Sisyphean Bills

And why would you say that "he gave it everything he had" in the PC about the release? Is that some sort of double reverse psychology to get people that want out of Dodge to work harder?

Well, you got your work cut out for you again in defending the Bills front office, Brian. The Bills are just ahead of the curve on this one. I'm sure all teams will start cutting players outright in mid-season when they lose their starting jobs. Since talent is so easy to come by and development of cohesive teams is effortless, it only makes perfect sense.

You clearly don't know the inner workings of every NFL team. Keep trying. Say, are you still defending the Marv Levy GM hire?

Maybe in Buffalo. Elsewhere, the head coach makes the decisions on the starters, the roster, and his coaching staff. That's why he's called the Head Coach. Gailey never said, "Buddy and I" like he normally does. He used a more ambiguous "we" and he used it over and over again.

Speaking of shallow thinking: if 6 to 10 teams put a waiver claim in, is he really "worthless"? Teams are never built in late September. Gailey spilled the beans that this wasn't a move to clear a roster spot and bring in someone to help the team. It was purely a dump to get rid of a guy. Even if you suppose a player is "worthless" (which he clearly isn't), how does a plan to replace a consummate pro with nothing but vacuum in late September IMPROVE a team? Answer: it doesn't.

Completely agree. Gailey never said that it was entirely his decision. He actually praises Trent as a professional and for having given everything he had to give to the team. Who does that after a very abrupt about-face decision? Nobody. If this was the Raiders, Al Davis would be snarling and fuming, contradicting himself as he spins laughable conspiracy nonsense. Everything about that press conference said this wasn't truly Chan's decision, but something that came down from on high.

Gailey completely denied that. He said that Trent did not want to be released and was not at all happy about it.

Tom Sherman never got a shot either.

All you need is some Luck.

Hunh?

Or maybe another 230# DE with bad wheels.

This just in. Buddy don't care.

Russ Brandon once had the idea that having a backup QB with experience on the roster wasn't all bad. (JP )

Good point. Gailey deserves his honeymoon period. I, for one, am not excited (+ or -) by any of this. I've felt this year was a throw away season since they did so little in the off-season.

I know Edwards lost the confidence of his teammates and coaches. That was almost 1 year ago. Jauron was fired and Fewell nailed his ass to the bench. That was not a coincidence. Either way you slice this it looks bad on the coaches. Either they were completely ignorant that no one believed in Trent or they thought they could spray the situation with magic pixie dust and fix it. I think that they conned themselves. They saw the good things Trent could do physically, overrated their own ability to transform him into a winner, and just woke up late to the realization that they made a big mistake. And, sure, some players may not have given Trent much support -- they didn't last year when asked either.

I don't buy it. Trent has never gone around tweeting about his greatness in the media. If the coaching staff is that worried about "losing the lockerroom" after two games and they can't decide for themselves that running out of bounds on 4th down rather than chucking the ball is sub-optimal performance, then they should already be filling out their unemployment paperwork, because it will be coming soon.

It took them all of training camp to work the gags off...

Maybe "clean slate" = walking into a failed situation with eyes closed and clueless ?

As does extending Kelsay.

I agree with you the assertion that you need 4 weeks is utterly arbitrary and rather meaningless. I do think that the question of "Why couldn't Gailey, if he was an offensive football genius, see from film and from spending months with Trent and 'smelling his breath' that Trent was a bad QB on the field?" is a fair question to ask. Jauron hitched his wagon to Trent and how did that go? Furthermore, if the coach feels he can resurrect a guy's career, then it seems like he should know the player's problems and work on fixing those problems. (Not saying this didn't happen, but whatever was done had no real effect.) Maybe the answer is that Gailey just couldn't believe that a QB wouldn't try to make plays, that he'd jog out of bounds on 4th down, rather than risk trying to make a positive play. Whatever the reason, it seems that Chan wasn't at all happy in being duped by nice showings in the bucket drills all summer. (BTW, I heard that Gailey and Trent did not hit it off from the very start. So, one possible theory is that the original decision was forced on Chan.)

What took so long?!? (I kid.)

Say, does your gut have any tingling about Ben Roethlisberger?

Nice call. Go buy a lottery ticket or three.

I'm sure criticism of your son's football play isn't totally pleasant. I'm sure you are very proud of him. He seems like a fine young man.

It does seem sort of bipolar that way. I think it is just the writer changing his point-of-view on you, though. Last week, he was was harshly critical of the offensive genius credentials of a coach that invested the entire off-season on a reclamation project and gave up on it after only two games. He was pointing out that there is a obvious contradiction between investing all one's time and energy in a particular player and then permanently replacing that player after just 2 games. (By way of analogy, it was like throwing a rookie -- remember "clean slate" -- QB under the bus after his first 2 starts.) This week, I think his POV was that of any average beer-hazed Bills fan in the stands last year. It was obvious that Fitz gave the team a better chance to win. In both regards, it is consistent and heavy criticism leveled squarely at Chan Gailey.