Kelly the Dog Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 There were two Buffalo News articles that mentioned that Edwards threw two nice accurate passes to Owens deep. IMO, they were not good throws at all, and missed him by about four yards. Both times Edwards had a lot of time to throw and was looking that way the entire time. Owens was wide open both times, and "good" throws were easy touchdowns, especially the first one. A good quarterback makes a good throw when he has a lot of time, and a good look, and a wide open WR. Those were not good throws and it's part of, if not Edwards biggest problem: He's simply not accurate down the field. Those are two easy touchdowns. They were not good throws. Part of me says that any 45 yard completion is a "good" play. And the first one led to a VERY nice throw by Edwards to Evans for the score. That was a great pass. But ultimately, if Edwards is going to be good, and a franchise QB, and the future, he needs to be able to not only hit the big play but throw an accurate deep ball, and he consistently does not. I said it before, and will say it again, with an accurate QB -- and I'm not talking Manning or Brady -- but decent players like Matt Ryan and Flacco and Shaub -- Terrell Owens is leading or close to leading the league in touchdowns this year with 8 or 9, and that is counting all the drops he has made. He has been open deep every single game and there have been at least eight times where he was there and wide open and the ball was thrown but way inaccurate. Maybe this didnt deserve its own thread but who thinks those two passes were "good" throws when he had all day, wide open WR, and easy TD but got a long completion instead.
Beerball Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Owens was wide open both times, and "good" throws were easy touchdowns, especially the first one. A good quarterback makes a good throw when he has a lot of time, and a good look, and a wide open WR. Those were not good throws and it's part of, if not Edwards biggest problem: He's simply not accurate down the field. My exact thoughts as I read that. I guess if you define good as 'catchable' then they were good. Jackson's pass on the other hand was good.
dave mcbride Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 But ultimately, if Edwards is going to be good, and a franchise QB, and the future, he needs to be able to not only hit the big play but throw an accurate deep ball, and he consistently does not. Stop right there. The Edwards experiment is very clearly nearing its end, and he's never going to be franchise QB for the Bills. My advice is that you start rooting for losses and for other bad teams to begin winning.
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 My exact thoughts as I read that. I guess if you define good as 'catchable' then they were good. Jackson's pass on the other hand was good. Jackson's pass was great. Figures the only QB on this team who can hit a receiver in stride is a running back. Edwards' two to Owens, I think it's easy to over-criticize. I thought they were good throws - not great, but good. I also thought that Edwards was throwing them long and outside purposely, to a spot where Owens had a play on the ball but the DB didn't, which is in no small part the reason Owens was as open as he was.
Nervous Guy Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 With Kelly, those were TD's...maybe even with...***glup***...JP. They were "bad" throws.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 16, 2009 Author Posted November 16, 2009 Stop right there. The Edwards experiment is very clearly nearing its end, and he's never going to be franchise QB for the Bills. My advice is that you start rooting for losses and for other bad teams to begin winning. I think the Edwards experiment is over but I am never going to be rooting for losses. I can still root wholeheartedly for wins and get the losses without turning my back on the team.
dave mcbride Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 I think the Edwards experiment is over but I am never going to be rooting for losses. I can still root wholeheartedly for wins and get the losses without turning my back on the team. I'm not turning my back on the team. I just want to get a top-shelf QB. I worry that they won't. If the Bills had lost one more game in 2003, they probably would have had a chance to get Roethlisberger. Don't forget that!!
Kelly the Dog Posted November 16, 2009 Author Posted November 16, 2009 Jackson's pass was great. Figures the only QB on this team who can hit a receiver in stride is a running back. Edwards' two to Owens, I think it's easy to over-criticize. I thought they were good throws - not great, but good. I also thought that Edwards was throwing them long and outside purposely, to a spot where Owens had a play on the ball but the DB didn't, which is in no small part the reason Owens was as open as he was. The first pass wasn't long, it was dreadfully short. Owens had to slow down, readjust and then run toward the sideline a couple yards, which made it impossible for him to turn upfield when the ball got there. A longer pass -- an accurate pass -- would have left the DB just chasing.
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 I'm not turning my back on the team. I just want to get a top-shelf QB. I worry that they won't. If the Bills had lost one more game in 2003, they probably would have had a chance to get Roethlisberger. Don't forget that!! And then Roethlisberger would be a bust today, don't forget that. You want a top-shelf QB? Get a competent front office and staff that doesn't totally !@#$-up developing him first.
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 The first pass wasn't long, it was dreadfully short. Owens had to slow down, readjust and then run toward the sideline a couple yards, which made it impossible for him to turn upfield when the ball got there. A longer pass -- an accurate pass -- would have left the DB just chasing. Not what I recall. But I didn't tape the game, of course (why the hell would I want a record of this ****?), so I can't check.
dave mcbride Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 And then Roethlisberger would be a bust today, don't forget that. You want a top-shelf QB? Get a competent front office and staff that doesn't totally !@#$-up developing him first. I do think that prioritizing o-linemen is putting the cart before the horse. Look at Cleveland - they have some of the best linemen in the league, including the best LT. But their QB situation is a disaster. Look at Indy and Pitt - their o-line talent isn't much better than the Bills. Yet the QB wins it for them. Of course I want better linemen, but I do think the Bills are an LT away from being competent next year. Draft one with the 35th pick; there should be someone available who is decent.
Lori Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Yesterday, before the switch to Fitz and Jauron's noncommittal response to Edwards continuing as the starter, Sully was thinking about writing his column on how low the standards have become -- both for the QB and the offense as a whole. Perhaps he fell victim to that line of thinking himself, when he called the bombs "accurate." As in, "close enough to make a play on." No 300-yard games since Losman v. Houston in November 2006. 29th in passing yards this season, 26th in yards per play, and they haven't crept above 18th in either of those stats since 2002. 2002. 14 receiving TDs last season, 12 the year before that -- in fact, the Bills haven't tossed 20 TD passes in a season since Drew Bledsoe's final year here. Given that recent history of ineptitude, we celebrate completions. (revised)
Kelly the Dog Posted November 16, 2009 Author Posted November 16, 2009 Not what I recall. But I didn't tape the game, of course (why the hell would I want a record of this ****?), so I can't check. The second one was woefully short, too. It's possible that Finnegan would have caught Owens from behind with an accurate throw but I doubt it. That's when Owens usually turns it up a notch and just runs away from people and he still clearly has the speed. He showed it on the TD reverse a couple weeks back and on numerous fly routes this year. A "good" pass there was an 80 yard TD. On the first one, as soon as Edwards looked to Owens, Rich Gannon the announcer said "Oh, he's got him" which showed how wide open Owens was. That was even before Owens was visible on the TV screen. A good pass would have reached the endzone on a fly or just short of it. He was wide open.
IDBillzFan Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 The first pass wasn't long, it was dreadfully short. Owens had to slow down, readjust and then run toward the sideline a couple yards, which made it impossible for him to turn upfield when the ball got there. A longer pass -- an accurate pass -- would have left the DB just chasing. I think it's a little of both. They were bad throws in that if they were thrown in better places, TO will score on the run. They were good throws in that this is the first time in weeks that the quarterback, the ball and TO were all finally on the same page. I get tired of watching TO run one way and a ball being thrown in a completely different area. I wonder to what extent that comes from TO not being all all the practices during the week.
GG Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Stop right there. The Edwards experiment is very clearly nearing its end, and he's never going to be franchise QB for the Bills. My advice is that you start rooting for losses and for other bad teams to begin winning. Whatever happened to the standard advice to all Bills fans to start drinking heavily?
PDaDdy Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 And then Roethlisberger would be a bust today, don't forget that. You want a top-shelf QB? Get a competent front office and staff that doesn't totally !@#$-up developing him first. Ah yes. The Trent Edwards supporters weren't wrong about Trent being the QB of the future. It' the coaching staff's fault he isn't a star!!! Roethlisberger would have still been a good QB even if he was drafted by the Bills. In addition to the "escapeability" that his size affords him, Roethlisberger has the 3 "B"s you want in a QB: Brains Balls Big Arm Those things alone would have afforded Ben considerably more success in Buffalo than Trent. Supposedly Trent used to have brains but he keeps getting his hash scrambled and has to sit out a few games.
dave mcbride Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Whatever happened to the standard advice to all Bills fans to start drinking heavily? Well, that too, of course.
Lori Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Whatever happened to the standard advice to all Bills fans to start drinking heavily? By now, I think that's a given.
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 Ah yes. The Trent Edwards supporters weren't wrong about Trent being the QB of the future. It' the coaching staff's fault he isn't a star!!! Roethlisberger would have still been a good QB even if he was drafted by the Bills. In addition to the "escapeability" that his size affords him, Roethlisberger has the 3 "B"s you want in a QB: Brains Balls Big Arm Those things along would have afforded him considerably more success in Buffalo than Trent. Supposedly Trent used to have brains but he keeps getting his hash scrambled and has to sit out a few games. I'm not an Edwards supporter - but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to go back and look at him two years ago, and figure out that in the past two seasons he's somehow morphed into JP Losman. It also doesn't take a rocket surgeon to look at the past ten YEARS of underperforming QBs and see that over time they all develope the exact same problems of field awareness, timid play, and inability to make quick or decent reads. And given all that, it's not exactly a stretch to figure out that the common thread between all those underperforming QBs ISN'T that they're all Trent Edwards. There's not a QB on the planet that would perform on this team until the real problems are addressed: the lack of any coherent football sense at the head coach level and above. How many "QBs of the future" do the Bills have to sign until everyone starts to realize that?
kota Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 First throw was a good throw. He was just late in throwing it which gave TO less room to make a play to the pilon. 2nd throw was bad. If he throw it farther down the field TO might have made the catch and gone the distance.
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts