Cynical

Okay, I did not mention arm strength. As for mobility, you think a 40 time represents that? How about this stat: sacks Fitzpatrick 21 in 10 games Edwards 23 in 8 games Not to mention Edwards is classified as a prototypical pocket QB. Mobility is NOT his strength. "not cocky, but confident", and "California mellow" are polite ways of saying the guy lacks a sack and is afraid to take chances. And clutch: the first 4 games of 2008, Edwards scored 3 4th quarter TDs and 1 3rd quarter TD. That's it. And only 2 of those scores were done when the Bills were "behind". And the combined record of those 4 teams? 16 wins and 48 losses. Maybe if Edwards was a little more "cocky" during the game, we wouldn't be so "impressed" with his "clutch". Doubt it. He's basically playing the same way he did in 2007. People are just looking for an excuse to explain his "sudden" poor play. Edwards "flaws" have become more prevalent, because defenses have figured out how to exploit those flaws. Funny, people used to say the same thing about Jauron. As we found out, it was not silent "confidence" Jauron was exhibiting, it was silent "clueless". Interesting. If we listened to the Trent lovers before the season started, they were absolutely giddy with TO (he was going to pull the double team off Evans, can't cover both, etc...), they loved the fact the Bills were running the no huddle (remember the BS about how the no huddle was going to make it easier for the young OL to block?), and how the no huddle would put the play calling in Edwards hands (an alleged strength). 8 weeks and a benching later, now the same people are complaining how Edwards was bogged down with such a crappy offense, and how he has not gotten a fair chance. (Yet, to the same people, Fitz playing in 10 games = fair chance). As for Terrell, people also seem to gloss over the fact that Josh Reed was caught on camera complaining to the coaching staff about Edwards and his inability to read the field.

Been a fan for 30+ years. Guess you assumed wrong. I already said he was accurate and had a quick release. Do you intend this to prove swagger as well? Edwards is a QB. WTF does his 40 time have to do with anything? You expecting him to start running track? 24 TD's out of 32 games. Not even 1 a game. How about college? 36 TD's in 35 games. Just barely over 1 a game. Comes a point when one has to face reality coaching is not the reason Trentative has not been overly "productive".

In order to gain something back, you have to "lose" it in the first place. And you cannot lose something you never had. Despite all the hoopla, Trentative never had a "swagger". What he does have is an accurate arm and a quick release. Beyond that, what else does he have? 3-4 defenses seem to confuse the crap out of him (spare me the coaching excuse. He never played against a 3-4 in college?) And I can't shake the statement AVP made when Fitzpatrick was announced as the starter. To paraphrase, AVP mentioned being able to open up the playbook and to attempt things they could not before. Makes me wonder why Jauron was so insistent on running a 'pop warner offense'.

The Canadians are in love with Tebow?

You're right. Trent may have more skills than the QBs you mentioned, but those other QB's had something Trent does not: balls. Chan can devise game plans and schemes around a QB with a limited skill set, but I seriously doubt Chan has the ability to devise an offense around a skill set referred to as "p*ssy". If anything, Fitzpatrick and Brohm have much better chance of being productive under Chan. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Edwards is traded or cut before the regular season starts.

If he hit the woman hard enough to tear apart the car's bumper, that woman is not getting up and walking away. Plastic grill part(s)or plastic piece attached to bumper? Very possible. I smacked a deer @ 35. Shattered my grill and scraped my bumper, but even that hit did nothing to "tear" my bumper. Just for the record, I was against Lynch playing his little legal game after the incident. He should have manned up and just admitted it instead of hiding behind his lawyer. But that's the past. It's over. A deal was struck, and he paid his price. Let it go. Besides, IIRC, he's being sued by the woman. She'll get her justice in the end.

Home, where the police found the vehicle parked in the driveway, in full view of everybody. His vehicle. But unfortunately for you, he never admitted hitting the woman despite your insistence he did. Let it go.

Not just the first paragraph, the very first sentence: "Bills running back Marshawn Lynch said Friday he didn't know he hit anyone while driving his SUV ..." 4th paragraph, last sentence: "I didn't know my car had hit anyone or anything." 6th paragraph: "I was certain that my car did not strike the dancing pedestrian," Lynch said." Marshawn may never be a great RB. Heck, he may not be the best RB on this team. But he is better than some others in this league. No need to create holes just to satisfy some people's "moral compass". So he made mistakes. He paid for those mistakes. Let it go.

Why is mentioning Brady and Manning relevant? Just because they continue to play at a high level means Culpepper will too? I do not get this approach. This is like designing a car to make left turns only. Once done, now you want the car to make left and right turns. Unfortunately, now you have to re-engineer half the car again. You are basing the guys ability on one game in 5 years? You are choosing the exception over the rule? We should have just kept Jauron as HC. You know he did have one winning season. And 2-3 years from now when we finally reach the playoffs, you will discover the Bills will have to scrap half the team because they loaded up with players with the goal to win NOW. Culpepper is a "mental midget" from a football point of view. He processes info too slow and makes poor decisions. He was successful with Moss because Moss used to direct Culpepper on where to throw the ball.

Nice article, but I could not help but notice that his own argument in support of Vinny can be turned around and used against Vinny. The concept of you put Vinny on some really good teams, and Vinny suddenly looks to be a good QB brings out the concept of "If Vinny needs all those talented players to be good, then Vinny is not nearly as good as he claims him to be." Secondly, I noticed how the author uses AV (approx value) to measure the team and supporting cast, but uses another category to compare the QB's. Why not use the same category (AV) as the rest of the team? If he did, he would notice his argument has some flaws. He would notice some of those HOF had a higher AV than Vinny did when surrounded by similar level of talent. Thus questioning how good Vinny really is.

In 1994, as head coach of the Browns, BB won a playoff game with a QB that was considered a major bust. Linky

No particular favorites, but a bunch of ones I enjoy immensely: Whole Foods Market Italian Roast Starbucks Italian Roast (home brewed - the only way to drink any Starbucks flavor) Jazzman's Cafe Signature Blend Jazzman's Cafe French Roast Green Mountains Coffee Vermont Blend I have heard good things about Green Mountains Nantucket Blend, but have been unable to find it except on line.

Not to mention the OL as a unit is unique in football. The better job they do, the less you hear about them. Hot dogging and show boating does not lend itself to the OL (can you imagine the LT chest bumping the OC because they prevented a sack?)

There is a section for it: It's called "Off The Wall".

You can spin it any way you want to, but Trent Edwards is not getting hit harder than any other QB or player today is. Edwards has been consistently injured at the collegiate and professional levels. That's a trend. He's fragile.

'widely regarded as one of the very best evaluators of QB's'? By what estimation? This has been debunked numerous times on this board (and others including non-Bills boards). Bill Walsh's record is pretty bad in fact. He was wrong about Montana (wanted Steve Fuller and Steve Dill over Montana. Later admitted someone in the 49ers organization convinced him to take Montana.) He was right about Steve Young (the only one he was right about) He was wrong about Jake Plummer (called him the next Joe Montana, "Super Bowls and everything") Wrong about Joey Harrington and David Carr. There are others, but I cannot remember them right now. And right now, Trent Edwards is looking like another failure for Walsh. This is interesting. All Trent apologists automatically assume this rep gives Trent an 'edge' somehow. I did not realize Chan's rep was built on over coming a player's chickens**t mindset. IMHO, I think people are going to be surprised how well Fitzpatrick and possibly Brohm respond to Gailey.

Actually, yes it probably could. It has more to do with torque than HP. And that would be assuming the Prius did NOT have the brake override system already in place. The Prius does, as all Toyota hybrids are supposed to have. This is what makes the Sikes claim questionable. However, it is also possible his car is an "exception" (got the wrong module, or one not properly programmed), or the reality that even electronic parts fail (even intermittently), so you will excuse me if I still do not take a side in the Sike's claim at this point.

Mistake on(by) the Lake Does anything more need to be said?

"Didn't take blame? You mean that letter I got in the mail that said, "If you have a problem with sludging, we'll cover it up to 200,000 miles" wasn't them being there for the customer?" You know why you got that letter? Because 3,400 'squeaky complainers' made Toyota aware there was problem in the first place. You know why there was a lawsuit? Because Toyota refused to accept responsibility for it's defective design. Even when they sent out a letter stating they would. So let me restate that; TOYOTA REFUSED TO HONOR IT'S OWN EXTENDED WARRANTY EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW THEIR DESIGN CHANGE WAS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE SLUDGING. The point is not the sludging motors, but how Toyota treated its customers. This is the company you are choosing to defend. If you think this "sudden acceleration" is recent, guess again. Toyota has been battling this issue since complaints first surfaced back in @2006. And just like the sludging motors, Toyota first tried to pin the problem on the customer. When that didn't work, then Toyota blamed the floor mats. It's only been in the past 4 months(?) that Toyota finally admitted the problem is more severe than just floor mats. For someone who claims to be a "cynic" and likes to through out the phrase "personal responsibility", where is the cynicism against Toyota (and it's desire to protect it's bottom dollar). But go ahead. Since your car has never had any problem, remain ignorant. Toyota loves you for it!

You're right. You have owned your car for 11 years and never had a problem. Therefore, Toyota has done nothing wrong to anybody. Ever. Ignorance is bliss.

I think this is the big thing. They either want a new car or are "willing" to settle out of court. Funny thing, if they settle, watch how fast they keep the 'dangerous' car.

I prefer it on a Jewish type rye with pumpernickel being a close second. I was thinking about doing a pizza for lunch, I may now have to reconsider.

You really need to do some research regarding Toyota and the engine sludge problem. Your letter (and others like it) was a PR move. In 2002, Toyota finally admitted receiving 3,400 complaints regarding sludged up motors, and sent out letters extending the warranty on those vehicle lines. Too bad Toyota refused to honor their own extended warranty. Engine sludged up? Owner's fault. Period. Made no difference when the engine crapped out. Made no difference what documentation existed. Made no difference who maintained the vehicle (Toyota was declining claims even though Toyota dealerships did all the service on the vehicle). On message and technical boards, Toyota technicians talked about how the sludge was "different". Normal sludge (due to lack of maintenance) is tar like (black, thick, and sticky). The sludge in the Toyota models was more gelatin like, and was more of a gray or white color.

Don't know when you lived there, but at some point in the early to mid 80's, the state changed the automobile safety inspection requirement to once a year. Prior to that, the state required all autos to be inspected twice a year. Talk about a PITA.

I am not defending any position here, but this writers analysis is completely laughable. Furthermore, using this writers example (a stationary vehicle) in defending a vehicle in motion is dubious. First, this statement: "The experience seared in a lesson in basic automobile physics: brakes are always more powerful than engines, even when they have 500 cubic inches (8.2 liters)." is trumped by this statement, and proves the first statement incorrect: "The left rear wheel lit up in a screeching howl; the car was soon engulfed in a cloud of acrid smoke." How does the 2nd statement prove the the 1st incorrect? The left rear tire "lit up in screeching howl" (a/k/a "spinning") which means the brakes on left rear FAILED. Secondly, keeping a stopped car from moving is different than stopping a moving car. Stating the obvious, brakes use friction to convert the motion of the car into heat. A stationary car's brake system is not generating heat, even when the brakes are firmly applied, because simply put, the car is not moving. A moving vehicle's brake system does generate heat when the brakes are applied, and the heat, if not properly dissipated, causes havoc in a brake system. The heat can boil the brake fluid (as Cincy pointed out), and can change the composition of the brake pad and rotors. Once the composition of the pad is changed, the performance of the system will continue on a downward spiral until failure. Actually, no. What's missing is understanding the basics of how automobiles and their sub systems work. Then there's the difference of how electrical motors develop power and torque as compared to gas motors.