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.

[paintmyhouse]

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.

 

Umm, the defense played pretty good that game, actually got one of the two touchdowns. Would have been nice if the offense got a few first downs. Bills had the ball 11 times that game, and went 3 and out 6 of them. Only had the ball 4 times in the 2nd half, went 3 and out 2 of them. Bills had 12 first downs. They sucked, I would say it wasn't all Edwards fault.

[John from Riverside]

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.

 

We didnt blitz because

 

a. More often then not when this team blitzed (even though that is a 3-4 staple) they WERE NOT GETTING THERE...and getting burned

 

b. We simply did not have the horses to get it done on defense

 

I present this......if that game was replayed.....but with us having the top 10 defense with the players we have now (instead of the bengals being the one that had the top 10 defense) would we have LOST that game?

 

I dont think we would have

 

Umm, the defense played pretty good that game, actually got one of the two touchdowns. Would have been nice if the offense got a few first downs. Bills had the ball 11 times that game, and went 3 and out 6 of them. Only had the ball 4 times in the 2nd half, went 3 and out 2 of them. Bills had 12 first downs. They sucked, I would say it wasn't all Edwards fault.

 

You are SOOOO blind. You want to blame every woe we have on the QB and you give everyone else a pass.

 

The defense did NOT play well that game.....they played well in the 1st half and horribly in the 2nd. They allowed a ROOKIE quarterback who was prone to throwing picks all the time in the world to throw the ball.....they did NOT play well.

[reddogblitz]

We didnt blitz because

 

a. More often then not when this team blitzed (even though that is a 3-4 staple) they WERE NOT GETTING THERE...and getting burned

They were GETTING THERE in the first half. Why couldn't they get there in the 2nd half?

 

"Coach" Edwards called off the dogs and played safe.

 

Dalton was sacked twice and fumbled ("tuck") once while he was getting mauled. Meanwhile the vaunted Bungles D only could sack Fitz once.

 

But really, it was a team loss. We went into the locker room up 14. We thought we had it in the bag. The whole team did bad in the 2nd half.

Edited July 20, 2012 by reddogblitz

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Seriously do you have a hobby besides this? Like even something other to add to this board besides Fitz sucks? We get it. People like you make this place unreadable and drive away great posters. At first I thought you were someone using a different handle, but this drivel you continue to shove down TBD's throat has gone way past someone trying to be funny. Its just wasting bandwidth.

 

 

Good point eball. The cowboys game was over the min we stepped on the field. That was just a classic beatdown game in every since of the word

 

I'm a gonna craft an emoticon like this: except the sign sez "Please Don't Feed the Troll"

 

The entire Bills team could say that Fitzpatrick has improved and it wouldn't matter to some of these guys. They're just a bunch of "Debbie Doomsayers".

 

Some of them are sincere in their beliefs and may or may not be proven correct. Time will tell. That's why we play the games on Sunday!

 

Some of them are trolls. Kindly pay attention to the mouse shape, hearing aid, lips, and anus as especial identifying features useful in differential diagnosis

[hondo in seattle]

I don't care if Fitz can be an "upper echelon" QB. I only care that the offense (+ST) scores more the defense (+ST) gives up.

 

The Bills were averaging 28 points per game last season before everything went to crap. So the theory is already proven: When they are healthy, Fitz and the boys can score a lot of points.

 

If the Bills can just average 24 ppg this year, we'll win a lot of games because I expect this defense to hold opponents to an average of less than 20.

[Orton's Arm]

I don't care if Fitz can be an "upper echelon" QB. I only care that the offense (+ST) scores more the defense (+ST) gives up.

 

The Bills were averaging 28 points per game last season before everything went to crap. So the theory is already proven: When they are healthy, Fitz and the boys can score a lot of points.

 

If the Bills can just average 24 ppg this year, we'll win a lot of games because I expect this defense to hold opponents to an average of less than 20.

> I don't care if Fitz can be an "upper echelon" QB.

 

You should. Nine of the last ten Super Bowls were won by teams with franchise QBs. Roughly eight teams have franchise QBs. If you don't have a franchise QB, your team will win a Super Bowl once every 240 years.

 

10% chance of a team without a franchise QB winning it x 1/24 = 1 Super Bowl win per 240 years.

 

> The Bills were averaging 28 points per game last season before everything went to crap.

 

It would be great if they could keep that up over the course of several seasons. But they won't. The Bills faced a lot of bad pass defenses early in the year. Also, those defenses were unprepared for Gailey's new style of attack. Fitz will have to significantly improve his play if the Bills are to average 28 ppg over the course of the 2012 season.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I don't care if Fitz can be an "upper echelon" QB. I only care that the offense (+ST) scores more the defense (+ST) gives up.

 

 

You should. Nine of the last ten Super Bowls were won by teams with franchise QBs. Roughly eight teams have franchise QBs. If you don't have a franchise QB, your team will win a Super Bowl once every 240 years.

 

10% chance of a team without a franchise QB winning it x 1/24 = 1 Super Bowl win per 240 years.

Definitions aside, I don't really care how we win the Super Bowl.

 

If Fitz ends up being part of the rule or if he ends up being the exception, it makes no difference to me.

 

Let us remember the words of Al Davis.

 

There will come another year when a non-franchise QB wins the Super Bowl again.

 

 

 

(I left out Al Davis' words for dramatic effect… he didn't say "There will come another year when a non-franchise QB wins the Super Bowl again.")

 

He said "Just Win Baby."

[reddogblitz]

You should. Nine of the last ten Super Bowls were won by teams with franchise QBs. Roughly eight teams have franchise QBs. If you don't have a franchise QB, your team will win a Super Bowl once every 240 years.

This is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you win the SB and your QB is not absolute garbage, suddenly he's a "franchise QB". (How could they have a successful season if he wasn't any good?)

 

I remember standing outside the Ralph before the Giants game in 2007 with Giants fans who were ready to run Eli out of town on a rail. He has 23 TDs to 21 picks and a 56.1 comp %. Not exactly "Franchise QB" numbers. But he played well in the SB and got a LOT of help from his D AND David Tyree and Plax among others. At that point he was anointed as "Franchise QB".

 

He did a lot better last year, but in the SB got a ton of help from Perry and the boys AND his WRs.

 

A QB don't do it by himself. He needs a supporting cast and a good coach.

 

Who is the non "Franchise QB" that won in the last 10 years?

 

If the Bills win the SB this year, Fitz or Vince or Thigpen or Smith will be a "Franchise QB".

[Billsrhody]

This is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you win the SB and your QB is not absolute garbage, suddenly he's a "franchise QB". (How could they have a successful season if he wasn't any good?)

 

I remember standing outside the Ralph before the Giants game in 2007 with Giants fans who were ready to run Eli out of town on a rail. He has 23 TDs to 21 picks and a 56.1 comp %. Not exactly "Franchise QB" numbers. But he played well in the SB and got a LOT of help from his D AND David Tyree and Plax among others. At that point he was anointed as "Franchise QB".

 

He did a lot better last year, but in the SB got a ton of help from Perry and the boys AND his WRs.

 

A QB don't do it by himself. He needs a supporting cast and a good coach.

 

Who is the non "Franchise QB" that won in the last 10 years?

 

If the Bills win the SB this year, Fitz or Vince or Thigpen or Smith will be a "Franchise QB".

 

Jeese why do people bag on Eli for that superbowl and give Tyree all the credit for that catch. Eli did 99% on that play by escaping the pocket and putting in a great place between like 5 defenders and Tyree just caught it (granted it was a great catch). Eli deserves a lot more credit for that drive. Thats what makes him elite. He came up big when the game was on the line.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27XeNefwABw

Edited July 21, 2012 by Billsrhody

[Orton's Arm]

This is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you win the SB and your QB is not absolute garbage, suddenly he's a "franchise QB". (How could they have a successful season if he wasn't any good?)

 

I remember standing outside the Ralph before the Giants game in 2007 with Giants fans who were ready to run Eli out of town on a rail. He has 23 TDs to 21 picks and a 56.1 comp %. Not exactly "Franchise QB" numbers. But he played well in the SB and got a LOT of help from his D AND David Tyree and Plax among others. At that point he was anointed as "Franchise QB".

 

He did a lot better last year, but in the SB got a ton of help from Perry and the boys AND his WRs.

 

A QB don't do it by himself. He needs a supporting cast and a good coach.

 

Who is the non "Franchise QB" that won in the last 10 years?

 

If the Bills win the SB this year, Fitz or Vince or Thigpen or Smith will be a "Franchise QB".

 

> his is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you win the SB and your QB

> is not absolute garbage, suddenly he's a "franchise QB".

 

I'll grant there may be a lot of people who use the phrase "franchise QB" in the way you've described. But that's not how I'm using it. My definition of a franchise QB is a guy who can consistently average 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better.

 

Take Eli Manning for example. During his first five seasons in the league, he never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt. Those are not franchise numbers! But during the last three years, he's averaged 7.9, 7.4, and 8.4 yards per attempt. For comparison, his brother has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt. I'm not calling Eli a franchise QB because I'm reiterating the words of some talking head. I'm calling him a franchise QB because his numbers over the past three seasons bear no other interpretation.

 

I'll grant that Eli didn't play at a franchise level in the regular season leading up to his team's first Super Bowl win. His below-franchise play is an important reason the Giants only went 9-7 during that regular season. But during the postseason he played at a higher level. A franchise level. A level which has subsequently become his new norm.

 

> A QB don't do it by himself. He needs a supporting cast and a good coach.

 

Agreed. Having a franchise QB is no guarantee of a Super Bowl win; as the Bills found with Kelly, the Dolphins with Marino, etc. But if you don't have a franchise QB, you are very, very unlikely to win the Super Bowl.

 

> Who is the non "Franchise QB" that won in the last 10 years?

 

Brad Johnson. And even there it was a case of Johnson having the best season of his career; which happened to coincide with the best season for the Bucs' defense.

 

Prior to that, the Ravens won the Super Bowl without a franchise QB. To do that, they built one of the three best defenses in NFL history, a great offensive line led by a Hall of Fame-level LT in Jon Ogden, a great running game in the form of Jamal Lewis, and a very good TE in the form of Shannon Sharpe. Even their special teams were strong, and IIRC produced 10 points in what would otherwise have been a very close postseason game. Finally, the Ravens got lucky in that their postseason opponents were relatively weak. The Kerry Collins-led Giants team they faced in the Super Bowl was a much weaker Giants team than the one which won this past Super Bowl.

 

> If the Bills win the SB this year, Fitz or Vince or Thigpen or Smith will be a "Franchise QB".

 

Not to me. Fitz has to prove he can consistently average 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better for me to put the franchise label on him. For perspective: Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt, with his best season having been 7.2 yards per attempt. Peyton Manning has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt; and Tom Brady's career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. Fitz's best season is 6.8 yards per attempt. Let's not get the anointing oil out for Fitz just yet! (Or ever, unless he shows us significantly better numbers than he has thus far.)

[Hapless Bills Fan]

> his is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you win the SB and your QB

> is not absolute garbage, suddenly he's a "franchise QB".

 

I'll grant there may be a lot of people who use the phrase "franchise QB" in the way you've described. But that's not how I'm using it. My definition of a franchise QB is a guy who can consistently average 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better.

 

Not to me. Fitz has to prove he can consistently average 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better for me to put the franchise label on him. For perspective: Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt, with his best season having been 7.2 yards per attempt. Peyton Manning has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt; and Tom Brady's career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. Fitz's best season is 6.8 yards per attempt. Let's not get the anointing oil out for Fitz just yet! (Or ever, unless he shows us significantly better numbers than he has thus far.)

 

Er, you do realize that Tom Brady did not achieve this milestone of yours until his 4th year as starter (including a SB win)? And that he has achieved it 6 of his 10 years as (healthy) starter, overall?

 

Do you really believe Brady wasn't regarded as "the man", the starter, the face of the franchise, after his 1st 3 years and his 1st Superbowl win?

Does he become "not a franchise QB" in the years where he dips below this magic number?

 

Drew Brees with N'Orleans - above 7.2-7.4 Y/A in 4 of his 6 years with NO. Does that mean he's 2/3 of a Franchise QB?

 

The traditional Y/A statistic includes YAC, meaning the statistic can be heavily skewed by the quality of the receiver as much as the quality of the quarterback. This site has some interesting stuff on this - for example, about half of Brees passing yards are YAC, while Peyton Manning gets the majority of his yards through the air. About half of Brady's yards are also YAC.

 

Y/A also reflects completion percentage since it's based upon passes attempted, which again, has to do with the quality of the receivers as well as the quality of the quarterback. Roethlisberger, for example, has dipped below your Y/A threshold only once in his 8 year career. That happened to be a year his completion percentage dropped 5%, and I bet his receivers got fewer YAC that year also - Roeth typically gets about 40% of his Y/A as run after catch.

 

One can use words any uniquely personal way one chooses, but it somewhat precludes productive communication if one defines a word in a way that differs substantially from common usage.

 

I'd be happy to see an authoritative, in-depth analysis to validate the Y/A statistic as THE telling metric of a quality quarterback, rather than a confirmation that one has a quality QB playing on a quality team with quality OL (time to let plays develop and throw deep) and quality receivers who elude pursuit and scamper on after the catch. I'll offer an analysis to support the latter contention: if you sort by YAC, I don't think it's an accident that NE (with their >7.2 Y/A QB) has 3 receivers in the top 10 for YAC and NO (with their >7.2 Y/A QB) has 3 receivers in the top 15 for YAC.

 

Until then, Dowhatcha like but this fixation on Y/A as the ultimate franchise QB metric seems somewhat puzzling to some of us.

 

But then, at least to me, the whole concept of "franchise QB" is sort of nebulous. I completely understand the point some make, that the definition melds to fit the circumstances-you know you've got one, after you start winning, whether or not he was seen in that light before the fact.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Hopeful

[mrags]

It's easy to look at the success of the team last year and assume it was all on Fitzpatrick. The fact of the matter is that it simply wasn't. The defense was absolutely horrendous, particularly on third and long. They simply couldn't stop anyone. This leaves the play calling coming from the sidelines to be aggressive to stay in games, and the resultant turnovers. Let's look at some facts here:

 

Fitzpatrick was the worst starter in the NFL in INT's, and the 5th worst starter in the NFL in INT percentage per pass attempt. If these turnovers are a result of poor mechanics and he gets them under control, then you can look at all the other metrics that support the notion that he could be in that upper echelon of quarterbacks. I would further define "upper echelon" as top-8. Here's why:

 

Despite being injured from essentially game 6 on, here's where he ended the season among starters:

 

TD's - 10th

Passing Yards - 11th

Completion % - 9th

Sacks - 1st

 

The real question that people aren't asking is an important one though. If we assume that the defense is vastly improved from last year, will the Bills still be running that same type of aggressive offense that they ran last year? While we won't know until that very first game against the Jets, I would say that I don't think so. If the Bills can get up on their opponents by 7-10 points, I think you'll see a lot more ball control offense with Jackson and Spiller and a lot more short to intermediate pass routes. At the end of the day, I would say we've seen improvement in 3 straight years from him and I have no reason to believe that Lee won't help him to improve further. The only question is by how much.

Very nicely put. I couldn't have done it better myself. Of course I happen to agree with your Fitz backing and many do not. They will still point to the 24 ints and the "IT" factor saying he doesn't have it. I'd also like to point out that he was close statistically on with the best Bill ever... Jim Kelly. Kelly had a few more TDs but I don't know if he ever threw for that many yards. Then we will get the "it's a different game now" crowd acting up. Let's battle that with the fact that the no huddle Bills were years before thier time and would probably still be very good in this NFL. The fact is still true that the team suffered many injuries last year and Fitz himself was injured. The fact remains that we played from behind last year in many games. And the fact remains that our defense was absolutely horrendous last year. It's an IF, but if we can stay healthy, if we can keep our defense even in the middle of the pack, we won't be playing from behind so much. More controlled throws by Fitz, more running game with CJ and Fred and more wins for our team and QB.

[Drewgetz]

That clip of Fitz going crazy, screaming, jumping up and down on his teammates says a lot to me. Not all of it positive. It showed a little immaturity and a lack of that unemotional, cold, calculating, calmness I believe you need to be an upper echelon QB. But with that said, I'm glad he brings that kind of passion and excitement, because it's fun to watch the drama unfold.

 

 

Really?? Being excited means you are immature and can't calculate? Both Brett Farve and Payton Manning have been seen jumping up and down screaming... And a harvard QB not being calculating is a contradiction of terms. I don't think I would want a QB that is unemotional. If he was you would be there complaining he doesn't get excited enough.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Drewgetz

[billybrew1]

You know, that's an interesting comment. I'd say that at least during the 2nd half of last season, teams weren't scared of the Bills' offense, period. They saw a team that lost its best RB, C, LT, and didn't have a WR capable of complementing Stevie.

 

I think Fitz showed during the 1st half of the season that when healthy, and with a full complement of his starting mates on offense, he could pick apart a defense. That kind of stuff keeps defensive coordinators up at night.

 

And Stevie was without his burst all year, and Donald Jones played with sprained ankles most of the year and his RG missed time and the back up lt tackle missed time too....on top of all of that Fitz himself had rib problems the whole second half of the season.....

 

Although I think we have more depth everywhere on offense this season, no offense can survive that kind of decimation. We simply cannot have injuries as bad as last year. The good news is they got rid of two injury prone guys in parrish and Bell. Hopefully, Stevie, Jones and Nelson not only improve this year but don't have nagging or long term injury problems this year. And that Easley, Hagan, Graham and Smith are better than the guys backing up at WR last year.

At OT, i like Cordy though he probably needs help at the beginning. Pears should be fine and Hairston and Zebrie should be reasonable back ps. If Wood can play all year he will take the line to another level by December. If not, we know Urbik can make due and Rhinehardt can take his place. I also have a ton of faith that Colon Brown not only makes the team but can back up at C or G. So, we are better on the line as well.

At TE, Chandler looks like he will beat last season's marks easlily. It looks like Lee is ready to take on a bigger role as well. And finally, it looks like Dorin Dickerson is going to have his own package.

At QB, i fully expect Ryan to take a whole nother step forward as he enters year 3 withthis coach and offense and teammates. And coach Lee is another huge reason for heightened expectations. Perhaps, the training camp battlevthis summer makes us feel better about our back up situation as well.

And finally, a year ago at this time we certainly weren't as comfortable with CJ as the back up. This would be especially true if a poll was taken last year and this year.

 

So, reall, the whole offense is better and deeper and together with an improved Fitz we really do have something. Something to pair with our visciuos defense.

 

Go Bills!

[hondo in seattle]

Winning requires the offense to score more than the defense gives up. During the first half of the season, the Bills proved they can score a lot of points with Fitz as the QB as long as the key players remain healthy. The offseason gave us the defensive talent to keep opposing point totals down. Fitz and the Bills are going to win more than they lose this year.

 

Fitz is no Kelly, but the Bills offense will be potent nonetheless. I'd rather have a Kelly but I can live with Fitz.

 

The Bills will be fun to watch this year and having Fitz as the QB doesn't dampen my enthusiasm.

[Orton's Arm]

Er, you do realize that Tom Brady did not achieve this milestone of yours until his 4th year as starter (including a SB win)? And that he has achieved it 6 of his 10 years as (healthy) starter, overall?

 

Do you really believe Brady wasn't regarded as "the man", the starter, the face of the franchise, after his 1st 3 years and his 1st Superbowl win?

Does he become "not a franchise QB" in the years where he dips below this magic number?

 

Drew Brees with N'Orleans - above 7.2-7.4 Y/A in 4 of his 6 years with NO. Does that mean he's 2/3 of a Franchise QB?

 

The traditional Y/A statistic includes YAC, meaning the statistic can be heavily skewed by the quality of the receiver as much as the quality of the quarterback. This site has some interesting stuff on this - for example, about half of Brees passing yards are YAC, while Peyton Manning gets the majority of his yards through the air. About half of Brady's yards are also YAC.

 

Y/A also reflects completion percentage since it's based upon passes attempted, which again, has to do with the quality of the receivers as well as the quality of the quarterback. Roethlisberger, for example, has dipped below your Y/A threshold only once in his 8 year career. That happened to be a year his completion percentage dropped 5%, and I bet his receivers got fewer YAC that year also - Roeth typically gets about 40% of his Y/A as run after catch.

 

One can use words any uniquely personal way one chooses, but it somewhat precludes productive communication if one defines a word in a way that differs substantially from common usage.

 

I'd be happy to see an authoritative, in-depth analysis to validate the Y/A statistic as THE telling metric of a quality quarterback, rather than a confirmation that one has a quality QB playing on a quality team with quality OL (time to let plays develop and throw deep) and quality receivers who elude pursuit and scamper on after the catch. I'll offer an analysis to support the latter contention: if you sort by YAC, I don't think it's an accident that NE (with their >7.2 Y/A QB) has 3 receivers in the top 10 for YAC and NO (with their >7.2 Y/A QB) has 3 receivers in the top 15 for YAC.

 

Until then, Dowhatcha like but this fixation on Y/A as the ultimate franchise QB metric seems somewhat puzzling to some of us.

 

But then, at least to me, the whole concept of "franchise QB" is sort of nebulous. I completely understand the point some make, that the definition melds to fit the circumstances-you know you've got one, after you start winning, whether or not he was seen in that light before the fact.

Good post, and I appreciate the effort you put into writing it and finding good links to support it.

 

> Er, you do realize that Tom Brady did not achieve this milestone of yours until his 4th year as starter (including a SB win)?

 

Valid point.

 

> And that he has achieved it 6 of his 10 years as (healthy) starter, overall?

 

His career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. I feel that for a QB to be considered franchise, one of the following should be true. 1) He should have a career average of between 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better. 2) You should be able to count on him for 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt for the upcoming season based on the last several years of data.

 

Tom Brady meets both criteria; and there is no question that, statistically, he is a franchise QB.

 

> Does he become "not a franchise QB" in the years where he dips below this magic number?

 

Of course not. It's expected that QBs will have good years and bad years.

 

> The traditional Y/A statistic includes YAC, meaning the statistic can be heavily skewed by

> the quality of the receiver as much as the quality of the quarterback.

 

True. But a QB can affect YAC. Joe Montana, for example, would hit his receivers in perfect stride; setting them up for good YAC. That said, I'll grant that YAC rewards QBs for having good receivers. It's hard to think of any passing statistics not subject to that flaw.

 

> I don't think it's an accident that NE (with their >7.2 Y/A QB) has 3 receivers in the

> top 10 for YAC and NO (with their >7.2 Y/A QB) has 3 receivers in the top 15 for YAC.

 

Part of that is because Tom Brady and Drew Brees are good at hitting their WRs in stride; setting them up for good YAC. That said, I'll agree that there have been years when the addition of a good receiving threat (such as Randy Moss or Gronkowski) has resulted in a noticeable increase in Tom Brady's yards per attempt. That isn't just because of good receivers getting more YAC than bad receivers. Good receivers also tend to get open more often, drop fewer passes, and make more tough catches than bad receivers would.

 

> Y/A also reflects completion percentage since it's based upon passes attempted, which

> again, has to do with the quality of the receivers as well as the quality of the quarterback.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Let's say a given QB attempts nothing but 10 yard passes. In his first year, his completion percentage is 30%; which gives him a YPA of 3. In his second year, he continues attempting nothing but 10 yard passes, and increases his completion percentage to 70%. Now his yards per attempt is 7. It seems like any decent measurement tool should give him more credit for his second year than his first; which is exactly what yards per attempt does.

 

I agree that YPA rewards QBs whose receivers make tough catches, while punishing QBs whose receivers drop passes. Almost every other statistical measurement of QB performance has the same flaw.

 

> I'd be happy to see an authoritative, in-depth analysis to validate the Y/A

> statistic as THE telling metric of a quality quarterback,

 

I used to use quarterback rating as the most important statistical measure. Then it came to my attention that John Elway had a quarterback rating of 79.9, while Kelly Holcomb had a QB rating of 79.2. I have a higher opinion of Holcomb than most, but this is ridiculous!

 

Then I looked at other statistical data, and found that Holcomb averaged 6.6 yards per attempt over the course of his career, while Elway averaged 7.1. Elway is the only franchise QB I've found so far who has a career average of less than 7.2 yards per attempt. On the other hand, every QB I've seen who has a career average of 7.4 yards per higher has been a franchise QB. These data are what convinced me that yards per attempt was the most useful statistical measurement of QB performance I was likely to get. (Though as you have pointed out, no statistical measurement tool is perfect.)

 

The formula of NOAY/DB (mentioned in an article to which you'd linked) may have promise. But it too has flaws. QBs are assigned 100% of the blame for any sacks they take; thereby punishing QBs who play behind bad offensive lines. QBs are not given any credit for their receivers' YAC; thereby depriving QBs like Montana of any credit for the YAC they help create. I'm not saying these flaws are better or worse than those associated with yards per attempt.

[Green Lightning]

Damn that was a long post EA. I agree with most of it but the YAC has a lot more to di with the reciever than it does geetting "hit in stride" by the QB. At the end of the day however, you judge a Franchise QB by wins and losses.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Good post, and I appreciate the effort you put into writing it and finding good links to support it.

 

Thanks. Nice response, and I likewise appreciate the good discussion. To save time, I'll indicate your points that I want to respond to with >

 

>(Brady's) career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. I feel that for a QB to be considered franchise, one of the following should be true. 1) He should have a career average of between 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better. 2) You should be able to count on him for 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt for >the upcoming season based on the last several years of data.

 

Brady is a "franchise" QB by anyone's definition, and one of the best QB in the league today, maybe of all time. My question is: if the YPA statistic really reflects the whole team - the quality of the offensive line in allowing time to throw, the ability of the receivers to run after the catch as well as the QB - isn't annointing a QB "Franchise" on the basis of YPA, just equivalent to saying he's a quality QB playing on a quality team

 

> a QB can affect YAC. Joe Montana, for example, would hit his receivers in perfect stride; setting them up for good YAC. That said, I'll grant that YAC rewards QBs for having good receivers. It's hard to think of any passing statistics not subject to that flaw.

> Part of that is because Tom Brady and Drew Brees are good at hitting their WRs in stride; setting them up for good YAC.

 

Granted that QB accuracy and pass placement impact YAC. Still, when I think of Welker, I think of the trademark way he scrunches down small after a catch, makes defenders miss, then expands and takes off. When I think of Gronkowski, I think of the trademark way he keeps plowing along after contact, defenders draped and hanging off him like bizarro-world confetti. QB accuracy is part of the story, but only part.

 

I said: > Y/A also reflects completion percentage since it's based upon passes attempted, which again, has to do with the quality of the receivers as well as the quality of the quarterback.

 

> I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

 

I'm questioning whether Y/A, which includes completion percentage, is really the ultimate metric for judging the "franchise" quality of a QB? Or is it just a combination of a stat reflecting his accuracy (completion percentage) with a measure of the ability of his receivers to collect yards after catch?

 

> I used to use quarterback rating as the most important statistical measure. Then it came to my attention that John Elway had a quarterback rating of 79.9, while Kelly Holcomb had a QB rating of 79.2. I have a higher opinion of Holcomb than most, but this is ridiculous!

 

I can't disagree that QB rating has its flaws. It's something to look at, but it's only one thing to look at.

 

>The formula of NOAY/DB (mentioned in an article to which you'd linked) may have promise. But it too has flaws. QBs are assigned 100% of the blame for any sacks they take; thereby punishing QBs who play behind bad offensive lines. QBs are not given any credit for their receivers' YAC; >thereby depriving QBs like Montana of any credit for the YAC they help create. I'm not saying these flaws are better or worse than those associated with yards per attempt.

 

It's a valid point that QB do help create YAC. Still, I think it's a point to question whether Y/A, as a measure of QB quality, is inflated by the same measure - YAC having a lot to do with the WR's talent as well (see above about Welker and Gronk)

Edited July 23, 2012 by Hopeful

[You herd it hear last]

Really?? Being excited means you are immature and can't calculate? Both Brett Farve and Payton Manning have been seen jumping up and down screaming... And a harvard QB not being calculating is a contradiction of terms. I don't think I would want a QB that is unemotional. If he was you would be there complaining he doesn't get excited enough.

How bout the part you left un-emboldened?

I was just thinking along the lines of a Lombardi-like "act like you've been there before" and save THAT kind of over-the-top celebration just before the ticker tape drifts down from the roof and the clock is striking midnight for our Superbowl opponent.

 

But like I said, he seems to have fun out there and we all hope that translates to wins and he is given the opportunity to be "the man" in a big moment for the Bills. Whether that means just protecting the ball and managing the game or being called upon to score 38 points and throw for 375 yds, we'll all find out soon enough. Can't wait.

[Hplarrm]

Very nicely put. I couldn't have done it better myself. Of course I happen to agree with your Fitz backing and many do not. They will still point to the 24 ints and the "IT" factor saying he doesn't have it. I'd also like to point out that he was close statistically on with the best Bill ever... Jim Kelly. Kelly had a few more TDs but I don't know if he ever threw for that many yards. Then we will get the "it's a different game now" crowd acting up. Let's battle that with the fact that the no huddle Bills were years before thier time and would probably still be very good in this NFL. The fact is still true that the team suffered many injuries last year and Fitz himself was injured. The fact remains that we played from behind last year in many games. And the fact remains that our defense was absolutely horrendous last year. It's an IF, but if we can stay healthy, if we can keep our defense even in the middle of the pack, we won't be playing from behind so much. More controlled throws by Fitz, more running game with CJ and Fred and more wins for our team and QB.

I also like the direction that the analysis is taking in that it does answer the REAL question facing the Bills which is NOT whether Fitzy can ever be reasonably called an upper echelon QB.

 

The REAL question for us is whether we can in fact win (though actually the real goal is to simply make it to the SB). In fact the actual real world goal to really produce substantial improvement in our team is to merely simply MAKE it into the playoffs,

 

If the Bills simply were to make it into the playoffs in 2012, I would be quite happy with that improvement. I would not be satisfied with an early exit from the playoffs but would be quite happy we finally made it.

 

The real question is not whether Fitzy can be good enough to get his team to the playoffs. While we must always keeo in mind the ultimate goal of winning the SB, back in the real world we need to recognize not only do we need to walk before we run (or we never will learn to run (amd the reasl fact is that we have to learn to crawl before we even walk.

 

Is Fitzy really capable of even QBing this team to an SB? Nope. pretty doubtful.

 

However, is he capable of QBing this team to a playoff appearance (and preferably a win).

 

Yep, I think he is.

 

In fact, I have more confidence in him doing this than I do Thigpen, Vince Young. Tebow or any of the readily available QB options.

 

If you propose someone else then one needs to make that case and merely ragging on Fptzy os both easy to do and pretty meaningless unless the writer specifies a specific alternative whom they want to advocate is the player the Bills need and also is gettable.