Ryan Fitzpatrick clear he wants to play for the Jets

[Powpow]

10 hours ago, BowlesMovement said:

Like bringing a butter knife to a gun fight

And using margarine on it. You know, the butter substitute that's really really bad for you.

[BowlesMovement]

11 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This is kind of my point. Doesn't change the wisdom of the moves, though.

If we re-sign Fitz and do finish between 6-8 wins, it will have been an enormous waste of both learning more of the potential future QBs we've got, it will waste 2017 cap room, and quite possibly cause us to draft yet another QB higher too highly or not highly enough than we otherwise would have if they could be seen in more than practice. Some younger guys are practice warriors; others are practice mehs who come alive when it counts, where they're going up against other teams who don't yet know their truly biggest inexperience weaknesses.

As a result of starting Fitz all season long again, we may find ourselves drafting another 3rd-5th round QB this year. Had the better of Hackenberg/Petty been given a true chance to see the field, that perhaps should have been our 1st round pick or no selection at all (opting instead for a cheap Hoyer-ish guy to be the #2 or push the other backup). 

I don't disagree at all, but it still does not change the fact that we can think like that as fans, and the FO cannot, especially with this fan base. I personally would like to see what we have in Mac and Bowles, with some hope that these can be some long term guys. We let the rookies start, they suck, finish 4-12, there is a decent chance one or both of those guys is gone, or at a bare minimum, in a win next year or else situation, which is terribly unhealthy for the franchise. Ultimately, I want to give them rope to make the decisions they think should be done, and if they hang themselves, we have our answer with them, if not, and they show some competence, maybe we have a GM/HC, and we can even actually say trust them with the QB position? If they think its best to let the rookies start, fine, if they think its best to let Fitz come back and try to make the playoffs, fine, I will judge them on the results.

[BowlesMovement]

4 hours ago, johnnysd said:

Because it is accurate.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Geno was an absolutely horrid QB by pretty much any way you want to look at QB measures in 13, HORRID! Now, he was a rookie who should have been sitting, so I am not knocking him for that, I knock moron Rex and Idiot Idzik for that. But Geno gets zero credit for 8 wins in 2013, IF you are going to discredit Fitzpatrick last year. You want to say Fitz was along for the ride last year, fine, I disagree, and think he was a part of the team, but fine, but no fkng way in hell do you get to say Fitzpatrick had nothing to do with 10 wins last year and Geno had something to do with the 8 wins in 13, its an absolutely ridiculous premise on every level, and you just cannot be taken seriously at all with that stance.

[Mainejet]

It's time for the Jets and Fitz to sh*t or get off the pot. This is becoming a problem. The more time Fitz spends away from the team and not in the training facility, the more this team overall suffers. They have a horrid schedule, couples with a sh*t draft, and now they have to endure their QB playing greedy??

The Jets need to give Fitz an ultimatum, either show up and sign your deal by this day or we are moving on PERMANENTLY. After that date, you will no longer have an offer on the table. We need you, this team needs you. But we cannot operate as a team with our unquestioned leader fighting with the team.

After that date the Jets should (and I shutter to say such a thing) start Geno or hopefully Bryce Petty would be ready to start. The Jets need to get this thing dealt with so both parties can have closure.

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If we re-sign Fitz and do finish between 6-8 wins, it will have been an enormous waste of both learning more of the potential future QBs we've got

You should really come to terms on this point, Hack and Petty are not playing in 2016 regardless of the #1 being Fitz or Geno.  So we're simply not going to "find out what we have" in regular season games from either kid this year.

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

it will waste 2017 cap room

Let the cap guys worry about that.  

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

, and quite possibly cause us to draft yet another QB higher too highly or not highly enough than we otherwise would have if they could be seen in more than practice.

Lol, no.  If the Jets draft another QB in the 2016 draft, then they were going to draft one no matter what happened this year.  Given Macc has drafted one each year, I fully expect we'll draft another one next year.....in the 5th or 6th round.  Hack was drafted too high and has too much percieved potential to draft-replace him after a single year of learning time.  Macc isn't a fool, and Macc really likes Hack.

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

As a result of starting Fitz all season long again, we may find ourselves drafting another 3rd-5th round QB this year.

5th perhaps.  And so what?  5th rounders are routine washouts anyway.

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Had the better of Hackenberg/Petty been given a true chance to see the field, that perhaps should have been our 1st round pick or no selection at all (opting instead for a cheap Hoyer-ish guy to be the #2 or push the other backup). 

There is zero chance Macc is drafting a QB #1 overall a year after drafting a well-liked QB like Hack in the 2nd Round the year before, no matter how much field he saw.  If we DO, it's because we bombed so bad we are picking #1 overall and have a future Manning sitting in front of us, so no harm done for the future.

Hack and Petty are not ready for 2016.  Come to terms with that.  Macc is not going to rush them so he can "see what he has".  He (and Bowlses and Chan) see exactly what they have in practice, and till they're ready there, they will not see the field.

[JustInFudge]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This is kind of my point. Doesn't change the wisdom of the moves, though.

If we re-sign Fitz and do finish between 6-8 wins, it will have been an enormous waste of both learning more of the potential future QBs we've got, it will waste 2017 cap room, and quite possibly cause us to draft yet another QB higher too highly or not highly enough than we otherwise would have if they could be seen in more than practice. Some younger guys are practice warriors; others are practice mehs who come alive when it counts, where they're going up against other teams who don't yet know their truly biggest inexperience weaknesses.

As a result of starting Fitz all season long again, we may find ourselves drafting another 3rd-5th round QB this year. Had the better of Hackenberg/Petty been given a true chance to see the field, that perhaps should have been our 1st round pick or no selection at all (opting instead for a cheap Hoyer-ish guy to be the #2 or push the other backup). 

This is it and I dont get why its hard to grasp.

Also, what does it do for Bowles and Mac if they had 2 years of veteran QB play and 2 years of no playoffs?  So we sign Fitz, he starts, we go 8-8, miss the playoffs, then what? (which is more than likely to happen) We're right back in this conversation again next year (which I predicted we'd be doing what we're doing now last offseason) and it's the same sh*t all over again, except Bowles and Mac are now a step closer the chopping block

It's just shame we root for such a sh*tty organization that cant work their way out of a wet paper bag because Fitz will be back and in May of 2017 after we missed the playoffs again, we'll be posting about... should we re-sign Geno because we never got to see him under Bowles/Gailey/w/ these weapons or do we let Hack play or do we have another exciting season of Fitz!!!

It so fun.

[Flushing Roots]

It's May 25th.  It's not that clear...

[Rangers9]

Fitz seems like of cool about this and so does Mac. Like maybe they know something that we don't. Ryan did say recently that salaries this year have been crazy. And that he appreciated the fact that negotiations with the team have been behind the scenes and quiet. He did say he'd like to be back and enjoyed working with "the guys" but that was it. He didn't really say anymore. He's not talking. Probably pretty smart. 

[Sperm Edwards]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

You should really come to terms on this point, Hack and Petty are not playing in 2016 regardless of the #1 being Fitz or Geno.  So we're simply not going to "find out what we have" in regular season games from either kid this year.

Let the cap guys worry about that.  

Lol, no.  If the Jets draft another QB in the 2016 draft, then they were going to draft one no matter what happened this year.  Given Macc has drafted one each year, I fully expect we'll draft another one next year.....in the 5th or 6th round.  Hack was drafted too high and has too much percieved potential to draft-replace him after a single year of learning time.  Macc isn't a fool, and Macc really likes Hack.

5th perhaps.  And so what?  5th rounders are routine washouts anyway.

There is zero chance Macc is drafting a QB #1 overall a year after drafting a well-liked QB like Hack in the 2nd Round the year before, no matter how much field he saw.  If we DO, it's because we bombed so bad we are picking #1 overall and have a future Manning sitting in front of us, so no harm done for the future.

Hack and Petty are not ready for 2016.  Come to terms with that.  Macc is not going to rush them so he can "see what he has".  He (and Bowlses and Chan) see exactly what they have in practice, and till they're ready there, they will not see the field.

"The cap guys"? I can add & don't automatically view everyone in the Jets' FO as my intellectual better and neither should you. Their "cap guys" didn't protest (or protest enough) at the absurd and obvious overpayment to players under this or prior FOs. He's misread a couple of player/pick markets already (he is human), but so far none more so than with Mo. If he really knew what he had in Fitzpatrick, this "cap guy" should have extended him this past September/October. It is further not confidence-instilling for a QB-less (or possibly meh-QB) team to rent a 3rd DE and sign a 4th one for some $19M between them for a year, bypassing on a minimum of a pair of mid-round picks for the privilege (and quite likely more than that). He absolutely has his good points and like him as GM in general, but he's also shown to be no cap management guru so far, and this is something you should come to terms with.

If he gets a year-long look at Hackenberg and it's discouraging, why on earth wouldn't he draft a QB #1 overall (if that was our picks lot)? That makes no sense, let alone being "zero chance" because I take for granted all GMs "really like" QBs they draft in the first couple rounds. That's why these players were drafted there in the first place. He "really likes" Hackenberg, sure, but he also really liked the idea of drafting 2 other QBs even better, since he tried trading up to #1, then again to #2 after that.

I think people are rationalizing and making too much assessment of what Maccagnan is or isn't based on less than 2 years on the job. 1 month ago so many were cock-sure he was a total BAP guy regardless of position (mostly based on his first pick of Leonard Williams). Then he goes on to select arguably the most need-based draft this team has had in a decade. I'm not knocking his draft, mind you. I just think people believe what they want to believe. 

Sure, most 5th rounders are washouts (and I said 3rd-5th based on what he sees on or off the field from the others, despite your automatic dismissal of the possibility). All of them are not. If there was one thing I was excited about, in having a former scout as GM, it was that he will be the one to find those good players in round 5. Internet websites mock prospects for the first 1-3 rounds nearly the same as most GMs anyway (and quite often, better). But if that's the attitude, then why bother drafting anybody after round 4? Just use those "washout" picks to trade up in the first few rounds. Where's the wisdom of him taking a QB in round 5 next year, if it's a foregone conclusion in your opinion that it'll be a routine wasted pick?

[Sperm Edwards]

6 hours ago, BowlesMovement said:

I don't disagree at all, but it still does not change the fact that we can think like that as fans, and the FO cannot, especially with this fan base. I personally would like to see what we have in Mac and Bowles, with some hope that these can be some long term guys. We let the rookies start, they suck, finish 4-12, there is a decent chance one or both of those guys is gone, or at a bare minimum, in a win next year or else situation, which is terribly unhealthy for the franchise. Ultimately, I want to give them rope to make the decisions they think should be done, and if they hang themselves, we have our answer with them, if not, and they show some competence, maybe we have a GM/HC, and we can even actually say trust them with the QB position? If they think its best to let the rookies start, fine, if they think its best to let Fitz come back and try to make the playoffs, fine, I will judge them on the results.

No doubt, but you know we all judge the wisdom of some moves (and non-moves) before the season begins. During and after the season, we judge further. I think it's totally normal fan behavior.

[Warfish]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

"The cap guys"? I can add & don't automatically view everyone in the Jets' FO as my intellectual better and neither should you.

Rather presumptuous to think you know the intricacies of NFL contracts and cap management as well (or better) as those paid to do it.  It takes a little more than addition skills, be assured.

I work in contracts and numbers every day professionally, and I certainly wouldn't claim such insider subject-matter expert knowledge.

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Their "cap guys" didn't protest (or protest enough) at the absurd and obvious overpayment to players under this or prior FOs.

Implication that the cap accountant can over-rule the GM or owner?  Lol, no.  

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

If he gets a year-long look at Hackenberg and it's discouraging, why on earth wouldn't he draft a QB #1 overall (if that was our picks lot)?

He's going to get a year looking at Hack.  And Petty.  In practice.  Because they're not ready in 2016.  Once again, you'll need to come to terms with that, or you'll be very disappointed this year.

If a legit unquestioned consensus Manning-like #1 franchise guy is available where we pick in 2017, we're picking him.  Anything less, we're not.  We pick at #14 say, and the third QB of the class falls to us....nope, we're not picking him.  Hack will get his chance to compete.

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think people are rationalizing and making too much assessment of what Maccagnan is or isn't based on less than 2 years on the job.

Says a guy who presumes he can manage the cap better than the folks who actually do it.  Typical fan sillyness, frankly.  

We judge Macc by what Macc does.  When Macc starts doing things differently, we'll judge him differently.

We're not starting Hack this year.  If we draft a QB next year, we draft a QB next year.

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

1 month ago so many were cock-sure he was a total BAP guy regardless of position (mostly based on his first pick of Leonard Williams).

I wasn't.

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I just think people believe what they want to believe.

Some do.  Like folks who think we're going to start Hack this year so we can "see what we got", one of three most overused phrases in jets Fan lexicon (along with "no talent around him" and "needs a fair chance").

The only scenario I see where Hack starts in 2016 is 1. we do not sign Fitz, 2. Geno gets hurt, badly.  IR-level badly.  3. Hack beats out Petty in practice.

Then we could see Hack.  I don't see it happening any other way, and if Fitz is signed it goes from low probability to near-impossible (again, barring serious long-term injury). 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

24 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Rather presumptuous to think you know the intricacies of NFL contracts and cap management as well (or better) as those paid to do it.  It takes a little more than addition skills, be assured.

I work in contracts and numbers every day professionally, and I certainly wouldn't claim such insider subject-matter expert knowledge.

Implication that the cap accountant can over-rule the GM or owner?  Lol, no.  

He's going to get a year looking at Hack.  And Petty.  In practice.  Because they're not ready in 2016.  Once again, you'll need to come to terms with that, or you'll be very disappointed this year.

If a legit unquestioned consensus Manning-like #1 franchise guy is available where we pick in 2017, we're picking him.  Anything less, we're not.  We pick at #14 say, and the third QB of the class falls to us....nope, we're not picking him.  Hack will get his chance to compete.

Says a guy who presumes he can manage the cap better than the folks who actually do it.  Typical fan sillyness, frankly.  

We judge Macc by what Macc does.  When Macc starts doing things differently, we'll judge him differently.

We're not starting Hack this year.  If we draft a QB next year, we draft a QB next year.

I wasn't.

Some do.  Like folks who think we're going to start Hack this year so we can "see what we got", one of three most overused phrases in jets Fan lexicon (along with "no talent around him" and "needs a fair chance").

The only scenario I see where Hack starts in 2016 is 1. we do not sign Fitz, 2. Geno gets hurt, badly.  IR-level badly.  3. Hack beats out Petty in practice.

Then we could see Hack.  I don't see it happening any other way, and if Fitz is signed it goes from low probability to near-impossible (again, barring serious long-term injury). 

 

Managing the cap numbers are simple math. It is not presumptuous, and is not some great mystery, let alone when the principal contract terms are made public. There's no reason to get starstruck at the thought of the relative geniuses that NFL GMs must be. There were many flaws in cap/team management that fans pointed out in the past, for our current and prior GMs. These are not remotely infallible geniuses who cannot be second-guessed in real time. 

You are also oversimplifying Petty or Hackenberg starting as though it means Petty or Hackenberg starting from week 1. I think starting later this year, after the first 6-10 weeks, is a reasonable outcome, frankly, unless both of these 2 are just so useless they have no business near live action (and if that's the case, then they shouldn't be eating up 2 roster spots on a team that purports to be seriously competing for a SB this year; it's yet another contradiction in logic). In reality, giving the better of the two a go after at least the first 6 games are out of the way is something I'd like to see, if they aren't both mind-numbingly horrid. 

Bringing back Fitzpatrick at $11M (if this is even true) is pure foolishness. Such a move doesn't turn the 2016 Jets into realistic SB champs. Improving a couple of wins (should that even be the case), which still leaves us short of where we need to be, would help Maccagnan personally this year, but it is not helpful to the team long-term. A more realistic 2017 season becomes that much more difficult, being down the salary of a pro bowl starter out of the gate (not to mention the lower picks in each round). 

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Managing the cap numbers are simple math. It is not presumptuous, and is not some great mystery, let alone when the principal contract terms are made public. There's no reason to get starstruck at the thought of the relative geniuses that NFL GMs must be.

They're not geniuses, they're professionals with years of experience with contracts and cap rules.

You're a fan ffs.  One I doubt is a finance, contracts or even accounting pro in your day to day life.

I can't have a serious exchange with a fan who thinks he's a superior cap manager to an actual NFL Front Office staff.  Seriously Sperm, lol.

Quote

You are also oversimplifying Petty or Hackenberg starting as though it means Petty or Hackenberg starting from week 1. I think starting later this year, after the first 6-10 weeks, is a reasonable outcome, frankly,

I'll repeat, there if no chance this occurs, unless:

1. We do not resign Fitz, Geno starts and suffers a very serious, not-coming-back injury.  In such a case, yes, they'd start if Macc chose not to sign an emergency veteran.

2. We start Fitz, and cut Geno, and Fitz plays so poorly we go 1-9 or the like.  Season over, Fitz horrid, no Geno to test playing out the string, yes, we might then start Hack or Petty.

Apart from those two, no, not happening. 

Quote

unless both of these 2 are just so useless they have no business near live action (and if that's the case, then they shouldn't be eating up 2 roster spots on a team that purports to be seriously competing for a SB this year;

Of course, why would we want young, talented, developmental QB's on a team with dog and sh*t at future-QB ahead of them.  Thats almost like....planning for the future or something!

Quote

it's yet another contradiction in logic). In reality, giving the better of the two a go after at least the first 6 games are out of the way is something I'd like to see, if they aren't both mind-numbingly horrid.

So you've given up on 2016 and are rooting now for 2017 and beyond, lets see.....on May 25th, 2016.  SOJF.

Quote

Bringing back Fitzpatrick at $11M (if this is even true) is pure foolishness.

So if Macc does it, he is (by your definition) a "fool", and I presume you would prefer we fire that "fool" to hire a non-fool GM, right?

Hey, maybe they'll hire you, I hear you're handy with the Cap.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

They're not geniuses, they're professionals with years of experience with contracts and cap rules.

You're a fan ffs.  One I doubt is a finance, contracts or even accounting pro in your day to day life.

I can't have a serious exchange with a fan who thinks he's a superior cap manager to an actual NFL Front Office staff.  Seriously Sperm, lol.

I'll repeat, there if no chance this occurs, unless:

1. We do not resign Fitz, Geno starts and suffers a very serious, not-coming-back injury.  In such a case, yes, they'd start if Macc chose not to sign an emergency veteran.

2. We start Fitz, and cut Geno, and Fitz plays so poorly we go 1-9 or the like.  Season over, Fitz horrid, no Geno to test playing out the string, yes, we might then start Hack or Petty.

Apart from those two, no, not happening. 

Of course, why would we want young, talented, developmental QB's on a team with dog and sh*t at future-QB ahead of them.  Thats almost like....planning for the future or something!

So you've given up on 2016 and are rooting now for 2017 and beyond, lets see.....on May 25th, 2016.  SOJF.

So if Macc does it, he is (by your definition) a "fool", and I presume you would prefer we fire that "fool" to hire a non-fool GM, right?

Hey, maybe they'll hire you, I hear you're handy with the Cap.

 

I don't believe Maccagnan - or any NFL GM - is beyond reproach. You seem to think job title infers competence or better in all areas the job covers and I do not. They make mistakes like anyone else. Speaking outside the draft, because it takes longer to see how those pan out, I think he's misfired a number of times already. He's thrown a lot of money after bad, and lost a few draft picks unnecessarily. He has badly misplayed, misjudged, and mishandled Wilkerson and may have already lost a 1st rounder from last year when he was (allegedly) demanding a pair of 1's that no one would possibly surrender. There's more but it's been discussed plenty. 

And yes it is absolutely foolish if he re-signs Fitzpatrick to $11M for this season. That is your personal inference that it makes Maccagnan a fool; I think it's more like he's in job preservation mode, trying to get the highest floor possible for the immediate season, rather than think he's personally a fool. He will be burning future resources to potentially make the present non-SB season a little better. IMO if he truly likes Fitzpatrick enough to offer him a contract like that now, he should have extended him in the first half of the 2015 season when it would have been far less (he was on a $3.5M contract before that).

That's not to say everything he's done has been bad; far from it. I like a lot of things he's done and players he's brought in. I like the way he's handled Fitzpatrick so far, but I won't like it so much if he caves after all that. I like that he didn't bow to a lot of press/fan pressure to bring Ferguson back, ignoring the repeated (but now wholly irrelevant) listing of things he did and the player he was once upon a time. And I think he did it in a classy way, offering him a pay cut he probably felt Brick would never accept, instead of cutting him outright, allowing Ferguson the opportunity to be the one who turned us down. I like the general idea of at least finding some placeholder for every position before the draft so reaches to fill those positions aren't necessary. And I like other moves, as well as his general demeanor.

But he's just a person, not a god. He is easily capable of making mistakes, and he's made a number already. Re-signing Fitzpatrick for $11M of next year's cap $ would be another one.

[ljr]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't believe Maccagnan - or any NFL GM - is beyond reproach. You seem to think job title infers competence or better in all areas the job covers and I do not. They make mistakes like anyone else. Speaking outside the draft, because it takes longer to see how those pan out, I think he's misfired a number of times already. He's thrown a lot of money after bad, and lost a few draft picks unnecessarily. He has badly misplayed, misjudged, and mishandled Wilkerson and may have already lost a 1st rounder from last year when he was (allegedly) demanding a pair of 1's that no one would possibly surrender. There's more but it's been discussed plenty. 

And yes it is absolutely foolish if he re-signs Fitzpatrick to $11M for this season. That is your personal inference that it makes Maccagnan a fool; I think it's more like he's in job preservation mode, trying to get the highest floor possible for the immediate season, rather than think he's personally a fool. He will be burning future resources to potentially make the present non-SB season a little better. IMO if he truly likes Fitzpatrick enough to offer him a contract like that now, he should have extended him in the first half of the 2015 season when it would have been far less (he was on a $3.5M contract before that).

That's not to say everything he's done has been bad; far from it. I like a lot of things he's done and players he's brought in. I like the way he's handled Fitzpatrick so far, but I won't like it so much if he caves after all that. I like that he didn't bow to a lot of press/fan pressure to bring Ferguson back, ignoring the repeated (but now wholly irrelevant) listing of things he did and the player he was once upon a time. And I think he did it in a classy way, offering him a pay cut he probably felt Brick would never accept, instead of cutting him outright, allowing Ferguson the opportunity to be the one who turned us down. I like the general idea of at least finding some placeholder for every position before the draft so reaches to fill those positions aren't necessary. And I like other moves, as well as his general demeanor.

But he's just a person, not a god. He is easily capable of making mistakes, and he's made a number already. Re-signing Fitzpatrick for $11M of next year's cap $ would be another one.

Sorry to be late to the party but my big disagreement is over the "not try to field best product possible" attitude.

What !?!?

that's like saying I'm not gonna bang Amy Schumer this year ... Because Selena Gomez is turning 18 next year.

Dude I'm psyched to try to make it with Selena in 2017 if that's when she turns legal ... But I'm not going to sit at home and just give myself handy's everyi Sunday this year until then though ... I'm taking Amy Schumer out for drinks ... I know it's unlikely ... But just maybe she's gonna rock my world 

[joewilly12]

Ladies Gentlemen and BowlesMovement let me introduce you to the Fitzpatrick couch

[Sperm Edwards]

9 hours ago, ljr said:

Sorry to be late to the party but my big disagreement is over the "not try to field best product possible" attitude.

What !?!?

that's like saying I'm not gonna bang Amy Schumer this year ... Because Selena Gomez is turning 18 next year.

Dude I'm psyched to try to make it with Selena in 2017 if that's when she turns legal ... But I'm not going to sit at home and just give myself handy's everyi Sunday this year until then though ... I'm taking Amy Schumer out for drinks ... I know it's unlikely ... But just maybe she's gonna rock my world 

Amy Schumer is a skanky pig; even if you win, you haven't won anything and you'll have blown your load for nothing. Save it for Selena. Do that for me. Save your Sperm.

Also there's that other thing, if you're comparing yourself to the 2016 Jets in this analogy: in locking the team into Ryan Fitzpatrick you're not even going to end up banging Amy. You'll just be Chasing Amy or something. She'll just tease you and you'll end up with nothing; not Amy and not Selena either. Lost in your analogy is that Ryan Fitzpatrick isn't a good QB. He's a good backup QB who had a good season statistically under ideal conditions that won't be repeated. 

So please don't do these analogies anymore because I will reply with more of these tortured and overly forced metaphors of my own. Nobody needs that.  

[BowlesMovement]

10 hours ago, joewilly12 said:

Ladies Gentlemen and BowlesMovement let me introduce you to the Fitzpatrick couch

Nice post cuz, very informative and insightful. 

[Sperm Edwards]

14 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

Nice post cuz, very informative and insightful. 

First time for everything.

[joewilly12]

37 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

Nice post cuz, very informative and insightful. 

The one about you performing lewd sex acts in the RV at MetLife was so much better, 

[BowlesMovement]

6 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

The one about you performing lewd sex acts in the RV at MetLife was so much better, 

For the record, I am much more of a meat and potatoes type guy... Little on top, bottom, from behind. Craziest I get is a one knuckler. But if you are asking me on a date, I might consider. I just want to know up front who is paying, or are we going dutch?

[joewilly12]

Just now, BowlesMovement said:

For the record, I am much more of a meat and potatoes type guy... Little on top, bottom, from behind. Craziest I get is a one knuckler. But if you are asking me on a date, I might consider. I just want to know up front who is paying, or are we going dutch?

No date ever mentioned or considered told you that awhile ago your persistence is annoying and sickening to say the least.

Besides I'm the dumbest poster on the forum you can do so much better.

[BowlesMovement]

1 minute ago, joewilly12 said:

No date ever mentioned or considered told you that awhile ago your persistence is annoying and sickening to say the least.

Besides I'm the dumbest poster on the forum you can do so much better.

Hey, you are the one who keeps bringing up lewd sex acts, not me. I am on record saying you are one of the smartest Jets fans around here, not sure why you are saying the inverse cuz.

[sourceworx]

Just now, joewilly12 said:

Besides I'm the dumbest poster on the forum.....

I'm glad you realize this.

[joewilly12]

3 minutes ago, BowlesMovement said:

Hey, you are the one who keeps bringing up lewd sex acts, not me. I am on record saying you are one of the smartest Jets fans around here, not sure why you are saying the inverse cuz.

Whatever dude. 

2 minutes ago, sourceworx said:

I'm glad you realize this.

Take it from the source. 

[BowlesMovement]

Just now, joewilly12 said:

Whatever dude. 

 

dude? I thought we were cuz's?

[joewilly12]

Just now, BowlesMovement said:

dude? I thought we were cuz's?

We are nothing old man go away. 

[BowlesMovement]

Just now, joewilly12 said:

We are nothing old man go away. 

old man? I am in my early 40's, I did not know you were into "old guys", did not realize that was your "thing", hopefully I am not too young for you??

[Big Blocker]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Amy Schumer is a skanky pig; even if you win, you haven't won anything and you'll have blown your load for nothing. Save it for Selena. Do that for me. Save your Sperm.

Also there's that other thing, if you're comparing yourself to the 2016 Jets in this analogy: in locking the team into Ryan Fitzpatrick you're not even going to end up banging Amy. You'll just be Chasing Amy or something. She'll just tease you and you'll end up with nothing; not Amy and not Selena either. Lost in your analogy is that Ryan Fitzpatrick isn't a good QB. He's a good backup QB who had a good season statistically under ideal conditions that won't be repeated. 

So please don't do these analogies anymore because I will reply with more of these tortured and overly forced metaphors of my own. Nobody needs that.  

Wow there is so much wrong with this post.  Hey, if you have such an intimate connection to knowledge of the future, I'd be playing the stock market or even the lottery rather than wasting time here.  And "locking"?  "not good" implying bad?

And fwiw I don't think Amy Schumer is a skanky pig, either.  That's just posturing that made me think I shouldn't have bothered wit the rest of your post.

Here's the thing - perceived strength of schedule assessments do not require you to give up on the coming season. You are using that stated perception, one I can't tell you really believe at that, to argue for a certain approach that does not stand on its own.  And it's really kind of pointless since it makes no sense to think this FO, this CS, intends to tank the season.  And that's before you even get to real life considerations like losing merely leads to more losing.  To get a higher pick so we can see the Jets get another Milliner, Sanchez, Gholston or Dewayne Robertson.

[whodeawhodat]

On 5/24/2016 at 8:15 AM, Warfish said:

So sacrifice any chances for competitive play in 2016.

So we can "see what we got", despite the Coach and GM "seeing what they got" in practice every day and all camp.

I think you undervalue being consistently competitive.  I also think you undervalue the worth of a veteran mentor to help our young, greenhorn, QB's develop and learn the pro game.  

Giving up seasons to "see what we got" is what the Cleveland Browns do.  Hows that working out for them?

It's only simple if going 4-12 in 2016 is ok by you, for potentially no gain of any kind.

well said, agree with it all.

[Sperm Edwards]

6 hours ago, Big Blocker said:

Wow there is so much wrong with this post.  Hey, if you have such an intimate connection to knowledge of the future, I'd be playing the stock market or even the lottery rather than wasting time here.  And "locking"?  "not good" implying bad?

And fwiw I don't think Amy Schumer is a skanky pig, either.  That's just posturing that made me think I shouldn't have bothered wit the rest of your post.

Here's the thing - perceived strength of schedule assessments do not require you to give up on the coming season. You are using that stated perception, one I can't tell you really believe at that, to argue for a certain approach that does not stand on its own.  And it's really kind of pointless since it makes no sense to think this FO, this CS, intends to tank the season.  And that's before you even get to real life considerations like losing merely leads to more losing.  To get a higher pick so we can see the Jets get another Milliner, Sanchez, Gholston or Dewayne Robertson.

First off, however funny Amy Schumer can be, she is most definitely skanky. This is not my opinion; it is scientific fact.

As to the rest, well we just disagree then. I don't see how prior Jets GMs drafting bad players has anything to do with this GM. He didn't draft them, so saddling Maccagnan with those names is kind of silly. On balance, it is better to have higher draft picks than lower draft picks. If you want to argue the opposite being true you can do so, but it would be a nonsensical endeavor. Maccagnan certainly doesn't agree with that notion, since he'd have already traded Wilkerson if a higher draft pick was offered. Also if he thought that was the case surely you think he should have traded back in rounds 1-2 these past 2 drafts, and acquire more picks instead of myopically wasting them on higher-rated prospects he liked.

Yes it is my strong belief that this schedule will be noticeably more difficult than an easy 2015 schedule that wasn't easy enough for the team to overcome with Fitzpatrick at the helm. If you think it will be on par or easier than 2015, you either aren't looking at it or are the only one who believes it. Next, I don't think Fitzpatrick is a good enough QB to overcome that harder schedule, since he wasn't enough to overcome an easier one; he doesn't QB his teams to wins against good teams unless they're ravaged by multiple significant injuries, or even against bad teams if they put a moderate # of points on the board. I think you're severely underestimating just how comparatively easy he had it last season, where we still came up short despite getting spotted all those advantages.

I simply don't think he's worth the investment since I don't think he's particularly good, let alone enough of a difference-maker to get past a string of tough opponents. So "tanking" is a strong word. If the FO truly thought failing to sign him would equate to "tanking" I doubt he'd still be a FA as June is approaching. 

If the prior rumored amount is true (about $7M/yr), I've only said about 30x I'm comfortable with bringing back Fitzpatrick for up to that amount. It is an amount they could sign on for and still put him on the bench if/when the time comes. Put another way, that amount could be rationalized if he was purely signed to be the backup outright. At $11M, however he's starting (i.e. "locked" into starting) until/unless he gets injured, with a good chance he stays the starter even after we're eliminated. 

[Big Blocker]

9 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

First off, however funny Amy Schumer can be, she is most definitely skanky. This is not my opinion; it is scientific fact.

As to the rest, well we just disagree then. I don't see how prior Jets GMs drafting bad players has anything to do with this GM. He didn't draft them, so saddling Maccagnan with those names is kind of silly. On balance, it is better to have higher draft picks than lower draft picks. If you want to argue the opposite being true you can do so, but it would be a nonsensical endeavor. Maccagnan certainly doesn't agree with that notion, since he'd have already traded Wilkerson if a higher draft pick was offered. Also if he thought that was the case surely you think he should have traded back in rounds 1-2 these past 2 drafts, and acquire more picks instead of myopically wasting them on higher-rated prospects he liked.

Yes it is my strong belief that this schedule will be noticeably more difficult than an easy 2015 schedule that wasn't easy enough for the team to overcome with Fitzpatrick at the helm. If you think it will be on par or easier than 2015, you either aren't looking at it or are the only one who believes it. Next, I don't think Fitzpatrick is a good enough QB to overcome that harder schedule, since he wasn't enough to overcome an easier one; he doesn't QB his teams to wins against good teams unless they're ravaged by multiple significant injuries, or even against bad teams if they put a moderate # of points on the board. I think you're severely underestimating just how comparatively easy he had it last season, where we still came up short despite getting spotted all those advantages.

I simply don't think he's worth the investment since I don't think he's particularly good, let alone enough of a difference-maker to get past a string of tough opponents. So "tanking" is a strong word. If the FO truly thought failing to sign him would equate to "tanking" I doubt he'd still be a FA as June is approaching. 

If the prior rumored amount is true (about $7M/yr), I've only said about 30x I'm comfortable with bringing back Fitzpatrick for up to that amount. It is an amount they could sign on for and still put him on the bench if/when the time comes. Put another way, that amount could be rationalized if he was purely signed to be the backup outright. At $11M, however he's starting (i.e. "locked" into starting) until/unless he gets injured, with a good chance he stays the starter even after we're eliminated. 

NO GM consistently does great with their draft picks.  The point is that tanking a season entails risks.  I never said Macc would do as poorly as Idzik and Tanny.  But it's no sure thing. 

We just have to disagree about the SOS argument.  I in fact think the Jets will have a better team this year than last.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Big Blocker said:

NO GM consistently does great with their draft picks.  The point is that tanking a season entails risks.  I never said Macc would do as poorly as Idzik and Tanny.  But it's no sure thing. 

We just have to disagree about the SOS argument.  I in fact think the Jets will have a better team this year than last.

 

We absolutely might be a better team this year. I hope we are a better team, as does everyone here. Having a better team this year doesn't therefore mean we will win more games than last year, though. I think there's a good probability we will be better while posting a worse record.

I get the optimism, and I am sympathetic to the idea of always fielding the best possible team every year. But a coin has 2 sides, not just one: whatever is spent this year is taken from next year, and I think this year will be too much to overcome without a truly good QB.

Just like draft picks are no sure things, neither is anyone, including Fitzpatrick repeating - actually exceeding - the best year of his career, which is what will be needed against a schedule you refuse to see will clearly be more difficult. But like Fitzpatrick is far from a sure thing, neither is the health of both of the 2 WRs he zeroed in on nearly 300x last year, or our RBs, or our LT, or the play of our RG, or a sure thing that this year we won't field a downgrade from Demario Davis, or Calvin Pace, or that Milliner or whoever's starting opposite Revis will even be an upgrade from 2015, or any guarantees of Revis himself, another year older. Or maybe these players will be roughly the same or better as they (or the prior players) were last year, but they might seem the same or worse because we're facing superior opponents. There is no such thing as a sure thing player, even among veterans. 

Too many collapses and timely injuries would need to occur just for the team to face a similar schedule to last year's super-easy schedule, which itself ended up not being easy enough.

[ylekram]

8 hours ago, BowlesMovement said:

Hey, you are the one who keeps bringing up lewd sex acts, not me. I am on record saying you are one of the smartest Jets fans around here, not sure why you are saying the inverse cuz.

I think he is playing hard to get

[Big Blocker]

16 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

We absolutely might be a better team this year. I hope we are a better team, as does everyone here. Having a better team this year doesn't therefore mean we will win more games than last year, though. I think there's a good probability we will be better while posting a worse record.

I get the optimism, and I am sympathetic to the idea of always fielding the best possible team every year. But a coin has 2 sides, not just one: whatever is spent this year is taken from next year, and I think this year will be too much to overcome without a truly good QB.

Just like draft picks are no sure things, neither is anyone, including Fitzpatrick repeating - actually exceeding - the best year of his career, which is what will be needed against a schedule you refuse to see will clearly be more difficult. But like Fitzpatrick is far from a sure thing, neither is the health of both of the 2 WRs he zeroed in on nearly 300x last year, or our RBs, or our LT, or the play of our RG, or a sure thing that this year we won't field a downgrade from Demario Davis, or Calvin Pace, or that Milliner or whoever's starting opposite Revis will even be an upgrade from 2015, or any guarantees of Revis himself, another year older. Or maybe these players will be roughly the same or better as they (or the prior players) were last year, but they might seem the same or worse because we're facing superior opponents. There is no such thing as a sure thing player, even among veterans. 

Too many collapses and timely injuries would need to occur just for the team to face a similar schedule to last year's super-easy schedule, which itself ended up not being easy enough.

Well, at least you put aside the argument for tanking, at least temporarily.

You mention only the negative considerations meaning the positives from last year you question will carry over.  But also last year the Jets had a rookie HC, a new CS including a special teams coach who has already been fired, an OC who had been out of the game for two years, a new starting Qb, no production from TE and I mean none, a year long unsettled contest to field 3rd wideout (the most important bench position on O), an RB rotation that by year's end was down to zero, a fading Ferguson,  anew LG, an unsettled RG situation, and of course zero contribution from the backup Qb.  And then on D you had injuries hamper the #2 cb and by season's end the #1 cb, a declining contribution from D Davis and Coples being cut, and overall the linebackers being slow, Richardson out four games (I know me might be again, but maybe not), Williams a rookie, and while Mauldin and Pryor played well they did so more toward the end of the season.  Then of course special teams were arguably the worst in the league.

I think every one of the factors I mentioned have at least the chance and in most cases probability of improving in the coming season. 

Even the SOS consideration is not as clear cut as all that since our division opponents will face similar schedules, and while I would not bet against NE it is possible they will be as worn down by the schedule that there's a decent chance the Jets could win the division.  Yeah, I said that, and it's true.

I do not refuse to see the schedule looks difficult.  But I don't think particularly now, this far out, and given all the foregoing, that we can just assume the Jets will not make the playoffs.

Unless of course Smith is the starting Qb.