Fitz as starter allows coaches to move on

[JÂy RÛßeÒ]

The point now is not necessarily to win games, but for this staff to still evaluate what it has in place under game conditions. Edwards' fall from offseason/preseason effectiveness to in-season horribleness (is that a word?) shows that preseason judgement really isn't worth all that much. What matters is how players react to real-speed competition against a team that is motivated and prepared to stop them.

 

Edwards was the biggest question mark of them all. Could he get back to being the pre-injury Edwards, who led the team to that 5-1 record? Question answered resoundingly 'no'. But the risk/reward of getting that question answered was definitly worth it in my book.

 

Now, with him removed and the steadier Fitzpatrick in place, QB play is much less of a question. So it's time to evaluate the rest of the offense.

• 
   
  
• Who on the O-Line can do the job?
  
• Which receivers are ready to step up and take some pressure off Lee Evans?
  
• Do we have a Tight End?
  
• Can we use all 3 tailbacks effectively?
  
• Can the offense handle an expanded playbook?
  

 

Hopefully these next couple/three games can go a long way to getting more of these answers. It will help focus coaching and game plans for the rest of the year and our draft strategy moving forward.

 

I gotta say, as painful as it is to watch these games, this is a process that had to be done and I'm encouraged that we've got the right people in place to get us out of this decade of mediocrity. Not this year, but soon. Think back to 1986 - that's where we're at.

[34-78-83]

The point now is not necessarily to win games, but for this staff to still evaluate what it has in place under game conditions. Edwards' fall from offseason/preseason effectiveness to in-season horribleness (is that a word?) shows that preseason judgement really isn't worth all that much. What matters is how players react to real-speed competition against a team that is motivated and prepared to stop them.

 

Edwards was the biggest question mark of them all. Could he get back to being the pre-injury Edwards, who led the team to that 5-1 record? Question answered resoundingly 'no'. But the risk/reward of getting that question answered was definitly worth it in my book.

 

Now, with him removed and the steadier Fitzpatrick in place, QB play is much less of a question. So it's time to evaluate the rest of the offense.

• Who on the O-Line can do the job?
• Which receivers are ready to step up and take some pressure off Lee Evans?
• Do we have a Tight End?
• Can we use all 3 tailbacks effectively?
• Can the offense handle an expanded playbook?

 

Hopefully these next couple/three games can go a long way to getting more of these answers. It will help focus coaching and game plans for the rest of the year and our draft strategy moving forward.

 

I gotta say, as painful as it is to watch these games, this is a process that had to be done and I'm encouraged that we've got the right people in place to get us out of this decade of mediocrity. Not this year, but soon. Think back to 1986 - that's where we're at.

 

Nice Post Jay!

Far too logical though, beware ...

I think getting a clear evaluation on Brohm is also in their plans... Need to know what you've got in him before next season.

Edited September 29, 2010 by 34-78-83

[Chris in Syracuse]

The point now is not necessarily to win games, but for this staff to still evaluate what it has in place under game conditions. Edwards' fall from offseason/preseason effectiveness to in-season horribleness (is that a word?) shows that preseason judgement really isn't worth all that much. What matters is how players react to real-speed competition against a team that is motivated and prepared to stop them.

 

Edwards was the biggest question mark of them all. Could he get back to being the pre-injury Edwards, who led the team to that 5-1 record? Question answered resoundingly 'no'. But the risk/reward of getting that question answered was definitly worth it in my book.

 

Now, with him removed and the steadier Fitzpatrick in place, QB play is much less of a question. So it's time to evaluate the rest of the offense.

• 
   
  
• Who on the O-Line can do the job?
  
• Which receivers are ready to step up and take some pressure off Lee Evans?
  
• Do we have a Tight End?
  
• Can we use all 3 tailbacks effectively?
  
• Can the offense handle an expanded playbook?
  

 

Hopefully these next couple/three games can go a long way to getting more of these answers. It will help focus coaching and game plans for the rest of the year and our draft strategy moving forward.

 

I gotta say, as painful as it is to watch these games, this is a process that had to be done and I'm encouraged that we've got the right people in place to get us out of this decade of mediocrity. Not this year, but soon. Think back to 1986 - that's where we're at.

+1

[BuffalOhio]

Great post. 1986 it is! Now if only I could get my parachute pants back!

[bobblehead]

Great post. 1986 it is! Now if only I could get my parachute pants back!

 

 

Jay has zubas, he told me.

[BuffaloRebound]

The point now is not necessarily to win games, but for this staff to still evaluate what it has in place under game conditions. Edwards' fall from offseason/preseason effectiveness to in-season horribleness (is that a word?) shows that preseason judgement really isn't worth all that much. What matters is how players react to real-speed competition against a team that is motivated and prepared to stop them.

 

Edwards was the biggest question mark of them all. Could he get back to being the pre-injury Edwards, who led the team to that 5-1 record? Question answered resoundingly 'no'. But the risk/reward of getting that question answered was definitly worth it in my book.

 

Now, with him removed and the steadier Fitzpatrick in place, QB play is much less of a question. So it's time to evaluate the rest of the offense.

• 
   
  
• Who on the O-Line can do the job?
  
• Which receivers are ready to step up and take some pressure off Lee Evans?
  
• Do we have a Tight End?
  
• Can we use all 3 tailbacks effectively?
  
• Can the offense handle an expanded playbook?
  

 

Hopefully these next couple/three games can go a long way to getting more of these answers. It will help focus coaching and game plans for the rest of the year and our draft strategy moving forward.

 

I gotta say, as painful as it is to watch these games, this is a process that had to be done and I'm encouraged that we've got the right people in place to get us out of this decade of mediocrity. Not this year, but soon. Think back to 1986 - that's where we're at.

 

I agree about Fitz making it easier to evaluate the offensive talent, but comparing to 1986 is a stretch. That squad already had Kelly and Smith on the roster.

[JCBoston]

I agree about Fitz making it easier to evaluate the offensive talent, but comparing to 1986 is a stretch. That squad already had Kelly and Smith on the roster.

 

Well, this team has Spiller. But the point is that there may be others on this team (Wood? Bell? Shawn Nelson? Troup?) that could be cornerstones going forward. It's time to find out.

[Chandler#81]

Good post Jay.

 

IMO, and many here disagree, the OL will resolve itself. I really think it's fine, just a tweak more and gain experience. I know Nix agrees. Levitre, Wood and Urbick were considered the top 3 OL on Buffalo's board and Buddy seems outwardly ecstatic to have them all. Add in Demetrius Bell -whom 2 separate coaching staffs hail as the 'second coming' athletically -but who didn't play football until very late, and the only pieces left are center/Hangartner upgrade and experience. Flamethrowers B word they're all wasted picks, but intelligent fans know it takes a couple/few years to truely learn how to effectively play NFL OL. That the 'Core 4' are so young, bodes very well for the long term future of the team. Barring devastating injuries, our OL should soon be great!

 

As for WR's/TE, Shawn Nelson showed flashes of freak playmaking ability, though he may be better suited to a Boldin-type WR. Fitz gave us the first real look @ WR with his -you know- down field throws Sunday, that our WR's can operate/get open/catch the damn ball -though the jury is still our on how well and consistently they can perform.

 

I don't think the 3-headed RB monster will last past this years' trading deadline. Just don't..

 

As for expanded playbook, any playbook is considered 'expanded' by DJ's measure. Directed by an Ivy League (caliber??) QB, this shouldn't be an issue.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[The Dean]

 

 

Now, with him removed and the steadier Fitzpatrick in place, QB play is much less of a question. So it's time to evaluate the rest of the offense.

• 
   
  
• Who on the O-Line can do the job?
  
• Which receivers are ready to step up and take some pressure off Lee Evans?
  
• Do we have a Tight End?
  
• Can we use all 3 tailbacks effectively?
  
• Can the offense handle an expanded playbook?
  

 

Hopefully these next couple/three games can go a long way to getting more of these answers. It will help focus coaching and game plans for the rest of the year and our draft strategy moving forward.

 

I gotta say, as painful as it is to watch these games, this is a process that had to be done and I'm encouraged that we've got the right people in place to get us out of this decade of mediocrity. Not this year, but soon. Think back to 1986 - that's where we're at.

 

Thanks, PF.

 

I made a similar point in the rush to trash the FO for cutting Trent, the other night, but was poo-pooed. I think you said it better, though.

 

With Trent at the helm it was tough to make these decisions, as his chickenshit play masked any strengths on offense and heightened any weaknesses, even minor ones.

[JÂy RÛßeÒ]

IMO, and many here disagree, the OL will resolve itself. I really think it's fine, just a tweak more and gain experience. I know Nix agrees. Levitre, Wood and Urbick were considered the top 3 OL on Buffalo's board and Buddy seems outwardly ecstatic to have them all. Add in Demetrius Bell -whom 2 separate coaching staffs hail as the 'second coming' athletically -but who didn't play football until very late, and the only pieces left are center/Hangartner upgrade and experience. Flamethrowers B word they're all wasted picks, but intelligent fans know it takes a couple/few years to truely learn how to effectively play NFL OL. That the 'Core 4' are so young, bodes very well for the long term future of the team. Barring devastating injuries, our OL should soon be great!

I think one of Levitre/Wood/Urbick ends up taking over for Hangartner. I'm hopeful that Bell lives up to the promise this staff and the last saw in him. It's RT that needs the upgrade. Unfortunately a OLine is only as strong as its weakest link and that link is plenty weak right now in the person of Cornell Green. You can mitigate somewhat with TE help, moving pockets, etc but that's the spot they need to focus on.

[Fan in Chicago]

 

I gotta say, as painful as it is to watch these games, this is a process that had to be done and I'm encouraged that we've got the right people in place to get us out of this decade of mediocrity. Not this year, but soon. Think back to 1986 - that's where we're at.

Yes totally agree. Speaking in pseudo scientific terms, you now have one control variable fixed (Fitz positives and negatives are well known and are unlikely to change) so you can evaluate the effects of the other. By next season we will have alchemy perfected

[CodeMonkey]

Thanks, PF.

 

I made a similar point in the rush to trash the FO for cutting Trent, the other night, but was poo-pooed. I think you said it better, though.

 

With Trent at the helm it was tough to make these decisions, as his chickenshit play masked any strengths on offense and heightened any weaknesses, even minor ones.

Geez. How does cutting Edwards make this "evaluation" any easier faster or better than benching him?

The release (and how it was handled) is what people were/are bitching about. Not letting Fitz or Brohm play.

[Captain Caveman]

The problem is they won't be able to see half of the player's on the field since Fitz's giant head will be in the way.

[The Dean]

I think one of Levitre/Wood/Urbick ends up taking over for Hangartner. I'm hopeful that Bell lives up to the promise this staff and the last saw in him. It's RT that needs the upgrade. Unfortunately a OLine is only as strong as its weakest link and that link is plenty weak right now in the person of Cornell Green. You can mitigate somewhat with TE help, moving pockets, etc but that's the spot they need to focus on.

 

While I think Wood is the Center of this team's future (as it should be) Hang hasn't been playing too poorly this year, IMO. Keeping Bell on the field and replacing Green is what I hope happens this year. Finding another good T (hopefully LT and move Bell) should be next year's project. Maybe when Wang gets his shot he will surprise.

 

 

Geez. How does cutting Edwards make this "evaluation" any easier faster or better than benching him?

The release (and how it was handled) is what people were/are bitching about. Not letting Fitz or Brohm play.

 

 

Fair point.

 

Not sure the handling of Edwards release should be an issue. He was done here, or should I say "should be done". Why have a disgruntled former starter as your 3rd string QB? Makes zero sense to me. With Edwards on the sideline, the other QBs would have to be looking over their shoulders, and the the coaches would always have that crutch to fall back on should Fitz or Brohm falter. That crutch would only hurt the turn-around, IMO.

 

As for why he was allowed to start to begin with, we've been round and round on that. I think the explanation is simply and makes a ton of sense, even if I wasn't crazy about the decision.

[JÂy RÛßeÒ]

Geez. How does cutting Edwards make this "evaluation" any easier faster or better than benching him?

The release (and how it was handled) is what people were/are bitching about. Not letting Fitz or Brohm play.

We did Trent a favor by cutting him. He's actually close to starting on another team who wants to sign him to an extenseion.

[The Dean]

We did Trent a favor by cutting him. He's actually close to starting on another team who wants to sign him to an extenseion.

 

 

The thing is, Garrard is FAR better than Trent and has more guts in his little finger than Trent does in his entire body. Trent might be better than Bouman, though.

[eball]

Nice post, Jay. Your 1986 comparison ain't too shabby, although we might really be in 1985. Next year we get our Kelly.

[merlin]

Nice post, Jay. Your 1986 comparison ain't too shabby, although we might really be in 1985. Next year we get our Kelly.

 

 

.... as long as that doesn't mean that he holds out/refuses to join the team for 3 years .....

[Cash]

Thanks, PF.

 

I made a similar point in the rush to trash the FO for cutting Trent, the other night, but was poo-pooed. I think you said it better, though.

 

With Trent at the helm it was tough to make these decisions, as his chickenshit play masked any strengths on offense and heightened any weaknesses, even minor ones.

 

Blame the FO for not cutting Trent sooner, fine. Very defensible. But you can't blame them for cutting him now. The only 2 teams to put in a waiver claim were the next 2 teams on our schedule. There was no trade market for him, and zero support in either the locker room (I think) or the fanbase. Mike Lombardi praised the Cardinals for cutting bait with Leinart when they did, but took a couple of shots at the Bills for essentially the same move. Didn't care for that, although I generally like Lombardi's analysis.

 

Anyway, getting back to the point of this thread, it's stunning to see the difference in every aspect of the passing game when Fitz comes in for Trent. People had been saying Steve Johnson couldn't start for a CFL team, but he looked like a legitimate player on Sunday. The O-line didn't look great, but showed that they at least do provide some time, and usually provide a pocket to step into and throwing (or running) lanes that a QB can use to make plays. Granted, this was all against a bad to very bad defense, so maybe we're being too optimistic. But we've got some quality defenses left on the schedule, and playing those should really expose who can play and who can't.

[TheBows]

Good post, nice perspective. I don't think he really puts us in the best posiiton to win each week, but he definitely gives us a good look at the talent; which puts us in a better position to win each week next season. I'm waiting to profit off our surpluss of running backs as well. It would be nice to find a decent talent in the third to replace Marshawn or Freddy. Anyway, good point.