PDA

View Full Version : Kelly Holcomb's problem



buffalofan19
10-24-2005, 03:35 PM
is that he checks off a little too much. From what I've seen, it looks like when the Bills receivers run deep routes, they are covered pretty well, and therefore Holcomb will dump it off. He won't even think about going downfield unless a receiver is wide (and I mean wide) open. The difference between him and Losman, and Bledsoe for that matter, is that Losman/Bledsoe would make an attempt to throw the ball downfield, even if a guy like Moulds was covered. They will take a risk to in order to try and make something happen. Sometimes it went well, other times it ended up in disaster. I still think Kelly Holcomb is more effective than Losman at this point, and that the offense functions better with him under center, but he needs to take some shots downfield and not give up every time a receiver is not incredibly wide open. Make Moulds and Evans go up and get the ball and make a play. In other words, take a few risks. I am not saying throw into double-coverage, but Holcomb still needs to challenge the opposing DB's deep, even if they have the receivers somewhat decently covered.

Mudflap1
10-24-2005, 03:37 PM
He has been efficient. His rating is 95.2. We have a whole lot bigger problems than him.

Jon

buffalofan19
10-24-2005, 03:51 PM
He has been efficient. His rating is 95.2. We have a whole lot bigger problems than him.

Jon

I agree he's been efficient, but alot of that rating is that he takes "the safe way out" all the time. If a receiver is even remotely covered down field, he won't throw there but take the 3 yard dump off pass. There comes a time where eventually you have to take a few risks, and I think Holcomb needs to do that in order to make a big play. I am not saying pull him. In fact, I think you need to stick with him, but he needs to start going downfield more, and if that means throwing into coverage every once in a while then so be it. Holcomb seems to be afraid to throw into any type of coverage be it soft or tight, at least to me anyway.

pintonick96
10-24-2005, 03:53 PM
His biggest problem is that he's starting and Shane Matthews isnt.

DaBills
10-24-2005, 03:59 PM
I'm not opposed to the deep ball. What I don't like is going deep on three consecutive passes and trying to make something happen series after series. And when he's in there, JP's the kind of QB that won't throw it deep once and then play conservative. He keeps going for it to the detriment of the running game.

Mudflap1
10-24-2005, 03:59 PM
Holcomb doesn't have enough time to effectively throw downfield. It's like a jailbreak on him every time he takes a snap. No, he's not the ultimate answer, he doesn't have a big gun and doesn't throw a lot of deep balls. Sure, I'd like to see more. But I think he's doing a decent job, about the best he can do, and that the QB position right now is nowhere near our biggest problem.

Jon

ParanoidAndroid
10-24-2005, 04:17 PM
Holcomb doesn't have enough time to effectively throw downfield. It's like a jailbreak on him every time he takes a snap. No, he's not the ultimate answer, he doesn't have a big gun and doesn't throw a lot of deep balls. Sure, I'd like to see more. But I think he's doing a decent job, about the best he can do, and that the QB position right now is nowhere near our biggest problem.

Jon

Our biggest problem is the D-line. Backs are running through untouched. If you would have told me a simple trap play would get a first down on 3rd and 14 before yesterday, I would have scoffed. Now? I'm biting my nails on 3rd and 20.

DaBills
10-24-2005, 04:32 PM
Our biggest problem is the D-line. Backs are running through untouched. If you would have told me a simple trap play would get a first down on 3rd and 14 before yesterday, I would have scoffed. Now? I'm biting my nails on 3rd and 20.

I've been biting them forever on 3rd downs. We used to hold teams to little or no gain on 1st and 2nd, but then give up huge gains on 3rd. Now, no down is safe in the hands of the D.

justasportsfan
10-24-2005, 05:18 PM
funny thing is, while he is effective at short yardage where Drew was horrible at, he isn't as good as Drew throwing downfield.

buffalofan19
10-24-2005, 05:36 PM
funny thing is, while he is effective at short yardage where Drew was horrible at, he isn't as good as Drew throwing downfield.

The question is: which is better? Unless your name is the Pittsburgh Steelers, you need a deep game as well as a short game. Right now the Bills have 0 deep game.

CanaanVtBillsFan
10-24-2005, 09:06 PM
I think Holcomb has a high percentage of INT's for his career, so maybe he is really trying to be conservative, but then he falls in the category as a yes man to Mularky because to me Mularky is a total conservative coach

RUN THE DAMN BALL DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CanaanVtBillsFan
10-24-2005, 09:14 PM
OK I looked up his career stats and he doesn't have that high of a INT %, but maybe it's still the fact that he wants to be in there he doesn't want to screw up his chance
WHO KNOWS PEOPLE

All I know is this is so dismal