CodeMonkey Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Fitz is the perfect backup QB. Tough and smart. Can run the offense fine. But he has that odd throwing style that makes him inaccurate deep and causes him to throw 3-6 WTF balls (even on short routes) every game. That is the only thing in my opinion that keeps him from being a great starting QB. I also think it is possible that Brad Smith is a better QB for Gaileys style of offense than Fitz is. I haven't see enough (any really) of Smith running anything but the wildcat to make that determination for sure though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 I strongly disagree. Average mobility? Haven't you seen him run, both upfield and out of trouble? Fitz's mobility masks line play which is often less than stellar. Seriously, he is far more mobile and even athletic than the average qb. Away from topic:...Fitz married a collegiate soccer player who made All-American. He's been heard to assert he's not the best athlete in the family, she is. They have 3 kids. Think of the potential. Those kids could be scary good athletes. Smarts and athletic chops from both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoFFacet Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Well maybe a little above average but that's splitting hairs, my point is he's not someone who strikes fear in opposing defenses as a threat to take off and run, beat you with his legs, or known to actually thrive when the play breaks down. Versus the league on that criteria, +1 = he's better, 0 = about the same, -1 not as good. Sanchez -1 Brady 1 Henne 1 Flacco 1 Ben -1 McCoy -1 Dalton 0 Collins 1 Hasselback -1 Schaub 1 Gabbert 0 Orten 1 Campbell 1 Rivers 0 Cassell 1 Manning 1 Vick -1 Romo -1 Grossman 1 Newton -1 Ryan 1 Freeman 0 Brees -1 Mcnabb -1 Cutler -1 Rodgers -1 Stafford 0 Smith 0 Kolb -1 Jackson -1 Bradford -1 If I summed correctly hes -3 which is pretty much average. Change a half dozen names to positive and he's still pretty average. that's all I'm saying Even assuming all of your estimations are correct, your reasoning supports only the conclusion that the NFL has an abundance of mobile quarterbacks, and Fitzpatrick has average mobility compared to his peers. While the word 'average' is by definition a relative measure, there is a large absolute difference between average compared to a poor field, and average compared to a strong field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) Also gotta point out that if the Bills management has any common sense, Ralph would have to die before they would trade fitz for the rights to Andrew Luck. What the heck is it with you folks and unproven rookies. Jake Locker was considered to be #1 pick worthy before his senior year, but he was taken 8th and rides the bench behind a garbage qb like matt hasselbeck. What is it that makes people think luck will be any different? Wow. I agree with the logic in saying a proven NFL winner > unproven highly touted college prospect. Got to disagree with calling Hasselbach a "garbage QB". IMHO when a man has played regularly in the NFL for > decade, has made the playoffs on a so-so team 6 of those years, has led his team to a Superbowl, and has accumulated reasonable stats over a decade of playing on a (sometimes very bad) team, he deserves way more respect than that, even if you personally don't think he's great. That'll be my karma? what is that supposed to mean, exactly? Karma will work against me for seeking accuracy? All i was saying saying is the guy who said fitz scored 50 was very very wrong. What the heck is wrong with that? Um, actually I think your exact words were "horribly mistaken". That seems like hyperbole for a score that was, in fact, very very high and an error could be corrected simply by posting the fact. I love accuracy, I strive for it, and I try to be more couth and gentle in pointing out others mistakes. Most of us make mistakes sooner or later, despite trying for accuracy. Golden rule, do unto others, and so forth - I think that's what SJBF means by Karma In another response..... Most of my grammatical errors are intended. Most folks on message boards put little stock on spelling and grammar so why do I want to seem like a smartass? Of course it doesnt help that Im extremely lazy and, at this very moment, drunk as hell. But I dont sweat the grammar. Its not like im writing a term paper right now. Either way, sharpshooting is a term used by those who dont check their facts. You cant give me a statistic I dont already know, so I will try to refrain from busting people's balls but dont act like you know something that isnt true because, like I said, I wont hesitate to point it out. Dont be a poor sport, just check your facts and admit when your wrong. Intentional grammatical errors to not "seem like a smartass"? When you smack down someone as "horribly wrong" over a 2-point error, you're gonna come off as a smartass even if your grammar and spelling are flawless. Cant (sic) give you a statistic you dont (sic) already know? Impressive....and I suspect, more hyperbole. There are some pretty sharp people here. I am "only an egg". When you start out with a high standard of quality posts, people will tend to cut you some slack when you're drunk or just goof. When you start with a low standard, people will (understandably) take the viewpoint the burden of proof is on you... But carry on.... Kinda hate that when posting a second consecutive message in the same thread binds your two messages together. What if you want to adress multiple people at once? suppose thats what quotes are for but its no less annoying. Like many features, it has its good and bad points. It is useful sometimes (see above, where I wanted to combine two different posts by you in one response and exploited this feature to do so). If you want to defeat it, open up a 2nd window and read another thread for a couple minutes. It combines or doesn't combine based on the amount of time between two responses (I haven't figured out the exact interval but it's something on the order of 5 minutes). Hope this helps. Edited September 25, 2011 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slackware Posted September 25, 2011 Share Posted September 25, 2011 Wow. I agree with the logic in saying a proven NFL winner > unproven highly touted college prospect. Got to disagree with calling Hasselbach a "garbage QB". IMHO when a man has played regularly in the NFL for > decade, has made the playoffs on a so-so team 6 of those years, has led his team to a Superbowl, and has accumulated reasonable stats over a decade of playing on a (sometimes very bad) team, he deserves way more respect than that, even if you personally don't think he's great. Um, actually I think your exact words were "horribly mistaken". That seems like hyperbole for a score that was, in fact, very very high and an error could be corrected simply by posting the fact. I love accuracy, I strive for it, and I try to be more couth and gentle in pointing out others mistakes. Most of us make mistakes sooner or later, despite trying for accuracy. Golden rule, do unto others, and so forth - I think that's what SJBF means by Karma In another response..... Intentional grammatical errors to not "seem like a smartass"? When you smack down someone as "horribly wrong" over a 2-point error, you're gonna come off as a smartass even if your grammar and spelling are flawless. Cant (sic) give you a statistic you dont (sic) already know? Impressive....and I suspect, more hyperbole. There are some pretty sharp people here. I am "only an egg". When you start out with a high standard of quality posts, people will tend to cut you some slack when you're drunk or just goof. When you start with a low standard, people will (understandably) take the viewpoint the burden of proof is on you... But carry on.... Like many features, it has its good and bad points. It is useful sometimes (see above, where I wanted to combine two different posts by you in one response and exploited this feature to do so). If you want to defeat it, open up a 2nd window and read another thread for a couple minutes. It combines or doesn't combine based on the amount of time between two responses (I haven't figured out the exact interval but it's something on the order of 5 minutes). Hope this helps. Haha, bravo sir. You reamed me pretty good. And most of what you said is true. And my "intentional grammatical errors to not seem like a smartass" Is a very flawed peice of logic, but it is mostly true. Im not a stickler on grammer, because I choose to write in much the same manner as I speak, or as close to it as I want to depending on how the mood strikes me. And Im too lazy correct myself most of the time unless I have to. And I suppose I should be a little bit less harsh on people for being inaccurate. Everyone makes mistakes. I'm just a stickler on facts most of the time. I have to disagree with you on two points though: While, saying you cant give me a statistic I dont already know is a bit boastful and somewhat exaggerated, I truly do have a nearly inexhaustible bank of statistics committed to memory. I am actually quite obsessed with statistics, to such a level that it is more than a little bit embarrassing when discussing it with non-football fans. Of course It does make no sense to make that claim; I have no way of proving it. You could pose the question, and no matter what answer I give, you could simply doubt my integrity and write me off as having looked up the answer before responding. We are, after all, on the internet. Nonetheless, I stand by my claim. And the other point; I still do not believe Hasselbeck is a good quarterback. He's actually playing alright in Tennessee, but I never liked his play. It doesnt help that I now live in Washington and have spent most of the last 8 years listening to seahawks fans complaining about him or overestimating him/being overly optimistic to a point of annoyance. And he rarely shows things that impress me. Played great against the saints in the playoffs though, but anybody can have a great day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clancynut Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 This article describes the advantage that the Bills have over opposing defenses even those coached by geniuses. Fitzpatrick's ability to dissect a defense and place his teammates in the position to succeed is the number one reason for the Bills turn around. My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) While, saying you cant give me a statistic I dont already know is a bit boastful and somewhat exaggerated, I truly do have a nearly inexhaustible bank of statistics committed to memory. I am actually quite obsessed with statistics, to such a level that it is more than a little bit embarrassing when discussing it with non-football fans. Of course It does make no sense to make that claim; I have no way of proving it. You could pose the question, and no matter what answer I give, you could simply doubt my integrity and write me off as having looked up the answer before responding. We are, after all, on the internet. Nonetheless, I stand by my claim. Kudos to you for taking critique in good part. Who knows, maybe we'll meet at a Bills Backers thing some day and you can blow my doors off with your command of the stats. I'll buy you a beer. Me, even when I think I remember stuff I typically second guess myself and look it up. And the other point; I still do not believe Hasselbeck is a good quarterback. He's actually playing alright in Tennessee, but I never liked his play. It doesnt help that I now live in Washington and have spent most of the last 8 years listening to seahawks fans complaining about him or overestimating him/being overly optimistic to a point of annoyance. And he rarely shows things that impress me. Played great against the saints in the playoffs though, but anybody can have a great day. I can go with "not a good QB" and "never liking his play". There's a lot of subjectivity in the assessment of any player, if you define "good QB" and Hasselbeck doesn't fit your def., fair enough. He's certainly not elite - not a Payton Manning who can carry a team. Can we agree, though, that overall with the career he's had, he deserves a bit better than to be called "garbage"? At the least, he's been a serviceable QB who, given a good system and reasonable OL play, can get the job done. Seattle fans are strange, I grant you that, too. Actually they remind me of Bills fans, those I've met. And whose idea was it that Tavaris Jackson would be an improvement? There are a bunch of NFL teams who could improve with Matt on their roster - at least 5, maybe as many as 10, including Peyton's team. Hasselbeck >> Collins in 2011. Edited September 28, 2011 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Fitz is the perfect backup QB. Tough and smart. Can run the offense fine. But he has that odd throwing style that makes him inaccurate deep and causes him to throw 3-6 WTF balls (even on short routes) every game. That is the only thing in my opinion that keeps him from being a great starting QB. I also think it is possible that Brad Smith is a better QB for Gaileys style of offense than Fitz is. I haven't see enough (any really) of Smith running anything but the wildcat to make that determination for sure though. Wow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defend Greece Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Fitz is not a perfect quarterback but that being said he is the perfect qb for the afc east leading, 4 time afc champion buffalo bills!!!!!!!! Fitz is the perfect backup QB. Tough and smart. Can run the offense fine. But he has that odd throwing style that makes him inaccurate deep and causes him to throw 3-6 WTF balls (even on short routes) every game. That is the only thing in my opinion that keeps him from being a great starting QB. I also think it is possible that Brad Smith is a better QB for Gaileys style of offense than Fitz is. I haven't see enough (any really) of Smith running anything but the wildcat to make that determination for sure though. Do you watch the game standing on your head underwater with a clothespin on your balls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Fitz is near-perfect for this offense. He reads defenses really well, makes quick decisions, and is accurate with short to medium length passes. He also understands the offense really well. The receivers also fit the offense well. Chan's receivers don't need to be really fast because we don't run a lot of deep passes. Gailey likes short-to-mid-range stuff, often creating traffic issues for DBs (unofficial picks). So we need receivers who run good routes and have good hands. Quickness rather than top-end speed is more important so Roscoe and Stevie fit perfectly. In a crowd (Gailey often sends 4 and 5 people out), it also helps to be a big target like Nelsen or Chandler. Gailey had a clear vision of the kind of offense he wanted to run. We're seeing that vision now. Guys who didn't fit that vision (Trent Edwards, Lee Evans, Marshawn Lynch) were cut or traded. Chan knew what he was doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Wow... Fitz is not a perfect quarterback but that being said he is the perfect qb for the afc east leading, 4 time afc champion buffalo bills!!!!!!!! Do you watch the game standing on your head underwater with a clothespin on your balls? Should we be waiting for a crayonz type response? Edited September 28, 2011 by Fear the Beard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts