Trent Edwards Remains Starting QB in Buffalo

by Brian Galliford on Oct 23, 2007 5:04 PM EDT in Buffalo Bills News

Edwards to make first road start (BuffaloBills.com)

After three starts and two wins, it was highly unlikely that Trent Edwards would be benched. That notion turned out to be extremely true, as the Bills' official site is reporting that Edwards will start at the Jets this coming Sunday. The rookie signal-caller, who this past Sunday picked up the biggest win of his career against a stellar Ravens defense, will make his first career road start this weekend.

This story is breaking in the same fashion as it did last Tuesday: the decision has been made, but we must still wait until tomorrow's media address by Dick Jauron to hear anything about the finality of this decision. Is J.P. Losman still hobbled by his sprained knee? Is it yet again a one-week decision, or have the coaches decided to move forward on a permanent basis with this decision?

I've said it before, and it bears repeating as often as it takes to see results: as long as this charade continues on a weekly basis, it will hurt this team in the long run. More importantly, it will hurt Edwards' development - if he performs poorly and he's pulled in favor of Losman, we're simply seeing a redux of exactly what happened to Losman here in Buffalo. Look how well that has turned out for Losman, whose predicament in Buffalo has been unfair essentially from Day One.

So pay attention to Dick Jauron's comments tomorrow as he addresses the media about the decision. It's time for him to man up and declare a permanent starter. If he is non-committal about anything beyond the Jets game, you have my permission to yell and scream all you like in this thread - I'll probably be right there with you.

Update [2007-10-23 19:18:48 by Brian Galliford]: Straight from Jauron's mouth (linked in the article above):

"We are naming Trent Edwards as our starting quarterback. I have spoken with both Trent and J.P. Losman and want to get the word out to our fans."

Hmm... is this, perhaps, what we've been waiting for? A permanent starter at the position? Feel free to speculate for now; we'll (hopefully) know officially tomorrow. Stay tuned...

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think it is for the best....

Everything I can read into the situation is that DJ is planning on naming Edwards, "our starting QB." Which means he is the guy for the rest of the season barring injury.

I think this is the best move for this team. I said when Marv and DJ took over the reins....Let's give em 5 years. Too much turmoil and turnover in the last 7 years has set this franchise back. We can go over the poor draft picks, QB's, and FA blunders all we want, but the bottom line, organizations in the NFL are highlighted by one word, "CONSISTENCY." That is in the front office, the coaching staff, and the players on the field. That is why they are trying to hold onto guys they believe in (i.e. Denney, Schobel) and getting rid of trash (i.e. Willis). This is Marv/DJ's guy. Now let's let him have the team. I know all you JP lovers out there are disappointed. But, this team will be better off in the long run with an ACCURATE arm, poised pocket-presence, and the demeanor of Edwards in the long run. It is undoubtedly a "youth movement" "rebuilding" time in Buffalo. But our talent lacks significant talent, and with 10 draft picks to come, young talent to develop, and a QB to lead, this team is undoubtedly heading in the right direction.

I think DJ/Marv have done an excellent job in restructuring the personnel and organization as a whole in just 1.5 years. What a competitive team we have....I know one thing..."hard work does and will pay off." This team is grinding it out every week. Whitner is becoming a leader, the O-Line is getting better, and the defensive scheme is clearly working. Give it time. Get behind Trent Edwards, and let's GO BILLS!

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Oct 23, 2007 7:10 PM EDT reply actions

Its not the QB - Its the play-calling

Edwards versus Losman is not the problem; I'm fine with Edwards starting. Its the play-calling that needs to be fixed. My earlier comment on Edwards stats wasn't a knock against Edwards. There is a significant drop in his 4th quarter production which I believe is directly correlated to the SF-M (S Fairchild-Malarkey) play-calling. Fairchild's 4th quarter play calling actually plays against Edwards strengths. This bone-headed shift in play calling in the 4th quarter is the only consistent thing about the Bills so far. Its NOT working Dick!

My fear is that "they" are using this so-called QB controversy to deflect blame from some very poor game management. The situational play-calling has been a joke.

by Zumone on Oct 23, 2007 8:07 PM EDT reply actions

Agree and Disagree

I don't really care for the play-calling much, either. But, it's not rocket-science that in the 4th QT with a lead, you run the football. Our offense has to man up and close out some games. Edwards' INT deep in our own territory is the exact reason that Fairchild and Jauron dial up run plays in the 4th QT. The offensive line and TE's have to start finishing games for us. In all 4 of our winnable games the Bills would have won easily if they could have run the ball in the 4th QT. Plain and Simple. Though the first 2 games watching JP play I was furious with the play calling because all of our routes were vertical sideline routes (or so it seemed). I was watching the Patriots, Packers, and Cowboys, Colts run crossing patterns all day long with great success. Then Trent got to play and I realized we were running crossing patterns, but JP has trouble with short to intermediate throws (accuracy).

"I don't agree with a damn thing you say, but I would die for your right to say it."

by ForeignArrow on Oct 23, 2007 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions

My biggest concern...

Over the past few weeks, there has been a ton of discussion about the Bills' QB position. And there are lots of reasons for J.P. being the starter, for Trent being the starter, for J.P. not being the starter, for Trent not being the starter, and, if we really tried hard enough, we could probably come up with a reason for me to be the starter. I have said before that I would prefer J.P. to get another chance, but I can live with either QB at this point, because, as said, arguments can be made for and against both.

The thing that bugs me the most is this nagging feeling that this is not simply a football decision being made by the organization. There have been rumors about how much input Ralph has had in this decision and how it is financially based. I hate to think that this was in any way decided by the fact that Losman could get bonuses this year, that he could be due a pretty good contract after this year and, that, by contrast, Edwards is a 3rd round pick, making 3rd round money. Please let this be strictly based on football and not on finances.

Anyway, I am behind Trent and hope he keeps getting better. And I hope that J.P. gets a chance elsewhere in the future, because he got "jerked around" too much in Buffalo. Hopefully this is the right call and will pay off in the long run. Now, if we could just get Fairchild straightened out...

by fletcherjd on Oct 23, 2007 8:27 PM EDT reply actions

Best football move...period

JP has a lot to offer...I think. I always hoped he would evolve into that special something every Sunday. However, his struggles have opened the door for Edwards. Not only in the regular season, but in the preseason as well. Losman was terrible for a second straight preseason, a time when a starting QB should be steadily moving the chains and completing crisp passes. This was not the case, and now when it counts, he could not lead the team to victory.
With Edwards, we have the caoching staff's guy, and a player we all saw, as being talented in the preseason. My thinking is that he is more capable mentally, and quite nearly capable physically as JP.
It is not that Ralph doesn't want to spend the money, but it would be foolish to spend it on JP, when he has proved nothing. That would be poor decision making from a business, or football standpoint. Money comes up, but if it were someone like a Brady or Manning there would be no question. JP is not worth that kind of risk...plus, I think Edwards is the better quarteback.

The Bills can win every game

by killascript on Oct 24, 2007 7:37 AM EDT reply actions

another lost draft pick...

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for jumping off the JP bandwagon (we'll get it right THIS season...right) and jumping on the Edwards bandwagon...but it just sucks. Can we commiserate with that thought for a moment?

We spent, what, a first-rounder on JP? First-rounders are supposed to be with your team for a LONG time...and there goes another one we'll be trading soon.

If you read Marv Levy's book, he touches on why he never thinks you should take a QB in the first round....and it makes a lot of sense. For every Manning theres a Couch or a Leaf, right?

Maybe now that he's doing the drafting, or at least over-seeing it, we won't be seeing guys like Whitner and McCargo and Lynch and Poz leaving the way we've seen the Donahoe guys either bust or never work out.

and, by the way, OF COURSE the decision to bench JP permanently (hopefully) has more to do with his contract than anything else...if he played the rest of the way he would trigger a 3 mil bonus or some crap....and then how would Scrooge Wilson pay for the Mayflower vans to take the team to Toronto?

by Slimmons on Oct 24, 2007 7:49 AM EDT reply actions

OF COURSE?

If JP was good enough he would shell out the dough. He's not, he called out the coaching staff and the owner (perhaps he knew his days were numbered) and now he is riding the pine.

One other factoid about JP. He can't even hold a clip board. On Monday night with his hands folded like a scolded child. Pitiful.

The Bills can win every game

by killascript on Oct 24, 2007 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Not just a first rounder

We traded up to get him -- it cost us our first rounder the next year, and I think our third rounder the next year, too.

by rexob on Oct 24, 2007 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions

At least

we are not lamenting over David Carr and Joey Harrington. Talk about painful investments . . . and what about the guy from Marshall, with the bad ankle (I'm blanking) . . . Leftwich

First round QBs just aren't the sure thing they're advertised to be. It is worth it to jump ship and not look back. It is hard with JP though, cos he has worked so hard and he cares about the community . . . but then, so did Rob Johnson.

by Onoekeh on Oct 24, 2007 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions

The one drawback is...

How does it sit with the rest of the team that JP is kicked to the curb? Will there be a little uprising in the locker room? Or is everyone on board here? I don't know. I mean the team has to have been impressed by Edwards and his play. But JP was the guy. Maybe all that talk about the "brash, cocky" JP Losman coming out of college, really did never disapppear. Even though he wanted to change the perception, maybe it never really happened. Maybe he is a bad teammate, or maybe he just learned a lesson that most of the players in the NFL learn at some point. THE NFL after all does stand for "Not For Long."

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Oct 24, 2007 9:49 AM EDT reply actions

Is this decision about money? Or about football?

Reread fletcherjd (above) again and tell me you don't share his uneasiness. With all the bone-headed decisions Ralph has made over the last 10 years, especially in hiring head coaches and premier draft picks, do we really trust that he is capable of naming his starting quarterback?

Come on Ralph, leave the player decisions to the guys who are closest to the action and know what their men are capable of. Hire your GM (a good one) and let him hire your head coach (a good one), and let them do their jobs.

If I knew for certain that Dick was going with Trent because he, himself, and his coaching staff believe he gives the team the best chance to win now (not in yet another fantasy-like two or three year ``rebuilding process''), I'd have a lot more confidence in the call. As the season stands, I'd say we are very close to being in a rebuilding process as it is right now.

There's something about Jauron, his steadiness, his calm, his willingness to take responsibility for his own errors, his intelligence, that inspires a fan's confidence. But last week in one of his press conferences, he essentially admitted that Ralph was in on the decision-making process about starting QB (remember him saying he'd be stupid if he didn't consult several people about it?). That's what's got me worried.

Is this decision about money? Or about football? If fletcherjd has it right, it reveals something about this franchise I really don't like.

by garymallow2004 on Oct 24, 2007 9:55 AM EDT reply actions

profootballtalk.com post

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

POSTED 10:55 p.m. EDT, October 23, 2007

EDWARDS HOLDING THE BILLS' JOB

The J.P. Losman era apparently is ending in Buffalo.

With Losman recovered from an elbow to the knee courtesy of Pats defensive tackle Vince Wilfork, rookie Trent Edwards is still the starter -- and apparently will continue to be.

Though it might not ultimately be as significant as the injury to Drew Bledsoe that opened the door for Tom Brady, it's a critical moment in the history of a franchise that has been struggling to establish consistency since four straight Super Bowl appearances in the 1990s.

"We are naming Trent Edwards as our starting quarterback," coach Dick Jauron said on Tuesday. A week ago, Jauron named Edwards the starter for the upcoming game only. Leading the Bills to a win over the Ravens apparently was enough to cement the job.

We (and others) reported that Bills owner Ralph Wilson likely had a hand in (if not outright made) the decision to go with Edwards, and that financial considerations (such as Losman's ability to achieve contract incentives) were a factor in the final analysis.

Losman is signed through 2008, and it's likely that he'll be traded after the season.

by fletcherjd on Oct 24, 2007 7:57 PM EDT reply actions