Bob DiCesare article...

[transient]

It's a good article, though wrong, IMHO. The reason many of you like it is that it's pro-Bills. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with criticizing them either, if it's warranted, and the handling of Trent has warranted criticism.

 

He says "Some might say that the past game tapes showed Gailey all he needed to know about Edwards, that the indecisiveness and lack of poise last season made it apparent he was spent. But don't earlier tapes also show Edwards in command?"

 

Yeah, they do show Edwards in command. But not recently. Not for a very long time, and not against decent teams, never sustained for more than a game or so except for that early season burst early in 2008, which at first looked like it might have been against decent teams, but the season later showed that those teams were genuinely bad. Virtually every QB has a game or two where he looks good. Look at Dennis Shaw, David Carr, Joey Harrington and a million others. It's consistency you look for, and Trent's consistency has been in checking down even when there were guys open downfield. The flaw that caused him to be let go is exactly the flaw he has demonstrated time and time again.

 

I think the reason people like it is because it is decidedly level-headed and mildly pro-Bills, much like your response is level-headed and mildly critical. This team has cetainly warranted criticism over the last decade, and unfortunately this new regime is going to reap its share of it garnered from the incompetency of their predecessors, fair or not. Criticizing their decisions before giving them due time to succeed or fail is what is getting trite and hard to read, and this article was definitely not that.

 

I can see the point of those who say TE was on a downward trend and it should have been obvious, but I also happen to believe that the only way for the staff to prove to THEMSELVES (not to the fans that had made up their minds and wouldn't be swayed) that it wasn't terrible/absent coaching was to approach it this way. Nix is on record publicly stating that the circumstances surrounding last season offense were a recipe for failure. If Edwards had failed in preseason they would have pulled the plug then I would assume, but he looked good. You can make the argument that Fitz or Brohm only got to work with the second team, but you can also make the argument a first team talent playing against second team players should show signs of that talent regardless of his surrounding cast, which neither of them did.

 

The quickest way to rebuild this team, IMO, is going to be by determining what is already on the roster and can wait a season or two to turnover, and what needs to be addressed right now. If they find players that fit what they're trying to do, replacing the players that don't should make the holdovers look even better and buy some time while making the team more competitive both now and in the long run. I don't think the positions in need of improvement are in dispute between the front office and the fans so much as the order, timeframe, and methods for addressing them are.

[Sisyphean Bills]

How do you know that Gailey just made up his mind this week? He could have been thinking all along that this was Edwards' last chance to prove himself. If he didn't work out, then move on. That could have been his plan all along. If Edwards performed up to snuff, then that would be one less position to worry about. Gailey basically gave himself options by letting Edwards be the starter instead of closing that loop right away.

 

Didn't he say in preseason (or maybe shortly after he got the job) that everyone's job was going to be evaluated? This would tell me that everyone is playing for their job.

It's all about the timing. If you cut the chord before free agency, you can go out an sign a free agent or draft someone. Then you invest all your OTAs and training camp in the player you are going to play, the guy that you think is going to give you the best chance to win the next game. Cutting coaches and team captains (we're not talking about the #7 WR who's never dressed for a game here) in the season causes confusion and can backfire causing yet more problems and more losing. In a way, it is showing disgruntled, underachiever players that there is an easy way out of Dodge.

 

A further point: Who's to say that Gailey's firing 10 days before the season last year didn't cause him to have an unusual, unorthodox approach to this job? In his shoes, would it be a big surprise to someone if he was deeply distrusting of the last regime and to the point his mindset is "I'll see it for myself, thank you very much!"?

Edited September 29, 2010 by Sisyphean Bills

[GG]

How do you know that Gailey just made up his mind this week? He could have been thinking all along that this was Edwards' last chance to prove himself. If he didn't work out, then move on. That could have been his plan all along. If Edwards performed up to snuff, then that would be one less position to worry about. Gailey basically gave himself options by letting Edwards be the starter instead of closing that loop right away.

 

Didn't he say in preseason (or maybe shortly after he got the job) that everyone's job was going to be evaluated? This would tell me that everyone is playing for their job.

 

If that is the case, then the situation is far worse than feared.

 

Think about this for a second, if it were realy true that Gailey had serious misgivings about Edwards' ability to lead this team, and this was his last chance, why in the world would you put all your eggs in one basket since April? That is an absolutely insane way to plan out the season and your team's QB situation.

 

Al DiCesare did in his article is clarify the timelines, which is hard to dispute. He offered absolutely no insight on who, how and why Edwards was summarily cut - which is the crux of the debate of the Graham article. No one is arguing that benching Edwards was the wrong move. But what happened after the benching is odd by any standard of a well run organization.

[BobChalmers]

I'm blown away you can't see the difference between Trent and Fitz. You're telling us Trent would have thrown for 247yds against the Pats*? He would have to throw 82 completions because they only go 3 yards each.

 

PTR

 

And how did Trent do the last time he played at New England?? Is your memory really THAT bad???

 

Oh yes - here it is: 15/25 2 TD, 0 INT 212 yards. His second pass of the game was a 21 yard completion to Reed called back because of a Bell false start, btw.

 

And NE has lost defenders since last season.

 

Oh wait - then Fitz got NE in Buffalo later in the year - 17/25 1 TD 1 INT 178 yards, 10 points. You're right - Fitz in the man - our offense is SOOOO much better with him!! How could Gailey not have seen from last year's tapes how much better he was than Edwards?!?

 

Sure - last week's 23-point "explosion" was all because Fitz > Edwards. Hold on to that thought against the Jets this week - then get ready to jump on the Brohm bandwagon - it will be a big one.

 

C'mon guys - I get that Edwards had lost his confidence - 3 years playing for Jauron will do that to any offensive player - and I suspect Gailey was frustrated with things (falure to read defenses, audible, etc) we don't know about, but please don't kid yourselves that Trent never was good enough or that Random Fitzpatrick is the answer to anything.

Edited September 29, 2010 by BobChalmers

[Sisyphean Bills]

If that is the case, then the situation is far worse than feared.

 

Think about this for a second, if it were realy true that Gailey had serious misgivings about Edwards' ability to lead this team, and this was his last chance, why in the world would you put all your eggs in one basket since April? That is an absolutely insane way to plan out the season and your team's QB situation.

 

Al DiCesare did in his article is clarify the timelines, which is hard to dispute. He offered absolutely no insight on who, how and why Edwards was summarily cut - which is the crux of the debate of the Graham article. No one is arguing that benching Edwards was the wrong move. But what happened after the benching is odd by any standard of a well run organization.

Not to mention it goes against human nature. People don't normally pour tremendous effort into a project, and then at the first sign something isn't quite right, throw it away and start another one.

 

It is curious also that there would be both this "long-range rebuild" plan and a very short-term do-or-die plan with the QB going on simultaneously in the same person's head.

 

Of course, I don't really think it was Chan's idea anyway, as I said before. People greatly underestimate the power of Overdorf and others in this dysfunctional organization.

[transient]

It's all about the timing. If you cut the chord before free agency, you can go out an sign a free agent or draft someone. Then you invest all your OTAs and training camp in the player you are going to play, the guy that you think is going to give you the best chance to win the next game. Cutting coaches and team captains (we're not talking about the #7 WR who's never dressed for a game here) in the season causes confusion and can backfire causing yet more problems and more losing. In a way, it is showing disgruntled, underachiever players that there is an easy way out of Dodge.

 

IMO, the only player available who was clearly better than what was already on the roster and who could fill the position for the foreseeable future was McNabb, whom I still believe they made overtures about despite Nix's gamesmanship. The important part being CLEARLY better. If you bring in someone who MIGHT be better and he doesn't pan out, you've wasted the time evaluating them instead of the guy who's already here. Unfortunately, there's no quick and easy way to answer this, otherwise anyone who is good enough to be considered for NFL GM and coaching job should be able to figure it out. I think they considered how much they liked this year's available QB crop versus what might be available next draft/offseason compared to what was here, and decided to evaluate what was here. Think about some of the names that were trotted out on this board, and think about what the board's response would have been if Edwards had just been cut from a different team under the same circumstances. We'd be lighting the board up to bring him in.

 

With regard to your previous post, I do believe they're trying to win games now while evaluating talent. If not for a few miscues and a defense that couldn't stop the run at all (unlike the previous two weeks) we would have won Sunday, which was a clear improvement. With Brohm, I think you give him second team reps until you feel he's near the level of Fitz in giving you a chance to win. If you don't get there before a certain predetermined point in the schedule you can approach it one of two ways, consider it likely that he will never get there, or put him in the game at that point and see what he does despite the fact it might not be your best chance to win. That point can come with ___ games left in the season, mathematical elimination from the playoffs, whatever arbitrary endpoint the coaches want, or with Brohm's improvement. Regardless, if done right it should answer the question of how early in the draft we need to address QB next year. Ultimately Fitz might serve as the player holding the position until the successor is ready to take over, so this process is an evaluation of him, as well. Just my opinion...

Edited September 29, 2010 by transient

[thewildrabbit]

I'm blown away you can't see the difference between Trent and Fitz. You're telling us Trent would have thrown for 247yds against the Pats*? He would have to throw 82 completions because they only go 3 yards each.

 

PTR

 

 

 

Edwards did play against a much better Patriots defense last season and played very well, he didn't throw the 2 INT's to lose the game. It was lost by a rookie DB and a running game that couldn't kill the clock

 

 

[DC Tom]

If that is the case, then the situation is far worse than feared.

 

Think about this for a second, if it were realy true that Gailey had serious misgivings about Edwards' ability to lead this team, and this was his last chance, why in the world would you put all your eggs in one basket since April? That is an absolutely insane way to plan out the season and your team's QB situation.

 

Al DiCesare did in his article is clarify the timelines, which is hard to dispute. He offered absolutely no insight on who, how and why Edwards was summarily cut - which is the crux of the debate of the Graham article. No one is arguing that benching Edwards was the wrong move. But what happened after the benching is odd by any standard of a well run organization.

 

Key point. There's nothing in DeCesare's article (which was a very good read, even though I disagreed with a few points) that leads me to think the Bills are anything but, as evidenced by this particular decision.

[thewildrabbit]

Why is it when Fitz started the line blocked better and the WR's were suddenly open? That wasn't the case the first two weeks under Trent's direction. It wasn't the case last season when Fitz replaced him

and saw better results. Edwards was done. Good luck to him in J-Ville, but he was done in Buffalo for good reason. He had multiple chances to take the reigns and he could not do it. Period. Fitz is

not the long term answer either, but he is a gamer who at least competes.

You wrote a brilliant post about how bad the O line was in those first two games and suddenly do a 180 because Fitz has a decent game against a crappy defense?

 

 

This was not some team that had played 1/2 a season and all the players knew their jobs, all the coaches knew their respective jobs and the play from the rest of the team was great, this was about the ENTIRE TEAM sucking, coaches and players.

 

I'm not crying that Edwards is no longer a Bill, I'm actually kinda happy for him that he won't be getting concussed this season playing behind the worst O line in the NFL.

 

I just think that its a long season and Gailey made a rather hasty decision after only 2 games, he pretty much cut his own throat in doing so. Its his job that is on the line if he made a wrong decision, only time will tell

[PDaDdy]

I say to that BS, neither Gailey nor Nix fixed the O line in the off season, all they did to upgrade that line was to bring in RT Cornell Green who is actually worse then Langston Walker. So while LT Bell learns his position and the O line goes through a learning curve on protection schemes with a new O line coach, Edwards paid the price.

 

I get it, all the fans are ecstatic now that Edwards is gone. Just give me this pitch about how the Bills are better off without him after the Jets game, and then again after the Ravens and Steeler games.

 

Stay tuned I see there are still a few Trent apologists that are kicking around. Fitz looked 10 times the QB Edwards did. The teams you mentioned coming up are tough indeed. Unless you're expecting miracles Fitz will just play with more, balls, savvy, intensity ability to read an NFL defense than Edwards. Doesn't mean he will look like a super star against those teams. He just won't look like a deer in the headlights.

[Chandler#81]

Finally, a well thought out article with substance.

 

 

It is refreshing. Makes one hope all is not lost in the digital journalism age.

 

Most of what masquerades as sports coverage today is just ..well.. "a waste of time"

Edited September 29, 2010 by Chandler#81

[Fan in Chicago]

 

 

 

Edwards did play against a much better Patriots defense last season and played very well, he didn't throw the 2 INT's to lose the game. It was lost by a rookie DB and a running game that couldn't kill the clock

 

 

 

Okay, I will play. As we are comparing performances this year versus last, let us see what happened with the Dolphins

 

Game 4 2009: Bills @ Dolphins L 10-38

Trent Edwards: 14/26-192- 1 TD-3 INTs, Rating = 51.0

 

 

Game 12 2009: Dolphins @ Bills W 31-14

Fitz: 17/26-246-1 TD-1 INT, Rating 92.8

 

I would say Advantage Fitz, wouldn't you ?

 

Now in 2010

 

Game 1 2010: Dolphins @ Bills L 10-15

Trent Edwards: 18/34-139-1 TD-0 INT, Rating 73.0

 

Again we score the same number of points with TE at the helm, at home this time. Throws for less yards and yes improves on turnovers.

 

But looking at the stats above tells you Fitz performed better than TE in 2009. So where does your contention that Trent would have played better against the Pats* last week hold water ?

[thewildrabbit]

Stay tuned I see there are still a few Trent apologists that are kicking around. Fitz looked 10 times the QB Edwards did. The teams you mentioned coming up are tough indeed. Unless you're expecting miracles Fitz will just play with more, balls, savvy, intensity ability to read an NFL defense than Edwards. Doesn't mean he will look like a super star against those teams. He just won't look like a deer in the headlights.

Not an apologist, just aware of the differences between the teams the Bills have faced in the first three weeks

 

Fitz will get his chance to shine against some good defenses in the upcoming weeks, and so will Brohm I'm sure

[Sisyphean Bills]

IMO, the only player available who was clearly better than what was already on the roster and who could fill the position for the foreseeable future was McNabb, whom I still believe they made overtures about despite Nix's gamesmanship. The important part being CLEARLY better. If you bring in someone who MIGHT be better and he doesn't pan out, you've wasted the time evaluating them instead of the guy who's already here. Unfortunately, there's no quick and easy way to answer this, otherwise anyone who is good enough to be considered for NFL GM and coaching job should be able to figure it out. I think they considered how much they liked this year's available QB crop versus what might be available next draft/offseason compared to what was here, and decided to evaluate what was here. Think about some of the names that were trotted out on this board, and think about what the board's response would have been if Edwards had just been cut from a different team under the same circumstances. We'd be lighting the board up to bring him in.

 

With regard to your previous post, I do believe they're trying to win games now while evaluating talent. If not for a few miscues and a defense that couldn't stop the run at all (unlike the previous two weeks) we would have won Sunday, which was a clear improvement. With Brohm, I think you give him second team reps until you feel he's near the level of Fitz in giving you a chance to win. If you don't get there before a certain predetermined point in the schedule you can approach it one of two ways, consider it likely that he will never get there, or put him in the game at that point and see what he does despite the fact it might not be your best chance to win. That point can come with ___ games left in the season, mathematical elimination from the playoffs, whatever arbitrary endpoint the coaches want, or with Brohm's improvement. Regardless, if done right it should answer the question of how early in the draft we need to address QB next year. Ultimately Fitz might serve as the player holding the position until the successor is ready to take over, so this process is an evaluation of him, as well. Just my opinion...

Good discussion. To be honest, I wasn't following all the discussions this summer. Was Jeff Garcia's name brought up? Mark Brunell? I realize these guys are quite old now, but having a veteran that has won games in the NFL come in and help a potential project QB who's had his struggles is a common approach.

 

I still think there is more to this than the simple answer that Gailey decided after two games that he'd seen enough of Edwards to cut the chord permanently. It just doesn't add up that that was his plan all along. One don't invest that much time and effort into a solution if he is going to flush it down the toilet at any second, at least most people wouldn't.

 

I don't know if there are many other Georgia Tech fans here, but I must say that this seems way out of character for Gailey vs. his days in Atlanta. He stuck with Reggie Ball for 4 years, and Ball was about as erratic a QB as I have ever seen. He was constantly making mistakes that cost games. Yet, Chan stuck with his guy through thick and thin, and it was almost certainly a contributing factor in the coach's firing.

[FightClub]

For all the critics of any related to Trent Edwards and how he was handled, this article puts it in the right perspective

 

Bob DiCesare Buff News Opinion

 

... says it all and its the right sequence of events.

 

This is well written, but there's plenty I disagree with here.

 

First off, I've written elsewhere that Fitz would have won the job in preseason if there had been a real competition. He's the best QB of the three. If the competition had been "fair", then we might very well be 2-1 at this point. We would at least be 1-2. Increased reps throughout the preseason and these first few weeks of this season would likely have decreased some of the mistakes he made at the last game.

 

And so what if Edwards was relegated to backup?? Yes, personally I would have cut him outright, as I could claim to "know" from last year's performances that he was lost, regardless of the ineptitude of play calling compounding the issue. I was and still am immensely disappointed in Gailey for not seeing what I, a layman football observer, could plainly see about Edwards. He was done. And yes, he is a coward. I saw this point disputed in another thread but it's just plain fact. Anyone can see it.

 

Ok, those are my last words on Trent Edwards.

 

Let me talk a bit more about Fitz though, because something bothers me greatly that I see in both this article and from many posters here. That Fitz is a "career backup". Says who? Expert Bob DiCesare? The rest of you? You know, if the Pats* fans had this same attitude when Brady came in for Bledsoe, they would have all said, "Well, these wins are all well and good, but he was drafted in the 6th round, so he's just a 'career backup' and doesn't deserve the shot at the permanent starting job. He's just warming the seat until we draft Bledsoe's 'real replacement'."

 

Sorry, that's b.s. It speaks of the mentality we have in this society that people have to earmarked for certain things ahead of time, or they don't deserve the opportunity. You can't earn the right to something unless you were earmarked for it first. I'll stay away from social issues and stick to sports for my metaphor - college football. In the system we have today in that sport, you get "anointed" as a top 5 team before the season and really without playing any games, only those teams have any chance of winning the whole thing. If TCU goes undefeated and beats every team by 60 points, and Alabama goes undefeated and beats every team by 1 point, Alabama is anointed the national champion because they were ranked higher to start the season. What's worse is that most likely TCU doesn't get the chance to prove it on the field. Alabama probably plays some other big conference team like Ohio State in the bowl game, also because they were earmarked ahead of time.

 

Okay, so I am rambling. And I totally admit to being an unabashed Fitz fan. I see more in him than Brohm, and he's only a couple of years older. Why can't he be our QB of the future? Bills fans, please, give him a chance!! And for those who say he is inaccurate...I say again if our coach had given him the job and practice time from day 1, he might have had the chance to practice those routes he threw those two ints on this past weekend.

[Ramius]

Good discussion. To be honest, I wasn't following all the discussions this summer. Was Jeff Garcia's name brought up? Mark Brunell? I realize these guys are quite old now, but having a veteran that has won games in the NFL come in and help a potential project QB who's had his struggles is a common approach.

 

I still think there is more to this than the simple answer that Gailey decided after two games that he'd seen enough of Edwards to cut the chord permanently. It just doesn't add up that that was his plan all along. One don't invest that much time and effort into a solution if he is going to flush it down the toilet at any second, at least most people wouldn't.

 

I don't know if there are many other Georgia Tech fans here, but I must say that this seems way out of character for Gailey vs. his days in Atlanta. He stuck with Reggie Ball for 4 years, and Ball was about as erratic a QB as I have ever seen. He was constantly making mistakes that cost games. Yet, Chan stuck with his guy through thick and thin, and it was almost certainly a contributing factor in the coach's firing.

 

Man, i miss the reggie ball days at GT. Nothing like watching Ball go 8-30 for 258 yards (all to calvin johnson) with 3 TDs and 3 picks. Jamar Nesbitt is well on his way however, after his beautiful 5-18 performance this past weekend.

[thewildrabbit]

Okay, I will play. As we are comparing performances this year versus last, let us see what happened with the Dolphins

 

Game 4 2009: Bills @ Dolphins L 10-38

Trent Edwards: 14/26-192- 1 TD-3 INTs, Rating = 51.0

 

 

Game 12 2009: Dolphins @ Bills W 31-14

Fitz: 17/26-246-1 TD-1 INT, Rating 92.8

 

I would say Advantage Fitz, wouldn't you ?

 

Now in 2010

 

Game 1 2010: Dolphins @ Bills L 10-15

Trent Edwards: 18/34-139-1 TD-0 INT, Rating 73.0

 

Again we score the same number of points with TE at the helm, at home this time. Throws for less yards and yes improves on turnovers.

 

But looking at the stats above tells you Fitz performed better than TE in 2009. So where does your contention that Trent would have played better against the Pats* last week hold water ?

 

 

Think I'll take Edwards, he didn't throw 2 INT's to lose the game, one in the opponents end zone and the second with 5 min to go in the game. Those 2 INT's weren't like the ones Edwards threw in Green bay that skipped off the receivers hands and were deflections.

 

Fitz threw those right to the opposing team, its what he does. He did it all last season and he will do it again this season, it won't be long before we hear the chants for Brian Brohm.

[eball]

I'm blown away you can't see the difference between Trent and Fitz. You're telling us Trent would have thrown for 247yds against the Pats*? He would have to throw 82 completions because they only go 3 yards each.

 

PTR

83

[Fan in Chicago]

Think I'll take Edwards, he didn't throw 2 INT's to lose the game, one in the opponents end zone and the second with 5 min to go in the game. Those 2 INT's weren't like the ones Edwards threw in Green bay that skipped off the receivers hands and were deflections.

 

Fitz threw those right to the opposing team, its what he does. He did it all last season and he will do it again this season, it won't be long before we hear the chants for Brian Brohm.

Perhaps you did not read the stats I quoted. In 2009, against the same team that we played first this year, Trent threw 3 interceptions and Fitz threw one. We won the game Fitz started and lost the one with Trent at the helm. Against the same team this year, Fitz threw no interceptions but managed less yards and no more than 10 points. Again, we lost.

To this latest part, I say yes the first INT was totally Fitz fault but I can use the same excuse you are using for Trent - Nelson could have made a better attempt to catch or break up the INT. I am no fan of Fitz as a long term solution - my point simply is that at this point in their career and with the personnel that the Bills have Fitz is much more likely to keep us competitive. He will keep the opposing defenses honest which allows the coashes (as Jay said in another post) to independently evaluate the rest of the O.

[Meathead]

bob called me after seeing this thread for a few clarifications. i would go through and show point by point where he hits everything i said but you know me im much too modest for that. then i told him he could just have this one

 

he even threw in a reference to pudge who i just posted monday was the spitting image of fitz, well the other way around you know. god this guy needs to get his own material im not gonna continue being so generous. bob you keep swiping my chiz im specting some paper

[DrDawkinstein]

FINALLY! some logic, reason, and sanity

[Sisyphean Bills]

Man, i miss the reggie ball days at GT. Nothing like watching Ball go 8-30 for 258 yards (all to calvin johnson) with 3 TDs and 3 picks. Jamar Nesbitt is well on his way however, after his beautiful 5-18 performance this past weekend.

As an FSU fan, I don't doubt it.

 

Oh, and comparing Nesbitt's numbers in the offense he is running to the so-called pro-style offense that Ball was trying to run (when he wasn't stepping on his Wang) is utterly ridiculous.

[thewildrabbit]

Perhaps you did not read the stats I quoted. In 2009, against the same team that we played first this year, Trent threw 3 interceptions and Fitz threw one. We won the game Fitz started and lost the one with Trent at the helm. Against the same team this year, Fitz threw no interceptions but managed less yards and no more than 10 points. Again, we lost.

To this latest part, I say yes the first INT was totally Fitz fault but I can use the same excuse you are using for Trent - Nelson could have made a better attempt to catch or break up the INT. I am no fan of Fitz as a long term solution - my point simply is that at this point in their career and with the personnel that the Bills have Fitz is much more likely to keep us competitive. He will keep the opposing defenses honest which allows the coashes (as Jay said in another post) to independently evaluate the rest of the O.

You are correct I didn't read it. I'll still take Edwards as he will throw less INT's

 

Career TE 25 TD's 27 INT's 14-16

Career Fitz 23 TD's 29 INT's 8-14-1

 

Neither have great stats, but Edwards is in his prime at this point in his career, and it irks the living crap outta me that he had to play 3 years for morons with no real coaching, behind crap O lines and for rookie OC's.... he finally gets a decent offensive mind to coach him and the guy gives up after only 2 games

[CodeMonkey]

Think I'll take Edwards, he didn't throw 2 INT's to lose the game, one in the opponents end zone and the second with 5 min to go in the game. Those 2 INT's weren't like the ones Edwards threw in Green bay that skipped off the receivers hands and were deflections.

 

Fitz threw those right to the opposing team, its what he does. He did it all last season and he will do it again this season, it won't be long before we hear the chants for Brian Brohm.

Agreed on all counts. I for one would like to see Brohm sooner rather than later. Fitz is a well know commodity and if Gailey hasn't figured him out yet then God help the Bills the next few years. I would like to see what, if anything, Brohm can bring to the table. My only reservation is not wanting him to accumulate concussions along the way.

[DrDawkinstein]

You are correct I didn't read it. I'll still take Edwards as he will throw less INT's

 

Career TE 25 TD's 27 INT's 14-16

Career Fitz 23 TD's 29 INT's 8-14-1

 

Neither have great stats, but Edwards is in his prime at this point in his career, and it irks the living crap outta me that he had to play 3 years for morons with no real coaching, behind crap O lines and for rookie OC's.... he finally gets a decent offensive mind to coach him and the guy gives up after only 2 games

 

what does it say about Edwards that a guy like Gailey, who has seen it all and has worked with so many QBs, saw all he needed to in those 2 games?

 

i trust Gailey's opinion about a QB over almost anyone else around, and at least on this team. if he made the decision that Trent was going to be benched and that we wanted to move on (as Gailey put it "didn't want to go backwards"), then that is enough for me.

 

Agreed on all counts. I for one would like to see Brohm sooner rather than later. Fitz is a well know commodity and if Gailey hasn't figured him out yet then God help the Bills the next few years. I would like to see what, if anything, Brohm can bring to the table. My only reservation is not wanting him to accumulate concussions along the way.

 

Ive predicted that we'll see Brohm starting by week 8, if not after the Bye. he will get his chance to be evaluated.

[All_Pro_Bills]

I was pulling for Edwards but he lost me at the end of the Miami game where he had 7 opportunities (3 from the 1, and 4 from the 20) to complete a pass, get a couple first downs, and give the team a chance (however remote it was) to tie the game.

 

What did he do? Throw the ball away, a couple check down and short throw attempts. 4th and 10. Throw the damn ball down the field. It gets intercepted? So what, you lose anyway. You think the players in the offensive huddle had any confidence or respect for Trent after that event?

 

We know the O-line is a deficiency but I'll wager you put any NFL quarterback behind a solid line and he'll perform effectively. But the fact is the QB doesn't always get to play under ideal conditions and it's those plays under pressure and how you act and re-act that generally determine the outcome of a game.

 

The bottom line, 'this dog just won't hunt'. IMO, the timing can be questioned but the move was the right move.

[wardigital]

You are correct I didn't read it. I'll still take Edwards as he will throw less INT's

 

Career TE 25 TD's 27 INT's 14-16

Career Fitz 23 TD's 29 INT's 8-14-1

 

Neither have great stats, but Edwards is in his prime at this point in his career, and it irks the living crap outta me that he had to play 3 years for morons with no real coaching, behind crap O lines and for rookie OC's.... he finally gets a decent offensive mind to coach him and the guy gives up after only 2 games

 

The reason that Edwards has thrown two less interceptions is because he has completely given up on throwing the ball down field. His yardage per attempt and interceptions per game dropped nearly in half after the Monday Night Cleveland Game, but so too has his points production and completion percentage dropped.

 

Also, career numbers are an unfair portrayal of player's in the National Football League, because the league is so system-based. What Fitzpatrick did in St. Louis or Cincy is nothing like what he has done here, and what Edwards has done here is nothing like what he will do in Jacksonville. Instead, the numbers that need to be compared are those from when Fitz and Edwards were both on the same team, in the same systems. Within those walls, Fitzpatrick is profoundly better.

Edited September 29, 2010 by wardigital

[BobChalmers]

Perhaps you did not read the stats I quoted. In 2009, against the same team that we played first this year, Trent threw 3 interceptions and Fitz threw one. We won the game Fitz started and lost the one with Trent at the helm. Against the same team this year, Fitz threw no interceptions but managed less yards and no more than 10 points. Again, we lost.

To this latest part, I say yes the first INT was totally Fitz fault but I can use the same excuse you are using for Trent - Nelson could have made a better attempt to catch or break up the INT. I am no fan of Fitz as a long term solution - my point simply is that at this point in their career and with the personnel that the Bills have Fitz is much more likely to keep us competitive. He will keep the opposing defenses honest which allows the coashes (as Jay said in another post) to independently evaluate the rest of the O.

 

You can pick one game or another - I only started with the Pats because that's the big success Random Fitz is supposed to have just had.

 

Also - between last year and this, New England's defense got worse, and Miami's defense got better. This is known from their performances against other teams this year.

 

Miami promptly followed the win over us with an almost identical score against Brett Favre and the Vikings - sort of a HoF version of Fits, surrounded by better players.

 

It's really not a hard comparison - Fits had a QB rating of 69.7 last season. Trent had a 73.8.

 

All the fans getting excited about how Fits "inspires the offense" or whatever aren't remembering the same games I am when I saw him lead us to one 3-and-out after another BECAUSE HE CAN'T HIT THE TARGET.

 

Cutting Trent is fine if he wasn't doing what Gailey was telling him to do in the pre-snap or whatever.

 

And the broader point you make - that because there are other problems on the offense - Fitz is a better choice in the short term may well be right. Please just don't forget the difference in the defenses of the three teams we faced, and revisit after Fitz tries to heave it up randomly against the Jets.

 

And, btw - you should all know I will be on here eating crow with a fork and knife and liking it if Fitz looks good Sunday.

Edited September 29, 2010 by BobChalmers

[wardigital]

I can hear Jerry Sullivan barking about this article in the news room, all the way from Texas.

[thewildrabbit]

You can pick one game or another - I only started with the Pats because that's the big success Random Fitz is supposed to have just had.

 

Also - between last year and this, New England's defense got worse, and Miami's defense got better. This is known from their performances against other teams this year.

 

Miami promptly followed the win over us with an almost identical score against Brett Favre and the Vikings - sort of a HoF version of Fits, surrounded by better players.

 

It's really not a hard comparison - Fits had a QB rating of 69.7 last season. Trent had a 73.8.

 

All the fans getting excited about how Fits "inspires the offense" or whatever aren't remembering the same games I am when I saw him lead us to one 3-and-out after another BECAUSE HE CAN'T HIT THE TARGET.

 

Cutting Trent is fine if he wasn't doing what Gailey was telling him to do in the pre-snap or whatever.

 

And the broader point you make - that because there are other problems on the offense - Fitz is a better choice in the short term may well be right. Please just don't forget the difference in the defenses of the three teams we faced, and revisit after Fitz tries to heave it up randomly against the Jets.

 

And, btw - you should all know I will be on here eating crow with a fork and knife and liking it if Fitz looks good Sunday.

As will I, but only if he wins the game

 

Hey, WTH knows perhaps if Gailey can coach someone up it will be Fitz, just maybe Gailey will go over the film with Fitz and get him to settle down on those important throws

 

 

Like I stated in the eariler post, it really bugs me that Edwards has had to deal with constantly changing staff of coaching fools in his last 3 years, he finally gets a decent offensive mind and the guy gives up on him after only two games, as bad as he played in those two games I still think he could be developed to play better, JMO

 

Look at Mike Vick this year, someone who was never a pocket passer and everyone always talked about his great physical abilities but he just wasn't accurate in the pocket, bad footwork blah blah blah. Now look what Andy Reid has done with the guy, he is turning into a great pocket passer

[wardigital]

You can pick one game or another - I only started with the Pats because that's the big success Random Fitz is supposed to have just had.

 

Also - between last year and this, New England's defense got worse, and Miami's defense got better. This is known from their performances against other teams this year.

 

Miami promptly followed the win over us with an almost identical score against Brett Favre and the Vikings - sort of a HoF version of Fits, surrounded by better players.

 

It's really not a hard comparison - Fits had a QB rating of 69.7 last season. Trent had a 73.8.

 

All the fans getting excited about how Fits "inspires the offense" or whatever aren't remembering the same games I am when I saw him lead us to one 3-and-out after another BECAUSE HE CAN'T HIT THE TARGET.

 

Cutting Trent is fine if he wasn't doing what Gailey was telling him to do in the pre-snap or whatever.

 

And the broader point you make - that because there are other problems on the offense - Fitz is a better choice in the short term may well be right. Please just don't forget the difference in the defenses of the three teams we faced, and revisit after Fitz tries to heave it up randomly against the Jets.

 

And, btw - you should all know I will be on here eating crow with a fork and knife and liking it if Fitz looks good Sunday.

 

Quarterback Rating relies heavily on Completion Percentage, which does not indicate the degree to which Edwards attempts were limited or the offense was shortened under him.

 

Take, for instance, that your QB rating will be higher if you are 4 of 5 for 8 yards, throwing 4 2-yard passes, then if you are 1 for 5 for 10 yards, throwing 1 10-yard pass. But one gets you closer to the end zone than the other.

Edited September 29, 2010 by wardigital

[thewildrabbit]

The reason that Edwards has thrown two less interceptions is because he has completely given up on throwing the ball down field. His yardage per attempt and interceptions per game dropped nearly in half after the Monday Night Cleveland Game, but so too has his points production and completion percentage dropped.

 

Also, career numbers are an unfair portrayal of player's in the National Football League, because the league is so system-based. What Fitzpatrick did in St. Louis or Cincy is nothing like what he has done here, and what Edwards has done here is nothing like what he will do in Jacksonville. Instead, the numbers that need to be compared are those from when Fitz and Edwards were both on the same team, in the same systems. Within those walls, Fitzpatrick is profoundly better.

Baloney.... 4-4 isn't profoundly better then 14-16

 

Lets talk coaching, Fitz had Mike Martz at St Louis to teach him, then he had Marvin Lewis as his HC and the same OC who was in Cincy teaching QB Carson Palmer.

 

Look at who has been coaching Edwards his 3 years in Buffalo, Steve Fairchild his first OC, Turk Schonert his second OC, AVP his 3rd OC in as many years. 3 years in the league and 3 different coordinators and one moron for a HC

 

Look at the overall won / lost record, by all accounts Fitz should be way better then Edwards, he isn't

[Green Lightning]

Baloney.... 4-4 isn't profoundly better then 14-16

 

Lets talk coaching, Fitz had Mike Martz at St Louis to teach him, then he had Marvin Lewis as his HC and the same OC who was in Cincy teaching QB Carson Palmer.

 

Look at who has been coaching Edwards his 3 years in Buffalo, Steve Fairchild his first OC, Turk Schonert his second OC, AVP his 3rd OC in as many years. 3 years in the league and 3 different coordinators and one moron for a HC

 

Look at the overall won / lost record, by all accounts Fitz should be way better then Edwards, he isn't

 

 

Have you watched any of the games with Trent at QB? Really or are you just stirring things up? It's hard to toss an INT when your repertoire consists of five yard dump offs...maybe a ten yarder underneeath when it's 4th and 20...oh and when it's time for a Hail Mary, you run out of bounds. I could give a rats *ss what the media says (DiCeasare has it right though - love to see Sully use reason and thought like Bob) I don't care how it was reported, or what they say about Chan...I only care that Trent is gone and we don't have to suffer one more effing game of him spitting up his Maypo instead of leading this team. I'll suffer the occasional INT. At least we were in the damnn game thanks to Fitz.

[Dr. K]

OMG

 

Because Fitz and the rest of the team were up against the Patriots' crappy defense and the first two weeks it was Miami and GB - two of the top 5 defenses in the league????

 

I really am blown away by folks not seeing something so obvious.

 

You may be right. I would guess that the Jets game, then, will help tell us whether or not you are. If the offense moves the ball, the o-line looks decent and Fitz completes some long ones and even scores, it might indicate that the QB change makes a difference.

[Sisyphean Bills]

You may be right. I would guess that the Jets game, then, will help tell us whether or not you are. If the offense moves the ball, the o-line looks decent and Fitz completes some long ones and even scores, it might indicate that the QB change makes a difference.

And what will happen around here if Fitz has a terrible day?

[BobChalmers]

You may be right. I would guess that the Jets game, then, will help tell us whether or not you are. If the offense moves the ball, the o-line looks decent and Fitz completes some long ones and even scores, it might indicate that the QB change makes a difference.

 

Agreed - as I said - if Fitz looks good, I'll have my knife and fork ready for anyone who wants to serve me the crow.

 

And I'll like it too, because it means I'll have a better team to watch thus justifying blowing my money on DirecTV yet again.

 

Take, for instance, that your QB rating will be higher if you are 4 of 5 for 8 yards, throwing 4 2-yard passes, then if you are 1 for 5 for 10 yards, throwing 1 10-yard pass. But one gets you closer to the end zone than the other.

 

Is that true? It also considers YPC I believe - though in what proportions I don't know.

 

I do know Fitz had a good rating this past week in spite of 2 INTs, and remember Losman was the 11th rated passer in the league his one good year - clearly on the basis of his many bombs to Evans.

 

And what will happen around here if Fitz has a terrible day?

 

That's easy - the BROHM-IDES will be out in force.

[thewildrabbit]

And what will happen around here if Fitz has a terrible day?

Fitz sucks...we want Brohm...we want Brohm...we want Brohm

[Fan in Chicago]

 

And the broader point you make - that because there are other problems on the offense - Fitz is a better choice in the short term may well be right. Please just don't forget the difference in the defenses of the three teams we faced, and revisit after Fitz tries to heave it up randomly against the Jets.

 

And, btw - you should all know I will be on here eating crow with a fork and knife and liking it if Fitz looks good Sunday.

 

Fair post, Bob. I just want some semblance of stability at the QB position. With Fitz that may mean that we have to live with 1-2 INTs per game. But in general if he puts up a lot more points, then it is up to the D to control the damage of those INTs (which the D did not do at all against the Pats*). I know this is a pretty pathetic way of game planning but we may have no other option this season.

[spartacus]

So, the definition of decisive is to spend all spring and summer evaluating tape and watching a guy in practice and focusing on the good things he had done deciding he was The Man going into the season even to the point that no new competition was brought in; and, then after two bad performances in the new offense against a pair of good NFL defenses, games where the coach himself admitted he made some mistakes in his game plan, to bench him and then cut him before the "bye" week.  How do you go from spending months with a guy trying to coach him up to making a decision in a week that you never want to work with the guy again and not even as a disaster QB?

 

You know, I remember another regime change in Buffalo not so long ago that came in to a situation with a huge QB issue and they made a decision within a week or so (quite quickly) of taking the job as to which QB they were going with and let the other one go.  Half (more?) the fans were pissed by the decision and the move didn't really work out, not that any QB moves in recent memory in Buffalo have worked out but that's another story.  I wonder if they had kept Flutie, let the controversy continue to rage all off-season, and then cut Rob Johnson (or vice versa) after 2 games if people would be saying that Gregg Williams and Tom Donahoe had been decisive.

 

Chan may have decided to bench Trent, but I believe Overdorf is the one who cut him to save some bucks - just like he cut loose Walker when he didn't shine at LT