Jump to content

Cowher the Cowher is Cowher for Cowher in Cowher's Cowher

bills_red

By bills_red
in The Stadium Wall Archives

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 954
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

papazoid All Pro

papazoid

Posted
Posted
We need Joe Logan, we need him to create another report. The threads have been lacking lately without him.

 

Hey Jumping Joe Logan where did you go????

 

 

i emailed Joe Logan a link to the You-tube video that makes fun of him regarding cowher.......he emailed me back saying... "My wife was upset, but it was one of the funniest things I have ever seen.."

 

 

btw....he came out with a report late last night.....

 

http://eastaurora.org/article.aspx?artno=1237

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillnutinHouston All Pro

BillnutinHouston

Posted
Posted
i emailed Joe Logan a link to the You-tube video that makes fun of him regarding cowher.......he emailed me back saying... "My wife was upset, but it was one of the funniest things I have ever seen.."

 

 

btw....he came out with a report late last night.....

 

http://eastaurora.org/article.aspx?artno=1237

 

Hey, your link is kind of like the one I attached at the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garbag3man Practice Squad

garbag3man

Posted
Posted
"Wins as a starter as stat" = FAIL.

 

Check out these hot "wins as a starting QB" stats:

A) 7-18

B) 24-15

C) 10-18

D) 18-14

 

A is Troy Aikman's first two seasons. He started out 0-11.

B is Wade Wilson's "wins" through 1989.

C is Jim Kelly's first two seasons. He started out 4-12.

D is Jim Everett's first three seasons of starts.

 

You see where I'm going with this, and we've been over this a billion times on this board. Are B and D predictors or indicators of higher levels of skill and talent at QB? Only someone who's never watched a game of football would think so (and I'm sure you'd agree). The "Wins as starter" stat ignores the team around the player and suggests too much credit for what the QB does, 99% of the time. I don't think much of any of the QBs on the roster at this point though I'm intrigued by Brohm's potential. Still, this is a BS stat that proves zilch. Most of the QB stats on this roster point to a conspiracy of bad QBing, horrible system(s), and lack of talent around the QB onfield and on the sidelines.

 

This is the problem that I see with this argument. If we were a fanbase, and a team that actually believed that developing a QB over time was something we should be doing, this would be a good argument. But all I see is how bad we have gotten.

 

They listed Trent's record over the first 30 games as 14-16, while you just listed Kelly's WL over the first 28 as 10-18. All I see this proving is that we, as a fan base, and as a team, don't have the patience to let a QB develop.

 

I am in no way saying that I think Trent is Jim Kelly, or even will be a great QB, but if we were like this when Kelly was 10-18, we would have been running him out of town, and bringing in Reich as soon as possible. And if he had won one single game, we would have appointed him QB and made sure Kelly never started again.

 

I think we need to start anew (LeFevour please?) however if we get a real HC that wants to put Edwards in at QB, I am not going to argue with him, as we haven't actually developed a QB since Kelly. This is why we spend 15 years searching for the next JK, because we don't have the patience to see how good the QB's we actually have are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RuntheDamnBall All Pro

RuntheDamnBall

Posted
Posted
This is the problem that I see with this argument. If we were a fanbase, and a team that actually believed that developing a QB over time was something we should be doing, this would be a good argument. But all I see is how bad we have gotten.

 

They listed Trent's record over the first 30 games as 14-16, while you just listed Kelly's WL over the first 28 as 10-18. All I see this proving is that we, as a fan base, and as a team, don't have the patience to let a QB develop.

 

I am in no way saying that I think Trent is Jim Kelly, or even will be a great QB, but if we were like this when Kelly was 10-18, we would have been running him out of town, and bringing in Reich as soon as possible. And if he had won one single game, we would have appointed him QB and made sure Kelly never started again.

 

I think we need to start anew (LeFevour please?) however if we get a real HC that wants to put Edwards in at QB, I am not going to argue with him, as we haven't actually developed a QB since Kelly. This is why we spend 15 years searching for the next JK, because we don't have the patience to see how good the QB's we actually have are.

Agreed, garbageman. It's one part poor talent, and at least an equal part poor development. I was a Losman supporter and I am glad he moved on, but I think neither he nor Trent got the support they needed to become good NFL QBs in Buffalo. In fact, I think Buffalo wrecked both of them.

 

On the flipside, both Aikman and Kelly were showing promise in year 2. There is room for a rough first year if there's progress made in the second. It seems like Bills QBs are always doing the reverse. I did see some progression in JP's game in his 2006 season, which is why I thought it bad that they changed their approach in an effort to hand things off to Trent before he had proper seasoning.

 

The proper path here would seem to be getting a stronger veteran (McNabb?) and drafting his replacement to take over in 1-2 years' time. It worked for the Pack with Favre / Rodgers, Jets with Vinny/Pennington, Cowboys with Bledsoe/Romo, the Pats with Bledsoe/Brady... and, man do I wish it could have worked out in Buffalo with Bledsoe/Losman! I still think it's the right approach to take going forward, though. If they do it on the cheap with Fitz and a future commodity it could work, but only if they're going to take the "McNabb money" and further fortify the lines and WR corps. With a few poor games from Fitz, though, a new and presumably first-time coach will feel the pressure to put in the youngster. Hopefully we're not just spinning our tires here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cornerville Veteran

Cornerville

Posted
Posted

Another spin of the coaching carousel will come and go without Bill Cowher returning to the NFL. Jerome Bettis has an idea where The Chin would like to jump back on.

 

"[The Giants are] the team that he really coveted," Bettis said on SIRIUS radio with Chris Russo Thursday. "This is where he always wanted to be. The Mara family, he's been very close to them. . . . He's known them very well and was on the inside track -- before the Giants won the Super Bowl -- for that job. And I think he's holding out for that opportunity if it presents itself."

 

Bettis on Cowher

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...