If Thigpen is cut, Gailey will pick him up

[VADC Bills]

He wasn't cut but Drew Brees. The Chargers completely gave up on him, drafted a QB first overall to replace him and then made no effort whatsoever to sign him. He wasn't a complete bust but he started poorly and ended bad.

 

Brett Favre was a #2 pick that the Falcons didnt think was good or they never would have traded him (of course, this was Jerry Glanville and some other moron GM, and Ron Wolf thought Favre would be good).

 

The Packers also tried to keep Brohm and offered him the same contract the Bills did to keep him on their active roster, not practice squad, but Brohm chose the Bills as a better opportunity.

 

I don't expect him to be great either, and he may not even make the team,

You do realize that Brees led the Chargers to a 12-4 record in his last season with them. We should have some one to perform so badly.

 

I do agree with your assessment on Brohm.

[CardinalScotts]

Reading this string is pretty depressing & really shows the sad state of affairs at the QB position in Buffalo.

 

1st we have the Brohm "I saw him play at Louisville & I think he should be the starter" fans who want our starter to be a guy rejected by the entire NFL last September when Green Bay waived him. They really believed John Guy & company outsmarted the whole league last November when they signed Brohm.

 

Now we have the "Chan Gailey worked wonders with Thigpen in KC" I think if he gets waived he should be the starter fans who want Thigpen to get waived, meaning he'd have been rejected by 3 teams (Waived by Vikings; traded to Miami for a low pick; if done, waived by a division opponent with no fear of him starting against them) who may have put up some nice stats, but only put up two wins resulting in the firing of his head coach. Then the next year KC was so enamored with Gailey's work with Thigpen, that Gailey & Thigpen were gone from KC long before the end of the season, with Chan not even making it to opening day (Yeah, spare me the excuses of Haley not liking Gailey. If Gailey/Thigpen were so good together in 2008, they'd still both be in KC)

 

Face it, our QB situation is the worst since 1985, when we traded a pick to get Vince Ferragamo then cut him thinking same season waiver pickup Bruce Mathison was better. Like 1985 any QB who is either here or picked up off the scrap heap to start this season will be gone by opening day next year, if not sooner. This facination with resurecting rejects shows that a starting NFL QB is not on this roster & one won't magically appear like a rabbit out of Chan Gailey's hat. Chan may end up being a good head coach for the Bills, but his best shot is knowing the mess he has at QB won't be fixed this year, put on a good face for the media & the overly optimistic fans & pray like hell his QB loses more games than other QB starved teams so that in the 2011 draft we can land The Franchise. Gailey will never succeed with our sorry bunch or Tyler Thigpen, but he could reach Marv Levy status or better with a Jake Locker as his QB.

 

By the way, there was a decent NFL QB on the 1985 Bills. Unfortunately he spent a lot of his rookie year stashed on IR & didn't end up starting a game until his 5th season. If Levi Brown can have a similar career, I'd be satisfied with him, but not as our starter-ever.

 

 

AND we would have to beat other teams to him

[Kelly the Dog]

You do realize that Brees led the Chargers to a 12-4 record in his last season with them. We should have some one to perform ...

No. I didn't. Because they were 9-7 and finished third in their division after losing three of their last four. He put up decent numbers but he also had LT and Gates in their prime.

[Red Squirrel]

Wow, which Fitzpatrick did you watch last year? Maybe you just saw one out of 5 throws, the few good ones. Fitzpatrick has got to have the most inconsistent arm I've seen in years. One great throw, one wild miss, a wilder miss, nice catch by the receiver on that crap throw, and "where in the hell was he throwing that one?"

 

I like his intangibles, but the scatter shot he has for an arm drives me nuts, which isn't to say "Captain Checkdown" makes me feel much better.

 

You do realize that there was only 4% difference in completion percentage between the "scatter shot" guy and the guy who never attempts a pass more than 15 yards in the air, right? That doesn't quite jibe with the "1 in 5" crack, now, does it? And Fitz hit TO deep downfield in stride more times in 9 games than Trent has hit ANYONE, in stride or not, deep downfield in three years?

 

And while excuses up the wazoo have been made about the bad OL causing TE to constantly check down and turn the offense into a "3 and out" machine, you never seem to notice that a lot of Fitz' wild throws came a split second before he was going to get sacked. The 2nd Pats game was like that...and as you might recall, when Trent came in he tried to do the same thing. He ALSO missed receivers by a mile, when he managed to actually get a throw off. And I'll be nice and ignore the fact that both got hurt that game...one vanished, the other almost led a comeback in a game that looked REALLY hopeless.

 

And most importantly , you do realize that the guy who you prefer was 1-5, while Mr. Scatter-shot was 5-4, don't you?

 

I ask whether you know these things even though they have been posted MANY times before. It just doesn't sink in.

 

It seems to me that those who still think Edwards is the best choice just fundamentally view the game differently...they evaluate QBs based on best-case-scenario performances from his teammates. The best case never happens. You just never see a guy walk up to the line and repeatedly have 8 seconds to choose from 5 wide open receivers. Sometimes you have to improvise: change the play at the line....scramble a little bit....trust your receivers to make plays....DO SOMETHING.

 

I avoided getting involved in these discussions recently, but it just drives me nuts that folks never seem to learn. They always go for the guy that "looks" the right way. We even have some old proof of this in this thread, where someone is reminiscing about Collins....Jeezus, Collins was TERRIBLE. And he's started about 10 games in 12 years away from Buffalo, so it clearly wasn't just youth that held him back. But By God, he LOOKED like a QB, just like Johnson, just like Edwards.

 

Some of you will never learn.

[JOHNNYFAIRPLAY]

Do you mean no regular season downs for Levi ever? I agree this season is a very very low chance, but ever? Let me watch him in a preseason game or two and I'll let you know if I'd bet, say $10, on him.

 

Not ever, but this season and next. Take a look at preseason games and let me know. $10 wager is fine.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

You do realize that there was only 4% difference in completion percentage between the "scatter shot" guy and the guy who never attempts a pass more than 15 yards in the air, right? That doesn't quite jibe with the "1 in 5" crack, now, does it? And Fitz hit TO deep downfield in stride more times in 9 games than Trent has hit ANYONE, in stride or not, deep downfield in three years?

 

And while excuses up the wazoo have been made about the bad OL causing TE to constantly check down and turn the offense into a "3 and out" machine, you never seem to notice that a lot of Fitz' wild throws came a split second before he was going to get sacked. The 2nd Pats game was like that...and as you might recall, when Trent came in he tried to do the same thing. He ALSO missed receivers by a mile, when he managed to actually get a throw off. And I'll be nice and ignore the fact that both got hurt that game...one vanished, the other almost led a comeback in a game that looked REALLY hopeless.

 

And most importantly , you do realize that the guy who you prefer was 1-5, while Mr. Scatter-shot was 5-4, don't you?

 

I ask whether you know these things even though they have been posted MANY times before. It just doesn't sink in.

 

It seems to me that those who still think Edwards is the best choice just fundamentally view the game differently...they evaluate QBs based on best-case-scenario performances from his teammates. The best case never happens. You just never see a guy walk up to the line and repeatedly have 8 seconds to choose from 5 wide open receivers. Sometimes you have to improvise: change the play at the line....scramble a little bit....trust your receivers to make plays....DO SOMETHING.

 

I avoided getting involved in these discussions recently, but it just drives me nuts that folks never seem to learn. They always go for the guy that "looks" the right way. We even have some old proof of this in this thread, where someone is reminiscing about Collins....Jeezus, Collins was TERRIBLE. And he's started about 10 games in 12 years away from Buffalo, so it clearly wasn't just youth that held him back. But By God, he LOOKED like a QB, just like Johnson, just like Edwards.

 

Some of you will never learn.

Agree totally.

 

Fitzy is not the sexy pick to be a team's number one quarterback. He just doesn't look the part and many people get hung up on that.

 

But based on his play last year when both quarterbacks had essentially the same circumstances, Fitzy was by far, the best quarterback on the Bills.

 

edit: And yes, this been pointed out over and over again but lots of people just choose to turn a deaf ear to it, or make up a baseless counter-argument.

[Kelly the Dog]

Agree totally.

 

Fitzy is not the sexy pick to be a team's number one quarterback. He just doesn't look the part and many people get hung up on that.

 

But based on his play last year when both quarterbacks had essentially the same circumstances, Fitzy was by far, the best quarterback on the Bills.

 

edit: And yes, this been pointed out over and over again but lots of people just choose to turn a deaf ear to it, or make up a baseless counter-argument.

You guys are forgetting one essential element: a player, especially a guy like Fitz with glaringly limited upside, could easily have been the best QB on the Bills last year and still not even be considered to be the starting QB this year.

 

Fitz is a decent back-up QB in this league, and pretty much everyone knows it. He was signed to be the back-up and he knew he was going to be the back-up and one of the reasons he was signed was because he knew he was going to be the back-up and was okay with being the back-up. He has qualities that make him a back-up but pretty much eliminate him from being a good let alone great starter in the NFL.

 

So it wasn't at all surprising what he did, or how he played and yes, out-played Trent last year. One of the things he's good at is making things out of nothing in short bursts. That's what a back-up is supposed to do.

 

There are many on this board, myself included, who think that Fitz pretty much has the back-up job sewn up, and the guy who loses the starter derby between Trent and Brohm could well be cut (because they are likely going to not want risking losing Brown to someone plucking him off the PS). Know why? Because Fitz is a decent back-up. That's what he is.

[Albany,n.y.]

You guys are forgetting one essential element: a player, especially a guy like Fitz with glaringly limited upside, could easily have been the best QB on the Bills last year and still not even be considered to be the starting QB this year.

 

Fitz is a decent back-up QB in this league, and pretty much everyone knows it. He was signed to be the back-up and he knew he was going to be the back-up and one of the reasons he was signed was because he knew he was going to be the back-up and was okay with being the back-up. He has qualities that make him a back-up but pretty much eliminate him from being a good let alone great starter in the NFL.

 

So it wasn't at all surprising what he did, or how he played and yes, out-played Trent last year. One of the things he's good at is making things out of nothing in short bursts. That's what a back-up is supposed to do.

 

There are many on this board, myself included, who think that Fitz pretty much has the back-up job sewn up, and the guy who loses the starter derby between Trent and Brohm could well be cut (because they are likely going to not want risking losing Brown to someone plucking him off the PS). Know why? Because Fitz is a decent back-up. That's what he is.

It's good to see some sanity on this board in regards to Fitzpatrick in your post & the one above it. Those "cut him, he sucks" or "he costs too much and Ralph is cheap" posts were getting a little ridiculous considering Fitzpatrick's body of work as an NFL QB compared with the other 3 candidates on our roster. If Gailey wants to "win now" the choice of our starter is clear-Fitzpatrick, game in & game out gives us the best chance of winning each Sunday. I too think, at worst, Fitzpatrick will be #2 and has a roster spot locked up.

[VanCity]

Reading this string is pretty depressing & really shows the sad state of affairs at the QB position in Buffalo.

 

1st we have the Brohm "I saw him play at Louisville & I think he should be the starter" fans who want our starter to be a guy rejected by the entire NFL last September when Green Bay waived him. They really believed John Guy & company outsmarted the whole league last November when they signed Brohm.

 

Now we have the "Chan Gailey worked wonders with Thigpen in KC" I think if he gets waived he should be the starter fans who want Thigpen to get waived, meaning he'd have been rejected by 3 teams (Waived by Vikings; traded to Miami for a low pick; if done, waived by a division opponent with no fear of him starting against them) who may have put up some nice stats, but only put up two wins resulting in the firing of his head coach. Then the next year KC was so enamored with Gailey's work with Thigpen, that Gailey & Thigpen were gone from KC long before the end of the season, with Chan not even making it to opening day (Yeah, spare me the excuses of Haley not liking Gailey. If Gailey/Thigpen were so good together in 2008, they'd still both be in KC)

 

Face it, our QB situation is the worst since 1985, when we traded a pick to get Vince Ferragamo then cut him thinking same season waiver pickup Bruce Mathison was better. Like 1985 any QB who is either here or picked up off the scrap heap to start this season will be gone by opening day next year, if not sooner. This facination with resurecting rejects shows that a starting NFL QB is not on this roster & one won't magically appear like a rabbit out of Chan Gailey's hat. Chan may end up being a good head coach for the Bills, but his best shot is knowing the mess he has at QB won't be fixed this year, put on a good face for the media & the overly optimistic fans & pray like hell his QB loses more games than other QB starved teams so that in the 2011 draft we can land The Franchise. Gailey will never succeed with our sorry bunch or Tyler Thigpen, but he could reach Marv Levy status or better with a Jake Locker as his QB.

 

By the way, there was a decent NFL QB on the 1985 Bills. Unfortunately he spent a lot of his rookie year stashed on IR & didn't end up starting a game until his 5th season. If Levi Brown can have a similar career, I'd be satisfied with him, but not as our starter-ever.

 

I agree with the majority of your post. I am, however, a little more optimistic regarding what Chan can do with our current crop. I'd prefer not to see Thigpen on our roster, following the same thought-line that you are. He is a known commodity, but one that really won't pay out in the end.

 

I don't know which of our current QB's fit the mold of the offense that Chan is implementing best, but I am looking forward to seeing who sits behind center on opening day. I think that many posters are jumping the gun in assuming a lack of growth from Brohm and/or Trent. I know that TE has been given opportunities, but we all have seen the ineptitude of the previous coaching regime in providing a consistently strong offensive scheme. I will hold out hope until opening day, when the product on the field can and will be effectively evaluated.

[Speedy G]

Late round draft picks have been known to become quality pro QB's ... I won't name them all but I think we all know one or two. It's pretty clear that this is not going to be his year to compete for the starting job but then again ... he is smart, has leadership qualities, and a decent arm ... we might be surprised.

 

Yeah, there's one in our division.....a 6th round pick...future hall of famer............anything is possible.......!

[John Gianelli]

Reading this string is pretty depressing & really shows the sad state of affairs at the QB position in Buffalo.

 

1st we have the Brohm "I saw him play at Louisville & I think he should be the starter" fans who want our starter to be a guy rejected by the entire NFL last September when Green Bay waived him. They really believed John Guy & company outsmarted the whole league last November when they signed Brohm.

 

Now we have the "Chan Gailey worked wonders with Thigpen in KC" I think if he gets waived he should be the starter fans who want Thigpen to get waived, meaning he'd have been rejected by 3 teams (Waived by Vikings; traded to Miami for a low pick; if done, waived by a division opponent with no fear of him starting against them) who may have put up some nice stats, but only put up two wins resulting in the firing of his head coach. Then the next year KC was so enamored with Gailey's work with Thigpen, that Gailey & Thigpen were gone from KC long before the end of the season, with Chan not even making it to opening day (Yeah, spare me the excuses of Haley not liking Gailey. If Gailey/Thigpen were so good together in 2008, they'd still both be in KC)

 

Face it, our QB situation is the worst since 1985, when we traded a pick to get Vince Ferragamo then cut him thinking same season waiver pickup Bruce Mathison was better. Like 1985 any QB who is either here or picked up off the scrap heap to start this season will be gone by opening day next year, if not sooner. This facination with resurecting rejects shows that a starting NFL QB is not on this roster & one won't magically appear like a rabbit out of Chan Gailey's hat. Chan may end up being a good head coach for the Bills, but his best shot is knowing the mess he has at QB won't be fixed this year, put on a good face for the media & the overly optimistic fans & pray like hell his QB loses more games than other QB starved teams so that in the 2011 draft we can land The Franchise. Gailey will never succeed with our sorry bunch or Tyler Thigpen, but he could reach Marv Levy status or better with a Jake Locker as his QB.

 

By the way, there was a decent NFL QB on the 1985 Bills. Unfortunately he spent a lot of his rookie year stashed on IR & didn't end up starting a game until his 5th season. If Levi Brown can have a similar career, I'd be satisfied with him, but not as our starter-ever.

 

Would that decent NFL QB be a certain #14?

[Speedy G]

Would that decent NFL QB be a certain #14?

 

 

Sounds right, Mr Comeback...

[Red Squirrel]

You guys are forgetting one essential element: a player, especially a guy like Fitz with glaringly limited upside, could easily have been the best QB on the Bills last year and still not even be considered to be the starting QB this year.

My comments reflect my opinions, backed up with some stats and some common sense. SJBF agreed with me. What you did is 100% opinion. But patronizingly telling us we are forgetting something is pretty rich. Continuing........

 

Fitz is a decent back-up QB in this league, and pretty much everyone knows it. He was signed to be the back-up and he knew he was going to be the back-up and one of the reasons he was signed was because he knew he was going to be the back-up and was okay with being the back-up. He has qualities that make him a back-up but pretty much eliminate him from being a good let alone great starter in the NFL.

All 4 QBs on the Bills roster were originally signed or drafted to be back-ups, weren't they? But only Fitz shouldn't dare aspire to be a little bit more? Because....why? Oh, yeah. He's less accurate than Edwards...but don't let the fact that the difference in their completion percentage is eaten up by the difference in the percentage of times they get sacked....and that Fitz throws higher risk passes. You know those kind; they carry in the air past the 1st down marker!

 

So it wasn't at all surprising what he did, or how he played and yes, out-played Trent last year. One of the things he's good at is making things out of nothing in short bursts. That's what a back-up is supposed to do.

This is kind of nonsensical. Fitz had one game when he came off the bench with little prep time either for him or for the opposition. He was terrible, but lucky for him, less terrible than his opposite number, ¡Sanchize! When he prepped and the other team had film on him, he was better. BTW, this was exactly the pattern for our best backup QB ever, Reich. he pretty much sucked when summoned in the middle of a game, but was damn near as good as Kelly when he had the full week to prepare.

 

There are many on this board, myself included, who think that Fitz pretty much has the back-up job sewn up, and the guy who loses the starter derby between Trent and Brohm could well be cut (because they are likely going to not want risking losing Brown to someone plucking him off the PS). Know why? Because Fitz is a decent back-up. That's what he is.

I have heard this before, and it sounds like you are being fairer to Fitz than the guys who talk about him like he isn't fit to be an extra on Friday Night Lights. But it makes no sense! What you are saying boils down to this: the guy who was best last year should just be happy to be a back-up....the guy who possibly is your 2nd best QB should be whacked in favor of the guy you think is glaringly limited and another guy who they spent a measly 7th rd pick on. Once again...it makes no sense.

[tonyjustbcuz]

I would be fine with this.... as long as it is Fitz that they cut. I still feel there is some unexplored potential with TE and therefore worth keeping around for this season. Fitz is a known quantity to whom I say "no thank you"

 

 

I agree with you and said basically the same thing in a prior post.....It's a no-brainer to me that Fitz will never be more than a career backup with occasional starting duties at QB when injury dictates. I don't particularly like T.E. or think he will ever make it as a starter, but I never thought that Todd Collins would still be in this league after the horrendous tour in Buffalo. So, I guess one more year of T.E. on the roster is acceptable if we're not going to make any QB transactions prior to the season. It is a no-brainer that Levi whatever his last name is... gets a free pass as a rookie, and as long as Brohm is progressing on the field and learning how to absorb a NFL playbook he won't likely go away quite yet.

 

So, Goodbye Fitzy...I appreciate your effort, but your probably going to be the odd man out! With the 1st pick of the 2013 NFL Draft the Buffalo Bills select QB Nick Montana (Joe Montana's son..)!

[Kelly the Dog]

My comments reflect my opinions, backed up with some stats and some common sense. SJBF agreed with me. What you did is 100% opinion. But patronizingly telling us we are forgetting something is pretty rich. Continuing........

What I said was opinion and common sense and general football knowledge. I could have added stats to show he is not starter's material but I felt it was self-evident and pretty much common knowledge around the league.

All 4 QBs on the Bills roster were originally signed or drafted to be back-ups, weren't they? But only Fitz shouldn't dare aspire to be a little bit more? Because....why? Oh, yeah. He's less accurate than Edwards...but don't let the fact that the difference in their completion percentage is eaten up by the difference in the percentage of times they get sacked....and that Fitz throws higher risk passes. You know those kind; they carry in the air past the 1st down marker!

There are certain quarterbacks and kinds of quarterbacks who will never be starters in the league, unless the kind of starter that is forced into starting because of injuries and who last for a few games. There have been countless dozens of them. Sure they aspire to be starters, but they lack enough qualities to give them a ceiling.

 

Teams don't want starting QBs to have ceilings, they want them to HOPEFULLY put it all together and realize their potential. Certain players are destined to be back-ups and they are good back-ups. Charlie Batch comes to mind. Billy Volek. Seneca Wallace. AVP was a decent back-up but he was always a back-up regardless of being thrust into the starting line-up. That's why Bledsoe was brought in, because it was obvious that AVP lacked enough qualities that prevent him from being considered a solid NFL starter.

 

If you don't understand why it's very possible for Fitz to be a better QB right now than either Edwards or Brohm but that both Edwards and Brohm both have the potential to be starters and Fitz really doesn't, you don't watch or know as much about the NFL as I thought you did. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Edwards and Brohm may never become as good a starter as Fitz is, and if that happens they will be out of the league, too. Either of them it is possible to become back-ups in this league. The jury is still out on both.

 

Fitz's accuracy alone probably prevents him from becoming a good full time 16 game starter in this league.

 

This is kind of nonsensical. Fitz had one game when he came off the bench with little prep time either for him or for the opposition. He was terrible, but lucky for him, less terrible than his opposite number, ¡Sanchize! When he prepped and the other team had film on him, he was better. BTW, this was exactly the pattern for our best backup QB ever, Reich. he pretty much sucked when summoned in the middle of a game, but was damn near as good as Kelly when he had the full week to prepare.

When I said short bursts I really meant either a few halves here and there, or a few games here and there. That's what some career back-ups are pretty good at. They are stopgaps. They can take over for a few games and maybe a half season and your team is not completely out of it. But they cannot last the whole season as starters, they're just not good enough. You saw that with Fitz last year. He has limitations he cannot overcome. That's why he's a back-up.

 

Summary: A smart, serviceable backup quarterback most ideally suited for a dink-and-dunk, West Coast offense, Fitzpatrick has shown he can be effective in relief, leading the Bills to a victory against the Jets when he came off the bench in his first action of the season. He can be trusted to get a team through a game. However, he has not proven he can command an offense from the pole position and still too often shows up like a deer in headlights behind a battered offensive line, not showing the poise or decision-making desired in a front-line passer.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2009/12/1...yan-fitzpatrick

 

I have heard this before, and it sounds like you are being fairer to Fitz than the guys who talk about him like he isn't fit to be an extra on Friday Night Lights. But it makes no sense! What you are saying boils down to this: the guy who was best last year should just be happy to be a back-up....the guy who possibly is your 2nd best QB should be whacked in favor of the guy you think is glaringly limited and another guy who they spent a measly 7th rd pick on. Once again...it makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Most teams have a starter, a "back-up" that can play if the starter goes down for a while, and a third QB who is a project. That player usually has a chance to be a starter down the line because he has most or all of the tools, he needs experience in the NFL. For the Bills, that guy is Levi Brown. He is almost for sure going to be the #3 guy unless Gailey and Nix think no one will take him off the PS or pick him up on waivers but they're probably not going to risk it.

 

Fitz is a dependable back-up not a dependable starter. That's why myself and a lot of other fans think he has #2 locked up pretty much unless something unforeseen happens. If Edwards and Brohm BOTH play great, we might cut Fitz but that is highly unlikely. Brohm might tank, and if he can't beat out Edwards, he'll likely be released, leaving Fitz and Brown. I would almost bet you right now that when the season starts, barring injury, Fitz is #2 and Brown is #3 and #1 is anyone's guess. I'm predicting Edwards will win that battle but someone could get hurt, Brohm could surprise, etc.

 

Batch again is a perfect example and guy who is like Fitz, only probably better. The Steelers love him as a back-up and have for years. He can come in and play for a half or few games, maybe even half a season, and all is not lost. They just don't think he is starter material and no one else does either.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

It would be proper for me to get involved in this debate between Kelly and Red Squirrel.

 

I agree strongly with Red Squirrel that no matter how much Trent's supporters want to rationalize his poor performance last year, that Fitzy in virtually the same circumstances significantly outperformed Trent. Fitzy was our best quarterback last year.

 

Agree totally.

 

Fitzy is not the sexy pick to be a team's number one quarterback. He just doesn't look the part and many people get hung up on that.

 

But based on his play last year when both quarterbacks had essentially the same circumstances, Fitzy was by far, the best quarterback on the Bills.

 

edit: And yes, this been pointed out over and over again but lots of people just choose to turn a deaf ear to it, or make up a baseless counter-argument.

But to develop the discussion more deeply, I think Kelly (and many of the other posters) brings up some good points.

 

Kelly touched on the concept of player's "ceiling." He didn't mention a player's "floor."

 

Fitzy has a higher floor than Trent, meaning that when they are both at their worst, Fitzy is the better quarterback. Put differently, Trent has the ability to be worse than Fitzy…Trent's floor is lower. For the most part, Fitzy has enough competitiveness, resourcefulness, and moxie to not totally stink up a game. Trent on the other hand has had several epically horrendous performances. Fitzy can hold it together. Trent can fall apart.

 

But in many people's eyes, Trent has a higher ceiling than Fitzy. Here's where we get into prejudices about what an NFL quarterback is supposed to look like, etc.

 

To finish the thought, many believe that if Trent and Fitzy were both to play to their highest potential that Trent would be the better quarterback because he has the higher ceiling or upside. Because they are both intelligent guys, the implication in this case is that Trent is viewed as being more physically talented. The trouble is, we don't really know if Trent actually has the higher ceiling.

 

When we signed Ryan Fitzpatrick I wrote that he was a slightly more talented version of Alex Van Pelt. This could be viewed as an insult or a compliment. I respect the job Fitzy did for us last year and what he brings to the table. But that only goes so far.

 

Kelly further developed the idea that although Fitzy was better, he still might not be a bona fide NFL starting QB. This is also a valid thought whether he is right or wrong. The possibility does exist.

 

Last year in San Francisco, a very similar debate was going on between supporters of Shawn Hill and those of Alex Smith. Hill, a perceived journeyman talent had finally by default landed the starting QB job towards the end of 2008. He went 5-3 down the stretch which combined with his 2-0 record in 2007, gave him a lifetime record of 7-3 as a starting quarterback. His teammates loved him. Fans loved him.

 

But the coaching staff was simply not convinced. The implication, the subtext was that Hill was so limited that sooner or later, he would regress as defenses developed a book on him. Out of respect for his record, Hill started 2009 as the 49ers QB. He went 3-3 in the first 6 weeks. But his completion percentage, yards per attempt, and touchdown percentage were down from the previous season.

 

Enter former Number One overall pick, Alex Smith. Smith only went 5-5 himself as starter but he improved over the course of the season and seems to show that he'll continue to improve. He has a higher ceiling than Shawn Hill. Now Smith is the anointed starter and Hill is the respected backup.

 

It may not be just. It may not be correct. But there are situations in which one person looks the part and the other one doesn't. And sometimes decisions are made on that basis. I've seen it happen in other fields and there's no question that it happens in sports too.

 

The good thing is that Coach Gailey seems to be a man of integrity and someone who will let the QBs compete and that the starter will be named on merit after a fair fight.

[Red Squirrel]

.....I would almost bet you right now that when the season starts, barring injury, Fitz is #2 and Brown is #3 and #1 is anyone's guess. I'm predicting Edwards will win that battle but someone could get hurt, Brohm could surprise, etc.....

This is really the only part that I feel it is worth further debate. I just cannot envision a competition between 4 guys where only two are considered to be #1, and the loser of that gets whacked. And I also can't imagine why any of you think Brown could come in 4th behind a group of guys that everyone criticizes, after himself getting bypassed by every other team at least 6 times in the draft, and then be in such demand that the Bills couldn't pass him through waivers and assign him to the practice squad. That is all.

[Albany,n.y.]

It would be proper for me to get involved in this debate between Kelly and Red Squirrel.

 

I agree strongly with Red Squirrel that no matter how much Trent's supporters want to rationalize his poor performance last year, that Fitzy in virtually the same circumstances significantly outperformed Trent. Fitzy was our best quarterback last year.

 

 

But to develop the discussion more deeply, I think Kelly (and many of the other posters) brings up some good points.

 

Kelly touched on the concept of player's "ceiling." He didn't mention a player's "floor."

 

Fitzy has a higher floor than Trent, meaning that when they are both at their worst, Fitzy is the better quarterback. Put differently, Trent has the ability to be worse than Fitzy…Trent's floor is lower. For the most part, Fitzy has enough competitiveness, resourcefulness, and moxie to not totally stink up a game. Trent on the other hand has had several epically horrendous performances. Fitzy can hold it together. Trent can fall apart.

 

But in many people's eyes, Trent has a higher ceiling than Fitzy. Here's where we get into prejudices about what an NFL quarterback is supposed to look like, etc.

 

To finish the thought, many believe that if Trent and Fitzy were both to play to their highest potential that Trent would be the better quarterback because he has the higher ceiling or upside. Because they are both intelligent guys, the implication in this case is that Trent is viewed as being more physically talented. The trouble is, we don't really know if Trent actually has the higher ceiling.

 

When we signed Ryan Fitzpatrick I wrote that he was a slightly more talented version of Alex Van Pelt. This could be viewed as an insult or a compliment. I respect the job Fitzy did for us last year and what he brings to the table. But that only goes so far.

 

Kelly further developed the idea that although Fitzy was better, he still might not be a bona fide NFL starting QB. This is also a valid thought whether he is right or wrong. The possibility does exist.

 

Last year in San Francisco, a very similar debate was going on between supporters of Shawn Hill and those of Alex Smith. Hill, a perceived journeyman talent had finally by default landed the starting QB job towards the end of 2008. He went 5-3 down the stretch which combined with his 2-0 record in 2007, gave him a lifetime record of 7-3 as a starting quarterback. His teammates loved him. Fans loved him.

 

But the coaching staff was simply not convinced. The implication, the subtext was that Hill was so limited that sooner or later, he would regress as defenses developed a book on him. Out of respect for his record, Hill started 2009 as the 49ers QB. He went 3-3 in the first 6 weeks. But his completion percentage, yards per attempt, and touchdown percentage were down from the previous season.

 

Enter former Number One overall pick, Alex Smith. Smith only went 5-5 himself as starter but he improved over the course of the season and seems to show that he'll continue to improve. He has a higher ceiling than Shawn Hill. Now Smith is the anointed starter and Hill is the respected backup.

 

It may not be just. It may not be correct. But there are situations in which one person looks the part and the other one doesn't. And sometimes decisions are made on that basis. I've seen it happen in other fields and there's no question that it happens in sports too.

 

The good thing is that Coach Gailey seems to be a man of integrity and someone who will let the QBs compete and that the starter will be named on merit after a fair fight.

That explanation of a player's floor is great! Your post should be required reading every time someone says that someone should make the roster over another because he has more upside. Until they calculate the downsides, or floors, they cannot correctly evaluate each player's value to the team. Fitzpatrick, even if he doesn't start, is one of the most important players on the team. He becomes even more valuable if Trent Edwards, with his injury history, ends up the starter. By the way, if Brohm beats out Edwards they better keep Fitzpatrick around, because Brohm wasn't exactly a Manning in terms of durability in college, tearing his ACL, thumb ligaments & having non throwing arm labrum surgery.

[Albany,n.y.]

This is really the only part that I feel it is worth further debate. I just cannot envision a competition between 4 guys where only two are considered to be #1, and the loser of that gets whacked. And I also can't imagine why any of you think Brown could come in 4th behind a group of guys that everyone criticizes, after himself getting bypassed by every other team at least 6 times in the draft, and then be in such demand that the Bills couldn't pass him through waivers and assign him to the practice squad. That is all.

For the record, Matt Moore was a UFA, Tyler Thigpen was a 7th round pick and Derek Anderson was a 6th rounder. None of them made it past all 31 other teams when put on waivers as rookies.

In Tom Brady's rookie year the Patriots kept 4 QBs because they didn't want to risk trying to sneak him onto the practice squad and someone claiming Brady on waivers.

[Kelly the Dog]

Kelly touched on the concept of player's "ceiling." He didn't mention a player's "floor."

 

Fitzy has a higher floor than Trent, meaning that when they are both at their worst, Fitzy is the better quarterback. Put differently, Trent has the ability to be worse than Fitzy…Trent's floor is lower. For the most part, Fitzy has enough competitiveness, resourcefulness, and moxie to not totally stink up a game. Trent on the other hand has had several epically horrendous performances. Fitzy can hold it together. Trent can fall apart.

 

But in many people's eyes, Trent has a higher ceiling than Fitzy. Here's where we get into prejudices about what an NFL quarterback is supposed to look like, etc.

 

To finish the thought, many believe that if Trent and Fitzy were both to play to their highest potential that Trent would be the better quarterback because he has the higher ceiling or upside. Because they are both intelligent guys, the implication in this case is that Trent is viewed as being more physically talented. The trouble is, we don't really know if Trent actually has the higher ceiling.

The floor concept is a good one, and important to the discussion. The floor concept is precisely why Fitz, Batch, Volek, etc are desirable as back-ups. It's implicit in the earlier explanation of being reliable and your team not falling apart when the starter goes down for a few games. It's almost always a veteran who is a desired back-up because his floor is "higher".

 

That said, this is really only when we're talking about Fitz playing several games. His "floor" when we discuss singular appearances or games is easily as low or lower than Edwards and probably Brohm. Fitz can look and play absolutely pitiful for an entire game.

 

But yes, his floor, overall, is what makes him a reliable back-up.

 

And the Hill/Smith analogy is pretty much the same.