Can Fitzpatrick be an upper echelon QB?

[Jauronimo]

Blood, sugar, bearded, he has it, Fitz magik, Fitz magik.

[John from Riverside]

For those suggesting defenses "figured the Bills' offense out" beginning in Cinci, I'd only like to point out that six of the nine defenses the Bills faced after the bye finished in the top half of the league, statistically. Of the three that didn't, the Bills put up 386 yards against Tennessee, 351 against Denver, and 402 against the Pats*.

 

Additionally, by far the worst stretch of games the offense had last season were the three immediately following Fitz's "alleged" rib injury -- 287, 271, and 245 against the Jets, Cowboys, and Fish (when Freddy went down).

 

In four of the final six games of 2011, the Bills put up offensive numbers exceeding their per-game average for the season.

 

This is all great info and thanks to everyone for looking it up to support their arguements whatever they might be (with the exception of paintmyhouse who can go pound sand)

 

I just think that the thing that cannot be missed is the defensive aspect of all of this

 

- Yes we are talking about offense but the fact is that when you have a defense that cannot force punts....your offense gets desparate and mistakes happen

 

- When you hardly ever see the ball on offense.....as soon as a attempt to pound the ball gets shut down....the chan gets nervous and goes away from it for fear of the game getting away from him

 

- When you get down in games on the scoreboard....playcalling tends to get a lot more predictable

 

- This ALL affects the offense and its efficiency

 

 

It is my hope that this year Stash and his band of merry defensive men give Chan the confidence to be patient when we need to be......and erase some mistakes the offense makes

[San Jose Bills Fan]

So if the 4th receiving option is on the field 50% of the time (I think that number is high by the way), the quaterback probably only throws to them about 5% of the plays that they're on the field. That makes their impact in the offense around 2.5%. Very insignificant if you ask me.

 

The truth is, the 4th receiving option on a team means very little in determining the outcome of the game. I bet you can't think of more than 4 4th receiving options of all the 32 NFL teams (RBs dont count). There's a reason for that... they dont matter. What you're doing right now is nitpicking.

And I could accuse you of the same. I was contending that the Bills injuries to the receiving corps were much more damaging than the Bengals injuries.

 

Apparently you disagree.

 

 

Let me try to put it differently:

 

The Bills had a clear cut number one wide receiver in Steve Johnson.

 

As you know there's a huge debate here (multiple threads) about who is/was/will be the number two receiver for this team… the guy who can help draw coverage away from the number one and the guy who can make defenses pay when too much attention is paid to the number one.

 

The Bills did not have a true, clearcut number two receiver last year, nor did they have a number three, or a number four.

 

The Bills decision to trade Lee Evans on August 12th was followed by Marcus Easley being placed on IR on September 13th, the placement of Roscoe Parrish on IR on September 20th and the placement of Donald Jones on IR on November 22nd.

 

That's four wideouts that they started camp with that they lost before Thanksgiving. After Thanksgiving Scott Chandler missed 2 of the final 4 games.

 

The Bills were playing a second-year running back in CJ Spiller and their 3rd string quarterback Brad Smith as wide receivers.

 

In addition the Bills were forced to use special teams ace Ruvell Martin as a wide receiver, as well as undrafted free agent rookie Kamar Aiken and Derek Hagan, who was signed the day the Bills lost Donald Jones.

 

The Bills also lost Naaman Roosevelt who played only 2 of the final 6 games of the season.

 

You think the Bengals suffered similarly with injuries?

 

 

[Dorkington]

Clearly we shouldn't even play this season. It's already been decided by TBD that it will be a failure purely because of Fitzpatrick, the worst QB in history.

[eball]

Clearly we shouldn't even play this season. It's already been decided by TBD that it will be a failure purely because of Fitzpatrick, the worst QB in history.

But it's not just Fitzpatrick, the worst QB in history.

 

It's also Gailey, the most stubborn, pass-happy, telegraphs-every-play-to-the-defense head coach in history.

 

And David Lee, the worst coach to ever stunt the development of a college QB he never coached.

[Dorkington]

But it's not just Fitzpatrick, the worst QB in history.

 

It's also Gailey, the most stubborn, pass-happy, telegraphs-every-play-to-the-defense head coach in history.

 

And David Lee, the worst coach to ever stunt the development of a college QB he never coached.

Man, we must have had a hard time gaining yards and scores last year.

[Rocky Landing]

But it's not just Fitzpatrick, the worst QB in history.

 

It's also Gailey, the most stubborn, pass-happy, telegraphs-every-play-to-the-defense head coach in history.

 

And David Lee, the worst coach to ever stunt the development of a college QB he never coached.

Bring back Jauron!

[paintmyhouse]

Man, we must have had a hard time gaining yards and scores last year.

 

We did for the majority of the season, you are correct!!!

Edited July 20, 2012 by paintmyhouse

[Dorkington]

We did for the majority of the season, you are correct!!!

I can't believe I like this team. I think I'm going to root for the Dolphins this year.

[eball]

We did for the majority of the season, you are correct!!!

Perhaps you missed this -- I'll warn you though, it contains actual facts, not the fabricated ones you enjoy.

[paintmyhouse]

Perhaps you missed this -- I'll warn you though, it contains actual facts, not the fabricated ones you enjoy.

 

What fabricated part of the Bills offense was presented? Like they really only played well against bad defenses, and even in those games, they were inconsistent? Fitz's early turnovers hardly contributued to the leads that the opposition built up in the Patriots and Raiders games.

Edited July 20, 2012 by paintmyhouse

[Billsrhody]

And I could accuse you of the same. I was contending that the Bills injuries to the receiving corps were much more damaging than the Bengals injuries.

 

Apparently you disagree.

 

 

Let me try to put it differently:

 

The Bills had a clear cut number one wide receiver in Steve Johnson.

 

As you know there's a huge debate here (multiple threads) about who is/was/will be the number two receiver for this team… the guy who can help draw coverage away from the number one and the guy who can make defenses pay when too much attention is paid to the number one.

 

The Bills did not have a true, clearcut number two receiver last year, nor did they have a number three, or a number four.

 

The Bills decision to trade Lee Evans on August 12th was followed by Marcus Easley being placed on IR on September 13th, the placement of Roscoe Parrish on IR on September 20th and the placement of Donald Jones on IR on November 22nd.

 

That's four wideouts that they started camp with that they lost before Thanksgiving. After Thanksgiving Scott Chandler missed 2 of the final 4 games.

 

The Bills were playing a second-year running back in CJ Spiller and their 3rd string quarterback Brad Smith as wide receivers.

 

In addition the Bills were forced to use special teams ace Ruvell Martin as a wide receiver, as well as undrafted free agent rookie Kamar Aiken and Derek Hagan, who was signed the day the Bills lost Donald Jones.

 

The Bills also lost Naaman Roosevelt who played only 2 of the final 6 games of the season.

 

You think the Bengals suffered similarly with injuries?

 

The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter who your 4th receiving option is. They have little impact on the game regardless. No matter who was the "number 2 receiver" out of the group you described (jones, roosevelt, easley), they likely would have been behind Johnson, Nelson and Chandler in terms of targets and impact. Similarly, whoever the 4th Bengal option was, they would have been behind Green, Simpson and Gresham in targets and impact.

 

Yes the bills did have more trouble with injuries, but their top 3 targets were unaffected. Whoever was playing the second outside receiver spot was not going to have a huge impact. You cannot count lee evans because the team traded him and received value back. You also cant discount CJ as a "second year back" because he played very well and plenty of RBs are very effective in their second years.

 

You clearly arent getting the point I'm trying to make.. that the 4th receiving option, has very little impact on a game.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter who your 4th receiving option is. They have little impact on the game regardless. No matter who was the "number 2 receiver" out of the group you described (jones, roosevelt, easley), they likely would have been behind Johnson, Nelson and Chandler in terms of targets and impact. Similarly, whoever the 4th Bengal option was, they would have been behind Green, Simpson and Gresham in targets and impact.

 

Yes the bills did have more trouble with injuries, but their top 3 targets were unaffected. Whoever was playing the second outside receiver spot was not going to have a huge impact. You cannot count lee evans because the team traded him and received value back. You also cant discount CJ as a "second year back" because he played very well and plenty of RBs are very effective in their second years.

 

You clearly arent getting the point I'm trying to make.. that the 4th receiving option, has very little impact on a game.

Well as my last post on the topic, we appear to be making different points.

 

Bottom line for me, the Bills injuries at wide receiver hurt the offense last year.

 

 

[Billsrhody]

Well as my last post on the topic, we appear to be making different points.

 

Bottom line for me, the Bills injuries at wide receiver hurt the offense last year.

 

Well my point is.. I dont think the injuries really hurt them that much because that position on the offense was insignificant. The combined 4th receiver of the Bills did just as much as the combined 4th receiver of the Bengals.. which was very little.

[paintmyhouse]

The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter who your 4th receiving option is. They have little impact on the game regardless. No matter who was the "number 2 receiver" out of the group you described (jones, roosevelt, easley), they likely would have been behind Johnson, Nelson and Chandler in terms of targets and impact. Similarly, whoever the 4th Bengal option was, they would have been behind Green, Simpson and Gresham in targets and impact.

 

Yes the bills did have more trouble with injuries, but their top 3 targets were unaffected. Whoever was playing the second outside receiver spot was not going to have a huge impact. You cannot count lee evans because the team traded him and received value back. You also cant discount CJ as a "second year back" because he played very well and plenty of RBs are very effective in their second years.

 

You clearly arent getting the point I'm trying to make.. that the 4th receiving option, has very little impact on a game.

 

Bills had 3 WR sets like over 75% of the time I believe (FOR EBALL, I HAVE NO CONFIRMATION ON THIS, SAW IT IN SOMEONE ELSE'S POST). The 4th option will get the ball. They honestly do not have to be all that great, there should be mismatches in the scheme the Bills run. There are guys open on the field all the time for every team, QB needs to get them the ball.

[Billsrhody]

Bills had 3 WR sets like over 75% of the time I believe (FOR EBALL, I HAVE NO CONFIRMATION ON THIS, SAW IT IN SOMEONE ELSE'S POST). The 4th option will get the ball. They honestly do not have to be all that great, there should be mismatches in the scheme the Bills run. There are guys open on the field all the time for every team, QB needs to get them the ball.

 

But how much will they really get the ball?

[first_and_ten]

Well, here's some homer tips I have learned.

 

1) You can always call him Fitzmagic. Even if he loses 7 straight, there will be an acceptable excuse. No matter how absurd it is.

 

2) You can never call him Fitzgarbage. Even if he goes on a 7 game losing streak. See Above. If you cannot contain yourself you will be labeled a "hater" No trying to say you have a valid point to make, it is unacceptable. Some have already said there OK with a 0-3 start since Fitz will still be getting his "mechanics" in order. Be prepared

 

3) The Bills current coaching staff are golden. Never mind the head coaches 10-22 record we were/are rebuilding from a perennial 7-9 team that had to be blown up. David Lee is a gift from above. Never make a David Lee Roth joke, it's banned.

 

4) Wannastache is most likely the DC of the year because???? He was out of the league for years? No.

No one else wanted him? Some truth there. He got a free one year pass in the Bills booth while a DC named Edwards took all the blame? Correct.

 

5) Mechanics. The most overused word on this board. For Fitzmagic and Lee's sake I hope it works on a 8 year vet.

 

6)Go Bills

By "go bills" do you mean you hope they move to LA?

[reddogblitz]

I keep seeing the Bengals game mentioned on this thread as somehow Fitz' fault or something.

 

I did at the time and will continue forever to believe that game was lost by "Coach" George Edwards.

 

What other DC in the league with a 14 point lead in the 2nd half against a team with a rookie QB who had already thrown a couple of picks and got bailed out on a fumble by "the tuck rule" does not blitz the pee jee bers out of said rookie? Instead we played safe or "keep everything in front of you" or something and lost. And there was the rule of incomplete on the SJ pass late ...

 

That game was not Fitz fault. The Giants game maybe, but not the Bungles.

[CodeMonkey]

I keep seeing the Bengals game mentioned on this thread as somehow Fitz' fault or something.

 

I did at the time and will continue forever to believe that game was lost by "Coach" George Edwards.

 

What other DC in the league with a 14 point lead in the 2nd half against a team with a rookie QB who had already thrown a couple of picks and got bailed out on a fumble by "the tuck rule" does not blitz the pee jee bers out of said rookie? Instead we played safe or "keep everything in front of you" or something and lost. And there was the rule of incomplete on the SJ pass late ...

 

That game was not Fitz fault. The Giants game maybe, but not the Bungles.

I wouldn't necessarily blitz constantly under that situation either, and here is why.

A constant blitz strategy is high risk/reward. It can hang defensive backs out to dry, particularly when done too often. And in that high risk situation if you get burned, you tend to get burned big. Blitzing often can shut down a rookie QB, but it can just as easily lead to multiple quick touchdowns as well. A 14 point lead in the 2nd half and I might be inclined to make sure I don't give up and long quick scores as well.

[reddogblitz]

A 14 point lead in the 2nd half and I might be inclined to make sure I don't give up and long quick scores as well.

Thank you Coach Edwards. Your plan worked to perfection!

 

Somehow I think DW would do something different.