Orton's Arm

Excellent preview, Lori.

Yeah, but that guy's list didn't include every player or every starter in the league. Only the guys who hadn't been to the Pro Bowl last year, but whom he felt deserved consideration for this year. There's no way Mike Gandy should be on that list.

The difference between Randy Moss and Terrell Owens is that the former only plays when he feels like it. I don't know that T.O.'s comments divide the locker room. To me, a divided locker room is what we had in the Flutie/Johnson days, with some of the guys pulling one way, some pulling the opposite, and the rest trying to stay out of the fray. I don't really know that anyone in the locker room other than T.O. is convinced he should be making those kinds of comments. What you have with him isn't so much a divided locker room, as it is a locker room that's fairly united, and pretty ticked at TO's big mouth. As annoying and unwanted as that situation is, it's not a cancer in the same way as Pittsburgh's Super Bowl dance was a cancer--convincing the team to celebrate before having won the AFC Championship Game. Nor is it a Jeff George kind of cancer; where that guy would randomly pick some practices to just coast through, with everyone else kind of following his lead. With T.O. on your team odds are the other players will be in an angrier mood than they otherwise would have been. Take Donovan McNabb. Prior to Rush Limbaugh's comments, McNabb was the lowest rated starting QB for the year. Afterwards, he played well enough to get his team to the Super Bowl. I know anger is better when it's directed against someone outside your team. But I'd rather have a team of angry men--even if they are angry at each other--than a team that plays without emotion. I can tell you one thing though: if T.O. comes to the Bills, he will express an opinion about whether Holcomb or Losman or some other QB should be the starter. Though hopefully this experience with the Eagles has scared him enough that he will at least tone down some of his comments.

Agreed. If someone is actively engaged in trying to kill a police officer, it's the officer's duty to respond with lethal force. The only objection I could see would be concern about someone else getting hit by the rounds instead.

France brought these problems on itself by inviting in a group of people who often had no intention of assimilating. Problems will only worsen over time due to immigration and fertility patterns. Having said that, I don't believe in collective guilt, and I feel terrible for the innocent people being harmed by these riots.

I was responding to a poster who implied that Miami, the Jets, and NE have average to lousy lines and average to lousy offensive tackles.

I don't know that anyone is saying that. What people are saying is that Willis is a great RB who does get a lot of his yards on his own. I saw a stat once where--at least in that particular game--he was getting the lion's share of his yards after first contact. Yes, there have been times this year that this line has provided good run blocking--which it seems to do better than pass protection. But if you were to take away McGahee from the Bills, and plug in some RB who was just another guy, there's no way you'd be seeing McGahee-level yardage. I'm not really sure how this contributes to the point you're trying to make. For one thing, 40% of the starters on the line this year weren't on the team last year; and 60% weren't on the team two years ago. Likewise, 60% of the line's starters from 2 years ago are no longer with the team. Also, bear in mind Henry got nearly all of the carries when he was the starter. Other teams gave the backup a bigger share of the load. So just because Henry was the 10th leading yardage RB--or whatever position he was--doesn't necessarily mean that the Bills rushing offense was anywhere near that rank.

I'd take Matt Light--the Pats' starting tackle--over Gandy any day of the week.

Nor is it what I said. I correctly wrote that McGahee generates yards "largely on his own."

Um, I don't know how to tell you this, but it's not stupid to say that Buffalo's offensive line isn't as good as Denver's. On the contrary, it's an exercise in pointing out something that should be obvious to everyone.

Your post, though depressing, rings true. It's too bad that at least in some circles, a player like Gandy is getting credit for yards which McGahee has generated largely on his own. I mean, it's not like Buffalo is another Denver. You could put a monkey behind Denver's line and he'd rush for over 1000 yards.

Posts like this demonstrate two traits of many here on the wall: 1. An either/or tendency. Anyone who is impressed by McGahee assumes he must be unimpressed by Travis Henry. Or in this case, anyone who thinks Losman has a bright future ahead of him assumes he must dislike Holcomb. 2. The tendency to judge a player based on one play. Travis was considered a hero on these boards for all the rushing yards he gave us, and for playing on a fractured leg. But then came that 4th down play when he tripped instead of going into the endzone. Before that play people saw the good but not the bad; after it people saw the bad but not the good. At least with Travis's 4th down play the playcall itself was a decent call, and gave Travis an opportunity to either look good or bad, depending on his own performance. That's more than can be said about the NE play you're referring to.

In his tenure with the Bills, he hasn't spent a first day pick on an interior lineman. Nor has he found a permanent o-line starter with any of his 2nd day picks.

The list was of players who hadn't been selected to the Pro Bowl for the previous year, but who might deserve it this year. I wonder about the list too, but mainly because Gandy is on it.

Problem is, nobody on that list is a QB or an offensive lineman, and those are two of the three pillars to a good team. The third pillar is defensive line. Just one name there, a DE who is average to above average for a starter. All teams have injuries, and none of those you mentioned hurt the team much except the Mike Williams injury. Ron Edwards was playing badly anyway, Josh Reed has done a good job as the #3 receiver (making Parrish's injury less important), and our backup CBs have done well in the absence of Kevin Thomas.

They should bench both Anderson and Teague. Or maybe Anderson should swap places with Banaan.

I was shocked when I saw Mike Gandy's name on this guy's list of players to consider for the Pro Bowl. It reminds me of the days of Ruben Brown. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9029928

A good post. I approve of the change in playcalling, and I hope the balance continues regardless of whom the Bills start at QB. Having said that, I think the intent of calling a more pass-heavy offense when Losman was in there was to force defenses to have at least a little respect for the passing game, instead of ganging up on the run. The plan certainly worked better against Houston than it did in following weeks. I loved the statement the Bills made by starting the Houston game with an empty backfield.

I vividly remember the most devastating drive inflicted upon the Bills football team. More than any other single event, this agonizing drive was responsible for how the Bills ultimately came to be seen. The Bills' no-huddle offense seemed unstoppable. In the previous game--a playoff game against the Raiders--the Bills had put up over 40 points in the first half. The offensive line gave great protection, Jim Kelly did an awesome job, and the offensive skill positions had real players. Yet the very next week, this high-powered offense watched for 15 minutes of game time--about an hour of real time--as the Giants inflicted one drive. Just one. The Giants picked up yardage in small chunks--first down, second down, third down, convert, first down, second down, third down, convert. That drive was led by a QB who--at that time--was a career backup, and was only filling in because the starter was hurt. The drive resulted in just three points--just three--to put the Giants up 20-19 with little time left on the clock. When the Bills' offense finally got back on the field, it was out of synch. The Giants' defense, meanwhile, had had plenty of time to rest. The Giants would finish the game with a 2:1 time of possession advantage. Anyone who scoffs at long, clock-grinding drives, or an offense that can eat up the clock, still has a lot to learn from that horrible, awful, agonizing game. The Bills need to do to others what the Giants did to them.

Thanks for your, um, insight. Maybe part of the reason why more running plays were called with Holcomb is that the Bills were doing a better job of moving the chains with him under center, and therefore could call more offensive plays overall.

This post is an excellent reason why you shouldn't judge a QB by his win/loss record.

Maybe they're being short-sighted and are refusing to face the reality of their situation. Maybe Losman is less ready than we've been told. Maybe they see something in Holcomb, and want to see if he's the real deal or a flash in the pan. Um, Holcomb's 92.0 passer rating is not the sign of a struggling QB. Particularly not when you're playing behind the kind of line the Bills have. To put that QB rating into perspective, a QB who finished his career with a 92 rating would have one of the top 10 career QB ratings ever--just below Joe Montana. Granted the QB rating system doesn't take everything into account, as Brandon pointed out. But even if you discount Holcomb's rating somewhat because of all the times he threw it short on 3rd and long, it's still an impressive rating. Yes, just as the Moulds penalty in NE and other receivers' dropped passes in that game cost us that particular win. (Though I blame the officials rather than Moulds for that particular penalty.) I'm not knocking Losman for his win/loss ratio or even for his overall poor performances. You'd expect those of an inexperienced player. My concern is that he hasn't shown the same flashes or other positive signs that players like Eli Manning had shown four starts into their careers. Last year I felt our defense was overrated. It piled up pretty numbers against teams with struggling offenses. But it gave up game-winning drives to Jacksonville and the Jets, it allowed Pittsburgh a game-deciding nine minute drive, and it did poorly against NE. If the averages at the end of the year looked good, it was because the defense did ridiculously well against the likes of Cleveland. An excellent point. Maybe the Bills would have been better served investing the 2nd, 5th, and 1st rounders spent on Losman into offensive linemen instead.

If the Bills had any intention of going to the playoffs, they should have fixed the offensive line. And the defensive line. And other problems. Any time your team loses a game, it's a clear sign something is wrong somewhere. Attributing all the problems your team may be having to the QB position is an excuse to ignore problems along the offensive and defensive lines. Which is more or less what TD has been doing all along anyway.

This is a more intelligent and informed post than some of the others I've seen. Clearly Johnson's rating was inflated because he'd take the sack rather than throw the ball away. Sacks hurt your team more than incompletions, even though they don't show up in ratings. If it's 3rd and 10 and Holcomb throws to his dump-off option, there's always a chance that the player who made the catch will make a few moves and get a first down. Even if he only gets five yards, that's still five more yards of field position than you would have gotten with an incomplete pass. So Holcomb deserves some credit, though admittedly not as much as if he'd completed an 11 yard pass. What I would like to see is how well Holcomb does on converting 3rd downs in passing situations, versus how well other QBs do in converting 3rd downs when throwing. Though you have to take into account that few QBs would do well at converting 3rd and long behind the joke of a line Buffalo has.

Yeah, judging a QB by win/loss record makes sense, because neither coaches nor other players affect the outcome of a game in any way, shape, or form.