Fan in Chicago

I don't fully disagree with you. I saw him throwing two INTs (albeit only was was entirely on him) and being largely ineffective for most of the second half. My intent was to say that any half way competent QB would have had the same performance while supported by the effective run game and vicious D. There is nothing special about what BR did in this game.

Define 'quarterbacking' . I choose to disagree with your assertion that Big Ben did a good job. Yes, he converted a critical third down to seal the game but he was not very good throughout the game. It was the Steelers D and Mendenhall's running that won them the game.

Let us not count chickens before they are hatched. Easley has done squat in the NFL so far. We will have time next off-season to assess the WR situation if indeed Easley turns out to be a good WR. As of now, way too many 'ifs'.

Right. If we are going to lament those we let go, my vote goes for Dick LeBeau and not the likes of Jonathan Scott

Bears fans to this day cringe at the sentence "all the pieces are in place" (for a Superbowl run) prior to the 7-9 season in 1996

Or HC

This is great news. Not only do we have a good defensive mind on the pay roll but should Edwards' schemes continue to blow even after adding D talent, we have the Stache to take over. Nice move, FO. Solid, solid all the way.

We already have one hypothetical DE in Maybin. Why do we need another ?

I am going to vote for none of the above simply because I would like the OL get some attention in the first 3 rounds. Draft C does but at the expense of LBs. If the first 4 rounds net us 2xOL, 2xLB and DE/DT then I will be thrilled.

I dont mind nasty players but I do mind dirty players. Their style of play can cause penalties at the most inopportune time and can make a difference between winning and losing. I also do not want to take a risk by assuming that a known 'dirty' player from college can scale back that temperament in the pros. Not implying Fairley is all that but if he is, I don't want him.

You know, you really should feel shame

Frankly, it was a trick question to see how many seriously believe Evans is out of gas with the Bills and needs a change of scenery. Trading within the division and esp to the Pats* would say a lot. I would not do the trade unless we use that pick for a superstar CB to shut Evans down :-) (Ok, I kid with that last sentence). Given that you like Mallett, would you make that trade ? I think that if Nix is not sold on Mallett, he would make that deal.

For the Pats* to move up to grab Green, they will have to give up a lot by value chart. I would not cut them a deal. Now let me ask you something in reverse - if the Pats* offered their first or second for Evans, would you trade him ?

Not me. Technically, I wasn't rooting, rooting for either team but was hoping the Pats* would lose (does that mean I was rooting for the Jets ?). I just could not stand seeing the Pats* in the AFC championship game or the Superbowl. And also, I admire the Steelers organization so will be rooting for them to crush the Jets. On the other side, I really want my office mates to sulk on the 24th so wish for a Packers victory (another organization I like just as I do the Steelers')

A-friggin'-men.

First slugfest of the year is on and as usual is a good one so far. I am watching this game but have to bail and take the little lady out for dinner and drinks with friends - none of them football fans

Whether #9 was too high for a RT is debatable. Depends on what you think would have contributed best to the Bills long term success. Considering how little talent we have on the lines, I would have erred on the side of a tackle instead of a RB but we will see. As for trade down, there is no way for us to know - one way or another if there was a willing dance partner. So while it is fun to speculate, it is wrong to bash the FO with such little solid information.

Okay, you got me on the turnover versus INT stat. Now for your other 'points'. You say that others are bashing you without specific data. And I say you are pulling specific stats only to bolster your case. No matter which stat you pull out and what your subjective opinion on his performance in the last 9 games is (as in your next post), the fact is that he stabilized the QB position by presenting a clear picture of his strengths and weaknesses. He has made that unknown go away. Most all on this board acknowledge that he is NOT a franchise QB. But he has made that position a less critical need than LB, RT, RG. And that is my point. I repeat now - what is yours besides Fitz sucks ? Do you want us to trade away the farm for someones current starting QB ? Do you want us to tank next season to get Luck in 2012 ? Where are you going with this insanely long thread of yours?

Holy crap, you just won't give up will you ? Why on earth will you choose the last 9 games ? And FWIW, Fitz threw 15 INTs the entire season. So you are wrong there also. This thread is getting moronic cos I have no idea what you really want happening. I get it that you think Fitz sucks and will dig up any stat to prove your point. The sad part is I keep responding and humoring you.

That is great, sphere-o-beer. More proof that we will draft # 1 in 2012 and get Luck.

Two from British Folk rock genre... Sandy Denny of Fairport Convention, example: Maddy Prior, individual songs and with Steeleye Span. Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZzmPbzwZ1o&feature=related

Guess I can't carry off sarcasm very well.

Let me state some facts: 1. Fitz threw for 23 TDs this season which was his best. 23<24 2. If Fitz had started all 16 games, he would have had a prorate 28 TDs HOWEVER he could have played those three games as he did the Pats* second game. Which means he would have thrown for zero TDs in those three games even if he started. So his total for the season would have been 23+0 =23. Again, 23<24 We all know Bledsoe sucked so Fitz sucks more. Sorry.

While I think the OP is scraping the data to prove a point, I decided to do the same to see if there is any evidence of Lee Evans on Fitz and Stevie Johnson's performance. Here is what I calculate: Fitz Comp/Att Comp % Yards/gm TD/gm int/gm td/int Games 3-12 (with Fitz & Lee starting) 207/355 58.3 238 2 1.1 1.8 Games 13-15(Fitz starting, Evans out) 48/86 55.8 205 1 1.3 0.75 Steve Johnson Catches/gm Yards/gm TD/gm Games 3-12 5.5 76 0.9 Games 13-15 5.3 56 0.3 We also lost starters on the right side of the line which was a horror show anyway. Here is my point - the team is overall so bereft of talent that loss of starters can significantly affect performance. We dont have good starters, let alone depth. Both Fitz and Johnson performed worse in games 13-15. I realize that I cannot dig up just one change (Evans' injury) to prove a point. But that is just what the OP is doing - selecting stats to make his pre-conceived point that Fitz sucks. I think that Fitz did the best he could given the woeful right side, developing WRs (Johnson, Jones, Nelson) and absence of a real pass catching TE. He has earned the right to stay the starter next season and reap the benefits of upgraded talent (hopefully).

First of all a qualification - I do not follow college ball. What I understand about Fairley is that he is a talented, fast and hard hitting player but tends towards dirty hits. I am all for putting aggressiveness and fire in our DL but I don't want a stupid player. With the NFL protecting QBs like babies, Fairley's approach towards hitting may result in penalties and fines which can be counter-productive. Can you coach such a player to be 'careful' with his hits ? I am not so sure. Particularly because taking the edge off may result in loss of production. My guess is that if Fairley is available, we will pass on him because the current regime does not strike me as one to take a chance on risky players. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/la-sp-0108-nick-fairley-bcs-20110108,0,3734360.column