Clippers of Nfl Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Pro Bowl is a joke. I don't care how many Pro Bowls anyone goes to. It's a joke. It's like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. For the last time ... WINS AND LOSSES ARE NOT QUARTERBACK STATISTICS. THEY ARE TEAM STATISTICS. You're just evading man. So the team sucked when Rj was qb but the team was good when Flutie quarterbacked? C'mon man you're losing. Just admit and move along.
Rob's House Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Actually let's look at more stats 1998 flutie named to the pro bowl. 10-6 1999 flutie goes 10-5 and most likely would have killed the colts too. 2000 as a back up goes 4-1 So what do you mean not good enough to be an nfl qb. Rob Johnson goes 4-7 with same team in 2000. So obviosuly Flutie does make a difference. How do you challenge this Gugny? Nothing good in in his nfl career doesnt make sense. That's the part the anti-Flutie crowd can never explain away.
Gugny Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 That's the part the anti-Flutie crowd can never explain away. Explanation is easy. Wins and Losses are not QB stats. They are team stats.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 That's the part the anti-Flutie crowd can never explain away. Its cause Flutie is a bad teammate Explanation is easy. Wins and Losses are not QB stats. They are team stats. They were a better "team" with Flutie then
Rob's House Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Explanation is easy. Wins and Losses are not QB stats. They are team stats. Normally I'd agree, but when you hold all other variables constant, save for QB, and you have vastly different results over a significant period of time, it's fair to conclude that the variable made a difference.
thebandit27 Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 That's the part the anti-Flutie crowd can never explain away. Normally I'd agree, but when you hold all other variables constant, save for QB, and you have vastly different results over a significant period of time, it's fair to conclude that the variable made a difference. As someone that doesn't like Flutie, the explanation is very, very simple: he was better than Rob Johnson; vis-a-vis, he was good enough to win with a top 3 defense. Unfortunately, being better than Rob Johnson doesn't make someone a great QB.
Storm Front Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Neither Rob Johnson or Alex Van Pelt could have led the Bills to the playoffs in '98 and '99. Flutie did, though. The team stunk in '97 with Todd Collins at the helm, and they stunk in 2000 whenever Rob Johnson was trotted out there.
Chimp Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 This. Belichek came up with the blueprint and it was essentially over for Flutiemania. Although it would die a slow death. The following year the Bills did have the best defense I've ever seen them have(sorry too young for 65 but I don't see how that era is relevant in discussing games from the late 90s). People had the Bills as dark horse Super Bowl contenders. It's okay man. We're discussing NFL teams here.
Rob's House Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 As someone that doesn't like Flutie, the explanation is very, very simple: he was better than Rob Johnson; vis-a-vis, he was good enough to win with a top 3 defense. Unfortunately, being better than Rob Johnson doesn't make someone a great QB. I'm not saying he was an objectively GREAT QB. I am saying he was an objectively GOOD QB who was a great fit for that team. Great defense or not, you need to at least have a good QB to win consistently in the NFL.
thebandit27 Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 I'm not saying he was an objectively GREAT QB. I am saying he was an objectively GOOD QB who was a great fit for that team. Great defense or not, you need to at least have a good QB to win consistently in the NFL. I felt he was average, which was all that team needed to be a playoff team at the time...that actually sounds really familiar
A Dog Named Kelso Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Pro Bowl is a joke. I don't care how many Pro Bowls anyone goes to. It's a joke. It's like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. For the last time ... WINS AND LOSSES ARE NOT QUARTERBACK STATISTICS. THEY ARE TEAM STATISTICS. Sorry I don't remember are the NFL Pro Bowl selections made partially by players? If so, wouldn't his being a bad teammate preclude that?
Gugny Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Sorry I don't remember are the NFL Pro Bowl selections made partially by players? If so, wouldn't his being a bad teammate preclude that? Coaches, players and fans. Popularity contest, in my opinion. They need to do away with it altogether. Different conversation, though.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Coaches, players and fans. Popularity contest, in my opinion. They need to do away with it altogether. Different conversation, though. So if he was a bad teammate ... wouldn't that trickle through the NFL and preclude him from being selected? i.e. He would not be popular among them, no?
Gugny Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 So if he was a bad teammate ... wouldn't that trickle through the NFL and preclude him from being selected? i.e. He would not be popular among them, no? I think voting was different back then, but I'm never going to agree that a pro bowl selection means a player is good, liked or respected.
Clippers of Nfl Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Its cause Flutie is a bad teammate They were a better "team" with Flutie then He doesnt have an anwer for this one. Under Rj same team plays bad, but for whatever reason, when Flutie leads the same "team" they play better. (Oh crap, now he is going to say something silly like the schedule was softer when Flutie was at the helm. Damn I just gave him a tip) Here is what I think: I think Flutie haters (like Gugny), remember him scrambling his @ off, throwing some bad passes, getting benched for RJ. The negative stuff. So that negative memory is tattoed to their brain. Even with all the valid, YES GUGNY, VALID PROOF. All they can do is cite bs articles or evade the real stuff. Just admit it. I would. I would be like, "Wow, I thought he sucked, but now that Clippers' put it in perspective, he was not all that bad as my memory thought" So that's why he's evading. Typing about the probowl. Who cares about the probowl. That was just one example. His first year. Edited October 23, 2014 by Clippers of Nfl
transient Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) He doesnt have an anwer for this one. Under Rj same team plays bad, but for whatever reason, when Flutie leads the same "team" they play better. (Oh crap, now he is going to say something silly like the schedule was softer when Flutie was at the helm. Damn I just gave him a tip) Actually, while you may poo-poo the schedule issue in 2000 in an effort to minimize the legitimacy, it's a valid argument. The only team with a losing record that they lost to that season was NE* (5-11) at home, a game which Johnson started but was knocked out in the second quarter with NE* up 3-0, which goes on his W-L, but which they lost in OT 13-10 with Flutie in the game. Otherwise, the Bills that season split with the Jets (9-7), lost both games to Indy (10-6), lost both to Miami (11-5), and lost to Tampa Bay on the road (10-6) with Johnson starting. They lost to Minnesota (11-5) on the road with Flutie starting. The Bills beat Tennessee (13-3) at home, Green Bay (9-7) at home, San Diego (1-15) at home, and Kansas City (7-9) on the road with Johnson starting, and beat the Jets (9-7) at home, NE* (5-11) on the road, Chicago (5-11) at home, and Seattle (6-10) on the road with Flutie starting. Regardless of QB play that year, they were a middle of the road team with Eric Moulds, Ted Washington, Pat Williams, a few aging talents, and an otherwise non-descript roster that was about to undergo a salary cap purge, and were being managed by a GM whose heart was already in San Diego. Edited October 23, 2014 by transient
Clippers of Nfl Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Actually, while you may poo-poo the schedule issue in 2000 in an effort to minimize the legitimacy, it's a valid argument. The only team with a losing record that they lost to that season was NE* (5-11) at home, a game which Johnson started but was knocked out in the second quarter with NE* up 3-0, which goes on his W-L, but which they lost in OT 13-10 with Flutie in the game. Otherwise, the Bills that season split with the Jets (9-7), lost both games to Indy (10-6), lost both to Miami (11-5), and lost to Tampa Bay on the road (10-6) with Johnson starting. They lost to Minnesota (11-5) on the road with Flutie starting. The Bills beat Tennessee (13-3) at home, Green Bay (9-7) at home, San Diego (1-15) at home, and Kansas City (7-9) on the road with Johnson starting, and beat the Jets (9-7) at home, NE* (5-11) on the road, Chicago (5-11) at home, and Seattle (6-10) on the road with Flutie starting. Regardless of QB play that year, they were a middle of the road team with Eric Moulds, Ted Washington, Pat Williams, a few aging talents, and an otherwise non-descript roster that was about to undergo a salary cap purge, and were being managed by a GM who's heart was already in San Diego. it's hard to win an argument over the nfl.
Gugny Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 He doesnt have an anwer for this one. Under Rj same team plays bad, but for whatever reason, when Flutie leads the same "team" they play better. (Oh crap, now he is going to say something silly like the schedule was softer when Flutie was at the helm. Damn I just gave him a tip) Here is what I think: I think Flutie haters (like Gugny), remember him scrambling his @ off, throwing some bad passes, getting benched for RJ. The negative stuff. So that negative memory is tattoed to their brain. Even with all the valid, YES GUGNY, VALID PROOF. All they can do is cite bs articles or evade the real stuff. Just admit it. I would. I would be like, "Wow, I thought he sucked, but now that Clippers' put it in perspective, he was not all that bad as my memory thought" So that's why he's evading. Typing about the probowl. Who cares about the probowl. That was just one example. His first year. You want me to say that Flutie was better than Rob Johnson? Okay. He was. Guess what? I can drive better than Stevie Wonder. Does that necessarily make me a better driver? No. It just means I'm better at driving. My hatred for Flutie (I can't believe I have to type this again) has VERY LITTLE to do with his sucktitude on the field. I think it's been proven that he was a far less than average NFL QB. What stats do not show is that he was a crappy teammate. He had no respect for anyone. He only cared about his own success. And he defined his success as being the starter. I don't know how else to say it. I've given him credit where it's due (college, CFL and, to a very limited extent, NFL).
LA Grant Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 You want me to say that Flutie was better than Rob Johnson? Okay. He was. Guess what? I can drive better than Stevie Wonder. Does that necessarily make me a better driver? No. It just means I'm better at driving. My hatred for Flutie (I can't believe I have to type this again) has VERY LITTLE to do with his sucktitude on the field. I think it's been proven that he was a far less than average NFL QB. What stats do not show is that he was a crappy teammate. He had no respect for anyone. He only cared about his own success. And he defined his success as being the starter. I don't know how else to say it. I've given him credit where it's due (college, CFL and, to a very limited extent, NFL). There's no proof that Flutie was a bad teammate other than slander and rumors from people with a VESTED INTEREST in his failure.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) There's no proof that Flutie was a bad teammate other than slander and rumors from people with a VESTED INTEREST in his failure. I am not sure this is something a can be quantified you either believe it or you do not. I can certainly see where the situation in the locker room would have created tension and the Salary, investment and promise of Johnson was not conducive to putting the best player on the field. And as such would have upset Flutie and other players. But to believe one side over another in a situation like that seems illogical. Are there any articles in which Flutie goes out of his way to call out Johnson(or any other player)? Because the Gleeson piece looks to be just the reverse so, why would anyone respect that player as opposed the one who kept his mouth shut? Also, this sort of thing happens in the NFL I believe Warner came out and told Leinhart he should be playing ahead of him. So, why place so much judgement on Flutie for a similar belief? Edited October 24, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso
Recommended Posts