Poll: Fitz vs Geno

[Jet Nut]

2 hours ago, LIJetsFan said:

It's a total mystery to me.  I mean hell, 7m isn't exactly chump change but who knows what factors are egging him on in either direction:  his agent?  his ego?  a believe that he'll get picked up for more $ during the season by a needy team?  he's rich and wouldn't mind retiring?  His wife and kids weighing in?  Other job offers on the table?  

Why would anyone who made 3.5 mil a year ago retire at 7?  I mean the idea that all these things could lead to retirement can be said at 10 mil.  

And an agent who tells him to retire because his one and only offer is double what he made a year ago, is a staring job in 2016 after being hired as a backup in 2015 should be fired

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, slats said:

It's the nature of the QB position that it always, inevitably, gets too much of the credit and too much of the blame. In Fitzpatrick's case, he seems to be enjoying a lot more of the former around here. 

Only with a VERY selective reading of this forum could you reach that conclusion.

I see Fitz-credit posts vastly out-posted by "pay Fitz no more than 2 mil, he sucks anyway" and "Geno is better anyway, he deserves a fair chance and won the job last year too" and "Fitz was the entire problem in Buffalo, and was carried by the talent all year too" style posting.

Even most of those who give credit to Fitz (as I do) hold him to blame for his part in Buffalo and generally describe him (at best) as "average". 

Whereas Fitz critics blame no one but Fitz for Buffalo, rather clearly at that.

This is a false equivalency argument, Pro-Fitz are far less aggressive, far less over-the-top than Anti-Fitz here at JI.  

JMO

[Sperm Edwards]

38 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

 

Missed your earlier post.  No one is saying you have to love the options, but the goal of this poll was to gauge the most likely options.  Otherwise the poll would have 46 options and be impossible to interpret.

Heck my ideal solution would be:  Sign Fitz for 4 or 5mil.  Let all four compete and the best one starts, but that's not gonna happen.

If you're leaning towards not spending on Fitz and would want to see a Geno/Petty/Hack battle, that is pretty much the Geno option. 

Not necessarily. The team could decide, in Fitzpatrick's absence, that none of those 3 are suitable (with Fitzpatrick still outpricing himself). Hell, I don't even want them to hand the job to Fitzpatrick either, but that's obviously what would happen if he was re-signed. If he's re-signed for $10-16M per, with a 2+ year guarantee, then it's really a foregone conclusion, even if he didn't look too good this summer or into the fall. It's a large part of the reason why I don't really want him back at more than glorified backup dollars. 

That said, I would welcome him on a 1 yr deal at $7M or less because that is the type of contract that could get someone else in the huddle without throwing egg on the faces of the coaching staff and FO. There would be no "face" to save if/when he's relegated back to veteran-backup status. Quite the contrary; he would then be an obvious re-sign by the team at that money and, since it was for cheap dollars, they will have shrewdly avoided a $30M-ish multi-year catastrophe Fitzpatrick is/was demanding (and that some fans are incredibly willing to fork over). At the same time, he's obviously good enough to throw out there in a pinch as a backup, or to start until one of the younger draft picks shows they're worthy of being on the field.

So again, I don't like the choices enough to say I'm "in favor" of any one since they are incomplete. It is too much oversimplification to ask if one prefers Fitzpatrick or Geno, as though all other things are equal, when they are not. Also, if Fitz returns at $8M or $10M, are we talking about a multi-year commitment? Because there's a good chance that's also part of Fitzpatrick's demands, which would render that choice equally unrealistic. Even $10M is too much to keep him on as a backup into 2017. It's fully double the rate for such a job.

Basically I believe will not lead us to the playoffs in 2016 and has virtually no chance of leading us to a superbowl because he stinks against good defenses and particularly in matchups that require the offense to put points on the board. Therefore I want to move on from such a QB with no future, unless he's here at backup dollars so there's no conflict of interest. The only question to that end, is what I'd be willing to throw at Fitzpatrick to keep the seat warm for someone else. For me the answer is not much, and certainly not what he's looking for. 

[cant wait]

9 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Only with a VERY selective reading of this forum could you reach that conclusion.

I see Fitz-credit posts vastly out-posted by "pay Fitz no more than 2 mil, he sucks anyway" and "Geno is better anyway, he deserves a fair chance and won the job last year too" and "Fitz was the entire problem in Buffalo, and was carried by the talent all year too" style posting.

Even most of those who give credit to Fitz (as I do) hold him to blame for his part in Buffalo and generally describe him (at best) as "average". 

Whereas Fitz critics blame no one but Fitz for Buffalo, rather clearly at that.

This is a false equivalency argument, Pro-Fitz are far less aggressive, far less over-the-top than Anti-Fitz here at JI.  

JMO

I guess you missed the whole "conquering hero" meme

[Rangers9]

8 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Why would anyone who made 3.5 mil a year ago retire at 7?  I mean the idea that all these things could lead to retirement can be said at 10 mil.  

And an agent who tells him to retire because his one and only offer is double what he made a year ago, is a staring job in 2016 after being hired as a backup in 2015 should be fired

Look you're assuming what this guy wants or feels is fair in terms of salary. You and others are basically telling him what he should do. And saying he's ungrateful for not accepting the Jets offer (which you really don't know anything about). But the figures some of you guys are tossing out and saying he should sign for are unrealistic. No starting NFL Qb makes that little unless on a rookie contract.  

[Mike135]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

Look you're assuming what this guy wants or feels is fair in terms of salary. You and others are basically telling him what he should do. And saying he's ungrateful for not accepting the Jets offer (which you really don't know anything about). But the figures some of you guys are tossing out and saying he should sign for are unrealistic. No starting NFL Qb makes that little unless on a rookie contract.  

Many are saying to possibly re-sign Fitz but not to necessarily be the starter.  So offering starter money wouldn't make sense.

[Mike135]

17 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Not necessarily. The team could decide, in Fitzpatrick's absence, that none of those 3 are suitable (with Fitzpatrick still outpricing himself). Hell, I don't even want them to hand the job to Fitzpatrick either, but that's obviously what would happen if he was re-signed. If he's re-signed for $10-16M per, with a 2+ year guarantee, then it's really a foregone conclusion, even if he didn't look too good this summer or into the fall. It's a large part of the reason why I don't really want him back at more than glorified backup dollars. 

That said, I would welcome him on a 1 yr deal at $7M or less because that is the type of contract that could get someone else in the huddle without throwing egg on the faces of the coaching staff and FO. There would be no "face" to save if/when he's relegated back to veteran-backup status. Quite the contrary; he would then be an obvious re-sign by the team at that money and, since it was for cheap dollars, they will have shrewdly avoided a $30M-ish multi-year catastrophe Fitzpatrick is/was demanding (and that some fans are incredibly willing to fork over). At the same time, he's obviously good enough to throw out there in a pinch as a backup, or to start until one of the younger draft picks shows they're worthy of being on the field.

So again, I don't like the choices enough to say I'm "in favor" of any one since they are incomplete. It is too much oversimplification to ask if one prefers Fitzpatrick or Geno, as though all other things are equal, when they are not. Also, if Fitz returns at $8M or $10M, are we talking about a multi-year commitment? Because there's a good chance that's also part of Fitzpatrick's demands, which would render that choice equally unrealistic. Even $10M is too much to keep him on as a backup into 2017. It's fully double the rate for such a job.

Basically I believe will not lead us to the playoffs in 2016 and has virtually no chance of leading us to a superbowl because he stinks against good defenses and particularly in matchups that require the offense to put points on the board. Therefore I want to move on from such a QB with no future, unless he's here at backup dollars so there's no conflict of interest. The only question to that end, is what I'd be willing to throw at Fitzpatrick to keep the seat warm for someone else. For me the answer is not much, and certainly not what he's looking for. 

Ok I give up.  Ya don't wanna vote, fair enough.  I knew the limited options wouldn't cover everyone's perfect solution, but figured listing the most probable options and then saying "gun to your head... choose" would at least allow everyone to choose an option.  Again, even if it's not their own ideal solution.

[slats]

14 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Only with a VERY selective reading of this forum could you reach that conclusion.

I see Fitz-credit posts vastly out-posted by "pay Fitz no more than 2 mil, he sucks anyway" and "Geno is better anyway, he deserves a fair chance and won the job last year too" and "Fitz was the entire problem in Buffalo, and was carried by the talent all year too" style posting.

Even most of those who give credit to Fitz (as I do) hold him to blame for his part in Buffalo and generally describe him (at best) as "average". 

Whereas Fitz critics blame no one but Fitz for Buffalo, rather clearly at that.

This is a false equivalency argument, Pro-Fitz are far less aggressive, far less over-the-top than Anti-Fitz here at JI.  

JMO

That's JYO because of the side of the discussion you're on, and you could be accused of the same selective reading process. Moreso, in fact, if you think the anti-Fitz people significantly outnumber or outpost the pro-Fitz people. There are a lot of loud voices on both sides, with some posters here saying things like Fitz is the team's only hope this year. That with him they're a potential playoff team, without him they're looking at 5 wins or less. Geno absolutely sucks and has no chance whatsoever of ever being any better than he was in his first two years, and the kids aren't ready. 

And that's from someone (me), who doesn't want or expect Geno to be on the team beyond 2016, but just simply doesn't see Fitz as $7-10M+ better than him this season. In fact, I do think it's possible that Geno can be better. My feeling is that if we've seen the ceiling on either of these guys, it's Fitzpatrick. 

[Sperm Edwards]

57 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

We were not a 14W team last year. And basically not good enough to win six in a row. I tried finding a listing of winning streaks by NFL teams last year and couldn't find them except the obvious, Carolina and NEP. But most teams didn't win more than five in a row.  I thought the 10 Ws was pretty good for our team after a 4-12. A great step forward. And so even though we have lost a few significant pieces like Snacks and maybe even Wilk I think we are in line to make the playoffs this coming year. Anyways, we should go for it and not get rid of our starting Qb which makes no sense at all. For those guys who have appointed themselves GM and owner and don't want to pay the guy anything close to market then you're going to get what you deserve: a 1 mil a year Qb. You get what you pay for. 

We weren't a 14 win team last year because we don't have a good enough QB. We won 10 games. Against which of the 6 losses did we not have a good enough team to win?

I don't expect anyone to sweep NE, so however the win or loss occurred, 1:1 is a reasonable outcome even for a good team. Who else? We twice lost to a Buffalo team that was otherwise 6-8 last year, with Fitzpatrick having sh*tty games in both outcomes. We lost to a Texans team with a guy off the street at QB, but still held them to a low enough point total if not for 4th quarter interceptions on our last 2 possessions. We lost to an Eagles team that, even with their 24 points (which is less than they typically surrender), we again should have won if not for multiple 4th quarter interceptions. The only other loss left was the Oakland game, and our D got trounced (and an outlier/letdown loss can happen even to superbowl teams). It is only a made-up dream that Fitzpatrick would have QB'd a victory with such a defensive meltdown. That's 4 more wins with a good QB. 

So this team with a good QB wins 14 games, maybe more, no matter how many times you remind that a very different-looking roster and coaching staff was 4-12 the prior season. You are delusional if you think wins against weakened teams (if not weaklings outright) that don't score 20 points on our defense will position us for the playoffs when we play ones that do score. 

[Matt39]

FWIW, if Fitz is still demanding too much, I'd wait it out with Mccown. He'd be perfect, especially with Forte and Marshall here. 

[Rangers9]

11 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

Many are saying to possibly re-sign Fitz but not to necessarily be the starter.  So offering starter money wouldn't make sense.

I haven't seen that anywhere except maybe a few extremists. Most people feel if you sign him he is that starter with no Qb competition including Bowles and Mac. 

[Mike135]

1 minute ago, Rangers9 said:

I haven't seen that anywhere except maybe a few extremists. Most people feel if you sign him he is that starter with no Qb competition including Bowles and Mac. 

That is scary as $hit.  Really hope that doesn't happen.

[BowlesMovement]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

One bad game lol. Outside of the QB, this team and schedule had 14 wins written all over it. And that's why I think paying him $16M, or even $10M, is stupid. 

But like many, you agree he gets the credit for wins, but feel there need to be asterisks of shared blame when credited with losses. 

What??? 14 win team last year? What are you smoking cuz? I don't think anyone on the planet was saying anything close to that last year. This was a 4 win team the year before that added Revis, Marshall for a late round pick, and a few other side pieces, who on the planet thought this was a 14 win team save the QB? What QB are we talking about, Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady? You cannot be serious with this can you?

[BowlesMovement]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We weren't a 14 win team last year because we don't have a good enough QB. We won 10 games. Against which of the 6 losses did we not have a good enough team to win?

I don't expect anyone to sweep NE, so however the win or loss occurred, 1:1 is a reasonable outcome even for a good team. Who else? We twice lost to a Buffalo team that was otherwise 6-8 last year, with Fitzpatrick having sh*tty games in both outcomes. We lost to a Texans team with a guy off the street at QB, but still held them to a low enough point total if not for 4th quarter interceptions on our last 2 possessions. We lost to an Eagles team that, even with their 24 points (which is less than they typically surrender), we again should have won if not for multiple 4th quarter interceptions. The only other loss left was the Oakland game, and our D got trounced (and an outlier/letdown loss can happen even to superbowl teams). It is only a made-up dream that Fitzpatrick would have QB'd a victory with such a defensive meltdown. That's 4 more wins with a good QB. 

So this team with a good QB wins 14 games, maybe more, no matter how many times you remind that a very different-looking roster and coaching staff was 4-12 the prior season. You are delusional if you think wins against weakened teams (if not weaklings outright) that don't score 20 points on our defense will position us for the playoffs when we play ones that do score. 

Wow, that is all. Going off the deep end brother.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

Ok I give up.  Ya don't wanna vote, fair enough.  I knew the limited options wouldn't cover everyone's perfect solution, but figured listing the most probable options and then saying "gun to your head... choose" would at least allow everyone to choose an option.  Again, even if it's not their own ideal solution.

A gun is not to my head. If I get to choose, which I don't get to do, then I get to choose. I certainly wouldn't lock the team into 2 years of Fitzpatrick at starter money before I see what any of the other 3 look like a season later. 

[Rangers9]

7 minutes ago, Mike135 said:

That is scary as $hit.  Really hope that doesn't happen.

He won the job last year. It's ridiculous to even think of him as a backup. In 2015 he signed for backup money and outplayed that contract was the starter and is the announced Jets starter for 2016. It's pretty obvious that he thinks he deserves some compensation for last season. He was paid as a backup and started. Doubling a backup deal doesn't cut it. It doesn't give him a dime extra for 2015 and under pays him to be the starter for 2016. He isn't going to sign here to be the backup. But the Jets want him back to be the starter. 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

What??? 14 win team last year? What are you smoking cuz? I don't think anyone on the planet was saying anything close to that last year. This was a 4 win team the year before that added Revis, Marshall for a late round pick, and a few other side pieces, who on the planet thought this was a 14 win team save the QB? What QB are we talking about, Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady? You cannot be serious with this can you?

I'm judging the team that was on the field in 2015, not the team that was on the field the prior year, nor the team one may have expected them to be a year ago today.

What losses were insurmountable in 2015, that would require only Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady to overcome? Oakland, since they trounced our defense, and maybe chalk up 1 NE loss. Our other 4 losses came at the hands of sh*tty QB play when the the other team was held to a reasonable amount of points for us to win. 

You tell me which of the 6 losses required the services of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady in order for us to win.

[jfmckenna]

This is like arguing about whether you want to die from AIDS or Cancer.

Maybe that should be the next poll.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BowlesMovement]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm judging the team that was on the field in 2015, not the team that was on the field the prior year, nor the team one may have expected them to be a year ago today.

What losses were insurmountable in 2015, that would require only Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady to overcome? Oakland, since they trounced our defense, and maybe chalk up 1 NE loss. Our other 4 losses came at the hands of sh*tty QB play when the the other team was held to a reasonable amount of points for us to win. 

You tell me which of the 6 losses required the services of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady in order for us to win.

Do you realize how good historically 14-2 is? Its not about insurmountable losses, none of them are, its about the NFL being a game of inches, and every win being a challenge because that is what the NFL has tried to set up. I mean damn, the Panthers were 15-1 and were a stupid call away from losing to the crap ass Giants, that is how this league works if you watch it. Blaming the QB for NOT being 14-2 is a new level of creativity though, so I give you that.

[BowlesMovement]

2 minutes ago, jfmckenna said:

This is like arguing about whether you want to die from AIDS or Cancer.

Maybe that should be the next poll.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats a really stupid analogy, and a classless one too.

[BowlesMovement]

4 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm judging the team that was on the field in 2015, not the team that was on the field the prior year, nor the team one may have expected them to be a year ago today.

What losses were insurmountable in 2015, that would require only Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady to overcome? Oakland, since they trounced our defense, and maybe chalk up 1 NE loss. Our other 4 losses came at the hands of sh*tty QB play when the the other team was held to a reasonable amount of points for us to win. 

You tell me which of the 6 losses required the services of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady in order for us to win.

I mean damn, what the hell was on this team that made it soooo dominating if not for the QB? We had 2 very good WR's, but no 3rd option, no TE, a bruising but not game changing back, and a very mediocre oline at best. On defense we had a very good Dline, very slow LB'ers and a decent secondary. I just don't understand where are you are coming from at all with this.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, BowlesMovement said:

Do you realize how good historically 14-2 is? Its not about insurmountable losses, none of them are, its about the NFL being a game of inches, and every win being a challenge because that is what the NFL has tried to set up. I mean damn, the Panthers were 15-1 and were a stupid call away from losing to the crap ass Giants, that is how this league works if you watch it. Blaming the QB for NOT being 14-2 is a new level of creativity though, so I give you that.

You are avoiding a simple question. What teams did we lose to that would have required Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady to secure victories?

I count 4 very winnable games. 

[BowlesMovement]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

You are avoiding a simple question. What teams did we lose to that would have required Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady to secure victories?

I count 4 very winnable games. 

Im not avoiding it at all, its a ridiculous premise to begin with. To state that team was a 14 win team that was held back by the QB is one of the craziest things I have ever read on this forum, and I have read some crazy shiz. Your whole premise is based on the fact that teams never lose to lesser teams in the NFL, which makes me question if you ever watch games other than Jets games.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, BowlesMovement said:

Im not avoiding it at all, its a ridiculous premise to begin with. To state that team was a 14 win team that was held back by the QB is one of the craziest things I have ever read on this forum, and I have read some crazy shiz. Your whole premise is based on the fact that teams never lose to lesser teams in the NFL, which makes me question if you ever watch games other than Jets games.

You just avoided it again.

[BowlesMovement]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

You just avoided it again.

LOL, fine, your premise is insane, so I will just keep avoiding it. Its total redirection from the point.

[Rangers9]

Look when a player outplays his contract a team often rips apart that deal and compensates him for that season. Esp when you're hired to be a backup and you are the starter esp at Qb. The Jets as far as we know didn't give Fitz an extra nickle so he got backup money. And most people think he did a good job and gave us the best Qb-ing we've seen here in years. You can't low ball your starting Qb. If they don't want him back then that's a decision they will have to live with. I wonder how many Geno fans were on the bandwagon to fire Idzik. After all he is his most criticized draft pick. And now they love him. You figure it out. 

[Rangers9]

25 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

FWIW, if Fitz is still demanding too much, I'd wait it out with Mccown. He'd be perfect, especially with Forte and Marshall here. 

You'd have to make a trade for McCown and who says the Browns want to trade him. I agree though he's a great option if we can't sign Fitz. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, BowlesMovement said:

LOL, fine, your premise is insane, so I will just keep avoiding it. Its total redirection from the point.

Sure, that's the reason why lol. 

There were 14 very winnable games with good QB play. Good, not great.

What is "redirection" is using last year's W/L results, and the expected schedule difficulty, to judge what this actual team actually faced in 2015.

[BowlesMovement]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

Sure, that's the reason why lol. 

There were 14 very winnable games with good QB play. Good, not great.

What is "redirection" is using last year's W/L results, and the expected schedule difficulty, to judge what this actual team actually faced in 2015.

Because you assume that teams win all of their winnable games, and its simply not the case, we see it all the time in the NFL. And what even defines winnable anyway? I mean almost every game is winnable by every team, that is why the Ravens beat the Steelers in Week 16 last year. I just think you are going to great lengths here, and its impressive, I must say.

[Rangers9]

I don't think Aaron Rodgers could have won 14 games with the Jets last year. He probably would have won ten. Fitz did a good job with this team and at least his teammates and coaches appreciated it. Some of you say he should be thankful to get an inferior deal for 2016 and he should appreciate anything he can get including nothing. 

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, BowlesMovement said:

Because you assume that teams win all of their winnable games, and its simply not the case, we see it all the time in the NFL. And what even defines winnable anyway? I mean almost every game is winnable by every team, that is why the Ravens beat the Steelers in Week 16 last year. I just think you are going to great lengths here, and its impressive, I must say.

No I do not. They are all winnable games. I would use your cited example as an example of just that. 

Because Roethlisberger had a couple of bad games doesn't mean therefore Fitzpatrick therefore needs to have 6.

[BowlesMovement]

Just now, Sperm Edwards said:

No I do not. They are all winnable games. I would use your cited example as an example of just that. 

Because Roethlisberger had a couple of bad games doesn't mean therefore Fitzpatrick therefore needs to have 6.

So every time a team loses its because the QB had a bad game? Im struggling to follow your logic here.

[Sperm Edwards]

7 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

I don't think Aaron Rodgers could have won 14 games with the Jets last year. He probably would have won ten. Fitz did a good job with this team and at least his teammates and coaches appreciated it. Some of you say he should be thankful to get an inferior deal for 2016 and he should appreciate anything he can get including nothing. 

Ryan Fitzpatrick = Aaron Rodgers

 

[ChuckkieB]

1 hour ago, Rangers9 said:

I have to say I'm shocked that 37 people in the entire world would vote for Geno. So to me it's a vote against Fitz more than for Geno. Our fans still want a big arm little brain starting Qb. 

You are correct.  I voted for Geno under the Fitz or Geno scenario.  If I had my way, I'd start Petty and see whats he's got and would let Geno rot on the bench where he belongs. We are going nowhere with Fitz, so paying him and starting him accomplishes nothing for this team.  Develop Petty and/or Hackenberg by giving them real game experience.  You can't make a bad QB good, no matter how much time they spend "learning" on the bench or being coached up.  Play your prospects and see what they have to offer.  The majority of QB's starting currently in the NFL started at some point in year one (and please, no one mention Rodgers because he was just about the last QB to be groomed for multiple years on the bench).

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, BowlesMovement said:

So every time a team loses its because the QB had a bad game? Im struggling to follow your logic here.

Way to twist my words again. My criticism of Fitzpatrick is that when he's the QB it's been an automatic loss if the defense surrenders >20 points (not counting a meaningless garbage time score, like Jacksonville; I mean the other team scores >20 points where Fitzpatrick is then still being asked to pass the football).

I already absolved the offense - with or without Fitzpatrick - for 2 games because the defense let up 30 points. When a QB is put into position to win and he repeatedly throws the ball way off target (or picked off outright) then, yes, he gets at least as much blame as the credit he receives when they win.