A giant misconception by the fans...

[Cynical]

Where on earth did I write he was brought in for the single purpose to develop trent? I said, there is no way they risk the future development of Trent just to sell tickets...in other words, I said the exact opposite of what you just claimed I said.

 

If, and I am saying IF, the front office TRULY believed in Trent as our future QB, there is no way in hell that they would bring in TO for the sole purpose of selling tickets. They are not going to bring a known QB killer to sell tickets with such a shaken and young QB if they trully cared about Trents long term success. Yes, ticket sales was a given by product...in fact, you would have to be a complete moron if you didnt captialize on the momentum it would create, which is what they did.

 

But, there is NO way the ONLY purpose of TO was to sell tickets. There was FAR too much risk to a young and fragile psyche of Trent Edwards to gamble on for just a quick boost in ticket sales. I am not saying ticket sales wasnt a bonus for them, but if they didnt believe TO could help this team, they would NOT have brought him here.

 

But the original poster is making the claim that the 100% sole purpose was to sell tickets, and thats just absurd unless the original poster also believes the Bills knew coming into the season Trent wasnt the answer and didnt care about the potential psyche damage of having TO around him could cause if TO lost his patience with Trent.

 

The problem seems to be you think the Bills may have taken Trent into consideration when they signed TO.

You further seem to believe TO was brought here to solve a problem(s), and that the ticket sales increase was a bonus.

 

Trent's psyche, development, or even what Trent wanted had little to nothing to do in TO's signing.

You said it yourself:

"They are not going to bring a known QB killer to sell tickets with such a shaken and young QB if they trully cared about Trents long term success."

 

That's because Trent was not a factor in the decision.

 

Further, you do NOT sign a player to a ONE year contract with the belief he solves a long term problem(s). You sign a player to a ONE year contract to solve a short term problem.

Furthermore, look at the factoid that came to light during the game. Jauron allows TO to decide what day to take off, and that day was Friday. This is the guy you are trying to say was signed to help develop Edwards?

 

Also, look at the all the FA signings the Bills did since Jauron has been hired. None of them are/were the marquee type player TO is. Players like Tripplett, Royal, Fowler, and Walker were not marquee signings, but they were signed to multi year contracts. That's because those guys were brought in to "solve" long term problems on the roster.

 

Do NOT underestimate the fact the Bills signed the "QB killer" TO to a ONE YEAR contract. The Bills were looking to solve a short term problem.

[Thoner7]

After reading all the replys, I will stand by my origanal comments that the ONLY reason TO was brought is was to sell tickets. The Bills were not a TO away from the playoffs, and I dont believe any concideration was given to Edwards.

[thewildrabbit]

The funniest part about Coles was that he is represented by Eugene Parker. The same Eugene Parker that got Jason Peters out of Buffalo and the contract he wanted and with a team that can contend. He had Coles work out for Buffalo first, and had Russ Brandon work to set a market value on his client. But, I seriously doubt there was ever any intention to have Coles sign with the Bills. The gift that just keeps giving. Russ taught those guys a lesson alright with the hard-ball stance. Good job!

I'm not entirely certain its totally Brandon's fault, I can recall reading that Ralph Wilson is the one who wasn't going to pay Peters top LT money,ever.

 

I kinda believe that now. no premier player will ever want to come to Buffalo after watching TO fail so miserably.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I disagree. Ticket holders paid to see the Buffalo Bills take the field. And that's what you are getting. Now one could argue that the Jills would put up more of a fight than the Bills right now, but you are getting exactly what you paid for. What you do about future games is up to you.

Generally speaking I agree, but a nice protest chant like we want our money back should make management as uncomfortable as possible. You have to find a way to make these guys feel some accountability and what better way than to put risk into their pocket book??? So, I think people should ask... no real expectations though, makes for some great images and sound bites too!

[CodeMonkey]

Generally speaking I agree, but a nice protest chant like we want our money back should make management as uncomfortable as possible. You have to find a way to make these guys feel some accountability and what better way than to put risk into their pocket book??? So, I think people should ask... no real expectations though, makes for some great images and sound bites too!

What meaning does a chant of "we want our money back" have when it is made by people as they are stuffing their hard earned money into managements pockets? None. Protests, chants, boo's, signs, singing songs ... all meaningless as long as the almighty dollars keep pouring in from ticket/concession/merchandise sales. Risk of monetary loss is going to cause a change? No way. It has no bite.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

What meaning does a chant of "we want our money back" have when it is made by people as they are stuffing their hard earned money into managements pockets? None. Protests, chants, boo's, signs, singing songs ... all meaningless as long as the almighty dollars keep pouring in from ticket/concession/merchandise sales. Risk of monetary loss is going to cause a change? No way. It has no bite.

Risk and actual always has some bite, bet next year's ticket sales are way off. The only problem is what the change is. Toronto here comes the Bills, it may happen anyway.