There is a falsehood running rampant on this board

[benderbender]

I'm just happy to have a starting QB that has taken two good shots to the head and is not on the PUP list

[Beerball]

Edwards 6.44 YPA, 10.82 YPC

Fitz 5.08 YPA, 11.38 YPC

 

This is what we are reduced to.

[GG]

Edwards 6.44 YPA, 10.82 YPC

Fitz 5.08 YPA, 11.38 YPC

 

This is what we are reduced to.

 

Nah. We've been there before.

 

He just wins.

[The Senator]

You must have missed the part where I said I dealt with only actual numbers.

Not extrapolated guesses into the future.

I am sorry Simon - I do not wish to be argumentative, but you excluded Edwards' numbers from the Jets game (ZERO attempts 'downfield').

 

Also, by virtue of your statement...

 

According to their averages, Fitzpatrick throws downfield 0.3 times per game more than Edwards, which is just slightly above 1 more deep ball per month.

 

...you did indeed extrapolate, since Fitzpatrick has only started one game compared to Edwards' 6.

 

 

So here's what I've been able to garner from this thread thus far:

 

1) A 'downfield shot' is defined as a pass over 15 yards;

2) Extremely small samples, no matter how insignificant, are apparently still statistically valid;

3) Trent's numbers from the Jets game were not included in the original analysis.

 

 

Now since small samples are apparently valid, if we were to include Trent's performance in the Jets game and isolate on just those numbers, he was 5/5, his longest attempt/completion being for 12 yards. Ergo, ipso facto, hocus pocus - were we to extrapolate that over an entire game, Trent would not have thrown a single 'downfield shot; if we were to further extrapolate that over an entire season, same result - Trent Edwards would not be throwing any 'downfield shots' over 15 yards this entire season.

 

Conversely, using the same game - just to be 100% fair - Fitzpatrick made 5 'downfield attempts in the 3 quarters he played. Extrapolate that over an entire season, and Fitz would have taken 106.7 'downfield shots' to Edwards' ZERO attempts downfield - a quite significant difference!

 

 

(Or, as my good friend 'The Dean' would say, if you torture the numbers long enough, they'll confess to anything. )

 

 

Therefore, we sometimes have to 'follow our gut', and realize that we were 1-4 with Edwards as our QB - failing to score a TD at home against both the Saints and the win-less Browns, while with Fitz as our QB, we're 2-0 on the road. Clearly, many feel they've seen enough of Edwards in his 3 years of starts. We know who he is and what he can and can't - or won't - do, while Fitz is an unknown that may have some 'intangibles' Edwards lacks, who will take advantage of the offensive weapons we have, and whom we'd like to take for a 'test drive' before the rest of our season goes down the tubes.

 

 

JMO - and as always, I reserve the right to change my mind completely and deny all of this, should I be wrong

[Conch]

The fact of the mater is neither are a good option, Ryan is just the greater of two lesser players. There are probably a dozen or more second string QBs better than both of these guys as well as a few third stringers.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

The fact of the mater is neither are a good option, Ryan is just the greater of two lesser players. There are probably a dozen or more second string QBs better than both of these guys as well as a few third stringers.

 

You know, I think the Bills should scour some CFL rosters, there are likly a couple guys that could steer this team better than the current guys.

 

Maybe even some Australian Rugby guys.

[jwolf02]

It SEEMS that Fitzpatrick throws to his wide receivers (i.e. Evans and Owens) more on average per game than Trent Edwards does. I also KNOW that Lee Evans has 2 touchdowns in 1-1/2 games with Fitzpatrick at QB. This SEEMS to be a better average per game than with TE. 2 touchdowns in 1.5 games roughly equates to 21 touchdowns over a full season, whereas 1 touchdown with TE over 4.5 games equals about 3.5 touchdowns for a 16 game season. It also seems that there isn't as much "checking down" with Fitzpatrick than there is with TE (see catches by running backs and tight ends). No, I don't think Fitzpatrick is the long-term answer at QB for the Bills, but I DO think that he gives the Bills a better chance to win week in and week out right now.

 

Agreed with all the "SEEMS"... although I guess perception is reality with some of the numbers that have been thrown out there.

[Bufcomments]

Who cares how many deep balls are thrown.....

 

All I know is Fitz did just enough to win.

First cold of the bench in NYC in a windy venue

 

Second on the road vs Carolina, did just enough to win, made plays when they needed to be made and seems to like to get the ball to our best player ,Lee Evans.

 

Sorry but to me this the original post seems like a a bad quiz on a Monday morning during high school.

[murra]

Therefore, we sometimes have to 'follow our gut', and realize that we were 1-4 with Edwards as our QB - failing to score a TD at home against both the Saints and the win-less Browns, while with Fitz as our QB, we're 2-0 on the road. Clearly, many feel they've seen enough of Edwards in his 3 years of starts. We know who he is and what he can and can't - or won't - do, while Fitz is an unknown that may have some 'intangibles' Edwards lacks, who will take advantage of the offensive weapons we have, and whom we'd like to take for a 'test drive' before the rest of our season goes down the tubes.

 

 

JMO - and as always, I reserve the right to change my mind completely and deny all of this, should I be wrong

 

Very nice post. I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis, since you were able to express the two most important aspects of the discussion:

 

2-0 on the road vs. 1-4.

 

and

 

Fitzpatrick has been able to show us something different (mostly positive) than we can deem Trent capable of.

 

In addition, I think an argument can be made, that several factors transcend statistics.

 

For example, I think the overall atmosphere of the offense changed with the change in quarterbacks. Clearly Lee Evans executed all of his chances in the second half on Sunday. He seemed more upbeat because the possibility of a ball coming his way had increased.

 

While the change in quarterbacking has possibly proven to be a advantageous for the team's momentum, there are certainly factors that prove the offense still isn't ticking, and hasn't been for a while:

 

You can't overlook the run support differences. In the first two weeks, (Trent's top two games) the running game provided an able medium for gaining yards. This support gave Trent fewer third and longs, and made first downs easier to convert.

 

Coincidentally (I believe, anyways) on Marshawn's arrival, the run game slowed for some reason, the threat evaporated, and our first downs decreased dramatically. Trent found almost no hope, and a dump-off for 6 yards that worked effectively when it was 3rd and short, no longer converted the longer downs.

 

Because of the surprisingly hampered rushing attack, it's been more difficult to move the chains. Fitzpatrick has not converted many, and his real success so far has come on shortened field. The only reason Fitzpatrick remains a more intelligent option, is due to the fact that on third downs, your chances of a dump-off going down decrease. In my honest opinion, I can say that if our running attack improves (whether it is the unsure backs on these stretch plays, or the offensive line) we should most certainly make the transfer back to Edwards.

[Tcali]

Very nice post. I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis, since you were able to express the two most important aspects of the discussion:

 

2-0 on the road vs. 1-4.

 

and

 

Fitzpatrick has been able to show us something different (mostly positive) than we can deem Trent capable of.

 

In addition, I think an argument can be made, that several factors transcend statistics.

 

For example, I think the overall atmosphere of the offense changed with the change in quarterbacks. Clearly Lee Evans executed all of his chances in the second half on Sunday. He seemed more upbeat because the possibility of a ball coming his way had increased.

 

While the change in quarterbacking has possibly proven to be a advantageous for the team's momentum, there are certainly factors that prove the offense still isn't ticking, and hasn't been for a while:

 

You can't overlook the run support differences. In the first two weeks, (Trent's top two games) the running game provided an able medium for gaining yards. This support gave Trent fewer third and longs, and made first downs easier to convert.

 

Coincidentally (I believe, anyways) on Marshawn's arrival, the run game slowed for some reason, the threat evaporated, and our first downs decreased dramatically. Trent found almost no hope, and a dump-off for 6 yards that worked effectively when it was 3rd and short, no longer converted the longer downs.

 

Because of the surprisingly hampered rushing attack, it's been more difficult to move the chains. Fitzpatrick has not converted many, and his real success so far has come on shortened field. The only reason Fitzpatrick remains a more intelligent option, is due to the fact that on third downs, your chances of a dump-off going down decrease. In my honest opinion, I can say that if our running attack improves (whether it is the unsure backs on these stretch plays, or the offensive line) we should most certainly make the transfer back to Edwards.

That was the saddest endorsement of a QB I have ever heard. And by 'sad' I am not negatively reflecting upon the logic of what you write.Its just sad that it comes down to putting Trent in there once the running game improves so he doesn't have to stupidly check down in a situation that won't benefit from the checkdown.

[Dan]

Very nice post. I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis, since you were able to express the two most important aspects of the discussion:

 

2-0 on the road vs. 1-4.

 

and

 

Fitzpatrick has been able to show us something different (mostly positive) than we can deem Trent capable of.

 

In addition, I think an argument can be made, that several factors transcend statistics.

 

For example, I think the overall atmosphere of the offense changed with the change in quarterbacks. Clearly Lee Evans executed all of his chances in the second half on Sunday. He seemed more upbeat because the possibility of a ball coming his way had increased.

 

While the change in quarterbacking has possibly proven to be a advantageous for the team's momentum, there are certainly factors that prove the offense still isn't ticking, and hasn't been for a while:

 

You can't overlook the run support differences. In the first two weeks, (Trent's top two games) the running game provided an able medium for gaining yards. This support gave Trent fewer third and longs, and made first downs easier to convert.

 

Coincidentally (I believe, anyways) on Marshawn's arrival, the run game slowed for some reason, the threat evaporated, and our first downs decreased dramatically. Trent found almost no hope, and a dump-off for 6 yards that worked effectively when it was 3rd and short, no longer converted the longer downs.

 

Because of the surprisingly hampered rushing attack, it's been more difficult to move the chains. Fitzpatrick has not converted many, and his real success so far has come on shortened field. The only reason Fitzpatrick remains a more intelligent option, is due to the fact that on third downs, your chances of a dump-off going down decrease. In my honest opinion, I can say that if our running attack improves (whether it is the unsure backs on these stretch plays, or the offensive line) we should most certainly make the transfer back to Edwards.

In my opinion, and this is just opinion as I have no stats to back it up, teams have been increasingly playing up to stop the run and short passing game each week. Because, with each week it has become more apparent that we were not looking down field to Lee or TO.

 

Initially, teams were concerned about Evans or TO beating them deep; however, by week 3 it was apparent they didn't need to. So you're seeing more teams cheat their safeties up. As a result, the run game and short passing game have become largely ineffective and our offense has looked abyssmal.

 

Until we have a QB demonstrate that he will routinely and effectively throw 15+ yards downfield, I suspect we'll continue to see limited production from the RBs.

[murra]

In my opinion, and this is just opinion as I have no stats to back it up, teams have been increasingly playing up to stop the run and short passing game each week. Because, with each week it has become more apparent that we were not looking down field to Lee or TO.

 

Initially, teams were concerned about Evans or TO beating them deep; however, by week 3 it was apparent they didn't need to. So you're seeing more teams cheat their safeties up. As a result, the run game and short passing game have become largely ineffective and our offense has looked abyssmal.

 

Until we have a QB demonstrate that he will routinely and effectively throw 15+ yards downfield, I suspect we'll continue to see limited production from the RBs.

 

 

You see, I can't tell if that's it or not. That's been on my mind a lot, but honestly, the fact that we can't keep teams honest might not be the reason to our inept run department. At least not the main reason. I think a lot has to do with Van Pelt. I don't think he's been able to effectively figure out how to use Lynch and Jackson. There have been many questionable calls, decisions, etc.

 

Why run a stretch handoff in your end zone. I realize the criticism that it was Jackson and not Lynch, but that doesn't change the fact that he calls a running play TOWARDS Julius Peppers, and one that notoriously takes a while to setup (Running back needs to change position, move to outside, off tackle). As I'm progressively becoming more aware about football related things, I'm progressively more and more confused with our rushing strategy.

 

If I play against the Bills it would be too easy. If we incomplete a pass on first down, we ALWAYS run on second down. There are many things like this that are becoming predictable, and so even more than our poor passing attack, I believe you're right in that our opponents are just totally in our huddle. They have us completely figured out on the ground.

[murra]

That was the saddest endorsement of a QB I have ever heard. And by 'sad' I am not negatively reflecting upon the logic of what you write.Its just sad that it comes down to putting Trent in there once the running game improves so he doesn't have to stupidly check down in a situation that won't benefit from the checkdown.

 

I agree.

[Force_Majeur]

What a refreshing post. Someone actually took the time to look at objective criteria and made a conclusion based on that criteria. Wish there was more of it.

 

Too many posts like "It seems like Fitz throws more deep balls" or "I feel like we're doing a lot better with Fitz". Not enough follow through. Jesus, I might as well say "I feel like we play better when I pay a psychic gypsy to bless my bills cap, and I put it on when we need a first down". Nonsense.

 

The problem is, people are lazy or dumb. If we had to discuss issues based on facts, there would only be 5 posters left.

[Dan]

You see, I can't tell if that's it or not. That's been on my mind a lot, but honestly, the fact that we can't keep teams honest might not be the reason to our inept run department. At least not the main reason. I think a lot has to do with Van Pelt. I don't think he's been able to effectively figure out how to use Lynch and Jackson. There have been many questionable calls, decisions, etc.

 

Why run a stretch handoff in your end zone. I realize the criticism that it was Jackson and not Lynch, but that doesn't change the fact that he calls a running play TOWARDS Julius Peppers, and one that notoriously takes a while to setup (Running back needs to change position, move to outside, off tackle). As I'm progressively becoming more aware about football related things, I'm progressively more and more confused with our rushing strategy.

 

If I play against the Bills it would be too easy. If we incomplete a pass on first down, we ALWAYS run on second down. There are many things like this that are becoming predictable, and so even more than our poor passing attack, I believe you're right in that our opponents are just totally in our huddle. They have us completely figured out on the ground.

No doubt. I would completely agree that our play calling and predictability add to the problem. And, of course, let's not forget the inexperienced line.

 

That play in the end zone was horrible. You're running ar Peppers, pulling guards, deep setup, not to mention the Panthers had it read perfectly. They did nothing to disguise it even after several audibles and after a time out.

[Meathead]

In 153 attempts, Fitz will have thrown 35 deep ballProxy-Connection: keep-alive

Cache-Control: max-age=0

where the hell did that proxy connection stuff come from

[Force_Majeur]

where the hell did that proxy connection stuff come from

 

 

networking/packet-speak, meathead. It's clever, actually.

[Meathead]

well personally i find it insulting that he thinks our maximum age is zero

[mabden]

The things I liked about fitz:

 

1. He seem to move a little better in the pocket, and didn't his head ripped off. Pass protection is not just the O-line's job.

2. He gave his wide recievers a chance. I'm tired of seeing 2 studs on offense not even get a sniff of the ball, becuase that's not what the defense is giving us.

 

I don't think Fitz was anything special, but he's also done just enough to eke out 2 wins. that's the bottom line.

 

"While the Bills' offensive line did a decent job on some plays, quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick was under duress a lot. A review of the game showed that Fitzpatrick got sacked twice, knocked down five times and pressured seven times on 24 drop backs."

 

So I guess on 10 out of 24 pass attempts, FP "didn't get his head ripped off" is acceptable. Jarious Byrd handing the Bills 2 interceptions in each game, had more to do with winning than FP ekeing out.

[Jerry Christ]

Trent has 153 attempts, Fitzpatrick 47.

 

26/153 = 0.17

11/47 = 0.23

 

In 153 attempts, Fitz will have thrown 35 to Trent's 26.

 

I guess.

and all of Fitz' will be out of bounds =(