K Gun Special Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Terry Bradshaw (1), Jim Kelly (1.35), Troy Aikman (1.17), and John Elway (1.32), just to name a few, all had career TD to Interception ratios that were worse than what Fitz posted last year (1.53). Pretty "ugly" stuff for a stat that is so important. Perhaps we should have them removed from the Hall of Fame… This is silly. Those guys were the best of their era, when the league wasn't as pass happy. For example Kelly threw 23 TDs in 91, two less than the league leader. he threw 19 INTs. Compared to Fitz's 23 and 15 i guess Kelly sucks. btw Fitz was sacked only 1% more than Kelly, so its not just the Oline for the Fitz fanboys. And taking HOF career numbers from a bygone era and comparing them to a single season is also silly. Fitz is a 1.04 over his career and .77 before last year. Kelly had one season below 1.0 and his INT % was the same as Fitz's best season. You also fail to point out those HOF also had some pretty good RBs who took away from TD totals. Something FItz doesnt get, so his TDs are higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Good lord man, who in your opinion has the single most effect on the give away/take away if not the QB. Fitz threw 15 INT's and fumbled the football 8 times(5 lost) in 13 games which I can guarantee you was the biggest contributing factor in the Bills league low net-17, So twist it around all you want, or ignore the facts, but it is what it is... There is no single player that has the most effect on the turnover margin. That's the point. There are a number of factors that play into every turnover: from a missed block, to a tipped pass, to a bad route on a timing pattern, to a bad throw, to the weather, etc., etc, etc. There is plenty of blame to go around in a team sport...it would literally take a break down on film of each and every turnover to assign the proper blame. And that is on the offensive side of the ball. Forcing turnovers on defense is an entirely different analysis and just as important - that's why they call it a turnover/take away margin. In the post you began this thread with, you singled out Fitzpatrick without any real supporting argument and completely ignored any other factors that may have contributed to the turnover margin. My apologies, but I just don't find that to be a logical argument in explaining the team's +/- differential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 You will not find one post I have ever written where I championed Fitzpatrick in any way. However, he did a decent job on a bad team last year. His performance last year had far less to do with our turnover margin than many other factors - and his career stats have no relevance to the 2010 turnover margin at all. Very well written post and response. Followed ofcourse by nothing of substance, by the OP. The first post definitely postulated that the major cause of the Bills being the worst in the turnover department, was Fitz. Fitz is not the most accurate of QBs and does not have an elite arm. But, by jove, he maximizes what he has to work with. I would love to see how he performs if he is given a couple of extra seconds in the pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Guys, don't you see the troll in his profile picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Why single out Fitz, Figgy? Expanding this incredible analysis to other teams, you'll find that the NY Jets posted a turnover differential of +9, even though Sanchez threw for 17TDs, 13 Ints and 1 lost fumble, in 16 games. Eli Manning 31 TDs, 25 Ints and 5 fumbles lost in 16 games, Giants -3 differential. Sam Bradford 18 TDs, 15 Ints and 2 fumbles lost, ST. Louis +5 differential. David Garrard 23 TDs, 15 Ints and 4 fumbles lost, Jacksonville -15 differential. Why aren't these guys included in the ugly? You want to see ugly? Check out Henne, Hasselbeck, McNabb, Favre or any of Cleveland's Arizona's or Tennessee's QB by committee. Each of their respective teams had better turnover differentials despite their QBs pitiful play. Truth is, Fitz's stats put him in the middle of the pack. The only thing your stats prove is that our defense was the worst in the league. Is this your new crusade Fig? Defending Trent got old, so come back under a new name to crucify Fitz with an incredibly slanted sample of statistics and absurd conclusions? Phillip Rivers threw for 30 TDs, 13 Ints and 2 lost 2 fumbles, but San Diego finished -6 in differential. I suppose he fits into your Bad category? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Why single out Fitz, Figgy? Expanding this incredible analysis to other teams, you'll find that the NY Jets posted a turnover differential of +9, even though Sanchez threw for 17TDs, 13 Ints and 1 lost fumble, in 16 games. Eli Manning 31 TDs, 25 Ints and 5 fumbles lost in 16 games, Giants -3 differential. Sam Bradford 18 TDs, 15 Ints and 2 fumbles lost, ST. Louis +5 differential. David Garrard 23 TDs, 15 Ints and 4 fumbles lost, Jacksonville -15 differential. Why aren't these guys included in the ugly? You want to see ugly? Check out Henne, Hasselbeck, McNabb, Favre or any of Cleveland's Arizona's or Tennessee's QB by committee. Each of their respective teams had better turnover differentials despite their QBs pitiful play. Truth is, Fitz's stats put him in the middle of the pack. The only thing your stats prove is that our defense was the worst in the league. Is this your new crusade Fig? Defending Trent got old, so come back under a new name to crucify Fitz with an incredibly slanted sample of statistics and absurd conclusions? Phillip Rivers threw for 30 TDs, 13 Ints and 2 lost 2 fumbles, but San Diego finished -6 in differential. I suppose he fits into your Bad category? The bolded part is correct, the OP will see it sometime we hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 Very well written post and response. Followed ofcourse by nothing of substance, by the OP. The first post definitely postulated that the major cause of the Bills being the worst in the turnover department, was Fitz. Fitz is not the most accurate of QBs and does not have an elite arm. But, by jove, he maximizes what he has to work with. I would love to see how he performs if he is given a couple of extra seconds in the pocket. Fitz is the biggest contributing factor to the poor give away take away ratio, and the posters so called well written response, is false. Nobody handles the football more or is more prone to turnovers then the QB. Turning the Football over at the most inopportune time is another problem of Ryan Fitzpatrick's that needs to be corrected. The bolded part is correct, the OP will see it sometime we hope. OP acknowledged the defenses participation a long time ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Fitz is the biggest contributing factor to the poor give away take away ratio, and the posters so called well written response, is false. Nobody handles the football more or is more prone to turnovers then the QB. Turning the Football over at the most inopportune time is another problem of Ryan Fitzpatrick's that needs to be corrected. OP acknowledged the defenses participation a long time ago Oh good God! Give it a break, Fig! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 This is silly. Those guys were the best of their era, when the league wasn't as pass happy. For example Kelly threw 23 TDs in 91, two less than the league leader. he threw 19 INTs. Compared to Fitz's 23 and 15 i guess Kelly sucks. btw Fitz was sacked only 1% more than Kelly, so its not just the Oline for the Fitz fanboys. And taking HOF career numbers from a bygone era and comparing them to a single season is also silly. Fitz is a 1.04 over his career and .77 before last year. Kelly had one season below 1.0 and his INT % was the same as Fitz's best season. You also fail to point out those HOF also had some pretty good RBs who took away from TD totals. Something FItz doesnt get, so his TDs are higher. That post wasn't intended to indicate any of what you wrote. It was in response to the OP claiming that the TD/Int ratio was such an important stat. It was sarcasm to illustrate how using a single stat in a vacuum is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 Why single out Fitz, Figgy? Expanding this incredible analysis to other teams, you'll find that the NY Jets posted a turnover differential of +9, even though Sanchez threw for 17TDs, 13 Ints and 1 lost fumble, in 16 games. Eli Manning 31 TDs, 25 Ints and 5 fumbles lost in 16 games, Giants -3 differential. Sam Bradford 18 TDs, 15 Ints and 2 fumbles lost, ST. Louis +5 differential. David Garrard 23 TDs, 15 Ints and 4 fumbles lost, Jacksonville -15 differential. Why aren't these guys included in the ugly? You want to see ugly? Check out Henne, Hasselbeck, McNabb, Favre or any of Cleveland's Arizona's or Tennessee's QB by committee. Each of their respective teams had better turnover differentials despite their QBs pitiful play. Truth is, Fitz's stats put him in the middle of the pack. The only thing your stats prove is that our defense was the worst in the league. Is this your new crusade Fig? Defending Trent got old, so come back under a new name to crucify Fitz with an incredibly slanted sample of statistics and absurd conclusions? Phillip Rivers threw for 30 TDs, 13 Ints and 2 lost 2 fumbles, but San Diego finished -6 in differential. I suppose he fits into your Bad category? Never said there wasn't more ugly out there, but it doesn't mean Fitz doesn't need to improve upon himself when it comes to turning the football over to the opposition. Oh good God! Give it a break, Fig! Good issue to debate, and why I started a thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 That post wasn't intended to indicate any of what you wrote. It was in response to the OP claiming that the TD/Int ratio was such an important stat. It was sarcasm to illustrate how using a single stat in a vacuum is ridiculous. My bad, wasnt attempting to take it out of context. Just a pet peeve of mine when similar comparisons are made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 That post wasn't intended to indicate any of what you wrote. It was in response to the OP claiming that the TD/Int ratio was such an important stat. It was sarcasm to illustrate how using a single stat in a vacuum is ridiculous. TD to INT ratio are two of the most important aspects of a signal caller in the NFL. Score points and don't turn the ball over, keep your job. Don't score points and turn the ball over, lose your job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 TD to INT ratio are two of the most important aspects of a signal caller in the NFL. Score points and don't turn the ball over, keep your job. Don't score points and turn the ball over, lose your job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Flowers Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Ignoring Fitz's 20 turnovers in 13 games seems logical on a thread about give away/ take away, Wheres the logic in that? Oh, put a sock in it. No one is ignoring it, but it is only part of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Turning the Football over at the most inopportune time is another problem of Ryan Fitzpatrick's that needs to be corrected. Seriously dude, go root for Trent Edwards and the freaking Raiders. We just went through four BUTT UGLY years of a guy not willing to take chances. I'll be damned if I sit back and watch an idiot poster try to make our starting QB into a snotty-nosed little gunshy wimp. Turnovers happen, they happened with Kelly and they'll happen with Fitzpatrick. I suggest that you either deal with this reality or go root for a team that has Trent Edwards starting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 Seriously dude, go root for Trent Edwards and the freaking Raiders. We just went through four BUTT UGLY years of a guy not willing to take chances. I'll be damned if I sit back and watch an idiot poster try to make our starting QB into a snotty-nosed little gunshy wimp. Turnovers happen, they happened with Kelly and they'll happen with Fitzpatrick. I suggest that you either deal with this reality or go root for a team that has Trent Edwards starting on it. Stop trying to turn this into something personal how about it. I started the thread for debating purposes, If you don't like it, find another thread to cry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Stop trying to turn this into something personal how about it. I started the thread for debating purposes, If you don't like it, find another thread to cry on... Except that you're not really debating. There have been like 5 or 6 very good counter-arguments and explanations in response to your point, and instead of dealing with them, you just keep repeating yourself. If you refuse to allow yourself to become convinced by someone else's argument, than you're wasting everyone's time (esp. your own) trying to stir up a "debate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Duck Posted August 31, 2011 Author Share Posted August 31, 2011 Oh, put a sock in it. No one is ignoring it, but it is only part of the equation. biggest part of the equation, and I'm here to debate, how about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 biggest part of the equation, and I'm here to debate, how about you? No, you're not. You're here to register your opinion, over and over again. It's been noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 His ratio would have been 1.6 if Stevie Johnson could catch a ball that hit him in the hands.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts