Bill from NYC Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Nah, that TB defense had nothing to do with Johnson getting to the Super Bowl, did it? Of Course it did. My point was that a quarterback, in order to reach a superbowl, doesn't need all of the measureables, such as John Elway type arm strength. In fact, Elway didn't win a superbowl until he learned to rely more on his running game, and less on his God given talent. There is a long list of qbs who reach the superbowl who were more functional than they were superstars.
canbuffan34 Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Well, when you say that you say it as if I think this team would be good if we did. Let me put it this way, I wouldn't start Edwards over anyone and if you break down his games all you have left is excuses as to why he sucked royally. Other than this "poise" thing which no one has even explained how it matters practically, there is absolutely nothing to his game. Zilch! If the team plays so much better otherwise, and all we we are going to get with this team playing better in other facets of the game is dead last offensive production and near dead last defensive production, and a downturn in STs from the year before, then I"ll simply pass. Why don't any of you have any higher standards for your own team? I would start JP over Edwards for the simple reason that the offense moves the ball more yards, scores more points on average, logs more 1st downs, converts more 3rd downs, etc. I mean isn't that what an offense is supposed to do? Seems to me that if you were to take a poll here the answer is no, it's not. It's supposed to see who looks better on the field and walks off the turf with fewer grass stains on their uniform or some rot. I just don't get it. The team is better w/o Edwards. So why do so many people want to see him on the field and why are so many of you so excited to see him play like sh-- again and make the offense play like sh-- again? He's not good and there isn't anything besides this absurd notion that "he's poised" yet with absolutely no definition as to how or why it even matters behind it other than to say that others around him play better when that's not even true for the offensive players. Defensively, chah, don't we expect the defensive players to play better vs. Miami, the Jets, Browns, or Ravens than we do vs. Jax or NE? I guess not. Hi JP! How's camp?
colin Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 krazykat, are you wys from wys wings? your analysis is horrible and and you are prolly insane. as a rook, compare how trent did vs the bills average, and adjust the bad weather games by how far off their norms the opponents were. your point about the coaches effing jp by putting him into an O that hurts him is both retarded and wrong. jp's only close to good season was 06, and his numbers (with inflated accuracy and QER numbers) only came about because in most of the games jp only passed 12-19 times. and he STILL got sacked and fumbled and threw picks with a high frequency. a couple good games against horrible oppnents (like cincy this past season) then overwhelms the fewer number of attempts against sub terribe teams. jp's success in 06 came because our coaches made sure they never gave him enough rope to hang himself with.
bill in Livonia Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 I see a dogged, short passing threat that apeals to his coaches than to his fans.
davefan66 Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 OK, so a completion for 3 on a 3rd-and-6 avoids the sack, but so what, then you punt. Granted, better than a sack, but still not what the O is supposed to do, or is it. As far as placing the ball in the right spot for the receiver to make the play or reading his recceivers, did you miss all the times that he hit a man for short because he missed an entirely open receiver elsewhere that could have resulted in a lot more yards? Regardless, OK, he played with poise uncommon for rookies. Shouldn't the offense then not have been the worst in the league? I mean was Culpepper, Russell, McCown better on a better O in Oakland? Why did they put up more in terms of offensive production with Fargas, Curry, Porter and their pathetic OL? How Leo Clemen or Kellen Clemens in NY and Miami? Can't project our player to another team, unless he is a bona-fide superstar. First of all, Culpepper and McCown are not rookies, and Russell did not show half of what Trent did. Also Fargas is a heck of a player, if you didn't notice. Are you really trying to tell me those two jokes from NY and Miami were better than Trent? Neither of those two showed ANYTHING. (BTW, it's Cleo Lemon and he is with JAX now). I'm just going off one season at the helm. I'm not projecting Trent to be the next Montana or Favre, just he showed me more than JP has in terms of poise, being steady in the pocket, and potential. I know potential is nothing unless you reach your potential, ie: Losman. I thought the original post was what we saw in Trent. Again, I have to answer that question based on one season, and how he fits in with the Bills and our system, not some other team and a totally different system, players and coaches.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 I think we all know when we really are honest with ourselves that Edwards' didn't get sacked all that much because he was in a system, which admittedly according to Schonert if you read that article on him, he wasn't thrown to the wolves last year and it was designed first and foremost to keep hiim from getting too much pressure. IMO the team had made up its mind that it didn't want JP in there (Donahoe's guy) and wanted their own, probably because Marv was buddies with Walsh and Walsh said this or that because that's the kind of guy Marv is, that they arranged it so that Losman wouldn't succeed and it would give them the perfect opportunity to put Edwards in, allow him to get his feet wet, prepare himself for this season which is supposed to be his grand coming out. Otherwise how can we explain the fact that the team changed everything around for Losman who came off of a 17TD/9INT season. If they really wanted JP to succeed, or the team to succeed under him, they would have run a similar offense than they did. Instead, they ran one not suited to his strengths and when he failed put in Edwards. I admit, I will be pleasantly surprised if we finish this year under Edwards ranked in the top half for sacks allowed. I'm expecting 30+ sacks again. But you know what, if it's accompanied by 24 TDs/18INTs, so what, it was worth it rather than 10 sacks and no damn ball movement or scoring. I think it's a difference in styles of play more than anything. TE's presence will actually make JP a better QB and vice versa. I think you saw as the season progressed and each guy got some PT, JP started to get rid of the ball quicker, and TE took more risks downfield. What we need and want is basically a hall of fame QB--a buy with tremendous poise, who also can make all the throws.
John from Riverside Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 I cant believe we are talking about a rookie QB like he is supposed to come in and far and away outplay a veteran. Lets see what Edwards does this year....... Both guys moved the ball between the 20's......IMHO the sissy playcalling and lack of big targets is what did us in when we got to the red zone. Also....our defense couldn't get the ball back last year and so every offensive possession just became too critical. Lets hope this will change with improvements at the DT, LB, and improving the depth of the corner position.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 I see a dogged, short passing threat that apeals to his coaches than to his fans. And is west coast like. Hell, it’s what Brady utilizes and when excuted well it works. Even with long ball Loaman they only called 3 to 5 long passes per game!
obie_wan Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 I cant believe we are talking about a rookie QB like he is supposed to come in and far and away outplay a veteran. Lets see what Edwards does this year....... Both guys moved the ball between the 20's......IMHO the sissy playcalling and lack of big targets is what did us in when we got to the red zone. Also....our defense couldn't get the ball back last year and so every offensive possession just became too critical. Lets hope this will change with improvements at the DT, LB, and improving the depth of the corner position. The size of the target was not a factor in scroring TDs last year. This is a easy cop-out excuse. The complete failure to even attempt passes towards the end zone is why they did not scorre TDs. They should have been attacking the end zone from the 25 yard line, BEFORE they got into the red zone - If they throw to the end zone from the 25, they will score and will not need the jolly green giant
John from Riverside Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 While I agree that our playcalling made it look like we were afraid to throw at the end zone I do not agree that our size did not hurt us..... When you run out of real estate the ability to play basketball in the end zone is a huge factor. Or at least the threat to do it. But I guess we will see if that proves true this year......
Recommended Posts