CosmicBills Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 2. That's exactly my point. A good backup sits on the bench, listens into the head phones, and talks things over with the starter on the sideline helping him decipher the defense. Brohm so far has done quite well in all of those areas. You don't need a Montana as your #2 QB. So why waste a top 10 draft pick on it? If your back up is getting significant playing time... then you need a new #1. Maybe you luck out like the Pats* did with Brady.. .but they wasted a 6th round pick on him. If Nix wants to take a late round pick QB.. I got no problem with it. But, I'm not sure why we need to waste a top 10 pick on a guy because he looks good on the bench and might be a good player in 3 years. As I said in my post, if you're sure the next Elway, Kelly, Montana is there; yes, draft him. But, if you're not sure, why waste a high pick when you could get a player for a position of true need? So, I assume then that you're on the sidelines, listening to what Brohm is saying and what he's listening to on the sidelines? How else could you possibly ascertain the quality of Brohm's contribution on the sidelines. Or is it that you just like the way he stands on the sidelines. Maybe you think he looks adorable in his handwarmer and baseball cap? The fact is, a number 2 QB's worth cannot be determined on the sidelines. It's determined by his ability, or inability, to come in for an injured player and win games. Period. So saying things like "Brohm has proven he's a great #2 QB" is borderline crazy. Well, maybe I'm being kind. But your logical prowess continues with your last statement -- you say we should only draft a QB if we're SURE he's the next Elway, Kelly or Montana, and if we're not then we should draft another player who can help. But who's to say that the DE, OT, WR, LB you draft will be the next Jerry Rice or the next McCargo? Since no teams in the NFL employ a psychic (that we know of) EVERY pick is a crap shoot. You never know what you're going to get until they step onto the field. But by your logic, we shouldn't draft ANYONE because they could be a bust. Great theory. The fact of the matter is that I believe that Fitz is not a Franchise QB and this team needs one desperately before they can win. You disagree. That's fine. If Fitz brings a Super Bowl to Buffalo I'll gladly admit I was wrong. Until then, keep drinking the Kool Aide.
BuffaninATL Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 I don't care much for talking heads but Wilcots is one of the few that deserves respect. He has a tremendous grasp of what is happening on the field and spends a significant amount of time watching film to increase his awareness of current NFL players. Unlike most guys who are focused primarily on promoting themselves, Solomon loves the game itself and always values substance over style. While I don't always agree with the guy, I do always respect his opinion. These comments are actually a pretty significant feather in Fitz's cap. A tremendous grasp of what is happening on the field?......maybe sometimes, but I beg to differ after hearing "analysis" like this: "Well I think the success of the Bills on third downs in the second half really has to do with how many yards they had to go. In the first half they had a lot of yards to go on third downs and they didn't convert. But in the second half the Bills had a lot of shorter distances to go. Believe me, it's always much easier to get a first down on a third-and-short rather than a third-and-long. That's usually because there's more yards to go on a third-and-long rather than a third-and-short." yep, that was Solly from this past Sunday......
8-8 Forever? Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 You're right, it's a darn shame that Fitzpatrick couldn't have been more accurate on that pass to Johnson in overtime. Yep. Throws it 50 yards right on the button (again) into double coverage and makes it look easy. My grandmother could have caught that ball. Fitz has made a believer out of me. Give me very good to great QB play on a consistent basis and I'm happy, I don't care what his name is or where he comes from. The last 5 games will tell the story. The O is relatively healthy overall, so lets see how Fitz does the rest of the way.
Dan Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 So, I assume then that you're on the sidelines, listening to what Brohm is saying and what he's listening to on the sidelines? How else could you possibly ascertain the quality of Brohm's contribution on the sidelines. Or is it that you just like the way he stands on the sidelines. Maybe you think he looks adorable in his handwarmer and baseball cap? The fact is, a number 2 QB's worth cannot be determined on the sidelines. It's determined by his ability, or inability, to come in for an injured player and win games. Period. So saying things like "Brohm has proven he's a great #2 QB" is borderline crazy. Well, maybe I'm being kind. But your logical prowess continues with your last statement -- you say we should only draft a QB if we're SURE he's the next Elway, Kelly or Montana, and if we're not then we should draft another player who can help. But who's to say that the DE, OT, WR, LB you draft will be the next Jerry Rice or the next McCargo? Since no teams in the NFL employ a psychic (that we know of) EVERY pick is a crap shoot. You never know what you're going to get until they step onto the field. But by your logic, we shouldn't draft ANYONE because they could be a bust. Great theory. The fact of the matter is that I believe that Fitz is not a Franchise QB and this team needs one desperately before they can win. You disagree. That's fine. If Fitz brings a Super Bowl to Buffalo I'll gladly admit I was wrong. Until then, keep drinking the Kool Aide. Yes, Brohm looks great roaming the sideline. And how do you know that when/if he ever has to step in for an injured Fitz that he won't perform quite capably? He has every chance of stringing 1 or 2 good games together as a backup as anyone. I say he's doing his job well as a backup because he's not creating controversy; he's not trying to get on the field at every opportunity; he's not creating a problem in the locker room; I have seen him and Fitz talking on the sideline so I assume he's helping Fitz out; he's not costing the team a lot of money; and he's hasn't cost the team a high daft pick. How is any of that a bad backup? So, you'd rather use a top 10 draft pick on a QB? So now you have a guy making 10's of millions of dollars, who wants to be on the field, continually looking over the starter's shoulder; just so he can get on the field and maybe play as well as Fitz is playing now? Yes, a RT, DE, LB, etc. could be a bust; but isn't it better to try and draft for what the team actually needs? I'm not saying don't draft a QB because he might be a bust; I'm suggesting don't draft a QB because Fitz is playing well enough to be a starter. That is... we don't need a new QB on the team. Using a top 10 draft pick on a QB, at this point, is the very definition of running in place. We'd use a top 10 pick and (if we're lucky) get the same production for the next couple of years as we're currently getting from Fitz. Why not allow Fitz to maintain his level of play and use that valuable pick on a position that can help stop the run? So, I'm advocating building on what we've already got rather than rebuilding that which is working because we don't think Fitz is the answer; even though all relevant statistics show he is the guy. Yes, maybe this is a flash in the pan year for him. But, at this point, we've all been waiting for Fitz's play to tail off and him to get pummeled by defenses. Well... we're still waiting. I say Fitz has earned the right to be the starter and we should build the other areas of the team that desperately need it until he actually does start failing.
ConradDobler Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 (edited) A tremendous grasp of what is happening on the field?......maybe sometimes, but I beg to differ after hearing "analysis" like this: "Well I think the success of the Bills on third downs in the second half really has to do with how many yards they had to go. In the first half they had a lot of yards to go on third downs and they didn't convert. But in the second half the Bills had a lot of shorter distances to go. Believe me, it's always much easier to get a first down on a third-and-short rather than a third-and-long. That's usually because there's more yards to go on a third-and-long rather than a third-and-short." yep, that was Solly from this past Sunday...... No. "Wew I think the success of the Beeows on thiwt dons in the secont haf weally has to do with how many yawts they hat to go. In the fiwst haf they hat a lot of yawts to go on thiwt dons and they din't convewt. But in the secont haf the Beeows had a lot of showter..." On and on. When someone speaks baby talk I stop listening. Call him Sowwy Edited December 2, 2010 by ConradDobler
Recommended Posts