One of my biggest concerns about Fitzpatrick

[RyanC883]

One of the main problems for Fiz is that he is playing behind the worst O line in Football. Most other QBs would be killed by now. Any word on where Max Starks is? He may not be the pro-bowl caliber player he once was, but I bet his current condition is better than what we have.

[1billsfan]

You do know its impossible to rank field awareness right? And Madden doesnt count...

 

 

It was a joke. It's way too early to get hot and bothered over the Bills.

[K Gun Special]

The dude passed for almost 400 yards against the Ravens last year...you have to have some "awareness" to do that.

 

 

And was terrible against some awful defenses.

[The Big Cat]

And was terrible against some awful defenses.

 

Such as?

[thebug]

You're kidding me right? I just checked and Fitzpatrick's ranked #7 in the league in FA (Field Awareness).

 

 

I wonder how many people just googled "nfl field awareness rankings".

[1billsfan]

I wonder how many people just googled "nfl field awareness rankings".

 

 

 

 

I'm sure there were more than a few!

[Alphadawg7]

I take issue with every point you've raised.

 

To start: I'd say there's a good possibility that the Denver gameplan was steeped in showmanship. Based on some of the Broncos' post-game comments, it's obvious they came out with something to prove. So you're completely wrong in your assment.

 

Secondly, Fitz's lone superlative IS his intelligence and his pre-snap reads. That's what made the offense effective last year. But those attributes require GAMEPLANNING, somethingwe know for certain the Bills DID NOT DO before Saturday's game.

 

Thirdly, the mistakes he makes RARELY have anything to do with him being caught unawares. For you to assert thusly makes me question whether you've seen the man play. His throws being off-target are strictly a mechanical issue. We used to hear from Trent ALL THE TIME: "they came out and did some things we weren't expecting." Now we hear the opposite from Fitz: "we knew the package they were in, we knew the play they were running, I knew where to put the ball, I just failed to do so."

 

Your never-ending "Fitz-Blows" campaign is getting stale, my friend.

 

First off...something to prove is not even remotely the same thing as "putting on a show" for the fans. And I don't care what anyone says, there isnt a single GM, HC, or coaching staff in the NFL that takes the second preseason game as an opportunity to entertain the fans. And to infer it happened in a season where the NFL just went through a lockout and had no OTA's for their young players, little time with new FA's, and brand new coaching staff and that statement is pretty ridiculous.

 

They came out to run the schemes they wanted because they wanted to, not because they wanted to "put a show on for the fans".

 

Secondly...I heard the same stuff about Trent while I was one of the few voices of reason. Trents key traits were poise and intelligence (because he went to Stanford), yet through his play he proved otherwise. Fitz's myth of being one of the smartest in the league at awareness is a 2 part story. One, like Trent he gets extra assumed awareness because he went to a top educational school. Two, Gailey made a comment (right after suffering through Trent) that Fitz was good a recognizing the D pre snap (something Trent was terrible at). Well, hate to break it to you, recognizing a play pre snap is no where close to the same type of awareness once the ball is snapped and now you have to make split second decisions, feel pressure, see the field, and execute the play. He is not one of the best in the league at this. If he was, his accuracy wouldnt be so bad, his turnovers wouldnt be so high, and his overall effectiveness would be much better.

 

And let me know when Fitz proves he doesnt blow and we can talk. His last 9 games to end the season: 12TD's 16 Turnovers, 56% comp, and 70 QB rating...that blows. So far, all camp he is missing on med to deep ball and shown nothing significant in preseason. By the way, his career averages blow too...so again, when he puts up something that doesnt blow, then talk to me.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Alphadawg7

[KOKBILLS]

This statement makes no sense. How can you say he knows exactly what the D is doing but yet doesn't get the ball their on time? Think about that statement...if he knew exactly what the D is doing, then getting the ball there on time would not be a problem because he would know exactly when to throw it and get it there. Its not like his arm is the equivalent of a 14 year old girl and it takes too long to get there...he is an NFL QB and has plenty of arm to deliver the ball on time if he throws it on time. So how long it takes the ball to get there relies on knowing the D, what they are doing, and when to throw it. So if he isnt getting the ball there on time, then he is NOT understanding the D nearly as good as you think.

 

I hear what you're saying, and I don't disagree necessarily...But I think the reason Fitz does not get the Ball where it needs to be nearly enough is MUCH more a lack of natural ability, touch, and feel for the Passing Game more so than his lack of ability to understand NFL Defenses...He's just not a natural talent...So I do give him credit for being the QB he is...Though I doubt it's ever going to be good enough...

[K Gun Special]

Such as?

 

 

wk 16 - 3 INTs 48% comp - NE was ranked near last in pass D.

 

or how about 140 yards against the Lions and another 140 against the Browns.

 

I could go on.

 

He did rock some good defenses there's no disputing that and I'm not. But he needs to be more consistent.

[Alphadawg7]

I hear what you're saying, and I don't disagree necessarily...But I think the reason Fitz does not get the Ball where it needs to be nearly enough is MUCH more a lack of natural ability, touch, and feel for the Passing Game more so than his lack of ability to understand NFL Defenses...He's just not a natural talent...So I do give him credit for being the QB he is...Though I doubt it's ever going to be good enough...

 

I totally agree with you. My only thing with that statement the other poster made was that if he really knew exactly what the D was doing then that would make up for that. Since he doesnt consistently do it, then I dont see how anyone could claim he mostly always knows exactly what the D is doing.

[The Big Cat]

First off...something to prove is not even remotely the same thing as "putting on a show" for the fans. And I don't care what anyone says, I will bet every asset I have in my life from now until the day I die that there isnt a single GM, HC, or coaching staff in the NFL that takes the second preseason game as an opportunity to entertain the fans. And to infer it happened in a season where the NFL just went through a lockout and had no OTA's for their young players, little time with new FA's, and brand new coaching staff and that statement becomes one of the dumbest ideas ever on this board.

 

They came out to run the schemes they wanted because they wanted to, not because they wanted to "put a show on for the fans".

 

Secondly...I heard the same stuff about Trent while I was one of the few voices of reason. Trents key traits were poise and intelligence (because he went to Stanford), yet through his play he proved otherwise. Fitz's myth of being one of the smartest in the league at awareness is a 2 part story. One, like Trent he gets extra assumed awareness because he went to a top educational school. Two, Gailey made a comment (right after suffering through Trent) that Fitz was good a recognizing the D pre snap. Well, hate to break it to you, recognizing a play pre snap is no where close to the same type of awareness once the ball is snapped and now you have to make split second decisions, feel pressure, see the field, and execute the play. He is not one of the best in the league at this and no matter how many times you type it wont make it true. If he was, his accuracy wouldnt be so bad, his turnovers wouldnt be so high, and his overall effectiveness would be much better.

 

It's astonishing how many words you chew up just reiterate how wrong you are about things.

 

Please explain to me why a truncated offseason precludes the 31st ranked defense in 2010 who now has their best player back after an entire-year-ending injury from heating things up a bit.

 

Did you see how often and how aggressively they blitzed? Did you? Did you notice that on two 3-14 attempts are D just dropped back into coverage, blitzing only three? Ours and theirs were two entirely different game plans and if we're all under the supposition that our plan involved NO planning (again, based on what OUR players said), then by reverse transitive property AND based on what THEIR players said, one would assume that the Broncos were out to prove SOMETHING. To themselves, to their fanbase, to their new staff, to whomever, they played with PURPOSE. We did not.

 

And it's not even worth going through all nonsense you're trying to convince yourself of with regards to your Fitz-hate. Get over it, homey. Stop auditioning for Jerry Sullivan's job, it aint vacant.

[dave mcbride]

First off...something to prove is not even remotely the same thing as "putting on a show" for the fans. And I don't care what anyone says, I will bet every asset I have in my life from now until the day I die that there isnt a single GM, HC, or coaching staff in the NFL that takes the second preseason game as an opportunity to entertain the fans. And to infer it happened in a season where the NFL just went through a lockout and had no OTA's for their young players, little time with new FA's, and brand new coaching staff and that statement becomes one of the dumbest ideas ever on this board.

 

They came out to run the schemes they wanted because they wanted to, not because they wanted to "put a show on for the fans".

 

Secondly...I heard the same stuff about Trent while I was one of the few voices of reason. Trents key traits were poise and intelligence (because he went to Stanford), yet through his play he proved otherwise. Fitz's myth of being one of the smartest in the league at awareness is a 2 part story. One, like Trent he gets extra assumed awareness because he went to a top educational school. Two, Gailey made a comment (right after suffering through Trent) that Fitz was good a recognizing the D pre snap. Well, hate to break it to you, recognizing a play pre snap is no where close to the same type of awareness once the ball is snapped and now you have to make split second decisions, feel pressure, see the field, and execute the play. He is not one of the best in the league at this and no matter how many times you type it wont make it true. If he was, his accuracy wouldnt be so bad, his turnovers wouldnt be so high, and his overall effectiveness would be much better.

 

And let me know when Fitz proves he doesnt blow and we can talk. His last 9 games to end the season: 12TD's 16 Turnovers, 56% comp, and 70 QB rating...that blows. So far, all camp he is missing on med to deep ball and shown nothing significant in preseason. By the way, his career averages blow too...so again, when he puts up something that doesnt blow, then talk to me.

Re: Edwards' intelligence v. Fitz's intelligence, you're neglecting to mention a key thing. Stanford is and always has been a big time football school. If you're of average intelligence and have blue chip ability (which Edwards certainly had coming out of high school), they'll be very happy to take you. Edwards was no rocket scientist, but he was a big guy with a big arm who won a ton of games in HS. He was one of the top recruits in the country.

 

Harvard doesn't offer athletic scholarships. 'Nuff said.

 

One more thing:

 

Edwards' Wonderlic score -- 31

Fitz's Wonderlic score -- 48

 

One similarity doesn't necessarily mean there are other similarities.

Edited August 22, 2011 by dave mcbride

[The Big Cat]

wk 16 - 3 INTs 48% comp - NE was ranked near last in pass D.

 

or how about 140 yards against the Lions and another 140 against the Browns.

 

I could go on.

 

He did rock some good defenses there's no disputing that and I'm not. But he needs to be more consistent.

 

No coicidence then that we also happened to have our two biggest rushing games in against the Browns and Lions, respectively. Or that the weather against Detroit was the absolute pits.

 

I'll give you the New England game. But Fitz was publicly ashamed after that one, it was his lone stink bomb, a truly pathetic display of football and he knew it. He admitted to it, and he didn't play the following week because he was dinged up prior to laying the week 16 turd and it didn't make any sense to risk further injury.

[Alphadawg7]

It's astonishing how many words you chew up just reiterate how wrong you are about things.

 

Please explain to me why a truncated offseason precludes the 31st ranked defense in 2010 who now has their best player back after an entire-year-ending injury from heating things up a bit.

 

Did you see how often and how aggressively they blitzed? Did you? Did you notice that on two 3-14 attempts are D just dropped back into coverage, blitzing only three? Ours and theirs were two entirely different game plans and if we're all under the supposition that our plan involved NO planning (again, based on what OUR players said), then by reverse transitive property AND based on what THEIR players said, one would assume that the Broncos were out to prove SOMETHING. To themselves, to their fanbase, to their new staff, to whomever, they played with PURPOSE. We did not.

 

And it's not even worth going through all nonsense you're trying to convince yourself of with regards to your Fitz-hate. Get over it, homey. Stop auditioning for Jerry Sullivan's job, it aint vacant.

 

Dude, what are you even talking about? I said, there is no way that a brand new coaching staff, the GM, the team, the owner came into a game against the Buffalo Bills and said lets entertain the fans. I never said they didnt play with purpose or something to prove. Those are not even remotely close to the same thing. They clearly came out to play with purpose, but it WAS NOT for fan entertainment. It is a new coaching staff, come week 1, those players need to be comfortable running the NEW defense at full speed. So they came out and ran a bigger game plan to get their team ready to play the way they want them to play. They did not play like that for the sole purpose "fan entertainment" as the poster stated in the post I replied to that you are now arguing. How is this still a confusing statement for you?

[K Gun Special]

No coicidence then that we also happened to have our two biggest rushing games in against the Browns and Lions, respectively. Or that the weather against Detroit was the absolute pits.

 

I'll give you the New England game. But Fitz was publicly ashamed after that one, it was his lone stink bomb, a truly pathetic display of football and he knew it. He admitted to it, and he didn't play the following week because he was dinged up prior to laying the week 16 turd and it didn't make any sense to risk further injury.

 

Yea but that doesnt explain the awful performance. Completing less than 50% of your passes against crummy D isnt explained away by a good day rushing.

 

I am glad Fitz > Edwards and many before him. But he is not going to be the answer and it will play out this season. I think we are in for a dose of reality of where this team really is. I do btw think the personnel moves are trending in the right direction but it takes a long time to turn a crappy ship around.

[Alphadawg7]

Re: Edwards' intelligence v. Fitz's intelligence, you're neglecting to mention a key thing. Stanford is and always has been a big time football school. If you're of average intelligence and have blue chip ability (which Edwards certainly had coming out of high school), they'll be very happy to take you. Edwards was no rocket scientist, but he was a big guy with a big arm who won a ton of games in HS. He was one of the top recruits in the country.

 

Harvard doesn't offer athletic scholarships. 'Nuff said.

 

One more thing:

 

Edwards' Wonderlic score -- 31

Fitz's Wonderlic score -- 48

 

One similarity doesn't necessarily mean there are other similarities.

 

I understand that...I was not making that conclusion but saying a lot of others do. Like Trent, Fitz gets a greater assumed awareness based on the school he went to. Trent was argued by many on this board until they were blue in the fact that he was so "smart" unlike JP because they assumed it from the fact he went to Stanford. Fitz, similarly, gets a lot of credit for be so "smart" and "aware" on the field because he went to Harvard. And no doubt, Fitz is probably a very intelligent person. But this thread is not about "intelligence" its about "awareness" and they are not the same thing. But most posters don't seem to understand the difference in the two and assume one equals the other.

 

He may be very intelligent, but that doesn't mean that when the ball is snapped that his awareness level during a play equals his intelligence.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Alphadawg7

[dave mcbride]

Yea but that doesnt explain the awful performance. Completing less than 50% of your passes against crummy D isnt explained away by a good day rushing.

 

I am glad Fitz > Edwards and many before him. But he is not going to be the answer and it will play out this season. I think we are in for a dose of reality of where this team really is. I do btw think the personnel moves are trending in the right direction but it takes a long time to turn a crappy ship around.

He was 20-28 in his first game against NE last year, the one in which (ahem) Lee Evans actually played.

 

I understand that...thats not what I said. I was not making that conclusion. What I stated is, like Trent, Fitz gets a greater assumed awareness based on the school he went to. Trent was argued by many on this board until they were blue in the fact that he was so "smart" unlike JP because they assumed it from the fact he went to Stanford. Fitz, similarly, gets a lot of credit for be so "smart" and "aware" on the field because he went to Harvard. And no doubt, Fitz is probably a very intelligent person. But this thread is not about "intelligence" its about "awareness" and they are not the same thing. But most posters don't seem to understand the difference in the two and assume one equals the other.

 

He may be very intelligent, but that doesn't mean that when the ball is snapped that his awareness level during a play equals his intelligence.

When Fitz came in last year, he was the first Bills QB to play who didn't look like a sack waiting to happen. Seriously, after he took over, for the first time in a decade every other play didn't look like a defensive jail break. That's because he acted quickly and decisively. As for making the occasional bad throw, I chalk that up to his initial tutelage under Martz, who has always taught his QBs to take risks in order to move the ball towards the goal line (very different from Jauron). It's a good philosophy, generally speaking, but it will lead to some bad picks. But it's crazy to criticize Fitz for not acting quickly and decisively given how horrible the offensive line is. Fitz was sacked only 24 times in 13 games, which has to be some sort of modern record for the Bills.

Edited August 22, 2011 by dave mcbride

[Alphadawg7]

Yea but that doesnt explain the awful performance. Completing less than 50% of your passes against crummy D isnt explained away by a good day rushing.

 

I am glad Fitz > Edwards and many before him. But he is not going to be the answer and it will play out this season. I think we are in for a dose of reality of where this team really is. I do btw think the personnel moves are trending in the right direction but it takes a long time to turn a crappy ship around.

 

Totally agree...he is much better than what we had, but I have yet to see any signs that he is making any improvements. I like him and love how he plays, so would LOVE nothing more than for him to take it to the next level, I just don't see it happening unfortunately.

 

He was 20-28 in his first game against NE last year, the one in which (ahem) Lee Evans actually played.

 

 

When Fitz came in last year, he was the first Bills QB to play who didn't look like a sack waiting to happen. Seriously, after he took over, for the first time in a decade every other play didn't look like a defensive jail break. That's because he acted quickly and decisively. As for making the occasional bad throw, I chalk that up to his initial tutelage under Martz, who has always taught his QBs to take risks in order to move the ball towards the goal line (very different from Jauron). It's a good philosophy, generally speaking, but it will lead to some bad picks. But it's crazy to criticize Fitz for not acting quickly and decisively given how horrible the offensive line is. Fitz was sacked only 24 times in 13 games, which has to be some sort of modern record for the Bills.

 

That stat line in NE was very deceiving...he was very ineffective in that game and his numbers were padded because for his first game they ran a lot of screens and short dump offs. If it wasn't for Spillers 2nd half KO ret for a TD, we would have been down 23 in the 4th. And, his accuracy was greatly helped in the 4th when we were down 16 and NE started playing prevent and we had guys running open all over the field and we got a garbage time TD. Stat lines can be an illusion...and as the offense opened up more, his accuracy plummeted through the rest of the season.

 

In fact, at first glance his stat line in the next 2 games doesnt look terrible, but he was awful and got a lot of stats help literally with a TD in the final minutes of bad blowout losses. Then the 4th game was Balt. So in his first 4 games, only Balt was really any good. Then in the 9 games after Balt, he had 12 TD's (4 happened in one game, Cincy) with 16 turnovers, a 56% comp, and 70 QB rating and was among the lowest rated QB's in the NFL. So, you can have your one sample of completing a high percentage and will evaluate the rest of his season and his entire career.

 

So, great, he only took 24 sacks...too bad he wasn't a better QB when he wasn't getting sacked.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Alphadawg7

[Nervous Guy]

Totally agree...he is much better than what we had, but I have yet to see any signs that he is making any improvements. I like him and love how he plays, so would LOVE nothing more than for him to take it to the next level, I just don't see it happening unfortunately.

I think most rational fans (the few and the proud) feel the same way.

[Kelly the Dog]

I understand that...thats not what I said. I was not making that conclusion. What I stated is, like Trent, Fitz gets a greater assumed awareness based on the school he went to. Trent was argued by many on this board until they were blue in the fact that he was so "smart" unlike JP because they assumed it from the fact he went to Stanford. Fitz, similarly, gets a lot of credit for be so "smart" and "aware" on the field because he went to Harvard. And no doubt, Fitz is probably a very intelligent person. But this thread is not about "intelligence" its about "awareness" and they are not the same thing. But most posters don't seem to understand the difference in the two and assume one equals the other.

 

He may be very intelligent, but that doesn't mean that when the ball is snapped that his awareness level during a play equals his intelligence.

Gailey has often spoke in public about Fitz's great ability to read defenses pre-snap, know where to go with the ball, and get the ball to the right player to make plays. In fact, Fitz was making some of the line calls for the center last year. And Gailey doesn't usually throw around superlatives like most coaches.

 

Pre-season, you are simply not going to tell, good or bad, at all, whether a QB can read defenses pre-snap, or after the snap for that matter. If he was making great reads pre-snap in pre-season it wouldn't mean anything either.

 

That said, the entire passing game is not in sync right now, due to numerous issues including no off-season, no continuity on the line, new players, old players out with injury, Gailey trying to see certain things at the total expense of trying to get the most yards out of every single play, etc.