Cynical

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.

The bold part says it all. This is Trent's 4th year, and you are still not sure? And you dare to question others football knowledge? That's a hoot. If it walks like a Trent apologist and talks like a Trent apologist ... You're too busy looking for excuses for Trent, you seem to fail to see the big picture. If Miami playing all 11 guys no more than 5 yards off the LOS wasn't a big !@#$ing clue, then you will never be convinced. Here's something funny. 3/5's of the Bills starting OL (4/6's if count Meredith) have been in the NFL LESS than Trentative Backwards. Based on that time frame, you know without question, the OL sucks, but with Edwards, you're still not sure. Instead of worrying about the magical mystical great OL Trent HAS to have so he can be "properly evaluated", how about the Bills play another QB so they can determine just how bad the OL really is? Or are you afraid Backwards will get outplayed by a career backup (AGAIN), or worse, that PS reject from another team?

That wasn't the reason, that was the match that lit the fuse. Kelly's ego, and his "my sh*t don't stink, and you can't touch me" attitude had more to do with the bickering than anything else. Even prior to 89, Smerlas used to take subtle shots at Kelly during interviews.

Ok. I admit it. I went overboard. I don't follow BB and I don't live in LA, so I have no idea who Mychal was/is. Another lesson learned.

That Mychal person sounds like an ****. Confront Joe pa and rub it in? Despite what people might think of him now, Joe Paterno is one of the undisputed greats in college ball. Sounds like Joe Pa probably s**ts more class than Mychal possesses.

If the Bills went with such a plan, I have a perfect nickname for the Bills RB trio: Three Horsemen of Boulder Dam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl18gyFmDAQ

The Wildcat is nothing more than the single wing option. Been around for decades. And what you are proposing is not "new". It's old, about 80-90 years old. Back then, there was little to no passing what so ever. Excellent! Can't wait for the reappearance of the Wishbone!

TIM-MAY!! Oh, wait, wrong kind of fight.

You did not see a difference, so I gave you an example. It's obvious you will not be convinced. I delivered a message. And if I were hazard to take a guess, it's message you don't want to hear.

You want to know what the difference is? Compare this: "That's going to happen, that's the NFL." -Trent Edwards To this: "... and there’s no excuse for that." - Mark Sanchez People like to brush off those kinds of comments as being meaningless and have no bearing on the bigger picture. bull ****. They could not be more wrong. Those kind of small off the cuff comments are closest thing you will see/hear that give an insight on a player's mental make up. Both QB's said the their own team made mistakes and it cost them. One essentially says "Oh well, **** happens". He's trying to absolve themselves from blame. The other one is essentially saying "**** happened because of us". He's accepting blame. One phrase. Huge difference in attitude.