Cynical

I originally had the following as part of a reply, but was afraid it might get buried. You're the AD of a large university well known as a perennial football power. You're trying to fill in your football teams future schedule. You contact a school like Duke (or Kansas if you prefer) looking for a game or two. Duke's (Kansas) AD says he's willing to do a home and home series under one condition: you have to schedule a home and home series between your basketball teams. Do you pull the trigger?

IIRC, the last time I brought it to light, it was strictly a rumor. Now it seems to have some legs (the "kinda, probably sure" kind). We have discussed scheduling before, and as much we cringe at the thought that money drives some of the match ups, it is a fact of life. I could be way off base, but IMHO, I think the Mich-Bama game goes beyond money. I think both teams want to test the match up and are willing to do it in a neutral setting as opposed to committing to 2 games over 2 years. However, if seeing more and more of these marquee match ups mean more single games in neutral settings, I guess I'll put up with it (like I have a choice). I would rather watch these than watch a home and home series vs. some filler team.

Yeah, that's it. One off season and 3 games into their first year, and the coaches are in "panic mode". OK Sully. You forgot to include your usual worthless rant "Wilson is cheap". Yes, reading some of your posts. Jauron was criticized because he was doing the same exact thing in his fourth year, not his first. If Gailey is doing the same thing in his 3rd-4th year, then yes, he should also be criticized heavily.

@ freaking Jerry World. Bah. Mash here Same radio cast, he also expressed a desire to return to Atlanta in 2013 as an opener. Interesting rumor (and strictly a rumor at this point), the Atlanta group supposedly has USC agreeing to play a game in the dome to open up a season, and that USC has given the group a list of schools they want to play. Alabama is one of those teams. Michigan in 2012 and USC in 2013? Nice.

It is a fair question to ask. And it's fair to criticize Gailey for not benching Edwards sooner. Very well could be. Gailey did say if the players were not trying to win, the Bills did not want them. At this point, we have no idea as to "why" Gailey decided to spend the time and resources on Edwards. IMHO, I think it's pretty obvious Nix does not think real highly of the past regime (i.e., Nix would have not drafted Maybin). Maybe Edwards was forced on Chan. Maybe Chan/Buddy concluded last years regime was such a cluster!@#$, any result or evaluation shouldn't be trusted. Who knows what kind of smoke Edwards blew up Chan's ass (i.e., Trent felt lost and confused having to answer to 2-3 different people). And finally, if this was Gailey's 4th year, then I would be extremely critical of the events and the timing. But it's not. It's the third game into his first season where the past regime spent 4 years embedding the concept that losing was acceptable. That alone can be a huge mental barrier to overcome.

If the game announcers are any indication, then yes, people are going to start to notice. Even the announcers during the game said this was NOT the same Bills team from the previous 2 weeks. They pointed out how Fitz was more decisive and threw with anticipation.

The problem lies right there. At what point did Jerry become the ruling authority on determining when a move smacks of desperation? Being critical of Gailey for not making the switch during the off season is one thing. But then to bash the guy for not waiting 4 weeks before pulling the trigger is absolutely a reach in logical rational thinking. If Gailey was able to determine Trent was going to continue to make obvious and fundamental mistakes after only 2 weeks, what's the purpose of waiting 4 weeks? Because that's what Sully would do? Sully's rational was illogical then and still is. He bashed Gailey last week for making the switch in 2 weeks instead of waiting 4. Sully blasted Gailey for not benching Edwards during the off season, and when Gailey does bench Edwards, Sully then blasts Gailey on how he did it. And this is why Sully's stance on this is completely irrational. The topper is the statement "God knows what took him so long ...", because according to Sully, Gailey should have waited 2 more weeks.

Got to agree with this. Trent "supposedly" knows the offense. He becomes the teams this year's insurance policy. Gailey needs to be focused on finding his matchups and beating the "It's hard to win in the NFL" mentality out of these players. Bringing in another QB means spending time bringing him up to speed.

What do you mean the WR don't get open? Yesterday, they looked open by NFL standards. Now, if your talking Checkwards and his minions definition of "open", then by all means those guys were completely "blanketed". Good thing Trent wasn't playing.

Schobel kept his word and retired. How many times must this be pointed out to you? Nix did nothing wrong. Schobel wanted the Bills to make the decision for him, and they did. As for Icognito, he was a Guard. The Bills have plenty of Guards. How many more do you want?

BB bitching at the refs. Love it!

I'll be watching.

Just because the Raiders took a chance that does not mean they are "more organized". The took a chance on J. Russel. How did that work out? Were they more organized then? The Bills did try to address their need for a QB. Remember McNabb? If anything, I would argue the Bills are more organized because looked at was available, determined other than McNabb, nobody else was worth spending any resources on. Why bring in another teams reclamation project when we already have plenty of those types. We need to weed those out, not drag more in. Funny, it almost sounds like you thought your post contained a logical rational argument. You failed. Miserably. Unfortunately, there is a grain of truth to PTR's post. Look at the uproar at the benching of Edwards. Sully's head would have exploded if Campbell (or any other QB) was brought in, earned the starting QB spot, and was benched 2 weeks in. "Simple" is believing acquiring Troy Smith/Jason Campbell/Tyler Thigpen/<insert name of Scrap Heap QB of the Week here> equates to being "more organized" even if the acquired QB does basically nothing because the team tried to address their needs. AND, the perception is if they do nothing, then it must mean they are not addressing their needs (even though they did try to), and therefore not as organized. You're right. Good thing they drafted Levi Brown, QB from Troy. Otherwise we would have been subjected to irrational arguments like "The Bills did not bring anybody in, therefore, they are not as organized as the Raiders, who did take a chance". By the way, Brown cost the Bills a 7th. Campbell cost the Raiders a 4th.

You missed it: Linky

To clarify, the Bills were right by NOT bringing Campbell in, but they were wrong because they did NOT bring Campbell in? That almost sounds like a Sully argument. The Bills were right for benching Edwards, but they were wrong because they failed to wait 2 more weeks. And when you combine the two, the resulting analysis comes out as: The Bills are desperate and in "panic mode" because they benched their starting QB, but the Raiders are "more organized" because they benched their starting QB. Sometimes I really wonder if the team is dysfunctional or if the fan base is.

And I am going to have to respectfully disagree here. On the day Spiller was drafted, Gailey stated how he wanted to use Spiller. Spiller was NEVER intended to be the feature back. Indecisiveness is watching your QB getting CB blitzed 29+ consecutive times and doing NOTHING to combat it. (reference: Jauron, Jets, Revis, Edwards 2007) Indecisiveness is watching the QB make the same obvious mistakes repeatedly and doing nothing about it. I said it during the off season. Even the best offensive minds cannot scheme or game plan to minimize kitty. Gailey had to learn the hard way, and it only took 2 games for him to figure it out. So we need to blast the guy because he didn't do it sooner or should have waited until later? So, scold the guy for not doing it in the off season, but at least acknowledge he reacted quickly when it became obvious to him (Gailey), and not waiting some arbitrary time frame because that's what Sully would have done. Or worse, doing nothing at all, because that way he can be considered "decisive". Better get used to it. It will get uglier. Expect more. Four years of "It's hard to win in the NFL" mentality will not be cleaned up by sticking with the status quo, especially when it's obvious it's not working. IMHO, I expect more players to be benched as the season progresses as Gailey and staff attempt to weed out the loser attitude.

1.) So, the coaching staff should do nothing to change that? 2.) How about the fact the Bills wanted Bradford and would have taken him if he somehow dropped to 9th? How about the fact the Bills tried to acquire McNabb? But your right. It's all about Gailey's ego and wanting to fix Edwards. 3.)Seriously, you and Sully need this one answered for you? How about Edwards whining under Jauron he felt he had to answer to 2-3 different people at the same time. How about Edwards was running a Fairchild offense for 3 years, and not a Gailey offense. Under Gailey, he is the lone man in charge. He knows exactly what the play was, the targets, the reads, etc... Gailey can look at all the game film he wants, but he will never be 100% certain who, what, where, why, etc... My guess, Edwards told Gailey he was constantly confused under Jauron because he had to answer to some many people, and Gailey took him at his word. With Gailey, there is only one person to answer, and I think it became real obvious really fast that all of Edwards problems were not the result of the previous coaching staff. 4.) You and Sully are completely correct [/sarcasm]. It's obvious, there is a major problem, and something needs to be done. Pick a solution: a) Make a change. Media blasts you as being "befuddled" and "over your head". b) Do nothing. Media blasts you for doing nothing. 5.) Jesus H.. Gailey has already said how he planned on using Spiller right after he drafted him. SPILLER WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE THE FEATURE BACK. What is it with people who fail to understand this? So why is it "shocking" or "confusing" to see Spiller used the way he has been? 6) Yep. It took years to instill "It's hard to win in the NFL" mentality, and all that can be washed away in 6 months. Except Nix/Gailey have said, and continue to say "This will NOT be fixed in one year." And people like you are bitching because the Bills did NOT fix it all in one year. And now the funny part: And it only took 2 games for the coaching staff to realize a change was needed. The bastards! I guess you would have been happier if the staff did nothing? Like Jauron used to do? No, the problem is both Nix and Gailey have said from the beginning and continue to say this will not be fixed in one year. So why are people like Sully suddenly surprised to find out that it wasn't fixed in one off season?

Preach on. If the starter refuses/is unwillingly to produce like he supposed to, play the damn back up. This team needs to find people who want to win, who will bust their azz in order to do so. This is just a start. Expect more.

Scapegoat, right. I'll give you credit. You continue to ride that Edwards horse with the belief it's a stud when time and time again it has revealed it is mare in disguise. And DJ showed more balls? Wow! Let it go. Fitz is supposed to help this team find an identity. He is not a long term solution. Over the past 4 years, this team has been told it is ok to lose, because it's hard to win in the NFL. Chan cannot undo 4 years of that brainwashing in two games, especially when the QB of the team plays like he doesn't give a crap. Actaully, I am looking forward. This move was great and just a beginning. The Bills need to weed out that "loser" mentality. If it means sacrificing a few fan favorites, then so be it. I want this team to win, and NO PLAYER is protected from the process.

Wood, Levitre, Bell, and Meredith all have less experience than Edwards. Yet, you're convinced the OL is completely at fault, and the 4th year QB Edwards is still on the bubble?

(1) Did you actually bother to read any thread? Nobody is claiming Fitz is a savior. We are going to lose with Fitz or Edwards being the QB. At least Fitz tries to win a game. If the team is going down, let it go down swinging. I am so sick of "Bend over, I'm here just to collect a paycheck" Edwards, and why people still think he should start and/or be given more opportunities is beyond me. (2) That's an upgrade over Trent Backwards. 1) Why is switching a QB a bad thing? We get it. Your chosen one has failed yet again, and is being replaced by a bench warmer who outplayed Edwards last year.Yes, Fitz has no potential to be a franchise QB. He is a backup. But neither does Edwards. Checkwards has ZERO potential. There is NO UPSIDE. And what you fail to see is the true motive. Chan has to undo 4 years of brainwashing where losing was not only tolerable, to some extent, it was expected. Fitz is not the long term answer, but he is the short term solution to help this team find an identity where losing is not expected, and in fact will not be tolerated. Yes, he sucks, but at least he's got some fight in him.

Yes to the first part (they did it last year), and probably not the second part. Fitz has leader written all over him, but his arm betrays him.

The coaches also chose Edwards to be the starter thinking he could do it. Two games in, Edwards has been benched (probably for good). The coaches made choices. Which one was a wrong one?

Hear, hear. Now Nix and Gailey inherited this mess of under achieving under sized players, and the optimists immediately starting yelping how of all this will be turned around in one year, while the pessimists are screaming the FO did not do enough to turn it around in one year. Now both sides are complaining how the FO is not doing things the "right way" (a/k/a "they way they would do it"). Nix and Gailey have been as straight forward as they can be, have repeatedly stated (and still do) this process will take longer than a year. Imagine that. Getting rid of undersized players, and weeding out the ones who are happy with losing taking longer than a year, especially when it took 4 years to get here.

Not just 4-3 players, but undersized 4-3 players targeted to play a hybrid version of the Tampa 2 where the focus of the D seemed to center on DB's.