JESSEFEFFER

Let's say for the sake of argument that a "pressure situation involves" an unblocked defender in the backfield that casues the QB to either move, hold the ball, run the ball, throw the ball early or take a sack. In this analysis by Khaled Elsayed I see the following: No attempt to quantify a successful QB run as a "good" response to pressure. No scale of how quick the pressure came. Was it early or late? Did it kill the play or did the QB have time to survey the field, let the patterns develop and identify the coverage breakdowns before the pressure came? Was the pressure from one defender or two? Or more? It is tough to escape from multiple, would be pass rushers. How much time and space did the QB have to recognize the protection breakdown. The center whiffs on a block and the QB has time to react to it. A running back misses a blitz pickup occurs within two steps away from him. All "pressure" is not created equal. Getting rid of the ball and not taking a sack is often a good play. Avoiding it and running for a first down is even better. This ranking is not comprehensive.

Would any here deny the following?: "All pressure is not created equal. Quick pressure @ 2.5 seconds (a whiffed block) is not the same as pressure that occurs @ 5 seconds. The first is a play killer where an incompletion or a scramble and run would be a good play. The second is an opportunity in that the play has developed, the QB has had time to survey the field, and the coverage has had a chance to breakdown." If you agree with that then would you also conclude that any attempt at assessing pressure that ignores when it occurred is flawed? Fitzpatrick was hit 80+ times. That's among the highest in the league. That's 80 attempts with a defender hitting him as he was throwing or with a defender one step away. That's over six times a game. A guy like Eli Manning was hit a little over 3 times a game. What would this tend to do to a QB's passer rating?

Taking a DB this high in the draft is much like opening that really pretty package at Christmas and having it filled with socks and underwear. You know that the other packages will be more fun and these items are truly needed so it would be really unwise to complain about it. On the other hand, when you are running late for work, it is really a nice feeling to pull your dresser drawer open and have some nice, never worn, perfectly clean undergarments to put on. In football reality, secondary guys get hurt all the time, especially when you're becoming road kill drying to defend the run. Many times teams have 5 or 6 DB's in the game and a good offense will find your weak link and exploit it. That's why taking a DB high in the draft is a good idea most every year.

It's semantics really. Judging the spectrum of worst to best based on one year is premature. Judging it based on "first year impact" of the class is more in line with what is being done here. In that case, I can't disagree that the Bill's 2010 draft was low impact in a situation where the opportunity was there to have a high impact.

Fitzpatrick's 2010 numbers are better than Jay Cutler's 2010 season and VERY similar to Eli Manning's average for the last 4 seasons. Are these two "franchise" caliber, in your opinion? They were drafted in the 1st round, they have big contracts, and Eli managed to lead his team to a Super Bowl win. Just wondering because some would say yes and others would not. If you look at Manning's game by game numbers you'll see them bounce around also. Part of that is the reality of playing outdoors in the northeast during November and December. With regard to Fitz, the late season decline you cite is heavily the result of the Minnesota and New England games. The other seven were not that bad. As a matter of fact, the Bills were the Lindell missed OT field goal and the SJ OT drop from winning six of the seven. Were the 2010 Bills capable of having a 6 and 3 stretch with substandard QB play? I say no.

My distaste for a QB at 3 is that the pick and the money associated with makes it necessary to play him before he is ready. It also means that a team woulfd have to invest 30+ starts to see if he's gonna "get it." Vince Young is talented, has won some in the NFL, will be much cheaper and may have learned something from his failure. He will be in a situation where he would have to be clearly better than Fitz to move him to the bench. If his head is in the right place, then I like this better than any QB this year at #3.

And Willie Totten. Kinda, sorta.

The 2011 equivalent of Rob Johnson's deal. That deal was based on one game. This would be based on 13.

It took Drew Brees ~30 career starts before he became DREW BREES! He was so good early on that the Chargers drafted Manning and then traded him for Rivers.

In my glass is half full thinking, SJ dropping that catch may have produced some nice outcomes for the team. Gailey had come out with the "humble vs. humbled" line in the Bengals post game when asked about the "Why so serious?" antics. He use it again in the Steelers post game. A subtle "I told you so" moment. It gave Fitz a chance to be a leader by not "throwing a teammate under the bus." Think about what Fitz is trying to do. Make the best of what may be his best and only shot to be a franchise QB. Beating the Steelers would have helped that cause. And, best of all, maybe SJ will be better for it.

If you are in the NFL = "Not For Long" crowd, you will never recoup what you will lose from missing even half of a season no matter what the differences are between the negotiating teams or what the eventual settlement is.

When you subtract out the pathetic game 1, 2 and 16 offensive showings, the Fitz lead offense managed a 42% conversion rate and 5.7 ypp. Both are numbers that are worthy of the top 10. That 2010 run defense was "bad at the first snap" unlike in 2009 when it did wear down and collapse more often late in games.

The Ryan Fitzpatrick we saw last year was not good enough to win in post season. He had a record of failure in crucial situations late in games that followed a familiar pattern. Tight game, 4th quarter, drives the team to the other side of the 50 but just outside field goal range. Deep throws are just off the mark (or dropped or fumbled) and the one critical first down never comes. This was NE1, Bal, KC, Chi, Pitt that I remember. This is also how I remember the late game failures of Jim Kelly's 1986 season so this trend of failure does not have to be career defining. The Ryan Fitzpatrcik of 2011 will get every advantage to be better. If a commitment is made to overhaul the defense then he could really shine. He has the smarts to learn from his mistakes and a pressure beating package of quick read and quick release to mask the protection problems he has faced and still allow the offense to function. He has reached the point in his career when many other QB's have had their careers take off and 2010 may have been the first sign of it happening for him. When this question is asked next year there will much more evidence with which to derive an answer.

Then some QB in the 2012 draft gets a pile of money. Or some QB that they get in this year's draft gets to compete for the job. I personally feel that Vince Young would be a good pickup. He's talented, has performed well when on the field, and maybe he can thrive under a QB freindly HC. As soon as you take a QB at the top of the draft it's like the Bills are married to the guy. Saying that you'll play Fitz for a year or two would be like dating someone other than to whom you are engaged. Makes no sense to me. I want Fitz to be plan A for the 2011 season and see if he elevates his game. Having a plan B or even A1 is ok with me too. As long as their is a legit competition for the job.

Hopefully this rookie QB of the future wasn't taken at #3 because this will demand that said rookie QB plays 1) plays before he has earned the job and 2) gets more starts than the quality of his play justifies. And if he can't take the heat from the fans or the media for the boatload of losses coming their way, and feels the need to call out his teammates for their mistakes, we can patiently wait for him to mature into a leader that has the trust of the entire team. Let Fitz's 2011 season answer the question about where his ceiling is, say I.

Those who think that taking a QB that high in the draft guarantees a path to turning the franchise around are delusional. It sets the team up for a 3 or 4 year experiment hoping that he will justify the pick. If he busts he drags the whole team down with him until he is replaced. If the Bills aren't convinced that there is a QB worth rolling the dice on, I say let Fitz have his year to see if he can take his game to a higher level. There is much less risk in that and the reward may prove to be as great.

Neither championship game was a template for the importance of elite QB play.......... Sanchez 20 of 33 for 233, 2TDs and a passer rating of 102.2 Roethlisberger 10 of 19 for 133, O TDs and 2 pics for a passer rating of 35.5 Rodgers 17 of 30 for 244, 0 TDs and 2 pics for a passer rating of 55.4 Cutler left the game with a knee injury .....but let's not let the actual facts get in the way of believing what we want to. Just saying.

Ryan Fitzpatrick was objectively better than Sanchez and Cutler last year (two of the "final four" QBs.) This is without much help from the defense, playing behind one of the most inexperienced offensive lines (being pressured on over 20% of dropbacks,) and not having had the benefit of the majority of training camp reps. He obviously had problems in cruchtime, ala Jim Kelly in 1986, but I, for one, think he will be even better in 2011.

I've been wanting to look into him more. He's rather intriguing. One impression I had was that he looked skinny but then at the combine he looked more solid. The school shouldn't really matter. If Delaware, Alcorn State, Marshall, and Miami of Ohio can produce first rounders then Nevada shouldn't be what "devalues" him.

1987 Bills trade down with Houston from #3 to #8 and get Conlan. The Oilers take Highsmith and the Bills get Odomes in the 2nd with their extra pick. This kind of trade always make sense if you have any faith in your ability to put a draft board together. The money has gotten so big at the top of the draft that teams are unwilling to trade up for the right to pay some college kid 40+ million. Maybe a realistic rookie wage scale can change that. Polian also traded for Bennett later because he would not sign with the Colts. It was the 3 way deal with the Rams that involved Eric Dickerson, Greg Bell and some draftpicks being exchanged. Mckellar, Ballard, Seals and Leonard Smith (Brandon trade) were acquired from this years' draft assets. Great draft for the Bills and it started with a move down trade.

I could easily make the case that Fitzpatrick had a similar year to that of Eli Manning and a better one than Jay Cutler. Some consider those guys to be franchise types. They are certainly paid that way. It's tough to know how much better he can be since my crystal ball is not working lately, but players do get better as they spend time in an offensive system along with their teammates. There are many examples of QBs whose careers took off after 30 to 50 starts and 4 or 5 years in the league. I am willing to wait and see if Fitzpatrick can have that kind of career evolution. He has the leadership skills, toughness, maturity, and smarts to do the job. He just has to make the offense more productive. That all that being said, I do think that he had a good enough season to be a legitimate plan A but that having a realistic plan B would also be prudent. The fact that Brohm was not tendered tells me the Bills may be thinking that way but this does not equate to a top of the draft pick. Those guys have to play before they earn the job because they "need to develop" and the franchise has to "find out about them." The QB's at the top of the 1st round become plan A from day one and it more often leads to 3 years of futile, and often ugly, football.

In that same time period the QBs drafted in the 1st round are as such: Chad Pennington Mike Vick David Carr Joey Harrington Patrick Ramsey Carson Palmer Byron Leftwich Kyle Boller Rex Grossman Eli Manning Philip Rivers Ben Roethlisberger J.P. Losman Alex Smith Aaron Rodgers Jason Campbell Vince Young Matt Leinart Jay Cutler JaMarcus Russell Brady Quinn Matt Ryan Joe Flacco Matt Stafford Mark Sanchez Josh Freeman Sam Bradford Tim Tebow Of the 28 QBs selected in the 1st round since 2000, 14 of them are franchise guys, with the jury still being out on Tebow....... Not sure what your working definition of "franchise" might be but I am not so sure that Sanchez, Bradford, or Stafford have shown enough to know which path their careers will take. They were drafted high, got paid a ton of money, and will start when healthy. The same was true of Carr, Harrington, Boller, Leftwich, et. al.

Of your list, it can be easily shown that Fitzpatrick had a better year than Cutler, Sanchez, and Bradford. His quality of play was very similar to Eli Manning. All this is said without really looking at the quality of the supporting cast that any of these guys works with. Ryan took a big step forward last year and there are many historical examples of QBs that made such an improvement to their game at similar points in their careers. I am not willing to say what a player's limit is nor would I choose to use a word like "never." For those that think, speak and write that way about the future, I say good luck with that because history tends to make you look foolish.

Selected 24th overall, Rodgers does not apply to my comment. "In August 2005 at age 21, Rodgers agreed to a reported five-year, $7.7 million deal that included $5.4 million in guaranteed money and had the potential to pay him as much as $24.5 million if all incentives and escalators were met." He was cheap enough to be patient with. Rivers is more applicable. He was taken at #4 and he did sit two years. Flutie/Johnson is very applicable. The flawed veteran that can lead the team vs. the younger, unproven, higher paid QB with supposed upside. Why was Flutie benched against the Titans? The pressure to play the higher paid guy will eventually trump any need to play the guy that gives a team the best chance to win. So much so that it will usually happen before they are ready.

Regardless of what Fitz is now or what he can or will become in the future, he has a shot in 2011 to define the course of his career. In the history of the NFL there have been many QBs that became decent to great at his current experience level. We might have been witnessing his career light coming on in 2010. Or maybe his ceiling is being just a competent caretaker, as some suggest. I don't claim to know either with certainty so I say it would be wise to keep an open mind. I do know this. If a QB is taken at 3, the economics dictate that they start long before they are ready. Laugh at Flutie/Johnson but a replay is likely. It's Ground Hog's Day all over again. Guys that get 40+ million guaranteed don't sit the bench while they learn. They learn on the job and the play of their teammates suffers as a result. They won't be too patient while waiting for some young QB to put their game together and learn to be a leader. If he proves to be unworthy of his high draft status, that's another 3 years down the drain. Fitz was hit or sacked about 9 times per game. His combination of presnap reads, protection calls, and quick decisions/ releases gave the offense a chance to move the chains. Taking as few sacks as he did was not an accident. It was a deliberate adjustment to his game. He'd do whatever he could to get rid of the ball and avoid a loss. An intentional grounding call is just a spot foul and loss of down (sounds like a sack to me) so why not just get rid of it and see if the referee will allow it? If Fitzpatrick had taken 7 more sacks instead, his comp% hits 60. He was about 10 to 20 sacks short of what would be normal given the number of hits he took. Trading incompletions for sacks HURTS a QB's passer rating (lower comp% and YPA.) There is nothing in the formula that rewards a QB for avoiding sacks. The same is true for getting the ball past the sticks on 3rd and long. It's a lower percentage play but the chances of actually converting it are better. There is not a reward in the passer rating formula for being a risk taker on 3rd and long. As Bills fans we have seen our share of ball holding, afraid to pull the trigger, run out of bounds for a 4 yard loss, dump it off to a stationery receiver on 3rd and long, QB play. I, for one, was sick of it. Fitz played a style of game that made his o-line and receivers look good, certainly not bottom-of-the-barrel as we were lead to believe before season. It's a style that helped his team but hurt his rating. There were two areas of his game that were clearly deficient, IMO. Fumbles on running plays (get the yards but always protect the ball!) and in that 20 yard dead zone that exists between midfield and the high% field goal range. Fitz lead many important, late game drives, that died in this area. It happened so often that I would call it a trend. It's those failures that give his detractors their best ammunition.