pkwwjd Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 If a quarterback's going to be a bust, it's usually because he can't handle the mental aspect of the game. Conversely, if a quarterback is going to be great, it's because he excels at reading defenses and throwing the ball accurately. I remember back when Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf were being drafted. Peyton Manning was described as the more "polished" of the two, while Ryan Leaf was said to have more "upside" because of his stronger arm. In other words, Manning had demonstrated a significantly stronger grasp of the mental aspect of the game than had Leaf; but Leaf was the more athletically gifted. Based on this, I developed a strong preference for Manning over Leaf--a preference which subsequent events have justified. I've also watched as most other early round quarterbacks taken for their athletic gifts have gone on to become busts--Akili Smith, Kordell Stewart, etc. If this thought process is accurate for quarterbacks in general, it's probably accurate for Losman in particular. Yes, it's about the Bills, and there's always the danger of letting one's feelings distort what should be a clear, cold, and objective thought process. But I've done my best to think about Losman in the same way I'd have thought of him had it been Green Bay that had drafted him. Has Losman done anything to show my initial thought process was incorrect? He's probably worked harder than I'd expected, and he played better in the 2006 preseason than I thought he would. He's avoided interceptions so far this year. So there are a few things here and there that he's shown. But I feel it's more likely these things are a flash in the pan than they are a sign that Losman is on his way to being the long-term answer at quarterback. Even Ryan Leaf had the occassional good game. 780629[/snapback] Hmmmm, Ryan Leaf, huh? In 25 NFL appearances (I think 21 starts), Leaf threw more TDs than INTs only 3 times. 11 times he completed more than 50% of his passes. Career Y/Att: 5.6 Career TD:INT 14:36 Career 48.4% He once went 1-15 in a game. He completed more passes to KC that day than to his teammates. Career rating of 48.96 Bringing him up in this thread shows your disdain for Losman. Even with his first year stats thrown in, JP has a career rating of 67.15 Not good, but don't compare Leaf in this conversation. ADDITION BELOW: Since you brought up Stewart, too (I won't even mention Akili): Stewart's best statistical year was '97, his 3rd year in the NFL. His team went 11-5, went to the AFC championship, only to lose to Elway. His rating was 75.19 Losman is currently doing better than that ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 That's true. You judge a runningback on yards per carry. Why not judge a quarterback on yards per attempt? In both cases you have to look at other things also--does he commit a lot of turnovers, how many TDs does he have, etc. But you start by looking at yards per carry/yards per attempt. 780580[/snapback] Yards/ attempt is actually one of the better predictors of playoff and super bowl success. See the attached for plenty of background and stats. http://mule.he.net/~budsport/pub/killer.php A basic tenant of success is that you must run the ball effectively to contol a game, but you must throw efficiently to score points in order to allow you to run the ball to win. A high Yards per attempt inidicates that the offense is generating chunks of yardage thru the air. Although Losman didn't get the stats for it, his long pass to Evans resulted in points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Yards/ attempt is actually one of the better predictors of playoff and super bowl success.See the attached for plenty of background and stats. http://mule.he.net/~budsport/pub/killer.php A basic tenant of success is that you must run the ball effectively to contol a game, but you must throw efficiently to score points in order to allow you to run the ball to win. A high Yards per attempt inidicates that the offense is generating chunks of yardage thru the air. Although Losman didn't get the stats for it, his long pass to Evans resulted in points. 780793[/snapback] That's a really good site. Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share Posted September 21, 2006 I just want to express my eternal gratitude to everyone.... This is by FAR the biggest response I have ever gotten to one of my threads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 I just want to express my eternal gratitude to everyone....This is by FAR the biggest response I have ever gotten to one of my threads... 781157[/snapback] Well, if you wanted a big response, you sure picked the right subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 To be fair he has been in Fairchilds system only for 6 months and has had 3 pre-season games and 2 regular season game. So the "he is in his 3rd year" doesn'tfly here. A guy like Holcomb who has been in the league for 10 years had difficulty in assimilating this offense. Again, the game is out of the hands of Losman. The coaches are going to decide what is BEST for the team, not what is best for the PLAYERS on the Team. If Fairchild wants his QB to throw only 100 yards then so be it, I have no problem with that. Also, the fact that he threw for less yards than required for the 3rd down compared what Holcomb threw last year is not comparable. In this game we were already up 16-0 and were playing conservative. In that game last year, we were trailing and needed a 1st down on that 4th down as otherwise the game was over. You don't throw a 3 yard pard on such a down. I am a Losman supporter from day one and I acknowledge that he has not come on as quickly as you would have expected. But the fault is not all due to himself. That is what you Losman critics fail to accept. The guy has been messed around and not given a chance to develop. There was a reason why he went #21 in the 1st round when the rest went in the top 13. Even Ben at that point was considered a little raw rather than a polished QB. Only Rivers and Manning were considered to be Pro ready. Losman was a very raw QB coming out of Tulane who had the strong arm and ability to lead an offense. Handling him required a lot of patience from the coaches, something that was sadly done by the former staff. Time is running out for Losman, but this coaching staff truly believe in him and believes that he needs to brought on slowly rather than throwing him to the wolves. They understand the deficiency in the OL and know that they would rather play conservative to protect the ball with a average OL rather than trying to air it out with an inexperienced QB. If they do show that faith and patience in Losman I firmly believe he will deliver by the middle of the season. 780753[/snapback] You make a good point about the new system, and about the fact that Buffalo wasn't an ideal situation for a new quarterback. But similar things could have been said about Rob Johnson--you had an impatient coaching staff that benched him in favor of a veteran, you had a poor offensive line, all that stuff. But at some point a quarterback just has to produce. You seem to recognize that. And barring injury, we'll get to see how much or how little Losman can produce as the season continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 I just want to express my eternal gratitude to everyone....This is by FAR the biggest response I have ever gotten to one of my threads... We like you. We really, really like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 It goes beyond that. If Losman has a statistically bad game and the Bills lose they'll say the above. If he has a statistically bad game and the Bills win they'll repeat what they've said in this thread. If he has a statistically good game and the Bills lose they'll say, "yeah, but the Bills lost." If he has a statistically good game and the Bills win they'll say, "yeah, but it was only the Jets." There's nothing that can happen this week that they won't complain about. 780711[/snapback] Exactly. The thing is, a lot of people writing in this thread seem to think that by arguing a good case for/against, it can in some way effect the outcome of what JP will develop into. Time will tell whether this improvement we have all seen in him will continue or whether it doesn't(to the level required). Anyone who actually believes they know to what level JP will develop is at best misguided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 You make a good point about the new system, and about the fact that Buffalo wasn't an ideal situation for a new quarterback. But similar things could have been said about Rob Johnson--you had an impatient coaching staff that benched him in favor of a veteran, you had a poor offensive line, all that stuff. But at some point a quarterback just has to produce. You seem to recognize that. And barring injury, we'll get to see how much or how little Losman can produce as the season continues. 781166[/snapback] No, Johnson showed his own way to the bench by his failure to stay healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 No, Johnson showed his own way to the bench by his failure to stay healthy. He also showed a remarkable inability to learn. He would continue to take sacks when throwing the ball away was the best option. Either he was REALLY dumb, or had himself in a fantasy football league that awarded you for completion percentage, but didn't penalize you for sacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 No, Johnson showed his own way to the bench by his failure to stay healthy. 781242[/snapback] Yeah, that was it. My favorite all time was: Johnson: Questionable (Buttocks). It's just too bad they left off the leading "Head up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 No, Johnson showed his own way to the bench by his failure to stay healthy. 781242[/snapback] Point taken. But once injuries put Johnson on the bench, the coaches more or less kept him there even when he got healthy. Losman faced the same situation last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Point taken. But once injuries put Johnson on the bench, the coaches more or less kept him there even when he got healthy. Losman faced the same situation last year. 781366[/snapback] Not because of poor play. Losman didnt get put back in because our reatrded insecure coach somehow thought that 5-11 or 6-10 would save his job and look much better than 4-12. Losman improved in his second stint last year, but mularkey's rooster and balls were planted firmly between his legs, hence the reason for sticking with holcomb when losman was healthy. Dont fool yourself into thinking holcomb kept starting because Losman was sh-------. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Not because of poor play. You're right. Mularkey's decision to sit a healthy Losman had nothing to do with his level of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 You're right. Mularkey's decision to sit a healthy Losman had nothing to do with his level of play. 781406[/snapback] Relying on Mularkey's keen grasp of personnel management might not be the best way to support your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Relying on Mularkey's keen grasp of personnel management might not be the best way to support your argument. 781417[/snapback] Other than Losman, which players do you feel Mularkey benched that he should have started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Other than Losman, which players do you feel Mularkey benched that he should have started? 781424[/snapback] Well, taking WM out on third downs was a corker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Other than Losman, which players do you feel Mularkey benched that he should have started? 781424[/snapback] He did such a masterful job with Moulds and Adams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 He did such a masterful job with Moulds and Adams. 781442[/snapback] I can't believe I'm actually defending Mike Mularkey. But the Moulds benching was for disciplinary reasons, which you can either agree or disagree with. It wasn't based on production. The Adams thing was weird--it seemed like he just stopped producing or caring at some point in 2005. I haven't kept close track of him though--has he produced anything this year? Or is he more or less done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 I can't believe I'm actually defending Mike Mularkey. But the Moulds benching was for disciplinary reasons, which you can either agree or disagree with. It wasn't based on production. The Adams thing was weird--it seemed like he just stopped producing or caring at some point in 2005. I haven't kept close track of him though--has he produced anything this year? Or is he more or less done? 781690[/snapback] He was a bit hurt during camp. Has a few tackles this season, one for a loss. The Bengals run D is a middle-of-the-pack 13th at this point, and did hold Larry Johnson to 68 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts