Foles got benched

[Jet Nut]

he got his stats from 2 games one of which was the saints defense which has made every qb even sh*tty Kirk cousins look Marino

 

Watch the games.  Don't just read stats that pop up on your Google search

can you imagine?  We're going to pick apart who he's played and that he's only set rookie records in about half of his 7 game career.  Proving he sucks.

Watching games would change this.  

[drdetroit]

can you imagine?  We're going to pick apart who he's played and that he's only set rookie records in about half of his 7 game career.  Proving he sucks.

Watching games would change this.  

unless he's facing a historically bad defense Mariota has not looked good at all.  Want to mitigate it by saying he's just a rookie fine.  Want to say it doesn't matter who he plays well that's not true

[Jet Nut]

Bills aren't a historically bad defense, just sounds good.  Hes had one crazy over the top game against NO.  So what,  not talking one game.  And once again, almost all starting rookie NFL QBs face bad defenses.  No it doesn't matter.  Never read the pass D ratings of teams QBs play.  Until this kind of argument comes up.  

But hey, you don't like him apparently and just can't admit he's looked better than predicted.  

 

[Jetman55]

In terms of those 2 players alone, I'd agree. On balance, though, I think it's worked out far better for the Rams. They got the (far) better end of the swap of draft picks, and over $10M of cap relief. 

agreed

[Jetman55]

Did a lot of studying on Taylor coming into our game. Has a high completion %, pretty good deep ball accuracy (despite the opening throw Thursday night), nice TD-Int ratio...but the obvious flaws in his game is that he doesn't make quick decisions (which leads to unnecessary sacks), he doesn't often throw intermediate to deep in the middle of the field (height probably factors in there), and he's not going to throw his WRs open (needs separation).  Given that many thought the Bills had the worst QB situation in the league coming into the season, Taylor has  definitely exceeded expectations. That said, he's clearly a flawed player. I look at it like this: I'd  probably swap Fitz for him because there's still a chance Taylor can get better with more game experience...but I wouldn't swap Petty for him as I still favor Bryce's upside. 

the announcers made a good point, and this point holds true for Geno and Kapernick as well, They all need to see the WRs open before throwing.  They don't throw WRs open or anticipate well at all.  Until they trust what they see and throw to where the WR will be open before they're open, they will never be elite or even tier 2.  Is Taylor conservative?  Sure.  But is he a franchise QB or appear to be on a path to being a franchise QB?  Judging by how he is being used in Romans offense, my thought is he's a 7-9, 8-8, 9-7 QB even with a top 10 D and all star cast or RBs, OL, and WRs...the bills have the most talent in the AFC east, IMO, and what keeps them from being great is Taylor and Rex, IMO...

[Sperm Edwards]

ok, sperm. the fitz trade sucked. a valuable 7th round pick wasted. fitz is 5-4. geno is 0-0. is that better?

since they changed the board format, I don't know how to post quotes. its actually on page 2, not page 3.sorry.they didn't say geno played no part in the loss. they said geno shouldn't have had to play and the loss was on fitz.. after reading your above comments, I think you would agree with this poster.

 

Did I suggest the Fitzpatrick trade sucked? For you to exaggerate like that, and sarcastically argue against a position I'm not taking, is less than awesome. And it seems to fall in line with the exaggerated - and false - claim that anyone at all suggested Geno played no part in the loss. 

You're again wrong, in that I don't agree with that poster, because I don't accept as fact that Fitz would have necessarily had any better of a game than Geno had. Even if he did, it's still no given it would have been enough to outscore Oakland. What I said to you was not suggesting that; rather, that since you were blaming Geno for the loss at least in some part, and think it would have - or may have - turned out differently with Fitzpatrick, then Fitzpatrick therefore indirectly carries blame using your own rationale. Me? I don't think that much of Fitzpatrick to begin with (on the field), so I don't share that opinion. 

And there's a button in each thread that says "QUOTE" & to multi-quote use the "+" button to the left of the QUOTE button.

[ylekram]

Did I suggest the Fitzpatrick trade sucked? For you to exaggerate like that, and sarcastically argue against a position I'm not taking, is less than awesome. And it seems to fall in line with the exaggerated - and false - claim that anyone at all suggested Geno played no part in the loss. 

You're again wrong, in that I don't agree with that poster, because I don't accept as fact that Fitz would have necessarily had any better of a game than Geno had. Even if he did, it's still no given it would have been enough to outscore Oakland. What I said to you was not suggesting that; rather, that since you were blaming Geno for the loss at least in some part, and think it would have - or may have - turned out di

[ylekram]

Did I suggest the Fitzpatrick trade sucked? For you to exaggerate like that, and sarcastically argue against a position I'm not taking, is less than awesome. And it seems to fall in line with the exaggerated - and false - claim that anyone at all suggested Geno played no part in the loss. 

You're again wrong, in that I don't agree with that poster, because I don't accept as fact that Fitz would have necessarily had any better of a game than Geno had. Even if he did, it's still no given it would have been enough to outscore Oakland. What I said to you was not suggesting that; rather, that since you were blaming Geno for the loss at least in some part, and think it would have - or may have - turned out differently with Fitzpatrick, then Fitzpatrick therefore indirectly carries blame using your own rationale. Me? I don't think that much of Fitzpatrick to begin with (on the field), so I don't share that opinion. 

And there's a button in each thread that says "QUOTE" & to multi-quote use the "+" button to the left of the QUOTE button.

my apologies for the sarcasm. it was that kinda morning and you were way off track on what was just a wise ass remark left to someone else

there was no false claim on my part. its on page 2 and you responded to my post in which I responded to said post

the rest of this post you lost me on

and I still cant figure out the new quote system. so there's that

[jgb]

Because it is lazy.

You honestly think the Rams' offense would be as good or better than that of the Jets if only Ryan Fitzpatrick was there? By the numbers, our offense isn't noticeably better than that of the 2010 Jets with Ryan and Schottenheimer coaching Mark Sanchez, Braylon Edwards, and Santonio Holmes (who missed 1/4 of the season to boot).

You are equating performance in an easy situation with performance in a terrible situation and suggesting those relative situations play no part, despite everyone knowing one is far cushier than the other. 

This seems to be the theory: Foles playing poorly with the Rams means he also would have performed poorly with the Jets. But Foles performing at an elite level just 2 seasons prior (with an intact OL he didn't have in 2014) cannot be extrapolated as past performance that indicates future performance. It is a contradictory position to take.

Far more likely is what past performance has shown: Foles can perform far better than Fitzpatrick in the right situation and worse than Fitzpatrick in the wrong situation. 

Right so you base it on your subjective view of "how good" the player's situation was. You can get any results you want by self-declaring this or that situation "good" "bad" or "average" to account for or to dismiss a player's actual performance.

I think I prefer the "lazy" approach but feel free to do what you wish. Not sure why you wanted to pick this fight, but I'm not going to take the bait by going down to that level. Cheers!

 

[jgb]

it's not lazy.  Lazy is looking at Foles stats from 2 years ago and saying "we don't run the offense but gosh darn if he's even half as good we are a super bowl team"

 

Foles wasn't required to make reads in Kelly's offense.  When he was he sucked just like he is now in St Louis or anywhere else.  Gailey's offense is not Kelly's offense.

 

you hate Geno -- Foles really isn't much better than Geno.

I think they both suck

[Sperm Edwards]

my apologies for the sarcasm. it was that kinda morning and you were way off track on what was just a wise ass remark left to someone else

there was no false claim on my part. its on page 2 and you responded to my post in which I responded to said post

the rest of this post you lost me on

and I still cant figure out the new quote system. so there's that

Even if one new poster had that opinion I don't see how that transfers to others, as you'd originally alluded to. 

You understood what I meant with the rest. If you think he was a significant reason why we lost, and if Fitzpatrick is so much better & would/could have turned that result around, then Fitzpatrick shares blame for unnecessarily getting himself knocked out of the game. Presumably Fitzpatrick knows who the backup is and cannot risk his health on one play just to get an extra yard (but is still nowhere near the end zone). 

New quote system (you just quoted me so it's not all bad). If you want to quote 2 people, use the + button to the left of the quote button. Then you get a popup that asks if you want to reply to 2 quotes selected and you click that. 

[Maxman]

Chip Kelly was brought in to Philly because he was supposedly an offensive genius.  With that being the case, I always wondered why he wanted anything to do with Sanchez. Found out why today.

In his Monday presser, a reporter asked Chip if he was concerned about the fact that Sanchez has had a career filled with backbreaking, poorly timed INT's.  

His response was classic and helped bring everything in to focus.

"I never studied Mark's time with the New York Jets".

Awesome.

Did he really say that?

[AFJF]

Did he really say that?

He did.  Reporter asked him during his press conference about how Sanchez played while he was with the Jets and Chip just said "I didn't scout Mark's time with the Jets".  Local sports guy said that's basically "malpractice" which I agree with.  An NFL QB with several years of experience and you don't look to see how he did in certain situations, against certain defenses or certain routes?  I guess Chip and a few fans think his HS tape and the few starts he had at USC justifies the money they gave him.  I'd disagree, but to each his own.

[Sperm Edwards]

Right so you base it on your subjective view of "how good" the player's situation was. You can get any results you want by self-declaring this or that situation "good" "bad" or "average" to account for or to dismiss a player's actual performance.

I think I prefer the "lazy" approach but feel free to do what you wish. Not sure why you wanted to pick this fight, but I'm not going to take the bait by going down to that level. Cheers!

 

I'm not dismissing his performance. He's bad in his current situation. That doesn't mean he would be as bad in a good situation. Likewise, Fitzpatrick has been some good some bad in a (comparatively) very good situation (good WRs, mostly good running game, and facing weak D's). That does not therefore mean he would look as good on the Rams.

The league has much in its history of players doing well in favorable situations and poorly in lousy situations. It is far more of a predictor than someone with a history of good and bad performing badly in a bad situation now, and guessing he might perform better (or good) in a favorable one. 

    - Thomas Jones: suddenly terrible in 2007 and then suddenly great in 2008, or did the situations around him just change? Everyone knows the answer, including you.

    - Mark Sanchez in 2012: an indicator of how he would perform regardless of the team (and coaching) around him? I think he sucks, but even I'm not thick enough to think that he would have performed as badly if he had 2 legitimate, above-average WRs (and a good receiver out of the backfield) in place of the mess he was throwing to in 2012.

Your reasoning - which, yes, I referred to as "lazy" reasoning - suggests that 2 players in 2 very different situations would have performed about the same if they swapped situations. That, on the Rams, Fitzpatrick would be performing on par with what he's doing on the Jets, and on the Jets, Foles would be performing no better than he's been on the Rams. You're likely in the small minority of people who believe this. That reasoning would also lead someone to believe Cade McNown deserved a $15M/year contract in free agency last year, given his numbers while filling in for Cutler 2 years ago.

 

[jgb]

I'm not dismissing his performance. He's bad in his current situation. That doesn't mean he would be as bad in a good situation. Likewise, Fitzpatrick has been some good some bad in a (comparatively) very good situation (good WRs, mostly good running game, and facing weak D's). That does not therefore mean he would look as good on the Rams.

The league has much in its history of players doing well in favorable situations and poorly in lousy situations. It is far more of a predictor than someone with a history of good and bad performing badly in a bad situation now, and guessing he might perform better (or good) in a favorable one. 

    - Thomas Jones: suddenly terrible in 2007 and then suddenly great in 2008, or did the situations around him just change? Everyone knows the answer, including you.

    - Mark Sanchez in 2012: an indicator of how he would perform regardless of the team (and coaching) around him? I think he sucks, but even I'm not thick enough to think that he would have performed as badly if he had 2 legitimate, above-average WRs (and a good receiver out of the backfield) in place of the mess he was throwing to in 2012.

Your reasoning - which, yes, I referred to as "lazy" reasoning - suggests that 2 players in 2 very different situations would have performed about the same if they swapped situations. That, on the Rams, Fitzpatrick would be performing on par with what he's doing on the Jets, and on the Jets, Foles would be performing no better than he's been on the Rams. You're likely in the small minority of people who believe this. That reasoning would also lead someone to believe Cade McNown deserved a $15M/year contract in free agency last year, given his numbers while filling in for Cutler 2 years ago.

 

k

[jgb]

Even if one new poster had that opinion I don't see how that transfers to others, as you'd originally alluded to. 

You understood what I meant with the rest. If you think he was a significant reason why we lost, and if Fitzpatrick is so much better & would/could have turned that result around, then Fitzpatrick shares blame for unnecessarily getting himself knocked out of the game. Presumably Fitzpatrick knows who the backup is and cannot risk his health on one play just to get an extra yard (but is still nowhere near the end zone). 

New quote system (you just quoted me so it's not all bad). If you want to quote 2 people, use the + button to the left of the quote button. Then you get a popup that asks if you want to reply to 2 quotes selected and you click that. 

what's up with the crusade against nothing? It's a fan board for opinions  relax bro

[drdetroit]

I think they both suck

Foles sucks more

[jgb]

Foles sucks more

k. and cat poop smells worse than dog poop. what's your point?

[Mogglez]

Even if one new poster had that opinion I don't see how that transfers to others, as you'd originally alluded to. 

You understood what I meant with the rest. If you think he was a significant reason why we lost, and if Fitzpatrick is so much better & would/could have turned that result around, then Fitzpatrick shares blame for unnecessarily getting himself knocked out of the game. Presumably Fitzpatrick knows who the backup is and cannot risk his health on one play just to get an extra yard (but is still nowhere near the end zone). 

New quote system (you just quoted me so it's not all bad). If you want to quote 2 people, use the + button to the left of the quote button. Then you get a popup that asks if you want to reply to 2 quotes selected and you click that. 

He's referring to my post. I'm going to make it easy on the guy who can't figure out a pretty basic quoting system.  He's also twisting my words to fit his argument.

You and I are pretty much in agreement here Sperm.  While I do firmly believe now that Fitzpatrick is a slight upgrade from Geno, Ultimately, I don't believe him being in the game or not would have changed the outcome of the game. However, I also don't think Geno deserves the majority of the blame for the loss like he suggested with his "Geno is 0-1/Fitz is 5-3" comment.  Honestly, the O-Line not being able to open up things for our running game and the defense completely sh*tting the bed are the primary reasons we lost against Oakland; not the QB play.  My point was basically to say if you're going to go ahead and blame EVERYTHING on a guy who is straight up COLD off the bench (and actually played admirably) then f' it, I'll go ahead and argue that the starter who got himself hurt over centimeters and let this supposed "nightmare" on the field should receive a ton of blame too.

 

TL;DR:

I tried to show him how ridiculous his argument was by using ridiculous logic too.

[Sperm Edwards]

He's referring to my post. I'm going to make it easy on the guy who can't figure out a pretty basic quoting system.  He's also twisting my words to fit his argument.

You and I are pretty much in agreement here Sperm.  While I do firmly believe now that Fitzpatrick is a slight upgrade from Geno, Ultimately, I don't believe him being in the game or not would have changed the outcome of the game. However, I also don't think Geno deserves the majority of the blame for the loss like he suggested with his "Geno is 0-1/Fitz is 5-3" comment.  Honestly, the O-Line not being able to open up things for our running game and the defense completely sh*tting the bed are the primary reasons we lost against Oakland; not the QB play.  My point was basically to say if you're going to go ahead and blame EVERYTHING on a guy who is straight up COLD off the bench (and actually played admirably) then f' it, I'll go ahead and argue that the starter who got himself hurt over centimeters and let this supposed "nightmare" on the field should receive a ton of blame too.

 

TL;DR:

I tried to show him how ridiculous his argument was by using ridiculous logic too.

I wasn't arguing that Fitz deserves blame. Just that any logic in placing any significant blame on Geno for the loss would necessarily mean Fitzpatrick shares some burden for putting Geno in there in the first place. Had Fitz gotten knocked out getting blindsided on a sack, or any number of other bad-luck ways, then you couldn't fault him. It's kind of a rough sport. But getting injured for no good reason the way he did? It's just stupid on his part, and he should know better by now.

Whatever. For all his education and wonderful Wonderlic, Fitz is just neither a smart QB, nor one who processes things quickly, once the ball is snapped. One thing I'll give him is he seems to realize some of his own handicap in this regard, and therefore tends to get rid of it very quickly. That isn't all a good thing, as plays don't have time to develop and he only occasionally sees & throws to his 2nd (let alone 3rd) WR in his progressions, throwing contested passes instead of easy completions. But if the alternative is taking sack after sack, he's doing the right thing.

[Sperm Edwards]

I thought Geno did fine on balance. Not great, but not terrible either. For a bad QB, coming in cold, he was fine. While no one but Geno made the initial facepalm pick, he also wasn't aided from some pretty stupid early play calling. He didn't take the 1st team reps like Fitz did, and it was his first live action outright since the 2014 season. He's probably the only NFL QB who didn't get even a single snap in a preseason game. And he stinks. So what does Gailey do? He has him repeatedly throwing deep before he's afforded any type of rhythm and the D gets marched right back onto the field again. Geno's own shortcomings aside, I'm sorry but that's just dumb. 

After the pick, Gailey let him do what he should have from the start, and what he's been finally letting Fitzpatrick do for the most part of late: short and mid-range passes to get into a rhythm. See how the QB's looking and feeling in the pocket before you have him repeatedly (unsuccessfully) heave it 30 yards downfield. 

In the end, Geno showed he still has a severe mental block in terms of the team + game situation. Gailey has to bear a good amount of responsibility for that showing up on the field, because he has to know his own QB's liabilities and can't treat Geno like he has Brady's awareness. Yeah, he's a dope. And probably nervous, too. It is what it is. He needs to hear it as the last thing before every single snap (when the situation calls for it): we are in FG range, or we're losing and running out of time. You cannot take a sack. If it's not there, throw it away. Geno also needs to realize Fitz just got knocked out of the game, and it does the team little good to get himself knocked out as well: with the sideline 4 inches to his right, he has to step OOB on his own after running for a 30 yard gain instead of getting creamed. He may realize it in a film room, but on the field he realizes little.

I'm sure Gailey would like Geno to know this on his own, but that isn't the case, and he needs to coach accordingly. The sad thing is Gailey should also realize by now - as a teacher of sorts - that by constantly reinforcing this into any young QB's ear, the student will eventually start to get it, or get it more, just from hearing it over & over. 

But he doesn't know it on his own, and doesn't seem to be getting this constant reminder.  So he takes late sacks, gets his clock cleaned downfield unnecessarily, ... hey, whatever: he blows. If he ever does start to get it someday, it surely won't be this season.  

Fitz also blows, but in terms of the whole package (factoring in how the team and coaches respond to him), it seems clear he blows less than Geno. 

[Jet Nut]

I wasn't arguing that Fitz deserves blame. Just that any logic in placing any significant blame on Geno for the loss would necessarily mean Fitzpatrick shares some burden for putting Geno in there in the first place. Had Fitz gotten knocked out getting blindsided on a sack, or any number of other bad-luck ways, then you couldn't fault him. It's kind of a rough sport. But getting injured for no good reason the way he did? It's just stupid on his part, and he should know better by now.

Whatever. For all his education and wonderful Wonderlic, Fitz is just neither a smart QB, nor one who processes things quickly, once the ball is snapped. One thing I'll give him is he seems to realize some of his own handicap in this regard, and therefore tends to get rid of it very quickly. That isn't all a good thing, as plays don't have time to develop and he only occasionally sees & throws to his 2nd (let alone 3rd) WR in his progressions, throwing contested passes instead of easy completions. But if the alternative is taking sack after sack, he's doing the right thing.

I find it interesting that Geno was blamed for not running out of bounds, taking a hit while trying to maximize the amount of yards on his sideline run.  But ignore that Fitz should have slid on the play he was injured.  The comeback was Geno should have known there wasnt a backup behind him.  

Theres just too many that have to blame Geno for everything or just wont admit he can do anything right.  Makes it hard to discuss what actually happens in games like Oakland

[Matt39]

I find it interesting that Geno was blamed for not running out of bounds, taking a hit while trying to maximize the amount of yards on his sideline run.  But ignore that Fitz should have slid on the play he was injured.  The comeback was Geno should have known there wasnt a backup behind him.  

Theres just too many that have to blame Geno for everything or just wont admit he can do anything right.  Makes it hard to discuss what actually happens in games like Oakland

He didnt know the rules regarding the out of bounds play...and then did it again. You really cant put a guy out there with the other 10 guys...especially at QB who doesnt even know the rules.

[Jet Nut]

He didnt know the rules regarding the out of bounds play...and then did it again. You really cant put a guy out there with the other 10 guys...especially at QB who doesnt even know the rules.

Yeah, he goes for the extra yard, doesn't know he can be hit on field and has to be kept off the field.  How many other lame reasons can we come up with for hating on a player.  

And it was one example how the story gets twisted depending on the QB.  Or how does it excuse Fitz for not protecting himself? The post makes my point 

[ylekram]

He's referring to my post. I'm going to make it easy on the guy who can't figure out a pretty basic quoting system.  He's also twisting my words to fit his argument.

You and I are pretty much in agreement here Sperm.  While I do firmly believe now that Fitzpatrick is a slight upgrade from Geno, Ultimately, I don't believe him being in the game or not would have changed the outcome of the game. However, I also don't think Geno deserves the majority of the blame for the loss like he suggested with his "Geno is 0-1/Fitz is 5-3" comment.  Honestly, the O-Line not being able to open up things for our running game and the defense completely sh*tting the bed are the primary reasons we lost against Oakland; not the QB play.  My point was basically to say if you're going to go ahead and blame EVERYTHING on a guy who is straight up COLD off the bench (and actually played admirably) then f' it, I'll go ahead and argue that the starter who got himself hurt over centimeters and let this supposed "nightmare" on the field should receive a ton of blame too.

 

TL;DR:

I tried to show him how ridiculous his argument was by using ridiculous logic too.

you see, reading comprehension is the problem. nowhere did I say the jets lost because of geno. i even stated that i think the jets still would of lost if fitz played.I believe the jets lost because of coaching on down to include all the players. on the flip side, you said the loss was on fitz, which is ridiculous. I made the fitz is 5-3/geno 0-1 comment as more of a wise azz reply to a poster who said the fitz trade sucked, in which anyone with one good eye knows it didn't. how ridiculous a comment you think it was,and it wasn't said to be the mother of all proof,  its still accurate. period. you said that fitz not sliding was dumb. I agreed and said geno taking the hit instead of going out of bounds was equally as dumb. then you and sperm run with that as if I said geno was the reason the jets lost. now that's ridiculous.

[ylekram]

He's referring to my post. I'm going to make it easy on the guy who can't figure out a pretty basic quoting system.  He's also twisting my words to fit his argument.

You and I are pretty much in agreement here Sperm.  While I do firmly believe now that Fitzpatrick is a slight upgrade from Geno, Ultimately, I don't believe him being in the game or not would have changed the outcome of the game. However, I also don't think Geno deserves the majority of the blame for the loss like he suggested with his "Geno is 0-1/Fitz is 5-3" comment.  Honestly, the O-Line not being able to open up things for our running game and the defense completely sh*tting the bed are the primary reasons we lost against Oakland; not the QB play.  My point was basically to say if you're going to go ahead and blame EVERYTHING on a guy who is straight up COLD off the bench (and actually played admirably) then f' it, I'll go ahead and argue that the starter who got himself hurt over centimeters and let this supposed "nightmare" on the field should receive a ton of blame too.

 

TL;DR:

I tried to show him how ridiculous his argument was by using ridiculous logic too.

twisting your words.lmao. the only ridiculousness was your angle. did you not say the loss was on Fitzpatrick? did you read once where i said geno lost the game? if anyone is guilty of twisting words, its you

[Matt39]

Yeah, he goes for the extra yard, doesn't know he can be hit on field and has to be kept off the field.  How many other lame reasons can we come up with for hating on a player.  

And it was one example how the story gets twisted depending on the QB.  Or how does it excuse Fitz for not protecting himself? The post makes my point 

He strolled out of bounds. Twice. He didnt know the rules. Fitz has nothing to do with this.

[ylekram]

Even if one new poster had that opinion I don't see how that transfers to others, as you'd originally alluded to. 

You understood what I meant with the rest. If you think he was a significant reason why we lost, and if Fitzpatrick is so much better & would/could have turned that result around, then Fitzpatrick shares blame for unnecessarily getting himself knocked out of the game. Presumably Fitzpatrick knows who the backup is and cannot risk his health on one play just to get an extra yard (but is still nowhere near the end zone). 

New quote system (you just quoted me so it's not all bad). If you want to quote 2 people, use the + button to the left of the quote button. Then you get a popup that asks if you want to reply to 2 quotes selected and you click that. 

first you start off by saying nobody said fitz was the reason the jets lost. but admit you might of missed it. then on your 2nd post, you claimed my comment was false and exaggerated about another poster saying that fitz was responsible for the loss. finally, on this post you blame the comment on a new poster. mogglez is hardly a new poster. been around here for almost as long as i have. then you proceed to tell me that i said that multiple people made the fitz lost the game comment, which i certainly didn't. and to top it off, at no time did i state that geno lost the game. which by reading only your comments, you would think that that was my position. my position is and always was that the fitz trade wasn't a bust and that fitz wasn't the reason the jets lost.

also, i did understand what you were saying. i just didn't see where it argued my point. hence, my comment on how you lost me

[Jet Nut]

He strolled out of bounds. Twice. He didnt know the rules. Fitz has nothing to do with this.

you need to read.  We're talking about he hit he took running up the sideline where he took a big gain.  Compared to Fitz not sliding.  Has everything to do with Fitz.   No one was talking about  two sacks 

[Larz]

best back-up !!!!!

worst starter !!!!!!!

 

repeat

[Jet Nut]

twisting your words.lmao. the only ridiculousness was your angle. did you not say the loss was on Fitzpatrick? did you read once where i said geno lost the game? if anyone is guilty of twisting words, its you

He didn say that Fitz was to blame.  You're twisting his words.  He said it was the wrong decision by Fitz to not slide.  If you're going to blame Geno for taking a hit then don't ignore what Fitz did.  You're wrong

Lmfao. Yeah, let's completely ignore Fitzpatrick's stupid decision to not slide on the play and tack the loss on a guy who had not played a snap of live football since week 17 last year. 

[ylekram]

I find it interesting that Geno was blamed for not running out of bounds, taking a hit while trying to maximize the amount of yards on his sideline run.  But ignore that Fitz should have slid on the play he was injured.  The comeback was Geno should have known there wasnt a backup behind him.  

Theres just too many that have to blame Geno for everything or just wont admit he can do anything right.  Makes it hard to discuss what actually happens in games like Oakland

i have read this thread twice. i didn't see this comment from anyone. unless it was made in a different thread

[ylekram]

He didn say that Fitz was to blame.  You're twisting his words.  He said it was the wrong decision by Fitz to not slide.  If you're going to blame Geno for taking a hit then don't ignore what Fitz did.  You're wrong

 

here is said posters exact quote

 

"Nothing you changes the fact that Fitzpatrick can be equally as stupid on the field and essentially cost us the game trying to fight for centimeters"

how in gods green earth is this "twisting his words"?

how is "essentially cost us the game" not blaming fitz for the loss?

me thinks you're wrong

[Jet Nut]

here is said posters exact quote

 

"Nothing you changes the fact that Fitzpatrick can be equally as stupid on the field and essentially cost us the game trying to fight for centimeters"

how in gods green earth is this "twisting his words"?

how is "essentially cost us the game" not blaming fitz for the loss?

me thinks you're wrong

because if Geno cost us the game by fighting for yardage so is Fitz. One cost us the game and the other is blame free?  Neither cost us the game, relax already

[ylekram]

He didn say that Fitz was to blame.  You're twisting his words.  He said it was the wrong decision by Fitz to not slide.  If you're going to blame Geno for taking a hit then don't ignore what Fitz did.  You're wrong

 

i never did. as a matter of fact, i don't recall anyone having that belief. not in this thread