Orton's Arm Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Go look at points for and points against. Fitz is playing with some terrible defenses. Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Words can be used to lie. But that doesn't mean that all words should automatically be dismissed as lies. The key is knowing when people are lying and when they're telling the truth. Statistics can also be used to lie. But that doesn't mean that all statistics are lies. If I were to tell you that the population of the United States is about half male, half female, or if I were to tell you that residents of Silicon Valley are on average younger than residents of Florida, or that residents of California are less likely to be smokers than residents of Las Vegas, I'd be telling you the truth. In this case, the OP appears to have embraced an erroneous assumption. Erroneous assumptions will lead to inaccurate conclusions, regardless of whether those conclusions are expressed in words or as statistics. The erroneous assumption that the OP appears to have made is that offensive supporting casts and defenses tend to be of roughly equal quality around the league, making it fair to evaluate QBs based on the quality of "their" win/loss records. The falsehood of that assumption is self-evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 If you look at his entire career, his record is actually 17-29-1. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FitzRy00.htm Cut Fitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 In this case, the OP appears to have embraced an erroneous assumption. Erroneous assumptions will lead to inaccurate conclusions, regardless of whether those conclusions are expressed in words or as statistics. The erroneous assumption that the OP appears to have made is that offensive supporting casts and defenses tend to be of roughly equal quality around the league, making it fair to evaluate QBs based on the quality of "their" win/loss records. The falsehood of that assumption is self-evident. If you try, to roll a die, you'll only end up with a lie. No matter how you may strive, it will end in a bunch of jive, because you can't roll 3.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Beard Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Words can be used to lie. But that doesn't mean that all words should automatically be dismissed as lies. The key is knowing when people are lying and when they're telling the truth. Statistics can also be used to lie. But that doesn't mean that all statistics are lies. If I were to tell you that the population of the United States is about half male, half female, or if I were to tell you that residents of Silicon Valley are on average younger than residents of Florida, or that residents of California are less likely to be smokers than residents of Las Vegas, I'd be telling you the truth. In this case, the OP appears to have embraced an erroneous assumption. Erroneous assumptions will lead to inaccurate conclusions, regardless of whether those conclusions are expressed in words or as statistics. The erroneous assumption that the OP appears to have made is that offensive supporting casts and defenses tend to be of roughly equal quality around the league, making it fair to evaluate QBs based on the quality of "their" win/loss records. The falsehood of that assumption is self-evident. I'm impressed with your discussion of such a seemingly trivial comment. I have always thought that statistics are misleading because you can pick and choose the statistics that will best fit your argument, and fail to mention those that don't. I think that is what you said, but you did it much more eloquently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacAddict104 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 While Fitz had lost his fair share of games, I do agree that the stat was a little deceiving. If you remember Fitz was a more effective QB than Trent when they both played on the same team. Either way... Yeah Ryan Fitzpatrick is a mid-level QB. Our hope is to get some good players around him because he won't win on his own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 People love to talk about QB win loss records. Hmmm wonder why it's not an official NFL statistic? unless timtebow is involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilbuffalobob Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 If you want to analyze the stat lines... check out how many time Rob Dude Johnson was sacked -versus- how many games he played... histerical. Kelly Holcolmb... way to lead the pack in QB Rating... as do the punters... stats are fun to look at, but they don't gauge drive, heart, ambition and the calculated fortune of being in the right place at the right time. Bite me confucius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 While Fitz had lost his fair share of games, I do agree that the stat was a little deceiving. If you remember Fitz was a more effective QB than Trent when they both played on the same team. Either way... Yeah Ryan Fitzpatrick is a mid-level QB. Our hope is to get some good players around him because he won't win on his own Honestly I disagree. This team is bad without Fitz. He moves the ball so quickly to our undrafted playmakers and gives them a chance to make a play. Nammaen, Jones, chandler, Stevie, Nelson... None of those guys make plays without Fitz. When he is in there we have a chance. Mid level guys like Kolb and Casse, I dont feel like they make their team go like Fitzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cincinnati Kid Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Couldnt agree more Hindsight. By the way, how are your trustee companions Coulda, Woulda and Shoulda? Oh and I hear Mintberry Crunch is on the loose again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I'm impressed with your discussion of such a seemingly trivial comment. I have always thought that statistics are misleading because you can pick and choose the statistics that will best fit your argument, and fail to mention those that don't. I think that is what you said, but you did it much more eloquently. Thanks for your compliments! I'll agree with your post up to a point. I'd argue that statistics can be misleading, because people can pick and choose the statistics that best fit their arguments. But people can do the same thing with words as well. Suppose you know five positive and five negative things about a person. Depending on the impression you want to create, you can discuss the five positive things and withhold the five negative, or vice versa. But someone who wanted to be as accurate as possible, without "selling" an inaccurate or biased point of view, would mention both positive and negative. Similarly with statistics, someone who valued accuracy above all else would seek out the most rigorous possible methodology, and would let the chips fall where they may. There are people who use statistics like that! I'd argue that people who use statistics fall into one of three categories. 1) People who understand statistical tools, and who build rigorous and honest methodologies to seek out the truth. 2) People who have an imperfect understanding of statistical tools, and do not fully understand what their statistical models are telling them. 3) People who deliberately use statistics to deceive. Mark Twain's comment about statistics seems to lump all users of statistics into the third category, which is grossly unfair to those in the first category. (And, to a lesser degree, unfair to those in the second category. Despite what Al Franken might think, the concepts of error and lie are not interchangeable.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Trooth Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 The initial post eluded to Fitz's 19 TD 14 int. season thus far. But, then went on to make a lot of excuses Fitz. Well, when folks look back on the numbers after a season, there won't be any asterisks, ands, ifs, or buts. Just cold hard numbers to look at. That will speak for itself. At the end of the day the numbers will tell whether or not Fitz is a franchise QB. Maybe he is, and maybe he ain't but someone's definition or standard. And, maybe he's just a franchise QB for a really bad franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 (edited) I'll admitt that...but everyone is missing the point.... Fitz has been a stud minus 3 games...once again you can't just erase the game....but the body of work is good about Smith.... jets had plans on making him there 3rd wr..... he has played with two really good route running wrs .... in holmes and in johnson(who he said has helped him a lot).... he's faster...bigger and stronger than jones .... and he knew eventually he was going to shift to Wr... All I'm saying is let's see what he does...but Fitz trust Smith probably more than he did for Jones I suppose you were among those saying pull out the ravens game last year and his body of work was bad? He's streaky. His arm is terribly inconsistent especially with any adversity. Granted any qb has those issues, his just seem slightly magnified (maybe an extra bad game each season, or an extra bad throw or two in a game). And these 3 games are a quarter of the season thus far. He's definitely serviceable but to throw out his bad games and compare to the league is silly. Throw out any qbs worst 3-4 games any season and suddenly your comparison points also shoot way up. Terrible thread. How, then, would you "count" a touchdown that a receiver batted in the air to prevent an interception? Just curious. Or an int that the defender drops Edited December 3, 2011 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 You forgot: Jim Kelly: 32 games 14W 18L p.s. you're an idiot. :worthy: Words can be used to lie. But that doesn't mean that all words should automatically be dismissed as lies. The key is knowing when people are lying and when they're telling the truth. Statistics can also be used to lie. But that doesn't mean that all statistics are lies. If I were to tell you that the population of the United States is about half male, half female, or if I were to tell you that residents of Silicon Valley are on average younger than residents of Florida, or that residents of California are less likely to be smokers than residents of Las Vegas, I'd be telling you the truth. In this case, the OP appears to have embraced an erroneous assumption. Erroneous assumptions will lead to inaccurate conclusions, regardless of whether those conclusions are expressed in words or as statistics. The erroneous assumption that the OP appears to have made is that offensive supporting casts and defenses tend to be of roughly equal quality around the league, making it fair to evaluate QBs based on the quality of "their" win/loss records. The falsehood of that assumption is self-evident. That's an eloquent over-explanation of an assumption that didn't need much explanation. QB wins aren't a stat any more than LB wins are a stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I'll admitt that...but everyone is missing the point.... Fitz has been a stud minus 3 games...once again you can't just erase the game....but the body of work is good about Smith.... jets had plans on making him there 3rd wr..... he has played with two really good route running wrs .... in holmes and in johnson(who he said has helped him a lot).... he's faster...bigger and stronger than jones .... and he knew eventually he was going to shift to Wr... All I'm saying is let's see what he does...but Fitz trust Smith probably more than he did for Jones You just made that up. The Jets never had plans to make Smith a 3rd WR. If they did they have kept it a secret until this very day. If anyone was paying attention last year, the Jets primarily used Smith as a kick returner, because that's what he was good at. He was rarely used as a WR and essentially never as a passer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 In the same number of games with the Bills, Fitz has thrown for an extra 1200 yards, taken six fewer sacks, and doubled up Tredwards in touchdowns. And then threw one more on top of that. 51-25. So go back through Trent's game and see how many we would have won if you doubled his TD passes, should we want to play this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Honestly I disagree. This team is bad without Fitz. He moves the ball so quickly to our undrafted playmakers and gives them a chance to make a play. Nammaen, Jones, chandler, Stevie, Nelson... None of those guys make plays without Fitz. When he is in there we have a chance. Mid level guys like Kolb and Casse, I dont feel like they make their team go like Fitzy Interesting to include Stevie on that list. Without fitz you don't think he makes plays? Come march where do you value him if fitz gets all the credit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Picks from a deflected pass should count as half an interception. Not entirely the fault of the QB, especially when they put it on the numbers and it squeaks through for a pick. OK, but when a reciver fights off a corner for a poorly thrown ball that should have been picked, and somehow manages to come down with it, then it shouldn't be a completion, but a fumble recovery. Kind of like the Smith reception last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuSeYiN1978 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 If this HC & GM ever decide to build a proper O line, this Bills team could easily make the playoffs with Fitz at QB IDK about easily make the playoffs but it will definitely help... Seems like every year we find a new position filled... Before it was our db's then linebackers then rushing ends, this year it's definitely a "pass rush" but what we've said year after year that we need is a better o-line so, you're right about that... IDK what to expect anymore especially now that i look back and realize that we picked C.J. Spiller with our number 1 draft pick when we had Lynch and Fred Jackson on the roster... Let's pray things get better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Interesting to include Stevie on that list. Without fitz you don't think he makes plays? Come march where do you value him if fitz gets all the credit? At the dumbest level, no WR makes plays without a QB able and willing to get him the ball. I think Stevie and Fitz are a good personality match. They both get creative and wing it a bit. I think in a pure system "we know all the answers on Thursday" offense like NE, Stevie would not do as well as one would expect with a top QB flinging to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Anyone who watches games knows that Fitz is a far better QB than Edwards. So I'm not sure what your point is. Could it be that statistics aren't as important for QB play? Is it that W/L records don't matter when evaluating a QB? What is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts