The best argument is that with Losman, we have to give up on him completely, but with Edwards, sitting might actually help his development now that he knows what game speed is actually like.

I don't think there's even a question here. If we are 2-9 or 3-8 going into week 12, we might be having a different argument.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Bills organization may be a little stressed with all the various circumstances surrounding the team.  So the other word that comes to mind besides "chemistry" is stability which is something Losman hasn't enjoyed much of in his career so far.  Losman brings stability to the QB position even if his performance has been lackluster. And besides, what kind of message would this send to a rookie, Edwards - benching Losman at this point?  Two bad games and we've had it with you!?  Not Buffalo - that's what they do in Miami.

J.P. Losman is a gunslinger QB.  He excels at throwing the ball down-field.  He makes plays happen on-the-run or when he can step into a pocket and throw a strike 20 yards down field.

Trent Edwards is a system QB.  He has "poise."  He has the mechanics and footwork to drop back and hit a RB/TE (and occasionally) a WR underneath in stride.  He's a check down QB.

J.P. Losman did not perform well in the first two games.

The play-calling and overall offensive philosophy was ultra-conservative in those two games.

Edwards comes in and plays a very effective game against a Jets team that is pretty bad.

Edwards looked decent Monday night.  However, all his completions were 5 yards down the field (IMO he was checking down WAY to early, scared to make the more riskier down-the-field throw - but that's an opinion, not a fact).  

The play calling remained ultra conservative in the last two games.  Although Edwards was in shotgun most of the night and the bills played with multiple receivers, the play-calling hasn't changed much from the first few games, it's still ultra conservative.  They simply put a new face on it.  Instead of run-run-pass out of the I-formation, they have been spreading the field and dumping it off to TE's and RB's underneath.  It's almost like watching the west coast offense now.  Anyways, do you know that we had 4 WR screens in our first three drives of the game?  

So here's where that leaves us:

JP is a gunslinger.  He's a spread them out, throw them down field type of QB.  He's Brett Farve in his prime (no, not ability, just playing style).  Meanwhile, although we only have a few games to go on, it seems that Edwards is more of a "system" QB.  He has an ability to check-down, find the open receiver underneath and the get it out quickly enough to get some positive yards.  

I've been calling for Buffalo to "open-it-up" for a while now and I couldn't fathom why they wouldn't.  Now I know.  Jauron and Fairchild never had the intention to open it up.  They WANT this uber-conservative offense.  This is who they are and they are going to find a QB to play in their system, not build a system around their QB or other talent.

Trent fits their system.  JP doesn't.  I think with the offensive philosophy right now Trent is the better of the two QB's for the job.

I DO NOT, however, believe that Trent should start.  I think JP should start for various reasons that I have listed in previous posts.  However, I am worried that they are not going to give him the opportunity to succeed.  When JP comes back against Baltimore they're still going to try to plug a square pig (JP) into a round hole (their offensive philosophy).  

I think if that happens JP continues to struggle and Trent ends up sooner then later.  

What I want to happen?  

What I want is for Fairchild and Jauron to get their heads out of their asses and change the offensive philosophy to the team's strengths (also to JP's strengths obviously).  I want to see a wide-open offense where Evans is running deep routes, Roscoe is catching crossing patters in stride over the middle, and Lynch is being utilized as the all-purpose back he truly is.  I believe JP would thrive in this system.  I believe he'd be that "top-10" QB everyone was saying that he could become prior to the season.  That's what I want to see happen.  Unfortunately, unless Jauron and Fairchild feel pressure from above (Ralph or Marv), they are going to continue to play in an offense that JP will never be successful in.  In a nutshell, they're not going to change.

So start JP.  His failure and success though will hinge on the coach's willingness to change their flawed philosophy.

i see what you're saying about Fairchild maybe wanting to open it up and not being allowed to by Jauron, that may be the case.

At that point you can't blame him for the offensive philosophy, however, you still cant excuse his play-calling.  

You can play conserative and still not throw 4 WR screens in three possession.  You can play conserative and still attempt a quick slant.  

I don't know what the difference between this year and last year was.  You have a good theory but i'm not buying into it a 100%.  Something changed though, and whatever it is, it needs to be fixed.  That lays on Jauron and Fairchild.  Jauron for the overall philosphy and Fairchild on the game day play-calling.  

What they are running now, although Edwards is a better fit then JP, even he's not going to reach his full potential.  It horrible.

There are ways to play a ball control offense and be sucessful (See the Pittsburgh Stealers for decades and "Marty-ball").  They're not doing that right now.  they're not utilizing all the tools in the toolbox (i.e. play action pass), and with that mentality, you're just not going to be successful.

Good post. Especially about the conservative nature of the offense. That needs to change, fast.

The big guy comes up with a similar point that I made. That makes both of us right, in my book. :-P