No Doubt About It: Losman Needs to Start in Buffalo
by Brian Galliford on Oct 10, 2007 8:11 AM EDT
in Buffalo Bills Opinion
Email
Print |
|
|
We've been talking about it for two weeks - ever since rookie QB Trent Edwards led the Bills to their first win over the Jets - and we'll be talking about it for another two weeks, as the Bills have a bye this week. Will Edwards, with just two NFL starts under his belt, win the starting QB job, unseating young veteran J.P. Losman?
That question, for the forseeable future, does not have a clear answer, as Bills head coach Dick Jauron has refused to commit to either quarterback until after the bye week. Until he makes that decision, the QB Debate will rage on. The problem is that, for Jauron, his decision really isn't that difficult: he needs to name J.P. Losman his starting quarterback. Emphasis on the word "needs".
The Trent Edwards Perspective
Let me preface this by saying that I am a Trent Edwards fan. In two starts, he's shown that he has what it takes to be a bona fide starter at this level. But that is all he's proven - he hasn't proven he's the long-term answer as this team's quarterback, and he has not proven he's a star in the making. He is very smart, very poised and pretty accurate - but that is all we know. The kid has a future.
But is it time to say "The Future is Now"? There is a huge contingent of Bills fans who are screaming "Yes!" at their monitors right now, but I don't think it's necessarily true. Even if Edwards has supplanted Losman in the team's long-term plans, putting Losman back in the starting role won't inhibit Edwards' development at all. We can even use J.P. as an example of that here - in 2004, after being benched following a 1-3 start, Losman came in for the injured Kelly Holcomb at home against the Chiefs and threw two touchdowns in a 14-3 Bills win. Many attribute his time off the field that year as the reason he had success when he returned. The same would be true for Edwards - he has just as much to learn by returning to the sidelines as he does from continuing to play.
Starting Losman Preserves Chemistry
We all know the playing disparity between the two players: Losman played poorly in his two games, Edwards played relatively well in his three. But at this point, Edwards' playing role has purely been as a fill-in; a backup, if you will. As it stands right now, Edwards played because Losman was hurt. The fact that this controversy sprung up in that fashion makes this decision predominantly about one thing: team chemistry.
The big question Jauron needs to ask himself is this: What kind of message am I sending my young, developing football team if I bench a guy after he was injured? Especially if that guy happens to be a team captain, and was voted into that position by his teammates?
The answer, Coach, is that that message would be potentially devastating to this young team. For better or for worse, Losman is a leader on this team. He can't do his leading from the sidelines. Meanwhile, if Jauron chooses to sit Losman, we're left to entrust that leadership role to a rookie? A rookie who, despite his positive press, was still only able to muster 20 offensive points in his two starts? That, ladies and gentlemen, is a very poor notion. That message could set this team back another full year in their development.
The Deciding Factor
Let me be perfectly clear here: I am not endorsing Losman as the savior of this franchise. I have just as many qualms about his play as the Edwards backers out there. I think that both of these quarterbacks have the ability to be highly successful in this system. I think both players could be the answer, and I think there is a good chance both players could not be the answer.
What it comes down to is this: there are 11 games yet to be played this season. If there were, say, 4 games left in the season, we might be having a different conversation here. But there are 11 games to play. It is still too early to give up on the 2007 season - just turn to the Monday Night performance as proof that this team can hang with anybody. Simply put, it is too early to commit to Edwards. If you sit Losman now, you've officially declared that you're done with him. If you sit Edwards, he's returning to his original role. See the difference here?
Bills players know that, in reality, the starting job is still Losman's. That's why JP got a ringing endorsement from Lee Evans. Evans, Losman's offensive co-captain, is right: it's still J.P.'s job. You can say that Evans is a minority in this camp, but can you prove the opposite? The media would like to; they're coming up with hair-brained trade scenarios for Losman already. Be glad that Bob DiCesare is not the GM of this team, folks.
To summarize: Starting Edwards would create a split in the locker room, damaging the psyche of an already fragile young football team. It would leave the rookie to pick up the pieces; it is incredibly unfair to ask a rookie quarterback to play well on the field and re-unify a locker room at the same time. Trent will not be hurt by a return to the sidelines, because he can continue his development process from there, with game experience under his belt. The only psyche that starting Losman would damage would be the fans'.
So please, Coach Jauron. It's not a matter of preference, and it's not a matter of picking correctly now which quarterback is right for this team. It's simply a matter of logic, and logic dictates that, at least for now, J.P. Losman needs to be the starting quarterback of your Buffalo Bills.
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
subject
I don't think you can have chemistry being 0-3 and throwing for 0 TD's and barely breaking 150 yards as your season high.
So far, J.P. Losman has only performed up to his name in his career. Don't you think the message at the start of the season was 'play well or you're out'?
Why else would we have drafted a QB in the third round? We had two backups.
Re:
Losman has sucked. I mentioned that as well. But he played the league's best secondary and the league's best blitz package (Den, Pit respectively). That's not an excuse for his poor play, but it is a factor - to say Edwards has had it far easier in terms of opposition than Losman is a severe understatement.
We had one backup when we drafted Edwards, and it was Craig Nall. Kelly Holcomb had already been dealt to Philly at that point.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 10, 2007 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Very Convincing, Brian.
The best argument is that with Losman, we have to give up on him completely, but with Edwards, sitting might actually help his development now that he knows what game speed is actually like.
I don't think there's even a question here. If we are 2-9 or 3-8 going into week 12, we might be having a different argument.
It's about money, too
Fans can't have it both ways.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Bills organization may be a little stressed with all the various circumstances surrounding the team. So the other word that comes to mind besides "chemistry" is stability which is something Losman hasn't enjoyed much of in his career so far. Losman brings stability to the QB position even if his performance has been lackluster. And besides, what kind of message would this send to a rookie, Edwards - benching Losman at this point? Two bad games and we've had it with you!? Not Buffalo - that's what they do in Miami.
1 reason
Long Ball
it's much more complicated...
J.P. Losman is a gunslinger QB. He excels at throwing the ball down-field. He makes plays happen on-the-run or when he can step into a pocket and throw a strike 20 yards down field.
Trent Edwards is a system QB. He has "poise." He has the mechanics and footwork to drop back and hit a RB/TE (and occasionally) a WR underneath in stride. He's a check down QB.
J.P. Losman did not perform well in the first two games.
The play-calling and overall offensive philosophy was ultra-conservative in those two games.
Edwards comes in and plays a very effective game against a Jets team that is pretty bad.
Edwards looked decent Monday night. However, all his completions were 5 yards down the field (IMO he was checking down WAY to early, scared to make the more riskier down-the-field throw - but that's an opinion, not a fact).
The play calling remained ultra conservative in the last two games. Although Edwards was in shotgun most of the night and the bills played with multiple receivers, the play-calling hasn't changed much from the first few games, it's still ultra conservative. They simply put a new face on it. Instead of run-run-pass out of the I-formation, they have been spreading the field and dumping it off to TE's and RB's underneath. It's almost like watching the west coast offense now. Anyways, do you know that we had 4 WR screens in our first three drives of the game?
So here's where that leaves us:
JP is a gunslinger. He's a spread them out, throw them down field type of QB. He's Brett Farve in his prime (no, not ability, just playing style). Meanwhile, although we only have a few games to go on, it seems that Edwards is more of a "system" QB. He has an ability to check-down, find the open receiver underneath and the get it out quickly enough to get some positive yards.
I've been calling for Buffalo to "open-it-up" for a while now and I couldn't fathom why they wouldn't. Now I know. Jauron and Fairchild never had the intention to open it up. They WANT this uber-conservative offense. This is who they are and they are going to find a QB to play in their system, not build a system around their QB or other talent.
Trent fits their system. JP doesn't. I think with the offensive philosophy right now Trent is the better of the two QB's for the job.
I DO NOT, however, believe that Trent should start. I think JP should start for various reasons that I have listed in previous posts. However, I am worried that they are not going to give him the opportunity to succeed. When JP comes back against Baltimore they're still going to try to plug a square pig (JP) into a round hole (their offensive philosophy).
I think if that happens JP continues to struggle and Trent ends up sooner then later.
What I want to happen?
What I want is for Fairchild and Jauron to get their heads out of their asses and change the offensive philosophy to the team's strengths (also to JP's strengths obviously). I want to see a wide-open offense where Evans is running deep routes, Roscoe is catching crossing patters in stride over the middle, and Lynch is being utilized as the all-purpose back he truly is. I believe JP would thrive in this system. I believe he'd be that "top-10" QB everyone was saying that he could become prior to the season. That's what I want to see happen. Unfortunately, unless Jauron and Fairchild feel pressure from above (Ralph or Marv), they are going to continue to play in an offense that JP will never be successful in. In a nutshell, they're not going to change.
So start JP. His failure and success though will hinge on the coach's willingness to change their flawed philosophy.
Agree and disagree
What I don't agree with is the conservative offensive philosophy you describe. Yes, that's what we've been doing - but I think that's been dictated more by the defense than anything. Our D is so young that I think the game plan, week in and week out, is to control the clock and move the ball methodically to give the D a blow. It's worked at points, and it hasn't worked at points. But I don't necessarily think that it's Fairchild. How else do you explain bizarre play calls in key moments - non-conservative calls, if you will? I think Fairchild is bottled up so much by the game plan that he chooses the exact wrong times to let his true self - his gunslinger self - show through.
Think back to last season. At one point, the Houston game, Losman was given some free reign and he exploded. He had that longer leash the rest of the season. Why? The defenders were comfortable with Fewell's scheme by that point. With all the defensive turnover we've had, we have players out of position and veterans learning on the fly. I believe - and I could be proven to be very wrong on this - that once our defense gets more familiar with the scheme, and with playing next to each other, the offense will open up more. The healthy returns of Coy Wire, Ryan Denney and Jim Leonhard after the bye week will help that.
That's my theory, anyways. We'll see if it's proven false in due course.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 10, 2007 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
i see what you're saying...
i see what you're saying about Fairchild maybe wanting to open it up and not being allowed to by Jauron, that may be the case.
At that point you can't blame him for the offensive philosophy, however, you still cant excuse his play-calling.
You can play conserative and still not throw 4 WR screens in three possession. You can play conserative and still attempt a quick slant.
I don't know what the difference between this year and last year was. You have a good theory but i'm not buying into it a 100%. Something changed though, and whatever it is, it needs to be fixed. That lays on Jauron and Fairchild. Jauron for the overall philosphy and Fairchild on the game day play-calling.
What they are running now, although Edwards is a better fit then JP, even he's not going to reach his full potential. It horrible.
There are ways to play a ball control offense and be sucessful (See the Pittsburgh Stealers for decades and "Marty-ball"). They're not doing that right now. they're not utilizing all the tools in the toolbox (i.e. play action pass), and with that mentality, you're just not going to be successful.
Yep
The play-calling has to change, that's for sure; I just don't think we'll see any significant change until Jauron feels comfortable enough with the defense to open it up. Perhaps after the MNF performance, coupled with the returns of Ellison/Wire/Denney/Youboty/Leonhard, we'll then begin to see that change a game or two after the bye week.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 10, 2007 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Agree with John I.
the fact that Edwards seems to be a perfect fit
for DJ's ultra conservative philosophy. Why then
did we give away Kelly Holcome in the off season.
Now, I'm not a Kelly Holcome fan , but he seemed to be a perfect fit for their dink and dunk game
plans.If this was their plan all along , they had their man.Didn't they trade him , saying that he didn't fit their offensive philosophy? They basicly threw him into the trade for free.At least with KH here , Trent could have learned
the art of the check down from the master.
Dan M.
by cncguy on Oct 10, 2007 5:13 PM EDT reply actions
Can't disagree, but.....
Gotta disagree with you there
Good post. Especially about the conservative nature of the offense. That needs to change, fast.
by Brian Galliford on Oct 11, 2007 7:27 AM EDT reply actions
Brownie agrees
If you stick with Edwards, that means going back to Losman really is no longer an option. Sure the coaching staff could go back to him and put him in the game, but realistically I don't think that would happen. You'd be writing Losman off as far as his Buffalo career is concerned if you stick with Edwards.
Edwards is going to be here for a while, you need to definitively find out about Losman now. So putting Losman back in gives you a chance to see if the first two weeks were an aberration and if he is ready to take the next step.
The big guy comes up with a similar point that I made. That makes both of us right, in my book. :-P
by Brian Galliford on Oct 11, 2007 11:50 AM EDT reply actions
yep...
Once again
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
