Ryan Fitzpatrick: MERGED

[Warfish]

5 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

Not if I seriously F-ed up at the end of the job and they had a cheaper developer on staff with potential.

They call this in debate "moving the goalposts".  The answer I gave was in reply to:

"Now if I sign on to a gig and the application is faster or looks prettier than initially planned, do you think the client offers to pay me more?"

Note, no mention of "seriously f'ed up at the end of the job", is there?  Nope.

To continue your contractor analagy, if you "f'ed up seriously", you wouldn't be invited to bid on future projects, or your bids would be ignored/dismissed.  

If the Franhcise felt the loss was solely on Fitz, as many Fans do, they would simply thank him publicly, and allow him to move on in Free Agency, publicly, with no offer or a deeply insulting offer provided only.

Reported Jets offer is in the range of 7-9 mil.  No insulting, very reasonable actually.  

[Mike135]

8 minutes ago, Warfish said:

They call this in debate "moving the goalposts".  The answer I gave was in reply to:

"Now if I sign on to a gig and the application is faster or looks prettier than initially planned, do you think the client offers to pay me more?"

Note, no mention of "seriously f'ed up at the end of the job", is there?  Nope.

To continue your contractor analagy, if you "f'ed up seriously", you wouldn't be invited to bid on future projects, or your bids would be ignored/dismissed.  

If the Franhcise felt the loss was solely on Fitz, as many Fans do, they would simply thank him publicly, and allow him to move on in Free Agency, publicly, with no offer or a deeply insulting offer provided only.

Reported Jets offer is in the range of 7-9 mil.  No insulting, very reasonable actually.  

Yup.  And hopefully it gets lowered soon (if it hasn't already).

[Mike135]

13 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Look they are still in talks. Decker said he thinks they will settle but it could take time. We'll see what happens but I don't see the Jets low balling Fitz and letting him walk.

If I had to bet, sadly I think you're right.  But one can dream.

[cant wait]

1 hour ago, Big Blocker said:

I have been critical of the Jets' failure to more actively explore other vet options if for nothing else than increasing leverage on Fitz.  But at least they have not let the pressure force them into saying stupid sh!t that could have hurt their negotiating position, and I think Macc deserves credit for that.

Didn't they have RG and hoyer in for workouts? I also recall them inquiring about kap, mccown & glennon as well. I just don't think the price was right... Although hoyer for $2M seemed pretty reasonable, maybe they are higher on their current QB's than we think

[Rangers9]

1 hour ago, Mike135 said:

If I had to bet, sadly I think you're right.  But one can dream.

Let me just give you another example even though sports salaries are different than average people like us and much higher but the same principles. OK so say in your business (and you work on contracts) the standard for your kind of work is $100 an hour. And a client offers you half of that or 50 bucks. Now can you survive on that 50 bucks. Sure you can. You and your family won't starve on that. But would you accept that or wait and see if you can get market. So why is Fitz such an ungrateful bastard, then. And if you say he's turning down millions, well in his business there just aren't that many NFL Qbs so salaries are much much higher. In our occupations there is plenty of supply and qualified people who can do our job. So that's why NFL Qbs make 20 million a year and school teachers make 60 k a year. 

[BroadwayBen]

2 hours ago, Rangers9 said:

We don't agree and never will agree. I think Fitz in 2015 was a good Qb. Career wise just ok.

Agreed. Fitz is a career backup who fell into a fortunate situation last season. I just would like to avoid making the same mistake the buccaneers made with Josh McCown in 2014, spending valuable money on him after he lit it up for Chicago to end the 2013 season. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Big Blocker said:

I have been critical of the Jets' failure to more actively explore other vet options if for nothing else than increasing leverage on Fitz.  But at least they have not let the pressure force them into saying stupid sh!t that could have hurt their negotiating position, and I think Macc deserves credit for that.

They did bring in RGIII and leaked it publicly that they inquired into Kaepernick, Glennon (and maybe Hoyer as well but for some reason I can't remember the most recent one offhand). At some point if they too actively explore other options and look so desperate, without actually signing one, it gives Fitz more leverage. The message is: holy crap we can't go into the season with what we've got plus a rookie. We are so desperate...and came up short despite such desperation. 

I think he handled it about right but we'll find out for sure once we have the benefit of hindsight. In the end my guess is Fitz still returns. He gets a face-saving increase over the prior offer, even if it's only nominal, and gets to skip out on some of camp and avoid spring/early-summer injury in the process. 

[Rangers9]

1 minute ago, BroadwayBen said:

Agreed. Fitz is a career backup who fell into a fortunate situation last season. I just would like to avoid making the same mistake the buccaneers made with Josh McCown in 2014, spending valuable money on him after he lit it up for Chicago to end the 2013 season. 

Well Josh McCown is pretty good, I think. I'd take him over Geno but not over Fitz. He might just win that Browns starting job. But I see what you mean. I don't support giving Fitz more than two years. If the hold up is on more than that then there is going to either be a compromise on guaranteed money or next man up. For me I've been only preaching about 2016 and not beyond. Because I think we seriously can win this season but with Fitz. Actually our head coach said it all about Fitz when he said that some players take a while to find their real home. And when they do they can be pretty good. That's what we saw last year but beware the last time he signed a starter's deal he regressed. But since then he's done well with the Texans and us plus other teams. 

[Rangers9]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

Gailey threw to Thompkins? what?  that would have been one of the most spectacular plays in sports history of he catxhes that ball AND runs into the EZ.  a play like that against a dead Bills team should not have been needed.

The Bills are a good team. There was no pressure on them, they weren't dead. I don't know if their team was up for the Jets because they were so loyal to Rex and wanted to make him happy. Based on what we heard a lot of those guys think he's FOS. He admitted he had problems communicating last season with Bills players. He took at 9-7 to an 8-8. It was a tough game and they were better prepared than we were. And of course under Rex the Bills killed us two times in 2014.

[joewilly12]

Just when you thought the Jets might be fine with waiting on Ryan Fitzpatrick until training camp, along comes Ian Rapoport of NFL Media to suggest the actual deadline for getting a Fitzpatrick contract done might be much sooner.

As in Tuesday, the first day of the Jets' organized team activities.

Here's what Rapoport reported this week on the NFL Network (video here):

"Next Tuesday, the Jets begin OTAs. From what I'm being told, that is the first legitimate deadline for when both sides would like a deal to be done if Fitzpatrick is going to remain the starting quarterback of the Jets. Meanwhile, veterans such as Eric Decker and Brandon Marshall—they just want their quarterback back. While the Jets have held firm on their initial offer, Fitzpatrick wants to get a little more money out of the organization where he saw so much success last year. As the days creep toward Tuesday, maybe—just maybe—we'll have an answer."

 

MORE: 5 biggest ways Bowles has changed Jets

In 16 months on the job, the head coach has left an impact.

 

Of course, "first legitimate deadline" has an elastic meaning that doesn't peg Tuesday as a be-all, end-all deadline. It's also natural for both sides to want to get a deal done by Tuesday, since that would give Fitzpatrick an opportunity to take part in OTAs and minicamp, which can only be beneficial for him and his receivers. But there's clearly still room for this thing to drag on past Tuesday. Unless it doesn't.

[Rangers9]

Look, I'm (not like a lot of you are) not telling Fitz what to do. But maybe they could back off on some of the guaranteed money for the second year. If that's the point of contention. Even though this is something player's do not want to give up. All other sports offer guaranteed money for the duration of the contract but the NFL deals do not. But if he shows confidence in himself and signs a one year deal if he's good in 2016 he'll get more in '17. And they will have more cap space then. There is no way they won't overpay him in '17 if he has a big season in '16. So would the Jets give him a one year deal for 10 million. With maybe some incentives that none of us would complain about. Like an extra million if the team makes the playoffs, another mil if we go to the AFC Championship and one more if we win the SB. And you could throw in 500 k if he makes the Pro Bowl. So in other words any complaints if he ends up making 13.5 but we win the Super Bowl?

[Mike135]

23 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

And they will have more cap space then. 

This type of thinking worries me.  I've seen it posted around here a bunch that the Jets will have a bunch of cap space next season.  I guess that's true, but so will 31 other teams.  It's all relative.  If the Jets have 100mil in cap space free but 20 other teams had 120mil or more free, we're not in good shape.

Pretty sure that's how 2017 is shaping up.  Not 100mil of course, but we'll have cap space.  Just not as much as 2/3s of the league.

It's yet another reason why I'm against paying big for Fitz.  Restructuring guys so the cap hits come in later, or signing Wilkerson to terms that make this year's hit as little as possible, is complete lunacy.

If we're gonna sign Wilk, great!  Don't sign Fitz, and pay Wilk "normally".  Avoiding upcoming years when he'll be a 25mil cap hit.

Fitz is not worth mortgaging the future.  A Brees or someone who could put us over the top, sure.  A young potential stud who'd be a franchise QB for a decade, sure.

A lifetime backup who's never made the playoffs, no.

[nyjunc]

15 hours ago, Rangers9 said:

The Bills are a good team. There was no pressure on them, they weren't dead. I don't know if their team was up for the Jets because they were so loyal to Rex and wanted to make him happy. Based on what we heard a lot of those guys think he's FOS. He admitted he had problems communicating last season with Bills players. He took at 9-7 to an 8-8. It was a tough game and they were better prepared than we were. And of course under Rex the Bills killed us two times in 2014.

The Bills QUIT, w/o the 2 Jet wins they finish the season with 6 wins, let's not pretend we lost to a juggernaut.  They were out of postseason, were bickering and had players quit and we couldn't take advantage.

[Rangers9]

8 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

This type of thinking worries me.  I've seen it posted around here a bunch that the Jets will have a bunch of cap space next season.  I guess that's true, but so will 31 other teams.  It's all relative.  If the Jets have 100mil in cap space free but 20 other teams had 120mil or more free, we're not in good shape.

Pretty sure that's how 2017 is shaping up.  Not 100mil of course, but we'll have cap space.  Just not as much as 2/3s of the league.

It's yet another reason why I'm against restructuring guys so the cap hits come in later, or signing Wilkerson to terms that make this year's hit as little as possible... just to sign Fitz.

If we're gonna sign Wilk, great!  Don't sign Fitz, and pay Wilk normally.  Avoiding upcoming years when he'll be a 25mil cap hit.

Fitz is not worth mortgaging the future.  A Brees or someone who could put us over the top, sure.  A young potential stud who'd be a franchise QB for a decade, sure.

A lifetime backup who's never made the playoffs, no.

Look, in a deal like this it's for 2016 only. He doesn't a nickle in 2017 unless he plays well. If he regresses he gets the boot. If we win the Super Bowl then what's your beef. It's a win win for the Jets. And that's why I don't think he'd agree to a one year deal with incentives. He, like all players including Wilk wants security esp to protect him from injuries. 

[Mike135]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

Look, in a deal like this it's for 2016 only. He doesn't a nickle in 2017 unless he plays well. If he regresses he gets the boot. If we win the Super Bowl then what's your beef. It's a win win for the Jets. And that's why I don't think he'd agree to a one year deal with incentives. He, like all players including Wilk wants security esp to protect him from injuries. 

A win-win?  I'm not even talking about a multi-year deal (though I'm sure that's what he's looking for).  Just getting the money to sign a career backup for this season will mean pushing cap hits to the upcoming years.

He's not worth it.

[Rangers9]

1 minute ago, nyjunc said:

The Bills QUIT, w/o the 2 Jet wins they finish the season with 6 wins, let's not pretend we lost to a juggernaut.  They were out of postseason, were bickering and had players quit and we couldn't take advantage.

You can't say without the two Jets wins. They won those games and against good competition. I thought the Bills under performed in 2015 after a good year in 2014 (when they beat us twice). And I have to give Rex and the Bills credit. They went with an unknown Qb (which is hard to do and takes guts) over a no. 1 draft pick and the guy was good. Now he wants more money. 

[Rangers9]

Just now, Mike135 said:

A win-win?  I'm not even talking about a multi-year deal (though I'm sure that's what he's looking for).  Just getting the money to sign a career backup for this season will mean pushing cap hits to the upcoming years.

He's not worth it.

OK, I get it. So basically you want him to walk. Thankfully Mac doesn't. And the team doesn't, either. They want him back. 

[Sperm Edwards]

8 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

This type of thinking worries me.  I've seen it posted around here a bunch that the Jets will have a bunch of cap space next season.  I guess that's true, but so will 31 other teams.  It's all relative.  If the Jets have 100mil in cap space free but 20 other teams had 120mil or more free, we're not in good shape.

Pretty sure that's how 2017 is shaping up.  Not 100mil of course, but we'll have cap space.  Just not as much as 2/3s of the league.

It's yet another reason why I'm against restructuring guys so the cap hits come in later, or signing Wilkerson to terms that make this year's hit as little as possible... just to sign Fitz.

If we're gonna sign Wilk, great!  Don't sign Fitz, and pay Wilk normally.  Avoiding upcoming years when he'll be a 25mil cap hit.

Fitz is not worth mortgaging the future.  A Brees or someone who could put us over the top, sure.  A young potential stud who'd be a franchise QB for a decade, sure.

A lifetime backup who's never made the playoffs, no.

If we lock up Wilkerson long term the Jets are right up against the cap again next year. Particularly if we shift enough space (for anyone) to 2017 to fit Fitzpatrick this year. 

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

You can't say without the two Jets wins. They won those games and against good competition. I thought the Bills under performed in 2015 after a good year in 2014 (when they beat us twice). And I have to give Rex and the Bills credit. They went with an unknown Qb (which is hard to do and takes guts) over a no. 1 draft pick and the guy was good. Now he wants more money. 

they beat 2 winning teams all year, us and the texans.  the D had quit, they were really banged up and finishing their season.  There is no excuse for getting swept by them.

[Mike135]

6 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

OK, I get it. So basically you want him to walk. Thankfully Mac doesn't. And the team doesn't, either. They want him back. 

Actually I want him to sign for 5mil or less.  Still haven't heard of another team offering better.

[Mike135]

5 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If we lock up Wilkerson long term the Jets are right up against the cap again next year. Particularly if we shift enough space (for anyone) to 2017 to fit Fitzpatrick this year. 

Worse than I thought.  Enjoy retirement Fitz.

[FidelioJet]

17 hours ago, Rangers9 said:

Look this is pro sports and teams tear up deals when a player outplays his contract. The Jets didn't do it and he's probably trying to get some compensation for 2015. The 7 mil figure some of you guys are clinging to isn't reasonable in that market. 

This just simply isn't true.  Teams do not pay a player more than they have to unless it benefits them.  They might tear up a contract and sigh a bigger one but that will be in the teams best interest.  as an example -  the team will get more years and ultimately a better total price than they would have had to pay long term.  It's not because of some perceived "market"

Someone's market is what someone is willing to pay him.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

To date no other team has been willing to offer Fitz more than the Jets.  And none are likely to.

Unfortunately the Jets will fold to media pressure, as a Woody Johnson owned team always does.  But they shouldn't.

[CrazyCarl40]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If we lock up Wilkerson long term the Jets are right up against the cap again next year. Particularly if we shift enough space (for anyone) to 2017 to fit Fitzpatrick this year. 

In theory. But once you cut Harris (6.5) and others there will be plenty of space. If Clady comes back and is bad, he and his 10.5 is gone. Breno should be gone this year, that's another 4.5 NEXT year. They'll also have to make decisions with Marshall and Mangold, who both at the the tail end of their career can come down from their high numbers. Folk could be gone saving 3 million. Gilchrist is a solid player, but the Jets have some good safeties so he could be a casualty. Next year isn't as dire as you make it out to be.

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Look, in a deal like this it's for 2016 only. He doesn't a nickle in 2017 unless he plays well. If he regresses he gets the boot. If we win the Super Bowl then what's your beef. It's a win win for the Jets. And that's why I don't think he'd agree to a one year deal with incentives. He, like all players including Wilk wants security esp to protect him from injuries. 

This is 100% wrong, and it stems from thinking of each year's cap space as being like separate boxes that don't connect to each other. In reality it is more like one long box with movable dividers. Cap room used up this year is cap room we won't have available next year. Further guarantees to Fitz for the 2017 season wouldn't be the only 2017 cost of adding him in 2016; they'd merely compound the cost of adding him in 2016 without such future guarantees.

The ways to fit Fitzpatrick this year are to either structure his new contract so more of his 2016 money hits next year, or to restructure someone else so more of [that player's] 2016 hit is shifted to next year. In either case it costs cap space next year. 

No matter how one chooses to add Fitzpatrick in 2016, in the end he costs that very amount in 2017 without any additional 2017 salary guarantees. 

[Mike135]

I think the problem may be that Jet fans aren't used to having a good team.  Not just a good D.  We actually have an OC and surrounding offensive talent that is ideal.  It can make a mediocre QB look good (hence Fitz last year).

I'm guessing some fans see that and think, "why the fu(k would you let Fitz get away?"  Meanwhile the reason for the improvement was the upgraded coaching and overall talent.

I could see if the QB last season was an unknown.  It'd be much more difficult to judge what caused the offensive turnaround.  But Fitz is the exact opposite of an unknown.  

11 years, 6 teams, 0 playoffs.  Week 17 staring us in the face.  We have our answer.

It's not often the Jets have a legitimately good offense (not to mention D).  Let's not waste it on mediocrity.  Or even worse, waste it and hurt the future.

[Rangers9]

7 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

Actually I want him to sign for 5mil or less.  Still haven't heard of another team offering better.

That would be a ridiculous offer and you know it. But say he takes your 7 mil guaranteed deal that's on the poll. (he's not going to but say he does). But with considerable steep incentives. He gets another 3 mil if the team makes the playoffs. 3 more if the Jets win the AFC Championship. And another 3 if we win the SB. So he gets 16 mil if we win the SB on a one year contract. Any objections to that? 

[Mike135]

8 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

This just simply isn't true.  Teams do not pay a player more than they have to unless it benefits them.  They might tear up a contract and sigh a bigger one but that will be in the teams best interest.  as an example -  the team will get more years and ultimately a better total price than they would have had to pay long term.  It's not because of some perceived "market"

Someone's market is what someone is willing to pay him.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

To date no other team has been willing to offer Fitz more than the Jets.  And none are likely to.

Unfortunately the Jets will fold to media pressure, as a Woody Johnson owned team always does.  But they shouldn't.

Probably, but I'm not counting out Macc yet.  He seems pretty smart.

Really hoping he doesn't cave.

[Sperm Edwards]

4 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

In theory. But once you cut Harris (6.5) and others there will be plenty of space. If Clady comes back and is bad, he and his 10.5 is gone. Breno should be gone this year, that's another 4.5 NEXT year. They'll also have to make decisions with Marshall and Mangold, who both at the the tail end of their career can come down from their high numbers. Folk could be gone saving 3 million. Gilchrist is a solid player, but the Jets have some good safeties so he could be a casualty. Next year isn't as dire as you make it out to be.

No that is not true.

• If Clady plays this year and is then cut, millions still hit the cap.
• I think it is unlikely Harris gets cut next year; Bowles loves him and $6.5M is the "cheap" year of his deal.
• Breno is likely to be cut, I agree there.
• Marshall and Mangold aren't going anywhere next year. Certainly not Marshall, who isn't even that expensive next year so the savings isn't that great (when compared to the dropoff the team would see on the field). Probably the same with Mangold.
• Cutting Gilchrist is not happening either; he was on the field for 1044 of the team's 1049 defensive snaps last year, significantly more than any player on the team. Playing time like that, on a team loaded with DBs, suggests Bowles loves him like no other. He's going nowhere.

Where do you get the idea the Jets will just be able to cut their #1 WR, starting LT, starting RT, starting C, best coverage S, and their only veteran starting LB? You're looking too hard at a spreadsheet and treating key players like line-item costs to be deleted. 

This sounds crazy, CrazyCarl.

[Mike135]

16 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

That would be a ridiculous offer and you know it. But say he takes your 7 mil guaranteed deal that's on the poll. (he's not going to but say he does). But with considerable steep incentives. He gets another 3 mil if the team makes the playoffs. 3 more if the Jets win the AFC Championship. And another 3 if we win the SB. So he gets 16 mil if we win the SB on a one year contract. Any objections to that? 

Yes.  I don't even want to pay him 7 for this year.  However if he'd sign for 5, ends up being the starter (no guarantee there) and somehow miraculously wins the SB...  hell yeah, give him his 11mil bonus.  

However to match the likelihood of that occurring, I'd like to suggest another option.  I'm 37.  Not quite the star athlete I once was (picture AL Bundy reminiscing on the couch).  But I've got a good year or two left.  I potentially have a stronger arm than Fitz and the last time I played Madden (10 years ago) I was darn good!  Also, I'm a nice guy and can easily get along with the players and make them feel all warm and fuzzy.  I'll do it for 1mil with another 1mil SB bonus.

[Rangers9]

18 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This is 100% wrong, and it stems from thinking of each year's cap space as being like separate boxes that don't connect to each other. In reality it is more like one long box with movable dividers. Cap room used up this year is cap room we won't have available next year. Further guarantees to Fitz for the 2017 season wouldn't be the only 2017 cost of adding him in 2016; they'd merely compound the cost of adding him in 2016 without such future guarantees.

The ways to fit Fitzpatrick this year are to either structure his new contract so more of his 2016 money hits next year, or to restructure someone else so more of [that player's] 2016 hit is shifted to next year. In either case it costs cap space next year. 

No matter how one chooses to add Fitzpatrick in 2016, in the end he costs that very amount in 2017 without any additional 2017 salary guarantees. 

I'm talking a one year contract for 2016 only. In 2017 he's a free agent. And since you guys don't want to pay him anything, he plays for free. Is that ok?

[CrazyCarl40]

8 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No that is not true.

• If Clady plays this year and is then cut, millions still hit the cap.
• I think it is unlikely Harris gets cut next year; Bowles loves him and $6.5M is the "cheap" year of his deal.
• Breno is likely to be cut, I agree there.
• Marshall and Mangold aren't going anywhere next year. Certainly not Marshall, who isn't even that expensive next year so the savings isn't that great (when compared to the dropoff the team would see on the field). Probably the same with Mangold.
• Cutting Gilchrist is not happening either; he was on the field for 1044 of the team's 1049 defensive snaps last year, significantly more than any player on the team. Playing time like that, on a team loaded with DBs, suggests Bowles loves him like no other. He's going nowhere.

Where do you get the idea the Jets will just be able to cut their #1 WR, starting LT, starting RT, starting C, best coverage S, and their only veteran starting LB? You're looking too hard at a spreadsheet and treating key players like line-item costs to be deleted. 

This sounds crazy, CrazyCarl.

According to Over the Cap, Cutting Clady next year saves 10.5 million without any penalty. I never said cut Marshall or Mangold. I said make decisions. It's about looking beyond 2016 and 2017. I wouldn't cut Gilchrist either, I'm just laying down options.

[Mike135]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

I'm talking a one year contract for 2016 only. In 2017 he's a free agent. And since you guys don't want to pay him anything, he plays for free. Is that ok?

He'd still be stealing valuable snaps from our young guys...  but yeah I could live with that.

[Sperm Edwards]

14 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

That would be a ridiculous offer and you know it. But say he takes your 7 mil guaranteed deal that's on the poll. (he's not going to but say he does). But with considerable steep incentives. He gets another 3 mil if the team makes the playoffs. 3 more if the Jets win the AFC Championship. And another 3 if we win the SB. So he gets 16 mil if we win the SB on a one year contract. Any objections to that? 

If all that was tied to him starting 12 games, plus either starting or playing 50% of the offensive snaps in those playoff wins, yes. I would absolutely be in favor of that.

If he was terrible and we won the SB anyway, I wouldn't care if that kicked in a $40M guaranteed signing bonus in 2017. If that was the end result? It wouldn't matter even if he didn't take 10 snaps all season long. I've lasted over 30 years as a fan of this team without seeing a single SB appearance. A victory could sustain me another 30 years no problem, so a cap mess after a SB victory is hardly a concern I'd have. 

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

I'm talking a one year contract for 2016 only. In 2017 he's a free agent. And since you guys don't want to pay him anything, he plays for free. Is that ok?

If you pay him $10M in 2016, that's $10M less the team has available in 2017. What part of this don't you understand?

[Rangers9]

1 minute ago, Mike135 said:

He'd still be stealing valuable snaps from our young guys...  but yeah I could live with that.

So let me get this straight. You want to go with Hackenberg (because he's cheaper) a guy who didn't even play well in college. Or Geno a guy who is pretty much known as being a terrible Qb. So for all of the talk we have on this board about how important the Qb position is some of our fans want to go cheap and lose games.