Booster4324 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 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!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think Flutie with a weeks rest, comes in, and we make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs at least. Not because he was magical, blessed, Just Wins, or whatever bull **** people spew. We win because he was not Rob Johnson.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 I think Flutie with a weeks rest, comes in, and we make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs at least. Not because he was magical, blessed, Just Wins, or whatever bull **** people spew. We win because he was not Rob Johnson. We won with Rob Johnson until the ST decided not to stay in their lanes. Nice revisionist history.
Booster4324 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 We won with Rob Johnson until the ST decided not to stay in their lanes. Nice revisionist history. What was the final score again?
Beerball Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 What was the final score again? doug flutie would not have won that game NOW LEAVE ME OUT OF THIS
Trader Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 Flutie was only good if teams couldn't gameplan for him. Once teams had film on him from a few games he was terrible. As soon as he was forced to be a pocket passer he couldn't do anything. Having said that it doesn't follow from what I was saying he was a wrose option than Johnson and I really don't want to re-open that debate. You have a good point in terms of game planning. I think Flutie would have been a great number 2 QB if he would have accepted that role. He would also have been outstanding out of the wildcat formation. He was a really good all around athlete. It would have been great to see him ten years later than he played.
Jerry Jabber Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 doug flutie would not have won that game NOW LEAVE ME OUT OF THIS Ask Wade Phillips that question now: "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." 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.
transient Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 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. The thing is, I'm not arguing that it was the right or wrong decision. I take issue with the assertion that the outcome would have been different. It may have been, it may not have been. If it was such a given that we would have won with Flutie, he would have played. No one can argue about what would have happened with Johnson, cuz it happened. He played atrocious, but he put them in a position to win at the end of the game. Asserting that Flutie would have played much better is speculation at best, and I personally feel more akin to fantasy, given the defense he was facing and his level of play leading up to that game.
Booster4324 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 doug flutie would not have won that game NOW LEAVE ME OUT OF THIS Ahh, but see we know what happens when Rob Johnson started. With the pathetic performance he displayed, you really do not think a rested Flutie wouldn't have been marginally better?
transient Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 doug flutie would not have won that game NOW LEAVE ME OUT OF THIS Beerball, didn't you recently have problems with your head? You should probably refrain from slamming it against a wall so much over something so pointless as a neverending crusade against reason.
Jerry Jabber Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 The thing is, I'm not arguing that it was the right or wrong decision. I take issue with the assertion that the outcome would have been different. It may have been, it may not have been. If it was such a given that we would have won with Flutie, he would have played. No one can argue about what would have happened with Johnson, cuz it happened. He played atrocious, but he put them in a position to win at the end of the game. Asserting that Flutie would have played much better is speculation at best, and I personally feel more akin to fantasy, given the defense he was facing and his level of play leading up to that game. Like I said, it was the wrong decision at the wrong time. If you stick with one QB throughout the course of the entire season, then you stick with him in the playoffs. If Flutie played and lost that game to the Titans (IMO, I think Flutie would have won), then fans could have accepted that since Flutie was the starting QB all season long. That's what stings about that playoff loss the most, was replacing a QB with a winning record who played all season long with a guy who at that time "had potential" to be a good QB, in the most important game of the season. I ranked that as the 2nd worst decision in Bills history (with firing Bill Polian as #1).
Booster4324 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 Beerball, didn't you recently have problems with your head? You should probably refrain from slamming it against a wall so much over something so pointless as a neverending crusade against reason. So knowing what you know now, you would still start Rob Johnson?
transient Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 So knowing what you know now, you would still start Rob Johnson? I know there is one play in that game that DEFINITELY would have changed the outcome, and it had nothing to with Johnson. So, if you are posing this as a "if you could hop in a time machine and change one thing" sort of question, then yes, I would start Johnson and implore the special teams not to abandon their lanes. For the record, I am not a Flutie fan or a Johnson fan, I'm a Bills fan. I agree that the time to switch QBs would have been several games prior. I also wanted them to switch, cuz IMO Flutie was done. I felt the timing was poor (kinda like firing your OC and cutting your starting LT mere days before the season started). To rehash but paraphrase my whole beef with the "QB controversy" - - RJ young, brought in to be franchise QB, of which there are few - DF, older with limited upside, signed to back up - RJ plays well early, but can't stay on field - DF plays well in relief - RJ, who in hindsight was not only physically but mentally fragile, loses job due to injury. This likely accelerates his downward career path. - Bills are contenders during this time, and need to make a decision, but don't, which divides team - 3 seasons of guess the QB = 3 seasons we could have figured out RJ wasn't the one and moved on, OR we could have kept him in backup role (ala Aaron Rodgers) until it was time to move on from DF My issue with the timing of QB change in regard to the QB controversy was it set the team and the QB up for failure. Little prep time for either to get on the same page, facing good defense on the road. The only way RJ could have ultimately succeeded there would have been to light the place up, which he didn't. Instead, he plays atrociously, but pulls it together for a FG that should have won the game. Instead fate kicked him and the team in the nuts, which you could say defined his career and the Bill's existence. More than just a lost game, I think the outcome, the circumstances surrounding, and the controversy that followed it pulled out the last little piece of chickenwire that was holding RJ's brain together, and unleashed the mental fragility full on. More than a lost playoff game, I think the decision was no win in the grand scheme of things for the organization. I also think the outcome and the controversy that followed were entirely predictable. I put the blame for the loss and the controversy on Phillips, or whoever ultimately handled the whole situation in such an amateur way, and not RJ or Flutie.
mike oxhurtz Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 I know there is one play in that game that DEFINITELY would have changed the outcome, and it had nothing to with Johnson. So, if you are posing this as a "if you could hop in a time machine and change one thing" sort of question, then yes, I would start Johnson and implore the special teams not to abandon their lanes. For the record, I am not a Flutie fan or a Johnson fan, I'm a Bills fan. I agree that the time to switch QBs would have been several games prior. I also wanted them to switch, cuz IMO Flutie was done. I felt the timing was poor (kinda like firing your OC and cutting your starting LT mere days before the season started). To rehash but paraphrase my whole beef with the "QB controversy" - - RJ young, brought in to be franchise QB, of which there are few - DF, older with limited upside, signed to back up - RJ plays well early, but can't stay on field - DF plays well in relief - RJ, who in hindsight was not only physically but mentally fragile, loses job due to injury. This likely accelerates his downward career path. - Bills are contenders during this time, and need to make a decision, but don't, which divides team - 3 seasons of guess the QB = 3 seasons we could have figured out RJ wasn't the one and moved on, OR we could have kept him in backup role (ala Aaron Rodgers) until it was time to move on from DF My issue with the timing of QB change in regard to the QB controversy was it set the team and the QB up for failure. Little prep time for either to get on the same page, facing good defense on the road. The only way RJ could have ultimately succeeded there would have been to light the place up, which he didn't. Instead, he plays atrociously, but pulls it together for a FG that should have won the game. Instead fate kicked him and the team in the nuts, which you could say defined his career and the Bill's existence. More than just a lost game, I think the outcome, the circumstances surrounding, and the controversy that followed it pulled out the last little piece of chickenwire that was holding RJ's brain together, and unleashed the mental fragility full on. More than a lost playoff game, I think the decision was no win in the grand scheme of things for the organization. I also think the outcome and the controversy that followed were entirely predictable. I put the blame for the loss and the controversy on Phillips, or whoever ultimately handled the whole situation in such an amateur way, and not RJ or Flutie. That is one of the best posts I've read about the Flutie/Johnson controversy and I agree with you.
mike oxhurtz Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 With all the talk about Flutie's stats and the Bills defense being as great as it was back then, the only stat that matters the most is in the Win/Loss column. It doesn't matter if you win a game by 1 point or 50, the outcome is still the same. The perfect example of that was in SBXXV when the Giants beat the Bills 20-19, it doesn't get any closer than that. All of us Bills fans can say that the Bills were the better team that day and should have won, but nothing will ever change the fact that the Giants won Superbowl XXV (which pains me to say that...Lucky Bastards!!!!!). I'm a firm believer in "if it's not broke, don't fix it". The decision to switch Johnson for Flutie at the start of the playoffs (like others have said) was a horrendous decision and it cost the Bills in the playoffs.
bbillyfootballcoach 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? ya lots of teams play different defenses in the last minute, its called prevent and the fact that slob johnson lost a shoe, shows even more what an idiot he was, not securing his shoes right, wearing stupid rags on his head, picking his nose on camera, taking sacks to boost his qb rating etc... good thing we only needed a FG or no way Slob puts it in the endzone. He threw a 5 yard out that peerless broke, peerless was the hero. Rob, again threw for 97 yards WOOWWW!. 6 sacks and 97 yards? the D and running game and bad play calling by Tenessee kept us in that game, not Slob Johnson. Rob is trent who just took sacks rather than dump it off everyplay, I guess he had more balls than Trent, thats about it though.
Booster4324 Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 I know there is one play in that game that DEFINITELY would have changed the outcome, and it had nothing to with Johnson. So, if you are posing this as a "if you could hop in a time machine and change one thing" sort of question, then yes, I would start Johnson and implore the special teams not to abandon their lanes. The only choice I was offering was Flutie or Johnson. Not tampering with anything else, which one? For the record... Nice post. When I heard we signed Flutie (who thought he was going to get a shot at the starter job) I was dismissive. I didn't care who was the Quarterback, I just wanted to have a decent one. I was excited at the signing of Johnson. He looked the part and I wanted a long term Quarterback. What I couldn't stand though was the physical fragileness, combined with the propensity for sacks. I was disappointed in in Flutie. He was a locker room cancer. However, in that game, I would have preferred Flutie.
mike oxhurtz Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 I don't care who you are, anyone who have been rightfully pissed off about being benched after playing the entire season, having a 10-5 record to make it to the playoffs, just to let someone else finish the job. Wrong decision, wrong time.
Rico Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 Ask Wade Phillips that question now: "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." 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. It wasn't Wade's decision, it was Ralph's. PS. Ralph.
transient Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 The only choice I was offering was Flutie or Johnson. Not tampering with anything else, which one? I guess my hesitance to commit is because I'm not sure. As I said, I felt they needed to switch, but I felt it should have been done sooner. Given the circumstances and the untenable situation starting Johnson ultimately created, in retrospect I probably would have stuck with Flutie, however I don't think he would have won the game. So now I've just started a QB that I didn't think could win the game given his level of play at the time in an effort to maintain cohesiveness and not screw up another player that I'm not sure given the available preparation time could win the game, not to mention win it by enough so that his detractors didn't skewer him and crumble his fragile ego even further. Ultimately, I think Phillips tied his own noose with that one (or RW tied it for him?), and I'm glad I wasn't the one making the decision.
mike oxhurtz Posted May 21, 2010 Posted May 21, 2010 It wasn't Wade's decision, it was Ralph's. PS. Ralph. If that's true, add another major blunder to Ralph Wilson's list: Firing Bill Polian Making Tom Donahoe Team President Hiring Marv Levy as GM (who hired Dick Jauron as HC)
Recommended Posts