Maury Ballstein Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 nope Fitz will just regress worse if the Defense perfoms well like it did last night. Dooooomed til Chain Gailey and Cap't No arm are replaced.
bobobonators Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 last nights game answered this question. Bills D gave up 7 points. Bills O scored 12 points. In my eyes that shows that instead of going out there and putting up 20, like they could or should have the O settles for 4 field goals. Fitz tried twice to throw INT on Miami's side of the 50. Sorry guys, a win is a win, but Fitz isn't the answer. He is not consistent lol..stop. Why don't you start keeping track of "almost INT's" too now. I'll keep track of "almost TD's"..like the one Jones dropped right in the endzone after fitz threw it right at his hands. The offense wasn't effective in the sense that we were unable to FINISH drives, but the offense in the first half moved the ball up and down the field, dominated the time of possession the entire game and kept tacking onto the lead. The only complaint I had about last night's game from an offensive perspective is the same complaint i've had for several years now: we can't run it down their throats on 3rd and 1 or 3rd and short. There were three drives that ended yesterday b/c we were unable to convert on short yardage (the first one choice was stuffed, the second one was when Fitz threw out of an empty backfield, and the third was actually on 1st down at the goal line to end the half)...we shouldn't be passing in those downs and we should be able to just run it down their throats with our offensive line..but we can't..we need to seriously improve in that aspect. Other than that, the offense pretty much did enough to manage the game and definitely not lose it. That being said, game ball obviously goes to the defense yesterday. Truly their best effort of the season. Great showing.
Malazan Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 There seems to be a lot of confusion about the word adequate in this thread. Yes, he would be adequate if our defense was in the top 20 and not dead last. It would be nice to have a QB that the discussion isn't about him being adequate though.
freester Posted November 16, 2012 Author Posted November 16, 2012 There seems to be a lot of confusion about the word adequate in this thread. Yes, he would be adequate if our defense was in the top 20 and not dead last. It would be nice to have a QB that the discussion isn't about him being adequate though. The question remains how do we get a great QB (or better than adequate)? I don't want to pull another trade up for a JP Losman quality QB in the first round.
Mr. WEO Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Well then you didnt read now did you...LMAO. I said that as an example...also said we could win 40-3 but you chose to ignore that and write erroneously that I claimed he would throw 2 pick sixes each game. I simply gave examples of things that COULD happen, good or bad, and that there is NO way to know how the game would play out with every single second of existence being altered because we had a different defense and created different moments. Geezus...next time just read what was written and maybe you would understand that what I said isnt even remotely close to what you claim I said. Actually I didn't write that. Read it again. Actually, I will help you--I said " you assume Fitz would throw more "pick sixes". Anyway...I was referring to this actual comment of yours; "Maybe the offense has the ball more and Fitz throws 2 pick sixes and FJ fumbles which is returned for a TD." One can assume you meant in a single game (not the rest of the season) --as you immediately followed with "Maybe we put up 40 and hold them to 3". I will give you points for going against conventional wisdom for even suggesting that, with a better defense, an offense has the potential to get worse. And inferring that the bad defense may actually be keeping QB and OC errors at a minimum. It is a unique perspective. Edited November 16, 2012 by Mr. WEO
K D Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 I was thinking about this thread last night during the game. After the first half I was going to post about how it seemed to prove that a good defense was the answer and it can make up for an inconsistent offense with a sub par QB. And then the 2nd half happened and I thought for sure we were going to lose that game. After not being able to convert in the red zone in the first half, the offense completely stalled in the 2nd half. All we needed was 1 offensive TD to make it an easy win and they couldn't even do that. Every time we take a shot in the end zone it seems like Fitz is daring them to pick him off and then we settle for a field goal. The play calling was terrible too. How do we not have a couple of go to plays to get that extra 1-2 yards when we need it? And was CJ really that tired that every time we drove down the field he had to come out and they had to put Choice in? Last night was a rollercoaster of emotions. At one point I felt like "OMG YES we finally have a total team effort. Offense, Defense, Special Teams all playing amazing! There's no stopping us now. Playoffs baby!" And then once again the offense just couldn't get it done for us when we needed them to and I was back to my mopey self. It was a good win and gave some confidence to our defense that they can get the job done for us but let's face it, we got lucky last night
Adam Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 Gailey has gotten the offense to score points. The rookie QBs are not overwhelming. Maybe we need to dramatically improve our Defense by improving the LB and getting a top coordinator like a Mike Nolan or Wade Phillips (I know those guys arent available). He would be more than adequate to get us to the playoffs, but we would make a quick exit.
Dorkington Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 Easily yes. Would we get to the Superbowl? Probably not, bit easily a playoff team.
atlbillsfan1975 Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 lol..stop. Why don't you start keeping track of "almost INT's" too now. I'll keep track of "almost TD's"..like the one Jones dropped right in the endzone after fitz threw it right at his hands. The offense wasn't effective in the sense that we were unable to FINISH drives, but the offense in the first half moved the ball up and down the field, dominated the time of possession the entire game and kept tacking onto the lead. The only complaint I had about last night's game from an offensive perspective is the same complaint i've had for several years now: we can't run it down their throats on 3rd and 1 or 3rd and short. There were three drives that ended yesterday b/c we were unable to convert on short yardage (the first one choice was stuffed, the second one was when Fitz threw out of an empty backfield, and the third was actually on 1st down at the goal line to end the half)...we shouldn't be passing in those downs and we should be able to just run it down their throats with our offensive line..but we can't..we need to seriously improve in that aspect. Other than that, the offense pretty much did enough to manage the game and definitely not lose it. That being said, game ball obviously goes to the defense yesterday. Truly their best effort of the season. Great showing. Sorry. Adequate to win games against BAD teams? Yes. Adequate to win games against good to great teams? NO! Until the Bills get a good to great QB, we got what we got. A team that will be mediocre. It is a QB driven league. Unless the Bills address that position, they will be what we have seen. As your qb goes, so goes your team. Look at the Saints. They have a horrbile D, but a great QB. The reason why they will finish with a better record then Buffalo is because of Brees. Why not try and get one player and fix many problems. Then get many players to try and fix one problem. Winning is the problem. Give me a good qb with an average D any day over the opposite.
Ray Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 There are about maybe ten QBs in the league better than Fitz. The problem is they are a lot better. The rest of the league deals with the same. Face it NONE of the QBs drafted the last two years other than Newton, RG3 and Luck have a chance of ever winning a Super Bowl. You really Want Colt McCoy, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder or Ryan Tannenhill? He was terrible last night against the 32nd ranked defense in the NFL and people here are complaining about Fitz for being conservative. Fitz has his flaws but we've had Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe and JPLosman all guys with great arms but horrible QBs for the Bills and all guys the Bills used number one picks on to get. What they all have in common is that Fitz as outplayed them all as Bills. But to answer the question of the post, OF COURSE Fitz is good enough to get you to the playoffs if we had a great defense. It's obvious.
Adam Posted November 16, 2012 Posted November 16, 2012 There are about maybe ten QBs in the league better than Fitz. The problem is they are a lot better. The rest of the league deals with the same. Face it NONE of the QBs drafted the last two years other than Newton, RG3 and Luck have a chance of ever winning a Super Bowl. You really Want Colt McCoy, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder or Ryan Tannenhill? He was terrible last night against the 32nd ranked defense in the NFL and people here are complaining about Fitz for being conservative. Fitz has his flaws but we've had Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe and JPLosman all guys with great arms but horrible QBs for the Bills and all guys the Bills used number one picks on to get. What they all have in common is that Fitz as outplayed them all as Bills. But to answer the question of the post, OF COURSE Fitz is good enough to get you to the playoffs if we had a great defense. It's obvious. Well, said- just as the arguement was made about getting another WR, make sure he is worth it! Don't waste a pick on a guy who is merely better than what you have! Use high picks on difference makers!
Garion Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 There are about maybe ten QBs in the league better than Fitz. The problem is they are a lot better. The rest of the league deals with the same. Face it NONE of the QBs drafted the last two years other than Newton, RG3 and Luck have a chance of ever winning a Super Bowl. You really Want Colt McCoy, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder or Ryan Tannenhill? He was terrible last night against the 32nd ranked defense in the NFL and people here are complaining about Fitz for being conservative. Fitz has his flaws but we've had Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe and JPLosman all guys with great arms but horrible QBs for the Bills and all guys the Bills used number one picks on to get. What they all have in common is that Fitz as outplayed them all as Bills. But to answer the question of the post, OF COURSE Fitz is good enough to get you to the playoffs if we had a great defense. It's obvious. Great post. I was thinking last night Tannehill was really the guy folks wanted us to trade up for? Most QBs don't pan out. . . The bills since second round pick Todd Collins are proof of that.
Adam Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Great post. I was thinking last night Tannehill was really the guy folks wanted us to trade up for? Most QBs don't pan out. . . The bills since second round pick Todd Collins are proof of that. I don't think Tannehill will pan out and had him as a fifth round pick, but give the kid time. If we stuck with Collins for a few years, we would have been better off. He would have been sub par at worst, but we could have rebuilt the team without wasting so many pics at one position.
Astrojanitor Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) If we had an average defense, we'd be in the playoff hunt. If we had a good defense, we'd be a playoff team. If we had a dominant defense, we'd be capable of making a Superbowl run. Fitz is average to good at times, but isn't good enough to overcome weaknesses on the other side of the ball. Couldn't say it better myself. Fitz is frustrating, but he gets points on the board. Very few QBs in this league can be counted on consistently putting up 40 points a game, which is kind of what needs to be done to overcome that disasterous D. Not an original thought, but it's true Edited November 17, 2012 by Astrojanitor
Alphadawg7 Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) I will give you points for going against conventional wisdom for even suggesting that, with a better defense, an offense has the potential to get worse. And inferring that the bad defense may actually be keeping QB and OC errors at a minimum. It is a unique perspective. I didnt suggest the O would get worse or better. I said the flow of the game and every single second of the game would be different, including play calling, success and failures of said plays, etc etc. There is just absolutely no way to know how many points we score if you change the D and the entire game. A PERFECT example is look at the first NE game and the second NE game. Same EXACT teams, two absolutely and completely different games. Yesterday is another perfect example of the D stepping up yet we still barely held on to win thanks in part to the ineptness of Chan to call smart plays on 3rd and short many times where we then settled for a FG or punt. By the logic of some of the people in this thread, in a situation where our D is dominant its automatically assumed we will win decisively because the offense will score more. Yet that was not the case yesterday because Chan out thinks himself, Fitz missed some throws, WR's dropped some throws, dumb penalties still happened, etc etc. So, once again I am not saying one thing will or will not happen. I am saying you simply have no idea because the games would not resemble a single second of the games that were actually played. On a side note: Everyone complaining about how many points we scored in our losses and still lost forget such an important part. Only 4 games did we score over 28 points and lose. People want to point out about how that happened 4 times. Yet they completely disregard and ignore that in the 2 losses where we scored 28 points, we were utterly BLOWN out of the game as the offense was just dominated. Jets game, the offense was just an embarrassment and half the 28 points were gathered in garbage time down 41-14. In the NE game, it was 21-7 us at half, but the slew of offensive turnovers in the second half heavily contributed to a NE 45 point second half for another blow out loss. The offense and defense were both atrocious in the 2nd half, but it definitely didnt help the D with the offense continuously going 3 and out or turning the ball over by INT or fumble (6 total). 7 more points were gathered in the 4th with the game already out of reach. So, people who keep saying "if you score 28 you should win"...well not when you score 28 the way we did in those first divisional games you don't. Those games were not all on the D, the offense never had us in the Jets game, and in the NE game Fitz threw 4 INT's and we had two lost fumbles. When you turn the ball over 10 times in 2 games on OFFENSE...I dont care how many points you score, you usually do not win and usually lose bad...which we did. Truth is, we only have 2 games where we scored over 28 and lost and should have won...Tenn and the 2nd NE game. In both games, the offense came up small with a chance to win the game as they frequently do, but had the D prevented a score or two earlier maybe we wouldnt have had to come from behind in the first place. Edited November 17, 2012 by Alphadawg7
ajzepp Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Here's the problem...it's just like the issue with someone like Bledsoe. You can put up all sorts of numbers and throw TDs, but if you simply cannot keep your head, minimize mistakes, and make plays during the times when it's MOST CRUCIAL, then you will never be the answer. I think a great example is Eli Manning. Bledsoe was a more prolific QB than Eli in terms of yardage and TD passes....but Eli is MONEY during the most stressful, high pressure periods of the game whereas Bledsoe wasn't. Tony Romo is another example. The guy puts up all sorts of pretty numbers, but once he gets in the playoffs and the pressure hits, he turns into the lost stooge. Fitzy has a knack for making gunslinger plays and he can move the chains. But until and unless he is able to look the pressure square in the eyes and go all "Neo" on the other team, he's never going to cut it. Winning regular season games is great. But ESPECIALLY for a team like the Bills, it's all about winning a championship. We've had a sniff of glory four times, but never gotten a taste. If we don't have the guy behind center who can get it done, then we need to keep looking. Edited November 17, 2012 by ajzepp
metzelaars_lives Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) If we had a top 10 defense, would Fitz be adequate to win? - No, Fitz would turn the ball over at somepoint during the game that causes us to lose. This would be half his fault and half Chan's faults for not calling enough running plays. This coming from TBD's resident Tebow-backer. I really can't take your posts seriously anymore. We have scored 28+ points in 4 of our 6 losses. I don't think he's the long-term answer either, but man you are irrationally anti-Fitz. What did Fitz hit on your sister or something? Edited November 17, 2012 by metzelaars_lives
angryfan62 Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Detroit Lions are 10th right now, allowing 24.7 points a game. How many wins would that have gotten us?(Too lazy to check lol). EDIT: Oh wait, previous post says 4 so I guess that would prove that the answer to the OP's question is yes. Edited November 17, 2012 by angryfan62
Alphadawg7 Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) This coming from TBD's resident Tebow-backer. I really can't take your posts seriously anymore. We have scored 28+ points in 4 of our 6 losses. I don't think he's the long-term answer either, but man you are irrationally anti-Fitz. What did Fitz hit on your sister or something? Again, 2 of those 28 point games were blow out losses full of garbage time stats and 21 points of garbage time points. So everyone needs to please stop sighting the 28 points in 4 games as in 2 of those games it was irrelevant and the Offense accounted for TEN turnovers in those two games and were a huge reason we gave got blown out Edited November 17, 2012 by Alphadawg7
angryfan62 Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) Again, 2 of those 28 point games were blow out losses full of garbage time stats and 21 points of garbage time points. So everyone needs to please stop sighting the 28 points in 4 games as in 2 of those games it was irrelevant and the Offense accounted for TEN turnovers in those two games and were a huge reason we gave got blown out Fair enough, but even just 2 more wins puts us right in the battle just behind Pats at 6 and 4 so the answer to the OP's question is still yes IMO. Edited November 17, 2012 by angryfan62
Recommended Posts