FightinIrishBills

And on the 8th day God gave us Luck, and then He rested. :worthy:

I actually thought he's been on the decline for the past couple years, not being nearly as reliable as he used to be. It's a shame to see him slumping like this though, it used to be great having a kicker who you knew was pretty much automatic.

You made me vomit in my mouth a little.

Oh baby, that's great. It's a pretty tough choice which one to buy, but I'm leaning towards the side of The Great Bearded One.

If we can somehow snag Kyle Rudolph I might just do cartwheels.

Dude, the mediocrity is what killed me (and I'll say the majority of Bills' fans) the most over these few years. That being said, I'm a big believer in team identity. I really think that teams that are able to put an identity and a philosophy together have an edge over many teams that don't. Without an identity to fall back on, it's easier to lose focus after tough games, tough losses, and the general malaise that can come over the course of a football year. What I like about Fitz the most is that he's helping to cultivate the identity of %100 effort and heart. Is he the best QB out there? No. Might he be the best QB, all things excepted, for this particular team right now? Well, just maybe. Who knows what a rookie/free agent QB would do with this particular bunch of players; while great QBs should be expected to find a rhythm with whoever they're throwing to (take a look at Manning and Brady this season, for instance), there's no guarantee that it would happen with a different QB with this team. We don't really know if Stevie Johnson would be making those plays with a QB he doesn't have that chemistry with. You can play the odds game (a QB taken with the #1 overall/top 5 pick seems to be a good bet to perform well, Fitz will falter at some point/isn't the answer), but in the no guarantees NFL, you have to ride the hot hand for as long as you can and give yourself the best chance to win. Fitz isn't just fighting to give this team wins; he's fighting for himself, his job, and his teammates. He's the definition of the scrappy underdog. With this particular team, I think he's going to give us the best shot. But let's see how he does against a really tough Steelers D (though not one that's ranked very high against the pass, curiously enough).

Hey, I feel you. He's not Tom Brady/Peyton Manning elite level. But I'd like to think that a somewhat adequate defense would do wonders for Fitzpatrick. No, the defense didn't throw those picks, but perhaps Fitz doesn't need to take those kind of chances with a less than porous D? Maybe he Derek Andersons next year or finishes this year poorly; I don't know. But it does seem to be a progression towards improvement that he can hopefully carry into a really tough game next week.

I always get really curious when I hear this rationale. If what Fitz has been doing isn't indicative of being "the guy", then what does "the guy" look like? Does "the guy" keep his team in every game? Does "the guy" understand his offensive personnel and (generally) make smart decisions? Does "the guy" have energy and bring excitement to the team? As of right now, Fitzpatrick looks the part of "the guy". I'll let time prove how true that is.

Yeah, he didn't give us too much of a chance in that Baltimore beatdown. Total straw-man, by the way. No one's saying we have a "good" team right now (just watch the defense play for evidence of that). Rather, we have a developing team with lots of positive signs, especially on offense. We might be 3 years away from getting back to relevance, but maybe not even that long if the team continues to show this type of resiliency and effort. And while the record doesn't indicate it, this team has 10x more heart at 2-8 than those Dick Jauron teams ever had. Hopefully that will lead to more wins in the future.

Honestly, with the exception of the Trent games and that Jets game, I've never felt like the Bills were out of a game. Kind of like that old Lombardi quote, "We didn't lose; we just ran out of time." They have a lot of fight and a lot of potential. Any one cursing that in favor of a speculative prospect at the #1 overall pick isn't really a fan. It takes more than Andrew Luck to teach a team how to fight back and how to win. They have a real test next week against a tough, tough Steelers team, but for the first time in many seasons, I'm not going to say the Bills have no chance against an elite team.

I actually like Howard Simon and Jeremy White, but that was atrocious. It actually made me call in and tell them that no, people were disappointed with the Sabres because the Sabres were playing like a big sack of crap at the time.

Hey, I'm with you here. I believe that a QB alone does not make a whole team. Do you (not you specifically, but a general rhetorical question) think that the St. Louis Rams would begin the painful road back to relevancy with Sam Bradford alone? No, they have guys like Chris Long on defense who are bringing them back to respectability. However, I'm not saying that a top-flight QB isn't essential. It's not a causative thing that only 2 of the 15 QBs taken in the top 5 have played in Super Bowls. To put it another way, aside from bombs like JaMarcus Russel et al., in many cases the teams that have drafted these QBs have failed to field a decent team around them. My point is that balance is the key. Right now, even with a "franchise" QB, the Bills wouldn't be there yet because of the downright porous defense they're fielding. It remains to be seen how/if they balance it out.

I don't think the gist of his argument is that the Bills need to take an O-lineman, but rather, team-building is the most important way to work towards success. In the argument between "defense wins championships" and "the NFL is a QB's league", I think a firm middle-ground is that even the best offenses need a strong defense as a supplement. Look at the Saints. A few years ago, right after they had acquired Drew Brees, they were losing big shoot-out games because they simply didn't have the defense to protect the scoreboard. But once Gregg Williams installed a better scheme, the Saints had a strong, opportunistic D that was able to help lead their team to a championship. It's questionable as to whether or not Fitz can be the championship-type caliber QB that a winning NFL franchise requires (although my hopes are certainly high; I love the guy). But a phenom QB like Andrew Luck isn't a franchise cure-all, either. Ask the Houston Texans how having a high-flying offense without an adequate defense is. We need to build up, and right now I think that starts with the defense. I like Andrew Luck a lot and think he's going to be a stud, but we as fans shouldn't be pinning our franchise success on a guy who hasn't played a down of NFL football yet.

By top 3, do you mean first 3 rounds? Or the actual top 3 pick? I'm not opposed to the former, and I'd be shocked by the latter, given the dearth of elite OT talent in this year's draft. I agree with the OP, Demetrius Bell has been playing adequately enough to warrant filling other needs. It's really interesting that for the longest time the Bills' greatest issue was at O-line. While this was a legitimate problem, I believe that not enough criticism came Trent Edwards' way for not giving his O-line a chance to adequately form a pocket (yes, Edwards was even worse than we thought). Along with his frequency of checking down, Edwards had very bad pocket awareness; if I were on the Bills OL, I would hate to be protecting for the guy simply because he would never be in the right position to let his blockers develop around him. Honestly, I would hope the Bills focus on the D-line rather than the O-line in this year's draft. Marcell Dareus is a stud lineman and would be a significant boost for this defense. My ideal draft is Dareus, Kyle Rudolph, and Sam Acho in the first 3 rounds, but I'm going out on a limb here to say that I'm in the minority with all the Andrew Luck lathering.

Yeah, this is exactly where Albany should start cleaning up its waste. :wallbash:

I regularly read the Buffalo Rumblings blog on SB Nation, and I enjoy their insightful analysis. However, reading the comments sections of a recent article, one of the mods claimed that Fitzpatrick just doesn't have it in him to be a franchise QB. My question is, why not? Yes, there are things he needs to work on, but he's well-respected and is a true leader on the field (just watch him try and throw blocks down field). He really seems to be thriving in Gailey's system and has great rapport with his receivers. At this point in the season he's projected to finish with about 25 TDs and 12.5 interceptions. He's able to make plays with his feet and has a good handle of reading the field. I like it even from a marketing standpoint. The smart, tough, scrappy Fitzpatrick would be an awesome angle for the Bills, something we could really embrace as an identity, especially considering Buffalo's blue-collar populace. This is all variable on Fitzpatrick playing at his current rate, and to be honest, it is hard to see him continue on pace to do so well with some really tough defenses coming down the stretch. However, if he does keep it up, he's earned himself at least a shot at another year.

Bills...sigh. Sabres...sigh. Notre Dame...sigh. Tepid Yankees fan but every year it's getting hard to root for them in good conscience. Most of the time when I watch baseball I'm just rooting for a good game/upset.

Oh come off it, all you downers Might I suggest this for the eternal optimists out there? I have to admit, it's getting better (It can't get no worse!)

Anyone saying that Steve Johnson isn't an impact player needs to watch the games and/or get their eyes checked. Short of taking snaps at OLB, Johnson is doing everything he can to make plays for the Bills. If we had even one or two wins under our belt at this point, questioning Stevie's impact would be ludicrous. But because this team is winless, any fool can open their mouth freely and speak without thinking, falling back on that winless record as an iron-clad crutch. All I'll say is that right now this is a bad Bills team; without Stevie, this would be a putrid Bills team.

While he's never performed at this level before, that doesn't mean he can't continue to do so. As many other posters have mentioned, he is still very young. When a QB is first drafted, there's always a lot of talk about how he needs to be developed over time, with the seemingly optimal situation being a rookie QB riding the pine behind an experience vet to learn the game. Fitz's learning curve might have been a little steeper considering that he was not part of a premier college football program, but at this point he really seems to understand the game. As for the record, it's like blaming a pitcher with a 2.15 ERA for a 4-16 record. Fitz has been playing at a very high level and the only bad game was against a potential Superbowl team (*vomit*). I'll call it even after that stellar performance against the Ravens, another team considered to be a Superbowl contender. It's way too early to call Fitz a franchise QB but if he plays at this high of a level, then the guy has the starting job for at least a couple of years.

If you could swing an Evans/Jackson trade for Lincecum and Posey, I think this team would really be a contender.

I for one would love to live in B-Diddy.

Look, I'm really curious: has there EVER been a 'bidding war' for a top pick in recent history? Who would be a part of this bidding war? Like I said in my last post, there's a reason teams rarely trade out of the top 10 picks--the price is too high for another team to switch to that pick. And for everyone interested in Ryan Mallett, today's a HUGE test for him. He has a chance to redeem himself from the end of that 'Bama game. I'm really pulling for the guy, as he's been a favorite of mine for a while. However, the collective sports public might be buzzing even louder about a talent that could be even more special than Luck and Mallett--some guy out of Auburn by the name of Newton.

I don't really understand your logic. If there's a rookie salary cap in place, which makes it more affordable for the team with the #1 pick, why would the "frugal" Mr. Wilson want to trade out of it? Are you assuming that the cost of the #1 pick will still be too high, even with the rookie cap? In which case, I ask: how do you have any idea what the rookie cap may or may not be structured? Do you work for the NFL or NFLPA? If there is a rookie salary cap in place (and honestly, that's still a big if), then it really wouldn't make much sense to trade out of those top picks if the metric for price and quality of player add up where it makes fiscal and football sense to keep that pick. But if there isn't a rookie salary cap in place, or if it isn't a really affordable one for a team taking the #1 pick overall, I have to ask: who in the hell would want to trade up for that? There's a reason you don't see teams trading out of the top ten picks of the first round; there's just not much of a market among the other teams to get into that position, unless there's a player they desperately want. Usually there's no player that would justify the cost to trade up so high. If we are the #1 pick, that would mean we are so bad that we need a player rated that highly to help the franchise anyways. While it would be nice to trade out of it if that were the case, I doubt that anyone would make the dream scenario offer you're talking about.

Well that's a reasonable reaction