Dorkington Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Wish him the best, I liked him pre AZ, but everything changed after that.
Superb Owl Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Ugh.... he was never very good. And I'm sure he has long since recovered, but still isn't any good. I don't know if people here have met him, or he signed something for their kids, or what it is, but people won't let it go. I don't consider him a coward, or a jerk, just not a very good quarterback. Ever. Here's an example of Trent playing very good (3:35 into the video). It really is an incredible throw in between 4 defenders to win the game with time expiring
Prickly Pete Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 I'm sure he recovered from the concussion, but I think there was more to it than that. Probably some upper cervical issues, and those can hang on forever. Here's an example of Trent playing very good (3:35 into the video). It really is an incredible throw in between 4 defenders to win the game with time expiring http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RMMG9hod6s Yeah, see this is what I mean. I sense that some people are EMOTIONALLY involved with his "legacy" or something. Sure, he had some highlights, some nice throws, whatever....fact remains that he was never very good, and certainly wasn't gonna lead any team to the promised land. I don't know if you, and others like you, argued in his favor so vociferously that his failing brings some kind of shame on to you, or you had some kind of personal interaction with him that clouds your judgement. I'm not sure where the problem lies, I just know he was never very good, before "the hit", or after.
ganesh Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Yeah, see this is what I mean. I sense that some people are EMOTIONALLY involved with his "legacy" or something. Sure, he had some highlights, some nice throws, whatever....fact remains that he was never very good, and certainly wasn't gonna lead any team to the promised land. I don't know if you, and others like you, argued in his favor so vociferously that his failing brings some kind of shame on to you, or you had some kind of personal interaction with him that clouds your judgement. I'm not sure where the problem lies, I just know he was never very good, before "the hit", or after. The problem is that it is simply hard to evaluate. Losman and Edwards were given difficult tasks by changing OC every year. They were simply not going to be consistent. To make it worse, the team did not field a good defense, a young QB's best friend!.....We will never know how good these guys could have been if the team had a coaching staff that was consistent for a few years.
Prickly Pete Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 (edited) The problem is that it is simply hard to evaluate. Losman and Edwards were given difficult tasks by changing OC every year. They were simply not going to be consistent. To make it worse, the team did not field a good defense, a young QB's best friend!.....We will never know how good these guys could have been if the team had a coaching staff that was consistent for a few years. I disagree. Neither of them went on to any kind of success, and they both had ample opportunity. It was clear that Trentative either couldn't, or wouldn't anticipate openings in coverage well enough. He earned that nickname like no other. As someone pointed out, he made Fitz look great by comparison. Losman was a whole different set of problems, but again, I don't think there was a cure. There just aren't many people that can consistently perform at the level needed to win in the NFL. These guys didn't have it. LET IT GO... Thank you for providing the voice of reason. It's a difficult thing, this Bills fandom. I have to keep looking forward. 20 years.... Edited April 18, 2013 by Marauder'sMicro
RealityCheck Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Get a grip, he didn't always suck. He made a big jump from his first to second year. From 56% to 66% and 6.1 to 7.2 YPA He was on a good trajectory until the Wilson hit. He was able to stare down the gun barrel which is good for a QB but maybe he was too good at it Get a grip? Your stats are meaningless if you are not going to include all of them. He played well against BAD teams. So what. If you want to pick a stat that paints the best picture of him then why not mention his completion % vs. the blitz? Edwards was ALWAYS money against the blitz statistically. The problem however is that teams figured out early that he was indecisive when faced with soft zone coverages and minimal rushers leading to check downs for a loss or coverage sacks. You have a romantic attraction to what could have been when the guy was never able to pull it off in the first place. If you look at the combined winning % of the teams he beat pre-concussion you would be very disappointed. By comparison Fitz has an abyssmal comp. % vs. the blitz while thriving against zone coverages, Trent was mysteriously the polar opposite in that regard. In the end, they both are good enough to get you 5 to 7 wins while being complete opposites. I take that as both of these guys at best represent half of what you want in a franchise QB if you are only looking at what they do best. The Browns game gave the league the blue print for beating him. Play the run first while dropping everyone in to coverage to freeze him in the pocket. That was it.
Buftex Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Mine would have to be Mike Williams. Lazy motherf*cker. I may not be able to play or take a hit like Trent did, but if I "earned" that kind of money I would have busted my ass and finish my short career injured just to avoid the life long guilt that comes with stealing that much cash. Not to mention disappointing soo many fans. For shame Mike, for shame!!! (Sounds like a thread. Who is your least favorite Bill and Why. Any takers?) Mike Willams is far from the worst offender in this area...
Superb Owl Posted April 18, 2013 Posted April 18, 2013 Your stats are meaningless if you are not going to include all of them. Those numbers were showing how he improved a lot from year 1 to 2. That is the meaning. It's hard to dispute that he was improving through 2008. IMO it's also hard to dispute that he started to regress sometime around the Wilson hit. The true cause is up for debate but I have a strong feeling it was the effects of that hit. Even a subtle change to the upper cervical area can have a profound effect on a person. It can effect the wherewithal of a person. I believe it might have cut down his field vision. It's hard to watch that hit and not think it could have injured that area. ... an abyssmal comp. % vs. the blitz while thriving against zone coverages, Trent was mysteriously the polar opposite in that regard. 1. How hard would it be to get separate numbers for before and after the Wilson hit? 2. Check 3:35 of that video I posted to see basically a jaw-dropping throw against zone. Obviously it's just one throw, but I honestly don't think many QBs would be able to make it. And the situation doesn't get much more clutch
Recommended Posts