flomoe Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 On a seperate note...directed at pats... Am I the only one who sits in aww about how the Pats frequently seem to compile extra first round and first day draft picks, despite being a top team almost ever year? Rather they trade Cassel to us or someone else, they will once again land more additional first day picks... Seems they alway find a way to put something like this together...no wonder they are a top team every year... If this happens, the Pats are in line for a VERY HIGH draft pick next year. With or without Cassel, the Bills are probably looking at a Top 5 pick next year based on their schedule and lack of overall depth and talent. This would be a very bad move considering what Cassel's salary would do to the Bill's Cap space. I don't have a problem with Cassel since he would be an upgrade at the position immensely but the Bills really have much bigger fish to fry at this point in time.
Alphadawg7 Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 If this happens, the Pats are in line for a VERY HIGH draft pick next year. With or without Cassel, the Bills are probably looking at a Top 5 pick next year based on their schedule and lack of overall depth and talent. This would be a very bad move considering what Cassel's salary would do to the Bill's Cap space. I don't have a problem with Cassel since he would be an upgrade at the position immensely but the Bills really have much bigger fish to fry at this point in time. Regardless of who the Pats trade with, I am sure they get at least one 1st round pick back for Cassel. Just amazes me how the Pats always find a way to get extra first day picks...while we seem to keep trading up and losing first day picks...
Magox Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 I have said repeatedly that I hope Trent develops and will continue to cheer him on. Those post you refer to dealt with the question at hand of why we have not been very good the last 2 years and they were not directed at just Trent, they were post about the combined effort of our QB's. Its mind boggling the lengths people will go to prove Trent hasnt been a problem, when he clearly has. I dont blame him, I mean he is a young QB. But young QB or not, it doesnt change the RESULT on the field thus far...the FACT remains, UNTIL the QB position plays better (regardless who it is), we won't be a very good team. My post here was one of amazement at the irony of the very people defending Trent by blaming the system he plays in for his struggles, are now saying they dont want Cassel becuase he is a systems QB. But by blaming the system for Trents struggles in Buffalo, you are essentially labeling Trent a systems QB too... I just fine it funny how a guy can come out of nowhere, put up pretty good stats, lead his team to 11 wins despite having no running game, a shaky line, and injuries to all his Tight Ends just to see the posts here say he is no good while they defend Trent to the death when Trent hasnt been very good yet... And as far as your comment about not acknowledging these other QB's in the NFL historys past you say Trent has better numbers than in their first 20 games, its because it is pointless. I can name 10 QB's in the NFL right now who had better stats then Trent by a lot, even Derek Anderson. We can each make a list on both sides of that argument, although I bet you mine will be longer, but either way its pointless. Its so funny how if you analyze Trents play, and draw the inevitable conclusion that to this point it hasnt been good enough, you are somehow labeled a Trent hater. Seems to me like the truth hurts a bit to people who support Trent to the death, becuase as soon as you criticize him the claws come out. If you don't like it, then I suggest you call Trent and tell him to play better.... Just because you say you cheer Trent on doesn't mean that you do. You clearly don't. As far as that list that you are talking about it. If you wish to make a list, then let's do it. Cuz it won't be longer. Even though at the end of the day, it still won't make a bit of difference to you. BTW, so you know. Even the one example you gave in Derek Anderson. Nope, his stats overall have not been better. Win loss stats he as 10 wins 16 losses. Trent has a winning record. QB rating Derek Anderon 75, Trent 80. Completion % Derek Anderson %54 Trent Edwards %61. Yards per completion 6.7 Trent 6.7 . TD's/Int's 43/35 Trent 18/18. Int %3.8 for Derek Anderson %2.8 for Trent. The only area that Derek has been more productive in has been touchdowns thrown, but that is offset with his %30 more likely hood to throw Int's. Trent has a winnning record, but Derek Anderson has less than a %40 winning record. Trent has a higher qb rating. How in the world do you justify Derek Anderson as being more productive than Trent's. I've done my homework, I can go on and on and on, about other qb's and how Trent has done much better than most in this stage of his career. Mind you, for a very mediocre team. As far as Cassel is concerned, I never downplayed his year. I think he did phenomenal, he is getting compensated for it, and one day, whether it's this year or in the future, he will get his shot at being a franchise qb for someone. There is no doubt that playing for the Patriots helped, but hey, when he was called upon to step up, he did, and my hat's off to him. But if we traded for him, it would be a colossal error, and I have no doubt, that his best year would be the year that he played for the patriots, with Belicheck, Welker and Moss.
Alphadawg7 Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 Just because you say you cheer Trent on doesn't mean that you do. You clearly don't. As far as that list that you are talking about it. If you wish to make a list, then let's do it. Cuz it won't be longer. Even though at the end of the day, it still won't make a bit of difference to you. BTW, so you know. Even the one example you gave in Derek Anderson. Nope, his stats overall have not been better. Win loss stats he as 10 wins 16 losses. Trent has a winning record. QB rating Derek Anderon 75, Trent 80. Completion % Derek Anderson %54 Trent Edwards %61. Yards per completion 6.7 Trent 6.7 . TD's/Int's 43/35 Trent 18/18. Int %3.8 for Derek Anderson %2.8 for Trent. The only area that Derek has been more productive in has been touchdowns thrown, but that is offset with his %30 more likely hood to throw Int's. Trent has a winnning record, but Derek Anderson has less than a %40 winning record. Trent has a higher qb rating. How in the world do you justify Derek Anderson as being more productive than Trent's. I've done my homework, I can go on and on and on, about other qb's and how Trent has done much better than most in this stage of his career. Mind you, for a very mediocre team. As far as Cassel is concerned, I never downplayed his year. I think he did phenomenal, he is getting compensated for it, and one day, whether it's this year or in the future, he will get his shot at being a franchise qb for someone. There is no doubt that playing for the Patriots helped, but hey, when he was called upon to step up, he did, and my hat's off to him. But if we traded for him, it would be a colossal error, and I have no doubt, that his best year would be the year that he played for the patriots, with Belicheck, Welker and Moss. I am not going to keep debating you here on Trents stats...no magic you can do can make Trents stats good. Wins and Losses are not QB stats...they are team stats, so get over that comparison for one. Second, you already contradicted yourself and manipulatated the stats again to be in your favor. Your challenge is the FIRST 24 games of a QB's career to compare to Trents FIRST 24 games...you didnt do that with Derek. You chose his last 24 games to make the stats look better for you because you know he struggled in 2008 and wanted to add those games to make Trent look better. If you stick to the comparison of the the first 24 games (as thats all Trent has played and Derek has played 31) as you so claimed to do, then Dereks significantly beats Trent in every significant passing category except for INT's. He has more TD's, more yards, way more games over 200 yards, way more games over 300 yards, way more games with multiple TD's, less sacks, a way better TD:INT ratio and a better qb rating. Even with the more INT's, his TD:INT ratio is still better than Trents. But again, you are not interested in unbiased comparisons...you already stated this in another thread where you argued that you want to take Derek Andersons most recent 24 game stretch, then go on to compare the first 24 games of Aikman, Steve Young, etc when they played on the worst teams in football at the time to validate Trent. So which is it Magox? The most recent 24 games or the first 24 games of a QB's career that you want to compare to Trent? You seem to go with whatever helps your argument. Because if its going to be the most recent, then I will destroy Trents stats by comparing the most recent 24 games of McNabb, Brady, Manning, Cutler, Brees, Warner, Romo, Rivers, etc, etc...Hell, even Cassel has outproduced Trent in almost evey category in only 16 games compared to Trents 24. You manipulate stats more than anyone I have seen on here, so having an intelligent discussion with you is pointless. FYI: When I compared Trents stats to D. Anderson, it was in a thread someone started on whether or not to bring in D. Anderson...
SKOOBY Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 If this happens, the Pats are in line for a VERY HIGH draft pick next year. With or without Cassel, the Bills are probably looking at a Top 5 pick next year based on their schedule and lack of overall depth and talent. This would be a very bad move considering what Cassel's salary would do to the Bill's Cap space. I don't have a problem with Cassel since he would be an upgrade at the position immensely but the Bills really have much bigger fish to fry at this point in time. We're picking 3rd unless we get Cassel, then we'll pick 4th. Personally, I like Trent but we have no assurance of his health and being able to hold up a full season with not even mentioning post season. I think that bringing another QB with an upside might be a great idea. Joe Montana had Steve young waiting and Jimbo had Reich when he went down and the Bills never missed a beat.
Lurker Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 That old phrase comes to mind..."Where theres smoke, theres fire"... Huh? The old phrase I keep thinking of is "when the hell was the last time an 'inside source' on TSW was actually correct?"
DrFishfinder Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 For a 3rd this year and a 1st next year. Menthion of Wilson really liking him If this is even remotely true, then the Bills Brain Trust is bailing on TE, at least as the starter.
Alphadawg7 Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 Huh? The old phrase I keep thinking of is "when the hell was the last time an 'inside source' on TSW actually correct?" Touche... lol... I will give you that...
Magox Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 I am not going to keep debating you here on Trents stats...no magic you can do can make Trents stats good. Wins and Losses are not QB stats...they are team stats, so get over that comparison for one. Second, you already contradicted yourself and manipulatated the stats again to be in your favor. Your challenge is the FIRST 24 games of a QB's career to compare to Trents FIRST 24 games...you didnt do that with Derek. You chose his last 24 games to make the stats look better for you because you know he struggled in 2008 and wanted to add those games to make Trent look better. If you stick to the comparison of the the first 24 games (as thats all Trent has played and Derek has played 31) as you so claimed to do, then Dereks significantly beats Trent in every significant passing category except for INT's. He has more TD's, more yards, way more games over 200 yards, way more games over 300 yards, way more games with multiple TD's, less sacks, a way better TD:INT ratio and a better qb rating. Even with the more INT's, his TD:INT ratio is still better than Trents. But again, you are not interested in unbiased comparisons...you already stated this in another thread where you argued that you want to take Derek Andersons most recent 24 game stretch, then go on to compare the first 24 games of Aikman, Steve Young, etc when they played on the worst teams in football at the time to validate Trent. So which is it Magox? The most recent 24 games or the first 24 games of a QB's career that you want to compare to Trent? You seem to go with whatever helps your argument. Because if its going to be the most recent, then I will destroy Trents stats by comparing the most recent 24 games of McNabb, Brady, Manning, Cutler, Brees, Warner, Romo, Rivers, etc, etc...Hell, even Cassel has outproduced Trent in almost evey category in only 16 games compared to Trents 24. You manipulate stats more than anyone I have seen on here, so having an intelligent discussion with you is pointless. FYI: When I compared Trents stats to D. Anderson, it was in a thread someone started on whether or not to bring in D. Anderson... Sorry your wrong again. I used All of Derek Anderson's 28 games that he has played in his career. So I didnt' cherry pick anything. As far as me manipulating stats, once again, there you go with your exagerations. What I did was a fair comparison. I compared Wins Losses, qb rating, yards per attempt, completion percentage, td's, int's. I did that for every quarterback that I have compared with. How is that manipulating. I think you know I'm right, but you just can't deny the stats. As far as you not considering wins and losses. LOL Your kidding right? The truth of the matter is that you are the one that manipulates stats. When someone brings up wins and losses, you always have an excuse for it, or you downplayit. Where the reality is Alpha, that Wins and Losses is one of the most important stats. If someone mentions how he played well in a certain game, you have an excuse, you say, it was a bad defense, or that team wasn't playingwell. Or, they won in spite of him. No disrespect, but thats a bunch of garbage. The reality is that every team has had to play good teams, mediocre teams and bad teams. Trent plays for a mediocre team and has a winning record. He also has a better qb rating, yards per attempt, completion %, less sacks allowed, less int's then most qb's that have played this game in such a short career. That is a fact Alpha. No excuses, those stats I brought up are public facts. There is no fudging, no cherry picking, just hard facts. You will never admit these facts, so we will just have to agree to disagree. But You still havn't answered my original question. Are you going to continue to criticize Trent at just about every opportunity you get on this message board through out this offfseason?
oak tree 12 Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 For a 3rd this year and a 1st next year. Menthion of Wilson really liking him if they do that then they are giving up on trent and i do not believe that. if they give up a first rounder then they are not looking @ him as a backup. it just makes no sense and i dont believe it for a second.
Alphadawg7 Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 Sorry your wrong again. I used All of Derek Anderson's 28 games that he has played in his career. So I didnt' cherry pick anything. As far as me manipulating stats, once again, there you go with your exagerations. What I did was a fair comparison. I compared Wins Losses, qb rating, yards per attempt, completion percentage, td's, int's. I did that for every quarterback that I have compared with. How is that manipulating. I think you know I'm right, but you just can't deny the stats. As far as you not considering wins and losses. LOL Your kidding right? The truth of the matter is that you are the one that manipulates stats. When someone brings up wins and losses, you always have an excuse for it, or you downplayit. Where the reality is Alpha, that Wins and Losses is one of the most important stats. If someone mentions how he played well in a certain game, you have an excuse, you say, it was a bad defense, or that team wasn't playingwell. Or, they won in spite of him. No disrespect, but thats a bunch of garbage. The reality is that every team has had to play good teams, mediocre teams and bad teams. Trent plays for a mediocre team and has a winning record. He also has a better qb rating, yards per attempt, completion %, less sacks allowed, less int's then most qb's that have played this game in such a short career. That is a fact Alpha. No excuses, those stats I brought up are public facts. There is no fudging, no cherry picking, just hard facts. You will never admit these facts, so we will just have to agree to disagree. But You still havn't answered my original question. Are you going to continue to criticize Trent at just about every opportunity you get on this message board through out this offfseason? Ok, this is my last response to any of these posts...one, you are wrong. Derek has played in 31 games not 28 which makes me wonder if you even looked at his stats, and you are also wrong as you compared S. Young, Aikman, etc FIRST 24 games...so if you are going to use an equal section of games for one, you gotta do it for the other. The only way Trent comes close to Derek is if you add in the extra games as you know he struggled some in 2008. So stop...its embarrassing. Wins and Losses? Geezus dude...QB is the most important position on the team, but its not the only thing that determines wins and losses and its DEFINITELY not a gauge of how well a QB played. You bring up wins and losses as if Trent was responsible for all our wins...come on, you either dont watch football or you are so obessesed with Trent that you delusionally think he is somehow single handedly winning us games. And we are 7-9 and 7-9, so calm down on the wins...his record isnt that good. And for the last dam time...my posts of Trent have been in regards to threads about why we have not been that good in 2007 and 2008. I have NEVER said he wont be good in the future, but you Trent lovers get so butt hurt when you see his lowly stats or any criticism of his play as IF he was actually playing as good as you THINK he MIGHT be one day. My point about Trent in this thread was the irony of how well Cassel played, yet Trent lovers still knock him as if he is career backup and prop Trent up as the next Brady or Montanna even though he's played to a subpar level and actually regressed in 2008 and was grossly outplayed by Cassel. FYI: Cassels record is better than Trents too...now watch you respond and say Cassel plays on a better team even though you just posted all that matters is wins and losses...
/dev/null Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 Isn't this close to what we gave the Pats for Drew? We only gave the Pats* a first for Drew A first and third, that's closer (1st and 4th) to what we gave to the Jaguars for he who's name should never be spoken
Alphadawg7 Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 We only gave the Pats* a first for Drew A first and third, that's closer (1st and 4th) to what we gave to the Jaguars for he who's name should never be spoken Just thinking about that is sickening...gawd, remember his stupid head bands?
Magox Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 Ok, this is my last response to any of these posts...one, you are wrong. Derek has played in 31 games not 28 which makes me wonder if you even looked at his stats, and you are also wrong as you compared S. Young, Aikman, etc FIRST 24 games...so if you are going to use an equal section of games for one, you gotta do it for the other. The only way Trent comes close to Derek is if you add in the extra games as you know he struggled some in 2008. So stop...its embarrassing. Wins and Losses? Geezus dude...QB is the most important position on the team, but its not the only thing that determines wins and losses and its DEFINITELY not a gauge of how well a QB played. You bring up wins and losses as if Trent was responsible for all our wins...come on, you either dont watch football or you are so obessesed with Trent that you delusionally think he is somehow single handedly winning us games. And we are 7-9 and 7-9, so calm down on the wins...his record isnt that good. And for the last dam time...my posts of Trent have been in regards to threads about why we have not been that good in 2007 and 2008. I have NEVER said he wont be good in the future, but you Trent lovers get so butt hurt when you see his lowly stats or any criticism of his play as IF he was actually playing as good as you THINK he MIGHT be one day. My point about Trent in this thread was the irony of how well Cassel played, yet Trent lovers still knock him as if he is career backup and prop Trent up as the next Brady or Montanna even though he's played to a subpar level and actually regressed in 2008 and was grossly outplayed by Cassel. FYI: Cassels record is better than Trents too...now watch you respond and say Cassel plays on a better team even though you just posted all that matters is wins and losses... Alpha you should really think before you write. Games Started, not games played. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AndeDe00.htm You see GS means games started and G means games. I just wanted to clarify that for you. Alpha, you should also be lucky that I didn't include his first 3 games started, it would of made the stat line even worse for your argument. Look at the stats again. So your the one who needs to look at the stats again. And when did I say that Wins and Losses was the ONLY area of importance. Come on ALpha, your slippin. I said it was an important part, and you downplayed it. I only bring up facts Alpha, as opposed to where you don't, or at least not ones that are right any way. As far as Cassell is concerned. I give him credit. I won't say that. A win is a win and stats are stats. you are the sortof person that would say something like that. Facts please just facts
atlbillsfan1975 Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 I hope no one gives the Pats squat for Cassell. Would it not be great if the rest of the league realized that cassell is an ok qb but by no means worth what you have to give up. Then the Pats get stuck with two qbs makeing over 25+ million a year. I dont believe for a second the Bills want Cassell, sounds like a mind game by the Pats. They stir up this story. Shakes relations up Between Edwards and Buffalo. I aint saying but i am saying.
Alphadawg7 Posted February 19, 2009 Posted February 19, 2009 Alpha you should really think before you write. Games Started, not games played. Also Alpha, you should be lucky that I didn't include his first 3 games started, it would of made the stat line even worse for your argument. Look at the stats again. He played in 31 games not 31 games started. So your the one who needs to look at the stats again. And when did I say that Wins and Losses was the ONLY area of importance. Come on ALpha, your slippin. I said it was an important part, and you downplayed it. I only bring up facts Alpha, as opposed to where you don't, or at least not ones that are right any way. As far as Cassell is concerned. I give him credit. I won't say that. A win is a win and stats are stats. you are the sortof person that would say something like that. Facts please just facts Dude I already posted facts about D. Anderson and Trent...Derek kicked his ars in every one of these categories that indicate PRODUCTION and most are the very categories we looked at to gameplan for opposing offenses when I played in college. TD's (Derek, by a lot actually) INT's (Trent by 13) Sacks (Derek) Multi TD games (Derek by a lot) Games over 200 yards (Derek by a lot) Games over 300 yards (Derek by a lot) TD:INT Ratio (Derek) (We also looked at rushing yards, but that was more of a factor in college than in this discussion, so I left it out) Those are ALL FACTS Those areas result in points on the board...Trent has a much higher completion ratio, but that is helped by Trents tendency for the safe short throw and Dereks more aggressive push to get the ball down field. I dont care if Trent goes 18 out of 24 if he only amasses 180 yards and no TD's. I would rather have a guy go 18 out of 32 who passes for 280 yards and 3 TD's. This is pointless...not even what this thread is about...agree to disagree and we will move on... PS: Trents stats suck...hahaha, couldnt resist...
Tcali Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 For a 3rd this year and a 1st next year. Menthion of Wilson really liking him We are going to outsmart the Patriots on this one...............cough....choke..spit...cough...
bills_fan Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 Can we offer NE our 1st, 2nd and 3rd for Brady? They can keep Cassel.
Peter Posted February 20, 2009 Posted February 20, 2009 I hope no one gives the Pats squat for Cassell. Would it not be great if the rest of the league realized that cassell is an ok qb but by no means worth what you have to give up. Then the Pats get stuck with two qbs makeing over 25+ million a year. I dont believe for a second the Bills want Cassell, sounds like a mind game by the Pats. They stir up this story. Shakes relations up Between Edwards and Buffalo. I aint saying but i am saying. Well said.
Recommended Posts