Ralph's got QB issues

[dancing_joker]

I liked Fitz a lot last year too. But think back to that KC game last year. Remember that awful interception he threw before the end of regulation? Manning/Brady/Brees do not throw passes like that. These things happen too often with Ryan Fitzpatrick. You can't teach accuracy. That's why he's not an elite QB.

 

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think the Bills will draft Cam Newton @ 3. I bet they think Newton is a game changer. That's why they drafted Spiller, because he's a threat anytime he touches the ball. If DT is as deep in the draft as they say, why waste your #3 pick on it when you can grab one in rnd 2? Fitz has given the Bills the luxury of letting Newton develop for a year before starting.

[MikeSpeed]

Are you really implying that Brady and Manning are only accurate passers because of the weapons they have? Do you REALLY want to make that argument? Think it through. Tom Brady, Manning, Brees and other elite QBs make their receivers better. Not the other way around. Brady is one of the more accurate passers in the league and he's done it without the benefit of a stable receiving corps. Look at how good Deon Branch was with Brady and how little he did without him. That's just one example of many.

 

Accuracy is, in my opinion, one of -- if not THE -- most important quality in an NFL QB. It's something Fitz has never had. To say otherwise is just false. It's not the weapons. It's the QB.

 

That's not to say that lines aren't important. They are. But it's far easier to find a pro-bowl caliber LT or DE than it is QB. That's just the way it is. Fitz is NOT an elite QB. Can he become one? Maybe. Anything is possible. Is it likely though? That's the question.

 

 

... re-read what I wrote.

 

Doug Williams?

 

I love that bold statement. It's true, but it's also doesn't prove the poster point very well. Just because you draft a QB anywhere in the draft doesn't mean they will become an elite QB. (as is true with any position) Drafting one high allows you to draft one with better credentials, but still leaves no guarantees. If you really want to raise your odds of getting that elite QB you should draft one with every pick. Newton Rd#1, Locker Rd#2, Ponder Rd#3... The real issue here is not to draft a QB at #3, but is there an elite QB in this draft worthy of being drafted at all? IMO as QB drafts go, this is the weakest one in quite a while.

[thewildrabbit]

Again, Rypian, Gannon, Hostetler and Theisman all played in a very different NFL where defenses and running backs ruled while passing games were not nearly as prolific due to the rules of the game. Using those guys as examples is silly. The game has changed -- the league wanted to up scoring and passing numbers. They did that by altering the rules that hindered defenses (especially DBs) while tipping the scales in favor of the passing game.

 

Warner is a HOF QB and certainly elite. Ditto with Brady who may be the best QB ever to play the game. It doesn't matter where you find them -- they're elite. If Fitz were elite, no one would care he was a 7th rounder from Harvard. This isn't about drafting a first round QB. It's about the need for a franchise type QB to be added to this roster before they can ever be considered Super Bowl contenders. It's the single most important piece -- more important than any other position on either side of the ball. Right now, that player is not on the roster. That doesn't mean Fitz is bad. Neither No Saint nor myself have once said that Fitz shouldn't be the starter in '11. In fact, quite the opposite. But that doesn't mean he's the answer. He is plagued by his in ability to be consistent with his accuracy. That's a problem. And one that I personally believe cannot be taught. You either have it or you don't. And Fitz doesn't. THAT'S why he'll always be a good QB but not an elite one. And you need an elite QB to have a realistic shot at a Lombardi trophey.

 

Brad Johnson is not a HOF QB but was a pro bowler who happened to play at a very high level through most of his career. Still, for the sake of argument I'll give you him. That still means only one team in ten has a chance to win a Super Bowl without a Franchise QB. Do you really want to bet on those odds as a Bills fan? Especially considering the state of the rest of the team?

 

Honestly. Think about that. You really want to dismiss 10+ years of history and data under these new rules that state, without a shadow of a doubt, that QB is the most important piece of any championship team and care takers are no longer able to win Super Bowls on a regular basis?

 

Now, you happen to believe that the system makes the QB. That's fine. You believe that Drew Brees wouldn't be Drew Brees if he didn't go to the Chargers then the Saints. I think that's a very short sighted view, I'm not trying to change your mind. The fact is that Brees is who he is and Fitz is who he is. And Fitz is a very smart football player who lacks the accuracy (in my opinion) to be anything more than a solid starter. A step or two BELOW Brad Johnson (look at the numbers). With a better cast around him, the Bills will win more games. That's a fact. But with a better cast around him, Fitz still not an elite QB. He's still, at best, Brad Johnson. And at best that gives the Bills a

 

10% chance of winning a title.

 

Those aren't very good odds.

Your entire argument is pure and utter horse crap. Tom Brady was a late 6th round pick that nobody knew would develop into the super star QB he is today, he wasn't a franchise QB from day one! So to make a statement like "either you have it or you don't" simply doesn't fly.

 

Kurt Warner can come out of nowhere to be great, who on this earth would have thought that a guy working in the supermarket would go to the NFL, and then take a team to the SB, an undrafted arena league guy....he was signed in 1998 by the Rams, he threw 4 of 11 passes for 39 yds and a QB rating of 47.2, and was 3rd string behind the great Tony Banks. Then the next year in 1999 the Rams cut Banks, and signed Trent Green to start, Green tore his ACL in pre season and was lost for the season, Warner stepped in and went on to throw for over 4000+ yards and 41 TD passes with a 65.1 comp rate.

 

NOW, WTF knew Warner "had it" before he started that season....NOBODY! Just like you have no clue as to whether Fitz can improve on his play or not

Edited February 18, 2011 by Harvey lives

[NoSaint]

Your entire argument is pure and utter horse crap. Tom Brady was a late 6th round pick that nobody knew would develop into the super star QB he is today, he wasn't a franchise QB from day one! So to make a statement like "either you have it or you don't" simply doesn't fly.

 

Kurt Warner can come out of nowhere to be great, who on this earth would have thought that a guy working in the supermarket would go to the NFL, and then take a team to the SB, an undrafted arena league guy....he was signed in 1998 by the Rams, he threw 4 of 11 passes for 39 yds and a QB rating of 47.2, and was 3rd string behind the great Tony Banks. Then the next year in 1999 the Rams cut Banks, and signed Trent Green to start, Green tore his ACL in pre season and was lost for the season, Warner stepped in and went on to throw for over 4000+ yards and 41 TD passes with a 65.1 comp rate.

 

NOW, WTF knew Warner "had it" before he started that season....NOBODY! Just like you have no clue as to whether Fitz can improve on his play or not

 

 

common thread in brady and warner: they never had a chance to show their stuff in the NFL. both were second year players, largely disregarded for measurables/performance at the college level. Second year in the league, a devastating injury to the starter gave them their first chance to play a full game, and they never looked back. neither one of those guys played 35 games in 3 years, as a vet, before people suspected they had it. they never even had 35 games on a roster.

 

fitz is on his third team, has had multiple shots, and no one other then you seems to be so sold on him the way you are. i still havent found what it is that really makes you believe he is the guy, besides this sense of fitzmagic, that he is the only qb in the league capable of playing on a team this bad even if others are smarter, faster, and have better arms. i think he has value as a capable fill in, and i want him to start this year, but if they like cam at 3 (ie think he could have a HOF career) they need to get him. If it turns into the ultra rare Drew Brees/Phillip Rivers situation, so be it. If Cam ends up blowing, we can hold fitz while we try again.

Edited February 18, 2011 by NoSaint

[CosmicBills]

Your entire argument is pure and utter horse crap. Tom Brady was a late 6th round pick that nobody knew would develop into the super star QB he is today, he wasn't a franchise QB from day one! So to make a statement like "either you have it or you don't" simply doesn't fly.

 

Kurt Warner can come out of nowhere to be great, who on this earth would have thought that a guy working in the supermarket would go to the NFL, and then take a team to the SB, an undrafted arena league guy....he was signed in 1998 by the Rams, he threw 4 of 11 passes for 39 yds and a QB rating of 47.2, and was 3rd string behind the great Tony Banks. Then the next year in 1999 the Rams cut Banks, and signed Trent Green to start, Green tore his ACL in pre season and was lost for the season, Warner stepped in and went on to throw for over 4000+ yards and 41 TD passes with a 65.1 comp rate.

 

NOW, WTF knew Warner "had it" before he started that season....NOBODY! Just like you have no clue as to whether Fitz can improve on his play or not

Wow. You fail to really understand what I'm saying. Instead of over reacting and slamming your head into the same wall over and over again, take a moment and breathe. Digest what's being said. Then comment. It'll help. I promise.

 

Of course you either have it or you don't. You can improve your understanding of the game. You can improve your mechanics and footwork. But if you don't have the physical tools to begin with, you can only go so far. Brady and Warner prove that. They don't disprove it. They didn't get a chance till someone got hurt, and once they did they showed they could play at a very high level. They weren't finely polished. They got better the more they played. But they played well above what Fitz has shown from the start.

 

You say I don't have a clue whether Fitz has it or not. Well that's just not true. Fitz has started 36 games. He's not an unknown. Warner was. Brady was. Again, it has nothing to do with where they were drafted or how they were acquired. It's how they perform on the field. Fitz played well. Not great. Brady and Warner played great out of the gate. Can Fitz get better? Yes. Can he make a 5-10% jump in accuracy? Probably not.

[thewildrabbit]

i guess to some degree you guys confuse me. earlier one of you argued football is football 1960 or today, but a second round pick in 2000 wouldnt be drafted today because of how the games changed. now you say drew brees has better nfl skills but when comparing them, think fitz would have done just as well with the same situations, and no one else in the league besides POSSIBLY aaron rodgers or big ben could have matched fitz had they played in buffalo? it just doesnt make sense.

 

i get the idea that joe montana isnt joe montana if he goes to detroit -- i also get that you look at teams like the saints, and patriots, colts, etc.... and who were they without that quarterback? by bringing in peyton and drew the saints went from cellar dwellar, to the best team in the NFC over the last 4-5 years. i want to see what gailey can do with his guy too.

 

I am not arguing draft him at all costs at number 3 no matter what la la la fingers in my ears and i cant hear you. I am saying if you see that guy, go get him - could be round 1, round 3, or a trade maybe. if we get stuck with 2 really good qbs, so be it. i wont lose sleep over that problem.

Jeez dude, all I've been saying is I want to see if Gailey can improve Fitz before this team wastes another high draft pick on a QB

 

Anyways, in regards to your first paragraph, Look at the year Tom Brady was knocked out for the season in the home opener in 2008, the guy who replaced him was a NOBODY! That replacement QB didn't even start in his ENTIRE four years while in college, his last start at QB for a team was his high school FB team!

This nobody went on to lead that Patriot team to an 11-5 record,which wasn't good enough to make the playoffs that year. Still, 11-5 from a guy who's last start was in high school. That tells me he had a great supporting cast of players, and coaches, and team around him!

[CosmicBills]

I love that bold statement. It's true, but it's also doesn't prove the poster point very well. Just because you draft a QB anywhere in the draft doesn't mean they will become an elite QB. (as is true with any position) Drafting one high allows you to draft one with better credentials, but still leaves no guarantees. If you really want to raise your odds of getting that elite QB you should draft one with every pick. Newton Rd#1, Locker Rd#2, Ponder Rd#3... The real issue here is not to draft a QB at #3, but is there an elite QB in this draft worthy of being drafted at all? IMO as QB drafts go, this is the weakest one in quite a while.

I'm not sure where you think I'm saying the Bills have to take a QB at 3 this year. As much as I like the idea of Newton, I'd actually prefer Quinn (right now, that could change as we get closer to the draft). I've said several times that it doesn't matter where you find an elite QB -- just that you have to find one. Whether that be in Round 1 or off the street. There are plenty of elite QBs that have been found outside of round 1.

 

However, as the game has shifted to a pass first league, it's becoming harder for an elite QB to slip past the first round since every scout and every front office is looking for one. Just look at this past season's playoff rosters. Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Indy, Chicago, Atlanta, NYJ and Philly all had 1st round QBs. The vast majority. However, there was still Brady (6th round), MC (forget when he was taken), Brees (2nd) and Dilfer (was he a first? I forget).

 

You can find them anywhere. You just have to find one. And it's far tougher to find an elite QB than any other position. So when you have a chance to get one, no matter where or when, you take it. That's all I'm saying.

 

Jeez dude, all I've been saying is I want to see if Gailey can improve Fitz before this team wastes another high draft pick on a QB

 

Anyways, in regards to your first paragraph, Look at the year Tom Brady was knocked out for the season in the home opener in 2008, the guy who replaced him was a NOBODY! That replacement QB didn't even start in his ENTIRE four years while in college, his last start at QB for a team was his high school FB team!

This nobody went on to lead that Patriot team to an 11-5 record,which wasn't good enough to make the playoffs that year. Still, 11-5 from a guy who's last start was in high school. That tells me he had a great supporting cast of players, and coaches, and team around him!

Um ... there's another way to look at Matt's performance. Which was the way KC looked at it. That he had it. Even at USC he had it. They wanted him enough pick him up and he did lead the Chiefs to the playoffs.

 

So again, you're theory is not as one sided as you think. But thanks for trying.

[thewildrabbit]

Wow. You fail to really understand what I'm saying. Instead of over reacting and slamming your head into the same wall over and over again, take a moment and breathe. Digest what's being said. Then comment. It'll help. I promise.

 

Of course you either have it or you don't. You can improve your understanding of the game. You can improve your mechanics and footwork. But if you don't have the physical tools to begin with, you can only go so far. Brady and Warner prove that. They don't disprove it. They didn't get a chance till someone got hurt, and once they did they showed they could play at a very high level. They weren't finely polished. They got better the more they played. But they played well above what Fitz has shown from the start.

 

You say I don't have a clue whether Fitz has it or not. Well that's just not true. Fitz has started 36 games. He's not an unknown. Warner was. Brady was. Again, it has nothing to do with where they were drafted or how they were acquired. It's how they perform on the field. Fitz played well. Not great. Brady and Warner played great out of the gate. Can Fitz get better? Yes. Can he make a 5-10% jump in accuracy? Probably not.

I'm not over reacting or slamming anything, calm and cool here. Although it does get annoying dealing with some people......

 

Try and absorb the idea that Fitz has played for CRAPO TEAMS.... Brady started playing on an already SB team. Kurt Warner went to a team that had HoF RB Marshall Faulk and was loaded with soon to be super star players.... HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

Now think about how well Brady or Warner would have performed given last years Buffalo Bills team to play for, no running game, no defense, no special teams, no TE, and only one decent receiver all season. It is literally insane to think pocket passers could have out performed Fitz who had to run for his life in several games.

 

How do you KNOW fitz can't make a huge improvement in his play if his supporting cast improves, you can't ! I for one would like to see the bills spend that #3 on defense, rather then a QB that is going to take 3 years to get to the level of knowledge that Fitz already has, even then the guy may never develop and turn into another JP-Edwards..

 

Um ... there's another way to look at Matt's performance. Which was the way KC looked at it. That he had it. Even at USC he had it. They wanted him enough pick him up and he did lead the Chiefs to the playoffs.

 

So again, you're theory is not as one sided as you think. But thanks for trying.

 

Matt hasn't taken his team to the SB yet, hasn't even won a playoff game yet. I was making an entirely different point.... which clearly you didn't get

[Van_phelaN1]

its a battle you wont win. ive tried, but logic and reason is lost in the fitz debate. truly, for those arguing he is better then eli manning, are you ready to invest eli manning money on him next contract? all these guys you compare him to are $10+ million a year qbs. doesnt seem like a smart play to give him brees, manning, big ben, rodgers, romo, brady, eli manning type money -- reason is, hes just not as good.

 

and for those saying his stats are like jimbo -- those stats put jim top 5 in the league at the time, today they are borderline to be in the discussion for top 15. as long as you can debate whether hes better then guys like orton, hes not your guy. i dont see that changing. but alas, who am i to argue we are better off trying to get an above average qb, instead of building one of the best defenses in the history of the nfl ala baltimore. just because it has been done before doesnt mean its a good plan in the future. im not going to count on getting a brady in the 6th, and im not going to count on winning the superbowl with a average to slightly below average qb.

 

You only have to look as far as Stevie Johnson to see how a better qb makes his receivers better. He was a virtual nobody when he saw time on the field with the likes of Trent Edwards. Your argument is valid and even though I am a supported of Fitzpatrick, I also am not too blind to see that he is nowhere close to being on par with Manning. I also won't say it is impossible either. After this offseason with full time as the starter in camp, we will see if he is capable of some improvement and have an answer for sure. For now, draft for the defense first and pick up a QB later to learn behind Fitz. You can't argue he isn't a good QB in terms of knowing the importance of protections and getting the ball out quickly. Besides you never know how the draft will pan out. You never know who might still be on the board after a round or two.

[CosmicBills]

I'm not over reacting or slamming anything, calm and cool here. Although it does get annoying dealing with some people......

 

Try and absorb the idea that Fitz has played for CRAPO TEAMS.... Brady started playing on an already SB team. Kurt Warner went to a team that had HoF RB Marshall Faulk and was loaded with soon to be super star players.... HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

Now think about how well Brady or Warner would have performed given last years Buffalo Bills team to play for, no running game, no defense, no special teams, no TE, and only one decent receiver all season. It is literally insane to think pocket passers could have out performed Fitz who had to run for his life in several games.

 

How do you KNOW fitz can't make a huge improvement in his play if his supporting cast improves, you can't ! I for one would like to see the bills spend that #3 on defense, rather then a QB that is going to take 3 years to get to the level of knowledge that Fitz already has, even then the guy may never develop and turn into another JP-Edwards..

 

 

 

Matt hasn't taken his team to the SB yet, hasn't even won a playoff game yet. I was making an entirely different point.... which clearly you didn't get

Again, this was discussed already in the thread, so go back and take a look. But you're falling back on the team makes the QB. I say that's untrue (which of course is opinion). To put it another way, if you put Fitz on KC this year they don't make the playoffs. If you put Fitz on New Orleans, they don't make the playoffs. If you put Fitz on Green Bay, they certainly don't win the Super Bowl. But if you put any of those QBs on the Bills, they win more than 4 games.

 

That's the point. Fitz is not the problem on the team, but he's not the answer.

Edited February 18, 2011 by tgreg99

[NoSaint]

I'm not over reacting or slamming anything, calm and cool here. Although it does get annoying dealing with some people......

 

Try and absorb the idea that Fitz has played for CRAPO TEAMS.... Brady started playing on an already SB team. Kurt Warner went to a team that had HoF RB Marshall Faulk and was loaded with soon to be super star players.... HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

Now think about how well Brady or Warner would have performed given last years Buffalo Bills team to play for, no running game, no defense, no special teams, no TE, and only one decent receiver all season. It is literally insane to think pocket passers could have out performed Fitz who had to run for his life in several games.

 

How do you KNOW fitz can't make a huge improvement in his play if his supporting cast improves, you can't ! I for one would like to see the bills spend that #3 on defense, rather then a QB that is going to take 3 years to get to the level of knowledge that Fitz already has, even then the guy may never develop and turn into another JP-Edwards..

 

 

 

Matt hasn't taken his team to the SB yet, hasn't even won a playoff game yet. I was making an entirely different point.... which clearly you didn't get

 

two years before brady, the patriots were 8-8, then 5-11 the year before brady. they were 0-2 when bledsoe got hurt. brady went 11-3 to close the season -- not to mention those playoff wins. superbowl team before him? they didnt have a single probowler the year prior.

 

 

"Coming off a fifth-place finish in head coach Bill Belichick's first season in 2000, the Patriots were not expected to fare much better in 2001."

 

thats 5th in the AFC east by the way

Edited February 18, 2011 by NoSaint

[yungmack]

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.

This is a pretty good analysis, all in all. One thing: the 60% bar might be crappy, as you say. But it is one of the more "written in stone" technical analysis tools. And it does seem to a useful dividing line. It's one reason (among several) why I'd pass on Jake Locker. However, like you, I think a better, or at least a more "settled" offense might contribute to Fitz getting over that line. And with an improved defense that can actually get two or three more "3 and outs" per game (while stopping the run and the scoring), then the offense won't have to be obvious passing situations so often, which would immensely help Fitz's stats.

 

As to accuracy, I don't know. He seems to have a tendency to make mistakes a little more often than I'd like to see ("mistakes" being interceptions, mostly). In any case, there are at least ten starting QBs, and maybe as many as fifteen, that he's better than for the Bills at this time. And with what looks like a shortage of slamdunk QB prospects in this year's draft, I believe we should accept that Fitz will be the starter this season and next as well. Fix the darned defense!

[hammie65]

OK, one last reply to this thread and only in the hopes of compromise. There seem to be two sides of this debate but I honestly don't think there needs to be.

 

It isn't really about Fitzpatrick versus elite QB's or Franchise QB's versus strong O and D lines. For me at this point it is about foundational building blocks that are needed to win football games and when to get them.

 

1. Both are needed to win.

2. The Bills need both.

3. Winning teams that have been mentioned already have both.

 

You can put any backup or "not fully tested" QB's name in place of Fitzy's in these threads and it doesn't change the situation. I believe the Bills would be wise to draft another QB and let him learn under Fitzy, just not first round. And, I also believe that Fitzy will continue to improve and produce for the Bills (whether he is superbowl caliber or not). The real challenge is to build a team that can be good on all fronts, regardless of who is behind center. When Brady went down for the season and Cassel took the Patriots to an 11 and 5 record, was it because he is the next Brady or because the patriots were rock solid as a team?

 

We, in my opinion, need to start from the trenches and work our way out starting with this years draft. If we hit the jackpot on Newton or Ponder or Kaepernick, fantastic! If not, we can still competitively win games with solid O and D lines, special teams, and a running game until we know that we have that QB who "has it". Stud linemen IMO are priceless for buffalo at this point and a QB is a luxury pick. I just hope whoever they give the big bucks to is able to earn it this time.

 

Thanks for playing.

[White Linen]

I respectfully disagree Senator, picking 3rd theres no reason for smokescreens, it only discourages other teams to even try to trade up with Buffalo by saying Buffalo wants a QB, so whats the motive?

 

 

RW wants a playoff/ championship caliber QB and what Wilson/Brandon wants Wilson/Brandon gets...(or tries to anyway)

[Johnny Hammersticks]

I know it's just your opinion -- but that's expecting a lot from a guy who's never hit 60% completion rate in his career. You cannot be an elite QB in this league with a sub 60% completion rate. It's getting to the point where you need to be closer to 65 than 60.

 

While you don't need a football God -- you need an elite QB to win the Super Bowl. That hasn't just been a trend over the past decade, it's been a fact of life in the pass-happy NFL. And Fitz just isn't an elite QB.

 

You are absolutely correct.

 

Signed,

 

Trent Dilfer

[Cal Bill's Fan]

Give Fitz a chance! Draft linemen.

[NoSaint]

You are absolutely correct.

 

Signed,

 

Trent Dilfer

 

 

Congrats you found the loophole. If you build a top 3 in the history of the game defense-which holds teams to literally 10 pts per game- and had 2000 rushing yards and a special teams that scored touchdowns regularly, you don't need a future hall of famer at qb.

 

Signed,

Tom Brady, peyton manning, drew brees, big ben, Aaron rodgers.

 

 

Just cause something has been done doesn't mean it's a great plan. I'm not looking for my franchise qb in the 6th. Just cause Tom Brady went there, the 15 other qbs in the top half of the NFL suggest rounds one and two are more effective. I've seen people get rich off the lottery. I'm not banking on it but that's the blind optimism I see in a few of the posters. Fitz might be able to qb a playoff team, but I'm not holding my breathe on a superbowl. It's just incredibly unlikely.

 

Is he bigger? No...

Is he stronger? No....

Is he faster? No...

More accurate? No....

His big strength is IQ and even that is negated by the incredible football iq of the top qbs. If you sit fitz, drew, tom and Peyton in the film room together I'm not convinced he breaks it down any better.

 

Why not get a guy that measures up? Just cause he's better than Trent (jp, rj, tc, avp) doesn't mean he is going to leave a mark on the game. I want that guy on our team. BAD. I want fitz to help him along, back him up, watch film with him. But 2-3 years from now I want that guy leading this team on the field.

Edited February 19, 2011 by NoSaint

[Johnny Hammersticks]

Congrats you found the loophole. If you build a top 3 in the history of the game defense-which holds teams to literally 10 pts per game- and had 2000 rushing yards and a special teams that scored touchdowns regularly, you don't need a future hall of famer at qb.

 

Signed,

Tom Brady, peyton manning, drew brees, big ben, Aaron rodgers.

 

 

Just cause something has been done doesn't mean it's a great plan. I'm not looking for my franchise qb in the 6th. Just cause Tom Brady went there, the 15 other qbs in the top half of the NFL suggest rounds one and two are more effective. I've seen people get rich off the lottery. I'm not banking on it but that's the blind optimism I see in a few of the posters. Fitz might be able to qb a playoff team, but I'm not holding my breathe on a superbowl. It's just incredibly unlikely.

 

Is he bigger? No...

Is he stronger? No....

Is he faster? No...

More accurate? No....

His big strength is IQ and even that is negated by the incredible football iq of the top qbs. If you sit fitz, drew, tom and Peyton in the film room together I'm not convinced he breaks it down any better.

 

Why not get a guy that measures up? Just cause he's better than Trent (jp, rj, tc, avp) doesn't mean he is going to leave a mark on the game. I want that guy on our team. BAD. I want fitz to help him along, back him up, watch film with him. But 2-3 years from now I want that guy leading this team on the field.

 

I sense that I may have hit a nerve Saint.

 

IMO...there is not a QB in this draft who is worth the #3 overall pick. I want defense, defense, and then maybe an offensive tackle or a tight end. I want the biggest, nastiest MF'ers out there. Let's make Buffalo an unpleasant place to play again. We can win with our current offense and an upgraded defense.

[NoSaint]

I sense that I may have hit a nerve Saint.

 

IMO...there is not a QB in this draft who is worth the #3 overall pick. I want defense, defense, and then maybe an offensive tackle or a tight end. I want the biggest, nastiest MF'ers out there. Let's make Buffalo an unpleasant place to play again. We can win with our current offense and an upgraded defense.

 

Whether or not you want a qb at 3, your Trent dilfer reference does ... Suck

 

Because it lacks any real backing and we are somehow supposed to suspend logic and reason because something happened one time ten years ago. It also irks me because it was covered 4 pages ago but we are back at it, yet you added nothing new to the original point from pages back. If you want to bring up dilfer, atleast tell us why it is easier to build the best defense in the NFL, a great oline and a productive special teams, when in my estimation a qb upgrade alone has the same net impact as improving 4-5 other positions.. Is it simply that you dont see that qb available- nothing else? Do you think we have him? Do you not think he's as valuable as I do? instead of facetious comments join the conversation. I agree we have weapons, and need a big nasty D, but even with that I think we need a qb upgrade in the longterm - no?

Edited February 19, 2011 by NoSaint

[Hapless Bills Fan]

So you're saying Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, Jim McMahon, and Doug Williams were elite?

 

Don't forget Brad Johnson