CosmicBills

Right? It's an excellent and fun flick. I think he'll bring a lot to Iron Man -- he could easily become a hugely successful and popular director. Something no one would have expected 10 years ago. This guy dropped out of Hollywood because he was tired of studios ruining his scripts. It's good to have him back.

1. All true. Yet he still hit 66% of his passes for 4,700 yards and 33 TDs. Where his stats suffered were in YPC which dropped nearly a full yard to 6.8. Why? Because he adapted to his team and took a team that wasn't as talented as years past and still led them to the post season. 2. They made the playoffs. The Bills won 4 games with Fitz. 3. No one is arguing otherwise. Not sure the point of this ... 4. I agree it is ridiculous to compare Fitz to the elite QBs in the league because he is not an elite QB. But it's ridiculous to think that if Fitz were swapped out with an elite QB like Manning, Brady or Brees they would not put up as good if not better numbers than Fitz. 5. True. I can't be sure he won't continue to develop. But I believe, like many others, that accuracy can't be taught. Fitz has the mental capacity to be an elite QB, he just doesn't have the physical tools. That won't change the longer he's in a system. But then again, of course I could be wrong there. I'm just going with the odds. It's a long shot to think he'll improve his accuracy any more than a percentage point or two. 6. Me too. No one is arguing that Fitz shouldn't be the starter in '11.

Sure. But he'd have more than 4 wins.

1. Because they are claiming they need more money because they are losing money. If that's true, prove it. Otherwise, it's difficult to believe that considering the record ratings the NFL has been generating and the enormous TV contracts it has handed out. 2. The players aren't controlling the league, but they want to be partners with ownership. And since the owners need the players to survive and visa versa, this isn't an unfair request. Don't forget, the players aren't asking for a wage increase. They're asking the owners to show them a justifiable reason for a pay CUT. 3. So ... you're in favor of a capitalistic system but are against players using their legal rights within that system as "Free" Agents (note the key word) to go where they wish? Gotcha. 4. That's a huge leap. If the owners could show a loss, they would. They can't. So they won't. If they did show a loss, they'd be waiving it to every camera they could, like the NBA owners are doing right now, because it would take away every bit of leverage the players have. Which isn't much to begin with. 5. That's absolutely true. And it'll be the owners' fault and it'll be the fans (you and me) that suffer.

That's just not true. Why? Because of one simple thing:The rules of the game have changed. By definition it can't be the same game if the very rules it's played by are changed right? That's not an analogy or theory. It's a fact. And they were changed in order to help the QBs. Put Young, or Star on the field today with these rules, they would put up better numbers than they did when defenses were allowed to chuck and the QB wasn't as protected. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you. It ain't rocket surgery. I also never said there wasn't merit to a team's need for defense. In fact, I said quite the opposite. You just need to read my posts a bit more carefully I guess. So am I. And this is a great post ... but, as we've discussed, I don't think Fitz can't lead this team to the playoffs. I'm sure he can with a better supporting cast. I just don't think he can win the Super Bowl. I don't want to go to the playoffs. I want to win a ring. ... er, well I want the Bills to win a ring.

Absolutely (and you're right about the rest of the thread too ...). The thing that Fitz showed so clearly this season is how poor the QB play has been in Buffalo since Drew left. Drew wasn't great by the time he was in Buffalo -- but he was the last professional QB the Bills have had. What Fitz showed is what a good QB can do. We still don't remember what en ELITE QB can do because we haven't seen that in some time. But that's why so many people think Fitz is good enough -- because they're comparing him to the likes of JP (who, full disclosure, I was a fan of at the time) and Trent. Two guys who just had no business being starting NFL QBs. Fitz didn't show he was good enough -- he just showed how bad the QB position had become in Buffalo. I don't know if Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert is the answer. I won't pretend to be psychic. But if the Bills take either one at 3, it's not the worst thing in the world. Even if they wash out. Why? Because you need a QB to win a championship. And to find one, you might have to take some chances. There's no question that's true. But there's also no question that if Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Big Ben or Brady were the Bills starting QB the Bills would have won just as many and probably MORE games than Fitz. Because they can do everything Fitz can on the mental side AND are better QBs.

No (rational) fan is asking for that. That's the beauty of Fitz. Fitz is NOT the team's biggest problem. But he's also not the QB that can take a team to the Super Bowl and win it unless that team is perfectly built around him. Having Fitz allows the Bills to draft a QB and let him sit (like Rodgers) behind Fitz as the rest of the team needs are addressed. And that's the point people continue to miss. You don't HAVE to build the lines before you build a QB. You don't have to take a QB before you build the lines. There's no logic to that. It's a fact that finding an elite QB is harder than finding an elite LT, OG, C, DT, DE. So if a QB is available to you that you believe can become elite, you take him. No matter what state your team is in because above all else, that's the key component to winning a Super Bowl. Now, if one isn't there, you certainly don't reach. But no one is clamoring to draft a QB and start him right away ... Fitz will be the starting QB in 2011 (if there is a 2011). And he should be. But I don't believe for a second he's good enough to lead a team to the Super Bowl. Again, this isn't seeing the bigger picture. You actually prove my point with your statement. Fitz made the line better. He made the offense better because he's good. He knows how to read a defense, how to react and how to properly diagnose a play. His mental abilities are clearly in the upper echelon of the NFL. That was made clear when Trent was the starter and when Brian was. The difference was night and day. Now, Brady, Manning, Brees etc are JUST AS GOOD as Fitz at reading and diagnosing defenses. They are elite QBs because they can do that AND make accurate throws. I've never bought the excuse "put Manning on the Bills and he'd suck just as much as X". That's ridiculous. And Fitz showed that. He showed what a GOOD QB can do. He makes the players around him better. That is even more true with an elite QB like Manning, Brady, Brees etc. Can simply putting Manning on the Bills make them Super Bowl contenders? No. Of course not. This team needs far more than a QB to get there. But put Manning on the Bills he puts up better numbers than Fitz last year even WITH this team. And the Bills win more games. That's the point. This isn't trashing Fitz. As I said above, Fitz is NOT the problem. He's just not the answer. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle We've had this debate before, I know where you stand on it and you know I respect it. You're one of the brightest football fans I know. But you also know I'm not saying 60% is the must hit number -- it's just a barometer. And, as I said above, it's closer to 65% these days anyway. Fitz has problems with accuracy, you can't deny that. We've stood in the bar watching the same games. He sometimes makes amazing throws. He just more often makes bad throws. Throws that are either off target or get his WRs killed. Even on his completions. He's never been above 60% in his career. That's a problem. He's not a young player. He's been around. He's played over 40 games in his career and started in 36 of them -- that's over 2 seasons worth of starting games. His career percentage is 57%. That won't get it done. That's not me being picky, but put that in comparison to Manning who's only been under 60% once (his rookie year) and above 65% for 9 straight years. Brady has NEVER been under 60% and the Patriots have had lines that rivaled the Bills in terms of how poor/green they played.

I know you're not trying to be a smart ass, so no worries there. But you're also not reading my post and missing the point. The post said in the past decade -- Williams won his ring in '88. Hence the wall bash. That was a different era. A different league. What's so baffling to me is that so many people fail to realize that the game has changed drastically in the past 10 years or so. The NFL changed the rules of the game to limit what defenses can do to stop the passing game because they wanted to give the fans more scoring, more passing yards and more exciting offenses. Yes, the league has a history of changing the rules. It has always had a ripple effect. Now is not any different. The game is different now than it even was in 2000. You need an elite QB to win a ring. Period. Just look at the list of the past winners: Rodgers, Brees, Big Ben, E.Manning, P. Manning, Big Ben, Brady, Brady, Johnson, Brady. In 10 years you've only had one non elite QB win a ring (E. Manning). Johnson was a pro-bowl QB who certainly will not be confused with a HOF but he was a fantastic QB and played at elite level in 2003. Ditto with Eli who, while not yet an elite QB played at a very high level and still has a chance of becoming one. The game has changed. It's a passing league now. You can hope to get lucky with a Brad Johnson or Eli Manning (10% chance) but if you want to be a serious Super Bowl threat you need a QB who's elite. That means someone who has more than a 60% completion percentage. Fitz ain't that guy. And I'm tired of this "you need a defense" argument. It's a team game. Of course you need a defense. You can't make it very far without a good one and clearly the Bills are in need of one. But look at this past Super Bowl. Both had excellent defenses. Both defenses were totally outplayed by the opposing QB. The Packers don't win that game without Rodgers. The Steelers aren't even close at the end of that game without Big Ben. You're living in the past. Like the front office.

Are you really implying that Brady and Manning are only accurate passers because of the weapons they have? Do you REALLY want to make that argument? Think it through. Tom Brady, Manning, Brees and other elite QBs make their receivers better. Not the other way around. Brady is one of the more accurate passers in the league and he's done it without the benefit of a stable receiving corps. Look at how good Deon Branch was with Brady and how little he did without him. That's just one example of many. Accuracy is, in my opinion, one of -- if not THE -- most important quality in an NFL QB. It's something Fitz has never had. To say otherwise is just false. It's not the weapons. It's the QB. That's not to say that lines aren't important. They are. But it's far easier to find a pro-bowl caliber LT or DE than it is QB. That's just the way it is. Fitz is NOT an elite QB. Can he become one? Maybe. Anything is possible. Is it likely though? That's the question. ... re-read what I wrote. Doug Williams?

I know it's just your opinion -- but that's expecting a lot from a guy who's never hit 60% completion rate in his career. You cannot be an elite QB in this league with a sub 60% completion rate. It's getting to the point where you need to be closer to 65 than 60. While you don't need a football God -- you need an elite QB to win the Super Bowl. That hasn't just been a trend over the past decade, it's been a fact of life in the pass-happy NFL. And Fitz just isn't an elite QB.

I agree. Black is one of my favorite writers (and an inspiration for me when I got into the business). I LOVE KKBB and think that Black could do great things for the franchise. I really hope he writes it too but that hasn't been decided as of yet as far as I can tell. I kinda want to see this movie RIGHT NOW.

Discuss

The owners are using their pull with the networks to silence any sort of ads the Players can run. The media outlets are falling in line with the owners as well because that's where their bread is buttered. The mediation is nothing but PR for the owners. But good spin.

They want to grow the game by expanding to profitable cities like Jacksonville. No, in all seriousness, taking the owner's side for a (brief) moment: growing the game most likely includes the costs of the new palatial stadiums and the technology they're trying to implement to make fans want to leave the confines of their living rooms and actually COME to the games. Technology such as the hand held devices the Bills (and several other) teams tested last season. I forget their name. But they were cool. HDTV has increased TV ratings but if the owners keep raising ticket prices, concession prices, PSLs, parking prices etc, it is going to be tough to convince fans to go to the games when they can see the games better than ever -- and cheaper than ever -- in their living rooms. I think this has owners panicking. They're looking for ways to protect themselves from how over extended the big market clubs have become with their new palaces. I've mentioned this in other posts, but this reminds me A LOT of the stance the studios took in the most recent WGA strike in Hollywood a few years ago. The studios were terrified (rightfully so) of the internet and movie goers forgoing the "theater" experience and instead downloading or streaming their movies. They wanted to cut the writers out of the internet entirely and they used the excuse "no one can make money off the internet, so why do you need a cut of it" yet they refused to open the books to show that to be true. Because, of course, it wasn't true. Just my take of course.

If you read what I wrote, I specifically say that may not be how you are in reality -- but it's how your post is written (bitter that is).

Great post! Seriously, I love honest and intelligent discussion about this situation (and there has been plenty in this thread already). I should clarify though, I didn't mean to imply that the majority of owners inherited their wealth, but a large percentage (35% -- 11 out of 31 teams) have. Which was more in reference to the above poster's claim that the owners have suffered more than the players to get where they are -- which just isn't true. You're certainly correct that the NFL exists today because of the efforts of the league's original owners. The ones who took the risks (like Wilson and Davis) when the sport wasn't the money maker it became in the late 70s, early 80s. But the modern NFL, built off the backs of those owners, is a new entity that the owners don't really do much more than reap the rewards that others built for them. Owners like Kraft ('94) (who I'd also argue married into wealth rather than created his own ... though I'm biased there), Ross ('08), Biscotti ('04), McNair ('02), Lurie ('94), Snyder ('99), Wilf ('05), Blank ('04), Richardson ('93), Glazer ('95), Kroenke ('10), Allen ('97) bought their teams after the NFL was well established and profitable. There was virtually zero risk (in the grand scheme) to these owners when they moved into ownership as the NFL was already generating billions of dollars and revenue sharing and TV contracts assured a profit for the nation's most popular sport. So 12 out of the 19 on your list I'd argue didn't help build the league -- in fact their contributions, while important, I'd argue are less valuable than the players. It's reasonable (though unrealistic) to assume that if you swapped out any of those 12 with anyone else, the NFL would be in exactly the same position it's in right now financially. These men aren't mavericks. They are smart businessmen who recognized the modern NFL for what it is: a no risk enterprise.

It's amazing to me that someone who comes across as so bitter in his posts (which may not be the case in reality) is so willing to throw their lot in with the owners rather than labor. It's shocking really. You talk about the owners "building their empires" but don't factor in that a large percentage of the owners were born into the wealth that allowed them to buy the teams. Some weren't of course, but more players come from poverty and the "reality" you talk about than owners. The Arthur Blanks of the NFL are more of an exception than the rule. A large chunk of owners came from more wealth and privilege than 99% of the players CURRENTLY enjoy even with their million dollar contracts. The players are the reason the NFL is what it is. NOT the owners. The players are why you yourself are a fan. Without their talents (yes, they have talents that are worth millions of dollars -- talents that they work hard to hone and craft) the league isn't as profitable or popular. Without the players the owners, no matter how smart, inventive, or driven they are could not convince the networks to buy their product for 7 billion (with a b) dollars. The NFL is a virtual zero risk business. If you have the wealth to afford to purchase a team there's no way NOT to make money and be "successful". Even Weaver, who runs perhaps the least popular franchise, is raking it in hands over fist despite his poor business model and plan for the Jags. The players are the ones taking the larger risks -- risks to their very lives -- every snap. An NFL lineman with 10 years in the league has an average lifespan of 55-59 years. Yet the owners you are backing won't even agree to help cover their escalating health care costs. You shouldn't feel sorry for the players -- they choose to play the game. No one forces them. But as a fan it's their talents and abilities that make the game great. Not the owner. You could put ANYONE in the owner's box -- no matter how little they understand of the game OR business -- and they could turn a profit in the current NFL. Just look at Ralph ... okay, that was a low blow. Going for a joke there, it's early. It's really astounding to me how blind and bitter some people can be when it comes to this stuff.

Link?

Stop being logical and rational. DreReed doesn't speak that language.

Okay, logical reasoning and rational though are not your strong suits. So I'll type slow. Just remember to sound out the big words, don't be afraid to raise your hands with questions. An abacus can be found under your desk, don't be shy ... I promise thinking won't hurt as much as you think it might. As for your points: 1. Dropped balls are not an excuse for a poor completion percentage. If they were a legitimate excuse, then the stat heads would factor them into their equations for QB ratings and completion percentages much the same way a fielder's error is factored into a pitcher's ERA. But there are a number of additional reasons why you can't point to dropped balls as a (realistic) excuse for a QB's poor completion percentage. First, they happen all the time. Every QB who's ever played the game had balls dropped many times throughout the season. Even the most accurate passers in the game. So if you're saying Fitz's numbers would be higher if you factor in drops, you'd have to go back through and say the same for every other QB in the league which would adjust EVERYONE'S numbers and the league average, making it pretty much irrelevant. But since this was specifically in regards to Fitz, let's take a closer look -- stay with me now, I know it's tough. Your post stated that Fitz's poor completion percentage was blamed on Johnson dropping balls -- yet the Bills were in the middle of the pack when it comes to dropped balls. Other QBs with higher completion % had more dropped balls than Fitz. Which means if you factor in those drops for those QBs, then Fitz is still far less accurate in comparison to the top half of the league. Second, for the sake of argument let's say you can factor in dropped balls. Well then you'd have to also factor in the number of balls that are thrown that are off target yet caught anyway thanks to the skills of the receivers. These throws happen as frequently (if not more) than dropped passes. But how to you quantify those? It's a very slippery slope and, when all is said and done, a worthless exercise to pursue in order to justify someone's poor completion percentage. Again, think it through. Statistics, especially something like completion percentages, are about the big picture, not blips. Looking at percentages for one game and ignoring the entirety of a season doesn't get you much. Nor does looking at one season in relation to an entire career. Everyone can have a great day. Everyone can have a bad one. What counts is consistency. And that's really what we're talking about here. Since no QB in the history of the game has had WRs NOT drop passes, you can't just say "if they didn't happen his completion percentage would be X" ... it's just not intellectually honest. But then again, that's not your strong suit. 2. Again, you can look at Vick's numbers in one of two ways. Your way is to dismiss 7 years in the league where he was a sub 55%er and focusing just on one year. He certainly had a great year, no one can argue otherwise. But let's see him do it again. Remember the point above: statistics are about the big picture. And in the big picture, his career numbers are still 55.3%. Statistical blips happen -- in everything. Over an 8 year career he's been over 60% once (this past year), it also happened to be a contract year. That could mean nothing, it could mean everything. Thing is, no one will know until he does it again. And again. Even if he has another year with 62%, he's still a sub 60% career average ... that's why it's silly to take one year, one game, one drive and try to hold it up as anything more than a slice of a larger pie. Vick doesn't provide an answer to the question I posed in relation to Locker which was, name one QB that was sub 60% in college who made a 5%+ jump once he made it to the NFL. Vick doesn't count because his career stats are still 55%. He did it once. And it took him 7 years. Can Locker have one season in the NFL where he's above 60%? Sure. But according to the law of averages, my blind Uncle Joe could too if he played enough seasons. 3. We clearly are talking about two very different things here. Which, I fully admit is my fault. So let's clear it up: Washington is not an elite school in terms of wins and losses. However, Washington is an elite school in so far as they have excellent coaches and get high caliber players into their program. They also produce their fair share of NFL players each year. Are they the best team in the country? No. My reference to them being elite was to demonstrate that Locker has had the benefit of playing for some top coaches (specifically elite QB coaches with track records). The point of me saying that was not to debate the merits of Washington's championship pedigree but to point out that IF accuracy is as easy to teach as you claim (it's all just balance, footwork and mechanics, right?) then it would be fair to assume that a coach as accomplished as Sark would know how to teach it. After all, the man played the position professionally and has mentored his share of great college QBs. Yet, despite working with Sark, Locker's numbers didn't improve. Which means what? Well, it could mean that it's not as easy to teach as you claim. It could also mean that Locker doesn't have the work ethic or desire to learn it (which seems unlikely). In either case, what it does mean is that if he didn't bother to learn it or work on it in college, he probably won't be prone to suddenly decide to do it in the pros. Which, going waaaaaaay back to the original point, is why I said you're dreaming if you believe Locker is suddenly going to turn into a 60+%er once he turns pro. It just doesn't work that way. 4. Actually, I haven't misunderstood the accuracy thing. You haven't really addressed it. In fact, instead of engaging in an honest discussion about it, you resort to name calling and spastic bouts of drivel that are neither entertaining nor informative. As I said at the beginning, plenty of very smart people believe that accuracy cannot be taught (Steve Young, Jaws, Gruden, Bradshaw ...). And let's be honest, they know more about the game than both of us combined. And again, if it were so easy to teach or so easy to learn, why isn't the history of the league littered with stories of QBs suddenly "flipping a switch" and becoming more accurate overnight? You can't just ignore that fact. But it's not a definite. Like I said, there's no scientific study I can point to that shows you I'm right and your wrong. It's a matter of opinion. Yet, my opinion comes with a wealth of history and statistics to back it up. Yours comes with name calling. Which, come on, you can do better than the insults you've been spouting. Crack open a thesaurus, steal some punchlines from whatever CBS sitcom you're watching right now ... something, anything to make your posts more interesting.

But do you really like him at 3? If he's really their guy, that's cool -- but they HAVE to explore the possibility of a trade back. Even if the dude has a fantastic combine/pro day (which he probably will) I can't see him cracking the top 8.

Not that it matters, but I've played the game at a fairly high level. I've also been around the game on the coaching side for a good chunk of time as well. Accuracy can be improved slightly, but a lot of great players agree that it can't be taught. Ask Steve Young, Terry Bradshaw, Jaws, Gruden and countless others who've said the same thing. Fitz has a career accuracy rating below 60% which is sort of the Mendoza line in football. And dropped balls aren't an excuse. First, it's one game in a long season. Second, if you're going to factor in drops you have to factor in all the misplaced balls thrown that the WRs caught due to their abilities. Drops happen. Missed throws happen. Footwork can be taught. So can mechanics. But accuracy is innate. This isn't science, it's not like I can point to a study that shows this to be true. But many smart people with more experience than I believe this to be true. And if you think about it, it makes sense. Accuracy is one of, if not THE, most important trait in an NFL QB. If it were something that could be taught or improved to a large extent, you'd see it play out with more young QBs coming into the league. And say what you want, but Washington is an elite program. It's a DI Pac 10 school where the head coach made a name for himself playing QB at BYU, CFL and then working with QBs at USC (which, won several titles while he was there). So, it's fair to say if accuracy can be truly taught -- Steve would have found a way to work with Jake last year like he has throughout his career. Or, if you want to believe it can be taught then you'd have to assume Steve would know how to teach it and Locker either didn't care enough to listen or didn't want to. Either way, it seems like if Locker were going to improve his accuracy he would have done it. Or, he just doesn't work hard enough to. So, again, I think you're dreaming to assume that magically his accuracy is going to improve once he has millions in the bank as a first or second round draft pick. It just doesn't work that way. He's had a sub 60% completion percentage his entire career, in fact only once was he ever over 55% (last year). Expecting him to improve by 5% WHILE facing better defenses in the NFL is wishful thinking. Name one NFL QB who's made that big of a jump in completion percentage from college to the pros. Sorry, you're just wrong on every level here. But keep on calling people retarded. I'm sure it makes you feel awesome.

In numerous posts you say people can't be blinded by his physical skills. Then you say you can't be blinded by numbers because Leaf was a bust ... You say he has a low football IQ but yet you offer no proof of this other than "he never looks at more than one read" which has been proven to be totally false. Look, you don't like the guy. We get it. You have a hard on for the anti-Cam crowd. It's cool. The dude may be a bust. He may not. You don't know and until you provide some hard data you should just ease up on killing the people who like the dude. (For the record, I'm not an advocate of drafting Newton either, but speaking in absolutes about him right now is just setting yourself up to look like a fool.)

I've been called far worse ... but you're dreaming to think that Locker's accuracy issue is as simple as mechanics. First, accuracy, by in large, cannot be taught. I firmly believe that. You either have it or you don't. Which is why Fitz is a career sub 60%er. And why Locker will always be an inaccurate passer. Second, he plays for an elite college program and has had the benefit of some of the best coaches in the country for his career -- you think if there was a mechanical flaw, they would have worked on it with him. I'm sure they did. I'm sure they did especially when the wheels fell off this past season. Locker has shown he does not possess the NFL caliber accuracy that a starting QB needs. While he can certainly improve it to some extent -- it will always be an issue with him. To think otherwise is dreaming.

If you can't go by college numbers, and you can't go by his physical skills, what CAN you go by? You seem to be ruling out everything in the "pro" column and saying they don't translate while everything in your "con" column does? You can't have it both ways.