What would Bill Belichick or Bill Parcells do with Ryan Fitzpatrick?

[bobobonators]

Ok, I'll bite back!

 

Simms was a career 55.4% passer--poor accuracy by any measure. They both are/were intercepted a lot. Simms never had more than 22 TDs in a season, yet twice he had 20 or more ints. He was a solid performer, not great. He played with great defenses and for a great coach. Fitz has neither.

 

I'll say it again--Fitz spotted his D a 3rd Q 2 TD lead. Nothing HE did after that point lost the game for us. This defense just isn't very good--they gave up 45 points in the second half of a game they were well ahead in. I will venture there will be no team in the league this year that will duplicate that feat.

 

Maybe the talent is there, maybe it's not. Wanny has already proven he has nothing new to bring to this team.

 

Well said.

[Ronin]

What would Bill Belichick or Bill Parcells do with Ryan Fitzpatrick?

 

 

 

He didn't do anything with Bledsoe. If Bledsoe had not gotten injured, would he have put Brady in, ever? ... until Bledsoe retired?

 

Let's keep in mind that Belichick was a losing coach until he had Brady, who was a 6th round diamond in the rough. Belichick should be on his knees that Brady fell into his lap.

 

The Pats' success is far more hinged to Brady than it is Belichick. He's a good coach, but not nearly as good as he's made out to be. He sucked in Cleveland and was 5-11 with a team that had no reason to be less than that in New England with Bledsoe at QB. He was tied for the 6th worst record in the league that season and had only one winning season in 6 before having his choice at QB get injured and being forced to put Brady in.

 

He gets way more credit than he deserves. And honestly, who here really thinks that the Pats would have come back last week with Bledsoe slingin' the ball?

[PatsFanNH]

He didn't do anything with Bledsoe. If Bledsoe had not gotten injured, would he have put Brady in, ever? ... until Bledsoe retired?

 

Let's keep in mind that Belichick was a losing coach until he had Brady, who was a 6th round diamond in the rough. Belichick should be on his knees that Brady fell into his lap.

 

The Pats' success is far more hinged to Brady than it is Belichick. He's a good coach, but not nearly as good as he's made out to be. He sucked in Cleveland and was 5-11 with a team that had no reason to be less than that in New England with Bledsoe at QB. He was tied for the 6th worst record in the league that season and had only one winning season in 6 before having his choice at QB get injured and being forced to put Brady in.

 

He gets way more credit than he deserves. And honestly, who here really thinks that the Pats would have come back last week with Bledsoe slingin' the ball?

 

Brady went from 4th string QB to the 2nd String QB, and as I said before Bledsoe was close to being pulled for Brady. Bledsoe just couldnt do what was needed to win. Also BB only coached 3 years in Cleveland and made the Playoffs in the 2nd yr, what amazes me is EVERYONE forgets their great owner ANNOUNCED at the beginning of the year they were moving to Baltimore which destroyed the season.

 

Brady was a BIG reason for the Turnaround? No he was a game manager in 01 nothing more. He did NOTHING to cost the game and relied on the D to win the games for him. Something Fitz COULD do if your OC got his head out of his butt on play calling.

[Mr. WEO]

 

Let's keep in mind that Belichick was a losing coach until he had Brady, who was a 6th round diamond in the rough. Belichick should be on his knees that Brady fell into his lap.

 

The Pats' success is far more hinged to Brady than it is Belichick. He's a good coach, but not nearly as good as he's made out to be.

 

This gets repeated a lot here and with a minmum effort, is proven untrue. Go back and revisit the 2001 SB winning year. They had a total unknown backup as starter who put up sub-Fitz numbers, they had one legit WR, they had our former RB, and they had a decent but not yet great D.

[Ronin]

Brady went from 4th string QB to the 2nd String QB, and as I said before Bledsoe was close to being pulled for Brady. Bledsoe just couldnt do what was needed to win. Also BB only coached 3 years in Cleveland and made the Playoffs in the 2nd yr, what amazes me is EVERYONE forgets their great owner ANNOUNCED at the beginning of the year they were moving to Baltimore which destroyed the season.

 

Brady was a BIG reason for the Turnaround? No he was a game manager in 01 nothing more. He did NOTHING to cost the game and relied on the D to win the games for him. Something Fitz COULD do if your OC got his head out of his butt on play calling.

 

Sorry, been following Bledsoe particularly for years at the time since my Pats buddy always used to insist that he was among the best ever. He was nowhere close to being yanked for Brady when he got injured. Try again.

 

Brady did what Bledsoe has never done, he didn't make the mistakes, ... like Fitz.

 

As to Belichick in Cleveland, that was one season, he sucked otherwise. Again, you make a fatal flaw in your reasoning there too, Belichick's '94 success in that 11-5 season had far more to do with an cupcake schedule, ala the Bills in say '04 for one other example, featuring the Texans and Bengals, two pathetic teams for four of those 11 wins, then Arizona, Philly, the Jets, New England, Indy, and Seattle, none of which had a winning record. His Browns beat one team with a winning record that season.

 

That was the reason for the 11 win season. He had his QB, Testeverde, post one of his worst seasons ever in his career while there, so don't pitch that he's more responsible for his QB's play than his QBs are. Since Brady's the only one he's ever had success with, we know all we need to know. The Pats would have been a .500 team tops over the years w/o Brady and with some other average type QB.

 

And to counter your point further, with basically the same team the following season, Testeverde played even better, although still below average, so why couldn't his team be even .500? The answer is easy.

 

And if what you say is true, then why did they start off 3-1 and beat 13-3 KC as one of those 3 wins, before losing 4 of their next 5 before Modell even made the announcement, which was a surprise to everyone? Belichick was still a losing coach to that point.

[Ronin]

This gets repeated a lot here and with a minmum effort, is proven untrue. Go back and revisit the 2001 SB winning year. They had a total unknown backup as starter who put up sub-Fitz numbers, they had one legit WR, they had our former RB, and they had a decent but not yet great D.

 

Actually it's very true. I have no idea what data has been used to "prove" it untrue, but I'd question that first and foremost. The single biggest difference between the "early Brady" and Bledsoe was that Brady didn't make the same stupid mistakes that Bledsoe made. You can find all kinds of games over the years that Bledsoe lost single-handedly, and his record against teams with 10 or more wins over the years, and given the number of games he'd played, was pathetic.

 

Otherwise, in Brady's second season of starting he had already but up better numbers than Bledsoe ever had throughout his career, before or since then.

 

The Pats didn't hand games away w/ Brady in there. As well, are you considering too that it was the officials that put the Pats in the AFCCG? Because they wouldn't have made it to that point otherwise.

 

Also, in that 2001 season, Brady led the team to more points scored than anytime that Bledsoe had been on the team except for one season back in '96 with Parcells coaching and with Curtis Martin carrying their offense on his back. Bledsoe's numbers were decent that season but as was characteristic with him, most of his stats, in this case 17 of his 27 TDs were in five games against five mediocre to bad teams, none with winning records.

 

FWIW

Edited October 4, 2012 by TaskersGhost

[starrymessenger]

Not much.

JMO.

[Tcali]

I purposely picked two no-nonsense head coaches that won Superbowls. Neither head coach will resort to excuses, its win or see ya!

 

Here are the questions,

 

#1 Can we trace the lack of TEAM confidence back to Ryan Fitzpatrick? How does 7 interceptions in two key games effect any NFL teams confidence?

Would either head coach stick by their guy after last weeks game considering the embarrassing loss to the NY Jets? At some point you have to ask yourself, is this working??

 

#2 Can the Buffalo Bills win with a limited short pass offense through the playoffs? Belichick & Parcells want to win playoff games, not just get there.

I believe both head coaches would have built the offense around Vince Young rather then force a complicated offense on a guy that can't handle it.

Learn the offense over time, not a few preseason games.

 

#3 Is Ryan Fitzpatrick a true team leader for the Buffalo Bills or just the guy playing Quarterback ? Benching a poor quarterback can help a team re focus and eliminate the main cause of turnovers. Every expert says the same thing about the Bills, turnovers are killing them. Can we really afford to do nothing?

 

#4 If not Fitzpatrick, then who? I seriously doubt either head coach would back themselves into a corner with no real options..Tavaris Jackson would certainly move up by now. Its called planning ahead with a solid plan B.

 

So, what would both head coaches do with Ryan Fitzpatrick while addressing team confidence problems? The best coaches move on quickly with a solid plan. The average head coach just holds the course till he is eventually fired.

 

Thanks guys, I am really looking forward to the 49ers game. Hopefully things will improve.

 

 

GO BILLS!!

 

Parcells can thank belichek for those SBs. Parcells on his own was a mess in dallas.

But both coaches would get ulcers....and would be doing everything they could to get another QB in there as the starter with Fitzy as the backup.

[BringBackFergy]

What would they do with Fitz??? Probably ask him whether he thinks gold is a good hedge against inflation.....ohhhh, you mean on the football field?? Hmmmm...something safe

Edited October 5, 2012 by BringBackFergy

[Orton's Arm]

Ok, I'll bite back!

 

Simms was a career 55.4% passer--poor accuracy by any measure. They both are/were intercepted a lot. Simms never had more than 22 TDs in a season, yet twice he had 20 or more ints. He was a solid performer, not great. He played with great defenses and for a great coach. Fitz has neither.

 

I'll say it again--Fitz spotted his D a 3rd Q 2 TD lead. Nothing HE did after that point lost the game for us. This defense just isn't very good--they gave up 45 points in the second half of a game they were well ahead in. I will venture there will be no team in the league this year that will duplicate that feat.

 

Maybe the talent is there, maybe it's not. Wanny has already proven he has nothing new to bring to this team.

 

> Simms was a career 55.4% passer--poor accuracy by any measure.

 

Yards per attempt is a much more useful stat than completion percentage. As Bills fans have learned through experience, a QB can inflate his own completion percentage by dumping the ball off a lot. He can deflate it by going for lower probability, higher reward passes. Simms was a much better QB than Fitz; and the difference in their yards per attempt stats correctly reflects this.

 

> [simms] played with great defenses and for a great coach. Fitz has neither.

 

A great defense does not necessarily increase a QB's yards per attempt stat. Trent Dilfer obtained a higher yards per attempt stat in Seattle than he did when playing for the Ravens of 2000.

 

> I'll say it again--Fitz spotted his D a 3rd Q 2 TD lead.

 

Incorrect. You are giving Fitz credit for things over which he had no control. IIRC, the Patriots averaged just 1.5 points per drive in the first half. Fitz did not help to lower the Patriots' yards per drive stat. On the contrary: his two interceptions in the first half worsened the Bills' field position, put the defense on the field for additional plays, and generally made things easier for the Patriots' offense. If the Patriots' offense failed to capitalize on the opportunities Fitz gave them, that was hardly Fitz's doing.

 

Similarly, one of the Bills' TD drives began just 24 yards away from the Patriots' end zone; thanks to a turnover generated by the Bills' defense.

 

> Nothing HE did after that point lost the game for us.

 

Are you telling me that the interception he threw with over 11 minutes left, with the Bills down by just two TDs, did not in any way contribute to the loss? Are you telling me that all the throws and scoring opportunities he missed over the course of the game were not part of the loss?

 

> This defense just isn't very good--they gave up 45 points in the second half of a game they were well ahead in.

 

Those 45 points weren't just the result of one big thing. They were caused by a lot of little things which added up. Sure, you can sweep all those little things into a big pile, put a label like "45 points" on it, and then point out that the defense's pile is bigger than Fitz's pile. But you then seem to say that because the defense's pile is bigger than Fitz's pile, the latter should be ignored.

 

That's not what you should do after a loss. When you lose, you sweep all the failures by offense, defense, and special teams into one big pile. Usually, no one player will be responsible for more than 20 - 30% of that pile. Fitz's share of that pile was plenty big. The same could also be said of each of the Bills' four starting defensive linemen. Gilmore's share was small to nonexistent; even though the defense as a whole played poorly.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

> Simms was a career 55.4% passer--poor accuracy by any measure.

 

Yards per attempt is a much more useful stat than completion percentage. As Bills fans have learned through experience, a QB can inflate his own completion percentage by dumping the ball off a lot. He can deflate it by going for lower probability, higher reward passes. Simms was a much better QB than Fitz; and the difference in their yards per attempt stats correctly reflects this.

 

Didn't we have a great discussion on this a few months ago? YPA has its drawbacks - and by the way does not actually seem to correlate that well with wins.

It reflects both completion percentage, and the ability of the receivers to RAC (which reflects both the QB, the receivers, and the blocking).

 

> Nothing HE did after that point lost the game for us.

 

Are you telling me that the interception he threw with over 11 minutes left, with the Bills down by just two TDs, did not in any way contribute to the loss? Are you telling me that all the throws and scoring opportunities he missed over the course of the game were not part of the loss?

 

There is plenty of blame to go around in this game and Fitz shouldn't be absolved of having a sucky game. The D did a lot to keep us in the game in the 1st half, including getting the critical stops after 2 Fitz INTs. (that is what they are supposed to do; that is why they get the big bucks).

 

However, it's a fact that midway through the 3rd Q, the Bills were up by 2 TDs. The Bills D allowed the Pats to drive, unchecked, the length of the field - 3 times in a row. It's a fact that in between those drives, the Bills O went 3 and out twice - as do the best offenses, at times. There were no mistakes there that put the Bills D in a bad place, no squib punts, no INTs. Good Ds get themselves off the field and earn their own rest at that point.

 

The INT you reference certainly did ice the game for the Pats and cut our chances of being able to come back. The key observation seems to be our D was not able to stop the Pats offense AT ALL from the 3Q on. Since the Pats were ahead by 2 TD at the time of the INT, even if the Bills had scored on that drive and every subsequent drive, we would have lost - we simply wouldn't have been quite so embarrassed.

 

This was the Bills fatal flaw during the 5-2 part of the season last year - we won because our O outscored the other team which covered the fact that our D could not get the stop. Basically, we put the lipstick of a high-scoring offense on a pig and when the lipstick wore off, lo and behold we were a pig.

 

I think the team, and our management, needs to look hard at the naked pig, which is, we can not win without a capable, consistent defense. Very few teams can do so, the Bills aren't one of those few, and the few that can, had capable D at some point in their evolution towards championships.

 

I wish people could see this more clearly. The Rams beat Zona last night, not because they have a #1 draft pick with a great arm at QB, but because their defense finally shows signs of coming to life and they made Kolb's life absolutely miserable. They forced turnovers, they covered his wideouts like a blanket. The last 3 years, Bradford hasjust been lipstick on a pig of a Ram's team.

[bobobonators]

> Simms was a career 55.4% passer--poor accuracy by any measure.

 

Yards per attempt is a much more useful stat than completion percentage. As Bills fans have learned through experience, a QB can inflate his own completion percentage by dumping the ball off a lot. He can deflate it by going for lower probability, higher reward passes. Simms was a much better QB than Fitz; and the difference in their yards per attempt stats correctly reflects this.

 

> [simms] played with great defenses and for a great coach. Fitz has neither.

 

A great defense does not necessarily increase a QB's yards per attempt stat. Trent Dilfer obtained a higher yards per attempt stat in Seattle than he did when playing for the Ravens of 2000.

 

> I'll say it again--Fitz spotted his D a 3rd Q 2 TD lead.

 

Incorrect. You are giving Fitz credit for things over which he had no control. IIRC, the Patriots averaged just 1.5 points per drive in the first half. Fitz did not help to lower the Patriots' yards per drive stat. On the contrary: his two interceptions in the first half worsened the Bills' field position, put the defense on the field for additional plays, and generally made things easier for the Patriots' offense. If the Patriots' offense failed to capitalize on the opportunities Fitz gave them, that was hardly Fitz's doing.

 

Similarly, one of the Bills' TD drives began just 24 yards away from the Patriots' end zone; thanks to a turnover generated by the Bills' defense.

 

> Nothing HE did after that point lost the game for us.

 

Are you telling me that the interception he threw with over 11 minutes left, with the Bills down by just two TDs, did not in any way contribute to the loss? Are you telling me that all the throws and scoring opportunities he missed over the course of the game were not part of the loss?

 

> This defense just isn't very good--they gave up 45 points in the second half of a game they were well ahead in.

 

Those 45 points weren't just the result of one big thing. They were caused by a lot of little things which added up. Sure, you can sweep all those little things into a big pile, put a label like "45 points" on it, and then point out that the defense's pile is bigger than Fitz's pile. But you then seem to say that because the defense's pile is bigger than Fitz's pile, the latter should be ignored.

 

That's not what you should do after a loss. When you lose, you sweep all the failures by offense, defense, and special teams into one big pile. Usually, no one player will be responsible for more than 20 - 30% of that pile. Fitz's share of that pile was plenty big. The same could also be said of each of the Bills' four starting defensive linemen. Gilmore's share was small to nonexistent; even though the defense as a whole played poorly.

 

Fumble by spiller before the half...fumble by FJ while down 28-21...Fitz's third INT were all bad, but 45 points in 1.5 quarters? We all know who led the charge down that rabbit hole...

 

You'd be hard-pressed to find me a 13yr old Madden nerd who can put up 45 points in 1.5 quarters. 99% of our convo this week should have been focused on the Defense and it's coach and not on the offense and its QB.

[Orton's Arm]

Didn't we have a great discussion on this a few months ago? YPA has its drawbacks - and by the way does not actually seem to correlate that well with wins.

It reflects both completion percentage, and the ability of the receivers to RAC (which reflects both the QB, the receivers, and the blocking).

 

 

 

There is plenty of blame to go around in this game and Fitz shouldn't be absolved of having a sucky game. The D did a lot to keep us in the game in the 1st half, including getting the critical stops after 2 Fitz INTs. (that is what they are supposed to do; that is why they get the big bucks).

 

However, it's a fact that midway through the 3rd Q, the Bills were up by 2 TDs. The Bills D allowed the Pats to drive, unchecked, the length of the field - 3 times in a row. It's a fact that in between those drives, the Bills O went 3 and out twice - as do the best offenses, at times. There were no mistakes there that put the Bills D in a bad place, no squib punts, no INTs. Good Ds get themselves off the field and earn their own rest at that point.

 

The INT you reference certainly did ice the game for the Pats and cut our chances of being able to come back. The key observation seems to be our D was not able to stop the Pats offense AT ALL from the 3Q on. Since the Pats were ahead by 2 TD at the time of the INT, even if the Bills had scored on that drive and every subsequent drive, we would have lost - we simply wouldn't have been quite so embarrassed.

 

This was the Bills fatal flaw during the 5-2 part of the season last year - we won because our O outscored the other team which covered the fact that our D could not get the stop. Basically, we put the lipstick of a high-scoring offense on a pig and when the lipstick wore off, lo and behold we were a pig.

 

I think the team, and our management, needs to look hard at the naked pig, which is, we can not win without a capable, consistent defense. Very few teams can do so, the Bills aren't one of those few, and the few that can, had capable D at some point in their evolution towards championships.

 

I wish people could see this more clearly. The Rams beat Zona last night, not because they have a #1 draft pick with a great arm at QB, but because their defense finally shows signs of coming to life and they made Kolb's life absolutely miserable. They forced turnovers, they covered his wideouts like a blanket. The last 3 years, Bradford hasjust been lipstick on a pig of a Ram's team.

 

> Didn't we have a great discussion on this a few months ago?

 

Yes, I believe we did.

 

> YPA has its drawbacks - and by the way does not actually seem to correlate that well with wins.

 

The latter part of your statement is false. A regression analysis done by the New York Times found that, of the variables tested, yards per pass attempt (and the defensive equivalent thereof) was the single most important variable in explaining teams' winning percentages. The other important variables were yards per rushing attempt and INT percentage (and defensive equivalents), with yards per pass attempt being three times as important as any other variable.

 

> It reflects both completion percentage, . . .

 

Is that intended as a criticism of yards per attempt?

 

> and the ability of the receivers to RAC (which reflects both the QB, the receivers, and the blocking).

 

I agree that YPA might be an even better stat if you could subtract away RAC yards. But I have not encountered a free website which provides data on QBs' YPA minus RAC yards per attempt. It's better to have a good statistical measurement tool which can be used (like yards per attempt) than a perfect measurement tool which can't be used due to lack of available data.

 

> I think the team, and our management, needs to look hard at the naked pig, which is, we can not win without a capable, consistent defense.

 

The Bills' goal should not just be to win a few regular season games here and there. They should build a team intended to win multiple championships. I did not see either championship-caliber defense or championship-caliber quarterbacking against the Patriots. Both aspects of the team need to be upgraded.

 

> The Rams beat Zona last night

 

I agree that if the Bills upgraded their defense, while keeping their QB the same, they'd get some wins like the one you described. Maybe even make the playoffs. But unless their defense is truly elite--such as the Ravens defense of 2000--they will not win a championship with that kind of team.