34-78-83 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Understood. I still can't stand our Coach. Who hired him again ? 547415[/snapback] If anything , I think the players have shown that they want him as coach. (FWIW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I would agree with that. Just not sure if JP really could have played or not... 547407[/snapback] I don't think that was an issue the last two games. He would not have been made #2 and take reps in practice if he was hurt to the extent that he could not play. His injury, to his thigh, is not something that would likely hurt him further by testing it. His shoulder has been healthy for two full weeks. He could easily have played both games, IMO. Only the first one should he have been kept out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 If anything , I think the players have shown that they want him as coach. (FWIW) 547421[/snapback] Moulds has? How about Adams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Moulds has? How about Adams? 547424[/snapback] Well they've both played very well in the last 3 weeks. Moulds and MM have both been asked a million times about it and they are both atleast saying that they had a good discussion and put it behind them. But yeah when I say "the players", I don't think you can assume from that I mean "all 53 players". There's always gonna be turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amstel Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I agree. The hell with MM! I know TD is trying to save his ass but why play KH to win one more when the season is lost anyway. I have a friend who's a Jets fan who said to me "Didn't the Jets screw themselves by winning?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Mularkey wasted a Losman start by playing a CAREER NOODLE ARM BACKUP QB to help save his job. 547206[/snapback] I don't buy this logic. If you think that Wilson was going to make a decision on his coach based on whether they beat the Jets in the last game of the season, when the script is written already, then you are letting emotion penetrate your thinking. Ralph has watched the season alomg with us, and probably also knows what's going on behind the scenes. If he is going to make a move in either direction based on the outcome of this game, then he doesn't deserve to be the owner of this team, or really, we shouldn't waste our time in rooting for the organization. To me, benching of Losman indicates something more serious than the injury, and that perhaps Losman did something in the locker room that would start a player revolt if he were to play. Even if Bills won today, it wouldn't change the outlook of the season one iota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I don't buy this logic. If you think that Wilson was going to make a decision on his coach based on whether they beat the Jets in the last game of the season, when the script is written already, then you are letting emotion penetrate your thinking. Ralph has watched the season alomg with us, and probably also knows what's going on behind the scenes. If he is going to make a move in either direction based on the outcome of this game, then he doesn't deserve to be the owner of this team, or really, we shouldn't waste our time in rooting for the organization. To me, benching of Losman indicates something more serious than the injury, and that perhaps Losman did something in the locker room that would start a player revolt if he were to play. Even if Bills won today, it wouldn't change the outlook of the season one iota. 547443[/snapback] I disagree. If the Bills beat the Jets solidly, and KH had a second straight successful game. And the Bills won two straight road games. It would be easy for some people to think the team is on the right track. And that Mularkey did not lose the team but just the opposite. I don't agree with it, and think he should have played JP. But I could see how people/fans/sportswriters/players could get a feel good takeaway with two straight wins on the road at the end of the season. The Jets game alone could not do that, but once the Cinci game played out the way it did, i think the combo could have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 Well, based on Wilson's comments, something's going to change.. sounds like Mularkey gets it (at the very least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I disagree. If the Bills beat the Jets solidly, and KH had a second straight successful game. And the Bills won two straight road games. It would be easy for some people to think the team is on the right track. And that Mularkey did not lose the team but just the opposite. I don't agree with it, and think he should have played JP. But I could see how people/fans/sportswriters/players could get a feel good takeaway with two straight wins on the road at the end of the season. The Jets game alone could not do that, but once the Cinci game played out the way it did, i think the combo could have. 547456[/snapback] you know, holcomb started off poorly, but played very well the rest of the way until the end. let's not forget that the bills would probably have won the game if not for the special teams collapse with less than five minutes to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 i definately don't want either of those putzes back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 you know, holcomb started off poorly, but played very well the rest of the way until the end. let's not forget that the bills would probably have won the game if not for the special teams collapse with less than five minutes to go. 547465[/snapback] You're right let's fire Bobby April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I understand the injury angle. But Losman wasn't listed as questionable. He could have played and SHOULD have gone in during the 1st half. There may be a question to whether Losman is our our future but we'll never know if we keep benching him. There is NO QUESTION that Kelly Holcomb is NOT our future and nothing more than a decent backup, after today. I hate noodle arm, limited QB's. 5 wins 11 losses 547383[/snapback] Holcomb = AVP Did you go to the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rastabillz Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 you know, holcomb started off poorly, but played very well the rest of the way until the end. let's not forget that the bills would probably have won the game if not for the special teams collapse with less than five minutes to go. 547465[/snapback] I disagree Dave. You can't win a football game let alone one on the road by turning the football over 4 times. Your just giving the other team too many opportunites. If it wasn't the special teams it would have been something else. I mean we lost by only 4 points even with the KO return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted January 1, 2006 Author Share Posted January 1, 2006 Holcomb = AVP Did you go to the game? 547478[/snapback] Nope. Otherwise, Babyrock would have had another bodyguard. I like her dad a lot. I watched it locally with KTFABD. It was PAINFUL ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 you know, holcomb started off poorly, but played very well the rest of the way until the end. let's not forget that the bills would probably have won the game if not for the special teams collapse with less than five minutes to go. 547465[/snapback] I think he played terrible most of the game, with one or two drives that his weak passes found their mark. How can you say he played well when he had five turnovers? The Jets were one point ahead in the third quarter when they had 4 total first downs in the game. He was terrible. And he showed everything you need to know about him. He has a weak arm. he throws short passes that get his passer rating up. He throws some excellent passes that slip in seams. He drops the ball when he is hit, and often when he is not. He cannot move. He would rather get a 3 yard completion that try to make a play, and still threw four interceptions. He is a good back-up journeyman quarterback. He also had a running game most of the day and mostly all day to throw and great field position the entire game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I think he played terrible most of the game, with one or two drives that his weak passes found their mark. How can you say he played well when he had five turnovers? The Jets were one point ahead in the third quarter when they had 4 total first downs in the game. He was terrible. And he showed everything you need to know about him. He has a weak arm. he throws short passes that get his passer rating up. He throws some excellent passes that slip in seams. He drops the ball when he is hit, and often when he is not. He cannot move. He would rather get a 3 yard completion that try to make a play, and still threw four interceptions. He is a good back-up journeyman quarterback. He also had a running game most of the day and mostly all day to throw and great field position the entire game. 547486[/snapback] And this is precisely the reason that it wouldn't have mattered what the Bills had done in this game - Holcomb is a known commodity with the Bills. Win or lose this one, it doesn't change the collapse from week 4 onward. If I were the owner, I'd be looking at what caused the collapse earlier in the season, and totally discount the last game. If Mularkey's sole intention to start Holcomb was to pad the wins, don't you think that Wilson would see through the ruse (like we all do?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 And this is precisely the reason that it wouldn't have mattered what the Bills had done in this game - Holcomb is a known commodity with the Bills. Win or lose this one, it doesn't change the collapse from week 4 onward. If I were the owner, I'd be looking at what caused the collapse earlier in the season, and totally discount the last game. If Mularkey's sole intention to start Holcomb was to pad the wins, don't you think that Wilson would see through the ruse (like we all do?) 547545[/snapback] I think he will look at the overall season too. But one of the things you look for in whether a coach has lost his team is how well they play in the last few games, even if they are out of it. I think two solid wins would fool some people. To me it would have just shown that this is how they should have played all season and if anything, exaggerates how bad Mularkey has been all year. And I don't even believe that KH gives the team a better chance to win. But I do think Mularkey believes that the team can win with KH, like they showed in the Cinci game. I just don't agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 I think he will look at the overall season too. But one of the things you look for in whether a coach has lost his team is how well they play in the last few games, even if they are out of it. I think two solid wins would fool some people. To me it would have just shown that this is how they should have played all season and if anything, exaggerates how bad Mularkey has been all year. And I don't even believe that KH gives the team a better chance to win. But I do think Mularkey believes that the team can win with KH, like they showed in the Cinci game. I just don't agree with him. 547553[/snapback] I think that any rational person inside the organization has abandonded the concept of "this team has a better chance to win with (...)" ever since the Miami collapse. The QB carousel has been the story of the season. But we don't know the real reason why Losman has been on the bench the last three games. MM could have wanted to see how the team played with Holcomb at the helm to get a better gauge for next year (as all players seemed to support) to probably see if Bills may still need to replace both QBs. To me that's a totally different strategy than to put up a superficial win to save a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 To me, benching of Losman indicates something more serious than the injury, and that perhaps Losman did something in the locker room that would start a player revolt if he were to play. 547443[/snapback] Is there any evidence that something like this took place? It may just be true that Losman was/is injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 2, 2006 Share Posted January 2, 2006 Well that also makes him the best coach in our division as the next closest team is about 250 miles away!! He's the WORST coach in our division by 100 miles. 547284[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts