Billsrhody Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 After the Bills lost to the Chargers in week 14, they were all but eliminated from playoff contention at 5-8. My question is... if Fitz had been playing hurt since week 8, then why did he play in the last 3 games? They had almost nothing to play for and if he was hurt to the point where it was affecting his performance, then why not start Thigpen instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I've heard no reliable evidence Fitz was still impacted by the rib/chest injury by that point in the season. He's the starting QB, he should play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramblin' Rob Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) Fitz is a starter, this topoc is a Non starter. Edited August 7, 2012 by RichmondRob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsrhody Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 I've heard no reliable evidence Fitz was still impacted by the rib/chest injury by that point in the season. He's the starting QB, he should play. We've heard no reliable evidence about the injury period. Fitz wont talk about it, coaches wont acknowledge it. Thats my point.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 We've heard no reliable evidence about the injury period. Fitz wont talk about it, coaches wont acknowledge it. Thats my point.. Actually, I'm not quite sure what your point is, or the relevance of this topic. Fitz isn't an excuse-maker, he's a leader. The only guy who has spoken of the injury is David Nelson, and he did so in "reverence' of what Fitz played through. Can we move on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsox Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Fitz is a starter, this topoc is a Non starter. Agreed. Let's look at this season, not what happened last season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsrhody Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 Actually, I'm not quite sure what your point is, or the relevance of this topic. Fitz isn't an excuse-maker, he's a leader. The only guy who has spoken of the injury is David Nelson, and he did so in "reverence' of what Fitz played through. Can we move on? First of all.. yes we can move on. But my point is that many people on this board use Fitz's injury as an excuse for his poor performance in the second half of last year. If he was hurt.. why was he playing when it didnt matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optometric Insight Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 He was probably healed up by then. You aren't hurt forever and wasn't it like 2 months past the alleged injury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 First of all.. yes we can move on. But my point is that many people on this board use Fitz's injury as an excuse for his poor performance in the second half of last year. If he was hurt.. why was he playing when it didnt matter? Most of what I've read on the board is that people cite the injury as a contributing factor (along with injuries to the entire WR corps, Fred Jackson, Scott Chandler, and the OL) as reasons why Fitz's production slipped significantly over the last nine games. Again, I think you're asking a question nobody has any interest in answering, because it's irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramblin' Rob Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I view it as admirable that Fitz and the coaches don't talk about what ever the injury was, especially in light of the criticism they have taken. No excuse type of mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsrhody Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 Most of what I've read on the board is that people cite the injury as a contributing factor (along with injuries to the entire WR corps, Fred Jackson, Scott Chandler, and the OL) as reasons why Fitz's production slipped significantly over the last nine games. Again, I think you're asking a question nobody has any interest in answering, because it's irrelevant. I disagree that it is irrelevant.. on the contrary I think the play of our QB is one of the most important issues on the team... also I'm not sure you can say its a question no one wants to answer if you yourself are trying to answer it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I think the bigger question is why did he start weeks 9 - 11 ... just saying ... was the coaching staff so down on our backups that they didn't trust them? If so what the heck are those backups still doing on the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I disagree that it is irrelevant.. on the contrary I think the play of our QB is one of the most important issues on the team... also I'm not sure you can say its a question no one wants to answer if you yourself are trying to answer it. No, I'm pointing out that you're barking up the wrong tree. You clearly have a not-so-hidden agenda -- not playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 its a conspiracy to drive you nuts We've heard no reliable evidence about the injury period. Fitz wont talk about it, coaches wont acknowledge it. Thats my point.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 After the Bills lost to the Chargers in week 14, they were all but eliminated from playoff contention at 5-8. My question is... if Fitz had been playing hurt since week 8, then why did he play in the last 3 games? They had almost nothing to play for and if he was hurt to the point where it was affecting his performance, then why not start Thigpen instead? The answer is obvious, as you are aware. He would have not have played those games if he was injured. But it is, as others have mentioned, irrelevant now. Fitz is the QB of the Bills this season. Many have concerns about that. But the bottom line is the defense almost certainly will not be able to be used as an excuse this season. It is time to see if the offense is fine as-is, or if it needs upgrades. I have to believe QB is not excluded from that evaluation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbottroadwarrior Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) I think the bigger question is why did he start weeks 9 - 11 ... just saying ... was the coaching staff so down on our backups that they didn't trust them? If so what the heck are those backups still doing on the team? Sad to think that an injured Fitz (I do subscribe to the injury theory) who looked so off was still better than either of the healthy backups. Edited August 7, 2012 by Double-J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintmyhouse Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) They really needed Fitz to bounce back in those games IMO, but in reality it made almost no sense to play him. He was even worse terrible in those 3 games too. I think they were thinking the fans would rather see him play the two home games and they were not selling tickets, there is significant hatred of the Bills 2nd string QB, and even less people come to see Thigpen play the Phins and Broncos. That is my guess. Then, in the Patriots game, it was just to see if the Bills with Fitz could try and sweep the Patriots and sell hope for the next season once again. I think it is also proven fans are not willing to spend money to see Fitzpatrick play at the stadium, just another reason to really just cut him. Edited August 7, 2012 by paintmyhouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 He was probably healed up by then. You aren't hurt forever and wasn't it like 2 months past the alleged injury? It would probably be 2 months to heal if you took it easy for those 2 months. Not if you were still playing and getting knocked to the ground by 300lb men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbottroadwarrior Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 It would probably be 2 months to heal if you took it easy for those 2 months. Not if you were still playing and getting knocked to the ground by 300lb men. So Fitzpatrick isn't Wolverine? Damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I disagree that it is irrelevant.. I agee with you and I also find it troubling that many here want to quickly sweep your valid question under the rug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts