Gailey on Brohm

[homeslice5484]

Gailey on Brohm's showing Thursday after watching the video: "He did a good job. He did nothing that would make you think that he couldn’t do the job down the line. I was impressed with how he handled himself in the ballgame. He made some good decisions and good throws."

Then says that he would continue to rotate with Fitz on a daily basis. Fitz should not be on this team after Saturday.

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/2010/08/saturday-practice-update.html

[mikemac2001]

Sounds like he is getting cut

[homeslice5484]

If Fitz is still here after Saturday there is a problem, that guy is so inaccurate. How many times in a game does he throw behind a WR or at a WR feet?

[Michael82]

Why is the bull**** rotating continuing? Fitzpatrick is horrible and overpaid too! :ill:

[homeslice5484]

I don't understand the rotation after this last game. I have a feeling there wont be a rotation by the time Saturday comes. You cant get all 4 in the game Saturday, maybe not even 3

[Michael82]

I don't understand the rotation after this last game. I have a feeling there wont be a rotation by the time Saturday comes. You cant get all 4 in the game Saturday, maybe not even 3

If Fitzpatrick is the #2 QB on Saturday, I think you can say goodbye to Brohm. It's starting to become obvious that Gailey isn't a big fan. I think something about Brohm rubs him the wrong way.... :idunno:

[homeslice5484]

I don't get it, I watched his press conference and he said Brohm did well, then said there is room for Fitz and Brohm on the team cause you keep 3. I don't see what Fitz brings to the table besides experience, but that experience doesn't make him anymore accurate.

We may only see 2 QBs total Saturday since the starters play longer.

[BertSquirtgum]

Why is the bull**** rotating continuing? Fitzpatrick is horrible and overpaid too! :ill:

ditto x 1,000,000. he's ****ing horrid

[BillsWin]

Sorry Mikey, I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

"He did nothing that would make you think that he couldn’t do the job down the line. I was impressed with how he handled himself in the ballgame. He made some good decisions and good throws."

That quote doesn't say, "Boy, I really don't like this kid."

It says, "I thought he did well, and has potential to start down the line."

I think Gailey likes him, but also wants to give Fitz another look.

[Buffalogic]

It's funny that you people are shocked. What, a decent 15 minutes of playing time for Brohm in the preseason doesn't automatically send Fitz to waivers? Omg!

Fitz actually won games in the regular season, Brohm had a chance to do that (albeit small) and got melted.

Brohm's had about 5 awful preseason games to one good one, and most of you want to anoint him. Fitzpatrick had a positive record, in the regular season for that horrible bills team last year, with Dicky J. Now suddenly he's not even good enough to be on the team.

Fitzpatrick is clearly the safer and more reliable choice for backup. Good thing we have football coaches who know how to coach instead of listening to the idiotic masses calling for Brohm. Gailey will soon smack those people with a large dose of reality when he cuts Brohm. Something I said would happen at the beginning of training camp and got flamed for.

[Michael82]

Sorry Mikey, I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

"He did nothing that would make you think that he couldn’t do the job down the line. I was impressed with how he handled himself in the ballgame. He made some good decisions and good throws."

That quote doesn't say, "Boy, I really don't like this kid."

It says, "I thought he did well, and has potential to start down the line."

I think Gailey likes him, but also wants to give Fitz another look.

It's not what he says, but it's what he does. Brohm hardly had any reps in camp today and I'm sure he won't get much tomorrow either. It's starting to seem like the haters were right and Brohm won't be here much longer. I don't think he's getting a real chance to win the backup job.

[YardRat]

Depends on what Gailey is getting from film and practice.

[BillsWin]

Well see Mikey. Gailey said theyll rotate day to day but I agree there is a possibility he is getting shafted. Well find out tomorrow. If he doesnt get reps, its probably over for Brohm.

[delectrolux]

I so don't care. Niether is going to start, and either will be fine as a backup. We have equal chance of losing if either guy ends up starting, so Chan can flip a coin for all I care.

[ublinkwescore]

Watch Brohm end up in New England as the heir apparent to Brady.

Gailey, you would have really crapped the bed if this happens.

[homeslice5484]

Gailey did say Brohm would be the #2 tomorrow and I am going to practice tomorrow.

[BertSquirtgum]

It's funny that you people are shocked. What, a decent 15 minutes of playing time for Brohm in the preseason doesn't automatically send Fitz to waivers? Omg!

Fitz actually won games in the regular season, Brohm had a chance to do that (albeit small) and got melted.

Brohm's had about 5 awful preseason games to one good one, and most of you want to anoint him. Fitzpatrick had a positive record, in the regular season for that horrible bills team last year, with Dicky J. Now suddenly he's not even good enough to be on the team.

Fitzpatrick is clearly the safer and more reliable choice for backup. Good thing we have football coaches who know how to coach instead of listening to the idiotic masses calling for Brohm. Gailey will soon smack those people with a large dose of reality when he cuts Brohm. Something I said would happen at the beginning of training camp and got flamed for.

ryan. you're getting cut. go to hell.

[Don't Panic]

I think Gailey likes him, but also wants to give Fitz another look.

Agreed. I think he's just doing due diligence and making sure everyone get's a full look before making any final decisions.

[Dr. Lecter]

Why is the bull**** rotating continuing? Fitzpatrick is horrible and overpaid too! :ill:
He is not horrible.

He is a smart veteran back-up who can fill in and do the job.

Look at what he did last year.

[mightysimi]

I don't think it matters. Neither have proven, nor Edwards for that matter, that we don't need to draft a QB. So really it doesn't really matter who makes it and who gets cut.

[Buffalogic]

He is not horrible.

He is a smart veteran back-up who can fill in and do the job.

Look at what he did last year.

For some reason people want to ignore that. Fitz is a perfect backup. The bears would sign Fitzpatrick instantly if we cut him.

[BertSquirtgum]

He is not horrible.

He is a smart veteran back-up who can fill in and do the job.

Look at what he did last year.

why are you on this guys nuts so bad. he is so terrible.

[BertSquirtgum]

For some reason people want to ignore that. Fitz is a perfect backup. The bears would sign Fitzpatrick instantly if we cut him.

would you like wager 5000 zone bux on this?

[Dr. Lecter]

why are you on this guys nuts so bad. he is so terrible.


No, he is not.

And we are hardly "on his nuts" (Hysterical coming from a BrohmAManiac - A guy who has done less than nothing).

Look at how the team played with him last year. A horrible team had a winning record with him starting.
W-L are not everything (and must be looked at closely) when evaluating a QB. But it is not meaningless.

They guy, because of how he plays, is a fine back-up. He is smart and can help the starter get ready and during the game. he knows how to manage a game within hsi abilities and how to use his teammates properly.

[BertSquirtgum]

i'm not a "brohm-a-maniac" i just think fitz is the worst.

[Buffalogic]

would you like wager 5000 zone bux on this?How can we even bet on this, Fitzpatrick won't be cut. Think first, post second.

[Philagape]

Last year, Fitz was the best.

[Dr. Lecter]

It's not what he says, but it's what he does. Brohm hardly had any reps in camp today and I'm sure he won't get much tomorrow either. It's starting to seem like the haters were right and Brohm won't be here much longer. I don't think he's getting a real chance to win the backup job.


1. based on what?

2. Why is he not getting a real chance? The guy is not very good.

[JCBills]

If Fitzpatrick is the #2 QB on Saturday, I think you can say goodbye to Brohm. It's starting to become obvious that Gailey isn't a big fan. I think something about Brohm rubs him the wrong way.... :idunno:

I don't see that at all. Before the half when he was asked about Trent, he complimented Trent and then went right in to how the thought Brohm was doing well.

[justasportsfan]

No, he is not.

And we are hardly "on his nuts" (Hysterical coming from a BrohmAManiac - A guy who has done less than nothing).

Look at how the team played with him last year. A horrible team had a winning record with him starting.
W-L are not everything (and must be looked at closely) when evaluating a QB. But it is not meaningless.

They guy, because of how he plays, is a fine back-up. He is smart and can help the starter get ready and during the game. he knows how to manage a game within hsi abilities and how to use his teammates properly.

I agree, Fitz seems like like decent back up. He hasn't grown however while Brohm seems to have that he's neck and neck with fitz. My question is, can Brohm grow to become a starter? It's gonna be close. Either qb's may get cut still.

[BertSquirtgum]

How can we even bet on this, Fitzpatrick won't be cut. Think first, post second.

would you like to wager 5000 zone bux on this sir thinks a lot?

[Buffalogic]

would you like to wager 5000 zone bux on this sir thinks a lot?Sure. I'll bet ya 5k Fitz won't get cut.

[better days]

It looks like Brown to the practice squad to me.

[Buffalogic]

It looks like Brown to the practice squad to me.Coaches aren't going to PS the first qb that the regime drafts.

[BertSquirtgum]

easy money

[homeslice5484]

Gailey said Brohm will get #2 reps tomorrow. I am curious if we will find out who the #2 will be for Saturday before the game.

[better days]

Coaches aren't going to PS the first qb that the regime drafts.

Of course not, 7th rnd picks are far too valuable.

[Nighthawk]

He is not horrible.

He is a smart veteran back-up who can fill in and do the job.

Look at what he did last year.

Bull*****...he sucks and sucked last year. He was close to horrible and you know it...if you don't, I really don't know what you're watching. He can't get the job done and he doesn't deserve to be on this team.

[Dr. Lecter]

Bull*****...he sucks and sucked last year. He was close to horrible and you know it...if you don't, I really don't know what you're watching. He can't get the job done and he doesn't deserve to be on this team.


So how did this team go 5-4 with him starting last year?

[homeslice5484]

The same Fitzpatrick that was benched vs New England for Trent cause he couldn't complete an accurate pass when WRs were wide open?

[Philagape]

Bull*****...he sucks and sucked last year. He was close to horrible and you know it...if you don't, I really don't know what you're watching. He can't get the job done and he doesn't deserve to be on this team.

It cannot be disputed that the offense did best last year when he was on the field. Statistically, anecdotally and in the W-L columns. Now that doesn't mean he's a quality QB, just that the other two were even worse, but if you're a coach, you want the guy on your team who gives you the best chance to win. Last year, that was Fitzpatrick, proven. So something has to change for them to get rid of him.

[Buffalogic]

What do you want out of backup? A guy who can come in and keep the wheels on in the event of a crisis. Going 5-4 as a starter shows Fitz is more than capable of doing that.

Fitz is a lot like Reich. Smart guy who can help the team win whether he's on the field or not.

[Nighthawk]

It cannot be disputed that the offense did best last year when he was on the field. Statistically, anecdotally and in the W-L columns. Now that doesn't mean he's a quality QB, just that the other two were even worse, but if you're a coach, you want the guy on your team who gives you the best chance to win. Last year, that was Fitzpatrick, proven. So something has to change for them to get rid of him.

There is no way that Fitz makes this team better or more competitive. We saw how bad he was last year...I saw nothing that inspired confidence that he can be a reliable backup. When called upon in Cincy, he sucked...when called upon last year...he sucked. Yes, he sucked less then Trent, but that does not make this guy the answer to our backup QB position. I don't understand what you guys are thinking. This arguement that you need a reliable backup (which he isn't) on a rebuilding team that will more then likely be bad, is baffling to me. If a team doesn't have a solid QB entrenched in the #1 spot, you don't get rid of the one QB who has shown the most ability to push Edwards for the #1 spot. In Buffalo's situation, they should want as much talent with potential on the roster as possible. Fitz is and never will be the answer to the QB spot or backup spot...

[Nighthawk]

What do you want out of backup? A guy who can come in and keep the wheels on in the event of a crisis. Going 5-4 as a starter shows Fitz is more than capable of doing that.

Fitz is a lot like Reich. Smart guy who can help the team win whether he's on the field or not.

Yeah...OK.

[Philagape]

There is no way that Fitz makes this team better or more competitive. We saw how bad he was last year...I saw nothing that inspired confidence that he can be a reliable backup. When called upon in Cincy, he sucked...when called upon last year...he sucked. Yes, he sucked less then Trent, but that does not make this guy the answer to our backup QB position. I don't understand what you guys are thinking. This arguement that you need a reliable backup (which he isn't) on a rebuilding team that will more then likely be bad, is baffling to me. If a team doesn't have a solid QB entrenched in the #1 spot, you don't get rid of the one QB who has shown the most ability to push Edwards for the #1 spot. In Buffalo's situation, they should want as much talent with potential on the roster as possible. Fitz is and never will be the answer to the QB spot or backup spot...

It was Fitz who actually did push Edwards out of No. 1 last year.

He did, in fact, make the team better and more competitive. Why do people keep saying he can't when HE DID?

There is not a single "reliable" QB on the team anyway.

[Nighthawk]

It was Fitz who actually did push Edwards out of No. 1 last year.

He did, in fact, make the team better and more competitive. Why do people keep saying he can't when HE DID?

There is not a single "reliable" QB on the team anyway.

He freakin' beat the Chiefs (who were awful last year), Miami and the backups for the Colts in the regular season finale. That team was not much more competitive with him in their then when Trent was in there. Sorry, I don't understand where you saw this.

Yeah, but I guess that you guys like mediocre backups that bring nothing to the table if called upon. There is no doubt, that Brohm has WAY more potential then Fitz and we all know that Trent will probably either bust or get hurt. I hope he doesn't, but if he does, I already know that Fitz isn't good enough...Brohm might be better. I'd much rather have that option then watching another season out of the Edwards/Fitz circus.

[Philagape]

He freakin' beat the Chiefs (who were awful last year), Miami and the backups for the Colts in the regular season finale. That team was not much more competitive with him in their then when Trent was in there. Sorry, I don't understand where you saw this.

"not much more" is still more. So you saw the same thing I did.

Edwards beat the awful Bucs and ....... that's it.

[Nighthawk]

"not much more" is still more. So you saw the same thing I did.

Edwards beat the awful Bucs and ....... that's it.

And with Brohm there is a chance that they could be much better...I don't know this, but nobody knows that they won't be. I KNOW that Fitz doesn't make this team anymore competitive then Edwards. I've seen the movie...it SUCKS!

[BertSquirtgum]

Fitz is a lot like Reich. Smart guy who can help the team win whether he's on the field or not.
are you ****ing kidding me? what kind of **** are you guys smoking out there? pass it this way.

edit: reich actually has talent along with brains. fitz just have a wet noodle for an arm and can't pass an accurate pass to save his life.

[psubills62]

So how did this team go 5-4 with him starting last year?
I'm not sure...especially considering he only started 8 games. I assume you're counting the Jets game, which I have no idea how you can attribute that win to the offense, considering the absolutely horrid stats Fitzpatrick put up.

To answer the general question of "if Fitzpatrick is so bad, how come they won so many games," maybe we should look at the turnover margin. Remember that Fitzpatrick's starts mainly came during Byrd's streak of 2+ INT's per game.

Here are the turnover margins for the Bills for each of their wins:

vs. TB (Edwards start): 0
vs. NYJ (Fitzpatrick played majority of game): +5
vs. Car (Fitzpatrick start): +3
vs. Miami (Fitzpatrick start): +3
vs. KC (Fitzpatrick start): +2
vs. Indy (Fitzpatrick start): +2

For each of the losses:
vs. NE (Edwards start): +1
vs. NO (Edwards start): 0
vs. Miami (Edwards start): -1
vs. Cle (Edwards start): -1
vs. Hou (Fitzpatrick start): 0
vs. Ten (Edwards played majority of snaps): -2
vs. Jax (Fitzpatrick start): -1
vs. NYJ (Fitzpatrick start): 0
vs. NE (Fitzpatrick start): -1

So you can make whatever conclusions you want based purely on what QB started. But it seems to me that every win except for the one where Edwards contributed the majority of snaps offensively correlate directly to turnovers. Thus, I'd say it's mainly how well the defense does at creating turnovers.


It cannot be disputed that the offense did best last year when he was on the field. Statistically, anecdotally and in the W-L columns.
Really? Have you looked at the stats beyond the W-L column? Because wins is one of only a couple of areas that Fitzpatrick obviously and outright beats what Edwards did last year. And that's even when the game against the Colts and first game against the Jets are counted for Fitzpatrick.

Points per game:
Fitzpatrick: 17.9
Edwards: 15.3

INT's per pass attempt:
Fitzpatrick: 0.044
Edwards: 0.038

TD's per pass attempt:
Fitzpatrick: 0.040 (becomes 0.030 if Colts game isn't included)
Edwards: 0.033

TD:INT
Fitzpatrick: 0.9
Edwards: 0.85

Total net offensive yards per game:
Fitzpatrick: 273
Edwards: 291

Passing yards per game:
Fitzpatrick: 157
Edwards: 187

YPA:
Fitzpatrick: 6.3
Edwards: 6.4

Running YPA (for QB)
Fitzpatrick: 4.5
Edwards: 7.6

Average YPA for run game for each QB
Fitzpatrick: 4.38
Edwards: 4.38

Average # of first downs per game
Fitzpatrick: 14.4*
Edwards: 15.3

*Note: this includes the first Jets game where 6 out of 20 first downs came with Edwards in, if those 6 are removed, then it's 13.8 for Fitzpatrick

Average 3rd down efficiency per game
Fitzpatrick: 26.6%
Edwards: 27.7%

Average time of possession per game (not counting the Jets OT game - hard to define for that game, and skews the results due to OT)
Fitzpatrick: 27:13 (becomes 25:45 if Colts game is removed)
Edwards: 27:02

Number of games throwing 150+ yards
Fitzpatrick: 4 out of 9
Edwards: 6 out of 6

So basically Fitzpatrick only ends up beating Edwards in four statistical category, and that's thanks to Fred Jackson doing most of the work getting Fitzpatrick close enough to throw 3 TD's in the Colts game. And 11 seconds in time of possession, in my opinion, doesn't count for much. The reasons I mention several times about if the Colts game isn't included are 1) to show how much the Colts game affected the average statistics, 2) because the Colts game was primarily against backups.

Only two of those categories does it seem statistically significant that Fitzpatrick is better - that's points per game and TD's per pass attempt (which is thanks to the Colts outlier).

You could probably find some minor categories (maybe running yards per game?) that Fitz beats Edwards. But I don't know when people are going to face it - Fitzpatrick sucks. The Colts game is really the main game that saves him statistically. And even with that game included, Fitzpatrick only beats Edwards in 4 categories, and that's barely in 2.

Fitzpatrick had 5 games (all with 20+ passing attempts) where he passed for less than 125 yards, and 2 where he passed for less than 100 yards. That is a horrible QB.

I'm sure people will fall back on the "but the team won, that's the most important statistic." See my response to Dr. Lecter above, in that case. The pass defense carried this team to pretty much every win it had, except for the one where Edwards was the main QB.

[psubills62]

Sorry for the long post, but I was sick of people saying that Fitzpatrick was obviously the best QB we had last year. Edwards outplayed Fitzpatrick in nearly every statistical category, and I'm confident that if Edwards had the benefit of our later-season defense, he'd have gotten some wins too.

Just an overall note: in games that I counted for Fitzpatrick (including first Jets game), the overall turnover margin was +13. In games that I counted for Edwards (first 5 of the season and Tennessee game), the overall turnover margin was -3. And considering they threw essentially the same number of INT's per game counted (1.17 for Edwards, 1.11 for Fitzpatrick), the turnover margin can be attributed to better defense.

Finally, I found it interesting that in the practice report, despite Brohm playing with the third team, this was mentioned:


Brian Brohm followed Fitzpatrick. The two signal callers behind Edwards got an equal number of reps in the team segments.
http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-3/Practice-Notes---Day-16/96473fb6-10b5-4cf1-aeb9-1da0f331e087

I'll be interested to hear if the reps are the same when Brohm is the #2 QB through the rotation. Last I remember, they were trading evenly with one getting all the 2nd team reps one day, the other getting all of them the next day. Maybe that changed. Not going to read too much into it, just thought it was interesting.

[JCBills]

"not much more" is still more. So you saw the same thing I did.

Edwards beat the awful Bucs and ....... that's it.

Exactly, so do you keep the guy who you already know exactly what you get from, and the finished product isn't pretty, or the guy who might just end up better than your starter? With how dire the QB position has been, we need to keep talent over mediocrity. Jauron would keep Fitz just because he's been around longer.

[Philagape]

Really? Have you looked at the stats beyond the W-L column? Because wins is one of only a couple of areas that Fitzpatrick obviously and outright beats what Edwards did last year. And that's even when the game against the Colts and first game against the Jets are counted for Fitzpatrick.

You people need to pay attention. Here's the third time I've posted this overwhelming case:


You want stats? Here are the most relevant ones:

The Bills offense scored more points per game under Fitz than Trent (16.0 to 13.3). That's not counting the Colts game, it divides the points in the Jets road game between QBs, and it does count two touchdown passes in Edwards' games that were thrown by Brian Moorman and Fred Jackson.
A big reason for this is Fitz's higher TD percentage (4.0 to 3.3). Owens caught 4 TDs from Fitz, and only one from Trent. Evans caught 4 TDs from Fitz, to two from Trent (one from Jackson).
Another significant factor was that Trent was sacked more times than Fitz despite 44 fewer attempts.
The biggest stat differences Trent had over Fitz were completion percentage and INT percentage. Those categories are a lot easier to win when the QB throws short a lot more.
Last year Trent's percentage of throws that went 10 yards or less in the air was a whopping 77 percent. Under Fitz that dropped to 61.7 percent.
Go ahead and forget the bombs if you want ... 32.2 percent of Fitz's passes were in the intermediate 10-30 range; only 14.7 for Trent! (And Fitz was more accurate in that range by six points!)
Fitz took more chances; that resulted in some worse individual numbers, but better production on the scoreboard, which is all that matters.

If I were to go by all that, I'd pick Fitz if there was a game tomorrow. However, I don't like to declare a winner based on stats; someone could do that without watching a single minute. I try to go by the intangibles, and that's where Fitz was even more superior.

Fitz wins the most important stats.

And the reasons why are what made him better. That's the difference between merely listing numbers and analyzing them. That's what stats are about.

[Philagape]

Exactly, so do you keep the guy who you already know exactly what you get from, and the finished product isn't pretty, or the guy who might just end up better than your starter? With how dire the QB position has been, we need to keep talent over mediocrity. Jauron would keep Fitz just because he's been around longer.

I've sen nothing to believe any of the QBs are talented. Certainly nothing better than mediocrity.

[better days]

I've sen nothing to believe any of the QBs are talented. Certainly nothing better than mediocrity.

Agreed, but we have seen a lot more of Trent & Fitz than Brohm. Brohm looks like the only QB on the roster with a chance of developing.

[Dr. Lecter]

Agreed, but we have seen a lot more of Trent & Fitz than Brohm. Brohm looks like the only QB on the roster with a chance of developing.


I see nothing from Brohm that shows me he will develop into anything more than a 3rd string guy.

Trent and Fitz are probably 2nd string guys.

Brown - who knows?

[better days]

I see nothing from Brohm that shows me he will develop into anything more than a 3rd string guy.

Trent and Fitz are probably 2nd string guys.

Brown - who knows?

Well like I said, you have not seen enough of Brohm to make an accurate judgement. I think we all know what Trent & Fitz bring to the table.

[ddaryl]

He is not horrible.

He is a smart veteran back-up who can fill in and do the job.

Look at what he did last year.

I rememeber it well.. Pretty fricking horrible.


I don't want a safer vet as a backup.. i want a player who has upside as our backup.

This team is stil looking for a starter, even if trent is named the starter... and Fitz willnever be the starter so get rid of him now, today, before I even finish typing this.



Let me put it this way. Fitz is a sub par QB. If we're going to keep a sub par QB lets keep one with upside

[Dr. Lecter]

I rememeber it well.. Pretty fricking horrible.


I don't want a safer vet as a backup.. i want a player who has upside as our backup.

This team is stil looking for a starter, even if trent is named the starter... and Fitz willnever be the starter so get rid of him now, today, before I even finish typing this.

If they had a player with upside, I would be fine with him as a back-up. But they do not.

And I like smart guys as a back-up.

[Michael82]

If they had a player with upside, I would be fine with him as a back-up. But they do not.

And I like smart guys as a back-up.

Wow....it's so obvious that you hate Brian Brohm. How could you not see ANY upside from him? :rolleyes:

[Dr. Lecter]

Wow....it's so obvious that you hate Brian Brohm. How could you not see ANY upside from him? :rolleyes:


Yes Mike. I hate him. :rolleyes:

C'mon. You know me better than that.

I know there is this BrohmLove because is not Trent or Fitz. But the fact is he has done less than either of those two in his career.

And I guess there is some upside. I guess he could be an adequate #2 guy with improvement. In the future. Right now he is a #3 guy.

[Albany,n.y.]

So how did this team go 5-4 with him starting last year?
Great coaching.

[Michael82]

Great coaching.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Michael82]

Yes Mike. I hate him. :rolleyes:

C'mon. You know me better than that.

I know there is this BrohmLove because is not Trent or Fitz. But the fact is he has done less than either of those two in his career.

And I guess there is some upside. I guess he could be an adequate #2 guy with improvement. In the future. Right now he is a #3 guy.

I know you better than that...but you refuse to believe that he has potential and has upside. You honestly believe that he is junk and have said it before. I'm sure you don't hate him, but you basically need him to become a star before you'll give him props. He had a good game on Thurs and showed some of that upside. I'm not pushing for him to start, but I believe with Trent being a china doll, we need a backup who has upside and maybe can steal the job during the injury. That's not Fitzpatrick, but I could see Brohm being that guy.

[psubills62]

You people need to pay attention. Here's the third time I've posted this overwhelming case:



Fitz wins the most important stats.

And the reasons why are what made him better. That's the difference between merely listing numbers and analyzing them. That's what stats are about.

Ah, right, I guess the most important stats are the ones you pick and choose.

You're right, Fitz did have a higher TD percentage, which is HIGHLY skewed by the Colts game. It was a statistical anomaly that raised his TD percentage from 3.0 to 4.0. You don't seem to understand that the 3.0 is MUCH more representative of what Fitz does throughout the season. His career TD percentage is 2.9. Which one do you think is more statistically significant - 4.0 or 3.0?

So let me get this straight - you claim that the offense (indisputably!) performs better under Fitzpatrick than Edwards. And you use sacks per passing attempt to show that, while me showing average net yards per game doesn't matter?

What's odd is that you mention Fitz attempting more passes in the intermediate range, and completing a higher percentage of them, yet he has a lower YPA? The team also gets fewer first downs, and much fewer passing yards under Fitz.

The problem is that you made the claim specifically that "It cannot be disputed that the offense did best last year when he was on the field." However, you now ignore the stats I provided, and back it up with 1) stats that you pick and choose from, and 2) stats that seemingly have very little to do directly with offensive production.

You used:
1. PPG - It can't be disputed that this is in favor of Fitzpatrick. But as I showed, he had the benefit of a much better turnover margin. This could easily account for 1 FG per game.
2. TD percentage - this is easily nullified by pointing out the Colts game as a statistical anomaly for Fitzpatrick. The fact that the Colts game so heavily weighs this stat for Fitz means that the 4.0 you submit doesn't represent what Fitzpatrick actually does on average.
3. Sacks per attempt - this can be accounted for in the NET yards per game that I provided, which Edwards still easily beats Fitz in. And it doesn't really correlate directly to offensive production.
4. Passing attempts shorter than 10 yards - again, not correlated directly to offensive production.
5. Passing attempts between 10 and 30 yards - ditto.
6. Intangibles - not sure how you can see that Fitzpatrick is obviously so much better than Edwards, but sure. I guess Fitzpatrick's intangibles propelled the defense?

Sorry, but picking and choosing stats that have little to do with your claim doesn't prove anything.

[HHURRICANE]

Yes Mike. I hate him. :rolleyes:

C'mon. You know me better than that.

I know there is this BrohmLove because is not Trent or Fitz. But the fact is he has done less than either of those two in his career.

And I guess there is some upside. I guess he could be an adequate #2 guy with improvement. In the future. Right now he is a #3 guy.

Let's be fair to Lecter here. He's never said anything about Brohm except related to his skills and he certainly hasn't been blindly supporting Edwards either.

[YardRat]

Frank Reich didn't do squat either, until he was pressed into action against the Rams on Monday night. Even then, he pretty much sucked ass for 3-1/2 quarters. From that point on, he got on a roll.

I'm hoping the coaches keep the best guys for the team, and will take it in stride if Fitz is the back-up, but admit I'm rooting for Brohm.

[HHURRICANE]

One more time. The reality of the situation, which I stated at the very beginning of this year, was that Edwards was the most taleneted QB on this team, and in an open competition, he would win the job. Game, set, match. It's over people and in fairness to Edwards he earned it.

So this leaves Brohm and Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick was brought in to be Trent's backup. He's a career backup and many teams will gladly take him as a backup. He will never be a career starter in this league. He's a solid #2 wether you like it or not. Very few teams have #2 guys getting groomed to be the starter.

This leaves Brohm. The Bills have obvioulsy invested time in coaching the guy up. Let's give Gailey and Brohm credit. I watched the game 3 times now and he played "okay, fine, well, good." Same exact adjectives that Gailey used. Did he unseat Fitzpatrick? No, and I think the coaches realize that the vets on this team are going to be alot more comfortable with Fitzpatrick than Brohm as the backup.

I think the money is the only thing that could change the pecking order and the Bills are notorious for saving a buck even when the talent is not as good. Walker is a prime example of this last year.

Brohm has proven absolutely zero that he is better at this point that the two ahead of him.

[better days]

One more time. The reality of the situation, which I stated at the very beginning of this year, was that Edwards was the most taleneted QB on this team, and in an open competition, he would win the job. Game, set, match. It's over people and in fairness to Edwards he earned it.

So this leaves Brohm and Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick was brought in to be Trent's backup. He's a career backup and many teams will gladly take him as a backup. He will never be a career starter in this league. He's a solid #2 wether you like it or not. Very few teams have #2 guys getting groomed to be the starter.

This leaves Brohm. The Bills have obvioulsy invested time in coaching the guy up. Let's give Gailey and Brohm credit. I watched the game 3 times now and he played "okay, fine, well, good." Same exact adjectives that Gailey used. Did he unseat Fitzpatrick? No, and I think the coaches realize that the vets on this team are going to be alot more comfortable with Fitzpatrick than Brohm as the backup.

I think the money is the only thing that could change the pecking order and the Bills are notorious for saving a buck even when the talent is not as good. Walker is a prime example of this last year.

Brohm has proven absolutely zero that he is better at this point that the two ahead of him.

Well there are 2 more preseason games for Brohm to make a case for himself. I would like to see Chan give him a chance to do so.

[Jan Reimers]

God I hope this situation gets resolved soon. My head is ready to explode from the endless crap concerning tweedledee vs. tweedledum.

[JCBills]

Yes Mike. I hate him. :rolleyes:

C'mon. You know me better than that.

I know there is this BrohmLove because is not Trent or Fitz. But the fact is he has done less than either of those two in his career.

And I guess there is some upside. I guess he could be an adequate #2 guy with improvement. In the future. Right now he is a #3 guy.

It's also a fact that he's had less chances than both of them. Both Trent and Fitz got their shot at starting due to injury. Brohm is likely to have that chance this year.

[HHURRICANE]

Well there are 2 more preseason games for Brohm to make a case for himself. I would like to see Chan give him a chance to do so.

I agree that I would like to see Brohm play some more, even if it's at the #3 spot. Levi Brown out there is a complete waste of time.

For the record I hope they keep all 3 and demote Brown to the PS. He's not in any danger of not clearing waivers.

[HHURRICANE]

It's also a fact that he's had less chances than both of them. Both Trent and Fitz got their shot at starting due to injury. Brohm is likely to have that chance this year.

The coaches have watched all 3 QBs throw passes now for 4 months. Maybe that's why the pecking order hasn't changed much.

Maybe Brohm isn't as far along as people would like?

[Philagape]

I know you better than that...but you refuse to believe that he has potential and has upside. You honestly believe that he is junk and have said it before. I'm sure you don't hate him, but you basically need him to become a star before you'll give him props.

How about score a touchdown?


He had a good game on Thurs and showed some of that upside. I'm not pushing for him to start, but I believe with Trent being a china doll, we need a backup who has upside and maybe can steal the job during the injury. That's not Fitzpatrick, but I could see Brohm being that guy.

There it is again ... saying Fitz can't do something which he did in fact do last year! He took the job!

[Philagape]

Ah, right, I guess the most important stats are the ones you pick and choose.

Yes, I choose points on the board. How arbitrary of me!

So does the scoreboard. When yards start counting on the scoreboard, then we can talk about yards.

And I told you why the offense did better on the scoreboard: Because Fitz isn't a pussy in the pocket. And you just discount the evidence out of hand ("not directly correlated to offensive production.") Well, yes it is, and if you just keep saying no it isn't, well then this is pointless. You obviously support your guy no matter what, and there's no bigger waste of time than arguing with a fanboy. I made my case, it stands, it's correct, so case closed.

[Mahdi]

The direction this thread has taken, Brohm vs Fitzpatrick, is not even a question that can be answered.

We have seen Trent play in the regular season and we know what we have there, we have also seen what Fitz can do.

What we haven't seen is Brohm. Until Brohm gets more than half a game against real opponents when something is actually on the line, then none of these arguments matter.

[Philagape]

As far as "upside" and "potential," there is just as much chance that Edwards regains his pre-Adrian Wilson form as there is that Brohm becomes more than the third-stringer he still is.

[Mahdi]

As far as "upside" and "potential," there is just as much chance that Edwards regains his pre-Adrian Wilson form as there is that Brohm becomes more than the third-stringer he still is.
Trent is the same QB now he was before Adrian Wilson hit him. People love to use that excuse as if he lost an arm or something. He is still the same guy only difference is that defenses changed the way they defend him.

And if getting hit really has affected him THIS much he doesn't belong in the NFL.

[Philagape]

Trent is the same QB now he was before Adrian Wilson hit him. People love to use that excuse as if he lost an arm or something. He is still the same guy only difference is that defenses changed the way they defend him.

And if getting hit really has affected him THIS much he doesn't belong in the NFL.

If it's permanent, I agree. He's useless now.

[psubills62]

Yes, I choose points on the board. How arbitrary of me!

So does the scoreboard. When yards start counting on the scoreboard, then we can talk about yards.

And I told you why the offense did better on the scoreboard: Because Fitz isn't a pussy in the pocket. And you just discount the evidence out of hand ("not directly correlated to offensive production.") Well, yes it is, and if you just keep saying no it isn't, well then this is pointless. You obviously support your guy no matter what, and there's no bigger waste of time than arguing with a fanboy. I made my case, it stands, it's correct, so case closed.
Did you even read the rest of my post? PPG is obviously not an arbitrary statistic - most everything else was. You claim those are "the most relevant statistic[s]," but they really aren't, besides TD percentage and PPG. And both of those have been explained to you already, but you just don't get it.

Hahaha I just have to laugh at the illogic of your "points." You used random "attempts thrown this far downfield" statistics to prove your point, and then claim that yards don't matter? Way to ruin your own argument. Do people even use logic anymore?

Let me break this down for you:
1. Turnover margin HEAVILY - I mean HEAVILY (by +16 over what Edwards had) favored Fitzpatrick in the games where he was the main QB. Not only has turnover margin been strongly correlated to wins throughout history, you can see the direct correlation to our own wins last season. Our wins do NOT correlate to "Fitzpatrick not being a pussy in the pocket." That's just a stupid argument. Feel free to point out a Fitzpatrick win where he didn't have at least a +2 turnover margin - it didn't happen.

2. You want to talk PPG? How about the 26.2 PPG that the defense gave up in the games Edwards played vs. the 13.8 PPG the defense allowed in the games Fitzpatrick was the main QB? Since I've been not counting the game with the Colts, that number becomes 14.6 if the Colts game is removed. There's a PPG correlation that seems to directly correlate to how many wins Fitzpatrick had vs. how many wins Edwards had.

3. You really want to dismiss net yards, first downs, third down efficiency, TOP, etc. as offensive production? I guess those don't count but "passes attempted between 10 and 30 yards," and "Fitzpatrick not being a pussy in the pocket" do?

Your points are junk. The wins and PPG can easily be correlated to the enormous turnover margin Fitzpatrick had the benefit of, and the wins can also be connected directly to how few points the defense allowed. Oh, but those don't matter...the "relevant" facts are sacks per attempt, attempted passes below 10 yards, attempted passes between 10 and 30 yards, and "not being a pussy."

And somehow, it's ironic that your own statement can be directed right back to you:

"You obviously support your guy no matter what, and there's no bigger waste of time than arguing with a [Fitzpatrick] fanboy. I made my case, it stands, it's correct, so case closed."

My case is FAR more statistically supported than your own. Fitzpatrick absolutely sucks, and is not even close to the best QB on this roster, last year or this year.

[Philagape]

Did you even read the rest of my post? PPG is obviously not an arbitrary statistic - most everything else was. You claim those are "the most relevant statistic[s]," but they really aren't, besides TD percentage and PPG. And both of those have been explained to you already, but you just don't get it.

Yeah, they really are. Those stats tell WHY the PPG was higher. For example, how can you dismiss sacks? So many of those are drive killers; they very much "correlate to offensive production," especially for a guy like Trent.
If a sack results in 3rd and long, with Trent you're basically screwed because he doesn't throw well in that range (which is why I posted evidence of that).


Hahaha I just have to laugh at the illogic of your "points." You used random "attempts thrown this far downfield" statistics to prove your point, and then claim that yards don't matter? Way to ruin your own argument. Do people even use logic anymore?

Because the way Fitz got his yards resulted in more points than the way Trent got his yards. That's the whole point. An offense can't produce points if the QB plays it safe all the time (another example of that: Brohm against the Colts).
That's what offensive production is: Points on the board. Nothing else.


Let me break this down for you:
1. Turnover margin HEAVILY - I mean HEAVILY (by +16 over what Edwards had) favored Fitzpatrick in the games where he was the main QB. Not only has turnover margin been strongly correlated to wins throughout history, you can see the direct correlation to our own wins last season. Our wins do NOT correlate to "Fitzpatrick not being a pussy in the pocket." That's just a stupid argument. Feel free to point out a Fitzpatrick win where he didn't have at least a +2 turnover margin - it didn't happen.

2. You want to talk PPG? How about the 26.2 PPG that the defense gave up in the games Edwards played vs. the 13.8 PPG the defense allowed in the games Fitzpatrick was the main QB? Since I've been not counting the game with the Colts, that number becomes 14.6 if the Colts game is removed. There's a PPG correlation that seems to directly correlate to how many wins Fitzpatrick had vs. how many wins Edwards had.

3. You really want to dismiss net yards, first downs, third down efficiency, TOP, etc. as offensive production? I guess those don't count but "passes attempted between 10 and 30 yards," and "Fitzpatrick not being a pussy in the pocket" do?

Your points are junk. The wins and PPG can easily be correlated to the enormous turnover margin Fitzpatrick had the benefit of, and the wins can also be connected directly to how few points the defense allowed. Oh, but those don't matter...the "relevant" facts are sacks per attempt, attempted passes below 10 yards, attempted passes between 10 and 30 yards, and "not being a pussy."

Yes, those factors were more telling, at least as far as offensive production. Wins and losses are someone else's argument.


And somehow, it's ironic that your own statement can be directed right back to you:

"You obviously support your guy no matter what, and there's no bigger waste of time than arguing with a [Fitzpatrick] fanboy. I made my case, it stands, it's correct, so case closed."

My case is FAR more statistically supported than your own. Fitzpatrick absolutely sucks, and is not even close to the best QB on this roster, last year or this year.

Last year, yes he was.
And you're wrong, and I really don't care what you think of my points.
I mean, sacks don't affect offensive production? Someone who thinks that is not to be taken seriously.

[Dr. Lecter]

It's also a fact that he's had less chances than both of them. Both Trent and Fitz got their shot at starting due to injury. Brohm is likely to have that chance this year.
Except he was a 2nd round pick. To think that he did not have to be horrible to get cut by GB is not looking at the situation objectively.


There is a reason they cut him and kept the 7th round guy.

[psubills62]

Yeah, they really are. Those stats tell WHY the PPG was higher. For example, how can you dismiss sacks? So many of those are drive killers; they very much "correlate to offensive production," especially for a guy like Trent.
If a sack results in 3rd and long, with Trent you're basically screwed because he doesn't throw well in that range (which is why I posted evidence of that).

Haha, no, you THINK they explain why the PPG was higher. How can I dismiss sacks? Gee, probably the same way you dismiss yards. And how come Edwards takes more sacks per attempt, but still manages more first downs per game? Or how come he has a better 3rd down conversion rate? Sacks matter, but they are nullified by the stats I provided - Edwards having more sacks per attempt, but getting more first downs (also more passing first downs per game), and having a higher 3rd down conversion rate means he's better at moving the ball.

Ah so your stat of pass attempts in that range is only applicable to 3rd and long situations, but yards per game and YPA don't matter?



Because the way Fitz got his yards resulted in more points than the way Trent got his yards. That's the whole point. An offense can't produce points if the QB plays it safe all the time (another example of that: Brohm against the Colts).
That's what offensive production is: Points on the board. Nothing else.

You're incorrectly attributing Fitzpatrick's point production to his passes between 11 and 30 yards. His point production consistently leads back to turnover margin.

Fitzpatrick had 5 wins as the main QB - ALL of those wins came when the turnover margin was +2 or more. How many points did Fitzpatrick get when he didn't get at least a +2 turnover margin? 12 points per game. When he did get a +2 turnover margin or more? 22.6 points per game. What about when Edwards didn't get a +2 turnover margin? 15.7 points per game.

Sorry, but "passes between 10 and 30 yards" does not correlate to points as well as you seem to think.



Yes, those factors were more telling, at least as far as offensive production. Wins and losses are someone else's argument.

They aren't telling in terms of points per game. I have no idea why you think those stats directly correlate (more than any of the ones I presented, anyway) to points scored, but they don't. Look at turnover margin.



Last year, yes he was.
And you're wrong, and I really don't care what you think of my points.
I mean, sacks don't affect offensive production? Someone who thinks that is not to be taken seriously.

Someone who thinks sacks correlate but yards and first downs don't is not to be taken seriously as well. Because what do sacks inhibit? Yards and first downs...

[Philagape]

The way to determine which stats matter more is to look at the final results: Points.

Turnover margin contributes to wins and losses, of course, but again, I'm not using Ws and Ls as an argument. A turnover means nothing if the offense can't convert it into points. The way they played, there's no reason to think Trent would beat or even match the scoring of Fitz's offense if given the same opportunities, and the stats I presented show the way they play. My stats are about quality, not quantity (such as yards). Quality is more important. As evidenced by the results. Points.

[psubills62]

The way to determine which stats matter more is to look at the final results: Points.

Turnover margin contributes to wins and losses, of course, but again, I'm not using Ws and Ls as an argument. A turnover means nothing if the offense can't convert it into points. The way they played, there's no reason to think Trent would beat or even match the scoring of Fitz's offense if given the same opportunities, and the stats I presented show the way they play. My stats are about quality, not quantity (such as yards). Quality is more important. As evidenced by the results. Points.
This is hilarious. It's like arguing which kid is taller - the one standing on carpet or the one standing on a stool? You sit there claiming over and over again that all that matters is that the kid on the stool is taller (Fitzpatrick scores more points) while continually ignoring the fact that the kid is standing on the stool. Without the benefit of the stool, he's significantly shorter.

I don't see how this is so complicated. Fitzpatrick cannot produce points without the benefit of the turnover margin. He's proven this by scoring 12 points per game (and that's consistent - he never scored more than 15 without a +2 or more turnover margin) without that benefit. That's just over half of what he scores with the turnovers, and nearly 4 points less than what Edwards scores with similar turnover margins (-3 through 6 games vs. -2 through 4)

And no, your stats aren't about "quality." Sacks do not equal points, and neither do passes between 10 and 30 yards. All you're doing is giving stats without any explanations. You can say "points" all you want, but if the rest of the stats don't say "those points were scored thanks to the QB," your point is moot. They don't even come close to saying that.

EDIT: Fitz had 7 TD's when he had the +2 or more turnover margin. That means he had 2 TD's when he didn't.

[Philagape]

This is hilarious. It's like arguing which kid is taller - the one standing on carpet or the one standing on a stool? You sit there claiming over and over again that all that matters is that the kid on the stool is taller (Fitzpatrick scores more points) while continually ignoring the fact that the kid is standing on the stool. Without the benefit of the stool, he's significantly shorter.

I don't see how this is so complicated. Fitzpatrick cannot produce points without the benefit of the turnover margin. He's proven this by scoring 12 points per game (and that's consistent - he never scored more than 15 without a +2 or more turnover margin) without that benefit. That's just over half of what he scores with the turnovers, and nearly 4 points less than what Edwards scores with similar turnover margins (-3 through 6 games vs. -2 through 4)

And no, your stats aren't about "quality." Sacks do not equal points, and neither do passes between 10 and 30 yards. All you're doing is giving stats without any explanations. You can say "points" all you want, but if the rest of the stats don't say "those points were scored thanks to the QB," your point is moot. They don't even come close to saying that.

EDIT: Fitz had 7 TD's when he had the +2 or more turnover margin. That means he had 2 TD's when he didn't.

The stats I gave lead to scoring more than turnovers do.
A turnover gives the offense the ball. That's it. What the offense does with it is entirely up to the offense.
Sacks affect the offense. Aggressive passing affects the offense. As do many other factors. If not for those, then getting the ball on a turnover means nothing to the offense. The kid on a stool is a really stupid metaphor.
What's proven is that Edwards collapsed to a point where he didn't produce points under pretty much any circumstances. Given the way he played, the case cannot be made that he'd do better with the turnover advantage.

A couple of other points:
Edwards started the year with his two best games and then regressed. That's why he was benched. By the time his offense scored three points against Cleveland, it was clear that he had to sit. When a QB trends downward like that, whatever he did at the beginning is irrelevant.
And did you count the two defensive TDs scored in those first two games for Edwards? And did you count the TD passes thrown by Jackson and Moorman for Edwards? If so, then you gave him a "stool" as well.

[psubills62]

The stats I gave lead to scoring more than turnovers do.
A turnover gives the offense the ball. That's it. What the offense does with it is entirely up to the offense.
Sacks affect the offense. Aggressive passing affects the offense. As do many other factors. If not for those, then getting the ball on a turnover means nothing to the offense. The kid on a stool is a really stupid metaphor.
What's proven is that Edwards collapsed to a point where he didn't produce points under pretty much any circumstances. Given the way he played, the case cannot be made that he'd do better with the turnover advantage.

A couple of other points:
Edwards started the year with his two best games and then regressed. That's why he was benched. By the time his offense scored three points against Cleveland, it was clear that he had to sit. When a QB trends downward like that, whatever he did at the beginning is irrelevant.
And did you count the two defensive TDs scored in those first two games for Edwards? And did you count the TD passes thrown by Jackson and Moorman for Edwards? If so, then you gave him a "stool" as well.

The case cannot be made that he'd do better with the turnover advantage? Despite the fact that the offense moved the ball better with him at the helm?

If you want to present actual statistics to show that "sacks" and "aggressive passing" correlate more to point than turnover ratio, show them. I've done enough research already showing you that Fitzpatrick is horrible. And like I said - Edwards moves the ball better than Fitz does despite having more sacks per attempt. I love how you just claim "sacks affect the offense" and "aggressive passing affects the offense," but somehow turnovers (that often gives the offense field position within field goal range) don't affect scoring? You mean giving an offense more possessions in a game doesn't correlate to scoring more too? Gee, who would think that simply "giving the ball to the offense" is a way to score?

Fact: Fitzpatrick got in the first Jets game because Edwards was injured. Edwards was not benched right after the Cleveland game. When Edwards was benched, Fitzpatrick came in to provide the scintillating 2/7 for 6 yards and 1 INT.

Maybe we should get rid of all TD's scored by anyone besides Fitzpatrick/Edwards? Because I could also go through Fitzpatrick's drives and cut out any that he really isn't responsible for. For example, the second game against the Jets, where Marshawn Lynch got 55 out of the 65 yards on the drive? Or maybe the punt return where Parrish got them in FG position and Fitz didn't manage a first down?

Yeah, Fitz would be a fine QB if our defense could guarantee +2 turnover margin per game. Otherwise, he sucks. He's not a QB worth playing in any way. The guy has enormous difficulties moving the ball. And if you think sacks and "aggressive passing" means more than things like net yards, first downs, 3rd down efficiency, time of possession...I can't help you much.

[Philagape]

The case cannot be made that he'd do better with the turnover advantage? Despite the fact that the offense moved the ball better with him at the helm?

If you want to present actual statistics to show that "sacks" and "aggressive passing" correlate more to point than turnover ratio, show them.

Well ... Fitz was better in sacks and intermediate passing, and he scored more points. Since those are things the offense actually does -- as opposed to merely getting the ball via a turnover -- those say more about the offense.
Are you trying to say that avoiding sacks and being able to throw more than 10 yards doesn't make an offense better?


I've done enough research already showing you that Fitzpatrick is horrible. And like I said - Edwards moves the ball better than Fitz does despite having more sacks per attempt. I love how you just claim "sacks affect the offense" and "aggressive passing affects the offense," but somehow turnovers (that often gives the offense field position within field goal range) don't affect scoring? You mean giving an offense more possessions in a game doesn't correlate to scoring more too? Gee, who would think that simply "giving the ball to the offense" is a way to score?

A shorter drive that scores is better than a longer drive that doesn't. That's why quantity stats like yards don't carry much weight.
And not scoring when one does have the ball does nothing to suggest that more opportunities will mean more scoring.
The whole premise of your argument is that Edwards would have done more had he had the same turnovers, but that case cannot be made. As bad as he was, nothing can be assumed about him.


Fact: Fitzpatrick got in the first Jets game because Edwards was injured. Edwards was not benched right after the Cleveland game. When Edwards was benched, Fitzpatrick came in to provide the scintillating 2/7 for 6 yards and 1 INT.

And yet Fitz kept the job when Edwards was healthy again.


Maybe we should get rid of all TD's scored by anyone besides Fitzpatrick/Edwards? Because I could also go through Fitzpatrick's drives and cut out any that he really isn't responsible for. For example, the second game against the Jets, where Marshawn Lynch got 55 out of the 65 yards on the drive? Or maybe the punt return where Parrish got them in FG position and Fitz didn't manage a first down?

Yeah, Fitz would be a fine QB if our defense could guarantee +2 turnover margin per game. Otherwise, he sucks. He's not a QB worth playing in any way. The guy has enormous difficulties moving the ball. And if you think sacks and "aggressive passing" means more than things like net yards, first downs, 3rd down efficiency, time of possession...I can't help you much.

So you did count trick plays and DTDs. :rofl: Pretty tall stools there.

Fitz sucks, no doubt, but last year he sucked the least of the three QBs.