I think Vinny for a bit and Chad for a bit were at least on par with how Fitz played but he was clearly one of the biggest reasons for our success this year and clearly THE # 1 priority. _
I don't see why all the angst over re-signing him? Where's he going to go? No one is going to want him as a starter with his record and his age. It's not like he's Peyton or Favre, someone who's put up HOF numbers over his career. He might get more money somewhere else, but only as a backup. If that Harvard degree means anything, he must realize the only place he is going to be a starter is here with the Jets, even if it means less money than a competing offer.
He could probably start in SF, Houston, Cleveland or the Rams for a year or 2. All of them are likely going to draft a QB in Round 1 so Fitz wouldn't be a bad option to start so those rookie QBs could sit for a year plus. Not one of them is going to be anywhere near ready to play this year. _
Don't think that's likely. No QB is really ready to play. However, if you draft a QB in the first round, you're pretty much forced to see what he's got immediately. If you look back over the last five years, almost all QB's drafted in round 1 started for their teams that year. The exception was Manziel. You could make an argument that some of these guys shouldn't have started, but it's just the economics of the game. Rookie contracts are 4 years and QB's get the most money. Teams need to find out if their guy is going to be worth that big contract after the 3rd year.
Yeah but the guys that have started in year 1 are miles better than any of these guys. Not one of them is Mariota, Winston, Teddy, Carr or Bortles. I think Wentz could be good but he needs at least a year coming from Div 2, Goff will get killed if he doesn't spend a year in the weight room, Lynch isn't very good and while Cook is the most ready to start, he's not very good either. If I'm taking Goff I'm sitting him for at least a year. Same with Wentz. Teams drafting Lynch and Cook are clueless so I wouldn't expect them to have the foresight to sign a quality bridge starter. _
I respect your opinion of these guys and you may well be spot on. However, your assessment of them isn't going to affect the size of the contract these guys will command. For example, if Wentz is drafted first, he will probably get a contract at least as big as Winston and Mariota. It has nothing to do with evaluations. It's where they are drafted. That's a lot of money to pay someone to hold a clip board, knowing that the next contract (in two years) will determine if this guy is your franchise QB. If you think you have the luxury to sit these guys, that's your prerogative, but I suspect that most teams will want to see what these guys can do immediately, for better or worse.
Yes but those contracts aren't as killer financially as they used to be before the rookie wage scale and while I recognize I'm just guessing, I really liked MM and JW and Teddy and Carr and most experts thought Bortles could be a day one starter. None of these guys stand a chance day 1. _
I disagree. It's not the economics of the game. No one is forced to play a QB before he's ready. It's the idiocy and arrogance of some HCs, OCs and owners to start a young QB before he's ready, but they're not forced to start him, particularly when everyone knows the player isn't ready. A rookie QB could sit for 2 years and start his 3rd season, and that would be plenty to know whether they were going to trust in him as their QB of the future. If anything, it would be to a team's benefit to wait if they're in doubt because that second contract would be cheaper if he had only started one season, as opposed to his having started for 2-3 years.
Agreed. Any HC or GM who forces one of this draft class' QBs to start from day 1 should be fired and never work in football again. Not only will it not help the team, but could very easily effectively ruin the chances any of those players has to develop. It would not give them the chance to work on the flaws in their game, which would hinder and could completely undermine their development, and could destroy their confidence as well.
I love your writings, but we're going to have to disagree on this one. I think it's totally about money. If as you say, it's the arrogance of HC's, why would they jeopardize their careers by starting a QB they know isn't ready?
Your right. Plus how many times have seen a vet with a big contract get outplayed by a guy with a lot smaller contract. But he sitting on the bench behind that big contract.
So how many days before Fitz can technically sign with us? Shouldn't be thst long. Only delaying the inevitable..... Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
It's fine that we disagree. We can agree to disagree respectfully. It's arrogance if they think they're smarter than others and think they can get him ready with their coaching prowess. We see it all the time in the NFL. Teams will trade for or sign as FAs players who have been total busts with other teams. The money angle doesn't make a lot of sense to me because the contracts rookies sign now aren't that big, so there's no big financial pressure or incentive to start them. IMO there's more financial incentive not to start them immediately if they're even questionable. Draft picks are expensive, and there are too few quality QBs in the NFL. Teams need to do everything they can to help them succeed. Unless they're trying to tank the season, they also need to get the best QB play they can. Even the true franchise caliber QBs often struggle as rookies as they're adjusting to the speed of the NFL and are learning the offense. If they have basic fundamental issues or are having to adjust to an NFL-type offense from a spread offense or played against a lower level of competition, it can take longer before they're ready to play.
It's true that contracts are not as big as they were, but they are still big, and for QB's in Rd 1, they are the biggest. The pressure comes from the shortened time window to evaluate them. After the 3rd year you have to decide to fish (re-sign with an even bigger contract) or cut bait. If you cut bait, it means going back to the draft and trying to develop a new prospect with all the attendant perils of making the wrong choice and/or enduring more losing seasons while they develop. Not all QB's develop at the same rate. Some are instant hits like Luck or Wilson, others take time like Stafford or Newton. I agree with you that rookie QB's should have more time to develop, but nowadays teams don't have that luxury.
Broncos courted Peyton when Peyton was 5yrs older than Fitz and was playing with a broken neck, so to say 'no one will want Fitz due to his age' may be overstating it. Broncos could very well want a proven vet to guide the team, either under center or in a rookies ear. That spells Fitz. Exact same reason our own Jets brought him in. Fitz would be invaluable in Denver.
Yes, rookie QB contracts are the biggest, but in the grand scope of things are not that big. That said, they're big enough that teams shouldn't squander that money or the #1 draft pick by rushing a player on the field before he's ready. As you said, not all QBs develop at the same rate. Players like Luck are one a generation. The rest need time and work. I'm sorry, but that time is not a luxury. I understand that you're just saying how you think NFL teams look at it, and you're right about many of them, but imo that just shows their folly. Rushing players on the field doesn't help them develop. In fact, it does the exact opposite, it harms their development, and decreases the chances that those QBs will become solid starters. Teams don't need 3 years of play on the field to evaluate a QB. One-two years on the playing field is plenty of time for them to ascertain whether this is a QB they are going to stick with and give a big contract to, or if it's one with whom they're going to cut bait. They can tell very clearly in practice how he has picked up their system, how he has adjusted to the speed of the NFL and to the complexity of NFL defenses, how accurate he is, and how well he does reading Ds and making his progressions, and if he needs more work or is ready to see the field. They can ascertain his leadership abilities and if he has fixed whatever issues or fundamental techniques needed work. Again, I'm not arguing with you. I think we're in basic agreement. I'm arguing with the lunacy of NFL teams rushing QBs on the field and then wondering why they don't develop and why there is such a scarcity of quality QBs in the NFL.
Will feel much more comfortable with Fitz moving forward at 4-6 mil per year than 6-8. Looking forward to see if Fitzmagic can repeat itself next season as it should with Decker and Marshall coming back. If we get an upgrade at Guard or RT I think we have a good shot next season but I will say that schedule looks brutal next season. I'm not sure you can have a winning record against next years sched without an elite QB which Fitz falls short of being.
The Jets should give Fitz a four year deal, that gives them a window to start him for next year, which is inevitable, then find a future Qb to challenge, then a backup or a starter in year 3, then a backup in his last year...before assuming a coaching gig. If they don't have a future franchise QB by three years from now, that is on the F.O. But Fitz offers a stable hand for at least 2 more seasons..
Are you comparing the careers of Peyton Manning and Ryan Fitzpatrick? Besides why would they want Fitzpatrick when they have Osweiler?
