firedawg Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Noooooo not versus 24 against the worst defense. HERE Week 1; 24 (7 on a return) Week 2: 20 Week 3: 24 week 4: 24 (7 on a return) The 2nd year Qb put up at least 20 in 4 straight games. The 5th year QB put up 17. Now how hard is that to figure out? Do you realize how much difference there is in win/loss % between 17 and 24 in the NFL? Do you honestly feel Trent would have done any better? I don't. There is no way we were beating that Cardinals defense regardless of who was under center. When you are down by 2 possessions and your defense couldn't stop a shopping cart with a bulldozer that's where your problem lies. QB 2 didn't have a great game but QB 1 wasn't going to have a great game either. The O-line lost in the trenches and the D just gave up too many points with no adjustments by the coaching staff. You could have had a healthy Tom Brady under center and we still would have lost.......
AnthonyF Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Before Sunday, the Bills OFFENSE have scored 17 points through 3 qtrs ONLY ONE OTHER time this year (Seattle). JP was 6 of 7 for 132 and a TD (With a pefrect QB rating) and sacked only once through the 3rd quarter. The Cards scored on 7 of the first 8 possesions including every single one in the first half. 5 going for TD's. Defense had no sacks, FF or int's for the first time this year. Justin Jenkins offsides. Defense can't hold. Robert Royals fumble. Game Over.....JP SUCKS!!!!!!!! 6 of 7 132...... Lousy stats.... I think that says it all.... The negativity is mind numbing....
Dan Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Do you honestly feel Trent would have done any better? I don't. There is no way we were beating that Cardinals defense regardless of who was under center. When you are down by 2 possessions and your defense couldn't stop a shopping cart with a bulldozer that's where your problem lies. QB 2 didn't have a great game but QB 1 wasn't going to have a great game either. The O-line lost in the trenches and the D just gave up too many points with no adjustments by the coaching staff. You could have had a healthy Tom Brady under center and we still would have lost....... I'm really trying not to post in this thread anymore. But it's like crack ho's; you just gotta go talk to them. (not really) There's a fundamental flaw in any argument from any poster that says Trent would have done better or would have been able to win the game. I do hope every one realizes this. See, the reality is.... Trent was the starter. Trent did play in the game. Trent took a vicious sack and left the game. So you see, Trent had a chance to lead the offense and win the game, but stood in the pocket too long, got nailed and couldn't finish. I'm not knocking on Trent. I'm just reminding every one that Trent was in the game and produced less points than JP. Why? Because he couldn't finish the game. So, to suggest that Trent could have won the game is to ignore the fact that he had his shot as well. For this reason, myself and others, have suggested that the QB position is not why we lost this game. It was largely because of the defense and the offensive line. Maybe if the defense could have stopped the Cards once in the first half or the offensive line could at least slow down a blitzing safety, we would have won - with Trent as the QB.
Spun Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Both lines were pathetic. There is insufficient improvement in pass and run blocking and the pass rush smells like Grand Island. There was an initial push in part because the Cards offensive line backed up and then nothing. Paper tigers on the defensive line. They collect some sacks against mediocre opponents but don't do much otherwise. Lining up offsides? Are they blind? Too many stupid penalties and turnovers. Peters is playing no better than John Fina. The Chargers and Fish will run all over the Bills. And what was with that short kickoff? Can they bring Bruce Smith back? Seriously. I think the Bills are trying to get away from hopeless attempts at running up the middle. I think. I hope. Losman? Losman? (Insert Jim Mora inflection here).
Orton's Arm Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 I'm glad you brought up that fallacy of the Bills "sustaining drives" when Edwards is in - this snippet was published before the AZ game A lot of people on this thread have evaluated Trent's performance in a vacuum, as though he didn't require good or even adequate performances from the players around him in order to get the job done. Someone on this thread--I don't remember who--criticized him for scoring too little in the first half of the Rams game, despite the fact our offensive line looked like one of the worst lines in Bills' history in the first half of that game. The bottom line is that Trent has looked very good when he's been given adequate pass protection or better. Typically this decent to good offensive line play has come in the 4th quarter, because that's when the other team's defensive line is tired. When Trent has been given little or no protection--as is normally the case for the first 2.5 - 3 quarters--he's been unproductive. Some people--and I'm not necessarily including you in this category--seem to think that you could let the offensive line play at its same putrid level, but that the offense as a whole would suddenly come to life if one were to replace Trent with a better QB. This line of reasoning is false. Trent makes faster decisions than most QBs. He has a quick release, reads the field quickly, and (at least usually) does a good job of sensing pressure and getting rid of the ball. Trent does a significantly above average job of masking the (considerable) weakness of the offensive line. If you were to replace Trent with an average quarterback, our offensive line would look even worse than it currently does, and our offense would become worse at scoring points and sustaining drives. Quarterbacks like Joe Montana and Tom Brady are known as some of the best QBs in NFL history, largely because of their ability to sustain long, many-play drives. But how do those guys look when they don't get pass protection? If a Joe Montana or a Tom Brady can't give you a productive offense unless he gets at least decent pass protection, it's unrealistic to expect Trent Edwards to be productive for a full 60 minutes when he only receives pass protection in the fourth quarter. And it's this kind of unrealistic expectation, one that sets Trent up to fail, which seems to underlie much of the criticism I've seen directed against him in this thread.
JimmyPage Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Know of any #2 QBs in the league, in the last year of their contract, that would bring a legit pass rusher? Yeah but a lot of fans (not me) were saying that we had two good QBs that could be starters. As if JP was a lot better then the typical backup. I guess they were letting their imaginations get the better of them.
manateefan Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 A lot of people on this thread have evaluated Trent's performance in a vacuum, as though he didn't require good or even adequate performances from the players around him in order to get the job done. Someone on this thread--I don't remember who--criticized him for scoring too little in the first half of the Rams game, despite the fact our offensive line looked like one of the worst lines in Bills' history in the first half of that game. The bottom line is that Trent has looked very good when he's been given adequate pass protection or better. Typically this decent to good offensive line play has come in the 4th quarter, because that's when the other team's defensive line is tired. When Trent has been given little or no protection--as is normally the case for the first 2.5 - 3 quarters--he's been unproductive. Some people--and I'm not necessarily including you in this category--seem to think that you could let the offensive line play at its same putrid level, but that the offense as a whole would suddenly come to life if one were to replace Trent with a better QB. This line of reasoning is false. Trent makes faster decisions than most QBs. He has a quick release, reads the field quickly, and (at least usually) does a good job of sensing pressure and getting rid of the ball. Trent does a significantly above average job of masking the (considerable) weakness of the offensive line. If you were to replace Trent with an average quarterback, our offensive line would look even worse than it currently does, and our offense would become worse at scoring points and sustaining drives. Quarterbacks like Joe Montana and Tom Brady are known as some of the best QBs in NFL history, largely because of their ability to sustain long, many-play drives. But how do those guys look when they don't get pass protection? If a Joe Montana or a Tom Brady can't give you a productive offense unless he gets at least decent pass protection, it's unrealistic to expect Trent Edwards to be productive for a full 60 minutes when he only receives pass protection in the fourth quarter. And it's this kind of unrealistic expectation, one that sets Trent up to fail, which seems to underlie much of the criticism I've seen directed against him in this thread. I remember one game Buffalo had against Joe Montana and he got knocked out of the game early BECAUSE OF NO PASS PROTECTION. The way the offensive linv played on Sunday, even Trent "walk on water" wouldn't have won the game. And on top of the offensive line, the defense sucked.
JimmyPage Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Do you honestly feel Trent would have done any better? I don't. There is no way we were beating that Cardinals defense regardless of who was under center. When you are down by 2 possessions and your defense couldn't stop a shopping cart with a bulldozer that's where your problem lies. QB 2 didn't have a great game but QB 1 wasn't going to have a great game either. The O-line lost in the trenches and the D just gave up too many points with no adjustments by the coaching staff. You could have had a healthy Tom Brady under center and we still would have lost....... Yes I do think Trent would have done better. The other thing is that I don't accept the notion that...we would have lost anyways. Because it's not just that we lost it's how we lost. With Losman only putting up 17 it tells me that with him in there we are toast. Set this game's score aside as far as it being winable or not, Losman's performance is what is bothersome. This game demonstrates to me that if it comes down to him at QB we are done. He really cannnot seem to put up points against anyone.
JimmyPage Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 I'm really trying not to post in this thread anymore. But it's like crack ho's; you just gotta go talk to them. (not really) There's a fundamental flaw in any argument from any poster that says Trent would have done better or would have been able to win the game. I do hope every one realizes this. See, the reality is.... Trent was the starter. Trent did play in the game. Trent took a vicious sack and left the game. So you see, Trent had a chance to lead the offense and win the game, but stood in the pocket too long, got nailed and couldn't finish. I'm not knocking on Trent. I'm just reminding every one that Trent was in the game and produced less points than JP. Why? Because he couldn't finish the game. So, to suggest that Trent could have won the game is to ignore the fact that he had his shot as well. For this reason, myself and others, have suggested that the QB position is not why we lost this game. It was largely because of the defense and the offensive line. Maybe if the defense could have stopped the Cards once in the first half or the offensive line could at least slow down a blitzing safety, we would have won - with Trent as the QB. See you are focused on identifying the defense as why we lost the game. That is not the only area of concern. Part of my reaction to this game was this....is that all that our 5th year 1st round pick can do at QB? Set aside how bad the defense played for one second. Losman was still Losman even after he implied that he was a victim of bad OCs in the past. He was the exact same bum out there last sunday! New OC and all, Losman was still Losman. Yet these people were saying that he proved why he deserves another shot in the NFL. I think what he proved was that it had zero to do with OCs and that the Bills made a mistake going with him as the backup. He should have been cut.
bizell Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 wow, your blind losman hate is astounding. yes, he hasn't lived up to his first round draft position.. but to outright cut him and go with an unknown as the #2? hmmm..
JimmyPage Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Before Sunday, the Bills OFFENSE have scored 17 points through 3 qtrs ONLY ONE OTHER time this year (Seattle). JP was 6 of 7 for 132 and a TD (With a pefrect QB rating) and sacked only once through the 3rd quarter. The Cards scored on 7 of the first 8 possesions including every single one in the first half. 5 going for TD's. Defense had no sacks, FF or int's for the first time this year. Justin Jenkins offsides. Defense can't hold. Robert Royals fumble. Game Over.....JP SUCKS!!!!!!!! Who cares about his stats through 3 quarters? There are 4 quarters in football. In hockey there are 3 periods and they never ever award a shutout to a goalie who stops everything for the first two periods.
VOR Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Anyone who thinks Trent could have led the offense to 42 points (or more) is smoking crack. Seriously.
hooski 1 Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 I keep on seeing alot of fault being put on one mans shoulders..... So to those who believe this loss was on JP...please name me one play .... JUST ONE that occured before the Royal fumble...that cost us this game...?? Im not blaming JP, our defense could't stop anything. Plus it was't that Royals knee didn't touch, but the ground can not cause a fumble, and as everybody watching could see the ball didn't come out till his hand with the ball hit the ground.... don't worry about this game.......
VOR Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Im not blaming JP, our defense could't stop anything. Plus it was't that Royals knee didn't touch, but the ground can not cause a fumble, and as everybody watching could see the ball didn't come out till his hand with the ball hit the ground.... don't worry about this game....... If a receiver's knee or elbow doesn't touch the ground, the ball CAN cause a fumble. Royal's knee didn't touch and I'm pretty sure his elbow didn't either, therefore it was a fumble.
Shanahan's Horseshoe Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Who cares about his stats through 3 quarters?There are 4 quarters in football. In hockey there are 3 periods and they never ever award a shutout to a goalie who stops everything for the first two periods. The point that you are missing is that he played well enough to keep us in the game throught 3 qtrs. The defense gave up points on 7 of the first 8 drives! 5 were TD's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the time the 4th qtr starts, we are down by 3 scores! Again, THE OFFENSE HAD ONLY PUT UP 17 POINTS THROUGH 3 QTRS ONE OTHER TIME THIS WHOLE YEAR! Not against the Raiders, not against the Rams. If you think Trent, and I love Trent as our QB, would have done anything different YOU ARE AN IDIOT! Would Trent have prevented Jenkins from jumping offsides and prolonging that drive? Would he have prevented Royal from fumbling? Would he have jumped in at D End and stopped the Cards from scoring on 7 of their first 8 drives? Your hatred for JP is sad and your knowledge of football, or lack there of, is even more sad.
Orton's Arm Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 I remember one game Buffalo had against Joe Montana and he got knocked out of the game early BECAUSE OF NO PASS PROTECTION. The way the offensive linv played on Sunday, even Trent "walk on water" wouldn't have won the game. And on top of the offensive line, the defense sucked. I remember that year. The Houston Oilers had started the season 1-4, but won 11 straight to get into the playoffs and get the bye. They were considered hot--the team to beat. Some predicted Houston versus Dallas in an all-Texas Super Bowl. Montana led the Chiefs to a playoff victory over the Oilers in the divisional round. The next week, Montana and the Chiefs traveled to Buffalo for the AFC Championship Game. Kansas City's supporting cast got dominated by the Bills' defense. Even with Montana back there, Kansas City couldn't get much going offensively. Montana led them to two field goals in the first half, and got knocked out just before halftime. Bono played in the second half, leading the Chiefs to one touchdown. They lost, 30-13. You are right: that game illustrates what happens when you take arguably the greatest quarterback ever and don't give him any pass protection. Not even Joe Montana can score many points when he doesn't have pass protection. I agree with your post. If your offensive line doesn't block, and if your defense lets the other team score on 7 of 8 possessions (including TDs for five of them), it doesn't matter who your QB is. That said, I saw Losman display the same set of strengths and weaknesses we've come to expect from him. He can give you the occasional big play, but he doesn't have what it takes to be a successful starting QB.
JimmyPage Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 I said i was done with this thread...but i had to return to reply to JimmyPage.... This is a classic case of someone not understanding football enough here...He claims the Jets torched the Cards defense...they scored 56 points and we couldnt even score 20.... What he doesnt realize is that,.... The cards turned over the ball 7 times 7 TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If our defense could have stopped them a couple times in the first half...the 4th quarter, were JP and the offense imploded, would have been completely different... This a a classic case of someone opening his mouth and inserting his foot. The jets weren't just a benefactor of turnovers. One of the turnovers was an interception in the endzone on the game's last play. 17 out of the 56 points came off of turnovers, that still leaves 39 points The jets had Td drives of 83 yards 80 yards 73 yards 49 yards 40 yards 29 yards The Losman lead Bills scored 17 Wake up and smell the toast burning
JimmyPage Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 The point that you are missing is that he played well enough to keep us in the game throught 3 qtrs. The defense gave up points on 7 of the first 8 drives! 5 were TD's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the time the 4th qtr starts, we are down by 3 scores! Again, THE OFFENSE HAD ONLY PUT UP 17 POINTS THROUGH 3 QTRS ONE OTHER TIME THIS WHOLE YEAR! Not against the Raiders, not against the Rams. If you think Trent, and I love Trent as our QB, would have done anything different YOU ARE AN IDIOT! Would Trent have prevented Jenkins from jumping offsides and prolonging that drive? Would he have prevented Royal from fumbling? Would he have jumped in at D End and stopped the Cards from scoring on 7 of their first 8 drives? Your hatred for JP is sad and your knowledge of football, or lack there of, is even more sad. You keep going back to the offense didn't score 17 in the 1st 3 qrts in any game but this one. Who cares about that , it's meaningless. Guess what, the game isn't 3 qrts long. The Edwards lead offense outscored the Losman lead offense in ALL 4 games!! THE LOWEST SCORING GAME THE BILLS HAD WAS WITH LOSMAN AT QB AND YOU ARE DECIDING TO LOOK AT IT WITH BLINDERS ON YOU WANT TO SCRATCH THE 4TH QRT BECAUSE GUESS WHAT....HE DREW A BLANK THAT'S WHY. HERE IS A QUIZ... THE BILLS HAVE PLAYED 5 GAMES SO FAR THIS YEAR. WHO WAS THE QB IN THE ONLY GAME THAT THE BILLS OFFENSE FAILED TO SCORE 20 OR MORE POINTS???? ANSWER: YOU GUESSED IT >>>GOOD OLD 1ST ROUND BUST JP LOSMAN
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 See you are focused on identifying the defense as why we lost the game.That is not the only area of concern. Part of my reaction to this game was this....is that all that our 5th year 1st round pick can do at QB? Set aside how bad the defense played for one second. Losman was still Losman even after he implied that he was a victim of bad OCs in the past. He was the exact same bum out there last sunday! New OC and all, Losman was still Losman. Yet these people were saying that he proved why he deserves another shot in the NFL. I think what he proved was that it had zero to do with OCs and that the Bills made a mistake going with him as the backup. He should have been cut. Your right the defense was not the only area of concern. The O-line also sucked. Losman looked terrible on the block he missed when Trent was injured.
JimmyPage Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 Your right the defense was not the only area of concern. The O-line also sucked. Losman looked terrible on the block he missed when Trent was injured. If Losman could have made that block it would have been the best play of his sorry career in my opinion.
Recommended Posts