Cynical

Course you're not. But ... Typical basic argument of someone who wants Trent. Because the OC and the LT were both fired and released right before the season started, we cannot judge the performance of any QB. Got it. Where's Fitz's upside? Whoops! And how did you come to this conclusion that "Fitz is a backup at best"? 1. Really? Based on what? OC and LT were both fired before 2009 season, not allowed to make judgments of QB performance because of that (according to you), what else you got? The abysmal 2008 season where Trent earned the moniker Capt. Checkdown and showed he was continually baffled by 3-4 defenses? How are you judging Fitz (since you cannot use last year, according to you)? Brohm? 2. According to you, we cannot judge the performance of a QB who's OC and LT were both let go before the season started. But in formulating point number 2, you just violated your own limitation. Nah, you are not a Trent "supporter". Not at all. Not in the least.

His personal performance he probably cares about. (And he has made statements that seem to point this out) The outcome of the game and the team's overall performance? Yes, I am saying he does not care. Win or lose, he still is collecting a paycheck. I have seen nothing he said or done to prove otherwise. It is not uncommon to find people working in jobs and careers for the simple reason they posses the ability to do so. They could care less how the company performs. As long as they are performing well enough to earn the paycheck they want, it's good enough. What's ridiculous is assuming athlete's are immune from this concept. I guess the likes of Willis McGahee and the Mike Williams never make it to the NFL level. Or Jason Peters or Albert Haynesworth or Nate Clements, etc ... I could go back years and rattle off names of players who are more worried about the money than they are about wining or losing. Wha?! You mean a person who actually cares about the outcome did not want to play for team he felt was not going to win? Hey, thanks for supporting my argument where "fans" have an emotional interest in their team winning and losing. Even when he eventually came to Buffalo, Kelly still gave a rat's ass whether or not the team won or lost. That's because he was a "fan". I think it does. It represents a snapshot into Trent's leadership abilities, or lack thereof. Kelly was a player and a "fan". He hated losing. And he did his best to push and motivate his teammates to win. Talley was a player and a "fan". Before each game, Talley used run up and down the sidelines challenging each player to make an impact play. Edwards? As he himself stated, he's not a "fan", he's just a player. And it shows. I get it. You and Dog are a "fan" of Edwards. And it shows.

Mine or the Canadian's? Pay?! You don't get some kind of credit for taking one in?

Exactly. "a fans perspective". Are you (and Trent) saying Trent has no idea what it means to be a "fan" of something? Well, that can't be, because Trent has stated he is an avid fan of the Dodgers. So he knows being a "fan" carries an emotional interest in whatever you are a fan of. In fact, during the same interview when he revealed he was a Dodger fan, he admitted he could be overly critical of them. Third graders and everybody else gets "it". Owens got "it" Talley got "it" Why is it Trent and his followers do not? Either you care about how the team performs or you don't. If you do, you are probably a "fan". If you do not, then you are probably not a "fan". By saying he was "not a fan", he just told everybody he does not care how the team performs. (Bet you he cares how the Dodgers perform) I will make this simple for you and all the others who are struggling with this concept. It is a simple question: Do you give a sh*t how well the Detroit Lions perform?

No it's not. D. Talley said he was a player and a "fan". Being a "fan" means giving a sh*t about the performance and outcome. Edwards knows damn well what it means to be a fan, as he is fan of the Dodgers. Even acknowledges he might be overly critical of them. It was a simple question. Amazingly enough, the same question was presented to Owens. Owens responded with "probably".

Comparing Edwards to Montana? Some sort of joke? FYI: Montana earned his moniker (Joe Cool) because he was calm under pressure. He was not easily rattled. When his pass protection broke down, he moved around, sometimes delivering a pass with a defender in his face knowing full well he was going to be drilled. And you are comparing him to Trent Edwards? Seriously? Sorry, I want a Trent-esque type QB. One that does not communicate with his teammates, but one that spends his time on the sidelines, alone, "contemplating" (as you once put it). And while you attempted to answer the first question, you never bothered to answer the second question: I want to see some proof of Trent's "fire", proof that he gives 110% on every play. From my perspective, Trent looks like a poor man's version of Jeff George. He has the ability to play the game, so he does. Other than that, he could give a rats ass. He would prefer to win, but if he losses, so what. He still earns a paycheck.

Time to start calling you on some of your ramblings. Name some of these Trent-esque QBs. Amazingly, Fitzpatrick who is supposed to be worse than Edwards, produced more with essentially with the same people. Yet, we didn't hear him complaining about "mixed signals" from the coaching staff. Maybe Edwards was receiving "mixed signals" because he wasn't doing anything he was being told or expected to do. Leaders rally the troops. Leaders expect communication. If it doesn't happen, they initiate it. They do NOT sit on the sideline with their thumb up their ass. You got some proof of this (even vague), or do you just "hope" this statement is true?

I care could less of what walterfootball says. It's one of the worse football sites out there IMHO. Couple of examples: He mentions the Pats did nothing but draft a bunch average players. Their grade? B And from the Carolina summary: "Carolina got the No. 5 player on my board and a legitimate franchise quarterback in Clausen at No. 48 overall. This was highway robbery, but I really feel like if they wanted Clausen badly they would have moved up for him. Here's a concept, maybe Carolina could not justify moving up to grab Clausen. Know what? They were right!

Their open to him because they really have nothing else. Edwards = chicken sh*t Fitz = Back up Brown = project He'll get a chance to compete and start. He has talent, but just could not adjust to the NFL. The GB offense is supposedly complicated, and he struggled to grasp it. My guess is this is Brohm's last chance. Either he grasps the playbook, and performs, or he hits the waiver wire as another highly touted college QB that could not make it.

Despite all the hoopla that people try to push that the NFL is a passing league, the basic adage of run and stop still applies. The Bills were not going to fix everything in 1 year. This year, they addressed stopping the run. Hopefully, next year they focus on some road graders.

Yep. Not only did Jauron use high value resources (like early round draft picks), he spent as many resources as he could. Other positions he tried to "quick fix". Need a lineman? Pluck one off the free agent scrap heap and plug him in. DB's? Bring as many into camp as he could. If Jauron spent the same number of time, energy, and resources on building the OL and DL, the Bills would be set for years. God, I still cannot believe we spent 4 years dealing with his piss poor coaching and the number of people that actually defended him.

He was working that way. To him, there was not much difference between DB and LB. And the way he liked his undersized D lineman ...

Since Trent has shown a lack of taking chances and throwing down field, yes. Call his style of play anything you want: chicken s**t afraid wussy P***y scared coward

I like the timeline. March 23 Open competition among all 3 QB with 4th possibly drafted April 9 Mort has hinted Bills are ready to wash their hands of Edwards My guess? Gailey finally watched game film of Edwards and came to realization he could not compensate for kitty.

Yeah, it's pretty bad when even the announcers were saying players were open. At one point last year, during an after game press conference, Jauron mentioned there were opportunities in the passing game that were never taken. During this off season, even Trent mentioned missing open receivers. Of course, Trent tried to blame the previous coaching staff for "mixed signals". Amazingly, Fitzpatrick, with the same coaching staff and players, did NOT have said "mixed signal" problems.

Nice post. I have been saying for a while now, coaches can can scheme and game plan around a players abilities and limitations. You cannot create a scheme or game plan for 'coward'.

And watched. Thanks for playing.

True. But that has nothing to do with why I posted that reply to Ice.

Actually, yes, this is the main intention. Spiller is not an every down back. He may have Chris Johnson's "speed", but he does NOT posses Chris Johnson's toughness. Spiller is Chan's water bug player.

Nice post, but i have to disagree with this point. There is one major difference between Trent and Chad. Chad has balls, apparently Trent has mailed his to Dakota Fanning.

No, Nix said it about 10 days ago: Linky "If you move a guy like Andy you weaken two positions," said Nix. "We're pretty good down the middle and we think he's a better guard. ... And we'd like to keep it that way." As for Jauron, were you blind during his tenure? Jauron was constantly moving people around. How could anyone forget last year where Jauron moved the RT to LT, the RG to RT, and took a back up guard and made him the starting center?

As I said in another thread, this has been said for 20+ years, maybe even longer. Air Coryell, West Coast Offense, Run 'N Shoot, ... Sorry, the NFL is still a 'run the ball, stop the run' league.

If you had bothered to read everything I have posted in this thread: 1. You will have seen I clearly stated the draft was far from over, and I was not classifying this draft based on this one pick 2. I would not get excited over a situational /role type player (and that is exactly what Spiller is) until I see what else takes place. In short, let's see how the Bills address both OT (depth is good, but we need starters) and the QB situation. It will be hard to take advantage of Spiller as a WR if the OL can't pass block and/or QB play continues to blow. It will also be hard to take advantage of Spiller's speed on the outside as RB if the bloody OT cannot get any push or create a lane. Right now, the strength of the Bills OL is on the inside, where Spiller is the least effective.

Did you actually bother to read my post? Or did you respond just for s**ts and giggles?