I am going to say it....Bills don't need a QB

[Rockinon]

There are seven rounds in the draft people. Even if we could get a better QB than Fitz(not very friggin likely) he would likely sit on the bench until he is ready. If you want to win right away though, defense is were we will need to start. The key word is "start". Having an upper echelon QB is great and all but we will need to improve on D first because that is where this team's key weaknesses are. It's also going to take more than just one pick. We don't want to unnecessarily waste a pick on offense when that is obviously where the team's greatest strengths are. I'll take 2 0r 3 good defensive picks before QB at this point. Of course, we'll have to wait and see how well Fitz does the rest of the season though. He's playing at a very high level right now, and he is going to have to continue that for us to 100% convinced. From what I have seen so far though the defense is sorely in need of some help.

[Lenigmusx]

The answer to your question has to be an unqualified yes - I'm becoming a Fitzbeard fan but at the end of the day he is kind of like Joe Ferguson as compared to Jim Kelly to me. Fergy was a good but not great QB who could win with the right cast around him. Jim Kelly was a player that had the talent to lift a team (at least an offense)on his back and carry it. I am in no way saying Kelly was not surrounded by talent - there was plenty - he simply made the talent there even better. There are very few players who can carry a team - if one is available the Bills must take him.

Fergy was good with a supporting cast as well. Hell, if he was not hurt in 1980 I am pretty sure that would have been our first superbowl year. Could we have beaten the Eagles? Who knows but Fergy was the second best QB in the AFC only to Dan Fouts that year. He had a great cast though. 1981 was pretty good as well. We should have beaten the Bengals. Anyway he was good with a cast around him as well.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Lenigmusx

[Kelly the Dog]

Sure, numbers can be misleading. In this case, I think these numbers are accurately portraying how well Fitzpatrick is playing this season, which is eight games -- a decent number to evaluate trends but surely nowhere near enough to know for sure if it is an aberration or not. That said, courtesy of Buffalo Rumblings, here are a few interesting numbers...

• A Buffalo Bills quarterback has had two four-touchdown games in one season five times. Jim Kelly did it three times. Joe Ferguson had one, and now Fitzpatrick has one. (Drew Bledsoe had two four-TD games in three seasons combined.)
• Fitzpatrick is averaging 2.25 touchdown passes per game. At that pace, he will finish the 2010 season with 31 or 32 scoring passes, second-most in a single season for a Bills quarterback.
• He has thrown a touchdown on 6.3% of his passing attempts, fifth-best in team history among quarterbacks.
• His 245.1 passing yards per game would be the third-best average in Buffalo's 51 seasons.
• If he continues to average 245.1 yards per game, he will top Rob Johnson for ninth place in Bills history in career passing yards. (He is already eighth in passing touchdowns, having surpassed Trent Edwards.)
• He's only been sacked 14 times in eight games (4.7% sack rate), eighth-fewest among Bills QBs who have started at least eight games in one season.
• Don't forget he threw the longest pass in team history last season - a 98-yard bomb to Terrell Owens.

[DCBongo]

This would be a better conversation at the end of the year. Fitz is showing great signs, he's a leader, he's tough as nails and has a very nice arm. The thing about Fitz is you know he is going to make about 5 really bad passes in the game and you just pray it doesn't kill the team. Now, can he improve his accuracy and keep control of the ball? He has 8 more games to show it. If he does, then the Bills might have a solid QB who can lead this team for a few years, meaning the Bills can concentrate on a left guard, defensive linemen and outside linebackers. Besides, if the Bills win another game or two they are not picking in the top 3 and if Luck comes out the Bills will probably not get him. Just relax, enjoy the fight in the dog and hope a few of these guys actually turn into legitimate starters who can return the Bills to prominence.

[dave mcbride]

I'm only talking about his accuracy this season, which has substantially improved. Up until now, I also thought, and said even in the post you responded to that he was inaccurate on too many passes, especially ones that are relatively easy. It cost us the NE game when he overthrew an open Parrish at the goalline that was intercepted. It's happened often this year, especially on a few bombs to Evans.

 

But to me (taking velocity out of the equation) he's like a fastball throwing pitcher who throws a lot of wild pitches and when he's bad he's really bad -- BUT -- at the same time, overall he throws more strikes than guys with more consistent control. And if he is getting more batters out and striking more guys out, plus the walks or wild pitches are not hurting him, the optics of the bad pitches are distorting the reality of the sum of the parts.

 

If Fitz threw a lot to the backs and TEs he would easily be at 65%. That's considered very good in this league. He also has to throw immediately because our line gives him two seconds not three or four like other lines do.

 

He throws a TON of extremely accurate passes, often into tight spots. And I totally disagree that a good percentage of his completions are bad passes. He hits guys in stride all the time. Those passes (I would say there have been 15-20 over the season) that are low to the ground that Stevie Johnson has caught right at the first down marker or endzone are extremely accurate passes. Perfect in fact. If you think they are not accurate because they were low, that is just nonsense.

 

He has thrown a lot of bad screen passes, I would agree. That is something he does not do great. But they don't hurt us all that much and it's not something I'm at all worried about. He's thrown some very good ones, too, and those are not such easy balls. In fact, it's hard to throw consistently good screen passes and a lot of QBs can't throw them. It's also difficult on TV a lot of times to see why that happened.

 

Right now, if Fitzpatrick didn't misfire on the 2-3 passes a game that he probably should hit, he would be playing at an all-pro franchise quarterback level. I am not saying he isnt inaccurate with passes that he should make. That's his major problem right now. BUT, I think you are others are totally misreading the sum of the game, and giving too many demerits for those few a game when he is making more than that many tough passes a game. If he continues at this pace, he's going to throw 32 TDs in 14 games. Jim Kelly threw 33 once in his career, and never more than that. And Fitz is on this team, not a Super Bowl team

+1. Great post. What neither you nor Alphadawg are mentioning, though, is his ability to avoid sacks and make a low-quality group of pass blockers look competent. That's huge. There was a stat in the NY Times today that struck me -- Eli Manning has fumbled 59 times, and a greater rate than anyone else on that team (and at three times the rate of his brother). Whatever Fitz's flaws, he doesn't do that. Most importantly, the team is able to move the goddamn ball with him under center.

[Bart]

I have been really behind drafting Luck for most of the season, but Fitz has completely changed me the past few games...

 

We can win with Fitz. With a better defense, we can make the playoffs. We certainly score enough points to win. I say we go heavy on defense in this draft...

 

 

Agreed. Anyone that thinks we do, is simply a moron.

[Hplarrm]

Im at a loss for words.

 

Taking a player, assuming he's as good as Manning, is the worst thing a franchise can do to build a winning team????

 

The bills have tried to solidify their lines like Indy did, see Wood, levitre, wang, hangartner.

 

If a Manning type player is there you take him, its silly to argue otherwise. i mean cmon mannnnn

I actually do flat out disagree with taking a QB in the first because my sense is that virtually without regard to how good of a player this athlete is it is going to be a non-productive choice for this team.

 

I feel this is true for some specific reasons which I think are difficult to disagree with completely (and if you or others do I would be happy to be enlightened). They are:

 

1. The first question is what are the chances that the player drafted is going to be as good as Peyton Manning. It could happen, sure but the odds of this 1st round draftee being Peyton or being Ryan Leaf are pretty close. Omdy made the correct call and deserves credit for that, However, there was honest debate between the professionals as to who would be the better pro and the close draft position (Leaf went right after Manning) and the huge result difference demonstrates how picking a franchise QB even for the professionals is pretty close to a crapshoot in terms of results.

 

There is a conventional wisdom that a first round pick should be a starter his first year, That would be nice but the CW is wrong as when I looked at a fairly strong draft class in depth and at the beginning of their second season only slightly over 50% were first at their position on the depth chart.

 

So far the flavors of the month and a stone cold lock to be the next Manning has gone from Locker to Mallett and now Luck. 1st rounders are a crapshoot and QB is the most difficult of them all to pick.

 

My guess right off the top 50/50 he is a pick we will wish we passed on.

 

and this is just the start.

 

2. The media here led by Sully and GR and a small but vocal fan base will do everything can to throw this rookie under the bus when he plays like a talented rookie. Even if he is a future HOF player I argue it will be a bad move for the Bills as this town ruined by years of seeking the next savior Jimbo is far more likely to give this athlete the career path of a Steve Young, Brett Favre or a Drew Brees than a Peyton Manning.

 

3. Again even if we simply assume he is Manning Manning led Indy to the exact same record and if that is true for the Bills in 2010 and 2011 I doubt Gailey survives and perhaps it is hello Toronto Bills. Again franchise pick even we catch lightening and he is a HOF player it is a disaster for the Buffalo Bills.

 

Our investments in the OL have simply been mismanaged. Even if you are excited about Wood Levitre (which means ignoring him missing PT due to injury for the second year in a row) it seems clear we are still a player and a half away from adequacy in terms of talent. Add a year for chemistry to build and your rookie QB is going to need the lightening fast throws of Manning and/or the vet play reading and quick throws of Fitzgerald or simply get life insurance for your rookie QM/

 

Again if we take a rookie QB in the first and play him I think there is a fair chance of disaster.

 

4. What is Gailey;s record of productivity with vets like Fiedler, Bulger, Kordell and now Fitzy versus any proven record of developing talented rookies.

 

You treat this as a mo-brainer when I think reality says we go vet and if we do pick a franchise QB in the first if he plays it likely will be a disaster even on the no where near a sure thing he is as good as Peyton Manning.

 

I think you at least reality needs to acknowledge these points or if you want to insist this is a no-brainer you should be able to easily state reasons why these points are not true or simply beyond debate.

[K Gun Special]

I actually do flat out disagree with taking a QB in the first because my sense is that virtually without regard to how good of a player this athlete is it is going to be a non-productive choice for this team.

 

I feel this is true for some specific reasons which I think are difficult to disagree with completely (and if you or others do I would be happy to be enlightened). They are:

 

1. The first question is what are the chances that the player drafted is going to be as good as Peyton Manning. It could happen, sure but the odds of this 1st round draftee being Peyton or being Ryan Leaf are pretty close. Omdy made the correct call and deserves credit for that, However, there was honest debate between the professionals as to who would be the better pro and the close draft position (Leaf went right after Manning) and the huge result difference demonstrates how picking a franchise QB even for the professionals is pretty close to a crapshoot in terms of results.

 

There is a conventional wisdom that a first round pick should be a starter his first year, That would be nice but the CW is wrong as when I looked at a fairly strong draft class in depth and at the beginning of their second season only slightly over 50% were first at their position on the depth chart.

 

So far the flavors of the month and a stone cold lock to be the next Manning has gone from Locker to Mallett and now Luck. 1st rounders are a crapshoot and QB is the most difficult of them all to pick.

 

My guess right off the top 50/50 he is a pick we will wish we passed on.

 

and this is just the start.

 

2. The media here led by Sully and GR and a small but vocal fan base will do everything can to throw this rookie under the bus when he plays like a talented rookie. Even if he is a future HOF player I argue it will be a bad move for the Bills as this town ruined by years of seeking the next savior Jimbo is far more likely to give this athlete the career path of a Steve Young, Brett Favre or a Drew Brees than a Peyton Manning.

 

3. Again even if we simply assume he is Manning Manning led Indy to the exact same record and if that is true for the Bills in 2010 and 2011 I doubt Gailey survives and perhaps it is hello Toronto Bills. Again franchise pick even we catch lightening and he is a HOF player it is a disaster for the Buffalo Bills.

 

Our investments in the OL have simply been mismanaged. Even if you are excited about Wood Levitre (which means ignoring him missing PT due to injury for the second year in a row) it seems clear we are still a player and a half away from adequacy in terms of talent. Add a year for chemistry to build and your rookie QB is going to need the lightening fast throws of Manning and/or the vet play reading and quick throws of Fitzgerald or simply get life insurance for your rookie QM/

 

Again if we take a rookie QB in the first and play him I think there is a fair chance of disaster.

 

4. What is Gailey;s record of productivity with vets like Fiedler, Bulger, Kordell and now Fitzy versus any proven record of developing talented rookies.

 

You treat this as a mo-brainer when I think reality says we go vet and if we do pick a franchise QB in the first if he plays it likely will be a disaster even on the no where near a sure thing he is as good as Peyton Manning.

 

I think you at least reality needs to acknowledge these points or if you want to insist this is a no-brainer you should be able to easily state reasons why these points are not true or simply beyond debate.

 

 

THe odds of any choice taken in the top 10 are about the same regardless of position.

 

 

I cant agree that taking a QB who turns into the next steve young or Brett Favre is a worse choice than taking a defensive player. QBs are the franchise and without one you are going to be mediocre.

 

This "fitzmagic" stuff is cute and fun but the reality is he's won two games against really bad teams. He is racking up some nice numbers, this is true. But do you really think this guy has the consistency to take a team on a run in the playoffs?? This isnt a budding young player, hes on a hot streak right now but odds are he will come back to Earth this week.

 

As for the development of a QB, yea you are going to take your lumps like Indy did with Manning. But saying that if the bills pick a qb WGR and jerry sullivan are going to ruin him and the team will move to toronto is a bit far fetched.

 

The team has D needs, no one can argue that. What D position do you advocate taking with a top 10 pick?