eball Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I won't suggest that Jason Cole (Yahoo Sports columnist) deserves any more or less respect than anyone else, but it's coincidental, in light of this thread, that I came across the following while reading an article about Seattle and their new 3-headed QB competition: Sure, competition at positions is healthy and productive. That strategy tends to work well at most positions in football. Need a good right tackle? Having a couple of guys compete is not a bad thing. Middle linebacker? Same deal. But quarterback is a different animal. Quarterbacks are leaders. Quarterbacks require time and effort to develop. Quarterbacks aren't interchangeable. Dallas tried to do it more than 40 years ago with Roger Staubach and Craig Morton under coach Tom Landry. It didn't work. Dallas tried it again years later with Troy Aikman and Steve Walsh under coach Jimmy Johnson. No go. "Coach Landry thought the quarterback just went in and executed the play the way everybody else does what they're supposed to do," Hall of Famer Staubach said. "He didn't understand that quarterback was different. It took him awhile to get that. It got to the point where I really didn't care if it was me or not and I think Craig felt the same. Yeah, you want to play, but both of us just wanted a decision." This is why the VY signing is not considered competition for Fitz as the Bills' starting QB this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 (edited) Yeah I get that you need a clear cut starter by opening day and have 2 starting QBs during the season is a terrible idea. I only question making that decision of the clear cut starter before the first day of training camp. Even if Gailey went into camp with a completely open mind odds were heavily against VJ anyway. If for no other reason than the offense being virtually unchanged from last season and the players being comfortable with Fitz and Fitz being comfortable with Gailey and Gaileys system. I see only disadvantages going into camp with a closed mind. But apparently ChaNix and I think differently on this matter and I certainly do not have the wisdom of either of those gentlemen when it comes to football. But I leave you with this one thought, didn't Gailey go into camp a couple of years ago with his mind set that Trent Edwards was the starter? How did that work out? Edited May 15, 2012 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Yeah I get that you need a clear cut starter by opening day and have 2 starting QBs during the season is a terrible idea. I only question making that decision of the clear cut starter before the first day of training camp. Even if Gailey went into camp with a completely open mind odds were heavily against VJ anyway. If for no other reason than the offense being virtually unchanged from last season and the players being comfortable with Fitz and Fitz being comfortable with Gailey and Gaileys system. I see only disadvantages going into camp with a closed mind. But apparently ChaNix and I think differently on this matter and I certainly do not have the wisdom of either of those gentlemen when it comes to football. But I leave you with this one thought, didn't Gailey go into camp a couple of years ago with his mind set that Trent Edwards was the starter? How did that work out? I don't think so. I think TE was the presumptive starter, but he and Fitz traded first team reps and TE "won" the job. Again, I welcome fact-checkers to correct me if appropriate, but I certainly don't recall any heartfelt preseason endorsements of TE as "our guy." The difference here is that Fitz is clearly a team leader. You have never heard a single peep out of any Buffalo Bill that suggests they're not satisfied with Fitz being their guy. You also see an organization that recognized and rewarded that leadership. To suddenly suggest there's an open competition for the starting QB at this juncture just doesn't make sense (to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 My statement may not be fair either as Gailey was new to the team going into that camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I agree. I think this is fitzys time as well. His first half of last year earned him at least 9 games this season. If his play in those first 8 games is comparative to the last 8 games last year, then it may be time to give someone else a look. The last 7 games are very winnable and playoffs are a possibility if we're 3-6 after 9. A change at qb, if the offense is stumbling may be what we need. Even if the change doesnt upgrade at qb for the 1st game, it may wake fitz up and put some pressure on him. I know everyone hates a qb controversy but the playoffs look to be good possibility. Sometimes players need a spark or a wake up call, and if things aren't working as planned, a little change may be just what we need. Of maybe fitz lights it up and we don't have to worry about a controversy. I'm pulling for ya fitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Right....I was scratching my head here wondering how developing Flynn for Seattle was making it rain gold in Green Bay.... I just think that GB made the mistake of not trading Flynn the previous season. Sometimes, things just don't fall your way....Brees was let go as a FA by San Diego because of injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4BillsintheBurgh Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Yeah I get that you need a clear cut starter by opening day and have 2 starting QBs during the season is a terrible idea. I only question making that decision of the clear cut starter before the first day of training camp. Even if Gailey went into camp with a completely open mind odds were heavily against VJ anyway. If for no other reason than the offense being virtually unchanged from last season and the players being comfortable with Fitz and Fitz being comfortable with Gailey and Gaileys system. I see only disadvantages going into camp with a closed mind. But apparently ChaNix and I think differently on this matter and I certainly do not have the wisdom of either of those gentlemen when it comes to football. But I leave you with this one thought, didn't Gailey go into camp a couple of years ago with his mind set that Trent Edwards was the starter? How did that work out? I remember edwards, fitz and brohm getting equal reps at the beginning of the off season and eventually it became reps between fitz and edwards through camp. OBD in its entirety said there was an open qb competition that year, over and over again. That is certainly not the case this year. It is Fitz's year to lead and prove the faith that chan has in him. And that begins well before training camp especially now that there is less coaching involvement with the new cba. I know it's been a while since we've had one, but a qb is a team leader that makes plays and rallies the troops. It is difficult to have the leader changing with the wind. It would be difficult for Fitz to demand excellence from his teammates if they're not sure he's the man. You've seen established qb's do this on other teams, and it's time for fitz to gain the confidence to do it here. In the end, we need Fitz to take control of the team if we are going to see the playoffs this season. That's mainly on him and also on Chan. If a backup qb has to win some games due to injury hopefully he can. If fitz can't get a lock on the job, it's not good for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts