Orton's Arm Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 That's a good question... and one I have considered a lot... Offhand, I do remember the Bills were neck and neck with Jax. and T.B. in top-ranked defensive categories for the 1999 season... Bills lead in some, Jax. and T.B. led in others... I believe the Bills were ranked 2nd in pts. allowed and 1st in yds. allowed... They only allowed 21 TDs total with an average of just over 14 pts. a game... Now who truly knows if we could have gotten to the SB, much less shut down the "Greatest Show On Turf"... But considering that the Titans were ranked right around the middle of the pack defensively that year, I believe the Bills D could have matched up better against the Rams O... Just my opinion... The real question about that particular postseason is: Did Wade Phillips make the right call in benching Flutie for Johnson? I know the horse has been beaten to a pulp on this one, but something to consider... R.J. was sacked 6 times in that playoff game, a weakness he always seemed to have... Would Flutie have been sacked that much..? Doubtful, considering he was much more elusive.. and that game was as close as it gets... 2-4 less sacks could've made the difference in a game the Bills SHOULD have won anyway... In my opinion, Flutie and that great D would have given us the best chance during that particular postseason... Again, who knows what would have really happened... Just my opinion... Both the Bills' OTs were playing hurt that day. On one of the sacks, Jevon Kearse rushed untouched past the Bills' LT to get a sack. It was at that point that Wade realized the starting LT was too hurt to be effective; and so replaced him with a backup. Later that game, something similar happened when Jevon Kearse rushed untouched past the RT to get a sack. Thus leading to the backup RT being inserted, because the starter's mobility had been impacted by injury. So those are at least two sacks Flutie almost certainly would have taken. Overall, I think that Flutie would have done better in the first half--he almost certainly couldn't have done worse!--but that Johnson's second-half performance was better than Flutie's would have been. But the Bills' overall performance should have been enough to come away with a win!! :wallbash: One unorthodox strategy for the Bills to consider would have been to plan to go into each playoff game with Flutie playing the first half, and Johnson playing the second half. As unusual as this might have seemed, it would have had the following advantages: It would have given the other team two different QBs to prepare for; with each QB having a radically different style. Flutie's mobility and short passing game would have allowed him to best deal with the poor pass protection the OL typically provided early in the game. Johnson's intermediate and deep game would have allowed him to benefit from the somewhat improved pass protection the OL provided late in the game, after the other team's DL had become tired. This strategy would have made the two QBs more competitive with each other than they already were; with each guy trying to prove he should be made the full and complete starter. In addition to the above, the Bills should have relied heavily on their running game, so as to better allow their big, slow OL to wear down other teams' (often) small, fast defenses. With a strategy like that, and better special teams play at the end of the Titans game, the Bills almost certainly could have achieved everything the Titans did. And perhaps a little more.
Dr. K Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Basing an assessment of Rob Johnson on one game is what led the Bills to that monumental disaster of a decision to trade for him in the first place. Ralph called him "a Monet". He certainly wasn't "money". Even questioning whether we would have beaten the Greatest Show on Turf with RJ's 100 yards (or 200--pick a number) is evidence of a complete disconnect with reality. This whole thread is silly, IMHO. The idea that the Bills would have beaten the Jaguars (whom they would have played the next week had there been no Home-run throwback) is dumb. Because the Bills lost, the Jags played the Dolphins--and hung 62 points on them. Even if Flutie, who couldn't put up more than 13 points on the lousy Pats of 1999, and more than 7 on the even lousier Jets, was playing QB, they would have been stomped. And yes, Rob Johnson would have gotten them blown out, too. I don't think the Bills would have gotten to the Super Bowl that year regardless. But this is all speculation that I ma not interested in. All I am interested in doing is correcting several errors of FACT that various posters have made, and perhaps to puncture just a little the Flutie Magic myth by pointing out what he really was and was not accomplishing in the fall of 1999. By reference to the facts, not to people's opinions.
Jerry Jabber Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Both the Bills' OTs were playing hurt that day. On one of the sacks, Jevon Kearse rushed untouched past the Bills' LT to get a sack. It was at that point that Wade realized the starting LT was too hurt to be effective; and so replaced him with a backup. Later that game, something similar happened when Jevon Kearse rushed untouched past the RT to get a sack. Thus leading to the backup RT being inserted, because the starter's mobility had been impacted by injury. So those are at least two sacks Flutie almost certainly would have taken. Overall, I think that Flutie would have done better in the first half--he almost certainly couldn't have done worse!--but that Johnson's second-half performance was better than Flutie's would have been. But the Bills' overall performance should have been enough to come away with a win!! One unorthodox strategy for the Bills to consider would have been to plan to go into each playoff game with Flutie playing the first half, and Johnson playing the second half. As unusual as this might have seemed, it would have had the following advantages: It would have given the other team two different QBs to prepare for; with each QB having a radically different style. Flutie's mobility and short passing game would have allowed him to best deal with the poor pass protection the OL typically provided early in the game. Johnson's intermediate and deep game would have allowed him to benefit from the somewhat improved pass protection the OL provided late in the game, after the other team's DL had become tired. This strategy would have made the two QBs more competitive with each other than they already were; with each guy trying to prove he should be made the full and complete starter. In addition to the above, the Bills should have relied heavily on their running game, so as to better allow their big, slow OL to wear down other teams' (often) small, fast defenses. With a strategy like that, and better special teams play at the end of the Titans game, the Bills almost certainly could have achieved everything the Titans did. And perhaps a little more. Here's Fluties's stats from the 1999 season: http://www.nfl.com/players/dougflutie/game...amp;season=1999 In 15 games Fluties had: 3171 passing yards, 19 TD's 16 INT's, 476 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. That's better than any QB we've had in a while on this team. Here's Johnson's for that year: http://www.nfl.com/players/robjohnson/game...amp;season=1999 Johnson sucked for 58 minutes of the Titans game. One of his fumbles was then turned into a TD by the Titans offense. The O-line was not used to Johnson's snap count, so they got a ton of false start penalties in the first half, which backed up Johnson to the endzone and ultimately caused a safety. I think some people think that the fans that defend Flutie call it "Flutie magic" or Flutie was a great QB. There were 2 main problems us Flutie fans had with the decision: 1. Flutie's had a 2:1 winloss record, while Johnson's win/loss record was 1:2. Flutie left Buffalo with a 21-9 record, while Johnson left Buffalo with a 8-18 record. Call it the defense for Flutie's success, but Trent Dilfer had the same success in 2000 when the Ravens won the superbowl. 2. The timing of the decision. If the decision had to be made to switch QB's, it should have been made much earlier in the season not at the end of the season. Switching QB's that late in the season threw off the snap counts on the O-line and a lot of the chemistry on the offense. It was the wrong decision at the absolute wrong time.
Bufcomments Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 I still think that if Flutie would have played we win the game. But having said that Johnson did just enough to win the game on the road. The reply of the foward lateral was to close to overturn, that is why the play stood. Now if we beat the Titans Johnson would have started against the Jags. Do believe if Flutie played and won the game we have a better chance of beating the Jags. I don't think anybody would have beaten the Greastest show on Turf from the AFC. Kurt Warner was on fire that year.
yungmack Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Here's Fluties's stats from the 1999 season: http://www.nfl.com/players/dougflutie/game...amp;season=1999In 15 games Fluties had: 3171 passing yards, 19 TD's 16 INT's, 476 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. That's better than any QB we've had in a while on this team. Here's Johnson's for that year: http://www.nfl.com/players/robjohnson/game...amp;season=1999 Johnson sucked for 58 minutes of the Titans game. One of his fumbles was then turned into a TD by the Titans offense. The O-line was not used to Johnson's snap count, so they got a ton of false start penalties in the first half, which backed up Johnson to the endzone and ultimately caused a safety. I think some people think that the fans that defend Flutie call it "Flutie magic" or Flutie was a great QB. There were 2 main problems us Flutie fans had with the decision: 1. Flutie's had a 2:1 winloss record, while Johnson's win/loss record was 1:2. Flutie left Buffalo with a 21-9 record, while Johnson left Buffalo with a 8-18 record. Call it the defense for Flutie's success, but Trent Dilfer had the same success in 2000 when the Ravens won the superbowl. 2. The timing of the decision. If the decision had to be made to switch QB's, it should have been made much earlier in the season not at the end of the season. Switching QB's that late in the season threw off the snap counts on the O-line and a lot of the chemistry on the offense. It was the wrong decision at the absolute wrong time. Well, now you've done it: injecting facts into the "debate" over Flutie and Johnson. Prepare for incoming.
dpberr Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 I still think that if Flutie would have played we win the game. But having said that Johnson did just enough to win the game on the road. The reply of the foward lateral was to close to overturn, that is why the play stood. Now if we beat the Titans Johnson would have started against the Jags. Do believe if Flutie played and won the game we have a better chance of beating the Jags. I don't think anybody would have beaten the Greastest show on Turf from the AFC. Kurt Warner was on fire that year. I agree in part. However, the Titans nearly beat them despite Warner throwing for over 400 yards and two touchdowns. The Titans defense completely neutralized Faulk, which I believed that Buffalo defense could have done as well.
Orton's Arm Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Here's Fluties's stats from the 1999 season: http://www.nfl.com/players/dougflutie/game...amp;season=1999In 15 games Fluties had: 3171 passing yards, 19 TD's 16 INT's, 476 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. That's better than any QB we've had in a while on this team. Here's Johnson's for that year: http://www.nfl.com/players/robjohnson/game...amp;season=1999 Johnson sucked for 58 minutes of the Titans game. One of his fumbles was then turned into a TD by the Titans offense. The O-line was not used to Johnson's snap count, so they got a ton of false start penalties in the first half, which backed up Johnson to the endzone and ultimately caused a safety. I think some people think that the fans that defend Flutie call it "Flutie magic" or Flutie was a great QB. There were 2 main problems us Flutie fans had with the decision: 1. Flutie's had a 2:1 winloss record, while Johnson's win/loss record was 1:2. Flutie left Buffalo with a 21-9 record, while Johnson left Buffalo with a 8-18 record. Call it the defense for Flutie's success, but Trent Dilfer had the same success in 2000 when the Ravens won the superbowl. 2. The timing of the decision. If the decision had to be made to switch QB's, it should have been made much earlier in the season not at the end of the season. Switching QB's that late in the season threw off the snap counts on the O-line and a lot of the chemistry on the offense. It was the wrong decision at the absolute wrong time. There are several things that could be addressed with your post, but for now I'll focus on the relative comparison of the two QBs' stats. Here they are: Flutie 1999 Yards per attempt: 6.6 TD/INT ratio: 1.2 QB rating: 75.1 There's nothing stellar about any of that. To put this in perspective, consider Edwards' numbers: Trent Edwards (career) Yards per attempt: 6.7 TD/INT ratio: 1.0 QB rating: 77.9 The two QBs put up roughly similar numbers, with Edwards having less receiving talent and (often) outright abysmal pass protection. If with those numbers Edwards is considered backup-caliber only, why should we interpret Flutie's 1999 numbers to mean that he should have had a lock on the starting QB position? Rob Johnson's numbers from 1999 compare very favorably to the other two QBs. (8.8 yards per pass attempt, a QB rating of 119.5, etc.). However, those numbers were based on just two games, so the sample size isn't large enough to be meaningful. A better comparison is to look at Johnson's career numbers. Rob Johnson (career) Yards per attempt: 7.2 TD/INT ratio: 1.3 QB rating: 83.6 Those numbers reflect the fact that Johnson had a more commanding intermediate to deep game than did Flutie. On the other hand, Flutie was a better scrambler, much better at avoiding pressure and making the OL look better than it really was, and had a better short game. I think the Bills should have played Flutie in the first half, when the pass protection was at its worst. (Thus taking advantage of Flutie's strengths/ability to deal with marginal pass protection.) Then in the second half, they should have played Johnson; when the improved pass protection would have allowed his intermediate to deep game to shine.
billsfreak Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 So, if we get by Tennessee who held no real higher position than us do we get to and beat St. Louis ? Did we have the firepower to make it all the way and change our destiny at that time? We were the hottest team in the AFC going into the playoffs that year, after just spanking the Colts the week before. But I really think we might have gotten to the Super Bowl, but I don't think anyone was going to beat the Rams that year. The "Hottest Show on Turf" was pretty much unstoppable. History might have been different if Ralphy didn't insist that Wade played Johnson over Flutie.
Speedy G Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 That's a good question... and one I have considered a lot... Offhand, I do remember the Bills were neck and neck with Jax. and T.B. in top-ranked defensive categories for the 1999 season... Bills lead in some, Jax. and T.B. led in others... I believe the Bills were ranked 2nd in pts. allowed and 1st in yds. allowed... They only allowed 21 TDs total with an average of just over 14 pts. a game... Now who truly knows if we could have gotten to the SB, much less shut down the "Greatest Show On Turf"... But considering that the Titans were ranked right around the middle of the pack defensively that year, I believe the Bills D could have matched up better against the Rams O... Just my opinion... The real question about that particular postseason is: Did Wade Phillips make the right call in benching Flutie for Johnson? I know the horse has been beaten to a pulp on this one, but something to consider... R.J. was sacked 6 times in that playoff game, a weakness he always seemed to have... Would Flutie have been sacked that much..? Doubtful, considering he was much more elusive.. and that game was as close as it gets... 2-4 less sacks could've made the difference in a game the Bills SHOULD have won anyway... In my opinion, Flutie and that great D would have given us the best chance during that particular postseason... Again, who knows what would have really happened... Just my opinion... +1
Doc Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 Here's Fluties's stats from the 1999 season: http://www.nfl.com/players/dougflutie/game...amp;season=1999In 15 games Fluties had: 3171 passing yards, 19 TD's 16 INT's, 476 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD. That's better than any QB we've had in a while on this team. Check JPL's stats from 2006.
mike oxhurtz Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 There are several things that could be addressed with your post, but for now I'll focus on the relative comparison of the two QBs' stats. Here they are: Flutie 1999 Yards per attempt: 6.6 TD/INT ratio: 1.2 QB rating: 75.1 There's nothing stellar about any of that. To put this in perspective, consider Edwards' numbers: Trent Edwards (career) Yards per attempt: 6.7 TD/INT ratio: 1.0 QB rating: 77.9 The two QBs put up roughly similar numbers, with Edwards having less receiving talent and (often) outright abysmal pass protection. If with those numbers Edwards is considered backup-caliber only, why should we interpret Flutie's 1999 numbers to mean that he should have had a lock on the starting QB position? Rob Johnson's numbers from 1999 compare very favorably to the other two QBs. (8.8 yards per pass attempt, a QB rating of 119.5, etc.). However, those numbers were based on just two games, so the sample size isn't large enough to be meaningful. A better comparison is to look at Johnson's career numbers. Rob Johnson (career) Yards per attempt: 7.2 TD/INT ratio: 1.3 QB rating: 83.6 Those numbers reflect the fact that Johnson had a more commanding intermediate to deep game than did Flutie. On the other hand, Flutie was a better scrambler, much better at avoiding pressure and making the OL look better than it really was, and had a better short game. I think the Bills should have played Flutie in the first half, when the pass protection was at its worst. (Thus taking advantage of Flutie's strengths/ability to deal with marginal pass protection.) Then in the second half, they should have played Johnson; when the improved pass protection would have allowed his intermediate to deep game to shine. The only stat that really matters is in the Win Loss column. Regardless of all the other circumstances, Flutie was 21-9 as a starter in Buffalo, Johnson was 8-18. People act like Flutie threw for under 3000 yards and had a higher INT to TD ratio. Flutie was a good serviceable QB. Just like Dilfer was in Baltimore in 2000. Dilfer was not spectacular or great, he did enough to win games. Look at what happened the following season to the Ravens, they got greedy and brought in a "better on paper" QB in Elvis Grbac (just like Johnson was brought in over Flutie), but Grbac failed and was shown the door in Baltimore after 1 season. The bottom line is, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Whether you win the game by 1 point or 50 points, the result is still the same.
Adam Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 The only stat that really matters is in the Win Loss column. Regardless of all the other circumstances, Flutie was 21-9 as a starter in Buffalo, Johnson was 8-18. People act like Flutie threw for under 3000 yards and had a higher INT to TD ratio. Flutie was a good serviceable QB. Just like Dilfer was in Baltimore in 2000. Dilfer was not spectacular or great, he did enough to win games. Look at what happened the following season to the Ravens, they got greedy and brought in a "better on paper" QB in Elvis Grbac (just like Johnson was brought in over Flutie), but Grbac failed and was shown the door in Baltimore after 1 season. The bottom line is, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Whether you win the game by 1 point or 50 points, the result is still the same. Don't compare Flutie to Dilfer- Trent Dilfer was a legit NFL quarterback, not a 4'2" joke
Doc Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 The only stat that really matters is in the Win Loss column. Regardless of all the other circumstances, Flutie was 21-9 as a starter in Buffalo, Johnson was 8-18. People act like Flutie threw for under 3000 yards and had a higher INT to TD ratio. Flutie was a good serviceable QB. Just like Dilfer was in Baltimore in 2000. Dilfer was not spectacular or great, he did enough to win games. Look at what happened the following season to the Ravens, they got greedy and brought in a "better on paper" QB in Elvis Grbac (just like Johnson was brought in over Flutie), but Grbac failed and was shown the door in Baltimore after 1 season. The bottom line is, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Whether you win the game by 1 point or 50 points, the result is still the same. How did Flutie go from being 21-9 as a starter in Buffalo, to 8-14 as a starter with the Chargers?
Orton's Arm Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 The only stat that really matters is in the Win Loss column. Regardless of all the other circumstances, Flutie was 21-9 as a starter in Buffalo, Johnson was 8-18. People act like Flutie threw for under 3000 yards and had a higher INT to TD ratio. Flutie was a good serviceable QB. Just like Dilfer was in Baltimore in 2000. Dilfer was not spectacular or great, he did enough to win games. Look at what happened the following season to the Ravens, they got greedy and brought in a "better on paper" QB in Elvis Grbac (just like Johnson was brought in over Flutie), but Grbac failed and was shown the door in Baltimore after 1 season. The bottom line is, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Whether you win the game by 1 point or 50 points, the result is still the same. Football is a team sport. Whether you win or lose depends on all eleven guys on offense, the eleven guys on defense, eleven guys on special teams, as well as role players and rotational players. To imply that all those players' contributions can be boiled down to the contributions of just one guy at one position (QB) is an insult to the efforts of everyone else on the team. Alternatively, one could argue that one team's supporting cast is very like another's, and that the only real difference between teams is at the QB position. That, however, would be an inaccurate assessment. The Bills of the late '90s--not to mention the Ravens of 2000--had very good defenses. Defenses which were good enough to carry their respective teams; especially in the Ravens' case. A quarterback's individual stats are a much better way of evaluating his performance than is his team's W/L record. But even with individual stats, you have to take into account the talent of his supporting cast; as well as other factors that don't necessarily show up in the stats. For example, Flutie was good at improvising on broken plays; a factor which no doubt helped the Bills' W/L record. But to suggest that the W/L record was due entirely--or even primarily--to Flutie's improvisation would be naive; and would completely ignore the quality of the late '90s Bills defenses. The fact of the matter is that Flutie looked good in '98, but very mediocre and underwhelming in '99, even after his running ability and improvisation are taken into account.
Adam Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 How did Flutie go from being 21-9 as a starter in Buffalo, to 8-14 as a starter with the Chargers? I guess Gargamel finally caught Flutie and his smurf friends
Chef Jim Posted July 16, 2010 Posted July 16, 2010 The only stat that really matters is in the Win Loss column. Regardless of all the other circumstances, Flutie was 21-9 as a starter in Buffalo, Johnson was 8-18. People act like Flutie threw for under 3000 yards and had a higher INT to TD ratio. Flutie was a good serviceable QB. Just like Dilfer was in Baltimore in 2000. Dilfer was not spectacular or great, he did enough to win games. Look at what happened the following season to the Ravens, they got greedy and brought in a "better on paper" QB in Elvis Grbac (just like Johnson was brought in over Flutie), but Grbac failed and was shown the door in Baltimore after 1 season. The bottom line is, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Whether you win the game by 1 point or 50 points, the result is still the same. Yes, because we all know that the QB is the only player on the team responsible for the final score. Flutie....He just wins.
mike oxhurtz Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 Football is a team sport. Whether you win or lose depends on all eleven guys on offense, the eleven guys on defense, eleven guys on special teams, as well as role players and rotational players. To imply that all those players' contributions can be boiled down to the contributions of just one guy at one position (QB) is an insult to the efforts of everyone else on the team. Alternatively, one could argue that one team's supporting cast is very like another's, and that the only real difference between teams is at the QB position. That, however, would be an inaccurate assessment. The Bills of the late '90s--not to mention the Ravens of 2000--had very good defenses. Defenses which were good enough to carry their respective teams; especially in the Ravens' case. A quarterback's individual stats are a much better way of evaluating his performance than is his team's W/L record. But even with individual stats, you have to take into account the talent of his supporting cast; as well as other factors that don't necessarily show up in the stats. For example, Flutie was good at improvising on broken plays; a factor which no doubt helped the Bills' W/L record. But to suggest that the W/L record was due entirely--or even primarily--to Flutie's improvisation would be naive; and would completely ignore the quality of the late '90s Bills defenses. The fact of the matter is that Flutie looked good in '98, but very mediocre and underwhelming in '99, even after his running ability and improvisation are taken into account. Yes, football is a team sport, but there's always 1 guy that touches the ball and leads plays on every play on the offense, and that's the quarterback. The 2000 ravens won with Trent Dilfer and they had an amazing defense. In 2001, that defense was still intact, but Dilfer was gone and Grbac was brought in (like Rob Johnson) to bring a spark to the offense, but Grbac failed and was sent packing after a year. Nobody is arguing that the main reason why the Bills were in the playoffs in 1998 & 1999 was due to the defense, but you keep bringing that up. While at the time Johnson had the potential and the physical tools, he did not have the experience Flutie did and did not know how to manage the game. How many times did Johnson take a sack? How many times did Johnson get knocked out of a game? People bash Trent Edwards up and down about his durability, but Johnson could not stay healthy. What was Johnson's win/loss record in Buffalo? In the 1990 Superbowl, the Giants were led by backup Jeff Hostettler and won the game by 1 point (as much as I hate to say that). Granted Hostettler did not play spectactular, but he did enough to manage the game for the Giants. The QB has the biggest responsibility out of any player on the team. You can have the best defense in the league, but if your QB is constantly getting sacked, fumbles the ball, throws interceptions then he's going to lose the game for you. The Bills could have went back to the playoffs in 2000 if they kept Flutie in as starter after Johnson went down again due to injury. Flutie went 3-1 during the span that Johnson was injured and had the best game of the season in the loss to the Vikings (the Vikings ended up going to the NFC Champiosnhip game that year). Flutie was 4-1 in 2000 while Johnson was 4-7. Nobody is saying that Flutie was a great QB, but he worked at the time behind a ****ty O-line. Another point, you act like the Bills had such great talent on the offense. Reed and Thomas were on the tail ends of their careers in Buffalo. Plus, the O-line sucked. Moulds was still developing as well. The Bills offense was not great. Remember in 1997, the Bills went 6-10 between Collins & Van Pelt.
mike oxhurtz Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 How did Flutie go from being 21-9 as a starter in Buffalo, to 8-14 as a starter with the Chargers? Because the Chargers were the worst team in the league when Flutie got there. They were 1-15 the year before Flutie & co arrived.
mike oxhurtz Posted July 17, 2010 Posted July 17, 2010 I guess Gargamel finally caught Flutie and his smurf friends Speaking of the smurfs, they're coming out with a smurfs movie.
Recommended Posts