RuntheDamnBall Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I say keep JP off the field until he starts to exhibit the same kind of dominance in practice that Carson Palmer showed his rookie year. When (or if) he's mastered practice, it will then be time to throw him to the wolves. If Losman isn't practicing well by the end of the year, and if the Bills aren't sold on Holcomb, TD might want to take a long, hard look at the QBs available in the first round of this upcoming draft. If there's a way to get out of using yet another first round pick on a QB of the future, I'm all for it. That's why I'm eager for Holcomb to be given a chance. Losman gets his chance too: if he looks dominant in practice in the second half of this season, the Bills should give him next year to prove himself. 494084[/snapback] You can't be dominant in practice when you don't get first-team reps. The team has to prepare for the opponent in the week ahead and rarely has time for an out-and-out QB competition. That's why those kind of things usually tear teams apart. And from what part of your azz do you pull out that Carson Palmer had "dominant" practices? Or does it just suit your crusade? Aikman, Manning, Manning, Palmer, Brees, to name just a very few: winning QBs who sucked their first year, maybe more. There's a learning curve. Teams that are not patient with it, and don't call plays that put their team in a position to succeed, will suffer and repeat the cycle over and over again. If you think there's an upside, that Kelly Holcomb is going to get any better than he is right now, you are out of your freaking mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Nope...His point was that Holcomb has done nothing to change the way thisteam plays... Let's take a closer look at the two losses. The defense gave up 38 points, so it's less than clear to me why they bothered making such a long plane trip. The same could be said about the offensive line. McGahee produced little. That wasn't his fault so much as it was the fault of the line, and the result of the playcalling. On a team with no defense, no line, and no running game, it doesn't matter much who your QB is. Even if you found a QB who combined the toughness of Johnny Unitas, the accuracy and touch of Joe Montana, the mobility of Michael Vick, and the arm strength of Terry Bradshaw and plugged him in as your QB, that Oakland game would still be a loss. Holcomb had a solid overall performance in the New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) game. His numbers, while good, would have been even better had it not been for drops by players like Josh Reed, the pass interference penalty against Moulds, and other penalties and mistakes. I remember your excuse about how our D and Running game showed upagainst the Falcons and JP screwed everything up....forgetting that our D gave up 230+ yards on offense.... Holcomb alone threw for more yards than that against the Patriots. Now against the Pats, we had a 136 yard rusher....controlled the clock for39 minutes and still came up short.....and the final score due to a fumble by the QB with 4 minutes to go...... No mention of the offensive lineman whose ole block allowed the blindside rusher to arrive so quickly? If plays like that are the fault of the offensive skill position player rather than the offensive lineman, maybe TD should draft more offensive skill position players, and fewer offensive linemen. Oh wait . . . nevermind. Point is KH is a backup and he has been given 17 oppurtunities to start inthe NFL and his audition has proved that he will be no more than a backup.. 494086[/snapback] You are good at ignoring things which don't support your point of view. Holcomb is currently the 7th rated passer for 2005. Not bad for a guy who is in his first year in the Mularkey/Clements offense, who didn't get the snaps in training camp, and who hasn't had much chance to develop chemistry with his receivers. Aren't you at least curious about whether he can continue this level of performance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 You can't be dominant in practice when you don't get first-team reps. The team has to prepare for the opponent in the week ahead and rarely has time for an out-and-out QB competition. That's why those kind of things usually tear teams apart. And from what part of your azz do you pull out that Carson Palmer had "dominant" practices? Or does it just suit your crusade? 494089[/snapback] I read an article about Carson Palmer and his work with the scout team. During his rookie year, he earned the respect of his teammates by gradually learning to do an incredible job with the scout team. He still had his first-year starter struggles, but ultimately his good performance with the scout team carried over to game day. If Losman can't consistently complete a simple pass to a player like Moulds in practice, the Bills can safely assume he won't be able to do it on a consistent basis when playing for keeps. The Bills need to evaluate Losman by how well he does in practice, while also seeing whether Holcomb can maintain the gaudy QB rating he's achieved so far this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Let's take a closer look at the two losses. The defense gave up 38 points, so it's less than clear to me why they bothered making such a long plane trip. The same could be said about the offensive line. McGahee produced little. That wasn't his fault so much as it was the fault of the line, and the result of the playcalling. On a team with no defense, no line, and no running game, it doesn't matter much who your QB is. Even if you found a QB who combined the toughness of Johnny Unitas, the accuracy and touch of Joe Montana, the mobility of Michael Vick, and the arm strength of Terry Bradshaw and plugged him in as your QB, that Oakland game would still be a loss. Holcomb had a solid overall performance in the New Bruschi (We're not worthy!) (We're not worthy!) game. His numbers, while good, would have been even better had it not been for drops by players like Josh Reed, the pass interference penalty against Moulds, and other penalties and mistakes. Holcomb alone threw for more yards than that against the Patriots. No mention of the offensive lineman whose ole block allowed the blindside rusher to arrive so quickly? If plays like that are the fault of the offensive skill position player rather than the offensive lineman, maybe TD should draft more offensive skill position players, and fewer offensive linemen. Oh wait . . . nevermind. You are good at ignoring things which don't support your point of view. Holcomb is currently the 7th rated passer for 2005. Not bad for a guy who is in his first year in the Mularkey/Clements offense, who didn't get the snaps in training camp, and who hasn't had much chance to develop chemistry with his receivers. Aren't you at least curious about whether he can continue this level of performance? 494099[/snapback] You are conviniently putting the blame on the rest of the team during the losses (when such a thing was prohibited by you when JP was starting)....Like not running McGahee during the losses to TB and Saints, or how bad the line looked against the Falcons for pass protection...pass drops.... Please...don't bring up the 7th rated passer for 2005 stats......He is 2-2 in the win-loss column with 2 wins against wretched teams at home and 2 losses on the road....Brady probably was in the bottom half of the passer rating during his SB years....but his win-loss record speaks for itself... Anyways the point was when JP was pulled and we won against the Jets/Phins folks like you were gloating how KH changed the dynamics and was the tonic we need to get us into the playoffs, ignoring the same problems you just described above (Bad OL, WRs dropping catches, Bad Defense etc...). Since then KH is 0-2 in two road games....and now the problems are all exactly the ones we described 4 games before..... This team is not going anywhere (mathematically eliminated or not)....I would rather play for the long term future of this franchise than to have a shortsighted view.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I don't know that having a 92 passer rating means a QB is playing well, but I am fairly certain, unless you are winnnig a lot of games, having a 59 QB rating is an indication that a QB is not playing well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risin Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I don't know that having a 92 passer rating means a QB is playing well, but I am fairly certain, unless you are winnnig a lot of games, having a 59 QB rating is an indication that a QB is not playing well... 494114[/snapback] Ooh, BURN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I don't know that having a 92 passer rating means a QB is playing well, but I am fairly certain, unless you are winnnig a lot of games, having a 59 QB rating is an indication that a QB is not playing well... 494114[/snapback] How does ratings matter...what counts at the end of the day is the numbers in the win-loss columns... Last year Big Ben was statistically one of the poor performers...but he was 15-1 during the season..... The bills are not going anywhere with a QB with 92 rating if they are 0-2 in his last 2 starts or 2-2 in his last 4 starts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Please...don't bring up the 7th rated passer for 2005 stats......He is 2-2 inthe win-loss column with 2 wins against wretched teams at home and 2 losses on the road Please, don't bring up a QB's individual level of performance (as measured by QB rating). Hold him accountable for things outside his control, like whether the defense all but ensures a loss by giving up 38 points to Oakland. ....Brady probably was in the bottom half of the passer ratingduring his SB years....but his win-loss record speaks for itself... Tom Brady's career passer rating is the 6th best ever, at 88.1: http://profootballhof.com/history/release....release_id=1264 But don't worry. I'm sure there's no connection between his high QB rating and those Super Bowl wins. It's just a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Last year Big Ben was statistically one of the poor performers...but he was 15-1 during the season..... 494126[/snapback] Did you sleep through the 2004 season? Roethlisberger was not a poor performer, statistically, ever. In fact, he finished the season with a 98.2 QB rating. If you look at his numbers from last year, they are downright Holcombish! Sorry Ganoosh, if you hate Holcomb and love Losman, just say so. Quit making BS up! Maybe it has been so long since we have seen decent QB play, a lot of us are forgetting what it looks like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I don't know that having a 92 passer rating means a QB is playing well, but I am fairly certain, unless you are winnnig a lot of games, having a 59 QB rating is an indication that a QB is not playing well... 494114[/snapback] A 59 is bad, but it will never get better sitting on the bench of a bad team. He needs to play to improve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Maybe it has been so long since we have seen decent QB play, a lot of us are forgetting what it looks like... 494197[/snapback] You hit the nail on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 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. 493011[/snapback] I would amend this to say "until TD recognizes that OL is a skill position and fills the position with skilled players". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Did you sleep through the 2004 season? Roethlisberger was not a poor performer, statistically, ever. In fact, he finished the season with a 98.2 QB rating.If you look at his numbers from last year, they are downright Holcombish! Sorry Ganoosh, if you hate Holcomb and love Losman, just say so. Quit making BS up! Maybe it has been so long since we have seen decent QB play, a lot of us are forgetting what it looks like... 494197[/snapback] Roethlisberger statistically had an average year...He might have had a high QB rating...but he hardly threw more than 20 times....Plus he had that big running game to back him. I don't hate KH.....He is a backup QB who is not going to take this team to the superbowl....but given the chance for JP he might take us in 3-4 years. Again...I said "MIGHT"....Wasn't this the same reason we let Bledsoe go... We knew we were never going to win with Bledsoe at the controls....and we don't have a chance for KH as the QB...and I don't think KH is going to be the QB of this team the next 3 years to take us to the SB.....But if JP was given a chance, may be he does have a chance to give us dream..... The only way for us to know about JP or even for him to get achance is to play him.... My point of all these posts are that whether having KH or JP at the helm doesn't matter....this team has much bigger holes in other positions to have a realistic chance at the playoffs...People like dawgg, holocombs_arm keep talking about how KH has made a differenece......Does that difference make us such a better contender that we can win the SB this year...No... BTW, my userid is ganesh not ganoosh..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts