[please fix subject]Ya...I Said It

[Mickey]

You must be new here. Otherwise you would have seen the OP's previous posts over the last year and agreed. He's not an idiot for this one ridiculous suggestion, but rather for a string of them.

Off the mark though his post may have been, there was nothing personally directed at you anywhere in it. He was not rude, he was not disrespectful. Seems like it would have been easy enough to show just how off the wall his point was without making it personal. Plenty did just that. You were not among them.

[PDaDdy]

The bolded statement is not what I was saying at all. Nor is it remotely consistent with the raw data I provided.

 

Both Edwards and Losman had one season of being the uncontested starter--2006 for Losman, and 2008 for Edwards. Losman and Edwards had two seasons each of being a "contested starter"--getting about half the starts in a competition with some other quarterback. Losman's contested starter seasons were 2005 (with Kelly Holcomb) and 2007 (with Trent Edwards). Edwards' two contested seasons were 2007 (with Losman) and 2009 (with Fitzpatrick).

 

Losman's and Edwards' careers are nearly parallel. They had nearly identical numbers of starts for the Bills, and have each had the same overall opportunity to prove themselves.

 

I know it's not what you were saying exactly. I was being facetious as that statement was embedded in your facts/statement. Edwards was the uncontested starter in 2008 and 2009 that is not even debatable. 2010 he won a sham of a contest in camp and was named the starter to be benched/injured again. I also say he was uncontested as his challengers were left overs Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brian Brohm. JP had the organization go out and spend a highish 3rd round draft pick on a QB blessed by Bill Walsh. As expected that QB was eventually given the job in 2007.

 

There are many similarities in their careers but more differences. Level of support as the uncontested starting QB is one of them. All I'm saying is that to get a true comparison and assessment of how bad JP really did or didn't suck we would have needed to give JP the same support and time to develop. It is 110% possible that JP would have still stunk.

 

We were wasting our time the last few years with Edwards waiting for him to arrive why watching some of the most painful and boring football ever. I guess I would have just rather wasted those years watching JP instead with some excitement and perhaps seeing what he could have become if nurtured during the "formative" years of his career.

Edited September 22, 2010 by PDaDdy

[BobChalmers]

I hear ya. He had problems no doubt. We saw that Edwards in 4 years didn't over come his maybe if JP was given the same time he might have overcome his own. JP taking sacks would have been easy for a real coach to get rid of. He had the physical skills to avoid the pressure and make 1st down runs. JP's problem was he would take a sack 8 seconds after the snap. Trent took a sack 4 seconds after the snap. Made up approximate numbers of course but Trent just didn't have the physical skills to get himself any meaningful extra time. JP could scramble. Reset and launch a 83 yds TD bomb to Evans. Trent scrambles and throws the ball away or completes a 7 yard pass when we need 15. Those useless passes with his check downs did keep his accuracy and completion stats up that all of his fans loved so much.

 

Actually, the difference is JP played behind a better line - he just did dumb things. Trent didn't have 4 seconds back there.

 

Having said that - before Dick Jauron's staff had some time to "work their magic" on our offense, Losman was the 11th rated QB in the NFL. As with Edwards, there's no telling what permanent damage was done to Losman by the lack of an offensive spine to actually win the game instead of the Jauron-style "play not to lose".

 

What does seem true to me is that the only clear difference between Losman and Fitz is that Losman is a better athlete with a better arm. If we've given up on Edwards, there really is no compelling reason not to pick up Losman instead of Fitz.

Edited September 22, 2010 by BobChalmers

[SDS]

[This is an automated response]

 

As a courtesy to the other board members, please use more descriptive subject lines. The topic starter can edit the subject line to make it more appropriate.

 

Thank you.

[Chandemonium]

I know it's not what you were saying exactly. I was being facetious as that statement was embedded in your facts/statement. Edwards was the uncontested starter in 2008 and 2009 that is not even debatable. 2010 he won a sham of a contest in camp and was named the starter to be benched/injured again. I also say he was uncontested as his challengers were left overs Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brian Brohm. JP had the organization go out and spend a highish 3rd round draft pick on a QB blessed by Bill Walsh. As expected that QB was eventually given the job in 2007.

 

There are many similarities in their careers but more differences. Level of support as the uncontested starting QB is one of them. All I'm saying is that to get a true comparison and assessment of how bad JP really did or didn't suck we would have needed to give JP the same support and time to develop. It is 110% possible that JP would have still stunk.

 

We were wasting our time the last few years with Edwards waiting for him to arrive why watching some of the most painful and boring football ever. I guess I would have just rather wasted those years watching JP instead with some excitement and perhaps seeing what he could have become if nurtured during the "formative" years of his career.

How was he the uncontested starter in 2009 when he got less than half the starts?

Edited September 22, 2010 by Chandemonium

[Dr. Trooth]

Not wanting a QB because he is from CA is just stupid.

 

They Can't, nor want to play in Buffalo.

 

And... for your information, Joe Montana was a PENNSYLVANIA BOY.... where real QBs come from.

[PDaDdy]

How was he the uncontested starter in 2009 when he got less than half the starts?

 

 

Injuries and eventually stinking so bad he was permanently benched. If I am not mistaken he was the starting QB opening day without a camp "competition" correct?

 

Any idea how I can change a thread title???? Apparently the moderators don't think it is descriptive enough. I was more going for the ya...I'm the guy that said it out loud kind of impact.

[Chandemonium]

Injuries and eventually stinking so bad he was permanently benched. If I am not mistaken he was the starting QB opening day without a camp "competition" correct?

 

Any idea how I can change a thread title???? Apparently the moderators don't think it is descriptive enough. I was more going for the ya...I'm the guy that said it out loud kind of impact.

But that's not how the other poster was defining contested. If he was so bad he got benched at any point in the season, it was contested. If he was named the starter for game one before, during or after training camp is irrelevant.

[PDaDdy]

But that's not how the other poster was defining contested. If he was so bad he got benched at any point in the season, it was contested. If he was named the starter for game one before, during or after training camp is irrelevant.

 

 

Well that is just ridiculous. By that standard no QB in the history of the NFL has ever had an uncontested starting job. If you suck badly enough any QB will be benched. The more reasonable statement that I made was that Trent had no meaningful competitors and other than a sham of a QB contest in 2010 he was handed the job, uncontested, for 2008, 2009 and in my opinion 2010. You could also make a case that they were just waiting to hand him the job in 2007 because the new coaching staff didn't like JP and his gunslinger ways one bit.

[cåblelady]

This is like choosing between Pauly Shore and Rob Schneider.

Nah. Shane Falco and Justin Bieber.

[Orton's Arm]

Well that is just ridiculous. By that standard no QB in the history of the NFL has ever had an uncontested starting job. If you suck badly enough any QB will be benched. The more reasonable statement that I made was that Trent had no meaningful competitors and other than a sham of a QB contest in 2010 he was handed the job, uncontested, for 2008, 2009 and in my opinion 2010. You could also make a case that they were just waiting to hand him the job in 2007 because the new coaching staff didn't like JP and his gunslinger ways one bit.

If that's the definition you want to use, then fine. But if you're applying that definition to Edwards, you have to apply it to Losman as well. Losman was named the starter going into three separate seasons: 2005, 2006, and 2007. Edwards was named the starter going into the 2008, 2009, and 2010 seasons. Losman was benched for poor play in two of his three "opening day starter" seasons: 2005 and 2007. Edwards was also benched for poor play in two of his three "opening day starter" seasons: 2009 and 2010.

 

We gave Losman plenty of chances and found out he's not the answer. He can't even make the final roster cut of an NFL team. The decision to move on from Losman, and to see what our other young quarterbacks had, made sense. As the most promising of those young quarterbacks, Edwards deserved his chance too. Now that he's been given that chance, it's clear he's not the answer at QB either.

[Leonidas]

Off the mark though his post may have been, there was nothing personally directed at you anywhere in it. He was not rude, he was not disrespectful. Seems like it would have been easy enough to show just how off the wall his point was without making it personal. Plenty did just that. You were not among them.

 

Again, go back to previous posts by the OP and you'll understand. Until you do, there's not much I can say that will help you to understand.

 

How was he the uncontested starter in 2009 when he got less than half the starts?

 

Yet somehow it's "not even debatable."

 

Really? Did you find the games you watched any more entertaining with Edwards? Personally I found them less entertaining. Kind of like having each bone in your body broken one at a time slowly. JP was still like getting every bone in your body broken but at least it was merciful and exciting. LOL. I guess you thought we were always "in it" as long as Trent could complete 70% of his passes. Who cares that half of them were behind the line of scrimmage and didn't convert 3rd downs but hey? lol

 

Who cares what you found more entertaining? What the hell does that have to do with anything?? Losman sucked, Edwards sucked, end of !@#$ing story. This thread is beyond pointless...

[thebug]

Again, go back to previous posts by the OP and you'll understand. Until you do, there's not much I can say that will help you to understand.

 

 

 

Yet somehow it's "not even debatable."

 

 

 

Who cares what you found more entertaining? What the hell does that have to do with anything?? Losman sucked, Edwards sucked, end of !@#$ing story. This thread is beyond pointless...

 

 

Yeah, but JP was a "gunslinger".

[EC-Bills]

I was a big JP guy back in 06-07 but he proved he was not the guy.

Trent has also proved that he is not the guy either.

But Trent not being any good does not make JP any better.

 

We need to move on and find the guy. Play Fitz for a fiew weeks. If he is not markedly better than Edwards, throw Brohm in there and give him the rest of the season to see what he can do. He is the only one who has not played alot and hasn't experienced NFL defenses trying to tear his head off. Lets he if he can handle it and get better with experience.

 

Good post!