I dont care about his numbers.....my hat goes

[Orton's Arm]

No, it's the people who have rigid agendas. Agenda's immune to factual evidence, rational observations, or objective discussions. Being unwilling to change your mind despite the evidence to the contrary is what it means to be stubborn.

 

I respect people who have opinions, even those different than my own. It's what makes life interesting. And it doesn't bother me that you and JDG have this steadfast agenda to be proven right about JP. It's your choice.

 

I just think it's hilarious when you and JDG put the priority of your agenda above reason and more importantly above the team's success. Because it's not about the team, it's not about the QB, it's about you guys. You don't see it -- but that's what it is.

 

Narrow, unenlightened self interest does not impress me. But it does make me laugh.

 

Doesn't mean I wouldn't have a beer with either of you guys and laugh about it. In the end we're still talking about the same thing -- Bills football. And that is always a good thing.

JDG and I have presented a fair amount of factual evidence and rational observations to support our conclusions. As for being objective; if you're trying to say that Losman's supporters are objective, and his detractors are biased, then to me that's more a statement about your own level of objectivity than it is about anyone else's.

 

I just felt a little disappointed with the Bills' passing game after having watched that Miami game. I would have felt the same way if the name on the back of the jersey read "Nall" or "Holcomb" instead of "Losman." My reaction would have been, "C'mon Nall. I've been pushing for you to be the starter. Surely you can reward my faith in you better than this. Dropping back for a pass on third down ten times, and only converting twice. You call that Bills football?"

 

But I kept these feelings to myself until after a Losman supporter started throwing personal insults at JDG. I just didn't feel Losman had done anything to justify the kind of praise he was getting. Yes, he didn't turn the ball over, and he showed some skill at dumping the ball off. Not a Holcombesque level of skill in that area, but some. I could see why people would want to praise Losman for the things he did well, but some people responded rudely when the discussion turned to the things Losman did poorly (overall yardage, yards per attempt, third down conversions).

 

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.

[Orton's Arm]

You also have to factor in qb's that have wr's, who produce reliably good YAC numbers.

 

It gets complicated.

780583[/snapback]

Agreed. But sometimes the QB sets his WRs up for good YAC. Joe Montana would hit his receivers in full stride, allowing them to produce much better YAC than they could have done had it been just about any other QB back there.

[RayFinkle]

I just felt a little disappointed with the Bills' passing game after having watched that Miami game.  I would have felt the same way if the name on the back of the jersey read "Nall" or "Holcomb" instead of "Losman."  My reaction would have been, "C'mon Nall.  I've been pushing for you to be the starter.  Surely you can reward my faith in you better than this.  Dropping back for a pass on third down ten times, and only converting twice.  You call that Bills football?"

I have to agree with you on that point. If Nall would have put up those numbers or god forbid Holcomb, it would be armageddon on TBD.

[JinVA]

You call that Bills football?"

780629[/snapback]

Unfortunately as of late, yes.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

I have to agree with you on that point. If Nall would have put up those numbers or god forbid Holcomb, it would be armageddon on TBD.

780636[/snapback]

There happens to be a logical explanation for that though.

 

The fact is that Losman has always shown the ability to throw the deep ball, and the intermediate routes. I don't think anyone will argue that he can make the big plays. He's done it in camp and preseason ever since we got him, he hooked up with Evans quite a bit last year, and hit some deep balls this preseason as well. So we know he can make connections down the field.

 

The question is, of course, whether he can do all the other things. And for me, seeing Losman play the short game for 60 minutes of game time was very encouraging. He didn't get nervous doing something we haven't seen him do too much of, he rarely made the wrong decision (even if things were simplified, JDG), he wasn't standing back there holding on to the ball too long. He showed me he can be decisive and efficient in a dink and dunk offense, and that was the aspect of the game we've never seen from him before.

 

And that's the difference between Losman and Nall/Holcomb. Losman is actually capable of throwing the ball downfield and making plays, so seeing him dump it off is seeing a young quarterback take the first small steps. When you see Nall or Holcomb dump it off, they're just doing the only thing they're capable of doing. This explains why we get excited when JP throws short, but frustrated when Holcomb does the same thing!

 

The next step for JP will come when the coaches deem he's ready to go through progressions in the short game. It will be exciting to see when they try to get him to hit his third option on a given play, and if it even happens this year. I don't believe Roethlisberger was asked to do much of that early on. Once (if?) he displays he can do that, the next step will be the coaches deciding he's ready to put it all together. That will be JP dropping back to pass and checking from a homerun ball to a hook route to a dump off in the flat.

 

But because JP can make things happen deep, he unlike our two other QBs at least has hope of becoming a complete quarterback. Seeing him work the ball short all game against Miami was encouraging, at least for me.

[John from Riverside]

I went back and reread the first three pages of this thread.  It started off with comments from people who were evidently very happy about Losman's performance.  Someone called Losman's performance "solid," so JDG responded by asking, "if 83 yards is 'solid,' I'd hate to see what you think a 'mediocre' day looks like...."

 

This initiated an argument over whether Losman's performance was solid or mediocre; and whether it was or wasn't Roethlisberger-like.  Joe Six Pack, a Losman supporter, was the first to throw in a personal insult.  The next personal insult came from Ramius, another Losman supporter; and the third came from Risin, who just so happens to support Losman.  On the other hand, many Losman supporters were able to rise above the kindergarten level, and discuss their views with intelligence and maturity.  The last thing I want to do is lump all Losman supporters together.  But the reason the discussion turned into a heated argument was because some Losman supporters decided to make it one.

 

A few of Losman's supporters have one way of looking at him, and think that anyone who sees him differently is either blind, stupid, or motivated by a hidden agenda.  You don't have to be any of these things to be unimpressed with Losman's performance against Miami.  Some people saw a performance that was solid, mistake-free, and Roethlisberger-like, while others saw 84 passing yards and a punter with a very sore foot.

780196[/snapback]

 

 

I am not going to sling insults at my fellow bills brethren....but...again I have to ask (because I truly believe this to be true) will the same people who degrade Losman regardless of anything he does right are they doing this to set a benchmark so that later on down the road (and it could be as early as the jets game but I hope not) Losman has a game where he stinks up the joint so they can point and say "SEE SEE...I WAS RIGHT....LOSMAN IS HORRIBLE"

 

I am asking this before it actually happens to get it on the record with the fans....Losman IS going to have bad days....so....what sayith you?

[MarkyMannn]

Yeah.  Comparing a career average to one game.  That's statistically valid. 

777951[/snapback]

Well OK, but even if we compare it one game. Losman won, Ben shut out Monday night

[stuckincincy]

Agreed.  But sometimes the QB sets his WRs up for good YAC.  Joe Montana would hit his receivers in full stride, allowing them to produce much better YAC than they could have done had it been just about any other QB back there.

780633[/snapback]

 

Yes. But an example of the YAC player might be Peter Warrick in '03 with the B'gals. 79 catches, 10.3 average, but got 48 first downs and 7 td's as well as 6 fd's via rushes - and a punt return td...a big help towards qb Kinta garnering Comeback Player award. I hope Parrish can do something like that.

 

It's always nice to hit a reciever in stride, but the shifty-footed ones shine a qb's star, too. And the ones with the uncanny ability to get open, like Freddie Biletnikoff. Under today's rules, I think Fred might haul in 150...

[Orton's Arm]

The next step for JP will come when the coaches deem he's ready to go through progressions in the short game.

He's in his third year. He should already be going through progressions in his short game.

 

In answer to your other points, Nall has a good arm, and can threaten defenses deep. Yeah, Losman dumped the ball off a little, but not in a way that moved the chains.

[Orton's Arm]

I am not going to sling insults at my fellow bills brethren....but...again I have to ask (because I truly believe this to be true) will the same people who degrade Losman regardless of anything he does right are they doing this to set a benchmark so that later on down the road (and it could be as early as the jets game but I hope not) Losman has a game where he stinks up the joint so they can point and say "SEE SEE...I WAS RIGHT....LOSMAN IS HORRIBLE"

 

I am asking this before it actually happens to get it on the record with the fans....Losman IS going to have bad days....so....what sayith you?

780650[/snapback]

Any quarterback can have a bad day, as Big Ben's recent performance attests. The question is whether Losman can be good most of the time. That isn't a question that can be answered in just one game.

[Orton's Arm]

Yes. But an example of the YAC player might be Peter Warrick in '03 with the B'gals. 79 catches, 10.3 average, but got 48 first downs and 7 td's as well as 6 fd's via rushes - and a punt return td...a big help towards qb Kinta garnering Comeback Player award. I hope Parrish can do something like that.

 

It's always nice to hit a reciever in stride, but the shifty-footed ones shine a qb's star, too. And the ones with the uncanny ability to get open, like Freddie Biletnikoff.  Under today's rules, I think Fred might haul in 150...

780658[/snapback]

I see your point.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

He's in his third year.  He should already be going through progressions in his short game.

 

In answer to your other points, Nall has a good arm, and can threaten defenses deep.  Yeah, Losman dumped the ball off a little, but not in a way that moved the chains.

780669[/snapback]

He needs more game action to get used to the way things look in an NFL game. This goes back to what you believe to be the central debate here, the years vs. starts argument. I think the more live game action he sees, the more comfortable he'll be going through progressions.

 

I haven't seen or heard of Nall making all that many big plays. I don't think he represents a legitimate deep threat.

[Scraps]

He's in his third year.  He should already be going through progressions in his short game.

 

780669[/snapback]

 

So where do you think he is in his development? Playing like a rookie? Playing like a sophmore?

[stuckincincy]

I see your point.

780677[/snapback]

 

It's a shame Warrick's career was cut short. He got a bunch of fan static locally - not the classic long ball threat, #1 pick, blah blah blah.

 

I thought he was a terrific player. The club did, too. He had a chronic shin injury that just wouldn't heal, and the B'gals out-and-out lied a few games into '04, playing him in a game despite being officially listed as "out". They needed to see...and IIRC, they re-signed him to a good contract before the start of that season, even with the questions.

 

BTW, that lie cost them a 10K fine. Pretty cheap...teams could really screw around with the bookies if they had a mind to.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

In answer to your other points, Nall has a good arm, and can threaten defenses deep.  Yeah, Losman dumped the ball off a little, but not in a way that moved the chains.

780669[/snapback]

If you really think Holcomb moves the chains when he dumps the ball off, you need to be reminded of a certain 4th and 7 last year on a Monday night in Foxboro. I don't think Holcomb's dump off was moving the chains on that play.

[MDH]

I am not going to sling insults at my fellow bills brethren....but...again I have to ask (because I truly believe this to be true) will the same people who degrade Losman regardless of anything he does right are they doing this to set a benchmark so that later on down the road (and it could be as early as the jets game but I hope not) Losman has a game where he stinks up the joint so they can point and say "SEE SEE...I WAS RIGHT....LOSMAN IS HORRIBLE"

 

780650[/snapback]

 

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.

[Orton's Arm]

If you really think Holcomb moves the chains when he dumps the ball off, you need to be reminded of a certain 4th and 7 last year on a Monday night in Foxboro. I don't think Holcomb's dump off was moving the chains on that play.

780708[/snapback]

It was 4th and 11, and yes, I've heard about it. But Holcomb had moved the chains the previous play by completing a pass to Moulds. But because it was New England, the officials decided to take that play away by calling a petty pass interference penalty on Moulds. So instead of 1st and 10, we had 4th and 11.

 

Then Clements or Mularkey decided that Moulds was a ten year vet with whom Holcomb had great chemistry and who could make plays in the clutch, so why not use him as a decoy while making Roscoe "this is the first NFL game in my entire life" Parrish the main target on that game-deciding play. Brilliant!

 

This may come as a shock to many, but the Mularkey coaching staff's effort to fool the Belichick coaching staff didn't work! The diminutive Parrish was covered. Maybe throwing to Moulds was the wrong answer, but I'm not sure there was a right answer on that particular play.

[JDG]

I am not going to sling insults at my fellow bills brethren....but...again I have to ask (because I truly believe this to be true) will the same people who degrade Losman regardless of anything he does right are they doing this to set a benchmark so that later on down the road (and it could be as early as the jets game but I hope not) Losman has a game where he stinks up the joint so they can point and say "SEE SEE...I WAS RIGHT....LOSMAN IS HORRIBLE"

 

I am asking this before it actually happens to get it on the record with the fans....Losman IS going to have bad days....so....what sayith you?

780650[/snapback]

 

Let me go on the record in this way:

 

1) I cannot manage any conceivable single-game performance by JP Losman that would cause me to argue that he should be benched. Losman is the 2006 Bills starting QB, he won that title fair and square in training camp by proving himself to be the best QB on the roster, and I don't see how he can lose that title in one game.

 

2) I have deliberately avoided making statements like "JP Losman will never be a productive NFL QB." I am very hopeful that Losman will someday be a great NFL QB. My point about JP Losman is that last year he was *unusually* bad, worse than almost all, if not all, cases of "struggling first-time starting QB" that people care to name. In fact, in Weeks 2 through 4 last year, JP Losman was so unusually bad that it would have been football malpractice to not bench him - Losman's draft status and potential and all. I think Mularkey was a horrible Bills coach, but that was absolutely the right decision - and much of the grief in the JP Losman debate comes from people who still refuse to recognize that simple point... that after four starts, JP Losman had no business seeing playing time in the National Football League. Yes, JP Losman has improved - but he set the baseline for improvement in those four games at a lower level than for any QB I can ever recall.

 

3) Given how badly JP Losman performed as a second-year QB last year, he doesn't get much benefit of the doubt from me in evaluating his prospects for future performance. By my take, JP Losman has improved from "off-the-charts bad" to merely being "bad." So, when people talk about JP Losman playing "good" or "solid", I take objection, and point out that in my evaluation he is playing "bad." Sure, its better than last year, but it is still bad. I think that when we spent a 1st, a 2nd, and a 5th on Losman we expected him to maybe be bad in his first or even his second year, but that by his third year he might at least be "mediocre", if not *good*. I don't think we spent a 1st, a 2nd, and a 5th on Losman to get a third-year QB whom we would have to manage our gameplans around to be ultra-conservative and avoid almost any possibility of mistake. Indeed, if we get to the end of this season and we are still winning games with Losman attempting few, if any, mid-range passes and Losman regularly passing for less than 100 yards in a game, then I think we will have a serious question to answer about where and how we look for QB help in the offseason. Kudos to Jauron & Co. for coaching the game the way it needed to be played, and to Losman for staying within the limitations of the gameplan set for him. But I refuse to call a performance "solid", when that same performance at the end of this year will have us thinking about whether we need to find Losman's eventual performance.

 

JDG

[ganesh]

He's in his third year.  He should already be going through progressions in his short game.

 

In answer to your other points, Nall has a good arm, and can threaten defenses deep.  Yeah, Losman dumped the ball off a little, but not in a way that moved the chains.

780669[/snapback]

 

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't

fly 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.

[Scraps]

I am not going to sling insults at my fellow bills brethren....but...again I have to ask (because I truly believe this to be true) will the same people who degrade Losman regardless of anything he does right are they doing this to set a benchmark so that later on down the road (and it could be as early as the jets game but I hope not) Losman has a game where he stinks up the joint so they can point and say "SEE SEE...I WAS RIGHT....LOSMAN IS HORRIBLE"

 

I am asking this before it actually happens to get it on the record with the fans....Losman IS going to have bad days....so....what sayith you?

780650[/snapback]

 

Conversely one could argue that those who are over inflating what Losman did on Sunday, and there is some of that going on in this thread, are doing it so that when he has the bad day you allude to they can say "But he's played so great until this one game".

[pkwwjd]

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 ...

[obie_wan]

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.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

[John from Riverside]

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...

[Orton's Arm]

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.

[Orton's Arm]

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't

fly 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.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

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.

[Dibs]

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.

[Scraps]

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.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

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.

[Alaska Darin]

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".

[Orton's Arm]

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.

[Ramius]

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-------.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

[MRW]

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.

[Orton's Arm]

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?

[Dibs]

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.

[Scraps]

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.

[Orton's Arm]

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?

[RuntheDamnBall]

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.