Rich Gannon turns out to be a really good comp for Fitz

[pajet]

Quite simply, our success on offense is not because of Fitz. Period. It is what I believe. You believe different.

Other than the elite QB's which team's offensive success is due to the QB?   We don't have an elite QB.  What we do have is a QB who is making plays and not making horrendous decisions that lose games.   Occasionally, making plays that he wouldn't be expected to play.  Could other average slightly above average do the same.  perhaps.  Fitz is what we have and he is doing well...havn't seen anyone say the offense is working because of Fitz.

 

[Integrity28]

Quite simply, our success on offense is not because of Fitz. Period. It is what I believe. You believe different.

I believe, actually this isn't belief - it's fact, that Fitz is part of the offense, and the offense is more successful than it has been in a long time. I never said it is because of Fitz.

I don't think anyone is making the argument that it is all because of Fitz, so, like I said: counterpoint to an argument nobody is making.

Those arguments that we can swap out any other veteran QB are hypothetical. Look around the league. Fitz is out-performing established starters, while other "journeyman backup" types are failing miserably. For instance, look at Cassel. He has Dez, Terrance Williams, a better OL, and a capable RB. The results are laughable. This is the NFL, it's just not as simple as "swapping A for B and get the same results".

Those arguments that we can't do [fill in the blank] because of Fitz are all based on false premise, like "we cannot win unless we score 30". Well, what if we score 20, but our opponent scores 17? It's almost infantile how bad the logic is in some of these arguments.

This isn't about beliefs either. This is about acceptance. My acknowledgement of reality vs. your refusal of it. I'm not making opinion-based arguments here. I'm simply pointing out that the offense is good, and people like you lose your minds.

[j4jets]

Right now, on a message board like this one, Broncos fans are probably wondering how they could beat a team like ours in the postseason with Brock Osweiler as their QB. 

We have as much of a chance as anyone with the talent and coaching assembled.  With Dalton going down, The only teams in the AFC with scary offenses are New England and Pittsburgh.  Those are certainly the top 2 candidates to represent the conference in the Super Bowl in my eyes (though Pittsburgh has to GET to the postseason first, much like us).  But couldn't we be considered the 3rd or 4th most dangerous AFC team if we get in? 

I said it in another thread that Brincis n Cincy can take a major fall these last three wks n possibly win just one game (the one they play against each other). Jets are a hot team but so are the Chiefs n the Steelers. One of those two hot teams will win their division imo. 

[nyjunc]

Before OAK?  Please elaborate.  Was it his illustrious 16 TD/16 INT performance in his 3rd year?  Or how about his awesome 10TD/6INT performance in year 10 before going to OAK?  Or how about his first season with OAK, going 8-8 with 24TD/14INT in year one with 3800 yds, all of which Fitz has or is on pace to surpass?  Because ironically Fitz has played the same amount of seasons before coming to NY as Gannon has pre-OAK.  And he's been vastly better than Gannon has up to the point, and is better overall in all stats and has at least matched Gannon's record thus far in his first season.  And frankly so long as Macc adds the right pieces and keeps the core together I certainly can see a situation where we could legitimately be a 12-4 team in year 2....with Fitz at the helm.  Has Fitz accomplished what Gannon has in an entire career?  No.  Is he certainly in a similar position and shown signs he could become dominant with time and the right pieces?  Absolutely.  To deny that is just bias argumentative nonsense.  Everything up the 11 seasons into their career comparatively shows Fitz has been better than Gannon to that point, and has shown the potential that he could be doing this at a high level for a few more years with solid talent around him.  Just like Gannon did when they added Rice and Garner to go along with HOF WR Tim Brown. 

I was discussing him in Oakland, before Oak he was still better than Fitz pre NYJ and in oak he was better than Fitz NYJ.

 

stop posting out of context #s.  Fitz has put up better #s in a passing era playing for teams he couldn't help win so he has been putting up meaningless #s.

Fitz has had a very good season, when he becomes a 1st team all pro and has us as a SB contender I'll compare him to Gannon.  I hope it happens.

Gannon was 1st team all pro WITHOUT Rice and Garner, I don't know why you keep ignoring this fact.

[SoFlaJets]

This is the JetInsiderNation Era of message board posting

[Snell41]

I was discussing him in Oakland, before Oak he was still better than Fitz pre NYJ and in oak he was better than Fitz NYJ.

 

stop posting out of context #s.  Fitz has put up better #s in a passing era playing for teams he couldn't help win so he has been putting up meaningless #s.

Fitz has had a very good season, when he becomes a 1st team all pro and has us as a SB contender I'll compare him to Gannon.  I hope it happens.

Gannon was 1st team all pro WITHOUT Rice and Garner, I don't know why you keep ignoring this fact.

What is out of context?  Both players played for 10 years prior to their success.  You say Gannon was more successful than Fitz prior to getting to vs Fitz getting to NY, which is patently false.  It's not even debatable, just go ahead and look at their stats leading up.  Fitz's first season with the Jets is better in almost every category than Gannon's first season with OAK.  Fitz's record with NY is for all intents and purposes going to be better than Gannon's.  You then cite eras but then want to backtrack and say a HOF isn't as good as Brandon Marshall, when Marshall is clearly playing in an easier era per your own words.  Pre Rica and Garner he still had a HOF WR and a thousand yard rusher along with a solid defense led by what would become a HOF level CB in Woodson.  The comparison to this point is mind bogglingly accurate.  You can't find a better comparison to this point, it's spot on.  It certainly doesn't predicate the fact that Fitz will have 3-4 more years that par out with Gannon, but the argument that he could put up equally similar number to this season for the next 3 years with the talent we currently have plus the addition of solid talent along the way via FA and the draft (ie similar to how OAK eventually added Garner and Rice) is extremely valid.  And if he does it makes the comparison to Gannon even more valid. 

You just don't like the guy, I get it.  You want to put every ounce of his very solid success on anything but him.  But the bottom line is he's the one throwing the ball, he's the one deciding where to throw it, he's the one that has been protecting the ball extremely well, and he's been the one behind the majority of our success.  The guy has been around for a long time, and for the first time he has a solid guy calling plays and some solid talent around him.  And he's succeeding at the highest level a QB has for the Jets since Vinny.  He has improved throughout the season, and he's playing his best football in December.  What friggin more do you want from the guy? 

[nyjunc]

What is out of context?  Both players played for 10 years prior to their success.  You say Gannon was more successful than Fitz prior to getting to vs Fitz getting to NY, which is patently false.  It's not even debatable, just go ahead and look at their stats leading up.  Fitz's first season with the Jets is better in almost every category than Gannon's first season with OAK.  Fitz's record with NY is for all intents and purposes going to be better than Gannon's.  You then cite eras but then want to backtrack and say a HOF isn't as good as Brandon Marshall, when Marshall is clearly playing in an easier era per your own words.  Pre Rica and Garner he still had a HOF WR and a thousand yard rusher along with a solid defense led by what would become a HOF level CB in Woodson.  The comparison to this point is mind bogglingly accurate.  You can't find a better comparison to this point, it's spot on.  It certainly doesn't predicate the fact that Fitz will have 3-4 more years that par out with Gannon, but the argument that he could put up equally similar number to this season for the next 3 years with the talent we currently have plus the addition of solid talent along the way via FA and the draft (ie similar to how OAK eventually added Garner and Rice) is extremely valid.  And if he does it makes the comparison to Gannon even more valid. 

You just don't like the guy, I get it.  You want to put every ounce of his very solid success on anything but him.  But the bottom line is he's the one throwing the ball, he's the one deciding where to throw it, he's the one that has been protecting the ball extremely well, and he's been the one behind the majority of our success.  The guy has been around for a long time, and for the first time he has a solid guy calling plays and some solid talent around him.  And he's succeeding at the highest level a QB has for the Jets since Vinny.  He has improved throughout the season, and he's playing his best football in December.  What friggin more do you want from the guy? 

you are too fixated on meaningless fantasy #s in completely different eras for QBs.

Rich gannon was 31-27 pre Oakland which included helping a team to the playoffs.

Fitz pre Jets was 33-55-1 and never won more than 6 games in any season and never was even in a playoff race.

I don't care that in meaningless games he put up decent fantasy #s.

Brandon marshall 2015 is better than Jerry Rice 2002 or Tim Brown 1999-2002

Darrelle Revis is better than Charles Woodson ever was even "struggling" as he is this year.

you came back at me w/ the Garner and Rice excuse and ignore that Gannon was FIRST TEAM ALL PRO without them.  he would be 1st team all pro w/ them and win league MVP 2 years later.

 

I like Fitz, I am happy w/ Fitz.  I am not anti Fitz in any way, I wasn't sold on him until the last 6-8 weeks but I am all in on him now but he's not Rich Gannon, not even close. 

[Doggin94it]

YPA my ass ...what's Fitz red zone numbers ...how many TD's has he thrown ? How many huge first downs has he run for ? Whats his TD to int ratio ?

The Jets Offense is number 1 in the NFL in the redzone When were we ever able to say that ? Every one of the stats listed above are more important than YPA in a ball control offense . The Jets offense is not built to do what you expect, they are built to control the football and they do it very well in fact they do it better than they ever have and since you have been such a loud mouth about it ALL being about the QB and the QB making everyone else around him better we finally get that and you still find reason to complain about something..

YPA is a very legitimate stat, especially when used in connection with completion percentage, and relatively predictive for QB success.

maybe he was awful? but he was 31-27 as a starter. that's better than 33-55, right?

No, actually, it isn't.  For most players, QB wins just aren't a thing.  Yes, there are guys like Brady, and Manning, and Rodgers, who are essentially the reason their team wins games.  And you can't get to that elite tier without being one of those guys - and that's typically reflected in extreme winning records.  And on the opposite end, there are god-awful QBs who are largely responsible for their team's losses and have extreme losing records. But for everyone else - the QBs who win or lose games as a team, contributing to both wins and losses but not determining either - QB wins are a meaningless stat. 

And what both 31-27 and 33-55 say is "this QB isn't a guy who determines wins and losses"; they're in the mediocre middle, and their W-L records don't meaningfully aid analysis of their play and skills - meaning that, for purposes of predictive analysis, there's no real difference between those records.

Gannon had limited success w/ limited opportunities, Fitz had no success w/ numerous opportunities.  I understand the basic comparison but when examining the situations closer it's probably not the best comparison.  a Steve Beuerlein would be a better comparison.  I think people forget how great Gannon was in Oakland.

Like I said earlier, people are just missing the point.  I'm not comparing Fitz to Gannon in Oakland.  I'm comparing pre-Jets Fitz to pre-Oakland Gannon. 

[nyjunc]

YPA is a very legitimate stat, especially when used in connection with completion percentage, and relatively predictive for QB success.

No, actually, it isn't.  For most players, QB wins just aren't a thing.  Yes, there are guys like Brady, and Manning, and Rodgers, who are essentially the reason their team wins games.  And you can't get to that elite tier without being one of those guys - and that's typically reflected in extreme winning records.  And on the opposite end, there are god-awful QBs who are largely responsible for their team's losses and have extreme losing records. But for everyone else - the QBs who win or lose games as a team, contributing to both wins and losses but not determining either - QB wins are a meaningless stat. 

And what both 31-27 and 33-55 say is "this QB isn't a guy who determines wins and losses"; they're in the mediocre middle, and their W-L records don't meaningfully aid analysis of their play and skills - meaning that, for purposes of predictive analysis, there's no real difference between those records.

Like I said earlier, people are just missing the point.  I'm not comparing Fitz to Gannon in Oakland.  I'm comparing pre-Jets Fitz to pre-Oakland Gannon. 

the game is about winning not meaningless individual stats.  if you aren't helping your team compete then you are useless.

31-27, a WINNING record, is A LOT better than 33-55(38% win %).

so while Gannon was a journeyman as well he was a better journeyman and when he went to Oakland and they were starting to get good he became a great QB for a few years.  Fitz has come to a team w/ more talent than the '99 or '00 Raiders and has been good to very good.

pre oak Gannon was better than pre-Jets Fitz.  again, a better comparison would be a Steve Beurlein type.

[Snell41]

the game is about winning not meaningless individual stats.  if you aren't helping your team compete then you are useless.

31-27, a WINNING record, is A LOT better than 33-55(38% win %).

so while Gannon was a journeyman as well he was a better journeyman and when he went to Oakland and they were starting to get good he became a great QB for a few years.  Fitz has come to a team w/ more talent than the '99 or '00 Raiders and has been good to very good.

pre oak Gannon was better than pre-Jets Fitz.  again, a better comparison would be a Steve Beurlein type.

Oh ok.  So what you're saying is first year in NY Fitz is at least equal to or most likely better than first year in OAK Gannon, right? 

[nyjunc]

Oh ok.  So what you're saying is first year in NY Fitz is at least equal to or most likely better than first year in OAK Gannon, right? 

Nope.

[thshadow]

Quite simply, our success on offense is not because of Fitz. Period. It is what I believe. You believe different.

If you're saying that our offense would be just as successful if we had any of the top 10-15 QBs in the NFL, I think everyone would agree.

If you think our offense would be as successful with any of 30 - 40 QBs, I seriously disagree.  Do you really think you can name 30 QBs would would be doing better than Fitz?

[Snell41]

Nope.

Of course not, it wouldn't fit your constantly waivering standards of the comparison.  It's stats, wait no it's not stats.  It's wins, wait no it's not wins.  Got it. 

[nyjunc]

If you're saying that our offense would be just as successful if we had any of the top 10-15 QBs in the NFL, I think everyone would agree.

If you think our offense would be as successful with any of 30 - 40 QBs, I seriously disagree.  Do you really think you can name 30 QBs would would be doing better than Fitz?

I don't know if I agree w/ that.  I believe in intangibles and Fitz has been huge for us.  I think the #1 reason why the O has been really good is Marshall but Fitz is up there.

[nyjunc]

Of course not, it wouldn't fit your constantly waivering standards of the comparison.  It's stats, wait no it's not stats.  It's wins, wait no it's not wins.  Got it. 

just b/c you are lost in this discussion doesn't mean I am wavering.  I am always consistent.  the one wavering is the one that told me Gannon was great b/c of Rice and garner while ignoring he was 1st team all pro w/o those 2 players.

[Snell41]

just b/c you are lost in this discussion doesn't mean I am wavering.  I am always consistent.  the one wavering is the one that told me Gannon was great b/c of Rice and garner while ignoring he was 1st team all pro w/o those 2 players.

No, I said Gannon was great because he walked into a situation where he had one of the best bright young minds in offense coaching him, along with a HOF WR and soon to be 2 HOF WR's and one of the best receiving RB's of the generation.  Gannon sucked before he showed up in OAK.  The season before he had 10 TD's in 12 games.  His highest TD total was 16 TD's in any season prior to that.  You go on with conjecture that Gannon was a better QB pre OAK than Fitz was pre NY using W/L as your example, when clearly Gannon was nothing but a detriment to any team he played for given the stats he put up.  10 friggin TD's in 12 games before showing up in OAK.  You're argument is so convoluted and flat out wrong it's not even funny.  Nobody is predicting Fitz will put up Gannon type numbers in the next 3 years.  Nobody.  The comparison is simply up to this point in each of their careers the numbers and results are ridiculously similar, so much so that it's comical.  Yet you want to argue it tooth and nail.  This goes back to your days arguing up and down how we'd rue the day we let Herm Edwards go off to KC.  I remember those well.  You were wrong then, and your wrong now.  Just stand there in your wrongness and be wrong and get used to it. 

[Doggin94it]

the game is about winning not meaningless individual stats.  if you aren't helping your team compete then you are useless.

31-27, a WINNING record, is A LOT better than 33-55(38% win %).

so while Gannon was a journeyman as well he was a better journeyman and when he went to Oakland and they were starting to get good he became a great QB for a few years.  Fitz has come to a team w/ more talent than the '99 or '00 Raiders and has been good to very good.

pre oak Gannon was better than pre-Jets Fitz.  again, a better comparison would be a Steve Beurlein type.

So do you look at team wins for rbs? Wrs? DEs? Wilkerson is a career 34-43. Is he useless?

Or is there a reason you think wins matter only for qbs, and everyone else is playing for meaningless stats?

[nyjunc]

you just keep posting out of context, meaningless stats and keep talking about Garner and Rice while ignoring the fact he was 1st team all pro w/o them.

 

You obviously don't remember well b/c I never said we'd "rue the day" we let Herm go.  I was actually fine w/ herm going b/c he wanted to go.  My argument about herm was that he did a good job for us which is a fact,  I never once called him a top coach or said we'd suck w/o him but you must deflect from your weak argument here so carry on.

[Doggin94it]

Nope.

But gannon won only 8 games that year. Fitz already won that many, and everything else is meaningless

[nyjunc]

So do you look at team wins for rbs? Wrs? DEs? Wilkerson is a career 34-43. Is he useless?

 

Or is there a reason you think wins matter only for qbs, and everyone else is playing for meaningless stats?

QBs are judged on how they win.  No one is more important to wins and losses than QBs