly that's a reflection on the fact the passer rating isn't a perfect measurement of what a QB brings, partly it's the result of Johnson's own ability to make big plays when he had time in the pocket, and partly it's because Johnson was usually careful about not throwing interceptable passes. Kelly was more Favre-like in his tendency to just throw it up there and hope your own guy makes a play. The thing about Johnson was he was hurt too often (a fact which doesn't show up in your numbers), and he took too many sacks (which may or may not be included in your average yards per play stat, but otherwise doesn't show up in your numbers). Take away those two problems, and Johnson's a good QB. People complain that Holcomb's rating overstates his true performance because of too many short passes on 3rd and long. So instead, let's look at how many points the Bills scored when Holcomb played from start to finish. The comparison team is the 2005 NE Patriots. Bills/Holcomb minimum points per game:16 Patriots minimum points per game: 16 Bills/Holcomb average points per game: 22.9 Patriots average points per game: 23.7 There's a strong consensus that Losman pretty much stunk in three of his first four games. But it's felt he did much better in his second chance at starting. Throwing his first four games out the window, let's look at how Losman did the second time around, in games he played start to finish: Bills/Losman version 2 minimum points per game: 7 Bills/Losman version 2 average points per game: 12.3* *This average would go up to 14 if you threw in the half of the K.C. game in which Losman played. Throwing QB rating out the window, and looking strictly at points scored per game, Holcomb produced results that looked a lot more like the Patriots' results than like version 2 of Losman's. This, despite the fact that Holcomb had the same inferior offensive line Losman had, the same people calling the plays, the same guys dropping passes, and the same suspect running game. It's strange that many of the same people who blame Losman's problems on the offensive unit around him are unwilling to give Holcomb credit for having produced results with that same flawed offensive unit.

Your failure to understand one of my posts is hardly anything new. But which part, may I ask, did you fail to get? The part about Holcomb having several outstanding performaces? He threw for over 400 yards twice while with Cleveland, had another near-400 yard performance with them too, and had an outstanding performance against the Bengals while with the Bills. Or maybe you're confused about the whole points per game thing. If it would make things simpler for you, I can use QB rating instead. But looking at the number of points a team produces per game gives you a very rough gauge for how well the QB has managed the offense. It's not like the Bills had an outstanding running game or a great defense, so whatever points the Bills walked away with usually involved the passing game.

It all depends on how you look at Jennings. As a football player, he's clearly not worth what San Francisco paid him. But think outside the box a little here. Don't think of Jennings as a football player, so much as a really strange work of modern art. Just as the savannah is the proper setting in which to display a lion, the bench is the proper setting in which to display Jennings. Learn to look at Jennings, not through the eyes of a football fan, but through those of a modern art critic. By learning to look at Jennings as a piece of non-functional, non-aesthetic art, it will be easier to understand the price paid for him.

Between you and Al Franken, it seems everyone who claims to be "fair and balanced" has proven the opposite. Rob Johnson played behind a lousy line. People just like you criticized him for taking too many sacks. Holcomb plays behind an even worse line, and your panties are all tangled up because he takes the dump-off instead of the sack.

This post would actually be relevant if Holcomb had had only one or two good performances. But in addition to several outstanding games, he's shown weekly consistency with the Bills. Never, in a game which Holcomb played start to finish, have the Bills walked away with less than 16 points. Care to know what the Patriots' lowest score for the year was? You guessed it: 16 points.

You guys make a number of good points as to the benefits of legalization. Nonetheless, I feel the costs outweigh the benefits. Consider the tax issue. Currently, people get around paying taxes on cigarettes by buying them on Indian reservations. This loophole could be used for legalized pot. Secondly, even with taxation, legal marijuana would still be cheaper than it is now. Lower costs, greater availability, and lower social stigmas would mean higher rates of use. A certain percentage of the users would drive impaired, or expose their children to the smoke, or do other harmful things. I agree responsible parents wouldn't do this, but not all parents are responsible. While I agree marijuana is less addictive than nicotine, marijuana creates a greater disconnect with reality than does nicotine. You also have to bear in mind that if marijuana is being sold, companies would exist to sell it. These companies would run ad campaigns, lobbying efforts, etc. to try to get marijuana more broadly accepted. Would such efforts truly be helpful? Some of the benefits of legalizing pot could be had without actually legalizing it. For example, severe punishments could be instituted for lacing pot joints with harder drugs. (I know harder drugs are criminalized anyway, but you could really hammer people for lacing pot joints with them.)

I'm not going to disagree with anything in this post. But I still maintain that Roethlisberger has proven more than Shaub. Consider Rob Johnson's stellar performance in a regular season game with the Jaguars. On the basis of that performance, the Bills traded for Johnson; annointing him the QB of the future. I'm not saying that every QB who has a good game or two will become the next Rob Johnson. But you have to bear in mind that it's a possibility.

By "recreational" I mean that people use these substances because of how they make people feel, and not to cure any given illness. By "narcotic" I mean any potentially addictive substance that influences a person's brain. I'm not trying to say that everyone who drinks a can of beer is on his way to becoming an alcoholic, or producing some other socially unacceptable outcome. What I am saying is that a certain (small) percentage of people who drink alcohol will drive drunk, or become alcoholics, or drink while pregnant, or engage in other socially unacceptable behavior. Also, many non-smokers (such as many children of smokers) get exposed to a great deal of secondhand cigarette smoke. If we legalize marijuana, we should expect the same problems with it we've had with legal recreational substances: impaired driving, use while pregnant, smoking it around kids or other non-users, etc. I don't see where there'd be huge benefits to offset these costs.

Yeah, 'cause collectively we've done such a good job with the recreational narcotics we've already legalized. It's not like anyone drives drunk, or exposes anyone to secondhand cigarette smoke, or smokes or drinks while pregnant. Anyway, we need a to legalize substance that helps people escape reality, because there are too few ways to do that right now!

Thanks for putting that idea in my head!

I know you're never one to pass up the chance to hurl an insult my way, but this is stretching things even for you.

I looked at their numbers. Ben Roethlisberger had a rating of 98.1 his first year, 98.6 his second year. Matt Shaub had a rating of only 42.0 his first year, but climbed to an impressive 98.1 his second year. Keep in mind that since Shaub was a backup, he had about 1/5 the attempts as Roethlisberger in each of his two years. Both players enjoyed good OLs, good running games, and good TEs. Bottom line, Roethlisberger has proven more than Shaub, because Roethlisberger has played well for two regular seasons, and one set of playoff games. (He did badly in the Super Bowl and in last year's playoff games though.) Still, Shaub has done quite well with the opportunities he's been given, at least in his second year. Assuming he can keep that kind of production up, he'll have been a ridiculously good value for that third round pick.

You like that answer, don't you?

I assume you realize how faint this praise is.

5-11 is pretty tough to avoid when you don't have a strong core. Which we don't. The proven starters TD has acquired via draft: - Lee Evans - Willis McGahee - Aaron Schobel - Angelo Crowell - Nate Clements - Terrence McGee The solid free agents we have still in the prime of their careers: - London Fletcher - Takeo Spikes (assuming recovery from injury) - Kelly Holcomb (at least in the eyes of some) Notice few of the above players are above-average for starters. London played well this year, but he's getting older. Will he play equally well next year? Will Takeo fully recover from his injury? Will Nate Clements rise above the mistakes that plagued him in 2005? Of the players listed above, only one plays in the trenches. Maybe guys like Preston or Geisinger will work out on the OL, or maybe they won't. People are getting excited about Peters after a few good games, but remember Mike Williams had some outstanding games in the second half of 2004. Now it looks like he'll be cut. This isn't to say that every offensive lineman who has good games will become the next Mike Williams; just that we shouldn't count our chickens before they're hatched. A lot of things would have to go right to build a team with this many question marks, and this many outright holes. I think the Bills are more than a good offseason away from being able to do something.

I prefer www.NextTimeWinTheThing.com