Really worried about the Offense

[Thurman#1]

I am, but I'm not willing to go through this thread again, and do his job. If he's too lazy to read up on the conversation then he has no business adding to it. If you were talking with a bunch of people and someone came up talking about what you were talking about an hour ago, would you go through the whole conversation again?

Its in this thread, read it, pretty simple.

Actual translation: "I can't back it up, and I won't back down."

Fine, we'll ignore your posts about this if you won't even try to back it up.

I mean, you specifically contradicted yourself.

[Thurman#1]

I ignore it because its inconsequential, those were different teams with different players, with a different coach, different offense, and less experience. I look at his work under Gaily. There is his play before the Redskins game and his play after. You can claim that correlation does not prove causation, but that's about it.

Well first of all Gaily is an offensive coach and Parcells is a defensive coach, second the only name that I really heard was Cowher's. So clearly anybody would have been a let down. You seem to be one of those people that didn't get the guy you wanted so you're going to complain loudly about anybody who got the job.

Under Gaily, Fitz has a 60% completion rate, 6,800 yards, 47 TDs and 38 INTs, These are not awful numbers.

For example take Kelly's numbers in 92 and 93

59.7% comp rate, 6,800 yards, 41 TDs and 37 INTs

and quite frankly, what you seem to have ignored, or probably didn't read because you just wanted to jump in and say your peace is that the Bills finished 14th in offensive points and yards.

47 TDs and 38 INTs are not awful numbers? These days? Wow, you and I must have different ideas about what awful is. I consider those pretty awful, the way that the rules are set up now. And no, Kelly's numbers don't even mean close to the same thing as Fitz's did.

In 1992, Kelly was tied for 3rd in TDs in the league. Fitz was 10th, and the worst of it is that out of those 24 TDs, 11 came in the first three games of the season before defenses figured out Chan's scheme.

In 1992, Kelly's TD:INT ratio was 1.21, 23 TDs and 19 INTs. Doesn't sound good until you realize that put him 11th in the league, whereas Fitz's worse ratio this year of 1.04 put him 8th-worst in the league, ahead of only Freeman, Grossman, Palmer, Bradford, Painter and Skelton and Ponder. Blaine Gabbert beat out Fitz in TD:INT ratio, for Pete's sake. So Kelly's numbers were well above average while Fitz's were well below-average. You CAN NOT COMPARE STATS ACROSS ERAS. Not without coming up with horribly distorted conclusions anyway.

Oh, and no, the Bills actually didn't finish 14th in OFFENSIVE points last year. They finished 14th in total points, but our defense kicked butt and scored scored 6 TDs and a safety last year, and when you add that to the one punt return TD, our points scored NOT by the offense was third in the league. I don't know what we did score in OFFENSIVE points, but it wasn't 14th.

And anyway, the problem with the offense's points scored is the same thing that happened to Fitz above. In the first three games, our offense alone, not including STs or defensive scoring, scored 35.3 PPG. We were smoking hot. For the rest of the year, 13 long, long games, we averaged 17.0 PPG from the offense. After teams figured out Chan's scheme, our offense was a popgun.

[Thurman#1]

a bad year, so that's why the Raiders gave up 2 first rounders for him. Interesting.

So, you're arguing that because a team with a history of horrible trades and draft moves with an owner in his dotage gave up a lot for Palmer that a year when he was 3rd in INTs in the league, in the bottom ten in TD:INT ratio, 19th in QB rating and in a 3-way tie for 21st in YPA was a good year?

Seriously?

If you twist yourself out of shape any further you're going to turn into a Moebius strip.

[Jm2009]

47 TDs and 38 INTs are not awful numbers? These days? Wow, you and I must have different ideas about what awful is. I consider those pretty awful, the way that the rules are set up now. And no, Kelly's numbers don't even mean close to the same thing as Fitz's did.

In 1992, Kelly was tied for 3rd in TDs in the league. Fitz was 10th, and the worst of it is that out of those 24 TDs, 11 came in the first three games of the season before defenses figured out Chan's scheme.

In 1992, Kelly's TD:INT ratio was 1.21, 23 TDs and 19 INTs. Doesn't sound good until you realize that put him 11th in the league, whereas Fitz's worse ratio this year of 1.04 put him 8th-worst in the league, ahead of only Freeman, Grossman, Palmer, Bradford, Painter and Skelton and Ponder. Blaine Gabbert beat out Fitz in TD:INT ratio, for Pete's sake. So Kelly's numbers were well above average while Fitz's were well below-average. You CAN NOT COMPARE STATS ACROSS ERAS. Not without coming up with horribly distorted conclusions anyway.

Oh, and no, the Bills actually didn't finish 14th in OFFENSIVE points last year. They finished 14th in total points, but our defense kicked butt and scored scored 6 TDs and a safety last year, and when you add that to the one punt return TD, our points scored NOT by the offense was third in the league. I don't know what we did score in OFFENSIVE points, but it wasn't 14th.

And anyway, the problem with the offense's points scored is the same thing that happened to Fitz above. In the first three games, our offense alone, not including STs or defensive scoring, scored 35.3 PPG. We were smoking hot. For the rest of the year, 13 long, long games, we averaged 17.0 PPG from the offense. After teams figured out Chan's scheme, our offense was a popgun.

Very good post!

[Glorydays]

Well Put Thurman#1. But Griff doesn't like facts, logic, common sense or opinions...so you'll have to try another approach.

[Buffalo86]

I didn't just compare the NFL of today to the NFL of the 90s, I compared a HOF QB, one who people repeatedly said would make this team a super bowl contender to our current QB. The fact that Fitz's numbers can even compare says that he's at least an average QB in today's football.

Based on what? The "Because I say say so" principle?

Again, Kelly was #7 & #10 in the years you mentioned. That's top 1/3 of the league.
Fitz was #22 the past 2 years. That's bottom 1/3 of the league.

Please tell us how you looked at those numbers & decided that Fitz must be "at least an average QB in today's NFL." As usual, your argument is devoid of any logic. Feel free to use your standard "if you don't know, I'm not going to explain it to you" response, but it's not fooling anyone.

[Buffalo86]

To further your point: Kelly was the #10 ranked passer in '92 and the #7 ranked passer in '93. Fitz was #22 the past 2 seasons.

then you must think that Romo is one of the best QBs in the league, that Moore is better than Newton, Kolb is better than Flacco or Dalton...

Really? Why in the world MUST I think that?

look at the QB ratings

No need to look at the QB ratings; there's a much larger gap between 7 (or 10) and 22 than there is for any of the people you mentioned. If you don't have a sensible response, you should refrain from posting once in a while.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

No need to look at the QB ratings; there's a much larger gap between 7 (or 10) and 22 than there is for any of the people you mentioned. If you don't have a sensible response, you should refrain from posting once in a while.

I see you two are still at it, lol


entertaining to say the least!


21 days...