idzik.. just how bad was he at drafting players ? ? ?

[Smashmouth]

18 minutes ago, slats said:

One of the biggest mistakes Mac and Bowles made, if not the biggest one, was failing to self-scout accurately after that ten win season. They not only played the weakest schedule in the league that year, but they faced those weak teams in various states of injury depletedness seemingly every week. They were not a good team, and Fitzpatrick was not a good QB. He enjoyed the one healthy year of Decker and Marshall was an absolute beast for him turning inaccurate passes into TDs. Under the same circumstances, Geno could've easily produced similar results. In fact, it's almost good that he was sucker punched out of the starting job because Mac probably would've signed him to a $100M deal given the stupidity of the Fitzpatrick contract. 

sorry slats but this post is ridiculous. Geno could have had the same year ? It seemed Fitz was a good fit for a system he knew and WR's he had a good relationship with both on and off the field. This team needed a dynamic RB and I think we would have been okay problem was Forte was no longer dynamic and Powell was always hurt. The previous year Powell had a 4-5 game stretch where he was dynamic and this team and offense rolled, as soon as Powell got hurt, like he always does, we sh*t the bed in buffalo. It was the type of offense where everything needed to be in place.

No one ever said Fitz was going to go out and win games for us on his own. He was good for maybe a game or two but not an entire season of stellar QB play but we had some nice pieces in place. My argument you fail to see is that no way in hell would any GM not have signed Fitz for that second season. Geno was a train wreck and by handing him that job and letting Fitz walk any GM also would have been crucified. Fitz salary was also a low end starter salary something people on this forum still don't seem to get. OMG 12 MIL OMFG yeah 12 mil LOW END STARTER SALARY . Be happy it was a one year deal and now Fitz is gone its not worth continuing to argue about. 

This team is now in full rebuild mode lets try and be positive moving forward with what we have. Some promising good young players at the WR position and 80 mil to spend and the strong possibility we will be getting a Franchise QB in the up coming draft

[slats]

16 hours ago, nyjunc said:

of what 3? Tannenbaum, Macc and Idzik?  what? Tannebaum built 2 SB caliber teams(3 if he didn't foolishly make the move at QB in 2008).  Idzik was a disaster that set us back, he's not why we suck right now but he's part of the reason why.  he went all in on the 2014 draft and that draft set us back years. of course you can overcome bad drafting, we did it in 2015, but it will eventually catch up with you.

Idzik had a good plan, he just couldn't execute.  I have much more faith in Macc to execute and certainly much more in tannenbaum who built yet another playoff team in Miami.

Tannenbaum drove me crazy with his trading away of draft picks. He (probably correctly) had no confidence in his ability to scout players, so traded up for "sure things,' or for veterans, or paid veterans a premium, rather than build thru the draft. He did, however, build a team almost good enough, so I have to give him credit for that. The frequently maligned back-to-back AFC Championship game appearances were the heyday of this franchise outside of the superbowl and '98. 

Idzik gets credit for basically pulling the cord on Tannenbaum's contracts exactly as Tannenbaum designed them. He acquired comp picks, but was an absolutely miserable drafter incapable of consummating a trade while on the clock. Those twelve picks, what a complete waste. He's a guy I wouldn't mind having around in the background, never knowing his name, doing the numbers work. But to me, that's the easy part of the job. People who post here could do that job. 

Maccagnan hasn't mastered that easy part of the job, but I do continue to have some faith that he's a better drafter than either Tanny or (especially) Idzik. His biggest issue there, to date, is his religious following of the best available player method. It's my preferred way to go, too, but he has to take positional value into account - and he just doesn't. There's a lot of room for him to improve on the job, and I think that he can - while also really understanding the criticism he gets. I don't even particularly like the Adams pick. I'm concerned that he might be a college overachiever that just doesn't have the elite athleticism to perform at the same level in the pros. I hope I'm wrong. 

[jamesr]

1 hour ago, neckdemon said:

to be fair, my 13 year old son could have picked williams and adams. the jets got luck AF that both those guys fell to #6. they were no-brainer picks

I'm not arguing too much here ... but there is an element of still having to make the no-brainer pick.

Jax passed up on Leo for Dante Fowler Jr. Wash passed him up for Brandon Scherff (a "friggin' guard"). I can't criticse the others; QB trumps all, and Cooper was a great pick by the Raiders, I'd have been 100% behind it if we had picked Cooper over Leo given the chance.

Five teams also passed on Adams, after this year I'm sure a few of those decisions will look dumb, and one or two may look smart.

Too many times in history we seem to try to outsmart ourselves, and everyone else - I'm happy to see us making the obvious move even when no-one else does.

[slats]

2 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

sorry slats but this post is ridiculous. Geno could have had the same year ? It seemed Fitz was a good fit for a system he knew and WR's he had a good relationship with both on and off the field. This team needed a dynamic RB and I think we would have been okay problem was Forte was no longer dynamic and Powell was always hurt. The previous year Powell had a 4-5 game stretch where he was dynamic and this team and offense rolled, as soon as Powell got hurt, like he always does, we sh*t the bed in buffalo. It was the type of offense where everything needed to be in place.

No one ever said Fitz was going to go out and win games for us on his own. He was good for maybe a game or two but not an entire season of stellar QB play but we had some nice pieces in place. My argument you fail to see is that no way in hell would any GM not have signed Fitz for that second season. Geno was a train wreck and by handing him that job and letting Fitz walk any GM also would have been crucified. Fitz salary was also a low end starter salary something people on this forum still don't seem to get. OMG 12 MIL OMFG yeah 12 mil LOW END STARTER SALARY . Be happy it was a one year deal and now Fitz is gone its not worth continuing to argue about. 

This team is now in full rebuild mode lets try and be positive moving forward with what we have. Some promising good young players at the WR position and 80 mil to spend and the strong possibility we will be getting a Franchise QB in the up coming draft

I completely disagree with your argument, but recognize where it comes from as you were a True Fitz Believer, putting him on a Rich Gannon trajectory while I recognized that he was simply a bum. And I was disappointed that the team's hierarchy didn't also recognize that he was a bum. Fitz went from that super easy schedule season, with a healthy Decker and Marshall for 16 games to being right there at the Geno Smith level the following year once he faced a little adversity. I have little doubt that Geno could've put up a similar season under such favorable conditions. 

And there is still absolutely no defense of that Fitzcontract in my eyes. There was a rumor that -maybe- Denver offered him something around $7M. Paying him $12M was ludicrous. The longer he refused to sign, the team should've reduced their offer - not cave to his ridiculous demands. It's the GM's job to recognize what players are worth, and he missed on Fitz by about $11M. 

[#27TheDominator]

57 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

The reason why Macc came in here and spent was 

1. he had too

 

Forgetting the rest for the time being... why did he have to? 

[jamesr]

On 11/07/2017 at 3:48 AM, nycdan said:

If Hack throws 2 TDs to ASJ on Week 1, the bandwagon is going to break an axle from the weight of all the people jumping on at the same time.
 

Hate to break it to you, but ASJ is suspended Week 1.

/nitpick  

[phill1c]

6 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

so you think Revis was Maccs choice ? 

Also in the case of Revis ...in a zone system i think he can still excel .... man to man on a island like we were trying to use him as a 31 year old was nothing short of moronic. If anything with all the safety problems we were having he would have been better suited at that position than on an Island facing WR's much faster than him at this stage in his career with no help.

50/50 on this one:

+50: I think the owner had significant desire to re-sign Revis, to address a need short-term and for the publicity of the reunion. That said, the Jets actually won 10 games that first year and Revis' play wasn't remarkable either way. It was the second year that saw the precipitous fall off.

-50: I don't think Revis is a good zone CB. Definitely not as bad as in man-to-man but I think "excel" is probably a bit optimistic.

Extra credit: the safety position was a total disaster. I'll be the first to admit that I thought the problems were mostly with Gilchrist. But clearly the Jets felt that prior was not very good either. An any event, CBs need safeties to be effective in coverage. Man-to-man coverage presupposes safety help except when an all-out blitz is called. Our safeties were mostly out of position, which doesn't allow CB techniques to be effective. Sure, the Revis of 5 years ago could have compensated and had the make-up speed. Last year's Revis did not.

16 minutes ago, slats said:

One of the biggest mistakes Mac and Bowles made, if not the biggest one, was failing to self-scout accurately after that ten win season.

I'm not sure what would have been better: trying to win with what they had or rebuilding before it became clear that what they had wasn't worth it.

I mean, how do you blow up a 10-win team? Why would you? Sure, the schedule was soft. But...lots of people would have screamed bloody murder if the purge we're going through this year happened to the 10-win Jets. My issue was with the dogged pursuit of Fitzpatrick. But, really, they had added vets (and related contracts) and those players produced 10 wins (and should have been 11 and playoffs if the utter choking hadn't happened). So, water under the bridge.

I think they did the right thing in going for it after the 10-win year and the right thing now in blowing it up.

Posters have all these criticisms but, really, it takes time to build a winning franchise when you've had the consistent dysfunction that is the Jets franchise. Guys are quibbling about the last two years. Well, one year was a 10-win year. And, strangely, people were very supportive of the choker. So, you can't keep the choker and jettison all the veterans can you? They did what was right: keep the choker, expose him and the other expensive vets, release them after the season when it's cap-friendly to do so.

I can assure you this criticism seems more about aggrandizing individual poster's views than what someone with the actual responsibility would smartly do in the Jets situation.

[Smashmouth]

Just now, #27TheDominator said:

Forgetting the rest for the time being... why did he have to? 

NFL rules no ? I remember reading a post by one of the cap guys that visit this forum that stated we needed to spend our cap money I guess I could be wrong but thats what Im going on

[#27TheDominator]

33 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

so you think Revis was Maccs choice ? 

Also in the case of Revis ...in a zone system i think he can still excel .... man to man on a island like we were trying to use him as a 31 year old was nothing short of moronic. If anything with all the safety problems we were having he would have been better suited at that position than on an Island facing WR's much faster than him at this stage in his career with no help.

You are coming to this late.  Review the post I was quoting.  

[#27TheDominator]

8 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

NFL rules no ? I remember reading a post by one of the cap guys that visit this forum that stated we needed to spend our cap money I guess I could be wrong but thats what Im going on

You read wrong.  The cap spending floor is for a four year period - meaning 2013-2016.  He didn't have to spend yet.  More importantly, it is cash spending and like anything else, easily susceptible to manipulation by smart management.  He also didn't have to spend on the aging guys he did - $7M to Cromartie FFS? He spent so much money that he had to spend that we have a ton of dead money still rolling around, have backloaded a decent amount of Wilkerson's deal ($27M dead money if cut now) and he had to push $5M of Fitzpatrick's money to this year.  2017 is part of the new period for cap floor purposes, so that didn't help any for his having to spend.  Should I commend him for saving us from being in a position where we "had to spend" in 2020? 

[Smashmouth]

5 minutes ago, slats said:

I completely disagree with your argument, but recognize where it comes from as you were a True Fitz Believer, putting him on a Rich Gannon trajectory while I recognized that he was simply a bum. And I was disappointed that the team's hierarchy didn't also recognize that he was a bum. Fitz went from that super easy schedule season, with a healthy Decker and Marshall for 16 games to being right there at the Geno Smith level the following year once he faced a little adversity. I have little doubt that Geno could've put up a similar season under such favorable conditions. 

And there is still absolutely no defense of that Fitzcontract in my eyes. There was a rumor that -maybe- Denver offered him something around $7M. Paying him $12M was ludicrous. The longer he refused to sign, the team should've reduced their offer - not cave to his ridiculous demands. It's the GM's job to recognize what players are worth, and he missed on Fitz by about $11M. 

I made the Gannon comparision because Gannon was basically crap before going to the Raiders. It's seemed Fitz might have found a good fit and good relations with his team mates as well. I never said he was great I just felt maybe he was turning the corner or a late bloomer like a Gannon since their age and timeline for that first year of success with a new team was virtually identical.

Lets be honest a lot more went bad with this team last year than just Fitz the defense imploded, the locker room was a sh*t show, assignments were missed at an alarming rate, players were not showing up for meetings and this team virtually fell apart in just about every facet of the game. Fitz needed everything to click on offense to be successful we ALL knew he was not going to take this team on his back but had the ability to be a game manager. That 6 Int game was just madness we all also knew that was not something that was going to happen every week just like we knew Fitz was not going to throw 4td's every week. Either way bottom line is we had to sign Fitz and I think Macc signing him to a one year deal and trying to get a 3 year for 24 with Fitz moving into a back up role spoke volumes. Macc knew Fitz was not the long term answer but he also knew he had to get him signed for at least that one following year or he would have been lynched

[Smashmouth]

5 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

You read wrong.  The cap spending floor is for a four year period - meaning 2013-2016.  He didn't have to spend yet.  More importantly, it is cash spending and like anything else, easily susceptible to manipulation by smart management.  He also didn't have to spend on the aging guys he did - $7M to Cromartie FFS? He spent so much money that he had to spend that we have a ton of dead money still rolling around, have backloaded a decent amount of Wilkerson's deal ($27M dead money if cut now) and he had to push $5M of Fitzpatrick's money to this year.  2017 is part of the new period for cap floor purposes, so that didn't help any for his having to spend.  Should I commend him for saving us from being in a position where we "had to spend" in 2020? 

Ok thanks for clearing that up I just remembered hearing it a few times. Either way what if the owner told him to spend to win now  ? We did have a bunch of vets with maybe a few years left and theres a good chance Woody felt like giving it a shot . So Macc had one free agency period to sign some players to give it a run. Its not like he had multiple years to build he was told to win now and what makes this obvious is that he signed a bunch of seasoned Vets not young players to build on. 

We can't discount the fact that Woody pushed this and now that the experiment failed Macc has the freedom to build this team the way he wants to build it. So yes Im giving Macc a pass on the first 2 years. 

[NoBowles]

7 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

You read wrong.  The cap spending floor is for a four year period - meaning 2013-2016.  He didn't have to spend yet.  More importantly, it is cash spending and like anything else, easily susceptible to manipulation by smart management.  He also didn't have to spend on the aging guys he did - $7M to Cromartie FFS? He spent so much money that he had to spend that we have a ton of dead money still rolling around, have backloaded a decent amount of Wilkerson's deal ($27M dead money if cut now) and he had to push $5M of Fitzpatrick's money to this year.  2017 is part of the new period for cap floor purposes, so that didn't help any for his having to spend.  Should I commend him for saving us from being in a position where we "had to spend" in 2020? 

LOL, do you guys even think through your logic before you write this stuff?? 

[#27TheDominator]

 

3 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Ok thanks for clearing that up I just remembered hearing it a few times. Either way what if the owner told him to spend to win now  ? We did have a bunch of vets with maybe a few years left and theres a good chance Woody felt like giving it a shot . So Macc had one free agency period to sign some players to give it a run. Its not like he had multiple years to build he was told to win now and what makes this obvious is that he signed a bunch of seasoned Vets not young players to build on. 

We can't discount the fact that Woody pushed this and now that the experiment failed Macc has the freedom to build this team the way he wants to build it. So yes Im giving Macc a pass on the first 2 years. 

What if? 

I don't have a huge problem with giving him a chance.  Ownership is probably the only ones that know who/what his hands were forced on.  I am not saying that it is mandatory to fire the guy, but the idea that he deserves a free pass is a bit farfetched.  The sky is falling contingent - dbatesman/Shane/etc - certainly look more likely to be right than the green goggles guys or even the usual rational types (slats maybe?).

Same thing with Hackenberg.  He is here now, so we will root for him to be great, but the people saying he sucks have a lot more right to be crowing now than those that think he will be decent. 

[Smashmouth]

21 minutes ago, phill1c said:

50/50 on this one:

+50: I think the owner had significant desire to re-sign Revis, to address a need short-term and for the publicity of the reunion. That said, the Jets actually won 10 games that first year and Revis' play wasn't remarkable either way. It was the second year that saw the precipitous fall off.

-50: I don't think Revis is a good zone CB. Definitely not as bad as in man-to-man but I think "excel" is probably a bit optimistic.

Extra credit: the safety position was a total disaster. I'll be the first to admit that I thought the problems were mostly with Gilchrist. But clearly the Jets felt that prior was not very good either. An any event, CBs need safeties to be effective in coverage. Man-to-man coverage presupposes safety help except when an all-out blitz is called. Our safeties were mostly out of position, which doesn't allow CB techniques to be effective. Sure, the Revis of 5 years ago could have compensated and had the make-up speed. Last year's Revis did not.

I'm not sure what would have been better: trying to win with what they had or rebuilding before it became clear that what they had wasn't worth it.

I mean, how do you blow up a 10-win team? Why would you? Sure, the schedule was soft. But...lots of people would have screamed bloody murder if the purge we're going through this year happened to the 10-win Jets. My issue was with the dogged pursuit of Fitzpatrick. But, really, they had added vets (and related contracts) and those players produced 10 wins (and should have been 11 and playoffs if the utter choking hadn't happened). So, water under the bridge.

I think they did the right thing in going for it after the 10-win year and the right thing now in blowing it up.

Posters have all these criticisms but, really, it takes time to build a winning franchise when you've had the consistent dysfunction that is the Jets franchise. Guys are quibbling about the last two years. Well, one year was a 10-win year. And, strangely, people were very supportive of the choker. So, you can't keep the choker and jettison all the veterans can you? They did what was right: keep the choker, expose him and the other expensive vets, release them after the season when it's cap-friendly to do so.

I can assure you this criticism seems more about aggrandizing individual poster's views than what someone with the actual responsibility would smartly do in the Jets situation.

How would you know what Revis would do in a Zone scheme ? He played man coverage his whole career. From what I hear about the guy hes a really smart football player and would do well in a zone as his career winds down. Either way you can just keep running him out there on a island like Bowles did over and over and watched the guy get beat with little to no help regardless of what Revis was capable of in other schemes. That was the real problem. Its no wonder why this defense just basically gave up they were running Sheldon out there as a LB and leaving Revis to the dogs with a safety in Pryor who looked totally lost half the time. Most of these players know the game just as much as the coahes and when you see that type of trash week in and week out it has to be a total beat down.

[slats]

18 minutes ago, phill1c said:

I'm not sure what would have been better: trying to win with what they had or rebuilding before it became clear that what they had wasn't worth it.

I mean, how do you blow up a 10-win team? Why would you? Sure, the schedule was soft. But...lots of people would have screamed bloody murder if the purge we're going through this year happened to the 10-win Jets. My issue was with the dogged pursuit of Fitzpatrick. But, really, they had added vets (and related contracts) and those players produced 10 wins (and should have been 11 and playoffs if the utter choking hadn't happened). So, water under the bridge.

I think they did the right thing in going for it after the 10-win year and the right thing now in blowing it up.

Posters have all these criticisms but, really, it takes time to build a winning franchise when you've had the consistent dysfunction that is the Jets franchise. Guys are quibbling about the last two years. Well, one year was a 10-win year. And, strangely, people were very supportive of the choker. So, you can't keep the choker and jettison all the veterans can you? They did what was right: keep the choker, expose him and the other expensive vets, release them after the season when it's cap-friendly to do so.

I can assure you this criticism seems more about aggrandizing individual poster's views than what someone with the actual responsibility would smartly do in the Jets situation.

Smart team executives would've more accurately self-scouted their team. They bought into the hype. I'm not nearly as engaged as I used to be -nor am I a hater- but it was obvious to me from way on the outside that Fitzpatrick was not good, and that the team was not good. On the inside, it should've been painfully obvious. Fitzpatrick's unwillingness to sign a fair deal gave them the out to not sign him, but instead they caved to his unreasonable demands. That signing was the beginning of the lost locker room last year. Right then and there it was clear that the inmates were running the asylum, and it's a big reason why all the Fitzboosters are off the team today - in an effort for the coach to reclaim that locker room. 

[Smashmouth]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

 

What if? 

I don't have a huge problem with giving him a chance.  Ownership is probably the only ones that know who/what his hands were forced on.  I am not saying that it is mandatory to fire the guy, but the idea that he deserves a free pass is a bit farfetched.  The sky is falling contingent - dbatesman/Shane/etc - certainly look more likely to be right than the green goggles guys or even the usual rational types (slats maybe?).

Same thing with Hackenberg.  He is here now, so we will root for him to be great, but the people saying he sucks have a lot more right to be crowing now than those that think he will be decent. 

well Dom there is always the "what if factor" I mean we have no idea what goes on behind closed doors (Owner/GM) but when you have a Veteran team and you go out and sign a bunch of Vets it seems obvious to me your trying to win now. With one Free Agency to fill holes your not going to get prime players at every position of need, its just not happening.

I agree on Hackenberg. I'm hoping he was just in a really bad situation at Penn state with all the bullsh*t that went on there and now hes trying to rebuild what he seemed to be starting when Obrien was the coach. Time will tell and all we can do is hope really that's all I'm doing. I refuse to bash the kid like some here do before he even gets a chance.

[phill1c]

3 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

How would you know what Revis would do in a Zone scheme ? He played man coverage his whole career. From what I hear about the guy hes a really smart football player and would do well in a zone as his career winds down. Either way you can just keep running him out there on a island like Bowles did over and over and watched the guy get beat with little to no help regardless of what Revis was capable of in other schemes. That was the real problem. Its no wonder why this defense just basically gave up they were running Sheldon out there as a LB and leaving Revis to the dogs with a safety in Pryor who looked totally lost half the time. Most of these players know the game just as much as the coahes and when you see that type of trash week in and week out it has to be a total beat down.

I don't know what he would do in a zone scheme. I just think that since he's played man-to-man his entire career, and he's at the age when the reflexes diminish, learning a new way to play may be a difficult thing. I'm not saying he absolutely wouldn't be a good zone corner, just that I think it's optimistic to say that he would be. Being optimistic is not a bad thing, btw.

[Smashmouth]

8 minutes ago, slats said:

Smart team executives would've more accurately self-scouted their team. They bought into the hype. I'm not nearly as engaged as I used to be -nor am I a hater- but it was obvious to me from way on the outside that Fitzpatrick was not good, and that the team was not good. On the inside, it should've been painfully obvious. Fitzpatrick's unwillingness to sign a fair deal gave them the out to not sign him, but instead they caved to his unreasonable demands. That signing was the beginning of the lost locker room last year. Right then and there it was clear that the inmates were running the asylum, and it's a big reason why all the Fitzboosters are off the team today - in an effort for the coach to reclaim that locker room. 

Once again what was unreasonable about a low end starters salary for one year ?

[dbatesman]

22 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Ok thanks for clearing that up I just remembered hearing it a few times. Either way what if the owner told him to spend to win now  ? We did have a bunch of vets with maybe a few years left and theres a good chance Woody felt like giving it a shot . So Macc had one free agency period to sign some players to give it a run. Its not like he had multiple years to build he was told to win now and what makes this obvious is that he signed a bunch of seasoned Vets not young players to build on. 

We can't discount the fact that Woody pushed this and now that the experiment failed Macc has the freedom to build this team the way he wants to build it. So yes Im giving Macc a pass on the first 2 years. 

That's fine as far as it goes. I have no doubt that Woody's first question to all the GM candidates was "what's your plan for spending all this money?" I thought his FA splurge was dumb, but honestly the whole thing would look pretty good right now if the guys he'd drafted were stepping into the holes left by all the guys we're cutting. Instead, after two drafts, we have no starting-caliber players at the positions that matter. None. Even the young guys at positions that don't matter, like Lee, look like they suck out loud too. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with Woody.

[slats]

7 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Once again what was unreasonable about a low end starters salary for one year ?

You call him a starter, I call him Ryan Fitzpatrick. Not one other team in the league was offering him a starting job or half the money the Jets ultimately paid him. It was 100% a stupid contract. 

Edit: This year they signed Josh McCown to be a low level starter for $6M (which is probably too much for him). By the low level starting salary logic you seem happy to apply, I guess Mac should go ahead a double that? 

[Smashmouth]

1 minute ago, phill1c said:

I don't know what he would do in a zone scheme. I just think that since he's played man-to-man his entire career, and he's at the age when the reflexes diminish, learning a new way to play may be a difficult thing. I'm not saying he absolutely wouldn't be a good zone corner, just that I think it's optimistic to say that he would be. Being optimistic is not a bad thing, btw.

I'm cool with that . Ya never know some experiments fail (just like every single one the Idiot Jets have tried) Some succeed ....Lott ... Woodson .... 

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Once again what was unreasonable about a low end starters salary for one year ?

My problems with it are as follows:

1.  I do not think there are "low end starters" at QB.  There are a limited number of guys that are capable of starting.  Less than there are teams, so I do not think the fact he was going to start gives a cut-off for his salary.  Pay him what he is worth, not "starter" money.

2.  They waited too long to pay it.  It was obvious he wasn't getting $12M anywhere else.  Why play chicken with the guy and then blink that late in the process?  He was going to retire?  Leave that money on the table?  Was Dallas going to give it to him or Minnesota? I don't think so, but at that point I would have let him find out.

[Smashmouth]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

I have no doubt that Woody's first question to all the GM candidates was "what's your plan for spending all this money?" I thought his FA splurge was dumb, but honestly the whole thing would look pretty good right now if the guys he'd drafted were stepping into the holes left by all the guys we're cutting. Instead, after two drafts, we have no starting-caliber players at the positions that matter. None. Even the young guys at positions that don't matter, like Lee, look like they suck out loud too. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with Woody.

Not happy with Lee at all but that had Todd Bowles written all over it trying to emulate his Cardinal defense of a few years back with fast LB's . We do have some young corners that might make the step up as well as WR's and a couple of possible TE's ...This is the first year of this tear down rebuild ...I would have liked to see us start at the OL but this was not the draft for that based on what went down. We should have 2 very good safeties moving forward. Next years draft and FA cash should be very telling

[Smashmouth]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

My problems with it are as follows:

1.  I do not think there are "low end starters" at QB.  There are a limited number of guys that are capable of starting.  Less than there are teams, so I do not think the fact he was going to start gives a cut-off for his salary.  Pay him what he is worth, not "starter" money.

2.  They waited too long to pay it.  It was obvious he wasn't getting $12M anywhere else.  Why play chicken with the guy and then blink that late in the process?  He was going to retire?  Leave that money on the table?  Was Dallas going to give it to him or Minnesota? I don't think so, but at that point I would have let him find out.

See the key here though is there was no one else to sign. Fitz knew the offense so why try for another journeyman who not only would have been an ordinary QB like Fitz but have to learn an offense as well. Bottom line is it was a bad situation very difficult to navigate. Contrary to what people say Fitz held the cards and he knew it he was the Jets only option

[dbatesman]

6 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Not happy with Lee at all but that had Todd Bowles written all over it trying to emulate his Cardinal defense of a few years back with fast LB's . We do have some young corners that might make the step up as well as WR's and a couple of possible TE's ...This is the first year of this tear down rebuild ...I would have liked to see us start at the OL but this was not the draft for that based on what went down. We should have 2 very good safeties moving forward. Next years draft and FA cash should be very telling

If all of Maccagnan's sh*tty picks are Bowles's fault, why aren't all of Idzik's sh*tty picks Rex's fault? And how does being in the first year of a "tear down rebuild" excuse the fact that only one of the guys from his first two drafts is worth a sh*t? Were those just mulligans?

[Smashmouth]

12 minutes ago, slats said:

You call him a starter, I call him Ryan Fitzpatrick. Not one other team in the league was offering him a starting job or half the money the Jets ultimately paid him. It was 100% a stupid contract. 

Edit: This year they signed Josh McCown to be a low level starter for $6M (which is probably too much for him). By the low level starting salary logic you seem happy to apply, I guess Mac should go ahead a double that? 

Slats come on man. Fitz played a year with  the team and had a very good year in doing so ...much different situation than Signing McCown.... worlds different

Im not used to this bad an argument from you

 

[Smashmouth]

7 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

If all of Maccagnan's sh*tty picks are Bowles's fault, why aren't all of Idzik's sh*tty picks Rex's fault? And how does being in the first year of a "tear down rebuild" excuse the fact that only one of the guys from his first two drafts is worth a sh*t? Were those just mulligans?

I never brought up the Idzik argument and Rex may very well have had a big say in a lot of that .... but now we have information with Woody saying Bowles and Macc are on the same level, so we know Bowles has a say ...If I remember correctly Rex stated Idzik would let him have his one pick and he chose Taj Boyd so was Rex lying ? No Rex was a buffoon and no way Idzik was going to let him make the calls. His other Gem was Coples a guy he then decided to play out of his natural position of interior lineman. And who was that other Idiot FB rex wanted so bad LOL Holy Christ this team.

[phill1c]

9 minutes ago, slats said:

Smart team executives would've more accurately self-scouted their team. They bought into the hype. I'm not nearly as engaged as I used to be -nor am I a hater- but it was obvious to me from way on the outside that Fitzpatrick was not good, and that the team was not good. On the inside, it should've been painfully obvious. Fitzpatrick's unwillingness to sign a fair deal gave them the out to not sign him, but instead they caved to his unreasonable demands. That signing was the beginning of the lost locker room last year. Right then and there it was clear that the inmates were running the asylum, and it's a big reason why all the Fitzboosters are off the team today - in an effort for the coach to reclaim that locker room. 

Yeah, to me, your opinion seems to benefit greatly from hindsight. And seems like it's stuck in a time warp of 2 off-seasons ago.

Look, Fitzpatrick wasn't their first option. If you recall, the Jets went into a season thinking that they had a young QB and some veterans to surround him with so that he could develop. BOOM! IK breaks Geno's jaw and the Jets have to go to Plan B, Ryan Fitzpatrick. So, as Fools Gold does, he over-performed and put the Jets in a bind: either NOT resign the guy who 'led' them to 10 wins and return the reins to a VERY UNPOPULAR and untested QB or ride the nag until you have to shoot him. They chose the latter, with predictable results. To me, the Jets had to follow through on Plan B because to do anything else would be something only a poster on a chatroom would do.

For one, there would have been more severe cap issues if they released veterans before the end of last season. And for what immediate benefit? NONE. Their draft position certainly didn't allow for replacing the quality of the vets they would release. Sure, it was a longshot that they would enjoy greater success with the team as constituted, but they really didn't have serious alternatives, IMO. And, believe it or not, there were benefits to last season:

•  The Jets won all of 5 games last year, securing a favorable draft position (so having the vets didn't significantly harm the draft position)
• They saved the cap money that would have been lost releasing veterans earlier, allowing greater flexibility to signing free agents this offseason. 
• Young players got to be eased into roles, while still having the veteran presence to learn from.
• The value (or lack thereof) of the veterans was indisputably shown.
• The rebuild is sanctioned by all with no pressure to win now. 

I really don't see how they could have reasonably started a rebuild last year.

[slats]

4 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

See the key here though is there was no one else to sign. Fitz knew the offense so why try for another journeyman who not only would have been an ordinary QB like Fitz but have to learn an offense as well. Bottom line is it was a bad situation very difficult to navigate. Contrary to what people say Fitz held the cards and he knew it he was the Jets only option

Fitz only held the cards after Maccagnan handed them to him. He got beat badly in that so-called negotiation, and it's recurring theme with this GM. He's signed some really bad veteran deals and seems to give more than he gets in trades with other teams. 

I recognize that there might've been some fan backlash if Fitz didn't resign and they went with Geno, but do you really want the reactionary fans of this team making the decisions? Do you want the team run like a reality show or like a business? Because Ryan Fitzpatrick at $12M was terrible business but pleased the reality show fans. Awesome. 

[dbatesman]

3 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

LOL Holy Christ this team.

This would be a good title for a one-volume history of the franchise.

[#27TheDominator]

9 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

See the key here though is there was no one else to sign. Fitz knew the offense so why try for another journeyman who not only would have been an ordinary QB like Fitz but have to learn an offense as well. Bottom line is it was a bad situation very difficult to navigate. Contrary to what people say Fitz held the cards and he knew it he was the Jets only option

Why?  There were $12M reasons why not.  Why was he our only option?  The GMs job is to have options.  That failure is 100% on him.  Do you know how many teams switched QBs last season?  Why weren't we one of them?  Were we already planning on Darnold last March?  I understand plenty of those moves failed, but at least they tried. If QB is so important, then why didn't we try?  

RESPONSE to above: We drafted a QB in the 2nd round!  That response is why we are so hard on Hackenberg around here.  IMO Hackenberg wasn't expected to redshirt - he was viewed as a potential opening day starter.  Him falling on his face helped them make up their mind to pony up for Fitzpatrick.

[phill1c]

14 minutes ago, Smashmouth said:

Bottom line is it was a bad situation very difficult to navigate.

And now the Jets are rebuilding. I'm not sure there's any better outcome really.

[Smashmouth]

Just now, slats said:

Fitz only held the cards after Maccagnan handed them to him. He got beat badly in that so-called negotiation, and it's recurring theme with this GM. He's signed some really bad veteran deals and seems to give more than he gets in trades with other teams. 

I recognize that there might've been some fan backlash if Fitz didn't resign and they went with Geno, but do you really want the reactionary fans of this team making the decisions? Do you want the team run like a reality show or like a business? Because Ryan Fitzpatrick at $12M was terrible business but pleased the reality show fans. Awesome. 

It was not the reactionary fans of this team it was the entire NFL every single analyst on every network said the Jets need to sign Fitz I can't remember 1 who said give Geno the helm not one. Everyone I discussed the issue with (friends co workers ...) said WTF are you guys waiting for sign the guy. Geno was a hot mess he was terrible and was not an option. And when he won the so called starting position the year before it was because Fitz was just coming out of rehab for a broken leg. Trust me and you probably know this Fitz would have been in the second or Third game after Geno sh*t the bed. IK did us a favor cause Toilet Bowles would have left him in for 5

[#27TheDominator]

5 minutes ago, phill1c said:

Yeah, to me, your opinion seems to benefit greatly from hindsight. And seems like it's stuck in a time warp of 2 off-seasons ago.

Look, Fitzpatrick wasn't their first option. If you recall, the Jets went into a season thinking that they had a young QB and some veterans to surround him with so that he could develop. BOOM! IK breaks Geno's jaw and the Jets have to go to Plan B, Ryan Fitzpatrick. So, as Fools Gold does, he over-performed and put the Jets in a bind: either NOT resign the guy who 'led' them to 10 wins and return the reins to a VERY UNPOPULAR and untested QB or ride the nag until you have to shoot him. They chose the latter, with predictable results. To me, the Jets had to follow through on Plan B because to do anything else would be something only a poster on a chatroom would do.

For one, there would have been more severe cap issues if they released veterans before the end of last season. And for what immediate benefit? NONE. Their draft position certainly didn't allow for replacing the quality of the vets they would release. Sure, it was a longshot that they would enjoy greater success with the team as constituted, but they really didn't have serious alternatives, IMO. And, believe it or not, there were benefits to last season:

•  The Jets won all of 5 games last year, securing a favorable draft position (so having the vets didn't significantly harm the draft position)
• They saved the cap money that would have been lost releasing veterans earlier, allowing greater flexibility to signing free agents this offseason. 
• Young players got to be eased into roles, while still having the veteran presence to learn from.
• The value (or lack thereof) of the veterans was indisputably shown.
• The rebuild is sanctioned by all with no pressure to win now. 

I really don't see how they could have reasonably started a rebuild last year.

You are praising him for making moves that were mandated by his own mistakes.