Vince Young interview…

[Donald Duck]

You made the right call with Cam when I doubted him, glad I'm on your side this time.

 

Very similiar athletes, Cam and VY...

 

NOOOOOOOOOO! This is how QB controversies get started. I do like the idea of him as the backup over Thigpen though (subject to his play in camp/preseason of course).

 

 

 

 

This makes a lot of sense to me but still cracks the door open to controversy. With all of the WR prospects we have (granted, other than Stevie none jump out as studs but they do seem to be NFL caliber) would we really need Smith at WR? With VY playing the wildcat position we would upgrade the pass potential (I don't recall Smith even completing a pass in it) and we could keep a better WR. The only thing I'm not sure about is if VY is considered the backup QB can we bring him in before the 4th quarter and still put Fitz back in? Could we get around it by just listing him as a WR and throw him out at that position in the wildcat every once in a while? The down side of this (other than possible controversy) is that VY would be a downgrade to Smith's run ability. Let's face it, the wildcat is 95% run and Smith seemed to have a knack for squeeking through for the 1st down. Okay, I think I just talked myself out of this too.

 

 

Poor QB play starts a QB controversy, not the backup QB...

[BillsBytheBay]

If he still has trouble reading a defense and/or throwing the ball at this stage in his career ...

 

 

 

... this becomes moot. Defenses will stack the line, take away the run and dump offs, and force the offense and VY into throwing in attempt to beat them.

I dont know about that. Vince can throw the ball. Better than Tebow, and we saw how stacking the box worked. Aside from last year, and his breakdown season, VY was still a winner his whole career. He will always be a runner. Hell, two seasons ago he ran all over us!

 

I'm pulling for Fitz, but a small part of me wants to see how different our offence would be with VY at the wheel.

[Donald Duck]

Um...why would Chan and the coaching staff tailor-fit the offense to Young's skill set when he isn't the starter? Wouldn't it make more sense to tailor the offense to Fitzpatrick's skill set? And actually, what's the evidence from last season that Chan actually tailored the offense for Fitz, or showed flexibility to change the offense mid-season? IMO he acted like he had Rodgers or Brees under center, even after Fitz got speared in the ribs and couldn't breathe - pass pass pass pass pass pass pass.

 

And why would this "one day be VY's football team" when he's signed to a one-year contract? We get all stressed about not having our starters like Levitre and Byrd locked up for more than this year, let alone our "planned Man at QB". That would be very poor planning on the part of our FO if your and Jt6P's opinions are correct, piss poor planning in fact if they have any notions in this direction. You got a guy you think might be your long term starter, you want him locked up before he shows anything other teams may want, or your team's pocketbooks are in deep kim-chee.

 

Something doesn't compute here with this happy strategy y'all are outlining. Just sayin'

 

 

 

Ummmm, because its what Chan Gailey does, he adapts his offense around his players skill set, and common sense would tell you its not going to happen/ materialize onto the field until VY is the starter.(or it does me anyway)

 

This is a test for VY and the Buffalo Bills, one that Youngs not going to fail. Do you honestly think we plan on investing time into Young, teach him the Offense, and just when he's starting to show some real potential and the ability to win football games, then release him? No, its not happening.

 

Just sayin...

[caracara]

Hola, Hopeful. Dredging up this thread again to reply.

 

I have not heard the comment "(Fitz)'s stated that he plays better and is able to make more confident throws when he's the undisputed starter.", and I watch and listen to every Fitz interview since he's been in B'lo. I think that may be a subtle misremembering or misquote of something he said that alters the meaning. Several of FItz's best career games, just lighting the place up throwing, were coming in as the backup with the team way behind, (including his first NFL game, in StL - still remembered, set records). It would be kind of a strange statement for him to make in the face of his game logs. However, I think it is true that any QB benefits from more practice and more attention from the QB coach and more time with the "ones" and likely that leads to more confidence.

 

I was paraphrasing of course, but he's mentioned it a couple of times in interviews (the importance of being "the Guy"), and it is totally understandable. I'm not trying to put the man down. It makes sense that you wouldn't want to be looking over your shoulder while you have a job in front of you. But as far as leadership goes, it is easier to lead a football team if your teammates know without a doubt that you're the best QB on the team. Fitz is going to have to prove it in games. He'll need to win early imo, for his own confidence.

 

When a QB is bringing a team back from a big hole he can throw caution to the wind to some extent. It is the charm of having nothing to lose. It gets a bit dicier when you are about to catch-up or overtake the opposition, but by then your team is high on destiny.

 

Vince is an imposing QB in the locker room. He's usually the tallest guy in the room and he has some swagger. He makes friends easily. For RF's own peace of mind, I think, it would be good if he came out of the blocks strong this season, and like I said earlier, take-over on the practice field, in the clubhouse and obviously in games. As soon as he feels some mo he should assume the MFIC hat just like Brady or Manning or Fouts. The one problem with some super smart guys is that they think too, much. and of course the panacea is winning.

Well, not for VY in Tenn, but in most other instances. BTW I've never seen Vince throw a pass in the snow. Bad weather used to mess Aikman up. Some QBs really can't handle it.

Cheers, and Go Bills.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PupUuFUEd1o

[San Jose Bills Fan]

This is what I think about job competition in general and as it relates to the Bills quarterbacks:

 

Please keep in mind that I'm a huge Fitz fan and have supported him (and continue to support him) unequivocally.

 

 

I have a job and every day of my life it's a competition.

 

It's a competition to get better at what I do. It's a competition to get my stuff in before the sheet metal workers, the plumbers, fitters, sheet rockers, and ceiling guys do. It's a competition with the other guys in my company because when work gets slow and they're deciding who to keep and who to let go, they're gonna look at production. It's a competition because life is competitive and every person who considers themselves to be a professional should be striving to increase their skills and get better every day.

 

While the working world I live in is not professional athletics, it is a work place based on production and merit. You're only as good as your last job or as they commonly say, "one oh crap erases 100 attaboys. I show up for work every day sober and alert, and take my work home with me. I do a lot of professional development. I have dozens of certifications and treat my job as a construction electrician as if I was a nuclear engineer (In truth if I was a quarterback I probably would have hired a personal coach to work with me on my mechanics). I think nothing of spending my money on tools and books relating to my trade.

 

These NFL players are professionals working in an uber-competitive industry filled with sharks. They make enormous amounts of money and endure high levels of media scrutiny. They're already under a good deal of pressure. In this context I don't believe in coddling guys or making them comfortable. I think it's an artificially contrived comfort zone. Yes, guys don't need to be looking over their shoulders but they also have to perform so they already put pressure on themselves. My take: this is the real world. It's competitive. Man up.

 

Everyone is always playing for a job except for a small percentge of these guys. It's implicit in the depth chart. If you can't do your job, they'll find someone else who can. As a coaching staff or an organization you might not want to overplay the job competition aspect but IMO you don't have to pretend that it doesn't exist because it certainly does.

 

This is what I feel about a "quarterback controversy:"

 

There are teams with strong leadership and teams with weak leadership.

 

There are rosters that contain a lot of character players and rosters that don't.

 

There are teams filled with lots of prima donnas and teams filled with lunch bucket guys.

 

Then you have players involved in quarterback controversies (ie- Fitz and Young) who are team players or who are not team players. Some of these guys will divide the locker room, become toxic, manipulate the media, stir the pot, and make things worse. Some of these guys are team players who will preach that they support whatever is best for the team.

 

I think I know how a "quarterback controversy" would play on the Bills.

 

If the Flutie-Johnson controversy resulted in wins and good performance in spite of the reported tension and in-fighting between the two, why would we expect that a competition between Fitz and Young would damage this team which Nix and Gailey have carefully built?

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

If the Flutie-Johnson controversy resulted in wins and good performance in spite of the reported tension and in-fighting between the two, why would we expect that a competition between Fitz and Young would damage this team which Nix and Gailey have carefully built?

 

OOooooooooh. SJBF, perhaps not the best analogy. Does the phrase "Music City Miracle" ring any bells?

 

It's one thing to coddle guys and make them comfortable (Sanchez has had a little too much of that IMO).

 

The aspect you may be missing, is that we all need to practice in order to hone proficiency. For an NFL QB, that requires a playing field and at least 13 or 21 other guys. There is only so much time the playing field and the "top" 21 other guys are available.

 

Divide it, you get half the practice, and half the proficiency. Meanwhile, on other teams, the #1 guy gets every chance to hone his stuff and improve.

 

Just how does that help our team?

 

Vince is an imposing QB in the locker room. He's usually the tallest guy in the room and he has some swagger.

 

Good luck with that tallest guy thing in the Bills locker room. I counted 13 guys listed as taller than 6'5" and 5 (not including VY) listed at 6'5"

 

Otherwise I think we've about beaten this topic to death and are starting to loop, I'm out of here.

 

Addendum: I had the chance to watch that video clip. Nice piece on Fitz, enjoyed it.

I think when Fitz is talking about how it's hard to play QB looking over your shoulder, you can't be afraid to make that mistake, you have to be smart but you have to take chances and fit some balls in there, he's not talking about QB competition, he's talking about game day competition, and the context in which the producers put that sound bite creates the connection to QB competition/confidence. Fitz had a front-row seat to a QB who many felt did play scared - Trent Edwards aka "Captain Checkdown", a guy who was clearly a better physical QB than Fitz but who seemed all those things: afraid to make mistakes, afraid to fit the ball into any kind of a tight window, and perhaps worst, always looking over his shoulder afraid of getting hit, and would dump the ball off if the pressure was getting close. One reason so many fans have embraced Fitz is that he's kind of the anti-Trent in all those regards. You would have to watch video clips of TE to believe it. That's just what I think though.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Hopeful

[San Jose Bills Fan]

OOooooooooh. SJBF, perhaps not the best analogy. Does the phrase "Music City Miracle" ring any bells?

 

It's one thing to coddle guys and make them comfortable (Sanchez has had a little too much of that IMO).

 

The aspect you may be missing, is that we all need to practice in order to hone proficiency. For an NFL QB, that requires a playing field and at least 13 or 21 other guys. There is only so much time the playing field and the "top" 21 other guys are available.

 

Divide it, you get half the practice, and half the proficiency. Meanwhile, on other teams, the #1 guy gets every chance to hone his stuff and improve.

 

Just how does that help our team?

Like yesterday, you're taking my statement too far and reading into it things that I haven't said.

 

My point is that the Bills made the playoffs in 1998 and 1999 during the period in which Flutie and Johnson both staked a claim to the starting QB position. By all accounts their time together was anything but harmonious. In spite of that, they were a winning team.

 

Moreover, one miracle play does not invalidate the fact that the team played well in spite of the quarterback controversy.

 

And nowhere in my post did I even suggest that Fitz and Young split practice time.

 

Here's my point boiled down to its simplest essence:

 

You let guys compete… you don't fear competition… and if you have a strong team and a sound organization, there's no downside because everyone knows that when the best man wins, it's for the betterment of the team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[truth on hold]

Um...why would Chan and the coaching staff tailor-fit the offense to Young's skill set when he isn't the starter? Wouldn't it make more sense to tailor the offense to Fitzpatrick's skill set? And actually, what's the evidence from last season that Chan actually tailored the offense for Fitz, or showed flexibility to change the offense mid-season? IMO he acted like he had Rodgers or Brees under center, even after Fitz got speared in the ribs and couldn't breathe - pass pass pass pass pass pass pass.

 

And why would this "one day be VY's football team" when he's signed to a one-year contract? We get all stressed about not having our starters like Levitre and Byrd locked up for more than this year, let alone our "planned Man at QB". That would be very poor planning on the part of our FO if your and Jt6P's opinions are correct, piss poor planning in fact if they have any notions in this direction. You got a guy you think might be your long term starter, you want him locked up before he shows anything other teams may want, or your team's pocketbooks are in deep kim-chee.

 

Something doesn't compute here with this happy strategy y'all are outlining. Just sayin'

Yeah your brain, you keep harping on his contract like it means anyhing. Point is hes here. He doesn't have the make up of a backup. if he shows hes put the maturity issues behind him, is working hard understanding the play book and can translate it to the field with his superior ability, they'll work out a new contract. No big deal, could happen any time this season. And if they want to him pay starter money then fitz and his contract will be gone, since it's no longer gauaranteed. Under this scenario there's no reason to keep him around. And then you'll cry

Edited June 5, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Ummmm, because its what Chan Gailey does, he adapts his offense around his players skill set, and common sense would tell you its not going to happen/ materialize onto the field until VY is the starter.(or it does me anyway)

 

I repeat: what is the evidence that Chan actually did this last year, during the season, when the injury bug hit the Bills hard and Fitz was clearly struggling for 3 games?

What offensive adaptations did you observe Chan to make in plays called, run/pass percentage, or anything else?

 

If VY becomes the starter this season, it will be because Fitz has gone down mid-game/mid-season to injury.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Like yesterday, you're taking my statement too far and reading into it things that I haven't said.

 

My point is that the Bills made the playoffs in 1998 and 1999 during the period in which Flutie and Johnson both staked a claim to the starting QB position. By all accounts their time together was anything but harmonious. In spite of that, they were a winning team.

 

Moreover, one miracle play does not invalidate the fact that the team played well in spite of the quarterback controversy.

 

And nowhere in my post did I even suggest that Fitz and Young split practice time.

 

Here's my point boiled down to its simplest essence:

 

You let guys compete… you don't fear competition… and if you have a strong team and a sound organization, there's no downside because everyone knows that when the best man wins, it's for the betterment of the team.

 

Sorry, SJBF, you can't have it both ways. If you're truly letting guys compete, you need to give them a fair chance to compete. That means you split the reps and the practice time. It follows. Otherwise, you don't have a competition, you just have a concept. But if you do split the reps and the practice time, you dilute the preparation and make both guys less effective.

 

i can see where I was too obscure with my reference to the Music City Miracle. The point was not "one miracle play", it's the choice to start Johnson over Flutie in that game when Flutie had been having success at QB, and more broadly, to divide the QB position between them back-and-forth for 3 years. You're correct, the Bills were a winning team in those years, but many felt it was just as you say, "in spite of" the QB controversy and the Bills were, in fact, a weaker team because of it and there was a clear downside. I feel that way myself. To me, the MCM and its outcome is the culmination of those frustrating years where the Bills looked on the verge of going somewhere, but could never quite get there. IMO the QB controversy/team division was a big piece of the "never quite".

 

OTJ, I could tell stories and make all kinds of points there. I'll just say I've seen companies try the "Highlander*" approach to management where they divide the job between two (or even three) people and after a year pick "the best guy" and I can't say I thought it made the organization stronger at all than making a decision up-front and staying with it would have done. Quite the contrary. The same with "switching horses" too soon rather than picking one guy and giving him a reasonable opportunity to develop his strategies to fruition. (Fair disclosure: This isn't a place where my ox has been personally gored, I'm well below the storm cloud level).

 

The overall point is, there can be a clear downside to competition for a position, especially in a game such as football where so much preparation is needed and so many factors go into success. One wants to have quality options at every position, and it needs to be managed carefully to ensure it is not controversy, and that competition is not allowed to dilute preparation and distract the team.

 

*"in the end, there can be only one"

Edited June 5, 2012 by Hopeful

[Donald Duck]

I repeat: what is the evidence that Chan actually did this last year, during the season, when the injury bug hit the Bills hard and Fitz was clearly struggling for 3 games?

What offensive adaptations did you observe Chan to make in plays called, run/pass percentage, or anything else?

 

If VY becomes the starter this season, it will be because Fitz has gone down mid-game/mid-season to injury.

 

 

Are you trying to convince people Chan Gailey is not a good innovator? You don't think there was any adjustments to help CJ Spiller/running game at the end of last season? Or adjustments to help Fitz get the footbal out of his hands quickly? You have zero idea of what Gailey does with his scheming/play calling from game to game or what his adjustments might be so get real.

 

We were talking about a change from one QB to the other (Fitz to Young) which never even happened so I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my time arguing with you.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Fig Newton

[1B4IDie]

Sorry, SJBF, you can't have it both ways. If you're truly letting guys compete, you need to give them a fair chance to compete. That means you split the reps and the practice time. It follows. Otherwise, you don't have a competition, you just have a concept. But if you do split the reps and the practice time, you dilute the preparation and make both guys less effective.

 

i can see where I was too obscure with my reference to the Music City Miracle. The point was not "one miracle play", it's the choice to start Johnson over Flutie in that game when Flutie had been having success at QB, and more broadly, to divide the QB position between them back-and-forth for 3 years. You're correct, the Bills were a winning team in those years, but many felt it was just as you say, "in spite of" the QB controversy and the Bills were, in fact, a weaker team because of it and there was a clear downside. I feel that way myself. To me, the MCM and its outcome is the culmination of those frustrating years where the Bills looked on the verge of going somewhere, but could never quite get there. IMO the QB controversy/team division was a big piece of the "never quite".

 

OTJ, I could tell stories and make all kinds of points there. I'll just say I've seen companies try the "Highlander*" approach to management where they divide the job between two (or even three) people and after a year pick "the best guy" and I can't say I thought it made the organization stronger at all than making a decision up-front and staying with it would have done. Quite the contrary. The same with "switching horses" too soon rather than picking one guy and giving him a reasonable opportunity to develop his strategies to fruition. (Fair disclosure: This isn't a place where my ox has been personally gored, I'm well below the storm cloud level).

 

The overall point is, there can be a clear downside to competition for a position, especially in a game such as football where so much preparation is needed and so many factors go into success. One wants to have quality options at every position, and it needs to be managed carefully to ensure it is not controversy, and that competition is not allowed to dilute preparation and distract the team.

 

*"in the end, there can be only one"

 

Life isn't fair, Chan doesn't have to make anything fair.

 

VY will not be given a fair shot.

 

If Fitz struggles mightily in the first half with that tough schedule, it is not outlandish to think that the guy that looks good in practice whether that be VY or anyone else might get a shot to play on Sundays.

 

Nothing in life is guaranteed and especially not a football starting position in a quick 16 game season, and life is very rarely fair.

 

I like Fitz, I want him to succeed and take this team to the Super Bowl but if he does more sucking than seeded, he might be holding the clipboard instead of starting QB.

 

There really isn't a counter argument. If Fitz performs well and the team wins he will continue to start, if Fitz does not perform well and the team loses, it opens the door for VY. It is a fact.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Are you trying to convince people Chan Gailey is not a good innovator? You don't think there was any adjustments to help CJ Spiller/running game at the end of last season? Or adjustments to help Fitz get the footbal out of his hands quickly? You have zero idea of what Gailey does with his scheming/play calling from game to game or what his adjustments might be so get real.

 

We were talking about a change from one QB to the other (Fitz to Young) which never even happened so I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my time arguing with you.

 

 

Not exactly. I'm questioning what is the evidence that Chan "innovated" or adjusted within each game or during the season last year. I'm far from the only poster here to question this. A number of TBDers who are generally sensible and football-knowledgeable have pointed out that when the OL and WR corp were decimated by injuries and Fitz, as it later emerged, was injured, Chan was still repeatedly running the same empty backfield sets that scream "pass play coming!" and still relying on the same pass heavy offense. We compare and contrast to teams such as the Texans, who shifted their play balance during the season when their starting QB and backup went down, and went to the playoffs with TJ Yates. Of course, they also had a quality defense to keep them in games.

 

Chan may be innovative as all get-out with all summer or two weeks to prepare. I don't think it's an accident that we killed KC in the season opener and dismembered Washington after the bye week. Yes, he designed a quick-release offense that worked very well the first half of the season when other teams didn't have film on it yet. Once the Jets and the Cowboys wrote the book on how to jam our receivers on the line and bollix it, it was pretty clear to people who score the sets and the play balance that Plan A was still out there and Plan B needed a c-section for the Baby to emerge.

 

It's a legitimate question. There may be legitimate answers - it's possible that with our injured OL, this was still the offense that best-suited our remaining personnel. We don't get do-overs and I hope we don't go down the same Injury Road this year, so hopefully we'll never know.

 

Anyway, based on last season, I question the evidence that if Fitz goes down, Chan can or will instantly re-write the playbook in a way that suits VY. Based on last season, it seems a legitimate question.

 

I don't know why you're arguing either. Trying to understand what someone writes to see if they might have a legitimate thought or two and after you understand, debating their point, seems like a better strategy than instantly assuming that they don't know what they're talking about and snapping off some banal (and unpersuasive) put-down like "you have zero idea" and "get real".

 

Life isn't fair, Chan doesn't have to make anything fair. VY will not be given a fair shot.

 

And I'm OK with that. But in that case, I would say we don't have a true competition, which seemed to be the point under debate.

 

If Fitz struggles mightily in the first half with that tough schedule, it is not outlandish to think that the guy that looks good in practice whether that be VY or anyone else might get a shot to play on Sundays.

There really isn't a counter argument. If Fitz performs well and the team wins he will continue to start, if Fitz does not perform well and the team loses, it opens the door for VY. It is a fact.

 

I agree that's not outlandish, I do think that it will depend on what exactly the "struggles" are, how many games, and how Chan perceives them. What looks like bad QB play to the fans might not result in the (doubtless) clamored-for change if Chan sees it differently. Now if Fitz were to just stink up the place in the first two games a la Trentative Edwards, I agree the hook will be there. (I don't think that will happen, you never know).

 

I do really hope VY masters the offense and looks good in practice because I'm one of those who believes Fitz should have sat out about 3 games last year, and didn't just because Chan's math said (Injured Fitz) >> (Thigpen)

Edited June 7, 2012 by Hopeful

[OhiosGJ]

hmm...

[1B4IDie]

Not exactly. I'm questioning what is the evidence that Chan "innovated" or adjusted within each game or during the season last year. I'm far from the only poster here to question this. A number of TBDers who are generally sensible and football-knowledgeable have pointed out that when the OL and WR corp were decimated by injuries and Fitz, as it later emerged, was injured, Chan was still repeatedly running the same empty backfield sets that scream "pass play coming!" and still relying on the same pass heavy offense. We compare and contrast to teams such as the Texans, who shifted their play balance during the season when their starting QB and backup went down, and went to the playoffs with TJ Yates. Of course, they also had a quality defense to keep them in games.

 

Chan may be innovative as all get-out with all summer or two weeks to prepare. I don't think it's an accident that we killed KC in the season opener and dismembered Washington after the bye week. Yes, he designed a quick-release offense that worked very well the first half of the season when other teams didn't have film on it yet. Once the Jets and the Cowboys wrote the book on how to jam our receivers on the line and bollix it, it was pretty clear to people who score the sets and the play balance that Plan A was still out there and Plan B needed a c-section for the Baby to emerge.

 

It's a legitimate question. There may be legitimate answers - it's possible that with our injured OL, this was still the offense that best-suited our remaining personnel. We don't get do-overs and I hope we don't go down the same Injury Road this year, so hopefully we'll never know.

 

Anyway, based on last season, I question the evidence that if Fitz goes down, Chan can or will instantly re-write the playbook in a way that suits VY. Based on last season, it seems a legitimate question.

 

I don't know why you're arguing either. Trying to understand what someone writes to see if they might have a legitimate thought or two and after you understand, debating their point, seems like a better strategy than instantly assuming that they don't know what they're talking about and snapping off some banal (and unpersuasive) put-down like "you have zero idea" and "get real".

 

 

 

And I'm OK with that. But in that case, I would say we don't have a true competition, which seemed to be the point under debate.

 

 

 

I agree that's not outlandish, I do think that it will depend on what exactly the "struggles" are, how many games, and how Chan perceives them. What looks like bad QB play to the fans might not result in the (doubtless) clamored-for change if Chan sees it differently. Now if Fitz were to just stink up the place in the first two games a la Trentative Edwards, I agree the hook will be there. (I don't think that will happen, you never know).

 

I do really hope VY masters the offense and looks good in practice because I'm one of those who believes Fitz should have sat out about 3 games last year, and didn't just because Chan's math said (Injured Fitz) >> (Thigpen)

 

I didn't take that way. I didn't see the proposal for an open competition for a staring QB, but if you did that I understand you're response better.

 

And you're right I think Chan's math may look different in 2012 (A losing, floundering* Fitz in 3rd year with 2 previous losing records) < (VY)

 

Lets just hope it does't come to that.

 

*definition of floundering is solely Chan's to determine.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Why So Serious?