PDaDdy Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) He is not that bad. He is 8th in the league in completion percentage(accuracy) and was looking like a probowler early in the year. He even did this without Lee Evans, Buffalo's previous #1 WR for about 7.5 years, getting traded away from him and before the injuries started to mount. He is playing with WRs that were bagging groceries or on practice squads with an often nicked up SJ. When he does miss he seems to miss big though. Throw in the revolving door of below average play at the LT spot and the penalty machine Pears at RT killing drives and he's done pretty well. He isn't nor is he supposed to be a guy that carries a whole team especially when the defense can't stop a nose bleed despite MD's honesty REALLY good rookie year. I seem to recall some other vital offensive component that seems to be missing. OH YA! Fred Jackson. You know the guy that was basically 50% of the entire offense? How about missing by far our best offensive lineman, their leader and center Eric Wood? I know this will seem like a laundry list of excuses but they are all VERY significant factors in the lack of continuity, chemistry and inconsistency on offense. That being said Spiller seems to be doing pretty well and improving every week for the "he's a luxury pick bust" premature assessment whiners. He has lessened the loss of Freddy. Edited December 21, 2011 by PDaDdy
12Kachy Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Some people are saying he is in a slump. Others he is regressing, and still others that he has no supporting cast. I look at history and his history tells the tale well. He is terrible. Has been terrible. He has not regressed. He has returned to his normal self after a hell of a good 6 first games where the defense pulled the bills out of losing. The picks and turnovers helped the bills win those first couple games. One less turnover to the pats would have resulted in a loss. F$tzmoney got one over on the bills with his contract. He will continue to be marginal no matter who is around him. Just go look at his history. Last year was the only year he threw more td then ints. This year he is on pace to return back to the previous years and throw 25 ints and 23 tds. I hated this contract and the fa signing 3 years ago. I do say give him a shot next year but have a short leash. Pick up a rookie. And let smith qb in the last two games. Oh and overall some one tell him to take that 9 mil a year he is making and cut his damn beard. It's over this year.
Ozymandius Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 He's not an outright awful QB. But he's just the wrong fit for a rebuilding franchise. You want a young talented QB with upside, and noodle-armed Fitz does not provide that. And if you don't have a young talented QB, you want an awful QB so you can get in position to draft a young talented QB. Fitz unfortunately fails in that regard as well (not lately, though). Basically, all Fitz accomplishes for our franchise is to ruin our draft position. He cost us Cam Newton and now he's going to cost us Andrew Luck.
Endless Ike Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Fitz is badder than Levi Brown. I wish he was badder than Leroy Brown...and meaner than a junkyard dog
Geno Smith's Arm Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Some people are saying he is in a slump. Others he is regressing, and still others that he has no supporting cast. I look at history and his history tells the tale well. He is terrible. Has been terrible. He has not regressed. He has returned to his normal self after a hell of a good 6 first games where the defense pulled the bills out of losing. The picks and turnovers helped the bills win those first couple games. One less turnover to the pats would have resulted in a loss. F$tzmoney got one over on the bills with his contract. He will continue to be marginal no matter who is around him. Just go look at his history. Last year was the only year he threw more td then ints. This year he is on pace to return back to the previous years and throw 25 ints and 23 tds. I hated this contract and the fa signing 3 years ago. I do say give him a shot next year but have a short leash. Pick up a rookie. And let smith qb in the last two games. Oh and overall some one tell him to take that 9 mil a year he is making and cut his damn beard. It's over this year. I disagree. He played very well in those early games. The defense didn't complete any passes. His real problem is that he isn't consistent. He IS that good, but he is also that bad. Neither is his "normal self". His problems are in his head.
The Big Cat Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Let me repeat: FRED JACKSON IS THAT GOOD. Fitz was NEVER the nucleus of our offense...FRED WAS!!
Toolbox Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I disagree. He played very well in those early games. The defense didn't complete any passes. His real problem is that he isn't consistent. He IS that good, but he is also that bad. Neither is his "normal self". His problems are in his head. In order to come to the conclusion that "he is that good(first 6 games 2011)", we have to ignore all other games in his four-year career? Interesting, and convenient way to assess. I don't think he has psychological problems. He has the problem, like most people on the planet, of not being a good NFL quarterback.
Geno Smith's Arm Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Let me repeat: FRED JACKSON IS THAT GOOD. Fitz was NEVER the nucleus of our offense...FRED WAS!! Yeah, but if Fitz can be successful with a good RB then he is worth keeping as a starter, do you agree? In order to come to the conclusion that "he is that good(first 6 games 2011)", we have to ignore all other games in his four-year career? Interesting, and convenient way to assess. I don't think he has psychological problems. He has the problem, like most people on the planet, of not being a good NFL quarterback. I didn't say he is a good QB. I said he can play good.
....lybob Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 He has a mediocre arm and needs to be able to set up and throw on timing, which means he needs pretty good protection and receivers who can get decent separation- he's good enough to win with but is not going to make everyone look better and win games by himself. If you can draft a franchise QB then by all means draft him but you don't just get the next best QB on the list because he's next on the list (Losman)- The main thing I wish Bills fans would do is stop saying who they want to get rid off without describing the better option, I'd cut/trade anyone if that could result in a better team, maybe that's a young player coming in, cap savings allowing money for a free agent, or a trade for draft picks but the cutting a player in itself doesn't improve the team it's the replacement of the player that does.
FLFan Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 50 games in the NFL is a large enough sample size to determine if someone is good, average, or bad. Fitz has proven, over the long haul, that is a less than average quarterback. His QB ratings over the year do not lie. His rib was not hurt for 50 straight games, and his "weapons" were not injured throughout either. Of course he has had glimpses of brilliance. So did JP, Trent, Rob Johnson etc. I get increasingly baffled by people who insist his less than average play for the entirety of his career is not attributable to him. If only we all could get the same luxury of no accountability at our jobs. You can argue stats, but you cannot separate the reality of the situation when evaluating his performance. Fitz has limitations and will never be an elite QB, but you want to ignore the discontinuity of the offensive personnel on this team, which were not elite in most positions to begin with and is now relegated to the level of a scout team, in determining he is "below average". Perhaps Brady or Rogers could have risen above this mediocre mess and posted a couple of wins along the way, but Fitz is going to struggle with the subpar OL and new receiver of the week environment they are in. Virtually any QB would. Not excuses, but a fact. I personally did not see him play much before he came to Buffalo, but I know what I have seen since then, and stats do not tell the whole story. As for accountabiloity, he stands up there and takes responsibility each and every week so that the turds he is playing with do not have to. It is not denying accounatbility to say he is not solely responsible for the offensive mess we have witnessed for the last seven weeks, just recognition that he is not solely, nor even mostly, responsible for it.
The Big Cat Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Yeah, but if Fitz can be successful with a good RB then he is worth keeping as a starter, do you agree? I didn't say he is a good QB. I said he can play good. I think you're missing a negative in there somewhere. I don't mind talking this one out, but please clarify, because I don't follow.
Toolbox Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 You can argue stats, but you cannot separate the reality of the situation when evaluating his performance. Fitz has limitations and will never be an elite QB, but you want to ignore the discontinuity of the offensive personnel on this team, which were not elite in most positions to begin with and is now relegated to the level of a scout team, in determining he is "below average". Perhaps Brady or Rogers could have risen above this mediocre mess and posted a couple of wins along the way, but Fitz is going to struggle with the subpar OL and new receiver of the week environment they are in. Virtually any QB would. Not excuses, but a fact. I personally did not see him play much before he came to Buffalo, but I know what I have seen since then, and stats do not tell the whole story. As for accountabiloity, he stands up there and takes responsibility each and every week so that the turds he is playing with do not have to. It is not denying accounatbility to say he is not solely responsible for the offensive mess we have witnessed for the last seven weeks, just recognition that he is not solely, nor even mostly, responsible for it. There is no "arguing stats". They are incontrovertible facts and, therefore, do not fit nicely with what we wish would be true. Before he got to buffalo he was the 31st ranked passer in cincinnati. Last year, with presumably less injuries and (maybe) not a scout team to work with he was the 26th or 28th ranked passer. He was 26th and 28th the previous two seasons in buffalo, just can't recall the exact order. Granted, he would certainly be a higher ranked passer if he had calvin johnson, but excusing even partially, his lackluster performance over his entire career based on the parts around him is naive and typifies the losing mentality of this franchise. Simply put, good quarterbacks win. They find a way to do so or they're out of the league. He has played 50 games in the league and never even approached average (16th in QB rating). Did he have a scout team last year with fred, stevie, and lee?
Tcali Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 He is that bad, when he is that bad. Then other times, he is not too bad. sometimes hes pretty good. Solid B the first 7 games.Solid D+ the last 7 unfortunately.This is way worse than what he did in Cincinnati or in Buff last year .-He just never responded the way he should have after Sanchez personally tried to hand us home game vs Jets.
bananathumb Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 He's a dime a dozen, just like all Harvard QBs. No-one else in the NFL would even consider him a starting QB. But in Buffalo with a beard he's a hero.
PDaDdy Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 In order to come to the conclusion that "he is that good(first 6 games 2011)", we have to ignore all other games in his four-year career? Interesting, and convenient way to assess. I don't think he has psychological problems. He has the problem, like most people on the planet, of not being a good NFL quarterback. We should look at his last year in Buffalo and look for progress from one year to this year. Let's not forget the lack of an off season, second year in the system, etc.
Geno Smith's Arm Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) I think you're missing a negative in there somewhere. I don't mind talking this one out, but please clarify, because I don't follow. Haha. I was pulled away for holiday duties mid sentence. I don't think he is consistent enough to lead a team for a full season, but he has proven himself capable of playing at a high level. He has played games that Losman or Edwards could only dream of having. I think there is a difference between guys like them, and Fitzpatrick (or a guy like Romo). As far as Jackson being the reason for the offense's early success? Well, if Fitz just needs a good running game to be successful, then they should keep him, and concentrate on improving the rest of the team. I think they need to get draft a QB instead. Edited December 22, 2011 by Matthews' Bag
Toolbox Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 We should look at his last year in Buffalo and look for progress from one year to this year. Let's not forget the lack of an off season, second year in the system, etc. He is currently 20th in QB rating. I suppose that means progress coming from 22nd last year (earlier i said 26th or 28th but was in error as he was 26th in 2009). I don't think creeping our way up the bottom third of QBs is acceptable progress in the league as he would be nearing 50 by the time he matured into being good. Nobody else had an offseason, so not sure how that excludes only him from being evaluated against his peers who also did not have an offseason. And only being his second year in the system (third on the team) does not hold much water as a legitimate justification for subpar play as Hasselbeck, Dalton, Kolb, Newton, Matt Moore, Tebow, and Cutler have all fared better. That is NOT to say, i believe that is a list of good QBs. Merely, it emphasizes the point of the group that Fitz finds himself at the bottom of.
corey g Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 You're right. Fitz is not Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. Both Brady & Manning can carry the entire offense, Fitz needs a good supporting cast around him. This, he would be perfectly fine for the next 2 seasons or so if we had an adequate 2 receiver, with size. And he would excel in a run first offense, which we should implement. He can be great at times so Im confident he could make plays when needed if he were in a similar role to a Sanchez Flacco or Dalton
NewEra Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 1324506807[/url]' post='2342396']I disagree. He played very well in those early games. The defense didn't complete any passes. His real problem is that he isn't consistent. He IS that good, but he is also that bad. Neither is his "normal self". His problems are in his head. They didn't complete passes, no. They took the ball away from the other team several times. They scored 2 tds, 1 vs the pats, 1 vs the eagles. How many points did we win those games by? He got lots of credit (and deserves a lot of it) for winning those games. We won those games, not just because of fitz, but our defense, which put points on the board for him. They didn't complete passes, but they put difference making points on the scoreboard, allowing him to win the games.
janicks Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 They didn't complete passes, no. They took the ball away from the other team several times. They scored 2 tds, 1 vs the pats, 1 vs the eagles. How many points did we win those games by? He got lots of credit (and deserves a lot of it) for winning those games. We won those games, not just because of fitz, but our defense, which put points on the board for him. They didn't complete passes, but they put difference making points on the scoreboard, allowing him to win the games. They also gave up 450+ yards all those games and dug holes of 20+ points two games. The wins were in spite of the defense, not because of it.
Recommended Posts