Fitz Over/Under 30 pass attempts win loss record

[mrags]

Funny I seem to recall they started to get better when Kelsay was put back in after Anderson got hurt.

 

chillax Mags. I caught your half assed attempt to be sarcastic and serious. And Fitz does suck when he's throwing to win a game. Need proof?

Can we rewind to Tenny - "He had a bad throw at the end. Other than that, he played really, really well," Gailey said. "If you get rid of all the quarterbacks for one bad throw, you're not going to have any quarterbacks left.",

vs NE - R.Fitzpatrick pass deep right intended for T.Graham INTERCEPTED by D.McCourty and, Let me add a quote I didn't hear but I'm sure was said Other than that, he played really, really well,"

and vs Indy - R.Fitzpatrick pass short left intended for St.Johnson INTERCEPTED by T.Zbikowski at IND 24 late in the 4th. Again let me add a quote I didn't hear but I'm sure was said Other than that, he played really, really well,"

we had the lead late in the game when Fitz threw that pass. Shouldn't have ever happened. He threw bad passes against NE which was said that the wrong route was ran (not his fault) and against Indy. But if you think if we were running more in our losses and pounded the ball down the defenses throat, as well as killing clock time wouldn't have worked in close games that we lost, I really don't know what to tell you. There's no hope I guess. The fact is, Chan outsmarts himself, is generally stubborn, and is extremely pass happy. Even now were hearing rumors that he was ready to pass heavy but the rain changes that. He needs to go first and foremost.

[FireChan]

You're exactly right, Alphadawg7, I don't understand this. Furthermore I assert that for the most part, analysis of the facts doesn't support this theory.

 

There were some occasions (Jets game for example) where Fitz was a pick-o-matic. I will give the D a pass on those. They were put in lousy field position.

 

Barring INTs, though, the D always has its fate in its own hands, even if the O goes 3 and out. Time after time, our D has gotten 3rd and long - and allowed the other team to convert and keep them on the field, getting winded. If they stood tough, they just wouldn't be on the field that long. The Patriots games were classic examples of this.

 

If you score the games of winning teams, or even just look through the box scores, you'll see they all have multiple patches of 3-and-out. The difference is their D keeps handing them the ball back until they get something going. This was true of the K-gun offense also, by the way. They also would have repetitive 3 and outs, then finally get something going and fly down the field to score so quickly their D never got much rest.

 

All that said, Chan's play calling on 3rd and short has been atrocious, just atrocious. And we've gone 3 and out far too much on O. But we've also failed to go 3 and out far too much on D, and sorry, that's independent of the O for the most part (barring turnovers)

 

 

 

It's not blasphemy, it's just incorrect. Why people can't understand that a D that stays on the field and gives up back to back to back length of the field drives because they can't get a stop on 3rd and long has no one but itself to blame, is a mystery to me - well I guess it's not, either never played football or not much depth to the knowledge of the game.

 

Our defense gets off the field on 3rd down a hell of a lot more in recent games then past. Or do you not remember almost every drive ending up a score in the Tennesee and Pats games? We didn't stay in the game against Tennesee because our defense was holding, it's cause our QB was carrying the team. Or maybe you also forgot the Patriots come from behind massacre. Our QB had one pick trying to keep up when the score changed from 21-7 to 21-35. But I guess that's his fault too, not 30 yards rushing every play for 200 total in the second half.

 

When the opposing teams only had to have possession to score, (Tennesse, NE, Jets, San Fran), we lose. If we don't get off the field on 3rd and 17, we lose.

 

That's a stat that actually matters if you watched the games and not the fantasy football scoreboard.

[Bronc24]

You're exactly right, Alphadawg7, I don't understand this. Furthermore I assert that for the most part, analysis of the facts doesn't support this theory.

 

There were some occasions (Jets game for example) where Fitz was a pick-o-matic. I will give the D a pass on those. They were put in lousy field position.

 

Barring INTs, though, the D always has its fate in its own hands, even if the O goes 3 and out. Time after time, our D has gotten 3rd and long - and allowed the other team to convert and keep them on the field, getting winded. If they stood tough, they just wouldn't be on the field that long. The Patriots games were classic examples of this.

 

If you score the games of winning teams, or even just look through the box scores, you'll see they all have multiple patches of 3-and-out. The difference is their D keeps handing them the ball back until they get something going. This was true of the K-gun offense also, by the way. They also would have repetitive 3 and outs, then finally get something going and fly down the field to score so quickly their D never got much rest.

 

All that said, Chan's play calling on 3rd and short has been atrocious, just atrocious. And we've gone 3 and out far too much on O. But we've also failed to go 3 and out far too much on D, and sorry, that's independent of the O for the most part (barring turnovers)

 

 

 

It's not blasphemy, it's just incorrect. Why people can't understand that a D that stays on the field and gives up back to back to back length of the field drives because they can't get a stop on 3rd and long has no one but itself to blame, is a mystery to me - well I guess it's not, either never played football or not much depth to the knowledge of the game.

 

It's part and parcel. I don't think anyone has absolved the defense for their poor play the first half of the season. They absolutely sucked at third downs, which is noone's fault but their own. But dig deeper, since you referred to the "depth" of the game. As the game progresses, why are they horrendous at third downs? They are gassed. Why are they gassed? Because they cannot get off the field. Therefore, their only time to recover is for the offense to string together a series of first downs or, I don't know, maybe run some time off the damn clock.

 

If you look at our TOP, we actually possess the ball about a minute more than our opponents. Now someone who has never watched a Bills game can argue, "well, the offense is doing it's job." But actually watch the game, you understand (which equates to "knowledge") that the quality of the possessions matter as much as TOP. Dominating TOP in the fourth quarter of a game we are being blown out of means little. It's the quality of the possessions when our defense is gassed that matters. I put that on Gailey as much as I do on the offense for poorly executing in those times. If we give up a long drive, then go 3 and out or turn the ball over, followed by another long drive, the offense has to step up or the defense will get slaughtered. That's what has happened.

 

To say it's all on the defense is incorrect. To say it's all on the offense is also incorrect. However my initial statement of it being "blasphemy" to point out how the offense has contributed to the defensive woes was indeed correct for the exact reason I am writing this post, despite my limited depth and knowledge of the game.

[FreakPop]

It's part and parcel. I don't think anyone has absolved the defense for their poor play the first half of the season. They absolutely sucked at third downs, which is noone's fault but their own. But dig deeper, since you referred to the "depth" of the game. As the game progresses, why are they horrendous at third downs? They are gassed. Why are they gassed? Because they cannot get off the field. Therefore, their only time to recover is for the offense to string together a series of first downs or, I don't know, maybe run some time off the damn clock.

 

If you look at our TOP, we actually possess the ball about a minute more than our opponents. Now someone who has never watched a Bills game can argue, "well, the offense is doing it's job." But actually watch the game, you understand (which equates to "knowledge") that the quality of the possessions matter as much as TOP. Dominating TOP in the fourth quarter of a game we are being blown out of means little. It's the quality of the possessions when our defense is gassed that matters. I put that on Gailey as much as I do on the offense for poorly executing in those times. If we give up a long drive, then go 3 and out or turn the ball over, followed by another long drive, the offense has to step up or the defense will get slaughtered. That's what has happened.

 

To say it's all on the defense is incorrect. To say it's all on the offense is also incorrect. However my initial statement of it being "blasphemy" to point out how the offense has contributed to the defensive woes was indeed correct for the exact reason I am writing this post, despite my limited depth and knowledge of the game.

 

Only in your mind I guess.

[mrags]

 

 

Only in your mind I guess.

Nope. My mind too. Well I guess we're both idiots.

[Bronc24]

Only in your mind I guess.

 

And that is exactly why arguing with you is a meaningless venture.

[finknottle]

I see that that fellow Drew Brees is 2-0 this season when he has under 30 attempts, and only 3-7 when he passes more than 30 times. I think the lesson is clear - Brees is no franchise quarterback, and the Saints need to limit his liabilities and stop putting the ball up in the air.

[mrags]

I see that that fellow Drew Brees is 2-0 this season when he has under 30 attempts, and only 3-7 when he passes more than 30 times. I think the lesson is clear - Brees is no franchise quarterback, and the Saints need to limit his liabilities and stop putting the ball up in the air.

hey. Funny.

 

No, how about, while running the football, it makes the opponents defense tired (making it easier to run). Keeps their opponents offense off the field (limiting their chances of scoring). Limits mistakes by you QB (in our case this is extremely important). Kills the clock instead of incompletions and the time stopping and giving the opposing team a chance to get the ball back.

 

I'm sure there's more but these reasons alone should be enough. It's not just for the Bills. I'm sure if you ran the numbers league wide, you would see the same thing.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I see that that fellow Drew Brees is 2-0 this season when he has under 30 attempts, and only 3-7 when he passes more than 30 times. I think the lesson is clear - Brees is no franchise quarterback, and the Saints need to limit his liabilities and stop putting the ball up in the air.

 

Weird how when Darren Sproles missed three weeks, the Saints ran more and passed less and won all three games.

 

And Sproles is a great player.

 

Teams can and do pass too much at times. Even teams with great quarterbacks.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Nope. My mind too. Well I guess we're both idiots.

 

Fellas, look, I'm not calling anyone an idiot. But this stuff about blaming the offense for the fact that the Bills have clawed their way up to 30th in the league against the run after 3 games of fairly good run D just doesn't pass the football sanity check. Let's look at a couple scenarios and see if we can build some understanding of why it doesn't pass muster to put this on the O:

 

They absolutely sucked at third downs, which is noone's fault but their own. But dig deeper, since you referred to the "depth" of the game. As the game progresses, why are they horrendous at third downs? They are gassed. Why are they gassed? Because they cannot get off the field. Therefore, their only time to recover is for the offense to string together a series of first downs or, I don't know, maybe run some time off the damn clock.(...) If we give up a long drive, then go 3 and out or turn the ball over, followed by another long drive, the offense has to step up or the defense will get slaughtered. That's what has happened.

 

Let's suppose that the defense gives up a length of the field drive, resulting in a TD for the opponents. Now on kickoff, McKelvin runs it back for a TD. This is good, right? It's points for us. We're not giving 'em back so our O can take the field and grind some time off the clock. But it means our poor gassed D goes right back on the field! And they give up another length of the field drive resulting in points for the opponents. Now on the 2nd play from scrimmage, CJ breaks a long run for a TD. This is good, right? It's points for us. We're not telling CJ "slack up, stop after a gain of 20 so we can grind some time off the "damn clock", don't take it to the house". But now our poor gassed D will get slaughtered because they've barely been off the field, right? It's on the offense, they should be running some time off the clock instead of putting the D right back on the field

 

See how silly that sounds?

 

The point is, for a winning football team, the D CAN NOT play soft for a drive, get gassed, and then count on the O to rescue its cheetos. Just as bad things (turnovers, 3 and out) can put them back on the field right away, so can good things. The guys playing D have to mind their own store and keep up their conditioning to be able to stand tough in those circs. And they have to play like they mean it on every snap, because it's on them to do what they got to do to stay in the game.

 

It's part and parcel. I don't think anyone has absolved the defense for their poor play the first half of the season.

 

Maybe not the intent, but it sure reads like it at times.

 

To say it's all on the defense is incorrect. To say it's all on the offense is also incorrect. However my initial statement of it being "blasphemy" to point out how the offense has contributed to the defensive woes was indeed correct for the exact reason I am writing this post, despite my limited depth and knowledge of the game.

 

I can see I hit a nerve. I disagree that it's "blasphemy" because that implies anyone who disagrees has the elements of religious tenet - and I think we can see from the above scenarios that it's simply not logical to put the D's woes on the O. We wouldn't do that if the D were staying on the field all day because we're scoring points quickly - we'd say it's on them, get the damn stop and get off the field so that the points we score can translate to a lead instead of being answered and keeping us tied or behind. So why does the cause matter?

[papazoid]

Chan is most at fault for calling too many pass plays.....

 

your best two offensive players BY FAR are freddy and spiller....give them more touches...

[Bronc24]

Fellas, look, I'm not calling anyone an idiot. But this stuff about blaming the offense for the fact that the Bills have clawed their way up to 30th in the league against the run after 3 games of fairly good run D just doesn't pass the football sanity check. Let's look at a couple scenarios and see if we can build some understanding of why it doesn't pass muster to put this on the O:

 

 

 

Let's suppose that the defense gives up a length of the field drive, resulting in a TD for the opponents. Now on kickoff, McKelvin runs it back for a TD. This is good, right? It's points for us. We're not giving 'em back so our O can take the field and grind some time off the clock. But it means our poor gassed D goes right back on the field! And they give up another length of the field drive resulting in points for the opponents. Now on the 2nd play from scrimmage, CJ breaks a long run for a TD. This is good, right? It's points for us. We're not telling CJ "slack up, stop after a gain of 20 so we can grind some time off the "damn clock", don't take it to the house". But now our poor gassed D will get slaughtered because they've barely been off the field, right? It's on the offense, they should be running some time off the clock instead of putting the D right back on the field

 

See how silly that sounds?

 

The point is, for a winning football team, the D CAN NOT play soft for a drive, get gassed, and then count on the O to rescue its cheetos. Just as bad things (turnovers, 3 and out) can put them back on the field right away, so can good things. The guys playing D have to mind their own store and keep up their conditioning to be able to stand tough in those circs. And they have to play like they mean it on every snap, because it's on them to do what they got to do to stay in the game.

 

 

 

Maybe not the intent, but it sure reads like it at times.

 

 

 

I can see I hit a nerve. I disagree that it's "blasphemy" because that implies anyone who disagrees has the elements of religious tenet - and I think we can see from the above scenarios that it's simply not logical to put the D's woes on the O. We wouldn't do that if the D were staying on the field all day because we're scoring points quickly - we'd say it's on them, get the damn stop and get off the field so that the points we score can translate to a lead instead of being answered and keeping us tied or behind. So why does the cause matter?

 

No, in fact that sounds awesome. If it ever happened. But it doesn't, so "what ifs" are not applicable here. But I will play along...."if" we had a QB who we could count on to win a game in the 4th quarter or "if" we had a coach who called a better game or "if" we had a better LB corps, we would not be having this conversation.

[RealityCheck]

No, in fact that sounds awesome. If it ever happened. But it doesn't, so "what ifs" are not applicable here. But I will play along...."if" we had a QB who we could count on to win a game in the 4th quarter or "if" we had a coach who called a better game or "if" we had a better LB corps, we would not be having this conversation.

It's so simple even a caveman like me can understand it.

[Garion]

I see that that fellow Drew Brees is 2-0 this season when he has under 30 attempts, and only 3-7 when he passes more than 30 times. I think the lesson is clear - Brees is no franchise quarterback, and the Saints need to limit his liabilities and stop putting the ball up in the air.

 

Exactly that proves it! By the same logic as posted in this thread Brees is holding the Saints back.

[markgbe]

Classic correlation/causation fallacy. We didn't need to throw cause we weren't down 3 TD's this game. Obviously, games where our defense is getting blown up, we're going to need to throw more to catch up. How people don't understand that is beyond me.

 

word

[Hapless Bills Fan]

No, in fact that sounds awesome. If it ever happened. But it doesn't,

 

Oh, but it has, grasshopper, once upon a time, it has. And the defense was gassed. But they still got the job done. And even this year, even this sad season, has seen TDs on kickoff returns and breakout runs by CJ for 7 - not back to back, yet, but still.

 

I think my point stands: it's the D's business to get themselves off the field, and to be conditioned enough that 2-3 possessions with little time in between don't drain them limp.

They get a pass if the offense is turning the ball over because that typically results in crappy field position to defend. Otherwise, ah, No.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Hopeful

[Bronc24]

 

 

Oh, but it has, grasshopper, once upon a time, it has. And the defense was gassed. But they still got the job done. And even this year, even this sad season, has seen TDs on kickoff returns and breakout runs by CJ for 7 - not back to back, yet, but still.

 

I think my point stands: it's the D's business to get themselves off the field, and to be conditioned enough that 2-3 possessions with little time in between don't drain them limp.

They get a pass if the offense is turning the ball over because that typically results in crappy field position to defend. Otherwise, ah, No.

 

Let's look at tha Patriots game, shall we?

 

Start of 3rd quarter:

 

We score, they score. Then: 3 and out, TD. 4 and out. TD. 2 plays. Fumble. TD. 3 plays. Int. TD.

 

Five straight scoring drives by the Pats* sandwiching 14 offensive plays by our offense. You are serious in saying the offense has no role in that onslaught?

 

BTW, our one kickoff return came after a long offensive drive for a TD, followed by the Red Sea parting for a CJ 83 yard TD on the first play after the kickoff. Our defense was not gassed. They just sucked.

 

 

[Never Wrong]

I agree that... the "when Fitz throws over 30 passes".... is a useless statistic. Tell me how the rest of league's QB's stand with this stat along with Fitz. Then you maybe we can make some inferences.

 

Our defense is one of the 5 worst in the league and our QB is average (6th out of 16 in the AFC). Both of these factors are why we are

are 5 - 7, and barely hanging on mathematically for a playoff spot.. So, it's not a big secret to me that our really bad defense has more of the blame here.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Let's look at tha Patriots game, shall we?

 

Start of 3rd quarter:

 

We score, they score. Then: 3 and out, TD. 4 and out. TD. 2 plays. Fumble. TD. 3 plays. Int. TD.

 

Five straight scoring drives by the Pats* sandwiching 14 offensive plays by our offense. You are serious in saying the offense has no role in that onslaught?

 

BTW, our one kickoff return came after a long offensive drive for a TD, followed by the Red Sea parting for a CJ 83 yard TD on the first play after the kickoff. Our defense was not gassed. They just sucked.

 

I officially give up. I have a point, and I'm better off to stay home and sharpen it 'cuz you're either not listening, or I simply can't convey it to you.

[FireChan]

 

 

Let's look at tha Patriots game, shall we?

 

Start of 3rd quarter:

 

We score, they score. Then: 3 and out, TD. 4 and out. TD. 2 plays. Fumble. TD. 3 plays. Int. TD.

 

Five straight scoring drives by the Pats* sandwiching 14 offensive plays by our offense. You are serious in saying the offense has no role in that onslaught?

 

BTW, our one kickoff return came after a long offensive drive for a TD, followed by the Red Sea parting for a CJ 83 yard TD on the first play after the kickoff. Our defense was not gassed. They just sucked.

 

Well I'll break this down, because my other champion of logic and comprehension has given up arguing with this logic.

 

A. The topic was about Ryan Fitzpatrick. He didn't fumble the ball, it was Fred. So blame him for the defensive stamina.

 

B. The interception was after we were down 21 points. I'd say that's a good time to take some risks throwing the ball. So I'm absolving Fitz of the blame there. Even if it wasn't picked off, and it was a 50 yard touchdown, the defense would still be "gassed." Obviously we shouldn't be trying to score because our defense is tired.

 

C. Has it ever occurred to you that had the defense held them to a three and out, or god forbid, gotten a takeaway like the two they dropped in the first quarter, they could've gotten off the field? Hold them on 3rd down and we don't have this problem. Momentum is a powerful thing, as well as field position. Picks and fumbles can set us up for scoring drives, allowing more time to rest.

 

So instead of allowing a 30 yard run every play because they are too "tired" after halftime doesn't equate to it being the offenses fault.

 

When you go from 28-7 to 35-52 and two 100 yard rushers in 20 minutes of play, it's pretty easy to point the finger.