are we done talking about fitz!!

[Orton's Arm]

Okay man, you're hired as the GM

Thanks!

[Orton's Arm]

Look at the Saints, as good as Drew Brees is...he can't do it alone. The Saints won the SB last year with a very aggressive defense that had a big turnover differential, plus could put plenty of pressure on opposing QB's. Then he also had a decent running game to help him out, if the opponent stopped him, they would run more. If they shut down the run then Brees would tear them apart. Balanced team and equally good defense and offensive play will usually prevail over a one dimensional opponent.

 

Chan Gailey needs to remove his head from his keaster and start setting up the offense to run first and pass second, the two best play makers on the offense are Fred Jackson and CJ Spiller. People forget that those early 90's Bills won because they ran Thurman Thomas more then Kelly threw

I agree with your first paragraph while having mixed feelings about the second. From the Wikipedia article about the Bills/Giants Superbowl:

On defense' date=' New York wanted to be physical with Buffalo's wideouts, and play with extra defensive backs to concentrate on stopping the Bills passing game, while shifting focus away from trying to stop Buffalo's running game. In his book "The Education of a Coach", David Halberstam writes that one of Bill Belichick's specific plans to combat the Bills involved convincing his defense (who had been the best unit against the run in the NFL that season) that they would win the game if Thurman Thomas ran for more than 100 yards. Belichick also felt that Jim Kelly was not as good at reading defenses as some other elite QBs, like Joe Montana, were, and that Kelly tended to "freeze" what he was seeing from a series and then use that information on the next one, which meant the Giants could be a step ahead of him all game if they alternated their cover plans from drive to drive.[/quote']

 

Belichick's game plan (which is in the Hall of Fame) held the Bills' offense to just 17 points while forcing the Bills' high powered offense to punt on five separate occasions. Even with Belichick's heavily anti-pass game plan in place, Kelly was still able to complete 18 of 30 passes for 212 yards (an average of 7.1 yards per attempt). But the reason Belichick went so heavily anti-pass in the first place was because he realized that he had to contain the Bills' passing attack; but could get away with letting them run the ball to some extent. A good running game is less dangerous than a good passing attack.

 

That said, if you see teams over-committing to stopping the pass--as Belichick did in that Super Bowl--I'm not adverse to using the running game to punish them.

[K-9]

I agree with your first paragraph while having mixed feelings about the second. From the Wikipedia article about the Bills/Giants Superbowl:

 

 

Belichick's game plan (which is in the Hall of Fame) held the Bills' offense to just 17 points while forcing the Bills' high powered offense to punt on five separate occasions. Even with Belichick's heavily anti-pass game plan in place, Kelly was still able to complete 18 of 30 passes for 212 yards (an average of 7.1 yards per attempt). But the reason Belichick went so heavily anti-pass in the first place was because he realized that he had to contain the Bills' passing attack; but could get away with letting them run the ball to some extent. A good running game is less dangerous than a good passing attack.

 

That said, if you see teams over-committing to stopping the pass--as Belichick did in that Super Bowl--I'm not adverse to using the running game to punish them.

 

I like how, over time, things get romanticized to the point of inaccuracy. Especially for the winners.

 

The fact is, Belichik's defense did a crap job of stopping our offense. Unless surrendering 17 points in 19 minutes is stopping someone. The fact is Kelly, who called his own plays, stubbornly refused to take what the "genius's" vaunted 2-5 front gave him early in the game.

 

Yep, 17 points, 166 rushing yards, 371 total yards in 19 minutes. The Giants D must have been exhausted from being on the field so long. They sure stopped the Bills from executing that last minute drive down field to set up a game-winning FG attempt. And Belichick was ALL genius when Norwood missed.

 

I take nothing away from Bill Belichick. He's a fantastic coach and defensive mind. But for anyone to suggest his scheme in the SB had much to do with the Giants win, just wasn't watching the game.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Dorkington]

Carson Palmer sucks, he never was good again after Kimo blew up his knee and basically destroyed their whole rising franchise in that one playoff game.

 

Fitzpatrick should start the rest of the year, and stay around in the future to mentor the new kid and be a valuable reserve.

 

Looking at him as a franchise QB is just blind fan optimism.

So even if Fitz plays out the year well, you're in favor of benching him for an unknown? And you're making this decision *now* not even half way through the season, instead of after the season ends, and closer to draft time?

 

And who exactly are you calling blind?

 

Why can't fans accept the fact that the decision on Fitzy does not need to be made in week 7 week 8 or even week 14!!! The decision needs to be made on draft day comparing what he showed throughout the season vs what is there in the draft.

 

He has played well at times, he has played poorly at times and the only known at the moment is he does have more potential than was generally thought.

 

He is still improving and is not the "no upside, weak armed second string at best QB" he was initially diagnosed as.

 

Now he still may prove himself not to be the elite passer and leader the bills need, but so far this season he has earned the right to continue attempting to stake his claim on the job.

Thank you! Someone else gets it!

[Van_phelaN1]

lmao at this 14 year old childish tantrum...this post is literally too stupid to reply to and I am not about to indulge you in a kiddie pissing war. All I am going to say is that if you were capable of reading as much as you rant you would see I have given props to Fitz many times and very much like Fitz. Unlike you, I acknowledge what he has done well while keeping in perspective his mistakes he had made along the way. You on the other hand just compared Fitz to the best QB's in the game...clearly you are not rational enough to discuss something with, so we will just agree to disagree and move on.

 

So, it's too stupid to reply to...and yet...

 

Never mind...

[Orton's Arm]

I like how, over time, things get romanticized to the point of inaccuracy. Especially for the winners.

 

The fact is, Belichik's defense did a crap job of stopping our offense. Unless surrendering 17 points in 19 minutes is stopping someone. The fact is Kelly, who called his own plays, stubbornly refused to take what the "genius's" vaunted 2-5 front gave him early in the game.

 

Yep, 17 points, 166 rushing yards, 371 total yards in 19 minutes. The Giants D must have been exhausted from being on the field so long. They sure stopped the Bills from executing that last minute drive down field to set up a game-winning FG attempt. And Belichick was ALL genius when Norwood missed.

 

I take nothing away from Bill Belichick. He's a fantastic coach and defensive mind. But for anyone to suggest his scheme in the SB had much to do with the Giants win, just wasn't watching the game.

 

GO BILLS!!!

During the regular season, the Bills' offense led the league in points scored, with 428 over the course of the season. That works out to about 27 points per game. In the playoffs, the Bills scored 44 points against the Dolphins, and 51 against the Raiders. Holding the Bills' offense to 17 points--as Belichick did in the Super Bowl--was considered an impressive feat, because the Bills' usual offensive output was so much higher.

 

As far as the last minute field goal drive went, the Giants defense prevented the Bills from getting closer than 47 yards. On grass. That is not an easy kick to make by any stretch of the imagination.

 

During the regular season, the Bills had been held below 20 points only twice; and one of those games was against the Giants. People tend to forget exactly how good the Bills' offense had been at scoring points.

[K-9]

During the regular season, the Bills' offense led the league in points scored, with 428 over the course of the season. That works out to about 27 points per game. In the playoffs, the Bills scored 44 points against the Dolphins, and 51 against the Raiders. Holding the Bills' offense to 17 points--as Belichick did in the Super Bowl--was considered an impressive feat, because the Bills' usual offensive output was so much higher.

 

As far as the last minute field goal drive went, the Giants defense prevented the Bills from getting closer than 47 yards. On grass. That is not an easy kick to make by any stretch of the imagination.

 

During the regular season, the Bills had been held below 20 points only twice; and one of those games was against the Giants. People tend to forget exactly how good the Bills' offense had been at scoring points.

 

Yes, we were an offensive juggernaut during the regular season and first two playoff games. No doubt. Lead the league in scoring. Nobody's forgetting how impressive they were. We also held the ball for 28 minutes per game running the no huddle.

 

During the regular season we averaged 1.06 points per minute of possession.

 

In the SB we improved to 1.11 points per minute of possession.

 

I use the time of possession because THAT was the critical stat from SBXXV. We only had the ball 19 minutes. And scored 17 points.

 

The story of that SB was the utter dominance of the Giants' offense, particularly their run game coupled with our defense's complete inability to get off the field on third down.

 

Unless you're willing to say Belichick was responsible for the Giant offense holding the ball for 41 minutes, then his scheme was a very small factor, at best, in contributing to their win.

 

If Norwood makes that FG, nobody is writing a book about how Belichick's scheme won them a SB. He got lucky twice in that game. First, when Kelly stubbornly refused to run the ball earlier and again when Norwood missed.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[ajzepp]

In the SB we improved to 1.11 points per minute of possession.

 

I use the time of possession because THAT was the critical stat from SBXXV. We only had the ball 19 minutes. And scored 17 points.

 

 

Holy SHITBALLS!!! YOU MEAN WE ACTUALLY WON??????

[K-9]

Holy SHITBALLS!!! YOU MEAN WE ACTUALLY WON??????

 

Why yes, Timmy, we did win.

 

You've just had a bad dream, is all.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

Yes, we were an offensive juggernaut during the regular season and first two playoff games. No doubt. Lead the league in scoring. Nobody's forgetting how impressive they were. We also held the ball for 28 minutes per game running the no huddle.

 

During the regular season we averaged 1.06 points per minute of possession.

 

In the SB we improved to 1.11 points per minute of possession.

 

I use the time of possession because THAT was the critical stat from SBXXV. We only had the ball 19 minutes. And scored 17 points.

 

The story of that SB was the utter dominance of the Giants' offense, particularly their run game coupled with our defense's complete inability to get off the field on third down.

 

Unless you're willing to say Belichick was responsible for the Giant offense holding the ball for 41 minutes, then his scheme was a very small factor, at best, in contributing to their win.

 

If Norwood makes that FG, nobody is writing a book about how Belichick's scheme won them a SB. He got lucky twice in that game. First, when Kelly stubbornly refused to run the ball earlier and again when Norwood missed.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Both teams had about the same number of drives. The Giants chose a clock-hogging style of offense for their drives. The Bills chose exactly the opposite style. At the end of the day, what matters is the points per drive stat, because that's what drives the final score.

 

The Giants' defense held the Bills' offense to 17 points in eight drives, or an average of 2.1 points per drive.

 

Just to get a feel for the number of offensive drives that's usual during the course of a game, I looked at three games from this past weekend. In the Cowboys game, the Cowboys had ten drives. (Excluding a meaningless drive at the end of the game with almost no time left.) In the Broncos game, the Broncos had 12 drives. In the Bengals game, the Bengals had eleven drives.

 

If you figure eleven drives per game is normal, then at 2.1 points per drive the Bills' offense would have scored 23.1 points in that Super Bowl. That's still below their season average of 27 points per game, let alone the gaudy averages they'd put up in the postseason. But I agree that the Giants' offense and its clock-hogging deserves the majority of the credit (if credit is the word I'm looking for here) for the fact that the Bills' offense had only eight possessions instead of a more usual number like ten or eleven.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

Both teams had about the same number of drives. The Giants chose a clock-hogging style of offense for their drives. The Bills chose exactly the opposite style. At the end of the day, what matters is the points per drive stat, because that's what drives the final score.

 

The Giants' defense held the Bills' offense to 17 points in eight drives, or an average of 2.1 points per drive.

 

Just to get a feel for the number of offensive drives that's usual during the course of a game, I looked at three games from this past weekend. In the Cowboys game, the Cowboys had ten drives. (Excluding a meaningless drive at the end of the game with almost no time left.) In the Broncos game, the Broncos had 12 drives. In the Bengals game, the Bengals had eleven drives.

 

If you figure eleven drives per game is normal, then at 2.1 points per drive the Bills' offense would have scored 23.1 points in that Super Bowl. That's still below their season average of 27 points per game, let alone the gaudy averages they'd put up in the postseason. But I agree that the Giants' offense and its clock-hogging deserves the majority of the credit (if credit is the word I'm looking for here) for the fact that the Bills' offense had only eight possessions instead of a more usual number like ten or eleven.

 

You're right. Bill Belichick is the only reason the Giants won that game. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Yes, we were an offensive juggernaut during the regular season and first two playoff games. No doubt. Lead the league in scoring. Nobody's forgetting how impressive they were. We also held the ball for 28 minutes per game running the no huddle.

 

During the regular season we averaged 1.06 points per minute of possession.

 

In the SB we improved to 1.11 points per minute of possession.

 

I use the time of possession because THAT was the critical stat from SBXXV. We only had the ball 19 minutes. And scored 17 points.

 

The story of that SB was the utter dominance of the Giants' offense, particularly their run game coupled with our defense's complete inability to get off the field on third down.

 

Wow. Someone who remembers straight. They topped us with TOP. 40:33 to 19:27 and yes I looked that up.

The Giants won Superbowl XXV 'cuz they held onto the ball, and our D could not stop them.

Very simple strategy: don't let our offense see the ball, we can't score.

 

The yards gained were remarkably even - ~170 running, ~200 passing. Penalties about even. No turnovers.

 

They had 50% more plays (73 vs 56)

Most of the extra plays were runs (39 run attempts to our 25 run attempts.) Their YPC were a "measly" 4.4 on the runs

They were dinking it out - and we couldn't stop them.

 

Ok, wait a minute -- wasn't the original point of this sub-thread that a strong running game doesn't get you nearly as much as a strong passing game?

Superbowl XXV proves this point -- how? Maybe the idea needs some re-thinking?

 

While we're at it, wasn't someone in another thread dissing off 4.2 yds per carry (Bills vs Chiefs) as "unacceptable"?

And then there's the point that we should draft a franchise QB because.....

.......if we have a great franchise QB, we can go get beaten in a 5th superbowl by a team with a strong running game, a strong defense, and a mediocre QB?

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

To the average Bills fan, one Super Bowl win would be enough. But if you design a team to win only one Super Bowl, and if you get a little unlucky, you won't win any. But if you design a team to win multiple Super Bowls, you can have an unlucky year or two and still come away with a Super Bowl ring. The only model associated with winning multiple Super Bowls requires an elite franchise QB.

<...>

Then consider Jeff Hostetler. No one would argue he had an elite career! But in his postseason games, he averaged 9.0 yards per pass attempt, and had a QB rating of 112.0. ESPN ranked his performance against the Bills as the 30th best QB performance in the Super Bowl of all time. The Giants received elite-level play from the QB position in the postseason. Had Hostetler played a little less well, the Giants would not have beaten the Bills.

 

This is a really good post. You make great points.

 

It's inarguable that the team who "has it all" -- QB, running game, D -- will usually top the team who has a mediocre QB and great run game and D.

 

I have two small points of difference. One is above -- not sure when ESPN's analysis was conducted? but have only been 44 SB. So is putting Hostetler #30 really saying he played an elite game? Curious, where did they put Kelly? Statistically, they had very similar games in SB25 - 60% pass completion, about 200 yds passing. Hostetler executed the game plan he was given and ran, ran, ran. It was a solid game at QB for both, not sure I can agree that was elite level play. For Kelly, it was a very mediocre day.

 

To break things down a little further, Super Bowl winners have consisted of 1) teams that have elite QBs, like Montana or Elway, 2) teams that have solid QBs who play significantly above their usual level for a year or two, or during the postseason. Examples include Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, and Terry Bradshaw. Teams in this category don't necessarily receive elite-level quarterback play all the time. But they do receive it when they need it the most: during the postseason. 3) teams which receive middle-of-the-road quarterback play during the regular season and postseason. Trent Dilfer and the Ravens of 2000 are a good example of this. But they're a very rare example, in part because the Ravens required one of the three best defenses in NFL history to mask Dilfer's shortcomings as a QB.

 

Again, this is a good analysis and shows a lot of thought. My perception is, that teams with elite QBs and mediocre D tend to lose championship games because they run into a strong D and a coach who does a top-notch job of gameplanning against their weaknesses. Maybe someday I'll look under the hood and see if actual analysis of 44 SB matches my perception. I would offer the last three SB as potential supporting evidence: IMO, Peyton Manning, Kurt Warner, and Tom Brady are elite QB, HOF bound.

The jury is still out on Brees, Big Ben, and Eli Manning, so far to me they are good, but not elite. Just my opinion of course.

 

Good reading -- keep it up!

[billsfan89]

You have to see how Fitz's season plays out. He played OK against KC not what you want from a franchise QB but not tragic either. He put the team in a position to win but he didn't win the game. All in all Fitz has 9 more games in his tryout lets see what he does with them.

[Orton's Arm]

This is a really good post. You make great points.

 

It's inarguable that the team who "has it all" -- QB, running game, D -- will usually top the team who has a mediocre QB and great run game and D.

 

I have two small points of difference. One is above -- not sure when ESPN's analysis was conducted? but have only been 44 SB. So is putting Hostetler #30 really saying he played an elite game? Curious, where did they put Kelly? Statistically, they had very similar games in SB25 - 60% pass completion, about 200 yds passing. Hostetler executed the game plan he was given and ran, ran, ran. It was a solid game at QB for both, not sure I can agree that was elite level play. For Kelly, it was a very mediocre day.

Thanks for the compliments!

 

In response to your first point, my initial reaction when reading about the ESPN rankings was much the same as yours. Having the 30th best Super Bowl performance out of about 40 - 44 Super Bowls total didn't seem all that impressive. Then I remembered that ESPN almost certainly evaluated the performances of both teams' QBs. So Hostetler's rank was 30th out of 80 - 88 or so.

Again' date=' this is a good analysis and shows a lot of thought. My perception is, that teams with elite QBs and mediocre D tend to lose championship games because they run into a strong D and a coach who does a top-notch job of gameplanning against their weaknesses. Maybe someday I'll look under the hood and see if actual analysis of 44 SB matches my perception. I would offer the last three SB as potential supporting evidence: IMO, Peyton Manning, Kurt Warner, and Tom Brady are elite QB, HOF bound.

The jury is still out on Brees, Big Ben, and Eli Manning, so far to me they are good, but not elite. Just my opinion of course.[/quote']

You've raised a good point here; and it's something I'd like to elaborate on further. Take a guy like Eli Manning. Some people are going to say to themselves, "Eli must match the achievements of his brother before we take him seriously." That's one tough yardstick! This season Eli is averaging 7.5 yards per attempt. Last year it was 7.9 per attempt, and the year before that it was 6.8. Those are the numbers of a quarterback who deserves to be taken seriously. Peyton Manning's career average is 7.7 yards per attempt; so Eli is now playing at a similar level to his brother (at least based on that one statistic).

 

Eli Manning also showed signs of playing at that level back in the postseason leading up to the Super Bowl win, as well as in the Super Bowl itself. He received the Super Bowl MVP trophy, which is no small achievement. Someone could point out that he played below that level during the regular season of 2006: he averaged just 6.2 yards per attempt that year. Not coincidentally, the Giants only went 9-7 during that regular season, and barely squeaked into the playoffs. Eli's improved level of play during the postseason had a lot to do with that Super Bowl win. More generally, if you want to win the Super Bowl, you don't necessarily need your quarterback to play at an elite level all the time. But you do need him to play at that level during the postseason and the Super Bowl itself.

 

In 2009, Drew Brees averaged 8.5 yards per pass attempt, as compared to 7.9 yards per attempt for Peyton Manning in 2009. Winning a Super Bowl isn't about QB X having a better career than QB Y. QB X just needs to have a better postseason and Super Bowl game itself than QB Y. I'm not arguing that Brees outplayed Manning. But I would argue that both players looked like elite QBs during that game. With both Brees and Manning playing at more or less the same elite level in that game, its deciding factor was the fact that New Orleans had a better pass defense than the Colts.

 

The Arizona Cardinals are an interesting case, because they're one of the less complete teams to make it to the Super Bowl. They had a suspect offensive line and so-so defense; both of which were exploitable by the Steelers. I feel Kurt Warner plays at a higher level than Roethlisberger. But Roethlisberger is a good quarterback in his own right, so the difference between the two QBs' play wasn't enough to compensate for the overwhelming talent advantage the Steelers had at other positions. The Arizona Cardinals illustrate both the strengths and limitations of combining an elite-level QB with an elite-level receiving corps. If the Cardinals had an elite-level offensive line to go with that--or even an above-average line--that offense would have become a lot more dangerous and harder to shut down.

[DreReed83]

So even if Fitz plays out the year well, you're in favor of benching him for an unknown? And you're making this decision *now* not even half way through the season, instead of after the season ends, and closer to draft time?

 

And who exactly are you calling blind?

 

 

Thank you! Someone else gets it!

 

The purpose of drafting a QB NOW is so we don't have to throw him into the fire like we did with Losman and Edwards. With a QB like Fitz, we have the luxury of sitting our rookie QB and ease him into the system and into the NFL life much like the Packers did for Rodgers and Chargers did with Rivers. That's how you should develop a QB. We draft a franchise QB now and start him 2-3 years from now so we'll be set at QB for the next couple years. Thats the idea of drafting a QB NOW. Not to just throw him in as a rookie.

Edited November 4, 2010 by DreReed83

[Rayzer32]

OMFG my head hurts. I cannot believe that I actually read in this thread that the ball slipping out of Fitzpatrick's hands was somehow not his fault. And seeing how this has happened more than once...wow! What are the chances of that? I guess all those fumbles Duante Culpepper had during his heyday weren't cause of his small hands either. Like someone else said, if Luck isn't the next QB of this team, whether it's next year or 2012, I will be flabbergasted. I hope there is no NFL season next year and Andrew Luck stays at Stanford. I assume we would still have the 1st pick in the 2012 draft and Luck will have another year under his belt. I just wonder what happens next April, is there a draft, isn't there a draft, if players come out for the draft and there is no NFL season can they go back to college for another year? WTF!!!

[vincec]

The purpose of drafting a QB NOW is so we don't have to throw him into the fire like we did with Losman and Edwards. With a QB like Fitz, we have the luxury of sitting our rookie QB and ease him into the system and into the NFL life much like the Packers did for Rodgers and Chargers did with Rivers. That's how you should develop a QB. We draft a franchise QB now and start him 2-3 years from now so we'll be set at QB for the next couple years. Thats the idea of drafting a QB NOW. Not to just throw him in as a rookie.

If the Bills draft a QB #1 overall, he will play at least partially next season and full time the season after that. There will be way too much pressure to play him given his draft slot and probable salary to have his sitting the bench for 2-3 years. If he's sitting the bench that long, he will be a major, major bust.

 

The best way to not throw a rookie QB into the fire is to have a strong OL and running game for him to rely on while he's learning.

Edited November 4, 2010 by vincec