Jump to content

Report: Fitzpatrick Prepared to Accept One-Year Deal From Jets


Recommended Posts

Just now, Mike135 said:

On the other hand, he'll be considered a freakin' genius after Geno does great.

That is a VERY long shot, but I'll agree anything could happen. But there again I could end up being a porn star at age 45. Not that it's likely, it's just possible.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 531
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

He's not worth the $12 million dollar cap hit. He can go eat a dick.

Lets hope for us Jets fans sake this all works out for us we deserve to be happy and root for a winning team.  If Fitzpatrick is the QB so be it.  He will have my support. 

LOL @ everyone not in favor of this deal.    1. Fitz, without a doubt, gives us the best chance to win football games.    2. It's a 1-year deal. Will not hurt us in the future fina

2 hours ago, LIJetsFan said:

Omg, the PR battle, really.  If PR is in the forefront of Mac's decision making then may the saints preserve us.  In general I respect your posts sperm but if you believe Mac ought to have PR concerns as significant factors in his decision making then, well. your wrong.  And if he is in fact doing so then, well, he's wrong.

He'll make his bones as a GM based of the quality of his decisions.  Worrying about PR is just second guessing yourself in advance and is most unwise.     

I'm saying he has those concerns, or should have them on a personal level, because denying the strength of public perception is naive. It is convenient for me, you, or anyone to dismiss them as though these external pressures don't exist. I agree it is unwise on paper, but he may not survive long enough to show he was right about some of those decisions (or non-decisions).

I think that is a good part of the reason they're going back to Fitzpatrick at all. If they believed in him that much, at such an important position, with such a veteran team, there would be no dillydallying over a few million that gets lost in the sands of time. Hell, they just threw $3M/year on yet another backup 300-lb DE (who's going to also probably going to cost us a 4th round draft pick when the dust settles). I think that the bad PR he'd get is also the reason he didn't trade Mo. He drew a line in the sand at a first round pick. But in reality, what is the difference between the #30 pick and the #35 pick other than public perception? It's nowhere near the difference between #30 and #15. Yet this was his line in the sand. Why? Because he'd get creamed for letting Mo go for less than a #1 pick even if no other GM thought he was worth that either.  Is it better to get a mid-2nd in 2016, or after an 8-8 season with Mo this year to lose him for a 3rd round comp pick, around #100 overall, 2 years later in 2018 that 50/50 we won't even see (on top of the $16M he'll cost for this 1 more season).

I'm not personally worried on his behalf about his PR problems. I'm saying he has some of these concerns dealing with reality. It's a lot of what did in his predecessor (that and some sh*tty moves, but GMs have survived worse, particularly if they're force-fed a HC for 2 yrs who also got fired). Through all the bad Idzik moves, the truth is it's still possible for a lot of them to still work out, and he was further canned before he spent so much of the cash he'd saved up, largely due to bad PR. What he couldn't survive was that ridiculous, cringe-worthy, rambling speech he made, plus a nationally-covered campaign by a group to get him fired.

I think Maccagnan, like lots of people, reads the tea leaves. He's not just the GM of the Jets. He's also a grown man with a family. His #1 job is not, in fact, building a winner with the Jets but in keeping his high-paying job for as long as he can. Building a winner will of course do wonders for that, but in the absence of such, it's better for him to tread water than to drown. Just ask John Idzik. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Do you explain away everything? 

 

You said that there were no starting jobs at this point....so far during the 2016 offseason. There were 4 of them, all during the time that Fitz was able to sign as a free agent. What's your problem acknowledging that? 

There was no 4. There was 2. SF does not have an opening. They are not going to pay Kap and another starter at the same time. Out of those 2 teams he was offered a contract by Denver. And that was after Sanchez signed. As for the Browns I don't know if he had communications with them or not. Maybe he did and the agent said he was going to re-sign with the Jets. And we also don't know if there were communications with other teams. So where were the 4 openings. And 2 out of 32 isn't a lot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with Fitz this year if he leaves is getting a chance to play somewhere else. He can get a contract for sure but most of the starting jobs in 2016 are accounted for. That could change. Some years there are more openings but younger Qbs have played well and won the jobs. The Fitz haters keep saying there is no demand for him so he has to take Mac's offer love it or leave it. This isn't the way you negotiate a contract esp with your starting Qb. You don't try to box him in a corner and say take it or leave it. It defeats the entire purpose of signing him in the first place which is to successfully lead your team. It also gives a message to his teammates. 

You pay a player relative to his market demand. There are veteran starting players at every position getting paid low end money because they're not that great. QB is no different.

You're advocating the Jets take an approach of "hey the market you've tested for months doesn't feel you're worth starter money, but hey our situation sucks so lucky you, and why not have a few extra million on top for the heck of it because you've already been insulted by the open market"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

There was no 4. There was 2. SF does not have an opening. They are not going to pay Kap and another starter at the same time. Out of those 2 teams he was offered a contract by Denver. And that was after Sanchez signed. As for the Browns I don't know if he had communications with them or not. Maybe he did and the agent said he was going to re-sign with the Jets. And we also don't know if there were communications with other teams. So where were the 4 openings. And 2 out of 32 isn't a lot. 

The 49ers could have cut Kaep before April 1st and not be on the hook for 11 million dollars. This is why they were trying so hard to trade him but couldnt, because the league understood the contract situation and knew that there was no reason to trade, just wait for the cut. They didnt cut him thinking that they could get the Broncos to trade. The trade stalled because Kaep refused to renegotiate the 11 million that he was ALREADY GUARANTEED by the 49er's only to get less money to be traded to the Broncos. So, Kaep is only a 49er because the 49ers MUST pay him that money and Kaep wasnt going to be stupid and renegotiate out of 11 million dollars. 

You dont go into your offseason proceeding to trade a QB you ultimately want as your QB while at the same time touting Blaine Gabbert. 

 

As for the Browns, the communications, or lack thereof is irrelevant. They were in the market for a QB...which was the point. 

 

I know you understand this. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm saying he has those concerns, or should have them on a personal level, because denying the strength of public perception is naive. It is convenient for me, you, or anyone to dismiss them as though these external pressures don't exist. I agree it is unwise on paper, but he may not survive long enough to show he was right about some of those decisions (or non-decisions).

I think that is a good part of the reason they're going back to Fitzpatrick at all. If they believed in him that much, at such an important position, with such a veteran team, there would be no dillydallying over a few million that gets lost in the sands of time. Hell, they just threw $3M/year on yet another backup 300-lb DE (who's going to also probably going to cost us a 4th round draft pick when the dust settles). I think that the bad PR he'd get is also the reason he didn't trade Mo. He drew a line in the sand at a first round pick. But in reality, what is the difference between the #30 pick and the #35 pick other than public perception? It's nowhere near the difference between #30 and #15. Yet this was his line in the sand. Why? Because he'd get creamed for letting Mo go for less than a #1 pick even if no other GM thought he was worth that either.  Is it better to get a mid-2nd in 2016, or after an 8-8 season with Mo this year to lose him for a 3rd round comp pick, around #100 overall, 2 years later in 2018 that 50/50 we won't even see (on top of the $16M he'll cost for this 1 more season).

I'm not personally worried on his behalf about his PR problems. I'm saying he has some of these concerns dealing with reality. It's a lot of what did in his predecessor (that and some sh*tty moves, but GMs have survived worse, particularly if they're force-fed a HC for 2 yrs who also got fired). Through all the bad Idzik moves, the truth is it's still possible for a lot of them to still work out, and he was further canned before he spent so much of the cash he'd saved up, largely due to bad PR. What he couldn't survive was that ridiculous, cringe-worthy, rambling speech he made, plus a nationally-covered campaign by a group to get him fired.

I think Maccagnan, like lots of people, reads the tea leaves. He's not just the GM of the Jets. He's also a grown man with a family. His #1 job is not, in fact, building a winner with the Jets but in keeping his high-paying job for as long as he can. Building a winner will of course do wonders for that, but in the absence of such, it's better for him to tread water than to drown. Just ask John Idzik. 

IMHO, all a good GM should be interested in this the bold above.  If he's making good decisions and things none the less break badly for him, well sh!t happens.  There are 31 other owners that might/should recognize that he was making the right calls.  A good GM survives bad PR.  

So far the two calls he made that I don't like are the Mo situation (I'd of traded or released him) and the Cro signing (which I consider caving/cooperating to/with his HC).  Now that all the facts seem to be out on the Fitz negotiations I've no complain no matter the final outcome.  

Overall so far, Mac has been recognized and a good GM and I concur.  If he let PR stand in the way of the "right" decision re Mo than I am disappointed.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm saying he has those concerns, or should have them on a personal level, because denying the strength of public perception is naive. It is convenient for me, you, or anyone to dismiss them as though these external pressures don't exist. I agree it is unwise on paper, but he may not survive long enough to show he was right about some of those decisions (or non-decisions).

I think that is a good part of the reason they're going back to Fitzpatrick at all. If they believed in him that much, at such an important position, with such a veteran team, there would be no dillydallying over a few million that gets lost in the sands of time. Hell, they just threw $3M/year on yet another backup 300-lb DE (who's going to also probably going to cost us a 4th round draft pick when the dust settles). I think that the bad PR he'd get is also the reason he didn't trade Mo. He drew a line in the sand at a first round pick. But in reality, what is the difference between the #30 pick and the #35 pick other than public perception? It's nowhere near the difference between #30 and #15. Yet this was his line in the sand. Why? Because he'd get creamed for letting Mo go for less than a #1 pick even if no other GM thought he was worth that either.  Is it better to get a mid-2nd in 2016, or after an 8-8 season with Mo this year to lose him for a 3rd round comp pick, around #100 overall, 2 years later in 2018 that 50/50 we won't even see (on top of the $16M he'll cost for this 1 more season).

I'm not personally worried on his behalf about his PR problems. I'm saying he has some of these concerns dealing with reality. It's a lot of what did in his predecessor (that and some sh*tty moves, but GMs have survived worse, particularly if they're force-fed a HC for 2 yrs who also got fired). Through all the bad Idzik moves, the truth is it's still possible for a lot of them to still work out, and he was further canned before he spent so much of the cash he'd saved up, largely due to bad PR. What he couldn't survive was that ridiculous, cringe-worthy, rambling speech he made, plus a nationally-covered campaign by a group to get him fired.

I think Maccagnan, like lots of people, reads the tea leaves. He's not just the GM of the Jets. He's also a grown man with a family. His #1 job is not, in fact, building a winner with the Jets but in keeping his high-paying job for as long as he can. Building a winner will of course do wonders for that, but in the absence of such, it's better for him to tread water than to drown. Just ask John Idzik. 

This is a wonderful post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If $12M is the lower end of starter money and if the Jets are willing to pay Fitz that much for 2016 but not for 2017 and 2018 when the Jets may decide that he is the backup.

What about this?

Give him $12M per year for three years.  If he is the starter in 2017 and 2018 then he still gets $12M in those years but he only gets $6M per year if he is not the starter.  If he is not the starter then he has the right to walk and find another deal so long as it is a deal that would also make him the starter for another team.

The Jets get the starter they want for 2016.  If it turns out they need him to start in 2017 and 2018 then he will be paid starter money in those years too.  If he is beaten out for the  starter spot then he gets to accept a backup/mentor role at backup/menor money or look elsewhere for a new deal as a starter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

The 49ers could have cut Kaep before April 1st and not be on the hook for 11 million dollars. This is why they were trying so hard to trade him but couldnt, because the league understood the contract situation and knew that there was no reason to trade, just wait for the cut. They didnt cut him thinking that they could get the Broncos to trade. The trade stalled becaude Kaep refused to renegotiate the 11 million that he was ALREADY GUARANTEED. 

You dont go into your offseason and proceed to trade a QB you ultimately want as your QB while at the same time touting Blane Gabbert. 

 

As for the Browns, the communications, or lack thereof is irrelevant. They were in the market for a QB...which was the point. 

 

I know you understand this. 

Again you give him a contract like the NEP-Revis.deal.. The team can pull out of it in years 2 or 3 if there's a 3rd year. I think they get cap considerations on year 1 also. There's a lot of ways to do it but so far Mac wants to lock him in to backup money and is basically telling the guy we have no confidence in you. Not the way you deal with players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EM31 said:

If $12M is the lower end of starter money and if the Jets are willing to pay Fitz that much for 2016 but not for 2017 and 2018 when the Jets may decide that he is the backup.

What about this?

Give him $12M per year for three years.  If he is the starter in 2017 and 2018 then he still gets $12M in those years but he only gets $6M per year if he is not the starter.  If he is not the starter then he has the right to walk and find another deal so long as it is a deal that would also make him the starter for another team.

The Jets get the starter they want for 2016.  If it turns out they need him to start in 2017 and 2018 then he will be paid starter money in those years too.  If he is beaten out for the  starter spot then he gets to accept a backup/mentor role at backup/menor money or look elsewhere for a new deal as a starter.

That's basically the deal Fitz turned down only the last two years are the opposite - the way it should be - backup money with incentives to reach starter money $36M total.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LIJetsFan said:

IMHO, all a good GM should be interested in this the bold above.  If he's making good decisions and things none the less break badly for him, well sh!t happens.  There are 31 other owners that might/should recognize that he was making the right calls.  A good GM survives bad PR.  

So far the two calls he made that I don't like are the Mo situation (I'd of traded or released him) and the Cro signing (which I consider caving/cooperating to/with his HC).  Now that all the facts seem to be out on the Fitz negotiations I've no complain no matter the final outcome.  

Overall so far, Mac has been recognized and a good GM and I concur.  If he let PR stand in the way of the "right" decision re Mo than I am disappointed.    

Like I wrote in that long post you repped as well a couple of hrs ago, what is in Maccagnan's best interest may not be in the team's best interest. If these guys - whether coaches or GMs or anyone in NFL authority - had no eye on how things would play out publicly, maybe Mangini benches Brett Favre instead of worrying about being remembered as the guy that benched Brett Favre and ended the streak.

I have more complaints than just that, but those are certainly 2 of the bigger ones because they're higher profile. I think bringing back Revis was largely Bypassing what may end up being a 4th round pick next year, to sign Jarvis Jenkins to a 2 yr $6M deal, seems shortsighted to me. And another one for Powell. Any one of them, meh no big deal. If this goes on over time, then quite literally over a 5 year period we could be talking about some 15 draft picks we never made, on top of the more expensive cost of those veterans. 

There is a downside to covering all bases too well prior to the draft. Just to throw RB out there as an example, say there was someone higher in the draft that simply was a must-draft selection at the position. A month earlier we just locked ourselves into not only one of the league's more expensive RB corps for the next 2 years minimum, but also passed up on 2 would-be draft picks for both Forte and Powell. In that situation, I think he stays away from that position at that pick no matter who it is. I don't have anyone in mind from this past draft; just showing how securing a position in March influences passing on someone in April. Actually what am I talking about -- the example I'm looking for is Sanchez and Russell Wilson. Lock up Sanchez in March, and you don't draft Russell Wilson in April no matter how fat of a chub your head scout has for Wilson. So not only do we not draft Wilson (in round 2), but we also used that 2nd round pick and another pick to trade up for Stephen Hill. Quite the butterfly effect.

Now that's past history and Sanchez/Hill is on Tannenbaum not Maccagnan, but the principle is still the same. So shoring up the roster too deeply with veterans in March isn't necessarily as low-cost as those things seem at first glance. But he's also concerned with PR and it slipped out last night at the town hall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jetrider said:

That's basically the deal Fitz turned down only the last two years are the opposite - the way it should be - backup money with incentives to reach starter money $36M total.

Does he have the right to walk in years 2 and 3 if they make him the backup?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EM31 said:

Does he have the right to walk in years 2 and 3 if they make him the backup?  

We'd have the power to trade him if he wants out (or he's not needed) and we'd get something in return.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jetrider said:

We'd have the power to trade him if he wants out (or he's not needed) and we'd get something in return.

If that is what is keeping both sides from a deal I would give him the right to walk and test the market in years two or three if we made the decision to move him into a backup role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great read and some of the best "news" yet!  Macc is the man! 

Note: Many reports keep saying we have 3mil free in cap space.  We haven't signed Lee yet.  Which will probably be around 2.5mil.

I wonder if Macc smokes cigars?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/mehta-jets-won-sign-ryan-fitzpatrick-one-year-12m-deal-article-1.2658240

Jets won’t sign Ryan Fitzpatrick to a one-year, $12 million deal: source

The Jets' contract stalemate with Ryan Fitzpatrick has officially devolved into an ugly — yet largely avoidable — mess.

A cloud of uncertainly hovers over a reunion that once seemed inevitable. The Daily News' report this week that some members of the organization believed that the veteran free-agent quarterback would sign for less elsewhere on principle was followed by another News report that he's amenable to taking a one-year, $12 million deal with Gang Green.

The News has now learned that the Jets are not interested in giving Fitzpatrick a one-year, $12 million contract for myriad reasons. Such a pact would not make much financial sense to them given that they have offered a three-year deal for $24 million. Increasing the annual average by 50 percent in Fitzpatrick's now-preferred one-year deal would significantly increase the salary cap hit for this season.

Although the Jets, who have a little more than $3 million of cap space, could free up more money with straight-forward base salary-to-signing bonus conversions in a few deals (see: Buster Skrine, Marcus Gilchrist, Eric Decker, Brandon Marshall, and perhaps even Darrelle Revis), the organization doesn't appear inclined to do that.

It also makes football sense for the Jets to have Fitzpatrick back in 2017 as an insurance policy at the very least for Christian Hackenberg, who may or may not be ready to take over in 2017.

The only one-year offer that the Jets might entertain would be for around $8 million, the average per year that they have already offered as part of their current three-year deal.

The Jets currently only have Hackenberg and Bryce Petty under contract at quarterback beyond this upcoming season. Geno Smith, who is entering the final year of his rookie contract, could seek greener pastures elsewhere. He likely won't have a long-term future with the Jets given Mike Maccagnan's recent investment in Hackenberg.

Fitzpatrick was a terrific influence on and off the field last season. It's reasonable for both sides to work on the particulars of the second year of the Jets' three-year offer. As it stands, Fitzpatrick would take a 50 percent pay cut in 2017, which isn't reasonable if he has another productive season.

The impasse has needlessly created drama for an organization trying to break free from its maligned past.

So, how much longer will the Jets wait before moving on from Fitzpatrick?

Although the deadline appears to be the start of training camp, don't be surprised if the Jets turn the page sooner than that. The last thing the organization wants or needs right now is this ugly situation hanging over its head for another seven weeks.

There is a faction that believes that the fall-off from Fitzpatrick to Smith isn't that wide. I disagree with that notion, but the Jets' position is understandable.

Both sides could — and should — have handled all of this much better this offseason.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EM31 said:

If that is what is keeping both sides from a deal I would give him the right to walk and test the market in years two or three if we made the decision to move him into a backup role.

That would be the equivalent of a one year $12M deal and Jets aren't willing to do that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jetrider said:

That would be the equivalent of a one year $12M deal and Jets aren't willing to do that.

Not really.  It would give him starter money if we end up using him that way or the right to seek starter money if we don't.  It is still our choice.  If nobody else is willing to pay him starter money then we get first option on him as a backup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

 The bottomline is that Macc's outlook should be to keep the one he currently has. The fact that he's going through all of this with Fitzpatrick proves that Macc knows that Fitzpatrick was more of a beneficiary of last seasons success and not really the reason. 

And the fact that no other NFL team has given Fitz more than a peremptory sniff says Fitz has no leverage in this. Elway lowballed Osweiler and he ended up in Houston who used that as an in to make an offer to Osweiler that Denver could not or would not meet.  At that time, DEN could have made Fitz, a free agent, an offer; instead they traded for Mark Sanchez whose 2015 numbers were not close to Fitz's...

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Awesumtenor said:

And the fact that no other NFL team has given Fitz more than a peremptory sniff says Fitz has no leverage in this. Elway lowballed Osweiler and he ended up in Houston who used that as an in to make an offer to Osweiler that Denver could not or would not meet.  At that time, DEN could have made Fitz, a free agent, an offer; instead they traded for Mark Sanchez whose 2015 numbers were not close to Fitz's...

 

Denver preferred giving up 3 draft picks in order to get lynch and sanchez over paying FA fitzpatrick 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mainejet said:

That is a VERY long shot, but I'll agree anything could happen. But there again I could end up being a porn star at age 45. Not that it's likely, it's just possible.

Just have your wife cut off your junk. Make sure she uses a clean sharp knife so they can sew it back, otherwise you'll be a different kind of porn star. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, slats said:

Fitzpatrick is the safe play, especially if they suspect the team might regress from their 10-6 record last year no matter who's under center. If they win 7 or 8 games with Fitz, it'll be the tough schedule, etc. Same record with Geno, and the pitchforks and torches come out. 

That is true. It us up to Mac to set the table with the owner on what expectations should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Crusher said:

Yes.  We are paying Fitz 12 million to battle it out in camp and let Geno start.  If the  Jets thought for one nanosecond Geno was a semi adequate starter they would already wished Fitz a happy retirement.  

Conversely if the Jets thought it was cut and dried that Fitz is a better option, will get us to the payoffs and is clearly better than Geno he would have been signed months ago. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Thumb Down 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Conversely if the Jets thought it was cut and dried that Fitz is a better option, will get us to the payoffs and is clearly better than Geno he would have been signed months ago. 

At 16K?  Maybe.  I do think if he gets past Buffalo and gets into the playoffs he gets the big contract this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

At 16K?  Maybe.  I do think if he gets past Buffalo and gets into the playoffs he gets the big contract this year.

Right, but he also wouldn't be Fitz if he had gotten us to the playoffs.  So he'd be worth the deal.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Conversely if the Jets thought it was cut and dried that Fitz is a better option, will get us to the payoffs and is clearly better than Geno he would have been signed months ago. 

It is far more likely that the opposite is true.

If the Jets thought that Geno was better or even if they thought it was a toss up between the two of them then they would have no reason to offer him anything at all.  The fact that there is an ever increasing offer still on the table is "case closed" on that question.  If they thought Geno was better or close then go get Hoyer to be the backup and save $20+ million over three years.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

At 16K?  Maybe.  I do think if he gets past Buffalo and gets into the playoffs he gets the big contract this year.

Not the version of Fitz we see.  The version his fans see, one that makes the playoffs and is a top third QB.  Not the one who shlt the npbec in Buffalo

Thing is Macc doesn't see Fitz as that kind of player.

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EM31 said:

It is far more likely that the opposite is true.

If the Jets thought that Geno was better or even if they thought it was a toss up between the two of them then they would have no reason to offer him anything at all.  The fact that there is an ever increasing offer still on the table is "case closed" on that question.  If they thought Geno was better or close then go get Hoyer to be the backup and save $20+ million over three years.

Why?  The same logic works both ways.  

If you think you have a top QB in Fitzy, you think he can take you to the playoffs and can compete for a championship you sign him at all costs.  

Its much harder to quantify how negligible the difference might be between Fitz and whoever, not just Geno. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Why?  The same logic works both ways.  

If you think you have a top QB in Fitzy, you think he can take you to the playoffs and can compete for a championship you sign him at all costs.  

Its much harder to quantify how negligible the difference might be between Fitz and whoever, not just Geno. 

You never sign anybody "at all costs".  Come now Jet Nut.

The logic does not work both ways for the following reason.  You have Geno for zero dollars this year (effectively) and if you have to go out and get Fitz then you will need to commit to $12M this year and another $12M (at least) in subsequent years.  If you think Geno is better or even if you think they are close then take the one who is effectively free and use the twenty million dollars that you will save elsewhere.

 

<edited to add>

The logic that says the current offer is a low ball fig leaf that gives the Jets FO plausible deniability is still not compelling to me but at least it has some defensible rationale behind it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EM31 said:

You never sign anybody "at all costs".  Come now Jet Nut.

The logic does not work both ways for the following reason.  You have Geno for zero dollars this year (effectively) and if you have to go out and get Fitz then you will need to commit to $12M this year and another $12M (at least) in subsequent years.  If you think Geno is better or even if you think they are close then take the one who is effectively free and use the twenty million dollars that you will save elsewhere.

It'd still be very helpful to have a legitimate backup.  Whether it's needed for performance reasons or injury.

Based on reports, if Petty or Hack have to play, we're F-ed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike135 said:

It'd still be very helpful to have a legitimate backup.  Whether it's needed for performance reasons or injury.

Based on reports, if Petty or Hack have to play, we're F-ed.

Good point but look we are not going anywhere this year to begin with and so we can live with a Hoyer (or whoever) as our backup.

It makes zero sense to pay that money to Fitz to be a backup.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...