stevewin Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 It is going to be interesting to see how this all plays out (especially between those who believe that Trent was being made a scapegoat and at least one guy who has been working to undermine him the past few years). Flutie?
ConradDobler Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 Some other member here made mention of something like this: The Bills gave Trent a chance to show every Bills' fan how he could play under Chan Gaileys coaching/offense. Trent failed. No arguements, it is time to mve on. If they had cut him before the regular season (as I would have) people would be screaming "What if!".
TheChimp Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 I find myself in compete and total disagreement with the OP and his supporters. This move made total sense to me. Just like starting him because of his terrific preseason made total sense to me.
reddogblitz Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 And why would you say that "he gave it everything he had" in the PC about the release? Is that some sort of double reverse psychology to get people that want out of Dodge to work harder? I think he probably did. But that's life. There have been things in my life I put 100% effort into and just didn't make it. Just wasnt' good enough. Probably happened to you and everyone else on TDB too. That's what happened to Trent. I really think you're reading too much into this.
bowery4 Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 Cogent political analysis. Thanks for bringing your thoughtful discourse to a Bills message board. Anyways, what would you want Gailey to have done? I bet dollars to doughnuts that he had a private conversation with Edwards and told him something akin to this: "Here's your last shot with this organization. Either you're able to thrive in my system or not, but we don't have time to ride it out anymore. This is your 4th year in the league, get it together." And initially it did look like Trent had his act together, but once the games went live, Gailey had seen enough that Edwards was no longer redeemable as a QB in his system. Honestly, this is in the best interests of both the team and the player. Imagine if they kept Trent around all year and he kept looking like he did the first two games. Do you think that even any USFL teams would come knocking at his door? Certainly no NFL teams would. It allows Edwards to save a little face and make a roster somewhere else, and it also eliminates a potential locker room problem between Fitz and Edwards. Finally, it sends a message to both Bills fans and players. The new regime isn't afraid to make bold decisions and separate the wheat from the chaff. Gailey and Nix have the unenviable task of trying to rebuild this team while keeping them competitive. Edwards wasn't useful for either objective and at this point, his presence would only be detrimental to both parties. Happy trails Trent. Hopefully you find a better situation for yourself. So was Bobby Shaw. But, that cut by Mularky seemed to light a fire under some asses that season. I think it was the right message to send. Trent had 4 seasons. Four. It says, you'll get a fair shot. But no matter how well you practice Monday through Saturday (or play during the preseason), if you can't produce on Sundays when games matter, you're gone*. I think most NFL players will respect that a coach is trying to do a job as well, that he's taking steps that he believes will make the team better, and they know that his ass is on the line too. * unless your name is Chris Kelsay. Then, you're given extensions for tens of millions of dollars. Some other member here made mention of something like this: The Bills gave Trent a chance to show every Bills' fan how he could play under Chan Gaileys coaching/offense. Trent failed. No arguements, it is time to mve on. If they had cut him before the regular season (as I would have) people would be screaming "What if!". All good posts IMO, I also think that Trent has the best tools and it showed in pre-season and practice. I would guess that Chan thought "hey he can be good and we can fix him, it is just his confidence and I know how to give him more We will have an open competition and he will win, that will help him feel better than who he is up against.I will tell him last year doesn't matter, what he does now is what counts. We can rebuild him and if it works we won't need to draft another one next year and we can start on the Tackle position 1st." It looked like it worked to for a while. Then Trent did his "I've lost it" act, yet again... oh well, so now is time to move on. So far as players not being happy about it well, I have worked at places where ppl I thought should stay, got fired and I stayed even if it didn't make me happy for a while, I got over it because I am professional. Also there was a thing that Nix said at that Quarterback club thing about Ralph saying "until they play the real games you don't know what you have." So maybe they talked about it and agreed what to do and maybe he did have some say in it (I know he is the owner and owners are supposed to stay out of it but), maybe Trent was in Fitz's face about something.... could be a lot of **** we don't know about. Maybe Trent was causing disruption, already. I don't think this is all that important, so far as how it is viewed. I like that ppl will see if you can't do your job well, you can leave. I hope they stay w/ that standard.
todd Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 And how many teams fire their OC before the start of the season or a few games in and replace him with the QB coach? I ask this question in all honesty: How many teams who bench the starting QB who got all the 1st team reps in pre-season cut the guy 8 days after starting him? No one does. You homers go on making excuses for why things are normal, but the story isn't why TE was released, it's the timing. An off-season of evaluation shot in 2+ weeks. Yeah, that's shallow analysis.
thewildrabbit Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 I'm not entirely certain as to why Gailey would defend the guy...you dog one of us, you dog all of us and then lose complete faith in him so quickly that he goes from starting to released. I can only surmise that Gailey thinks that Edwards is a coward and can't abide a coward or something to that effect. Until Gailey proves me wrong by winning games I'm declaring him the latest buffoon, in a long list of failed Bills head coaches. Fitz played better then Edwards did for the simple reason the Patriots defense is nowhere near as good as either the Dolphins or the Packers, I think everyone will see how well Fitz plays against a tough blitzing team when the Bills play the Jets this week,. Irregardless of how I get flamed en mass by the hoard of Trent haters, The guy did only have 2 seconds to get rid of the ball against the two teams he played, whereas Fitz easily had 3 + seconds and at times no defender near him when he released. Edwards was getting slammed after 2 seconds on most passing plays. I place Edwards failing against Miami and GB as Gaileys lack of piss poor game plan. Edwards in shotgun 75% of the time against Miami was basically telling Miami we are going to throw try and stop us, and they did exactly that!, Spiller not being able to run the ball. How many times did we see Spiller- Jackson-Lynch getting hit by a Miami defender as they were given the hand off, I suppose that was Edwards fault also. The Bills were also actually able to run the ball effectively against the Patriots and thus Fitz didn't face the third and long or the blitzes that Edwards faced. That Bills O line didn't miraculously become better because of a QB change, they played better because the defense they faced was far inferior to the ones they faced with GB and Miami. The Patriots have a poor pash rush and a bunch of rookies in their secondary 27th ranked defense, even the Bills have the better defense 22nd ranked defense. I just can't wait to see the Bills play the Jets- Ravens-Steelers Buffalo might actually win some games this year if they keep facing 27th ranked defenses, but then again fitz might just keep killing them with his INT's. I hope Brohm has been studying that playbook To outright release the guy seems like a real boneheaded thing to do, something Jauron would do
RkFast Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 (edited) When you have no credibility, yes, you will be questioned when you've cut your starting QB as of 8 days ago. Yes that's extremely strange, especially when your backup QB has 1 NFL start and there's no other QB on the roster or PS. Yes, you'll be spoken poorly with the track record they have. With this sort of logic, Cornell Green should have been sent packing after Week 1. Yes, when the Bills do things like this they'll be questioned. You tend to get that when it's been forever since their last playoff appearance and the the owner has made decisions about starters before. That always works. Using the Milloy example again, Bellichick didnt exactly have Ronnie Lott circa 1988 waiting in the wings to replace him. And this "they should have released him in {August, July...March(!!??!!)"} would have drawn out the same hyper critical whiners that are here now, except they would be going on about ":not giving TE a chance." Edited September 28, 2010 by RkFast
uforesircher Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 How is this decisive or quick moving? After last season, I never thought that the Bills would go into this season with Trent as the starter. I was shocked that the Bills did not bring in a QB for more competition, either with a high round pick or a veteran free agent pick up. Moving quickly and decisively would have been realizing after last season that TE was not the answer and moving on at that time. Instead, TE gets most of the first team reps in the offseason and the preseason and starts the first two games. How does this make any sense? i don't remember coach gailey or gm nix being in charge last season - the progression was correct when they decided after two games that they would not go back to edwards - and correct for everyone involved
Nanker Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 I give Chan credit for giving Trent every possible chance to succeed at this level. I also think it was the right decision to jettison him after benching him. The players know what they had in Trent. He is a defensive QB, and the NFL is a league driven by offensive QBs. I imagine back in the day, Shula would liked to have had a guy like Trent backing up Griese. That said, keeping TE on the squad, riding the bench or running the practice squad would be pathetic. Chan's now got only two QBs to focus on training, and he's made it clear he thought investing any more in Trent was a waste.
BreezeMafia Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 Maybe the insider who has knowledge of the inter workings of the players is right. however, until that is proven, I have to think that something happened within the locker room of the team for the quick release to occur. If Trent was really that liked by players, then I am stunned to see how much harder the team played Sunday when Fitzpatrick started. Sorry, but something doesn't smell right and I think seeing the players play much harder for Fitz was all that Gailey needed.
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 I give Chan credit for giving Trent every possible chance to succeed at this level. I also think it was the right decision to jettison him after benching him. The players know what they had in Trent. He is a defensive QB, and the NFL is a league driven by offensive QBs. I imagine back in the day, Shula would liked to have had a guy like Trent backing up Griese. That said, keeping TE on the squad, riding the bench or running the practice squad would be pathetic. Chan's now got only two QBs to focus on training, and he's made it clear he thought investing any more in Trent was a waste. I think it is as simple as that. Why waste more time giving Edwards any more snaps. Chan now thinks Brohm should be number 2 and I think many of us would agree with giving him a chance, instead of keeping Edwards at 2. Edwards at 3 is ridiculous. First its extremely embarrassing for him to run the scout team after being the starter and Gailey clearly indicated that in his remarks. Second, the 3 guy (if they bring one in) should be at least a long term prospect (like a Levy Brown).
cåblelady Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 For what it is worth, my insider tells me there are some very angry Bills players today... Trent was well liked, and respected by many of his teammates... Gailey might be losing some of these guys... I suspect there are going to be many, many changes... that might be a good thing. The sucky ones? The ones that realize they might be next because they're not doing their jobs well? Oh, damn. If I wasn't doing my job I'd probably get canned too.
eball Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 I ask this question in all honesty: How many teams who bench the starting QB who got all the 1st team reps in pre-season cut the guy 8 days after starting him? No one does. You homers go on making excuses for why things are normal, but the story isn't why TE was released, it's the timing. An off-season of evaluation shot in 2+ weeks. Yeah, that's shallow analysis. Your question is irrelevant. Who cares "how many teams" would do this? All of the QBs on the roster have been a part of the offense for the entire summer, regardless of their "1st team reps." Nobody is stepping into a brand new situation. Did you pay attention to anything Gailey said during preseason? He ALWAYS said the competition was close, and Edwards simply didn't do anything in practice or preseason to screw up the rotation. It's not as if a couple of world-beaters were lighting it up in camp and a bad decision was made. Once the real bullets started flying, the #5 on the field was a completely different QB than the one who played the practice games. Should Gailey be expected to have ESP? A lot of people are missing the point here. By being benched, Edwards had his pair snipped -- again. Gailey and Nix aren't idiots -- they can see, as should anyone, that Edwards would never have another legitimate opportunity to lead this team. Why keep him around as a sad-sack backup? It's not okay to be content with losing. Edwards was. Gailey, apparently, is not, and is willing to make moves to try and address that. Call me a homer if you like -- I know this team isn't any good, but I welcome the change in attitude.
Bill from NYC Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 The sucky ones? The ones that realize they might be next because they're not doing their jobs well? Oh, damn. If I wasn't doing my job I'd probably get canned too. I disagree. You are too cool to get fired.
cåblelady Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 The notion amongst Trents' supportive teammates was that he was a tireless worker, who led by example, and should have been treated a little more respectfully. He was released early in the morning, and gone before any of his (former) teammates and coaches showed up for work. He wasn't given the opportunity to speak with anyone. And, he was pretty upset. Same thing happened to a former Supervisor of mine with 33 years of service, who's position was eliminated. Same scenario. Just sayin'. Stuff happens. I disagree. You are too cool to get fired. I love you.
34-78-83 Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 I don't see the issue here: -New regime gives Trent a legit chance and ... He fails miserably, unwilling to throw the ball in traffic like an NFL QB is required to -They try another option for one week to see if it's really the O-line causing all the problems....Nope...The backup QB is decisive and willing to throw into traffic and has a much more productive game... Magically, Evans, Johnson and Parish are suddenly open. - Regime realizes they are not winning anything this year and Trent isn't the guy and they release him, potentially sending a message to others on the team who don't perform at their job.
HARCO186 Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 I understand that TE was benched for this play, but cutting him in this manner will have ramifications. The way this was handled reflects poorly on the front office, and these type of things do impact the perceptions that players have of a team (in this case the Bills). Yes, the media and the experts are already negative about the Bills, including our front office, but there are many reasons that college players and free agents will not be attracted to the Bills, and creating new reasons is not helpful. Overall, the impression is that this team and organization are a mess. Maybe cutting TE was the right move, but it sure makes the team look bad on a number of levels and feeds the impression that our front office and coaching staff are clueless. I have no problems disagreeing with the so called experts, but they seem to be right about the Bills a lot lately. After 10 years of futility, it is becoming increasingly difficult to disagree with the negative perceptions of this team and I am becoming concerned with the ability of the current front office to make good decisions and build a winning team. I would agree except the Bills Front Office had no reason to keep Trent on. If they kept him, then everyone would say here we go again, wait until Fitz screws up then Trent will come back in. I stated long ago that the team was using Trent to get the line better for Brohm. I always felt Nix wanted Brohm and was brought in even before they made news that Nix was in. I bet that Nix had some arrangements before he signed or was giving suggestions as a consultant before he was asked to take the job. I also feel that when the Bills went to Cowher, he not only recommended Chan but set it up for the team. They were and are using Trent and Fitz to school Brohm. Fitz is an awesome backup and the staff knows this. By next year we will see Brohm as our starter in my opinion. For the team to go draft a big qb, we will not be in position to do so. Look at all teams that will need a qb next year, and what their records will be. I have us at best 5th in picking at the draft next year. There most likely won't be a qb that we want by then. Brohm was picked by most to have a better ability than Rogers in his draft time. Most said he was a Jim Kelly in the making. I really see Chan the Man using this year to develop Brohm and having the o-line develop as well. Next years draft will be a solid LB or o-lineman as our first pick. Chan did a great job by cutting ties and not leaving everyone guessing what if's...
Sabre Bill Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 I don't see the issue here: -New regime gives Trent a legit chance and ... He fails miserably, unwilling to throw the ball in traffic like an NFL QB is required to -They try another option for one week to see if it's really the O-line causing all the problems....Nope...The backup QB is decisive and willing to throw into traffic and has a much more productive game... Magically, Evans, Johnson and Parish are suddenly open. - Regime realizes they are not winning anything this year and Trent isn't the guy and they release him,potentially [b}sending a message to others on the team who don't perform at their job.[/b] +1 It also sends the message to fans, future free agents and potential draft picks: The NEW buffalo Bills are no longer laughable. They (the players, front office and coaching staff) are working to belong on the same playing field as the other 31 NFL teams. No one was laughing on the New England sideline last Sunday. Today, people may be shaking their heads, but in general, they have to be saying, "Well, that's not the Buffalo Bills we've loved and laughed at for the last decade. . . "
ddaryl Posted September 28, 2010 Posted September 28, 2010 the message was sent... You either perform or your out... Welcome to the pros boys.. what have you done for me lately
Recommended Posts