What happens to us if Cutler goes first?

[BoondckCL]

"No one is saying he's the best quarterback available, are they? I still think Leinart should go first.

 

What I'm saying is that these so called negative sides that you are posting just aren't there. In fact, a lot of what the media is saying about Vince isn't true if you have been following his career, and the things he HAS had some problems with they aren't talking about."

 

I know you aren't saying that, what the innitial argument was that we should trade up for Vince Young because Losman has some how been labeled a bust. I wasn't accusing you of saying he was the best quarterback available, i think you took it that way with my first post.

[Sisyphean Bills]

A few reasons to shy away from Vince Young.

 

His style of play. He's a 6'5" newer, shiny version of Michael Vick. His arm and accuracy. Isn't he retarded? The basic QB hype factor. (Newsflash: the Texas Longhorns won the Rose Bowl, not Vince Young.) High QB draft picks are more likely to be busts than smart, positive draft moves. In the Bills case, who plays QB is irrelevant until they can put some talent in many other huge gaping holes across the roster.

[Ghost of BiB]

A few reasons to shy away from Vince Young.

 

His style of play.  He's a 6'5" newer, shiny version of Michael Vick.  His arm and accuracy.  Isn't he retarded?  The basic QB hype factor. (Newsflash: the Texas Longhorns won the Rose Bowl, not Vince Young.)  High QB draft picks are more likely to be busts than smart, positive draft moves.  In the Bills case, who plays QB is irrelevant until they can put some talent in many other huge gaping holes across the roster.

617997[/snapback]

 

Got to agree there.

 

I'm still trying to figure out the "draft QB's" threads.

 

And BTW...please don't sign Ramsey.

[Ctown]

I am amazed to hear all the people talk about Losman and the possiblity of drafting one of the quaterbacks in the first round. You people need to get a grip on reality.

 

1) Marv has said that you build a team from the inside out. That inside being the guys in the trenches. There is no way we will take a skill position with the first pick. Nor will we ever trade up. Its too expensive to move up. It would cost us a good player, and maybe a 1st pick next year. Not only expensive in the draft, its is expensive in $$$.

 

2) There is a lot of talent in the first round. The hype surrounding the "best" players in the draft will have faded in October and December. I'm sure SF fans are loving that Alex Smith pick right now?

 

3) Losman. All I have to say about this is; give the guy another 2 years at least. It takes some quaterbacks a while to get it. There are a few QB's that I can think of that took them a few years to get it. Hasseleback, Delhomme, Gannon are three that come to mind right away. Look at the development of Simms in TB. People have been wanting to write him off for a while now. Very few QB's are in the Brady, Big Ben mold where they have sucess right out of the gates. You could have easily said the same things about Eli Mannining after his first year; "He hasnt show he has what it takes" etc.

 

4) People around here love the players when they are good, but they are also quick to turn on them. Its frankley embarrasing. Lets hope your boss has some more faith in you after you screw up. People forget that at one point people wanted Frank Riech to start instead of Jimbo. Remember "Do the Riech thing!"

 

5) All of the top 3 QB's in the draft will have forgetable years.

[JDG]

3) Losman.  All I have to say about this is; give the guy another 2 years at least.  It takes some quaterbacks a while to get it.  There are a few QB's that I can think of that took them a few years to get it.  Hasseleback, Delhomme, Gannon are three that come to mind right away.  Look at the development of Simms in TB.  People have been wanting to write him off for a while now. 

 

This is part of the fallacy that there is "only one level of bad" - or in other words "QB was X bad when he first started, JP Losman was first started, therfore no worries." This logic isn't much different from "God is Love, Love is Blind, Ray Charles is Blind, therfore Ray Charles is God!"

 

Matt Hasselbeck in his first starts as a 2nd year and 3rd year QB completed 53% of his passes. Delhomme completed 55% of his passes in two games as rookie, and when he next played for Carolina three years later he completed 59% of his passes. Even Rich Gannon, who was pretty bad in his first year as a starter as a third-year QB managed to hit 52% of his passes. Gannon got up to 59.6% the next year though. Chris Simms hit 57.5% of his passes as a rookie, and hit 61% this past year in leading his team into the playoffs in a tough division.

 

The funny thing is, I don't think that Chris Simms is very good, and we all know that Rich Gannon wasn't any good when he first started. Matt Hasselbeck nearly got Mike Holmgren fired his first few years. And yet, JP Losman has so far been measurably far worse than any of these players.

 

Folks, it is *not* the reaction of a knee-jerk angry mob to be concerned about Losman's performance last year. Losman has to improve a lot to simply get to the level of being a "bad" NFL QB. It will take even more to get to the level of decent next year - which is what we are all hoping for. Based on what we say this past year, Levy and Jauron would be very, very, foolish to not have a "Plan B" mulling around in the back of their minds "just in case."

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

This is part of the fallacy that there is "only one level of bad" - or in other words "QB was X bad when he first started, JP Losman was first started, therfore no worries."    This logic isn't much different from "God is Love, Love is Blind, Ray Charles is Blind, therfore Ray Charles is God!"

 

Matt Hasselbeck in his first starts as a 2nd year and 3rd year QB completed 53% of his passes.  Delhomme completed 55% of his passes in two games as rookie, and when he next played for Carolina three years later he completed 59% of his passes.  Even Rich Gannon, who was pretty bad in his first year as a starter as a third-year QB managed to hit 52% of his passes.  Gannon got up to 59.6% the next year though.  Chris Simms hit 57.5% of his passes as a rookie, and hit 61% this past year in leading his team into the playoffs in a tough division.

 

The funny thing is, I don't think that Chris Simms is very good, and we all know that Rich Gannon wasn't any good when he first started.  Matt Hasselbeck nearly got Mike Holmgren fired his first few years.  And yet, JP Losman has so far been measurably far worse than any of these players. 

 

Folks, it is *not* the reaction of a knee-jerk angry mob to be concerned about Losman's performance last year.  Losman has to improve a lot to simply get to the level of being a "bad" NFL QB.  It will take even more to get to the level of decent next year - which is what we are all hoping for.    Based on what we say this past year, Levy and Jauron would be very, very, foolish to not have a "Plan B" mulling around in the back of their minds "just in case."

 

JDG

618046[/snapback]

Did you watch the games? If JP was asked to drop back and throw short passes on first and second down like the game plan for Holcomb was, he would have completed 55+% like you are suggesting is way better. He simply wasn't. Was he inaccurate at times? Yes, and it was when he was rattled in that 3-4 game stretch early in the season. But he was asked to throw the ball downfield way, way more than Holcomb was, by play-call not by decision, and then on 3rd and long he tried to pick up the first down, or would scramble and avoid a sack by throwing the ball away, all of which drastically lowers your %.

[The Dean]

Folks, it is *not* the reaction of a knee-jerk angry mob to be concerned about Losman's performance last year. 

JDG

618046[/snapback]

 

 

It really REALLY is, JDG. No definative conclusions (either way) can be drawn about JP right now.

[JDG]

Folks, it is *not* the reaction of a knee-jerk angry mob to be concerned about Losman's performance last year. Losman has to improve a lot to simply get to the level of being a "bad" NFL QB. It will take even more to get to the level of decent next year - which is what we are all hoping for. Based on what we say this past year, Levy and Jauron would be very, very, foolish to not have a "Plan B" mulling around in the back of their minds "just in case."

 

It really REALLY is, JDG.  No definative conclusions (either way) can be drawn about JP right now.

618053[/snapback]

 

Since when is "concern" a definitive conclusion? I'm not saying that Losman should be cut. I am not saying that we should trade up to get one of the Big 3 QB's (but if one of them were on the board, I would think for a very long time about it!) I am saying this:

 

1) Kelly Holcomb should be the starter until JP Losman proves in practice that he is the better QB *right now*.

 

2) Levy and Jauron should at least have some ideas in their head for what happens if next year Losman is still a sub-50% or even still a sub-55% passer; or if Losman fails to complete a full NFL season for the third year in a row. This should involve either a free agent acquisition, or better yet, a mid-round draft acquisition of a QB.

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

1) Kelly Holcomb should be the starter until JP Losman proves in practice that he is the better QB *right now*.

 

2) Levy and Jauron should at least have some ideas in their head for what happens if next year Losman is still a sub-50% or even still a sub-55% passer; or if Losman fails to complete a full NFL season for the third year in a row.    This should involve either a free agent acquisition, or better yet, a mid-round draft acquisition of a QB. 

 

JDG

618077[/snapback]

There's a big problem with that. Losman likely will show in practice that he deserves to start. Because he will be able to run and scramble and bootleg and throw deep and they can do all kinds of things with him. Holcomb will be better at throwing his 5-15 yard passes quickly and accurately. It is only in the games when there are live bullets and the game speeds up that you find out if Losman is ready or not.

 

Of course, that is why Losman is going to start opening day 2006.

[JDG]

Did you watch the games? If JP was asked to drop back and throw short passes on first and second down like the game plan for Holcomb was, he would have completed 55+% like you are suggesting is way better. He simply wasn't. Was he inaccurate at times? Yes, and it was when he was rattled in that 3-4 game stretch early in the season. But he was asked to throw the ball downfield way, way more than Holcomb was, by play-call not by decision, and then on 3rd and long he tried to pick up the first down, or would scramble and avoid a sack by throwing the ball away, all of which drastically lowers your %.

618050[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, Kelly I benefited from the fact that I never got the chance to see JP Losman's most putrid performances in Weeks 2-4. I did, however, get to watch JP's second stint as a starter. On two occasions, vs. Carolina and @Miami, I observed that JP Losman "needed to start playing beter" early in the second half. Those people around me, particularly in the Carolina game, replied "what, JP Losman looks like he is playing good to me." I response, I noted that yes, JP Losman is playing good (and these were two of his better games), but he is playing just good enough for us to lose. Sure enough, we lost both of those games.

 

I don't think that JP Losman would have completed 55% of his passes with a different gameplan, because I think that last year he simply wasn't capable of it. I am hopeful that he will be capable of it this year. Holcomb, by the way, completed 67% of his passes to the same WR's that JP Losman was under the Mendoza Line for. If the coaches did call more runs under JP than Kelly, I think the easiest explanation is that you call more passes when they have a 65% chance of being completed, than when there is less than a 50% chance of completed.

 

Of course, I am not at all convinced that there is the play-calling difference that you propose. To test your theory out, I decided to look at Bills' playcalling on 1st and 10 outside of 2 minutes for some select games. To be fair to your theory, I tried to exclude games where JP got blown out (which was a lot), and games in JP's "putrid stretch" at the start of the season. So, JP Losman vs. Carolina - 9 runs and 5 passes. Aha! you say! But let's look at Holcomb @ Cincy - 9 runs and 6 passes. Holcomb vs. Miami - 13 runs and 9 passes. How about JP Losman's other "mediocre game" ;-) - vs. Kansas City? 7 Runs and 5 passes. Holcomb in the same game? 3 Runs and 2 Passes. So, its an interesting theory that play-calling accounts for the difference KFBD, but I don't see any evidence for it yet.

 

I think it is far more likely that JP Losman simply sucked, to occasionally rising to the level of mediocrity, in most of the games that we have seen of him so far.

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually, Kelly I benefited from the fact that I never got the chance to see JP Losman's most putrid performances in Weeks 2-4.    I did, however, get to watch JP's second stint as a starter.  On two occasions, vs. Carolina and @Miami, I observed that JP Losman "needed to start playing beter" early in the second half.  Those people around me, particularly in the Carolina game, replied "what, JP Losman looks like he is playing good to me."    I response, I noted that yes, JP Losman is playing good (and these were two of his better games), but he is playing just good enough for us to lose.  Sure enough, we lost both of those games.

 

I don't think that JP Losman would have completed 55% of his passes with a different gameplan, because I think that last year he simply wasn't capable of it.  I am hopeful that he will be capable of it this year.  Holcomb, by the way, completed 67% of his passes to the same WR's that JP Losman was under the Mendoza Line for.    If the coaches did call more runs under JP than Kelly, I think the easiest explanation is that you call more passes when they have a 65% chance of being completed, than when there is less than a 50% chance of completed. 

 

Of course, I am not at all convinced that there is the play-calling difference that you propose.  To test your theory out, I decided to look at Bills' playcalling on 1st and 10 outside of 2 minutes for some select games.  To be fair to your theory, I tried to exclude games where JP got blown out (which was a lot), and games in JP's "putrid stretch" at the start of the season.  So, JP Losman vs. Carolina - 9 runs and 5 passes.    Aha! you say!  But let's look at Holcomb @ Cincy - 9 runs and 6 passes.  Holcomb vs. Miami - 13 runs and 9 passes.  How about JP Losman's other "mediocre game" ;-) - vs. Kansas City?  7 Runs and 5 passes.  Holcomb in the same game?  3 Runs and 2 Passes.    So, its an interesting theory that play-calling accounts for the difference KFBD, but I don't see any evidence for it yet. 

 

I think it is far more likely that JP Losman simply sucked, to occasionally rising to the level of mediocrity, in most of the games that we have seen of him so far.

 

JDG

618100[/snapback]

Then apparently you didnt watch the games. I am not talking about the number of play calls, I am talking about the KIND of play calls. JP was asked to drop back in the pocket, survey the field, and with an enormous rush and few open receivers, go through progressions and hit guys downfield. Holcomb was asked to take a three step drop and throw the ball 5-10 yards downfield. While that is a gross simplification, and there were numerous exceptions, it's pretty close to what happened to get us to the 67% and 49%. That and the fact that KH would dump the ball off and JP would try to make a play.

[JDG]

Then apparently you didnt watch the games. I am not talking about the number of play calls, I am talking about the KIND of play calls. JP was asked to drop back in the pocket, survey the field, and with an enormous rush and few open receivers, go through progressions and hit guys downfield. Holcomb was asked to take a three step drop and throw the ball 5-10 yards downfield. While that is a gross simplification, and there were numerous exceptions, it's pretty close to what happened to get us to the 67% and 49%. That and the fact that KH would dump the ball off and JP would try to make a play.

618102[/snapback]

 

Don't tell me what I did and didn't watch. I'll tell you exactly what I watched. Oh wait, I already did that.

 

I think you are grasping at straws to try and justify Losman's putrid performance. You act like the coaches were just trying to set up Losman to fail. In any event, either you have a superhuman ability to remember playcalls on 1st and 10 over the course of a season, or you have some evidence for your position that you haven't yet presented (and which I would be very interested in seeing.)

 

I think there is a much more reasonable explanation for your stated observations (presuming that your stated observations are accurate) than the coaches trying to set up JP Losman to fail.

-Kelly Holcomb simply makes faster and better reads than JP Losman. Losman, on the other hand, may have a little Bledsoe-disease in not wanting to take the 5-10 yard pattersn the defenses are giving him, and instead waiting for the big play.

-JP Losman has accuracy problems, and because Holcomb completes those passes for 5-10 yards, Holcomb gets into a lot fewer 2nd and 3rd and long situations that require sitting in the pocket long enough for receivers to get open deep down the field

-Because JP Losman has accuracy problems, teams are much less worried about JP Losman beating them with his arm. Thus, these teams gang up on the run, and send extra pass-rushers. This again gets Losman into more 2nd and 3rd and long scenarios.

 

I'm no fan of Mularkey - as you know, I really despised him this seasons - but I think its just absurd to blame Losman's terrible performance thus far on the coaches giving Kelly Holcomb better play calls than Losman.

 

JDG

[PromoTheRobot]

In reality all debates about Losman vs. Holcomb are moot because of (1) The O-line and (2) the offensive playcalling. Let Levy address the O-line first, and Fairchild the gameplan. I will defer to the coaching staff to pick the best starter, be it Losman, Holcomb, or Billy Joe Hobert.

 

But one point is indisputable (for me anyway)...You don't know what Losman's potential is after 9 games. You can't make judgements on any QB after 9 games in the NFL. Anyone who says they can is either psychic, or a liar.

 

PTR

[Kelly the Dog]

Don't tell me what I did and didn't watch.  I'll tell you exactly what I watched.  Oh wait, I already did that.

 

I think you are grasping at straws to try and justify Losman's putrid performance.  You act like the coaches were just trying to set up Losman to fail.  In any event, either you have a superhuman ability to remember playcalls on 1st and 10 over the course of a season, or you have some evidence for your position that you haven't yet presented (and which I would be very interested in seeing.)

 

I think there is a much more reasonable explanation for your stated observations (presuming that your stated observations are accurate) than the coaches trying to set up JP Losman to fail.

-Kelly Holcomb simply makes faster and better reads than JP Losman.  Losman, on the other hand, may have a little Bledsoe-disease in not wanting to take the 5-10 yard pattersn the defenses are giving him, and instead waiting for the big play.

-JP Losman has accuracy problems, and because Holcomb completes those passes for 5-10 yards, Holcomb gets into a lot fewer 2nd and 3rd and long situations that require sitting in the pocket long enough for receivers to get open deep down the field

-Because JP Losman has accuracy problems, teams are much less worried about JP Losman beating them with his arm.  Thus, these teams gang up on the run, and send extra pass-rushers.  This again gets Losman into more 2nd and 3rd and long scenarios.

 

I'm no fan of Mularkey - as you know, I really despised him this seasons - but I think its just absurd to blame Losman's terrible performance thus far on the coaches giving Kelly Holcomb better play calls than Losman.

 

JDG

618129[/snapback]

They clearly gave Holcomb better play calls and game plans. It was obvious immediately, the first few games that Holcomb played. One doesn't need any insight into the minds or superhuman abilities to count the number of steps a QB takes from the snap. When Holcomb was in, he threw far, far, far more times from a 3 step drop than JP did. And he's better at it than JP is. He's smarter, he reads defenses better, he's more accurate on these balls and he knows where and when to go with it. If it's not there he quickly sees it, far faster than JP does, and then dumps the ball off to a second and even a third receiver, all within a short period of time. It's by far his best quality. So the coaches asked him to do it. A lot. And he got his lofty completion percentage.

 

Where they screwed up with Losman was that is the same game plan they should of used with him. Not the same plays because he can't yet do what Holcomb can do, but the same kind of plays. Short, quick, safe passes. Roll outs, reverse bootlegs, WR screens, quick outs. Play action screen passes (because he already handles the ball very well on fakes).

 

But they didn't. Game one series one they asked him to drop back deep in the pocket. Game two and three and four and five same thing. Then he got murdered. Game six, Holcomb comes in and immediately they went to the short drop and quick pass game plan.

 

So yes, they did just blow it with Losman. I think it was because they fell in love with his arm, and because Mularkey just wanted to outsmart everyone, saying we have this kid and they think we're going to protect him but we're not. He can do this. And it was a gross misculation and cost him his job.

[ndirish1978]

They clearly gave Holcomb better play calls and game plans.

618135[/snapback]

 

 

Yes that's it. Losman's incompletions MUSt have been because the coaches made him throw the ball wrong. What the heck are you talking about. You get a play you execute it. you can blame coaches for poor gameplans, but don't try and say "well they were good for this guy, but they stunk for this other one" that's simply foolish.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes that's it. Losman's incompletions MUSt have been because the coaches made him throw the ball wrong. What the heck are you talking about. You get a play you execute it. you can blame coaches for poor gameplans, but don't try and say "well they were good for this guy, but they stunk for this other one" that's simply foolish.

618204[/snapback]

The issue was Losman's pass completion percentage, Aristocrat. Why it paled in comparison to Holcomb's. If you watched the games with Holcomb you would notice a far greater percentage of quick pass plays on three step drops. if you watched the games with Losman you would notice a far greater percentage of 5 and 7 step drops and deeper throws.

[JDG]

The issue was Losman's pass completion percentage, Aristocrat. Why it paled in comparison to Holcomb's. If you watched the games with Holcomb you would notice a far greater percentage of quick pass plays on three step drops. if you watched the games with Losman you would notice a far greater percentage of 5 and 7 step drops and deeper throws.

618210[/snapback]

 

Kelly -

 

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they did not watch the games.

 

Part of the problem is that Losman is just plain not nearly as quick nor as good at making reads that Holcomb. He's also much less willing to take what the defense gives him than Holcomb. So, some of that difference is Losman's Bledsoe-itis and holding onto the ball longer, even given the same playcall.

 

And let us be clear here - Losman completed less than 50% of his passes. There is zero excuse for that in any NFL offense. If you sustain a sub-50% completion percentage over 9 games you are just plain not that good. Period. For example, Ryan Fitzpatrick wasn't exactly in a dink-and-dunk offense, and he still managed to complete 56% of his passes. So, even if your theory were true, Losman was playing in an NFL offense last season, and while perhaps the difference in play calling might never have allowed him to match Holcomb's fantastic 67% passing, the simple truth remains that if Losman was *any good* last season, he would not have been sub-50%.

 

You're trying to use a detail to explain away a chasm, and it just doesn't hold water.

 

JDG

[Ramius]

Kelly -

 

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they did not watch the games.

 

Part of the problem is that Losman is just plain not nearly as quick nor as good at making reads that Holcomb.  He's also much less willing to take what the defense gives him than Holcomb.  So, some of that difference is Losman's Bledsoe-itis and holding onto the ball longer, even given the same playcall.

 

And let us be clear here - Losman completed less than 50% of his passes.  There is zero excuse for that in any NFL offense.  If you sustain a sub-50% completion percentage over 9 games you are just plain not that good.  Period.  For example, Ryan Fitzpatrick wasn't exactly in a dink-and-dunk offense, and he still managed to complete 56% of his passes.  So, even if your theory were true, Losman was playing in an NFL offense last season, and while perhaps the difference in play calling might never have allowed him to match Holcomb's fantastic 67% passing, the simple truth remains that if Losman was *any good* last season, he would not have been sub-50%.

 

You're trying to use a detail to explain away a chasm, and it just doesn't hold water.

 

JDG

618213[/snapback]

 

Ryan Fitzpatrick also threw 5 interceptions in one game. a lot of good 50% completion percentage does when you throw 4 TD and 8 INT over the 4 games you play in.

 

Also, with your little anti-losman/completion % crusade, you say that he cant maintain a 50% completion percentage. Funny how you neglect to point out that losman got increasingly better over the second part of the season compared to the first. He completeed 47% in his first 4 games, and 51% in his last 5. Taking away the new englnd debacle, his completion % over 4 games, KC, SD, Car, and Mia is 54%.

 

But you've got it in your head that JP losman sucks, so according to you, the losman of the 1st 4 games is the true losman. Never mind the fact that he made some good strides in the second half of the season.

 

And where was holcomb? oh thats right. Completing a 2 yard pass on 4th and 7. Who cares that he gave us no chance to make the first down, he completed his pass and padded his stats.

 

Christ, you with completion % are just like holcombs arm with QB rating.

[Tasker]

The ONLY guy you trade up for in this draft is D'BRICK.  PERIOD.

612673[/snapback]

 

Mario Williams? I'm not saying how much I would give up to go up and pick him, but I would much rather have him than whover is available at 8, and would be exploring all options to trade up and get him, and only decide based on how much it would cost us, not on him not being worth trading up.

 

 

 

Also, a quick hit on the Losman stuff. He threw 228 passes and completed 113 of them for 49.6%. If he completed one more that percentage would start with a 5 instead of a 4, and we would probably be a little less worried, strangely. Also, it would have taken 12 more completions to get to 55%. Not making any excuses for the guy, but a few Josh Reed drops, bad protection, playing hurt in the NE game, and terrible play calling by Mularkey factored in too.

 

After coming back from his "month off" he completed 56% against KC, 55% against SD, 55% against Carolina, all three very solid teams. We don't know what we have with him yet, but I am very optimistic. We do not take a QB in the draft this year. We start JPL 16 times in 2006 with the best team and play calling we can have around him, then evaluate more next winter.

[The Dean]

Then apparently you didnt watch the games. I am not talking about the number of play calls, I am talking about the KIND of play calls. JP was asked to drop back in the pocket, survey the field, and with an enormous rush and few open receivers, go through progressions and hit guys downfield. Holcomb was asked to take a three step drop and throw the ball 5-10 yards downfield. While that is a gross simplification, and there were numerous exceptions, it's pretty close to what happened to get us to the 67% and 49%. That and the fact that KH would dump the ball off and JP would try to make a play.

618102[/snapback]

 

 

Without reading past this post (which i will do AFTER posting this), let me just say BINGO! The game plan/plays called were totally different for these two guys. I'm thinking the coaches KNEW KH could only execute certain plays given his history. they asked him to do only what they knew he was capable of. OTOH, they were finding out what JP could do (and were likely seduced by his ability in practice) and put him in MUCH more difficult situations. Add to that the number of passes that were flat out dropped/not given total effort for, when JP was in and that pretty much explains the completion % differential.