If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
Please use this thread to report any issues you come across
http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/forum/feedback-forums/billszone-q-a/6521455-upgrade-report-bugs-here
I have to say the same thing I said last time you brought this up, Holcomb had a rag arm, way less starting experience (spent 3 years on the pines without taking a snap even), etc etc. He wasn't comparable to Orton. Doesn't have anything to do with fanbase, it's statistical. I don't think Manuel and Losman had similar situations either from what I remember (neither pro or con but diff situations).
And I'll say the same thing I said last time. You're wrong about Holcomb like you were wrong about Losman and wrong about Stevie Johnson.
You're like a lot of other semi-smart Bills fans, lucid most of the time but with a weird propensity to fall in love with players that don't deserve it to the detriment of tbhe team.
You know what they say about history - those that ignore it are destined to relive it.
What's the difference? You seem to relive this history constantly anyway.
If somebody were to have to learn something about not repeating history, it's the idiots that decided to release Bledsoe in favor of Losman. It was not the fans' decision. I don't know who you talk to, but just about everyone I knew didn't like this move one bit and thought it was absolutely horrible, myself included. But fans have absolutely zero control over these things.
Losman is irrelevant in present day reality. So is Holcomb. So is Bledsoe. The people responsible for that fiasco are not relevant to the Buffalo Bills today. It IS history.
Unless one believes in something like Nietzsche's idea of Eternal Return, history does not repeat itself.
Or, in philosophical terms, it is a non-identical repetition. This means that nuances and unique contexts make the lessons of history only semi-useful for judging a contemporary situation.
In terms of this argument, it really is hardly relevant when one is dealing with a different front office, different coaching staff, and different players; even the game is somewhat different due to rule changes.
Unless one believes in something like Nietzsche's idea of Eternal Return, history does not repeat itself.
Or, in philosophical terms, it is a non-identical repetition. This means that nuances and unique contexts make the lessons of history only semi-useful for judging a contemporary situation.
In terms of this argument, it really is hardly relevant when one is dealing with a different front office, different coaching staff, and different players; even the game is somewhat different due to rule changes.
What is NOT different is the fans' ability (or lack thereof) to choose who their quarterback is going to be.
If somebody were to have to learn something about not repeating history, it's the idiots that decided to release Bledsoe in favor of Losman. It was not the fans' decision. I don't know who you talk to, but just about everyone I knew didn't like this move one bit and thought it was absolutely horrible, myself included.
Who I talked to? About this incident, it was good old Coach Sal Cappaccio himself, who was on the sideline with the Steelers during the final game of the 2004 season.
Among other things Sal mentioned was he was talking to Ben R. when Losman came out on to the field. Sal said ben Laughed and said "JP Losman. What a dick!" LOL! When Ben the rapist calls you a dick, you know you have to be pretty good at it.
Sal also told us about being invited back to Mularkey's house after the game, and over beers have MM tell him that Bledsoe was gone and that Losman was going to be the starter in 2005. This was just a couple of hours after the game.
So, the obvious implication, since Mularkey said it was a done deal that Ralph and TD, and especially Ralph, were behind the decision and presented it to the coaches as a fait accompli.
And yes, even though they didn't say so until February, they DID release Bledsoe and made Losman the starter after having only run something like 8 plays the year before after recovering from his teammates breaking his leg on purpose.
Mularkey, being a weakling, went along with it, but Clements fought for the team and Holcomb, and Ralph never forgave him after Holcomb showed up Losman so badly.
What can we learn from that season?
That you shouldn't flush the team, the fans and the organi2ation down the toilet because guys like you and Ralph have a hard on for the cute new qb.
It seems we've learned the lesson. Maybe someone WAS paying attention.
Unless one believes in something like Nietzsche's idea of Eternal Return, history does not repeat itself.
Or, in philosophical terms, it is a non-identical repetition. This means that nuances and unique contexts make the lessons of history only semi-useful for judging a contemporary situation.
In terms of this argument, it really is hardly relevant when one is dealing with a different front office, different coaching staff, and different players; even the game is somewhat different due to rule changes.
Still a right-winger I see.
personally, I prefer Machiavelli's take - "Anyone who studies present and ancient affairs will easily see how in all cities and all peoples there still exist, and have always existed, the same desires and passions. Thus, it is an easy matter for him who carefully examines past events to foresee future events in a republic and to apply the remedies employed by the ancients, or, if old remedies cannot be found, to devise new ones based upon the similarity of the events. But since these matters are neglected or not understood by those who read, or, if understood, remain unknown to those who govern, the result is that the same problems always exist in every era."
Administrations and their underlings come and go, but human nature always remains the same.
That you shouldn't flush the team, the fans and the organi2ation down the toilet because guys like you and Ralph have a hard on for the cute new qb.
It seems we've learned the lesson. Maybe someone WAS paying attention.
What do you mean, "guys like ME?" I had a hardon for a cute new QB? How do you know this? Check your math.
Your obsession with Losman is epic. Even worse, is your obsession to harass ALL fans about it. Would it interest you that I never thought Losman was a good player? Probably not; in fact, you'd probably think that I was lying...And herein lies your strange and creepy psychosis. I already explained how I felt about dumping Bledsoe for Losman. You're still trying to harass the real Bills fans about it a decade later. YOU are the true Losmaniac, if you see what I did there. Ten years later, you seem unable to talk about much else Bills-related. That's pretty ****ed-up. Lot's of guys just root for the Bills quarterback. I don't mind homers.
Let it go. I'm very impressed with your Coach Sal correspondence. I've talked to him over the Internet as well. Big deal. Roethlisberger's quip is also very important. It may surprise you to know that people from Buffalo may have ties to actual insiders within the organization. Go figure. Not sure you really understand anything, Canadian Browns fan...even though, by your own admission, you've watched more football than anybody I've ever known...ridiculous thing to say.
Not sure that I was implying anything other than his stats from the Jets game skews everything.
Think about it, in the Detroit game 308 yards passing, 17 offensive points, 9 from FGs. 1 passing TD.
In the New England game 299 passing, 1 passing TD, 22 offensive points.
In the Minnesota game 283 passing, 2 passing TDs, 17 offensive points.
In the Jets game, 238 passing, 4 passing TDs, 43 offensive points.
Let me ask you a question, would you start Orton every week in FFL? I mean if he's a top-10 QB he would and should be starting on most ffl rosters, right?
Otherwise I was just posting some data and asking some questions. Apparently no one seems to think that when we get sacked that it means much, but many of those same people will build a case out of a defense being tops because of sacks. I don't see how that can possibly be. Either sacks matter or they don't. But they would have to have a similar impact both ways.
Why would you consider it skewing? No one is saying "He is the best QB ever because in his last game his passer rating was 143".
He played 4 games. All four were against better than average to elite pass defenses. Of course he isn't going to throw 4 td every game. But, he has thrown 9 in 4 games and I wouldn't be surprised one bit if that continued.
And, sacks matter. They contribute to failed drives, turnovers, mistakes, etc. I fail to see your point though. How are you applying this to the assessment of Orton? Again, being top 10 in every statistical category in spite of atrocious pass blocking, IMO, only helps the case for calling Orton one of the better NFL QBs.
"Heck, now I am glad his overrated arce made the pro bowl, else we would have only got a 3rd." ~ yordad
"I've just been hit with a piece of sky. " ~ yordad
"Forgive my opinion, but...." ~ yordad
"Warning: I might be hammered." ~ yordad
"I don't care if the word is "your" or "you're", so buzz off. Its (it's) a frickin(') message board." ~ yordad
...Would it interest you that I never thought Losman was a good player? Probably not; in fact, you'd probably think that I was lying..
1. Please tell me why you thought Losman wasn't a good player.
2. when did you go public with your opinion of Losman being a lousy player?
3. What was your position on Losman being replaced by Holcomb?
4. Did you object to Eric Moulds going to Ralph to ask for Holcomb to replace Losman a second time?
5. Did you object to Ralph telling Mularkey he could stay as HC as long as he fired Tom Clements?
it could be worse. my point is that those metrics can be skewed either way with a smaller sample size. i think his total yards being high is impressive. I think his targets of 8-10 receivers a game is impressive. i think 3-1 is impressive.
but i am not sold until i see the sesaon. he could be worse, he could be better. the 10 year record is that he tends to even out. if he breaks out in a full season (or 12 games in his case) and takes us to the playoffs, i'm fully on board for a 3-4 year contract, front loaded to make him a starter. i wouldnt do a longer stretch because i would be afraid he'd regress back to his norms.
Of course a bigger sample size would make a prediction more accurate, but still the best way to predict what will happen is what has happened. And, in the current set of circumstances he has done nothing but thrive. And, his last game was arguably his best game. So.... that said.... we do play in B-lo so I am sure his stats will drop off in the snow and wind but as long as the opposing QB's does the same and we put up wins I couldn't care less.
"Heck, now I am glad his overrated arce made the pro bowl, else we would have only got a 3rd." ~ yordad
"I've just been hit with a piece of sky. " ~ yordad
"Forgive my opinion, but...." ~ yordad
"Warning: I might be hammered." ~ yordad
"I don't care if the word is "your" or "you're", so buzz off. Its (it's) a frickin(') message board." ~ yordad
Tweet
" ~ yordad
Comment