You gotta love the flutie magic

[The Senator]

Right, and I guess Fluties 22-9 record as a starter had nothing to do with the fact that we had a top ranked defense.

So we've come full circle - thank you for helping me make my point. Rob Johnson had that same top ranked defense and supporting offensive cast, yet only managed to rack up a 7-10 record in the same 3-year period. Somehow, Flutie found ways to win that others couldn't.

[BuffaloPride]

So we've come full circle - thank you for helping me make my point. Rob Johnson had that same top ranked defense and supporting offensive cast, yet only managed to rack up a 7-10 record in the same 3-year period. Somehow, Flutie found ways to win that others couldn't.

There you go again. The best example you can give me is to compare Flutie to the worst quarterback in Bills history? I'll tell you what, explain to me why Flutie tanked so badly in San Diego without comparing him to RJ. Can you do that?

[The_Philster]

So we've come full circle - thank you for helping me make my point. Rob Johnson had that same top ranked defense and supporting offensive cast, yet only managed to rack up a 7-10 record in the same 3-year period. Somehow, Flutie found ways to win that others couldn't.

yet again, you seem to be claiming that someone is giving RJ credit for anything. Didn't your parents teach you anything about dishonesty is a disgusting character trait. That's the problem with your Flutie worshippers...you can't defend him on his own merits...no wonder you go by the name The Senator....you'd make a hell of a politician

 

For the last time, NO ONE IS DEFENDING RJ....SO BRINGING HIM UP DOES NOTHING TO PROVE YOUR POINT!!!

[The Jokeman]

So we've come full circle - thank you for helping me make my point. Rob Johnson had that same top ranked defense and supporting offensive cast, yet only managed to rack up a 7-10 record in the same 3-year period. Somehow, Flutie found ways to win that others couldn't.

Factor in that RJ had one NFL start, and a win, prior to coming here that would make his record to that point 8-10, not too shabby for a player with only 18 starts to his file. Yet again as stated earlier yes Flutie was a better QB then RJ but there might have been a chance that RJ could have improved his play had we left him as the starter in 1998/1999 but no way of really knowing for sure. Yet he wasn't as bad as some like to make him out to be when factor in how truly inexperienced he was compared to Flutie. As everyone seemingly wants to descredit or forget how great RJ played in games against San Fran and St Louis and New Orleans in 1998. Not to mention 1999 against Indy. Infact had Donovan Greer stayed in his lane and tackled Kevin Dyson we'd all be talking about RJ's heroic play without a shoe in the now infamous Music City Miracle. Of course am sure the Flutie faithful would find a way to lament at anything RJ could do short of winning us a Super Bowl, which in all honesty don't think Doug or Rob could have done for us as don't think our D could have stopped the Rams in 1999.

Can I quote you on that? Because you're the only one that used those words.

 

But I guess Miami didn't score points off the Moulds fumble in the 1st quarter, the Smedley interference penalty in the 2nd, or the facemask penalty on Cummings in the 4th. I guess Flutie wasn't 21 for 36 and 360 yards. The Bills vaunted run defense didn't yield over 100 rushing yards. And I guess Moulds didn't blow a late touchdown opportunity with that 15 yard penalty for bumping the official. It all came down to Flutie's fumble.

There goes that selective Flutie fan memory again. As Flutie had another fumble in that game besides the game clinching one. Not to mention a costly interception just before half time.

[The Senator]

There you go again. The best example you can give me is to compare Flutie to the worst quarterback in Bills history? I'll tell you what, explain to me why Flutie tanked so badly in San Diego without comparing him to RJ. Can you do that?

No, there you go again, running in circles, chasing your tail.

 

Can you explain why the Bills went 4-12 in 1986 and 7-9 in '87 with Jim Kelly at QB? (And don't say I'm comparing Kelly and Flutie - I'm not!) Some teams are just so bad that even the best QBs can't save 'em.

 

In the case of the Flutie and the Chargers, they were 1-15 the season before Flutie arrived, had just gone thru a complete front-office overhaul, and coach Mike Riley was on the way out. Also, Flutie was 40 years old - even the best have to hang it up eventually.

 

Keep digging - you may come up with a valid point in another 20 pages or so.

[Peter]

The team didn't fumble the ball on that last play, he did. But I guess thats the philosophy right? When we won games it was all because of Flutie and when we lost it was on the team as a whole.

 

Those of you who remember Flutie's post game interviews will remember that he used the word "I" when WE won and used the word "we" when we lost.

 

It just goes to show you that when we won, it must have been only because of Flutie, and when we lost, it had to be someone else's fault.

[Peter]

Factor in that RJ had one NFL start, and a win, prior to coming here that would make his record to that point 8-10, not too shabby for a player with only 18 starts to his file. Yet again as stated earlier yes Flutie was a better QB then RJ but there might have been a chance that RJ could have improved his play had we left him as the starter in 1998/1999 but no way of really knowing for sure. Yet he wasn't as bad as some like to make him out to be when factor in how truly inexperienced he was compared to Flutie. As everyone seemingly wants to descredit or forget how great RJ played in games against San Fran and St Louis and New Orleans in 1998. Not to mention 1999 against Indy. Infact had Donovan Greer stayed in his lane and tackled Kevin Dyson we'd all be talking about RJ's heroic play without a shoe in the now infamous Music City Miracle. Of course am sure the Flutie faithful would find a way to lament at anything RJ could do short of winning us a Super Bowl, which in all honesty don't think Doug or Rob could have done for us as don't think our D could have stopped the Rams in 1999.

 

There goes that selective Flutie fan memory again. As Flutie had another fumble in that game besides the game clinching one. Not to mention a costly interception just before half time.

 

Great post.

[BuffaloPride]

No, there you go again, running in circles, chasing your tail.

 

Can you explain why the Bills went 4-12 in 1986 and 7-9 in '87 with Jim Kelly at QB? (And don't say I'm comparing Kelly and Flutie - I'm not!) Some teams are just so bad that even the best QBs can't save 'em.

 

In the case of the Flutie and the Chargers, they were 1-15 the season before Flutie arrived, had just gone thru a complete front-office overhaul, and coach Mike Riley was on the way out. Also, Flutie was 40 years old - even the best have to hang it up eventually.

 

Keep digging - you may come up with a valid point in another 20 pages or so.

I'm not offering you points I'm giving you facts. All you are giving me is comparisons between Flutie and Johnson. You saying Flutie was better than Johnson is like me saying Angelina Jolie is hotter than Whoopie Goldberg. It's a no brainer dude, we all get it. But it doesn't prove to me or any other Flutie detractor that he was a good quarterback. Flutie didn't do anything here in Buffalo that any other AVERAGE quarterback couldn't have done behind the stellar play of a great defense. The fact that Johnson couldn't do it only proves he was below average. No one here will argue that. But you seem to put Flutie on some kind of pedestal like he walks on water. Check out his Qb ranking in 98 and tell me if he was anymore than average. Then check out where our defense ranked that same year and get back to me.

[The Senator]

Factor in that RJ had one NFL start, and a win, prior to coming here that would make his record to that point 8-10, not too shabby for a player with only 18 starts to his file. Yet again as stated earlier yes Flutie was a better QB then RJ but there might have been a chance that RJ could have improved his play had we left him as the starter in 1998/1999 but no way of really knowing for sure. Yet he wasn't as bad as some like to make him out to be when factor in how truly inexperienced he was compared to Flutie. As everyone seemingly wants to descredit or forget how great RJ played in games against San Fran and St Louis and New Orleans in 1998. Not to mention 1999 against Indy. Infact had Donovan Greer stayed in his lane and tackled Kevin Dyson we'd all be talking about RJ's heroic play without a shoe in the now infamous Music City Miracle. Of course am sure the Flutie faithful would find a way to lament at anything RJ could do short of winning us a Super Bowl, which in all honesty don't think Doug or Rob could have done for us as don't think our D could have stopped the Rams in 1999.

I was simply comparing their records over the same 3-season period on the same team with the same supporting cast.

 

As for RJ improving 'had we left him as the starter', it's not like the Bills 'yanked' him. I can't possibly imagine someone like Jim Kelly letting Doug Flutie snatch the starting QB job by having a bruised rib keep him sidelined for 7 weeks. You tape the thing, suck it up, and keep your job. RJ was a wuss, and that allowed Flutie to move up. But lets leave RJ and Kelly out of the discussion - every time I mention one of them to help make a point, folks say I'm comparing them to Flutie. I'm not.

 

I'm just trying support the point of the original poster that Flutie was a good QB, but the Flutie-bashers will have none of it. It's really quite amusing how they refuse to acknowledge that simple, incontrovertible statement of fact. Say that Flutie was a good QB, and all of sudden, with unbelievable vitriol, you're called a 'Flutie-worshipper', or you 'have your head in his crotch'.

 

There goes that selective Flutie fan memory again. As Flutie had another fumble in that game besides the game clinching one. Not to mention a costly interception just before half time.

No, there goes someone trying to have it both ways again. You guys are real quick to cry foul and say that "Flutie didn't win those games- the team did", but then you talk out of the other side of your mouths and say that Flutie alone is responsible for the playoff loss to Miami.

 

I simply point out that Flutie alone didn't cost us that game - there were critical errors by others, including the defense, that were key factors.

 

Try again.

[The_Philster]

I'm just trying support the point of the original poster that Flutie was a good QB, but the Flutie-bashers will have none of it. It's really quite amusing how they refuse to acknowledge that simple, incontrovertible statement of fact. Say that Flutie was a good QB, and all of sudden, with unbelievable vitriol, you're called a 'Flutie-worshipper', or you 'have your head in his crotch'.

The original poster obviously didn't watch him play in 99...he was a good QB in 98 but was awful in 99. How do you defend that the runt kept tucking the ball to run when he had Andre and Moulds WIDE OPEN downfield? A lot of those drives he did that on stalled and they would've ended in TDs had Flutie been even an average QB. How does a good QB do that so frequently? I watched it from the endzone...there's Andre or Moulds wide open while Flutie's tucking the ball away and running. Jaws pointed it out on NFL Matchup back in the day, too.

[The Jokeman]

I was simply comparing their records over the same 3-season period on the same team with the same supporting cast.

 

As for RJ improving 'had we left him as the starter', it's not like the Bills 'yanked' him. I can't possibly imagine someone like Jim Kelly letting Doug Flutie snatch the starting QB job by having a bruised rib keep him sidelined for 7 weeks. You tape the thing, suck it up, and keep your job. RJ was a wuss, and that allowed Flutie to move up. But lets leave RJ and Kelly out of the discussion - every time I mention one of them to help make a point, folks say I'm comparing them to Flutie. I'm not.

 

I'm just trying support the point of the original poster that Flutie was a good QB, but the Flutie-bashers will have none of it. It's really quite amusing how they refuse to acknowledge that simple, incontrovertible statement of fact. Say that Flutie was a good QB, and all of sudden, with unbelievable vitriol, you're called a 'Flutie-worshipper', or you 'have your head in his crotch'.

 

 

No, there goes someone trying to have it both ways again. You guys are real quick to cry foul and say that "Flutie didn't win those games- the team did", but then you talk out of the other side of your mouths and say that Flutie alone is responsible for the playoff loss to Miami.

 

I simply point out that Flutie alone didn't cost us that game - there were critical errors by others, including the defense, that were key factors.

 

Try again.

RJ's inability to avoid injury was a big reason for his inability to develop. I don't fault Flutie for that. Yet I do fault the coaching staff for not putting him back in there. As to me Flutie always was a band aid on a deep cut and to date that cut hasn't gotten any better as seen by the parade of QBs we've seen here since Kelly retired. Yet again there's no telling for sure if RJ would have been another band aid or not but would have preferred to see it then Flutie. I see a similar thing happening in Arizona right now with Warner vs Leinart. Granted Warner has shown to be a far superior QB then Flutie ever was but ultimately they might be better suited going with Leinart if looking beyond this year but in this cap driven NFL most teams don't understand or take the time to develop QBs anymore.

 

In terms of pointing out that Flutie alone wasn't the sole reason we lost the 1998 playoff game, fair enough but it just shows he wasn't a great QB. My point is that you want to give Doug credit for his wonderous winning percentage compared to RJ yet then quick to blame the rest of the team for his loss to Miami. Well how about looking back at RJ's W/L and see how many you can squarely blame on RJ. I can point out one loss that shouldn't be pinned on him, that was the 1998 loss to St Louis when the D couldn't hold off Tony Banks for a game winning TD. Not to mention RJ got hurt late in that game but Flutie couldn't kill the clock in the final minutes either.

[Steely Dan]

Senator, I'm not advocating for Philster or anyone else, as you well know, I have my own viewpoints.

 

However, I disagree with a few items here:

 

- The original poster didn't exactly dissuade folks from debating flutie's greatness. the thread title is "you gotta love the flutie magic", to which many of us responded that--indeed--no you do not have to love flutie or his perceived "magic". some folks have stated their reasons concisely (i'd like to think i'm one of them), and some have not (in fact, some have failed miserably to do so--no handles will be mentioned).

 

- just for the sake of reference, i'm going to compare the statistics of Flutie's 1999 performance to another un-named QB:

 

Flutie: 264/478--55.2%--3,171 yds--6.6 YPA--19 TDs--16 INTs--1 rush TD

QB2: 268/429--62.5%--3,051 ysd--7.1 YPA--19TDs--14 INTs--1 rush TD

 

Pretty similar performances, wouldn't you say? Now, everyone go ahead and take a guess as to the identity of QB2, then scroll down for the answer...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

QB2 = J.P. Losman (2006)

 

 

 

Please try not to be ridiculous. I believe Jim Kelly also lost some games (6 playoff games, actually). Flutie's record as a starter in Buffalo was 22-9. That's how I can say he found ways to win.

 

 

You're comparing Doug Flutie to Jim Kelly and I'm ridiculous? I'm still waiting for you to explain his losing record in the playoffs. Remember, all he does is win.

 

 

And because the Bills lost that game, Flutie's not a winner. Priceless.

 

He's not a playoff winner. The "Flutie magic" seems to be revealed as an illusion in the playoffs.

 

 

Can I quote you on that? Because you're the only one that used those words.

 

But I guess Miami didn't score points off the Moulds fumble in the 1st quarter, the Smedley interference penalty in the 2nd, or the facemask penalty on Cummings in the 4th. I guess Flutie wasn't 21 for 36 and 360 yards. The Bills vaunted run defense didn't yield over 100 rushing yards. And I guess Moulds didn't blow a late touchdown opportunity with that 15 yard penalty for bumping the official. It all came down to Flutie's fumble.

 

 

Factor in that RJ had one NFL start, and a win, prior to coming here that would make his record to that point 8-10, not too shabby for a player with only 18 starts to his file. Yet again as stated earlier yes Flutie was a better QB then RJ but there might have been a chance that RJ could have improved his play had we left him as the starter in 1998/1999 but no way of really knowing for sure. Yet he wasn't as bad as some like to make him out to be when factor in how truly inexperienced he was compared to Flutie. As everyone seemingly wants to descredit or forget how great RJ played in games against San Fran and St Louis and New Orleans in 1998. Not to mention 1999 against Indy. Infact had Donovan Greer stayed in his lane and tackled Kevin Dyson we'd all be talking about RJ's heroic play without a shoe in the now infamous Music City Miracle. Of course am sure the Flutie faithful would find a way to lament at anything RJ could do short of winning us a Super Bowl, which in all honesty don't think Doug or Rob could have done for us as don't think our D could have stopped the Rams in 1999.

 

There goes that selective Flutie fan memory again. As Flutie had another fumble in that game besides the game clinching one. Not to mention a costly interception just before half time.

 

I reiterate; He's not a playoff winner. The "Flutie magic" seems to be revealed as an illusion in the playoffs.

 

 

I was simply comparing their records over the same 3-season period on the same team with the same supporting cast.

 

As for RJ improving 'had we left him as the starter', it's not like the Bills 'yanked' him. I can't possibly imagine someone like Jim Kelly letting Doug Flutie snatch the starting QB job by having a bruised rib keep him sidelined for 7 weeks. You tape the thing, suck it up, and keep your job. RJ was a wuss, and that allowed Flutie to move up. But lets leave RJ and Kelly out of the discussion - every time I mention one of them to help make a point, folks say I'm comparing them to Flutie. I'm not.

 

I'm just trying support the point of the original poster that Flutie was a good QB, but the Flutie-bashers will have none of it. It's really quite amusing how they refuse to acknowledge that simple, incontrovertible statement of fact. Say that Flutie was a good QB, and all of sudden, with unbelievable vitriol, you're called a 'Flutie-worshipper', or you 'have your head in his crotch'.

 

 

No, there goes someone trying to have it both ways again. You guys are real quick to cry foul and say that "Flutie didn't win those games- the team did", but then you talk out of the other side of your mouths and say that Flutie alone is responsible for the playoff loss to Miami.

I simply point out that Flutie alone didn't cost us that game - there were critical errors by others, including the defense, that were key factors.

 

Try again.

 

1. It's not an incontrovertible fact.

2. Flutie fans point to a myriad of different players for their contributions to the loss and when Dougie has almost more than them combined they ignore it and blame "the team". The title of this thread mentions "Flutie Magic" and has been pointed out the magic was made by an illusionist.

[DC Tom]

Untrue. Flutie would have an AFC Championship ring, but not a Super Bowl ring.

 

 

Wow.

 

Someone needed "Who gets a Superbowl Ring" explained?

 

Wow.

[Booster4324]

The point is...NO ONE has defended RJ in the least and for anyone to keep bringing him up in an effort to defend Flutie is idiotic and dishonest...I get the urge to insult dishonest people because dishonesty is a sickening character trait..differing views are fine...bold-faced lies are not. Once you bring up RJ in an effort to defend Flutie, you can't be taken seriously...because you aren't defending Flutie...you're just ranting like a lunatic.

As far as Flutie not being your hero? If you think Flutie played far from crappy in 1999, that statement is suspect to say the least. He continually ignored wide open WRs downfield and tucked the ball and ran...drives stalled that would've ended in TDs if he had played even average.

Also, giving credit to any single player for a team's win-loss record is insulting to the rest of the team. Everyone knows the #1 defense in the league carried that team. Flutie's play helped cost us a few games that year and almost cost us a few more. Stats only matter in fantasy football....they don't mean a thing in actual game play

 

[Tcali]

There you go again. The best example you can give me is to compare Flutie to the worst quarterback in Bills history? I'll tell you what, explain to me why Flutie tanked so badly in San Diego without comparing him to RJ. Can you do that?

he was 40+ yrs old....

[DC Tom]

There you go again. The best example you can give me is to compare Flutie to the worst quarterback in Bills history?

 

Who here is comparing Doug Flutie to Gary Marangi?

 

That's why this "debate" is so silly. Most of you geniuses have lost all sense of perspective.

[Lori]

Can I quote you on that? Because you're the only one that used those words.

 

But I guess Miami didn't score points off the Moulds fumble in the 1st quarter, the Smedley interference penalty in the 2nd, or the facemask penalty on Cummings in the 4th. I guess Flutie wasn't 21 for 36 and 360 yards. The Bills vaunted run defense didn't yield over 100 rushing yards. And I guess Moulds didn't blow a late touchdown opportunity with that 15 yard penalty for bumping the official. It all came down to Flutie's fumble.

You're right about that, anyway ...

 

It was Reed.

 

Didn't even have to look it up. Which makes me wonder about some of the other stats in this thread, not that I give enough of a damn to actually fact-check all of them.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

I'm not offering you points I'm giving you facts. All you are giving me is comparisons between Flutie and Johnson. You saying Flutie was better than Johnson is like me saying Angelina Jolie is hotter than Whoopie Goldberg. It's a no brainer dude, we all get it. But it doesn't prove to me or any other Flutie detractor that he was a good quarterback. Flutie didn't do anything here in Buffalo that any other AVERAGE quarterback couldn't have done behind the stellar play of a great defense. The fact that Johnson couldn't do it only proves he was below average. No one here will argue that. But you seem to put Flutie on some kind of pedestal like he walks on water. Check out his Qb ranking in 98 and tell me if he was anymore than average. Then check out where our defense ranked that same year and get back to me.

You seem to be underrating the value of an average NFL starting quarterback.

 

The 16th best quarterback on the planet Earth? Yeah, I think I'll take that.

[Mr. WEO]

#1 Defense in the league deserved a lot more credit for that record than the midget did...anyone who watched the 99 Bills knows that

 

you left out ineffective, overrated by his worshippers, and attention-seeking or noodle-armed

 

The point is, most people that aren't blind to Flutie's many faults aren't defending RJ in any way. Everyone agrees that RJ sucked as a QB. The thing you Flutie-worshippers seem to think is that since Rob sucked, it automatically made Flutie good. It didn't. Guess what? Both QBs sucked...just in different amounts..and I think we all agree that Flutie sucked less. Doesn't mean he didn't suck, though. Contrary to what Flutie-worshippers seem to believe, it IS possible for more than one player at the position to suck

Take 1985 for example...Vince Ferragamo and Bruce Mathison were the 2 starting QBs for the Bills...are you saying one of them was actually good?

 

wow.

 

 

This guy deserves some sort of prize for his skills at persuasion. I just can't think of what would be an appropriate reward.

[RLflutie7]

I wanted to shed some light on Doug Flutie's time with the Chicago Bears.

 

I've read this thing about how Flutie had problems with every team he played for and it's not true in my view.

 

Anyway, here's some articles that I have from that time that I had. Most of these newspaper stories will be the whole story with some paragraphs left out.

 

USA Today:

 

By David Leon Moore

USA Today

 

Headline: Packers put Flutie, Fusina back in action.

 

Doug Flutie and Chuck Fusina, unemployed stars of the dormant USFL, got the telephone calls they had been waiting for.

 

Now it's up to the judgement of the struggling Green Bay Packers if they can play in the NFL. Both quarterbacks had workouts Tuesday for the 0-4 Packers.

 

Fusina, 29, who quarterbacked two USFL Championship teams, tried out first.

 

"He didn't seem to show the layoff you might expect. He looked to be in good condition and threw the ball well," said Packers director of player procurement Chuck Hutchinson.

 

Flutie, 23, the former Heisman Trophy winner who is considered by some teams as too short (5-9) to succeed in the NFL, worked later.

 

Asked what he thought of Flutie's half-hour, closed workout with receivers, Coach Forrest Gregg said, "Interesting."

 

Flutie's NFL rights are owned by the LA Rams, who selected him in the 11th round of the 1985 draft. The Rams last week signed Purdue rookie Jim Everett.

 

My take: The Rams signed Everett and were not interested in Flutie because they signed Everett.

 

 

The next article should clear up the most debated things here on Flutie's time with the Bears.

 

Sporting News article or Chicago Tribune:

 

Headline: Some Bears question trade for Doug Flutie

 

Chicago - He had yet to sign a contract and his rights had only belonged to the Chicago Bears for an hour. But that didn't stop Doug Flutie from dreaming.

 

"I can see the publicity shots now," Flutie said. "Me standing knee-high to the "Fridge".

 

First, the 5-9 QB has to make it onto the field with William Perry and the rest of the defending NFL champion Bears, but at least he was one step closer.

 

One minute before the October 14 NFL trading deadline, the Bears acquired the rights to Flutie from the LA Rams, who selected the former Heisman Trophy winner in the 11th round of the 1985 draft. The Bears, who also received a fourth-round pick in the 87 draft from LA, gave up third and sixth-round picks for the rights to Flutie. Contract talks were expected to begin, with the Bears planning to sign Flutie to a contract beginning in 1987. However, they could subsequently sign him to a 1986 contract if injuries created a problem at QB.

 

After winning the Heisman Trophy in 1984, Flutie signed a six-year $8 million contract with the New Jersey Generals of the USFL. The first three years of that agreement worth, $3.95 million, were guaranteed.

 

Skip two paragraphs.

 

When Flutie became officially clear of his USFL obligations October 7, time was of the essence with the NFL trading deadline a week away. The Rams had no interest in signing Flutie, but knew a deal was necessary. Flutie was planning to report to the Rams, ready to sign, if no deal was made and threatening a grievance if he wasn't signed or released. That would have left the Rams with nothing.

 

Chicago and Green Bay were the teams most interested. The Packers offered a sixth-round pick, but the Rams wanted to switch positions in the second round of the 87 draft with Green Bay, a price that was too high for the Packers. Flutie had also said the Bears were the only team with which he would agree to sign a future contract.

 

However, Coach Mike Ditka wasn't thinking about the future.

 

"It may work out we'll have him this year," Ditka said. "That was my original thought - to bring him in now. The trade was my decision and I'll live with it. I had to talk long and hard with a lot of people in this organization before the trade was made."

 

Some Bears questioned the move, however. Quaterback Jim McMahon, still nursing a sore shoulder, wore a red jersey with Flutie's number (22) during an October 15 practice.

 

"There's a lot of unhappy ball players here right now," McMahon said. "Why bring in another quaterback? Why not bring in another receiver or defensive back, or something where we need help.?"

 

Claiming the Bears had capable backup quaterbacks in Steve Fuller and Mike Tomczak, McMahon questioned Ditka's loyalty.

 

Responded Ditka: "When you analyze what's best for the business and what's best for the football team, if you put loyalty ahead of talent, you've got some problems. If we were 0-6, who would be loyal to me? Ask them (the players) how many were loyal to me when we were 3-6 in 1982."

 

McMahon wasn't the only Bears player to have an opinion of the trade for Flutie's rights. To wit:

 

Defensive lineman William Perry "Good luck. That's what I say.

 

Center Jay Hilgenburg: "I suppose I'm a little disappointed. I feel bad for our QBs. I hope he does have to make the team. I hope it isn't given to him."

 

Linebacker Otis Wilson: I don't think he's gonna get no million dollars around here. What's he worth to me? How much change have I got in my pocket?"

 

Ditka dismissed the criticisms and negative reactions.

 

"I frankly don't give a damn," he said. "Wasn't that a line in a movie?

 

I think it's a bargain and if you don't tak advantage of bargains, you're foolish."

 

 

 

My take: It was McMahon who started the complaining. He was always hurt.

[RLflutie7]

another article:

 

Headline: Ditka decides against waiting a year for Flutie.

 

Gordon Forbes

USA today. NFL week 7.

 

Coach Mike Ditka, embarrassed by the Chicago Bears offense with Steve Fuller and Mike Tomczak at quarterbacks, has decided the time is right to bring in Doug Flutie.

 

The original plan was to sign Flutie for the 1987-88 seasons and hand him a Bears playbook to study in a nearby hotel. Then the Minnesota Vikings held the Bears to 190 yards - Fuller completed 13 of 22 passes and was sacked seven times - and Ditka decided the future is now.

 

"Mike has decided to accelerate (Flutie's signing)," Bears general manager Jerry Vainisi said. "It is our intention for him to come in and compete for one of the quarterback jobs.

 

"I don't want to say all of the quaterbacks, because we don't see him as being the guy to replace (oft-injured starter) Jim McMahon."

 

Flutie could appear at the Bears training complex as early as this week. Vainisi said the club would seek a two-week exemption for the USFL refugee.

 

"We want to put him in a position where he can learn the system and possibly be available later this year," Vainisi said. "This would make him better prepared to compete for the quaterback job next training camp."

 

Skip two paragraphs.

 

Flutie will be welcomed by Ditka, but maybe not by McMahon. Last week after the Bears obtained Flutie's rights, McMahon second-guessed the front office.

 

Skip one paragraph.

 

McMahon's comments upset Vainisi "We're doing this strictly for the future," he said. "We wouldn't bring him in here to compete with McMahon anyhow. Mike's just not satisfied with the production of the other two quarterbacks."

 

Bob Woolf, Flutie's agent, said Flutie understands and "doesn't want to disrupt anything, but just wants an opportunity. If it's next year, fabulous. If it's this year, more than fabulous."

[RLflutie7]

From Steve McMichaels: Tales from the Chicago Bears sideline (book).

 

Welcome Bambi (page 139).

 

Doug Flutie was supposed to solve our quaterback problems, hail the conquering hero, the Heisman winner, the guy who hadn't really been given a chance to prove himself in the NFL because he was only about five foot nothin'.

 

It wasn't the easiest deal for him. They brought him in late, taught him the system and threw him out there in the playoffs against the Redskins, who gave him fits.

 

Of course, some of his teammates did, too.

 

There was a lot of talk that nobody on the team really liked Flutie, mostly because he had Thanksgiving dinner with Ditka, but really it was all on the offensive side of the ball. I think they really felt like he was the usurper to Jim McMahon's throne, so he wasn't going to be accepted.

 

Somebody even started calling him "Bambi", not the manliest nickname in a football locker room. I don't know who started it, but I have to admit it fit. You know, the little baby deer, how a deer runs around - he was kind of a prancer back there.

 

Me, the only problem I had with Flutie was him throwing two f*cking interceptions and fumbling the ball twice against Washington in the playoff game. I don't give a sh-- if he eats dinner with Ditka. If he'd had have gone out there and won the Superbowl, I'd be fine with him being the quaterback. But he didn't

 

Four f*cking turnovers. We lost 27-13 to Jay Schroeder.

 

Of course, I don't know if Sid Luckman would have helped us against the Redskins that day. Sometimes things just don't go your way.

 

I mean, some days you have to beat a double-team to get free, but the quaterback holds the ball too long, so you get a sack. There was a time in this game, Schroeder's first touchdown pass where we ran a blitz. I was on the line of scrimmage, got off with the ball, the line parted, blocking the other guys, and I was set free. I ran back there as fast as I could, nobody touching me, he backed up, threw it falling over backard as I hit him. Touchdown pass. sh-- happens like that, it ain't your day, baby.

 

For the record, if I'm running the team, I'm looking for a quaterback too. Maybe not a midget like Flutie, but somebody.

 

Jim getting hurt and us having to play Flutie in the first place, that's why I love Jim, but I say it's his fault we didn't win three Superbowls in the 80s. He was getting hurt all the time. It ain't his fault, now. But, dammit, every dynasty had one quarterback."

 

Book was wrote in 2004.

 

Funny stuff.

[rstencel]

How bad does a teams history have to be, that someone like Flutie would be someone people miss.

 

Convenient how everyone forgets the guys ego made TO's look small, but he didnt have the talent to back it up. The guy got cut as much for the attitude he gave when he wasnt getting his way, and the way he could divide a locker room, as much as he was for not being able to beat out the "fill in the blank QB" that he was up against, anywhere outside of the Canadian Football League. He may have been a very succesfull QB in the league, if his ego doesnt get him banished to CFL till went to buffalo, but by then, his CFL success didnt exactly help his ego.

 

IMO, next to the trade of 1st and 4th for Rob Johnson, signing him was the worst moves the bills made in the 80's.

[RLflutie7]

How bad does a teams history have to be, that someone like Flutie would be someone people miss.

 

Convenient how everyone forgets the guys ego made TO's look small, but he didnt have the talent to back it up. The guy got cut as much for the attitude he gave when he wasnt getting his way, and the way he could divide a locker room, as much as he was for not being able to beat out the "fill in the blank QB" that he was up against, anywhere outside of the Canadian Football League. He may have been a very succesfull QB in the league, if his ego doesnt get him banished to CFL till went to buffalo, but by then, his CFL success didnt exactly help his ego.

 

IMO, next to the trade of 1st and 4th for Rob Johnson, signing him was the worst moves the bills made in the 80's.

 

 

Wow!

 

We all have our different view points.

[The Dean]

Wow!

 

We all have our different view points.

 

 

I'm still not sure what those three posts were supposed to mean. He went to Chicago, stunk the joint up, and then was traded. Awesome!

[RLflutie7]

I'm still not sure what those three posts were supposed to mean. He went to Chicago, stunk the joint up, and then was traded. Awesome!

 

 

Well Dean, my friend, these were for you baby.

 

Flutie threw like 50 passes for the Bears and people say he was a locker room problem.

 

If these stories show anything. It shows the Bears players (McMahon mostly) didn't want Flutie around. Flutie wasn't going around undermining McMahon as people have said in this thread.

 

Flutie just happened to be where QBs that were starters always got hurt. And that includes New England and Buffalo. Eason had a bad thumb and elbow and Grogan had a sprained neck, so Flutie ended up playing and doing well. Flutie also replaced Grogan in 89 after he stunk the joint up.

 

No ego was involved. People got hurt.

[VOR]

I'm still not sure what those three posts were supposed to mean. He went to Chicago, stunk the joint up, and then was traded. Awesome!

I've never seen so much love for a guy who had a 54.7% completion percentage, almost as many turnovers as TD's, who had maybe 2 good seasons out of 12 in the NFL, and who never won a playoff game.

[RLflutie7]

I've never seen so much love for a guy who had a 54.7% completion percentage, almost as many turnovers as TD's, who had maybe 2 good seasons out of 12 in the NFL, and who never won a playoff game.

 

 

When he played teams won games.

 

In 88, the Pats started off real slow, Flutie came off the bench to put the team in playoff contention and then he got benched. The fans went nuts. Can you blame them?

[VOR]

When he played teams won games.

Well as I was making fun of Mr. WEO over, Michael Vick (forgetting the legal issues) had better stats, was a winning QB, and even led his team to a playoff win. Yet everyone thought he sucked as a QB. Is it because Flutie is 5'2"? White? Wasn't the 1st overall pick? Won the Heisman?

[RLflutie7]

Well as I was making fun of Mr. WEO over, Michael Vick (forgetting the legal issues) had better stats, was a winning QB, and even led his team to a playoff win. Yet everyone thought he sucked as a QB. Is it because Flutie is 5'2"? White? Wasn't the 1st overall pick? Won the Heisman?

 

 

Vick is not a good passer. But he was a good QB.

 

I don't care for Vick as a QB because he runs too much. If he'd give himself a chance to throw, instead of rushing the ball 121 times, then maybe he'd develop as a QB.

[Buftex]

Vick is not a good passer. But he was a good QB.

 

I don't care for Vick as a QB because he runs too much. If he'd give himself a chance to throw, instead of rushing the ball 121 times, then maybe he'd develop as a QB.

 

You are right about that. Vick just hadn't developed that part of his game yet. There was a stretch of games where he seemed to determined to be a protype pocket QB, as his critics insisted he couldn't be. He was actually pretty effective, and had a much better arm (strength and accuracy) than I think most people realized. Problem was, the Falcons had sub-par receivers who couldn't catch a cold. So, it was back to the scrambling Vick...

[RLflutie7]

You are right about that. Vick just hadn't developed that part of his game yet. There was a stretch of games where he seemed to determined to be a protype pocket QB, as his critics insisted he couldn't be. He was actually pretty effective, and had a much better arm (strength and accuracy) than I think most people realized. Problem was, the Falcons had sub-par receivers who couldn't catch a cold. So, it was back to the scrambling Vick...

 

 

I thought he was good, however, he was frustrating to watch. I understand why people thought he stunk. Bottom line though is he got his team to the NFL championship game. He has a unique skill set and another team will sign him.

 

It'll be a team that has an injury at QB. And I'm guessing it could be Tampa or Jacksonville if there are no major injuries.

 

I think Denver could use him but I don't want them to sign him because of his behavior problems.

[rstencel]

Criticize all you want about him but no QB for the Bills has done as well in the win loss column since Kelly.

 

Yeah, amazing how carreer backups, look good on stats like that. Once defences spend time preping for a QB, they do so much better. He was great off the bench, and for a game or 2. Other than that, he was just like any fill in the blank 2nd string QB. Fans love them all for some reason.

[rstencel]

Actually thinking about the love for the little EGO trip people still seem to have, TO should do great here.

[rstencel]

When he played teams won games.

 

In 88, the Pats started off real slow, Flutie came off the bench to put the team in playoff contention and then he got benched. The fans went nuts. Can you blame them?

 

Fans alway love the 2nd stringers. Amazing how good they can look when they have a different style of play than the person they backup, and the defenses didnt prepare for them.

[The Dean]

Yeah, amazing how carreer backups, look good on stats like that. Once defences spend time preping for a QB, they do so much better. He was great off the bench, and for a game or 2. Other than that, he was just like any fill in the blank 2nd string QB. Fans love them all for some reason.

 

 

I think he could have been a terrific #2 in the NFL, had his ego allowed him to accept that role.

[rstencel]

Well Dean, my friend, these were for you baby.

 

Flutie threw like 50 passes for the Bears and people say he was a locker room problem.

 

If these stories show anything. It shows the Bears players (McMahon mostly) didn't want Flutie around. Flutie wasn't going around undermining McMahon as people have said in this thread.

 

Flutie just happened to be where QBs that were starters always got hurt. And that includes New England and Buffalo. Eason had a bad thumb and elbow and Grogan had a sprained neck, so Flutie ended up playing and doing well. Flutie also replaced Grogan in 89 after he stunk the joint up.

 

No ego was involved. People got hurt.

 

Wasnt his playing time that was EGO issue, was the time he was on bench. If you ever spent anytime on the sidelines or the locker room with him, he was the TO of his time, except without the talent.

[The_Philster]

When he played teams won games.

well, in Buffalo, at least in 1999, it was in spite of him, not because of him

[Booster4324]

For the record, there were plenty who liked Flutie because he was better than Rob "I hurt myself falling on a football" Johnson. Not because he was a god among men, just the better choice.

[Steely Dan]

How bad does a teams history have to be, that someone like Flutie would be someone people miss.

 

Convenient how everyone forgets the guys ego made TO's look small, but he didnt have the talent to back it up. The guy got cut as much for the attitude he gave when he wasnt getting his way, and the way he could divide a locker room, as much as he was for not being able to beat out the "fill in the blank QB" that he was up against, anywhere outside of the Canadian Football League. He may have been a very succesfull QB in the league, if his ego doesnt get him banished to CFL till went to buffalo, but by then, his CFL success didnt exactly help his ego.

 

IMO, next to the trade of 1st and 4th for Rob Johnson, signing him was the worst moves the bills made in the 80's.

 

I agree with a lot of what you said, but it was the 90's not the 80's.

 

Well Dean, my friend, these were for you baby.

 

Flutie threw like 50 passes for the Bears and people say he was a locker room problem.

 

If these stories show anything. It shows the Bears players (McMahon mostly) didn't want Flutie around. Flutie wasn't going around undermining McMahon as people have said in this thread.

 

Flutie just happened to be where QBs that were starters always got hurt. And that includes New England and Buffalo. Eason had a bad thumb and elbow and Grogan had a sprained neck, so Flutie ended up playing and doing well. Flutie also replaced Grogan in 89 after he stunk the joint up.

 

No ego was involved. People got hurt.

 

Is it your opinion that the only reason Flutes was never given the starting role and was cut from teams is because the starters didn't want him around? You really think that NFL coaches don't want to win? Why couldn't he supplant the QB's that kept getting injured if he was so magnificent.

 

I think he could have been a terrific #2 in the NFL, had his ego allowed him to accept that role.

 

If he had stayed around long enough he may have gotten a chance to start. I believe there is no question he was dick while on the Bills as evidenced by the article linked earlier in this thread.