Did Bowles hurt Jets/Fitz contract situation?

[PatsFanTX]

on a side but related note, i have never thought about this till the Fitz debacle, but how it is that a purported union member (ie, an NFL player) can also negotiate his own rates, the way non union workers, independent contractors or exempt employees do?

Any job I have ever been in involved pay grades and salary ranges for each grade. I know the NFL CBA keeps rookies locked into 3 year (or is it 4?) year agreements, but it seems this does not apply to vets. I don't get it: are members of the NFLPA really union guys, or not? How can you be kept at union scale at one position, but not another, or union scale for the first few years, but then free to negotiate whatever the market will be bear, or have union scale floors (i.e., salary minimums) but no union scale ceilings?

In short, why is there not a labor agreement that specifies pre agreed upon ranges for each position / years of service?

This might have helped keep ticket prices from spiraling out of control... for one thing, and restored the team concept to the NFL, as in back in the day when fans identified and supported players who spent most their careers with one home team, instead of the fantasy league NFL we have today.

In terms of the thread's actual topic, yes, Bowles sorta did make a rookie coach mistake, IMHO, but only an ex equipment manager would have twisted the supportive words of a straight-up, appreciative coach into a major negotiating fiasco.

Because it is all part of the CBA agreement.

Think the players would ever accept salary ranges?

[T0mShane]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Precisely my point. Bowles doesn't owe Fitz the starting job and he doesn't owe the media an answer as to who the starter is. I don't know that it 

At the end of the day, all other things being equal, as you say, he wants to be a Jet. Yes as a STARTER for the Jets. But that presumes all other things are equal, which they are not. If no one else wants him to be the starter - and no one else does (at best someone might settle for him as a temporary starter for 8-16 games) - then all he's left with is the Jets. The same Jets whose HC unnecessarily announced if he's here he's automatically the starter. Well, other starters are getting $16M, $18M, etc. If the Jets re-sign him, he's the starter. And if $16-18M is the minimum starters' salaries, he should get that as well.

If we didn't guarantee him the starting job, and argue in negotiations that he is NOT necessarily the starter, then his demands go down. It'll happen anyway (demands going down) because of the supreme lack of interest in him league-wide) but this dragged it out, and caused his demands to go up, as much as possible. 

All he did was give Fitzpatrick's agent ammunition. It was completely unnecessary, and did nothing but harm our leverage by announcing he's 100% the starter (no competition).

Where did Bowles guarantee him the starting job?

[Jet9]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

One more time, no he didn't. He had to spend dollars in 2015 and come within x-dollars of the cap in 2015. That doesn't mean he needed to hand out such high priced contracts to so many players and sign us up for a tight cap a year later. He did NOT need to do that.

You're not arguing in good faith. The chances of finding a bunch of one year deals was not a possible solution. Also, they have to spend near the cap this year because it's a rolling 4 year number. 

[FidelioJet]

"going rate", "starter money" etc...are all meaningless terms.  The only thing that really matters is what someone is willing to pay.

Mac may be willing to spend $15mm a year, but why should he if he knows no one else is going give him even $7mm. And no-one is going to give a back-up, journey man QB, with a weak arm - who's never been to the playoffs - more than $7mm a year.

 

 

[PatsFanTX]

"going rate", "starter money" etc...are all meaningless terms.  The only thing that really matters is what someone is willing to pay.

Mac may be willing to spend $15mm a year, but why should he if he knows no one else is going give him even $7mm. And no-one is going to give a back-up, journey man QB, with a weak arm - who's never been to the playoffs - more than $7mm a year.

 

 

That sums it up perfectly.

Great post.

[cant wait]

40 minutes ago, FidelioJet said:

"going rate", "starter money" etc...are all meaningless terms.  The only thing that really matters is what someone is willing to pay.

Mac may be willing to spend $15mm a year, but why should he if he knows no one else is going give him even $7mm. And no-one is going to give a back-up, journey man QB, with a weak arm - who's never been to the playoffs - more than $7mm a year.

 

 

Nope, and as fitz continues to play while the jets continue to spend their available FA budget, it's looking more and more like he's going to be the guy left standing when the music stops

[JohnnyLV]

My personal opinion but I think Bowles is MUCH higher on Fitz than Gailey or Mac. 

[FidelioJet]

2 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

My personal opinion but I think Bowles is MUCH higher on Fitz than Gailey or Mac. 

I get that sense too...

[jgb]

5 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

"going rate", "starter money" etc...are all meaningless terms.  The only thing that really matters is what someone is willing to pay.

Mac may be willing to spend $15mm a year, but why should he if he knows no one else is going give him even $7mm. And no-one is going to give a back-up, journey man QB, with a weak arm - who's never been to the playoffs - more than $7mm a year.

 

 

No doubt but sometimes a player needs to face reality in FA before they come to terms.

[Sperm Edwards]

15 hours ago, BowlesMovement said:

Honestly not trying to attack you, sorry if it came across that way. I just don't think there is anything to this at all, and I think this is more of you disliking Bowles than you really believing there is something here. Your a smart guy, your not like a lot of the chuckleheads who post, and I generally agree with a lot that you post, and I think you make a lot of great points.

Fitz and his agent know he threw 31 TD's last year, they know the Jets played him a week after having thumb surgery with his thumb in a cast, they know the reality of the situation, and I think its a huge stretch to say this situation would be any different right now if Bowles said something different, I just don't buy it one bit, and as I said, had Bowles said he is not the automatic starter, and we are here right now, people could criticize and say, if Bowles only said he was the starter, Fitz would not be looking for a starting job somewhere else.

 

 

 

No problem. 

I'm lukewarm on Bowles. I like him personally. I like that he's brought back a much needed seriousness to the position. I like that he's not a douchebag. 

What I don't care for are two-fold. One, I'm getting tired of watching us break in another first time HC (no the 3 games of mop up duty in Miami don't count). It manifests itself in some poor game time decisions. Two, he seems too loyal to veteran starters with no competition (so far, a player's coach to a fault like Ryan).

This has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a coach, though. Saying too much, and revealing one's hand in the process, is a pet peeve of mine. 

I don't think it's arguable that it did nothing but potentially hurt and complicate re-signing him at the dollars his boss was willing to pay. Of course his agent knows his stats from last year. But one year doesn't (or shouldn't) guarantee a 33 year old journeyman, low ceiling QB a starting job. 

Other options present themselves so often around the league that it shouldn't even be a true statement for Bowles to be locked into mentally in the first place. Never mind announcing it before the guy is even under contract. 

It may end up being a total non-factor and we re-sign him for what we want. But I outlined several ways in which it further out that into doubt, when it was already going to be a challenge signing him for less after a 31 TD season. 

[Sperm Edwards]

14 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Where did Bowles guarantee him the starting job?

Like two months ago. Presser after we were eliminated. He was asked and should have given a vague, wishy washy answer every coach does. Instead he said - and I don't have the wording in front of me - if Fitz returns he's our starter. No competition, not even a probably or that he'd have the upper hand or even Fitz's job to lose. Just that he's the starter, period, end of discussion. 

[Scott Dierking]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Like two months ago. Presser after we were eliminated. He was asked and should have given a vague, wishy washy answer every coach does. Instead he said - and I don't have the wording in front of me - if Fitz returns he's our starter. No competition, not even a probably or that he'd have the upper hand or even Fitz's job to lose. Just that he's the starter, period, end of discussion. 

Salaries are not decided by how 1 coach thinks that player is slotted on a depth chart. They are decided by what the market bears, and what any one team may be prepared to pay.

At least, that is how good organizations do it.

Words in December do not come to roost in Feb, March negotiations. 

I do not believe that the Jets or Fitz really consider this negotiation about what role he would play on the 2016 Jets. It is about what is the value of Fitz to the 2016 Jets.

[Sperm Edwards]

15 hours ago, Jet9 said:

You're not arguing in good faith. The chances of finding a bunch of one year deals was not a possible solution. Also, they have to spend near the cap this year because it's a rolling 4 year number. 

This is not correct. I am arguing in 100% good faith and understand how the cap works. Since you are finding fault with a suggestion I never made (that we should have just found a bunch of one year deals) you are the one not arguing in good faith.

You don't have to spend new money on new players just because you have to spend cash and use up cap space. You spend it if it's for a player you think has a good, long future, and there is no requirement to backload it so the cap hit is unnecessarily low in year 1 of the contract. If there are players he wants, and truly believes has a good shot of playing out the contract, then by all means sign them. In those cases you don't worry about losing future cap space because you've filled a spot that future cap space would have been needed to fill. It's pre-filled by the 2015 signing, so that's fine.

What he could have done, that would have satisfied the spending requirement:

- He didn't have to backload the contracts for Carpenter, Skrine, or Gilchrist and keep their 2015 cap numbers so unnecessarily low. Certainly Carpenter and Skrine, since Gilchrist was considered less of a lock to be a good starter so I can excuse backloading him more. Last year was a time we had the space to front-load their contracts as roster bonus not signing bonus so it all comes off in 2015 and we have the cap room in 2016 and beyond instead. Like he did with Revis and Cromartie and the raise he gave Marshall: he didn't pay them big signing bonuses to keep their 2015 cap # lower (and then necessarily count more after 2015). 

- He could have "paid down" some existing contracts that carry high cap numbers later by pre-paying more cash in 2015. For example, we knew Decker wasn't going to get cut this spring, so last year he could have restructured him to convert $3M of his 2016 and 2017 base salaries into a roster bonus in 2015 (or just do it with 2016 salaries for a few players). This one Decker example would have increased our cash outlay for 2015 by $6M without paying $6M towards new meh players (like Cromartie in particular).

He could have done this with a few players, or as many as he needed to satisfy the requirement. In other words, he didn't have to spend the money on bringing in new players, and didn't have to backload contracts when we had so much cap space in 2015. He could have spend the same cash, used up all the 2015 cap space, and we could (and should) be looking at another $10-20M in cap space this year. The extra cap freedom we should have had for more than just 2015 was kind of squandered a bit. Since we didn't win anything in 2015 - and shouldn't have expected to when we were going into the season with such a ? at QB - it was poor planning to put so many eggs in the 2015 season basket.

[Sperm Edwards]

42 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Salaries are not decided by how 1 coach thinks that player is slotted on a depth chart. They are decided by what the market bears, and what any one team may be prepared to pay.

At least, that is how good organizations do it.

Words in December do not come to roost in Feb, March negotiations. 

I do not believe that the Jets or Fitz really consider this negotiation about what role he would play on the 2016 Jets. It is about what is the value of Fitz to the 2016 Jets.

Sort of. If we say he's going to start, any agent is going to say starters get x dollars so his client should therefore get x dollars (or in that ballpark). 

If we say he may start and he may not, and give a variety of reasons why he may not start for us (or may not start for long), then it's easier to justify our lower offer.

You cannot know that words in December do not come to roost in negotiations in Feb/March, since those December comments were directly related to those future negotiations. If we said we want him as a maybe-starter/maybe-backup and therefore we're only offering up $7M, it removes pride from the negotiation. There aren't the same "slap in the face" sentiments because we say this is just what our team's plan is. If someone else has a plan to start him for sure then good for them and we wish him well. If we say he's definitely our starter and then offer him a backup's contract, then it clouds things.

Not saying this is the situation with Fitz, but some players would accept a backup-dollar offer if they know they're being brought in to be the backup, than a backup-dollar offer on a team where the coach says he's definitely going to be the starter if he's here.

And I didn't say it's only about what role he would play on the 2016 Jets. That's not even an argument. Of course value plays into $. Even if he was the starter, and we were willing to pay him more as the starter, he still isn't going to be Aaron Rodgers starting, so he carries less value and costs less. But Bowles said he values him at the starting QB level, and starting QBs do have a certain going rate. It doesn't mean a deal is killed for him to say that. Just that it didn't help to get him to agree for less; if he knows he's the starter he's going to be more reluctant to accept backup dollars.

My whole argument is still more about one basic point: there was nothing to gain by saying anything the way Bowles did. That doesn't mean it will cause problems or did cause problems. Only that it could have caused problems so there was no point in saying anything at all. It's bad from a negotiating standpoint, and it's bad for him to go into the season so headstrong on Fitz starting because he really just isn't good enough for such guarantees. 

[southparkcpa]

13 hours ago, johnnysd said:

My personal opinion but I think Bowles is MUCH higher on Fitz than Gailey or Mac. 

 

13 hours ago, FidelioJet said:

I get that sense too...

Based on what,,,,,perhaps true but I fully believe this is MAC not willing to overspend because a coach wants the player. 

 

Tanny got got on his knees for Rex and blew the team up. Mac seems to be more , shall we say, measured. 

[FidelioJet]

Just now, southparkcpa said:

 

Based on what,,,,,perhaps true but I fully believe this is MAC not willing to overspend because a coach wants the player. 

 

Tanny got got on his knees for Rex and blew the team up. Mac seems to be more , shall we say, measured. 

It was a "sense" but if I had to point to something tangible, it would be the fact that Bowles named him the starting QB when he wasn't under contract...and Mac is playing hardball with him and his agent.

 

 

[BowlesMovement]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No problem. 

I'm lukewarm on Bowles. I like him personally. I like that he's brought back a much needed seriousness to the position. I like that he's not a douchebag. 

What I don't care for are two-fold. One, I'm getting tired of watching us break in another first time HC (no the 3 games of mop up duty in Miami don't count). It manifests itself in some poor game time decisions. Two, he seems too loyal to veteran starters with no competition (so far, a player's coach to a fault like Ryan).

This has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a coach, though. Saying too much, and revealing one's hand in the process, is a pet peeve of mine. 

I don't think it's arguable that it did nothing but potentially hurt and complicate re-signing him at the dollars his boss was willing to pay. Of course his agent knows his stats from last year. But one year doesn't (or shouldn't) guarantee a 33 year old journeyman, low ceiling QB a starting job. 

Other options present themselves so often around the league that it shouldn't even be a true statement for Bowles to be locked into mentally in the first place. Never mind announcing it before the guy is even under contract. 

It may end up being a total non-factor and we re-sign him for what we want. But I outlined several ways in which it further out that into doubt, when it was already going to be a challenge signing him for less after a 31 TD season. 

I feel the same way about Bowles, lukewarm.

Honestly I thought he was way too conservative at times, and stubborn to a fault.

i don't love Fitz by any stretch, but one of the biggest reasons I want to see Fitz back is I want to see how Bowles responds in his second year, with largely the same team back, and no excuses of a new QB who has to learn the system.

Year 2 to me will tell a lot about Bowles, especially if his choice of QB is back.

 

[Jetster]

5 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

I feel the same way about Bowles, lukewarm.

Honestly I thought he was way too conservative at times, and stubborn to a fault.

i don't love Fitz by any stretch, but one of the biggest reasons I want to see Fitz back is I want to see how Bowles responds in his second year, with largely the same team back, and no excuses of a new QB who has to learn the system.

Year 2 to me will tell a lot about Bowles, especially if his choice of QB is back.

 

Bowles got too confident in Fitzy. Especially that 1st Buffalo game when he passed on a Chip shot FG to get within 2 points when his defense was playing lights out. He wasn't conservative enough on that drive, he was caught up in the moment like we had atom Brady or Aaron Rogers at QB.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, BowlesMovement said:

I feel the same way about Bowles, lukewarm.

Honestly I thought he was way too conservative at times, and stubborn to a fault.

i don't love Fitz by any stretch, but one of the biggest reasons I want to see Fitz back is I want to see how Bowles responds in his second year, with largely the same team back, and no excuses of a new QB who has to learn the system.

Year 2 to me will tell a lot about Bowles, especially if his choice of QB is back.

 

Yeah I cut it off at 2 reasons but I guess - or hope - the stubbornness stems from inexperience, and perhaps therefore insecurity, in changing plans on the fly. Hope, because if it isn't inexperience or insecurity, it's inability. The first 2 correct in time. The last one is a problem that isn't fixable. So hope it's something that gets better with time, starting now, because he's going to be here for at least a couple more years (and who really wants us to need to go through another coaching change? I don't). 

[BowlesMovement]

3 minutes ago, Jetster said:

Bowles got too confident in Fitzy. Especially that 1st Buffalo game when he passed on a Chip shot FG to get within 2 points when his defense was playing lights out. He wasn't conservative enough on that drive, he was caught up in the moment like we had atom Brady or Aaron Rogers at QB.

I thought that was more about poor clock management to be honest, than overconfidence in Fitz

[Jetster]

13 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

I thought that was more about poor clock management to be honest, than overconfidence in Fitz

There would have been 5 minutes left & he had all 3 of his time outs after that FG he eschewed. 2 down & all that time? He needed to put the pressure on the Bills offense to convert, Jets had all the momentum at the time, it was a bad choice.

[BowlesMovement]

Just now, Jetster said:

There would have been 5 minutes left & he had all 3 of his time outs after that FG he eschewed. 2 down & all that time? He needed to put the pressure on the Bills offense to convert, Jets had all the momentum at the time, it was a bad choice.

I completely agree, it was a terrible choice, I just slightly disagree on the reason behind the choice, but you may be right

[Scott Dierking]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Sort of. If we say he's going to start, any agent is going to say starters get x dollars so his client should therefore get x dollars (or in that ballpark). 

If we say he may start and he may not, and give a variety of reasons why he may not start for us (or may not start for long), then it's easier to justify our lower offer.

You cannot know that words in December do not come to roost in negotiations in Feb/March, since those December comments were directly related to those future negotiations. If we said we want him as a maybe-starter/maybe-backup and therefore we're only offering up $7M, it removes pride from the negotiation. There aren't the same "slap in the face" sentiments because we say this is just what our team's plan is. If someone else has a plan to start him for sure then good for them and we wish him well. If we say he's definitely our starter and then offer him a backup's contract, then it clouds things.

Not saying this is the situation with Fitz, but some players would accept a backup-dollar offer if they know they're being brought in to be the backup, than a backup-dollar offer on a team where the coach says he's definitely going to be the starter if he's here.

And I didn't say it's only about what role he would play on the 2016 Jets. That's not even an argument. Of course value plays into $. Even if he was the starter, and we were willing to pay him more as the starter, he still isn't going to be Aaron Rodgers starting, so he carries less value and costs less. But Bowles said he values him at the starting QB level, and starting QBs do have a certain going rate. It doesn't mean a deal is killed for him to say that. Just that it didn't help to get him to agree for less; if he knows he's the starter he's going to be more reluctant to accept backup dollars.

My whole argument is still more about one basic point: there was nothing to gain by saying anything the way Bowles did. That doesn't mean it will cause problems or did cause problems. Only that it could have caused problems so there was no point in saying anything at all. It's bad from a negotiating standpoint, and it's bad for him to go into the season so headstrong on Fitz starting because he really just isn't good enough for such guarantees. 

So, if a coach tells a college player that if you are available in the first round, we are going to take you at our spot. Yet, he somehow slips to the 3rd round.

Does his agent then ask for first round and get first round money, because you said that is where you slotted me before the draft?

Of course not. Water seeks its own level and so does player negotiations, unless someone decides to be stupid. That is all it takes. But that did not mean the Jets had to be stupid.

Saying you are a starter does not mean that you your negotiations change. The market bears what the market bears, regardless of words. Ask Laverneous Coles.

[Embrace the Suck]

22 hours ago, Larz said:

man, this macc myth is growing by the minute

if he didn't give revis and skrine $20 million he would have money to give fitz.  maybe that's a good thing but lets not make him out to be some amazing poker player with giant balls of steel

he doesn't have the money because he shot his load last year

Salary cap rules forced him to spend. Go look it up.

[32EBoozer]

6 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

So, if a coach tells a college player that if you are available in the first round, we are going to take you at our spot. Yet, he somehow slips to the 3rd round.

Does his agent then ask for first round and get first round money, because you said that is where you slotted me before the draft?

Of course not. Water seeks its own level and so does player negotiations, unless someone decides to be stupid. That is all it takes. But that did not mean the Jets had to be stupid.

Saying you are a starter does not mean that you your negotiations change. The market bears what the market bears, regardless of words. Ask Laverneous Coles.

#Science!

[BowlesMovement]

22 hours ago, Larz said:

man, this macc myth is growing by the minute

if he didn't give revis and skrine $20 million he would have money to give fitz.  maybe that's a good thing but lets not make him out to be some amazing poker player with giant balls of steel

he doesn't have the money because he shot his load last year

He could get the money, he was in on Vernon up to around 15mil, he doesn't want to pay Fitz his asking price, he is playing poker, and playing it well

[jetrider]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Like two months ago. Presser after we were eliminated. He was asked and should have given a vague, wishy washy answer every coach does. Instead he said - and I don't have the wording in front of me - if Fitz returns he's our starter. No competition, not even a probably or that he'd have the upper hand or even Fitz's job to lose. Just that he's the starter, period, end of discussion. 

Fitz should know after 11 years and 6 teams that nothing is guaranteed. Bowles' words were just his opinion at the time. If he says today he wants a QB competition will it end the deadlock?

[Sperm Edwards]

31 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

So, if a coach tells a college player that if you are available in the first round, we are going to take you at our spot. Yet, he somehow slips to the 3rd round.

Does his agent then ask for first round and get first round money, because you said that is where you slotted me before the draft?

Of course not. Water seeks its own level and so does player negotiations, unless someone decides to be stupid. That is all it takes. But that did not mean the Jets had to be stupid.

Saying you are a starter does not mean that you your negotiations change. The market bears what the market bears, regardless of words. Ask Laverneous Coles.

Huh? 

If we told him we'd take him in round 1 and we did take him in round 1 then he'd get round 1 money. What are you talking about?

[Scott Dierking]

40 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Huh? 

If we told him we'd take him in round 1 and we did take him in round 1 then he'd get round 1 money. What are you talking about?

The point is, when Bowles supposedly what he said about Fitzgerald being a starter, is not a part of negotiation. It is a comment.

When negotiations start, what it comes down to is developing market worth (which the jets are doing) combined with team need and fit (which the Jets are also doing). As it should be.

Hey, my annual review with my company is in July (my anniversary date). What I am measured on is where is my performance at the time of the review, along with where the company needs me and what they need me to do.

It is not based on a manager's comment in March where he said "You are going places in this company if you keep doing what you do". That is not realistic.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

The point is, when Bowles supposedly what he said about Fitzgerald being a starter, is not a part of negotiation. It is a comment.

When negotiations start, what it comes down to is developing market worth (which the jets are doing) combined with team need and fit (which the Jets are also doing). As it should be.

Hey, my annual review with my company is in July (my anniversary date). What I am measured on is where is my performance at the time of the review, along with where the company needs me and what they need me to do.

It is not based on a manager's comment in March where he said "You are going places in this company if you keep doing what you do". That is not realistic.

 

I'm not arguing Bowles was negotiating. But it's clearly been a sticking point as Fitzpatrick wants to be paid like other starters if he's going to start.

If you want to use your business analogy this would be it:

You have an employee. He's been doing the work of a manager, and managers get paid much, much more than merely valuable employees (which is his current pay scale). At his review he's told he's done a great job. Company loves him. Company wants to keep him around for another couple years. You tell him: "Hey there you've been doing the job of a manager all year. Next year we want you to be a full manager again. Now as far as compensation? We'll give you a little bump but it won't be the going rate for your job. In fact, it'll still be less than half the going rate for the job you do. We're going to pay you like an assistant. You WILL be a manager here the next year or two if you stay with the company, but we won't pay you like one."

Compare that to, "Look we would love to have you back, and we may lean on you heavily to do some managerial duties for a bit. But really, we need someone with an MBA or who can do other things you're just not capable of doing. We'll pay you like the top assistant salary in your field, and when we hire your superior we will still keep you around because we value you so much. But the reality is we are going to need to hire more people and, even for the next couple years, just can't pay you like a permanent solution. It's entirely possible you may not spend 1 day actually being the manager so we can't give you a manager's contract."

I wouldn't expect the employee to like hearing either one. But which one is going to stick under his craw, and the other (while unpleasant to hear) is just the simple fact.

Also getting paid as a backup for being a backup isn't as "insulting" as getting paid as a backup to do a starter's job, and have all your co-workers know you got shafted and still came crawling back with your tail between your legs.

But for the however-many'th-time. I'm not saying this is causing difficulty in reaching an agreement. I'm saying it can cause difficulty. And it was unnecessary. 

[Scott Dierking]

13 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

 But it's clearly been a sticking point

Link?

[Villain The Foe]

On 3/12/2016 at 4:18 PM, drcgull said:

And you don't think telling a guy who just had one of the best jet qb seasons, that he is fighting for a job with Geno Smith would be a slap in the face??

 

Given how historically horrible QB play has been for the Jets....it not as big of a deal as people like to suggest it. 

Ryan Tannehill statistically would have had one of the best seasons in Jets history his past two seasons, yet many would agree that Tannehill isnt really good. 

[Charlie Brown]

I am not sure I fully understand the Bowles blew the negotiating thing?

Are we suggesting that Bowles' statement about Fitz being the Jet starter made Fitz and his agent insane and asking for "starter" money that neither the  49ers, Denver and Cleveland are willing to give?

No one sees Fitz as an 18 Million dollar man.  No One.

IMO Bowles perhaps could have chosen his words better but they are in no way responsible for the ridiculous path that Fitz and his agent have now taken. 

[Scott Dierking]

1 hour ago, Charlie Brown said:

I am not sure I fully understand the Bowles blew the negotiating thing?

Are we suggesting that Bowles' statement about Fitz being the Jet starter made Fitz and his agent insane and asking for "starter" money that neither the  49ers, Denver and Cleveland are willing to give?

No one sees Fitz as an 18 Million dollar man.  No One.

IMO Bowles perhaps could have chosen his words better but they are in no way responsible for the ridiculous path that Fitz and his agent have now taken. 

Does anybody really think that Fitz's agent would have gone into negotiations with the suggestion that he would not be the starter if signing with the Jets for 2016?

He started 15 games in 2015, of course they are going to go into negotiations seeking starter money. Agents are not bashful, and they certainly do not start from a premise of accepting the least possible role. It does not work that way.

To suggest that Bowles' comment hurt the Jets in negotiating with Fitzgerald is ludicrous.

[T0mShane]

6 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Does anybody really think that Fitz's agent would have gone into negotiations with the suggestion that he would not be the starter if signing with the Jets for 2016?

He started 15 games in 2015, of course they are going to go into negotiations seeking starter money. Agents are not bashful, and they certainly do not start from a premise of accepting the least possible role. It does not work that way.

To suggest that Bowles' comment hurt the Jets in negotiating with Fitzgerald is ludicrous.

Rex fans still annoyed by the assertion that Rex calling Revis the best corner in the league led to Revis' holdout.