You gotta love the flutie magic

[VOR]

Nonetheless, in 2000, the season no one seems to want to include in this discussion, Johnson was the starter and went 4-7. In the games Johnson was injured, Flutie started and went 4-1. For the Bills. In 2000. How is it that our "great defense" was winning these games for Flutie but not for Johnson? Is that divisiveness?

 

BTW, isn't it great how Flutie's detractors cite the following reasons for not liking him:

 

1) He was a divisive little prick. If he was so divisive why did the team go 22-11 with him as the starter (Johnson 7-10 with the same team)? His critics are acting as if they were in the locker room witnessing first hand his "divisiveness"...as if these critics had somehow been personally insulted by Flutie. I truly don't get it.

 

2) I'm turned off by all the Flutie Lovers. So to the many people who were excited to make the playoffs two seasons in a row (and it likely would have been three seasons if Flutie had been the full time starter in 2000), who witnessed the turnaround of the Bills fortunes immediately after he stepped into the lineup in 1998, who believe he saved the franchise, and were happy for the success of the Buffalo Bills, we Flutie backers were so obnoxious in our joy and happiness that you decided that you wanted to hate the man himself?

 

What good reason would any Bills fan have for not being thankful for the success that he brought our team? BTW, Not liking midget quarterbacks, taking someone else's word that he was a prick in the locker room, and thinking that our defense was winning these games (they weren't, look at Flutie's record versus Johnson's), are not good reasons to dislike and disrespect his contributions.

 

I have not yet seen one legit justification for the significant number of people who demonize Flutie. Is it possibly because many of our current fans were in their infancy as Bills fans and don't really remember the events of ten years ago? Is it because the blowhard, never-was coach-turned-broadcaster Chuck Dickerson regularly used this issue to slander Flutie and divide Bills Nation in the name of ratings? I lived in Bflo for 35 years. Attended games and covered the team. Left in 2002. I don't remember any of this hatred for Flutie when I was in Bflo. Petty and small-minded stuff. Bad reflection on the town I love and still call home. I guess Michael Peca and Dominick Hasek could relate to Flutie though.

I think most people have said that RJ was a bad QB. So being better than bad isn't really saying much.

 

And in 2000, the teams Flutie beat were the Jets (in Buffalo) who were 9-7, the Pats (twice) who were 5-11, the Bears who were 5-11, and the Seahags who were 6-10. Not exactly the cream of the crop.

[thebandit27]

With very few exceptions, most of the Flutie supporters here seem to keep coming back to one thing: he was better than Rob Johnson. Yes. We know that. So what?

 

There's no argument here as to who was the better player, the discussion (at least as far as I can tell) is why certain people dislike Flutie and others don't.

 

I dislike him partly because I never liked his attitude. Every interview it was "I" when the team won and "we" when the team lost. There's plenty of players and media-types on record that Flutie "campaigned" for the starting job in the locker room...that's not how a QB is supposed to act.

 

The rest of my dislike for Flutie comes from the fact that I simply don't believe he was as good as his mega-fans would like everyone to believe he was. He NEVER won a big game in the NFL. From New England to Buffalo to San Diego, every time his team had a chance to win the division (or to win in the playoffs), he failed to deliver. In his best statistical season (the ONLY NFL season in which he started 16 games), he threw for 3,464 yds, 16 TDs to 18 INTs, and the team went 5-11. In his two best seasons, 1999 and 2001, he ranked 5th and 10th in the league in interceptions thrown. He also had 38 career fumbles in 66 games started (that's more than a fumble every other game).

 

The only winning period in his NFL career came in Buffalo, when he was provided the opporunity to play with a top-tier defense. Yes, there is a huge correlation between the record of the team and the quality of the defense. The only argument I've seen to this point is that Rob Johnson didn't win with the same defense. As I've said, we know. Johnson wasn't good; at all. He was terrible. Flutie was better than Johnson; he was average, and with a great defense, that's all he had to be.

 

EDIT: I just realized that it's the same response as when people defend Trent Edwards when his ability is called into question...Well he's better than J.P. Yes, we know, that doesn't make him a great QB.

[Steely Dan]

With very few exceptions, most of the Flutie supporters here seem to keep coming back to one thing: he was better than Rob Johnson. Yes. We know that. So what?

 

There's no argument here as to who was the better player, the discussion (at least as far as I can tell) is why certain people dislike Flutie and others don't.

 

I dislike him partly because I never liked his attitude. Every interview it was "I" when the team won and "we" when the team lost. There's plenty of players and media-types on record that Flutie "campaigned" for the starting job in the locker room...that's not how a QB is supposed to act.

 

The rest of my dislike for Flutie comes from the fact that I simply don't believe he was as good as his mega-fans would like everyone to believe he was. He NEVER won a big game in the NFL. From New England to Buffalo to San Diego, every time his team had a chance to win the division (or to win in the playoffs), he failed to deliver. In his best statistical season (the ONLY NFL season in which he started 16 games), he threw for 3,464 yds, 16 TDs to 18 INTs, and the team went 5-11. In his two best seasons, 1999 and 2001, he ranked 5th and 10th in the league in interceptions thrown. He also had 38 career fumbles in 66 games started (that's more than a fumble every other game).

 

The only winning period in his NFL career came in Buffalo, when he was provided the opporunity to play with a top-tier defense. Yes, there is a huge correlation between the record of the team and the quality of the defense. The only argument I've seen to this point is that Rob Johnson didn't win with the same defense. As I've said, we know. Johnson wasn't good; at all. He was terrible. Flutie was better than Johnson; he was average, and with a great defense, that's all he had to be.

 

Thanks for saving me the research and typing. I'd also like to add one more thing. The people who say he was discriminated against by the NFL for being small are being ridiculous. Every NFL coaches job rides on winning and losing. I'm positive that if they thought Flutie was capable of doing a good job in the NFL on a consistent basis they would have played him. In fact some did and then decided to go to someone else.

 

Linky

 

In his first year, 1986, with Chicago he threw for 23 completions out of 50 attempts and he threw 2 TD's to 6 int.'s.

 

In 1987 he didn't play at all.

 

In 1988 he was with NE and he threw 92 completions out of 179 tries. He threw 8 TD's and 10 int.'s.

 

In 1989 with NE he threw 36 completions out of 91 tries. He threw 2 TD's and 4 Int.'s

 

That doesn't look like a conspiracy against him. It looks like he wasn't very good. JMO

[C.Biscuit97]

With very few exceptions, most of the Flutie supporters here seem to keep coming back to one thing: he was better than Rob Johnson. Yes. We know that. So what?

 

There's no argument here as to who was the better player, the discussion (at least as far as I can tell) is why certain people dislike Flutie and others don't.

 

I dislike him partly because I never liked his attitude. Every interview it was "I" when the team won and "we" when the team lost. There's plenty of players and media-types on record that Flutie "campaigned" for the starting job in the locker room...that's not how a QB is supposed to act.

 

The rest of my dislike for Flutie comes from the fact that I simply don't believe he was as good as his mega-fans would like everyone to believe he was. He NEVER won a big game in the NFL. From New England to Buffalo to San Diego, every time his team had a chance to win the division (or to win in the playoffs), he failed to deliver. In his best statistical season (the ONLY NFL season in which he started 16 games), he threw for 3,464 yds, 16 TDs to 18 INTs, and the team went 5-11. In his two best seasons, 1999 and 2001, he ranked 5th and 10th in the league in interceptions thrown. He also had 38 career fumbles in 66 games started (that's more than a fumble every other game).

 

The only winning period in his NFL career came in Buffalo, when he was provided the opporunity to play with a top-tier defense. Yes, there is a huge correlation between the record of the team and the quality of the defense. The only argument I've seen to this point is that Rob Johnson didn't win with the same defense. As I've said, we know. Johnson wasn't good; at all. He was terrible. Flutie was better than Johnson; he was average, and with a great defense, that's all he had to be.

 

EDIT: I just realized that it's the same response as when people defend Trent Edwards when his ability is called into question...Well he's better than J.P. Yes, we know, that doesn't make him a great QB.

 

Again, Young sucked in Tampa Bay, Warner got cut by multiple teams, and the Falcons traded Farve. Waht does that have to do with the rest of their career? Flutie was a good QB for the Bills. His 2 year period as a starter was the most successful any Bills' QB in franchise history. He was pretty good here.

 

The biggest knock against him is that he didn't want to sit the bench behind RJ when he was clearly the more superior QB. Why does this bother people? Flutie was right and now we are jinxed.

[C.Biscuit97]

Thanks for saving me the research and typing. I'd also like to add one more thing. The people who say he was discriminated against by the NFL for being small are being ridiculous. Every NFL coaches job rides on winning and losing. I'm positive that if they thought Flutie was capable of doing a good job in the NFL on a consistent basis they would have played him. In fact some did and then decided to go to someone else.

 

Linky

 

In his first year, 1986, with Chicago he threw for 23 completions out of 50 attempts and he threw 2 TD's to 6 int.'s.

 

In 1987 he didn't play at all.

 

In 1988 he was with NE and he threw 92 completions out of 179 tries. He threw 8 TD's and 10 int.'s.

 

In 1989 with NE he threw 36 completions out of 91 tries. He threw 2 TD's and 4 Int.'s

 

That doesn't look like a conspiracy against him. It looks like he wasn't very good. JMO

 

 

Again, this is completely meaningless. All the matters iwhat he did with the Bills. Marv Levy & Belichick were terrible coaches in their first stints. For whatever reason, some people do better in certain environments. Flutie did well here and as good as any QB not named Kelly did in 2 years.

[thebandit27]

Again, Young sucked in Tampa Bay, Warner got cut by multiple teams, and the Falcons traded Farve. Waht does that have to do with the rest of their career? Flutie was a good QB for the Bills. His 2 year period as a starter was the most successful any Bills' QB in franchise history. He was pretty good here.

 

The biggest knock against him is that he didn't want to sit the bench behind RJ when he was clearly the more superior QB. Why does this bother people? Flutie was right and now we are jinxed.

 

Did you even read my post? What I said was that Flutie was AVERAGE with the Bills, and that the numbers back it up.

 

How is it possible that Flutie's 2 years were better than Kelly's 1990-1991 seasons? That's a flat-out lie. Look it up. Kelly had more yards, more TDs, more wins, more playoff wins. etc. You hereby lose all credibility in this debate, in my opinion.

 

Lastly, according to whom was the biggest knock on him the fact that "he didn't want to sit the bench behind RJ when he was clearly the more superior QB"? The biggest knock on Flutie is that he wasn't very good, he was average. Capable of winning 10 regular season games with a great defense, but unable to win in big games or in the playoffs.

 

The team is not cursed, jinxed, hexed, or anything else because they benched Flutie. They haven't had a great QB since Jim Kelly, and that's why they haven't won.

[Steely Dan]

I'd also like to add one more thing. The people who say he was discriminated against by the NFL for being small are being ridiculous. Every NFL coaches job rides on winning and losing.

 

Again, this is completely meaningless. All the matters iwhat he did with the Bills. Marv Levy & Belichick were terrible coaches in their first stints. For whatever reason, some people do better in certain environments. Flutie did well here and as good as any QB not named Kelly did in 2 years.

 

Flutie played for two teams over four years and couldn't prove himself. How much longer should he have been given before he had to go to Canada?

[C.Biscuit97]

Did you even read my post? What I said was that Flutie was AVERAGE with the Bills, and that the numbers back it up.

 

How is it possible that Flutie's 2 years were better than Kelly's 1990-1991 seasons? That's a flat-out lie. Look it up. Kelly had more yards, more TDs, more wins, more playoff wins. etc. You hereby lose all credibility in this debate, in my opinion.

 

Lastly, according to whom was the biggest knock on him the fact that "he didn't want to sit the bench behind RJ when he was clearly the more superior QB"? The biggest knock on Flutie is that he wasn't very good, he was average. Capable of winning 10 regular season games with a great defense, but unable to win in big games or in the playoffs.

 

The team is not cursed, jinxed, hexed, or anything else because they benched Flutie. They haven't had a great QB since Jim Kelly, and that's why they haven't won.

 

 

I meant besides Kelly. My bad.

 

And take a look here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/

 

In Flutie's 2 years, the Bills ranked 6th and 11th in yards. But Flutie wasn't good and it was all the defense.

[Guest dog14787]

I meant besides Kelly. My bad.

 

And take a look here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/

 

In Flutie's 2 years, the Bills ranked 6th and 11th in yards. But Flutie wasn't good and it was all the defense.

 

 

Wow, when you look at Fluties overall performance while playing for Buffalo, how in the world you would ever think its not good enough to be considered above average play at the QB position is beyond me.

[extrahammer]

I think we've all made our points and we just keep re-making them with different facts. And I think this thread is continuing just for the sake of arguing and slow news period.

[thebandit27]

I meant besides Kelly. My bad.

 

And take a look here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/

 

In Flutie's 2 years, the Bills ranked 6th and 11th in yards. But Flutie wasn't good and it was all the defense.

 

Yes, and (according to the same site) in each season here's the offensive breakdown:

 

1998 - 3rd in rushing, 12th in passing

1999 - 8th in rushing, 19th in passing

 

When you look at the details, those numbers don't exactly speak to Flutie's greatness now, do they?

[Steely Dan]

I think we've all made our points and we just keep re-making them with different facts. And I think this thread is continuing just for the sake of arguing and slow news period.

 

OMG, you are so wrong about that you idiot.

[extrahammer]

OMG, you are so wrong about that you idiot.

 

Idiot? Where'd you go to school? Bayside High?

 

Try cretin or simpleton.

 

BTW, Did you know?

 

an idiot is a stupid person with a mental age below three years, while a moron is a stupid person with a mental age of between seven to twelve years

 

Source:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/idiot

[Mr. WEO]

The point about Flutie being better than the poor RJ is a weak argument, but par for the course for a half wit like you, Mr. WEO. Because his time with the Chargers proved that he wasn't responsible for the Bills winning. Otherwise he would have "just won" there. It's not a hard concept, for people with even half a brain.

 

And Flutie had 20 TD's and 20 turnovers in 1999, a 55% completion rate, and barely eclipsed 3,000 passing. JP had a similar season in 2006 and people were still ready to run him out on a rail.

Really? A weak argument? Oh, I get it--because it's true, it doesn't work for you.

 

The Chargers were not a very good team. Brees did no better (maybe worse) when he took over.

 

Look, nobody here is saying that Flutie did it on his own. But he and the Bills had two winning seasons in a row and the Bills haven't duplicated this with the clown car full of bums that followed him.

 

Thise were good times. Why try to take them away?

[Steely Dan]

Idiot? Where'd you go to school? Bayside High?

 

Try cretin or simpleton.

 

BTW, Did you know?

 

 

 

Source:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/idiot

 

Bonehead and knucklehead are good too.

[Beerball]

BTW, Did you know?

 

Source:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/idiot

I are not an idiot! Thanks for clearing that up.

[VOR]

Really? A weak argument? Oh, I get it--because it's true, it doesn't work for you.

 

The Chargers were not a very good team. Brees did no better (maybe worse) when he took over.

 

Look, nobody here is saying that Flutie did it on his own. But he and the Bills had two winning seasons in a row and the Bills haven't duplicated this with the clown car full of bums that followed him.

 

Thise were good times. Why try to take them away?

No one is trying to take them away. But when I look back at them, I mostly lament the ST's destroying the Bills' chances in the 1999 playoffs, with the ending of that Titans game.

 

And most of the "Flutie haters" are just pointing out that a 56.2% completion rate, 7582 yards, 47 TD's and 36 turnovers in 30 starts and large parts of many other games, isn't "just winning," as many would like to believe. Those numbers are on-par with Trent Dilfer's SB-winning season in 2000. Now I'll give him credit for providing excitement in 1998, after the Kelly years were over and the reality of Todd Collins set-in. But it was largely a team effort.

 

And Flutie was as shameless a self-promoter as you believe TO is. It's just that the internet and technology wasn't where it is now back then. Remember that he was cut by 2 teams before fleeing to the CFL, and then cut again with the Bills. And it wasn't because he was "relegated to the back of the bus."

[DC Tom]

For the love of Bruschi, why is there an eleven page thread about Doug friggin' Flutie?

[Lori]

For the love of Bruschi, why is there an eleven page thread about Doug friggin' Flutie?

That's a rhetorical question, correct? After all, this IS the Stadium Wall. Remember the good old days, when the DF/RJ debate had its own separate sub-board? Yeah, that was cool.

 

Or not ...

[Beerball]

That's a rhetorical question, correct? After all, this IS the Stadium Wall. Remember the good old days, when the DF/RJ debate had its own separate sub-board? Yeah, that was cool.

 

Or not ...

I made lots of friends in the good ol days!