RuntheDamnBall Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Love this: Matt Ryan 98 Brian Brohm 93 Chad Henne 90 Joe Flacco 89 Three starters... and a bench warmer. Guess who we have? *sigh* I'd rather have Brohm than Henne right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I'd rather have Brohm than Henne right now. I'm not exactly Henne's biggest fan... but his career stats are better than Fitzpatricks and Brohm can't even get playing time over Fitzpatrick or even Trent Edwards. Henne may suck, but it's pretty obvious that Brohm sucks more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) Fitz ranks 20th in yards hes 21st in ypc hes 18th in yds/game hes 11th in tds hes thrown the 8th most INTs hes 21st in QB rating. his numbers are less than average. How is that performing at a very high level?? He's played well, but not well enough to win close games. Bradford ranks 13th in yards Bradford is 20th in yds/game Bradford is 31ST in ypc!! Bradford is 18th in TDs Bradford is 11th in INTs Bradford is 24th in Rating So let see if I have this straight... Bradford is statistically worse than Fitzpatrick in every catagory, except for 357 more yards (don't forget he's played all 15 games while Fitz only played 13), and one fewer INT. BUT Bradford is an offensive ROY candidate and Fitzpatrick is a sub-par career backup?? Yeah, that makes sense! No double-standards here! PTR Edited December 28, 2010 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) Whoops, thought I was the one being responded to. Carry on. Edited December 28, 2010 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Bradford ranks 13th in yards Bradford is 20th in yds/game Bradford is 31ST in ypc!! Bradford is 18th in TDs Bradford is 11th in INTs Bradford is 24th in Rating So let see if I have this straight... Bradford is statistically worse than Fitzpatrick in every catagory, except for 357 more yards (don't forget he's played all 15 games while Fitz only played 13), and one fewer INT. BUT Bradford is an offensive ROY candidate and Fitzpatrick is a sub-par career backup?? Yeah, that makes sense! No double-standards here! PTR I didnt mention bradford. However his numbers arent great he is showing flashes, hes a rookie afterall. Our guy is in his 6th year and 3rd getting regular playing time so i dont see why one would compare the two numbers wise. I was commenting on your statement that Fitz was playing at a very high level. That statement really doesnt make sense when you step back and look at his performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cincinnati Kid Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I would say that Fitz is playing at a high level, high enough to let the Bills be competitive, which we havent been lately. Football is won and lost in the trenches. Its a fact. So where is our huge problem? We don't have anyone forcing the opposing QB into hurried throws and 3rd and long situations. What we need more than anything else to turn this ship around is a pass rusher. That guy will force turnovers, give us short fields for the O and Fitz and Co. will make points out of it. Its as simple as that. We need to take the top pass rushing player in the draft and maybe a QB in the 4th or 5th to back-up Fitz. I just don't see how it could be any different. We have a QB. We have a RB. We have a WR corps. We NEED a PASS RUSH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I didnt mention bradford. However his numbers arent great he is showing flashes, hes a rookie afterall. Our guy is in his 6th year and 3rd getting regular playing time so i dont see why one would compare the two numbers wise. I was commenting on your statement that Fitz was playing at a very high level. That statement really doesnt make sense when you step back and look at his performances. Totally subjective analysis. Fitz had flashes of brilliance too. Bradford got crushed by the mighty Detroit Lions 44-6. But Bradford gets all kinds of mulligans because he's a #1 pick. K-Gun, if you are going to damn Fitzpatrick based on stats, then you have to compare apples to apples. Bradford had a worse year than Fitz, but Bradford is a #1 overall pick from a football factory and Fitz is a 7th round Harvard egghead. That is the ONLY reason why Bradford gets the love. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Fitz is a veteran though. Bradford is a rookie. It's logical to assume Fitz will stay around the same skill set he's at the last couple years. It's logical to assume Bradford will improve in the next couple years... and if he doesn't, he'll be a backup for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Totally subjective analysis. Fitz had flashes of brilliance too. Bradford got crushed by the mighty Detroit Lions 44-6. But Bradford gets all kinds of mulligans because he's a #1 pick. K-Gun, if you are going to damn Fitzpatrick based on stats, then you have to compare apples to apples. Bradford had a worse year than Fitz, but Bradford is a #1 overall pick from a football factory and Fitz is a 7th round Harvard egghead. That is the ONLY reason why Bradford gets the love. PTR They arent apples to apples though are they, one is a guy from a scrub football school in his 6th year, and he's had flashes of course. But its unlikely at this point that fitz gets much better hes near 30 and been around a while. The difference is Bradford was a top QB in a top program, hes a rookie starting QB taking his lumps. He has way more upside than Fitz and looks like he wont be a bust at this point. so yeah he is getting love because hes improving and has a lot of potential. Im not trying to say Bradford is having a great year, but he is certainly getting better though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I'm not exactly Henne's biggest fan... but his career stats are better than Fitzpatricks and Brohm can't even get playing time over Fitzpatrick or even Trent Edwards. Henne may suck, but it's pretty obvious that Brohm sucks more. Puh-LEEEZE put this argument to rest. It's meaningless. Fred Jackson was not worse than A-Train, but couldn't even get playing time over him. Fitz was not worse than Edwards, but couldn't even get playing time over him. Pennington was not worse than Testaverde, but couldn't get playing time over him. They all did, eventually, and they all proved eventually that they should be on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Puh-LEEEZE put this argument to rest. It's meaningless. Fred Jackson was not worse than A-Train, but couldn't even get playing time over him. Fitz was not worse than Edwards, but couldn't even get playing time over him. Pennington was not worse than Testaverde, but couldn't get playing time over him. They all did, eventually, and they all proved eventually that they should be on the field. Look at the names you just listed though. Are any of those guys considered great, or even good by people outside of their home town fans? All those guys are fairly average players that showed some success in certain systems. Why can't we get some studs like we had in the early 90's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoveldog Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 2008 Matt Ryan 98 Brian Brohm 93 Chad Henne 90 ]Joe Flacco 89 2009 Matthew Stafford 96 Mark Sanchez 95 Josh Freeman 85 2010 Sam Bradford 97 Jimmy Clausen 89 Colt McCoy 86 Tim Tebow 78 I find it interesting that Brian Brohm is the ONLY guy on this list not starting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Here's my point: I'm sick of the double-standard #1 picks get. Sam Bradford may be the next Tom Brady but in 2010 he was fairly average. His stats are average. He plays in the worst division in the NFL. He has only one win versus a team with a winning record. The Rams played one of the easier schedules in the NFL. But he's the man! Meanwhile Fitz played at a very high level against murderous competition and did very well but he's "just a backup." So how about being fair when comparing QB's instead of giving a knob job to very average QB's who happen to be #1 draft picks? PTR I think your a little off on this one. While I mostly agree with your gripe about why other qbs get more love. I personally agree with you about Fitz. I want him to be our starter in 2011 and I think he could be our long term as well(we will know by the end of next season). But to say I wouldn't rather have Bradcord is just dumb. This kid is already proving to win games and single handedly take him team from the dumps to playoff contention. I don't care what div he plays in, the fact is they have a shot at a playoff birth. Other than Luck, he is the only young QB that I would really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 We will see how Bradford pans out. He might be great or he may never do better than this year. But one thing is for sure: he will always get the benefit of the doubt because of where he was drafted. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 We will see how Bradford pans out. He might be great or he may never do better than this year. But one thing is for sure: he will always get the benefit of the doubt because of where he was drafted. PTR And to be clear: benefit of the doubt means the team will stick with him as a starter for the next two seasons no matter if he improves or regresses. They are committed because of his draft position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 And to be clear: benefit of the doubt means the team will stick with him as a starter for the next two seasons no matter if he improves or regresses. They are committed because of his draft position. Draft position goes hand in hand with his upside and potential. Thats why he was drafted where he was, bc he has a good chance to be great. So far he is showing some signs of that but taking his lumps just like all great QBs once did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 And to be clear: benefit of the doubt means the team will stick with him as a starter for the next two seasons no matter if he improves or regresses. They are committed because of his draft position. A high draft position hasn't exactly endeared Whitner or Maybin to their critics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 "Blaine gabbert the Mizzou QB right? He is a jr I believe, btu consider me very underwhelmed by him this year. Typlical 6-6, 245lber who looks the part but doenst have it mentally. He reacted, never anticipated, and seems slow. Thumbs down." I wouldn't say slow. Ive seen him out run defensive backs. He runs probably in the 4.5's. However he surely isn't "quick". His lateral movement is terrible. I don't like the way he moves in the pocket and he holds the ball too long. I have watched every single one of his games this year. I do like his arm/smarts/ and his toughness. I was talking about him being slow mentally. He seems to freeze up and not be able to make decisions. When a blitzer comes screaming towards him he doesn’t jump to his hot route he just stands there with blank body language. That’s what I meant when he reacts and doesn’t anticipate. A great QB will anticipate a hole in the coverage and throws the ball before the hole exists. A great QB will see the blitzer coming before he actually starts his blitz and is already exploiting it. (A good example is that clip from last night they showed many times of Brees telling Bush exactly where the Blitz was coming from so Bush could pick it up) That’s what makes Brees/Brady/Manning great. Heck that’s why Fitz has played as well as he has this year (notice our much improved pass protection and blitz pick ups? – just like Brees/Bush). But 90% of QBs react, aka they see the hole in the D then throw it, or see the blitzer coming then try to exploit it – but many times its too late. Gabbert seems to be one of the slower ”reactors” I have seen this year, slower than Mallet and Locker. I was not impressed. I am really looking forward to tonight’s game v Iowa and will be giving him, and all the other guys I have watched this year, another chance to win me over, but I simply don’t think he is quick enough in the head to succeed in the NFL. Here's my point: I'm sick of the double-standard #1 picks get. Sam Bradford may be the next Tom Brady but in 2010 he was fairly average. His stats are average. He plays in the worst division in the NFL. He has only one win versus a team with a winning record. The Rams played one of the easier schedules in the NFL. But he's the man! Meanwhile Fitz played at a very high level against murderous competition and did very well but he's "just a backup." So how about being fair when comparing QB's instead of giving a knob job to very average QB's who happen to be #1 draft picks? PTR You are thinking too black and white PTR. Its not just how they produce but how they look doing it. Fitz throwing wildly inaccurate passes one third of the time and throwing very costly, poorly timed INTs that cost us games don’t bode well for him. Meanwhile, Bradford brought his team from behind to win a lot of games, not lose them. Bradford also made throws that Fitz simply couldn’t make because he doesn’t have the physical ability. Fitz played a tough schedule but beat maybe 1 good team – just like Bradford as you pointed out. Bradford is a rookie with loads of potential and Fitz is a 5 year vet who has maxed out his physical ability IMO. When all you look at is stats you will be fooled by their misleading nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koufax Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) Um....we got him for free. I didn't see Ryan on a practice squad. I would say instead: Wow! We got a 93-grade second rounder for nothing! I know he hasn't panned out yet, but good job adding talent to our roster! Fitz stayed healthy, and Brohm probably doesn't have it, but remember that Brohm is on the bench for the same reason that Fitz was on the bench and Trent was the starter: Chan's evaluation in practice. Fitz took the bull by the horns and hasn't missed a snap and has played above expectations, so Brohm didn't get his chance yet, and might never really get it, but he seems like a good kid and a talented kid, so I don't mind him on the roster, and it wouldn't surprise me if he starts some games for us in the next year or two, the way drafts and injuries go. Back to the original post, what it shows is is true again and again, is that draft grades and draft position doesn't always correlate directly with NFL success. Maybe it is a crap shoot and luck, or maybe our talent guy (Nix) and QB guy (Chan) can do a better job than McShay of identifying who can be a great QB, and we can take someone who will outperform their draft grade instead of underperform it. Love this: Matt Ryan 98 Brian Brohm 93 Chad Henne 90 Joe Flacco 89 Three starters... and a bench warmer. Guess who we have? *sigh* Edited December 28, 2010 by Koufax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I was talking about him being slow mentally. He seems to freeze up and not be able to make decisions. When a blitzer comes screaming towards him he doesn’t jump to his hot route he just stands there with blank body language. That’s what I meant when he reacts and doesn’t anticipate. A great QB will anticipate a hole in the coverage and throws the ball before the hole exists. A great QB will see the blitzer coming before he actually starts his blitz and is already exploiting it. (A good example is that clip from last night they showed many times of Brees telling Bush exactly where the Blitz was coming from so Bush could pick it up) That’s what makes Brees/Brady/Manning great. Heck that’s why Fitz has played as well as he has this year (notice our much improved pass protection and blitz pick ups? – just like Brees/Bush). But 90% of QBs react, aka they see the hole in the D then throw it, or see the blitzer coming then try to exploit it – but many times its too late. Gabbert seems to be one of the slower ”reactors” I have seen this year, slower than Mallet and Locker. I was not impressed. I am really looking forward to tonight’s game v Iowa and will be giving him, and all the other guys I have watched this year, another chance to win me over, but I simply don’t think he is quick enough in the head to succeed in the NFL. You are thinking too black and white PTR. Its not just how they produce but how they look doing it. Fitz throwing wildly inaccurate passes one third of the time and throwing very costly, poorly timed INTs that cost us games don’t bode well for him. Meanwhile, Bradford brought his team from behind to win a lot of games, not lose them. Bradford also made throws that Fitz simply couldn’t make because he doesn’t have the physical ability. Fitz played a tough schedule but beat maybe 1 good team – just like Bradford as you pointed out. Bradford is a rookie with loads of potential and Fitz is a 5 year vet who has maxed out his physical ability IMO. When all you look at is stats you will be fooled by their misleading nature. Yes yes yes. well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts