Edwards fans are sounding desperate for Fitzy to fail

[nucci]

You sound like a Bills whore. So you'll cheer for anyone, just as long as the Bills are winning?

 

Pick a side! Choose a player and defend him through thick and thin for years, and if the Bills cut him all the better watching them lose because it proves you right. This wishy washy I just cheer for anyone in a Bills uniform has no place around here.

 

 

 

[Maddog69]

Wow, now that's some bad numbers, its almost doubling TE's bad numbers.

 

In my book, a 2 yard pass on 3rd and 8 is just as bad as a sack taken while trying to make a play.

[thebandit27]

We have a Packer castoff starting for our football team, your logic is flawed.

 

Aaron Rodgers and Big Ben are scrambling QB , they do well on the move. Compare the run blocking if you want to get some concrete proof of which O-line is worse.

 

Comparing our situation to two other teams with scrambling QB's, one of them is the best in the league I might add, is useless in my opinion.

 

I wish we had the Steelers O-line. (and Big Ben)

 

Note: Many of both Big Bens and Aaron Rodgers sacks occur well after the normal time frame for a QB to hold onto the ball.

 

Wait a minute. You looked at all of the stats, and then proceeded to tell me that they don't matter because Buffalo is currenlty starting a Green Bay castoff at RT, and then claim that MY logic is flawed?

 

You've got to be joking.

 

(At this point, it's worth noting that exactly 3 of the 16 sacks that Buffalo has given up came in the 2 games that the "Green Bay castoff" started. So, in other words, the team averages 2.6 sacks/game without him, and a mere 1.5 sacks/game with him...thus I do hereby call your argument-escaping backdoor myth debunked)

 

Aside from the fact that you still refuse to acknowledge the facts (i.e. the statistics), you couldn't possibly be more misguided by pointing me to the run blocking. Buffalo is 15th in the NFL in rushing offense at 111.9 yards/game (per NFL.com), Green Bay is 13th (118.0), San Diego is 31st (70.5), and Pittsburgh is 17th (106.9). So yes, the lines are pretty much equal (at worst), thanks for providing yet another barometer by which I can prove my point.

 

Next you went on to tell me that the QB situations are different because those two teams have "scrambling QBs". Umm, doesn't that kind of mean that it's on the QB to get away from the pressure? Doesn't that indicate that the o-lines are not responsible for those guys getting away from sacks? Furthermore, if that really is the case, then wouldn't you say that those guys are under significantly MORE pressure than Buffalo's QBs, seeing as how they've been sacked an almost equal number of times but manage to avoid so many sacks because they're great scramblers? What point exactly are you trying to argue? It sounds to me like you agree that it's QB play, and not OL play, that's the problem.

 

So, in essence, we have 3 teams (Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Green Bay) that have similar to worse pass blocking, similar to worse running games, and far superior QB play, but somehow that's not on the QB? I need that explained in a way that makes sense.

[Magox]

10th against the pass, you would think close to first with the amount of draft picks spent on DB's the last few years

You are discounting one important defensive stat, and that is that we are tied for third in takeaways and tied for 1st in INT's. Those takeaways are directly responsible for our last two victories, so it's not as bad as you make it out to be.

 

So I guess all those DB's that we drafted are paying off.

 

Know what I'm sayin?

[Magox]

This is proof that both are terrible...

 

Trent Edwards career stats.

QB rating 78.0

TD's 23

INT's 24

Completion rate 61%

30 starts with 54 sacks and 14 fumbles

 

Ryan fitzpatrick career stats.

QB rating 66.8

TD's 14

INT's 18

Completion rate 57.4%

16 starts with 49 sacks (38 in the 13 games he played w/ 2008 begals) with 14 fumbles.

 

I would prefer another option but given the 2, I would rather give Fitzy a chance (meaning a few games) to see if he can prove himself to be better than his stats suggest...a task trent has been unable to do in 3 years.

umm, those stats weren't a good example to back up your argument.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Easy to get a score when the football is gift wrapped by the defense and given to you in the red zone to start your drives.

 

That's right, it is a team game.

How many TD's has Trent thrown in the Red Zone?

[thebandit27]

How many TD's has Trent thrown in the Red Zone?

 

I'm pretty sure he had 2 against NE (one to Nelson, one to Jackson) and one against Miami (to Josh Reed) for a total of 3, but I may be wrong.

[DC Tom]

You sound like a Bills whore. So you'll cheer for anyone, just as long as the Bills are winning?

 

Pick a side! Choose a player and defend him through thick and thin for years, and if the Bills cut him all the better watching them lose because it proves you right. This wishy washy I just cheer for anyone in a Bills uniform has no place around here.

 

 

 

 

 

Excellent...

[Lv-Bills]

A lot of Edwards fan boys on the forum throwing out exotic stats that "prove Edwards is a better quarterback." I for one find this disturbing. if you really love the Bills, you should be happy they're finally winning instead of looking for excuses why Fitzy won or excuses why Edwards loses. Why not save all your "bombshell" stat comparisons for a Fitzpatrick loss? Or are you worried that he keeps winning and steals the job and saves Dick's job?

Yes, actually I am. If we go to next year with Fitzpatrick as the starting QB and Jauron as the head coach, this franchise will continue to suck for the foreseeable future. The last two weeks have done nothing for me except to show how bad the NFL actually is on the bottom. Trouble is, these other teams will correct their mistakes and then pass us up on their way to the playoffs.

[thebug]

People, people, Fitz is not JP Losman, not matter how much you want him to be.

[Flbillsfan#1]

People, people, Fitz is not JP Losman, not matter how much you want him to be.

Agreed, but do you really want the Bills to sign Trent to a new contract for a lot of money with his injury history?

[thebug]

Agreed, but do you really want the Bills to sign Trent to a new contract for a lot of money with his injury history?

 

 

Nope......

[truth on hold]

i actually feel kind of bad for edwards because i liked him at first. thought he saw the field better than JP and made better decisions. but it's time for us to move on from him. i really dont even see a role as backup here. maybe it's the concussions, maybe its playing behind too many bad olines here and stanford made him too impatient, whatever it is, time to move on.

 

fitz isnt great but hes good enough to score enough points to at least keep us competitive with a defense that generally doesnt give up too many points provided the offense contributes. and he gets the ball to our best weapon on offense evans, something JP did too that Trent hasnt been able to. i think Fitz should be our QB until something better comes along.

[NewEra]

Seriously, the folks standing up for Trent Edwards just realize he's a better starting QB. The only thing that even suggests otherwise is in the win / loss column. I want to see the Bills win ball games, but the first half of the panthers game was the worse offensive display I have seen yet from the Buffalo Bills this season.

 

Fitz won the two ball games because of 10 turnovers and anyone that thinks otherwise really needs to get there head examined. I can't speak for everyone , but I am very glad the Bills won the ball games and to suggest differently just because we have a difference of opinion on the QB's is just posting BS.

 

he won because he's not afraid to throw a slant pattern. Trent is too afraid to throw a pick.

[Alphadawg7]

Here is the difference between the Trent apologists and the people critical of Trent. The apologists want to find anything they can to deflect the responsibility from Trent as they believe in him so much and want him to succeed. The ones highly critical of Trent want us to win just as badly but see Trent for what he has done on the field and dont believe in him to be a good QB.

 

That being said, the Trent apologists do seem to prefer to see Fitz fail so they can once again go back to propping up Trent, where the rest of us hate both QB's but want to have a better chance to win so they want to see Fitz stay there if he continues to do enough to keep us competitive and win some game then get a QB next year in draft or FA.

 

The big misconception about a lot, not all, of the people criticial of Trent is that we want him to fail. Dog14787 even posted stuff I wrote about him in 2008 showing my full support of him yet highlighting the weak areas he needed to improve. Problem is, he didnt improve any of them, got worse in other areas, and has really seemed to take big steps backwards since which is why I lost faith in him. I, like many others, would have loved for him to take a big step this year and become our guy because we need a QB and want to win...unfortunately his play was just an extension of his 2008 and he got worse.

[mob16151]

Seriously, the folks standing up for Trent Edwards just realize he's a better starting QB. The only thing that even suggests otherwise is in the win / loss column. I want to see the Bills win ball games, but the first half of the panthers game was the worse offensive display I have seen yet from the Buffalo Bills this season.

 

Fitz won the two ball games because of 10 turnovers and anyone that thinks otherwise really needs to get there head examined. I can't speak for everyone , but I am very glad the Bills won the ball games and to suggest differently just because we have a difference of opinion on the QB's is just posting BS.

 

 

Honestly deep deep down inside all I care about is the Win/Loss column. I mean isn't that kind of what football in general boils down to?

[Robert Paulson]

Here is the difference between the Trent apologists and the people critical of Trent. The apologists want to find anything they can to deflect the responsibility from Trent as they believe in him so much and want him to succeed. The ones highly critical of Trent want us to win just as badly but see Trent for what he has done on the field and dont believe in him to be a good QB.

 

That being said, the Trent apologists do seem to prefer to see Fitz fail so they can once again go back to propping up Trent, where the rest of us hate both QB's but want to have a better chance to win so they want to see Fitz stay there if he continues to do enough to keep us competitive and win some game then get a QB next year in draft or FA.

 

The big misconception about a lot, not all, of the people criticial of Trent is that we want him to fail. Dog14787 even posted stuff I wrote about him in 2008 showing my full support of him yet highlighting the weak areas he needed to improve. Problem is, he didnt improve any of them, got worse in other areas, and has really seemed to take big steps backwards since which is why I lost faith in him. I, like many others, would have loved for him to take a big step this year and become our guy because we need a QB and want to win...unfortunately his play was just an extension of his 2008 and he got worse.

 

post of the day!!! excellant summary of my feelings exactly

[rstencel]

His point is the same point that you dismiss every time somebody brings it up.

 

- Buffalo has given up 19 sacks in 7 games (~ 2.7 sacks/game)

- Green Bay clearly has the worst OL in the league, giving up 6 more sacks than Buffalo in one fewer game (~ 4.2 sacks/game).

- Pittsburgh's line has given up 16 sacks, 3 fewer than Buffalo (2.3 sacks/game). Do you believe that 0.4 sacks/game is really the difference between Pittsburgh's QB play and Buffalo's?

- San Diego's line has given up 15 sacks, 4 fewer than Buffalo in one fewer game (2.5 sacks/game). Do you believe that 0.2 sacks/game is really the difference between San Diego's QB play and Buffalo's?

 

The numbers don't lie dude. Buffalo's line is on par with these teams, but they get better QB play. That has to fall on the QB's shoulders.

 

What hurts this argument is the number of pass plays that the teams you mentioned have attempted, compared to the number the bills have. They both are teams that put the ball up often, and still manage to move the ball and get allot of first downs. Puts them in position to get allot of sacks, due to sheer number of passes attempted. Bills haven't been getting allot of first downs, or attempting allot of passes, like those teams.

 

Also both of those QB's tend attempt a very high portion of their passes in the medium to intermediate range. Also a descent portion of those sacks have come after the typical 3.5-4 second window has elapsed, as they both tend to hold onto the ball till the last second, and try and extend plays giving their receivers a change to do double moves, or get open when the original pattern doesn't work.

 

The Bills QB's have rarely had much time to progress past the 2nd target besides wait for double moves to develop or attempt allot of longer developing pass plays, that these teams have been running consistently. While your numbers are accurate, don't feel like the comparison is very accurate, as both these lines have been very successful at times at giving their QB time to throw. They both have had their struggles at times as well, but allot of that was as much to do with the quality of defensive line playing at time, as was to their bad play.

 

Basically even though both lines have giving up more sacks, feel both have well outplayed the Bills line. Its not even close IMO.

[mrags]

Glad I could give you a laugh. I just realize the main problem with our offense is the O-line. Did you happen to notice how poorly Lynch is running the ball or because that doesn't fit your argument its not worth mentioning.

 

 

Try to come up with some real proof Fitz is better then TE and I'll give some credit were credit is due.

Well, if I thought Lynch was a good running back I would make some kind of comment, but since he couldnt run through a hole a truck left behind im not going to say anything.

 

Yes, the line does suck. My point isnt that Fitz is better than Trent as much as it is that Trent is either gunshy, or just doesnt know when not to listen to the coaches. Either way, I dont want him as my QB until he fixes those issues.

[colin]

Only thing that hurts this argument, is the number of pass plays that the teams you mentioned have attempted, compared to the number the bills have. They both are teams that put the ball up often, and still manage to move the ball and get allot of first downs. Puts them in position to get allot of sacks, due to sheer number of passes attempted. Bills haven't been getting allot of first downs, or attempting allot of passes, like those teams.

 

Also both of those QB's tend attempt a very high portion of their passes in the medium to intermediate range. Also a descent portion of those sacks have come after the typical 3.5-4 second window has elapsed, as they both tend to hold onto the ball till the last second, and try and extend plays giving their receivers a change to do double moves, or get open when the original pattern doesn't work.

 

The Bills QB's have rarely had much time to progress past the 2nd target besides wait for double moves to develop or attempt allot of longer developing pass plays, that these teams have been running consistently. While your numbers are accurate, don't feel like the comparison is very accurate, as both these lines have been very successful at times at giving their QB time to throw. They both have had their struggles at times as well, but allot of that was as much to do with the quality of defensive line playing at time, as was to their bad play.

 

Basically even though both lines have giving up more sacks, feel both have well outplayed the Bills line. Its not even close IMO.

 

this is correct. also, look at the push those lines do (or don't) get in the run game. i think it's save to say that right now we have a weaker line than any of those teams.

 

for the record, i think trent is better than fitz in every way except that he has something making him horrible tennetive. after he recovers he should look to the pressue caused by fitz and start. i say this of course with the caveat that if fittz plays objectively well (like 250+yards, 60%+, 7+ per attempt, Tds and few INTs) then he stays. if trent comes back and is too trigger shy to score, well we still have fitz to jump in.

 

IMO that's how you handle a qb issue, apply pressure to play well, not to win some starters job (and thusly excusing bad play down the line, sort of what has happend wtih trent).