Orton's Arm

I won't. But if you compare Maddox's play in 2003 with Roethlisberger's in 2004, it's clear which QB did better.

My point had more to do with the fact that both Roethlisberger and Losman faced competition from veteran QBs who'd never quite established themselves as starters. But while Roethisberger clearly outplayed Maddox, Losman clearly didn't play as well as Holcomb.

You honestly didn't see anything wrong with JP's play other than the situation around him?

Actually, I did. I implied that even when the OL is bad, there's still a difference between a good QB and a bad one. Since Big Ben is a better QB than JP, he would have done considerably more to give the Bills confidence than what JP has done.

Not to pick on you in particular, but many of those who warn against writing Losman off after eight starts are willing to write Rivers off after zero.

I felt the same way you do back when Rob Johnson was taking all those sacks. "Put him behind a good OL and see how he does," was my thinking. But then Boomer Esiason said something on the radio that changed my mind. He said that if you're a QB playing behind a bad line, you can partially make up for it by doing more to get rid of the ball in a hurry. He blamed Johnson for part of his troubles, and I think we need to see Losman through the same lens.

Much like your post!

I agree this would have taken us to the playoffs, but how far could we really have gotten once we were there? Wouldn't it have been better to have traded up for Roethlisberger, and then not have to worry about the QB position for the next 10 - 15 years?

They said the same thing about OJ.

If you knew then what you know now, which direction would you go in?

What the Bills do at QB really depends on the mentality of the coaches. Frankly, I feel the Bills are a few years away from being a good team, so they shouldn't shy away from guys who might take 2 - 3 years to contribute such as Cutler. But if they're looking for more of a win-now situation (which is what the 87 year old owner seems to want), then you have to think Holcomb.

Thanks for the compliment. I can see where I left myself open to teasing about the Kurt Warner/Orlando Pace situation. Really, all I was trying to say was that Kurt Warner was the biggest single factor to the Rams' success during the one year they won the Super Bowl.

Was Cleveland paying him first round money? No. Did Cleveland use his presence on the roster to conclude the position of starting QB didn't need to be addressed? No. With Holcomb, the Browns were letting a guy linger on the roster, on the off chance he might amount to something. But the Bills have committed to making Losman the QB of the future, and are unlikely to seriously address the QB position while that commitment still exists. Since this is the case, Losman had better start showing something in his third year in the NFL.

Holcomb is at 21 career starts right now, so let's give him nine more starts to see if he can be the real deal.

Point taken. Actually, considering Kurt Warner threw for 300 yards five times in just eight starts, behind Arizona's trash OL, I have to give the guy credit. I mean, with numbers like those, he sounds a little like the real Kurt Warner. That's a scary thought.

I think Holcomb's underrated, and that he has a lot to offer. But I've become more pessimistic about the talent level on the overall roster, and I now consider the Bills a rebuilding team. So you really have to wonder whether it would make sense for a rebuilding team to hold on to an older player who maybe has some trade value.

I see I've collected 65% of the votes in this poll. I find that difficult to understand. Granted, I may once have started a thread about TD's poor track record picking QBs. And another thread casting a suspicious eye on Losman's dramatic improvement on his Wonderlic score. I may have indicated the Bills should examine potential replacements for Losman, beginning with Cutler. I've written Losman has done little or nothing to show he can be a good pocket passer; either in college or the NFL. I've written the Bills should be realistic about the fact Losman is probably our very own Kordell Stewart. But other than these . . . little things . . . I've been pretty neutral towards him. Sort of. In my own way.

Fair enough. Holcomb did throw for over 300 yards against the Bengals. And the Bills don't have the Cards' talent at WR.

He is going into his third year. How many more years do you want to give him?

The Patriots, at least, put toughness and intelligence ahead of athleticism. In fact, I'd say that any blocking system requires tough OL. I don't know that I'd put Mike Williams in that category.

I wasn't accusing TD of failing to spend picks on the DL. On the contrary, he spent three second round picks on DEs while he was here. But only two first day picks on OL in his five years. You could look at any one year, and say there may not have been an OL worth taking when the Bills' pick came up. But over the course of five years, that record of neglect becomes harder to justify. Some point out that other teams have built good lines with lower round picks or UDFA. That's great for them. But TD didn't find any OL starters through lower round picks or UDFA, so he should have paid the draft price for good OL. Yet the last first day OL under TD was Mike Williams in 2002. Then there's the issue of the Jennings contract. Maybe after year 2 or year 3, Jennings wasn't willing to talk extension, or was being a jerk about it. Looking at just that one case, it's not clear if the problem is Jennings being greedy, or TD being cheap. But under TD, the Bills produced the leading FA LT free agent for the year (Jennings), the most desired FA CB for the year (Winfield), and one of the most desired FA DTs for the year (Pat Williams). It seemed TD had a habit of not wanting to pay for many of the Bills' best players, at critical positions. Those guys walked long after the Butler salary cap mess had been cleaned up.

I see where you're going with this. I agree with the parts about the physical and mental toughness, mean streak, work ethic, etc. But I've heard that OL are considered a safer, higher percentage draft choice than most other positions. I'm not disagreeing with you about the magnitude of the transition from college to pro OL. But the transition from college non-OL to pro non-OL is pretty big too. Look at Josh Reed, the leading college receiver the year he was drafted. You run into a few problems when trying to build your OL with free agents: - The best OL, like Orlando Pace, will never hit the free agent market. - Other teams are trying to attract FA OL too, so you might end up having to go with plan B or plan C. - The players you do sign can get old in a hurry, or have shorter careers than you might expect. Chris Villarrial was one of the best available FA guards the year he was signed. He gave us maybe two good years of play, plus a poor (injury related) year last year. Now his position is a question mark; even though we addressed it in free agency just three years ago. And Chris has all the mental traits you want in an OL: toughness, mean streak, work ethic, etc. I'd rather draft a guy like Chris Villarrial, and keep him on the team his whole career.

Good point. You know, I've been thinking more about this Turk situation. It's a little hard to judge a QB coach, because a rookie Joe Montana + no QB coach at all > Ryan Leaf + the best QB coach ever. Take Rob Johnson for example. Sure he was a deeply flawed player here in Buffalo. But IIRC, he had even less success down in Tampa, and I imagine Jon Gruden's found excellent position coaches. Or take Chris Weinke. He didn't exactly set the world on fire under Turk, but he hasn't done anything under Turk's replacement either. As for the Aaron Brooks situation, you could look at it as Brooks being so badly coached he couldn't hold off the Todd Bouman challenge, or you could look at is as Todd Bouman being so well coached he was able to beat out Aaron Brooks. I'm still pessimistic about Turk, but I'm not as convinced now as I'd been when I first heard the news.

Why would they only coach mechanics? Why wouldn't they also teach the QB about reading defenses, adjusting for blitzes, and the other things he needs to know? If it isn't the QB coach's responsibility to teach the QB these things, then which coach does have this responsibility?

Look at it this way. The QB coach who just retired worked with Joe Montana and Boomer Esiason. His replacement has worked with Rob Johnson, Aaron Brooks, and a little league team. Feel better? Me neither.