apuszczalowski Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Let the record state that it was 100% RW's call. Wade and the coaching staff were against it but were forced to oblige. 692459[/snapback] Well, If I was forced to make the choice of going with an aging veteran who had one really good year followed by a mediocre one after spending most of his career in the CFL, or an injury prone young QB who has skill but needs alot of work and has to be able to stay healthy to finally show these skills, I'd chose neither. But if I'm forced to chose one (in a rebuilding year) I would have to go with the younger RJ just because of the youth factor. He's younger and could still develop into a servicable starter until a better option is found. Flutie would have been the choice had the team been on the verge of being a SB contender the next year, but they were starting a rebuilding process instead. And as I said before, If Flutie is such a great QB how come he has only had one season as a starter since leaving Buffalo? Wouldn't atleast some team desperate for a good QB be willing to bring him in to be more then a backup?
Dawgg Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 I was referring to the Tennessee playoff game, not the following season. Well, If I was forced to make the choice of going with an aging veteran who had one really good year followed by a mediocre one after spending most of his career in the CFL, or an injury prone young QB who has skill but needs alot of work and has to be able to stay healthy to finally show these skills, I'd chose neither. But if I'm forced to chose one (in a rebuilding year) I would have to go with the younger RJ just because of the youth factor. He's younger and could still develop into a servicable starter until a better option is found. Flutie would have been the choice had the team been on the verge of being a SB contender the next year, but they were starting a rebuilding process instead. And as I said before, If Flutie is such a great QB how come he has only had one season as a starter since leaving Buffalo? Wouldn't atleast some team desperate for a good QB be willing to bring him in to be more then a backup? 692470[/snapback]
colin Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 Exhibit A right here folks, ignore the facts and just recycle the same personal insults. 692455[/snapback] that's a pretty good response. who did i insult personally? i made general insults. fluie is garbage
bbills17 Posted May 16, 2006 Posted May 16, 2006 that's a pretty good response. who did i insult personally? i made general insults. fluie is garbage 692547[/snapback] It's ok Rob, you could have been 'someone' it just didn't work out for you.
The Jokeman Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 2 things right here: 1 "Hated the bills" are/were you a flutie fan or a bills fan? 2 "he lead us to the playoffs twice and no other QB taken us since." no, he played QB (at an average level AT BEST) for a very good team. he didn't lead jack chit. did fiedler LEAD miami to play off victories? 692403[/snapback] Let's also not forget "Doug's NFL playoff" record is 0-2 as he lead the 1986 Bears and 1998 Bills to playoff losses.
alg Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 A Rennaissance for those of low standards. For others he was a limelighter who was part of the decline. 691867[/snapback] Right on. And Buftex, very well said. Someday I would like to hear the real reason for the demise of this team. I always felt that it was the DF/RJ fued. Wade really never recovered from it after DFs benching. And I always felt that was about our little egomaniac who put himself before the team. Lots of RJ jokes over the years, but when it comes to class, DF could have learned a few things from him.
Dawgg Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 ... like how to play yourself out of the league? RJ couldn't even stick onto an NFL roster as a viable 3rd stringer. He was picked up by Gruden, Spurrier, and Callahan, 3 men who have a decent reputation with quarterbacks and the offensive side of the ball. All coaches realized something that you and the Bills took many years to figure out -- he simply never had what it took to win in the NFL. I'll take an ego-maniac who wins ballgames over some pretty boy who says all the right things, only to tease you with "potential." If you think 2 straight playoff berths represent low standards, I'm curious as to how you feel about the recent ineptitude at OBD. Lots of RJ jokes over the years, but when it comes to class, DF could have learned a few things from him. 692719[/snapback]
BilltheCat Posted May 17, 2006 Posted May 17, 2006 Agreed. Count me in as one of the Flutie "fanatics," though I never saw him as some sort of heir apparent to Jim Kelly - more like a Dave Krieg type that could keep the Bills respectable and competitive until the OL was rebuilt and a real QB brought in (still waiting on both of these...). The Flutie detractors are just angry because their hero, RJ, embarrassed their reputations here on football matters by proving to be a giant, pathetic bust. Flutie set this franchise's development back? Give me a break. Flutie generated new fans at a time when the Bills' future in Buffalo was tenuous. RJ is the QB who set this franchise back several years. And the attacks on Flutie's character make his haters even more pathetic. For one thing, the complaints of him being a "locker-room cancer" are pretty much just rumors or anecdotal bullstevestrojan. I've noticed that some of the very same Flutie haters on this board also scoff at Vikings' RB Mewelde Moore's comments about JP. But assuming that Flutie is every bit of the things his critics say - arrogant, selfish, ultra-competitive - over half of the NFL has guys like him. We just don't hear about them as much because the QB is usually the most vocal player to the media. Again, to highlight some of TSW's hypocritical nature, some of the Flutie haters can now be seen defending similar Bills divas like McGahee and Moulds. Last but not least are the tired, sophomoric, and very unfunny height jokes. The Flutie haters can't resist 'em. They'll sometimes even explain Flutie's character by drudging up the "Napoleon Complex" psychobabble, without providing an explanation for a tall man with similar character traits . Short jokes are TSW's male equivalence to their fat women jokes, and are rooted in the supreme, "Flutie-like" arrogance of the vast TSW fanbase - comprised mostly of socially awkward teenagers and cynical yuppie burnouts. End of rant. See ya. 692319[/snapback] Don't always agree with what you say but this time I think you are fairly accurate in your assessment. Especially the "cynical yuppie burnouts" - LOL; couldn't be more accurate. Only those of weak mind and serious self-esteem problems utilize physical degradation to attack others and attempt to hide behind humor to justify it.
Orton's Arm Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 Flutie made some magic happen buffalo, especially in '98. But the knock on flutie was that once a defense had a few games worth of tape on him, he becomes very easy to stop. Hence 1999. Sure we went 10-6, but flutie didnt exactly lead a high powered offense. Our defense won many games for us. (if you want to argue this statement, look at flutie in 2001 in SD. He started 5-2 for them, and ended the season losing the last 9 games) In regards to the homerun thowforward, RJ did a good enough job to win the game. Would doug have won? Who knows, because he didnt play. After watching flutie all season, i was happy to see RJ step in for the playoff game. BUT, even though i wanted RJ, i do see that doug got screwed by not being able to start. Fast forward to 2001. New Bills GM Tom Donahoe has a decision to make at QB. Does he pay doug flutie or Rob Johnson. If TD thought we could have won some games and made a playoff run in 2001, the prudent thing to do would have been to keep flutie. But TD decided that the Bills were already crumbling, and the appropriate thing to do was rebuild. In this case, the RJ decision was a smart one, pick a young QB to lead your rebuilding as opposed ot an old vet who has hit the ceiling. (does this scenario sound familiar right now?) By that time i was sick of the dwarf and his little antics and his ego. I was glad to see flutie get sh---canned, and was even happier to see him fail time and time again in san diego. So yes i hate flutie and hes a little B word and a worthless prick. He is also highly overrated. Flutie is nothing more that a very solid backup QB. He's great for stretches of games, but in the long run, you're going nowhere with him, and your offense is going to get sick of his passes being batted down. But i was happy for the time he gave us on the Bills, and was happy for the games that he won in buffalo. So there ya have it. I'm an RJ supporter who appreciated some of what doug did for the team. today...doug can go !@#$ himself. I know you and I have had our differences, especially when it comes to the quarterback position. Nonetheless, I agree with the heart of your post. Defenses figured Flutie out. He deserved to be benched for the Tennessee game, because his production had been mediocre during the regular season. The Bills were winning games despite Flutie, not because of him. Johnson had real potential. It's too bad he couldn't learn to sense and avoid pressure; to dump the ball off if nothing was open. That said, I felt he played very well in the second half of the Tennessee game. One play in particular comes to mind. It was 3rd and long, with the Bills trailing. One of Johnson's shoes came off, and it looked like he was going to call timeout to put it back on. Instead, the offense ran a play, and Johnson converted a clutch 3rd down pass to Peerless Price. It was a great play, despite the direction Johnson's career would take.
Dawgg Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 ... you're really reaching here. It's amazing how much sense you have regarding the KH vs. JPL debate yet how nuts you are when it comes to the DF and RJ debate! This agrument of yours is analogous to you saying, "I remember that KC game when JP threw 3 long TD passes, he was so great that day. If only he could learn how to be accurate and show some discipline in the pocket" Johnson had real potential. It's too bad he couldn't learn to sense and avoid pressure; to dump the ball off if nothing was open. That said, I felt he played very well in the second half of the Tennessee game. One play in particular comes to mind. It was 3rd and long, with the Bills trailing. One of Johnson's shoes came off, and it looked like he was going to call timeout to put it back on. Instead, the offense ran a play, and Johnson converted a clutch 3rd down pass to Peerless Price. It was a great play, despite the direction Johnson's career would take. 693402[/snapback]
Orton's Arm Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 ... you're really reaching here. It's amazing how much sense you have regarding the KH vs. JPL debate yet how nuts you are when it comes to the DF and RJ debate! This agrument of yours is analogous to you saying, "I remember that KC game when JP threw 3 long TD passes, he was so great that day. If only he could learn how to be accurate and show some discipline in the pocket" The last time I checked, Rob Johnson had a higher QB rating than Jim Kelly. Unfortunately, sacks and injuries canceled out the potential Johnson's QB rating implied.
tennesseeboy Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 Let's also not forget "Doug's NFL playoff" record is 0-2 as he lead the 1986 Bears and 1998 Bills to playoff losses. 692625[/snapback] Right...after getting them into the playoffs. Something no bills quarterback has done since.
Dawgg Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 Wow. Incredible. RJ had a higher QB rating than Jim Kelly... so what are you trying to imply? That sacks and injuries were all that prevented him from becoming one of the all-time greats? That is absolutely hilarious. Your QB rating argument is a self-fulfiling prophecy. QB Rating takes into account interception %, completion %, TD% and YPC. Note that each of these 4 percentages is normalized by the number of passing ATTEMPTS. Because RJ couldnt' get rid of the ball, his attempts were consistently lower than that of a typical QB, thus increasing those components in the QB rating. That does not make him a good QB, nor does it illustrate his potential. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if his QB rating was higher than many of the all-time greats. The last time I checked, Rob Johnson had a higher QB rating than Jim Kelly. Unfortunately, sacks and injuries canceled out the potential Johnson's QB rating implied. 693478[/snapback]
apuszczalowski Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 ... like how to play yourself out of the league? RJ couldn't even stick onto an NFL roster as a viable 3rd stringer. He was picked up by Gruden, Spurrier, and Callahan, 3 men who have a decent reputation with quarterbacks and the offensive side of the ball. All coaches realized something that you and the Bills took many years to figure out -- he simply never had what it took to win in the NFL. I'll take an ego-maniac who wins ballgames over some pretty boy who says all the right things, only to tease you with "potential." If you think 2 straight playoff berths represent low standards, I'm curious as to how you feel about the recent ineptitude at OBD. 692750[/snapback] Yes, but Gruden, Spurrier, and Callahan all had something the Bills did not have to judge RJ on, an extra couple years playing in the league. Buffalo only could go on what they had seen from the previous team and his limited playing time. The guy had lots of potential, so (unlike most people here think) you keep him around a little bit longer to see if you can tap that potential. After Buffalo let him go, the other teams had his time in Buffalo to go by when judging him and his play, Something Buffalo did not have before they brought him in. He must have had something if 3 coaches were willing to give him a chance after his time in Buffalo. And if people can use Flutie getting the Bills to a first round exit in the playoffs as an upside for him, why can't the RJ supporters use his QB rating?Sure its not that accurate of a rating, but its used widely around the league today as a way to judge QB's
Dawgg Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 I completely agree that those 3 coaches had the advantage of hindsight. But so do we. And looking back on it, there was no question that Flutie was the better QB for the bills, both in terms of skill and in terms of wins. Yes, but Gruden, Spurrier, and Callahan all had something the Bills did not have to judge RJ on, an extra couple years playing in the league. Buffalo only could go on what they had seen from the previous team and his limited playing time. The guy had lots of potential, so (unlike most people here think) you keep him around a little bit longer to see if you can tap that potential. After Buffalo let him go, the other teams had his time in Buffalo to go by when judging him and his play, Something Buffalo did not have before they brought him in. He must have had something if 3 coaches were willing to give him a chance after his time in Buffalo. And if people can use Flutie getting the Bills to a first round exit in the playoffs as an upside for him, why can't the RJ supporters use his QB rating?Sure its not that accurate of a rating, but its used widely around the league today as a way to judge QB's 693562[/snapback]
Orton's Arm Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 Wow. Incredible. RJ had a higher QB rating than Jim Kelly... so what are you trying to imply? That sacks and injuries were all that prevented him from becoming one of the all-time greats? That is absolutely hilarious. Your QB rating argument is a self-fulfiling prophecy. Did I use the phrase "all-time greats"? I didn't, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I was merely saying RJ had potential. I agree his rating was inflated, for the reasons you mention. But even after you shave off a few points to compensate for the fact RJ might take a sack while a different QB would throw the ball away, you're still looking at an accurate passer, who threw a nice deep ball, and who has pretty good mobility. If he'd had a little more toughness, if he'd learned to dump the ball off sometimes instead of taking the sack . . . well, no sense in dwelling on what might have been. RJ didn't acquire these attributes, and he's no longer in football.
Dawgg Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 I too was capativated by his "potential." I'm not trying to sit here on a high horse and say that it was a clear-cut decision all along. But in a time when many years have passed (years repeated losing seasons), I feel it's time to give Doug Flutie his due -- rather than continue to villify him and continue to hold on to RJ's potential -- potential that never came close to realization. RJ teased us with his potential, but Flutie wowed us with his magic. He was by no means the cornerstone of a franchise, but he provided hope for a team and a city that was desperately seeking an identity after the Super Bowl years. Did I use the phrase "all-time greats"? I didn't, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I was merely saying RJ had potential. I agree his rating was inflated, for the reasons you mention. But even after you shave off a few points to compensate for the fact RJ might take a sack while a different QB would throw the ball away, you're still looking at an accurate passer, who threw a nice deep ball, and who has pretty good mobility. If he'd had a little more toughness, if he'd learned to dump the ball off sometimes instead of taking the sack . . . well, no sense in dwelling on what might have been. RJ didn't acquire these attributes, and he's no longer in football. 693784[/snapback]
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 I too was capativated by his "potential." I'm not trying to sit here on a high horse and say that it was a clear-cut decision all along. But in a time when many years have passed (years repeated losing seasons), I feel it's time to give Doug Flutie his due -- rather than continue to villify him and continue to hold on to RJ's potential -- potential that never came close to realization. RJ teased us with his potential, but Flutie wowed us with his magic. He was by no means the cornerstone of a franchise, but he provided hope for a team and a city that was desperately seeking an identity after the Super Bowl years. 693955[/snapback] What really wowed me about Flutie was how well he played on defense. Just goes to show how much stock a team will put in the QB regardless of whether he's really responsible for success. If that defensive squad had a bunch of loudmouths to attract attention away from the little guy i.e. Ray Lewis, Flutie would have been viewed less as the guy who "just won" and more the QB who didn't lose 'em all for the great defense a la Dilfer.
Dawgg Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 Nobody is saying he was solely responsible for the team's success -- he was, however, a major contributor whether you want to believe it or not. Comparing him to Dilfer is just assenine. Dilfer's job was to hand the ball off and let the D play. Flutie, unlike Dilfer produced and made some plays for his team that led directly to wins. Did he have the benefit of a great D? Hell yes he did. But his scrambling ability converted numerous 3rd downs, keeping drives alive and keeping the D fresh -- unlike Dilfer who was 3 and out after handing off 3 times each and every possession. So you're comparing his production to Trent Dilfer's. Passing Yards Flutie: 3,171 Dilfer: 1,502 TD Passes Flutie: 19 Dilfer: 12 Big Plays (20+ Yards) Flutie: 51 Dilfer: 39 What really wowed me about Flutie was how well he played on defense. Just goes to show how much stock a team will put in the QB regardless of whether he's really responsible for success. If that defensive squad had a bunch of loudmouths to attract attention away from the little guy i.e. Ray Lewis, Flutie would have been viewed less as the guy who "just won" and more the QB who didn't lose 'em all for the great defense a la Dilfer. 693998[/snapback]
Recommended Posts