Fan in Chicago Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 The problem when you have a team that sucks at nearly every position, plus coaching, plus management, plus ownership, is that singling out any individual's suckitude over another's is not so easy. Sucks at every position ? I absolutely don't think so. At the risk of repeating myself, we are weak on only a couple of positions on the D - one each of DE and LB and we are very good on ST. The biggest question marks are on the O side of the ball and there too we have some good players at WR and RB. The weakest position on the team is the HC. So putting it in perspective from a player personnel standpoint, if the O were to do decently, our D and ST are good enough to take us to the playoffs.
thebandit27 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 I've never witnessed an anal pillaging, but I think thebandit just did that. O.O Uh-oh, was that too much?
Endzone Animal Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Sucks at every position ? I absolutely don't think so. At the risk of repeating myself, we are weak on only a couple of positions on the D - one each of DE and LB and we are very good on ST. The biggest question marks are on the O side of the ball and there too we have some good players at WR and RB. The weakest position on the team is the HC. So putting it in perspective from a player personnel standpoint, if the O were to do decently, our D and ST are good enough to take us to the playoffs. I did say with very few exceptions. The lines blow, QB blows, LB's blow, mediocre secondary, coaches blow, management blows, and owner blows. What doesn't suck? ST are good, WR is above average, RB is average. Sounds like 5-11 to me, and that means a few ugly blowout losses that require extra drinking in the parking lot by the start of the 4th quarter.
Guest dog14787 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 OMG, seriously? What I am saying, in plain English, that I'm sure you'll find a way to misunderstand, misinterperet, or finagle to support your point, is this: in season two, the QBs you brought up took their teams to the playoffs and won 11+ games. If you watched them play, which by your posts I highly doubt, it is abundantly clear that each displayed a level of play far exceeding that of Trent Edwards. The statistics also support this, as does the team's overall record during season two. Furthermore, I showed you that each QB to whom you compared Trent--except for Peyton Manning--started the same or fewer games their rookie seasons...and each of them was/is CLEARLY better than Trent during season 2. This is not a debatable point, which I'm 100% certain is why you won't respond to it. Each time I show you the reality of the comparison YOU made, you just ignore it. The only way you can find to get around the truth is to chop Peyton Manning's 2nd season in half (a season in which his team went 13-3), tack on his rookie year in which he played for a team that went 1-15 the season before he arrived, and say that Edwards has a better record as a starter than Manning through 23 games. And somehow, some way, dispite all of the logical, accurate, and comparitive statistics, you still feel like that is a barometer to compare the two QBs. Forgive me if I think you're nuts. I'm done here. Seriously , if you can't do a determination by games played, its because you refuse to admit Trent Edwards is, or could be a good QB one day. If you can't do a calculation using simple math you probably need to go back to junior high. Do you hear anyone else on this board jumping to your defense because I can guarantee you if someone thought you were right, they would. TE only has 23 games played, anyone with a brain would know to do a fair comparison we really should keep the comparison equal in games, TE doesn't have two full seasons, can you get that through your thick skull. TE's first 23 games starts, Peyton's first 23 game starts, Eli's first 23 games starts, its not rocket science. Get a brain buddy
Alphadawg7 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Posted August 28, 2009 OMG, seriously? What I am saying, in plain English, that I'm sure you'll find a way to misunderstand, misinterperet, or finagle to support your point, is this: in season two, the QBs you brought up took their teams to the playoffs and won 11+ games. If you watched them play, which by your posts I highly doubt, it is abundantly clear that each displayed a level of play far exceeding that of Trent Edwards. The statistics also support this, as does the team's overall record during season two. Furthermore, I showed you that each QB to whom you compared Trent--except for Peyton Manning--started the same or fewer games their rookie seasons...and each of them was/is CLEARLY better than Trent during season 2. This is not a debatable point, which I'm 100% certain is why you won't respond to it. Each time I show you the reality of the comparison YOU made, you just ignore it. The only way you can find to get around the truth is to chop Peyton Manning's 2nd season in half (a season in which his team went 13-3), tack on his rookie year in which he played for a team that went 1-15 the season before he arrived, and say that Edwards has a better record as a starter than Manning through 23 games. And somehow, some way, dispite all of the logical, accurate, and comparitive statistics, you still feel like that is a barometer to compare the two QBs. Forgive me if I think you're nuts. I'm done here. Great post...Magox does the same thing Bandit...no matter what logical and factual data you provide they find some way to TRY and manipulate the data to elevate the lousy play of Trentative...they go so far that it literally doesnt even make sense...and often they just make up data outright...
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 OMG, seriously? What I am saying, in plain English, that I'm sure you'll find a way to misunderstand, misinterperet, or finagle to support your point, is this: in season two, the QBs you brought up took their teams to the playoffs and won 11+ games. If you watched them play, which by your posts I highly doubt, it is abundantly clear that each displayed a level of play far exceeding that of Trent Edwards. The statistics also support this, as does the team's overall record during season two. Furthermore, I showed you that each QB to whom you compared Trent--except for Peyton Manning--started the same or fewer games their rookie seasons...and each of them was/is CLEARLY better than Trent during season 2. This is not a debatable point, which I'm 100% certain is why you won't respond to it. Each time I show you the reality of the comparison YOU made, you just ignore it. The only way you can find to get around the truth is to chop Peyton Manning's 2nd season in half (a season in which his team went 13-3), tack on his rookie year in which he played for a team that went 1-15 the season before he arrived, and say that Edwards has a better record as a starter than Manning through 23 games. And somehow, some way, dispite all of the logical, accurate, and comparitive statistics, you still feel like that is a barometer to compare the two QBs. Forgive me if I think you're nuts. I'm done here. Yep, sounds pretty familiar. If you look at Bill Belichick's first 3 years in Cleveland 18 years ago, toss aside Jauron's first 5+ years of head coaching, and compare Jauron's last 3 years to Belichick's first 3 years, then Jauron has a higher winning percentage by exactly 1 more game than Belichick did. Thus, by this twisty pretzel logic Jauron is as good a coach as Belichick!
Guest dog14787 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Great post...Magox does the same thing Bandit...no matter what logical and factual data you provide they find some way to TRY and manipulate the data to elevate the lousy play of Trentative...they go so far that it literally doesnt even make sense...and often they just make up data outright... I take that back, we may have a brain dead moron or two come to your defense bandit.
Endzone Animal Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 If someone is a moron for thinking that Trentative is looking like a big, fat suck then please count me in as a member of the moron club.
Guest dog14787 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 If someone is a moron for thinking that Trentative is looking like a big, fat suck then please count me in as a member of the moron club. Sorry, just thinking TE isn't going to cut it doesn't get you into the moron club.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Posted August 28, 2009 Seriously , if you can't do a determination by games played, its because you refuse to admit Trent Edwards is, or could be a good QB one day. If you can't do a calculation using simple math you probably need to go back to junior high. Do you hear anyone else on this board jumping to your defense because I can guarantee you if someone thought you were right, they would. TE only has 23 games played, anyone with a brain would know to do a fair comparison we really should keep the comparison equal in games, TE doesn't have two full seasons, can you get that through your thick skull. TE's first 23 games starts, Peyton's first 23 game starts, Eli's first 23 games starts, its not rocket science. Get a brain buddy Hey Dog...just an FYI: Statistically and in wins and losses, Derek Anderson detstroys Trent Edwards in their first 23 games played...do you think Derek Anderson is a superior QB because the stats say so. Secondly, you are a complete moron if you cant see that the QB's in your post that you and Bandit are talking about SERIOUSLY IMPROVED their respective teams in their second seasons. Trentative has never at any moment done anything to suggest he could be as good as either Mannings, Brady, etc that you used in your example. I want you to read this next line carefully....He has ONE, JUST ONE, 300 yard game since HIGH SCHOOL and it was early in college. He has never been at any point in college or NFL a "take over the game" QB...NEVER, not even in College. Brady, both Mannings, etc. that you mentioned not only are those types of QB's but they showed that several times early in their careers. Trents BEST game as a pro is a 270 yard game with ONE measly TD agaisnt one of the worst D's in the league. In fact, he has only thrown for more than 1 TD 3 times in his career...How you can compare that start to what these other QB's did in their first year is so ABSURD that I literally laugh my ass off at these posts. So, since this is an excuse thread, here is the newest excuse courtesy of you to add to the list: "Its the team, not Trent, because Trent is so obviously good because if we manipulate the win loss data we can make it look like he has been as good as some of the best QB's in football during his first 23 games."
Alphadawg7 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Posted August 28, 2009 Yep, sounds pretty familiar. If you look at Bill Belichick's first 3 years in Cleveland 18 years ago, toss aside Jauron's first 5+ years of head coaching, and compare Jauron's last 3 years to Belichick's first 3 years, then Jauron has a higher winning percentage by exactly 1 more game than Belichick did. Thus, by this twisty pretzel logic Jauron is as good a coach as Belichick! hahahahaha, awesome...
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 I take that back, we may have a brain dead moron or two come to your defense bandit. If you actually looked a little deeper than the "23 games, 12 wins", you might see that Trentative started out on fire and has gone cold during his string. Some of these other guys that you're comparing are the exact opposite. Now why? I'd say Trentative's early success was precisely because he was the anti-Losman QB. He, like Holcomb previously, came in and had quick success because he got the ball out very quickly and got the offense into a better tempo than JP ever could. Instead of slinging it deep to Evans, he was eating up the short stuff that the defenses, which hadn't seen him before, were giving him. Once the book was established on Trentative and defenses started to plug up the short passing game, he started to struggle. Not coincidentally, he has struggled in the red zone. With the other QBs, I'm going to say that they followed a great QB's natural maturation process. In college, they were used to making any throw they wanted. In the NFL, they had to learn exactly when and where they can and cannot make a throw. They have to get used to a new offense, new teammates, speed of the NFL game, etc. It takes some time. But once guys like Peyton Manning got through their growing pains, their raw athletic ability, maturation, and confidence combined to create a QB that would consistently perform at a high level. There are far many more examples of QBs that fail. And, unless Edwards can develop a deep game and figure out how to effectively operate an NFL offense in the red zone and in the face of pressure, he will be joining that longer list. This season is riding on his shoulders.
thebandit27 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Seriously , if you can't do a determination by games played, its because you refuse to admit Trent Edwards is, or could be a good QB one day. If you can't do a calculation using simple math you probably need to go back to junior high. Do you hear anyone else on this board jumping to your defense because I can guarantee you if someone thought you were right, they would. TE only has 23 games played, anyone with a brain would know to do a fair comparison we really should keep the comparison equal in games, TE doesn't have two full seasons, can you get that through your thick skull. TE's first 23 games starts, Peyton's first 23 game starts, Eli's first 23 games starts, its not rocket science. Get a brain buddy [gasps for air while laughing hysterically] First off, although I don't normally argue intelligence with message-boarders, I've worked as both a professional engineer and an environmental scientist, so if you want to argue math, I'll gladly embarrass you if that's what you'd like. But frankly, it's quicker and more convenient to continue to flog you verbally in this thread: Let me get this straight: you compare Trent Edwards to the Mannings, Jim Kelly, Joe Montana, and Tom Brady, and I'm the one that needs to get a brain? Phenomenal! I've seen some BS artists in my time, but you are on another level. Is your head really that full of excrement that you can't understand that guys like Brady and Eli Manning started FEWER games than Edwards before they put together plaoyff caliber performances? Honestly, pretend to think for a second, I know it's difficult, but try. I'll try to put this in a way that you can understand: Do you honestly think that, by playing another 9 games, Trent Edwards will suddenly become a QB on par with Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, or Joe Montana? If you can say "yes" to that, then I'll finally agree that your totally delusional. If not, well, maybe you just fancy a losing argument. Either way, as I said, you're busted. EDIT: and BTW, as for whether or not people agree with me: (1) check out the thread, and (2) let's post the question in the Tim Graham thread, or any number of other professional analysts. You can plead your case that Edwards has been better through 23 games than the other guys, and I'll plead mine that--looking at all of their performances through 2 seasons--it's not even close. Who do you think would win?
K-9 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Hey Dog...just an FYI: Statistically and in wins and losses, Derek Anderson detstroys Trent Edwards in their first 23 games played...do you think Derek Anderson is a superior QB because the stats say so.Secondly, you are a complete moron if you cant see that the QB's in your post that you and Bandit are talking about SERIOUSLY IMPROVED their respective teams in their second seasons. Trentative has never at any moment done anything to suggest he could be as good as either Mannings, Brady, etc that you used in your example. I want you to read this next line carefully....He has ONE, JUST ONE, 300 yard game since HIGH SCHOOL and it was early in college. He has never been at any point in college or NFL a "take over the game" QB...NEVER, not even in College. Brady, both Mannings, etc. that you mentioned not only are those types of QB's but they showed that several times early in their careers. Trents BEST game as a pro is a 270 yard game with ONE measly TD agaisnt one of the worst D's in the league. In fact, he has only thrown for more than 1 TD 3 times in his career...How you can compare that start to what these other QB's did in their first year is so ABSURD that I literally laugh my ass off at these posts. So, since this is an excuse thread, here is the newest excuse courtesy of you to add to the list: "Its the team, not Trent, because Trent is so obviously good because if we manipulate the win loss data we can make it look like he has been as good as some of the best QB's in football during his first 23 games." Not going to defend TE here. I've got many concerns as well. What I'd be interested in trying to quantify if possible, is what other improvements those teams made personnel-wise in the second seasons of the QBs mentioned. None of this stuff happens in a vacuum as you are well aware given your experience in the game. GO BILLS!!!
Guest dog14787 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Hey Dog...just an FYI: Statistically and in wins and losses, Derek Anderson detstroys Trent Edwards in their first 23 games played...do you think Derek Anderson is a superior QB because the stats say so. Secondly, you are a complete moron if you cant see that the QB's in your post that you and Bandit are talking about SERIOUSLY IMPROVED their respective teams in their second seasons. Trentative has never at any moment done anything to suggest he could be as good as either Mannings, Brady, etc that you used in your example. I want you to read this next line carefully....He has ONE, JUST ONE, 300 yard game since HIGH SCHOOL and it was early in college. He has never been at any point in college or NFL a "take over the game" QB...NEVER, not even in College. Brady, both Mannings, etc. that you mentioned not only are those types of QB's but they showed that several times early in their careers. Trents BEST game as a pro is a 270 yard game with ONE measly TD agaisnt one of the worst D's in the league. In fact, he has only thrown for more than 1 TD 3 times in his career...How you can compare that start to what these other QB's did in their first year is so ABSURD that I literally laugh my ass off at these posts. So, since this is an excuse thread, here is the newest excuse courtesy of you to add to the list: "Its the team, not Trent, because Trent is so obviously good because if we manipulate the win loss data we can make it look like he has been as good as some of the best QB's in football during his first 23 games." I never asked anyone to share my opinion of TE, some posters are claiming TE doesn't or can't win ball games and I showed them he can and just as good as some of the better QB's in the league with a far worse supporting cast then most. Put TE with the Steelers or Patriots and in my opinion he takes them to the playoffs. Some of you folks seem bound and determined our starting QB is not worthy of being a starting QB in the league yet the consensus is throughout the league he can be a good starting QB. I'll take coaches and players ( past and present) opinions over a couple of fruit cakes any day. Especially when I see his potential myself.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 28, 2009 Author Posted August 28, 2009 Not going to defend TE here. I've got many concerns as well. What I'd be interested in trying to quantify if possible, is what other improvements those teams made personnel-wise in the second seasons of the QBs mentioned. None of this stuff happens in a vacuum as you are well aware given your experience in the game. GO BILLS!!! Totally agree that nothing happens in a Vaccum...but for example Payton took over a team that was 3-13 and in his second season he had them in the playoffs. Coming from a football analyast point of view, there is by far enough talent on our current roster and last years roster for us to be in the playoffs.
Lori Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Let's add a few more numbers, if nobody has mentioned this yet: Bills in 2006, the year before TE's first start: 7-9 Bills in 1985, the year before Kelly's first start: 2-14 Colts in 1997, the year before Peyton's first start: 3-13 Giants in 2003, the year before Eli's first start: 4-12 In other words, while Trent took over a team that almost finished .500 and lost five games by a FG or less, the other three inherited some of the worst teams in the league. (THE worst, in Peyton's case, since he was the No. 1 overall pick. The Bills tied with Tampa Bay for that honor in 1985; the Bucs "won" the top pick, and drafted ... Bo Jackson.)
Guest dog14787 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 [gasps for air while laughing hysterically] First off, although I don't normally argue intelligence with message-boarders, I've worked as both a professional engineer and an environmental scientist, so if you want to argue math, I'll gladly embarrass you if that's what you'd like. But frankly, it's quicker and more convenient to continue to flog you verbally in this thread: Let me get this straight: you compare Trent Edwards to the Mannings, Jim Kelly, Joe Montana, and Tom Brady, and I'm the one that needs to get a brain? Phenomenal! I've seen some BS artists in my time, but you are on another level. Is your head really that full of excrement that you can't understand that guys like Brady and Eli Manning started FEWER games than Edwards before they put together plaoyff caliber performances? Honestly, pretend to think for a second, I know it's difficult, but try. I'll try to put this in a way that you can understand: Do you honestly think that, by playing another 9 games, Trent Edwards will suddenly become a QB on par with Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, or Joe Montana? If you can say "yes" to that, then I'll finally agree that your totally delusional. If not, well, maybe you just fancy a losing argument. Either way, as I said, you're busted. EDIT: and BTW, as for whether or not people agree with me: (1) check out the thread, and (2) let's post the question in the Tim Graham thread, or any number of other professional analysts. You can plead your case that Edwards has been better through 23 games than the other guys, and I'll plead mine that--looking at all of their performances through 2 seasons--it's not even close. Who do you think would win? Talking to a draftsman who worked for Engineering Firms half his life, go for it buddy. I see what your fully capable of already.
Guest dog14787 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 Let's add a few more numbers, if nobody has mentioned this yet: Bills in 2006, the year before TE's first start: 7-9 Bills in 1985, the year before Kelly's first start: 2-14 Colts in 1997, the year before Peyton's first start: 3-13 Giants in 2003, the year before Eli's first start: 4-12 In other words, while Trent took over a team that almost finished .500 and lost five games by a FG or less, the other three inherited some of the worst teams in the league. (THE worst, in Peyton's case, since he was the No. 1 overall pick. The Bills tied with Tampa Bay for that honor in 1985; the Bucs "won" the top pick, and drafted ... Bo Jackson.) The other teams also had far superior Gm's and head coaches, something nobody has mentioned yet.
thebandit27 Posted August 28, 2009 Posted August 28, 2009 The other teams also had far superior Gm's and head coaches, something nobody has mentioned yet. This really is the "Official Trent Edwards Excuse Thread". I bet--if the OP knew how you'd carry on--he'd have just linked to your "View Member's Posts" tab and this whole thread wouldn't even be necessary. By the way, nice job ignoring that question about whether or not Trent will suddenly morph into Manning/Manning/Brady/Montana with 9 more game of experience for like the 4th time.
Recommended Posts