murra

Yeah I kind of felt bad about that. How do you feel in that guys position? He did about as good as he could in the only chance he was given, and will still inevitably get cut...

I just don't agree with this. You guys called for JP's head, and his line collapsed even faster than this. You can't have it both ways, dude.

There you go. Now that's how you legitimately post in an argument. I'm sick and tired of people making claims on these boards like, "Derek Anderson is NOT a good QB." And then leaving it there. I thoroughly enjoyed your retort. You made great points. I like how you didn't have to prove that Trent was better, you just solidified that Anderson was not good. After reading your post, I get the message you actually know what you're talking about. I don't exactly agree with your Kelly's swagger to awful decision spectrum, as I've seen Anderson thread the needle on multiple occasions, and I've witnessed him toss around some Kelly like bombs, but I think you're more right than wrong when you say that season was a fluke.

I hate to respond with such a simple answer, but it's truthful and should perhaps open your eyes: Our offensive line did a better job than the Steelers. Trent, however couldn't handle pressure. Big Ben used pressure to create. Trent used it to take hits, miss reads, and to throw it late. The whole offense was not manhandled, Trent just doesn't create.

For future reference, it's not Trent "Checkdown" Edwards. It's Trentative Checkwards.

I totally agree with you. I just decided to prove that people can't defend Trent and then call Anderson a bad quarterback. Rather than just saying it, I pumped in some stats, so be it.

This isn't 1990. Just because you live in Cleveland doesn't mean you're the only one who has seen the games. I probably watched 13 or so of Cleveland's games that season thanks to the wonderful world of the internet, and I disagree. I didn't start this thread, and I realize this is a serious pipe dream, but I've decided it to take it upon myself to defend Anderson here. He is obviously better than Edwards. Attitude? You guys are just saying he's bad. I used stats. I'm not much of a stat guy even, but I mean, his cons would be pros in the Edwards column... ... "he forces the ball into coverage" Great! Bring him in. I'd rather he throw exciting picks than dump-offs.

You're all over the place, but I think I catch your drift. The Bills suck?

You watched the Cleveland game, that's for sure.

I guess you're right. I mean how can you really judge mediocre quarterbacks. I'll try though. Anderson vs. Edwards = 1-0. Quinn vs. Edwards = 1-0. It's a small sample size, sure...but I'm having my doubts. Plus you've got the one season that Anderson had. You know, the one Trent will most likely never attain: 2007 298 527 56.5 3787 82.5 29 19 + Pro Bowl. I don't know where you decided that, Anderson is NOT a good QB. But he's a season removed from throwing for almost 30 touchdowns. In 23 starts, Edwards has 18. But, I'm sorry...you're right. He is [CAPS LOCK] NOT [/CAPS LOCK] a good QB.

Well, bust my buttons! Why didn't you say that in the first place? That's a horse of a different color! Come on in!

You would rather have Trent Edwards than Derek Anderson?

I'm actually a little overwhelmed right now. An apologist who can't defend Trent. It's a first. I think Mark, that you're heading in the right direction. I never like to be overly critical, and I was a long and obedient apologist for J.P., but once I saw the light I realized that while it may take some time for certain players to develop here and there, for some you can tell, it will never turn on. Trent's a tricky cat. We've seen him make nice plays. But then again we've seen the Cleveland game. I agree, Fitz is not ready for the starting position. I also don't like to mess with an alleged franchise QB. We took out JP and replaced him with Kelly Holcomb, and I think that did more harm than good. I don't know what to do with him, but for the mean time I think it's a fair request that every Bills fan should at least be on the guy's back. I want him to feel the pressure from the team and fans. He doesn't look to me like the guy who can rise out of pressure, but week one will be an excellent test for him. He probably will fail under pressure like always, but this season is his last chance to prove he can play football... ...the sad thing about Trent is that his game-plan is more conservative than Dick's coaching. It miraculously won us games, but if you play conservative and make mistakes like the littly rinky-dink pass that was picked off today, you'll lose them. I think in the end that this season will be an unnecessary one in the method of rebuilding. By allowing Trent to have one last chance, and seeing him fail, we'll effectively set ourselves back an entire season. We're a young team, but as some of our defenders get older, and Evans gains another year, it becomes a sad repetitive cycle.

Firstly, you didn't really prove that Oakland, Kansas City, or Cincinnati are better than us. Disproving it in one sentence: We beat those first two teams last season (one in a slaughter), and cincy is so bad that their starting QB last season is now our back-up. You should know better. We will probably lose some winnable games, but we'll come out of nowhere to have at least a glance at the playoffs, and perhaps finish 7-9.

I dunno bro, the guy kind of was an a$$hat. I mean, I didn't like seeing raw talent hit the wayside...but surely you can't think that the reason people are not wishing him well is because they're ego-maniacs.

I'm also still waiting for you to defend Trent.

I'll be waiting.

If you walked away from that game thinking that our biggest need was LT, you probably don't understand football too well.

"Run out of town" makes it seem like we had an agenda. I mean, wanting a legitimate quarterback is definitely an agenda, but the way you phrased that sort of irked me.

Rather than hopping into the old, "I never said they were dominant you're losing this argument and putting words into my mouth..." nonsense, I'll just let your words (and mine I guess) speak for themselves. Assuming you can read, you'll be able to note that not only did I not claim the Offensive line dominated, but you lied. Yes, I'm calling you a liar. The offensive line did not collapse on several occasions. I can think of exactly 2 (with Edwards in). I know he's your savior, but chalking it up to: He played bad. Isn't cutting it. If you think he's a franchise quarterback you need to start defending him to me right now, because I don't think you're capable of it.

I'm very curious as to whether that was just a brilliant post, or you're someone affiliated with the Bills.

Yeah. I'm not a doctor. I guess a small fracture of the fibula is something you could walk off. But you can't break your Tibia and walk it off.

Drink some more kool-aid, you clown. I've long refrained from the Edwards debate, but no one should be silly enough to make the claim that it's the line's fault. Way to admit you didn't watch the game.

It's pretty difficult/impossible to do actually.

I was flipping through the radio in the car today when I came across what seemed like a Reagan clip. It turned out WBEN was airing the entire 10 minute segment unabridged. I tuned in, listened and realized how impressively insightful Reagan was almost 50 years ago. I was able to find it on the internet here. Just give it a listen, because he makes some points I have not exactly heard made from either side... such as the possibility of doctors losing practically all of their job associated freedom. It's just a nice taste of anti-government regulation and I thought I'd share. Enjoy! Edit: I found a better link.