The Poojer Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Unfortunately, this was one that he lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Agreed. Like this year, they won't reach for a QB… but they will ultimately get one. In the meantime, I'm good with Fitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted October 16, 2011 Author Share Posted October 16, 2011 Hate losing, and there were more factors in losing than fitz, but he's the leader and we wouldn't be 4-2 without him...so he gets both blame and credit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Hate losing, and there were more factors in losing than fitz, but he's the leader and we wouldn't be 4-2 without him...so he gets both blame and credit To me. Fitz is more like a 50-50 guy. I was hoping this year he would make huge strides in becoming a 75 plus percent guy. He still may be, but his last performances against the Bengals, Eagles, and today were more pedestrian than upper echelon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 To me. Fitz is more like a 50-50 guy. I was hoping this year he would make huge strides in becoming a 75 plus percent guy. He still may be, but his last performances against the Bengals, Eagles, and today were more pedestrian than upper echelon. And losing Lee Evans, Marcus Easley, and Donald Jones? Have you factored this in as far as your evaluation of Fitz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 And losing Lee Evans, Marcus Easley, and Donald Jones? Have you factored this in as far as your evaluation of Fitz? Last I checked, injuries weren't a new phenomenon. 32 NFL teams deal with them at some point, and you've fallen back on this excuse in more than 1 thread now. Did you really expect no one or only replaceable starters would be hurt this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) Last I checked, injuries weren't a new phenomenon. 32 NFL teams deal with them at some point, and you've fallen back on this excuse in more than 1 thread now. Did you really expect no one or only replaceable starters would be hurt this season? Yeah, right BillsVet. Injury factor is a black and white thing. So what you're saying is that if Bell, Hairston, Levitre, and Pears were all simultaneously injured, that wouldn't be a valid reason why the O-line played poorly? At what point do we allow manpower shortages to be acceptable reasons for a loss in team performance? Looking forward to your answer, BillsVet. Edited October 16, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBear Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 And losing Lee Evans, Marcus Easley, and Donald Jones? Have you factored this in as far as your evaluation of Fitz? agree. This is probably one of the least talented receiving corps in the nfl before the injuries. and people forget that jim kelly made his farir share of mistakes. Every qb makes mistakes from time to time. The question is, do they also make enough positive plays to win you a game and do they have enough talent on the d to occasionally bail them out. so for fitz the question is this: does fitzy giveth more than he taketh away? Jury's still out on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PO'14 Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 The 2 INT had nothing to do with INJURIES! Stupid excuses. THE GAME WAS IN THE BAG LATE IN THE 4rth agree. This is probably one of the least talented receiving corps in the nfl before the injuries. and people forget that jim kelly made his farir share of mistakes. Every qb makes mistakes from time to time. The question is, do they also make enough positive plays to win you a game and do they have enough talent on the d to occasionally bail them out. so for fitz the question is this: does fitzy giveth more than he taketh away? Jury's still out on that one. I saw Johnson and Nelson make some great catches today. Who are you to judge the best and least talented receiving corps in the NFL. I would think the QB has a lot to say in this. I cant wait in the next few years when Brady retires how Bill Billicheat and the Patriots will suck for years and years! Look at Indy without Manning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) And losing Lee Evans, Marcus Easley, and Donald Jones? Have you factored this in as far as your evaluation of Fitz? Evans last two years in Buf were pretty pedestrian (save the occasional long ball which his speed made possible), Easley is a complete unknown who showed potential in Preseason but also showed a propensity to drop balls as well. Donald Jones has made a few plays but surely hasn't distinguished himself. I like David Nelson, Stevie Johnson, and Naaman plays well also. Put CJ in the slot or outside, and the deep threat is back. Enough weapons exist, Fitz just needs to make better throws, more consistently. Edited October 16, 2011 by Spiderweb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Evans last two years in Buf were pretty pedestrian (save the occasional long ball which his speed made possible), Easley is a complete unknown who showed potential in Preseason but also showed a propensity to drop balls as well. Donald Jones has made a few plays but surely hasn't distinguished himself. I like David Nelson, Stevie Johnson, and Naaman plays well also. Put CJ in the slot or outside, and the deep threat is back. Enough weapons exist, Fitz just needs to make better throws, more consistently. I agree that Fitz could have still won the game without those three. But I disagree with those who say that missing those three (especially cumulatively) had zero effect on the Bills offense. It's not mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Yeah, right BillsVet. Injury factor is a black and white thing. So what you're saying is that if Bell, Hairston, Levitre, and Pears were all simultaneously injured, that wouldn't be a valid reason why the O-line played well? At what point do we allow manpower shortages to be acceptable reasons for a loss in team performance? Looking forward to your answer, BillsVet. Let's not conflate the argument and go to such extremes. The Bills were relatively healthy for Week 5, missing only 1 player who I saw as not suitably replaced in Kyle Williams. That said, this was a winnable game despite being away. Buffalo was not missing enough players to pin this loss on injury. NYG were missing All Pro/Pro Bowl guys like Chris Snee and Justin Tuck, not to mention Brandon Jacobs and yet they won. Blaming injuries and often times calls is the excuse used far more often than it should be. Which players not playing specifically led to this team losing today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) BillsVet. Read the thread carefully. I'm not conflating anything but you are conflating with your last post. I asked Spidey whether WR injuries factored into his evaluation of Fitz. I NEVER BLAMED THE LOSS ON INJURIES. Please read the thread carefully. To me. Fitz is more like a 50-50 guy. I was hoping this year he would make huge strides in becoming a 75 plus percent guy. He still may be, but his last performances against the Bengals, Eagles, and today were more pedestrian than upper echelon. And losing Lee Evans, Marcus Easley, and Donald Jones? Have you factored this in as far as your evaluation of Fitz? Last I checked, injuries weren't a new phenomenon. 32 NFL teams deal with them at some point, and you've fallen back on this excuse in more than 1 thread now. Did you really expect no one or only replaceable starters would be hurt this season? Yeah, right BillsVet. Injury factor is a black and white thing. So what you're saying is that if Bell, Hairston, Levitre, and Pears were all simultaneously injured, that wouldn't be a valid reason why the O-line played poorly? At what point do we allow manpower shortages to be acceptable reasons for a loss in team performance? Looking forward to your answer, BillsVet. I agree that Fitz could have still won the game without those three. But I disagree with those who say that missing those three (especially cumulatively) had zero effect on the Bills offense. It's not mutually exclusive. Let's not conflate the argument and go to such extremes. The Bills were relatively healthy for Week 5, missing only 1 player who I saw as not suitably replaced in Kyle Williams. That said, this was a winnable game despite being away. Buffalo was not missing enough players to pin this loss on injury. NYG were missing All Pro/Pro Bowl guys like Chris Snee and Justin Tuck, not to mention Brandon Jacobs and yet they won. Blaming injuries and often times calls is the excuse used far more often than it should be. Which players not playing specifically led to this team losing today? Again, I was talking about three receivers being gone and that effect on the quarterback. Again, I NEVER BLAMED THE LOSS ON INJURIES. A bit more honesty please. Edited October 16, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts