RLflutie7 Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 well, in Buffalo, at least in 1999, it was in spite of him, not because of him Standard point of view, but not very accurate. Flutie had less weapons in 99 than 98. The defense had a terrible third down percentage. The real unsung hero of 1999 was Jonathon Linton. He closed out games in 99. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 I agree with a lot of what you said, but it was the 90's not the 80's. 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. 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. Flutie would have done better if he went to a team that didn't have an official starter. With the Bears it was McMahon. With New England it was Tony Eason. With the Bills RJ was brought in for 25 million. He did supplant RJ. He would have done better in Green Bay, earlier in his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Standard point of view, but not very accurate. Flutie had less weapons in 99 than 98. The defense had a terrible third down percentage. The real unsung hero of 1999 was Jonathon Linton. He closed out games in 99. considering Flutie had a habit of killing drives that would've ended in TDs, I'd say it was very accurate...but when you have Flutie in your handle, I guess you can't handle the truth about your idol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 considering Flutie had a habit of killing drives that would've ended in TDs, I'd say it was very accurate...but when you have Flutie in your handle, I guess you can't handle the truth about your idol Not true. Flutie extended drives. Flutie had a great habit of having very few 3 and outs. That helped the defense something special. Killing drives? Are you kidding me? The defense benefitted from Flutie. They didn't have a lot of sacks either. The offense had no consistent running game. Flutie provided much of the rushing yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Not true. Flutie extended drives. Flutie had a great habit of having very few 3 and outs. That helped the defense something special. Killing drives? Are you kidding me? The defense benefitted from Flutie. They didn't have a lot of sacks either. The offense had no consistent running game. Flutie provided much of the rushing yards. you're funny ...he had Moulds and Reed wide open downfield and instead of throwing to either of them, he tucked the ball and ran...most of those drives ended long before the endzone...it happened frequently during the 99 season...drives that should've ended in TDs got a 1st down or two and we had to bring on Mohr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Not true. Flutie extended drives. Flutie had a great habit of having very few 3 and outs. That helped the defense something special. Killing drives? Are you kidding me? The defense benefitted from Flutie. They didn't have a lot of sacks either. The offense had no consistent running game. Flutie provided much of the rushing yards. you're funny ...he had Moulds and Reed wide open downfield and instead of throwing to either of them, he tucked the ball and ran...most of those drives ended long before the endzone...it happened frequently during the 99 season...drives that should've ended in TDs got a 1st down or two and we had to bring on Mohr Many posts ago in this thread I weighed in and afterwards resolved to "let it go." Maybe it's my desire to see people find common ground. So here's my attempt. I went to an open practice in 1999 at the Ralph after Flutie's successful '98 season. During the practice (during 11 on 11) there was an occasion when he didn't see receivers open downfield and instead tucked the ball down and ran. I came to realize that because he was 5'9" he had a hard time seeing the entire field on every play. But here's the thing: I can't imagine another guy generously listed at 5'9" playing quarterback in the modern NFL as well as Flutie played. How would Flutie have done if he played in the days of Fran Tarkenton or Eddie LeBaron? And where is there another guy on the horizon at his height who even has a chance to play in the NFL? Can the naysayers at least give Flutie credit for being pretty amazing for a short man playing quarterback in the NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Many posts ago in this thread I weighed in and afterwards resolved to "let it go." Maybe it's my desire to see people find common ground. So here's my attempt. I went to an open practice in 1999 at the Ralph after Flutie's successful '98 season. During the practice (during 11 on 11) there was an occasion when he didn't see receivers open downfield and instead tucked the ball down and ran. I came to realize that because he was 5'9" he had a hard time seeing the entire field on every play. But here's the thing: I can't imagine another guy generously listed at 5'9" playing quarterback in the modern NFL as well as Flutie played. How would Flutie have done if he played in the days of Fran Tarkenton or Eddie LeBaron? And where is there another guy on the horizon at his height who even has a chance to play in the NFL? Can the naysayers at least give Flutie credit for being pretty amazing for a short man playing quarterback in the NFL? I give him plenty of credit for 1998 when he didn't play like an idiot...he didn't shrink after the 98 season...so I don't think it's a case where he didn't see the WRs...his arm was either too weak to throw or he liked getting on the highlight shows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I give him plenty of credit for 1998 when he didn't play like an idiot...he didn't shrink after the 98 season...so I don't think it's a case where he didn't see the WRs...his arm was either too weak to throw or he liked getting on the highlight shows Very telling reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Very telling reply. do tell your analysis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Not true. Flutie extended drives. Flutie had a great habit of having very few 3 and outs. That helped the defense something special. Killing drives? Are you kidding me? The defense benefitted from Flutie. They didn't have a lot of sacks either. The offense had no consistent running game. Flutie provided much of the rushing yards. you're dreaming. however, i did by a box of flutie flakes last week. they're really good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rstencel Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I agree with a lot of what you said, but it was the 90's not the 80's. Doh, your right, my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I give him plenty of credit for 1998 when he didn't play like an idiot...he didn't shrink after the 98 season...so I don't think it's a case where he didn't see the WRs...his arm was either too weak to throw or he liked getting on the highlight shows Very telling reply. do tell your analysis I thought I already stated it. That he was short and had a hard time seeing the field due to his height limitations. In 1999 teams could game plan for him and he lost some effectiveness (but not in the won-lost column). You really think he would run instead of pass because he "liked getting on highlight shows?" Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I thought I already stated it. That he was short and had a hard time seeing the field due to his height limitations. In 1999 teams could game plan for him and he lost some effectiveness (but not in the won-lost column). You really think he would run instead of pass because he "liked getting on highlight shows?" Wow. Some more facts: The Bills were ranked as follows in the NFL: 16th in points scored. Flutie led the Bills to the 11th ranked offense in the NFL by yards. The Bills were ranked 8th in first downs in the NFL (SO MUCH FOR BEING A DRIVE KILLER). Furthermore, 173 first downs were from passing. 117 came from running. The Bills were ranked 28th in turnovers with 21 takeaways. So Flutie never got a short field. The Bills were -6 in the giveaway/takeaway catagory. The Bills leading rusher was THIRD STRINGER Jonathon Linton with 695 yards. He had 5 TDs. Flutie had nearly 500 yards rushing. Moulds was out several games, the tightend was hurt several games and Thurman Thomas didn't play until the Arizona game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I thought I already stated it. That he was short and had a hard time seeing the field due to his height limitations. In 1999 teams could game plan for him and he lost some effectiveness (but not in the won-lost column). You really think he would run instead of pass because he "liked getting on highlight shows?" Wow. actually, I think it was because he had a weak arm..if I'm not mistaken, Jaws brought that point up on his Matchup show that season...I just threw the highlight show bit out there because it was also a slight possibility...he did have a big ego, afterall Thurman Thomas didn't play until the Arizona game. That's another thing that pissed me off about Flutie that year...he got Thurman injured with a high pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 you're funny ...he had Moulds and Reed wide open downfield and instead of throwing to either of them, he tucked the ball and ran...most of those drives ended long before the endzone...it happened frequently during the 99 season...drives that should've ended in TDs got a 1st down or two and we had to bring on Mohr WHATEVER When Flutie was QB here we won a lot of games. Before he got here we didn't win many and after he left we didn't win many either. That's all that counts. If you win by 2 or you win by 42, it counts as 1 in the W column. In the words of Rat Face Al "Just win baby". Flutie led us to 10-5 in '99 playing in every game missing none due to injuries. Have we had a QB since he left be able to come close to that? From where I'm sitting, not being in the playoffs in 10 years or a winning season in 5, that sounds pretty good. And it is good. We could use a man like that around here now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 please please please let this thread die so that I can change my avatar. thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 please please please let this thread die so that I can change my avatar. thank you Nobody sez you gotta read it pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Nobody sez you gotta read it pal. ewwwwwwwwww pal 'o mine another cryin flutopian won't you ever get over this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 WHATEVER When Flutie was QB here we won a lot of games. Before he got here we didn't win many and after he left we didn't win many either. That's all that counts. If you win by 2 or you win by 42, it counts as 1 in the W column. In the words of Rat Face Al "Just win baby". Flutie led us to 10-5 in '99 playing in every game missing none due to injuries. Have we had a QB since he left be able to come close to that? From where I'm sitting, not being in the playoffs in 10 years or a winning season in 5, that sounds pretty good. And it is good. We could use a man like that around here now. oh brother...you're another one of those people who thinks the QB is the only one on the team #1 defense in the league in 1999...I never saw the midget play on that top-ranked defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 oh brother...you're another one of those people who thinks the QB is the only one on the team #1 defense in the league in 1999...I never saw the midget play on that top-ranked defense The Bills were #9 in the league in defense in '97 and #6 in '98. Pretty stout defenses. How come those defenses couldn't win game with Todd Collins, Alex Van Pelt, and Rob Johnson, but could with Flutie? Since the QB is just one of 40 guys on the team, swapping out only one shouldn't make a difference, right? I never said the QB is the only one on team. I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I have said and will continue to say though that the QB it THE MOST IMPORTANT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts