Ralph's got QB issues

[NoSaint]

Name one current NFL QB who could be an elite QB on that PoS team the Bills fielded last season... Bell at LT...scrub walk ons at RT.... Roscoe Parrish out injured... no running game...The supposed super star RB taken with the #9 pick in the draft that can't block, can't run....

 

Perhaps you guys all forget the first two games with Trent Edwards as QB...or howabout the Jets game in which Brian Brohm started...fitz the leading rusher against the Jets because they have no running game

 

 

Fitz did an amazing job considering his surrounding supporting cast was horrifically teribad, the only guy who played almost as well as Fitz all year was Stevie WSS Johnson who had the dropsies at the absolute worst time against the Steelers. Jeez, I for one would like to see what Fitz can do if given all the reps in the off season-pre season and is given all of Chan Gaileys focus and attention. Hopefully the Bills can get the running game going, find a decent solution at TE and RT .

 

 

whatever would any of these guy do with an injury to a receiver that averaged 20 catches a year for 5 years. and i seem to remember new orleans having a pretty scrub LT..... and injuries to shockey, colston, meachem, throughout the year. no pierre thomas, missing reggie, chris ivory being hurt.... funny how drew brees on an injured knee still put up those numbers.

[CosmicBills]

Did you forget about him? Washington Redskins QB, won MVP against Broncos.

 

I also forgot about Brad Johnson. I am not trying to be a smart ass, and now-a-days you need a better QB to win the Super Bowl, but I don't think you need an elite QB. You just need one that doesn't make mistakes, and Fitz didn't make that many mistakes. To win the Super Bowl you need Defense, which the Bills don't have.

I know you're not trying to be a smart ass, so no worries there. But you're also not reading my post and missing the point. The post said in the past decade -- Williams won his ring in '88. Hence the wall bash. That was a different era. A different league. What's so baffling to me is that so many people fail to realize that the game has changed drastically in the past 10 years or so. The NFL changed the rules of the game to limit what defenses can do to stop the passing game because they wanted to give the fans more scoring, more passing yards and more exciting offenses. Yes, the league has a history of changing the rules. It has always had a ripple effect. Now is not any different.

 

The game is different now than it even was in 2000. You need an elite QB to win a ring. Period. Just look at the list of the past winners: Rodgers, Brees, Big Ben, E.Manning, P. Manning, Big Ben, Brady, Brady, Johnson, Brady. In 10 years you've only had one non elite QB win a ring (E. Manning). Johnson was a pro-bowl QB who certainly will not be confused with a HOF but he was a fantastic QB and played at elite level in 2003. Ditto with Eli who, while not yet an elite QB played at a very high level and still has a chance of becoming one.

 

The game has changed. It's a passing league now. You can hope to get lucky with a Brad Johnson or Eli Manning (10% chance) but if you want to be a serious Super Bowl threat you need a QB who's elite. That means someone who has more than a 60% completion percentage. Fitz ain't that guy.

 

And I'm tired of this "you need a defense" argument. It's a team game. Of course you need a defense. You can't make it very far without a good one and clearly the Bills are in need of one. But look at this past Super Bowl. Both had excellent defenses. Both defenses were totally outplayed by the opposing QB. The Packers don't win that game without Rodgers. The Steelers aren't even close at the end of that game without Big Ben.

 

You're living in the past. Like the front office.

[NoSaint]

IMO, Fitz would have easily been well over 60% in percentage if he simply threw as many dump offs, WR screens, screen passes and swings passes as any of the other QBs that jack up your stats. Gailey simply didn't call a lot.

 

He would have been a couple points higher if he would have dumped the ball off on third and long and got 5 yards (before a punt) but he refused to do that and almost always tried for a first down even if the chances were not great, a quality I very much admire and want in my quarterback.

 

He would have also been a couple points higher if he didn't have to throw the ball immediately after setting up an inordinate amount of time because our line sucked, or his RB had to stay in and block rather than go out for a short route.

 

He also would have had a much better percentage if we had any kind of reliable TE he could dump the ball off to.

 

He also would have had a couple percentage points higher if he wasn't throwing to three UDFA and a 7th rounder the last three games of the season, or we had a reliable running game.

 

A passer's percentage completion is sometimes accurate -- but very often extremely misleading, both high and low (Exhibit B, Trent Edwards, whose was always high but a direct result of his sucktitude and balllessness).

 

That's not to say that Fitz is a highly accurate passer. He is wildly erratic at times, and he misfires badly too many time. But he also makes up for that for throwing a similar number of highly accurate passes into tight windows he has no business connecting on.

 

He's clearly accurate enough IMO to be a solid starter, which he was this year, under terrible circumstances, some of which were described above. He easily would have been over 60% if he was more conservative, the play-calling involved more short safe passes like the majority of teams do, or we didnt have to sacrifice a short passing game and high percentage passes because of our deficiencies.

 

That 60% is a crappy bar to set.

 

sometimes, a dump off for field position, and hopes that a player can make a play isnt a crappy ball-less call. who might i ask are these other qbs with top 10 rankings based off of high completion percentage and terrible yards per completion like you imply they have?

 

you do realize his yards per completion, and i suspect number of completions over 20 yards are lower then the guys you are saying hes "ballsier" than.

[Rockinon]

that in no way makes him a franchise qb who you could build your team around.

 

he is what he is a QB who could play at an adequate level to get you thru another year while we groom our QB of the future and thats it and every NL personnel man knows that except the GM's on this board.

 

 

 

seriously you are actually comparing him to the top 4 QB's in the league ?

 

you need to wake up from your delusions and start dealing with reality.

 

 

 

a man who gets it a and who is a realist!

You name one QB with a defense as bad as Buffalo's last year with better stats. There aren't any. None. Zip. Zero. Nadda. You need to wake up from your delusions and start dealing with reality.

[NoSaint]

and for all of you just extrapolating his stats, is there any acknowledgement that green bay, the jets, and miami all had pretty ok defenses? he might have hurt them by throwing 2 tds, and 6 picks just as easily as just continuing on pace

 

for instance, although he picked up 2tds, he was 12-27 for 127 yards against ny when he played them in buffalo. for all you know, he couldve played worse in the rematch on the road, in december. just saying

 

I know you're not trying to be a smart ass, so no worries there. But you're also not reading my post and missing the point. The post said in the past decade -- Williams won his ring in '88. Hence the wall bash. That was a different era. A different league. What's so baffling to me is that so many people fail to realize that the game has changed drastically in the past 10 years or so. The NFL changed the rules of the game to limit what defenses can do to stop the passing game because they wanted to give the fans more scoring, more passing yards and more exciting offenses. Yes, the league has a history of changing the rules. It has always had a ripple effect. Now is not any different.

 

The game is different now than it even was in 2000. You need an elite QB to win a ring. Period. Just look at the list of the past winners: Rodgers, Brees, Big Ben, E.Manning, P. Manning, Big Ben, Brady, Brady, Johnson, Brady. In 10 years you've only had one non elite QB win a ring (E. Manning). Johnson was a pro-bowl QB who certainly will not be confused with a HOF but he was a fantastic QB and played at elite level in 2003. Ditto with Eli who, while not yet an elite QB played at a very high level and still has a chance of becoming one.

 

The game has changed. It's a passing league now. You can hope to get lucky with a Brad Johnson or Eli Manning (10% chance) but if you want to be a serious Super Bowl threat you need a QB who's elite. That means someone who has more than a 60% completion percentage. Fitz ain't that guy.

 

And I'm tired of this "you need a defense" argument. It's a team game. Of course you need a defense. You can't make it very far without a good one and clearly the Bills are in need of one. But look at this past Super Bowl. Both had excellent defenses. Both defenses were totally outplayed by the opposing QB. The Packers don't win that game without Rodgers. The Steelers aren't even close at the end of that game without Big Ben.

 

You're living in the past. Like the front office.

 

all your going to get in reply is that with a defense and a line, fitz is just as good as those guys. its irrational, it doesnt make sense, but just you wait....

Edited February 18, 2011 by NoSaint

[Kelly the Dog]

sometimes, a dump off for field position, and hopes that a player can make a play isnt a crappy ball-less call. who might i ask are these other qbs with top 10 rankings based off of high completion percentage and terrible yards per completion like you imply they have?

 

you do realize his yards per completion, and i suspect number of completions over 20 yards are lower then the guys you are saying hes "ballsier" than.

The only player I said he was ballsier than was Trent Edwards.

 

Brady, Manning, Brees, for starters ALL throw a huge number of short safe passes, WR screens, and swing passes to backs on all three downs. We threw some last year, but not nearly as many as in games I saw and have seen those guys play.

 

If Fitz threw and completed one more WR screen and one more swing pass per game, which are about 90% completion rate passes instead of downfield balls, he would have had 64% rate (at 26 more completions in 13 games. If he threw one more per game, his percentage would have been 61%.

[NoSaint]

You name one QB with a defense as bad as Buffalo's last year with better stats. There aren't any. None. Zip. Zero. Nadda. You need to wake up from your delusions and start dealing with reality.

Kyle orton?

 

13 games

20 tds

9 ints

3600 yards

87qb rating

 

32 ranked defense (yardage and points)

[CosmicBills]

... most fans seem to want to throw another young player behind that horrid O line ....only to watch him get beaten up and broken down for the next 3 years.

No (rational) fan is asking for that. That's the beauty of Fitz. Fitz is NOT the team's biggest problem. But he's also not the QB that can take a team to the Super Bowl and win it unless that team is perfectly built around him. Having Fitz allows the Bills to draft a QB and let him sit (like Rodgers) behind Fitz as the rest of the team needs are addressed. And that's the point people continue to miss. You don't HAVE to build the lines before you build a QB. You don't have to take a QB before you build the lines. There's no logic to that. It's a fact that finding an elite QB is harder than finding an elite LT, OG, C, DT, DE. So if a QB is available to you that you believe can become elite, you take him. No matter what state your team is in because above all else, that's the key component to winning a Super Bowl.

 

Now, if one isn't there, you certainly don't reach. But no one is clamoring to draft a QB and start him right away ... Fitz will be the starting QB in 2011 (if there is a 2011). And he should be.

 

But I don't believe for a second he's good enough to lead a team to the Super Bowl.

 

Name one current NFL QB who could be an elite QB on that PoS team the Bills fielded last season... Bell at LT...scrub walk ons at RT.... Roscoe Parrish out injured... no running game...The supposed super star RB taken with the #9 pick in the draft that can't block, can't run....

 

Perhaps you guys all forget the first two games with Trent Edwards as QB...or howabout the Jets game in which Brian Brohm started...fitz the leading rusher against the Jets because they have no running game

 

 

Fitz did an amazing job considering his surrounding supporting cast was horrifically teribad, the only guy who played almost as well as Fitz all year was Stevie WSS Johnson who had the dropsies at the absolute worst time against the Steelers. Jeez, I for one would like to see what Fitz can do if given all the reps in the off season-pre season and is given all of Chan Gaileys focus and attention. Hopefully the Bills can get the running game going, find a decent solution at TE and RT .

Again, this isn't seeing the bigger picture. You actually prove my point with your statement. Fitz made the line better. He made the offense better because he's good. He knows how to read a defense, how to react and how to properly diagnose a play. His mental abilities are clearly in the upper echelon of the NFL. That was made clear when Trent was the starter and when Brian was. The difference was night and day.

 

Now, Brady, Manning, Brees etc are JUST AS GOOD as Fitz at reading and diagnosing defenses. They are elite QBs because they can do that AND make accurate throws. I've never bought the excuse "put Manning on the Bills and he'd suck just as much as X". That's ridiculous. And Fitz showed that. He showed what a GOOD QB can do. He makes the players around him better. That is even more true with an elite QB like Manning, Brady, Brees etc.

 

Can simply putting Manning on the Bills make them Super Bowl contenders? No. Of course not. This team needs far more than a QB to get there. But put Manning on the Bills he puts up better numbers than Fitz last year even WITH this team. And the Bills win more games. That's the point. This isn't trashing Fitz. As I said above, Fitz is NOT the problem. He's just not the answer.

 

IMO, Fitz would have easily been well over 60% in percentage if he simply threw as many dump offs, WR screens, screen passes and swings passes as any of the other QBs that jack up your stats. Gailey simply didn't call a lot.

 

He would have been a couple points higher if he would have dumped the ball off on third and long and got 5 yards (before a punt) but he refused to do that and almost always tried for a first down even if the chances were not great, a quality I very much admire and want in my quarterback.

 

He would have also been a couple points higher if he didn't have to throw the ball immediately after setting up an inordinate amount of time because our line sucked, or his RB had to stay in and block rather than go out for a short route.

 

He also would have had a much better percentage if we had any kind of reliable TE he could dump the ball off to.

 

He also would have had a couple percentage points higher if he wasn't throwing to three UDFA and a 7th rounder the last three games of the season, or we had a reliable running game.

 

A passer's percentage completion is sometimes accurate -- but very often extremely misleading, both high and low (Exhibit B, Trent Edwards, whose was always high but a direct result of his sucktitude and balllessness).

 

That's not to say that Fitz is a highly accurate passer. He is wildly erratic at times, and he misfires badly too many time. But he also makes up for that for throwing a similar number of highly accurate passes into tight windows he has no business connecting on.

 

He's clearly accurate enough IMO to be a solid starter, which he was this year, under terrible circumstances, some of which were described above. He easily would have been over 60% if he was more conservative, the play-calling involved more short safe passes like the majority of teams do, or we didnt have to sacrifice a short passing game and high percentage passes because of our deficiencies.

 

That 60% is a crappy bar to set.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

 

We've had this debate before, I know where you stand on it and you know I respect it. You're one of the brightest football fans I know. But you also know I'm not saying 60% is the must hit number -- it's just a barometer. And, as I said above, it's closer to 65% these days anyway. Fitz has problems with accuracy, you can't deny that. We've stood in the bar watching the same games. He sometimes makes amazing throws. He just more often makes bad throws. Throws that are either off target or get his WRs killed. Even on his completions.

 

He's never been above 60% in his career. That's a problem. He's not a young player. He's been around. He's played over 40 games in his career and started in 36 of them -- that's over 2 seasons worth of starting games. His career percentage is 57%. That won't get it done. That's not me being picky, but put that in comparison to Manning who's only been under 60% once (his rookie year) and above 65% for 9 straight years. Brady has NEVER been under 60% and the Patriots have had lines that rivaled the Bills in terms of how poor/green they played.

[NoSaint]

No (rational) fan is asking for that. That's the beauty of Fitz. Fitz is NOT the team's biggest problem. But he's also not the QB that can take a team to the Super Bowl and win it unless that team is perfectly built around him. Having Fitz allows the Bills to draft a QB and let him sit (like Rodgers) behind Fitz as the rest of the team needs are addressed. And that's the point people continue to miss. You don't HAVE to build the lines before you build a QB. You don't have to take a QB before you build the lines. There's no logic to that. It's a fact that finding an elite QB is harder than finding an elite LT, OG, C, DT, DE. So if a QB is available to you that you believe can become elite, you take him. No matter what state your team is in because above all else, that's the key component to winning a Super Bowl.

 

Now, if one isn't there, you certainly don't reach. But no one is clamoring to draft a QB and start him right away ... Fitz will be the starting QB in 2011 (if there is a 2011). And he should be.

 

But I don't believe for a second he's good enough to lead a team to the Super Bowl.

 

 

Again, this isn't seeing the bigger picture. You actually prove my point with your statement. Fitz made the line better. He made the offense better because he's good. He knows how to read a defense, how to react and how to properly diagnose a play. His mental abilities are clearly in the upper echelon of the NFL. That was made clear when Trent was the starter and when Brian was. The difference was night and day.

 

Now, Brady, Manning, Brees etc are JUST AS GOOD as Fitz at reading and diagnosing defenses. They are elite QBs because they can do that AND make accurate throws. I've never bought the excuse "put Manning on the Bills and he'd suck just as much as X". That's ridiculous. And Fitz showed that. He showed what a GOOD QB can do. He makes the players around him better. That is even more true with an elite QB like Manning, Brady, Brees etc.

 

Can simply putting Manning on the Bills make them Super Bowl contenders? No. Of course not. This team needs far more than a QB to get there. But put Manning on the Bills he puts up better numbers than Fitz last year even WITH this team. And the Bills win more games. That's the point. This isn't trashing Fitz. As I said above, Fitz is NOT the problem. He's just not the answer.

 

 

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

 

We've had this debate before, I know where you stand on it and you know I respect it. You're one of the brightest football fans I know. But you also know I'm not saying 60% is the must hit number -- it's just a barometer. And, as I said above, it's closer to 65% these days anyway. Fitz has problems with accuracy, you can't deny that. We've stood in the bar watching the same games. He sometimes makes amazing throws. He just more often makes bad throws. Throws that are either off target or get his WRs killed. Even on his completions.

 

He's never been above 60% in his career. That's a problem. He's not a young player. He's been around. He's played over 40 games in his career and started in 36 of them -- that's over 2 seasons worth of starting games. His career percentage is 57%. That won't get it done. That's not me being picky, but put that in comparison to Manning who's only been under 60% once (his rookie year) and above 65% for 9 straight years. Brady has NEVER been under 60% and the Patriots have had lines that rivaled the Bills in terms of how poor/green they played.

 

 

honestly i think thats about the best way to put it -- not the problem, but not the answer.

 

just like guys like jay fiedler, kyle orton, etc... can be effective qbs, they just arent superbowl guys. its not that they are bad, or theres no place for them in the nfl. fitz is that type of player. very effective backup. great teammate. good place holder while we find our superbowl quarterback. id much rather have him then some of the abominations around the league, and be forced to start a rookie from day 1. fitz is an important piece of our team, but unfortunately, hes not going to be the leader for the long term. i dont think thats an insult, but i do think its a fair assessment.

[thewildrabbit]

whatever would any of these guy do with an injury to a receiver that averaged 20 catches a year for 5 years. and i seem to remember new orleans having a pretty scrub LT..... and injuries to shockey, colston, meachem, throughout the year. no pierre thomas, missing reggie, chris ivory being hurt.... funny how drew brees on an injured knee still put up those numbers.

 

Are you seriously comparing last years super bowl champs to this years slump bowl chumps? ....C'mon, get a grip... you have a seriously distorted view of player abilities

 

 

Look at all the injuries to the Packers this year, it didn't stop them from winning it all, 12 players on IR. The buffalo Bills wish they had a LT as good as the Saints have, a TE as good as Shockey, a receiver corps as good as Colston, Meachem et all, a defense as good as the Saints. Not to mention as play caller- HC such as Sean Peyton. Drew Brees has much more starting experience and played on teams where he could learn and develop, Cam Cameron was his OC while in SD.

 

Fitz was a backup QB and an after thought until given his chance to shine this year, and on one of the worst team even fielded by the Buffalo Bills, If not for Fitz I highly doubt they win a game all year.

[CosmicBills]

honestly i think thats about the best way to put it -- not the problem, but not the answer.

 

just like guys like jay fiedler, kyle orton, etc... can be effective qbs, they just arent superbowl guys. its not that they are bad, or theres no place for them in the nfl. fitz is that type of player. very effective backup. great teammate. good place holder while we find our superbowl quarterback. id much rather have him then some of the abominations around the league, and be forced to start a rookie from day 1. fitz is an important piece of our team, but unfortunately, hes not going to be the leader for the long term. i dont think thats an insult, but i do think its a fair assessment.

Absolutely (and you're right about the rest of the thread too ...).

 

The thing that Fitz showed so clearly this season is how poor the QB play has been in Buffalo since Drew left. Drew wasn't great by the time he was in Buffalo -- but he was the last professional QB the Bills have had. What Fitz showed is what a good QB can do. We still don't remember what en ELITE QB can do because we haven't seen that in some time. But that's why so many people think Fitz is good enough -- because they're comparing him to the likes of JP (who, full disclosure, I was a fan of at the time) and Trent. Two guys who just had no business being starting NFL QBs. Fitz didn't show he was good enough -- he just showed how bad the QB position had become in Buffalo.

 

I don't know if Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert is the answer. I won't pretend to be psychic. But if the Bills take either one at 3, it's not the worst thing in the world. Even if they wash out. Why? Because you need a QB to win a championship. And to find one, you might have to take some chances.

 

Are you seriously comparing last years super bowl champs to this years slump bowl chumps? ....C'mon, get a grip... you have a seriously distorted view of player abilities

 

 

Look at all the injuries to the Packers this year, it didn't stop them from winning it all, 12 players on IR. The buffalo Bills wish they had a LT as good as the Saints have, a TE as good as Shockey, a receiver corps as good as Colston, Meachem et all, a defense as good as the Saints. Not to mention as play caller- HC such as Sean Peyton. Drew Brees has much more starting experience and played on teams where he could learn and develop, Cam Cameron was his OC while in SD.

 

Fitz was a backup QB and an after thought until given his chance to shine this year, and on one of the worst team even fielded by the Buffalo Bills, If not for Fitz I highly doubt they win a game all year.

There's no question that's true.

 

But there's also no question that if Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Big Ben or Brady were the Bills starting QB the Bills would have won just as many and probably MORE games than Fitz. Because they can do everything Fitz can on the mental side AND are better QBs.

[Rockinon]

I know you're not trying to be a smart ass, so no worries there. But you're also not reading my post and missing the point. The post said in the past decade -- Williams won his ring in '88. Hence the wall bash. That was a different era. A different league. What's so baffling to me is that so many people fail to realize that the game has changed drastically in the past 10 years or so. The NFL changed the rules of the game to limit what defenses can do to stop the passing game because they wanted to give the fans more scoring, more passing yards and more exciting offenses. Yes, the league has a history of changing the rules. It has always had a ripple effect. Now is not any different.

 

The game is different now than it even was in 2000. You need an elite QB to win a ring. Period. Just look at the list of the past winners: Rodgers, Brees, Big Ben, E.Manning, P. Manning, Big Ben, Brady, Brady, Johnson, Brady. In 10 years you've only had one non elite QB win a ring (E. Manning). Johnson was a pro-bowl QB who certainly will not be confused with a HOF but he was a fantastic QB and played at elite level in 2003. Ditto with Eli who, while not yet an elite QB played at a very high level and still has a chance of becoming one.

 

The game has changed. It's a passing league now. You can hope to get lucky with a Brad Johnson or Eli Manning (10% chance) but if you want to be a serious Super Bowl threat you need a QB who's elite. That means someone who has more than a 60% completion percentage. Fitz ain't that guy.

 

And I'm tired of this "you need a defense" argument. It's a team game. Of course you need a defense. You can't make it very far without a good one and clearly the Bills are in need of one. But look at this past Super Bowl. Both had excellent defenses. Both defenses were totally outplayed by the opposing QB. The Packers don't win that game without Rodgers. The Steelers aren't even close at the end of that game without Big Ben.

 

You're living in the past. Like the front office.

Football was football in 1960 and guess what? Football is still football in 2011. You put way to much emphasis on how different QBs today are compared to the past. Did human QBs from the past somehow transform to something superhuman today? I'm not buying your analogy one bit. You obviously are a youngster that thinks the game has dramatically transformed into something it's not. Take a step back. Take a deep breath and try to look at the big picture. I know it hard for you but give it a try. Take a bit of time trying to understand what other people are thinking and a little less time trying to force feed your views on others. I'm not at all saying that your views have no merit, but damn you are very obtuse in your observations of other people's views are. There is most definitely merit to the "you need defense" argument. Stop pretending that there isn't. At the end of the day, we are all Bills fans. Start acting like it.

[NoSaint]

Are you seriously comparing last years super bowl champs to this years slump bowl chumps? ....C'mon, get a grip... you have a seriously distorted view of player abilities

 

 

Look at all the injuries to the Packers this year, it didn't stop them from winning it all, 12 players on IR. The buffalo Bills wish they had a LT as good as the Saints have, a TE as good as Shockey, a receiver corps as good as Colston, Meachem et all, a defense as good as the Saints. Not to mention as play caller- HC such as Sean Peyton. Drew Brees has much more starting experience and played on teams where he could learn and develop, Cam Cameron was his OC while in SD.

 

Fitz was a backup QB and an after thought until given his chance to shine this year, and on one of the worst team even fielded by the Buffalo Bills, If not for Fitz I highly doubt they win a game all year.

 

im saying more of that gap is because of the difference between drew and fitz than most would like to admit. im not implying the talent level is the same but players come and go, great players - and the production doesnt disappear. to attribute this to roscoe getting hurt is... silly. i bet drew would have loved to have a lee evans. his line wasnt all that great this year. i wouldnt be surprised to see 2-3 new starters on it from last year. drew had his 5-6th string running back carrying the load for stretches, long stretches, several injuries on the outside, and a weak line this year that actually got him injured. he still put up monster numbers. why do we say that is a product of everyone but drew? fitz is not a guy that dropped on one of those teams would be a probowler. he wouldve struggled in new orleans also. guys like drew, tom, peyton.... they all make coaches, lines, receivers look better.

 

to say that fitz has a poor completion percentage because of drops, these top qbs had more dropped passes! the gap widens when you include things like that.

 

to say his completion percentage is because he throws deeper, yet he has a lower YPC

 

you cant just cherry pick stats, he is generally better across the board, and yes, just like he improved the team compared to trent, if we magically had one of those qbs, we would see another big jump. when it comes down to it, if you put put on any of those teams, they would be .500 teams.

Edited February 18, 2011 by NoSaint

[Kelly the Dog]

No (rational) fan is asking for that. That's the beauty of Fitz. Fitz is NOT the team's biggest problem. But he's also not the QB that can take a team to the Super Bowl and win it unless that team is perfectly built around him. Having Fitz allows the Bills to draft a QB and let him sit (like Rodgers) behind Fitz as the rest of the team needs are addressed. And that's the point people continue to miss. You don't HAVE to build the lines before you build a QB. You don't have to take a QB before you build the lines. There's no logic to that. It's a fact that finding an elite QB is harder than finding an elite LT, OG, C, DT, DE. So if a QB is available to you that you believe can become elite, you take him. No matter what state your team is in because above all else, that's the key component to winning a Super Bowl.

 

Now, if one isn't there, you certainly don't reach. But no one is clamoring to draft a QB and start him right away ... Fitz will be the starting QB in 2011 (if there is a 2011). And he should be.

 

But I don't believe for a second he's good enough to lead a team to the Super Bowl.

 

 

Again, this isn't seeing the bigger picture. You actually prove my point with your statement. Fitz made the line better. He made the offense better because he's good. He knows how to read a defense, how to react and how to properly diagnose a play. His mental abilities are clearly in the upper echelon of the NFL. That was made clear when Trent was the starter and when Brian was. The difference was night and day.

 

Now, Brady, Manning, Brees etc are JUST AS GOOD as Fitz at reading and diagnosing defenses. They are elite QBs because they can do that AND make accurate throws. I've never bought the excuse "put Manning on the Bills and he'd suck just as much as X". That's ridiculous. And Fitz showed that. He showed what a GOOD QB can do. He makes the players around him better. That is even more true with an elite QB like Manning, Brady, Brees etc.

 

Can simply putting Manning on the Bills make them Super Bowl contenders? No. Of course not. This team needs far more than a QB to get there. But put Manning on the Bills he puts up better numbers than Fitz last year even WITH this team. And the Bills win more games. That's the point. This isn't trashing Fitz. As I said above, Fitz is NOT the problem. He's just not the answer.

 

 

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

 

We've had this debate before, I know where you stand on it and you know I respect it. You're one of the brightest football fans I know. But you also know I'm not saying 60% is the must hit number -- it's just a barometer. And, as I said above, it's closer to 65% these days anyway. Fitz has problems with accuracy, you can't deny that. We've stood in the bar watching the same games. He sometimes makes amazing throws. He just more often makes bad throws. Throws that are either off target or get his WRs killed. Even on his completions.

 

He's never been above 60% in his career. That's a problem. He's not a young player. He's been around. He's played over 40 games in his career and started in 36 of them -- that's over 2 seasons worth of starting games. His career percentage is 57%. That won't get it done. That's not me being picky, but put that in comparison to Manning who's only been under 60% once (his rookie year) and above 65% for 9 straight years. Brady has NEVER been under 60% and the Patriots have had lines that rivaled the Bills in terms of how poor/green they played.

I watched Fitz a little on St. Louis. He was terrible. I actually watched him a lot on the Bengals when he started 12 or so games, and I may have seen most of not all of the games when he was 4-2 or whatever to finish the season, and I posted on this board many times about what I saw: He was TERRIBLE. I obviously watched the games two years ago when he played when Jauron was here. He was okay, better than Trent but not good at all, and I repeatedly repeatedly said he will never be a starting quarterback and will always be a back-up, a decent one.

 

Last year he was a completely different player and quarterback under Gailey's tutelage. I don't think you can count his career stats. His stats started last year, IMO. He may never get better than last year, he could even regress and play substantially worse. But I don't think he will. I think he's going to be significantly better again. He will likely never be a hugely accurate passer but he doesn't have to be. If he is better than last year because he has a year in the system, all of the starter reps, a slightly better line and slightly better running game, he will easily, IMO, be a QB that could get you in the playoffs (I'm not predicting we will, only that he will be good enough). I'm actually excited to see him play next year.

[Rockinon]

Kyle orton?

 

13 games

20 tds

9 ints

3600 yards

87qb rating

 

32 ranked defense (yardage and points)

LOL. Did you mak that up? I'm checking this out. And I'm not exactly calling him a premier QB either.

[CosmicBills]

Football was football in 1960 and guess what? Football is still football in 2011. You put way to much emphasis on how different QBs today are compared to the past. Did human QBs from the past somehow transform to something superhuman today? I'm not buying your analogy one bit. You obviously are a youngster that thinks the game has dramatically transformed into something it's not. Take a step back. Take a deep breath and try to look at the big picture. I know it hard for you but give it a try. Take a bit of time trying to understand what other people are thinking and a little less time trying to force feed your views on others. I'm not at all saying that your views have no merit, but damn you are very obtuse in your observations of other people's views are. There is most definitely merit to the "you need defense" argument. Stop pretending that there isn't. At the end of the day, we are all Bills fans. Start acting like it.

That's just not true. Why? Because of one simple thing:The rules of the game have changed. By definition it can't be the same game if the very rules it's played by are changed right? That's not an analogy or theory. It's a fact. And they were changed in order to help the QBs. Put Young, or Star on the field today with these rules, they would put up better numbers than they did when defenses were allowed to chuck and the QB wasn't as protected.

 

If you don't understand that, I don't know what to tell you. It ain't rocket surgery.

 

I also never said there wasn't merit to a team's need for defense. In fact, I said quite the opposite. You just need to read my posts a bit more carefully I guess.

 

I watched Fitz a little on St. Louis. He was terrible. I actually watched him a lot on the Bengals when he started 12 or so games, and I may have seen most of not all of the games when he was 4-2 or whatever to finish the season, and I posted on this board many times about what I saw: He was TERRIBLE. I obviously watched the games two years ago when he played when Jauron was here. He was okay, better than Trent but not good at all, and I repeatedly repeatedly said he will never be a starting quarterback and will always be a back-up, a decent one.

 

Last year he was a completely different player and quarterback under Gailey's tutelage. I don't think you can count his career stats. His stats started last year, IMO. He may never get better than last year, he could even regress and play substantially worse. But I don't think he will. I think he's going to be significantly better again. He will likely never be a hugely accurate passer but he doesn't have to be. If he is better than last year because he has a year in the system, all of the starter reps, a slightly better line and slightly better running game, he will easily, IMO, be a QB that could get you in the playoffs (I'm not predicting we will, only that he will be good enough). I'm actually excited to see him play next year.

So am I. And this is a great post ... but, as we've discussed, I don't think Fitz can't lead this team to the playoffs. I'm sure he can with a better supporting cast. I just don't think he can win the Super Bowl. I don't want to go to the playoffs. I want to win a ring. ... er, well I want the Bills to win a ring.

[Rockinon]

Absolutely (and you're right about the rest of the thread too ...).

 

The thing that Fitz showed so clearly this season is how poor the QB play has been in Buffalo since Drew left. Drew wasn't great by the time he was in Buffalo -- but he was the last professional QB the Bills have had. What Fitz showed is what a good QB can do. We still don't remember what en ELITE QB can do because we haven't seen that in some time. But that's why so many people think Fitz is good enough -- because they're comparing him to the likes of JP (who, full disclosure, I was a fan of at the time) and Trent. Two guys who just had no business being starting NFL QBs. Fitz didn't show he was good enough -- he just showed how bad the QB position had become in Buffalo.

 

I don't know if Cam Newton or Blaine Gabbert is the answer. I won't pretend to be psychic. But if the Bills take either one at 3, it's not the worst thing in the world. Even if they wash out. Why? Because you need a QB to win a championship. And to find one, you might have to take some chances.

 

 

There's no question that's true.

 

But there's also no question that if Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Big Ben or Brady were the Bills starting QB the Bills would have won just as many and probably MORE games than Fitz. Because they can do everything Fitz can on the mental side AND are better QBs.

 

Brady would have been crying like a baby if he was placed in the situation Fitz was last year.

[CosmicBills]

Brady would have been crying like a baby if he was placed in the situation Fitz was last year.

Sure. But he'd have more than 4 wins.

[thewildrabbit]

No (rational) fan is asking for that. That's the beauty of Fitz. Fitz is NOT the team's biggest problem. But he's also not the QB that can take a team to the Super Bowl and win it unless that team is perfectly built around him. Having Fitz allows the Bills to draft a QB and let him sit (like Rodgers) behind Fitz as the rest of the team needs are addressed. And that's the point people continue to miss. You don't HAVE to build the lines before you build a QB. You don't have to take a QB before you build the lines. There's no logic to that. It's a fact that finding an elite QB is harder than finding an elite LT, OG, C, DT, DE. So if a QB is available to you that you believe can become elite, you take him. No matter what state your team is in because above all else, that's the key component to winning a Super Bowl.

 

Now, if one isn't there, you certainly don't reach. But no one is clamoring to draft a QB and start him right away ... Fitz will be the starting QB in 2011 (if there is a 2011). And he should be.

 

But I don't believe for a second he's good enough to lead a team to the Super Bowl.

 

 

Again, this isn't seeing the bigger picture. You actually prove my point with your statement. Fitz made the line better. He made the offense better because he's good. He knows how to read a defense, how to react and how to properly diagnose a play. His mental abilities are clearly in the upper echelon of the NFL. That was made clear when Trent was the starter and when Brian was. The difference was night and day.

 

Now, Brady, Manning, Brees etc are JUST AS GOOD as Fitz at reading and diagnosing defenses. They are elite QBs because they can do that AND make accurate throws. I've never bought the excuse "put Manning on the Bills and he'd suck just as much as X". That's ridiculous. And Fitz showed that. He showed what a GOOD QB can do. He makes the players around him better. That is even more true with an elite QB like Manning, Brady, Brees etc.

 

Payton Manning played behind an inferior line this season compared to other years, and it showed, he was hit more often, and had to hurry his throws more often. Manning was basically forced to be the entire Colts offense, with a poor running game and weak defense and many injuries to his receiving corps. This years Colts team didn't make it very far in the Playoffs because of all the injuries and the poor play of their O line. You can bet all the talk about the Colts forums is about rebuilding that O line in this years draft to protect their best player. The current Buffalo Bills O line is far inferior to anything the Colts fielded this season, with walk ons off the street at RT, and virtually no TE. At least the Colts had a decent backup TE in Jacob Tamme who could step in and replace Dallas Clark somewhat.

 

Again, you guys are comparing a freaking part time back up QB who suddenly emerged to an above average QB for the Bills to elite super bowl winning QB's in Manning and Brees....Its freaking ridiculous to even make those comparisons. How in the heck can you guy be so sure that Fitz won't further develop his completion % and accuracy.... you can't!

 

All I'd like to see if Fitz be given the chance to start this year after giving him an off season to prepare to be the starter, let him be the focal point of Chan Gailey's off season program. Hopefully the bills can build a proper running game to support him

[CosmicBills]

1. Payton Manning played behind an inferior line this season compared to other years, and it showed, he was hit more often, and had to hurry his throws more often. Manning was basically forced to be the entire Colts offense, with a poor running game and weak defense and many injuries to his receiving corps. 2. This years Colts team didn't make it very far in the Playoffs because of all the injuries and the poor play of their O line. You can bet all the talk about the Colts forums is about rebuilding that O line in this years draft to protect their best player. 3. The current Buffalo Bills O line is far inferior to anything the Colts fielded this season, with walk ons off the street at RT, and virtually no TE. At least the Colts had a decent backup TE in Jacob Tamme who could step in and replace Dallas Clark somewhat.

 

4. Again, you guys are comparing a freaking part time back up QB who suddenly emerged to an above average QB for the Bills to elite super bowl winning QB's in Manning and Brees....Its freaking ridiculous to even make those comparisons. 5. How in the heck can you guy be so sure that Fitz won't further develop his completion % and accuracy.... you can't!

 

6. All I'd like to see if Fitz be given the chance to start this year after giving him an off season to prepare to be the starter, let him be the focal point of Chan Gailey's off season program. Hopefully the bills can build a proper running game to support him

1. All true. Yet he still hit 66% of his passes for 4,700 yards and 33 TDs. Where his stats suffered were in YPC which dropped nearly a full yard to 6.8. Why? Because he adapted to his team and took a team that wasn't as talented as years past and still led them to the post season.

 

2. They made the playoffs. The Bills won 4 games with Fitz.

 

3. No one is arguing otherwise. Not sure the point of this ...

 

4. I agree it is ridiculous to compare Fitz to the elite QBs in the league because he is not an elite QB. But it's ridiculous to think that if Fitz were swapped out with an elite QB like Manning, Brady or Brees they would not put up as good if not better numbers than Fitz.

 

5. True. I can't be sure he won't continue to develop. But I believe, like many others, that accuracy can't be taught. Fitz has the mental capacity to be an elite QB, he just doesn't have the physical tools. That won't change the longer he's in a system. But then again, of course I could be wrong there. I'm just going with the odds. It's a long shot to think he'll improve his accuracy any more than a percentage point or two.

 

6. Me too. No one is arguing that Fitz shouldn't be the starter in '11.

Edited February 18, 2011 by tgreg99