Poll: Fitz vs Geno

[Jetster]

1 hour ago, Beerfish said:

No other team in the leauge scored 17 points per game, that is a pretty fair metric of being in very game.  As well as having the #3 in the league red zone offense.  Anyone that totally dismisses those stats simply has no clue about the game because the best way to sabotage those key stats is to take sacks at bad times and cough up the ball, something the Jets did not do very often last year (other than the fateful last game.)

 

So yeah, I am going there. 

 

I have to put the comment back on you, are you really going there saying that 100% of an offense and teams success is due to strength of schedule disregarding every other tangible metric?  Because seems to be what you and a number of others keep bringing up.

Well, the defense gave him a helluva lot more opportunities than in 2013 & 2014.

Last year the Jets defense had 18 interceptions & 12 fumble recoveries. In 2014 they had 6 interceptions & 7 fumble recoveries. In 2013 they had 13 interceptions and 2 fumble recoveries. Fitz was the beneficiary of more change of possession after a turnover in 1 season than Geno was in 2 seasons COMBINED! I'm sure that contributed a lot to the overall offense. 

[Jet Nut]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

Well Elway never won a SB until he won 2. Anything is possible. 

LOL.

No, until you make the playoffs you cant win a SB.

What kind of friggen answer is this.  

[Mike135]

4 minutes ago, Jetster said:

Well, the defense gave him a helluva lot more opportunities than in 2013 & 2014.

Last year the Jets defense had 18 interceptions & 12 fumble recoveries. In 2014 they had 6 interceptions & 7 fumble recoveries. In 2013 they had 13 interceptions and 2 fumble recoveries. Fitz was the beneficiary of more change of possession after a turnover in 1 season than Geno was in 2 seasons COMBINED! I'm sure that contributed a lot to the overall offense. 

You've got it all wrong.  The defense played better because of Fitz.

I'm not sure how, but figured I'd get out ahead of the Fitz supporters.  I'm sure they'll explain it in a bit.

[Rangers9]

8 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

What you cant seem to get into your head is there isnt another team that want to sign him.  I'm not telling him what to do.  You are.  I'm telling you what his options are.  You want us to believe that quitting is an option and it gives him leverage.  Sure. Hes overpaid at 7 mil but he doesnt have to take it.  He can go home, cut off his nose to spite his face and be done with football.  He can show us, he's not going to play for 7 mil.

Of course this is pure nonsense, there isnt a chance in hell he quits and tosses away 7 mil.  You can tell yourself over and over again that he's not going to play for that kind of money.  But hey, you tell him what to do.  I have no clue what youre trying to say, he doesnt tell me what to make.  Again, you keep painting a picture where we're forcing this clown to accept $7 mil per for being slightly better than mediocre at what he does.  I get it, you love Fitz beyond belief and will defend his honor and right to turn down 7 mil as if it proves you right.  Move on already, we get it

Who says he was offered 7 mil or that he turned it down. I don't love the guy but he's a good Qb and he should get paid but not overpaid. People like you are making up what figure he is being offered and calling him an idiot for not doing what you say. And who says there isn't a market for his services. You're making up stuff or just listening to crap you want to hear. If he doesn't sign with us I'll lose no sleep over it.  It's just stupid not to sign him. 

[Jet Nut]

22 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

You can't do that because you don't know how he would have played. He might have won more games or maybe less. For the most part you're right but it's not iron clad. Rodgers is better than Fitz. I mean was Favre better than Chad. But who played better on his respective team in 2008. CP over BF. 

Yes, we can do this.  We know that we would have won more games with Rodgers at QB.  

Your analogy is pointless.  Chad played on the Dolphins while Favre played on the Jets.  Never mind Favre was injured.  But we're talking Rodger on the 2015 Jets vs Fitz on the 2015 Jets.  Not two different teams.   Pointless analogy

[Jet Nut]

8 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Who says he was offered 7 mil or that he turned it down. I don't love the guy but he's a good Qb and he should get paid but not overpaid. People like you are making up what figure he is being offered and calling him an idiot for not doing what you say. And who says there isn't a market for his services. You're making up stuff or just listening to crap you want to hear. If he doesn't sign with us I'll lose no sleep. It's just stupid not to sign him. 

Everyone but you said it.  Actually Cimini has said he was offered more, closer to 10 per.  No one is making up numbers.  It makes sense.  Its been said over and over again.  

Who says theres no market for him?  Ugh, that no one is talking to him other than the Jets?  That there isnt a single team that needs a starting QB in the NFL?  

Im making shlt up?  How about you tell us, which teams need a QB, which teams make up the imaginary market in your mind?  Please, you keep saying theres a market, who?  

The Jets are going to go into camp with Hackenberg, Petty and Geno.  If Geno plays like he did last year in camp you boy is gone.  Its not stupid, its he priced himself out of the market that doesnt even exist.  To me we lose nothing.  Geno in Oakland putting up numbers better than Fitz in his normal game.  Besides, we can miss the playoffs with Geno just as well as with Fitz, who couldnt take a playoff roster to the playoffs with the easiest schedule in the league.  Save the money, use it towards Mo or another player and move on.  If Geno struggles he can sign his 7-10 mil deal and enjoy one more year in NY.  

 

[slats]

3 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Who says he was offered 7 mil or that he turned it down. I don't love the guy but he's a good Qb and he should get paid but not overpaid. People like you are making up what figure he is being offered and calling him an idiot for not doing what you say. And who says there isn't a market for his services. You're making up stuff or just listening to crap you want to hear. If he doesn't sign with us I'll lose no sleep. It's just stupid not to sign him. 

He's unemployed in May. I think it's pretty obvious that if there actually is a market for Fitz, it's well below his asking price. 

[nyjunc]

22 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

I don't think we'll win the SB with Fitz or anyone in 2016. Because overall the team isn't good enough at least on paper. But with Fitz we're in the playoff and beyond conversation. We have a fighting chance. And a very good shot at making the playoffs. A much better shot than Denver if Sanchez is the starter. 

we had a playoff roster last year and couldn't make it despite the weak schedule and everything breaking perfectly for us late in the year.  I prefer Fitz, just not at the $ he wants.  we can miss the playoffs for less money w/ another QB.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, BowlesMovement said:

Im not twisting your words around at all, I am taking what you said. 

I just think expecting even a SB caliber team to win 14 games is expecting a lot, and I don't think this team was a SB caliber team short of an elite QB. I don't think an Eli Manning makes that team last year 14-2 by any stretch, or even a Rivers. Aaron Rodgers maybe, but short of that, I just don't see it. I think a lot of Jets fans overrate the team last year, it was a decent team, it was not a great team irrespective of who the QB was.

I didn't say anything close to "any time a team loses it's because the QB had a bad game," at all.

I think if the team is in a position because the D/ST keeps the score low, and the QB is throwing wildly off-target passes and interceptions - particularly late in the game - then yes, the QB should bear blame.

If Fitzpatrick can win those 10 games we won, then so could/would better QBs. Then we have 4 more games that also were very winnable because the opponents' scoring was kept low. If you want to subtract one because of some law of averages that suggests we have to lose one, you can make that claim. But if we're going to lose 4 winnable games - 25% of the season outright - with his lousy play, and only typically win the easy ones where other things click just right against weaker opponents, then it puts a real damper on his supposed/perceived value. 

[BowlesMovement]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I didn't say anything close to "any time a team loses it's because the QB had a bad game," at all.

I think if the team is in a position because the D/ST keeps the score low, and the QB is throwing wildly off-target passes and interceptions - particularly late in the game - then yes, the QB should bear blame.

If Fitzpatrick can win those 10 games we won, then so could/would better QBs. Then we have 4 more games that also were very winnable because the opponents' scoring was kept low. If you want to subtract one because of some law of averages that suggests we have to lose one, you can make that claim. But if we're going to lose 4 winnable games - 25% of the season outright - with his lousy play, and only typically win the easy ones where other things click just right against weaker opponents, then it puts a real damper on his supposed/perceived value. 

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think any NFL team, even with great QB's can be expected to play to their ability every single week. Players have bad games, coaches have bad games, freak turnovers can happen, officials can ignore blatant holding, etc.

I also think that Bowles and Gailey very often game planned to what they thought the opponents would score, which I HATED!! This is my biggest concern by far about Bowles, I felt like way too often instead of going for the kill, he played to keep games close, and when you do that, you are going to lose close games when you should beat teams far too often. There were games when the D was stacking 8-9 in the box and we kept Fng running up the gut, and then would throw a prayer with no shot on 3rd and long. 

For the record, this is something I think way too many defensive HC's do, and it pisses me off. Rex did it too, but I think for a different reason.

[Sperm Edwards]

39 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

You can't do that because you don't know how he would have played. He might have won more games or maybe less. For the most part you're right but it's not iron clad. Rodgers is better than Fitz. I mean was Favre better than Chad. But who played better on his respective team in 2008. CP over BF. 

Oh please. People play that game with Fitzpatrick all the time when they want to assign the Jets wins (both past and future) that would have otherwise been losses in his absence.

 

[ylekram]

3 hours ago, Mike135 said:

1. Fitz:  36
2. Geno:  38
3. Geno unless Fitz accepts 7mil:  37

Geno kickin' @ss!

 

lets give the poll 2 more fitz options. lets say pay fitz 8m is one. and pay fitz 9m would be another. that way you can divide the fitz vote up even further. 38 people voted for geno. 76 people voted for fitz. you can divide those fitz votes by half. don't politicians work this way?

[Rangers9]

24 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Everyone but you said it.  Actually Cimini has said he was offered more, closer to 10 per.  No one is making up numbers.  It makes sense.  Its been said over and over again.  

Who says theres no market for him?  Ugh, that no one is talking to him other than the Jets?  That there isnt a single team that needs a starting QB in the NFL?  

Im making shlt up?  How about you tell us, which teams need a QB, which teams make up the imaginary market in your mind?  Please, you keep saying theres a market, who?  

The Jets are going to go into camp with Hackenberg, Petty and Geno.  If Geno plays like he did last year in camp you boy is gone.  Its not stupid, its he priced himself out of the market that doesnt even exist.  To me we lose nothing.  Geno in Oakland putting up numbers better than Fitz in his normal game.  Besides, we can miss the playoffs with Geno just as well as with Fitz, who couldnt take a playoff roster to the playoffs with the easiest schedule in the league.  Save the money, use it towards Mo or another player and move on.  If Geno struggles he can sign his 7-10 mil deal and enjoy one more year in NY.  

 

There is no cred on any of these figures being thrown around. Nobody knows exactly the true numbers or details of these offers. Fitz and the Jets aren't talking about it. I haven't seen one interview with Fitz and Mac and Woody aren't giving out numbers. As for other teams again Fitz isn't talking. And offers could come later like in training camp. So you have nothing but rumors. And again you're telling the guy what you think he should do. He can do what he wants including retire over taking below market. What Fitz makes is no skin off my nose but apparently it is off of yours. Why do you care, anyways. Payback for losing in week 17?

[Mike135]

6 minutes ago, ylekram said:

lets give the poll 2 more fitz options. lets say pay fitz 8m is one. and pay fitz 9m would be another. that way you can divide the fitz vote up even further. 38 people voted for geno. 76 people voted for fitz. you can divide those fitz votes by half. don't politicians work this way?

Can't edit the poll anymore.  But the 7mil option was a nice addition because I believe that was the reported starting offer.

So we've got the three main options covered. 

1. Fitz at whatever crazy amount.
2. Geno
3. Fitz at the original 7mil offer, otherwise Geno.

Any other options would just get too confusing to judge.

[Warfish]

3 hours ago, cant wait said:

I don't think the plan is tanking, the jets are trying to build a solid balanced roster so when they find a young QB that's worth keeping around the team can develop a consistently winning program and we're not just a team like Indy that gets lucky with finding top QB's to carry their franchise

Sounds fine....until we realize that starting Geno Smith is the very definition of "suck till we find one".  Literally the only reason to start Geno is in a half-hearted attempt to "see what we have", and "give him a fair chance", "something something talent around him", etc.

If "seeing what we have" is part of the QB discourse,acceptance of sucking is by definition a part, for the hope of some low-percentage what if.

If it were someone other than Geno, it might make some sense, although it would still be a clear-cut "2016 is sacrificed" move.  But Geno is a two-time loser, who, when he had the whole shebang sitting in front of him, managed to get himself cold cocked by his own player in one of the most embarrassing moments in our teams history.  Our starting (or perceived to be starting) QB, jaw broke by his own linebacker?   FFS.

If we're going to suck, lets suck with Petty if we have to.  It's still de facto sacrificing the season in 2016.  But at least it's not on a three-time loser.

 

 

[paulyjet]

I Can not believe this is even close. Obviously you geno guys don't remember how bad he was.

[Rangers9]

Without salary being a factor in the poll so far 2/3 of fans voted for Fitz. (114 so far have voted). In other words they think Fitz is the better Qb to lead this team. 

[Mike135]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

Without salary being a factor in the poll so far 2/3 of fans voted for Fitz. (114 so far have voted). In other words they think Fitz is the better Qb to lead this team. 

Now that is true.

If Fitz accepts 7mil:  76-38 in favor of Fitz.

If Fitz won't accept 7mil:  76-38 in favor of Geno.

[joewilly12]

10 minutes ago, paulyjet said:

I Can not believe this is even close. Obviously you geno guys don't remember how bad he was.

We also know what we get with Fitzpatrick,Geno is matured has legit WRs and a real OC. 

[joewilly12]

8 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Without salary being a factor in the poll so far 2/3 of fans voted for Fitz. (114 so far have voted). In other words they think Fitz is the better Qb to lead this team. 

NO they dont. This poll isn't what Rangers9 wants it to be. 

[Long Island Leprechaun]

15 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

Without salary being a factor in the poll so far 2/3 of fans voted for Fitz. (114 so far have voted). In other words they think Fitz is the better Qb to lead this team. 

I picked the $7 million figure because that's our best guess as to what the Jets offered. They may have put more on the table than that and Fitz turned it down. If you said
"Fitz at $9 million" I think the votes wouldn't have changed terribly much. That's still well below (by half) the Ostweiler market of $16-18 million. Bottom line though is that a third of posters here don't want to give up the farm for Fitz. That's the point of the third option. Rather go with Geno or Petty if that's the choice...

[Long Island Leprechaun]

32 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

Can't edit the poll anymore.  But the 7mil option was a nice addition because I believe that was the reported starting offer.

So we've got the three main options covered. 

1. Fitz at whatever crazy amount.
2. Geno
3. Fitz at the original 7mil offer, otherwise Geno.

Any other options would just get too confusing to judge.

Ideally, Option 3 should have been "Fitz at anything under $10 million, otherwise Geno." I think the votes would be very similar.

[BowlesMovement]

10 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

We also know what we get with Fitzpatrick,Geno is matured has legit WRs and a real OC. 

You hope Geno has matured, you have know way of knowing that until he goes out and shows it on the field week after week.

[Shadetree]

They're gonna announce restructured contracts and Fitz signing on the same day...it'll be a Saturday..and my Sunday morning bagels will be ******* awesome!!!

[Mike135]

2 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Ideally, Option 3 should have been "Fitz at anything under $10 million, otherwise Geno." I think the votes would be very similar.

Everyone would have their own "ideal" options.  So the reported Jets offer seems like the best mid-option to me.

[CrazyCarl40]

2 hours ago, win4ever said:

Hey you may be right. 

I think I, along with the other non economics majors here, would love it if you could explain in detail about how we will sign Wilkerson and Fitz without cutting anyone or strapping our cap in the future.  

Please enlighten me.  

I already explained this, but apparently you also have a reading comprehension issue. Wilk is currently 15.8 against the cap. If they sign him long term, they can drop that number to something much more manageable in year one. That could clear 7-8 million right there. You can also restructure Mangold and Marshall and free up money without hampering the future because neither guy is going anywhere anytime soon. There is plenty of money to be made available. And again, the Jets will have plenty of cap room next year and the year after. They can afford to push money into the future. 

[Sperm Edwards]

6 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

I already explained this, but apparently you also have a reading comprehension issue. Wilk is currently 15.8 against the cap. If they sign him long term, they can drop that number to something much more manageable in year one. That could clear 7-8 million right there. You can also restructure Mangold and Marshall and free up money without hampering the future because neither guy is going anywhere anytime soon. There is plenty of money to be made available. And again, the Jets will have plenty of cap room next year and the year after. They can afford to push money into the future. 

@win4ever Carl may be crazy as a motherf***er but he is crazy correct on this. When a player is given a new contract it is typically backloaded to (a) save immediate cap space, and (b) because the tail end of the contract, in the contract's most expensive years, will fall under a much higher cap limit.

If Mo is signed to a new contract, tearing up the franchise tag in the process, he'll count less than $15.7m in 2017. The only way he won't count noticeably lower is if the team chooses not to do so (or if he is extended at $25M/year I suppose).

I do disagree that restructuring other players, like Mangold and Marshall, don't hamper the future. The additional 2016 dollars paid to them in 2017 will not be usable towards another player in 2017. That hampers the future. By how much depends on how much is pushed off to next year.

[AFJF]

20 hours ago, joewilly12 said:

In other words, the long and short of it for Fitzpatrick is this: he wants to get Sam Bradfordmoney (a.k.a. $18 million a year or somewhere in the range). But teams see him as successful in Gailey's system and, at 33 years old, a bridge quarterback at absolute best.

Signing Fitzpatrick to a 3-year, $45 million deal is the type of move that will end up making you regret about $40 million of the contract.

As I said,  none of us have any idea how much he wants, but you don't like the fact that he set the franchise record for TD's last season en route to 10 wins so you will continue to pretend to have first-hand knowledge of the negotiations, which you do not.

Fear not though...tougher schedule this season means less production from him, fewer wins, and you'll get to celebrate being right.

[win4ever]

6 minutes ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

I already explained this, but apparently you also have a reading comprehension issue. Wilk is currently 15.8 against the cap. If they sign him long term, they can drop that number to something much more manageable in year one. That could clear 7-8 million right there. You can also restructure Mangold and Marshall and free up money without hampering the future because neither guy is going anywhere anytime soon. There is plenty of money to be made available. And again, the Jets will have plenty of cap room next year and the year after. They can afford to push money into the future. 

Ah, possibly, I'll ask my doctor.  Do you think my lack of economical reasoning and reading comprehension may be related?  I'd love to hear more on this diagnosis.   

Ok, we clear 7-8 million by signing him long term? Interesting.  Have you explained why the Jets haven't done that yet?  I'm sorry if I missed it earlier.  Sometimes I wish GMs would just listen to us.   It can't be, because Wilkerson wants more guaranteed money than what's feasible for us?

So let's assume they wise up and sign him to that contract, and (if my economics googling is correct) spread out that signing bonus over many years to lower the cap number, we create 7-8 million.  Now, we have to restructure Marshall and Mangold?  What does restructuring do?  Googling tells me, it locks us into contracts longer with older players in this case, limiting financial flexibility in the future.  But they can be wrong, I wanted to ask you, before starting an Ask Yahoo post.   So they can't get hurt?  I haven't kept up with the advances in medical technology, so I wouldn't know.    Is this what we accused Tanny of doing and eventually leading us into cap hell?  Again, this reading comprehension thing really limits me I feel.  

[Villain The Foe]

Tight race. 

 

[Colgateman]

3 minutes ago, AFJF said:

As I said,  none of us have any idea how much he wants, but you don't like the fact that he set the franchise record for TD's last season en route to 10 wins so you will continue to pretend to have first-hand knowledge of the negotiations, which you do not.

Fear not though...tougher schedule this season means less production from him, fewer wins, and you'll get to celebrate being right.

so why do you want the jets to sign him so bad for 10 mil+ and restructure contracts locking the jets into contracts they may not want if it means the guy is gonna regress? Which we all know he will do.

[CrazyCarl40]

2 minutes ago, win4ever said:

Ah, possibly, I'll ask my doctor.  Do you think my lack of economical reasoning and reading comprehension may be related?  I'd love to hear more on this diagnosis.   

Ok, we clear 7-8 million by signing him long term? Interesting.  Have you explained why the Jets haven't done that yet?  I'm sorry if I missed it earlier.  Sometimes I wish GMs would just listen to us.   It can't be, because Wilkerson wants more guaranteed money than what's feasible for us?

So let's assume they wise up and sign him to that contract, and (if my economics googling is correct) spread out that signing bonus over many years to lower the cap number, we create 7-8 million.  Now, we have to restructure Marshall and Mangold?  What does restructuring do?  Googling tells me, it locks us into contracts longer with older players in this case, limiting financial flexibility in the future.  But they can be wrong, I wanted to ask you, before starting an Ask Yahoo post.   So they can't get hurt?  I haven't kept up with the advances in medical technology, so I wouldn't know.    Is this what we accused Tanny of doing and eventually leading us into cap hell?  Again, this reading comprehension thing really limits me I feel.  

Maybe when you go to the proctologist you can see if he can remove your head from back there. 

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Rangers9 said:

There is no cred on any of these figures being thrown around. Nobody knows exactly the true numbers or details of these offers. Fitz and the Jets aren't talking about it. I haven't seen one interview with Fitz and Mac and Woody aren't giving out numbers. As for other teams again Fitz isn't talking. And offers could come later like in training camp. So you have nothing but rumors. And again you're telling the guy what you think he should do. He can do what he wants including retire over taking below market. What Fitz makes is no skin off my nose but apparently it is off of yours. Why do you care, anyways. Payback for losing in week 17?

Why do you talk? 

You have everyone report 7-10 mil, closer to 10 and you, from your mothers basement argue the numbers aren't true.  

Now you're saying there is a market because offers COULD come in camp.  Lol, where?  Who needs a QB?  Who is the market, not what might happen if a plane crashed and someone lost their QB in a crash.  

Youre throwing out words like rumors, true numbers, offers, retirement etc, words that you apparently don't actually know the meaning of. 

[win4ever]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

@win4ever Carl may be crazy as a motherf***er but he is crazy correct on this. When a player is given a new contract it is typically backloaded to (a) save immediate cap space, and (b) because the tail end of the contract, in the contract's most expensive years, will fall under a much higher cap limit.

If Mo is signed to a new contract, tearing up the franchise tag in the process, he'll count less than $15.7m in 2017. The only way he won't count noticeably lower is if the team chooses not to do so (or if he is extended at $25M/year I suppose).

I do disagree that restructuring other players, like Mangold and Marshall, don't hamper the future. The additional 2016 dollars paid to them in 2017 will not be usable towards another player in 2017. That hampers the future. By how much depends on how much is pushed off to next year.

I actually have no problem resigning Wilkerson either, but I believe the hang-up is that he wants more guaranteed money upfront in the form of signing bonuses that have to be spread out evenly over the contract.   I think at best we save about 5 million or so on the cap hit this year, because Wilkerson can see how Revis played the system to get the top dollar.  

In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the roster spot plus the restructures/cuts needed to add Fitz would lead us anywhere.  Fitz is a hold the fort guy, but what are we holding the fort with a veteran team?  If we don't restructure, alteast have the opportunity to make changes, soon rather than later.   I understand, if a great QB or player hit the market and you rob Peter to pay Paul, but Fitz isn't worth it.  

[AFJF]

1 minute ago, Colgateman said:

so why do you want the jets to sign him so bad for 10 mil+ and restructure contracts locking the jets into contracts they may not want if it means the guy is gonna regress? Which we all know he will do.

Because I hope that by some miracle, he'll play well and my message board opinions will be validated and I can celebrate the wins the same way his detractors will celebrate the losses.