This is truly up for debate. There are comparisons that can be made by games we can compare.
Bills played Miami without Fitz. QB play was bad pretty bad without Fitz and the Bills scored 10 and lost, with Fitz the QB play was just plain average and the Bills scored 17 points and did win (although Miami did miss 4 FGs).
Bills played New England with Fitz and he played well in game 1, but had a few turnovers that were costly and was outplayed by Brady. In game two against New England, he was worse than dreadful, worse than I ever saw Edwards or Losman play and had 6 turnovers. Guess he got found out. He got worse.
Bills played Jets with Fitz and he was awful. Bills had 3 and out in 4 of the first 6 drives and the game got out of hand in the 2nd half. With Brohm there were turnovers often and early and the game got out of hand early. No real difference.
Here are two good defenses in the same division, although one team won the Super Bowl. Bills played Green Bay with Edwards and were bad. However, Edwards 2 early interceptions that were actually in the hands of WR and taken out of their hands and counted as INTs. Bills were awful all in all on offense. Bills played Vikings, and were terrible on offense, Fitz had a turnover that put the game away. Offense scored 7 points in each of those games. No real difference.
Bills were 29th in scoring in 2009, 28th in 2010.
Only thing I know is Bills would have won 4 games somehow even if Edwards or Losman played QB last year all year. Makes no sense to say in any type of comparison in clear games you can compare that Fitz proved he was any better than what we saw before unless you are delusional.
