Truth about Fitz comp % and his accuracy

[Dr. K]

I don't know if it's been pointed out already, but given that Fitz threw the ball 441 times and completed 255, in order to get his completion percentage up to 60% he would have to complete only 9 more passes over the course of the season. Over 13 games that is 0.7 more completions per game. Over 16 games that is 0.56 more completions per game.

 

To get to 63% he would have to complete 22 more over the course of the season. Over 13 games that is 1.7 more completions per game, and over 16 games it's 1.5 more completions per game.

 

So if it's just about completion percentage (and I know it isn't but that's the big complain that is being made here) then we're talking about less than one more completion per game. Does anyone seriously think Fitz can't achieve that?

 

This doesn't make him THE ONE, but in my mind there's too much obsessing about some magical QB who is going to come here and turn muck into gold.

[Orton's Arm]

I don't know if it's been pointed out already, but given that Fitz threw the ball 441 times and completed 255, in order to get his completion percentage up to 60% he would have to complete only 9 more passes over the course of the season. Over 13 games that is 0.7 more completions per game. Over 16 games that is 0.56 more completions per game.

 

To get to 63% he would have to complete 22 more over the course of the season. Over 13 games that is 1.7 more completions per game, and over 16 games it's 1.5 more completions per game.

 

So if it's just about completion percentage (and I know it isn't but that's the big complain that is being made here) then we're talking about less than one more completion per game. Does anyone seriously think Fitz can't achieve that?

 

This doesn't make him THE ONE, but in my mind there's too much obsessing about some magical QB who is going to come here and turn muck into gold.

I'll address your bolded comment. Yes, there are those who evaluate QBs based on "their" number of wins--as though quarterbacks were the only players whose efforts contributed to winning or losing. There are those who claim that an elite QB can mask nearly every other form of offensive deficiency. A bad OL won't matter much because the elite QB will throw the ball quickly. A bad running game won't be a big deal because the passing game will take pressure off the running attack. The quality of the receiving corps isn't a big deal because an elite QB can get by with mediocre WRs. Even the defense need merely be decent, because this elite QB will lead the team to a ton of points and will help keep that defense off the field.

 

Frankly, I don't agree with the above-described mentality. The quality of a team's offensive line, defense, and receiving corps strongly influence the outcomes of games. An offense will be shut down if the offensive line fails badly enough. At that point, it won't matter how good the QB is or isn't.

 

But when the offensive line holds up in pass protection, when the receivers run the routes they're supposed to run and catch the passes they're supposed to catch, when the play-calling is reasonably solid, the difference between an average QB and an elite QB is impressive. A comparison of the Cardinals' offense with Warner versus that offense without him dramatically illustrates this. But even with Warner, the Cardinals were never able to get a Super Bowl win due to weakness on their offensive line and on their defense.

 

The problem the Bills face is that QBs with Warner-like ability are very rare; and that Fitz is not among them. Even if the Bills were to acquire a franchise QB, they would still need to upgrade several other positions on the offense before that offense is where it needs to be. They have to hope Bell gets physically stronger, that they can find a RT, and that they can get a good OG to let Wood permanently move to center. A good pass-catching TE would also be a key addition.

 

But of all the Bills' needs on either side of the ball, a franchise QB is by far the hardest to fill. I strongly disagree with those who think that if the Bills had the choice between a franchise QB and a good player at some other position, they should choose the latter. Opportunities to acquire franchise QBs are very rare, and it's generally a serious mistake to assume that if you pass up such an opportunity today, you'll be given a similar one tomorrow. Take the Dolphins for example. They could have chosen Matt Ryan, but went in a different direction instead. Because of that decision, they've been suffering QB-related problems ever since Pennington got replaced. Those QB-related problems have dramatically impacted the Dolphins' record. Nor is there any currently visible, workable plan to fix those problems at QB, or to allow that team to escape the mediocrity that Henne at QB imposes. The Bills should avoid walking into a similar trap.

[reddogblitz]

I don't know if it's been pointed out already, but given that Fitz threw the ball 441 times and completed 255, in order to get his completion percentage up to 60% he would have to complete only 9 more passes over the course of the season. Over 13 games that is 0.7 more completions per game. Over 16 games that is 0.56 more completions per game.

 

To get to 63% he would have to complete 22 more over the course of the season. Over 13 games that is 1.7 more completions per game, and over 16 games it's 1.5 more completions per game.

 

So if it's just about completion percentage (and I know it isn't but that's the big complain that is being made here) then we're talking about less than one more completion per game. Does anyone seriously think Fitz can't achieve that?

 

This doesn't make him THE ONE, but in my mind there's too much obsessing about some magical QB who is going to come here and turn muck into gold.

You kindof beat me to it on this one. I was going to point out with the help of a little Middle School math that it's just not that big a deal. Fitz completion percentage was 57.8. The difference between that and the magical 60% is 22 completions out of 1000 passes thrown. Or, about 1 out of 50. So if in a game he threw 50 passes, instead of being 30 completion and 20 incompletions it would be 29 completions and 21 incompletions. Could that one pass be the difference in the game? Yes of course. But it's more likely to be one where he was about to get creamed and had to unload it or one that was a picture perfect pass for the game winner in the EZ dropped by SJ.

 

Yes he was in the bottom 3rd in completion percentage, but he was 13th in TDs tied with Jay Cuttler and David Gerrard. I think this is a better testament to what he's got than the arbitrary 60% number.

[Alphadawg7]

I don't know if it's been pointed out already, but given that Fitz threw the ball 441 times and completed 255, in order to get his completion percentage up to 60% he would have to complete only 9 more passes over the course of the season. Over 13 games that is 0.7 more completions per game. Over 16 games that is 0.56 more completions per game.

 

To get to 63% he would have to complete 22 more over the course of the season. Over 13 games that is 1.7 more completions per game, and over 16 games it's 1.5 more completions per game.

 

So if it's just about completion percentage (and I know it isn't but that's the big complain that is being made here) then we're talking about less than one more completion per game. Does anyone seriously think Fitz can't achieve that?

 

This doesn't make him THE ONE, but in my mind there's too much obsessing about some magical QB who is going to come here and turn muck into gold.

 

Its puzzling how anyone can look at this as logical simply because this is also true for the other 26 QB's who complete a higher percentage of passes than Fitz. So if you are going to say he can complete another .56 passes a game to get to 60%, then you have to give the other 26 Quarterbacks that have a better completion the same assumption and the gap between Fitz and them remain. Not to mention, 60% is below average in todays NFL still.

 

1. He has never completed at least 60% at any point in his 7 year NFL career.

2. When evaluating a QB's effectiveness, the 3 stats a coach evaluates the most are completion %, 3rd Down efficiency, and yards per attempt...none of which are Fitz's better areas.

 

And, to those acting like 1 more pass a game isnt a big deal...I ask you only to look at the KC game. If he completes just one more pass in regulation (rather than a terribly thrown interception) we have a chance to kick the game winning FG rather than go into OT. Then in OT, if he just completes his last pass attempt (where he missed a wide open Spiller by 7 yards in the end zone to win the game) we win that game. If Vick completes his last pass of the GB game, Phi advances in the playoffs. In the NFl, one pass can often be the difference in winning and losing.

 

The facts are the facts...Fitz has never been accurate, still struggled with accuracy this year...you can spin it any way you want, but what ever liberties you give to Fitz, you have to make the same assumptions for the other 26 QB's who have a better completion % otherwise its meaningless since it didnt happen.

 

He may be able to approve his accuracy next year, but QB's who have been in the league as long as him and never eclipsed 60% completion percentage dont generally suddenly jump to 65% just because, so I have my doubts. I can honestly say that I really hope he does, I love the way he plays, I just dont think his cieling is much higher than it was this year.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Alphadawg7

[reddogblitz]

I just dont think his cieling is much higher than it was this year.

That's what everyone said last off season.

[akm0404]

That's what everyone said last off season.

And even in his miracle season, he still self-corrected himself back to a bottom third, inaccurate, low-rated quarterback. But he has guts and heart! Just doesn't make him that good, relative to the other starting NFL quarterbacks.

[Ray]

Fitz showewd he can be a very good QB. He plays for a team with the worst defense in the league. That makes it a lot more difficult as an offense. He needs to be more consistten but there is no way anyone could watch the massive transformation in this offense from what it was to what Fitz made it. They moved the ball well. He does a lot of things other QBs in this league do NOT do well in terms of reading defenses, adjusting protection schemes.

Completion percentage is 57%....well Trent Edwards always had a very good completion percentage so who cares?

This upcoming seaon we will get to see just how good he is as he will start, get the preseason to start and prepare. If he stinks then someone else comes in same as before. But if he was a 1st round pick playing everyone would be pretty happy with his performance. People do not expect him to be good b/c he was a 7th round pick and been on a couple different teams. Look at Kurt Warner and Jake Delhomme when they came on to the scene. They had poor pedigrees but outplayed 90% of QBs in the league. Fitz has outplayed at least a dozen 1st round QBs (Losman, Akili Smith, Alex Smith, D Carr, J Harrington, etc....).

[Dr. K]

Its puzzling how anyone can look at this as logical simply because this is also true for the other 26 QB's who complete a higher percentage of passes than Fitz. So if you are going to say he can complete another .56 passes a game to get to 60%, then you have to give the other 26 Quarterbacks that have a better completion the same assumption and the gap between Fitz and them remain. Not to mention, 60% is below average in todays NFL still.

 

1. He has never completed at least 60% at any point in his 7 year NFL career.

2. When evaluating a QB's effectiveness, the 3 stats a coach evaluates the most are completion %, 3rd Down efficiency, and yards per attempt...none of which are Fitz's better areas.

 

And, to those acting like 1 more pass a game isnt a big deal...I ask you only to look at the KC game. If he completes just one more pass in regulation (rather than a terribly thrown interception) we have a chance to kick the game winning FG rather than go into OT. Then in OT, if he just completes his last pass attempt (where he missed a wide open Spiller by 7 yards in the end zone to win the game) we win that game. If Vick completes his last pass of the GB game, Phi advances in the playoffs. In the NFl, one pass can often be the difference in winning and losing.

 

The facts are the facts...Fitz has never been accurate, still struggled with accuracy this year...you can spin it any way you want, but what ever liberties you give to Fitz, you have to make the same assumptions for the other 26 QB's who have a better completion % otherwise its meaningless since it didnt happen.

 

He may be able to approve his accuracy next year, but QB's who have been in the league as long as him and never eclipsed 60% completion percentage dont generally suddenly jump to 65% just because, so I have my doubts. I can honestly say that I really hope he does, I love the way he plays, I just dont think his cieling is much higher than it was this year.

 

That sound you hear is Alphadog's fingernails scraping the bottom of the barrel attempting to come up with a counter argument. Every close game ever played could have turned around if the QB had completed one more pass in a crucial moment. This is a laughable argument.

 

You have lost whatever scraps of credibility you have so far retained with this post.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

The facts are the facts...Fitz has never been accurate, still struggled with accuracy this year...you can spin it any way you want, but what ever liberties you give to Fitz, you have to make the same assumptions for the other 26 QB's who have a better completion % otherwise its meaningless since it didnt happen.

 

He may be able to approve his accuracy next year, but QB's who have been in the league as long as him and never eclipsed 60% completion percentage dont generally suddenly jump to 65% just because, so I have my doubts. I can honestly say that I really hope he does, I love the way he plays, I just dont think his cieling is much higher than it was this year.

 

It's puzzling to me how people who say "facts are facts" are often so very selective in which facts they choose to examine and which facts they choose to ignore.

 

Fitz has been in the league 5 years, but has only started about 2 seasons worth of games. Does time in the league count, yes to a point, but not so much as time in the game.

 

His QB rating improved 12 points between two previous years, and this year, from 70% to 82%. This improvement reflects the following: his TD% went up more than 1%, his INT% went down 1%. His accuracy also improved 2% from last year, from 56% to 58%. He had a previous year where his completion percentage was higher, 59% in CIN under a more functional offensive system than last year in B'lo IMHO.

 

People who see it as logical that he may continue to improve are saying things like:

Ok, he's shown improvement. It's his second year in the system, second year with these WR, first year getting all the reps in training camp and the full attention of the QB coach. These are circumstances that have shown in the past, to positively impact a young QB. So maybe they'll positively impact Fitz.

 

Could be true. Could not be true. Wait and see.

 

 

It seems more logical to me than just reiterating endlessly that someone whose completion percentage in 4 years of playing time has never broken 60%, will never break 60% when in fact, that's an assertion with many counter examples easy to be found.

 

I don't like the man, but here's a recent example to the contrary for you:

Improvement to over 60%

Here's another example from a 2010 playoff QB. Look at the jump between 2003-2004

Improvement between 2 and 3 yrs playing time

Then there's that older time Buffalo favorite. Look at the jump between year 4 and year 5

Some guy we like

 

I could actually go on for a while. And of course counterexamples could be found, of QB who never made the jump.

But at that point, the assertion takes the form of personal belief, not logic.

One can hold personal beliefs and counterexamples or demonstrated improvement will have no impact, because those are your personal beliefs.

Godspeed.

[Wagon Circler]

I think the issue of Fitz' accuracy is a bit misguided. Yes, he throws some awful footballs at times. But it was stated last year that because of his size, he throws to spots & trusts his receivers will get there even if he can't fully see the read. Because of this, I have little doubt he looks terrible at times in practice & camp.

 

However, we play in Buffalo. Conditions will always hurt your completion %. It's why I have believed for a long time that Brady was the better player of Manning, who plays at least 8 games in dome. Only 4 times out of 11 seasons in his HOF career did Kelly complete 60% of his passes. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/K/KellJi00.htm

Bledsoe only did it once in 3 seasons (and that was 61.5%). http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BledDr00.htm

 

Buffalo's conditions plays havoc on qbs.

Good Point.

[Dorkington]

I love how extreme this argument seems to sound, but I think everyone is basically saying the same thing.

 

He's a middle of the road QB. Put him on a good team, and he'll likely look amazing. Put him on a bad team, and he'll likely disappoint.

[Peace]

I love how extreme this argument seems to sound, but I think everyone is basically saying the same thing.

 

He's a middle of the road QB. Put him on a good team, and he'll likely look amazing. Put him on a bad team, and he'll likely disappoint.

 

Uhh, no. He's on a bad team and he's been very good. He is in the top 10 Bills QB seasons of all time in yards and TDs in spite of his lack of TE and crappy line and suspect WRs and zip for running game.

[Dorkington]

Uhh, no. He's on a bad team and he's been very good. He is in the top 10 Bills QB seasons of all time in yards and TDs in spite of his lack of TE and crappy line and suspect WRs and zip for running game.

That doesn't say very much about our QB history, imo.

 

Compared to modern times, modern QBs and modern teams, he has performed on average, in the middle of the pack. Does that mean he can't do better statistically? Absolutely not. But he's not going to the HoF with his current numbers either. He's performing admirably, but he needs to be better, and the team needs to be better if you want to call him great, or anything close, imho.

[Fan in Chicago]

While I think the OP is scraping the data to prove a point, I decided to do the same to see if there is any evidence of Lee Evans on Fitz and Stevie Johnson's performance. Here is what I calculate:

 

Fitz Comp/Att Comp % Yards/gm TD/gm int/gm td/int

Games 3-12 (with Fitz & Lee starting) 207/355 58.3 238 2 1.1 1.8

Games 13-15(Fitz starting, Evans out) 48/86 55.8 205 1 1.3 0.75

 

Steve Johnson Catches/gm Yards/gm TD/gm

Games 3-12 5.5 76 0.9

Games 13-15 5.3 56 0.3

 

We also lost starters on the right side of the line which was a horror show anyway.

Here is my point - the team is overall so bereft of talent that loss of starters can significantly affect performance. We dont have good starters, let alone depth. Both Fitz and Johnson performed worse in games 13-15. I realize that I cannot dig up just one change (Evans' injury) to prove a point. But that is just what the OP is doing - selecting stats to make his pre-conceived point that Fitz sucks. I think that Fitz did the best he could given the woeful right side, developing WRs (Johnson, Jones, Nelson) and absence of a real pass catching TE. He has earned the right to stay the starter next season and reap the benefits of upgraded talent (hopefully).

Edited January 11, 2011 by Fan in Chicago

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Fitz had a group of nobody wideouts and made them look decent. He makes good decisions, is tough and will probably get better. Is Sanchez of the Jets better than him? I don't think so. Put Fitz in with that offense and have him backed up by that defense and he would still be playing now in the playoffs. Fitz looks good because he has done something with almost nothing. I hope we get to see what he does as the rest of the team improves

 

Statistics are for losers

[JPicc2114]

Fitz looks like Joe Montana compared to Trent Edwards, but Fitz also looks like Ryan Leaf compared to Tom Brady.

 

 

Bills need a franchise QB.

[Ray]

Fitz will outplay any rookie QB and outplayed all rookie QBs this year including Sam Bradford who plays against awful competition and plays in a dome.

Tom Brady makes 25 other QBs in the league look like Ryan Leaf. Fitz will not be T Brady but he is arguably the best QB ever to play the game. Jim Kelly is not/was not as good as T Brady.

[Orton's Arm]

It's puzzling to me how people who say "facts are facts" are often so very selective in which facts they choose to examine and which facts they choose to ignore.

 

Fitz has been in the league 5 years, but has only started about 2 seasons worth of games. Does time in the league count, yes to a point, but not so much as time in the game.

 

His QB rating improved 12 points between two previous years, and this year, from 70% to 82%. This improvement reflects the following: his TD% went up more than 1%, his INT% went down 1%. His accuracy also improved 2% from last year, from 56% to 58%. He had a previous year where his completion percentage was higher, 59% in CIN under a more functional offensive system than last year in B'lo IMHO.

 

People who see it as logical that he may continue to improve are saying things like:

Ok, he's shown improvement. It's his second year in the system, second year with these WR, first year getting all the reps in training camp and the full attention of the QB coach. These are circumstances that have shown in the past, to positively impact a young QB. So maybe they'll positively impact Fitz.

 

Could be true. Could not be true. Wait and see.

 

 

It seems more logical to me than just reiterating endlessly that someone whose completion percentage in 4 years of playing time has never broken 60%, will never break 60% when in fact, that's an assertion with many counter examples easy to be found.

 

I don't like the man, but here's a recent example to the contrary for you:

Improvement to over 60%

Here's another example from a 2010 playoff QB. Look at the jump between 2003-2004

Improvement between 2 and 3 yrs playing time

Then there's that older time Buffalo favorite. Look at the jump between year 4 and year 5

Some guy we like

 

I could actually go on for a while. And of course counterexamples could be found, of QB who never made the jump.

But at that point, the assertion takes the form of personal belief, not logic.

One can hold personal beliefs and counterexamples or demonstrated improvement will have no impact, because those are your personal beliefs.

Godspeed.

As a high school quarterback, Joe Montana was notable for being very accurate. That high level of accuracy carried over into college; and was part of the reason why the 49ers were willing to use a third round pick on him even though he lacked the arm strength Bill Walsh craved.

 

If a quarterback doesn't show you an exceptional level of accuracy in college, he's very unlikely to do so in the pros. Fitz's lack of accuracy is one of the reasons why he was an afterthought in the draft. That lack of accuracy is why, when he became a free agent a few years back, he was generally regarded as a backup quarterback.

 

There are a lot of things to like about Fitz's game. He makes great decisions and makes them quickly. He can read defenses, audible out of the wrong play and into the right play, look off safeties, sense and avoid pressure, play through injuries, and show great leadership and on-field generalship. Those are all traits you love to see in your quarterback, and Fitz has them.

 

What he does not have is the ability to throw the ball with consistent accuracy.

 

There were a number of times this past season when his lack of accuracy went unpunished. When a Bills' WR would catch a badly thrown pass. When a defender would drop a potential INT that had been thrown right to him.

 

Even when Fitz's lack of consistent accuracy was punished, he'd often do something else later in the game to make you forget about it. Something exciting and impressive.

 

Unfortunately for the Bills and for Fitzpatrick, consistent accuracy is an absolutely critical part of being a top-tier quarterback.

 

Consider the effect that lack of accuracy has on the offense. Normally, an NFL offense will keep moving the chains until something goes wrong. Maybe that something is a missed block resulting in a sack. Or some running plays that got stuffed at the line of scrimmage. Or a holding penalty followed by a subsequent failure to reclaim the lost yards. Or a dropped pass on third down. Or excessive pass pressure when everyone is covered. There are lots of things that can go wrong on drives to make them stall. Having a quarterback who throws a lot of inaccurate passes creates one more thing to go wrong on drives. One more reason for them to turn into punts, or at best field goals, instead of touchdowns.

 

To a large degree, Fitz compensated for his lack of accuracy by being very good at the other things I mentioned. But there are hard limits to the extent to which that weakness can be masked, and Fitz may already have reached them. Fitz's decision-making, leadership, etc., are already so good that his future ceiling is likely to be dictated strictly by his ability to throw accurately. Unfortunately, quarterbacks who haven't demonstrated consistent accuracy after five years in the NFL typically never display consistent accuracy. That means that for all Fitz's virtues (and there are many) the Bills will be at a significant disadvantage when facing someone like Brees, Rodgers, Brady, or Manning. That problem will only be solved if or when the Bills acquire a franchise QB.

[K Gun Special]

Fitz will outplay any rookie QB and outplayed all rookie QBs this year including Sam Bradford who plays against awful competition and plays in a dome.

Tom Brady makes 25 other QBs in the league look like Ryan Leaf. Fitz will not be T Brady but he is arguably the best QB ever to play the game. Jim Kelly is not/was not as good as T Brady.

 

 

WHAT?

 

Bradford threw for 3500 yards, completed 60% of his passes and threw the same amount of INTs despite playing more games.......as a rookie!!! He also threw for 30 more 1st downs.

 

I would take bradford over Fitz any day of the week.

 

For some more perspective, Fitz had a worse QB rating than perennial pro bowlers jason campbell, shaun hill,and alex smith

 

As a high school quarterback, Joe Montana was notable for being very accurate. That high level of accuracy carried over into college; and was part of the reason why the 49ers were willing to use a third round pick on him even though he lacked the arm strength Bill Walsh craved.

 

If a quarterback doesn't show you an exceptional level of accuracy in college, he's very unlikely to do so in the pros. Fitz's lack of accuracy is one of the reasons why he was an afterthought in the draft. That lack of accuracy is why, when he became a free agent a few years back, he was generally regarded as a backup quarterback.

 

There are a lot of things to like about Fitz's game. He makes great decisions and makes them quickly. He can read defenses, audible out of the wrong play and into the right play, look off safeties, sense and avoid pressure, play through injuries, and show great leadership and on-field generalship. Those are all traits you love to see in your quarterback, and Fitz has them.

 

What he does not have is the ability to throw the ball with consistent accuracy.

 

There were a number of times this past season when his lack of accuracy went unpunished. When a Bills' WR would catch a badly thrown pass. When a defender would drop a potential INT that had been thrown right to him.

 

Even when Fitz's lack of consistent accuracy was punished, he'd often do something else later in the game to make you forget about it. Something exciting and impressive.

 

Unfortunately for the Bills and for Fitzpatrick, consistent accuracy is an absolutely critical part of being a top-tier quarterback.

 

Consider the effect that lack of accuracy has on the offense. Normally, an NFL offense will keep moving the chains until something goes wrong. Maybe that something is a missed block resulting in a sack. Or some running plays that got stuffed at the line of scrimmage. Or a holding penalty followed by a subsequent failure to reclaim the lost yards. Or a dropped pass on third down. Or excessive pass pressure when everyone is covered. There are lots of things that can go wrong on drives to make them stall. Having a quarterback who throws a lot of inaccurate passes creates one more thing to go wrong on drives. One more reason for them to turn into punts, or at best field goals, instead of touchdowns.

 

To a large degree, Fitz compensated for his lack of accuracy by being very good at the other things I mentioned. But there are hard limits to the extent to which that weakness can be masked, and Fitz may already have reached them. Fitz's decision-making, leadership, etc., are already so good that his future ceiling is likely to be dictated strictly by his ability to throw accurately. Unfortunately, quarterbacks who haven't demonstrated consistent accuracy after five years in the NFL typically never display consistent accuracy. That means that for all Fitz's virtues (and there are many) the Bills will be at a significant disadvantage when facing someone like Brees, Rodgers, Brady, or Manning. That problem will only be solved if or when the Bills acquire a franchise QB.

 

 

This might be the end all post for this discussion. There really is no better way to state the Bills QB situation as it is now, and moving forward.

 

To anyone who reads the above post and says "yea but...." you will never get it, and god have mercy on your soul.

 

EA, prepare to be flamed by nonsense.

[PDaDdy]

This was in another thread, but since it keeps coming up in multiple threads I felt it deserved a seperate topic to finally dispell this myth that Fitz's completion % was so low because of dropped passes in comparison to other teams. Here are the real facts based on the dropped pass stats that have been compiled for this season.

 

1. Buffalo was 17th in the NFL in dropped passes.

2. Out of the 16 teams with MORE dropped passes than the Bills, 13 of them had QB's with a higher completion percentage than Fitz

3. Fitz ranks 27th in the league in completion % this year only above Kerry Collins, Sanchez, Claussen, and Derek Anderson.

4. 12 of those 13 QB's with MORE drops and a higher completion % still completed over 60% of their passes with only Hasselbeck under 60% at 59.9%...

5. Fitz completed a lowly 57.8%

6. Bonus fact: He is tied for 9th most INT's this year yet only played in 13 games and got bailed out on many more INT's through unrelated penalties or drops on non-tipped balls that were thrown directly into the hands of the defenders.

 

Someone started a thread comparing Fitz to the "Big 3", so lets look at the big 3:

 

1. Indy had the MOST drops and yet the 2nd highest completion % in the league was Manning at 66.3%

2. Saints were 7th in drops and yet Brees led the league in completion % at 68.1%

3. NE is 4th in the league in most drops and yet Brady is 4th in the league at 65.9%

 

So can this excuse for Fitz's accuracy issue be finally put to rest and just realize he isnt very accurate? 13 QB's had more drops than Fitz and yet still managed to complete over 60% of their passes (hasselbeck actually was 59.9% as only exception, still 2% higher than Fitz). Fitz's completion % is low because he isnt a very accurate QB, never has been ever in his entire NFL career...

 

This wasnt to bash him, but to be honest about what he is versus what he isnt. I love his passion, guts, and grit and he is light years better than Trent ever was...but that doesnt change that he just isnt that accurate and not nearly accurate enough to be a consistently succesful starter in this league.

 

How about 23 and 15 with a 6.7 yd/carry rushing average? Not to mention it was in just 13 starts and he wasn't the starting QB for all off OTAs and preseason.