K-9 Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 More than anything else, Fitz needs to improve his clock management. Specifically, taking a knee to run out the clock. My favorite football play. GO BILLS!!!
hondo in seattle Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 How Fitz can be better? Getting no broken/bruised ribs! Not trying to force the ball into tight windows when we're down (i.e. better decision making). Better accuracy on long balls (maybe Lee helps here).
chris heff Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 More than anything else, Fitz needs to improve his clock management. Specifically, taking a knee to run out the clock. My favorite football play. GO BILLS!!! Are you nuts! Fitz is a master at taking a knee! His kneeling prowess is how we defeated the Patriots. He forced Wilfolk to commit that unsportsmanlike penalty.
NoSaint Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) It's a fact that Fitz's accomplishments are filtered by his draft status, even years later. Just look at Sam Bradford for comparison. Being the #1 pick overall buys you a lot of mulligans. PTR i agree that it buys you a lot of mulligans. i also dont like it as a talking point either though, as some of the things that cause you to slide will still be a knock on you 10 years later. if fitz had a huge and consistent arm, he wouldnt have been a 7th rounder... is knocking his physical tools a situation where you are doing only because of draft status? probably an element of it in some people, but they arent completely independant things either. guys at the top of the draft tend to have better physical tools, and/or (normally an AND situation) success at a level of competition nearing the nfl. not an absolute rule, but a guy like cam coming out of auburn, or bradford out of oklahoma vs a guy like fitz coming out of harvard - being on the right side of that does buy you a few more chances. it makes some sense, even if it doesnt always pan out true or isnt always used reasonably. Edited June 22, 2012 by NoSaint
millbank Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 i think he last season established him very well a respected emotional leader. As others have said he need be more consistent. In progression of experience show he has learned better from experience to read defenses make fewer unforced errors. He with a improved defense should have option of being while not necessarily entertaining choose safer options at times. It not the end of the world to let defense do their work, they hopefully will be two units working together as opposed to crossing ones fingers and hoping they will hold.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) i agree that it buys you a lot of mulligans. i also dont like it as a talking point either though, as some of the things that cause you to slide will still be a knock on you 10 years later. if fitz had a huge and consistent arm, he wouldnt have been a 7th rounder... is knocking his physical tools a situation where you are doing only because of draft status? probably an element of it in some people, but they arent completely independant things either. guys at the top of the draft tend to have better physical tools, and/or (normally an AND situation) success at a level of competition nearing the nfl. not an absolute rule, but a guy like cam coming out of auburn, or bradford out of oklahoma vs a guy like fitz coming out of harvard - being on the right side of that does buy you a few more chances. it makes some sense, even if it doesnt always pan out true or isnt always used reasonably. Other things being equal, you are correct that guys at the top of the draft tend to have better physical tools. The "things not equal" part is the level of competition collegiate athletes face. A player who has apparently better measurables and better record, and who plays at the DivIII level or lower will not typically draw as much interest or draft as high as a player with perhaps lower measurables, but who has a proven track record of performing well against the highest levels of collegiate competition. That's very understandable, yet it follows that draft status only correlates to physical tools for players at a comparable level of competition. I've attached a graphic file of the QB drafted in Fitzy's class. There were 14 of them, with Alex Smith at the top and Ryan Fitzpatrick at the bottom. One is a superstar (franchise future HOF'er). Five are some level of decent NFL QB. Think about the conference each of these guys played in, the level of college competition they faced, and how it correlates to draft position. (Matt Cassel is an outlier since he played for a big program, but didn't compete). Question: how would you rank the guys who have started >20 games? I would say: Rodgers, Campbell, then it levels off real fast - I would take Fitz over Cassel, Smith, Orton, Anderson, or Frye, myself for overall QB toolkit. Note that there are 8 QB drafted ahead of Fitz who haven't made it in the NFL at all. Did they all have better physical tools? Edited June 22, 2012 by Hopeful
Bufcomments Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Less INT's and we go to the playoffs. Everything else about Fitz I like. We know he tough, poor guy played with broken ribs. Leadership not a problem, like many people said already those INT's has to come down. And maybe a few more TD's as well. I would gladly take a 27 TD 10 int season.
NoSaint Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Other things being equal, you are correct that guys at the top of the draft tend to have better physical tools. The "things not equal" part is the level of competition collegiate athletes face. A player who has apparently better measurables and better record, and who plays at the DivIII level or lower will not typically draw as much interest or draft as high as a player with perhaps lower measurables, but who has a proven track record of performing well against the highest levels of collegiate competition. That's very understandable, yet it follows that draft status only correlates to physical tools for players at a comparable level of competition. I've attached a graphic file of the QB drafted in Fitzy's class. There were 14 of them, with Alex Smith at the top and Ryan Fitzpatrick at the bottom. One is a superstar (franchise future HOF'er). Five are some level of decent NFL QB. Think about the conference each of these guys played in, the level of college competition they faced, and how it correlates to draft position. (Matt Cassel is an outlier since he played for a big program, but didn't compete). Question: how would you rank the guys who have started >20 games? I would say: Rodgers, Campbell, then it levels off real fast - I would take Fitz over Cassel, Smith, Orton, Anderson, or Frye, myself for overall QB toolkit. Note that there are 8 QB drafted ahead of Fitz who haven't made it in the NFL at all. Did they all have better physical tools? ill agree - and i think this might be a better one to converse about in person than to try to post about as its not a hard fast rule - hence the notation that its And/or with the addition of a "not always true" (or however i worded it). for me its a casual thing that im connecting to say "duh high round guys get more shots." when i talk about the top of the draft, compared to the bottom, im not comparing say a 3rd rounder to a 5th rounder so much as the typical top 2-3 qbs taken which are almost exclusively successful and in a large conference and have a helluva arm/set of legs and proved it with the best. not 100% true, but typically you dont see a guy go up top unless he won a lot, and is pretty damn gifted. once you start counting up the warts on the rest of them - it can really be a mixed bag. could be a great athlete on a terrible team, could be an underachiever thats very gifted, could be a guy that doesnt have the tools but has the moxie to be a winner.... im not sure what to say as far as prioritizing, as its a whole lot of luck and some system compatibility if you get anything. and then you get down to a guy like fitz that has some good, not great physical attributes, doesnt have any proven track record of "winning in the big leagues." cam newton, as an example that perfectly fits my argument at the expense of not being objective or representative of everyone, had 67% completions, 30 td passes, and 20 td runs at auburn against SEC competition (and yes, sometimes against schools completely overmatched) where fitz had 57% completions, 13 td passes and 5 td runs against yale (granted again, he did do this with harvard calliber WR and OL) - and thats without getting into things like arm strength, and freakish physical skills. yea - a guy taken at the top of the draft is going to get more passes, and a guy at the bottom will have to prove more in fewer opportunities to end up viewed in the same light. thats not just blind "hating on the late rounder" as much as the late rounder just having a lot more question marks to begin with. i know you like to say the slate is wiped clean when you enter the nfl, but it doesnt change that there are still a lot more obstacles that a late round guy has to overcome to get respect simply because of the things that caused him to slide. Edited June 22, 2012 by NoSaint
mjt328 Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Consistent. He can do it. No doubt in my mind he's cabaple of being very good. Just be consistent The Nail on the Head. A lot of posters on this board only like to look at Fitzpatrick's final season stats - which admittedly were pretty decent (minus the 23 picks). Mistakes are a killer in this league. The problem is that for stretches, Fitz will look like a Pro Bowler - quickly finding the open guy and rifling perfect passes. Then all of a sudden, he will terribly underthrow his receiver or lob a lame-duck into coverage. He has a terrible game like Week 11 against the Dolphins - 209 yards, 51% completion, 0 touchdowns and 2 picks Then he has a great game like Week 12 against the Jets - 264 yards, 67% completion, 3 touchdowns and no picks. Everybody has a bad game once in awhile, but these up-and-down numbers are too common with Fitz. In my estimation, he was good in about 5 games last year, bad in about 5 games, and a mixed bag in about 6 games. That just can't happen.
3rdand12 Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I was thinking that the receivers and spiller are going to show up mentally cohesive and game ready this year. Knowing the playbook and being where they are supposed to be and when. Having no lockout last year was too much for us last year. And now the line is going to gel and find their rhythym. and with the quality of depth we have now we are well prepared for injuries when they come. But Fitz will have the chance to look over the field a bit longer allow for receivers to make adjustments and break free. I think he will settle down and mature this year. He sounds a bit more confident in the video clips i have heard and seen. I feel it's safe betting he will be a noticebly improved QB. Someone said he needs to improve everything. I agree
Tcali Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Fitz needs to improve where he can improve...in the mental side of the game.He is not going to become talented all of a sudden at age 29 . He needs to be more of a leader.And he needs to understand his significant talent limitations. The fact that he is an average QB speaks well for his toughness,smarts and hard work.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 when i talk about the top of the draft, compared to the bottom, im not comparing say a 3rd rounder to a 5th rounder so much as the typical top 2-3 qbs taken which are almost exclusively successful and in a large conference and have a helluva arm/set of legs and proved it with the best. not 100% true, but typically you dont see a guy go up top unless he won a lot, and is pretty damn gifted. once you start counting up the warts on the rest of them - it can really be a mixed bag. Sounds like we pretty much agree. Though I do wonder how guys like Gabbert manage to go so high. could be a great athlete on a terrible team, could be an underachiever thats very gifted, could be a guy that doesnt have the tools but has the moxie to be a winner.... im not sure what to say as far as prioritizing, as its a whole lot of luck and some system compatibility if you get anything. yea - a guy taken at the top of the draft is going to get more passes, and a guy at the bottom will have to prove more in fewer opportunities to end up viewed in the same light. thats not just blind "hating on the late rounder" as much as the late rounder just having a lot more question marks to begin with. i know you like to say the slate is wiped clean when you enter the nfl, but it doesnt change that there are still a lot more obstacles that a late round guy has to overcome to get respect simply because of the things that caused him to slide. I do agree that the late rounder just is not going to get the benefit of the doubt that the top draft choice gets. If Sam Bradford were Colt McCoy he'd be watching his replacement suit up. Which actually brings up a valid point you may not have mentioned. Teams have a far higher investment in first-round draft picks. They've invested the team's future, in the form of the other draft choices they could have made. They've invested a very significant fraction of the team's salary cap. All these things line up in favor of extra chances.
Meathead Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I would take Fitz over Cassel, Smith, Orton, Anderson, or Frye, myself for overall QB toolkit. its great to have confidence but picking yourself over those guys for total qb skills is pretty ridiculous Edited June 23, 2012 by Meathead
CardinalScotts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 not being down 28-0 or 24-0 in the first quarter over and over because the defense "was" pathetic should help our quarterback play knowing I don't have to force throws trying to score because were going to need 30+ every game throwing to guys who are not NFL receivers.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 It means when the wr beats Corey Webster twice down the left side line you throw a catchable ball, not underthrow both times for a pick BOTH TIMES. Needs to be accurate over the whole field to keep the defenses honest. This is what I understand david lees mission is. I would say: Rodgers, Campbell, then it levels off real fast - I would take Fitz over Cassel, Smith, Orton, Anderson, or Frye, myself for overall QB toolkit. Two adds, 1 it levels off after Rodgers period. The facf that the guys you would "take fitz over" even need mention as opposed to being obvious is the problem. Like no one would need to construct an argument why you would take Rodgers over frye
Recommended Posts