Quarterback controversy? There is no quarterback controversy. There's an offensive line

controversy and there are defensive controversies. And we all know that based on the

decade-long results that there are most definitely head coaching and front office

controversies. But a quarterback controversy? No. Sorry. That's far too easy pickings.

The Buffalo Bills have spent the post-Jim Kelly years conducting a frantic search for a

quarterback who might hide all their other deficiencies. Rob Johnson was the guy, until the

guy became Doug Flutie. Drew Bledsoe became the answer, until the answer became J.P. Losman.

Then it was on to Trent Edwards who, like the others, proved incapable of single-handedly

lifting the franchise above all that ailed it. And now the keys to the clunker rest in the

hands of Ryan Fitzpatrick, at least until the cobwebs clear within Trent's head and it's once

again time to practice that timed-honored Bills tradition of re-evaluation.

Conventional logic asserts that Fitzpatrick lacks the credentials to run the show over the

long haul, the term "career backup" having been branded against his name. Career backup?

Fitzpatrick is 26, Edwards 25. The only true difference between them is the perception created

on the day they were drafted. Edwards was chosen in the third round, Fitzpatrick in the

seventh, a divide that drives the illusion that Edwards possesses greater potential. We need

look no further than Losman, a trade-up first-rounder, to recognize the pitfalls in such

thought.

But that's enough about Edwards and Fitzpatrick. It's not the quarterback but an overriding

lack of direction that holds the franchise in its 10-year sputter. This season the Bills put

forth a woeful rendition of an offensive line even before the injuries hit, thereby negating

what good might have been realized from the acquisition of wide receiver Terrell Owens and the

dual threat of Marshawn Lynch and Fred Jackson in the backfield. The pass protection has been

predictably porous, and yet there was no attempt to account for what should have been an

anticipated shortcoming, no effort to fortify the team's depth at its greenest position.

The offense receives the most criticism, the quarterback in particular, but there are

decade-long defensive trends that are no less disturbing. Only once since 2000 — in

2004, with Bledsoe at quarterback nonetheless — have the Bills finished a season with

more sacks than the opposition. Overall they're a minus-84 in sacks over the last 10 seasons,

this one included. Granted, a good portion of that disparity stems from the earliest portions

of the decade. But last year they were a minus-14, this year thus far a minus-5. The numbers

reflect not only on the ends, but the entire defense and the coordinator as a whole. Is there

a single player on the defensive side of the ball that opponents truly fear?

What a relief it would be if the Bills were merely a quarterback away from becoming a

contender. How encouraging it would be if by stumbling on the right man behind center the

playoff drought would end. But the fact is, this franchise is further away now than it was

under Bledsoe, and that statement has little to do with the quality of the quarterbacking.

The offensive line remains in a constant state of flux. The defense remains devoid of an

identity and a notable playmaker or two. The front office has grown stagnant. The head coach

is over his head. The thought persists that no matter who's at quarterback it's the same-old,

same-old, that the franchise's limitations are too severe for even two straight wins to breed

much in the way of enthusiasm.

Edwards or Fitzpatrick? Is there really much to chose from? And even if there was would it

make a shred of difference? For that matter, put Drew Brees under center and then ask

yourself, would this then be a playoff team?

And be honest.