bananathumb Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Joe, your two threads prove your point nicely. ie the Bills might be improving but still do have the qb to go far.
Bill from NYC Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Brady yes Sanchez NO Tannehill NO Weeden NO Flacco yes Big Ben yes Dalton yes Schaub NO Luck yes Hasselback NO Gabbert NO Manning yes Palmer NO Rivers yes Cassell NO And it was close wrt Dalton and Flacco. Not so sure how Flacco would do on the Bills.
Bill from NYC Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Manning yes RG3 yes Romo NO Vick NO Freeman NO Newton yes Ryan yes Brees yes Cutler yes Rodgers yes Stafford yes Ponder NO Kolb NO Smith NO Bradford yes Flynn NO
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Honestly when I started this I had no agenda nor clear idea how it would turn out. Was just curious. I would have guessed pretty much even between yes and no votes. But the nearly 2:1 ratio it came out at makes me realize just how much better QB talent around the league is. Except...you give yes votes to guys who haven't produced at a high level for years (Palmer), who have never produced at a high level (Bradford), or who are totally unproven (Flynn), and rookies who have big questionmarks - Tannehill with his 16 game college career, Weedon with his Fitz-age rookie season. Palmer played 9 games and threw 13 TD to 16 INTs this past season, 20 INTs last season. His last 3 years show he's better than Fitz...how? Begs the question, does this kind of inconsistency in fact prove "just how much better QB talent around the league is" by any kind of objective criteria, or just that you and some others have your minds set on ABF (anyone but Fitz) so you like nearly EVERYONE better whether it makes sense or not? Edited May 6, 2012 by Hopeful
KD in CA Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Flynn is a no, but otherwise that's about right. Is this a revelation? I think most fans who take off the homer blinders acknowledge that Fitz is somewhere in the 3d quartile of NFL QBs.
truth on hold Posted May 6, 2012 Author Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Except...you give yes votes to guys who haven't produced at a high level for years (Palmer), who have never produced at a high level (Bradford), or who are totally unproven (Flynn), and rookies who have big questionmarks - Tannehill with his 16 game college career, Weedon with his Fitz-age rookie season. Palmer played 9 games and threw 13 TD to 16 INTs this past season, 20 INTs last season. His last 3 years show he's better than Fitz...how? Begs the question, does this kind of inconsistency in fact prove "just how much better QB talent around the league is" by any kind of objective criteria, or just that you and some others have your minds set on ABF (anyone but Fitz) so you like nearly EVERYONE better whether it makes sense or not? You don't need to believe me, I don't care. These are my opinions, which I'm entitled to. I'm not going to dissect and debate each choice with you. But I will object to your silly attempt of an objective measure of "makes no sense". In that "sense" how is it rational to choose a QB whose been around a while, with suspect arm strength and accuracy issues, who led the league in picks last year while taking his team to a 6&10 record? In that "sense" it could be argued he shouldn't be taken over anyone. Edited May 6, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack
bowery4 Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Brady yesyes but only with a very good line, so no... JK I do want a HOF QB so yes1 Sanchez no 1 Tannehill yes this is a joke right? no prove it first rook Weeden yes this is a joke right? no prove it first rook Flacco yes Fitz was out playing Joe until his line ribs and RB all were hurt and Flacco has one thing in his favor a decent long ball, otherwise he isn't as good so why trade for the same QB? no 2 Big Ben yes RAPE!! lol, but still yes2 Dalton yes yes maybe....okay yes, hmmm IDK... maybe 1 Schaub yes yes maybe....okay yes, hmmm IDK... maybe 2 Luck yes 3 Hasselback no 3 Gabbert no 4 Manning yes yes maybe....okay yes, hmmm IDK... maybe, the guy is almost as big a question mark as a rookie or maybe Fitz with the type of injury he had 3 Palmer yes no effing way 5 Rivers yes 3 Cassell no 6 I've got .... 3 yes 6 no 3 maybe (maybe's count as no because of the unsureness so 3 yes 9 no
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) You don't need to believe me, I don't care. These are my opinions, which I'm entitled to. I'm not going to dissect and debate each choice with you. But I will object to your silly attempt of an objective measure of "makes no sense". In that "sense" how is it rational to choose a QB whose been around a while, who led the league in picks while taking his team to a 6&10 record? In that "sense" it could be argued he shouldn't be taken over anyone. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. There's a lot of subjectivity - for example, some folks like Cutler and dis Schaub, I flip. I think it's the " just how much better QB talent around the league is" while picking unproven rookies with minimal college playing time, guys like Flynn who've had 1-2 good games, guys like Bradford who have great promise but also losing record , or guys like Palmer who are on the shady side of 30, have losing records for several years and was on-track for 32 INTs last year -- I think it makes it ironic to toss out phrases like "silly attempt" at me. The fallacy of judging QB on the W-L record of their team has been pointed out elsewhere, but to argue Fitz shouldn't be taken over anyone including guys who have similar W-L records and are on track to have more INTs, or totally unproven guys ....that makes" just how much better QB talent around the league is" seem like incredible, underinformed smugness. Well, like you say, you're entitled to your opinion, have at it. Edited May 6, 2012 by Hopeful
1billsfan Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 You don't need to believe me, I don't care. These are my opinions, which I'm entitled to. I'm not going to dissect and debate each choice with you. But I will object to your silly attempt of an objective measure of "makes no sense". In that "sense" how is it rational to choose a QB whose been around a while, who led the league in picks while taking his team to a 6&10 record? In that "sense" it could be argued he shouldn't be taken over anyone. Fitzpatrick was tearing it up until after the Washington game in which he broke his ribs. That plus the injuries to key personnel leaves me with the impression that there's still hope he can still be our version of a little less accurate Drew Brees or Eli Manning type of QB. The classic late bloomer. I was hoping the Bills could trade up for RGIII, but since that didn't happen I see no reason to want any other team's starting QB for the Bills. This includes older HOF guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning. They aren't Bills. I wouldn't want them as Bills. We tried that with Drew Bledsoe and you see now that he has no allegiance with this team. It's as if he has wiped it from his memory bank. I don't care that he feels that way, I'm just pointing it out as a real reason not to want another team's established QB. The only QBs that I'd like over Fitz are Newton, Luck or RGIII. That's it. Since that isn't happening, I'm excited to watch Fitzpatrick try to prove that the first part of 2011 was no fluke and that he has what it takes to lead this team to a Superbowl win.
mrags Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Just as much as you call so many here Fitz homers, your a Fitz hater. He's more along the lines of 50% or so in production. I wouldn't take Stafford, Vick, Romo, Cutler, or Flynn over him. Not in 100 years. I don't remember your AFC list off the top of my head but I think you are 1. High, 2. A bigger Fitz hater than we are Fitz homers, 3. One of the people always claiming you need a franchise QB to win games and the SB. As some/many of the QBs that have won the SB that are considered Franchise QBs that wasn't exactly the case at the time they won it. Here's a few examples: Brady won against Warner Brady win against Delhome Brady won against McNabb Manning won against Brady Manning won against Brady Bucs QB (can't even remember his name) over Gannon Raiders Hostletler over Kelly Rypen over Kelly Roethlisberger over Warner Roethlisberger over Hasselback Dilfer over Collins there's tons more. These are just off the top of my head. At the end of the day, most of these guys you can say were/are franchise guys. Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning. But at the times when they WON fhier SBs they were not considered the better QB (other than maybe Roethlisberger vs Hasselback or Brady vs Delhome). The real reason why they won was because thier teams were better as a whole. And the Defenses won the battles. Raiders-top offense, Bucs-top defense Bills- Giants Bills- Redskins Steelers- Seahawks Steelers- Cardinals Pats- anyone they ever beat why is it the best offense in the history of the game (Pats 18-1 season) lost to not even a dominant defense? Defense wins every time.
Rob's House Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Manning yes RG3 maybe - He's never taken an NFL snap Romo maybe - Great stats but not so hot in the clutch Vick no - Scumbag I don't want to cheer for whose body's soon to break down Freeman no - He sucks Newton maybe - still have reservations but so far so good Ryan yes Brees yes Cutler yes Rodgers yes Stafford yes Ponder no - Hasn't proven it yet Kolb no - Doesn't look like he has it Smith no - I don't see an upgrade here Bradford no - His greatest achievement is going 1st overall. Flynn no - One game wonder; jury's still out I've got ... 6 yes 7 no 3 maybe
KD in CA Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 As some/many of the QBs that have won the SB that are considered Franchise QBs that wasn't exactly the case at the time they won it. Here's a few examples: Brady won against Warner Brady win against Delhome Brady won against McNabb Manning won against Brady Manning won against Brady Bucs QB (can't even remember his name) over Gannon Raiders Hostletler over Kelly Rypen over Kelly Roethlisberger over Warner Roethlisberger over Hasselback Dilfer over Collins I'm not arguing with your defense of Fitz, but this list is pretty flawed. Eli was the #1 pick in the draft so yeah, he was a franchise QB for his two SBs. Ditto for BenR, a high first round pick. And Brady still wasn't a franchise QB by the time he won his 3d SB?!?!? Come on, put the down the crack pipe. And if you have to rely on examples from 20 years ago, that doesn't help your point. It's pretty well documented that star QBs win SB.
truth on hold Posted May 6, 2012 Author Posted May 6, 2012 1. High, 2. A bigger Fitz hater than we are Fitz homers, 3. One of the people always claiming you need a franchise QB to win games and the SB. 1. Don't smoke 2. Just because I don't hold fit in the same regard you do doesn't make me a "hater". I don't hate him at all, no reason to. 3. Different league. It's all about the QB and passing. The Cinderella QB is thing of the past. Names of most recent winners: E manning (2x), p manning, Brady (3x), Rodgers, big Ben (2x), brees .... Cream of the crop, no flukes there.
CodeMonkey Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) I love this place. People claiming they would not trade Fitz straight up for Luck or RG3 or even some of the proven top QBs in the league. Nothing wrong with being a homer I guess I have never said "I'm through with this team" before. But if Indy offered the Bills a Fitz for Luck trade straight up and the Bills declined, I would be through with the team. Edited May 6, 2012 by CodeMonkey
truth on hold Posted May 6, 2012 Author Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Lol I know think of how silly that is. So they're saying fitz is worth more than two 1sts and a 2nd, which is what the league valued RG3 at. Edited May 6, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack
Offside Number 76 Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Brady yes Sanchez no Tannehill no Weeden no Flacco probably not Big Ben yes Dalton very possibly; too early to tell Schaub no Luck can't tell yet Hasselback no Gabbert no Manning yes Palmer no Rivers yes Cassell no
BobChalmers Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 I hate to pile on, but I'd take Hasselbeck in a minute. Hasselbeck's awfully old - decent (50/50?) chance he won't be starting this year. I wouldn't take Tannehill or Weeden either. Which Manning? Eli yes, Peyton, well, OK, yes, but he doesn't have too many years left - if any. Hasselbeck's awfully old - decent (50/50?) chance he won't be starting this year. I wouldn't take Tannehill or Weeden either. Which Manning? Eli yes, Peyton, well, OK, yes, but he doesn't have too many years left - if any. And I wouldn't trade for Brady on principle. It would be very hard to root for him.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) And it was close wrt Dalton and Flacco. Not so sure how Flacco would do on the Bills. I know ravens fans that would absolutely trade Flacco for fitz. Edited May 6, 2012 by over 20 years of fanhood
mrags Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 1. Don't smoke 2. Just because I don't hold fit in the same regard you do doesn't make me a "hater". I don't hate him at all, no reason to. 3. Different league. It's all about the QB and passing. The Cinderella QB is thing of the past. Names of most recent winners: E manning (2x), p manning, Brady (3x), Rodgers, big Ben (2x), brees .... Cream of the crop, no flukes there. 1. Ok fine 2. Ok fine 3. Not that much of a different league now from whn fhe Bills were going to SBs. Not to mention we were leaps and bounds more offensive than 2 of the 3 SB teams we lost to (exception Dallas) which helps prove my point. The better defense wins more time than not. In addition to 3. If you can claim the league is different now than it was different 10 years ago when Brady won his SBs. Another addition to 3. Manning won 2x against who? Brady! The reason why they won was because of The Giants defense, not Manning. Rapelisberger won 2x against better or more experienced QBs and in th case of the Cardinals a much more potent offense. They won with a power run game and a much more dominant defense. Big Ben was there toanage the game and not lose. I'll give you Payton and Brees because they were so dominant in thier win but let's not get on our knees for them just yet. Payton beat the Bears with Rexxy Sexy as thier QB. I honestly don't even rember who the Saints beat for thiers. The teams they played were much worse. It's just a fact. And let's not get started that Payton probably would have had another 2-3 more rings if he was good enough to beat New England and their DOMINANT defenses they won 3 rings with. Sorry to say your high. There will always be the debate of franchise QB vs better team and defense specifically. The good thing for the Bills is Fitz isn't as bad as some of the horrible QBs to win rings over the years and our defense (on paper) looks like it's getting to be a powerhouse within a few shorts years if not sooner. Just a many people can say a franchise QB is the answer to all our worries I can point to teams that had better defenses that beat franchise QBs. It's all in fun. The fact is, we are looking to be stronger on defense and at the end of the day Fitz IS our Franchise QB so why do we even bother with these argument?
Bronc24 Posted May 6, 2012 Posted May 6, 2012 Just as much as you call so many here Fitz homers, your a Fitz hater. He's more along the lines of 50% or so in production. I wouldn't take Stafford, Vick, Romo, Cutler, or Flynn over him. Not in 100 years. I don't remember your AFC list off the top of my head but I think you are 1. High, 2. A bigger Fitz hater than we are Fitz homers, 3. One of the people always claiming you need a franchise QB to win games and the SB. As some/many of the QBs that have won the SB that are considered Franchise QBs that wasn't exactly the case at the time they won it. Here's a few examples: Brady won against Warner Brady win against Delhome Brady won against McNabb Manning won against Brady Manning won against Brady Bucs QB (can't even remember his name) over Gannon Raiders Hostletler over Kelly Rypen over Kelly Roethlisberger over Warner Roethlisberger over Hasselback Dilfer over Collins there's tons more. These are just off the top of my head. At the end of the day, most of these guys you can say were/are franchise guys. Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning. But at the times when they WON fhier SBs they were not considered the better QB (other than maybe Roethlisberger vs Hasselback or Brady vs Delhome). The real reason why they won was because thier teams were better as a whole. And the Defenses won the battles. Raiders-top offense, Bucs-top defense Bills- Giants Bills- Redskins Steelers- Seahawks Steelers- Cardinals Pats- anyone they ever beat why is it the best offense in the history of the game (Pats 18-1 season) lost to not even a dominant defense? Defense wins every time. I doubt you're high (note spelling), just insane. Fitz is a career backup QB.
Recommended Posts