San Jose Bills Fan Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Perhaps Boat but Flacco is a huge disappointment to me. His complete inability to make plays with his feet combined with his very poor pocket awareness makes him a frustrating player to watch. I'd bet people in Baltimore are lukewarm about Flacco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Great point - classic failure by posters to agree with reality. It's not a great point. The reality is Fitz is a below average passer of the football. Yes, we know a team passes more when they get behind. The Bills are often behind. Fitzpatrick rarely wins those games. Good QB's bring their teams from behind and lead them to wins. Calling this a "fallacy" doesn't disprove the mounting body of evidence that Fitz is mediocre. To the contrary, it just makes the cheese more binding. Unlike most teams, the Bills would be more likely to win if they run more, beacuse they have two talented RB's. They are something of a throwback. If they try to play todays style of NFL game (lots of passing, a few runs to keep 'em honest) they lose much more often than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 It's no fallacy. This is no longer a running league. The defensive rules make the risk/reward factor trend toward passing. It is more difficult than ever to stop teams from passing and keep games close. You no longer need an elite defense to win, an above average/elite QB will get you there. The Bills do not have an elite D, and they fall behind. They get further behind due to their below average QB. More passes from your below average QB = more int's, incompletions due to his innacuracy, and failed drives. In games against other below average QB's/bad teams, we can run and keep it close. Call it what you want, but winning consistently requires good passing offense, which the Bills do not have the necessary ingredients to produce. We need a better QB, or a ridiculously good top 5 type D. Is it harder to assemble an excellent defense, or find one high rent district passer? Assemble an excellent defense is much easier, is that a serious question? There are 9-10 teams with elite QB's, and even if you think there are more than 10, there are a lot of teams with poor records. The Saint's record isn't great, the Lions record is horrible. The Redskins don't have a winning record, neither do the Chargers. I'd rather be the 49ers than the Saints or Lions this season. No QB in any draft is a sure thing, it's pure luck. And any "elite" QB available as a FA obviously isn't elite enough for his original team. The Colt's took a big risk this season and it paid off, but they could've had the next Jamarcus Russel, and then the entire staff would've been fired for not resigning Peyton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agardin Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 The colts staff would be fired but I think cutting Manning and selecting Luck was Irsay all the way. Not that he would take the blame if Luck was a bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I don't hate Fitzpatrick for being mediocre. I hate Chan Gailey and Buddy Nix for continuing to pretend he isn't mediocre. This^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Perhaps Boat but Flacco is a huge disappointment to me. His complete inability to make plays with his feet combined with his very poor pocket awareness makes him a frustrating player to watch. I'd bet people in Baltimore are lukewarm about Flacco. I'm sure you're right, they are probably lukewarm at best. But they have a higher standard to live up to than we are used to. Flacco has a big arm, but he's not exactly nifty in the pocket. He is definitely flawed, but still a second tier type of guy with potential to move up. I'm stunned that they lost to Pittsburgh today with batch at QB, but those games have a way of ending up like that because both teams prefer a streetfight to a track meet. It's just a matchup that continues to produce 3 pont nail biters, and there's no way to always come up on the winning end of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I'm sure you're right, they are probably lukewarm at best. But they have a higher standard to live up to than we are used to. Flacco has a big arm, but he's not exactly nifty in the pocket. He is definitely flawed, but still a second tier type of guy with potential to move up. I'm stunned that they lost to Pittsburgh today with batch at QB, but those games have a way of ending up like that because both teams prefer a streetfight to a track meet. It's just a matchup that continues to produce 3 pont nail biters, and there's no way to always come up on the winning end of those. All you say is true. That said, Flacco being outplayed by Batch (I know this is a bit of an oversimplification) has to be very distressing to Baltimore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 All you say is true. That said, Flacco being outplayed by Batch (I know this is a bit of an oversimplification) has to be very distressing to Baltimore. Yeah, it's an oversimplification, but heck, I'm distressed. A game they should have won and now they let New England back in the bye week hunt. Man, I hope we don't have to watch another SB involving the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 heard on the radio on the way to game today... when Fitz attempts 30 or more passes a game, the Bills are 5-21 win loss record. when Fitz attempts under 30 passes a game, the Bills are 10-4 win loss record. fitz's pass attempts today.....17.....the bills are now 11-4 when under 30 attempts. Keep in mind that Gailey has a horrid habit of abandoning the run completely whenever we fall behind. So partly what this statistic means is that we tend to win when we're ahead for most of the game (and thus are permitted by Gailey to run more) That said, I do think there's some meat to the concept that Fitz would be far less frustrating as a 2011 Alex Smith game-manager type QB who hands off 35x a game and passes 20-25x when he has the protection and matchup he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) It's not a great point. The reality is Fitz is a below average passer of the football. Yes, we know a team passes more when they get behind. The Bills are often behind. Fitzpatrick rarely wins those games. Good QB's bring their teams from behind and lead them to wins. Calling this a "fallacy" doesn't disprove the mounting body of evidence that Fitz is mediocre. To the contrary, it just makes the cheese more binding. Unlike most teams, the Bills would be more likely to win if they run more, beacuse they have two talented RB's. They are something of a throwback. If they try to play todays style of NFL game (lots of passing, a few runs to keep 'em honest) they lose much more often than not. No, see that's wrong. Stafford throws 40 times and they lose. 49ers run all the time and win games. Minnesota runs a lot, they could've won today. Seahawks run a lot and won against the Bears. To say you can't win games without an "elite" QB is downright ridiculous because obviously there aren't 7 teams that are 10-1 and every other team is 1-10. There are about 5 QB's in this league who can carry their entire team most of the time, but even they still lose games. Every other team in the league needs to execute at all positions to win. Edited December 3, 2012 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Yeah, it's an oversimplification, but heck, I'm distressed. A game they should have won and now they let New England back in the bye week hunt. Man, I hope we don't have to watch another SB involving the Pats. I think we have to trust in the Texans for that. 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. Except that when a team is down by 2 scores with an entire half to catch up, it doesn't seem necessary (or productive) to empty the backfield and rely on the pass as much as Chan does. Even from the clock management point of view, it makes little sense for the Bills - our yds per minute metric is only slightly better when we pass than when we run because we're a short-pass team and have a pretty strong yards per run attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Assemble an excellent defense is much easier, is that a serious question? There are 9-10 teams with elite QB's, and even if you think there are more than 10, there are a lot of teams with poor records. The Saint's record isn't great, the Lions record is horrible. The Redskins don't have a winning record, neither do the Chargers. I'd rather be the 49ers than the Saints or Lions this season. No QB in any draft is a sure thing, it's pure luck. And any "elite" QB available as a FA obviously isn't elite enough for his original team. The Colt's took a big risk this season and it paid off, but they could've had the next Jamarcus Russel, and then the entire staff would've been fired for not resigning Peyton. 1. There was no way Luck would be Russell. No one who saw the 2 play would ever have said that. 2. They decided on his own to not re-sign Manning. And he fired the staff anyway (GM, HC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I think we have to trust in the Texans for that. Except that when a team is down by 2 scores with an entire half to catch up, it doesn't seem necessary (or productive) to empty the backfield and rely on the pass as much as Chan does. Even from the clock management point of view, it makes little sense for the Bills - our yds per minute metric is only slightly better when we pass than when we run because we're a short-pass team and have a pretty strong yards per run attempt. Yes, but Chan calls the 5 wide formations, not our QB. 1. There was no way Luck would be Russell. No one who saw the 2 play would ever have said that. 2. They decided on his own to not re-sign Manning. And he fired the staff anyway (GM, HC). Ryan Leaf had no shot of being a bust either. Oh wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Keep in mind that Gailey has a horrid habit of abandoning the run completely whenever we fall behind. So partly what this statistic means is that we tend to win when we're ahead for most of the game (and thus are permitted by Gailey to run more) That said, I do think there's some meat to the concept that Fitz would be far less frustrating as a 2011 Alex Smith game-manager type QB who hands off 35x a game and passes 20-25x when he has the protection and matchup he wants. This is inarguable. I think we have to trust in the Texans for that. Except that when a team is down by 2 scores with an entire half to catch up, it doesn't seem necessary (or productive) to empty the backfield and rely on the pass as much as Chan does. Even from the clock management point of view, it makes little sense for the Bills - our yds per minute metric is only slightly better when we pass than when we run because we're a short-pass team and have a pretty strong yards per run attempt. The Texans and Steelers are our hopes and I think it would be hard for the Cheatriots*** to beat Denver again. But yeah. We might spend the Super Bowl rooting against the Cheatriots***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 No, see that's wrong. Stafford throws 40 times and they lose. 49ers run all the time and win games. Minnesota runs a lot, they could've won today. Seahawks run a lot and won against the Bears. To say you can't win games without an "elite" QB is downright ridiculous because obviously there aren't 7 teams that are 10-1 and every other team is 1-10. There are about 5 QB's in this league who can carry their entire team most of the time, but even they still lose games. Every other team in the league needs to execute at all positions to win. Don't misread me, I did not say you can't win games without an elite QB. There are only about 6 or so "elite" QB's. I just said the Bills are less likely to win when they pass more than teams with good QB's would be. They are more likely to win with a running game and well timed play action throws due to Fitz's weak, innacurate arm. More passing for the Bills = more losing. You have to play to your strengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 whats the stats when the defense is getting the ball shoved down there throats and we have to pass because we are down by several points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 Keep in mind that Gailey has a horrid habit of abandoning the run completely whenever we fall behind. So partly what this statistic means is that we tend to win when we're ahead for most of the game (and thus are permitted by Gailey to run more) That said, I do think there's some meat to the concept that Fitz would be far less frustrating as a 2011 Alex Smith game-manager type QB who hands off 35x a game and passes 20-25x when he has the protection and matchup he wants. tennessee game comes to mind.... last possesion of 1st half.....8 passes / 1 run.......ended in a fg. last possesion of 2nd half.....4 passes / 0 run .......turnover on downs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 whats the stats when the defense is getting the ball shoved down there throats and we have to pass because we are down by several points? Not sure. Look back about 4 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) 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. How you don't understand that our D was getting blown up because Fitz kept turning the ball over and going 3 and out or failing to sustain drives is beyond me. Edited December 3, 2012 by Alphadawg7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 How you don't understand that our D was getting blown up because Fitz kept turning the ball over and going 3 and out or failing to sustain drives is beyond me. Don't bring that up. It's blasphemy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts