The Curse of Flutie?

[dubs]

I don't normally care too much if other people have differing opinions on players, & to some extent that's true here, but there's something about a Bills fan trashing Flutie that rubs me the wrong way. It's about how I'd feel if a Bills fan were glowing over how awesome Tom Brady is, or cheering for the Pats. It doesn't add up to me.

 

What's more irritating is the sanctimonious, holier than thou bull **** where anyone who has the audacity to voice displeasure with the way they've been treated is a "petulant child."

 

In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter, but if I'm at a bar watching the game, I hope I don't end up on the stool next to you.

 

Th offense wasn't inept. They went 5-2 in the games he started and his QB rating was 86.1. They averaged 328 yards on offense and 20.3 points in those games as well. Every time you say this, I'm going to call you on it because what you're saying simply isn't true.

 

Run DMB,

 

You are 100% right. Not just on the facts, but the presentation of your arguments. There are two types of posters on this discussion thread:

 

1) Those who generally back Flutie and have stated actual hard facts and other supporting references to bolster their position. This flock has not used absolute or superlative statements to say what would have happened in the future either.

 

2) Those who generally back Johnson. Their evidence to support their positions is snark, ridicule, clouded subjective option stated as fact, and distortions or flat out mistruths (it's a synonym for a lie). Although no one in history of the world has ever been able to know the future what what would have happened if a different choice was made, they do know and have no issue letting everyone in on the secret.

Edited November 14, 2013 by dubs

[4merper4mer]

If you want to dig a little deeper, you'll discover that Flutie's weakest stats from that year by far were in games 7 and 8, against the Seahawks and Ravens. He was 42 for 90 for 449 yards, 3 tds, and 5 ints. His rating was 49.7 in those two games. Why was this? Those were the two games that Moulds missed because of a hamstring injury. Moulds was on fire up to that point, and Flutie rightly targeted him.

 

Carry on with the snark though ...

 

Your weak defense mechanism of calling anyone who disagrees with you snarky, helps to shield your irrational man crush on Flutie but still does not address the following:

 

I did not bench Flutie for the playoff game, nor did the other posters in this thread, the Bills did. They must have done so for a reason. I think we can be fairly certain that the reason was not simply to throw you and others into a 14 year tizzy, because no plan could ever work as well to get its desired result. You can agree or disagree with the reasoning used by the Bills, but you have to at least acknowledge there was a reason. What was that reason in your opinion?

 

BTW, all of the snark above is in response to you asking for it. The most annoying part of this thread so far is all of the "Flutie people" stating over and over that all of the "Johnson people" only have snark and the Flutie people are entirely based on logic. If that were true, the benching would have never happened. There were people at times who called for Kelly to be benched for Reich. It never happened. Flutie/Johnson did. Why?

[thebandit27]

Run DMB,

 

You are 100% right. Not just on the facts, but the presentation of your arguments. There are two types of posters on this discussion thread:

 

1) Those who generally back Flutie and have stated actual hard facts and other supporting references to bolster their position. This flock has not used absolute or superlative statements to say what would have happened in the future either.

 

2) Those who generally back Johnson. Their evidence to support their positions is snark, ridicule, clouded subjective option stated as fact, and distortions or flat out mistruths (it's a synonym for a lie). Although no one in history of the world has ever been able to know the future what what would have happened if a different choice was made, they do know and have no issue letting everyone in on the secret.

 

Actually, there's a 3rd type of poster: one that looks at the facts and still doesn't believe that either guy was a good enough QB. Here are the facts:

 

Flutie quarterbacked two playoff seasons in Buffalo.

During those 2 seasons, he had the benefit of playing with a top 3 defense.

His best season in Buffalo was nearly statistically identical to the best season produced by JP Losman.

He started 1 playoff game, on the road, and couldn't deliver the win when the ball was in his hands in the red zone on the final possession.

 

None of the above are in dispute; they are all undeniable facts. To me, that level of performance isn't good enough.

 

I feel no need to re-hash Johnson's performance, since I think we're all in agreement that it wasn't good enough either. I do find it ironic, however, that the most ardent Flutie supporters point to the Tennessee playoff game to support their position, when yet another undeniable fact is that the team had the game won when Johnson left the field with 8 seconds left to play.

 

I continue to be amazed at the us vs. them mentality of this board on every single subject. How is it possible that so many people do not realize that a middle ground exists between their opinion and someone else's?

 

It's positively confounding.

[dubs]

Actually, there's a 3rd type of poster: one that looks at the facts and still doesn't believe that either guy was a good enough QB. Here are the facts:

 

Flutie quarterbacked two playoff seasons in Buffalo.

During those 2 seasons, he had the benefit of playing with a top 3 defense.

His best season in Buffalo was nearly statistically identical to the best season produced by JP Losman.

He started 1 playoff game, on the road, and couldn't deliver the win when the ball was in his hands in the red zone on the final possession.

 

None of the above are in dispute; they are all undeniable facts. To me, that level of performance isn't good enough.

 

I feel no need to re-hash Johnson's performance, since I think we're all in agreement that it wasn't good enough either. I do find it ironic, however, that the most ardent Flutie supporters point to the Tennessee playoff game to support their position, when yet another undeniable fact is that the team had the game won when Johnson left the field with 8 seconds left to play.

 

I continue to be amazed at the us vs. them mentality of this board on every single subject. How is it possible that so many people do not realize that a middle ground exists between their opinion and someone else's?

 

It's positively confounding.

 

Here's the thing, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to suggest that the Bills would have lost anyway. That's a fair position and I honestly do respect it.

 

Where I get frustrated is at the point that false statements and opinion stated as fact get brought into the conversation. Look back on my posts, I never suggest that the Bills would have definitely won. My position is that at that point in the season, the Bills made a huge mistake in putting RJ in for DF. I think it disrupted the chemistry and cohesion of the team and I think DF was a good fit for the Bills offense.

 

My support to that position is in the fact that Buffalo had a great win loss record, in 1998, 1999, and 2000 with Flutie under center. His play in 1999 was much better than some on here are suggesting.

 

I think in retrospect, we can all agree that RJ was an unmitigated disaster throughout his career. Flutie wasn't.

[4merper4mer]

Actually, there's a 3rd type of poster: one that looks at the facts and still doesn't believe that either guy was a good enough QB. Here are the facts:

 

Flutie quarterbacked two playoff seasons in Buffalo.

During those 2 seasons, he had the benefit of playing with a top 3 defense.

His best season in Buffalo was nearly statistically identical to the best season produced by JP Losman.

He started 1 playoff game, on the road, and couldn't deliver the win when the ball was in his hands in the red zone on the final possession.

 

None of the above are in dispute; they are all undeniable facts. To me, that level of performance isn't good enough.

 

I feel no need to re-hash Johnson's performance, since I think we're all in agreement that it wasn't good enough either. I do find it ironic, however, that the most ardent Flutie supporters point to the Tennessee playoff game to support their position, when yet another undeniable fact is that the team had the game won when Johnson left the field with 8 seconds left to play.

 

I continue to be amazed at the us vs. them mentality of this board on every single subject. How is it possible that so many people do not realize that a middle ground exists between their opinion and someone else's?

 

It's positively confounding.

 

I actually disagree with you about the 1998 version of Flutie. Yes, we were stymied on the goal line, but overall he had a good game against a good team and came up just short. He wasn't perfect but other guys made mistakes too. In 1998 he helped the team in many ways via his play and this was very important to the team. I would love for the Bills to have another 1998.

 

I don't think it is all about stats and think it is clear that Flutie helped the Bills more during his tenure than Losman during his.

 

It is pretty clear to me that most "Flutie people", and some "anti-Flutie" people, are irrational when it comes to this topic. The pro-Fluties will quickly jump to the "stats aren't everything" approach when comparing Flutie/Losman, but just as quickly go to stat lines when defending the impotent 2H99 Flutie.

 

It can't be disputed that some people thought Flutie was holding back the 99 Bills. Whether they are correct or not can be disputed, but if nobody thought Flutie was a problem, he would not have been benched.

 

The part I find the most confounding is people who say "you can't prove we wouldn't have won the Super Bowl with Flutie in there". True. I also can't prove we wouldn't have won the Super Bowl with Shaquille O'Neal playing QB but I do remember what my eyes told me in 1999.

[southtampacane]

I don't blame him in the least. For me, the pulling of Flutie in the playoffs, and in 2000, is my worst memory as a fan. More than the SBs. I didn't even follow the Bills in 2001 & I was glad when they lost to the Chargers.

 

Knowing how I felt about it, I can only imagine how Flutie, in his last years, after taking a struggling team to the playoffs twice & making the pro-bowl, to be slighted in the harshest way, and relegated to a back-up (for a guy who sucks, no less) and you expect him to be a good trooper?

 

!@#$ that.

 

I still have that memory of this fat chick in her San Diego # 7 jersey jumping up and down like someone offered her free mighty taco in 2001 when they put Flutie in the game. He really lit it up. Something like 3 for 15 and 60 yards. So much for that magic.

 

I can't believe someone would be that pathetic to turn on their own team just because their favorite little smurf got tossed. To each their own

[dave mcbride]

Your weak defense mechanism of calling anyone who disagrees with you snarky, helps to shield your irrational man crush on Flutie but still does not address the following:

 

I did not bench Flutie for the playoff game, nor did the other posters in this thread, the Bills did. They must have done so for a reason. I think we can be fairly certain that the reason was not simply to throw you and others into a 14 year tizzy, because no plan could ever work as well to get its desired result. You can agree or disagree with the reasoning used by the Bills, but you have to at least acknowledge there was a reason. What was that reason in your opinion?

 

BTW, all of the snark above is in response to you asking for it. The most annoying part of this thread so far is all of the "Flutie people" stating over and over that all of the "Johnson people" only have snark and the Flutie people are entirely based on logic. If that were true, the benching would have never happened. There were people at times who called for Kelly to be benched for Reich. It never happened. Flutie/Johnson did. Why?

 

Whatever man. Sorry to engage. I'm out.

[tennesseeboy]

"Flutie quarterbacked two playoff seasons in Buffalo."

Actually no qb has qb'd two playoff seasons in Buffalo since Jim Kelly and before that Jack Kemp. Fergie got one, I believe. The most important stat in the game is this one...wins versus losses. Actually a lot of our failed coaches would have gotten the door a lot earlier if the organization realized this.

[RuntheDamnBall]

 

 

Actually, there's a 3rd type of poster: one that looks at the facts and still doesn't believe that either guy was a good enough QB. Here are the facts:

 

Flutie quarterbacked two playoff seasons in Buffalo.

During those 2 seasons, he had the benefit of playing with a top 3 defense.

His best season in Buffalo was nearly statistically identical to the best season produced by JP Losman.

He started 1 playoff game, on the road, and couldn't deliver the win when the ball was in his hands in the red zone on the final possession.

 

None of the above are in dispute; they are all undeniable facts. To me, that level of performance isn't good enough.

 

I feel no need to re-hash Johnson's performance, since I think we're all in agreement that it wasn't good enough either. I do find it ironic, however, that the most ardent Flutie supporters point to the Tennessee playoff game to support their position, when yet another undeniable fact is that the team had the game won when Johnson left the field with 8 seconds left to play.

 

I continue to be amazed at the us vs. them mentality of this board on every single subject. How is it possible that so many people do not realize that a middle ground exists between their opinion and someone else's?

 

It's positively confounding.

Thank you.

[Rico]

The only curse on this franchise is the Curse of the Ralph. Every successful period happened in spite of him... and he was responsible for bringing those successful periods to crashing halts. Letting Knox leave, firing Polian, benching Flutie to name but a few. New ownership is the only hope of having this curse exorcised.

[thebandit27]

Here's the thing, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to suggest that the Bills would have lost anyway. That's a fair position and I honestly do respect it.

 

Where I get frustrated is at the point that false statements and opinion stated as fact get brought into the conversation. Look back on my posts, I never suggest that the Bills would have definitely won. My position is that at that point in the season, the Bills made a huge mistake in putting RJ in for DF. I think it disrupted the chemistry and cohesion of the team and I think DF was a good fit for the Bills offense.

 

My support to that position is in the fact that Buffalo had a great win loss record, in 1998, 1999, and 2000 with Flutie under center. His play in 1999 was much better than some on here are suggesting.

 

I think in retrospect, we can all agree that RJ was an unmitigated disaster throughout his career. Flutie wasn't.

 

Apologies if I insinuated that in any way--you are correct that that isn't how your posts read at all. I haven't combed the entire thread, but if misinformation is being bandied about, then I can see why someone would get frustrated.

 

Yes, Johnson was bad. Shame...he had a ton of ability and played a few memorably good games (i.e. against STL and SF in '98, and then the effort he turned in against SD in 2001)...in the end though, just not a good QB.

 

I actually disagree with you about the 1998 version of Flutie. Yes, we were stymied on the goal line, but overall he had a good game against a good team and came up just short. He wasn't perfect but other guys made mistakes too. In 1998 he helped the team in many ways via his play and this was very important to the team. I would love for the Bills to have another 1998.

 

I don't think it is all about stats and think it is clear that Flutie helped the Bills more during his tenure than Losman during his.

 

It is pretty clear to me that most "Flutie people", and some "anti-Flutie" people, are irrational when it comes to this topic. The pro-Fluties will quickly jump to the "stats aren't everything" approach when comparing Flutie/Losman, but just as quickly go to stat lines when defending the impotent 2H99 Flutie.

 

It can't be disputed that some people thought Flutie was holding back the 99 Bills. Whether they are correct or not can be disputed, but if nobody thought Flutie was a problem, he would not have been benched.

 

The part I find the most confounding is people who say "you can't prove we wouldn't have won the Super Bowl with Flutie in there". True. I also can't prove we wouldn't have won the Super Bowl with Shaquille O'Neal playing QB but I do remember what my eyes told me in 1999.

 

I agree with most of this...my point about Flutie's playoff game against Miami is simply to say that we aren't talking about a guy that "just wins" as I've seen so many posters insinuate over the years. He was a guy that could get you through the regular season with a winning record provided he had an exceptional defense. That was good enough to get the team to the playoffs, just not enough to win.

 

Thank you.

 

Hey, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em sometimes.

[Orton's Arm]

In 1998, Doug Flutie averaged 7.7 yards per pass attempt. To put that number into perspective, Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt; and Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6 yards per attempt. At least statistically, 1998 was a ridiculously good year for Flutie--significantly better than the 7.1 yards per attempt Losman averaged in 2006.

 

In 1999, Flutie averaged 6.6 yards per attempt--the same as Losman's career average, and only 0.1 better than Edwards' career average. There were three potential explanations for why Flutie's 1999 numbers fell off the cliff. 1) Age was catching up to him. 2) Defenses had figured out that when you face Flutie, you defend the short stuff and make him beat you deep, 3) both.

 

Flutie's play in 1999 was bad enough that he deserved to be benched--especially if there was a viable alternative already on the roster. Rightly or wrongly, the Bills believed they had that viable alternative in the form of Rob Johnson.

 

The Bills' offensive line of the late '90s was decent at run-blocking, but almost completely non-functional in pass protection. John Fina was considered the second-best player on that OL after Ruben Brown. With one year left on Fina's existing contract, Butler signed him to a rich extension. A year after that signing, TD released Fina--who then proceeded to sign for the vet minimum with some other team. If even the second best player was a vet minimum guy, then what does that tell you about the third-, fourth-, and fifth-best starters on that line?

 

If you combine an offensive line like that with a "sack waiting to happen" QB in the form of Rob Johnson, you've got a recipe for disaster. Which is exactly what the Bills experienced. Johnson became the most sacked QB in NFL history. His sack percentage was about twice as high as the #2 guy on that list.

 

In 1999, the Bills should have had two starting QBs. Flutie made the OL look better than it was, so he should have been the starting QB in the first half; when the pass rush was at its best. Rob Johnson was much better than Flutie at exploiting opportunities deeper down the field--assuming sufficient pass protection of course--so he should have been the starting QB for the second half of games.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[MDH]

What's more irritating is the sanctimonious, holier than thou bull **** where anyone who has the audacity to voice displeasure with the way they've been treated is a "petulant child."

 

In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter, but if I'm at a bar watching the game, I hope I don't end up on the stool next to you.

 

Your posts entertain me.

 

It also amazes me the level of emotional attachment people still have for Flutie. It's like Tebow. I don't get it and I never will.

[Rob's House]

 

 

I still have that memory of this fat chick in her San Diego # 7 jersey jumping up and down like someone offered her free mighty taco in 2001 when they put Flutie in the game. He really lit it up. Something like 3 for 15 and 60 yards. So much for that magic.

 

I can't believe someone would be that pathetic to turn on their own team just because their favorite little smurf got tossed. To each their own

 

I don't want to have a beer with you either.

[boyst]

Don't worry Y2K will get us. But wow that new chick on the scene, Brittany something. She seems legit, like the next big star. Very responsible and quiet. Just a small town girl.

 

Can't believe it is 1999 and about to be 2000! A whole new milenia and this team is on the right track! John Butler is awesome!

[Gavin in Va Beach]

The only curse on this franchise is the Curse of the Ralph. Every successful period happened in spite of him... and he was responsible for bringing those successful periods to crashing halts. Letting Knox leave, firing Polian, benching Flutie to name but a few. New ownership is the only hope of having this curse exorcised.

 

This,

[dave mcbride]

In 1998, Doug Flutie averaged 7.7 yards per pass attempt. To put that number into perspective, Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt; and Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6 yards per attempt. At least statistically, 1998 was a ridiculously good year for Flutie--significantly better than the 7.1 yards per attempt Losman averaged in 2006.

 

In 1999, Flutie averaged 6.6 yards per attempt--the same as Losman's career average, and only 0.1 better than Edwards' career average. There were three potential explanations for why Flutie's 1999 numbers fell off the cliff. 1) Age was catching up to him. 2) Defenses had figured out that when you face Flutie, you defend the short stuff and make him beat you deep, 3) both.

 

Flutie's play in 1999 was bad enough that he deserved to be benched--especially if there was a viable alternative already on the roster. Rightly or wrongly, the Bills believed they had that viable alternative in the form of Rob Johnson.

 

The Bills' offensive line of the late '90s was decent at run-blocking, but almost completely non-functional in pass protection. John Fina was considered the second-best player on that OL after Ruben Brown. With one year left on Fina's existing contract, Butler signed him to a rich extension. A year after that signing, TD released Fina--who then proceeded to sign for the vet minimum with some other team. If even the second best player was a vet minimum guy, then what does that tell you about the third-, fourth-, and fifth-best starters on that line?

 

If you combine an offensive line like that with a "sack waiting to happen" QB in the form of Rob Johnson, you've got a recipe for disaster. Which is exactly what the Bills experienced. Johnson became the most sacked QB in NFL history. His sack percentage was about twice as high as the #2 guy on that list.

 

In 1999, the Bills should have had two starting QBs. Flutie made the OL look better than it was, so he should have been the starting QB in the first half; when the pass rush was at its best. Rob Johnson was much better than Flutie at exploiting opportunities deeper down the field--assuming sufficient pass protection of course--so he should have been the starting QB for the second half of games.

 

Good post. Here's what I would add. In the final half of the season, Flutie averaged 7.30 ypa (seven games - 1430 yards in 196 attempts). In the two games that preceded the final half of the season - games 7 and 8 - he threw 90 passes and averaged 4.99 ypa. Moulds was missing in both of those games with a hamstring injury, and he actually went out midway through the game before it (vs. the Raiders). They lost that game to the Raiders, 20-14, partly because Moulds wasn't available (he had 3 catches for 54 yards in the first half). Moulds ended up with 65 catches for 994 yards that season (15.3 ypc) and seven TDs, which was terrific. Prorated over 16 games, he'd have ended up with 1178 yards and 9 TDs. The year before, he had the best season ever for a Bills receiver.

 

If you take out the 2.5 games that Moulds didn't play in, Flutie averaged 7.1 ypa for the entire season with an 80.9 rating.

 

Granted, everyone has to deal with injuries, but Moulds was not only an elite player, Reed was on his last legs and slow. Flutie really didn't have a great receiving option beyond Riemersma, and it's not like he was a stud. Price had a decent rookie year for a rookie, but it was still only 31 catches.

 

My point is that it's a complicated picture, and if you take away the best offensive player on the team - Moulds (who was better than Flutie at his job that season) - of course Flutie was going to suffer. It had nothing to do with Flutie's arm and everything to do with the loss of Moulds. Remember, Flutie played great in 2000 too -- 7.4 ypa in a pretty big sample size (231 attempts). Moulds played in those games.

 

Recall also that Bledsoe went into the tank after game 5 of 2003. At the end of game 5 against the Bengals, Moulds hurt his groin pretty badly (ironically, on a catch-and-run that won the game for the Bills). He missed a bunch of games and was probably running a 4.9 (I'm being charitable here) in the rest of them. In those first five games, Bledsoe had an 84.6 rating with 7.4 ypa. The rest of the way, his rating was 67.3 with a 5.4 ypa average. Basically, the Bills passing games those years was built around a healthy Eric Moulds, who for 4-5 seasons was one of the best offensive players in the league.

 

Anyway, outside of Moulds, that 1999 team was not talented on offense. Thomas went out in game 1 and barely played at all. Jonathan Freaking Linton was their leading rusher, after all.

Edited November 14, 2013 by dave mcbride

[Rob's House]

 

 

Your posts entertain me.

 

It also amazes me the level of emotional attachment people still have for Flutie. It's like Tebow. I don't get it and I never will.

 

I should have clarified - I don't weigh people's outlook on sports too heavily when assessing character, so I probably would have a beer with you .... But I wouldn't like it.

 

You are right about that though. I don't know if it was the underdog story, the heartbreaking end, the blue collar angle, or some combination, but I was a lot more emotionally invested in Flutie and that team than I've been in football since.

[dubs]

Don't worry Y2K will get us. But wow that new chick on the scene, Brittany something. She seems legit, like the next big star. Very responsible and quiet. Just a small town girl.

 

Can't believe it is 1999 and about to be 2000! A whole new milenia and this team is on the right track! John Butler is awesome!

 

I get the subliminal message here:

 

Don't worry Y2K will get us. But wow that new chick on the scene, Brittany something. She seems legit, like the next big star. Very responsible and quiet. Just a small town girl.

 

Can't believe it is 1999 and about to be 2000! A whole new milenia and this team is on the right track! John Butler is awesome!

[Orton's Arm]

 

 

Good post. Here's what I would add. In the final half of the season, Flutie averaged 7.30 ypa (seven games - 1430 yards in 196 attempts). In the two games that preceded the final half of the season - games 7 and 8 - he threw 90 passes and averaged 4.99 ypa. Moulds was missing in both of those games, and he actually went out midway through the game before it (vs. the Raiders). They lost that game to the Raiders, 20-14, partly because Moulds wasn't available (he had 3 catches for 54 yards in the first half). Moulds ended up with 65 catches for 994 yards that season (15.3 ypc) and seven TDs, which was terrific. Prorated over 16 games, he'd have ended up with 1178 yards and 9 TDs. The year before, he had the best season ever for a Bills receiver.

 

If you take out the 2.5 games that Moulds didn't play in, Flutie averaged 7.1 ypa for the entire season with an 80.9 rating.

 

Granted, everyone has to deal with injuries, but Moulds was not only an elite player, Reed was on his last legs and slow. He really didn't have a great receiving option beyond Riemersma, and it's not like he was a stud. Price had a decent rookie year for a rookie, but it was still only 31 catches.

 

My point is that it's a complicated picture, and if you take away the best offensive player on the team - Moulds (who was better than Flutie at his job that season) - of course Flutie was going to suffer. It had nothing to do with Flutie's arm and everything to do with the loss of Moulds. Remember, Flutie played great in 2000 too -- 7.4 ypa in a pretty big sample size (231 attempts). Moulds played in those games.

 

Recall also that Bledsoe went into the tank after game 5 of 2003. At the end of game 5 against the Bengals, Moulds hurt his groin pretty badly. He missed a bunch of games and was probably running a 4.9 in the rest of them. In those first five games, Bledsoe had an 84.6 rating with 7.4 ypa. The rest of the way, his rating was 67.3 with a 5.4 ypa average. Basically, the Bills passing games those years was built around Moulds.

 

Outside of Moulds, that team was not talented on offense. Thomas went out in game 1 and barely played at all. Jonathan Freaking Linton was their leading rusher.

 

Good post. You've partially convinced me that Flutie's mediocre statistics from '99 were largely a function of the Moulds injury.