Took 5 sacks, fumbled twice and threw an INT.

Does anyone still think naming Edwards as the starter was a
mistake????

mr dude

"mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f0c8801c-4b93-40b7-b9d9-7be3a80c61ae@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> Took 5 sacks, fumbled twice and threw an INT.

Sounds like Trent's stat line from the Oakland game. Except that the Cards
are a good team and the Bills were playing them on the road.

> Does anyone still think naming Edwards as the starter was a
> mistake????

No. But add concussion worries to previous concerns about being injury-
prone.

MBD

On Oct 6, 4:53 pm, MBD <M...@MBD.com> wrote:
> "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote innews:f0c8801c-4b93-40b7-b9d9-7be3a80c61ae@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Took 5 sacks, fumbled twice and threw an INT.
>
> Sounds like Trent's stat line from the Oakland game.  Except that the Cards
> are a good team and the Bills were playing them on the road.

The Oakland defense is 10 times better then the Cards.By the
way didn't we win this game?Losman just isn't a good QB.He
never will be.

>
> > Does anyone still think naming Edwards as the starter was a
> > mistake????
>
> No.  But add concussion worries to previous concerns about being injury-
> prone.


9 out of 10 QBs get a concussion from the hit Edwards took.This
injury has nothing to do with being injury prone.

>
> MBD

Kountzeguy <jjtx81@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:7a5c2a9a-b880-4250-a039-370b8e498283@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 6, 4:53 pm, MBD <M...@MBD.com> wrote:
>> "mr d...@harvarduniversity.edu" <foster...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:f0c880
> 1c-4b93-40b7-b9d9-7be3a80c61ae@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Took 5 sacks, fumbled twice and threw an INT.
>>
>> Sounds like Trent's stat line from the Oakland game.  Except that the
>> Cards
>> are a good team and the Bills were playing them on the road.
>
> The Oakland defense is 10 times better then the Cards.By the
> way didn't we win this game?Losman just isn't a good QB.He
> never will be.

Where do you get that the Raiders' defense (and they were on the road)
is better than the Cards' defense (who were at home)? And the team won
the game. The point being that Edwards' turnovers led to (10) points
for the Raiders, like JP's did for the Cards, but the Bills' defense was
able to shut the Raiders' offense down to a point. Had the Bills'
defense been able to limit the Cards to 23 points, they probably would
have had a good chance to win the game.

And JP's performance off the bench in a tough situation isn't exactly
the fairest way to judge him. Not that it matters anymore since he's
gone at the end of the year.

Bottom line is that it was a loss no matter who the QB was, given the
way the defense played. I don't buy the emotional letdown resulting
from Trent going down theory.

>> > Does anyone still think naming Edwards as the starter was a
>> > mistake????
>>
>> No.  But add concussion worries to previous concerns about being
>> injury
> -
>> prone.
>
>
> 9 out of 10 QBs get a concussion from the hit Edwards took.This
> injury has nothing to do with being injury prone.

True. But Edwards has had a problem with being injury-prone, and now
that he's gotten his first concussion (I believe), it will be easier for
him to get them now.

MBD

> Where do you get that the Raiders' defense (and they were on the road)
> is better than the Cards' defense (who were at home)?  And the team won
> the game.  The point being that Edwards' turnovers led to (10) points
> for the Raiders, like JP's did for the Cards, but the Bills' defense was
> able to shut the Raiders' offense down to a point.  Had the Bills'
> defense been able to limit the Cards to 23 points, they probably would
> have had a good chance to win the game.

I watch games.The Raiders defense has givien alot of teams fits on
defense.The Cards let QBs throw 6 TDs in one game.I'm not sure
how the Bills would win the game at 23 points when they only scored
17.The Bills defense didn't keep the Bills offense from scoring one
point.

>
> And JP's performance off the bench in a tough situation isn't exactly
> the fairest way to judge him.  Not that it matters anymore since he's
> gone at the end of the year.

Oh im not judging him based on this game.I am judging him
on his entire career.This is the way he always plays.One
bomb.Get sacked a few times and have a few turnovers.
When this happens crumble like a cookie.The end.This
wasn't a bad game for JP.It was on par with his career.


> Bottom line is that it was a loss no matter who the QB was, given the
> way the defense played.  I don't buy the emotional letdown resulting
> from Trent going down theory.

I don't buy the let down either.Neither do I buy that it don't
matter who you have at QB and the results of it.The results
are different with different players at QB.


> > True.  But Edwards has had a problem with being injury-prone, and now
> that he's gotten his first concussion (I believe), it will be easier for
> him to get them now.


I think this is the only thing I agree with you on.He and the
team need to take the right steps to keep him from getting
more concussions.