Galley mum about quarterback plans

[Dr. Lecter]

So what will be the Buffalo Bills' quarterback rotation tonight? You'll have to attend the game at Ralph Wilson Stadium to find out.

Trent Edwards is expected to start against the Cincinnati Bengals. But who will replace him is a mystery.

Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brian Brohm have each appeared in one game. Fitzpatrick backed up Edwards in the exhibition opener at Washington, while Brohm sat on the bench. The roles were reversed against Indianapolis last week. Rookie Levi Brown finished up both games.

Head coach Chan Gailey has known the QB pecking order since Tuesday, but refused to let the media in on the secret all week. Only the team knows who will be under center tonight.

Fitzpatrick said after Thursday's practice that he was unaware of Gailey's plans. The players weren't available to the media following the team's walkthrough on Friday.

Whoever follows Edwards could be an indication of which quarterback has the leg up on the No. 2 spot.

Fitzpatrick completed 9 of 14 passes for 61 yards and directed a pair of drives that ended in touchdowns, including a 5-yard scoring toss to rookie receiver David Nelson, in six possessions against to the Redskins. Only one of Brohm's five drives against the Colts ended in points (a field goal), but he went 14 for 21 for 87 yards.

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/article174345.ece

The bold part is very interesting and puts a little different spin on the battle

[Michael82]

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/article174345.ece

The bold part is very interesting and puts a little different spin on the battle
:rofl: You really like to show your anti-Brohm side, don't ya? Fitzpatrick did absolutely nothing for the first 4 drives, until all the Redskins 3rd and 4th stringers were in. Then he had a nice drive at the end of the 3rd quarter, including one HUGE 43-yard run by Chad Simpson to help him out. The last drive, was all Joique Bell, who ran for 28-yards and the TD after the Bills started at the Washington 35-yard line. :yawn:

[Michael82]

As for Brohm...his big drive was right at the end of the 2nd quarter. It was a long 13 play drive for 67 yards and took 5:43 of the clock. He also had no help from the running game. His longest run was 2 yards and he took up most of the clock left at the end of the 1st half. After that, his longest run for 12-yards and the Bills were backed up at their own 12-yard line.

[X-Era]

Exactly, they both are about equal in what they do now. The big difference is that Fitz will get no better, only worse. Brohm can still be molded.

If both arent great, why not go with the guy who has upside and can still develop?

[Yasgur's Farm]

Exactly, they both are about equal in what they do now. The big difference is that Fitz will get no better, only worse. Brohm can still be molded.

If both arent great, why not go with the guy who has upside and can still develop?Not to mention... Has the much stronger arm.

[Michael82]

One more thing, Allen Wilson got the stats wrong. Brian Brohm didn't only throw for 87 yards.


Brohm was 14/21 for 125 yards

[Dr. Lecter]

:rofl: You really like to show your anti-Brohm side, don't ya? Fitzpatrick did absolutely nothing for the first 4 drives, until all the Redskins 3rd and 4th stringers were in. Then he had a nice drive at the end of the 3rd quarter, including one HUGE 43-yard run by Chad Simpson to help him out. The last drive, was all Joique Bell, who ran for 28-yards and the TD after the Bills started at the Washington 35-yard line. :yawn:
Ant-brohm side?

lol! Truth hurts doesn't it?

[Dr. Lecter]

Exactly, they both are about equal in what they do now. The big difference is that Fitz will get no better, only worse. Brohm can still be molded.

If both arent great, why not go with the guy who has upside and can still develop?


Because neither guy is the future QB and I question if Brohm really has any upside.

Why not go with the smarter guy who can help Brown and other players on offense learn and develop? Why not go with the guy that can help next year's QB (Luck, Mallet, Ponder, Locker, etc.) learn how to play the game?

Fitz is great for the role of a #2 guy. Brohm is not.

[Dr. Lecter]

Not to mention... Has the much stronger arm.


So? Arm strength is way overrated. Sure there is a minimal amount needed. But arm strength w/o accuracy or smarts does no good.

[X-Era]

Because neither guy is the future QB and I question if Brohm really has any upside.

Why not go with the smarter guy who can help Brown and other players on offense learn and develop? Why not go with the guy that can help next year's QB (Luck, Mallet, Ponder, Locker, etc.) learn how to play the game?

Fitz is great for the role of a #2 guy. Brohm is not.

Sorry Doc, but I don't agree.

1) Fitz has reportedly trash talked Brohm since he showed up. That doesnt exactly seem like a quality mentor to me.

2) Brohm has not proven that he cant do it yet, he hasn't had the chance really. Brohm hasn't shown he can be the guy either. He's an unknown. Fitz is not. Fitz, however, has proven that he cant be the guy. There is no upside with Fitz.

The truth is, though, that the Bills may just repeat past mistakes a.l.a. Holcomb, and keep the vet in hopes that his experience will equal wins. It hasn't and IMO it wont. This is a rebuilding team with no need for a guy who wont ever get any better and isn't good enough now. just my :2cents:

[jmb1099]

So? Arm strength is way overrated. Sure there is a minimal amount needed. But arm strength w/o accuracy or smarts does no good.
As Mikey pointed out, your stats are wrong.
Saying Fitz is smarter doesn't make him smarter.

[ddaryl]

If both arent great, why not go with the guy who has upside and can still develop?


That's exactly how I feel.. there is little reason to keep fitz.

[ddaryl]

Because neither guy is the future QB and I question if Brohm really has any upside.
.

What I saw Brohm do against Indy showed upside. He through some nice looking balls with more zip then Fitz could...

Of course I want to see more, but gotta stick with the guy who has more upside and arm strength for those Buffalo winters.

having a guy like Fitz as your #2 guy assumes you have a bonafide no doubt #1 guy.. We do not therefore we need the QB's that still have a chance to develope into a #1 guy at our #2 spot.

Fitz won't be leading us anywhere Brohm or Edwards can't, therefore the deciding factors is upside, and even if Fitz gains us 1 or 2 wins in reserve they will be useless wins since this team is not a playoff caliber team...

[Dr. Lecter]

Sorry Doc, but I don't agree.

1) Fitz has reportedly trash talked Brohm since he showed up. That doesnt exactly seem like a quality mentor to me.

2) Brohm has not proven that he cant do it yet, he hasn't had the chance really. Brohm hasn't shown he can be the guy either. He's an unknown. Fitz is not. Fitz, however, has proven that he cant be the guy. There is no upside with Fitz.

The truth is, though, that the Bills may just repeat past mistakes a.l.a. Holcomb, and keep the vet in hopes that his experience will equal wins. It hasn't and IMO it wont. This is a rebuilding team with no need for a guy who wont ever get any better and isn't good enough now. just my :2cents:


1. Reportedly? based on what? Speculation? Any links?

2. Brohm has had a chance. Do you really think GB just cut a 2nd round QB for the hell of it? I too have not shown that I can't be the guy. Should the Bills sign me? The reason he does nor get games in the regular season is because he has not earned that chance.

[X-Era]

What I saw Brohm do against Indy showed upside. He through some nice looking balls with more zip then Fitz could...

Of course I want to see more, but gotta stick with the guy who has more upside and arm strength for those Buffalo winters.

having a guy like Fitz as your #2 guy assumes you have a bonafide no doubt #1 guy.. We do not therefore we need the QB's that still have a chance to develope into a #1 guy at our #2 spot.

Fitz won't be leading us anywhere Brohm or Edwards can't, therefore the deciding factors is upside, and even if Fitz gains us 1 or 2 wins in reserve they will be useless wins since this team is not a playoff caliber team...

He looked pretty poised for a guy with 1 NFL start to his name.

He is inexperienced. Therefore, we dont know if he can be the guy or not. He has to prove it. But, that also means he needs to play the games.

[Dr. Lecter]

As Mikey pointed out, your stats are wrong.
Saying Fitz is smarter doesn't make him smarter.
What do the stats have to do with the point? I don't care if he threw for 400 yards. 14points is still more than 3.

And he is smarter. Of all the debate points, I don't think even the Brohm-guys would dispute that one.

[X-Era]

1. Reportedly? based on what? Speculation? Any links?

2. Brohm has had a chance. Do you really think GB just cut a 2nd round QB for the hell of it? I too have not shown that I can't be the guy. Should the Bills sign me? The reason he does nor get games in the regular season is because he has not earned that chance.

1) Commisioner met him and spoke with him... more than once I think. The threads are here.

2) Why do you need a developmental guy when you have Aaron Rogers in his 2nd season? Brohm has a total of 1 NFL start. It takes more than that to know for sure. Yet Fitz has had plenty and has done nothing. Why are you convinced he can win now?

[X-Era]

What do the stats have to do with the point? I don't care if he threw for 400 yards. 14points is still more than 3.

And he is smarter. Of all the debate points, I don't think even the Brohm-guys would dispute that one.

He's not smarter, he's more experienced. If he was smart enough, he would have been a proven NFL starter. Instead, he's battling with a green-as-the-hills 2nd year guy for a backup role... that says a lot about how we feel about him.

Can Fitz be a reliable winner as a starter? No. And we have no reason to think he ever will.

Can Brohm be a reliable winner as a starter? We don't know. There isn't enough game tape to know.

[psubills62]

Because neither guy is the future QB and I question if Brohm really has any upside.

Why not go with the smarter guy who can help Brown and other players on offense learn and develop? Why not go with the guy that can help next year's QB (Luck, Mallet, Ponder, Locker, etc.) learn how to play the game?

Fitz is great for the role of a #2 guy. Brohm is not.

Brohm is fine fit for the role of #2. Fitz was here last year - didn't seem to help our other QB's learn and develop.

You question if Brohm really has any upside? Seriously? Just looking at how he improved from the last time we saw him play (vs. Atlanta) to the preseason game, he looked a heck of a lot better. What makes you think he can't continue to improve with more game time?

I think a lot of people are overestimating Fitzpatrick's ability to "teach" young QB's. Where is there any evidence that he can help the other QB's improve?

[better days]

1. Reportedly? based on what? Speculation? Any links?

2. Brohm has had a chance. Do you really think GB just cut a 2nd round QB for the hell of it? I too have not shown that I can't be the guy. Should the Bills sign me? The reason he does nor get games in the regular season is because he has not earned that chance.

OK, Brohm did not do well in the Green Bay system. That does not mean he can't do well in the system Chan has in Buffalo, which is much more like the system he ran in Louisville, successfully I might add. He has not really had a chance in this system yet.

[Yasgur's Farm]

So? Arm strength is way overrated. Sure there is a minimal amount needed. But arm strength w/o accuracy or smarts does no good.You stepped right in it...

1) Arm strength is a legit measuring tool... Especially in B'lo
2) Accuracy is yet another legit measuring tool.
3) BB is superior in both cases over RF.

[Oaf]

I don't know where this "Brohm has 2x the arm Fitz has" stuff came from.

[Yasgur's Farm]

I don't know where this "Brohm has 2x the arm Fitz has" stuff came from.I dunno. Where did you see that? Who said it? Why did you quote, unquote it?

[YardRat]

I'm rooting for Brohm

If Fitz turns out to be #2, I'll live with it.

I just hope one of these guys over the next two weeks does something to separate them self from the other.

[X-Era]

I think something is up. I mean BB.com is now talking about the lineup changes for this game and has said nothing about the #2 QB spot which is more news worthy than any of these positions.

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2010/08/28/lineup-changes-4/

I want to think its Brohm at #2 because Fitz is the shoe-in due to the experience... In other words, you would keep more of a secret if it was Brohm, and would be more forthcoming if it was Fitz.

But who knows.

[YardRat]

Kelso just mentioned on the radio broadcast that he thought Brohm had the edge over Fitz going into this game.

[YardRat]

Wow...Troup starting at NT...

[X-Era]

Kelso just mentioned on the radio broadcast that he thought Brohm had the edge over Fitz going into this game.Is that opinion or a report of information he has learned?

[X-Era]

Wow...Troup starting at NT...I dont know if it implies he's our starter as much as that we know what we have in Williams.

[YardRat]

Is that opinion or a report of information he has learned?
I believe it's his opinion.

[X-Era]

I believe his opinion.In 38 minutes we will know for sure I guess. I hope you and him are right.

[HHURRICANE]

Fitzpatrick and Brohm are in a fight for the #2 spot. Neither guy is going to ever be a legitimate starter for this team so I really don't care who it is at this point.

If we are a solid playoff contender than I would take Fitzpatrick with the veteran experience.

I'm more interested in Edwards playing well with the starters and showing that we might have some points this year.

[X-Era]

Fitzpatrick and Brohm are in a fight for the #2 spot. Neither guy is going to ever be a legitimate starter for this team so I really don't care who it is at this point.

If we are a solid playoff contender than I would take Fitzpatrick with the veteran experience.

I'm more interested in Edwards playing well with the starters and showing that we might have some points this year.

I agree on the whole but disagree with preferring Fitz.

[better days]

Fitzpatrick and Brohm are in a fight for the #2 spot. Neither guy is going to ever be a legitimate starter for this team so I really don't care who it is at this point.

If we are a solid playoff contender than I would take Fitzpatrick with the veteran experience.

I'm more interested in Edwards playing well with the starters and showing that we might have some points this year.

Well, Trent is not a legitimate starter either. One of the other two will start at some point this season, maybe both will.

[jmb1099]

Didn't you initially bring up stats?

What do the stats have to do with the point? I don't care if he threw for 400 yards. 14points is still more than 3.

And he is smarter. Of all the debate points, I don't think even the Brohm-guys would dispute that one.

[Dr. Lecter]

Didn't you initially bring up stats?
I meant that the pure passing numbers are not as important as what the offense does with the numbers the QB produces.

The offense scores more with Fitz in the game

[Dr. Lecter]

You stepped right in it...

1) Arm strength is a legit measuring tool... Especially in B'lo
2) Accuracy is yet another legit measuring tool.
3) BB is superior in both cases over RF.
1. It is part of the equation. I never said otherwise.
2. Yes it is.
3. Not on accuracy.

[Philagape]

Accuracy >>> Arm strength.

After the failure of Bledsoe and fiasco of Losman, Buffalo fans of all people should know that arm strength means very little.

For those who cry "Weather! Weather!" ... One of Fitz's best games was in a windy snow bowl in January and included a touchdown bomb. Yes, it was against the Colts' backups, but the weather didn't stop him at all.

[jmb1099]

And again, your declaring Fitzpatrick smarter doesn't make it so. Oh, and in his first outing Brohm scored as many points as Trent without that pesky interception.

What do the stats have to do with the point? I don't care if he threw for 400 yards. 14points is still more than 3.

And he is smarter. Of all the debate points, I don't think even the Brohm-guys would dispute that one.

[jmb1099]

You're giving too much credit to ying and not enough to yang. Accuracy without the power to deliver also means little. The best qb's have a balance of both.


Accuracy >>> Arm strength.

After the failure of Bledsoe and fiasco of Losman, Buffalo fans of all people should know that arm strength means very little.

For those who cry "Weather! Weather!" ... One of Fitz's best games was in a windy snow bowl in January and included a touchdown bomb. Yes, it was against the Colts' backups, but the weather didn't stop him at all.

[Dr. Lecter]

And again, your declaring Fitzpatrick smarter doesn't make it so. Oh, and in his first outing Brohm scored as many points as Trent without that pesky interception.
Nor does your denial make Brohm smarter.

Not sure what Brohm has done to make anybody think he is the smarter QB.

[Philagape]

Accuracy without the power to deliver also means little.

It means more than vice-versa.

An accurate pass doesn't have to be strong. The object of any pass is to get it to the right spot at the right time. That can be done with touch and timing.
But a strong pass still has to be at least somewhat accurate to be completed. Or else you're just JaMarcus Russell.

Accurate passers with weak arms like Pennington and Holcomb can still be useful in the league.
Million-dollar arms and ten-cent heads like Russell and Leaf and Losman crash and burn.

They are both factors, but they are not equal factors.

[jmb1099]

Agreed, neither of us has any evidence of one being smarter than the other so maybe we can lay that argument to rest

Nor does your denial make Brohm smarter.

Not sure what Brohm has done to make anybody think he is the smarter QB.

[jmb1099]

See this is why I stated that the best qb's are balanced qb's. I have no issue with admitting the importance of accuracy, but the best qb's also have the muscle to deliver between defenders and to stretch out the field. They need to be able to hit the screen pass as well as the occasional home run ball. Its the difference between merely going to the dance or leaving as prom king.
You cited some interesting examples for your argument. Chad Pennington hasn't won anything has he? Isn't Kelly Holcomb now retired? Now I am more than happy to bring up Jeff George or Losman to help you illustrate your point. However, these are all cases of the extreme.
Think of recent super-bowl winners: Manning, Brady, Briese, all Qb's who posses accuracy, but also have reasonably strong arms. I didn't say that accuracy isn't valid, it obviously is. But if there isn't the right amount of strength to deliver, the end result is almost always the same: lack of championships.
Finally you mentioned an accurate pass doesn't have to be strong and in some cases that is true. But it isn't always true. There are obviously times when the ball needs to be delivered with the right velocity in order to achieve accuracy, especially given the speed of the game in the NFL, which you have pointed out numerous times, is far faster than the college game.
Again, successful qb's have a balance of power an accuracy.

It means more than vice-versa.

An accurate pass doesn't have to be strong. The object of any pass is to get it to the right spot at the right time. That can be done with touch and timing.
But a strong pass still has to be at least somewhat accurate to be completed. Or else you're just JaMarcus Russell.

Accurate passers with weak arms like Pennington and Holcomb can still be useful in the league.
Million-dollar arms and ten-cent heads like Russell and Leaf and Losman crash and burn.

They are both factors, but they are not equal factors.

[Philagape]

See this is why I stated that the best qb's are balanced qb's. I have no issue with admitting the importance of accuracy, but the best qb's also have the muscle to deliver between defenders and to stretch out the field. They need to be able to hit the screen pass as well as the occasional home run ball. Its the difference between merely going to the dance or leaving as prom king.
You cited some interesting examples for your argument. Chad Pennington hasn't won anything has he? Isn't Kelly Holcomb now retired? Now I am more than happy to bring up Jeff George or Losman to help you illustrate your point. However, these are all cases of the extreme.
Think of recent super-bowl winners: Manning, Brady, Briese, all Qb's who posses accuracy, but also have reasonably strong arms. I didn't say that accuracy isn't valid, it obviously is. But if there isn't the right amount of strength to deliver, the end result is almost always the same: lack of championships.
Finally you mentioned an accurate pass doesn't have to be strong and in some cases that is true. But it isn't always true. There are obviously times when the ball needs to be delivered with the right velocity in order to achieve accuracy, especially given the speed of the game in the NFL, which you have pointed out numerous times, is far faster than the college game.
Again, successful qb's have a balance of power an accuracy.

We're not talking about any championship-caliber QBs here in Buffalo, are we? Or even balanced, for that matter.
Joe Montana didn't have the strongest arm, and he has four rings. Brady has three. Those guys are known more for their heads than their arms.
I chose examples of guys closer to the Bills' level. Holcomb, btw, had a 12-year career. My point was his kind stay in the league longer than Russell's kind.

You responded to my assertion that accuracy is more important, and I backed that up without refutation. They are not equal.
Every pass has to be accurate.
Not every pass has to be strong.

[X-Era]

Joe Montana didn't have the strongest arm, and he has four rings. Brady has three. Those guys are known more for their heads than their arms.


:clap:

The QB job is about 80% mental. Neither of these guys has it mentally at this point. IMO, Fitz never will, and Brohm has an unknown future.

But, in both cases, the physical talent side is the least of the issues with these guys.

[jmb1099]

We're not talking about any championship-caliber QBs here in Buffalo, are we? Or even balanced, for that matter.
Joe Montana didn't have the strongest arm, and he has four rings. Brady has three. Those guys are known more for their heads than their arms.
I chose examples of guys closer to the Bills' level. Holcomb, btw, had a 12-year career. My point was his kind stay in the league longer than Russell's kind.

You responded to my assertion that accuracy is more important, and I backed that up without refutation. They are not equal.
Every pass has to be accurate.
Not every pass has to be strong.
Actually...
Not every pass has to be accurate, and accuracy is relevant. There is such a thing as throwing it up and allowing your receiver to make a play. Larry Fitzgerald comes to mind. Curt Warner was good, Fitzgerald and Boldin made him look exceptional because of the plays they made on the ball. So accuracy can be relative, arm strength cannot. You either have arm strength or you don't. You can be somewhat accurate and get away with it with the right personnel. It is in this simple truth that I refute your claim. I maintain that it is ying and yang.

Weather or not our Qb's are championship calibre or not is irrelevant to the argument. The ultimate goal remains the same: a championship. When we finally do win one it will be with a balanced QB behind the line.

Again, Holcomb won nothing. Is staying in the league for twelve years without winning a championship any more impressive than Russels's three and out? At least with Russell the band aid came off quick and its over and done with. Watching Holcomb was like a slow painful death.


Montana was balanced as is Brady. Just because they are known for their mental game doesn't mean they have or had weak arms. Montana was brilliant, but he had more than enough arm and the same can be said for Brady. The idea that weak armed Qb's are successful is as absurd as insisting that a stupid qb will win you a championship.

Finally to X-ra: Accuracy and brains may not necessarily walk hand in hand. A qb can be accurate with his passes in practice, but not understand complex defenses. Again, it comes down to balance.

[Philagape]

Actually...
Not every pass has to be accurate, and accuracy is relevant. There is such a thing as throwing it up and allowing your receiver to make a play. Larry Fitzgerald comes to mind. Curt Warner was good, Fitzgerald and Boldin made him look exceptional because of the plays they made on the ball. So accuracy can be relative, arm strength cannot. You either have arm strength or you don't. You can be somewhat accurate and get away with it with the right personnel. It is in this simple truth that I refute your claim. I maintain that it is ying and yang.

Even a toss-up has to have accuracy for the receiver to get into the best position. A receiver can't make a play on a ball that flies over his head or hits the dirt.
As you said, one can get away with being somewhat accurate, but many strong-armed QBs weren't even somewhat accurate, and that you cannot get away with.
On the other hand, a QB can get away with having the very lowest of arm strength (e.g., Pennington). A QB needs more accuracy than arm strength to stay in the NFL.


Weather or not our Qb's are championship calibre or not is irrelevant to the argument. The ultimate goal remains the same: a championship. When we finally do win one it will be with a balanced QB behind the line.

Again, Holcomb won nothing. Is staying in the league for twelve years without winning a championship any more impressive than Russels's three and out? At least with Russell the band aid came off quick and its over and done with. Watching Holcomb was like a slow painful death.

Holcomb was still a better QB. That's all the discussion is about.
Championships are a team achievement. Jeff Hostetler beat strong-armed Jim Kelly in the SB, does that make Hostetler better?


Montana was balanced as is Brady. Just because they are known for their mental game doesn't mean they have or had weak arms. Montana was brilliant, but he had more than enough arm and the same can be said for Brady. The idea that weak armed Qb's are successful is as absurd as insisting that a stupid qb will win you a championship.

I didn't say weak-armed QBs would be successful. I said accuracy is better than strength. Still not refuted. You're making an argument against something that no one is saying.

[jmb1099]

Even a toss-up has to have accuracy for the receiver to get into the best position. A receiver can't make a play on a ball that flies over his head or hits the dirt.
As you said, one can get away with being somewhat accurate, but many strong-armed QBs weren't even somewhat accurate, and that you cannot get away with.
On the other hand, a QB can get away with having the very lowest of arm strength (e.g., Pennington). A QB needs more accuracy than arm strength to stay in the NFL.



Holcomb was still a better QB. That's all the discussion is about.
Championships are a team achievement. Jeff Hostetler beat strong-armed Jim Kelly in the SB, does that make Hostetler better?



I didn't say weak-armed QBs would be successful. I said accuracy is better than strength. Still not refuted. You're making an argument against something that no one is saying.
You just reinforced my point that accuracy is relevant and according to your given illustrations, subjective as well. Yes, the QB does need the accuracy to put the ball in the general vicinity so that a play can be made on it. However, he also needs the arm strength to ensure timing and distance. Yin and Yang. I understand your position, I simply think you over emphasize ying, and undervalue yang.
I agree that championships are a team effort, and they are almost always won with a balanced qb behind the line.