Ryan Fitzpatrick

[dave]

Either write his name or say 14...I can't buy one or the other if you don't stick to one version.

And again, this is so fucking silly. The Bills have Fitzpatrick not because they wanted him, but because they're STUCK WITH HIM. Now, he has been better than expected, but to act like that is reason enough to pronounce him...well, Big Bucs is a guy you might converse well with.

EDIT- I also think that he has earned the starting job in Buffalo, FYI.

The Bills could have taken Gabbert or another QB with their 3rd pick overall or their 2nd rounder. They aren't stuck with Fitzpatrick, they pretty much chose to go with him.

 

[biggamejrs]

Some QB's take a while to hit the right system. Watching him and Gailey yesterday reminded me of Gannon and Gruden.

 

[FirstTimer]

Great. I don't care. Most of you guys kill me, the second you see there's a populist opinion or potential for one, you pile on. Good for you.

Have you ever stopped to consider that your "unpopular" opinion is seen that way because it's asinine?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

W2B is on some retarded logic.

I guess the league is comprised of 12 teams, so QBs 13-32 would be better as backups.

I just read that he'd be in a more ideal role as Peyton Manning's backup than as the starter for the Bills...yeah, Buffalo sucks as a town and as a team, but my ideal role would be as a starter there over Peyton Manning's ball cupper.

 

[FirstTimer]

W2B is on some retarded logic.

I guess the league is comprised of 12 teams, so QBs 13-32 would be better as backups.

I just read that he'd be in a more ideal role as Peyton Manning's backup than as the starter for the Bills...yeah, Buffalo sucks as a town and as a team, but my ideal role would be as a starter there over Peyton Manning's ball cupper.

Peyton Manning's backup=best job in NFL.

Manning plays, you never play and get paid.

Manning doesn't play, you still don't play and get paid.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

W2B is on some retarded logic.

I guess the league is comprised of 12 teams, so QBs 13-32 would be better as backups.

I just read that he'd be in a more ideal role as Peyton Manning's backup than as the starter for the Bills...yeah, Buffalo sucks as a town and as a team, but my ideal role would be as a starter there over Peyton Manning's ball cupper.

Again, totally missing the point. Mabe you and dave can hook up on his facebook chat and figure it out.

 

[NAHSTE]

I think what w2b is saying is that there are a lot of "starters" in the league who are there due to necessity, not because that's their ideal skill set.

Just like there are a dozen guys in the NBA getting paid like franchise players when in actuality they should be 3rd or 4th bananas on contending teams (like Andre Iguadala, for example). Just because the league has too many teams and not enough QBs does not make Fitzpatrick an ideal starting QB. I get what w2b is saying, in a perfect world he is a reliable backup on a good team. We of course do not live in a perfect world, so there are shite franchises like Buffalo who must use backup caliber players as starters.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Again, totally missing the point. Mabe you and dave can hook up on his facebook chat and figure it out.

Your make points hits like Victor Ortiz holds his gloves up...you don't.

I "get" whatever point you are trying to make, it is just dumb.

 

[mgoblue2290]

Peyton Manning's backup=best job in NFL.

Manning plays, you never play and get paid.

Manning doesn't play, you still don't play and get paid.

I never got why people say being a back up is a great job in the NFL. If I'm in the NFL, I'm doing whatever I can to get on the field.

 

[FirstTimer]

I never got why people say being a back up is a great job in the NFL. If I'm in the NFL, I'm doing whatever I can to get on the field.

If I'm getting paid millions to practice and not play. I'd take that.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

To make a better NBA comparison, its like older Mark Jackson in the mid to late 90's. Good enough to start for sure, but he really thrived as a backup/splitting time on the good Pacer teams. He would come in the game, control the pace, never turn the ball over, distribute the rock, etc. Then he went to the Raptors as a starter, and while he may have been better than many of the leagues PG's, he was probably better suited coming off the bench for a contender. You weren't winning titles with 38 year old Jackson running the point.

/old NBA reference because I stopped watching closely 15 years ago.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

To make a better NBA comparison, its like older Mark Jackson in the mid to late 90's. Good enough to start for sure, but he really thrived as a backup/splitting time on the good Pacer teams. He would come in the game, control the pace, never turn the ball over, distribute the rock, etc. Then he went to the Raptors as a starter, and while he may have been better than many of the leagues PG's, he was probably better suited coming off the bench for a contender. You weren't winning titles with 38 year old Jackson running the point.

/old NBA reference because I stopped watching closely 15 years ago.

This is why your comparison is not very good and your point sucks.

Fitzpatrick is playing the best football of his career as a starter. This isn't old Mark Jackson whose skill set is declining, this is a guy who has hit his "prime" playing age, starting, and playing his best football. Its not great football at the position, but its a lot better than he was as a backup and spot starter.

His QBR was 10 points higher in his first near-full season as a full time starter and now in his second (albeit, yes, only two games) his QBR is 30+ points higher. You make him out like Billy Volek or something, but he's clearly playing at a higher level.

He'll never be better than bottom half as a starter, so, lets just state that, so when a future bump occurs, I don't get a "sup"...

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

This is why your comparison is not very good and your point sucks.

Fitzpatrick is playing the best football of his career as a starter. This isn't old Mark Jackson whose skill set is declining, this is a guy who has hit his "prime" playing age, starting, and playing his best football. Its not great football at the position, but its a lot better than he was as a backup and spot starter.

His QBR was 10 points higher in his first near-full season as a full time starter and now in his second (albeit, yes, only two games) his QBR is 30+ points higher. You make him out like Billy Volek or something, but he's clearly playing at a higher level.

I already said he's playing well and deserves to start. In fact, I said that in my first post. Doesn't change the fact that I think, ideally, he's best suited as a high quality backup. If you disagree, fine, but at least you understand my point (I think).

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I already said he's playing well and deserves to start. In fact, I said that in my first post. Doesn't change the fact that I think, ideally, he's best suited as a high quality backup. If you disagree, fine, but at least you understand my point (I think).

I never didn't get your point, I get it and got it, I just think for this short window, Fitzpatrick is a worthy starter and his play dictates, as a starter, he's better than he is as a backup. His window will be short, but he's playing damn good football.

I saw the Bills a little bit both weeks...they look like a team that could push for the wild card.

 

[mgoblue2290]

If I'm getting paid millions to practice and not play. I'd take that.

I would too, but I wouldn't call it the best job in the NFL like others do. You aren't the first person I've heard that from and I just don't get that mentality. Like I said, if I'm in the NFL, I'm not going to be happy being a back up and not playing.

 

[shag773]

I already said he's playing well and deserves to start. In fact, I said that in my first post. Doesn't change the fact that I think, ideally, he's best suited as a high quality backup. If you disagree, fine, but at least you understand my point (I think).

Giving some examples from years some guys around here may not be familiar with, he's like a Wade Wilson, a Gary Hogeboom, or a Jay Schroeder (sp?)...?

 

[Senser81]

I already said he's playing well and deserves to start. In fact, I said that in my first post. Doesn't change the fact that I think, ideally, he's best suited as a high quality backup. If you disagree, fine, but at least you understand my point (I think).

I get what you are saying, but I don't agree with that line of thinking. Its like you either already have the superstar QB (which maybe 7 or 8 teams actually have), or you are developing the next superstar QB. I think what you are saying is that Fitzpatrick will never be a superstar QB, so a team would be better off getting a young QB and trying to develop him.

I would disagree with that logic, because you aren't really making any varying differentiations between "superstar" and "non-superstar". To me, Fitzpatrick is much better than guys like Alex Smith, Matt Cassell, Tavaris Jackson, etc. You say that Fitzpatrick has no upside, but IMO neither do a majority of these idiot QBs and they are much worse than Fitzpatrick.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

A quick once-over of the NFL's starting 32 QBs...I'd probably throw Fitzpatrick at this very moment right around 18-22. Something like that.

He's better than Tavaris Jackson, Alex Smith, Grossman, etc and FOR THE BILLS, he's a better option than some of the rookies RIGHT NOW. I flip flop whether he's better or simply on par with the Chad Henne's, Jason Campbell's, and Matt Cassell's of the world.

Then again...he could just be another David Garrard...

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I get what you are saying, but I don't agree with that line of thinking. Its like you either already have the superstar QB (which maybe 7 or 8 teams actually have), or you are developing the next superstar QB. I think what you are saying is that Fitzpatrick will never be a superstar QB, so a team would be better off getting a young QB and trying to develop him.

I would disagree with that logic, because you aren't really making any varying differentiations between "superstar" and "non-superstar". To me, Fitzpatrick is much better than guys like Alex Smith, Matt Cassell, Tavaris Jackson, etc. You say that Fitzpatrick has no upside, but IMO neither do a majority of these idiot QBs and they are much worse than Fitzpatrick.

I think he's better than those bums, too. And I wouldn't want those type of guys as my starter or backup.

Again, he is playing well and deserves to start. You don't really see the 'high quality' veteran backup in the league anymore, because there is such a steep drop off between stud and bum, that the good backups end up starting somewhere. Teams don't keep these guys around for years like they used to (Frank Reich, Flutie, etc). They deal them to bad teams for draft picks. To me, that's what he is.

Anyway, that's the type of player I see him as. That super high caliber backup type, which really no longer exists. I like him. I'm not suggesting the Bills replace him, but I don't think he's the long term answer, either. He's fun to watch.

 

[Juggernaut]

Anyway, that's the type of player I see him as. That super high caliber backup type, which really no longer exists. I like him. I'm not suggesting the Bills replace him, but I don't think he's the long term answer, either. He's fun to watch.

Probably what caused the confusion in this thread.

I agree with you, while he is a top 32 QB easily (meaning he could be starting on a team theoretically), he's the type of player you would love to be your emergency #2.