Ryan Fitzpatrick: MERGED

[cant wait]

2 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Let's just talk about 2015 not ten years ago. Fitz had a better than 2-1 ratio of Tds to picks. Now that's pretty decent. And he had only 12 picks going into week 17. And threw 2 picks in the last 2 minutes when behind by 5 and he had to throw. Buff wasn't stupid they knew it and set their defenses to stop the pass. So the bottom line on accuracy is Td to pick ratio. As for not throwing perfect spirals and being bailed out by Marshall and other receivers. That's the name of the game in the NFL. All successful Qbs get bailed out. And great receivers make awesome plays.  And many good Qbs don't throw perfect spirals. Ryan Leaf did but to opponents. 

Good QB's beat defenses when they are down late and need to throw. Ryan Fitzpatrick throws INT's in those situations because he's not very good

[Rangers9]

One game does not a season make. We had a plus 6 in games won. But not a good enough team to win 6 in a row. We won 5 in a row to be playoff contenders. And in week 17 despite a weak performance Fitz had the team in a position to win. I'll take the 2015 season and think we have a better chance to win with Fitz than without him. 

[AFJF]

44 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

So, there dispels a notion or two. He wants to be back, the Jets want him back. He isn't retiring. Carry on.

LOL @ anyone who believed the "report" that Fitz was going to retire.

[cant wait]

1 minute ago, AFJF said:

LOL @ anyone who believed the "report" that Fitz was going to retire.

I don't think anybody believed fitz was going to retire, it was just a desperate attempt for him to establish some kind of leverage since he's got nothing else to fall back on

[cant wait]

7 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

One game does not a season make. We had a plus 6 in games won. But not a good enough team to win 6 in a row. We won 5 in a row to be playoff contenders. And in week 17 despite a weak performance Fitz had the team in a position to win. I'll take the 2015 season and think we have a better chance to win with Fitz than without him. 

Fitz showed that he's good enough to almost make the playoffs if he gets to face the easiest schedule in the league with a great team around him. Worth bringing back for 1 year on a backup deal? Absolutely, but the sooner the one of the kids take over the better

[jetrider]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

we did get a 58 yd run from Ivory setting up 1st and 10 at the Buf 22 and didn't gain another yard on 3 straight incomplete passes.  our run game was no better than Buf's yet their QB didn't have the issues ours did.

What critical passes did our WRs drop?

Fitz didn't have to take the game on his back, he had to play w/in himself and not scared.  Unfortunately he couldn't do that.

 He failed to convert again when Revis recovered Gillislee's fumble at Buf 23. Fitz threw 2 more INCs and settled for a FG.

 

[jetrider]

8 minutes ago, AFJF said:

LOL @ anyone who believed the "report" that Fitz was going to retire.

Taking a year off is not the same as retiring anyway.

[Rangers9]

5 minutes ago, cant wait said:

Fitz showed that he's good enough to almost make the playoffs if he gets to face the easiest schedule in the league with a great team around him. Worth bringing back for 1 year on a backup deal? Absolutely, but the sooner the one of the kids take over the better

Again Jets fans making excuses for winning. I'll take all Ws against anyone. I'm ecstatic when our team wins. If Fitz returns I think we could do another 10-6. Strength of schedule is misleading and changes all of the time. And it did in 2015. Going into the season a year ago Carolina were supposed to be marshmallows. 

[cant wait]

2 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Again Jets fans making excuses for winning. I'll take all Ws against anyone. I'm ecstatic when our team wins. If Fitz returns I think we could do another 10-6. Strength of schedule is misleading and changes all of the time. And it did in 2015. Going into the season a year ago Carolina were supposed to be marshmallows. 

Making excuses for winning? All you do is make excuses for losing. The jets should have made the playoffs last year. Why didn't they?

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Again Jets fans making excuses for winning. I'll take all Ws against anyone. I'm ecstatic when our team wins. If Fitz returns I think we could do another 10-6. Strength of schedule is misleading and changes all of the time. And it did in 2015. Going into the season a year ago Carolina were supposed to be marshmallows. 

Carolina wasn't supposed to be 15-1 but they weren't supposed to be bad either.

 

wins are great but wins w/o playoffs w/ a veteran team ready to win sucks.

[BigRy56]

Fitz will be the starting quarterback for the Jets next season. Anybody who doubted that from the jump and especially when we became his absolutely only option is crazy.

[Rangers9]

8 minutes ago, cant wait said:

Making excuses for winning? All you do is make excuses for losing. The jets should have made the playoffs last year. Why didn't they?

We didn't lose dude we won ten games 6 over 2014. I'll take it!

[jetrider]

58 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Let's just talk about 2015 not ten years ago. Fitz had a better than 2-1 ratio of Tds to picks. Now that's pretty decent. And he had only 12 picks going into week 17. And threw 2 picks in the last 2 minutes when behind by 5 and he had to throw. Buff wasn't stupid they knew it and set their defenses to stop the pass. So the bottom line on accuracy is Td to pick ratio. As for not throwing perfect spirals and being bailed out by Marshall and other receivers. That's the name of the game in the NFL. All successful Qbs get bailed out. And great receivers make awesome plays.  And many good Qbs don't throw perfect spirals. Ryan Leaf did but to opponents. 

No, the bottom line on accuracy is completion %.

Fitz started off 2 for 11 (18%) for 5 net yards, 4 punts, and a perfectly thrown pick6 in Corey Graham's lap that was dropped at Jets 20.

His game was uglier than the scoreboard indicates. Many Fitz fans "watched" the game but didn't see it.

[Rangers9]

Just now, jetrider said:

No, the bottom line on accuracy is completion %.

Fitz started off 2 for 11 (18%) for 5 net yards, 4 punts, and a perfectly thrown pick6 in Corey Graham's lap that was dropped at Jets 20.

His game was uglier than the scoreboard indicates. Many Fitz fans "watched" the game but they didn't see it.

Look if you're going to count interceptions that never happened then everybody sucks. Because balls are tipped and balls are dropped all of the time. Let's just count the real ones not the fantasy ones. 

[jetrider]

Just now, Rangers9 said:

Look if you're going to count interceptions that never happened then everybody sucks. Because balls are tipped and balls are dropped all of the time. Let's just count the real ones not the fantasy ones. 

True. But that was pick #4 and an easy 7. Fitz was lucky. Just sayin'

[JustInFudge]

1 hour ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

So, there dispels a notion or two. He wants to be back, the Jets want him back. He isn't retiring. Carry on.

Oh for F's sake.

This is so Jets like.  We're going to cave and let this dude back and it will do absolutely nothing for the Jets on the way to a miraculous 8-8 record. 

Yay!!!!  Go Jets!!!

 

 

[Rangers9]

Just now, jetrider said:

True. But that was pick #4 and an easy 7. Fitz was lucky. Just sayin'

Yeah, maybe there should be a new stat then: passes almost intercepted. According to some of you guys Fitz would be the leader. The thing is: who cares.

[cant wait]

5 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Yeah, maybe there should be a new stat then: passes almost intercepted. According to some of you guys Fitz would be the leader. The thing is: who cares.

PFF has a stat like that, TWP (turnover worthy plays) and they credit fitz with 32 last season. That's why they ranked him 25th in the league despite his career year. See here https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-pffs-2015-nfl-quarterback-rankings/

[jetrider]

10 minutes ago, JiF said:

 

Quote

 

Brian Costello ‎@BrianCoz

Followed up with Fitzpatrick on the idea he might retire if he does not get right offer: "I'm playing football next year." #nyj

9:22 AM - 23 May 2016

 

 

Oh for F's sake.

This is so Jets like.  We're going to cave and let this dude back and it will do absolutely nothing for the Jets on the way to a miraculous 8-8 record. 

Yay!!!!  Go Jets!!!

He said "next year" not this year. Maybe Canada.

[nyjunc]

4 minutes ago, cant wait said:

PFF has a stat like that, TWP (turnover worthy plays) and they credit fitz with 32 last season. That's why they ranked him 25th in the league despite his career year. See here https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-pffs-2015-nfl-quarterback-rankings/

I don't buy that stuff, it's very subjective and I am not a fan of PFF.

[Warfish]

Just now, cant wait said:

PFF has a stat like that, TWP (turnover worthy plays) and they credit fitz with 32 last season. That's why they ranked him 25th in the league despite his career year. See here https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-pffs-2015-nfl-quarterback-rankings/

Not a fan of "stats" that require multiple individual interpretations (and the unavaiodable bias that always creeps in) to be a stat in the first place.

So some chucklehead in the number-nerd staff of PFF decides such and such a play was a "turnover worthy play" and assigns it to who he (the aforementioned chucklehead) thinks is "to blame" for it being a "turnover worthy play"?

Lol, no.

Even an obvious QB-hits-DB-in-Chest may not be the QB's fault, if the WR was supposed to run a timing route and be in a specific place and time X seconds after snap, and simply blew it or got blown up at the line.  Looks like a clear-cut QB error, except, surprise, it may not be at all.  QB was throwing to a spot, the WR simply blew it.

But does the chuckelehad at PFF know that?  Maybe, maybe not. 

And that's an "easy" one.  Half the passes in an NFL game could be "turnover worthy plays" if you look at them a certain way, certainly anything close could be.  

It's very interesting that we have no shortage of ways to minimize and dismiss actual stats of things that actually happened, but some feel a made-up stat of things a guy re-watching the game thinks could have happened (but didn't) and could have been a guys fault (but wasn't, because it didn't happen) is more important.

[cant wait]

9 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Not a fan of "stats" that require multiple individual interpretations (and the unavaiodable bias that always creeps in) to be a stat in the first place.

So some chucklehead in the number-nerd staff of PFF decides such and such a play was a "turnover worthy play" and assigns it to who he (the aforementioned chucklehead) thinks is "to blame" for it being a "turnover worthy play"?

Lol, no.

Even an obvious QB-hits-DB-in-Chest may not be the QB's fault, if the WR was supposed to run a timing route and be in a specific place and time X seconds after snap, and simply blew it or got blown up at the line.  Looks like a clear-cut QB error, except, surprise, it may not be at all.  QB was throwing to a spot, the WR simply blew it.

But does the chuckelehad at PFF know that?  Maybe, maybe not. 

And that's an "easy" one.  Half the passes in an NFL game could be "turnover worthy plays" if you look at them a certain way, certainly anything close could be.  

It's very interesting that we have no shortage of ways to minimize and dismiss actual stats of things that actually happened, but some feel a made-up stat of things a guy re-watching the game thinks could have happened (but didn't) and could have been a guys fault (but wasn't, because it didn't happen) is more important.

because you know better than people who get paid for their analysis, clearly. There is a reason why no NFL team think fitz is worth anything more than backup money, why? Because they are number nerds that actually watch film and not agenda driven fans who wave their pompoms because they love their precious fitzy

[Warfish]

10 minutes ago, cant wait said:

because you know better than people who get paid for their analysis, clearly 

That's called an "appeal to authority", and it too is a logical fallacy, the hallmark of a weak argument.

How do we know who is assigning those "stats"?  Can you name them, so we can compare our respective football playing and watching and analyzing experience?  

Nope, you can't.  For all you know it's an intern, lol.

And lets be clear, getting a compensated writing or analysis gig for a website isn't that hard.  At all.  I've been offered two in my lifetime, simply for bloviating on JI.  And yes, I DO think I know better than half the journalism school dropouts writing click-bait headlines on sports for the NY Media today, abso-*******-lutely.  

I know I watch every single down the Jets play, often 2-3 times.  I know I played Football, and that I know how the sport works.  I know i have 30 years experience being right most of the time on the Jets and their players (with a few especially lolworthy exceptions).

And even a journalism major can differentiate (to restate the point) which stats actually happened, and which "stats" require someone to decide something COULD have happened, and that it COULD have been someone fault, even though it COULD be someone else's fault depending on the play called and what was supposed to happen on that play.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

I would too, tbqh.  Sanchez today likely is the better overall QB.  It's his turnovers that kill you dead.

And lets be clear, Denver chose Osweiller and Osweiller spurned them  Denver then chose Colin Kaepernick and both San Fran and Kaep spurned them.

Sanchez is an obvious third-tier choice, and a fill in till their newly drafted QB can be ready.

Just like Fitz is or would be for us.

Fitz is unemployed today because he wants to resign for the New York Jets, the New York Jets want to resign and start him, but they continue to disagree and negotiate over compensation.  

I was responding to a comment asking why would Denver sign Fitz when they already had Sanchez. Such a statement ignores that they'd only acquired Sanchez this offseason. 

[cant wait]

11 minutes ago, Warfish said:

That's called an "appeal to authority", and it too is a logical fallacy, the hallmark of a weak argument.

How do we know who is assigning those "stats"?  Can you name them, so we can compare our respective football playing and watching and analyzing experience?  

Nope, you can't.  For all you know it's an intern, lol.

And lets be clear, getting a compensated writing or analysis gig for a website isn't that hard.  At all.  I've been offered two in my lifetime, simply for bloviating on JI.  And yes, I DO think I know better than half the journalism school dropouts writing click-bait headlines on sports for the NY Media today, abso-*******-lutely.  

I know I watch every single down the Jets play, often 2-3 times.  I know I played Football, and that I know how the sport works.  I know i have 30 years experience being right most of the time on the Jets and their players (with a few especially lolworthy exceptions).

And even a journalism major can differentiate (to restate the point) which stats actually happened, and which "stats" require someone to decide something COULD have happened, and that it COULD have been someone fault, even though it COULD be someone else's fault depending on the play called and what was supposed to happen on that play.

PFF isn't NY sports trash buddy. And I'm sure you watched all the games on TV, but the point of this analysis is to determine what outside factors were involved so future value can be predicted. In this case it explains why fitzy is not getting paid the $16M he's demanding. Because nobody in the NFL is stupid enough to only go by which stats actually happened. Poor decision making is poor decision making regardless if the defender dropped the ball (or 16+ balls lol)

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Big Blocker said:

If you prefer Sanchez to Fitzpatrick you are either a fan of Sanchez's or have an unreasonable dislike for Fitzpatrick.  But I know that is just my opinion, so let's leave it at that.

I prefer neither of them, really, since neither will bring us to a Superbowl. But since Sanchez is $4.5M and Fitz is seeking at least triple that amount, it's not an apples to apples comparison. 

[Warfish]

  

10 minutes ago, cant wait said:

And I'm sure you watched all the games on TV, but the point of this analysis is to determine what outside factors were involved so future value can be predicted. In this case it explains why fitzy is not getting paid the $16M he's demanding.

If you need the stats intern at PFF to give you a made-up-coulda-happened-and-coulda-been-his-fault  stat to know the "why" of that, my friend, well.......

10 minutes ago, cant wait said:

Because nobody in the NFL is stupid enough to only go by which stats actually happened. 

Of course not, but those who put their faith in a made-up and inherantly non-objective "stat" over the actual performance.....well, lets just say that bias shines through.

10 minutes ago, cant wait said:

Poor decision making is poor decision making regardless if the defender dropped the ball (or 16+ balls lol)

So do you have the PFF "TWP" stats and overall rankings for Geno in 2013 and 2014, or no?  Lets compare our two most likely options, right?

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

11 minutes ago, Warfish said:

I know i have 30 years experience being right most of the time on the Jets and their players

This seems like it would be even more susceptible to the same sorts of biases and problems describing outcomes as PFF's numbers are. This is the kind of thing they do that's actually useful. All the analytics at some point come down to people counting stuff. There are issues when it comes to figuring out the whys of things but ultimately the measurement error this causes is fairly small. We don't know assignments but ultimately you kind of have to figure that a person who can basically see and basically knows what he's looking at can differentiate between a bad throw, a bad route, or a play on the ball with enough accuracy that's it's at minimum better to give it a shot than just give up and chalk everything up to the butterfly effect. The rating system is garbage in garbage out but with something like this where they're just telling you what they're looking for and keeping a tally I'm sure it's fine.

[Warfish]

Just now, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

This is the kind of thing they do that's actually useful. All the analytics at some point come down to people counting stuff.

There is a material difference between counting stuff that happened, and stuff some unknown number-cruncher thinks might have happened and might have been this guy or that guys "fault".  Football, especially, is problematic at assigning blame.  sh*t, how many INT's do we see each year where it's pretty clear that INT stat belongs on the WR's state page as much or more than the QB's.  Yet we don;t track "WR allowed INT's" just to have another meta-stat, and such a value is dubious at best.

When you ignore or dismiss what happened, and value higher what might have happened, I think you have an analytic interpretation problem.

Just now, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

There are issues when it comes to figuring out the whys of things but ultimately the measurement error this causes is fairly small. We don't know assignments but ultimately you kind of have to figure that a person who can basically see and basically knows what he's looking at can differentiate between a bad throw, a bad route, or a play on the ball with enough accuracy that's it's at minimum better to give it a shot than just give up and chalk everything up to the butterfly effect.

I don't agree with that at all.  I can assure you, I can find you an analytic that will "prove" to you whatever it is I want to prove to you.  

Presuming you are naive enough to fall prey to an appeal to authority fallacy that increases acceptance of my made-up stats and dismisses the actual stats.

 

[CrazyCarl40]

42 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I prefer neither of them, really, since neither will bring us to a Superbowl. But since Sanchez is $4.5M and Fitz is seeking at least triple that amount, it's not an apples to apples comparison. 

What else did Fitz tell you about the negotiations?

[Adoni Beast]

These analytic sites have zero merit for the simple fact that they nor anyone outside of a member of the team understands what each individual player's designed intent is for each and every play. If one or more linemen miss an assignment that was a mental error, it changes every other players action for that play. Play breaks the results were designed. Hence, the end of the play is subjective based on your individual basis for blame. 

If a QB throws wide right under durress and its a pick, is it his fault, or the lineman's missed assignment that gave QB less time to throw a times pattern? At that point the blame is subjective. These sites have no idea how the line was supposed to block, or what patterns receivers were supposed to run, what did the QB audible or change play pre snap. Its endless. And these sites have nothing substantial to offer in my opinion.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

What else did Fitz tell you about the negotiations?

If I disclosed that info I would find myself outside the circle of trust. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

1 minute ago, Warfish said:

There is a material difference between counting stuff that happened, and stuff some unknown number-cruncher thinks might have happened and might have been this guy or that guys "fault".  Football, especially, is problematic at assigning blame.  sh*t, how many INT's do we see each year where it's pretty clear that INT stat belongs on the WR's state page as much or more than the QB's.  Yet we don;t track "WR allowed INT's" just to have another meta-stat, and such a value is dubious at best.

When you ignore or dismiss what happened, and value higher what might have happened, I think you have an analytic interpretation problem.

I don't agree with that at all.  I can assure you, I can find you an analytic that will "prove" to you whatever it is I want to prove to you.  

Presuming you are naive enough to fall prey to an appeal to authority fallacy that increases acceptance of my made-up stats and dismisses the actual stats.

 

You are really confused about this. That a charter is inevitably going to blow individual calls when playing the blame game is just measurement error. It's not a systemic issue absent some particular reason to think otherwise, and you're just throwing words around to make your criticism seem more sophisticated than it really is. Since recycling wrong takes from the Sanchez era is apparently a thing now, SMC already had this meltdown when FO started publishing dropped interception numbers.

[Rangers9]

Look, week 17 was a very steal-able game. How many times have you seen NEP get outplayed for most of the game and then at the end make a few plays and get a winning score. You don't have to kick ass to be good. The Jets were in a good position to steal a game but we fell short. I liked the fact that we were in that game until the end and had a mathematical chance to win it. 

[nyjunc]

2 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Look, week 17 was a very steal-able game. How many times have you seen NEP get outplayed for most of the game and then at the end make a few plays and get a winning score. You don't have to kick ass to be good. The Jets were in a good position to steal a game but we fell short. I liked the fact that we were in that game until the end and had a mathematical chance to win it. 

we were in good position until he threw that INT in the EZ,