Hackenberg pick means nothing

[Big Blocker]

12 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

In 2014 he was doing so well he got benched.

Still MUCH better than Smith.

[FidelioJet]

13 hours ago, RoadFan said:

 

Take a good, long look at this study before calling my statement false.  Sure there are busts in the top 10.  But the percentage of successes are probably around 40%.  Anything outside of #12, that rate drops to lotto ticket status.  The study below will either change your mind, or you will be reduced to Jim Carey's "So you're saying there's a chance!" 

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/nfl-draft-round-round-quarterback-data

 

 

of course there's going to be more success in the top 10...but you're statement was "occasional needle in a haystack."  And that's simply far from the truth...As listed in mine and other posts - it looks like currently at least 10 QB's drafted outside the top 12 are what people might call "franchise" QB's.  Considering there are probably only about 20 "franchise QB's. - That would say more than half of all franchise QB's are drafted from outside the top 12.  Even if you don't agree with all of the names listed, it's still VERY far from "occasional needle in a haystack"

[Sperm Edwards]

34 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

Still MUCH better than Smith.

Has nothing to do with Smith. My point was nobody gets benched if he's really having a good season, even if he ended up having a career game upon returning from the bench. One great game in 11 doesn't seep 1/11 of that into each of the other 10 outings.

[Big Blocker]

20 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Has nothing to do with Smith. My point was nobody gets benched if he's really having a good season, even if he ended up having a career game upon returning from the bench. One great game in 11 doesn't seep 1/11 of that into each of the other 10 outings.

His season long numbers were good.  The metric here is good, not great. 

I don't see how anyone can seriously argue from the stats that Fitzpatrick's 14 season was a bad one.  He had 17 tds v. only 8 ints and a Qb rating over 95.

Getting benched is not always for the same set of reasons.  With Mallet on the bench no doubt the Texans wanted to see what he could do after the loss to Philly, concededly Fitzpatrick's worst game of the season, but one in which he still had 2 TD's to 1 int, and his ypa was decent at 7.5.

But O'Brien wanted to see what he had in Mallet, and had a personal angle on that.  From PFT:

The move has been talked about for weeks and comes as no surprise, as O’Brien has long been a fan of Mallett’s. The two of them worked together in New England, when O’Brien was the Patriots’ offensive coordinator. The Texans sent a sixth-round draft pick to New England to acquire Mallett in August, and now the Texans will find out what they got for their pick.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/05/texans-bench-ryan-fitzpatrick-turn-to-ryan-mallett/

Not your typical benching.

[Sperm Edwards]

20 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

His season long numbers were good.  The metric here is good, not great. 

I don't see how anyone can seriously argue from the stats that Fitzpatrick's 14 season was a bad one.  He had 17 tds v. only 8 ints and a Qb rating over 95.

Getting benched is not always for the same set of reasons.  With Mallet on the bench no doubt the Texans wanted to see what he could do after the loss to Philly, concededly Fitzpatrick's worst game of the season, but one in which he still had 2 TD's to 1 int, and his ypa was decent at 7.5.

But O'Brien wanted to see what he had in Mallet, and had a personal angle on that.  From PFT:

The move has been talked about for weeks and comes as no surprise, as O’Brien has long been a fan of Mallett’s. The two of them worked together in New England, when O’Brien was the Patriots’ offensive coordinator. The Texans sent a sixth-round draft pick to New England to acquire Mallett in August, and now the Texans will find out what they got for their pick.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/05/texans-bench-ryan-fitzpatrick-turn-to-ryan-mallett/

Not your typical benching.

Well, because I didn't argue that. I argued that he got benched because he was doing poorly. However one person wrote it up with sugar on top, O'Brien didn't bench Fitz to simply fling mud against the wall with Mallett; they were in the thick of a playoff hunt despite losing 4 of their last 5 (the lone win coming against the freaking Titans when he misfired on like half his passes and Arian Foster took over the whole game). Stats don't take into account when the stats occurred. An incomplete pass on 3rd & 20 is excusable, and not the same as throwing to blanketed receivers short or deep on 3rd & 2 with the series (or the game) on the line.

He supposedly looked worse than his numbers indicate (which would come as no surprise to me), and they had the benefit of a bye week coming up. Even after that mini-comeback after re-taking the field before breaking his leg, they still wanted him off the team despite his cheap contract and low trade value (a conditional 7th rounder), only to sign a similar type meh journeyman for even more money. Teams don't simply do that without reason. 

Players having good seasons do not get benched.

[Big Blocker]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Well, because I didn't argue that. I argued that he got benched because he was doing poorly. However one person wrote it up with sugar on top, O'Brien didn't bench Fitz to simply fling mud against the wall with Mallett; they were in the thick of a playoff hunt despite losing 4 of their last 5 (the lone win coming against the freaking Titans when he misfired on like half his passes and Arian Foster took over the whole game). Stats don't take into account when the stats occurred. An incomplete pass on 3rd & 20 is excusable, and not the same as throwing to blanketed receivers short or deep on 3rd & 2 with the series (or the game) on the line.

He supposedly looked worse than his numbers indicate (which would come as no surprise to me), and they had the benefit of a bye week coming up. Even after that mini-comeback after re-taking the field before breaking his leg, they still wanted him off the team despite his cheap contract and low trade value (a conditional 7th rounder), only to sign a similar type meh journeyman for even more money. Teams don't simply do that without reason. 

At the time of his benching:

Fitzpatrick, 31, has completed 61.8 percent of his passes this season for 1,960 yards, 11 touchdowns, eight interceptions and an 87.1 rating. The 10-year veteran ranks 27th in the NFL in yards per game (218), 22nd in passer rating, 21st in completion percentage and 10th in yards per attempt (7.72).

http://blog.chron.com/ultimatetexans/2014/11/texans-name-ryan-mallett-starting-quarterback/

That is not doing poorly.  The rest is simply your opinion.  O'Brien said he wanted a spark so he put in the guy he was with in NE and who he traded for.   The point is people get benched for different reasons, which your first post here on that subject did not reflect. 

You have to go outside the measurable facts to say a Qb who had his stats in 14 "was doing poorly."

And then you also said "supposedly"  Heh. 

People have reasons, but they can be bad reasons.  The point is by objective measurements, Fitzpatrick overall did not have a bad season in 14.  It is why the Jets went and got him when all they had on the roster was the putrid Smith. 

I get where you are coming from on this, and expect you will respond.  But you can't dispute the facts.

By any objective measure, Fitzpatrick had two good seasons in a row.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

29 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Well, because I didn't argue that. I argued that he got benched because he was doing poorly. However one person wrote it up with sugar on top, O'Brien didn't bench Fitz to simply fling mud against the wall with Mallett; they were in the thick of a playoff hunt despite losing 4 of their last 5 (the lone win coming against the freaking Titans when he misfired on like half his passes and Arian Foster took over the whole game). Stats don't take into account when the stats occurred. An incomplete pass on 3rd & 20 is excusable, and not the same as throwing to blanketed receivers short or deep on 3rd & 2 with the series (or the game) on the line.

He supposedly looked worse than his numbers indicate (which would come as no surprise to me), and they had the benefit of a bye week coming up. Even after that mini-comeback after re-taking the field before breaking his leg, they still wanted him off the team despite his cheap contract and low trade value (a conditional 7th rounder), only to sign a similar type meh journeyman for even more money. Teams don't simply do that without reason. 

Players having good seasons do not get benched.

Some stats take situation into account. Fitzpatrick's DVOA was ranked 13th among quarterbacks in 2014. Whether this is anecdotally 'good' depends on the point one is trying to make. Its implications on the problem in specific relief at the moment do not.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Big Blocker said:

At the time of his benching:

Fitzpatrick, 31, has completed 61.8 percent of his passes this season for 1,960 yards, 11 touchdowns, eight interceptions and an 87.1 rating. The 10-year veteran ranks 27th in the NFL in yards per game (218), 22nd in passer rating, 21st in completion percentage and 10th in yards per attempt (7.72).

http://blog.chron.com/ultimatetexans/2014/11/texans-name-ryan-mallett-starting-quarterback/

That is not doing poorly.  The rest is simply your opinion.  O'Brien said he wanted a spark so he put in the guy he was with in NE and who he traded for.   The point is people get benched for different reasons, which your first post here on that subject did not reflect. 

You have to go outside the measurable facts to say a Qb who had his stats in 14 "was doing poorly."

And then you also said "supposedly"  Heh. 

People have reasons, but they can be bad reasons.  The point is by objective measurements, Fitzpatrick overall did not have a bad season in 14.  It is why the Jets went and got him when all they had on the roster was the putrid Smith. 

I get where you are coming from on this, and expect you will respond.  But you can't dispute the facts.

By any objective measure, Fitzpatrick had two good seasons in a row.

There was a pretty long article floating around that really showed a lot of individual passes and how many were pretty bad (for Houston). But if they're completed through an act of acrobatics no "objective" stat measurement is going to differentiate between a poor decision and a good decision, but rather the outcome of the play. 

For example, a throw that is completed for 10 yards seems fine until you realize that someone was standing all by himself 25 yards downfield. Using objective stats, all that is seen is a completed pass. A "fact" is that the supposedly successful throw, by objective measurements, was in fact a poor decision. Ditto a jump ball into double coverage that comes down into his receiver's hands by stupid luck rather than good quarterbacking. Was a pass thrown to a covered receiver because nobody was open, or were there open receivers and he just locked in on one guy as usual. Or even if it goes to the correct target, the throw didn't lead the receiver right and a would-be TD to someone with a good lead on the coverage ends up as a mere completion. Even Fitzpatrick himself knew he wasn't doing so well that season, and admitted as much before he got benched. Looking at his "objective" stats at the time, you'd conclude the exact opposite was true. That is why being a slave to stats can give one a false impression. 

Lastly, a person can have a season that wasn't truly good but it's not therefore bad either.  I didn't say he had a bad season, and if you're going to counter my points it's more honest if you counter what I actually said. I'm fine going back & forth on something where we don't agree, and that's totally cool. There is no rule that says we have to see eye to eye on him as a QB. 

Whether it's a HC or a GM, teams frequently look at things beyond what you consider objective measurements. One of his better traits is, in my opinion, something that is not measured by any stats: his leadership qualities. To dismiss leadership traits would also dismiss the likely reason he was starting week 1 in the first place: because the other presumptive starter had the opposite of such qualities.

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Some stats take situation into account. Fitzpatrick's DVOA was ranked 13th among quarterbacks in 2014. Whether this is anecdotally 'good' depends on the point one is trying to make. Its implications on the problem in specific relief at the moment do not.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2015/film-room-ryan-fitzpatrick

Even DVOA is going to place excessive weight on one bad game or one good game, as though a little piece of an outlier game was in fact played each week of the seasons. Being on the money one week doesn't really overcome 2 games someone is off, but even a DVOA stat will mush them all together as though they were all played in one season-long football game.

I'm not knocking it as a measurement per se; just that it doesn't necessarily paint a whole picture just because it takes some additional factors into some consideration. 

[Big Blocker]

^ and ^^

First of all, all I did was try and point out why the single fact that he got benched (and under the circumstances he did) did not mean that 14 was not a good season for him.  The standard for the discussion I thought was gong on here was whether 14 was one of two good seasons for Fitzpatrick.  And you are not willing to make the case that he had a bad season in 14. 

As far as what teams look to, sometimes they are wrong.   I don't see how any rational person can think O'Brien did the right thing by trading Fitzpatrick and going into 15 with Mallett and Hoyer.  Mallett was gone in mid-season, Hoyer is also gone, and the Texans have now tried to go a different route signing Osweiler to an insane contract.  They'd have been better off keeping Fitzpatrick.

And btw Macc was in Houston, saw what went down there in 14, and what vet Qb did he go and get last off season, which turned into a brilliant move?  Fitzpatrick.

For some reason Macc saw those same things you try to say overrode the stats, and what did he conclude?  He wanted to get Fitzpatrick, and he did.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

^ and ^^

First of all, all I did was try and point out why the single fact that he got benched (and under the circumstances he did) did not mean that 14 was not a good season for him.  The standard for the discussion I thought was gong on here was whether 14 was one of two good seasons for Fitzpatrick.  And you are not willing to make the case that he had a bad season in 14. 

As far as what teams look to, sometimes they are wrong.   I don't see how any rational person can think O'Brien did the right thing by trading Fitzpatrick and going into 15 with Mallett and Hoyer.  Mallett was gone in mid-season, Hoyer is also gone, and the Texans have now tried to go a different route signing Osweiler to an insane contract.  They'd have been better off keeping Fitzpatrick.

And btw Macc was in Houston, saw what went down there in 14, and what vet Qb did he go and get last off season, which turned into a brilliant move?  Fitzpatrick.

For some reason Macc saw those same things you try to say overrode the stats, and what did he conclude?  He wanted to get Fitzpatrick, and he did.

What you don't know is what would have actually happened if Fitzpatrick was in Houston this past year. For example, say Fitz got injured right after halftime against Buffalo in week 17. Geno comes in and throws 3 picks and 0 TDs, the Jets lose by 5, and miss the playoffs. What would you and claim would have surely happened - and what surely wouldn't have happened - if only Fitzpatrick was in there? Do I even need to ask a question with such an obvious answer?

You're also conspicuously leaving out major events that led to signing Fitz. It was more of an "ended up with" situation than a "went out and got him" one. Maccagnan's preferred choice, as well as O'Brien's, was Mallett. Next after that, for both of them, was Hoyer. After seeing what Fitzpatrick did in '14, he had to settle for Fitzpatrick after other avenues had been exhausted: Jets met with McCown who signed with Cleveland for a contract worth up to $20M, Sanchez re-signed with Philadelphia (not that the 2 sides showed any interest), Mallett re-signed with Houston with the Jets showing obvious interest, then Hoyer signed with Houston after the Jets wanted to sign him, and only then, after all of them were gone, he traded for Fitzpatrick. So you have your facts mixed up if you think Fitz was even Maccagnan's second choice.

With Fitzpatrick coming off an 'objectively good season by any measure,' still the best offer anyone gave for Fitz - on a dirt-cheap deal, mind you - was a conditional 7th that still wouldn't rise above a 6th rounder or $3.5M even if he led the team to a superbowl win and won league mvp honors.

[jetrider]

On May 16, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Jetster said:

Ever since we drafted Hackenberg, talking heads are telling us it means Petty isn't ready, Geno isn't maturing, Fitz is not coming back. Here's what I think it means, it means Macc is going to do what we've been asking for since Sanchez failed...pick a QB at some point in the draft until we find one. 

This was a topic discussed numerous times before the previous drafts. In fact, myself & others were proponents of drafting Teddy Bridgewater. While Tom Brady ages & Rex continues to coach the Bills (clock is ticking), and Tannenbaum ruins the Fins salary cap, the Jets have got to find their future QB & you do that by having young QBs compete against & push each other. 

Macc & the Jets are focused on the one thing that will change our fortunes, finding our future QB. It's just too difficult with a salary cap when you don't have a QB to be a consistent winner. Sure, you can have a good season, but success is short. It's pretty simple, you go forward with 3 young guys to see which one wants it the most. Or you can resign Fitz at a number that is uncomfortable, or might effect your 2017 cap with a 34 year old stop gap QB with a history of turnovers at the worst time. The Buffalo game was it for me. The 2 turnovers in the 4th quarter, the wobbly passes, the near miss 3/4 other passes that could have been picked were all I needed to see. 

The idea that you can compete, and tread water in the NFL is a fallacy. There really is absolutely no reason to go forward with Ryan Fitzpatrick as our starting QB. We all know we are not winning a Super Bowl with this guy, so what's the point? I'm 100% positive that even if Fitz was our QB this year he WILL NOT be our starter in 2017. Bill Obrien picked Hoyer over Fitz. 2016 was an anomaly regarding Ryan Fitzpatrick, lighting will not strike twice.

You were the first to vote for Fitz at $7M in the poll. 

[Big Blocker]

23 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

What you don't know is what would have actually happened if Fitzpatrick was in Houston this past year. For example, say Fitz got injured right after halftime against Buffalo in week 17. Geno comes in and throws 3 picks and 0 TDs, the Jets lose by 5, and miss the playoffs. What would you and claim would have surely happened - and what surely wouldn't have happened - if only Fitzpatrick was in there? Do I even need to ask a question with such an obvious answer?

You're also conspicuously leaving out major events that led to signing Fitz. It was more of an "ended up with" situation than a "went out and got him" one. Maccagnan's preferred choice, as well as O'Brien's, was Mallett. Next after that, for both of them, was Hoyer. After seeing what Fitzpatrick did in '14, he had to settle for Fitzpatrick after other avenues had been exhausted: Jets met with McCown who signed with Cleveland for a contract worth up to $20M, Sanchez re-signed with Philadelphia (not that the 2 sides showed any interest), Mallett re-signed with Houston with the Jets showing obvious interest, then Hoyer signed with Houston after the Jets wanted to sign him, and only then, after all of them were gone, he traded for Fitzpatrick. So you have your facts mixed up if you think Fitz was even Maccagnan's second choice.

With Fitzpatrick coming off an 'objectively good season by any measure,' still the best offer anyone gave for Fitz - on a dirt-cheap deal, mind you - was a conditional 7th that still wouldn't rise above a 6th rounder or $3.5M even if he led the team to a superbowl win and won league mvp honors.

The Jets did better with Fitzpatrick than Houston did with Mallett and Hoyer, so all the analysis that went into the decision to trade Fitzpatrick was not very helpful to Texas.  But it sure worked out for the Jets. 

I find it amusing that you think "showing interest" means that as a factual matter that meant the party showing interest clearly preferred that player.  I don't think merely showing interest means much, but feel free to see it otherwise.

Fitzpatrick was coming off a broken leg at age 32 I believe.  Yeah a 7th rounder was not much, but the team trading for him would also have to pick up the contract.  Is that a dirt cheap deal?  I think that reveals more about your personal view than it is an accurate way to describe what really occurred.  In fact the Jets saw it as a bargain:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/12460762/houston-texans-trade-qb-ryan-fitzpatrick-new-york-jets

I think it was a bargain.  That was available because the Houston organization was committed to two Qb's who formerly worked with O'Brien but who by any objective measure were not as good.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/film-room/2015/film-room-ryan-fitzpatrick

Even DVOA is going to place excessive weight on one bad game or one good game, as though a little piece of an outlier game was in fact played each week of the seasons. Being on the money one week doesn't really overcome 2 games someone is off, but even a DVOA stat will mush them all together as though they were all played in one season-long football game.

I'm not knocking it as a measurement per se; just that it doesn't necessarily paint a whole picture just because it takes some additional factors into some consideration. 

Great. So the actionable takeaway from this totally novel observation is what?

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

The Jets did better with Fitzpatrick than Houston did with Mallett and Hoyer, so all the analysis that went into the decision to trade Fitzpatrick was not very helpful to Texas.  But it sure worked out for the Jets. 

I find it amusing that you think "showing interest" means that as a factual matter that meant the party showing interest clearly preferred that player.  I don't think merely showing interest means much, but feel free to see it otherwise.

Fitzpatrick was coming off a broken leg at age 32 I believe.  Yeah a 7th rounder was not much, but the team trading for him would also have to pick up the contract.  Is that a dirt cheap deal?  I think that reveals more about your personal view than it is an accurate way to describe what really occurred.  In fact the Jets saw it as a bargain:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/12460762/houston-texans-trade-qb-ryan-fitzpatrick-new-york-jets

I think it was a bargain.  That was available because the Houston organization was committed to two Qb's who formerly worked with O'Brien but who by any objective measure were not as good.

I'm not disputing it was a bargain, nor am I saying it didn't generally work out. He cost a conditional 7th (ended up being a 6th because he played 70% of the offensive snaps). Dirt cheap is $3.5M for a veteran QB, still in his early 30s, with several years of starting experience. Compared to the deals other comparable backup QBs got, yes that was a cheap deal. That is what made it a bargain (which it most definitely was).

It was no secret the Jets were interested in McCown until Cleveland gave him that nutty contract. Then they were definitely all over Mallett if he wasn't re-signed by Houston. Next after that they were talking to Hoyer, who chose Houston instead. Once it was then clear that Fitz was going to be the odd man out, Maccagnan didn't want to leave it to chance that he might sign elsewhere, and felt a 7th rounder was not much to surrender for a solid veteran backup QB (where, if he turned into the starter it still would only cost a 6th).

You can blame it on the other two working with O'Brien, but Fitz had just worked with O'Brien himself, so that kind of throws that idea out the window.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Great. So the actionable takeaway from this totally novel observation is what?

That pure year-total stats can be misleading; that they can make it look like someone appear to have had a better year than he had in actuality. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

44 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That pure year-total stats can be misleading; that they can make it look like someone appear to have had a better year than he had in actuality. 

Yeah, that's like the exact opposite of an actionable takeaway. Fine, the numbers are better than the actuality. By how much? What's a better measure? Is the margin of error enough to make this matter?

[jetrider]

8 hours ago, Big Blocker said:

I get where you are coming from on this, and expect you will respond.  But you can't dispute the facts.

By any objective measure, Fitzpatrick had two good seasons in a row.

Fitz's 6-6 was a good year? His first .500 season in 10 years? Okay.

Geno was 8-8 his rookie year, three years ago.

[Jetster]

13 hours ago, jetrider said:

You were the first to vote for Fitz at $7M in the poll. 

I did, because I would only want him for 1 year @ 7 million, but you & I know that is most likely not gonna happen so you move on. Like I said in this post, he's not our future. 

[Powpow]

On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 0:44 PM, Jetster said:

If Fitz is not resigned, there is no doubt in my mind that in this his 4th year, Geno Smith will show enough to Chan Gailey & Todd Bowles to win the starting job in 2016. I'm standing behind this statement, we'll see what happens.

Whoope de do.  Winner by default. He'll be on the bench by week 5 after going 0-4.  What you all continue to fail to understand is we don't have a long term answer yet at the QB position.  Geno is NOt the answer.  That is a definite.  Thus Mac went after Petty, tried to trade up to #1 spot in this year's draft and settled for Hack in round 2.  Both of these guys are not ready yet and still need to learn.  Fitz gives this team time for these kids to mature and in the process puts a decent product on the field.  Fitz is not the long term answer. Heck he wasn't even the short term answer until he turned in Dan Fouts and went all crazy last year.  Fitz has peaked and its best for this team to be under his thumb for another 2 years.  We rally don't have any better options.         

[Villain The Foe]

On 5/16/2016 at 7:48 PM, Big Blocker said:

^

I can't believe the prevalence on this site of Smith Fans.  He has shown nothing to make any reasonable and objective observer think he is likely to improve enough to be a competent NFL Qb. 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

12 hours ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Yeah, that's like the exact opposite of an actionable takeaway. Fine, the numbers are better than the actuality. By how much? What's a better measure? Is the margin of error enough to make this matter?

By enough to "objectively" call it a good season despite getting benched midseason. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

17 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

By enough to "objectively" call it a good season despite getting benched midseason. 

That's not where I'd have put the quotation marks. The numbers are perfectly objective. That sh*t happened. 'Good,' however, is not sufficiently precise to tell how well DVOA correlates. Knocking the descriptive power of a model without establishing exactly what it's supposed to be describing isn't principled criticism, it's operator error.

[Sperm Edwards]

17 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

That's not where I'd have put the quotation marks. The numbers are perfectly objective. That sh*t happened. 'Good,' however, is not sufficiently precise to tell how well DVOA correlates. Knocking the descriptive power of a model without establishing exactly what it's supposed to be describing isn't principled criticism, it's operator error.

I was quoting another person; it is therefore appropriate. Quoting both words so closely together would have seemed overkill, even if technically correct. You can put both in quotes in your mind if you feel it's in need of such correction. 

[BowlesMovement]

On 5/16/2016 at 1:48 PM, Big Blocker said:

^

I can't believe the prevalence on this site of Smith Fans.  He has shown nothing to make any reasonable and objective observer think he is likely to improve enough to be a competent NFL Qb. 

The majority of Smith fans are of the Fantasy football, Madden type fans, who look only at his physical attributes and arm strength, and ignore anything that does not show up as Metrics. You cannot measure leadership ability, or football instincts, you can visualize arm strength, and spiral, and speed. The two biggest problems with Smith are he appears to have zero leadership ability, and he seems to have really bad football instincts. Smith is a poor mans Jay Cutler, he is fools gold. You see him throw some passes and say wow, he's got it, but over the course of a game, or a few games, he shows he does not have football instincts, and his teammates just don't respond to him the way teammates should respond to their QB. Even Sanchez seemed to have much more support of his teammates. The Smith fans blatantly ignore these fatal flaws.

I hope like hell that he can and has improved on these things, although I think its highly unlikely. I think its about the same likelihood of Fitzpatrick improving his arm strength.

[Big Blocker]

14 hours ago, jetrider said:

Fitz's 6-6 was a good year? His first .500 season in 10 years? Okay.

Geno was 8-8 his rookie year, three years ago.

Football is a team sport, and won-lost record is a team record.

[Big Blocker]

3 hours ago, Powpow said:

Whoope de do.  Winner by default. He'll be on the bench by week 5 after going 0-4.  What you all continue to fail to understand is we don't have a long term answer yet at the QB position.  Geno is NOt the answer.  That is a definite.  Thus Mac went after Petty, tried to trade up to #1 spot in this year's draft and settled for Hack in round 2.  Both of these guys are not ready yet and still need to learn.  Fitz gives this team time for these kids to mature and in the process puts a decent product on the field.  Fitz is not the long term answer. Heck he wasn't even the short term answer until he turned in Dan Fouts and went all crazy last year.  Fitz has peaked and its best for this team to be under his thumb for another 2 years.  We rally don't have any better options.         

Totally agree with this post.

Imo too much of the negatives here on Fitz probably reflect the usual pro FO bias of fans looking at contract negotiations.  That and SMith Fans, who by definition do not know much about football.

[Big Blocker]

1 hour ago, BowlesMovement said:

The majority of Smith fans are of the Fantasy football, Madden type fans, who look only at his physical attributes and arm strength, and ignore anything that does not show up as Metrics. You cannot measure leadership ability, or football instincts, you can visualize arm strength, and spiral, and speed. The two biggest problems with Smith are he appears to have zero leadership ability, and he seems to have really bad football instincts. Smith is a poor mans Jay Cutler, he is fools gold. You see him throw some passes and say wow, he's got it, but over the course of a game, or a few games, he shows he does not have football instincts, and his teammates just don't respond to him the way teammates should respond to their QB. Even Sanchez seemed to have much more support of his teammates. The Smith fans blatantly ignore these fatal flaws.

I hope like hell that he can and has improved on these things, although I think its highly unlikely. I think its about the same likelihood of Fitzpatrick improving his arm strength.

I would also add Smith is very bad at reading defenses, and too frequently loses track of where he and the team are on the field(although that is probably what you mean by poor football instincts).

And also they are probably of the wishful thinking/cognitive dissonance types, but that is also what you probably are referring to in the reference to ignoring his fatal flaws.

[jetrider]

4 hours ago, Jetster said:

I did, because I would only want him for 1 year @ 7 million, but you & I know that is most likely not gonna happen so you move on. Like I said in this post, he's not our future. 

Then how can you say " There really is absolutely no reason to go forward with Ryan Fitzpatrick as our starting QB" if you have a reason to want him back? 

 

 

[Rangers9]

The most notable thing in Geno's game is that he runs backwards and loses yardage.  This is not a joke we have all seen it many times. Fitz is being attacked for being a noodle arm (which he isn't) but his legs are a huge part of his game. One of the key reasons for his success last season was extending plays with his legs. Now this was major. He had 270 running yards and 2 rushing TDs, 5 fumbles but only 2 lost. Plus how many first downs did he personally make running. I couldn't find that figure but it was considerable. It also helped extend plays and keep our D off of the field. In past years our D was on the field more than half of the game. Not easy to win games like that.

[jetrider]

16 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

Football is a team sport, and won-lost record is a team record.

How convenient. Personal stats mean nothing if you don't win. 

[CrazyCarl40]

4 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

The most notable thing in Geno's game is that he runs backwards and loses yardage.  This is not a joke we have all seen it many times. Fitz is being attacked for being a noodle arm (which he isn't) but his legs are a huge part of his game. One of the key reasons for his success last season was extending plays with his legs. Now this was major. He had 270 running yards and 2 rushing TDs, 5 fumbles but only 2 lost. Plus how many first downs did he personally make running. I couldn't find that figure but it was considerable. It also helped extend plays and keep our D off of the field. In past years our D was on the field more than half of the game. Not easy to win games like that.

This is true. 3rd down Geno is probably the worst Geno. Late in the Raiders game on 3 and 1 he took a sack, a few series later he took a sack on 3rd and 2. Not a chance that happens with Fitz. Geno just cannot process what he wants to do with the ball fast enough to be a competent starting quarterback in the NFL. He's also very inaccurate on his throws.

[jetrider]

6 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

The most notable thing in Geno's game is that he runs backwards and loses yardage.  This is not a joke we have all seen it many times. Fitz is being attacked for being a noodle arm (which he isn't) but his legs are a huge part of his game. One of the key reasons for his success last season was extending plays with his legs. Now this was major. He had 270 yards and 2 rushing TDs, 5 fumbles but only 2 lost. Plus how many first downs did he personally make running. I couldn't find that figure what it was considerable. It also helped extend plays and keep our D off of the field. In past years our D was on the field more than half of the game. Not easy to win games like that.

Like Week 17

[Jet Nut]

15 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

I would also add Smith is very bad at reading defenses, and too frequently loses track of where he and the team are on the field(although that is probably what you mean by poor football instincts).

And also they are probably of the wishful thinking/cognitive dissonance types, but that is also what you probably are referring to in the reference to ignoring his fatal flaws.

Pretty much what every green QB goes through while learning how to play the pro game.  Of course this doesnt mean that he will learn, but shows others did, so why not?

For reasons other than some say he cant and wont

[Rangers9]

The demarcation line for Geno is 29 starts. And bottom of the league stats. I mean real low about the worst. Most NFL Qbs don't get this kind of an opportunity. The average number of starts to learn how to play the position is about a dozen. Now you can apply all of the traditional excuses you want to but you can say the same for every failed Qb who had a legit sample size. There aren't going to be perfect conditions on any team. Coaching, personnel etc.  He might get another op if Fitz doesn't sign. He is the next man up and he's got my undying support. But I'm for going with our best option at Qb the most important player on a team. Coming off of last year and a 6 win improvement that is Fitz and it's no contest. I guess I'm arguing with 2 kinds of fans: Fitz haters (a lot) and Geno lovers (there aren't many).