Orton's Arm

Watch the play again.

Earlier in the game, it seemed as though the defense would often allow an 8 or 12 yard run, but would make up for it in one big play. The recovery of the Pass fumble comes to mind. But based on how easy it often seemed for the Patriots to move the ball, I suspected it would be only a matter of time before the Pats started putting serious points on the board.

An excellent post.

If I thought Losman could be the next Eli Manning, I'd have a different opinion about things. As things stand, the player on our roster who has the best chance of proving himself the QB of the future is Kelly Holcomb. Much like they made a major trade a few years earlier to get Rob Johnson to be the QB of the future, while picking up Flutie as free agent nobody else really wanted. Flutie was too old to be a long-term answer at QB; Holcomb is several years younger now than Flutie was then. I don't always agree with decisions by TD or Mularkey, but I will watch the KC game. If your point is that those losses were Holcomb's fault, you're wrong. A QB change would have done nothing to address the main problem in the Oakland game, which was the 38 points they put up against us. Nor would it have addressed the main problems in the New England game: key passes dropped by receivers, critical breakdowns in pass protection, penalties, and the defense allowing 21 points late in the game. If instead you're saying the Bills can't go anywhere this year anyway, and should think about the future, you're right. I think Holcomb is more likely to be the QB of the future than Losman, but he needs more starts to prove this, and to gain a comfort level with his receivers that will carry over into next year.

Those who are most eager to see JP play state that you need actual game experience to truly learn how to play QB in the NFL. In Holcomb's first year as starter he clearly had his ups and downs. His QB rating for that year was a mediocre 74.6. His rating has significantly improved since then. Even when a guy is getting his first starts, you expect to see flashes of greatness. Holcomb has shown that in his 400 yard performances. Yes, there's a chance this will be another flash in the pan, as Bledsoe was in the first half of 2002. There's also a chance we've found ourselves a quarterback.

The Ravens got a Super Bowl win with Trent Dilfer as QB. There was a five game stretch when the offense didn't score a TD; and Dilfer was the starter for some of those games. The Bills' offense has produced a TD in each of Holcomb's starts. Do I think that Holcomb, or any other QB, could take this particular Bills team to a Super Bowl Championship, or even a playoff win? No. But I do think that with a strong draft/offseason there is the potential for Holcomb and the Bills to do something next year.

Bledsoe was a sack waiting to happen; Holcomb isn't. Bledsoe's QB rating in 2004 was in the low to mid 70s; Holcomb's rating this year, in the same offense, with the same supporting cast, is 92.

You are right. Clearly the only problem on that Cleveland team was at QB. If they had found anything even remotely resembling an NFL QB, they would have won the Super Bowl every year Holcomb was there. That's why each of those losses was completely Holcomb's fault.

I never said the play was designed to go to Moulds. Based on Holcomb's comments after the game, it sounded like the primary receiver was Parrish, and Moulds a decoy. My problem with the play call was that if you're going to use Moulds as a decoy, you should have him line up on one side of the field, and your intended targets on the other. Moulds could then run past the first down marker. If everyone is covered, Holcomb can throw to Moulds anyway, because Moulds is a tall, physical receiver who can catch a jump ball. I don't have the game on tape, so for the sake of argument I'll agree that the play would have worked out better had Holcomb waited and thrown to Shaud Williams. But in general, you want your QB to have a clock inside his head, because otherwise someone will come from the blindside and sack him. It's easy for Jim Kelly to say that Holcomb should have waited, because Kelly's best days in Buffalo were spent playing behind the likes of Kent Hull, Jim Ritcher, Will Wolford, Howard Ballard. When you're playing behind players like Teague and Anderson, you need to expect the worst.

I didn't say that Holcomb was as good a player as Joe Montana. While I think Holcomb has the potential to have a good career, his accomplishments are quite small in comparison with Montana's. On the other hand, I have to admit to looking at Montana's career QB rating of 92.3 and comparing it to Holcomb's rating with the Bills of 92.0. But that's not a fair comparison because when Montana played, defenses were allowed to do more to the receiver than they can do now. Also, it's one thing to compile a nice QB rating over the course of a few games--which Holcomb has done here in Buffalo--and another to do that over an entire career. Montana had the gift of hitting his receivers in perfect stride, giving them the best chance to make yards after the catch. I haven't seen as much of that from Holcomb. Also Montana was more mobile than Holcomb, helping his team in ways that don't show up in QB ratings. Still, I think back to Holcomb's 400 yard performances, and I wonder how much he could achieve in a stable situation, with good pass protection, and receivers who didn't have the drops ours did yesterday. While I don't think Holcomb is as good as Montana, I do think there's a chance the Bills could get a Super Bowl win with Holcomb under center, so long as they were strong elsewhere. You're not going to win very many Super Bowl rings with players named Anderson manning the line of scrimmage.

Joe Montana also focused on throwing short to intermediate passes. Maybe he was just a journeyman quick fix too, something to get the 49ers by until their QB of the future was ready.

A play which, even if it went down as an incomplete pass, would not have materially affected his QB rating. He eluded the initial wave of defenders by moving backwards. Since they were coming from both directions, he couldn't roll out to his left or his right. After having moved backwards he was still inside the tackle box. Merely throwing the ball out of bounds wasn't an option unless he wanted to take the intentional grounding penalty. But immediately after he stopped moving, the second wave of unblocked defenders arrived to make the sack. I find it strange that, on a play in which the Bills' blockers may as well have been on the sideline, the QB is the one who gets all the criticism. A poor play. Interceptions really hurt your rating. Since Holcomb's rating is so good, that play is clearly not typical of him. The worst playcall Tom Clements made all game. The throw to Moulds wasn't a good choice, but none of the other options Holcomb had been given would have been good choices either. That's because this team won't go anywhere until TD stops using all his high draft picks on offensive skill position players, and starts doing something about the offensive line. He also needs to address the defense, especially the defensive line. Neither does Tom Brady. Blame the playcalling and the offensive line for not providing the time needed for a player like Evans to get open deep. And this is a criticism of Holcomb because . . . ?

There were some dropped passes and some other stuff that contributed to those three FGs. I'd like to see better playcalling in the red zone. I'd also like it if our offensive line could develop to the point where it could provide pass protection for more plays like the long TD to Moulds. Last year it seemed like Lee Evans came away with a 40 yard pass play just about every game. We should be going deep to him at least twice a game this year, but for whatever reason we're not. People assume that Losman is our QB of the future, but why do we need a QB of the future when we've got a guy who, at least based on QB rating, is playing like he's one of the best QBs all-time? A guy like that is plenty good enough. Just build around him, invest in the offensive line for crying out loud, retool the defense, and prepare for the future.

A weak arm was the biggest reason why Joe Montana was available in the 3rd round. Anyway, Holcomb's arm looked fine to me when he was throwing that nice long TD pass to Moulds.

For some perspective on the good QB ratings Holcomb's been having with the Bills, look at THIS: http://profootballhof.com/history/release....release_id=1264 Of the 20 QBs with the highest career passer ratings ever, the best was 96.8, number 20 was 83.4. Holcomb has achieved a career passer rating of 80.1, and this year with the Bills his rating is 92.0. (See the following for proof.) http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1624 So I'm having a hard time understanding why so many people insist on handing him that journeyman label when the numbers say he's something more.

We merely lost the Patriots game, but were humiliated against the Raiders. The Pats loss was more frustrating, the Raiders loss more depressing. I'd rather be frustrated than depressed, so I voted for the Raiders loss.

Dude, he's just saying Moulds doesn't provide good value for the cap space he uses; an opinion which is almost certainly correct. The main problem with cutting Moulds is that unless you're a Sam Aiken fan, there's no big, tall, physical receiver on the roster to take his place. There are too many needs on this team already--especially on the offensive and defensive lines--to have it make sense for us to use a high draft pick on a WR. That leaves free agency. The problem is that a guy you think will be available after the year is done might sign an extension, just as McGee did the other week. So the Bills' two main choices are to sign a free agent replacement first, and then cut Moulds, or else to give Moulds a pay cut. I guess a third choice would be to write next year off as a rebuilding year, and live without a true replacement.

And your basis for this opinion is . . . ?

Yes it is. Getting open is more than raw speed, it also involves deception, making moves, stuff like that. Things that Parrish has no experience doing on a professional level. Things that typically take a WR about three years to master. If Moulds' purpose is to be a decoy and absorb coverage men, fine. Line him up on one side of the field, and your intended targets on the other. Then have Moulds run past the first down marker so that if your intended targets are covered, your QB still has the option of throwing a jump ball to a tall, physical target. If you want to give your QB a dump-off option, have said option be McGahee, because that's the guy most able to break tackles and create yards on his own.

When you think about it, the New England secondary was banged up. They had guys out there who had been on the roster for only two weeks. Two weeks! Instead of using Moulds to attack that weakness on a must-have play, they're using him as a decoy?

Good point. Bledsoe has had more success with Parcells than he's had with Belichick, Gregg Williams, or Mike Mularkey. Some of it's the coaching--Bledsoe was a bad fit for the Weis and Clements offenses--and some of it's probably Parcells getting inside Drew's head and maybe making him mad.

I completely agree. That was a terrible call, and it really put Holcomb in a position to fail.

For crying out loud! If the QB gets rid of the ball quickly, he's a coward who can't stand being hit. But if he holds onto it for a long time--a la Bledsoe or the widely celebrated Robert Johnson--he's a sack waiting to happen.

Before you come to that conclusion, bear in mind what Drew did in 2004 as opposed to what Holcomb has done this year. For both QBs, it was the first year in the Mularkey/Clements system. They were both throwing to basically the same group of guys--Moulds, Evans, Reed, Campbell, McGahee. They both had the McGahee running game. They both had the same lousy line, though actually the line did fairly well in the second half of the 2004 season. In these roughly identical circumstances, Holcomb has achieved a significantly higher passer rating than Bledsoe. The offense has achieved decent point totals under Holcomb, which wasn't always the case last year with Bledsoe.

The Bledsoe the Bills saw the last two and a half years isn't the same Bledsoe who did so well in his early years with New England. In his last year with the Bills, Bledsoe's passer rating was in the low 70s, while Holcomb's rating this year has been much higher--in the 90s the last time I checked. Bledsoe is better than Holcomb at taking advantage of good protection, while Holcomb is better at making the most of bad protection. Since TD has elected to have a second-rate line, Holcomb is the better QB for Buffalo.