Red Squirrel

I kinda felt that the problem was about 1/4 poor ball handling and 3/4 trying to run with his head spinning around like Linda Blair in The Exorcist.

I've never gotten all the hating on mullets. They beat faux hawks any day of the week, and NOTHING* is worse than a guy over the age of 11 with bangs. *poster is getting a thin patch on the top of his noggin and has a feeling he'd settle for any hairstyle in 5 years provided the hair grew out of his own scalp.

I don't know what the other guy is saying, but I'll come out and say that anyone who is bothered by that quote can't grasp context. It isn't Trent's job to think like a fan; his job is to play football. I am not even a fan of the guy...I vote for Fitz in every one of the polls, and would pick Brohm second. But that is not the point. This "I'm not a fan of the team" garbage has to die.

I wholeheartedly agree with the last line of your post, but some of the rest of it is revisionist history. Those late '90s Bills defenses were vastly better than the superbowl teams; Ted Washington in particular was a massive upgrade at NT. But those D's were not strong in the defensive backfield, and it showed up with a really obnoxious tendency of giving up 1st downs in long yardage situations. And to defend the QB a little bit...many of the losses, and much of the damage to his season, was done in games when the D didn't do anything. There was a two game stretch in the middle of the season against Oakland and Seattle when the D first got pushed around then got humiliated. The QB, admittedly not at his best when throwing 40-50 times a game, was further hampered by having his best WR hobbled with a bad hamstring, and the RB situation was a mess...Thurman injured, Smith fat, and Linton untalented. But meh, I know you don't want to hear those things....IF ONLY WE STARTED RJ THE WHOLE SEASON!!!! :wallbash:

I don't know why I am bothering, since it is obvious you have some sort of agenda, but your timeline is quite screwed up. They didn't dump the guy right after the miss in the superbowl. They kept him another season...during which he had the awful game against the Raiders, which was the starting point for this discussion of Norwood. And it was justified to get rid of Scotty when they did; everyone on the planet knew Christie was a vastly better and younger kicker with a much stronger leg. Need I remind you that while Norwood was an accurate short range kicker, he was pretty weak on kickoffs and as a result the Bills employed kickoff specialist Brad Daluiso in 1991. So they also gained a roster spot by making the move. Christie was a fantastic kicker, possibly in the top ten all time. I, like you, don't blame Norwood for the loss in SBXXV, but he wasn't anywhere near the kicker Christie was.

How do you mess something like this up? It says, "ATTEMPTS 31+" It couldn't be any more clear.

You say one arm; I say one hand. I used to marvel at when Bruce would take a really wide angle around the LT and just grab at the QB with one hand, leave his feet, be completely horizontal, and yank the guy to the ground. I remember thinking I'd be scared to death to shake his hand....he'd either crush bones, or pull my arm out of it's socket.

I think you got this story a little bit backwards (but the message remains the same); Smith was the one who threatened teammates...as I recall from Smerlas' book, Bruce said something along the lines of, "anybody makes a play, and I'm kicking their ass". But both of them hated Bullough. The whole team did; another story I remember from Smerlas' book was that he drove by a 7/11 and saw a bunch of people standing on a line circling around the building, and one of them was a teammate. Fred stopped and asked what was going on; the teammate said the Lotto jackpot was up around 50 million, and if he won it, the first thing he'd do was walk up to Bullough and punch him in the nose. Fred proceeded to get on line, too.

It is perfectly fine that you like Trent; I think Trent is a decent kid, and it annoys me when some of the other posters have jumped all over some out-of-context sound bites. And I also think it is perfectly fair to believe that he has a good chance to win the job in an open competition. And I think an open fair competition is what we will be looking at. The problem is the two things I highlighted: clearly some QBs suck more than others without protection; and clearly, Fitz deals with poor protection better than Trent...the rest of the team did not, in fact, suck just fine without him...it improved. And clearly, there isn't much reason to believe the protection will be vastly better this year. And quite frankly, I have long wondered (see: Buffalo Bills 1999/2000) why anyone would evaluate a QB based on a best case scenario, when the best case never happens. QBs are not yet wearing red "don't hit me" jerseys during actual games. They all are pressured, and they all get hit. Kudos to the OP; it was a good post, and as usual was not greeted with the same level of reason and common sense that it in itself contained.

As I wrote before, I only saw the part with Clausen, and I've stated my case there; it would be awfully hard for me to take the rest of that show seriously, though.

Some of what we both just wrote overlaps, although I still think there are two different types of "power" backs...those that are hard to bring down, and those that just crash into people, and the crashers are the ones who really seem to have short careers. One thing that stands out is Campbell did have more carries than Csonka (with an s instead of a z....serves me right for trusting another poster's spelling against my own instincts ) . I still have to point out to the youngsters that Csonka played in a 2 and sometimes 3 back system (which backs up your major point), and in terms of years, did last a lot longer than Campbell, who was leaking oil (pun intended) at 26, and done at 30. Csonka retired after an 800 yd, 12 TD season (and a career high in carries) at 33, and his overall numbers are reduced by having spent a year in the WFL and 3 years with the highly dysfunctional mid-70s Giants. Anyway, we're both right .

Among those bruising backs, there still are differences. I can't talk about Gilchrist, but the others fall into two categories; Riggins and Brown were tough guys who also had some ability to avoid contact, but the rest of your list are guys who deliberately ran into defenders over and over again. Which is pretty much what Gerhart does. And if you notice, other than Czonka, those guys didn't last long. I like Gerhart; he isn't going to last long, either.

No. And shame on you for bringing him up; defending him makes me feel dirty. Seriously, though. 1st three years for Switzer: 12-4, 12-4, 10-6. Won it all the 2nd year. Gruden: 12-4, 7-9, 5-11. Won the SB 1st year; ergo, he did it with more of his predecessor's players...then he burned that mother right to the ground.

And that would be reason to criticize Bill Callahan, not praise Gruden.

I prefer substance over style. Jauron had neither. And no head coach who has ever received a Super Bowl ring has had less to do with his team's success than Gruden. And Biscuit is on the money about the rah-rah stuff...it has a very short shelf life when you are dealing with grown-ups.

If you want passion, go read a romance novel. What Jon Gruden is clearly best at is self promotion. It worked with a number of people here.

There are names and details (frequently quite funny) here: http://thephoenix.com/Boston/Authors/MATT-TAIBBI/ It is all sports, though...not just NFL.

I didn't see all of this (really, just a chunk of the Clausen segment), but I thought Gruden was awful. He seemed much more interested in looking like a big shot than he did in creating useful analysis. I wasn't too terribly impressed with Clausen, but I got the feeling he just wanted to bolt because Gruden was browbeating him. Gruden went into the show with a Mike Wallace "Gotcha" attitude, and the second Clausen tried to explain that someone else made a mistake, Gruden pounced on him. It was like he had an agenda to prove that Clausen is the weaselly little turd that so many unofficial scouts say he is. Clausen may very well be a weaselly turd; Gruden is worse.

Inaccurate, you say.... vs Colts, 64% vs Patriots, 68% vs Dolphins, 65.4% on first down, 64.9% at Ralph Wilson Stadium, 65.7% (4 games) temp. less than 40 F, 66% The guy's numbers (and clearly the perception of him) were destroyed primarily by two games against the Jets, who had by far and away the best pass defense in the league. One of those games (and another QB rating killing performance against Tennessee, which was punctuated by an *accurate* pass turned into an INT by TO) was a relief appearance when he likely got few practice reps. I want to emphasize that I am not saying Fitz is great, or a good long term starting option. What I am saying is he is a HECK of a lot better than he gets credit for here, and he is a MUCH better option for 2010 than Trent Edwards. And Campbell. And especially a broken-down Bulger. I could be sold on Clausen, and would pick Bradford at #9 in a heartbeat...not that he'll be there.

Here we go again; Trent got hurt in week 5, NOT after they went 5 and 1. The best game he has ever had was AFTER he came back from the injury. And it is hard to make a claim that he was the hottest QB in the league when you factor in that the 1st 4 wins were against teams that finished the year a combined 16-48. Facts are important, folks. It is getting really old correcting these same mistakes.

Ohhh, where to begin? First, the "Fitz is fine, but..." part. Fitzpatrick has had every obstacle placed in his path that Edwards has (save for one, which I'll address shortly). Fitz played behind the same crap o-line, had the same crap coaches, had the same TO drops, the same lack of a decent tight end, the same defense that can't stop the run and consistently give the "O" good field position; ALL these things were the same for both guys. Plus, Trent had more starts and more pass attempts (in other words, more experience) going into the season, and hadn't played for 3 teams in 3 years. Fitz took all these negatives and turned them into a 5-4 record, while Trent took all those things and turned them into a 1-5. And FITZ is the guy who you want to dump because of his perceived limitations? Why do so few people here see that maybe, possibly, perhaps, if....the line improves, the WR's hold onto the ball, the coaches are smarter...maybe, possibly, perhaps....Fitz would improve, too? Are you guys that defend Trent so completely blind to logic that you can only see Trent needing these things? Seriously! Now, for that one obstacle that you (and about 35,000 others) continue to bring up: the concussion from the Adrian Wilson hit. I hate to break it to you, but this doesn't hold water. Trent had THE BEST GAME OF HIS CAREER his first game after the concussion; he had his second best game against Denver later on that same season. The concussion in '09, in addition to happening on a pretty ordinary play, came AFTER that sterling 3 point performance against the Browns I have posted all these things before...so have others...why don't they sink in a little bit? Why does every poll on this board about QBs omit the guy who actually accomplished something last season (including playing VERY well in RWS) as an option? And one last point...if we know what we have with Fitz after 9 games, how come I STILL don't know whether Edwards even has an NFL arm?

People have attempted to make this point about 6 million times before; it is just as wrong now as all the other times. The best game the guy ever had was his first one back after the concussion against the Chargers; the second best game he ever had was later on that season against Denver.

Half the reason why I support Fitz is because I have seen 3 years of Edwards and have no idea whether he even has an NFL arm, much less "game". The other half....THE RECORD.

I think what is truly amazing is that I fully understand the point you are making but contend that those three years actually represented a step forward.

I doubt the Wonderlic is used any different than 40-times; it confirms what you see on the field. But having said that, when I took the 15 question sample that has been circulating around the internets for years, I was able to answer more than half the questions in less than 2 minutes; as I understand it, they get a half hour to answer 50 questions. In other words (presuming the sample questions are representative of the actual test), I could have beaten Tebow's, Claussens, and McCoy's scores and still had over 20 minutes to pick wax out of my ears. I can't understand anyone getting less than 15 on this test unless they just fill out the circles on the answer sheet in the pattern of a 3 wide spread-option facing a dime with a corner blitz.