are we done talking about fitz!!

[Steve O]

W I N D.......There was WIND

 

Try telling that to Succop

 

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010103103/2010/REG8/bills@chiefs#tab:watch

[bobobonators]

I'm convinced there must be something in the water up there in Buffalo that just diminshes the logical side of the brain, because to complain about Fitzy's play this season is an absolute !@#$ing abomination.

 

In five games, (two less than other QB's on this list), compare:

 

Fitz: 240yds/gm; 12td; 5int

Drew Brees with two more games: 291.8yds/gm; 16dt; 11int;

 

Peyton Manning with one more game: 319yds/gm; 13td; 2int

 

Vince Young with two more game: 142yds/gm; 9td; 2in

 

Tom Brady with two more games: 228yds/gm; 12td; 4int

Matt Schaub... : 256yds/gm; 9td; 5int

 

Eli Manning...255yds/gm; 14td; 11int

 

Aaron Rodgers...251yds/gm; 12td; 9int

 

AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON..

 

www.nfl.com

 

Alphadawg, get a freaking clue, the numbers speak for themselves. And what do all of the QB's on the list above have that Fitz doesn't have? A freaking supporting cast. Fitz is playing with players where at best, maybe 2, would be starters on the teams of those qb's listed above. So your constant bitching about fitz is NAUSEATING.

 

Fitz is 27 yrs old, not 37. The reason he never got a shot in Cincy is b/c Palmer was there and not necessarily b/c he couldn't perform. btw, look up Palmers' numbers this season and compare them to Fitz..they're worse. But yet here you continue..bitching.

 

What a whiner. Do me a favor, put a bag over your head and go sit in a corner b/c your delusional/biased bitching makes me SICK. There's plenty of **** to B word about on this team, but Fitz is not one of them.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

That re-kick goes through, Fitz is a hero. People here aren't worth responding to for the most part. Fitz is mroe of an NFL QB than:

 

Johnson

Bledsoe

Losman

Edwards

 

COMBINED. Dude is smart and tough, and I'll hang my hat with him for the next year or two until we can get a TOP-FLIGHT QB. Locker ain't it, and I'm starting to think Mallett might not either.

 

 

Bledsoe was a 4 time probowler and led his team to the Superbowl. He does not belong on this list. You can add Holcome, AVP, Nall, Collins...

[Geno Smith's Arm]

I'm convinced there must be something in the water up there in Buffalo that just diminshes the logical side of the brain, because to complain about Fitzy's play this season is an absolute !@#$ing abomination.

 

In five games, (two less than other QB's on this list), compare:

 

Fitz: 240yds/gm; 12td; 5int

Drew Brees with two more games: 291.8yds/gm; 16dt; 11int;

 

Peyton Manning with one more game: 319yds/gm; 13td; 2int

 

Vince Young with two more game: 142yds/gm; 9td; 2in

 

Tom Brady with two more games: 228yds/gm; 12td; 4int

Matt Schaub... : 256yds/gm; 9td; 5int

 

Eli Manning...255yds/gm; 14td; 11int

 

Aaron Rodgers...251yds/gm; 12td; 9int

 

AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON..

 

www.nfl.com

 

Alphadawg, get a freaking clue, the numbers speak for themselves. And what do all of the QB's on the list above have that Fitz doesn't have? A freaking supporting cast. Fitz is playing with players where at best, maybe 2, would be starters on the teams of those qb's listed above. So your constant bitching about fitz is NAUSEATING.

 

Fitz is 27 yrs old, not 37. The reason he never got a shot in Cincy is b/c Palmer was there and not necessarily b/c he couldn't perform. btw, look up Palmers' numbers this season and compare them to Fitz..they're worse. But yet here you continue..bitching.

 

What a whiner. Do me a favor, put a bag over your head and go sit in a corner b/c your delusional/biased bitching makes me SICK. There's plenty of **** to B word about on this team, but Fitz is not one of them.

 

I agree. How soon they forget. This team struggled for YEARS just to get first downs. They are finally making progress on the offense and d-bags are talking about putting Brohm in. At least give Fitz the rest of this season. He is playing acceptably well, it's the O-line and defense that are the problem areas.

 

W I N D.......There was WIND

 

They can't seem to remember what happened to that KC kick that was going straight, then abrupt went sideways. They are chronic complainers, more interested in hearing the lash of the whip than noticing improvements.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Matthews' Bag

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I'm convinced there must be something in the water up there in Buffalo that just diminshes the logical side of the brain, because to complain about Fitzy's play this season is an absolute !@#$ing abomination.

 

Someone else who likes looking at facts

Unfortunately, I don't think facts matter to some of these folks.

 

Fitz sucks and is a career backup. They say it, it must be so.

We must draft Magical Franchise QB (to be determined) who will never have a bad day.

 

Note to FO: be sure you get the Manning clone, not Stafford (54.5% completions, 64.8 rating, 17 TD 21 INT).

Magical Franchise QB must play better than Bradford. 58.9% completions, rating 75.9 is NOT good enough for TBD.

 

How do I know this? Well, because Fitzy has lifetime 58.1% completions, rating 72.2 and he's clearly a career backup.

 

Yep, Fitzy's completion percentage was lower yesterday. A bunch of good QB in that boat, every week.

For whatever reason, it happens -- the coach loses the chess match and hands over a game plan the opponent is ready for, someone on the OL gets pwned (that would be Howard yesterday), QB has trouble reading the D.

 

Something I haven't heard anyone else mention. Chan was Hailey's OC, fired less than 2 weeks before the season.

Hailey may not know the Bill's calls. Anyone want to bet the rent Hailey doesn't know everything else - Chan's play preferences and tendencies in different situations, what kind of plays and protections he likes to run, inside and out?

 

We're lucky we didn't get totally pwned

 

To the OP: Not done talking about Fitz yet.

[Alphadawg7]

I'm convinced there must be something in the water up there in Buffalo that just diminshes the logical side of the brain, because to complain about Fitzy's play this season is an absolute !@#$ing abomination.

 

In five games, (two less than other QB's on this list), compare:

 

Fitz: 240yds/gm; 12td; 5int

Drew Brees with two more games: 291.8yds/gm; 16dt; 11int;

 

Peyton Manning with one more game: 319yds/gm; 13td; 2int

 

Vince Young with two more game: 142yds/gm; 9td; 2in

 

Tom Brady with two more games: 228yds/gm; 12td; 4int

Matt Schaub... : 256yds/gm; 9td; 5int

 

Eli Manning...255yds/gm; 14td; 11int

 

Aaron Rodgers...251yds/gm; 12td; 9int

 

AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON..

 

www.nfl.com

 

Alphadawg, get a freaking clue, the numbers speak for themselves. And what do all of the QB's on the list above have that Fitz doesn't have? A freaking supporting cast. Fitz is playing with players where at best, maybe 2, would be starters on the teams of those qb's listed above. So your constant bitching about fitz is NAUSEATING.

 

Fitz is 27 yrs old, not 37. The reason he never got a shot in Cincy is b/c Palmer was there and not necessarily b/c he couldn't perform. btw, look up Palmers' numbers this season and compare them to Fitz..they're worse. But yet here you continue..bitching.

 

What a whiner. Do me a favor, put a bag over your head and go sit in a corner b/c your delusional/biased bitching makes me SICK. There's plenty of **** to B word about on this team, but Fitz is not one of them.

 

lmao at this 14 year old childish tantrum...this post is literally too stupid to reply to and I am not about to indulge you in a kiddie pissing war. All I am going to say is that if you were capable of reading as much as you rant you would see I have given props to Fitz many times and very much like Fitz. Unlike you, I acknowledge what he has done well while keeping in perspective his mistakes he had made along the way. You on the other hand just compared Fitz to the best QB's in the game...clearly you are not rational enough to discuss something with, so we will just agree to disagree and move on.

[Orton's Arm]

I think we probably agree more than we disagree, it's just that I'm not a believer that you need Joe Montana in order to win superbowls. I think it's pretty clear that you can have an average, game manager type QB at the helm when you have other pieces in place. There are arguments for both sides of the issue, and both sides are valid. You have the Montanas, Bradys, and Elways winning SBs just like you have the Dilfers, Hostettlers, and Brad Johnsons doing it. My personal belief is that it's better to have a great defense than it is a great QB, so yeah, even though I don't think for a minute that Fitz is the 2nd best QB in the NFL, I think that for now he's "fine" as our starter. I think he'll put us in position to win games more often than he'll be the reason we lose. If the next Peyton Manning or Dan marino comes along in the draft, then great...take him. But I just don't know that that person will be there in this draft. So that being said, I say let Fitzy play.

There are several things I'd like to mention with respect to your post. The first is that everyone in your former category--Montana, Brady, and Elway--led his team to multiple Super Bowl appearances and multiple wins. Montana led the 49ers for four wins, Brady led the Patriots to four appearances and three wins; and Elway led the Broncos to five appearances and two wins. In contrast, every quarterback on your second list--Dilfer, Hostetler, and Brad Johnson--was associated with only one Super Bowl appearance and only one win. Only one team nucleus from the latter list--the Giants of the late '80s/early '90s--was associated with more than one Super Bowl appearance/win. And they had Phil Simms for their first win.

 

To the average Bills fan, one Super Bowl win would be enough. But if you design a team to win only one Super Bowl, and if you get a little unlucky, you won't win any. But if you design a team to win multiple Super Bowls, you can have an unlucky year or two and still come away with a Super Bowl ring. The only model associated with winning multiple Super Bowls requires an elite franchise QB.

 

It's also useful to take a closer look at the play of the quarterbacks you mentioned. Trent Dilfer was nothing special--I don't think anyone would argue that! But in 2002--the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl--Brad Johnson had a 92.9 QB rating, and averaged 6.8 yards per pass attempt. He was a Pro Bowl quarterback that year, and rightly so. The Bucs received very good play from the quarterback position that year!

 

Then consider Jeff Hostetler. No one would argue he had an elite career! But in his postseason games, he averaged 9.0 yards per pass attempt, and had a QB rating of 112.0. ESPN ranked his performance against the Bills as the 30th best QB performance in the Super Bowl of all time. The Giants received elite-level play from the QB position in the postseason. Had Hostetler played a little less well, the Giants would not have beaten the Bills.

 

To break things down a little further, Super Bowl winners have consisted of 1) teams that have elite QBs, like Montana or Elway, 2) teams that have solid QBs who play significantly above their usual level for a year or two, or during the postseason. Examples include Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, and Terry Bradshaw. Teams in this category don't necessarily receive elite-level quarterback play all the time. But they do receive it when they need it the most: during the postseason. 3) teams which receive middle-of-the-road quarterback play during the regular season and postseason. Trent Dilfer and the Ravens of 2000 are a good example of this. But they're a very rare example, in part because the Ravens required one of the three best defenses in NFL history to mask Dilfer's shortcomings as a QB.

 

Finding an elite QB is not easy--but building a Ravens-like defense is a lot tougher! Even with that defense, plus a really good OL, plus a 2000 yard RB in Jamal Lewis, the Ravens won just one Super Bowl.

[ajzepp]

There are several things I'd like to mention with respect to your post. The first is that everyone in your former category--Montana, Brady, and Elway--led his team to multiple Super Bowl appearances and multiple wins. Montana led the 49ers for four wins, Brady led the Patriots to four appearances and three wins; and Elway led the Broncos to five appearances and two wins. In contrast, every quarterback on your second list--Dilfer, Hostetler, and Brad Johnson--was associated with only one Super Bowl appearance and only one win. Only one team nucleus from the latter list--the Giants of the late '80s/early '90s--was associated with more than one Super Bowl appearance/win. And they had Phil Simms for their first win.

 

To the average Bills fan, one Super Bowl win would be enough. But if you design a team to win only one Super Bowl, and if you get a little unlucky, you won't win any. But if you design a team to win multiple Super Bowls, you can have an unlucky year or two and still come away with a Super Bowl ring. The only model associated with winning multiple Super Bowls requires an elite franchise QB.

 

It's also useful to take a closer look at the play of the quarterbacks you mentioned. Trent Dilfer was nothing special--I don't think anyone would argue that! But in 2002--the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl--Brad Johnson had a 92.9 QB rating, and averaged 6.8 yards per pass attempt. He was a Pro Bowl quarterback that year, and rightly so. The Bucs received very good play from the quarterback position that year!

 

Then consider Jeff Hostetler. No one would argue he had an elite career! But in his postseason games, he averaged 9.0 yards per pass attempt, and had a QB rating of 112.0. ESPN ranked his performance against the Bills as the 30th best QB performance in the Super Bowl of all time. The Giants received elite-level play from the QB position in the postseason. Had Hostetler played a little less well, the Giants would not have beaten the Bills.

 

To break things down a little further, Super Bowl winners have consisted of 1) teams that have elite QBs, like Montana or Elway, 2) teams that have solid QBs who play significantly above their usual level for a year or two, or during the postseason. Examples include Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, and Terry Bradshaw. Teams in this category don't necessarily receive elite-level quarterback play all the time. But they do receive it when they need it the most: during the postseason. 3) teams which receive middle-of-the-road quarterback play during the regular season and postseason. Trent Dilfer and the Ravens of 2000 are a good example of this. But they're a very rare example, in part because the Ravens required one of the three best defenses in NFL history to mask Dilfer's shortcomings as a QB.

 

Finding an elite QB is not easy--but building a Ravens-like defense is a lot tougher! Even with that defense, plus a really good OL, plus a 2000 yard RB in Jamal Lewis, the Ravens won just one Super Bowl.

 

After I made my post, I anticipated someone making that counter-argument, but admittedly you went into much more detail than I was prepared for lol. Nice job!

 

The thing with great QBs is that in all instances I can think of, they had solid running games and solid defenses. The times when they didnt - 80s broncos, 90s bills, last Pats SB, etc - the team lost. Elway didn't win until he had a top ranked defense and Terrell Davis. The only time the Bills competed was the year their defense was strongest. Peyton Manning always had a running game, but it wasn't until Dungy got the defense playing well that he won his. In short, there are plenty of examples of teams with great QBs who won SBs WITH solid defenses, but not many were the great QB won w/out it. I guess what I'm saying is that the common denominator among SB champs - in my opinion - is the strong defense...not the great QB.

[Orton's Arm]

After I made my post, I anticipated someone making that counter-argument, but admittedly you went into much more detail than I was prepared for lol. Nice job!

 

The thing with great QBs is that in all instances I can think of, they had solid running games and solid defenses. The times when they didnt - 80s broncos, 90s bills, last Pats SB, etc - the team lost. Elway didn't win until he had a top ranked defense and Terrell Davis. The only time the Bills competed was the year their defense was strongest. Peyton Manning always had a running game, but it wasn't until Dungy got the defense playing well that he won his. In short, there are plenty of examples of teams with great QBs who won SBs WITH solid defenses, but not many were the great QB won w/out it. I guess what I'm saying is that the common denominator among SB champs - in my opinion - is the strong defense...not the great QB.

I think that we're 80% of the way toward being on the same page. So I'll discuss the remaining 20%.

 

The way I see it, you will normally need a complete team if you're going to win the Super Bowl. A good quarterback and passing attack are part of that, but not the whole picture.

 

If (for example) you have an elite quarterback but a mediocre defense, odds are that sooner or later, you'll encounter some other team that also has an elite quarterback, and has a good defense to go with him. All else being equal, the elite QB + good defense will beat out the team with the elite quarterback alone.

 

A "run the ball and win with defense" team that has a mediocre QB may well do okay in the regular season. But in the postseason, they will very likely encounter some other team that also has a good running game, a good defense, and has a very good QB. That QB is going to give the latter team considerably more options than the former has.

 

Someone at the [i}New York Times[/i] conducted a regression analysis, and found that an improvement in the passing game or in pass defense was four times more important than an equal improvement in the running game or rushing defense. The recent game between the Bills and Kansas City is a good case in point. The Bills brought their league-worst rushing defense to try to defend the Chiefs' league-best rushing offense. Despite that obvious disparity in talent, the Chiefs only scored 10 points during regulation. (Even though they ran for over 200 yards.) Another example of that is the Patriots' offense when they won their first Super Bowl. They had Antowain Smith as their starting running back; and yet their Brady-led offense was among the best in the league.

 

So you want your overall team to be complete, but you need to have a good passing attack and good pass defense. Obviously, there's more to a good passing attack than just a good QB. But without a good QB, you won't have a good passing attack.

 

As you advance in the playoffs, your competition will get progressively tougher. Sooner or later you'll come across a team that's able to stuff your running game and put up more points against your defense than it should. When that happens, you're going to need your quarterback and your passing attack to bail you out. A team in that situation that doesn't have a good QB is going to be eliminated from the playoffs.

[thewildrabbit]

The thing that Fitz just doesn't have is that will to win no matter what, granted he is carrying the entire offense right now, but still he folds under pressure. He just doesn't have that killer instinct and the will needed to make that big play to win the game, Instead he throws a pick.

 

He could develop that trait at some point, but I'd think we would have seen it by now if he had it in him. The guy has lots of the intangibles needed to play QB in the NFL, he just can't do it alone...he needs help from the running game and play calling. Right now Gailey wants the QB to carry the team, kinda stupid.

Just think how good the offense could be with Fitz at QB if he had a power running game to back him up, and he needs a better tight end, perhaps Nelson can develop into a top TE, but that remains to be seen.

[ajzepp]

I think that we're 80% of the way toward being on the same page. So I'll discuss the remaining 20%.

 

The way I see it, you will normally need a complete team if you're going to win the Super Bowl. A good quarterback and passing attack are part of that, but not the whole picture.

 

If (for example) you have an elite quarterback but a mediocre defense, odds are that sooner or later, you'll encounter some other team that also has an elite quarterback, and has a good defense to go with him. All else being equal, the elite QB + good defense will beat out the team with the elite quarterback alone.

 

A "run the ball and win with defense" team that has a mediocre QB may well do okay in the regular season. But in the postseason, they will very likely encounter some other team that also has a good running game, a good defense, and has a very good QB. That QB is going to give the latter team considerably more options than the former has.

 

Someone at the [i}New York Times[/i] conducted a regression analysis, and found that an improvement in the passing game or in pass defense was four times more important than an equal improvement in the running game or rushing defense. The recent game between the Bills and Kansas City is a good case in point. The Bills brought their league-worst rushing defense to try to defend the Chiefs' league-best rushing offense. Despite that obvious disparity in talent, the Chiefs only scored 10 points during regulation. (Even though they ran for over 200 yards.) Another example of that is the Patriots' offense when they won their first Super Bowl. They had Antowain Smith as their starting running back; and yet their Brady-led offense was among the best in the league.

 

So you want your overall team to be complete, but you need to have a good passing attack and good pass defense. Obviously, there's more to a good passing attack than just a good QB. But without a good QB, you won't have a good passing attack.

 

As you advance in the playoffs, your competition will get progressively tougher. Sooner or later you'll come across a team that's able to stuff your running game and put up more points against your defense than it should. When that happens, you're going to need your quarterback and your passing attack to bail you out. A team in that situation that doesn't have a good QB is going to be eliminated from the playoffs.

 

Okay man, you're hired as the GM

[thewildrabbit]

I think that we're 80% of the way toward being on the same page. So I'll discuss the remaining 20%.

 

The way I see it, you will normally need a complete team if you're going to win the Super Bowl. A good quarterback and passing attack are part of that, but not the whole picture.

 

If (for example) you have an elite quarterback but a mediocre defense, odds are that sooner or later, you'll encounter some other team that also has an elite quarterback, and has a good defense to go with him. All else being equal, the elite QB + good defense will beat out the team with the elite quarterback alone.

 

A "run the ball and win with defense" team that has a mediocre QB may well do okay in the regular season. But in the postseason, they will very likely encounter some other team that also has a good running game, a good defense, and has a very good QB. That QB is going to give the latter team considerably more options than the former has.

 

Someone at the [i}New York Times[/i] conducted a regression analysis, and found that an improvement in the passing game or in pass defense was four times more important than an equal improvement in the running game or rushing defense. The recent game between the Bills and Kansas City is a good case in point. The Bills brought their league-worst rushing defense to try to defend the Chiefs' league-best rushing offense. Despite that obvious disparity in talent, the Chiefs only scored 10 points during regulation. (Even though they ran for over 200 yards.) Another example of that is the Patriots' offense when they won their first Super Bowl. They had Antowain Smith as their starting running back; and yet their Brady-led offense was among the best in the league.

 

So you want your overall team to be complete, but you need to have a good passing attack and good pass defense. Obviously, there's more to a good passing attack than just a good QB. But without a good QB, you won't have a good passing attack.

 

As you advance in the playoffs, your competition will get progressively tougher. Sooner or later you'll come across a team that's able to stuff your running game and put up more points against your defense than it should. When that happens, you're going to need your quarterback and your passing attack to bail you out. A team in that situation that doesn't have a good QB is going to be eliminated from the playoffs.

Look at the Saints, as good as Drew Brees is...he can't do it alone. The Saints won the SB last year with a very aggressive defense that had a big turnover differential, plus could put plenty of pressure on opposing QB's. Then he also had a decent running game to help him out, if the opponent stopped him, they would run more. If they shut down the run then Brees would tear them apart. Balanced team and equally good defense and offensive play will usually prevail over a one dimensional opponent.

 

Chan Gailey needs to remove his head from his keaster and start setting up the offense to run first and pass second, the two best play makers on the offense are Fred Jackson and CJ Spiller. People forget that those early 90's Bills won because they ran Thurman Thomas more then Kelly threw

[Dorkington]

Week 3 @ NE - 92.4 - (High rating)

Week 4 vs NYJ - 83.6 - (Average rating)

Week 5 vs JAC - 121.5 - (High rating)

Week 7 @ BAL - 106.2 - (High rating)

Week 8 @ KC - 61.4 - (Low rating)

 

3 Good games. One average game. One bad game.

 

And everyone is lining up to tar and feather the guy.

 

Even the elite QBs throw together a bad sometimes. But Fitzpatrick? He's not allowed to. He has to be perfect. All the time.

 

You guys are ridiculous.

[NaPolian8693]

Week 3 @ NE - 92.4 - (High rating)

Week 4 vs NYJ - 83.6 - (Average rating)

Week 5 vs JAC - 121.5 - (High rating)

Week 7 @ BAL - 106.2 - (High rating)

Week 8 @ KC - 61.4 - (Low rating)

 

3 Good games. One average game. One bad game.

 

And everyone is lining up to tar and feather the guy.

 

Even the elite QBs throw together a bad sometimes. But Fitzpatrick? He's not allowed to. He has to be perfect. All the time.

 

You guys are ridiculous.

 

Here is a brief history of games in which Ryan Fitzpatrick saw most of the action. For each year, a summary is given of how many Good, Marginal, and Bad games he had.

 

2005

1 Good, 3 Bad

 

2006

None

 

2007

None

 

2008

3 Good, 2 Marginal, 6 Bad

 

2009:

2 Good, 3 Marginal, 4 Bad

 

2010:

3 Good, 1 Marginal, 1 Bad

 

---

 

Even bad QBs have good games sometimes.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

The thing that Fitz just doesn't have is that will to win no matter what, granted he is carrying the entire offense right now, but still he folds under pressure. He just doesn't have that killer instinct and the will needed to make that big play to win the game, Instead he throws a pick.

 

He could develop that trait at some point, but I'd think we would have seen it by now if he had it in him. The guy has lots of the intangibles needed to play QB in the NFL, he just can't do it alone...he needs help from the running game and play calling. Right now Gailey wants the QB to carry the team, kinda stupid.

Just think how good the offense could be with Fitz at QB if he had a power running game to back him up, and he needs a better tight end, perhaps Nelson can develop into a top TE, but that remains to be seen.

 

 

What you are talking about isn't "the will to win" (the guy has been taking on linebackers when he scrambles!). You are talking about being calm under pressure. Those are two completely different things. He needs more experiance.

 

Here is a brief history of games in which Ryan Fitzpatrick saw most of the action. For each year, a summary is given of how many Good, Marginal, and Bad games he had.

 

2005

1 Good, 3 Bad

 

2006

None

 

2007

None

 

2008

3 Good, 2 Marginal, 6 Bad

 

2009:

2 Good, 3 Marginal, 4 Bad

 

2010:

3 Good, 1 Marginal, 1 Bad

 

---

 

Even bad QBs have good games sometimes.

 

Yeah, but he has been playing surrounded by these Buffalo Bills.

 

All this bickering. We will know (at least most will know ) whether Fitz has what it takes by the end of this season.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Matthews' Bag

[nedboy7]

wait till they put in some draft pick qb in there next year and you have to watch him throw pick after pick. the posts on here are more aggravating than watching the bills. get a clue.

 

if he makes that kick then fitz did enough to win right? bills fans suck.

[Dorkington]

Here is a brief history of games in which Ryan Fitzpatrick saw most of the action. For each year, a summary is given of how many Good, Marginal, and Bad games he had.

 

2005

1 Good, 3 Bad

 

2006

None

 

2007

None

 

2008

3 Good, 2 Marginal, 6 Bad

 

2009:

2 Good, 3 Marginal, 4 Bad

 

2010:

3 Good, 1 Marginal, 1 Bad

 

---

 

Even bad QBs have good games sometimes.

 

I prefer to work with his history under the current offensive schemes/coaches first and then his history with other teams a distant second.

 

I think he's played well enough to be the starter for the rest of the year. At the end of the year we can evaluate if he can be a starter going ahead or not. Not to mention, by your numbers, it looks like he has made improvements every year.

 

But apparently reasonableness has no place here.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Dorkington

[Big Turk]

Fitz had better performances than Aaron Rodgers or Carson Palmer did last week...

[NaPolian8693]

Carson Palmer sucks, he never was good again after Kimo blew up his knee and basically destroyed their whole rising franchise in that one playoff game.

 

Fitzpatrick should start the rest of the year, and stay around in the future to mentor the new kid and be a valuable reserve.

 

Looking at him as a franchise QB is just blind fan optimism.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Why can't fans accept the fact that the decision on Fitzy does not need to be made in week 7 week 8 or even week 14!!! The decision needs to be made on draft day comparing what he showed throughout the season vs what is there in the draft.

 

He has played well at times, he has played poorly at times and the only known at the moment is he does have more potential than was generally thought.

 

He is still improving and is not the "no upside, weak armed second string at best QB" he was initially diagnosed as.

 

Now he still may prove himself not to be the elite passer and leader the bills need, but so far this season he has earned the right to continue attempting to stake his claim on the job.

Edited November 2, 2010 by over 20 years of fanhood