Bill Polian on what it takes to win

[mjt328]

Fitzpatrick is not a game manager. He's a gunslinger who has terrible accuracy on medium to deep throws, and who is regularly atop the league in interceptions.

 

One of our biggest problems is that Fitz ISN'T a game manager. Our coach wants him to throw 30-40 times a game, instead of handing the ball off most of the time.

 

 

Alex Smith is a game manager, and his team is one of the best in the NFL.

[LiterateStylish]

Please provide a link.

 

So I see you're the local gestapo. The man with a little internet power and becomes absorbed by it. You have no control in your life, so you try to control people on a message board. I've been there. It's no good. It's actually a little sick. I wouldn't be surprised if you banned me for calling you out, because thats what people who have that sort of personality do.

 

I was the Administrator at the Range for many years. Had many of your same tendencies. Deleting posts. Editing posts. Giving out infractions for the minor things. Seek help man. It's honestly no good, and its lead to nowhere but a sad ending.

 

Cya around.

[Orton's Arm]

Are we going to debate just the Houston game here?

 

Fitz scoring 34 points gives our defense no room for error either, I guess. And that's just the latest example.

 

But if you want to think that Joe Montana in his prime would be a SB winning QB with this same defense, don't let me stop you.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> But if you want to think that Joe Montana in his prime would be a SB winning QB with this same defense, don't let me stop you.

 

You are using a straw man argument to confuse the issue. LiterateStylish did not argue or imply that the Bills are a franchise QB away from being a Super Bowl winning team. Instead, his argument (as best I understand it) is that, of the pieces the Bills need to put in place to become a Super Bowl winning team, a franchise QB is the single most important.

 

As for your argument that Fitz has no margin for error, that might apply to throws which aren't there, but which Fitz feels he needs to force anyway due to a need to score as many points as possible. A "no margin for error" argument is not relevant to throws which are there, but which Fitz fails to complete due to his lack of accuracy. (Of which there are plenty.)

 

It's fairly obvious that Fitz is not effective at capitalizing on available intermediate to deep passing opportunities. That limitation hamstrings the offense as a whole. Even hamstrung, the offense is often still effective. With a franchise quarterback, the Bills' offense would be somewhat comparable to the Patriots' offense.

 

Another participant in this thread mentioned that teams with decent QBs, or with good-but-not-great QBs, have won Super Bowls. He mentioned Jeff Hostetler, Phil Simms, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson. Phil Simms averaged 7.2 yards per attempt over the course of his career. That's not quite the level a QB typically needs to attain to be considered franchise, but it's not too far short, either. Jeff Hostetler averaged 7.0 yards per attempt during his career. By comparison, Fitz has never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt in a single season.

 

Not only were Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler significantly better QBs than Fitz, but Hostetler in particular attained a very high level of play in the postseason. Hostetler provided about the same level of play during the Giants' postseason as you'd expect from a franchise QB playing at or near his best. Similarly, Brad Johnson had a Pro Bowl year the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. The one QB the poster mentioned who led his team to a Super Bowl win without having provided a very high level of play was Trent Dilfer. Not only did the Ravens have one of the three best defenses in NFL history; with even their worst starters playing at or near a Pro Bowl level. They also had a great OL, a very good RB in Jamal Lewis, and surprisingly weak postseason competition. With the exception of the first half of their game against the Raiders (Rich Gannon), none of their postseason opponents had a franchise QB.

[K-9]

> But if you want to think that Joe Montana in his prime would be a SB winning QB with this same defense, don't let me stop you.

 

You are using a straw man argument to confuse the issue. LiterateStylish did not argue or imply that the Bills are a franchise QB away from being a Super Bowl winning team. Instead, his argument (as best I understand it) is that, of the pieces the Bills need to put in place to become a Super Bowl winning team, a franchise QB is the single most important.

 

As for your argument that Fitz has no margin for error, that might apply to throws which aren't there, but which Fitz feels he needs to force anyway due to a need to score as many points as possible. A "no margin for error" argument is not relevant to throws which are there, but which Fitz fails to complete due to his lack of accuracy. (Of which there are plenty.)

 

It's fairly obvious that Fitz is not effective at capitalizing on available intermediate to deep passing opportunities. That limitation hamstrings the offense as a whole. Even hamstrung, the offense is often still effective. With a franchise quarterback, the Bills' offense would be somewhat comparable to the Patriots' offense.

 

Another participant in this thread mentioned that teams with decent QBs, or with good-but-not-great QBs, have won Super Bowls. He mentioned Jeff Hostetler, Phil Simms, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson. Phil Simms averaged 7.2 yards per attempt over the course of his career. That's not quite the level a QB typically needs to attain to be considered franchise, but it's not too far short, either. Jeff Hostetler averaged 7.0 yards per attempt during his career. By comparison, Fitz has never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt in a single season.

 

Not only were Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler significantly better QBs than Fitz, but Hostetler in particular attained a very high level of play in the postseason. Hostetler provided about the same level of play during the Giants' postseason as you'd expect from a franchise QB playing at or near his best. Similarly, Brad Johnson had a Pro Bowl year the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. The one QB the poster mentioned who led his team to a Super Bowl win without having provided a very high level of play was Trent Dilfer. Not only did the Ravens have one of the three best defenses in NFL history; with even their worst starters playing at or near a Pro Bowl level. They also had a great OL, a very good RB in Jamal Lewis, and surprisingly weak postseason competition. With the exception of the first half of their game against the Raiders (Rich Gannon), none of their postseason opponents had a franchise QB.

 

The OP listed three things that Polian said are needed to win.

 

He focused on 1 of them.

 

I asked him to consider the other items on Polian's list. Specifically item 2 and our abysmal defense.

 

He said Fitz scoring 9 points puts pressure on the defense.

 

I said having to score more than 34 puts pressure on the offense.

 

Knowing that Joe Montana would not be able to win with item #2 on Polian's list is not a straw man by any means. His SB defenses consistently got off the field on third down and got him the ball back. Polian included #2 because it's obvious.

 

Here's the bottom line for me: as bad as Fitz is, our defense AT THE TIME THIS THREAD WAS STARTED, was FAR FAR FAR worse.

 

They have been better of late and should improve with three better LBs, a SS, and another CB.

 

Fitz will never be more than a mediocre talent regardless.

 

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited December 10, 2012 by K-9

[LiterateStylish]

> But if you want to think that Joe Montana in his prime would be a SB winning QB with this same defense, don't let me stop you.

 

You are using a straw man argument to confuse the issue. LiterateStylish did not argue or imply that the Bills are a franchise QB away from being a Super Bowl winning team. Instead, his argument (as best I understand it) is that, of the pieces the Bills need to put in place to become a Super Bowl winning team, a franchise QB is the single most important.

 

As for your argument that Fitz has no margin for error, that might apply to throws which aren't there, but which Fitz feels he needs to force anyway due to a need to score as many points as possible. A "no margin for error" argument is not relevant to throws which are there, but which Fitz fails to complete due to his lack of accuracy. (Of which there are plenty.)

 

It's fairly obvious that Fitz is not effective at capitalizing on available intermediate to deep passing opportunities. That limitation hamstrings the offense as a whole. Even hamstrung, the offense is often still effective. With a franchise quarterback, the Bills' offense would be somewhat comparable to the Patriots' offense.

 

Another participant in this thread mentioned that teams with decent QBs, or with good-but-not-great QBs, have won Super Bowls. He mentioned Jeff Hostetler, Phil Simms, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson. Phil Simms averaged 7.2 yards per attempt over the course of his career. That's not quite the level a QB typically needs to attain to be considered franchise, but it's not too far short, either. Jeff Hostetler averaged 7.0 yards per attempt during his career. By comparison, Fitz has never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt in a single season.

 

Not only were Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler significantly better QBs than Fitz, but Hostetler in particular attained a very high level of play in the postseason. Hostetler provided about the same level of play during the Giants' postseason as you'd expect from a franchise QB playing at or near his best. Similarly, Brad Johnson had a Pro Bowl year the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. The one QB the poster mentioned who led his team to a Super Bowl win without having provided a very high level of play was Trent Dilfer. Not only did the Ravens have one of the three best defenses in NFL history; with even their worst starters playing at or near a Pro Bowl level. They also had a great OL, a very good RB in Jamal Lewis, and surprisingly weak postseason competition. With the exception of the first half of their game against the Raiders (Rich Gannon), none of their postseason opponents had a franchise QB.

 

Nailed it.

 

The OP listed three things that Polian said are needed to win.

 

He focused on 1 of them.

 

I asked him to consider the other items on Polian's list. Specifically item 2 and our abysmal defense.

 

He said Fitz scoring 9 points puts pressure on the defense.

 

I said having to score more than 34 puts pressure on the offense.

 

Knowing that Joe Montana would not be able to win with item #2 on Polian's list is not a straw man by any means. His SB defenses consistently got off the field on third down and got him the ball back. Polian included #2 because it's obvious.

 

Here's the bottom line for me: as bad as Fitz is, our defense AT THE TIME THIS THREAD WAS STARTED, was FAR FAR FAR worse.

 

They have been better of late and should improve with three better LBs, a SS, and another CB.

 

Fitz will never be more than a mediocre talent regardless.

 

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

How many games has Fitz had to put up more than 34 points to win that wasn't in part because Fitz threw an INT in our territory or fumbled the ball etc?

[Orton's Arm]

The OP listed three things that Polian said are needed to win.

 

He focused on 1 of them.

 

I asked him to consider the other items on Polian's list. Specifically item 2 and our abysmal defense.

 

He said Fitz scoring 9 points puts pressure on the defense.

 

I said having to score more than 34 puts pressure on the offense.

 

Knowing that Joe Montana would not be able to win with item #2 on Polian's list is not a straw man by any means. His SB defenses consistently got off the field on third down and got him the ball back. Polian included #2 because it's obvious.

 

Here's the bottom line for me: as bad as Fitz is, our defense AT THE TIME THIS THREAD WAS STARTED, was FAR FAR FAR worse.

 

They have been better of late and should improve with three better LBs, a SS, and another CB.

 

Fitz will never be more than a mediocre talent regardless.

 

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

> Knowing that Joe Montana would not be able to win with item #2 on Polian's list is not a straw man by any means.

 

I agree that Joe Montana would not have been able to win the Super Bowl with the Bills' defense--especially the defense as it was earlier in the season, when it was at its worst. On that we agree. Where your earlier post came across as a straw man argument was when you seemed to imply that the OP was unaware of this fact.

 

LiterateStylish didn't argue that a franchise QB is a sufficient condition for winning the Super Bowl. He argued that it's a necessary condition; which is a much, much stronger argument.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

> Knowing that Joe Montana would not be able to win with item #2 on Polian's list is not a straw man by any means.

 

I agree that Joe Montana would not have been able to win the Super Bowl with the Bills' defense--especially the defense as it was earlier in the season, when it was at its worst. On that we agree. Where your earlier post came across as a straw man argument was when you seemed to imply that the OP was unaware of this fact.

 

LiterateStylish didn't argue that a franchise QB is a sufficient condition for winning the Super Bowl. He argued that it's a necessary condition; which is a much, much stronger argument.

 

He argued one point on Polian's list. I considered another.

 

Nobody would argue that having a franchise QB isn't the most important factor, let alone me. Always has been the case. I never suggested otherwise and never will.

 

As to your suggestion about the "stronger argument" you can save that. It's all part of the same argument, the ingredients for a championship team. Franchise QB and a defense that can get off the field are BOTH necessary.

 

I just don't happen to limit the conversation to a single aspect.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

How many games has Fitz had to put up more than 34 points to win that wasn't in part because Fitz threw an INT in our territory or fumbled the ball etc?

 

The fact that Fitz blows is not the point. The point is that the defense has to be responsible for itself and get off the field on third down, regardless how well the offense plays.

 

Our defense, especially at the time you started the thread, was at or near the bottom of the in the league in most categories, including third downs.

 

There was a reason Polian mentioned poor defense as a reason you can't win. He's right.

 

And I don't care who the QB is.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Boatdrinks]

The Patriots had number 2 and 3 last year and they went 13-3 and went to the Superbowl.

 

* Exception to items (2) and (3) When you have to polar opposite of item (1).

 

* Exception to items (2) and (3) When you have the polar opposite of item (1).

 

Sorry. Corrected the typo.

[LiterateStylish]

The fact that Fitz blows is not the point. The point is that the defense has to be responsible for itself and get off the field on third down, regardless how well the offense plays.

 

Our defense, especially at the time you started the thread, was at or near the bottom of the in the league in most categories, including third downs.

 

There was a reason Polian mentioned poor defense as a reason you can't win. He's right.

 

And I don't care who the QB is.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

How about now? The defense has given up more than 21 points only ONCE in the past 6 games. Yet Fitz still blows and we are still losing.

[KeisterHollow]

A bait and switch followed by an awful extrapolation, capped with a misattributed quotation. Well done.

 

[DanInUticaTampa]

I don't know why I am drawn into reading this terrible thread, but I do. This is just a long winded way of saying fitz sucks? If you need a long winded way of saying it with a few trick references, then you really need to look again at fitz. Explaining how much fitz sucks is very easy to explain in a more direct way.

 

Fitz sucks, but our defense was even worse than him in the first half. Very few, if any QBs could have won those games with that defense. But now that the defense is playing better, we are still losing, why? because fitz isn't good and our playcalling has been more than questionable. If we had this defense in the begining of the year, even just a slightly better QB, and some better playcalling, we would be in the playoffs. And that is not to say we are close to being a good team, but so many teams in the AFC have sucked this year, there was definently a missed opportunity on our part for the playoffs.....

 

 

But yeah, let's bring up something polian said, mislead everyone, take it out of context, interpret it to fit our own personal views, explain that Fitz will never win a superbowl, and then act like it is some ground breaking news because the whole football world was expecting fitz to win at least one superbowl. Congrats sir, the football world is shocked by your lil football formula that proves the whole world wrong and FItz will never win the superbowl we had all expected. You would think people could just watch a bills game and tell that Fitz would never win a superbowl, but apparently THIS is what is needed to explain it way.

 

 

but on a side note, Fitz has actually played better than I expected. I really thought he would have played a lot worse.

[Best Player Available]

So I see you're the local gestapo. The man with a little internet power and becomes absorbed by it. You have no control in your life, so you try to control people on a message board. I've been there. It's no good. It's actually a little sick. I wouldn't be surprised if you banned me for calling you out, because thats what people who have that sort of personality do.

 

I was the Administrator at the Range for many years. Had many of your same tendencies. Deleting posts. Editing posts. Giving out infractions for the minor things. Seek help man. It's honestly no good, and its lead to nowhere but a sad ending.

 

Cya around.

Beerball is the least, along with just jack to abuse internet "power" here. Trust me.

[LiterateStylish]

Beerball is the least, along with just jack to abuse internet "power" here. Trust me.

 

Calling it like I see it. I've seen it in a few threads.

 

But im new, so I'll take your word for it. Maybe i've seen the rare times.

[LiterateStylish]

I don't know why I am drawn into reading this terrible thread, but I do. This is just a long winded way of saying fitz sucks? If you need a long winded way of saying it with a few trick references, then you really need to look again at fitz. Explaining how much fitz sucks is very easy to explain in a more direct way.

 

Fitz sucks, but our defense was even worse than him in the first half. Very few, if any QBs could have won those games with that defense. But now that the defense is playing better, we are still losing, why? because fitz isn't good and our playcalling has been more than questionable. If we had this defense in the begining of the year, even just a slightly better QB, and some better playcalling, we would be in the playoffs. And that is not to say we are close to being a good team, but so many teams in the AFC have sucked this year, there was definently a missed opportunity on our part for the playoffs.....

 

 

But yeah, let's bring up something polian said, mislead everyone, take it out of context, interpret it to fit our own personal views, explain that Fitz will never win a superbowl, and then act like it is some ground breaking news because the whole football world was expecting fitz to win at least one superbowl. Congrats sir, the football world is shocked by your lil football formula that proves the whole world wrong and FItz will never win the superbowl we had all expected. You would think people could just watch a bills game and tell that Fitz would never win a superbowl, but apparently THIS is what is needed to explain it way.

 

 

but on a side note, Fitz has actually played better than I expected. I really thought he would have played a lot worse.

 

You say "Fitz sucks, but our defense was even worse than him in the first half. Very few, if any QBs could have won those games with that defense."

 

Lets take a look.

 

Game 1 - Lost 48-28 to the Jets

 

At first, that 48 # looks like a lot. Until you consider that 24 of those points came off of Fitzpatrick turnovers. The defense gave up 24 points on their own. Thats not bad. HALF of the points in the game came off of Fitz turnovers. Think about that for a moment. I bet most decent QBs would have won this game.

 

Game 3 - Lost 52-28 to NE

 

Bad game by the defense. But 7 points came off fo Fitz turnovers. Would have been more if Gostkowski didnt miss a couple easy field goals. But either way, bad day by the D.

 

Game 4 - Lost 45-3 to SF

 

17 points off Fitz turnovers. Defense gave up 28 points by themselves. Fitz also overthrew some open WR's in this game.

 

Game 6 - Lost 35-34 to Tennessee

 

Fitz is the sole reason we lost this game. 14 points off of Fitz turnovers. This is a 35-21 Bills win without Fitz throwing that awful, terrible, retched INT and fumbling right into the arms of a Tennessee player.

 

So in at least 2 of the 4 first half losses, the Defense gave up 24 or less points on their own. Thats not that bad. Are they playing much better now? Sure. But MOST decent QB's would have won a couple of those early games. Lets not blame the defense.

Edited December 16, 2012 by LiterateStylish

[DanInUticaTampa]

The tenessee one is really the only one that would be soley on Fitz. The others, although blame is also on him, the defense looked worse than he did. Defense would be great on 1st and 2nd down, then completly shut down on 3rd down. And that is where the defense was killing us.

 

And you saying that "many QB's would have been decent enough to get 4 touchdowns" in reference to the 49ers game is out right laughable. They arguably have the best defense, and you say thay "many" decent QBs would score four tds on them? how many games have the 49ers even allowed four tds against them? out right laughable.

[LiterateStylish]

The tenessee one is really the only one that would be soley on Fitz. The others, although blame is also on him, the defense looked worse than he did. Defense would be great on 1st and 2nd down, then completly shut down on 3rd down. And that is where the defense was killing us.

 

So Fitz looked better than the defense against the Jets? The game where HALF of the Jets points came off of Fitz turnovers. Really? Speaking of laughable...

 

And you saying that "many QB's would have been decent enough to get 4 touchdowns" in reference to the 49ers game is out right laughable. They arguably have the best defense, and you say thay "many" decent QBs would score four tds on them? how many games have the 49ers even allowed four tds against them? out right laughable.

 

No, not many decent QB's would have scored 4 TD's on them. Many decent QB's could have a good enough game to get a decent run game going after setting up the pass game. But you're right, I reached on that one.

[Orton's Arm]

I don't know why I am drawn into reading this terrible thread, but I do. This is just a long winded way of saying fitz sucks? If you need a long winded way of saying it with a few trick references, then you really need to look again at fitz. Explaining how much fitz sucks is very easy to explain in a more direct way.

 

Fitz sucks, but our defense was even worse than him in the first half. Very few, if any QBs could have won those games with that defense. But now that the defense is playing better, we are still losing, why? because fitz isn't good and our playcalling has been more than questionable. If we had this defense in the begining of the year, even just a slightly better QB, and some better playcalling, we would be in the playoffs. And that is not to say we are close to being a good team, but so many teams in the AFC have sucked this year, there was definently a missed opportunity on our part for the playoffs.....

 

 

But yeah, let's bring up something polian said, mislead everyone, take it out of context, interpret it to fit our own personal views, explain that Fitz will never win a superbowl, and then act like it is some ground breaking news because the whole football world was expecting fitz to win at least one superbowl. Congrats sir, the football world is shocked by your lil football formula that proves the whole world wrong and FItz will never win the superbowl we had all expected. You would think people could just watch a bills game and tell that Fitz would never win a superbowl, but apparently THIS is what is needed to explain it way.

 

 

but on a side note, Fitz has actually played better than I expected. I really thought he would have played a lot worse.

 

> This is just a long winded way of saying fitz sucks?

 

LiterateStylish's thread is a lot more than just that. On these boards, the argument has often been made that Fitz would be just fine at quarterback if you could just upgrade the team around him. Get him a better defense, a less pass-happy offensive coordinator, and a better #2 WR, and all would supposedly be well. LiterateStylish's point is that that formula won't work--at least not if the goal is to build a Super Bowl champion. The Bills will need to upgrade the QB position if they are to win the Super Bowl. The quote from Bill Polian directly supports LiterateStylish's main point.

[Nuncha]

That's quite the leap to take. "Bill Polian says you can't win the Super Bowl with a "game manager" QB. Ergo, Bill Polian just said Ryan Fitzpatrick sucks".

 

Don't get me wrong, he does suck. But I was really hoping this post had Bill Polian specifically calling out Ryan Fitzpatrick. Not even close. Very misleading topic title.

 

Sorry to blow this theory - the Baltimore Ravens won a super bowl with a "game manager" - Trent Dilfer at QB so it can be done. Their dominant defense was the key.......

[DanInUticaTampa]

So Fitz looked better than the defense against the Jets? The game where HALF of the Jets points came off of Fitz turnovers. Really? Speaking of laughable...

 

I would say fitz looked better than the defense against the Jests. The jests have a terrible offense. They arguably have a worse QB than Fitz, a worse running game than the bills, and a worse recieving group than the bills, yet they tore our defense apart. Hell, their only good thing on offense was their oline, and they had a scrub starting at RT, and the defense couldn't take advantage of it! Fitz throwing an interception to the best CB in the game? hell, I expected that.... but this jests offense is a joke. Allowing them to score more than 10 points on us, turnover or not, was a sin.

 

 

LiterateStylish's thread is a lot more than just that. On these boards, the argument has often been made that Fitz would be just fine at quarterback if you could just upgrade the team around him. Get him a better defense, a less pass-happy offensive coordinator, and a better #2 WR, and all would supposedly be well. LiterateStylish's point is that that formula won't work--at least not if the goal is to build a Super Bowl champion. The Bills will need to upgrade the QB position if they are to win the Super Bowl. The quote from Bill Polian directly supports LiterateStylish's main point.

]

 

I have read people say "Ftiz would be fine if...." like early last year..... but I never heard anyone mention "Fitz" and "super bowl" in the same sentence on this board until this thread. I thought it was pretty widespread and common opinion here that if we couldn't win a super bowl with kelly, we couldn't win one with Fitz. But I have read people say that we could win/get to the playoffs with Fitz.... but super bowl? we may have some optimistic fans here that can be delusional, but I can't recall one post where someone looked at Fitz's performance and typed "superbowl!" without being sarcastic.

 

The thing is, stating that fitz can't get us to the super bowl is basically stating the obvious, and I don't think anyone here would argue fitz has what it takes to win a super bowl..... but over they years, Bills fans have lowered expectations so much, that just making the playoffs would be satisfying.... which is sad.

 

But this whole thread is just stating the obvious about fitz. This team is still a mess, even with a franchise QB. Our playcalling on both sides of the ball is more than questionable, our linebackers are a liability, our QB is without a doubt a bottom 10 QB, our receivers are underwelming, and our corners are either inexperienced or outright suck..... This team is more than just a QB away from being a superbowl team. We can argue that most of the losses are either on fitz or the defense.... but we are arguing regular season games. You want to talk about winning a superbowl? It is more than just the QB that would have to change.... worst part is, I don't see coaching getting any better until there is new ownership. Any coach better than Chan won't come here in fear of Ralph's passing and new ownership coming in and just firing everyone in sight.

 

But if feels this thread is trying to make the argument that put eli manning or drew brews on this team, and all of a sudden we are on our way to the super bowl, and I am sorry, that is not the case. As important as a QB is, and how much the bills need one, the bills are not a good enough team to be just one player away from being a super bowl contender.

[LiterateStylish]

 

 

> This is just a long winded way of saying fitz sucks?

 

LiterateStylish's thread is a lot more than just that. On these boards, the argument has often been made that Fitz would be just fine at quarterback if you could just upgrade the team around him. Get him a better defense, a less pass-happy offensive coordinator, and a better #2 WR, and all would supposedly be well. LiterateStylish's point is that that formula won't work--at least not if the goal is to build a Super Bowl champion. The Bills will need to upgrade the QB position if they are to win the Super Bowl. The quote from Bill Polian directly supports LiterateStylish's main point.

 

BINGO.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to blow this theory - the Baltimore Ravens won a super bowl with a "game manager" - Trent Dilfer at QB so it can be done. Their dominant defense was the key.......

 

Yeah, it only took one of the best defenses in NFL history. We'll get right on that.

 

 

But if feels this thread is trying to make the argument that put eli manning or drew brews on this team, and all of a sudden we are on our way to the super bowl, and I am sorry, that is not the case. As important as a QB is, and how much the bills need one, the bills are not a good enough team to be just one player away from being a super bowl contender.

 

Put Brees on this tam and we are 9-4, talking about who we will be playing in the Playoffs.

 

 

 

I would say fitz looked better than the defense against the Jests. The jests have a terrible offense. They arguably have a worse QB than Fitz, a worse running game than the bills, and a worse recieving group than the bills, yet they tore our defense apart. Hell, their only good thing on offense was their oline, and they had a scrub starting at RT, and the defense couldn't take advantage of it! Fitz throwing an interception to the best CB in the game? hell, I expected that.... but this jests offense is a joke. Allowing them to score more than 10 points on us, turnover or not, was a sin.

 

4 teams in the NFL kept the Jets to 10 points. 11 have not. Yet its a sin for us too?

 

I also like how you conveniently mentioned Revis interception but didn't talk about Fitzpatricks other 3 interceptions or fumbles.