eball Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 I disagree. Nobody moves up before a draft as fast as quarterbacks. As I recall, Sanchez is an example of a player who was projected to go later and just kept moving up. Mallet has gifts that don't come around often. He can make circus type throws, and I am thinking he will go top 5, if not first. We shall see. Well, the Bills front office operates in a circus type atmosphere, so he would fit in perfectly. Ba-dum-bum.
The Senator Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 I disagree. Nobody moves up before a draft as fast as quarterbacks. As I recall, Sanchez is an example of a player who was projected to go later and just kept moving up. Mallet has gifts that don't come around often. He can make circus type throws, and I am thinking he will go top 5, if not first. We shall see. I'm with you, Bill - nothing wrong with having a 'pair of Ryans'! If the Bills are drafting that high, it means Fitz didn't make much difference, and we take 1) Ryan Mallet 2) Gabe Carimi 3) Dontay Mach 4a) Greg Romeus 4b) Owen Marecic 5) Best Available 6) Best Available 7) Best Available Even if Fitzpatrick has a great year, Mallett is that rare talent that we'll have the luxury to groom while Fitz starts. (Remember how many years Steve Young sat on the 49ers' bench, and Fitz - much as I love the guy - is no Joe Montana!)
1billsfan Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 I'm with you, Bill - nothing wrong with having a 'pair of Ryans'! If the Bills are drafting that high, it means Fitz didn't make much difference, and we take 1) Ryan Mallet 2) Gabe Carimi 3) Dontay Mach 4a) Greg Romeus 4b) Owen Marecic 5) Best Available 6) Best Available 7) Best Available Even if Fitzpatrick has a great year, Mallett is that rare talent that we'll have the luxury to groom while Fitz starts. (Remember how many years Steve Young sat on the 49ers' bench, and Fitz - much as I love the guy - is no Joe Montana!) Ryan Mallett is an injury prone college QB who will be a complete bust at the next level due to his zero lack of mobility. He already has concussion problems and he has yet to begin an NFL career. He or Drew Bledsoe would never be able to make a full career of it in today's NFL' After reading about 50 Fitzpatrick may be "the one" threads this week, my original Fitzpatrick thread was scary prophetic <patting myself on the back>. I can't wait to watch Bills games because I think this man IS the real deal.
Doc Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 I'm with you, Bill - nothing wrong with having a 'pair of Ryans'! If the Bills are drafting that high, it means Fitz didn't make much difference... Not exactly. Against Baltimore, Fitz had a 67% completion rate, 382 yards, 4 TD's, 2 INT's, and took 1 sack (for zero yards), and the team lost. The week before (and also coming off a bye), Brady had a 61% completion rate, 292 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT (and Ed Reed wasn't playing in that game), and took 2 more sacks, and his team won. The good thing is the Bills will get to see Fitz for 14 games this year, and have him under contract for 2011. Hopefully he continues to play well and removes QB as a need, since there's a lot of ifs with the guys coming out, even Luck.
Hplarrm Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 Even the best Quarterbacks have an off day. Mark my words, first off game by Fittz and the Luck fans will return I agree! Even the best QBs have an off day and were we to draft Luck when he has his off day Sully will crank up the presses, WGR will fill the airways, and a small but vocal group of (alleged) fans will wail that they told you so as they call for the adoration of a new savior to replace Luck. The key for the Bills is not to acquire any one player at any one position (be it QB or otherwise) but to build a team which is in fact a TEAM which with a bit of luck can withstand the ups and downs which come with any NFL season. The thing I like most about Fitz is that he has shown a clear set of skills which to this point had not been recognized (an ability to make decisions fast which as he gains experience appear to be increasingly good decisions, a nice set of wheels and the durability to take the hits which come with any run and the toughness to make them) which go along with a skillset we knew he had (an incredibly bright guy with a fairly good arm). However, the best thing about him is that Gailey appears to have found a skillset he can employ well in an offense but in the end he is eminently replaceable because his skillset is not so singular that as happens in today's big fast LB NFL one needs to always be prepared with plan B at QB.
The Senator Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) Ryan Mallett is an injury prone college QB who will be a complete bust at the next level due to his zero lack of mobility. He already has concussion problems and he has yet to begin an NFL career. He or Drew Bledsoe would never be able to make a full career of it in today's NFL' After reading about 50 Fitzpatrick may be "the one" threads this week, my original Fitzpatrick thread was scary prophetic <patting myself on the back>. I can't wait to watch Bills games because I think this man IS the real deal. You may be right (though I doubt it) - Clausen was supposed to be 'the most NFL-ready' QB in years, according to draft pundits & TSW armchair GMs, and look where that went! But differing opinions are great, as is the time to discover which opinion was correct. I'll stand by my choice of Mallett. Not exactly. Against Baltimore, Fitz had a 67% completion rate, 382 yards, 4 TD's, 2 INT's, and took 1 sack (for zero yards), and the team lost. The week before (and also coming off a bye), Brady had a 61% completion rate, 292 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT (and Ed Reed wasn't playing in that game), and took 2 more sacks, and his team won. The good thing is the Bills will get to see Fitz for 14 games this year, and have him under contract for 2011. Hopefully he continues to play well and removes QB as a need, since there's a lot of ifs with the guys coming out, even Luck. Not sure what you're saying - Fitz had great stats - the Bills still lost. Where's the difference? Edited October 28, 2010 by The Senator
SoFFacet Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 Not sure what you're saying - Fitz had great stats - the Bills still lost. Where's the difference? It means that winning is an overrated metric for determining how good a player is. If RF is playing better than Brady, but loses when Brady wins, there are 52 other players plus coaches that share responsibility for that. But instead the conclusion is that RF isn't good enough?
1billsfan Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 You may be right (though I doubt it) - Clausen was supposed to be 'the most NFL-ready' QB in years, according to draft pundits & TSW armchair GMs, and look where that went! But differing opinions are great, as is the time to discover which opinion was correct. I'll stand by my choice of Mallett. Not sure what you're saying - Fitz had great stats - the Bills still lost. Where's the difference? I was arguing about Mallett's injury concerns and his lack of mobility. Clausen's NFL readiness had nothing to do with that argument. I think you'll eventually see that Fitzpatrick has indeed turned a corner and is ready to make his mark on this team and this league.
Doc Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 It means that winning is an overrated metric for determining how good a player is. If RF is playing better than Brady, but loses when Brady wins, there are 52 other players plus coaches that share responsibility for that. But instead the conclusion is that RF isn't good enough? Bingo. Fitz can play well (i.e. "make a difference") but the team still loses.
Orton's Arm Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 I disagree. Nobody moves up before a draft as fast as quarterbacks. As I recall, Sanchez is an example of a player who was projected to go later and just kept moving up. Mallet has gifts that don't come around often. He can make circus type throws, and I am thinking he will go top 5, if not first. We shall see. 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.
Punch Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 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. That's a pretty interesting bit of analysis--- also interesting to note that Trent Edwards arguably possessed only 2 of the traits in the top 2 lists: Accuracy, Ability to hit receivers in perfect stride.
The Senator Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 Bingo. Fitz can play well (i.e. "make a difference") but the team still loses. 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.
gpodpdx Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 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. Danny White was the starting punter and back-up QB his first four years.
Webster Guy Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 There seems to be a lot of "if this keeps up" in this thread. I concur with that whole heartedly, but mostly because I feel like there is a strong possibility it won't keep up. Fitz has guts, is playing extremely well right now and cares, which is always nice. But is his QB rating last year was under 70, and he's never, ever been this good before. Maybe Gailey has done something to him or maybe Fitz has done something, but 4 games with an 0-4 record, one of which was a bad game, one which was good and two that were really good a franchise QB does not make. Dude you're forgetting that we have the worst defense in league. How can you judge a QB on wins and losses when you cant stop ANYONE? You need to look at how well our OFFENSE plays in the system we have in place with the personnel we have on the team and base your decision on that. Considering our tackles are below average and the interior linemen are average, then accounting for the number of non-garbage time snaps that Fitz has taken in his career, I think this guy is playing at an impressively high level. Franchise QB is an ambiguous term. Is Matt Cassel a franchise QB? The Chiefs signed him to a six-year, $62.7 million contract that includes $28 million in guaranteed money, and $40.5 million in total compensation in the first three seasons. Last year his QB rating was 69 and his team sucked. They sure based their entire franchise around the guy, does that make him a franchise QB? What about Carson Palmer? Last year was his first winning season in 4 years does he not make a franchise QB?
SoFFacet Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 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. By your logic if any detail of the game that RF had no control over was magically changed such that we had 35 points at the end of regulation instead of 34, RF would have turned in the same effort but somehow be deserving of different praise? Thats retarded. RF is making a huge effing difference, the problem is that we need 10+ more players to be making the same kind of difference he is - then we might win.
MRW 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. By that logic the Bills should just replace the entire team. After all, they're not winning, so there's no need to make a determination about who is playing well and who isn't.
Orton's Arm 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. Let's say that you have a FG kicker who's making 0% of his attempts. This team has a bunch of losses and no wins. So then he gets replaced with another field goal kicker--a guy who makes 100% of his attempts. But the team as a whole is still lousy, and continues to lose every game. Would you use the W/L record as evidence that the change in field goal kicker didn't make a difference? Would you say that the team is equally well off with both the old and new kicker, because the winning percentage is the same with both guys? I think the answer here is obvious: if a FG kicker is making 100% of his attempts, he's clearly part of the solution, and not part of the problem. The same logic applies to any other player who's playing well for a losing team. There's no special reason why quarterbacks should be any kind of special exception.
dayman Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Let's say that you have a FG kicker who's making 0% of his attempts. This team has a bunch of losses and no wins. So then he gets replaced with another field goal kicker--a guy who makes 100% of his attempts. But the team as a whole is still lousy, and continues to lose every game. Would you use the W/L record as evidence that the change in field goal kicker didn't make a difference? Would you say that the team is equally well off with both the old and new kicker, because the winning percentage is the same with both guys? I think the answer here is obvious: if a FG kicker is making 100% of his attempts, he's clearly part of the solution, and not part of the problem. The same logic applies to any other player who's playing well for a losing team. There's no special reason why quarterbacks should be any kind of special exception. But..but...they have to know how to win! We need winners, guys who win in college!
Pilsner Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Let's say that you have a FG kicker who's making 0% of his attempts. This team has a bunch of losses and no wins. So then he gets replaced with another field goal kicker--a guy who makes 100% of his attempts. But the team as a whole is still lousy, and continues to lose every game. Would you use the W/L record as evidence that the change in field goal kicker didn't make a difference? Would you say that the team is equally well off with both the old and new kicker, because the winning percentage is the same with both guys? I think the answer here is obvious: if a FG kicker is making 100% of his attempts, he's clearly part of the solution, and not part of the problem. The same logic applies to any other player who's playing well for a losing team. There's no special reason why quarterbacks should be any kind of special exception. In addition to this, said "kicker" is also making players around him better as well. Gives several positions chances to improve their game.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted October 29, 2010 Posted October 29, 2010 Somebody is not receiving the proper credit here, Chan Gailey. His reputation is quarterback development and he has done a fantastic job. If Fitzpatrick can keep this up, the Bills have eliminated the need for a QB, 2nd receiver,a new offensive line,and the Bills can focus on defense. That's would be quite an accomplishment in 3 months. Seems like yesterday we needed a completely new team. Couldn't agree more. He's making progress developing the talent and finding a way to generate offense. As a fan 0-6 stinks but progress is noticable and enjoyable.
Recommended Posts