It's in My Blood Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 This part of the schedule appears to be the softest, it's the last part of the season, when the games really count, that I want to judge Fitz on. He hasn't even won a game this season! This year is not about winning obviously. Its about evaluating our talent , see who steps up , and see what we need to improve upon this off season. Our defense is why we cannot win football games. If Fitz continues to put up numbers like he has so far this year , he's the guy regardless of his W-L record. It would be very difficult for ANY qb to have a winning season with our defense , so you really can't judge Fitz on the number of wins he has , but rather , if he is putting our team in the best position possible to win a game week in and week out.
Bill from NYC Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Your post raises the more general question about how we should go about evaluating quarterbacks. Which traits are most important, and which are merely helpful (as opposed to essential)? My own list looks like this: Crucial traits Accuracy Ability to read defenses Ability to see multiple reads/process information quickly Passion for football and sheer strength of will Very important traits Leadership Ability to hit receivers in perfect stride Pocket awareness Toughness/avoiding injuries Useful traits Arm strength Mobility Height Take a guy like Joe Montana. He was very strong in every trait on the first two lists, but was only so-so with respect to the things on the "useful traits" list. He wasn't the tallest guy in the world, and didn't have the world's strongest arm. (Hence the fact that he wasn't drafted until the third round.) His mobility was decent but not special. It just occurred to me that perhaps a big reason I enjoy your posts so much is because you are what I deem to be a football purist (if that makes any sense). I tend to agree with your list, but not in a concrete way, and ask you to consider another point of view. A list like yours could probably be applied to baseball. I am guessing that Babe Ruth lacked many of the qualities one would want from a perfect baseball player. The thing is, his skills were just so superior to anyone in his day that it just was not close. Now, look at Mallett. He throws passes that would seem impossible without even having to step into the pass. I have seen him throw 25 yard checkdowns as ropes with a flick of his wrist. There is NO pass he cannot throw. Coach Saban of Alabama said he makes 4 throws per game that nobody else can do, and I take the word of a coach who won national titles with 2 teams pretty seriously. I don't like his arrest for drunk and disorderly, and I suspect that he isn't all that smart. Drafting him would be a risk in that sense BUT, who would you rather miss with, a kid who could literally be one of the best ever, or Donte Whitner? Or Maybin, Lynch, freaking McKelvin, etc.? Sometimes a team really does need to take a risk. This would seem to be the time imo. And please mark my words....if he can, Jones will draft this kid at any and all costs. Romo sucks, and this kid would be an immediate national hero on the cowboys. Generally speaking, I would MUCH rather draft a blocker or DL than a QB. Not this time. Jmo.
bills44 Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Watched Mallett a few times, and I haven't really seen him complete any "tough" passes - throws between defenders that require good accuracy or touch. He seems to be a whiner, to boot. That said, I don't think that Fitzpatrick is the QB of the future (exponentially better than Edwards, though that's not saying much). What happened to everyone who was saying earlier this year, in a lame attempt to defend Edwards' pathetic QB play, that no QB could be effective behind the Bills' OL?
Simon Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 What happened to everyone who was saying earlier this year, in a lame attempt to defend Edwards' pathetic QB play, that no QB could be effective behind the Bills' OL? I don't recall attempting to defend Edwards' pathetic play, but I imagine I said something along the lines that nobody could be successful behind the Bills OL. Are you suggesting that the OLine we saw last weekend is the same one we saw the first two weeks of the season?
bills44 Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 no, it obviously wasn't the same OL, as Cordaro Howard started this past week. You may not have been trying to make excuses for Edwards, but I think that plenty others were. In fact, a couple of Edwards' ardent defenders appear to have mysteriously disappeared from TBD since, oh, last Sunday at about 4:00 pm. IMO, an intelligent, decisive and confident QB can, at times, mask below-average OL play.
reddogblitz Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 No no no...I guess my point is being missed here - winning IS the difference. Or, to paraphrase Vince Lombardi, "Winning is the ONLY metric." If the team does not win, Fitz did not make a difference - no matter how great his stats. The Senator, normally I would agree with you. However with this defense, how can you say that? When you're defense gives up 30+ points 5 weeks in a row, any QB, Johny Unitas, Roger Staubach, YA Title, or Peyton Manning would have a hard time winning. We do know however that when the defense can keep us in the game, with Fitz we can win. We saw it last year, In the 9 games Fitz played last year, we were 5-4. With the other guys, 1-6. What does that tell you? Tells me he can win if his defense can keep us in the game. Plus in that game Sunday, Fitz was moving the ball in OT after until the the tight end, after catching a Fitz ball, got stripped. Not Fitz fault. This was after bringing us back by 10 with just a few mintues to play in regulation. I'm a big believer in the winning QB theory too, but with this defense, I don't think it applies as much. To say he makes no difference because we haven't won yet with this defense, is just plain silly. I don't care how bad you want Luck or Graham Harrell or Brian Brohm. Which one of these guys could win with this defense giving up 30+ a game (33 avg. - dead last in the NFL)?
Orton's Arm Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 It just occurred to me that perhaps a big reason I enjoy your posts so much is because you are what I deem to be a football purist (if that makes any sense). I tend to agree with your list, but not in a concrete way, and ask you to consider another point of view. A list like yours could probably be applied to baseball. I am guessing that Babe Ruth lacked many of the qualities one would want from a perfect baseball player. The thing is, his skills were just so superior to anyone in his day that it just was not close. Now, look at Mallett. He throws passes that would seem impossible without even having to step into the pass. I have seen him throw 25 yard checkdowns as ropes with a flick of his wrist. There is NO pass he cannot throw. Coach Saban of Alabama said he makes 4 throws per game that nobody else can do, and I take the word of a coach who won national titles with 2 teams pretty seriously. I don't like his arrest for drunk and disorderly, and I suspect that he isn't all that smart. Drafting him would be a risk in that sense BUT, who would you rather miss with, a kid who could literally be one of the best ever, or Donte Whitner? Or Maybin, Lynch, freaking McKelvin, etc.? Sometimes a team really does need to take a risk. This would seem to be the time imo. And please mark my words....if he can, Jones will draft this kid at any and all costs. Romo sucks, and this kid would be an immediate national hero on the cowboys. Generally speaking, I would MUCH rather draft a blocker or DL than a QB. Not this time. Jmo. Thanks for the compliments--they mean that much more because they're coming from one of my favorite posters on this board. If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that being elite in one area of the game can mask weakness in another area. The idea (if I understand it correctly) would be to build an offense that relies on the things the quarterback can do well; while de-emphasizing his weaknesses. A good example of this would be the way Bill Walsh created a new offensive philosophy to take advantage of Joe Montana's strengths. Montana didn't have a ton of arm strength. The offense Walsh built didn't require a lot of arm strength. Instead, it asked the quarterback to throw highly accurate short to intermediate passes which hit the receiver in perfect stride: which was exactly where Montana excelled. If a Walsh-like offensive coordinator wanted to design an offense for Mallett, the offense would have to strongly emphasize arm strength, while de-emphasizing the areas where Mallet is weak. I think that Tom Donahoe might have envisioned something along those lines. He quickly acquired the strong-armed Bledsoe, and later replaced him with the strong-armed Losman. He used early picks on players like Lee Evans, Roscoe Parrish, Kevin Everett, and even Willis McGahee, in an apparent attempt to upgrade the speed of the skill position players. Any time you see a collection of fast receiving threats, and strong-armed quarterbacks who specialize in throwing the long bomb, it at least suggests a specific kind of offensive approach. Obviously, TD's failure to build an offense based around a strong arm QB + fast targets doesn't necessarily mean that all other similarly themed offenses are destined for failure. Perhaps the fact that Mallett's arm is significantly stronger even than JP's arm would let him succeed where Losman failed. Possibly Mallett doesn't bring the same mental limitations with him that Losman did, or has some other edge over Losman. Back in the '80s, the 49ers' bread-and-butter play was the quick slant to Jerry Rice. They'd use that play several times per game, and they practiced it incessantly during the week. It was very, very difficult for defenses to stop that play even when they knew it was coming. More generally, the entire 49ers offense--based as it was on death by a thousand small cuts--was very hard for teams to stop. If I was running a football team and thinking of using a top-5 pick on Mallett, one of the first things I'd try to do would be to identify some bread-and-butter play that defenses couldn't stop even when they knew it was coming. A play that Mallett could run better than almost any other quarterback. Once I had that one play, I'd start thinking of other, similarly-themed plays to start forming the core of my offensive playbook. But before I went ahead and used a top-5 pick on the guy, I'd want to be reasonably certain that a) the plays would work fairly consistently, and b) that Mallett really could run them significantly better than could an otherwise standard-issue QB with Losman-level arm strength. In other words, the plays would be designed such that you'd need Mallett to be ridiculously strong-armed, just as the 49ers needed Montana to be exceptionally accurate and able to hit receivers in stride for the quick slant to Rice to work as intended. Off the top of my head, I can't think of an offensive philosophy that would work on the NFL level where the quarterback would be required to have an almost superhuman level of arm strength. An offense where a merely Losman-level of arm strength just wouldn't cut it. Just because I can't think of such an offense doesn't mean that no one else can either. In fact, I'd be happy to hear the thoughts anyone has on the subject. Let's say that Mallett finds himself in an offense in which the quarterback merely required Losman-level arm strength to be successful. That would be similar to a quarterback capable of quickly seeing multiple reads finding himself on a high school offense with just one read. In both cases the quarterback has a special trait, but in neither case is the offense challenging enough to make that special trait particularly relevant. Or to take another example: suppose Montana had found himself in an offense where a Trent Dilfer could have made 95% or more of the throws exactly as intended. That too would have been an offense too non-challenging to bring out Montana's greatness. For Montana's potential to be maximized, he had to be put in an offense where Montana-like traits were needed on the majority of passing plays. If only a Dilfer-level of traits had been required, defending against that offense would have been a lot like defending against Dilfer. I fully agree with your implication that first round picks should be used on players with the potential for greatness. Guys like Whitner, Lynch, Maybin, and others clearly fall well short of that standard. Mallett's potential for greatness largely depends on an offensive coordinator's ability to design an offense in which a Losman-level of arm strength is not good enough. An offense which utilizes and requires a Mallett-level of arm strength to make itself significantly more difficult to defend than it otherwise would have been. I'm not talking about four plays per game here: the arm strength needs to be a constant factor exerting significant influence throughout the course of the game. That influence needs to be strong enough to mask whatever other weaknesses he may bring. Unless the Bills can devise an offense like that, Mallett will not achieve greatness in Buffalo. In fact, he'd be hard-pressed to beat out Ryan Fitzpatrick for a starting position; especially if Fitz continues playing as he has. Fitz seems to be one of the best quarterbacks in the league at reading defenses, and at knowing exactly where he's supposed to put the football. He gets rid of the ball almost instantly. Giving up all that--as the Bills would do if they transitioned from Fitz to Mallett--would be very difficult. Unless the Bills figured out a way to build the above-described Mallett offense, there would not be enough of an offsetting benefit to justify the QB switch.
Hplarrm Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Add a quick release to the list of essentials. This is especially true for the QB who is gonna be playing behind an OL which appears to me to be at least a player and a half away from acceptability (the half comes from a credible back-up who can play multiple positions when the seemingly inevitable happens in the NFL and you lose a starter for a game or more(. One of the great things about Manning is that his lightening release covers up for any problems the OL experiences, this speed is gonna be essential for any Bills QB. It's interesting as such a release is a combination of many of the factors you mention (many you tab as crucial but some you describe as useful. The quick release of the ball to the receiver strikes me as a combo of not only having a solid arm, but also the ability to read defenses, trust your judgment and make quick decisions to throw the ball. You need to be fearless in trusting your receivers as you throw into tight spots but also they are going to make the same reads you do to throw to the hot receiver. Players are slow on the release for several reasons: JP was used to running for his life and often waited too long for a play to develop/ Bledsoe knew he was a big boy who could take a hit and often went into his pat pat pat as his fear of the sack was not great enough. Edwards was good at first but after the concussion seemed to lose his edge. Getting rid of the ball on time is a crucial element. It is one of the reasons I surprised some folks dubbed Claussen so NFL ready. Yes he had a leaders attitude and a refuse to lose approach which made him a natural, but his wind-up struck me as way too long for an NFL ready QB (particularly with our OL in progress). Your post raises the more general question about how we should go about evaluating quarterbacks. Which traits are most important, and which are merely helpful (as opposed to essential)? My own list looks like this: Crucial traits Accuracy Ability to read defenses Ability to see multiple reads/process information quickly Passion for football and sheer strength of will Very important traits Leadership Ability to hit receivers in perfect stride Pocket awareness Toughness/avoiding injuries Useful traits Arm strength Mobility Height Take a guy like Joe Montana. He was very strong in every trait on the first two lists, but was only so-so with respect to the things on the "useful traits" list. He wasn't the tallest guy in the world, and didn't have the world's strongest arm. (Hence the fact that he wasn't drafted until the third round.) His mobility was decent but not special.
NaPolian8693 Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) Fitzpatrick can have as many 4 TD games as he wants - he'll still just always be junky Ryan Fitzpatrick. Unfortunately, his little hot streak and the ensuing fan mania is going to cause the Bills to draft defense and miss their chance on a real franchise QB, locking up another 5 years of sub-mediocrity. Edited October 29, 2010 by NaPolian8693
Geno Smith's Arm Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) This year is not about winning obviously. Its about evaluating our talent , see who steps up , and see what we need to improve upon this off season. Our defense is why we cannot win football games. If Fitz continues to put up numbers like he has so far this year , he's the guy regardless of his W-L record. It would be very difficult for ANY qb to have a winning season with our defense , so you really can't judge Fitz on the number of wins he has , but rather , if he is putting our team in the best position possible to win a game week in and week out. Winning is not really what I am looking for (but the "coming of age of a new star" posts seem a bit much to me, considering that he hasn't even won a game yet). What I want to see is how he performs in the latter part of the season, because I think those will be tougher games than the next few (the poster I responded to feels that Fitz can prove himself a quality QB by week 11, but those games appear to be the soft part of the schedule, SO... I responded to that comment, get it?). Basically I agree with you, but for some reason you are trying to find a conflict. We will all know by the end of the season if Fitz is the guy, I'm sure we agree on that , no? Edited October 29, 2010 by Matthews' Bag
fansince88 Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 No no no...I guess my point is being missed here - winning IS the difference. Or, to paraphrase Vince Lombardi, "Winning is the ONLY metric." If the team does not win, Fitz did not make a difference - no matter how great his stats. The QB is on the offense side of the ball, you do realise that right? Ryan is the QB and not Poz, you do realize that too right? Poz is on the side of the ball that we call the D E F E N C E.... Did I say that slow enough. They keep the other team from scoring. Ryand is not in that unit. He would not do well in that unit. Let me give you a clue because that is possibly what you are lacking here. You dont want Ryan to succeed because he isnt your choice. i dont care if Mary Poppins was our QB you wouldnt be happy. In your own world if we lost 55-56 you would still feel that we need a new QB because we are not winning. That would be the case if Ryan threw 6 td passes and 6 int that went for a touchdown. But he threw 4 td and we lost. Simple as that. (stat guys can you see when the last time that the bills threw 4 td's) I would guess it has been a long time.
8-8 Forever? Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Also, Fitz is basically still a young guy. He is only 1 year older than Edwards despite being in the league two additional years. Take a QB like Danny White -- he didn't do hardly anything his first 4 years in the league, but went on to become a very good QB. Yep. he's big enough (if he is too small, then Hasselbeck, Brees, et al are way too small), his arm is more than adequate (if his arm isn't good enough, then neither are Hasselbeck, brees, et al arms), he is fearless, unlike half the guys in the position in the nfl. I like a QB who reads, reacts and acts quickly. He is the first one we've had since Bledsoe. He pays at NFL speed, without just checking everything down. Liked him last year, like him a lot more this year. Why not? It will take a rookie QB years to become good. We don't have years. I concur with this article. We have to see how he finishes up this season. IF he continues this level of play, it is assinine to write him off simply because his name is not Andrew Luck and he was not the first pick of the draft. Production is production and franchise QB's have come from 1st overall picks to undrafted players out of small schools. If he continues to prove it on the field, there is no reason not to build around this guy. If he falls apart the rest of the way, then so be it, we can look to draft a QB in April. The rest of this season will tell us where to go from here. exactly.
Bill from NYC Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Obviously, TD's failure to build an offense based around a strong arm QB + fast targets doesn't necessarily mean that all other similarly themed offenses are destined for failure. Perhaps the fact that Mallett's arm is significantly stronger even than JP's arm would let him succeed where Losman failed. Possibly Mallett doesn't bring the same mental limitations with him that Losman did, or has some other edge over Losman. Thanks for all of the effort you put into this post. I do however think that you left out at least 2 important factors: 1) In terms of TD, he did bring in Bledsoe and the offensive threats you named, but his downfall was drafting a fat, injury prone right tackle when McKinnie was sitting there, ready to perform from day 1. Bledsoe himself complained about a "smashmouth" offense with no rushing touchdowns. Players such as Flutie (or to a lesser degree Fitz) are able to mask poor pass protection. I understand that Bledsoe was old and not the same from a near death injury. Losman? Whatever, but neither was supplied with adequate blocking, skill players notwithstanding. 2) I have been accused by many posters of living in the past wrt my offensive philosophy. Hearing this so much makes me think that perhaps they are right but I remind you that the Bills play in WNY, and 2 of their divisional opponents also play in the elements. I will not back away from the stance that running the football is more important to the Bills than it is to most other teams. If a team had to play up close to guard against the run, the things Mallett could do (imo) are limitless. The kid doesn't have to step into throws like other qbs, and can probably throw deep slants, along with his 70 yard bombs. Again, if Dallas keeps losing, just watch how fast they grab this kid, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they trade up for him if need be.
The Senator Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 The Senator, normally I would agree with you. However with this defense, how can you say that? When you're defense gives up 30+ points 5 weeks in a row, any QB, Johny Unitas, Roger Staubach, YA Title, or Peyton Manning would have a hard time winning. We do know however that when the defense can keep us in the game, with Fitz we can win. We saw it last year, In the 9 games Fitz played last year, we were 5-4. With the other guys, 1-6. What does that tell you? Tells me he can win if his defense can keep us in the game. Plus in that game Sunday, Fitz was moving the ball in OT after until the the tight end, after catching a Fitz ball, got stripped. Not Fitz fault. This was after bringing us back by 10 with just a few mintues to play in regulation. I'm a big believer in the winning QB theory too, but with this defense, I don't think it applies as much. To say he makes no difference because we haven't won yet with this defense, is just plain silly. I don't care how bad you want Luck or Graham Harrell or Brian Brohm. Which one of these guys could win with this defense giving up 30+ a game (33 avg. - dead last in the NFL)? Sadly, RDB, the answer is 'none' - that's why I say (insert name) makes no difference Obviously, the way our D is playing, the Bills need a QB capable of putting 40 or 50 points on the board!!! (Graham Harrell? ) (BTW, I am NOT - by any stretch of the imagination - blaming the losses on Ryan Fitzpatrick, who is playing great.)
R. Rich Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 2) I have been accused by many posters of living in the past wrt my offensive philosophy. Hearing this so much makes me think that perhaps they are right but I remind you that the Bills play in WNY, and 2 of their divisional opponents also play in the elements. I will not back away from the stance that running the football is more important to the Bills than it is to most other teams. If a team had to play up close to guard against the run, the things Mallett could do (imo) are limitless. The kid doesn't have to step into throws like other qbs, and can probably throw deep slants, along with his 70 yard bombs. I'd like to see the Bills run the football a bit more, but the key to developing offense is balance, not being either run or pass-heavy. 'Til the Bills have balance to the point where defenses need to focus on both the passing game and the running game, the offense will struggle to find continuity. Again, if Dallas keeps losing, just watch how fast they grab this kid, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they trade up for him if need be. So, who would you like to see the Bills draft in the first round? I wish you'd just say it and not be so vague.
Sabre Bill Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: I love a thread where you actually have to go back and read several pages of conversation in order to jhave a shot at making a useful, intelligent contribute!! You are guys are great! I'll be back when I've done my required reading!
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) Of course we all want to see the team win. But anybody who's given evaluating quarterbacks a good deal of thought ought to realize you've got to dig a bit deeper than whether the team wins or loses. Fitzpatrick has no control over the lack of a pass rush, the complete inability to stop the run, the mediocre special teams. But (fingers crossed) he has helped fix what was the worst offense in the league. That is definitely "making a difference." HA, bravo on the kicker analogy. That makes it plain to see. Edited October 29, 2010 by Big Bad Broise
ChasBB Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Danny White was the starting punter and back-up QB his first four years. I guess my point is that people seem to like to call Ryan a "career backup" and so was Danny White -- at least for 4 years -- main point being that with some guys you really just don't know what you've got for several years. I think Ryan is one of those guys -- someone who has continually improved from season-to-seaon -- with or without starts -- just working hard every week and flying totally under the radar. And now, it's finally all coming together for him -- all the years of multiple teams, systems, coaches. He has finally settled into a situation where his skills are that of a true starting QB in the NFL.
Geno Smith's Arm Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 (edited) I guess my point is that people seem to like to call Ryan a "career backup" and so was Danny White -- at least for 4 years -- main point being that with some guys you really just don't know what you've got for several years. I think Ryan is one of those guys -- someone who has continually improved from season-to-seaon -- with or without starts -- just working hard every week and flying totally under the radar. And now, it's finally all coming together for him -- all the years of multiple teams, systems, coaches. He has finally settled into a situation where his skills are that of a true starting QB in the NFL. The Danny White comparision isn't so strong because Danny White was kept on the bench by Roger Staubach HoF, and Fitz has been in and out of the starting job, backing up Trent Edwards (No, I don't need to hear that "that's the coaches", because we all know Fitz wasn't lighting it up). Was Danny White so great anyway? Edited October 29, 2010 by Matthews' Bag
ChasBB Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 The Danny White comparision isn't so strong because Danny White was kept on the bench by Roger Staubach HoF, and Fitz has been in and out of the starting job, backing up Trent Edwards (No, I don't need to hear that "that's the coaches", because we all know Fitz wasn't lighting it up). Was Danny White so great anyway? Points taken.
Recommended Posts