YoloinOhio Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) I'd take Fitzpatrick over Orton any day of the week. I would take him over Cassel, too. (and Kolb)sure, he's still playing and two out of those 3 aren't, for a reason. but that doesn't make him good. None of those guys are good either. They are all bad. Edited August 26, 2015 by YoloinOhio
boyst Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 sure, he's still playing and two out of those 3 aren't, for a reason. but that doesn't make him good. None of those guys are good either. They are all bad. the desire to win settles this argument. Fitz had it. Kolb was a kitty. Orton a little btch.
Beef Jerky Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Thought this was a decent read - the video clips and still shots are pretty compelling... http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2015/film-room-ryan-fitzpatrick Why did they waste their time? Fitz will ALWAYS be a garbage QB who can't win you more then 6 games. Edited August 26, 2015 by Beef Jerky
YoloinOhio Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 the desire to win settles this argument. Fitz had it. Kolb was a kitty. Orton a little btch. yup
26CornerBlitz Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 the desire to win settles this argument. Fitz had it. Kolb was a kitty. Orton a little btch.
Uncle Joe Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 Fitz pays people to injure the other QBs when he goes to a new city, right? He keeps getting the chance to start! Even when he was given the job and then benched, he got the job back! Broke his leg last year and questionable ribs after London Fletcher hit. I don't think he wills or pays injury on anyone. the desire to win settles this argument. Fitz had it. Kolb was a kitty. Orton a little btch. Agreed. I don't think he threw the long ball as well after the London Fletcher hit. He's a career no 2 with no quit.
PolishDave Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 I'd take Fitzpatrick over Orton any day of the week. I would take him over Cassel, too. (and Kolb) Yep. The guy who wrote that article is a tool. It was obviously biased and apparent that he very much dislikes Fitz. Insult a guys intelligence because he went to Harvard? WTF? I wonder what kind of genius degree that reporter has? Oh wait, do you need a college degree to be a sports reporter? Talk about jealousy. What a friggin dick. He thinks Geno is better than Fitz.....Yeah okay....How could you anybody take this reporter seriously after that.... Fitz won't ever see a Superbowl as a starting quarterback, but worse than Geno? Come on man......
YoloinOhio Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 Yep. The guy who wrote that article is a tool. It was obviously biased and apparent that he very much dislikes Fitz. Insult a guys intelligence because he went to Harvard? WTF? I wonder what kind of genius degree that reporter has? Oh wait, do you need a college degree to be a sports reporter? Talk about jealousy. What a friggin dick. He thinks Geno is better than Fitz.....Yeah okay....How could you anybody take this reporter seriously after that.... Fitz won't ever see a Superbowl as a starting quarterback, but worse than Geno? Come on man...... he's not a "sports reporter." he didn't say Geno was better right now. He said they performed about the same, yet Fitz has about 10 yrs more experience. And Geno has a better second half of last season. And was beating him out in camp. He is saying if that's the case you play geno because he may have upside whereas fitz is who he is. Which is what the Jets planned/plan to do.
PolishDave Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 he's not a "sports reporter." he didn't say Geno was better right now. He said they performed about the same, yet Fitz has about 10 yrs more experience. And Geno has a better second half of last season. And was beating him out in camp. He is saying if that's the case you play geno because he may have upside whereas fitz is who he is. Which is what the Jets planned/plan to do. I assumed he was a reporter... My bad. But regardless of what he is, he basically insulted Fitz's intelligence. Here are some of the stupid things he said -" Statistically, Smith is worse than Fitzpatrick. Yet their play on the field hasn't been that much different." - Did he watch them both play? Cuz from everything I watched (not every game both have ever played mind you) it wasn't anywhere near close. Fitz was head and shoulders above Geno. Another - "Last year was Fitzpatrick's statistically most impressive. " "Fitzpatrick is past his prime." "Those numbers only help paint the mirage that Fitzpatrick has become" - Doesn't that sound contradictory? He basically says last year was Fitz's best year statistically, but it was all a mirage and Fitzpatrick is past his prime. - His own figures and statistics contradict the very thing he says. The guy is a hater. Then he goes and makes up an imaginary statistic of how many interceptions he should have thrown "but the defenders dropped them". Whatever...since when is that a QB stat? Then he says that Hopkins and Johnson were such good receivers that they pulled a bunch of Fitzpatrick's bad passes away from what would otherwise be intercepting defenders. Give me a friggin break. So Fitz completes a pass to his receivers, but he doesn't deserve full credit for it because those receivers are too good for Fitz to deserve the credit for anything they catch. After all, if they weren't such good receivers, those passes would have certainly been picked off. - What a joke. That was not an objective piece of writing and/or analysis in my opinion. I have no idea who that guy is who wrote the piece, but I can tell you one thing, he is a Fitz hater who threw in a couple nice statements in an effort to appear non-biased. As I said, I don't think Fitz is going to win any team any superbowls, but geeze....he made it out like Fitz has been and always will be bottom of the barrel. And because Fitz went to Harvard, is doesn't mean he is smart or that he knows anything about football. Dude who wrote that piece is a tool.
YoloinOhio Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 I assumed he was a reporter... My bad. But regardless of what he is, he basically insulted Fitz's intelligence. Here are some of the stupid things he said -" Statistically, Smith is worse than Fitzpatrick. Yet their play on the field hasn't been that much different." - Did he watch them both play? Cuz from everything I watched (not every game both have ever played mind you) it wasn't anywhere near close. Fitz was head and shoulders above Geno. Another - "Last year was Fitzpatrick's statistically most impressive. " "Fitzpatrick is past his prime." "Those numbers only help paint the mirage that Fitzpatrick has become" - Doesn't that sound contradictory? He basically says last year was Fitz's best year statistically, but it was all a mirage and Fitzpatrick is past his prime. - His own figures and statistics contradict the very thing he says. The guy is a hater. Then he goes and makes up an imaginary statistic of how many interceptions he should have thrown "but the defenders dropped them". Whatever...since when is that a QB stat? Then he says that Hopkins and Johnson were such good receivers that they pulled a bunch of Fitzpatrick's bad passes away from what would otherwise be intercepting defenders. Give me a friggin break. So Fitz completes a pass to his receivers, but he doesn't deserve full credit for it because those receivers are too good for Fitz to deserve the credit for anything they catch. After all, if they weren't such good receivers, those passes would have certainly been picked off. - What a joke. That was not an objective piece of writing and/or analysis in my opinion. I have no idea who that guy is who wrote the piece, but I can tell you one thing, he is a Fitz hater who threw in a couple nice statements in an effort to appear non-biased. As I said, I don't think Fitz is going to win any team any superbowls, but geeze....he made it out like Fitz has been and always will be bottom of the barrel. And because Fitz went to Harvard, is doesn't mean he is smart or that he knows anything about football. Dude who wrote that piece is a tool. he did kind of rip him apart which is something people don't usually see with Fitz. They tend to give him the benefit of the doubt IMO. But I think he used the Harvard angle to disprove the myth that he's a smart football player, simply because he went to Harvard. There are very intelligent people who aren't smart on the football field like Fitz, and others who may not be the most intelligent on paper but are very smart football players. John miller may be like that - low wonderlic score but blew away the coaches with football intelligence. I think that's what the writer was getting at.
PolishDave Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 he did kind of rip him apart which is something people don't usually see with Fitz. They tend to give him the benefit of the doubt IMO. But I think he used the Harvard angle to disprove the myth that he's a smart football player, simply because he went to Harvard. There are very intelligent people who aren't smart on the football field like Fitz, and others who may not be the most intelligent on paper but are very smart football players. John miller may be like that - low wonderlic score but blew away the coaches with football intelligence. I think that's what the writer was getting at. If that was really his intent there, then he did a poor job of it. There are nicer ways to say it. I got sucked in with the first three paragraphs where it seemed pretty straightforward.. Then he ripped the Band-aid off. He can rip Fitz all he wants to. It is a free country. (well, sort of) But that piece just seemed filled with hate in between the lines. Why not just come out and say, "Just so you readers know...I hate Fitzpatrick and I think he sucks." You can tell that is what his opinion is. He just pretended to be politically correct for a few paragraphs before showing his true colors.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 27, 2015 Author Posted August 27, 2015 the desire to win settles this argument. Fitz had it. Kolb was a kitty. Orton a little btch. 100% right.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) The first example is terrible analysis. He says the smart play would be to throw to the crossing Bilal Powell. Powell is 9 yards from the first down and there are two defenders looking right at the play waiting to tackle him right at the first down marker. He would have had to elude two guys with no blockers. That's just a bad example. You can see both guys looking straight at Fitz with no one between them and the potential receiver. Actually there are three defenders that would be able to tackle him once the pass is made. Edited August 27, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
DC Greg Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 the desire to win settles this argument. Fitz had it. Kolb was a kitty. Orton a little btch. The desire to win? Is that why every time he had the ball in his hands with a chance to win it he single handedly lost it? The guy was a lock to throw a game ending interception on a drive that should have been to win the game. He is the anti clutch. He's a nice guy and all, and maybe he wanted to win badly, but that just doesn't get it done I'm afraid. How did Kevin Kolb get brought into this? He never played a snap for the Bills.
Bronc24 Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) did you read the article? It doesn't matter whether he throws a lot, a little, has a good d, a good running game... It doesn't matter. He had those things in Houston and got benched. He's not good. Hes been on a million teams and its always the same. He might look ok now and then. That's not good enough. Forget read the article....did you watch Fitz play? I still have Titans and Giants game nightmares. C'mon, man! Pickspatrick plain sucks and I am glad we face him twice this season. Edited August 27, 2015 by Bronc24
eball Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 I'd take Fitzpatrick over Orton any day of the week. I would take him over Cassel, too. (and Kolb) Orton would have been great for us last year if we had this coaching staff. I've never liked Kolb. And I think Cassel is also better than Fitz. The full windup to throw an erratic 20-yard out pattern was what finally sealed the deal for me with Fitz -- he's just not starting QB material.
Agent 91 Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 I'd take Fitzpatrick over Orton any day of the week. I would take him over Cassel, too. (and Kolb) I would have with marrone. But Fritz is not better than EJ not even close. And i dont want to jeopardize EJs development by forcing him into play. I need him to be third behind 2 startable qbs. I just dont think fitz could keep the status quo
dave mcbride Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 I assumed he was a reporter... My bad. But regardless of what he is, he basically insulted Fitz's intelligence. Here are some of the stupid things he said -" Statistically, Smith is worse than Fitzpatrick. Yet their play on the field hasn't been that much different." - Did he watch them both play? Cuz from everything I watched (not every game both have ever played mind you) it wasn't anywhere near close. Fitz was head and shoulders above Geno. Another - "Last year was Fitzpatrick's statistically most impressive. " "Fitzpatrick is past his prime." "Those numbers only help paint the mirage that Fitzpatrick has become" - Doesn't that sound contradictory? He basically says last year was Fitz's best year statistically, but it was all a mirage and Fitzpatrick is past his prime. - His own figures and statistics contradict the very thing he says. The guy is a hater. Then he goes and makes up an imaginary statistic of how many interceptions he should have thrown "but the defenders dropped them". Whatever...since when is that a QB stat? Then he says that Hopkins and Johnson were such good receivers that they pulled a bunch of Fitzpatrick's bad passes away from what would otherwise be intercepting defenders. Give me a friggin break. So Fitz completes a pass to his receivers, but he doesn't deserve full credit for it because those receivers are too good for Fitz to deserve the credit for anything they catch. After all, if they weren't such good receivers, those passes would have certainly been picked off. - What a joke. That was not an objective piece of writing and/or analysis in my opinion. I have no idea who that guy is who wrote the piece, but I can tell you one thing, he is a Fitz hater who threw in a couple nice statements in an effort to appear non-biased. As I said, I don't think Fitz is going to win any team any superbowls, but geeze....he made it out like Fitz has been and always will be bottom of the barrel. And because Fitz went to Harvard, is doesn't mean he is smart or that he knows anything about football. Dude who wrote that piece is a tool. Smith played very well in the last 4 games of last season and throws a very nice ball. He actually does have potential.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 he did kind of rip him apart which is something people don't usually see with Fitz. They tend to give him the benefit of the doubt IMO. But I think he used the Harvard angle to disprove the myth that he's a smart football player, simply because he went to Harvard. There are very intelligent people who aren't smart on the football field like Fitz, and others who may not be the most intelligent on paper but are very smart football players. John miller may be like that - low wonderlic score but blew away the coaches with football intelligence. I think that's what the writer was getting at. The thing is, pretty much every coach Fitz has been around has extolled his football intelligence and ability to make decisions on the field - Chan Gailey and Obrien being two. Neither of them are stupid guys. And I think that was pretty much what most here concluded, Fitz = million dollar head, great big heart, $5 arm and a brain that led him to make decisions his arm couldn't deliver. He picks some film where open players were missed or better decisions could have been made, but that's very easy to do with a season's worth - I wager one could find a dozen missed opportunities or more on Russ Wilson's game film or Joe Flacco's, and the general tone of the article dissing on Fitz Harvard degree and running statistics for "interceptions not made" - what's next, "passes that should have been caught"? too bad they don't give points for that - as I said, the general tone doesn't create the aura of objectivity that would make me comfortable this guy isn't cherry-picking plays to make his point.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 Thought this was a decent read - the video clips and still shots are pretty compelling... http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2015/film-room-ryan-fitzpatrick Outstanding analysis. Great share...
Recommended Posts