Didn't Joe Montana win a superbowl

[mpl6876]

I think its too early to compare the QB's. Montana's career is finshed and his stats are set in stone. Trent is young very talanted and still maturing. I really like the combo of coach Chan Gailey and QB Trent Edwards. The comparsions can begin after their legacy ends. We al know that Gailey can produce QB's. This is exactly what Trent needs. I wouldn't be surprised if Trent's number surpass Montana when his career is over.

 

Coach Gailey + Trent Edwards = Wins wins and more wins....Prediction Trent will appear in 4 pro bowls and win a super Bowl MVP in three years. Coach Gailey will be the best hire since Marv Levy and be named the coach of the year. Bill Polian will be shining Buddy Nix's shoes.......

 

GO BILLLS!!!!!!!!!

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

The Bills need to pick a qb sooner than later.

The key logical point here is that it has been demonstrated time and again (picking JP over Flutie when it was clear that RJ was the better QB on paper, picking JP over Bledsoe as the Bills had stupidly handed the starter job to Bledsoe when he had demonstrated on the field that though he deserved it after his first season he did not deserve to be extended after his horrendous second season, and then pocking Edwards as the starter after his quick emergence.

 

Edwards had actually earned a starting nod with his play, but his play also showed him to be a victim of numerous injuries to several different problems causing him to also earn being deemed injury prone. He earned the starter nod but should not have been given the permanent job as the next Jim Kelly as he had demonstrated losing PT 3 times in two seasons that he should not be GIVEN the keys to the Bills O without an answer being found for a reliable back-up.

 

Giving the QB job to anyone without his earning it would LOGICALLY be quite dumb.

[Thurman#1]

But it's a flawed stat. I'm not even comparing Edwards to Montana because that's insane. But the reason Montana was great was he was perfect for a West Coast offense. He got rid of the play quick (slants, quick out type plays that were for 7 yards or less) and let his playmakers do the rest. Rice and Taylor are 2 of the greatest run after the catch receivers in history.

 

Brady also completes a ton of short passes. But the major difference between the Brady and Montanas of the world and Trent Edwards is the willingness to take shots down field. That's why Trent will struggle because teams don't have the threat of him beating them over the top. But I think most posters would be amazed at the numbers of passes Montana completed under 10 yards.

 

 

 

There's a major difference between a short play to a WR and a dump-off. And why would anyone be surprised by the number of passes ANYONE completed under 10 yards. I don't think anyone has ever had a YPA over 10. Everyone needs to complete a lot of short passes.

 

It's not a flawed stat at all. The reason Rice and Taylor are two of the greatest run after the catch receivers in history is that Montana and later Young consistently found the open guy and hit him in stride. Take a look at the way Rice's stats took an immediate nose-dive after Young retired. Sure those guys were great, but a lot of the reason they were great is that they had Montana and Young throwing to them.

[Thurman#1]

I think its too early to compare the QB's. Montana's career is finshed and his stats are set in stone. Trent is young very talanted and still maturing. I really like the combo of coach Chan Gailey and QB Trent Edwards. The comparsions can begin after their legacy ends. We al know that Gailey can produce QB's. This is exactly what Trent needs. I wouldn't be surprised if Trent's number surpass Montana when his career is over.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but for a moment there, it seemed as if you had said ... no, surely not, it would just be laughable if you had said that.

 

"... wouldn't be surprised if Trent's number (sic) surpass Montana ..."????????? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been drinking.

[mpl6876]

I'm sorry, but for a moment there, it seemed as if you had said ... no, surely not, it would just be laughable if you had said that.

 

"... wouldn't be surprised if Trent's number (sic) surpass Montana ..."????????? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been drinking.

 

Perhaps a "bit of a stretch" with my "new found opitimism." I stand corrected Thurman#1. By the way, I always seem to enjoy reading your post.

[Albany,n.y.]

At this point - It's Brohm or Edwards. I think we are surprised and Brohm wins the starting gig.

Brohm will be the starting QB..................

 

 

 

............................................of the Hartford Colonials

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Montana was not a gunslinger in any sense of the word. The majority of his passes were 10 yards or less. However, he had one of the greatest offensive minds and teams around him. Rice, Taylor, Jones, Craig, etc. were all great after the catch. Rice and Taylor could take a slant 70 yards (do we even have slants in our playbook?)

 

So saying Trent can't be a successful QB because he checks down or his arm strength is flat out wrong. The problem with Trent is he would rather take the safer play when a bigger one is available. At some point, you have to take chances and I think it is more mental with Trent than anything. Additionally, it is hard to fully believe in a guy in a guy who struggles to stay healthy.

 

Yeah, Montana was heaving bombs around, but there's a big difference between running a West-coast style offense like Montana did and actually "checking down". Checking down implies that the quarterback has examined all of his options down the field and found nothing, so he decides to avoid a negative play and get 3-5 yards out of a RB/FB/TE.

[DrFishfinder]

Montana was not a gunslinger in any sense of the word. The majority of his passes were 10 yards or less. However, he had one of the greatest offensive minds and teams around him. Rice, Taylor, Jones, Craig, etc. were all great after the catch. Rice and Taylor could take a slant 70 yards (do we even have slants in our playbook?)

 

So saying Trent can't be a successful QB because he checks down or his arm strength is flat out wrong. The problem with Trent is he would rather take the safer play when a bigger one is available. At some point, you have to take chances and I think it is more mental with Trent than anything. Additionally, it is hard to fully believe in a guy in a guy who struggles to stay healthy.

That is one of the most glaring problems the Bills have. The majority of the check down passes that I saw only went 1-2 steps after the catch. At that point, the receiver was hit and the gain was catch + 3-6 yards at best.

 

A) The offense was so predictable, the receivers were nearly always covered

B) The receivers weren't elusive enough to avoid being tackled

C) The receivers weren't strong enough to break tackles

 

The OL wasn't able to give the QB time to set up and wait for deep routes to develop. Defensive coverage behind the deep receiver(s) made it dangerous to throw to the spot the where the deep receiver should be. That pretty much left check downs and the running game to provide the majority of the offense.

 

Let's see what Gailey and company are going to do to turn that around.

[mpl6876]

That is one of the most glaring problems the Bills have. The majority of the check down passes that I saw only went 1-2 steps after the catch. At that point, the receiver was hit and the gain was catch + 3-6 yards at best.

 

A) The offense was so predictable, the receivers were nearly always covered

B) The receivers weren't elusive enough to avoid being tackled

C) The receivers weren't strong enough to break tackles

 

The OL wasn't able to give the QB time to set up and wait for deep routes to develop. Defensive coverage behind the deep receiver(s) made it dangerous to throw to the spot the where the deep receiver should be. That pretty much left check downs and the running game to provide the majority of the offense.

 

Let's see what Gailey and company are going to do to turn that around.

 

Fish, I like your post alot. Just be careful about your A,B, and C comments. Many fans here don't wait to hear the same old complaints even though they are correct and valid observations.

 

I am anxious to see what Gailey can do too. Heck, if he can productivity out of Thygpen and Stewart...think what he can do with a more talented Brohm, Fitz, Brown, or Edwards?

 

Let the season begin.

[Red]

correct

For one thing, no player has ever won an NFL game, let alone a Super Bowl, on his own

For another, he had a progression of reads to follow in every play,,,he didn't check down..he followed his progressions

 

Also, Montana wasn't caught staring down his receivers before the snap

 

This is actually a very good point.

 

I read Bill Walsh's book Building a Champion many moons ago. In it, he talks about how the 49ers gradually scripted a large bulk of the plays to start the game, before identifying key areas of weakness to attack and build on later on.

 

Those plays scripted would be in the 25-30 range, therefore what Montana did to start most games was follow the plan. Which would have less to do with Montana and more to do with Walsh.

 

Great point, Philster!

[Beerball]

Has anyone mentioned that Trent Edwards couldn't hold Montana's jockstrap?

 

Most idiotic thread ever (other than those started by me).

[Nervous Guy]

Actually, no. He did not.

That was Brady that did that.

[Gibran Chandan]

Seriously, how old are some of you? Montana definately did was NOT captain checkdown in any sense of the word.

 

Most of us are old enough to write sentences that make some kind of sense. Don't worry, you'll get there someday.

[Beerball]

Most of us are old enough to write sentences that make some kind of sense. Don't worry, you'll get there someday.

How do you feel about the essence of what was said? Do you disagree?

 

Montana ran Walsh's offense with precision. He had the ability to read defenses and he had the timing & touch that turned Walsh into a genius.

 

Let me know what you think of that rather than acting like an ass to a fellow fan.

[Conch]

Two years ago when the Bills started 5-1, the Edwards-Montana comparisons were naive. Now, it's just plain stupid.

Agreed. I bet if TE got a brush cut Bills fans would compare him to Johnny U.

[Rob's House]

Didn't Joe Montana win a superbowl by being a "captain checkdown".

 

Some reasons to name Edwards the starter now:

 

1. He has more experience than the other quarterbacks

 

2. A new offensive system requires more reps and allows timing with the receivers

 

3. He is more accurate than the other three

 

4. Takes away the tension surrounding the team regarding this question of who will start. (supplement)

 

5. He can scramble, has some quickness and appears stronger.

 

6. There aren't enough preseason games to give valid assessments.

 

7. Being a checkdown qb was a large piece of the west coast offense.

 

8. If its Fitz or Edwards, I go with Edwards and neither Brown nor Brohm are ready.

 

 

Bring it.

 

Awful, Awful screen name.

[The Dean]

That was Brady that did that.

 

 

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

That is one of the most glaring problems the Bills have. The majority of the check down passes that I saw only went 1-2 steps after the catch. At that point, the receiver was hit and the gain was catch + 3-6 yards at best.

 

A) The offense was so predictable, the receivers were nearly always covered

B) The receivers weren't elusive enough to avoid being tackled

C) The receivers weren't strong enough to break tackles

 

The OL wasn't able to give the QB time to set up and wait for deep routes to develop. Defensive coverage behind the deep receiver(s) made it dangerous to throw to the spot the where the deep receiver should be. That pretty much left check downs and the running game to provide the majority of the offense.

 

Let's see what Gailey and company are going to do to turn that around.

I think this points to a problem which I think the Bills have had under Schonert and actually OCs back to Kragthorpe that I do not think that the Bills route designs within their offense are very good at getting a lot of separation between the receiver and the defenders. My sense is that given the raw speed that the Bills had in their WR crew (Evans and Parrish- along with the not world class but still must be respected downfield abilities of TO) the Bills should have commanded a lot more respect from defenders than they got and thus created more room for RAC.

 

My sense was that the route problems we had were:

 

1. Pretty predictable play calling which allowed defenders to crowd the line rather than hang back to see what the Bills were going to do.

2. We needed to come closer to breaking the rules setting pick plays and running into defenders trying to cover our receivers. A couple of nasty licks would force defenders to put their heads on a swivel watching out for a hit rather than simply covering our man tightly. Yeah we would get penalized from time to time for setting picks but this is a worthwhile price to pay.

3. We needed to run more slant pattens

4. The offense needs to use the RBs as receivers more.

 

The fact we did not do these things well ended up with our receivers tackled quickly after a reception.

[K Gun Special]

This is actually a very good point.

 

I read Bill Walsh's book Building a Champion many moons ago. In it, he talks about how the 49ers gradually scripted a large bulk of the plays to start the game, before identifying key areas of weakness to attack and build on later on.

Those plays scripted would be in the 25-30 range, therefore what Montana did to start most games was follow the plan. Which would have less to do with Montana and more to do with Walsh.

 

Great point, Philster!

 

 

Most teams do this, even at the collegiate level. These are designed to take advantage of certain things, show formations and see how the Defense will react adjust to said formations.

[Alphadawg7]

But it's a flawed stat. I'm not even comparing Edwards to Montana because that's insane. But the reason Montana was great was he was perfect for a West Coast offense. He got rid of the play quick (slants, quick out type plays that were for 7 yards or less) and let his playmakers do the rest. Rice and Taylor are 2 of the greatest run after the catch receivers in history.

 

Brady also completes a ton of short passes. But the major difference between the Brady and Montanas of the world and Trent Edwards is the willingness to take shots down field. That's why Trent will struggle because teams don't have the threat of him beating them over the top. But I think most posters would be amazed at the numbers of passes Montana completed under 10 yards.

 

Just chiming in here...I know you are not comparing the two QB's...

 

Lets not over look one of the primary reasons Rice and Taylor were great after the catch...it had a lot to with Montana who made that possible with incredibly accurate pin point passes right in the numbers. Rice ran precise routes and Montana made precise throws.