Edwards, Flutie, Fitzpatrick, Bledsoe

[tennesseeboy]

@Billsfreak:

 

I realize that it's fashionable to defend the Little Engine that Couldn't, but touting Flutie's success in a significantly inferior league and his NFL rushing stats (which are about as important to me as his stock portfolio when it comes to playing QB) doesn't make me warm and fuzzy about his career. Typically, QBs are supposed to throw the ball. I, along with 100% of NFL head coaches, prefer if the running backs run the ball. And in regard to throwing the ball, I'll take the guy with multiple 4,000 yard, 30 TD pass seasons over a guy who's best season-long output is almost identical to the 2006 passing numbers of JP Losman (go ahead and check that one out for yourself) and has a career QB rating slightly better than that of Kordell Stewart.

 

You can tell me I'm wrong all you want, but "winning" in the NFL means winning the Superbowl. Unarguably, Bledsoe was more successful towards that goal (since: No. 1, he led NE to a Superbowl berth in 1995, and No. 2, he put the winning points on the board in the 2001 AFC Championship game). Flutie's only playoff experience ended with him fumbling the game away. Also, it's pretty telling that Flutie's only NFL success came in Buffalo, where he benefitted from the team having the #3 defense in the NFL in 1999 and the #1 defense in the NFL in 2000, don't you think?

 

While we're at it, what exactly qualifies Buffalo's as the worst offensive line in football? You may choose to check some stats (you may want to wait until Tuesday when the NFL updates them for week 9), as there are several teams with far worse offensive lines in terms of pass protection (i.e. sacks given up) and yards-per-rushing attempt.

 

So while I appreciate that you believe that I'm "a whole universe off", as far as the facts go you're actually 100% wrong. Unless, of course, losing in the first round of the playoffs is the goal. If so, go ahead and take Flutie; I'll take Bledsoe.

Wow..I always thought of winning in the NFL as that thing where the gun goes off and you have more points on the scoreboar than the other team. Flutie wins that race. This fellow has done an analysis of every nfl qb since 1950, and I assume h did not include CFL games in the sum...http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1808 Flutie ranks considerably higher than Bledsoe. Actually note that the highest ranking of former Bills qb's is Daryle LaMonica over Jim kelly. On his behalf the Mad Bomber did win a superbowl with the raiders.

[tennesseeboy]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1808

[scribo]

Flutie forever.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

with this coach, FO, line, and team? 3 weeks for each then on to the next because QB is "the problem". Riiiight...

[ajzepp]

Right, because it's not like Bledsoe led NE to the 1995 AFC Championship, or played in the Superbowl, or came in during the 2001 AFC Championship game in relief of an injured Tom Brady and put the winning points on the board.

 

Sorry, but out of that group it's Bledsoe, and it's not even close. HE is the only winner of those guys, as evidenced by his record, level of passing success, number of playoff appearances, and number of Superbowl appearances.

 

I don't even like Flutie, but he's a winner. Can't dispute that.

 

Besides, Bledsoe is the only one whose last name has the letters that make the word "lose".

[thebandit27]

You are obviously someone who won't hear that you are wrong, even though you are. I only said you were off in saying that Flutie wasn't a winner-numbers prove otherwise. Also, I don't believe Bledsoe ever played in a Superbowl that his team won, much less started in one. The question was which one would you want with this team, and if you don't think the ability to run with a line like this is important, you have yet to watch your first Bills game. If Bledsoe had half of Fluties ability to move around, he would have taken Buffalo to the playoffs at least once (which Flutie did, twice). Like I said, I like Bledsoe, and wish the Bills had him sooner, but comparing their time in Buffalo, the winning and team successes aren't even close. You say Fluties QB rating is only slightly better than Kordell Stewart, Bledsoes was only slightly better than Fluties was 77.1 to 76.3, so Bledsoes wasn't much higher than Kordell Stewarts was either. Besides, if taking a team to a Superbowl is the basis of judging a winner, Kordell Stewart took his team to as many Superbowl appearances as Bledsoe did.

 

First off, you don't know me, so you'd be better served simply responding to the point at hand, rather than trying to psycho-analyze my response.

 

Next, here are a few points you should consider:

 

- If you don't believe that winning the Superbowl is the goal of every team, your seriously mistaken. That said, getting to the Superbowl is actually pretty important if you intend to win it. Ergo, I'd rather have a QB that can get me there than one that loses in the first playoff game, make sense?

 

- I don't care one red nickel whether or not my QB can run for a lot of yards. Rushing yards are not an indicator of great QB play. The QB simply needs to be able to avoid the rush. Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, these guys are capable of avoiding a pass rush, but they don't run for a lot of yards. Rushing yards don't mean squat for a QB. I understand that Bledsoe wasn't very mobile, a mobile QB isn't the answer on this team. The answer, IMO, is a guy that can accurately hit a WR on a 3-step drop, even if he doesn't have a 10-yard cushion. I've been to every home game that Edwards has started (and every home game for the previous 22 years, but that's not important in this discussion), and every game you see WRs open consistently. On many plays, he's got plenty of time to hit them too, he just doesn't get it done. What I'm saying is this: give me the accurate, quick-release passer that can get the ball into the receivers hands. Bledsoe was better at that than Flutie, and he got closer to a Superbowl title than Flutie ever did.

 

- I'm pretty sure that your analysis of the two players should probably cover more than the two players' time in Buffalo, although I can understand why you chose to compare only that time period, since it's a little bit better for your case that Flutie would be a better option (but still misguided, in my opinion). Again, there's a reason why Flutie was replaced as a starter everywhere he went, and never stayed with a team for more than 3 seasons (except in the CFL).

 

- You can blame mobility on Bledsoe's Bills missing the playoffs if you want to, but I think blaming a defense that failed to stop Pittsburgh's 3rd stringers (which subsequently cost Buffalo a playoff berth in 1994), after the team went on a 5-game winning streak to get to 9-6, would be more appropriate.

 

Lastly, let's take this down to the most basic level here. Go ahead and click the links, and then be honest with yourself when I ask you, which one would you rather have?

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BledDr00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlutDo00.htm

 

How is this even a discussion?

[thebandit27]

I don't even like Flutie, but he's a winner. Can't dispute that.

 

Besides, Bledsoe is the only one whose last name has the letters that make the word "lose".

 

I haven't liked a Bills' QB since Kelly. Except for Losman, but that's only because I knew him off the field (not well, but I met him on several occasions) and he was a good guy. He just wasn't a good QB.

 

And yeah, Flutie was a winner...in the CFL. In the NFL, he was an average player that benefitted from a great defense in Buffalo that helped him to the playoffs, where he didn't get the job done.

[billsfreak]

First off, you don't know me, so you'd be better served simply responding to the point at hand, rather than trying to psycho-analyze my response.

 

Next, here are a few points you should consider:

 

- If you don't believe that winning the Superbowl is the goal of every team, your seriously mistaken. That said, getting to the Superbowl is actually pretty important if you intend to win it. Ergo, I'd rather have a QB that can get me there than one that loses in the first playoff game, make sense?

 

- I don't care one red nickel whether or not my QB can run for a lot of yards. Rushing yards are not an indicator of great QB play. The QB simply needs to be able to avoid the rush. Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, these guys are capable of avoiding a pass rush, but they don't run for a lot of yards. Rushing yards don't mean squat for a QB. I understand that Bledsoe wasn't very mobile, a mobile QB isn't the answer on this team. The answer, IMO, is a guy that can accurately hit a WR on a 3-step drop, even if he doesn't have a 10-yard cushion. I've been to every home game that Edwards has started (and every home game for the previous 22 years, but that's not important in this discussion), and every game you see WRs open consistently. On many plays, he's got plenty of time to hit them too, he just doesn't get it done. What I'm saying is this: give me the accurate, quick-release passer that can get the ball into the receivers hands. Bledsoe was better at that than Flutie, and he got closer to a Superbowl title than Flutie ever did.

 

- I'm pretty sure that your analysis of the two players should probably cover more than the two players' time in Buffalo, although I can understand why you chose to compare only that time period, since it's a little bit better for your case that Flutie would be a better option (but still misguided, in my opinion). Again, there's a reason why Flutie was replaced as a starter everywhere he went, and never stayed with a team for more than 3 seasons (except in the CFL).

 

- You can blame mobility on Bledsoe's Bills missing the playoffs if you want to, but I think blaming a defense that failed to stop Pittsburgh's 3rd stringers (which subsequently cost Buffalo a playoff berth in 1994), after the team went on a 5-game winning streak to get to 9-6, would be more appropriate.

 

Lastly, let's take this down to the most basic level here. Go ahead and click the links, and then be honest with yourself when I ask you, which one would you rather have?

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BledDr00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlutDo00.htm

 

How is this even a discussion?

I never said winning the Superbowl wasn't every teams goal, so why do you keep bringing it up, especially when none of the players in this discussion have every played and won one. Dude, admit your wrong, we all have to do it from time to time and we get over it. Not that big of a deal. You must be an only child.

[Rico]

First off, you don't know me, so you'd be better served simply responding to the point at hand, rather than trying to psycho-analyze my response.

 

Next, here are a few points you should consider:

 

- If you don't believe that winning the Superbowl is the goal of every team, your seriously mistaken. That said, getting to the Superbowl is actually pretty important if you intend to win it. Ergo, I'd rather have a QB that can get me there than one that loses in the first playoff game, make sense?

 

- I don't care one red nickel whether or not my QB can run for a lot of yards. Rushing yards are not an indicator of great QB play. The QB simply needs to be able to avoid the rush. Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, these guys are capable of avoiding a pass rush, but they don't run for a lot of yards. Rushing yards don't mean squat for a QB. I understand that Bledsoe wasn't very mobile, a mobile QB isn't the answer on this team. The answer, IMO, is a guy that can accurately hit a WR on a 3-step drop, even if he doesn't have a 10-yard cushion. I've been to every home game that Edwards has started (and every home game for the previous 22 years, but that's not important in this discussion), and every game you see WRs open consistently. On many plays, he's got plenty of time to hit them too, he just doesn't get it done. What I'm saying is this: give me the accurate, quick-release passer that can get the ball into the receivers hands. Bledsoe was better at that than Flutie, and he got closer to a Superbowl title than Flutie ever did.

 

- I'm pretty sure that your analysis of the two players should probably cover more than the two players' time in Buffalo, although I can understand why you chose to compare only that time period, since it's a little bit better for your case that Flutie would be a better option (but still misguided, in my opinion). Again, there's a reason why Flutie was replaced as a starter everywhere he went, and never stayed with a team for more than 3 seasons (except in the CFL).

 

- You can blame mobility on Bledsoe's Bills missing the playoffs if you want to, but I think blaming a defense that failed to stop Pittsburgh's 3rd stringers (which subsequently cost Buffalo a playoff berth in 1994), after the team went on a 5-game winning streak to get to 9-6, would be more appropriate.

 

Lastly, let's take this down to the most basic level here. Go ahead and click the links, and then be honest with yourself when I ask you, which one would you rather have?

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BledDr00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlutDo00.htm

 

How is this even a discussion?

I'd take Flutie the winner, not the brain dead loser. Were you also in a coma from November 2002 thru January 2005?

[thebandit27]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1808

 

That is an interesting approach, but it's hardly objective. From the looks of things, it doesn't take into account several very important factors, like:

 

- QB turnovers that result in scores or put the opponent in position to score

- Lack of offensive productivity that leaves the defense on the field for a long time

- Scoring by the QB's defense, for which he wouldn't be responsible

 

And probably some others as well.

 

Simply put, the only appropriate barometer for winning is the final score. The NFL doesn't award wins in the fashion described in the analysis, and so any attempted normalization of the stats is going to be convoluted.

 

That said, it's still a fun read.

[thebandit27]

I never said winning the Superbowl wasn't every teams goal, so why do you keep bringing it up, especially when none of the players in this discussion have every played and won one. Dude, admit your wrong, we all have to do it from time to time and we get over it. Not that big of a deal. You must be an only child.

 

I'm sure you're very good at what you do for a living, so stick to it, because your human analytical skills leave much to be desired. Unlesss, of course, you really are a psychologist, in which case you may choose to re-evaluate your situation, but hey, that's your call. Just some friendly advice from a guy that can confidently say that you are not good at reading people--at least not in this forum.

 

As a side note, I regularly admit that I'm wrong, but I only do so when I feel I actually am. Ask my better half, she'll tell you how often I'm wrong.

 

You said that Flutie is a "winner". I said that no, he was not, because a "winner" would win in the playoffs, hence the term "winner". Bledsoe won in the playoffs; got to a Superbowl even. Ok, so they lost to Favre's Packers. I'd rather have a chance at the Superbowl than lose in the first round of the playoffs.

 

I bring up the Superbowl because that IS the goal. You appear to understand that, yet you don't place a premium on getting there. Although it would be nice, the NFL doesn't award Superbowls for great play in the CFL or losing in the first round of the playoffs. Bledsoe was more successful than Flutie in the playoffs. That's why I bring it up.

 

Bledsoe got NE to a Superbowl.

Flutie got no one to a Superbowl.

 

I'll take the guy that can get a team to the Superbowl. Got it?

[thebandit27]

I'd take Flutie the winner, not the brain dead loser. Were you also in a coma from November 2002 thru January 2005?

 

Cute.

 

Again, I'll take the Superbowl caliber QB.

 

Still can't find anyone that can argue with that logic, other than to ask a question like yours...great work.

[2003Contenders]

Can we go with none of the above?

 

1. If the OL was in good shape, I would go with Bledsoe. In its current state, however, Bledose would have no chance behind it.

 

2. For all you Flutie fanatics, go back and watch game film from that 1999 season. The Bills won a lot of games 13-10 back then because the defense was so good and he would make that one big play to help get the "W". I suppose he would have the best chance for survival behind our existing OL.

 

3. Edwards already has suffered 2 major concussions. Even if you think that he may eventually develop into a credible NFL starter, you also have to realize that he may be one more hard hit away from retirement.

 

4. Fitz is a decent backup, plain and simple. BTW, Losman proved last year that he wasn't even capable of playing that role.

[rstencel]

If the Bills had all 4 of these guys on the team right now...who would you start?

Honestly, I can't imagine Flutie would do any worse than what we have.

And Bledsoe could certainly throw the deep ball to Evans/Owens.

 

In their prime, or at times the Bills had them?

 

If in prime, would take Blesdo.

 

If at time the Bills had them, would probably stick with Edwards, as at least he is young enough to possibly improve.

 

Wouldn't want Flutie at all, we have enough ego with TO, don't need an even bigger one.

 

Fitz doesn't have the talent to be more than a backup in my opinion.

[reddogblitz]

Flutie

[rstencel]

I never said winning the Superbowl wasn't every teams goal, so why do you keep bringing it up, especially when none of the players in this discussion have every played and won one. Dude, admit your wrong, we all have to do it from time to time and we get over it. Not that big of a deal. You must be an only child.

 

I have to agree with him. Flutie did manage to win games, but he was not a great QB. He was on a great overall team, and his biggest strength was that he didn't loose games for them. However he also was a big part of the struggles the team had, due to his ego, and because he came in agreeing to be backup, but before the first season on team even started was lobbying to be the starter, and had the players split on who they wanted. The teams with him on it, made the bickering Bills sagas look tame. The man thought he was the next coming and was not a team player. Can imaging any of our receivers being happy with Doug as our QB. He didn't have the support of the receivers on the team at the time he played even. At Least when Pats had him, they were smart enough to cut him, before he destroyed their team chemistry.

 

While Blesdo had a slow release, and had flaws, he was a much better pure QB. He did win in the playoffs, which is more than Flutie ever did. He was a pro bowl level talent in his prime who could pick apart any defense if given time in the pocket. He could complete a high percentage of passes, while still stretching the field deep. He would struggle with the current line most likely however. But with him, we would have a better team in the long run, once the line play improves at least.

[Flbillsfan#1]

As long as we are including retired Bills my choice as starter would be Jim Kelly.

[rstencel]

As long as we are including retired Bills my choice as starter would be Jim Kelly.

 

Daryle Lamonica wouldn't be a bad choice either. Mad bomber would have a field day with our receivers.

[gsurdam]

FLUTIE... Without any second thought or hesitation !!!

[Guest dog14787]

Losman

 

 

Yup, JP Losman could be a slippery little weasel if you used him correctly and considering his long ball and strong arm, Losman could out perform all of them behind our O-line.