quinnearlysghost88

They actually list JP Losman as a "franchise QB" in the article. And I'm not looking for a Fitz sucks thread, just an interesting article.

Great read and maybe sheds some light on the Fitz situation: Said former Baltimore Ravens head coach and current CBS broadcaster Brian Billick, "It's a difficult thing to do because it has to be an organizational decision. You have to know there is no going back and if you're the coach, you have to know it's the end for you. You can't miss on a [franchise] quarterback. If you do, you never survive." http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/hotread-changing-qbs/matt-cassel-mark-sanchez-struggling-mightily-team-give-franchise-quarterback

Mogilny was the last player that gave a S%$T!!! yeah that feels good.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8512006/nhl-offers-players-50-50-split-hockey-related-revenue

This could actually be the closest to the truth out of everything.

I'm assuming even if we did give TJ two weeks of 1st team reps, we wouldn't want to throw him in at Gillette with, possibly, first place on the line. So should we just assume that we are going to still be with Fitz? If so, during the bye week, do we completely blow up our playbook in terms of what we've been doing this year on offense, and gear it toward run heavy plays and throws FItz can make? I'm wondering because if it's not a possibility for another QB to step in (and I don't think Thigpen is the answer), then why continue to plot the same course in terms of plays and schemes? OR Do we do something drastic over the bye week?

good signing. hopefully he can get his feet wet against the Titans, before the two-week break.

You just say maybe three times. You have a whole lot of assumptions too.

Who cares what Vegas says? Really? I would say the casinos that stand to gain or lose millions of dollars on any given Sunday. These numbers aren't arbitrary. And I wasn't grasping at straws. Comments were made saying what makes you think the Cardinals are an inferior team and I posited that Vegas odds predicted this game to be close. If the Cardinals were really the world-beaters that people are making them out to be, it would've been a +7-+10.5. Not really straws, just facts. They dont throw s&%t at the wall to see what sticks over in terms of betting lines. And I don't think they saw something in the Bills that made them move the line lower. Right? 100 points in two games? So they must have seen something negative in the Cardinals.

Whoa, I have no agenda. And you do make some good points what winning pct and no win is a gimme. My main point of the post is we really can't let this win and possibly a good performance vs the Titans give us a false sense that what we're currently doing, in terms of game-planning and the QB, is the right course. Or that these types of performances are going to stand-up against the likes of the Pats/Texans.

Like I said: And also the line was only +4.5 for the Bills. We just gave up 100 points in two games and the Cards were 4-1 and playing at home. I don't think I'm the only one who thought they were soft. That's a pretty meek line for a team with an 8-game winning streak at home. Would it be better if I didn't call the Arizona Cardinals inferior? Would that help this argument? Would it be better to just say we handed them the ball in field goal range in the dying seconds of the game and that they lost it for themselves? If he hits that 38-yarder, we're not having this discussion. We STOLE a game, let's stop pretending this was some type of quality show of power on our end.

And also the line was only +4.5 for the Bills. We just gave up 100 points in two games and the Cards were 4-1 and playing at home. I don't think I'm the only one who thought they were soft. We beat the 1-6 Browns and the 1-5 Chiefs. What about that isn't inferior?!

I promise I'm not trying to troll. But they beat a few 3-3 teams and that Pats beat themselves by missing that FG. Since when are the Fins and Eagles the gold standard of teams? I will say that the Seahawks win was a quality W.

and beat the Pats and Texans in their stadiums. The three wins we have were vs inferior teams, and we all but tried to hand the Cardinals the win yesterday. If you keep giving Fitz the opportunity to prove himself (disprove himself?), and you continue to run a passive 2-deep, and you continue to throw more than run, and you continue to force the wild cat, you're not going to win. And I know what's going to happen. Fitz will have a good game vs the Titans, so he'll be the starter at NE, we wont change ANYTHING about our game-planning and we'll get crushed again. It's science. What about our current defense has changed since we gave up two 100 yd rushers and two 100 yd wr at home to NE? Nothing. The only thing that's happened is that we've played inferior teams, so we can have a false, inflated sense of talent.

I like that you position this as I'm some kind of drifter who just sought out a Bills' board to tell everyone that I wont be watching the game this week. I've been following these boards for well over 7 years. I'm 30 and for the past 13 seasons, I've drank every Sunday and watched every game. All I'm saying is at one point you have to put your foot down. There is no return on investment here. The last winning season we had was 12 years ago. They're an inferior product for the umpteenth time. I didn't say I'm not watching them for the rest of the season. I said get above .500. They need to actually earn some respect, from the top down.

I'm afraid of that too, haha. Like if they get up by a few TDs.

I'm sticking to it. They have stolen many, many Sundays from me. I'm not watching them again until they're over .500. And it actually feels good to say that, to not spend 4+ hours and money on beer/food at a bar (I live out of town) to be slightly hungover and overly disappointed. I haven't missed a Bills game in years either, so I'll let you know how it goes just getting ESPN updates from the phone.

I said almost the SAME exact thing on Sunday

Yes they gave up a ton of pts and yards because the offense finds new and inventive ways to give the ball away. It's like they're in a race to punt it, fumble it or throw an INT. You can't ask the defense to do everything.How would you feel as a defensive player if you're continually trying to defend a 3pt outing? What are you supposed to do? You've stopped the opposing teams offense a few times and you put the ball in your O's hands and they give it right back or punt it. That has to be demoralizing to a point.

when i'm watching the game and the camera pans to fitz stepping back for a pass and then he releases and the camera quickly pans to the WR, i brace myself every time. Will it be underthrown, tipped, picked, overthrown. I shouldnt have to have that thought EVERY TIME HE STEPS BACK TO THROW. and I DO. and i watch the game at a bar with about 15 other Bills fans, and they all share the same sentiment.

He's averaging a meager sack a game, and three came from the NE game. On many, many plays he has ample time to find his WR and make the correct throw. I think this is the biggest case for changing QBs. You could argue the play-calling is poor, but under-thrown balls and bad decisions are inexcusable. There are QBs in the NFL having success with a lot less in front of them. I know fingers need to be pointed in a lot of directions on this team, but on the field it starts with the QB.

I get that Potter will be good, but keep him on the practice squad. He doesn't bring some crazy dynamic to our kick-offs. I'm certain you could use the spot for any other position. If you really feel that Potter can kick like a mule, then dump Lindell. Why keep two kickers? Would you keep Moorman around for kick-off punts after safeties, because he's really good at non-rushed punts?

He puts the ball at the goal line on the majority of kicks, and they're drilled so they get to the KR fast, even if they are deeper in the end zone. Lindell could do the same. exact. thing.

Four 2-3 teams. What does that mean for us? Is our best shot that the entire division under-performs, even if we're lumped into that label too?

You're going to be ON Allen St. You're right in the mix. Allen has a ton of bars and you're fairly close to Elmwood Ave. I'd avoid Chippewa. Here are some of my favorite bars/restaurants in the area: Blue Monk Frizzys Sample Coles Mothers Cecelias You wont be disappointed with any of those.