34-78-83 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 Since I didn't really see Kemp, I can't go there. Ferguson, however, was a long-term QB who shouldn't have been a franchise QB. If it weren't for OJ and the Electric Co, Ferguson would have been a career loser. Oh wait - he was. He could not lead the team to victories, despite the best back and one of the best lines in football... Flutie took a team with a makeshift line and a good defense which were losers in the hands of Rob Johnson and led them to the playoffs 2 years in a row. Yes, football is a team game, but without a LEADER at QB, your team is going no where. The reason I say leader is that talent isn't everything, some of the best QB's in NFL history were great because of leadership, not ability - perfect examples - Joe Montana, Joe Namath, Roger Staubach, Terry Bradshaw . For people who say that QB's winning record is meaningless, don't truly understand the game. Good leaders make the players around them play better. You can't create the intangibles - some guys are just winners and it affects everyone around them. Most stats are meaningless - W-L record is not. Trent Dilfer says thanks! Dan Fouts is flipping you the bird... Wins is just as spinnable and meaningless as all the other stats. Football is a team game and wins come from a combination of players performing their jobs better than the players on the other team.
thebandit27 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 You forget about Flutie's 8 seasons in the CFL during his prime years. He was 104-38 as a starter with 41,355 yards passing, 270 TD vs 155 Ints, a 61.4% completion %, 3 Grey Cup Championships along with 6 MOP awards. No, I don't forget about his years in the CFL. The CFL is not the NFL. In fact, it's not even close. In any given year, I'd venture to say that there might be one or two players from the CFL that could earn meaningful playing time on an NFL roster. Thus, I did not include it, because you're talking about two completely different games, with different rules, different teams, and a far, far different level of competition. Based on his NFL playing time, I was right not to include it, since his performance against NFL competition was nowhere near what it was against the sub-standard competition of the CFL.
transient Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 Quite honestly, Flutie belongs in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame. Although the CFL is a slightly different game, it is still pro-football. And his time there speaks for itself. In the case of a player like Warren Moon, where his numbers were equally impressive in both leagues, I could agree with you. In the case of Flutie, I do not. I'm sure there are a lot of players with impressive CFL numbers who never played in the NFL. By your logic they should be in the HOF as well.
thebandit27 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 In the case of a player like Warren Moon, where his numbers were equally impressive in both leagues, I could agree with you. In the case of Flutie, I do not. I'm sure there are a lot of players with impressive CFL numbers who never played in the NFL. By your logic they should be in the HOF as well. You beat me to the Warren Moon point, exactly what I was thinking. Moon actually proved that he belonged in the NFL by performing very well over the long term. Flutie did not.
Coach55 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 In the case of a player like Warren Moon, where his numbers were equally impressive in both leagues, I could agree with you. In the case of Flutie, I do not. I'm sure there are a lot of players with impressive CFL numbers who never played in the NFL. By your logic they should be in the HOF as well. Fair point.
trock12 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 And who cares about fact when you have a crusade to further, right? It all comes down to one question: should Flutie have started the Titan's playoff game? Do the Flutie haters honestly believe starting Rob Johnson was the right choice?
mike oxhurtz Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 It's funny that no one even mentions Reed's childish antics. So the Bills go from 1st and goal at goaline in which they would have had 4 tries to make it less than a yard into the endzone, instead they get backed up to the 15 yard line and have to setlle for a FG, good job Reed None of the Flutie haters want to acknowledge this or Moulds fumble that would have been a TD. So out of 2 possible TD's, the Bills ended up with 3 points. If Moulds ran full speed and secured the ball, the score of the game goes from 24-17 to 24-24. If Reed doesn't throw his hissy fit and hit the ref with the ball, the Bills had 4 tries to punch it in from less than a yard to go. With that TD (instead of a FG) the score would have been 24-28. Even with the Moulds fumble, if Reed didn't hit the ref and the Bills got the TD, the score would have been 24-21 and the Bills could have kicked a FG to send it to OT. Either way, Moulds & Reed should share the blame for the Miami loss.
Booster4324 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 Say what you want about Rob Johnson but the guy took a beating- some of it his own fault like Trent Edwards. He WAS a tough QB- sorry he wasn't born in PA. Flutie gotted screwed by Ralph in 1999 vs the Titans but RJ left the field with the lead. BTW, the "falling on a football" quote is just stupid. It happens- it's football. It's a legit injury-like when you roll over on the couch and the remote gets stuck in your fat gut. Funny you should mention that, been dieting for about six months. I just hit my target weight of 170, that personal attack might have offended me before. Well no, not really I hang out in PPP. RJ was injured a ton of times. In what world does being injured repeatedly equate to toughness? Did he bear the pain well? An admirable trait, yet not terribly useful in the NFL if he isn't able to actually play. We were winning when he left the field, which is more than you can say about Doug Flutie's playoff day. This comment proves my point. People make excuses for Flutie. He never lost a game, the rest of the Bills team let him down. PTR Rob Johnson was ten of twenty-two for a hundred and thirty one yards yards. Those paltry statistics add up to a 64.8 QB rating. He was sacked six times and lost thirty-five yards. If you count each sack as an attempt and subtract the sack yardage from his totals, his QB rating plummets to 46.13. Rob Johnson contributed nothing to that game. He was a detriment. The team almost won despite him. Does this argument sound familiar to you? Guess you didn't notice we had a patchwork O-line that would've made any O-line we've fielded since then look like a bunch of all-Pros Thanks, that is the argument for starting Flutie. Which side of this argument are you on again? Bull !!!!!! Stiffer comp my !!! he was a reject just look at his career achievements & compare them to Fluties come on put some glasses on so you can read the righting on the wall right in front of you !!!!! The winning percentage of the teams Rob Johnson faced was better than that of the teams Flutie faced. Rob was still a worse option than Flutie.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 The winning percentage of the teams Rob Johnson faced was better than that of the teams Flutie faced. Rob was still a worse option than Flutie. Not at the end of 1999 he wasn't. Flutie couldn't complete a pass over 10 yards by that point. They were all dead ducks. It's amazing the Svengali-like hold the mighty midget still has over people.
transient Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 It all comes down to one question: should Flutie have started the Titan's playoff game? Do the Flutie haters honestly believe starting Rob Johnson was the right choice? The Titans defense gave up an average of 16 ppg that season, and they were playing their best football heading into the playoffs. Ultimately, they held the greatest show on turf to 1 TD until Warner completed the 73 yard game winning TD in the final minutes. Flutie was playing statistically the worst football of his Bills career at the time. Regardless of whether or not it was the right choice to start Johnson, thinking that if we had started Flutie we would have miraculously lit up that defense doesn't make sense. The outcome likely would have been the same, a defensive battle between two defensive minded teams. Regardless of his horrid numbers, Johnson led the team down the field with one shoe on to set up what should have been a game winning FG. If it had been Flutie who had done that in the waning seconds after having an atrocious day against a very good defense, and then the kick coverage put on one of the most embarrassing displays in NFL history, would you feel justified that he had done all he could to win the game, or would you vilify him for his statistics?
Bronc24 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 I suppose, statistics aside, it comes down to this. When a QB stepped into the huddle, which one would I have most confidence in: Flutie or Johnson? To me, it is not even close. Flutie in a landslide.
mike oxhurtz Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 The Titans defense gave up an average of 16 ppg that season, and they were playing their best football heading into the playoffs. Ultimately, they held the greatest show on turf to 1 TD until Warner completed the 73 yard game winning TD in the final minutes. Flutie was playing statistically the worst football of his Bills career at the time. Regardless of whether or not it was the right choice to start Johnson, thinking that if we had started Flutie we would have miraculously lit up that defense doesn't make sense. The outcome likely would have been the same, a defensive battle between two defensive minded teams. Regardless of his horrid numbers, Johnson led the team down the field with one shoe on to set up what should have been a game winning FG. If it had been Flutie who had done that in the waning seconds after having an atrocious day against a very good defense, and then the kick coverage put on one of the most embarrassing displays in NFL history, would you feel justified that he had done all he could to win the game, or would you vilify him for his statistics? Wade Phillips' quote from the Top 10 quarterback controveries: "In hindsight, Doug would have won us the game." That's coming from the coach that pulled Flutie for Johnson.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 An RJ versus Flutie debate is EXACTLY what this board needed to re-energize it right about now. Good stuff!
Beerball Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 I will not get sucked into this debate again. flutie sucked when he was benched dead arm? defenses ready for him? some combination? I don't know the answers to those questions, but it was irrefutable that he was done.
Booster4324 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 I will not get sucked into this debate again. flutie sucked when he was benched dead arm? defenses ready for him? some combination? I don't know the answers to those questions, but it was irrefutable that he was done. And yet here you are. Face it, RJ sucked worse than Flutie. It really is that simple.
Beerball Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 And yet here you are. Face it, RJ sucked worse than Flutie. It really is that simple. It is now, but at the time that wasn't established. With Johnson (as stupid as it sounds today) you had a chance. With Flutie, none. NOW LEAVE ME OUT OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
transient Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 Wade Phillips' quote from the Top 10 quarterback controveries: "In hindsight, Doug would have won us the game." That's coming from the coach that pulled Flutie for Johnson. So, the definitive word comes from a coach who is doubting his own decision? If this genius was a such a fortune teller, did he then go with the wrong QB on purpose? There is no logic in this. My point was that offensively we were just as likely to struggle with either QB given the quality of the defense we were facing. Assuring the world we would have won if Flutie would have played because the son of Bum says it's so is... foolish.
Jerry Jabber Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 The only stat that matters is in the Win/Loss column. Flutie was 21-10, Johnson was 8-18.
Jerry Jabber Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 So, the definitive word comes from a coach who is doubting his own decision? If this genius was a such a fortune teller, did he then go with the wrong QB on purpose? There is no logic in this. My point was that offensively we were just as likely to struggle with either QB given the quality of the defense we were facing. Assuring the world we would have won if Flutie would have played because the son of Bum says it's so is... foolish. It was the wrong decision at the wrong time. If Flutie was struggling so bad and Phillips wanted a bigger spark on offense, he should have made the QB switch no later than week 10 and not wait until the playoffs to do so. In the first half of the game vs the Titans, there were a ton of false start penalties due to the O-line not being used to Johnson's signal calls. The false start penalties backed up the Bills deep into their own endzone and ultimately, Robosack was sacked for a safety. Robosack played good on the final drive of the game and that's it, he sucked the rest of the game. With boneheaded decisions like that, that's why Phillips has bounced around the league and has never made it deep into the playoffs.
Recommended Posts